Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Gender issues in After Hours - Your feedback requested.

Options
1…1819212324…28

Comments

  • Options
    #602
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,071 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    The Sweeper wrote: »
    2) this isn't about misandry, regardless of your username
    Exactly. His username should be Whataboutery as he's a well known master at it on quite a few occasions. Dav had to get involved the last time To the degree old outlawpete has been repeatedly warned about it and ended up being banned from feedback and then sitebanned god knows how many times now after all his obsessive and frankly odd reregging.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #603
    The Sweeper
    Registered Users Posts: 10,658 ✭✭✭✭The Sweeper


    ...normally I try to refrain from banning people I'm debating with directly. It just looks mean spirited. But sometimes you make an exception...


  • Options
    #604
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Exactly. His username should be Whataboutery as he's a well known master at it on quite a few occasions. Dav had to get involved the last time To the degree old outlawpete has been repeatedly warned about it and ended up being banned from feedback and then sitebanned god knows how many times now after all his obsessive and frankly odd reregging.

    How many re-regs is it now?

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #605
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,071 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    The Sweeper wrote: »
    ...normally I try to refrain from banning people I'm debating with directly. It just looks mean spirited. But sometimes you make an exception...
    That's clear abuse of powah that is. In front of witnesses an all? :eek::D
    K-9 wrote:
    How many re-regs is it now?
    at least eleventy, but like a bad penny he'll be back.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #606
    Kooli
    Registered Users Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Kooli


    You know what I wanna know? Why is there no WHITE history month? And the MOBO awards are so totally racist!!
    (and those rape threats at Akin weren't sexist - they were racist because he is WHITE!)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #607
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    I've deleted a bunch of OutlawPete's posts and several replies quoting them, with some exceptions for The Sweeper's valuable contributions.

    Pete: you don't get to participate in this conversation. You had an opportunity to contribute something of value, and you decided to be a dick instead. I'm sure you think you're being big and clever by signing up new accounts to continue to be a dick, but you're just continuing to be a dick.

    If you don't want people to think you're obsessive, stop behaving obsessively.


  • Options
    #608
    Daveysil15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,301 ✭✭✭Daveysil15


    The Sweeper wrote: »
    'Please make an effort to refrain from being a dismissive, condescending, generalising, misogynistic, patronising, superior dick about women and/or women's issues when you post on this forum'.

    Is it really that difficult? We're not even asking AH posters to DO something. It's not like it's more work - don't be a dick about women - is that really a lot of work? To just NOT do something?

    While I agree there has been a lot of crap said about women, it certainly hasn’t been one sided. There seems to be an unfair double standard when it comes to sexism. A lot of things are sexist when a man says it, but not when a woman says it. I've seen it a bit recently in the online dating thread. Women describing men in their dating profiles as creeps, perverts, only after one thing, there’s no decent men out there, etc. Women making these sort of generalisations seems to be more acceptable than men saying women are bad drivers, or foreign women are better looking than Irish women.

    I remember there was a women’s chat show in America a while back where they were talking about the poor man who had his penis chopped off by his wife and then had it stuffed in a garbage bag. Sharon Ozbourne was on it, saying that it was fabulous. These women were laughing about it as if it were some sort of practical joke. If it was men making fun of female genital mutilation there’d be an outrage! They’d be calling for the men’s heads on a plate. I’m not saying anything that extreme has taken place on boards, but its just an example of how sexism works.

    Sometimes a bit of light hearted humour can be blown out of proportion. Generalisations can be misconstrued as personal insults. People saying that someone else’s opinion is invalid because it doesn‘t agree with their own opinion. Both sexes contribute to the problems.


  • Options
    #609
    Madam_X
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,327 ✭✭✭Madam_X


    Yeh I agree with you about the double standards - some of it is pretty disgusting. But what you're talking about isn't in After Hours that I have seen, which is what this thread is focusing on. I see very little derogatory, hostile swipes at men on After Hours, and rightly so. There was recently a thread about Fifty Shades Of Grey which suggested that it makes men insecure - and the person who started it was questioned on such a baseless assertion, and the debate was pretty civil it seemed.

    On the other hand, I saw a person being infracted today for making a sandwich joke. Really really lighthearted is all it was. I think a reprimand for the likes of this is a step too far.


  • Options
    #610
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Kooli wrote: »
    .................

    So I'll say again. When there are issues of sexism and misogyny, my responses are emotional. Anger, upset, frustration, hurt. I see these as appropriate responses to this kind of behaviour. You see that as clouding the issue or me finding a way to shut down conversation or a manipulative rhetorical act. I find that depressing. And I don't see the value in turning every conversation into a secondary-school style debate where everyone just picks apart everyone's arguments using 'logic 101'. I know that's the style on Boards, and it has its place (like when someone is stating something as fact that is blatantly not fact) and I don't think it should be cut out or anything. But when someone is talking about their opinion or how they feel about something, I think there should be space for a different kind of conversation............

    Nobody said there shouldn't be a place for "a different kind of conversation". It is obvious, however, that such a discussion would be of no use in deciding how to run a busy forum.
    Outlawpete wrote:
    As OutlawPete, I was.............

    .....forever crapping on about women, in a manner I thought indicated serious "issues", outside of their comedic value. Its not looking better now you're rereging to post rants that have the lifespan of a mayfly.


  • Options
    #611
    mackg
    Registered Users Posts: 3,938 ✭✭✭mackg


    Madam_X wrote: »
    Yeh I agree with you about the double standards - some of it is pretty disgusting. But what you're talking about isn't in After Hours that I have seen, which is what this thread is focusing on. I see very little derogatory, hostile swipes at men on After Hours, and rightly so. There was recently a thread about Fifty Shades Of Grey which suggested that it makes men insecure - and the person who started it was questioned on such a baseless assertion, and the debate was pretty civil it seemed.

    On the other hand, I saw a person being infracted today for making a sandwich joke. Really really lighthearted is all it was. I think a reprimand for the likes of this is a step too far.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80373635&postcount=11

    Is this it? I don't envy the mods position here but in my eyes a red is ott for that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #612
    Scioch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,249 ✭✭✭Scioch


    Madam_X wrote: »
    Yeh I agree with you about the double standards - some of it is pretty disgusting. But what you're talking about isn't in After Hours that I have seen, which is what this thread is focusing on. I see very little derogatory, hostile swipes at men on After Hours, and rightly so. There was recently a thread about Fifty Shades Of Grey which suggested that it makes men insecure - and the person who started it was questioned on such a baseless assertion, and the debate was pretty civil it seemed.

    On the other hand, I saw a person being infracted today for making a sandwich joke. Really really lighthearted is all it was. I think a reprimand for the likes of this is a step too far.

    I dunno, I think your gonna tolerate it or your not and if not then people will have to be reprimanded.

    I'm not sure how you can allow people to keep making sexist jokes while trying to stamp out sexism.


  • Options
    #613
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    mackg wrote: »
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80373635&postcount=11

    Is this it? I don't envy the mods position here but in my eyes a red is ott for that.
    I look into AH from time to time, and think that I have never posted there (but memory can be fallible). That post and the thread in which it was made are representative of why I am dissuaded from joining in. It's casually, mindlessly, misogynistic without even the redeeming feature of being funny.


  • Options
    #614
    mackg
    Registered Users Posts: 3,938 ✭✭✭mackg


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    I look into AH from time to time, and think that I have never posted there (but memory can be fallible). That post and the thread in which it was made are representative of why I am dissuaded from joining in. It's casually, mindlessly, misogynistic without even the redeeming feature of being funny.

    Humour is subjective so you don't have the last word on whether a comment is or isn't funny, also the amount of people that post and read after hours would probably give an indication that in actual fact the forum is quite funny. I'm not disputing the thread lock or the infraction for the OP, but what was clearly a light hearted comment deserved less than red.

    As Scioch said if they want to stamp out sexism people must be reprimanded but surely yellows could be used in instances like the above, although I don't personally see the need for any.


  • Options
    #615
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users Posts: 23,974 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    mackg wrote: »
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80373635&postcount=11

    Is this it? I don't envy the mods position here but in my eyes a red is ott for that.

    I thought the treatment of that comment stuck out like a sore thumb as being unnecessary, as was the reply he got when he took it to the Dispute Resolution forum.

    Things are getting really crazy now, in my opinion. It's getting to be hard work having to think about the content of a post, wondering whether it's going to lead to an infraction for some peculiar reason (something that I don't recall ever having received during my time as a member).


  • Options
    #616
    Tombi!
    Registered Users Posts: 6,689 ✭✭✭Tombi!


    ejmaztec wrote: »
    I thought the treatment of that comment stuck out like a sore thumb as being unnecessary, as was the reply he got when he took it to the Dispute Resolution forum.

    Things are getting really crazy now, in my opinion. It's getting to be hard work having to think about the content of a post, wondering whether it's going to lead to an infraction for some peculiar reason (something that I don't recall ever having received during my time as a member).

    I disagree. I think it was completely fair. It was stupid and completely pointless.
    Especially given the fact the post in question has over 20 times as many posts in AH as he does another one. It's not as if someone joined up, started posting in AH and made that joke.

    Plus it was common sense that he got in return:
    It's a warning that you should probably refine your sense of humour to one acceptable to the general public.

    Honestly, AH is still a public forum and if you're being a dick (which honestly, that was way too dick-ish) then you shouldn't be posting.
    Plus it's not even that it was sexist, it was downright idiotic to post that drinking sperm cures aids.

    Also just to point out, none of us know his infraction history so he could have been hit before or something, hence the infraction instead of just a warning.


  • Options
    #617
    mackg
    Registered Users Posts: 3,938 ✭✭✭mackg


    Brutal Deluxe wrote: »
    I disagree. I think it was completely fair. It was stupid and completely pointless.
    Especially given the fact the post in question has over 20 times as many posts in AH as he does another one. It's not as if someone joined up, started posting in AH and made that joke.

    Plus it was common sense that he got in return:


    Honestly, AH is still a public forum and if you're being a dick (which honestly, that was way too dick-ish) then you shouldn't be posting.
    Plus it's not even that it was sexist, it was downright idiotic to post that drinking sperm cures aids.

    Also just to point out, none of us know his infraction history so he could have been hit before or something, hence the infraction instead of just a warning.

    The whole aim of her post was to point out the stupidity of the OP in a light hearted way.


  • Options
    #618
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users Posts: 23,974 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    Brutal Deluxe wrote: »
    I disagree. I think it was completely fair. It was stupid and completely pointless.
    Especially given the fact the post in question has over 20 times as many posts in AH as he does another one. It's not as if someone joined up, started posting in AH and made that joke.

    Plus it was common sense that he got in return:


    Honestly, AH is still a public forum and if you're being a dick (which honestly, that was way too dick-ish) then you shouldn't be posting.
    Plus it's not even that it was sexist, it was downright idiotic to post that drinking sperm cures aids.

    Also just to point out, none of us know his infraction history so he could have been hit before or something, hence the infraction instead of just a warning.

    It might not have been funny, but in my eyes it wasn't OTT either. Even someone with a lousy infraction history didn't deserve to get one on that occasion.

    It was obvious after the OP got a red-card for the opening post, that the thread was doomed, so if anything it should have been deleted if the hierarchy weren't happy with it.

    This is my second and last comment in this thread, because it seems to have been going round and round in circles, and I think that whatever the arguments for and against, the end result has already been decided, and probably was done before the thread started.

    That's my opinion, for what it's worth.


  • Options
    #619
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,059 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    It's casually, mindlessly, misogynistic without even the redeeming feature of being funny.

    The person carded for that post is a female, and it was obviously (to me at least) meant in an ironic and satirical way.

    If the fallout of this thread is that any sort of subjective humor is to be disallowed then it's a sad state of affairs.


  • Options
    #620
    Tombi!
    Registered Users Posts: 6,689 ✭✭✭Tombi!


    Why does it matter she's female?
    I don't get it.

    Sure, the thread was a stupid one and doomed from the start. But surely her posting that kind of comment would have only made things worse, no?


  • Options
    #621
    Kooli
    Registered Users Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Kooli


    My name is URL wrote: »
    The person carded for that post is a female, and it was obviously (to me at least) meant in an ironic and satirical way.

    If the fallout of this thread is that any sort of subjective humor is to be disallowed then it's a sad state of affairs.

    If it was meant ironically, I think the issue is that it wasn't clear. I certainly wouldn't have guessed that it was.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #622
    El Guapo!
    Registered Users Posts: 12,427 ✭✭✭✭El Guapo!


    Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

    Sure, the thread was a stupid one and doomed from the start. But surely her posting that kind of comment would have only made things worse, no?

    I think a difference between a flippant "joke" such as the one mentioned, and a malicious sexist remark needs to be established.
    IMHO that comment, while not hilariously funny, didn't deserve a red card. It was clearly not a malicious sexist comment and was merely a "not-so-funny" joke.
    I think there is a danger of the mods becoming trigger-happy* (through no fault of their own) with the ban button for fear of offending someone. And I genuinely don't think anyone would be offended by that specific comment.


    *For what it's worth, I think the AH mods do a cracking job in what must be a tough position. And they have been doing a great job in stamping out any potentially offensive material. My hat is off to them.
    But a balance must be struck and I think, above all, common sense must prevail.


  • Options
    #623
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    My name is URL wrote: »
    The person carded for that post is a female...
    So what? A post should be considered on its merits, and not on anything that is known or supposed about the poster.

    Does it matter that I am male when I say that I find something to be misogynistic?


  • Options
    #624
    Scioch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,249 ✭✭✭Scioch


    mackg wrote: »
    The whole aim of her post was to point out the stupidity of the OP in a light hearted way.

    "I was being Ironic" is no different than "I was only joking". If you want those types of things out of the forum then you reprimand posters who post those kinds of things. People will then stop posting those kinds of things and engage without them.

    Your pissing into the wind if you try to get rid of that kind of thing with people still allowed to use it to be ironic. Because its always going to be there in some form.


  • Options
    #625
    Kooli
    Registered Users Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Kooli


    Dean09 wrote: »
    I think a difference between a flippant "joke" such as the one mentioned, and a malicious sexist remark needs to be established.
    IMHO that comment, while not hilariously funny, didn't deserve a red card. It was clearly not a malicious sexist comment and was merely a "not-so-funny" joke.
    I think there is a danger of the mods becoming trigger-happy* (through no fault of their own) with the ban button for fear of offending someone. And I genuinely don't think anyone would be offended by that specific comment.


    *For what it's worth, I think the AH mods do a cracking job in what must be a tough position. And they have been doing a great job in stamping out any potentially offensive material. My hat is off to them.
    But a balance must be struck and I think, above all, common sense must prevail.

    I disagree that there's a strong distinction between a malicious comments and a sexist joke. I think that's just a testament to how used to sexist jokes we've become that some people see them as harmless.

    Imagine if every time someone mentioned a black person someone said 'they should go back to the jungle'. If we heard that enough we might think that's just a harmless racist joke. But due to a cultural shift, we are now not used to that kind of thing so it's very clear that a racist joke just isn't OK.

    So I don't think we can say sexism is not OK, but sexist jokes are. It doesn't make sense.

    If it was meant ironically, then that's different because the butt of the joke would have been sexist people, rather than women. But as it was written I wouldn't have thought that was the joke.


  • Options
    #626
    Daveysil15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,301 ✭✭✭Daveysil15


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    So what? A post should be considered on its merits, and not on anything that is known or supposed about the poster.

    Does it matter that I am male when I say that I find something to be misogynistic?

    You're right. A person shouldn't be exempt from scrutiny because of their gender. A malicious post is a malicious post.


  • Options
    #627
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    My name is URL wrote: »
    The person carded for that post is a female, and it was obviously (to me at least) meant in an ironic and satirical way.

    If the fallout of this thread is that any sort of subjective humor is to be disallowed then it's a sad state of affairs.

    See, I'm kind of torn here. One of things I love most about AH is it's general irreverence, the razor sharp wit of many of the posters and it's unpredictability in how a post or thread is going to be received. I don't want any of that to change and I think the mods (who do a fantastic job anyway) have it about right.

    But...if they are proposing clamping down on sexism and "get back in the kitchen"/"make me a sammich" type comments is part of that - is it actually practical/possible to moderate the forum in such a way that comments that would get bans or infraction in one context are given the nod as ironic and satirical in another...and how does that help them get across the message that those comments being used in a dickish way isn't welcome?


  • Options
    #628
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    For what it's worth, there has been some behind-the-scenes discussion between Jaxxy and the AH mods, and it has been accepted that the post was intended ironically. It wasn't clear at first that it was intended that way, hence the infraction; it has now been accepted that it was intended that way, hence the infraction has been removed.

    I look forward to a time when there will be no need to post something like that even ironically, because the idea that it could have been posted any other way will be a distant memory. In the meantime, hopefully we've all learned something.


  • Options
    #629
    The Sweeper
    Registered Users Posts: 10,658 ✭✭✭✭The Sweeper


    ejmaztec wrote: »
    It's getting to be hard work having to think about the content of a post, wondering whether it's going to lead to an infraction for some peculiar reason (something that I don't recall ever having received during my time as a member).

    So it's hard work to not be a dick about women is it? Is it really that difficult? Struggling, are ya?

    But hey, given it's so crazy making, trying not to be an arsehole about women, let me help you out again since it's so terrible, 'having to think':

    When commenting about women, try not to make belittling comments about cooking, making sandwiches, cups of tea, being in the kitchen, staying in the kitchen, being barefoot in the kitchen, being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, a woman's place being in the kitchen, bridal wear and white goods being the same colour for a reason, women not yet having gone to the moon because it doesn't need cleaning, women's only function being to cook a meal for a guy, women being useless if they cannot cook, so on.


  • Options
    #630
    Tombi!
    Registered Users Posts: 6,689 ✭✭✭Tombi!


    Dean09 wrote: »
    I think a difference between a flippant "joke" such as the one mentioned, and a malicious sexist remark needs to be established.
    IMHO that comment, while not hilariously funny, didn't deserve a red card. It was clearly not a malicious sexist comment and was merely a "not-so-funny" joke.

    I believe it was a joke but it was also a very stupid joke to make. I honestly thought it was just akin to "yore ma" and so on. They wanted to get rid of stupid statements and they are.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #631
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,059 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    So what? A post should be considered on its merits, and not on anything that is known or supposed about the poster.

    Does it matter that I am male when I say that I find something to be misogynistic?

    No, it doesn't really matter that it was made by a female, but it does suggest that people are sometimes too keen to see the harm in things whilst completely ignoring context and the collective humor of the forum. It clearly wasn't a malicious post.

    The card itself may have been justified.. it's not really a big deal at the end of the day. What I'd have a greater issue with is the immediate shutting down of the posters thread in the DRF with the following and somewhat unhelpful tip being set out by an admin -
    It's a warning that you should probably refine your sense of humour to one acceptable to the general public

    What does that even mean? The 'general public' more than likely wouldn't freak out over such an innocuous comment to begin with.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement