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.

After Hours "Misogyny on boards" sticky...

245678

Comments

  • #32
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,071 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Is there misogyny and sexism on Boards? Yep. There's all sorts of isms going on in various places. Some are broadly "supported" like the anti religionism thing*, others, the majority are not. Is misogyny and sexism a sitewide issue as some seem to claim? Hardly. Where and when it occurs is in the more "social" type forums, the AH's the tGC's the tLL's and the like. Of the hundreds of other forums? None to sweet feck all. Where's the misogyny in Farming and Forestry, or Aviation or Television or..? Whoops mentioned the thread on the subject in the mod forum. I don't think I'm letting any felines out of bags to say that it was populated by a very small number of the 400 odd mods on this site(as Whoops herself alluded to by asking any moda passing this thread to read it).

    Now that doesn't mean this guff is OK, or shouldn't be rooted out where it occurs, especially in a forum like AH. However it seems to me an overreaction and exaggeration of the actual problem. An importation of this recent American gender war meme bollocks on both sides. The vast majority of misogyny and sexism posts come from a tiny number of posters compared to the whole. This tiny number have bought into the gender war ballsology hook line and sinker. Where they may have a good point to make here and there, but that tends to be drowned out by the attendant one track minded bullshít. The response to them should be; if they're a one agenda with no sources for their argument troll, then nuke em to fuq and good riddance. They're breaking the Don't be a dick rule, a rule that served this site very well from its growth and peak to now.

    Now this drive(and continuing one) by the AH mods is a welcome one, especially if it gets people thinking and being more comfortable in reporting these gobshítes, but don't let the community and site fall into the wider trap of thinking there's Reds Red pillers under the bed at every turn. Otherwise the place might well go down the "Guardian" route of closing off actual measured debate and become an ever decreasing circlejerk of "acceptable" opinions, where simply asking a question may be construed as "wrong" or an "ism".
    K-9 wrote:
    If it has come to that point for AH, so be it, I can think of one forum that seems to deal with this mens rights type stuff anyway, so it isn't as if it isn't catered for on the site.
    Indeed, but TBH the sheer amount of it is starting to get real bloody boring for me. Again because it's a bloody blow in meme for the most part and I can't bloody abide received "wisdom" masquerading as fact(or heartfelt opinion/feels) from any source. Eejits screaming misandry at every turn piss me off just as much as eejits screaming misogyny at every turn. Keyboard Victims, the lesser known but just as, if not moreso, insidious and damaging as their better known bedfellows Keyboard Warriors.
    AH isn't for reaching a wider audience after all.
    On the contrary, After Hours has by far the biggest audience on this site, by quite a margin. OK I get your point, bigger may not equate to wider, but AH is the entry point and stickaround point for many. For many AH is Boards and if Boards fades away down the line, then AH will likely be the last forum standing before the servers go out.

    *EDIT* The interwebs amplifies the arseholes and amplifies the reaction to them. It accentuates the extreme in nigh on every subject and sphere you care to mention. It makes it look like there are far more of them than there are. Report/Nuke them where you find these gobshítes and the rest will fall into place. No need to reinvent the wheel for the minority of gobshítes.





    *try posting as a devout Catholic/Portestant/Muslim and see the result, but if you're some postmodern hippie dressed up in the secondhand clothes of Eastern promise, a Turkish delight of exotic but equal nonsense, you'll generally get a fairer shake. Oh you're a Tantric Buddhist Wiccan with windchimes and dreamcatchers? Oh that's alright then. Your blend of magical thinking is generally OK with us. I hope you don't fiddle with kids though?

    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.



  • #33
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    Dav wrote: »
    If this wasn't a problem then it wouldn't be necessary.

    Also, if your definition of being a woman means "possession a vagina" then you're a part of the problem. I know several women that don't. The exact same definition applies to men too - gender is defined between your ears, not between your legs.

    No objection to that idea but I'm curious is this an official statement or a personal one. If its an official statement doesn't that throw up unusual problems due to the subjective nature and personal experience basis of many of the gender threads.
    This is possibly not the best example but it should illustrate the point, Frank Maloney ten years ago was a woman, Frank Maloney ten years ago wouldn't have been perceived as a woman by wider society and was anatomically male, therefore one could argue that her experiences at that time would not add any more weight than a cis-mans opinions on a womans issue

    Also Oh how times have changed :rolleyes: ironically I think the changes this poster was pushing for actually came about (after they got a ton of abuse!)
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=53448139


    Apart from this I presume its actually just business as usual considering anybody thats not a serial re-reg would be banned from AH by now if they are misogynistic? Or is there a change in the actual application of the rules?

    Also if Feminism bashing threads are to be banned can we ban the religion bashing threads, after all they are both belief systems.


  • #34
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    Also Oh how times have changed :rolleyes: ironically I think the changes this poster was pushing for actually came about (after they got a ton of abuse!)
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=53448139

    And a damn good thing to see things have improved around here, looking at that thread was horrible. So many old heads, I miss Anti. Or maybe it was just his Hard Gay avatar that made smile every time I saw it FUUUUU!!!!!!! :pac:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_PoPIvKPe4


  • #35
    Micky Dolenz
    Registered Users Posts: 44,080 ✭✭✭✭Micky Dolenz


    We have often stickied reminders of the charter. The last one was for grammar nazism.

    Dress this up which ever way you want or ignore the issue if you wish. Unfortunately it's not a luxury we have.


  • #36
    The Hill Billy
    Registered Users Posts: 22,746 ✭✭✭✭The Hill Billy


    Did people even read the sticky? Seriously.

    The AH Mods acknowledged a thread that had been started recently by a poster regarding misogyny (& misandry too in fairness). The thread attracted a lot of input from the AH community & it was felt that a distinct mod comment was needed to show awareness of the issue & the fact that it was already under discussion.

    It was also stated that this issue, while experiencing a recent surge, is not as much of a problem as it has been in the past. This largely being down to the great work of the AH mods.

    There's just no keeping people happy. If it was ignored - the mods would be criticized. The fact that they've acknowledged the issue & have informed the AH community that it is something that they are working to address - the criticism still gets flung at them.

    At the end of the day, the posters who are causing the issue will be weeded out & banned for being dicks. It is a head's up for them, whether they be the obvious & persistent re-reg trolls or just plain ol' dicks spouting the same ol' low-level misogynist/misandrist bile.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Links234 wrote: »
    Ah now, you've posted exactly the same guff in AH a week or so ago, so let me repost my response from before:



    So rather than being incorrect and "anti-scientific", you are the one who is incorrect (and willfully I might add, if you're still posting that guff after you've been informed). As for why would humans evolve differently? You mean like opposable thumbs, the capacity for language, mathematics, etc? And about it being up for debate? That ship has sailed, the actual science is in, most medical governing bodies recognise the legitimacy of transsexuality, it's been delisted as a psychological disorder just as homosexuality was delisted a few decades ago. There's really nothing to debate, you might be able to reference that goofy goober from Fox News, but that's pretty much all your side of the debate has. It's done. ;)

    You've the patience of a Saint!
    Wibbs wrote: »
    Is there misogyny and sexism on Boards? Yep. There's all sorts of isms going on in various places. Some are broadly "supported" like the anti religionism thing*, others, the majority are not. Is misogyny and sexism a sitewide issue as some seem to claim? Hardly. Where and when it occurs is in the more "social" type forums, the AH's the tGC's the tLL's and the like. Of the hundreds of other forums? None to sweet feck all. Where's the misogyny in Farming and Forestry, or Aviation or Television or..? Whoops mentioned the thread on the subject in the mod forum. I don't think I'm letting any felines out of bags to say that it was populated by a very small number of the 400 odd mods on this site(as Whoops herself alluded to by asking any moda passing this thread to read it).

    Rarely comes up on politics IIRC, which is encouraging.
    Now that doesn't mean this guff is OK, or shouldn't be rooted out where it occurs, especially in a forum like AH. However it seems to me an overreaction and exaggeration of the actual problem. An importation of this recent American gender war meme bollocks on both sides. The vast majority of misogyny and sexism posts come from a tiny number of posters compared to the whole. This tiny number have bought into the gender war ballsology hook line and sinker. Where they may have a good point to make here and there, but that tends to be drowned out by the attendant one track minded bullshít. The response to them should be; if they're a one agenda with no sources for their argument troll, then nuke em to fuq and good riddance. They're breaking the Don't be a dick rule, a rule that served this site very well from its growth and peak to now.

    It probably is a small enough number of posters using the stuff you are going on about, where anything to do with sexual/gender/driving etc. etc. issues seems to descend to flame wars.

    We really should just give them their own forum to argue which gender has it worst!
    Now this drive(and continuing one) by the AH mods is a welcome one, especially if it gets people thinking and being more comfortable in reporting these gobshítes, but don't let the community and site fall into the wider trap of thinking there's Reds Red pillers under the bed at every turn. Otherwise the place might well go down the "Guardian" route of closing off actual measured debate and become an ever decreasing circlejerk of "acceptable" opinions, where simply asking a question may be construed as "wrong" or an "ism".

    Well the mods are usually pretty good at discerning the difference between a discussion and the other nonsense. If it's coming up a lot in reported posts etc. something has to be done.
    Indeed, but TBH the sheer amount of it is starting to get real bloody boring for me. Again because it's a bloody blow in meme for the most part and I can't bloody abide received "wisdom" masquerading as fact(or heartfelt opinion/feels) from any source. Eejits screaming misandry at every turn piss me off just as much as eejits screaming misogyny at every turn. Keyboard Victims, the lesser known but just as, if not moreso, insidious and damaging as their better known bedfellows Keyboard Warriors.

    You'd think they'd all get bored after a while!
    On the contrary, After Hours has by far the biggest audience on this site, by quite a margin. OK I get your point, bigger may not equate to wider, but AH is the entry point and stickaround point for many. For many AH is Boards and if Boards fades away down the line, then AH will likely be the last forum standing before the servers go out.

    Yep, but there are topics not discussed there and it really shouldn't be used to preach to more viewers, there are obvious exceptions.
    *EDIT* The interwebs amplifies the arseholes and amplifies the reaction to them. It accentuates the extreme in nigh on every subject and sphere you care to mention. It makes it look like there are far more of them than there are. Report/Nuke them where you find these gobshítes and the rest will fall into place. No need to reinvent the wheel for the minority of gobshítes.

    Yep, posted the same in the mod thread. People didn't get this much attention even 10 years ago, never mind 30.

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



  • #38
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    Links234 wrote: »
    Ah now, you've posted exactly the same guff in AH a week or so ago, so let me repost my response from before:



    So rather than being incorrect and "anti-scientific", you are the one who is incorrect (and willfully I might add, if you're still posting that guff after you've been informed). As for why would humans evolve differently? You mean like opposable thumbs, the capacity for language, mathematics, etc? And about it being up for debate? That ship has sailed, the actual science is in, most medical governing bodies recognise the legitimacy of transsexuality, it's been delisted as a psychological disorder just as homosexuality was delisted a few decades ago. There's really nothing to debate, you might be able to reference that goofy goober from Fox News, but that's pretty much all your side of the debate has. It's done. ;)

    That list of weak as cheese science might just about at the margins prove that some transgender is biological - however this is far from the claim that *all* gender is "constructed" and not genetic which is the general claim of the leftist pseudocracy. And piss off with the Fox News nonsense - a typical pseud sneer. I don't even know who that "goofy gobber is" since I don't watch Fox News

    What I do of is read the literature on biology and evolution.
    Humans are animals. We have opposable thumbs. Cats have bigger claws. We have bigger brains. Eagles have better eyesight. None of this removes the strong evolutionary pressures which apply to humans as they do to all sexually dimorphic animals. Sex differences are largely - outliers aside - biological.


  • #39
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    K-9 wrote: »
    You've the patience of a Saint!

    I'm also childish and I hate to lose ;)


  • #40
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    Links234 wrote: »
    I'm also childish and I hate to lose ;)

    Stephen Pinker, neuro-scientist, evolutionary psychologist and author of The Blank Slate on gender equality feminism.


    From:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100177038/a-decade-after-steven-pinkers-the-blank-slate-why-is-human-nature-still-taboo/

    (But read the book).

    As Pinker wrote, there are two types of feminism: “Equity feminism is a moral doctrine about equal treatment that makes no commitments regarding open empirical issues in psychology or biology. Gender feminism is an empirical doctrine committed to three claims about human nature. The first is that the differences between men and women have nothing to do with biology but are socially constructed in their entirety. The second is that humans possess a single social motive – power – and that social life can be understood only in terms of how it is exercised. The third is that human interactions arise not from the motives of people dealing with each other as individuals but from the motives of groups dealing with other groups – in this case, the male gender dominating the female gender.
    “In embracing these doctrines, the genderists are handcuffing feminism to railroad tracks on which a train is bearing down.”
    Gender feminism is no more scientific than astrology,yet the idea of total equality of outcomes is still some sort of vague official goal among the European elite, largely because “people’s unwillingness to think in statistical terms has led to pointless false dichotomies", between "women are unqualified" and "fifty-fifty absolutely".
    The end result of gender feminism has been the blackening of the name feminist, which many women and men deny because they associate it with radical, unscientific ideas about “gender” being a “social construct”, ideas which are still taught as fact in British universities despite being as factual as creationism.

    It's pretty amazing that 10 years after the Blank Slate that this is even being discussed. In the 1970's you couldn't even discuss general human nature without being attacked. The eminent biologist EO Wilson was attacked in stage by a Marxist in 1972 for talking about genetic inheritance.

    Feminism has taken over Marxism in denying innate human behaviour.

    He's not alone. There's nobody working in evolutionary biology to neuroscience who believes the social construct malarky.


  • #41
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    Frank Lee Midere wrote: »
    That list of weak as cheese science might just about at the margins prove that some transgender is biological - however this is far from the claim that *all* gender is "constructed" and not genetic which is the general claim of the leftist pseudocracy.

    You're mixing metaphors and putting the cart before the bird in the hand that gets the early worm, so to speak. That's not what Dav was on about. But when people talk about gender being "socially constructed" they're refering to gender roles and to notions that the sexes have different aptitudes and abilities inborn, which I'm guessing you're speaking about now. The problem you run into then is that many of these ideas of men being better at X and women being better at Y, is slowly but surely being chipped away at, by science! While it was previously thought that boys were naturally more gifted at maths, many studies showed that this was not the case. Here for example, we see differences in aptitutes explained by different social pressures.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Sleepy
    Registered Users Posts: 24,146 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    A fair point about gender not being defined by the physical Dav and tbh, some pretty poor phrasing by me which Is apologise for.

    However would you not agree that referring to sexism as misogyny (when those are completely different things) only leads to the suggestion that sexism is only objectionable when applied to women?

    It's exactly this type of thing that's made feminism a dirty word for so many people these days I'm. Equality is equality. Treating any action as being more or less serious because of the gender of either the perpetrator or the victim of that action is not, and never can be, equality.


  • #43
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    The lgbt forum charter covers homophobia and transphobia.

    Which is exactly my point. It's covered by the charter. I don't see the need for a sticky in the forum to basically tell people not to be dicks.


  • #44
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    I've given my 2c on this already but I will say one thing more - Dav on another topic recently said to me that to do something about something (I'm being deliberately vague) would just streisand it. I think this is what we're seeing here now.


  • #45
    Sleepy
    Registered Users Posts: 24,146 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    Apologies again, just noticed there were a ton of posts after the one of Dav's which I replied to. Using the android app for the first time on a new phone and just getting used to it.

    Don't really have anything else to add to my point, just didn't want people to think I was ignoring their input!

    I'd just like to see the site operate in an egalitarian fashion rather than one where gender is a factor in what is or isn't acceptable behaviour.


  • #46
    masculinist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,616 ✭✭✭masculinist


    Red Alert wrote: »
    Personally I find having a "sermon" delivered by the AH mods rather unpleasant. There are fundamental differences in how genders perceive and act, and everybody's entitled to their view on it. If people are breaking the forum's charter and being unpleasant to other posters then sanction them for it. But please, stop writing this sanctimonious rubbish.

    Pretty much this ^^^


    For now, no specifics although they do exist. For now I have to say it is not unknown for someone to screech 'misogyny' just because a poster disagrees with their Politics. Now if that politics happens to be Egalitarian and elicits a response which amounts to ''Misogyny'' or ''shut up you misogynist'' when it touches upon an issue affecting men then you can draw your own conclusions about where one of the real problems might lie.


  • #47
    Micky Dolenz
    Registered Users Posts: 44,080 ✭✭✭✭Micky Dolenz


    Orion wrote: »
    Which is exactly my point. It's covered by the charter. I don't see the need for a sticky in the forum to basically tell people not to be dicks.

    In the past we've done exactly the same thing on pressing issues at the time. Temp stickies on charter points. Can't remember feedback threads on those ones. That to me is extremely interesting.


  • #48
    J Mysterio
    Registered Users Posts: 11,035 ✭✭✭✭J Mysterio


    Is there a lot of melodrama here? I don't think I saw very much cross the line on either side of the debate.


  • #49
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Frank Lee Midere wrote: »
    Stephen Pinker, neuro-scientist, evolutionary psychologist and author of The Blank Slate on gender equality feminism.


    From:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100177038/a-decade-after-steven-pinkers-the-blank-slate-why-is-human-nature-still-taboo/

    (But read the book).

    As Pinker wrote, there are two types of feminism: “Equity feminism is a moral doctrine about equal treatment that makes no commitments regarding open empirical issues in psychology or biology. Gender feminism is an empirical doctrine committed to three claims about human nature. The first is that the differences between men and women have nothing to do with biology but are socially constructed in their entirety. The second is that humans possess a single social motive – power – and that social life can be understood only in terms of how it is exercised. The third is that human interactions arise not from the motives of people dealing with each other as individuals but from the motives of groups dealing with other groups – in this case, the male gender dominating the female gender.
    “In embracing these doctrines, the genderists are handcuffing feminism to railroad tracks on which a train is bearing down.”
    Gender feminism is no more scientific than astrology,yet the idea of total equality of outcomes is still some sort of vague official goal among the European elite, largely because “people’s unwillingness to think in statistical terms has led to pointless false dichotomies", between "women are unqualified" and "fifty-fifty absolutely".
    The end result of gender feminism has been the blackening of the name feminist, which many women and men deny because they associate it with radical, unscientific ideas about “gender” being a “social construct”, ideas which are still taught as fact in British universities despite being as factual as creationism.

    It's pretty amazing that 10 years after the Blank Slate that this is even being discussed. In the 1970's you couldn't even discuss general human nature without being attacked. The eminent biologist EO Wilson was attacked in stage by a Marxist in 1972 for talking about genetic inheritance.

    Feminism has taken over Marxism in denying innate human behaviour.

    He's not alone. There's nobody working in evolutionary biology to neuroscience who believes the social construct malarky.

    Even Pinker doesn't disagree that environment plays a role. There are social constructs that entail what gender identity means. There are also innate human behaviours that define gender identity. Your suggestion that feminists don't understand this point, or wilfully ignore it, is disingenuous. In general most people who browse boards are more than aware of this fact. You've conveniently lumped feminism in some asshat extreme minority that mostly only exists on the internet- Approach an average person in the street and ask them whether they believe the female gender identity is cultural or innate?
    Most will say both.


  • #50
    ardle1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,521 ✭✭✭ardle1


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    I believe it was.

    As with most things, the large majority of posters keep within reasonable bounds, but there have been a few recent threads where misogynistic posts have been made, where there has been anti-feminist soapboxing, and where discussion has been pulled off-track by serial re-regs with an agenda

    Off topic, just a bit sorry.

    But how do you know about these 'serial re-reg's'?
    Is this part of your defence, or a paranoid 'observation'....:confused:


  • #51
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    ardle1 wrote: »
    ...
    But how do you know about these 'serial re-reg's'?
    Initially it's the "if it looks like a duck..." method - new posters saying pretty well what banned posters have been saying, often using similar language; then I report my suspicions to the mods; then the posts disappear or the poster is banned - which I take to mean that my suspicion was justified..
    Is this part of your defence, or a paranoid 'observation'....:confused:
    What defence do I need? What reason have I to feel paranoia?


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    ardle1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,521 ✭✭✭ardle1


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    Initially it's the "if it looks like a duck..." method - new posters saying pretty well what banned posters have been saying, often using similar language; then I report my suspicions to the mods; then the posts disappear or the poster is banned - which I take to mean that my suspicion was justified..

    What defence do I need? What reason have I to feel paranoia?

    You need said defence to say 'discussion has been pulled off-track by serial re-regs'...
    And to feel paranoia, you just need to read Tommy's post.And think! that particular post sounds just like Jimmy's.. So Tommy must be actually Jimmy!?
    Simples really.. Anyway I was just asking/wondering did you have inside info, that's all, it's cool man :cool:


  • #53
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,545 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    ardle1 wrote: »
    You need said defence to say 'discussion has been pulled off-track by serial re-regs'...
    And to feel paranoia, you just need to read Tommy's post.And think! that particular post sounds just like Jimmy's.. So Tommy must be actually Jimmy!?
    Simples really.. Anyway I was just asking/wondering did you have inside info, that's all, it's cool man :cool:

    Same arguments, same links, in some cases mod states that they were banned for re-regging.

    In some cases, it has been blatantly obvious, with a poster called (for example) 'sellotape' being banned but being replaced by 'sellotape1' within minutes, and 'sellotape2' just minutes later again.

    One night there was a particularly persistent poster who went through about 20 profiles, continuing the same conversations in the same thread, in the same 3-4 hour period.


  • #54
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,219 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    osarusan wrote: »
    Same arguments, same links, in some cases mod states that they were banned for re-regging.

    In some cases, it has been blatantly obvious, with a poster called (for example) 'sellotape' being banned but being replaced by 'sellotape1' within minutes, and 'sellotape2' just minutes later again.

    One night there was a particularly persistent poster who went through about 20 profiles, continuing the same conversations in the same thread, in the same 3-4 hour period.

    This issue goes beyond re-regs. If they were the only ones doing it, it'd be easy to knock on the head. What we have alongside the re-regs are long-time posters who jump on any issue even slightly related to feminism and drag threads down rabbit holes or throw out comments they know will inflame other people. Then you also have the culture of "Duu-hurr-hurr y wasnt she in da kitchen makin sangagichs LOL" or needless (and off-topic) comments about women's looks or appearance as if the notion that a woman's only value is how well she'd fare on hotornot.

    This is a bigger issue than re-regs.


  • #55
    tritium
    Registered Users Posts: 7,415 ✭✭✭tritium


    The Hill Billy wrote: »
    Did people even read the sticky? Seriously.

    The AH Mods acknowledged a thread that had been started recently by a poster regarding misogyny (& misandry too in fairness). The thread attracted a lot of input from the AH community & it was felt that a distinct mod comment was needed to show awareness of the issue & the fact that it was already under discussion.
    .

    Eh no! The thread was specifically about misogyny. Any contribution about misandry was an after thought from other posters. With a few of the usual "here come the what about the men" quips

    Let's not try to dress this up as caring about general sexism. This is pandering to a particular block of gender warriors. If boards wants to highlight sexism as an issue by all means do, and at the same time highlight the behaviour of posters derailing threads when men's rights come up, the ones who whine about the " what about the men posters". Just don't pretend this is anything remotely close to a stand against sexism.
    Don't get me wrong, the " women in the kitchen" posters are bloody annoying. That's what report post is for. While this stickie was going up a disgusting thread on male rape was doing the rounds- two hours later it was finally closed. Now I know mods are busy and have lives, but I'd respectfully suggest more would be done to address sexism by the mod shutting that thread than by writing the sticky.


  • #56
    dr.bollocko
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 35,943 Mod ✭✭✭✭dr.bollocko


    There's an under current of misogyny starting to spread wider again off the back of recent events and the mods have pointed it out instead of sticking the head in the sand.

    It's very much appreciated.


  • #57
    donfers
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,006 ✭✭✭donfers


    dr.bollocko wrote: »
    There's an under current of misogyny starting to spread wider again off the back of recent events and the mods have pointed it out instead of sticking the head in the sand.

    It's very much appreciated.

    Yes well done, I'm sure these legions of woman-haters will read that stickie and curtail their disgusting behaviour. Excellent job all-round guys and gals!

    The innovative and insightful way you are dealing with this malign influence on boards is to be applauded


  • #58
    The Hill Billy
    Registered Users Posts: 22,746 ✭✭✭✭The Hill Billy


    You miss the point entirely. The sticky is to assure other decent posters that the dicks will be weeded out & banned if they persist with their carry on.


  • #59
    The Hill Billy
    Registered Users Posts: 22,746 ✭✭✭✭The Hill Billy


    tritium wrote: »
    Eh no! The thread was specifically about misogyny. Any contribution about misandry was an after thought from other posters. With a few of the usual "here come the what about the men" quips

    Let's not try to dress this up as caring about general sexism. This is pandering to a particular block of gender warriors. If boards wants to highlight sexism as an issue by all means do, and at the same time highlight the behaviour of posters derailing threads when men's rights come up, the ones who whine about the " what about the men posters". Just don't pretend this is anything remotely close to a stand against sexism.
    Don't get me wrong, the " women in the kitchen" posters are bloody annoying. That's what report post is for. While this stickie was going up a disgusting thread on male rape was doing the rounds- two hours later it was finally closed. Now I know mods are busy and have lives, but I'd respectfully suggest more would be done to address sexism by the mod shutting that thread than by writing the sticky.
    Firstly, the Love/Hate Rape Joke thread - you reported a post early on a Monday morning & the thread was closed less than 2 hours later. An acceptable turnaround time I think.

    Secondly, did you read the sticky? The AH mods had already been discussing this matter. The sticky was not posted as a result of the Misogyny thread - but it was referenced as part of the overall issue. There is no 'pandering' to anyone one here. There is an acknowledgement that there is an issue & a statement to assure the decent posters of AH that it is being addressed. I'm not pretending anything. I am telling it like it is. If you wish to read more into it than is actually going on - Fire away.


  • #60
    Sauve
    Registered Users Posts: 22,646 ✭✭✭✭Sauve


    If ever there was a thread that highlighted utter ignorance of a very real problem on the site then this is it.

    There is a problem, all relevant mods are pulling together to stamp it out, but not only are we fighting against misogynistic re-reg trolls and the odd ignorant long-time poster, but now it seems there are plenty of sympathisers aswell.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,655 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    tritium wrote: »
    Eh no! The thread was specifically about misogyny. Any contribution about misandry was an after thought from other posters. With a few of the usual "here come the what about the men" quips

    Let's not try to dress this up as caring about general sexism. This is pandering to a particular block of gender warriors. If boards wants to highlight sexism as an issue by all means do, and at the same time highlight the behaviour of posters derailing threads when men's rights come up, the ones who whine about the " what about the men posters". Just don't pretend this is anything remotely close to a stand against sexism.

    Don't get me wrong, the " women in the kitchen" posters are bloody annoying. That's what report post is for. While this stickie was going up a disgusting thread on male rape was doing the rounds- two hours later it was finally closed. Now I know mods are busy and have lives, but I'd respectfully suggest more would be done to address sexism by the mod shutting that thread than by writing the sticky.


    By that same token though, let's not pretend that threads started simply to take pot shots feminism (attempting to ascribe some nutbar views of individuals to all feminists) are actually anything to do with advocating for support for men's rights and issues that affect men.

    What gets my goat is some of these so called 'egalitarian' posters who have no interest in advocating for equal rights, but seek to oppress women and claim that because men are oppressed, this would make them equal. An egalitarian philosophy would advocate for more rights for both genders, not engage in seeking to stifle the rights of one gender and claim it's in the interest of gender equality.

    As for that particular rape thread, the point of the opening post seemed to be querying the opportunities to make jokes about rape in general (using the example of rape jokes doing the rounds on social media after an incident was portrayed on a television programme). The thread was shut down fairly rapid given the time it was posted, and the time it was shut down.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement