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

After Hours "Misogyny on boards" sticky...

Options
124678

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Tombi!
    Registered Users Posts: 6,689 ✭✭✭Tombi!


    You're missing one of the core rules of every private group ever invented; they decided what is and what is not allowed.

    At the end of the day it seems like you have issue with how the mods phrase it (and other posters).
    The sad fact is that some posters are clearly being dicks. Regardless of what they're using to cause issue with.
    The other thing is "exercise a bit of restraint". Let's say me and you are together with a bunch of black people. I'm racist. You're not. Is it a really good idea for either of us to start saying things about blacks that we know are gonna come across as racist?

    There are times that you can indeed say "feminism is a blight on western society" and it be valid; a debate about feminism would be a good time to give your opinion. But being a dick is still against the rules. Doesn't matter if the mods think it's being a sexist dick or just being a dick, it's still making people feel uncomfortable.

    I'll add that some topics are going to make people feel uncomfortable but you go into those topics expecting and knowing it but for example, if it's a thread about rugby and I mention I'm from Dublin and someone says "sure Dubliners are just the scum of Ireland" that's offending me and that person shouldn't have said that.


  • Options
    #93
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Sleepy wrote: »
    Maybe it's simply the pedant in me but it really irritates me to see sexism against women called "misogyny". The word means "hatred of women".
    ...and homophobia means "fear of homosexuals", but that's not, in practical terms, what it means.

    Do you have a better shorthand term for sexism against women?
    Take for example the following statement "Feminism is a blight on modern western society" (which while I believe to be true).
    Feminism is "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes". I'm afraid I can't subscribe to the idea that the advocacy of equal rights is a blight on society.


  • Options
    #94
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Do you have a better shorthand term for sexism against women? Feminism is "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes". I'm afraid I can't subscribe to the idea that the advocacy of equal rights is a blight on society.

    That part just isn't true for all Feminism though, Rad-fems might be a small minority but I have never heard it argued that they aren't feminists, they might be hated by other groups but they are still feminists.
    Micky Dolenz wrote: »
    However, we do have some who know exactly what they are saying and are looking for a reaction. We have posters of each sex who are attracted to potential "gender war" threads like moths to a flame.

    We are certainly addressing this too.

    As one of these poster :o if they are clogging up the page why not mega-thread them, its mainly the same male and female 20 regular users on each of these threads apart from the re-regs anyway and they tend to be a bit cyclic I mean I am fairly sure Wibbs must have a template post drawn up about the problems with the "wage gap" studies and the way they are portrayed.


  • Options
    #95
    masculinist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,616 ✭✭✭masculinist


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm afraid I can't subscribe to the idea that the advocacy of equal rights is a blight on society.

    Then you must logically be an egalitarian like me. You can be opposed to feminism for some excellent reasons yet still remain an egalitarian. The problem with a sticky which has the word ''misogyny'' on it is it marginalizes, ignores and makes invisible problems of misandry in society and on boards which men have. Real problems concerning their children , suicides , homelessness , etc , not imaginary problems like banning the word ''bossy'' which is ironically an extremely bossy thing to do and really a desperate last resort of a movement which achieved all its founding goals long ago and which needs to justify its continued existence, importance and funding.


  • Options
    #96
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    That part just isn't true for all Feminism though, Rad-fems might be a small minority but I have never heard it argued that they aren't feminists, they might be hated by other groups but they are still feminists.

    If you want to argue that radical feminism is a blight on western society, that's a completely different conversation from arguing that feminism is.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    masculinist wrote: »
    The problem with a sticky which has the word ''misogyny'' on it is it marginalizes, ignores and makes invisible problems of misandry in society.

    No, it doesn't, any more than it marginalises, ignores and makes invisible problems of racism in society.

    We're talking about misogyny now. That doesn't mean misandry isn't a problem, any more than racism isn't a problem. It's just not what we're talking about in this case.


  • Options
    #98
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    If you want to argue that radical feminism is a blight on western society, that's a completely different conversation from arguing that feminism is.

    Thats not the point I am making though and I'm not sure how you misinterpreted it?

    You assign a definition of feminism that excludes groups who I have never seen it stated 'aren't feminists'. Therefore you definition is demonstrably false.

    Its an extreme argument saying that 'Left wingers' are a blight on society because of Maoists, but nobody argues that Maoists aren't leftists.


  • Options
    #99
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    Thats not the point I am making though and I'm not sure how you misinterpreted it?

    You assign a definition of feminism that excludes groups who I have never seen it stated 'aren't feminists'. Therefore you definition is demonstrably false.

    Its an extreme argument saying that 'Left wingers' are a blight on society because of Maoists, but nobody argues that Maoists aren't leftists.
    There seems to be some dodgy logic here: "All Maoists are leftists" does not mean "All leftists are Maoists".


  • Options
    #100
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    There seems to be some dodgy logic here: "All Maoists are leftists" does not mean "All leftists are Maoists".

    No it means you can't make up some dodgy definition that would exclude them, while still believing they are left wing.

    I'm left wing, I wouldn't be a fan of extreme leftists, that doesn't mean they aren't left wing though


  • Options
    #101
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    Thats not the point I am making though and I'm not sure how you misinterpreted it?

    You assign a definition of feminism that excludes groups who I have never seen it stated 'aren't feminists'. Therefore you definition is demonstrably false.
    I disagree that my definition excludes radical feminists, so we're arguing at cross purposes.
    Its an extreme argument saying that 'Left wingers' are a blight on society because of Maoists, but nobody argues that Maoists aren't leftists.
    And I'm not arguing that radical feminists aren't feminists.

    All of which is a complete tangent to the actual topic, so let's not go further down it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Tombi!
    Registered Users Posts: 6,689 ✭✭✭Tombi!


    RDM, what is your point? I don't mean to sound rude or anything but I don't get it.
    You stated that radical feminists are part of feminism but why?

    We know what Oscar means here. He's on about feminism as it pertains to women's rights; ie the rights that humans should have
    Getting into a debate here on radical feminists being feminists doesn't make sense to me.

    You wouldn't mention the Crips or Bloods (or other black gangs) to say "well some blacks are criminals so I'll label them all criminals"

    You're coming across as being incredibly pedantic or else you're just being argumentative for the sake of arguing. I'm assuming it's pedantry but I mean, does it really matter?


  • Options
    #103
    The Hill Billy
    Registered Users Posts: 22,748 ✭✭✭✭The Hill Billy


    The nit-picking says volumes.

    Simply put, the sticky says - sexist dicks will be dealt with.

    If you think they should be given free rein to be dicks in AH - state your case.

    But the nit-picking... That's a discussion for Humanities & detracts from discussing about sorting out the dicks.


  • Options
    #104
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    Brutal Deluxe wrote: »
    RDM, what is your point? I don't mean to sound rude or anything but I don't get it.
    You stated that radical feminists are part of feminism but why?

    We know what Oscar means here. He's on about feminism as it pertains to women's rights; ie the rights that humans should have
    Getting into a debate here on radical feminists being feminists doesn't make sense to me.

    You wouldn't mention the Crips or Bloods (or other black gangs) to say "well some blacks are criminals so I'll label them all criminals"

    You're coming across as being incredibly pedantic or else you're just being argumentative for the sake of arguing. I'm assuming it's pedantry but I mean, does it really matter?

    I'l try and explain why this is more than simple pendantry.
    If
    "the advocacy of women's rights on
    the ground of the equality of the sexes" is the boards.ie definition of feminism, one can make the point that if you broadly state that feminism is a negative it means you oppose equal rights to women, opposing equal rights to women IS mysogenistic.
    The problem is the definition is incorrect, rad-fems are (small)part of feminism and many of them advocate for more than equal rights (and do not hold the belief of equality of the sexes).

    I probably wouldn't get sanctioned because i tend to qualify my criticism with 3rd wave but it is important if this is going to be a nod stance


  • Options
    #105
    Tombi!
    Registered Users Posts: 6,689 ✭✭✭Tombi!


    It seems like you're worried that having certain opinions is gonna be against the rules.

    I sincerely doubt it's going to be a literal "disagree with feminism and be banned". You can phrase it in ways that don't come across as being a dick.
    So assuming you're reasonably fine and not getting modded, just do what you've been doing.


  • Options
    #106
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    I'l try and explain why this is more than simple pendantry.
    If
    "the advocacy of women's rights on
    the ground of the equality of the sexes" is the boards.ie definition of feminism, one can make the point that if you broadly state that feminism is a negative it means you oppose equal rights to women, opposing equal rights to women IS mysogenistic.
    The problem is the definition is incorrect, rad-fems are (small)part of feminism and many of them advocate for more than equal rights (and do not hold the belief of equality of the sexes).

    I probably wouldn't get sanctioned because i tend to qualify my criticism with 3rd wave but it is important if this is going to be a nod stance

    I really don't want to continue down this tangent, but one more time: if you claim that feminism is a blight on society, but what you actually mean is that radical feminism is a blight on society, then the problem is that you're being insufficiently precise in your criticism, because what you're doing - intentionally or not - is making a sweeping and inaccurate generalisation.

    By your own argument: if I said that leftists were a blight on society, you as a leftist would have every right to be indignant about such a generalisation. I could argue that I was actually only talking about Maoists, but that would be, at best, disingenuous. If I want to criticise Maoists, I won't do it by attacking leftists.

    If you have an issue with radical feminism, you're welcome to take that up in an appropriate forum - and a conversation about misogyny isn't that forum, because misogyny isn't an antonym for radical feminism.


  • Options
    #107
    Laura Palmer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 249 ✭✭Laura Palmer


    Long-time Boards user but re-reg obviously.

    I think it's incorrect to talk about misogyny being a Boards-wide concern - it definitely isn't. I don't think the term "misogyny" is even correct much of the time (very strong term in fairness). I'd be more inclined to say "Hostility towards women" in a lot of cases (although there is sometimes blatant misogyny). It is confined to After Hours, The Gentlemen's Club, occasionally The Ladies' Lounge until the mods get a chance to put an end to it, and very occasionally Humanities. Those are the only places in which I've seen it, but one of them is (presumably) the busiest forum, two others are quite busy also, so this makes it seem so prevalent.
    It's great to see the problem being acknowledged because it was getting so bad that it was ruining AH for me and others. The sticky has 185 thanks at this point so some people clearly do identify with it.
    I was thinking it was ruining Boards, but then realised after closing my account that it was not ruining Boards full stop, just parts of it. Overall, Boards is still a great website and resource.

    The AH thread flagging the problem (and I wasn't one bit surprised when it was started) didn't go well in many places - there was a lot of dismissal ("I don't see it so therefore it isn't there" summing it up; fair enough if someone personally doesn't see it - they can't help that, but refusing to consider others' viewpoints on the basis of their own, is part of the problem tbh). However I can understand some of the dismissal at a certain level, because examples were asked for and weren't provided. Bizarre. It's easy-peasy to find examples of threads containing lots of hostility towards women/all feminism:

    I can't post links but I found five from this month alone, and some of them got so bad that they had to be locked: "Is feminism a dirty word?", the thread about the woman getting commented at when walking through various streets (I don't agree with that experiment and I personally don't have an issue with such comments once they're not too OTT but there is no need for such horrible things being said about women), the one about it being said that women should not be imprisoned for anything (I don't know any woman who agrees with that sentiment yet it's pretended we're all well in support of it), the one about the single mother in Limerick, the one asking when your girlfriend has ownership of your home.

    Nobody's saying there isn't misandry/hostility towards men out there (there most definitely is - a good deal of it) but it simply cannot be said truthfully that it is prevalent specifically on Boards. Any instances of belittling men can sometimes even be from men (I'm not saying that to downplay instances of misandry from women/feminists, but I'm just referring to how things can go on Boards in this regard). There are bits and pieces of what could be deemed hostility towards men in TLL. Often these aren't actually aimed at all men, but I can understand men feeling defensive if they read them, the same way the equivalent in TGC isn't always aimed at all women, but it still raises the heckles when reading them (and some stuff said about women in TGC is abysmal - but at least some of the culprits are site-banned now; it was becoming a forum in recent times that was utterly unreadable for women though, in my and others' opinion, which is a pity, because it used to be a great inclusive spot that still addressed men's issues... but the above problem be changing now - it is a men's forum of course, but it can be one without blatant anti-women comments).

    But threads don't get started on After Hours about the awful things men do, how **** Irish men are, how any MRA = woman-hater/woman-hating and a demand for any MRAs to post to the thread to condemn the more unhinged elements of the extreme end of the MRA spectrum, an insistence that it doesn't matter if there are moderate MRA voices, MRAs being blamed for stuff that is entrenched in society which has nothing to do with MRA, "if this was a man, you can guarantee yadda yadda" about anything, threads/posts expressing resentment towards men due to having bad experiences with them; countless re-regs don't post to throw thinly veiled digs at men/MRAs, that "lock and key" analogy, etc etc.
    Calling for an end to this, following numerous concerns being expressed and discussion both private and public, is hardly treatment of women as delicate little flowers. :confused:
    The strange thing about some of those who complain about this development being treatment of women as special snowflakes is that they are the very ones who voice their concerns about misandry - can they not see it from the other perspective? If they put themselves in women's shoes (e.g. the women in their lives) or saw the equivalent type of stuff towards men, would they really be ok with it and simply decide "Oh well, I'm sensitive - better stop reading"? I don't mean to be overly emotive but all I'm saying is, it's worth considering another perspective.
    And can it honestly be said there are significant numbers of "feminazis" on After Hours? There are women who express how pissed off they are about the above stuff I've listed, but if anyone thinks someone defending their gender = feminazi, they really need to think that conclusion through.

    Despite some of the silly passive-aggressive comments on AH now, criticism of hardline feminism/misandry isn't an issue of course (but it can be done without the accusatory tones) - I'd be all for it, e.g. that "Men, know your place!" thing: that thread had men and women uniting in agreement with how batty the whole thing was, getting into a heated argument with a woman isn't an issue, comments about how beautiful and sexy a woman is isn't an issue (there's a "Hot women of yesteryear" thread), talking about bitchy things certain women have done isn't an issue (once it's not turned into a stick to beat all women with).

    The mods aren't infallible (they're volunteers in fairness) but I'd disagree with jokes like "Make me a sandwich" being clamped down on; those silly jokes are not the issue IMO and a staunch intolerance of them is just going to look like what people are concerned about: excessive protection of women. There's a thread at the moment about a jealous woman and lots of comments about her weight and looks. Some of them aren't even that bad, but still, they've received a stern warning on the basis of recent events. That isn't misogyny though, IMO. Comments are made about men's appearance too. I'm not saying it's ok to make OTT comments about a person's looks and whether they're ****able or not, just saying it's not necessarily misogyny in the cases when it's towards women.

    But fair play again for addressing the issue in general.

    And cheers if you go to the end of this. :)


  • Options
    #108
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I really don't want to continue down this tangent, but one more time: if you claim that feminism is a blight on society, but what you actually mean is that radical feminism is a blight on society, then the problem is that you're being insufficiently precise in your criticism, because what you're doing - intentionally or not - is making a sweeping and inaccurate generalisation.

    By your own argument: if I said that leftists were a blight on society, you as a leftist would have every right to be indignant about such a generalisation. I could argue that I was actually only talking about Maoists, but that would be, at best, disingenuous. If I want to criticise Maoists, I won't do it by attacking leftists..

    I'm asking that we treat political and social opinions equally that do not overstep the current rules on , your post is implying that broadstrokes criticism of feminism is unacceptable as it implies misygony.
    Can I show you a previous feedback thread that will illustrate my point that if broad-strokes criticism of feminism becomes sanctionable it will simply be reinforcing the view point that some views that coincide with mod opinion are better than others that don't.
    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    I lost my extremely long reply to Penns post :(

    But I'l reply to this as it highlights the same area, if ideas and social constructs do not have rights does that make mutable characteristics and social groupings open to mockery?

    Can I say "feminists are just a bunch of bitter man hating whingers"

    or "Nigerians are a bunch of scumbags" (all nationality is after all, is an idea)

    or "Those mincing queens are pathetic, but bears are ok"

    or in the case of gender which is broadly regarded as a social construct as aside from biological sex e.g born female, but behave as a girl/woman, can I make sexist statments as long as a qualify it with "typical" or gender.

    Each of these statements is not attacking an immutable characteristic, rather attacking the ideas/behavior of certain groupings, none of which are unchangable.

    I'm not asking for criticism of religion to be stopped i'm asking that the rules be applied equally across the board in relation to all social groupings, OR that AH follows the more common internet idea of allowing freedom of expression where it doesn't contravene laws

    I received this reply
    robindch wrote: »
    All of your comments still refer directly to people and as above, people have a right to be treated with respect, at least in the first instance.

    1. "{Catholicism|atheism} is idiotic" - fine
    2. "{Catholicism|atheism} is only accepted by idiots" - indirect insult, not permitted in respectable discourse
    3. "{Catholics|atheists} are idiots" - direct insult, not permitted in respectable discourse

    This post was thanked by two current AH mods (k9 and Dr.Bolloko), from my reading of this, any insult to feminism (not feminists) is acceptable as it only insults beliefs not a person

    I'l also point out this post from K9
    K-9 wrote: »
    Yes, the abuse is OTT at times but AH is a general forum and I'm personally getting sick of it, but we can't force or steer threads or opinions either.

    I am happy enough for the actual misogynists and serial re-regs to be banned banned they ruin these threads for everybody not just the people they disparage, I'd be happy enough if the standard of debate in AH was raised, I feel I can make my points about the negatives of modern 1st world feminism without insulting people (that aren't looking to be insulted ;) ), I'd even be happy if whataboutery was discouraged where irrelevant (the same posters that are insulted by whatabourery in feminism threads in an abortion thread will say 'pro-lifers only care about children in the womb'.

    I'd just be happy if the rules are clearly and equally applied without preference to the loudest voice or the opinion most in step with moderator views.

    Addition: This probably isn't a popular opinion but the most popular opinion on boards.ie isn't always the right one, the thread i linked to from years back had tons of abuse of a trans person and Dev not pulling people on it, a thread from say 2009 2010 would have widespread approval of the idea of sexist jokes being ok, each of these problems would have been solved no matter the current opinion if the rules are not vague and undefinable and are obviously and efficiently enforced.


  • Options
    #109
    masculinist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,616 ✭✭✭masculinist


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    No, it doesn't, any more than it marginalises, ignores and makes invisible problems of racism in society.

    Thats one point of view. Another could be that wasting time on imaginary witchhunts actually takes time away from more important issues.
    Especially for a forum like After Hours where the rules should be pretty simple, preaching from a pulpit on After Hours does not seem to be the main role of After Hours. Its the ultimate in soapboxing in fact. I would like to have it proven why misogyny on After Hours is worse than any other social justice problem in order to merit a sticky. This might help counteract the notion that this happened because of the personal intolerant political views of those who report legitimate posts [and the views of those who support that case against all logic] in the name of their vision of 'social justice' which not everyone shares.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    We're talking about misogyny now. That doesn't mean misandry isn't a problem, any more than racism isn't a problem. It's just not what we're talking about in this case.

    Well can somebody actually link me to examples of misogyny ? Look at it from my point of view that I have seen no misogyny since joining boards. Therefore I have been wondering what all the fuss is about. In fact I have been wondering about cases of misandry but am not a complainer like the keyboard warrior types seem to be. I am only in this conversation because of my interaction with a particular mod on one thread which has been taking an exceedingly long time to resolve.


  • Options
    #110
    Insect Overlord
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 30,857 Mod ✭✭✭✭Insect Overlord


    masculinist wrote: »
    Well can somebody actually link me to examples of misogyny ? Look at it from my point of view that I have seen no misogyny since joining boards. Therefore I have been wondering what all the fuss is about. In fact I have been wondering about cases of misandry but am not a complainer like the keyboard warrior types seem to be. I am only in this conversation because of my interaction with a particular mod on one thread which has been taking an exceedingly long time to resolve.

    What was this all about?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92799162&postcount=8


  • Options
    #111
    masculinist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,616 ✭✭✭masculinist


    An File wrote: »
    What was this all about?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92799162&postcount=8

    The first silly unfunny joke I ever made on boards when I joined. To call it misogyny/ woman hating or even sexism is wrong.
    Do you dare call it such ?

    A mod gave me some grief about it so I immediately apologised and moved on, after suddenly becoming aware as a new user of how things are done on boards.
    I applaud you for your persistance and determination in scrolling through all my past posts by the way. That comment does not merit a sticky.

    My lack of paranoia about how my love and respect for women [from my mother to my sisters and aunts etc] would be misinterpreted on this forum due to a silly joke might have been influenced by comments such as these

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92909053&postcount=1346

    what was that all about ? A female moderator using the word ''mansplaining'' .Double standard ? Permissiveness in language for women but not for men ?

    I do not support the totalitarian enforcement of politically correct language by the way. I think anyone with half a brain can see whether someone is hateful or just joking. It also needs to be explained that it is legitimate to criticize feminism and does not make one misogynist or woman hating.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Insect Overlord
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 30,857 Mod ✭✭✭✭Insect Overlord


    masculinist wrote: »
    I applaud you for your persistance and determination in scrolling through all my past posts by the way. That comment does not merit a sticky.

    I didn't have to scroll through anything to find that. It stuck in my memory from the day you posted it on a forum I read every day. It was a stupid, stupid comment. It was, if not sexist, then at least grossly irreverent towards the sober issues of feminism.
    masculinist wrote: »
    It also needs to be explained that it is legitimate to criticize feminism and does not make one misogynist or woman hating.

    In a forum about beards, moustaches and hats? Yeah, right...


  • Options
    #113
    masculinist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,616 ✭✭✭masculinist


    An File wrote: »
    I didn't have to scroll through anything to find that. It stuck in my memory from the day you posted it on a forum I read every day. It was a stupid, stupid comment. It was, if not sexist, then at least grossly irreverent towards the sober issues of feminism.


    The stupidity here is in you bringing up something totally irrelevant because you have failed to prove misogyny. You are grasping at straws and lacking class by bringing up a comment made long ago which I apologized for in order to keep the peace even though I considered I did not have to.


  • Options
    #114
    masculinist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,616 ✭✭✭masculinist


    An File wrote: »
    In a forum about beards, moustaches and hats? Yeah, right...

    what are you on about ? Movember is misogynist now ?


    An File, you are is another example of those who because of their politics are totally humorless and probably think that adverts for Yorkies ''its not for girls'' are misogynist instead of just being really really silly. Just because you do not share someones sense of humor , this does not give you the right to condemn them.


    edit * congrats for taking this off topic. Please show me a concrete example of misogyny


  • Options
    #115
    Insect Overlord
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 30,857 Mod ✭✭✭✭Insect Overlord


    masculinist wrote: »
    The stupidity here is in you bringing up something totally irrelevant because you have failed to prove misogyny. You are grasping at straws and lacking class by bringing up a comment made long ago which I apologized for in order to keep the peace even though I considered I did not have to.

    LOL.
    masculinist wrote: »
    what are you on about ? Movember is misogynist now ?


    An File, you are is another example of those who because of their politics are totally humorless and probably think that adverts for Yorkies ''its not for girls'' are misogynist instead of just being really really silly. Just because you do not share someones sense of humor , this does not give you the right to condemn them.


    edit * congrats for taking this off topic. Please show me a concrete example of misogyny


    Straw men. Ad hominem. Character assassination. Association fallacy. Keep going dude, you'll have the full Bingo card of logical fallacies in a few minutes.


  • Options
    #116
    masculinist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,616 ✭✭✭masculinist


    An File wrote: »
    LOL.




    Straw men. Ad hominem. Character assassination. Association fallacy. Keep going dude, you'll have the full Bingo card of logical fallacies in a few minutes.

    I am sorry you are being so aggressive and judgemental. I cant do anything about your problem. You come in here to make a personal attack on me based upon one post out of hundreds and then start referring to ad hominems yourself. That is most perplexing. I wont sink to that level. Out of my 419 posts thats the only thing you can find , seriously ? And the 'trauma' of reading it has kept you awake at night since then


    Please apply your judgementalism practically and find a concrete example of misogyny on Boards.


  • Options
    #117
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,551 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    masculinist wrote: »
    Look at it from my point of view that I have seen no misogyny since joining boards.

    I would speculate that your point of view is the problem.



    Or your eyesight.


  • Options
    #118
    masculinist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,616 ✭✭✭masculinist


    osarusan wrote: »
    I would speculate that your point of view is the problem.

    Or your eyesight.

    Yes we all know now how clever at sound bites you are. So wheres the evidence ? I don't make claims without providing links to evidence , stats etc and as a result I have gotten into this funny habit of judging others by the same standard I hold myself to.


  • Options
    #119
    Penny Tration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭Penny Tration


    masculinist wrote: »

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92909053&postcount=1346

    what was that all about ? A female moderator using the word ''mansplaining'' .Double standard ? Permissiveness in language for women but not for men ?

    She is not a moderator of that forum. I don't agree with the term used, but saying 'a mod said it' isn't correct, as she was posting as an average, regular poster, not a mod.


  • Options
    #120
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    Jingle_Balls wrote: »
    She is not a moderator of that forum. I don't agree with the term used, but saying 'a mod said it' isn't correct, as she was posting as an average, regular poster, not a mod.

    As a previous poster said
    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    Use of the "Thanks" button is one indicator.
    ;-)


    If this is only about actioning actual misogyny thats a noble goal, but if its going to include stopping posters saying throwaway posts like "feminism is stupid" its worth pointing out that a fair few of the posters driving this issue are happy with sexist language as long as it their "side".
    In fact a bit of clarity from the AH mods on what is and isn't acceptable is needed particularly keeping in mind the previous forum guidelines that criticism of a belief rather than its believers is always acceptable.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    tritium
    Registered Users Posts: 7,420 ✭✭✭tritium


    oscarBravo wrote: »

    We're talking about misogyny now. That doesn't mean misandry isn't a problem, any more than racism isn't a problem. It's just not what we're talking about in this case.

    Misandry is so much of a problem that the latest thread on it in AH got closed quickly and everyone told to move it to humanities......

    Misogyny thread: 61 pages Misandry thread: given last rites after 5 pages

    Yeah, I can feel how much the issue is cared about


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement