Gender issues in After Hours - Your feedback requested.

Nodin

oscarBravo wrote: »

You think that's a fair analogy for the post you're dismissing out of hand?

This?

It's very jarring to go somewhere like AH and it's literally like feminism was never invented.

Such is the level of overstatement in the above, yes indeed I do. And the notion that non-factual posts be used to mold moderation on a forum - even more so.

Tombi!

Scioch wrote: »

Until 10 minutes ago I have never encountered that problem. I still havent encountered it as we are discussing how it might be a problem even though it hasnt been.

I'd tell a woman she was being hysterical just as I'd tell a man he was being hysterical if I thought they were being hysterical. If a woman took real personal offence because of past meanings that were not implicit in what I said then I cant be held responsible.

Up untill now you cannot. You know how certain women will take it, especially if it's a about sexism or female issues. And you know, during this thread at least one woman took offense.

It's basically if I said "I'm getting bullied at work, can you help" and you respond with "man up and stop bitching". That's the male version of it.

oscarBravo

Nodin wrote: »

Such is the level of overstatement in the above, yes indeed I do.

Wow. That strikes me as a bizarre standard to which to hold an opinion.

But then, that's just my opinion, so all you have to do is say it's not true, and then you don't have to consider it. Neat trick.

And the notion that non-factual posts be used to mold moderation on a forum - even more so.

Yeah, it wouldn't do if we were to consider people's opinions or feelings on this topic, would it?

Scioch

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Up untill now you cannot. You know how certain women will take it, especially if it's a about sexism or female issues. And you know, during this thread at least one woman took offense.

It's basically if I said "I'm getting bullied at work, can you help" and you respond with "man up and stop bitching". That's the male version of it.

Its absolutely nothing of the sort.

I have never known the word to apply only to women, have never known it to actually upset anyone, hell I wasnt even aware of its history. Whatever discussion we have now I still dont see anyone who was upset about the that past meaning. Its all about how it may be viewed. There is and never was a problem other than a problem in relation to whether people should see it as a problem.

Tombi!

Scioch wrote: »

Its absolutely nothing of the sort.

I have never known the word to apply only to women, have never known it to actually upset anyone, hell I wasnt even aware of its history. Whatever discussion we have now I still dont see anyone who was upset about the that past meaning. Its all about how it may be viewed. There is and never was a problem other than a problem in relation to whether people should see it as a problem.

It's the exact same thing. You know now what it means and how it traditionally was a way to shut a woman up.

oscarBravo

Scioch wrote: »

There is and never was a problem other than a problem in relation to whether people should see it as a problem.

Yeah, we've had that argument used against the idea of moderating sexism more strictly: the argument that sexism isn't a problem, it's only people who see it as a problem that make it a problem.

This is a process of education. We want the people who don't think that there's a sexism problem in AH to understand that there is; while we're at it, it would be good if people understood the inflammatory nature of describing others as hysterical in a discussion on sexism.

Education is a Good Thing.

P. Breathnach

I have known the origins of hysterical for about 50 years, and have been aware that the word has a heavy load of connotation for just as long. So I don't often use the word, because I consider it unhelpful in constructive discourse.

I cannot honestly detach it both from its roots and from its established connotations, and claim to use it in a neutral way.

Those people who have just learned that the word has the potential to offend women should reflect on their use of the word: should they insist that their inaccurate understanding of the word be adopted as the new standard, or should they be more cautious about using it?

Millicent

Scioch wrote: »

Its used to shut down everyone's argument, I have never known the word to apply only to women. I've been dismissed as hysterical plenty of times.

That's fair enough if that's your experience. I have to say I cannot recall an instance of a man being told he's getting hysterical but I can recall plenty of women being told they are -- or getting "too emotional" or that she's irrational or illogical.

I do acknowledge that your experience is different -- I was just trying to point out that for some women, "hysterical" is used often as a way of dismissing their whole argument.

Scioch

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

It's the exact same thing. You know now what it means and how it traditionally was a way to shut a woman up.

Exact same thing as telling someone who's being bullied to harden the fcuk up ? Hardly. The word has a particular usage and is being used with that meaning. Used in any conversation with anyone it can be seen as telling them to shut the fcuk up or dismiss what they have to say.

But now its wrong and insensitive to use it in relation to women because in the past it was used only in relation to women ? No. The meaning has changed, I wont be held responsible for someone else getting upset because they view a word with its 100 year old meaning instead of its actual present day meaning and think it shouldnt be used because of that.

Tombi!

Scioch wrote: »

Exact same thing as telling someone who's being bullied to harden the fcuk up ? Hardly. The word has a particular usage and is being used with that meaning. Used in any conversation with anyone it can be seen as telling them to shut the fcuk up or dismiss what they have to say.

But now its wrong and insensitive to use it in relation to women because in the past it was used only in relation to women ? No. The meaning has changed, I wont be held responsible for someone else getting upset because they view a word with its 100 year old meaning instead of its actual present day meaning and think it shouldnt be used because of that.

No, not harden up. Anyone can do that. It's basically saying "grow a pair/man up/stop acting like a girl/etc".

In the past and still used today to dismiss a lot of arguments put forward by women. And regardless of what you like or think, it's still used that way today.

Millicent

Scioch wrote: »

Exact same thing as telling someone who's being bullied to harden the fcuk up ? Hardly. The word has a particular usage and is being used with that meaning. Used in any conversation with anyone it can be seen as telling them to shut the fcuk up or dismiss what they have to say.

But now its wrong and insensitive to use it in relation to women because in the past it was used only in relation to women ? No. The meaning has changed, I wont be held responsible for someone else getting upset because they view a word with its 100 year old meaning instead of its actual present day meaning and think it shouldnt be used because of that.

Do you know what hysterical means? From Wiki:

Hysteria, in its colloquial use, describes unmanageable emotional excesses

There is a long history of decrying women's arguments or perspectives as irrational because women were felt to be unable to control their emotions as a man did. Telling another poster that they are hysterical is telling them they can't control their own emotions. It's unhelpful, it's insulting and it's extremely dismissive.

Scioch

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yeah, we've had that argument used against the idea of moderating sexism more strictly: the argument that sexism isn't a problem, it's only people who see it as a problem that make it a problem.

This is a process of education. We want the people who don't think that there's a sexism problem in AH to understand that there is; while we're at it, it would be good if people understood the inflammatory nature of describing others as hysterical in a discussion on sexism.

Education is a Good Thing.

I accept that there is a problem with sexism but the use of the word hysteria isnt. I understand how it MAY be seen but as I said I give no time to it being called an issue.

I also think education is a good thing, as is evolving both socially and intellectually. We need to learn of the past and move on. Hanging onto old unused meaning of words as something to be offended about is ridiculous.

Nodin

oscarBravo wrote: »

Wow. That strikes me as a bizarre standard to which to hold an opinion.

But then, that's just my opinion, so all you have to do is say it's not true, and then you don't have to consider it. Neat trick. Yeah, it wouldn't do if we were to consider people's opinions or feelings on this topic, would it?

I was under the impression this thread had to do with moderation in AH - specifically with regards to the issue of sexism. If its been changed to some sort of emotional support and drum holding seminar, I don't recall getting the memo.

If you can tell me how a forum is supposed to be moderated in an fair and rational manner using a thread based on unchallenged, subjective emotional posts, I'd like to know.

Scioch

Millicent wrote: »

That's fair enough if that's your experience. I have to say I cannot recall an instance of a man being told he's getting hysterical but I can recall plenty of women being told they are -- or getting "too emotional" or that she's irrational or illogical.

I do acknowledge that your experience is different -- I was just trying to point out that for some women, "hysterical" is used often as a way of dismissing their whole argument.

Well am not aware that its a term still used as it once was or with a view of it in mind to dismiss a woman. Its like your telling me cheese is made from left over sausages. I find it hard to accept as I have literally never encountered it. I have always seen and used and seen others use it in meaning someone is getting emotional and losing the run of themselves. The meaning as it stands now in my view is a word that applies to anyone who fits that description.

Millicent

Just wanted to say well done to the mods, btw, on how AH is being run lately. Problematic posting has been nipped in the bud before it has even started and I was able to read a rape thread without losing all faith in humanity as Dr. B did not allow it to be derailed as they often are.

All that and the sky still isn't falling in on AH!

Tombi!

Scioch wrote: »

Well am not aware that its a term still used as it once was or with a view of it in mind to dismiss a woman.

But you in this thread, along with others telling you so and you seem to still believe "it's not true". I don't get why.

Millicent

Scioch wrote: »

Well am not aware that its a term still used as it once was or with a view of it in mind to dismiss a woman. Its like your telling me cheese is made from left over sausages. I find it hard to accept as I have literally never encountered it. I have always seen and used and seen others use it in meaning someone is getting emotional and losing the run of themselves. The meaning as it stands now in my view is a word that applies to anyone who fits that description.

But just because you haven't experienced it, is that reason enough to dismiss the idea that others, specifically women, have? I have seen it used a few times in the way I've described and it has the effect of either shutting down the conversation or making the female party second-guess herself and wonder if perhaps she was being too emotional. I just don't see it as a useful tool in argument, especially as it attacks the arguer not the argument.

Scioch

Millicent wrote: »

Telling another poster that they are hysterical is telling them they can't control their own emotions. It's unhelpful, it's insulting and it's extremely dismissive.

I agree 100%, and in my attempt to defend my point I glossed over the fact that I wouldnt be keen on using it at all. But I dont see it as something that has a more weighted meaning for a woman than a man. Its a dismissal of your argument more often than not online and its used the same for everyone. I dont understand why it should be seen to be more offensive to a woman when its meaning is the same for everyone.

Tombi!

Scioch wrote: »

I agree 100%, and in my attempt to defend my point I glossed over the fact that I wouldnt be keen on using it at all. But I dont see it as something that has a more weighted meaning for a woman than a man. Its a dismissal of your argument more often than not online and its used the same for everyone. I dont understand why it should be seen to be more offensive to a woman when its meaning is the same for everyone.

Because women are more "emotional".
That's the simple reason.

For a long, long time women were basically seen as "emotional, uneven wrecks". And a quick "now honey, you're being too hysterical, keep your emotions in check" would be a fine and widely accepted way to deal with a woman who had a different opinion.

Nodin

Millicent wrote: »

But just because you haven't experienced it, is that reason enough to dismiss the idea that others, specifically women, have? I have seen it used a few times in the way I've described and it has the effect of either shutting down the conversation or making the female party second-guess herself and wonder if perhaps she was being too emotional. I just don't see it as a useful tool in argument, especially as it attacks the arguer not the argument.

Odd, because the post in question attacked "hysterical claims" and made no such remarks as regards the poster.....

Millicent

Scioch wrote: »

I agree 100%, and in my attempt to defend my point I glossed over the fact that I wouldnt be keen on using it at all. But I dont see it as something that has a more weighted meaning for a woman than a man. Its a dismissal of your argument more often than not online and its used the same for everyone. I dont understand why it should be seen to be more offensive to a woman when its meaning is the same for everyone.

You have to take history into account. Take for example the "N" word. For some black people, the word is not offensive and it is a word they might use themselves; for others, it is a word that has been used negatively and has a whole host of connotations that white people might not be aware of.

Some words just have an inherent weight even outside of the speaker's intention. Whether the speaker intends it or not, for some people it's there regardless of intent.

As an aside on the history of hysteria, the idea of hysteria is the reason why the vibrator was invented before the vacuum cleaner. :eek:

Scioch

Nodin wrote: »

Odd, because the post in question attacked "hysterical claims" and made no such remarks as regards the poster.....

I'm getting confused

To clarify my position I dont think there is anything wrong with how nodin used the word. As he said it was in reference to a point which seemed to be a bit exaggerated.

Dismissing people outright as hysterical its just that. Dismissing them, regardless of gender its there same for both. Used to dismiss anyone just to do so isnt on.

Taking issue with the meaning of the word as something to be offended about when clearly not used in a manner to try dismiss or attack the poster. I just dont get.

Millicent

Nodin wrote: »

Odd, because the post in question attacked "hysterical claims" and made no such remarks as regards the poster.....

I have already stated, if you care to check the last page or two, that I wasn't accusing you of using it in that way. I was describing past experiences in that post to Scioch.

Actually, I reread your post:

Nodin wrote: »

I'm not seeing how a subjective series of unchallenged hysterical claims would aid moderating/running a forum in any way shape or form.

How is that to be read if not to dismiss Kooli's stance in its entirety?

P. Breathnach

Nodin wrote: »

Odd, because the post in question attacked "hysterical claims" and made no such remarks as regards the poster.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypallage

Nodin

P. Breathnach wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypallage

As I said earlier....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80358801&postcount=523

K-9

Nodin wrote: »

I was under the impression this thread had to do with moderation in AH - specifically with regards to the issue of sexism. If its been changed to some sort of emotional support and drum holding seminar, I don't recall getting the memo.

If you can tell me how a forum is supposed to be moderated in an fair and rational manner using a thread based on unchallenged, subjective emotional posts, I'd like to know.

I love the dramatic posts from both sides!

But emotions do come into it and how words and phrases can be interpreted otherwise little or nothing would be banned.

I can see why a female poster would take being called hysterical more personally than a male one.

Scioch

If the word is an issue its an issue. Beats me how I am only figuring it out now though.

Maybe I'm a bit thick.

P. Breathnach

Nodin wrote: »

As I said earlier....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80358801&postcount=523

That is sidestepping.

Millicent

Scioch wrote: »

If the word is an issue its an issue. Beats me how I am only figuring it out now though.

Maybe I'm a bit thick.

Nah, not at all. If you're taking what people are telling you about their experience on-board, I'd say that's the direct opposite of thick.

Nodin

Millicent wrote: »

How is that to be read if not to dismiss Kooli's stance in its entirety?

With regard to the portion of her post that I was responding to

I don't see the point of a thread that aims to test the water and see what people's feelings are, if the aim is to argue against people's
feelings.

Maybe this thread is actually supposed to be a debate where we
get to the 'right answer' and reach an 'objective conclusion'?? If so, that's
fine but that should have been made more clear and I wouldn't have joined in.

I do indeed reject it in its entirety. You can't moderate a forum based on a load of subjective rants. The idea is to come to some objective fact based conclusion. Given the nature of your posts earlier in the thread, I'm suprised that you don't agree.

And this is total nonsense as well.
"It's very jarring to go somewhere like AH and it's literally like feminism was never invented."

I wouldn't pussyfoot about hysterical overblown claims and flawed reasoning anywhere else, and I fail to see why it should be tolerated here. Nor will I be hectored into changing my phrasing from what I've been using consistently over the last 4 years.