Gender issues in After Hours - Your feedback requested.

Nodin

K-9 wrote: »

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

......and when somebody does call a poster "hysterical", I'm sure they can take it up with the offender.

Tombi!

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.

Cause you're thick!

Sorry :P

Look it's not an issue now. You're starting to understand which is a letter better than most people would go for.
In either case it's just got a lot of negative meanings for women. And even though you are oblivious (like so many others, both male and female) to the meaning and why it's offensive, you're learning so you're smarter than the ones that just dismiss it.

Millicent

Nodin wrote: »

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



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.


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.

I am not trying to hector you into changing your wording nor, can I see, is anyone else. What I do see is people explaining why it might potentially cause offence and you stalwartly refusing to acknowledge any point they might have. As is your prerogative; it just may not be the most useful stance to take in a discussion.

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.

Is your issue that the poster used the word "feelings" here? I fail to see how anyone posting in this thread can have anything other than a subjective opinion on the matter -- after all, reacting to how a forum is moderated is likely to based on experience and personal taste.

I honestly don't understand what specifically you are objecting to in the above quoted portion and I am trying to. Perhaps you could explain it to me?

Nodin wrote: »

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."

While there is a touch of hyperbole to that, can you honestly tell me, in all the time you've been on AH, that you have never encountered a poster with such archaic, old-fashioned sexist attitudes as to make you go "WTF?!" I have been shocked a couple of times to realise that people still thought in a way I thought was outdated and a thing of the past. Perhaps the statement is slightly exaggerated on Kooli's part -- I really don't see how that makes it "hysterical" in any way though.

Scioch

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Cause you're thick!

Sorry :P

Look it's not an issue now. You're starting to understand which is a letter better than most people would go for.
In either case it's just got a lot of negative meanings for women. And even though you are oblivious (like so many others, both male and female) to the meaning and why it's offensive, you're learning so you're smarter than the ones that just dismiss it.

There comes a time when you have to step back and try to re-evaluate things. I have been guilty of defending a point for the sake of defending a point and then changing my view afterwards and feeling a tool. Truth be told I gets so involved I forget if I even have a point a lot of the time.

Nodin

Millicent wrote: »

I am not trying to hector you into changing your wording nor, can I see, is anyone else. .

We must be reading different threads.

Millicent wrote: »

Is your issue that the poster used the word "feelings" here? I fail to see how anyone posting in this thread can have anything other than a subjective opinion on the matter -- after all, reacting to how a forum is moderated is likely to based on experience and personal taste.

I honestly don't understand what specifically you are objecting to in the above quoted portion and I am trying to. Perhaps you could explain it to me?.

Earlier you made a post where you gave examples of the various kinds of comments you find objectionable and why. Thats perfectly fair enough, and a rational basis for action. You could also express your emotions via these kind of comments, and thats fair enough. However expecting to come along, express "feelings" and not be ok with the idea that a thread relating to moderation in the busiest forum on boards try to some objective answer is again, nonsense.

We might as well rename the thing "squeakiest wheel" and follow whoever comes up with the most overwrought rants' advice.

Millicent wrote: »

While there is a touch of hyperbole to that, can you honestly tell me, in all the time you've been on AH, that you have never encountereda poster with such archaic, old-fashioned sexist attitudes as to make you go "WTF?!" I have been shocked a couple of times to realise that people still thought in a way I thought was outdated and a thing of the past. Perhaps the statement is slightly exaggerated on Kooli's part -- I really don't see how that makes it "hysterical" in any way though.

I've bolded the part I've a problem with there. Its the most used forum on boards, posters who come out with crap are frequently torn into yet its as if "feminism never existed"? Not the odd thread or poster but the whole shebang.....

Tombi!

Scioch wrote: »

There comes a time when you have to step back and try to re-evaluate things. I have been guilty of defending a point for the sake of defending a point and then changing my view afterwards and feeling a tool. Truth be told I gets so involved I forget if I even have a point a lot of the time.

True at times I do the same. Nothing wrong with that though. Everyone gets too involved at one time or another. But at least you can read back and take it all in. Maybe you did have a point that you can continue on but lost track of it.

Scioch

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Maybe you did have a point.

I'm still a bit dubious as to how big of an issue it actually is or whether the issue lies with the use or the view of the word. But I cant rightly say its not an issue if so many have experienced it as an issue.

Considering I wasnt aware of the sexism problem to begin with I know one can overlook how things affect others a lot I dont feel comfortable arguing something like this without taking a while to think it over.

Millicent

Nodin wrote: »

We must be reading different threads.

I do see people trying to explain why the word "hysterical" might have a weight not intended by the poster. I don't see that as hectoring though.

Nodin wrote: »

Earlier you made a post where you gave examples of the various kinds of comments you find objectionable and why. Thats perfectly fair enough, and a rational basis for action. You could also express your emotions via these kind of comments, and thats fair enough. However expecting to come along, express "feelings" and not be ok with the idea that a thread relating to moderation in the busiest forum on boards not try to some objective answer is again, nonsense.

We might as well rename the thing "squeakiest wheel" and follow whoever comes up with the most overwrought rants' advice.

Again, I'm reading Kooli's OP and follow-up now and I don't see what you describe. I see a poster who is annoyed, irritated, and perhaps a little defensive but nothing hysterical or overwrought within. Perhaps you're assigning it a tone it doesn't have; perhaps I am not seeing that same tone.

Can you point out what is hysterical or overwrought in either of the first two posts of Kooli's on the thread? I am truly, honestly trying to see it from your perspective here and I can't.

Nodin wrote: »

I've bolded the part I've a problem with there. Its the most used forum on boards, posters who come out with crap are frequently torn into yet its as if "feminism never existed"? Not the odd thread or poster but the whole shebang.....

What I read from Kooli's first post was that it was jarring to come onto AH and see that ideals and beliefs one takes for granted are not reflected there. I agree with that.

I don't agree that it's the whole forum or the majority of posters -- not in any way. But there are enough instances of it that it has felt pervasive or tacitly accepted to me in the past.

Nodin

Millicent wrote: »

Again, I'm reading Kooli's OP and follow-up now and I don't see what you describe. I see a poster who is annoyed, irritated, and perhaps a little defensive but nothing hysterical or overwrought within. Perhaps you're assigning it a tone it doesn't have; perhaps I am not seeing that same tone.

Can you point out what is hysterical or overwrought in either of the first two posts of Kooli's on the thread? I am truly, honestly trying to see it from your perspective here and I can't..

I've quoted the exact text I have a problem with already. On more than one occassion, in fact and only a few posts back.

Millicent wrote: »

.........I don't agree that it's the whole forum or the majority of posters -- not in any way. But there are enough instances of it that it has felt pervasive or tacitly accepted to me in the past.

So it isn't but it is. Wonderfully precise.

Elmidena

I think this is a right proper storm in a teacup, choosing to debate over the use of hysterical. (Btw I copped it years ago due to "hysterectomy"). I don't think it's a slur to women in any sense at all, personally. Most use it in the emotionally-overreactive meaning afaik, and not "your time of the month, shush woman!". Pretty certain Matt Bellamy didn't pen "Hysteria" from a woman's POV either.

I think in the following sentence "You're way too hysterical, take a breather and come back when you're calm" can easily be replaced with "you're way too emotionally invested, take a breather and come back when you're calm". The person who this is directed at is not going to be happy in either case and will meet with "calm down? Why do I need to calm down, I have a valid reason!" regardless of how it is phrased. IMO if the sentence was the one containing "hysterical" and the poster a woman, that's just reacting to buzzwords and saying it's sexist as a loophole. The bigger picture is to step back and realise it's just a few pixels on a screen at the end of the day.

If any of us were called hysterical chances are none of us would like it, but there's some that would take it as a step further than meaning "overreactive" for the sake of taking that step. I don't honestly see it as sexist and I wouldn't advocate its removal from people's posting styles if they were knowingly using it in the modern sense.

Sexism from both sexes' POV is a very real issue, but honestly throwing a hissy fit over a word is more detrimental to the cause than anything IMO. Some people are reading this thinking "huh, didn't know that" but I'd wager more are thinking "typical sensitivity" and don't learn anything other than it's a weapon in their arsenal now if they felt like some trolling. Personally, I don't think looking into etymology before posting any reply is worthwhile lest it injures someone's gender/beliefs etc. If the person takes offence then it can be explained on-thread it was a mistake instead of having to watch what words are ok to post first. Just my 2c.

Dyr

Millicent wrote: »

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.

There's a long history of some posters in this place resorting to appeals to emotion as a tactic to garner support and brow beat. If all you have to back your point up bluster and hyperbole then you should be called on it. Women are perfectly capable of rational debate, they don't need special set asides for their emotions, that's damn near sexist.

Millicent

Nodin wrote: »

I've quoted the exact text I have a problem with already. On more than one occassion, in fact and only a few posts back.

And here you are being dismissive despite the fact that I was attempting to understand your position.

I was asking you to clarify since your position was not clear to me. I see what you have quoted. I still do not see what your issue was or why you termed the poster "overwrought".

.........I don't agree that it's the whole forum or the majority of posters -- not in any way. But there are enough instances of it that it has felt pervasive or tacitly accepted to me in the past.

Nodin wrote: »

So it isn't but it is. Wonderfully precise.

What is imprecise about that? Are we only allowed to deal in absolutes now?

Millicent

Bambi wrote: »

There's a long history of some posters in this place resorting to appeals to emotion as a tactic to garner support and brow beat. If all you have to back your point up bluster and hyperbole then you should be called on it. Women are perfectly capable of rational debate, they don't need special set asides for their emotions, that's damn near sexist.

Is there? Can't say I've noticed that. Can you give an example or two of such appeals to emotion?

Nodin

Millicent wrote: »

And here you are being dismissive despite the fact that I was attempting to understand your position.

I was asking you to clarify since your position was not clear to me. I see what you have quoted. I still do not see what your issue was or why you termed the poster "overwrought".

I never termed the poster "overwrought".

I've explained my objections already.

Millicent wrote: »

What is imprecise about that?

"I don't agree that it's the whole forum or the majority of posters -- not in any way"

vs

"...But there are enough instances of it that it has felt pervasive or tacitly accepted to me in the past."

(my bold)

Wanting to have ones cake and eat it there, IMO.

Millicent wrote: »

Are we only allowed to deal in absolutes now?

I'd settle for a relatively rational coherent discussion based as much as possible on the facts.

Wibbs

oscarBravo wrote: »

From Wikipedia: I thought the uterus/hysteria connection was widely known; I'm surprised to learn that people don't understand how it's an unhelpful word to bring to a discussion on sexism and misogyny.

Just because I know the etymology of a word or phrase OB I don't immediately assume someone else does, nor do I assume that person is being insensitive or being a dick about it. On average I'd say thrice a week I see someone use a word and think "eh wut?" and not in a Spell Czechs "aren't I sooo clever" way either, because I find in about equal measure my own usage needs a rejig. Hell I got leapt on once because I used the word "histrionic" in a post, because a number of people, including some on here decrying the other aitch word, didn't have a clue about the etymology behind it. I've seen similar in other forums beyond Boards*. I saw one guy use the word "squaw" and was hopped on with claims it meant "vagina" in Navaho or somesuch ballsology. Nope. It means young woman, the vagina thing was a 70's invention and now widely believed as fact.

Words change as do their intent. If someone is not being a dick, then don't assume because of ones own notions that they are in fact being a dick.

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's not an invalid perspective, but try on the other point of view for a second: imagine you're a woman who's fed up of sexism and misogyny on an Internet forum; imagine similarly you're aware of the roots of the word "hysteria". Can you imagine how the use of the word is going to make you feel that the problem is getting worse instead of better?

Certainly, however if a goodly chunk of the population don't have the benefit of your understanding of the word origin, then said woman is making assumptions(unless it's a direct example of dickishness).

You've used the word "imagine" OB and that's a big part of the problem. Someone, somewhere, man, woman, dolphin is going to "imagine" the problem is worse rather than better, no matter how good or bad it is. You could have AH modded by the most inward intellectually truncated noddys that were kicked out of the Andrea Dworkin fan club for being too extreme and someone is going to take issue that enough isn't being done. Imagination =/= Reality.

So far(from a minority) we've had the actual issue of random sexist ballsology in AH overblown into rape culture and a forum where it felt feminism was never invented. TBH I pretty much dismiss the rape culture nonsense as well... nonsense in the case of AH. The non invented feminism is actually the one that grinds my gears more. It feels harder to dismiss as Kooli put it so eloquently, but again IMHO it's just as much nonsense as the other notion masquerading as an argument. It has just as little basis in actual observable fact in that forum, beyond the odd knuckledragger who 9 times outa 10 will be nuked by mods and other users. Don't get me wrong I value Kooli's post and opinion behind it and would fight tooth and nail that her opinion is heard, but equally I'll fight tooth and nail to be able to say "show me actual evidence or GTFO".

This is just my take here... I feel that After Hours has long suffered a feeling among some as being somehow sniffily "beneath Boards.ie". That it wasn't quite up to some standard or other. Even mods in other forums, admittedly and sadly myself on occasion, coming out with warnings like "take it to AH/This isn't AH" etc. That's part of the background and IMHO it's part of this current drive that takes things to a more extreme than required. For me the mods of AH do a fcuking sterling job of driving and managing the forum and have done for a long time too and it's made it one of the best forums on this entire website and clearly the most popular.

Millicent wrote: »

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!

Yea and the plain fact is that if you go back before this thread was dreamt up, you'd find a not dissimilar nippage going on by the mods. They make a huge difference to the running of that forum and have for quite a while. They were just adding the finer polish at this stage. Fair play too.

Millicent wrote: »

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:

True dat M:D Good oul Victorians. They reckoned "self abuse" was healthy for the ladies, but a source of weakness and moral turpitude for the gentlemen. Then the pendulum swung the other way for a time.

Elmidena wrote:

Sexism from both sexes' POV is a very real issue, but honestly throwing a hissy fit over a word is more detrimental to the cause than anything IMO. Some people are reading this thinking "huh, didn't know that" but I'd wager more are thinking "typical sensitivity" and don't learn anything other than it's a weapon in their arsenal now if they felt like some trolling. Personally, I don't think looking into etymology before posting any reply is worthwhile lest it injures someone's gender/beliefs etc. If the person takes offence then it can be explained on-thread it was a mistake instead of having to watch what words are ok to post first. Just my 2c.

Hammer meet nail, nail meet hammer. +1000

Bambi wrote:

There's a long history of some posters in this place resorting to appeals to emotion as a tactic to garner support and brow beat. If all you have to back your point up bluster and hyperbole then you should be called on it. Women are perfectly capable of rational debate, they don't need special set asides for their emotions, that's damn near sexist.

I'd go further and say it is sexist. Very much so. The amount of women I've met in my life who resort to the emotional guff is equal to the amount of men I've met in my life who resort to the aggressive guff and both are 9 times outa 10 coming from positions of weakness. Plus a little from column A and a little from column B. Both should be responded to with the same "evidence for your argument or GTFO". In fact I'd ask the question why it's considered valid to take the opinion of a woman being wound up emotionally in a more passive way, yet it's considered rightfully daft to take the opinion of a man who is equally wound up emotionally in an aggressive way. Both are being silly buggers fueled by emotion.

Millicent wrote:

Is there? Can't say I've noticed that. Can you give an example or two of such appeals to emotion?

It's normally couched in terms of "I feel that" or the royal "we feel that", or "my impression is" and in the majority of cases isn't backed up with any links/evidence of what they're stating as "fact". You were different M, you put out your stall and you did back your take up with links and examples. That makes a huge bloody difference. Then you have the emotive, like the rape culture comments. Oh let's use the light the blue touchpaper rattle the cages rape word for extra effect type stuff. Hyperbole and nonsense for the sake of it with damn near zero evidence for it's veracity in After Hours or any forum on Boards.ie

BTW I stand here asking for links/examples of this that were not actioned by moderators or ripped to pieces by the community of AH.




*I know... mad or what that they exist :eek: TBH not a patch on Boards though .

Wibbs

Elmidena wrote: »

I think this is a right proper storm in a teacup,.

I've thanked your post E, but it wasn't enough so with your leave QFT your main point.

Millicent

Nodin wrote: »

I never termed the poster "overwrought".

I've explained my objections already.

And I have said that I don't understand your objections. If you are not willing to further clarify, that's fine. It was just an attempt to understand you on my part.

Nodin wrote: »

"I don't agree that it's the whole forum or the majority of posters -- not in any way"

vs

"...But there are enough instances of it that it has felt pervasive or tacitly accepted to me in the past."

(my bold)

Wanting to have ones cake and eat it there, IMO.

Really? Well that's news to me. I was actually defending the majority of AH posters there by implying there was a minority who were problematic, something I have repeated throughout this thread. How that is "wanting to have one's cake and eat it" is a mystery to me.

Nodin wrote: »

I'd settle for a relatively rational coherent discussion based as much as possible on the facts.

Are you meaning to imply that anyone on the opposite side of the fence to you is not attempting to have a "relatively rational coherent discussion based as much as possible on the facts" or is that unintentional? Because your tone so far is dismissive of any stance you don't agree with -- "hysterical claims", "subjective rants" etc. and I don't think it's exactly conducive to discussing the matter. All it achieves is getting others' backs up.

Millicent

Wibbs wrote: »

It's normally couched in terms of "I feel that" or the royal "we feel that", or "my impression is" and in the majority of cases isn't backed up with any links/evidence of what they're stating as "fact". You were different M, you put out your stall and you did back your take up with links and examples. That makes a huge bloody difference. Then you have the emotive, like the rape culture comments. Oh let's use the light the blue touchpaper rattle the cages rape word for extra effect type stuff. Hyperbole and nonsense for the sake of it with damn near zero evidence for it's veracity in After Hours or any forum on Boards.ie

This is probably going off-topic a little but it reminded me of a conversation I had with a friend a while back. She absolutely refuses to put "I feel" into emails to men because she feels (lol!) that her point will be ignored because of that. She said to me, and I may be inclined to agree at this point (though I'm still mulling it over), that women are taught to frame their thoughts or opinions in emotion to be palatable while for men this is to show weakness.

In counselling, I was taught that "I feel" is the appropriate way to voice an opinion contrary to others' as this was not directly attacking the other person but taking responsibility for your own perception. Perhaps this is where some of the conflict comes from -- a learned difference in how one communicates based on gender? I dunno, just some thoughts.

Also, thank ye kindly. I do not take the same issue with the "rape culture" phraseology as for me, I understand it in the academic context and not as an inherent insult. I think the term sounds scarier than what it's meant to explain and that can put others off the ideology behind it without understanding it (not you specifically, btw). The theory has its merits and its faults but I don't think it is entirely useless in discussions such as these.

Nodin

Millicent wrote: »

Well that's news to me. I was actually defending the majority of AH posters there by implying there was a minority who were problematic, something I have repeated throughout this thread.

....yet then you say that the attitude was pervasive and tacitly accepted. Again, thats wanting to have the cake and eat it.

Millicent wrote: »

Are you meaning to imply that anyone on the opposite side of the fence to you is not attempting to have a "relatively rational coherent discussion based as much as possible on the facts" or is that unintentional? Because your tone so far is dismissive of any stance you don't agree with -- "hysterical claims", "subjective rants" etc. and I don't think it's exactly conducive to discussing the matter. All it achieves is getting others' backs up.

So far theres only been two posters with whom I've posted to disagree, the second and most recent of which seems to think that (a)"It's very jarring to go somewhere like AH and it's literally like feminism was never invented", which is such an overstatement it can be dismissed out of hand and (b)

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..

...doesn't like notion of a thread dealing with how to moderate the busiest forum on boards trying to come to "objective conclusion".

You haven't acknowledged that I never referred to the other poster as "overwrought", I note.

Millicent

Nodin wrote: »

....yet then you say that the attitude was pervasive and tacitly accepted. Again, thats wanting to have the cake and eat it.

It's not meant to be "cake and eat it". What I meant was that while it wasn't a majority of posters, the fact that it continued uncommented on might lead some, such as myself, to believe that it was accepted. Since this thread started, I'd view it as far less pervasive and think the modding has already gone a long way to deal with the feeling that that attitude was pervasive.

Nodin wrote: »

So far theres only been two posters with whom I've posted to disagree, the second and most recent of which seems to think that (a)"It's very jarring to go somewhere like AH and it's literally like feminism was never invented", which is such an overstatement it can be dismissed out of hand and (b)

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..

...doesn't like notion of a thread dealing with how to moderate the busiest forum on boards trying to come to "objective conclusion".

Okay, I see your issue now that you have explained it to me. I see where Kooli is coming from; I also see where you are coming from. I think you do her first post a disservice though by focussing on that one line. Her other points are, if nothing else, worthy of consideration IMO.

Nodin wrote: »

You haven't acknowledged that I never referred to the other poster as "overwrought", I note.

Fair enough. I apologise. I misinterpreted your "squeakiest wheel" position to be referring to Kooli.

K-9

Wibbs wrote: »

This is just my take here... I feel that After Hours has long suffered a feeling among some as being somehow sniffily "beneath Boards.ie". That it wasn't quite up to some standard or other. Even mods in other forums, admittedly and sadly myself on occasion, coming out with warnings like "take it to AH/This isn't AH" etc. That's part of the background and IMHO it's part of this current drive that takes things to a more extreme than required. For me the mods of AH do a fcuking sterling job of driving and managing the forum and have done for a long time too and it's made it one of the best forums on this entire website and clearly the most popular.

I'd use that in Politics when posters don't get the "higher" standards expected in politics, it isn't meant as a reflection on AH, sure I'm a regular user there myself and have 1'000's of posts to show for it. It's more a looser style of forum may suit you better like politics.ie for example thing.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Sharrow wrote: »

There are too many who will nit pick and have knee jerk reactions to certain terms
and will spend too much time on that.

Indeed.

Sharrow wrote: »

Nodin are you aware of the origin of the term hysterical and the history attached to it?

The Sweeper

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

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

'Hur hur hur are ya on da rag' <-- don't be that guy.
'Sure everyone knows women have sex and wake up the next day and say they were raped because they have guilt or something.' <-- don't be that guy.
'That's not how you make a sandwich.' <-- don't be that guy.
'Who let you drive?' <-- don't be that guy.
'Are Irish women uglier in general than European women?' <-- don't be that guy.
'There's this Irish female politician, and I reckon she must be rubbish because she's a fat minger'. <-- don't be that guy.
'Is she ridin'?' <-- don't be that guy.
'She'd be good enough for the ride.' <-- don't be that guy.
'I wouldn't ride her with yours.' <-- don't be that guy.
'All wimmin want to do is get engaged and ruin your life.' <-- don't be that guy.
'Wimmin in night clubs are all stuck up bitches.' <-- don't be that guy.

How fuckin difficult is it to just stop being a knob?

Kooli

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd go further and say it is sexist. Very much so. The amount of women I've met in my life who resort to the emotional guff is equal to the amount of men I've met in my life who resort to the aggressive guff and both are 9 times outa 10 coming from positions of weakness. Plus a little from column A and a little from column B. Both should be responded to with the same "evidence for your argument or GTFO". In fact I'd ask the question why it's considered valid to take the opinion of a woman being wound up emotionally in a more passive way, yet it's considered rightfully daft to take the opinion of a man who is equally wound up emotionally in an aggressive way. Both are being silly buggers fueled by emotion.

Once again I politely disagree.

I'm sorry that your own personal experiences with women have led to you see expressions of emotion as something that women 'resort to' out of 'weakness'. And I don't see 'fuelled by emotion' as a criticism.
In fact, I fail to see in your account how any expression of emotion can possibly be allowed by anyone without it being seen as an aggressive or manipulative act by someone who's been backed into a corner?

You may think this is a storm in a teacup, but a thread of 40 pages suggests to me that the women who are bothered by this will not be told to quieten down, that it's not a big deal. Maybe you need to start believing that it genuinely is a big deal for them? And that just because it isn't for you, doesn't mean they are overreacting/lying/whatever else you think this is.

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

If you really want me to trawl for links I will, but as I said in my first post I tend to stay away from AH in recent months for this very reason - or at least from any post that might contain such nonsense (like the recent one about being in the doghouse and nagging girlfriends). And I can think of nothing I would enjoy less than actually seeking out examples of misogyny.

The Sweeper's post, while not direct quotes, captures the tone of what I'm referring to. And I fail to see how anyone wouldn't recognise the kinds of sentiments referred to there.

Kooli

OK I went back and picked a random page in AH that came from before this thread was started (i.e. mid-July).

First thing I saw was a thread called 'Is my housemate a slag or a prostitute?' where the OP talked about his housemate being a 'fat easy bird' or possible a prostitute. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056701022
I haven't read this whole feedback thread so perhaps it's already been mentioned? I would presume it was, but seeing as people keep asking for 'evidence' of misogyny, perhaps it wasn't?

It was allowed to go for 12 pages. Lots of people offering to give her one, or suggesting the OP should give her one. A joke about posting it in the Ladies Lounge (hahahaha feminists would love this one, let's watch them get annoyed!!). Lots of hahahaah fat bitches are easy hahaha. They should be grateful hahahaha.
More choice quotes:

'If you're going to get a female housemate, make sure she's not fat. It defeats the purpose'

'I wouldn't touch her with yours tbh.'

'This woman is innocent until proven filthy.'

'Follow her when she goes to her room, wedge your foot in the door. Just say she dropped something. Gain access to the room. OP wins.'

'Fat birds make a lot of noise on top, that is all.'

Then when other posters (not mods as far as I'm aware) started to confront the misogyny, the replies went along the lines of talk of "the misogynistic conspiracy campaign"

"It's not my problem if you don't feel welcome"

"Sure women are always complaining. I don't mind if women don't have a sense of humour. I'm used to it now. Blame the likes of Maeve Higgins and her cake cooking for that."

In response to challenging the double standard of men = studs, women = sluts:
"A key that can open any lock is a master key.
A lock that can be opened by any key, is a pretty sh*tty lock."

"Can't we all just slag(happy accident) the fatty who can't keep her pants on?
you'd think she'd struggle to get them on in the 1st place.
good read, until wrecked by the same ol buzzkills"


And here's a post that I think is really important: "a disproportionate but vocal minority wants to create the impression of outrage where none exists"

The reason I think it's important is because those arguments are so difficult to have, and only a couple of very brave people (both women and men) stood up to the crap on that thread. I wouldn't have bothered because it seems to go nowhere, you get shouted down and jeered and talked at like you're crazy. And because I believe it's the mod's job.
So because it's just a few, it's so much easier for the mob to dismiss when it's plain to see by anyone that that thread was completely unacceptable (in my eyes anyway, am I wrong?)

The reason it was closed in the end seemed to be because it had run it's course, and the advice by the mod was 'respect those you live with'. No comment on the gender issues in the thread.

So am I mad thinking that AH is a forum that generally accepts sexism? Is there anyone who could read that thread and think there is a healthy, respectful attitude towards women in AH?

I really don't appreciate even having to read that whole thread. It's not something I would ever choose to read, and I am left feeling frustrated and upset. (yup, there I am throwing in emotions again getting all manipulative). But you asked for examples. There are 30 more from that thread if you want to have a look. I hope I'm done with this thread now.

Wibbs

Kooli wrote: »

The Sweeper's post, while not direct quotes, captures the tone of what I'm referring to. And I fail to see how anyone wouldn't recognise the kinds of sentiments referred to there.

I agree and have said similar myself earlier in the thread and there are almost no posters on this thread who would disagree with her encapsulation of the issues that sometimes pop up in AH that do need action and that includes the "whataboutmen" posters. The difference is TS gave examples of guff we've all seen, as did Millicent and a couple of others earlier in the thread. You didn't. Instead went on about how it seemed feminism was never invented in AH and referenced and supported other wildly and demonstrably inaccurate and mildly insulting stuff brought into the thread.

I'm sorry that your own personal experiences with women have led to you see expressions of emotion as something that women 'resort to' out of 'weakness'. And I don't see 'fuelled by emotion' as a criticism.

Maybe you missed the part where I said my default tends to be dismissive of both women and men who get spun up on emotion. If a woman or a man gets weepy and/or aggressive in a debate without good reasons why then it's clouding not adding to the debate. Again look at The Sweepers post. Clearly she's (rightfully)frustrated, it's a passionate post outlining her feelings of WTF about some of the mouthbreathers and their "opinions" that can crop up, backed up by sterling and recognisable examples of their output.

You may think this is a storm in a teacup, but a thread of 40 pages suggests to me that the women who are bothered by this will not be told to quieten down, that it's not a big deal. Maybe you need to start believing that it genuinely is a big deal for them? And that just because it isn't for you, doesn't mean they are overreacting/lying/whatever else you think this is.

No, I don't think the idea behind this thread is a storm in teacup, I was referring to the nitpicking over a word earlier in the thread. I referenced Elmidena when they said Sexism from both sexes' POV is a very real issue, but honestly throwing a hissy fit over a word is more detrimental to the cause than anything. And please let's not get into the stuff about women being told to quieten down, that's yet more hyperbole. Just as many if not more male posters have been asked to explain themselves and their take and one has been banned and then sitebanned for being a stupendous gobsheen on the thread. Anyone regardless of gonad position can post and have their take accepted, debated or not. There's no conspiracy.

I tend to stay away from AH in recent months for this very reason - or at least from any post that might contain such nonsense (like the recent one about being in the doghouse and nagging girlfriends).

That thread's a good example. Have a read of it with an open mind and it's pretty balanced with both men and women chiming in calling shenanigans or not. If you have a perception about something and expect to see it, then you will likely see what you expect. Doesn't make it reality mind you.

OK I went back and picked a random page in AH that came from before this thread was started (i.e. mid-July).

Emphasis mine. As TS points out this guff is out of order and that's why this thread came about to stamp out said guff and it is. The current thread you reference isn't in the same ballpark, it's not even the same sport. The problem is being fixed as we speak.

Kooli

Wibbs wrote: »

Emphasis mine. As TS points out this guff is out of order and that's why this thread came about to stamp out said guff and it is. The current thread you reference isn't in the same ballpark, it's not even the same sport. The problem is being fixed as we speak.

Hang on, you've pushed me and pushed me for examples and now I've given them. And I get a cursory response that 'yes it was out of order' when you have tried to dismiss all my points based on the fact that I didn't give examples. Why were you pushing for examples if you already knew that this was a problem and that there were good examples out there? Why did I have to go and read through that if I was going to get a 'yeah but...' response?

I'm really glad the problem is being fixed. But there seems to be some people who don't really think there was that big a problem.

And yes, that thread would have seemed to me like a time warp back to before feminism was invented. Yes some people on the thread challenged it, but they were not mods and they shouldn't have had to, and they were vastly in the minority.

Dravokivich

That joke is actually quite funny. Curious though, why the need to throw a dig at the poster by changing the name in the quote?

The Sweeper

MsAnneDrist wrote: »

This is the problem as I see it - everyone is saying don't do this and don't do that, lets have some examples of what's fine and what's not.

Yeah.

Yeah because people reasonably need an example of how not to be a dick about women.

It's so difficult to not be a dick about women.

Let me help. Here are some suggestions.

When a woman posts on After Hours, try not to tell her to get into the kitchen.

When a woman gives her point of view on a thread, try not to belittle it just because she's a woman.

When someone starts a thread about a contentious issue to do with women, try to resist the urge to generalise 50% of the human race dismissively in your reply.

When someone starts to talk about rape, try not to suggest that lots of women pretend they were raped when they weren't.

When discussing how to deal wtih a difficult home life situation, try not to suggest the OP punches, kicks, spits on, blasts with piss or is otherwise violent to women to fix it.

...do I need to continue? Do we need more instruction?

The Sweeper

MsAnneDrist wrote: »

All the stuff you said

1) needs to be moderated more harshly - and thanks to the AH mods for their assistance in this, because they're working really hard on it

2) this isn't about misandry, regardless of your username

3) there's a problem, whether or not you think there is: only a truly lost cause of a human being needs a checklist for when they're being an arsehole about women.