Gender issues in After Hours - Your feedback requested.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

efb

Off the cuff rubbish yes. Off the cuff witticisms to remain.

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

Do you think he shouldn't have been chastised for that?

Absolutely. Why? Because women say sexist things about men every single day on the radio and on TV, and no one ever gets fired over it. Equality?

Disparaging remarks about men are the order of the day on programs such as Loose Women and Sharon Osbourne, if you can fire somebody for misogyny then equally people should get fired for misandry. But as we all know, that doesn't tend to happen.

Hell, most advertising today makes men out to be complete idiots who couldn't boil a kettle without losing a leg, if that's allowed on TV then surely stating an opinion that women don't understand something should also be allowed?

It's not about defending people making bent remarks or just being jerks, it's simply about having one set of rules and applying it to everyone. You know, equality.

Hank Scorpio

serious business

Nodin

oscarBravo wrote: »

Clearly many of us feel something needs to change. It's not necessarily the charter that needs to change, so much as the prevailing attitude in the forum, and that requires a shift in focus on the part of the moderators - which is happening, and for which they should be congratulated (despite some people clearly being disturbed (but refusing to explain why) that the change is happening).

Some people feel that humour - specifically satire - may on occassion be targeted.

Overall though, you're to be congratulated on your concern for a forum in which you've never posted.

flyswatter

oscarBravo wrote: »

Do you think he shouldn't have been chastised for that? Do you think she should have been chastised for that?

Short answer: No and yes. Otherwise it's double standards.

RDM_83 again

Going back to that post mentioned by Morlar and SantryRed

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80417465&postcount=5

Can I ask as anybody actually personally offended by it (rather than tut-tutting about it, I mean the whole joke works because its an outmoded expectation.

Can you not see the problem* in infracting posts that are the second most thanked in a thread, probably more people clicked thanks on it than have been on the side of stricter moderation of sexism in this entire thread!
Yes a remark like that wouldn;t be suitable to a serious discussion or if it was dismissing a particular female poster, but it was in a thread about ****e in a stairwell and not directed at any poster.

* the problem being rather extreme enforcement on comments that the vast majority of users find either humorous or harmless.

ps since my other post was never replied to I'l assume things like the lock and key analogy are acceptable

Tombi!

Because it's a generalization of "women belong in the kitchen".

It's like saying "your mother" instead of "youre ma" and wondering why it got infracted.

Daveysil15

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Absolutely. Why? Because women say sexist things about men every single day on the radio and on TV, and no one ever gets fired over it. Equality?

Disparaging remarks about men are the order of the day on programs such as Loose Women and Sharon Osbourne, if you can fire somebody for misogyny then equally people should get fired for misandry. But as we all know, that doesn't tend to happen.

Hell, most advertising today makes men out to be complete idiots who couldn't boil a kettle without losing a leg, if that's allowed on TV then surely stating an opinion that women don't understand something should also be allowed?

It's not about defending people making bent remarks or just being jerks, it's simply about having one set of rules and applying it to everyone. You know, equality.

You're absolutely right. There is no equality. It's like there's one rule for men and another for women. Now I'm not condoning what Andy Gray said, but I think an apology would have sufficed. I don't think he deserved to lose his job over it. If anyone deserved to be fired it was Sharon Ozbourne. A man would simply never get away with joking about a woman having her genitals severed, unless it was in Iran maybe. As you said, there should be one set or rules for everyone.

RDM_83 again

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Because it's a generalization of "women belong in the kitchen".

It's like saying "your mother" instead of "youre ma" and wondering why it got infracted.

Its not the same at all as there is a specific mention of that term in the charter. Also its very clearly meant in a humorous manner (in fact I would argue that the joke wouldn't work in a society that was patriarchal) , its not the same as some poster saying "all those Irish woman are bitter wagons". I like the way you ignore the points I made about the post being popular with the actual users of forum and if anybody has actually been offended by it.

oscarBravo

Aquila wrote: »

Do you take on board certain posters views that AH will become sterile,when off the cuff remarks made in jest which AH is renowned for will be punished by infractions?

I can take on board that view. Can you take on board the view that "off the cuff remarks made in jest", when they are sexist, can be unwelcome?

There's a straw man argument that has pervaded much of this discussion that it's humour we want to get rid of, rather than sexism. If people can't figure out how to be funny without being sexist, maybe they're not as funny as they think they are.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Absolutely. Why? Because women say sexist things about men every single day on the radio and on TV, and no one ever gets fired over it. Equality?

Disparaging remarks about men are the order of the day on programs such as Loose Women and Sharon Osbourne, if you can fire somebody for misogyny then equally people should get fired for misandry. But as we all know, that doesn't tend to happen.

My solution to the dichotomy where one group of people get to be dicks towards another, but not vice versa, is to prevent either of them being dicks to the other. You seem to feel the world would be better served by more people being allowed to be dicks rather than fewer.

We'll agree to differ, I guess.

Nodin wrote: »

Some people feel that humour - specifically satire - may on occassion be targeted.

If the humour, or satire, falls into the category of tired old sexist memes, then yes: that "humour" will be targeted. The question is: why do you feel that After Hours will be a better forum if men are allowed to tell women to make them a sandwich at every inopportune moment?

Overall though, you're to be congratulated on your concern for a forum in which you've never posted.

Oh, I'm sorry. When I was asked to become an administrator of the site, I didn't realise that my duty of care to the website didn't extend to the forums I don't tend to frequent.

I can go and post something in AH now, if you feel it will somehow magically lend some validity to my opinions that you otherwise feel they lack.

flyswatter wrote: »

Short answer: No and yes. Otherwise it's double standards.

I agree. If anyone disagrees, and feels that they should have been treated differently, I'd like to know why.

Tombi!

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Its not the same at all as there is a specific mention of that term in the charter. Also its very clearly meant in a humorous manner (in fact I would argue that the joke wouldn't work in a society that was patriarchal) , its not the same as some poster saying "all those Irish woman are bitter wagons". I like the way you ignore the points I made about the post being popular with the actual users of forum and if anybody has actually been offended by it.

And "yore ma" is always meant to be getting a few laughs.
But if you want to be blunt about it:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=63135532#post63135532

I know at least one person would have been offended by it so it was infracted.
It doesn't matter how popular it is. It's not a thing of "well he broke the rules but he's liked, so we'll let him away with it". It's a thing of "stop being a muppet". Given the issues that's been raised in the last two months or so and the poster posting that, it was really, really stupid to post (or else he just decided to ignore the rules). In either case, it's well deserved.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

efb

less Roy Chubby Brown and Jim Davidson comics is always welcome.

oscarBravo

Aquila wrote: »

Of course but wouldn't such remarks be scrutinised under the existing fora rules and regulations?

Yes. Have a look at the post linked to by Brutal Deluxe above, particularly the second paragraph.

This is about a firming up of the enforcement of the rules. If you disagree with that shift in emphasis, please explain why.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

P. Breathnach

Nodin wrote: »

... Overall though, you're to be congratulated on your concern for a forum in which you've never posted.

I have joined in the discussion here, although I have never posted in AH. Am I now to infer that my opinions are irrelevant?

Because of the sort of things that interest me, it sometimes seems that AH might be a forum that would suit me. So I look in, read a few threads, and decide that the style of discussion (but not the topics discussed) alienates me. And the main thing about the style is the quality of the humour that so many defenders of the status quo seem to value: it's juvenile, and often nasty.

This thread is about tackling one of those nasty strands to deters me from participating in AH.

So am I, like oscarBravo, to be dismissed as having no standing in this debate? Or might it be a good thing if I came to see AH as a place where I might like to participate?

RDM_83 again

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

And "yore ma" is always meant to be getting a few laughs.
But if you want to be blunt about it:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=63135532#post63135532

I know at least one person would have been offended by it so it was infracted.
It doesn't matter how popular it is. It's not a thing of "well he broke the rules but he's liked, so we'll let him away with it". It's a thing of "stop being a muppet". Given the issues that's been raised in the last two months or so and the poster posting that, it was really, really stupid to post (or else he just decided to ignore the rules). In either case, it's well deserved.

I've read the charter but a "continually shifting line" is a hard thing to keep track of :rolleyes: , I'd argue that this post didn;t break the traditional 'rules' of after hours for the last X years, and that that charter post has only been very slightly altered to remove the word Blatant from it a number of weeks ago so a poster would be forgiven for thinking the older norms apply (making the Yore Ma analogy completely irrelevant).

In short the rules and charter haven;t actually changed however some comments that were previously acceptable have now changed, a fact that is not reflected in the forum charter (which also raises the issues were all the previous mods OK with sexism?). I also think that this thread is rather redundant as the new moderation practices are now in place anyway (and has been driven completely by a very small number of posters).

In terms of things being popular versus people being offended AH is literally full of things that are offensive and crass (and many many generalisations about groups) however that is the forum, I mean its full of threads about faeces and comments about "the flying spaghetti monster", is one (or maybe a handfull more) persons being offended by a remark that is at worst mildly sexist really a need to remove popular content from the forum.

oscarBravo

Aquila wrote: »

Red tape.
It can be simplified by something as simple as respect.
having respect for other us as individuals other users,mods,admins,owners.
We don't need to convolute whats already explicitly stated in the various charters of the site.
my two cents:)

Who's talking about convolution? Who wants to introduce red tape?

I completely agree with your second and third sentences. I think they sum up my perspective perfectly. So why do I feel like you're arguing against my perspective? Where do we part company?

Tombi!

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I've read the charter but a "continually shifting line" is a hard thing to keep track of :rolleyes: , I'd argue that this post didn;t break the traditional 'rules' of after hours for the last X years, and that that charter post has only been very slightly altered to remove the word Blatant from it a number of weeks ago so a poster would be forgiven for thinking the older norms apply (making the Yore Ma analogy completely irrelevant).

In short the rules and charter haven;t actually changed however some comments that were previously acceptable have now changed, a fact that is not reflected in the forum charter (which also raises the issues were all the previous mods OK with sexism?). I also think that this thread is rather redundant as the new moderation practices are now in place anyway (and has been driven completely by a very small number of posters).

In terms of things being popular versus people being offended AH is literally full of things that are offensive and crass (and many many generalisations about groups) however that is the forum, I mean its full of threads about faeces and comments about "the flying spaghetti monster", is one (or maybe a handfull more) persons being offended by a remark that is at worst mildly sexist really a need to remove popular content from the forum.

The older norms were still cover it. None of the mods were okay with sexism. It was moreso that untill recently nobody really cared much if someone posted a "Yore ma"/"get back in the kitchen" or whatever. More and more women are using AH so I'd wager it has to do with that.

The thread is far from redundant. It's here to find the fine line. Okay but if you get offended by that (or anything)... report it? Who's to say that people are actually listening to the mods and realize "okay, that's sexist, if I report it, something will get done about it"?

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

RDM_83 again

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

None of the mods were okay with sexism. It was moreso that untill recently nobody really cared much if someone posted a "Yore ma"/"get back in the kitchen" or whatever

Thats very disingenuous, if a remark is sexist its sexist if there was one woman using the forum or 500, the "yore ma/blast with piss" meme was repetitive and was so added to the charter, either the mods didn;t previously have a problem with "sexist"* comments or the "get back to the kitchen/other jokes based around generalisations" aren;t sexist but instead repetitive, if this is the case they should be covered by the From now on we'll be infracting for... section.

* added because I don;t think they were ok with sexism, however I personally don;t think the infracted post was sexist but it apparently is

Tombi!

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Thats very disingenuous, if a remark is sexist its sexist if there was one woman using the forum or 500, the "yore ma/blast with piss" meme was repetitive and was so added to the charter, either the mods didn;t previously have a problem with "sexist"* comments or the "get back to the kitchen/other jokes based around generalisations" aren;t sexist but instead repetitive, if this is the case they should be covered by the From now on we'll be infracting for... section.

* added because I don;t think they were ok with sexism, however I personally don;t think the infracted post was sexist but it apparently is

And the standard "on the rag/back in the kitchen/women are bitches/Irish women have too high standards" aren't repetative?

efb

Aquila wrote: »

I merely speak as a conduit for those who worry that AH may be sterilised somewhat by overzealous application of the charter.I ask the question does such an application go against the ethos of After hours,or must me re examine what After Hours is all about?

sterilised or just less immature and sexist?

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

RDM_83 again

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

And the standard "on the rag/back in the kitchen/women are bitches/Irish women have too high standards" aren't repetative?

Your completely ignoring my point, if these comments are sexist now, they were sexist previously, if there not

RDM_83 again wrote: »

"get back to the kitchen/other jokes based around generalisations" aren;t sexist but instead repetitive, if this is the case they should be covered by the From now on we'll be infracting for... section.

And btw I'm not trying to defend those stupid Irish Woman threads and comments (which incidentally are just as offensive to the vast majority of heterosexual Irish males in relationships ) or sexist comments directed to female posters, what I am more interested in is the willingness to remove posts that are popular and funny with a significant portion of the readers and poster on the forum (which is why I pointed out that the infracted post had 25 thanks, I don't think any genuinely sexist remark on AH would be that popular)

oscarBravo

Aquila wrote: »

I merely speak as a conduit for those who worry that AH may be sterilised somewhat by overzealous application of the charter.I ask the question does such an application go against the ethos of After hours,or must me re examine what After Hours is all about?

Fair question. I don't believe the ethos of AH requires sexism to work. I think AH can be a funny, irreverent, perhaps childish, certainly eccentric, always weird and regularly wonderful forum without sexism.

Am I wrong?

Nodin

oscarBravo wrote: »

If the humour, or satire, falls into the category of tired old sexist memes, then yes: that "humour" will be targeted. The question is: why do you feel that After Hours will be a better forum if men are allowed to tell women to make them a sandwich at every inopportune moment? Oh, I'm sorry. When I was asked to become an administrator of the site, I didn't realise that my duty of care to the website didn't extend to the forums I don't tend to frequent.

.......

You do know that it's possible to mock a position by adopting an extreme version of it? Satire - you may have heard of it.

Your ability to carry out your "duty of care" may well be limited in certain instances by a lack of understanding of the dynamics of the specific situation. A lack of understanding of humour and a tendency to respond to any querying of statements with a loaded, misrepresentative question would also be considered a disadvantage generally.

P. Breathnach wrote:

And the main thing about the style is the quality of the humour that so many defenders of the status quo seem to value: it's juvenile, and often nasty.

So we should abolish all "juvenile" and "nasty" humour from a forum you don't participate in, because you don't care for it....hmmmm.

Tombi!

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Your completely ignoring my point, if these comments are sexist now, they were sexist previously, if there not



And btw I'm not trying to defend those stupid Irish Woman threads and comments (which incidentally are just as offensive to the vast majority of heterosexual Irish males in relationships ) or sexist comments directed to female posters, what I am more interested in is the willingness to remove posts that are popular and funny with a significant portion of the readers and poster on the forum (which is why I pointed out that the infracted post had 25 thanks, I don't think any genuinely sexist remark on AH would be that popular)

AH changes, like any other forum. It was fine to post "yore ma" for so long. It was okay to post "get back in the kitchen" for so long too. Now it's not.

oscarBravo

RDM_83 again wrote: »

...I personally don;t think the infracted post was sexist but it apparently is

I'm quite honestly having a great deal of difficulty figuring out how you would go about not finding it sexist.