Gender issues in After Hours - Your feedback requested.

Tombi!

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

I think it's because he sees it as a harmless joke that got a bunch of thanks rather the "obvious" sexism like "you're a woman, shut up with your opinion and make me dinner".

oscarBravo

Nodin wrote: »

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.

When the satire takes exactly the form of the thing being mocked, then it's not a particularly useful substitute for it. Satire that merely apes its subject gets old very quickly. Clever satire, like clever caricature, is not only a clear reflection of its subject matter, but clearly distinguishable from it.

If the "satire" you're working so hard to defend creates the same hostile atmosphere to those outside of the in-group as the material it's allegedly satirising, what do we gain by allowing it, other than pandering to the in-group?

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.

You'll forgive me if I don't consider your personal assessment of my sense of humour as my primary guiding principle in deciding what's best for boards.ie.

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.

Perhaps we should abolish nasty humour from a forum lots of people don't participate in, precisely because it's one of the main reasons people don't want to participate in that forum - or, for that matter, the entire website of which it is often seen as representative.

oscarBravo

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

I think it's because he sees it as a harmless joke that got a bunch of thanks rather the "obvious" sexism like "you're a woman, shut up with your opinion and make me dinner".

Which is fair enough, if you're an AH regular who gets the in-joke, and if you find that sort of thing funny.

If you're someone who's fairly new to this website and you find it hostile and off-putting, the site has quite likely lost someone who's a potentially valuable future member.

Now, the counterpoint is that by clamping down on this "satire" or "harmless joke", we're going to lose someone who's already arguably a valuable member. But I'm at a loss to understand why someone would stop being a member of the site just because they're not allowed to make sexist "jokes" anymore.

Tombi!

oscarBravo wrote: »

Which is fair enough, if you're an AH regular who gets the in-joke, and if you find that sort of thing funny.

If you're someone who's fairly new to this website and you find it hostile and off-putting, the site has quite likely lost someone who's a potentially valuable future member.

Now, the counterpoint is that by clamping down on this "satire" or "harmless joke", we're going to lose someone who's already arguably a valuable member. But I'm at a loss to understand why someone would stop being a member of the site just because they're not allowed to make sexist "jokes" anymore.

No, I agree completely (though I'm more of a lurker than regluar poster obviously). But in the last month or so, a lot of people realized (I hope) that some things shouldn't be joked about so often in AH.

Still though about the counter point: if you can't bare to have AH without getting to say things that offend... does Boards really want you here in the first place?

Nodin

oscarBravo wrote: »

When the satire takes exactly the form of the thing being mocked, then it's not a particularly useful substitute for it. Satire that merely apes its subject gets old very quickly. Clever satire, like clever caricature, is not only a clear reflection of its subject matter, but clearly distinguishable from it.

If the "satire" you're working so hard to defend creates the same hostile atmosphere to those outside of the in-group as the material it's allegedly satirising, what do we gain by allowing it, other than pandering to the in-group? You'll forgive me if I don't consider your personal assessment of my sense of humour as my primary guiding principle in deciding what's best for boards.ie..

Ideally your lack of a sense of humour and inability to comprehend others won't be the guiding principle in deciding "what's best for boards.ie" nor indeed your inflated opinion of the weight of your influence in the matter.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Perhaps we should abolish nasty humour from a forum lots of people don't participate in, precisely because it's one of the main reasons people don't want to participate in that forum - or, for that matter, the entire website of which it is often seen as representative.

Something somebody with no participation in the forum would suggest, and something which portrays their lack of understanding of the specifics of the place.

oscarBravo wrote: »

But I'm at a loss to understand why someone would stop being a member of the site just because they're not allowed to make sexist "jokes" anymore..

Who said it was sexist? You did, because you don't appreciate that it might be satire.

efb

Nodin wrote: »

Ideally your lack of a sense of humour and inability to comprehend others won't be the guiding principle in deciding "what best for boards.ie nor indeed your inflated opinion of the weight of your opinion in the matter.



Something somebody with no participation in the forum would suggest, and something which portrays their lack of understanding of the specifics of the place.



Who said it was sexist? You did, because you don't appreciate that it might be satire.

Some guys here like to think they're Not The Nine O'Clock News, they're not. A lot more like some BBC3 thing with Will Mellor...

Nodin

efb wrote: »

Some guys here like to think they're Not The Nine O'Clock News, they're not. A lot more like some BBC3 thing with Will Mellor...

O there'll always be that (I presume you mean crap efforts at humour). Plus tastes in humor range so widely, as many a notorious thread on comedians will show.

oscarBravo

Nodin wrote: »

Ideally your lack of a sense of humour and inability to comprehend others won't be the guiding principle in deciding "what best for boards.ie nor indeed your inflated opinion of the weight of your opinion in the matter.

Tell you what: come up with an infallible method for distinguishing which remarks are sexist, and which identically-worded remarks are funny, and come back to me.

As for deciding what's best for the website, that's pretty much my job description as an administrator.

Something somebody with no participation in the forum would suggest, and something which portrays their lack of understanding of the specifics of the place.

Explain those specifics to me, please.

Who said it was sexist? You did, because you don't appreciate that it might be satire.

Who said it was satire? You did.

See the problem here?

RDM_83 again

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

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.

So you've no problem with me considering then that the AH mods used to previously tolerate sexism :rolleyes:, or the remarks that are now being infracted are not in fact sexist. Because "Yore Ma" etc was banned because of it was over used, the current terms are being banned because they are "sexist".

It can;t be both ways, either the remarks are sexist, but were tolerated, ergo the Mods of AH previously had a tolerant attitude towards sexism, or the remarks aren't sexist and are now being infracted upon for overuse, in which case my point about them being covered by the From now on we'll be infracting for (which has not been amended to include them.

tl:dr If a remark is sexist, its always been sexist (within obvious time limits), a remark can not become sexist in a period of a month considering we're probably past even the 3rd wave of feminism

Nodin

oscarBravo wrote: »

Tell you what: come up with an infallible method for distinguishing which remarks are sexist, and which identically-worded remarks are funny, and come back to me.

There isn't one, nor did I suggest there was. Are you suggesting that all humour that might be misinterpreted be disposed of?

oscarBravo wrote: »

As for deciding what's best for the website, that's pretty much my job description as an administrator. .

You're an admin of "open source". Unless of course there was a ceremony with a more general oath and the donning of a coloured cloak.....

oscarBravo wrote: »

Explain those specifics to me, please. .

The place has a robust sense of humour. You wouldn't have to ask me, if you had much knowledge of the place.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Who said it was satire? You did.

See the problem here.

Thats why there tends to be private moderator forums, for discussion of what is and is not acceptable. Such leeway would be destroyed by overhasty adoption of black and white regulation.

Tombi!

RDM_83 again wrote: »

So you've no problem with me considering then that the AH mods used to previously tolerate sexism :rolleyes:, or the remarks that are now being infracted are not in fact sexist. Because "Yore Ma" etc was banned because of it was over used, the current terms are being banned because they are "sexist".

It can;t be both ways, either the remarks are sexist, but were tolerated, ergo the Mods of AH previously had a tolerant attitude towards sexism, or the remarks aren't sexist and are now being infracted upon for overuse, in which case my point about them being covered by the From now on we'll be infracting for (which has not been amended to include them.

tl:dr If a remark is sexist, its always been sexist (within obvious time limits), a remark can not become sexist in a period of a month considering we're probably past even the 3rd wave of feminism

No, I never said they tolerated it before. I also still think that the remark is sexist.
If anything, they just accepted it was the flow of AH. It's not tolerated by the mods. If the people get offended by it, then it's tolerated. Except now they're saying "okay, this is considered sexism" and in turn the mods agreed and want to find out what it and is not accepted.

Times change and now people consider the stereotype of women belonging in the kitchen to be sexist.

foxinsox

This thread seems to be getting fierce complicated now.

I like After Hours

If a post is sexist and offensive to me I report it giving my reason.

There will always be vast differences in sense of humours and sense of what is offensive to some.

If a post is stupid I just scroll on by.

I think the mods seem to have it all under control.

I think that if the forum becomes over moderated it will lose its' soul!

But I do agree that blatent sexist (to male or female) generalisations or accusations should not be tolerated in the forum.

Can't we all just get along?

P. Breathnach

Nodin wrote: »

... 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.

Well, it would be a small step in the right direction if points made with serious and constructive intent were not dealt with in a juvenile manner.

I think that I am on safe ground in saying that nastiness is generally not wanted in this forum, and that nastiness masquerading as humour is still nastiness, and thus unwelcome.

It's a bit more difficult to draw a line on juvenile humour. There is, at least, a quality-control issue to consider. AH is not solely the preserve of would-be comedians; the charter allows for serious discussions, and people do initiate them. Sometimes it is seriously inappropriate to try to inject humour into a thread.

Nodin

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Well, it would be a small step in the right direction if points made with serious and constructive intent were not dealt with in a juvenile manner..

It's not a "serious" forum. Serious issues may be discussed, but if you want moderated serious discussion, then theres a variety of other fora for that exact purpose. And thats somewhat outside the remit of this thread, I might add.

Tombi!

Nodin wrote: »

It's not a "serious" forum. Serious issues may be discussed, but if you want moderated serious discussion, then theres a variety of other fora for that exact purpose. And thats somewhat outside the remit of this thread, I might add.

Oh but it can have very serious discussions.

Just because it's not usually seen in the same light as a "serious" forum and we can have a laugh there, does not mean we cannot be serious with serious topics.

oscarBravo

Nodin wrote: »

You're an admin of "open source".

I'm an administrator of the site. Individual forums don't have administrators, they have moderators. I'm a moderator of the Open Source forum as well as an administrator of the website.

For someone who is keen to discount my opinion of how the site should be run, you're demonstrating a serious lack of understanding of how it works.

Unless of course there was a ceremony with a more general oath and the donning of a coloured cloak.....

...or maybe you're more interested in taking the piss than in actually determining what's best for the website.

The place has a robust sense of humour. You wouldn't have to ask me, if you had much knowledge of the place.

And a "robust" sense of humour can't be achieved without "satire" that's indistinguishable (to the untrained eye) from actual sexism?

OK, let's assume that someone who has never posted in After Hours isn't allowed to have an opinion as to whether the "humour" there is offensive. How is that consistent with welcoming new users to the forum?

Thats why there tends to be private moderator forums, for discussion of what is and is not acceptable. Such leeway would be destroyed by overhasty adoption of black and white regulation.

Happily, nobody is suggesting overhasty adoption of black and white regulation.

Nodin

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Oh but it can have very serious discussions.

Just because it's not usually seen in the same light as a "serious" forum and we can have a laugh there, does not mean we cannot be serious with serious topics.

...that is what I said...however its not de rigeur.

Nodin

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm an administrator of the site. Individual forums don't have administrators, they have moderators. I'm a moderator of the Open Source forum as well as an administrator of the website..

It's amazing how quietly tragedies can happen.

oscarBravo wrote: »

For someone who is keen to discount my opinion of how the site should be run, you're demonstrating a serious lack of understanding of how it works.
..

I'd say a lack of knowledge of what goes along with what title is rather less damaging than a non-particpant attempting to moderate a forum which they clearly dislike and never participate in, personally.

oscarBravo wrote: »

And a "robust" sense of humour can't be achieved without "satire" that's indistinguishable (to the untrained eye) from actual sexism?..

So you propose to remove all ambigous humour from the forum with which you're so concerned?

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, let's assume that someone who has never posted in After Hours isn't allowed to have an opinion as to whether the "humour" there is offensive. How is that consistent with welcoming new users to the forum? Happily, nobody is suggesting overhasty adoption of black and white regulation.

A forum is either to peoples taste or isn't. I feel no need to participate in the football forum, "ladies lounge", or the "gentlemans club".

While targeting blatant sexism and racism is perfectly fair enough, targeting humour makes no sense whatsoever.

RDM_83 again

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

No, I never said they tolerated it before. I also still think that the remark is sexist.
If anything, they just accepted it was the flow of AH. It's not tolerated by the mods. If the people get offended by it, then it's tolerated. Except now they're saying "okay, this is considered sexism" and in turn the mods agreed and want to find out what it and is not accepted.

Times change and now people consider the stereotype of women belonging in the kitchen to be sexist.

I'm sorry that argument is BS, accepting something "as the flow" is a tacit acceptance of it and for somebody arguing from what would be considered the 'respect for minorities side' is a rather surprising argument to make. I'm sure anybody involved in equality/discrimination issues will be able to explain ideas such as a "malign acceptance" and "nobody objected so its ok" are not valid.

The reason I mentioned the waves of feminism in my last post was to refute exactly this "times change" argument, as boards.ie is only about 10 years old, I didn;t think sexism was highly tolerated and acceptable in 2002.

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

I think it's because he sees it as a harmless joke that got a bunch of thanks rather the "obvious" sexism like "you're a woman, shut up with your opinion and make me dinner".

oscarBravo wrote: »

Which is fair enough, if you're an AH regular who gets the in-joke, and if you find that sort of thing funny.

If you're someone who's fairly new to this website and you find it hostile and off-putting, the site has quite likely lost someone who's a potentially valuable future member.

Now, the counterpoint is that by clamping down on this "satire" or "harmless joke", we're going to lose someone who's already arguably a valuable member. But I'm at a loss to understand why someone would stop being a member of the site just because they're not allowed to make sexist "jokes" anymore.[/QUOTE

I'd actually agree with these points, I actually find after hours a rather unpleasant forum stupid forum, but I read it because of its sometimes funny, I mean I normally spend most of my time looking at other forums and those are the ones I read for useful information or genuine debate (for the record I read the LL occasionally because it actually has interesting discussions about gender politics and other issues, I'm not some mouth breathing woman basher because I consider a slightly risque and potentially mildly offensive joke suitable to this forum).
I have a friend who comes out with some very offensive stuff on occasion and he once mentioned how he doesn't read it because its "full of scumbags", removing some very very mildly sexist jokes will not improve the nature of the forum for those it doesn't appeal to while instead reducing the humour. I also disagree that your likely loose a new member simply because they stumble on to AH first, I though busier its not that much more visible than any other of the many fora on here.

I mean there's a thread about "horny weather" on it at the minute with posts like this in it (no offense to poster meant just trying to illustrate its non serious nature)

mauzo wrote: »

It's 32 degrees here today.....

I need a ride

mauzo wrote: »

It's 32 degrees here today.....

I need a ride

eth0 wrote: »

I'll send you a few prostitute vouchers in the post

P. Breathnach

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

... Just because it's not usually seen in the same light as a "serious" forum and we can have a laugh there, does not mean we cannot be serious with serious topics.

Nodin wrote: »

...that is what I said...however its not de rigeur.

I don't believe that there is, or should be, open season for would-be comedians on every thread in AH. The DBAD guideline is general throughout boards, and includes serious-minded discussions in AH.

My name is URL

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Well, it would be a small step in the right direction if points made with serious and constructive intent were not dealt with in a juvenile manner.

I think that I am on safe ground in saying that nastiness is generally not wanted in this forum, and that nastiness masquerading as humour is still nastiness, and thus unwelcome.

It's a bit more difficult to draw a line on juvenile humour. There is, at least, a quality-control issue to consider. AH is not solely the preserve of would-be comedians; the charter allows for serious discussions, and people do initiate them. Sometimes it is seriously inappropriate to try to inject humour into a thread.

And most of the time when that happens, it is dealt with accordingly by mods.

You want what you feel to be 'humor' disallowed in threads which you feel to be 'serious' enough to do without it.

Do you not see how subjective that is? I don't think anyone would disagree with the thrust of what you are saying either... I mean who would say that they would like to see more of the stuff that they don't like seeing, or feel is objectionable?!

If every single post was vetted to make sure that nobody took offense from it then very little would be left intact, and what was; probably wouldn't be suited to AH either... but in one of the dedicated forums there already are for fully serious and informed discussion.

P. Breathnach

My name is URL wrote: »

... You want what you feel to be 'humor' disallowed in threads which you feel to be 'serious' enough to do without it....

It would be better if you did not attribute to me a position that I don't take.

oscarBravo

Nodin wrote: »

I'd say a lack of knowledge of what goes along with what title is rather less damaging than a non-particpant attempting to moderate a forum which they clearly dislike and never participate in, personally.

Do you have a sense of how many people don't become active members of boards.ie because of the off-colour "humour" you so deeply treasure on After Hours?

Do you care?

Do you understand how somebody who is entrusted with the best interests of the website might care about that more than someone who is offended at the idea that he's not allowed to pass off sexism as humour in one forum?

So you propose to remove all ambigous humour from the forum with which you're so concerned?

I propose to make boards.ie a more welcoming place for everyone to visit, even if it's at the expense of a few people whose world is imploding because they're not allowed to be dicks to women, even if it is (according to them) satirical.

A forum is either to peoples taste or isn't. I feel no need to participate in the football forum, "ladies lounge", or the "gentlemans club".

I'm not sure what bearing that has on the question of whether or not we should allow sexism on After Hours.

While targeting blatant sexism and racism is perfectly fair enough, targeting humour makes no sense whatsoever.

Happily, we're not targetting humour. We're targetting sexism.

I've made the point that "humour" that is indistinguishable from sexism is as damaging as sexism, for reasons that really ought to be obvious. You seem to feel that After Hours would be irrevocably damaged by removing such humour. Your arguments in favour of this position, from what I can tell, are almost entirely ad hominem.

Since I don't have a sense of humour, or any right to have an opinion on the subject, perhaps you'd care to read back through the thread and find someone who shares my perspective, but who also posts in After Hours and who has, in your esteemed judgement, a sense of humour, and explain to them instead of me why it's vitally important that we continue to allow sexism in After Hours, albeit dressed in satire's clothing.

RDM_83 again

Oscarbravo could you answer the question, do you personally consider that the AH mods were previously complicit in leaving sexist posts unmoderated in AH, my feeling is that you do however I may be misrepresenting you. If you do not feel that this is the case can you explain how many (fairly longtime) users feel that it is acceptable to post material that you consider obviously sexist in AH.
I'm posting this question directly at you because you previously quoted one of my posts but avoided that question.

Dyr

I presume everyone has seen this outrage in AH:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80427707&postcount=542


I am outraged. I'm outraged on behalf of everyone else as anyone who is not outraged by this so called "humour" is obviously sick. I am outraged that the mods are not outraged. I am outraged on behalf of the silent majority who don't go near AH in case they're outraged by such commments. How could someone make such a comment, knowing the history of the nautical industry for kidnap and rape? :mad:

I demand that we all trot around on our high horses over this for at least the next three pages :mad:

Nodin

oscarBravo wrote: »

Do you have a sense of how many people don't become active members of boards.ie because of the off-colour "humour" you so deeply treasure on After Hours?.

Do you? You are the "Admin", apparently. Do you think that they would outnumber those who prefer it that way? Have you quantified data to that effect? Why would one forum "put off" anyone?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Do you understand how (......)clothing.

It's all a bit much coming from somebody who once said he couldn't moderate the forum in question. A tacit admission of "doesn't get it", essentially.

Its also odd, because I'm fairly sure - no, absolutely sure - that I haven't suggested anyone be allowed "to be dicks to women", or that we "continue to allow sexism in After Hours". Perhaps one of the first steps on making boards a "more welcoming place" would be to stop misrepresenting peoples positions.

K-9

Yeah Chloroform is still as funny as it was 10 years ago.

coffee_cake

i reported that post because it was fcuking irritating, which is why "yore ma" eventually got banned, as did grammar nazi comments, excessive flirting, and other things the posters of the forum have started to find very irritating. this is just another thing on that list. maybe some people find them hilarious (and i know i come close to the line with some grammar nazi stuff), but a lot of people don't. so we adjust to make sure the majority get along and have fun posting.

edit: i mean the worst things/dinner not made one

RDM_83 again

So this is acceptable

MagicMarker wrote: »

I'm not surprised the church are against abortion, it would mean less kids to molest.

While IMO much milder comments are red or yellow carded, if they generalise females, Can't see how thats not blatant double standards.

And ps I reported the post this morning to see if it would be actioned in a few hours, it wasn't so I'm led to believe this standard of posting is acceptable.

Dyr

RDM_83 again wrote: »

So this is acceptable



While IMO much milder comments are red or yellow carded, if they generalise females, Can't see how thats not blatant double standards.

And ps I reported the post this morning to see if it would be actioned in a few hours, it wasn't so I'm led to believe this standard of posting is acceptable.

Charlie churches don't have protected status.