Gender issues in After Hours - Your feedback requested.

Sea Filly

Sharrow wrote: »

That doesn't mean they have to be tolerated here.

Well, not everyone is going to be bothered by them. So how would you deal with it?

Morag

The AH mods have already stated there is an issue and they are looking to tackle it.

looksee

Sharrow wrote: »

There's already a private forum for that.

How is anyone supposed to know about a private forum, do any of the posters we're talking about get directed to it? How is that a solution to anything?

CodyJarrett

Sharrow wrote: »

The AH mods have already stated there is an issue and they are looking to tackle it.

Yes, an issue on both sides of the divide, which brings me nicely to:

Sea Filly wrote: »

In fairness, they don't come across as smart there, the bitterness still tends to seep through.

Ah, "bitterness" - a favoured expression among many on AH who like to stir gender issue based threads up by attacking posters rather than their posts and as I said earlier: such users will quite often throw the 'ah you're just bitter from past relationships' card at whomever's views that they don't happen to agree with and, from what I can tell, they have always gone unmoderated for it. I doubt male users would, were similar comments to go in the other direction and so, would be nice to see that type of snide posting style given the boot.

dr.bollocko

Discretion is advisable when posters are more sinned against than sinner.

Sea Filly

CodyJarrett wrote: »

Yes, an issue on both sides of the divide, which brings me nicely to:



Ah, "bitterness" - a favoured expression among many on AH who like to stir gender issue based threads up by attacking posters rather than their posts and as I said earlier: such users will quite often throw the 'ah you're just bitter from past relationships' card at whomever's views that they don't happen to agree with and, from what I can tell, they have always gone unmoderated for it. I doubt male users would, were similar comments to go in the other direction and so, would be nice to see that type of snide posting style given the boot.

I don't have a clue what people are bitter about, but for me at least when I say someone comes across as bitter, I genuinely think their posts drip with it. I could be wrong of course, but I'm not using it to fob off what they are saying. If you are constantly complaining about something and never miss an opportunity to do so, something is up, clearly.

Eve_Dublin

CodyJarrett wrote: »

Ah, "bitterness" - a favoured expression among many on AH who like to stir gender issue based threads up by attacking posters rather than their posts and as I said earlier: such users will quite often throw the

'ah you're just bitter from past relationships'

card at whomever's views that they don't happen to agree with and, from what I can tell, they have always gone unmoderated for it. I doubt male users would, were similar comments to go in the other direction and so, would be nice to see that type of snide posting style given the boot.

I've had this said to me on countless occasions in AH by male posters.

CodyJarrett

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Discretion is advisable when posters are more sinned against than sinner.

Oh, so it's been policy not to moderate such users? You do realise that that is eh, sexist?

In any case, it's simply not true that the users I referred to were "more sinned against than sinner" as many of those users that I referred to did so with their first post on threads, before anyone could get a chance to 'sin' against them and it was and is quite often that way. Tell me though, is there some reason why these "more sinned against" users can't just use the report button like everyone else and have to resort to personal attacks instead?

You started this thread by saying you (and your fellow mods) would like to hear from both sides of divide on this. Yet, when you hear a complaint from a guy saying that women calling men misogynists and proclaiming that their opinions are just down to them harbouring bitterness from past relationships, is something which they wish would stop, you don't then respond to that feedback and say that you will take that on board. No, you come on and make excuses for them doing that, thereby implying that it can continue as far as your concerned and such women can work away throwing the 'bitter misogynist' card at men whenever they so wish. Nice work.

Think it's becoming all too clear why this thread was started here and not in After Hours where it belongs.

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

I've had this said to me on countless occasions in AH by male posters.

I have actually seen it happen to you and hope you reported it - it shouldn't be tolerated, from either sex.

It is my contention, that if the 'Attack the post and not the poster' rule was more vigorously enforced on gender issue threads, then they wouldn't descend in the chaotic mess anywhere near as often, than they invariably do.

dr.bollocko

CodyJarrett wrote: »

Oh, so it's been policy not to moderate such users? You do realise that that is eh, sexist?

Those words you're trying to put in my mouth don't fit so well.

Micky Dolenz

CodyJarrett wrote: »

Oh, so it's been policy not to moderate such users? You do realise that that is eh, sexist?

In any case, it's simply not true that the users I referred to were "more sinned against than sinner" as many of those users that I referred to did so with their first post on threads, before anyone could get a chance to 'sin' against them and it was and is quite often that way. Tell me though, is there some reason why these "more sinned against" users can't just use the report button like everyone else and have to resort to personal attacks instead?

You started this thread by saying you (and your fellow mods) would like to hear from both sides of divide on this. Yet, when you hear a complaint from a guy saying that women calling men misogynists and proclaiming that their opinions are just down to them harbouring bitterness from past relationships, is something which they wish would stop, you don't then respond to that feedback and say that you will take that on board. No, you come on and make excuses for them doing that, thereby implying that it can continue as far as your concerned and such women can work away throwing the 'bitter misogynist' card at men whenever they so wish. Nice work.

When did you get that from?


The only thing you seem to want to do is muddy the water.

CodyJarrett

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Those words you're trying to put in my mouth don't fit so well.

They are your words.

I brought up an issue that affects men regularly in such threads and all you did was make excuses for them and say they are doing so because they are "more sinned against". No comment on how that is going to moderated in the future and so implying that it was going to be 'as you were' in that regard.

If men were to post on those threads and constantly say to women that their opinions were not to be given heed, as they are just bitter misandrists that have clearly had "issues" with men in their personal lives, no way would it be tolerated to the degree that is when women do it.

I'm sorry you don't like how those words feel in your mouth, but you made the excuses for them, not me.

As I said, the "more sinned against" do have access to the report button, do they not and so there is no reason for letting them get away with attacking the poster instead of the post, It should not be tolerated (from either sex).

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

When did you get that from?

The only thing you seem to want to do is muddy the water.

Muddy the water my arse.

I am giving Feedback on something which regularly occurs on such threads. The behavior was defended by a mod by saying something akin to: "Ah sure ya can hardly blame 'em now for resorting to personal attacks, don't they put up with a lot of sexism afterall and so yeah, we turn a blind eye to them when they do that".

P. Breathnach

CodyJarrett wrote: »

...
I have actually seen it happen to you and hope you reported it - it shouldn't be tolerated, from either sex....

You have seen it; you give the impression that you think it was wrong; I hope you reported such posts.

Micky Dolenz

CodyJarrett wrote: »

Muddy the water my arse.

I am giving Feedback on something which regularly occurs on such threads. The behavior was defended by a mod by saying something akin to: "Ah sure ya can hardly blame 'em now for resorting to personal attacks, don't they put up with a lot of sexism afterall and so yeah, we turn a blind eye to them when they do that".

Classic case of whataboutery, It always comes up to try and deflect attention away from what the real issue is. We've seen it many times before in different forms and no doubt you've seen it your self.

Sexism against men on AH is not a systematic pattern, it may happen in isolation and will be dealt with appropriately.

Just to make this crystal clear. Sexism against either gender is being tackled.

dr.bollocko

Nowhere at all in my comment did I state that x would be ignored or y was OK but Z isn't. That all came from your head and not my keyboard.

CodyJarrett

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Classic case of whataboutery, It always comes up to try and deflect attention away from what the real issue is. We've seen it many times before in different forms and no doubt you've seen it your self.

"Whataboutery" are you serious?? The "real issue" ??

Hmm, I didn't see anything in the OP saying that this was just really about sexism when it affects women. Sounds to me like you haven't read the OP there MD.

We're discussing sexism and that involves both sexes.

Sexism against men on AH is not a systematic pattern, it may happen in isolation and will be dealt with appropriately.

"Isolation" ?? - open your eyes.

"Grow a pair", "Man-up", "Misogynist", "You're just bitter", "You clearly have issues with women" etc etc etc - are all things said in those gender issue threads, and it causes problems and that is why this thread was started, so that they wouldn't cause mods as much problems as they usually do, right?

Unless you're saying that there was another reason that the thread was started and that the OP was being disingenuous by suggesting it was an issue for both sexes and that he (and AH mods) were interested in hearing views from both sides.

Just to make this crystal clear. Sexism against either gender is being tackled.

I'll believe it when I see it. So far on this thread, looks like when it happens, excuses will made for them.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Nowhere at all in my comment did I state that x would be ignored or y was OK but Z isn't. That all came from your head and not my keyboard.

I never said that you said it, I said you implied it.

I put a specific point to you about women getting away with being personally abusive on those threads by attacking men rather than the content of their posts and you replied with:

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Discretion is advisable when posters are more sinned against than sinner.

This is clearly making excuses for that behavior. The "discretion" meant moderator discretion and so you're saying that is advised that moderators give dicreation to users who post in the way I complained about, as they are "more sinned against".

You didn't follow that up by saying that that discretion would no longer be afforded to such users now that the charter has been amended and so impled that , as it was fine before, it would be fine in the future also, which is as good as saying x will be allowed, when in follows y.

dr.bollocko

If anyone is personally abusive report the posts and they will get dealt with. That much is obvious. We're trying to close the gap here. That's not going to be ignored.

Everything outside of that is making a leap into a scenario where men as a gender are constantly under fire in AH and we callous mods are going to ignore it.

So we'll put a pin in that for now because it really is whataboutery. It's just a refusal to see an obvious point and the only reason I can see you doing this is to muddy the waters yet further. So I shall not indulge it any further.

Micky Dolenz

CodyJarrett wrote: »

"Whataboutery" are you serious?? The "real issue" ??

Hmm, I didn't see anything in the OP saying that this was just really about sexism when it affects women. Sounds to me like you haven't read the OP there MD.

We're discussing sexism and that involves both sexes.

I am deadly serious. And yes I understand what the real issue is. Do you think dr.b on a whim started this thread? It was discussed at length before it was posted, so yes I have read it

CodyJarrett wrote: »

"Isolation" ?? - open your eyes.

My eyes are wide open. While there is sexism on both sides, the split is completely unbalanced. If you don't agree with that, then either you don't read AH or you simply can't see it. Our aim is to highlight and make people see.

CodyJarrett wrote: »

"Grow a pair", "Man-up", "Misogynist", "You're just bitter", "You clearly have issues with women" etc etc etc - are all things said in those gender issue threads, and it causes problems and that is why this thread was started, so that they wouldn't cause mods as much problems as they usually do, right?

Unless you're saying that there was another reason that the thread was started and that the OP was being disingenuous by suggesting it was an issue for both sexes and that he (and AH mods) were interested in hearing views from both sides.

What are "those gender issue threads"?

We can agree on the use and overuse of buzz words.
I'll refer you to an earlier post of mine. You can add your phrases to the list.

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Using terms like "rape culture" and "feminazism" and all the other terms are counter productive in my opinion. It only serves for trenches to be be dug deeper, it creates a divide between posters.

It would be brilliant if we could discuss the topic without the sensational sound bites.

CodyJarrett wrote: »

I'll believe it when I see it. So far on this thread, looks like when it happens, excuses will made for them.

There are no excuses made, it you wish to give real examples, they will be looked at.

Our aim is to close the divide, not make it bigger. We are either part of the solution or part of the problem.

If you see sexism in any form, PM anyone of the team for it to be looked at and treated seriously.

Esoteric_

Just wanted to give some more positive feedback, because this thread seems to be causing a lot of debate/argument -

A few people (myself included) made reference to the threads about rape, and the disgusting comments that inevitably end up being posted by wannabe-trolls in threads about rape.

Since this feedback thread has been posted, the mods seem very quick off the mark in banning/infracting extremely offensive users, which is evident in the recently locked thread on murder/rape connotations.

So yeah. Fair play guys. I don't envy you the job, but it's done well.

RDM_83 again

My opinion as a regular reader and irregular poster in the forum

In relation to the thread sticky relating to sexism

Sexism is not tolerated.
Sexism or hatred towards either gender will not be tolerated.

"In implementing this rule we as moderators are faced with trying to define a line which is continually shifting. ."

I understand the difficulties however at present this says absolutely nothing about what are at present specific undesired/infractable/banning offences e.g it could at least say No jokes about sexual assault (and I think its actually in that male rape thread this is stated outright so I don;t understand why its not in the sticky), as well as generalizations about either gender will not be tolerated.

In relation to sexism itself I don't see after hours as a particularly well balanced place in relation to anything, now as mods have stated this is an issue so there's no point in arguing against the interpretation (though I would tend to agree with CodyJarrett's points), I would be interested in how the rules will apply considering the level of sarcasm/slagging and off color jokes that goes on there anyway.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

I don't accept that the largely male audience in AH gets a hard time with sexism either.

I would also consider that statements like this while they may be correct are dismissive and are not conductive to a reasonable and open discussion (an important aspect of discussion on discrimination etc is that one does not have the privilege to speak for others point of view!) in particular in relation to the OP which states

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Sexism and dismissive attitudes seem to be among the highest complaints. Again, this is on both sides so we want to hear from both sides.

I've no problem with sexism being removed from after hours however if its going to be, I would feel that it should be done in manner that is consistent,transparent with , threads like this are not read by the vast majority of users a good example of an approach/discusion that is not driven by a very select group of posters and mods would be the "A discussion on the rules." open sticky in the politics forum.

CodyJarrett

dr.bollocko wrote: »

If anyone is personally abusive report the posts and they will get dealt with. That much is obvious. We're trying to close the gap here. That's not going to be ignored.

Everything outside of that is making a leap into a scenario where men as a gender are constantly under fire in AH and we callous mods are going to ignore it.

Wow there, I never said nor implied that men were constantly under fire. Words being put into my mouth doesn't feel too good either there Dr.

For days now this thread has been discussing how women can be subjected to sexism on AH and just how users think that can be better moderated going forward. There have been examples given which I have wholeheartedly agreed with and some which I obviously don't (my Miriam joke being used as an example of just why).

Then I bring up the behavior of certain women and how that should be kept an eye on also as they can attack men on those threads for very little, other than they don't like their opinions and get abusive with them quite quickly (bringing their personal lives into it, throwing around sexist remarks like 'grow-a-pair', 'man-up' etc etc) and all of sudden it's: "Wow there now, that's whataboutery!"

"Whataboutery"? Why? Because now I am talking about men?

I seen nothing in the OP about only being able to discuss how such threads adversely affect women, but I guess that really was the "real issue" here after-all. Which is I guess why no link was posted in AH to this thread. If you (and those who pushed for this new stance on sexism) really wanted opinions from regulars, there would have been one.

So we'll put a pin in that for now because it really is whataboutery. It's just a refusal to see an obvious point and the only reason I can see you doing this is to muddy the waters yet further. So I shall not indulge it any further.

Laughable.

Can you seriously not see how this comes across? That you (and your fellow mods) are obviously wide open to discussing how women are adversely affected on such threads but yet not at all interested in discussing just how men might be too? Cause, that is precisely what you are doing when you throw the 'whataboutery' card around when the discussion changes from one sex to the other.

Honestly, the level of group-think in the upper echelons of Boards gets greater and greater by the year.

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

I am deadly serious. And yes I understand what the real issue is. Do you think dr.b on a whim started this thread? It was discussed at length before it was posted, so yes I have read it.

I have already given my opinion on just why I feel the thread was started.

My eyes are wide open. While there is sexism on both sides, the split is completely unbalanced. If you don't agree with that, then either you don't read AH or you simply can't see it. Our aim is to highlight and make people see.

What makes you think I wouldn't agree with that, of course I do. Which was why I said from the start that I felt AH mods have always moderated sexism very well (how it affects women at least). If that didn't happen and it wasn't mostly men guilty of it, then my comments about moderation would not make any sense, as there would not have been anything to moderate with regards to sexist abuse.

The problem I have with all this however, is the impression being given (which happens every year or so) that nasty sexist comments posted by men are being tolerated in After Hours and that is just not the case at all. I am appalled that moderators of AH don't defend past mods more, because that has never been the case. Men on the forum have never gone unmoderated if they abused women and/or disrespected them to the degree that is being bandied about here. It's bull to suggest that it has or is anything like the problem that some would surely delight in having us believe.

What are "those gender issue threads"?

These threads:

dr.bollocko wrote: »

It has been noted that threads involving gender issues in AH are creating problems for some of our posters.

We can agree on the use and overuse of buzz words.

I'll refer you to an earlier post of mine. You can add your phrases to the list.

Grand, I'll add 'whataboutery' to that list so

There are no excuses made, it you wish to give real examples, they will be looked at.

You know fine well that certain users were/are well known for going around calling all and sundry "bitter" and suggesting that their opinions stem from them having "issues" with women in their real lives. Granted, the most prolific of them having now closed their accounts, but they were never alone in posting such venomous posts and so guess only time will tell whether or not their ring-leader's demise has dampened that particular feline clowder's taste for male blood.

Our aim is to close the divide, not make it bigger. We are either part of the solution or part of the problem.

If you see sexism in any form, PM anyone of the team for it to be looked at and treated seriously.

Great, I (and others hopefully) will hold you to that so.

dr.bollocko

We are not going to ignore any issues relating to sexism on either side.

We have been clear on that. Very clear.

We have a laundry list of complaints about how women are treated in AH. Reported posts. Feedback. PMs, complaints of all sorts. This is a big problem which needs addressing. On the other side not so much however that problem is one we are aware of also.

We will address both sides equally. However the problem with relation to gender issues in AH is hugely overwhelmingly ridiculously much much much worse for women than it is for men in AH.

I have made no indication here of an anti-male manifesto or a pro-female stance beyond a one sentence comment. This one sentence comment has been the basis for your series of posts whereby you drew your own conclusions from it.

We have addressed your concerns a number of times. I don't know what more we can do to address them.

WindSock

CodyJarrett wrote: »

but they were never alone in posting such venomous posts and so guess only time will tell whether or not their ring-leader's demise has dampened that particular feline clowder's taste for male blood.

Haha. Bitter...

Tombi!

I'm still watching this thread but didn't have much to say.

But I would like to point out something that might not have been made very blunt yet: I sincerly don't think most males in AH (or Boards in general) notice the sexism against guys.

Whenever I see "grow a pair/man up/etc" I'll either laugh or just think "idiot" and then shake my head.
I think it's different against women, though. Not in a way of "protect the females, etc". But more of a "they'll get offended easier" because it's more rampant and I think the intent behind it is is a bit hard to determine.

So yes, there is sexism against males too but... I just don't think we're bothered by it as much. So trying to use an argument that it won't benfit men is wrong. Even if we don't think of it as sexism (as men), it's still sexism and that's that. Don't take that up the wrong way, I'm not saying the women should learn to "ignore it".

I'm saying that as men we're used to other men saying stuff like "man up" and all this rubbish. But at the end of the day some poor fella could get upset and it's still going on to offend someone because of sexist remarks.

Eve_Dublin

From what I've observed, a huge amount of those "grow a pair/man up" comments have either some from other men (is that sexism?) or from women as a a response to the whinging about Irish women and if you're going to go on a forum and moan about 30% of the posters on it with stupid, offensive generalisations, then you're going to piss some people off and get those kinds of comments thrown at you. Not saying it's right (I'm guilty of doing it in the past) but my point is, whenever I've seen those kinds of comments, there's almost always been some provocation beforehand. It seems like sexism directed at women in that forum kicks off over nothing a lot of the time without even any female posters present.

In the cases where women are accusing men of growing a pair etc. with any provocation, then that needs to be dealt with like any other form of sexism.

CodyJarrett

WindSock wrote: »

Haha. Bitter...

Well done, you just proved my point.

Dr.Bollocko, you seem like a decent guy and I respect that you are attempting to walk a fine line so that balance is achieved. It's just that I feel you have have been manipulated into drawing the line in the wrong part of the sand and those users are elected at having put you in that position. You have been duped my good man.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

I have made no indication here of an anti-male manifesto or a pro-female stance beyond a one sentence comment. This one sentence comment has been the basis for your series of posts whereby you drew your own conclusions from it.

Nonsense. You replied to my post where I brought up the issue of women personally abusing men in the forum, suggesting that discretion was given to those users as they were "more sinned against". Don't act as if I read something into your post that wasn't there. It wasn't just a general statement you made that I jumped on, exaggerating it's meaning. It was a reply to a very specific point I made about women personally abusing men in those threads and so it was quite contextual. Don't run from your own words, you know damn well who you were referring to as "more sinned against" and also just what you meant by "discretion".

We have addressed your concerns a number of times. I don't know what more we can do to address them.

I love how you twisted things to deflect away from what I called you and MD on. I posted bringing up the issue of how men can also be adversely affected in those threads and immediately the whataboutery card was thrown at me. When I show how the whataboutery card should not have been thrown at me, you act as if by posts weren't dismissed at all, but were given heed - they obviously were not.

What more can you do? Quit throwing whataboutery around and making excuses for those who resort to personal abuse on threads because they have been more "sinned against".

We are not going to ignore any issues relating to sexism on either side.

We have been clear on that. Very clear.

Sorry, but while some statements you have made might suggest that, much of what you have also said, would suggest otherwise:

dr.bollocko wrote: »

I don't accept that the largely male audience in AH gets a hard time with sexism either.

You can hardly address what you "don't accept" - now can you.

Men don't complain as much as women do as a group for many reasons. Main one being that they would be quite quickly be referred to as "just whinging" and sure no doubt you're thinking that very thing about me right now, no bother - I understand the mechanism at work. Group-think can be quite powerful. We're taught to be disparaging about our own sex and be dismissive when we have grievances. Tis uncool to do anything else and white knights are so sexy, I'll give them that.

By the way, any chance you could have a locked sticky in After Hours linking to this thread? Might be nice if the regulars of that forum got a chance to have their say on this matter, because as it stands, I doubt even 2% of it's userbase have any idea the charter has been amended.

However the problem with relation to gender issues in AH is hugely overwhelmingly ridiculously much much much worse for women than it is for men in AH.

Nobody is suggesting that it isn't but as I (and many women at the start of this thread) have said: yes that is the case, but the moderation of it is sufficient and has always been. Why exactly are you wanting to change the tone of the forum because of what's going on behind the scenes with regards to complaints? The forum is not yours. You are a moderator of it. Why are the voices of those telling you that the moderation is fine and it's 'as you were' with regards to how you all moderate sexism, not as important or worth heeding as the ones complaining? Who are they to set the tone of the After Hours? A handful of up-starts is what they are and I couldn't care less how many stars they have under their name, nor indeed just what colour they are. Wake up Doc ffs.

What you are failing to acknowledge is that, while there might me more male sexist idiots posting on After Hours than female sexist idiots, the problem that those threads have traditionally caused was NOT down to the sexist posts or posters. The main problem is (and always was) caused by the EXAGGERATED REACTION to those posts or the usual threat of a march on Feedback. The flurry of reported posts and accusations of mods being negligent when it came to dealing with the reported posts.

When ever those users did hit FB, the threads never amounted to much as when they were asked for examples, they could never provide them. Who are you to now tell us that those members of Admin were wrong and that those users actually did have a point after-all. With your charter amendment, you have vindicated all those who were dismissed all along. Granted, Admin is no longer the same Admin but can't you see that that is all part of this too.

Many of those threads would not have turned into the chaotic mess that they invariably did where it not for all the rolling around in the penalty box that regularly followed some post or other when certain women did not agree with what was posted or they found to be sexist or where the objectification of women had taken place. They rarely were about being personally abused or disrespected for merely being female (as that has always been well moderated - in women's direction at least) and so their main complaint was usually one of female objectification and let's be honest here, that's what all this is really about.

"Time of the month there love?! " - ban 'em!
"Fcuk of back to the kitchen sweetheart" - ban 'em!
"Mary Harney's just a fat bitch!" - ban 'em!

New Thread: Sharon ni Bheolain has quit RTE!
Reply: On no!! What about my Six-One ****!

Leave it the fcuk alone! Moderate the above and you may as well close the place and say adiós to the forum as there is a place for every other form of discussion on Boards. Being a little sexist, un-PC, using sexual objectification and making risque comments is what makes After Hours After Hours.

The forum has been sanatised enough as it is. It's personal abuse and attacking the post rather than the poster which really needs to be clamped down on there. Remove that snide element from the place and the forum will be as it once was but this banning of a "little sexism" and suggestions that objectifying men and women is no longer going to be tolerated, is not the road to take. We already have tGC and TLL where immaturity is not appreciated (with good reason). Maybe have merged sub-forums for those places were both sexes can have a place for general topic discussions but leave AH as it is. Quit changing the tone of the forum, it's already too damn serious without these new measures being put in place.

We have a laundry list of complaints about how women are treated in AH. Reported posts. Feedback. PMs, complaints of all sorts. This is a big problem which needs addressing.

Of course you do, which was precisly why at the start of this thread I used the analogy of a squeaky wheel. You are giving oil (merit) to it because of the frequency of it, the iteration of it not because it is warranted. At this stage it has been a systematic campaign by a dozen or so users to change how that forum is moderated with regards to sexism (as they see it) and sanitize it. A problem's size does not equal the response to it - agendas usually do. In other words, mods have always dealt with the nasty side of sexism very well in AH, but not so much with the response to it, which to me makes the response and penalty box histrionics far bigger of an issue than the sexist idiots and posts, themselves (which After Hours undoubtedly has it's fair share of).

Let's just cut to the chase here - blue sky thinking aside:

What, in practical terms does this all really mean for the users of After Hours?

You wrote:

dr.bollocko wrote: »

I believe the culture of the forum needs to be nurtured away from measuring the merits of a female public figure by whether or not they're "do-able".

I do hope you're not foolish enough to believe that, because men make comments on AH about how "do-able" women are, that that is the measure of us, that we can't see any other attributes in females other than that - because if you do, well then you truly have been indoctrinated into the new group-think, with regards to such matters.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

I guess it was indicative that a little bit of sexism was OK. Which was never my intention.

So, a "little bit" of sexism is not "OK" any longer and nor is commenting on whether or not a women is "do-able" ..

Okay, well then let me ask you then, if tomorrow the following was posted:

I Heart Internet wrote: »

It's ok folks - Miriam is gonna tough it out with her hubby despite the massive salaries.

Let joy be unconfined.

And I reply with:

CodyJarrett wrote: »

Thank Christ for that, as I was worried, what with the size of her breasts and all, that her sudden departure could mess with Ireland's gravitational pull.

Will I be moderated for it?

Does this qualify as objectification?

Would I be guilty of being a "little sexist" and so going against the charter?

CodyJarrett

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

From what I've observed, a huge amount of those "grow a pair/man up" comments have either some from other men (is that sexism?) or from women as a a response to the whinging about Irish women and if you're going to go on a forum and moan about 30% of the posters on it with stupid, offensive generalisations, then you're going to piss some people off and get those kinds of comments thrown at you. Not saying it's right (I'm guilty of doing it in the past) but my point is, whenever I've seen those kinds of comments, there's almost always been some provocation beforehand. It seems like sexism directed at women in that forum kicks off over nothing a lot of the time without even any female posters present.

In the cases where women are accusing men of growing a pair etc. with any provocation, then that needs to be dealt with like any other form of sexism.

A lot of what you are referring to is white-knighting and AH is plagued with it.

Eve_Dublin

CodyJarrett wrote: »

A lot of what you are referring to is white-knighting and AH is plagued with it.

Or just guys who see the comments as idiotic and unfair and simply don't like it. Do you reckon these guys are doing it for some ulterior motive?? Like what exactly?

dr.bollocko

Of course you do, which was precisly why at the start of this thread I used the analogy of a squeaky wheel. You are giving oil (merit) to it because of the frequency of it, the iteration of it not because it is warranted.

Crux of exactly where we disagree. I know this is warranted because I have seen it with my own eyes. So there is no group think. There is no squeaky wheel. There is a problem we as mods have seen which we as mods will endeavour to resolve.

I've seen the problem myself. I'll seek to improve it.

I don't bend on a whim and I don't proport to fad thinking or group thinking.

We're going to be changing how this is moderated in AH.

The rest of your post?

White knighting? See above.

Who are you to now tell us that those members of Admin were wrong and that those users actually did have a point after-all. With your charter amendment, you have vindicated all those who were dismissed all along. Granted, Admin is no longer the same Admin but can't you see that that is all part of this too.

Your insights throughout this thread have struck me as somewhat of a leap borne more out of frustration and a fear of the erosion of the AH identity than an attempt to propose a counter-point in a reasonable manner.

This above paragraph highlights this manner of phrasing your arguments. You appear to presume that there was never a problem in AH with sexism and to suggest there is puts me in some sort of group think drone group seeking to kill all the fun in AH by putting rules in place for the sake of it.

With that in mind I find it hard to take on board your perspective on the opinions of admins then or now, on how you thought those threads went, on your views on sanitisation, on your opinions of what is or what is not good for AH.

I posted it in feedback to get the views of a wide group of people in an area that wasn't home turf.

You seem to think this is part of some conspiracy.

That I somehow don't want the AH regulars to give feedback on this topic by hiding it away in the feedback forum.

The idea here is to discuss calmly with people who agree, disagree, have different views, insights on what's right and what's wrong.

As regards the specifics of your question we have said in here we are going to take the feedback and turn it into a manifesto that's fair on all sides. Certainly more balanced than it is now.

However posts like you linked to above would be case-by-case stuff. Would your only interest in posting in AH be to make potshots about the appearance of public figures?

Is there going to be a pattern of your main interest in replying to AH to discuss Miriam's breasts?

Or Brian Dobson's cock?

If so I would suggest finding somewhere else to post.

WindSock

CodyJarrett wrote: »

Well done, you just proved my point.

And what point would that be? One that is loaded with flaming and hypocrisy?

You rant about how certain posters say others are bitter, then take a massive swipe at them, because they have closed their account...calling some posters cats and claiming there is a cloying for male blood...

How ridiculous.

From reading that part of your post on this thread, it appears you reckon there are a small group of female posters who are trying to manipulate the CMods into believing that AH is ruined by men, not even sexism...just men. Which of course would be sexist if that were the case, however I really don't think that is. I am sure if there were such a flurry of obvious man haters on AH, there would be a scramble to hit the reported post buttons.

And any male posters who agree there is sexism, well of course they can only be 'white knights'. That's fairly dismissive and insulting to anyone who put their input into threads, but it is easier to use these buzzwords of course when someone disagrees with your stance.

g'em

This thread is for Feedback on an AH issue that affects many posters, not a thread for one poster to air their (many, long) personal grievances. Cody, no more posts on this topic from you please.