After Hours "Misogyny on boards" sticky...

Sleepy

Was this really necessary?

Does boards.ie have to join the likes of Jezebel in being a place on the internet where the possession of a vagina entitles a poster to be held to a lower standard than posters that have penises?

I'm not saying there isn't sexism on boards.ie. Of course there is. But what sexism there is swings both ways and all of it is covered by the first rule of Boards.ie: Don't Be a Dick (which rather ironically would no doubt violate this new stance were the gender of the genitalia involved reversed).

Do we really think that female posters are such precious flowers that they need chivalrous white knight policies to defend their honour? Because that's rather insulting and, judging by the female posters I've met IRL, totally wrong.

Harry Palmr

I'm waiting for a (free) range of stickies regarding all politically correct "isms"

P. Breathnach

Sleepy wrote: »

Was this really necessary?...

I believe it was.

As with most things, the large majority of posters keep within reasonable bounds, but there have been a few recent threads where misogynistic posts have been made, where there has been anti-feminist soapboxing, and where discussion has been pulled off-track by serial re-regs with an agenda.

Orion

I think it's overkill myself. Things like this are covered by general boards rules and individual forum charters. Serial re-regs should be reported to the admins for nuking. General trolls the same. As the OP said - rule #1 applies in all forums.

Should we have a sticky in the regional forums saying no culchie/jackeen remarks. Or the LGBT forum specifically advising against homophobic remarks? Or about Apple fanboyism in the Android forum. Or Creationism in the Science category. All are likely to cause offense but where does the line get drawn?

Potatoeman

I found some of the topics people brought up very telling. One that stuck out was marriage. Criticising men highlighting the potential pitfalls of divorce. People will have strong views on some topics and Im sure gender plays a part too but how can you even have a discussion on such a topic without people being biased/impassioned/offended.

Sleepy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I believe it was.

As with most things, the large majority of posters keep within reasonable bounds, but there have been a few recent threads where misogynistic posts have been made, where there has been anti-feminist soapboxing, and where discussion has been pulled off-track by serial re-regs with an agenda.

While I've seen plenty of casual sexism over the decade or so I've been a poster on boards.ie, I've seen only a handful that could truly be called misogynistic. Perhaps that's because the mods have gotten to the almost all of them before I've seen them but I really don't believe that's the case.

Being anti-feminist is no more misogynistic than being anti-zionist or being against the unnecesary circumcision of infants is being anti-semitic.

seamus

P. Breathnach wrote: »

but there have been a few recent threads where misogynistic posts have been made, where there has been anti-feminist soapboxing, and where discussion has been pulled off-track by serial re-regs with an agenda.

That doesn't actually answer the question of whether it was necessary though.

Soapboxing; that's a paddlin'
Re-regging; that's a paddlin'
Dragging off-topic; that's a paddlin'
Sexism; that's a paddlin'

So what has been happening in After Hours that's not already covered by existing rules?

P. Breathnach

Sleepy wrote: »

...
Being anti-feminist is no more misogynistic than being anti-zionist or being against the unnecesary circumcision of infants is being anti-semitic.

Agreed. But I was referring to soapboxing. I formed the impression that some posters were considerably over the top. One tactic was to find an instance of feminist extremism and seek to hold all feminists accountable for such views.

seamus wrote: »

That doesn't actually answer the question of whether it was necessary though.

Soapboxing; that's a paddlin'
Re-regging; that's a paddlin'
Dragging off-topic; that's a paddlin'
Sexism; that's a paddlin'

So what has been happening in After Hours that's not already covered by existing rules?

Nothing is "necessary" on Boards. But if there is a cluster of misbehaviour around certain types of topic, it might be useful to focus attention on it.

One eyed Jack

It shouldn't have had to come to pointing out to grown adults that they are in a shared space where sharing that space means they should be considerate of other people, but when it becomes an overbearing toxic atmosphere for the majority of people who want to contribute to Boards, then something had to be said.

The minority of people who were ruining Boards for everyone else are the people who are responsible for the necessity of having it pointed out to them that the vast majority don't want Boards to become like the cesspool that is 4chan.

Sleepy

Sleepy wrote: »

Was this really necessary?

Does boards.ie have to join the likes of Jezebel in being a place on the internet where the possession of a vagina entitles a poster to be held to a lower standard than posters that have penises?

What are you on about?
"Hey guys we think there is an increase in misogynistic posts, we can't handle all the re reg trolls and we don't see all the posts so please remember to report all posts you think are report worthy and we'll review them, also we're possibly getting a new mod to help out"
Where in that is omg vaginas = lower standards?

But what sexism there is swings both ways

Well report it then, like the sticky says

K-9

Sleepy wrote: »

Was this really necessary?

Does boards.ie have to join the likes of Jezebel in being a place on the internet where the possession of a vagina entitles a poster to be held to a lower standard than posters that have penises?

I'm not saying there isn't sexism on boards.ie. Of course there is. But what sexism there is swings both ways and all of it is covered by the first rule of Boards.ie: Don't Be a Dick (which rather ironically would no doubt violate this new stance were the gender of the genitalia involved reversed).

Good point.

Do we really think that female posters are such precious flowers that they need chivalrous white knight policies to defend their honour? Because that's rather insulting and, judging by the female posters I've met IRL, totally wrong.

Dav

If this wasn't a problem then it wouldn't be necessary.

Also, if your definition of being a woman means "possession a vagina" then you're a part of the problem. I know several women that don't. The exact same definition applies to men too - gender is defined between your ears, not between your legs.

Penn

Sleepy wrote: »

I'm not saying there isn't sexism on boards.ie. Of course there is. But what sexism there is swings both ways and all of it is covered by the first rule of Boards.ie: Don't Be a Dick

And the fact that it happens waaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more on one side than the other is irrelevant, is it?

The reason that misogyny is a specific problem which the mods are trying to combat is because it's a recurring problem which needs to be addressed, and the mods would likely rather do that by addressing the problem as a whole rather than simply ban people left and right for it. Maybe a sticky pointing out "Think about this before you post" can combat the problem quicker and easier than infractions/bans can.

seamus

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Nothing is "necessary" on Boards. But if there is a cluster of misbehaviour around certain types of topic, it might be useful to focus attention on it.

OK, that makes more sense. My concern was that this was akin to the cry to have specific legislation for "hate crimes", which IMO basically says that offences against a minority are automatically more serious.
But in my past life as an AH mod we'd similarly taken action to focus the magnifying glass as it were on specific types of behaviour without coming up with specific new rules to combat it.

K-9 wrote: »

It's an interesting phenomenon; you see it a lot on reddit. Where a male points out casual sexism, they often get rounded on for "white knighting" and get told that they're just as bad and sexist for assuming that women are precious little flowers who can't defend themselves.

Ignoring the fact that a person in a minority will find it harder to defend themselves against a majority, it is basically the same kind of sexism which assumes that offences against a gender can only be pointed out by people of that gender. It's basically a method of trying to quell dissent - "If they don't speak up, it means that everything is OK".

A discussion had taken place recently in the mod forum (the mods posting here might like to have a read of it if they haven't already). It was a general discussion on whether or not people had noticed an increase in misogyny across the site. For the mostpart, they had.

Similarly, there was a discussion in the AH mod forum indicating that we were aware of this surge.

When the thread which is linked in the sticky was started in After Hours during the week, it really came as no surprise to us. We knew it had been happening and it was very hard to disagree with the OP.

The sticky isn't white knighting, in fact I think it's pretty insulting to use that term at all and I find it fairly inflammatory (nevermind the fact it was started by a woman!!). The thread is simply there to acknowledge the feedback we have received, which I think is quite a fair thing to do. It's there to acknowledge that we know there is a problem, but also to acknowledge that it's not black and white, and is thankfully for the mostpart, instigated by trolls. We have simply responded to feedback both from our fellow mods, and now our posters. We have only asked that posters be patient with us when dealing with these matters, that they report posts that are offensive, and that they please continue to post in AH and not feel unwelcome. I'm struggling to see what's so wrong with any of that tbh.

We discussed just adding the post to the end of the thread that had been started, but it was agreed that the thread had been derailed so much, that a lot of its posters may have unsubscribed, so we thought it best to ensure the wider audience saw that we are willing to take their feedback on board and try to make After Hours a better place.

TheBeardedLady

It's very much appreciated. Thanks to all the AH mods for this.

fits

One or two posts you'd turn a blind eye to, but the sheer volume of them! who are these people?

Annasopra

Orion wrote: »

I think it's overkill myself. Things like this are covered by general boards rules and individual forum charters. Serial re-regs should be reported to the admins for nuking. General trolls the same. As the OP said - rule #1 applies in all forums.

Should we have a sticky in the regional forums saying no culchie/jackeen remarks. Or the LGBT forum specifically advising against homophobic remarks? Or about Apple fanboyism in the Android forum. Or Creationism in the Science category. All are likely to cause offense but where does the line get drawn?

The lgbt forum charter covers homophobia and transphobia.

Darkglasses

I don't post much or at all on AH and definitely not on matters relating to gender or sexism, but I know that this stuff requires an awful lot of time and effort and patience on the moderator's behalf, and sometimes it is thankless at best. I just wanted to show my appreciation to all involved, and hope that everyone stays considerate about it.

KomradeBishop

A suggestion for a way to kill the re-regs, maybe would be to put a mod-warning on threads prone to re-reg trolling, which says "You must have 50 posts, to post in this thread" - and then immediately ban posters from the forum, who breach this warning?

It'd allow new posters to contribute to most threads, and would completely get rid of the worst of the trolls (and it'd be very easy to enforce, by normal posters reporting breaches).

Annasopra

KomradeBishop wrote: »

A suggestion for a way to kill the re-regs, maybe would be to put a mod-warning on threads prone to re-reg trolling, which says "You must have 50 posts, to post in this thread" - and then immediately ban posters from the forum, who breach this warning?

It'd allow new posters to contribute to most threads, and would completely get rid of the worst of the trolls (and it'd be very easy to enforce, by normal posters reporting breaches).

It's a bit too difficult to implement. There'd be arguments over which thread should have a 50 thread threshold and which shouldn't and then what if genuine newbies come along. I think (I might be wrong) that we're only talking about maybe 3 or 4 people who have created hundreds of accounts between them.

seamus

KomradeBishop wrote: »

A suggestion for a way to kill the re-regs, maybe would be to put a mod-warning on threads prone to re-reg trolling, which says "You must have 50 posts, to post in this thread" - and then immediately ban posters from the forum, who breach this warning?

It'd allow new posters to contribute to most threads, and would completely get rid of the worst of the trolls (and it'd be very easy to enforce, by normal posters reporting breaches).

I think that would need some R&D.

Is it contentious topics which new posters tend to be drawn to first or relatively mundane ones? If emotive and contentious threads are what cause the largest numbers of new sign-ups, then you're cutting off your nose to spite your face by banning newbies from these threads.

Turtwig

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It's a bit too difficult to implement. There'd be arguments over which thread should have a 50 thread threshold and which shouldn't and then what if genuine newbies come along. I think (I might be wrong) that we're only talking about maybe 3 or 4 people who have created hundreds of accounts between them.

Hundreds? More like thousands.

Frank Lee Midere

Dav wrote: »

If this wasn't a problem then it wouldn't be necessary.

Also, if your definition of being a woman means "possession a vagina" then you're a part of the problem. I know several women that don't. The exact same definition applies to men too - gender is defined between your ears, not between your legs.

This is surely up to debate. Plenty of scientists wouldn't agree ( and I mean scientists not sociologists, anthropologists etc. ). Why would humans evolve differently from other sexual animals with regard to sex and gender.

If this is in fact boards opinion -- and you clearly represent power here -- it might as well be closed down now. Because that opinion is not just incorrect and anti-scientific it's a radical opinion not as accepted as it's proponents think. If what think opposing that view is "a problem" and "misogyny" then this place is basically the Guardian, Ms etc.

What should have happened with that whiny thread on a Friday afternoon is that it should have been shunted to Politics. People tend to be humorous in Ah, particularly on a weekend. What's the point of the sub- fora unless you use them? What's the point of AH unless you allow some leeway.

All I saw was from that post was a contextual less whine. Now it's a sticky. Proving what exactly? You say you are banning re-regs and deleting their posts so what's to learn from that dull worthy thread?

DoYouEvenLift

Dav wrote: »

If this wasn't a problem then it wouldn't be necessary.

Also, if your definition of being a woman means "possession a vagina" then you're a part of the problem. I know several women that don't. The exact same definition applies to men too - gender is defined between your ears, not between your legs.

If I announce and recognise myself as a woman then will I be able to enter premises that hold "ladies nights" for free in the future?

Genuinely curious what would happen if I tried now. What should I do if they refuse me?

fits

Oh, hello! We were just talking about you!

KomradeBishop

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It's a bit too difficult to implement. There'd be arguments over which thread should have a 50 thread threshold and which shouldn't and then what if genuine newbies come along. I think (I might be wrong) that we're only talking about maybe 3 or 4 people who have created hundreds of accounts between them.

seamus wrote: »

I think that would need some R&D.

Is it contentious topics which new posters tend to be drawn to first or relatively mundane ones? If emotive and contentious threads are what cause the largest numbers of new sign-ups, then you're cutting off your nose to spite your face by banning newbies from these threads.

I don't think it would be difficult or need R&D really (though R&D for automatic enforcement, would prevent mods having to enforce manually), it should be simple enough for mods to identify the type of threads that are currently likely to be trolled, and to slap them with the '50 posts' restriction - then just let posters do the hard work of reporting infringing posts (which won't take much time for mods to act on, as it's clear-cut).

To avoid repelling genuine newbies, you could just delete the post instead of banning the poster, and send a PM reminding them to check the mod warning (with escalating action upon repeat infringements, as per usual).

You only need to do this long enough, for the re-reg trolls to get bored; they will only keep bothering, so long as they are getting entertainment from it (unless they are deliberately organized - which isn't impossible, and wouldn't surprise me - but then the '50 posts' rule would make things more costly for that type).
Eventually the problem will die down, and the '50 posts' rule can be done away with entirely - until the problem comes back again later, and the rule is temporarily resurrected.

K-9

seamus wrote: »

It's an interesting phenomenon; you see it a lot on reddit. Where a male points out casual sexism, they often get rounded on for "white knighting" and get told that they're just as bad and sexist for assuming that women are precious little flowers who can't defend themselves.

Ignoring the fact that a person in a minority will find it harder to defend themselves against a majority, it is basically the same kind of sexism which assumes that offences against a gender can only be pointed out by people of that gender. It's basically a method of trying to quell dissent - "If they don't speak up, it means that everything is OK".

I'm aware of that.

I was wondering where all that was coming from. Many forums on here have topics they ban, aren't welcome or are closely modded. We don't accept Conspiracy Theory threads in politics because there is a dedicated forum for that, and too much of it upsets the natives.

If it has come to that point for AH, so be it, I can think of one forum that seems to deal with this mens rights type stuff anyway, so it isn't as if it isn't catered for on the site. AH isn't for reaching a wider audience after all.

Harry Palmr

Dav wrote: »

If this wasn't a problem then it wouldn't be necessary.

Also, if your definition of being a woman means "possession a vagina" then you're a part of the problem. I know several women that don't. The exact same definition applies to men too - gender is defined between your ears, not between your legs.

which reminds me of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PIFGt_kzB8

Links234

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

This is surely up to debate. Plenty of scientists wouldn't agree ( and I mean scientists not sociologists, anthropologists etc. ). Why would humans evolve differently from other sexual animals with regard to sex and gender.

If this is in fact boards opinion -- and you clearly represent power here -- it might as well be closed down now. Because that opinion is not just incorrect and anti-scientific it's a radical opinion not as accepted as it's proponents think.

Ah now, you've posted exactly the same guff in AH a week or so ago, so let me repost my response from before:

Links234 wrote: »

I should probably know better than to even entertain posts like this, but... Ok, I'll bite.

Transsexual Gene Link Identified
Male-to-Female Transsexuals Have Female Neuron Numbers in a Limbic Nucleu
Male-to-Female Transsexuals Show Sex-Atypical Hypothalamus Activation When Smelling Odorous Steroids
Regional Grey Matter Variation in Male-to-Female Transsexualism
A sex difference in the hypothalamic uncinate nucleus: relationship to gender identity.
White matter microstructure in female to male transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatment. A diffusion tensor imaging study.
A Sex Difference in the Human Brain and its Relation to Transsexuality

There's probably more known about the issue of transsexuality than there is about homosexuality, this is but a small amount of scientific evidence on the subject, there's absolutely loads more out there, and medical science is certainly painting a fuller picture of transsexuality. But it has been relatively demystified over the past decade. So yes, a person's gender-identity does not always correlate with their sex.

So rather than being incorrect and "anti-scientific", you are the one who is incorrect (and willfully I might add, if you're still posting that guff after you've been informed). As for why would humans evolve differently? You mean like opposable thumbs, the capacity for language, mathematics, etc? And about it being up for debate? That ship has sailed, the actual science is in, most medical governing bodies recognise the legitimacy of transsexuality, it's been delisted as a psychological disorder just as homosexuality was delisted a few decades ago. There's really nothing to debate, you might be able to reference that goofy goober from Fox News, but that's pretty much all your side of the debate has. It's done.

Red Alert

Personally I find having a "sermon" delivered by the AH mods rather unpleasant. There are fundamental differences in how genders perceive and act, and everybody's entitled to their view on it. If people are breaking the forum's charter and being unpleasant to other posters then sanction them for it. But please, stop writing this sanctimonious rubbish.