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.

Wibbs

Is there misogyny and sexism on Boards? Yep. There's all sorts of isms going on in various places. Some are broadly "supported" like the anti religionism thing*, others, the majority are not. Is misogyny and sexism a sitewide issue as some seem to claim? Hardly. Where and when it occurs is in the more "social" type forums, the AH's the tGC's the tLL's and the like. Of the hundreds of other forums? None to sweet feck all. Where's the misogyny in Farming and Forestry, or Aviation or Television or..? Whoops mentioned the thread on the subject in the mod forum. I don't think I'm letting any felines out of bags to say that it was populated by a very small number of the 400 odd mods on this site(as Whoops herself alluded to by asking any moda passing this thread to read it).

Now that doesn't mean this guff is OK, or shouldn't be rooted out where it occurs, especially in a forum like AH. However it seems to me an overreaction and exaggeration of the actual problem. An importation of this recent American gender war meme bollocks on both sides. The vast majority of misogyny and sexism posts come from a tiny number of posters compared to the whole. This tiny number have bought into the gender war ballsology hook line and sinker. Where they may have a good point to make here and there, but that tends to be drowned out by the attendant one track minded bullshít. The response to them should be; if they're a one agenda with no sources for their argument troll, then nuke em to fuq and good riddance. They're breaking the Don't be a dick rule, a rule that served this site very well from its growth and peak to now.

Now this drive(and continuing one) by the AH mods is a welcome one, especially if it gets people thinking and being more comfortable in reporting these gobshítes, but don't let the community and site fall into the wider trap of thinking there's Reds Red pillers under the bed at every turn. Otherwise the place might well go down the "Guardian" route of closing off actual measured debate and become an ever decreasing circlejerk of "acceptable" opinions, where simply asking a question may be construed as "wrong" or an "ism".

K-9 wrote:

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.

Indeed, but TBH the sheer amount of it is starting to get real bloody boring for me. Again because it's a bloody blow in meme for the most part and I can't bloody abide received "wisdom" masquerading as fact(or heartfelt opinion/feels) from any source. Eejits screaming misandry at every turn piss me off just as much as eejits screaming misogyny at every turn. Keyboard Victims, the lesser known but just as, if not moreso, insidious and damaging as their better known bedfellows Keyboard Warriors.

AH isn't for reaching a wider audience after all.

On the contrary, After Hours has by far the biggest audience on this site, by quite a margin. OK I get your point, bigger may not equate to wider, but AH is the entry point and stickaround point for many. For many AH is Boards and if Boards fades away down the line, then AH will likely be the last forum standing before the servers go out.

*EDIT* The interwebs amplifies the arseholes and amplifies the reaction to them. It accentuates the extreme in nigh on every subject and sphere you care to mention. It makes it look like there are far more of them than there are. Report/Nuke them where you find these gobshítes and the rest will fall into place. No need to reinvent the wheel for the minority of gobshítes.





*try posting as a devout Catholic/Portestant/Muslim and see the result, but if you're some postmodern hippie dressed up in the secondhand clothes of Eastern promise, a Turkish delight of exotic but equal nonsense, you'll generally get a fairer shake. Oh you're a Tantric Buddhist Wiccan with windchimes and dreamcatchers? Oh that's alright then. Your blend of magical thinking is generally OK with us. I hope you don't fiddle with kids though?

RDM_83 again

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.

No objection to that idea but I'm curious is this an official statement or a personal one. If its an official statement doesn't that throw up unusual problems due to the subjective nature and personal experience basis of many of the gender threads.
This is possibly not the best example but it should illustrate the point, Frank Maloney ten years ago was a woman, Frank Maloney ten years ago wouldn't have been perceived as a woman by wider society and was anatomically male, therefore one could argue that her experiences at that time would not add any more weight than a cis-mans opinions on a womans issue

Also Oh how times have changed :rolleyes: ironically I think the changes this poster was pushing for actually came about (after they got a ton of abuse!)
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=53448139


Apart from this I presume its actually just business as usual considering anybody thats not a serial re-reg would be banned from AH by now if they are misogynistic? Or is there a change in the actual application of the rules?

Also if Feminism bashing threads are to be banned can we ban the religion bashing threads, after all they are both belief systems.

Links234

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Also Oh how times have changed :rolleyes: ironically I think the changes this poster was pushing for actually came about (after they got a ton of abuse!)
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=53448139

And a damn good thing to see things have improved around here, looking at that thread was horrible. So many old heads, I miss Anti. Or maybe it was just his Hard Gay avatar that made smile every time I saw it FUUUUU!!!!!!! :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_PoPIvKPe4

Micky Dolenz

We have often stickied reminders of the charter. The last one was for grammar nazism.

Dress this up which ever way you want or ignore the issue if you wish. Unfortunately it's not a luxury we have.

The Hill Billy

Did people even read the sticky? Seriously.

The AH Mods acknowledged a thread that had been started recently by a poster regarding misogyny (& misandry too in fairness). The thread attracted a lot of input from the AH community & it was felt that a distinct mod comment was needed to show awareness of the issue & the fact that it was already under discussion.

It was also stated that this issue, while experiencing a recent surge, is not as much of a problem as it has been in the past. This largely being down to the great work of the AH mods.

There's just no keeping people happy. If it was ignored - the mods would be criticized. The fact that they've acknowledged the issue & have informed the AH community that it is something that they are working to address - the criticism still gets flung at them.

At the end of the day, the posters who are causing the issue will be weeded out & banned for being dicks. It is a head's up for them, whether they be the obvious & persistent re-reg trolls or just plain ol' dicks spouting the same ol' low-level misogynist/misandrist bile.

K-9

Links234 wrote: »

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



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.

You've the patience of a Saint!

Wibbs wrote: »

Is there misogyny and sexism on Boards? Yep. There's all sorts of isms going on in various places. Some are broadly "supported" like the anti religionism thing*, others, the majority are not. Is misogyny and sexism a sitewide issue as some seem to claim? Hardly. Where and when it occurs is in the more "social" type forums, the AH's the tGC's the tLL's and the like. Of the hundreds of other forums? None to sweet feck all. Where's the misogyny in Farming and Forestry, or Aviation or Television or..? Whoops mentioned the thread on the subject in the mod forum. I don't think I'm letting any felines out of bags to say that it was populated by a very small number of the 400 odd mods on this site(as Whoops herself alluded to by asking any moda passing this thread to read it).

Rarely comes up on politics IIRC, which is encouraging.

Now that doesn't mean this guff is OK, or shouldn't be rooted out where it occurs, especially in a forum like AH. However it seems to me an overreaction and exaggeration of the actual problem. An importation of this recent American gender war meme bollocks on both sides. The vast majority of misogyny and sexism posts come from a tiny number of posters compared to the whole. This tiny number have bought into the gender war ballsology hook line and sinker. Where they may have a good point to make here and there, but that tends to be drowned out by the attendant one track minded bullshít. The response to them should be; if they're a one agenda with no sources for their argument troll, then nuke em to fuq and good riddance. They're breaking the Don't be a dick rule, a rule that served this site very well from its growth and peak to now.

It probably is a small enough number of posters using the stuff you are going on about, where anything to do with sexual/gender/driving etc. etc. issues seems to descend to flame wars.

We really should just give them their own forum to argue which gender has it worst!

Now this drive(and continuing one) by the AH mods is a welcome one, especially if it gets people thinking and being more comfortable in reporting these gobshítes, but don't let the community and site fall into the wider trap of thinking there's Reds Red pillers under the bed at every turn. Otherwise the place might well go down the "Guardian" route of closing off actual measured debate and become an ever decreasing circlejerk of "acceptable" opinions, where simply asking a question may be construed as "wrong" or an "ism".

Well the mods are usually pretty good at discerning the difference between a discussion and the other nonsense. If it's coming up a lot in reported posts etc. something has to be done.

Indeed, but TBH the sheer amount of it is starting to get real bloody boring for me. Again because it's a bloody blow in meme for the most part and I can't bloody abide received "wisdom" masquerading as fact(or heartfelt opinion/feels) from any source. Eejits screaming misandry at every turn piss me off just as much as eejits screaming misogyny at every turn. Keyboard Victims, the lesser known but just as, if not moreso, insidious and damaging as their better known bedfellows Keyboard Warriors.

You'd think they'd all get bored after a while!

On the contrary, After Hours has by far the biggest audience on this site, by quite a margin. OK I get your point, bigger may not equate to wider, but AH is the entry point and stickaround point for many. For many AH is Boards and if Boards fades away down the line, then AH will likely be the last forum standing before the servers go out.

Yep, but there are topics not discussed there and it really shouldn't be used to preach to more viewers, there are obvious exceptions.

*EDIT* The interwebs amplifies the arseholes and amplifies the reaction to them. It accentuates the extreme in nigh on every subject and sphere you care to mention. It makes it look like there are far more of them than there are. Report/Nuke them where you find these gobshítes and the rest will fall into place. No need to reinvent the wheel for the minority of gobshítes.

Yep, posted the same in the mod thread. People didn't get this much attention even 10 years ago, never mind 30.

Frank Lee Midere

Links234 wrote: »

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



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.

That list of weak as cheese science might just about at the margins prove that some transgender is biological - however this is far from the claim that *all* gender is "constructed" and not genetic which is the general claim of the leftist pseudocracy. And piss off with the Fox News nonsense - a typical pseud sneer. I don't even know who that "goofy gobber is" since I don't watch Fox News

What I do of is read the literature on biology and evolution.
Humans are animals. We have opposable thumbs. Cats have bigger claws. We have bigger brains. Eagles have better eyesight. None of this removes the strong evolutionary pressures which apply to humans as they do to all sexually dimorphic animals. Sex differences are largely - outliers aside - biological.

Links234

K-9 wrote: »

You've the patience of a Saint!

I'm also childish and I hate to lose

Frank Lee Midere

Links234 wrote: »

I'm also childish and I hate to lose

Stephen Pinker, neuro-scientist, evolutionary psychologist and author of The Blank Slate on gender equality feminism.


From:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100177038/a-decade-after-steven-pinkers-the-blank-slate-why-is-human-nature-still-taboo/

(But read the book).

As Pinker wrote, there are two types of feminism: “Equity feminism is a moral doctrine about equal treatment that makes no commitments regarding open empirical issues in psychology or biology. Gender feminism is an empirical doctrine committed to three claims about human nature. The first is that the differences between men and women have nothing to do with biology but are socially constructed in their entirety. The second is that humans possess a single social motive – power – and that social life can be understood only in terms of how it is exercised. The third is that human interactions arise not from the motives of people dealing with each other as individuals but from the motives of groups dealing with other groups – in this case, the male gender dominating the female gender.
“In embracing these doctrines, the genderists are handcuffing feminism to railroad tracks on which a train is bearing down.”
Gender feminism is no more scientific than astrology,yet the idea of total equality of outcomes is still some sort of vague official goal among the European elite, largely because “people’s unwillingness to think in statistical terms has led to pointless false dichotomies", between "women are unqualified" and "fifty-fifty absolutely".
The end result of gender feminism has been the blackening of the name feminist, which many women and men deny because they associate it with radical, unscientific ideas about “gender” being a “social construct”, ideas which are still taught as fact in British universities despite being as factual as creationism.

It's pretty amazing that 10 years after the Blank Slate that this is even being discussed. In the 1970's you couldn't even discuss general human nature without being attacked. The eminent biologist EO Wilson was attacked in stage by a Marxist in 1972 for talking about genetic inheritance.

Feminism has taken over Marxism in denying innate human behaviour.

He's not alone. There's nobody working in evolutionary biology to neuroscience who believes the social construct malarky.

Links234

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

That list of weak as cheese science might just about at the margins prove that some transgender is biological - however this is far from the claim that *all* gender is "constructed" and not genetic which is the general claim of the leftist pseudocracy.

You're mixing metaphors and putting the cart before the bird in the hand that gets the early worm, so to speak. That's not what Dav was on about. But when people talk about gender being "socially constructed" they're refering to gender roles and to notions that the sexes have different aptitudes and abilities inborn, which I'm guessing you're speaking about now. The problem you run into then is that many of these ideas of men being better at X and women being better at Y, is slowly but surely being chipped away at, by science! While it was previously thought that boys were naturally more gifted at maths, many studies showed that this was not the case. Here for example, we see differences in aptitutes explained by different social pressures.

Sleepy

A fair point about gender not being defined by the physical Dav and tbh, some pretty poor phrasing by me which Is apologise for.

However would you not agree that referring to sexism as misogyny (when those are completely different things) only leads to the suggestion that sexism is only objectionable when applied to women?

It's exactly this type of thing that's made feminism a dirty word for so many people these days I'm. Equality is equality. Treating any action as being more or less serious because of the gender of either the perpetrator or the victim of that action is not, and never can be, equality.

Orion

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The lgbt forum charter covers homophobia and transphobia.

Which is exactly my point. It's covered by the charter. I don't see the need for a sticky in the forum to basically tell people not to be dicks.

Orion

I've given my 2c on this already but I will say one thing more - Dav on another topic recently said to me that to do something about something (I'm being deliberately vague) would just streisand it. I think this is what we're seeing here now.

Sleepy

Apologies again, just noticed there were a ton of posts after the one of Dav's which I replied to. Using the android app for the first time on a new phone and just getting used to it.

Don't really have anything else to add to my point, just didn't want people to think I was ignoring their input!

I'd just like to see the site operate in an egalitarian fashion rather than one where gender is a factor in what is or isn't acceptable behaviour.

masculinist

Red Alert wrote: »

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.

Pretty much this ^^^


For now, no specifics although they do exist. For now I have to say it is not unknown for someone to screech 'misogyny' just because a poster disagrees with their Politics. Now if that politics happens to be Egalitarian and elicits a response which amounts to ''Misogyny'' or ''shut up you misogynist'' when it touches upon an issue affecting men then you can draw your own conclusions about where one of the real problems might lie.

Micky Dolenz

Orion wrote: »

Which is exactly my point. It's covered by the charter. I don't see the need for a sticky in the forum to basically tell people not to be dicks.

In the past we've done exactly the same thing on pressing issues at the time. Temp stickies on charter points. Can't remember feedback threads on those ones. That to me is extremely interesting.

J Mysterio

Is there a lot of melodrama here? I don't think I saw very much cross the line on either side of the debate.

Turtwig

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Stephen Pinker, neuro-scientist, evolutionary psychologist and author of The Blank Slate on gender equality feminism.


From:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100177038/a-decade-after-steven-pinkers-the-blank-slate-why-is-human-nature-still-taboo/

(But read the book).

As Pinker wrote, there are two types of feminism: “Equity feminism is a moral doctrine about equal treatment that makes no commitments regarding open empirical issues in psychology or biology. Gender feminism is an empirical doctrine committed to three claims about human nature. The first is that the differences between men and women have nothing to do with biology but are socially constructed in their entirety. The second is that humans possess a single social motive – power – and that social life can be understood only in terms of how it is exercised. The third is that human interactions arise not from the motives of people dealing with each other as individuals but from the motives of groups dealing with other groups – in this case, the male gender dominating the female gender.
“In embracing these doctrines, the genderists are handcuffing feminism to railroad tracks on which a train is bearing down.”
Gender feminism is no more scientific than astrology,yet the idea of total equality of outcomes is still some sort of vague official goal among the European elite, largely because “people’s unwillingness to think in statistical terms has led to pointless false dichotomies", between "women are unqualified" and "fifty-fifty absolutely".
The end result of gender feminism has been the blackening of the name feminist, which many women and men deny because they associate it with radical, unscientific ideas about “gender” being a “social construct”, ideas which are still taught as fact in British universities despite being as factual as creationism.

It's pretty amazing that 10 years after the Blank Slate that this is even being discussed. In the 1970's you couldn't even discuss general human nature without being attacked. The eminent biologist EO Wilson was attacked in stage by a Marxist in 1972 for talking about genetic inheritance.

Feminism has taken over Marxism in denying innate human behaviour.

He's not alone. There's nobody working in evolutionary biology to neuroscience who believes the social construct malarky.

Even Pinker doesn't disagree that environment plays a role. There are social constructs that entail what gender identity means. There are also innate human behaviours that define gender identity. Your suggestion that feminists don't understand this point, or wilfully ignore it, is disingenuous. In general most people who browse boards are more than aware of this fact. You've conveniently lumped feminism in some asshat extreme minority that mostly only exists on the internet- Approach an average person in the street and ask them whether they believe the female gender identity is cultural or innate?
Most will say both.

ardle1

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

Off topic, just a bit sorry.

But how do you know about these 'serial re-reg's'?
Is this part of your defence, or a paranoid 'observation'....

P. Breathnach

ardle1 wrote: »

...
But how do you know about these 'serial re-reg's'?

Initially it's the "if it looks like a duck..." method - new posters saying pretty well what banned posters have been saying, often using similar language; then I report my suspicions to the mods; then the posts disappear or the poster is banned - which I take to mean that my suspicion was justified..

Is this part of your defence, or a paranoid 'observation'....

What defence do I need? What reason have I to feel paranoia?