After Hours "Misogyny on boards" sticky...

reprise

The Hill Billy wrote: »

Wealthy boards owners? Disaffected mods?

Where are the Lolcats when you need them?

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/pretax-profits-at-daftie-group-doubled-last-year-30738167.html

Note the articles reference to actual staff costs.

:)

The Hill Billy

Mods are not staff. We are volunteers. We help run the site because we value this community.

We do not give our time & effort for money. We do it for coke & hookers.

reprise

The Hill Billy wrote: »

We do it for coke & hookers.

That's the spirit!

Now there's a sticky worthy of after hours

Soft Falling Rain

The Hill Billy wrote: »

Mods are not staff. We are volunteers. We help run the site because we value this community.

We do not give our time & effort for money. We do it for coke & hookers.

Bull****.....I never saw any coke or hookers.

MugMugs

The Hill Billy wrote: »

Where are the Lolcats when you need them?

Gordon killed Christmas

RDM_83 again

K-9 wrote: »

There's a surprise, a discussion on misogyny turns into a moan about extreme feminism. Unfortunately both get equated in the mindset of some and here we are.

Thing is, who actually brought up feminism first :-/ it wasn't those that are arguing against it, there is a push to equate dislike of feminism to misogyny by some posters.

My issue is with the idea of feminism occupying a privileged place in terms of moderation in terms of the other "ism" and beliefs/social constructs that have been subject to lazy bashing in AH at times.
Thankfully reading the Shirt thread this doesn't seem to be the case

hullaballoo

There was this massive spider living in the crevice between the drainpipe and the wall in my yard. It was pretty frightening; I think it might have been one of those false widow spiders everyone was talking about last year.

Thankfully, it's gone now. I don't know where it's gone, though, which is also slightly worrying but I'm trying not to think about it too much.

Unknown Soldier

Ladies Lounge, born and raised by AH.

Gentlemens Club. born and raised by "Soc"


I always thought it was funny when one of them threw their toys out of their pram, for equality.

masculinist

K-9 wrote: »

There's a surprise, a discussion on misogyny turns into a moan about extreme feminism. Unfortunately both get equated in the mindset of some and here we are.

This is mainstream feminism where it counts - in the influence it has politically and legally in other countries and increasingly so here.

Are you aware of what is happening on American campuses to young males in the most powerful and influential country in the world right now ? They are getting their reputations and future careers ruined.

To date: no feminist organization has lobbied against "Yes Means Yes", but has in fact lobbied -for- it, in spite of the fact that it codifies into law on college campuses a preponderance of evidence standard which enables allegations leveled at students to be denied their civil liberties and kicked off campus. The same way Judith Grossman's son was.

[I can tell you about her and her son if you dont know anything or are too lazy to Google.]
let me just add in this article by the Feminist Judith Grossman herself ..
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324600704578405280211043510

I strongly recommend everyone read this article above. There is so much worth quoting I could quote it all.

So here is the crux of the matter:

One cannot openly lobby and support laws which violate the civil liberties of men, without omitting to have a hostility and or hatred for men. If feminists as the rhetoric of many on here says, are for equality in spite of gender: they would instead have been protesting the codification of such an gender biased law instead of campaigning for it.

This is mainstream stuff enshrined into mainstream law and mainstream policies. If universities don't behave like this towards male students then their Federal funding is at risk of being cut. This is the mainstream. They have to behave like this to get funded. This isn't extremists. If it was extremists then it would not be happening. It is the duty of every man and woman who cares about egalitarianism and about the future of male female relations to get off their arses and do something about this - to exclude the nutjobs and to do so very vocally. Not by somehow looking down on male rights. Often the response to a very very legitimate concern about lunacy in feminism is met with an ''you are a MRA so you dont count'' . I am not a card carrying member of any organisation yet I find it weird for the idea that someone cares about someone elses rights to be a bad thing.

I care about this as an egalitarian. I find it strange someone cares about an issue ''as a feminist'' instead of as a human being . I also care about this because what happens abroad in other English speaking countries usually has its influence felt here eventually and I find the situation described above [one of many severe inequities] disgusting and abhorrent. I don't want this extreme gender polarity to occur here which has occurred elsewhere. I think egalitarianism is the solution.
Only someone who is both a feminist and believes at the same time that feminism is about supremacy instead of equality could be threatened by any of these views.

Turtwig

masculinist wrote: »

It is the duty of every man and woman who cares about egalitarianism and about the future of male female relations to get off their arses and do something about this - to exclude the nutjobs and to do so very vocally. Not by somehow looking down on male rights. Often the response to a very very legitimate concern about lunacy in feminism is met with an ''you are a MRA so you dont count''

What on earth can Irish citizens do about anything happening in America? As if we could actually influence them. Even still, implying it's their duty is a tad bit hyperbolic.

Tombi!

Ah come on. This is going on a rant about feminists. Regardless if they're radical ones or not.

It has basically nothing to do with things here.

You can still have a negative opinion of feminism. Just don't phrase it like you're trolling or being a dick and possibly expect a good few posters to argue with you over it and all is good

masculinist

Turtwig wrote: »

What on earth can Irish citizens do about anything happening in America? As if we could actually influence them. Even still, implying it's their duty is a tad bit hyperbolic.

Sorry maybe I could have been more clear. What happens over there has a big chance of eventually occurring over here. Feminism is an international movement with its strongest powerbase , influence and sources of funding coming from the USA which is the most powerful and influential country in the world. If someone is claiming to be a feminist, a member of this international movement then they cannot complain about the reputation this movement has earned for itself in mainstream legal codes if they never ever do anything to change that reputation.
If they are disinterested in challenging inequity yet claiming to be feminist and constantly reporting innocent posts as misogyny - I have a few uncomfortable truths for them about their motivations and their morality.

Tombi!

I'm also going to mention the thread that's in AH about one of the scientists that had a shirt on featuring sexy women or something. Apparently it's sexist. A lot of people in the first few pages are either making posts or thanking posts that have a general idea of "your woman complaining is an idiot".
Some of the people are names I already know who are very pro-women rights. So take that as you wish.
So really, the idea that somehow Boards is going to say "no to bad mouthing feminism" is the new policy is completely unfounded. Don't get me wrong, if you say women in India are treated fine you might and (imo) deserve being carded.

But you can call out idiots where you see them; regardless if they call thmeselves feminists or not

P. Breathnach

masculinist wrote: »

... I have a few uncomfortable truths for them about their motivations and their morality.

So you believe you have the capacity to understand my motives, and the authority to pronounce on my morality?

Impressive.

masculinist

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So you believe you have the capacity to understand my motives, and the authority to pronounce on my morality?

Impressive.

You seem butthurt for some reason. Did you just put yourself into the frame as someone who supports the actions of mainstream feminism to erode in mainstream legislation the civil rights of men on college campuses in the USA ? You did actually read my post didnt you or did you just ignore a well thought out and well written post in order to come post an unhelpful smartarse comment ?

P. Breathnach

masculinist wrote: »

You seem butthurt for some reason. Did you just put yourself into the frame as someone who supports the actions of mainstream feminism to erode in mainstream legislation the civil rights of men on college campuses in the USA ? You did actually read my post didnt you or did you just ignore a well thought out and well written post in order to come post an unhelpful smartarse comment ?

I read your post.

I didn't see anything in it that wasn't already in other posts you have made. I don't share your view that it was well thought out, and I don't care to get into discussion about other people's writing skills.

Your closing remarks were outrageous, and that is what I chose to deal with.

masculinist

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I read your post.

I didn't see anything in it that wasn't already in other posts you have made. I don't share your view that it was well thought out, and I don't care to get into discussion about other people's writing skills.

Your closing remarks were outrageous, and that is what I chose to deal with.

Instead of being shocked at men on college campuses being denied equal rights and rights to a fair trial under the law you choose to be shocked at the trivial . That says a lot about you and it makes you no different than for example the person who cared more about a scientists shirt he was wearing than in his achievements .

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

tritium wrote: »

Strange thing but perception plays a huge part in how you interpret the debating style of AH. Before I read your last paragraph there I was thinking of several AH posters who use that tactic -mainly female and often defending feminist views or topics. Like I said, possibly perception but I think if we both added up the numbers their wouldnt be as big a gender bias there as you might think.
(Yes like electro-bitch I do tend to pop up a bit in threads of this nature)

I think After Hours needs some kind of Freaky Friday dealio where we all get new perspectives and learn lessons, gain new appreciation for each other and all that. Surely we can do that. Computers can do anything these days. :pac:

FWIW, while misogyny seems to be being corrupted to be synonymous with sexism in some quarter s I've never seen misandry used in a freely interchangeable way with sexism

I think it has, though maybe not on the same scale as misandry tends to be less frequently discussed/alleged. I'm pretty sure I recall discussions on AH of misandry in the legal system regarding custody rights, and misandry in the charity sector regarding domestic violence. Masculinist, I do believe, implicated his spell-checker in the misandrist-industrial complex in one of his first posts. Again, could be perception, when I see people say "misandry" I tend to read it as "sexism", maybe people aren't intending the term to be read that way.

Laura Palmer

masculinist wrote: »

This is mainstream feminism where it counts - in the influence it has politically and legally in other countries and increasingly so here.

Are you aware of what is happening on American campuses to young males in the most powerful and influential country in the world right now ? They are getting their reputations and future careers ruined.

To date: no feminist organization has lobbied against "Yes Means Yes", but has in fact lobbied -for- it, in spite of the fact that it codifies into law on college campuses a preponderance of evidence standard which enables allegations leveled at students to be denied their civil liberties and kicked off campus. The same way Judith Grossman's son was.

[I can tell you about her and her son if you dont know anything or are too lazy to Google.]
let me just add in this article by the Feminist Judith Grossman herself ...

I think you make a lot of very reasonable points here masculinist and while there are some people who seem to start discussions on feminism with the aim of creating a gender war/making thinly-veiled digs at women, I don't consider you one of same.

There's nothing wrong with discussing the issues you have covered above - it's an important topic to discuss. The issue is when the stirring and gender-war-creating makes its way into such discussions. As Brutal Deluxe pointed out, the controversy over Matt Taylor's shirt is being discussed on AH and criticism of the people who have an issue with this shirt is not a problem whatsoever (and rightly so).

masculinist

Laura Palmer wrote: »

I think you make a lot of very reasonable points here masculinist and while there are some people who seem to start discussions on feminism with the aim of creating a gender war/making thinly-veiled digs at women, I don't consider you one of same.

There's nothing wrong with discussing the issues you have covered above - it's an important topic to discuss. The issue is when the stirring and gender-war-creating makes its way into such discussions. As Brutal Deluxe pointed out, the controversy over Matt Taylor's shirt is being discussed on AH and criticism of the people who have an issue with this shirt is not a problem whatsoever (and rightly so).

Thanks Laura. I know where I stand when the votes are cast and when my life is on the line and thats firmly on the side of egalitarian rights for everyone. Some of these campaigners only see a justified means to an end and do not care about whether I am right. Yer man or whatever up above there wouldn't know a fact if it slapped him in the face but is so closed minded he refuses to even discuss anything.
It's not good enough for anyone to just keep calling other people names but refusing to address their research but thats the only thing they can do when they don't have the credibility to face cold hard bricks of logic. Feminism is an international movement. You had the President of Ireland discussing feminism in Africa a week or so ago. Feminism has infiltrated everywhere as a political movement. To say that foreign sources of funding, seminars and ideological direction for activists is not relevant to Ireland is extremely ignorant. I would not even confuse women's rights with feminism. They are unrelated. You do not need communism to advance economic and class equality. But a billion people believed that in the last century. I proved that feminism in the USA caused and continues to cause serious miscarriages of justice in the USA on college campuses for young men yet certain elements on boards dont care one iota about this. Instead their reaction is to try some lame attack on me as a person for even mentioning it which draws parallels with the actions of extreme [and mainstream] feminists abroad. Another thing they have in common with the feminists abroad. My reaction when I learned about it was ''oh no those poor guys. That is horrid and awful'' just like if I heard about anyone of any gender in any place affected by injustice but interestingly the evidence on boards that those who often screech Misogyny the loudest often also have zero empathy for injustice when it happens to men teaches us a lot about their politics and about their empathy for their fellow human beings. If your empathy for your fellow human beings depends on which gender they are , what does that make you ? it actually makes you sexist and a terrible person doesnt it ? Whats borders got to do with it ?

TheBeardedLady

Laura Palmer wrote: »

but refusing to consider others' viewpoints on the basis of their own, is part of the problem tbh). However I can understand some of the dismissal at a certain level, because examples were asked for and weren't provided. Bizarre. It's easy-peasy to find examples of threads containing lots of hostility towards women/all feminism:

The first two pages on that thread are filled with posters demanding examples. I was very tempted to spend an hour to trawl through threads and find concrete examples because, as you say, it would've been easy, but I knew they'd be discounted the minute I posted them. Most of those demanding examples weren't doing so with an open-mind so I didn't feel like getting into that. By the second page, sarcastic comments were made about how no examples were provided when they know well it would've taken a bit of time anyway. I believe those demanding examples on the first few pages weren't doing so to see our POV but to shut down the discussion. Again, why would I waste my time engaging in that? I've done it millions of times and I'm fed up with it at this stage.

A few examples were, in fact, provided (although not enough, I'll admit) and a few comments were made on that very thread but they were ignored.

Examples weren't provided because there were none but because they would've been pointless in a lot of cases.

The misogyny I had a problem with often didn't come in quotable sentences because it was often an ongoing style of posting from certain people or just a general "atmosphere" on a thread. It would be easy to pick out individual comments but they wouldn't have been a sufficient example to prove my point completely.

Like you, the comments on the appearance of that nutcase girlfriend didn't bother me and the "make a sandwich" comments don't bother me either. It's the proper, obvious dislike and resentment some posters have towards women that I have a problem with that is often hard to pin point on demand (and demanded in quite an aggressive way in some cases). Posters who can't engage with female posters at all without getting into an argument with them and treat us like one collective common enemy.

Imo, the problem was only REALLY, properly serious when I rejoined after the Summer. It progressively got worse in the last month or so and most female (and some male) posters I'm in touch with noticed. Up 'till then, it had its moments but it was bearable. In the last while, it became UNbearable.

In hindsight, I should've probably took the time to find some quotes but I felt at that time they would've fallen on deaf ears, so it would've been a pointless exercise.

Edit: As far as I can tell, the thread wasn't only referring to AH (the title of the thread refers to Boards) and I wasn't only referring to AH on that thread either.

TheBeardedLady

masculinist wrote: »

I would not even confuse women's rights with feminism. They are unrelated.

Not for me they aren't. That's exactly what it means to me, in fact.


Almost all activism I partake in, though, is looking for rights for the people, not solely women. I've marched in particular protests on what I perceive to be women's issues (the Spanish government trying to radically change the laws relating to abortion here, for example). I marched in a protest for the rights of fathers to have fair access to their children as did a large group of Spanish Feminists (alongside men holding "Down with Feminazi" posters).


I can see very clearly that men are treated with contempt in many areas of society and Boards has opened my eyes to a lot of it (by those who can debate rationally). Unfortunately there's hostility from some quarters towards ALL feminists which makes it impossible to get involved in those debates without ruining your day completely when you identify yourself as a moderate feminist. I've been called a feminazi quite a few times on Boards over the years (hence my "ironic" sig) and it's unpleasant.

Partaking in any discussion on it though unfortunately leads to gender wars, which I don't want to be involved in.

Extreme feminism, and extreme MRAism, is contemptible but it has nothing to do with what I believe in.

Harold Finchs Machine

Examples should taken all of 15 seconds to paste in from reported posts forum.

KomradeBishop

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

The first two pages on that thread are filled with posters demanding examples. I was very tempted to spend an hour to trawl through threads and find concrete examples because, as you say, it would've been easy, but I knew they'd be discounted the minute I posted them. Most of those demanding examples weren't doing so with an open-mind so I didn't feel like getting into that. By the second page, sarcastic comments were made about how no examples were provided when they know well it would've taken a bit of time anyway. I believe those demanding examples on the first few pages weren't doing so to see our POV but to shut down the discussion. Again, why would I waste my time engaging in that? I've done it millions of times and I'm fed up with it at this stage.

That's a very good point, and that happens for a lot of different types of regular discussions on AH - I notice that kind of stuff in economic topics a lot ("what are the alternatives?", me: "here's a list of a couple dozen alternatives", "still nobody able to show any alternatives! no point discussing problems if you've no alternatives :rolleyes:".

In particular, a thread another poster made, specifically for trying to get people discussing alternatives to economic/political/environmental problems - i.e. when encouraging others to suggest/discuss alternatives was the whole point of the thread - was blasted for and got bogged down in complaints about not presenting any alternatives...

I think that kind of stuff is a good example of the extreme hostility some topics attract on AH - which includes some of the gender-based threads - where many people like to pile-on, in a way that shuts-down productive discussion.

Laura Palmer

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

The first two pages on that thread are filled with posters demanding examples. I was very tempted to spend an hour to trawl through threads and find concrete examples because, as you say, it would've been easy, but I knew they'd be discounted the minute I posted them. Most of those demanding examples weren't doing so with an open-mind so I didn't feel like getting into that. By the second page, sarcastic comments were made about how no examples were provided when they know well it would've taken a bit of time anyway. I believe those demanding examples on the first few pages weren't doing so to see our POV but to shut down the discussion. Again, why would I waste my time engaging in that? I've done it millions of times and I'm fed up with it at this stage.

A few examples were, in fact, provided (although not enough, I'll admit) and a few comments were made on that very thread but they were ignored.

Examples weren't provided because there were none but because they would've been pointless in a lot of cases.

The misogyny I had a problem with often didn't come in quotable sentences because it was often an ongoing style of posting from certain people or just a general "atmosphere" on a thread. It would be easy to pick out individual comments but they wouldn't have been a sufficient example to prove my point completely.

Like you, the comments on the appearance of that nutcase girlfriend didn't bother me and the "make a sandwich" comments don't bother me either. It's the proper, obvious dislike and resentment some posters have towards women that I have a problem with that is often hard to pin point on demand (and demanded in quite an aggressive way in some cases). Posters who can't engage with female posters at all without getting into an argument with them and treat us like one collective common enemy.

Imo, the problem was only REALLY, properly serious when I rejoined after the Summer. It progressively got worse in the last month or so and most female (and some male) posters I'm in touch with noticed. Up 'till then, it had its moments but it was bearable. In the last while, it became UNbearable.

In hindsight, I should've probably took the time to find some quotes but I felt at that time they would've fallen on deaf ears, so it would've been a pointless exercise.

I didn't mean that in a confrontational way by the way, and I didn't mean just yourself - I just wondered, in general, why give the "I don't see it, therefore it's not happening" crowd (some of whom I wouldn't have expected it from - not because they didn't see the hostility towards women, but because they didn't try to consider why a number of people agreed it was present) the satisfaction of being able to say "No examples - we were right".
I do agree with your suspicion that it could have been used simply to shut down discussion.
And the "Don't be sensitive" angle also looks like a way of shutting down discussion, especially since the very same people would be just as pissed off if similar digs were being made at men/all MRAs on such a frequent basis.
Yes, I remember some of the sarcastic comments, like "Maybe it's because we're not using 'womyn'" or however you spell that thing. The first time I ever came across that "womyn" thing was from anti-feminist posters on Boards, I am otherwise completely unfamiliar with that spelling of the word.
It got particularly bad, as you say, in the last month/six weeks, after being refreshingly pleasant for the summer! Definitely has to be a correlation with the weather.
I remember there was a thread about shouting compliments (and more... "forceful" stuff) at women wearing summer clothes when the heatwave started, and that became a nasty, hateful cesspool with not just borderline misogyny but out-and-out misogyny, however after that, nothing for ages and it really made the place so much more enjoyable... and then, a turnaround as the days got darker and colder.

Sleepy

Demetrius Alive Snowman wrote: »

That is the pedant in you. Misogyny and misandry started to be used more frequently when "sexism" stopped being understood as "sexism against women", or at least that's my impression (and I'm another of those posters who's all over the gender threads, here and elsewhere).

TBH, this rather was my problem with the sticky: it implied that only sexism against women was being highlighted as a problem.

"Sexism" should never have only been understood as "sexism against women": discriminating against a man on the basis of his gender is just as unacceptable as discriminating against a woman on the basis of hers.

Laura Palmer

Sticky appears to have been removed now.

The fact that the mods/admins are more aware of the issue makes AH a much better place IMO now though - and there are still discussions about extreme feminism, it hasn't been stopped. And that's fine by me personally anyway - once this stuff isn't used to tar women/those with moderate feminist views.

I've seen elsewhere praise for Paul Elam (which to me is nearly the equivalent of praise for Andrea Dworkin, but I know most people would see that person for what he is) and there's some less than pleasant stuff on the PUA thread on AH ("women who wear wonderbras are worse than PUA" - o... k) but the fact there's awareness of these things, in and of itself, makes them easier to just gloss over (IMO anyway).

One thing that does crop up since the issue was acknowledged are these sarcastic comments along the lines of "How dare you say such a misogynistic thing?!" at times when something MRA or hardline feminist gets posted, e.g. a couple of comments like that to the International Men's Day thread (total sum of female objectors to that day - zero, whereas I'm thinking the reaction to a thread about International Women's Day would be very different). It just looks silly - don't know who they're supposed to be talking to. Nobody who raised the problem said misogyny or hostility to women includes merely discussing men's issues or criticising hardline feminism.

KomradeBishop

Laura Palmer wrote: »

One thing that does crop up since the issue was acknowledged are these sarcastic comments along the lines of "How dare you say such a misogynistic thing?!" at times when something MRA or hardline feminist gets posted, e.g. a couple of comments like that to the International Men's Day thread (total sum of female objectors to that day - zero, whereas I'm thinking the reaction to a thread about International Women's Day would be very different). It just looks silly - don't know who they're supposed to be talking to. Nobody who raised the problem said misogyny or hostility to women includes merely discussing men's issues or criticising hardline feminism.

Ya that's true - a lot of the criticisms of feminism are caricatures really (usually picking a handful of the most extreme of the extremist feminists - e.g. the thread on the Spanish extremist feminists), yet posters will often make sarcastic comments - as if aimed at some imaginary posters on Boards who are meant to hold similar views (when there are none).

There are plenty of reasonable criticisms of feminists, but there are a ton of shít-stirrers who follow the above pattern; the general pattern is: Find the most extreme feminists, then generalize them to all feminists, as a stick to beat them with - and start or post in threads to do this, aiming to troll/stir-shít.

An easy way to disarm all of that in a normal debate, is to just point out that people are making generalizations that they can't back - but I can't be bothered as it's just a waste of time doing that, when you know it will lead to an unproductive discussion (pages upon pages of people trying to wrangle out of backing their generalizations with proof), and when you know posters are just trying to troll anyway.

liz lemoncello

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

The first two pages on that thread are filled with posters demanding examples. .

I actually posted a few examples, but I don't think anyone responded to my post, not even to disagree with me.

mrkiscool2

There are definitely examples of sexism (against both men and women) on boards, it would take me hours to copy and paste every single instance. It doesn't mean it's misogyny or misandry. Some forums are worse than others.