Boards unfettered sexism (See Mod Note in first post)

[Deleted User]

anewme wrote: »

I would not see it as odd at all.

I had missed that Poster Dudara too, really lovely poster.

To me, what she is saying makes total sense, there are areas of the site and forums and people on the site who are amazing, I've had lots of help to queries down the years, be they household, personal, or what else.

The other side of it, there are the toxic posters who are hate driven and want to hurt people. Its not about different views, there can be different views without abusing or mocking people.

It is when the good ones leave as a result of the bad ones and that the bad ones are not tackled, that discussions have no barrier or filter (somebody mentioned imigrants should be drowned as an example) that posters like Dudara and indeed many posters who have been honest here dont see an option but to leave or stay away.

Surely that is consorship in itself. Might as well put up a keep out sign.

Indeed Twitter is not a medium to express nuance.

Invidious

runawaybishop wrote: »

*Cough*

Anyway, 'You ladies want a forum free from sexism racism, transphobia etc.'

Wtf is wrong with that? Doesn't everyone want that. By the very definition of those terms they are negative.

The problem is that sexism, racism, transphobia, etc., are often highly subjective.

For instance, I've noticed quite a few female posters across Boards voicing concerns about male-bodied trans individuals using women's bathrooms and changing facilities, competing in women's sports, being housed in women's prisons, and the like. Started by a woman, the Current Affairs thread "Biological males in women's sport" attracted over 2,000 responses. Other women have voiced concern about language that erases specific female experience from the public sphere -- such as referring to "people who are pregnant" rather than pregnant women, to "chestfeeding" rather than breastfeeding, and so on.

Many regard these as legitimate women's issues that need to be discussed. But others accuse those who wish to preserve certain female-specific spaces, competitions or terminology of being transphobes or "TERFs."

When it comes to racism ... that's obviously another charged issue. For instance, domestic violence, sexual abuse, and coercion/control of women are far more prevalent in the Travelling community than in the settled community — many Traveller girls are pressured into arranged marriages at the age of 16 or 17, and a Traveller woman is 30 times more likely to experience domestic violence than a settled woman. But if Travellers are criticized openly for their treatment of girls and women, such discussions will inevitably attract accusations of racism against an ethnic minority.

To some, a forum "free from sexism racism, transphobia, etc" is a desirable goal. To others, it would create a politically correct echo chamber where important issues — including important women's issues — can't be discussed openly for fear of someone declaring him- or herself offended.

Obviously, it's not just boards. Any site hosting public discourse is wrestling with these same issues — and there are no clear answers.

anewme

Invidious wrote: »

The problem is that sexism, racism, transphobia, etc., are often highly subjective.

To some, a forum "free from sexism racism, transphobia, etc" is a desirable goal. To others, it would create a politically correct echo chamber where important issues — including important women's issues — can't be discussed openly for fear of someone declaring him- or herself offended.

Obviously, it's not just boards. Any site hosting public discourse is wrestling with these same issues — and there are no clear answers.

Yes, agree any site has the same issues. But here, there does not seem to be any real appetite to raise the qualitative standards.

There can be a discussion on womens fashion for example, saying what you like or dont like without going into graphic detail about folds, camel toes, fat pigs, etc.

Notwithstanding any discussions or different views, discussions and debate are one thing.....if you read the posts on the leggings thread, you will see why people have had enough.

Referring to any person as a pig is not the level of engagement needed. It is abuse. Same as laughing at someone for their looks, weight. Thread on Tommy Tiernan had numerous posts about a lad who had lost his friend through suicide. Instead of engaging with the topic, there were a lot of insulting comments on the young man's looks.

That type of behaviour is driving people away from Boards and this thread here demonstrates that people have had enough.

For a forum that markets itself as a Community Forum, the base line threshold behaviour level is very low (across certain forums), which unfortunately seems to be creeping more and more into the main.

Annasopra

Invidious wrote: »

To some, a forum "free from sexism racism, transphobia, etc" is a desirable goal. To others, it would create a politically correct echo chamber where important issues — including important women's issues — can't be discussed openly for fear of someone declaring him- or herself offended.

Or it becomes the opposite where its an extremely unwelcoming echo chamber that no women, feminists, trans people, travellers, refugees, asylum seekers, black and ethnic minority people, people of colour go near because they are treated with ridicule, bigotry and hate.

anewme

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Or it becomes the opposite where its an extremely unwelcoming echo chamber that no women, feminists, trans people, travellers, refugees, asylum seekers, black and ethnic minority people, people of colour go near because they are treated with ridicule, bigotry and hate.

As is evidenced by people leaving and the low quality threads such as the leggings one remaining.

strandroad

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Or it becomes the opposite where its an extremely unwelcoming echo chamber that no women, feminists, trans people, travellers, refugees, asylum seekers, black and ethnic minority people, people of colour go near because they are treated with ridicule, bigotry and hate.

We'll probably losing sound men too. You don't need to be the "other" yourself to be disappointed in how the dominating discourse treats them.

anewme

strandroad wrote: »

We'll probably losing sound men too. You don't need to be the "other" yourself to be disappointed in how the dominating discourse treats them.

I'd say that is a real issue too. Have seen some men rounded on as white knights, wuss etc and worse for not agreeing with the cohort of people we are talking about.

Gruffalux

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Or it becomes the opposite where its an extremely unwelcoming echo chamber that no women, feminists, trans people, travellers, refugees, asylum seekers, black and ethnic minority people, people of colour go near because they are treated with ridicule, bigotry and hate.

See that. A perfect example where a valid debate (on gender theory and identity) that is generally civilised,
apart from some unpleasant types who drop in clangers and are quickly eliminated, thankfully, is casually framed in absolute terms by a person on one side of the issue as being ridicule, bigotry and hate. So I presume the intention is to claim those on the other side of the issue are bigots and haters who ridicule people - which is a complete lie.

strandroad

Gruffalux wrote: »

See that. A perfect example where a valid debate (on gender theory and identity) that is generally civilised,
apart from some unpleasant types who drop in clangers and are quickly eliminated, thankfully, is casually framed in absolute terms by a person on one side of the issue as being ridicule, bigotry and hate. So I presume the intention is to claim those on the other side of the issue are bigots and haters who ridicule people - which is a complete lie.

In fairness, how do you think a trans person would benefit from your thread exactly Gruffalux? With all the things you deny them (like agency or bathroom access) and the things you imply (like self-fetishism) they would need to denounce themselves or be a complete masochist to participate. I know that trans posters have left boards in the past and "generally civilised" is a very generous self-categorisation. Try reading it as someone with a trans family member for example and see if it still applies. At least you're not trolling outside of it - so it's somewhat out of scope here.

GingerLily

strandroad wrote: »

We'll probably losing sound men too. You don't need to be the "other" yourself to be disappointed in how the dominating discourse treats them.

More generally than sound men, I think it tends to drive away the middle ground, so you end up with just extreme posters from both sides, and no one listening to each other

Gruffalux

strandroad wrote: »

In fairness, how do you think a trans person would benefit from your thread exactly Gruffalux? With all the things you deny them (like agency or bathroom access) and the things you imply (like self-fetishism) they would need to denounce themselves or be a complete masochist to participate. I know that trans posters have left boards in the past and "generally civilised" is a very generous self-categorisation. Try reading it as someone with a trans family member for example and see if it still applies. At least you're not trolling outside of it - so it's somewhat out of scope here.

So, I am trolling inside of it? That is your direct implication. I think to accuse someone of being a troll is against boards rules. Perhaps you can withdraw the false accusation now.

I am speaking on behalf of children who are being abused by gender confusion ideology and experimental medication, and on behalf of the rights of women (especially) to maintain their own sex-based rights and protections. Which I will continue to do. There are a good number of prominent people engaged in the debate outside of boards, who are good people but are supposedly on the wrong side of history. Like JK Rowling. Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Joanne Cherry who is presently receiving multiple rape threats from activists and has had to up her home security.
I have always said there must be parallel rights and protections, but women's rights cannot be overthrown.
There are many good liberal women in that thread. I am generally civilised. I do not have to provide references for others. Joey has implied directly that I am a hater and a bigot, not the first time by any means.

Fetish is a large portion of the transgender issue, both in reference to cross dressers and to autogynophiliac transgender people - it is the awkward elephant in the room. Not all of course as I regularly say. But it is an important part of the wider debate no matter how indiscrete you think me for pointing it out.

Yakov P. Golyadkin

Gruffalux wrote: »

So, I am trolling inside of it? That is your direct implication. I think to accuse someone of being a troll is against boards rules. Perhaps you can withdraw the false accusation now.

I am speaking on behalf of children who are being abused by gender confusion ideology and experimental medication, and on behalf of the rights of women (especially) to maintain their own sex-based rights and protections. Which I will continue to do. There are a good number of prominent people engaged in the debate outside of boards, who are good people but are supposedly on the wrong side of history. Like JK Rowling. Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Joanne Cherry who is presently receiving multiple rape threats from activists and has had to up her home security.
I have always said there must be parallel rights and protections, but women's rights cannot be overthrown.
There are many good liberal women in that thread. I am generally civilised. I do not have to provide references for others. Joey has implied directly that I am a hater and a bigot, not the first time by any means.

Fetish is a large portion of the transgender issue, both in reference to cross dressers and to autogynophiliac transgender people - it is the awkward elephant in the room. Not all of course as I regularly say. But it is an important part of the wider debate no matter how indiscrete you think me for pointing it out.

You're terribly defensive, unnecessarily so I would say.

There are any number of other threads where you can soapbox, as it is you seem to be distracting from the purpose of this thread.

strandroad

Gruffalux wrote: »

So, I am trolling inside of it? That is your direct implication. I think to accuse someone of being a troll is against boards rules. Perhaps you can withdraw the false accusation now.

This thread arose from examples of sexist low level trolling in non obvious threads (like fashion), that's what I'm referring to.

Gruffalux wrote: »

I am speaking on behalf of children who are being abused by gender confusion ideology and experimental medication, and on behalf of the rights of women (especially) to maintain their own sex-based rights and protections. Which I will continue to do. There are a good number of prominent people engaged in the debate outside of boards, who are good people but are supposedly on the wrong side of history. Like JK Rowling. Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Joanne Cherry who is presently receiving multiple rape threats from activists and has had to up her home security.
I have always said there must be parallel rights and protections, but women's rights cannot be overthrown.
There are many good liberal women in that thread. I am generally civilised. I do not have to provide references for others. Joey has implied directly that I am a hater and a bigot, not the first time by any means.

Fetish is a large portion of the transgender issue, both in reference to cross dressers and to autogynophiliac transgender people - it is the awkward elephant in the room. Not all of course as I regularly say. But it is an important part of the wider debate no matter how indiscrete you think me for pointing it out.

Your thread is based on generalising fringe content and behaviours onto the general and benevolent trans population with proposed negative impact on their rights. Would a bog standard vanilla trans person or their close ones benefit from your thread? Is it a problem for boards if they don't or they leave because they can't stomach how they are painted? I don't know, it's an open question, but it seems related to problems discussed.

Gruffalux

Haha at least consult when you are trying to depict someone in a bad light to get the story straight. The last 2 posters cannot decide whether my views are relevant or irrelevant soap boxing.
Anyway I have said my pieces generally on this whole area. I will leave you to it. Between having the words bigot, hate, ridicule, soap boxing, trolling, and defensive directly applied to me by the good folk and how benevolent people cannot stomach how I paint them, I know when I am considered an undesirable. Bye now y'all.

Faith

Mod note: A reminder to keep on topic, please.

Invidious

anewme wrote: »

Yes, agree any site has the same issues. But here, there does not seem to be any real appetite to raise the qualitative standards.

There can be a discussion on womens fashion for example, saying what you like or dont like without going into graphic detail about folds, camel toes, fat pigs, etc.

Boards has many forums, with different charters and standards of moderation, meaning that what is acceptable in one forum may not be acceptable in another.

The OP linked to a thread in After Hours, which has a completely different set of posting standards from, say, The Ladies' Lounge or Fashion & Appearance.

In the latter two forums, it would be perfectly possible to have a respectful, informative discussion of women's fashion without people discussing the kinds of things that upset you.

On the other hand, AH is frequently irreverent, flippant and off-color. Most Boards members know what to expect when they go there ... and it's not a serious discussion of women's fashion trends. There are other forums on the site that can facilitate that.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Or it becomes the opposite where its an extremely unwelcoming echo chamber that no women, feminists, trans people, travellers, refugees, asylum seekers, black and ethnic minority people, people of colour go near because they are treated with ridicule, bigotry and hate.

After you've deleted all the content and banned all the posters who might offend women, feminists, trans people, travellers, refugees, asylum seekers, black and ethnic minority people, and people of colour, what and who will remain?

Given the financially precarious position of Boards, the adage "go woke and go broke" comes to mind. The degree of censorship required to produce the kind of sanitized, politically correct Boards.ie that some here envision would drive all non-woke progressives off the site and likely result in its immediate collapse.

cee_jay

Invidious wrote: »

Boards has many forums, with different charters and standards of moderation, meaning that what is acceptable in one forum may not be acceptable in another.

The OP linked to a thread in After Hours, which has a completely different set of posting standards from, say, The Ladies' Lounge or Fashion & Appearance.

In the latter two forums, it would be perfectly possible to have a respectful, informative discussion of women's fashion without people discussing the kinds of things that upset you.

On the other hand, AH is frequently irreverent, flippant and off-color. Most Boards members know what to expect when they go there ... and it's not a serious discussion of women's fashion trends. There are other forums on the site that can facilitate that.

Ah I see we have circled back to "Log off", "Ignore it" because its to be expected in that forum. This is what we are attempting to highlight. Posts can be irreverent, flippant and off-colour - but that doesn't mean sexist posts along those lines should be acceptable.

anewme

Invidious wrote: »

Boards has many forums, with different charters and standards of moderation, meaning that what is acceptable in one forum may not be acceptable in another.

The OP linked to a thread in After Hours, which has a completely different set of posting standards from, say, The Ladies' Lounge or Fashion & Appearance.

In the latter two forums, it would be perfectly possible to have a respectful, informative discussion of women's fashion without people discussing the kinds of things that upset you.

On the other hand, AH is frequently irreverent, flippant and off-color. Most Boards members know what to expect when they go there ... and it's not a serious discussion of women's fashion trends. There are other forums on the site that can facilitate that.

I beg to disagree.

After Hours is described as under the heading of "Social & Fun".

I dont see any fun in calling people fat pigs.

Same as a thread about Television is not to make derogatory personal comments about a grieving young man's appearance.

The overarching charter of Boards is that personal abuse or mysogony or hatred will not be tolerated.

On the report button - it asks you to report posts in the interest of "make boards a better place".

After Hours - more social and fun - less mysogony.

Creating no go areas is exactly what this thread is about.

Invidious

cee_jay wrote: »

Posts can be irreverent, flippant and off-colour - but that doesn't mean sexist posts along those lines should be acceptable.

So posters can be as irreverent, flippant and off-colour as they want, as long as they never say anything that could offend women, feminists, trans people, travellers, refugees, asylum seekers, black and ethnic minority people, or people of colour?

This vision of a hyper–politically correct Boards.ie, with cards and bans flying on every thread, would only lead many posters to walk away, leading to the site's immediate collapse. Go woke and go broke.

Grolschevik

Invidious wrote: »

So posters can be as irreverent, flippant and off-colour as they want, as long as they never say anything that could offend women, feminists, trans people, travellers, refugees, asylum seekers, black and ethnic minority people, or people of colour?

This vision of a hyper–politically correct Boards.ie, with cards and bans flying on every thread, would only lead many posters to walk away, leading to the site's immediate collapse. Go woke and go broke.

It's not hyper-political correctness. It's just avoiding being too much of a dick.

What sort of things do you think you'd no longer able to say? Is it stuff that would cause hurt to people who already feel marginalised? If not, you've nothing to worry about in terms of political correctness.

I think the best way of conceptualising PC is, fundamentally, as good manners. Don't say or do stuff that makes people who already feel vulnerable feel even more vulnerable or feel bad.

Chips Lovell

I think there's a big difference between being "hyper politically correct" and clamping down on women being called "fat pigs in yoga pants". From my reading of the thread, it's the latter that most people are pushing for.

Grolschevik

Yeah, a good and simplistic benchmark is the "would I say this to their face?" test.

Invidious

Grolschevik wrote: »

What sort of things do you think you'd no longer able to say?

I gave a couple of examples earlier. Threads on whether male-bodied trans individuals should be allowed to compete against natal women in sports would be banned for being "transphobic." Threads on the abominable treatment of girls and women in the Travelling community would be banned for being "racist."

I think the best way of conceptualising PC is, fundamentally, as good manners. Don't say or do stuff that makes people who already feel vulnerable feel even more vulnerable or feel bad.

Saying that people should post only content that doesn't make anyone feel bad sets an impossible standard. If I post about getting a great new job, I risk making unemployed people feel worthless. If I post about going for a walk, I risk making disabled people feel miserable. If I post about losing 10 lbs and getting in shape, I risk making overweight people feel insecure. And so on.

Airyfairy12

Grolschevik wrote: »

Yeah, a good and simplistic benchmark is the "would I say this to their face?" test.

Unfortunately some of them would have no problem saying these things to a womans face.

cee_jay

Invidious wrote: »

I gave a couple of examples earlier. Threads on whether male-bodied trans individuals should be allowed to compete against natal women in sports would be banned for being "transphobic." Threads on the abominable treatment of girls and women in the Travelling community would be banned for being "racist."



Saying that people should post only content that doesn't make anyone feel bad sets an impossible standard. If I post about getting a great new job, I risk making unemployed people feel worthless. If I post about going for a walk, I risk making disabled people feel miserable. If I post about losing 10 lbs and getting in shape, I risk making overweight people feel insecure. And so on.

Nobody is saying you can't post about weight loss - however, degrading someone to "a fat slob in yoga pants hurts my eyes earlier in the coffee shop - how dare she wear that" is sexism. A woman does not dress to please a random man on the street.
I would love if there could be a civil discussion on travelers, and the abuse travelers receive - however, more often than not, these threads are piled on by users using it as an excuse to highlight their own prejudices against travelers - and use these stats to say ALL travelers are criminals, lying, cheating ba$tard$ who just sponge off the state. That is a generalisation, i.e. racist, and does not lead to a civilised discussion that allows for the debate.

Invidious

Chips Lovell wrote: »

I think there's a big difference between being "hyper politically correct" and clamping down on women being called "fat pigs in yoga pants". From my reading of the thread, it's the latter that most people are pushing for.

From my own reading of the thread, it began with people objecting to gratuitously offensive comments about women's bodies — but then evolved to the point where certain posters are using the opportunity to propose lists as long as their arms of all the categories of people who need to be protected from any offensive remarks. And that's where we get into the realm of wokeness, hyper political correctness, or whatever you want to call it.

Faith

Invidious wrote: »

After you've deleted all the content and banned all the posters who might offend women, feminists, trans people, travellers, refugees, asylum seekers, black and ethnic minority people, and people of colour, what and who will remain?

Women, feminists, trans people, travellers, refugees, asylum seekers, black and ethnic minority people, and people of colour.

anewme

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

Unfortunately some of them would have no problem saying these things to a womans face.

I don't think they would actually.

Birds of a Feather flock together.

They somehow feel safer to express these views surrounded by their cloak of anonymity behind their keyboard.

I've certainly never had anyone I know speak to me or about others in such an ignorant manner.

anewme

Invidious wrote: »

From my own reading of the thread, it began with people objecting to gratuitously offensive comments about women's bodies — but then evolved to the point where certain posters are using the opportunity to propose lists as long as their arms of all the categories of people who need to be protected from any offensive remarks. And that's where we get into the realm of wokeness, hyper political correctness, or whatever you want to call it.

It began as that, because that is such an obvious example - staring at people straight in the face. There could be no denying that thread was abusive and downright nasty - but then other people came forward with their own examples of what they have experienced and in some cases why they left and it has demonstrated that their is a wider issue at play in respect of what is tolerated on the site.

If you applied the Charter "dont be a dick" to many of the posters in the leggings thread, there would not be many left standing. Now you could see that as a good or a bad thing in the overall context of adding value.

And of course, when someone objects, they must be a "delicate flower" or something like that.

Bannasidhe

Faith wrote: »

Women, feminists, trans people, travellers, refugees, asylum seekers, black and ethnic minority people, and people of colour.

And the men who don't feel threatened by them.