The amount of misogyny on boards these days is frightening.Mod instruction in OP

RayM · 08-11-2014 02:44AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So are you saying that anti-feminism = misogyny? Deeply flawed argument in my view. Feminism is about more than just equality - I'm 100% in favour of gender equality (I advocate a gender blind society) but Feminism comes with a lot of other BS tacked on to it, like banning songs, magazines, etc which feminists find objectionable for one reason or another - I object so wholeheartedly to this that I refuse to associate myself with a movement which tolerates such ideologies within itself.

I am not, however, a misogynist.

I haven't said that at all. I'm saying that there is a pattern amongst some male posters on Boards (and, to a far greater extent, elsewhere on the internet) of being opposed to feminism, denying the very existence of misogyny or discrimination against women, whilst simultaneously displaying hypersensitivity to "misandry". We see it whenever any thread about women's rights, discrimination against women or men's behaviour towards women crops up. Well, a lot of us see it anyway. Maybe some people advocate a "misogyny-blind society".

RobYourBuilder · 08-11-2014 02:45AM

Karl Stein wrote: »

Look folks, we've two heroes here who have their fingers on the pulse of every black person and have decided to become spokespersons on their behalf.

Makes a change from the white, Irish, middle class lefties who live in predominantly white, middle class and Irish areas speaking on their behalf.

Gbear · 08-11-2014 02:45AM

If you look at any topic on AH there's always people who aren't generally trolls making trolly comments.

Sometimes the mods are happy to let it go (because the thread is just a bit of a laugh) and I don't think it does any harm. I think those sorts of posts tend to be contrarian piss-takes with no malice behind them and they just have a self-aware stupidity that's often lampooning the attitudes themselves. I suspect a lot of the "Wimmin get in the kitchen" posts were done by people acting the eejit rather than them actually believing those sentiments.

I can see why those kinds of issues could piss anyone off if they feel relentless but I don't think those ones are the problem. Thicker skin is the only way to stop that really. Possibly, like AskReddit, a "[Serious]" tag would head some of those sorts of comments off at the pass.

There's certainly a core of mysoginists, just like there's a core of global warming denialists, creationists and others who believe large amounts of bollocks. But I think it's a fairly small number and they're all generally ganged up on outside of their respective forums.

Everyone has prejudices and they're generally just down to differences in experiences. Anywhere you have a fairly monolithic group of people you're going to have a lack of perspective and inevitably at least small amounts of passive prejudices.
I don't think you can do a whole lot about that though. It'd be the same with any group of people.
It's right to pull people up on those prejudices - I've been called out on my opinions on women, Muslims and many other things in the past and I'm grateful to my friends for giving me those new perspectives - it's a safer environment than spouting bull**** and embarrassing yourself in front of people you don't know.

I think a lot of the backlash against "feminism" is down to people attacking those prejudices, which are just a part of our biology and how our brains work, with disproportionate amounts of venom or at the very least, a hugely misplaced sense of superiority from people who are just as prejudiced.
And then you get a self-fulfilling prophecy as people's negative impressions of others are reinforced.

CaptainInsano · 08-11-2014 02:46AM

Find it baffling that someone would find a random strangers opinion on an internet forum genuinely offensive or hurtful.

hatrickpatrick · 08-11-2014 02:47AM

RayM wrote: »

I haven't said that at all. I'm saying that there is a pattern amongst some male posters on Boards (and, to a far greater extent, elsewhere on the internet) of being opposed to feminism, denying the very existence of misogyny or discrimination against women, whilst simultaneously displaying hypersensitivity to "misandry". We see it whenever any thread about women's rights, discrimination against women or men's behaviour towards women crops up. Well, a lot of us see it anyway. Maybe some people advocate a "misogyny-blind society".

Examples?

masculinist · 08-11-2014 02:48AM

RayM wrote: »

I haven't said that at all. I'm saying that there is a pattern amongst some male posters on Boards (and, to a far greater extent, elsewhere on the internet) of being opposed to feminism, denying the very existence of misogyny or discrimination against women, whilst simultaneously displaying hypersensitivity to "misandry". We see it whenever any thread about women's rights, discrimination against women or men's behaviour towards women crops up. Well, a lot of us see it anyway. Maybe some people advocate a "misogyny-blind society".

You are ignoring equity feminists such as Christina Hoff Summers who are sadly in a minority. Women against feminism , honeybadger radio etc. many sane women reject feminism and think it is getting out of hand. In order to justify itself its continued existance Feminism has to become more and more lunatic. They are right. Egalitarianism is the progressive wave of the future.

Earl Turner · 08-11-2014 02:48AM

CaptainInsano wrote: »

Find it baffling that someone would find a random strangers opinion on an internet forum genuinely offensive or hurtful.

Exactly. Some people need to develop thicker skins.

ahnowbrowncow · 08-11-2014 02:49AM

RayM wrote: »

I can't help but feel that those who constantly dismiss or belittle all accusations of misogyny, yet display hypersensitivity to perceived "misandry" (a term that my spell checker doesn't seem to recognise - it's almost as though it's not an actual thing, LOL) are most definitely not motivated by egalitarianism.

You're being quite hypocritical because in that post you're doing the exact same thing you're complaining about. The way you say "hypersensitivity" and "perceived" is just as dismissive and belittling.

Frank Lee Midere · 08-11-2014 02:49AM

RayM wrote: »

I can't help but feel that those who constantly dismiss or belittle all accusations of misogyny, yet display hypersensitivity to perceived "misandry" (a term that my spell checker doesn't seem to recognise - it's almost as though it's not an actual thing, LOL) are most definitely not motivated by egalitarianism.

Funny that one of the guys who believes misandry exists made just the opposite point about his spell checker just a few pages back.

It's a legitimate word and hardly a neologism.

JasperGeorge. · 08-11-2014 02:50AM

masculinist wrote: »

I dont have an opinion about sluts except that they are eh ... sluts. Do you find an expressed fact shaming to you ?

I love it when people interchange the word fact with the word opinion. I further love it when they precede that with a pejorative term for a promiscuous person and state it as if the pejorative were a scientific classification.

Slut is in the Oxford dictionary but it has a unique status it has. In the nineteenth century, the word was used as a euphemism in place of "bitch" in the sense of a female dog. It originally meant dirty or unkept.

A more accurate way of putting your opinion might be. Sexually promiscuous women are a negative thing and dirty at that and sexually promiscuous women are to be subjected to pejorative nouns which announce to the world these characteristics which I personally think they have.

It is not like the word Bitch. The word bitch is a pejorative term to describe negative traits.

Slut is a negative term to describe personal choices or behavior that for women has no positive word really even if it hurts no one.

You are free to express your opinion. Your opinion is not a fact. The word slut is the word slut. Whether men and women who sleep around a lot should be subjected to it is your opinion. I don't see why the pejorative term befits them.

It's like the term manwhore. It's distasteful and meant to negate harmless personal choices.

KORTON · 08-11-2014 02:51AM

the slut walk that hit a dead end thread ! lol

masculinist · 08-11-2014 02:53AM

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Funny that one of the guys who believes misandry exists made just the opposite point about his spell checker just a few pages back.

It's a legitimate word and hardly a neologism.

Anyone who denies the existence of Misandry is mentally unhinged.

It can be proven to exist easily.

RayM · 08-11-2014 02:54AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Examples?

Is this the part where I single out an example of somebody who denies misogyny, then post a link to it, and then you tell me why you think I'm wrong. And then I tell you why I think you're wrong. Because I'm not playing that game. If you've never noticed a problem with misogyny on After Hours, you're probably completely blind to it, and spoon-feeding you with examples won't make the slightest difference.

masculinist · 08-11-2014 02:55AM

JasperGeorge. wrote: »

I love it when people interchange the word fact with the word opinion. I further love it when they precede that with a pejorative term for a promiscuous person and state it as if the pejorative were a scientific classification.

Slut is in the Oxford dictionary but it has a unique status it has. In the nineteenth century, the word was used as a euphemism in place of "bitch" in the sense of a female dog. It originally meant dirty or unkept.

A more accurate way of putting your opinion might be. Sexually promiscuous women are a negative thing and dirty at that and sexually promiscuous women are to be subjected to pejorative nouns which announce to the world these characteristics which I personally think they have.

It is not like the word Bitch. The word bitch is a pejorative term to describe negative traits.

Slut is a negative term to describe personal choices or behavior that for women has no positive word really even if it hurts no one.

You are free to express your opinion. Your opinion is not a fact. The word slut is the word slut. Whether men and women who sleep around a lot should be subjected to it is your opinion. I don't see why the pejorative term befits them.

It's like the term manwhore. It's distasteful and meant to negate harmless personal choices.

Nahh both fact and opinion have a place. If someone called me a manwhore I'd shake it off. I have my own story, my own history and my own reasons for what happened in my life. I dont care and I would rather be called a few names true or untrue which I can shake off or ignore in a nanosecond than live in a totalitarian feminist dominated 1984. Feminist want women to have leadership positions in the army etc but at the same time promote women as perpetual helpless victims. Women against feminism etc hate being constantly portrayed as victims with no agency over their own lives,

RayM · 08-11-2014 02:59AM

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

You're being quite hypocritical because in that post you're doing the exact same thing you're complaining about. The way you say "hypersensitivity" and "perceived" is just as dismissive and belittling.

I only said "perceived" because I didn't want to say "accusations of" twice in the same sentence. Not that hypocrisy necessarily invalidates a person's opinions. Although having said that, I've often accused people of hypocrisy just to diminish whatever point they've made, so I should probably stop right there...

hatrickpatrick · 08-11-2014 03:02AM

RayM wrote: »

Is this the part where I single out an example of somebody who denies misogyny, then post a link to it, and then you tell me why you think I'm wrong. And then I tell you why I think you're wrong. Because I'm not playing that game. If you've never noticed a problem with misogyny on After Hours, you're probably completely blind to it, and spoon-feeding you with examples won't make the slightest difference.

If you're not willing to show me what you mean, then how am I supposed to actually form an opinion...?

RobYourBuilder · 08-11-2014 03:02AM

RayM wrote: »

"misandry" (a term that my spell checker doesn't seem to recognise - it's almost as though it's not an actual thing, LOL).

Oh, well if your spell check doesn't pick it up! Thankfully, the dictionary does;

Main Entry: mis·an·dry

Pronunciation: \ˈmi-ˌsan-drē\

Function: noun

Etymology: mis- (as inmisanthropy) + andr- + 2-y

Date: circa 1909

: a hatred of men

— mis·an·drist \-drist\ noun or adjective

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misandry

Or do you believe that there is no such thing as misandry in Irish society?

hatrickpatrick · 08-11-2014 03:02AM

RayM wrote: »

Not that hypocrisy necessarily invalidates a person's opinions.

Are you actually being serious with this remark? O_o

feargale · 08-11-2014 03:07AM

SparkySpitfire wrote: »

I didn't really want to discuss feminism because there's already a thread on that, but I think it's a good thing, the thoughts that without it I wouldn't be sitting here in uni right now is pretty bleak.

FFS women have been in Irish universities since 1908. Would you like to hear about others who were denied uni education in the past, Catholics, atheists, Jews, children of the poor, and in many of those cases more recently than 1908?
I am sure I would be met with a torrent of abuse here if I suggested that you should concentrate on serious human rights abuses abroad. Yet, in some threads where men were discussing infringements against them in Ireland, they were visited by posters ( guess which gender ) who said exactly that, or words to that effect.
I recently stumbled on a thread which was discussing the feminist movement in a critical way. It had a mod warning against comments disrespectful of feminism. To give you one example, have you ever seen a mod warning against disrespect towards Christianity in an A&A thread, where just about anything goes? Slings and arrows for some, but dare not tread on other toes. What's sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander.
I'm not condoning insults to anybody, but I suspect that comments you refer to are often disrespectful of humanity in general. Consistency and even-handedness wouldn't go astray,

masculinist · 08-11-2014 03:14AM

Everyone with a brain and a computer especially men should start YouTubing critiques of Feminism and start calling downright offensive behaviour out.

I suggest a careful read of this page written by a woman http://lady-of-anti-feminism.tumblr.com/post/78622128314/debunk-feminism

Macavity. · 08-11-2014 03:15AM

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

The issue is with him, not me.

We know he has an issue regarding this topic, he admitted that. My point was that needlessly berating anyone who admits they are seeking help for such problems isn't exactly beneficial for discussion.

shruikan2553 · 08-11-2014 03:19AM

I'm not sure who is worse, that people who are actually misogynistic or the SJWs that would say check your privilege.

JasperGeorge. · 08-11-2014 03:23AM

masculinist wrote: »

Nahh both fact and opinion have a place. If someone called me a manwhore I'd shake it off. I have my own story, my own history and my own reasons for what happened in my life. I dont care and I would rather be called a few names true or untrue which I can shake off or ignore in a nanosecond than live in a totalitarian feminist dominated 1984. Feminist want women to have leadership positions in the army etc but at the same time promote women as perpetual helpless victims. Women against feminism etc hate being constantly portrayed as victims with no agency over their own lives,

You never called anyone a slut. But you attached the pejorative term rather than a neutral one to certain behavior by women that you personally disprove of.

Before calling someone a manwhore you first need to admit it is not about how many people I may have slept with. It's really about you and your personal opinion and feelings about my behavior. It's not about me at all. You are projecting your feelings about my behavior and using it to universally label the behavior for everyone.

When I hear a woman use the term player or manwhore or a man use the term slut I automatically think they are refusing to acknowledge that they are using their feelings to shape the description into a pejorative insulting one under the guise of a factual description.

It would be like someone calling a rose beautiful and trying to enter it into a botanical encyclopedia.

I don't know where you went with the second half of your post. You are jumping to conclusions by picking different ideas from news articles and popular culture and forming it into a rather clumsy narrative whilst trying to present it as argument.

I don't know why you brought it up it seems odd. But females can be leaders whilst at the same time being victims. You also assume without conclusive proof all feminists (note the qualifier word all) present all woman (again note the qualifying word all) as victims.

Some women should be leaders. Some would be hopeless. In fact very few women should be leaders just as in fact very few men should be leaders.

There are feminists who are quite frankly off their rocker and some of them are even in the public eye. This does not change reality in terms of defining and looking at other situations that have nothing to do with them.

In other words just because there are things about women in popular culture that piss you off does not mean you get to use that to justify an argument on a totally different topic.

Saying I can define promiscuous women as sluts because feminists say all women are victims and yet say women can be leaders. Is not an argument. It's a bizarre patchwork of thoughts half formed.

Some women against feminism want to go back to being solely housewives and being provided for. Some women against feminism love playing the victim. Some women against feminism have less than honorable reasons for being so. Others find it constraining and may have legitimate reasons for finding it so. But if you want to use them as some kind of absolute proof you are going to have to deal first with the fact a some women are feminists. And most probably are neither for nor against feminism.

The truth is most women are not particularly for or against feminism I have found.

It is possible to be an MRA and a feminist .....gender egalitarianism or humanist I think is the term.

JasperGeorge. · 08-11-2014 03:24AM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

I'm not sure who is worse, that people who are actually misogynistic or the SJWs that would say check your privilege.

That unfortunately is becoming a prevailing and lazy attitude yes.

JasperGeorge. · 08-11-2014 03:25AM

Macavity. wrote: »

We know he has an issue regarding this topic, he admitted that. My point was that needlessly berating anyone who admits they are seeking help for such problems isn't exactly beneficial for discussion.

Here here.

RayM · 08-11-2014 03:26AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If you're not willing to show me what you mean, then how am I supposed to actually form an opinion...?

As I said, I'm not going to spoon-feed you, as though you've never seen a thread on After Hours before. If your perception is that there is no issue with misogyny on After Hours, I respectfully disagree, but I'm unlikely to say anything that will persuade you otherwise. And I frankly can't be arsed with that kind of charade either. The examples are out there (Hint: you might even find some of them on this thread).

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

Oh, well if your spell check doesn't pick it up! Thankfully, the dictionary does;

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misandry

Or do you believe that there is no such thing as misandry in Irish society?

It was a facetious throwaway comment - hence the "LOL" at the end of the sentence. Like anti-white racism (for example), it exists and it's a bad thing, but I don't really see it as a major problem in Irish society or anything. Yes, men are discriminated against where fathers' rights are concerned. But at least the state is never going to force us to go through childbirth against our will. So being a man isn't all bad...

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Are you actually being serious with this remark? O_o

Deadly serious. You should see how serious my face looks right now.

JasperGeorge. · 08-11-2014 03:32AM

masculinist wrote: »

Anyone who denies the existence of Misandry is mentally unhinged.

It can be proven to exist easily.

It absolutely exists. It just historically has not driven social policies. It's more visible in areas where women did have influence more in shaping ideals of men or in the arts. The baddies are nearly always men. But it's largely in the non corporeal or imagined world rather than set down in laws historically. But it's definitely something to guard against.

And again just as with misogyny and sexism against women misandry and sexism against men are very different things.

Iran for instance arguably could have more misandry than Ireland against men yet less sexism. There might be more hatred by women yet less powers to affirm that.

hatrickpatrick · 08-11-2014 03:34AM

RayM wrote: »

As I said, I'm not going to spoon-feed you, as though you've never seen a thread on After Hours before. If your perception is that there is no issue with misogyny on After Hours, I respectfully disagree, but I'm unlikely to say anything that will persuade you otherwise. And I frankly can't be arsed with that kind of charade either. The examples are out there (Hint: you might even find some of them on this thread).

I'm not denying it exists, but I suspect that some people are regarding non-misogyny as misogyny as well. These threads about misogyny always seem to crop up when threads about custody or sentencing discrimination are near the top of AH, which makes me query whether real misogyny is being referenced, or anti-feminism.

Deadly serious. You should see how serious my face looks right now.

Fair enough. In my view holding any kind of double standards (hypocrisy) automatically invalidates one's argument and destroy's all credibility.

masculinist · 08-11-2014 03:35AM

JasperGeorge. wrote: »

You never called anyone a slut.

Not true. She begged me to call her a slut.

However she will remain forever nameless. I do not want to control other peoples lives. This also means I also allow jerks to expose themselves without censorship so that others may also freely form their own opinions about those people too.

Clandestine · 08-11-2014 03:38AM

Other people's opinions are more important than your feelings. If the mods don't want something on Boards, fair enough. If not, deal with it.

The amount of misogyny on boards these days is frightening.*Mod instruction in OP*

Comments

The amount of misogyny on boards these days is frightening.Mod instruction in OP