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

hatrickpatrick · 08-11-2014 01:25PM

beks101 wrote: »

So your way of 'respecting people's right to air opinions which are the opposite of mine' in this case is to tell those people to read another thread, move on with their lives and quit taking things so personally, clearly the interwebz - and the world - doesn't suit them? So basically, 'your opinion doesn't matter to me and get over it'? Very courteous.

How are you making that leap? I support all opinions' right to be expressed. That doesn't mean I support the opinion that some opinions should not be expressed. Telling people to read another thread is not telling them not to air their opinions, it's telling them not to tell others not to air their opinions lest someone find those opinions offensive.

This post reads very Sir Humphrey ish for some reason, so to clarify: I support opinions being aired. I oppose censorship on the grounds of offense. I apply the aforementioned principles to every debate, not just the gender debate.

hatrickpatrick · 08-11-2014 01:27PM

eviltwin wrote: »

There was a good discussion here yesterday on PUA's that had to be closed because so many "new" members joined to derail the thread, that kind of thing is frustrating.

Why did it "have to be closed", exactly? If it was being derailed, so what? Why shut it down as opposed to letting the discussion continue? Who benefitted from closing it, and who would have been harmed by leaving it open?

Note that I didn't post in the aforementioned thread, don't know what it was about, have no dog in that fight except being anti-closure.

Wibbs · 08-11-2014 01:28PM

Yarf Yarf wrote: »

Most of the posts in this thread could be summed up with: "la la la la la! Not listening!" *fingers in ears*

Sand's post summed it up far better for me; "The OP is perfect catnip for a gender based mess, with the female assigned role of wanting to passive-aggressively complain about a problem in general without solving it, while males try to pin down specifics so the problem can be identified and solved and both frustrate the other for 30+ pages."

Shrap · 08-11-2014 01:28PM

tritium wrote: »

Is it getting worse, I don't think so (quite amazing though the number of posters with 150 odd posts who feel it is worse than in the past).

Just to clear up this, as I was one of the posters yesterday saying that it seems worse recently, I'm a re-reg of Obliq and have been hanging around here off and on since 2010.

eviltwin · 08-11-2014 01:30PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why did it "have to be closed", exactly? If it was being derailed, so what? Why shut it down as opposed to letting the discussion continue? Who benefitted from closing it, and who would have been harmed by leaving it open?

Note that I didn't post in the aforementioned thread, don't know what it was about, have no dog in that fight except being anti-closure.

You'd have to ask the mod who closed it! I don't know why it was locked, it was a good thread.

That's another issue with AH. A few messers derail a thread and the entire thing is shut down. Can we not just ban them and let the rest of the grownups continue the conversation?

P. Breathnach · 08-11-2014 01:32PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

...
This is exactly the point I'm making, I disagree with them but what the hell? It's not going to stop me posting, because as the end of the day it's just not that important. There are threads I wish would be left alone but aren't, but one simply moves on and posts somewhere else. My point is, I apply the same to threads which offend me deeply - I don't call for people to be banned or for discussion to be stifled. I personally feel that there is a lot of evidence that this is becoming a central aspect of modern feminism however - shutting down discussion which is "offensive". Which ironically is the main reason I so strongly object to it.

So it's okay for you to stick around here where there is moderation that you don't like, but you are happy to suggest to others that they should not participate in online forums.

One of the reasons why I participate in Boards while I avoid some other forums is that it is (generally) reasonably well moderated.

hatrickpatrick · 08-11-2014 01:33PM

eviltwin wrote: »

You'd have to ask the mod who closed it! I don't know why it was locked, it was a good thread.

That's another issue with AH. A few messers derail a thread and the entire thing is shut down. Can we not just ban them and let the rest of the grownups continue the conversation?

Ah apologies, when you said "it had to be closed" I read that as you approving of the closure. My mistake.

volchitsa · 08-11-2014 01:34PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In my opinion it's irrelevant. Someone genitalia, arguably one of the most psychologically significant organs, was altered surgically without their consent and in the absence of medical necessity. This is in my view the only relevant issue.

And that it's a violation, as it's done without consent, to an extremely important organ and psychologically significant, and in the absence of any medical necessity. Same as for girls, essentially, although to a different degree.

They share the common aspect that both involve surgical alteration of the genitals without consent and without medical necessity. Ergo both are wrong, both should be illegal. Stop looking at it from the point of view of the procedure and think about it instead from the bodily integrity point of view - all babies should have the right to full genital integrity unless medical emergency dictates otherwise. There's no need to further qualify that, as anyone stepping over that line would automatically be criminalized. Problem solved, for everyone.

Why only genital integrity then? If it isn't about the effects of surgery, but only the attack on the child's bodily integrity, it seems illogical to limit a law to the genitalia alone.

There's an argument to be made that parents shouldn't be allowed to remove their children's bodily integrity at all without good reason (ear piercing can have serious consequences if it gets infected for example).

What if someone wanted to tattoo their child? Do we need separate laws for each relevant organ?

hatrickpatrick · 08-11-2014 01:35PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So it's okay for you to stick around here where there is moderation that you don't like, but you are happy to suggest to others that they should not participate in online forums.

You're not getting it, I'm not telling anyone not to participate, I'm simply saying that sticking around despite the presence of things you don't approve of (in my case over-moderation, in your case over-abundance of trolling) is pretty essential for survival on the internet. Calling for things you don't approve of to be banned is, in my view, rather immature - just as it would be rather immature if I called for Boards to have no moderation rather than just accepting that it's there and getting on with it.

One of the reasons why I participate in Boards while I avoid some other forums is that it is (generally) reasonably well moderated.

Let's imagine for a second that it wasn't. Why would it matter? Does reading random comments from random strangers cause you that much anguish?

masculinist · 08-11-2014 01:35PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

And if you disagree with Boards' moderation policy and practice, why the hell are you still here?

What a peculiar question to ask somebody. Boards thrives on feedback and in fact has approved channels for feedback and disagreement. You know what sort of system did not thrive on feedback ? The USSR. I was not aware that Boards exists as an echo chamber. You can disagree with a rule yet still respect it. I believe we should join most of the rest of the world and drive on the other side of the road for example but you will still find me on the left hand side.

hatrickpatrick · 08-11-2014 01:37PM

volchitsa wrote: »

Why only genital integrity then? If it isn't about the effects of surgery, but only the attack on the child's bodily integrity, it seems illogical to limit a law to the genitalia alone.

I agree.

There's an argument to be made that parents shouldn't be allowed to remove their children's bodily integrity at all without good reason (ear piercing can have serious consequences if it gets infected for example).

I agree. Doing such without consent should indeed be banned.

What if someone wanted to tattoo their child? Do we need separate laws for each relevant organ?

Not at all, as far as I'm concerned non medical emergency related surgical alteration of infants should be banned across the board. It should be up to the individual and the individual alone.

I'd be astonished if there wasn't already a law against parents getting tattoos for infants? If there isn't, that's outrageous and there certainly should be.

hatrickpatrick · 08-11-2014 01:38PM

masculinist wrote: »

You can disagree with a rule yet still respect it.

And as such, you can disagree with a person's "offensive" opinion, yet still respect their right to hold and air it.

masculinist · 08-11-2014 01:41PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And as such, you can disagree with a person's "offensive" opinion, yet still respect their right to hold and air it.

This too. I actually meant to say this too. This is an absolute core principle for me. The line where I start to become offended is when this foundationstone of modern free society is attacked. Not particularly on boards but in general.

Mr. Incognito · 08-11-2014 01:41PM

41 pages. No examples. Just random bile.

*sigh*

I notice that any attempt to ask for evidence, any retort to the eleven year old report posted has been simply ignored or deflected to reference something else.

This is not a debate. Its a moan.

Anytime someone asks for some data they are either

1. Ignored
2. Derailed to something else such as online dating, Brendan shine, gaming, other threads, general random off topic nonsense

This thread will inevitably limp on going in circles and die a mutually frustrated death.

volchitsa · 08-11-2014 01:43PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I agree.

I agree. Doing such without consent should indeed be banned.

Not at all, as far as I'm concerned non medical emergency related surgical alteration of infants should be banned across the board. It should be up to the individual and the individual alone.

I'd be astonished if there wasn't already a law against parents getting tattoos for infants? If there isn't, that's outrageous and there certainly should be.

It should be put the other way round actually - you are right that these things are all banned except the religiously motivated ones.

I think that is the real question, why do we allow people to do such things to children on the grounds of religion?

bodice ripper · 08-11-2014 01:44PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I agree.

Not at all, as far as I'm concerned non medical emergency related surgical alteration of infants should be banned across the board. It should be up to the individual and the individual alone.

I'd be astonished if there wasn't already a law against parents getting tattoos for infants? If there isn't, that's outrageous and there certainly should be.

There are no laws in Ireland to prevent it, particularly if the parents are ok with it.

In the Netherlands they recently dropped the age from 14 with a parent's consent (which is already disgustingly low...) to 12. god knows why.

masculinist · 08-11-2014 01:48PM

bodice ripper wrote: »

There are no laws in Ireland to prevent it, particularly if the parents are ok with it.

In the Netherlands they recently dropped the age from 14 with a parent's consent (which is already disgustingly low...) to 12. god knows why.

wow... I just realised this... I had thought you had to be at least 16 to get a tattoo...

Not according to here :

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/reference/checklists/checklist_at_what_age_can_i.html

Just wow...

hatrickpatrick · 08-11-2014 01:48PM

volchitsa wrote: »

It should be put the other way round actually - you are right that these things are all banned except the religiously motivated ones.

I think that is the real question, why do we allow people to do such things to children on the grounds of religion?

Well we don't allow animal sacrifice, honour killing, forced marriage etc in the name of religion, and if FGM was religiously motivated I can't imagine for one second that it would be tolerated. So why are we tolerating male circumcision? Barbaric practices don't become OK because some religion espouses them.

hatrickpatrick · 08-11-2014 01:49PM

bodice ripper wrote: »

There are no laws in Ireland to prevent it, particularly if the parents are ok with it.

That's unbelievably f*cked up.

In the Netherlands they recently dropped the age from 14 with a parent's consent (which is already disgustingly low...) to 12. god knows why.

I'm ok with that, personally. But not for infants with no voice who can't actually say whether or not they're ok with it.

The Backwards Man · 08-11-2014 02:15PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Couldnt you report this and say I suspect this poster is trolling could mods please watch

Oh I do, and to any mods reading I apologise for the curtness of some of my reports, but I hate seeing hateful ******* thinking they're smart enough to get away with it.

bodice ripper · 08-11-2014 02:28PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's unbelievably f*cked up.

I'm ok with that, personally. But not for infants with no voice who can't actually say whether or not they're ok with it.

no, the problem is if you are still in puberty, the tattoo can and will be ruined by the skin shifting. I mean, asides from the ethical problems

volchitsa · 08-11-2014 02:28PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Well we don't allow animal sacrifice, honour killing, forced marriage etc in the name of religion, and if FGM was religiously motivated I can't imagine for one second that it would be tolerated. So why are we tolerating male circumcision? Barbaric practices don't become OK because some religion espouses them.

No disagreement there from me, but Germany (Berlin, IIRC) was accused of anti-semitism recently for trying to outlaw circumcision of baby boys, so not everyone agrees with you.

That still doesn't make male circumcision a male equivalent of FGM, for the reasons I outlined earlier. Particularly the fact that it is a recognized medical procedure, and there is even some evidence that circumcised men are less likely both to get and to transmit heterosexually-transmitted AIDS.

P. Breathnach · 08-11-2014 02:34PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You're not getting it,

Oh, I'm getting it all right, including the point that "you're not getting it" is ofen a code for "you're thick". This thread is about Boards seeming to be unwelcoming to some people, and I would prefer Boards to be welcoming to most people.

I'm not telling anyone not to participate, I'm simply saying that sticking around despite the presence of things you don't approve of (in my case over-moderation, in your case over-abundance of trolling) is pretty essential for survival on the internet.

You didn't "tell" anybody not to participate, and I didn't say you did. You suggested it, and you are renewing that suggestion.

Calling for things you don't approve of to be banned is, in my view, rather immature - just as it would be rather immature if I called for Boards to have no moderation rather than just accepting that it's there and getting on with it.

That's indiscriminate bollocks. Of course certain things should be banned. In some cases, the law requires it.

Let's imagine for a second that it wasn't. Why would it matter? Does reading random comments from random strangers cause you that much anguish?

Anguish? No, not me. But it sometimes irritates me that interesting discussions get derailed by people acting the dick. And it disappoints me that some posters who might have useful contributions to make seem to be driven away by jerks.

Turtwig · 08-11-2014 03:04PM

bluewolf wrote: »

It's funny to see the number of "evidence please" posts on this after all the posts from people making up all sorts of sh1t about the single mother in that other thread

I haven't read that single mother thread. I suspect many others with an interest in this thread haven't either. So far all I've seen on this thread is the usual suspects doing their usual shyte. Very little actual ongoing discussion and as amazing as this sounds not many examples, even hypothetical ones, being given. Just cries of it being obvious, others claiming it isn't and round and round we go. Admittedly I haven't read all of the thread though.

Grayson · 08-11-2014 03:08PM

masculinist wrote: »

wow... I just realised this... I had thought you had to be at least 16 to get a tattoo...

Not according to here :

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/reference/checklists/checklist_at_what_age_can_i.html

Just wow...

Parents pierce the ears of infants. That's just weird

The Strawman Argument · 08-11-2014 03:41PM

Em, I wasn't on here much for a few weeks there and there definitely seemed to be a big increase in it when I came back.
That "Sexy street harassment" thread in particular had (imo) some really bizarre opinions in it, wasn't keeping track of the people who were posting (i.e. to see if they usually seemed like intelligent, rational people) but it was disheartening stuff regardless. Perhaps the tensions from that thread/video permeated through the rest of the forum(s)?

Actually the scale of the negative reaction towards that video everywhere was very surprising to me considering how the video really isn't that provocative or anything.

No way am I reading 42 pages though, kind of glad I wasn't around when this thread was started, I'd've read them all! I assume everyone's agreed that it is a bit frightening and it's all resolved?

Pwindedd · 08-11-2014 03:57PM

I would agree, some what, that there is an undertone of sexism - it doesn't actually hurt me in any way and it doesn't prevent me posting - I just think the poster is a bit of a prick and try not to engage with them.

I would suggest only a very few posters are outright misogynistic though. And hey ho didn't they wave a little flag to say "woohoo here I am" in this very thread.

There are also a few regular posters who practically fall over themselves to rush to any thread to do with gender issues. They're quite eloquent and I would agree with some of their points - however I still feel the "them and us" mentality pervades some of their arguments.

And to those saying "examples please or it ain't happening" it would be extremely unfair to single out one or two posts/posters - to give a fair perspective of the issue one would have to identify all posts that had a sexist tone and then whittle down to the worst. One can have a general Christmassy feeling without having to identify the individual elements that make it Christmassy.

The OP had many thanks - that's a lot of users that identify with this issue - it won't make us go away or stop using boards, and most of us just ignore it. That doesn't make it right, fair or acceptable.

As an addition I would add that the Anti-British sentiments of some posters are far more hurtful to me than the sexist ones. It's a theme that pervades AH - mostly unchecked - and I for one am tired of it.

jackofalltrades · 08-11-2014 04:16PM

volchitsa wrote: »

That still doesn't make male circumcision a male equivalent of FGM, for the reasons I outlined earlier. Particularly the fact that it is a recognized medical procedure

Labiaplasty is also a recognised medical procedure.

and there is even some evidence that circumcised men are less likely both to get and to transmit heterosexually-transmitted AIDS.

AFAIK the study that is mainly put forward to back up this position seems to be widely discredited.

Tarzana2 · 08-11-2014 04:44PM

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm personally convinced that circumcision of little boys probably is a form of mutilation, but it is still a false parallel. How many little girls have ever had this operation done for medical reasons? None. It is a purely mutilating act, specifically to impede sexual pleasure. Many men who have been circumcised claim that they experience as much sexual pleasure as non circumcised men.

The worst that one can say about male circumcision for religious reasons is that like any surgery it entails a risk for the child, and that it may possibly, in some cases, reduce sexual pleasure to some degree.

That is very different from FGM, so insisting that they are equivalent is, quite frankly, absurd.

I totally agree. I'm against both but there is simply no comparison between the two.

Male circumcision is unnecessary in most cases, and I'm against any kind of unnecessary procedure being carried out on a young baby with an immature immune system, but it, for most men, won't have a huge impact on their sex life the way FGM will for a great many women who were subjected to it. FGM is also, even in its least invasive form, is more invasive than male circumcision.

volchitsa · 08-11-2014 04:52PM

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Labiaplasty is also a recognised medical procedure.

AFAIAA, labiaplasty is a purely aesthetic issue, unlike circumcision, for which there are clear medical indications. So perhaps you could be more precise and say whether your claim is that FGM can sometimes be necessary or desirable?

jackofalltrades wrote: »

AFAIK the study that is mainly put forward to back up this position seems to be widely discredited.

I haven't heard this (though you could be right). Do you have any links?

Edit : the WHO doesn't seem to be aware of your claim, their main objection to it is that it is not a fail safe method and therefore may lead to greater risk-taking behaviour. But that isn't the same as saying it isn't true.
http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/

The US CDC was also still under the impression that there was a real effect in April 2013 (the most recent article I came across in an admittedly brief google.) http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/malecircumcision/

But perhaps you have more recent information which disproves the theory?
Although of course none of that would change the fact that male circumcision can be medically indicated for individual boys and men, unlike FGM - which was my original point.

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