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

RDM_83 again · 08-11-2014 05:14PM

Turtwig wrote: »

I haven't read that single mother thread. I suspect many others with an interest in this thread haven't either.

The single mothers thread is actually an interesting example. A lot of posters here are taking it as evidence of misogyny, I think you could make an equally valid argument that its actually just a standard dole bashing/class bashing thread its just the subject is a woman. The issue isn't automatically't with her gender it was with entitlement, the same stuff would be leveled at a dead-beat dole cheat man with 5 kids from 5 different women. Thats my (male) reading of it though.

The Backwards Man wrote: »

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.

I could argue you and other posters do similar though but coming from a "right on" perspective. Like you were carded literally just last week on that thread about the 16 year old abusers for a post that seemed to be designed to divert the thread because you didn't like it (because of the accused Race I presume)
A hard line on the border line trolling would be good but it should recognize its not just the re-regs that do it, plenty of baiting goes on from high count posters that should know better.

Actually 2 points, without doubt there is some level of misogyny exists on AH, however is part of the feeling that the forum isn't welcoming perhaps also due to a clash of world views/political/social opinion, like I can guess which 5-15 posters will thank each post. Its pretty clear that there is groupings of the same posters that post in nearly every thread on a social justice/gender issue, if group X has more female posters in it and is attacked it may not be to do with gender it might simply be that group Y just disagrees with group X's views.
For the record one of my favourite posters used to be Clairefontain not but because I agreed with all her views (I didn't) but because they were coming from what felt like some-one outside the various cliques that exist on here.

Point 2 I've read in this thread the idea that previous posts/views from female posters are used as ammunition against them, I'l admit I've done this and it probably isn't "nice" behaviour. I've also done this to a few male posters I argue with a lot because shockingly people remember what other users have posted and with Advanced Search it takes literally about 2 seconds. Now this is borderline dickish behaviour but its actually common behaviour on here, people are constantly called on their previous posts or opinions, however its only when a female poster is involved that the stalking card/personal issue card seems to get pulled (yes I know sexist generalization sorry :eek: )

These points aren't seeking to reduce the impact of the actual misogyny that does exist here.

RDM_83 again · 08-11-2014 05:23PM

Gavin Shaggy Stoutness wrote: »

It's not on this forum though, it's on a forum for women. Time and time again mods stepped in to say the validity of feminism was not up for discussion in the thread, time and time again it happened. And disagreeing with certain aspects of feminism, yes, I totally get that, I'm one of those people myself. Fundamentally disagreeing with feminism in all its forms, telling women they don't know what they're talking about because they've been blinded by feminist doctrine, that feminism is inherently misandrist etc., and derailing a thread chock full of good examples of why feminism is still something we should care about by saying we're stupid for caring about it is different. A quick scoot through the history of the posters who pull it usually turns up all sorts of other stuff too. Disagreeing with feminism does not necessarily equal misogyny, no; it's just that an awful lot of the time it's misogynists do it. To put it another way, not all people who disagree with feminism or aspects thereof are misogynists, but all misogynists disagree with feminism.

For the record I did post on that thread a bit, I was never sanctioned or warned of so I appear to have stayed within guidelines, I was probably a annoying disruptive poster for the main users of the thread but when people post stuff that is either factually incorrect or use terms even the OP of this thread think are bad (and it was a genuine question RE mansplaining and male-feminists) I felt commenting was justified as I wasn't questioning a posters personal opinion.
That said I won't read the new thread in case I am tempted to comment but as someone who reads both tGC and tLL I've never seen a volume of male posters in a thread on there that matches the volume of female posters on a few threads on the tGC.

Gavin Shaggy Stoutness wrote: »

I'm not really sure what you're talking about there, I don't think I read that thread.

Ah basically OP described his ex having a history that would be far far outside the norm for 95% of people (not simply more prudish/conservative people), yet the most popular opinion were stating that it "didn't matter" or judging the Op for his reaction. It was just a good example of how far the boards "right on" opinion can diverge from what people would likely say in real life if they were actually involved.

Gavin Shaggy Stoutness wrote: »

Nail on the head there.

Is there any solution to this though, short of barring any topic that involves woman in AH?

masculinist · 08-11-2014 05:43PM

I have yet to see specific examples of misogyny in boards. However I have seen misandry in the treatment of circumcision. Circumcision is invading someones bodily autonomy just as as FGM does. Circumcision is irreversible too [there are painful methods of trying to fix it as far as I know but this is like telling a rape victim that he or she doesnt have any diseases or pregnancy hence no harm done move along now after scrubbing your naked body with a wire brush and bleach for a few years. A disgusting attitude].

Comparing ear piercing of kids to a dangerous surgical procedure is irrelevant unless one wishes to outlaw ear piercing of kids. When ear piercing is used to somehow denigrate the arguments against circumcision then it is absolutely around the bend. Thousands of people wish they had never been circumcised against their will as babies. Many of them lose a lot of sexual pleasure and feel incomplete like a part of them has been stolen. You will find it difficult to find someone who wishes they never had their ears pierced. This is because an ear left to itself after being pierced will heal satisfactorily on its own. Foreskins don't grow back. I imagine you would have to get your ear pierced in a sewer to die from it. I am sure it does happen however the statics from circumcision are alarming in a way which ear piercing statistics are not.

Check this out:

http://www.examiner.com/article/new-study-estimates-neonatal-circumcision-death-rate-higher-than-suffocation-and-auto-accidents

''A new study published last week in Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies estimates that more than 100 baby boys die from circumcision complications each year, including from anesthesia reaction, stroke, hemorrhage, and infection. Because infant circumcision is elective, all of these deaths are avoidable.''

Additionally:

''To put this in perspective, about 44 neonatal boys die each year from suffocation, and 8 from auto accidents. About 115 neonatal boys die annually from SIDS, nearly the same as from circumcision.''

Also below linked below : ''More baby boys die in the US from Circumcision than suffocation or car accidents!''
So why do we make such a fuss about child seats in cars etc ? Because those deaths are avoidable just like circumcision deaths are avoidable.

http://iinformedparenting.blogspot.ie/2010/09/more-baby-boys-die-in-us-from.html

Further information: http://www.drmomma.org/2010/05/death-from-circumcision.html

We all know the awareness campaigns, the sheer fuss made from cot death/SIDS yet circumcision creates equal numbers of deaths and in some places causes more deaths of baby boys than SIDS. And it is totally avoidable. The life of just one baby boy is surely worth leaving your egos at the door and stop defending this abhorrent practice of male circumcision learned from primitive stone age tribes. Please remember which century this is.

Mister Vain · 08-11-2014 05:46PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Some threads are full of trolling but that IMO is not enough to tar the entire place with one brush and suggest that it's impossible to use it - if, as you say, the annoyance passes, then why not simply move on to the next thread?

Good question. I mean Jesus there are plenty of threads in AH that are fine, but some people would rather spend a lot of time and energy arguing with dickish posters that make up the minority. There's too much troll feeding. It's so obvious when a poster is just looking to get a rise out of someone, and unfortunately they almost always succeed.

masculinist · 08-11-2014 05:53PM

Mister Vain wrote: »

but some people would rather spend a lot of time and energy arguing with dickish posters

Some might find the usage of ''dickish'' to be interesting from a sexist point of view. This is clear evidence of institutionalized misandry when sexist language completely flys under everyones radar. Dicks are bad is the message therefore everyone who has one could be bad too and we can use them to describe bad people while objectifying them. I'm not one to complain much but on a thread about misogyny whats good for the goose is good for the gander. It's an interpretation which draws heavily upon feminist logic.

The Strawman Argument · 08-11-2014 05:57PM

masculinist wrote: »

Some might find the usage of ''dickish'' to be interesting from a sexist point of view. This is clear evidence of institutionalized misandry when sexist language completely flys under everyones radar. Dicks are bad is the message therefore everyone who has one could be bad too and we can use them to describe bad people while objectifying them. I'm not one to complain much but on a thread about misogyny whats good for the goose is good for the gander. It's an interpretation which draws heavily upon feminist logic.

Yeah, I mean, you don't have that with any words for female genitalia with negative connotations. Sure cúnt is a word people exclusively use for good things! :rolleyes:

masculinist · 08-11-2014 06:02PM

The Strawman Argument wrote: »

Yeah, I mean, you don't have that with any words for female genitalia with negative connotations. Sure cúnt is a word people exclusively use for good things! :rolleyes:

Thats not my concern. I dont use that language. I find it interesting how people tolerate certain things while ignoring other things. Its still a double standard. You dont need to use special alphabets to write dick unlike the other word. The word censor doesnt care about one but does about the other

ceadaoin. · 08-11-2014 06:06PM

volchitsa wrote: »

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?

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.

There are some cases where labiaplasty is needed for medical reasons. Most are performed for aesthetic purposes though.

The size, colour, and shape of labia vary significantly, and may change as a result of childbirth, aging and other events.[1] Conditions addressed by labiaplasty include congenital defects and abnormalities such as vaginal atresia (absent vaginal passage), Müllerian agenesis (malformed uterus and fallopian tubes), intersex conditions (male and female sexual characteristics in a person); and tearing and stretching of the labia minora caused by childbirth, accident and age.

volchitsa · 08-11-2014 06:13PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

There are some cases where labiaplasty is needed for medical reasons. Most are performed for aesthetic purposes though.

Is FGM a similar operation to the sort of reparatory surgery you mention though?

It's my understanding that there is no reparatory surgery of any sort that corresponds in any way to the type of surgery involved in FGM.

Pwindedd · 08-11-2014 06:20PM

masculinist wrote: »

Some might find the usage of ''dickish'' to be interesting from a sexist point of view. This is clear evidence of institutionalized misandry when sexist language completely flys under everyones radar. Dicks are bad is the message therefore everyone who has one could be bad too and we can use them to describe bad people while objectifying them. I'm not one to complain much but on a thread about misogyny whats good for the goose is good for the gander. It's an interpretation which draws heavily upon feminist logic.

Sorry but I would strongly disagree with this.

Dick vs cûnt. Prick vs geebag. Cock vs pussy. All derogatory terms used interchangeably. There's no leaning towards male slang words. Cûnt is universally accepted as a not very nice word. In the media - films etc - it's only rarely used and for shock value. That's why it's censored. I don't believe it's a sexism thing. I don't think you do either.

The Strawman Argument · 08-11-2014 06:24PM

masculinist wrote: »

Thats not my concern. I dont use that language. I find it interesting how people tolerate certain things while ignoring other things. Its still a double standard. You dont need to use special alphabets to write dick unlike the other word. The word censor doesnt care about one but does about the other

but its not so much about the literal translation of the word as the connotations which have been attached to it over time, and c*nt has received a far stronger level of negative association than dick (or any other words for penis that I can think of).
How much the evolution of c*nt into being the big bad word is down to sexism? I haven't a clue, much like dick and cock and so on, it's probably mostly down to a prudish society, the sound of the word surely played a big part too but there's definitely a much bigger argument that c*nt is an example of institutionalised misogyny (in the past, at least).

So, yeah, imo, to say "dickish" is institutionalised misandry is... eh... well... bollocks!

KomradeBishop · 08-11-2014 06:37PM

Good article on swearing I linked elsewhere a few days ago - had this to say about 'cúnt'

Some people have been puzzled about why cúnt should be taboo. It is not just an unprintable word for the vagina but the most offensive epithet for a woman in America. One might have thought that, in the male-dominated world of swearing, the vagina would be revered, not reviled. After all, it's been said that no sooner does a boy come out of it than he spends the rest of his life trying to get back in. This becomes less mysterious if one imagines the connotations in an age before tampons, toilet paper, regular bathing, and antifungal drugs.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/what-the-f

Cathy.C · 08-11-2014 06:39PM

The Strawman Argument wrote: »

but its not so much about the literal translation of the word as the connotations which have been attached to it over time, and c*nt has received a far stronger level of negative association than dick (or any other words for penis that I can think of).

That's true but the point which the user is attempting to make (I feel) is that while the connotation of those words does indeed have a more negative association, they are not embraced in the way which the term 'Don't be a dick' undoubtedly has.

There has been TED talks on the term. It is in charters.

Not too sure how I'd feel if 'Don't be a pussy' or 'Don't be a c***' was a point of a charter tbh.

Cathy.C · 08-11-2014 06:41PM

The Strawman Argument wrote: »

but its not so much about the literal translation of the word as the connotations which have been attached to it over time, and c*nt has received a far stronger level of negative association than dick (or any other words for penis that I can think of).

That's true but the point which the user is attempting to make (I feel) is that while the connotations of those words does indeed have a more negative association, those words are not embraced in the way which the term 'Don't be a dick' undoubtedly has. There has even been TED talks on the term. It is in charters.

Not too sure how I'd feel if 'Don't be a pussy' or 'Don't be a c***' was a point of a charter tbh.

masculinist · 08-11-2014 06:41PM

Cathy.C wrote: »

That's true but the point which the user is attempting to make (I feel) is that while the connotation of those words does indeed have a more negative association, they are not embraced in the way which the term 'Don't be a dick' undoubtedly has.

ThankYou . Yes thats what I meant to say. The C word is basically banned from everywhere. Most people don't use it and look down on it anyway. However the D word is universal.

Thrill · 08-11-2014 06:52PM

Cathy.C wrote: »

Not too sure how I'd feel if 'Don't be a pussy' or 'Don't be a c***' was a point of a charter tbh.

You could ask "If I wouldn't use a female body part to describe bad behavior then why would it be OK to use a male body part to do so?"

Don't be a dick is the third sentence in AH charter for instance. Why not "Don't be a twat"?

Pwindedd · 08-11-2014 07:01PM

Quite interesting if a little off topic - The word dick used as slang for penis appears to be a relatively recent development

"The word connoted a person of questionable character long before it became a nickname for the penis. For example, in the 1665 satire The English Rogue by Richard Head, an unsavory character is referred to as a "dick":

The next Dick I pickt up for her was a man of a colour as contrary to the former, as light is to darkness, being swarthy; whose hair was as black as a sloe; middle statur'd, well set, both strong and active, a man so universally tryed, and so fruitfully successful, that there was hardly any female within ten miles gotten with child in hugger-mugger, but he was more than suspected to be Father of all the legitimate.

An 1869 slang dictionary offered definitions of "dick" including "a riding whip" and an abbreviation of dictionary, also noting that in the North Country, it was used as a verb to indicate that a policeman was eyeing the subject.[3] The term came to be associated with the penis through usage by men in the military around the 1880s."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_(slang)

Wikipedia I know but the references appear sound enough.

BlatentCheek · 08-11-2014 07:26PM

Pwindedd wrote: »

Quite interesting if a little off topic - The word dick used as slang for penis appears to be a relatively recent development

"The word connoted a person of questionable character long before it became a nickname for the penis. For example, in the 1665 satire The English Rogue by Richard Head, an unsavory character is referred to as a "dick":

The next Dick I pickt up for her was a man of a colour as contrary to the former, as light is to darkness, being swarthy; whose hair was as black as a sloe; middle statur'd, well set, both strong and active, a man so universally tryed, and so fruitfully successful, that there was hardly any female within ten miles gotten with child in hugger-mugger, but he was more than suspected to be Father of all the legitimate.

An 1869 slang dictionary offered definitions of "dick" including "a riding whip" and an abbreviation of dictionary, also noting that in the North Country, it was used as a verb to indicate that a policeman was eyeing the subject.[3] The term came to be associated with the penis through usage by men in the military around the 1880s."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_(slang)

Wikipedia I know but the references appear sound enough.

The fact that the author was called Richard Head was merely a coincidence?

Mister Vain · 08-11-2014 07:30PM

Pwindedd wrote: »

Cûnt is universally accepted as a not very nice word.

It's all in the pronunciation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVUwmpFh65I

Pwindedd · 08-11-2014 08:02PM

BlatentCheek wrote: »

The fact that the author was called Richard Head was merely a coincidence?

Apparently so. Lol. Didn't even spot that. And Irish to boot!

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=richard%20head%20irish%20writer&newwindow=1&gws_rd=ssl

DoYouEvenLift · 08-11-2014 08:31PM

There are actually people arguing in favour of infant genital mutilation for boys in Ireland now? God damn. I thought that stupidity was contained only to USA and a few other countries who do it mostly for aesthetic reasons. Irish people don't circumcise their kids nowadays I hope? It should be made illegal until 18 years old when you can make the decision for yourself but even then the only people who should choose it should be guys suffering from phimosis. It's not hard to teach your kids to clean themselves properly, chances are they'll even learn by intuition during puberty, and retracting the foreskin yourself for cleaning/masturbating when developing is pretty much necessary to avoid phimosis. If someone feels that their son will grow up to be too lazy to wash their penis when they shower everyday then by all means cut part of his dick off in exchange for thousands of nerve endings which will reduce his sexual pleasure when he's older.

The Strawman Argument wrote: »

Yeah, I mean, you don't have that with any words for female genitalia with negative connotations. Sure cúnt is a word people exclusively use for good things! :rolleyes:

Lots of people use the work kunt as terms of endearment with friends, look at Australians and some Irish and English even use it in the same way we'd use "mate". The word has the same meaning as pussy, gash, muff or whatever other silly slang there is for vagina so if someone's offended over it then they should find equal offence in any of the other slang words.

RobYourBuilder · 08-11-2014 09:12PM

Pwindedd wrote: »

Cûnt is universally accepted as a not very nice word. In the media - films etc - it's only rarely used and for shock value.

What country do you live in? C*nt is a very common word in Ireland. Usually used when referring to male friends or acquaintances. "He's a sound/decent/mad//grumpy/generous/funny/whatever c*nt". Ditto in Australia and the UK. It's a grand word that nicely rolls of the tongue. Generally used as a term of endearment. If you think it sexist, that's your beeswax.

It's only Americans that freak out over the word. A lot of posters on here seem to use American buzzwords and adopt American sensibilities to things. Probably speak like seppos too.

It won't be long before they are waffling on about "white privilege" and telling "allies" to "shut up and listen".

DeadHand · 08-11-2014 09:15PM

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

There are actually people arguing in favour of infant genital mutilation for boys in Ireland now?

Who is?

Macavity. · 08-11-2014 09:18PM

Cunt is awful common. It's used affectionately, as an insult, to describe things ("that's cuntish") etc... I have no idea how it came up in this thread, and don't want to know. Just came in to add that you'd need to be living under a rock to think it's not used regularly in everyday life. Sure there's a student night (run by a well known nightclub) called CUNT in Dublin.

DoYouEvenLift · 08-11-2014 10:00PM

Macavity. wrote: »

Cunt is awful common. It's used affectionately, as an insult, to describe things ("that's cuntish") etc... I have no idea how it came up in this thread, and don't want to know. Just came in to add that you'd need to be living under a rock to think it's not used regularly in everyday life. Sure there's a student night (run by a well known nightclub) called CUNT in Dublin.

Lmao at this, friend of mine always uses that, and 'kunting'. I think it's a great word, use it frequently too now that I think about it. Anyone who takes offence to it is giving power to a simple word and if anything that'll just make people want to use it even more since it can cause a bit of shock. Such sensitive people lol, how can someone get offended by the sounds someone's vocal chords make, that's all that words are and it's up to the individual to interpret them and let them affect them

jackofalltrades · 08-11-2014 10:06PM

Tarzana2 wrote: »

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

Just because one is more severe doesn't men that they are not comparable.
They are comparable on many levels.

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.

This depends on a lot of factors, it's overly simplistic to say one is fine but the other is terrbile.

FGM is also, even in its least invasive form, is more invasive than male circumcision.

Not true, FGM in it's least invasive form Type 1(a) would be roughly the same as male circumcision.

jackofalltrades · 08-11-2014 10:07PM

volchitsa wrote: »

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/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22320006

In 2007, WHO/UNAIDS recommended male circumcision as an HIV-preventive measure based on three sub-Saharan African randomised clinical trials (RCTs) into female-to-male sexual transmission. A related RCT investigated male-to-female transmission. However, the trials were compromised by inadequate equipoise; selection bias; inadequate blinding; problematic randomisation; trials stopped early with exaggerated treatment effects; and not investigating non-sexual transmission.

It's going to take a while to read through the information in the CDC link, so I can't really comment on that.
But from what I can see circumcision has no effect whatsoever on stopping HIV from being passed on to other men/women from someone who is carrying the virus.
There seems to be a lot of people who are against condoms/trying to justify the continued practise of circumcision, when in reality the cheapest and easiest solutions is to use condoms.

volchitsa wrote: »

Is FGM a similar operation to the sort of reparatory surgery you mention though?

It's my understanding that there is no reparatory surgery of any sort that corresponds in any way to the type of surgery involved in FGM.

If you had vulvar cancer, than all or part of the labia could be removed in that operation.
Both men and women modify the genitalia for both medical and cultural/aesthetic reasons.

Tarzana2 · 08-11-2014 11:17PM

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Not true, FGM in it's least invasive form Type 1(a) would be roughly the same as male circumcision.

This type rarely if ever happens. It's there as a classification but it is very rarely performed, as I'm sure you well know.

What can I say, I disagree that the two are comparable. It's not over simplistic to say circumcision has a much greater impact of female sexual pleasure than male. There will always be exceptions but generally there is a much greater impact on women sexually. Adding to this that, apart from the rarely performed type mentioned above, FGM is more invasive. So I guess you can argue that I was wrong early when I said even the mildest form of FGM is more invasive, but really, we know the mildest form doesn't really happen, whereas the male equivalent is the norm. Bit of a difference there. I don't agree with male circumcision and, IMO, putting it on a par with FGM actually damages arguments against it.

Anyhow, that's my view, no point going back and forth on it.

Cosmicfox · 08-11-2014 11:31PM

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Lmao at this, friend of mine always uses that, and 'kunting'. I think it's a great word, use it frequently too now that I think about it. Anyone who takes offence to it is giving power to a simple word and if anything that'll just make people want to use it even more since it can cause a bit of shock. Such sensitive people lol, how can someone get offended by the sounds someone's vocal chords make, that's all that words are and it's up to the individual to interpret them and let them affect them

This is just silly. Words can be powerful and can be used to make threats. I'm sure you wouldn't go round throwing about racial slurs because you're well aware of the consequences those words can have.

DoYouEvenLift · 08-11-2014 11:47PM

Cosmicfox wrote: »

This is just silly. Words can be powerful and can be used to make threats. I'm sure you wouldn't go round throwing about racial slurs because you're well aware of the consequences those words can have.

Yeah, I wouldn't, but I also wouldn't care if someone I don't know or care about was trying to 'hurt my feelings', especially not with racist slurs because then I'd be fully aware that the person is an idiot and to just disregard them. Unless it was a close family member or friend whose opinions I actually care about I wouldn't be bothered by anything someone says to me

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