Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

"jokes that women just don’t get"

13

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 965 ✭✭✭johnr1


    Well - and I'm obviously just speaking for me as a LL poster here, I'm not posting in bold, I'm not modding just incase there is any great confusion on the matter - but I would take it for granted that if a poster wanted a general debate on a political matter they'd post in politics, if they wanted a general debate about understanding disability they'd post in humanities, if they wanted a general debate on a parenting matter they'd post in parenting, so on and so forth...the fact that female posters choose to post in a forum where the opening line of the charter is "This forum is for the discussion of topics from a woman's point of view..." would suggest to me, at least, that they don't want a general debate as could be had anywhere else on the site - they want a discussion that is protected by and respects tLL charter...mainly "a discussion of topics from a woman's point of view".

    Now, clearly, not all women have the same point of view so that doesn't mean it's going to a giant yes party either - but it does mean a discussion about issues affecting women from a woman's perspective, and that can be done whether the authors of the posts are male or female - as opposed to a couple of women post and the rest of the thread is taken up by male posters telling them why they are wrong, how it can all be fixed or what issues men have to deal with.

    Your second paragraph reads like a list of getout clauses from your first one, in which you clearly express your opinion that you would prefer no debate or serious discussion of the subject matter, just as you so eloquently put it yourself - one big Yes party. Why not be honest about it?

    Earlier in this thread, when you had a couple of interested male posters who had something worth hearing to say on the matter of discussion, you angrily shouted them out of the thread, accused them of everything from victim blaming to misogyny to trying to derail the thread into a discussion of men's issues.

    I used to naively think that a respectful, reasonable guy poster would be treated with some respect here, as is given to the women who post in TGC. Sadly this is not the case, and even sadder to see two of the mods here leading the attack.

    My suggestion:
    Why dont you close the LL to male posters altogether if you don't want to hear from respectful, reasonable ones, rather than dishonestly pretending to welcome male input when you clearly don't.

    Then Wibbs could continue to thank your posts, and everyone's clear where they stand.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    johnr1, I for one am not going to get back into some back and forth about the ethos of this forum, but you're making an all too well trodden case for it. If you have issue with it, then a few avenues are open to you; take it to PM, take it to feedback, or simply don't post here in this thread or forum if it doesn't suit you (which seems the most logical). Continue on this vein and the latter choice will be taken away from you. This ends now.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    Men are welcome here - just asked to bear in mind that it's not the place for "What about when it happens to men?!" and "Oh get over it, you're just being too sensitive" stuff. How many times does it have to be said? FFS...


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Let's all get back to the topic at hand please.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,253 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    I ask that the readers bear with me on this.

    I've been a gamer since I was a little lad, back in the 80's on my NES and Amstrad. Throughout the 90's playing PC games, PlayStation and the like.

    I can say with complete honesty, that virtually everyone I knew of that shared my interest was another male. So, there was of course a more "sexual" aspect in how females were depicted. It was a part of the fantasy I suppose. Ranging from comics to Lara Croft.
    And let's be completely honest, there was a stereotype about male gamers as being nerds and losers, so they liked to look at the attractive and completely out of proportion women.

    Jumping ahead to current times, I've been an avid World of Warcraft gamer since it's release, and of course have been more than involved in my fair share of jokes at female gamers like "Is your laptop in the kitchen", but these were always said entirely in jest and they'd give back just as much at me.

    My girlfriend, who has been playing just as long as me responds to comments like "Tits or gtfo" with "Balls or gtfo". She takes the jokes about being a bad gamer and laughs, because quite frankly, she can kick my behind in most games easily.

    Part of the "fun" of the internet is that your sexuality/gender/race/etc means little or nothing. Jokes are made, and while some people can obviously be offensive, they really are the minority of people.
    I've often lost an important battle and muttered "Man, that was so gay", it's not said in a Homophobic way in the slightest, if anything it more means "Lame" or "Annoying". Obviously this can be based on context.

    The fact of the matter is though, Gaming especially, is a male dominated activity, and so "jokes" like this will continue, but I can only say for myself, and the hundreds of other games I've met and played with over the years, they are never meant to be offensive or degrading.
    It's a playful attitude of give and take, all in good fun.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Morag




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,382 ✭✭✭✭rainbowtrout


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    I ask that the readers bear with me on this.

    I've been a gamer since I was a little lad, back in the 80's on my NES and Amstrad. Throughout the 90's playing PC games, PlayStation and the like.

    I can say with complete honesty, that virtually everyone I knew of that shared my interest was another male. So, there was of course a more "sexual" aspect in how females were depicted. It was a part of the fantasy I suppose. Ranging from comics to Lara Croft.
    And let's be completely honest, there was a stereotype about male gamers as being nerds and losers, so they liked to look at the attractive and completely out of proportion women.

    Jumping ahead to current times, I've been an avid World of Warcraft gamer since it's release, and of course have been more than involved in my fair share of jokes at female gamers like "Is your laptop in the kitchen", but these were always said entirely in jest and they'd give back just as much at me.

    My girlfriend, who has been playing just as long as me responds to comments like "Tits or gtfo" with "Balls or gtfo". She takes the jokes about being a bad gamer and laughs, because quite frankly, she can kick my behind in most games easily.

    Part of the "fun" of the internet is that your sexuality/gender/race/etc means little or nothing. Jokes are made, and while some people can obviously be offensive, they really are the minority of people.
    I've often lost an important battle and muttered "Man, that was so gay", it's not said in a Homophobic way in the slightest, if anything it more means "Lame" or "Annoying". Obviously this can be based on context.

    The fact of the matter is though, Gaming especially, is a male dominated activity, and so "jokes" like this will continue, but I can only say for myself, and the hundreds of other games I've met and played with over the years, they are never meant to be offensive or degrading.
    It's a playful attitude of give and take, all in good fun.

    But does your view not illustrate the whole idea of male privilege perfectly? I understand that you see it your comments as a joke, and your girlfriend knows you personally so probably won't take offence but for the girl who's into online gaming who has to put up with a barrage of those 'laptop in the kitchen' type comments constantly from random strangers, it's tiring and irritating. And of course if she isn't good at gaming, she's not just a crap gamer, she's a crap female gamer.

    Every time you pass a 'laptop in the kitchen' comment to a female gamer, you're saying 'sure it's only a joke' but how many more of those comments has she already received?

    In my experience of many male dominated arenas women have to work twice as hard to be accepted and taken seriously and are constantly at the receiving end of those kind of jokes.

    My areas of study and work are software engineering and agriculture (odd combination I know) and I have had plenty of 'joke comments' over the years about not knowing one end of the cow from the other etc, etc and there's always an undercurrent in the comments where it's said as a joke but realistically the men who say them don't really believe I could know as much as a man about agriculture. Or software for that matter. I post in the Leaving Cert forum regularly about Agricultural Science and despite me saying it loads of times, most people assume I'm male, it doesn't even dawn on them that a woman would know anything about farming.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,294 ✭✭✭Jack B. Badd


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    The fact of the matter is though, Gaming especially, is a male dominated activity, and so "jokes" like this will continue, but I can only say for myself, and the hundreds of other games I've met and played with over the years, they are never meant to be offensive or degrading.
    It's a playful attitude of give and take, all in good fun.

    To paraphrase a comment I heard recently, "you can't give offence, you can only take it". If you're the person making these comments/jokes then your opinion on whether or not they are offensive isn't important. It's the opinion of the person on the receiving end that actually matters.

    Also, across a sample of hundreds of gamers, I don't believe for one moment that such comments "are never meant to be offensive or degrading".


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,253 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    But does your view not illustrate the whole idea of male privilege perfectly? I understand that you see it your comments as a joke, and your girlfriend knows you personally so probably won't take offence but for the girl who's into online gaming who has to put up with a barrage of those 'laptop in the kitchen' type comments constantly from random strangers, it's tiring and irritating. And of course if she isn't good at gaming, she's not just a crap gamer, she's a crap female gamer.

    Every time you pass a 'laptop in the kitchen' comment to a female gamer, you're saying 'sure it's only a joke' but how many more of those comments has she already received?

    In my experience of many male dominated arenas women have to work twice as hard to be accepted and taken seriously and are constantly at the receiving end of those kind of jokes.

    My areas of study and work are software engineering and agriculture (odd combination I know) and I have had plenty of 'joke comments' over the years about not knowing one end of the cow from the other etc, etc and there's always an undercurrent in the comments where it's said as a joke but realistically the men who say them don't really believe I could know as much as a man about agriculture. Or software for that matter. I post in the Leaving Cert forum regularly about Agricultural Science and despite me saying it loads of times, most people assume I'm male, it doesn't even dawn on them that a woman would know anything about farming.

    I actually look on this quite as how the video posted above says at the end.

    I do not care who you are behind the screen. It quite literally means nothing to me. When it comes to actual gaming, there are two thing's I care about.
    1) Is you're not a whiny, bad tempered, bad playing with no care of learning more about the game and how to play.
    2) You're not an attention seeker. I have (unfortunately) met an incredible amount of female players who will use the fact they have breasts as an actual advantage and attempt to get free things in a game. This actually happens a lot. I see it all the time.

    No I don' consider it "Male Privilege" that the jokes are more suited to men, though I will admit there are more men on the internet and playing games. It makes sense there would be more jokes aimed at men. Why? Because most of us find them amusing, not because we think it's true. I would say the humour is leaned more towards the main audience.

    I'll give an example, I was recently sat down watching The View or some nonsense with my girlfriend. It was packed with innuendos, jokes and comments about small genitals on men. I thought it was a bit amusing, my girlfriend thought it was hysterical. Why? Because she's the target audience.

    I'm not saying, that there are not people out there who are not completely racist and sexist, because of course they do exist. I am saying that (in my opinion) most people are just making playful jokes.

    To say women get more abuse on the internet is actually amusing to me. I've seen more ginger kid jokes, pre-teen jokes, Irish jokes, racist jokes, gay jokes, straight jokes, American jokes, Terrorist jokes, and so on.

    And as I've always said to people who do meet someone they don't like, or they believe is harassing them, you can either Ignore them, or in the case it's an Online Game, you can report them.

    Edit:
    My apologies, I meant to address the work aspect.
    I won't deny there is that mentality in far to many places, but I will also admit I haven't personally witness it.
    My first real job was doing a Hairdressing Apprenticeship. Now for context, at the time I had long hair down to my back, tattoos and piercings. I got a number of odd looks and comments in it, assuming I wasn't as good as the females I worked with, when in fact, frankly I was a bit better than them.
    My other main job was working for a few years with a certain game producer, who make a certain MMO (that I play), and has it's main EU CS Office right here in Cork. The staff was basically made up of gamers of all backgrounds, so obviously our humour carried over to normal conversations, including coming from the women working there!
    It is stupid that some of your co-workers have this attitude, but who cares what they think. The only people you need to impress in the workplace really, is yourself, and your boss. Once you've been promoted you can lean back and laugh.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,253 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    To paraphrase a comment I heard recently, "you can't give offence, you can only take it". If you're the person making these comments/jokes then your opinion on whether or not they are offensive isn't important. It's the opinion of the person on the receiving end that actually matters.

    Also, across a sample of hundreds of gamers, I don't believe for one moment that such comments "are never meant to be offensive or degrading".

    Like I said, I was speaking for myself, and those I would think I've known well over the years. I don't make a habit of actually be-friending bigots.

    As for the first part, like I said. It's the internet, unlike real life, you can actually ignore someone completely, and in most cases, report any offensive behaviour.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭Maguined


    To paraphrase a comment I heard recently, "you can't give offence, you can only take it". If you're the person making these comments/jokes then your opinion on whether or not they are offensive isn't important. It's the opinion of the person on the receiving end that actually matters.

    Personally I have the total opposite view about this in life. I always try and take comments by how they were intended. If someone says something potentially offensive to me but the person intended it as a joke I will not let it bother me as I do not think words or expressions are inherently offensive or negative, language is just a means of expressing human emotion so I try to go with the emotion behind it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Morag




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,253 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    Sharrow wrote: »

    The joy of the internet, is that if you find something you don't like, you don't read it.

    I for example am not a fan of reading threads which involve people saying things like "******s should be killed" or "Dog beaten to death", so I ignore them and move on. I don't even read The Sun or The Guardian, because the articles are often filled with bigotry and nonsense, I even avoid articles in the Independent which feature David Quinn.

    May I suggest you do the same? Simple ignore/block people who say things you don't like, and move on.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,154 ✭✭✭Dolbert


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    The joy of the internet, is that if you find something you don't like, you don't read it.

    I for example am not a fan of reading threads which involve people saying things like "******s should be killed" or "Dog beaten to death", so I ignore them and move on. I don't even read The Sun or The Guardian, because the articles are often filled with bigotry and nonsense, I even avoid articles in the Independent which feature David Quinn.

    May I suggest you do the same? Simple ignore/block people who say things you don't like, and move on.

    Well done for simultaneously missing and proving the point she was trying to make. Why even bother ffs...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 695 ✭✭✭yawha


    While /r/atheism is a horrible, horrible community to start with, and alienates many atheists for other reasons (basically because it's a massive juvenile circlejerk) I think she still makes a decent point.

    Ignoring/blocking individual people who say things you don't like is fair enough. Having to avoid the whole atheism subreddit because it's flooded with misogyny isn't right.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    It's one thing to avoid discussions re a topic that doesn't interest you, that upsets you etc... but a topic that you'd otherwise greatly enjoy but is ruined by ass-hats? Why on earth should a person have to avoid it? Surely it would be fairer if the ass-hats were told to rein it in?


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Dudess wrote: »
    It's one thing to avoid discussions re a topic that doesn't interest you, that upsets you etc... but a topic that you'd otherwise greatly enjoy but is ruined by ass-hats? Why on earth should a person have to avoid it? Surely it would be fairer if the ass-hats were told to rein it in?

    Whose job is it to tell the "ass-hats" to rein it in?


  • Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Nelson Scarce Spine


    Whose job is it to tell the "ass-hats" to rein it in?

    all the non-asshats


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    bluewolf wrote: »
    all the non-asshats

    Let's take it, for the purposes of the discussion, that the "ass-hats" (asshats?) are the people we don't agree with, while the "non-asshats" are, well, us.

    Does that mean that when they say something we don't like, we should yell at them (in the cyber sense of the word) until they stop?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 186 ✭✭Ben Hadad


    Avatars are asexual, so I am not sure how this can be applied to online interactions. Sure people may have clues in their name, or may even say they are male/female, however ultimately humans take all their sexual clues visually, and pixelated forms will never trick our brain into thinking that person is male/female.

    I would second the poster who said that statements should be taken in the intention that they were intended to be received, not as static cold hearted statements. That's a major problem with typed communication unfortunately. Just like certain quotes when read without context can appear indefensible, when heard in its actual context can appear harmless, even very funny.

    What is it something like 80% of all communication is non verbal (typed), so perhaps a major problem with online communication is that interpersonal interaction is heavily constrained. This leads to significant gaps between the intention of the person giving the message and what the receiver perceives the message to be. Obviously I am not trying to defend intended abuse, however in order to quash what the OP is getting at, the internet would have to take on all the traits of a periodic journal with over formalised language and quite pedantic situational explanations. I think it is fantastical if anyone thinks that the internet will ever look like this or even that it should look like this, so I say:

    tough titty.

    :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    Sharrow wrote: »

    She really had to use that for the title? Couldn't have gone with 'Assholes make me hate R/atheism', no?

    It's very annoying to see a girl posting somewhere like that and immediately the dickheads come out in force but that Watson one with her mission to seemingly want to paint atheism as some homogeneous hive mind that's defined by it's worse members grates on me. She's actually worse than the religious people that love coming out with all that 'atheists are x' stuff.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    Yeah I really don't see the need for saying she hates atheists on the basis of some atheists.
    bluewolf wrote: »
    all the non-asshats

    Let's take it, for the purposes of the discussion, that the "ass-hats" (asshats?) are the people we don't agree with, while the "non-asshats" are, well, us.

    Does that mean that when they say something we don't like, we should yell at them (in the cyber sense of the word) until they stop?
    Reducing a policy of making women feel unwelcome to "something we don't like" is very disingenuous.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Morag


    I agree that it's some athiests not all as a gobal collective but when you consider that she sees that group as her 'tribe' and the section of them who post in that online community seem to lack even the most basic human decency, I can understand her being pissed off.

    People can have discussion and disagree while being civil , if they are making personal comments and sexaul references rather then discussing the topic then they are asshats
    and it would be great to see a zero tolerance policy to it the same way as racism is dealt with.

    This is really hard because it's frankly background radiation, so prevalent that many people don't see it for how toxic it can be.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/01/sexism-tabloid-press?CMP=twt_gu
    Comment is free

    Sexism is the stock in trade of the tabloid press

    Since her pre-pubescence, Charlotte Church has been hounded by the tabloids. Her family have been intimidated, her privacy has been violated, her weight, shape and lifestyle choices have been mocked on the front pages from puberty through pregnancy and beyond – all in pursuit of a hateful little narrative about how a child star with the "voice of an angel" became a "fallen angel".

    Church was not alone. We are used to seeing this sort of story about women in the tabloids, the familiar narrative of vapid idealisation, followed by shame and sexual humiliation. What we are not used to is seeing a real woman in a smart suit telling us how these stories affected her life. Now a collection of liberal feminist groups has come forward to say what everyone knew already: that any investigation into media ethics would be incomplete without an acknowledgement that the British tabloid press is oozing with the very worst sort of malicious, heavy-breathing misogyny.

    Sexism is so consistent a feature of the culture of media in Britain that it has become easy to overlook, like the whine of an alarm that has sounded for so long you've learned to ignore it. Until a few years ago, it was the modern "problem with no name". However much it hurt to have to see slut-shaming, rape-apologism, victim-blaming and sexual objectification in the press every day over our cornflakes, women just had to ignore it, because challenging media misogyny in any way was next to impossible. It was just "the way things were".

    In recent years, however, feminist groups can and have taken issue with select symptoms of this sickness, from campaigns against the digital airbrushing of already skeletal fashion models in aspirational advertising aimed at teenagers, to this week's attempt to get tabloid journalists to stop writing reports that place the blame for rape squarely on the victim's attitude, skirt length or Facebook profile.

    It is important, however, to maintain a distinction between ethics and censorship. The groups that have come forward to make submissions about sexism to the Leveson inquiry, while they do a great deal of valuable work, do not represent every British women, or indeed every British feminist – not all of whom believe, for example, that public celebration of prostitution is the biggest problem facing women today. Care must be taken to ensure that the current modish rhetoric of combatting "sexualisation" is not elided with the asinine, sexually repressive agenda of Christian conservatism.

    No one group or monolithic coalition, whatever its credentials, should be permitted to set the agenda for what does and does not count as respect for women. It is long past time, however, that someone made the official suggestion that reading a relentless welter of stories about why women who allege rape are liars might just have an effect on judges, juries and the hundreds of thousands of women who are victims of sexual assault.

    Here's what you learn, if you're a woman and you grow up with British tabloid newspapers in the house: if you get raped or murdered, it's your fault; if you are old, overweight or just having a bad hair day, you are disgusting. You must work to appear as sexually attractive and submissive as possible, at which point you will be called a slag, a disgrace and a "loose-knickered lady lout", in the words of Quentin Letts. Women who have careers are miserable and pathetic. You were born to be a wife and mother, and succeeding at these things is the only thing that will fulfil you. Having a baby is the most valuable thing you can possibly do, unless you're poor, or unmarried, in which case you're society's scum. If you complain about discrimination or sexual violence, you're a shrill, jealous harpy.

    It is vital that we understand that sexism is not just one more naughty thing that the tabloids do. Sexism is the dirty oil in the engine, the juice that makes the whole shuddering sleaze-machine run smoothly. The eyes that are drawn to the topless teenager on page three skim lightly over page two, where propagandists on the Murdoch dollar peddle torrid justifications for the waging of wars and the slashing of public sector jobs and call it news.

    Sexism is the stock in trade of the tabloid press. Challenging it strikes at the very core of the business model, and that is what feminists and our allies must remain brave and clear-headed enough to do.

    • This article was amended on January 1 2012 to remove reference to News International publishing a 'countdown clock' to Charlotte Church's age of consent, an allegation that NI denies

    Relevant to here as we have so much British media from the newpapers to tv channels and the modern horror that is soap operas :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 378 ✭✭Bigtoe107


    The interesting thing I find about the internet is it has the potential, in its innate annonimty to remove all prejudice. When discussing a topic it generally very difficult to discern race, gender, sex, age or creed; of course there is an element of assumption that the poster is a young, white, male and heterosexual and this I feel is the crux of the problem.

    It is true that 70 or so percent of boards is male, therefore an assumption of normativity is usually correct; for people outside of this, I.e women or gay men the internet can be highly offensive. However a slight change in attitude would result in posters being assumed gender neutral and asexual. This is the ideal, the thought that people are judged purely on opinion and the internet becomes devoid of preconceptions, forums which pertain to certain groups only hold this back in my opinion.

    When looking at this from a gaming perspective, it is true that most gamers I know are male and this leads to a certain amount of distrust of perspective female gamers; this will only change with more female active involvement in gaming culture.

    Fwiw I believe the internet has the potential to change perceptions about all people male or female, it will only take a slight change in attitude. Indeed I believe it to be already happening.


  • Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Nelson Scarce Spine


    Bigtoe107 wrote: »
    The interesting thing I find about the internet is it has the potential, in its innate annonimty to remove all prejudice. When discussing a topic it generally very difficult to discern race, gender, sex, age or creed;

    I don't really think so. You can tell a lot from some writing styles.
    With a number of people it's quite difficult to tell, true, but you could pick out a lot.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 378 ✭✭Bigtoe107


    bluewolf wrote: »
    I don't really think so. You can tell a lot from some writing styles.
    With a number of people it's quite difficult to tell, true, but you could pick out a lot.

    You can assume but you are never sure; I know plenty of women on here which I assumed were male and likewise I have seen men who I assumed were female. I now totally disregard gender in all discussions.


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,508 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    The internet's whole raison d'être has always been to promote conflict and distribute porn. Expecting it, or society in general, to follow any other pattern is hugely overestimating humanity's capacity for polite discussion.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,294 ✭✭✭Jack B. Badd


    Sharrow wrote: »
    it would be great to see a zero tolerance policy to it the same way as racism is dealt with.

    This.

    It's no longer ok to be seen as racist, especially if you have a big public profile - you only have to look at the recent responses in the sporting world to see that nay-sayers get very quickly & rightly called on their "oh no, it doesn't actually exist, lets just forget it all over a handshake" attitude. It would be fantastic if the arguments that no longer fly when people try to convince us that racist comments/actions/etc aren't really racism because the intent wasn't there or that we just imagined it, were treated the same when it comes to sexism.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,723 ✭✭✭seenitall


    The internet's whole raison d'être has always been to promote conflict and distribute porn. Expecting it, or society in general, to follow any other pattern is hugely overestimating humanity's capacity for polite discussion.

    Exactly. I was just talking to Sir Tim Berners-Lee the other day and he told me the very same.

    :rolleyes:


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Dudess wrote: »
    Reducing a policy of making women feel unwelcome to "something we don't like" is very disingenuous.

    Is it? I don't know how you feel about making women feel unwelcome - but you can take it that it is something I don't like.

    I'll tell you something else I don't like. I don't like the notion of extrapolating a general policy or principle from the behaviour of some people in order to justify whatever it is you're trying to justify. Now, to be perfectly honest, I don't have the foggiest what it is you're trying to justify, but I have a feeling it has something to do with making people behave the way you say they should.

    I believe the question I asked was "Whose job is it to tell the "ass-hats" to rein it in?". In a big huge public space like the internet, that's an important question. bluewolf seems to think the answer lies in flame wars. What's your view?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 965 ✭✭✭johnr1


    Before that question is answered, there needs to be consensus on what constitutes as an asshat,- ie rules.

    Also, lumping an entire gender in with the asshats of the same gender deprives you of valuable allies. Happened on this thread already, and is stupid imo.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    Who's lumping an entire gender in? The focus is on when women entering a predominantly male space online get rape jokes etc thrown at them to the point that they feel unwelcome there. Someone suggests just don't go there - why shouldn't they? Surely admins or mods should tell those causing such grief to quit it. But apparently saying that is akin to suggesting that anything one doesn't like should be clamped down upon...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 695 ✭✭✭yawha


    strobe wrote: »
    She really had to use that for the title? Couldn't have gone with 'Assholes make me hate R/atheism', no?

    It's very annoying to see a girl posting somewhere like that and immediately the dickheads come out in force but that Watson one with her mission to seemingly want to paint atheism as some homogeneous hive mind that's defined by it's worse members grates on me. She's actually worse than the religious people that love coming out with all that 'atheists are x' stuff.
    Wtf? She's not worse than those kind of religious people in the slightest.

    Poor title choice, perhaps, but you're forgetting that she's an outspoken atheist herself. It's not clear to me what anti-atheist agenda she's trying to push with this. Her intent, to me, is to say "as atheists, we should be better than this".

    As an Irish person, if I went on After Hours, for example, and saw a load of support for racism in a thread, I think I would be justified in saying "After Hours makes me hate Irish people", with the expectation that anyone with an ounce of intelligence would realise that I'm not actually talking about literally every Irish person, but rather am making a reactionary statement. I mean, this was a blog post, not a scientific paper on the general behaviour of atheists.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    "Whose job is it to tell the "ass-hats" to rein it in?".

    Dudess wrote: »
    Surely admins or mods should tell those causing such grief to quit it.

    That looks like an answer to the question I asked.

    Dudess wrote: »
    But apparently saying that is akin to suggesting that anything one doesn't like should be clamped down upon...

    It is? I wouldn't agree with that notion, though I can see why some people might. I help to run a forum someplace, and that's how we deal with sexism (among other things).

    Anyway, the good thing about placing responsibility for this issue with site admins and mods is that it clearly defines who should tackle the problem. But the bad thing is that it can present other problems. Specifically, what is supposed to happen when a site admin or owner says "no"? It is their site, after all.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Plus it also has to be remembered that the demographic is changing on most sites online, even Boards. Facebook and networking sites might even have more women so times are changing.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    yawha wrote: »
    Wtf? She's not worse than those kind of religious people in the slightest.

    Poor title choice, perhaps, but you're forgetting that she's an outspoken atheist herself. It's not clear to me what anti-atheist agenda she's trying to push with this. Her intent, to me, is to say "as atheists, we should be better than this".

    As an Irish person, if I went on After Hours, for example, and saw a load of support for racism in a thread, I think I would be justified in saying "After Hours makes me hate Irish people", with the expectation that anyone with an ounce of intelligence would realise that I'm not actually talking about literally every Irish person, but rather am making a reactionary statement. I mean, this was a blog post, not a scientific paper on the general behaviour of atheists.

    Its reddit like. I don't read it for the same reason she shouldn't.

    That kind of crap would never fly on the Atheism board here. I'm sure there's other places too


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 149 ✭✭Kadent


    Being a woman is hard :(
    This is a new username for me and it appears to be more feminine, at least I appear to be encountering a whole lot more misogynistic viewpoints with this username. I've been around boards for seven years and haven't ever really had to deal with it using a neutral handle, at least I never felt it directed at me. Requested a name change to revert back to something less conspicuous already.


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,508 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    Kaden wrote: »
    Being a woman is hard :(
    This is a new username for me and it appears to be more feminine, at least I appear to be encountering a whole lot more misogynistic viewpoints with this username. I've been around boards for seven years and haven't ever really had to deal with it using a neutral handle, at least I never felt it directed at me. Requested a name change to revert back to something less conspicuous already.

    In fairness you seem to have spent most of your time since on after hours arguing an inherently sexist viewpoint so I doubt the name is of any consequence. I certainly wouldn't have said it was a feminine name.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 149 ✭✭Kadent


    In fairness you seem to have spent most of your time since on after hours arguing an inherently sexist viewpoint so I doubt the name is of any consequence. I certainly wouldn't have said it was a feminine name.
    maybe, but when I was considered male I was able to do that without any consequences. :)

    and tbh the guy who told me it would be more suitable to have someone make me eat my teeth because I disagreed with his opinion, after I had spoken about what it was actually like to suffer physcal violence could probably do with a change of viewpoint.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 695 ✭✭✭yawha


    Its reddit like. I don't read it for the same reason she shouldn't.
    Doesn't mean she shouldn't speak out about it or have to refrain from pointing out what's wrong with it.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    yawha wrote: »
    Doesn't mean she shouldn't speak out about it or have to refrain from pointing out what's wrong with it.

    I suppose my issue is the tone of her argument is suggesting all atheists are like this/ and its a terrible problem with the world... when its just stupid f*cking reddit page.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18 Larleane28


    Hi, newbie here :)
    Dudess wrote: »
    Who's lumping an entire gender in? The focus is on when women entering a predominantly male space online get rape jokes etc thrown at them to the point that they feel unwelcome there. Someone suggests just don't go there - why shouldn't they? Surely admins or mods should tell those causing such grief to quit it. But apparently saying that is akin to suggesting that anything one doesn't like should be clamped down upon...

    You'd think that'd be blatently bloody obvious wouldn't you? Apparently it's not though, and I think the reason for that lies in the other interesting thread I read on here recently, the one about male privilege. Someone should really link this thread to that one - a lot of fine examples on here that prove the point that other thread was making.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Kaden wrote: »
    maybe, but when I was considered male I was able to do that without any consequences. :)

    and tbh the guy who told me it would be more suitable to have someone make me eat my teeth because I disagreed with his opinion, after I had spoken about what it was actually like to suffer physcal violence could probably do with a change of viewpoint.

    And where, pray tell, did someone say that ? :rolleyes:

    Because the post that you're referring to is a million miles away from the above absolute 100% untruthful claim, and one would have to wonder why you have insisted on misrepresenting it ad nauseum in a number of locations across boards.
    Kaden wrote:
    truth is I don't consider getting a slap across the face as physical abuse it's nothing more than an attempt to insult someone.
    Liam Byrne wrote:
    So if a guy slapped you across the face you wouldn't view it as a physical assault ?

    If so, then fair enough, because the only issue is that we differ on the definition of "physical assault", and given that a slap in the face is physical and specifically targetted at an exposed and personal area of the body, I think your definition is flawed.

    But I can differ with someone and still respect their views as long as they're 100% consistent.

    I just hope that no guy ever tests your on your viewpoint because you could be eating both your teeth and your words.

    Advising where YOUR viewpoint (which I disagree 100% with) could easily result in you ending up does not constitute suggesting that something is "more suitable" or wishing it on you or anything remotely like that.

    You clearly stated that you don't consider a slap across the face as "physical abuse"; I clearly stated that I view it as assault and condemned it. In fact, I specifically stated that I hope no-one ever tests your theory.

    And yet you twist that into the above lies.

    You can continue posting lies if you wish - that's your prerogative - but leave me out of it and stop pretending that what I posted was objectionable.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    OK folks let's leave any disagreements/spats in other forums out of this one please.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    stop pretending that what I posted was objectionable.

    I think it was objectionable saying "I just hope that no guy ever tests your on your viewpoint because you could be eating both your teeth and your words." sounds like nothing more than a veiled threat. there's implied violence in your statement, and either you were ignorant enough to not realize what the hell it was you were saying, or you expect everyone else is foolish enough not to take it as such. I don't care about your initial argument or point, language like that is simply not cool. it's like saying "hey, nice car you got there. would be a real shame if something were to... happen... to it."


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Links234 wrote: »
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    stop pretending that what I posted was objectionable.

    I think it was objectionable saying "I just hope that no guy ever tests your on your viewpoint because you could be eating both your teeth and your words." sounds like nothing more than a veiled threat. there's implied violence in your statement, and either you were ignorant enough to not realize what the hell it was you were saying, or you expect everyone else is foolish enough not to take it as such. I don't care about your initial argument or point, language like that is simply not cool. it's like saying "hey, nice car you got there. would be a real shame if something were to... happen... to it."

    There was no threat implied whatsoever, and the only way of you implying one in your example was by putting it in italics - there were no italics (or any similar skewed emphasis) in my post.

    I will debate fairly with anyone, but if someone projects their own emphasis or paranoia or issues onto what I say and mean, that is not my fault.

    Now, as Wibbs has asked, we'll let it be - the lie was posted and I'm glad of the opportunity to expose it, so job done as far as I'm concerned.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    Sorry Wibbs, didn't see your post when replying, won't reply further.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 149 ✭✭Kadent


    Larleane28 wrote: »
    Hi, newbie here :)



    You'd think that'd be blatently bloody obvious wouldn't you? Apparently it's not though, and I think the reason for that lies in the other interesting thread I read on here recently, the one about male privilege. Someone should really link this thread to that one - a lot of fine examples on here that prove the point that other thread was making.
    most men just don't realise how privileged they are.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Larleane28 wrote: »
    You'd think that'd be blatently bloody obvious wouldn't you? Apparently it's not though.....

    Blatantly obvious it may indeed be, but it took me asking the question a couple of times to get the words "Surely admins or mods should tell those causing such grief to quit it." to appear.

    I'm sure we'd all have a more peaceful time of it on the internet if everyone else only posted stuff we liked and agreed with. The reality is that it doesn't tend to work that way.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Morag


    I'm sure we'd all have a more peaceful time of it on the internet if everyone else only posted stuff we liked and agreed with. The reality is that it doesn't tend to work that way.

    I don't expect everyone to post stuff I like and agree with but I do expect better discussion and debate when I say I disagree then 'go make me a sammich, why are you out of the kitchen, or bitches be crazy' or being asked what I am wearing or being told I need to be raped.


Advertisement