Gender equality and Men's rights discussion megathread - READ FIRST POST

Kooli

Maguined wrote: »

Wouldn't that be a little redundant? to have a men's issues forum and then a sub-forum for men's issues regarding gender equality?

I always viewed these sorts of threads as being suitable to this forum as they fell under the "the role of men in modern society, the pressures on men to succeed and anything else related to being a man." category so i really can't understand why these threads are viewed in such a negative light.

I think anything framed in that light wouldn't have been seen negatively.
My understanding is that a lot of threads were being dragged down the road of 'women think they have it tough, well what about US?' or 'Why is there such a fuss over X for women and not anything for Y for men?'

Obviously I'm exaggerating, but I hope you get my point.

I imagine that if a thread was started about the changing role of men in society, it wouldn't be moved to this thread unless it turned into a feminism-bashing thread, which has been happening a lot lately.

r3nu4l

Maguined wrote: »

Wouldn't that be a little redundant? to have a men's issues forum and then a sub-forum for men's issues regarding gender equality?

I always viewed these sorts of threads as being suitable to this forum as they fell under the "the role of men in modern society, the pressures on men to succeed and anything else related to being a man." category so i really can't understand why these threads are viewed in such a negative light.

Yup, in that light, it all seems great but unfortunately these threads were overpopulating the forum to the detriment of others but it was the same few posters constantly starting these threads, rather than the majority. Also, while there was some rational debate there was also very irrational debate, circular argument and point scoring along with words like 'strawman' and 'feminazi' being thrown around left, right and centre.

A sub-forum for gender equality/men's rights? The idea has some merit but would only work if people could debate like adults and refrain from trying to get one over. It would also only work if people kept on-topic, something that never happened across all the men's right threads that we have right now. Instead we had people doing copy/paste of posts they had made in other threads on supposedly different topics. Not a good indicator of success. We mods are partly to blame ourselves for not issuing more bans than we did to enforce the idea of staying on-topic. The idea of a sub-forum of this forum has merit and may be worth exploring further in the near future, just not right now imo.

donfers

Kooli wrote: »

I think anything framed in that light wouldn't have been seen negatively.
My understanding is that a lot of threads were being dragged down the road of 'women think they have it tough, well what about US?' or 'Why is there such a fuss over X for women and not anything for Y for men?'

Obviously I'm exaggerating, but I hope you get my point.

I imagine that if a thread was started about the changing role of men in society, it wouldn't be moved to this thread unless it turned into a feminism-bashing thread, which has been happening a lot lately.

yes well when talking about gender issues and issues of equality the ONLY frame of reference is the other gender, what I find quite astonishing is the implication that when men ask

'women think they have it tough, well what about US?'

or

'Why is there such a fuss over X for women and not anything for Y for men?'

it's somehow wrong or misjudged or unwelcome or aggressive or bashing something or other or "dragging down" threads.......whereas when the "fairer" sex do it the comparisons are fair game and applauded (I realise I am comparing again here, of course I am, fairness is about being treated equally to something/someone ELSE)

As for the feminist bashing accusation, again I say that that is an exaggeration and if any of that did take place it was aimed at the more extreme elements, the gender equality threads in this forum were usually well researched, backed up by solid links and articulate and I've seen far far more malicious stuff with far less credibility behind it spouted elsewhere


The crux of the issue is that some people have decided that the expression of men's rights here should be regulated and I find that disappointing as why should this issue alone be treated in this way?

CDfm

I can see both sides here.

Here is the original discussion.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055527817

there was a lot of debate about the mens health forum morphing into a forum that discussed wider mens serious issues that were not discussed elsewhere. A mens perspective on issues that were being discussed in tLL and a safe place for men to discuss those issues that affect us.

My understanding was that it was going to be for mens issues what tLL is for womens issues and be a safe place for guys to post. From the OP there http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59650377&postcount=1

Taking mens rights out of TGC is like taking womens rights out of tLL -you are left with a PC version of AH.

You would not think of doing this in tLL so why think of doing it here. Calling some threads Mens Lib is a bit perjorative.

I stopped posting here as the direction of the forum had moved on and I felt that mens issues were being defined with reference to feminist extremes. And if you cannot discuss the misandrist nature of some of societies pressing issues on mens issues here where will it be discussed on boards. It just wont.

That said I learned big words here like "egalitarian"(which I like and describes what I believe). Now I know there are some posters outhere on boards that thought of tGC as a "Mens Backlash Forum" to be stamped out.

This seems to be more of a "moding" and internal boards insider politics coming down rather than the threads themselves.

Why is it boards.ie can't discuss mens issues with the same ease and deference it gives to womens rights and issues. Maybe its time for boards.ie to Audit itself on its attitude to gender issues and how they are discussed.

Would it be so wrong to apply a general standard across the site rather than specifically home in on tGC.

Surely, that what the Administrators should be discussing.

r3nu4l

CDfm wrote: »

Taking mens rights out of TGC is like taking womens rights out of tLL -you are left with a PC version of AH.

You would not think of doing this in tLL so why think of doing it here. Calling some threads Mens Lib is a bit perjorative.

I stopped posting here as the direction of the forum had moved on and I felt that mens issues were being defined with reference to feminist extremes. And if you cannot discuss the misandrist nature of some of societies pressing issues on mens issues here where will it be discussed on boards. It just wont.

That said I learned big words here like "egalitarian"(which I like and describes what I believe). Now I know there are some posters outhere on boards that thought of tGC as a "Mens Backlash Forum" to be stamped out.

This seems to be more of a "moding" and internal boards insider politics coming down rather than the threads themselves.

Why is it boards.ie can't discuss mens issues with the same ease and deference it gives to womens rights and issues. Maybe its time for boards.ie to Audit itself on its attitude to gender issues and how they are discussed.

Would it be so wrong to apply a general standard across the site rather than specifically home in on tGC.

Surely, that what the Administrators should be discussing.

A nice way of putting how it should have been discussed and I can assure you that boards.ie has no problem allowing discussion of men's rights. You're nicely shifting the blame away from yourself and others and that doesn't wash! This has nothing to do with internal boards politics at all. You've completely ignored our posts stating our reasons for making a mega-thread. Let me re-iterate again for you.

It was simply because the minority were overcrowding the forum with multiple threads in which they were constantly going off-topic, reposting posts that they had already made in similar threads about the same topic that they had now managed to swerve onto.

To top that certain posters were then jumping into non-gender related threads and grabbing onto anything they could to twist the thread into a gender-related thread, throwing around words like misandrist, feminazi etc.

It's that simple, if certain posters had been able to conduct themselves a bit better on these threads there wouldn't be a problem. Instead they constantly ignored mod warnings to stay on topic, constantly attempted to hijack threads and constantly shoved their own agendas down everyone else's throats. Now we are saying 'no more'.

If you want to discuss these issues then do it elsewhere or request a new forum or perhaps, just maybe, we can talk about a sub-forum for these threads. If that were to happen then we could move all of the current threads into the new sub-forum and re-open them.

gbee

DarkJager wrote: »

Well for one, the "He Drives, She Dies" campaign is back on the air again, .

I think it is a stupid ad, add in the Northern Ireland accent and it has intense connotations, and, frankly there is absolutely no point in having an NI butch trying to reach our Stella's and Cecllia's ~ they simply won't connect

CDfm

r3nu4l wrote: »

A nice way of putting how it should have been discussed and I can assure you that boards.ie has no problem allowing discussion of men's rights. You're nicely shifting the blame away from yourself and others and that doesn't wash! This has nothing to do with internal boards politics at all. You've completely ignored our posts stating our reasons for making a mega-thread. Let me re-iterate again for you.

I can see it from both sides and Dr G stepped down as a Mod -so moding these threads is not easy. Our loss BTW and a super mod.

I will miss his chill out PM's.

[It was simply because the minority were overcrowding the forum with multiple threads in which they were constantly going off-topic, reposting posts that they had already made in similar threads about the same topic that they had now mana.......... If that were to happen then we could move all of the current threads into the new sub-forum and re-open them.

Yes and there has to be a balance.I think the forum started with an egalitarian ethos and objective and that is something thats been lost sight of. And I am including myself in that BTW.

I know I feel very strongly on some issues but I am also open to new ideas and ways of looking at things. I hope they dont mind me mentioning them but posters like taconnal, lazygal and CathyMoran brought a lot of reasonable ideas in.

People who want to "bitch and moan" to each other may be better having a social group for that.

I can appreciate the reasons for what is happening and its a social forum and not "Questions & Answers".

Maybe you might need two sub fora -mens rights (for reallife) and gender politics ( for the hardcore political and media stuff)

So maybe we need this bit of reflection & review and it will make it a happier forum.

EDIT : Oh and I forgot to say that i am sorry if i have made life difficult for any of the mods here or upset anyone. Mea Culpa.

CDfm

gbee wrote: »

I think it is a stupid ad, add in the Northern Ireland accent and it has intense connotations, and, frankly there is absolutely no point in having an NI butch trying to reach our Stella's and Cecllia's ~ they simply won't connect

It is a silly add and you can almost hear Jack Dee doing a nasal whiney imitation of it. "Yes and she's had too much to bloody drink again and cant drive. I just don't know why women have cars if they expect men to drive them everywhere" :eek::eek::eek:

Its not really a deterent is it.

There is a nun somewhere who thinks this ad does not go far enough about the dangers of women getting into cars with men ever.

tbh

CDfm wrote: »

EDIT : Oh and I forgot to say that i am sorry if i have made life difficult for any of the mods here or upset anyone. Mea Culpa.

From my point of view CD, I've always found your posts to be interesting and thought-provoking. You do make some very good points.
The problem is that you, and others - with the best of intentions, I understand that and I want to make it very clear - have a certain point of view that you are interested in discussing, and to be frank it's drowning out the threads that we want to see more of.

What I want to make clear more than anything is that we don't want to shut you up, we don't think that you (or anyone else who wants to discuss these issues) is a 'crank' - or anything like that. That's not what it's about. It's more about the fact that we want to promote a more general discussion on mens issues than simply different ways of expressing the view that men are harder done by than women in certain ways.

So, for example, we want to talk about things like unemployment without discussing what advantages women have over men when it comes to that topic.
We want to talk about things like what it's like to have testicular or prostate cancer without talking about how womens cancers get more funding than mens.
We want to talk about how to deal with the breakup of a relationship without talking about how courts are prejudiced in favour of women.

I say "without talking about" - naturally for all of those topics, a certain amount of men vs women may come up, but we feel those should be a small part of the discussion rather than the sole focus of it.

Our idea for the forum was that the "easy on the eye" type banter threads would be the honey that would draw men in, and once here, they may open up about topics they don't have a chance to discuss in other places.

We're not specifically interested in filling the "mens rights" niche - it's not to say that it shouldn't be filled, but that's not what this forum is for. We're not interested, and have no requirement to, generate traffic for the sake of driving traffic. If we have five regular posters that are getting out of the forum what we want them to get out of the forum, that's better than 500 posters who are using the forum for something other than we had planned.
I know that might not make sense in terms of a commercial website, but I'm trying to be straight with you and reiterate the point that we have very definate expectations for the forum.

LostinBlanch

CDfm wrote: »

I can see both sides here.

Here is the original discussion.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055527817

there was a lot of debate about the mens health forum morphing into a forum that discussed wider mens serious issues that were not discussed elsewhere. A mens perspective on issues that were being discussed in tLL and a safe place for men to discuss those issues that affect us.

My understanding was that it was going to be for mens issues what tLL is for womens issues and be a safe place for guys to post. From the OP there http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59650377&postcount=1

That was my understanding too, but obviously things have changed.

CDfm wrote: »

Taking mens rights out of TGC is like taking womens rights out of tLL -you are left with a PC version of AH.

Well that looks like what some mods want.

CDfm wrote: »

You would not think of doing this in tLL so why think of doing it here. Calling some threads Mens Lib is a bit perjorative.

I stopped posting here as the direction of the forum had moved on and I felt that mens issues were being defined with reference to feminist extremes. And if you cannot discuss the misandrist nature of some of societies pressing issues on mens issues here where will it be discussed on boards. It just wont.

That is the crux of the matter, and throwing threads into one megathread like so much rubbish into a skip does everyone a disservice and just stifles debate. Megathreads like this don't work for the reason that people will be talking at cross purposes. Look at what happened when some politics mods tried to stifle debate on Lisbon II by putting everything in the one thread. It was a mess and caused so much sh*te that they just had to create an EU subforum. So a subforum would be the least worst option.

CDfm wrote: »

That said I learned big words here like "egalitarian"(which I like and describes what I believe). Now I know there are some posters outhere on boards that thought of tGC as a "Mens Backlash Forum" to be stamped out.

It's a pity that some see it that way, but people with hammers tend to see nails.

CDfm wrote: »

This seems to be more of a "moding" and internal boards insider politics coming down rather than the threads themselves.

Why is it boards.ie can't discuss mens issues with the same ease and deference it gives to womens rights and issues. Maybe its time for boards.ie to Audit itself on its attitude to gender issues and how they are discussed.

Would it be so wrong to apply a general standard across the site rather than specifically home in on tGC.

Surely, that what the Administrators should be discussing.

Good point.

CDfm

tbh wrote: »

From my point of view CD, I've always found your posts to be interesting and thought-provoking. You do make some very good points.
The problem is that you, and others - with the best of intentions, I understand that and I want to make it very clear - have a certain point of view that you are interested in discussing, and to be frank it's drowning out the threads that we want to see more of.

Thanks tbh - and as you and others pointed out we dont do ourselves any favours at times because there is more to life than whinging.

I do put thought into my posts - and nowdays I do try to keep my high horse in the corral these days. Whoa there Neddy!!!!

I have made some great on-line buddies thru this forum including a lesbian/womens rights lobbyist in Washington.

What I want to make clear more than anything is that we don't want to shut you up, we don't think that you (or anyone else who wants to discuss these issues) is a 'crank' - or anything like that.

Wait a minute did you just call me a "crank" :eek:

(My OH will love that she will)

I have had to step back from posting on some issues as I do get very competitive and while I dont mean to be but I do.

That's not what it's about. It's more about the fact that we want to promote a more general discussion on mens issues than simply different ways of expressing the view that men are harder done by than women in certain ways.

Thats how it should be because its only a forum (who said "its only a pop song?) and it wont nesscessarily change the world.

So, for example, we want to talk about things like unemployment without discussing what advantages women have over men when it comes to that topic.
We want to talk about things like what it's like to have testicular or prostate cancer without talking about how womens cancers get more funding than mens.

You are right and good threads get swamped. My prostate is fine .

I mean, life issues like suicide, bereavment etc have not been getting a look in and neither have a lot of happy episodes in peoples lives.

We want to talk about how to deal with the breakup of a relationship without talking about how courts are prejudiced in favour of women.

I say "without talking about" - naturally for all of those topics, a certain amount of men vs women may come up, but we feel those should be a small part of the discussion rather than the sole focus of it.

So in a way you are putting the forum on "Safe Mode" and doing a fix.

Our idea for the forum was that the "easy on the eye" type banter threads would be the honey that would draw men in, and once here, they may open up about topics they don't have a chance to discuss in other places.

We're not specifically interested in filling the "mens rights" niche - it's not to say that it shouldn't be filled, but that's not what this forum is for. We're not interested, and have no requirement to, generate traffic for the sake of driving traffic. If we have five regular posters that are getting out of the forum what we want them to get out of the forum, that's better than 500 posters who are using the forum for something other than we had planned.
I know that might not make sense in terms of a commercial website, but I'm trying to be straight with you and reiterate the point that we have very definate expectations for the forum.

That makes sense to me. I would read that. Me, I dont want to read mens rights stuff all the time or most of the time.I have much wider interests than that.

Recently, I came across some stuff on the cost of childcare etc and I instinctively thought -great thread idea but people who would have posted before probably were "tuned out".

There is a benefit as there is a potentially bigger audience for good threads.

I imagine with a bit of goodwill something good can come of this.

LostinBlanch wrote: »

That is the crux of the matter, and throwing threads into one megathread like so much rubbish into a skip does everyone a disservice and just stifles debate. Megathreads like this don't work for the reason that people will be talking at cross purposes. Look at what happened when some politics mods tried to stifle debate on Lisbon II by putting everything in the one thread. It was a mess and caused so much sh*te that they just had to create an EU subforum. So a subforum would be the least worst option.

Sometimes it is a good thing. A sub-forum can be good too and is a lot better than a megathread.

I think it could be a very positive thing.

You wont know if you dont try it.

It's a pity that some see it that way, but people with hammers tend to see nails.

You will get that

The Corinthian

Having read this thread and the reason for why it was created, I am truly baffled. To begin with a Men's Rights Megathread already existed and was closed to begin this one. Secondly, it is frankly deluded to believe that those issues of inequality affecting men are not a significant matter of interest to men, presumably on this board, as they constitute issues that increasingly directly or indirectly affect all men.

Ironically, there appears to be little problem with gender rights threads on the Ladies Lounge, but there you go. There may be fewer, but then again name me a single law that discriminates against women and I'll name five that discriminate against men - so it's hardly surprising.

I think this board realistically should return to being called simply Men's Health. Perhaps calling it Men's Health and Inoffensive Man-Related Fluff Topics, to give it a more accurate title; however, whether for ideological reasons or simply because they don't want the hassle, the forum appears to have been dumbed down so as avoid a wide and highly relevant area to the lives of men of all ages.

So, given the issue is important and relevant to men and it is policy not to address it here, I suggest that a new and separate forum be created for this purpose and to this end have applied for one.

r3nu4l

The Corinthian wrote: »

it is frankly deluded to believe that those issues of inequality affecting men are not a significant matter of interest to men,

Putting words in our mouths and twisting words to suit your own meaning again...surprising! We recognise that the forum can cater for this issue, hence the megathread. The problem has been the over abundance of such threads and the hijacking of other threads by certain users. That is why the megathread was created, to stop such idiocy.

Ironically, there appears to be little problem with gender rights threads on the Ladies Lounge, but there you go.

Time and time again the mods here have said, this is not the male equivalent of the Ladies Lounge and time and time again, some people just don't get that or don't want to get that.

I think this board realistically should return to being called simply Men's Health. Perhaps calling it Men's Health and Inoffensive Man-Related Fluff Topics, to give it a more accurate title;

Yeah, petty insults are going to help your case. Keep it up.

So, given the issue is important and relevant to men and it is policy not to address it here, I suggest that a new and separate forum be created for this purpose and to this end have applied for one.

I've already added my support to that suggestion as I believe it is an important topic. I've also said that I would consider having it as a sub-forum of this one should it not be seen as suitable as a standalone. I've already opened a thread on the Health Science Mods forum earlier today with that very same suggestion.

The intention was NEVER to stamp out discussion of men's rights but rather to put a curb on those of you guilty of thread hijacking, thread spoiling and general tomfoolery. Those posters know who they are whether they will admit it or not and it is those people who are to blame for this situation. Think long and hard about that.

r3nu4l

Let me also point out that I am very much in favour of proper discussion on men's rights and gender equality and would love to see it discussed at length in a logical manner. That's not what was happening on this forum

Despite our attempts to intervene with gentle nudges, formal mod notes on-thread, warnings and infractions some posters just didn't get it and continued to behave very poorly. That cost us mods and users and that's no good for a forum.

There has been excellent discussions here on the topic and only for that I wouldn't even consider a sub-forum. Even those who are guilty of thread-hijacking posted some very good quality posts that I learned from so I know that these posters are capable of better but chose not to post in that manner all the time instead resorting to jibes and one-upmanship.

So, tl;dr I support the right to discuss but only when those who want to discuss actually play ball, not when they hijack threads and continuously inject their agenda into every thread they see, no matter how tenuous the link.

The Corinthian

r3nu4l wrote: »

Putting words in our mouths and twisting words to suit your own meaning again...surprising! We recognise that the forum can cater for this issue, hence the megathread. The problem has been the over abundance of such threads and the hijacking of other threads by certain users. That is why the megathread was created, to stop such idiocy.

So you locked a megathread to create one. Had you considered that the abundance of such threads is because there is a genuine demand for them? That other than discussing men's rights in terms of abstract political or humanities topics, there are few if any forums anywhere where they can be debated?

Time and time again the mods here have said, this is not the male equivalent of the Ladies Lounge and time and time again, some people just don't get that or don't want to get that.

That was kind of my point.

Yeah, petty insults are going to help your case. Keep it up.

That was not a petty insult, it was meant to underline why such a forum is so important for men, arguably more than a women's rights forum is for women in the present day.

I don't get where you find offense at this. Was I factually incorrect in that claim?

I've already added my support to that suggestion as I believe it is an important topic.

You have not treated it as such though. Indeed, it appears to be an important forum, but not in your back yard.

The intention was NEVER to stamp out discussion of men's rights but rather to put a curb on those of you guilty of thread hijacking, thread spoiling and general tomfoolery. Those posters know who they are whether they will admit it or not and it is those people who are to blame for this situation. Think long and hard about that.

Now who's resorting to petty insults?

With any topic like Men's Rights, you're bound to get the bitter, the nutcases and the downright contrary getting involved. You'll actually find that many of those posting on such threads, such as myself, repeatedly corrected those who made outlandish and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories or simply engaged in misogamy.

The problem though is that there has been an attempt to treat the issue in a fuzzy, "why can't we all just get along" way when in reality this topic is foremost about men. Not women, not people, but men and inevitably things will be aired that will upset the PC amongst us.

donfers

tbh wrote: »

From my point of view CD, I've always found your posts to be interesting and thought-provoking. You do make some very good points.
The problem is that you, and others - with the best of intentions, I understand that and I want to make it very clear - have a certain point of view that you are interested in discussing, and to be frank it's drowning out the threads that we want to see more of.

What I want to make clear more than anything is that we don't want to shut you up, we don't think that you (or anyone else who wants to discuss these issues) is a 'crank' - or anything like that. That's not what it's about. It's more about the fact that we want to promote a more general discussion on mens issues than simply different ways of expressing the view that men are harder done by than women in certain ways.

So, for example, we want to talk about things like unemployment without discussing what advantages women have over men when it comes to that topic.
We want to talk about things like what it's like to have testicular or prostate cancer without talking about how womens cancers get more funding than mens.
We want to talk about how to deal with the breakup of a relationship without talking about how courts are prejudiced in favour of women.

I say "without talking about" - naturally for all of those topics, a certain amount of men vs women may come up, but we feel those should be a small part of the discussion rather than the sole focus of it.

Our idea for the forum was that the "easy on the eye" type banter threads would be the honey that would draw men in, and once here, they may open up about topics they don't have a chance to discuss in other places.

We're not specifically interested in filling the "mens rights" niche - it's not to say that it shouldn't be filled, but that's not what this forum is for. We're not interested, and have no requirement to, generate traffic for the sake of driving traffic. If we have five regular posters that are getting out of the forum what we want them to get out of the forum, that's better than 500 posters who are using the forum for something other than we had planned.
I know that might not make sense in terms of a commercial website, but I'm trying to be straight with you and reiterate the point that we have very definate expectations for the forum.

I think the post quoted is largely well-argued, fair and reasonable but I have an issue with part in bold.

Isn't that just censorship?

Lads, you can talk about it but don't refer to comparisons with women. Why?

Herbal Deity

r3nu4l wrote: »

Time and time again the mods here have said, this is not the male equivalent of the Ladies Lounge and time and time again, some people just don't get that or don't want to get that.

I've heard this many times and can I just say that I, for one, don't get this, and it's not to do with not wanting to get it.

What exactly is the problem with this being the male equivalent of tLL? As far as I can see that's what it is.

In the past I've seen very valid points being made by posters in which a comparison to tLL is made and they are just dismissed because mentioning tLL seemingly invalidates any argument.

r3nu4l

Herbal Deity wrote: »

I've heard this many times and can I just say that I, for one, don't get this, and it's not to do with not wanting to get it.

What exactly is the problem with this being the male equivalent of tLL? As far as I can see that's what it is.

In the past I've seen very valid points being made by posters in which a comparison to tLL is made and they are just dismissed because mentioning tLL seemingly invalidates any argument.

Usually when the subject of tLL is raised, it's in relation to what is allowed there and what's not allowed here. The arguments are 'This is allowed in tLL', or 'They don't allow that in tLL'. This isn't the tLL. They are similar forums but that does not mean our rules have to be the same as theirs. That's what I'm getting at.

r3nu4l

donfers wrote: »

I think the post quoted is largely well-argued, fair and reasonable but I have an issue with part in bold.

Isn't that just censorship?

Lads, you can talk about it but don't refer to comparisons with women. Why?

We want to talk about things like what it's like to have testicular or prostate cancer without talking about how womens cancers get more funding than mens.

Let's examine this a bit more:

New thread started by User X: ' INeed information on testicular cancer'

Replies that are good:
'Try website cancerofthetestes.org'
'Ask your oncologist for a copy of this DVD, it really helped me'

These are helpful to the request made by the OP

Replies that are bad:
'Typical! A guy has to come to a message board to get answers on a male cancer. This is because the cancer charities are misandrist! Their agenda is pro-women'

'How come there's loads of info on breast cancer but nothing about this cancer. Last year the breast cancer campaign in Ireland was €40 million with only €2.50 for prostate cancer! It's a disgrace and the feminist movement has triumphed once again over men...'

Absolutely no help to the OP, dragging the thread off topic and hijacking it to meet that poster's agenda.

Now certain posters here took every opportunity to make the sort of 'bad replies' above on threads that had absolutely no relevance to the topic in question. Those posters ignored our warnings, infractions and pleas to butt out and keep that sort of stuff in relevant threads. This is why we are where we are.

If those posters wanted to talk about funding of men versus women (for example) they should have started their own thread related to that but instead decided to ride roughshod over the thread, the original poster and the mods showing no respect to anyone but their own agenda. Quite often we said as much on-thread but the poster continued to undermine the main topic of the thread.

tbh

donfers wrote: »

I think the post quoted is largely well-argued, fair and reasonable but I have an issue with part in bold.

Isn't that just censorship?

Lads, you can talk about it but don't refer to comparisons with women. Why?

the bit after it:

I say "without talking about" - naturally for all of those topics, a certain amount of men vs women may come up, but we feel those should be a small part of the discussion rather than the sole focus of it.



edit: r3 explained it perfectly.

r3nu4l

The Corinthian wrote: »

You have not treated it as such though. Indeed, it appears to be an important forum, but not in your back yard.

Happy to have it in my back yard if certain posters can confine their agenda to those threads and keep their agenda out of threads that have no relevance to that agenda and don't make concerted efforts to find a way to soapbox in every thread...

The Corinthian

r3nu4l wrote: »

Happy to have it in my back yard if certain posters can confine their agenda to those threads and keep their agenda out of threads that have no relevance to that agenda and don't make concerted efforts to find a way to soapbox in every thread...

While it is important that any forum be moderated to as to lower s/n to an acceptable level, I would not have confidence in the slant towards men's rights that some of the moderators have on this forum.

The Corinthian

tbh wrote: »

I say "without talking about" - naturally for all of those topics, a certain amount of men vs women may come up, but we feel those should be a small part of the discussion rather than the sole focus of it.

How can one discuss equality without making a comparison?

tbh

The Corinthian wrote: »

How can one discuss equality without making a comparison?

it's like r3 said above. To be honest, I believe that most people who use this forum aren't interested in equality discussions, and it's not what the forum was intended for.
You can talk about what it's like to be unemployed without the thread descending into a debate - and I use that term in it's loosest possible sense - on why women are harder to fire than men. You can talk about what it's like to become a dad without talking about why men are discriminated against when it comes to custody disputes.

Herbal Deity

r3nu4l wrote: »

Usually when the subject of tLL is raised, it's in relation to what is allowed there and what's not allowed here. The arguments are 'This is allowed in tLL', or 'They don't allow that in tLL'. This isn't the tLL. They are similar forums but that does not mean our rules have to be the same as theirs. That's what I'm getting at.

Well, of course we're going to have slightly different rules depending on how the fora evolve, but I don't think that we should be pretending that tLL doesn't exist when discussing and formulating forum policy.

I mean, rather than a "This isn't tLL" response to anyone asking why something is allowed on tLL and not on here, why not explain why, in the view of the mods, it works on tLL and why it wouldn't on here? I don't like the way it's always just dismissed.


Anyway, I do agree that the vehement soapboxing is annoying, but I think that this megathread was a very silly idea. A feedback thread highlighting the concerns of the mods and requesting suggestions from the posters on here with the goal of reaching a compromise would have been a much more sensible option.

The Corinthian

tbh wrote: »

it's like r3 said above. To be honest, I believe that most people who use this forum aren't interested in equality discussions, and it's not what the forum was intended for.
You can talk about what it's like to be unemployed without the thread descending into a debate - and I use that term in it's loosest possible sense - on why women are harder to fire than men. You can talk about what it's like to become a dad without talking about why men are discriminated against when it comes to custody disputes.

So we cannot compare inequality of men's rights to women's then. Taboo.

Glad that's cleared up. New forum please.

Dr Galen

The Corinthian wrote: »

While it is important that any forum be moderated to as to lower s/n to an acceptable level, I would not have confidence in the slant towards men's rights that some of the moderators have on this forum.

I've kept out of this debate tbh, but I'd like to know what you mean by this statement TC?

The Corinthian

Dr Galen wrote: »

I've kept out of this debate tbh, but I'd like to know what you mean by this statement TC?

I think it's clear by the opinions expressed by some of the mods, in that men's rights may be discussed only in a vacuum that does not offend anyone else though comparison and that is patently ridiculous, given that the reverse is not observed or that gender equality requires such comparisons by definition.

I would agree that there is some hijacking there that we can do without - the current job losses argument is a good example where it really is just down to market demographics and can be demonstrated as such. However, to suggest that we cannot compare men's and women's rights effectively castrates any discussion on the subject.

donfers

The rationale for dumping all the gender equality based threads in one megathread seems to be that certain posters were hijacking threads and feminist bashing.

The simple solution, I think, is to simply ban someone who comes out with any overtly woman-hating guff.

Otherwise I suggest you let things be.

Sidelining issues relating to men's rights because of a few sexist comments seems to me to be yet another example of men having to meekly lie down and accept their fate, yet another example of pandering to some relentless cronyistic pc bandwagon that silences the discussion of any issue that doesn't relate to their special interest.

Dr Galen

The Corinthian wrote: »

I would agree that there is some hijacking there that we can do without

I'm not selectively quoting here to make a negative point TC

but

this one statement I couldn't agree with more. In fact I go further and say that this hijacking was a hell of a lot more prevalent that it appears you and others realise. Either way, it could totally be done without, and has ruined the forum in the past for many many users. I say this from a position of some knowing, as it was me (+the other mods) that were getting the PMs about it.

I've also gone on record when I was Mod here, saying that controversial topics were welcome, and indeed many are a major part of the forum ethos and reason for being. I think you might be missing it though, the topics are not the issue, its the way in which they were being presented and argued that was. For you, knowing the difficulties inherent in being a Mod, to come out with what smells a little like "mod conspiracy" to me, is a surprising. You know rightly that this isn't the case.

The Corinthian

Dr Galen wrote: »

I'm not selectively quoting here to make a negative point TC

Except you did then ignored the rest of my post.

For you, knowing the difficulties inherent in being a Mod, to come out with what smells a little like "mod conspiracy" to me, is a surprising. You know rightly that this isn't the case.

No, I'm not suggesting any mod conspiracy. I'm suggesting that there is a need for men's rights to be addressed and this forum is not the place for it as it was born of a men's health forum and the mods are really not terribly interested in the whole men's rights subject, beyond a very superficial and politically correct fashion.

The topic would be better served by a forum modded by those who have an interest in the area. Then tGC can go back to being a politically correct version of Loaded.

tbh

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm suggesting that there is a need for men's rights to be addressed and this forum is not the place for it as it was born of a men's health forum and the mods are really not terribly interested in the whole men's rights subject, beyond a very superficial and politically correct fashion.

well, what's wrong with that? We've been open with everyone and said that we have a very specific agenda for this forum. We have our reasons for wanting to achieve that. We've outlined those reasons to the admins, and we were given the nod to give it a go.

I don't see why we should be insulted for trying to carry that off, to be fair.

Maguined

If its only certain posts and certain posters that are taking threads off the course you would prefer them on why are the posts not deleted and the posters given a temp ban? is this not how most "off topic" threads are treated on other forums?

If I went onto personal issue and dragged every "does he like me thread" off topic, my posts would be deleted or i would receive a ban, I doubt that a "does he like me" megathread would be formed.

Forming a megathread just seems to be sweeping a "problem" under the carpet, its not dealing with the "problem" at all just trying to contain it in the one space at the detriment to all the important topics that are also getting confined to the one contained space.

The Corinthian

tbh wrote: »

well, what's wrong with that? We've been open with everyone and said that we have a very specific agenda for this forum. We have our reasons for wanting to achieve that. We've outlined those reasons to the admins, and we were given the nod to give it a go.

Well, the naming of the forum is misleading because it would lead one to think that one can discuss men's issues, not only those men's issues that are on your "very specific agenda".

Beyond that there is nothing wrong with it as long as it is recognized that this forum does not cater to a specific demand. As such, however, neither do I think it appropriate that any new forum is a sub forum of tGC.

Kooli

The Corinthian wrote: »

So we cannot compare inequality of men's rights to women's then. Taboo.

Glad that's cleared up. New forum please.

I think it's more that that was always the automatic slant that kept coming up again and again.

And it was always in an angry tone, directed at so-called 'feminazis', none of whom (that I could see) were actually posting in the thread. It was being approached in a 'zero sum gain' manner, as if feminism was in opposition to men's rights, and every mention of any rights for men brought a tirade stating that feminists wouldn't allow it or support it, even though no one on the thread ever suggested such a thing.

I don't see why you can't hear that it was making the forum an unpleasant place for a lot of posters - that's not being fabricated and it's not a conspiracy. I know I was starting to avoid coming here. I'm interested in this thread because I want to see if things can become more productive again and if this forum can go back to the way it was (and 'the way it was' did not actually involve censorship or people not speaking their mind).

People are giving out that comparisons between men's and women's rights are not allowed. But there's a difference between comparing men's and women's rights on the SAME issue (i.e. the woman's right to maternity leave vs. the men's lack of rights to paternity leave) and comparing men's and women's rights on different issues (i.e. why do women complain about sexual objectification when men are all painted as paedophiles). It just creates an automatic 'us vs. them' approach which is really antagonistic, unpleasant, and unhelpful.

tbh

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, the naming of the forum is misleading because it would lead one to think that one can discuss men's issues, not only those men's issues that are on your "very specific agenda".

you see, I would counter that and say that it's not a forum for the sole discussion of issues that seem to be on your "very specific agenda"

As such, however, neither do I think it appropriate that any new forum is a sub forum of tGC.

I agree with you there. as I've said, I would support such a forum, but I don't think it's appropriate to have it as a sub-forum of here either. Having said that tho, I don't know why you can't just use humanaties.

Maguined

tbh wrote: »

well, what's wrong with that? We've been open with everyone and said that we have a very specific agenda for this forum. We have our reasons for wanting to achieve that. We've outlined those reasons to the admins, and we were given the nod to give it a go.

I don't see why we should be insulted for trying to carry that off, to be fair.

But does this specific agenda not contradict with the charter? the charter has "the role of men in society, the pressures on men to succeed and anything else related to being a man" which men's equality issues would definitely fall under but when they are discussed then it becomes something not really wanted around these parts.

You don't really want men's equalities issues to be discussed properly in this forum but neither will you openly say they are not to be discussed at all.

I really think its time to stop sitting on the fence and either allow these issues to be discussed fully or else openly acknowledge its not part of this forum and not to be discussed here, because the half and half approach seems to be satisfying noboddy.

I know the mods have said they have lost members over the increase in these "un-pc" threads but I for one have only started coming here because of these topics as I find them very interesting and keep me coming back.

donfers

Kooli wrote: »

I think it's more that that was always the automatic slant that kept coming up again and again.

And it was always in an angry tone, directed at so-called 'feminazis', none of whom (that I could see) were actually posting in the thread. It was being approached in a 'zero sum gain' manner, as if feminism was in opposition to men's rights, and every mention of any rights for men brought a tirade stating that feminists wouldn't allow it or support it, even though no one on the thread ever suggested such a thing.

I don't see why you can't hear that it was making the forum an unpleasant place for a lot of posters - that's not being fabricated and it's not a conspiracy. I know I was starting to avoid coming here. I'm interested in this thread because I want to see if things can become more productive again and if this forum can go back to the way it was (and 'the way it was' did not actually involve censorship or people not speaking their mind).

People are giving out that comparisons between men's and women's rights are not allowed. But there's a difference between comparing men's and women's rights on the SAME issue (i.e. the woman's right to maternity leave vs. the men's lack of rights to paternity leave) and comparing men's and women's rights on different issues (i.e. why do women complain about sexual objectification when men are all painted as paedophiles). It just creates an automatic 'us vs. them' approach which is really antagonistic, unpleasant, and unhelpful.

1st bold: No it wasn't, the arguments were usually reasonable and conducted in good spirit in this forum...I am really not getting this whole rewriting of history in this forum as if every thread started about gender issues was just a queue of men bashing women - that is just plain wrong

2nd bold: Was it, care to tell how many found it an "unpleasant place", I'd wager maybe 3 or 4 people complained and I'd also wager the main reason they complained was not because the men were being nasty (although of course that is ostensibly the reason for the censorship), I'd wager the main reason they were riled is because the message being put out was something they disagreed with and they just didn't want to see it (because it is so rarely seen, what! the men have issues too, get away!)

3rd bold: It seems the us v them thing is antagonistic, unpleasant and unhelpful when men defend their side of the equation....but when the ladies speak out againt men, it's passionate, honourable, inspirational and vital.

The Corinthian

Kooli wrote: »

And it was always in an angry tone, directed at so-called 'feminazis', none of whom (that I could see) were actually posting in the thread. It was being approached in a 'zero sum gain' manner, as if feminism was in opposition to men's rights, and every mention of any rights for men brought a tirade stating that feminists wouldn't allow it or support it, even though no one on the thread ever suggested such a thing.

Discussing whether feminism actively opposes men's rights is a perfectly valid topic for debate.

People are giving out that comparisons between men's and women's rights are not allowed. But there's a difference between comparing men's and women's rights on the SAME issue (i.e. the woman's right to maternity leave vs. the men's lack of rights to paternity leave) and comparing men's and women's rights on different issues (i.e. why do women complain about sexual objectification when men are all painted as paedophiles). It just creates an automatic 'us vs. them' approach which is really antagonistic, unpleasant, and unhelpful.

I'd agree in some cases, but not all. Sometimes you need to make the unpleasant comparisons, even if it does sound antagonistic, unpleasant, and unhelpful, rather than ignoring the elephant in the middle of the room.

tbh wrote: »

you see, I would counter that and say that it's not a forum for the sole discussion of issues that seem to be on your "very specific agenda"

Apparently it's not a forum for the any discussion of these issues.

Having said that tho, I don't know why you can't just use humanaties.

Humanities is really meant for abstract discussion. Men's rights are not an abstract topic unless you don't really believe in them.

r3nu4l

Maguined wrote: »

If its only certain posts and certain posters that are taking threads off the course you would prefer them on why are the posts not deleted and the posters given a temp ban? is this not how most "off topic" threads are treated on other forums?

If I went onto personal issue and dragged every "does he like me thread" off topic, my posts would be deleted or i would receive a ban, I doubt that a "does he like me" megathread would be formed.

Forming a megathread just seems to be sweeping a "problem" under the carpet, its not dealing with the "problem" at all just trying to contain it in the one space at the detriment to all the important topics that are also getting confined to the one contained space.

A very good, constructively critical post. Thank you Okay, we were definitely at fault (as I've said earlier) in that we tried hard not to ban people. We tried on-thread warnings, infractions, gentle nudges etc. None of us mods on this forum are fans of banning unless necessary. We were too lenient.

I also thought (ironically) that banning certain users here would lead to accusations of censorship by those users! Now we are being accused of that anyway

We thought the megathread was a good idea for the following reason.

1. A lot of the Men's rights threads ended up going down the same path so much so that on one occasion I thought I was reading about one topic and turned out the original thread had been about something else entirely.

2 Some of the 'hardcore' men's right posters were copying and pasting replies from other threads into new threads. This indicated that the discussion was no different to the other thread in question and therefore nothing new was being said.

3. Certain threads ended up being nothing more than circular argument with the same points being reiterated by the same posters over and over again. Looking at them it became obvious that those same posts (although worded differently) had appeared elsewhere.

So it was becoming clear that despite there being loads and loads of threads about Men's rights, there was in fact only a need for one because they all boiled down to the same few posters saying the same things over and over again. Therefore, there was no need for all of those threads and a mega-thread seemed like a good idea.

Honestly, reading some of those 'different' threads makes it feel like you're Bill Murray in Groundhog Day!

We also felt that with a mega-thread it would mean that we could confine the thread-hijackers there without having to resort to bannings.

CDfm

donfers wrote: »

I think the post quoted is largely well-argued, fair and reasonable but I have an issue with part in bold.

Isn't that just censorship?

@donfers It isnt censorship really -its like putting down rules for gentlemanly play within a sport.I don't have any problem with that part of the post and the points r3 & tbh are making. They are a bit different to mine but are not unreasonable.

I am sorry we have lost Dr G as a mod as he put a lot of work into keeping the mens rights issue on the table.

There are workable solutions on the table within the tGC umbrella and even a sub-forum.

What they are saying is tGC is more than just "mens rights" & "gender issues" and that its more holistic.

They want to redraw the rules a bit to get it on track and even for the " mens rights" posters that is a good idea because it will be part of a mainstream group as opposed to it being relegated somewhere as a specialist issue in some backwater.

Not reading what is being said and giving kneejerk reactions is all very well and is in the "realm throwing the toys out of the pram".

Whoever said boards was a democracy -its a benevolent dictatorship.

r3nu4l wrote: »

So it was becoming clear that despite there being loads and loads of threads about Men's rights, there was in fact only a need for one because they all boiled down to the same few posters saying the same things over and over again. Therefore, there was no need for all of those threads and a mega-thread seemed like a good idea.

I agree with you somewhat but its a bit severe. I don't think the megathread is a workeable solution for the subject. I find some of the views extreme and off the wall. I have found myself taking self imposed breaks from tGC because of that.

And stuff that should have been good banter. I couldn't see myself starting a "kosangas housewife of the year" thread here now but I did

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055666169

Kooli

The Corinthian wrote: »

Discussing whether feminism actively opposes men's rights is a perfectly valid topic for debate.

I'd agree in some cases, but not all. Sometimes you need to make the unpleasant comparisons, even if it does sound antagonistic, unpleasant, and unhelpful, rather than ignoring the elephant in the middle of the room.

Apparently it's not a forum for the any discussion of these issues.

Humanities is really meant for abstract discussion. Men's rights are not an abstract topic unless you don't really believe in them.

I actually agree that the topic of whether feminism actively opposes men's right is absolutely worthy of discussion.

I just don't think it belongs in every single thread that has anything to do with masculinity or men's rights. And actually that might be the crux of what I was trying to say.

And it's not 'unpleasant comparisons' that are the issue, that's not what I meant at all - I'm always open to have my eyes opened to something I never thought of before. It is comparisons made in an unpleasant, antagonistic manner. The comparisons themselves were never the problem.

I also don't really understand why you don't see Humanities as an option. Right now over there they're discussing multiculturalism, pornography, religious education in schools, as well as discussions on stuff currently in the media. Are they more 'abstract' than men's rights?

Kooli

donfers wrote: »

3rd bold: It seems the us v them thing is antagonistic, unpleasant and unhelpful when men defend their side of the equation....but when the ladies speak out againt men, it's passionate, honourable, inspirational and vital.

OK you're clearly not getting what I'm saying.

You're being told that it wasn't the fact that men's rights were being discussed that was the issue, it was how they were being discussed that was the issue.

Yet you keep hearing that men's rights should not be discussed at all.
I am absolutely happy to hear about how men's issues affect men, and about areas where they experience discrimination on the basis of their gender. I find it really interesting, and that's why I used to come to this forum. It was sometimes quite an eye opener.

But then it took a turn and it wasn't about that anymore. It was about discrediting feminism, comparing who was more hard-done-by, and going tit-for-tat on everything. It frequently painted all feminists as misandrists, which alienated those of us who consider ourselves feminists who also recognise when inequality goes the other way and disagree with it. And as I said before, the argument was against no one. There was lots of talk of what 'feminists would say' or what the 'feminist agenda would like us to believe', but those of us who were trying to pipe up and say 'eh...I'm a feminist and I don't feel that way' were dismissed.

It was constant agenda-pushing with ever-decreasing amounts of thoughtful or engaged debate, and it got tiresome.

Maguined

Kooli wrote: »

OK you're clearly not getting what I'm saying.

You're being told that it wasn't the fact that men's rights were being discussed that was the issue, it was how they were being discussed that was the issue.

Yet you keep hearing that men's rights should not be discussed at all.
I am absolutely happy to hear about how men's issues affect men, and about areas where they experience discrimination on the basis of their gender. I find it really interesting, and that's why I used to come to this forum. It was sometimes quite an eye opener.

But then it took a turn and it wasn't about that anymore. It was about discrediting feminism, comparing who was more hard-done-by, and going tit-for-tat on everything. It frequently painted all feminists as misandrists, which alienated those of us who consider ourselves feminists who also recognise when inequality goes the other way and disagree with it. And as I said before, the argument was against no one. There was lots of talk of what 'feminists would say' or what the 'feminist agenda would like us to believe', but those of us who were trying to pipe up and say 'eh...I'm a feminist and I don't feel that way' were dismissed.

It was constant agenda-pushing with ever-decreasing amounts of thoughtful or engaged debate, and it got tiresome.

As long as the posts were on topic then are they not valid even if they are tiresome or going against your own opinions?

I find many topics tiresome or not to my liking, the "whats your favourite tool" thread has no interest to me at all but that doesn't mean that such a topic should not have a place, as long as it fits into the charter and the posts stay on topic then it is perfectly valid and I have no justification for trying to get such topics removed.

The posts regarding feminism that you disagree with are either on topic or not, if they mods decide they are on topic then you cant really complain that they should be removed because they disagree with your opinion (i am not saying you are doing this, just making an example) if the mods decide they are off topic or rules breaking then they should be deleted.

donfers

Kooli wrote: »

OK you're clearly not getting what I'm saying.

You're being told that it wasn't the fact that men's rights were being discussed that was the issue, it was how they were being discussed that was the issue.

Yet you keep hearing that men's rights should not be discussed at all.
I am absolutely happy to hear about how men's issues affect men, and about areas where they experience discrimination on the basis of their gender. I find it really interesting, and that's why I used to come to this forum. It was sometimes quite an eye opener.

But then it took a turn and it wasn't about that anymore. It was about discrediting feminism, comparing who was more hard-done-by, and going tit-for-tat on everything. It frequently painted all feminists as misandrists, which alienated those of us who consider ourselves feminists who also recognise when inequality goes the other way and disagree with it. And as I said before, the argument was against no one. There was lots of talk of what 'feminists would say' or what the 'feminist agenda would like us to believe', but those of us who were trying to pipe up and say 'eh...I'm a feminist and I don't feel that way' were dismissed.

It was constant agenda-pushing with ever-decreasing amounts of thoughtful or engaged debate, and it got tiresome.

Thanks for telling me what I'm being told but I perfectly understand what is going on here.

Have another read of my posts as you're clearly not getting what I'm saying:
I am not hearing the part in bold at all (thanks for putting words in my ummm.....ears), I know that men's rights can be discussed here, that isn't even an issue or maybe it is an issue for some and the fact that it even is an issue is absurd.

I am hearing that "yes lads, youz can discuss men's rights but only if you don't refer to how the women get on in comparison" which doesn't really make any sense.

That people like you take offense is neither here not there to me, I take offense to many of the stuff I read in TLL but I'm not pming complaints to the mods in there, I accept that many of them say stuff I perhaps disagree with but that's their right, it's their forum and it allows them to express their views. I don't believe I have the right as a man to barge in there telling them they have offended me with x post or y post just because I so happen to have a different perhaps less fashionable or pc worldview. I also have no desire to send pms to the mods in TLL telling them how they should run their forum. I can only imagine the response if I did.

What I don't understand is why any regular user of this forum who wants to discuss issues relating to men would have a problem with gender equality threads? Yes a few posts bashed feminists, so what? Are feminists beyond criticism? Do we have to create a whole new hidden subforum for fear of upsetting them? Are these same very sensitive criteria applied across boards?

CDfm

Kooli wrote: »

I actually agree that the topic of whether feminism actively opposes men's right is absolutely worthy of discussion.

I just don't think it belongs in every single thread that has anything to do with masculinity or men's rights. And actually that might be the crux of what I was trying to say.

And it's not 'unpleasant comparisons' that are the issue, that's not what I meant at all - I'm always open to have my eyes opened to something I never thought of before. It is comparisons made in an unpleasant, antagonistic manner. The comparisons themselves were never the problem.

I agree with you here.

The reason that the discussions can end up going like this is there are several schools of thought. Some see it as a civil rights issue while others see it as two sides of a political debate.

Thats the reason why this stuff becomes unpleasant IMHO. Thats true oif the whole gender area -"feminism" and "masculinism".

So you will by definition get other aghendas dropping in to the most well intentioned thread. Thats the reason probably why you get the duplicate posts and arguments that r3 has posted of. So say you have a provocative media piece or statistics in tLL -you may get its equivalent or counter polarised argument in tGC.

Domestic violence gender biased articles will get me going -so now I will tend to avoid those threads.

So I can see why a change of emphasis is needed as some threads on gender issues are more suited to a politics style forum.

I also don't really understand why you don't see Humanities as an option. Right now over there they're discussing multiculturalism, pornography, religious education in schools, as well as discussions on stuff currently in the media. Are they more 'abstract' than men's rights?

Humanities is abstract and not mainstream (apologies to people there btw) but its a catchall.

Its like having seperated fathers in parenting with the new Mums.

So maybe a gender issues sub-forum as has been suggested is the way to go. At arms lenght if you want it and accessable but not dominating everything.Which is essentially what is being discussed here.

I think some people are missing the point that tGC was not becoming a happy place to mod or post and that changing things is good in that way or the forum will get stuck in a rut as the "Bitter & Twisted Mens Club" and no-one really wants that.

Dr Galen

Maguined wrote: »

I know the mods have said they have lost members over the increase in these "un-pc" threads but I for one have only started coming here because of these topics as I find them very interesting and keep me coming back.

donfers wrote: »

2nd bold: Was it, care to tell how many found it an "unpleasant place", I'd wager maybe 3 or 4 people complained and I'd also wager the main reason they complained was not because the men were being nasty (although of course that is ostensibly the reason for the censorship), I'd wager the main reason they were riled is because the message being put out was something they disagreed with and they just didn't want to see it (because it is so rarely seen, what! the men have issues too, get away!)

for the record it was a lot more than 3 or 4 people who actually complained. Add to that a decent number of people who didn't complain, but just simply stopped posting. When I (when I was Mod) contacted these people and asked, they were all saying the same thing.

It was mostly that they were sick and tired of the back and forth nonsense of the "gender" threads, that they felt a small number of posters had effectively hijacked the forum for their own purposes and agendas, and the tGC was simply not a place that they found interesting anymore. Many of the people I had contact with, found that they really had no interest in the things that a few of you are talking about here, so I don't think its fair to say that it just didn't match their own views.

CDfm

donfers wrote: »

I am hearing that "yes lads, youz can discuss men's rights but only if you don't refer to how the women get on in comparison" which doesn't really make any sense.

That people like you take offense is neither here not there to me, I take offense to many of the stuff I read in TLL but I'm not pming complaints to the mods in there, .......................................

What I don't understand is why any regular user of this forum who wants to discuss issues relating to men would have a problem with gender equality threads? Yes a few posts bashed feminists, so what? Are feminists beyond criticism? Do we have to create a whole new hidden subforum for fear of upsetting them? Are these same very sensitive criteria applied across boards?

That would be fine and dandy if it was a mens rights forum ,but it is not, and there are more users than the mens rights posters and r3 & co are trying to put together a workable solution to accomadate all.

I don't read tLL nowdays as I am not a woman -but you have a point but it does not deal with the issue in hand.

Surely, you should be engaging on how the new look tGC might be while you have the opportunity.

So r3 how do you see it and what does the future hold?

Nevyn

Dr Galen wrote: »

for the record it was a lot more than 3 or 4 people who actually complained. Add to that a decent number of people who didn't complain, but just simply stopped posting. When I (when I was Mod) contacted these people and asked, they were all saying the same thing.

It was mostly that they were sick and tired of the back and forth nonsense of the "gender" threads, that they felt a small number of posters had effectively hijacked the forum for their own purposes and agendas, and the tGC was simply not a place that they found interesting anymore. Many of the people I had contact with, found that they really had no interest in the things that a few of you are talking about here, so I don't think its fair to say that it just didn't match their own views.

I know I have only in the last few months been posting in here and I read it a lot more before it, if I have contributed to this happening I am very sorry,
it was never my intent.

Maguined

Dr Galen wrote: »

for the record it was a lot more than 3 or 4 people who actually complained. Add to that a decent number of people who didn't complain, but just simply stopped posting. When I (when I was Mod) contacted these people and asked, they were all saying the same thing.

It was mostly that they were sick and tired of the back and forth nonsense of the "gender" threads, that they felt a small number of posters had effectively hijacked the forum for their own purposes and agendas, and the tGC was simply not a place that they found interesting anymore. Many of the people I had contact with, found that they really had no interest in the things that a few of you are talking about here, so I don't think its fair to say that it just didn't match their own views.

Fair enough some people did not like the threads, i read TLL, i don't like all the threads there, some annoy me and some interest me greatly, i read the ones that interest me and ignore the ones that annoy me because they are still on topic according to the charter for TLL so it doesnt matter if they annoy me or not they belong there.

TGC is currently supposed to cater for mens issue and mens rights is part of that so even if some people don't like it its still on topic and if they dont want to read it then that is their choice. I doubt anyone over at TLL is lamenting the fact i don't care for some of the threads.

If the mods think cutting out any gender issues threads will make TGC a better place then fine that is their choice, then just come out and expressly say it rather than saying its okay in the charter to post about these issues but then frown everytime these topics are raised, you can't have your cake and eat it.