AH & Perceived Sexism

Adam

Adam wrote: »

personal abuse is personal abuse, be it about sex, age, height, weight, skin colour etc.
the problem is when you try to make a bigger deal out of it by calling it sexism.

if you are personally abused, for any reason including those listed above, report the post. the mods will obviously deal with it if it's a genuine report.

if you come across a generally sexist post, that you personally find offensive, you can similarly report it. but you can't expect a similar response to a different issue, and if the post is within charter guidelines, then you may not get the result you want.

and i don't think there is any middle ground between the two situations above.

Dudess wrote: »

Adam, I don't like the word sexism (it's so subjective anyway) but I think it's disingenuous to say the insults thrown were gender-neutral personal abuse.

Firstly, i never said this. the thread had gone on that long that i'm not relating my points to any specific posts, nor am i claiming that sexism does not exist in any of these insults.

They were personal abuse AND they were based on us being women.
A man wouldn't have been referred to as a bitter, jealous, unattractive, man-hating feminazi - well it's HIGHLY unlikely he wouldn't anyway.
I want to keep the jokes too - no matter how crude - but it seems to me and others that there is personal abuse and uncalled for general statements about women at times, which would constitute misogyny specifically, not simply generic abuse.

i've quoted myself above as well, as i feel the part in bold has been misconstrued. i'm not claiming there are no sexist remarks/insults in AH, i'm merely stating that if a poster IS being sexist towards another user specifically, the post(s) should be reported and that person should be reprimanded.

when i said the part in bold, what i meant was the problem is that people are screaming PERSONAL SEXIST ABUSE! like it should warrant a separate reaction to if someone screamed PERSONAL ABUSE! i.e. whether a poster is being sexist or not is irrelevant, if it falls under the heading of personal abuse it will be treated as such, and this whole thread attempting to single out the idea of sexism is moot since the term is so subjective!

the rules are so simple it's not even funny. if you're being personally abused, report it. whether it's sexist abuse or not doesn't matter, the action and reaction still remain the same.

ibarelycare

liah wrote: »

So then I guess that means literally nobody is allowed to EVER change the way they think or their opinions? That means every single person should be held accountable for every single thing they've ever done or said regardless of whether or not they've changed since?

Yes.

liah

ibarelycare wrote: »

Yes.

Do you believe in corporal punishment or rehabilitation, out of curiosity?
Do you believe a man should be held accountable for eating snails at the age of 5 when he's 22?
Do you believe an alcoholic can never become straight?
Do you believe a person who was formerly pro-life could now be pro-choice?
Do you believe Christians have become Atheists?
Do you believe people have started out eating meat and ended up as vegetarians?

Just curious, really.

My point is this: Everyone's done stuff in the past they don't agree with anymore. You have no idea how I feel about those posts, so to post under the assumption that I feel the same way in an effort to remove my posts' credibility in a completely new thread months later on the basis of my personal posting history is simply wrong.

Adam

liah wrote: »

I've said all I can say on the subject. I'm a good person who had nothing but good intentions in starting this and you ended it in a witchhunt against me because you couldn't let go of the past. I've tried to be fair and diplomatic and explain my viewpoint as clearly (and repeatedly) as possible without resulting to personal insults and dredging up the past and have been met with little but disrespect.

So be it. Good luck to the rest of the girls. I'm done.

it takes more than one person to have a debate, and it is a debate which you kicked off, you can walk away from it whenever you want, but there was no witchhunt that i can see, just a case of more people on one side of the debate than the other. and maybe that was the inevitable result you could have forseen, but it doesn't make the thread a witchhunt. people are entitled to disagree with you. it's not like you spent your time on this thread saying nothing.

Wibbs

ibarelycare wrote: »

Yes.

You're kidding right? People dont change, for better or worse? Riiiight. While I do agree acknowledging stuff from the past is good, being held to ransom by the same stuff is daft and especially childish as an argument winner.

ibarelycare

liah wrote: »

Do you believe in corporal punishment or rehabilitation, out of curiosity?
Do you believe a child should be held accountable for eating snails at the age of 5 when he's 22?
Do you believe an alcoholic can never become straight?
Do you believe a person who was formerly pro-life could now be pro-choice?
Do you believe Christians have become Atheists?
Do you believe people have started out eating meat and ended up as vegetarians?

Just curious, really.

Bloody hell, talk about dramatic.

Lots of those examples don't even make sense in this context. If someone ate meat for 20 years and then they decided to become a vegetarian, they're still accountable for eating meat for 20 years, no matter what they THINK now!!!

Yes, people change. Change beliefs, whatever. But you are still held accountable for what you've said or done in your life. Who else is going to be accountable for it? It doesn't necessarily mean in a negative sense. If I made a racist comment, and then said a few days later that it was a mistake, I was sorry, I didn't mean it, etc etc, then that's all well and good. But I still have to be held accountable for what I said.

Adam

liah wrote: »

Do you believe in corporal punishment or rehabilitation, out of curiosity?
Do you believe a man should be held accountable for eating snails at the age of 5 when he's 22?
Do you believe an alcoholic can never become straight?
Do you believe a person who was formerly pro-life could now be pro-choice?
Do you believe Christians have become Atheists?
Do you believe people have started out eating meat and ended up as vegetarians?

Just curious, really.

My point is this: Everyone's done stuff in the past they don't agree with anymore. You have no idea how I feel about those posts, so to post under the assumption that I feel the same way in an effort to remove my posts' credibility in a completely new thread months later on the basis of my personal posting history is simply wrong.

if i committed a murder ten years ago, but changed my mind about the person since, am i no longer accountable for the murder?

ibarelycare

Wibbs wrote: »

You're kidding right? People dont change, for better or worse? Riiiight. While I do agree acknowledging stuff from the past is good, being held to ransom by the same stuff is daft and especially childish as an argument winner.

Of course people change. That's a completely different matter! We're constantly being told to be careful about what we say on the internet, as it will be around for ever. We're always going to be accountable for what we've written, no matter if our opinions change or not.

liah

ibarelycare wrote: »

Bloody hell, talk about dramatic.

Lots of those examples don't even make sense in this context. If someone ate meat for 20 years and then they decided to become a vegetarian, they're still accountable for eating meat for 20 years, no matter what they THINK now!!!

Yes, people change. Change beliefs, whatever. But you are still held accountable for what you've said or done in your life. Who else is going to be accountable for it? It doesn't necessarily mean in a negative sense. If I made a racist comment, and then said a few days later that it was a mistake, I was sorry, I didn't mean it, etc etc, then that's all well and good. But I still have to be held accountable for what I said.

This isn't "a few days later." These posts are from months ago. Perspectives can change an awful lot in a short space of time. It is not fair that OutlawPete went through months upon months of my old posts just to dredge up one thing in an effort to discredit what I've written on the basis of my history as a poster.

It's attacking the poster. Short n' simple. It is.

--Kaiser--

This discussion is really getting off course

Gummy Panda

liah wrote: »

So then I guess that means literally nobody is allowed to EVER change the way they think or their opinions? That means every single person should be held accountable for every single thing they've ever done or said

Yes. The joys of being an adult.

liah

Adam wrote: »

it takes more than one person to have a debate, and it is a debate which you kicked off, you can walk away from it whenever you want, but there was no witchhunt that i can see, just a case of more people on one side of the debate than the other. and maybe that was the inevitable result you could have forseen, but it doesn't make the thread a witchhunt. people are entitled to disagree with you. it's not like you spent your time on this thread saying nothing.

I don't see anyone else having their old posts dredged up and thrown into a post detailing why their opinion shouldn't be taken seriously on the basis of their past tbh. So it is a bit of a witchhunt alright.

EDIT: And how the hell can you know if I've already taken responsibility for the comments or not? You can't know! Christ.

Look, the point is this.

Attack the post, not the poster. You're pretty much meant to post as if there's no username behind it. Half this thread wouldn't exist if you took the usernames off of my posts.

pickarooney

liah wrote: »

So then I guess that means literally nobody is allowed to EVER change the way they think or their opinions? That means every single person should be held accountable for every single thing they've ever done or said regardless of whether or not they've changed since?

Liah, if you don't learn when to concede a point people aren't going to make the effort to listen to you afterwards. You'll gain more out of accepting that you may have made a mistake than you ever will out of stroppy, belligerent backpedalling.

You could have said "fair enough, good catch, but I've since had a change of heart" and that should be that. Instead you've gone on a repetitious tirade and brought up a frankly ridiculous accusation just to avoid any admission of fallibility. Despite how it may seem to you, I think your thread is making a difference to how people see things, and themselves, in AH. Please see it out to the bitter end.

liah

pickarooney wrote: »

Liah, if you don't learn when to concede a point people aren't going to make the effort to listen to you afterwards. You'll gain more out of accepting that you may have made a mistake than you ever will out of stroppy, belligerent backpedalling.

You could have said "fair enough, good catch, but I've since had a change of heart" and that should be that. Instead you've gone on a repetitious tirade and brought up a frankly ridiculous accusation just to avoid any admission of fallibility. Despite how it may seem to you, I think your thread is making a difference to how people see things, and themselves, in AH. Please see it out to the bitter end.

No. The reason I'm not saying what my opinion is now is to make a point. My opinion then should not matter if this is TRULY a case of "attack the post and not the poster." It obviously isn't, and isn't that against the basic boards.ie charter?

If I said I still held the same opinions, I'd get slated. If I said I have had a change of heart, it'd be seen as backpedalling (as you have even said, thanks for proving my point) and wouldn't be taken seriously. Which is why I have kept my current opinion out of it.

It's besides. The goddamn. Point.

I even said previously in the thread that I was with a lot of Pete's post, including the inclusion of my own quotes to make his point, until he attributed them to the poster who happened to be me, as I would have had a problem with him attributing the same comments to any poster. I don't give a damn if he uses things I've said to make his point, but the second it becomes a case of "Well, she said that in the past, so therefore what she's saying now is invalid regardless of the points she may have made," it's against what the boards mods are apparently claiming to stand for.

Interestingly I also remember, in the thread he was referencing, making it clear enough that it was not my true opinion at the time.

AckwelFoley

Wibbs wrote: »

You're kidding right? People dont change, for better or worse? Riiiight..

ability to change does not negate responsibility

liah

snyper wrote: »

ability to change does not negate responsibility

And who's to say I haven't already taken responsibility elsewhere? Am I meant to make a global announcement to boards when I officially change my stance on an issue?

AckwelFoley

liah wrote: »

And who's to say I haven't already taken responsibility elsewhere? Am I meant to make a global announcement to boards when I officially change my stance on an issue?

Liah, you didnt even enter myhead when i posted that. I just wanted to prove to myself that im smarter than wibbs.

Please dont be so defensive

Wibbs

snyper wrote: »

ability to change does not negate responsibility

Oh I agree 100%. I stand by anything Ive ever said on here, right or wrong. I don't agree with it being used as an argument winner/point scorer after the fact though. Not when there's months involved. The motion on the table is the motion on the table.

liah

snyper wrote: »

Liah, you didnt even enter myhead when i posted that. I just wanted to prove to myself that im smarter than wibbs.

Please dont be so defensive

What else am I supposed to do? The credibility of all my posts in this thread has been removed based on my history as a poster (from a thread in which I even had said it was not my true opinion, therefore the posts are taken out of context in order to effectively witchhunt) when not a single person posting has any clue what my opinion on that topic is today. What's worse is that there is no action being taken against a clearly broken boards.ie rule of "don't be a dick" and "attack the post, not the poster."

No matter how many times I say it they're just not getting the point.

Anyway like I said I'm out. Good luck.

dr.bollocko

This is a thread I have been following with interest. I haven't been posting much because I feel that if people have something to say about moderation it's more my job to listen in this instance. I recognise there's been problems with posts and I'm not happy about it.
1. I think I would have preferred this discussion to take place in AH.
2. It's getting much harder to separate the wheat from the chaff.

AckwelFoley

liah wrote: »

What else am I supposed to do? The credibility of all my posts in this thread has been removed based on my history as a poster when not a single person posting has any clue what my opinion on that topic is today. What's worse is that there is no action being taken against a clearly broken boards.ie rule of "don't be a dick" and "attack the post, not the poster."

No matter how many times I say it they're just not getting the point.

I dont believe that to be honest liah, my credibility and opinions i hold on issues are well regarded, regarless of wheather one agrees with them or not, all this despite the fact that apparently im a serial rapist and a child molester.

I dont know your post history other than what you post in the midlands forum, i take each point on face value regardless of who posted it.

pickarooney

liah wrote: »

No matter how many times I say it they're just not getting the point.

That should be more than enough of a hint for you stop saying it then. For the umpteenth time, if you think Outlaw Pete is breaking a rule by quoting your post then report it and don't follow the thread off the rails.

Ignoring the last few pages of OT, have you anything left to say on topic?

AckwelFoley

dr.bollocko wrote: »

2. It's getting much harder to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Needlessly complicated for sure. It started out a fairly simple, yet interesting discussion, now - it seems to have moved on to other things entirely

--Kaiser--

dr.bollocko wrote: »

This is a thread I have been following with interest. I haven't been posting much because I feel that if people have something to say about moderation it's more my job to listen in this instance. I recognise there's been problems with posts and I'm not happy about it.
1. I think I would have preferred this discussion to take place in AH.
2. It's getting much harder to separate the wheat from the chaff.

From what I can tell from this rambling, circuitous, headache inducing thread

1. Abusive posts should be reported
2. Abusive posters should be banned/infracted (as was done in the 'Reporter' thread)
3. Most people think sexist, mildly offensive humour should stay, as general irreverence is the heart of AH.

Of course if everyone wants to continue reiterating the same points ad infinatum (nay ad nauseum), please continue

OutlawPete

liah wrote: »

Yet OutlawPete is allowed to use my own history (my posts from ages ago) for his own slandering purposes?

Okay hang on for a second Liah, you started this thread to complain that misogynistic posts and sexist comments towards women were going unmoderated on After Hours.

Your thread was NOT used to discredit you.

I used your posts to show that you were quite right and that sexism is indeed an issue in AH, but that it comes from both sexes and not just some Neanderthal guys constantly picking on any woman that dares to post there, as was what you were clearly implying.

As I stated at the time, it was ironic that that thread was yours, I would have used it anyway though as it shows that sexism is something that BOTH sexes have to deal with in AH.

After Hours is a level playing field for both sexes as far as I can see and although it might be a shock to the system when you have just come from posting the usual feminist tripe in tLL, it really is not that way at all.

I have been called all sorts of names in AH and had a ton of sexist nonsense thrown at me. I was even called "Darling" by Thaed, quite the honour.

Course if I had calling her 'Darling', I'd be a big sexist man bastard.

Heck, only last week one the female AH regulars told me I must like it up the arse, charming.

Would you like me to quote that??

I have no problem quoting female users that have been sexist if that's what you wish, but as they are not part of this debate I would feel it unfair.

You posted those remarks about men last summer, on the very forum that you are now attacking and saying that moderators allow men to post sexist misogynist remarks and nothing is ever done about it, even when posts are reported.

If I started a thread in Feedback slamming some of the women there for constantly talking about porn, would it not be suitable for some AH female regulars to quote me and show that I have talked about porn also.

Would it be then fair for me to say: "Well, I no longer like porn".

You posts would suggest that I hired a detective to drag up dirt on you when all I did was quote your posts in one damn thread.

The way I see it is, on AH you either take the sexist rubbish that is directed at you on the chin .. or you come back with a suitable reply that makes those guys look like idiots, which let's face it - shouldn't be too hard if all they are doing is posting sexist comments with no substance.

You're clearly an intelligent woman and so should be well able to debate with idiots that tell you to get back in the kitchen.

If it gets more personal than that, report it. Take it all the way to the Help Desk if you feel some of the commets you reported should get acted on and don't.

If a rule came into play tomorrow, that all AH users were no longer able to make sexist jokes and remarks in AH, then you would not be able to tell the sexist idiots from the charming gentlemen - where's the fun in that?

Personally, I like woman to able to say whatever they wish in AH.

That way, when they post any of their usual feminist nonsensical rantings that I tend to have a history of taking issue with, I can happily just reply to all their posts and try and make them look like the dinosaurs that they undoubtedly are.

I suggest you do the same.

Dudess

OutlawPete wrote: »

Personally, I like woman to able to say whatever they wish in AH.

That way, when they post any of their usual feminist nonsensical rantings that I tend to have a history of taking issue with, I can happily just reply to all their posts and try and make them look like the dinosaurs that they undoubtedly are.

Who's "they"?

liah

pickarooney wrote: »

That should be more than enough of a hint for you stop saying it then. For the umpteenth time, if you think Outlaw Pete is breaking a rule by quoting your post then report it and don't follow the thread off the rails.

Ignoring the last few pages of OT, have you anything left to say on topic?

I did. Hours ago. Nothing was done. Quelle suprise.

liah

OutlawPete wrote: »

Okay hang on for a second Liah, you started this thread to complain that misogynistic posts and sexist comments towards women were going unmoderated on After Hours.

Your thread was NOT used to discredit you.

I used your posts to show that you were quite right and that sexism is indeed an issue in AH, but that it comes from both sexes and not just some Neanderthal guys constantly picking on any woman that dares to post there, as was what you were clearly implying.

As I stated at the time, it was ironic that that thread was yours, I would have used it anyway though as it shows that sexism is something that BOTH sexes have to deal with in AH.

After Hours is a level playing field for both sexes as far as I can see and although it might be a shock to the system when you have just come from posting the usual feminist tripe in tLL, it really is not that way at all.

I have been called all sorts of names in AH and had a ton of sexist nonsense thrown at me. I was even called "Darling" by Thaed, quite the honour.

Course if I had calling her 'Darling', I'd be a big sexist man bastard.

Heck, only last week one the female AH regulars told me I must like it up the arse, charming.

Would you like me to quote that??

I have no problem quoting female users that have been sexist if that's what you wish, but as they are not part of this debate I would feel it unfair.

You posted those remarks about men last summer, on the very forum that you are now attacking and saying that moderators allow men to post sexist misogynist remarks and nothing is ever done about it, even when posts are reported.

If I started a thread in Feedback slamming some of the women there for constantly talking about porn, would it not be suitable for some AH female regulars to quote me and show that I have talked about porn also.

Would it be then fair for me to say: "Well, I no longer like porn".

You posts would suggest that I hired a detective to drag up dirt on you when all I did was quote your posts in one damn thread.

The way I see it is, on AH you either take the sexist rubbish that is directed at you on the chin .. or you come back with a suitable reply that makes those guys look like idiots, which let's face it - shouldn't be too hard if all they are doing is posting sexist comments with no substance.

You're clearly an intelligent woman and so should be well able to debate with idiots that tell you to get back in the kitchen.

If it gets more personal than that, report it. Take it all the way to the Help Desk if you feel some of the commets you reported should get acted on and don't.

If a rule came into play tomorrow, that all AH users were no longer able to make sexist jokes and remarks in AH, then you would not be able to tell the sexist idiots from the charming gentlemen - where's the fun in that?

Personally, I like woman to able to say whatever they wish in AH.

That way, when they post any of their usual feminist nonsensical rantings that I tend to have a history of taking issue with, I can happily just reply to all their posts and try and make them look like the dinosaurs that they undoubtedly are.

I suggest you do the same.

Not if they were fecking year-old posts.

Use the quotes to make examples. Not the posters. Simple.

You could have used posts from Thaed then like you said, or the other female posters you see making sexist remarks.

Instead, you dig up only quotes from me from a year ago to make your point. If that's not going after the poster I'm not sure what is.

aidan_walsh

liah wrote: »

I did. Hours ago. Nothing was done. Quelle suprise.

It can take a little time for someone to see a reported post, especially on Feedback where only the Admins can act on posts.

Overheal

liah wrote: »

Yet OutlawPete is allowed to use my own history (my posts from ages ago) for his own slandering purposes?

Does that mean I'm allowed to report them?

Define ages ago?

We just dragged up a 2 year old thread about this, which involved me, my stupidity (And the Sexism debate), and was followed up by a lot of snide remarks that I still look at people differently for saying toward me. Things that even in light of said stupidity, were still unnecessarily abusive.

If thats fair comment to drag back up (and frankly, it is) why is your post history sacrosanct? Go back to the 2008 feedback thread, I recall DeV saying some very astute points about owning your words. I said it then and I'll say it again now you are always more than welcome to look at my posting history and conclude for yourself who I am. If you regret something you said then you'll just have to live to regret it. Stop taking it out on OutlawPete for simply playing the record back to you; it's farcical.