AH and its constant Women Bashing

SugarHigh

Leehoffmann all you've proven is that women get the piss ripped out which happens to every group on AH. Why isn't it a big deal when it happens to religious people?

If your not okay with the fact that something close to you will be mocked then don't visit AH. Women are looking for preferential treatment.

SugarHigh

The truth is a large part of the blame can be placed on the women who complain about it " oh noes victim blaming". It's done to wind you up and the same people fall for it everytime. I actually feel embarrassed for the people who bite the same bait literally for years and never see what's going on.

LeeHoffmann

Why do you assume people don't see what's going on? I think you don't understand how irritating it is because you're not part of that group.
'Ripping the piss' is grand but stuff like

No interest in current affairs or politics. How can females have an entitlement to vote with no comprehension of the issues? Like Kang said - "Go ahead. Throw away your vote."
Painful to take on holidays anywhere. They are more like toddlers. I'm tired. I can't walk any faster. I'm hungry. I need three suitcases. Impractical and stubborn. A drain on male resources.
Claim that men are dirty, but take a look at the discharge on knickers. Like glue or gruel.

for example, is not ripping the piss. I seriously don't think anybody wants preferential treatment just not to be constantly belittled because of something they can't change. I haven't seen religious people belittled to the same degree, but if there is, start another thread to discuss that. Basic respect should be a requirement in every thread, hence the 'don't be a dick' rule

Dravokivich

SugarHigh wrote: »

I'm not even sure which side of the argument you are talking about because it sums up both pretty well.

I was referring to the Gentlemen's Club in response to Feeona with Pickarooney adding adding a bit more to it. The agenda they are referring to would be more so of a bloke using the forum solely to tear into women with harsh and insulting comments. Which is what Feeona was suggesting should be done by a bloke in a forum for men.

Nowhere on boards would/should allow it at all either for the matter.

SugarHigh wrote: »

Wasn't TLL set up specifically because female posters were too intimidated by AH? So why do we also have to feminise AH?

I was under the impression it was split from BGRH?

SugarHigh

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

Why do you assume people don't see what's going on? I think you don't understand how irritating it is because you're not part of that group.
'Ripping the piss' is grand but stuff like
for example, is not ripping the piss. I seriously don't think anybody wants preferential treatment just not to be constantly belittled because of something they can't change. I haven't seen religious people belittled to the same degree, but if there is, start another thread to discuss that. Basic respect should be a requirement in every thread, hence the 'don't be a dick' rule

That person is clearly taking the piss. I guarantee you he has female friends and family he gets on quite well with. Just like people who call cork full of cousin fûckers probably get on with them just fine.

The reason why you don't notie religion bashing is because you're not religious.

Dravokivich

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

Try to find as many openly misandric posts from women on 3 threads

Hmm posts are out of context when I don't know what they are responding to. To me it looks like they are taken from the general piss take threads of late aimed towards both genders where the stereotypes themselves were being slagged. Not the genders.

LeeHoffmann

Taking the piss, my ass
You don't know what my religious status is.

Logical Fallacy

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

Why do you assume people don't see what's going on? I think you don't understand how irritating it is because you're not part of that group.
'Ripping the piss' is grand but stuff like
for example, is not ripping the piss. I seriously don't think anybody wants preferential treatment just not to be constantly belittled because of something they can't change. I haven't seen religious people belittled to the same degree, but if there is, start another thread to discuss that. Basic respect should be a requirement in every thread, hence the 'don't be a dick' rule

Not being flippant but you are given far too much credence to a poster who not only used a quote from a cartoon character to back up his point but also used it out of context given the original line in the original cartoon was a reference to voting for a 3rd party presidential nominee it was is largely considered to be a 2 party government.

Also, i reckon for each line above you quoted you will find someone rebuking the point, both male and female.

Also, I quickly checked the first 3 quotes you provided and they were removed by a Moderator who warned that more of the same would result in a ban.

I am unsure how the Mods can do more? If people simply reported posts they found offensive and didn't quote and reply to them it seems to be that they would be quickly removed from the thread and there really wouldn't be as much issue.

Granted that is the same drum i was banging years ago when i was a Mod but it still makes sense to me now as a user.

SugarHigh

A lot of the women complaining about this seem to consider being offended as a hobby. They literally such for years old article where women are the victims just to have something to be angry about. They also watch TV in the same way Mary whitehouse did almost hoping to see something to complain about so they can censor other people.

LeeHoffmann

Logical Fallacy (and others), I'm NOT giving out about the Mods at all, I KNOW there are male posters who give out about the posts I quoted. I quoted the posts to show why some people think there is a whiff of misogyny in AH because some people seem genuinely clueless as to why other posters say there is. I think the number of those posts (and the number of 'thanks' they get) is the reason.

But maybe I've misunderstood all this and maybe every negative post about women is just taking the piss and couldn't possibly be meant seriously.

[

Logical Fallacy

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

Logical Fallacy (and others), I'm NOT giving out about the Mods at all, I KNOW there are male posters who give out about the posts I quoted. I quoted the posts to show why some people think there is a whiff of misogyny in AH because some people seem genuinely clueless as to why other posters say there is. I think the number of those posts (and the number of 'thanks' they get) is the reason.

But maybe I've misunderstood all this and maybe every negative post about women is just taking the piss and couldn't possibly be meant seriously.

Here is the thing though...if they are serious...it's actually what people think.

We might not like and agree with their thought process but it's a bit rich to tell people they cannot think it.

The Mods need to sit there and make decisions about what is going to far and what is not...but they cannot force enlightenment on people.

LeeHoffmann

I never said they cannot think it. I usually argue with them to show why they're wrong

Logical Fallacy

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I never said they cannot think it. I usually argue with them to show why they're wrong

So then what exactly do you want done?

SugarHigh

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I never said they cannot think it. I usually argue with them to show why they're wrong

That's the beat approach. So why try and ban them?

If you think someone is serious and wrong show them why. Don't try and ban them just because you don't like their views.

Wibbs

SugarHigh wrote: »

If your too sensitive for AH just don't post there. Wasn't TLL set up specifically because female posters were too intimidated by AH? So why do we also have to feminise AH?

Not quite the reason for tLL but I tend to agree with you TBH. AH is what it is, it's a freewheeling down at the pub having the craic with some serious stuff thrown in. The mods do a very good job at handling the odd nastiness, but there's no need to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. No matter how "PC" AH gets you'll still get handwringers of any gender, creed, focus group moaning about it. It's Boards most popular forum for a reason.

LeeHoffmann

So then what exactly do you want done?

So why try and ban them?

I'm not trying to ban them. Where'd you get that? And I didn't even say I want anything done - I said I was trying to show why some people think AH can seem misogynistic

donfers

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I'm not trying to ban them. Where'd you get that? And I didn't even say I want anything done - I said I was trying to show why some people think AH can seem misogynistic

it's not so much misogynistic as misanthropic i.e. don't take things so personally, everybody is a target


indeed by saying "the poor women are being made fun of relentlessly, leave them alone" is only exacerbating the idea of women as being weak second class citizens who need special treatment from the mods, therefore i suggest if someone takes the piss, then just take the piss back and if you think that's all silly and immature then the forum is not for you

Dudess

SugarHigh wrote: »

People from cork get a much harder time than women in AH IMO and I'm not even from cork.

Try being a woman from Cork...

:pac:

Yes, most of the "sexism" is only joking around, and it's funny - and I for one would not like it to be clamped down upon. But there is definitely occasional hostility towards women on AH, particularly on the threads about Irish women. While there might be some stuff that's just jokey on those threads, it would be disingenuous to say there's no genuine unpleasantness on them. And while it's better off to just ignore the hostile comments (and I wouldn't go near such a thread with a barge-pole ever again) it's incredibly silly to suggest that only a "feminazi" would get defensive on those threads. I'd say it's more to do with the mere fact that she's a woman.

It shouldn't be a pissing contest, but do you see the kind of hostility I'm talking about towards men? I personally don't. And I wouldn't like to see it either.

LeeHoffmann

While there might be some stuff that's just jokey on those threads, it would be disingenuous to say there's no genuine unpleasantness on them. And while it's better off to just ignore the hostile comments (and I wouldn't go near such a thread with a barge-pole ever again) it's incredibly silly to suggest that only a "feminazi" would get defensive on those threads. I'd say it's more to do with the mere fact that she's a woman.

It shouldn't be a pissing contest, but do you see the kind of hostility I'm talking about towards men? I personally don't. And I wouldn't like to see it either.

This is my POV. Dudess has put it better than I could.

However the people who seemed unhappy about it on various AH threads are not voicing up here, so I'll let it go. Won't mention it again

Wibbs

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

However the people who seemed unhappy about it on various AH threads are not voicing up here, so I'll let it go. Won't mention it again

No I say keep mentioning it L. It's a valid kickoff to a debate. Unfortunately if you're looking for backup you may find it thin on the ground. Too many moan, not enough do.

BTW this thread came up before and there were other "LeeHoffmanns" and again their support didn't materialise. Which is a pity. Very deja vu

pickarooney

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I'm not trying to ban them. Where'd you get that? And I didn't even say I want anything done - I said I was trying to show why some people think AH can seem misogynistic

There are genuine misogynists on AH. Some will pretend they're having a laugh, others are more up front about it. This is fairly representative of society in general (with added keyboard-warriorness) and anyone who breaks the rules of common decency is dealt with to the best of the mods' ability.

So, with that in mind, what's to be done? If nothing's to be done, what is the purpose of the thread? I know you didn't start it so this is addressed more to the OP.

The reductive logic of 'there are some misogynists posting on AH, so AH is misogynistic' is misleading, it's disingenuous, it's in bad faith. It's disrespectful to the overwhelming majority of after hours posters who are not misogynists and have no time for the kind of rubbish referred to by the OP (the real, mean-spirited stuff, not the obvious jokes or even the subtle ones). It's unfair on the moderators who do their damnedest to weed this stuff out.

So again, what's the purpose of the thread exactly?

Feeona

Dravokivich wrote: »

Because the forum specifically geared towards men is also rather welcoming of women.

Indeed, I've been over to it a few times
But that still doesn't explain why After Hours is a default forum for woman bashing.

Feeona

pickarooney wrote: »

So again, what's the purpose of the thread exactly?

Well personally, I thanked the OP on this thread being set up because I had on several occasions reported posts and threads for misogyny, and absolutely nothing was done about it. The thread continued, the person who posted wasn't reprimanded. It was real toe-curling stuff, and if the same had been said about black people, or another minority, I really don't think it would've been tolerated.

I assume other posters on this thread have done the same as me. Can you really blame people for taking part in a thread about misogyny when it seems that taking misogynists to task in After Hours seems to be only a recent development?

gargleblaster

Pardon me, I have a book here:

Nodin wrote: »

You're confusing quantity and quality.

So, is it different then, when hinting about why AH is the busiest forum on boards?

Nodin wrote: »

The article, if you'd bothered to read it properly, refers to another site entirely when referring to misogyny.

The thread, if you'd bothered to note the title, is about hostility towards women, not the article referenced in the OP.

5starpool wrote: »

After Hours should only be nice to people. That would make for a lot of fun threads. As far as I can remember there have been threads deriding it for being:
Women bashing
Gay bashing
Foreigned bashing
Religion bashing
Celebrity bashing

I'm sure I'm missing some there. Each person thinks their complaints are more valid than the others and would like to see it stopped. If this had been the case each time, the only thing left to talk about on After Hours would be why no one posted there anymore.

Actually there are differences between those groups, you know. Women and gay people are different from foreign people, religious people, and celebrities. I won't insult you by explaining further.

No one is asking that there be no jokes. However, many of the insulting comments on AH are not jokes at all. It is those comments which make some people consider AH to be hostile to women.

stovelid wrote: »

I'm still not completely convinced that the line-crossing re: women is any more than the other pet topics of hatred in AH. That doesn't make it any less nasty or make it any less worthy of censure but it does make the assertion that AH is misogynist a little less watertight. I would hazard a guess that those who think so are just a little more vocal and organized in assigning worth to their particular cause than the scumbags, swan-eaters and dole-ites.

If so then it would be easy to think of a list of quotes similar to the one LeeHoffman posted earlier which shows how nasty people can be about any other "pet" topics. I suspect that might prove difficult, but I'd love to be proved wrong.

Also your analogy re: scumbags, swan-eaters, or dole-ites falls apart, as women are fundamentally different from those groups.

donfers wrote: »

yes of course, stamp out all the blatant malicious stuff that is said with genuine intent but to start pandering to specific groups in an effort to be seen to be at the forefront of some kind of crusade against evil insidious internet forces is laughable

So if black people visited a forum and were met with routine jokes about watermelons, fried chicken, living off welfare, pimpin and hos, drug dealing, etc. - do you think that efforts to highlight the racism in these types of jokes would be pandering?

donfers wrote: »

they should be told where to go

Thanks for all of your kind advice, but that message has been made quite clear both in the forum itself and also by other means.

SugarHigh wrote: »

There are constant jokes made about child abuse and people pretending that they shag kids but does this mean AH is pro child abuse? No, they're just taking the piss.
People from cork get a much harder time than women in AH IMO and I'm not even from cork. I think the main problem here is that too many people visit AH that really are just too sensitive for the type forum that it is.

I don't see why misogny should get special attention from the mods when culchie bashing doesn't get any attention.

Have you seen so many nasty comments in so few threads about culchies, child abuse, etc as were posted by LeeHoffman earlier? If it's all just taking the piss then women wouldn't be any more a target than any other group.

SugarHigh wrote: »

That person is clearly taking the piss. I guarantee you he has female friends and family he gets on quite well with. Just like people who call cork full of cousin fûckers probably get on with them just fine.

I don't know if you know this already, but saying, "I have black friends" doesn't entitle you to make tons of racist "jokes" and not be called on it.

Also, again with the women not being a similar group to 'cousin fvckers'.

Wibbs wrote: »

The mods do a very good job at handling the odd nastiness, but there's no need to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. No matter how "PC" AH gets you'll still get handwringers of any gender, creed, focus group moaning about it. It's Boards most popular forum for a reason.

What are all these references to banning and 'throwing the baby' out about? Has anyone called for AH to be shut down, or anyone who says sexist things to be banned? Is the strawmanning really necessary?

I don't understand why 'it's popular' works in AH's favor, but not for the paper in the OP.

Dudess wrote: »

It shouldn't be a pissing contest, but do you see the kind of hostility I'm talking about towards men? I personally don't. And I wouldn't like to see it either.

I think the problem is that the majority of people (men and women, but men especially) don't see it. In the same way that very old people may not be aware of racism. They were raised in a time when it was accepted, and so it simply doesn't register. We're probably a generation or two away (at least) from sexist comments no longer seeming normal and acceptable, so I don't expect anything really to change. I do think it's a good thing that it's at least not completely invisible.

I do also think that its invisibility to some can be an issue. I'm not sure when the "gash" comment disappeared from the thread where I originally alerted on it, but it's gone now. No sign of it and no mod warning either, but at least it is gone now.

Regarding the differences in perception, there was a recent threadlock in tLL where one mod issued a one week forum ban for the offending poster being ‘a silly boy’ who was guilty of being ‘silly and pointless’, and another mod banned them sitewide for being a dick (I think). I can’t help but wonder - was there some research done into the person's other posts, and it was decided that based on other posts this member made that they should be sitebanned? If not, then it appears that there are two very different takes on what was posted (I didn't even see it, I miss most of the nastiness in tLL as it gets removed fairly quick). The point of me mentioning this is that if it was in fact two reactions to the same post, then this illustrates how two different people can have vastly different perceptions of the same comment.

gargleblaster

Feeona wrote: »

Well personally, I thanked the OP on this thread being set up because I had on several occasions reported posts and threads for misogyny, and absolutely nothing was done about it. The thread continued, the person who posted wasn't reprimanded. It was real toe-curling stuff, and if the same had been said about black people, or another minority, I really don't think it would've been tolerated.

I assume other posters on this thread have done the same as me. Can you really blame people for taking part in a thread about misogyny when it seems that taking misogynists to task in After Hours seems to be only a recent development?

Precisely.

LeeHoffmann

There are genuine misogynists on AH. Some will pretend they're having a laugh, others are more up front about it. This is fairly representative of society in general

This is why I post about it. For the record, it's not just misogyny but any type of prejudice I object to. (I only feel the need to clarify this because I've been accused of being a feminazi on here many times). The problem is, if you don't know the posters personally and they don't use smileys etc to show they're joking and it's the same people who 'thank' the genuinely misognistic posts and the genuinely jokey posts, how can you distinguish the real jokers from the misogynists hiding behind their 'jokes'? You can't, which means you either call everybody out on it or let everbody away with it. Not a great choice.

*This post is an explanation, not a call for action (so no point in asking 'what do you want to be done about it though?')

Dravokivich

gargleblaster wrote: »

Regarding the differences in perception, there was a recent threadlock in tLL where one mod issued a one week forum ban for the offending poster being ‘a silly boy’ who was guilty of being ‘silly and pointless’, and another mod banned them sitewide for being a dick (I think). I can’t help but wonder - was there some research done into the person's other posts, and it was decided that based on other posts this member made that they should be sitebanned? If not, then it appears that there are two very different takes on what was posted (I didn't even see it, I miss most of the nastiness in tLL as it gets removed fairly quick). The point of me mentioning this is that if it was in fact two reactions to the same post, then this illustrates how two different people can have vastly different perceptions of the same comment.

That poster you are referring too had also been banned from both AH and tGC for trying to incite the very thing this thread is based on.

Zaph as an Admin would of seen the bans which didn't have much time difference between them and sitebanned the guy based on that.

Insect Overlord

Feeona wrote: »

But that still doesn't explain why After Hours is a default forum for woman bashing.

It's the default forum for casual conversation, that just happens to sometimes contain posts offensive to women/men/Dubs/culchies/GAA supporters/soccer fans/Travellers/civil servants/politicians/celebrities/journalists/moderators/foreigners/children/homosexuals/cyclists/natives of Cork, Kerry or Limerick/Christians/Muslims/athiests/Gaeligeoirí/taxi drivers/fans of reality TV/parents/pet owners/vegetarians/buskers/chuggers/charities/Americans/the elderly and/or the unemployed.

There's no need to misrepresent the forum as some kind of Bastion of Misogyny.

Logical Fallacy

gargleblaster wrote: »

Regarding the differences in perception, there was a recent threadlock in tLL where one mod issued a one week forum ban for the offending poster being ‘a silly boy’ who was guilty of being ‘silly and pointless’, and another mod banned them sitewide for being a dick (I think). I can’t help but wonder - was there some research done into the person's other posts, and it was decided that based on other posts this member made that they should be sitebanned? If not, then it appears that there are two very different takes on what was posted (I didn't even see it, I miss most of the nastiness in tLL as it gets removed fairly quick). The point of me mentioning this is that if it was in fact two reactions to the same post, then this illustrates how two different people can have vastly different perceptions of the same comment.

The person was banned for a week for the specific post in TLL and was site banned for posts all over boards, including AH and TGC.

Wibbs

gargleblaster wrote: »

Regarding the differences in perception, there was a recent threadlock in tLL where one mod issued a one week forum ban for the offending poster being ‘a silly boy’ who was guilty of being ‘silly and pointless’, and another mod banned them sitewide for being a dick (I think). I can’t help but wonder - was there some research done into the person's other posts, and it was decided that based on other posts this member made that they should be sitebanned? If not, then it appears that there are two very different takes on what was posted (I didn't even see it, I miss most of the nastiness in tLL as it gets removed fairly quick). The point of me mentioning this is that if it was in fact two reactions to the same post, then this illustrates how two different people can have vastly different perceptions of the same comment.

Just a point of order here. I banned the poster from tLL permanently. Why? He's a troll in the forum and has more than once been warned and banned previously. I deleted his post as I personally feel trolls shouldn't get any publicity for their twattery. I had already deleted another trolling thread he started the previous day for the same reason(which he actually complained about in the Help Desk).

The other mod is an admin who sitebanned him permanently because of his sitewide trolling, aggressive PM's and him being a general waste of time for users and mods in many forums(a few of which he racked up permabans). So myself and Zaph had exactly the same reaction to this ex user and were in full agreement about his worth to the site. The only diff is that I can ban him locally, Zaph can ban him sitewide.