AH and its constant Women Bashing

gargleblaster

Dravokivich wrote: »

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.

Aha, thanks for the explanation. I was taken aback by the difference in responses, but I thought this might explain it.

I still maintain that differences in perception definitely exist, which is why some perceive that there is no problem with sexism in AH - i.e. that nasty comments directed at women are no more numerous or hostile than those directed at any other group - and others perceive that there actually is an imbalance both in the number and intensity of these comments (as well as the moderation of them).

gargleblaster

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

I perceived a difference in the terms 'silly boy' and 'total dick'. Mea culpa.

stovelid

gargleblaster wrote: »

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

Only insofar as you as you assign more subjective importance to this category.

Logical Fallacy

gargleblaster wrote: »

I still maintain that differences in perception definitely exist, which is why some perceive that there is no problem with sexism in AH - i.e. that nasty comments directed at women are no more numerous or hostile than those directed at any other group - and others perceive that there actually is an imbalance both in the number and intensity of these comments (as well as the moderation of them).

Well it's been mentioned a couple of times that people are not picking up on them because they are not women...so is it not reasonable to assume that women might not be picking up on the dole bashing because they have jobs or the immigrant bashing because they are Irish etc etc etc

Basically i am wondering why we keep being told there is a one way blind spot on who gets grief on AH when the simple fact of the matter is everyone does...yet it's only our perception that might be influenced by who we are...but not womens?

This is my way of pointing out that an argument like this ventured in favour of something is just as valid when used against.

Wibbs

gargleblaster wrote: »

I perceived a difference in the terms 'silly boy' and 'total dick'. Mea culpa.

Zaph is not as polite as me... "Silly boy" riles trolls up more than "total dick" anyway.

Stovelid wrote:

Only insofar as you as you assign more subjective importance to this category.

I'd agree with this. If you're a member of a group you tend to see it as a separate issue. Doesn't negate the issue if there is one however.

Feeona

Insect Overlord wrote: »

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.

I think you should take your own advice about mis-representation because there's no need to mis-represent me for merely pointing out that a lot of threads in After Hours are degrading towards women.

Micky Dolenz

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

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

Feedback is important. In fact this very subject was brought up between the AH mods over the weekend and is something we are actively discussing. The stupid comments have not gone unnoticed by us.

Insect Overlord

Feeona wrote: »

I think you should take your own advice about mis-representation because there's no need to mis-represent me for merely pointing out that a lot of threads in After Hours are degrading towards women.

It's not about you, it's about the forum. Well done for proving a point though. Some people take everything personally.

Feeona

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Feedback is important. In fact this very subject was brought up between the AH mods over the weekend and is something we are actively discussing. The stupid comments have not gone unnoticed by us.

To be honest, sometimes it barely even registers on my radar. But some days you go into After Hours, and there would be maybe four/five threads specifically about women on the first page. I've noticed this on more than one occasion. I've never logged into After Hours and seen four/five threads on the first page about foreigners, dole skippers, culchies, men, brits, celebrities etc.

Feeona

Insect Overlord wrote: »

It's not about you, it's about the forum. Well done for proving a point though. Some people take everything personally.

Well done for proving that anyone who points out misogyny will be told that 'you're just taking it personally'

Wolfe Tone

I dont want women to become a sacred cow immune to all criticism. I think AH is pretty good the way it is.

bronte

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I dont want women to become a sacred cow immune to all criticism. I think AH is pretty good the way it is.

Is anyone asking for them to be?
There's being immune to all criticism and there's what happened in that last Irish women thread.
Does it have to be one or the other?

Morag

SugarHigh wrote: »

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.

:rolleyes:

Morag

donfers wrote: »

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

Easier said then done when your out numbered and shouted down time and time again.

Wibbs wrote: »

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

When I saw the thread in feedback I thought here we go again, what brave sod started this one. Think this is the 5th time this topic was brought to feedback and while there has been a huge improvement in the mod cracking down on it, it seems the regs don't care and will say what they want and let the mods clean it up later.

stovelid

Wibbs wrote: »

Doesn't negate the issue if there is one however.

That would also be my thinking. I have seen misogyny in AH, but I've seen other groups get the same. Neither is nice.

It wouldn't be right if somebody came right out and said that it's more important not to upset ethnic minorities or social classes than women, so the inverse should not be assumed.

Insect Overlord

Sharrow wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Quality contribution. Aren't you the one who's always first to complain about whataboutery and pointless posts?

This whole thread is ridiculous.

TheZohanS

Sharrow wrote: »

When I saw the thread in feedback I thought here we go again, what brave sod started this one. Think this is the 5th time this topic was brought to feedback and while there has been a huge improvement in the mod cracking down on it, it seems the regs don't care and will say what they want and let the mods clean it up later.

You're talking about a minority, a tiny fraction of the posters on AH and anytime someone posts crap the "regs" as you call them jump on trolls.

WindSock

Everytime these threads come up, posters always say 'oh well its not as bad as it used to be'

And it isnt.. as a result of these threads...durr.

And tLL was not set up because of AH.


And dr.b is a great mod.


And I don't give a **** anymore.

gargleblaster

Insect Overlord wrote: »

This whole thread is ridiculous.

Can we get a consensus here? Is this kind of feeback helpful, or is it ridiculous?

IMO this comment is a perfect example of the hostility that some people are talking about. This is why people don't bother alerting - they just avoid the forum. And why wouldn't they when they're pretty much expected to as a means of dealing with the abuse? Why stick around and read it and bother to alert, especially after that's failed to garner any reaction?

As for women asking for special treatment, although there have been several claims that no group gets harsher treatment in AH, I don't perceive that to be the case. Perhaps someone who is dedicated enough to proving their point could provide a list of nasty comments akin to the one LeeHoffman provided earlier. Just pick any three threads about culchies, foreigners, dole-ites, cousin fvckers, etc. - any group you like (as it seems pointless to expect anyone to recognize how these different groups are not analogous).

SugarHigh

If you don't give a sh1t then don't post.

Why shouldn't a AH poster be allowed to be misogynistic? Your allowed be misanthropic so what's the problem?

You can be anti-bankers/judges/consultants/immigrants/dole without being able to substantiate why, so why do women get preferential treatment?

Yes, there is misogyny and it isn't all joking but so what? Why does that viewpoint have to be banned but not all the others that can cause offence. Every thread in AH is potentially offensive to someone yet we give special treatment to women.

SugarHigh

Leehoffmanns list was mostly bullsh1t so I don't see why it should be replicated.

dr.bollocko

SugarHigh wrote: »

If you don't give a sh1t then don't post.

Why shouldn't a AH poster be allowed to be misogynistic? Your allowed be misanthropic so what's the problem?

You cab be anti-bankers/judges/consultants/immigrants/dole without being able to coherently say why, so why do women get preferential treatment?

Yes there is misogyny and it isn't all joking but so what? Why does that viewpoint have to be banned but not all the other that can cause offence. Every thread in AH is potentially offence to someone yet we give special treatment to women.

Point to note.

This poster has been permanently banned from After hours for a good while now. This ban was administered by me for constant trolling. Trolling of the type they are attempting to continue in this feedback thread.

So their opinion on what is and isn't OK on after hours can be dismissed out of hand.

SugarHigh

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Point to note.

This poster has been permanently banned from After hours for a good while now. This ban was administered by me for constant trolling. Trolling of the type they are attempting to continue in this feedback thread.

So their opinion on what is and isn't OK on after hours can be dismissed out of hand.

In other words you can't argue against anything I have said. You can't justify your inconsistent modding that gives preference to certain groups.

stovelid

gargleblaster wrote: »

IMO this comment is a perfect example of the hostility that some people are talking about.

It's a different opinion to yours and while a little terse and emotional, is not intrinsically unworthy.

Counter it or ignore it rather than simply advocating its suppression

dr.bollocko

SugarHigh wrote: »

In other words you can't argue against anything I have said. You can't justify your inconsistent modding that gives preference to certain groups.

Well it gives preference to those who don't rack up 7 AH bans for constant trolling.

So in that sense, yes.

You are entirely correct.

My modding gives preference to reasonable posters over constant trolls of the type you were in after hours until your long overdue permanent removal.

Regarding the calibre of your posting now I have no opinion as thankfully it is no longer my problem...

Well... except in the case of this thread where your input has simply attempted to misrepresent a forum you never understood and furthermore to goad other posters into an argument.

So if you wouldn't mind moving along to some other forum you have not yet been permanently banned from that'd be absolutely tickety-boo.

gargleblaster

stovelid wrote: »

It's a different opinion to yours and while a little terse and emotional, is not intrinsically unworthy.

Counter it or ignore it rather than simply advocating its suppression

Erm, where did I advocate its suppression, exactly?

I asked for a consensus, as it is an issue of moderation. If these threads are ridiculous, and the consensus is that everything is fine in AH as regarding the moderation of sexist comments, then I'd like to know so that I can resume thinking (as I did before) that it's just a place to be avoided.

Also, just wanted to point out that racist comments are not allowed either, before anyone jumps in again with another claim that women are asking for special treatment.

SugarHigh

Dr.bollocko stop trying to make this personal. If you can argue against my arguments then do so.

stovelid

gargleblaster wrote: »

Erm, where did I advocate its suppression, exactly?.

You're summarily dismissing it out of hand with a sweeping comment.

I should stress that even though I'm disagreeing with you on some points, I'm not denying that there is misogyny in forums but I'm happy enough to see it dealt with like any other nasty comment about any other group rather than foregrounding one group over another.

Nodin

gargleblaster wrote: »

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

?

gargleblaster wrote: »

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

Then why o why did they bring it up and then reference AH?

Well actually I know full well why, but thats besides the point.

The OP, as far as I can see, and based on their posting history, isn't particularily interested in what goes on, more the controversy that can be had taking a certain line.

gargleblaster wrote: »

IMO this comment is a perfect example of the hostility that some people are talking about. This is why people don't bother alerting - they just avoid the forum. And why wouldn't they when they're pretty much expected to as a means of dealing with the abuse? Why stick around and read it and bother to alert, especially after that's failed to garner any reaction?.

That wasn't hostile. What will get you a hostile reaction is claiming persecution/martyrdom when you don't get your own way

If you have a problem with a post, you report it. Sometimes people will argee with you and remove it, sometimes people won't. Bear in mind that just because you consider something offensive, that doesn't mean anybody else does, should, or is obligated to remove somebody elses remark because of you.

.

FlutterinBantam

Good man Doctor, nice touch.

Might be no harm to realise that there are a lot of 'buttoned up' punters in AH

who try to take the bit of fun out of posting here.

You know the type, if it's not to do with some fcuking serious issue it's irrelevant.

But i'm sure you know what i mean.

Keep up the good work, but don't take the bit of fun out of posting here.