Gender issues in After Hours - Your feedback requested.

Wibbs

oscarBravo wrote: »

..."git yo black ass back in the cotton field" ...

No?

Actually O in some cases I'd say yes. Said in a convo with black mates taking the piss out of each other, it could fly well enough. Similar to intimating your mate from Leitrim's first sexual experience involved hanging onto her wool for purchase, or enquiring of your Dublin mate how often does he or she polish their bust of the Queen of England. However that's among intimates who know the group and individuals limits, not with strangers on a public forum on the interweb, many of whom who are lurkers. Sets the wrong tone at best and reflects badly on Boards for those outsiders who would be only too happy to stir the shíte.

I suspect, but could be wrong, that some of the confusion here is that people are missing the public nature of AH, mistaking it for a bunch of folks in a pub who know each other well where you can say stuff you'd not dream of in other contexts. While it is a community, or can be a lot of the time, it's a very public one with "strangers" both registered and lurking are popping in all the time.

oscarBravo

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually O in some cases I'd say yes. Said in a convo with black mates taking the piss out of each other, it could fly well enough. Similar to intimating your mate from Leitrim's first sexual experience involved hanging onto her wool for purchase, or enquiring of your Dublin mate how often does he or she polish their bust of the Queen of England. However that's among intimates who know the group and individuals limits, not with strangers on a public forum on the interweb, many of whom who are lurkers. Sets the wrong tone at best and reflects badly on Boards for those outsiders who would be only too happy to stir the shíte.

I suspect, but could be wrong, that some of the confusion here is that people are missing the public nature of AH, mistaking it for a bunch of folks in a pub who know each other well where you can say stuff you'd not dream of in other contexts. While it is a community, or can be a lot of the time, it's a very public one with "strangers" both registered and lurking are popping in all the time.

I think this is the crux of the issue. I'm not afraid to make off-colour jokes - ask Beruthiel about some of the stuff I come out with in the pub, or even in the Admin forum.

But that is a tightly-knit group, and it's in the context of people who understand that there's a difference between broadcasting something on a public forum and having a laugh with a few mates.

I may say things to my gay friends that would come across as homophobic in a different context; I say things to my girlfriend that - if she thought I was serious - would earn me a black eye.

But context is everything. And yes, I'm aware that that point has been made in this discussion before, but the point that's being missed is that AH is a public forum, not a private conversation between mates. It's been described as a lock-in: there's a fairly glaring hole in that analogy, and that hole is at the crux of this discussion.

Nodin

Beruthiel wrote: »

............
Also, you might need to talk to a professional, your obsession with regards to women is bordering on psycho at this stage.

I made that observation years ago to a sadly missed poster, funny enough, though in more graphic terms.....Anyhoo....

Tombi!

Maybe a kind of "catch all" rule stating something like "this is still a public forum and if you won't say something in person, then it's best not to say it here" sort of rule?

christ on a bike!

Wibbs wrote: »

I hope B that it's more likely stuck in a brainfart loop based on confirmation bias as in any dealings I've had with the chap outside of this particular blue touchpaper subject he seemed bang on. Being removed from the stimulus will hopefully reset the oul mechanism.

Totally agree with this, look, listen and take heed Petie!

WindSock

Maybe just post reports ooops....report posts that you think actually cause offence or are offensive to yourselves, rather than ones you think should cause offence. ie, if you are unsure if you are offended then leave it be.

DB10

It's all about tone and content I think. I think we are in danger of over censoring the AH forum, back 6 years ago there was alot worse that was the norm.

For me saying back in the kitchen, while its not funny, is not something that is the same as being saying back to the cotton fields to a black person? I don't know why that is, maybe society at large has us thinking that way but I feel an awful lot of people would be banned for very little if we start banning people for that. On the other hand, possibly the threads on "Irish women" should stop, but I believe they have been stopped by the mods lately so I feel that has been sorted.

I think if the forum starts getting as strict as say TGC or TLL, you will lose something. I feel a bigger problem is the amount of similar threads you see, threads like those on Northern Ireland , inevitably end up the same way. Maybe more of them should be locked, its an invitation to troll nearly it seems. Threads on SF, Northern Ireland, "the Brits", etc. There are 3 or 4 of those threads in AH today alone!

Tombi!

DB10 wrote: »

For me saying back in the kitchen, while its not funny, is not something that is the same as being saying back to the cotton fields to a black person?

Exact same thing, though. For a long time women were basically "do what husband says". And for a long time in America blacks were "do what master says".

Morag

Wives were property, it's that simple and married women didn't work and husbands could beat and rape their wives and never be charged for it.
Rape with in marriage only became a crime in 1990 and the domestic violence act was in 1996.

This in the last 50 years but racist remarks about níggers and slavery which was abolished in 1865 are not allowed in the forum but sexist remark are?

Tombi!

Sharrow wrote: »

Wives were property, it's that simple and married women didn't work and husbands could beat and rape their wives and never be charged for it.
Rape with in marriage only became a crime in 1990 and the domestic violence act was in 1996.

This in the last 50 years but racist remarks about níggers and slavery which was abolished in 1865 are not allowed in the forum but sexist remark are?

You're really jumping the gun here.

I can (and have) called one of the black guys in a pub I go to often a "nig*er" and it's fine. Because I know him and I tend to do it and he'll tend to call me a cracker. It's a joke amongst friends.

Now, saying "get back to cotton fields" is going to be really offensive.
But it's not the same as "get back to the kitchen", at all.

One is still going to push a lot of buttons if anyone hears it outside of you and the people that know it's a joke. The other, you can look at as either a joke that's stupid (which it is to me) or something really offensive that should be dealt with.

It's all about context. But from what I understand the "get back to the kitchen/time of the month/etc" is going to be banned. Not because they're sexist, exactly but moreso that they're annoying. Sexism would come second. They're offensive but not really sexist, unless someone really did say "hey, you, you're a woman, your opinion only matters if I ask for it".

I do want to point out something though: me saying to some black guy "you go back to picking the cotton in that field, boy" and then saying "hey you, woman, go back to the kitchen" are two really, really different things. One is really offensive (the one about cotton fields). The other is just stupid and isn't sexist, it's offensive.

At least today we have more and more men staying at home to take care of the kids and the woman goes to work. We have women sending men gifts and so on. The gender barriers are becoming muddled which is great. Saying to a black person "go back and be a slave in the cotton fields" won't have any effect or cause anything other than pure hate if said on a public forum, like AH.

Think about that. How many retorts can you get if you're saying to a woman "oi bitch, go make me a sammich", you can get multiple posters posting all sorts of things in response that'll make the poster who said it feel like a small child. But with racist remarks it conjures up an image of hate.

In other words: most men saying stuff like that are either: joking, dicks or really hate women. And if they hate women, they'll eventually get banned soon and if it's them being dicks or making jokes, they change or ideally get dealt with.

oscarBravo

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

It's all about context. But from what I understand the "get back to the kitchen/time of the month/etc" is going to be banned. Not because they're sexist, exactly but moreso that they're annoying. Sexism would come second.

Did anyone say this, or is it your interpretation of what you've read? Because it looks awfully like arguing from your conclusion, to me.

They're offensive but not really sexist, unless someone really did say "hey, you, you're a woman, your opinion only matters if I ask for it".

That's pretty much exactly what "get back in the kitchen" means. You can argue back and forth about whether that's the actual intention behind saying it, but it's still what's being said, and it's sexist, and it's offensive.

I do want to point out something though: me saying to some black guy "you go back to picking the cotton in that field, boy" and then saying "hey you, woman, go back to the kitchen" are two really, really different things. One is really offensive (the one about cotton fields). The other is just stupid and isn't sexist, it's offensive.

Leaving aside the rather strange idea that it isn't sexist (it is): if it's stupid and offensive, isn't that reason enough to get rid of it from AH?

Think about that. How many retorts can you get if you're saying to a woman "oi bitch, go make me a sammich", you can get multiple posters posting all sorts of things in response that'll make the poster who said it feel like a small child. But with racist remarks it conjures up an image of hate.

I'm afraid I can't see any consistency in that argument. The thrust of it is that sexism should be allowed to compete in the marketplace of ideas, and that - if we're lucky - it will get shouted down, and eventually the proponents of sexism will somehow tire of making a nuisance of themselves (and we've seen in this very thread how bizarrely persistent some people are prepared to be in making a nuisance of themselves). On the other hand, racism should not be allowed to compete in the same marketplace, because it's just wrong.

The core problem with that argument is that it's distinguishing racism from sexism and saying that one is bad, and the other might be, but we'll just have to let the people decide. The alternative to confronting this dichotomy is to claim that remarks that are self-evidently sexist somehow are not, but that's a pretty transparent device.

The other argument against the marketplace of ideas approach is the signal-to-noise ratio: do we really, really want AH to be a place where sexism has to be shouted down every single time? Isn't that what moderators are for? Hence this thread.

In other words: most men saying stuff like that are either: joking, dicks or really hate women. And if they hate women, they'll eventually get banned soon and if it's them being dicks or making jokes, they change or ideally get dealt with.

If they're joking, it's not funny. If they're dicks, they're in violation of the golden rule. If they hate women, why are we giving them a platform?

I just genuinely can't think of a good reason to allow people to post remarks like "get back in the kitchen", and, with the best will in the world, you haven't sold me on the idea.

Tombi!

I have no idea about how to do the multi quoting so please bear with me

I thought the general idea was to ban the sweeping statements, like "get back in the kitchen" because they're overly annoying and only (usually) being posted as thanks whoring or smart answers, like "yore ma" and so on. Or at least that was what I figured I was arguing for at the start (and the other threads that lead up to this one) was about. I get that they're sexist and al lthat but to me it was moreso they're "offensive" and that's that. I think either Keith, Mickey or Dr. B said they wanted out with the generalizations like that.

I do think I did muddle my own opinion with the sexist and offensive remarks and TBH I'm still trying to think of how to better phrase it.
But best as I can put it: I think it's offensive but not sexist. Kinda like how the post earlier on in the thread about another topic that was basically leering at the volleyball team was "offensive" but not "sexist".

As far as the racist/sexist thing goes: What I meant today is that the men that say things like "go back to the kitchen" are becoming more and more uncommon in that they really mean it. And that (more importantly), men are staying at home. So it sort of gets muddled. In other words, you'll still have the thanks whores posting the smart arse comments but they might not realize it's sexist.
Whereas with racist things, we all know it's racist to say "oi you, black man, go back to X and do some yard work".

Again, don't get me wrong, I'm just trying to explain the difference in between women having no rights when married (so to speak) in ireland up till maybe 20 years ago and telling a black person to resume their duties as a slave.


And TBH... I was kind over-replying to Sharrow's post

If you saw the majority of my posts about this topic you'd know exactly where I stand, even if I do have to explain my opinion several times (I have a habbit of never saying what I mean).

Oh about your last point (sorry, I missed it): I agree that all three are to be stamped down, completely. But what I'm getting at is what happened to me with the joke in the Batman thread... I made a joke and got backlash. I'm going to be more careful about it. So maybe the people that make jokes need a second chance instead of condeming anyone that says "go back to the kitchen" as a sexist and banning them.

Millicent

mackg wrote: »

When Boombastic defended her post you asked do you really not see what's wrong with it, I don't so maybe you might explain.

I think our differences here probably stem from a different take on what topics deserve to be treated seriously from the off.

You're absolutely right -- it probably does stem from a different take on topics. Besides that, it stems from different life experience, I'd wager (that's not meant to sound patronising by the way).

I have experienced direct and indirect sexism, in many facets and ways in my life. It has directly affected the course of my life in negative ways. Right from the outset, I'm primed to notice it.

Even though I am more sensitive to it than others may be, I didn't immediately notice it on AH. I'd imagine a lot of people don't and won't -- it's understandable as for many it doesn't relate to their personal experience.

But then you notice. And you notice an innocuous joke here or there. And then another one. And then another more serious one. And then a messed up opinion or view of women. And soon it's like a tick that gets under your skin. You know you shouldn't but you can't help but pick at it. And the more you pick, the worse it feels.

For me, it became a compulsion. Every gendered thread that appeared, I felt compelled to read it because I knew someone was going to post something that would eat at me -- people pointing to a girl being drunk as part of a reason why a rape might have happened; feeling like you have to defend womankind because someone has decided that one bitch they met in a nightclub is representative of all women; in so many threads on women's issues, like clockwork, someone will leap in to tell you why women have it so good these days.

A little while back, I reached exhaustion with Boards. I couldn't bring myself to read anymore because the only threads I was drawn to were the ones on gender -- I wasn't discussing anything else anymore. It was that tick under my skin begging to be scratched. Between the casual sexism on AH and a harrowing sexual abuse support thread on TLL, in which male posters just kept on coming in to explain stuff to the women or start arguments with people -- of both genders who had experienced horrific sexual abuse -- despite repeated instructions to stop, I was done.

I came back because I missed chatting with loads of people on here. However, my patience is still thin for what others see as "just joking". It's not a joke to me and it's not for many other women -- it's part of our lives. Some women obviously don't mind it but does that mean we ignore the ones who do? It's easy to write it off as feminism or hysteria or being easily offended; it's harder to put yourself in the shoes of those who it might affect.

Some may say that's just AH and if that were to be the consensus, I would say fine and I would throw in the towel. If that's the sort of community the Boards powers-that-be decided they wanted, I'd accept that decision. I just wouldn't want to be a part of that community.

K-9

Some great points made and I do see Millicent and Oscar Bravo's points, I do think we are looking at higher standards than AH is supposed to be.

I agree with a lot of your points, the stupid, I hope trolling stuff, but AH is supposed to be irreverent, funny, dumb, stupid and ironic at its best.

Sometimes a post comes along that I don't agree with, but 10/10 for humour! Most posters have the cop to know the difference between politics and AH, the Ladies Lounge, the Gentleman's Club.

Unfortunately these threads can get derailed by agenda posters. Pete was on a crusade against the Ladies Lounge very existence, never mind AH and sexism.

Millicent

K-9 wrote: »

Some great points made and I do see Millicent and Oscar Bravo's points, I do think we are looking at higher standards than AH is supposed to be.

I agree with a lot of your points, the stupid, I hope trolling stuff, but AH is supposed to be irreverent, funny, dumb, stupid and ironic at its best.

The way I look at it is this: if you were in a pub, full of both people you knew and didn't know, would you feel comfortable that you wouldn't get grief for that comment/joke/argument? That should be the yardstick for how people post. If they aren't confident someone wouldn't be seriously offended at their post IRL, they shouldn't post it here.

Tombi!

Millicent wrote: »

The way I look at it is this: if you were in a pub, full of both people you knew and didn't know, would you feel comfortable that you wouldn't get grief for that comment/joke/argument?

That would be how AH is, at least to me.

And I think you put it perfectly.

K-9

Millicent wrote: »

The way I look at it is this: if you were in a pub, full of both people you knew and didn't know, would you feel comfortable that you wouldn't get grief for that comment/joke/argument? That should be the yardstick for how people post. If they aren't confident someone wouldn't be seriously offended at their post IRL, they shouldn't post it here.

I don't know, I'm a fan of QI and Have I got News for You, sexism can be funny because it's dumb and so old fashioned, even on "intelligent" programmes, way above AH. it's hilarious taking the piss out of it.

Millicent

K-9 wrote: »

I don't know, I'm a fan of QI and Have I got News for You, sexism can be funny because it's dumb and so old fashioned, even on "intelligent" programmes, way above AH. it's hilarious taking the piss out of it.

We are not comparing Stephen Fry and some AH posters. :pac: Seriously though, those jokes are from professional comedians who know how to play with the line. It's a skill and a honed talent and not an easy one to replicate without causing offence.

Taking the piss out of stupid, outdated ideas is funny. Sadly for some though, those ideas haven't gone out of date, and some of those post on AH.

Tombi!

K-9 wrote: »

I don't know, I'm a fan of QI and Have I got News for You, sexism can be funny because it's dumb and so old fashioned, even on "intelligent" programmes, way above AH. it's hilarious taking the piss out of it.

Well yeah, I love hearing Jo shout out a joke or two about how useless her husband is. But look at the thread Devore had about depression (think it was him), imagine a woman doing that. You can bet (and win that bet) at least a good few of the first comments would be bitching because it was a woman.

K-9

Millicent wrote: »

We are not comparing Stephen Fry and some AH posters. :pac: Seriously though, those jokes are from professional comedians who know how to play with the line. It's a skill and a honed talent and not an easy one to replicate without causing offence.

Taking the piss out of stupid, outdated ideas is funny. Sadly for some though, those ideas haven't gone out of date, and some of those post on AH.

But HIGNFY had a female comedian on, very sexy, the panel made stupid, sexist jokes and everybody laughed.#

The best comedy is over exaggeration, that's the joke! The majority get the joke.

Tombi!

K-9 wrote: »

The majority get the joke.

In the event you aren't joking: blacks are slaves.

Do you see the problem of "jokes"?

Don't get me wrong, jokes are joke but posting stupid things is still being a dick.

K-9

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Well yeah, I love hearing Jo shout out a joke or two about how useless her husband is. But look at the thread Devore had about depression (think it was him), imagine a woman doing that. You can bet (and win that bet) at least a good few of the first comments would be bitching because it was a woman.

LoL, I don't find Jo Brand that funny, I think she is dated but has her funny moments. What I think is her being funny may will differ from others! I kind of put her a bit like Frankie Boyle, shocking is all they have to be funny.


On the depression thing, I'd doubt gender would have come into mods thinking. I really, really doubt it. Just muppets being muppets. I've seen a few female posters with sexist attitudes, as I've seen males with sexist attitudes against men.

Millicent

K-9 wrote: »

But HIGNFY had a female comedian on, very sexy, the panel made stupid, sexist jokes and everybody laughed.#

The best comedy is over exaggeration, that's the joke! The majority get the joke.

Again, really thin line. Also, I don't know if you mean to imply that I don't get the joke but I do, when it's funny, well timed and appropriate to the context. I still "get" the joke when it's in an inappropriate context -- the difference there is that the humour is lost.

First rule of comedy -- know your audience.

K-9

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

In the event you aren't joking: blacks are slaves.

Do you see the problem of "jokes"?

Don't get me wrong, jokes are joke but posting stupid things is still being a dick.

Blacks = slaves = woman.

I do see the parallels, sure I've said I see Milicent's and Oscar Bravo's point.

Do I see the problem of "jokes"? I do, I love Blazing Saddles (my all time favourite movie) and Monty Python's Meaning of life taking the piss out of Catholics and Protestants, does that make me a racist or sectarian?

Tombi!

K-9 wrote: »

LoL, I don't find Jo Brand that funny, I think she is dated but has her funny moments. What I think is her being funny may will differ from others! I kind of put her a bit like Frankie Boyle, shocking is all they have to be funny.


On the depression thing, I'd doubt gender would have come into mods thinking. I really, really doubt it. Just muppets being muppets. I've seen a few female posters with sexist attitudes, as I've seen males with sexist attitudes against men.

Well that would be my favourite from QI even though she's been on a handful of times, next to Rich

My point was with the depression thing was that men (generally) would be muppets about it and ruin the thread and I can speak from experience. The Batman shooting for example. I posted a joke and it was only when I read through the pages about me arguing and all that was when I thought "fúcking idiot" in regards to what I posted.

If a woman posted the depression thread I can guarantee you that there would have been a "sexist" comment on the first page. I don't think the comment would have been sexist but it would have been offensive.

K-9 wrote: »

Blacks = slaves = woman.

I do see the parallels, sure I've said I see Milicent's and Oscar Bravo's point.

Do I see the problem of "jokes"? I do, I love Blazing Saddles (my all time favourite movie) and Monty Python's Meaning of life taking the piss out of Catholics and Protestants, does that make me a racist or sectarian?

Imagine those films (we'll go with the Monty one for easy explanation) infront of a bunch of religious people. You'd be singing with Brian himself
That's kinda the point. AH is seen by everyone because it's a non-private forum.

Millicent

K-9 wrote: »

Blacks = slaves = woman.

I do see the parallels, sure I've said I see Milicent's and Oscar Bravo's point.

Do I see the problem of "jokes"? I do, I love Blazing Saddles (my all time favourite movie) and Monty Python's Meaning of life taking the piss out of Catholics and Protestants, does that make me a racist or sectarian?

Both movies I enjoy for their satire. Not racist or sectarian -- in Blazing Saddles, the oppressed are in on the joke. If the humour was directed at the black sheriff rather than he being a part of the humour, the dynamics would be altered and the tone completely different.

The Meaning of Life is so over the top as to be obviously joking. Still cutting in its perspective but deftly and intelligently handled.

K-9

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Imagine those films (we'll go with the Monty one for easy explanation) infront of a bunch of religious people. You'd be singing with Brian himself
That's kinda the point. AH is seen by everyone because it's a non-private forum.

Nah I'll stick with the Meaning of Life, I'd be the Grim Reaper bringing wrath on AH, though a very civil AH!

Listen, my overall point is, I can like points that disagree with me that are funny, and I suppose I'ma sheeple, tend to toe the Government line, no matter what the party is. We need ireverence and cynicism, especially in AH. Nothing wrong with an opposing view.

K-9

Millicent wrote: »

The Meaning of Life is so over the top as to be obviously joking. Still cutting in its perspective but deftly and intelligently handled.

I actually have it out to rent, haven't seen it in years, will be interesting to see how my son ses it.

K-9

Millicent wrote: »

Taking the piss out of stupid, outdated ideas is funny. Sadly for some though, those ideas haven't gone out of date, and some of those post on AH.

Reading back, I think you are taking trolls too seriously and that is honest advice. That doesn't mean trolls are dealt with properly.

K-9

Millicent wrote: »

The Meaning of Life is so over the top as to be obviously joking. Still cutting in its perspective but deftly and intelligently handled.

Exactly.

Pete, it isn't always everybody elses fault, believe me