Gender issues in After Hours - Your feedback requested.

Gummy Panda

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

I had a whole argument about you can say racist comments if tone and intent is conveyed but my phone ate but this post makes me realise why my arguement wouldn't be valid for AH.

Even though the regulars recognise each others posting style and don't take offense, there are plenty of lurkers who don't sign up and might never sign up due to the sexist content of posts.

Dravokivich

Gummy Panda wrote: »

I had a whole argument about you can say racist comments if tone and intent is conveyed but my phone ate but this post makes me realise why my arguement wouldn't be valid for AH.

Even though the regulars recognise each others posting style and don't take offense, there are plenty of lurkers who don't sign up and might never sign up due to the sexist content of posts.

Ok, now this I don't get. Throughout boards you've often got posters/mods advising people who aren't regulars that post something that doesn't tie in with the forum to get more use to the tone of the forum. Now we are looking to amend the tone of the forum to tie in with people who aren't regular posters?

Gummy Panda

Dravokivich wrote: »

Ok, now this I don't get. Throughout boards you've often got posters/mods advising people who aren't regulars that post something that doesn't tie in with the forum to get more use to the tone of the forum. Now we are looking to amend the tone of the forum to tie in with people who aren't regular posters?

I think its more the image we portray to the public. I remember Darragh saying he has a hard time dealing with companies/media due to the image boards.ie had.

strobe

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

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.

This seems to me to be quite a baseless, unfounded, hysterical presumption you have made there BD.

No way in hell would a good few of the first comments have been people bitching or sexist remarks were that same exact post made by a woman. Say if it was posted by gem rather than devore for example. Not a chance. That's complete fantasy.

hoodwinked

strobe wrote: »

This seems to me to be quite a baseless, unfounded, hysterical presumption you have made there BD.

No way in hell would a good few of the first comments have been people bitching or sexist remarks were that same exact post made by a woman. Say if it was posted by gem rather than devore for example. Not a chance. That's complete fantasy.

that and it does depend on who posted it.


dev posting generally commands respect by boardsies


if an admin starts a thread its taken seriously
if an unknown like me posts, the piss will be taken,

that will happen regardless of content so the argument "if a female posted it" doesn't quite apply.

likewise i think some of the time it doesn't even come down to the content posted but the tone of a thread can be set by who posts it,

Tombi!

strobe wrote: »

This seems to me to be quite a baseless, unfounded, hysterical presumption you have made there BD.

No way in hell would a good few of the first comments have been people bitching or sexist remarks were that same exact post made by a woman. Say if it was posted by gem rather than devore for example. Not a chance. That's complete fantasy.

Maybe. I think it would have a bunch of jokes about it. It could be that Devore is an admin. I dunno but that was just my thoughts and I still think I'm right. But in this case agree to disagree since neither of us are going to get anywhere?

randylonghorn

hoodwinked wrote: »

that and it does depend on who posted it.

dev posting generally commands respect by boardsies

if an admin starts a thread its taken seriously
if an unknown like me posts, the piss will be taken,

that will happen regardless of content so the argument "if a female posted it" doesn't quite apply.

I think you have a point in this case tbh. Or even if a well-known / established AH poster starts it, I don't think it necessarily has to be DeV / an admin.

hoodwinked wrote: »

likewise i think some of the time it doesn't even come down to the content posted but the tone of a thread can be set by who posts it,

Also a good point.

Though I would add that it can also depend a bit on the first couple of replies in; if the first couple of replies are from more mature posters, it helps the tone of the thread to settle in and survive; if the first to get there are the "who can make the 'funniest' comment" brigade, it's more difficult to get it back on track again.

Seeing threads with potential for a good discussion being sidetracked this way is one of the things which annoys me actually. I would by no means want to abolish the more light-hearted, piss-taking threads from AH, but there's no reason why they can't co-exist with the occasional more serious thread / discussion, and people can surely cop on and spot the difference?

And it's no good relying on the mods to police this: they are volunteers with lives and work etc. and can't sit on the forum all day. This is one place where a quick report helps a lot, it need only be something like "it might be nice to keep this thread on track, potentially a good discussion". No need to call for a lynching or feel that you're singling out anybody!

kowloon

Is this what sparked the latest round of closed accounts?

I noticed stovelid is gone now :mad:

strobe

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Maybe. I think it would have a bunch of jokes about it. It could be that Devore is an admin. I dunno but that was just my thoughts and I still think I'm right. But in this case agree to disagree since neither of us are going to get anywhere?

Nope, let's not. I'm on my phone but when I get back to a laptop I am confident I will be able to empirically support my view on whatyou posted.

If you still think you are right I'd like you to attempt to do the same. Find me examples of serious, well thought out OP's on serious topics unrelated to gender issues started by female posters that resulted in a bunch of sexist remarks aimed at the OP, or were derailed due to the fact the thread starter was a woman. If this exists, it will be easy to prove.

Listen lads, let's not completely lose the run of ourselves here, shall we. There is an issue here with a certain amount of sexism being seen as acceptable by sections of AH. Whether it is largely 'in jest' or not it seems to be making posters feel unwelcome to a degree, and as suggested potentially making potential posters feel unwelcome in AH.

But no, sorry, the idea being forwarded here is that any woman posting in AH on any topic, no matter how serious and irregardless of the tone or content of her post is going to be facing a gauntlet of slavering sexists ready to dismiss her opinions on the basis that she is a woman. This is demonstrably untrue. It's not a difference of opinion, it's empirically verifiable that it is fictitious.

The 'culture' that exists in AH has been broached in this thread and I agree that part of that culture that has developed appears to be that sexist remarks (whether they be joking or not) are seen as more acceptable than, say, racist remarks. This is probably an accurate reflection of general society, I have my theories of why this is the case but this thread isn't the place to explore them.

This seems to be making some posters feel unwelcome and that shouldn't be something that is happening really, AH should be silly and slaggy and a little juvenile because that's a big part of what makes it AH. But it should also be welcoming and inclusive and a pleasant experience to post there for as many people as possible, it should be fun, it is fun for the most part. You won't please everyone and some people go miles our of their way to take offense and grab it with both hands and never ever let it go, but if a significant number of people feel the forum is being made not fun and exclusive and unwelcoming by part of its culture, and their reasoning seems reasonable, then we should try and see what can be done to maybe convince people that a shift in the culture to make things more fun and welcoming and silly for all would be a good move.

But let's not make **** up. Let's just not. Let's not pretend AH is something its not. It's not /b, it's not the YouTube comment section, it's not an old boys club, it's not a place where female posters opinions are routinely dismissed on any and all topics because they are female.

That's not AH, not even close.

I love you AH and I want to have your strobe babies. xx

Millicent

Just want to say Strobe, I think that's a fantastically fair and accurate representation of AH and the current situation. I agree with all of it.

RDM_83 again

Going to give two examples here because I'm quite unsure of how any new enforcement regime will actually be applied (please remember I've never actually started a thread in AH :cool: and these views aren;t necessarily views I'd hold but I'm trying to make them realistic)

In terms of thread topic would a new thread like this be acceptable (probably with a poll:
Would you prefer to have a male boss or a female boss, with the OP then saying something like 'in my last job all the female managers were horrible however the male ones were may more relaxed, whats your opinions'

Obviously this would probably bring out misogynistic posters, but it is the sort of conversation people have in real life (bring it up cos i had it last week), and is the OP acceptable.

The second example i'm giving would probably be found in a post in a thread about sex or something but its a meme/phrase /metaphor Ive heard a few times.

“‘A key that can open many locks is called a master key, but a lock that can be opened by many keys is a ****ty lock.’”

or

"A key that can open many locks is called a master key, but a lock that can be opened by many keys is a ****ty lock.
And btw I believe this to be both funny and valid, as a person who believes that biology has a major impact on human behaviour the simple calorific cost of male procreation is vastly smaller than female. And for the modern social side "There are fat ugly sluts out there, there are no fat ugly studs" jim jefferies :pac:"

I can understand how both of these post be offensive to woman/feminists/homosexuals actually read a few short articles (none of them really got into the biological differences aspect though ), as its hetronormative, assumes male agency,female passivity etc. However in the second example the poster justifies his opinions does this make the post more acceptable.

PS: the (shamelessly stolen) correct funny AH style response to this is “Sooo… you’re about two inches long and often found in the hands of authority figures? Sounds about right, from what I’ve heard.”

DB10

I think there is a danger in turning AH into TLL or TGC.

At the end of the day my point was, sexist joking/casual remarks are the norm in this country. If we want to debate the merits of why sexism isn't bad as racism go ahead, but we all know it is not like that in the real world. People take racism far more seriously than sexism, so should the forum reflect that?

Also I've been on alot of websites, I would not classify any forum on this website as having a sexist undertone, and if there ever was it was removed. A new "strict regime" may backfire for all concerned, create tit for tat nonsense and make moderating alot tougher.

dr.bollocko

DB10 wrote: »

At the end of the day my point was, sexist joking/casual remarks are the norm in this country.

And that's not OK.

So is traveller bashing.
Also not ok.
So is racism.
Also not ok.

Scioch

dr.bollocko wrote: »

And that's not OK.

So is traveller bashing.
Also not ok.
So is racism.
Also not ok.

And religion bashing, atheist bashing, celeb bashing, Joe Duffy fan bashing, etc etc. All jokes of any kind that can be seen as offensive to a particular group are no longer welcome in AH ?

If not then what separates sexism with having a go at atheists/catholics ? Its the same thing isnt it ? Speaking in such a way about a certain group as may offend people. Its impossible not to be offended on some level with the generalisations people throw out in relation to people on welfare. Probably equally as hard not to be offended if your a Daily Mail reader who are regularly described as idiots. Yet these seem to be acceptable.

I'm not saying sexism should be tolerated but what separates those types of discrimination from others ? Why is a woman being offended over a sexist joke much more of an issue than an unemployed person being offended over a joke at their expense ? Because what it boils down to is a person being insulted because of the lack of sensitivity in relation to a topic they are sensitive about. Isnt it ?

dr.bollocko

I understand there are a number of social issues at play. There always are in AH.

We're not just in here discussing this and uninterested in discussing any other policies.

We're not ignoring anything else or refusing to acknowledge that things aren't perfect. Things never are and never will be.

We're aiming to run another feedback thread in after hours soon which will cover more general issues.

We figured that this particular issue, at this time, deserved a thread of its own.

We're not looking for an excuse to ban or infract people but we do think that there is scope for improvement in how this issue is dealt with and we think that if we get it right it will benefit the community and improve it, not take anything away from it.

That's why we're having this discussion.

Gummy Panda

dr.bollocko wrote: »

DB10 wrote: »

At the end of the day my point was, sexist joking/casual remarks are the norm in this country.

And that's not OK.

So is traveller bashing.
Also not ok.
So is racism.
Also not ok.

Ah here. Racism is not the norm in this country unless its against those bleedin foreigners

randylonghorn

Scioch wrote: »

And religion bashing, atheist bashing, celeb bashing, Joe Duffy fan bashing, etc etc.

Why do we feel the need to "bash" people at all? In particular, why do we feel the need to generalise and to "bash" whole sections of society?

Is it because the dream died? Is it because we need to find someone to blame? Someone to take out our frustration and anger upon?

And the 'net is the ideal medium of course. We're anonymous. We can vent our bitterness and our anger and ignore what we don't want to hear, no matter how well founded, and it has no repercussions. We don't have to face the same people day to day, at work or in the shops or in our social lives.

You know, DeVore, one of the co-founders of this site used to go on a lot about how one of his core aspirations or principles for the site was "be civil".

I think we need to think about that one and its ramifications a bit more.

It doesn't just mean "attack the post, not the poster".

It's about civil discourse.

What place does "bashing" have in civil discourse?

Scioch

randylonghorn wrote: »

Why do we feel the need to "bash" people at all? In particular, why do we feel the need to generalise and to "bash" whole sections of society?

Is it because the dream died? Is it because we need to find someone to blame? Someone to take out our frustration and anger upon?

And the 'net is the ideal medium of course. We're anonymous. We can vent our bitterness and our anger and ignore what we don't want to hear, no matter how well founded, and it has no repercussions. We don't have to face the same people day to day, at work or in the shops or in our social lives.

You know, DeVore, one of the co-founders of this site used to go on a lot about how one of his core aspirations or principles for the site was "be civil".

I think we need to think about that one and its ramifications a bit more.

It doesn't just mean "attack the post, not the poster".

It's about civil discourse.

What place does "bashing" have in civil discourse?

I wasnt trying to say bashing was to be tolerated either just questioning whether sexism stood alone as a problem in relation to that whole type of posting.

I dont know why people feel the need to discuss things in that manner, perhaps AH with its lower quality of discussion just encourages less detailed arguments which inevitably become so general that its little different than ranting and name calling at times. I think most people when called out will debate things to a reasonably high level but its the first few pages where people try to condense a view into a few lines while possibly trying to be funny along with it.

I dont think bashing or being dismissive of others has a place is civil discourse as such but I think being able to express opinions loosely is valuable as it enables much much more people to be involved, discussions to move a lot faster and topics to have a much wider scope than they might have otherwise.

randylonghorn

Scioch wrote: »

I wasnt trying to say bashing was to be tolerated either just questioning whether sexism stood alone as a problem in relation to that whole type of posting.

Personally, I don't think it does, I think it's just more obvious sometimes.

Scioch wrote: »

I dont know why people feel the need to discuss things in that manner, perhaps AH with its lower quality of discussion just encourages less detailed arguments which inevitably become so general that its little different than ranting and name calling at times. I think most people when called out will debate things to a reasonably high level but its the first few pages where people try to condense a view into a few lines while possibly trying to be funny along with it.

I dont think bashing or being dismissive of others has a place is civil discourse as such but I think being able to express opinions loosely is valuable as it enables much much more people to be involved, discussions to move a lot faster and topics to have a much wider scope than they might have otherwise.

I think I understand what you're saying, and I wouldn't entirely disagree.

Unfortunately, some people are good at taking advantage of that looser format to troll, to push agendas and / or to generally "be a dick", in that time-honoured Boards phrase.

And it's also extremely difficult to draw the line between curbing that kind of dickery and at the same time allowing for that bit of leeway / irreverence / piss-taking that imho can be a very positive feature of AH.

Pity the poor AH mods trying to walk that tightrope!

Xavi6

DB10 wrote: »

I think there is a danger in turning AH into TLL or TGC.

Having followed the thread since the OP that's exactly what it looks like is being mooted, and it isn't a good thing.

flyswatter

Xavi6 wrote: »

DB10 wrote: »

I think there is a danger in turning AH into TLL or TGC.

Having followed the thread since the OP that's exactly what it looks like is being mooted, and it isn't a good thing.

Especially as one of those forums has a very low tolerance for any humour.

Dyr

While we're at it, Can we add northsiders, people in tracksuits, boggers, nordies, people with addictions, Catholic's, Christians, Muslims and Irish people in general to this list of they-who-must-not-baited?

Only seems fair if we're going to have protected groups in AH then we extend it to other groups that are victims of the AH treatment to a far greater degree

kthx

oscarBravo

Bambi wrote: »

While we're at it, Can we add northsiders, people in tracksuits, boggers, nordies, people with addictions, Catholic's, Christians, Muslims and Irish people in general to this list of they-who-must-not-baited?

Only seems fair if we're going to have protected groups in AH then we extend it to other groups that are victims of the AH treatment to a far greater degree

Let me turn that back on you: if you don't want to have "protected groups" in AH, should we allow racism?

Tombi!

Bambi wrote: »

While we're at it, Can we add northsiders, people in tracksuits, boggers, nordies, people with addictions, Catholic's, Christians, Muslims and Irish people in general to this list of they-who-must-not-baited?

Only seems fair if we're going to have protected groups in AH then we extend it to other groups that are victims of the AH treatment to a far greater degree

kthx

To add to what oscarBravo said: it's still against the rules. As in the site wide rules when you sign up to. It'd fall under objectional matierial which you can't post. Besides, it even says it in the charter for AH about sexism.

And besides, your post comes off as if you're misundertanding it and we're trying to protect one gender. It's both genders it'll apply to. Though I could have misunderstood that part in your post.

Scioch

randylonghorn wrote: »

Personally, I don't think it does, I think it's just more obvious sometimes.

I think I understand what you're saying, and I wouldn't entirely disagree.

Unfortunately, some people are good at taking advantage of that looser format to troll, to push agendas and / or to generally "be a dick", in that time-honoured Boards phrase.

And it's also extremely difficult to draw the line between curbing that kind of dickery and at the same time allowing for that bit of leeway / irreverence / piss-taking that imho can be a very positive feature of AH.

Pity the poor AH mods trying to walk that tightrope!

I'm not sure if sexism is the most obvious example of it to be honest. Perhaps one of the more sensitive issues though. Which brings it back to a matter of sensitivity rather than inherently offensive when used in a humorous context.

It is true that some people take advantage of the relaxed attitude in AH to stir up shít and have a pop at people but I'm not sure those people are the root of the problem. As you said its a very fine line distinguishing between them and an honest opinion being made in a very general or funny way in the usual AH style.

So all I'm saying is that if your going to crack down on one particular type of dismissive/discriminatory posting then the others automatically become bigger problems. And your on the road of having to try and kill off this style of posting altogether. But this style of posting is itself AH as we know it. People dont have to back up opinions with tomes of explanation or are not called to account for a flippant attempt at humour. People are free to just drift alone and get involved at whatever level they want to.

So to remove that altogether you may as well delete AH and direct all threads to appropriate forums right ?. If this isnt the type of discussion the site wants then why is there a forum specifically for it ?

strobe

Question.

What's the exit strategy here? How does this thread end?

Angeles

randylonghorn wrote: »

You know, DeVore, one of the co-founders of this site used to go on a lot about how one of his core aspirations or principles for the site was "be civil".
It's about civil discourse.

What place does "bashing" have in civil discourse?

Ok so why does this need to apply to *after hours*? The forum were people in essence let their hair down.
I've been reading boards for 8 years and this one is one of my favourite forums to read because some of the really epic witty reply's people tend to post here. Sometimes yes they are sexist and sometimes racist remarks, but most of us recognise it as internet banter and see it in jest and fun.

If... it is however, a little outside of this. People themselves defend it! I've seen how quickly people defend attempted witty remarks against how a person has died or when they have stepped the line. Personally these responses and effects are 10x more powerful then any single mod can enforce because it sets a powerful message not only to the person who made the comment, but to every other reader that there is a limit.

Unfortunately this and action on all other threads is the result of a couple of prudes. I've seen it in several how all of a sudden 3-4 people have been going on about how ridiculous it is that some one said such sexist response and how the mods need to take action..... Its funny because I don't recall there being a problem with this over the course of YEARS.

So in turn, if mods wish to push powers of control on these forums over people like this, then another reader will have been lost, not a treat btw, will genuinely lose interest if people are controlled in what they say.

Millicent

You're not likely to win people over to your argument when you call them "prudes", ye know.

Gummy Panda

strobe wrote: »

Question.

What's the exit strategy here? How does this thread end?

I was hoping lolcats like feedback threads of old

Ryuji_w

I have been lurking for a year or two now and noticed that yes, you do get the messing/blatant bashing at the start of a thread but as it goes on discussion does happen although usually about 5 or so pages in.

And i was thinking that, maybe the mods could implement an idea i had.

Basically if someone wanted a serious discussion they could put something like this [thread title(SD)]
if they wanted joking and messing [thread title(JAM)]
and then a combo of the 2 aka general [thread title(G)]
but with a cap of say the first 10/15 posts for messing after that users are thread banned for breaking that rule

i think this way could also help mods to find the more serious posts that break the charter where if it is in an serious discussion thread they have no excuse or leeway of saying (it's AH what do you expect) while if it was in a joking and messing thread it would be up to the mods to decide or if it was 10/15 of a general thread.

This would help with reported posts as the limits would be clear in a SD thread while in JAM threads it would be up to the mods to decide while in a G thread after the post limit depending on the post up to the mods to decides.

so that my 2 cents