The amount of misogyny on boards these days is frightening.*Mod instruction in OP*

masculinist

ceadaoin. wrote: »

83 NFL players were arrested on domestic violence charges in the past 10 years. A rate that is above the national average. Most of those weren't suspended from the NFL. Most of those barely even made the news. Ray Rice wasn't even banned until the video showing his guilt was made public. Doesn't sound like the system is biased against men really and it would seem that the NFL in the past has not been tough on criminals.

Let me just drop this brick of logic in here from someone I linked to earlier:

"Ladies - if you think a world without men would be some kind of utopian paradise. I'd like to remind you of a few things.
1, Female rulers have been as likely to go to war OR rule a brutal regime as male leaders: Margaret Thatcher, Sammuramat, Cleopatra, Joan of Arc, Isabella I of Castile, Mary Queen of Scots, Elizabeth I, Amina, Mbande Nzinga, Catherine the Great, Queen Victoria, Liliuokalani, Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi.
2, Lesbian relationships have higher, rates of domestic violence to heterosexual relationships:
3, Lesbians report higher rates of sexual assault/rape committed against them by other women than what feminists claim men do to women.
( https://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/lesbianrx/factsheet.shtml )
According to Dr. Suzana Rose, Ph.D.University of Missouri at St. Louis, National Violence Against Women Prevention Research Center
( http://www.pandys.org/articles/lesbiandomesticviolence.html )
"Perhaps surprisingly, statistics have shown that lesbian people experience domestic violence at a very similar rate to that of heterosexual women (Waldner-Haygrud, 1997; AVP, 1992). It has been estimated that between 17-45% of lesbians have been the victim of at least one act of violence perpetrated by a female partner (Burke et al, 1999; Lie et al, 1991), and that 30% of lesbians have reported sexual assault / rape by another woman (Renzetti, 1992). Considering the lack of discussion that takes place regarding lesbian domestic violence and sexual assault, I find these figures staggering."
( http://lesbianlife.about.com/.../lesbi.../a/DVFactsMyths.htm )
Relationships: Same-Sex Battering Statistics, Facts and Myths. Written by Kathy Belge "Lesbian Life Expert" states the following: "The typical image of a battered woman is a heterosexual woman attempting to hide a black eye in the grocery store. But domestic violence does not just happen to straight couples. Domestic violence statistics show that violence is just as prevalent in gay and lesbian relationships as it is in heterosexual couples. In fact, 30% of couples struggle with domestic violence of some sort."
So ladies: before you go spouting all your "If the world were just women we'd all frolic happily with unkempt bush" bull**** - check your ego at the f***** door.
Female rulers have never been any less likely to go to war, or run brutal regimes and lesbian relationships suffer the same level, degree and frequency of domestic violence as heterosexual relationships. If you have any illusions to the contrary: you're just being a sexist hypocrite.
In a world without men: all this **** - would be almost exactly the same. In fact, if the specie were to have evolved without males - all perfectly XX chromosome with one ovary and one testicle and therefore self insemination.... this place would be almost exactly the same. Why? Simple - amongst lesbians you -still- have masculine and feminine personalities. You still have archetypical males and archetypical females - in spite of them lacking a Y chromosome. Butch women, aside from their tackle box, are basically dudes. They -think- like men, thought processes and the way they interpret information in a more masculine way. They're more logical and less emotional.
So even if the specie restarted and history played itself out with no Y chromosome: we'd still be exactly where we are. You'd still have muslims and christians and the same mythos and the same battles, etc. etc.
So stow your bull**** you chauvinist sexist hypocrites.
The ultimate Irony: Lesbians reporting that they'd been sexually assaulted/raped by other women - occur at a higher level than women in general reporting that they'd been raped by a man. 1-3 Lesbians will be raped or sexually assaulted by a woman. Meanwhile the greater macrocosm of women: even the most bull**** of studies conducted says that 1-4 women will be raped or sexually assaulted by a man.
Check your ego ladies: in a world without men - there's MORE RAPE and MORE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. So stick that in your little pipe and smoke it."

dark crystal

masculinist wrote: »

No there is not. The outcry is for the man to be dropped from his team but not a word about the female who does something worse e.g attacks a minor with a broomhandle. Nobody calls for her to lose her livlihood

You think hitting a 17 year old with a broom handle is worse than punching someone unconscious?

Ok...

By the way, Hope is facing worse consequences than than Ray is.

masculinist

dark crystal wrote: »

You think hitting a 17 year old with a broom handle is worse than punching someone unconscious?

Ok...

By the way, Hope is facing worse consequences than than Ray is.

What you focus on shows how bigoted you are. I am asking why no equality regardless of gender, while you only attempt miserably to distract away from this quest for equality between all peoples regardless of gender. She attacked a minor and another woman. Instead of caring why there were no calls for her to receive equal treatment to the NFL star, you downplay an attack on someone who is a minor as well as another innocent female. Why I wonder. Because the poison of this latest wave of toxic feminism has infected you. it has left you unable to empathise with the victims, the minor and the lady who were attacked with a broomhandle. And since you cannot empathise with them or maybe cannot hate the female perpetrator as much as you hate the NFL star for being male, because of this , you do not cry out for the same justice for one as for the other. This is the problem with toxic feminism.

ceadaoin.

masculinist wrote: »

Let me just drop this brick of logic in here from someone I linked to earlier:

"Ladies - if you think a world without men would be some kind of utopian paradise. I'd like to remind you of a few things.
1, Female rulers have been as likely to go to war OR rule a brutal regime as male leaders: Margaret Thatcher, Sammuramat, Cleopatra, Joan of Arc, Isabella I of Castile, Mary Queen of Scots, Elizabeth I, Amina, Mbande Nzinga, Catherine the Great, Queen Victoria, Liliuokalani, Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi.
2, Lesbian relationships have higher, rates of domestic violence to heterosexual relationships:
3, Lesbians report higher rates of sexual assault/rape committed against them by other women than what feminists claim men do to women.
( https://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/lesbianrx/factsheet.shtml )
According to Dr. Suzana Rose, Ph.D.University of Missouri at St. Louis, National Violence Against Women Prevention Research Center
( http://www.pandys.org/articles/lesbiandomesticviolence.html )
"Perhaps surprisingly, statistics have shown that lesbian people experience domestic violence at a very similar rate to that of heterosexual women (Waldner-Haygrud, 1997; AVP, 1992). It has been estimated that between 17-45% of lesbians have been the victim of at least one act of violence perpetrated by a female partner (Burke et al, 1999; Lie et al, 1991), and that 30% of lesbians have reported sexual assault / rape by another woman (Renzetti, 1992). Considering the lack of discussion that takes place regarding lesbian domestic violence and sexual assault, I find these figures staggering."
( http://lesbianlife.about.com/.../lesbi.../a/DVFactsMyths.htm )
Relationships: Same-Sex Battering Statistics, Facts and Myths. Written by Kathy Belge "Lesbian Life Expert" states the following: "The typical image of a battered woman is a heterosexual woman attempting to hide a black eye in the grocery store. But domestic violence does not just happen to straight couples. Domestic violence statistics show that violence is just as prevalent in gay and lesbian relationships as it is in heterosexual couples. In fact, 30% of couples struggle with domestic violence of some sort."
So ladies: before you go spouting all your "If the world were just women we'd all frolic happily with unkempt bush" bull**** - check your ego at the f***** door.
Female rulers have never been any less likely to go to war, or run brutal regimes and lesbian relationships suffer the same level, degree and frequency of domestic violence as heterosexual relationships. If you have any illusions to the contrary: you're just being a sexist hypocrite.
In a world without men: all this **** - would be almost exactly the same. In fact, if the specie were to have evolved without males - all perfectly XX chromosome with one ovary and one testicle and therefore self insemination.... this place would be almost exactly the same. Why? Simple - amongst lesbians you -still- have masculine and feminine personalities. You still have archetypical males and archetypical females - in spite of them lacking a Y chromosome. Butch women, aside from their tackle box, are basically dudes. They -think- like men, thought processes and the way they interpret information in a more masculine way. They're more logical and less emotional.
So even if the specie restarted and history played itself out with no Y chromosome: we'd still be exactly where we are. You'd still have muslims and christians and the same mythos and the same battles, etc. etc.
So stow your bull**** you chauvinist sexist hypocrites.
The ultimate Irony: Lesbians reporting that they'd been sexually assaulted/raped by other women - occur at a higher level than women in general reporting that they'd been raped by a man. 1-3 Lesbians will be raped or sexually assaulted by a woman. Meanwhile the greater macrocosm of women: even the most bull**** of studies conducted says that 1-4 women will be raped or sexually assaulted by a man.
Check your ego ladies: in a world without men - there's MORE RAPE and MORE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. So stick that in your little pipe and smoke it."

Well I can hardly make sense of that wall of badly formatted text. A quick scan seems to suggest it is completely unrelated to what I said.

My point was the NFL has a problem with domestic violence offenses which have until now been treated leniently. The reason there was outrage about Ray Rice was because of the shocking video that showed him knocking out his fiancée and dragging her out of a lift. There were dozens of other cases before then which passed by equally as quietly as Hope Solo's.

dark crystal

masculinist wrote: »

What you focus on shows how bigoted you are. I am asking why no equality, you distracting away from the quest for equality. She attacked a minor and another woman. Instead of caring why there were no calls for her to receive equal treatment to the NFL star, you downplay an attack on someone who is a minor as well as another innocent female. Why I wonder. Because the poison of this latest wave of feminism has infected you.

Is Hope Solo facing jail time?

Did Ray Rice face jail time?

Not downplaying anything at all. Both crimes are horrendeous, but one crime is facing worse penalties than another. Fair?

ceadaoin.

masculinist wrote: »

What you focus on shows how bigoted you are. I am asking why no equality regardless of gender, while you only attempt miserably to distract away from this quest for equality between all peoples regardless of gender. She attacked a minor and another woman. Instead of caring why there were no calls for her to receive equal treatment to the NFL star, you downplay an attack on someone who is a minor as well as another innocent female. Why I wonder. Because the poison of this latest wave of toxic feminism has infected you. it has left you unable to empathise with the victims, the minor and the lady who were attacked with a broomhandle. And since you cannot empathise with them or maybe cannot hate the female perpetrator as much as you hate the NFL star for being male, because of this , you do not cry out for the same justice for one as for the other. This is the problem with toxic feminism.

A quick search will reveal plenty of articles calling for Hope Solo to be dropped from her team.

dark crystal wrote: »

Is Hope Solo facing jail time?

Did Ray Rice face jail time?

Not downplaying anything at all. Both crimes are horrendeous, but one crime is facing worse penalties than another. Fair?

He was facing jail time but avoided it by doing some anger management/domestic violence program instead.

masculinist

ceadaoin. wrote: »

A quick search will reveal plenty of articles calling for Hope Solo to be dropped from her team.

I will be watching to see what happens.


Just look at the state of America with Feminism in general. I pity young men in college campuses these days surrounded by such nonsense and hate for no reason other than the way they were born.


Last time I checked the news reports, last month when I had a little more free time [which reminds me I have to go to sleep now], no feminist organization has lobbied against "Yes Means Yes", but has in fact lobbied -for- it, in spite of the fact that it codifies into law on college campuses a preponderance of evidence standard which enables allegations leveled at students to be denied their civil liberties and kicked off campus. The same way Judith Grossman's son was. One cannot openly lobby and support laws which violate the civil liberties of men, without omitting to have a hostility and or hatred for men. If feminists, as their rhetoric says, for equality in spite of gender: they instead would be protesting the codification of such an gender biased law. This is mainstream feminism. Out there in the open for all its bigotry to be seen and felt


Now check this out:

"You want to see "rape culture" little one?
In “When Men Are Raped” By Hanna Rosin
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/04/male_rape_in_america_a_new_study_reveals_that_men_are_sexually_assaulted.html
“Data hasn’t been calculated under the new FBI definition yet, but Stemple parses several other national surveys in her new paper, “The Sexual Victimization of Men in America: New Data Challenge Old Assumptions,” co-written with Ilan Meyer and published in the April 17 edition of the American Journal of Public Health. One of those surveys is the 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, for which the Centers for Disease Control invented a category of sexual violence called “being made to penetrate.” This definition includes victims who were forced to penetrate someone else with their own body parts, either by physical force or coercion, or when the victim was drunk or high or otherwise unable to consent. When those cases were taken into account, the rates of nonconsensual sexual contact basically equalized, with 1.270 million women and 1.267 million men claiming to be victims of sexual violence.”
Mary P. Koss, you know - from the fake 1/4 women rape statistic, same woman. In the above CDC report “Made to penetrate” having been added to their roster of classifications, we have Mary Koss to thank. She lobbied the CDC to exclude male victims of female predators as being classified as “rape.” Now if you ask the common person – if you are made to have sex with someone by being physically forced, or forced at gunpoint/knife point, coerced with threats of violence, you are unconscious, roofied, comatose or any other form of incapacitation whereby you are incapable of providing consent or the sexual activity is committed directly against your will – is that rape? The vast majority of people would say yes, that is rape. Anytime someone conducts sex with you either against your consent or while you are incapable of providing consent – it is rape.
Not according, to the CDC. Due to the actions taken by Mary Koss “made to penetrate” was created so that male victims of female predators could be discluded, by definition, from being “raped”. Therefore she could tout feminist statistics on female rape victims while completely excluding figures of males having been raped by women.
According to the CDC a man cannot be raped by a woman even if he is physically forced, forced at gunpoint/knife point, coerced with threats, comatose, intoxicated, passed out, roofied or otherwise incapacitated by any other means. By legal definition he cannot be raped by a woman – no matter what. It’s instead referred to as “made to penetrate” and is therefore constituted as a form of sexual assault – but not rape.
Lets use a recent example, Ciera Ross. Ross, 25, stopped and asked the 33-year-old man if he wanted a ride. The man took the offer, but Ross’ true intentions became evident when she pulled a gun on the man. She forced the man to go to the backseat and told him to have sex with her friend. The man pleaded for the women to stop after they made him fondle the woman’s breasts and butt.
Ross then ordered the man to take his clothes off and her friend began to assault him sexually. The women also took $200 and credit cards from the man. When he spotted a taxi, he ran from the car naked and jumped in the taxi, the taxi driver allowed him to use his cell phone to capture the plate number of Ross's vehicle and alert the police.
According to the FBI, and anyone with two brain cells to rub together: this is rape. This is clearly and undeniably, unabashedly: RAPE. You threaten someone at gunpoint and force them to perform sex. That is rape by any reasonable, rational, logical definition of the term, that is RAPE. According to the CDC, that is not rape - that is "made to penetrate", a LESSER sexual assault than rape.
Thanks to Feminist Mary P Koss's work with the CDC: "NO Means No", no longer applies to men. If there is a "rape culture", feminists are creating it.
Once again this was done strictly so that Koss could publish intentionally tampered and gender biased research data on the rate at which victims are raped. You see, having a number of males victimized equal to that of women doesn’t look good when you’re trying to talk about “patriarchy” and the inherent “rape culture” found in it, which has a narrative that all men are potential rapists and all women are potential victims.
If there was a male dominated rape culture: rape would have been made legal before women could vote... Feminists however.... have gone through some very shady and underhanded tactics to conceal the rate at which men are raped by women - and gone so far as to reclassify the definition ofv terms to exclude men as being able to be raped by women. Just so that they could publish altered statistics.
Now you want to talk to me about "rape culture" ? Feminists - are the ones creating a rape culture.
You want more proof? Child support laws, largely created by and lobbied by feminists. Guess what's been going on now? male rape victims being forced to pay child support after reaching age of consent because their rapist got pregnant.
You want to talk about rape culture? Women are the only ones creating a rape culture."

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/04/male_rape_in_america_a_new_study_reveals_that_men_are_sexually_assaulted.html

jay-me

http://imgur.com/6g1zmtZ

Chunners

dark crystal wrote: »

Not at all; must have been a type-o on my part. Still, the posts in this this thread have been uncannily like:

masculinist
ˈmaskjʊlɪnɪst/
adjective
adjective: masculinist; adjective: masculist

1. 1.
   characterized by or denoting attitudes or values held to be typical of men.
   "masculinist language"

noun
noun: masculinist; plural noun: masculinists; noun: masculist; plural noun: masculists

1. 1.
   an advocate of the rights or needs of men.
   "new masculinists"

Weird coincidence he chooses such a random username, given the views he hold and all, eh?

I can't be arsed anymore, seriously I don't have the proper physical equipment yet to win a pissing contest with you because honestly for a feminist you display very similar traits to a misogynist. I mean lets put it into perspective here:

1. misogynist like to be always right but so do feminists
2. misogynist never back down but neither do feminists
3. misogynist always push their agenda but so do feminists
4. misogynist hate females but feminists hate males
5. misogynist agendas are based around their gender but so are feminists

really take whats in both your pants out of the equation and you are pretty much two cheeks on the same ar*e

LizT

Mod

We're getting bogged down now with Feminism vs Masculism vs Egalitarianism. Can we return to the original discussion about misogyny specifically on boards?

Gummy Panda

AH really does recycle threads

I remember one of the first ones was started by someone who turned out to have loads of misandry posts and tried excuse it by saying she was high lol. If you're not reporting posts then noting can be done.

tritium

ceadaoin. wrote: »

So one female athlete was arrested for domestic violence which she was charged with but hasn't yet gone to trial. There are people saying that she should be dropped from her team if she is found guilty by the way. And she should be. For example


http://espn.go.com/espnw/news-commentary/article/11125666/jim-caple-says-hope-solo-chances-espnw

An interesting quote from that article

Quote:
KIRKLAND, Wash. -- If Hope Solo played football rather than women's soccer, her career probably wouldn't be in jeopardy.

After all, her husband, former tight end Jerramy Stevens, assaulted another student in 1998 as a senior in high school yet still received a scholarship to play at the University of Washington. At the UW, he was arrested in 2000 in the investigation of an alleged rape -- he was never charged, but several years later his attorney made an out-of-court civil settlement with the accuser -- and drove his truck into a retirement home in 2001. Yet, he stayed on the team and was drafted by the NFL, playing 202 games from 2002 to 2010 despite two DUIs.

Two years ago, Stevens also was arrested on suspicion of domestic violence against Solo during a party at a residence. Charges eventually were dropped because of insufficient evidence -- and either there was no violence against her or she, too, excused this behavior because she married him the next day.

In contrast, 83 NFL players were arrested on domestic violence charges in the past 14 years. Most of those weren't suspended from the NFL. Most of those barely even made the news. Ray Rice wasn't even banned until the video showing his guilt was made public. Doesn't sound like the system is biased against men really and it would seem that the NFL in the past has been lenient on players who are domestic abusers and criminals in general
In contrast, 83 NFL players were arrested on domestic violence charges in the past 14 years. Most of those weren't suspended from the NFL. Most of those barely even made the news. Ray Rice wasn't even banned until the video showing his guilt was made public. Doesn't sound like the system is biased against men really and it would seem that the NFL in the past has been lenient on players who are domestic abusers and criminals in general.

Seriously?

you come on to a thread on mysogony and quote us a misandristic piece of tripe that justifies a violent female on the basis that her husband might also not be very nice.

Really? You thought this was the stellar example and quote to post?

Molester Stallone II

Boards is cyclical, every so often we get poppy bashing threads, traveller bashing threads, women bashing threads, sinn fein bashing threads, Irish language bashing threads there's even a few man bashing threads and all!.

I wouldn't get too worked up about it, report offending posts, block and move on.
I would hope that in any AH thread where a woman was being picked on, or there was even a hint of real misogyny, that the better posters there would step in and difuse the situation...

listermint

I had an Ipod once it let me down big time, so i was so annoyed at apple now i just spend my time disliking apple. More used to my android now.


Anyway, i was a Ryanair plane the other day and there was like 5 passengers with Iphones and a some even had Ipads. I could feel an air of apple in the air.

The Passenger next to me even shoved the ipad in my face, i was so annoyed at the time, i was going to tell the steward but decided against it. Some of the folks with their iphones were practically shoving it in my face even though they were using them covertly.

There was such an air of apple on this plane that i decided Ryanair are all about apple. Its extremely frustrating seen signs of apple all around the place especially when i know the users are out to get me.












I suppose what im saying is ...... this thread is as ridiculous as an Iphone Versus Android debate the fanboy comparisons are fairly sound.



Ruining After Hours one thread at a time.

lufties

Gavin Shaggy Stoutness wrote: »

when I first started here there'd be the classic comments along the lines of "make me a sandwich/get back in the kitchen" "there's no women on the internet hardy har har" "Pics or gtfo" etc etc. Found them mildly irritating at the time, never imagined that seven years later I'd be missing them and flooded with nostalgia in the face of:

1: Suspended sentences for sexual assault being somehow held up as a damning indictment of the prejudice against males in the justice system.

2: Posters warning other men not to get married because if it doesn't work out a woman will take your house, your kids, and your fcuking soul. Because that's what we do.

3: The inexorable draw that a thread on why feminism is still relevant has on mostly male posters, flocking in to tell us that no we don't, no, we're wrong. Not just "some aspects of feminism" or "radical feminism", but all of it.

4: Men putting us somewhere on the spectrum between deluded idiots and two-faced liars whenever the subject of what we find attractive in a man comes up.

Obviously not all men, etc etc. Also I'm not a big fan of most internet feminism, but the backlash against it (which in certain respects is very valid) has brought some real slimey little sh1ts crawling out from under their rocks. The mood on here sometimes can definitely be very misogynistic but it's just a reflection of what's going on online more generally.

If you are a decent and well meaning human, it indeed must be awful to come online and have your gender spoke of in derogatory terms.

I just wonder though what has happened in society to bring this type of thing to the fore. Have men always been this pissed off with women? If not, why so? In the world I live in, women have the power mostly, with regard to divorce laws and kids. Also, if the woman is attractive she can use it get what she wants. Recently, I got out of a relationship by a callous, superficial, juvenile, fickle, self absorbed woman. These kind of experiences make men bitter imo.

DeadHand

listermint wrote: »

There was such an air of apple on this plane that i decided Ryanair are all about apple

I've read nothing complaining that AH is an inherently misogynistic forum. It isn't.

I've read many posts pointing out there is an angry, misogynistic undertone to many of the threads. There is.

This thread is relevant, it addresses a genuine phenomenom.

Grayson

listermint wrote: »

I had an Ipod once it let me down big time, so i was so annoyed at apple now i just spend my time disliking apple. More used to my android now.


Anyway, i was a Ryanair plane the other day and there was like 5 passengers with Iphones and a some even had Ipads. I could feel an air of apple in the air.

The Passenger next to me even shoved the ipad in my face, i was so annoyed at the time, i was going to tell the steward but decided against it. Some of the folks with their iphones were practically shoving it in my face even though they were using them covertly.

There was such an air of apple on this plane that i decided Ryanair are all about apple. Its extremely frustrating seen signs of apple all around the place especially when i know the users are out to get me.












I suppose what im saying is ...... this thread is as ridiculous as an Iphone Versus Android debate the fanboy comparisons are fairly sound.



Ruining After Hours one thread at a time.

The lesson i learned from you is that apple are overpriced shyte.


I'm sure there's some misogyny on boards. there are some posters for whom the woman is always wrong. they're hyped up, over sensitive etc... all the time.

I'm sure there's probably misandry. Men are dicks. men don't understand women etc... (Although even for most people there can be misunderstanding when it comes to the opposite gender)

To be fair there are some women are are over sensitive. There are probably just as many men like that too.

lets face it, there's a broad cross section of the public here. And on any thread that involves men/wome hating, the people who post the most are going to be men/women haters. So it just looks like there's more.

beks101

lufties wrote: »

Recently, I got out of a relationship by a callous, superficial, juvenile, fickle, self absorbed woman. These kind of experiences make men bitter imo.

I've dated some awful gobshytes in my time too. Some awful liars, cheats and selfish pricks in there. Does that give me leeway to direct bile at every man who crosses my path from now until the end of time? Or should I accept the fact that I picked a few bad eggs and sh1t happens?

listermint

DeadHand wrote: »

I've read nothing complaining that AH is an inherently misogynistic forum. It isn't.

I've read many posts pointing out there is an angry, misogynistic undertone to many of the threads. There is.

This thread is relevant, it addresses a genuine phenomenom.

I can use the term undertone to describe anything.

Boards has a general undertone of self importance and dogmatism.


There does that clarify this thread.

DeadHand

listermint wrote: »

I can use the term undertone to describe anything.

Boards has a general undertone of self importance and dogmatism.


There does that clarify this thread.

No, that clarifies nothing.

I've no idea what point you're trying to make.

It's funny to see the number of "evidence please" posts on this after all the posts from people making up all sorts of sh1t about the single mother in that other thread

Grayson

beks101 wrote: »

I've dated some awful gobshytes in my time too. Some awful liars, cheats and selfish pricks in there. Does that give me leeway to direct bile at every man who crosses my path from now until the end of time? Or should I accept the fact that I picked a few bad eggs and sh1t happens?

No, but it would be understandable for you're a bit wary.

I've gone out with some women who were obsessively needy and selfish. I don't think all women are, but when I'm dating I am on the look out to make sure i don't miss the signs.

Sometimes a bad experience can have a worse effect. When I was in my mid twenties I knew a guy who had every single girlfriend up to that point cheat on him. He was a nice bloke i think he just chose or was drawn to the wrong type of girl. He just swore off women for a few years. Just wouldn't date anyone because he couldn't trust them. He had female friends, he just wouldn't get to a point where he cared about a woman so much that she could hurt him. He eventually met a nice girl and good relationship (they broke up eventually but only because it didn't work out). But it's completely understandable how a person, male or female, could reach the point where they don't trust the opposite sex. It's probably a staple plot line of romcoms at this point.

DeadHand

DeadHand wrote: »

Undeniable misogynistic undertones present in a lot of the recent threads on AH.

Seems like there's a large cohort of angry young men out there using AH to vent their frustrations regarding women.

In particular, women's experiences of harrassment seem to be dismissed out of hand by certain male posters- "he was just being nice", "you were rude", "girls always do this", "you're too sensitive".... She was there, god damn it, not you.

Yeah, threads where someone posts about being sexually assaulted and either it's her own fault or "he's just an awkward guy trying to be nice get over it" is a bit mental

Wellll that's my weekend ruined >.<

Just going off to read through the thread and action RPs and it's easier to do that when there aren't more posts and RPs coming through while I'm doing that.

BRB.

Sorry about that

I'll add my opinion shortly!

hatrickpatrick

dark crystal wrote: »

Just one'll do.

Again, let's see the evidence that boards feminists have said anywhere that male circumcision is the way to go.

I can't think of any at the moment, I'll have a search in a bit, but you're deliberately ignoring the issue I'm bringing up, which is that just as the term "violence against women" is inherently discriminatory, so is the term "female genital mutilation". All children should have an automatic right to full genital integrity barring medical emergency denoting otherwise, and in my view anyone who qualifies that by focusing on one gender or the other is being automatically sexist and exclusionist about it.

In other words, nobody has to have said "male circumcision is good" to be sexist, they just have to have said "female mutilation is wrong" without also saying "male mutilation is wrong". The argument should be "genital mutilation is wrong" or "babies have the right to genital integrity".

volchitsa

Macavity. wrote: »

Haven't noticed it in AH, maybe in tGC a bit. Life goes on.

Probably stupid of me, (I won't make the predictable blond joke!) but what is tGC please?

Shrap

volchitsa wrote: »

Probably stupid of me, (I won't make the predictable blond joke!) but what is tGC please?

The Gentlemen's Club

hatrickpatrick

Deleted User wrote: »

Has that spiked in the last while? I can't say it has. There's always been an element of it on AH, with the "make me a sandwich" type posts that turn up, meant to be a "roll your eyes and read on" kind of thing.

This in my view is the crux of it. As harsh as I know this sounds and as much as I know I'll be bashed for it, the internet should be avoided by people who can't hack trolling, and reading things they find offensive. If random comments from random strangers piss you off that much, then the world in general is probably not an ideal place to be living in...

volchitsa

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I can't think of any at the moment, I'll have a search in a bit, but you're deliberately ignoring the issue I'm bringing up, which is that just as the term "violence against women" is inherently discriminatory, so is the term "female genital mutilation". All children should have an automatic right to full genital integrity barring medical emergency denoting otherwise, and in my view anyone who qualifies that by focusing on one gender or the other is being automatically sexist and exclusionist about it.

In other words, nobody has to have said "male circumcision is good" to be sexist, they just have to have said "female mutilation is wrong" without also saying "male mutilation is wrong". The argument should be "genital mutilation is wrong" or "babies have the right to genital integrity".

I'm personally convinced that circumcision of little boys probably is a form of mutilation, but it is still a false parallel. How many little girls have ever had this operation done for medical reasons? None. It is a purely mutilating act, specifically to impede sexual pleasure. Many men who have been circumcised claim that they experience as much sexual pleasure as non circumcised men.

The worst that one can say about male circumcision for religious reasons is that like any surgery it entails a risk for the child, and that it may possibly, in some cases, reduce sexual pleasure to some degree.

That is very different from FGM, so insisting that they are equivalent is, quite frankly, absurd.

tritium

dark crystal wrote: »

I don't have any man hating campaigns at all. I think you may be a tad confused.

As per this thread, any examples of female posters who espouse the downfall of men? Any at all?

We certainly have at least one (id suggest a couple more also) poster who routinely derails almost any thread that mentions men's rights (or criticises feminism). Off hand I can think of a couple if posters who've been picked up on it in TGC too.

Do we have mysogony in AH. Sure. We also have racism, misandry, traveller bashing and whatever else. Tbh the mods do a pretty good job of managing it and anything beyond a low level undercurrent is usually dealt with. Is it getting worse, I don't think so (quite amazing though the number of posters with 150 odd posts who feel it is worse than in the past).

For what its worth, any group or movement gets some of that in AH, I've kind of assumed it goes with the territory. You might not get anti men jibes and jokes, but you'll get plenty of the men can't be victims/ men are predators/ a little woman could never hurt a man stuff. If I was being picky I'd say that mods in general are far slower to pick up on this stuff, though given the amount they have to wade through in AH...

PopePalpatine

dark crystal wrote: »

143 servicewomen have died in combat too. Many others are left to bring up children alone at home.

War is shitty for everyone involved. Your point?

Don't forget war rape. IIRC up to a million women were raped in the Soviet advance on Nazi-occupied eastern Europe, and gods only know how many the Nazis themselves raped.

TheBeardedLady

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This in my view is the crux of it. As harsh as I know this sounds and as much as I know I'll be bashed for it, the internet should be avoided by people who can't hack trolling, and reading things they find offensive. If random comments from random strangers piss you off that much, then the world in general is probably not an ideal place to be living in...

So do you suggest we cease existing? All the people on here who are bothered by the comments should just close their accounts and leave?


I find it funny that people who've thanked similar to the above on this thread can be seen getting their knickers in a twist about other issues elsewhere.

Making us out to be sensitive types who can't handle the real world is a way of silencing us. I've been through some **** in my life, am well able for this world and I can definitely handle myself but it doesn't change the fact that misogyny bugs the **** out of me. I'm not losing any sleep over it and I'm not punching holes in the walls of my flat but when I read some of the **** on here, it annoys me. The annoyance passes and I get on with my day but it doesn't stop it being an unpleasant place to post right now for many of us.

Anyway, define trolling. I believe a lot of the misogyny is NOT trolling and are the genuine opinions of some men on here.

It's funny, I only ever see the kinds of posts above when it comes to this issue on Boards. I wonder why that is...

P. Breathnach

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This in my view is the crux of it. As harsh as I know this sounds and as much as I know I'll be bashed for it, the internet should be avoided by people who can't hack trolling, and reading things they find offensive. If random comments from random strangers piss you off that much, then the world in general is probably not an ideal place to be living in...

That's little more than claiming all the space for people who behave like dicks. This is a moderated forum, where the mods try to stop trolls and people who are intentionally or recklessly offensive in the way they express opinions, and where personal attacks are a no-no.

[Thanks, mods.]

hatrickpatrick

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm personally convinced that circumcision of little boys probably is a form of mutilation, but it is still a false parallel. How many little girls have ever had this operation done for medical reasons? None. It is a purely mutilating act, specifically to impede sexual pleasure. Many men who have been circumcised claim that they experience as much sexual pleasure as non circumcised men.

In my opinion it's irrelevant. Someone genitalia, arguably one of the most psychologically significant organs, was altered surgically without their consent and in the absence of medical necessity. This is in my view the only relevant issue.

The worst that one can say about male circumcision for religious reasons is that like any surgery it entails a risk for the child, and that it may possibly, in some cases, reduce sexual pleasure to some degree.

And that it's a violation, as it's done without consent, to an extremely important organ and psychologically significant, and in the absence of any medical necessity. Same as for girls, essentially, although to a different degree.

That is very different from FGM, so insisting that they are equivalent is, quite frankly, absurd.

They share the common aspect that both involve surgical alteration of the genitals without consent and without medical necessity. Ergo both are wrong, both should be illegal. Stop looking at it from the point of view of the procedure and think about it instead from the bodily integrity point of view - all babies should have the right to full genital integrity unless medical emergency dictates otherwise. There's no need to further qualify that, as anyone stepping over that line would automatically be criminalized. Problem solved, for everyone.

tritium

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Don't forget war rape. IIRC up to a million women were raped in the Soviet advance on Nazi-occupied eastern Europe, and gods only know how many the Nazis themselves raped.

I remember one statistic that so many Russian men died that the gender ratio didn't recover till the nineties.

Men are also massively victims of war rape BTW,-I'll look for a particularly shockink link on this later

The point is of course that for Hillary to tell us women are the real victims while men do the vast majority of the dying and limb losing is populist twattery and whataboutery of the highest order

Btw what are the comparable male statistics for the 140 odd women who died?

Soft Falling Rain

I have no time for misogyny, maybe I'm sensitive but I even get uncomfortable with the typical lad talk that happens amongst my friends.

But honestly, while I know it's an issue that has been raised on boards on numerous occasions, I've never really noticed it on here on a reoccurring basis. Maybe I'm just missing it (if I see a thread with 10+ pages I tend not to open it).

I think boards has its problems with trolling on certain issues but I honestly don't think misogyny is one of those issues.

hatrickpatrick

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

So do you suggest we cease existing? All the people on here who are bothered by the comments should just close their accounts and leave?

Not at all, just, as the other poster I was quoting said, move on to the next post.

I find it funny that people who've thanked similar to the above on this thread can be seen getting their knickers in a twist about other issues elsewhere.

Getting one's knickers in a twist is fine, it's not the same as suggesting that some random anonymous internet post has annoyed you enough to force you to leave. Read another thread.

Making us out to be sensitive types who can't handle the real world is a way of silencing us.

The way you're trying to silence others, you mean?

I've been through some **** in my life, am well able for this world and I can definitely handle myself but it doesn't change the fact that misogyny bugs the **** out of me.

A lot of things bug the **** out of me as well, but I respect people's right to air opinions which are the opposite of mine. The only time I'll report a post on Boards is if I see double standards being applied in moderation, TBH.

I'm not losing any sleep over it and I'm not punching holes in the walls of my flat but when I read some of the **** on here, it annoys me. The annoyance passes and I get on with my day

As do I, regularly

but it doesn't stop it being an unpleasant place to post right now for many of us.

This is where you lose me, I'm afraid. Some threads are full of trolling but that IMO is not enough to tar the entire place with one brush and suggest that it's impossible to use it - if, as you say, the annoyance passes, then why not simply move on to the next thread? I do this here on a daily basis - believe me, I read enough ignorant guff on AH that makes my blood boil, but it's not going to stop me posting here because at the end of the day it's the internet. It doesn't matter that much.

Anyway, define trolling. I believe a lot of the misogyny is NOT trolling and are the genuine opinions of some men on here.

So genuine opinions should be censored?

It's funny, I only ever see the kinds of posts above when it comes to this issue on Boards. I wonder why that is...

Because there aren't a lot of other issues in which people call for mass censorship on Boards.

hatrickpatrick

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's little more than claiming all the space for people who behave like dicks. This is a moderated forum, where the mods try to stop trolls and people who are intentionally or recklessly offensive in the way they express opinions, and where personal attacks are a no-no.

[Thanks, mods.]

I agree about personal attacks, of course. But I'm well known for holding the opinion that threads that are "getting out of hand" shouldn't be locked in the way that they are. Just my opinion - it's an internet forum, it doesn't matter.

Wibbs

Sand wrote: »

Welcome to the male experience where you are not a special or unique snowflake. If you are a poster with a propensity for expressing you opinion, you are going to bump into other posters with a propensity for expressing theirs and criticising yours. All of the stuff you reference that you paint in terms of being gender specific are fairly standard Internet ROE. Also the last bit, underlined - genuine laughter. Yup, being male has meant the internet is full of sunshine, rainbows and people who thank me for expressing my opinions and value my input. No need for sarcasm tags I hope.

I know the above comes across as harsh, and might be filed under your definition of criticism of being female and expressing an opinion. Its not. Its your opinion being criticised. I do genuinely believe its tougher for a female to engage in online gaming (for example) due to the immaturity of a significant minority of that community. I have noticed that successfully "integrated" female gamers tend to be gamer laddettes - I haven't quite made up my mind if thats down to females conforming to male dominated gamer culture, or my own biases.

I do recall reading a book called "This Love is not for cowards". It was an Americans account of his decision to live in Juarez, Mexico to support the local soccer team that against all odds had made it to the Mexican football top flight. During his time in Juarez, the nature of the book changed - it stopped being about simply supporting a team, and became about supporting Juarez and living in a city with a drug fuelled murder rate that rivalled a warzone. How people coped with that. For example, he recalls how tortured bodies of murder victims were found on his jogging path one morning, and he jogged there again the next day convincing himself that it wouldn't touch him. One of the angriest chapters in the book is where the author confronts an American writer who tries to portray the murders and chaos in Juarez as being a misogynist issue - that women in the city were the victims of a male driven violence. As if the problems of the city could be explained in gender terms. The author correctly pointed out that *all* the people of Juarez, male and female, were the victims of a cartel fuelled violence and that women were actually minority victims of murder and violence. He was very angry that the true tragedy was being appropriated and repackaged as a gender issue/first world problem for safe, white America.

Obviously, the scale is different but people being rude and aggressive to you on the internet is how the internet works, male or female.

BTW, the OPs post is ridiculous. There is misogyny online, plenty of it. But you need to be able to cite an example, not merely complain about something you wont actually point to. The OP is perfect catnip for a gender based mess, with the female assigned role of wanting to passive-aggressively complain about a problem in general without solving it, while males try to pin down specifics so the problem can be identified and solved and both frustrate the other for 30+ pages.

If I could thank this post twice I would, especially the first and last paragraphs.

Yes of course there is misogyny online and it pops up on Boards too, but all too often the accusation is leveled because someone is disagreed with/is losing the debate.

I have some insight into this from an odd angle. For quite the while a lot of people thought I was a woman on here. Did the attitudes differ depending on that perception? Generally no, or I didn't notice it so much. Where I did notice it was a low level expectation that I'd be more accommodating, less combative in a thread. I'd get more :eek: if I came back with a "you're talking poo and here's why". I actually got PM's from men and women on that score. I also got support PM's where again women and a couple of men reckoned I was being viewed in a sexist manner, because other posters disagreed with me, which I thought interesting and daft in equal measure. As Sand put it "If you are a poster with a propensity for expressing your opinion, you are going to bump into other posters with a propensity for expressing theirs and criticising yours. All of the stuff you reference that you paint in terms of being gender specific are fairly standard Internet ROE". Now I wouldn't quite agree with Sand where he says "all of the stuff", but it's a helluva lot of it.

As for the notion where apparently it's logical to conclude that asking questions rather than just blindly accepting a vague premise makes you out to be a sexist/misogynist. That's just daft. Blindly accept my premise because I say so. Eh. No. Thanks and all, but no.

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm personally convinced that circumcision of little boys probably is a form of mutilation, but it is still a false parallel. How many little girls have ever had this operation done for medical reasons? None. It is a purely mutilating act, specifically to impede sexual pleasure. Many men who have been circumcised claim that they experience as much sexual pleasure as non circumcised men.

OK break it down this way; if the exact same tissues were removed in FGM as are removed in male circumcision would that be OK? I doubt it. Therefore from this position male bodily integrity is less respected than female. Oh and the least invasive form of FGM does pretty much this.

Uncle Ruckus

I'm a humanist, so I don't agree with the feminist nor the masculinist manifestos. I will say that I have noticed a lot of anger in many threads. Of course one can assent to an unpopular opinion while being somewhat intellectually detached but often it seems that on controversial threads people often display a lot of strong and negative emotions-to the point of catharsis. Perhaps rather than saying 'down with this sort of thing' we should examine and try to comphehend the origin of all the venom.

P. Breathnach

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

... I'm well known for holding the opinion that threads that are "getting out of hand" shouldn't be locked in the way that they are....

I have more posts on Boards than you have, but I don't expect my views to be well-known to the extent that participants in any particular thread know my views outside what I have posted in that thread.

And if you disagree with Boards' moderation policy and practice, why the hell are you still here?

enfant terrible

beks101 wrote: »

Actually this is quite a common one too.
'Oh woe is me....did someone just use the phrase 'invalidate my feelings'?...are we on Oprah....blah blah blah'

So expecting to be entitled to express an opinion which will not be faced with a barrage of assumptions, aggressiveness, intimidation, personal attacks, undermining and belittling and sexism about 'Princess Syndrome', 'will someone please think about the men'...is unreasonable because 'that's just the internet'?

People disagree with me every day of the week and it leads to all kinds of insightful and enlightening discussions - one of the main reasons I'm on boards in the first place. I like being challenged on my views and I like a heated debate.

Being told that my feelings about something are bullsh1t or my experience with a social issue is 'downright wrong' because men deal with stuff too and who am I to expect special treatment, or because I've simply misread the intention, or 'some people are assholes, get over it'. And picking apart my opinions down to the word and going to town on the pedantics of a sentence or a semi-colon to make the point that I AM WRONG because my experience is not your own...and doing this stuff persistently, relentlessly, maybe even re-regging to do it again to get the full impact...NO. THAT'S NOT OK.

Is it right that many women won't engage with this forum, this thread or even this website because of these over-reactions? Is it right that that fear of typing something less than reasonable (out of anger perhaps) and then receiving a backlash disproportionate to the actual intellectual crime means that some women will stay away, out of threads about issues that interest them, away from a discourse that greets them with an undertone of hostility from the get-go?

Does that not apply to both sexes though?

I experienced all you posted and I'm a man.

Yarf Yarf

Most of the posts in this thread could be summed up with: "la la la la la! Not listening!" *fingers in ears*

tomwaterford

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

I have no time for misogyny, maybe I'm sensitive but I even get uncomfortable with the typical lad talk that happens amongst my friends.
.

I know this feeling...ive a couple of sisters and some young wans who are very good friends of mine who would beat the crap outta me if I said half what m friends say:o

eviltwin

After Hours just seems to attract a certain type of poster. I'd say the age profile here is under 30 and it shows. Maybe its as much an age thing as anything. The quality of the discussions here are often ruined by idiots who don't have anything other than cliches and insults to throw out. The same topics often show up elsewhere on Boards but you can pretty much guarantee there will be a better class of debate. Because other forums tend to have smaller, more regular, posters the mods are quicker to act too. There was a good discussion here yesterday on PUA's that had to be closed because so many "new" members joined to derail the thread, that kind of thing is frustrating. Its a pity repeat offenders can't just be blocked for posting in AH altogether.

beks101

Grayson wrote: »

Sometimes a bad experience can have a worse effect. When I was in my mid twenties I knew a guy who had every single girlfriend up to that point cheat on him. He was a nice bloke i think he just chose or was drawn to the wrong type of girl. He just swore off women for a few years. Just wouldn't date anyone because he couldn't trust them. He had female friends, he just wouldn't get to a point where he cared about a woman so much that she could hurt him. He eventually met a nice girl and good relationship (they broke up eventually but only because it didn't work out). But it's completely understandable how a person, male or female, could reach the point where they don't trust the opposite sex. It's probably a staple plot line of romcoms at this point.

Yes completely normal, human behaviour. You might take a dating sabbatical, look for the red flags before jumping into a relationship next time, be a little more guarded in your dating life.

That's not what this thread is about though. This thread is about blatant or subtle streaks of misogyny that speckle an increasing number of threads in this forum and put female posters extremely ill at ease, to say the least.

Most of us have been through a bad breakup. Anyone who has dated has met a giant aRsehole of the opposite sex who treated them like sh1t and left them with anything from a bad taste in their mouth to earth-shattering heartache.

Is that an excuse for developing and demonstrating an acute dislike or hatred for every woman or every man everywhere? Absolutely fcuking not. If it is, invest in a shrink because you have some definite personal issues.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

A lot of things bug the **** out of me as well, but I respect people's right to air opinions which are the opposite of mine.

So your way of 'respecting people's right to air opinions which are the opposite of mine' in this case is to tell those people to read another thread, move on with their lives and quit taking things so personally, clearly the interwebz - and the world - doesn't suit them? So basically, 'your opinion doesn't matter to me and get over it'? Very courteous.

Wibbs

Uncle Ruckus wrote: »

Perhaps rather than saying 'down with this sort of thing' we should examine and try to comphehend the origin of all the venom.

+1. Just my take here UR, but for me its down to the influence of the very polarised "gender war" BS coming from and informed by a current meme in US culture and especially expressed online. If you look at even measured discussions on this here on Boards you'll note a large amount of source material is American in nature. The "third wave" feminist guff, especially the extreme leftist rape culture trigger warning stuff is almost entirely sourced from America. The PUA and MGTOW all women are bitches to be ridden/avoided guff is also almost entirely sourced from America and both sides of this gender war ballsology originated in the US. This stuff is huge over there, or appears to be from what you'd think reading the interwebs.

This exaggerated e-meme is infecting the rest of the online world, particularly the Anglosphere and what venom exists on boards is coming from that IMHO. Little enough of it is local in nature. It's a set of well dodgy influences too and it is clearly influential.

hatrickpatrick

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I have more posts on Boards than you have, but I don't expect my views to be well-known to the extent that participants in any particular thread know my views outside what I have posted in that thread.

They're probably well enough known in threads like this, seeing as we seem to have debates on feminism on a bi-weekly basis around here

And if you disagree with Boards' moderation policy and practice, why the hell are you still here?

This is exactly the point I'm making, I disagree with them but what the hell? It's not going to stop me posting, because as the end of the day it's just not that important. There are threads I wish would be left alone but aren't, but one simply moves on and posts somewhere else. My point is, I apply the same to threads which offend me deeply - I don't call for people to be banned or for discussion to be stifled. I personally feel that there is a lot of evidence that this is becoming a central aspect of modern feminism however - shutting down discussion which is "offensive". Which ironically is the main reason I so strongly object to it.

Annasopra

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I've noticed a few trolls that seem to be a bit smarter than the average one, staying with the rules themselves but making the balls for others to fire. That's a huge problem imo.

Couldnt you report this and say I suspect this poster is trolling could mods please watch