Fred about a Fred

[Thistledew]

But not on this site, so it's ok.

I have been reading an interesting thread here, which I think has thrown up some interesting positive comments and some predictable negative ones. It does seem to have provoked a possible change in the moderation policy on the site, which is discussed further on a second thread here.

I would be interested in people's thoughts - is it worthwhile trying to change mostly male dominated sites in this way?

I would suggest that posters don't put the name of the website in their threads to prevent us being invaded by people who may be googling to see if the threads have generated interest elsewhere.

P.S Apologies that I have linked to threads that are so long! Thanks if you do have time to read.

Can you give a synopsis of the thread?

I started reading it but don't really know what they're on about?

In a nutshell - the site is dedicated to cycling, and is affiliated with various cycling magazines. It is divided into various sections aimed at different types of cycling - so there is a section for mountain bikers, a section for pleasure/ competitive road cycling and a section for people who commute to work on their bikes. These sections are further sub-divided into various technical topics, and each section has its own 'chat' section for Off Topic conversations.

In the chat topic of the road section, there are a number of threads in which men have posted increasingly explicit pictures of women. It started off with pictures of women in cycling lycra, but has developed into posting pictures that are or are verging on soft porn. These threads were all titled "Girls in ..."

A regular in the commuting section (which did not have any "Girls in..." threads, posted a query asking why, as swearing is banned on the site, sexually suggestive pictures of women are allowed.

The first thread debates whether or not the threads should be allowed, and the second thread was started by the moderators to discuss whether a change of the moderation policy should be made, and if so, what to.

Although there are a lot of men throwing their toys out of the pram at their right to discuss cycling in close proximity to pictures of naked women, there have been a few female posters pointing out why they feel it is inappropriate, and some men supporting the same view.

Despite about 23 pages in each thread, there is as yet no consensus as to any change in the moderation policy.

Forgive me for not reading them, but the idea that there are 46 pages of posts debating the issue depresses the fuck out of me.

That's what pisses me off when people post the "most men are lovely and would never objectify women etc etc etc". It's bullshit. This crap is all over the male-dominated net, no matter what the forum topic. And if those lovely men are really that lovely, then they need to start thinking and then when they've done that for a bit, they need to start talking. To other men.

Or, as I suggested on another thread, they need to start donating to Women's Aid, Rape Crisis and local refuges for every time they let comments (and threads) slide by because they are too lily-livered to put their heads above the parapet. Because maintaining the mainstream view means that those services are necessary.

This from the thread:

"No one will accept overtly racist or hate-speech of any kind (against whoever) but banter happens and conversations within groups of people who happen to all like the same thing will not ever stay on that one subject. Unless you're a train-spotter and no one talks to them apart from other train-spotter and they're scary.

Removing threads that some find offensive is ridiculous and will kill a site / forum stone dead. People getting upset on behalf of other people is just plain embarrassing - a pub is a place for adults and adult themes will be discussed - as long as the discussions are illegal, you can simply ignore the ones you don't like."

So sexualised images of girls(preferably)/women is seen as 'banter' and to remove them a basic distillation of human rights, but 'overt' racism and hate speech isn't tolerated.

An obvious portrayal of the male priviledge. In full lycra action. (Plus it makes no sense as always).

I have a lot more to say, if you'd like

Yes I've come round to that POV AyeR.

If most men are lovely, how come we mostly see shit on the interweb?

Is it because most men stay away from the interweb and it's inhabited by a vocal minority of knuckle-draggers? Or are they not really lovely at all?

I think it is worth trying to change male dominated sites in this way, if you are a user of that site.

If you can't change it, then I guess what you could do, is to ask Mumsnet to set up a cycling forum here. Or set up your own cycling forum and tell female posters on that site, to vote with their keyboards. Whether the moderators will allow you to tell female posters that there is an alternative, is a consideration though.

Actually, thinking about it, I think that's one of the reasons Mumsnet has been so successful.

Women can come here without being told that we have to put up with a constant visual reminder of our semi-human status in the name of us being adults.

Oh, as soon as you see the word "banter", you know you are dealing with someone who sees women as objects, and is at heart a dickhead.

Yes, male privilege in action. That's what we're dealing with, sisters, and what all the equalists never see or fail to register. But it's EVERYWHERE.

Most men are lovely to women they see as people i.e. their partners, sisters, mothers etc. The rest... meh.

Yes that's it isn't it.

They're only lovely to you if they're actually talking to you as a person

As part of a group, you're just another bunch of body-parts.

Do most men stay away from the interweb? I dunno. A significant proportion of those under a certain age (?40) don't, even if they aren't facebooktastic. And if there are any latent shitty views about women, they get reinforcement online and then become self-perpetuating.

It's another exclusionary tactic, like Page 3 pin-ups and porn streaming at lunch time, that excludes women without actually saying "Fuck Off - You're Not Welcome". Women pick up on it, though. Which, as you say, is why MN is such a haven for women, for those with children and those without,

Yep. Women should just vote with their keyboards and not use those sites which clearly tell them they aren't as human as the people with penises who use those sites.

Do you think so? There are only about a dozen women who post regularly on that site. I thought it was rather good that instead of just leaving, which wouldn't have been noticed, some of them actually took the initiative to challenge the problem head on. We have been complaining recently about men not challenging other men about there sexism, but there are some men on this thread who have spoken out, albeit when prompted by the topic being brought up, and by a couple of women making strong posts.

Did I get a bit scary with my rage?

I think I get more fucked off, somehow, with this kind of shit than some of the more blatant stuff. I guess it's because it is so insidious and hard to have a march against or start a petition and so defended by men and women alike. And so ubiquitous. And so depressing. Especially when the men who write this shit can't even spell properly or know the difference between their and they're. Which I bet they can't. Can you confirm, Thistledew?

I do think good on them for challenging. I think they are probably pissing in the wind.

Sticking up for women within the safety of a complaint thread generated by a woman is a big fat COP OUT.

And a dozen women posting on there, despite the fact that I know there are thousands of women who ride, is a travesty. And one not of their making.

I have to say that I was both depressed and encouraged by the thread. Maybe I am being overly optimistic, but if there is a change in moderation policy because of the discussion, it has to be a small positive gain, doesn't it?

OP... can you become a mod and change things from within?

I am currently doing that on a certain motoring forum (theroadster.net)

Yes, I suppose.

It depresses the hell out of me that it is necessary. And, to extrapolate, that we have to fight the "equalist" lobby on here (and no doubt on there-I've seen to happen on other forums) that deny that this insidious shit exists at all.

Banter, my arse.

Maybe this sort of positive action is the way forward rather than protest matches?

Men can ignore any number of public marches, but it is far harder for them to do so if the women protesting do so in (what they consider to be) their own spaces. Men have been invading female spaces for far too long. Maybe it is time to turn the tables?

Just because they don't have one forum to do it on, don't think that it will change minds really. They'll just do it on FB.

Thistledew, maybe I am just in a jaded phase, but do you really think that hundreds of forum posters will change what they do unilaterally because a few women kicked up a stink in what the men see as their territory?

As I say, good on them. I am not for a minute saying that they shouldn't be doing what they are doing. I think, perhaps, I am a little fucked off because I posted links earlier to actual court cases by women who cleaned up actual shit for a living who wanted equal pay with men who emptied dustbins. No-one thought "Oh, yes, let's rectify that because it's wrong". They had to go through all the upheaval of a fucking court case, with all the emotional strain and uncertainty that involved. A thread on a forum isn't going to change sexism, I'm afraid.