It was one of the more striking remarks of last week, even though it was born out of the recognition of an unpleasant theme that runs through the web. Charlie Leadbeater, a former adviser to the Labour government on the internet, was interviewed for the Guardian in connection with his report, A Better Web, for the Nominet Trust. What he sees as the pervasive misogyny of the web is an example of how the democratising potential of the internet has not been fulfilled.

"I'd love to create something like the 'Mary Beard Prize for women online' to support people who are supporting women to be able to use the internet safely," he said in the article, which was published on 8 August.

A great idea and one that would win support from many editors at the Guardian who see the amount of the moderators' time spent weeding out either off-topic or offensive comments in threads attached to any article loosely related to feminism or women's issues.

As one moderator told me:"There seems to be a huge backlash against the Guardian's increasing coverage of feminist issues, from more frivolous pieces (body hair, sunbathing topless, anything to do with Beyoncé) to pieces on domestic violence, FGM etc. WATM (what about the men) is now something we look out for on any piece about women as standard."

Alex Needham, acting network editor, raised the issue at the Guardian's morning conference following an article by Hadley Freeman on 5 August about the arguments for and against women shaving their body hair.

He told me in an email: "On any article by Laura Bates or Jessica Valenti, or most recently this piece by Hadley, the first 15 or 20 comments always say 'not this again, Guardian, where are the men? We face this kind of problem, so cover that instead.' Because the comments are off-topic they're then removed, which leads to cries of censorship and the claim that the Guardian is sexist – that the problems of white working-class males (who these commenters say are the real victims in society) are ignored."

Here is an example of a deleted comment on the Freeman article: "Few men find hairy women sexy. And if feminist women have a problem with that, it's not as though men don't have to maintain and groom themselves either for the opposite sex. This is just more Guardian feminist nonsense. Now women are actually growing out the hair on their bodies just to spite men. And if it's not just to spite men, good luck to you on your own private little endeavour and just keep it to yourselves."

And here is an example of a comment left on Laura Bates article, 10 sexist scenarios women face at work, published on 30 July, which also included some of the worst comments the moderators had seen: "Oh God, another dose of petty feminist whinging from the Graun. Must be that time of the month. When has the guardian's unfounded 'sexism' diatribes ever been about the 'boys?' Whether it's domestic violence articles that ignore the 40% male victims, studies on single parents that are based only on mothers or the complete absence of serious studies on, say, the much higher suicide rates among certain categories of men or the ordeal of single fathers in our incredibly biased court system."

The debate in conference turned on how to tackle this particular strain of comments when they occur within the 25,000 to 40,000 the Guardian receives each day.

Natalie Hanman, the editor of Comment is free, is cautious about whether there is an increase in misogyny on the threads and she believes that a nuanced approach to commissioning, ensuring that where appropriate men's issues are covered, helps.

She said: "We work hard to maintain a diversity of voices on Comment is free, and recognise that our coverage of gender issues can tend to focus mainly on women, when they often affect men too, so it's good to be reminded of that. However, we also want the debates on the site to be productive, and a welcoming space for all, and we encourage readers to report behaviour they think contravenes our community standards."

Most editors agree that early, constructive intervention in the thread by the authors is a way of defusing tension ordinarily but I don't think is likely to put off those with a disruptive agenda.

Perhaps it is time to assess whether anonymity should be an option rather than the default position. While it has always been argued that commenters build an identity around their pseudonym, those who express opinions under their own name carry more authority and are obviously more careful about what they say.

Jemima Kiss, head of technology, said: "It's well established that the quality and constructiveness of comments increases immediately with a real-name log in. In a small minority of situations, anonymity allows commenters to protect their identities where they need to refer to their employers, or a revealing personal experience for example. But it feels like the daily default of anonymity is now out of date, sabotaging otherwise interesting stories that deserve input, and creating an intimidating environment for readers that are deterred from making a valuable contribution. I think annotated comment – where the comment can be left alongside a specific point in the text – will help to structure comment threads more efficiently. But I would also like to see anonymity a rare and valued tool that would be opted into, and the norm more like the open discussion of Facebook and Twitter, where sharing and commenting on a story with a link under your own name is a statement of values and interests."