OK... so there are no women on here...

[SkyeGirl32]

His male fragility is absolutely showing because he hates the fact that women want nothing to do with him because most of us do not agree with his opinions... but us not agreeing with his opinions don't mean it's hate speech, and the more he decides to voice his opinion, we are allowed to voice ours back.

Opinions =/= hate speech

 

[NorthernVAM]

"


I admit the term hate was an exageration. "Despicably insulting" would have been a better choice. And of course my thought of somehow banning exaggerations was as bad as exaggerations in the first place.

My point is: why not allow people to speak their mind? Without insulting interruptions. And when Katie feels like insulting somebody, or a whole category of human beings, someone could call her to order. Instead of chiming in her baseless allegations.

THAT is what really gripes me: instead of leaving people's ads alone, getting a shitstorm going about supposed "hurt" inflicted by some man who voices a mishgiving he has.

For some strange reason, women seem to be welcomed here when they make complaints. But when a man does the same, all hell breaks loose.

Thanks for clearing up the hate speech thing for me ... it's hard for me to get behind any type of censorship, but I do appreciate the concept of civility and I do believe everyone is due a certain amount of respect. I think we would agree on that.

Deconstructing your complaint above, I think what you are actually saying is that you feel that the women haven't been as civil as you think they should be. Or that their behavior represents a lack of civility that goes beyond what is considered a "social norm". I think that's one issue. The other issue is that you feel that there unequal treatment in that "women's complaints" are welcomed, but "men's complaints" aren't.

So .. I agree with you on the fact that this thread, and social media in general has a tendency to escalate into exaggeration resulting in kind of a tit-for-tat exchange. Honestly, I don't think that's unique to this thread, this board, or social media, or even mainstream media these days. You fell victim to it yourself when you called it "hate speech". If you look through the thread and read the comments somewhat dispassionately, and compensate for the exaggeration, then I think what is being said is really something like this:

a) The women posting here have felt ignored and dismissed by the men they've interacted with, both in their real lives and here on Lit.
b) The women are frustrated with having been ignored and dismissed.
c) When they try to articulate their frustration, they are likely to have their frustration dismissed by the men who are responding do them.
d) That frustration leads to the type of escalation that we've been discussing where the tit-for-tat exchange becomes more uncivil
e) In the end .. people are just talking at each other than to each other.

So -- assuming you agree with the logic above -- the question becomes how can you express your disagreement so that it is both heard (not dismissed), and it doesn't escalate the situation?

I'm not sure I have an answer for it -- but if we are going to spend time sincerely trying to communicate with each other here then it's a good question to ponder. If we just want to yell at each other (which is a legitimate desire -- not mine, but legitimate), then this is the type of interaction that will occur, and if you don't like it, I suggest you ignore it and not contribute to it -- and just let a thread that you dislike die of natural causes.

I welcome thoughts from everyone who has been participating on the thread ...

 

[SkyeGirl32]

Thing is - I don't feel like they are willing to have a civil conversation where they truly listen and hear what we have to say, so I sadly don't think that would be possible... He seems determined to just constantly tear into us because none of us agree with what he's saying or his opinions.

It goes back to that other guy who seemed to act like he was allowed to voice his opinion but women weren't.... it feels like that's the case with the OP as well. He wants to act like we're all bad people who don't like him or want to "help" him... yet when we come out and try to explain and not attack -- he sees it as an attack because his masculinity is so fragile he can't realize that maybe he is the issue in this case.

Women voicing opinions isn't an attack... it may feel like one because you claimed there weren't women on Lit and we came out in full force in the way that we did.... And to say that we attack all men, there are men on here like others have said - that we are totally fine with what they say as they listen to what we have to say instead of constantly ripping into us and acting like what we are saying is "Hate speech" when it's just us voicing our opinions - just like the OP was.

 

[MMM_wms]

Dear Northern VAM, you have accomplished a lot with your post, I am convinced.

It's been the most reasonable post on this whole thread I have read so far. And of course you provided a good understanding of the entire spectum of human interactions. Especially since January 2017.

 

[SkyeGirl32]

Of course he'd think that another man's post was the most reasonable, only because pretty much all of the women do not agree with him.
Typical...

 

[TossAwayFellow978]

Deconstructing your complaint above, I think what you are actually saying is that you feel that the women haven't been as civil as you think they should be.

Um, exCUSE me!? I have been like a THOUSAND times less civil than any woman in this thread! How freakin DARE you.

So .. I agree with you on the fact that this thread, and social media in general has a tendency to escalate into exaggeration resulting in kind of a tit-for-tat exchange.

For my money, you never get enough tit for your tat lately. That's just the economy these days... something something, supply chain, something something.

Honestly, I don't think that's unique to this thread, this board, or social media, or even mainstream media these days. You fell victim to it yourself when you called it "hate speech". If you look through the thread and read the comments somewhat dispassionately, and compensate for the exaggeration, then I think what is being said is really something like this:

a) The women posting here have felt ignored and dismissed by the men they've interacted with, both in their real lives and here on Lit.

Ironically enough, you manage to be dismissive in expressing this the way you did. (i.e. the women posting here have *felt* this way, but it might not be true)

b) The women are frustrated with having been ignored and dismissed.

This is both redundant AND repetitive. Also redundant.

Why didn't you phrase item a) in this way!? It says literally the same thing, only it lacks that overly diplomatic conditional phrasing.

I also don't think that "frustration" or "ignored"/"dismissed" really covers it completely. The complaint actually is about basic respect, full stop. This is what "the women" are "frustrated" about – and, really, any decent human being ought to be frustrated on their behalf.

Also this item is redundant.

c) When they try to articulate their frustration, they are likely to have their frustration dismissed by the men who are responding do them.

So, wait, let me get this straight... you've articulated a process that I think goes something like this:
•Woman frustrated at being ignored and dismissed!
•Woman try to express frustration.
•Woman ignored and dismissed!
•Woman frustrated! Cycle repeat!

... Yeah I really don't think you understand what's going on here at all.

d) That frustration leads to the type of escalation that we've been discussing where the tit-for-tat exchange becomes more uncivil

If tat is OP (i.e. MMM_wms)'s general sense of entitlement, from which directly results his overall lack of respect for women, and tit is the series of posters (both female and male) chiming in to refute the horrible things he says (and occasionally indulge in a bit of chuckleworthy ad hominem attack), then I think this is a mostly accurate description of what's been going on here.
However, your analysis specifically links the words "escalation" and "uncivil" to "frustration," which your analysis *also* ascribes exclusively to the women on this board. It entirely removes any blame or ownership for either of these two things from OP/MMM_wms.

It also ENTIRELY ignores my own escalatory and uncivil behavior, which actually I find kinda sexist. You man-hating booger monger.

e) In the end .. people are just talking at each other than to each other.

Well that's not true. There have been a ton of "atta girl!" posts thrown back and forth among the women posting here, by way of offering support or voicing agreement on some point or other that was made.

So -- assuming you agree with the logic above -- the question becomes how can you express your disagreement so that it is both heard (not dismissed), and it doesn't escalate the situation?

lol. Logic. Right.

Just because you dispassionately put things together into a numbered list doesn't make it logic.
I don't think it's possible for OP/MMM_wms to "express [his] disagreement" here so that it is "not dismissed" and "doesn't escalate the situation," because his disagreement is fundamentally to do with the basic respect women are owed in a public forum (i.e. feminism). When he expresses such misogyny, I feel – personally – that it is my duty as a human to both dismiss what he says and also call him stupid while doing so.

I'm not sure I have an answer for it

Clearly.

if you don't like it, I suggest you ignore it and not contribute to it

I think this is the only thing in this entire post that makes even a tiny bit of sense.

 

[NorthernVAM]

Um, exCUSE me!? I have been like a THOUSAND times less civil than any woman in this thread! How freakin DARE you.


For my money, you never get enough tit for your tat lately. That's just the economy these days... something something, supply chain, something something.


Ironically enough, you manage to be dismissive in expressing this the way you did. (i.e. the women posting here have *felt* this way, but it might not be true)

This is both redundant AND repetitive. Also redundant.

Why didn't you phrase item a) in this way!? It says literally the same thing, only it lacks that overly diplomatic conditional phrasing.

I also don't think that "frustration" or "ignored"/"dismissed" really covers it completely. The complaint actually is about basic respect, full stop. This is what "the women" are "frustrated" about – and, really, any decent human being ought to be frustrated on their behalf.

Also this item is redundant.

So, wait, let me get this straight... you've articulated a process that I think goes something like this:
•Woman frustrated at being ignored and dismissed!
•Woman try to express frustration.
•Woman ignored and dismissed!
•Woman frustrated! Cycle repeat!

... Yeah I really don't think you understand what's going on here at all.

If tat is OP (i.e. MMM_wms)'s general sense of entitlement, from which directly results his overall lack of respect for women, and tit is the series of posters (both female and male) chiming in to refute the horrible things he says (and occasionally indulge in a bit of chuckleworthy ad hominem attack), then I think this is a mostly accurate description of what's been going on here.
However, your analysis specifically links the words "escalation" and "uncivil" to "frustration," which your analysis *also* ascribes exclusively to the women on this board. It entirely removes any blame or ownership for either of these two things from OP/MMM_wms.

It also ENTIRELY ignores my own escalatory and uncivil behavior, which actually I find kinda sexist. You man-hating booger monger.

Well that's not true. There have been a ton of "atta girl!" posts thrown back and forth among the women posting here, by way of offering support or voicing agreement on some point or other that was made.


lol. Logic. Right.

Just because you dispassionately put things together into a numbered list doesn't make it logic.
I don't think it's possible for OP/MMM_wms to "express [his] disagreement" here so that it is "not dismissed" and "doesn't escalate the situation," because his disagreement is fundamentally to do with the basic respect women are owed in a public forum (i.e. feminism). When he expresses such misogyny, I feel – personally – that it is my duty as a human to both dismiss what he says and also call him stupid while doing so.

Clearly.


I think this is the only thing in this entire post that makes even a tiny bit of sense.

Well -- I have to say I enjoyed reading your response -- and while my tendency is to reply "tongue-in-cheek" to some degree -- I'll try to be as serious as I can.

First of all, I didn't intend to ignore or dismiss your incivility, and if I did, I apologize and wanted to re-affirm you by saying I did see how uncivil you were being and I didn't mean to slight or ignore your uncivil behavior, it was that your contribution to the thread is somewhat tangential in my opinion. Again, no offense meant, but the real core of the discussion here, if you can call it that is about the assumptions men make about women (or lack thereof) on this board.

My response was trying to summarize the entire thread, which actually started off with a "male" posting a "personal ad" with this sentence: "OK... so there are no women on here..." as the header .. and then finishing the sentence in the body by saying "... it only LOOKS like there are but, on Lit., the sad situation is that 9 out of 10 'women' are actually full of Y chromosomes." After that some additional males (yes, males with Y chromosomes), added to the thread to more or less agree with the statement .. and then the females (yes, females with no Y chromosomes), took exception to that as a "statement of fact", and more or less said that there is a reasonable population of women out there that wouldn't respond to a man who would post an ad like that, so he's kind of creating his own echo chamber with approach to females. And then we were off to the races ... with additional males arguing with women about their experience on this board.

So, on the surface -- the original issues was -- "are 9 out of 10 female profiles here men masquerading as women?"

If I were to express my own opinion on the topic -- I think the women are correct -- and that many of the men her shape their experience here through their attitudes and behaviors, but then that isn't something that is restricted just to men, how we approach other people in general has a great influence on how they respond to you, and so that was really the point of the post you responded to -- without the "sexist" overtones.

Anyway, when the females who read the thread tried to "educate" (and I use that word in the broadest definition of the word), wound up getting some hostile blow back from the males, and then the females started talking about how this is a typical response when trying to provide feedback to the majority of the males they encounter on the board, which then led into their belief that the root cause is a "fragile male ego". Again, depending upon the definition of "fragile male ego", I may or may not agree with them -- there are multiple factors involved with males, one of them being maturity in how they handle disagreements, meaning that they have enough social skills to be able to really have this kind of serious discussion. I know the tendency is to be reductionist here -- but for me, that's kind of boring -- it's much more interesting to try to untangle what behaviors (divorced from any specific individual) create an environment like this?

The point I was trying to make with MMM_wms, is that the opportunity to really communicate got lost -- and that it's the tendency to "flame" the other person that causes a break down.

Anyway -- here are my responses to the rest of your responses to my post:

On my redundancy -- well, at the risk of offending everyone on the thread, being redundant often helps people finally understand what you are saying. In other words, you often have to be redundant in order for people to get the point.

As far as the use of the word, "frustration", and linking it to "escalation" and "uncivil", I think that's a bit of a stretch. I don't think my use of the word "frustration" absolves anyone from responsibility for what they say. It was my perception of how the women were feeling -- certainly they are free to correct my perception, and I bet if I were to ask them, they would say they wouldn't need a male to respond to my post with an interpretation of my feelings. By the way, my general assumption here is that my perception, my experience, etc. is mine -- and that the women's experience here is theirs, and for all intents and purposes they are never going to be the same, and I wouldn't expect them to align. Again, everyone is free to correct my perception of them, or even the perception of what is going on here.

On the topic of logic -- well the problem with language in general is that it's not precise, and it's definitely not digital (a or b). My attempt to uncouple the emotions from the behaviors is to get to a better understanding -- if that is even possible.

On equating "basic respect" with "feminism", I don't get that at all .. you don't have to be a feminist to have basic respect for fellow human beings, regardless of their biology. So, I don't see where feminism really plays into this at all, but if that's the construct that you want to interpret the interactions here through, be my guest.

On the need to dismiss someone and call them stupid .. OK, we all have our individual needs, wants, and desires -- if that gets you off, OK, but the cautionary tale there is that you are being somewhat hypocritical in the sense that you say "we should all treat other humans with respect" by adding in "except the ones I disagree with, or feel don't respect me, or ... (fill in the blank)". I can't help but see that as hypocritical .. but then that might be the fact that I'm blinded by my own logic.

You can take the dismissive attitude one step further and attempt to dehumanize them ... that way it makes it much easier when to get people to go along with you when you want to round them all up, put them in a concentration camp, and then exterminate them because they are so objectionable we shouldn't have to deal with them ... That's where that slippery slope goes. Maybe it's just a race to see who commits genocide first? Sometimes it appears to be that way .....

 

[SkyeGirl32]

And that is Validation how? I don't see what he was saying as validation.

One thing this post showed me is that misogynistic men will always dismiss the feelings of women... and act like they're always the victim and women daring to have an opinion that differs from their own -- is everyone hating on them. They're allowed to voice their opinions... we ask for respect, we get treated poorly by them, and then they act like they're the ones who deserve an apology. And that's not how this whole thing works.

It doesn't take a lot to LISTEN and RESPECT everyone... no matter their gender! End of story. But clearly that's missed by some on here.

I've decided I'm done commenting here... this post is a shit show where I feel like we are getting no where. If anyone wants to talk to me, you all know how to reach me.

 

[MMM_wms]

Of course he'd think that another man's post was the most reasonable, only because pretty much all of the women do not agree with him.
Typical...

I hope you realize, how horribly sexist your statement is. I doubt that you even understood NVAM's argument, but you judge it purely on the basis of his gender. That is sexism, pure and simple.

 

[SkyeGirl32]

I hope you realize, how horribly sexist your statement is. I doubt that you even understood NVAM's argument, but you judge it purely on the basis of his gender. That is sexism, pure and simple.

This is my last ever post in here.

HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT WAS SEXIST WHEN THAT WAS NOT AT ALL!

And this is coming from the “man” (in quotes because a true man would not be behaving the way you are. You are a childish toddler of a man who doesn’t know how to play nice) who attacks women at every then and then you say that we didn’t understand what he was saying. I understood EVERY SINGLE THING HE WAS SAYING.

YOU MAY THINK WOMEN ARE IDIOTS BUT NEWS FLASH. WE FUCKING ARE NOT IDIOTS.

WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS SEXISM. PURE AND SIMPLE YOU FUCKING IDIOT!

 

[Diosax]

To some degree, they're worthy of some sympathy. We are all of us the product of centuries of patriarchy that only started to unravel in earnest in the middle of the last century. These kinds of societal shifts take years – generations – to work their way through, and not without some weighty resistance along the way.

... but that said, they – the men of privilege, the anti-feminmists and the incels – do leave themselves wide-open as targets of ridicule for snide opportunists like myself. Mostly on account of the low intelligence, you see.

To say the men of privilege though is a little bit redundant, given that we still live in a patriarchy. Yes, maybe BIMOC don't have the same power given also the centuries of racism and white supremacy but they do have more power than BIWOC. With that being said, I do agree with you and we need men to call out all the other men to get in line with this mentality. And I hate that we (women) have to commend feminist men for being so because it should be the bare minimum but it isn't.

lol I would tend to agree... But I also think this is – or should be – a normal thing for a functional and psychologically healthy person to have. The rule rather than the exception.

... I think, clearly, Mr. "mature married male" seeking a "vivid intellect" feels otherwise...

This too but clearly a lot of the men here, at least in this thread, could benefit from some therapy.

Respect is earned...not given freely. This is TRUE regardless of the sex. I laughed at him...I laugh at you. Sex has nothing to do with it. Go ahead keep trying to make it about something that it isn't. 12 pages of nothing constructive from a golden opportunity to teach. That isn't on me.

Continue on....

You are the problem...I am right....you are wrong...

No...

Asshole....this isn't funny...you are the problem.

Fine...I am the problem...guess what? I am still laughing at you and all you have succeeded in accomplishing is the EXACT opposite you wanted to achieve. Congrats. One less man to help make the changes society needs. Brilliant job. It will be the last time I defend a woman here I don't know.

LOL that was fast, for you to turn on women.

Thanks for clearing up the hate speech thing for me ... it's hard for me to get behind any type of censorship, but I do appreciate the concept of civility and I do believe everyone is due a certain amount of respect. I think we would agree on that.

Deconstructing your complaint above, I think what you are actually saying is that you feel that the women haven't been as civil as you think they should be. Or that their behavior represents a lack of civility that goes beyond what is considered a "social norm". I think that's one issue. The other issue is that you feel that there unequal treatment in that "women's complaints" are welcomed, but "men's complaints" aren't.

So .. I agree with you on the fact that this thread, and social media in general has a tendency to escalate into exaggeration resulting in kind of a tit-for-tat exchange. Honestly, I don't think that's unique to this thread, this board, or social media, or even mainstream media these days. You fell victim to it yourself when you called it "hate speech". If you look through the thread and read the comments somewhat dispassionately, and compensate for the exaggeration, then I think what is being said is really something like this:

a) The women posting here have felt ignored and dismissed by the men they've interacted with, both in their real lives and here on Lit.
b) The women are frustrated with having been ignored and dismissed.
c) When they try to articulate their frustration, they are likely to have their frustration dismissed by the men who are responding do them.
d) That frustration leads to the type of escalation that we've been discussing where the tit-for-tat exchange becomes more uncivil
e) In the end .. people are just talking at each other than to each other.

So -- assuming you agree with the logic above -- the question becomes how can you express your disagreement so that it is both heard (not dismissed), and it doesn't escalate the situation?

I'm not sure I have an answer for it -- but if we are going to spend time sincerely trying to communicate with each other here then it's a good question to ponder. If we just want to yell at each other (which is a legitimate desire -- not mine, but legitimate), then this is the type of interaction that will occur, and if you don't like it, I suggest you ignore it and not contribute to it -- and just let a thread that you dislike die of natural causes.

I welcome thoughts from everyone who has been participating on the thread ...

It never takes long for men who pretend to agree with women/to be feminists to have their true opinions surface.

Um, exCUSE me!? I have been like a THOUSAND times less civil than any woman in this thread! How freakin DARE you.

EXACTLY.

Katie I'm curious if MMM_wms already private message you to scold you for misbehaving lol

 

[TossAwayFellow978]

I hope you realize, how horribly sexist your statement is. I doubt that you even understood NVAM's argument, but you judge it purely on the basis of his gender. That is sexism, pure and simple.

And I hope you realize that one of the ways those of us who don't follow these forums regularly are able to connect the dots and tell that you're actually the author of the original post in this thread, is your peculiar penchant for randomly and nonsensically emphasizing words and statements by boldfacing them.

Also, it's hilarious you think you have a firm leg to stand on here, calling someone else out for not understanding an argument when you apparently don't even know what the word sexism means.

By the way, it is not sexist to observe that the only non-inflammatory, non-insulting post you've made in this entire thread was one in answer to a male. That was what Skye was remarking on, and it is 100% accurate.

 

[KatieDoes]

To say the men of privilege though is a little bit redundant, given that we still live in a patriarchy. Yes, maybe BIMOC don't have the same power given also the centuries of racism and white supremacy but they do have more power than BIWOC. With that being said, I do agree with you and we need men to call out all the other men to get in line with this mentality. And I hate that we (women) have to commend feminist men for being so because it should be the bare minimum but it isn't.

This too but clearly a lot of the men here, at least in this thread, could benefit from some therapy.

LOL that was fast, for you to turn on women.

It never takes long for men who pretend to agree with women/to be feminists to have their true opinions surface.

EXACTLY.

Katie I'm curious if MMM_wms already private message you to scold you for misbehaving lol

He’s terrified of women that are smarter than him. He’d never private message me.

 

[Diosax]

He’s terrified of women that are smarter than him. He’d never private message me.

One time when I had first started posting, he messaged me to tell me he liked my answer in x thread but was disappointed that I criticized him in another one without knowing him

 

[TossAwayFellow978]

He’s terrified of women that are smarter than him.

Fixed it for you. (because that last part was redundant)

 

[NorthernVAM]

It never takes long for men who pretend to agree with women/to be feminists to have their true opinions surface.

Assuming since you were quoting me before this statement ... I have a couple of questions?

a) What specific opinion was I pretending to agree with?

Just to be clear, I don't believe being civil and allowing people to express their opinions has anything to do with "gender" or "sexual" politics. In fact, I'm trying to choose my words carefully in order to be non-political. That's why I made it clear that I was a free speech kind of person, whether I like the message or not, I do believe everyone has the right to speak their mind.

Again, if you want to start stereotyping people and labeling them "incels", "misogynists", that's fine -- but don't mistake the ability to "label people" with some type of moral or ethical authority to do so ... or even some type of moral superiority ... After all, how do you know you are accurate in any of your perceptions?

b) I'm not a feminist, I never said I was, but I do happen to think the the women were accurate when they said that they do exist on this board, that they have legitimate profiles, and that the guy who started this thread was kind of "whiner" when he said 9 out of the 10 female profiles on here were men. I think he's wrong about that, but given his attitude, I can see why his experience here might lead him to draw that conclusion.

As far as the rest of the opinions that the women expressed about the character of men who were engaging them, honestly I think that's mostly noise and they detract from their own argument when they make it personal -- like telling someone they have a fragile ego. Again, I'll go back to the question of how does anyone know we are accurate in what we perceive from the other side of the screen?

Honestly, I'm only replying on the thread because I'm procrastinating on some writing I have to do, but it's a grind, and this is my way of rebelling ...

 

[StarGazer58]

Wow, it has gotten rough in here.

 

[Diosax]

Assuming since you were quoting me before this statement ... I have a couple of questions?

a) What specific opinion was I pretending to agree with?

You were agreeing with the women but as soon as a man came back to disagree with us you jumped ship.

Again, if you want to start stereotyping people and labeling them "incels", "misogynists", that's fine -- but don't mistake the ability to "label people" with some type of moral or ethical authority to do so ... or even some type of moral superiority ... After all, how do you know you are accurate in any of your perceptions?

Yet you are making assumptions about me labeling people.

b) I'm not a feminist, I never said I was, but I do happen to think the the women were accurate when they said that they do exist on this board, that they have legitimate profiles, and that the guy who started this thread was kind of "whiner" when he said 9 out of the 10 female profiles on here were men. I think he's wrong about that, but given his attitude, I can see why his experience here might lead him to draw that conclusion.

Everyone should be a feminist.

As far as the rest of the opinions that the women expressed about the character of men who were engaging them, honestly I think that's mostly noise and they detract from their own argument when they make it personal -- like telling someone they have a fragile ego. Again, I'll go back to the question of how does anyone know we are accurate in what we perceive from the other side of the screen?

How can we not make it personal when literally our whole existence we deal with interactions like this. I don't pretend that you'll understand but hopefully you think about it. It's exhausting.

Honestly, I'm only replying on the thread because I'm procrastinating on some writing I have to do, but it's a grind, and this is my way of rebelling ...

Imagine all the writing you'd get done if you stopped replying with such long paragraphs here. Lol

 

[Fermina_Daza]

On a good night, I have some Y chromosomes in me. *Smirk*

That’s not tonight, obviously.

 

[TossAwayFellow978]

b) I'm not a feminist,

Um. Why not?

 

[TossAwayFellow978]

Imagine all the writing you'd get done if you stopped replying with such long paragraphs here. Lol

*stops and contemplates all the time this past weekend I spent crafting clever comebacks to post on this thread*

... I am feeling inadvertantly attacked right now...

 

[TossAwayFellow978]

So... this might be non-sequitur, but I just want to throw this out here as we are analyzing the back-and-forth here, and why there is so much apparent vitriol, and where some of the frustration and anger (directed at OP by pretty much all the women who've put in appearances in the course of this thread) is coming from.
The following is a quote from a post written by OP in January of this year:

Now strangely today is the 89th anniversary of Adolf Hitler getting handed the keys for turning Germany into a dictatorship. He did not grab the keys illicitly: NO they were handed to him on a silver platter. OK, nowadays the keys get handed out to feminists, in the name of vigilantism. The human race sure has achieved some “progress” in 89 years.

Just read that. Read it twice, if you have to.
When the women who post here say they're exhausted, when they say they're angry, when they say they're frustrated, this is probably why.

Again, I know this quote is NOT from text that appears in this thread. The man at the center of this conflict is someone who appears to believe – against all historical fact and common sense – that feminism = Nazism.

He also appears to not be very good at employing analogies, or possibly doesn't know what vigilantism means? There's just a *lot* of issues with this quote, and I feel it's demonstrative of the kinds of things which are said on these boards, directed at women, which necessarily should and do evoke a response like what we've seen here.

 

[KatieDoes]

So... this might be non-sequitur, but I just want to throw this out here as we are analyzing the back-and-forth here, and why there is so much apparent vitriol, and where some of the frustration and anger (directed at OP by pretty much all the women who've put in appearances in the course of this thread) is coming from.
The following is a quote from a post written by OP in January of this year:


Just read that. Read it twice, if you have to.
When the women who post here say they're exhausted, when they say they're angry, when they say they're frustrated, this is probably why.

Again, I know this quote is NOT from text that appears in this thread. The man at the center of this conflict is someone who appears to believe – against all historical fact and common sense – that feminism = Nazism.

He also appears to not be very good at employing analogies, or possibly doesn't know what vigilantism means? There's just a *lot* of issues with this quote, and I feel it's demonstrative of the kinds of things which are said on these boards, directed at women, which necessarily should and do evoke a response like what we've seen here.

I‘m glad that you added this context. Honestly, anyone that finds a way to defend this guy (or any of his alts) is just a giant sentient red flag.

Every single time he is called out, some man/men will appear that can’t seem to help themselves from stepping in to try to make him more comfortable with his horrible behavior. They’ll post paragraph after paragraph mansplaining for us poor simple women how treating us as subhuman dick holes is just a difference of opinion, and why we shouldn‘t be so hysterical.

We can either be complicit in our own dehumanization, or we can we worthy of respect. As soon as act as though we believe we are equally human without requiring the permission of the resident men in the thread, they have to put us back in our place.

This guy, the op and his alts, has extreme misogynistic views. But he always gets some level of support from ‘good guys’. They’ll try to temper it with how they don’t agree with some of the things he said, but they‘ll do it in a way that places his misogyny on equal footing with our feminism. Or they’ll just react with how this thread is harsh and unpleasant and question whether or not it should exist in this space.


I am ‘abrasive’… and I’m fine with that descriptor.
It is absolutely not the responsibility of women to make shitty men feel more comfortable with their shittiness in order to convince them that maybe just this one woman is worthy of being treated less shittily.

You(, @TossAwayFellow978 )and a few other men here, have done good work and it is seen and appreciated.

All y‘all rest of you fuckers can fuck right off. Don’t be too surprised when you find out that your wives that’ arent interested in sex because women don’t like sex as much as men do ‘ are actually fucking each other because you’ve rendered yourselves unfuckable.

 

[MMM_wms]

this pseudo-discussion is revealing at least something

It’s not so much women against men who argue here, but ideologically perverted people against people of reason. And – concurrently – people without a sense of civility and fairness against people who aim to be as fair as possible.

Anybody who reads carefully what NVAM has posted here, can plainly see how carefully he attempts to phrase his convictions + observations, so as to speak as objectively and fairly as possible. And he made one contribution to this thread, which nobody yet has caught, apparently. One that ideologically perverted people are simply unable to grasp, because it goes so much against their grain: the difficulty involved in extracting a person’s character out of some statements (s)he makes.

Ideologically perverted people depend for their arguments on over-simplification. And on their pretense of “knowing exactly what – or who – another person is”. TossAwayFellow illustrates this perfectly with his ridiculous theories, of my person for instance. And he has another obnoxious modus operandi: he is unwilling to look at a long statement as a whole, and instead breaks it down into small pieces, to make his point. So he can mis-understand it easier this way.

For the easiest way to misunderstand someone – on purpose – is to quote him out of context.

It makes no sense to continue his pseudo-argument, because ideologically perverted people are unwilling to listen to and understand people of reason. What I find sad about this sorry state of affairs: it’s possible that everybody who has “contributed” to this thread might have very similar values on some basic elements of interactions between men and women.

But all the shouting and yelling came about because ideologues refuse to listen – because ideology is always one-sided. And always over-simplified. Why was Hitler able to grasp power on 30jan 1933? Because he was an ideological demagogue, and the majority of German people then were receptive to him. Simplifications are always easy to agree with, because they require no work of the brain. And it gets even easier when an ideologue presents a category of people to blame for all evil in the world. For Hitler it was the Jews, and here it is all “so very disrespectful men”, supposedly.

Look at Trump bashing the press perennially as an enemy of the people. And look at some feminist hyenas here, and listen to the tone of their voices. Very little difference I can find between Hitler’s faschism <–> Trump’s obnoxiousness <–> feminist hyenas.

 

[KatieDoes]

this pseudo-discussion is revealing at least something

It’s not so much women against men who argue here, but ideologically perverted people against people of reason. And – concurrently – people without a sense of civility and fairness against people who aim to be as fair as possible.

Anybody who reads carefully what NVAM has posted here, can plainly see how carefully he attempts to phrase his convictions + observations, so as to speak as objectively and fairly as possible. And he made one contribution to this thread, which nobody yet has caught, apparently. One that ideologically perverted people are simply unable to grasp, because it goes so much against their grain: the difficulty involved in extracting a person’s character out of some statements (s)he makes.

Ideologically perverted people depend for their arguments on over-simplification. And on their pretense of “knowing exactly what – or who – another person is”. TossAwayFellow illustrates this perfectly with his ridiculous theories, of my person for instance. And he has another obnoxious modus operandi: he is unwilling to look at a long statement as a whole, and instead breaks it down into small pieces, to make his point. So he can mis-understand it easier this way.

For the easiest way to misunderstand someone – on purpose – is to quote him out of context.

It makes no sense to continue his pseudo-argument, because ideologically perverted people are unwilling to listen to and understand people of reason. What I find sad about this sorry state of affairs: it’s possible that everybody who has “contributed” to this thread might have very similar values on some basic elements of interactions between men and women.

But all the shouting and yelling came about because ideologues refuse to listen – because ideology is always one-sided. And always over-simplified. Why was Hitler able to grasp power on 30jan 1933? Because he was an ideological demagogue, and the majority of German people then were receptive to him. Simplifications are always easy to agree with, because they require no work of the brain. And it gets even easier when an ideologue presents a category of people to blame for all evil in the world. For Hitler it was the Jews, and here it is all “so very disrespectful men”, supposedly.

Look at Trump bashing the press perennially as an enemy of the people. And look at some feminist hyenas here, and listen to the tone of their voices. Very little difference I can find between Hitler’s faschism <–> Trump’s obnoxiousness <–> feminist hyenas.

You might be the stupidest person I’ve ever heard of. LOL. Wow.