xkcd

by **roband** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:09 pm UTC

Shro wrote:Flippidy-do-dah:
If a female isn't quiet, demure, attractive, she won't be successful with men. She can't show too much confidence, men will be scared off. She will never know if her man actually is into what she likes or is just entertaining her "pretty little head". She's expected to be a housewife and a mother and never achieve anything beyond that. How could she? She never went to college, she never even thought she could go. He doesn't want to know about her friends, they probably just talk about stupid girl shit anyway. She is expected to be not herself, but a vapid doll parrot human.

Man, I always have something to say when discussions like this come up, but I always end up thinking, "I'll probably butcher the argument, better leave it to someone else".

My point started by saying that the direct opposite you've applied is not specifically true, but then my argument-weakness kicked in and I stopped thinking...

by **doogly** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:09 pm UTC

I feel like there are good discussions to be had but using an image that is just complete shit is the wrong springboard to productivity.

by **roband** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:15 pm UTC

Shro wrote:Here's what's bothering me about this image. A lot of these things are true, but they're presented as if these things are actually privileges, when they're really not.
Let's employ a change of perspective, shall we?
(Focusing on the first seven lines and apologies for heteronormative language)

The author of this chart is upset that a female can have absolutely no personality, ambition, etc. and still be asked out/taken out on dates and actually, society rather expects that she's a vapid doll parrot human.

Flippidy-do-dah:
If a female isn't quiet, demure, attractive, she won't be successful with men. She can't show too much confidence, men will be scared off. She will never know if her man actually is into what she likes or is just entertaining her "pretty little head". She's expected to be a housewife and a mother and never achieve anything beyond that. How could she? She never went to college, she never even thought she could go. He doesn't want to know about her friends, they probably just talk about stupid girl shit anyway. She is expected to be not herself, but a vapid doll parrot human.

I'm going to try and concentrate and get this out...

The chart says

a female can have absolutely no personality, ambition, etc. and still be asked out/taken out on dates

. The opposite of this is NOT, "women with personalities or ambitions are unattractive and therefore won't be asked/taken out".

In my opinion at least.

edit: I've probably misunderstood something.

by **Shro** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:18 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
Shro wrote:Flippidy-do-dah:

Except the author is pointing to all those things you list as socially accepted, encouraged, positive qualities in women. Which is it's own bag of worms.

Exactly! These are socially accepted, encouraged and positive qualities in women, but how I posted about them is the female perspective of their own societal expectations; females feel just as trapped in this web of societal expectations. It's the same entanglements that frustrates the author. And the image is a poor poor way of expressing those frustrations, because it's placing the blame for this on societal expectations for women, which IS the culprit, but not in the positive/privileged way it's been presented.

Roband wrote:My point started by saying that the direct opposite you've applied is not specifically true, but then my argument-weakness kicked in and I stopped thinking...

Here's the thing though, it IS true. There ARE the societal expectations for women, and have been for a really long time. We got the vote less than a hundred years ago, don't you think there are some vestiges of the mentality that women are stupid and emotional, etc?

by **Zarq** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:19 pm UTC

Shro wrote:Flippidy-do-dah:
If a female isn't quiet, demure, attractive, she won't be successful with men. She can't show too much confidence, men will be scared off. She will never know if her man actually is into what she likes or is just entertaining her "pretty little head". She's expected to be a housewife and a mother and never achieve anything beyond that. How could she? She never went to college, she never even thought she could go. He doesn't want to know about her friends, they probably just talk about stupid girl shit anyway. She is expected to be not herself, but a vapid doll parrot human.

That's not really what the image says though. The image is talking about what the reactions are IF that stuff applies, but says nothing about the situation where that stuff doesn't apply.

It's only a one-sided implication.

If I say "If I sell my DS, I can go to Disneyland tomorrow" and I go to Disneyland tomorrow, does it mean I sold my DS? No, my mom might've give me the money, maybe I found it, ...

Shro wrote:Here's the thing though, it IS true. There ARE the societal expectations for women, and have been for a really long time. We got the vote less than a hundred years ago, don't you think there are some vestiges of the mentality that women are stupid and emotional, etc?

True, but irrelevant in the discussion of the image. Don't read stuff that isn't necessarily there.

I'm still not saying the image is correct, it is wrong, but let's fight it on the stuff it actually says instead of the stuff it maybe implies because of history. There's enough of the first to cover before we can start with the latter.

by **roband** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:21 pm UTC

Shro wrote:
Roband wrote:My point started by saying that the direct opposite you've applied is not specifically true, but then my argument-weakness kicked in and I stopped thinking...

Here's the thing though, it IS true. There ARE the societal expectations for women, and have been for a really long time. We got the vote less than a hundred years ago, don't you think there are some vestiges of the mentality that women are stupid and emotional, etc?

I guess I try to personalise debates like this into "what I think" rather than "what is happening in the world". That's probably my mistake.

by **gmalivuk** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:26 pm UTC

roband wrote:I guess I try to personalise debates like this into "what I think" rather than "what is happening in the world". That's probably my mistake.

Well yes, when the debate is about what society expects, talking about what you think is changing the subject.

by **Izawwlgood** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:29 pm UTC

Shro wrote:females feel just as trapped in this web of societal expectations. It's the same entanglements that frustrates the author.

This is a perfectly reasonable stance to have. The author of that image did not convey this stance, in the same way that upending a board game conveys one's frustration with the game balance issues.

by **roband** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:34 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
roband wrote:I guess I try to personalise debates like this into "what I think" rather than "what is happening in the world". That's probably my mistake.
Well yes, when the debate is about what society expects, talking about what you think is changing the subject.

Or, rather than I 'try to', it just happens in my head.

I'm not a very good debater.

Can we go back to talking about Boy things please?

by **Zarq** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:41 pm UTC

roband wrote: Boy things

Jeez, what are you? 5? They're called pee-pees.

by **roband** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:45 pm UTC

I wasn't talking about talking about our Mr Johnsons, I meant things which boys are able to discuss.

Like how my balding hair is worrying me more than I should let it. Not that I tell anyone, but I don't want to be bald by the time I'm 24

by **Zarq** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:47 pm UTC

roband wrote:I wasn't talking about talking about our Mr Johnsons, I meant things which boys are able to discuss.

Relevant.

by **Shro** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:48 pm UTC

Zarq wrote:That's not really what the image says though. The image is talking about what the reactions are IF that stuff applies, but says nothing about the situation where that stuff doesn't apply.

It's only a one-sided implication.

If I say "If I sell my DS, I can go to Disneyland tomorrow" and I go to Disneyland tomorrow, does it mean I sold my DS? No, my mom might've give me the money, maybe I found it, ...

The precise reason that the image is so problematic is precisely because the implications are one sided. "Boo-hoo, being a dood sucks because girls get all this shit we don't get!! Boo hoo!!" when really the implication should be "Boo-hoo, being a dood sucks because there are a lot of remaining misogyny in society that effects both the welfare of men and women! Boo-hoo!!"

Zarq wrote:True, but irrelevant in the discussion of the image. Don't read stuff that isn't necessarily there.

I'm still not saying the image is correct, it is wrong, but let's fight it on the stuff it actually says instead of the stuff it maybe implies because of history. There's enough of the first to cover before we can start with the latter.

Reading into stuff that isn't necessarily there=analyzing in context. Pointing out the deficiencies in something isn't exactly off topic.

by **roband** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:50 pm UTC

Zarq wrote:
roband wrote:I wasn't talking about talking about our Mr Johnsons, I meant things which boys are able to discuss.

Relevant.

So you wanted people to realise that you were only joking in your NSP thread post, but you didn't get that I was joking in my post? Woooooooo.

by **Zarq** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:52 pm UTC

roband wrote:
Zarq wrote:
roband wrote:I wasn't talking about talking about our Mr Johnsons, I meant things which boys are able to discuss.

Relevant.

So you wanted people to realise that you were only joking in your NSP thread post, but you didn't get that I was joking in my post? Woooooooo.

So your joke was pretending to not get my joke? Woah.

by **bigglesworth** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:00 pm UTC

Neither of you are being funny.

by **Zarq** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:03 pm UTC

bigglesworth wrote:Neither of you are being funny.

Partypooper.

by **roband** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:05 pm UTC

bigglesworth wrote:Neither of you are being funny.

Even more of my point. I responded to him referring to a penis as a 'pee-pee' by calling it a 'Mr Johnson'... If you thought I was being serious, then I don't know what to say.

by **Shro** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:07 pm UTC

doogly wrote:I feel like there are good discussions to be had but using an image that is just complete shit is the wrong springboard to productivity.

Gives me an ideeaaa.
Boy Thread Homework:
Now, I've given you an example of a shift into the female perspective regarding the "privileges" in the image. I want you guys to practice empathizing and give me an example of one of the entries in the image flipped like I did.
Here's another example:
Problem: You are homosexual or bi.
Female:
Guys think you're really hot.

And ask you to make out all the time. Guys will think you're up for threesomes. Constant lewd remarks about watching/joining. Guys thinking that all you need is some cock, and you'll turn straight. That your sexuality is only a phase.

(Note: I am not queer, so I apologize if I have done a disservice to any pain you have felt. But I hope you know that I try to understand.)

Please: participants only in good faith.

Izawwlgood wrote:
Shro wrote:females feel just as trapped in this web of societal expectations. It's the same entanglements that frustrates the author.

This is a perfectly reasonable stance to have. The author of that image did not convey this stance, in the same way that upending a board game conveys one's frustration with the game balance issues.

I'm trying to show why people might find some truth to it while discussing it's inadequacies so people don't mistake it for true Truthiness.

by **doogly** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:23 pm UTC

Shro wrote:
doogly wrote:I feel like there are good discussions to be had but using an image that is just complete shit is the wrong springboard to productivity.

Gives me an ideeaaa.

That is the opposite of the idea I wanted you to have! I came not to mourn the stupid, but to bury it.
I suppose we can carry on about it though. Siiiiigh.

by **Noc** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:48 pm UTC

Shro wrote:Gives me an ideeaaa.

Done. Spoilered for obvious triggers. Note that most statements made therein are in the voice of problematic attitudes/things the person in question may quite reasonably be worried about being thought about her, and do not reflect the actual attitudes of the poster.

Spoiler:

[Edit: ...but yeah. The thing that bothered me primarily about the original image isn't the idea that there men are harmed by cultural attitudes, but rather the persistent assertion throughout that these exact issues are sunshine and roses for (conventionally attractive) members of the female gender. Gender expectations may very well make the challenges inherent to various situations different for each gender, but it's an act of tremendous obtuseness to assert that such challenges simply don't exist for the opposite gender.

Take the abovementioned flirtiness/creepiness example, for starters. A good look at this is the OKCupid thread in LSR: generally, female members will generally receive a far greater volume of attention than male members will. This presents issues for both genders: female members are faced with the task of sorting out signal from noise, while male members are faced with the task of comporting themselves in a way that reads as "signal" as clearly as possible.

There is definitely a higher level of seriousness on the female end: while the worst a guy can expect from the situation is to be ignored when otherwise they might not be, dating someone who turns out to be a creep can run the gamut from "bothersome" to "absolutely terrifying" -- thus, there's a very real pressure for women to keep their creepdar set to a higher level of prejudice, and risk more false positives to cut down on the chance of a false negative getting through. This situation presents difficulties for both sides of the equation, so while it's entirely reasonable for a guy to be a bit frustrated with one's presence being regularly flagged by the creepdar as a false positive, claiming that the female members "have it easy" because they get so much attention is a tremendously stupid thing to say.]

by **Shivahn** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:04 pm UTC

Shro wrote:
Zarq wrote:That's not really what the image says though. The image is talking about what the reactions are IF that stuff applies, but says nothing about the situation where that stuff doesn't apply.

It's only a one-sided implication.

If I say "If I sell my DS, I can go to Disneyland tomorrow" and I go to Disneyland tomorrow, does it mean I sold my DS? No, my mom might've give me the money, maybe I found it, ...

The precise reason that the image is so problematic is precisely because the implications are one sided. "Boo-hoo, being a dood sucks because girls get all this shit we don't get!! Boo hoo!!" when really the implication should be "Boo-hoo, being a dood sucks because there are a lot of remaining misogyny in society that effects both the welfare of men and women! Boo-hoo!!"

There are a lot of things that suck about being a man that do independently of misogyny, that only have to do with the fact that if you don't meet our ideal conception of masculinity, you're useless. I don't think treating every expectation of either men or women as an priori example of misogyny is useful or accurate.

by **Shro** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:14 pm UTC

Shivahn wrote:There are a lot of things that suck about being a man that do independently of misogyny, that only have to do with the fact that if you don't meet our ideal conception of masculinity, you're useless. I don't think treating every expectation of either men or women as an priori example of misogyny is useful or accurate.

I too feel that the concept of being "manly" is outdated. People generally attracted to men have a huge spectrum of "manliness" and "masculinity" that they're attracted to, and the male preoccupation of being manly kind of totally ignores the point.

Have ya'll ever questioned why, exactly, you want to be thought of as manly? Or not, if you don't? Is it to impress other men, impress women, or impress something within yourself? Whose ideals do you wish to live up to? Societal expectations of "manliness"? Your family's expectations? Your partners? Or your own? What are your own ideas of what it means to be manly? Is it usually all the things that are opposite of being "womanly"? Where do you get your ideas of what it means to be manly? Do you feel you fit your own concept/ideal of being manly? Do you fit your partner's? Your family's? Society? How important are each of these expectations to you?

by **e^iπ+1=0** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:23 pm UTC

As a general point, I'd just first like to say that Shivahn keeps on managing to eloquently articulate what I'm thinking.

Shro wrote:Boy Thread Homework:
Now, I've given you an example of a shift into the female perspective regarding the "privileges" in the image. I want you guys to practice empathizing and give me an example of one of the entries in the image flipped like I did.

Shro wrote:I gave the boy thread homework. Let's see how this works out.

These read extremely condescendingly to me. The fact that a douchey image got posted here doesn't mean you now need to sit us down like little kids and teach us all an important lesson, since clearly none of us know anything about sexism, nor can empathize with women who have experienced it, nor have ever experienced it ourselves.

by **Noc** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:40 pm UTC

e^iπ+1=0 wrote:These read extremely condescendingly to me. The fact that a douchey image got posted here doesn't mean you now need to sit us down like little kids and teach us all an important lesson, since clearly none of us know anything about sexism, nor can empathize with women who have experienced it, nor have ever experienced it ourselves.

I have mixed feelings about this. One one hand: that's probably a good point. I'd certainly feel a bit condescended towards if I thought it was targeted towards me.

On the other hand, the Boy Thread has been predominantly been a container for crowing about facial hair and breakfast meats. It's all seems fairly adolescent to me, and as someone who doesn't really ascribe to that archetype of masculinity at all I've been feeling a bit condescending towards this thread myself, and rather appreciate an attempt to nudge what's honestly been pretty much a joke thread towards something more mature than "Gee Willikers GUYS BEARDS AND BACON ARE AWESOME GUYS," because that would be something I'd actually be interested in following/participating in.

by **st1980** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:41 pm UTC

e^iπ+1=0 wrote:As a general point, I'd just first like to say that Shivahn keeps on managing to eloquently articulate what I'm thinking.

Shro wrote:Boy Thread Homework:
Now, I've given you an example of a shift into the female perspective regarding the "privileges" in the image. I want you guys to practice empathizing and give me an example of one of the entries in the image flipped like I did.
Shro wrote:I gave the boy thread homework. Let's see how this works out.

These read extremely condescendingly to me. The fact that a douchey image got posted here doesn't mean you now need to sit us down like little kids and teach us all an important lesson, since clearly none of us know anything about sexism, nor can empathize with women who have experienced it, nor have ever experienced it ourselves.

To me as well.

by **roband** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:41 pm UTC

I tried to talk about baldness, but noooooo, we have to discuss really serious stuff.
Makes my brain hurt.

by **Shro** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:46 pm UTC

e^iπ+1=0 wrote:As a general point, I'd just first like to say that Shivahn keeps on managing to eloquently articulate what I'm thinking.

Shro wrote:Boy Thread Homework:
Now, I've given you an example of a shift into the female perspective regarding the "privileges" in the image. I want you guys to practice empathizing and give me an example of one of the entries in the image flipped like I did.
Shro wrote:I gave the boy thread homework. Let's see how this works out.

These read extremely condescendingly to me. The fact that a douchey image got posted here doesn't mean you now need to sit us down like little kids and teach us all an important lesson, since clearly none of us know anything about sexism, nor can empathize with women who have experienced it, nor have ever experienced it ourselves.

I was worried about someone deciding that I hadn't posted something like that in good faith and would use my request as an excuse to be even more sexist towards women in their response, and not want to participate in the positive atmosphere in which I had intended, and to provide a way for people to start thinking about things if the image had provoked certain reactions in them. I think it started an interesting conversation, which I will hopefully continue to be a part of. Any dialogue about gender issues is a good thing for me. My aim was to show people that the problems in the image are sometimes the flipside of a similar problem for females.

I know the masculine ideal sucks. I know because I've felt frustrated/angry/helpless all too often when questioning/adapting to/rejecting my own notions of the feminine ideal. Sometimes you just don't know where you fit, and it's all to easy to blame the other "side" for creating/causing all the problems, when really, everyone is just as affected. That's all I wanted to get at here.

(And perhaps that the only way to address how you feel about societal pressures to be manly is by talking about it?- I don't see anywhere else it's being discussed at the moment, and thought it was an interesting subject, especially with it's parallels to my own experience)

by **e^iπ+1=0** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:12 pm UTC

Noc wrote:
e^iπ+1=0 wrote:These read extremely condescendingly to me. The fact that a douchey image got posted here doesn't mean you now need to sit us down like little kids and teach us all an important lesson, since clearly none of us know anything about sexism, nor can empathize with women who have experienced it, nor have ever experienced it ourselves.

I have mixed feelings about this. One one hand: that's probably a good point. I'd certainly feel a bit condescended towards if I thought it was targeted towards me.

On the other hand, the Boy Thread has been predominantly been a container for crowing about facial hair and breakfast meats. It's all seems fairly adolescent to me, and as someone who doesn't really ascribe to that archetype of masculinity at all I've been feeling a bit condescending towards this thread myself, and rather appreciate an attempt to nudge what's honestly been pretty much a joke thread towards something more mature than "Gee Willikers GUYS BEARDS AND BACON ARE AWESOME GUYS," because that would be something I'd actually be interested in following/participating in.

You're entirely free to post about that. Similar efforts have been made in the past, but tended to devolve because those of us participating in this thread simply didn't have anything serious we wanted to talk about at the time. I'm quite certain that more serious discussion would be welcome here.

Shro wrote:
e^iπ+1=0 wrote:
Shro wrote:Boy Thread Homework:
Now, I've given you an example of a shift into the female perspective regarding the "privileges" in the image. I want you guys to practice empathizing and give me an example of one of the entries in the image flipped like I did.
Shro wrote:I gave the boy thread homework. Let's see how this works out.

These read extremely condescendingly to me. The fact that a douchey image got posted here doesn't mean you now need to sit us down like little kids and teach us all an important lesson, since clearly none of us know anything about sexism, nor can empathize with women who have experienced it, nor have ever experienced it ourselves.

I was worried about someone deciding that I hadn't posted something like that in good faith and would use my request as an excuse to be even more sexist towards women in their response, and not want to participate in the positive atmosphere in which I had intended, and to provide a way for people to start thinking about things if the image had provoked certain reactions in them. I think it started an interesting conversation, which I will hopefully continue to be a part of. Any dialogue about gender issues is a good thing for me. My aim was to show people that the problems in the image are sometimes the flipside of a similar problem for females.

I know the masculine ideal sucks. I know because I've felt frustrated/angry/helpless all too often when questioning/adapting to/rejecting my own notions of the feminine ideal. Sometimes you just don't know where you fit, and it's all to easy to blame the other "side" for creating/causing all the problems, when really, everyone is just as affected. That's all I wanted to get at here.

(And perhaps that the only way to address how you feel about societal pressures to be manly is by talking about it?- I don't see anywhere else it's being discussed at the moment, and thought it was an interesting subject, especially with it's parallels to my own experience)

First off, are you saying that I was being sexist in my response? I said you were being condescending because I felt like you were being condescending, not because of your sex or gender.

But assuming that's just some unfortunate phrasing: I don't disagree with your idea so much as the way you went about it. Intent isn't magic, and when your post came across as "I'm here to introduce serious discussion to the boy thread because they clearly aren't capable of it themselves" rather than "That image sucked, but here are some related things I think would be interesting to discuss" that's a problem for me.

by **Ghostbear** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:22 pm UTC

I also had a similar feeling towards that post, but couldn't figure out a good way to state such. The idea of it was fine, but due to the manner it was done in, it felt condescending to me as well.

by **roband** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:24 pm UTC

Meh, Shro meant well. Her post certainly didn't upset me, so as Americans seem so fond of saying (in the books I read, at least), no harm no foul.

by **Izawwlgood** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:28 pm UTC

Actually, Shro, with all seriousness, can you (or anyone really) clarify what your homework is? You want us to think about the mentioned 'issues' and how women are negatively affected by them?

e^iπ+1=0 wrote:You're entirely free to post about that. Similar efforts have been made in the past, but tended to devolve because those of us participating in this thread simply didn't have anything serious we wanted to talk about at the time. I'm quite certain that more serious discussion would be welcome here.

I've been impressed with how quickly the bacon and beard talk ceases (or at least stays away from) serious questions that have been levied in this thread.

But frankly, and I'm sure this will get me a good deal of ire, I find the general content of the women thread to be not terribly different from the content of this thread, with less jokes to stereotypes being the biggest distinction.

by **doogly** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:31 pm UTC

Things the Woman Thread is not: The Feminism Thread.
Things the Man Thread is not: The Feminism 101 Thread.

I mean, related topics can come up. They certainly have mutual relevance.

by **Fantastic Idea** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 9:16 pm UTC

e^iπ+1=0 wrote:As a general point, I'd just first like to say that Shivahn keeps on managing to eloquently articulate what I'm thinking.

Shro wrote:Boy Thread Homework:
Now, I've given you an example of a shift into the female perspective regarding the "privileges" in the image. I want you guys to practice empathizing and give me an example of one of the entries in the image flipped like I did.
Shro wrote:I gave the boy thread homework. Let's see how this works out.

These read extremely condescendingly to me. The fact that a douchey image got posted here doesn't mean you now need to sit us down like little kids and teach us all an important lesson, since clearly none of us know anything about sexism, nor can empathize with women who have experienced it, nor have ever experienced it ourselves.

Waaah.
The fact that a douchey image got posted and such a lukewarm 'yeah some of these are true' were the inital reaction leads me to believe this crap of a thread could use some critical thinking and maybe, if we're very lucky, some rudimentary knowledge imparted to, oh just for an example, Ryom?
You could all go back to talking about bacon of course, don't let us stop you.

Maybe y'alls wouldn't be condescended to if you posted better. I mean, I don't have a problem with what you say so much as how you say it...

by **Zarq** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 9:18 pm UTC

doogly wrote:Things the Woman Thread is not: The Feminism Thread.
Things the Man Thread is not: The Feminism 101 Thread.

I mean, related topics can come up. They certainly have mutual relevance.

Since you bring it up, isn't barging in the Boy thread 'demanding' that we think of stuff from a female perspective just like barging in the Women thread and demanding that they look at stuff from the male perspective?

Meaux_Pas wrote:Maybe y'alls wouldn't be condescended to if you posted better.

Since we've apparently left all civility behind:

Spoiler:

Seriously, every single motherfucking goddamn time someone dares to look at a sexism issue from a male perspective, someone comes in and says "Hey, y'know, that may be true, but think about the female side, that's so much worse." Fuck that.

And maybe take your feminist glasses off for once and see that the initial response was "yeah, some stuff is partly true, but it's really exaggerated, one-sided and in general goddamn sexist".

by **TheGrammarBolshevik** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 9:24 pm UTC

Meaux_Pas wrote:Maybe y'alls wouldn't be condescended to if you posted better.

Yes. Everyone in this thread should write Ryom's posts better so that they won't be condescended to.

by **Fantastic Idea** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 9:30 pm UTC

Zarq wrote:
doogly wrote:Things the Woman Thread is not: The Feminism Thread.
Things the Man Thread is not: The Feminism 101 Thread.

I mean, related topics can come up. They certainly have mutual relevance.

Since you bring it up, isn't barging in the Boy thread 'demanding' that we think of stuff from a female perspective just like barging in the Women thread and demanding that they look at stuff from the male perspective?

Meaux_Pas wrote:Maybe y'alls wouldn't be condescended to if you posted better.

Since we've apparently left all civility behind:
Spoiler:

Seriously, every single motherfucking goddamn time someone dares to look at a sexism issue from a male perspective, someone comes in and says "Hey, y'know, that may be true, but think about the female side, that's so much worse." Fuck that.

And maybe take your feminist glasses off for once and see that the initial response was "yeah, some stuff is partly true, but it's really exaggerated, one-sided and in general goddamn sexist".

Seeing as how the Woman thread is a Safespace, that'd be a completely different situation.
THis isn't one. So I can tell you, or Ryom, or anyone I like, that this conversation is stupid. And you can post that image at me. WHich tbqh doesn't actually bother me at all so please carry on if you like.
And personally, I wouldn't come in here and say "yeah, some stuff is partly true, but it's really exaggerated, one-sided and in general goddamn sexist". I guess some people see parts of that as partly true. I'm not one of those people, turns out, but I tend to think of true or false statements as a whole. IF this part is partially true, and that part is partially true if you think of it differently, but the rest is totally bullshit? Not interested in calling that 'exaggerated' so much as 'fucking stupid and wrong.'
But hey whatever makes you happy, life is short.

by **Zarq** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Meaux_Pas wrote:Seeing as how the Woman thread is a Safespace, that'd be a completely different situation.
THis isn't one.

This further proves it should be.

but I tend to think of true or false statements as a whole.

Except that that image wasn't really a single statement. It's comprised of several.

by **Izawwlgood** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 9:37 pm UTC

Derp, do you perhaps mean the slew of posters who said 'That's pretty stupid'?

Meaux_Pas wrote:And personally, I wouldn't come in here and say "yeah, some stuff is partly true, but it's really exaggerated, one-sided and in general goddamn sexist".

But here you are anyway!

by **Ghostbear** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 9:38 pm UTC

Meaux_Pas wrote:Seeing as how the Woman thread is a Safespace, that'd be a completely different situation.

Only in the sense of whether or not it's expected as per forum rules. Not in the sense of the actual sentiment behind the actions. Both are rude and contrary to the basis of the principle topic (and audience thereof) being discussed. The only difference is that one of those actions is prevented by forum rules, while the other is not.

Who is online