Your analogy needs some help. There isn’t a finite amount of square inches on the Internet. The fact that male centric threads exist in what is practically an unlimited amount of cyberspace does not crowd out female centric threads. All that is needed is the employment of agency that we all should possess. You don’t need to destroy a single so-called male centric thread. All one needs to do is start creating the content they wish to share and participate in. Wow! It’s mind blowing. Not really. It’s exceedingly simple.
There is a reason why this is in the Pit and why it bounced from the Skald Pit thread to ATMB back to here. Why not take this energy and time and hop on up to IMHO or MPSIMS and start creating threads that are on whatever topic these folks would like to participate in? Well, there’s no drama to be had in that…
“Well there goes octoputz with his misogynistic, old white male, man-splaining again. Why can’t he just listen?1!?”
There is context. Should everyone be treated with respect and dignity (if they haven’t abrogated it with their own behaviour)? Yes. Does treating women with disrespect have more impact on them than treating men with disrespect? Yes, probably. It’s the same kind of thing as monstro’s earlier racism example; it’s not great to be racist against white people, but it doesn’t have the same impact as being racist against a minority.
Men always like to trot this kind of thing out when we’re talking about things like women’s rights. The playing field is NOT level, and no amount of false equivalencies can make it that way.
I am not sure I believe that the board is male-centric, but I appreciate the female posters who’ve shared their perspective on the topic and I feel I learned something today. So there.
This makes zero sense. I said that biologically we aren’t much different and there isn’t any basis for your claims regarding some “natural” need for males to express their sexuality. It’s funny how you go from walls of text when you’re trying to pound your ideology into people, yet you have very few words when you have no idea what the conversation means.
But no one in those threads is ever arguing whether or not FGM should be legal. People may or may not take the stance that nicking the clitoral hood --the closest analogy to circumcision–should be legal, but no one,** literally no one**, is arguing that removing removing female genitalia is an acceptable practice. No one. They are pretty much all threads about how outraged people are, with perhaps some discussion of what can be done to prevent the practice. But within 2-3 posts, every single time, someone starts talking about male circumcision, making arguments for or against it, etc. etc.
If we were testing the proposition about whether or not different types of FGM should be legal, than analogies to different types of male genital mutilation would be appropriate. But that’s not what those thread are about. Those threads are “OMG! Look what people are doing to these girls! That’s awful!” and within a few posts, the whole thread is “No, look at what people do to a body like mine! That’s much more urgent!”
Address my last paragraph and then maybe we can continue this conversation. Until then, I’ll assume you’ve missed the more salient point in order to defend your right to assert intellectual consistency.
horseshit. it’s like a middle school cafeteria. group of kids want to sit at a table and talk to each other, then a few of “those” boys has to walk by, crop dust the table, and make a bunch of stupid noises. So they get up and go to another table, then the same boys walk by that table and crop dust it. Lather, rinse, repeat. It’s a sad truth that there are entirely too many guys who can’t let people (especially women) have something nice; they have to barge in and (figuratively) piss all over it and drive them away.
I used to read The Truth About Cars a lot. at points here and there, there were a few women who commented on articles, until the mental adolescents had to shit everything up around them. One guy justified it by saying “I consider this place a guy’s room where I can kick back and say whatever I want.” Well, who the fuck told you that’s what it was? You just barged in like a prick and said “this is mine now, get out.”
OK, that’s possible. I don’t recall reading those threads.
ETA: what you’re describing sounds a lot like a thread about false rape accusations, where people jump in to say “hey, what about actual rapes? That’s a much much bigger problem!!!”. You get some of those too.
Your last paragraph was a complete non sequitor in the context of the point I was making.
I’m fine with not “continuing this conversation”, such as it is.
Discussion itself is constructive! Telling us that if we were real feminists or emotionally mature we would just ignore it is not all constructive!
I haven’t seen any one saying men are evil pigs except you, in your misinterpretation of things.
Admittedly, the thread moved fast from when I last checked it. Maybe it’s now full of pigs.
This is very polite hooey. Do you have empirical, peer-reviewed science supporting your claims? Although, the research that’s been done is itself gender-biased. Not the actual research, but the choice of what research to conduct.
Here’s an interesting article on this very subject:
I believe that square brackets around ellipsis that indicate elision vs. ellipsis that were present in the original text is the current MLA style. But MLA style isn’t the be-all and end-all of usage conventions. I think in general written discourse the distinction is not generally maintained.
You really don’t understand the difference between talking about some theoretical non-Doper’s “banana”, and asking to see a real, live Doper’s breasts? I mean, I don’t think either comment is tasteful, but only one is actually harassment.