Actually, it’s not that unusual an example of a thread about women’s issues being hijacked by a bunch of immature wankers.
Depends.
When a man calls out another man for being an asshole/dick/sexist/whatever it often counts more because it’s one man to another and thus harder for a certain type of man to ignore (said sort also frequently then attempts to attack the manhood of the other guy). That’s a positive. So are posts where men say they’re thinking about the issue, examining their own behavior, or re-thinking things.
Men “mansplaining” things, trying to one-up each other, or using a thread about women’s issues to shit on another man who’s wife left him… so totally NOT cool. Those posts are not helpful.
We also need fewer of the “chick threads” that ARE made being hijacked by men.
Exactly.
^ word.
Another argument is for a certain type of person to stop barging into threads already in progress and turning them into places where women feel unwelcome.
I have 22 people on my ignore list right now, after cleaning it up earlier this week. Adding Morgo the Troll, removing two people who have been banned and two other people I decided were being less jerkish lately. Deciding to put people on ignore isn’t cowardice or weakness, it is simply deciding who you want to allow into your world.
Well, I’m glad to learn that’s the case. But are all the posters in this thread supposed to just somehow magically know about that conversation? That seems a odd position. My remarks were in regards to this thread.
I’m not seeing how any conversation there precludes a mod from participating meaningfully here. If it’s an important conversation we’re having, and it seems to be, why is it too much to expect a little participation from them here too?
Why is it on other posters to defend them and point others to the other thread? As in, we said something, once, about that, somewhere else, so we’re covered? Is it really too onerous to expect they participate in two threads?
If so, then that says something too, in my opinion.
How would you know they were being less jerkish if you were ignoring them?
You may not know that the poster you’re ignoring doesn’t get notified of it, and almost certainly doesn’t give a shit anyway even if they know who you are. This isn’t the junior high school lunchroom.
Not quite - a prediction is neither true nor false - it’s unproven. As the Simpsons’ quote didn’t say, predictions are just opinions and opinions can be wrong.
Problem with this logic is - beyond that women are not monolithic and different women may feel differently about the same things - that there have been various different examples cited as things which make women uncomfortable. What applies (as a solution) to one may not apply to the other. In addition, the entitlement in one case may extend beyond that of another.
IDT cited the example of “guys barging in with boob jokes in women’s health threads” but that’s something which has been dealt with years ago and is not relevant here. Saying “create more female-centric threads” would not be a counter to that specific example.
But the OP said “Everyone enjoys a poll, right? Except when there are so many, so often, asking which women is “better” - then it gets old” (emphasis added), and it was in response to that specific issue that someone (i.e. Chronos, in post #7) raised the possibility of having more female-centric content. If - as the OP herself suggested - the issue was “so many, so often”, then that seemed to suggest the possibility that more balance might be helpful for that specific issue. Or not (more below on this).
Meanwhile the OP also objected to too many threads about false rape accusations. No one can tell the OP that she doesn’t object to too many threads about false rape accusations. But there is serious basis for telling the OP that to the extent that that type of thing - people expressing points of view that she disagrees with - is her problem, then she needs to just deal with it.
Even assuming there’s room for disagreement with some or even all of the above, the point is that none of this involved telling any women what they feel or should feel. There’s room for disagreement about various aspects of these issues which don’t involve telling women what they feel, and it’s wrong to suggest - or pretend - that all disagreement is of this nature. (Especially since ISTM that none of it is.)
One of the contentions in this thread is that the place is becoming less attractive to female netizens. DSeid wanted to see what the actual gender breakdown was, so started a poll. Are you agreeing that’s dragging out the dirty laundry into IMHO? Or do you doubt DSeid’s motives and think he did it for the sexy jokes? Because one of those is what you are arguing, whether you realize it or not.
Responding to what I bolded. I sometimes look at a post to see if that’s the case. Putting someone on ignore hides their posts, but you can still see that they posted. At least it facilitates scrolling.
First, while putting a poster on ignore blocks their posts, it does not blocks posts were some other poster quotes the person on ignore (indeed, Morgenstern likes to exploit that loophole, as he admitted upthread, to continue to jab at people who have him on ignore).
Second, while the posts from a person on ignore are blocked there is still an indication that they posted and you have the option to uncover that one post without taking them off ignore. I have only one person on my ignore list at present but I do occasionally read that person’s posts because once in a while they say something that isn’t dickish and actually contributes to a conversation.
Ah, we want these boards to be so welcoming don’t we? The esteemed Mr. Dribble once again can’t see the mile wide irony in his own statement.
Again, it’s no surprise the thread was started in the Pit is it? It’s not a thread for discussion, it’s a thread for bullying. Why not start a thread in IMHO and keep it civil?
As I said to him in another thread, “I thought we got rid of you.” Christianity, and I assume other faiths, says that everyone should find his own way to redemption. We have pointed the way, but he has ignored it. I’m a lousy Christian. Screw him.
Bringing in my wife, who tried to enlighten me, she worked for MegaloMart customer service. A guy called in, saying he wanted to buy a bra for his wife. “Okay, what size does she wear?”
“I dunno, what size do you wear?”
She nearly got fired for hanging up on him. I try to see that as an idea of what women deal with everyday.
This. My dear wife, dead these 364 days, was a semi-pro historian, botanist, zoologist, chemist, paleontologist, etc-ist. She would’ve found the threads mentioned above about tanks vs T-Rex nonsensical because an M-2 Light Tank, loaded with high explosive shells, would make short work of a pack of Tyranosaurs. Fully traversing 37mm cannon? T-Rex burger. And yet, she could be the flower of femininity, if it suited her. I tried to get her to join, but she was too busy arguing the fine points of fossilized snot that is all we have of Pre-Cambrian life. And horses she found on a feed lot.
The problem with “mansplaining” is that it’s frequently used synonymously with “having a different opinion”.
You can see an example a few posts back. Shodan had an exchange with IDT over a couple of things that he seems perfectly entitled to have an opinion about. Those being 1) whether in fact octopus had said something was the “only” solution, and 2) whether it’s reasonable to ask other people to stop talking about something because you’re uncomfortable with the existence of that conversation. No reason he can’t have an opinion just as anyone else. But his expression of that opinion got the mansplaining eye-roll from two posters.
Perhaps I missed it, but I don’t recall anyone using the phrase “mansplaining” in response to Shodan’s exchange with ITD. Perhaps you are inferring that from some other phrases they used? Could you explain exactly where you think his comments were discounted as such?
We used to have more of it in the days when ideologies of naive libertarianism were more rampant on the boards. A whole lot of market fundamentalism and wealth idolatry, accompanied by contemptuous dismissals of blue-collar workers, union activists, unemployed, etc., as “losers” and so on.
I think the Great Recession may have played a role in increasing the awareness of economic hardship and class issues on the SDMB as elsewhere. But of course, there’s still quite a ways to go.
And with classism as with sexism and racism, incremental progress is always accompanied by a number of people throwing indignant hissy fits because someone is criticizing, however gently, aspects of their behavior that they hadn’t previously thought of as open to (valid) criticism.