Ms. Forums-you're all nuts

The BBQ Pit
101

Reprise, please do. And when you do, would you (or Guin, or Mal, or someone) mind posting a link to it over in the down-in-flames thread? I promised to bow out of the thread, after getting shat on more rudely than I’ve ever been shat on online. But I think that, if the :rolleyes: bots can shut the fuck up for a bit, some of the posters over there, including (hopefully) Tinaah, will have interesting things to say in the thread.

Despite MsPoster’s foolish opinions, I figure I might have interesting things to say there as well. :slight_smile:

Daniel

102

so I ask you actually give some thought to the notion that it is rude to force yourselves on a discussion like you did.
[/quote]

And is it not a public message board? One in which more than one poster asked for comments from the readers?

Just so you know, a true discussion involves considering different viewpoints and actually refelecting upon the ideas presented instead of summarily dissmissing them. What you guys had going on there was a bunch of people with eerily identical POVs decrying the powerlessness they impose upon themselves and patting each other on the back for being so “self-aware”. And I hate to break it to you but that ain’t a discussion, it’s a circle jerk.

The knee-jerk “plug my ears and say lalalalalal” reaction you people had to a couple differing opinions was priceless. I haven’t seen anything so mature since second grade when booger eatin’ contests were all the rage.

bella

103

Heh – I’d forgotten all about booger eatin’ contests, Belladonna.

I’m gonna save that happy thought of days gone by and go to bed. More fun antics in the morning, I’m sure!

Daniel

104

Ah. After having read the thread, I begin to see where the problem is. See, the definition of “discussion” there precludes any contradiction or debate. One person claims something (usually buttressing it with some unimportant anecdote), and somebody else jumps in with “that’s Sooooo true!” and builds upon it (with another unimportant anecdote), which prompts yet more building reactions. I’ve seen this before, of course, largely between people discussing important issues who are unbelievably afraid of looking or feeling stupid or of making somebody else look or feel stupid. It’s usually where nonsensical statements about society and politics come from. It’s practically the foundation of Lit Crit. :smiley:

Contradiction, of course, spoils this whole thing. It forces someone to defend what they said or admit that they might have been wrong, which is alien to people used to having everything they say accepted without question. It’s especially embarrassing when it addresses fundamental assumptions that the members of the discussion may or may not have fully thought out (in this case, the nature of men and women, the nature of society, their assumptions of the applicability of their own experiences, the authoritativeness of their sources, etc.)

The “rolleye” reaction is a version of this; it is a sign saying “this avenue of discussion isn’t appropriate” and, ironically enough, is a way of dismissing and belittling others by someone terrified that their own point of view is wrong. That’s also why they’re using the word “troll”… in groups like this, questioning fundamental assumptions (or indeed contradiction itself) by outsiders is Not Allowed. That’s why ferbert keeps on trying to “shoot past the trolls”… she wants to continue that “building” process and avoid embarrassing contradiction.

(To be fair, there does need to be some limits… idiots coming into a video gaming group and calling people geeks isn’t overly useful. Still, the OP in that thread made an inherently controversial comment, and can certainly be legitimately debated, especially considering the basic assumptions aren’t exactly well-thought-out.)

Just goes to show that Thomas Kuhn’s concept of paradigms is still utterly relevant in the social sciences (which, of course, the Ms. discussion is an amateurish attempt at). You break the paradigm, you get ignored.

105

sweet dreams. try not to oppress anyone in your sleep, you damn patriarch, you!

:smiley:

106

One other point: catsix, it is a legitimate avenue of inquiry to try to figure out if how women behave during orgasm is influenced by societal expectations. The big problem I see in that thread is that they’re merely mixing together assumptions (men utterly dominate, women are sheep, sex is a power struggle, orgasm is socially constructed) to get their answers instead of actually engaging in serious inquiry. Saying “your assumptions are weak” is valid, as is saying “they don’t necessarily fit together that way”. Saying “this isn’t even worthy of discussion or thought, because it’s patently obvious that women don’t act this way and aren’t influenced by this”, however, raises alarm bells, because you’re just substituting your assumptions for theirs.

107

Thanks for the invite. I may look in, but I’m very busy with my online magazine right now and have to choose where to spend my time. Even though I think there are some good minds here, and the discussion will be interesting, if given a choice between spending my time on feminist persuits or non-feminist persuits, feminism wins out every time. And as far as MsPoster’s comments here, all things being equal, I will always support a feminist first.

This may not be a popular observation, but from what I can see, you are treating MsPoster no better than you claim to have been treated; so those of you who complain about your treatment have shown that, under similar circumstances, you are no more evolved, and do no better, than those you disdain.

Oh, and reprise, I don’t remember what my username was before, or I’d have had my password mailed to me. Like I said, it’s been several months and my compy died a dramatic and ultimately fortuitous death, taking my ID with it.

108

Well, this is the Pit. It’s a forum for insults, rants and belittling. If this were a GD thread, anything approaching an insult would incur a warning from a mod. The forum the other thread is in isn’t a Pit-style forum.

109

If anyone wants to debate the original issues, there’s a GD thread here established for that purpose.

110

I’ve been watching this unfold over the weekend with some amount of interest. I keep wanting write that I agree with Dopers because they’re making valid points, BUT…

I think this whole argument could have been much less hostile and far more productive had the Dopers restrained themselves a bit, both here and on the other board. After all, some of us would probably be a bit snarky with a newbie in GD who hadn’t really lurked enough to get a feel for what was and was not generally accepted. (For example, catsix’s somewhat elaborate description of her personal experience seemed to be frowned upon, whereas here it would be quite normal.) Now imagine what would happen if they gave us a link to their board with the thread title, “Dopers-you’re all nuts”. I’d expect a “DNFTT” post within minutes.

Whether you realize it or not, the Dopers are being perceived as the antagonists. Granted, the good arguments you’ve made should be given due consideration, and the way some of the “Ms-es” have completely ignored well constructed thoughts is extremely annoying. However, careful reading of the first few posts would reveal that the hyperbolic portion of their OP was addressed at the outset, if in somewhat vague terms. Clearly they have different standards for argumentation on their boards, and romping in there to “tell 'em like it is” isn’t going to go over very well.

I’m afraid fighting ignorance in a bitingly sarcastic manner doesn’t work with everyone, folks. Sometimes there’s this little thing called ‘diplomacy’. (Some of you have been trying, and I applaud you for that.) And yes, I know this is the Pit, but I think we can all recognize that if you introduce yourselves IRL to people in a Pit-worthy fashion, it doesn’t always go over too well. On the other hand, if you want to make enemies, there’s not much I can do to stop you…

I don’t expect everybody to like everybody else, and I’m sure they have their share of jerks and whackos just as we do. But I hope we’re not making this Us vs. Them.

(Tinaah: Even if you don’t know what your original ID was, you probably should e-mail one of the admin’s anyway out of courtesy… it’s likely they can track it down based on your e-mail address.)

111

Oh yeah… and welcome to the SDMB!

112

Hey, if she wrote here three months ago…that was before the big poof, right? Maybe hers is one of the screenames that went away…

113

How on earth are all things equal? As I’ve pointed out over and over, I tried repeatedly to engage in civil conversation over there. Not only that, but I tried to defuse tempers in a civil, diplomatic manner and tried to turn the discussion toward productive ends. I used techniques that most feminists would be proud of: I spoke about my personal experiences and how they’d shaped my views, I restated what I thought people had been saying to see if I understood, I discouraged namecalling. And in return, I was bitterly and nastily attacked.

So then I came over here and vented in a forum specifically set up for venting, and MsPoster has the fucking nerve to COME OVER HERE and tell me I shouldn’t throw a tantrum. She wasn’t being diplomatic, she wasn’t being civil, she sure as fuck wasn’t using any conflict resolution skills I’ve ever heard of. She was just continuing to be insulting to me. Since she was continuing to be insulting to me in a forum that was specifically set up for insults, I let loose.

But I did NOT do so in the middle of a question about a sensitive topic after she’d made a good-faith effort to contribute productively. That’s the big fat major neon-light-blinking difference.

When you say that “all things being equal, you’ll support a feminist,” do you really mean, “no matter what, I’ll support someone with a vagina over someone with a penis”? If not, I think you’re missing what’s happened here.

And MRBLUE, I agree that things coulda been approached more civilly by some dopers over there. That’s no excuse for the rolleyes or troll insults, but I think that some folks were a little overboard. Do you think that I was?

I think that I wasn’t, and in fact, I called cat six on the carpet for exaggerrating her position over there and encouraged people over here not to troll. But I was treated EXACTLY the same as cat six was.

They weren’t, as near as i can tell, responding to the tone of what i said: they were responding to the fact that I was fucking daring to speak in their little private (on a public messageboard) club. That’s what shits my boxers.

Daniel

Daniel

114

Oh, and lemme point out a fucking double standard while I’m at it. Fluffy Rich over there posted something that agreed with Rich, and dee responded:

Dee doesn’t give two shits about my dick: she’s just using that as an excuse to dismiss my views. Fucking lying intellectually bankrupt hypocrite.

Daniel

115

Silly me, not previewing. Rich agreed with DEE, and Dee got all cooey over him.

Daniel

116

After having read both this thread and the Ms. thread in total, all I can say is: WOW! What a bunch of grumpy people over there! It reminds me why I don’t subscribe to the magazine anymore.

Some random reactions:

  1. Some of the grumpier posters over there make me think that the public perception that all women are like them is why so many women, especially younger women who have come of age since the inception of the feminist movement, are so reluctant to identify themselves publicly as feminists. This is in spite of their agreement with the entire original platform of the feminist movement (equal pay for equal work, the need for men to be equally involved in the upbringing of children and other domestic duties, the right of women to self-determination, etc.)

  2. The frequent public perception that all feminists are a bunch of unhappy, disenfranchised, man-hating lesbians is a huge disservice to the advancement of the original set of feminist causes. Maybe if the grumpy people on the Ms. board (and no, not all of them were grumpy or completely unreasonable) would stop and listen and try to have a real dialogue, everybody might learn something. How can you expect to convert society, especially men, to your agenda if you won’t listen to what they have to say long enough to figure out why they don’t agree with you, or even figure out whether they already do agree, in whole or in part, with you?

  3. If a person, woman or man, spends any significant portion of a lovemaking session worrying about whether his/her orgasm is a result of patriarchal social structures, that’s just sad. If you’re in bed, where you’re supposed to be having a good time, and you’re expending energy worrying and stressing about the motivations of the person you’re in bed with, then you’re in bed with the wrong person. Why are you having sex with someone whose motivations you distrust? And that goes in both gender directions.

  4. In relation to the above, faking orgasms is just pitiful. Never done it, never will. It’s a disservice to all involved. For one thing, how will your partner ever learn what does it for you if you’re basically lying to him/her? And if you’re too stressed out or tired or whatever to have an orgasm, or maybe you just aren’t feeling particularly goal-oriented at that moment, you should be able to be honest about that with your partner.

Personally, on many of those occasions that I’ve gotten the sense that my partner (unfortunately a hypothetical one at the moment; I’m speaking in generalities based on past experiences) had made it his mission to give me an orgasm, my thought was “OK, it’s sweet that he’s doing this, and I understand why he wants to - heck, I love doing the same to him, too - but how can I make him understand that I’m enjoying myself anyway, and we should both just relax and live in the moment?” And quite frankly, if it’s not going to happen, it’s not going to happen, and making it into his personal mission is only going to make it less likely to happen.

  1. I proudly consider myself a feminist, and I am also a heterosexual women who loves and respects many (but not all) men. I don’t respect all women, nor do I respect all feminists. Judge people as individuals, dammit, not as sweeping generalizations about every category that they belong to! Hating a man because he’s a man is morally no better than assuming a woman is less capable because she’s a woman.

  2. Motivations are very complex things, especially sexual motivations. Wanting your partner to have an orgasm because you want to give pleasure, and wanting your partner to have an orgasm because you get off on the idea that you’ve given your partner an orgasm, are by no means mutually exclusive prospects. In fact, I don’t think that particular motivation is possible to split up into components. (“Honey, please don’t hate me; only 5% of me is the generous soul who wants to make you happy; the other 95% is a selfish scumbag who just wants to get his rocks off.”)

  3. And last but certainly not least, I think we can all thank the feminist movement in great measure for the fact that whether a woman has an orgasm, and the reasons why or why not, are now something that can be discussed in a public forum, and that it’s publicly accepted that men should care about whether their partners have orgasms, or risk apprearing like cavemen.

I just wish that more of the women who identify themselves as feminists were less grumpy and prone to jump to conclusions about people who may agree with their basic belief system, but whomay not express it in the same way in their daily lives.

117

Eva Luna ? That was beautiful. Word, word, and fucking word .

118

I totally agree. Last night, before I became the target of the insults, I was describing the thread to my SO by phone. She whimpered and said, “See? THIS is why I have such trouble explaining to people why I call myself a feminist!”

Same here. While I think it sucks that people focus on dumbshits like Dee when they think of feminists, fact is, they do: people remember the extravagant, and Dee is nothing if not extravagant. Folks who are reasonable, levelheaded, and good listeners don’t stand out as much, and so when my SO calls herself a feminist, people are less likely to remember that than they are to remember some crazy tweaker who proudly withholds her orgasms from men to avoid giving them her

–hey, wait a second. Was she trying to avoid giving men her precious bodily fluids?

Yeah! General Jack D. Ripper, I’d like you to meet Dee. Dee, General Ripper. I’ll leave you two, as you clearly have much to discuss.

Daniel

119

Daniel, I agree that you’ve been unfairly treated; you were one of those I think has been relatively reasonable. (Though the remark about “Stepford feminists” probably didn’t help matters…)

As I think was implied, I agree with the most of Doper’s interpretations. As Guin points out over there, “I am NOT saying anyone is weak or stupid for feeling insecure because of media representations.” But one could certainly argue it is pretty stupid to allow those insecurities to drive a person into unreasonable assumptions. It seems some of the posters there are only a few steps removed from suggesting women wear tinfoil hats to protect them from men’s mind-control rays.

Even so, like Israelis occupying the West Bank, continued incursions into that thread (even peaceful ones) are likely only to exacerbate matters. I submit you’ve run into a similar mentality (with what I truly hope is a merely a vocal minority of their posters). Just as they rail against the general “man” until they get to know him, so shall they rail against the general Doper. By linking yourselves to what is thought of as a hostile invasion, you set yourselves up for failure.

I think the mods might be well-advised to shut this down before things get out of hand.

120

I’ve got to side with the Ms. posters here.

Daniel, you did barge in and you did loudly demand to be taken seriously, which wasn’t appropriate. So did Cat Six. So did Guin.

A whole bunch of feminists were sharing an experience of doubting themselves over whether or not they were co-operating in their own oppression (a word that’s way too loaded for safe use anywhere, but means what it means in this case). Feminism has a long history of critical self-analysis, where women try to figure out the ways in which they’re playing the game that someone else wants them to play, while believing that they playing their own game.

That’s not to say that you’re not a feminist, or that orgasms are bad, or that considerate lovers are bad, or that men are damned if they do, and and damned if they don’t. That thread was about questioning whether or not they were really enjoying orgasms, or playing up to a self-image that they had received from popular media, and about how they could tell the difference.

For Cat Six to go in and say “Woohoo! I have great orgasms, and my boyfriend gives them to me. You should relax and not worry about it” is the height of the sort of self-delusion that they’re asking about. I doubt that Cat is self-deluded, but her response was exactly the kind of glossing over a difficult question that they’re trying to avoid.

For Guin to go in and say “try therapy. It helped me” is an unfortunately bad suggestion that was doomed to be insulting no matter how well intended.

Can a man be a feminist? Yes, to the extent that feminism is an ideology with particular precepts and conclusions that one can rationally appreciate and support. I’m a feminist.

Can a man be a feminist? No, to the extent that feminism is an experience of being a woman in a society where women are not equal, and very often co-operate in their own inequality by never challenging the status quo because they don’t believe they’re not equal.

For you to accuse them of damning men in all cases, and then to act hurt because they said you misunderstood the purpose of the discussion, is to try to be the second kind of feminist. “You think you’re oppressed? Well, you just oppressed me! You’re full of bunk. Either accept me as a fellow victim, or admit that feminism is hypocritical.”

The Ms. thread was about that kind of critical self-analysis (conscious-raising, to use the 70s terms). For Dopers to add their two cents is like walking past a conversation at a party, where the group are all friends, about some personal problem they’re all having, and jumping in with “hey, you should just do…” Your comments may be well intended, and may be the right solution, but your presence chills the discussion because you’re intruding into a nominally private conversation among people who know and trust each other to share feelings they wouldn’t if it was a truly public discussion.