My experience with game

[Manfred Belheim]

Oh yes, men love women being sweet and agreeable, that's what we're supposed to be and all's good when I'm living my assigned gender role. Men like me too and call me "nice" when I'm being cute and pretty and not causing trouble. But when I speak my mind about something important to me, about issues facing women and challenge men's power structure, I'm a "horrible person" and even men I like (and who generally like me) will turn on me, because men defend men's interests, which include continual suppression of women and our voices.

As long as you refuse to recognise pushback against your ideas as anything more than pushback against you personally, because of your gender, you'll just be banging your head against a brick wall. The fact that men (who aren't women) get exactly the same pushback for exactly the same ideas should be a really big clue as to the truth of this.

Similarly, until you can recognise that just because you're a woman and have certain ideas and opinions, this doesn't mean these are the ideas and opinions of "women", you'll likewise get nowhere. Your views are quite extreme and most women don't see the world the way you do. Again, all you have to do is look around to see this.

Edit to say: none of that even necessitates that your views and opinions be actually wrong. You could be 100% correct about your view of the world, but while you continue to distort and misrepresent the opinions and motivations of your opponents, and claim your own view is more widely held than it actually is, then you're not engaging with reality and you'll get nowhere.

 

[Phrossack]

Oh yes, men love women being sweet and agreeable, that's what we're supposed to be and all's good when I'm living my assigned gender role. Men like me too and call me "nice" when I'm being cute and pretty and not causing trouble. But when I speak my mind about something important to me, about issues facing women and challenge men's power structure, I'm a "horrible person" and even men I like (and who generally like me) will turn on me, because men defend men's interests, which include continual suppression of women and our voices.

And it's much easier for me speaking here, in real life I'm very quiet, and in situations like this I'd just try to get out of it, because you also have a physical intimidation factor to worry about. But as long as women you know don't challenge you, and keep in their place like you feel they should, you like them - and this is what misogyny is all about.

And it's not like I don't care about men's pain, I know you have issues, it's just you try to drown out women's voices, who frankly right now have much bigger concerns you'd rather totally ignore.

Imagine a man and a woman in a room: her arm has just been broken, and he stubbed his toe. She's in great pain and needs medical attention, but all he cares about is talking about how much pain he's in. Her attitude is "I know you're hurting, but I'm afraid I really don't care at this moment because frankly your injury isn't nearly severe as mine, but after you help me get my arm fixed and I'm healed I'll be happy to comfort you, but not before my pain is treated. Especially since you're the one who broke my arm."

As I've said, I agree the situation women face is much worse than that faced by men, which is why I don't crusade against feminism and why I roll my eyes at attempts to equivocate the two.

But I'm not sure this analogy fits. Let's face it: it'll take a century or so for sexism to go away, at least. I'm not going to wait that long.

TL; DR the following? Yes, women have it much worse than men do, I'll try to help, I hate it when men try to hurt you or claim they have it worse when they don't, and I've changed my routine and thoughts to avoid hurting you--but I've still got to get help for my own issues, whether you've allowed me to or not. I'm not going to wait for another century or so for sexism to hopefully mayyybe end so I can be "allowed" to address problems of my own, and I don't like always being resented for being born a male, so don't expect me to help whole-heartedly. I'm not the enemy, and i'm tired of being treated like one.

I'd say that for me, it's more like I'm friends with a woman who suffered severe burns, broken bones, trauma, and worse for no reason, from a gang of women-hating men and who took it out on me and broke one of my toes.

She needs immediate medical attention, more than I do. What happened to her is horrible and inexcusable, worse than what happened to me. She's taken the whole first aid kit--I could've at least used the toe splint in there, but fine, she's really hurting and needed a lot of the kit. She demands I come over and help regularly, so I change my schedule a bit.

But she broke my toe, I notice her glaring at me regularly, she's told her friends I was mean to her, they glare at and shun me, and she wants me to donate a couple grand to help fund her surgery and lengthy recovery. She also tells me not to bother her when I'm not helping her, and she has a broad and vague definition of "bother." She assures me that, forty or fifty or seventy years from now, she'll have recovered from her serious injuries and overcome her trauma. Only then will she allow me to complain without smacking me, let me get a first aid kit, tell her friends to forgive me, and then forgive me herself. For the injuries someone else gave her, and which I've tried to help her with, and while I've tried to defend her from that vicious gang when they swing by to harass and attack her.

So I do what I can to help her recover, I try to give her emotional support, I hate the gang, I try to chase them off whenever they return--but I also sneak the toe splint out of the first aid kit she's guarding, I talk to her less, I trust her less, I share less with her, I avoid her friends, I complain about the situation to my other friends, and in general I grow distant. Then she asks me why I'm not as friendly, or why I avoid her friends, since although I'm just a man, I'm one of the few "good ones," and a credit to my otherwise horrible sex, and I don't want her to blow up on me, so I tend not to say much in answer. I also start discreetly looking around for different friends who don't resent me for existing and who don't break my toes because I look like the people who hurt her.

 

[Farm Boy]

This is an actual thing with women receiving less painkillers in ERs than men do. (Various studies linked from here https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog...ies-in-experience-and-treatment-2017100912562 )

Pain in women is culturally devalued.

Good thing that's recognized now. Seems like the actual response is probably giving men less of them. Too many people killing themselves, with them and because of them(lots of them women, I'm getting tired of the pissing contest finally). It's not a goodness.

 

[MaryKB]

I feel you and I are on the same page, I'm sorry if sometimes my posts seem extreme to you, I'm mostly trying (in vain I think) to get through to some people with very hostile attitudes, if I'm making sense?

I believe you're suffering, and your issues need to be taken care of, and I don't mean literally for you to wait a century. But if you're looking from my perspective, what I'm trying to talk about is when women are shut down and spoken over, our voices drowned out. Whenever women's issues are brought up, you'll immediately see a bunch of guys start with things basically saying "But what about the poor men??" And another group basically will start saying "Not all men," and when he says that he's basically trying to say he's not part of the problem so he doesn't need to be part of the solution.

I feel in these conversations you generally get three types of men. You have those who listen to women, who realize men play such a role in oppressive sexist culture, and want to find ways to help. On the other side you've got very sexist men who become really hostile towards you, and want to propagate systems of misogyny, and will make arguments basically "Sexism works, so that means it's not real" like you can see a few posts back. And then unfortunately you have good men who mean well, but get defensive, and I do acknowledge a lot of things are hard to hear, I'm sorry I'm so worked up but I think it might be hard to understand how that second group really makes me feel, if I'm making sense?

I feel for example if it was just you and I having a conversation, it'd be very different, please know I'm not addressing you specifically in everything I'm saying. And I'm trying to use metaphors to explain on a cultural level, like my example wasn't meant to be literally a single man and a single woman, I mean over all issues in general.

 

[Senethro]

As long as you refuse to recognise pushback against your ideas as anything more than pushback against you personally, because of your gender, you'll just be banging your head against a brick wall. The fact that men (who aren't women) get exactly the same pushback for exactly the same ideas should be a really big clue as to the truth of this.

Similarly, until you can recognise that just because you're a woman and have certain ideas and opinions, this doesn't mean these are the ideas and opinions of "women", you'll likewise get nowhere. Your views are quite extreme and most women don't see the world the way you do. Again, all you have to do is look around to see this.

Edit to say: none of that even necessitates that your views and opinions be actually wrong. You could be 100% correct about your view of the world, but while you continue to distort and misrepresent the opinions and motivations of your opponents, and claim your own view is more widely held than it actually is, then you're not engaging with reality and you'll get nowhere.

Manfred, how should feminists be talking to anti-feminists who harbour the irrational belief that all/most/enough feminists secretly or openly want to enact supremacist/unjust laws?

 

[Farm Boy]

All / most?

Now that's an interesting twist. Where'd it happen? Was it implied in "anglo" earlier?

 

[Senethro]

All / most?

Now that's an interesting twist. Where'd it happen? Was it implied in "anglo" earlier?

Yeah, I thought the construction of that post was inelegant as well but I'm getting into the habit of overqualifying now because I'm tired of of pedantic non-responses.

Consider RoSteel earlier talking about female supremacists and TMET winks heavily at him even before RoS walks his crazy statement back a couple of steps. All/Most/Enough/Anglo/Single One on Youtube - Its just a case of the largest quantity they feel they can get away with in this conversation.

 

[red_elk]

You have those who listen to women, who realize men play such a role in oppressive sexist culture, and want to find ways to help.

And you have women who think they can speak for all women. Who assume that women I know, don't really like me and only being nice to me because they afraid to speak up. Who dismisses my life experience but act surprised and "deeply hurt" when her life experience is not taken seriously enough.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yeah, I thought the construction of that post was inelegant as well but I'm getting into the habit of overqualifying now because I'm tired of of pedantic non-responses.

Consider RoSteel earlier talking about female supremacists and TMET winks heavily at him even before RoS walks his crazy statement back a couple of steps. All/Most/Enough/Anglo/Single One on Youtube - Its just a case of the largest quantity they feel they can get away with in this conversation.

I guess it helps to remember that the internet is often a deeply unhealthy place and not allow ideas to isolate you. People draw strength from their peers that have faith in them, and it's easy to have that generalized away.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Manfred, how should feminists be talking to anti-feminists who harbour the irrational belief that all/most/enough feminists secretly or openly want to enact supremacist/unjust laws?

They can talk how they like. I'm not actually all that big on trying to decree what other people can and can't do just pointing out that if you bury your head in the sand, mischaracterise those you argue with, insist on interpreting everything in the most simplistic and biased light, then you're just wasting your time.

An example of that would be to assume that anyone who is arguing with you is doing so because they know you're right and just want to continue being evil anyway, because evil, or because they know you're right and it's hard for them to face the truth. Ever consider that maybe they just don't think you're right at all?

It always reminds of the Christian fundamentalists who think atheists are just people who are "angry at God", despite all protestations to the contrary. You might as well ask me how I think they should be talking to atheists. I'd give the same answer that how they act is up to them, and I'm not going to tell them how they should be behaving, but I think actually listening to other people and comprehending that it's possible that they might actually see the world differently would be a good start in connecting with reality.

Also might be nice if they occasionally responded with more than a single snidey sentence, but you're also free to continue doing that too

 

[red_elk]

I'd say that for me, it's more like I'm friends with a woman who suffered severe burns, broken bones, trauma, and worse for no reason, from a gang of women-hating men and who took it out on me and broke one of my toes.

She needs immediate medical attention, more than I do. What happened to her is horrible and inexcusable, worse than what happened to me. She's taken the whole first aid kit--I could've at least used the toe splint in there, but fine, she's really hurting and needed a lot of the kit. She demands I come over and help regularly, so I change my schedule a bit.

But she broke my toe, I notice her glaring at me regularly, she's told her friends I was mean to her, they glare at and shun me, and she wants me to donate a couple grand to help fund her surgery and lengthy recovery. She also tells me not to bother her when I'm not helping her, and she has a broad and vague definition of "bother." She assures me that, forty or fifty or seventy years from now, she'll have recovered from her serious injuries and overcome her trauma. Only then will she allow me to complain without smacking me, let me get a first aid kit, tell her friends to forgive me, and then forgive me herself. For the injuries someone else gave her, and which I've tried to help her with, and while I've tried to defend her from that vicious gang when they swing by to harass and attack her.

I think you have moral right to expect gratitude from her, in this situation. If she is being mean to you instead, at some point you may stop considering her a friend, and if you leave her it won't be your fault.
Unless you for any reason feel that helping her is your obligation.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yeah, I thought the construction of that post was inelegant as well but I'm getting into the habit of overqualifying now because I'm tired of of pedantic non-responses.

Consider RoSteel earlier talking about female supremacists and TMET winks heavily at him even before RoS walks his crazy statement back a couple of steps. All/Most/Enough/Anglo/Single One on Youtube - Its just a case of the largest quantity they feel they can get away with in this conversation.

Either anecdotal stories are valid or they aren't. While limited, I'm the only one who has posted actual data on this topic during this discussion. Largely ignored, likely because it's inconvenient to the narrative chosen.

Also might be nice if they occasionally responded with more than a single snidey sentence, but you're also free to continue doing that too

In most cases, if an argument isn't presented despite participation in a discussion it's because the participant doesn't have one. Same for when something damaging to an argument just straight up doesn't get addressed.

 

[Senethro]

They can talk how they like. I'm not actually all that big on trying to decree what other people can and can't do just pointing out that if you bury your head in the sand, mischaracterise those you argue with, insist on interpreting everything in the most simplistic and biased light, then you're just wasting your time.

An example of that would be to assume that anyone who is arguing with you is doing so because they know you're right and just want to continue being evil anyway, because evil, or because they know you're right and it's hard for them to face the truth. Ever consider that maybe they just don't think you're right at all?

I dont' think its possible to have a good faith discussion with someone who perpetually hides their position and only offers negative responses to others. It leads to the kind of miscommunication you describe.

So this is your opportunity to start your own thread outlining your own theory that explains observed social reality better than feminism. It would do you good to play defense for once and clear up misconceptions about your motivations.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I dont' think its possible to have a good faith discussion with someone who perpetually hides their position and only offers negative responses to others. It leads to the kind of miscommunication you describe.

So this is your opportunity to start your own thread outlining your own theory that explains observed social reality better than feminism. It would do you good to play defense for once and clear up misconceptions about your motivations.

In a discussion/forum debate, what matters is what is said, not what you think other people might secretly think. What they think doesn't matter.

We're not calling out supposed hidden motives. It's a distraction tactic for when one lacks an argument, a non-sequitur that isn't relevant to the discussion. It demonstrates bad faith in discussion.

I see no need to resort to such intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Senethro]

Either anecdotal stories are valid or they aren't. While limited, I'm the only one who has posted actual data on this topic during this discussion. Largely ignored, likely because it's inconvenient to the narrative chosen.



In most cases, if an argument isn't presented despite participation in a discussion it's because the participant doesn't have one. Same for when something damaging to an argument just straight up doesn't get addressed.

When we talk stats they're impersonal enough that you just say "I'm not one of the bad men, therefore this is not my problem."

When we talk experiences you bring in your high school debate club fantasy ruleset.

I'm not convinced stats have any real impact for you. Alternatively, lets just take you being plain wrong and outside your field of expertise - like the biological nature of racial phenotypes. I doubt your beliefs about that have changed. Despite your love of the words logic and reality I'm not at all certain you have a close relationship with them.

 

[The_J]

Oh yes, men love women being sweet and agreeable, that's what we're supposed to be and all's good when I'm living my assigned gender role. Men like me too and call me "nice" when I'm being cute and pretty and not causing trouble. But when I speak my mind about something important to me, about issues facing women and challenge men's power structure, I'm a "horrible person" and even men I like (and who generally like me) will turn on me, because men defend men's interests, which include continual suppression of women and our voices.

I think you need to find new friends

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I think you have moral right to expect gratitude from her, in this situation. If she is being mean to you instead, at some point you may stop considering her a friend, and if you leave her it won't be your fault.
Unless you for any reason feel that helping her is your obligation.

I don't think you ever have a right to expect gratitude. Well okay, maybe "expect", but not "demand".

I suppose I kind of read it as the latter because you don't really need any sort of right, moral or otherwise, to have an expectation, since that's basically something that just exists in your own head and doesn't impinge on anyone else. Rights are surely more relevant when you're making demands.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

In most cases, if an argument isn't presented despite participation in a discussion it's because the participant doesn't have one. Same for when something damaging to an argument just straight up doesn't get addressed.

Most likely, but again that's presuming motivation and asserting you know what's going on in someone else's head, which it would be hypocritical of me to engage in given how often I moan about other people doing it. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they might have amazing arguments and just can't be bothered engaging, it's not like anyone's obliged to engage on here. However a failure to engage is a failure to engage. Doesn't really matter what's behind it.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I dont' think its possible to have a good faith discussion with someone who perpetually hides their position and only offers negative responses to others. It leads to the kind of miscommunication you describe.

Well, you say this quite a lot, but I'm really not conscious of hiding my position on things particularly. Surely it would be a bit hard to get characterised as a misogynist troll if you never actually state opinions about things.

In this instance, my position is obviously (I would hope) that I think it's a bad thing to constantly assume negative motivations in people who argue against you, or assume that they secretly agree with you and just don't want to admit it or face up to it, or to act as though you speak for a larger group than you actually do. And that it's a good thing to be open to the possibility that people who disgree with you aren't all pantomime villains or "trolls", to be open to the possibility that you may be wrong, to recognise and acknowledge when you are being rude yourself and not act like other people are just attacking you out of nowhere, to realise that it's unreasonable to expect other people to prioritise not hurting your feelings when you're insulting them and telling them they're wrong or hateful, etc etc.

Personally I find it hard to have a good faith discussion with someone who usually only responds with some sarcastic comment, or occasionally what looks like an attempt at some "gotcha" question rather than a genuine attempt to actually get information.

So this is your opportunity to start your own thread outlining your own theory that explains observed social reality better than feminism. It would do you good to play defense for once and clear up misconceptions about your motivations.

And this is your opportunity to not be a smug twonk. Embrace it.

Moderator Action: Name calling is flaming. Please avoid it. You can make your point without resorting to name calling --LM

Like I've said before, it's not up to you to dictate how other people use public forums. Like I've also said before, I'm generally more motivated to react to things I disagree with than to start discussions about what I think about stuff. As I said, I'm not the one telling people what to do, how to behave, or what to think. I'll leave that to you lot since you enjoy it so much. That being said, when I do react to things I don't hide my opinions or positions on things. Not answering your pointed questions about things I'm not actually talking about at the time is not hiding my position.

If someone's posting opinions I disagree with, stating that words don't exist and that to say they exist is hateful, denying observable reality etc etc, it's not immediately obvious why you think the correct response to that is to start my own thread outlining my own comprehensive theory of human societal structures. I can just tell people I think they're wrong and being insulting if I want to. That's okay.

 

[Senethro]

In a discussion/forum debate, what matters is what is said, not what you think other people might secretly think. What they think doesn't matter.

We're not calling out supposed hidden motives. It's a distraction tactic for when one lacks an argument, a non-sequitur that isn't relevant to the discussion. It demonstrates bad faith in discussion.

I see no need to resort to such intellectual dishonesty.

I do beg your pardon, I seem to have mislaid the debate invitations you issued outlining the rules and motion!!! Did everyone else consent to your format? Gosh I'm sorry.

When we talk race we get the Domens and CelticGoddesses sneaking out of the woodwork to post various kinds of idiocy. Its not unreasonable to assume a similar effect here. Hidden motives are a reality and you need defense mechanisms so you can determine when you are wasting your time and energy. Getting people to commit to the position "I'm not a racist" before engaging in communication about race is reasonable. If they don't, then you can proceed at your own risk. If they do then you, then you can break off as soon as what they're saying and what they claim to believe no longer line up.

What I'm saying is that some of y'all could try harder to look less like Domens some of the time.