We want your feedback

LizT

joe swanson wrote: »

Only just had a quick glance through the forumso apologies if iv got this wrong but ,there seems to be a huge proportion of posters are male in a forum for females. I think its a little weird and get the feeling a lot are on some sort of weird online hunt for a gf, judging by some of the fawning. Imo

From the charter

First and foremost This forum is for the discussion of topics from a woman's point of view. We do welcome male input, but do bear in mind that this forum is first and foremost for the women of boards to have their say, from their point of view.

Stay around a little bit longer and you'll see very few guys use this forum as a "weird online hunt for a gf"

starling

joe swanson wrote: »

Only just had a quick glance through the forumso apologies if iv got this wrong but ,there seems to be a huge proportion of posters are male in a forum for females. I think its a little weird and get the feeling a lot are on some sort of weird online hunt for a gf, judging by some of the fawning. Imo

I'm not sure what you mean by "fawning". So apologies if I'm taking you up wrong here. But a man can interest himself in women's issues and support feminist ideas* without it being all an act for the purpose of getting laid. He might just think it's a) worth making an effort to learn more about the lives of over half the population and b) worthwhile learning about how he can help.

Give your fellow men some credit!:D





*not that tLL is exclusively a feminist forum but you know what I mean

clairefontaine

starling wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by "fawning". So apologies if I'm taking you up wrong here. But a man can interest himself in women's issues and support feminist ideas* without it being all an act for the purpose of getting laid. He might just think it's a) worth making an effort to learn more about the lives of over half the population and b) worthwhile learning about how he can help.

Give your fellow men some credit!:D





*not that tLL is exclusively a feminist forum but you know what I mean

I don't think it's happening in TLL but I know what this guy is talking about, PC womanisers, deserving of a thread of its own.

username123

clairefontaine wrote: »

I don't think it's happening in TLL but I know what this guy is talking about, PC womanisers, deserving of a thread of its own.

Any examples? Cant say Ive noticed it.

username123

username123 wrote: »

Any examples? Cant say Ive noticed it.

I think you might have misread Clairefontaine's post

She says she doesn't think it happens in tLL.

It wouldn't last long if it did.

K-9

I don't post or read here that much any more, but PC womaniser or white knighters are just useless terms to denigrate men who take an interest in feminist topics, it's suggesting they must have some ulterior motive to give support to the subject, a lazy ad hominem that I don't see that much on other topics. White guilt would be the nearest I can compare it to, comes up on race issues, slurs that say far more about the person throwing the terms about than anything else.

starling

K-9 wrote: »

I don't post or read here that much any more, but PC womaniser or white knighters are just useless terms to denigrate men who take an interest in feminist topics, it's suggesting they must have some ulterior motive to give support to the subject, a lazy ad hominem that I don't see that much on other topics. White guilt would be the nearest I can compare it to, comes up on race issues, slurs that say far more about the person throwing the terms about than anything else.

I was thinking the exact same thing, in my experience I've only seen that accusation thrown at men who are being seen as "siding with women over men" and being some kind of traitor to their gender, by people who persist in approaching every single issue as part of some imaginary war between the sexes. It's incomprehensible to these people that a man could simply agree with women on whatever issue because he has thought about it for himself, and made up his own mind, he must have some ulterior motive because otherwise he would naturally side with his fellow men.
I am convinced that it is a reflection of the accuser's own belief that the only reason to treat women well is to get sex. The people who actually believe in the imaginary "PC womaniser" are the same people who hold that view, in my experience; they tend to be the same people who think that any improvement in women's lives is an assault on their own manhood and that when women campaign for equality they're secretly doing it solely to wage war on men.

dfx-

joe swanson wrote: »

Only just had a quick glance through the forumso apologies if iv got this wrong but ,there seems to be a huge proportion of posters are male in a forum for females. I think its a little weird and get the feeling a lot are on some sort of weird online hunt for a gf, judging by some of the fawning. Imo

What about those of us already attached? Where do we fit in?

clairefontaine

K-9 wrote: »

I don't post or read here that much any more, but PC womaniser or white knighters are just useless terms to denigrate men who take an interest in feminist topics, it's suggesting they must have some ulterior motive to give support to the subject, a lazy ad hominem that I don't see that much on other topics. White guilt would be the nearest I can compare it to, comes up on race issues, slurs that say far more about the person throwing the terms about than anything else.

I have come across pc womanisers in life, but have not on this board. It's not a lazy ad hominem to denigrate men. They are men, usually college age, who take women's studies classes to meet girls and feign sympathy for the cause, usually to get into their pants. That is not the same thing as saying every man who takes an interest in women's issues is one, just that they do exist.

starling

clairefontaine wrote: »

I have come across pc womanisers in life, but have not on this board. It's not a lazy ad hominem to denigrate men. They are men, usually college age, who take women's studies classes to meet girls and feign sympathy for the cause, usually to get into their pants. That is not the same thing as saying every man who takes an interest in women's issues is one, just that they do exist.

How do you know that was their reason for taking these classes? Did they tell you or are you assuming?

rainbow kirby

This is a feedback thread - if your contribution is not forum feedback, please post in another existing thread or start a new one.

Sleepy

Don't know if I'm about to stir up a hornets nest but how about a ban on sexist terminology?

I've been reading through the "personal experiences of sexism" thread and came across the use of the phrase "mansplaining" repeatedly. I haven't commented in thread yet because I'm still working my way through it but I'd strongly argue that such sexist terminology does more damage to the equality agenda than good. As I understand it most feminists would consider the misandrists at the extremes of the movement to do more harm than good so why allow their bigoted language on this forum?

Dolbert

Sleepy wrote: »

Don't know if I'm about to stir up a hornets nest but how about a ban on sexist terminology?

I've been reading through the "personal experiences of sexism" thread and came across the use of the phrase "mansplaining" repeatedly. I haven't commented in thread yet because I'm still working my way through it but I'd strongly argue that such sexist terminology does more damage to the equality agenda than good. As I understand it most feminists would consider the misandrists at the extremes of the movement to do more harm than good so why allow their bigoted language on this forum?

I can assure you that I'm no misandrist or bigot. As the first to use the word 'mainsplaining' on that thread, it was coming from a place of extreme frustration where a poster just breezed in, told us that our collective experiences were all in our heads and implied nothing more than hysterical whining. This happens each and every time posters try to discuss this on here, and you can be assured that it happens in real life quite a bit too. In fact any discussion I've seen on TLL on the subjects of sexism have to be extremely heavily moderated. It even happened on the support thread for victims of sexual assault FFS.

I for one would be happy to stop using language like 'mainsplaining' if people find it inflammatory, I wouldn't normally be so rash but frankly it was the straw that broke the camel's back. Women should be able to share their very valid experiences on this forum without each and every thread being derailed.

Sleepy

It's a very difficult balance to strike. While I'd agree that the poster in question was just being antagonistic, and that the majority of the posts don't qualify as such: some of the things posted in that thread wouldn't necessarily be cases of sexism at all imo: some being simple cases of interactions with idiots and even one or two that come across as sour grapes using sexism as an excuse.

And while I can understand the need for rules regarding whataboutery etc. it does rankle to see such whinging in the midst of the genuine cases and not be allowed to call BS on it.

YumCha

Dolbert wrote: »

I can assure you that I'm no misandrist or bigot. As the first to use the word 'mainsplaining' on that thread, it was coming from a place of extreme frustration where a poster just breezed in, told us that our collective experiences were all in our heads and implied nothing more than hysterical whining. This happens each and every time posters try to discuss this on here, and you can be assured that it happens in real life quite a bit too. In fact any discussion I've seen on TLL on the subjects of sexism have to be extremely heavily moderated. It even happened on the support thread for victims of sexual assault FFS.

I for one would be happy to stop using language like 'mainsplaining' if people find it inflammatory, I wouldn't normally be so rash but frankly it was the straw that broke the camel's back. Women should be able to share their very valid experiences on this forum without each and every thread being derailed.

Thank you - this is exactly what I would have liked to have said as a fellow user of the word mansplain in that thread. I've seen discussions on reducing it to "splaining" in order to avoid accusations of reverse sexism - and I support that, also in the case if people are concerned about it being inflammatory. However 'splaining' has been used with a variety of prefixes - and I was very specifically referring to instances of men being condescending towards women, and very frustrated about the situation.

As for wanting to 'call out' people's experiences as not being valid - I would hope that we never go down that route on this forum.

Sleepy

YumCha, can you not see the benefit of not using such gender based labels in it's own right? As you've demonstrated in your post, you're well capable of typing "instances of men being condescending towards women" instead of making up a gender based pronoun that insinuates all men behave in this way. It simply adds to the "us vs them" attitudes that we really need to get away from if we ever want to see equality in our society. In my opinion, unless we take a united approach to seeking equality it becomes a battle of lobby groups or simply who can shout the loudest and I can't see how that will ever get us there.

I think there are elements of this in why I say it "rankles" to not be able to call a bull**** accusation of sexism just that: every time a man or woman calls "sexism" when someone gets custody of the kids / gets paid more than them / is chosen over them for a promotion / wins a case by someone on the other gender it detracts attention from the real issues where sexism is still a factor in our society and makes those harder to get people to focus on finding solutions to those issues.

clairefontaine

Sleepy wrote: »

YumCha, can you not see the benefit of not using such gender based labels in it's own right? As you've demonstrated in your post, you're well capable of typing "instances of men being condescending towards women" instead of making up a gender based pronoun that insinuates all men behave in this way. It simply adds to the "us vs them" attitudes that we really need to get away from if we ever want to see equality in our society. In my opinion, unless we take a united approach to seeking equality it becomes a battle of lobby groups or simply who can shout the loudest and I can't see how that will ever get us there.

I think there are elements of this in why I say it "rankles" to not be able to call a bull**** accusation of sexism just that: every time a man or woman calls "sexism" when someone gets custody of the kids / gets paid more than them / is chosen over them for a promotion / wins a case by someone on the other gender it detracts attention from the real issues where sexism is still a factor in our society and makes those harder to get people to focus on finding solutions to those issues.

TLL is like the religion forums.

And it's based on an assumption there is such a thing as a woman's point of view. Whatever that means.

The problem is that in other forums such things were allowed to go on, changing the subject, hammering your opinion over and over again onto someone, nitpicking, and to some extent gas lighting. It's all in your head ya mad bitch kind of thing. But if those levels of obnoxiousness weren't tolerated in the first place, you would not have these gender forums.


And I've seen female posters here d exactly the same things they complained about men doing. And no I'm not going to reference threads, because that would be most unladylike. And for a feminist forum to use the term lady, is pretty funny.

Sleepy

clairefontaine wrote: »

And for a feminist forum to use the term lady, is pretty funny.

I'm presuming that's something to do with the etymology of the word 'lady'? Care to educate me on that one?

clairefontaine

Sleepy wrote: »

I'm presuming that's something to do with the etymology of the word 'lady'? Care to educate me on that one?

It has connotations of what is acceptable behaviour and demeanour for a woman.

I don't have a problem with the term myself, but if you have a forum that has feminist overtones, its an odd choice, along the lines of calling the The Drawing Room.

Sleepy

Funny, I'd always have seen "lady" as a compliment akin to calling a guy a "gentleman" i.e. a mannerly/polite person capable of conducting oneself with decorum etc.

Would I be right that the objection stems from misogynist criticisms of certain behaviours (e.g. drinking from a pint glass / playing rugby) being "unladylike"?

clairefontaine

Sleepy wrote: »

Funny, I'd always have seen "lady" as a compliment akin to calling a guy a "gentleman" i.e. a mannerly/polite person capable of conducting oneself with decorum etc.

Would I be right that the objection stems from misogynist criticisms of certain behaviours (e.g. drinking from a pint glass / playing rugby) being "unladylike"?

Yes something like that following all the set protocols for a nice woman. Not getting too drunk, never getting angry, not using foul language, preserving your sexual behaviour very conservatively, etc.

I don't object to the title of the forum, I find it ironic. Maybe it was intentionally so. I don't know I couldn't tell you.

I'd be careful about calling the criticisms misogynist though. Sometimes these customs evolved for a reasons outside of hatred.

Morag

If one behaved as a lady then one was treated as one, respected and protected as a lady.
If one did not behave as a lady then you lost what protection one could expect from a gentleman and you would not be respected. It's pretty much that simple.

Some women don't like to be called ladies, some it doesn't bother.
I wouldn't go as far to make the generalization and all feminists refuse to be called ladies.

Femme_Fatale

To be fair to Sleepy...

While no normal person would question examples of blatant sexism, it is not unreasonable to question whether something deemed sexism is actually sexism or just muppetry. For example, I don't think the "lap" incident in the Dáil Chambers was sexism - I did think it was muppety behaviour though.

I just think that a blanket acceptance of any incident on that thread as sexism is only going to foster bad feeling. Ditto the very same thing on a thread re sexism in The Gentlemen's Club. It's going to at times, even if not intended, feel like hostility towards the opposite gender.

starling

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

To be fair to Sleepy...

While no normal person would question examples of blatant sexism, it is not unreasonable to question whether something deemed sexism is actually sexism or just muppetry. For example, I don't think the "lap" incident in the Dáil Chambers was sexism - I did think it was muppety behaviour though.

I just think that a blanket acceptance of any incident on that thread as sexism is only going to foster bad feeling. Ditto the very same thing on a thread re sexism in The Gentlemen's Club. It's going to at times, even if not intended, feel like hostility towards the opposite gender.

Unfortunately it's difficult to know the exact circumstances of someone else's story, so in a lot of cases where you might think "Thats not sexism" you have to keep in mindthat you weren't there, and there may be details you don't know. I think people Reading a thread are capable of making up their own minds about whether an incident was sexist or just muppetry, and it's important for people o have a place they can share their experiences and vent, so really the best thing to do is just let it be.
What's all this fuss about "mansplaining?" I don't see how it's a "sexist term." it describes a very specific behaviour that most of us have encountered in our lives, but it doesn't inherently imply that all men do it, or anything about men in general. It's describing a behaviour not a whole gender.

Sleepy

It's a gender specific term for a negative behaviour. Women are just as capable of men at explaining things in a condescending manner.

Would you find the phrase "woman-parking" to describe crashing into another car in a supermarket carpark acceptable?

clairefontaine

YumCha wrote: »

Thank you - this is exactly what I would have liked to have said as a fellow user of the word mansplain in that thread. I've seen discussions on reducing it to "splaining" in order to avoid accusations of reverse sexism - and I support that, also in the case if people are concerned about it being inflammatory. However 'splaining' has been used with a variety of prefixes - and I was very specifically referring to instances of men being condescending towards women, and very frustrated about the situation.

As for wanting to 'call out' people's experiences as not being valid - I would hope that we never go down that route on this forum.

The thing is when you point to something as sexism, you can get a reaction of defensiveness and people taking it personally.

The other possibility and more interesting one IMO, is that as I perceive it there is far more pressure on men to suck things up, take them on the chin and zero tolerance for whining. So when some men see women or anyone do it, they transfer that intolerance.

The other possibility too, is the idea that these labels, such as sexism, racism, etc are exploited sometimes to exempt the complainer from personal responsibility in a particular instance.

starling

Sleepy wrote: »

It's a gender specific term for a negative behaviour. Women are just as capable of men at explaining things in a condescending manner.

Women can be condescending, but if condescension was all that mansplaining was, nobody would have needed to come up with the word mansplaining because they could use condescending instead.
But mansplaining is a gender specific term because it describes a behaviour that by definition is only done by men. The real problem with mansplaining, the real reason it gets up peoples noses so much that we had to invent a word for it, is not just the condescension involved, but the fact that mansplaining involves a man dismissing a woman's calling out of something sexist. When a man indulges in mansplaining he is saying "My 'logic' or 'knowledge' (which is usually actually half-baked conjecture) is superior to your lived experience because I am a man and I am therefore more qualified than you are to judge whether you have experienced sexism". By definition it can only be done by a man. It rests on an assumption that men are superior in their ability to judge events that have never happened to them.

Sleepy wrote: »

Would you find the phrase "woman-parking" to describe crashing into another car in a supermarket carpark acceptable?

This is not the same thing at all. Crashing into a car in a car park is something that both men and women do. So calling it woman parking is sexist because it implies that women are bad at parking or driving whereas men are not because being a man automatically means you are better at driving. The phrase woman parking would be occurring in a context where sexist assumptions are still made about women and their supposedly inferior driving skills. Mansplaining does not feed into an existing sexist assumption about men. It identifies a behaviour that is inherently sexist and needs to be given a name so it can be discussed as part of sexism and something that makes it difficult for women to be heard when they speak out about their experiences. The phenomenon of mansplaining is a part of pretty much any discussion of women's issues and it needs a specific name of its own so that it can be addressed.

Anyway I don't want to drag this thread off topic. My opinion is no, tLL should not be banning the word "mansplaining." If we're going to be going down that road there are plenty of sexist terms thrown around here. The most obvious example would be "slut." But if we actually banned the word slut how could we have a proper discussion of the word and its offensive implications? How could we discuss "slut shaming" and why it happens, and why it's awful, and how to deal with it? We couldn't. So banning words like that altogether would be counter productive. It's better to explain "This word is sexist because....." rather than just forbidding people to use it and thereby burying the problem.

Stheno

Sleepy wrote: »

Funny, I'd always have seen "lady" as a compliment akin to calling a guy a "gentleman" i.e. a mannerly/polite person capable of conducting oneself with decorum etc.

Would I be right that the objection stems from misogynist criticisms of certain behaviours (e.g. drinking from a pint glass / playing rugby) being "unladylike"?

I've just come home from a ladies night in my sailling club, given we were aged 30+ it sounds weird to call us girls.

It was a great night, women from 30-60 all out for dinner and drinks, some of us wanting to dance to Billy Idol etc.

Sailing is a sport that is more male then female, so a ladies night sounds good to me, a girls night would make me puke.

I'm a member however of girlgeeks, check it out, it's a fun way of involving women in a male dominated area.

As are WOW women on water, to represent women involved in watersports.

So it's all about the context

Sleepy wrote: »

It's a gender specific term for a negative behaviour. Women are just as capable of men at explaining things in a condescending manner.

Would you find the phrase "woman-parking" to describe crashing into another car in a supermarket carpark acceptable?

I getchat here, I've my own male/female stereotypes and I freely admit to them, show me a micra being driven badly, and it's usually a woman.

That said my OH (Male) and of the gender proven to be better at parking, regularly jumps out of the car when I prounounce a space parkable in for me to park! Generalisms are what they are There are always exceptions

starling wrote: »

Women can be condescending, but if condescension was all that mansplaining was, nobody would have needed to come up with the word mansplaining because they could use condescending instead.
But mansplaining is a gender specific term because it describes a behaviour that by definition is only done by men. The real problem with mansplaining, the real reason it gets up peoples noses so much that we had to invent a word for it, is not just the condescension involved, but the fact that mansplaining involves a man dismissing a woman's calling out of something sexist. When a man indulges in mansplaining he is saying "My 'logic' or 'knowledge' (which is usually actually half-baked conjecture) is superior to your lived experience because I am a man and I am therefore more qualified than you are to judge whether you have experienced sexism". By definition it can only be done by a man. It rests on an assumption that men are superior in their ability to judge events that have never happened to them.



This is not the same thing at all. Crashing into a car in a car park is something that both men and women do. So calling it woman parking is sexist because it implies that women are bad at parking or driving whereas men are not because being a man automatically means you are better at driving. The phrase woman parking would be occurring in a context where sexist assumptions are still made about women and their supposedly inferior driving skills. Mansplaining does not feed into an existing sexist assumption about men. It identifies a behaviour that is inherently sexist and needs to be given a name so it can be discussed as part of sexism and something that makes it difficult for women to be heard when they speak out about their experiences. The phenomenon of mansplaining is a part of pretty much any discussion of women's issues and it needs a specific name of its own so that it can be addressed.

Anyway I don't want to drag this thread off topic. My opinion is no, tLL should not be banning the word "mansplaining." If we're going to be going down that road there are plenty of sexist terms thrown around here. The most obvious example would be "slut." But if we actually banned the word slut how could we have a proper discussion of the word and its offensive implications? How could we discuss "slut shaming" and why it happens, and why it's awful, and how to deal with it? We couldn't. So banning words like that altogether would be counter productive. It's better to explain "This word is sexist because....." rather than just forbidding people to use it and thereby burying the problem.

Mansplaining to me is just a gender argument, i.e. as my OH cannot park, no man can, ergo no man can park, it's bull****, same as one woman in Belfast cannot park.

I work in an incredibly (90%+) male environment.

We have our jokes, some conform to gender norms or those we imagine, some we are bemused at, sometimes I get chivalry , sometimes its just common decency.

I see it everyday, working, sailing, working out in the gym, those silly expectations, the he/she is this, why not leave it and accept the they are us?

starling

Stheno wrote: »

Mansplaining to me is just a gender argument, i.e. as my OH cannot park, no man can, ergo no man can park, it's bull****, same as one woman in Belfast cannot park.

That's not what "mansplaining" means.
http://www.policymic.com/mobile/articles/44479/mansplaining-101-how-to-discuss-politics-and-feminism-without-acting-like-a-jackass


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mansplaining

Before getting into whether people should be able to use the word "mansplain" we should make sure we all know what the word actually means.

Rev Hellfire

Stheno wrote: »

Mansplaining to me is just a gender argument, i.e. as my OH cannot park, no man can, ergo no man can park, it's bull****, same as one woman in Belfast cannot park.

It think (at least for me) its explained best by the article on know your meme:
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/mansplaining

I'll admit my first encounter of it was here, and it did seem a bit sexist. But I think thats just us males being overly sensitive about the 'man' bit at the start of the word

Once you understand the etymology it's not so bad.