We want your feedback

clairefontaine · 19-07-2013 07:04AM

starling wrote: »

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.

Ah ok, like when a man tells you using the electric breastpump is not that hard. I laugh when I see things like that. Ok then, lets rent a machine a tie you too it and suck milk out of your nipples for hours on end, for a continuous six weeks. Aha.

Oh yes it is infuriating. But negation and invalidation, someone trying to rewrite your experiences, your biography, in a empathy less counter intuitive mission just to prop up their own perceptions, is something that both genders do. That and telling you how you should feel. That just makes me want to slam the phone down.

Morag · 19-07-2013 08:44PM

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?

It's more men explaining from their own experiences and assuming that what is the case for them is the case for everyone not taking in consideration that women's experiences of the world and situations can be very different.

Femme_Fatale · 19-07-2013 09:53PM

Morag wrote: »

It's more men explaining from their own experiences and assuming that what is the case for them is the case for everyone not taking in consideration that women's experiences of the world and situations can be very different.

Aye. Blurred Lines thread for one. Although lots of women are jumping on the "Get over it" bandwagon on that thread too.

Sexism is sexism when it suits, it would appear.

starling · 19-07-2013 11:17PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

Ah ok, like when a man tells you using the electric breastpump is not that hard. I laugh when I see things like that. Ok then, lets rent a machine a tie you too it and suck milk out of your nipples for hours on end, for a continuous six weeks. Aha.

Yeah, exactly, that would be a prime example of mansplaining. "I googled an article about breastpumps so I know all about this and my 'knowledge' is automatically superior to yours even though only one of us has used a breastpump and it wasn't me."

clairefontaine wrote: »

Oh yes it is infuriating. But negation and invalidation, someone trying to rewrite your experiences, your biography, in a empathy less counter intuitive mission just to prop up their own perceptions, is something that both genders do. That and telling you how you should feel. That just makes me want to slam the phone down.

Yes, people do this kind of thing, you've described it more eloquently than me here. Technically "mansplaining" only applies to when men do it to women because at the bottom of it is an assumption that the male viewpoint is somehow automatically superior. I gve heard people describing this kind of thing in othe contexts with variations like "whitesplaining" or "cisplaining" or whatever. It's basically the same as when any person operating from a priviledged position assumes their knowledge or opinion holds more weight than the actual lived experience of the non-priviledged person when discussing how that disparity affects them. It can happen when theyre not discussing issues of race or womens issue too, when the "explainer" is assuming superior knowledge just because of who the "explainee" is, like if a man automatically assumes he knows more about cars than a woman because she's a woman, but when the issue being discussed involves actual experiences that a less-priviledged person has had - a person of colour experiencing racism or a woman experiencing sexism - being deemed less valid than someone else's second-hand knowledge because of that persons priviledge, that is, as you say, infuriating.

So men do it to women, it's mansplaining; a white person does it to a person of colour it's whitesplaining and so on.....
(of course a white man can both mansplain and whitesplain to a black woman at the same time....)

That priviledge aspect is crucial and that's why IMO a woman cannot really "mansplain" to another woman. She can invalidate and dismiss someone else's experiences and claim or assume that her knowledge is superior, she can be condescending, and she can even be pushing a misogynist viewpoint, but without that male priviledge what she's doing isn't technically mansplaining. Unfortunately there isn't really a common word to describe what she is doing, so I have seen people say "Well thanks for mansplaining that for us" just because it's the closest word they have.

But when I see the word "whitesplaining" being used it's never occurred to me to see it as a racist or anti-white word. Its describing a behaviour that I know white people do, that I've seen them doing, so of course people are going to want to have a name for this behaviour so that it can be talked about and challenged. There's nothing in the word "whitesplaining" or its use to suggest that it applies to all white people, and nothing in the word "mansplaining" to suggest or perpetuate a negative or sexist idea about men in general. That's why I don't think it's a sexist word or derogatory towards men.

clairefontaine · 20-07-2013 03:26PM

starling wrote: »

Yeah, exactly, that would be a prime example of mansplaining. "I googled an article about breastpumps so I know all about this and my 'knowledge' is automatically superior to yours even though only one of us has used a breastpump and it wasn't me."

Yes, people do this kind of thing, you've described it more eloquently than me here. Technically "mansplaining" only applies to when men do it to women because at the bottom of it is an assumption that the male viewpoint is somehow automatically superior. I gve heard people describing this kind of thing in othe contexts with variations like "whitesplaining" or "cisplaining" or whatever. It's basically the same as when any person operating from a priviledged position assumes their knowledge or opinion holds more weight than the actual lived experience of the non-priviledged person when discussing how that disparity affects them. It can happen when theyre not discussing issues of race or womens issue too, when the "explainer" is assuming superior knowledge just because of who the "explainee" is, like if a man automatically assumes he knows more about cars than a woman because she's a woman, but when the issue being discussed involves actual experiences that a less-priviledged person has had - a person of colour experiencing racism or a woman experiencing sexism - being deemed less valid than someone else's second-hand knowledge because of that persons priviledge, that is, as you say, infuriating.

So men do it to women, it's mansplaining; a white person does it to a person of colour it's whitesplaining and so on.....
(of course a white man can both mansplain and whitesplain to a black woman at the same time....)

That priviledge aspect is crucial and that's why IMO a woman cannot really "mansplain" to another woman. She can invalidate and dismiss someone else's experiences and claim or assume that her knowledge is superior, she can be condescending, and she can even be pushing a misogynist viewpoint, but without that male priviledge what she's doing isn't technically mansplaining. Unfortunately there isn't really a common word to describe what she is doing, so I have seen people say "Well thanks for mansplaining that for us" just because it's the closest word they have.

But when I see the word "whitesplaining" being used it's never occurred to me to see it as a racist or anti-white word. Its describing a behaviour that I know white people do, that I've seen them doing, so of course people are going to want to have a name for this behaviour so that it can be talked about and challenged. There's nothing in the word "whitesplaining" or its use to suggest that it applies to all white people, and nothing in the word "mansplaining" to suggest or perpetuate a negative or sexist idea about men in general. That's why I don't think it's a sexist word or derogatory towards men.

I can see what you are saying, and and largely agree with you about the privilege aspect, and would take it a step further about assuming dominance or even a will to dominance in thatnit demotes and even tries to erase the other. Where I diverge a little bit, is at the locus of privilege being reduced to race and gender, when there are so many variants on privilege, like social status, professional status, or even victim status. By calling it mansplaining or white splaining, occluded the possible recognition of other people outside of being white or male doing it. I would simple call it invalidation. You don't count. You are a cipher who means nothing. And then I can hear the sound of the gavel. And it happens here too at times.

starling · 20-07-2013 08:11PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

I can see what you are saying, and and largely agree with you about the privilege aspect, and would take it a step further about assuming dominance or even a will to dominance in thatnit demotes and even tries to erase the other. Where I diverge a little bit, is at the locus of privilege being reduced to race and gender, when there are so many variants on privilege, like social status, professional status, or even victim status. By calling it mansplaining or white splaining, occluded the possible recognition of other people outside of being white or male doing it. I would simple call it invalidation. You don't count. You are a cipher who means nothing. And then I can hear the sound of the gavel. And it happens here too at times.

Yes! I think that erasure that you mention is a problem too. I'm picturing a diagram in my head now with mansplaining and silencing being part of the larger problem of sexism, whitesplaining and silencing being a part of racism, etc....

I would agree actually that in interpersonal relations there are more factors than just colour or gender and that lots of things can be operating when one person condescend or invalidates another's experience. It's not always as simple as "I'm white and you're black" it could be "I'm from a middle class white family and I'm a woman, you're from a very underpriviledged social class and you're a black man...." and so on. Human relations are complex.

Feathers · 24-07-2013 07:43PM

Ambersky wrote: »

There is a saying that while you are explaining you are loosing.
The whole point of having a forum dedicated to women talking with each other is to get a bit away from the constant explaining. I say a bit because god knows we disagree with one another enough.

meeeeh wrote: »

I know this is OT but I prefer to be challenged, disagreed and argued with. I'll be the first to admit that my nature is combative and that I am bored by stuff where everyone or most people are in agreement. So no I'm not opposed to male contributions, in fact I find them entertaining or interesting. Excluding the idiots that should be dealt with by mods.

I think there is also bit of a divide between what people expect from forums. Some want to argue (me) and the others want to find people with similar outlook or even some support and friendship. So even if you banish all men from the forum, there will be probably still some of us who will annoy others. It's the nature of the public boards and sometimes there is very little that can be done unless the post is ot (guilty again).

Just posting this here as the other thread seems to have gone back on topic & don't want to bring it off again.

To me it feels like the forum drives these two seperate raisons d'être, as meeeeh is saying above — on the one hand, you've people who want to discuss issues affecting women primarily through the lens of shared experiences & providing support, from a personal perspective. On the other, you've people who are willing (and want to) discuss issues affecting women as a more general topic.

Both seem to make sense to live in The Ladies Lounge, but a poster who starts a thread expecting the first, would be quite rightly annoyed if their thread was derailed by the second.

Would it work to maybe tag the threads with something to denote which ones are open to more general discussion? It's not necessarily obvious by the thread title or OP, as often threads could cover both personal and general angles on the one topic.

It would mean that you could have a zero tolerance on challenges or questions in personal threads, as everyone would effectively be told in advance that it was sharing-only, no wider discussion. But it would also provide a space to discuss issues affecting women, still from a woman's perspective but open to queries from men if that's what the OP was up for.

An example of what I mean is available in the Development forum, where users can choose a "prefix" from a dropdown list when starting a thread to show that it's a question. Just a thought

clairefontaine · 27-07-2013 09:06PM

Feathers wrote: »

Just posting this here as the other thread seems to have gone back on topic & don't want to bring it off again.

To me it feels like the forum drives these two seperate raisons d'être, as meeeeh is saying above — on the one hand, you've people who want to discuss issues affecting women primarily through the lens of shared experiences & providing support, from a personal perspective. On the other, you've people who are willing (and want to) discuss issues affecting women as a more general topic.

Both seem to make sense to live in The Ladies Lounge, but a poster who starts a thread expecting the first, would be quite rightly annoyed if their thread was derailed by the second.

Would it work to maybe tag the threads with something to denote which ones are open to more general discussion? It's not necessarily obvious by the thread title or OP, as often threads could cover both personal and general angles on the one topic.

It would mean that you could have a zero tolerance on challenges or questions in personal threads, as everyone would effectively be told in advance that it was sharing-only, no wider discussion. But it would also provide a space to discuss issues affecting women, still from a woman's perspective but open to queries from men if that's what the OP was up for.

An example of what I mean is available in the Development forum, where users can choose a "prefix" from a dropdown list when starting a thread to show that it's a question. Just a thought

This is the crux of it.

If you have threads that are framed in the abstract, philosophical, political or ideological, then you can expect counter argument. To make it fair it would have to be strictly without personalisation.

If you have threads that are about your personal experiences, then invalidation should also be strictly in tolerated, whether from a man or a woman.

The problem arises when you have threads which are a mix of both, like the "why I need feminism" thread for a recent example. Feminism is an ideology, so its not nreasonable to expect challenge, and I would argue is healthy for ideology to be challenged otherwise you are left with indoctrinatin. But when you have personal experiences hosting a need for an ideology, that's where things get confusing, so it would be wise to challenge the ideology, or support the ideology, whichever floats the posters particular boat, without invalidating the personal experience. It's not always clear cut in these case so it can understand lay get a bit messy. But whoever said life was tidy?

starling · 28-07-2013 01:34PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

This is the crux of it.

If you have threads that are framed in the abstract, philosophical, political or ideological, then you can expect counter argument. To make it fair it would have to be strictly without personalisation.

If you have threads that are about your personal experiences, then invalidation should also be strictly in tolerated, whether from a man or a woman.

The problem arises when you have threads which are a mix of both, like the "why I need feminism" thread for a recent example. Feminism is an ideology, so its not nreasonable to expect challenge, and I would argue is healthy for ideology to be challenged otherwise you are left with indoctrinatin. But when you have personal experiences hosting a need for an ideology, that's where things get confusing, so it would be wise to challenge the ideology, or support the ideology, whichever floats the posters particular boat, without invalidating the personal experience. It's not always clear cut in these case so it can understand lay get a bit messy. But whoever said life was tidy?

Very true. Personally I would read the OP and as you've said, take my cue from that. I'd like to think that I can discuss issues and disagree with people when the discussion is general, while still being able to empathise with a poster who's looking for support. At least I hope so

Being the Queen of Unasked-for Advice, I would probably try to offer suggestions to someone who's in a pickle, but I try to do it in a "Have you tried x" or "Do you think x would help" as opposed to "You should have done x" or "You did that wrong" or whatever. But I do appreciate sometimes we all just need to vent a bit or hear "I understand, I've been there."

Just a quick note, I wouldn't recommend relying on thread tags as that kind of thing is not visible atm on most mobile devices. I don't even see signatures on mine, or icons that have been used for a thread or a post. I'd have to rely on the OP itself for a cue to whether the poster wants support or wants to discuss the issue in the broader sense.

There's also the PI forum for very personal issues and very strict rules against turning someone's situation into a theoretical discussion.

Feathers · 29-07-2013 07:13AM

starling wrote: »

Just a quick note, I wouldn't recommend relying on thread tags as that kind of thing is not visible atm on most mobile devices. I don't even see signatures on mine, or icons that have been used for a thread or a post. I'd have to rely on the OP itself for a cue to whether the poster wants support or wants to discuss the issue in the broader sense.

There's also the PI forum for very personal issues and very strict rules against turning someone's situation into a theoretical discussion.

Didn't so much mean tags, more the prefixes used on some boards, like here: http://touch.boards.ie/forum/25

PI could be good for some threads, but others, like "Why I need feminism?" mentioned above, probably fall outside that too - it's more of around 'solidarity' for want of a better word, than the type of support/advice threads in PI.

starling · 29-07-2013 11:44AM

Feathers wrote: »

Didn't so much mean tags, more the prefixes used on some boards, like here: http://touch.boards.ie/forum/25

PI could be good for some threads, but others, like "Why I need feminism?" mentioned above, probably fall outside that too - it's more of around 'solidarity' for want of a better word, than the type of support/advice threads in PI.

Ah those would be visible, that would eliminate any issues with mobile viewing

It's true it depends on the poster themselves whether they specifically want to go to PI or tLL. There would be many instances where a thread could belong in either. I'd see "solidarity" or empathy from people who have been in similar situations as a big part of what makes tLL so valuable for many posters.:)

IvyTheTerrible · 05-08-2013 08:29AM

Has anybody noticed that the level of "whataboutery" has increased a lot in the last while? I feel like we (women) are having to defend ourselves a lot more in here. It feels a lot more aggressive IMO.

This just struck me yesterday, but it seems to be since the "trending" tab was introduced to the main page. What do ye think?

05-08-2013 10:41AM

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

Has anybody noticed that the level of "whataboutery" has increased a lot in the last while? I feel like we (women) are having to defend ourselves a lot more in here. It feels a lot more aggressive IMO.

This just struck me yesterday, but it seems to be since the "trending" tab was introduced to the main page. What do ye think?

It's definitely on the rise Ivy, I only said it in the mod forum the other day!

Never even thought about the trending tab but you could be spot on. I'm away at the minute with crappy Internet but will follow that up when I'm back

Legs.Eleven · 05-08-2013 04:20PM

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

Has anybody noticed that the level of "whataboutery" has increased a lot in the last while? I feel like we (women) are having to defend ourselves a lot more in here. It feels a lot more aggressive IMO.

This just struck me yesterday, but it seems to be since the "trending" tab was introduced to the main page. What do ye think?

Grrrrrrr.:mad: It's to the point of ridiculousness. Wreaking me buzz.

starling · 05-08-2013 04:24PM

I think Ivy's probably right about the "trending" tab encouraging drive-by trolling.

I was thinking, the soccer forum has its own rules about access, do you ladies think something like that might help in tLL?
It would stop re-reg trolls and mean that people would actually read the charter before posting.

Otoh it might discourage genuine posters, I don't know. There's also the risk that it might reinforce certain people's perception that tLL is a place where dissenting or antifeminist views are not tolerated, that it is in one poster's words "an echo chamber" - an inaccurate view, but one that some people believe nonetheless

I'm sure the mods must have considered the restricted access option before, I'd be interested to hear what kind of points came up in those discussion?

clairefontaine · 05-08-2013 06:16PM

I think you have to be careful that that things like mansplaining and whataboutery are not used as means to silence others. But maybe thats what you want.

Certainly "a woman's point of view" would imply a singular perspective, one that would alienate the point of view of women that don't fit in with melodic harmonies of particular voices here.

There are thesis posted here that do have some weird built in assumptions, that because of the charter can't be challenged, but deserve to be fro this particular woman's point of view.

Legs.Eleven · 05-08-2013 06:54PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

I think you have to be careful that that things like mansplaining and whataboutery are not used as means to silence others. But maybe thats what you want.

Certainly "a woman's point of view" would imply a singular perspective, one that would alienate the point of view of women that don't fit in with melodic harmonies of particular voices here.

There are thesis posted here that do have some weird built in assumptions, that because of the charter can't be challenged, but deserve to be fro this particular woman's point of view.

I think people are referring to the petty whataboutery whereby a poster who never posts in TLL jumps into a thread they haven't read at all and makes a comment totally unrelated to the topic that adds nothing to the discussion and leaves people having to explain that yes, that's also a problem but this is not what the discussion is about. It's got the point of ridiculousness. I love to see male posters in here who can debate with a bit of thought and add another perspective to the same topic but jumping in to a thread and stating that women who find men who sleep with prostitutes (when the topic was men CHEATING ON THEIR PARTNERS with prostitutes) are not as pathetic as women who buy an expensive bag (

That may or may not be so but there's more than one pathetic act out there. It's not a contest.). On the same thread, someone stated it was the OP's husband she was talking about and she was looking for "validation from her sisters (women :rolleyes:)" when she never said it was. They were snarky, condescending, trolling, pointless comments that had nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I don't want an "Us v them" mentality in here but it's not helped when some male posters come in with "What about men" type comments. They're the ones creating the point scoring atmosphere in my view.

We get a mainly male point of view everywhere else on Boards and it'd be nice to be able to discuss things that affect women without having to compare and contrast how men are treated in totally different and unrelated situations.

starling · 05-08-2013 07:02PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

I think you have to be careful that that things like mansplaining and whataboutery are not used as means to silence others. But maybe thats what you want.

Whoa, I think that's a bit harsh. Genuine instances of whataboutery and mansplaining derail threads and drag them into the same arguments time after time; whataboutery is off topic and mansplaining is dismissive and insulting. Whatboutery is against the forum rules for a good reason.
Men are allowed to express their opinions in tLL, but they're not entitled to remain unchallenged if their opinion is just sexism. Everybody has a right to their own opinion. That doesn't mean you have the right to express an opinion and not have it challenged.

clairefontaine wrote: »

Certainly "a woman's point of view" would imply a singular perspective, one that would alienate the point of view of women that don't fit in with melodic harmonies of particular voices here.

I'm assuming you're talking about feminists? It's a forum for women; if a large number of women happen to be feminists or to express opinions that are commonly expressed in feminist discourse that's hardly surprising? There's no rule that says you have to be a feminist to post in tLL. It's just that by the law of averages there's probably going to be a fair few posters who are feminists.

clairefontaine wrote: »

There are thesis posted here that do have some weird built in assumptions, that because of the charter can't be challenged, but deserve to be fro this particular woman's point of view.

A lot of posters have pretty weird assumptions tbf. I don't think the charter stifles discussion, it just helps to prevent threads designed for women to discuss things from their perspective from being ruined by having to deal with the same old bs from men.

clairefontaine · 05-08-2013 09:00PM

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

I think people are referring to the petty whataboutery whereby a poster who never posts in TLL jumps into a thread they haven't read at all and makes a comment totally unrelated to the topic that adds nothing to the discussion and leaves people having to explain that yes, that's also a problem but this is not what the discussion is about. It's got the point of ridiculousness. I love to see male posters in here who can debate with a bit of thought and add another perspective to the same topic but jumping in to a thread and stating that women who find men who sleep with prostitutes (when the topic was men CHEATING ON THEIR PARTNERS with prostitutes) are not as pathetic as women who buy an expensive bag ( That may or may not be so but there's more than one pathetic act out there. It's not a contest.). On the same thread, someone stated it was the OP's husband she was talking about and she was looking for "validation from her sisters (women :rolleyes:)" when she never said it was. They were snarky, condescending, trolling, pointless comments that had nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I don't want an "Us v them" mentality in here but it's not helped when some male posters come in with "What about men" type comments. They're the ones creating the point scoring atmosphere in my view.

We get a mainly male point of view everywhere else on Boards and it'd be nice to be able to discuss things that affect women without having to compare and contrast how men are treated in totally different and unrelated situations.

I understand what you are saying and agree its annoying. Perhaps if you asked posters to read the last ten pages of a thread, to write mor than one sentence, to stick to the subject, and to be respectful, you might get more helpful responses even if they disagreed with the thesis of the subject.

Sometimes it's incredibly frustrating to see, what I consider very bigoted theses or language here, on the part of the female posters, and not be able to challenge some of the axioms held in the thesis, because it doesn't concur with the sacred woman's point of view. I am a woman. If my point of view does not glide with another posters does that make it NOT a woman's point of view. Hardly. It's just another woman's point of view.

To take of or example, a subject that comes up from time to time. The issue of reporting rape or domestic violence to the police. So many people assume this is a woman's issue. Well it is. But it's also an everyone's issue. The assumption in calling it a woman's issue, is that is that men and children have an easier time reporting their victimisation to the police, which is not the case. Victims across the board have trouble getting the cops to believe them, have trouble with evidence, have trouble in courts and the system. And because of the inherent bias in positing this as a woman's issue exclusively, is it will lead to whataboutery, because that is generally what bias does...it excludes. So you want inclusivity, but then practise exclusionary philosophy.

So I get that frustration also.

starling · 05-08-2013 09:56PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

I understand what you are saying and agree its annoying. Perhaps if you asked posters to read the last ten pages of a thread, to write mor than one sentence, to stick to the subject, and to be respectful, you might get more helpful responses even if they disagreed with the thesis of the subject.

Sometimes it's incredibly frustrating to see, what I consider very bigoted theses or language here, on the part of the female posters,....

Listen, I really don't want to get personal, and you know I don't have anything against you personally. But let's be fair, I've heard you saying some fairly choice stuff yourself, so maybe you shouldn't be throwing stones.

clairefontaine wrote: »

and not be able to challenge some of the axioms held in the thesis, because it doesn't concur with the sacred woman's point of view. I am a woman. If my point of view does not glide with another posters does that make it NOT a woman's point of view. Hardly. It's just another woman's point of view.

What sacred woman's point of view? We all know that we women don't all hold the same views on anything; we're all entirely free to disagree with each other and challenge each others statements here. But "what about the men" just isn't appropriate for this forum.

clairefontaine wrote: »

To take of or example, a subject that comes up from time to time. The issue of reporting rape or domestic violence to the police. So many people assume this is a woman's issue. Well it is. But it's also an everyone's issue. The assumption in calling it a woman's issue, is that is that men and children have an easier time reporting their victimisation to the police, which is not the case. Victims across the board have trouble getting the cops to believe them, have trouble with evidence, have trouble in courts and the system. And because of the inherent bias in positing this as a woman's issue exclusively, is it will lead to whataboutery, because that is generally what bias does...it excludes. So you want inclusivity, but then practise exclusionary philosophy.

So I get that frustration also.

Such things as rape and domestic violence are generally referred to as "women's issues" because they a) affect women disproportionately and b) are committed by men disproportionately. And while I would absolutely agree that these things are everybodys issue, tLL is specifically for discussion of these things from our perspective as women.

That doesn't mean we're not aware that these things happen to men too. It doesn't mean that we are ignoring or dismissing men's experiences. It just means that in this particular forum we're looking at the female perspective.

By bringing up the experiences of men in these areas a poster would be shifting focus away from the female perspective needlessly, thereby making tLL the same as any other forum.

If you look at any rape thread on AH you'll find plenty of time, energy and attention being devoted to men's perspectives. TLL is for women's perspectives.

Stheno · 05-08-2013 10:01PM

starling wrote: »

Listen, I really don't want to get personal, and you know I don't have anything against you personally. But let's be fair, I've heard you saying some fairly choice stuff yourself, so maybe you shouldn't be throwing stones.

What sacred woman's point of view? We all know that we women don't all hold the same views on anything; we're all entirely free to disagree with each other and challenge each others statements here. But "what about the men" just isn't appropriate for this forum.

Such things as rape and domestic violence are generally referred to as "women's issues" because they a) affect women disproportionately and b) are committed by men disproportionately. And while I would absolutely agree that these things are everybodys issue, tLL is specifically for discussion of these things from our perspective as women.

That doesn't mean we're not aware that these things happen to men too. It doesn't mean that we are ignoring or dismissing men's experiences. It just means that in this particular forum we're looking at the female perspective.

By bringing up the experiences of men in these areas a poster would be shifting focus away from the female perspective needlessly, thereby making tLL the same as any other forum.

If you look at any rape thread on AH you'll find plenty of time, energy and attention being devoted to men's perspectives. TLL is for women's perspectives.

I'd pretty much have the same view, sometimes it can be very refreshing to see debate from a female point of view on here in this forum.

And it can be very interesting, we've had plenty of examples against the norm, women who pay maintenance e.g. which has raised awareness of here that it's not just men who pay maintenance.

One small pedantic point though, domestic violence when looked at by gender, does appear to be pretty much 50/50 committed by males/females against their partners, it's far better publicised when it comes to women suffering domestic violence though in terms of awareness. It's been debated a few times on various fora (not AH) on boards, and there are plenty of links to back that up.

starling · 05-08-2013 10:08PM

Stheno wrote: »

I'd pretty much have the same view, sometimes it can be very refreshing to see debate from a female point of view on here in this forum.

And it can be very interesting, we've had plenty of examples against the norm, women who pay maintenance e.g. which has raised awareness of here that it's not just men who pay maintenance.

One small pedantic point though, domestic violence when looked at by gender, does appear to be pretty much 50/50 committed by males/females against their partners, it's far better publicised when it comes to women suffering domestic violence though in terms of awareness. It's been debated a few times on various fora (not AH) on boards, and there are plenty of links to back that up.

That's not pedantic - I'd say that's pretty damn important! I genuinely didn't know that and it just shows how underpublicised domestic violence against men is! I'm glad you mentioned it, thanks

athtrasna · 05-08-2013 10:14PM

I've got a very random issue but it's why I rarely post on here. The threads are too big! TLL doesn't seem to get many new threads on a daily basis but it's quite common for threads to run to 10+ pages. In my opinion that makes them too hard to follow. I follow about 12 forums on boards and only two long threads keep my attention, one in rugby and the management company one in Accommodation & Property. There are just too many long threads in TLL for me.

Anyone else feel the same way?

Stheno · 05-08-2013 10:16PM

athtrasna wrote: »

I've got a very random issue but it's why I rarely post on here. The threads are too big! TLL doesn't seem to get many new threads on a daily basis but it's quite common for threads to run to 10+ pages. In my opinion that makes them too hard to follow. I follow about 12 forums on boards and only two long threads keep my attention, one in rugby and the management company one in Accommodation & Property. There are just too many long threads in TLL for me.

Anyone else feel the same way?

I skim the long threads, now I'm a quick reader so that's an easy solution for me.
But I tend to ignore a lot of the posts and focus on those I am most interested in.

Also are you using the "last unread post" feature? That makes it easier too.

clairefontaine · 06-08-2013 12:26AM

starling wrote: »

Listen, I really don't want to get personal, and you know I don't have anything against you personally. But let's be fair, I've heard you saying some fairly choice stuff yourself, so maybe you shouldn't be throwing stones..

My point is if you are going to make big statements about the opposite gender, or refer to blogs which to, that are not backed up by numbers and research, it is understandable, for men to want to argue with it, or women to.

I think I have come to the conclusion, that despite being one, I don't know what a woman's point of view actually means or what people here mean by it.

starling · 06-08-2013 12:57AM

clairefontaine wrote: »

My point is if you are going to make big statements about the opposite gender, or refer to blogs which to, that are not backed up by numbers and research, it is understandable, for men to want to argue with it, or women to.

Yea but there are threads in tLL where detached, or 'academic' discussion of things like that is appropriate and then other threads where it's more about women needing a place where they can post about their experiences without having men drop in and basically drown their voices out, without being told they're overreacting, basically without having someone who's never experienced what they're describing nonetheless try to explain it to them or tell them how they should feel about it.

Pretty much any issue discussed in tLL can also be discussed in the gentlemans club or after hours where posters are free to indulge in as much whataboutery as they like, but tLL gives us a place where we can get on with discussing things that affect us without constantly having to stop and deal with how these things may or may not affect men, how men feel about them, with educating men about them, with justifying to men how we feel about them and why we care about them, and so on ad nauseum.

Basically, the focus here is on women, and although male posters can and do contribute to discussions with positive results, the rules about whataboutery etc keep that focus on women.

IvyTheTerrible · 06-08-2013 06:28AM

For me, personally, the fact that I brought up "whataboutery" in the feedback thread is absolutely nothing to do with silencing one point of view. I like reading a good debate.

I brought it up because this forum was/is supposed to be a place where women feel comfortable and safe posting. And to be honest, in some threads here lately with the whataboutery I mentioned, no, I don't feel comfortable posting in those threads.

Das Kitty · 06-08-2013 07:48AM

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

For me, personally, the fact that I brought up "whataboutery" in the feedback thread is absolutely nothing to do with silencing one point of view. I like reading a good debate.

I brought it up because this forum was/is supposed to be a place where women feel comfortable and safe posting. And to be honest, in some threads here lately with the whataboutery I mentioned, no, I don't feel comfortable posting in those threads.

+1

I actually don't really feel like posting in very many threads here anymore.

clairefontaine · 06-08-2013 07:51AM

starling wrote: »

Yea but there are threads in tLL where detached, or 'academic' discussion of things like that is appropriate and then other threads where it's more about women needing a place where they can post about their experiences without having men drop in and basically drown their voices out, without being told they're overreacting, basically without having someone who's never experienced what they're describing nonetheless try to explain it to them or tell them how they should feel about it.

Pretty much any issue discussed in tLL can also be discussed in the gentlemans club or after hours where posters are free to indulge in as much whataboutery as they like, but tLL gives us a place where we can get on with discussing things that affect us without constantly having to stop and deal with how these things may or may not affect men, how men feel about them, with educating men about them, with justifying to men how we feel about them and why we care about them, and so on ad nauseum.

Basically, the focus here is on women, and although male posters can and do contribute to discussions with positive results, the rules about whataboutery etc keep that focus on women.

That's reasonable enough but if the topics are about men, like saying thousands of men a day are raping women, or feminist men, or anything a about men, then do you consider it changing the subject of someone says, hold on a minute... Lets think about that again.

One thing that bugs me is when an individual prefaces an opinion with "from a woman's point of view..." Or "from a man's point of view...." " No it's not. It's from YOUR point of view, don't try to universalise it as if you can speak for the entirety of your gender.

06-08-2013 08:23AM

I'm going to look more into the trending tab issue today if I can.

With regards to the increase in gobshytery from some posters - I ask this; don't feed the trolls!

Please please report the posts and let the mods deal with them, we do try our very best to keep on top of reported posts. Do not enter into discussion with those who appear to be trolling or those who are breaching the charter with whataboutery. Feeding trolls just makes them hang around for longer. Report and ignore is the best way forward for now.

We want your feedback

Comments