What is a female point of view/perspective?

Otis Driftwood

Hypothetical time!

I start a thread in AH asking "why is it that posters in other forums are usually more intelligent than they are in here"

Result
Thread locked,I get infracted/banned.

Another user starts the same thread a few weeks later with the same results.

A few weeks after that someone starts a thread in AH asking "why do AH users feel the need to give smart answers the whole time rather than decent ones like you would get in other forums"

Result
Thread locked,user gets infracted/banned.

Look at the above,times it ad nauseum,replace AH with Irish women/women in general and you basically have what happens alot in tLL.

Outlaw Pete,if the above examples actually happened with AH,and it continued for YEARS,do you think the mods would be within their rights to adopt a zero tolerance stance for that kind of crap on the forum?

I have no doubt in my mind that you,or the mods or any forum regular would unequivocally support a zero tolerance approach for posters spouting rubbish like that.Exactly the same as tLL mods do with bollixing in tLL.

Its been said before but Im going to say it again.If people dont like a forum or how its moderated or its charter,then why post in it or read it.

Its staggering that a minute section of men on boards feel the need to try and redress this perceived imbalance that exists in tLL.

At this stage its a pitiful argument and it reads like a few posters stamping their feet and having a hissy fit because they got a slap on the wrists.

Edit
Just to be clear,I used AH as an example as it is the biggest forum on boards with the biggest user base,same as tLL probably is for female members.

The Left Hand Of God

Dudess wrote: »

There's that I'm sure from some men, but men actually have an interest in the topics there too, otherwise they wouldn't be posting so comprehensively.

Saw on the Saudi women thread "Saudi males get treated worse" - like, it's about Saudi women. If it was a thread on The Gentlemen's Club about Saudi men, I wouldn't see the logic in sauntering in with what it's like for Saudi women. I know men in TGC are disgusted by what happens to women there and that a non mention of their plight isn't a non acknowledgement of it. If someone wants to discuss the experiences of both genders in Saudi Arabia, why not start a thread in Humanities?

I have read that thread. I find irony in the fact that a ruling regime in a country dictates, legally, because they are in charge, about how things work in reference to women and driving.

I know tll is a women's forum but if a thread appears about abortion blokes can't post if they have a view because they are blokes or might not agree with most women...? They have to take it to humanities?

I haven't posted in tll due to the hostility tbh

Dudess

Wibbs wrote: »

He subsequently complained about the ban. Totally incredulous at the reasons for the ban. Myself I was incredulous at his incredulity.

Oh yeah, saw that - and of course a good auld "An Irish female banned me - see what I said about Irish women?" dig thrown in.

That IMHO is the undercurrent to a fair bit of this stuff. Not all, but a fair bit. The feeling among some that Boards and especially AH, "their" AH has become too "PC" and restrictive overall and "feminist" and that tLL is at the vanguard of the latter in some way. Like I say just my feeling on it.

Yeah, lol at the notion AH has become "feminist". If a woman started a thread in there raising concern about a case of discrimination or whatever against women (disclaimer: yes, I realise it can happen to men too) she would be crucified - moreso now it seems than ever before. What's deemed to constitute "too feminist" in AH is a clampdown on sh1tty, non joking posts about women. If a person feels resentment about that, that it's ok for women to be slated on a forum and made to feel unwelcome (over the years I've read a number of women saying they used to post there but just had to quit) their issue tbh...

Silverfish

The Left Hand Of God wrote: »

I have read that thread. I find irony in the fact that a ruling regime in a country dictates, legally, because they are in charge, about how things work in reference to women and driving.

I know tll is a women's forum but if a thread appears about abortion blokes can't post if they have a view because they are blokes or might not agree with most women...? They have to take it to humanities?

I haven't posted in tll due to the hostility tbh

We have had abortion threads, many men posted. Many different views were given. Nobody was banned for being male. Seriously.

However, under the changes requested by some male posters on this thread, no, you would not be allowed post.

The only people who have a problem with male posters in tLL appear to be men themselves.

So I think this is something you need to sort out amongst yourselves and leave the forum out of it.

Dudess

The Left Hand Of God wrote: »

I have read that thread. I find irony in the fact that a ruling regime in a country dictates, legally, because they are in charge, about how things work in reference to women and driving.

But it would be ok by you I'm sure if the thread was only about men (and rightly so) in TGC...

I know tll is a women's forum but if a thread appears about abortion blokes can't post if they have a view because they are blokes or might not agree with most women...?

Could this notion of men not being able to post there because they are men be scrapped? Like seriously? And I really don't see how a man would be prevented from posting to an abortion thread because of disagreeing with women... seeing as women disagree with women on such threads also...

I haven't posted in tll due to the hostility tbh

... which is in your head.

Maybe mod warnings should be delivered in a softer manner - not in bold and with a smiley? Seriously, a change in tone might help.

Silverfish

Dudess wrote: »

Maybe mod warnings should be delivered in a softer manner - not in bold and with a smiley? Seriously, a change in tone might help.

Tried that, was unacceptable to some posters who requested mod warnings must be in bold or else it was not a warning, despite the content of the post.

Can't win on that one, I'm afraid.

donfers

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

who are these group of men? evidence please

disagreeing with the groupthink does not equal being a troll/derailing/being disruptive and uncooperative.

Oh and nobody here has questioned the right of the ladies lounge to exist.

Anyway that is not the issue.......


occassionally trolls go into tll like they do in every other forum, yes but that's nothing to do with this discussion

yes some guys quite happily post in the ladies lounge, so what? nothing to with this discussion

what happens in christian forums and golf forums is nothing to do with this discussion

call it blokes having a hissy fit if you like, it's nothing to do with this discussion (there are all sorts of "hissy fits" about all sorts of forums on here, I'd hope that those who seek to demean constructive criticism are at least consistent in doing so and not engaging in some kind of pitiful display of virtual chivalry - the ladies are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves)

ask people who have an issue not to post there anymore, fine nothing to do with the discussion (but a very lazy argument that resolves nothing)

yes it has happened that some male posters will invoke a male equivalent of the something that a female is describing, if so that is only valid I think if the female poster in question is suggesting somehow that females alone suffer that kind of problem, if that is the case then the male poster has the right to suggest otherwise, if he is just entering the thread to eat his own slice of the victim cake and it is irrelevant to the discussion then yes he should be told to take it elsewhere but it's nothing to do with this discussion

it's all a question of perception, one woman's troll/trouble-maker/stirrer is another woman's debater/counter-argument proponent/alternative theorist - of course if you don't like the counter-argument it's very easy to dismiss it as coming from a troll/stirrer/trouble-maker particularly in a forum where this is such a strong and forceful adherence to the central political tenets of "woman's point of view" which is troublesome because it is very vague and at the same time a tremendously sensitive area so problems arise.

A lot of the stuff being posted in defense of TLL is all fine and dandy but it's nothing to do with what I asked.

Others have used analogies rather wildly in this thread so forgive me if I indulge, it's like me saying to my mum, I'm not sure about that ingredient you used in the cake and her reacting by accusing me of hating living in the house and why should she have to remodel the kitchen? err....chill

My question was "what does a woman's point of view/perspective mean" in the context of a discussion forum. Yes I have reached a state of intelligence now where I can deduct that a woman's point of view/persepctive is a point of view/perspective that belongs to a woman. I am aware of that. But in the context of a discussion forum what does that actually mean - I am still awaiting clarification on that, because as far as I can see (unless we are speaking of physiological issues that can solely be experienced by women) there is such a wide variety of differing female opinions on every issue you can think of that it seems almost pointless and nonsensical to encourage perspectives/opinions based on gender grounds because almost every thing a man can think of, every take a man can have on something, a woman can too (except for stuff like what's it like to be preganant). That's what I don't understand, I hope I have explained myself this time so maybe a feminist perspective is a better wording for the charter. What do you think?

Silverfish

donfers wrote: »

That's what I don't understand, I hope I have explained myself this time so maybe a feminist perspective is a better wording for the charter. What do you think?

I think no, we have plenty of women who post in disagreement of certain facets of feminism, and some who post in disagreement of ALL facets of feminism, and some men too. So saying the feminist perspective would be a bit too exclusive.

Yeah we have a load of male AND female feminists on the forum, but that's not exclusively what the forum is.

donfers

Silverfish wrote: »

I think no, we have plenty of women who post in disagreement of certain facets of feminism, and some who post in disagreement of ALL facets of feminism, and some men too. So saying the feminist perspective would be a bit too exclusive.

Yeah we have a load of male AND female feminists on the forum, but that's not exclusively what the forum is.

fair enough, it's a tough one to word I'll grant you that

I know all this seems pedantic but I think as long as the charter operates as a kind of half-way house (i.e. the vague "woman's point of view" thing, the ambiguous "primarily" for women thing) between a strong feminist element on the one hand and guys and other views welcome too on the other hand (with the caveat that they can't unsettle the first group too much) then these occassional headfecks will occur.

Still if the mods and tll users are content with that way then so be it but do you not think writing a more unequivocal charter would help? That's all i am asking basically

Wibbs

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

Its been said before but Im going to say it again.If people dont like a forum or how its moderated or its charter,then why post in it or read it.

Its staggering that a minute section of men on boards feel the need to try and redress this perceived imbalance that exists in tLL.

At this stage its a pitiful argument and it reads like a few posters stamping their feet and having a hissy fit because they got a slap on the wrists.

+1000 Jesus ye in tGC even had to add a codicil to your charter to clamp down on the bitching about other forums. Lets guess which one. *shakes head* Really there's only so many ways you can respond to this stuff.

Like you said it seems pitiful and we've actually banned very few of the main complainants. Donfers requested his banning. Gunsfortoys was banned just the once from tLL IIRC. These are all pretty minimal posters anyway. OutlawPete a good example(BTW never banned from tLL). Since tLL was opened as Silverfish pointed out in the helpdesk thread OutlawPete has posted just 29 posts in the forum, 21 of them in one thread. However she did find around 15 posts by OutlawPete complaining about tLL in AH. Yet in the 6 odd years he's been a member on this site has he actually ever reported a post in tLL? Nope. Not a single one. No doubt similar can be said of the majority of the complainants. This is why I personally chose to largely ignore their input*.

Actually I reckon my very first post on the matter was where I should have left it and been kind to mine and OutlawPete's respective keyboards; "FFS?"





*not all. Wolfe Tone for example and yes donfers at times too. And the pain in the arse of all of this is frustration at some can mean a suspicion of others when not necessarily warranted.

Elmidena

I've posted in there and I'm not a feminist, with the objection of the female car insurance costs going up to make it more equal!

At the risk of a flame war opening up on me, women are a lot more sensitive to men in general (and yes, I appreciate not always the case).

Due to hormones, most women are reactive at certain times of their cycle. I would sincerely doubt everyone is clocked to have them at the exact time for the exact duration. Women also tend to form a gaggle better than men do. There is more group mentality than the average same-peers-statistics group of men. As a result, I would reckon the woman's point of view/perspective means that anything you say is to take into account the above information and to provide your 2c with respect that others might not take it well, and for them not to take it in "TROLLING B*STARD GTFO" approach.

Ie, if you have an opinion that may not be popular, do so in an approach that gets your point across without getting people's backs up. Not necessarily walking on eggshells, but definitely not stamping with no concern for your surrounding environment.

The Left Hand Of God

Dudess wrote: »

But it would be ok by you I'm sure if the thread was only about men (and rightly so) in TGC...

Could this notion of men not being able to post there because they are men be scrapped? Like seriously? And I really don't see how a man would be prevented from posting to an abortion thread because of disagreeing with women... seeing as women disagree with women on such threads also...

... which is in your head.

Maybe mod warnings should be delivered in a softer manner - not in bold and with a smiley? Seriously, a change in tone might help.

"But it would be ok by you I'm sure if the thread was only about men (and rightly so) in TGC..."

How dare you. Honestly.

You don't know me and I don't know you so fuk off making assumptions about me.

I didn't you.

metrovelvet

donfers wrote: »

who are these group of men? evidence please

disagreeing with the groupthink does not equal being a troll/derailing/being disruptive and uncooperative.

Oh and nobody here has questioned the right of the ladies lounge to exist.

Anyway that is not the issue.......


occassionally trolls go into tll like they do in every other forum, yes but that's nothing to do with this discussion

yes some guys quite happily post in the ladies lounge, so what? nothing to with this discussion

what happens in christian forums and golf forums is nothing to do with this discussion

call it blokes having a hissy fit if you like, it's nothing to do with this discussion (there are all sorts of "hissy fits" about all sorts of forums on here, I'd hope that those who seek to demean constructive criticism are at least consistent in doing so and not engaging in some kind of pitiful display of virtual chivalry - the ladies are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves)

ask people who have an issue not to post there anymore, fine nothing to do with the discussion (but a very lazy argument that resolves nothing)

yes it has happened that some male posters will invoke a male equivalent of the something that a female is describing, if so that is only valid I think if the female poster in question is suggesting somehow that females alone suffer that kind of problem, if that is the case then the male poster has the right to suggest otherwise, if he is just entering the thread to eat his own slice of the victim cake and it is irrelevant to the discussion then yes he should be told to take it elsewhere but it's nothing to do with this discussion

it's all a question of perception, one woman's troll/trouble-maker/stirrer is another woman's debater/counter-argument proponent/alternative theorist - of course if you don't like the counter-argument it's very easy to dismiss it as coming from a troll/stirrer/trouble-maker particularly in a forum where this is such a strong and forceful adherence to the central political tenets of "woman's point of view" which is troublesome because it is very vague and at the same time a tremendously sensitive area so problems arise.

A lot of the stuff being posted in defense of TLL is all fine and dandy but it's nothing to do with what I asked.

Others have used analogies rather wildly in this thread so forgive me if I indulge, it's like me saying to my mum, I'm not sure about that ingredient you used in the cake and her reacting by accusing me of hating living in the house and why should she have to remodel the kitchen? err....chill

My question was "what does a woman's point of view/perspective mean" in the context of a discussion forum. Yes I have reached a state of intelligence now where I can deduct that a woman's point of view/persepctive is a point of view/perspective that belongs to a woman. I am aware of that. But in the context of a discussion forum what does that actually mean - I am still awaiting clarification on that, because as far as I can see (unless we are speaking of physiological issues that can solely be experienced by women) there is such a wide variety of differing female opinions on every issue you can think of that it seems almost pointless and nonsensical to encourage perspectives/opinions based on gender grounds because almost every thing a man can think of, every take a man can have on something, a woman can too (except for stuff like what's it like to be preganant). That's what I don't understand, I hope I have explained myself this time so maybe a feminist perspective is a better wording for the charter. What do you think?

The thing is though is that its not a debate forum. It has room for personal experience or anecdotal evidence being valid, room for collaborative discourse. etc.

Humanities is strictly debate, and while doesnt tolerate personal abuse or personalisation, imo has some boundary problems on verbal terrorisation nit picking and invalidating subjective experiences by demoting anecdotal evidence, or personal experience and showing preference for privaledge, removed and abstracted knowledge, because that is what debate is, and has often missed the boat on more subtle degradations, which may officially be ok. So maybe what you want-is Humanties in the Ladies Lounge, which would be a forum called WOMANS STUDIES, a more academic type of thing.

I think woman's point of view is the wrong wording as I have said before.

And Ive been banned from TLL. I cant even remember why. ALso been infracted for making a joke.

Silverfish

donfers wrote: »

fair enough, it's a tough one to word I'll grant you that

I know all this seems pedantic but I think as long as the charter operates as a kind of half-way house (i.e. the vague female point of view thing, the ambiguous "primarily" for women thing then you will run into these problems) between a strong feminist element on the one hand and guys and other views welcome too on the other hand (with the caveat that they can't unsettle the first group too much) then these occassional headfecks will occur.

Still if the mods and tll users are content with that way then so be it but do you not think writing a more unequivocal charter would help? That's all i am asking basically

Well, we kinda hope that the title of the forum, the fact it's in the Soc category with the other SRS BSNS forums, the Charter and all, would maybe give the impression that the forum isn't for men to bitch about women, or for men to come in and demand we explain why Sandra was a cow to him last saturday, or that blazing in full of sweeping generalisations and :rolleyes: <- that guy and sneering dismissive tone is not really acceptable.

It is a bit pedantic I'll grand you, but I appreciate that you're trying to get it clarified and in a way, you're actually trying to help us avoid some of the crap we get.

But to be honest with you, I think the type of person who sees a thread on the main page and decides to come in and 'tell these women what's what' isn't going to back out again to read the charter. Usually though, with an on-thread warning, we get an 'OH right, I see now' pm and they either move on, or settle in and get to posting like a normal person.

The Left Hand Of God

Silverfish wrote: »

Well, we kinda hope that the title of the forum, the fact it's in the Soc category with the other SRS BSNS forums, the Charter and all, would maybe give the impression that the forum isn't for men to bitch about women, or for men to come in and demand we explain why Sandra was a cow to him last saturday, or that blazing in full of sweeping generalisations and :rolleyes: <- that guy and sneering dismissive tone is not really acceptable.

It is a bit pedantic I'll grand you, but I appreciate that you're trying to get it clarified and in a way, you're actually trying to help us avoid some of the crap we get.

But to be honest with you, I think the type of person who sees a thread on the main page and decides to come in and 'tell these women what's what' isn't going to back out again to read the charter. Usually though, with an on-thread warning, we get an 'OH right, I see now' pm and they either move on, or settle in and get to posting like a normal person.

Was it always in the SOC catagory? Was it not in REC?

Stheno

The Left Hand Of God wrote: »

Was it always in the SOC catagory? Was it not in REC?

Yes it got moved some time ago to Soc.

Wolfe Tone

I think mod warnings in general, not just TLL need to be looked at. I think they often aggravate the situation and piss people off.

I'm not gonna bother looking for examples because I'm simply not arsed, but in Tll they seems to be a bit harsher then elsewhere.

You presumably have people reporting posts etc, then a mod shows up, often in the middle of a debate and basically tells someone to stop or stay on topic, or whatever. Then you have a pile of people thanking the mod, often those who took part in the debate/exchange. That, imo, is pretty much "na na na na!" Its nasty imo and unnecessary, especially telling specific people to go read the charter. It creates a nasty atmosphere and the perception that mods are wading in and backing up certain posters.

If anything specific needs to be said to a particular poster then PM them, don't single them out on the thread because you have people "thanking" the mod basically to get digs into that poster who was singled out.

Again thats not a criticism aimed solely at TLL mods but something I have noticed in general, and seen as mention was made of mod warnings I thought I would highlight it.

K-9

Initially it was a kind of female BGRH, well not quiet that but developed into the LL.

Otis Driftwood

Wolfe Tone,the reason posters are warned on thread is to a:stop people reporting posts that have been dealt with and b:it helps show other users who may not be familiar with the forum what is and isnt acceptable.It has nothing to do with thanks whoring.Also,@ The Left Hand Of God,for a new user,you seem to have alot of experience/knowledge of tLL.Funny that.:)

Wolfe Tone

I'm not saying its thankswhoring, I'm just saying it creates a nasty atmosphere when people thank mod warnings like that because the "thanks" are simply to get digs into those who were warned.

K-9

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I'm not saying its thankswhoring, I'm just saying it creates a nasty atmosphere when people thank mod warnings like that because the "thanks" are simply to get digs into those who were warned.

A poster doesn't know if a post was reported or not though, I'd thank a mod if I think a warning is stopping handbags on a thread.

Otis Driftwood

Or could it be that they agree that the warning or whatever was warranted?You really are nit picking you know,it gets very tiresome very quickly to see the same arguments constantly get trotted out.

metrovelvet

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I'm not saying its thankswhoring, I'm just saying it creates a nasty atmosphere when people thank mod warnings like that because the "thanks" are simply to get digs into those who were warned.

I hate it too except in very extreme cases. It reminds me of brown nosers in primary school. Even if I agree with their warning or thankful, I still dont do it.

Elmidena

Out of curiosity, could I get a mod's opinion on my previous post? I am new here and wish to avoid causing trouble in the future, so would appreciate knowing if my logic is on the right track

Wibbs

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I'm not saying its thankswhoring, I'm just saying it creates a nasty atmosphere when people thank mod warnings like that because the "thanks" are simply to get digs into those who were warned.

Actually that can happen WT. You can get people who have "history" thanking in that instance. That said IMHO it would be rare enough. Plus unless you switch off thanks how can you stop it? It can be noted mind. Plus what Otis said

Wolfe Tone

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

Or could it be that they agree that the warning or whatever was warranted?You really are nit picking you know,it gets very tiresome very quickly to see the same arguments constantly get trotted out.

For gods sake, I'm not nit picking, this is feedback, I am giving feedback, as I said its not exclusive to TLL, Dudess mentioned mod warnings earlier and maybe toning them down, I'm just giving my observations.

Silverfish

Sunshine! wrote: »

Out of curiosity, could I get a mod's opinion on my previous post? I am new here and wish to avoid causing trouble in the future, so would appreciate knowing if my logic is on the right track

I honestly thought you were joking.

You think if mods issue warnings or bans on tLL, or if posters report posts or have issues with something, it's down to PMS?

Really?

donfers

Wibbs wrote: »

+1000 Jesus ye in tGC even had to add a codicil to your charter to clamp down on the bitching about other forums. Lets guess which one. *shakes head* Really there's only so many ways you can respond to this stuff.

Like you said it seems pitiful and we've actually banned very few of the main complainants. Donfers requested his banning. Gunsfortoys was banned just the once from tLL IIRC. These are all pretty minimal posters anyway. OutlawPete a good example(BTW never banned from tLL). Since tLL was opened as Silverfish pointed out in the helpdesk thread OutlawPete has posted just 29 posts in the forum, 21 of them in one thread. However she did find around 15 posts by OutlawPete complaining about tLL in AH. Yet in the 6 odd years he's been a member on this site has he actually ever reported a post in tLL? Nope. Not a single one. No doubt similar can be said of the majority of the complainants. This is why I personally chose to largely ignore their input*.

Actually I reckon my very first post on the matter was where I should have left it and been kind to mine and OutlawPete's respective keyboards; "FFS?"





*not all. Wolfe Tone for example and yes donfers at times too. And the pain in the arse of all of this is frustration at some can mean a suspicion of others when not necessarily warranted.

ah the trusty old "report the post" chestnut

I always get a wee bit worried when mods use that line to justify their actions/inactions

Have you ever considered that some people don't report posts because they have a fairly good idea of what kind of response they'll get depending on who is in charge? did that ever cross your mind?

anyway not reporting a post does not equal everything is fine and dandy, some people's default response is not to hit the report button, it's maybe to discuss the problem and I think outlaw pete's mode of resolving disagreements which is having the discussion, is far preferable to hitting the report button at the drop of a hat and being at the mercy of the whim of a mod/cat mod whose first reaction of course is going to be to uphold the groupthink that his/her forum is bound to

I'd love to see statistics for how reports were dealt with based on what side of the argument you were coming from.....in any case i would suggest that the majority of the people who report are those who know that their complaint will find sympathy with those in charge (yes feel free to throw exceptions to that rule at me, it doesn't negate the central truth)

In any case, way off topic now

and please can we stop the framing of language and spinning here?

The dreaded ad hominem argument goes something like this, if one dare's question something about tll like the wording in the charter then that obviously means I am a troll who hates women

If I say something like, in my opinion it would be a good idea for the charter ro use more unequivocal language - feel free to disagree with that

but responses like "you are questioning the right of tll to exist/your goal is the destruction of the forum/you just want to bitch, moan, troll and start flame wars and make the forum unusable/you resent that female posters have their own forum" is the biggest load of inaccurate spiteful insidious reactionary and completely untrue garbage as far as i'm concerned

as ever, this is utterly pointless, I could be an undercover feminist for all you guys know seeking to entrench your views

anyway regardless of the pointlessness of all this, if anything is said with integrity then it is still worth saying so let's all just pat ourselves on the back and carry on as we were

Silverfish

donfers, I did feel I addressed your points in the thread without saying any of the things above to you, so I'm not sure where that came from.

In fact in my last post, I said I appreciated what you were trying to do.

Elmidena

Sunshine! wrote: »

Ie, if you have an opinion that may not be popular, do so in an approach that gets your point across without getting people's backs up. Not necessarily walking on eggshells, but definitely not stamping with no concern for your surrounding environment.

^^Actually no, it was more this bit.

The hormones etc was pointing out the environment in question, that not everyone is set to an automatic reactive system at any given time and if in doubt err on the side of caution. I gave no indication that PMS was the cause for warnings etc, moreso was indicating that sensitivity is an issue more profound in a forum such as this than say, AH, and rightly so.