What is a female point of view/perspective?

drkpower

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

It appears to me that often the "womans viewpoint" card is occasionally played to shut people up who make good points.

+1000

Apparently men are welcomed. Yet, on more than a few occasions, once a degree of strong disagreement arises between a male and a female poster, it is resolved, in favour of the woman, by a Mod stepping in to declare blankly that tLL is a forum for womens' perspectives. The effect of this is to essentially tell the male poster, mid-discussion, to stop posting. Not on the basis that he had breached the charter per se, but purely on the basis of the 'womens' perspective' rule, which the Mod chose to invoke mid-discussion.

At the beginning of the discussion, apparently, the male input was welcomed. But mid-discussion, it isnt. That, understandably leads to a large degree of frustration for male posters.

tbh

Well, that's just tough luck isn't it? That's why it's called the ladies lounge. Thats the whole point of it. If you don't like it, don't post there, frankly.

Ickle Magoo

drkpower wrote: »

+1000

Apparently men are welcomed. Yet, on more than a few occasions, once a degree of strong disagreement arises between a male and a female poster, it is resolved, in favour of the woman, by a Mod stepping in to declare blankly that tLL is a forum for womens' perspectives. The effect of this is to essentially tell the male poster, mid-discussion, to stop posting. Not on the basis that he had breached the charter per se, but purely on the basis of the 'womens' perspective' rule, which the Mod chose to invoke mid-discussion.

At the beginning of the discussion, apparently, the male input was welcomed. But mid-discussion, it isnt. That, understandably leads to a large degree of frustration for male posters.

A mod tends to step in when a male poster is trying to shove the discussion down a cul-de-sac of their choosing and away from the discussion being enjoyed by those the forum was set up to cater for. Hardly rocket-science. For instance interjecting on a thread to dismiss experiences that female posters have had in dealing with medical professionals solely in order to defend a past occupation would be considered dragging the thread off-topic, inflammatory and unwelcome...

K-9

drkpower wrote: »

That, understandably leads to a large degree of frustration for male posters.

For a few male posters and tbh, it doesn't really matter. They aren't who the forum is targeted at and the majority of male posters have no problem with it.

A new forum or a private group is the best bet and see how successful it is.

Ickle Magoo

K-9 wrote: »

For a few male posters and tbh, it doesn't really matter. They aren't who the forum is targeted at and the majority of male posters have no problem with it.

This. QFT.

K-9 wrote: »

A new forum or a private group is the best bet and see how successful it is.

What new forum or private group? I hope you don't mean for tLL?
I don't know any other area of boards that deals with a minority who don't like or don't get a forum by having to hide the forum from the few - rather than acknowledging the issue is with the few and dealing with them accordingly.

drkpower

tbh wrote: »

Well, that's just tough luck isn't it? That's why it's called the ladies lounge. Thats the whole point of it. If you don't like it, don't post there, frankly.

But it appears it isnt the 'whole point of it'. That seems to be one of the problems that prompts these kind of threads.

Male input is welcomed; but then it isnt..... That is the difficulty.

Ickle Magoo

Male input IN THE DISCUSSION THAT IS BEING HAD by those the forum is aimed at...interjecting which just drags the discussion off-topic, adds nothing to the discussion being had or just serves to rile and annoy those the forum is aimed at is not welcome in ANY forum on boards.

After all, ejecting the minority who just disrupt and argue for the sake of making noise is not restricted to tLL.

Silverfish

drkpower wrote: »

But it appears it isnt the 'whole point of it'. That seems to be one of the problems that prompts these kind of threads.

Male input is welcomed; but then it isnt..... That is the difficulty.

I think the issue is not male input, I think the issue is what that input is.

Input = welcome (Ref: the majority of the male posters posting in tLL)

Breezing in, not reading threads, making assumptions, demanding answers to these assumptions, eye-rolling, condescension, sneering, flaming and riling- not input, therefore not welcome (Ref: vocal minority)

tbh

It's not difficult, it's easy. Post on a thread if you like. If a mod then tells you not to post, don't post.
Couldn't be easier.

I mean, I'm not trying to be patronising, but I genuinely don't see why it's so difficult.

The forum is what it is. It's for women. If there are some men on boards that have a problem with the way it works, well it really doesn't matter. I don't understand why those men are trying to force the mods and by extension the forum to compromise. Why would you insist on posting in a forum where you're not welcome? If you're pisses off about the fact that you don't know where the line is, then simply don't post.

drkpower

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

A mod tends to step in when a male poster is trying to shove the discussion down a cul-de-sac of their choosing and away from the discussion being enjoyed by those the forum was set up to cater for. Hardly rocket-science. For instance interjecting on a thread to dismiss experiences that female posters have had in dealing with medical professionals solely in order to defend a past occupation would be considered dragging the thread off-topic, inflammatory and unwelcome...

I dont really want to re-explore the details of a few months old thread.

But I would just say that you have actually (inadvertently) highlighted a perfect example of the problem as I see it.

On the thread you refer to, the Mod did not step into say any of the following:
- that I was shoving the discussion down a cul-de-sac of my choosing
- that I was dismissing experiences that female posters have had in dealing with medical professionals

On the thread you refer to, the Mod interjected, mid -discussion, to say that tLL was to discuss issues from a women's perspective.

Had the Mod issued a warning along the lines of what you accuse me of, then that is an entirely different matter. But they didnt.

Do you see the difference?

drkpower

Silverfish wrote: »

Breezing in, not reading threads, making assumptions, demanding answers to these assumptions, eye-rolling, condescension, sneering, flaming and riling- not input, therefore not welcome (Ref: vocal minority)

Then warn the poster as to that conduct, if it is warranted, rather than issuing a blanket mid discussion warning that the issue is to be discussed from a women's perspective.

Do you see the difference?

drkpower

tbh wrote: »

Why would you insist on posting in a forum where you're not welcome?

I think you might be missing the point.

Silverfish

The difference was the mod explaining to you what TO do, and what the thread was for, and not explaining to you what NOT to do.

If we're warning people that the forum is for discussion from a female perspective, then you can bet that that is NOT what you are being respectful of.

Ickle Magoo

drkpower wrote: »

I dont really want to re-explore the details of a few months old thread.

But I would just say that you have actually (inadvertently) highlighted a perfect example of the problem as I see it.

On the thread you refer to, the Mod did not step into say any of the following:
- that I was shoving the discussion down a cul-de-sac of my choosing
- that I was dismissing experiences that female posters have had in dealing with medical professionals

On the thread you refer to, the Mod interjected, mid -discussion, to say that tLL was to discuss issues from a women's perspective.

Had the Mod issued a warning along the lines of what you accuse me of, then that is an entirely different matter. But they didnt.

Do you see the difference?

The mod warning was bang-on imo.

The thread comprised of a group of women discussing their experiences of something no other poster could possibly have an understanding of unless they had been present at the time.

I'm not sure where or how you ever thought interjecting to "correct" them was adding anything of worth or wouldn't be actioned by a moderator, it would strike me as rather a no-brainer. The forum is PRIMARILY for the women of boards to discuss issues from their perspective. You didn't even interject to offer a perspective, you offered no personal experience, no opinion ON THE DISCUSSION BEING HAD, you just posted to correct and by extension dismiss based on some personal defence of a prior occupation. If you can't see what the issue is there then I'm not sure how you are ever going to understand the forum, so perhaps the other 99.999999% of Boards is better suited to you?

drkpower

Silverfish wrote: »

The difference was the mod explaining to you what TO do, and what the thread was for, and not explaining to you what NOT to do.

If we're warning people that the forum is for discussion from a female perspective, then you can bet that that is NOT what you are being respectful of.

So, for the first 10ish pages of the thread, the thread welcomed male and female input. But at a certain point mid-discussion, it became a thread from a female perspective only?

Can you see why that might cause a degree of frustration for male posters?

Silverfish

I think Ickle Magoo summed up above what you were doing on that thread, and why it was not welcomed.

tbh

drkpower wrote: »

I think you might be missing the point.

I don't think I am. I notice that there aren't any female posters complaining about the way the forum is modded. It's just a handful of guys. What exactly are you trying to achieve through these threads? You're not going to get a canonical list of what type of statements are allowed, and what aren't. That's always going to be down to the mods discretion. They exercise that discretion with the interests of the ladies in mind. The ladies aren't complaining. It would seem the people at whom the forum is aimed don't have a problem with it's moderation. Isn't that all tha matters?

K-9

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

This. QFT.



What new forum or private group? I hope you don't mean for tLL?
I don't know any other area of boards that deals with a minority who don't like or don't get a forum by having to hide the forum from the few - rather than acknowledging the issue is with the few and dealing with them accordingly.

A private group for those posters who have issues with tLL and tGC. Usually the same vocal group.

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The mod warning was bang-on imo.

The thread comprised of a group of women discussing their experiences of something no other poster could possibly have an understanding of unless they had been present at the time.

I'm not sure where or how you ever thought interjecting to "correct" them was adding anything of worth or wouldn't be actioned by a moderator, it would strike me as rather a no-brainer. The forum is PRIMARILY for the women of boards to discuss issues from their perspective. You didn't even interject to offer a perspective, you offered no personal experience, no opinion ON THE DISCUSSION BEING HAD, you just posted to correct and by extension dismiss based on some personal defence of a prior occupation. If you can't see what the issue is there then I'm not sure how you are ever going to understand the forum, so perhaps the other 99.999999% of Boards is better suited to you?

Do you think it might be clearer,more helpful if instead of using 'a woman's perspective', especially as you are not fond of sweeping generalisations yourself, that the policy centered around things like negating and invalidating personal experiences, verbal terrorism and being given the first degree. In other words if people share something, they should not be terrorised for it. If I have a crap experience in the Rotunda for example, it is really annoying to get lectures from someone else, whether man or woman, about how invalid my experience is there, or an incrimination about it. And I just use that as an example, it could be about anything...

But I do think there needs to be a bitch about women forum. Popular activity on boards, at least that would be a place to go where they could let it all out, keep the rest of the place clean so to speak.

Ickle Magoo

K-9 wrote: »

A private group for those posters who have issues with tLL and tGC. Usually the same vocal group.

A little birdy told me they already had one - remarkably similar language, PM complaints and uber effective bat-signal if they don't.

drkpower

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The mod warning was bang-on imo.

The thread comprised of a group of women discussing their experiences of something no other poster could possibly have an understanding of unless they had been present at the time.

So, the thread was always exclusively for a womens' perspective then?

Why not label it as such?
Why allow 10ish pages of male input only to prohibit it then?

Can you see why that might lead to a degree of frustration for male posters?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You didn't even interject to offer a perspective, you offered no personal experience, no opinion ON THE DISCUSSION BEING HAD, you just posted to correct and by extension dismiss based on some personal defence of a prior occupation..

Again, on a general discussion, it is probably best not to rehash the ins and outs of a specific thread. But as you insist on doing so, strictly for the record, I offered my personal experience and judgment as to why doctors might raise certain issues and ask certain questions in the context of the MAP. That was directly on-topic, and while it wasnt a female perspective I was giving, it wasnt a male perspective either. It was a doctor's perspective which, iven the topic of the thread, was especially relevent.

drkpower

Silverfish wrote: »

I think Ickle Magoo summed up above what you were doing on that thread, and why it was not welcomed.

But a Mod never gave a warning to that effect.
A Mod never Pm'd me to that effect.

You simply interjected with a generic 'women's perspective' warning.

If you had done the former, while i would have disagreed, I wouldnt be having this conversation!

Do you see the difference?

K-9

drkpower wrote: »

So, for the first 10ish pages of the thread, the thread welcomed male and female input. But at a certain point mid-discussion, it became a thread from a female perspective only?

Can you see why that might cause a degree of frustration for male posters?

It was becoming a you vs. everybody else thread, you'd made your point plenty of times so it was hardly censorship or something.

Serious lack of female posters backing up the need for change btw.

drkpower

tbh wrote: »

It would seem the people at whom the forum is aimed don't have a problem with it's moderation.

But (some of) the people the forum claim to welcome do.

drkpower

K-9 wrote: »

It was becoming a you vs. everybody else thread, you'd made your point plenty of times so it was hardly censorship or something..

Sure, and if the Mod had warned/PM's me to that effect, again, while i would have disagreed, i wouldnt be having this discussion. S/he didnt. S/he issued a blanket women's perspective ruling.

Do you see the difference?

Delirium

drkpower wrote: »

Sure, and if the Mod had warned/PM's me to that effect, again, while i would have disagreed, i wouldnt be having this discussion. S/he didnt. S/he issued a blanket women's perspective ruling.

Do you see the difference?

It's hardly a ruling if the mod is just reminding people what the forum is for. My understanding is that the mod was warning you (and any other males reading the thread) that the thread wasn't for women to address all points raised by male posters on the topic. It's for them to discuss the topic as the women see fit.

Are you claiming that the mods would ban any user they know to be male just for posting in the thread after the warning?

K-9

drkpower wrote: »

Sure, and if the Mod had warned/PM's me to that effect, again, while i would have disagreed, i wouldnt be having this discussion. S/he didnt. S/he issued a blanket women's perspective ruling.

Do you see the difference?

Mod warning makes more sense because posters would see it and not reply to you.

Ickle Magoo

metrovelvet wrote: »

Do you think it might be clearer,more helpful if instead of using 'a woman's perspective', especially as you are not fond of sweeping generalisations yourself, that the policy centered around things like negating and invalidating personal experiences, verbal terrorism and being given the first degree. In other words if people share something, they should not be terrorised for it. If I have a crap experience in the Rotunda for example, it is really annoying to get lectures from someone else, whether man or woman, about how invalid my experience is there, or an incrimination about it. And I just use that as an example, it could be about anything...

I'm not sure if it would be any clearer or more helpful tbh, not on that particular forum. There is something that clearly differentiates us from tGC, Humanities, Politics, etc, etc - and that is the bias we have towards the female perspective. Take that out the charter or wash it down and those that wish to disrupt the forum will use that part of the charter to shield their actions, arguing the semantics as we see here...I think it very clearly has to include a slant towards female posters and discussion from a female POV.

I think the vast majority who post or choose not to post on the forum understand the ethos of the forum and why it exists, as they do forums for other minorities yet you don't see a constant stream of straight people arguing the charter and posting criterion of the LGBH forum. I don't see why the forum, the charter or the posters who like the forum the way it is should bend to the will of a vocal minority that the forum either doesn't see post or wouldn't miss posting.

metrovelvet wrote: »

But I do think there needs to be a bitch about women forum. Popular activity on boards, at least that would be a place to go where they could let it all out, keep the rest of the place clean so to speak.

I don't think it's appropriate to have one on boards. I'd hope that a bitch about gays and a bitch about blacks forum would not be entertained. On a site that cracks down on insults towards strangers we only know through the media, I'd hope the same would not be acceptable about the posters who actually take the time and effort to post here.

dkpower wrote:

So, the thread was always exclusively for a womens' perspective then?

The FORUM has always been PRIMARILY for women's perspectives - surely you are aware of that?

As soon as a thread is being hi-jacked, de-railed, flamed or the posters whom the forum is for are being dismissed or harangued then a mod will step in. It can often happen that for 10 pages posters of both sexes merrily discuss an issue respectfully and then someone barges in and makes a silly post or tries to change the direction of the topic to suit themselves - resulting in them being asked not to do so. Basic stuff tbh.

I'd argue it's MALE FRUSTRATION with the forum - it seems to be a handful of posters that like finding fault in everything and anything in combination with those who just have a gripe about tLL in particular.

drkpower

koth wrote: »

It's hardly a ruling if the mod is just reminding people what the forum is for.

If it was for female perspectives only, why had the past 10ish pages been made up of a discussion between men and women?

koth wrote: »

Are you claiming that the mods would ban any user they know to be male just for posting in the thread after the warning?

No; and i didnt claim that.

But as it happens, my next post after that warning was deleted without any particular explanation, again supporting the contention that the 'blanket 'female perspective' warning was intended to stop men from contributing.

drkpower

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The FORUM has always been PRIMARILY for women's perspectives - surely you are aware of that? .

Yes; that's why i used the word 'exclusively' in the post you quoted.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

As soon as a thread is being hi-jacked, de-railed, flamed or the posters whom the forum is for are being dismissed or harangued then a mod will step in. It can often happen that for 10 pages posters of both sexes merrily discuss an issue respectfully and then someone barges in and makes a silly post or tries to change the direction of the topic to suit themselves - resulting in them being asked not to do so. Basic stuff tbh..

Then why doesnt the Mod warn the poster for hi-jacking, de-railing or flaming, rather then using a blanket 'female perspective' rule?

In the thread you yourself brought up, for example, no such warning of hi-jacking, de-railing or flaming occurred. If it did, i wouldnt be having this discussion.

Do you see the difference?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'd argue it's MALE FRUSTRATION with the forum - it seems to be a handful of posters that like finding fault in everything and anything in combination with those who just have a gripe about tLL in particular.

Yes, it is male frustration with the manner in which the forum is moderated, as i have demonstrated, whereby male input is apparently welcomed until such a time as a Moderator decides it is not.