What is a female point of view/perspective?

Ickle Magoo

koth wrote: »

ok. can I just ask then if you don't mind, was it a case that men weren't allowed to post on the thread. Or was it a case that the mods had a certain box/focus for the thread and some male posters where trying to divert it to a different type of discussion. Or was it some other problem?

As I remember it, there were a multitude of threads on different forums and one given over to women discussing it. The female posters on the thread in tLL were having difficulty having any kind of discussion because of the volume and manner in which male posters were choosing to get their say in...

Boards has a demographic firmly weighted in favour of male posters. Even when it's a terrible point badly argued the sheer volume of posters can give that angle a huge advantage. The whole essence of tLL is to give a safe space for female posters to discuss issues without immediately facing that disadvantage.

If threads are being turned into any other thread being had in Humanities or Politics or where-ever then a mod will tend to step in and remind posters that there are other forums for general discussion but tLL is specifically for female posters to discuss without being shouted down or their views drowned out thanks to the natural demographics elsewhere on Boards - that's the basic premise of the forum, after all.

Delirium

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

As I remember it, there were a multitude of threads on different forums and one given over to women discussing it. The female posters on the thread in tLL were having difficulty having any kind of discussion because of the volume and manner in which male posters were choosing to get their say in...

Boards has a demographic firmly weighted in favour of male posters. Even when it's a terrible point badly argued the sheer volume of posters can give that angle a huge advantage. The whole essence of tLL is to give a safe space for female posters to discuss issues without immediately facing that disadvantage.

If threads are being turned into any other thread being had in Humanities or Politics or where-ever then a mod will tend to step in and remind posters that there are other forums for general discussion but tLL is specifically for female posters to discuss without being shouted down or their views drowned out thanks to the natural demographics elsewhere on Boards - that's the basic premise of the forum, after all.

Cheers for that, IM. Pretty much confirms how I assumed the tLL would handle such a thread.

HellFireClub

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

As I remember it, there were a multitude of threads on different forums and one given over to women discussing it. The female posters on the thread in tLL were having difficulty having any kind of discussion because of the volume and manner in which male posters were choosing to get their say in...

Boards has a demographic firmly weighted in favour of male posters. Even when it's a terrible point badly argued the sheer volume of posters can give that angle a huge advantage. The whole essence of tLL is to give a safe space for female posters to discuss issues without immediately facing that disadvantage.

If threads are being turned into any other thread being had in Humanities or Politics or where-ever then a mod will tend to step in and remind posters that there are other forums for general discussion but tLL is specifically for female posters to discuss without being shouted down or their views drowned out thanks to the natural demographics elsewhere on Boards - that's the basic premise of the forum, after all.

How on earth can you tell the demographics of male -vs- female site members?!? Is this not the mother of all generalisations?!?

Dudess

HellFireClub wrote: »

If I say, "in my experiece, I've found Irish women to be x, y or z", that is not a lazy generalisation.

"In my experience, many Irish women are xyz" is completely fair - I know it might seem like semantics, but what I've done there takes into account the fact that there are still Irish women who aren't rude and aggressive to men for no reason - and it can be an age thing and a type of bar/club thing, not just a gender/nationality thing (you're rarely if ever going to see Irish women in e.g. Sin É being bitches to men for merely trying to chat to them). I'm not for a second denying that phenomenon doesn't exist (it's nothing to do with feminism though - bet ya most of them aren't even feminists; it's to do with them being ignorant twats) but it's only fair you be careful in how you broach it, otherwise the discussion always results in Irish women in general feeling they're under attack - and with good reason.

HellFireClub

Dudess wrote: »

"In my experience, many Irish women are xyz" is completely fair - I know it might seem like semantics, but what I've done there takes into account the fact that there are still Irish women who aren't rude and aggressive to men for no reason - and it can be an age thing and a type of bar/club thing, not just a gender/nationality thing (you're rarely if ever going to see Irish women in e.g. Sin É being bitches to men for merely trying to chat to them). I'm not for a second denying that phenomenon doesn't exist (it's nothing to do with feminism though - bet ya most of them aren't even feminists; it's to do with them being ignorant twats) but it's only fair you be careful in how you broach it, otherwise the discussion always results in Irish women in general feeling they're under attack - and with good reason.

So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that you have no real issue with a poster saying, "I've found in my experience that the vast majority of women are unapproachable, ignorant, childish, immature and rude", but you take complete exception to a not exactly dissimilar statement: "I've found in my experience that Irish women are unapproachable, ignorant, childish, immature and rude"...

I think that where this kind of a discussion emerges on a thead, we are disagreeing over a form of words here as opposed to respectfully discussing the central opinions being expressed in fairness...

OutlawPete

Wibbs wrote: »

Frankly I can say for myself I'm blue in the face explaining it to the same few people time and time again and time and time again it's just not getting through. Hence my FFS post.

The "few people" represent many more and before you say: "Where are they?", let me just point out to AGAIN - this is the FEEDBACK forum. You are never going to hear from ALL the users (either MALE or FEMALE) that agree with points being raised with regards to change. It suits you to just dismiss all these opinions off as being from the same "disgruntled" handful with a grudge that want to see women abused there and sexist generalisation threads started without need for moderation. Guess it avoids having to deal with the ACTUAL points being made I suppose.

Wibbs wrote: »

You don't barge into a strangers convo in a pub and start denigrating their group or argument.

Nobody wants that. Just to be able to ask some questions that disagree with the OP of a thread would be nice though.

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm missing the point?

Constantly .. and deliberately it would appear at this stage.

Wibbs wrote: »

They would likely be banned if they came into the cycling forum complaining about cyclists on the road, or coming onto a thread about "what bike should I get" with the retort, "you should buy a car".

Again, incomparable. It's getting rather tiresome to listen to this well worn out argument. If men wanted to start threads all the time there, on their pov and dealing with their issues, then maybe your analogy would be apt, but they don't, so it's not.

Wibbs wrote: »

Really? OutlawPete quite clearly stated that "it beggers(sic) belief" that a man should be banned for starting a thread entitled "Foreign girls are so much friendlier then Irish girls" ..

Quote where I said that.

Wibbs wrote: »

.. or commenting on said thread with "I find the ones that wear those ridiculous sunglasses are the worst.".

Latter, not the former.

Wibbs wrote: »

You really think that thread is fine?

Nope and I never said that nor implied it even.

Wibbs wrote: »

Why the hell can't some men simply stop themselves from the urge to post in there or complain elsewhere about a place they don't like.

Can't speak for others but .. as I have said many times, I like TLL. That's why I have such an issue with it being overly moderated. Sure there are users there with opinions I don't like, but there are far more with opinions there that I do like and again, that part in the Charter that says TLL: "welcomes male input" - well would be nice if that didn't just mean occasionally and only if you agree with a user and don't challenge their opinions. Oh and I know what you're thinking, TLL does allow such posts from men and I agree with you, it does - when it suits. If it doesn't, moderators jump down your throat and because the Charter is not specific in this regard, you can just batter people over the head with the same old crap that they are ignoring the "ethos" when they are not.

You see, moderators of the forum moderate on a whim at times and enforce elements of the Charter in one way one day and another on a different day. One day they will allow an OP or a poster to be challenged on their thinking and the next day they won't. If a man (or a woman) is aggressive, snide, abusive etc as he makes his point - then of course moderate them, but I was guilty of none of those things and I have seen many other users who where not guilty of those things either and yet where moderated with the usual handy sticks of 'derailment', 'whataboutery' and the old fav 'you're going against the ethos of the forum'. SOMETIMES users are guilty of these things and I don't think anyone would seriously deny that but MANY times they are not guilty of the above, threads are not being derailed and the ethos is not being ignored or disrespected and it will get thrown at them. It is precisely for that reason that users are asking for just what it is that qualifies as "male input" to be more defined. What is so hard about that to accept?

Wibbs wrote: »

When someone has difficulty with something as basic as "if you don't like it don't post" one does begin to ask questions.Thanks. I'll take that under advisement.

I hope the irony of such a statement is not lost on you, seriously - if you think that "if you don't like it don't post" addresses the points being raised, then you have your head buried a lot deeper in the sand than I first imagined.

Wibbs wrote: »

Hmmm so you agree the thread was wrong and was rightly locked yet being on topic on the same wrong thread was OK?

How is this a difficult concept to grasp:

The thread was nothing to do with that user. NOTHING! He seen a thread and naturally presumed the mods had approved it. It is not his fault that the thread was not moderated in time. He posted a photo and said he found women who wore large shades to be the "most unfriendly" and he was banned from the forum for one week. If you can't see how that is a disgraceful moderation decision, then I despair. At MOST he should have been infracted and even then I would think it was harsh for a first forum offence.

Wibbs wrote: »

So if someone responds to a troll thread agreeing with said troll and adding to it that's OK with you then? Ooookay...

What's with the mockish tone? Users should be judged on what they post and what they post ALONE. He should not have been banned for a week from the forum for saying that women with ridiculous shades are unfriendly. It's a joke and tbh, I can't even believe I have to say it, it's obvious but it just goes to show the mindset of the LL moderation team when they see something like that as warranting a week's ban.

Wibbs wrote: »

He subsequently complained about the ban. Totally incredulous at the reasons for the ban. Myself I was incredulous at his incredulity. Another FFS moment when I was reaching for the playtex and the bic lighter.

Good lord, the irony

Wibbs wrote: »

Again I genuinely feel nothing will be for you. You have a bee in your bonnet and a bone in your mouth and you just wont let it go. No matter what is said or done IMHO.

"Nothing", sure you haven't done ANYTHING

I was shouted down from the moment I was moderated, walked-on and spoke to like a piece of crap. Mods contradicted each other, accused me of wanting things I didn't, saying things I didn't and most laughably of all .. that I was GOING to do things I wasn't. Accused of "badgered" a user with just two posts (which were 20 hours apart). Wanting to discuss things I didn't (Feminism) a point which seemed to be the main one and one which I myself find so laughable as there was a month long thread on Feminism in TLL just last month were I ample opportunity to debate the subject with that very user and I didn't do so. Thanked many posts on the thread in fact but yet when I ask a question regarding the OP of another thread, the user accused me wanting to discuss Feminism and the mods jump on my post and declare it one of a "derailing" nature. It wasn't and I SHOULD NOT have been moderated. There was NOTHING wrong with my post and NO 'whataboutery' was directed at the OP in the form of a question. At the end of the day, users can decide for themselves if they want to reply to a post. As I said in the HD thread, I waited 20 hours for them to reply to my first post and had they not have replied to my second post, I would have waited 20 years.

Wibbs wrote: »

Save for maybe the ladies lounge be remade in your image of what it should be and a couple of the mods of same fall on their swords.

"Remade", quit exaggerating.

Wibbs wrote: »

You're coming across as a tad obsessive and irrational about tLL at this stage. Seriously OP let it go. I really don't see what you want. I mean you've never even been banned from tLL.

Ah, attack me as a person rather than my points. There is nothing "obsessive" about a user taking a moderation issue to HD and commenting on it when it comes up in Feedback. Seriously Wibbs, to say you don't know what I or any other users wants from TLL at this stage is embarrassing mate. Then you wonder why users are going "around in circles" on the issue. Perhaps if you took their points (even if you didn't agree with them) they wouldn't have to.

Wibbs wrote: »

I don't get the horn listening to the sound of my own keyboard complaining about it.

Get a new keyboard.

Wibbs wrote: »

OutlawPete a good example(BTW never banned from tLL).

This has become a hobby horse for you now. A user does not have to be banned to have an issue with moderation.

Dudess

HellFireClub wrote: »

I obviously disagree, yes I've "gone in there" and I've actually been taken aback at the content that I've seen there, in terms of the highly insulated opinions that I can see there.

Again, I don't agree with the opinions I've seen there, so I ignore it as a forum.

I'm not being smart, but I think you should give examples - it looks very unfair otherwise. I've found posts on The Ladies' Lounge to be really level-headed and respectful - call it bias or whatever, but it isn't. You know, there was actually a time I was someone who wasn't sure about TLL either - that it seemed, in my opinion, a bit discriminatory (I hate seeing men experiencing ostracisation because they're men). Then I started reading threads properly rather than picking out micro-instances, and my thinking changed entirely. The calls for men not to be allowed post there (which I have a big problem with) weren't coming from the majority, they weren't suggestions by TLL mods - they were from a tiny and vocal contingent who didn't seem to have much time for men in the first place. And they were told where to go - by women mostly.
Occasionally I question reprimands in there, but that applies to any forum here - you can't please all of the people all of the time.

HellFireClub wrote: »

So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that you have no real issue with a poster saying, "I've found in my experience that the vast majority of women are unapproachable, ignorant, childish, immature and rude", but you take complete exception to a not exactly dissimilar statement: "I've found in my experience that Irish women are unapproachable, ignorant, childish, immature and rude"...

I think that where this kind of a discussion emerges on a thead, we are disagreeing over a form of words here as opposed to respectfully discussing the central opinions being expressed in fairness...

"The vast majority" looks inflammatory when "many" will do - I know, I know, seems like semantics, but some words are more loaded than others. And yeah, fair enough when you say "In my experience" because that at least acknowledges that it's not everyone's experience. My circle of female friends would NEVER speak to men trying to chat them up the way the women you've encountered do. It's the lack of acknowledgement of this kind of stuff that grinds people's gears, not the recounting of actual experiences.

HellFireClub

Dudess wrote: »

"The vast majority" looks inflammatory when "most" will do - I know, I know, seems like semantics, but some words are more loaded than others. And yeah, fair enough when you say "In my experience" because that at least acknowledges that it's not everyone's experience. My circle of female friends would NEVER speak to men trying to chat them up the way the women you've encountered do. It's the lack of acknowledgement of this kind of stuff that grinds people's gears, not the recounting of actual experiences.

Believe it or not, I don't have any issue whatsoever with being out and about and talking to women or making conversation with women, contrary to what you may have sensed from my posts. Where I do run into an issue constantly though, is dealing with the usually cynical (and single!), female friends of a girl I might get yapping to when out and about.

Time and time and time again in the past, I've run into a situation whereby I'm out and about and getting on great with a girl, only to find that she has a circle of cynical and bitchy mates who it would appear just don't want her to be with anyone. Time and time and time again, I've run into a situation where what could have been a possible relationship opportunity, has been bamboozled because a girl has a particularly cynical friend or in her ear or in the background calling the shots.

In my opinion, this is indiciative of a childish and bewildering mentality, and it is also something that I've run into, it's something that my mates constantly are running into, (those that are single), and it is something that we all agree is a uniquely Irish trait.

Now, saying and communicating that above, seems to cause serious offence to some folks on this website, to the point where theads get locked and people get banned.

Dudess

Yes, because of the way you word it! To be fair, I've covered that. Word it the way you do above - and presto! Instant difference! That post is totally reasonable and level-headed and doesn't send out hostile vibes to all Irish women. It's just the recounting of experiences. Utterly pathetic behaviour and thanks be to Christ none of my friends go on like that.

"Irish women are such bitter cock-blockers" though... even though it doesn't literally refer to all Irish women, it's hostile and aggressive, and when the "thanking" and high-fiving starts, there's such a ganging-up vibe to it.

Raekwon

Dudess wrote: »

"In my experience, many Irish women are xyz" is completely fair - I know it might seem like semantics, but what I've done there takes into account the fact that there are still Irish women who aren't rude and aggressive to men for no reason - and it can be an age thing and a type of bar/club thing, not just a gender/nationality thing (you're rarely if ever going to see Irish women in e.g. Sin É being bitches to men for merely trying to chat to them). I'm not for a second denying that phenomenon doesn't exist (it's nothing to do with feminism though - bet ya most of them aren't even feminists; it's to do with them being ignorant twats) but it's only fair you be careful in how you broach it, otherwise the discussion always results in Irish women in general feeling they're under attack - and with good reason.

I think that you'll find that the vast majority of genuine posters do use words like: "many", "some", "a few", "a percentage", etc, etc in their posts to avoid overly sweeping generalisations. I know I always make sure to put them in my posts anyway, not that it matters or they are noticed most of the time anyway because I'm usually ganged up on, accused of pushing agendas, reported to mods and subjected to abusive PM's, regardless of my approach. It just seems that some subjects are strictly taboo on these boards, so they are swiftly swept under a rug whenever they are raised.......and they seem to be raised an awful lot which should really tell you something.

HellFireClub

Dudess wrote: »

Yes, because of the way you word it! To be fair, I've covered that. Word it the way you do above - and presto! Instant difference! That post is totally reasonable and level-headed and doesn't send out hostile vibes to all Irish women. It's just the recounting of experiences. Utterly pathetic behaviour and thanks be to Christ none of my friends go on like that.

I might express the above differently on a different day, or differently in a different thead, the opinion is the same. If you can only accept that opinion in terms that are wrapped up in the literary equivilent of cotton wool, then I think part of the problem must surely lie in how you read and digest the opinions of others. People who are p*ssed off about a particular subject, their first priorty is to express how they feel, not necessarily to dress up their language in such a way as to protect those on the forum who cannot accept a generalisation because where a generalisation might actually stand up, it calls in to question the attitude of Irish women.

Dudess

Well we'll have to agree to disagree then - you don't feel it's necessary to take into consideration the language you use, and to acknowledge that your experience is different to that of others, and that plenty of Irish women aren't bitches; I do.

Raekwon wrote: »

I think that you'll find that the vast majority of genuine posters do use words like: "many", "some", "a few", "a percentage", etc, etc in their posts to avoid overly sweeping generalisations... It just seems that some subjects are strictly taboo on these boards, so they are swiftly swept under a rug whenever they are raised.......and they seem to be raised an awful lot which should really tell you something.

... because of those who don't bother to show a bit of fairness. If such a thread was in the spirit of the post above by HellFireClub, it would be a great discussion. But it always gets hijacked by knuckle-dragging, downright hurtful sentiments. I really think if such threads were conducted with respect (and hell yeah, I see red and get sweary - provocation though, but I always regret it afterwards and I know it's absolutely no use) they'd be kept open. But they're the equivalent of a warning alarm now so I can understand why mods are afraid of them...

HellFireClub

Dudess wrote: »

Well we'll have to agree to disagree then - you don't feel it's necessary to take into consideration the language you use, and to acknowledge that your experience is different to that of others, and that plenty of Irish women aren't bitches; I do.

... because of those who don't bother to show a bit of fairness. If such a thread was in the spirit of the post above by HellFireClub, it would be a great discussion. But it always gets hijacked by knuckle-dragging, downright hurtful sentiments.

I completely disagree, I think it's because some site user's and I include yourself in this, are just far too subjective. There was a thead in AH recently where yourself and another TLL regular had it shut down in minutes by venting and lashing out on thead. Had the discussion been allowed to evolve and develop to any degree, some of what I had posted here on this thread just now might have had the opportunity to emerge.

Also, how many times have you told people on thead that they are "projecting", a pyschological term that you appear to be very fond of telling people that they suffer from on thead, (try doing a search for how many times you have used that particular term in your theads in terms of trying to diagnose those that do not always agree with your viewpoint on this site), this kind of ill informed atttempt at a pyscho analysis is offensive to a lot of men, and again, is something that in my experience and in the experience of my single friends, is an exercise Irish women tend to be particularly fond of.

OutlawPete

Will address this separately:

Wibbs wrote: »

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*

Ah cheers for bringing this up Wibbs, very nice of you as it gives me a chance to reply to Silverfish's post from the HD thread where she made those nonsense points before putting her Admin hat on and locking it and thereby taking away my right of reply, which you are giving me now.

It's quite simple really, I have never wanted to report a post in TLL as I think TLL'rs should be able to say what they like

See how easy it is destroy someone's point, no matter how tightly they hold on to it?? Hope that wasn't something you put to much weight in. I (and others that I can see so far) have NO problem with the TLL being there for women to say whatever the hell they like. What we (the disgruntled, bitter, grudge holders) want is to be able to take part in discussions and pose the odd question. NOT be aggressive, NOT make users talk about things they don't want to discuss - none of that strawman crap that is thrown at users (both male and female). Just stop protecting women like they are kids. If they make a statement then there should be nothing wrong with a guy (or girl) asking them why they take the stance they do. Simple. That doesn't mean allowing users to constantly change POV or put women in a position where they have to prove they were sexually discriminated against for example. It just means allowed pertinent points to be raised and relevant arguments to be made. That is all. 'Extreme whataboutery' sure, moderate it. 'Overly aggressive' posting styles, again moderate that too. Just stop berating men (and some women) when they challenge certain views. It's unnecessary.

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

It was a LIE when Silverfish posted it's still a lie now. I have reported that HD post and have had NO reply. I am sure the reported post thread makes good reading though. Let me now address that lie which was posted just before Silverfish locked the thread (you know that thread I stared complaining about Silverfish's moderation, yeah .. that one):

I have posted on After Hours alomost six years and have over 10,000 posts on that one forum. I have mentioned TLL many times (25 in fact, which is not too bad a figure from the 10,000 when you consider I am supposed to have an "obsession" with said forum). Of those 25 posts, much of what is considered to be "complaining about TLL" is in response to TLL'rs bringing the forum up and saying that comments that are made in AH would not be tolerated in TLL, for example in this post. Again here where one of the crowd that had agreed with those that had said a few weeks before in Feedback that women felt "uneasy" posting in AH, she herself was rude and aggressive to an AH user and so I pointed how TLL'rs had complained about the very thing she was doing recently. The rest of times I mentioned the forum where in links or in jokes like the Bonjela thread post (where I actually meant to say the Parenting forum) the 'What would be the biggest shocks of 2011' thread (I suggested TLLbukkake.com), the Feeky thread where I again joked that there would be no way the TLL forum would be up all night waiting to see if a teenage girl had manage to pull her older male grinds teacher like AH were that infamous night, or when I was challenged to post in TLL without causing an argument (joke being on me I would have thought).

One time a female TLL regular who came to AH and said: "As long as men cling to the antiquated notions that men are inherently better then women and use the differences between some men and women to try point it out" and in response to that I said if I said the male equivalent in TLL, I would be called a troll. Another time when users in an AH thread were referred to as "socially retarded" I posted and said maybe they could get away with saying something like that in TLL without getting called on it, but not in AH. Last time I mentioned the forum there was in fact to point out that guys CAN give their opinions in the forum in fact. I also mentioned the forum positively many times with regards to it's chat thread when I was campaigning for one for AH and here I said that it would nice if TLL'rs posted more in AH after the "uneasy" remark was made. IM once also was complaining about men in AH and I turned her comment around on her as if she was talking about TLL and said the forum was a very well moderated forum, but hey I'll let you have that as one of the so called 15 "complaining posts" in AH just to be nice.

Now, go and find me the other 14 posts where I have "complained" about The Ladies Lounge in the After Hours forum that would suggest I have an "obsession" and/or a "grudge" with that forum. If you can't, then I want an apology from both you and Silverfish for posting that lie both here and in the DRP/HD thread.

Raekwon

Dudess wrote: »

... because of those who don't bother to show a bit of fairness. If such a thread was in the spirit of the post above by HellFireClub, it would be a great discussion. But it always gets hijacked by knuckle-dragging, downright hurtful sentiments.

But these discussions usually get derailed by over zealous feminist crackpots who refuse to engage in civil well balanced debates. This is mainly because they are too busy pointing the finger and pushing their own agendas while hypocritically accusing others of doing the same. In some cases they even verbally abuse posters that they don't agree with, usually using the sort of language that would get them banned. I doubt we will ever see a well balanced thread on these subjects simply because people are far too willing to throw mud from either side and mods are usually straight in to lock them because the report functions go into overdrive.

Dudess

HellFireClub wrote: »

I completely disagree, I think it's because some site user's and I include yourself in this, are just far too subjective.

Even in my last few posts where I take into account your experiences?

There was a thead in AH recently where yourself and another TLL regular had it shut down in minutes by venting and lashing out on thead. Had the discussion been allowed to evolve and develop to any degree, some of what I had posted here on this thread just now might have had the opportunity to emerge.

No acknowledgement of the completely unfair generalisations you were making? At all? You don't seem stupid - it was surely obvious to you the way you worded things was going to rile. I shouldn't have lost my temper, but there were two sides at fault there. The fact we're TLL regulars is of no relevance btw. And then I get told "You proved my point" - yes, it was all just me being a bitchy Irish woman, nothing to do with your completely inflammatory posts. I can guarantee you if you had worded them like you did above, I would not have seen red.

Also, how many times have you told people on thead that they are "projecting", a pyschological term that you appear to be very fond of telling people that they suffer from on thead, (try doing a search for how many times you have used that particular term in your theads in terms of trying to diagnose those that do not always agree with your viewpoint on this site), this kind of ill informed atttempt at a pyscho analysis is offensive to a lot of men, and again, is something that in my experience and in the experience of my single friends, is an exercise Irish women tend to be particularly fond of.

I have acknowledged here that those women you speak of behave completely appallingly - unfair of you to try and imply I was projecting on that thread, given the knowledge you have of me on this thread. I've said over and over again, it ain't what you say, it's the way that you say it that is what causes such tension.

K-9

HellFireClub wrote: »

Believe it or not, I don't have any issue whatsoever with being out and about and talking to women or making conversation with women, contrary to what you may have sensed from my posts. Where I do run into an issue constantly though, is dealing with the usually cynical (and single!), female friends of a girl I might get yapping to when out and about.

Time and time and time again in the past, I've run into a situation whereby I'm out and about and getting on great with a girl, only to find that she has a circle of cynical and bitchy mates who it would appear just don't want her to be with anyone. Time and time and time again, I've run into a situation where what could have been a possible relationship opportunity, has been bamboozled because a girl has a particularly cynical friend or in her ear or in the background calling the shots.

In my opinion, this is indiciative of a childish and bewildering mentality, and it is also something that I've run into, it's something that my mates constantly are running into, (those that are single), and it is something that we all agree is a uniquely Irish trait.

Now, saying and communicating that above, seems to cause serious offence to some folks on this website, to the point where theads get locked and people get banned.

Those threads are pretty pointless IMO. Others will post the opposite experience and then women will post about all men being bastards, others will say no, and nobody learns anything or changes opinion.

If this is the type of thing you want to do in a men's forum and not allow female opinions, I'd fear for the quality of it.

Dudess

Raekwon wrote: »

But these discussions usually get derailed by over zealous feminist crackpots who refuse to engage in civil well balanced debates.

Do you honestly think an Irish woman who finds blanket "Irish women do xyz" statements unfair, aggressive and hostile can only be a feminist, or over zealous? How about the mere fact that she's an Irish woman?
Say whatever you like about these threads going down the sh1tter just because of the women who object to them, but the reason for them getting annoyed in the first place is the unfair generalisations - no way is it just the women who are at fault.
It baffles me that you think it's ok for a thread with unfair generalisations about Irish women bouncing all over the place to be left as is - and that it's unreasonable for Irish women to defend themselves.

This is mainly because they are too busy pointing the finger and pushing their own agendas

Absolutely no agenda-pushing - just an unwillingness to accept unfair things being said. What on earth is so difficult to grasp about that?

HellFireClub

Dudess wrote: »

Even in my last few posts where I take into account your experiences?
No acknowledgement of the completely unfair generalisations you were making? At all? You don't seem stupid - it was surely obvious to you the way you worded things was going to rile. I shouldn't have lost my temper, but there were too sides at fault there. The fact we're TLL regulars is of no relevance btw. And then I get told "You proved my point" - yes, it was all just me being a bitchy Irish woman, nothing to do with your completely inflammatory posts. I can guarantee you if you had worded them like you did above, I would not have seen red.

They are only unfair generalisations from your particular perspective. Because you couldn't handle something that you saw as unfair, you and another person had another thead closed down, because you couldn't get past what you saw as an initial injustice in terms of what I was saying. Were you prepared to hear it out??? No. I'm surprised that a poster such as yourself, who often tries to come at discussions from a psychological angle, can't accept that when people post an opinion on something, that often they might be carrying along their own particular frustrations with them into a discussion. My view is that if you can't grapel with that then the thing to do is ignore the thead and come back to it if you find it is pointing a finger at you, as opposed to lashing out at other folks who are genuinely posting their own experience, and have genuinely formed a view that Irish women seem to suffer from some sort of a collective attitude problem. That is not to say that EVERY Irish woman can be so described, but in my view, it is good enough and fair enough to say that this particular thing is a uniquely Irish trait and is sufficiently "out there" to allow it to be discussed without warfare emerging on thead and being getting banned.

Dudess wrote: »

I have acknowledged here that those women you speak of behave completely appallingly - unfair of you to try and imply I was projecting on that thread, given the knowledge you have of me on this thread. I've said over and over again, it ain't what you say, it's the way that you say it that is what causes such tension.

I didn't say you were "projecting". What I said is that you have a long established track record on the site of trying to tell anyone who disagrees with you that they are suffering from some kind of a defective mindset or have a deficiency of analysis that causes them to trip over themselves in terms of how they perceive something.

As much as you find these generalisations offensive, I'm just pointing out that you are capable yourself of generating commentry that could be construed as offensive to the other gender. However we clearly differ on how we deal with these irrations, where I see stuff that you post that very mildy annoys me, I ignore it, whereas when I post something that annoys you, I could only hope for the same reaction.

HellFireClub

Dudess wrote: »

Absolutely no agenda-pushing - just an unwillingness to accept unfair things being said. What on earth is so difficult to grasp about that?

It cannot possibly be an unfair generalisation if there is a well established and generally understood basis for it.

Dudess

Sigh... It's the wording, the lack of accounting for the fact that it's your experience - not necessarily everyone else's, the lack of acknowledgement that not all Irish women behave like the bitchy ones you've met, the failure to take into account the bigger picture, such as age and type of venue. "Irish women are whatever" is going to rile, end of. I am not failing to consider that these are your and others' experiences - such women are ****ing assholes and it bugs me that reasonable women who wouldn't dream of treating a man like that have to answer for them. I am just saying you should be fairer in the language you use.

You wouldn't like it if there was a thread with lots of blanket "Irish men are whatever" posts - and I'd agree with you.

HellFireClub

Dudess wrote: »

Sigh... It's the wording, the lack of accounting for the fact that it's your experience - not necessarily everyone else's, the lack of acknowledgement that not all Irish women behave like the bitchy ones you've met. "Irish women are whatever" is going to rile, end of. I am not failing to consider that these are your and others' experiences - I am just saying you should be fairer in the language you use.

You wouldn't like it if there was a thread with lots of blanket "Irish men are whatever" posts - and I'd agree with you.

What I'm reading there is that you are just refusing to face up to what I believe is the reality for a lot of men. As long as there is ONE decent woman left in the country who doesn't carry on as I have described, then it appears to me that you will still wish to cling to your argument. This doesn't do anything for my problem regrettably, nor for a lot of lads who also see what I am seeing and who may wish to discuss that on a forum on this site.

Dudess

You're blatantly ignoring my posts. Fair 'nuff.

HellFireClub

Dudess wrote: »

You're blatantly ignoring my posts. Fair 'nuff.

I'm not ignoring your posts, I'm replying to everything you have posted here. You just can't accept that there is an analysis with a foundation out there that is completely at odds with yours. I can accept a piece of your view that THERE DOES EXIST, Irish women out there who are normal, rational and mature and polite and considerate.

However, just because you think that your friends are in this category, this doesn't take away from the fact that me as a guy, the experience hasn't changed one bit because you can point to a circle of friends, who you think, act very differently.

Dudess

The reason I said you're ignoring my posts is, it's as if I'm denying the fact that many Irish women are horrible to reasonable men on nights out - I've acknowledged it's a fact several times!
I've said it's only fair that you don't word it in such an inflammatory way that makes it look like you're referring to Irish women in general and not bothering to take variables into account - that is not a denial by me of the issue though.

Raekwon

Dudess wrote: »

Do you honestly think an Irish woman who finds blanket "Irish women do xyz" statements unfair, aggressive and hostile can only be a feminist, or over zealous? How about the mere fact that she's an Irish woman?
Say whatever you like about these threads going down the sh1tter just because of the women who object to them, but the reason for them getting annoyed in the first place is the unfair generalisations - no way is it just the women who are at fault.
It baffles me that you think it's ok for a thread with unfair generalisations about Irish women bouncing all over the place to be left as is - and that it's unreasonable for Irish women to defend themselves.

Absolutely no agenda-pushing - just an unwillingness to accept unfair things being said. What on earth is so difficult to grasp about that?

But you just said that posting "In my experience, many Irish women are xyz" was completely fair. Now you are saying that it's not fair. Which is it? I already mentioned that I 'use the correct wording' so I'm not sure what argument you are trying to make there.

The thing is, these posts usually start with an observations, other posters add their own slant to the debate then suddenly their are more feminists, white knights & mods in the thread then any other poster.

This usually happens in AH though, where threads escalate into absolute train-wrecks in record time, but I've seen threads on the same subject in the Reality TV forum, for example, that don't get locked and the debates can go on for months sometimes, but posters usually work out their differences between themselves or just simple agree to disagree.

HellFireClub

Dudess wrote: »

The reason I said you're ignoring my posts is, it's as if I'm denying the fact that many Irish women are horrible to reasonable men on nights out - I've acknowledged it's a fact several times!
I've said it's only fair that you don't word it in such an inflammatory way that makes it look like you're referring to Irish women in general and not bothering to take variables into account - that is not a denial by me of the issue though.

I am referring to Irish women in general though because that is the product of my experience! You'd swear I'm asking you to agree with it or something?!?

I'd argue this a completely different way and say that your gender is letting you down in this country as a female.

Dudess

This is getting funny - just change the wording, HFC, that's all I'm saying. No, I'm not saying you're getting me to agree with you - and as I said, I don't disagree that there are women who carry on like that.

Raekwon wrote: »

But you just said that posting "In my experience, many Irish women are xyz" was completely fair. Now you are saying that it's not fair.

Nope. I said "Irish women are xyz" is unfair - don't know where I said otherwise. Lads, come on. Read my posts.

The thing is, these posts usually start with an observations, other posters add their own slant to the debate then suddenly their are more feminists, white knights & mods in the thread then any other poster.

It's bizarre you won't admit that many posters say totally out of order stuff - and this is what leads to the sh1tstorms. You didn't answer my question btw: how a woman who objects to comments slating women can only be a "feminist".

Raekwon

Dudess wrote: »

Nope. I said "Irish women are xyz" is unfair - don't know where I said otherwise. Lads, come on. Read my posts.

I did read your post. You post the following:

Dudess wrote: »

"In my experience, many Irish women are xyz" is completely fair

Dudess wrote: »

It's bizarre you won't admit that many posters say totally out of order stuff - and this is what leads to the sh1tstorms. You didn't answer my question btw: how a woman who objects to comments slating women can only be a "feminist".

Why is it bizarre? That's like admitting to water being wet. To answer your question, it is the same female posters who make the same objections over and over again to any posts that they don't agree with, especially when that post is gender specific. They are also the same female posters who go out of their way to thank each others posts in a show of solidarity regardless of the posts contents. Yet they cry foul if they are subjected to this in reverse. Hypocrisy as it's finest.

K-9

Dudess wrote: »

The reason I said you're ignoring my posts is, it's as if I'm denying the fact that many Irish women are horrible to reasonable men on nights out - I've acknowledged it's a fact several times!
I've said it's only fair that you don't word it in such an inflammatory way that makes it look like you're referring to Irish women in general and not bothering to take variables into account - that is not a denial by me of the issue though.

Bangs head against wall.

Dudess is actually agreeing with the point but as she is saying black so these posters have to say white.