FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Do women still like real men
Do women still like real men
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 you said real men! This should be interesting | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" you said real men! This should be interesting "Yep. Define 'real men' please OP.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"14 hours at work, then they need to rest and refuel? I'd feel like they didn't have the time for a partner and I was just a burden I think." And this exact reason is why I'm single  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
B | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" you said real men! This should be interesting
Yep.
Define 'real men' please OP. "It's the opposite of a white collar sissy  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have a labouring job. Can I join the "real man" club please? "Do you have hair on your chest? You must meet all the requirements otherwise you can only be an imaginary man. B | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have a labouring job. Can I join the "real man" club please?
Do you have hair on your chest? You must meet all the requirements otherwise you can only be an imaginary man.
B"*checks boobs* No | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I get the sentiment, OP. There's something that feels accomplished by working those long hours as you can see the progress you make through the day as you feel more tired and you see your clothes get dirtier. However, don't let society blind you into thinking working yourself to an early death makes you a real man." Well said | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have a labouring job. Can I join the "real man" club please?
Do you have hair on your chest? You must meet all the requirements otherwise you can only be an imaginary man.
B
*checks boobs* No "*Also checks boobs* 
B | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’d wonder where you were for those kissing hours. You said up at 0530 home at 1930 working 10 hours. Who, what or where are you for those missing hours. Or does a real man not have to explain himself and just expects dinner on the table when he gets home and the kids packed off to bed "I’d assume that’s the commute that you don’t get paid for | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just wondering if women are still attached to blue collar working men. You know the men that are up at 05:30 then not home till 19:30 work with their hands and have dirty boots with worn out jeans. A little over weight but can work for 10 hours straight. Hair on their chest unshaven with rough skin? Just wondering if so where are you ?" Op I work 28 hours in 2 days with 4 days off | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wheres the popcorn eating emoji?" Here share mine | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*pinches himself *" Nice drill | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Well except for the hairy chest & rough skin | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As someone who works in the blue collar industry, I feel sorry for any woman who ends up with half of those men" I worked in construction most of my life, and alot of those fellas are absolute cavemen, there are some decent fellas in there though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just wondering if women are still attached to blue collar working men. You know the men that are up at 05:30 then not home till 19:30 work with their hands and have dirty boots with worn out jeans. A little over weight but can work for 10 hours straight. Hair on their chest unshaven with rough skin? Just wondering if so where are you ?" Try 14 hours straight mate and where are real men are they all dirty workers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As someone who works in the blue collar industry, I feel sorry for any woman who ends up with half of those men I worked in construction most of my life, and alot of those fellas are absolute cavemen, there are some decent fellas in there though." Exactly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just wondering if women are still attached to blue collar working men. You know the men that are up at 05:30 then not home till 19:30 work with their hands and have dirty boots with worn out jeans. A little over weight but can work for 10 hours straight. Hair on their chest unshaven with rough skin? Just wondering if so where are you ?" If there is a " real man " definition. I am not sure that is actually it. Sounds like you've tailored it to fit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As someone who works in the blue collar industry, I feel sorry for any woman who ends up with half of those men I worked in construction most of my life, and alot of those fellas are absolute cavemen, there are some decent fellas in there though." Absolutely. Me and you  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Where's your btec Travel & Tourism qualification you pleb? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"See by using the term real men, you've triggered all the upper middle-class, pen pushing HR merchants who wouldn't know a hard days graft if it knocked on their office door & asked for time off to attend their fathers funeral
Where's your btec Travel & Tourism qualification you pleb? "What about those that work longer hours in the care or health sectors? What about drivers pulling long shifts? What about the self employed who only earn when they're working? What about teachers? What about those with two jobs to make ends meet? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*pinches himself * Nice drill "Oh… you like that? You should see my hammer | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"See by using the term real men, you've triggered all the upper middle-class, pen pushing HR merchants who wouldn't know a hard days graft if it knocked on their office door & asked for time off to attend their fathers funeral
Where's your btec Travel & Tourism qualification you pleb?
What about those that work longer hours in the care or health sectors? What about drivers pulling long shifts? What about the self employed who only earn when they're working? What about teachers? What about those with two jobs to make ends meet? "What about them? Are any of them posting here to slag off blue collar workers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"See by using the term real men, you've triggered all the upper middle-class, pen pushing HR merchants who wouldn't know a hard days graft if it knocked on their office door & asked for time off to attend their fathers funeral
Where's your btec Travel & Tourism qualification you pleb?
What about those that work longer hours in the care or health sectors? What about drivers pulling long shifts? What about the self employed who only earn when they're working? What about teachers? What about those with two jobs to make ends meet?
What about them?
Are any of them posting here to slag off blue collar workers? "That's the problem with this thread. It's turned into tit for tat bullshit dividing those with manual labour jobs and those with office jobs, all started by implying the latter aren't real men. Is that not slagging them off? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*pinches himself * Nice drill
Oh… you like that? You should see my hammer "It's not the size of the hammer, it's the nail you're throwing it at that impresses me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I cried when i read this. Now unsure where I fit into the stereotype *also, I moisturise" Urgh. What a fake | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I cried when i read this. Now unsure where I fit into the stereotype *also, I moisturise" As you fucking should. Good man  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I cried when i read this. Now unsure where I fit into the stereotype *also, I moisturise Urgh. Want a fuck "Oh, go on then..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm just here to see how many stand against, or in defence of, toxic masculinity. " I'm just here for some dick. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"See by using the term real men, you've triggered all the upper middle-class, pen pushing HR merchants who wouldn't know a hard days graft if it knocked on their office door & asked for time off to attend their fathers funeral
Where's your btec Travel & Tourism qualification you pleb?
What about those that work longer hours in the care or health sectors? What about drivers pulling long shifts? What about the self employed who only earn when they're working? What about teachers? What about those with two jobs to make ends meet?
What about them?
Are any of them posting here to slag off blue collar workers?
That's the problem with this thread. It's turned into tit for tat bullshit dividing those with manual labour jobs and those with office jobs, all started by implying the latter aren't real men. Is that not slagging them off?"Nothing OP wrote implied office workers aren't real men, people just felt like they were being attacked by the post for whatever reason, and then some decided to actually attack blue collar workers as a demographic. There's an old West Indian saying : whoever the cap fits, let them wear it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"See by using the term real men, you've triggered all the upper middle-class, pen pushing HR merchants who wouldn't know a hard days graft if it knocked on their office door & asked for time off to attend their fathers funeral
Where's your btec Travel & Tourism qualification you pleb?
What about those that work longer hours in the care or health sectors? What about drivers pulling long shifts? What about the self employed who only earn when they're working? What about teachers? What about those with two jobs to make ends meet?
What about them?
Are any of them posting here to slag off blue collar workers?
That's the problem with this thread. It's turned into tit for tat bullshit dividing those with manual labour jobs and those with office jobs, all started by implying the latter aren't real men. Is that not slagging them off?
Nothing OP wrote implied office workers aren't real men, people just felt like they were being attacked by the post for whatever reason, and then some decided to actually attack blue collar workers as a demographic.
There's an old West Indian saying : whoever the cap fits, let them wear it. "Did the OP not also write the title "real men"? The implication isn't subtle. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"See by using the term real men, you've triggered all the upper middle-class, pen pushing HR merchants who wouldn't know a hard days graft if it knocked on their office door & asked for time off to attend their fathers funeral
Where's your btec Travel & Tourism qualification you pleb?
What about those that work longer hours in the care or health sectors? What about drivers pulling long shifts? What about the self employed who only earn when they're working? What about teachers? What about those with two jobs to make ends meet?
What about them?
Are any of them posting here to slag off blue collar workers?
That's the problem with this thread. It's turned into tit for tat bullshit dividing those with manual labour jobs and those with office jobs, all started by implying the latter aren't real men. Is that not slagging them off?"Definitely Joe… it’s the “I can drink 12 pints and still get up for work” mentality You’re a real man dude same as everyone else. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"See by using the term real men, you've triggered all the upper middle-class, pen pushing HR merchants who wouldn't know a hard days graft if it knocked on their office door & asked for time off to attend their fathers funeral
Where's your btec Travel & Tourism qualification you pleb?
What about those that work longer hours in the care or health sectors? What about drivers pulling long shifts? What about the self employed who only earn when they're working? What about teachers? What about those with two jobs to make ends meet?
What about them?
Are any of them posting here to slag off blue collar workers?
That's the problem with this thread. It's turned into tit for tat bullshit dividing those with manual labour jobs and those with office jobs, all started by implying the latter aren't real men. Is that not slagging them off?
Nothing OP wrote implied office workers aren't real men, people just felt like they were being attacked by the post for whatever reason, and then some decided to actually attack blue collar workers as a demographic.
There's an old West Indian saying : whoever the cap fits, let them wear it. "The OP didn't necessarily. But I know several people who work in HR environments who do the same hours as the OP, don't work in offices and do plenty of stressful, hard graft. Just sayin .......... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"See by using the term real men, you've triggered all the upper middle-class, pen pushing HR merchants who wouldn't know a hard days graft if it knocked on their office door & asked for time off to attend their fathers funeral
Where's your btec Travel & Tourism qualification you pleb?
What about those that work longer hours in the care or health sectors? What about drivers pulling long shifts? What about the self employed who only earn when they're working? What about teachers? What about those with two jobs to make ends meet?
What about them?
Are any of them posting here to slag off blue collar workers?
That's the problem with this thread. It's turned into tit for tat bullshit dividing those with manual labour jobs and those with office jobs, all started by implying the latter aren't real men. Is that not slagging them off?
Nothing OP wrote implied office workers aren't real men, people just felt like they were being attacked by the post for whatever reason, and then some decided to actually attack blue collar workers as a demographic.
There's an old West Indian saying : whoever the cap fits, let them wear it. "You're being deliberately obtuse now | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm just here to see how many stand against, or in defence of, toxic masculinity. I'm just here for some dick. "Me too lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s a real man? Is there a glitch in the matrix? Are we still using definitions contrived in the 1950s? No OP. I won’t subscribe to that definition of a “real” anything "What about real cheese? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s a real man? Is there a glitch in the matrix? Are we still using definitions contrived in the 1950s? No OP. I won’t subscribe to that definition of a “real” anything "
Hottttttt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s a real man? Is there a glitch in the matrix? Are we still using definitions contrived in the 1950s? No OP. I won’t subscribe to that definition of a “real” anything
What about real cheese? "American plastic cheese can get out | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"See by using the term real men, you've triggered all the upper middle-class, pen pushing HR merchants who wouldn't know a hard days graft if it knocked on their office door & asked for time off to attend their fathers funeral
Where's your btec Travel & Tourism qualification you pleb?
What about those that work longer hours in the care or health sectors? What about drivers pulling long shifts? What about the self employed who only earn when they're working? What about teachers? What about those with two jobs to make ends meet?
What about them?
Are any of them posting here to slag off blue collar workers?
That's the problem with this thread. It's turned into tit for tat bullshit dividing those with manual labour jobs and those with office jobs, all started by implying the latter aren't real men. Is that not slagging them off?
Nothing OP wrote implied office workers aren't real men, people just felt like they were being attacked by the post for whatever reason, and then some decided to actually attack blue collar workers as a demographic.
There's an old West Indian saying : whoever the cap fits, let them wear it.
The OP didn't necessarily.
But I know several people who work in HR environments who do the same hours as the OP, don't work in offices and do plenty of stressful, hard graft.
Just sayin .......... "If you didn't sweat or bleed it's not hard work. You got it easy, stop complaining | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s a real man? Is there a glitch in the matrix? Are we still using definitions contrived in the 1950s? No OP. I won’t subscribe to that definition of a “real” anything
What about real cheese? "All cheese counts | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"See by using the term real men, you've triggered all the upper middle-class, pen pushing HR merchants who wouldn't know a hard days graft if it knocked on their office door & asked for time off to attend their fathers funeral
Where's your btec Travel & Tourism qualification you pleb?
What about those that work longer hours in the care or health sectors? What about drivers pulling long shifts? What about the self employed who only earn when they're working? What about teachers? What about those with two jobs to make ends meet?
What about them?
Are any of them posting here to slag off blue collar workers?
That's the problem with this thread. It's turned into tit for tat bullshit dividing those with manual labour jobs and those with office jobs, all started by implying the latter aren't real men. Is that not slagging them off?
Nothing OP wrote implied office workers aren't real men, people just felt like they were being attacked by the post for whatever reason, and then some decided to actually attack blue collar workers as a demographic.
There's an old West Indian saying : whoever the cap fits, let them wear it.
You're being deliberately obtuse now "No I'm not. I don't think you know what obtuse means. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I work 11 hour days and outside shunting trains it’s physical and hard work… I wouldn’t say that’s what makes a real man! I’d say a man that is truthful, honest, loyal and looks after his family is what makes you a real. An, add to that can make time for family and friends and be there for both. That’s my benchmark I aim for " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"See by using the term real men, you've triggered all the upper middle-class, pen pushing HR merchants who wouldn't know a hard days graft if it knocked on their office door & asked for time off to attend their fathers funeral
Where's your btec Travel & Tourism qualification you pleb?
What about those that work longer hours in the care or health sectors? What about drivers pulling long shifts? What about the self employed who only earn when they're working? What about teachers? What about those with two jobs to make ends meet?
What about them?
Are any of them posting here to slag off blue collar workers?
That's the problem with this thread. It's turned into tit for tat bullshit dividing those with manual labour jobs and those with office jobs, all started by implying the latter aren't real men. Is that not slagging them off?
Nothing OP wrote implied office workers aren't real men, people just felt like they were being attacked by the post for whatever reason, and then some decided to actually attack blue collar workers as a demographic.
There's an old West Indian saying : whoever the cap fits, let them wear it.
You're being deliberately obtuse now
No I'm not. I don't think you know what obtuse means. "Considering you just said that if you don't bleed or sweat then it's not hard work, yeah, I think I do know what it means. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"See by using the term real men, you've triggered all the upper middle-class, pen pushing HR merchants who wouldn't know a hard days graft if it knocked on their office door & asked for time off to attend their fathers funeral
Where's your btec Travel & Tourism qualification you pleb?
What about those that work longer hours in the care or health sectors? What about drivers pulling long shifts? What about the self employed who only earn when they're working? What about teachers? What about those with two jobs to make ends meet?
What about them?
Are any of them posting here to slag off blue collar workers?
That's the problem with this thread. It's turned into tit for tat bullshit dividing those with manual labour jobs and those with office jobs, all started by implying the latter aren't real men. Is that not slagging them off?
Nothing OP wrote implied office workers aren't real men, people just felt like they were being attacked by the post for whatever reason, and then some decided to actually attack blue collar workers as a demographic.
There's an old West Indian saying : whoever the cap fits, let them wear it.
You're being deliberately obtuse now
No I'm not. I don't think you know what obtuse means.
Considering you just said that if you don't bleed or sweat then it's not hard work, yeah, I think I do know what it means."Context is nothing, guys | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You're being deliberately obtuse now
No I'm not. I don't think you know what obtuse means.
Considering you just said that if you don't bleed or sweat then it's not hard work, yeah, I think I do know what it means."I think you're acute little thing, JB | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ah yeah, blue collar, manual labour. Wrecks your body by the time you’re 50, little job security, less financial freedom, no pension or healthcare provision. Sounds great. " lol sounds a bit like being a bass player Well wrecks your body by the time you are 50 perhaps not but then again possible if spending night after night getting ear drums pummelled...well assuming not orchestral bass. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ah yeah, blue collar, manual labour. Wrecks your body by the time you’re 50, little job security, less financial freedom, no pension or healthcare provision. Sounds great. lol sounds a bit like being a bass player Well wrecks your body by the time you are 50 perhaps not but then again possible if spending night after night getting ear drums pummelled...well assuming not orchestral bass. "Now that is true. I’ve got used to the tinnitus now  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Considering you just said that if you don't bleed or sweat then it's not hard work, yeah, I think I do know what it means. Context is nothing, guys "What context am I missing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Considering you just said that if you don't bleed or sweat then it's not hard work, yeah, I think I do know what it means. Context is nothing, guys
What context am I missing? "I do like the accusation that people are missing context on a written forum where it's all there for you to go back and read. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Considering you just said that if you don't bleed or sweat then it's not hard work, yeah, I think I do know what it means. Context is nothing, guys
What context am I missing?
I do like the accusation that people are missing context on a written forum where it's all there for you to go back and read. "It's maddening. The posts have obviously followed a trail of thought in accordance with the OP where the implications are clear, and I somehow seem to be missing the point. People are a rare breed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Considering you just said that if you don't bleed or sweat then it's not hard work, yeah, I think I do know what it means. Context is nothing, guys
What context am I missing?
I do like the accusation that people are missing context on a written forum where it's all there for you to go back and read.
It's maddening. The posts have obviously followed a trail of thought in accordance with the OP where the implications are clear, and I somehow seem to be missing the point. People are a rare breed "I do sometimes hear "you're missing the context" as a disingenuous argument to detract from the thrust of an argument. I have no idea if that's what's happening here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Considering you just said that if you don't bleed or sweat then it's not hard work, yeah, I think I do know what it means. Context is nothing, guys
What context am I missing? "What you called a "deliberately obtuse" argument, was in fact not one at all, and to support it you used something completely unrelated that I said to someone else, that was clearly in jest. It's tedious to have to explain these types of things to people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The best thing is the OP made literally a nothing comment, finished his wank, closed his phone and got on with his day and as usual the fab forums are losing it I wonder if he will even come back to read this " We love a good discussion in here | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Toxic, outdated notions of Masculinity remain a pain in the fucking bum. And this thread has reminded me " Invocation of anal sex imagery in the context of dominance, strength, and constructions of masculinity. Discuss. (I couldn't resist building a fucking essay question out of that) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Considering you just said that if you don't bleed or sweat then it's not hard work, yeah, I think I do know what it means. Context is nothing, guys
What context am I missing?
What you called a "deliberately obtuse" argument, was in fact not one at all, and to support it you used something completely unrelated that I said to someone else, that was clearly in jest.
It's tedious to have to explain these types of things to people. "I don't think you know what context means. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We like decent men, in fact - decent people. All are real. " "Yes, we're all individuals!" "I'm not" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Considering you just said that if you don't bleed or sweat then it's not hard work, yeah, I think I do know what it means. Context is nothing, guys
What context am I missing?
I do like the accusation that people are missing context on a written forum where it's all there for you to go back and read. "Great point. So you can see why, on a forum where people don't even finish the thread title half the time, relying on you to click on the thread itself in order to see the rest of it, it would seem quite premature to imply an attack on office workers (a word he never actually used) from just 2 words he used in the title & conveniently ignoring what he actually wrote | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Considering you just said that if you don't bleed or sweat then it's not hard work, yeah, I think I do know what it means. Context is nothing, guys
What context am I missing?
I do like the accusation that people are missing context on a written forum where it's all there for you to go back and read.
Great point.
So you can see why, on a forum where people don't even finish the thread title half the time, relying on you to click on the thread itself in order to see the rest of it, it would seem quite premature to imply an attack on office workers (a word he never actually used) from just 2 words he used in the title & conveniently ignoring what he actually wrote "Err. "Do women like real men" full question Together with the context of the text, where he then goes into a description of blue collar work. The comparison is implicit. Do women like - description - if so contact me. Reading for comprehension isn't difficult. The fact that you're not putting the pieces together doesn't make the people you're disagreeing with wrong. Oddly, you're the one who isn't using the contextual clues that everyone else is seeing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Considering you just said that if you don't bleed or sweat then it's not hard work, yeah, I think I do know what it means. Context is nothing, guys
What context am I missing?
I do like the accusation that people are missing context on a written forum where it's all there for you to go back and read.
Great point.
So you can see why, on a forum where people don't even finish the thread title half the time, relying on you to click on the thread itself in order to see the rest of it, it would seem quite premature to imply an attack on office workers (a word he never actually used) from just 2 words he used in the title & conveniently ignoring what he actually wrote "Thread title. 'Do women still like real men' Content of opening post. 'You know the men that are up at 05:30 then not home till 19:30 work with their hands and have dirty boots with worn out jeans.' Not a stretch to read into that that anyone not fitting that description is less than a real man. Yes.Context. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Considering you just said that if you don't bleed or sweat then it's not hard work, yeah, I think I do know what it means. Context is nothing, guys
What context am I missing?
I do like the accusation that people are missing context on a written forum where it's all there for you to go back and read.
Great point.
So you can see why, on a forum where people don't even finish the thread title half the time, relying on you to click on the thread itself in order to see the rest of it, it would seem quite premature to imply an attack on office workers (a word he never actually used) from just 2 words he used in the title & conveniently ignoring what he actually wrote
Thread title. 'Do women still like real men'
Content of opening post. 'You know the men that are up at 05:30 then not home till 19:30 work with their hands and have dirty boots with worn out jeans.'
Not a stretch to read into that that anyone not fitting that description is less than a real man.
Yes.Context. "Is reading for comprehension a fake man thing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We like decent men, in fact - decent people. All are real. " What about if they are nice or a gentleman? Niche reference to another thread | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Considering you just said that if you don't bleed or sweat then it's not hard work, yeah, I think I do know what it means. Context is nothing, guys
What context am I missing?
What you called a "deliberately obtuse" argument, was in fact not one at all, and to support it you used something completely unrelated that I said to someone else, that was clearly in jest.
It's tedious to have to explain these types of things to people. ""Nothing OP wrote implied office workers aren't real men, people just felt like they were being attacked by the post for whatever reason, and then some decided to actually attack blue collar workers as a demographic." ^ This argument? The fact you said "for whatever reason" when the OP clearly indicates what he thinks constitutes a real man without you seeing the implication of that is very much obtuse. Look it up | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s a real man? Is there a glitch in the matrix? Are we still using definitions contrived in the 1950s? No OP. I won’t subscribe to that definition of a “real” anything
What about real cheese?
All cheese counts "cheese strings? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Considering you just said that if you don't bleed or sweat then it's not hard work, yeah, I think I do know what it means. Context is nothing, guys
What context am I missing?
What you called a "deliberately obtuse" argument, was in fact not one at all, and to support it you used something completely unrelated that I said to someone else, that was clearly in jest.
It's tedious to have to explain these types of things to people.
"Nothing OP wrote implied office workers aren't real men, people just felt like they were being attacked by the post for whatever reason, and then some decided to actually attack blue collar workers as a demographic."
^ This argument? The fact you said "for whatever reason" when the OP clearly indicates what he thinks constitutes a real man without you seeing the implication of that is very much obtuse. Look it up "My fucking guyyyyyy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s a real man? Is there a glitch in the matrix? Are we still using definitions contrived in the 1950s? No OP. I won’t subscribe to that definition of a “real” anything
What about real cheese?
All cheese counts
cheese strings? "Yep | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s a real man? Is there a glitch in the matrix? Are we still using definitions contrived in the 1950s? No OP. I won’t subscribe to that definition of a “real” anything
What about real cheese?
All cheese counts
cheese strings?
Yep "All of it! She loves all of it!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s a real man? Is there a glitch in the matrix? Are we still using definitions contrived in the 1950s? No OP. I won’t subscribe to that definition of a “real” anything
What about real cheese?
All cheese counts
cheese strings?
Yep
All of it! She loves all of it!! "Dick cheese? ALL OF IT!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ah yeah, blue collar, manual labour. Wrecks your body by the time you’re 50, little job security, less financial freedom, no pension or healthcare provision. Sounds great. " Not all are like that… but I understand what you mean. I like working outdoors, I’ve a good job and it’s challenging. I take my hat off to guts that work indoors, I just can’t it’s not for me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s a real man? Is there a glitch in the matrix? Are we still using definitions contrived in the 1950s? No OP. I won’t subscribe to that definition of a “real” anything
What about real cheese?
All cheese counts
cheese strings?
Yep
All of it! She loves all of it!!
Dick cheese? ALL OF IT!!!"You knows it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just wondering if women are still attached to blue collar working men. You know the men that are up at 05:30 then not home till 19:30 work with their hands and have dirty boots with worn out jeans. A little over weight but can work for 10 hours straight. Hair on their chest unshaven with rough skin? Just wondering if so where are you ?" Why do you think that makes you more of a man than someone who works 9-5 in an office? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just out of interest what job would you have where you wouldn't work with your hands at some stage...?" Footballer | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Err. "Do women like real men" full question Together with the context of the text, where he then goes into a description of blue collar work. The comparison is implicit. Do women like - description - if so contact me. Reading for comprehension isn't difficult. " Apparently it is for you. If someone asks "do women like real men" and he then goes on to presumably describe himself, how do you extrapolate from that an attack on anybody, let alone "office workers".. Words he never actually uses. In the absence of any evidence of him actually attacking anybody in his post, the implication of attack here is purely based on the emotional sensitivity of the reader. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What’s the betting the OP is a Tate fan..?" Because he’s not bovvered? Oh you meant Andrew not Catherine. My bad | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Err. "Do women like real men" full question Together with the context of the text, where he then goes into a description of blue collar work. The comparison is implicit. Do women like - description - if so contact me. Reading for comprehension isn't difficult. Apparently it is for you. If someone asks "do women like real men" and he then goes on to presumably describe himself, how do you extrapolate from that an attack on anybody, let alone "office workers".. Words he never actually uses. In the absence of any evidence of him actually attacking anybody in his post, the implication of attack here is purely based on the emotional sensitivity of the reader." No it isn’t
It’s just a title. It is completely common and normal for the first post to be an extension of the title. And in his first post he describes what he means by real man. Which is an exclusionary definition.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Considering you just said that if you don't bleed or sweat then it's not hard work, yeah, I think I do know what it means. Context is nothing, guys
What context am I missing?
What you called a "deliberately obtuse" argument, was in fact not one at all, and to support it you used something completely unrelated that I said to someone else, that was clearly in jest.
It's tedious to have to explain these types of things to people.
"Nothing OP wrote implied office workers aren't real men, people just felt like they were being attacked by the post for whatever reason, and then some decided to actually attack blue collar workers as a demographic."
^ This argument? The fact you said "for whatever reason" when the OP clearly indicates what he thinks constitutes a real man without you seeing the implication of that is very much obtuse. Look it up ""for whatever reason" because I obviously did not canvas every single negative respondent to ask why they felt attacked by a post which didn't mention them or their jobs at all
This is like talking to children ffs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Err. "Do women like real men" full question Together with the context of the text, where he then goes into a description of blue collar work. The comparison is implicit. Do women like - description - if so contact me. Reading for comprehension isn't difficult. Apparently it is for you. If someone asks "do women like real men" and he then goes on to presumably describe himself, how do you extrapolate from that an attack on anybody, let alone "office workers".. Words he never actually uses. In the absence of any evidence of him actually attacking anybody in his post, the implication of attack here is purely based on the emotional sensitivity of the reader." The act of writing is an act of communication, designed to evoke a response in those reading. The fact that most people are reading it as an attack indicates that the implication exists in the minds of most readers. The coupling of spoken and unspoken implication is exceedingly common in English communication, which is why people are picking up on it. (Hence things like the joke "There are two types of people. One, those who can extrapolate from incomplete data") But I suppose it is super trendy brave teenage culture war shit to claim that the only reason people feel a certain way is because they're emotional and it's their fault, rather than accepting the norms of communication (that they also rely on to make their super big brain points) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Considering you just said that if you don't bleed or sweat then it's not hard work, yeah, I think I do know what it means. Context is nothing, guys
What context am I missing?
What you called a "deliberately obtuse" argument, was in fact not one at all, and to support it you used something completely unrelated that I said to someone else, that was clearly in jest.
It's tedious to have to explain these types of things to people.
"Nothing OP wrote implied office workers aren't real men, people just felt like they were being attacked by the post for whatever reason, and then some decided to actually attack blue collar workers as a demographic."
^ This argument? The fact you said "for whatever reason" when the OP clearly indicates what he thinks constitutes a real man without you seeing the implication of that is very much obtuse. Look it up
"for whatever reason" because I obviously did not canvas every single negative respondent to ask why they felt attacked by a post which didn't mention them or their jobs at all
This is like talking to children ffs"Only if you insist on being condescending | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Err. "Do women like real men" full question Together with the context of the text, where he then goes into a description of blue collar work. The comparison is implicit. Do women like - description - if so contact me. Reading for comprehension isn't difficult. Apparently it is for you. If someone asks "do women like real men" and he then goes on to presumably describe himself, how do you extrapolate from that an attack on anybody, let alone "office workers".. Words he never actually uses. In the absence of any evidence of him actually attacking anybody in his post, the implication of attack here is purely based on the emotional sensitivity of the reader. No it isn’t
It’s just a title. It is completely common and normal for the first post to be an extension of the title. And in his first post he describes what he means by real man. Which is an exclusionary definition.
"Nuh uh. Norms of English communication should be done away with. We just have feelings | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Considering you just said that if you don't bleed or sweat then it's not hard work, yeah, I think I do know what it means. Context is nothing, guys
What context am I missing?
What you called a "deliberately obtuse" argument, was in fact not one at all, and to support it you used something completely unrelated that I said to someone else, that was clearly in jest.
It's tedious to have to explain these types of things to people.
"Nothing OP wrote implied office workers aren't real men, people just felt like they were being attacked by the post for whatever reason, and then some decided to actually attack blue collar workers as a demographic."
^ This argument? The fact you said "for whatever reason" when the OP clearly indicates what he thinks constitutes a real man without you seeing the implication of that is very much obtuse. Look it up
"for whatever reason" because I obviously did not canvas every single negative respondent to ask why they felt attacked by a post which didn't mention them or their jobs at all
This is like talking to children ffs
Only if you insist on being condescending "Condescending and wrong is a special kind of fun. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Considering you just said that if you don't bleed or sweat then it's not hard work, yeah, I think I do know what it means. Context is nothing, guys
What context am I missing?
What you called a "deliberately obtuse" argument, was in fact not one at all, and to support it you used something completely unrelated that I said to someone else, that was clearly in jest.
It's tedious to have to explain these types of things to people.
"Nothing OP wrote implied office workers aren't real men, people just felt like they were being attacked by the post for whatever reason, and then some decided to actually attack blue collar workers as a demographic."
^ This argument? The fact you said "for whatever reason" when the OP clearly indicates what he thinks constitutes a real man without you seeing the implication of that is very much obtuse. Look it up
"for whatever reason" because I obviously did not canvas every single negative respondent to ask why they felt attacked by a post which didn't mention them or their jobs at all
This is like talking to children ffs"So you basically didn't gather context for why people feel the way they do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Err. "Do women like real men" full question Together with the context of the text, where he then goes into a description of blue collar work. The comparison is implicit. Do women like - description - if so contact me. Reading for comprehension isn't difficult. Apparently it is for you. If someone asks "do women like real men" and he then goes on to presumably describe himself, how do you extrapolate from that an attack on anybody, let alone "office workers".. Words he never actually uses. In the absence of any evidence of him actually attacking anybody in his post, the implication of attack here is purely based on the emotional sensitivity of the reader. No it isn’t
It’s just a title. It is completely common and normal for the first post to be an extension of the title. And in his first post he describes what he means by real man. Which is an exclusionary definition.
Nuh uh. Norms of English communication should be done away with. We just have feelings "There’s a lot of irony as well in calling people that take issue with the first post emotional | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Considering you just said that if you don't bleed or sweat then it's not hard work, yeah, I think I do know what it means. Context is nothing, guys
What context am I missing?
What you called a "deliberately obtuse" argument, was in fact not one at all, and to support it you used something completely unrelated that I said to someone else, that was clearly in jest.
It's tedious to have to explain these types of things to people.
"Nothing OP wrote implied office workers aren't real men, people just felt like they were being attacked by the post for whatever reason, and then some decided to actually attack blue collar workers as a demographic."
^ This argument? The fact you said "for whatever reason" when the OP clearly indicates what he thinks constitutes a real man without you seeing the implication of that is very much obtuse. Look it up
"for whatever reason" because I obviously did not canvas every single negative respondent to ask why they felt attacked by a post which didn't mention them or their jobs at all
This is like talking to children ffs
Only if you insist on being condescending
Condescending and wrong is a special kind of fun." honestly | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
one minute i am there the next i am gone just depending on the clothes i wear it's magic | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Considering you just said that if you don't bleed or sweat then it's not hard work, yeah, I think I do know what it means. Context is nothing, guys
What context am I missing?
What you called a "deliberately obtuse" argument, was in fact not one at all, and to support it you used something completely unrelated that I said to someone else, that was clearly in jest.
It's tedious to have to explain these types of things to people.
"Nothing OP wrote implied office workers aren't real men, people just felt like they were being attacked by the post for whatever reason, and then some decided to actually attack blue collar workers as a demographic."
^ This argument? The fact you said "for whatever reason" when the OP clearly indicates what he thinks constitutes a real man without you seeing the implication of that is very much obtuse. Look it up
"for whatever reason" because I obviously did not canvas every single negative respondent to ask why they felt attacked by a post which didn't mention them or their jobs at all
This is like talking to children ffs
So you basically didn't gather context for why people feel the way they do."If we accept that norms of written communication don't exist, and do away with any expectation that anyone will ever read things the same way, we can just shout "emotional" at the other person and win arguments. This will be much better than having ways to communicate. pwned! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Err. "Do women like real men" full question Together with the context of the text, where he then goes into a description of blue collar work. The comparison is implicit. Do women like - description - if so contact me. Reading for comprehension isn't difficult. Apparently it is for you. If someone asks "do women like real men" and he then goes on to presumably describe himself, how do you extrapolate from that an attack on anybody, let alone "office workers".. Words he never actually uses. In the absence of any evidence of him actually attacking anybody in his post, the implication of attack here is purely based on the emotional sensitivity of the reader. No it isn’t
It’s just a title. It is completely common and normal for the first post to be an extension of the title. And in his first post he describes what he means by real man. Which is an exclusionary definition.
"It isn't an "exclusionary definition" unless you personally feel like you're being excluded. You can't just speak things into existence without any evidence. Did OP personally DM you to say "btw my thread, I'm talking about you"? How do you know he's trying to exclude you without significant input from your own sensibilities insecurities? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The only real man imo is........ Chuck Connors don't make him angry, or leave him with your missus." Surely Chuck Norris lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think this post was a handgrenade post... the op pulled the pin and chucked it in the room and walked away ! ....I think I kinda get where the op was coming from....I don't think the intention was to cause such a ruckus "I can't speak to the OP's intention. It's a bad way of writing it because of the way it's turned out, but whether that was deliberate or not I can't say. I'd say something like "Is there still any love for the blue collar worker? Strong, consistent. A bit of dirt under the fingernails, sure, but a tangible result at the end of the day. You can see what you've done when you knock off after a long day. If so, get in touch, ladies." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Considering you just said that if you don't bleed or sweat then it's not hard work, yeah, I think I do know what it means. Context is nothing, guys
What context am I missing?
What you called a "deliberately obtuse" argument, was in fact not one at all, and to support it you used something completely unrelated that I said to someone else, that was clearly in jest.
It's tedious to have to explain these types of things to people.
"Nothing OP wrote implied office workers aren't real men, people just felt like they were being attacked by the post for whatever reason, and then some decided to actually attack blue collar workers as a demographic."
^ This argument? The fact you said "for whatever reason" when the OP clearly indicates what he thinks constitutes a real man without you seeing the implication of that is very much obtuse. Look it up
"for whatever reason" because I obviously did not canvas every single negative respondent to ask why they felt attacked by a post which didn't mention them or their jobs at all
This is like talking to children ffs
So you basically didn't gather context for why people feel the way they do."The nature of responses to the post provided the context for me. There was ultimately no need for me to ask people personally | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Err. "Do women like real men" full question Together with the context of the text, where he then goes into a description of blue collar work. The comparison is implicit. Do women like - description - if so contact me. Reading for comprehension isn't difficult. Apparently it is for you. If someone asks "do women like real men" and he then goes on to presumably describe himself, how do you extrapolate from that an attack on anybody, let alone "office workers".. Words he never actually uses. In the absence of any evidence of him actually attacking anybody in his post, the implication of attack here is purely based on the emotional sensitivity of the reader. No it isn’t
It’s just a title. It is completely common and normal for the first post to be an extension of the title. And in his first post he describes what he means by real man. Which is an exclusionary definition.
It isn't an "exclusionary definition" unless you personally feel like you're being excluded. You can't just speak things into existence without any evidence.
Did OP personally DM you to say "btw my thread, I'm talking about you"?
How do you know he's trying to exclude you without significant input from your own sensibilities insecurities? "Because reading comprehension and norms of construction in the English language. The fact that you don't seem to understand them puts you in a minority. The fact that pretty much everyone else in this thread has understood should indicate to you that you're barking up the wrong tree. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Considering you just said that if you don't bleed or sweat then it's not hard work, yeah, I think I do know what it means. Context is nothing, guys
What context am I missing?
What you called a "deliberately obtuse" argument, was in fact not one at all, and to support it you used something completely unrelated that I said to someone else, that was clearly in jest.
It's tedious to have to explain these types of things to people.
"Nothing OP wrote implied office workers aren't real men, people just felt like they were being attacked by the post for whatever reason, and then some decided to actually attack blue collar workers as a demographic."
^ This argument? The fact you said "for whatever reason" when the OP clearly indicates what he thinks constitutes a real man without you seeing the implication of that is very much obtuse. Look it up
"for whatever reason" because I obviously did not canvas every single negative respondent to ask why they felt attacked by a post which didn't mention them or their jobs at all
This is like talking to children ffs
So you basically didn't gather context for why people feel the way they do.
The nature of responses to the post provided the context for me. There was ultimately no need for me to ask people personally "Oh, so you get to imply things without personal communication, but we don't? Who made that rule? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Reading for comprehension isn't difficult. Apparently it is for you. If someone asks "do women like real men" and he then goes on to presumably describe himself, how do you extrapolate from that an attack on anybody, let alone "office workers".. Words he never actually uses. In the absence of any evidence of him actually attacking anybody in his post, the implication of attack here is purely based on the emotional sensitivity of the reader. No it isn’t
It’s just a title. It is completely common and normal for the first post to be an extension of the title. And in his first post he describes what he means by real man. Which is an exclusionary definition.
It isn't an "exclusionary definition" unless you personally feel like you're being excluded. You can't just speak things into existence without any evidence.
Did OP personally DM you to say "btw my thread, I'm talking about you"?
How do you know he's trying to exclude you without significant input from your own sensibilities insecurities? "Oh I’m not insecure about being excluded from any definition of a real man. Whether I’m a real man or not doesn’t bother me. But the implication in the OP is so blatantly obvious. Literally a GCSE English Lit student could pick it up that’s why so many people in the thread also did.
The idea that unless something is explicitly stated that it cannot be meant by someone is really sending me. Just wrong and strong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Considering you just said that if you don't bleed or sweat then it's not hard work, yeah, I think I do know what it means. Context is nothing, guys
What context am I missing?
What you called a "deliberately obtuse" argument, was in fact not one at all, and to support it you used something completely unrelated that I said to someone else, that was clearly in jest.
It's tedious to have to explain these types of things to people.
"Nothing OP wrote implied office workers aren't real men, people just felt like they were being attacked by the post for whatever reason, and then some decided to actually attack blue collar workers as a demographic."
^ This argument? The fact you said "for whatever reason" when the OP clearly indicates what he thinks constitutes a real man without you seeing the implication of that is very much obtuse. Look it up
"for whatever reason" because I obviously did not canvas every single negative respondent to ask why they felt attacked by a post which didn't mention them or their jobs at all
This is like talking to children ffs
So you basically didn't gather context for why people feel the way they do.
The nature of responses to the post provided the context for me. There was ultimately no need for me to ask people personally
Oh, so you get to imply things without personal communication, but we don't?
Who made that rule? "It is a rule for thee, not for me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Considering you just said that if you don't bleed or sweat then it's not hard work, yeah, I think I do know what it means. Context is nothing, guys
What context am I missing?
What you called a "deliberately obtuse" argument, was in fact not one at all, and to support it you used something completely unrelated that I said to someone else, that was clearly in jest.
It's tedious to have to explain these types of things to people.
"Nothing OP wrote implied office workers aren't real men, people just felt like they were being attacked by the post for whatever reason, and then some decided to actually attack blue collar workers as a demographic."
^ This argument? The fact you said "for whatever reason" when the OP clearly indicates what he thinks constitutes a real man without you seeing the implication of that is very much obtuse. Look it up
"for whatever reason" because I obviously did not canvas every single negative respondent to ask why they felt attacked by a post which didn't mention them or their jobs at all
This is like talking to children ffs
So you basically didn't gather context for why people feel the way they do.
The nature of responses to the post provided the context for me. There was ultimately no need for me to ask people personally
Oh, so you get to imply things without personal communication, but we don't?
Who made that rule?
It is a rule for thee, not for me "obviously. Next we should do away with pronouns and word order. I mean... away Next the understood common group that the speaker is talking about order and with pronouns do word should | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Before you get your pitch forks out hahaha go get yourself a cup of tea, few biscuits & relax. You have better things to stress & worry about than this comment it’s just an opinion you have yours & it’s fine | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Reading for comprehension isn't difficult. Apparently it is for you. If someone asks "do women like real men" and he then goes on to presumably describe himself, how do you extrapolate from that an attack on anybody, let alone "office workers".. Words he never actually uses. In the absence of any evidence of him actually attacking anybody in his post, the implication of attack here is purely based on the emotional sensitivity of the reader. No it isn’t
It’s just a title. It is completely common and normal for the first post to be an extension of the title. And in his first post he describes what he means by real man. Which is an exclusionary definition.
It isn't an "exclusionary definition" unless you personally feel like you're being excluded. You can't just speak things into existence without any evidence.
Did OP personally DM you to say "btw my thread, I'm talking about you"?
How do you know he's trying to exclude you without significant input from your own sensibilities insecurities?
Oh I’m not insecure about being excluded from any definition of a real man. Whether I’m a real man or not doesn’t bother me.
But the implication in the OP is so blatantly obvious. Literally a GCSE English Lit student could pick it up that’s why so many people in the thread also did.
The idea that unless something is explicitly stated that it cannot be meant by someone is really sending me. Just wrong and strong. ""blatantly obvious" Look at the words you're using in context (word of the day for half you here, actually look it up though) of what the OP actually wrote. An implied attack that mentions nobody by job title or demographic needs to be significantly more implied to warrant the kind of responses it's getting. You may disagree, that's fine. I understand we don't all have the same sensitivity to these things. Some people are more easily triggered than others | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Reading for comprehension isn't difficult. Apparently it is for you. If someone asks "do women like real men" and he then goes on to presumably describe himself, how do you extrapolate from that an attack on anybody, let alone "office workers".. Words he never actually uses. In the absence of any evidence of him actually attacking anybody in his post, the implication of attack here is purely based on the emotional sensitivity of the reader. No it isn’t
It’s just a title. It is completely common and normal for the first post to be an extension of the title. And in his first post he describes what he means by real man. Which is an exclusionary definition.
It isn't an "exclusionary definition" unless you personally feel like you're being excluded. You can't just speak things into existence without any evidence.
Did OP personally DM you to say "btw my thread, I'm talking about you"?
How do you know he's trying to exclude you without significant input from your own sensibilities insecurities?
Oh I’m not insecure about being excluded from any definition of a real man. Whether I’m a real man or not doesn’t bother me.
But the implication in the OP is so blatantly obvious. Literally a GCSE English Lit student could pick it up that’s why so many people in the thread also did.
The idea that unless something is explicitly stated that it cannot be meant by someone is really sending me. Just wrong and strong.
"blatantly obvious"
Look at the words you're using in context (word of the day for half you here, actually look it up though) of what the OP actually wrote.
An implied attack that mentions nobody by job title or demographic needs to be significantly more implied to warrant the kind of responses it's getting.
You may disagree, that's fine. I understand we don't all have the same sensitivity to these things.
Some people are more easily triggered than others "ah, triggered. What you use if you don't have an argument | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Err. "Do women like real men" full question Together with the context of the text, where he then goes into a description of blue collar work. The comparison is implicit. Do women like - description - if so contact me. Reading for comprehension isn't difficult. Apparently it is for you. If someone asks "do women like real men" and he then goes on to presumably describe himself, how do you extrapolate from that an attack on anybody, let alone "office workers".. Words he never actually uses. In the absence of any evidence of him actually attacking anybody in his post, the implication of attack here is purely based on the emotional sensitivity of the reader. No it isn’t
It’s just a title. It is completely common and normal for the first post to be an extension of the title. And in his first post he describes what he means by real man. Which is an exclusionary definition.
It isn't an "exclusionary definition" unless you personally feel like you're being excluded. You can't just speak things into existence without any evidence.
Did OP personally DM you to say "btw my thread, I'm talking about you"?
How do you know he's trying to exclude you without significant input from your own sensibilities insecurities?
Because reading comprehension and norms of construction in the English language.
The fact that you don't seem to understand them puts you in a minority.
The fact that pretty much everyone else in this thread has understood should indicate to you that you're barking up the wrong tree."I am very happy with the position I'm taking on this subject & I'm not likely to be swayed by the disagreement of a tiny handful of people, just to be clear | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Err. "Do women like real men" full question Together with the context of the text, where he then goes into a description of blue collar work. The comparison is implicit. Do women like - description - if so contact me. Reading for comprehension isn't difficult. Apparently it is for you. If someone asks "do women like real men" and he then goes on to presumably describe himself, how do you extrapolate from that an attack on anybody, let alone "office workers".. Words he never actually uses. In the absence of any evidence of him actually attacking anybody in his post, the implication of attack here is purely based on the emotional sensitivity of the reader. No it isn’t
It’s just a title. It is completely common and normal for the first post to be an extension of the title. And in his first post he describes what he means by real man. Which is an exclusionary definition.
It isn't an "exclusionary definition" unless you personally feel like you're being excluded. You can't just speak things into existence without any evidence.
Did OP personally DM you to say "btw my thread, I'm talking about you"?
How do you know he's trying to exclude you without significant input from your own sensibilities insecurities?
Because reading comprehension and norms of construction in the English language.
The fact that you don't seem to understand them puts you in a minority.
The fact that pretty much everyone else in this thread has understood should indicate to you that you're barking up the wrong tree.
I am very happy with the position I'm taking on this subject & I'm not likely to be swayed by the disagreement of a tiny handful of people, just to be clear "So other people's emotions invalidate their argument, but your emotions make your argument valid? fun. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you basically didn't gather context for why people feel the way they do. The nature of responses to the post provided the context for me. There was ultimately no need for me to ask people personally
Oh, so you get to imply things without personal communication, but we don't?
Who made that rule?
It is a rule for thee, not for me "These are actually obtuse arguments. I based my implications on things like "Cavemen", "toxic masculinity", "mugs" You know, words that people actually used. Almost as if you can't go back through the thread and read what people wrote | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you basically didn't gather context for why people feel the way they do. The nature of responses to the post provided the context for me. There was ultimately no need for me to ask people personally
Oh, so you get to imply things without personal communication, but we don't?
Who made that rule?
It is a rule for thee, not for me
These are actually obtuse arguments.
I based my implications on things like "Cavemen", "toxic masculinity", "mugs"
You know, words that people actually used.
Almost as if you can't go back through the thread and read what people wrote "Oh I understand now. You get to use context because you're correct. Others don't Your emotions are valid because you're correct. Others can't Your understanding of the English language is the only correct one and any norms of language must be discarded because you're right. I mean that's fun, but we're speaking English here, not you-ish. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Jeez can some summarise the argument in less than 20 words? Too many long posts. I feel need to express an opinion but my reading comprehension skills are not up to it "There was no argument to have so people have started picking on each others reading comprehension instead, I think | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you basically didn't gather context for why people feel the way they do. The nature of responses to the post provided the context for me. There was ultimately no need for me to ask people personally
Oh, so you get to imply things without personal communication, but we don't?
Who made that rule?
It is a rule for thee, not for me
These are actually obtuse arguments.
I based my implications on things like "Cavemen", "toxic masculinity", "mugs"
You know, words that people actually used.
Almost as if you can't go back through the thread and read what people wrote "Ok, I give up. You win. You're all knowing and make the best arguments out of anyone ever | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Jeez can some summarise the argument in less than 20 words? Too many long posts. I feel need to express an opinion but my reading comprehension skills are not up to it "- the OP wrote something that has been taken as inflammatory - people are asking who gets to count as a real man or not - others are saying that those people are being too sensitive - still others are trying to point out why the rules of English language, context, and construction apply to this thread - apparently some people get to speak their own unique language and be correct no matter what, because reasons (that's more than 20 words. best I can do) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you basically didn't gather context for why people feel the way they do. The nature of responses to the post provided the context for me. There was ultimately no need for me to ask people personally
Oh, so you get to imply things without personal communication, but we don't?
Who made that rule?
It is a rule for thee, not for me
These are actually obtuse arguments.
I based my implications on things like "Cavemen", "toxic masculinity", "mugs"
You know, words that people actually used.
Almost as if you can't go back through the thread and read what people wrote
Ok, I give up. You win. You're all knowing and make the best arguments out of anyone ever "Participation trophies for everyone! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Jeez can some summarise the argument in less than 20 words? Too many long posts. I feel need to express an opinion but my reading comprehension skills are not up to it
There was no argument to have so people have started picking on each others reading comprehension instead, I think "Ah ok. Got you. The Forum equivalent of a cock waving contest . Just like a real man would do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So other people's emotions invalidate their argument, but your emotions make your argument valid? fun." Wat? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Jeez can some summarise the argument in less than 20 words? Too many long posts. I feel need to express an opinion but my reading comprehension skills are not up to it
- the OP wrote something that has been taken as inflammatory
- people are asking who gets to count as a real man or not
- others are saying that those people are being too sensitive
- still others are trying to point out why the rules of English language, context, and construction apply to this thread
- apparently some people get to speak their own unique language and be correct no matter what, because reasons
(that's more than 20 words. best I can do)"Too many words and still not clear as substance missing on first point. I’ll give up. Can’t bring myself to read from the top | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you basically didn't gather context for why people feel the way they do. The nature of responses to the post provided the context for me. There was ultimately no need for me to ask people personally
Oh, so you get to imply things without personal communication, but we don't?
Who made that rule?
It is a rule for thee, not for me
These are actually obtuse arguments.
I based my implications on things like "Cavemen", "toxic masculinity", "mugs"
You know, words that people actually used.
Almost as if you can't go back through the thread and read what people wrote
Ok, I give up. You win. You're all knowing and make the best arguments out of anyone ever "I accept this victory
There was about 4 or you trying to dogpile me at one point
I'm made of sterner stuff. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So you basically didn't gather context for why people feel the way they do. The nature of responses to the post provided the context for me. There was ultimately no need for me to ask people personally
Oh, so you get to imply things without personal communication, but we don't?
Who made that rule?
It is a rule for thee, not for me
These are actually obtuse arguments.
I based my implications on things like "Cavemen", "toxic masculinity", "mugs"
You know, words that people actually used.
Almost as if you can't go back through the thread and read what people wrote
Ok, I give up. You win. You're all knowing and make the best arguments out of anyone ever
I accept this victory
There was about 4 or you trying to dogpile me at one point
I'm made of sterner stuff. "Or the constant contradictions just send people's heads in a spin. Either or | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I get the sentiment, OP. There's something that feels accomplished by working those long hours as you can see the progress you make through the day as you feel more tired and you see your clothes get dirtier. However, don't let society blind you into thinking working yourself to an early death makes you a real man." Joe This is beautiful.
Mrs TMN x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Op just an opinion but some of you real men shouldn’t go near a forum or indeed a keyboard if your only desire is to piss people off (not *of*) as you spelt it bless you. I’m a man by birth and if you’re classing yourself as a “real man” then wow I’m so glad I’m not real like you op so very very glad. T" Patronising people over their spelling is hardly a good look either, especially when your own post is not exactly a grammatical masterclass. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I feel sorry for the OP. He'll come back tonight after a hard day's graft and he's got to read all this. Good real men though, everyone "On the plus side it will all be over very very soon | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I feel sorry for the OP. He'll come back tonight after a hard day's graft and he's got to read all this. Good real men though, everyone
On the plus side it will all be over very very soon "Super soon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I get the sentiment, OP. There's something that feels accomplished by working those long hours as you can see the progress you make through the day as you feel more tired and you see your clothes get dirtier. However, don't let society blind you into thinking working yourself to an early death makes you a real man. Joe This is beautiful.
Mrs TMN x"Huh. Just read the rest of the thread | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I feel sorry for the OP. He'll come back tonight after a hard day's graft and he's got to read all this. Good real men though, everyone "He’ll be reet. He’s had time to post on here and change his status so he’s had a couple of breaks during the graft | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
