FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > On this international women's day.
On this international women's day.
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
 | |||
| |||
"Why is it the women's responsibility to fix men's shitty attitudes though? "Not fix, but influence. | |||
 | |||
"Why is it the women's responsibility to fix men's shitty attitudes though?
Not fix, but influence."Why is it the women’s responsibility to influence men’s shitty attitudes though? | |||
"Why is it the women's responsibility to fix men's shitty attitudes though?
Not fix, but influence.
Why is it the women’s responsibility to influence men’s shitty attitudes though?"i resemble that  | |||
| |||
"Why is it the women's responsibility to fix men's shitty attitudes though?
Not fix, but influence.
Why is it the women’s responsibility to influence men’s shitty attitudes though?"I mean, we've only been trying to help men treat us better for centuries. C'mon ladies, stop being so lazy! | |||
| |||
| |||
"Yeah, totally women's responsibility. And while we are at it, why can't middle aged white guys have their own day? Oh that's right. Their day is every other one." Lol. I saw a graph that showed that most Google searches for International Men's Day, by a long long way, happen around now. (yes it exists) | |||
"Yeah, totally women's responsibility. And while we are at it, why can't middle aged white guys have their own day? Oh that's right. Their day is every other one." Playing to the female gallery, good tactics, that should get you balls deep. | |||
| |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that" My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. | |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. " eh? | |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. " Why is it too much trouble to type "some" or "many" before "men" then? Otherwise someone may mean all men in their opinion. | |||
"Equality is a myth I'm afraid. At least so far as total equality is concerned. We weren't built to be congruous, we were built to be similar and complementary. You can't make salt the same as vinegar, but your chips won't be as good without both. Aside from that there are biological/evolutionary factors that will never allow us to have PERCIEVED equality. Even if we gained full equality of opportunity, equality before the law and in every respect that mattered there was no discrimination whatsoever, we would not perceive it as such. We would continue to tell ourselves that we do not have it, citing weaker and weaker evidence on smaller and smaller discrepancies and using more and more broken logic to allow us to continue in our preconceived views." People should fight injustices instead of seeking equality. | |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. Why is it too much trouble to type "some" or "many" before "men" then? Otherwise someone may mean all men in their opinion. " For the same reason that every other group manage to infer the same. Or consider the opinion as one of many without throwing their toys out of the pram and derailing conversations. | |||
"Why is it the women's responsibility to fix men's shitty attitudes though?
Not fix, but influence.
Why is it the women’s responsibility to influence men’s shitty attitudes though?
I mean, we've only been trying to help men treat us better for centuries. C'mon ladies, stop being so lazy! " | |||
"Why is it the women's responsibility to fix men's shitty attitudes though?
Not fix, but influence.
Why is it the women’s responsibility to influence men’s shitty attitudes though?
I mean, we've only been trying to help men treat us better for centuries. C'mon ladies, stop being so lazy! " | |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. " So we need to be physic as well now ? | |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. So we need to be physic as well now ? " No, just use inference like you do in areas of life you choose to. | |||
"Why is it the women's responsibility to fix men's shitty attitudes though? Not fix, but influence."Fuck that shit! I send first messages without hesitation and I do it for me because of what I want. Sometimes I'll respond favourably to a message that a man has sent me. Are you saying I will only be viewed as a person by those I actively sought out? If you view the women you send first messages to as sub-human then all I can say is you will reap what you sow. | |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. Why is it too much trouble to type "some" or "many" before "men" then? Otherwise someone may mean all men in their opinion. For the same reason that every other group manage to infer the same. Or consider the opinion as one of many without throwing their toys out of the pram and derailing conversations. " Ah, c'mon now! A forum without toy throwing? That's not gonna happen now is it? | |||
"Why is it the women's responsibility to fix men's shitty attitudes though? Not fix, but influence.
Fuck that shit! I send first messages without hesitation and I do it for me because of what I want. Sometimes I'll respond favourably to a message that a man has sent me. Are you saying I will only be viewed as a person by those I actively sought out? If you view the women you send first messages to as sub-human then all I can say is you will reap what you sow. "I can vouch for this, she does. | |||
"Why is it the women's responsibility to fix men's shitty attitudes though? Not fix, but influence.
Fuck that shit! I send first messages without hesitation and I do it for me because of what I want. Sometimes I'll respond favourably to a message that a man has sent me. Are you saying I will only be viewed as a person by those I actively sought out? If you view the women you send first messages to as sub-human then all I can say is you will reap what you sow. "Well done, you have my appreciation for being willing to reach out to men. | |||
"Why is it the women's responsibility to fix men's shitty attitudes though? Not fix, but influence.
Fuck that shit! I send first messages without hesitation and I do it for me because of what I want. Sometimes I'll respond favourably to a message that a man has sent me. Are you saying I will only be viewed as a person by those I actively sought out? If you view the women you send first messages to as sub-human then all I can say is you will reap what you sow. Well done, you have my appreciation for being willing to reach out to men."Oh thank you kind sir, your approval has improved my day immeasurably..... | |||
"Why is it the women's responsibility to fix men's shitty attitudes though? Not fix, but influence.
Fuck that shit! I send first messages without hesitation and I do it for me because of what I want. Sometimes I'll respond favourably to a message that a man has sent me. Are you saying I will only be viewed as a person by those I actively sought out? If you view the women you send first messages to as sub-human then all I can say is you will reap what you sow.
I can vouch for this, she does. "Discretion is your middle name... | |||
"Why is it the women's responsibility to fix men's shitty attitudes though?
Not fix, but influence.
Why is it the women’s responsibility to influence men’s shitty attitudes though?"As a Queen I thought you might use your influence to nudge your sisters (retinue) in a more helpful direction. | |||
"Why is it the women's responsibility to fix men's shitty attitudes though? Not fix, but influence.
Fuck that shit! I send first messages without hesitation and I do it for me because of what I want. Sometimes I'll respond favourably to a message that a man has sent me. Are you saying I will only be viewed as a person by those I actively sought out? If you view the women you send first messages to as sub-human then all I can say is you will reap what you sow. Well done, you have my appreciation for being willing to reach out to men.
Oh thank you kind sir, your approval has improved my day immeasurably....."Now this is a fine example of male/female interaction in all it's purity. Some may say too much purity,but we must start somewhere. | |||
 | |||
"Why is it the women's responsibility to fix men's shitty attitudes though? Not fix, but influence.
Fuck that shit! I send first messages without hesitation and I do it for me because of what I want. Sometimes I'll respond favourably to a message that a man has sent me. Are you saying I will only be viewed as a person by those I actively sought out? If you view the women you send first messages to as sub-human then all I can say is you will reap what you sow.
I can vouch for this, she does.
Discretion is your middle name...
"Or does she?! (That will fool them) | |||
"Why is it the women's responsibility to fix men's shitty attitudes though? Not fix, but influence.
Fuck that shit! I send first messages without hesitation and I do it for me because of what I want. Sometimes I'll respond favourably to a message that a man has sent me. Are you saying I will only be viewed as a person by those I actively sought out? If you view the women you send first messages to as sub-human then all I can say is you will reap what you sow.
I can vouch for this, she does.
Discretion is your middle name...
Or does she?!
(That will fool them)"You're such a knob | |||
"There are many ladies that do the looking and first messaging on here. As for out in the real world, I disagree, but more in your assertion that woman are seen as an object to be conquered. It's a bit of a sweeping generalisation." Consider history and invading armies as they sweep down upon cities. Scholar : And soldier what shall you seek when you enter the city. Soldier: gives him a cutting sideways look,food,drink and ( ) this part was scrubbed off the ancient text. | |||
"There are many ladies that do the looking and first messaging on here. As for out in the real world, I disagree, but more in your assertion that woman are seen as an object to be conquered. It's a bit of a sweeping generalisation. Consider history and invading armies as they sweep down upon cities. Scholar : And soldier what shall you seek when you enter the city. Soldier: gives him a cutting sideways look,food,drink and ( ) this part was scrubbed off the ancient text." Considering... Hmmmm... Well, Ye olde rights of conquest may be a teensy bit dated nowadays. Not saying that it doesn't happen in warzones and places with tribal shit still happening but I am not quallified to make accurate assessments on there and that. Here and now? Nah, I'm not buying that mentallity is all pervading in men in general. | |||
"There are many ladies that do the looking and first messaging on here. As for out in the real world, I disagree, but more in your assertion that woman are seen as an object to be conquered. It's a bit of a sweeping generalisation. Consider history and invading armies as they sweep down upon cities. Scholar : And soldier what shall you seek when you enter the city. Soldier: gives him a cutting sideways look,food,drink and ( ) this part was scrubbed off the ancient text. Considering... Hmmmm... Well, Ye olde rights of conquest may be a teensy bit dated nowadays. Not saying that it doesn't happen in warzones and places with tribal shit still happening but I am not quallified to make accurate assessments on there and that. Here and now? Nah, I'm not buying that mentallity is all pervading in men in general." No, but we can consider some nuance. Some of these ideas of chasing women as a prize still exist in less extreme forms, and they influence behaviour. Am I going to start looking proactively for men here? No. Because of cultural issues? Good god no, because of the limits of Fab's search function given the numbers involved. | |||
"There are many ladies that do the looking and first messaging on here. As for out in the real world, I disagree, but more in your assertion that woman are seen as an object to be conquered. It's a bit of a sweeping generalisation. Consider history and invading armies as they sweep down upon cities. Scholar : And soldier what shall you seek when you enter the city. Soldier: gives him a cutting sideways look,food,drink and ( ) this part was scrubbed off the ancient text. Considering... Hmmmm... Well, Ye olde rights of conquest may be a teensy bit dated nowadays. Not saying that it doesn't happen in warzones and places with tribal shit still happening but I am not quallified to make accurate assessments on there and that. Here and now? Nah, I'm not buying that mentallity is all pervading in men in general. No, but we can consider some nuance. Some of these ideas of chasing women as a prize still exist in less extreme forms, and they influence behaviour. Am I going to start looking proactively for men here? No. Because of cultural issues? Good god no, because of the limits of Fab's search function given the numbers involved. " Nuances/ prize you have made me want to study anthropology thanks for your input. | |||
"There are many ladies that do the looking and first messaging on here. As for out in the real world, I disagree, but more in your assertion that woman are seen as an object to be conquered. It's a bit of a sweeping generalisation. Consider history and invading armies as they sweep down upon cities. Scholar : And soldier what shall you seek when you enter the city. Soldier: gives him a cutting sideways look,food,drink and ( ) this part was scrubbed off the ancient text. Considering... Hmmmm... Well, Ye olde rights of conquest may be a teensy bit dated nowadays. Not saying that it doesn't happen in warzones and places with tribal shit still happening but I am not quallified to make accurate assessments on there and that. Here and now? Nah, I'm not buying that mentallity is all pervading in men in general. No, but we can consider some nuance. Some of these ideas of chasing women as a prize still exist in less extreme forms, and they influence behaviour. Am I going to start looking proactively for men here? No. Because of cultural issues? Good god no, because of the limits of Fab's search function given the numbers involved. " Oh, that men and women actively seeking trophy fucks is certainly a thing will get no argument from me. | |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. Why is it too much trouble to type "some" or "many" before "men" then? Otherwise someone may mean all men in their opinion. " Type in ‘do women’ in the forum search engine. | |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. Why is it too much trouble to type "some" or "many" before "men" then? Otherwise someone may mean all men in their opinion. Type in ‘do women’ in the forum search engine. " No nothing of the quality of this proposal is seen there. | |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. Why is it too much trouble to type "some" or "many" before "men" then? Otherwise someone may mean all men in their opinion. Type in ‘do women’ in the forum search engine. " This is my point exactly! Just a few more words added in there would make these statements or questions less abrasive to me  | |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. So we need to be physic as well now ? No, just use inference like you do in areas of life you choose to. " I've always found that a strange argument. I think it's probably true that, on the whole, women tend to be more emotional than men. Yet I am sure that if I phrased that as "women are emotional" I'd be rightly told off for making a sexist statement. It's also true that men are, on the whole, more violent than women. Your argument appears to be that it is then OK to say "men are violent" and we should interpret that to mean "men are more violent than women". Wouldn't it be better if we used more nuanced language about both sexes? | |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. So we need to be physic as well now ? No, just use inference like you do in areas of life you choose to. I've always found that a strange argument. I think it's probably true that, on the whole, women tend to be more emotional than men. Yet I am sure that if I phrased that as "women are emotional" I'd be rightly told off for making a sexist statement. It's also true that men are, on the whole, more violent than women. Your argument appears to be that it is then OK to say "men are violent" and we should interpret that to mean "men are more violent than women". Wouldn't it be better if we used more nuanced language about both sexes? " Perhaps. But when "not all women" becomes a derailing technique, like "not all men" is often used online to stop discussion of gendered violence (documented violence with documented gendered components), then it'll be equivalent. In the meantime, see if there's value in the statement, and what it adds or detracts from the conversation. | |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. Why is it too much trouble to type "some" or "many" before "men" then? Otherwise someone may mean all men in their opinion. " Agreed. There would be no need for inference when 'some' or 'many' is used. As you say it's really not that difficult to add them, and subsequently, the meaning is clear. | |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. So we need to be physic as well now ? No, just use inference like you do in areas of life you choose to. " Or how about you actually say what you mean, so then men aren’t guessing or coming to conclusions based on vague generalisations, so there’s no ambiguity. | |||
| |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. So we need to be physic as well now ? No, just use inference like you do in areas of life you choose to. I've always found that a strange argument. I think it's probably true that, on the whole, women tend to be more emotional than men. Yet I am sure that if I phrased that as "women are emotional" I'd be rightly told off for making a sexist statement. It's also true that men are, on the whole, more violent than women. Your argument appears to be that it is then OK to say "men are violent" and we should interpret that to mean "men are more violent than women". Wouldn't it be better if we used more nuanced language about both sexes? Perhaps. But when "not all women" becomes a derailing technique, like "not all men" is often used online to stop discussion of gendered violence (documented violence with documented gendered components), then it'll be equivalent. In the meantime, see if there's value in the statement, and what it adds or detracts from the conversation. " I think it detracts. If, on a literal, meaning of your statement you accuse people of crimes they haven't committed, your going to alienate those people from your cause. I'm an old Marxist. You attack systems, not individuals. One of the problems of the modern identarian left is to damn certain groups of individuals with a kind of original sin. Not surprisingly groups so branded rarely take kindly to that. | |||
| |||
| |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. So we need to be physic as well now ? No, just use inference like you do in areas of life you choose to. Or how about you actually say what you mean, so then men aren’t guessing or coming to conclusions based on vague generalisations, so there’s no ambiguity." Or we* could all* rely on inference because that's the way* language works*? *a group of people I consider myself a part of rather than satcastic *everyone with normal social functioning * language also works in other ways * it may not always work, maybe not all languages, I can't say for sure Huh. Inference makes communication more efficient | |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. So we need to be physic as well now ? No, just use inference like you do in areas of life you choose to. Or how about you actually say what you mean, so then men aren’t guessing or coming to conclusions based on vague generalisations, so there’s no ambiguity. Or we* could all* rely on inference because that's the way* language works*? *a group of people I consider myself a part of rather than satcastic *everyone with normal social functioning * language also works in other ways * it may not always work, maybe not all languages, I can't say for sure Huh. Inference makes communication more efficient " Is ‘inference’ on your word of the day loo roll, cause it’s not really relevant when talking about whole groups of people, when you can simply add a few more words to clarify what you mean ?! | |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. So we need to be physic as well now ? No, just use inference like you do in areas of life you choose to. Or how about you actually say what you mean, so then men aren’t guessing or coming to conclusions based on vague generalisations, so there’s no ambiguity." Nah, that's silly. All you gotta do is see what is inferred in everything Tame. Who needs clarity? | |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. So we need to be physic as well now ? No, just use inference like you do in areas of life you choose to. Or how about you actually say what you mean, so then men aren’t guessing or coming to conclusions based on vague generalisations, so there’s no ambiguity. Or we* could all* rely on inference because that's the way* language works*? *a group of people I consider myself a part of rather than satcastic *everyone with normal social functioning * language also works in other ways * it may not always work, maybe not all languages, I can't say for sure Huh. Inference makes communication more efficient " So if I said "women are emotional" you wouldn't think that was a sexist generalisation. You would infer that what I actually meant was that, women, on the whole tend to be more emotional than men? | |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. So we need to be physic as well now ? No, just use inference like you do in areas of life you choose to. Or how about you actually say what you mean, so then men aren’t guessing or coming to conclusions based on vague generalisations, so there’s no ambiguity. Nah, that's silly. All you gotta do is see what is inferred in everything Tame. Who needs clarity?" | |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. So we need to be physic as well now ? No, just use inference like you do in areas of life you choose to. Or how about you actually say what you mean, so then men aren’t guessing or coming to conclusions based on vague generalisations, so there’s no ambiguity. Or we* could all* rely on inference because that's the way* language works*? *a group of people I consider myself a part of rather than satcastic *everyone with normal social functioning * language also works in other ways * it may not always work, maybe not all languages, I can't say for sure Huh. Inference makes communication more efficient Is ‘inference’ on your word of the day loo roll, cause it’s not really relevant when talking about whole groups of people, when you can simply add a few more words to clarify what you mean ?! " No! Word economy, please! We must exclude words, even important ones | |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. So we need to be physic as well now ? No, just use inference like you do in areas of life you choose to. Or how about you actually say what you mean, so then men aren’t guessing or coming to conclusions based on vague generalisations, so there’s no ambiguity. Or we* could all* rely on inference because that's the way* language works*? *a group of people I consider myself a part of rather than satcastic *everyone with normal social functioning * language also works in other ways * it may not always work, maybe not all languages, I can't say for sure Huh. Inference makes communication more efficient So if I said "women are emotional" you wouldn't think that was a sexist generalisation. You would infer that what I actually meant was that, women, on the whole tend to be more emotional than men? " Well, it's a generalisation, so generally not all by definition. So I'm not taking it personally. It may still be sexist given the way we code and value emotions in different people. But no, I'm not going to go omg not all women. (I do quote Racey at people asking what women like in bed, but that's because there's no one answer and knowing that is useful l) It might be your opinion, it might be backed up by data, but no. I don't read "all women" into that. | |||
"Why is it the women's responsibility to fix men's shitty attitudes though? " | |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. So we need to be physic as well now ? No, just use inference like you do in areas of life you choose to. Or how about you actually say what you mean, so then men aren’t guessing or coming to conclusions based on vague generalisations, so there’s no ambiguity. Or we* could all* rely on inference because that's the way* language works*? *a group of people I consider myself a part of rather than satcastic *everyone with normal social functioning * language also works in other ways * it may not always work, maybe not all languages, I can't say for sure Huh. Inference makes communication more efficient Is ‘inference’ on your word of the day loo roll, cause it’s not really relevant when talking about whole groups of people, when you can simply add a few more words to clarify what you mean ?! No! Word economy, please! We must exclude words, even important ones "Communication* would break down* if we* eliminated inference. * effective communication * OK, maybe stall. It'd be a disaster so break down is appropriate. Do I have to explain the common metaphor and that communication isn't a car? * definitely not including me | |||
| |||
"There are also men who think a woman who messages first is easy and too forward. " They are not men,but socially constructed fools. | |||
"There are also men who think a woman who messages first is easy and too forward. They are not men,but socially constructed fools." Social construction is inevitable. I think the idea of women being too forward is one we should fight, that is of value. But not mostly for the cause of dick wetting. | |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. So we need to be physic as well now ? No, just use inference like you do in areas of life you choose to. Or how about you actually say what you mean, so then men aren’t guessing or coming to conclusions based on vague generalisations, so there’s no ambiguity. Nah, that's silly. All you gotta do is see what is inferred in everything Tame. Who needs clarity?" Me. I need to know exactly what someone means, so they can't come back with "that's not what I was inferring". | |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. So we need to be physic as well now ? No, just use inference like you do in areas of life you choose to. Or how about you actually say what you mean, so then men aren’t guessing or coming to conclusions based on vague generalisations, so there’s no ambiguity. Nah, that's silly. All you gotta do is see what is inferred in everything Tame. Who needs clarity? Me. I need to know exactly what someone means, so they can't come back with "that's not what I was inferring"." The listener infers. The speaker (etc) implies. Can you ever truly know what someone means? Do you have full knowledge of all their platonic ideals? It's just nonsense. | |||
"But, derailing. Men, use the tools that work for you, women do the same. Happy international women's day. " Happy international women's day to you too. Hope you ladies have a special and sweet day. | |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. So we need to be physic as well now ? No, just use inference like you do in areas of life you choose to. Or how about you actually say what you mean, so then men aren’t guessing or coming to conclusions based on vague generalisations, so there’s no ambiguity. Or we* could all* rely on inference because that's the way* language works*? *a group of people I consider myself a part of rather than satcastic *everyone with normal social functioning * language also works in other ways * it may not always work, maybe not all languages, I can't say for sure Huh. Inference makes communication more efficient " No I'm sorry, I don't agree with you on this, inferrance and assumption are the enemies of clarity. It is the assumption of intent and meaning that derails discussion and causes friction more often than anything else. The simple answer is to state what you mean clearly, don't infer or assume, state! If I mean some people I state "some people". It's not a case of male misdirection or derailment, it's a case of people being clear and precise with their language usage. | |||
| |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. So we need to be physic as well now ? No, just use inference like you do in areas of life you choose to. Or how about you actually say what you mean, so then men aren’t guessing or coming to conclusions based on vague generalisations, so there’s no ambiguity. Nah, that's silly. All you gotta do is see what is inferred in everything Tame. Who needs clarity? Me. I need to know exactly what someone means, so they can't come back with "that's not what I was inferring". The listener infers. The speaker (etc) implies. Can you ever truly know what someone means? Do you have full knowledge of all their platonic ideals? It's just nonsense. " If they write it plain and simple, yes. Some things should simply be plain and simple. It's not art, where we interpret visuals differently. If we're trying to convey an opinion I believe the best way is to not make inferences. Say what you mean and there will be no ambiguity or misunderstanding. | |||
| |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. So we need to be physic as well now ? No, just use inference like you do in areas of life you choose to. Or how about you actually say what you mean, so then men aren’t guessing or coming to conclusions based on vague generalisations, so there’s no ambiguity. Or we* could all* rely on inference because that's the way* language works*? *a group of people I consider myself a part of rather than satcastic *everyone with normal social functioning * language also works in other ways * it may not always work, maybe not all languages, I can't say for sure Huh. Inference makes communication more efficient Is ‘inference’ on your word of the day loo roll, cause it’s not really relevant when talking about whole groups of people, when you can simply add a few more words to clarify what you mean ?! No! Word economy, please! We must exclude words, even important ones
Communication* would break down* if we* eliminated inference.
* effective communication
* OK, maybe stall. It'd be a disaster so break down is appropriate. Do I have to explain the common metaphor and that communication isn't a car?
* definitely not including me"I think you’re just trying to do intellectual wheelies now and trying to over complicate things to try and shake people off the fact that you’re wrong on this matter. | |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. So we need to be physic as well now ? No, just use inference like you do in areas of life you choose to. Or how about you actually say what you mean, so then men aren’t guessing or coming to conclusions based on vague generalisations, so there’s no ambiguity. Or we* could all* rely on inference because that's the way* language works*? *a group of people I consider myself a part of rather than satcastic *everyone with normal social functioning * language also works in other ways * it may not always work, maybe not all languages, I can't say for sure Huh. Inference makes communication more efficient So if I said "women are emotional" you wouldn't think that was a sexist generalisation. You would infer that what I actually meant was that, women, on the whole tend to be more emotional than men? Well, it's a generalisation, so generally not all by definition. So I'm not taking it personally. It may still be sexist given the way we code and value emotions in different people. But no, I'm not going to go omg not all women. (I do quote Racey at people asking what women like in bed, but that's because there's no one answer and knowing that is useful l) It might be your opinion, it might be backed up by data, but no. I don't read "all women" into that. " I'm rather surprised you don't see the danger of this. On the whole people of afro Caribbean origin in the UK have fewer educational qualifications than white people. "Black people are uneducated". Is that an OK statement from which we can infer the fact I mentioned above? | |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. So we need to be physic as well now ? No, just use inference like you do in areas of life you choose to. Or how about you actually say what you mean, so then men aren’t guessing or coming to conclusions based on vague generalisations, so there’s no ambiguity. Or we* could all* rely on inference because that's the way* language works*? *a group of people I consider myself a part of rather than satcastic *everyone with normal social functioning * language also works in other ways * it may not always work, maybe not all languages, I can't say for sure Huh. Inference makes communication more efficient No I'm sorry, I don't agree with you on this, inferrance and assumption are the enemies of clarity. It is the assumption of intent and meaning that derails discussion and causes friction more often than anything else. The simple answer is to state what you mean clearly, don't infer or assume, state! If I mean some people I state "some people". It's not a case of male misdirection or derailment, it's a case of people being clear and precise with their language usage. " Ambiguity is inevitable in language, though, which is what I'm getting at. I think many men are inclined to take anything about them personally where it's neither warranted nor relevant. Without a modifier "men (verb) X" could mean in my family, on the bus, in a particular country, on and on. Hell, I've even seen (and said myself) "everyone does this, including women, but some men have a particular problem with X" and been met with "not all men". It can feel like the only way to communicate these ideas is "a very small group of men do X and women are terrible you definitely don't have to worry about it even if you cover for the problem. Who's a good boy, you are, yes you are!" Which, no, sometimes there's a problem, ffs fix it. | |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. So we need to be physic as well now ? No, just use inference like you do in areas of life you choose to. Or how about you actually say what you mean, so then men aren’t guessing or coming to conclusions based on vague generalisations, so there’s no ambiguity. Nah, that's silly. All you gotta do is see what is inferred in everything Tame. Who needs clarity? Me. I need to know exactly what someone means, so they can't come back with "that's not what I was inferring". The listener infers. The speaker (etc) implies. Can you ever truly know what someone means? Do you have full knowledge of all their platonic ideals? It's just nonsense. If they write it plain and simple, yes. Some things should simply be plain and simple. It's not art, where we interpret visuals differently. If we're trying to convey an opinion I believe the best way is to not make inferences. Say what you mean and there will be no ambiguity or misunderstanding. " Those debates last 5 minutes done and dusted A-Z along a narrow path. | |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. So we need to be physic as well now ? No, just use inference like you do in areas of life you choose to. Or how about you actually say what you mean, so then men aren’t guessing or coming to conclusions based on vague generalisations, so there’s no ambiguity. Or we* could all* rely on inference because that's the way* language works*? *a group of people I consider myself a part of rather than satcastic *everyone with normal social functioning * language also works in other ways * it may not always work, maybe not all languages, I can't say for sure Huh. Inference makes communication more efficient Is ‘inference’ on your word of the day loo roll, cause it’s not really relevant when talking about whole groups of people, when you can simply add a few more words to clarify what you mean ?! No! Word economy, please! We must exclude words, even important ones
Communication* would break down* if we* eliminated inference.
* effective communication
* OK, maybe stall. It'd be a disaster so break down is appropriate. Do I have to explain the common metaphor and that communication isn't a car?
* definitely not including me"No, you don't have to, but by all means explain if you wish. It seems communication breaks down if clarity is eliminated. | |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. So we need to be physic as well now ? No, just use inference like you do in areas of life you choose to. Or how about you actually say what you mean, so then men aren’t guessing or coming to conclusions based on vague generalisations, so there’s no ambiguity. Nah, that's silly. All you gotta do is see what is inferred in everything Tame. Who needs clarity? Me. I need to know exactly what someone means, so they can't come back with "that's not what I was inferring". The listener infers. The speaker (etc) implies. Can you ever truly know what someone means? Do you have full knowledge of all their platonic ideals? It's just nonsense. If they write it plain and simple, yes. Some things should simply be plain and simple. It's not art, where we interpret visuals differently. If we're trying to convey an opinion I believe the best way is to not make inferences. Say what you mean and there will be no ambiguity or misunderstanding. Those debates last 5 minutes done and dusted A-Z along a narrow path." Like a game of ping pong between amateurs! | |||
"We just had a guy send us his wedding photo, showing his wife's face, clearly without her knowledge. Is that just wrong or what?. " What the fucks that got to do with the thread?  | |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. So we need to be physic as well now ? No, just use inference like you do in areas of life you choose to. Or how about you actually say what you mean, so then men aren’t guessing or coming to conclusions based on vague generalisations, so there’s no ambiguity. Or we* could all* rely on inference because that's the way* language works*? *a group of people I consider myself a part of rather than satcastic *everyone with normal social functioning * language also works in other ways * it may not always work, maybe not all languages, I can't say for sure Huh. Inference makes communication more efficient Is ‘inference’ on your word of the day loo roll, cause it’s not really relevant when talking about whole groups of people, when you can simply add a few more words to clarify what you mean ?! No! Word economy, please! We must exclude words, even important ones
Communication* would break down* if we* eliminated inference.
* effective communication
* OK, maybe stall. It'd be a disaster so break down is appropriate. Do I have to explain the common metaphor and that communication isn't a car?
* definitely not including me
I think you’re just trying to do intellectual wheelies now and trying to over complicate things to try and shake people off the fact that you’re wrong on this matter. "The actual real justification for this kind of argument is that its OK to make sweeping generalisations about oppressor groups when it isn't OK to make similar generalisations about oppressed groups because doing the former forwards the cause of human liberation whilst the latter doesn't. That kind of works if you're a Leninist when he comes to politics because in that ideology all that matters is what forwards human liberation in your view. It's when you start arguing it on the basis of Liberal norms that you come unstuck. | |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. So we need to be physic as well now ? No, just use inference like you do in areas of life you choose to. Or how about you actually say what you mean, so then men aren’t guessing or coming to conclusions based on vague generalisations, so there’s no ambiguity. Or we* could all* rely on inference because that's the way* language works*? *a group of people I consider myself a part of rather than satcastic *everyone with normal social functioning * language also works in other ways * it may not always work, maybe not all languages, I can't say for sure Huh. Inference makes communication more efficient So if I said "women are emotional" you wouldn't think that was a sexist generalisation. You would infer that what I actually meant was that, women, on the whole tend to be more emotional than men? Well, it's a generalisation, so generally not all by definition. So I'm not taking it personally. It may still be sexist given the way we code and value emotions in different people. But no, I'm not going to go omg not all women. (I do quote Racey at people asking what women like in bed, but that's because there's no one answer and knowing that is useful l) It might be your opinion, it might be backed up by data, but no. I don't read "all women" into that. I'm rather surprised you don't see the danger of this. On the whole people of afro Caribbean origin in the UK have fewer educational qualifications than white people. "Black people are uneducated". Is that an OK statement from which we can infer the fact I mentioned above? " I can choose to infer racism or fact/ lack of opportunity there. Possibly both. But inference. I might imply that the speaker here is racist and avoid, or trying to tackle a problem and assist if I can. If women say "men are pushy in their messaging", what's helpful here? "Am I pushy in my messaging? How do I alter that perception to make my life better?" or "you women need to stop being so sensitive, I'll do what I want and you can't stop me?" The latter is what I have a problem with. It solves nothing. | |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. So we need to be physic as well now ? No, just use inference like you do in areas of life you choose to. Or how about you actually say what you mean, so then men aren’t guessing or coming to conclusions based on vague generalisations, so there’s no ambiguity. Or we* could all* rely on inference because that's the way* language works*? *a group of people I consider myself a part of rather than satcastic *everyone with normal social functioning * language also works in other ways * it may not always work, maybe not all languages, I can't say for sure Huh. Inference makes communication more efficient So if I said "women are emotional" you wouldn't think that was a sexist generalisation. You would infer that what I actually meant was that, women, on the whole tend to be more emotional than men? Well, it's a generalisation, so generally not all by definition. So I'm not taking it personally. It may still be sexist given the way we code and value emotions in different people. But no, I'm not going to go omg not all women. (I do quote Racey at people asking what women like in bed, but that's because there's no one answer and knowing that is useful l) It might be your opinion, it might be backed up by data, but no. I don't read "all women" into that. I'm rather surprised you don't see the danger of this. On the whole people of afro Caribbean origin in the UK have fewer educational qualifications than white people. "Black people are uneducated". Is that an OK statement from which we can infer the fact I mentioned above? I can choose to infer racism or fact/ lack of opportunity there. Possibly both. But inference. I might imply that the speaker here is racist and avoid, or trying to tackle a problem and assist if I can. If women say "men are pushy in their messaging", what's helpful here? "Am I pushy in my messaging? How do I alter that perception to make my life better?" or "you women need to stop being so sensitive, I'll do what I want and you can't stop me?" The latter is what I have a problem with. It solves nothing. " But my point is if you use the first statement rather than the second statement, you lose the suspicion of racism so why would you not use the more accurate statement that ensures people don't think you a racist? And to use your example why the hell would you not say "lots of men are pushy on here", that gets your point across without needlessly antagonising men who aren't pushy. As I say, the only way your line of argument makes sense is that if you take the view of members of a group A whose members are broadly oppressed by members of group B can generalise broadly about members of the oppressor group as to do so enhances their solidarity and promotes their liberation. There are good arguments for that view. But let's at least be honest about it. | |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. So we need to be physic as well now ? No, just use inference like you do in areas of life you choose to. Or how about you actually say what you mean, so then men aren’t guessing or coming to conclusions based on vague generalisations, so there’s no ambiguity. Or we* could all* rely on inference because that's the way* language works*? *a group of people I consider myself a part of rather than satcastic *everyone with normal social functioning * language also works in other ways * it may not always work, maybe not all languages, I can't say for sure Huh. Inference makes communication more efficient No I'm sorry, I don't agree with you on this, inferrance and assumption are the enemies of clarity. It is the assumption of intent and meaning that derails discussion and causes friction more often than anything else. The simple answer is to state what you mean clearly, don't infer or assume, state! If I mean some people I state "some people". It's not a case of male misdirection or derailment, it's a case of people being clear and precise with their language usage. Ambiguity is inevitable in language, though, which is what I'm getting at. I think many men are inclined to take anything about them personally where it's neither warranted nor relevant. Without a modifier "men (verb) X" could mean in my family, on the bus, in a particular country, on and on. Hell, I've even seen (and said myself) "everyone does this, including women, but some men have a particular problem with X" and been met with "not all men". It can feel like the only way to communicate these ideas is "a very small group of men do X and women are terrible you definitely don't have to worry about it even if you cover for the problem. Who's a good boy, you are, yes you are!" Which, no, sometimes there's a problem, ffs fix it. " I agree that ambiguity is inherent in communication, especially the written word, as I said; it's the basis of most misunderstandings. The weight that a comma or perceived words implication can be huge. Why then should we leave ourselves directly and intentionally open to more misinterpretation? In person, ambiguity can be covered by non verbal communication, on here where the written word is key then clarity is even more vital. Personally (see qualifier) I try to qualify my statements and to communicate my meaning with as much clarity as is possible. I do feel as well that you're being very specific in terms of this being a 'male' problem, whereas I see this as a person issue. Perhaps there's a touch of bias in your statements? | |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. " When I reread this earlier I understood it. I had to read it twice to get the gist. It is only the last 6 words of the last sentence that I do not understand in connection with the others. | |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. " When I reread this earlier I understood it. I had to read it twice to get the gist. It is only the last 6 words of the last sentence that I do not understand in connection with the others.7 words. | |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. So we need to be physic as well now ? No, just use inference like you do in areas of life you choose to. Or how about you actually say what you mean, so then men aren’t guessing or coming to conclusions based on vague generalisations, so there’s no ambiguity. Nah, that's silly. All you gotta do is see what is inferred in everything Tame. Who needs clarity? Me. I need to know exactly what someone means, so they can't come back with "that's not what I was inferring". The listener infers. The speaker (etc) implies. Can you ever truly know what someone means? Do you have full knowledge of all their platonic ideals? It's just nonsense. If they write it plain and simple, yes. Some things should simply be plain and simple. It's not art, where we interpret visuals differently. If we're trying to convey an opinion I believe the best way is to not make inferences. Say what you mean and there will be no ambiguity or misunderstanding. Those debates last 5 minutes done and dusted A-Z along a narrow path." No. A debate is taking opinions and mulling them over. | |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. So we need to be physic as well now ? No, just use inference like you do in areas of life you choose to. Or how about you actually say what you mean, so then men aren’t guessing or coming to conclusions based on vague generalisations, so there’s no ambiguity. Or we* could all* rely on inference because that's the way* language works*? *a group of people I consider myself a part of rather than satcastic *everyone with normal social functioning * language also works in other ways * it may not always work, maybe not all languages, I can't say for sure Huh. Inference makes communication more efficient So if I said "women are emotional" you wouldn't think that was a sexist generalisation. You would infer that what I actually meant was that, women, on the whole tend to be more emotional than men? Well, it's a generalisation, so generally not all by definition. So I'm not taking it personally. It may still be sexist given the way we code and value emotions in different people. But no, I'm not going to go omg not all women. (I do quote Racey at people asking what women like in bed, but that's because there's no one answer and knowing that is useful l) It might be your opinion, it might be backed up by data, but no. I don't read "all women" into that. I'm rather surprised you don't see the danger of this. On the whole people of afro Caribbean origin in the UK have fewer educational qualifications than white people. "Black people are uneducated". Is that an OK statement from which we can infer the fact I mentioned above? I can choose to infer racism or fact/ lack of opportunity there. Possibly both. But inference. I might imply that the speaker here is racist and avoid, or trying to tackle a problem and assist if I can. If women say "men are pushy in their messaging", what's helpful here? "Am I pushy in my messaging? How do I alter that perception to make my life better?" or "you women need to stop being so sensitive, I'll do what I want and you can't stop me?" The latter is what I have a problem with. It solves nothing. But my point is if you use the first statement rather than the second statement, you lose the suspicion of racism so why would you not use the more accurate statement that ensures people don't think you a racist? And to use your example why the hell would you not say "lots of men are pushy on here", that gets your point across without needlessly antagonising men who aren't pushy. As I say, the only way your line of argument makes sense is that if you take the view of members of a group A whose members are broadly oppressed by members of group B can generalise broadly about members of the oppressor group as to do so enhances their solidarity and promotes their liberation. There are good arguments for that view. But let's at least be honest about it. " Perhaps. But language necessarily lacks precision and to put it on the oppressed to always use precise language or be dismissed entirely is at a minimum poor form. It's also rather delicate of oppressors to always expect it. I don't find myself particularly oppressed, more annoyed usually. Probably constrained in some ways (although I suppose that was that one time I nearly died because someone took it upon themselves to put the little lady in her place). But men should stop policing our language and start looking at themselves. If you're OK, great! If you might not be, maybe work on it. I can tell you for my part I've long since internalised things like "women are emotional" and have modified my behaviour at times to fit within a particular norm. Some men should try it sometime. It's kind of toxic and soul destroying, but also empowering and mature to take responsibility for problems rather than say "nah, not my problem". | |||
"Why is it the women's responsibility to fix men's shitty attitudes though? "Because woman cause men shitty attitudes | |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. So we need to be physic as well now ? No, just use inference like you do in areas of life you choose to. Or how about you actually say what you mean, so then men aren’t guessing or coming to conclusions based on vague generalisations, so there’s no ambiguity. Or we* could all* rely on inference because that's the way* language works*? *a group of people I consider myself a part of rather than satcastic *everyone with normal social functioning * language also works in other ways * it may not always work, maybe not all languages, I can't say for sure Huh. Inference makes communication more efficient So if I said "women are emotional" you wouldn't think that was a sexist generalisation. You would infer that what I actually meant was that, women, on the whole tend to be more emotional than men? Well, it's a generalisation, so generally not all by definition. So I'm not taking it personally. It may still be sexist given the way we code and value emotions in different people. But no, I'm not going to go omg not all women. (I do quote Racey at people asking what women like in bed, but that's because there's no one answer and knowing that is useful l) It might be your opinion, it might be backed up by data, but no. I don't read "all women" into that. I'm rather surprised you don't see the danger of this. On the whole people of afro Caribbean origin in the UK have fewer educational qualifications than white people. "Black people are uneducated". Is that an OK statement from which we can infer the fact I mentioned above? I can choose to infer racism or fact/ lack of opportunity there. Possibly both. But inference. I might imply that the speaker here is racist and avoid, or trying to tackle a problem and assist if I can. If women say "men are pushy in their messaging", what's helpful here? "Am I pushy in my messaging? How do I alter that perception to make my life better?" or "you women need to stop being so sensitive, I'll do what I want and you can't stop me?" The latter is what I have a problem with. It solves nothing. But my point is if you use the first statement rather than the second statement, you lose the suspicion of racism so why would you not use the more accurate statement that ensures people don't think you a racist? And to use your example why the hell would you not say "lots of men are pushy on here", that gets your point across without needlessly antagonising men who aren't pushy. As I say, the only way your line of argument makes sense is that if you take the view of members of a group A whose members are broadly oppressed by members of group B can generalise broadly about members of the oppressor group as to do so enhances their solidarity and promotes their liberation. There are good arguments for that view. But let's at least be honest about it. Perhaps. But language necessarily lacks precision and to put it on the oppressed to always use precise language or be dismissed entirely is at a minimum poor form. It's also rather delicate of oppressors to always expect it. I don't find myself particularly oppressed, more annoyed usually. Probably constrained in some ways (although I suppose that was that one time I nearly died because someone took it upon themselves to put the little lady in her place). But men should stop policing our language and start looking at themselves. If you're OK, great! If you might not be, maybe work on it. I can tell you for my part I've long since internalised things like "women are emotional" and have modified my behaviour at times to fit within a particular norm. Some men should try it sometime. It's kind of toxic and soul destroying, but also empowering and mature to take responsibility for problems rather than say "nah, not my problem". " *some* men should stop policing our language... You're welcome | |||
 | |||
"Why is it the women's responsibility to fix men's shitty attitudes though?
Because woman cause men shitty attitudes "Touché | |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. So we need to be physic as well now ? No, just use inference like you do in areas of life you choose to. Or how about you actually say what you mean, so then men aren’t guessing or coming to conclusions based on vague generalisations, so there’s no ambiguity. Or we* could all* rely on inference because that's the way* language works*? *a group of people I consider myself a part of rather than satcastic *everyone with normal social functioning * language also works in other ways * it may not always work, maybe not all languages, I can't say for sure Huh. Inference makes communication more efficient So if I said "women are emotional" you wouldn't think that was a sexist generalisation. You would infer that what I actually meant was that, women, on the whole tend to be more emotional than men? Well, it's a generalisation, so generally not all by definition. So I'm not taking it personally. It may still be sexist given the way we code and value emotions in different people. But no, I'm not going to go omg not all women. (I do quote Racey at people asking what women like in bed, but that's because there's no one answer and knowing that is useful l) It might be your opinion, it might be backed up by data, but no. I don't read "all women" into that. I'm rather surprised you don't see the danger of this. On the whole people of afro Caribbean origin in the UK have fewer educational qualifications than white people. "Black people are uneducated". Is that an OK statement from which we can infer the fact I mentioned above? I can choose to infer racism or fact/ lack of opportunity there. Possibly both. But inference. I might imply that the speaker here is racist and avoid, or trying to tackle a problem and assist if I can. If women say "men are pushy in their messaging", what's helpful here? "Am I pushy in my messaging? How do I alter that perception to make my life better?" or "you women need to stop being so sensitive, I'll do what I want and you can't stop me?" The latter is what I have a problem with. It solves nothing. But my point is if you use the first statement rather than the second statement, you lose the suspicion of racism so why would you not use the more accurate statement that ensures people don't think you a racist? And to use your example why the hell would you not say "lots of men are pushy on here", that gets your point across without needlessly antagonising men who aren't pushy. As I say, the only way your line of argument makes sense is that if you take the view of members of a group A whose members are broadly oppressed by members of group B can generalise broadly about members of the oppressor group as to do so enhances their solidarity and promotes their liberation. There are good arguments for that view. But let's at least be honest about it. Perhaps. But language necessarily lacks precision and to put it on the oppressed to always use precise language or be dismissed entirely is at a minimum poor form. It's also rather delicate of oppressors to always expect it. I don't find myself particularly oppressed, more annoyed usually. Probably constrained in some ways (although I suppose that was that one time I nearly died because someone took it upon themselves to put the little lady in her place). But men should stop policing our language and start looking at themselves. If you're OK, great! If you might not be, maybe work on it. I can tell you for my part I've long since internalised things like "women are emotional" and have modified my behaviour at times to fit within a particular norm. Some men should try it sometime. It's kind of toxic and soul destroying, but also empowering and mature to take responsibility for problems rather than say "nah, not my problem". " No ones policing anyone's language. As a general principle I think it best to be as precise as possible in your language and to avoid needlessly antagonising people. Why would you want to use imprecise language in a way that provides an easy target for your opponents escapes me. | |||
"Why is it the women's responsibility to fix men's shitty attitudes though?
Because woman cause men shitty attitudes
Touché "Why can't we all just be nice and forgiving to each other. | |||
| |||
"Why is it the women's responsibility to fix men's shitty attitudes though?
Because woman cause men shitty attitudes
Touché
Why can't we all just be nice and forgiving to each other."Let's just have sex | |||
"So every man has a shitty attitude to every woman?? ... not sure about that My wish for International Women's Day is that men would learn to read "men do X" without saying "not all men!" If you don't, or you know someone who doesn't, good for you! That doesn't mean men don't and that not all men answers problems. So we need to be physic as well now ? No, just use inference like you do in areas of life you choose to. Or how about you actually say what you mean, so then men aren’t guessing or coming to conclusions based on vague generalisations, so there’s no ambiguity. Or we* could all* rely on inference because that's the way* language works*? *a group of people I consider myself a part of rather than satcastic *everyone with normal social functioning * language also works in other ways * it may not always work, maybe not all languages, I can't say for sure Huh. Inference makes communication more efficient So if I said "women are emotional" you wouldn't think that was a sexist generalisation. You would infer that what I actually meant was that, women, on the whole tend to be more emotional than men? Well, it's a generalisation, so generally not all by definition. So I'm not taking it personally. It may still be sexist given the way we code and value emotions in different people. But no, I'm not going to go omg not all women. (I do quote Racey at people asking what women like in bed, but that's because there's no one answer and knowing that is useful l) It might be your opinion, it might be backed up by data, but no. I don't read "all women" into that. I'm rather surprised you don't see the danger of this. On the whole people of afro Caribbean origin in the UK have fewer educational qualifications than white people. "Black people are uneducated". Is that an OK statement from which we can infer the fact I mentioned above? I can choose to infer racism or fact/ lack of opportunity there. Possibly both. But inference. I might imply that the speaker here is racist and avoid, or trying to tackle a problem and assist if I can. If women say "men are pushy in their messaging", what's helpful here? "Am I pushy in my messaging? How do I alter that perception to make my life better?" or "you women need to stop being so sensitive, I'll do what I want and you can't stop me?" The latter is what I have a problem with. It solves nothing. But my point is if you use the first statement rather than the second statement, you lose the suspicion of racism so why would you not use the more accurate statement that ensures people don't think you a racist? And to use your example why the hell would you not say "lots of men are pushy on here", that gets your point across without needlessly antagonising men who aren't pushy. As I say, the only way your line of argument makes sense is that if you take the view of members of a group A whose members are broadly oppressed by members of group B can generalise broadly about members of the oppressor group as to do so enhances their solidarity and promotes their liberation. There are good arguments for that view. But let's at least be honest about it. Perhaps. But language necessarily lacks precision and to put it on the oppressed to always use precise language or be dismissed entirely is at a minimum poor form. It's also rather delicate of oppressors to always expect it. I don't find myself particularly oppressed, more annoyed usually. Probably constrained in some ways (although I suppose that was that one time I nearly died because someone took it upon themselves to put the little lady in her place). But men should stop policing our language and start looking at themselves. If you're OK, great! If you might not be, maybe work on it. I can tell you for my part I've long since internalised things like "women are emotional" and have modified my behaviour at times to fit within a particular norm. Some men should try it sometime. It's kind of toxic and soul destroying, but also empowering and mature to take responsibility for problems rather than say "nah, not my problem". " Good work turning it around and blaming men, classic tactics. You know if you simply added the words ‘some men’ you could have avoided all these others words you are typing, after all it’s all about precision as you say. | |||
| |||
"Why is it the women's responsibility to fix men's shitty attitudes though?
Because woman cause men shitty attitudes
Touché
Why can't we all just be nice and forgiving to each other.
Let's just have sex "I'm available a week next Tuesday. | |||
| |||
"A lady we work with won’t empty heavy bins etc ‘because it’s a mans job to take them out’ yet she owned and worked at a breakers yard. The irony. Danish x" | |||
"But, derailing. Men, use the tools that work for you, women do the same. Happy international women's day. " Hurray. That's the style. Happy International Women's day women | |||
| |||
"Why is it the women's responsibility to fix men's shitty attitudes though?
Because woman cause men shitty attitudes "So, the men on here are the cause of the (intentionally omitted the word 'some')women on here's shitty attitudes? | |||
"Well in the end of the day not one of us would exist if it wasn't for women and tbh we men have had it pretty easy yeah we helped with the creation if life but its them that has to go through 9 months of it and yet they still don't have equal rights that for me don't sound right women deserve so much more " We wouldn't exist without men either. Takes two to tango, Marigold. | |||
"Well in the end of the day not one of us would exist if it wasn't for women and tbh we men have had it pretty easy yeah we helped with the creation if life but its them that has to go through 9 months of it and yet they still don't have equal rights that for me don't sound right women deserve so much more We wouldn't exist without men either. Takes two to tango, Marigold." It does wanna dance  | |||
"Why is it the women's responsibility to fix men's shitty attitudes though?
Because woman cause men shitty attitudes
"Nah! Usually my shitty attitude is because of men on here | |||
| |||
"Yeah, totally women's responsibility. And while we are at it, why can't middle aged white guys have their own day? Oh that's right. Their day is every other one. Playing to the female gallery, good tactics, that should get you balls deep." ** Keyboard warrior alert ** | |||
"Yeah, totally women's responsibility. And while we are at it, why can't middle aged white guys have their own day? Oh that's right. Their day is every other one. Playing to the female gallery, good tactics, that should get you balls deep. ** Keyboard warrior alert **" Thanks for checking my profile out, don’t forget to sign the visitors book. | |||
"Yeah, totally women's responsibility. And while we are at it, why can't middle aged white guys have their own day? Oh that's right. Their day is every other one. Playing to the female gallery, good tactics, that should get you balls deep. ** Keyboard warrior alert ** Thanks for checking my profile out, don’t forget to sign the visitors book. " I thought I saw boobs in the profile pic | |||
