why are there so many threads started by men on thumped about how shit women are? (6 Viewers)

[CitySickness]

Up to my jib-jabs in work here and so can't really post anything coherent, but this has gotten way out of hand, folks.

Everyone go to bed.

 

[Denny Oubidoux]

I guess I've met more queers than you or something. Or just different ones? Uh oh - I said "queers"!

My point is that its just a word, context is everything, acceptability of words changes over time depending on usage... ok that's more than 1 point.

oh and on " On the sexism stuff, I think if people feel uncomfortable or unhappy about something, they should be able to raise it." I agree 100% - you're dead right. But they should try to base these things on the actual facts.

i agree with the context bit but regardless of the intent behind yours and ramps use of the word bellatrix has made a valid point. there seems to be very little genuine homophobia or sexism on thumped and since sex generally is pretty funny (and i'll take offence at anyone calling me juvenile - thats ageist) no-one minds a bit fun-poking at whoever. but ive noticed many posts on here where people use the word faggot or queer or whatever and the only humour in it seems to be thats its funny to suggest someone is gay because its a put-down to the person. since im gay i couldnt be sure that i'm not just overly sensitive to it but it does seem to happen a lot. when people use the word Nigger in humour these days the humour doesnt lie in an underlying understanding that being black is funny or negative in itself whereas there does seem to be a little humour left to be got from other groups of people...

i wouldnt like to see it censored MCD-style but bellatrix did raise the issue as you suggest she should and people cant really be expected to get all the little private jokes that are shared on here between people who know each other in real life.

heres me trying to decide if i should get mixed up in this thread:

 

[magicbastarder]

It's a gathering of folk. Most are nice. Some are mean. Some like to push boundaries at the expense of other people feelings. Some like to push their feelings at the expense of other people's boundaries. It's goddamn life, not a liberal Mecca. It's great.

one thing i've always found surprising is the number of people willing to share personal details (e.g. self portraits) online here.
i'm not a newbie to the concept of forums, but i don't even put details like that on a forum which only myself and four other mates contribute to.

 

[Vinnie]

Sorry B, I wasn't accusing, i was just thinking out loud. This is already about 20 people who probably agree with each other arguing mostly semantics or winding each other up and if I start weighing in I'll be there too. Me no wantee that. That's all I meant. Aigh?

That wasn't what I was trying to do.

 

[magicbastarder]

This is already about 20 people who probably agree with each other arguing mostly semantics or winding each other up and if I start weighing in I'll be there too.

thumped is like the democrats - divided over their differences, not united over their commonalities like the republicans.

 

[CitySickness]

And to be honest, this is a mostly very liberal place to be so I'm very sceptical about a culture of repressed homosexual silence. Until gay people call the apparent homophobia, latent, active or rampant into question I'm not sure that it's a particularly relevant discussion. Ask Thomas Dunning how he felt when he was a regular poster or something, otherwise it's just assumed insight into a suspicion.

Disclaimer: I am not saying homophobia does not exist on the board but insisting that any use of the word faggot is indicative of a culture of repression is starting the argument where it doesn't need to be started.

The point is: people on Thumped have so much invested in their idea of themselves as liberal, forward-thinking creatures that when someone questions whether that's entirely the case, they flip into aggressive defence of their own self-image.

 

[Jerry Twig]

Jesus there's some stink in here.

 

[Bellatrix]

by the way, that faggot thing was designed purely to see if i could get a rise out of youse and cos pete is a friend who would see the funny side. why dont you just ignore this shit.

I really don't think that I'm someone who goes out of their way to be offended by things and I laugh at the most grotesque and inappropriate stuff every day. I've also hung out with LGBT young people who were in the process of coming out while hearing that word every day. It fucks them up a lot and I think that outweighs the humour derived from its use.

It pisses me off and I'm ok with that.

 

[pete]

I haven't gone over the whole thread to see what you are responding to in particular

Rampz's post; the reasoning behind the starting of this thread. Nothing else. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

but no one argued with the very possible fact that if women are more likely to be doing the shopping, or at least the 'big' shopping (which is indeed likely), you're more likely to be delayed by a woman.

actually my point was related to the increased likelihood of getting stuck behind one of those women who takes an age scrabbling around for the exact change when they could just lash over a €50 note and be out of there in half the time (I'm married to one of them). It wasn't really anything much to do with the volume of shopping per sé, but that's not really important i guess.

But that's not the tone of the post that started the thread.

I don't think the tone used was anything different to what anyone here (male or female) would adopt when talking about women getting ready / doing makeup / choosing shoes taking an eternity going to the jacks together. I'd use male examples too, but we're perfect.

No one argued that everything that was said was misogynistic or homophobic, and I don't think I or anyone else who would be sympathetic to feminism would appreciate being caricatured like that. It's not fair, it's dismissive, and it was not implied by the posts in the thread.

Again, i'm just talking about rampz's thread. I don't think what he posted was 'sexist', and I explained why based on what i understand the general definition of sexism to be. I wasn't caricaturing anyone.

It's the implication is in the title of this thread and subsequent supporting posts I have a problem with. It's just not a fair representation of the actual situation here. YES there is sexism here - there's sexism EVERYWHERE, but the thread title is just wrong. Singling out what was so, so, obviously not an entirely serious, women-hating thread for vilification is just wrong.

It was not phrased as if it were merely curiosity at the differences in gendered behaviour. And, in fact, whenever that is brought up, it turns into what we have here. So it's okay to attack someone who tries to speak seriously, but it's not okay to point out that flippant remarks, despite their intentions, are not always 'funny' to everyone.

But that wasn't the purpose of THIS thread, was it? It was posted not just to criticise rampz, but to complain that there are "so many" threads about "how shit women are" posted by men here, which is something the evidence would suggest just isn't true. Now, i'll admit i don't read every thread here (who'd have the time?) but i'd like to think that a negative trend like that is something i wouldn't miss.

No one doubted that there are tendencies in behaviour that are gendered. I personally think men and women drive equally badly. For example, 'boy racers' are perhaps unfairly targeted when the majority of dangerous driving is less noticeable. They are just easy to spot.

The fact that car insurance is cheaper for women would seem to support the idea that men are more dangerous drivers than women, but I wasn't basing my assumption on facts - just my own observations. I don't think that makes me or my statement a sexist one, yet ramps gets vilified for it.

But of course, I'm sure that, since everything I say in relation to gender is twisted around as if I'm some sort of fucking cartoon villain that everyone loves to hate, that will be twisted around, too.

I don't love to hate you! i think you're great.

And funny how Pete's personal observations can carry weight,

bit early for that statement ha

but if I said something like that (for example, my experiences in talking about gender...), I'd be fucking crucified by the people who run around thinking that their apparent lefty politics give them licence to go around calling people 'faggots'

If i was gay, or vulnerable, or being bullied, yeah it'd be wrong. But i'm not, i'm not and i'm not (i hope.... am i?). At the end of the day it's just a word.

and assuming that nothing they say or do could possibly be an unfairly hostile comment about another gender simply because they support lefty causes. Saying that it's okay to go around saying things that are blatantly offensive and justifying them because they are funny to you is not a hell of a lot far off prefacing racist bullshit with "I'm not a racist but..."

That's an unfair generalisation.

Of course we should be able to talk about gender, but it turns into a few people trying to talk about things, and a few others just getting immediately pissy and responding to what they think people are saying

uhm....

, often without reading the posts.

And let's remember that when we're talking on the internet, it's not simply a private chat between two friends. It's a different context.

True, but i think most people know the score here.

 

[Bellatrix]

Aigh?

Aigh.

 

[bunnywhisperer]

The point is: people on Thumped have so much invested in their idea of themselves as liberal, forward-thinking creatures that when someone questions whether that's entirely the case, they flip into aggressive defence of their own self-image.

yes i'm new so i can't comment on the politics between individuals here but having followed this thread i couldn't agree more. The earlier discussion re gender assumptions/perceptions and societal values is far more interesting than tit for tat over specific word usage.

 

[Jerry Twig]

True, but i think most people know the score here.

3-2 to United. Cunts.
I mean PRICKS.

(PS - 'it's just a word' is LAME Pete)

 

[rampz]

I really don't think that I'm someone who goes out of their way to be offended by things and I laugh at the most grotesque and inappropriate stuff every day. I've also hung out with LGBT young people who were in the process of coming out while hearing that word every day. It fucks them up a lot and I think that outweighs the humour derived from its use.

It pisses me off and I'm ok with that.

fair enough.

 

[CitySickness]

by the way, that faggot thing was designed purely to see if i could get a rise out of youse and cos pete is a friend who would see the funny side. why dont you just ignore this shit.

Why don't you just stop posting it, when it's pretty plain that it's continuing to piss people off? Or is that the only reason you're posting it? Bit too much like bullying, I'd have thought.

 

[pete]

3-2 to United. Cunts.
I mean PRICKS.

(PS - 'it's just a word' is LAME Pete)

in case i'm not being 100% clear - i mean "it's just a word and it's the context in which it's used that matters", not "it's just a word sure what harm could it do"

 

[pete]

this is my new favourite thread ever

 

[Jerry Twig]

in case i'm not being 100% clear - i mean "it's just a word and it's the context in which it's used that matters", not "it's just a word sure what harm could it do"

OK. Well United are PRICKS in every sense of the word. As long as everyone can agree on that we can move forward here

 

[CitySickness]

(PS - 'it's just a word' is LAME Pete)

Agreed. Quoting a Wikipedia article in an attempt to illustrate your point is lamer still. Quoting a Wikipedia article that in fact destroys the point you're trying to make (ie you're not gay, and so you're not exactly reclaiming it for your own purposes) is... what do you think?

 

[pete]

Agreed. Quoting a Wikipedia article in an attempt to illustrate your point is lamer still. Quoting a Wikipedia article that in fact destroys the point you're trying to make (ie you're not gay, and so you're not exactly reclaiming it for your own purposes) is... what do you think?

Would you accept "no" as an answer?

edit: or how about "maybe i'm not being overly clear about the point i'm trying to make."?

 

[pete]

Is this a dig at me? Because if Rampz's statement that women take so fucking long to do everything is a 'fact', and nothing I say is anything but lies, then this is all just gone beyond silliness, it's downright abusive.

It seems that the more upset people become by someone raising these things, the narrower their definition of what is acceptable as a 'fact' becomes. It's all very convenient.

nearly missed this!

jane, i was clearly replying to someone else, and i was still referring to the factual basis behind the creation of this thread.

for clarity's sake, it was a go at sweetoblivion if anyone (sorry dude)