3 ms·

You really got caught up in your rant, but nothing up there in my post is a defense of said clubs. I'm not a fan of them, and my post wasn't about them. The fa

You really got caught up in your rant, but nothing up there in my post is a defense of said clubs. I'm not a fan of them, and my post wasn't about them. The fact that two wrongs don't make a right is taken so, so far by some reactionary people, that they basically end up pretending that the first wrong is blown out of proportion or doesn't really exist. Which is exactly what that poster implicitly revealed by offering up that thought experiment. Imagine men saying to women "you are not welcome here". Yeah. Imagine.

PavlovsCat 10y ago
> You really got caught up in your rant You may not have defended it, but you also didn't criticize it. So I added that, like draping garlic about, to increase the safety of this space. > The fact that two wrongs don't make a right is taken so, so far by some reactionary people, that they basically end up pretending that the first wrong is blown out of proportion or doesn't really exist. I know that, and I resent that as well. But I see nothing in the comment you replied to to indicate that at all, they probably weren't thinking of ALL kinds of groups that exist, but merely advocacy ones etc. I don't know, but why presume either way on this little data? You basically said the poster implied "exactly" that they are reactionary and in denial. Maybe you two have history, but this is a really odd style of discussion to me. > Which is exactly what that poster implicitly revealed by offering up that thought experiment. Imagine men saying to women "you are not welcome here". Yeah. Imagine. Yeah, we don't have to imagine it, and "we" for any given "we" know how we react to it in what we consider polite company. Hence the same reaction to girls clubs, at least where it crosses the line from immediate safe space and support to political outlook and whatnot. In that sense, there is kind of a double standard, there are plenty of people who find that benign or even cute when women do it, but would instantly recognize it for what it is in other contexts. Hence an allergic reaction to anything that might contain it and doesn't contain proof it doesn't. I guess your reply was kind of similar, assuming an reactionary outlook of a specific type based on very little.
- RodericDay 10y ago
  funny you find my style odd. I find your weird professorial affectation over pretty standard anti-feminist fare really off-putting myself. it's like you've read a million posts about "sjws" and are trying really hard to pretend like you haven't. "we" for any given "we" - c'mon dude. anyway, - "we" know how we react to it in what we consider polite company - plenty of people who find that benign or even cute when women [discriminate] - I guess your reply was kind of similar, assuming an reactionary outlook of a specific type based on very little. It seems like your "polite company" is very outspoken about condemning what they imagine is distant and cartoonish sexism, and yet they have no problem characterizing women organizing as "cute" in your presence. Maybe your polite company hasn't allowed you to glean enough insight into how sexism manifests itself today, because bringing that up as an example of how women are favored seems completely out of touch. Maybe one day you'll drop the defensive and charitably try to understand why these organizations happen in the first place.

PavlovsCat 10y ago

> You really got caught up in your rant You may not have defended it, but you also didn't criticize it. So I added that, like draping garlic about, to increase the safety of this space. > The fact that two wrongs don't make a right is taken so, so far by some reactionary people, that they basically end up pretending that the first wrong is blown out of proportion or doesn't really exist. I know that, and I resent that as well. But I see nothing in the comment you replied to to indicate that at all, they probably weren't thinking of ALL kinds of groups that exist, but merely advocacy ones etc. I don't know, but why presume either way on this little data? You basically said the poster implied "exactly" that they are reactionary and in denial. Maybe you two have history, but this is a really odd style of discussion to me. > Which is exactly what that poster implicitly revealed by offering up that thought experiment. Imagine men saying to women "you are not welcome here". Yeah. Imagine. Yeah, we don't have to imagine it, and "we" for any given "we" know how we react to it in what we consider polite company. Hence the same reaction to girls clubs, at least where it crosses the line from immediate safe space and support to political outlook and whatnot. In that sense, there is kind of a double standard, there are plenty of people who find that benign or even cute when women do it, but would instantly recognize it for what it is in other contexts. Hence an allergic reaction to anything that might contain it and doesn't contain proof it doesn't. I guess your reply was kind of similar, assuming an reactionary outlook of a specific type based on very little.

RodericDay 10y ago
funny you find my style odd. I find your weird professorial affectation over pretty standard anti-feminist fare really off-putting myself. it's like you've read a million posts about "sjws" and are trying really hard to pretend like you haven't. "we" for any given "we" - c'mon dude. anyway, - "we" know how we react to it in what we consider polite company - plenty of people who find that benign or even cute when women [discriminate] - I guess your reply was kind of similar, assuming an reactionary outlook of a specific type based on very little. It seems like your "polite company" is very outspoken about condemning what they imagine is distant and cartoonish sexism, and yet they have no problem characterizing women organizing as "cute" in your presence. Maybe your polite company hasn't allowed you to glean enough insight into how sexism manifests itself today, because bringing that up as an example of how women are favored seems completely out of touch. Maybe one day you'll drop the defensive and charitably try to understand why these organizations happen in the first place.