Jump to content

Making SL more welcoming to males


Bree Giffen
 Share

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1573 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Beth Macbain said:

Why? I haven't had my coffee yet this morning and my eyes are still blurry so I might be missing some coherent statements you've made about making SL more welcoming for the menfolk, but I don't recall anything in between the meme storm. 

It' s either that or simple denial.

You pick .. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

Males seem to have only a chance of survival in SL as a whole if feminizing themselves in any way possible, which of course to real men lowers the incentive to participate in SL at all.

You pulled that one from where the sun doesn't shine. I thought you were a bit more... open minded than that. Oh well.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

You pulled that one from where the sun doesn't shine. I thought you were a bit more... open minded than that. Oh well.

Let me elaborate : how welcome will men feel if they can only do that on condition to find the woman in themselves they do not have within them in the very first place to begin with and are not allowed here otherwise ?

Edited by TDD123
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TDD123 said:

Let me elaborate : how welcome will men feel if they can only do that on condition to find the woman in themselves they do not have within them in the very first place to begin with and are not allowed here otherwise ?

But we haven't all demanded that (assuming any of us did).  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Lindal Kidd said:

I think it may be a cognate of Godwin's Law...

But in OUR forums, at least recently, the end state appears to be transphobia.

The simple fact that a thread about attracting men to SL gets Godwin'ed is indicative of why men avoid SL.  In this forum and in this thread it is the typical LWL who want to control the narrative.  Ergo, Godwin'ed.   And you want to stereotype us?  Rhetorical - as I found my answer in this thread written some 100 times.

Simply pathetic.

Edited by Storm Clarence
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Storm!  What a coincidence, I was just thinking about you!

You misunderstand Godwin's Law, sir.  It does not apply to any particular forum or any particular topic.  It applies to ALL long running internet discussions.  In essence, given a long enough discourse, Nazis are almost sure to appear.  Or, in our special case, transphobia&c.

Anyway, despite our digressions here (I liked the term "memestorm"!) I think quite a number of good suggestions were made.  Bravo, thread!  RIP.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Garnet Psaltery said:

Feck knows, I lost the plot ages ago.  I'm hoping people post amusing things so the mod coming in to sort it out can at least have a laugh. :) 

/me takes Garnet by the hand.  Want to come hang out with Jason while we sit it out?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

Let me elaborate : how welcome will men feel if they can only do that on condition to find the woman in themselves they do not have within them in the very first place to begin with and are not allowed here otherwise ?

Who said they did? Why would any one make a rule like that? The whole issue here is one of control. Hypothetical scenario is hypothetical. It has no basis in fact and does nothing more than stir the pot so why do it? Think about that. You're under no obligation to answer. All I'm saying is, think about what you are saying from the other perspective. Maybe then you'll see what's wrong with what you've said.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Selene Gregoire said:

Who said they did? Why would any one make a rule like that? The whole issue here is one of control. Hypothetical scenario is hypothetical. It has no basis in fact and does nothing more than stir the pot so why do it? Think about that. You're under no obligation to answer. All I'm saying is, think about what you are saying from the other perspective. Maybe then you'll see what's wrong with what you've said.

Again .. my case rests.

Sure. I know when to shut up. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

Let me elaborate : how welcome will men feel if they can only do that on condition to find the woman in themselves they do not have within them in the very first place to begin with and are not allowed here otherwise ?

I don't understand this. Can you explain? What inner woman? Who said not allowed otherwise?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

Again .. my case rests.

Sure. I know when to shut up. :)

It was a serious question, actually - I didn't see where you got that from. Can you point me to it, so I may understand where you are coming from? Or are you completely unwilling to do so? Then would you tell me why?

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

I can excuse so many behaviors in others -- after all, we're all a product of our conditioning and it's hard work to become whole. I can excuse the randy radical, MLK, or the 'man of his times', Ghandi. I can even excuse Connal on this thread for using the word 'viper' to describe women who can't get along (he probably has no knowledge of the psychodynamics regarding what enables people to transform difficulties in life and become empowered -- how the valid acknowledgement and expression of anger for women plays such a central part -- and how denigrating women's anger by calling them 'vipers', or their fights as only 'cat fights', and referring to a demanding boss as a 'baetch' while a man is simply assertive, on and on...is so damaging).
But I really can't excuse a Psychologist...a PSYCHOLOGIST for god's sake who is supposed to be a teacher in our society...who would advocate subhuman attitudes toward other humans (if he did -- have yet to research the guy).

You're right in that society needs time to adjust in some cases. With attitudes toward black people and the 'N-word' though, I can't imagine that a good percentage of those in the U.S. would not write the person off completely who would defend blatant denigration of blacks.

We really shouldn't accept those who insist on relegating certain members of society into the 'other'...into a category that can affect their lives so gravely (homicide of trans people, loss of jobs and the ability to take care of oneself, loss of self-esteem that can lead to suicide, loss of the ability to become a valuable person who develops their strengths and joy in being alive -- something we all aspire to). Nope, zero tolerance for those who insist other categories of people are subhuman.

I guess this all boils down to where you draw the line. If, as I have claimed, his actions and lack of care over this actions have inadvertently fueled transphobic hate but he himself is not a hatefilled bigot, I'd be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. If, as Scylla has claimed, he has demonstrated genuine hate and discrimination in his actions, that pushes me the other side of the line. If that makes any sense?

Edit: Just to repeat what I said earlier; I think it's very possible for your actions to cause discriminatory harm without there being any intent or malice behind said actions. And while you should be called out in that instance, that doesn't automatically make you a bigot. It makes you an idiot, or a jerk.

And just to springboard off another point you made; he's an "evolutionary psychologist", his academic work is mostly around macro-level psychology and trends. Another major flaw of his is that he assumes everyone knows this. He has a tendency to go into interviews and make comments regarding gender equality, feminism and men/women at the population level; while they are both logical and outright correct at that statistical level, when applied to an individual those statements are ludicrous and offensive. He's therefore earned himself a reputation as a misogynist which is both unfair and at least partially his own fault.

Hanlon's Razor in action.

1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

I will research him eventually, but I like debating with Ayela as she is so intelligent and articulate.   HowEVER, I am supposed to be working!

And thank you! I'm also supposed to be doing productive things... oops!

Edited by AyelaNewLife
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Lindal Kidd said:

Hi Storm!  What a coincidence, I was just thinking about you!

You misunderstand Godwin's Law, sir. 

I implicitly understand both the word and its usage.  It is not I who wrote Godwin or any reference to the 'law' in this thread,  

PS You were thinking about me?  Go figure.  I have never given you a thought.  Just sayin. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1573 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...