Jump to content

Oh my Gawd! - Totally unOfficial Pet Peeve Thread.


Sassy Kenin

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, blissfulbreeze said:

There are many good people in SL but unfortunately, some of them are hiding in the shadows, and not making themselves known.. or people are not giving them a chance due to being jaded.

Yes.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

Got a list of requirements/long and informative info dump in your profile and/or picks and someone complains about it? Good. Unless it is really outlandish then it is doing its job and they can place their opinion back into the compost heap it came from.

Got lots of that in mine!  I rarely get any negative comments about anything in there.  I love when someone uses something from my Silly Things tabs to strike up a chat.  That's my entire reason for having it.  Those conversations usually go well.  Even the ones who start with, "Hi, hru" because I've already opened their profile and figured out they're doing it for a chuckle.  SL is sooo much easier in approaching people because we CAN get a sense of what that person might be like just by scanning their profile.

ETA.  I just wanted to add that I hang out almost exclusively in adult areas.  I rarely get blatant sexual advances.  *shrugs*

Edited by Rowan Amore
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Solar Legion said:

On the current tangent, from where I sit?

Got a list of requirements/long and informative info dump in your profile and/or picks and someone complains about it? Good. Unless it is really outlandish then it is doing its job and they can place their opinion back into the compost heap it came from.

The seeming behavioral disparity between genders? Doesn't exist - both are equally as guilty. The difference is in the attitudes of the recipient(s): One is conditioned to blow off the behavior/pretend it does not bother them even as the other is being told (more and more these days) to push back (which is good) or that it is simply to be expected (which is bad). This creates an illusion wherein there is some behavioral difference that is somehow intrinsic to either. There isn't - it exists across the board.

Both of these are among the reasons I have not really gone looking for more hang out spots in quite some time, compounded by a literal personal peeve (as in a peeve concerning myself): Mixed messages (best label I can give it). I can sit in the back of an SL club or such and watch those around me, occasionally piping up to join a conversation or two one day/moment, mingle and dance another and/or actively flirt/seek out a bit of 'fun' for the time being ... All so rapidly sometimes that it feels like I am giving people (let alone myself) whiplash all while mixing them up in such a way as to make it incredibly difficult for even my longer time friends or playmates to discern my intentions!

Really interesting insights, Solar. And food for thought. Thank you very genuinely for sharing!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cinnamon Mistwood said:

Maybe I am a bit discriminatory in my bias against vampires.  Want to prove my bias wrong?  I have had zero luck picking up guys for chatting and dancing from the forums.  One ignore and one one-word reply in the last month can really ding a gal's confidence in reaching out.  So, care to dance?

   Perhaps. But I feel I might need to bring a chaperone - dancing in Second Life so often leads to out-of-the-blue propositions, or outright declarations of being 'the soulmate they always sought' (and that with me not even being a good dancer - also, I'm fairly certain I have no soul!).

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Orwar said:

   Perhaps. But I feel I might need to bring a chaperone - dancing in Second Life so often leads to out-of-the-blue propositions, or outright declarations of being 'the soulmate they always sought' (and that with me not even being a good dancer - also, I'm fairly certain I have no soul!).

A misanthropic vampire.

I'm not sure if that is a conundrum or a convulsion. 🤔

humans-cant-live-with-them-lie-without-t

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Yes yes. Not all men. And lots of women too I'm sure.

The problem is that these behaviors are frequently gendered. I'm sure there ARE women who behave as the men we've described -- but, sorry, this is a kind of approach to relationships and sex that is particularly associated with the social conditioning of men. 

Socialization is NOT the same for men and women. It should be. But it isn't. And it won't be until we collectively address the gendered assumptions around sex, relationships, and power. And yes, we need to address at the same time the bad behaviors of women. But those are predominantly different behaviors.

Scylla normally we're on the same wavelength but I need to kinda point something out. The assumption of gendered socialisation is often radfem/terf retoric used to discriminate  against us trans folk. So we gotta be really careful about using it as a blanket statement. It can also be (but not always) American centric as every culture has different  expectations for manhood and womanhood that get overlooked.

That isn't to say that the expectations don't exist.  Patriarchy depends on them. It's  just that we cannot blanket statement it.

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

7 hours ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

A misanthropic vampire.

I'm not sure if that is a conundrum or a convulsion. 🤔

   Makes perfect sense in my mind. Imagine a vampire that actually likes people; they may well start having absurd notions akin to those of vegetarians! 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Orwar said:

   Makes perfect sense in my mind. Imagine a vampire that actually likes people; they may well start having absurd notions akin to those of vegetarians! 

Oh I don't know, some vampires seem to like them...

da9f87a0abd5eed9f1477ce501cfa183.png

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

Oh I don't know, some vampires seem to like them...

   Quite. But would you date a Happy Meal? 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Orwar said:

   Makes perfect sense in my mind. Imagine a vampire that actually likes people; they may well start having absurd notions akin to those of vegetarians! 

But.... even Lestat loved humans. In his own quirky way. 🤔

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Robin Kiyori said:

Scylla normally we're on the same wavelength but I need to kinda point something out. The assumption of gendered socialisation is often radfem/terf retoric used to discriminate  against us trans folk.

Why must you use terms that denigrate feminism itself, using the most tired of stereotypes (Radical! Bad bad bad!), when making points like this? Does making this argument necessitate invalidating and demonising the women's rights movement?

I have a peeve about this. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

Do they have all their fries?

   Yes - but they forgot the toy. 

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So my first peeve… people who think it’s totally legit to body shame thin people.

I inherited from my father a thin frame and a decent height, topped with a fast metabolism.

So all my life I have been that kid who can’t keep weight on, regardless of what I eat. I do eat really well in fact, in spite of being a vegan who eats eggs. My job and lifestyle require me to be on the move all day so ok, i burn but as a person with a good understanding of biology and physiology  I know how to eat for my level of activity. 
Somehow every time I get my booster shots I get the “omg you are so thin, your arms are tiny, do you have an eating  disorder” fricking lecture. Enough of this $h1t already! 🥺

Rant over thank you for listening 🦊

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Krystina Ferraris said:

So my first peeve… people who think it’s totally legit to body shame thin people.

I inherited from my father a thin frame and a decent height, topped with a fast metabolism.

So all my life I have been that kid who can’t keep weight on, regardless of what I eat. I do eat really well in fact, in spite of being a vegan who eats eggs. My job and lifestyle require me to be on the move all day so ok, i burn but as a person with a good understanding of biology and physiology  I know how to eat for my level of activity. 
Somehow every time I get my booster shots I get the “omg you are so thin, your arms are tiny, do you have an eating  disorder” fricking lecture. Enough of this $h1t already! 🥺

Rant over thank you for listening 🦊

I used to get that bs too at 5' 3 3/4" and 115-120lbs. I'm now over 60 and my current weight runs 123-127lbs and I still get that crap. 

9ed33a98540ab3c9a7bf6aac44f686b3.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Krystina Ferraris said:

So my first peeve… people who think it’s totally legit to body shame thin people.

I inherited from my father a thin frame and a decent height, topped with a fast metabolism.

So all my life I have been that kid who can’t keep weight on, regardless of what I eat. I do eat really well in fact, in spite of being a vegan who eats eggs. My job and lifestyle require me to be on the move all day so ok, i burn but as a person with a good understanding of biology and physiology  I know how to eat for my level of activity. 
Somehow every time I get my booster shots I get the “omg you are so thin, your arms are tiny, do you have an eating  disorder” fricking lecture. Enough of this $h1t already! 🥺

Rant over thank you for listening 🦊

 

14 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

I used to get that bs too at 5' 3 3/4" and 115-120lbs. I'm now over 60 and my current weight runs 123-127lbs and I still get that crap. 

9ed33a98540ab3c9a7bf6aac44f686b3.jpg

We're just jealous.  I look at a piece of cake and gain 5lbs.  It used to make me mad as a kid.  We ALL ate the same things, we didn't have snack food nor were we allowed to just grab food out of the cupboard or fridge.  I ran around all the time, playing kickball, tag, riding my bike and was still chubby.  My sister, who sat all day on the couch reading was thin as a rail.  It ain't fair, I tell ya!!!!

  • Like 7
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Robin Kiyori said:

Scylla normally we're on the same wavelength but I need to kinda point something out. The assumption of gendered socialisation is often radfem/terf retoric used to discriminate  against us trans folk. So we gotta be really careful about using it as a blanket statement. It can also be (but not always) American centric as every culture has different  expectations for manhood and womanhood that get overlooked.

That isn't to say that the expectations don't exist.  Patriarchy depends on them. It's  just that we cannot blanket statement it.

Going to keep this short as I'm pretty sure people aren't going to want a long discussion about gender, Queer Theory, performativity, etc., here.

I don't at all disagree with your caution and critique here, Robin. My articulation of how this works was simplistic and reductive, mostly in the sense that it was not granular and nuanced enough -- see also my comment to Solar above, which reflects my awareness that I could have expressed this more completely than I did. "Socialization" as a concept is actually pretty complicated, as I obviously don't need to tell you. And yes, the expectations that arise from it are often culture-specific, which is part of the point, and demonstrates that gendered behaviors are not "innate."

1 hour ago, Amina Sopwith said:

Why must you use terms that denigrate feminism itself, using the most tired of stereotypes (Radical! Bad bad bad!), when making points like this? Does making this argument necessitate invalidating and demonising the women's rights movement?

I have a peeve about this. 

 

I don't use terms like "TERF" myself very often (it depends to some degree on context) because they seem to me to short-circuit discussion and simplify, in the same way that terms like "SJW" or "MRA" also do. "Radical Feminists," as you probably know, prefer the term "Gender Critical" because it isn't pejorative, and I'm fine with that myself because I don't think a good conversation begins with the casting of insults. But I use it with the proviso that I'm not going to allow that term to perform as a smokescreen that hides the exclusionary nature of this approach. The full implications of the "GC" understanding of the relationship between gender and sexual biology need to be drawn out and made explicit. The term needs to be meaningful, and not a polite disguise.

"RadFem" or "Radical Feminist" -- their term, so not an "insult" -- is, as you probably know, a particular "school" of feminism that arose in the late 60s and was particularly prevalent in the late 70s and the first half of the 80s. It's historically contingent, and tethered strongly to Second Wave Feminism -- with all of the positive and negatives that that implies. I believe that Radical Feminism is highly problematic: Third and Fourth Wave Feminisms (if we've arrived at the Fourth Wave yet -- hard to say!) have been in large measure both a critique and a necessary elaboration of RadFem ideology. And it's worthwhile noting that some very prominent RadFem thinkers, notably Catherine McKinnon and even Andrea Dworkin, have been trans-inclusive and opposed to the biological essentialism that lies at the heart of modern GC approaches. But most of those who continue to call themselves RadFem are not.

A story I've told here before, I think. Some 10 years ago I attended a talk, sponsored by the university feminist department with which I was affiliated, by a trans rights activist. She began by expressing surprise that a feminist academic department had invited her at all, because her experience had been that the strongest opposition to trans rights came from those who called themselves feminists. It was an uncomfortable but important moment, because there was some truth to what she said. Historically, feminism has forged relationships with other rights movements -- abolition in the 19th century, and the civil rights movement in the 60s and 70s -- and then, too often, abandoned those allies when we were offered advances that benefited white, mostly middle class women, but not WoC / BIPoC. It's a frankly shameful history. As a feminist, I am committed to working to ensure that that doesn't happen again. And, today, the battlefield is primarily centred around trans identities.

Aren't you glad I kept this short?? (BWAHAHAHAHAH!)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Krystina Ferraris said:

So my first peeve… people who think it’s totally legit to body shame thin people.

9 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

I used to get that bs too at 5' 3 3/4" and 115-120lbs. I'm now over 60 and my current weight runs 123-127lbs and I still get that crap.

I'm 5'2" and currently wobbling around 105. I slipped under 100 during my chemo treatments and neared 120 during my heyday in SL. I've never had anyone ask me if I have an eating disorder, but years ago my emergency backup mom did ask "Who's that young boy doing your yard work?"

I do get comments from lab techs who must hunt for veins, but they're innocuous and often in response to my teasing. I think I got more comments when I was in my teens, when the prevailing wisdom was still that putting on a few extra pounds was good for your health. After two melanomas, I no longer show much skin when outdoors. That might also reduce commentary.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

She began by expressing surprise that a feminist academic department had invited her at all, because her experience had been that the strongest opposition to trans rights came from those who called themselves feminists. It was an uncomfortable but important moment, because there was some truth to what she said. Historically, feminism has forged relationships with other rights movements -- abolition in the 19th century, and the civil rights movement in the 60s and 70s -- and then, too often, abandoned those allies when we were offered advances that benefited white, mostly middle class women, but not WoC / BIPoC.

This has been my own personal experience. I live in a conservative rural community. My white female friends are, I think, more misogynist than the guys. They have their place in this world and don't want it challenged. M->F trans are seen as a sexual assault threat. The only eyebrows raised over my being an engineer live over mascara.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

This has been my own personal experience. I live in a conservative rural community. My white female friends are, I think, more misogynist than the guys. They have their place in this world and don't want it challenged. M->F trans are seen as a sexual assault threat. The only eyebrows raised over my being an engineer live over mascara.

This is one reason I roll my eyes when someone tells me that I am being "too hard on men."

Actually, I'm far harder on women when it comes to addressing faulty reasoning and misogyny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

"RadFem" or "Radical Feminist" -- their term, so not an "insult" -- is, as you probably know, a particular "school" of feminism that arose in the late 60s and was particularly prevalent in the late 70s and the first half of the 80s. It's historically contingent, and tethered strongly to Second Wave Feminism -- with all of the positive and negatives that that implies. I believe that Radical Feminism is highly problematic: Third and Fourth Wave Feminisms (if we've arrived at the Fourth Wave yet -- hard to say!) have been in large measure both a critique and a necessary elaboration of RadFem ideology. And it's worthwhile noting that some very prominent RadFem thinkers, notably Catherine McKinnon and even Andrea Dworkin, have been trans-inclusive and opposed to the biological essentialism that lies at the heart of modern GC approaches. But most of those who continue to call themselves RadFem are not.

It is most certainly intended as an insult in its most common usage these days, as lazy shorthand to try to shut people up by invoking every nasty, ancient stereotype about feminism. Don't disagree with me or I'll weaponise this useful stereotype of angry, hateful harridans to include you. Plus ca change...

I am sorry to say that I have heard people say horrible things about trans people (and argued with them over it) and pretty much the only thing they all had in common was that they really, really weren't radical feminists. They're so far from it, in fact, that the idea would be laughable if it weren't so serious.

Ironically, it's also directed pretty much exclusively at women. If someone tries to invoke negative stereotypes of feminism at you to shut you up, they definitely perceive you as a woman. No gendering?

I could wax very lyrically about this, but I'm too full of Covid and it's Saturday night. I'll just say that lazy slurs based in misogynistic stereotypes do nothing to lend weight to these arguments. If one needs to use them to make the point, one's point has failed. I'd ask anyone who does it please to make your arguments stand by themselves. They'll be more convincing and I for one will respect you more for it.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...