Scylla Rhiadra

Of course! But I do think that the advent of technology, which enables so much that was once impossible or difficult, is something of a special case.

Absolutely. It would be absurd of me to try to deny it. I'll go further and suggest that some women use the fact that PMS seems so "mysterious" to some men to get away with all sorts of ridiculous things. In my case, it's Nice biscuits. When I am PMS, I absolutely need Nice biscuits, or I'll die right there and then, and take anyone around me down with me. Usually this works. I do like an occasional Nice biscuit. 😀

Well, this is pretty key, no? And no, that's not disempowering her. Disempowering her is using it as an excuse to disregard her input, or denigrate her in a way that does reduce her power. I am not particularly affected by PMS myself, generally. But there are occasions when I am, and you'd be right to be careful around me. BUT there are lots of other times and circumstances when it is equally dangerous to f**k with me -- if I haven't had enough sleep, or enough coffee, or I haven't eaten in a long while, or I have had a lousy day at work, or a fight with my partner, etc., etc., etc. Some of those might impact your mood too, and others might not: it varies from individual to individual. It's the fact that we, as a culture, set off menstruation as though it were a "special case" that is the problem. It's just one of a huge variety of reasons why one may be in a bad mood, most of which can affect anyone. Treating it as somehow different turns it into a lever that can be applied against women, as women.

I don't think that the issue is "mentioning" it. It's about the language that you use, and the implications of that language. Menstruation and PMS are real things. And it can have an impact on our emotional state, our physical comfort, and so forth, although this varies pretty widely from woman to woman. So, it's not a forbidden topic, as such. And if it is impacting on my mood, I should be honest and self-aware enough to acknowledge and account for that in my interactions with you. Where it becomes problematic is when it is implicitly or even explicitly used to gaslight women, or disempower them. "Don't talk to her now, she's on the rag" might be a good example of that. YOU can't possibly know how my cycle is impacting on my mood, and if you're using it to deny me agency, or to dismiss what I think or have to say as "irrational," then you are are using it as a means of establishing your supremacy and control. (I use "you" here generically, btw: I don't mean you, Kanry, in particular.)

OMG. 😄 If your eyes are transfer/copy, perhaps give him a set to take with him?

This is hilarious, and clever, and brilliant!!

OMG, I think I kind of agree with Prok here. It's maybe the second time, ever? I don't see anyone in this thread to whom this particular mindset applies, but I do think that this quasi-Solutionist attitude towards the subordination (or maybe merging) of ethical norms and technological capabilities is often at work in our culture, although most often at a subconscious level. It's why people who would never consider shoplifting give almost no thought to downloading pirated content onto their computer. And it's why this particular merchant's approach is going to fail: because the mere ability to do something with technology so often trumps considerations of whether one should do it. I think that the merchant, whatever the nature of their beliefs or motivations for being closed this one day, has every right to do so, and every right to expect that others will honour those wishes. But it just soooooo isn't going to happen. While Bitsy is entirely right, and generosity, courtesy, and ethical behaviour (Prok's unnecessarily jargonish "soft norms") should prevail, the technology is increasingly displacing our ability to reason ethically.

Eventually, we'll fill a sim. And someone will call the riot police.

I have always been very interested in the social lives of cats. Mine leads an inscrutably self-sufficient existence, punctuated with sudden and extreme episodes of neediness. Please feel free to elaborate on why this might be so.

Well, what I actually say, to give the full quote, is that, were the stereotype true, "to 'accuse' men of loneliness should be less an insult than an irrelevancy." In other words, I'm agreeing with you: the stereotype does not adequately describe what men actually experience. The fact that using the word "loneliness" to describe them is an insult -- something that you make clear -- implies that the stereotype can't be true. I'll address your larger point about my title in a moment, but I just briefly want to address your analogy -- between an allusion to "male-pattern baldness" and the term "nags on the rag." Menstruation has, in an enormous variety of ways, been used to "other" women for millennia: it has been used to suggest that women are alien, that they are literally "unclean," that they are prone to emotionalism and a breakdown of reason, and, of course, that they are being punished for The Fall. There is a very clear reason why it is often called "The Curse." And there is an equally clear reason why menstruation has become a common theme and motif in feminist art. Women are trying to re-appropriate, and re-value a simple biological function that "marks" us as women, but that, more importantly, has been used as a tool of power, control, and oppression. I honestly don't think that "male-pattern baldness" has that kind of political and historical resonance. And for that reason, I think your analogy sets up a false equivalency. One is, perhaps, mean-spirited and even, possibly, sexist; the other is the repetition of a trope that has had very real impact upon gender relations for centuries and centuries. That said, I do take your broader point that my use of "male-pattern baldness" was insulting and, to say the least, unfortunate. I was honestly surprised that it provoked the kind of reaction that it has, but that's not actually relevant: I don't get to determine what you as a man should be insulted by any more than you have the authority to determine what I find to be misogynist. So, with that in mind, I apologize for my use of that term in my title, without qualification. I should have been more sensitive and thoughtful about what it might mean to men. And yes, I agree that much of the social conditioning of the genders probably has these kinds of origins -- and other germane historical ones like it. The danger is when this kind of logic, whatever its historical relevance, becomes a means of naturalizing a hierarchy and social construct that has looooong outlived its best-before-date. If there is any truth to the stereotype of the individualistic, self-sufficient man, it is in large measure because the men who conform to it have been imprisoned by this outdated construct, every bit as much as women have. In any case, thank you for your fulsome and really thoughtful response!

It was substantially cloudier when I took my version of this shot with @BelindaN, @Talligurl and @Laika Ravikumar! Go figure. Probably something to do with climate change. Also, everyone was fidgeting. Group shots in SL are like herding cats.

Callum, this is now the second time at least that you have asserted that the wording of the OP has been changed or tampered with after the fact to make it seem more acceptable. To be clear: that is quite simply a falsehood. I appended a clearly marked supplement, and highlighted some of the existing text. The actual wording is absolutely unchanged from that which I originally posted. I have addressed this in the appended note, and separately above in a response to you. If you are going to persist in insisting that in have deceptively changed the wording of the OP, you are effectively accusing me of an outright lie, here and elsewhere. And if that's the case, I'm done with you. I can't be bothered to continue a conversation with someone who so clearly has such little respect for me.

IBTL, as they say. Yes, there is, and it's an important distinction. I have seldom, if ever, been "lonely" in SL: I have always been fortunate to have been a member of active and very welcoming communities in SL. I was a bit surprised, coming back after a long absence, to discover that those networks, and friends, we're still in place, and still welcoming. That said, however, I value my "alone" time in SL. Probably a quarter to a third of the time I'm in-world I am deliberately flying under the radar, "hidden" from friends, because I want my own quiet time: to explore, or build, or just sit in the grass field at The Faraway to write or contemplate life. I have no problem at all believing that you, or anyone, regardless of gender, values that as well. In fact, what has most surprised me about responses to this thread has been the implication that "accusing" men of "loneliness" is somehow some kind of deadly insult. The stereotypes would have us believe that loneliness is deeply gendered: men are individualistic and self-sufficient, where women are sociable and emotionally dependent upon community. In that context, to "accuse" men of loneliness should be less an insult than an irrelevancy. We occasionally see posts here -- a little sad and upsetting, sometimes -- from residents wondering where all the people are. They are poignant reminders that loneliness is an actual affliction for some. I should probably have been more cognizant of this as well. So this has been a valuable education for me. The mere fact that men can feel insulted by the implication that they are lonely represents a sea change, or at the least a corrective to the stereotype.

When I first reappeared in-world -- about the same time you did, as you know! -- I noticed an old (male) friend in-world, so I sent him an IM saying hi. He didn't respond, but he was pretty often online when I logged in subsequently, so I took to sending him a ritual shower of affectionate abuse for about the next two weeks until he finally responded. Unsurprisingly, he was a bit grumpy about the whole thing. But we're the best of friends again! Ok, maybe he's still ignoring me a lot. But at least I'm getting the opportunity to try out all sorts of new and innovative insults!

This is a pretty interesting hypothesis -- with, of course, the qualification that not all men are motivated by the same drives, interested in the same kind of bonding, etc. It is, of course, true that men in RL tend to bond most often in particular settings and contexts. But then, of course, so do women.

I'm trying very hard -- very, very hard -- not to suggest that Love has the hurts over this post, and is behaving a bit like a Special Snowflake. Oops. Maybe not quite hard enough?

But you're not going to stop trying. Right?

Absolutely. I would never pretend that the discussion here is adequate to come to some sort of proper conclusion. It is a discussion, on a discussion forum, about an interesting topic.

This doesn't follow, Love. I'm interested in those who represent as men in SL. And they, even if the keyboardist is a biological "female" in RL are the ones to whom I am addressing the question. Asking how biological men feel about their experience in SL only sounds like the same question because you are essentially dismissing the validity of how we represent ourselves here. I am not, in this instance anyway, interested in whether we have sad keyboardists. I am interested in what it is like to be a man in SL.

QFT Thank you, Lil.

I'm sorry, but it suggests nothing of the sort. The mere act of articulating an idea does not imply its endorsement, particularly when I very clearly express my uncertainty as to its validity, and ask for feedback and discussion about it. Of course they are. I say as much myself in this very thread: I also note, twice I think, that I am not opposed to men, but to patriarchy, which (I also say) victimizes men as much as it does women. And speaking of broad generalizations, can we address this unsupportable stereotype about all feminists being "men-haters," please? We aren't, by and large. Most feminists are "accepting, caring, loving, intelligent people who are let down by a number of high-profile arsehats."

Oh dear. Thank you Bree. Yes Kanry, I am a feminist. A proud one. But no, this post is not part of a "research" project. I've been posting on issues like this, off and on (and mostly off, until recently) for nearly 10 years. Which would make it one heck of a long research project. But if it were, this is actually how research is undertaken: with an initial question for which the researcher seeks answers. (It's actually called a "research question.") There is no such thing as an entirely "neutral" question in the sense that you seem to mean: one always, in any discipline, begins with a hypothesis that one seeks to explore and examine. And I don't believe that my OP implies a preconception: it articulates a stereotype, suggests that there may be a kernel of truth to it, and then seeks information from others that will either confirm or negate that thesis.

That's entirely fair: it's exactly the kind of corrective insight that I was hoping for!

And those are entirely legitimate questions to ask (not assert) of women. I'm going to say this again, Love: I am not asserting the truth of the stereotype. I'm asking for input about its validity.

Thank you, Kanry. Far from representing an attempt to "bash" men, this thread was intended to ask their opinion about a stereotype that is often applied to them. The voices of the women who have posted here present legitimate and valid perspectives, but they are outside perspectives: it was the men I wanted to hear from. And I appreciate the perspectives of those, including yourself and Callum, who have contributed. It was your voices that were the point of this.