Luna Bliss

Yes, but the law protects all types of social injustice... Can you define what you mean by "social justice"?

Yep, though I was raised in a makeriarchy (you are what you make) and have little patience for other social structures. That's really cool, to have such an inspiring upbringing. That reminds me I need to do my mediation, clear those ruts that social brainwashing imposes on us from early on.. BTW...noticed you mentioned getting rid of the social constructs that kept you in your marriage...I'm curious if u don't mind...what caused you to get out of those ruts...?

Roxy, I just don't think we would ever be able to get along, so if you don't quit messaging me I'll have to block you.

But there's a lot of social justice inherent in our laws....so how are you making this distinction?

LittleMe, respectfully, I think you are misreading Rya's sense of humor. He has a very playful almost hyperbolic sense of humor, and diffuses aggression via his style of joking. Don't try to make him into how you would joke, or insult his jokes please.

Yes you should!!! RTFM didn't enter the world's lexicon for no reason. I didn't read the ToS, Community Standards, and Community Participation Guidelines until looooooong after I joined the forums and saw others being pulled over for breaking the law. As it turns out, most of the laws are common sense and I was in little danger of breaking them. I think you're similarly safe. I can't look down on someone for not doing what I'm not doing, unless they show no remorse when corrected. That's when they become tempting targets and I start biting my lip. lol I can't STAND to read directions...that's why I never express anger when a customer doesn't read mine...though I have to say, on impatient days I am sometimes thinking... 'would u pleaaaaase just RTFM!'

Well, although I got out the 'joke interpretations be gone' spray bottle, I have to comment I thought your joke was verrry funny -- a little slap and something funny @ the same time -- which is a good way for a joke to diffuse tension. No warm blankets for you!

Since I'm the one who brought up the term 'patriachy', and some (Callum & Drake) are now interpreting it in a way I did not mean, I feel a need to clarify what I meant. To say our society is a patriarchal one, and that the patriarchy influences our behavior in this forum, does NOT mean that I think the forum members are organizing along patriarchal lines of power with males having more dominance. I am instead trying to convey that we have been socialized as children to fit into our overarching social structure (patriarchy), and this creates our psychological makeup, and hence can affect our behavior on the forum. For example, males are typically socialized in our culture to be strong, independent, and not to need anything from others -- much moreso than women. Often males have trouble asking for help, and are less likely to go to the doctor when health problems arise (all verifiable through scientific research). More colloquially, it's a common joke about males being resistent to ask for directions (I can verify the last one personally, as I wandered around Canyon Lands in the US with my ex-husband far too long due to it). I'm not sure if the 'asking for directions' stereotype has been proven by scientific research, but it is a stereotype that persists about most males and could be true. For women, they are raised to be nurturing and emotionally attentive and generally giving -- moreso than men are. There have been tests that verify a woman is seen more negatively if she goes against the expectation that she be nurturing. For example, if a woman demonstrates strengh of charactor or assertiveness, sometimes with anger displayed, she is labeled a "*****" (starts with 'b'),or as "hysterical". In the same situation the man is just seen as assertive or justifiably angry. So we are trained or socialized as children to fit into our overarching social structure (patriarchy), and this creates our psychological makeup, and hence can affect our behavior on the forum.

Luna calls it that to cast a negative spin on what is simply aggressive behaviors. Which is hilarious, since one of her modus operandi is to hammer away in a fairly aggressive manner and never ever backing down. Even, and especially, if there is a preponderance of evidence and argument that her position is incorrect or hurtful. All behaviors that one equates to a puffed up male ego or, dare I say, "macho". Roxy, why would I back down and agree to something that doesn't feel true to me? While I learn in any forum I participate in, and am open to changing my opinion if I feel I'm wrong, the participants are but one group (usually no more than 30 or so regulars) that I receive input from in my life. I'm always open to learning from them, but I don't take their word as gospel. It's not 'macho' to continue to assert what I believe is true, even if I asserted an opinion that differed from the 30 or so regular forum members. I've noticed that you are one of the people (from that other forum) who really gets into ganging up on others. I noticed at that time that whenever someone was being scapegoated, there you were! I would ask myself why this behavior brings such satisfaction if I found myself engaging in it frequently. Of course I would not engage in it, because I recognize what an abuse of power it is -- many people ganging up on one person to flame them is always unfair.

lol I have yet to read them….I guess I should do that! I was banned for a day from the forum because I called a forum member by the original name they posted with instead of their new name they decided to post as. It felt deceptive to me, like they were trying to trick us by using this new name.

प्रेम जवाब है

I wish that I did see it! Those women were the literal “Computers” when my dad was working on the Mercury program! On that note, my computer class in 1983-1984 high school almost got to meet Rear Adm. Grace Hopper (but she broke a hip). (Coined the term “bug”.) Really? Did he speak of them? Wish you could have met Grace...so close..

Good gods, I really would not choose to see a film that claims to be 'inspiring'. Really? Lots of black women were so inspired...being able to finally see themselves represented in History/Herstory.

That's not the point you were making. You were talking about a 'conquering mentality'. A conquering mentality tries to hoard everything it can... Don't see your point..

Well I'd give this extrapolation a run for its money..:) But this movie is not a lecturing movie at all, it is very entertaining and wildly inspirational what these women achieved.

Perhaps a better word needs to be developed if there isn't one already. It's the word that was used in my Women's Studies classes to denote: "an exaggerated or exhilarating sense of power or strength" And that is the definition of 'macho' in one online dictionary, albiet not the first one. I do specify when I use it that I am referring to men and women equally. Should I go all psycho-babbly and describe what 'defenses' in Psychology are each time I use the word? It is a defense, after all, this tendency to display toughness in order to hide weakness.

It honestly comes across as tone policing. You know, the way you ignored everything that was said (previously, some post lag on my part) and focused on their delivery as a way of silencing what they had to say. Your "macho spray" memes are on the same level as "calm down dear" or "must be that time of the month" - an exceptionally toxic approach designed, in your own words, "to keep disadvantaged groups in their place". And it's counter-productive. If you read this thread carefully, you will see that Rya's solution to his difficulties at work were shot down hard, more so at first. This is because many did not accept that it's okay to be vulnerable and claimed he was being weak if he could not fix it. I believe we have a lot of societal pressure to 'pull oneself up by the bootstraps'....especially in the USA...and especially as it has grown more neoliberal with each passing year. It's not 'tone policing'.....macho behavior is destructive in society, and if so inclined I will always call it out when I see it.

Money (or its equivalent in resources) is the general basis for war. Conquering to get the most goodies, yes I can't disagree.

Are you really using tone-policing to try and combat toxic masculinity? My irony-meter is off the charts No, I am using tough love

That will be because straight white males generally built your civilisation. (I have no numbers to demonstrate the ratio of straight to otherwise among them but by the statistics we have the straight would be in the majority). By all means do without the advantages that civilisation brought you (even granted its faults). If the balance of invention, creation, and foresight shifts then the default could change, of course. That civilization was also built by women. There's a vast Herstory out there, but it is often unsung, although more is being known. History as it is now is so much about war, who conquered who, who came out on top. But the deeper story is underneath. There's no need to make it an either/or debate.....one can have many advantages of a civilization without the war. btw...did you see the movie 'Hidden Figures', about three black women who excelled in technology? Just another example of women who were not known or praised in society until recently.

I have no idea. I just know you are an optimizing genius, ChinRey