@Esquire
It would seem as if I’ve triggered you, Sir. I’d recommend deleting your profile once again, but actually staying away this time.
@hogboblin The beauty of being psychologically healthy is I never get triggered. Try to get there
Sure, sure. But in the meantime, do you have anything to add to this post? You could take a stand on not treating women poorly.
Given your stance on “left-leaning snowflake” types*, it could be good PR, of a sort. This likely won’t get you the respect or obeisance you seem to think you deserve, but it couldn’t hurt.
You're quoting someone else, not me.
In general, you don't differentiate disagreement of opinion with inintolerance, of fact with political indoctrination.
Welcome back @esquire but you and @hogboblin (always read as hobgoblin) please be careful not to spiral into personal attacks or this lovely thread (that seems based on a Netflix movie) will soon be closed.
My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular.
You can tell the size of a man by the size of the thing that makes him mad.
Adlai Stevenson
@chococuddles
I often prefer to use Deactivate or Delete rather than close my app. I've never been gone more than 24 hours.
I appreciate your concern, but I've spoken my piece and will be moving along.
I think @snugbuddy had this one covered from the start. No need to add my two cents worth to the subsequent pontification.
Good answer Henry!
@Esquire I admit it was fake concern but I do honestly enjoy having you around.
@hogboblin The utter mountain of salt that comes out when someone mentions that some small section of a grouping of one sex might actually, gasp, not be great people. I considered legitimately adding to this intriguing thread for a bit, but quite frankly, I've said my piece on several threads so far; no hearts and minds changed yet, so this time I'll just sit back and continue enjoying my popcorn, shall I?
@Lorelei
One would think that, from the sheer number of women who have shared their negative experiences here on the forum, there would be somewhat less salt and more support.
I guess it’s easier for people to simply say “Oh no that’s so sad and unfortunate that you were groped or raped or made to feel less than” than to actively condemn those who prey on others.
Which makes sense, I suppose. One takes less effort, makes one feel noble, and doesn’t necessitate having a spine.
But still, I thought being firmly against abusive types would come more naturally to people on this site? Guess not.
@hogboblin It’s challenging, because acting as judge, jury, and executioner is usually a terrible idea.
I utterly believe when anyone tells me they’ve been abused, molested, attacked, bullied, or made to feel unsafe, unwelcome, and unwanted.
Because that’s the world.
That’s the price of a violent evolution, and millennia of torture and death cults from our ignorant and violent past.
But I am nowhere near smart enough to be an “Ally”, let alone a Hero.
I can empathize, and sympathize, with the pains and torments of others, but even though I have also been abused, harmed, bullied, and cast aside, I will never understand their pain or torment, because I am not them, every moment, every day.
The very best I can do is to be a safe space, to be gentle arms, to be a willing listener without judgment, and to be as kind as possible in all things.
In my mind, any other assertion is simply posturing, unless you are IN that moment, and must decide if defending yourself or others is worth the risk, and the inevitable consequences.
May none of us ever be forced to choose by those moments.
@CharlesTwisted
I dunno. I don’t think it’s especially amazing to condemn and oppose awful people who do awful things. Seems like the least that should be expected. Especially on this site, where there’s an inherent risk for, you know, half of the population.
I thank you for sharing your views, though. They’re both thoughtful and sincere.
Here is food for thought—what we pretty much know as fact in the majority of situations are perpetrators of awful acts are repeating or acting out on awful acts done to them. Condemning them never solves the problem but it is, by and large, what we do in society with everything—condemn it. Just look at the headlines. We are cutting off aid to disadvantaged countries in Latin America so their people will stop coming here. WTF?? Condemning is never a solution; it only exasperates a problem. We need to look and consider the source of the problem and address the core issue.
I realize that is a big picture thought I am putting forward, but I believe at a micro level it applies as well. Those who do not abuse certainly do not condone abuse in any form. But those who do abuse do not necessarily view it through the lens as abuse—their hatred is their normal. As you condemn and heap derogatory adjectives on them it only ratchets up the hate and isolation they feel even more because you are essentially socially ostracizing them with words. That is a dangerous game to play for the next person who is in the room with them. After all, isn’t spewing venom at a hater modeling their behavior?
I do not have all the answers, but it seems hating the hateful is like the proverbial dog chasing its tail—it is obvious what it is doing but despite that it appears there will be no end to the futile exercise.
@hogboblin
I don’t think it’s especially amazing either.
I simply fear it, because my definition of awful, versus their definition of awful, is the problem.
It’s pretty rare for people to believe they are the villain in their own narrative, and I try to keep peace and avoidance of conflict as my guiding principles unless circumstance truly forces me to do otherwise.
I am also a child of that legacy of violent evolution and death cults, so I do my utmost to never let my violence off the leash.
So my internal compromise is to only defend or protect those who actively ask, or in terrible situations, are being attacked and unable to yell for help.
But, as a foolish youth, I learned first hand how stupid “saving” someone that hasn’t asked to be saved is. I was very lucky that only my young ego, and optimistic worldview, were harmed.
You seem to be describing a sociopathic person. They make up about 3-4 percent of the population from what I’ve read. There are just as many sociopathic men as women though.
@CharlesTwisted You are correct. You can’t save those who do not want to be saved and condemning people who abuse on a forum is similar—neither produces the desired result.
I’m not talking about stopping this sort of negative behavior on a macro scale. I don’t even think that’s possible.
I’m just mildly surprised that people on this site aren’t more openly against men who dehumanize women. Especially when some women are vocal about the terrible things they’ve experienced on this site directly because of awful men.
Interesting @hogboblin , but what do you want to see as 'openly against such men? An overwhelming reaction in the forum? I'm against that behavior over any human been, but I've never been witnessed such situation, so against whom may we will be openly react? All of this are pretty much bad experiences, so sad... But what would you suggested to do here? To solve that problem
It is depressingly common for people to see other people as things. But let's be fair here—it's difficult to see people as people.
No, no, think about it: when you look at another human being, you don't see them. You see their face. You see their bone structure, their skin color, the clothes they're wearing, the type of hair they have or don't have, glasses or no glasses, acne or no acne....
You don't see the person behind those eyes. In order to see that, you'd have to spend time with them. You can't see a person directly. In order to do that, you'd have to unlock their skull and creep inside (slightly paraphrasing the immortal words of Ogden Nash). All you can do from the outside is try to see the shape of them through what their body allows them to do. What do they say? How do they say it? What do they do? How do they do it? What clothes do they choose to wear; what clothes can they afford?
Seeing people as people takes effort. You can shortcut it by telling yourself, "There's a person in there. I can't see them, because they're just walking down a sidewalk and I've never met them before, so all I can see is what they look like (face, hair, clothes, body, etc.), but I know there's a person in there." Of course, you're not actually seeing the person in question—you're just assuming that someone is in there. A good assumption!
Lots of people don't even bother with the shortcut.
Not that this makes them bad people, necessarily! I mean, how often do you bother to be consciously aware of the fact that everyone around you is a person, with thoughts and feelings and a life of their own? It takes mental energy, and a lot of the time you can get by just fine without it. (Fast food employees, anyone? Supermarket checkout?)
It's only a problem if you start treating these not-people as your own property. Instead of a person, you see a checker, or a waiter, or a pro cuddler—and that's fine, unless you start thinking the checker (or waiter, or pro cuddler) belongs to you, and you have a right to all the services they can provide. The checker is under no obligation to sell you cigarettes (you could be underage, or have no ID). The waiter does not have to bring you what you ordered (the kitchen may not have it, or you might be broke). The pro cuddler doesn't have to sell (or give) you things that aren't on the menu. And wheedling for any of this is just plain rude.
You don't do that to people. Heck, you don't do that to vending machines. Kick it because you know the item you want is in there even though it's not advertised? Try to break in? See if you can hack it? No.
...Not unless you really want the thing and can't get it any other way. Then—random bad word the person who owns this machine! Curse them for making the thing you want so hard to get! You'll wreck their precious machine if that's what it takes, and serve them right! After all, vending machines are there for you (and people like you) to get stuff from, right? So why can't you get what you want from them? What kind of idiot set that up?
Seeing people as things doesn't usually cause much in the way of problems. The issues only occur when you expect stuff from them that by all rights you shouldn't expect.
@garrablanca
Initially, this post was about gathering information.
Pretty much immediately it was beset by delicate manchildren who felt as if they were being attacked, despite my saying (repeatedly) that not all men are horrible.
I think that that’s rather telling.
Is there a solution? Probably not. But given that this community seems to revel in the idea that it’s a safe place for professional cuddlers, that it’s here to support people who are depressed/anxious/socially awkward*, it just seems exceedingly odd that there wasn’t more pushback against a group of horrid people.
*but not women in general
“Who? Which group? I don’t see anyone like this.”
I don’t get why this is such a hard idea for people to grasp. You’re aware of the posts made by women who have been groped, or stalked, or raped? Yeah? You know that those who have spoken out about their abuse aren’t alone, right? So, naturally, it follows that there are men who abuse women out there—men who hate women.
Is that really such a hard mindset to imagine? Does this sort of reprehensible behavior only exist for some people when they can directly see, or hear, or read about another person’s suffering?
@hogboblin well yes we can have a reaction from the guts when we read about something that is disturbing, we can have some empathy on the story and the suffer, but at the end I think is hard to totally engage on a bigger reaction because we haven't witness the injustice, we just have read about it and there is a big chance that maybe it's also fictional. On internet a lot of things are fake, only until you meet the person face to face that you actually can connect to them. We also need to understand that some people are looking for attention, and they can come up with some fictional stories to achieve that. Everything it's possible.
Good grief, garbageblanket. "Those women could all (or mostly) be lying, the men on this site could all (or mostly) be decent and upstanding, anything's possible, we don't know."
Nice. So it's possible that there are no men who hate women on this site, and therefore we shouldn't talk about the men who we keep hearing about—the ones who've done hateful things. "Supposedly!" I hear you interject: "Only supposedly! People make things up!"
Whee.
Edit: If, on this website, there are only five men who hate women, then this thread is about those five men. A tiny topic, but worth looking into for the curious.
Well DiarrheaTalker, this is the Internet, you can take things for granted, doubt about it or ignore those and any reaction is valid. It's hard to trust in the veracity of what you find here... until for some reason changes your mind.
My point, garbageblanket, is that it only takes two "men who, while hating women, are also desperate for the services that they provide on this site" to fulfill the criteria necessary for this topic. @hogboblin thinks there are a lot more than two on this website, but two is all it would take to make this a valid topic of conversation.
Are you really implying that there aren't even two? Or are you arguing that there are so few men on this website who've truly done anything reprehensible that no action (not even discussion) needs to be taken?
Good grief, indeed! What's with all of the personal attacks? 04 APR 2019 06:18. "The cauldron boiled over! Please try again!"