Men Giving Up on Women and Checking Out of Society

[NancysSummerSip]

Dec 5, 2014 16:04:00 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Dec 5, 2014 14:21:58 GMT -5 NancysSummerSip said:

See, I think we need to change the headline:

Men Giving Up on Women  Society and Checking Out Women of Society.
on line at BigUns.xxx

Fixed again.

I must be goofy tired. I read "BigUns" as "Big Lots."

Then again, it kinda works, doesn't it?

[Tennesseer]

Dec 5, 2014 16:05:51 GMT -5 NancysSummerSip said:

Dec 5, 2014 16:04:00 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Fixed again.

I must be goofy tired. I read "BigUns" as "Big Lots."

Then again, it kinda works, doesn't it?

It's Friday. Always excusable when it's Friday.

[Deleted]

Dec 5, 2014 15:52:27 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Dec 5, 2014 15:44:02 GMT -5 @dayjawho said:

... him ... HIS ... he ... he ... he ... him. ...

I am not sure who this "masculine pronoun" is referring to. There are four males in the article.

Well, those would be the ones! 



Or not...

[Virgil Showlion]

I suspect this thread is going to prove extremely useful to anybody on the board who feels like saying "Suck it up." in any of the "women have it tough" victimization threads in future.

Blowing off concerns of the opposite gender at light speed was never truly perfected until this thread.

[billisonboard]

Dec 5, 2014 17:24:31 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I suspect this thread is going to prove extremely useful to anybody on the board who feels like saying "Suck it up." in any of the "women have it tough" victimization threads in future.

Blowing off concerns of the opposite gender at light speed was never truly perfected until this thread.

Do want to give a shout out to GEL:

Dec 5, 2014 12:59:14 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Devil's Advocate here.  While I find about 95% of that article to be pretty ridiculous, I do find bits and pieces of it to be true as I see it.  Let's remember back to the Cat Calling thread.  There were some pretty smart and savvy women posting on that thread.  Yet we couldn't agree as a group on what constitutes friendliness vs what constitutes creepiness.  Could we maybe at least consider that if we can't agree, it might be just as difficult for men to know what to do and how to act?

[Angel!]

Dec 5, 2014 17:24:31 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Blowing off concerns of the opposite gender at light speed was never truly perfected until this thread.

1) I don't think this guy really represents concerns of his gender as a whole.  This guy plays the victim & the whole article reads that way.

2) Check the default parent thread if you think we wouldn't tear into a whiny-ass woman who plays the victim (or martyr) just as quickly.

This isn't about gender, this is about whether someone has legitimate complaints or not.  It appears most of us feel he does not.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

Like most Breitbart articles, this is also an opinion piece.

It's the opinion of the author, and a couple of quoted statements from a couple more men. It isn't based on facts or stats, it's based on opinion.

And like most Breitbart articles, I put little credence into the content.

[billisonboard]

notmsnmoney.proboards.com/thread/42556/why-trained-respond-cat-calling?page=2

mmhmm
Administrator


mmhmm Avatar

It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010
Posts: 23,798Female
Today's Mood: Curious
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
Member is Online

Cookie badge Thank You badge Like badge Slice of Apple Pie badge Developer badge Helpful Member badge Great Writer badge Great Staff Member badge

Reply #41 on Nov 29, 2014 at 12:40pm zibazinski, sweetdreams and 1 more like this.
like
Post Options
Post by mmhmm on Nov 29, 2014 at 12:40pm
billisonboard Avatar
Nov 29, 2014 at 12:03pm billisonboard said:
dayjawho Avatar
Nov 29, 2014 at 11:55am dayjawho said:
Please don't condescend. It's not a matter of "sides". ...
Tell me a definition of cat calling.

I'll give you mine, billis. Cat-calling is yelling out loudly, in a public place, sexual innuendo, blatant sexual comments, veiled compliments concerning parts of a woman's anatomy that are not yours to discuss (much less at top volume, in public). It's denigrating, lowering a woman to little more than an ambulatory piece of meat there for your entertainment. (That's a generic "your", by the way) It's also frightening. There's no way to know what that person might do next. Are they going to follow you? You don't know. It's probably something you have to be a woman who has been subjected to such insult to truly understand. (emphasis added)

Seems like the bold part is a concept that is applicable here.

[Deleted]

And it begins....YAAAAAAAA!!!!!! 

[Shooby]

Yeah, it's an "opinion" piece. I didn't post it as if it was The Gospel of Luke. Sheesh.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

Nobody said you did.

It was mentioned though, that you posted just the link in the OP without bothering to comment yourself. So what's your view on the article - or the author - do you agree with him, or not - and why?

[Shooby]

Am I required to only post on the TERMS you describe?

[steff]

Dec 5, 2014 18:24:54 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Am I required to only post on the TERMS you describe?

Have you ever just had a nice conversation w/o unnecessary added tension?   Just curious.

[Shooby]

Please don't speak to me, not interested in your drama. I will delete and leave the thread.

[Deleted]

Dec 5, 2014 17:24:31 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I suspect this thread is going to prove extremely useful to anybody on the board who feels like saying "Suck it up." in any of the "women have it tough" victimization threads in future.

Blowing off concerns of the opposite gender at light speed was never truly perfected until this thread.

Oh, yes it was.,

But I think you may be too emotionally invested to see that clearly. 


We should lock the thread now. 

[steff]

#byeFelicia

[billisonboard]

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

Dec 5, 2014 18:24:54 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Am I required to only post on the TERMS you describe?

It wasn't me --- It was Virgil and Moonbeam who asked why you bothered to post just the link if you weren't going to at least comment yourself. You must have had a reason for wanting us to read it, or have an opinion of your own.

[Angel!]

Dec 5, 2014 18:24:54 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Am I required to only post on the TERMS you describe?

You are not required to do anything. But, I will say about half your threads where you only post a link....I don't even bother to click the link. Having a quote or writing something about the subject or your opinions would be much more likely to entice people to read the article & respond.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Oh for Heaven's sake.  Shooby is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. She doesn't post an opinion - people lose their damn minds. She does? People still lose their minds. Quit picking at people at post on the subject, otherwise you are part of the problem

I actually agree with part of what Virgil said.  Nobody's feeling should be discounted - whether they are male or female.  We spent several pages in the Cat Calling thread cautioning others to not disregard individual feelings.  If we want that consideration, we ought to be willing to give it.

[moon/Laura]

Dec 5, 2014 18:49:22 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

Dec 5, 2014 18:24:54 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Am I required to only post on the TERMS you describe?

It wasn't me --- It was Virgil and Moonbeam who asked why you bothered to post just the link if you weren't going to at least comment yourself. You must have had a reason for wanting us to read it, or have an opinion of your own.

As far as I'm concerned, ANYONE who wants to start a thread that contains nothing more than a link deserves to have the thread deleted. that's not a discussion and it doesn't prompt others to engage in discussion either. unfortunately, Shooby, you're a fairly chronic "offender", if you will. flame away.


finally read part of the article and i already think that one is an assumptive and entitled little twat.

[ArchietheDragon]

The thread already has 80 replies. Now 81. For not prompting discussion, it is doing ok.

[Deleted]

Dec 5, 2014 17:24:31 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I suspect this thread is going to prove extremely useful to anybody on the board who feels like saying "Suck it up." in any of the "women have it tough" victimization threads in future.

Blowing off concerns of the opposite gender at light speed was never truly perfected until this thread.

You don't give yourself enough credit. I've read you. Believe me, you have it perfected.

[Deleted]

Why would it be a problem to post the link to stimulate conversation? This is a message board. We come here to chat about different topics. Shooby found a topic, I don't really care if she talks about it or not. It's good to have fresh topics.

[Deleted]

Dec 5, 2014 22:45:13 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Dec 5, 2014 17:24:31 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I suspect this thread is going to prove extremely useful to anybody on the board who feels like saying "Suck it up." in any of the "women have it tough" victimization threads in future.

Blowing off concerns of the opposite gender at light speed was never truly perfected until this thread.

You don't give yourself enough credit. I've read you. Believe me, you have it perfected.

[Deleted]

ever-increasing numbers are checking out of society altogether, giving up on women, sex and relationships and retreating into pornography, sexual fetishes, chemical addictions, video games and, in some cases, boorish lad culture, all of which insulate them from a hostile, debilitating social environment created, some argue, by the modern feminist movement

This one is really interesting. There are a lot of productive things you can do with yourself despite giving up on women, sex and relationships. They can focus on career, get into sports or other hobbies, volunteer, political action, travel...I would be a lot more open to their opinions if they were doing those things instead of pornography, sexual fetishes, chemical addictions, and video games.

[Deleted]

Dec 5, 2014 20:14:39 GMT -5 moon/Laura said:

Dec 5, 2014 18:49:22 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

It wasn't me --- It was Virgil and Moonbeam who asked why you bothered to post just the link if you weren't going to at least comment yourself. You must have had a reason for wanting us to read it, or have an opinion of your own.

As far as I'm concerned, ANYONE who wants to start a thread that contains nothing more than a link deserves to have the thread deleted. that's not a discussion and it doesn't prompt others to engage in discussion either. unfortunately, Shooby, you're a fairly chronic "offender", if you will. flame away.


finally read part of the article and i already think that one is an assumptive and entitled little twat.

I'm just sorta in awe of her mad link posting skills. 


Totally apropos of nothing, but why isn't there an ass kissing emo? 

[moon/Laura]

Dec 5, 2014 22:51:01 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Why would it be a problem to post the link to stimulate conversation? This is a message board. We come here to chat about different topics. Shooby found a topic, I don't really care if she talks about it or not. It's good to have fresh topics.

I don't care if she posts a link. What I want/sort of expect is that it's not JUST the link. Even if she doesn't offer her own opinion on it, i consider it good etiquette to at least give a snippet from the article so people can gauge if they even want to click the link. that's all. i don't feel that's unreasonable.

[Deleted]

Dec 5, 2014 23:09:08 GMT -5 moon/Laura said:

Dec 5, 2014 22:51:01 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Why would it be a problem to post the link to stimulate conversation? This is a message board. We come here to chat about different topics. Shooby found a topic, I don't really care if she talks about it or not. It's good to have fresh topics.

I don't care if she posts a link. What I want/sort of expect is that it's not JUST the link. Even if she doesn't offer her own opinion on it, i consider it good etiquette to at least give a snippet from the article so people can gauge if they even want to click the link. that's all. i don't feel that's unreasonable.

To me this is one of those things that would police itself. If people don't like it, they won't participate on the thread and it will die and fade away. Or conversely, if it's not a big problem the discussion grows to 3 or 4 pages without it.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

But you can't determine what the link is even about, just by a thread title and the link. It helps if there's a paragraph of the link or a comment to determine if you want to waste your time opening it or not.

I'm in the majority who aren't going to bother clicking on a link if that's all there is without any further reference as to the content.