Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Re Soror Magna and Louise, agreed.
Re Hosting in practice, agreed.
Re Epiphanies, I think you're wrong. The guidelines are silent on social inequity and for a good reason. People whose personal identity and personal investment are tied up closely with issues are free to discuss those any way they choose. They can be as open or closed as they like. They may bring in issues of personal morality, or ethics, or social acceptability, but they are also free to preserve personal privacy to whatever extent suits them. But any of the issues they do bring up are open to discussion for contrary views, provided this is done with respect for the personal identity or investment of other Shipmates.
Disadvantages and privileges, whether real or perceived, don't get anyone either special consideration or a special handicap in discussions. Posts still get judged on their merits within that context. That's why we say Epiphanies is not intended to be an echo chamber or a pillory.
I am not expecting special handicaps, but a greater awareness of bias.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Acknowledgement of bias always starts with ourselves. It's the Jesus thing about finger pointing. It's an old saying that one finger pointing at others requires three to be pointing back at ourselves. We have to acknowledge the possible truth of that. Since bias is normal. I find it helps to do that.
But I think that's now outside the scope of this Styx thread. So far as I can see, we have probably wandered too far away from the issues of anger and swearing in Epiphanies.
Not that the wandering has been without value. At least to me.
I'd like to make a point. We have no way of knowing whether the said men really thought they were addressing a man. But if they did, hopefully this thread has made them aware that this is an assumption they can't make. And as several women have drawn attention to the fact that it's a common and unwelcome gender-bias thing for men to complain that a woman is being angry when she expresses herself directly, and that she should be meeker, maybe it would be helpful for men to bear this in mind before rushing to tell someone whose gender they don't know that they're being angry and should cease. I'm not talking about a hosting requirement - simply a courtesy of awareness. There are plenty of things one doesn't automatically say as a blanket thing to everyone, and one refrains from saying if one doesn't know a person's background and experience. This particular aspect of gender dynamics is apparently less obvious to many men, but awareness of it is important.
@Leorning Cniht gently admonished me for my use of insufficiently meek language on the thread in question. I took it in good part and thanked him for it.
Are you talking about the 'steady on' expression, which is generally a friendly male to male one, said with respect, traditionally with an 'old chap' added? And how he then, after a quick 'steady on,' went on to address the point you had actually made, rather than simply talking about how you sounded angry and how you shouldn't post when angry, and you should be using meeker language?
And how, after you'd clarified your point, he was very careful to clarify with you what you were saying to make sure he understood you correctly?
You know, I really don't think that is the same thing.
Are you talking about the 'steady on' expression, which is generally a friendly male to male one, said with respect, traditionally with an 'old chap' added?
That may well be the position where you are, but not here and maybe not where others are.
@fineline wrote: ...<fuck is a > 'smoother, easier term, just one verb, than the awkward, rather passive, 'have sex', and it indicates choice and agency'
I've been chewing this over for a couple of days, and (to say the least) this shows how much language can divide us.
For me, fuck is not a word I would use about having sex or making love. It is, for me, akin to rutting.
Whilst there might be some choice and agency in it, when verbed, it really depends on whether it is singular or plural.
'I fucked him' focuses on the agency and choice of the fucker, and spares no regard for the fuckee
'We fucked' choice and agency for both, yes. But for me one could just as well say 'we rutted'.
Fucking seems detached from any emotional or loving context.
@fineline; I never said I thought I was addressing a man. I said I didn't know SR was a woman.
I note, and will attempt to act on your request for courtesy regarding gender and anger.
I further note that other posters on this thread have suggested that if people don't like the word 'fuck' then they have no place here.
I further note that other posters on this thread have suggested that if people don't like the word 'fuck' then they have no place here.
I don't remember reading anything like that. This is a periodic subject here and we have a number of people who don't agree with allowing swear words. But if SOF required everyone to agree or leave, Simon might be the only member.
I find it difficult to believe Soror Magna was being angry, or being at all offensive to anyone in this age. If you didn't like her use of 'fuck' then you shouldn't be on the internet.
I find it difficult to believe Soror Magna was being angry, or being at all offensive to anyone in this age. If you didn't like her use of 'fuck' then you shouldn't be on the internet.
I quite agree that I didn’t read Soror Magna as angry. I understood and had no problem her use of the word. But I could introduce you to lots of people in this day and age, starting with me wife, who would find the usage offensive, or at the least unnecessary and off-putting, such that it would draw more attention to how something is said than to what is said. And yes, many of them are on the internet.
I don’t mean that as a criticism of use of the word. But aside from gender biases, there are cultural differences at play here, including how the word “fuck” is read/heard, and I see no point in assuming otherwise.
I find it difficult to believe Soror Magna was being angry, or being at all offensive to anyone in this age. If you didn't like her use of 'fuck' then you shouldn't be on the internet.
OK, missed that. Obviously that is ridiculous. Being on the internet means one will likely encounter swearing. And all sorts of actually bad behaviour. If one cannot come to terms with that, it does create a conundrum. However, that is not quite the same as shouldn't be on the internet.
SOF is not the internet, though.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Accuracy is important in Styx threads. Caissa and asher stated that they didn't know Soror Magna was female. They didn't state directly that they thought she was male. I overstated it in a response to lilBuddha.
And in response to Asher's query, I am male. To respond to B62, if I had given it any thought at the time I thought Soror Magna was male. (Having lived next to a sorority once, if I had given this any thought, I would have gotten the name right. Mea culpa.) I have reflected on the exchange in the male reproductive responsibilities thread. Using the thought experiment that it would have taken place in a room with all present, I think my response to a male making those comments in the room would have been different than those of being made by a female. I think my question was based on my thoughts that a male was making the comments. I read it differently now knowing it was a woman. Context and our personal attributes do affect how we perceive interactions. At this time, I believe that if I knew SM was a woman I would have experienced the post differently and not have responded as I did with my question.
All this said, I think I am drifting a bit away from the issue of whether tone in epiphanies should be different than in purgatory.
I find it difficult to believe Soror Magna was being angry, or being at all offensive to anyone in this age. If you didn't like her use of 'fuck' then you shouldn't be on the internet.
OK, missed that. Obviously that is ridiculous. Being on the internet means one will likely encounter swearing. And all sorts of actually bad behaviour. If one cannot come to terms with that, it does create a conundrum. However, that is not quite the same as shouldn't be on the internet.
SOF is not the internet, though.
Clearly I was being hyperbolic. I also lack the power to keep you off the internet.
And in response to Asher's query, I am male. To respond to B62, if I had given it any thought at the time I thought Soror Magna was male. (Having lived next to a sorority once, if I had given this any thought, I would have gotten the name right. Mea culpa.) I have reflected on the exchange in the male reproductive responsibilities thread. Using the thought experiment that it would have taken place in a room with all present, I think my response to a male making those comments in the room would have been different than those of being made by a female. I think my question was based on my thoughts that a male was making the comments. I read it differently now knowing it was a woman. Context and our personal attributes do affect how we perceive interactions. At this time, I believe that if I knew SM was a woman I would have experienced the post differently and not have responded as I did with my question.
All this said, I think I am drifting a bit away from the issue of whether tone in epiphanies should be different than in purgatory.
In this comment, @Gwai prods @mousethief with her hosting stick. I'm a bit confused - Gwai's comment seems like a perfectly reasonable contribution to the discussion, but I'm not clear as to why it is being made with hostly authority.
Were it to be a normal comment, I'd want to argue with it (Gwai claims that men treating men badly can't be a gender issue. That sounds structurally similar to claiming that black cops beating up black people can't be a racism issue, and I think both statements are nonsense.) Given that it's made under hostly imprimatur, we are enjoined not to discuss it on the thread. So I'd ask Gwai to explain a little what she's trying to do with this hostly redirect.
In this comment, @Gwai prods @mousethief with her hosting stick. I'm a bit confused - Gwai's comment seems like a perfectly reasonable contribution to the discussion, but I'm not clear as to why it is being made with hostly authority.
Were it to be a normal comment, I'd want to argue with it (Gwai claims that men treating men badly can't be a gender issue. That sounds structurally similar to claiming that black cops beating up black people can't be a racism issue, and I think both statements are nonsense.) Given that it's made under hostly imprimatur, we are enjoined not to discuss it on the thread. So I'd ask Gwai to explain a little what she's trying to do with this hostly redirect.
Men treat men badly because of systems men set up, so that is not quite the same as black people buying into white ideology and being racist towards other black people.
And how he then, after a quick 'steady on,' went on to address the point you had actually made, rather than simply talking about how you sounded angry and how you shouldn't post when angry, and you should be using meeker language?
I can't decide if that's a dig at me or not. It reads like it is, but perhaps it isn't.
For clarity, I'll offer some clarification.
1. Re "steady on". I thought asher's statement had overstepped quite considerably, but there was a rational discussion to be had. I'm not at all sure what makes you think I'd be more likely to say "steady on" to a man. I'm familiar with the stereotype that you refer to, but I am neither a stereotype nor am I quoting one. As it happens, the person I most often say "steady on" to is my mother, and I can assure you that she isn't male.
2. On anger. Nowhere in either this thread, or the parent XY thread, have I accused anyone of being angry. I have certainly mentioned that brusque, sweary language often reads as anger. I have talked about how anger often engenders anger in response, and how it's hard to have a rational discussion with someone who is shouting at you. And that it follows that if one seeks a rational discussion, one should attempt to remain calm. All these things I believe to be true.
On the topic of the thread being closed, could Admin perhaps expand a little on "Admin, in consultation with the rest of the crew, have decided that this thread isn't the right fit for Epiphanies," so that we may better understand the purpose of the Epiphanies board. Is Epiphanies to be restricted to the discussion of subjects that focus on minority identities? Or is it that the discussion had moved away from core identity issues, and so outgrown Epiphanies?
That's a shame. I had enjoyed those threads, and I can't see how they would work anywhere else.
Your disappointment is understandable, @mark_in_manchester. However, let me work around to disputing your thought that they would not work anywhere else.
The notion of personal identification as men, and issues relating to that, did feel like a novel and meaningful thing to address in a safe(er) environment. At least, that was my sense of the appropriateness for having it be in Epiphanies.
Except that is not how those threads actually existed. What actually happened was that the fundamental assumption that "male" is indeed the default gender was confirmed, and all the stereotypical aspects of that. Most of the concerns raised on the thread were aspects that have no need to be carefully protected from an overbearing dominant view, but rather were the overwhelming default dominant views insinuating themselves as being equally in need of protection.
The truth is that both of those threads could have Purgatory or All Saints correlates that would function just fine. Because the repercussions of disagreement on any board for males is... mild annoyance? Epiphanies was not set up to protect people from mild annoyance.
Even the very existence of the XY thread was under attack from the very beginning, and any male trying to say something not part of the expected narrative got jumped on. But hey we're in the majority and we have privilege so none of that matters.
Except that is not how those threads actually existed. What actually happened was that the fundamental assumption that "male" is indeed the default gender was confirmed, and all the stereotypical aspects of that. Most of the concerns raised on the thread were aspects that have no need to be carefully protected from an overbearing dominant view, but rather were the overwhelming default dominant views insinuating themselves as being equally in need of protection.
Apparently we read different threads. There were a number of different points of view expressed on almost every aspect of the thread. They can't all be the default dominant view.
Epiphanies was not set up to protect people from mild annoyance.
Seeing as the current discussion was about mental health and male suicide, the repercussions of the issues being explored are a lot more than annoyance.
And screw the ‘default gender’ thing. Being male is not always an advantage. A lot of the time it is, but in terms of single parenting, parental rights, inherent violence, suicide, asking for help (both mental and physical), etc., being male is a disadvantage. Those were all things being explored in the XY thread. And they’re all identity issues perfect for Epiphanies.
Yes, the reproductive responsibility thread could and probably should be in Purgatory, but the XY thread is different.
This decision, especially in the light of the specific discussions that were ongoing, feels like this:
Grappling with being LGBT in a changing society? Are you non-white, and experiencing racism? Frustrated as a female in a still patriarchal society? Coming to terms with an abortion? We’ve got you covered.
Grappling with being male and the various issues that go with that? Fuck off and shut up.
I am shocked that those two threads in Epiphanies were closed.
I observed a lot of useful and thoughtful discussion on the threads, particularly among the men on the XY chromosomes thread, which I have not seen them talk (or not much) in that way elsewhere on the ship.
I'm reconsidering what the Ship stands for if the Admins can't see the value in what those threads were trying to do.
That's a shame. I had enjoyed those threads, and I can't see how they would work anywhere else.
Your disappointment is understandable, @mark_in_manchester. However, let me work around to disputing your thought that they would not work anywhere else.
The notion of personal identification as men, and issues relating to that, did feel like a novel and meaningful thing to address in a safe(er) environment. At least, that was my sense of the appropriateness for having it be in Epiphanies.
Except that is not how those threads actually existed. What actually happened was that the fundamental assumption that "male" is indeed the default gender was confirmed, and all the stereotypical aspects of that. Most of the concerns raised on the thread were aspects that have no need to be carefully protected from an overbearing dominant view, but rather were the overwhelming default dominant views insinuating themselves as being equally in need of protection.
The truth is that both of those threads could have Purgatory or All Saints correlates that would function just fine. Because the repercussions of disagreement on any board for males is... mild annoyance? Epiphanies was not set up to protect people from mild annoyance.
If that was genuinely the case, why weren’t they moved rather than closed ?
It's maybe just me, but I thought the value of the XY thread was that it could be a place where the fighty stuff between the sexes didn't have to happen--shouldn't happen--where guys could get on with discussing their issues from whatever point of view, even a stereotypical one on occasion, without having to deal with people barging in and whapping them upside the head because women's issues were not being sufficiently noted and honored on that thread. Because we've got lots of threads to talk about the fighty stuff. And because maybe, just maybe, we could trust that if some guy expressed a "overwhelming default dominant view", that the other guys could challenge it from their own perspectives in their own replies--rather than just shutting the whole thing down.
This question of "overwhelming default view". If it isn't owned by the people who actually hold it, it will always be the default, rather than being relativised. That's the step that actually needs to happen: it will probably never disappear, and doesn't need to, necessarily; it just needs to be heard as one view among many, and questioned accordingly.
(I don't know about the ideology of it all - LC provides a summary a couple of posts up of what I think, having read her summary, I think we were doing! I can see from time to time it got a bit 'hot' for that forum, but it seemed to me we managed to dial it down and listen to each other, even after that. The threads seemed like a good fit, in that respect. But OK, I don't moderate).
Thinking a little more - OK, mods, where do you think we might try again? Purg will be too much of a row, and All Saints isn't really for discussion. Private board for men? (Given some of the things I posted about 'separate facilities' that sounds facetious, but maybe that's where it needs to go).
And how he then, after a quick 'steady on,' went on to address the point you had actually made, rather than simply talking about how you sounded angry and how you shouldn't post when angry, and you should be using meeker language?
I can't decide if that's a dig at me or not. It reads like it is, but perhaps it isn't.
It was an observation, firstly to show Asher that this was a very different sort of situation, and secondly to draw your attention to the fact that the way you interact with men can be quite different from the way you interact with women (eg. not lingering on perceptions of tone, but addressing the actual point they make). I've observed this a few times, and it seemed relevant to draw attention to it here. I mentioned it in the hopes that you might think about it and have greater awareness when next you post.
To take a dig is 'To make a mocking, sarcastic, or insulting remark, gibe, or criticism at someone's or something's expense.' Why would I randomly want to insult you? I don't know you, and I'm not here for one-up,anship games. The fact that you (and plenty of other guys - not specific to you) perceive such observations as digs, rather than attempts at more effective, more equal communication, is a big part of the issue here. So often, when a woman tries to draw attention to such things, men perceive it as an attack, some kind of battle to be fought.
How in blue blazes can Admin decide after 235 and 770 posts that a thread does not belong in a certain forum? I think at best the abrupt closures was irresponsible. The explanation of that decision given is this thread is inadequate at best.
It's a public house, and people can have their say right up to the point where the landlord asserts that it is their house, and you need to all stop and go home.
This has never been a democracy. What the admins say, goes.
I got a lot from the thread, it made me think and I've checked myself on a number of issues back on shore. Thank you.
We (Admin) will be along shortly to try and address some of your questions. We're spread out across several time zones, and it takes a little time to co-ordinate collegiate answers.
It was an observation, firstly to show Asher that this was a very different sort of situation, and secondly to draw your attention to the fact that the way you interact with men can be quite different from the way you interact with women (eg. not lingering on perceptions of tone, but addressing the actual point they make). I've observed this a few times, and it seemed relevant to draw attention to it here.
Perhaps you could point out when you have observed this? I'm not aware that I respond to women differently than to men, in general.
The thing about tone was an entire meta-discussion, and one I find interesting. At no point was I addressing the tone of individual posters - the closest I think I could have been said to have done that was my initial comment to Soror Magna about how brusque language can read as anger. Even that was in no means an allegation that SM was angry, or even that she sounded angry - it was a tangential issue that I find interesting.
To take a dig is 'To make a mocking, sarcastic, or insulting remark, gibe, or criticism at someone's or something's expense.' Why would I randomly want to insult you? I don't know you, and I'm not here for one-up,anship games. The fact that you (and plenty of other guys - not specific to you) perceive such observations as digs, rather than attempts at more effective, more equal communication, is a big part of the issue here. So often, when a woman tries to draw attention to such things, men perceive it as an attack, some kind of battle to be fought.
In my dialect, a "dig" is a fairly gentle poke - certainly not one that approaches the level of insult. And I asked because it was unclear to me whether or not it was aimed at me. You and I seem to talk past each other quite a lot - I know I've got the wrong end of the stick at least a couple of times with things you've said, and there have been a couple of times where you've responded to something I've said, and I've been rather taken aback by the interpretation you've seemed to have placed on it.
Perhaps it's that we have very different communications styles? You apparently thought that I was niggling at some of the women posting on the thread about sounding angry. I thought I was addressing an interesting side-idea that had come up, and not talking about any of the thread participants at all.
In this thread, you made a somewhat parenthetical sideways reference that sounded a bit like it was in response to the discussion we had had, but didn't really sound like it was addressed to me, or to the point. After clarification, I learn that it was in fact addressed at me.
I had just begun to peruse the thread for a couple of days and was enjoying it, and when I got up this morning it was closed. I hurried to the end of it expecting to see some catastrophic blow-up and -nothing. I'm afraid it is a true example of "I'm not oppressed enough" to be thought worthy of discussion.
Comments
Re Hosting in practice, agreed.
Re Epiphanies, I think you're wrong. The guidelines are silent on social inequity and for a good reason. People whose personal identity and personal investment are tied up closely with issues are free to discuss those any way they choose. They can be as open or closed as they like. They may bring in issues of personal morality, or ethics, or social acceptability, but they are also free to preserve personal privacy to whatever extent suits them. But any of the issues they do bring up are open to discussion for contrary views, provided this is done with respect for the personal identity or investment of other Shipmates.
Disadvantages and privileges, whether real or perceived, don't get anyone either special consideration or a special handicap in discussions. Posts still get judged on their merits within that context. That's why we say Epiphanies is not intended to be an echo chamber or a pillory.
But I think that's now outside the scope of this Styx thread. So far as I can see, we have probably wandered too far away from the issues of anger and swearing in Epiphanies.
Not that the wandering has been without value. At least to me.
Are you talking about the 'steady on' expression, which is generally a friendly male to male one, said with respect, traditionally with an 'old chap' added? And how he then, after a quick 'steady on,' went on to address the point you had actually made, rather than simply talking about how you sounded angry and how you shouldn't post when angry, and you should be using meeker language?
And how, after you'd clarified your point, he was very careful to clarify with you what you were saying to make sure he understood you correctly?
You know, I really don't think that is the same thing.
That may well be the position where you are, but not here and maybe not where others are.
This is over the line for The Styx. Please keep all personal assertions to Hell.
-RooK
Stygian Referee: -100 points for Slytherin
I am not aware of @Caissa gendering themselves
I've been chewing this over for a couple of days, and (to say the least) this shows how much language can divide us.
For me, fuck is not a word I would use about having sex or making love. It is, for me, akin to rutting.
Whilst there might be some choice and agency in it, when verbed, it really depends on whether it is singular or plural.
'I fucked him' focuses on the agency and choice of the fucker, and spares no regard for the fuckee
'We fucked' choice and agency for both, yes. But for me one could just as well say 'we rutted'.
Fucking seems detached from any emotional or loving context.
@fineline; I never said I thought I was addressing a man. I said I didn't know SR was a woman.
I note, and will attempt to act on your request for courtesy regarding gender and anger.
I further note that other posters on this thread have suggested that if people don't like the word 'fuck' then they have no place here.
Respectfully
Asher
Here you are @lilbuddha
I don’t mean that as a criticism of use of the word. But aside from gender biases, there are cultural differences at play here, including how the word “fuck” is read/heard, and I see no point in assuming otherwise.
SOF is not the internet, though.
All this said, I think I am drifting a bit away from the issue of whether tone in epiphanies should be different than in purgatory.
Clearly I was being hyperbolic. I also lack the power to keep you off the internet.
It puts your 'just another example of men coercing women ' in a different light
..trip trap...trip trap
(Crosspost response to caissa)
Thanks Caissa. Clarifications are good here.
If this is an accusation of trolling, it is inappropriate for the Styx.
Ruth, Styx host
Were it to be a normal comment, I'd want to argue with it (Gwai claims that men treating men badly can't be a gender issue. That sounds structurally similar to claiming that black cops beating up black people can't be a racism issue, and I think both statements are nonsense.) Given that it's made under hostly imprimatur, we are enjoined not to discuss it on the thread. So I'd ask Gwai to explain a little what she's trying to do with this hostly redirect.
Thanks,
Ruth, Styx Host
I can't decide if that's a dig at me or not. It reads like it is, but perhaps it isn't.
For clarity, I'll offer some clarification.
1. Re "steady on". I thought asher's statement had overstepped quite considerably, but there was a rational discussion to be had. I'm not at all sure what makes you think I'd be more likely to say "steady on" to a man. I'm familiar with the stereotype that you refer to, but I am neither a stereotype nor am I quoting one. As it happens, the person I most often say "steady on" to is my mother, and I can assure you that she isn't male.
2. On anger. Nowhere in either this thread, or the parent XY thread, have I accused anyone of being angry. I have certainly mentioned that brusque, sweary language often reads as anger. I have talked about how anger often engenders anger in response, and how it's hard to have a rational discussion with someone who is shouting at you. And that it follows that if one seeks a rational discussion, one should attempt to remain calm. All these things I believe to be true.
On the topic of the thread being closed, could Admin perhaps expand a little on "Admin, in consultation with the rest of the crew, have decided that this thread isn't the right fit for Epiphanies," so that we may better understand the purpose of the Epiphanies board. Is Epiphanies to be restricted to the discussion of subjects that focus on minority identities? Or is it that the discussion had moved away from core identity issues, and so outgrown Epiphanies?
Your disappointment is understandable, @mark_in_manchester. However, let me work around to disputing your thought that they would not work anywhere else.
The notion of personal identification as men, and issues relating to that, did feel like a novel and meaningful thing to address in a safe(er) environment. At least, that was my sense of the appropriateness for having it be in Epiphanies.
Except that is not how those threads actually existed. What actually happened was that the fundamental assumption that "male" is indeed the default gender was confirmed, and all the stereotypical aspects of that. Most of the concerns raised on the thread were aspects that have no need to be carefully protected from an overbearing dominant view, but rather were the overwhelming default dominant views insinuating themselves as being equally in need of protection.
The truth is that both of those threads could have Purgatory or All Saints correlates that would function just fine. Because the repercussions of disagreement on any board for males is... mild annoyance? Epiphanies was not set up to protect people from mild annoyance.
Apparently we read different threads. There were a number of different points of view expressed on almost every aspect of the thread. They can't all be the default dominant view.
And screw the ‘default gender’ thing. Being male is not always an advantage. A lot of the time it is, but in terms of single parenting, parental rights, inherent violence, suicide, asking for help (both mental and physical), etc., being male is a disadvantage. Those were all things being explored in the XY thread. And they’re all identity issues perfect for Epiphanies.
Yes, the reproductive responsibility thread could and probably should be in Purgatory, but the XY thread is different.
This decision, especially in the light of the specific discussions that were ongoing, feels like this:
Grappling with being LGBT in a changing society? Are you non-white, and experiencing racism? Frustrated as a female in a still patriarchal society? Coming to terms with an abortion? We’ve got you covered.
Grappling with being male and the various issues that go with that? Fuck off and shut up.
I observed a lot of useful and thoughtful discussion on the threads, particularly among the men on the XY chromosomes thread, which I have not seen them talk (or not much) in that way elsewhere on the ship.
I'm reconsidering what the Ship stands for if the Admins can't see the value in what those threads were trying to do.
If that was genuinely the case, why weren’t they moved rather than closed ?
It was an observation, firstly to show Asher that this was a very different sort of situation, and secondly to draw your attention to the fact that the way you interact with men can be quite different from the way you interact with women (eg. not lingering on perceptions of tone, but addressing the actual point they make). I've observed this a few times, and it seemed relevant to draw attention to it here. I mentioned it in the hopes that you might think about it and have greater awareness when next you post.
To take a dig is 'To make a mocking, sarcastic, or insulting remark, gibe, or criticism at someone's or something's expense.' Why would I randomly want to insult you? I don't know you, and I'm not here for one-up,anship games. The fact that you (and plenty of other guys - not specific to you) perceive such observations as digs, rather than attempts at more effective, more equal communication, is a big part of the issue here. So often, when a woman tries to draw attention to such things, men perceive it as an attack, some kind of battle to be fought.
It's a public house, and people can have their say right up to the point where the landlord asserts that it is their house, and you need to all stop and go home.
This has never been a democracy. What the admins say, goes.
I got a lot from the thread, it made me think and I've checked myself on a number of issues back on shore. Thank you.
God bless
Asher
DT
SoF admin
Perhaps you could point out when you have observed this? I'm not aware that I respond to women differently than to men, in general.
The thing about tone was an entire meta-discussion, and one I find interesting. At no point was I addressing the tone of individual posters - the closest I think I could have been said to have done that was my initial comment to Soror Magna about how brusque language can read as anger. Even that was in no means an allegation that SM was angry, or even that she sounded angry - it was a tangential issue that I find interesting.
In my dialect, a "dig" is a fairly gentle poke - certainly not one that approaches the level of insult. And I asked because it was unclear to me whether or not it was aimed at me. You and I seem to talk past each other quite a lot - I know I've got the wrong end of the stick at least a couple of times with things you've said, and there have been a couple of times where you've responded to something I've said, and I've been rather taken aback by the interpretation you've seemed to have placed on it.
Perhaps it's that we have very different communications styles? You apparently thought that I was niggling at some of the women posting on the thread about sounding angry. I thought I was addressing an interesting side-idea that had come up, and not talking about any of the thread participants at all.
In this thread, you made a somewhat parenthetical sideways reference that sounded a bit like it was in response to the discussion we had had, but didn't really sound like it was addressed to me, or to the point. After clarification, I learn that it was in fact addressed at me.