Women's forum

Post Reply New Topic

I like this idea. A women's only discussion doesn't have to stop anyone else from discussing the same topic elsewhere in the forum.

YES THIS IS EXACTLY WHY - ooops, sorry, didn't mean to yell I just got excited there, lol. This is exactly why the women's forum is needed.

I'm so glad you posted those articles because I deal with that a lot in my job. I just attended a meeting like that last week and this really helps. Not to mention the meeting I wrote about here several months ago where a manager just talked over me like a bulldozer, and if I had not typed up my own notes ahead of time I probably never would have had a chance to say anything at all. Oh, these articles are gold. I wish I could mass email them to the people in my company.

Yup male and female communication styles can be very different. Yes this is the very reason that sometimes I would prefer to talk only with women.

Well I asked about transposing some content which was different from the OP question in one of these threads.

We can quote people? As long as we keep the words intact.

Lol, did you have my avatar in mind when you chose this figure of speech?

No ... that's called "Cross-Posting", and is prohibited on this website.

Well like I said some thread get diverted. In a thread that is exclusionary thread, these diversion should be split off if they don't meet the requirements of the exclusionary tag.

I think it could be problematic to quote a person's posts into a different thread, for the same reasons it can be tricky to move a thread into a different forum. It takes their words out of the original context that the person intended. Especially if it gets taken to PPR, as I expect would be the most likely route, that's potentially dragging a poster into an argument or debate they may not want to be part of.

It's always possible to start a new topic addressing the ideas that you disagree with or find offensive, without making any mention of the person who wrote them.

In a thread that is an exclusionary thread, just leave it alone and start your own thread. It's very simple, and takes only a little effort on your part. It also keeps the drama to a minimum, thus dis-incentivizing those who seek conflict for conflict's sake.

You'll find that when "exclusive" threads no longer provoke negativity and contentiousness, they will also decrease in both frequency and intensity.

Trust me on this - it's worth giving it a try.

Sure I wouldn't take it out of the forum necessarily.

The idea would be break it where the discussion diverts so separate off all of the context that is a separate discussion where possible.

Also is someone is weaving in and out of a tagged subject to cloak their words that is IMO an issue for the mods.

I think if you are to justify a restriction on who can post based on one demographic, then there should be checks and balances to ensure the protection is used correctly, and the topic should be specific enough and kept on topic.

There is nothing stopping of such multiple topic from being opened should they be eligible for this protection.

I also asked for clarification on "compelling reasons" this needs some explanation so people know what they can use it for.

Sure I understand what you are saying but I'm talking about such thread being used to post controversial things but wanting avoid direct criticism, using the tag.

I didn't take much interest until that happened. I think PPR is much better place for political issues, so really the overtly political thing in any section should be in PPR anyway.

There is plenty criticism of extremism for example. However one of the criticism as a result of inquiry of the UK governments "Prevent" program, was the universities and community groups were so scared of being seen as stereotyping them, this actually prevented extreme ideas being challenged or questioned in the setting that those that are mostly likely to be influenced would be most likely to value and be in.

Other setting are less relevant to these people.

No, actually none of what I said had anything to do with anyone on here. I was really talking about the trigger-warning stuff that was on another site I was briefly a member of.

It was a very frustrating and bad experience for me there. That was what I was talking about. There was no room for real discussion, because all posts that were arbitrarily deemed possibly unsupportive were immediately deleted by moderators. So no-one ever said anything besides stuff like "You're so right", "They were so wrong", "hugs", etc.

It was not useful at all to me, and caused me enormous frustration. I wanted to solve my problems, not get sympathy. Sympathy is fine, but it isn't going to help me fix anything.

And yeah, there were really mentally ill people there that likely had Munchausen syndrome or something similar that kept coming up with outlandish stories that were obviously false. And I think some trolls as well.

I wish people would stop "reading between the lines" when it comes to my posts. There usually is nothing between the lines. I say what I mean.

So I would appreciate it if people (such as that other person who accused me of being selfish) would just ask for clarification before jumping to conclusions. And I am open to hearing any disagreements with my posts that are expressed in a respectful and civilized manner.

It didn't even occur to me that your avatar is a flower. I really don't pay that much attention to those things.

And yes, I personally prefer to also have men's opinions, because I believe that having advice from both genders will be most helpful to me.

I wonder if Men are allowed to use a "Men only" tag, in the appropriate forum?

There is no Men's Discussion forum because no one posted there when there was.

There is no history of women dominating conversations about men's issues or conversations that both men and women participate in, so I think you are proposing a solution for a non-problem.

If the idea is that there out to be some abstract symmetry for reasons of ideal justice, that would be nice if we lived in a world of gender equality without a history of male dominated conversations and expectations of second class status for females. But we don't.

If there was a Men's Discussion forum and women kept barging in and dominating the conversation, then I'm sure you could use a "men only" tag.

What's stopping people using a Men Only in the title now, despite there not being a men's forums?

For instance in Health & Fitness or Love and Dating or anywhere else?

The nature of discrimination is more nuanced than that.

"Male privilege" is flawed way of looking at thing becuase not all males are privileged all the time. Discrimination is relative and dynamic in nature.

I did not use the term "male privilege" and I don't appreciate having the clear idea that I just expressed obfuscated by conflation with other arguments I didn't make.

You are correct, not all males are privileged all the time and discrimination is relative and dynamic.

The subtle nuances of reality are not a good reason to ignore the obtuse facts. The "women only" tag is something some people are asking for to cure a particular and quite real problem. There is no equivalent problem that needs a "men only" tag as a fix.