More to the point, it seems that thus far the thread has been exactly what the original poster asked for. posted by Riemann at 7:22 PM on October 22, 2006
The thing most of those posts are missing is the fact that men have just as many annoying things to women. We're different. We act, think, feel different. Men and women do not, and will not understand each other. Asking what women do that is annoying is not a good question, it's just going to make women worry about if they do that, and it won't make anyone change.
Like this one
"Using period/cramps as excuse to get out of things (not sex, but going out or helping around the house) or why she took her anger out on you."
Yeah, bleeding for 5 days straight is a piece of cake.
I cannot count the number of times I've heard immature men blame a women being angry on PMS. THAT is annoying as hell. Sometimes the men are just being stupid, we don't have our periods 24/7. But when we do, it HURTS for most of us, and yeah, it can make us angry.
I'm sure there are women who lie about it to get out of chores, but there are probably more men who could do to HELP with the damn chores in the first place! posted by jesirose at 7:23 PM on October 22, 2006
"Annoying, dealbreaker-level things women do in relationships"
You thought this was going to be uplifting? posted by smackfu at 7:24 PM on October 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
The thing most of those posts are missing is the fact that men have just as many annoying things to women.
And posting that would be completely off-topic and wouldn't answer the question. posted by smackfu at 7:25 PM on October 22, 2006
I almost commented, but feeling the presence of my wife working directly behind me caused me to rethink the idea.
Personally, I think the thread is cool. However, I understand how you feel. Perhaps for fairness' sake, and for your own feelings, you should post the same question with MEN as the "target". posted by snsranch at 7:25 PM on October 22, 2006
"I cannot count the number of times I've heard immature men blame a women being angry on PMS"
Wow, never saw that ridiculous question before. I can't believe there are growed people who really think there are things women do in relationships that men don't. That's idiotic. posted by dobbs at 7:27 PM on October 22, 2006 [3 favorites]
Yeah, so? I'm in favor of giving people a designated place to "dump." Maybe it keeps them from "dumping" in places where it might be less appropriate.
Flag and move on. posted by ikkyu2 at 7:27 PM on October 22, 2006
"The thing most of those posts are missing is the fact that men have just as many annoying things to women.
And posting that would be completely off-topic and wouldn't answer the question."
Right, but are all of those things really "dealbreakers"? It seems like they're the petty-annoying sort, not the end-the-relationship sort. Those don't answer the question... posted by jesirose at 7:27 PM on October 22, 2006
Also, matthewr, you are taking what that guy said completely out of context. Yes, he could have found a better way to say it but he has a point. I agree with the ideal that a relationship should be a place (emotionally anyway) of peace and respite. If there are constant arguments going on something is very wrong indeed. I would interpret (and I could be wrong) what he is saying as to keep disagreements from getting personal (something which many others also brought up) to keep disagreements from turning into arguments. posted by Riemann at 7:28 PM on October 22, 2006
It is kind of harsh to read and there are traces of misogyny here and there, so I do understand your concern, but I think a lot of it's quite true and that it will be a helpful, eye-opening read for some people.
I found this comment - from a woman - to be the most (but not only) disturbing thing thus far. "I can't stand most women"?! posted by orange swan at 7:28 PM on October 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
Turning into? The subtitle of that post is "dump on women." I don't understand how that sort of thing isn't the definition of chatfilter, but then just what is the definition of chatfilter is one of those imponderable mysteries that keep me going to church. But I must say I couldn't see the three comments you linked to as offensive. Dumb, maybe, but I can't think of an answer to a question like that that isn't basically dumb. posted by nanojath at 7:33 PM on October 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
Lots of potential for bitterness here. Might do well to count to 10 before posting.
The question is pretty straightforward and the answers to it aren't gonna be pretty. THAT'S the whole point, the question is looking for negative stuff
No one said all women were evil incarnate, guys were just pointing out stuff that they consider annoying enough to be dealbreakers.
OF COURSE it's going to be subjective, but again, that's kinda the point of the question. posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:33 PM on October 22, 2006
Yea, nanojath, I think you're making my main point- which is really that the question itself is pretty lame. posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:34 PM on October 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
Sexist though it may be, the very existence of this thread proves many of the assertions in that AskMe thread have at least a grain of truth. posted by MegoSteve at 7:36 PM on October 22, 2006
ThePinkSuperhero, I recommend you just adopt a move from Sgt. Serenity's playbook: Post an AskMe about annoying dealbreaking- level things men do in relationships. posted by lobstah at 7:38 PM on October 22, 2006
TPS, if you're calling for deletion of the thread as chatfilter, fair point. But if you're objecting to the content of the thread just because you don't like it, I don't understand what you're hoping to accomplish here. posted by brain_drain at 7:39 PM on October 22, 2006
I recommend you just adopt a move from Sgt. Serenity's playbook: Post an AskMe about annoying dealbreaking- level things men do in relationships.
Or would that be exactly the kind of passive aggressive bullshit that is so horrible to deal with no matter what gender is dishing it out? posted by Riemann at 7:40 PM on October 22, 2006
Your point is valid, brain_drain, and I apologize for not being clear. The thread definitely could be deleted as chatfilter, and I think it should be, in part because of some of the shit it seems to be dredging up. Not to mention that it seems we've discussed this issue, what, a trillion other times? posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:41 PM on October 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
Who'd want to waste a question on that. Moreover, heterosexual women over 20 already know more than they ever wanted to know about that topic;-) posted by orange swan at 7:42 PM on October 22, 2006
Post an AskMe about annoying dealbreaking- level things men do in relationships.
I thought about it (even ran the idea by jessamyn, yuk yuk yuk), but I think the gender finger pointing questions are lame and not really what AskMeta is for, so I decided against it. posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:42 PM on October 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
Yeah, bleeding for 5 days straight is a piece of cake.
Since I wrote the comment you've respond to, I just want to point out that we're having a miscommunication.
It was NOT my intent to sweep periods under the rug. Sure it can be rough and there's nothing wrong with women taking it easy during that time. Completly understand, especially when she has severe pains.
But those who want to use it as an excuse to get outta helping with chores around the house or even getting outta the day job so they can go to the beach or shopping (which I've seen done, as they gigglingly told later), then yeah I don't have much respect for their actions.
I meant the coment in no generally negative way, simply in the above specific instances or similiarities. posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:43 PM on October 22, 2006
Seems like the asker has gotten a pretty consistent list, and nothing rising to the level of deserving a call-out. posted by Mr. Gunn at 7:44 PM on October 22, 2006
I was only kidding...it's a bullshit question IMO. posted by lobstah at 7:44 PM on October 22, 2006
Good lord, there's some disgusting stereotypes being bandied about over there. This question really brought the Neanderthals out of the woodwork. Just the first two jaw-droppers I saw:
On the other hand, this does give me hope that my soon-to-be posted "Annoying things that blacks do when they move into white neighborhoods" question (also for a, uh, piece my friend is writing), gets the same kind of earnest and on-topic responses this question is getting. posted by jayder at 7:46 PM on October 22, 2006 [3 favorites]
Some comments in the thread are bitter and make ugly generalizations about the opposite sex (women, in this case). But that seems almost inevitable in any discussion of 'things an SO did that drove me crazy'. Perhaps just delete the offending comments? posted by HighTechUnderpants at 7:49 PM on October 22, 2006
TPS, the posted comments are things that exist in real life. They are not being posted to beat up on girls/females/women.
Personally I think you should post: an AskMe about annoying dealbreaking- level things men do in relationships.
There is a very good purpose for this. We are imperfect human beings. The more we know about ourselves and the more we learn the better off we ALL are.
On preview, lovejones' "women be shopping"? Eff off. posted by snsranch at 7:53 PM on October 22, 2006
I think this thread is just turning into a "dump on women" thread.
And that's a problem because ... ?
/me ducks to avoid punch posted by frogan at 8:01 PM on October 22, 2006
HEY GUISE WIMMENZ SUCK AMIRITE?
Ha ha!
No.
I got that question from my friend, who is a chick, and who is writing about this sort of thing, in some capacity. Stupidly, I didn't realize that it would degenerate into such a level of bitterness. Knowing her, I'm not sure I'm even going to send her the link, her reaction would be like ThePinkSuperhero's times about 20. posted by ibmcginty at 8:03 PM on October 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
What is the point of this callout? Are you complaining that this is offensive content, or chatfilter? Highlighting a fantastic thread? Why don't you tell us?
You surely have noticed that "expecting me to be a mind-reader" is one of the most effective ways to annoy male Mefites -- aha, is THAT the point of this callout? posted by nowonmai at 8:04 PM on October 22, 2006
does anyone find it mildly ironic that the OP seems to be taking this thread personally?
yes it's turning into a 'dump on women' thread, and it's a crappy question but honestly everyone here has been guilty of dumping on the opposite sex all the time in daily life, and there are a lot of mysogynistic / misandristic comments made on MeFi threads daily.
OF COURSE it couldn't be MY problem, it HAS to be because... blah blah blah. People hate on other people because they're different. Is this right? no. is it human nature. absolutely. Attempting to understand it and, in some way deal with it isn't a bad thing. Yes there are bitter comments and ugly generalisations. this happens in political threads and any other hot-button topic.
just because someone said something YOU personally did not agree with, does not make this inherently a bad question. I believe the OP even said something about this potentially being a divisive topic.
sorry if you found my comment offensive orange swan, I can only tell the truth: I grew up in a mainly male dominated environment, and I'm sure I have plenty of issues, but some of the catty, manipulative things MOST (not all) girls and women are socialised to do in the mainstream of our culture, frankly, drive me up the walls. I'm sorry you had fourteen female roommates. I had one and that was more than enough.
this taking things personally thing is one of the things PEOPLE do (mea culpa, I'll make an attempt to be more Fred Rogers PC from now on) that I really don't care for. posted by lonefrontranger at 8:06 PM on October 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
I thought the question was borderline but I generally try to keep borderline questions. Once we start removing questions based on content (other than the usual list of illegal stuff) then deletion is a judgement call and that turns into a mess. The answers aren't all rosy but they're definitely not in the "bitchez and hos" category either. I didn't see any reason to suspect that the question was manufactured so that people could just shit talk about their current and ex-partners. posted by jessamyn at 8:07 PM on October 22, 2006
for the most part men are pretty straightforward and mean what they say.
Seriously, that's the most disgusting, misogynistic trash I've read in...wait, what the hell are you talking about? posted by myeviltwin at 8:08 PM on October 22, 2006
Bitch bitch bitch. posted by LarryC at 8:21 PM on October 22, 2006
Dealbreaker? When they don't swallow.
Ok, now that's going a little far. posted by bigmusic at 8:33 PM on October 22, 2006
I was with a guy for some time who bitched constantly, nagged me, rarely said what he meant, saved things up that upset him so he could bring them up in other fights...etc etc. He even broke into tears when he was one-upped and backed into a corner. I could make a list of deal breakers based on that relationship alone.
So what, does this mean he was really just a woman?
Too bad the OP decided it was a gender issue and not a relationship issue. A dealbreaker can come from either side and either sex is capable of being a whiny little girl. ;) posted by routergirl at 8:44 PM on October 22, 2006 [2 favorites]
Id like to see the same question asked of the opposite sex. A lot of people are saying that both sexes can do these things in relationships which of course is true- but I think there are going to be a different set of stereotypes directed at men. All the answers are stereotypes and everybody realises that, but I still think they can be good for either sex to keep in mind.
Also us men can handle a bit of criticism, we wont need to make a metatalk thread about how the women are picking on us. posted by phyle at 8:46 PM on October 22, 2006
But dobbs, there ARE things women do in Relationships that men don't. That even most "nellie queens" don't do. And as a long-term bisexual who's been involved with both sexes I have some basis for my opinion. This is not to say that misogyny is justified, that men are somehow superior, or that all women are neurotic, only that (for some reason or combination of reasons) men and women often behave and/or think differently in ways that bug the shit out of a lot of men. And yes, I'm sure the reverse is true: I know damn well men often do things that bug the shit out of most women. If you think the sexes ought to be a bit less dimorphed I'm with you, but "I can't believe there are growed people who really think there are things women do in relationships that men don't" sounds like never been in a hetero relationship before -- nor even knew anybody in one.
Maybe TPS should ask about "awful things boiz do" instead. I'll start with one answer: asking "Are you on the rag again already?" when she seems upset about something you don't want her to be upset about. (Who, ME?) posted by davy at 8:46 PM on October 22, 2006
Actually, pinksuperhero has a bit of a point. A lot of the stuff people are describing in the thread isn't specifically unique to women, it's just some guy spouting off about that *&$% ex who pissed him off.
But that thread was bound to piss off lots of people, just by the nature of the poorly worded question.
Still, the original thread and this one are getting to be amusing, just because of the way people are projecting on it.
Somewhere, high above, the visiting single sex aliens are laughing at us from their invisible death ray ships. Which is good, because it means they've decided we're too silly to conquer (plus they don't want the Iraqi problem either) and have instead decided to make slaves outta the poor martians that NASA refuses to tell us about. posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:49 PM on October 22, 2006
I grew up in a mainly male dominated environment, and I'm sure I have plenty of issues, but some of the catty, manipulative things MOST (not all) girls and women are socialised to do in the mainstream of our culture, frankly, drive me up the walls.
I tend to get fairly catty around girls who brag about not "understanding" members of their sex. I'm sure you have your reasons (your roommate sounds rather heinous), but most of the girls I've met who pride themselves in exclusively befriending men seem bent on distancing themselves from the supposedly inferior qualities of being a girl. And maybe you just find girliness more annoying than most people do, but it's a rather convenient capitulation to a culture that degrades traditionally feminine behavior while applauding masculinity. posted by zoomorphic at 8:49 PM on October 22, 2006 [7 favorites]
davy, for example? I can't think of a single thing women do that is annoying that I myself have never done or another man I know hasn't done. Not one. (And before anyone says anything at all related to PMS, I know plenty of men who have blamed their mood or their body for behaving a certain way or doing/not doing something.) posted by dobbs at 8:50 PM on October 22, 2006
But dobbs, I think that's because you need to get out more. posted by davy at 8:55 PM on October 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
GEORGE: He gave me a wedgie.
JERRY: He got fired the next day.
ELAINE: Why do they call it a wedgie?
GEORGE: Because the underwear is pulled up from the back and ... it wedges in....
JERRY: They also have an atomic wedgie.... Very rare.
ELAINE: Boys are sick.
JERRY: Well, what do girls do ?
ELAINE: We just tease someone 'til they develop an eating disorder. posted by rob511 at 9:00 PM on October 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
Well, I was going to list "They don't give examples of what they're talking about," but, then, well... posted by dobbs at 9:01 PM on October 22, 2006
When is it ever reasonable to delete a question just because you don't like how some of the people responded? posted by Afroblanco at 9:03 PM on October 22, 2006
And now we should feel guilty I guess... posted by jouke at 9:03 PM on October 22, 2006
snsranch, that was a joke. There's a scene in the Eddie Murphy remake of the Nutty Professor where a hack comedian (played by Dave Chapelle) does a routine about things women do. And all he repeatedly says is "WOMAN BE SHOPPIN". So, I was putting forth, tongue in cheek, a weak, cliched observation that no one could possibly think I was serious about, except you I guess... posted by lovejones at 9:05 PM on October 22, 2006
a "dump on women" thread
You have to pay extra for that kind of action.
But I think the question should've been pulled myself. Oh well. Men are pigs, as usual. posted by bardic at 9:08 PM on October 22, 2006
I think "The Nutty Professor" remake is not within the common MeFi cultural base. posted by smackfu at 9:11 PM on October 22, 2006
The only comments that deserve to be deleted are those arguing with other replies. Answer the question or keep out of the thread. In the meantime, MeTa callouts need to specify exactly what their objection is — specifically, why is "dump on women" inappropriate for AskMe — and, as usual, a couple dozen commenters need to be taught that "sexism" and "misogyny" are not synonyms. posted by cribcage at 9:11 PM on October 22, 2006
everyone here has been guilty of dumping on the opposite sex all the time in daily life
Come again? EVERYONE? ALL the time? posted by grumblebee at 9:11 PM on October 22, 2006
typo grumblebee, put your hat back on. its not like you can go back and edit comments.
ah, fuck it. I've already proven I'm an asshole, which should be selfevident. I'm out. posted by lonefrontranger at 9:17 PM on October 22, 2006
You surely have noticed that "expecting me to be a mind-reader" is one of the most effective ways to annoy male Mefites -- aha, is THAT the point of this callout?
davy, I just saw your post in the green addressing me. I'm sorry, but, above, I thought you were joking.
Yes, I have been in heterosexual relationships. Plenty of them, thanks. (I've "blogged" about pretty much nothing but for 7 years.) I've lived with women in just about any scenario you can think of except marriage: as lovers (one for almost 4 years) and roommates (years) and friends (years) and dorm partners (years) and foster "siblings", and sisters and parents/guardians. Even as landlord/tenant and employer/help.
Here's the thing about women: under the right (or wrong) circumstances: they lie, they cheat, they steal; they're capable of awful, dreadful behaviour--just like you and me. Any man who says different not only knows nothing about women but nothing about himself, either. posted by dobbs at 9:21 PM on October 22, 2006 [2 favorites]
"I can't believe there are growed people who really think there are things women do in relationships that men don't."
Why? Whatever you believe is the genesis of the differences, I think it's clearly true that men and women behave differently in a number of reasonably predictable ways. I also think it's clearly true that whatever the genesis of this difference, men and women generally have predictable cognitive and behavioral differences in the domain of romantic relationships.
There will also be some argument about the comparative overall competency at relationships of men and women. This will be more murky and probably provocative. Personally, I think that women are more competent at romantic relationships than men are, though this generalized difference is small and not very predictive of individual behavior.
"I found this comment - from a woman - to be the most (but not only) disturbing thing thus far. 'I can't stand most women'?!"
I feel this way about men. Is that equally heinous and disturbing?
"Good lord, there's some disgusting stereotypes being bandied about over there. This question really brought the Neanderthals out of the woodwork. Just the first two jaw-droppers I saw:
'Also women have a huge problem with accountability, in or out of a relationship. They do something wrong and act as if it's not an issue or at least not their fault.'
-- Willie0248"
...which I agree is false. But the second thing you object to:
"'... for the most part men are pretty straightforward and mean what they say.'
-- Iron Rat"
Seems to me to be neither "Neanderthal" nor ugly nor false. I think that particularly in the realm of discussion of relationship issues between partners, men typically speak with less nuance than women do. Asserting this may seem to be an assertion that women are devious and don't mean what they say, but that's a fallacy. Instead, in my opinion, what's the case is that women tend to speak elliptically, with much more nuance, and sometimes the subtext is intended to be more important and significant than the text. posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:22 PM on October 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
That thread is about as chatfilter as it gets, IMHO.
Seriously, is there a specific question the poster needs answered?
First line of that question: "RelationshipFilter, for a female friend who's writing about this sort of thing: What annoying things do women do in relationships?"
Um, the admins have previously deleted questions with reasons like "This is not the place to poll people / do research" (paraphrased.) I dare say this falls into the same category. posted by madman at 9:22 PM on October 22, 2006
Sorry, I do know the correct usage of "neither". Really. posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:25 PM on October 22, 2006
I don't have time to read all the crap in that thread, but the question itself just begs for all the losers to come out of the woodwork and bitch about the awful women in their lives. (A quick review affirms this.) This was a train wreck you could see coming from the minute the question was posted. Given all the quick deletions for chat, I am amazed that the MeFi Ministry of Truth has allowed this to remain. This tripe has chat, chat and more chat, plus misogyny, what more could the censors ask for. posted by caddis at 9:26 PM on October 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
"Seriously, is there a specific question the poster needs answered? "
Yes, that would be: "What annoying things do women do in relationships?"
This is one of those questions that might be legit or might be chatfilter depending upon intent (because part of the very definition of chatfilter is the posting of a question in order to do nothing more than provoke a "chat" about a subject). And this is one of those questions where the poster adds detail in order to make clear his/her intentions in posting the question. In this case, the questioner has a friend who is writing on this topic. posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:27 PM on October 22, 2006
"but the question itself just begs for all the losers to come out of the woodwork and bitch about the awful women in their lives."
Yes, but I think the question is legit. It's just that it requires much more than usual moderation in order to weed out the comments from losers who are bitching. That additional work may or may not justify the utility of keeping the question. Matt or Jess get to make that determination. posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:30 PM on October 22, 2006
I keep checking back in on this thread expecting someone to step up and pull some weight. Do the right thing. But I'm feeling cheated now. Your cheating on me aren't you. Dammit you Bastard. You're Cheating!!!! Who is she? Who are you fucking behind my back? Bastard! posted by snsranch at 9:30 PM on October 22, 2006
Well, sorry if the thread does not live up to Oprah's standards of approval, but it's about real life, and that's not always pretty or picture-perfect. posted by clevershark at 9:31 PM on October 22, 2006
I think "The Nutty Professor" remake is not within the common MeFi cultural base.
Ah, so sorry, missed the "common MeFi cultural base" list in the FAQ—I'll get caught up, posthaste. Thanks for the heads up, buddy! posted by lovejones at 9:42 PM on October 22, 2006
Actually, pinksuperhero has a bit of a point. A lot of the stuff people are describing in the thread isn't specifically unique to women...
Where in the question is it specified that these should be things that men don't also do?
It's "What annoying things do women do in relationships?"
Valid answers may include:
Things that not all women do.
Things that are not unique to women.
The question even goes so far as to state that a whole "laundry-list" of annoying male traits has already been compiled. Presumably the end goal is to compare the lists and determine which annoying behaviours are shared, and which are gender-specific.
Some people here need to learn how to read questions carefully before dancing a knee-jerkey jig all over the grey. posted by nowonmai at 9:45 PM on October 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
The problem for me is that the question's asked as if it has objective answers, but the majority of what is said will be essentially subjective. Could there possibly be anything that's female-specific and objectively a dealbreaker in all relationships with all men? I mean, seriously: collecting dolls and stuffed animals? Hoarding shoes? Won't give head?
As it is, my female tendency to generalize merges all answers together into one great Manifesto Against Women, convincing me that all is doomed and I shall never ever have a successful relationship. *glances at makeup collection, realizes she's been cornered, bursts into tears* posted by granted at 9:58 PM on October 22, 2006
zoomorphic: I get rather catty when women tell me they think my lack of empathy and connection with other women—to the point where most women seriously annoy me—is "bragging" or some kind of front or a "capitulation to the mores of a male-dominated society." 'Cause it's not. In my case, at least, it's not "bragging," it's the way I was born—I was born more masculine than other females. I've always been that way. I've always had a desire to play with the boys, not the girls, to run and jump on the field and dig in the dirt for rocks. I have had dreams where my "persona" was male, and that seemed natural. At one point I identified so strongly with Luke Skywalker that I wanted to get a haircut like his. (Thankfully, my mother shot that down.)
I categorize myself as bisexual. Yet I am attracted to men—definitely more than I'm attracted to women. I find it easy to admire a woman's form, but incredibly difficult to get close to them emotionally.
For the record, I'm not gender-disordered—on the contrary, I'm pretty secure with my gender identity and sexuality. But I'm almost certainly not the only gender-atypical female MeFite, and you would do well to reexamine your puffed up reaction to women who are annoyed by other women. Some of those women may be gender-atypical, just like me. posted by limeonaire at 10:03 PM on October 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
If I wanted to get a good look at some of the prevailing sexist attitudes in a given population, I couldn't think of a better way to do it than that question. posted by owhydididoit at 10:05 PM on October 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
Although...it occurs to me that I did know a woman in college who continually claimed to be annoyed by other women, but who was actually a seriously annoying individual herself. Completely unconscious of the effect she had on others. People like that, I think, would share similar places in our respective hells, eh zoomorphic? posted by limeonaire at 10:11 PM on October 22, 2006
If I wanted to get a good look at some of the prevailing sexist attitudes in a given population, I couldn't think of a better way to do it than that question.
Regardless of the merit of some of the posts, it really does not seem like that is the case. Nearly every post there seems to be a result of direct personal experience. ( Hence why some of it is so heated. ) Nearly all of it is not people regurgitating sexist bullsit from UPN or *shudder* morning talkshows. (They play those in the little cafe where I get breakfast some mornings. Ye gawds are they terrible. Ellen and that one whose host is called Tyra or Tira or whatever especially.) I would not call an opinion which is the result of personal, often painful, experience a "prevailing attitude". posted by Riemann at 10:13 PM on October 22, 2006
"Re-interpreting whatever a man says, for the most part men are pretty straightforward and mean what they say. When I am talking to a woman I can sometimes see that look in her eye that tells me she is doing this."
Well that set some folks off, an example of what I mean is that if I say to a man "That was a pretty good meal" he hears that the food was good, but I have dealt with women who would think this was a negative comment on their usual cooking. I think someone might have interpreted this differently. posted by Iron Rat at 10:31 PM on October 22, 2006
Well that set some folks off, an example of what I mean is that if I say to a man "That was a pretty good meal" he hears that the food was good,
A man eating the meal with you or a man who just cooked the meal you ate?
but I have dealt with women who would think this was a negative comment on their usual cooking.
As would many cooks, chefs, bakers, chocolatiers... etc., myself included.
And this:
for the most part men are pretty straightforward and mean what they say.
Literally made me laugh out loud. posted by dobbs at 10:35 PM on October 22, 2006
If the question was "Annoying, dealbreaker-level things men do in relationships" And people answered with a bunch of the same sort of stereotypical responses, maybe a couple of stories about men treating women like shit, what would the response be? I doubt anyone would be calling it sexist. I really dont think that anyone would be kicking up such a fuss. Im pretty sure the typical response from men would be a - "yeah I guess some of us are assholes huh" posted by phyle at 10:40 PM on October 22, 2006
I categorize myself as bisexual.
And here we have yet another shining example of "bisexuals" who make lesbians wanna barf. posted by digitalis at 10:59 PM on October 22, 2006
As God is my witness, I got that exact question in an email from a female friend earlier today. The quoted text in the (m.i.) and the main question are copy-and-pasted from her email.
Just after I posted it, my girlfriend spontaneiously called from Taco Bell drive thru to see what I wanted. So I was of little use to my friend, obviously, so I figured I'd ask here.
If I had to do it again, I wouldn't; I'd just ask a few real live actual humans, rather than setting up a thread that could easily seem super super negative and could easily make people all mad. posted by ibmcginty at 11:12 PM on October 22, 2006
Are you fucking kidding me, digitalis? What exactly do you mean by that?
Do you mean to say that I'm a "bisexual" in name only, or that my bisexuality is somehow less legitimate because I find it difficult to relate to other women and shack up with men? I'm not a queer's queer or something? posted by limeonaire at 11:15 PM on October 22, 2006
I find the human behaviour of enthusiastically seeking to ascribe gender as the cause for any human behaviour to be odd. I blame your humanity. posted by peacay at 11:20 PM on October 22, 2006
And here we have yet another shining example of "bisexuals" who make lesbians wanna barf.
That's a pretty hateful thing to write. posted by rdr at 11:21 PM on October 22, 2006
What the hell? Now we've got lesbians hating on bisexuals who aren't women-centric? Christ, what a bloodbath. posted by jmhodges at 11:25 PM on October 22, 2006 [4 favorites]
Er, bisexual women. Way to go, Jeff. posted by jmhodges at 11:29 PM on October 22, 2006
[[laughs]] Meta-meta, this thread is awesome. posted by limeonaire at 11:31 PM on October 22, 2006
The problem for me is that the question's asked as if it has objective answers, but the majority of what is said will be essentially subjective.
In what way isn't this chatfilter? I don't get it. posted by Sparx at 11:32 PM on October 22, 2006
We all should really have to qualify every little thing we say, so that anything that could possibly sounds like a generalization in order to shorten the point being made is instead trailed incessantly into a massive paragraph.
I (Kickstart, KS, Greg) like (love some, hate some) women (and girls and a lot of guys too and I mean womEn because I think womYn is sexist) because (for more than these reasons) they (again, women/girls and some guys) are (can be, will be, often are, should be) nice (and cool, but sometimes ok, but really only when I feel like they are being nice to me specifically).
Or maybe all the listeners to my statements could just assume that I don't have time and/or inclination to say all that just to make a simple point. I'm beginning to wonder if the internet is a bad thing just because people don't spend quiet time by themselves. posted by Kickstart70 at 11:43 PM on October 22, 2006 [3 favorites]
Many people are annoying. Approximately half of those people are women.
Preach on, Brotha Stav. Preach on. posted by The God Complex at 11:44 PM on October 22, 2006
Caddis pretty much nailed it. The problem with the thread is that it provides very little useful or interesting insight into female relationship behavior beyond angry "Cliches About Women 101" (Women Nag, Women Sometimes Say One Thing But Mean Another, Women Get Jealous Easily, Women Try to Change Their Man Once They Get Into A Relationship, Women Don't Give Up Sex As Much Once They've Landed Their Guy")
Seriously, comments like this:
My ex would never say she was sorry. Even if we got in a fight over something and I was able to PROVE that I was right!
If that was the case, then she just didn't want to talk about it.
reveal very little about female behavior in general, but does reveal a hell of a lot about the commenter. posted by The Gooch at 11:47 PM on October 22, 2006 [1 favorite]
Research-for-something-somebody's-writing question is posted, practically begs people to post their bitter personal experiences with annoying women in relationships. Commenters in complaining about exes, reveal themselves to be the true annoying one. Genders continue to not get along, people continue to be annoying. More in a stunning exposé on The Evening News with Matt Haughey and Jessamyn West @ 7 PM tommorrow evening. posted by blasdelf at 12:14 AM on October 23, 2006
The only offensive parts (to me) are where commenters claim that all or most women act in a certain way, or that by contrast, most men act in a certain superior way. posted by grouse at 12:16 AM on October 23, 2006
And here we have yet another shining example of "bisexuals" who make lesbians wanna barf.
Why is it that when women get lost, they never ask for directions, but instead drive round and round in some misplaced sense of superiority. posted by seanyboy at 12:25 AM on October 23, 2006
Because the scenery in misplaced sense of superiority is so nice. posted by chrismear at 1:07 AM on October 23, 2006
In what way isn't this chatfilter? I don't get it.
I agree with you Sparx, especially since now the thread seems to have devolved into Things I Personally Do Not Like in a Mate, and Things That People I Once Knew Did That Annoyed Me And This Is Relevant Because They Happened to Be Female. Both actually case studies on the random preferences of the poster rather than answering the question at all, which specifically requested that petty grievances be excluded. I don't really see how the discussion could have gone any other way, though. posted by granted at 1:19 AM on October 23, 2006
I thought it was men who refused to ask for directions and drove around and around? Now my gender stereotypes are all confused. posted by Jon Mitchell at 2:25 AM on October 23, 2006
And this is one of those questions where the poster adds detail in order to make clear his/her intentions in posting the question. In this case, the questioner has a friend who is writing on this topic.
Exactly my point. Matt has previously deleted questions that were asked as part of research for articles (I wish I could dig them up, but they were deleted, so search doesn't work).
This question casts a ridiculously wide net. Look, there are some 6 billion+ people on this planet, and about half of them are women. If you ask a few thousand people what they don't like women doing in a relationship, you'll get as many answers as there are people. It's a crapfest.
I don't think "friend doing research for an article" qualifies as a genuine "problem to be solved" as per the guidelines.
(Could you think of marking "best answer" for any of the answers in that thread?)
I suppose one of the admins will be along shortly to comment on this issue. posted by madman at 2:32 AM on October 23, 2006
Best. Thread. Ever. posted by public at 2:43 AM on October 23, 2006
Yeah, I ♥ this thread, and the original post. It cheered up my morning immensely. posted by Aidan Kehoe at 3:32 AM on October 23, 2006
lonefrontranger, I'm sorry if I humiliated you over a typo. It didn't occur to me that it might be a mistake. That was dumb of me. I am officially slapping my wrist. posted by grumblebee at 3:35 AM on October 23, 2006
What annoying things do women do in relationships?
They don't fall in love with me. Then they break my heart, and make me go away.
Damn you, Metafilter, I come here to try to forget this shit! posted by Meatbomb at 3:39 AM on October 23, 2006 [3 favorites]
Where in the question is it specified that these should be things that men don't also do?
The part where it asks for things women do. As in not men. 'Cause there's no real point in posting things that men do also. Since it's asking for things WOMEN do.
The question even goes so far as to state that a whole "laundry-list" of annoying male traits has already been compiled.
Read it again, please.. It specifically says "I realized, while I could write a laundry list of toxic things men do to sour a relationship, I have basically no idea what sets off men."
There is NO statement that a list for men has already been compiled. It says that she COULD write a list, which implies she hasn't.
Presumably the end goal is to compare the lists and determine which annoying behaviours are shared, and which are gender-specific.
Doesn't sound like it. She's just looking for a list of annoying things women do so she can write something about it.
Some people here need to learn how to read questions carefully before dancing a knee-jerkey jig all over the grey.
I agree, so please take dance lessons. posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:48 AM on October 23, 2006
I'd be offended by the post in question if most of the answers weren't in many instances very, very true. I am a woman, btw. posted by cellphone at 4:45 AM on October 23, 2006
I can't stand how chicks are always getting their menstrual blood all over my 45s. Mark your territory over yonder sister, this relationship is ovah. posted by dgaicun at 4:54 AM on October 23, 2006 [2 favorites]
I almost never mean what you think I mean, even though I'm saying exactly what I mean. posted by Captaintripps at 4:55 AM on October 23, 2006
Holy. Different does not mean unequal. We gloss over differences enough in the name of equality. It just isn't necessary.
Take one of the first examples proferred: nagging. When my sig other wants me to do something and is impatient, she nags, and it drives me up the wall (and I dig my heels in, making it worse). When I want her to do something and I'm impatient, I get up and do it myself, and it drives her up the wall. Very different, and one might argue, very gender-role influenced.
But of course it's not enough for some people to say that we're equal; we have to be identical. What a crock. posted by dreamsign at 5:12 AM on October 23, 2006 [1 favorite]
"Isn't it horrible the way that media and society condition women to think of themselves as valuable only insofar as they are sexually attractive to men and that to be so they must conform to an unrealistic body standard? Yes it is. And this sexist coercion produces dysfunctions which manifest itself in many ways, including in relationship problems where women are insecure about their sexual attractiv..." ON N0ES! HE'S ASSERTING GENDER STEREOTYPES! Because men and women behave in relationships in exactly the same way. All right thinking people know this to be true.
"Men are conditioned by our society to suppress their expression of emotion and to think of emotions as weaknesses to be overcome (excepting anger, which is useful). Additionally, they are taught to solve problems with direct and practical solutions without a lot of initial analysis. These two tendencies result in relationship problems where men avoid confronting underlying emotional conflicts and instead focus on superficial solut..." ON N0ES! HE'S ASSERTING GENDER STEREOTYPES! Because men and and behave in relationships in exactly the same way. All right thinking people know this to be true. posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:20 AM on October 23, 2006
How naive does one have to be not to know the answer to this question already? Honestly. Watch some fucking sitcoms/soaps, read a book or listen to some music and you would have gotten exactly the same answers. There is nothing in that entire list of 'answers' that I haven't heard a million times before (from/about both genders).
The only reason to post it to AskMe is to create chatfilter noise. posted by slimepuppy at 5:28 AM on October 23, 2006
Eating noisily.
Overusing the color pink, in any form
Whoah! Mr. Gunn, you need to stop dating five-year-olds! ;)
Yes, it's icky, but I doubt we'd do any better with the male/annoying thing, if that's any help at all.
It isn't, really, is it? posted by taz at 5:35 AM on October 23, 2006
I don't agree that everyone in the thread is answering the question, which is about male/female relationship dealbreakers. It seems that a lot are using the opportunity to basically list every single thing any woman has done in the past that's irked them. Sorry, I don't buy that having too many shoes or using tofu instead of beef are relationship dealbreakers, as amusing as those comments might be. And the wonderful 'women are shitty' comment from orange swan has nothing to do with men and why they break up with women; rather, it seems she saw a chance to dump on her ex-roommates and took that dump. So yeah, there's a lot of dumpage and crappage in the thread. I don't care if it gets deleted or not, but to insist that the question and answers are totally legit and useful somehow is disingenuous. posted by iconomy at 5:43 AM on October 23, 2006 [1 favorite]
I don't have time to read all the crap in that thread, but the question itself just begs for all the losers to come out of the woodwork and bitch about the awful women in their lives. (A quick review affirms this.) This was a train wreck you could see coming from the minute the question was posted. Given all the quick deletions for chat, I am amazed that the MeFi Ministry of Truth has allowed this to remain. This tripe has chat, chat and more chat, plus misogyny, what more could the censors ask for.
What he said.
Also, one of the things that's so depressing about age-old, ingrained sexism is the self-hatred it produces in so many women. posted by languagehat at 6:00 AM on October 23, 2006 [2 favorites]
have to agree with iconomy. Maybe due to the phrasing of the question -- the initial sentence, it's own paragraph, reads: RelationshipFilter, for a female friend who's writing about this sort of thing: What annoying things do women do in relationships?
No mention of dealbreakers, till the "more detail from her" second paragraph (and the headline, mind you).
The subject of "dealbreakers" is actually an interesting question, and not well addressed here. I wonder how much reality differs from Seinfeld on that issue (I hope a great deal, but I don't know -- hey, someone should ask Mefi!). posted by dreamsign at 6:02 AM on October 23, 2006
And the wonderful 'women are shitty' comment from orange swan has nothing to do with men and why they break up with women; rather, it seems she saw a chance to dump on her ex-roommates and took that dump.
Please quote me correctly. I did not say "women are shitty"; I said they do shitty things. You're not going to try to claim that they don't, surely? So do men, of course, but the thread wasn't asking for comments about the sort of things that men tend to do in relationships.
And of course I am aware that men do cry during fights and write ten page letters about how horrible their partners are, but my experience is that they are much less likely to, and therefore I included those things in my contribution to a thread about the sort of dealbreaking things women do. There are other things on the list that were much more universal (women have no monopoly on the horrible habit of critiquing and commenting on everything) but in general I weighed my experience with women against my experience with men and tried to write about things that came more often from women. YMMV.
And damn right I feel free to write about my ex-roommates. Living with them taught me a lot about how it feels to be on the receiving end of such behaviour and made me realize that both genders are equally hard to live with. I used to sometimes cry during fights, and since having that roommate I have never done it again. posted by orange swan at 6:11 AM on October 23, 2006
I love that thread - it should provide a great roadmap for me to learn who to take seriously and who to ignore. posted by madamjujujive at 6:13 AM on October 23, 2006 [2 favorites]
When my sig other wants me to do something and is impatient, she nags, and it drives me up the wall (and I dig my heels in, making it worse). When I want her to do something and I'm impatient, I get up and do it myself, and it drives her up the wall.
If it were the other way around, we'd be hearing, "When I want my sig other to do something, I just ask her directly. When she wants me to do something, she gets all impatient and does it herself. Why are women so passive-aggressive instead of being upfront about what they want??" posted by transona5 at 6:26 AM on October 23, 2006
I don't have time to read all the crap in that thread, but the question itself just begs for all the losers to come out of the woodwork and bitch about the awful women in their lives. (A quick review affirms this.) This was a train wreck you could see coming from the minute the question was posted.
you can't say it any better than that posted by matteo at 6:27 AM on October 23, 2006
Sorry, I don't buy that having too many shoes or using tofu instead of beef are relationship dealbreakers, as amusing as those comments might be.
Buy it. I won't date vegetarians. posted by solid-one-love at 6:27 AM on October 23, 2006
And here we have yet another shining example of "bisexuals" who make lesbians wanna barf.
Here we have the reason that hetero male fantasies of lesbianism are so fantastical. posted by econous at 6:32 AM on October 23, 2006
dreamsign, If all of the examples of "annoying female relationship traits" in the thread were as distinct and well-explained as the one you gave above then I don't think you'd have seen a call out (or at least it would have been undeserved). Your example does illustrate a clear and significant difference between genders in how they tend to behave in romantic relationships.
I see a big difference, though, between examples like yours and what the thread is mostly filled with - "Woman Nag", "Woman Eat Tofu and I Needs My Red Meat" and especially, "A Woman I Dated One Time Could Never Admit When I Was Right When We Fought"
I don't think it's the case that people think men and woman are identical (and I would agree that anyone who did try to do so is being blatantly dishonest that all specific annoying behavior in relationships can be equally attributed to men and women). It's that most of the answers are either
A) Too cliche to be worth posting in the first place
or
B) People airing non-relevant grievances that have very little to do with gender differences. posted by The Gooch at 6:46 AM on October 23, 2006 [1 favorite]
I don't have time to read all the crap in that thread, but the question itself just begs for all the losers to come out of the woodwork and bitch about (insert topic here) in their lives. (A quick review affirms this.) This was a train wreck you could see coming from the minute the question was posted.
Yeah. Too bad we can't have more great questions like this to counteract the inevitable immaturity. posted by prostyle at 6:46 AM on October 23, 2006
When my sig other wants me to do something and is impatient, she nags, and it drives me up the wall (and I dig my heels in, making it worse). When I want her to do something and I'm impatient, I get up and do it myself, and it drives her up the wall.
If it were the other way around, we'd be hearing, "When I want my sig other to do something, I just ask her directly. When she wants me to do something, she gets all impatient and does it herself. Why are women so passive-aggressive instead of being upfront about what they want??"
That's a tad bizarre, transona5. It's no picnic for her when I ask her to do something and instead of giving her time to finish whatever she's doing at the moment I lose my patience and storm off and do it instead. I've had that done to me and it sucks. She has her annoying manifestation of impatience and I have mine. Any "I'm better than her" in that equation is you projecting.
Lots of that today. posted by dreamsign at 6:48 AM on October 23, 2006
Total chatfilter. There is no "problem to be solved" "solution to be given". The original poster even stated above that he probably wasn't even going to use the answers. He also stated in the question itself that he thought it might be chatfiltery. Flagged. posted by hooray at 6:48 AM on October 23, 2006
And here we have yet another shining example of "bisexuals" who make lesbians wanna barf.
People who don't see the world the way you do make you wanna barf? posted by jonmc at 6:50 AM on October 23, 2006
"If all of the examples of 'annoying female relationship traits' in the thread were as distinct and well-explained as the one you gave above then I don't think you'd have seen a call out (or at least it would have been undeserved)."
Sure, and that's the essence of the callout. But in this subsequent thread, a great many people have asserted that the question is egregiously bad, both in being chatfilter and that there can be no objective answers to it. Some have asserted that any answer will be sexist. Many have asserted that most answers will inevitably be sexist. They've been very morally smug about these assertions, as well. All this I object to.
As it happens, I've not actually read the answers to the question and I'm not particularly interested in doing so. I'm pretty sure I already know most of the actually true generalizations. I suspect that there's a bunch of crap posted in the thread. But as I think I wrote earlier, that just means more work for the admins, not that the question deserves to be deleted. posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:53 AM on October 23, 2006
Geez. I woke up this morning and found that AskMe and MeTa had exploded. Pity there's no going back and inserting an extra word or two:
[some] women do...
[a particular] woman does...
Generalizations and cliches are a sure fire way to piss everybody off. posted by Robert Angelo at 6:55 AM on October 23, 2006
Generalizations and cliches are a sure fire way to piss everybody off.
Any "I'm better than her" in that equation is you projecting.
My point isn't that you think you're better than her; it's not really about you at all. It's that most of these gender-difference assumptions are not falsifiable; no matter what an individual woman or man does, it's going to be seen as a confirmation of some stereotype. Your example was intended to show that men and women are not "identical," but the differences between you and your girlfriend don't translate into other pairs of men and women being non-identical in the exact same way. posted by transona5 at 7:10 AM on October 23, 2006
I think the beloved comedian, Sinbad, said it best:
"Women be diffn't than men!"
Then he went on to explain the ways in which females are, in fact, different than males. It really made me think. If you listen, really listen to Sinbad, you may laugh, cry and maybe learn a little something about yourself. posted by KevinSkomsvold at 7:15 AM on October 23, 2006 [2 favorites]
Oh, I agree with you there, solid-one-love, that would be a dealbreaker for me too, if I wanted to eat meat. I'd also not date a smoker, or rather, I would break up with someone if they started smoking during our relationship. I was referring to this comment:
It's not dinner if there's no meat. I may eat your (tofu/eggplant/pasta) magic anyway, but I'm tellin' you now, I'm gettin' dinner later
The occasional use of meatless pasta as a dealbreaker did make me laugh. I know you men take *your meat very very seriously though, so maybe it's not as funny as I thought it was.
*can be interpreted in several ways posted by iconomy at 7:16 AM on October 23, 2006
It's that most of these gender-difference assumptions are not falsifiable; …
I suspect that living according to those assumptions in human interaction that are falsifiable in a Popperian sense, and by those alone, is a road doomed to ostracism. posted by Aidan Kehoe at 7:17 AM on October 23, 2006 [2 favorites]
iconomy: "Oh, I agree with you there, solid-one-love, that would be a dealbreaker for me too, if I wanted to eat meat. I'd also not date a smoker, "
Meat with no smoke? Barbaric, I tell ya, barbaric!
of course this could explain my dating cold-spell between 1963 and 1997.... posted by KevinSkomsvold at 7:21 AM on October 23, 2006
It's that most of these gender-difference assumptions are not falsifiable; no matter what an individual woman or man does, it's going to be seen as a confirmation of some stereotype. Your example was intended to show that men and women are not "identical," but the differences between you and your girlfriend don't translate into other pairs of men and women being non-identical in the exact same way.
Oh cool, I read you now.
Well sure, these can all be stereotype fodder, as product or fuel. But I don't know... I say X and you say X and jimbo says X and maybe the poster says hmm, maybe X. It's not science but neither is AskMe. If the thread wasn't intended to generate observations, what was it intended to generate? Social psych articles?
FWIW, I'm pretty sure that my sig other would agree with my particular observation in this thread. Whether others can say the same I cannot say. Such is the nature of AskMe. posted by dreamsign at 7:23 AM on October 23, 2006
I opened the thread to see if there were any "dealbreaker" behaviors I might be guilty of, was somewhat encouraged that there weren't right off the bat, kept reading and got completely repulsed right around Brandon Blatcher's comment.
Stopped reading. I was afraid I'd see someone I like spouting similar shit.
Avoidant? Yeah. But is that a dealbreaker? posted by CunningLinguist at 7:25 AM on October 23, 2006
Male people dance like this, female people dance like this. posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:35 AM on October 23, 2006
If this thread had been about "dealbreakers you've encountered with whomever/whatever you've dated", I suspect we'd see almost exactly the same content, but with far fewer objections. It's the notion that women in general have some sort of specific set of failings that men are free from that's getting people upset.
And I can definitely see their point, but mostly people who posted in that thread are just trying to answer the question as posted. Yes, we've made generalizations that practically beg to be argued, but this is a questions that solicits general observations.
My guess is that the woman who wanted to write about this was working on an assignment for a women's magazine. One of those "Ten Things You Could Be Doing to Sabotage Your Relationship" pieces. And if I could speak to the OP, I'd recommend that she cast the article in gender neutral terms so as to avoid sexism and maximize value. posted by orange swan at 7:37 AM on October 23, 2006
Stopped reading. I was afraid I'd see someone I like spouting similar shit.
Avoidant? Yeah. But is that a dealbreaker?
Yes, that's a total dealbreaker, CunningLinguist. We are so over. And I'M TAKING THE GOLDFISH AND THE TOASTER. posted by orange swan at 7:43 AM on October 23, 2006
There's no doubt that some of the responses in that thread are idiotic or specifically targeted towards one woman in particular that pissed off the commenter. It's also obvious (to me, anyway), that many of the responses cand and do apply to both genders. However, I'm amazed that people found it in themselves to be offended by the thread.
People, what do you think that men talk about when there are no women around? Surely, we talk about many subjects, but foremost among them is the women in our lives, and how they drive us crazy. This doesn't mean that we don't love them, it just means that we don't understand them, and this lack of understanding is a constant source of frustration in our lives. And don't pretend that you women don't have similar conversations.
The only new thing in this equation is that, through The Magic of The Internet (tm), girls may now listen in on the boys' locker room conversation, and vice versa. posted by Afroblanco at 7:49 AM on October 23, 2006
I get your point, Afroblanco, but I didn't think locker room bullshit sessions were the purpose of AskMeta. Correct me I'm wrong. posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:55 AM on October 23, 2006 [1 favorite]
In my case, at least, it's not "bragging," it's the way I was born—I was born more masculine than other females. I've always been that way. I've always had a desire to play with the boys, not the girls, to run and jump on the field and dig in the dirt for rocks.
I think what is irritating to other women is the suggestion that you're particularly unusual in this regard. A high proportion of girls run around and climb trees as kids. Those are really the gender neutral kinds of play - blowing shit up, serious war games etc, are the male stereotype.
basically, why not just avoid the stereotypes altogether instead of saying, "women, minus me 'cause I'm special, have these negative traits"? What benefit do we get from grouping all women under an umbrella? We can just say we don't relate to people who are obsessed with clothes & handbags, or who are insecure and easily emotionally hurt, or whatever. Also, it kinda specifically supports the stereotype of women as "catty", which is to say, of putting each other down over ultimately quite incidental things. A person who loves shoes or has a sensitive nature is not automatically less intelligent or insightful than you. posted by mdn at 8:00 AM on October 23, 2006 [4 favorites]
TPS - Maybe so, and maybe not. As others have mentioned, the thread may (or may not) fit into the category of "chatfilter." However, what I don't get is the level of righteous indignation over the content of the thread itself. posted by Afroblanco at 8:01 AM on October 23, 2006
*blows shit up* posted by jonmc at 8:09 AM on October 23, 2006
why not just avoid the stereotypes altogether instead of saying, "women, minus me 'cause I'm special, have these negative traits"?
Amen, mdn. posted by grouse at 8:10 AM on October 23, 2006
Just out of curiosity, TPS, does this not meet the "purpose" of AskMeta because "writing research" is like ignorance of the law? (might be true but would become everyone's excuse) Or is it because writing research is in fact not good enough to waste people's time on? (because of lack of a clear "best answer" and so on, as some have suggested.)
Either way, I expect every "writing research" question to be Meta'd from here on out whether it include locker room content or someone asking for an article what the best way is to get grass stains off a white shirt, since it's the purpose you're taking issue with.
on preview: yes, I'm sure the righteous indignation comes from the blatant misuse of AskMeta. posted by dreamsign at 8:10 AM on October 23, 2006
dreamsign, I think you're missing my point- Afroblanco justified the thread by saying this is what men talk about in the locker room. I didn't think that particiular justification made any sense, so I said so. Any more questions? posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:34 AM on October 23, 2006 [1 favorite]
1. thepinksuperhero wears pink well, so lay off.
2. everybody just fuckin' relax already. posted by jonmc at 8:43 AM on October 23, 2006
rag jon? Is that like a rag doll dressed like me? just don't stick pins in it, ok? posted by jonmc at 8:46 AM on October 23, 2006
When he was just a kid his clothes were hand me downs
They always laughed at him when she came into town
Called him Rag Jon, little Rag Jon
Such a pretty face should be dressed in lace
I'd change his sad rags into glad rags if I could
My folks won't let me cause they say that he's no good
He's a Rag Jon, such a Rag Jon
Though I love him so I can't let him know posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:50 AM on October 23, 2006 [1 favorite]
Afro neither justified the thread nor needed to by reference to locker room behaviour. He referenced such behaviour as the reason for his surprise at how offended people got -- did they grow up in a bubble? Did they not imagine this is how people talk?
The justification for the thread comes from the legitimacy of the question, not if the posters responding touch a nerve. So if the legitimacy of the question is tied to the "purpose", I was just asking for more clarification on where "writing research" fits in, since it seems to be treated with equal parts dismissiveness and suspicion.
Really, it'd be no big deal if AskMeta was limited to factual questions, but a far bigger deal to me has been the fpp'ing of articles for the apparent sole purpose of starting a conversation, with no real intent to discuss the article. AskMeta is a much more take-it-or-leave-it forum. Who reads every single question? posted by dreamsign at 8:52 AM on October 23, 2006
Afroblanco justified the thread by saying this is what men talk about in the locker room.
People, what do you think that men talk about when there are no women around? Surely, we talk about many subjects, but foremost among them is the women in our lives, and how they drive us crazy.
You're clearly speaking for a lot of men, but I don't know any of them. The guys I know, we talk about politics and music and football — common interests. In fact, when women aren't around, there's very little discussion of people at all. posted by cribcage at 9:03 AM on October 23, 2006
Also, please don't misconstrue my comments as defending the bitterness that some men have for women. Bitter people suck, and they project their insecurities onto others in the most regrettable fashion.
However, I'm rarely offended when I hear men or women bitching about the opposite sex. It's too boring and typical a thing to really be offended by, in my opinion. posted by Afroblanco at 9:11 AM on October 23, 2006
Hehe. Has anyone actually looked at that thread recently? posted by taz at 9:13 AM on October 23, 2006
oh, garsh - never mind... I was totally stung by transona5's regender link. For a minute I thought mattamyn had changed all the pronouns.
Actually, for about 15 minutes. Good idea, though! posted by taz at 9:42 AM on October 23, 2006
"There is a very good purpose for this. We are imperfect human beings. The more we know about ourselves and the more we learn the better off we ALL are."
Whatta loada bullshit. And perhaps if we all meditate on "Bitches won't swallow," we can become more loving people.
"He referenced such behaviour as the reason for his surprise at how offended people got -- did they grow up in a bubble? Did they not imagine this is how people talk?"
This is how emotional retards talk, frankly. All the "and sometimes they mean something else" is either so fucking self-evident as to not need discussion or so fucking played out by the time adulthood comes that any guy who wastes my time with such shallow and unreflective feelings talk can get the hell out. I have time for my friends to talk about relationships, but my pals are all bright enough to know that we date people, not populations.
"You're clearly speaking for a lot of men, but I don't know any of them. The guys I know, we talk about politics and music and football — common interests. In fact, when women aren't around, there's very little discussion of people at all."
No doubt, cribcage.
The question should be axed, and has revealed that a lot lot lot of MeFi men are total douchebags when it comes to relationships. Not to say that they wouldn't be good to grab a beer with, but christ, what fuckin' whiners. posted by klangklangston at 9:45 AM on October 23, 2006 [5 favorites]
Metafilter: Nothing but heartaches and "daddy didn't love me" posted by Flashman at 10:02 AM on October 23, 2006
That reminds me, chicks are always dragging their douchebags into the relationship. I'm trying to watch the game! posted by dgaicun at 10:05 AM on October 23, 2006 [1 favorite]
People, what do you think that men talk about when there are no women around? Surely, we talk about many subjects, but foremost among them is the women in our lives, and how they drive us crazy. This doesn't mean that we don't love them, it just means that we don't understand them, and this lack of understanding is a constant source of frustration in our lives.
Speak for yourself. Some of us are grown-ups.
The question should be axed, and has revealed that a lot lot lot of MeFi men are total douchebags when it comes to relationships.
"And here we have yet another shining example of 'bisexuals' who make lesbians wanna barf."
So digitalis, are you a lesbian or even a Natural Born Female? posted by davy at 10:15 AM on October 23, 2006
Between this gray thread and the green one it purports to criticize, one appears to be full of self-important pricks. The thing is, that it might not be one you think. posted by clevershark at 10:16 AM on October 23, 2006 [1 favorite]
You're clearly speaking for a lot of men, but I don't know any of them. The guys I know, we talk about politics and music and football — common interests. In fact, when women aren't around, there's very little discussion of people at all.
Definately. I couldn't tell you the relationship status of half my friends. One of us could get divorced and re-married and it probably wouldn't come up in conversation. posted by octothorpe at 10:16 AM on October 23, 2006
Oh and that AskMefi should have been deleted long ago. It's a stupid question that was bound to get nothing but stupid answers. posted by octothorpe at 10:31 AM on October 23, 2006
I thought it was a horrible question, inappropriate for AskMeFi and am really surprised that it remains. I flagged, as I'm sure others did. There's no concrete answer, as AskMeFi requires; it's a bitching session where people can list their grievances with no conclusion. I don't think the fact that it hasn't totally delved into "bitchez and hoz" is reason enough to keep it around. It breaks the guidelines. posted by Zosia Blue at 10:32 AM on October 23, 2006
And here we have yet another shining example of "bisexuals" who make lesbians wanna barf.
Oh Jesus fuck. The very question asked that one say negative things about women, things that provoke breaking up with them, and it excluded saying negative things about men. And the problem with it seems to be that ‘it’s turning into a "dump on women" thread.’ This is not a legitimate criticism.
A legitimate criticism is that most of the answers are not ‘dealbreakers.’ But I don't think anyone’s mentioned that in the metatalk thread. posted by Aidan Kehoe at 12:09 PM on October 23, 2006
And here we have yet another shining example of "bisexuals" who make lesbians wanna barf.
I know this has been touched on before, but...
Jesus, could you be any more pig-headed/less tolerant? posted by kdar at 12:31 PM on October 23, 2006
Aidan Kehoe, way up in the thread it was mentioned here and here and here. There's probably more. posted by hooray at 12:39 PM on October 23, 2006
Hooray, thanks. It did occur to me to search for the text after my post, d’oh. posted by Aidan Kehoe at 12:42 PM on October 23, 2006
I'm so glad I have a browser that just lets me flag and ignore questions I find uninteresting or stupid, unlike so many other people. posted by phearlez at 12:45 PM on October 23, 2006
internet males flock to a website to bitch about relationship dealbreakers, regardless of the fact that they haven't touched a woman since the clinton administration. posted by naxosaxur at 12:48 PM on October 23, 2006
"internet males flock to a website to bitch about relationship dealbreakers, regardless of the fact that they haven't touched a woman since the clinton administration."
Ah, but if you went to more meetups, that would be so much less true. posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:51 PM on October 23, 2006
No wonder we have so much trouble getting women to show up to meetups ;-) posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 1:15 PM on October 23, 2006 [1 favorite]
The existence of this thread proves one point that it tries to combat.
Meta- indeed.
Very good everybody. posted by jouke at 1:33 PM on October 23, 2006
What benefit do we get from grouping all women under an umbrella?
Well, I don't want to sound like a self-hating bitch airing her grievances with no conclusion, honest, but, if you ask me, it sure beats having women with umbrellas big enough to group at least fourteen flatmates under them and yet not wanting to share. Isn't that, like, so typically selfish?
Now that'd be a dealbreaker for me. If I was a lesbian. In the rain. Barfing and gagging and all. I'd probably need some maalox too, but women never share that either! They never even carry maalox because hey it's a guys thing, ulcer. Since when? man, I can't stand other women sometimes.
And don't get me started on Croatian women. I dated these two guys and they both cheated on me with the same bisexual gym trainer, Croatian champion of weighlifting 2003, ooh. And she was my friend. I introduced them. See, the way women can stab you in the back, like no man ever does? Well I suppose I just wasn't masculine enough to carry the double bed on my own up the stairs to the fifth floor without nagging and bitching about it because I had my periods. It may not be a kick in the nuts but it sure feels like it. Of course she doesn't get her periods, she's on steroids. Bitch.
So, yeah, you bet I can't stand Croatians either now. Yeah I know I'm not supposed to say stuff like that. But were you ever cheated on with a Croatian weightlifting bisexual? No? Then you have no idea how pissed off I am. Being pissed off at one Croatian, or one woman, or one bisexual, is not enough. I need to be hating the whole umbrella. One big umbrella to group them all under, then set fire to it.
And don't give me none of that 'let it all out, learn from our human imperfections' bullshit. I'm on the Zoloft to keep from imperfecting y'all, dude.
...ok I've been reading too much metafilter in one go, and my gag reflexes aren't what they used to be, it all came back up... posted by pleeker at 1:34 PM on October 23, 2006 [4 favorites]
Ah, blah blah blah. posted by naxosaxur at 2:52 PM on October 23, 2006
"internet males flock to a website to bitch about relationship dealbreakers, regardless of the fact that they haven't touched a woman since the clinton administration."
Yeah, but let's be fair - the Clinton era was a great time to touch women. posted by Afroblanco at 3:24 PM on October 23, 2006
I did not have sextouch break a deal with that woman. posted by hangashore at 3:36 PM on October 23, 2006
croatian women will eventually rule the world - to other women they are a danger that must be stopped - i have seen british women weeping on their return from hrvatska.
ThePinkSuperhero, I recommend you just adopt a move from Sgt. Serenity's playbook: Post an AskMe about annoying dealbreaking- level things men do in relationships.
posted by lobstah at 3:38 AM GMT on October 23
Ok, i admit it , i sit with my daily reading of sun tzu before i log on to mefi. posted by sgt.serenity at 3:38 PM on October 23, 2006
late, but what the heck: I cannot count the number of times I've heard immature men blame a women being angry on PMS. THAT is annoying as hell. Sometimes the men are just being stupid, we don't have our periods 24/7. But when we do, it HURTS for most of us, and yeah, it can make us angry.
Most women have the choice of eliminating their period. Under-the-skiin hormonal contraceptives can be used, or you can simply not do the no-Pill/sugar-Pill week of the Pill regime. Either way, you do not need to bleed.
There is a line of thought that posits that in pre-contraceptives times, ie. most of human evolutionary history, women had far fewer periods than they do now: much of the time they were pregnant or lactating, naturally repressing their periods throughout most of their adult lives.
Anyway, it's optional now. You don't have to hurt. posted by five fresh fish at 4:15 PM on October 23, 2006
> In my case, at least, it's not "bragging," it's the way I was born—I was born more masculine
> than other females. I've always been that way. I've always had a desire to play with the boys,
> not the girls, to run and jump on the field and dig in the dirt for rocks.
So, wanna go out back and set fire to some plastic soldiers? posted by jfuller at 4:46 PM on October 23, 2006
The askme is dubious, but this callout is beyond silly.
Any answer to the question is inevitably a generalization. I mean how many failed relationships has the most active of us been through? five hundred? a thousand? compared to the total population of women in the world, how close does that put us to any kind of statistical significance?
Clearly the answers will describe negative things that women have done. No one is going to say "it was such a dealbreaker I had to break up with her when she kept anticipating and meeting my every desire."
So the answers are both negative and generalizations about women. I don't see how you could answer the question and come up with anything else. posted by juv3nal at 4:52 PM on October 23, 2006
Orange swan and frontlineranger, les hangout. Down with the most girls!
My favorite part is where guys are less sensitive and passive agressive than girls. Try less manipulative, fellows. posted by shownomercy at 5:07 PM on October 23, 2006
So, wanna go out back and set fire to some plastic soldiers?
Okay, but only if we use airplane glue. posted by scrump at 5:08 PM on October 23, 2006
By the way, SWEET MOTHER OF CHRIST what a trainwreck. Can't we even pretend to be something other than troglodytes here? Oy. posted by scrump at 5:10 PM on October 23, 2006
I can dish it out but I can't take it. posted by flabdablet at 5:43 PM on October 23, 2006
By trainwreck I assume you mean all the unsubstantiated bitching in this cesspool of a thread? posted by Riemann at 6:02 PM on October 23, 2006
Bitches, man.... posted by jonmc at 6:04 PM on October 23, 2006
The askme is dubious, but this callout is beyond silly.
Yep and the content of this whole askme-callout kerfuffle speaks against the greatest MeFi silly-ism of all: "there are no differences between men and women" other than some relatively insignificant body parts and of course the patriarchy-induced subjugation-maintaining brainwashing. Heh. posted by scheptech at 6:05 PM on October 23, 2006
Geez, Reimann, if I find the chick who cut off your balls and killed your dog and fucked your dad and left with a giant fucking complex--if I find her and make her say sorry, will that make you whole again, man? posted by dame at 6:07 PM on October 23, 2006
Dear AskMe: My friend is writing a magazine article, so I thought I would post the topic here and get everybody's thoughts on it. What are the top 10 sizzling secrets of women who love sex? posted by jayder at 6:23 PM on October 23, 2006
Wait - I misread that. Thought you said BBQ. Women who love BBQ really need my number. posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 6:48 PM on October 23, 2006
I love BBQ. If I put on a dress and a wig, can I come over? posted by jonmc at 6:49 PM on October 23, 2006
sorry jon, you ain't never gonna be a chick, you are all guy, and stay away from my woman posted by caddis at 7:09 PM on October 23, 2006
Orange swan and frontlineranger, les hangout. Down with the most girls!
Uh, you're lumping me in with someone who "can't stand most women"? posted by orange swan at 7:13 PM on October 23, 2006
sorry jon, you ain't never gonna be a chick, you are all guy,
aw, c'mon, my ass is cuter than most women's, just throw me a rib or two... posted by jonmc at 7:27 PM on October 23, 2006
Don't worry, orange swan - I'm sure you misunderstood - English obviously isn't her first language, or what she wrote would make some sense. posted by dg at 7:45 PM on October 23, 2006
:|
After reading both threads I feel like I should do a shot and then go wash with Lysol. Both posts are like one long verbal bukkake party. posted by FunkyHelix at 8:22 PM on October 23, 2006
Most women have the choice of eliminating their period. Under-the-skiin hormonal contraceptives can be used, or you can simply not do the no-Pill/sugar-Pill week of the Pill regime. Either way, you do not need to bleed.
"Well, hey sister, I don't want to hear about your discomfort. Why don't you just take drugs associated with cancer and vascular disease so as to interrupt the normal functioning of your body!"
Look, I use hormones myself, but this is an extremely loaded issue, and it's a pretty serious thing to suggest to avoid a few days of pain every month. There are lots of great reasons to stay off hormone therapy, from side effects to health risks to, oh, gosh, I don't know, wanting to get pregnant. posted by caitlinb at 9:16 PM on October 23, 2006
Please do not mischaracterize what I wrote, Caitlin. What you put in quotes is purest drivel.
I think you are doing a grave disservice to women by using scare words and hyperbole in reaction to what I wrote, and especially doing a disservice to those women who suffer crippling pain — as my wife did — from menustration.
Your claim of this being "an extremely loaded issue" does not quite jive with the fact that Depo Provera, transdermal patches, and subcutaneous implants are commonly used as forms of birth control (and, simultaneously, menustration control). Nor does it jive with the fact that doctors are known to prescribe birth control pills as a means of treating menustral pain.
Instead of scaring women with threats of cancer and judging them wimps because they don't want to hurt, I suggest you let our readers take the information I provided to their doctors, where they can make an informed and consenting decision based on fact. posted by five fresh fish at 10:08 PM on October 23, 2006
Under-the-skiin hormonal contraceptives can be used, or you can simply not do the no-Pill/sugar-Pill week of the Pill regime. Either way, you do not need to bleed.
Bullshit. With the amount of complaints of symptoms arising from birth control pills of all stripes and colors, this is a rather casual claim.
When you make the magic pill that works for everyone and eliminates periods, please let me know. posted by agregoli at 6:59 AM on October 24, 2006
jfuller: Actually, I'd love to. ;) Never got a chance to growing up.
Which apparently means I wasn't really masculine, according to some. Gotta love that MeFite tendency to attempt to diagnose a person from one comment. (Or disprove a self-diagnosis, as though you know me better after reading that one comment than I know myself.) And how a coupleof you continued to focus on the specifics of what I liked to do for fun as a kid, completely ignoring the more relevant statements to the effect that in my mind's eye, I sometimes literally see myself as male, and naturally emulate male behavior. (Though perhaps that just, to you, illustrates how pervasive and hegemonic male privilege is, or some such bullshit?) Did you ever stop to think that perhaps I was just putting out a couple more general examples of my childhood behavior, summarizing it rather than flooding the thread with scads of useless information about my "masculine childhood habits"?
No, you just turned it around into another example of "catty female behavior," or another woman trying to say "it's them, not me," without actually having evidence that that's what I was doing.
I do have a lot of female behaviors. I am, after all, biologically female. And I really like shoes. And I collect sparkly rhinestone necklaces. Those are two examples; there are certainly more. But I nonetheless have some decidedly masculine gender traits as well, beyond merely being "tomboyish" or something. posted by limeonaire at 7:00 AM on October 24, 2006
Also, ditto agregoli. Speaking of which, did you guys see this Slate article earlier this week? What bullshit it is...such bullshit that I thought of making it an FPP. posted by limeonaire at 7:03 AM on October 24, 2006
(To be clear: the article is bullshit, not the birth control pills it talks about. You'll see if you read it—just look for the references to the mystical sisterhood of the bleeding.) posted by limeonaire at 7:04 AM on October 24, 2006
jayderwrites"What are the top 10 sizzling secrets of women who love sex?"
Also, where do they hang out? I'm asking because a friend was curious. posted by clevershark at 7:26 AM on October 24, 2006
Regarding five fresh fish's and caitlinb's argument, I think that her claim of sexist insensitivity should be best evaluated in light of the fact that the medical profession's deliberate dismissal of the possibility of avoiding most periods is almost certainly a function of its well-known patriarchal insensitivity to the concerns of actual women and its inheritance of the Biblical "they are supposed to suffer this discomfort every month" misogyny. The general is demonstrated by medicine's long and until relatively recent reluctance to use anesthesia during childbirth. The specific is demonstrated by medicine's complete lack of awareness and investigation, until recently, of the serious adverse health risks associated with what is actually the non-natural lifelong on-average near-monthly menstruation of modern women. From an evolutionary biology point of view, women should have far fewer periods over a lifetime than modern women do.
Rather than being "unnatural", a hormone regime may in fact allow modern women to more closely approximate a "natural" state while still allowing the absence of pregnancy, which also happens to be one of the greatest female health risks there is. While this isn't always the case in practice, hormone therapy itself need be no more unnatural and artificial than diet therapy. After all, hormones are natural things.
Given all this, it's my opinion that while it's true that the crude hormone therapy of most contemporary birth control has its own health risks that should be taken seriously and evaluated, the greater risks and the weight of cultural sexist inertia come down on the side of either uncontrolled pregnancy or the false assumption that near lifelong monthly menstruation is a good and natural thing.
Therefore, caitlinb's strong reaction, accusations of sexism, and implicit claims about health risks are all unwarranted and incorrect. posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:36 AM on October 24, 2006
As soon as men are willing to take daily hormone pills in equal numbers to women, I will find it hard to believe that the general tone of "Just take a fucking pill" that tends to get trotted out by men every time this subject comes up is anything short of ignorant. Many doctors are currently pulling patients off of Depo because of side effects, newer forms of birth control (like the patch) have been pulled or issued with warnings due to side effects, and given the medical establishment's history of ignoring women's bodies and pain, I fail to see why we should suddenly assume it's all better now and they're totally right on track.
Contraception, in general, is obviously a wonderful thing for women. Having control over their own bodies is an even more wonderful thing. Guys acting as if forcing contraception, or ignoring women's feelings on it, somehow granted women bodily autonomy seem to be missing the point. posted by occhiblu at 9:49 AM on October 24, 2006 [1 favorite]
Sorry, that first sentence should have been "Until men..." posted by occhiblu at 9:49 AM on October 24, 2006
"I do have a lot of female behaviors. I am, after all, biologically female. And I really like shoes. And I collect sparkly rhinestone necklaces. Those are two examples; there are certainly more. But I nonetheless have some decidedly masculine gender traits as well, beyond merely being "tomboyish" or something."
Yeah, because shoes and rhinestones are genetically coded. Maybe not understanding nature versus nurture is one of your feminine traits.
"Rather than being "unnatural", a hormone regime may in fact allow modern women to more closely approximate a "natural" state while still allowing the absence of pregnancy, which also happens to be one of the greatest female health risks there is. While this isn't always the case in practice, hormone therapy itself need be no more unnatural and artificial than diet therapy. After all, hormones are natural things."
Two huge rhetorical flaws here EB. First is that natural is good, which it isn't, and the second is pretending that avoiding pregnancy is possible only with the pill.
And, as a third point, a woman's decision to take birth control or not is her own, and the harangues here from men do ring hollow. There ARE serious health risks with taking hormones, and dismissing hormones as "natural" shows either a moment of uncustomary idiocy on your part or a general lack of knowledge regarding biology. Nightshade is natural, and hormone imbalances can have grave consequences depending on the amount and the hormone. Some women have decided that the risks of birth control, especially regarding cancer, outweigh the benefits of having fewer periods, even when those periods are painful. And much as you try to discount your current position's sexism with a brave remonstration to the medical establishment of the past, it's still at its core a man telling a woman what to do with her body on the assumption that he knows better without any real evidence of that fact. posted by klangklangston at 10:11 AM on October 24, 2006
*offers to console all the lassies in a really lame psuedo friend kind of way* posted by sgt.serenity at 11:18 AM on October 24, 2006
I was talking about shoes and rhinestones, klangklangston, because the people who were arguing with me earlier in the thread assumed I was one of those people who doesn't like those sorts of things. Follow the links in my damn comment before calling me out on some supposed misunderstanding of nature/nurture.
And natural isn't good? Or can never be good? I think what you meant to say is that natural isn't always good. Way to counter absolutist thinking with your own brand of absolutism. And yes, we all know it's entirely possible to avoid pregnancy without taking a pill—but what about sex? Let's not pretend that sex isn't important to members of both genders.
I do agree with your third point, though. Strange how you can be so right about that and so wrong with your other assumptions. posted by limeonaire at 11:34 AM on October 24, 2006
"I was talking about shoes and rhinestones, klangklangston, because the people who were arguing with me earlier in the thread assumed I was one of those people who doesn't like those sorts of things. Follow the links in my damn comment before calling me out on some supposed misunderstanding of nature/nurture."
You went from biologically a girl to rhinestones and shoes. You can follow the thread to your own comment if you'd like to read it again. Biologically female does not imply rhinestones and shoes, but since the whole of your contribution on this has been a convoluted slapdash of stereotypes and sloppy thinking, no one should expect anything else from you. If I felt like really being a dick, I'd add "After all, you're just a girl" to the preceding.
As for the reply to EB, he was making an argument from nature, which is a fallacy. There's no absolutism in my saying so (which is what I was pointing out), and if you hadn't been so hard-up for a comeback you might have thought twice about positing that there is.
"And yes, we all know it's entirely possible to avoid pregnancy without taking a pill—but what about sex? Let's not pretend that sex isn't important to members of both genders."
Yes, it's possible to avoid sex without taking a pill. To address the argument you want to make, rather than the one you did— There are these things called "con-doms," largely made from the baleen of whales, which allow penetrative sex between French people. They're a wonderful advance for science, and have been readily available only for the last 20 minutes or so. Nip down to the local pharmacy or whaling docks, give 'em a "s'il vous plaît" and a handful of whatever your local currency and you too may be ready to enjoy the magic of sexual penetration without having to take any pills or worrying about pregnancy. Also acceptable options are diaphrams, which aid breathing, and contraceptive sponges made from the skeletons of suicidal sea invertabrates. While there is a contraceptive steel wool available, I've never tried it. Perhaps you might. posted by klangklangston at 12:46 PM on October 24, 2006
suicidal sea invertabrates.
that would be a great band name... posted by jonmc at 1:21 PM on October 24, 2006
Therefore, caitlinb's strong reaction, accusations of sexism, and implicit claims about health risks are all unwarranted and incorrect.
HAHAHAHAHA is really all I can say to that. I don't know or care who is sexist, honestly, but saying someone's strong reaction is unwarranted or incorrect (!?) smacks of dude behavior. Yeah, I said it.
I think your argument is something along the lines of "since the patriarchical medical establishment is sexist and not very clueful w/r/t women's health, doing something that will involve sucking up to toxicmegacorp and toxicmegahealthco and keep you on hormones forever like some fucked up dairy cow (apologies to my sisters on hormones by choice or by necessity) is so totally worth it because it's more natural than the way our bodies have evolved over millions of years. That's really sticking it to the man and fuck you bitches who choose to have cramps." Do I have that right?
Look, I think reporductive choice is a grand thing, but I find the "you don't need to have periods" argument in and of itself to be a weird, creepy in a "why do you care" way of making me more a product of the patriarchical medical establishment, not less. I'm all for women having less onerous periods, and if this is what helps them, then that's super. But acting like having periods is some sort of abberation that only happens to women who aren't smart enough to do otherwise, when the alternative carries its own [poorly studied by the medical establishment] set of risks and I'd just say -- putting my feminist hat on -- that this is all about the supression of difference and the domination game all over again. posted by jessamyn at 1:34 PM on October 24, 2006 [5 favorites]
feminist hat
another great band name... posted by jonmc at 1:40 PM on October 24, 2006
You didn't actually read anything I wrote in my last comment, did you, klangklangston? Nor did you take my advice to read the comments that provided the context for my earlier comments.
And actually, I really was pointing out rhetorical flaws in your argument. Apparently you don't have a good understand of what rhetoric means.
This
First is that natural is good, which it isn't
is an example of an absolutist statement. When you parse the language, it comes out like so:
Natural isn't good.
That's what you said, and that's absolutist.
Go screw yourself, klangklangston. posted by limeonaire at 1:43 PM on October 24, 2006
Aww. You're so cute when you try to parse. How about you try it this way: Natural != Good. Which is what I said. Natural isn't good does not imply that natural is bad unless you forget about natural is neutral.
You can keep goin' 'round and 'round, but if this is your best retort you can come up with, fine: I should have been more clear when pointing out that EB's reasoning was done by way of fallacy that this did not discount the idea that there are some natural things that are indeed good. I should have also remembered that not everyone is familiar enough with the idea of argumentative fallacies to immediately recognize and grasp the meaning when they're used as shorthand, and I should have remembered that half-witted pedantry is the highest level of discourse I could expect from you in this conversation.
(And to think, I was coming back to this thread to apologize for being, in my estimation, more of a dick than was necessary. Clearly, you've disabused me of that notion. I assume you've ceded all other topics in the conversation?) posted by klangklangston at 2:05 PM on October 24, 2006
Gotta love that MeFite tendency to attempt to diagnose a person from one comment.
what about the tendency to "diagnose" an entire gender? The point is merely that lots of women have traits which you apparently consider masculine, but which some of us just consider "traits", which can belong to either gender.
completely ignoring the more relevant statements to the effect that in my mind's eye, I sometimes literally see myself as male, and naturally emulate male behavior.
but what is "male behavior" and what does it mean to think of yourself as "male"? As far as I'm concerned, male behavior is merely whatever people with Y chromosomes do, which is no more limited than the behavior of people as a set except in specific biological ways. (That does not mean that there is no difference across populations, but it's not really germane to individual judgments).
But I nonetheless have some decidedly masculine gender traits as well
like what?
Personally, I feel pretty androgynous on the inside, which is to say, if I had been born male, I think I would have just been male, but still pretty much the same. I don't relate to people who feel like X trapped in Y body because I don't identify with gender that strongly. But that does not make me identify with the opposite gender, nor draw conclusions about all members of either gender. The way you frame your comments, and I think the reason you were earlier accused of being the kind of bisexual lesbians hate, is as if you're a girl in all the ways boys like girls, and not a girl in all those ways boys don't like girls. I'm not saying that's what you intend to get across, but the sense of it is a kind of exceptionalism, removing yourself from a class to which you belong by positing negative qualities as inherent to the class and claiming you do not have them. But why not change your position on what qualities are female rather than disassociating yourself from the class?
If you have truly never met other women who fit your "masculine" criteria (which are still indeterminate, since it's apparently not whether one is into fashion and jewelry or tomboyishness etc) I hope at least that you're still young or stuck in a small town or something, because in my experience, the most interesting people are not limited by gender norms. I have friends of both sexes who I would find just as interesting if they were the other sex, whatever that would mean... the point is, individuals transcend genitals :).
That's what you said, and that's absolutist.
I think the difference is, are we saying, nature (is not) good, or nature is (not good). If the former, nature can overlap with good without being limited by it. posted by mdn at 2:21 PM on October 24, 2006 [2 favorites]
mdn and jessamyn, I just erased everything I was planning to post, since you both just covered everything (and each in a far more coherent manner than my fumbling attempts were shaping up to be).
Thanks.
I also find it very upsetting (Hey kids, guess my gender!) when some women claim to only possess the bits and pieces of being female (whatever the hell that means) that they assume are valued by men. It must be a horrible way to have to define oneself in the world. posted by stagewhisper at 2:46 PM on October 24, 2006 [1 favorite]
Therefore, caitlinb's strong reaction, accusations of sexism, and implicit claims about health risks are all unwarranted and incorrect.
Jesus, EB, you're the last person I would have expected to issue such a condescending putdown of a woman standing up for herself against the usual male onslaught. (You've been kind of pissy lately, frankly.)
So the answers are both negative and generalizations about women. I don't see how you could answer the question and come up with anything else.
I don't either, which is why the question was a piece of shit that should have been deleted. (Note that the person who posted it wished he hadn't; anyone who finds themself in that position would do well to e-mail Matt and ask for its removal.) posted by languagehat at 3:08 PM on October 24, 2006
"I think your argument is something along the lines of 'since the patriarchical medical establishment is sexist and not very clueful w/r/t women's health, doing something that will involve sucking up to toxicmegacorp and toxicmegahealthco and keep you on hormones forever like some fucked up dairy cow (apologies to my sisters on hormones by choice or by necessity) is so totally worth it because it's more natural than the way our bodies have evolved over millions of years. That's really sticking it to the man and fuck you bitches who choose to have cramps.' Do I have that right?"
No, you have it egregiously wrong and are being a jerk because you misunderstood. As did klangklangston, occhiblu, and caitlinb. If any of you actually read what I wrote, you didn't understand it. Or were too in thrall to your preconception as to what I would be arguing.
If it were the case that having a monthly period for 40 years was "how our bodies evolved over millions of years" your argument would have a great deal more validity. But it isn't the case, that's not how women's bodies have evolved over "millions of years". The assumption that a monthly period for adult women is "natural" and therefore the most healthy default state for women is false.
Simply put, adult women have evolved to have fewer periods than they now do. The length of time in which women have had access to any form of contraception, or probably the concept of contraception, is such a small portion of the evolutionary history of human beings as to make it irrelevant. The evolutionary "natural state" described by your "millions of years" reference is likely to involve fewer than half, or less, periods over the same period of adult lifetime.
The medical significance of this, where the health risks lie, is that these extra periods represent extra cycles of endometrium growth. Uterine cancer is the most common gynecological cancer. These more than doubled cycles of endometrium growth must represent a very large increase in the risk of uterine cancer for the modern human female in technological society. Any claims about cancer risks associated with hormonal birth control use have to be evaluated in this context.
You write:
"...but I find the 'you don't need to have periods' argument in and of itself to be a weird, creepy in a 'why do you care' way of making me more a product of the patriarchical medical establishment, not less."
...and your reaction is wrong because it is based upon being ignorant of an important part of the argument as well as assuming an egregiously excessive amount of stuff about the mindset of anyone making that statement.
My argument about the past notorious sexism of the patriarchal medical establishment was intended to demonstrate that it has been disinterested in women's health in a certain predictable fashion. It's been deeply influenced by the Biblical view on menstruation and childbirth. Both are feminine "afflictions" from a biblical point of view, menstruation inherently and childbirth in its pain and in its desperate risk to the mother's health. And medicine has consistently chosen to validate this Biblically-justified misogyny—this "punishment" for Eve's Sin—over therapy which alleviates them. The denial of anesthesia to women in labor wasn't done in the name of what's biologically natural, it was done in the name of what's theologically natural. And in the case of the birth-control pill, we know for a fact that John Rock, the inventor of the Pill, included the placebos which retain the cycle not because it is biologically natural, but because he thought retaining the cycle would make the Pill more acceptable to the Catholic Church.
A subtext of your, occhiblu's, and caitlinb's argument (but not klangklangston's) is that "natural is good". My argument wasn't that "natural is good" in any way other than in response to the assertion that medical intrusion into body function is most likely dangerous and probably unhealthy from an evolutionary point of view. My response was that what was being held up as the evolutionary norm in caitlinb's (and your) argument is not the norm. What you and caitlinb think is normal is not "normal" and carries with it health risks that result from what is a technologically-induced state itself.
Now, aside from the rough assumption that a person living as humans lived through most of our evolutionary history is a somewhat "safe" baseline for good health, I really have no truck with the "natural is good" belief and I treat it as a fallacy. Certainly we can look to a principal women's health issue like childbirth and see that what comes naturally isn't particularly optimal for women from a health standpoint. Childbirth is inherently a mortally dangerous activity for human females and we simply don't have to tolerate this.
I think that maximizing women's health and comfort with respect to the unique features of women's biology is a deeply important feminist issue. The past medical model of the human body has been male, and this is still mostly true. There has always been a lesser concern for women's health and comfort in medicine, and I believe this has been because medicine has been literally patriarchal and, as I already argued, has been culturally conservative with a judao-christian influence that is inherently misogynist and tends to—perhaps unconsciously—think of women's unique health concerns as the realization of divine punishment.
Of course I'm aware that both medicine and our culture have been notoriously tolerant of using women as unwilling medical test subjects. Of course I'm aware that the pill itself is Exhbit A for medicine's cavalier attitude about monkeying around with female biology. Of course I'm aware that "here, take a pill if you don't like to have periods" is disturbingly reminiscent of "here, take this Valium if you're unhappy cleaning the house while your husband is at work". I in no way meant to defend that attitude. My comment was a response to caitlinb's comment, which included a small quote from five fresh fish. I don't know what the larger context is. But that quote alone is not necessarily a display of that attitude and, more to the point, her response against it as well as your argument and occhblu's all were explicitly against the therapy itself as a form of sexism. The accusation that his quote had that sexist tone was secondary.
Any fervor you detect in my argument for the acceptability of reduced menstruation arises as a response to these things and because, as I said, I believe that women's medicine is very much a feminist issue. I think that there's good evidence for the theory that modern women are having more periods than is good for them. My defense of this therapy and my response to caitlinb were in no way examples of me, a male, telling women in a dismissive way that they ought to get rid of those icky periods. Absent this whole thing about the ahistorical risks associated with how many periods modern women have—research that is new to me—my attitude about menstruation has always been the doctrinally-approved feminist version of celebration. So, too, have I a long history of complaining against medicine's patriarchal attitude towards women and the superficiality they treat women's health issues. This hostility directed my way is undeserved.
And while as a general rule I ought to have been, as languagehat points out, more sensitive to caitlinb and her reasons for responding so angrily to five fresh fish, it is the case that I've been pissy for a long while and it is the case that I'm often condescending and it should be obvious that there is nothing sex-specific about it. posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:39 PM on October 24, 2006 [1 favorite]
Graciously said. Thanks for the response. posted by languagehat at 3:42 PM on October 24, 2006
You're so cute when you try to parse.
Is that any thing like mincing? I'm not much of a cook. posted by jonmc at 3:46 PM on October 24, 2006
"If it were the case that having a monthly period for 40 years was "how our bodies evolved over millions of years" your argument would have a great deal more validity. But it isn't the case, that's not how women's bodies have evolved over "millions of years". The assumption that a monthly period for adult women is "natural" and therefore the most healthy default state for women is false."
How can you gibe this with:
"Now, aside from the rough assumption that a person living as humans lived through most of our evolutionary history is a somewhat "safe" baseline for good health, I really have no truck with the "natural is good" belief and I treat it as a fallacy. Certainly we can look to a principal women's health issue like childbirth and see that what comes naturally isn't particularly optimal for women from a health standpoint. Childbirth is inherently a mortally dangerous activity for human females and we simply don't have to tolerate this."
Again, I disagree with your seeming use of evolution as a teleological imperative, and note that people "evolved" to die of sickle-cell anemia, among a bevy of other maladies.
If having fewer periods due to hormone pills can be demonstrated to be healthier on the basis of lower health risks (on the whole) than the default state (not going to say natural), then that's the basis on which an advisement can be granted. And it's my understanding (and I may be wrong) that there has been insufficient research to definitively say.
I'm not going to argue that there weren't very bizarre reasons for the initial three on, one off cycle being established, just that saying that one way is more "natural" than the other is as convincing to me as saying that God deigned it so, or that it's the way things have always been done, or that most people think that's the way it should be.
I guess I just don't like Rousseau enough to think that the Noble Savage should hold much truck on how I live my life (or how others live theirs). posted by klangklangston at 3:52 PM on October 24, 2006
Klangklangston, the two statements do gibe and I'm not asserting evolution as a teleological imperative. It seems self-evident to me, but I'll do my best to try to figure out where you've gone wrong and explain it.
The first paragraph is a refutation of someone else's assertion. Her assertion invoked the "natural is good" fallacy in combination with an argument about the natural evolutionary state of women's bodies. I respond that her assumption about the natural evolutionary state of women's bodies is false and thus, by her reasoning, the current status quo isn't "natural" and therefore not what is healthiest. My argument in that paragraph does not take a position on the natural fallacy. To refute her argument, my argument only needed to demonstrate that hers was false on its own terms.
The second paragraph make my position on the "natural is good" fallacy clear. I do allow that in the context of taking "natural" as the evolutionary status quo there is some limited utility in assuming that by and large the human body is healthiest left in that state. I carefully include the words "rough", "somewhat", and the intentionally ambiguous "baseline" to make it clear that I view that utility as being limited. And in case that wasn't clear enough, I include the example of childbirth to demonstrate just how "healthy" the evolutionary status quo really is.
So you see there is no condradiction and I clearly do not see evolution as a medical teleological imperative.
As if you could imagine that anyone really would! In truth, people that assert his fallacy—and I expect that most people do assert this in one form or another at one time or another—believe it in only the most superficial way. Almost no one advocates that going unclothed in very cold weather is more healthy, for example.
However, we can ridicule people for holding this fallacy or we can be more generous and ask ourselves if they have good reasons to do so and ask ourselves if those reasons should act as a caution to us when we are moved to dismiss people's beliefs based on this fallacy.
I think there's two closely related reasons why people hold this belief that are largely valid. The first is the commonsensical notion represented in the Hippocratic Oath. It's a great deal easier to lower health by technological intervention than it is to raise it. This example of common sense asks us to stop and consider how likely is it that little-considered technological interventions in health are going to improve it rather than diminish it.
The other reason is this evolutionary reasoning. This reasoning is only really valid if one has a good grasp of evolutionary biology. But even a vulgar understanding usually includes a notion of "fitness". Most people aren't aware that "fitness" really means "reproductive fitness", but it's also the case that fitness in the broader sense is also involved. There is a degree to which that notion of "fitness" intersects a notion of "good health". We can expect that a large portion of human physiology operates optimally when left alone and within the environment of evolutionary adaptation.
This argument about menstruation is to some people an argument between leaving things alone and technological medical intervention. And for them, given that they hold to a healthy dose (or much more) of the skepticism I apologize for above, then hormone therapy is foolish and creepy. However, in reality this is an argument between two different forms of technological medical intervention. What some see as "natural" is actually a hidden technological/culture intervention such that women aren't pregnant most of their adult lives. On the other side is a technological intervention in the form of hormone therapy. The "natural" state of non-intervention matters in this debate because both interventions are asserted to, and probably do, carry with them health risks because both cause deviations in physiological systems that we have good reason to believe are healthier when left alone. posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:17 PM on October 24, 2006
If a woman started annoying me, like if she was being a total bitch and wouldn't play 'Lambs' with me, I would be like "HEY, get your bitch-ass back in the kitchen and make me some PIE!" posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 5:21 PM on October 24, 2006
This argument about menstruation is to some people an argument between leaving things alone and technological medical intervention. And for them, given that they hold to a healthy dose (or much more) of the skepticism I apologize for above, then hormone therapy is foolish and creepy. However, in reality this is an argument between two different forms of technological medical intervention.
I don't understand how you can put cultural/technological intervention (women aren't always pregnant because they can now choose not to be!) alongside specific personal medical intervention choices (I don't want to take medicine, that seems invasive and unnatural to me) as if they were functional equivalents to someone who is thinking abotu what to do with their bodies.
I get that you're saying that not being pregnant all the time is itself a modification that what one might be able to argue the "natural" state could be, but to say that someone doesn't want to get rid of periods [i.e. take medicine with its associated risks, hassles and costs] is oversimplifying in a way that I think is only possible if you have an abstracted view of the issue and not a personal one. I guess you're actually arguing that baseline "natural" in this case is women being fertile and/or pregnant most of the time, so that successive non-"successful" periods are in some way unnatural as is the hormone therapy that would prevent such periods.
Since there are social costs to being medicated for the rest of your life and since the cultural/technological changes that made us not-always-pregnant are a little more transparent and a lot less onerous (in fact totally outside of our control really if we're not going to become baby factories) I still have to protest that the academic view of this argument and the "I have a uterus and am making reproductive choices" view of this argument remain fundamentally different. posted by jessamyn at 6:40 PM on October 24, 2006 [1 favorite]
What EB said. At this point I've had quite enough abuse. I offered an option for changing things. I did so without abusing anyone, without using hyperbole, and without passing judgements. posted by five fresh fish at 7:28 PM on October 24, 2006
For the benefit of those women who would like to hear a success story (the rest of you can stfu, thanks), I offer this:
My wife had days-in-bed crippling menustration cramping as a teenager. When she started taking The Pill circa age 20, she stopped menustrating and, thus, hurting. IIRC her pill is Ortho 7/7/7. Twenty years and a half-dozen doctors later, she is delighted to have avoided suffering 1/4 of her life. All paps have come back good, and each doctor has been thoroughly grilled regarding health risks et al. As far as she's concerned, The Pill is one of the best inventions ever. posted by five fresh fish at 7:35 PM on October 24, 2006
"I still have to protest that the academic view of this argument and the 'I have a uterus and am making reproductive choices' view of this argument remain fundamentally different."
They're only different if you are assuming that the "academic view" is asserting what should be normative. Yes, I think that given some criteria for determining health in mostly biological terms we can decide what is healthy and that on that basis obviously healthy is better than unhealthy. But I'm not asserting what women should do in the larger context because a) what concerns me in the largest sense is eudaimonia—and that goes quite beyond such narrow contexts as biological function; b) given that even if theoretically we could determine eudaimonia for an individual in an absolute sense, in reality it's obscure to the point of near irrelevance and thus the only available reliable measurement is an individual's self-reporting; and c) in any event each individual has the right to make these decisions themselves and to decide on what basis to make them. You may assume there's an imperialistic impetus behind my argument, but you'd be wrong.
Not unimportantly, I really mean and believe what I'm saying in that previous paragraph and for me it applies to other health issues such as diet and obesity, and body modifications such as, um, taking hormones for that matter. "Good health" is tossed around as if it means something and then used as a normative principle in a great many situations. I disagree with that ethical absolutist imperialism. I'm sort of curious if you and anyone else that agrees with this point of view concerning women's health in the case of birth-control is equally as relativistic and respectful of other individuals' ideas of what is best for them in the domains of diet, or smoking, or whatever.
As to your general unease with abstract theorizing and limited normalizing argumentation with regard to women's health, particularly in the arena of reproductive health, I understand this unease and its genesis, I respect the existence of this sensitivity and try to accomodate it, but I don't accept an argument for a theoretical exceptionalism concerning this topic. I don't accept that men don't have a place in discussing this because I emphatically disagree with the idea that those only with a direct interest in something are qualified to act on that something. Someone once asked me why in the world I would spend time defending a right that I had no interest in exercising myself. The question astonished me. I think we all have an interest in thinking about, discussing, and acting as citizens of a civil society on this and other topics concerning women, and this is my mode of participation. Unless here, too, you want to assert a normative in how (not what) all people should think about the world, you'll have to deal with the fact that some of us approach things from abstraction and explicit reasoning. I certainly don't claim that this is the only valid mode of thought nor that this is the only mode which has utility. posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:58 PM on October 24, 2006
alla you people:
use less words. posted by jonmc at 8:04 PM on October 24, 2006
klangklangston, mdn, and stagewhisper: I'm done with you and this thread. Think whatever you want; it's a waste of time for me to go over and over this with you. You each have your agenda, and you can each keep it. posted by limeonaire at 8:20 PM on October 24, 2006
You've probably read the Gladwell article on this issue, but I'll link to it here, just in case. posted by horsewithnoname at 9:08 PM on October 24, 2006
EB: I do, in fact, know a fair bit about menstruation. I have, in fact, read a great deal about menstrual suppression. I am, in fact, reasonably well read on both sides of this issue.
The fact that you would leap to the conclusion that I'm ignorant of the issues you're raising rather than thinking that I may, perhaps, know something about the topic -- maybe even as much or more than you -- and simply made a different decision than you -- or, actually, "have made a different decision than you think you would, were you in a position to make a decision on this topic" -- is exactly the attitude that I'm complaining about. I'm glad you have your opinions on things. Claiming that all women should subscribe to them, or assuming that any who don't are simply ignorant of their own bodies, beliefs, or attitudes, is about as male privilege as you can get.
You're not a woman. You are welcome to the debate, but check your privilege at the door and stop acting like you get the last word, or that you know more than people who do, as jessamyn points out, actually deal with this shit on a personal, everyday level. This is not semantics, this is not rhetoric, these are our bodies and we know more about them than you do. posted by occhiblu at 12:05 AM on October 25, 2006 [1 favorite]
"Claiming that all women should subscribe to them, or assuming that any who don't are simply ignorant of their own bodies, beliefs, or attitudes, is about as male privilege as you can get."
Since you'll just ignore that comment then I should say in addition, seriously, read what I wrote. I am not guilty of a single one of the things you are accusing me and in fact I repeat some of their very opposites several times. You can get all indignant if you like, and I suspect you like. That doesn't mean you're deserving of your indignance, and you're not. posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:18 AM on October 25, 2006
So this question which becomes just an excuse for all the losers to complain about the "bitches" in their lives is allowed to stand, despite it being mere chatfilter, just because some half assed excuse for its existence was tossed into the question and then a more serious question about contemplating one's mortality which could have been quite enlightening gets axed because in phrasing the questin they did not tack on "for a female friend who's writing about this sort of thing." How moronic is that? Whoever made these decisions should be very ashamed. posted by caddis at 1:46 AM on October 25, 2006
Hey fff, not to lob another semantic argument into this thread but the text of your original comment did rather come across as passing judgements on people, by assuming that most women were able to take the "option"s that you suggested. Whilst you may have begun your comment with "most women" the two statements you chose to assert were "Either way, you do not need to bleed." and "Anyway, it's optional now. You don't have to hurt." This is not correct.
For your one success story? I could give you ten off the top of my head from friends who have had issues with the medical ramifications of pills, patches, implants and coils. And those are just the women who were willing to spend a lot of time, money, endure invasive surgery and put up with any side affects which include intense hormonal changes. No matter what your intentions, your comment came off as condescending, ignorant and highly insulting - the equivalent of saying "In this modern society, people don't need to be poor".
The fact that you even refer to it as "an option for changing things", as if women were totally ignorant of all of this, is exactly the reason that people are taking offense. posted by hugsnkisses at 4:26 AM on October 25, 2006 [1 favorite]
I frequently wish there were a flag that basically said,
"This comment/post personally pissed me off even though there may be nothing inherently wrong with it. I demand recognition for the restraint I'm showing in biting my tongue so hard that it bleeds, in the name of freedom of speech for others and not starting a community-detrimental flamewar. But secretly I think you're all assholes."
Then when I've amassed enough of them I would like a cookie bouquet. posted by Marnie at 5:25 AM on October 25, 2006 [2 favorites]
So, who wants a Bloody Mary? posted by jonmc at 6:28 AM on October 25, 2006
I'll have one without the tomato juice. posted by brain_drain at 7:05 AM on October 25, 2006
I love how I comment that I'm on hormone therapy, and so I realize that this is a choice with risks that should not be taken lightly, and I get turned into a poster child for "natural == good" and accused of treating women as 'wimps' because they don't want "crippling pain."
I also love the comment that suggests that something widely available is obviously safe - in spite of the decade of research showing that hormone therapy is not as safe as we thought, for as many women as we thought, in the way we've been using it. I love the praise especially for the patch, a highly problematic method of delivering hormones - both psychologically and pharmacokinetically.
I love all this stuff because I work in medical advertising. I actually read pivotal studies to check the facts behind claims made by drug companies. And the kind of thinking I am reading here makes our industry's job easier.
Much easier. posted by caitlinb at 8:25 AM on October 25, 2006
Subscribe
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:12 PM on October 22, 2006 [1 favorite]