Is FWR like a vegetarian restaurant that meat eaters keep going into and say it is an echo chamber to stick to saying they dont serve meat

Whilst prolific posters like Howse do indeed demonstrate that FWR isn't an echo chamber, they hardly make use of that fact (well not intellectual or perspective-broadening "use" anyway. It's entirely possible women here are being "used" in the more traditional, patriarchal sense).

The vegetarian analogy made me chuckle as an alternating veggie/ vegan. My mind immediately went to being served pizza with the pepperoni removed, as if it wasn't still swimming in meat juices. Make of that what you will!

But really no analogy is needed. What is done to women here is just the same old misogyny. Why would a misogynist respect a thread of support for women who've experienced sexual violence? They probably identify more with the perpetrator.

Why would a misogynist take the time to understand a feminist point of view and reflect it back before offering a counter argument? It's a patriarchy! Misogynists don't need to do this. They can continue to take whatever they want relatively unimpeded.

Why wouldn't a misogynist appropriate our words or use our presence non-consensually as part of some kink? Misogynist men have been doing this for time.

That is true mamagogo but I've been on here nearly a decade and i joined because I was actively looking for an explainer of the TRA position because I assumed I must be missing something.

I can genuinely count on the fingers of one hand the number of posters who have been honest and tried to tease out and accurately communicate what it is they actually think. The rest is largely insults, strawmen and plain old ignoring the question.

To go back to the analogy, you could say "well, do you believe eating meat is ok, for you personally? " and they'd reply "wow can't believe that vegetarianism requires you to police what everyone is eating / you claim to know the difference between meat and veg but that question shows you don't, actually / I'm not talking about whether it's ok for ME to eat meat" etc etc

So I'm still waiting to "hear the side of an argument" that explains what the difference between a man and a woman is if it isn't the sex of their body.

Yes you’ll get political debate, yes you’ll get discussion re religion, all quite normal. Women are not homogeneous in their views and this being a feminism board doesn’t mean we all have the same views re sex and gender either, it’s a debating board. Refusing to accept women have differing opinions is a dangerous, extremist - far better to hear all sides of an argument

For the analogy to work, the carnivores would need to spend all their time at the vegetarian restaurant, to the extent that one would have to wonder whether they were motivated by something other than disagreement over dietary choices - loneliness?

It's more like militant vegans stomping into regular restaurants and screaming 'you're eating dead animals' at the customers.

We know we are, most of us have thought about that and made our choice on the basis of many things.

Or like serving bacon to vegetarians and telling them that its vegetarian bacon because they've died it green and then telling the vegetarian that they're a bigoted baconphobic for not agreeing to pretend that its vegetarian.

And some posters openly admit to not liking any of them.

They would be banished if I was Justine.

ETA Caramel Wafers are the best by the way!

The worst is what already happens, you go to a restaurant and order a vegetarian meal, and it comes with bits of fish in, because “vegetarians eat fish”. Just like lesbians are attracted to “trans women”, aren’t they, and women don’t mind undressing in the presence of “trans women”.

There are valid, evidenced arguments in favour of eating meat. I'll listen to those.

There are valid, evidenced arguments in favour of being vegetarian. I'll listen to those.

As for valid, evidenced arguments for why men are women, I'd like to listen to those. But there aren't any.

Yes, exactly. There have been some great analogies of this over the years.

Or is it just the default assumption that women do not have the right to think for themselves,

I don't think it's so much the right to think but more likely we shouldn't have the time to think. We should be putting the needs of others first which would mean zero time for ourselves and our own needs or wants. You see that stance often in the Relationships forum from the abusive men in those poor women's lives. How dare we have a second to ourselves.

Excellent analogy @IwantToRetire

It's a similar sort of energy to Sarah in Brighton not being allowed a single sex support group even though there are plenty of options already for those who would prefer things organised by gender identity. Or the only remaining single sex rape support in Vancouver getting targeted. Or the three young women setting up a women's society at Cambridge University receiving multiple complaints and threats for doing so. It's not enough to have nearly everything. Women must be left with nothing and nowhere that doesn't centre the demands of men .

I nearly started a thread the other day, ostensibly about the apparent demise of the vegetarian pies from Lidl, which were just about my only recourse to 'junk food' (relatively speaking), but also to make the broader point that vegetarian options are being increasingly pushed out in favour of vegan ones, thanks to a noisier and younger demographic, and how that was a metaphor for something or other, but couldn't quite put my finger on it.

I don’t deny there are online vegan warriors pissing meat eaters off, but it definitely works both ways online. I am on a vegan online group for info and support —there are plenty of pro meat trollers on there. I don’t understand—if they aren’t interested in veganism, why can’t they just let us be? I don’t try and push my views onto meat eaters, but they will insist on aggressively asking me where do I get my protein, or going on and on about how much they love meat in a supposedly vegan space.
So in online spaces, rather than IRL spaces, the analogy is valid.

What TRAs mean by “echo chamber” is they don’t win anyone over with their nonsensical logic. They seem to assume, based on their experiences elsewhere, that people will not see it for what it is, an illogical mess of ideas. So when no one falls for it and doesn’t join the cult, they think everyone here refuses to consider opinions outside of the “echoes”.

No mate, we hear you loud and clear, but it’s all bullshit.

Anyway, I think a more apt analogy is a group of veggies want to set up a vegetarian restaurant, but you get a few people demanding chicken because if chicken is prepared in a certain way it's almost indistinguishable from tofu, and anyway you can get plant-based chicken so that proves it's a vegetable really, and there are thousands of ways for a food to be a vegetable, and you shouldn't be eating vegetables anyway as they're living things, and my veggie cousin had chicken by mistake and didn't notice, and defining "vegetarian" as "doesn't eat meat" is far too binary and exclusive and we should queer the meaning of vegetarian, and don't you care about the meat-eaters that don't want to harm anyone, they just need to eat protein?

Yes, if they're asked to specify one viewpoint that everyone would agree on 100%, they either can't do it or come up with something laughably vague.

We can't even agree on which Tunnocks products are the best!

TRAs do not realise that every time they post on here that MN is an echo chamber, they are proving it's not an echo chamber.

One has proved that already on this board.

Great work guys!

Yes, the most militant vegans I know adhere to the 'Omnicause' and are also TRAs, etc.