To think gender alters the perception of what is said on MN?

[1DAD2KIDS]

I use a username that clearly identifies my gender (and is also my biological sex). Often I feel that if people assumed I was a woman their response would be different. Or if you swapped the genders around some people's responses would be completely different?

We get it, you’re dyslexic

But, you’re in such a rush to tell us, little women we are being sexist using terminology such as “mansplaining”, you wrote what you were thinking not what you meant to say.

The irony is just too classic. Unfortunately, you won’t have the capacity (being a man) to recognize it for what it is.....

Exactly what I mean, people kicking the arse out of it. It's a Freudian slip etc. It's just another of my 100s of phone cock ups.

Listening to people on this and other threads, I can see now why many people do not want to be labelled 'feminist' anymore.

Some people are desperate to take offence. They cannot step back and see the irony in their posts.

I'm stepping back. Oh yeah - I see yours now, thanks!

I can tell by your posts that you're dyslexic 1DAD. 😃 Some people just want to jump on anything you say wrong.

I can too and I'm not going to pick apart the words because I get it, I struggle too. But it's annoying to not have my questions answered!

Just to return to the wider discussion of this thread...

I like MN because generally the discussion is thoughtful and articulate, with plenty of emotional intelligence. I wonder if that's as much down to the level of intelligence or education of most contributors (which I perceive as quite high) as down to the dominant sex.

But MN's tagline is "for parents", so I take it men can be at home here if they offer the same level of thoughfulness etc that I've just described. As I said before, on this site it's my preference to have a username that clarifies I am male, but obviously that doesn't give any particular privilege to my posts and I'm certainly not claiming to offer a perspective that women in particular should hear.

That said, I agree with Evil that this thread has demonstrated that some posters seem to subject men's posts to a more critical approach (eg picking up on every slip or ambiguity, and perhaps being more sceptical of the poster's intent).

Yes, 3D, somewhat ironic, isn't it?

That's because we're evil feminist harridans, obviously. Man haters if you will.

Seriously though, do you wonder why some posters might behave that way? I wonder what could cause them to do that?

Ive been a long time lurker on here and only signed up in the last week and started to contribute.

As a fellow fully signed up member of the XY club, I have seen some shocking double standards on here and agree with a lot of previous posters comments in this thread around the subject matters and things get derailed fast if its obvious its a male contributor.

I come on here to offer input, get advice, have some fun with like minded people in the sub forums I participate in and if things get derailed then i will either not comment or back out.

Some men on here seem to get on just fine and are popular. I'm wondering if their approach is different, or they just stick to the threads?

I like MN because generally the discussion is thoughtful and articulate, with plenty of emotional intelligence. I wonder if that's as much down to the level of intelligence or education of most contributors (which I perceive as quite high) as down to the dominant sex.

Yes, I agree with you. That’s why I like mumsnet too. Not sure if it’s because of education or because it’s a group of mainly women with mainly shared experiences. I think there’s a lot of empanthy on mumsnet too - sometimes hidden, admittedly.

However I disagree that this thread is a good one to highlight how male posters are treated - because I think 1Dad started this thread with a deliberate agenda and that’s why he has ignored so many posters who have tried to discuss gender politics with him. This is not a thread by a man who wants to genuinely understand why there’s a difference in reactions to an obviously male poster. He doesn’t care. He wants to believe that women are equally as sexist as men, and he wants people to back him up.

So many posters have asked him what he wants from this thread and he says ‘a conversation’ - but then he refuses to acknowledge that a man posting on a thread of women’s experience of sexual assault might not be welcome (around page 4, I think) Mad1intheAttic (sorry, that might be wrong but I can’t check) has asked him about sexism in the military about five times and he’s ignored her. He’s not interested in a discussion.

Seriously though, do you wonder why some posters might behave that way? I wonder what could cause them to do that?

That is a good question. (And I know it's hard to convey, but I'm not being at all snarky saying that). I have an inkling of what some of the answers might be, but actually it would be better if you (or others here who have been critical) said what you think the answer is to that.

Pumperthepumper - some of your criticisms of OP may be right (I've not read everything on this thread), but there's still something that reads as hyper-critical in the way you approach his posts.

For example, you talk about how you think he started this thread with a deliberate agenda - well, everyone has some sort of agenda when they start a thread, and it feels like you have read everything he has said with that presupposition that he has a strong unstated agenda.

On him ignoring posts, in a fast-moving discussion that does happen. He might be ignoring some questions because he realises that his case crumbles in the face of them, or he may just not have the time to read and respond.

This isn't about whether I agree with OP's posts (some of it I do), it's about whether his arguments are taken at face value and engaged with without always questioning his motives.

I guess we’ll just have to disagree then DadDadDad. This thread was started on 26/11 so hardly fast moving - and 1Dad has had plenty of oppertunity to answer questions put to him about gender politics because he’s been asked the same questions time after time.

I would also disagree that everyone has an agenda when they start a thread - people post looking for advice or for friendship or camaraderie - but to ask a question and ignore the answer because it doesn’t suit you does seem like an agenda to me, yes.

hat's because we're evil feminist harridans, obviously. Man haters if you will.

I don't like men, generally, as it happens. The main reason I am attracted to MN is because it is predominantly female.

White, middle-class, straight males, specifically. Mostly tedious, predictable, whiney

"This thread was started on 26/11 so hardly fast moving"

Just saw this. Hilarious when one considers that people generally have lives offline rather than online and check occasionally. Especially those who don't feel like they need to win every point of every argument in life. Is there a gender where that characteristic is more common than the other gender(s) I wonder?

As for not liking men, generally... isn't that rather bigoted? Disliking a group because of their perceived characteristics without getting to know them as individuals? If you said, for instance, I don't like black people generally I doubt many would applaud the sentiment.

White, middle-class, straight males, specifically. Mostly tedious, predictable, whiney

That post is wasted on mumsnet. It should be on Twitter so Donald Trump could re-tweet it.

Given there are four of us on here with "Dad" in our username, there may be something in Sensi's "predictable" accusation.

But otherwise, I simply don't recognise Sensi's a description applying to all (or most) white, middle-class, straight men.

That's interesting Sensimilla I have always found white middle class men to generally be very patronising to me and quick to behave inappropriately when they think they can get away with it, but I've always put it down to the fact that I met more of them than other kinds of men if that makes sense.

people post looking for advice or for friendship or camaraderie - those are all agendas. Perfectly valid, benign agendas, but still agendas - eg if someone posts an AIBU for the camaraderie of the ensuing discussion, then clearly they are not just motivated by finding the answer to their AIBU, they are looking for something else which is unstated. My point was that you seemed more focussed on uncovering OP's agenda than having a discussion.

My point was that you seemed more focussed on uncovering OP's agenda than having a discussion.

I think that’s a little unfair, don’t you? I’ve asked 1Dad many questions and he’s ignored all of them. I am always happy to have a discussion on gender politics with any man who’s willing to listen. But I am critical of 1Dad, yes.

As for not liking men, generally... isn't that rather bigoted? Disliking a group because of their perceived characteristics without getting to know them as individuals? If you said, for instance, I don't like black people generally I doubt many would applaud the sentiment

This is part of the tedium tbh wisedad... there is no 'reverse racism*. Prejudice against black people is due to prejudice and stereotypes. Prejudice against white people, is a reaction to lifetime of experiences of white people. Same for sexism. Plus balance of power

AssassinatedBeauty

That's because we're evil feminist harridans, obviously. Man haters if you will

Nobody said anything of the kind although that trope that everyone is ganging up on the poor feminists and it's so unfair gets wheeled out often enough.

There are ridiculous double standards applied on MN.