a question for the men here

[Mitchy1nge]

what makes you think you have anything of real value to bring to discussions about women's experiences and expectations?

obviously some men can make interesting contributions (although those sorts of men don't often announce themselves here) to some discussions but generally, on the whole, everything everywhere else is already pretty saturated in Male Voice so was just wondering where you got the idea from

[mathanxiety]

Several interesting comments there Pan, because it seems to me it is actually far easier to be brave while anonymous online. Maybe especially so for women, who can type their thoughts to someone like DD (now banned) whom they might not ordinarily run across in daily offline life, or express their thoughts to people who might be a physically intimidating presence if the conversation happened in the same room. But I see no reason why it couldn't be so for men too. Pen is mightier than the sword and all that...

Hence the puzzlement here, I think, when there was such silence from men in the wake of of DD's comments.

Maybe it really is a question of values after all?

(I will look through your posts to make sure but I think you did make that distinction upthread - apologies in advance if I am mixing you up with someone else)

[Pan]

seeker - it happens occasionally on the MN/FWR. I've seen MB do it, which sticks out, for some reason. I've done it here a few times. Prior to last years implosion we had a couple of troller types who lasted well beyond their shelf life, and me (and poss. MB?) gave them short shrift. Since then I've been largely absent from F/WR until v recent. DD on this thread was of similar ilk.

As for RL? Come and live my life.. fwiw I've just negotiated a 'women-only' space in my work place for female client users. I could do that because I'm 'in charge'. The reason why I did it was because of my values. Other manager colleagues just didn;t get it. At all.

[SabrinaMulhollandJjones]

Math - I heart you xx

[seeker]

Obviously you pick your moments, pan.

[Pan]

yes math in hindsight I do regret not making more of DD than I did at the time. I just assumed that he was a massive troll and had been winding posters up and was getting thoroughly wiped on the floor by other women posters. He was also in my view a man with whom engagement was utterly pointless - he was never going to change. And this thread question is about 'why do you post?' and I was engaged in answering that at the time.

[Pan]

seeker I really don't pick my moments. I'm not that clever.

[Pan]

I'm not sure at times that the pen is mightier in these circs. Observation and experience and role-modelling is far more potent. Unless I'm misunderstanding your post? But certainly, as the cartoon goes "we can all be dogs on the internet".

[Hullygully]

still waiting for an answer to my questions...

were they too simply phrased? do you want them fancied up?

[Pan]

Hully no need to fancy up. Just can't recall what they were, I'm afraid. It seems a long time ago. so?

[Pan]

I'm not being avoidant to you, but I've a bed to go to. It's v late. If it suits we can do this tomorrow, if that's okay.

[Pan]

I'd prefer tomorrow. The answers will be the same.

[Pan]

okay. Can I suggest either you cut n' paste, or PM me. I know the thread is nearly at 1000 and by tomorrow evening when I could be here next it will be full. I don't care or mind either way.
night.

[SabrinaMulhollandJjones]

Oh god - this is too awful

[SabrinaMulhollandJjones]

Pan - amazing as this may seem to you - oooh - it's not aall about you.. ooh oph......

[Pan]

yes I know it isn;t all about me at all. I have been answering questions mostly for the last hour or so that have been asked of me. Nothing more than that.
night again.

[kickassangel]

.

[Pan]

ok. Logging on over breakfast.
Hully - you mean:
"a) They don't think anything posted will change anyone's mind.

So why be here? How pointless is your RL that you want to be even more pointlessly engaged?

b) They don't have any solidarity and won't speak up for the women that are here." ??
If so....

Well, I'd agree. And to point out the bleedin' obvious....for me, I never said I don't think anything posted will change anyone's mind. I'd indicated the utter futility sometimes, of trying to engage with some people - where heads and brick walls will continually meet. DD here was one of them. And it wouldn't matter what carbon-based life form was posting to him - the outcome would have been the same.

Solidarity? Again, I'd agree if this were true. Quite a few of the male 'regulars' do demonstrate solidarity with women here, by agreeing with points made, or challenging sexist/ill-informed shit. It was happening last time I was here (by me incl. with others) and will happen again no doubt.
For me, as your asking, I feel massively less attachment, though to some of the posters POV here, and their easy willingness to misrepresent deliberately what I or others have said. It's happened on this thread and Pag's thread. But it's the F/WR so I wouldn't consider that would worry some people. ( just gets petty tiresome) And that doesn't affect my values regarding womens' entitlement to 'equal' treatment and right to a happy life.

Hi Ho, Hi Ho.

[Beachcomber]

Daddelion

I see that you are still not responding to my post, made as a response to a post of yours where you challenged something I said, (way upthread).

Why not?

I made a point about oppression, you responded, I responded to you and posted some links and quotes. You have said that you will get back to me on it and you still haven't.

It was about the feminization of poverty.

Of course you are under no obligation to reply - I'm just surprised that you haven't bothered

It is very very easy to challenge what another poster says and then totally ignore their rebuttal. Unfortunately it is something I see men do all the time in feminist conversations. Male privilege in action on a feminist thread - whoda thunk it....

[Beachcomber]

MiniTheMinx, I broadly agree with your analysis of capitalism (sorry its way upthread now).

The fatal flaw in capitalism, as an economic model, is that it only works if certain populations are exploited.

[larrygrylls]

Beachcomber,

And what economic model (realistically) does not depend on exploitation? I can see that communism worked very briefly in Russia and a similar system worked very briefly in Israel (with the Kibbutzim). However, they depended on a population having an idealistic goal. That tends to last for a few decades (at most) until reality intervenes and it gets exploited.

Capitalism, although highly flawed, has delivered the "fairest" outcomes to date for the majority of the people. And, en passant, I would argue that the last few decades have not really been capitalist at all. They have delivered money to a clique of highly paid employees at the expense of risk takers. So, the current disparity in income distribution is not really down to capitalism IMO.

[MiniTheMinx]

The contradiction is that it only works where there is inequality, creates inequality and when there is too much inequality it fails, as can be seen now with the crisis in demand.

Keep meaning to say Beach, its good to see you back

[Daddelion]

Beachcomber.

I must apologise I was out most of the day watching or participating in sport.
I'll have a look later, I've a corporate Titan to prop up.

When you say 'every time' do you mean often or regularly?
It can't be every time surely.

[Daddelion]

Not every time. All the time.

[larrygrylls]

Mini,

Maybe, but most modern systems are a balance between socialism, in that income is redistributed through tax, and capitalism, where people are incentivised to get wealthy through their own efforts. As far as I can see (in my 30 year adult lifetime) we tend to swing from more socialistic and more capitalistic, almost in a sine wave. Each time we get closer to pure capitalism, people resent the wealthy and elect a more left wing government. Each time gvt becomes too redistributive, people resent their tax burden and where it is going.

Some of the recent scandals are of a different nature and point towards flaws in capitalism. OTOH, every time government controls too much of the national money they use that money to enrich themselves and their cronies. USSR was an extreme examples with only the central committee having access to hard currency shops while denying the citizenry all but essentials.

As far as I can see, human nature is flawed and the current capitalism/socialism mix of some flavour is the best system that we can realistically hope for.