#Yesallwomen reaches one million tweets!

[Scarletohello]

This has been started in response to the massacre and anti women manifesto by Elliot Rodgers. Makes for interesting reading...

www.people.com/article/yes-all-women-hashtag-movement-santa-barbara-shooting

hys·ter·i·cal (h?-st?r??-k?l)
adj.

1. Of, characterized by, or arising from hysteria.
2. Having or prone to having hysterics.
3. Informal Extremely funny: told a hysterical story.

No, different context. You accused women on here of being hysterical, meaning either context 1 or 2. I meant extremely funny or context 3. But, as I said, you know this.

I am not a hypocrite. I'm not sure what you are, however.

I wonder however if you might be able to bundle your posts into 1 post? It means that more people other than you can comment before a thread runs out, and makes it much easier to follow the thread. It tends to be considered good etiquette on MN if you do, thanks.

Honey, the thing with having opinions is that people are allowed to challenge them. That's one of my favourite things about some parts of Mumsnet - the fact that it's a forum to challenge opinions, assumptions and beliefs. There are plenty of threads that have made me think or changed my mind, but I'm open to having my mind changed.

In my conversations with you across two threads this week, you come across as dismissive of other opinions and very hostile if yours are questioned or challenged. That may not be your intent - but it's how you're coming across to me.

On your last post - you must be living in a parallel universe if you think men don't feel they have a right to women's bodies and greatly objectify women, on a much greater scale than the other way around. But why keep bringing it up, anyway? No one here has been saying that one is fine, and the other not, unless I've missed some posts? No one here is that anyone wanting sex is bad - it's when their desire for sex, or affection, or attention, or whatever, is deemed by them more important than the other person's desire to not have that behaviour visited upon them?

At any rate this issue is not limited to sexual behaviours by a long shot.

t just felt very wrong, although the message is spot on could have been done in a less, 'listen to my issues' kind of way.

That comment just seems kind of apt, because women are constantly told not to make a fuss. Not to do anything in a way to draw attention to ourselves. SO when women do finally make their voices heard people think they should do it in a less obvious way :(

If my child had been a victim I'd want the word spread far and wide to stop others being hurt.

'you come across as dismissive of other opinions and very hostile if yours are questioned or challenged.'

Every other poster is also like this. They are extremely rude to anyone who doesn't hold the standard radicalised views of the main posters on this forum.

' you must be living in a parallel universe if you think men don't feel they have a right to women's bodies and greatly objectify women,'

What the hell? When did I say I think this? I stated a man merely desiring sex is considered entitled and it seems you do think that. That is disgraceful and to be honest with opinions like that no wonder this forum and the views on it are so fringe.

I don't agree, the desire to have sex is a totally normal biological function and tbh I take offence to people stating that my DP by default of being a man and having a sex drive feels 'entitled' to women's bodies. He definately does not.

I know there are lots of men who do truly feel entitled to women's bodies, however I will not ever extend this to all men or make the sweeping very offensive generalization that merely having a sex drive and desiring sex mean's one feels 'entitled to others bodies'.

I have male friends who havnt had sex for years and despite saying they'd like it, it would be nice if it happened they don't have any 'entitlement' to it whatsoever.

'No, different context. You accused women on here of being hysterical, meaning either context 1 or 2. I meant extremely funny or context 3. But, as I said, you know this'

You do realize that context cannot be interpreted when people are communicating via text speak only?

The 'context' of many of my posts have been misinterpreted on here themselves.

' it's when their desire for sex, or affection, or attention, or whatever, is deemed by them more important than the other person's desire to not have that behaviour visited upon them'

In my experience most men do not think this whatsoever. It is truly disgusting to generalize 'men' and say that they deem their sex drive more important than the wants of the other person. A lot of men do but I'd say as a group no they don't.

What they do do as a group, is desire and want sex and often with women that are attractive. This is seen as entitled by the types that frequent this forum regardless of whether the man does actually think he is entitled to it or not.

It's totally not for me to dictate, but there are a couple threads now that are just now discussing 22honey and her musings on the world and not the threads.

Would anyone just like to agree to disengage? Mental ignore button?

'It's totally not for me to dictate, but there are a couple threads now that are just now discussing 22honey and her musings on the world and not the threads.'

Sorry, but how are the threads discussing me? We are discussing the issue at hand, misogyny, men and this particular killer.

I am quoting and replying to the posts of other posters, and they are all relevant to the thread subject. What you mean is you don't like or agree with what I say, therefore what I'm saying has nothing to do with the topic and is all about me.

Utterly backward.

^YY

No, you can often tell context from the words people type, how they phrase themselves etc. You know this, you're not stupid. It's not context that is difficult to infer from typed text, it is tone and subtext, which are often communicated non verbally.

The context of your posts have not been misinterpreted at all. The words you have used to describe your beliefs about the posters on this board have been unambiguous. You know exactly what you're saying, how you're saying it and how it will be perceived. As I said, you're not stupid.

How ironic. Replied to ReallyFuckingFedUp, of course.

RFFU the day when the ignore poster button is made will be a happy one, however, I agree, stop throwing goats!

I am not blindly agreeing with every post on here, therefore I am making the threads all about me and my views.

Great logic. I cannot believe how stupid some posters on this forum are. No wonder barely anyone outside of this fringe movement takes their views seriously.

Yes to Really. Have been thinking this for a while now. Just ignore as no rational debate can be had.

"You do realize that context cannot be interpreted when people are communicating via text speak only?" Of course you can tell context from written text. What a strange thing to suggest, honey.

^YY

'No, you can often tell context from the words people type, how they phrase themselves etc'

And you often cannot. It depends on the quality of writing from the poster.

You stated a woman blogger (or similar?) stated something and it was hysterical.

How would anyone know if you meant funny or hysterical in the context I meant?

They wouldn't. That is the point. You didnt post anything that suggested you meant funny.

Ooh man haters. The worst thing in the world we could be. Obviously. We hate Elliot Rodgers that's for sure.

'The context of your posts have not been misinterpreted at all. '

Im sorry but yes they have. You saying they havnt makes sod all difference, many of my posts on here have been misinterpreted. Its a common mistake for people to make when discussing things via text only.

I think most people hate Elliot Rodger. Are you seriously trying to suggest he represents men?

What the actual fuck.

No what I'm saying is we hate misogynists. There you go again. Doing 2 + 2 and getting 55.

And now I'm disengaging because your arguments are ridiculous, honey.