The Loveshack/SoSuave Discussion [Merged Threads]

[Phyzzle]

The baffling moderation on LS is reason enough to call it inferior. Yes, I do seem some mysogynist notions on SS, like "loyalty just doesn't exist in a woman's mind", but then people argue against them as well.

I believe it is not impossible for one forum to be objectively more helpful than another. This one is clearly more helpful to men. There will always be a list of useful, interesting, enlightening points of view that are prohibited on LS.

 

[MacAvoy]

The baffling moderation on LS is reason enough to call it inferior.

Ok I'm just as guilty of this as anyone.

But let me get this straight: we're here trying to convince women how great/important our site is. Do I have this right?

I'm leaning towards Francisco's meat is murder vs carnivore thing.

I'm with reset on this one.

What does it really matter if LS is inferior? At the end of the day, your trying to compare apples to oranges. The purpose behind the sites are totally different and geared towards different markets and both appear to be successfully achieving their goal.

 

[Señor Fingers]

I've been here for a long time and only in the past year have I realized the amount of misogyny here. Its real and it exists by members of this site. It might not be the man hating dyke types that exist on the other end of the spectrum, but it exists.

Indeed it does.

I been doing my best to stamp that sh!t out lately, but its hard to get through to recovering chumps sometimes. They almost need to go through that bitter phase just to get the venom out of their systems.

Too many get stuck in this rut and unfortunately they tend to be among the most vocal/argumentative posters. Then along come the noobs, who see their own rage and shortcomings personified through elegant prose and analytical jargon and all of a sudden, they have found enlightenment!

It's a vicious cycle, but on the bright side I do see things changing for the better.

 

[Nighthawk]

Ok I'm just as guilty of this as anyone.

But let me get this straight: we're here trying to convince women how great/important our site is. Do I have this right?

I'm leaning towards Francisco's meat is murder vs carnivore thing.

LS style responses are very similar to what you may be confronted with in the real world. It may be useful to explore and frame the arguments here. Interesting at least.

 

[reset]

I don't intend on doing much arguing with women in the future. I'm in no rush to get married.

 

[Purple-Haze]

I don't intend on doing much arguing with women in the future. I'm in no rush to get married.

Ohhh, but we'll find some way to get at you.

 

[Kamille]

Are you saying Kamille's not smart? Because his 'trick' (he later admitted he did it on purpose to get her attention) worked on her.

Actually, his 'trick' worked, but he never admitted he did it to get my attention. I should ask him. When we tell the story of how we met, he always says that I really 'hooked' him with the patriarchal professor line. That he was in the middle of the meeting and in a rush and that I was the one who was being flirtatious.

Again, this was our second encounter and it was clear from the get go that we were attracted to each other. I was having as much flirting with him as he was flirting with me. He didn't need to 'trap' of 'fool' me into anything. I was also playing to get him.

I'm pointing this out to counter any "women are passive" interpretation of the pick up. I wasn't passive.


Anyways gotta go! The gym awaits me!

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

I've been here for a long time and only in the past year have I realized the amount of misogyny here. Its real and it exists by members of this site. It might not be the man hating dyke types that exist on the other end of the spectrum, but it exists.

I'm not doubting that. In fact we've had to ban the more blatant misogynists here, which was kind of my point. The LS crowd (male and female) will readily discount anyone that is even slightly critical of the feminine as a misogynist. The practice there is to quell critical review. It's a far easier (and more socially acceptable) practice to pass this counter-point off as misogynistic and therefore not meriting debate.

This is precisely what I mean:

I don't know about you guys but the statement : men should never listen to women because (women are naturally irationnal or women have secret agendas or women are too emotional) is the perfect example of binary thinking. It's knowledge production based on a binary categorization of men=rational, women=irrational. When I was taught binary thinking, that's the exact example that was used.

The question KAMILE poses here is entirely valid, but any guy that would operate from the 'presumption' that men=rational, women=irrational is passed off and disqualified as woman hating. There's no discussion, there's no "gee, why do you think that way?" There's only, "you could only be a misogynist if you think that so whatever you had to say is invalid." There's no interest in why someone, however binary, came to that way of thinking. This then becomes compounded by a need to read misogyny into any rationale that they disagree with. Then sycophantic guy's looking to better identify with a woman so offended come to her defense and reinforce this for her.

The short version of it is, misogyny as a term is too readily used to avoid a real discourse about what otherwise would be very valid, but uncomfortable
discussions about gender differences.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

I've been here for a long time and only in the past year have I realized the amount of misogyny here. Its real and it exists by members of this site. It might not be the man hating dyke types that exist on the other end of the spectrum, but it exists.

It may come off as misogynistic but remember that more times than not, that perception is created by the same guys who wonder how they can keep a woman from flaking on them. It's more of a "us against them" mindset than a hate mindset. None the less, there's a lot of it.

 

[Kamille]

I'm not doubting that. In fact we've had to ban the more blatant misogynists here, which was kind of my point. The LS crowd (male and female) will readily discount anyone that is even slightly critical of the feminine as a misogynist. The practice there is to quell critical review. It's a far easier (and more socially acceptable) practice to pass this counter-point off as misogynistic and therefore not meriting debate.

This is precisely what I mean:


The question KAMILE poses here is entirely valid, but any guy that would operate from the 'presumption' that men=rational, women=irrational is passed off and disqualified as woman hating. There's no discussion, there's no "gee, why do you think that way?" There's only, "you could only be a misogynist if you think that so whatever you had to say is invalid." There's no interest in why someone, however binary, came to that way of thinking. This then becomes compounded by a need to read misogyny into any rationale that they disagree with. Then sycophantic guy's looking to better identify with a woman so offended come to her defense and reinforce this for her.

The short version of it is, misogyny as a term is too readily used to avoid a real discourse about what otherwise would be very valid, but uncomfortable
discussions about gender differences.

I just want to point out that nowhere did I say that all binary thinking based on gender is mysoginist. Also, I wouldn't be here if I thought the ideas you raise aren't worthy of debate.

 

[Rex Man]

This reminds me of camp when all the guys would go over to the girl cabins and squirt them with water guns. Why does this thread hate LoveShack? (I've never bee there) If it's the reason I think it is (to shine a light in the darkness of ignorance in dealing with women, even above the objections of some women), count me in!

 

[slowgold]

LS style responses are very similar to what you may be confronted with in the real world. It may be useful to explore and frame the arguments here. Interesting at least.

Are you sure you don't mean "it may be useful to explore and frame the arguments here so that we can validate that our positions have been right all along?"

Because you know you can twist anything you want any way you want to....just like you twisted things when you said that Kamille fell for her b/f's "rudeness" as a "technique." Nonsense.

 

[slowgold]

This reminds me of camp when all the guys would go over to the girl cabins and squirt them with water guns. Why does this thread hate LoveShack? (I've never bee there) If it's the reason I think it is (to shine a light in the darkness of ignorance in dealing with women, even above the objections of some women), count me in!

I don't know what light was shined where...maybe they ran out of batteries for their flashlights.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Perfect example of why this type is rejected on the other site:

http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=142135

JP is a prime example of a man who doesn't understand the differences in male and female communication styles. Let me also point out that the majority of SS members responding are NOT encouraging his assessments, but rather pointing out flaws in his rationale. So in effect you are right, this would be rejected at LS because they would pass him off as a misogynist rather than risk any kind of critical thought as to why he'd think as he does.

 

[Nighthawk]

Are you sure you don't mean "it may be useful to explore and frame the arguments here so that we can validate that our positions have been right all along?"

Sure, ok. Is that so different from anyone with a viewpoint? And I have lots of firm beliefs that I enjoy debating, and many times a good argument has changed my views. Always open to be proven wrong, believe it or not.

Because you know you can twist anything you want any way you want to....just like you twisted things when you said that Kamille fell for her b/f's "rudeness" as a "technique." Nonsense.

Don't see how I twisted anything. I'm pretty sure Kamille said over at LS that her bf admitted it was on purpose, I could be wrong. But it would never work on you, fine.

 

[Rex Man]

I don't know what light was shined where...maybe they ran out of batteries for their flashlights.

I see. So slowgold, from your POV, what's going on here (and there?)

 

[Burrito Supreme]

JP is a prime example of a man who doesn't understand the differences in male and female communication styles. Let me also point out that the majority of SS members responding are NOT encouraging his assessments, but rather pointing out flaws in his rationale. So in effect you are right, this would be rejected at LS because they would pass him off as a misogynist rather than risk any kind of critical thought as to why he'd think as he does.

I think it would be rejected because there are alot of generalizations and name calling and insults being thrown around.

 

[slowgold]

I see. So slowgold, from your POV, what's going on here (and there?)

Honestly, not sure. I completely have agreed with brother McAvoy here. I don't see what good it did to go busting over there. Two completely different sites "marketed" at a different audience. I don't think many people would be open to both. You either relate more to one or to the other, with a few exceptions of course.

If an intelligent dialogue/understanding can come from all of this, well I would applaud that. But in the end, I don't see that anyone's firm positions will be changed. I really don't.

I can scream from the rooftops how I know what I want and I got it. I can insist that rudeness doesn't "work" for me, etc. etc. etc. I probably won't be believed. And I probably won't be believed when I say that most of the "techniques" here would only work on someone quite young...under 25 for the most part. In the end, though the tricks will backfire.

Our two sites do espouse self-empowerment. I do see a lot of "playing the victim" though here...although I've seen it on LS too.

Anyway, good question. And I'm really not sure I answered it but it's food for further thought.

Ok, Nighthawk I see your points. Agreed.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

I think it would be rejected because there are alot of generalizations and name calling and insults being thrown around.

generalization

n 1: the process of formulating general concepts by abstracting common properties of instances [syn: abstraction, generalisation] 2: reasoning from detailed facts to general principles [syn: generalisation, induction, inductive reasoning] 3: an idea having general application; "he spoke in broad generalities" [syn: generalisation, generality] 4: (psychology) transfer of a response learned to one stimulus to a similar stimulus [syn: generalisation, stimulus generalization, stimulus generalisation]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University


Generalization gets a bum rap. It ougt to be used in the way it was actually intended - drawing hypothesis and conclusions from a greater, general whole of observed behavior. Pay close attention to #2, "reasoning from detailed facts to general principles [syn: generalisation, induction, inductive reasoning]." I'm interested in the general Rule, since it, and not the exceptions to it, help predict an outcome.

It's not JPs generalizations that offend, but rather his use of them is entirely flawed and cater to his frustration.

 

[Burrito Supreme]

generalization

n 1: the process of formulating general concepts by abstracting common properties of instances [syn: abstraction, generalisation] 2: reasoning from detailed facts to general principles [syn: generalisation, induction, inductive reasoning] 3: an idea having general application; "he spoke in broad generalities" [syn: generalisation, generality] 4: (psychology) transfer of a response learned to one stimulus to a similar stimulus [syn: generalisation, stimulus generalization, stimulus generalisation]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University


Generalization gets a bum rap. It ougt to be used in the way it was actually intended - drawing hypothesis and conclusions from a greater, general whole of observed behavior. Pay close attention to #2, "reasoning from detailed facts to general principles [syn: generalisation, induction, inductive reasoning]." I'm interested in the general Rule, since it, and not the exceptions to it, help predict an outcome.

It's not JPs generalizations that offend, but rather his use of them is entirely flawed and cater to his frustration.

Maybe generalization is not what I am thinking of, but I am talking about those who think that their advice is right and that everyone elses is incorrect and/or inferior to theirs.

I read alot of "all women/men are this" or "most women/men are that."

Thats a huge difference from "most of the women/men that I have dealt with are this or that".