Women-only audaxes

[rafletcher]

There's so much to be horrified by with that Dublin train station footage.

Made worse by this headline - not the leading adjective:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14953038/footballer-pals-quizzed-howth-dart-attack/

[ravenbait]

I refuse to give that hate rag any clicks. Could you possibly include the text you wish to highlight?

Sam

[Gattopardo]

I think the species is Ferengi and it’s from Star Trek

Yep, specifically my link is to the Grand Negas, and the other link is to Quark...

I may have been binge watching DS9 recently...

J

Bit late to that binge watching

Have you watched the expanse?

Now the point of my reply to you, was to mention Deborah Francis White background of her time in the mormons and shows about finding her birth
parents.

[Peter]

There's so much to be horrified by with that Dublin train station footage.

Made worse by this headline - not the leading adjective:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14953038/footballer-pals-quizzed-howth-dart-attack/

With reference to earlier posts, "footballer" is not an adjective but I was waiting for someone else to bring that up!   

[Gattopardo]

Reading some of the posts on here, I understand the need for women only audaxs, and hope that we can change attitudes and society so they are not neccessary.

But then I look at my actions and am guilty.  The issue is that I don't see the issue from both sides just mine.  The DM thing, I message people to say hello, ask how they are or ask follow up things that aren't relevant to asking on the forum.  I see it as chatting to one side of the group.   

In all my employment. I had support staff, majority female.  I always took the time to learn birthdays and likes and dislikes and say thank you for helping me.  Say we were somewhere getting lunch and staff were there I would pay for the sandwiches.  If I was nipping out for a snack or coffee run, I would always ask if the support staff wanted anything while out.   Some non support staff thought it was strange, or that I was on the pull were the reasons for doing that.  My gesture was not altruistic, but the intention was to be nice and polite.  Made me think that I was doing the same thing but to a lesser scale.

[Cudzoziemiec]

There's so much to be horrified by with that Dublin train station footage.

Made worse by this headline - not the leading adjective:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14953038/footballer-pals-quizzed-howth-dart-attack/

With reference to earlier posts, "footballer" is not an adjective but I was waiting for someone else to bring that up!   

"Pals" is the word that strikes me as horrendously out of place.

[Kim]

There's so much to be horrified by with that Dublin train station footage.

Made worse by this headline - not the leading adjective:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14953038/footballer-pals-quizzed-howth-dart-attack/

With reference to earlier posts, "footballer" is not an adjective but I was waiting for someone else to bring that up!   

"Pals" is the word that strikes me as horrendously out of place.

Similarly, I always find 'quizzed' a bit odd in headlines like that.  "Fingers on the buzzers... Who can account for their whereabouts on the night of the 25th?"

[Peter]

What does the buzzing depends on where you stick the electrodes in such cases, I imagine.

[De Sisti]

That is not sarcasm. It is applauding you for having the courage to report the security guard.
Apology will be accepted when it's offered.

Apology offered. 

Why you thought I was having a go at you, I will never know. Apology accepted.

[ravenbait]

Reading some of the posts on here, I understand the need for women only audaxs, and hope that we can change attitudes and society so they are not neccessary.

But then I look at my actions and am guilty.  The issue is that I don't see the issue from both sides just mine.  The DM thing, I message people to say hello, ask how they are or ask follow up things that aren't relevant to asking on the forum.  I see it as chatting to one side of the group.

There's a big difference between DMing someone to discuss some nuance that's verging off-topic (as long as your DMee is happy with this, of course), and DMing someone on the basis that everything they are saying on thread is posturing for the purposes of looking good in public, and in private they will agree with you because you are obviously right so anything posted in disagreement is either deliberate virtue-signalling or a case of misunderstanding. If only you can berate them some more with hyperbolic examples, they will confess to agreement! What if all audaxes were women only? AUK wouldn't get revenue from men any more!

That's the kind of DM I was getting. It's a bit like being doorstepped by a politician from a party whose policies you disagree with fundamentally.

Is your DMee a friend? Are you on friendly terms, even? Are they likely to appreciate you sending a private message to catch up with them? Are you genuinely offering to help in a way you don't want the whole forum knowing about but which the DMee would definitely appreciate? Go for it.

Do you have the kind of relationship where you discuss things that might not be suitable for public view? If so, no problem!

Are you DMing to avoid public scrutiny of some outrageous nonsense, or because you don't believe the persona portrayed on the forum can be real because that persona doesn't agree with you? Or, worse, are you cold-calling with a personal proposition? No! Do not!

In all my employment. I had support staff, majority female.  I always took the time to learn birthdays and likes and dislikes and say thank you for helping me.  Say we were somewhere getting lunch and staff were there I would pay for the sandwiches.  If I was nipping out for a snack or coffee run, I would always ask if the support staff wanted anything while out.   Some non support staff thought it was strange, or that I was on the pull were the reasons for doing that.  My gesture was not altruistic, but the intention was to be nice and polite.  Made me think that I was doing the same thing but to a lesser scale.

The phenomenon of men being nice because they want to have sex is ridiculously widespread. The concept of "the friend zone" is entirely because too many men[1] consider personal relationships to be transactional, and if they've paid for dinner, for instance, then the woman should be offering to share her bed. It is SO prevalent that some women now look upon men who are genuinely nice with suspicion, and this is truly tragic, and is yet another reason why men need to step up and say this stuff Is Not Cool. Men who indulge in gameifying relationships and men who are "red pillers" or who consider themselves to be "Men's Rights Activists" have ruined it for the rest of you. Sorry. Women treating the behaviour with suspicion is a valid defence that has come about because of the selfish jerks who whine about not being able to get laid despite being "nice".

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/nice-guy-syndrome-dating-tactics-persona-men-women-relationships-a7476651.html

The problem for women is that it's hard to tell when a man is being nice because he's genuinely nice, and when he's going to escalate into entitled bullshit until he does it.

Sam
[1] More than zero men.

[grams]

There's a big difference between DMing someone to discuss some nuance that's verging off-topic (as long as your DMee is happy with this, of course), and DMing someone on the basis that everything they are saying on thread is posturing for the purposes of looking good in public, and in private they will agree with you because you are obviously right so anything posted in disagreement is either deliberate virtue-signalling or a case of misunderstanding. If only you can berate them some more with hyperbolic examples, they will confess to agreement!

Very well, we shall resume in an hour.
http://wondermark.com/1k62/

[citoyen]

Very well, we shall resume in an hour.
http://wondermark.com/1k62/

That is amazing.

[mattc]

correctile dysfunction

That is brilliant!

It's kinda funny!
But that's not a great excuse for making sweeping negative comments usually.  I guess I'm not "reading the room" on this one, carry on.

I think you are doing a #notallmen

Are you sure? It's a meme that has ducked and dived into many forms over the years, but I think this bit of the WIki page is by far the most common inferrence

(click to show/hide)

Slate writer Phil Plait wrote that the hashtag was

not an unexpected response. However, it's also not a helpful one. Why is it not helpful to say "not all men are like that"? For lots of reasons. For one, women know this. They already know not every man is a rapist, or a murderer, or violent. They don't need you to tell them. Second, it's defensive. When people are defensive, they aren't listening to the other person; they're busy thinking of ways to defend themselves. I watched this happen on Twitter, over and again. Third, the people saying it aren't furthering the conversation, they're sidetracking it. The discussion isn't about the men who aren't a problem. (Though, I'll note, it can be. I'll get back to that.) Instead of being defensive and distracting from the topic at hand, try staying quiet for a while and actually listening to what the thousands upon thousands of women discussing this are saying. Fourth—and this is important, so listen carefully—when a woman is walking down the street, or on a blind date, or, yes, in an elevator alone, she doesn't know which group you're in. You might be the potential best guy ever in the history of history, but there's no way for her to know that. A fraction of men out there are most definitely not in that group. Which are you? Inside your head you know, but outside your head it's impossible to

[Cudzoziemiec]

Very well, we shall resume in an hour.
http://wondermark.com/1k62/

Enjoying this series! This one seems kind of relevant too: http://wondermark.com/1k71/

[Hot Flatus]

correctile dysfunction

That is brilliant!

It's kinda funny!
But that's not a great excuse for making sweeping negative comments usually.  I guess I'm not "reading the room" on this one, carry on.

I think you are doing a #notallmen

Are you sure? It's a meme that has ducked and dived into many forms over the years, but I think this bit of the WIki page is by far the most common inferrence

Slate writer Phil Plait wrote that the hashtag was

not an unexpected response. However, it's also not a helpful one. Why is it not helpful to say "not all men are like that"? For lots of reasons. For one, women know this. They already know not every man is a rapist, or a murderer, or violent. They don't need you to tell them. Second, it's defensive. When people are defensive, they aren't listening to the other person; they're busy thinking of ways to defend themselves. I wat The discussion isn't about the men who aren't a problem. (Though, I'll note, it can beched this happen on Twitter, over and again. Third, the people saying it aren't furthering the conversation, they're sidetracking it.. I'll get back to that.) Instead of being defensive and distracting from the topic at hand, try staying quiet for a while and actually listening to what the thousands upon thousands of women discussing this are saying. Fourth—and this is important, so listen carefully—when a woman is walking down the street, or on a blind date, or, yes, in an elevator alone, she doesn't know which group you're in. You might be the potential best guy ever in the history of history, but there's no way for her to know that. A fraction of men out there are most definitely not in that group. Which are you? Inside your head you know, but outside your head it's impossible to

See bolded. Both of them. Point being that QG wasn't making a sweeping negative comment. She was addressing a particular behaviour.
But anyway, she can explain/defend herself if she so chooses. She doesn't need me to do it for her. Equally, maybe I misunderstood your point, either way it isn't a big deal.

[mattc]

wasn't making a sweeping negative comment. She was addressing a particular behaviour.

OK, "comment" was a poor choice of word.

Either way - mansplaining or the erectile joke - it's taking an annoying behaviour, dumping it on men (who are hardly the only sex to do it) and churning it out in every discussion about situations where men interact with women (or vice versa if you prefer ).

People can be irritating - deal with it. I'm pretty sure there are more productive things to discuss if we want to promote womens sport and the like. (it wasn't ME that brought it up first, BTW!)

[Lightning Phil]

I got a bit lost for a while in Wondermark

http://wondermark.com/c1492/

[Hot Flatus]

wasn't making a sweeping negative comment. She was addressing a particular behaviour.

OK, "comment" was a poor choice of word.

Either way - mansplaining or the erectile joke - it's taking an annoying behaviour, dumping it on men (who are hardly the only sex to do it) and churning it out in every discussion about situations where men interact with women (or vice versa if you prefer ).

People can be irritating - deal with it. I'm pretty sure there are more productive things to discuss if we want to promote womens sport and the like. (it wasn't ME that brought it up first, BTW!)

Cool. I guess that is your approach to racism, too??

Point being that it isn't just 'people being irritating', because it isn't people, it's a subset of people behaving in a certain way to a different subset because they are that subset. And you have, I think, all of the women posting here saying that they have experienced it.

I don't think "deal with it" really cuts it, to be honest, Matt.

[ravenbait]

OK, "comment" was a poor choice of word.

Either way - mansplaining or the erectile joke - it's taking an annoying behaviour, dumping it on men (who are hardly the only sex to do it) and churning it out in every discussion about situations where men interact with women (or vice versa if you prefer ).

People can be irritating - deal with it. I'm pretty sure there are more productive things to discuss if we want to promote womens sport and the like. (it wasn't ME that brought it up first, BTW!)

This is a thread about women only audaxes.

Let's see how some comments I've heard over the years might sound to you, gender-twisted.

"I didn't know men could ride fixed!"

"I suppose it's possible some men might be strong enough to ride a fixed gear."

"Aren't you afraid being out alone? What if a strange woman attacked you?"

"I am making a movie [an adult explicit movie] about muscular men with short hair. Would you be in it?"

"You won't be able to put that tyre back on. Men's hands are too weak." Grabs wheel. "I'll do it for you."

"What do you do if you have a mechanical? Call your wife?"

"Careful there, handsome. You might break a nail."

Or some gender-twisted (wo)mensplaining/bikesplaining:

"I didn't know there were men who could build their own wheels."

"Are you telling me there's a man who knows how to put a chain on? I thought you'd be too worried about getting your hands dirty."

"Make sure you get that saddle height right, love. You don't want to be stuck when it goes up your [arse]." This was followed by some disgusting sound effects.

"That's not a 70" fixed. Must be a 63. Men can't ride more than 63" -- if you know what I mean, ha ha. Everyone knows men aren't too good at maths."

Imagine getting crap like that every time you were out with a bunch of people of the opposite sex, and then being told it has nothing to do with sexism but just people being idiots and you should "just deal with it." Why would you? I mean, really? Why would you?

A straight womansplaining might be a woman telling a man he's not putting a nappy on right, even if he's a stay-at-home dad with 5 kids, just because women know best how to take care of babies. For the record, if it needed saying, that also would be prejudiced and wrong.

Sam

[ravenbait]

https://www.manfeels-park.com/

Sam

[citoyen]

Either way - mansplaining or the erectile joke - it's taking an annoying behaviour, dumping it on men (who are hardly the only sex to do it)

The term specifically describes a man explaining to a woman something that she already knows. So yes, by definition, it is only men who do that. Like, duh.

I'm sure you can find examples of a woman explaining something to a man that he already knows, but that doesn't prove that mansplaining isn't a real phenomenon.

churning it out in every discussion about situations where men interact with women (or vice versa if you prefer ).

Yes, the term has become popular and over-used - and people use it loosely, or more broadly than its original sense - but again that doesn't mean it isn't a real phenomenon.

And your reaction to the term cropping up in this particular discussion comes across as strangely... defensive.

[TimC]

Reading some of the posts on here, I understand the need for women only audaxs, and hope that we can change attitudes and society so they are not neccessary.

I'll bypass the rest of the post. I'm sure you're lovely and all your underlings think so too.

It's not for you, me or anyone else to determine whether any exclusionary leisure events are necessary. It's actually none of our business - if someone wishes to run a ride for left-handed butchers, so what? Running that ride makes absolutely no difference to the thousands of rides that are held for people who don't fit those criteria. However, even though they don't exclude left-handed butchers, those rides don't quite fit their needs. I have no problem with anyone determining what criteria they use to define their event; the likelihood is that they have a damn good reason for excluding some people - just as I do when I have a party at my house. It just isn't an issue for anyone else to comment on. If you're not invited, tough.

[nikki]

Reading some of the posts on here, I understand the need for women only audaxs, and hope that we can change attitudes and society so they are not neccessary.

But then I look at my actions and am guilty.  The issue is that I don't see the issue from both sides just mine.  The DM thing, I message people to say hello, ask how they are or ask follow up things that aren't relevant to asking on the forum.  I see it as chatting to one side of the group.   

Hi Gattopardo, I agree that it's wider societal changes that we all need to work towards changing, and that the benefits from that will percolate through to cycling events eventually. It's a long game! in the meantime, making space for alternative environments is one of the tools we've got that we can action now.

I think if you've got that sort of understanding, alongside appreciating that your experience is not universal, then it's less likely that your DM practices are the problematic sort. The trolling ones, I suspect, are done very knowingly.

[Hot Flatus]

Despite forumming for ooooh 16 or 17 years I'm still perplexed that anyone could take themselves so seriously as to want to perpetuate an online bickering via PM. And that is before we even get to the creepy patriarchal stuff.

[mrcharly-YHT]

I committed the sin of mansplaining early last year. Only afterwards with horror realised what I'd done. Still really embarrassed, thought I knew better. Was being really quite rude to someone I like and admire.


It is easily done; just requires being thoughtless and oblivious