But If We Started Dating It Would Ruin Our Friendship...

[JimmyJazz]

This forum really is misogynistic, not so much by the joke Onion articles that get posted, but the inevitable shouting down of any female posters who take offense.

Anyway, I thought it was a funny article, reminded me of this:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31035

[gorillafuck]

Oh yes, the rallying call of the "oppressed" amercian male, manipulated and used by his vicious matriarchal over-lords. (I'm aware that this is written by a womyn, but it is obviously written for a male audience, and apparently strikes a cord.)

I expected better from you, RP.

Using language like that just makes people that don't already support feminism think you're crazy.

Edit: I also dislike that you singled out american males as opposed to males in general.

[Il Medico]

Men, women (not womyn) are all manipulative fucks. That's the point. Our insecurities lead us to use each other, and destroy any real chance of a relationship. I've been in a few of these types, they never end well. However, in my opinion the worst ones are where you love some one, an not like in the way above, but actually do sincerely love them, but they don't give you the time of day. Invisible, knowing they don't know, and not telling them because you know they won't feel the same. They're not manipulating you, because they are oblivious that you want to be more then just friends. You look at the guys and gals they date, and think, I could do better, but know they feel quite differently. Those are far worse in my opinion.

Love,
Captain Jack

[which doctor]

alcohol is about the only possible solution for this sort of problem

get drunk, inhibitions are lowered, responsibility is mitigated. if things don't work out as planned you can always blame the booze.

[black magick hustla]

tbh its not that females are manipulative. i dont know if it is because of society or whatever they tend to be more intuitive than men and this understanding of emotions seems like manipulation to some people. some females date assholes but i think it has to do with the fact that assholes are more confident than a lot of doormats.

marmots few cents on the issue

also it seems a lot of females are less shallow than males. i remember TC saying that this is a sexist assumption or w/e. i dont think its sexist and i think its true. i am not particularly good looking nor i dress that swell but i am doing damn fine. i am a very interesting and charming fella with lots of confidence. also very few people intimidate me - women or men. i think thats what makes me stand out from other people.

[Black Dagger]

I think it was actually written by a woman, not a womyn.

That's not original, funny or really called for? Like you enjoy provoking and mocking women who use feminist spellings? Congrats, waive your dick around while you're at it bro.

This forum really is misogynistic, not so much by the joke Onion articles that get posted, but the inevitable shouting down of any female posters who take offense.

^^^^^.

Using language like that just makes people that don't already support feminism think you're crazy.

Err what? I dunno ay, i don't see what is remotely 'crazy' about political or other deliberate misspellings? It's quite a common feature of language generally, some of us view language as something more than just cookie-cut pages on a dictionary. Especially in this context, when the language play is a linguistic reference to something as significant as feminist ideas, but yeah 'lol feminists'.

I never get tired of hearing that record play on RL

[Prairie Fire]

H-L-V-S

I think it was actually written by a woman, not a womyn.

New Tet:

...wymun...

bcbm:

How many different spellings of "woman/women" can we get in this thread?

Sorry, I meant wimmin.

This Charming man:

Stop dehumanising our whammin.

Pirate Utopian:

I only write "women" as wopeople cause I am more revolutionary than thou!

Captain Jack:

...women (not womyn)...

When I write big posts explaining Marxism-Leninism in detail, everyone gives me positive rep and "thanks", and the issue of my spelling variant never comes up.

When I write something related to gender inequality, my spelling variant is the first thing they use to put me in my place.

I'm unpleasantly surprised to see that some of the people here taking a chauvenist line are not the usual suspects for this sort of thing.

The article that prompted my reply is undisputably written for a male audience. The gender roles in the narrative are well defined as males and females, "boyfriends" and "girlfriends".

I took issue with the outlook, and very few people made an effort to even address what I actually said (except for RP, who was the initiator of the thread). Instead, I got "the stick", deluged in ad hominem attacks about my spelling variant.

I saw this reaction coming, but I still had to say something.

[illan]

So far as using the term womyn/womin/womon is concerned, I hardly think that its going to change social relations - but no one claims it is. Its point is to challenge patriarchal language/thinking, regardless of what the etymology of the word is. Frankly, someone (and I mean mainly men or as the case may be on this forum, little boys) trying to correct a womyn's spelling and point out that 'no, honey, its not spelt like dat!!!', comes across as obnoxious and dismissive. Sure, the usage can be silly in situations, but its probably lamer for you to come in as the Grammar Police (TM) and make sure that everyone follows the 'correct usage' of words so as to not stray into dangerous grounds which upset public opinion (how's communism doin' in that regards lately?). Certainly on this forum all you're doing is defending the overwhelming male majority. Thanks for proving how l33t & [email protected] ya'll are!

[illan]

Using language like that just makes people that don't already support feminism think you're crazy.

I'm a communist. Which means I'm considered, by default, a mass murderer (or a supporter of mass murder), a racist (dunno, where that comes from, but it comes all the same), a baby killer, a man hater, a satanist, a hedonistic slut or whatever-the-fuck someone wants to put on the name of communism. None of them are true (well maybe except for one). Using the term 'womyn' is hardly going to fuck up my reputation (lmao!) and nor should someone conform to standard opinion in order not to be labeled 'crazy.' But what would you know, you're a useless liberal.

[bcbm]

When I write something related to gender inequality, my spelling variant is the first thing they use to put me in my place.

I don't really give a shit how you spell anything nor did I criticize anything you said because I don't really care about the article. I just noticed a few new spellings i hadn't seen before from other people and it seemed funny to have so many in one thread. Wasn't trying to offend, sorry.

[Glenn Beck]

When I write big posts explaining Marxism-Leninism in detail, everyone gives me positive rep and "thanks", and the issue of my spelling variant never comes up.

When I write something related to gender inequality, my spelling variant is the first thing they use to put me in my place.

I'm unpleasantly surprised to see that some of the people here taking a chauvenist line are not the usual suspects for this sort of thing.

The article that prompted my reply is undisputably written for a male audience. The gender roles in the narrative are well defined as males and females, "boyfriends" and "girlfriends".

I took issue with the outlook, and very few people made an effort to even address what I actually said (except for RP, who was the initiator of the thread). Instead, I got "the stick", deluged in ad hominem attacks about my spelling variant.

I saw this reaction coming, but I still had to say something.

It's certainly cowardly to ignore your points in favor of mocking your idiosyncratic spelling, but I'm surprised someone of your materialist bent would favor such seemingly idealist ways of fighting oppression, especially given that such a response is basically inevitable.

I also dislike that you singled out american males as opposed to males in general.

THAT IS SO TRUE! Amen brother! American males are so terribly oppressed by these stereotypes

[Il Medico]

*To PF*
I really have no problem with what you said. It is a narrative describing a common romantic situation, just from the perspective of the female taking advantage of the male. RP also posted a comic showing the other side. There is nothing sexist about perceptive. Nor did the OP suggest that this was always the case. Also you assumption that I would thank you for a post on Marxist-Leninism is completely wrong, I would probably spend around an hour writing a in-depth counter argument. I am a writer by profession and dislike any improper spelling of words. I would have reacted in the same way if you had said 'dawg' or the like. I by no means harbor grudges against Feminism. I personally consider my self a Feminist (as in I support gender equality). I am sure most commenters you listed held similar reasons, or were just being arses. I apologize if I offended you. However, I would like to stress the point that this is a rather meaningless form of protest that really proves nothing. It is the literary equivalent of burning bras. It is hopelessly idealist way of getting your point across and really doesn't do it all that well.

With much love comrade,
Captain Jack

[illan]

It's certainly cowardly to ignore your points in favor of mocking your idiosyncratic spelling, but I'm surprised someone of your materialist bent would favor such seemingly idealist ways of fighting oppression, especially given that such a response is basically inevitable.

Just because something is 'fought' in the context of words doesn't make it 'idealist' and therefore useless. Challenging the use of the word 'nigger' is certainly bound up in trying to change language norms. That doesn't make it useless or ineffective - language, being so integral to society, is bound to represent certain class interests. Challenging prevailing terms is part of that struggle for a revolutionary & just society.

[Bilan]

When I write big posts explaining Marxism-Leninism in detail, everyone gives me positive rep and "thanks", and the issue of my spelling variant never comes up.

Well, sure. The different spelling of women in there isn't important: what is is what you're actually saying. To mention it there would be to trivialise everything you're saying.

When I write something related to gender inequality, my spelling variant is the first thing they use to put me in my place.

This isn't really about gender inequality, though. Gender inequality underlies human relationships, sure, but that's not what is being referred too. This joke paper is referring to something most people experience in relationships: i.e. when a person is attracted to another, and the other insists on staying 'just friends'. I know few people who haven't been through that, girls or boys, and all that's being done is that it's being mocked.
As for the spelling, well, the spelling is relatively minor. Language isn't the basis of patriarchy, nor well altering it have any affect whatsoever. I doubt most people even take any notice of how woman is spelt, let alone feel any need to change it. The liberation of women arises from a structural change, not a linguistic one (And I'm well aware that you're well aware of that).
The changing of spelling is really rather pointless.

Further, it's not worth getting so riled up about. People here are evidently just being smart arses. There's little more to it. How we spell a word doesn't change how we react to what it's referring to: those of us who still spell it 'women' don't reject womens liberation necessarily, but just simply think it's a bit silly to spell it 'wimmin'/'womyn' etc.

I'm unpleasantly surprised to see that some of the people here taking a chauvenist line are not the usual suspects for this sort of thing.

What is chauvinistic about it?

The article that prompted my reply is undisputably written for a male audience. The gender roles in the narrative are well defined as males and females, "boyfriends" and "girlfriends".

So? There's not 'gender roles' as such, but simply the mention of 'boyfriends' and 'girlfriends' - these don't necessarily require any specific roles, though some do. It almost sounds like you're implying that anyone who has had a boyfriend or girlfriend is OK with gender roles, which is a gross distortion of relationships - but I presume that's a misunderstanding on my part.

[illan]

*To PF*
Also you assumption that I would thank you for a post on Marxist-Leninism is completely wrong, I would probably spend around an hour writing a in-depth counter argument.

As they say, talk is cheap. And you're one of the biggest dickheads on this forum, so your talk is even cheaper.

I am a writer by profession and dislike any improper spelling of words.

Grow the fuck up, and stop being so full of yourself, you asshole.

I would like to stress the point that this is a rather meaningless form of protest that really proves nothing. It is the literary equivalent of burning bras. It is hopelessly idealist way of getting your point across and really doesn't do it all that well.

When females burn bras, it was never intended to overthrow society. It was a symbolic gesture - and they knew it. And far from being meaningless, its one of the most enduring images of the sexual revolution. So please, stop being a complete fuckwit and read book or two hundred.

[Glenn Beck]

Just because something is 'fought' in the context of words doesn't make it 'idealist' and therefore useless. Challenging the use of the word 'nigger' is certainly bound up in trying to change language norms. That doesn't make it useless or ineffective - language, being so integral to society, is bound to represent certain class interests. Challenging prevailing terms is part of that struggle for a revolutionary & just society.

I suppose...still I don't see how you can compare replacing the word "man" in all contexts not referring specifically to a male human with the very same word just with a different vowel to advocating social disapproval of a racial slur. I suppose my gripe with "womyn, wimmin" and all that jazz is that 1. I'm not convinced that the language it seeks to replace is indicative of or contributing to sexism and 2. It fails to actually reform the english language to be gender neutral and simply uses an idiosyncratic spelling of the word "man", for all intents and purposes the word "man' is still in there

[Glenn Beck]

I am a writer by profession and dislike any improper spelling of words.

[Il Medico]

*To illian*
Listen honey, to be frank, you look silly. I do not patronize you because you are a woman, but because you either can't spell (considering you misspelled words like doing and that) or you purposefully misspell things to piss people off. This shows a complete lack of maturity, which is by no means a positive aspect for a person who has to make sensible arguments to an already skeptical public. Supporting the misspelling of a word to feminize it, goes against the idea of gender equality by supporting the idea that words with men/man in them are inappropriate and must be changed. You are simply replacing what you see as patriarchal language with matriarchal language, which is not helping the cause of gender equality and is rather sexist. Doing such by no means makes you "hardcore", nor does criticizing one for doing so make you a reactionary or fake. I also would like to add that I prefer the term 'Grammar Nazi' (it makes me sound more authoritarian). And calling Hammer and Pickle a useless liberal, is neither justified or appropriate. Nor is your constant use of foul language, especially considering you know no one on this forum. I personally take insult to your terminologies, that you use so wonderfully to paint such an accurate picture of me. I believe I speak for most when I say that blatant insults like that are unwelcome on this forum.

Love,
Captain Jack

[Il Medico]

Oh, now you just being an arse!

[Bilan]

*To illian*
Listen honey, to be frank, you look silly.

When you wrote this, which head were you thinking with?