Did that thread about a woman's atlas get deleted?

[Northeast Rep Snowball]

I have a feeling that this thread is going to be deleted too...

Anything or anyone who refers to that which has been disappeared will also be disappeared.

But yes, it is so tiresome that any interesting discussion has been disallowed here, and in particular that the moderators seem to think women are some kind of delicate weak flowers who can't partake in a political debate.

They can debate all right -they just don't like creepy PMs from certain posters (you know who you are....) being sent to them. 

I feel like everyone on the board would have to be anonymous for interesting debate on certain subjects.

[opebo]

I have a feeling that this thread is going to be deleted too...

Anything or anyone who refers to that which has been disappeared will also be disappeared.

But yes, it is so tiresome that any interesting discussion has been disallowed here, and in particular that the moderators seem to think women are some kind of delicate weak flowers who can't partake in a political debate.

They can debate all right -they just don't like creepy PMs from certain posters (you know who you are....) being sent to them. 

Whate're you talking about?  clarence sending fat ladies to the mods?

[Joe Republic]

I have a feeling that this thread is going to be deleted too...

Anything or anyone who refers to that which has been disappeared will also be disappeared.

But yes, it is so tiresome that any interesting discussion has been disallowed here, and in particular that the moderators seem to think women are some kind of delicate weak flowers who can't partake in a political debate.

What are you talking about?  Simfan deleted it.  He said so right here in this thread...

[Frodo]

I have a feeling that this thread is going to be deleted too...

Anything or anyone who refers to that which has been disappeared will also be disappeared.

But yes, it is so tiresome that any interesting discussion has been disallowed here, and in particular that the moderators seem to think women are some kind of delicate weak flowers who can't partake in a political debate.

They can debate all right -they just don't like creepy PMs from certain posters (you know who you are....) being sent to them. 

Whate're you talking about?  clarence sending fat ladies to the mods?

Oh, I know some male posters send creepy come-on PMs to the ladies.  I have no idea if you do the same, though it would not surprise me in the least if you're one of them.  

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I have a feeling that this thread is going to be deleted too...

Anything or anyone who refers to that which has been disappeared will also be disappeared.

But yes, it is so tiresome that any interesting discussion has been disallowed here, and in particular that the moderators seem to think women are some kind of delicate weak flowers who can't partake in a political debate.

They can debate all right -they just don't like creepy PMs from certain posters (you know who you are....) being sent to them. 

I feel like everyone on the board would have to be anonymous for interesting debate on certain subjects.

We are anonymous. Only I know who you are, person whose name isn't Colin.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I have a feeling that this thread is going to be deleted too...

Anything or anyone who refers to that which has been disappeared will also be disappeared.

But yes, it is so tiresome that any interesting discussion has been disallowed here, and in particular that the moderators seem to think women are some kind of delicate weak flowers who can't partake in a political debate.

Did you even read the thread?  Simfan ADMITTED to deleting it!

Thank you.  That is all.

[memphis]

memphis, diagnosis of mental maladies of all kinds is incredibly subjective. It's true there's some observed tendency towards maleness among people with the conditions you mention, at least some manifestations of which might induce people to be more interested in the things we do here on Atlas Forum, but the fact that they're, for better or for worse, fad diagnoses at present or in recent years might tend to inflate that quite a bit.

Mental health diagnoses are hazy and not always discrete. No question about it. But to dismiss real, established conditions as mere "fads" is beyond callous. Frankly, it's unnecessary intellectual recklessness. Any public school teacher can tell you that the special ed label also falls very heavily on boys, despite misguided (IMO) attempts to change this. Also an accident? A fad? A willfull and spiteful disregard for the specialness of females? There's something about the Y chromosome. Ignore the elephant in the room if it makes you feel more comfortable. We all know he's there.

I know I appreciate being schooled on conditions I have and situations I've been in by the likes of you.

You are, once again, unable or unwilling to respond to my points with any sort of relavent rebuttal whatsoever?  Duly noted. I'm sure your preferance for dismissiveness is society's fault.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

And really, opebo?  After you are warned not to mislead the forum about actions taking by the moderators, you accuse the mods of deelting a thread when only 7 posts above, the original poster had admitted to deleting it?  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one that you didn't read Simfan's response, but perhaps you should stop making assumptions about moderator actions when you don't have all of the facts.  A lot of the reasons for the mod hate on this forum are because people like you mislead people (intentionally or unintentionally, but at this point you'd have to have a REALLY low IQ to be that oblivious, and I genuinely think you're a pretty smart person).  And people don't take time to fact check what's said (and they ignore our truthful rebuttals).  So they just go around posting ZOMG!!!! Teh Modz locked a topic!!!!!1 Why??

So just stop already.  The game is old... really really old.

[Simfan34]

Could you lock this thread?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

memphis, diagnosis of mental maladies of all kinds is incredibly subjective. It's true there's some observed tendency towards maleness among people with the conditions you mention, at least some manifestations of which might induce people to be more interested in the things we do here on Atlas Forum, but the fact that they're, for better or for worse, fad diagnoses at present or in recent years might tend to inflate that quite a bit.

Mental health diagnoses are hazy and not always discrete. No question about it. But to dismiss real, established conditions as mere "fads" is beyond callous. Frankly, it's unnecessary intellectual recklessness. Any public school teacher can tell you that the special ed label also falls very heavily on boys, despite misguided (IMO) attempts to change this. Also an accident? A fad? A willfull and spiteful disregard for the specialness of females? There's something about the Y chromosome. Ignore the elephant in the room if it makes you feel more comfortable. We all know he's there.

I know I appreciate being schooled on conditions I have and situations I've been in by the likes of you.

You are, once again, unable or unwilling to respond to my points with any sort of relavent rebuttal whatsoever?  Duly noted. I'm sure your preferance for dismissiveness is society's fault.

No, in this case it's yours. And my response was relevant. Not sure if it was relavent, though.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Could you lock this thread?

Sorry, I can't - there's no reason to.

[memphis]

memphis, diagnosis of mental maladies of all kinds is incredibly subjective. It's true there's some observed tendency towards maleness among people with the conditions you mention, at least some manifestations of which might induce people to be more interested in the things we do here on Atlas Forum, but the fact that they're, for better or for worse, fad diagnoses at present or in recent years might tend to inflate that quite a bit.

Mental health diagnoses are hazy and not always discrete. No question about it. But to dismiss real, established conditions as mere "fads" is beyond callous. Frankly, it's unnecessary intellectual recklessness. Any public school teacher can tell you that the special ed label also falls very heavily on boys, despite misguided (IMO) attempts to change this. Also an accident? A fad? A willfull and spiteful disregard for the specialness of females? There's something about the Y chromosome. Ignore the elephant in the room if it makes you feel more comfortable. We all know he's there.

I know I appreciate being schooled on conditions I have and situations I've been in by the likes of you.

You are, once again, unable or unwilling to respond to my points with any sort of relavent rebuttal whatsoever?  Duly noted. I'm sure your preferance for dismissiveness is society's fault.

No, in this case it's yours. And my response was relevant. Not sure if it was relavent, though.

Oh noez, I made a minor spelling error. That's totally as important to the conversation as your complete refusal to defend your position in any meaningful way. Well played. Men frequently have more trouble with spelling and language. Dyslexia and so forth. So you can go ahead and blame society for that one too.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

memphis, diagnosis of mental maladies of all kinds is incredibly subjective. It's true there's some observed tendency towards maleness among people with the conditions you mention, at least some manifestations of which might induce people to be more interested in the things we do here on Atlas Forum, but the fact that they're, for better or for worse, fad diagnoses at present or in recent years might tend to inflate that quite a bit.

Mental health diagnoses are hazy and not always discrete. No question about it. But to dismiss real, established conditions as mere "fads" is beyond callous. Frankly, it's unnecessary intellectual recklessness. Any public school teacher can tell you that the special ed label also falls very heavily on boys, despite misguided (IMO) attempts to change this. Also an accident? A fad? A willfull and spiteful disregard for the specialness of females? There's something about the Y chromosome. Ignore the elephant in the room if it makes you feel more comfortable. We all know he's there.

I know I appreciate being schooled on conditions I have and situations I've been in by the likes of you.

You are, once again, unable or unwilling to respond to my points with any sort of relavent rebuttal whatsoever?  Duly noted. I'm sure your preferance for dismissiveness is society's fault.

No, in this case it's yours. And my response was relevant. Not sure if it was relavent, though.

Oh noez, I made a minor spelling error. That's totally as important to the conversation as your complete refusal to defend your position in any meaningful way. Well played. Men frequently have more trouble with spelling and language. Dyslexia and so forth. So you can go ahead and blame society for that one too.

Now you're mischaracterizing my position to cover your own lazy, sexist ass. I, as the person who isn't advocating the bizarre notion that environments end up >90% one sex or another for purely natural, inborn reasons, am obviously in the 'defensive' position here, whereas you, unable as you are (or are pretending to be, possibly in bad faith?) to comprehend my multiple concessions that once some factor socialization is presumed--as it obviously can be to anybody not interested in being a internet tough-guy sexist--it becomes a lot harder to tell what any percentage of anything would look like without the socialization and there might very well be some 2:1 or 3:1 factor in some kind of hypothetical, counterfactual 'natural' setting, are clearly the one in the position to be demanding satisfaction.

I have presented multiple examples of situations in which personality traits or occupational categories which you or I would not think of as gendered, or would think of as 'masculine', were socialized to a proportion of females approaching that of your fond original example of preschool teachers, to the point of the 'femininity' of those categories seeming ineradicable and innate to most people in the societies in question. You have responded by listing examples of same, except limited to our society, and hitching your wagon to the star of mental health diagnostics.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Could you lock this thread?

Sorry, I can't - there's no reason to.

Leave it open, I'm quite enjoying Nathan's utter demolition of Memphis' bigotry.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Could you lock this thread?

Sorry, I can't - there's no reason to.

Leave it open, I'm quite enjoying Nathan's utter demolition of Memphis' bigotry.

I am.  I have no problem with the thread.  The "sorry" was merely there because I could not fulfill Simfan's request, not because I agree with it.

[memphis]

memphis, diagnosis of mental maladies of all kinds is incredibly subjective. It's true there's some observed tendency towards maleness among people with the conditions you mention, at least some manifestations of which might induce people to be more interested in the things we do here on Atlas Forum, but the fact that they're, for better or for worse, fad diagnoses at present or in recent years might tend to inflate that quite a bit.

Mental health diagnoses are hazy and not always discrete. No question about it. But to dismiss real, established conditions as mere "fads" is beyond callous. Frankly, it's unnecessary intellectual recklessness. Any public school teacher can tell you that the special ed label also falls very heavily on boys, despite misguided (IMO) attempts to change this. Also an accident? A fad? A willfull and spiteful disregard for the specialness of females? There's something about the Y chromosome. Ignore the elephant in the room if it makes you feel more comfortable. We all know he's there.

I know I appreciate being schooled on conditions I have and situations I've been in by the likes of you.

You are, once again, unable or unwilling to respond to my points with any sort of relavent rebuttal whatsoever?  Duly noted. I'm sure your preferance for dismissiveness is society's fault.

No, in this case it's yours. And my response was relevant. Not sure if it was relavent, though.

Oh noez, I made a minor spelling error. That's totally as important to the conversation as your complete refusal to defend your position in any meaningful way. Well played. Men frequently have more trouble with spelling and language. Dyslexia and so forth. So you can go ahead and blame society for that one too.

Now you're mischaracterizing my position to cover your own lazy, sexist ass. I, as the person who isn't advocating the bizarre notion that environments end up >90% one sex or another for purely natural, inborn reasons, am obviously in the 'defensive' position here, whereas you, unable as you are (or are pretending to be, possibly in bad faith?) to comprehend my multiple concessions that once some factor socialization is presumed--as it obviously can be to anybody not interested in being a internet tough-guy sexist--it becomes a lot harder to tell what any percentage of anything would look like without the socialization and there might very well be some 2:1 or 3:1 factor in some kind of hypothetical, counterfactual 'natural' setting, are clearly the one in the position to be demanding satisfaction.

I have presented multiple examples of situations in which personality traits or occupational categories which you or I would not think of as gendered, or would think of as 'masculine', were socialized to a proportion of females approaching that of your fond original example of preschool teachers, to the point of the 'femininity' of those categories seeming ineradicable and innate to most people in the societies in question. You have responded by listing examples of same, except limited to our society, and hitching your wagon to the star of mental health diagnostics.

There's no need to limit gender specificities to mental health diagnoses. Although I think it's very strange that you now think that the many learning disabilities I've been pointing out were mental health issues. That puts you in a very strange position indeed. As yet another example, let's take the subject of first person shooter video games. Another overwhelmingly male field. Women are more than welcome to enjoy the fun. Heck, if they find the current culture there oppressive, they can start a league of their own and talk about how weak and stupid men are while blowing each other to bits. And yet, in overwhelming numbers, they don't. But I think the most telling example is right in front of us. I return to the maps and the prediction of them, which are a core element of this website. They're what brought me here in the first place many years ago, and I doubt very much that I am unusual in this regard. The pre-election 2012 board was awful for many reasons, but on the smorgasbord of fail, sexism wasn't even on the menu.  If some sort of oppressive anti-female bigotry were to blame, as some alleged a while back, you'd expect to see roughly the same number of male and female joining each month or so, with the females getting scared away after a brief period. Or at least in numbers that would satisfy your necessary 3:1 ratio. And yet we don't even come close. Until this silly womens' studies seminar, I had never seen much discussion of womens' issues at all here. Which, you might say is why we are not getting more girls, but it would also suggest females are incapable of having opinions on other political topics, a notion that is obviously false  The most vaguely offensive thing toward women on the entire site was the Hot Girls Thread, but there was also an almost as extensive Hot Guys Thread. Didn't seem to scare the straight guys away. There are plenty of them. If the Atlas Forum is anybody's poster child for sexism on the internet, a google search may be in order. So, there's no need for you to continue describing the world as you would like it to be and telling us that's how it is. And, by all means, let go of the Carefully Taught Alienation. You don't want to be the gender studies version of the boy who cried wolf. I'm also changing my signature. It's now long out of date and understang sarcasm is just too much to expect of some posters.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

memphis, diagnosis of mental maladies of all kinds is incredibly subjective. It's true there's some observed tendency towards maleness among people with the conditions you mention, at least some manifestations of which might induce people to be more interested in the things we do here on Atlas Forum, but the fact that they're, for better or for worse, fad diagnoses at present or in recent years might tend to inflate that quite a bit.

Mental health diagnoses are hazy and not always discrete. No question about it. But to dismiss real, established conditions as mere "fads" is beyond callous. Frankly, it's unnecessary intellectual recklessness. Any public school teacher can tell you that the special ed label also falls very heavily on boys, despite misguided (IMO) attempts to change this. Also an accident? A fad? A willfull and spiteful disregard for the specialness of females? There's something about the Y chromosome. Ignore the elephant in the room if it makes you feel more comfortable. We all know he's there.

I know I appreciate being schooled on conditions I have and situations I've been in by the likes of you.

You are, once again, unable or unwilling to respond to my points with any sort of relavent rebuttal whatsoever?  Duly noted. I'm sure your preferance for dismissiveness is society's fault.

No, in this case it's yours. And my response was relevant. Not sure if it was relavent, though.

Oh noez, I made a minor spelling error. That's totally as important to the conversation as your complete refusal to defend your position in any meaningful way. Well played. Men frequently have more trouble with spelling and language. Dyslexia and so forth. So you can go ahead and blame society for that one too.

Now you're mischaracterizing my position to cover your own lazy, sexist ass. I, as the person who isn't advocating the bizarre notion that environments end up >90% one sex or another for purely natural, inborn reasons, am obviously in the 'defensive' position here, whereas you, unable as you are (or are pretending to be, possibly in bad faith?) to comprehend my multiple concessions that once some factor socialization is presumed--as it obviously can be to anybody not interested in being a internet tough-guy sexist--it becomes a lot harder to tell what any percentage of anything would look like without the socialization and there might very well be some 2:1 or 3:1 factor in some kind of hypothetical, counterfactual 'natural' setting, are clearly the one in the position to be demanding satisfaction.

I have presented multiple examples of situations in which personality traits or occupational categories which you or I would not think of as gendered, or would think of as 'masculine', were socialized to a proportion of females approaching that of your fond original example of preschool teachers, to the point of the 'femininity' of those categories seeming ineradicable and innate to most people in the societies in question. You have responded by listing examples of same, except limited to our society, and hitching your wagon to the star of mental health diagnostics.

There's no need to limit gender specificities to mental health diagnoses. Although I think it's very strange that you now think that the many learning disabilities I've been pointing out were mental health issues. That puts you in a very strange position indeed. As yet another example, let's take the subject of first person shooter video games. Another overwhelmingly male field. Women are more than welcome to enjoy the fun. Heck, if they find the current culture there oppressive, they can start a league of their own and talk about how weak and stupid men are while blowing each other to bits. And yet, in overwhelming numbers, they don't. But I think the most telling example is right in front of us. I return to the maps and the prediction of them, which are a core element of this website. They're what brought me here in the first place many years ago, and I doubt very much that I am unusual in this regard. The pre-election 2012 board was awful for many reasons, but on the smorgasbord of fail, sexism wasn't even on the menu.  If some sort of oppressive anti-female bigotry were to blame, as some alleged a while back, you'd expect to see roughly the same number of male and female joining each month or so, with the females getting scared away after a brief period. Or at least in numbers that would satisfy your necessary 3:1 ratio. And yet we don't even come close. Until this silly womens' studies seminar, I had never seen much discussion of womens' issues at all here. Which, you might say is why we are not getting more girls, but it would also suggest females are incapable of having opinions on other political topics, a notion that is obviously false  The most vaguely offensive thing toward women on the entire site was the Hot Girls Thread, but there was also an almost as extensive Hot Guys Thread. Didn't seem to scare the straight guys away. There are plenty of them. If the Atlas Forum is anybody's poster child for sexism on the internet, a google search may be in order. So, there's no need for you to continue describing the world as you would like it to be and telling us that's how it is. And, by all means, let go of the Carefully Taught Alienation. You don't want to be the gender studies version of the boy who cried wolf. I'm also changing my signature. It's now long out of date and understang sarcasm is just too much to expect of some posters.

This approaches critical-mass incomprehensibility. A few responses to signals I was able to receive through this fog:

1. 'Mental health' is the most generic term I could think of (not only but especially beyond midnight on an evening when I'd just finished a term paper). It's not even a term that I like. In general.
2. If you seriously think that when people like me, or drj101, or Antonio refer to concepts like 'socialization', we're talking about obvious impediments to women doing things that they want to do and go about attempting to do, you've got another thing coming and somebody much better versed in explaining this in small words will than I am will have to have a crack at this conversation.
3. Everything that you are saying would apply equally, in reverse, to my pre-modern Japanese spirit mediums and Iroquois horse breeders.

[Gustaf]

Memphis, for all your ridicule of womens' studies, and I say this as someone who has done his fair share of ridiculing of those things, you seem to have a very limited understanding of how patriarchal structures are supposed to work. I say supposed in order to facilitate a common ground here.

It's not about legal or physical barriers. Have you never known a woman intimately? And I don't necessarily mean sleeping with one. Just knowing a woman pretty well is sufficient to see this. I had a girlfriend who avoided working for investment banks. Not because she didn't want to, because she did. Not because they said they didn't like women, because they actually did the opposite, claiming to want more female employees. But because she very acutely felt the barriers of the sexist culture of those places and the way society expects men to do such jobs better. That's just a tiny anecdotal example from a country usually considered one of the most gender-equal in the world.

You're clearly viewing this from the perspective of a man. Which is natural since you are one. But the whole idea of tolerance and human rights is that we attempt to understand those coming from other positions in life. Not only do you fail in that but you seem uninterested to even try, content to retain misogynist positions. You should really reconsider that. 

[Sbane]

I'm still not sure how this website, or it's contents could be seen as off limits to women. Nathan claims it is the statistics part of it, but I don't quite associate statistics with our maps....also it needs to be said of the people who actually visit and use the maps, there could be a 3:1 ratio of men to women. Perhaps most of them just don't register for the forum.

[Sbane]

And now that I think about it, a compounding reason for the utter lack of women in this forum is that posting on Internet forums, especially about things like politics, are considered to be a male's domain. So a 3:1 ratio of men show up here due to inherent differences between the genders, and of those mostly men stick around due to cultural factors. Looks like I solved the mystery.

[opebo]

And really, opebo?  After you are warned not to mislead the forum about actions taking by the moderators, you accuse the mods of deelting a thread when only 7 posts above, the original poster had admitted to deleting it?  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one that you didn't read Simfan's response, but perhaps you should stop making assumptions about moderator actions when you don't have all of the facts.  A lot of the reasons for the mod hate on this forum are because people like you mislead people

I'm not intentionally 'misleading' anyone, Inks, I didn't know about Simfan or clarences actions.   I don't see how I could be expected to know everything.  I would love to have all of the facts about your actions, but I believe we often feel in the dark because of the lack of transparency in the system.  It is only natural that in such a system rumor, conjecture, and fear will generally prevail - and certainly it isn't very fair of you to blame me for that!  

I think this could all be solved if you guys simply made a thread somwhere entitled 'moderator actions', where each of your deletions were mentioned and explained, and opened to public debate.

[Gustaf]

I'm still not sure how this website, or it's contents could be seen as off limits to women. Nathan claims it is the statistics part of it, but I don't quite associate statistics with our maps....also it needs to be said of the people who actually visit and use the maps, there could be a 3:1 ratio of men to women. Perhaps most of them just don't register for the forum.

You don't see how the way society is structured and the way gender roles and expectations work would preclude women from this stuff?

[Simfan34]

I would like to deeply apologise for being the person to provoke this whole brouhaha. I never knew posing such an innocuous scenario would end up so disastrously.

[Sbane]

I'm still not sure how this website, or it's contents could be seen as off limits to women. Nathan claims it is the statistics part of it, but I don't quite associate statistics with our maps....also it needs to be said of the people who actually visit and use the maps, there could be a 3:1 ratio of men to women. Perhaps most of them just don't register for the forum.

You don't see how the way society is structured and the way gender roles and expectations work would preclude women from this stuff?

Not really, no. But you are free to explain why. Nathan said it is because this is another form of statistics, but I don't quite buy that.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'm not intentionally 'misleading' anyone, Inks, I didn't know about Simfan or clarences actions.   I don't see how I could be expected to know everything.  I would love to have all of the facts about your actions, but I believe we often feel in the dark because of the lack of transparency in the system.  It is only natural than in such a system rumor, conjecture, and fear will generally prevail - and certainly it isn't very fair of you to blame me for that! 

Simfan said it in the the thread!  Let's just hear those 6 little words: I am sorry; I was wrong.  I have yet to ever see you acknowledge when you were wrong about an accusation against the mods.