Re: CHALLENGE FOR T.R. REGULARS

Laurie S. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> On 17 Nov 2003 19:42:15 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ellen Mercer)
> wrote:
> 
> >Daran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> 
> [...]
> 
> >> That's not what I meant either.  The TRIS(S) does not discriminate on the
> >> grounds of sex.  Consequently there's no favouritism in favour of the one
> >> sex, or the other, which can be compared with anyone else's favouritism.
> >
> >Not sure what you mean by favoritism. If you wish to hold that women
> >truly and honestly regard men (or vice versa) exactly as they regard
> >other women in this or other settings, you are mistaken.
> 
> I think the idea is that women don't have *A* way of regarding either
> men or women in this area. Women are different from one another.
> 
What mean by "in this area"? On this ng? I'm surprised by the
certainty with which you tend you reject what are really rather
conventional, commonplace sentiments- such as my belief that women
tend to hold other women among their inner circle of confidants more
so than they do men. Obviously, I need to use more caveats like
"generally", "usually", "as a rule" etc because of the tendency here
to cite a rare contrary example as proof that the underlying premise
of such a statement is false. Of course it is not. The net effect of
this hyper-selective reading and protestation is to do little more
than to require from those with what is a contrary view (on this ng,
not at large) to couch every general statement in the most
microscopically careful way.

> > No, I'm not
> >creating a straw man argument for you so I can win, I'm saying that it
> >may be possible for women to accept the value of a man's comments at
> >the same level of that of another woman, but she will never so readily
> >allow a man into her inner, emotional circle as she will a woman.
> 
> That's insane. 

I know this is USENET Laurie and people tend to overstate things, but
to label opinions that are quite commonplace as "insane" because you
don't agree with them is not particularly effective.

>While women may TEND to be this way, it's not anywhere
> near as prevalent as you paint it. Lots of women (me included, and
> many I've talked to about this) tend to be drawn to and open up more
> easily to men than to women, and vice versa. I tend to be drawn to men
> who are my mirror opposite in this regard.

You've just conceded everything that I was trying to say. So why
protest so vehemently, much less call it "insane"? If it helps for
you, please insert something like "generally", "typically", or "as a
rule, with numerous exceptions" into the statement that offended your
sensibilities so. I myself have had extremely intimate conversations
with men (other than those with whom I wanted/had a sexual
relationship) that differed in no way from those I have (much more
frequently) with my woman friends. I consider that as part of the
picture- those are called "exceptions".

> > And
> >that is a large part of what I'm talking about when I refer to an
> >"Inner Sanctum". I believe that I've made that clear several times
> >now. It is a form of favoritism. It is also 100% natural.
> 
> And it doesn't happen here. A few posters, both male and female, have
> shared personal feelings here over the past couple of months, in
> discussions that included both men and women and in which men and
> women readily disclosed feelings to people of the opposite sex. I've
> talked openly to every male t.r. regular at various times (more so, in
> fact, with men than with women). I'm not even close to alone in that.

Laurie, when I first came here you were the first person who tried to
tell me what to expect and I took everything at face value. That was
very helpful to me. I really respect your opinions and I think you are
often quite right. With generalizations such as the above, you are
referring to a certain group of posters you know well, while
(unconsciously?) excluding people like crossposters (who I do not
recognize as such as thoroughly and certainly as do you), people who
post here infrequently, and, I think, people who don't fit the mold
that you have just described.

To deny that women will tend to at least subtly relate better and
share just a little more with other women is an uphill battle, and I
believe that I've already seen enough of it even here to be sure that
that null hypothesis hsa been excluded- only a drastic change in
behavior by the members of the group could change my mind. There are
certainly many more exceptions to this generalization on t.r. than in
other groups or in TRW (The Real World). That is not surprising in the
slightest- what kind of man (or even woman) posts to a group like
"talk.rape"? I don't know for sure, but I am pretty confident that it
is not the random-man-off-the-street.

> > And on a
> >group called "talk.rape"? That is the last place that I'd expect to
> >see that rule overturned. There are few matters more polarizing
> >between men and women and promoting greater emotional distance than
> >rape.
> 
> See, that's what I've always found so cool about talk.rape, that it
> *isn't* polarizing, that there *isn't* the kind of emotional distance
> you speak of. The first person I really felt connected to here was a
> man (JJ), whose posts helped me immeasurably. I've discussed abuse
> experiences extensively with Daran, depression with Neil, etc. They've
> all also shared personal things with me.

Sure. Deep in your head, you've already subtracted the Bobs and Sky
Kings (those are in the "other" category, and that is well-known) and
perhaps a few dozen others who you are not counting in your analysis
because you've been here a long time and read so much, and it is easy
for you to pick out the people you like and think of those people as
representing everything that happens here.

A newcomer doesn't have this ability (or, to view it negatively, this
bias). I notice that people post here and say terrible things about
women, troll with nasty or misogynistic comments and so on, and to me,
that is part of the picture that I see- and count. Rape *is* a
polarizing topic between men and women, and the more the subject of
posts here has something to do with rape, the more likely the posts
are to take polarizing stances.

> And there's no emotional distance here between the male and female
> regulars wrt rape. The differences between the sexes in serious
> discussions about rape among the regulars are pretty much nil; what's
> a lot more relevant is the differences between the posters, *period*.
> 
That's always true. It is not me who has been emphasizing the
male-female schism among t.r. regulars, I went no further than to note
that the TRIS (t.r. Inner Sanctum) seemed to have a lot of females,
while allowing that I was still studying it, and that there were males
among their (apparent) sycophants. People have seized on that and
bring up the gender of TRIS(S) constantly, and my response has been
(1) to say that I wasn't sure about the exact membership and their
genders and (2) to describe, in very general ways, what kinds of
things happened that made me start to believe that there was such a
thing as a TRIS. I'm happy to avoid talking about the membership of
these hypothetical groups (perhaps not forever though) if people stop
asking me about all of it.

___________________________
When I grow up, I'm going to Bovine University!"
-Ralph Wiggum