I do know that there has been a constant blurring of boundaries between this blog and others as some have sought to bring ideas from those blogs to debate here. You have done this yourself, mostly using Roissy as an inspiration. Mike C is a Rollo Boy. Others here may be Dalrockolytes. I have referred to the introduction of these “toxic” ideas as “infecting” HUS.I regard the problem as a near-insoluble one. The challenge is that intersexual communication requires two-way communication, and women, for the most part, have zero interest in that. The reason the young women at HUS have been falling silent is because they have no interest in their opinions being challenged and their assertions being questioned. They have no interest in changing their lives, instead they want to be comforted and have their decisions confirmed. For the most part, women prefer to treat their interlocutors as children who must accept Mommy's word as divinely inspired law; it can be more than a little amusing to see the shocked expression on a woman's face when one does nothing more than directly question the factual truth of her statement. The stuttering, hasty retreat that usually follows her realization that she's been busted isn't without humor either.
I know you are aware of the effect these conversations have had on my female commenters (crickets), and it’s long been apparent that a sizable number of women elect not to comment here because of the “gloves off” demeanor of the conversations. In addition, female commenters who do stick it out often weigh in with constructive criticism of the male highjacking of threads. Yesterday, both Anacaona and Iggles, I believe, attempted to express their frustration with the tenor of the conversation, and more importantly, the destructive effect it was having on intersex communication.
Don't believe me? Try saying this as politely as you can manage the next time a woman attempts to slide an obvious whopper past you: "I'm sorry, but I don't believe you. Can you provide me with any evidence that is true?"
What I suspect you'll find to be reliably the case is that merely questioning the perfect truthfulness of a woman's word is regarded as rude, aggressive, offensive, and boorish. In femsprache, "gloves off" means "unconcealed disagreement". But don't take my word for it, try it out when the next opportunity presents itself.
As long as women are unwilling to accept having their opinions and assertions questioned, and as long as they prefer to fall silent rather than defend their statements, no substantive intersexual communication is possible. Now, obviously some women can handle it, whether they find it distasteful or not, but the observable reality is that most women either cannot or will not.
And men are well-advised to understand this is an area where most of them fall down. Most men are often inclined to let ludicrous statements go unchallenged, but they absolutely should not, because the woman making the statement tends to regard a man's acceptance of her version of reality as evidence of her dominance over him.
