Restoring Order

Scott has decided to enact some basic restrictions on his blog concerning when and where women can comment. This follows after a policy Cane Caldo enacted some time ago to cut off female comments entirely. While I decided against adopting Cane’s policy when he first announced it, I have been leaning in the direction Scott has taken for some time. A number of my comment sections have been completely derailed by female/male spats, and that has disrupted some otherwise good conversations. Not all did so because of malice; the disparity in communication styles was responsible for some of the disruptions. But disruptions are disruptions, and I would rather they stop.

Towards that end, I am going to start restricting certain posts to only male commenters. These will probably still be the exception, and won’t encompass my weekly posts. Such posts will have prominent notices in them to warn folks. Offending comments will be deleted. Those who repeatedly break the policy will be banned. If a woman feels that she can contribute to the discussion in a way that another commenter hasn’t done thus far, she can e-mail me with what she wants to say. Depending on the message, I might post it myself. However, I reserve the right to edit any such comments. And of course I will only post those comments I feel will contribute.

The first such post may come about later this week, depending on how much free time I have.

Advertisements

19 Comments

Filed under Red Pill

19 responses to “Restoring Order

  1. fuzziewuzziebear

    I like the concept of co-ed comment threads. If people can be civel and not condescending, there is much to be learnt from each other. However, it does take more supervision. Ask Sunshine.

  2. Feminine But Not Feminist

    I’ve been guilty of derailing some (or many) threads here, albeit unintentionally, and realized I was doing so in hindsight. My apologies Donal.

  3. mdavid

    I commented on Scott’s blog that while I prefer male/female separation in real life (education, church, activities, work) I think it’s silly for blogs. But your post-by-post method is a good balance. I just hope it’s rare for the reasons below:

    1) One wants lots of comments (if you had 300 unique comments already, maybe).
    2) Female thinking is key to understanding how certain ideas “play out” in the world.
    3) Disagreement, not an echo-chamber, helps elucidate things.

  4. Don’t let the bipolar disorder of InsanityBytes destroy the inclusion of female commenters Don.

    She’s just the pigeon on the chess board who scatters the pieces and shits on the board before she struts about and flies away.

  5. It’s your blog, Donal, however I really believe that you will deprive yourself of the diversity of opinion that is so important and the symbiosis and harmony God created between the genders. “It is not good for man to be alone..” nor is it good for women to be alone either, but obviously if you’ve totally written off all of womankind as having nothing of worth and value to contribute to your conversation, so there’s not much I can say to you. I’ve been happily married for 30 years, but apparently my words don’t carry the same weight as the unmarried, the bitterly divorced, and those trapped in their red pill matrix.

  6. DJ

    Oh sometimes I do that. I’ll post something aimed at men or women for discussion and tell the other one not to respond. I make sure to post them at around the same time so people can respond to the correct one. But I like to do them as close together as possible with similar wording so I can see the parellel discussion development. It can be a lot more fun then having coed discussions because often when you put men and women together in an argument on the internet it devolves into boy vs.girl (offtopic) arguments, which as you know gets boring fast.

  7. Dash Riprock

    @ Rollo. Wow, not seen timing like that since Stan and Ollie left us to join the Choir Invisible.
    @ Donal. Your blog, your call. You could always try and see how it works out. Doesn’t have to be forever. I will tell you that when the commentary degenerates on blogs into gender wars, its the white knightery that I find most disturbing. Men turning on other men to gain to hopefully gain the approval of female internet strangers. I find that disgusting and just have to walk away at that point.

  8. I really believe that you will deprive yourself of the diversity of opinion that is so important and the symbiosis and harmony God created between the genders.

    Ah, you must mean the kind you delete on your own comment threads. Fraud.

  9. jack

    Now you know why women lobbied so hard to shut down cigar lounges and gain entry to all-male spaces.

  10. Rollo-

    I’m curious about your take on one part of this–while Cane has decided “no women” on any of his posts, both Donal and I are initiating a demarcation between men only and co-ed posts on our sites. Mine is a little more formal I think, but the rationale is the same for both.

    Do you think there is ever a time when a discussion on these topics should be men only?

  11. Honestly no. I’m not sure I’d define TRM as a Male Space per se. It’s always been an open forum and I’ve never been opposed to women posting.

    I allow for it because to test an idea’s strengths demands an open discourse. The price of that discourse is suffering the occasional idiots and ideologues, but I think it’s worth it because it makes for a better consideration of those ideas.

    That said TRM is a very hot kitchen and many women’s feminine-primary expectations of being coddled and modulated for by men get stepped on. Most simply aren’t prepared for the unvarnished truths and get upset that my male commenters wont honor the sensibilities they believe their femaleness entitles them to.

    In that respect TRM is a Male Space and one that will always be a crucible for ideas that makes no compensations for the wants or preconceptions of women. Sites like MMSL, Mark Manson and Evan Mark Katz are glaring examples of what happens when men self-modulate to accommodate women’s feelings. Those male spaces become assimilated by the Feminine Imperative and their financial wellbeing then dictates that pandering to it supersedes harsh, evident truths.

    Now I don’t think Cane makes money from his blog, but in my estimate that only makes an open forum more valid. If I’m devoting my valuable time to providing a place for discussion I don’t want an echo chamber, I want to learn from the open discourse.

    The reason myself, Dalrock and others even bother with addressing a proven fraud like InsanityBytes is because we offer an open discourse at our own expense while she disingenuously spams them with pablum I expect from middle schoolers all in the name of Jeeezus. We offer a discourse she herself wont (can’t) afford on her own blog.

  12. watcher

    @rollo:
    Calling women c**** and such, the standard practice on your blog, is not an ‘unvarnished truth,’ although it reveals something of yours. You also may want to stop calling anyone who criticizes you a ‘fraud.’ It is sophomoric.

    @donal:
    You don’t have a problem of ‘differing debate styles’ between men and women on your blog; you have a misogyny problem. You should make your blog all male to better accommodate your participants’ peculiar views, which are transparent to others. Or, better yet, make your blog private. You are kidding yourself if you believe the ‘differences’ you see are stylistic.

  13. Maea

    @DG:

    Wouldn’t it be easier just to tell people to cut it out, or shut down the comment thread? Some of this is trivial. If an off-topic spat is going on, tell people to shut up and stick on topic, or it’s done.

    Or, make your blog an all-male one. It doesn’t make sense to say your house is open to all, but the tea room is only available on a limited basis.

  14. Scott

    Rollo–

    Thanks for that obviously thought out response. I want to pick your brain about this, but I also don’t want to get my assessment of where you are coming from wrong. I don’t read your blog enough to know your religious affiliation (which might be “none”). I think I have picked up that you may have at one time been very religious because you know your way around the scripture pretty well. But it seems (by reputation) that you are kind of a secular/self-determination/red pill guy.

    And from that perspective, everything you wrote makes perfect sense.

    But here:

    I allow for it because to test an idea’s strengths demands an open discourse.

    I think is part of where we are not aligned. Not because I disagree, but because testing ideas, in the scientific sense is not exactly my goal.

    As an Orthodox Christian (I don’t know if you read my post that Donal linked to on this subject) I am trying to get advice from the ancients on what is the right way to discuss matters of church and the faith. And there is no ancient context in which random, anonymous men and women (who may be lying about their identity) ever get together and duke it out in this way. Therefore, I have to try to discern what should be done in this situation.

    But secondly–take the two comments that followed you here. Is that the “suffering the occasional idiots and ideologues” of which you write? Because I just don’t have the stomach for it. Every time that crap comes up, the idea of testing for any ideas validity is lost, in my opinion. And although there are men who argue like that, it almost always happens when the women show up to argue about manliness.

    I have been to your site and I can hang with the “hot kitchen” of it–and I think it has it’s place. I even enjoy it a little. But its not edifying to me.

    I appreciate your thoughts and I have no argument against your rationale, because it is sound. But since I am trying to conceptualize these blogs as an extension of the life of the church, my considerations are different.

  15. @watcher, please C&P any instance of where I’ve ever referred to a woman as a “cunt” on my blog.

  16. Rollo, it is a troll. I let it through, because it was aimed at me, and amusing. Meant to edit its comment about you though. Sorry for missing that.

  17. @Rollo

    Now I don’t think Cane makes money from his blog, but in my estimate that only makes an open forum more valid. If I’m devoting my valuable time to providing a place for discussion I don’t want an echo chamber, I want to learn from the open discourse.

    Correct, I don’t make any money. Men, however, do not comprise an echo chamber.

    Exclusive spaces are real simple to understand: You practice with an exclusive group if you want to see growth. You drill with an exclusive group if you want to see performance. You praise with an exclusive group if you want to see worship.

    @Dash Riprock

    I will tell you that when the commentary degenerates on blogs into gender wars, its the white knightery that I find most disturbing. Men turning on other men to gain to hopefully gain the approval of female internet strangers. I find that disgusting and just have to walk away at that point.

    You have it exactly.

    What a lot of men fail to understand is that women are usually playing a much longer game of social chess than the men who are playing social checkers.

    From a young age women are allowed to socially operate almost totally unrestricted (badly done); while men are hampered (rightfully so) with protocols of conduct. So when a woman says something agreeable now, it should always be assumed that later she will capitalize on your agreement to win you over win over you. That post she “Liked” today, is–to her–a valid reason for you to take her advice tomorrow. She assumes you must see how reasonable and not opportunistic she is since she agreed with you previously. If you don’t agree with her, then she will behave as if you accepted her “Like” unworthilty; opportunistically.

    They’re not all like that all the time, but they are all like that sometimes.

    [DG: Well said Cane.]

  18. Pingback: Divide And Conquer | Donal Graeme

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s