MetaChat - Team Vag: Your life's goal

Haha! Heee! That was... oh wait.

*looks between legs*

Oh, sorry, wrong thread.

posted by Hugh Janus 11 April | 07:45

At 26 my life's goal was to qualify for the profession I'm now in.

At 46 I was happy to think about giving it all up to become a farmer's wife in Ohio.

Goals change.

posted by essexjan 11 April | 07:51

My main goal is to be happy and have fun. The rest is just icing on the cake.

posted by LunaticFringe 11 April | 07:59

Am I supposed to feel bad if getting married and (maybe) having kids is my life's goal?

Because I have to see it this way. At 26, I'd have laughed too. At 36, though, I've achieved most of the goals I had set for myself then. I've traveled a lot, I have a great career, I'm really engaged in my projects and pursuits like triathlon and music and writing, I've got great friends, plans for the next big undertakings. I know I can pretty much accomplish anything I set out to do, as long as it depends mostly on my own effort and will. That stuff is easy.

But finding a life partner to settle down with? That's not easy, and 50% of it, at least, is out of my hands. Yet I know if I found out tomorrow that I had a terminal illness, it would be my biggest regret that I hadn't yet formed that kind of bond.

I refuse to accept the idea that that is somehow not feminist.

posted by Miko 11 April | 08:23

OMG I forgot to have a baby!!!

posted by rainbaby 11 April | 08:35

I don't see it as not feminist, Miko, so much as not unusual and therefore not in need of defense.

posted by dame 11 April | 08:54

miko: My intent in posting that wasn't to make you feel bad. I agree that finding a life partner to settle down with is hard and that's one of my goals, too, and I agree with your sentiment that if I died tomorrow, I'd be sad that I didn't have kids or someone to share life with.

I also emphatically state that being able to have a life where you're happy in your career, your creative life and have a life partner and a family is feminist because we women should be able to have all of those things as easily as we want to.

I just found that comic to be particularly catchy for me right now because I have neither a published book, my own house, my work spread out across the country or a husband and kids. And yet, I still endure.

P.S. I'm only 2 years older than the cartoonist, whom I've met in person and she's a very neat gal.

posted by TrishaLynn 11 April | 08:56

No, I don't feel bad at all, TrishaLynn, nor do I think you shouldn't have posted it. It was a rhetorical question -- why is this document depicting a character openly laughing at an important and central life goal of many people? Does it presume or argue that we should find that goal ridiculous?

My argument is more with the Western cultural ideal of independence, that devalues relationships. It's an idea that really needs to be hauled out in the open and examined. I'm afraid that earlier iterations of feminism may have inadvertently created a sense that it's somehow laughable to value family and relationships, and that the achievements of the individual should be completely and wholly personally satisfying. I think the raw truth is that achievements in and of themselves are not enough for a fully satisfying life. I try to encourage a feminist perspective that aims to honor and prioritize healthy interpersonal relationships.

posted by Miko 11 April | 09:11

Miko is smart.

And "team vag" is exclusionary and tiresome. Sorry, but it is.

How about "team minority" posts where whites are asked not to participate? A good idea? What about "team white"? Sound stupid? It is.

posted by mcgraw 11 April | 09:18

[On further thought] ...That 'ifish without a bicycle' independence ideal was probably a necessary early stage of 20th century feminism --- going to the extreme independent as a reaction to the attempted definition of women solely in terms of their relationships to others. I just hope it's time to re-integrate into feminist ideology the babies that were thrown out with the bathwater.

I don't see it as not feminist, Miko, so much as not unusual and therefore not in need of defense.

I think it is in need of defense, dame, especially if one is (like me) a politically progressive, independent, opinionated, reasonably successful single feminist. I was raised with the expectation that I shouldn't 'need' anyone - and was surprised to find, as I got a bit older, that expectation of completeness and total independence started to feel like not only an unwanted burden, but also a rather naive and idealitic view of the human condition.

Anyway, in classic feminist tradition, I sure ruined all the fun of this joke, didn't I?

posted by Miko 11 April | 09:19

And "team vag" is exclusionary and tiresome. Sorry, but it is.

mcgraw, I agree that it is tiresome. The same link could have been called "cartoon" and generated the same discussion.

I disagree that it's exclusionary. You posted here, and that's no problem. When browsing the front page, it may serve a purpose - someone may tend to not find things with Team Vag in the title interesting and be able to just skip over them.

Start any team you want.

Curious, though - is it the "vag" that galls? Would "Mecha Gals" provoke the same reaction?

posted by rainbaby 11 April | 09:31

Yeah, I for one hope that males post in these threads, too.

posted by Miko 11 April | 09:33

Hrrmmm this thread has the potential to spark two interesting discussions.

wrt Team Vag: I've always assumed it was merely a shorthand way of pointing out that contents inside may (may!) only be of interest to the ladies in the house (makeup thread, anyone? tampons?) and had no intent to be exclusionary. Much like tagging something "girly-filter" on AskMe.

I agree that for a thread like this, Team Vag may come across as exclusionary. There's no reason only women would be interested in discussing the cartoon.

more soon.

posted by gaspode 11 April | 09:42

It's no surprise that people wish to subdivide themselves into groups. But all the 'isms' can soon follow if people aren't careful.

As long as people separate themselves by gender, race, lifestyle choices, etc., then the more we make our differences our identity. It can be problematic-- but isn't always problematic, and I don't necessarily think there is a problem here. I probably shouldn't have bothered to comment, because it ain't a big deal. I haven't read a vag thread in months. For some reason, I read this one today.

I have no problem with "vag" or with posts for women only ("exclusionary" and "tiresome" isn't heated dissent). And, I appreciate your input, rainbaby. But, I still think that if people started subdividing some posts into "Mecha Whites", "Mecha Latinos", "Mecha Men", "Mecha Heterosexuals", etc. that that would be really weak. It would decrease my interest in participating here.

How would non-heterosexuals here feel if people posted for heteros only? Or vice versa? I think people need to be considerate, that's all. But by "exclusionary" and "tiresome" I actually didn't mean to say it was inconsiderate or biased.

posted by mcgraw 11 April | 09:47

In other words, it wouldn't work for other "groups" to do the same thing, but it's not viewed as unacceptible in this form. I think it is a special privilege for this "team", and that it would be offensive if other "teams" did it.

posted by mcgraw 11 April | 09:55

well, that, and 'Team Scrote' just dosen't have the same tangy zip...

posted by jonmc 11 April | 10:04

Hmm. I don't think we'd know till it happened, mcgraw. I'd be curious about anything flagged "team cock", you betcha.

I'm not hot about it at all, and didn't think you were either. . .now I feel like this may be a derail in an otherwise potentially interesting discussion about motherhood today, etc.

posted by rainbaby 11 April | 10:04

I've always thought that labels limit more than the specify, and in the same sense, any rubric that must be applied to a person in order to qualify them as any sort of thing [feminist, Catholic, etc] does more harm than good, since it is by definition exclusive.

I'm blessed to be friends with some wise Buddhists; one of them focuses on viewing life in its appreciative aspects, a thought that resonated with me as it is inclusive instead of exclusive. While "Team Vag" or "getting married and having kids" can seem exclusive to those with different tastes, it is much easier to realize that they provide a much needed source of fulfillment to the people who participate in those areas.

So while I might not have a vagina, I celebrate those that do and the fact that they have a space in which they can be happy as and with their clams.

The same appreciative empathetic focus can apply to the motherhood issue as well.

posted by sciurus 11 April | 10:13

aww, don't let ME derail!

us fellers are loitering here to get all the juicy details! we SAY we don't read these threads, but really it's where we get most of our information on youse gals.

carry on! :)

i just wanted to whine that i don't have a vag, y'know...

posted by mcgraw 11 April | 10:13

So while I might not have a vagina, I celebrate those that do

Is that what the kids are calling it these days?

posted by jonmc 11 April | 10:14

OMG, I forgot to have an abortion.

posted by go dog go 11 April | 10:17

While I have no problem posting on any thread, I do understand that I'm an interloper in these threads, and that my welcome here extends as far as my lip.

Because if I were to post my usual snide remarks and shit jokes, Team Vag would rightly ask, "Why the hell would you do that here, of all places? You know this stuff is of women's interest. You have no business here." (Sure, I'm unscientifically predicting possible futures here, but look into your heart and my posting history and I'm sure you'll agree that I shouldn't follow temptation into Team Vag threads).

So when I do, I'm super-cautious, gentle, gentle Hugh.

It's exclusive, the way a male only golf resort is. I can go, but I'm not really allowed to play. If I carefully formulate a banal and uninteresting comment, it might slide by unnoticed. But my view really isn't welcome on a thread about periods or about bad men or about whatever. If it's a "Team Vag" thread, it might say something about me (in general, as a dude) but I feel like I'm pushing at a barrier if I even look. It's all a little unfriendly.

And to say it isn't ignores those two little words up front: Team Vag.

But it really doesn't matter to me. I have my dignity, and you have your Team Vag. Carry on.

posted by Hugh Janus 11 April | 10:20

Holly Moley People!

People are different! It is not sexist or racist or whatever to say this. Boys have a woo-woo, girls have a hoo-ha. People from different racial backgrounds have some different physical characteristics. Womens face different social norms and pressures and expectations than mens!

If a topic is actually about one of these differences, it is, by definition exclusionary, but that's not a problem, it's just a fact!

posted by Capn 11 April | 10:26

*holds head in hands*

Oh, good Lord... what have I started?

*goes back into hiding*

posted by TrishaLynn 11 April | 10:29

girls have a hoo-ha.

I thought it was a cha-cha. I'm sooo confused.

posted by jonmc 11 April | 10:31

I also find Team Vag insulting, both to myself and the wang-wielders who find the NO BOYZ ALOWED sign on the treehouse door. PMS posts and whatever are fine, and I do contribute, but by doing so, it seems I'm endorsing being exclusionary when in fact I'm irked by the notion that this of ALL places should discriminate in any way. I thought we were kind of beyond that.

posted by go dog go 11 April | 10:31

TrishaLynn, it's good. It's very good. You need to show this to the cartoonist thread.

posted by rainbaby 11 April | 10:34

I thought it was a cha-cha. I'm sooo confused.

It's names are legion

posted by Capn 11 April | 10:35

i like jazzy music, but i don't like jazz.

hang on a sec, willya.... i'ma makinga an appointmenta with a psychiatrist...

posted by mcgraw 11 April | 10:40

er. . show this thread to the cartoonist.

Way to destroy my credibility when something I actually know something about comes up.

*also holds head in hands*

posted by rainbaby 11 April | 10:41

*shows this to rainbaby*

posted by danostuporstar 11 April | 10:44

*holds hands in head*

posted by jonmc 11 April | 10:44

I love Team Vag.

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 11 April | 10:47

*shows this to rainbaby*

OPPRESSOR!

posted by rainbaby 11 April | 10:50

Hey Hey Ho Ho, this penis party's got to go!

posted by sciurus 11 April | 11:00

OPPRESSOR!

Only if your into that sort of thing...

posted by jonmc 11 April | 11:01

rainbaby: I'd love to, but I'm afraid the message might get lost in the "noise" about the specifics of Team Vag.

Getting back on topic, when I first read it, I felt really good reading the comic. All my bias towards the cartoonist aside, I felt really good about the fact that here was a 26-year old woman who is making art, getting paid for it, owns her own house, and has a good relationship (which you can see from previous strips about her and her boyfriend). It made me feel a little validated in wanting to be creative and knowing that other women I know can make it.

I have a lot of female friends in the comics biz who are married (with and without kids) and are moderately well-known: Lea Hernandez, Carla Speed McNeil, Layla Lawlor, Rachel Hernandez, and Jane Irwin (or is it Irwin-Sizer now?). I also know two gals who are engaged who make comics and are engaged to other comics-making folks: Raina Telgemeier and Elizabeth Genco. It's an ongoing dialogue I have with them where I bemoan the lack of a helpmeet so I can make and publish comics and they tell me that they did (and do) things on their own--but it really is helpful to have someone else around to help pay the bills while they do art. I am so entranced by the domestic/career conundrum because so many women I know make it work and I feel left behind.

None of the comics-making men I know have ever felt this conundrum, save Tom Beland who was trying to start a new career and a new life in Puerto Rico at the same time after he got married. But then again, I don't have these kinds of conversations with those guys at cons. Most of the time we talk about the state of the industry as a whole. Oh, and Dean Haspiel's shirtlessness.

Thoughts?

posted by TrishaLynn 11 April | 11:03

DEPRESSOR!

posted by TrishaLynn 11 April | 11:06

TrishaLynn is derail-rerail flip-flopper!

posted by danostuporstar 11 April | 11:11

enough with oppression and depression. what we need here is a little support.

posted by jonmc 11 April | 11:13

"Noise," huh?

That's the most...

Way to address...

You can...

Why don't you...

...never mind, I know my place.

posted by Hugh Janus 11 April | 11:13

what we need here is a little support.

Way to remind me of my little Team Scrote issue. I have to wear one of those home, you know.

Jeez, on my last freaking day of intactness no less.

posted by danostuporstar 11 April | 11:20

well, hopefully it ain't that particular one, dan-o. That also wins the prize for Weirdest Collectible Ever, Baseball Division.

posted by jonmc 11 April | 11:23

*uses the depressor to take her foot out of her mouth*

Hugh: What I meant is that the specifics of the placement of Team Vag posts place on MeCha wouldn't be relevant to anyone who isn't familiar with or cares about MeCha. Male marginalization is something that's relevant, though.

Come on back, Hugh?

posted by TrishaLynn 11 April | 11:29

Wait a sec. I'm supposed to have goals?!

I've assumed "Team Vag" was tongue in cheek. Bunnies being exclusionary? Inconcievable!

posted by deborah 11 April | 11:37

Uhoh. There've been 12 Team Vag posts, and 45 "Penis" posts. But I think deborah is right... they are tongue in cheek, aren't they? If not, where's the tongue?

posted by taz 11 April | 11:47

Okay, maybe I can explain what I think is at the core of my discomfort here:

Mecha is not a boyzone. It never has been. The general run of threads is extremely evenhanded here. When men say boorish things here, it is always in jest and usually in repartée with laughing women, or it just isn't tolerated.

Team Vag threads fight against a boyzone that doesn't exist (thank heaven for its lack), and create an explicit girlzone that has no analogue elsewhere on Mecha.

I don't usually comment on Team Vag threads, just like I don't post on meetup threads in cities I don't inhabit, or on advice threads I'm not qualified to advise in.

But my reason for not posting is not always that I have nothing to say. I often don't post because Team Vag threads are a girlzone, and I'm not as welcome there as I am elsewhere on the site. I'm sure, as a woman on the internet, you know how that feels.

I'm not dying to post on every Team Vag thread. I wouldn't mind, however, the benefit of the doubt that not labeling a Team Vag thread as "Team Vag" might give me; that is, I wouldn't mind being trusted not to act like a child when I've never really acted like a child in the first place (with regard to the kinds of issues raised in the Team Vag posts).

It's about trust, and the posts make me feel less trusted. So I usually avoid them, and will continue to do so.

And on preview, those "penis" posts are not analogous, as the "penis" meme has nothing to do with the content of the posts or the sex of the poster.

posted by Hugh Janus 11 April | 11:54

Thus, anilingus is simultaneously anal sex and oral sex.

posted by danostuporstar 11 April | 11:55

If not, where's the tongue?

I got yer tongue right here, baby. heh.

posted by scody 11 April | 11:57

dano: I always make exceptions for silliness.

posted by TrishaLynn 11 April | 12:01

Wait a sec. I'm supposed to have goals?!

If not goals, then at least assists.

posted by jonmc 11 April | 12:05

har! har! har! that was a good one jon. jon? what are you doing here? Ok, ok. Team Vag is exclusionary and this is very fine with me. sure, boys can peak in here too!

goals in life... In my humble (har! har! har!) opinion, life's goals shoudnot be "tangible" or attainable stuffs, like money, fame, kids and family and success. They should not be something that you can potentially achieve.

I am thinking like fun, happiness, adventure, a long long journey of experiences. Like Kavafi's Ithaca.

posted by carmina 11 April | 12:22

obviously, I meant peek. But peak might be ok too...
more of that *har! har!*

posted by carmina 11 April | 12:34

Thanks for that poem, carmina. As an Odysseus myself (currently in Ithaca for a change), I enjoyed it immensely.

posted by Eideteker 11 April | 13:48

I don't think Team Vag posts are labeled to keep men out- I label some posts "Team Vag" to draw female attention- like when I want to talk about makeup or PMS or other fairly "female" topics. The term "Team Vag" is a long-running MeCha joke and I just think it's funny.

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 11 April | 13:55

That's a great poem. +1 for you!

posted by TrishaLynn 11 April | 14:07

≡ Click to see image ≡

posted by mudpuppie 11 April | 14:10

Team Vag threads fight against a boyzone that doesn't exist (thank heaven for its lack), and create an explicit girlzone that has no analogue elsewhere on Mecha.

I don't think some of the previous Team Vag threads have been created for that intent. If there's something I've learned from being on the Internet, when one girl bitches about her boobs or her period, there are a lot of other women waiting in the wings who want to offer support by bitching about their own boobs and periods. Support through experience, I think, or something like that. Or if one girl talks about how fat she's getting, others will also complain about their bodies, too.

I asked some male friends once if there is anything intrinsicly male that if one man complained about it, other men would instantly offer sympathy and bitching and the consensus (among my friends) is that if one guy talked about being kicked in the nuts, it would garner an instant, "OOooooohhh" from every male withing a 10-mile radius, whether they were there at the time of the actual kicking or not.

posted by TrishaLynn 11 April | 15:43

*cocks eyebrow*

posted by jonmc 11 April | 15:48

*smiles sweetly*

posted by TrishaLynn 11 April | 15:53

TL: I returned to this thread because I feel guilty about the hijack. I appreciated your gesture and intent in posting the cartoon. Sadly, I saw one of my latest favorite axes and started grinding it. Apologies.

posted by Miko 11 April | 21:07

Naw, naw, Miko! One of the great things about MeCha is that threads can be hijacked and go in different directions. I was taken aback by the vehemence that came out from you and other posters, but then again, if they hadn't said anything, then those grievances may have never been aired.

's cool.

posted by TrishaLynn 11 April | 21:32

Carmina: thats one of my favourite poems ever :)

posted by dhruva 12 April | 04:14

≡ Click to see image ≡≡ Click to see image ≡
≡ Click to see image ≡

posted by mcgraw 12 April | 08:38

Now if we could only get those two images into one!

This is another time in which I wish I could draw.

posted by TrishaLynn 12 April | 09:01

vehemence that came out from you

I wasn't feeling vehement, and I'm sorry if my tone appeared that way. I tend to be kind of straight-up and not shy about asserting an opinion when discussing ideas, and it is almost never personal. In other words, I wasn't arguing with you, but with a cultural idea represented in the cartoon - raising that to be questioned and discussed. I'm comfortable with that type of discussion, but the difficulty of communicating tone and spirit in internet discussions can cause that to look like vehemence. Also, I probably should have toned it down to match the MetaChat vibe.

posted by Miko 12 April | 09:33

Naw, it's still cool. Sometimes it takes a cartoon to find out how people really feel about things.

Remember the roses of the Prophet Mohammed!

posted by TrishaLynn 12 April | 09:45

Also, I probably should have toned it down to match the MetaChat vibe.

Really? Now this is a conversation I can get behind. I guess I missed the memo where every. single. thing. in metachat had to be brainless and fluffy. Or unquestioningly supportive. Now we all have our own definitions on what this site is, and our own expectations and all, but the reason *I* like this site is that it's populated by very smart people (who granted, can be frivolous in the extreme -- love!). I feel like I can come here and actually exchange ideas, y'know?

I didn't read any of what you were posting as vehement, miko. Passionate, perhaps.

I feel like this conversation has been hashed out before. Probably with Hugh Janus in the middle of it. Hrrmmm.

posted by gaspode 12 April | 09:49

This site is great. When folks put thought and time into a gripe, legitimate or not, the atmosphere here of mutual respect and the sensitivity of fellow posters protect them from casual dismissal and snide assuption of bad intent. That's not always true on these particular threads.

I'm not trying to take anything away from anyone. I'm trying to be fair. Fair involves everybody.

It is difficult for me to continue posting on Metachat. I love you guys anyway, even the ones who treat me with disdain and mistrust. It all hangs pretty heavy on my heart.

It's not a matter of bringing folks around to my way of thinking. It's a matter of treating my opinions with a modicum of respect; I'm a huge asshole here, but I try to be respectful of people's thoughts and efforts. Laughing and saying "it's exclusive and we love it" does nothing to further the exchange of ideas; it only serves to hurt and anger. I sure hope that wasn't the intent. If it was, please let me know.

And pointing the finger at me for this disruption sucks. I hate the "put yourself in my shoes" ploy, but offhanded dismissal of at least carefully thought-out points and breezy treatment of the complainer as a troublemaker are both tactics women should be sensitive to, as they are part and parcel of sexual discrimination.

Whatever. I'll be around. I like it here, and I think you guys are great. I'm strident, and obnoxious, and sometimes even correct. I try to live by the golden rule. I think we all do. And just as I sometimes fail at it, so sometimes I think do we all.

posted by Hugh Janus 12 April | 11:31

And pointing the finger at me for this disruption sucks.

I wasn't. I was trying to recall a thread where we had this same discussion. It was a great thread. I couldn't find it. I was hoping someone could. Someone called you on being overly sensitive or something about some topic (this may have been up to 6 months ago) and you posted a very eloquent response about how this site was great because we could all be who we were here.

Unfortunately I didn't articulate all that above. I'm having a busy day. I'll just shut up now.

posted by gaspode 12 April | 11:41

gaspode, I think you might be talking about the "What are you looking forward to?" thread from about a month ago.

Hugh made some important points there, and did so particularly eloquently and well. It turned into a good, thoughtful discussion.

posted by tangerine 12 April | 11:55

Ah shit, 'Spode. I didn't mean to jump stink on you like that. I just have my heart and head all tied up together, and I care enough about people and what they think to get my knickers all stroppy over it. Maybe I was just raw and touchy yesterday, but it all really hurt my feelings to be dismissed so. I'm sorry I didn't give you the benefit of the doubt, and I feel I owe you a beer for it. So cheers and no hard feelings, and I hope your day gets less busy.

posted by Hugh Janus 12 April | 12:00

Hugh, I absolutely love your comments, (and that thread above, in particular, was so great), so I hope you do keep posting here forever and ever. I hope I didn't give any impression that I didn't value your thoughts, but if I did, I take it back. Like 'pode, I value the sounding board and thoughtful, safe discussion space we can find here.

I thought the points made about Team Vag were good ones. They made me think. Up until now, I thought it was simply a humorous way of tagging threads about topics that are typically, or stereotypically, of most interest to women. But I never thought it might be regarded as exclusive. I certainly didn't consider them so, and I'm just as happy to see anyone post in them as I would be to see people posting elsewhere, but I can see how that impression might exist.

I suppose if people feel excluded, it is something we should take note of and perhaps try to ameliorate, whether we meant to exclude them or not. That's certainly how I would want to be treated were the situation reversed.

Someone (male) upthread mentioned being cautious about things they say in Vag threads. I must add, though, that I don't think that caution is any different from the kind you'd use in any thread where you were voicing a less represented or less knowledgeable opinion on a topic. For instance, if there were a thread about what Haggadah is best to use for your Seder, I might comment in the thread and talk about my point of view or experience. However, I would have to recognize that (not being Jewish) my comments wouldn't be coming from wide experience or authority on that topic. I prefer thinking of commenting in this way -- in terms of knowledge of topic -- rather than in a gendered way. I mean, if someone here were a drag queen, they might have a lot to bring to a makeup thread. They wouldn't need to be on "Team Vag" to post there -- though I can see how the "Team Vag" label might make them feel unwelcome.

posted by Miko 12 April | 12:03

I hadn't read the simmering fury thread. Huh.

Never doubt, Hugh, that I consider your contributions to this site to be some of the absolute best.

And Miko, I think you articulated exactly how I feel about the whole Team Vag thing - from initial "but it's just a fun tag" through "huh? exclusionary" to "well we better make it not feel that way".

Or rather. What Miko said.

posted by gaspode 12 April | 12:10

gaspode: I'm feeling the same way, to where I'm now feeling gun-shy about posting anything that might make people feel excluded. I'm your typical liberal weenie who doesn't want to offend anyone, and therefore rarely gets mad and really het up and ranting until I'm sure of my opinion and how it will be seen by others. I also back-pedal a lot. You'll notice I did a lot of backpedaling in this thread, but only because what other people said made me really think.

There's an idea folks use on LJ a lot where if you see something on your friends-list you don't feel like reading or getting into, you can just skip it. But that's too blunt of a point to put here, isn't it?

posted by TrishaLynn 12 April | 13:49

actually, it's a point that gets repeated incessantly in MeFi. No doubt the vast majority of posters here are familiar with the concept :)

For me, really, it's less about not reading what's going to offend you

(hang on a minute)

*gets on soapbox*

rather than assuming that if something does offend you, it's probably not meant with that intent. One of the amazing things about this site, and one of the reasons that it actually works, IMO, is that we really truly, on the most part, are not assholes to each other. Sure, most of us can all say some things in heat or without thinking them through, but there's very little malice here.

To use an example (and I'm not picking on you Hugh, it's just that it happened today) Hugh yelled at me because I hurt his feelings about something. I didn't mean to. We got it sorted out. But really, where is the difficulty in *remembering* that often we are posting from work, where some of us don't have a lot of time to craft good posts, or that hey -- people like me are just not as articulate as some of y'all, and remembering that we are not Mean Girls or Mean Boys, we're trying to convey various points, with various degrees of success.

Sure, we should all take care not to offend (ie. with the Team Vag thing) but I think we should all remember that this community has shaped itself into one whose very spirit is in the nature of support and friendship. Even when we disagree, for the most part we keep it about the discussion, not about the personalities. Thus, while trying not to offend, we should also try not to take offense when none was intended.

This is not a knee-jerk thing, it's something I've been thinking about for a while.... brought up when trying to explain to mr. g why I don't tend to take offense at stuff said online. (well, on MeCha)

blah.

posted by gaspode 12 April | 14:13

I'm not usually this thin-skinned.

It would be a lot easier for me to skip the makeup or period or other-women's-interest posts if they weren't labeled Team Vag. The fact that they are so labeled implies a mistrust of men, almost all of whom on this site are mature and considerate (and if this was a real live thread anymore I'm sure I'd have a dozen dudes cracking juvenile jokes just to muddy the waters); it's as if the poster believes all these men (myself included) wouldn't be able to control themselves and would just gross up the place, like we were all Farkers or something.

So (and I'm sorry to have ruined your post like this, TrishaLynn) I finally spoke up. Believe me, I really appreciate you guys' bearing with me.

I'm really not looking for offense; I'm actually trying to consistently give everyone the benefit of the doubt. But when I'm laughed at or shrugged off, I lose sight of the general kindness and understanding that's the default around here.

It's really not you guys; you engaged me and my ideas, and showed me how they could be differently thought of or applied. Some of the folks who responded to my claims, though, laughed, or shrugged, or otherwise gave my views a quick dismissal or a slap in the face. Maybe they lacked time, and couldn't respond fully. Or never came back to the thread, or whatever.

I mock people here all the time, but I make sure to mock myself twice as often and twice as severely as I do them. I've been mocked on this thread for clarifying something I've obviously thought through, and I don't like it. I'm not saying those mockers are out of my will and off my Christmas list. I still love them and I'm sure we'll all have fun together sometime.

But I find it hard to stay in a place that demands sensitivity from me, and from everyone else too, except for sometimes or for some people, when it's okay to flout that unwritten rule.

You guys have really talked me down from a precipice here. I still want to run screaming and never post here again (strangely enough, I've been struggling with that since day one -- 3480 posts later -- and I still don't know why), only a little less so now. Thanks. Now I want to buy you all a beer.

On looking over this post, I realize I'm still being poked by corners that don't really exist in other folks' comments, mostly echoes of too much thought about something that upset me. Please trust that any corners in what I've just written were meant to be soft and pillowy and just right.

posted by Hugh Janus 12 April | 15:02

*snuggles in soft pillowy corners*

posted by gaspode 12 April | 15:10

I'll snuggle in your corner anytime, Hugh.

You changed my thinking about the tag, as well.

posted by Miko 12 April | 15:16

11 April 2006