anrchy, first of all, my post was not directed solely at you. Second of all, your subsequent post presents more issues that bear examination.
anrchy said:
I was not simply telling Pandora to not be upset, rather I was eluding to the fact it was not meant in the way it was received to hopefully down play the assumed expression.
Can you understand how, from an outside perspective, "hoping to downplay" the effects of your comments can be equated with telling someone how to react?
anrchy said:
I was also not placing any importance on my own social comfort. I was simply explaining my own social situation to hopefully explain my view of it, not to define it, so that my position could be better understood.
At the point where someone has expressed that they find your words hurtful or insulting, it would seem to me to make more sense to attempt to understand why they are hurt or offended, rather than to explain why your words are not hurtful/offensive, from your point of view.
anrchy said:
If you read my post you will see that I acknowledged the possibility that my comment could be be hurtful. I also didnt view the comment as depicting any shortcomings, as I don't believe a woman's hormones being out of balance being such. I was also not comparing him to a woman. I was comparing his reaction to a hormonal/chemical imbalance (in my head at the time)
Menstruation ≠ "a woman's hormones being out of balance." It is a normal, healthy part of being a female-bodied person. In fact, it indicates that your hormones are at the correct levels.
anrchy said:
I understand trust me, that sounds stupid but if someone says something with a certain intent I don't think another's interpretation should be the 100% deciding factor.
As I said earlier, regardless of our initial intentions, when we make remarks that others inform us they find hurtful or offensive, it behooves us to do our best to understand why they are hurtful/offensive and to make amends.
anrchy said:
I see this as more of a stereotypical joke rather than one of actual biology. Men have the same issues with hormonal imbalance as well as masculine irregularities.
See the above comments re: hormonal imbalance. Additionally, men do not have "the same" issues when it comes to systemic/institutional oppression.
anrchy said:
I also don't see why it's logical to bring up past female oppression as an example why it's not OK to say certain things.
Because your comment was understood to encompass elements that have historically been used to engage in the oppression of female-bodied people. The example at hand is tied to past (and present) examples of female oppression.
anrchy said:
I also don't want to get into a convo about oppression as I could argue that topic as well as in other ways I am being oppressed as well as you and this guy and that girl ect. Create a thread about it if it's needed.
I address the issues where they arise, as I have done since my earliest days on this forum. I do not believe in sectioning of thought in ways that others find convenient. When real world examples present themselves as potential learning moments or discussion points, those are the best points at which to engage, imo. Men are affected by patriarchy as well as women, but the effects, mechanisms of action, and institutions at play are qualitatively different. And let's be clear, these effects on men are the byproducts of patriarchy, not the effects of institutionalized misandry.
anrchy said:
My reply earlier was in the thought that I had a close enough relationship with Pandora that my reply would be sufficient. My attempt to lighten up things by claiming being me also being told "insert previous joke" apparently failed.
Except that, I too found the comment off-puting. Surely you are not insinuating that only a female-bodied person can find the statement in poor taste. In my opinion, your attempt to "lighten things up" failed to address the issue(s) that pandora raised. I know that, personally, when I tell someone that I am hurt/offended, the response I am hoping for is certainly not one of lightening the mood.
anrchy said:
Like I said it was more based on a well known stereotype (about males) that may or may not be true. My own understanding from life experience is that this joke is an acceptable one,
I don't understand how a joke about a product intended for use by female-bodied people is based on a "well known stereotype (about males)." My own understanding from life experience is that this joke is a completely unacceptable one. This brings us back to my point about working to understand how and why our words can be hurtful and/or offensive.
anrchy said:
I do want to say this however. Any joke that refers to someone being weak or dumb or this or that has potential to offend someone if they allow it. I simply do not understand the logic in being offended by such trivial things. I would never joke about something traumatizing (on purpose) if someone had experienced such experience. I'm also not trying to come off insensitive about my joke but this kind of thing really doesn't make a lot of sense.
This is actually a good encapsulation of some of the issues with the incident at hand. In the above statement, you essentially equate your joke about tampons (the emasculation of Kim Jong Un) with "Any joke that refers to someone being weak or dumb or this or that." In doing so, you highlight a major problem. It is offensive and oppressive to equate being a female-bodied person with being weak or dumb (this is not a trivial thing). It is not the responsibility of those offended by your remarks to avoid the offense the remakrs have caused. Rather, as stated in the attitude, "Watch your language. Communication is comprised of not only the explicit but also the implicit messages, which are transmitted through choice of words and general tone of speech."
I'm not trying to cause any drama with my words here. In fact, I think this is a good moment for us to take stock of the things we say and the way they effect others. I would ask that before anyone reacts to the words I have posted, that they take some time to sit with them and contemplate their deeper implications. I think there is actually some material here that is very much related to messages I have received from psychedelics (but obviously, I can't speak for anyone else).
