I am amazed at the amount of female fans on this series.

[iheartseverus]

This is what happens when you don't read the whole topic.

I've seen your posts in other threads and find you to be a reasonable, moderate and rational poster.

SRSLY, GreyJackal, read my post #126--you're running your head into a brick wall again and again for no reason at all--because the screamers don't care what you say or how rational it might be. Don't you get that? They don't care. The few 'regular' attackers who do this sort of thing all the time (and I can name half a dozen of them without even looking) found an opening in this thread, a soft spot they could probe and prod and begin the attack, knowing that you as a new-ish member would try to defend. And then the followers followed, as they always do. Then, new followers join in, they read all the righteous outrage and eagerly leap in to pile on.

This happens in forums all the time, again and again. And again. Nothing you can say will quiet the mob because the mob is loving every minute of this. The more you try to respond, the more you feed them, you're simply fanning the flamers, to no purpose whatever. As soon as you stop trying to defend yourself, they will stop attacking and wander off to look for a new target.

And to all you new members who've happily joined the screaming mob climbing the hill with torches in hand, I say... karma's a bitch. Enjoy the bullying while you may, for surely, your turn will come. It most surely will.

GreyJackal, check out this site. Its hilarious and its so, so true. A few examples:

Howlers generally populate academic, technical or special interest forums. Newbies to such forums often wander in thinking they have found some devastating new argument or special insight on the forum topic on interest, but unless the forum has been recently formed an active discussion group will probably have heard and debated the argument at length. So instead of being welcomed into the bosom of the group the newcomer is forced to flee under a shower of invective.

Big Dog is a bully who doesn't hesitate to use his superior strength to intimidate other combatants. Big Dog may be smart, articulate or just plain mean, but in any case he is a remorseless fighter, brutally ripping into even the weakest of combatants. Once Big Dog securely fastens his powerful jaws on a hapless victim, Me-Too will join the attack. Me-Too is far too weak and insecure to engage in single combat, and must ally himself with Big Dog or a pack of other Warriors to bring down his quarry.

Cyber Sisters are an extremely fierce confederation of fighting females who act something like a shrill Greek chorus, echoing and amplifying one another's voice until their foes retreat in disarray. They are generally leaderless, but anyone who challenges one Cyber Sister can expect to be savagely attacked by the others. Only the most powerful and battle-hardened of Warriors is strong enough to weather a Cyber Sisters attack.

There are many more 'flame-warriors' and hopefully you'll get a few laughs, put it all into perspective and walk away. This thread will die when you stop feeding them. Truly, it will. It always does.

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/index.htm

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

I already knew what to expect so I am not worried at all, plus I didn't have any ill intentions so I am fine with it. I wouldn't say I am losing, but that people would rather snipe than ask my real intent. If I become the avatar for all male chauvinist pigs on this board then so be it. People have to vent. My intent was to say how happy I am for all of the female fans but instead it became an personal attack to the whole gender.

Thanks for you and everyone who understood tho. Greatly appreciated.

:wideeyed:

Okay, I've been staying out of this, but I just can't anymore. Please note that these are the 'generic you', and not 'specific you', but if you think they might apply....

1. What you intend is not necessarily what you communicate.

2. You can have 20,000 people ask you for clarification, or you can (after the first 50 or so) start thinking "Hm, maybe I should rephrase, because what I meant isn't clear."

3. You weren't attacked for being new, you were argued with for posting an opinion that many people found offensive. There are "old-timers" who have the same thing happen, and "newbies" who don't get this sort of reaction.

4. Nobody is actually obliged to be polite to you when you express ridiculous opinions, whether or not they're what you intend.

5. It is very easy to fall into the trap of thinking everyone's out to get you, and everyone's willfully misinterpreting you, and it's just so unfair because you've done nothing wrong, and so on. (I speak from personal experience, here.) To sort the real occasions of this from the false: if you are being hounded by the exact same posters across different threads and different topics, it could be the case that you're being argued with for the sake of it. It could also be that you just fundamentally disagree with these people, and they're not shy about letting you know. If, on the other hand, one particular topic -- and especially one particular post -- get a similar, disapproving reaction from a disparate group... odds are better than even that you should probably listen to the criticism and re-read your arguments from that perspective.

6. Maybe it's just your opinion, man, and even after re-examining your bases and phrases, you want to stick with it the way it is. Then rock on with your bad self.

7. Even having people agree with you doesn't mean those who disagree are wrong, or don't have a point.

8. This is the internet, the US's First Amendment does not apply, and people are free to keep disagreeing with you as long as they'd like. (Within moderation limits, that is.)

Now, I get what you intended to say, but your phrasing was pretty much completely problematic, as has been pointed out. Think about -- and this is just a recommendation, but don't immediately post about -- why you were surprised women like ASOIAF, and then think about why those reasons surprised you about women and not men. (For example, you've pointed out that you yourself are made uncomfortable with the rape scenes, but you keep reading because it's a great story. Why wouldn't anybody else, if they decided the joy they got out of the story was worth the discomfort of the more graphic sections?)

Also, your reasoning and how you frame your observations will probably have a huge effect, too. I'm sure I'm ironically proving the point here, somehow, but I have found that the more general and/or absolute your statement, the more likely it is to give you grief. For example:

"I'm amazed at the number of female fans... " (responses from personally least troubling to most troubling)

-- "... because I'm new to the internet and its wider social nets, so this is really opening my eyes!"

-- "... because the women I know don't like fantasy."

-- "... because women are more troubled by depictions of violence than men are."

-- "... because everybody knows women only like chick-lit!"

These are exaggerated, but I hope I've written it so that it's obvious why different arguments are going to get different responses. Getting more defensive and repeating yourself is usually not helpful, either -- if people weren't convinced the first time around, they're unlikely to change their minds just because you say it four more times. Reflect, reconsider, rephrase.

[lexxxy52]

Juliette Marilier and Robin Hobb were too writers that are female that got me into reading fantasy and i'm a male, with that said most of the books I read feature male characters not out of a direct aversion to female protagonists but because I have discovered very little little worth reading most of the fantasy I read now tends to be recommended to me by others and they just don't seem to suggest female characters.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

That's an amazing single sentence. If you want other recs, though, head over to the Literature forum. You can find opinions on just about every book/character/author ever over there.

[MyDogIsNamedDanerys]

Thank you Aoife Targ. You posted everything I was dying to say but couldn't find the words.

To the OP: sometimes it is difficult to get past one's defensive reaction, and I fully understand the frustration you must have felt when your good intentions were reacted to so harshly. But there is definitely truth underneath these harsh reactions that you should try to see. I hope Aoife's post will be the first step to understanding.

[Lannister Lion]

I have to say its a downside of forums that certain members like to zero in on newcomers just for the 'lulz' of ripping them to pieces. Doesn't matter how reasonable you try to be, or how long and patiently you try to defend your stance, just doesn't matter.

(And now, I won't come back to this thread ever again, either. Because defending someone who's being targeted just opens the defenders to loud, angry attack as well. I've ridden that merry-go-round before, it ain't fun. ) Buh-bye, thread.

I agree with you on this and your post #142 :)

I understand what the OP was trying to say. I don't understand why some (and only some) people are so vitriolic to new or newish posters. OK, he might not have written his post in the clearest way, but that's fine because, actually, not everyone can always express themselves as well as they could in the written medium. Yes, there are some incredibly articulate people on this board who get the point across extremely well, but there are others (like me) who put their thoughts into words and can sometimes be confusing or not clear. That's just how we are. And actually, giving advice on how one should post an opinion, unless done with irony, is somewhat patronising.

[GreyJackal]

These are exaggerated, but I hope I've written it so that it's obvious why different arguments are going to get different responses. Getting more defensive and repeating yourself is usually not helpful, either -- if people weren't convinced the first time around, they're unlikely to change their minds just because you say it four more times. Reflect, reconsider, rephrase.

I am not getting defensive though. I have explained my points very clearly and concentrated on all of the accusations. The people are determining to hate me because of the feelings they got when they read my first post. And you know what they say, first impressions are the most lasting. Thank you for the explanation as well, while I disagree with some of it I do not think I have gender stereotyped anyone.

This friction is just trying to be justified now when it could have been easily resolved on the first page.

Apparently the common theme is I could have worded it differently. Agreed.

I could have taken more time to explain myself so not to have generalized all women. Agreed.

But did I deserve the scorn of half of the female population on this board because of a percieved slight? I personally don't think so.

And thanks to iheartseverus. I guess I'm just a glutton for punishment. :whip:

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Ah well, I tried.

ETA: Two Three things. One more general rule of thumb that I've seen around here, and one specific to you and one more personal thought process.

Rule of thumb: It is absolutely, emphatically not necessary based on past behaviour around here, but it is generally seen as a good act of faith and is often a good way to get people to respond a little less forcefully -- If people are telling you that you offended them, apologise. "I am sorry that what I wrote offended you." No ifs, or buts. If you absolutely must add to that, the best results tend to come from "I have thought about what you said, and [i agree I worded myself badly | would like to try to rephrase | I am sorry that my wording detracted from my argument | etc.]." Obviously, if you don't want to rephrase, or don't think you worded yourself badly, you don't *have* to add that bit, but the apology itself is good.

To you: You did get defensive. You are still defensive. You came in and, from what I could see, responded to nearly every criticism with "But that's not what I meant!" which, somewhat understandably, turned later into "You guys are all mean and just want to pick on me." Even in this last reply to me, where you acknowledge that you weren't great at expressing what you actually meant, and that your words did offend a bunch of people, you're still shunting responsibility off to the people who were offended and told you so, instead of just sucking it up and unreservedly, unconditionally accepting the consequences of the post as you wrote it.

In general again: It seems like n00bs get picked on more often, but I figure there are a few reasons for that:

1. Actual influx of new people: There are suddenly a lot more new posters here, and many of them come in with the same arguments, which get taken down. Looks like an attack against new posters, even though it's just against the arguments.

2. Familiarity with the poster: Last I looked, iheartseverus had something just under 1,100 posts, if I'm recalling correctly, but I recognise her. I have a good idea what she's going to say, what her opinions are, and so on. If she says something that seems worded unusually, or strikes me as odd, I can gauge what she probably meant. It won't totally let her off the hook, necessarily, but it's still a totally different situation from someone whose only experience with poster X is X coming in and saying something unfortunate, or in an unfortunate manner. (This is also helped by duration -- I've known posters like Kalbear and Yagathai for probably a decade, and we've all had 10k+ or even 20k+ posts to get to know each other. Yeah, I'm going to give them more of a benefit of the doubt if they post something 'off' from their norm, because I have a much better idea of what their norm is.) May look like picking on n00bs, and in this case n00bs will have less benefit of the doubt, but it's still not picking on n00bs for the sake of it.)

3. Actual post count, but tied into familiarity (above). If I have 10K posts, and even as many as 1000 offended people, that's me running at a 10% offense rate. If someone comes in and has 100 posts, but they then post another 100 making/defending something that offended people, they're running at 50%. Of course, if somebody's never seen me before, and only sees those 1000 offensive posts, they'll think I'm at a 100% rate. In general, though, increasing your personal signal to noise ratio is good, and takes a certain amount of time. May look like picking on n00bs, but is tied to s:n. And please don't think that most people actually GAF about post count numbers, though some do -- I'm more familiar with ihs than I am with any number of people who have 5k+ posts, and 99% of the time I browse with a skin that doesn't show post count anyway. Unless I do recognise you, I'm just going on the content of that particular post.

[Easy]

If people are telling you that you offended them, apologise. "I am sorry that what I wrote offended you." No ifs, or buts....

... you're still shunting responsibility off to the people who were offended and told you so, instead of just sucking it up and unreservedly, unconditionally accepting the consequences of the post as you wrote it.

I don't see anything the OP needs to apologise for. This is all just a storm in a teacup.

Perhaps we should stick to discussing some of the points made. I've read some good posts in this thread explaining why fantasy is traditionally more popular with males and why books such as asoiaf are as popular with women as with men.

Also, minus the hysterics, the posts that correct the OP's invalid assumptions as to why women may not like the series, are well made. Minus the hysterics, that is.

Good job, everyone. ;)

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

OP offended people. He can choose to apologise or not. Speaking of, tell me you chose "hysterics" deliberately, and are fully aware of its history and connotations. Please, pretty please.

[Easy]

OP offended people. He can choose to apologise or not. Speaking of, tell me you chose "hysterics" deliberately, and are fully aware of its history and connotations. Please, pretty please.

Nope. Did I accidentally do something genius or stupid?

[Brienne the Beauty]

I don't see anything the OP needs to apologise for. This is all just a storm in a teacup.

Nor me, this is an interesting lively thread.

[Alexia]

Did anyone really attack the OP or say anything vitriolic? I'd also go with interesting lively thread and I feel like something is going right over my head here. :dunce:

[The Oncoming Storm]

I'm a frilly sweet/classic rori in RL, but hell I like my dose of swearing, blood and intrigue. And I hate romance novels. The darker the better. OR be it satire.

Perhaps my other favourite writers are telling: Gaiman, Hugo, Melville, Balzac, Dostoyevsky, Hemingway, Pratchett, Bulgakov.

As for movies... Leone, Peckinpah, Kobayashi Masaki, Kurosawa, Corbucci, Coppola, Scorsese (classics only), Hitchcock and war movies.

So Martin does what I expect from fantasy - a super exciting story with a lot of realism/nautralism and fascinating world-building. I loved Tolkien and all but never read it till the morning. The only "OMGWTF" moment in LotR was "will Faramir live?". Other than that, I just knew everything's gonna end well. Here? It's full of OMGWTFs.

So all hail Mr. Martin. :bowdown:

[TerraPrime]

Nope. Did I accidentally do something genius or stupid?

There's a history where a woman's opinions are dismissed by men because women are deemed to be too emotional and also, lacking in rationality. In this context, when you are responding to a woman, in a thread about gender stereotypes, telling a female user to be less hysterical taps into that history, and conveys, either intentionally or not, a sort of dismissive attitude born out of your low regard of the other person's intellectual capacity.

[Addien]

Why would it be shocking that women enjoy a well-written series? We're not a different species. Our junk is different, but that's about it. Evo psych is falsifiable just-so stories, sexed-up scientific sexism for the new generation. Gender is definitely a significant social construct, and fantasy stories are usually gendered male, but good writing transcends gender.

And if you think women aren't drawn to fandom, I'd like to introduce you to the history of slash fan fiction. Women had a huge role in creating Star Trek fandom with Kirk/Spock slash - and that's a fact.

The marginalization of women in fandom and fantasy and sci-fi is bullshit, and while I don't think the OP meant his post that way, the "look, a girl in fandom!" stuff can get kind of patronizing.

[Easy]

My turn to offend people. I can't stand LoTR. The books are 3 times longer than they need to be. So boring and predictable. (Silmarillion and Children of Hurin were far better)

Maybe the legacy and influence of LoTR on the fantasy world is the reason why the genre doesn't have wider appeal. Not just with women, mind you, but with bookworms at large.

In my uneducated opinion, Mr Martin has changed all of that. I've said it before but asoiaf is more than just fantasy and it seems that other authors have copied Georgey's lead.

There's a history where a woman's opinions are dismissed by men because women are deemed to be too emotional and also, lacking in rationality. In this context, when you are responding to a woman, in a thread about gender stereotypes, telling a female user to be less hysterical taps into that history, and conveys, either intentionally or not, a sort of dismissive attitude born out of your low regard of the other person's intellectual capacity.

Haha. That is funny. I was actually referring to the hysterics of male AND female posting in this thread. I also commended the points they made which would indicate I hold their intellectual capacity in high regard but their conduct in low regard, no?

No way I'm apologising for that. I should have done a Jaime and not even tried to explain myself. Actually how about 'I'm sorry you misunderstood what I said'? Condescending much? j/k

[Addien]

Also OP, this is a nitpick, but please don't refer to women as "females". I see you're using "males" as well, but it sounds like you are referring to women as chattel. I know you don't mean it like that and probably love all teh womenz and cross little old ladies around the street, but I personally find it dehumanizing. It's a distancing word, categorizing women as some sort of incomprehensible "Other". YMMV.

[Yagathai]

There's a history where a woman's opinions are dismissed by men because women are deemed to be too emotional and also, lacking in rationality. In this context, when you are responding to a woman, in a thread about gender stereotypes, telling a female user to be less hysterical taps into that history, and conveys, either intentionally or not, a sort of dismissive attitude born out of your low regard of the other person's intellectual capacity.

Besides the origin of the word "hysterical", I'm sure Terra meant to say, as the word comes from the Greek word for "uterus", and was a term used specifically to indicate women behaving irrationally because of their girl parts. See also "hysterectomy".

[Faranya]

Nope. Did I accidentally do something genius or stupid?

Hysterics as a term originated as a way of describing emotional excesses in a woman due to not getting enough sex/not being pregnant.

Basically, if you are a woman and inclined to be offended, 'hysterics' is a really good word to get offended by. It can be taken to mean "You are just getting all worked up because you aren't getting any."