|
Post by nikita on Aug 13, 2010 16:37:38 GMT -5
Part of what I like about online communications is that you are esentially lines of type. If your avatar name and/or picture are obtuse enough, people will make their own decisions about your gender, especially if it doesn't come up in the discussions you engage in. LiveJournal (which has a predominantly female userbase) has been my "home" online for so long (since February, 2003) that I assume that everyone I meet online is female, until they prove otherwise. I never really thought about it but now that you mention I realize that I too assume a female is posting on livejournal and some other sites that are not overtly female. Even when the name seems masculine I find it is usually a female's tag. Interesting. As a side, on Facebook it's my male old friends who seek me out and have long discussions with me there. The women (some of whom are their wives and most of whom I lived with and counted as close friends also) talk to each other a lot but the men talk to me. That was what it was like in my old cult days too so I guess it's not strange that the pattern holds twenty five years later. I am very grateful that my cult, for all it's wrongs, was generally gender neutral in teaching and practice. When I hear the horrible teachings and practices people here have had to endure it saddens (and outrages) me. Thank God I was spared the real depths of that particular indignity.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Aug 13, 2010 18:06:23 GMT -5
LiveJournal (which has a predominantly female userbase) has been my "home" online for so long (since February, 2003) that I assume that everyone I meet online is female, until they prove otherwise. I never really thought about it but now that you mention I realize that I too assume a female is posting on livejournal and some other sites that are not overtly female. Even when the name seems masculine I find it is usually a female's tag. Interesting. As a side, on Facebook it's my male old friends who seek me out and have long discussions with me there. The women (some of whom are their wives and most of whom I lived with and counted as close friends also) talk to each other a lot but the men talk to me. That was what it was like in my old cult days too so I guess it's not strange that the pattern holds twenty five years later. I am very grateful that my cult, for all it's wrongs, was generally gender neutral in teaching and practice. When I hear the horrible teachings and practices people here have had to endure it saddens (and outrages) me. Thank God I was spared the real depths of that particular indignity. It's always puzzled me that on one forum I post actively on that is probably 75% male I am always assumed to be male, referred to as "he" when my user name there is 100% feminine and IMHO my writing would also be seen as female particularly in contrast to the dominant male culture there. It always amuses me. As to friends, interesting Nikita. I do have a couple male friends online but I came to the conclusion the other day that the only male I really like greatly is my husband, lucky him LOL. Otherwise I have little time for men. They are good for discussing actual topics but as a friend pointed out to me women are more interested in the subtext behind everything. I could talk to just about any woman I come across but I've gotten less interested in the whole male gender the older I get. This is putting it as nicely as possible so I don't get flamed here ;D So I happily identify as a gender because for me that has been a meaningful experience.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Aug 17, 2010 21:50:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Aug 17, 2010 21:52:22 GMT -5
Angie the Anti-theist mentions NLQ in her latest youtube review of Rick Warren's "Purpose Driven Life"
|
|
|
Post by amyrose on Aug 21, 2010 13:34:33 GMT -5
Watching the Duggars. Because of my horrible habit of watching/listening to train wrecks. A few things:
--Michelle's reference to "when JimBob and I were dating" kind of makes me want to slap her. If dating was good enough for them, why not for their kids?
--In this episode, she is in Little Rock alone with the baby and spends a good portion of the episode complaining about how hard it is to do everything by herself--take care of one baby, do the laundry, keep the place clean, cook for herself. Poor thing. Does it occur to her that her older daughters do all of this for 20 people all the time? At one point, she's got the crew taking the garbage out for her because it is so hard.
I think the older girls should go on strike and picket on the front lawn and let her take care of everything on her own at home with everyone and see how she likes that.
|
|
|
Post by jillrhudybarrett on Aug 23, 2010 13:23:26 GMT -5
Ah, yes, old Van Til. That rings a bell. The only objective "knowable" reality that you can hang your hat on exists between Genesis and Revelation. The object you just tripped over, and the bad x-ray result afterwards, may or may not exist because nothing outside of Scripture is really, really, real. In my household we held to post-suppositorial apologetics: we were really anal about everything.
Jill
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 25, 2010 16:52:37 GMT -5
Ah, yes, old Van Til. That rings a bell. The only objective "knowable" reality that you can hang your hat on exists between Genesis and Revelation. The object you just tripped over, and the bad x-ray result afterwards, may or may not exist because nothing outside of Scripture is really, really, real. In my household we held to post-suppositorial apologetics: we were really anal about everything. Jill This made me laugh out loud.
|
|