Sarah: Telling someone to ‘settle down’ is patronising whether a senator says it or you say it. It is an attempt to negate a person’s feelings rather than deal with their arguments.

I never said you attacked Killarney. I said you used her. You were not just expressing your opinion to Killarney about men being threatened you went on to name three examples. Killarney is not stupid and it was not necessary to bolster your opinion by giving examples.

If you really believed that the three of us had fled because we were threatened then who were you talking to? Killarney didn’t need examples. Perhaps you wanted everyone else on the forum to know how triumphant you were at making men flee.

“I do not consider it a victory...”

Why bother mentioning it at all then that three particular people have disengaged with you? People come and go all the time for a variety of reasons. Some even disengage because they feel threatened but what value is there in pointing it out at all? More specifically what value is there in naming those three people?

“Incidentally, I was interested in our discussion about my previous article. However, after your comment about "juvenile articles", I saw no point in continuing our discussion.”

Why not? I think I made a valid argument that your article was juvenile. I explained that it was simply more of the same ‘nagging’ and nagging behaviour is immature and juvenile. Craig also had some sympathy with this argument so he must have seen the logic in it. I said your article was juvenile and you took offence and saw it as disrespect. I was not making any claims about you personally but about your article.

You stopped responding to me as a form of passive aggression. You did not engage with my opinion about your article because you found it threatening and then you claim it is my fault for being ‘disrespectful’. This passive aggression is just a ‘tactic to negate the other person’s views’. Passive or active aggression – it is all aggression.

Sarah

I too shared phanto's concerns about your example of the three posters who left the board. Whether you intended it or not, it did tend to read as mild triumphalism.

Unfortunately, I've found on forums like this that calmly respectful reasoning is far too often used as a weapon against others (although I don't mean this in reference to you). There are quite a few commenters on this board, who ever so politely take my comments, twist them completely out of shape, then ever so politely respond to an argument I never made in the first place. (This is also done to feminism in general - distorting feminist arguments and theories out of all shape - usually as a personal attack on men - and then politely arguing why feminists are so wrong.)

I have much more respect for someone who shows that they understand what I say but disrespectfully tells me that I'm talking nonsense, than for someone who twists my words and then politely and calmly points out the fallacies of my 'non-argument'.

Sarah, "Many women are happy to engage with reasonable debate, but are not happy when we receive personal abuse."

or to put it in a way I'd consider more relevant "Many people are happy to engage with reasonable debate, but are not happy when we receive personal abuse."

Women are not the only human with feelings, not the only humans who don't enjoy personal abuse from those using it as a weapon to try and silence dissenting views. Nor are men the only gender to use those tactics to shut down dissenting views.

I have got the impression from criticisms of other posters that you have decided to comment on that your determination of what is reasonable debate and what is personal abuse is substantially skewed along gender lines. You've objected to criticism of Killarney's posting but demonstrated no objection to some pretty nasty posts on her part.

There are some unpleasant men on this site and others as there are some unpleasant women, I sometimes drop out of discussions when the level of abuse top's my interest in the topic or when it does seem like further contributions are just not worth it.

R0bert

Killarney

I am pleased that some people have remained engaged with this discussion, and not surprised that many have not. In my experience, debates of this kind are rarely conducted in a civil manner. My surprise (and pleasure) to have found some men with whom to have an interesting discussion appears to have come across as triumphalism.

I have noticed how several commenters in this forum twist your comments, and then insult you by responding to an argument that you did not make. I gather you have been on OLO for some time, and I admire your resilience for staying engaged.

Most of us who try to discuss power, entitlement and gender inequality have experienced this twisting of arguments. I used to think the only option for me was to withdraw from discussions whenever this happened (and it happens a lot). My niece taught me a clever withdrawing technique that I use. It works every time.

Wherever possible, I now try not to withdraw, to stay calm and stay on message. Normally, I don't have much success but on this occasion, I seem to have had some.

I too respect people who show they understand my argument and then contest it.

RObert

My comment was a response to Craig Minns’ idea for Female champions of change.

I most definitely agree with you. It is more relevant to say: "Many people are happy to engage with reasonable debate, but are not happy when we receive personal abuse."

Phanto

On several occasions, when a woman is disagreeing and making her argument, I have seen a man put his hand on a woman’s arm and then say to her “settle down”. Of course, it is rude, patronising and belittling. It is most definitely a technique used to silence her.

When I (a woman) told you (a man) to settle down, I consciously turned the tables. 'Turning the table' is a technique many feminists use to make a point.

Of course telling you to “settle down” was rude and patronising. But it appears to have been effective in making my point.

I found it interesting that many of those who have left the discussion did so after making insulting allegations.

Conservativehippie, for example asked me, "Does your work know they are paying you to write articles and post comments on OLO?" Conservativehippy made another insulting allegation during the discussion of my previous article: “Who knows, maybe you (TimH ) are actually Sarah in disguise, it wouldn't surprise me”. I responded to both allegations. Rather than apologise Conservativehippy left the discussion.

dane was insulting when he asked “are you making stuff up again” and “Why do you feminists find it so hard to stick to the facts?”. When I responded to his questions with facts, he too left the discussion.

It was a mistake to put you in the same basket as Conservativehippie and dane. You have clearly not left the discussion.

I have no respect for people who are aggressive and insulting, and shoot from the hip. I have no respect for people who use passive aggressive or aggressive aggressive techniques. I do however respect people who debate issues raised in the articles.

The point of this forum, as I understand it, is to debate the issues raised in articles, not to make personal attacks or insulting allegations.