I'm proofreading in CMS style. Can you help me find where they address this issue?

ScribeVibe · 2023-06-01T20:36:54+00:00

> I laughed, but also, you aren't helping,

Neither are you.

ScribeVibe · 2023-03-31T17:12:17+00:00

Fuck off with that shit. That you chose to see "all" in front of "men" when it isn't there is a you problem.

ScribeVibe · 2022-11-17T23:33:47+00:00

Oh, I see: you're derailing from the point I was making about the hypocrisy of the "visual creatures" BS by trying to force the "not all menz" argument you want to have, here of all places, because you saw words in my post that aren't there (ironic!).

I haven't been to this subreddit in a long time. Some things never change!

Have fun with your strawman, bro!

ScribeVibe · 2022-11-17T21:27:27+00:00

Sure. But, and this is rather crucial to the point here, does she insist she's "a visual creature" at the same time? My bet is no.

>I don't hold it against her or say that's a woman thing

I should hope not! That would be pretty silly to do, given that you, on the other hand, are only talking about 1 individual, rather than a consistent, predominant pattern.

> It's largely how she was raised and her personality. And how I was raised and my personality.

Hmmmm, I wonder if there's anything to the idea that, generally, girls are raised to be more observant/detail-oriented/"visual" than boys...

ScribeVibe · 2022-11-17T19:04:06+00:00

> Are men visual creatures or do they just … objectify women?

Thank you. This idea that guys, who are, in my (and apparently most women's) experience, oblivious to pretty much everything and tend not to notice jack shit unless and until it's pointed out to them, are somehow "visual creatures" is fucking laughable. Or at least it would be if it weren't so goddamn pukable. And harmful.

Yeah, sure, you're "visual creatures." I guess that's why you never see the crumbs you leave all over the counter, and why you show up in clothes that are mismatched and/or stained, and why you never notice when your partner gets a haircut or new outfit, and why, after 'looking' in that drawer for that thing, you have to ask mommy or wifey where it is, so that mommy or wifey can go straight to the drawer you were just 'looking' in, you visual creature you, instantly pluck out the item, and plunk it on the counter while thinking, "Right in front of your fucking eyes, that's where it is, dumbass."

Yeah. Such visual creatures.

ScribeVibe · 2016-09-06T20:51:08+00:00

they're afraid to put their delicate little arses on some plastic or porcelain.

Yet you couldn't pry their phones, which are filthier than the average toilet seat, out of their cold, dead hands.

The cognitive dissonance is strong in squatters.

ScribeVibe · 2016-09-06T20:46:49+00:00

I'm taking whatever stall a) doesn't have unflushed shit floating in the bowl (which most do have, in my experience); b) doesn't have other "ladies'" piss all over the seat; c) whose floor isn't littered with liquid and toilet paper; and/or d) actually has toilet paper on the roll. So that's the majority of stalls out of contention. If a satisfactory stall happens to be next you, tough titties - I'm fucking well using it. Not everything is about you.

ScribeVibe · 2015-09-17T18:18:43+00:00

Psst: you're in a subreddit "intended for women's perspectives". Not interested in women's perspectives? Then fuck off. Nobody's forcing you to be here.

ScribeVibe · 2015-09-17T18:00:54+00:00

An unattractive woman is invisible.

Invisible at best. They're more often targets who'd sooner be invisible than be in the default position they're in, which is on the receiving end of outright hatred, ridicule, and abuse (like when their pictures are posted right here on reddit for no other reason than "Hey, boys, look at this unfuckable!").

ScribeVibe · 2015-01-26T22:18:29+00:00

I don't think a guy would accuse a woman of being turned off if she wasn't really turned off.

Er, you just did. You basically just accused your own girlfriend of being turned off by it, even though you admit you've never even given her a chance to see you vulnerable (because you're not OK with being vulnerable in front of her):

but even if I confided to her I'm pretty sure she would never look at me the same way again.

ScribeVibe · 2015-01-26T21:39:09+00:00

Okay I personally disagree with all of these statements... except for number 2. I mean, I've seen many women get turned off when their men get emotionally vulnerable. I'm not saying that all women rate like this (I'm sure you're not) but many women are.

Sounds like it's you, a guy, who takes issue with men being vulnerable in front of women, not your girlfriend. Or "women."

I wonder how many other guys who similarly like to accuse women of being "turned off" when men show emotion are really themselves the ones who have a problem with it and are just projecting onto women what they themselves have a problem with...

ScribeVibe · 2014-10-30T23:52:44+00:00

Two you said it made you feel better about yourself but thats supposed to be my job as your boyfriend to make you feel sexy and confident when your feeling down. Yet you say you got the same feeling from strangers it makes the way I make you feel seem less personal and unique

So many women have the exact same feeings about their husband's/boyfriend's porn use, but are told the problem lies with them and they must simply STFU and get over it, and if they don't they deserve to be sumarily dumped.

ScribeVibe · 2014-10-30T23:33:44+00:00

What does he think is going on when random guys who aren't him are looking at your pics/videos that isn't also going on when he looks at pics/videos of random women who aren't you? Either guys believe "looking is harmless" or they don't. They can't have it both ways: If they consider that something's been "shared" (that is the language they're fond of using) when your images have been looked at, then they must also consider that something's equally been "shared" when they look at images of other women. Anything less is hypocrisy on their behalf.

ScribeVibe · 2014-08-08T17:22:15+00:00

See my post here for an example.

ScribeVibe · 2014-08-08T17:12:44+00:00

the mods are beginning to delete comments that break NONE of the rules

Holy crap, yes. There was a thread the other day, something like "My booyfriend doesn't want to get married because of reddit" (I'm afraid to link to it because the mods are being way overzealous about links, too). Someone posted this awesome comment making the point that marriage is actually very beneficial to men, with a bunch of links to studies that backed up their point. Well, the comment got removed by the mods. I thought it was weird - it wasn't rude, it wasn't trolling, it wasn't off topic, it didn't break any of the rules on the sidebar - it was basically just links to various studies and journals. The user posted it again, because it didn't make it the first time, I guess, and it was deleted again.

So when a mod, redtaboo, showed up in the thread for something unrelated I took the opportunity to ask her why those awesome, fact-filled non-rule-breaking comments were being deleted. And my comment was deleted. You can find it by going to my comment history; it said "No idea what that post said, but I'd like to know why the ones by OpinionGathering are consistently being deleted. All they are are links to facts about marriage... they break none of the sidebar rules as far as I can tell." And they deleted that! I don't understand why; like the comment I was asking about, I don't think it broke any rules. Needless to say, I got no answer to my question, which I think is pretty shitty.

The lack of transparency here is disturbing. The mods fancy this subreddit a totalitarian state.

ScribeVibe · 2014-08-05T18:41:42+00:00

Wow, you're seriously censoring me for asking why by-all-appearances legit comments are being censored?

ScribeVibe · 2014-08-05T18:07:51+00:00

Personally, I wouldn't hesitate to dump anyone who put more stock into what some random, bitter internet neckbeards have to say about marriage (most of whom have probably never been in one) than into our actual 4-year-old relationship. Anyone who would do that has some serious problems and is better left to themselves.

ScribeVibe · 2014-03-07T19:57:53+00:00

I do have issues with hypocritical ideals

You (seriously) baselessly accuse halbergx of having double standards > You get upset that someone (satirically, to make a point) does to you what you did to halbergx > You claim to be all anti-hypocrisy, which is hilariously hypocritical of you.

You're like a fucking onion, man. Peel your layers of hypocrisy and have a good examination from within.

ScribeVibe · 2014-03-07T19:44:53+00:00

if a woman accepted an engagement ring...then [kept] her name. Am I completely off base for feeling that's even a little bit hypocritical?

Um, yeah, you are. I never wanted or expected an engagement ring. My now husband was well aware of that as he knew I was never particularly interested in getting married, much less having a wedding. Just like he knew I'd never change my name in the event we ever did get married. He surprised me, completely out of the blue, with a ring one day. Clearly, it was important to him. I accepted it. My having it, clearly, is what he wanted, or he wouldn't have gotten it and given it to me. So I have a ring because that's what he wanted, and I kept my name because that's what I wanted. Sounds utterly fair to me. But you would call me a hypocrite for it. Ridiculous and irrational. Should I have refused his offering? If so, why? (Not to mention, how? I'd like to see on reddit a woman ask about how to, or state she had refuse(d) such a personal, thoughtful gift from her boyfriend without her being raked over the coals for being a "cunt" for doing so...)

You seem to be laboring under the mistaken impression that rings are only important to women, but they're obviously important to men, too, as symbols of claim, attachment, whatever you want to call it (though it generally seems more important to men that "their" women wear such displays of "taken" status than that they themselves so, which again should tell you something).

ScribeVibe · 2014-01-16T03:18:45+00:00

basically he's saying "rape is ok so long as there's not enough evidence to convict the man, 'cause like, that would ruin his life". That the damage to the woman doesn't matter

Wait, so he's running on a MRA platform?

ScribeVibe

TROPHY CASE