Professional woman - belatedly woke!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New to this thread but the "ingratiated in..." stopped me also.

That is a fully incorrect usage of the word.

Yes, sorry, you don't just get to make up new grammar rules. We may agree with the sentiment, but don't take it personally that we are correcting your grammar. You won't be heard otherwise.

I don't take it personally! As I stated in my original response- I know I used it correctly, and that's it. When it becomes personal is when a bunch of women rush into a thread in an attempt to bully someone or shut them down. And I'm just... not the one to use that on.

Try that out on grammarly and see how it goes. This is not people attacking you.... this is not bullying. What you wrote is not correct. None of us care, we were actually trying to help. But please proceed with jibberish.

As I said, I don't take one person attempting to correct as an "attack". I find it unnecessary and socially awkward, but an attack? No. But what has happened in the several pages since can only be described as such. And people are angry that I'm still here, and I haven't taken it in. That's what you call a mob mentality, and sadly it's very predictable on here. I would be thrilled if more women started to think about these things critically and consider their positions on both sides- both being involved in the mob, and, when they are inevitably on the receiving end, NOT lying back and taking it as women are socialized to do. Hopefully this thread can help with that.

If only you had chosen a supportable position to take your stand on, then this thread might have helped with that...

I'm confident it did. Some of the earlier posters calling out the crazy lunacy of the mob on here certainly helped in that regard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New to this thread but the "ingratiated in..." stopped me also.

That is a fully incorrect usage of the word.

Yes, sorry, you don't just get to make up new grammar rules. We may agree with the sentiment, but don't take it personally that we are correcting your grammar. You won't be heard otherwise.

I don't take it personally! As I stated in my original response- I know I used it correctly, and that's it. When it becomes personal is when a bunch of women rush into a thread in an attempt to bully someone or shut them down. And I'm just... not the one to use that on.

Try that out on grammarly and see how it goes. This is not people attacking you.... this is not bullying. What you wrote is not correct. None of us care, we were actually trying to help. But please proceed with jibberish.

As I said, I don't take one person attempting to correct as an "attack". I find it unnecessary and socially awkward, but an attack? No. But what has happened in the several pages since can only be described as such. And people are angry that I'm still here, and I haven't taken it in. That's what you call a mob mentality, and sadly it's very predictable on here. I would be thrilled if more women started to think about these things critically and consider their positions on both sides- both being involved in the mob, and, when they are inevitably on the receiving end, NOT lying back and taking it as women are socialized to do. Hopefully this thread can help with that.

Yes, it can, if you can phrase your commentary effectively. Articulate those thoughts using the rules of English. Its great that you are pleased "with how you used the word." It is confusing and incorrect usage, and makes it hard to understand what you are saying. If you would like your message to be more accessible to people, it is helpful to follow the rules of grammar for clear communication.

I did do that, but thank you for the affirmation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm sorry.... whaaaaa? Calling out misogyny, including internalized misogyny, is very much apart of "sisterhood" and the fight for female empowerment. This is not Kim Kardashian feminism.

So, what part of feminism makes you think every single persom in this thread apart from you is wrong?

Feminism makes me aware of how women are socialized, by the patriarchy, to try to tear other women down, because sticking with each other would be a threat to male power. So it's easy, very easy- to see where this all stems from. Hint: it's not about a word.

The only one I see tearing down anyone is you. Simply pointing out an error is not a scathing indictment. Although since you write professionally, I suppose I can see how you would take it personally.

And I didn't say it was. Had it ended there, with my polite "Thank you, I know the word and am happy about how I used it" then I wouldn't be talking about the misogyny aspect. The misogyny aspect comes in when there's a completely dead thread about women's empowerment, and as soon as the sheep sense blood in the water (doubling on metaphors) they come rushing in, because it's a woman who made a mistake. I am well acquainted with this stuff, so it bothers me. But you can be damn sure I'm going to point it out and not take it lying down. Which is what more women need to do. If people realize that their knee jerk misogyny will be met with an equal reaction, perhaps they will think twice.

Sheep are herbivores. Perhaps you meant wolves?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, it's the wrong word.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ingratiate

You may like "ingratiate" but misusing it is not clever. It's just wrong.

I know exactly what it means and used it correctly, thank you.

You did not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, it's the wrong word.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ingratiate

You may like "ingratiate" but misusing it is not clever. It's just wrong.

I know exactly what it means and used it correctly, thank you.

You did not.

I did, thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm sorry.... whaaaaa? Calling out misogyny, including internalized misogyny, is very much apart of "sisterhood" and the fight for female empowerment. This is not Kim Kardashian feminism.

So, what part of feminism makes you think every single persom in this thread apart from you is wrong?

Feminism makes me aware of how women are socialized, by the patriarchy, to try to tear other women down, because sticking with each other would be a threat to male power. So it's easy, very easy- to see where this all stems from. Hint: it's not about a word.

The only one I see tearing down anyone is you. Simply pointing out an error is not a scathing indictment. Although since you write professionally, I suppose I can see how you would take it personally.

And I didn't say it was. Had it ended there, with my polite "Thank you, I know the word and am happy about how I used it" then I wouldn't be talking about the misogyny aspect. The misogyny aspect comes in when there's a completely dead thread about women's empowerment, and as soon as the sheep sense blood in the water (doubling on metaphors) they come rushing in, because it's a woman who made a mistake. I am well acquainted with this stuff, so it bothers me. But you can be damn sure I'm going to point it out and not take it lying down. Which is what more women need to do. If people realize that their knee jerk misogyny will be met with an equal reaction, perhaps they will think twice.

Sheep are herbivores. Perhaps you meant wolves?

I pointed out that I used two separate metaphors. Reading is fundamental.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm sorry.... whaaaaa? Calling out misogyny, including internalized misogyny, is very much apart of "sisterhood" and the fight for female empowerment. This is not Kim Kardashian feminism.

So, what part of feminism makes you think every single persom in this thread apart from you is wrong?

Feminism makes me aware of how women are socialized, by the patriarchy, to try to tear other women down, because sticking with each other would be a threat to male power. So it's easy, very easy- to see where this all stems from. Hint: it's not about a word.

The only one I see tearing down anyone is you. Simply pointing out an error is not a scathing indictment. Although since you write professionally, I suppose I can see how you would take it personally.

And I didn't say it was. Had it ended there, with my polite "Thank you, I know the word and am happy about how I used it" then I wouldn't be talking about the misogyny aspect. The misogyny aspect comes in when there's a completely dead thread about women's empowerment, and as soon as the sheep sense blood in the water (doubling on metaphors) they come rushing in, because it's a woman who made a mistake. I am well acquainted with this stuff, so it bothers me. But you can be damn sure I'm going to point it out and not take it lying down. Which is what more women need to do. If people realize that their knee jerk misogyny will be met with an equal reaction, perhaps they will think twice.

Sheep are herbivores. Perhaps you meant wolves?

I pointed out that I used two separate metaphors. Reading is fundamental.

But in doing so, the meanings of both were lost. Writing is apparently not fundamental (to you).

[Anonymous]

The sistahood does not exist. It's only used for pussy marches and by ugly loud mouthed females. You know this yet perpetuate the bra burning I am woman hear me roar attitude used only in public. In private it's back to being frustrated with your chosen mate. A mate according to this website that can't do anything without explicit instructions written in bold crayon from sista mommy. LOL. Tiger Wife.

Being " WOKE" is the new emotion that seriously sounds stupid. But we all have a dream right ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm sorry.... whaaaaa? Calling out misogyny, including internalized misogyny, is very much apart of "sisterhood" and the fight for female empowerment. This is not Kim Kardashian feminism.

So, what part of feminism makes you think every single persom in this thread apart from you is wrong?

Feminism makes me aware of how women are socialized, by the patriarchy, to try to tear other women down, because sticking with each other would be a threat to male power. So it's easy, very easy- to see where this all stems from. Hint: it's not about a word.

The only one I see tearing down anyone is you. Simply pointing out an error is not a scathing indictment. Although since you write professionally, I suppose I can see how you would take it personally.

And I didn't say it was. Had it ended there, with my polite "Thank you, I know the word and am happy about how I used it" then I wouldn't be talking about the misogyny aspect. The misogyny aspect comes in when there's a completely dead thread about women's empowerment, and as soon as the sheep sense blood in the water (doubling on metaphors) they come rushing in, because it's a woman who made a mistake. I am well acquainted with this stuff, so it bothers me. But you can be damn sure I'm going to point it out and not take it lying down. Which is what more women need to do. If people realize that their knee jerk misogyny will be met with an equal reaction, perhaps they will think twice.

Sheep are herbivores. Perhaps you meant wolves?

I pointed out that I used two separate metaphors. Reading is fundamental.

But in doing so, the meanings of both were lost. Writing is apparently not fundamental (to you).

Actually, they're not, unless someone doesn't have some kind of mental impairment. Which explains your difficulty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, it's the wrong word.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ingratiate

You may like "ingratiate" but misusing it is not clever. It's just wrong.

I know exactly what it means and used it correctly, thank you.

You did not.

I did, thank you.

You didn't, you're welcome.

[Anonymous]

New poster.

I think the ingratiate poster is not a native English speaker
and/or might have special needs. The sheep converging on blood (huh?) "metaphor" gave it away. There is a language processing problem at work here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, it's the wrong word.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ingratiate

You may like "ingratiate" but misusing it is not clever. It's just wrong.

I know exactly what it means and used it correctly, thank you.

You did not.

I did, thank you.

You didn't, you're welcome.

I did, thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New poster.

I think the ingratiate poster is not a native English speaker
and/or might have special needs. The sheep converging on blood (huh?) "metaphor" gave it away. There is a language processing problem at work here.

The mixed metaphors is perfectly acceptable provided everyone listening is native to English, particularly when the speaker specifies that they did mix metaphors. However, not being native-English speakers would involve many of the processing issues some of the other posters are describing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, if your cousin at Christmas is still suffering false consciousness, there is hope.

What ? Cousin? Christmas?? Please help explain ....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, if your cousin at Christmas is still suffering false consciousness, there is hope.

What ? Cousin? Christmas?? Please help explain ....

Yes, I thought this thread started off strange from the OP. There were a few helpful/on topic posts, but most of the thread has been devoted to word usage and handmaidenism.