I just read your two comments. I mean this as constructive and helpful. Sorry if it comes off as rude.
On the bridge you start interrogating about the incorrect answer to your first question. It’s quite presumptuous. I wouldn’t have downvoted. But it also doesn’t seem like a big deal.
On your gay adoption comment, I get what you were saying. It came off really pedantic. But also, the implication is hilarious that the way to make men “manly” is to have them raised by gay men.
I didn’t mean to be presumptive. I meant to just include a second part if (and only if) it was relevant. I see now how it can easily come across that way
Would you be able to further explain the implication you mentioned? I don’t understand how you got there. I don’t mean to say you’re wrong or anything. I just don’t get the connection
No worries. I don’t mind being told that I’m wrong. And the implication I mentioned is purely just my own observation.
The post to me sounded like they were calling out their sister who thinks men are being raised to be too feminine. It’s a common accusation that younger people are “raised by women” without enough masculine role models. It’s all Alpha-Beta theory BS.
The commenter you replied to was saying that applies to every son.
Your comment seemed to inadvertently offer a solution that the Alpha-Beta types would NOT be happy with, gay parents. No “mothering” required.
To be clear, I don’t think the implication was why you were downvoted. I think you just sounded a bit pedantic. Like you were correcting them without adding to the conversation.
I just happened to enjoy the pendantry.
By the way, I’ve also been in a position where I was downvoted with zero explanation, even after asking for it. So I get the frustration. Even a bad explanation is preferred to no explanation. So I hope that helps and you continue to contribute however you feel comfortable.
I just read your two comments. I mean this as constructive and helpful. Sorry if it comes off as rude.
On the bridge you start interrogating about the incorrect answer to your first question. It’s quite presumptuous. I wouldn’t have downvoted. But it also doesn’t seem like a big deal.
On your gay adoption comment, I get what you were saying. It came off really pedantic. But also, the implication is hilarious that the way to make men “manly” is to have them raised by gay men.
That really does help. Thank you
I didn’t mean to be presumptive. I meant to just include a second part if (and only if) it was relevant. I see now how it can easily come across that way
Would you be able to further explain the implication you mentioned? I don’t understand how you got there. I don’t mean to say you’re wrong or anything. I just don’t get the connection
No worries. I don’t mind being told that I’m wrong. And the implication I mentioned is purely just my own observation.
The post to me sounded like they were calling out their sister who thinks men are being raised to be too feminine. It’s a common accusation that younger people are “raised by women” without enough masculine role models. It’s all Alpha-Beta theory BS.
The commenter you replied to was saying that applies to every son.
Your comment seemed to inadvertently offer a solution that the Alpha-Beta types would NOT be happy with, gay parents. No “mothering” required.
Thank you again. I’m not sure I would have ever made that connection if not for you
I think lurking is probably best for me
To be clear, I don’t think the implication was why you were downvoted. I think you just sounded a bit pedantic. Like you were correcting them without adding to the conversation.
I just happened to enjoy the pendantry.
By the way, I’ve also been in a position where I was downvoted with zero explanation, even after asking for it. So I get the frustration. Even a bad explanation is preferred to no explanation. So I hope that helps and you continue to contribute however you feel comfortable.