Is it possible to have a conversation

[Texasgal]

about sexism on DU with out blaming actual DU members?

Is it possible to know that misogyny and sexism is alive and well ALL over? Why must we ask if this only happens on DU? Is it not truth that it happens everywhere?

Can we discuss this issue that is very real?

[oldhippie]

1. Apparently not. nt

[el_bryanto]

2. I suppose it depends on whether actual DU members are guilty of Sexism nt

[Texasgal]

6. Regardless...

It gets annoying when people ask for link.

Sexism and misogyny is everywhere and it IS an issue that should be discussed.

I'm confused by those that insist on links and "proof". It's an international issue, not just for DU.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

20. If you're discussing alleged misogyny on DU then yes, I think you should provide

Evidence. If you're willing to level very serious accusations without requisite proof then it doesn't speak very much to your desire to get along in an online community.

I did like what one woman said here on DU the other day. She said such misogyny or gender bias or other issue should be addressed in the thread it occurs.

Blanket after the fact statements are merely flame bait throwing gas on a fire.

[Harmony Blue]

42. Absotlutely

I ask for proof or posting links of any poor behavior.

[sabrina 1]

55. This is really getting serious. But for the third time in about a week, I agree with you.

If someone is accusing anyone of something serious, then yes, they absolutely need to provide proof. I cannot imagine why they would be reluctant to do so.

[zappaman]

3. Doesn't seem that way.

[Katashi_itto]

4. No unfortunately

[arely staircase]

5. no nt

[pacalo]

7. It's one of the repercussions of the Meta forum.

Generally speaking, you take your chances & you reap what you sow.

[Texasgal]

9. Talking about sexism

should be relegated to Meta? Really?

[polly7]

10. I don't believe that's what pacalo meant. nt.

[Texasgal]

11. Perhaps he/she should change the post

that's what i got out of it anyway.

[polly7]

16. Why should he/she change the post because you may have misunderstood

what it meant?

He never said: "Talking about sexism should be relegated to Meta?"

Perhaps he/she will better explain it.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

21. LOL

I read your post differently than you intended. Please go rewrite your post.

[polly7]

24. mmmm ...........

NO!

[pacalo]

29. Your mangled interpretation of what I wrote is one example

of why it's not "possible to have a conversation about sexism on DU with out blaming actual DU members".

What I meant was, one small group of feminists earned their reputation in the Meta forum, which will be difficult to overcome. That's my answer to your OP's question.

[Texasgal]

8. How sad.

How literally sad.

An amazing issue revolving women cannot be discussed because so many are annoyed? Afraid? Guilty?

[oldhippie]

14. Yeah, there hasn't been any discussion ...

... On issues involving women lately.

[Texasgal]

15. Or discussions that

people freak out over. Yup. Agreed.

[Eleanors38]

30. Ummm, no. Lot's and lots of attacks & enablement of same. nt

[Drew Richards]

41. Texasgal I dont think for most those three adjectives apply. Men and woman are getting

Pissed at all the sniping an intentional taking things even a simple word out of context and then using this false outrage to attack others even applying blanket statements of contempt for entire swatches of society or gender.

Civil discourse must prevail or these important messages about rape and gender inequality will be completely ignored or dismissed. That would be counter productive for everyone here.

[BainsBane]

12. It should be

The problem is that some insist that DU is exempt from sexism and then challenge others to provide evidence. If those men who are so offended by discussions of rape, harassment, and sexism would simply discuss the topic rather than seeing any mention of the problem as an attack on themselves, we could have more productive discussions. Some however are so determined to deny its existence or take things personally, and they thus put themselves right smack in the middle of the issue.

Case in point, the outrage over the Indian PSA where a few men claimed posting it was an attack on them. Here it is, in case anyone missed it. One little video led to more than a week of complaints about feminists "attacking" men.

[Bonobo]

28. The video didn't outrage me in the least. That is your "spin".

I made a post about what the phrase "Male Gaze" means once I learned what it is.

I was glad that the misuse of the phrase encouraged me to learn about what "Male Gaze" means.

It is a related issue tangentially, but it is without a doubt a misunderstanding to think that it refers to "men gazing at women".

[BainsBane]

37. I never saw your posts on the issue, so I'm not talking about you

As shocking as you may find that. I did, however, see lots of outrage by others members.

Edit: Oh, yeah. I remember the male gaze thread. That was funny.

[Drew Richards]

43. There you go again. All false and unsubstantiated accusations look in the mirror and tell

Yourself you're not exacerbating the problem...

[BainsBane]

50. I think you mean I CAUSED the problem

by bringing the video to HOF in the first place and having the audacity to post about trivial issues like rape and violence against women.

Clearly my point is not unsubstantiated. The fact that both you and another poster decided to take the comments as directed at you proves as much. I have no idea who you even are let alone what you have posted about sexism or anything else. This may come as a shock, but everything written on this site isn't about you, and you can hardly claim omniscience about what everyone else has posted to be able to conclude my points are unsubstantiated. I could easily provide links, but I thought point was to discuss the issue rather than hurling more accusations at individuals, as you are intent on doing toward me.

The GD thread with the PSA got over 130 recs, and many reasonable men have watched that video and not been able to figure out what a few were so offended by. The one who posted the thread about creep shaming admitted he hadn't even watched it. Clearly the point was to create shit for the sake of it rather than discuss the issue. A few have absurdly fragile egos and take any criticism of their argument, or lack thereof, as a personal attack, even calling it "bullying." I present my views. If people don't like them they can disagree or ignore me. It is not, however, my responsibility to coddle the insecure.

[Drew Richards]

51. No! unlike you...i say exactly what I mean without adding additional insinuations

You are exacerbating the problem because you cant do a post without a subtle dig and personal attack your wall of text reply with an addition accusation about my character just proves my point. You are uncivil and horrible at promoting your cause in a civil manor...buh bye.

[Drew Richards]

52. Oh and bravo nice personal attack in your reply.

[BainsBane]

54. What dig did I make?

You are the one making allegations against me, while I was quite clear I have no idea who you are. There has been nothing civil about your exchange here. You began by attacking me, not discussing the problem. The only point I made about you was that your determination to see my comments as about you personally reveal exactly what I was talking about, as by the way does the thread "I refuse to apologize for being a man" (when no one asked him to), and "there is no rape culture on DU." I insinuated nothing about you. I made general comments based on my observances of responses by a vocal minority to feminists threads. I was quite clear that your response proved my point. Whatever else you think I insinuated is in your own head, and I take no responsibility for it. What would you have considered a civil response? Should I have said "I'm so sorry I hurt your feelings by posting about harassment and rape. I won't speak out of turn again"? Not a snowball's chance in hell.

It seems pretty clear to me that your definition of incivility is someone daring to disagree with you. That is simply lame. If you can't stand up for your views, what is the point anyway? Additionally, I have no idea what your views are other than a personal dislike for me, which is hardly an ideological position. That, by the way, is not an insinuation. It is a directly stated observation of your two posts in response to me here. If you ever wonder what I think, just ask. I'm not shy about expressing myself. I don't need to insinuate.

[Drew Richards]

56. Lol go look up the definition of projection and reread your post. I have nothing against you

I have something against incivility, people that like to twist words and people who cannot get their point across with out hostility. Please go back, look at some of your posts in the last three days...could you not have framed your replys without causing confrontations and accusations?

I'm sorry, its nothing against you personally its how you seem to create controversy where none needs to be Rather than fostering a positive discussion that others would enjoy, agree with and wish to post to other places.


Look to Red Queen as a great example, I love her OP's and probably agree with 99% of her posts. She rarely if ever has had to resort to being rude...

Besides that I'm sure we can go our separate ways.

[Iggo]

13. Meta!

[Orrex]

17. Certainly

As long as one makes judicious use of the Ignore feature.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

18. If it is brought up in a hostile way then probably not

If it is brought up in a newsworthy way like "i found this interesting report...." or "this happened to me and I have to speak up....."

That's my thought, anyway. Same is true of many topics brought up here.

[Texasgal]

19. Well.., sexism and misogyny is kinda

hostile in it's self. So..

[Pretzel_Warrior]

22. But bringing it up in a hostile way on DU

Would sound accusatory. What would a person hope to accomplish by leveling blanket accusations of sexism on DU community?

[Texasgal]

25. I've seen many posts

that just want to address the issue. Why does discussing it bring such ire?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

26. Some males are probably too quick to take offense. Also

I've seen some start ok but not end well.

[freshwest]

23. Nothing productive about the subject, too much ideology to talk honestly with each other, as well as

justification and denial. On topics such as you want to discuss, there is relentless trolling in the classic sense of diverting threads. It worked, now people just avoid the threads.

The crowd at DU2 seemed more open and less hostile, less willing to insult women and minorities. But then, I only started posting here after the 2010 election. It's changed a lot from what it was back then, IMO.

I gave up on trying to have any talk about it or ask questions. Too much baiting, obsession and hostility. Like Meta which really opened my mind to some things I've never forgotten.

I wrote in the last days there before Skinner deleted the group, that it had changed my opinion of different parts of the community. I realized that despite agreeing with other members on other subjects, the side of some that was revealed in Meta was so disturbing and degrading, that I didn't want to talk to a certain portion of them - about anything.

I lost my trust in the honesty of some members. Other things since then didn't restore that. So I don't take debate here as seriously as I once did. It's a loss and some of the older posters have left for good, some say they've found more liberal places.

Skinner and crew have created a remarkably functional architecture on this website. But they can't do anything about what people do or say here. Sorry that I have no positive suggestion for you.

In short, the answer is No.

[kcr]

27. DU2 and earlier had clearly defined rules about civility and they were enforced by moderation.

I think that is the big difference. DU3 is about taking your chances with the jury, and it's random.

[Eleanors38]

31. Small groups of very hostile people have poisoned the atmosphere

on certain topics, esp. gender and gun issues, and evidently wield considerable power by flooding GD with hostile posts, or constantly lobbying to get their culture war attacks (esp.with guns) reinstated in GD. The enablement and empowerment of these people has corrupted GD to where it resembles Meta.

I wish there WAS a forum to discuss gender issues openly, but that would require honesty, respect, discipline and monitoring authority which is absent. Hell, I see more respect and genuine give & take on a much wider array of gender issues in the Men's Group!

[kcr]

32. It's much easier to troll on DU3. Posts that would never have made it on DU2

get left on DU3 by juries.

[Eleanors38]

36. Yep. And some lobby hard, hard, hard in ATA to reinstate guns...

so the unbridled smear can continue same as it ever was. Most want guns in the 2 groups set up; most pro-2A want it that way. But not the controller/banners. They want to continue an explicit policy of shame and smear to continue. And they can't nourish that need in a group(s). They must have that wider forum where all must suffer the hatefulness. Gender issues are now in that category, sorry to say.

[NoOneMan]

58. Posts that are pretty benign are also susceptible to hides

Hell, I made a reading comprehension error today and politely asked a poster about when they used to be a right-winger (they posted they used to argue with right-wingers) and I got nailed for the misunderstanding.

Sarcasm is also a total killer too.

[rhett o rick]

33. Are you Just Asking Questions? If you have something to say, go ahead and say it. nm

[Drew Richards]

39. OMFG Spot on! Thank You for this post...Very well put together and unrefutable..NOW

To those that are doing this crap and to those baiting and encouraging more dissension.

THINK how your post may be received before you post PLEASE.

Thanks for the civility.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

47. So what did the person say?

Since they are now banned.

[Drew Richards]

48. He basically posted the conversation breakdown from redqueens original post on the Indian PSA

It showed exactly when it went from a discussion to a male bashing attack and who was involved. Unfortunately by pasting that conversation and analysis I guess it was construed as a personal attack against one person from that exchange...if you wish to see it and deduce for yourself when red queens important psa post was hijacked into a bashing session I would suggest you go read the thread again...it starts fairly quickly....too bad too the PSA post needs more coverage less incivility...

[Prophet 451]

35. I dunno, can we?

What would you like to discuss?

[Vashta Nerada]

38. Meta thread.

Trash.

[Skip Intro]

40. Actual real discussion on any issue seems a challenge.

Voice the wrong opinion, ask the wrong question, fail to hit the right notes and stay within the lines, and you're attacked on a personal level and discussion of the topic at hand is lost. This form of disruption is rampant on DU, I am sad to say.

An honest and sincere discussion of seemingly any topic offers fertile ground for those who demand we all think, speak, and march in lockstep. Comply or be attacked with the intent to destroy.

It might be getting better though.

[Drew Richards]

45. I'm hoping it will when the temp bans go into effect. It might make people think a little

More before posting.

Civility MUST be restored.

[liberal_at_heart]

46. I hope so, but I have a feeling all we'll see is more reincarnations of people

kicked off the site.

[Harmony Blue]

44. Provide links to threads

but singling out a member is against DU rules.

[redqueen]

49. I tried to ask why these topics are treated differently.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024248356

Topics about rape culture and misogyny in particular seem to be unwelcome, to some.

The thing is, these are very real problems, facing women all over the world (not just in India, or Africa, to name a couple of countries which some use to otherize the issues).

[Drew Richards]

53. Well said!

[NoOneMan]

57. If so, I'd love to see it.

But why keep trying in GD anyways? Its gotten to the point that the gender discussion could get its own area, like I/P and Gun Issues

[davidn3600]

59. No one is stopping you from having that conversation

But certain things within the ideologies being discussed are controversial and will initiate debate. "Rape culture," for example is something not even feminists agree on.