What can we do about the sexism on DU?

[cally]

I read several of the recent locked threads and I'm just appalled. Everyonce in awhile this happens at DU. It's not always the same posters involved, but a few will join in on some feminist threads and raise a ruckus. Many women and some men get angry and go for it and they are the ones who end up breaking the rules. Some DUers jump in to support the sexist poster who attacks feminists and feminist ideas. I don't understand this place sometimes but this situation is predictable. It will end up with several banned posters and many deleted posts. What can we do to make this a more accepting site for feminists and avoid the meltdowns?


Caveat: This will get locked if we site posters or link to specific posts or threads. I don't want to continue a flamewar just try to brainstorm about a concern of mine.

[benburch]

1. Care to cite some example of what you mean without linking?

Just in general?

[omega minimo]

68. "raise the issue without catching any democratic tits in the same wringer"

:puke:

[Kathy in Cambridge]

2. Hi cally

I'm appalled that attacking feminism seems perfectly acceptable here. If it's any consolation, most of those who have parroted RW BS on women's topics have eventually been banned. Seems that they really were disruptors.

[Crowdance]

4. That is why I stopped donating; my own little protest

Truly apalling things are said about women and feminism here, and the remarks go completely uncensured. Women and those who love them respond, however, and THOSE are the posts that are deleted. I just don't get it, and I won't support it--but I'll keep fighting it.
Of course, I can no longer post in my favorite DU group, but principle requires sacrifice. I look forward to the day when DU corrects this inequity and I can donate and restore my membership.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

I'm thinking of doing the same thing. I never considered myself a feminist

more of a humanist, but I CAN'T BELIEVE the crap that gets posted. If you said the same thing about gays or ethnic groups, the post would get nuked.

[cally]

9. I can guess why some of the posts are deleted

I cringe when I read them because although I agree with the sentiment and opinion, I know they break the rules. Sometimes I even send a PM begging a poster to change their post before it's gone.

I'm starting this thread to try to hash out how best to deal with it. I support the site and donate but I do want some things to change.

[chicaloca]

48. me too!

"That is why I stopped donating; my own little protest"

I really miss being able to use the search function, because it was always a great tool for pointing out the hypocrisy of so many of our resident sexists and misogynists. But it's a sacrifice worth making.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[peacetalksforall]

5. I think some of it has gone over my head because of concentration

on the admin and limited time, however, this phrase caught my attention:

"Some DUers jump in to support the sexist poster "

I do notice a team ripple, but I thought it was for budding conspiratorial government stuff, such as a discussion about Wellstone being murdered.

If you can, find out if there are patterns.

I think posting on DU does not exclude sexism. Some people don't know they are doing it and some slip because their attention is focused on something else.

I will be more attentive. I do remember occasions where some posters wrote some great defenses, but I don't remember the circumstances.

Since DU is all about raising consciences...go for it.

[Erika]

6. I have not noted sexism here at DU

-?- I have noted some really weird hateful stuff that I contributed to trolls, even some with hundreds of posts.

[cally]

7. I'll use an old example

There were two or three posters who always entered abortion threads and made similar arguments. I haven't seen them post in over a year so I'm not calling anyone out. They made the same argument every single time and pretty much stayed on the abortion threads. Almost every single one would be locked as a flamefest eventually mostly because of the two or three posters and the responses they got. There was a different poster or two who entered rape threads in a similar way. Again, they didn't specifically break the rules other than being incredibly sexist and turning reasonable discussions into flamewars. Again and again. It's makes it difficult to discuss these topics reasonably.

edit: grammar

[Kathy in Cambridge]

12. I know who you're talking about and they're gone

the goal is to disrupt the threads so there can be no reasoned debate.

[orwell]

8. A Sign

Sexism is rampant in just about every society. The repression of women is fundamental and implicit in our institutions and social constructs.

What is structural passes for normalcy.

Why would it be any different here?

[chicaloca]

52. At first that was what I thought, too...

when I was trying to figure out why there's so much sexism here. But then I realized that DU _isn't_ representative of society as a whole -- we're all liberals and/or progressives here. We're the ones who should be standing up against injustice and fighting prejudice. After all, if we don't fight against hatred of oppressed groups, the Repukes sure as hell aren't going to. So if liberals are willing to accept and even embrace sexism, who's going to fight for me, for my mother, for my nieces and grandmother? If sexism and outright misogyny are ever going to end, it will have to be liberals who start the fight.

[beam me up scottie]

10. I can't post much on the subject because

every time I do, it gets deleted.
This is allowed because women are not considered a minority, therefore we are fair game for bigots.

[The Straight Story]

11. Not sure I understand the problem fully

Are we talking about how some people disagree with the methods or goals of feminists/feminism?

As an aside, and why some people may be the way you describe, are they people who feel they are not part of an 'ism' movement and feel unrepresented and attack those who have representation on issues (to wit - is there a maleism movement? Do some posters feel as though they are being attacked in an indirect way because they see themselves as part of the group being 'attacked' (and I use that word in a common way, to wit: they see themselves as part of the group which is the cause of why the 'ism' exists and they get defensive))?

Sexism, Racism, and on down the line there are people who are either affected by it or see themselves as part of the larger group which is responsible for that condition. Not living within that group they do not see the problems as clearly because it has not affected them as much . They see the problems perhaps as either percieved by the person posting or as someone using an 'ism' to complain about something which has nothing to do with it (ie, as an excuse for problems).

This, to me, is an encapsulation of such posts I have seen here over time. How can women be oppressed and yet we have so many in power? Why focus on one group when all people are oppressed for some reason or other and categorizing it dilutes the pool instead of unifying it, etc and so on.

There are lots of reasons why we see the things we do.

What can we do?

Engage in a civil discourse as to why people feel as they do on an issue (in this case, an issue which would involve feminism) without resulting to labeling people as something (ala anti-woman, male chauvinist, and so on and so forth).

Educate through discourse and discussion - understand and try to grasp why people think about a topic as they do - see their view and try to educate them to see your view in a rational and polite way.

If they call you names then they are losing the battle and unable to reason on a level of logic, ignore it and keep on the issue instead of being diverted by being labeled.

Often times too people are not in the same situation and cannot appreciate it, help them along with analogies and such. Let them divert with childish banter and anger if they wish, but stay on message and don't let them frame the argument or divert it into a flame war.

Pacifism on threads :)

[cally]

13. I wish we could have reasonable discussions on

these topics. That is my desire. We all know all of us come out problems with different life experiences, values, and understanding. Discussion helps us all learn. What I'm bringing up is turning discussions into flamefests. See my post 7 for some old examples. I'm not willing to give current ones.

[beam me up scottie]

14. I agree.

It's amazing how much you can learn from one poster. There is more diversity here than anyplace in the real world.
That creates friction but can also bring understanding.
True progressives do not fear diversity or try to exclude ANY other liberals.
I am afraid that the younger generation does not believe we are discriminated against because they don't see it.
They don't seem to understand that we are LOSING ground now.
The rights that we fought for tooth and nail are in danger of becoming so much history.

[Hello_Kitty]

15. I allowed myself to be baited more than once

And ended up deleted while the disruptors milked sympathy. "See how those MEAN feminists are attacking me!" They're pretty good. They enter into what would normally be tame and relatively unnoticed threads. The posts, while not overtly offensive, are patronizing and condescending enough to arouse a reaction and ensuing flame war. Were these posts to appear in other forums, such as the GLBT, African American, or any of the religious ones and expressed similar dismissive views of their equality movements or ideology they would be deleted and probably banned. But hey, as many of you have pointed out, we're talking about women here so it's different. :eyes:

Part of me wants to continue engaging with them because I've just had it with remaining silent in the face of bigotry. But then I think, why give them what they want? They want someone to flame them so that they can portray themselves as victims. We already know who some of the "usual suspects" are so I propose that the regulars on this forum put them on ignore. Let em post to their heart's content but no one will see it. It won't help much on other DU boards and forums but at least we'll get them out of here.

[beam me up scottie]

16. Good idea.

Great idea actually. I will try to ignore them but I'm not willing to use the ignore feature just yet. I like to know who the dingbats are which is why I also read the local newspapers' LTTE section.

[Senior citizen]

88. I used the ignore feature for the first time

after Andrea Dworkin's death, when some people used a thread about it to show disrespect for the deceased and defend the commodification of females. I ended up with 18 people on my ignore list. Since then I have seen many topics with posts listed as "ignored," and, invariably, the ignored posts are followed by outraged replies by feminists. I'm glad the ignore feature is so useful and that by using it, I'm not missing anything worthwhile.

[daisygirl]

17. I read this area frequently but don't really post because

I feel that I'm liable to be either ignored or attacked if my ideas don't fall in lockstep with the prevailing idea of what it is to be a "real" feminist. I see a lot of one-true-right-and-only-way thinking in here, and it bothers me a lot. I don't feel comfortable posting in here because I feel I'll be labeled as anti-woman and anti-feminist if I dare to voice any disagreement.

What can be done to make it a more accepting place for feminists? I think if folks could try debating in a civil manner and accept that not everyone will agree with them all the time, it would be a much more welcoming place.

[cally]

19. I doubt any of us agree entirely on what

it means to be a feminist. I think you should try to post and defend your point of view. Most of us are not against difering opinions just annoyed when folks post to create a flamefest.

[Hello_Kitty]

28. And don't start out by being dismissive and condescending

Toward the discussion in progress when you join a thread. It's one thing to say "Hey, I disagree with what you guys are saying because of a, b, and c." It's entirely another to say something like "There you go again whining about the patriarchy and blaming men!" One is respectful, the other is disruptive flamebait. And again, you will rarely see someone doing about other issues (i.e. GLBT or African American) because they will get their asses reamed for it. But they will do it here or anywhere that feminism or women's issues are being discussed.

[daisygirl]

29. That is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about

I don't believe I was dismissive or condescending. I didn't even actually state my views on anything, just that I felt concerned I'd be attacked if I did, and I'm attacked just for saying that? Thanks for proving my point.

[beam me up scottie]

30. I don't think she meant you, please stay.

Really.
I am also nervous about posting in here, I avoid it just like I avoid the animal rights group-because I care too much and I lose all perspective when somebody justifies cruelty or bigotry. I lose it.

I would like to hear what all of us have to say because I am always growing and changing. I don't feel the same about this issue as I did when I was 20. We need an outlet where we can discuss without being defensive.

Really, sisters, let's do this.

I am still smarting from the thread-that-must-not-be-mentioned so I am over sensitive. We need to fix that.

Please stay and help. I'm going to and I'm sorry I didn't step up until now.

~Linda

[cally]

31. Agreed.

BMUS is right. Noone was accusing anyone of being dismissive nor condescending IMHO. I would like you to express your opinions.

[Hello_Kitty]

33. That post wasn't directed at you.

And I don't even see how it could have been interpreted to be.

[chicaloca]

49. I think a lot of people here get defensive quickly....

Because there ARE so many disruptors on this forum, and sometimes it's hard to tell who's actually trying to engage in a reasonable debate and who's just trying to piss people off. (And FWIW, I definitely think you fall into the reasonable debate category!) That makes it difficult for people who might not share whatever the views are of most feminists on any particular board -- while normally I, as a radical feminist, wouldn't get snippy with someone who I know actually cares about women's rights but isn't as radical as I am, I'm more liable to get angry here. That's because if somebody disagrees with me here, chances are they're doing it to be a jackass and not because they actually want to have a conversation. But this, of course, is exactly what the disruptors want. They want us to not know who we can trust and they want us to turn on each other. So let's not let them do that!

[kalibex]

18. Click on the following link....

http://www.fairnessproject.org/Religious_Addiction.html

Read it.

Substitute 'sexism' for 'religion' and 'sexist' for 'addict'.

Read it again.

Example (strike-throughs and substitutions mine):

"Don’t let the addict sexist get you off topic. Addicts Sexists love to confuse the issues, get you talking about things that don’t challenge their problem. When you do, you further the addiction."


-B

[pmbryant]

20. Big problem

Hi cally. :hi:

The sexism is endemic to society, of course, and shows no ideological boundaries (though needless to say, it is far more blatant amongst conservatives). So there may not be a true solution, short of addressing this broader problem.

Is there a DU Group for discussions of this sort solely between women's-rights sympathizers?

:shrug:

Peter

[cally]

23. Hi Peter

I've missed seeing your posts.

I don't think there is a specific forum but this discussion is informative IMHO.

[Bunny]

24. I think the idea of starting a specific DU Group for women's rights

is a good idea, if only for the reason that the disruptors would not be allowed to post in there. As it stands right now, they can post in this forum because it is not a DU Group.

Now I'm not opposed to dissenting opinions, not at all. But I can't be bothered to have a conversation with someone who refuses to even recognize the existence of the glass ceiling.

[cally]

26. Good point

Maybe we do need a DU group. I think Skinner would have more time to discuss this after the fundraiser.

[Bunny]

27. Yeah, we would need some time to gather the required number

of donating members, and come up with a mission statement. It's something to think about.

[hfojvt]

32. did you ever answer his point

he claimed that there was no glass ceiling because he saw women moving up all the time. Duh. Imagine a room with a forty foot glass ceiling. Gee, you see birds flying up all over the place between zero and forty feet. That must prove there is no ceiling. No, it only proves that there is movement below the ceiling. Go up to fifty feet and tell me how many birds you see.

I have seen this before. On the DNC blog - kicking a$$, there was a repuke poster who was going on about how the rich are paying most of the taxes. Sad to say, but he was winning the debate with six or seven liberal bloggers. So they started calling him Nazi and calling for him to be banned. Really, they should have been better prepared for Repuke spin points and not respond ad hominem.

Was he accurate when he wrote this?
"Because I am challenging a notion that they blindly accept
And they can't back up their statements with logic so they attack me personally.

I am just sitting here, taking a break from studying and drinking a cup of coffee. I like a good hearty debate. No reason to throw around insults. Just defend your position."

It is too frustrating to have to prove basic or obvious concepts or to look up a link to a study, or suggest some titles to read? There were alot of deleted posts in that thread. Isn't it possible to be wrong without being a lunatic or an a$$hole?

[cally]

34. I would like to keep this a general discussion

I don't want to rehash an old thread since it's against the rules.

Maybe next time you have an idea how to respond to a poster or post, you should do so on the thread.

[beam me up scottie]

37. WOW Callie,

how did you invent such a perfect example of what we should ignore?
I'm impressed.

[hfojvt]

39. okay, my general point

Can arguments be answered or does it quickly degenerate into ad hominem attacks? If so, why? Is it taken for granted that progressives will have certain beliefs which they cannot question?

I was either working or answering other posts last weekend, so I did not see that thread until it was long locked. Probably just as well. I might have taken some unpopular positions as well, and be pushing up daisies.

[cally]

40. I hope arguments can be answered if

its a discussion and not posts to antagonize. There is a difference in tone and openness. My post is about what I notice as sexism. Others see it, also.

Noone believes that all progressives believe the same things but I hope all believe in equal rights for all. But that's just my opinion.

[Nikia]

21. Not sure. I have a problem with this too.

I end up majorly ticked off although I try to stay within the rules and haven't gotten my posts deleted. Sometimes though, I later think that I probably actually hurt rather than helped our cause. Some things really just personally anger me though. I don't understand how some men can say though that certain things, which upset some women, are really no bug deal. How can they know if they are not women. It would be like a white saying to a black that it is really no big deal or that it is all in their head if store clerks follow them around the store on account of their race.

[Bunny]

25. I think your analogy about the black person being followed around

the store is very apt. If you have never had that happen to you, because you are white, you may be unable to recognize that it exists. Therefore, you pooh pooh it as a legitimate concern.

This occurred recently when a person posted here that because HE (a white man) had never seen gender discrimination, it did NOT exist. Not calling him out - just pointing out the dangers inherent in refusing to think outside your own little world.

[hfojvt]

35. since he is pushing up daisies

why not call him out?

Still, I would have to say, what is the big deal about being followed around? It is annoying but why shouldn't any shopper expect to be watched? Can't a white man imagine it happening to him and think that it would not bother him? Don't long-haired white men know what it is like to have store keepers (and security and folice)think you are a thug and a thief?

Similarly, if I am working full time at a factory for $5.4 an hour am I somehow better off than a woman who is working weekends as a waitress and making $12,000 a year? (true story and this woman had another full time job where she made $24,000 a year, while I had another full time job running my own business where I made nothing) Isn't there gender discrimination in my inability to get a waitressing job (my sister tells me they suck, but she has never worked in a factory either. I still would rather work 20 hours for $12,000 than 40 hours for $10,800)?

A woman I was in a play with ended an argument with the truism that "you have never been a woman". True enough, but she had never been a man either, or a male who was constantly harrassed by teenage girls. Even at the aforementioned factory one of my female co-workers played the "X really likes you, but she's kinda shy" game. I am thinking to myself "I am 31 years old, gee, I have never heard that one before."

So can't we discuss facts and share experiences without trying to invalidate someone's POV based on their race or gender?

[Misunderestimator]

77. How effective is it to highlight one example of one woman who makes more

than one man? Do you really think that a co-worker discussing another's attraction to you is harrassment? If that is so, then I have been harrassed innumerable times, in addition to the times I have actually been harrassed.

No, it's not a good argument to simply say "You have never been a woman." But, I am absolutely POSITIVE that you can get a job waiting tables if you really want one.

[hfojvt]

78. well, it is a counter-example to the hypothesis

If you get enough exceptions, a social scientist needs to change his/her hypothesis. The hypothesis in this instance, although probably unstated was "white males are privileged" along with "women are oppressed". I am quite willing to hear evidence to support those hypotheses as well.

I spent a couple of months on a campaign to get a dishwashing job at the local restaurant and I finally had to give that up as a lost cause. I have applied at half a dozen Hardees and McDonalds and Wendys with no luck, so I think a waiting job would be a hard sell. My sisters got those jobs without any problem.

The harrassment is not "discussing another worker's attraction to me". The game, in case it has never been played around you, is "pretend that one of your friends likes a geek, so the geek goes and talks to her, makes a fool out of himself and gets humiliated, and your friend gets embarrassed by having to talk the the love-struck geek. Like I said, it is hard to believe that people were still playing that game in their 20s.

[omega minimo]

79. White Male Privilege is not a hypothesis, it's the fishbowl you swim in

All the evidence you need:

Look at reality and notice who's in charge. Big picture view, not one example that proves the exception to Who Rules.

BTW
RE:

"Can't a white man imagine it happening to him and think that it would not bother him?"

No.

However, it helps if he would try.

[hfojvt]

80. just because the rulers are white males

does not mean that white males rule. Maybe 25% of white males are rulers (and typically their wives and daughters don't do so bad either) or middle management. The other 75% of white males are working the line just like everyone else.

There are plenty of white males below the median income and below the poverty line. They are not the ruling class just because they share gender and skin color with most of the members of the ruling class.

Most of the privileged are white males, but all white males are not privileged thereby. That is the big picture I think I am part of.

BTW: Actually I did get fairly upset at the Dollar General checker who asked me to remove my backpack. Mostly because I was not a new customer there, so she should have known me. So I avoided shopping there for a while.

[highlonesome]

82. I agree

The problem with viewing it as simply "white male privelege" is that it's imposing a class distinction where I think there shouldn't be one -- ie men and women are distinct social classes and that men, as a class, oppress women, as a class. The real heart of the matter to me is that social and cultural expectations stand in the way of each individual's right to self determination.

While most at the top may be men, so are the vast majority of homeless, the vast majority of suicide victims, the vast majority of victims of violence, the vast majority of prison inmates and the vast majority of those who die on the job building the foundations of the civilization we all enjoy.

The class distinction paradigm is a divisive one. Wonder why our country is so divided today? Because political power is gained and altered mostly by dividing people and only rarely by uniting them. The people who push the class struggle model of gender are working to gain power through dividing us.

The typical man has much more in common with the woman he shares his home and his life with than he does with the man who sits in a senate seat.

[omega minimo]

83. White Male Privilege includes the luxury to ignore that you have it

"Most of the privileged are white males, but all white males are not privileged thereby."

No one is claiming this.

Think of it as privilege relative to others, the privilege to an unlevel playing field. It does not automatically mean "privileged" in an economic sense.

[highlonesome]

84. I think my problem with that....

...is that in many ways it tends to obscure other relevant facts and ideas. To call it simply "white male privilege" does seem to impose a class distinction across what might be considered more valid distinctions of class.

Though I understand what you're saying, to term it "white male privilege" I think does imply that it is a privilege that white men generally benefit from. While of course many do according to circumstances, many do not and it is those people I'm interested in.

For example, the vast majority of homeless are in fact men, though I don't know off hand what the racial makeup is. Doesn't the class distinction of "white men" tend to obscure the suffering of these people who benefit nill from any privilege?

I guess to me, throughout history there have only really been two valid class distinctions -- those who govern and those who are governed.

[lukasahero]

85. Homeless statistics

from here http://www.nationalhomeless.org/who.html

"the homeless population was 49% African-American, 35% Caucasian"

"single men comprised 41% of the urban homeless population and single women 14%"

"families comprised 40% of the homeless population"

"39% of the homeless population are children"

"In a study of 777 homeless parents (the majority of whom were mothers) in ten U.S. cities, 22% said they had left their last place of residence because of domestic violence"

"Nationally, approximately half of all women and children experiencing homelessness are fleeing domestic violence (Zorza, 1991; National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 2001). "

"research indicates that families, single mothers, and children make up the largest group of people who are homeless in rural areas (Vissing, 1996). "

"As this fact sheet makes clear, people who become homeless do not fit one general description."

[hfojvt]

86. except that you make government the problem

The "government" does not make up most of the ruling class. Senators are wealthy, but most of the wealthy do not bother to become Senators, although they may buy some if the need arises. A congressperson makes about $160,000. The CEO of Target makes $12.5 million. The Senator actually works for the Target employess in his/her state, while the CEO commands those workers. CEOs are the "ruling class" far more than the Senators are.

I have a SAUS (Statistical Abstract US) now, so I can use some numbers. 8.5% of white families make under $15,000 a year. That is 5.1 million families. 23.7% of black families make under $15,000 a year, which is 2 million families. There are also 17.7 million white families (29.4%) and 1.35 million black families (15.6%) who make over $75,000 a year.

To say that those 5.1 million poor white families are privileged because they are white is ludicrous and insulting. They may have some advantages that a black family with similar income does not, and they may have had a "head start" even over many of the black people who now make over $75,000 a year, but it does not do them alot of good now, and there are alot of blacks and females who are now "better off" (if that is measured solely by income) than they are.

My concern is with policies that help those making under $15,000 regardless of gender, skin color, or sexual orientation. I do not think a blanket indictment of hetero white males (for example Michael Moore's "Stupid White men" where he writes basically that "white people will always be able to get good jobs") is either fair, nor conducive to my policy goals.

[highlonesome]

87. I think where we differ

...is that I don't see it as completely about money -- that's a big part of it yes, but where government grows beyond the basic libertarian principle of protecting inalienable rights, government becomes a source for regulating the culture from which the society springs forth.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

38. And again !

Bravo Callie!
Great training posts, really!
I'm ignoring him too, it's not that difficult after all!

[cally]

41. I haven't seen anyone invalidate

someone's POV on this thread. I'm not going to answer your specifics on this thread because I don't see the point. Maybe you should start a different thread for that discussion.

[Bunny]

43. You were harassed by teenage girls? Interesting.

Did they come up behind you and grab your penis? Pinch your ass? Make comments about how nice your hair smells? Ask you if your wife/girlfriend kept you satisfied in bed? Threaten your raise or promotion if you didn't give them a little nookie?

No? Then you haven't REALLY been harassed. Annoyed maybe, but please don't call that harassed.

And, I guess you've never heard of waiters? No, it's just those greedy women taking up all the great 12K/year jobs! Wow, wonder what she did with all her riches? While you struggled away at your failed business.

You'll detect a note of sarcasm in my post. I'm sorry, but you've given me nothing I can relate to. I just can't work up any tears right now.

[sectorzero]

81. "nothing I can relate to"

Which is exactly what all of these gender wars come down to, and why it's the most difficult social issue we will ever face, 1000 times harder than race issues. (I'm a minority and a male, and IMO it's far more difficult being male in today's world).

The reason is evolution. Male and female relations are largely a zero sum game. If women get their dream world, we lose. If we get our dream world, they lose. The challenge is to come up with a compromise, essentially a tie game. But that is far more difficult than it sounds - there will always be the temptation for one side to grab for more, to untie the score, to try to win, to try to dominate the other.

Bunny wrote:
Did they come up behind you and grab your penis? Pinch your ass? Make comments about how nice your hair smells? Ask you if your wife/girlfriend kept you satisfied in bed? Threaten your raise or promotion if you didn't give them a little nookie?

The vast majority of men would feel like a stud if that happened to them ! They would feel great about themselves if women found them to be so sexually irresistable.

Again, as a woman, you really can't understand what may or may not be emotionally disturbing to a man.

For an awkward young man who is insecure about his looks and his masculinity -- for a "geek" (as the poster indicated somewhere above that he was perceived as a geek) -- it is the most horrible thing in the world for young women (who he may be sexually attracted to) to play childish games with his feelings, to emasculate him like that. From his post, he indicated that he was simply going about his business, and didn't do anything to deserve the treatment he received. But many young women are so brazen, so unafraid of any social backlash, that it becomes "ok" to abuse a vulnerable male, while society would harshly (and rightly) condemn the reverse.

Until men of all walks of life follow the example of feminism and start to fight for their own cultural, political and legal rights/identity - they will continue to suffer in silence.

[Lars39]

22. I have started alerting.

The mods and Skinner are probably sick and tired of it, but keeping track of patterns of troll ism is what will (hopefully) get rid of them. Troll-like behavior occurs with folks who have thousands of posts, too, not just the newly-hatched screaming me me's.

Also,is there a place/site for us to keep stats handy for quick look-ups? Such a collection would also help educate everyone, male and female, on the subject.

[Swamp Rat]

42. I don't know, but if y'all come up with a good plan I'll be glad to help

It won't be easy. Question the patriarchy and you'll reap the whirlwind...

[lukasahero]

44. I'd join a group

And would (do) welcome your input, Swamp Rat.

I would truly welcome a place to discuss issues where we could actually discuss them and oh, maybe even finally get around to finding solutions. A place that is open to different views but all with the same goal: equality, opportunity and value for everyone regardless of gender, color or creed with an emphasis on discussing and finding solutions to issues that particularly affect women. We can't move on to solutions if we constantly have to defend the premise that the problems exist in the first place. I am open to debate and I've learned some things and adjusted some of my thoughts and opinions by reading some of even the most nagging detractors but I also see in my daily life the reality of woman/female as being "less than".

Hell, I woke up sometime after September 11th and realized that (more than?) half the world thinks I'm "less than". Both frickin' sides seem to think it's women who have jobs and opinions that are responsible for starting world war III. Yay for us, huh? (I also sympathize with the GLBT community with the amount of heat they take for this as well.)

Watching this thread turn into yet another where accusations get thrown around regarding entirely different conversations completely ignoring the initial post and any attempt to resolve the actual issue raised simply proves this particular forum is virtually useless. I'm hoping we can figure a way out. Thanks to Peter for the suggestion of a Group in the post above.

Now that I've gone on too long, I really just wanted to say, count me in and special thanks to the guys who are joined in this fight. :D

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

46. Oh, knock it off.

I would never tell a guy that he has no business posting here.
There is history with the above mentioned poster. I have been trying to learn some patience so that I can handle disruptions without losing my temper, Cally has been helping me.
There was a nasty thread last weekend that really upset a lot of people, female AND male. The op insulted all of us many times in more than one thread. We are just trying to figure out how to counter that kind of blatant sexism without it turning into a flame fest, when suddenly, a poster appears out of nowhere trying to disrupt. I used his posts as examples of what I have to learn to ignore.
It has NOTHING to do with gender or ideas, it has to do with respect and as long as you show me some, I'll respond in kind.
Why didn't you ask first before you assumed the worst?

[Bunny]

47. Oh poor you.

You wrote:
I to have been personally told I "don't belong" in this forum because I'm a man. You wonder why my posts stay and responses get deleted? It's because some of you don't want to have a discussion of the issues, you want a one-sided debate. At least that has been the case whenever I have been in here.

Have you considered that the problem just might be you? :shrug:


The following comments are general and don't necessarily apply to you:

I am not going to have a conversation with anyone who cannot acknowledge the basic facts of gender discrimination. And I'm certainly not going to give the same credence to a white male who assumes that he's been discriminated against in the same fashion.

There IS male privilege, there IS white privilege. A white male who believes that his level of discrimination is equal to or worse than mine is not going to get any traction with me. So call me whatever you want, it's of little consequence to me.

We've discused forming a DU Group so we can have conversations about the issues that concern us, free of disruptors and others who simply cannot accept that they've got in inborn advantage. Perhaps we'll need to follow up with that.

[chicaloca]

50. What, and you ARE looking for a debate?

Tell me Mongo, what views of yours have YOU changed since you came to this forum? Do you actually give a shit about rape yet? And I don't mean in the typical, "Gee, rape is really bad" way. I mean, do you REALLY care? (Let me guess, you're going to say, "I haven't changed my views because you're all mean to me and your mounds of evidence aren't enough for me!")

Also, I suppose you say we dislike you based on your gender because that's easier than accepting the truth -- that we don't like you based on things you _can_ change about yourself, i.e. your personality and belittling attitude and absolute refusal to listen to anything anybody says.

And if you think the DU group we start (which, BTW, nobody said anything about a SUPPORT group) is only going to be about how bad DU is, that tells me that you've learned NOTHING here. With all the things there are to discuss about women in the world, sans disruptors, why do you think that would be what our group would be about? Are you really that self-centered that you think we'd start a group simply to discuss people like you? And furthermore, why would it be bad if our group _did_ sometimes discuss what to do about the sexism on DU? Shouldn't we all be committed to making this space as good as it can be? Or are you just pissed that you wouldn't have a place to go to make women feel like shit anymore?

[beam me up scottie]

51. Wow.

I gotta hang around here more often.
Bravo.

:applause:

[mongo]

54. When have I ever said I don't care about rape?

Rape is a terrible thing.

For the most part, I try to stay out of here, except when pornography is mentioned. If someone says something like there are films in your local adult bookstore of actual rapes, yeah, I counter that - because it is not true. That has nothing to do with my feelings about actual rape.

Or are you just pissed that you wouldn't have a place to go to make women feel like shit anymore?

No, I'm pissed off that because I happen to believe that:

1. Pornography is enjoyed by both men and women
2. Women who make adult films (in the US) are doing so of their own free will - and are not being exploited any more than working for Wal-mart.
3. Most porn sold in the US is NOT demeaning to women.

I am portrayed as a monster who only wants to make women feel like shit.

[chicaloca]

55. Like I said....

It's not that I think you believe rape is a good thing -- it's funny that your first line about rape being terrible was exactly what I predicted. But you know what? Simply thinking rape is bad isn't enough. If it were, rape wouldn't exist anymore. You, like most other people who are ignorant about the issue of rape, just don't care to listen to people who know what it's like, you dismiss our concerns, you try to tell me how I, as somebody who knows what rape is like, should feel about rape porn. And then you go on and on about how rare rape porn is, but if it's so rare, why is it that until about a year ago, if you typed "rape recovery" into Yahoo, about three of the top ten sites that came up were rape porn sites? And every time I search on Google for studies on whether there's any correlation between pornography and rape, I get more rape porn than actual rape studies. Yet you don't think I have any right to be upset about that? You don't even want to listen to women unless they agree with you, and that is a HUGE problem. If you don't listen to what I have to say about porn, these criticisms about your beloved industry are only going to continue, and you'll have nobody but yourself to blame. I also find your attitude particularly reprehensible because you've said you also have PTSD, and as such, you know damn well what life is like for me. You should know better than anyone here about dismissing the concerns of people who've experienced trauma. If you care so goddamn much about rape, why don't you take two seconds out of your viewing of porn to donate some money to a rape crisis center, or visit one of those places and volunteer to do some filing for a day. LISTEN to what women have to say there. LISTEN to what workers talk about during their breaks, to the stories of people who've been horribly abused. JUST LISTEN FOR ONCE.

Anyhow, I'm done with you. You've done enough to derail otherwise productive conversations here, I've had nasty nightmares for the last few nights (when I'm able to sleep) and I'm constantly on edge at work because of this shit, which is not like me. If you're so in love with GD, take your bullshit back there so you can share it with their racist, sexist asses. You have the whole world to yourself -- all we have is this forum.

[mongo]

57. Just FYI

One of the charities the business supports is the battered women's shelter.

I am very sorry for what you go through. But it is my belief that you have taken your experience and turned it against ALL porn to have an outlet for your anger.

I have said time and time again that rape porn exists - rough sex tapes exist - but if it is being produced and distributed in the US, it is the filming of a depiction. It is fantasy. If you seek to ban it, where do you stop? Should every depiction of rape be censored from our society? Would that even do any good? Was there no rape before porn?

Rape porn is also a very, very small portion of the adult entertainment market. If I do a search on "midget sex" looking for devices to help midgets have a fulfilling sex life, since they also generally have many handicaps, I will get mostly miget porn sites. Your google searches don't "prove" anything, except that there is a lot of porn on the internet. I know who the biggest companies in the industry are and what kind of porn they produce - and it isn't rape porn that is selling.

There are only a few things that I won't put out on my shelves, and a box cover (I can't watch all 1700 constantly changing movies in my inventory) that alludes to rape, or has a picture of a man's hand on a womans throat is one thing that never gets put out. I have seen less than 5 of those in 3 years, compared to gobs of she-male enema movies (which also gets thrown out), and my she-mail section consists of about 125 titles - so there is a bigger market for she-mail enema porn than rape porn. (I have to explain that due to my "discount" business model, I don't buy anything by title - I get a box of "X" company for "Y" dollars, but I do buy films from dozens of different companies, and I read the trade mags).

That all being said, I'm not dismissing your experience. I feel really sorry for you. But I'm not going to let you or anyone else characterize the adult entertainment industry unfairly - and spread false accusations and lies - mostly from RW sources.

[beam me up scottie]

58. You're not going to

"let" her ?

[mongo]

59. I said you, or anyone else

I was being gender neutral... That goes for James Dobson and Phil Buress too.

[beam me up scottie]

60. Oh.

'kay.

I just went outside and looked at the name on the door and now I'm confused.
When did they change this into the porn sellers support forum?

[lukasahero]

53. Look! Over there! No, over here!

Distract, distract, distract. I'm starting to notice a pattern. A lesson well-learned from the republicans and shrub - don't discuss the issue - create a new one or rehash an old one.

I've been thinking a lot about this topic and this thread. I would recommend reading kalibex's post # 18. It's truly enlightening.

I'm not going to suggest we "ignore" anyone or any group but I am going to suggest that we not get dragged into their fight on their terms. STAY ON TOPIC! If a post veers off topic, ignore it and move on.

On the other hand, I think we also have to be careful of how we frame our own arguments. Hey, we don't all agree on every issue and we shouldn't be expected to so we invite "flames" and argument when we use words like "never" and "always" and "we" and "they".

I pretty much had a brain dump in the "Guys want to be with..." thread so I don't have much else to offer here. It's applicable to this thread too though if you're interested in wandering over there. Just a few thoughts.

[dryan]

56. Know what you mean...

I started a thread last year about equal pay day and I could believe some of the messages I got.

[omega minimo]

61. Embedded misogynist attitudes on DU limit the dialogue,

limit the viewpoints, limit the potential solutions.

I came to WR&I today after reading a post with "ugly slut," referring to "Mann Coulter." (4 hours after alerting, it’s still there, although the entire thread was relocated).

Given that the basic concept for DU is to support progressive and/or Democratic values; given that the DU Rules specify R-E-S-P-E-C-T and civility, I see no reason that we should have sexist slurs here. We're told to accept that the world is sexist and get over it. Do we need to ask Skinner and Admin. for clarification of the Rules? Are our interpretations of "Respect" unreasonable?

If sexist bigotry repels women and cool men from discussion threads or from supporting DU, repels women from participating in or supporting the Democratic Party, the goals of DU are not served.

One thread subject was "We'll Rape Your Women-- Heck, We'll Rape Our Women." Is that supposed to be FUNNY? The mod notified the person they could repost with a “tamer, less upsetting” title. Why not just call it inflammatory? Do we need to ask DU Admin for firmer enforcement?

I stay out of the Lounge, I’m selective about which Forums and which threads I visit, I can move on past a lot of things... however, if I am involved in a thread and up pops a comment derogatory to women, it is DISRUPTIVE. It reminds me of the two (only two in my life, thankfully) times that I have known/worked with people for a while and got along fine-- until one day they open their mouth and out comes the N-word! Criminy! MLK: “There comes a time when silence is complicity.”

I have not come upon a single racial slur at DU, yet sexist slurs and comments abound. Why is that? We all know that slurs are highly charged words that instantly convey complex historic relationships of power and domination-- too highly charged to even use examples in a discussion like this.

Today I was reading a thread with links that suggest that a major terrorist event was perpetrated on this country by forces within our borders, forces that have used this event to destroy our country. A serious subject. As I'm reading through the posts, it is unreasonable to be reminded suddenly that WOMEN ARE LESS THAN because some clod calls a public figure an "ugly slut." Unreasonable because IT BREAKS DU RULES.

The point has been made on this thread that if someone can remain civil and respectful in expressing their point of view, DU functions as it’s intended.

Even pornmonger mongo. In the right context. A thread about porn issues would be appropriate to discuss porn issues. In a thread titled, “What do we do about sexism at DU?” I have to comment on this:

mongo #56
“I have said time and time again that rape porn exists - rough sex tapes exist - but if it is being produced and distributed in the US, it is the filming of a depiction. It is fantasy.”

WHOSE FANTASY? Nuff said. :puke:

When the Newspeak story was commandeered by the WH, I came to DU looking for threads on that subject. The one that interested me had a surprise in store.

"That is like not being able to find a Prostitute in a NV Whore House with a hand full of Benjamin's and a pocket full of coke."

This is a real discussion killer. The subject ("retraction" of the Newspeak story) is so important; the OP was interesting and within seconds the thread was yanked into a hardy-har-har Twilight Zone where women either don't exist or don't matter. This is a perfect example of the kind of embedded misogynist attitudes that fester on DU and limit the dialogue, limit the viewpoints, limit the potential solutions.

It's always a shock when this baldfaced bigotry ejaculates out of otherwise interesting comments. It creates the impression that the posters are ignorant, no matter what intriguing political opinions they may have to offer.

Respect as a (enforced) guideline will deflect and discourage the disruptors and Devil's Advocates. (If you listen to women discuss women's issues and try to comprehend what we are communicating-- rather than dismiss, condescend, project and attack-- DU will be better off).

:evilgrin:


DU Rules

Personal Attacks, Civility and Respect

“The administrators of Democratic Underground are working to provide a place where progressives can share ideas and debate in an atmosphere of mutual respect....Every member of this community has a responsibility to participate in a respectful manner, and to help foster an atmosphere of thoughtful discussion. In this regard, we strongly advise that our members exercise a little common decency, rather than trying to parse the message board rules to figure out what type of antisocial behavior is not forbidden.”

--Doesn’t refraining from sexist language and attitudes (i.e. put-downs, slurs, cliches, general bullshit) constitute “common decency”?

Bigotry and Broad-Brush Smears

“When discussing race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or other highly-sensitive personal issues, please exercise the appropriate level of sensitivity toward others and take extra care to clearly express your point of view.”

--Doesn’t that cover what we’re talking about here?

“Do not post messages that are bigoted against (or grossly insensitive toward) any person or group of people based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, lack of religion, disability, physical characteristics, or region of residence.”

--What part of “Do not post messages that are bigoted against (or grossly insensitive toward) any person or group of people based on their gender” don’t they understand?

“While specific words are not automatically forbidden, members should avoid using racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted terminology. This includes gender-specific terms such as "bitch," "cunt," "whore," "slut," or "pussy," and terms with homophobic derivation, such as "cocksucker," which are often inflammatory and inappropriate. One common exception is the use of the phrase "media whore," which is permitted.”

--Oh look, there’s “slut”! “Media Whore” is AOK!

“As a general rule of thumb, posts about ideas are generally okay, but posts about groups of people are often inappropriate.”

--Good point. (BTW the expression “rule of thumb” comes from an old English law that allowed men to beat their wives with a branch up to the diameter of their thumb but NO THICKER.)

“Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted.”



“If you think someone is breaking any of the rules listed here, or if you think someone might be a disruptor, please click the "Alert" link on the offending post so the moderators can deal with it.”

[beam me up scottie]

62. Excellent post Omega!

Your comments are both right on and thought provoking.
Your definition of a slur is one of the best I have heard on DU or anywhere:

"We all know that slurs are highly charged words that instantly convey complex historic relationships of power and domination-- too highly charged to even use examples in a discussion like this. "

Your example:
"One thread subject was "We'll Rape Your Women-- Heck, We'll Rape Our Women."
was excellent as well. And by switching two words:
"We'll hang your ni**ers"
we illustrate why ANY kind of slur on DU is not only NOT funny but also unacceptable.

Bravo.

[omega minimo]

64. The "charge" is why it's a disruptive shock while reading a thread

to see a bigoted statement. Does the poster assume we all have the same bigotry? Or just doesn't care....

If we quit relying on lazy habits of speech that reinforce regressive attitudes, new ways of thinking, communicating and problem-solving could arise

:hi:

[mongo]

69. In my defense

I didn't turn the thread into a discussion of rape porn. I was responding to a post where it was brought up - and characterized as the filming of actual rapes. I also said a bunch of other things in that post, but it is much easier to take what I said out of context and puke on it than to respond to the entire post.

'Nuff said.

[omega minimo]

72. Puke retraction follows

Hey Mongo, ESPECIALLY due to your line of business, and ANYWAY, I have to say that you seem an example of how we CAN have these discussions civilly. Thank you. That is what I was suggesting about another thread on that subject. It's possible.

Since I later suggested the :puke: as a reverse "charge"-- I will apologize for sending that your direction. It was meant for the concept that rape is "fantasy."

Rape as "fantasy" contains the assumption that it is only the male point of view that is matters, or is even considered. (If you want to have a discussion that women "fantasize" about rape-- even civilly-- I won't be part of that one :hi:).

The issue of women's point of view being automatically dismissed by men who don't (even try) to relate came up more than once here. (That's why I used it in that context). The notion that filmed entertainment of rape is a "fantasy" is a good example of how far that ignore-ance can go.

[mongo]

74. I am not saying rape porn is a good thing.

To paraphrase Nina Hartley, a society gets the porn it deserves. In other words, a fucked-up society produces fucked-up porn.

But there is a lot of misconceptions about what the industry is all about. The biggest and most succesful companies are producing the more couple friendly porn. There are 1,00 new titles being produced every month, and the industry tends to get characterized by the absolute worst stuff being produced.

Yes, most porn is produced by men for men. But there are successful women performers who go on to form their own companies, and more women directers every year. It is also a profession where the women performers make way more than men.

I'm more than happy to leave the rape as fantasy discussion for another day - I'm really NOT here to raise tempers, just to counter unfair generalizations against the industry.

And lastly, thanks for the retraction and the kind words. It really does mean a lot to me. We try to run a couple-friendly store here, and almost half my clientele are women. We couldn't stay in business without the movies, but the reason my wife and I got into this business is for the toys. :woohoo:

[Hello_Kitty]

70. I'd like to see this happen

(If you listen to women discuss women's issues and try to comprehend what we are communicating-- rather than dismiss, condescend, project and attack-- DU will be better off).


The whole world would be better off if everyone did that. But sexist attitudes are embedded, as you say, far more than other prejudices because people cling to the belief that they benefit from them. Sexist men fight to the death to maintain the societal privelege they wield over women, even though only the elite alpha males at the top really get to enjoy the fruits of it. Non-feminist women resist equality because of the small and short-term, yet tangible benefit they get from being seen as a "good girl" or "cool" by the sexist men.

Dismissing arguments and mocking them is an effective way of silencing them when you are out in the world and most people share your views. When they are in their own environments, sexists like to pretend that there's this Vast Politically Correct Feminist Conspiracy that is out to get them, while their buddies and their compliant wives/girlfriends nod their heads in agreement. So when they come upon some actual feminists, they easily assume the persecuted victim position.

Well cry me a fucking river! If a little feminist criticism of your actions or attitudes is such a huge threat to you, then maybe you're not quite the badass you think you are.

BTW, this post is NOT directed at any one in particular. DU is crawling with members who are inexplicably (given their overall liberal and progressive views otherwise) Neanderthal when it comes to women.

[Bunny]

71. Thank you!

Well said. :applause:

[omega minimo]

73. The peck(er)ing order

“Sexist men fight to the death to maintain the societal privelege they wield over women, even though only the elite alpha males at the top really get to enjoy the fruits of it.”

It’s just easier for them to not have to think about it, isn’t it?

And the Super Bigots are using abortion and marriage issues to keep traditional gender roles firm and rigid.

“Dismissing arguments and mocking them is an effective way of silencing them when you are out in the world and most people share your views.”

It’s a shame if women’s views are silenced on DU or in the Democratic Party. That’s the reason I advocate pushing back. Except for the boring, pointless, tired-of-being-smacked-in-the-eyeballs-with-obsolete-ignorance part.

After posting here earlier, I was DUing and came upon the “tits in the wringer” post quoted above, on a thread about --I dunno, something IMPORTANT. Since this stuff shows up all the time, maybe it is a lost cause.... but if it makes women disappear, then.........

If sexist bigotry repels women and cool men from discussion threads or from supporting DU, repels women from participating in or supporting the Democratic Party, the goals of DU and progressives are the worse for it.

:smoke: :evilgrin:

[Senior citizen]

89. I just printed out post #61. Thanks omega! I think alerts will be

more useful if we quote the rules and state exactly how the post we are alerting violates them.

It is foolish to assume that all mods are able to recognize sexism or how it violates DU rules. Our culture fosters the attitude that some things are inappropriate except when done to females. We need to foster the Golden Rule--without exceptions based on suspect categories.

[FizzFuzz]

63. I'm interested in supporting efforts to call sexists on their remarks

I haven't done it in a while because it got kind of tiring, and I've sort of been purposely not looking for it. Just saps my energy. But definitely, I agree that bigotry that would be criticized if it were leveled against any other group seems so culturally embedded when its sexism that anyone speaking up gets the eye-rolls at best. (well, to be honest, I did see some breathtaking cruelty against persons into extreme body modification. That was sad, and the free for all atmosphere was pretty disconcerting. and I kick myself for having been tired and not speaking up at the time. ....but I digress...)

But there have been plenty of times, especially when I first came on DU where I did get in the mosh pit and wrangle. There are a number of Loungers who, it seems, still ignore me because of that. (Maybe I'm misinterpreting why or whether I'm being ignored; sometimes it can be hard to decipher dynamics on a discussion board. Maybe its just my habit of rambling pedantically. But if my speaking out loudly about sexism DID cause some kind of shunning....it would be interesting to know if anyone else here feels something similar.)

One thing we could do is get permission from each other to PM the group if there is a particularly egregious post or someone with a habitual negative pattern. I know there was a time or two where I wouldn't have minded some backup, even if just to get some backslaps for a good slapdown I did. A couple cool people I used to do that with come around here much less these days, but we had given each other support.

Anyhow, I've had less energy for an intense response to various crap lately; maybe I've been missing alot of the really enraging stuff too. ON the other hand, I HAVE seen quite a few very cool men here, so I want to acknowledge that. They deserve props.

The challenge seems to be just opening people's eyes to it. Its so central to our social structure, people have automatic reactions and biases and viewpoints they don't even begin to examine. I'll never forget one time I was haveing a nice conversation with a cool guy here--some other man dropped in out of the blue to throw cryptic insults at me. I have no idea what triggered him, the conversation was just stream of consciousness stuff, meditative rambling. What was infuriating after I took the antagonizer to task was, the "good guy" patronizingly suggested I looked like I must have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed, and I should be nice. :wow: I didn't describe it very well just now, but believe me, I pointed out that that guy came in insulting me for no reason whatsoever. So how is it that a woman defending herself firmly and reasonably, should inspire another guy, one who was cool otherwise, to tell her to make nicey, and completely ignore the unprovoked attack from the thread hijacker?

To top it off, some other guy popped in out of nowhere and dropped a sexually humiliating non-sequiteur, hiding behind a facade of restrained logic. Hard to explain, but it was clearly an attack. Verbally amputating a female sexual body part and holding it up for attention apart from any woman as a whole human being, pretending his smart ass comment had relevance to the OP. The very special kind of attack reserved by men for use against women.

Well, that was a late night ramble, sorry if I meandered a bit.

[omega minimo]

65. Some attack what they fear or condescend when they don't

understand. Clearly, you are guilty of subtle intelligence. :evilgrin:

One jerk unloaded on me, but from what he posted (the sense under the insults) it seemed that he sees unwelcome expectations (of male behavior?) in what we see as basic respect.

One tendency is for people to project every attitude they have about feminists (or environmentalists or liberals or-- it's happened to all of us) onto one individual-- without ever listening to what actually is being said. Defense mechanism.

We want respect. They're afraid of -- a lot more than that.

I should say "some of them." Most folks at DU are cool. I like hearing from men and women and having (out in the) open discussions.

As for witnessing the bigotry, a simple idea is to "quote the awful words" in a Subject and

Message:
:puke:

[FizzFuzz]

66. heh heh!

witnessing the bigotry, can sometimes be the best tactic. Just mirroring what the offensive statement was.

and sometimes its satisfying to just unveil someone's antagonism. I think its best to deal with the antagonism separately from the issue it claims to be defending. And people who get a huge ego-surge from that kind of crap can be alot of fun to deconstruct.

I'm enjoying your posts very much; looking forward to reading ya around here. :hi:

What you mention about behavior we see as basic respect, being seen by men as threatening demands--yes, I see your point. True. I'm reading a book now called the Wimp Factor where the author examines misogyny/patriarchy in our society and how that shapes political movement. Fascinating and infuriating. The author is a man; can't remember his name right now, but in the beginning chapters he describes the push towards individuation/separation from the mother in men and how it easily becomes twisted into hatred for all things female (internal desires for feminine nurturing, being forced to move from dependence and engulfment in that feminine world into "anti-dependence" (<---terminology mine) and a feircely masculine world. He also describes and illustrates how artifically delineated and enforced polarization of activities into masculaine and feminine roles, with women being assigned sole engagement with small children fuels this backlash of yearning/repulsion towards the feminine in men. Fits the RW fundy dysfunctional model of active men and brood hen women, and the blatant sexism displayed by its proponents.

Probably does an interesting number on women's psyches too. But I'll not blather on about my ideas on that. ;)

[omega minimo]

67. "Grind your tedious, tiresome ideological axes all you want"

"Grind your tedious, tiresome ideological axes all you want, just don't expect the rest of us to jump to attention and salute whenever you deploy the word "sexist" on the flimsiest of pretexts."

Huh? This was HIS trip. I don't know who he thought he was talking to (every feminist he's ever heard of? How tiresome and tedious...) The "flimsiest of pretexts" was the "prostitute" comment I quoted earlier. My point was that on an important subject thread, sexist comments are disruptive.

There are some plain bullies here too. A self-proclaimed gatekeeper of a particular fad/book/theory who jumps people who don't see it As If They Drank The Kool Aid kills the discussion and prevents anyone from learning more about subject (from "him"), because "he" is so focused on insults and that "huge ego surge." The worst ones are very aggressive about their defensiveness.

It's topdog crap. I don't mind pointing it out BECAUSE TOPDOG, BULLY, DOMINANCE HOSTILITY is what we are ALL fighting against in the Wrong Wing Regime and its enablers.

It's relevant to the DU context to point out that:

Sexist comments limit or kill discussion and limit/repel participants

Sexist comments that remain unchallenged encourage others to think that the attitude is condoned or shared

Sexist comments are counterproductive to DU and Democratic Party goals

IMHO :evilgrin:


Women (and cool men-- maybe DU needs a "Cool Men" forum) may flee to a third party. Women may BE the third party.


:bounce::bounce:

RE: "balls." Okay, there are different levels of vocabulary here. Can we at least acknowledge that beyond being crude, "____ needs balls" is exclusionary and disruptive? For all these dolts know, BALLS MAY BE THE PROBLEM.

Wait, let me get my "tedious, tiresome ideological ax." :rofl:

(Axually, what I said to that guy was "Don't ax me no questions, I won't tell you no lies").

This comment isn't really about "balls," it's about exclusion. Progressives and Democrats like to think of themselves as "inclusive." Yet on DU, there are many folks who don't post because they are intimidated. One spoke up on this thread above.

When these voices speak up, with a preamble about how they don't know this-or-that and can't compete with some DU Know-It-All, they have some incredible wisdom to offer. They bring up view/points that are crucial to Democratic party success.

We need to be more inclusive, not less. Maybe I put too much emphasis on there being an OBJECTIVE and certain goals for DU and the Democrats. Maybe we're just here to vent and get our own individual "ego surge." Maybe not.

We need to hear more from the wise and shy lurkers. We need to stand up to the bullies. We need backbone.


www.backbonecampaign.org

[cally]

75. What you describe happens

at times here. Someone pops in and just starts with the insults or attacks feminists. I'm often just stunned that more don't call them on it. Sorry it happened to you.

[SarahB]

76. Getting rid of stalkers is a good start.

And kudos to Skinner for making efforts to do so. :thumbsup:
There have been men who have harassed multiple women publicly and privately trying to use DU as their personal dating site. If people on DU click and decide to form a mutual relationship, more power to them, but continued efforts to make sure women feel safe and are not dealing with an abundance of unwelcome advances is very important as well.