we need a "Pro-Women's Rights" forum

[musette_sf]

and i plan to request it. then we can have a place like the Pro-Choice forum to discuss our issues.

now that i know that some "progressive" menz thinks of our discussions as follows:

"childish, immature and irrational some of what passes for discussion in this forum"

i personally think those who would invade a Women's Rights forum, defend the patriarchy status quo, and then call those who don't agree "childish, immature and irrational" have issues, including projection.

which is why we need a "Pro-Women's Rights" forum with ground rules.

[DemBones DemBones]

1. Look at the guidelines for starting a group and

start a thread asking who would participate in the group. The guidelines tell you what to do and you can write the guidelines to keep out disruptors.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[noamnety]

3. We have the feminist group

I was wondering if the same things that are considered flamebait here by the ptb would okay over there.

[musette_sf]

4. well, that may be so

but that effectively means that the "Women's Rights" group has become the "Dogpile On The Wimmenz Group".

[noamnety]

5. Well, yes. Kinda like the choice group.

Apparently instead of it being "pro-choice" it was viewed by some to be the place to debate whether women should have a choice over what happens to their own bodies.

And so it is with women's rights, it's a place to debate whether we should have them, or whether the right to exploit and degrade women trumps that.

[omega minimo]

8. recent events seem to indicate that it has

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[Triana]

7. projection - bingo. Any male who would hang in a 'women's rights' forum and make such statements

...also has control problems, problems with insecurity, and is undoubtedly a narcissist (either cerebral or somatic).

Has to 'beat up' on and try to define and control women (verbally or otherwise) in order to salve his false omnipotent image of himself. Chest-beater, knuckle-dragger.

Never evolved beyond the cave, maybe.

[Katherine Brengle]

9. I've already replied to this post twice, apparently not the "right" way I guess.

I am in agreement.

How controversial.

[DemBones DemBones]

10. On the bright side, the way

it is now, we can easily find out who the people are who don't support women's rights and put them on Ignore. :hippie:

[Katherine Brengle]

11. Aren't you anti-choice?

No offense, but that's not a very "women's rights" friendly stance itself.

[musette_sf]

12. but in a Pro Women's Rights group

the pr0n advocates and the forced birthers would just have to go stir sh!t up elsewhere. it would be nice.

[Boojatta]

13. I think you can alert on a post that flames a DUer via name-calling.

i personally think those who would invade a Women's Rights forum, defend the patriarchy status quo, and then call those who don't agree "childish, immature and irrational" have issues, including projection.

If they have a disagreement with a fellow DUer in one thread and try to hijack other threads to continue that disagreement, then they might be in violation of the rules.

I made a note of the words "childish", "immature", and "irrational" because I was curious as to the full context of what you were quoting. I didn't find anything in the Women's Rights forum or in GD or the Lounge, but I did find this in GD Politics:

ruggerson wrote:

The Reverse Hillary Bashing Effect

A strange psychological phenomenon, wherein various teenagers and irascibly immature gangs of message board congregators demean and castigate a candidate with such childishness and irrational vindictiveness, that it drives otherwise ambivalent, rational people to take a hard look at the contender and warm up to her.

Interesting coincidence? Irrelevant?