A few words about the recent "gender wars" on Democratic Underground

Skinner ADMIN

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jul-14-04 02:43 PM
Original message

A few words about the recent "gender wars" on Democratic Underground

Edited on Wed Jul-14-04 05:15 PM by Skinner

Please read this entire message before you respond.

It has come to my attention that the recent "gender wars" on Democratic Underground came to a head last night. After trying unsuccessfully to enforce a mandatory cooling-off period on this particular topic, I think the time has come for some sort of admin statement.

The DU approach to bigotry

As most of you know, the message board has rules regarding sexist and other bigoted postings. Many members have argued, quite persuasively, that DU should have a "zero tolerance" policy toward anything that could be construed as bigoted. It would be nice if such a policy were feasible. Unfortunately, it is not feasible. If you spend enough time reading the DU message board, it should be obvious that there is no clear consensus among progressives regarding what is bigoted and what is not. That is true for gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other form of bigotry. For this reason, our rules fudge the issue somewhat. Here is a brief excerpt from our rules, with emphasis added:

"Do not post racist, sexist, homophobic, ethnic, anti-religious, or anti-atheist bigotry. Unambiguous expressions of bigotry will be deleted, and will often result in the immediate banning of the individual responsible."

We delete "unambiguous" bigotry. In other words: We remove bigotry in cases where we believe there is general agreement among progressives that it is not appropriate. Clearly there are some things which almost everyone on DU would consider inappropriate (using the N-word to describe an Colin Powell, for example) -- those are removed. But there are other issues in which our members -- even "good progressives" -- are divided. In such cases, it is our preference to let all sides make their case, so our members can read all sides, and make up their minds on their own. Indeed, I believe people are more open to persuasion if they are given the opportunity to read the arguments on all sides, rather than being forced by an anonymous authority figure to conform to some arbitrary standard of behavior.

This approach is not perfect. But I believe it is the only practical way to run a large and relatively diverse message board like this one. I believe that many members of DU have had their minds opened by the discussions here, and many have voluntarily changed their behavior when they learned it was offensive to other members. I know because people tell me this all the time.

Regarding the recent "gender wars"

Recently, there has been much disagreement on DU regarding whether certain behaviors are "sexist" or not. One such disagreement was over the appropriateness of using the term "bitch" in certain situations. I do not wish to re-hash that particular discussion, for fear of upsetting the delicate detente that seems to have emerged. But I do think the current disagreement is similar to that one in many respects. To oversimplify considerably, the current issue is whether it is sexist to comment on the appearance of prominent women. In the opinion of the administrators of DU, the short answer is: Sometimes it is is, and sometimes it is not. But even if we disagree on whether such posts are sexist, there are clearly times when they are inappropriate or disruptive.

It seems to me that the vast majority of DU members are capable of discussing these issues in a relatively civil and respectful manner. I believe our biggest problems in the DU gender wars seem to arise when a small group of people on one side or the other (or both) abandon all pretense of civil discussion, and instead choose to agitate rather than discuss.

Last night, the deliberate agitation was coming from those people posting the threads about "hot" women and misogynistic song lyrics. I think any reasonable member of our community could tell that the purpose of these threads was deliberate and premeditated disruption. They just wanted to get a rise out of other people. Regardless of whether you think this behavior is sexist or not, it is deliberately disruptive. And that is a problem.

I think it is unsurprising that discussions in the Lounge occasionally turn to the issue of whether certain women or men are attractive or unattractive. That is perfectly normal and it can be appropriate if it is done in a relatively mature fashion.

But if members are going to post such threads, we hope that they would make some effort to do so in a manner that recognizes the attitudes and sensitivities of a diverse progressive community. The vast majority of our members are thoughtful and open-minded people who can discuss any topic in a civil manner, provided they are not being deliberately baited by jerks.

We try to give our members a fair amount of leeway, but there is a limit. It is not okay to post anything if your intention is to bait or agitate a certain group of people, disrupt the message board, or thumb your nose at the moderators. Last night two people did exactly that, and they were both sporting shiny new tombstones this morning. I don't care if you are actually a Democrat; if you are disrupting the message board, then you are a disruptor.

A plea for common decency and respect

At this point we do not intend to make any sort of blanket rule disallowing posts about people being attractive or unattractive. But we are instructing the moderators to shut down threads that cross the line -- like if they are extreme, cruel, unnecessary, deliberately inflammatory, or more appropriate for "Maxim" magazine than Democratic Underground.

Clearly, we disagree on whether certain behaviors are sexist or not. But I don't see why we can't all think about our own behavior a little and make a few voluntary changes, if it will make DU a more pleasant place for all of our members.

Skinner
DU Admin