General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAre the Feminist / MRA Argument Threads a means to "Divide and Conquer" DU - POLL
Lets face it folks its run the gamete far beyond reasonable discussion
But I'm asking for your opinion
| 28 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
| YES - it is an absolute distraction from issue that will make up the 2014 Mid Terms | |
22 (79%) |
|
| MAYBE - because these are 2 fringe groups batteling it out | |
1 (4%) |
|
| PROBABLY NOT - They are acting immuture but have a Democrat agenda | |
0 (0%) |
|
| NOT AT ALL - These are the issues we are facing in 2014 | |
4 (14%) |
|
| OTHER - I cringe at the thought of clicking on 1 of those threads | |
1 (4%) |
|
| 2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
| Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
|
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
treestar
(82,383 posts)There are men who are liberal but still can't get laid and think this is because women have too many choices. This issue will go long past any particular election.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)I'm 56 and there are still plenty of options
just that most of them require way too much effort
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)
Quantess
(27,630 posts)For example: being too tired to bother arguing in men vs. women threads can be chalked up to mature wisdom, in my opinion.
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)Sorry.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)More of this bullshit. Its all about honest discussions being demolished by liberal men who can't get laid?
In a thread about the divisiveness, more lame divisiveness. Behold, an authority on the subject
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Their comments lead me to believe they resent women because they don't get the best looking ones' attention.
Either that or maybe a bad divorce in which they felt it was unfair they had to pay their ex-wife child support or alimony.
They are just resentful over the situation. But they can still be liberals in their political opinions.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Honestly? Enough to utter it?
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)It's not about men who can't get laid. What it is about is about attacks made on men by certain people who seem to have an attitude that men are just supposed to accept those attacks without responding. If men respond, then the rhetoric is flung about with accusations of MRA, rape culture, the Patriarchy... etc, etc etc are made.
In other words men are just supposed to be "good little boys" who should accept their chastisement and punishment by "those who know better".
Well guess what, that is not happening.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)had. to me, that is much more important.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)And what happens if someone doesn't get laid? lol This is soo crazy.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)and nurturing. They are feminine, and adorable.
That said, that's not all they are, they also believe in equal rights for women and have their own careers. They are strong willed and competitive, but compete in a feminine, not masculine, way.
In my view, there is no reason to be mean or rude to men who simply want to find out if you are a prospective partner. I think we can all agree to be verbally abusive to a shy guy who summons the energy to talk to a girl in a polite manner is hurtful.
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)a masculine way?
"They are strong willed and competitive, but compete in a feminine, not masculine, way. "
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)PassingFair
(22,434 posts)
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Iran pushes forward with their nuclear program:
Masculine response: "Let's bomb the shit out of those raghead islamo-facist motherfuckers! BoooYaaaaa!"
Feminine response: "Let's invite them over for a cup of tea so we can discuss what course of action would be best for their children."
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)They are loaded with intended and unintended meaning and cloud higher understanding of what it means to be a human being with a personal identity, will and worth.
What genitalia you possess between your legs should have absolutely ZERO bearing on what you choose to do with your life.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i am so sorry. i was being snarky then lo and behold, i was you got a hide. sorry you got a hide.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)
demmiblue
(36,911 posts)MRA ideology does not.
It is pretty simple.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)
sibelian
(7,804 posts)?
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Not rec'ing a vaginal knitting thread. Not enjoying the front page of DU plastered in rape or abortion threads
demmiblue
(36,911 posts)You have a bizarre concept of what feminists think.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)I've read enough of DU to see people "step in it" over some pretty lame shit
demmiblue
(36,911 posts)and supporters of feminist ideals.
This is just bizarre. Perhaps you would fit in better at some far rightwing site... they lurve themselves some knuckle dragging MRA types.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)And yes, I made a gross generalization (sorry about that--I too am susceptible to the divisiveness). Feminists are not the problem--the movement has never has been anything but beneficial. There is a particular group of crap stirrers claiming to be feminists that start most of the problems. Most self identifying feminists are quite civil and great contributors on DU
demmiblue
(36,911 posts)There are, indeed, men here that refer to themselves as feminists.
Also, as crap stirrers go, perhaps you need a mirror. One of those three-way mirrors would be best.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)That was my first run in with this crew. That's also when I realized its not about feminism, but just being mean and divisive for the sake of divisiveness. No, its not about feminism at all--its about bullying.
"then divisive we stand"
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Feminists have many opinions about whether men can be feminists.
However, that little derailing tactic is (of course) neither here nor there.
The FACT is, most men on DU support feminist goals. Most men here do not support antifeminists - on either side of the aisle.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)And despite this, its like WWIII around here. What's your take on that?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and a bunch of women that call bullsh!t on those men.
polly7
(20,582 posts)it's fine to imply they're lying? What about the women here who support goals for all and yet are called horrible things by this same bunch of women? Is that fine, too?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)misunderstood my post ... I am saying that there are a few very vocal men denying rape culture, male privilege, attempting to tell women what is and what is not sexism, etc., versus the women (and plenty of men) that support feminist goals is what has DU looking like WWIII.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)On DU? Where? Want to provide a link?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)can I produce a link? Yes I can; but I will trust that if you really were concerned/interested, you would use the DU Search feature ... Might I suggest entering the terms "male privilege" and/or "rape culture". While you're at it, try the term "white privilege" while you're not at it ... it should prove educational. Are you up to the challenge?
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)If you can back up the assertion, then cool. Otherwise, I don't intend to spend my holiday night in the gutter perusing rape threads for evidence of DUers promoting "rape culture".
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)doing so would put you on the wrong side of the issue.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024218190#post1
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)FFS. Its not college football. Look, I see bullying and mean people and I'm on a side against that. Take what you will from that. If I see people promote "rape culture"--which you claim but wont show me--I will certainly be against them as well
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I will not get dragged into a discussion that if you were sincere in your cluelessness about threads that you have been an active participant, you could easily resolve. It is a waste of my time.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)You claiming the victim ... while imploring that someone raising the issue of women being attacked, not make women into victims.
Squinch
(51,075 posts)
boston bean
(36,224 posts)How dare you!!!! LOL 
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Including yourself, quelle surprise.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)and let them know our leader hath spoken!
boston bean
(36,224 posts) seabeyond
(110,159 posts)but a thread that had differing views that we were able to discuss respectfully. a phenomenon for many, i get that. but many people expressing how they viewed the subject and why they felt as they did.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I'd argue that the belief that they shouldn't be is equally legitimate.
I think it's highly dishonest to say "Men can't be feminists? What kind of whacko must BB be, to believe such a thing?" when she's referring to a post that she herself recommended.
demmiblue
(36,911 posts)In my estimation, men can be feminists. Present company excluded, obviously.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)I think this link reveals where I am coming from in regards to this group and their stands. I have spent my entire life supporting the feminists agenda both in real life and via activism, and I immediately got bullied and tagteamed in a very harsh and embarrassing way by people proudly proclaiming their ability to be divisive. This is what men face on DU who are newcomers.
When I argue in a thread about feminism I am not arguing against feminism. I am not arguing for MRA. I am arguing against bullying by these people
demmiblue
(36,911 posts)Seems to me that you have some sort of persecution complex.
Honestly, a little bit of self-reflection goes a long way.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)patriarchal, authoritative ass.
That is a link to a group of women embracing, quite explicitly, divisiveness and the exclusion of men. You have every right not to read it and remain ignorant to what is going on here at DU. But you have no basis to say a word about me in doing so. Thanks for playing.
demmiblue
(36,911 posts)(Not my words jury.) I guess the self-reflection worked.
And yet I STILL refrain from reading the link. Too bad, so sad.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)And yet I STILL refrain from reading the link
If you aren't going to inform yourself, you should refrain from speaking out of ignorance to score points, or whatever your intention is. Good day.
demmiblue
(36,911 posts)play into your games.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)You're engaging the other poster. They are just lobbing pejoratives. Pretty telling.
This morning I auto trashed any thread with "Rape" in the title. Looks like "Feminism" (At least how 5-10 posters on DU define it) is next.
You have much more patience then I have.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)people with differing views, not in agreement necessarily, yet able to discuss respectfully. there is an interesting argument to be made, and imo, not a right or wrong of it, but the ability to better understand. we have a lot fo men that post in hof. we have men that call themselves feminists. and we clearly state in that OP that in no way, would any of us feel the need to challenge a man that supports a womans voice, on calling himself a feminist.
that OP is not what he thinks it is. if one looks at a group in disdain, that is all he will see.
i on the other hand, very much listening to other voices, voices that held a different position. a position that i am not necessarily married to.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)shit stirring'. Iow, never comment on something you have not read. It can be embarrassing.
Just fyi, it confirms the point being made by your adversary. Is it shit-stirring, or not? Who knows, I think it is probably the sincere opinion of the OP but certainly not the opinion of most women. And everone is entitled to their opinion, but not to their own facts.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)And if so, what else--from them--can I instantly dismiss as bullshit?
Matariki
(18,775 posts)Can you back up what you are saying? With links?
Are YOU a feminist in your own opinion? Do you support women's rights?
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)A protected group on DU where most of this stuff boils over into GD.
I posted this above regarding the "men can't be feminist"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=14945
Are YOU a feminist in your own opinion?
I used to think so. They claim I can't be due to what wedding tackle I was born with, quite divisively
Do you support women's rights?
Without question.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)I don't agree with that sentiment at all, but I understand the frustration the poster was expressing. I've known many men who either identify themselves at feminists or hold views that could easily be called feminist. I think the vast number of men on DU support women and the issues we are trying to deal with. I have to say, many of your posts come off as very hostile to women. It could be that you are just reacting to perceived insults, in which case I wish we could all learn to talk about these things in a way that doesn't foster animosity.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)I am hostile to those women. They've called me (and others) nasty things. They create a culture of fear here on DU. IMO, they degrade the level of discourse dramatically.
It could be that you are just reacting to perceived insults, in which case I wish we could all learn to talk about these things in a way that doesn't foster animosity.
That's how I see it. If they want to be taken more seriously or create constructive dialogue to reach consensus, I've suggested they should work on their tone (but the "tone" argument is something they see as an MRA talking point to dismiss them--need a link to that?). You can't say anything without it being twisted. Either you shut the fuck up and listen, or you ignore their threads and let others be bullied and piled on.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)I agree, it's frustrating when one's words are twisted. Sometimes it's difficult to know if it's just a misunderstanding, or if the person is deliberately being obtuse - or even trolling. I try to rephrase my post to try and find a way that the other person might understand. I don't mean that they have to agree with me, but it's nice to know that I've at least made my point clearly. If it becomes apparent that the other person has no real interest in understanding, then I extricate myself from the conversation (or get snarky if I'm in that kind of mood).
What I'm trying to say is, if you are being sincere, perhaps instead of having an automatic reaction that you are being criticized, you could try a different approach. Like asking people to clarify, asking if they mean what they are saying as an insult to you or your gender, etc. It might be, and probably is, miscommunication.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)This is probably the best course of action, but not always easy if a "twist" involves defamation (so your choice is to walk away and let it stand). OTOH, when in such situations, it doesn't seem constructive to continue anyway.
It might be, and probably is, miscommunication.
I will try and presume initially that is the problem.
And thanks for the advice.
By all means, I don't wan to come off that way to all women. DU doesn't need to promote the idea that some posters are misogynists simply due to frustration and misunderstanding with a select group
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)call us out, then one might wonder where fair play or reason comes in
Drew Richards
(1,558 posts)They have decided to make their positions secondary to abusing anyone who questions disagrees or says a word IN OR OUT of context that they can jump on and then berate others into submission...
Seems more like a gaggle yes gaggle of bullies punching you in the face telling you they have every right to hit you because you are not "one of them" whatever that means...hell i cant tell what they represent anymore after reading so much spew...
I have decided to stop reading their garbage since its not fostering an environment of lively discussing about womens equality and more a man hating bashing session...
wow after i blocked all there threads i can actually see normal discussions again in GD...to bad moderators wont step in to calm this bs down...
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)even in disagreement. we have a lot of men that come into hof and discuss feminist issues. we appreciate and value these men. we also learn a lot from these men. the discussion of whether a man can be a feminist in name is an argument that is interesting, imo. it is not to diss a single man that support women or womens right issues. there are valid reasons why we brought up the conversation. all of us that play with the thought also said, we would never call out a man that calls himself a feminist
personally, i thought it a very productive and thought out conversation done in respect.
something we aspire to on du.
kcr
(15,321 posts)That is absolutely not true.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Its to a "Men can't be feminist" OP.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Can't necessarily say I agree with it, because feminism as a movement addresses so many men's issues as well, but it's not really that important to me anyway. Male feminist or feminist ally, I still know where I stand.
Though the concerns seem to be about men taking over feminism and assuming they're on equal footing with women, which is nonsense.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)or that its immensely important to do so on the pathway there, insofar as the movement isn't co-opted or pacified nefariously. The reality is that the quickest way to end oppression may rightly be the correct one, regardless of what faces and personalities get to sit in the leader chair; those are small issues compared to allowing people to continue to be oppressed.
In any case, I cannot imagine that being divisive and exclusionary is an effective means to carry a movement forward.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Men largely don't have to put up with the crap women have to deal with on a daily basis, so women should rightfully be the leadership of feminism.
I think men have a place in feminism as allies/feminists, but it's ultimately up to the leaders of the movement to determine what's best for it.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)...so women should rightfully be the leadership of feminism
Women have the most immediate incentive to see the movement succeed and progress, but everyone is capable of empathy and seeking justice and equality. Often, movements succeed by being inclusive and engaging the population, rather than being divisive and isolationists. In any case, I've already posted most of my thoughts and listened to the other side as well in that previous thread.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)garbage. yes, SOME of you men like your snarky "self-appointed leaders on DU ". but that means nothing. that is only a means to diss a few.
people that are interested on the issue speak out. that simple
sheshe2
(84,005 posts)At Sat Dec 28, 2013, 09:28 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
quit. just quit. this is your crap. this is a discussion board. no leaders. NONE. quit that
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4243596
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS:
why call a poster's writign "crap" and "garbage"? this is over the top no matter how we feel about person they were respondn gto
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Dec 28, 2013, 09:43 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Back off and leave it alone.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This particular post is an simply an opinion of the poster. However, I think, given the tone and pointedness of many posts in this thread, that this whole thread should be locked.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The alert stalking of this poster is getting ridiculous. Ya don't like her views, put her on ignore. Sheesh!
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The whole o.p./thread is a pot-stirring thing and the Alerted-on post was not outside this contentious topic's limits, no personal attack.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
sea~
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)thank you sheshe.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)when we have so many strong, smart, supportive mens voice in our/your group. but, i thought we did it respectfully, in agreement or disagreement. we all basically said that we would never tell a man he cannot be a feminist, that is not our place. it is how, over the last couple years, we have listened to men who declare themselves feminists work so hard at silencing women, and other issues. i think that thread was valuable, and allowed us to express concerns and i think we were real clear to say, we did not want it to be disrespectful to all the men that stand with and speak out for us.
many feminists disagree on this issue. this is one where we have to agree to disagree, respectfully. or merely allow differing opinions.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)In my experience "I disagree with what you're saying, but this is a fascinating discussion" is an atypical reason that HoF members recommend posts.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: Agreed that this is feminist-bashing. Having read several other posts by this person, I also believe that he is a troll.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: FLAME!
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Again, I love feminists. I am married to one. I don't love a certain group on DU using feminism to be nasty to people.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)continually use that language about us.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Just sayin'
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)And I'm not going to claim I am king of this. But everyone is emotional at this point and knee-jerkingly dismissive of others
Things are so far gone though that you cannot even suggest civility without being pigeonholed as a MRA type, and the last thing that's going to be is constructive:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/125533280
redqueen
(115,103 posts)It has to do with people who are uncomfortable with discussions of privilege attempting to silence the people involved in those discussions, usually the members of the oppressed group, by ignoring the substance of what they're saying, and saying that because of their tone, they will be ignored, the person using the Tone argument will no longer be as willing to advocate on behalf of the issues relating to their oppression, etc.
It's a derailing tactic, and it's not rare, and it's not limited to discussions of feminism. It's also frequently used in discussions of LGBT issues, racism, etc.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)It has to do with people who are uncomfortable with discussions of privilege attempting to silence the people involved in those discussions
Maybe people are talking about nastiness and divisiveness because there really is nastiness and divisiveness. You sit there and twist a very simply concept into some conspiracy level explanation to shed all responsibility for your tone and inability to create a healthy dialogue on a LIBERAL site of all places. There is a problem when you cannot even preach to an eager choir.
It's a derailing tactic, and it's not rare, and it's not limited to discussions of feminism.
Did you ever consider that pretending people are not meaning what they explicitly say is a derailing tactic that you, yourself, is employing? Just a thought.
Further, did you ever consider that when you tell people what their intention are (and such suggested intention point to a terrible person), that you are directly insulting them? If people are suggesting civility and you are telling them they are really derailing you because they aren't comfortable with feminist issues, that's akin to directly insulting them. Its more destructive discourse and not listening.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)When people prioritize their personal feelings in a discussion about some kind of oppression, instead focusing on the oppression of large groups of people, that pretty much says all that needs to be said, right there.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)No, it doesn't say anything. It doesn't confirm anything. This is a made up excuse for the problems were facing.
Posting topics on gender issues with insulting content, and then calling people insulted (for not focusing on the gender issue) *seems* like trolling to me. Insulted people have every right to respond to a an insult they take personal before taking on the topic, if they choose to at all. You cannot define what people's priorities should be, and most certainly not when they are caught up in a prejudiced generalization first.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)I posted a study from the UK which included a statement about the results that people were extremely upset about. It, also, contained no insulting content.
I posted another thread wondering why topics about rape culture are treated so differently, why it's implied that we shouldn't address rape culture since no one advocates rape culture here - yet people discuss all kinds of rightwing memes and propaganda and no one says it's not necessary because no one on DU believes it
And once again, there was no insulting content.
Yet here we are, with three calls to ban all feminist topics from GD.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)I didn't. I haven't even read that thread.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)divisive is actually the conversation you are having at the moment. so, you give an example of what you are talking about, so we can better understand.
at this point. not seeing it. a todo over a PSA, that you were in the middle of, and now claim you did not even see what the issue is, is pretty telling.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)I don't recall posting in the PSA thread.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)figure out where your attacks are coming from, with absolutely no help from you.
whatever
Soundman
(297 posts)Was young I got a dwi. Since I had never been in any real trouble otherwise I was allowed to go into a diversion program. The diversion program allowed people to do an alcohol treatment program in lieu of jail. Part of that program involved a three day Thursday through Sunday mandatory stay at the school where the program was held. Anyway, I will always remember one speaker in particular. He said I can't look at any of you and tell you that you are an alcoholic. But I can tell you this. If enough people start telling you that you are a monkey you had better turn around and see if you have a tail. Seems a certain element of the Hof crowd can't relate to that. That group is 5% Hof 95% disruptive flame bait. Thankfully I found that you can trash a group, it helps. But the hate seems to find away into any conversation.
TroglodyteScholar
(5,477 posts)opiate69
(10,129 posts)
Squinch
(51,075 posts)That's a good OP!
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)I'm laughing over here. You see, the internet surely allows people to pigeonhole others quite erroneously. The communication breakdown, IMO, is a large part of the problem here. You can't hardly make a comment without it being twisted if the receiver is in a twisty mood.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Puhlease.
I think it's more the tone and content of you openly bitter and uncaring posts if they're anything like this one.
whathehell
(29,100 posts)and just as important as men's issues given that we do, you know, make up half of humanity.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Lots of what people try to pass off as art is simply crap.
RC
(25,592 posts)True MRA types would not last long here, because almost everyone would gang up on them, both men and women.
DU does not have a MRA mentality, except in the minds of a few derisive people here. Most DU members are not constantly vilifying the other gender either.
ME? I am for Human Rights. Equal Rights for everyone. Everyone, everywhere. I think that is a more worthy goal than denigrating almost half half the human race and calling it "Feminism".
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)RC
(25,592 posts)
CTyankee
(63,926 posts)Feminist values are humanist values and vice versa.
RC
(25,592 posts)So you could fool me on that count.
Besides Feminism itself is about equal Rights for Women, which is only a part of larger Human Rights.
CTyankee
(63,926 posts)I believe that Feminism is at one with respect for the earth, for instance. I believe that it embraces kindness and respect for all cultures, except that of violence, and walks with people of many faiths. I believe that Feminism is transcendant, peaceful and filled with the joy of being alive in the world.
RC
(25,592 posts)Your post reminded me of I had a conversation with a restaurant owner this morning, that just gotten back from visiting her son in the Navy, in Japan.
She could not believe the difference between here and there. How clean everything was. One of her examples was, even with so many people smoking there were no cigarette butts anywhere. No trash laying around.
People were polite to each other.
I bring this up because more people need to travel and experience the clash between our culture and other cultures. All too often we come up short. People have no clue what they are missing because they have never experience anything different or better than what they grew up with in this country.
Even just spending some time in Canada, the differences are apparent. The edge is missing. Friendlier, less paranoid of everything.
We can learn much from others, but the "Not invented Here", construct is strong.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)CTyankee
(63,926 posts)Since I am a DU Feminist, I would therefore be one of them. There are men here who identify as Feminists as well. They listen to women and respect them. Suspects?
RC
(25,592 posts)I could have said the 'guilty' and would have just as accurate.
There is only a sub-set of people there that are instigators of the problem and it was those people I was referring to.
I see people as individuals and I don't blame the entire HoF as the problem, as it is only a half dozen or so.
How long do you think a men's group would last around here, if they kept starting OP's doing the equivalent gender slamming and belittling of women? And yes, that is a legitimate question.
You can't assume that just because you belong to whatever organization and one or even a few members embezzle the funds, or uses letterhead stationary for personal gain, that the whole membership is corrupt and is also guilty. The same concept applies here.
Congress is corrupt (We both know that to be true). You work for the government, therefore you must be corrupt too. See how wrong that assumption is?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)boston bean
(36,224 posts)Are you planning on doing something about it?
RC
(25,592 posts)I said nothing of the kind. She is not on my list of problem people.
boston bean
(36,224 posts)RC
(25,592 posts)boston bean
(36,224 posts)making a list, checking it twice, gonna find out whose naughty or nice.
RC
(25,592 posts)But that is a different list.
CTyankee
(63,926 posts)Really, it's all good. We're just fine. Va bene e ciaio!
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)here would be a list of their arguments
http://www.democraticunderground.com/125533330
here would be some of the harm
http://www.democraticunderground.com/125532470
http://www.democraticunderground.com/125531963
http://www.democraticunderground.com/125532426
http://www.democraticunderground.com/125532172
here would be a bit to help you along.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts) 
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)
Hong Kong Cavalier
(4,573 posts)
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Nominated for the worst DU pun of the day.
That said, if this stuff isn't deliberate, someone ought to study it as a "natural experiment" in how to sabotage a discussion site.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)Good point.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Last edited Sat Dec 28, 2013, 07:48 PM - Edit history (1)
There is however, the 'Men's Group', though I understand why some need to conflate the two.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Then yes, discussions about rape culture/harassment culture, and feminism have a place on DU.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)but does that necessitate excluding issues important to men
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Rape/harassment culture affects men as well, and feminism addresses topics important to men.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)should that be an issue or just 1 of those "He deserved it" moments
cui bono
(19,926 posts)redqueen
(115,103 posts)which either depicted prison rape as a joke, or condoned it as a punishment.
And now we're painted as disruptors. Maybe we were called disruptors for doing that, too, back in the day. I don't remember that happening, though. I think people complained about our "lectures" and alerts... but not this kind of stuff. Not outright claims that we were trolls trying to "divide" people on DU.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)We might not always agree but I appreciate the majority of your post
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)(and touches on the concerns of "men's rights activists" as well, including issues of male prison rape, false rape accusations, males as victims of domestic violence, etc). It's entirely too long to succinctly excerpt within the four-paragraph limit but it's a good place to start if you want to understand some of the issues involved.
http://jezebel.com/5992479/if-i-admit-that-hating-men-is-a-thing-will-you-stop-turning-it-into-a-self+fulfilling-prophecy
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)does give them "some" credence
Deserving of a "National Movement" - not so much
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)There really isn't any:
Despite significant progress towards ending domestic violence and sexual assault, myths persist about victims of these crimes making false claims of abuse and abusing legal protections. This factsheet addresses those myths.
FALSE REPORTING OF ABUSE DURING DIVORCE AND CHILD CUSTODY CASES IS RARE
Critics allege that victims make up claims of abuse against themselves and their children just to gain advantage in contested custody cases.
In fact, research shows that false allegations of abuse are no more common in divorce or custody disputes than at any other time1.
Research also shows that child sexual abuse allegations in custody cases are rare (about 6%), and the majority of allegations are substantiated (2/3)2.
Generally, abuse is vastly under-reported: child sexual abuse happens to about 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys, yet only about 1.8 cases per 1,000 children are reported each year 3.
DISCLOSING ABUSE FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING DIVORCE OR CHILD CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS DOES NOT MEAN THE ABUSE WAS MADE-UP TO GAIN ADVANTAGE IN THE CASE
It is common and understandable for victims to reveal abuse for the first time during a divorce because abuse leads to divorce4. Many victims have told no one about the abuse prior to separation because of their shame, fear, and desire to help the abuser.
One national expert with a decade of direct experience working in batterers’ intervention programs reports that about 30% of relationships ended after a violent assault, demonstrating how frequently an escalation in violence leads immediately to a break-up5.
http://www.ccasa.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Fact-Sheet-on-Myth-of-False-Allegations_Final.pdf
sibelian
(7,804 posts)That article is a MESS.
Look at that woman go.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)I think the whole way our prison systems exist should be an issue - from the fact that minorities are overwhelmingly imprisoned to the growing proliferation of a private prison industry, to prison rape.
I think our party should address these things.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Feminists hate that as well. Nobody deserves rape.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)I can't believe I'm reading this insane bullshit.
Violence against men is really about women....
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Huh? Rape culture is about rape, not specifically about women.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)I am actually done with this bullshit. Now men are presumably to discuss BEING RAPED in terms that are acceptable to some fucking political movement.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Rape culture includes male rape as well.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)"Rape culture" is about as useful in describing male experiences as saying tax returns are a special kind of cheese. The term is nothing more than a great big big bag with "RAPE" written on it into which certain excited people throw anything that makes them feel freaky about themselves so that whatever they've thrown into the bag is all smeared and slobbered over with the emotional charge of the word RAPE. I've seen it used on this board to describe a six year old boy repeatedly kissing a (very understandbly) reluctant little girl. As a way of describing anything to do with the way politics is lensed out through gender it is NONSENSICAL.
I KNOW MEN WHO HAVE BEEN RAPED. I'm not using the idiotic, crack-addled and entirely USELESS term "rape culture" to label their experience any more than I would use the term "hip hop".
It's nothing more than a cynical attempt to manage away the male experience by controlling the terms used by them to describe themselves.
It's DISGUSTING.
I'm going to make damn sure that nobody in the gay community that *I* know is going to fall back into the twisted patterns demanded of them by feminists EVER again.
Feminists as individuals can be trusted, but feminism as a movement cannot. Believe me, I know.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)What do we call the factors that facilitate male rape then? What do we call the reinforcement of gender stereotypes and the use of sexual violence as a form of control?
Drew Richards
(1,558 posts)classes?
Squinch
(51,075 posts)that foster it.
So sexual brutality is not accurate.
And why would it get more play across the sexes and classes? A rape is a rape, no matter who is raped. And our culture has many aspects that allow or encourage it, whether the person raped is a man or a woman.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)MISANDRY. Internalised, typically.
Homophobia is a direct consequence of this kind of stereotyping. It's often confused with misogyny (particularly by over-enthusiastic feminists) because it's vaguely similar to the way some men treat some women but the source of the distortion isn't fucked up perceptions of women, it's fucked up perceptions of men. Gay men aren't persecuted for being like women, gay men aren't anything like women. We aren't persecuted for resembling the stereotypic image of women, we're persecuted for deviating from the stereotypic image of men.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)That makes more sense. Thanks for clearing that up for me. 
Drew Richards
(1,558 posts)kcr
(15,321 posts)how is that misandry? I agree, gay men aren't anything like women. But homophobes stereotype gay men as if they are. And that is rooted in misogyny.
Squinch
(51,075 posts)I'm not getting where you get "violence against men is really about women" from what Nuclear Dem said.
DisgustedCynic
(12 posts).. violence against men is to be minimized...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4234557
...and is funny.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4234588
I found those posts particularly interesting considering the images in the poster's sig line.
What do I know, though? After all, I'm probably just a dastardly MRA playing the tone card.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)spoke out the loudest on this issue. continually and consistently. mostly men putting up prison rape jokes. and hte women that challenged were dissed. until it became unacceptable. ALL rape is wrong. ALL rape needs to be addressed and punished.
polly7
(20,582 posts)many of us ...... I think probably most of us, found it unacceptable all along and said so.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)years ago here, prison rape threads that were discussed by many, many people absolutely sickened over it, myself included.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)a lot of people totally outraged we would take a "joke" so seriously. without support at all.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Last edited Sat Dec 28, 2013, 10:48 PM - Edit history (1)
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Those of us who were among the first to challenge those sentiments - were we accused of being disruptors? I know there was lots of whining about lectures, and complaints about frivolous alerts.
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)And was never considered acceptable and if it was alerted on the mods removed it. And it wasn't just women moderating either.
polly7
(20,582 posts)CTyankee
(63,926 posts)women they love. These men want nothing to do with sexism. They see absolute value to their lives in Feminism. In fact, their lives would be devastated without the love of these women. And the tenderness goes both ways. Mutual respect is what you get as a result of both sexes embrace of Feminism.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)If you're talking about misogynistic views and sexist views then yes, it does necessitate that. DU doesn't allow RW trolling, does it?
Response to NuclearDem (Reply #12)
grahamhgreen This message was self-deleted by its author.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)
If you think women speaking up about facing violence and sexism is a fringe group there's something missing in your viewpoint. (the collective DU "you", and you for putting that term into the discussion I guess)
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Bush certainly used it to his advantage
cui bono
(19,926 posts)determine if people raising the issue are a fringe group.
FFs, I learned about sexism in the early 80's at UCSC. Some of you need to go live in Santa Cruz or go take a class on sexism and women's issues I guess. Our male teacher had every other person substitute "she" for "he" when we read a textbook out loud. There are some men on DU who just might have a heart attack if they had to do that.
It's not hard to see it, it's everywhere and in a lot of ways it's getting much worse. All one has to do is open their eyes and their hearts and be the least bit compassionate. Perhaps you think women speaking up about it is a fringe group because you are in a community where women don't feel safe expressing it?
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Some people are worried about Healthcare or Social Security but mostly just trying to eek out a living
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Do you ask LGBT and African-Americans that same question?
And btw... women are half the world's population, so yes, a good bit of the discussion should be about women's issues. And as was mentioned to you above, which you chose to ignore, women's issues involve men and are therefore men's issues as well.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)These things are all intertwined.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)It is far from it.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)but not so much to the next person. Kind of like opinions - we all have them
But does that mean the person's worth should be any less. Their opinion not worthy of respect
cui bono
(19,926 posts)My guess is because you have an agenda and you are trying to sell it in every post of yours.
You might do better if you actually "listened" to what people posted and responded to what they actually said. It's called respect and discussion. The fact that you aren't doing it may have something to do with your anger/disgust/impatience towards women expressing their desire to be treated with said respect.
Bottom line, you want us to listen to you and accept your opinion and simply will not listen to what we say and respond to that. Pretty clear where you stand and what type of person you are.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)It is appalling that ops calling women's issues are fringe get a pass here.
For fucks sake, our Democratic Party would be dead on the water without them.
BainsBane
(53,112 posts)Particularly when some insist that the only legitimate views are those determined by the same demographic that backs the GOP. Any random Democratic neighborhood meeting is far more diverse and open than the white male only view of the world some here insist on imposing. The sense of entitlement is astounding. If it's not about them, they think no one has a right to discuss it. Amazing. Those are precisely the kind of characteristics that enable someone in the 21st century to think and act like it's 1952.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)for everyone. There are too many unbroken characters and it's pushing the grid off the right side of the page. Please edit.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
Response to BainsBane (Reply #165)
tammywammy This message was self-deleted by its author.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)I never even heard of it until I started wasting my life reading these never-ending threads.
Doubtless, such folks exist somewhere in the dark corners of the internet, but I really have to wonder how widespread their influence is. They do, however, give the HOFers a windmill to tilt at.
The upside is that some of the most rabid are flaming themselves out in these threads.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Its a new term to me as well, mostly thrown around in an accusatory manner toward non-agreeing male DUers
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)That's the best web site I could find that looks like an "MRA" web site.
Not surprisingly, males are overrepresented among visitors, females underrepresented.
Also not surprisingly, the web site is more likely to be accessed from home than work.
Somewhat surprisingly, and disappointingly, among education level groups, only people with grad school level education are overrepresented.
Democratic Underground, by contrast, is ranked #6,113 worldwide and #1,707 in the US.
Wow, if you want to spread the "MRA" word, post about it on Democratic Underground!
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)TroglodyteScholar
(5,477 posts) Eleanors38
(18,318 posts) TroglodyteScholar
(5,477 posts) redqueen
(115,103 posts)Right now there are 232 active viewers in the Men's Rights subgroup on reddit.
I wonder how many people are currently reading or posting on DU.
http://www.salon.com/2009/11/05/mens_rights/
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/2012/08/angry-men-feminist-agenda/
sibelian
(7,804 posts)What do they want?
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Meanwhile, more than 500 people there are looking at stuff about cats.
Seriously, this appears to be a miniscule movement. For something that's been around since the 1970s, it doesn't seem to be very much of "a growing movement."
There are real issues for us to deal with, like the effective gutting of abortion rights in large parts of the country. Or even further reducing the incidence of rape. The thousands of posts spent on this kind of crap do nothing about that.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Or, y'know, don't. Cause I can tell ... er, how much you care ... by the way you post about these issues.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I agree with your post, I don't think it's much of a movement, either.
I think there are some people who are just assholes, and they come in both genders. Bad behavior is bad behavior....
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)Most here are on the right side and this constant bickering over word choices, posting styles etc isn't doing our side any favors. We should be untied in fighting the RW fundie assholes as opposed
to each other over semantics.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)not business suits, or would you prefer we not say anything?
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)And you do over and over with different issues but does it get us feminist anywhere, really? If someone doesn't get it the first 10 times I am not going to waste my time or effort trying to school them. If you want to you are free to do so but I am not going to be there as a fellow feminist beating skulls in or dead horses.
The same shit has been talked about here as long as DU has been around, some will get it some don't and never will.
Squinch
(51,075 posts)were 72 years.
I am grateful for their tirelessness. It takes a long time to change minds.
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)And I see you have been only here for a year so you probably haven't seen how unproductive these discussion are here but keep up the good fight if you can change one persons mind... Good on ya. I am using my voice, time and money in my state to try to get Wendy Davis elected.
kcr
(15,321 posts)I think the way the feminists on DU are treated is a shame. So clearly, not everyone sees it the same way.
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)But sometimes the poor treatment I have received is by other feminist. So you are correct not everyone sees it the same way.
kcr
(15,321 posts)We're human after all. That doesn't mean that in general they aren't treated badly here.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)speak out each time i hear it. i have never asked you to step up. so that wont be an issue when you do not. you make your choices. i make mine. i would think we can do that respectfully.
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)Only have to read thru some threads to see it. You do what makes you feel comfortable and so will I...and we actually can both be good feminists even when we don't agree.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)end of your statement. mostly. but, i am getting a headache and i am not gonna try to go further.
and i am right there with you with wendy davis.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)like the rest of us do equates to sundresses to you. 
I don't think the community is going to accept that anytime soon.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)kcr
(15,321 posts)DUer says women should dress femininely, like sundresses. Some call it the bullshit it that it is. Do you honestly have a problem with that?
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)395. Well said MADem
Most here are on the right side and this constant bickering over word choices, posting styles etc isn't doing our side any favors. We should be untied in fighting the RW fundie assholes as opposed
to each other over semantics.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024241107#post395
443. are we feminists allowed to address the man we should speak femininely and wear sundresses,
not business suits, or would you prefer we not say anything?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024241107#post443
461. So following DU's Community Standards
like the rest of us do equates to sundresses to you.
I don't think the community is going to accept that anytime soon.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024241107#post461
1) maddezmom posted about the food fight here on DU;
2) seabeyond defended the food fight presenting an end to that behavior as wearing sundresses and keeping silent;
3) my reply to seabeyond, so following DU's Community Standards = sundresses
See the chain of reply now?
It is AGAIN (as it constantly does) defending and insisting on the vocal minority's supposed right to be rude here on DU. Sorry, we have Community Standards for that, and nobody is excepted from it... not even seabeyond, not even HoF. And the vocal minority can call it "the tone argument" all it wants, the Community Standards apply to everybody, like it or not.
kcr
(15,321 posts)Seabeyond's point was valid. I think bringing up someone telling us we should wear sundresses was absolutely a valid point to bring up in response to someone who appeared to be claiming the whole thing is nothing but bickering over word choices and posting style.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)You're welcome to your opinion. I don't agree with it, and I have a hunch it will result in open Transparency Pages, but I should think that problem would automatically sort itself out, given the mandatory time-out that goes with it.
We will see who is right, come January 6.
kcr
(15,321 posts)and agreeing with a fellow feminist on that point means feminists should be exempt from community standards. As far as transparency pages? I think certain transparency pages show the glaring flaw in the set up of DU3.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)That is sort of like thought salad to go with the word salad.
kcr
(15,321 posts)is a hard concept for some. ETA I guess that was a complex sentence, so maybe it was too hard for some to understand. I'll break it down into easier reading. I don't agree with dumb women have to wear pretty dresses opinion. That isn't a simple matter of nitpicking over words. Seabeyond agrees. I don't understand why you think this has anything to do with community standards. Do you think community standards means DU thinks women should wear pretty dresses? Better?
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)don't you haul that back to the conversation it came from, this subthread is about something else.
If you still need a map getting there, someone else will have to draw it. I gave it the best I can do already.
kcr
(15,321 posts)redqueen
(115,103 posts)And pushing propaganda in order to reverse some of the progress made by feminists.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)I know the NRA is, and given the animosity that outfit draws, I assumed MRA was a key-stroke problem, and that this was another curious tumor in the vast NRA cancer.
But formal or not, it seems to serve a similar function in the "shame culture" that permeates DU: Prop up a tag, pile on the straw, and let the sparks fly. Most folks here were content with assigning "gun" threads to the two (2) groups set up to in some way accommodate them, reasons being the divisiveness the issue caused, and because of the willingness of pro-2A folks to go with the now-current TOS. The control/ban folks most did not want the return to "no guns."
It appears that there may be fear within the feminist groups (and Castle Bansalot, for that matter) that the issues will be relegated to an echo-chamber, and GD is needed to nurture and keep issues alive. There is validity in feminist issues and in male concerns, both. The problem appears to be in the mean-spirited, blame-assigning, and my-way-highway approach that not only turns folks off to GD, but materially blocks any give & take on issues involving sexual orientation.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Polls have been posted. There is literally not one person on DU who self-identifies as MRA.
Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #361)
redqueen This message was self-deleted by its author.
mokawanis
(4,455 posts)More like snark, insults, and sarcasm, none of which allow for reasonable discussion and debate. When people make their argument by insisting that anyone on DU who disagrees with them is an asshole I'm not going to listen to what they have to say.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I've worn down an index finger considerably, trashing thread after thread after thread on this dumbass cage match topic.
I think every genuine Dem/Progressive agrees that sexism is bad, rape is bad, discrimination is bad, etc., etc., and so forth.
Arguing about these matters is like having a vicious knock-down, drag-out over the wetness of water. It's dumb.
I wish the admins would start looking at ISPs on some of these threads.
I'll probably regret commenting on this thread, as I've been staying out this shitstorm....!
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)When you say a thread is a means to... You imply it is being done purposefully to divide and conquer.
I'm not sure I'm ready to ascribe some nefarious plot by those who raise these issues. It is obvious, perhaps because of of my own life experiences, that there has been considerable pain borne by some few on both sides of the issue. Once that specter is raised in any discussion it becomes incredibly difficult to listen to what someone perceived as on the other side is saying. I think it naturally snowballs from there.
This I think is demonstrated by a number of topics, with Guns and Woman's rights near the top of the list.
I find it hard to ascribe to malice that which is explained with a less exciting alternative motive.
Vox Moi
(546 posts)It is Human Rights that we should be talking about.
All people have a right to personal safety and bodily integrity, regardless of gender. Rape is one violation of that right and it happens to both genders.
Equal opportunity/ equal pay is not a gender issue. People suffer from bias and prejudice for many reasons, gender included but not limited to gender. Why phrase it as a gender issue?
Some of us are male, some of us female but all of us are human, first. Finding common interests and solutions to common problems s the heart and soul of democracy.
I have always felt that both Feminists and MRA types undermine their own interests by narrowing the discussion.
Too bad.
JustAnotherGen
(32,000 posts)Though I agree with the a human rights concept.
Something I've clearly stated in HOF is that the Paycheck Fairness Act needs to be looked at from the lowest paid women perspective - black/Hispanic women.
If a massive job and quality job growth does not DEMAND and provide the protection to sue without retaliation and with an extremely long statute of limitations - its worthless to American women.
I've also been clear at DU that I had a man working for me with less education and zero marketing experience making a higher salary. I still have the print outs ofthe manager view org chart. I'm waiting for a Paycheck Fairness Act.
The difference in pay for women fom my level of education right down to farm workers is disgusting. It's well documented, it's not opinion - its fact.
Any man for Human Rights will look at the gross disparity in pay for women and demand that we paid the same as them. Black women had to march at te back of the line during the suffragist movement so as to not offend teetotaling white Christian Southern women . . .
I refuse to march at the back of the line. And what's good for black and Hispanic woman and Asian women will be good for white women - and ALL MEN demanding a fair wage. Start with America's throw aways (minority women) - include us - and win. Black women in particular? We vote.
liberalmuse
(18,672 posts)It got to be too much.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)BainsBane
(53,112 posts)Or is it only women's issues that you consider trivial?
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)It was a poll, and a poll that didn't allude to making women's issue's trivial.
BainsBane
(53,112 posts)The fact he even brings it up suggests he sees the threads as illegitimate. He could have mentioned the endless threads about 2016 and fictitious presidential candidates, Snowden, Manning, etc....but the point as always is to make sure feminists know their views are unwelcome here. The use of the word "immature" is also clear.
The fact is the Democratic Party is majority women and people of color. Efforts to restrict discussion to a hegemonic, white male agenda are in direct contradiction to who actually votes for Democrats. I don't vote for reactionaries who refuse to consider the experiences of anyone but the privileged, and I refuse to abide by a notion of politics that seeks to deligitimate the voices of anyone but themselves. People can simply use trash thread and ignore rather than bemoaning the fact some women on this site think our lives actually matter. That is precisely what I will do here. If I were interested in a notion of politics framed only by the interests of old white men, I'd be a Republican.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)racial grievances was the Democratic wedge issue in 2011 (going into the 2012 election) ... Now it's gender. It seems that the those most suggesting of them being the/a wedge are, also, the ones that are most vocal regarding the non-existence of white privilege and rape culture.
As such, I think DU is no different than the rest of society.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Not much room for interpretation there.
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)see if Skinner will fix them up with a little sandbox off the main board
You really think this is all about women?
This is getting stupid. Women are not phucking victims here. This shite is getting stupid.
The person I responded to claimed that this was being trivialized. That person was wrong. I was talking about the OP.
The OP posted a poll.
Whatever.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)I guess that's his way of saying feminist issues aren't trivial? By comparing discussing them to slinging mud in a playground?
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)I was responding to someone else.
you are very good at twisting things around redqueen.
Go back and read my first post in this thread. Stop making this more that I meant it to be.
Thanks,
Raine
Laelth
(32,017 posts)That's my observation, for what it's worth. From what I can tell, 99% of us at DU are on the same team.
-Laelth
Matariki
(18,775 posts)That seems like Republican thinking to me.
libodem
(19,288 posts)I find it frustrating. I would like to know that our discussions are furthering some advance in educating both sexes toward ultimate equality. Even if in different roles and behaviors, both sexes contribute to making the world go 'round. I keep wanting to contribute something of substance that will bring an understanding and all will have instant euphonies, the light will snap on, all our ages of social evolution, will look like a road to the future, so we may see from whence we came to where we are headed, and why. I don't even know where to start.
Frankly I'm afraid of being attacked. I'm scared of some of the other women on the board. I have a big streak of 'people pleaser' running through my personality and I want to be liked. I don't fit in. I'm not one of 'them'. My agenda is not whatever stands for the most immediate gratification of causing the biggest divide and discard drama of the sexes. I can't put my finger on it because it still escapes me. But it feels contrived. It feels false. It feels vindictive. It feels condescending. It feels contemptuous. It feels like a narrative out of context with my reality. It is not my narrative.
I don't want to be told I'm not a real feminist because of it. And I've been doing it right for 40 years now. But not right enough to be a DU purist.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Though I'm not afraid of being attacked - and it's happened often - I've pretty much stopped wanting to discuss anything that has to do with gender here anymore, it's pointless. The slightest disagreement with the loudest members results in total war, every time. It IS vindictive, condescending and contemptuous.
libodem
(19,288 posts)And disruptive. I seriously wonder if that is not the point? Is the 'agenda' to make 'feminists' appear to be ruthless man hatrers and 'liberal' men rape and porn pigs.
Who has all day long to sit at home 'debating' the internet about raping and porn being the Democratic party male's main focus in life because they must be defending and apologizing for it? Someone who wants us all to look like people with no values or morals?
As far as an onlooker might deduct our men read porn by day and spend all night raping. And our women are darn mad about it.
Seems like Faux news speeds more anti female crap, the ultraconservative play ground of the military and the good old boy network of sports and Fraternities, would be the place to blame 'culture'. Not DU.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)I've been accused of being a troll before because I will only vote for democratic candidates that are populist. I will not vote for democratic candidates who are centrists.
libodem
(19,288 posts)I've been accused of being a troll for not agreeing with the agenda, not being a feminist, and being a man.
Oddly it makes me feel like I need to prove myself to fit in where I probably never will, to ever be accepted for who I am.
polly7
(20,582 posts)on a message board who all seem to agree that equal rights for every human being on the planet is something to strive for. Do these people ever do anything in real life to help victims of DV, rape and assault? To me, some get a huge thrill out of the 'fight', and dividing like-minded people that requires painting them as porn pigs and rape apologists is the only way to achieve it. The divisiveness is what really makes me ill, and is why I stopped considering myself as anything but 'humanist' a long time ago when these wars first started.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)paying for womens health care, equal pay. that would be the point of the feminists and others who do not claim to be feminists to challenge those posts. as we do, others have issue with us.
libodem
(19,288 posts)I agree. Maybe I'm actually a humanist. Is there a humanist group?
polly7
(20,582 posts)and need for change in many different places ... women's rights, the feminism group is actually quite inclusive though I'm not there much, there are others that I don't subscribe to but I know they welcome most discussion ... GD, Good Reads - I would say 99.9% of posters here are eager to discussing all of this when the attempt to divide and dominate doesn't take over every thread.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)women's rights activists they are not just women's rights activists. They are human rights activists. They understand that to truly transform the world you must do it through mutual respect and cooperation, with men and women working together, not attacking one another.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)You can get in trouble just for asking people what they think. I guess that's the nature of partisan politics. Sometimes this place becomes a sort of mini French Revolution.
I don't think I've changed a single mind here, but then again I didn't expect to. But I've learned a lot, and that's actually more important to me.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)After reading this subthread, and another person referring to the women that disagree as dogs I realized it's futile to even attempt to post a disagreement. What's the point in any further participation in these threads?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=30309
polly7
(20,582 posts)rape-apologists/enablers - yes, that really feels inclusive, doesn't it? But for me, it's turned more to disgust watching those who label some of us this way assert their right as 'educators' aka google-masters to insult and demean, all the while claiming moral superiority. I don't believe this is real feminism at all ...... at least I hope not.
libodem
(19,288 posts)And call me Fefe. Maybe it is being the big sister to three little brothers, or being a daddy's girl, or raising three sons as a divorced mom, or hanging out with guys, or carrying boys and having their presence etch my brain a little with, testosterone, or maybe, when I took the Estrotest after my hysterectomy, or maybe I'm a latent homosexual, or a capable low maintenance type female, guys have always said I get it. I don't have a problem with them on an individual basis.
I like men. I also have a wonderful cadre of women friends.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)that it's not so much about women's issues as it is about a few people trying for narrative control. The idea that the recent rape threads, for example, had anything to do with actual discussion of the problem should have been put to rest once the idea that "women don't rape men" was posted.
I suspect some people are posting flamebait to troll for hideable posts, with the new 90-day block about to take effect. JMO, but I would think it's best just to avoid the threads altogether and let the participants flame themselves out.
It would be nice to see an actual discussion, full of people actually conversing, someday.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Rape is real, women's role in the work force as well. But the tone is a problem.
As to men's rights...I will not even go there.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)with the IP site and the gungeon, I admit I would not know about it.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Off of GD.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)see if Skinner will fix them up with a little sandbox off the main board
rrneck
(17,671 posts)the members that run it block anyone that might disagree with them.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Lol
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Shandris
(3,447 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)issues?, gay issues? what other progressive issues should we not be free to discuss on a democratic board?
Shandris
(3,447 posts)Look at the hyperbole in your post. By agreeing that we should have a discussion forum specifically for this topic, I am somehow 'excluding womens issues'? No, that's not what I said nor what I intended, nor is it the expected outcome. INSTEAD, it is merely a CHARACTER attack on me.
So, do I think 'discussions' that tend to often include no small amount of direct character attacks and the stuffing of words in other people's mouths should have their own forum?
Absolutely.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Off of GD.
these discussions should not be had on gd.
i was not attacking your character. i was replying to you asking you a question.
how better to have asked without what i consider hyperbole from you and personal attack.
i need/want/would like to know. as progressives, how we can suggest to not have womens issues in GD
i do not see it as hyperbole. i do not see it as an attack. i see a simple question.
Shandris
(3,447 posts)...as your post seemed to insinuate that I was calling for no discussion of women's issues on the entire 'board' (IE, all of DU). If you were meaning 'board' as the sub-boards of DU (GD, Pol2013, Lounge, etc) then I apologize for responding too hastily.
However, I would like to clarify one thing: I don't see 'Feminism/MRA' and 'womens issues' as the same thing. There are certain topics that are guaranteed Feminism/MRA gruel, and then there are issues that affect women. I concur that the F/MRA gruel should be discussed elsewhere. Without taking any side in which is right and which isn't and who is at fault and who isn't (with the exception of posts I've made earlier, like the one you brought to my attention in another thread where I specifically noted how terrible of a post it was that you had quoted), I'd like to -not- see that back and forth occupying the front of the main GD board. There isn't going to be a winner, nor is anyone going to convince anyone passionately on either side of the 'wrongness' of their beliefs. It isn't a discussion and only serves to present a fractured face to anyone who is casually perusing our board.
Now, women's issues, otoh, are entirely germane to the GD board imo and I wouldn't see those 'banished' anywhere, just as I wouldn't see trans issues, lgbt issues, civil rights, or anything else of interest to all liberals removed.
I hope that helps to clarify what I mean, and why.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)used the word board when i meant GD and for that confusion i am sorry
Shandris
(3,447 posts)...like typed text.
I realize that feminists believe that all of their issues are women's issues. Furthermore, I believe that they are doing what they think is best, with no equivocation whatsoever. Contrary to how some may have interpreted my posts in the past week or so, I'm not averse to feminism nor do I have any 'bones to pick' with them. I think overall feminism has done some wonderful things, and that we would all be worse off without it.
However, even the most noble feminist must admit that there are portions of feminism that are cross-purpose (typically between waves, but not always) and highly contested. This is the distinction that arises between base feminism and women's issues imo, and where I tend to draw my own line.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)that defining lining you speak of. and you are right. the feminists in our group actually see it as a womans issue. putting it up is not to create controversy. but awareness and discussion. 130 people recommended that OP. it was appreciated by many on du. i could not fathom how we can decide what is a relevant feminist issue and what is not.
Shandris
(3,447 posts)...on exactly where to lay the line every time, that's for sure.
I have to admit though, this conversation has made me rethink the topic several times and I think you've swayed me with the note about the number of recs. I'll be the first to admit I've only used the Rec feature maybe once, and if memory serves it was back on the old DU at that. Its not something I ever even notice, so I wasn't aware so many had rec'ced it. If that many people found it useful, I'd have to say - despite the fact that I still don't like how many hyperbolic posts there are in those threads - I do think it might be better in GD after all and would have to retract my 'concur'.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and i do not says this for retracting concur, but because it was a conversation, even with a misstep, .... you are da man. agree or not.
thank you
was a pleasure.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Imagine people reading this forum for the first time and seeing a real life gender war for the first time since probably third grade.
A shameful parade of grade school immaturity. It should be banished to a subforum where they can beat on one another without polluting GD.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Does it make you uncomfortable when feminists discuss misogyny in progressive circles?
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Minute differences in opinion. Large flame wars accomplishing nothing other than dividing DU members into two camps is not a good use of GD. It's why guns and religion have been excluded as topics other than exceptions.
Your good friend seabeyond is sitting in a time out partly because of these threads.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)language effect us. especially as the facts differ from that cute little saying. so, i speak out. no more. simply speak out. a persona can choose to ignore or not. but, i should have the right, and you should protect my right to speak out.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Why do you continually state things that never happened?
I asked was who was killed in the OP after reading your post.
You responded with insults and once again played victim ...... of something or other.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4236748
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)I just can't see the huge benefit of allowing those kinds of threads on GD.
Oh well. I am sure it won't keep gender wars off of GD, but I expressedu opinion about it
Also, if you're being alert stalked I am sorry to hear that. There ate some pretty vicious people on this site who are trolls and moles specifically sowing discord
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)but so does everyone else. Opinions that differ from yours and the HOF group are still allowed.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Skinner overturned it when it became clear the hides were bullshit.
Violet_Crumble
(35,980 posts)Skinner did not do anything because he thought the hides were bullshit. Sea beyond got two hidden posts in a 24hr period and the software automatically flags an account for review until the admins can take a look at it. As with other long term DUers it's happened to the admins reinstate their posting privileges not because they think the hides are bullshit, but because they decide those DUers don't require nuking.
As for the incessant claims by a few of alert stalking, unless ur privy to who alerts on who, and who's on juries, you don't know. From my perspective it's starting to come across as attempts to bully people into not alerting and not voting to hide on one poster regardless of what they've posted.
kcr
(15,321 posts)And no one is stopping people from alerting regardless.
Violet_Crumble
(35,980 posts)Besides, the claim I've seen trotted out a lot is that there's alert stalking going on. Even though people don't know who alerts on what, how often they alert, or who's on a jury, that claim gets made like it's a fact.
kcr
(15,321 posts)I've seen plenty of hides that were absolutely ridiculous. I don't know if there are individual posters actively doing nothing but following Sea around. But I absolutely do think that people alert on her posts simply because it is Sea and they don't like her. I think can form that opinion without knowing exactly who's doing the alerting. "that claim gets made like it's a fact." I think that is your opinion. People feel this way for a reason. Because of the ridiculous hides. She's a very prolific poster who participates in a very contentious subject.
Violet_Crumble
(35,980 posts)Don't get me wrong. I like Seabeyond. Where I think things come acropper for her is that as you said she's a prolific poster who posts almost exclusively on a contentious topic, so there's a massive amount of posts from her each day. That combined with (and this is my opinion and I'm not saying it to be nasty) a communication style where I've sometimes had to read a post a few times to understand what's being said and an in-yr-face style is how I think it happens. For example, she told me that one of the hidden posts wasn't actually her telling another DUer 'fuck you', but her taking 'screw you' and saying it was the same as 'fuck you'. If I'd been on the jury, I wouldn't have known that because that's not what she was saying in the post. I suspect she does what I'm prone to at times, which is think something, but get in a rush when typing it and it doesn't come out clearly. So while I can see what she says after the fact, at the time I would have voted to hide the post and understand why jurors saw it the same way
kcr
(15,321 posts)Though I think a significant reason is the topic of discussion. I'm seeing more people state they think it's a discussion that should be moved underground, and I'm wondering if the alerts are part of that. Feminists get a nasty rap on this board. I recently got a heads up of an alert on one of my own post. The topic? Feminism. It wasn't hidden because there was no reason for it to be. I know what you mean, I do the rushing thing too, and I type very fast on top of it. But I'm still careful to stay as civil as I can. I've yet to have a hidden post, but I'm beginning to think it's only a matter of time if I keep up on the topic. This is DU. It shouldn't be that way.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 29, 2013, 02:03 AM - Edit history (1)
Those are also issues that are relevant to progressives. Maybe its because they end up being divisive. I'm not exactly sure to be honest.
Violet_Crumble
(35,980 posts)I don't know about guns, but I do know that with I/P, even though it's an important issue as well that should be discussed, it was originally kicked out of GD because GD was being overwhelmed with endless threads involving endless battles to the death between different factions of partisans. Even if there wasn't some big news on the issue, they still turned up and did the scorched earth thing in GD, and in the process most other topics simply got lost amongst all the I/P threads. So while discussion of the issue is allowed in GD when there's big news, most times the partisans have to go to the I/P forum to battle it out and in doing so not annoy other DUers who probably get sick to the back teeth of seeing DUers accusing each other of being terrorists, Likudniks, anti-Semites, Islamophobes, etc.
Sound familiar?
boston bean
(36,224 posts)I don't know where this is coming from, so I don't exactly understand your position. I see you really don't care for one member of HoF and have made that abundantly clear, but is that clouding your judgment? Is that the reason?
Women vote more democratic than men. Why in the world would their issues be too divisive for GD? If feminist issues were not allowed to be posted in GD, you might as well give feminists the big finger. Bottom line is feminist issues are progressive and democratic issues. We are a huge part of the party. The fact that people are considering that feminist issues ought to be kept in the backroom somewhere, is truly beyond the pale. How in the world is that even a consideration? Do you not see what that implies?
If it were to happen it would just undermine women and their issues on DU. Making it seem like there really is some sort of valid other side against feminism that should have equal footing here.
As for guns, I think they all anti gun and pro gun control should be allowed in GD. Pro gun shit should not be allowed. Why, because most democrats believe in gun control and that there is a problem with guns in this country. So I would give more latitude to them. But that is just my lonely opinion and obviously one which I have no control over here on DU.
As for IP, I can see both sides of the issue. There truly is a rift in the party over that issue. I don't really have an opinion on whether is should be allowed or not.
Why should feminism be considered to be annoying to DU members?
And if you are going to say it's about a certain few, or how they say it, or whatever else I have heard over and over again, please spare me. Because truly that has NOTHING to do with the issues feminists are bringing up. If people can't bring themselves to see beyond a particular poster they don't like and focus in on a poster versus the issue, well... that says more about the discord on DU than feminists speaking of feminist issues in GD.
Violet_Crumble
(35,980 posts)I was about to do it, got distracted by something that happened in the I/P group, and totally forgot to return.
On rereading my post I saw that it could easily be seen as arguing that gender issues should be treated the same way as I.P or guns. I'm strongly opposed to the restriction on those issues in GD, and feel the same way about gender issues. It sucks to see a ban on discussing important issues while seeing the constant appearance of things along the line of 'Straight from YouTube! Cute kitty drinks from a bowl of milk while reciting the collected works of Shakespeare!'
What I was pointing out was that with all these current battles going on, I can see similarities to the battles that led to I/P being kicked out of GD. It's not feminism that'd annoying to DUers, because anyone who finds feminism annoying or a failure shouldn't be participating here, imo. I'm only speaking for myself on what I find annoying, and it's the people yelling past each other and the accusations being flung from all corners. There's little discussion of the actual issue because it all becomes a massive flame-fest.
Of courses there's misogyny at DU, the same as there's homophobia, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and racism. But the majority of DUers are opposed to bigotry, and I've found over the years that discussing issues by kicking it off by implying that many DUers engage in one of those forms of bigotry not only makes people angry, but turns them off what would have been a good message without the outright accusation or implication.
Btw, there's more than one person in that group I've got little time for, but I suspect yr thinking of one I do like
kcr
(15,321 posts)They don't ban the trolls. They move it underground instead.
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)If a man goes hungry: give him some food
If a man is lonely: Tough Shit
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Wee Grasshopper
redqueen
(115,103 posts)What does the issue of people (men or women) being lonely have to do with this discussion?
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Just say a lonely guy sees a woman he's attracted to, what should he do?
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Also, the cure for loneliness isn't sex with sexy women. Talking to people cures loneliness, just fine.
As for "telegraphing" your sexual ... whatever ... I'll let this guy explain it.
Look, if the girl is so attractive that you just have to snag this opportunity at this very moment, then so be it. But acknowledge you’re being selfish. You’re saying “She’s so pretty, I have to go bother her at this very instant on the off-hand chance that she’s into me.” And maybe she likes your looks and you’ll click. Synchronicity happens. But think carefully, chum. The odds are good that she’s not going to respond well. And if you keep bugging women just because they happen to be within eyesight, then you send the none-too-subtle message that “A woman showing up in public means that she’s fair game.” Which means she’s not a person, but an antelope in a game preserve.
There are those who think you should never ever approach a stranger in public; I’m not one of them. But if you take the attitude of, “Hey, anything could happen, might as well take my shot,” then you are being a dick to women. What you should do is size up the situation: is this a space conducive to strangers talking to each other? Does she look involved in something else? Does her body language say she’s receptive? Would this friendly approach look threatening if she had no clue as to your intent? (Because despite your peppy smile, she does not.) If all of those clues don’t add up, then fucking walk away. Give her the privilege of being a person, and not some slot machine for you to take your shot at.
And even if you’re really nice about it, recognize that hundreds of men have done this before, and this may not go over well. If she rejects you coldly, she is not a bitch. That’s on you, chum. You took a shot, knowing full well you might irritate her, and lo you got exactly what you deserved. Don’t tell yourself the story that “I was just trying to buy her a present!” because you were not. You were bothering a woman in a clear attempt to get something from her.
As I said, I don’t think you should never approach a stranger in public. But I think you should carefully consider it, because some people do think you should never approach a stranger in public, and the rest usually don’t like to be bothered. So the hitting on people should be a rarity, that time when all the planets align.
...
http://www.theferrett.com/ferrettworks/2012/10/but-if-i-cant-buy-you-a-coffee-how-will-our-species-reproduce-how-to-hit-on-women/
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)When the planets align???? Are we supposed to carry a sextant with us, or is it some kind of cosmic ray that opens up from heaven throwing down a shaft of light over our true beloved?
Well, at any rate, thank goodness that for most of us the planets align on a daily basis
And staring is not always rude, lovers stare deeply into each others eyes everyday.
Suffice to say, if a woman is returning you gaze it is OK to look, if you smile at her and she smiles back, it is OK to say hello... agreed?
redqueen
(115,103 posts)From the excerpt above:
I don't know why you're asking me to reiterate, but there you go.
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)How long would you deem it acceptable if a man was sizing YOU up for sex IN PUBLIC?
You have GOT to be kidding about this.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i do not know how it went. once i realized he was serious and it was not satire of a joke, i ran hard and fast and never went back into the thread
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)to a few dates, so i would not say that's set in stone.
Here is my go to method I tell my guy friends, how do you feel about this?
Look at the woman - in her eyes. If she returns your gaze, smile, if she smiles back, go say hello. If she's dressed to kill, it is OK to check her out a little bit, just don't overdo it.
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)If a man is lonely: It's OK to USE someone as a THING to make you feel better?
Call your parents if you're lonely.
Or make a friend.
Jeez!
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i have bronchitis and pain... you making me laugh is causing me pain, lol
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Threads complaining about threads are more annoying. Everyone doesn't have to agree. Like the pit bull debate, it's just a debate. When some topic gets hot on DU, it is because posters are interested. There's always someone trying to suppress it.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)A lot of "Tit for Tat" and others meant to illicit contempt
redqueen
(115,103 posts)It's very easy to ignore threads.
If one is simply not passionate about an issue, either don't participate, or if the thread title upsets you so much, hide the thread altogether.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, they should be discussed. That's what political parties, elections, and political discussion boards are for.
Are we only to "discuss" how wonderful the party and its policies are?
klook
(12,174 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 29, 2013, 04:24 AM - Edit history (1)
And god knows how it'll end
The fightin' continues
Women versus men
rrneck
(17,671 posts)
retread
(3,765 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Yes, the issues are important, but both groups go about it in an accusatory way.
Edit: I didn't vote "yes" in your poll because I don't believe those threads a distraction from the 2014 midterm elections. I just think the threads are started to divide the site.
A Little Weird
(1,754 posts)I am concerned about many of the feminist topics brought up and I don't really have an academic background in the subject, so I have learned a lot because of the discussions here on DU. I absolutely believe feminist issues should be of interest to the democratic party.
My DU wish would be that we would all just try to be more civil to each other. I suspect few of the people posting on this board would talk to someone face-to-face in the same manner they do here. I think we can be better people.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I think gender issues are a valid and important topic of discussion, regardless of how much impact they may or may not have on the 2014 election.
Squinch
(51,075 posts)as the GOP tries to get us all back to being barefoot and pregnant.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)other than what the owners/moderators have already done: tolerating the BOG, censoring pet conspiracy discussions, etc.
boston bean
(36,224 posts)A progressive board that gives equal footing to MRA's, and disses the fuck out of feminism.
Why are feminists recoiling in horror, you want to know? read the thread.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)recently---you can look at my profile and see that. A lot going on in my personal life.
But when did this happen:
BainsBane
(53,112 posts)to very old white men. Anything else is inconsequential. Oh wait, that's the GOP.
GeorgeGist
(25,326 posts)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I think it has/should have little to nothing to do with 2014.
What I see is women pushing back on a patriarchical structure. The only way I see this as a wedge thing is for those men that feel threatened by women calling men on our bullsh!t. It should be no more divisive than when Black folks raise the issue of racism ... neither of which will improve under the modern gop.
For the people thinking this is/will be a wedge issue, ask yourself: "Why would someone challenging, even pissing my off on sexism or racism cause me to take sides against them/stay home in an election where so much is at stake?"
I would suggest, if either of these topics (racism/sexism) would cause you to stay home, then your issue is deeper than you know.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)Last edited Sat Dec 28, 2013, 06:39 PM - Edit history (1)
Confusion on the part of liberal men who mistakenly think all men are targets of all feminists. And the confusion of some junior feminist women, excited with the new found weapon of feminist ideology, targeting all men as oppressors and occasionally focus their attacks on the more vulnerable, Beta males, to grab an easy victory.
The mistake of these junior feminists is to mix the "Beta" males, who are probably often liberal men who've also been victimized by "Alpha" males through a corrupt masculine ethos and who would otherwise be on the side of feminist women. The mistake of these men is to equate the misguided judgement and sloppy aim of exuberant junior feminists with actual feminism.
Neither one of the two actors described in this conflict is correct.
Not all feminist women are blaming all men. Only the ones bad at feminism. And there will, in fact be some who mistakenly think all men are the enemy or need to be "taught."
Not all men (or, for that matter, liberal men) are anti-feminist misogynists. Only the bad ones who overreact to the pronouncements of amateur feminists or equate attacks on corrupt misogynists as attacks on all men. Not so. As long, as you know you are not a misogynist and are not being personally called out, feel free not to include yourself in that category.
But to get back to so-called "feminists' that target all men. This is a complex issue that need further clarification.
The men who get offended by these "feminists" should understand that these women are "feminists" in name only. They are actually "feminists" who, in their effort to compete with men - and I don't discount there are some like this - have gone beyond true feminism straight into the realm of the corrupted masculine ethos. In other words, they have left feminism behind and adopted the competitive, cutthroat ethos historically associated with the masculine culture. What you are objecting to in these seemingly rabid "feminists" is not actual feminism but the corrupted, dog-eat-dog masculine ethos of the "Alpha male" oppressor.
I imagine many junior feminists equate equality with men as competing and defeating men at their own game. This is a junior mistake. Adopting the game of your oppressor is not a victory for feminism. Making the members of the oppressive group adapt to your culture is.
The mistake all are making here is that your gender does not necessarily equal your culture. A male can adopt feminist culture just as easily, and even more intently, as a female can adopt a corrupted masculine culture. And vice versa. You can't assume someone is a misogynist or feminist based on their gender. You have to look at their behavior.
We all need to be better at distinguishing who is what without relying on gender.
Men need to stop equating feminism with male bashing.
And junior feminists need to stop using all men, some as much victims of corrupted masculine culture as they are, as stepping stones to "victory" over all men. You are not helping your cause by conquering those that should be recognized as your allies. You are reinforcing the cause of your oppressor.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)beta or otherwise.
i have a very hard time finishing your post which might be very good when there is a suggest any feminists has lumped ALL men into anything.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)It was to concede to each side such examples were possible, for argument's sake (as I'm sure examples can be found in the population), and then proceed to identify possible misconceptions on both sides driving the activity and the ensuing debate.
My thinking was, if you want your opponent to be receptive to your side, you first must concede ground. Acknowledging that such "feminists" can exist (while not explicitly singling out anyone at DU) is a way of getting the opponent to open up to your own complaints, which are equally as valid. Nor was it beyond reason to concede such a possibility. If you just continue to argue such "feminists" can't exist, when clearly they can 9though in name only), regardless of whether they are at DU or not, you will never get to address the issue of broad brushing all feminism as male bashing.
Moreover, I concluded repeatedly that such "feminists" weren't actual representatives of Feminism.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)so, to suggest i own something that is not true to get a dialogue going, for me is a fail. i cannot do it. i get the diplomacy of it. i cannot agree with it though. but, thank you for your explanation.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)You wouldn't own it anymore than you would own all of Feminism. Unless, you're personally guilty of it which, for the quality of your posts, I doubt very much.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and readily call them out. i wouldnt allow that nontruth to stand without challenging, as i have tons of boys and men in my life that are not part of any ALL men.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)all of framing and debate into the male sphere.
Small example: when women dress in a business suit instead of a sun dress or something feminine to attend a business meeting, they are saying, in my view, that the men have won and I will compete under the terms the males have set.
Big example: Margaret Thatcher and pro-war power seekers.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)The problem is competition vs. cooperation. Cooperation enhances the survival of the species. Competition detracts from our survival. Feminine culture preserves the group. While a currently corrupt modern masculine culture undermines the group. A solitary animal is more competitive than a social species and a social species is more cooperative than a solitary species.
It's not gender specific, though. It could easily change. Competition or cooperation can be adopted be anyone of any gender. The culture of one group can easily morph into the culture of another group over time.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Patriarchy refers to the reason why competition is more associated with men, and cooperation with women.
As you said, these traits aren't exclusive to one sex or another, but due to the rigid gender rules enforced under patriarchy, many are convinced the opposite is true. Obviously, of course, since most women enthusiastically participate in the patriarchy, reinforce its rules, and ensure their children grow up with those same values.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)That the emphasis on competition is the cause of patriarchy? If the male of our species didn't, on average, have a physical advantage (and there are many traits more important than physical strength), patriarchy would have never initially evolved culturally. If males of our pre-human ancestors were on equal physical footing as the females, they would have had to negotiate and cooperate instead of compete to get their way rather than leaning on their physical strength.
You can't develop a patriarchy if you have to acknowledge the other gender's wants and needs because you can't compete with them physically. Certainly that is why female culture is traditionally more cooperative internally and why the early, primitive patriarchies of our ancestors fell to coalitions of females and beta males against single alpha males. The alpha males couldn't compete with large coalitions allied against them and were forced to cooperate.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)There have been societies which, while not matriarchal, were less patriarchal. Scientific consensus is that as most human behavior, it is a combination of both nature and nurture.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)wrong with that. Not all women who work in offices wear business suits. That's okay too. Some women are naturally assertive. There is nothing wrong with that. Some women are not as assertive. There is nothing wrong with that either. When I look at Hillary or Elizabeth Warren, I see two incredibly strong and assertive women. I admire both of them for their strength. I agree more with Elizabeth Warren on political issues. I would vote Warren. I would not vote for Hillary. But I admire both of them for their strength and assertiveness.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Associating certain activities, styles, and behaviors with the female sex, and others with the male sex, is illogical and harmful. It is the reason why many parents stifle their children, should they want to engage in activities that are defined as 'for' the other sex.
Forcing children into these rigid gender roles is hindering our progress as a species. Not to mention, the rigid rules which define "masculinity" are literally hurting men, by teaching innocent boys that they are not allowed to have emotions, to be vulnerable, etc.
We really need to end this madness.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)kcr
(15,321 posts)It's ridiculous.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)this would be what we speak out against, on du, every. single. time. i see it.
eeeew
dont be defnining me as a woman. thank you
kcr
(15,321 posts)I'm really LMFO at those declaring it nothing but a bunch of feminists being so mean to well meaning democrats. We just want to call them names. Do they not see these posts?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)kcr
(15,321 posts)They just don't see the problem with them. That's why it all looks so neutral. They're humanists!
polly7
(20,582 posts)and what exactly is wrong with being a humanist?
kcr
(15,321 posts)The ones who claim the feminists on DU are attacking good dems. I thought that was pretty clear.
What's wrong with being a humanist? They tend to be pretty dismissive. They also tend to say things like "I don't see color, I only see human beings." It just seems like the same sort of thing to me. It seems like a stick your head in the sand kind of attitude. There's no problem, nothing to see, move along. Yeah, we're all human beings. That's nice. But it just isn't all that progressive to pretend that everything is equal when it isn't is all. People who say that tend to be very dismissive of others when they talk about issues of inequality.
I've never said, or thought "I don't see color, I only see human beings." in my life and I doubt anyone here who claims to want equality for all human beings has thought so either. Talk about dismissive, lmfao.
No-one is pretending everything is equal - another bit of bullshit to make yourself feel superior.
And yes, some feminists (though I don't call what they do here as promoting feminism as much as hatred and blame) DO attack good dems, day after day after fucking day. Talk about having your head in the sand.
kcr
(15,321 posts)You asked me what a humanist was. I gave you my definition.
polly7
(20,582 posts)You're going on and on about 'them'. Can't name or provide links ......... I guess it didn't happen.
kcr
(15,321 posts)And I told you what I thought was wrong with it. My apologies. But my point stands. I did not claim you said those things.
polly7
(20,582 posts)pretty much made up all in your head.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)you should not be addressed so aggressively and angrily when you are simply trying ot answer the questions put to you. it is a norm. and i hate to see anyone treated that way.
polly7
(20,582 posts)You have nothing to do with any of this ....... not even stealing personal info to pass around in pm's? Or using sexist, demeaning terms for me and another woman and continuing on after being asked to stop, even going so far to call a woman a hypocrite to object to you doing so?
kcr
(15,321 posts)Some were mentioning things they found amusing. I think it's amusing that often the people who complain about the nastiness and fighting are the ones flinging themselves into it the most enthusiastically.
polly7
(20,582 posts)kcr
(15,321 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)Sucks to always have to make things up, I would imagine.
kcr
(15,321 posts)When they aren't. That might work.
polly7
(20,582 posts)kcr
(15,321 posts)and you point out that maybe something wasn't said when it was, or some such thing, like what happened both ways, you could point it out? Like I did in the very beginning when you did it to me? In stead of OMG YOU'RE MAKING THINGS UP! Because honestly that comes across as disingenuous. Because the maybe one person who's following this dicsussion who isn't rolling their eyes and thinking "gender war", or who isn't on your side and thinking "OMG, kcr, feminisssst, polly is so RIIIIGHT!!" She SO DIDN'T CALL HER UGLYYY!@!!! is thinking it's ridiculous.
polly7
(20,582 posts)If you didn't want me to take offense at being told I said things I didn't ......... repeatedly, you just shouldn't have done it. That has nothing to do with gender anything. It's just being honest and I have every right to point out I never did what you accused me of. Not sure what your problem is with that.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)the subthread, over and over and over again?
wow.
really polly7 you do need to calm down.
polly7
(20,582 posts)LMAO
really seabeyond, you need to read better. I'm more than calm, thank you and actually having a good laugh. It's so strange to see you, who's 'reamed' me with your sexist tripe, and misanthrope as well, and that person you drove to being physically ill with your nonstop bullying before stealing her private info to pm around while hiding and letting everyone guess who would do something so disgusting reprimanding anyone for pointing out lies.
Hilarious!!!
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)immediately do you. i continually tell you, and you continually forget
polly7
(20,582 posts)I'd run from that disgusting behaviour as fast as I could too - except that I'd never have done it in the first place.
Bye bye.
Edited to add: I don't pay much attention to what you 'tell me'.
kcr
(15,321 posts)And I certainly didn't take offense to it. I merely point it it out. You're the one who accused me of making stuff up. Multiple times.
polly7
(20,582 posts)You said I asked what a humanist was. I didn't.
You said I called you ugly. I didn't.
You absolutely made stuff up.
Carry on.
kcr
(15,321 posts)Things were claimed to have been said exactly not word for word the way they were actually said. I'm truly sorry for that. Making things up was not my intention, I assure you. As I'm sure you didn't intend to make things up when you said I ascribed things to you you didn't say, when I didn't.
polly7
(20,582 posts)LMAO!
The quote you claim I ascribed to you was in my explanation of why I had a problem with humanists. I did not say you said it.
polly7
(20,582 posts)I did not.
You said I called you ugly.
I did not.
Sooooooooooooo ............ you ascribed both those things to me and now you're trying to muddy the waters to excuse you from it - all the while blaming it on me!
I see how you work. 
kcr
(15,321 posts)Those things out of context? You know, I know you didn't call me ugly. I never meant to say you called *me* ugly. I always meant the points I was talking about. I type very fast, and was focusing on the idea. Sometimes it comes out very fast. Yes, you did not literally call me ugly. I've admitted that several posts ago! You know, I even tried ignoring the "I didn't say!" stuff long after it really was getting ridiculous and tried just continuing the conversation. Tried dialing it back down to a civil tone, right around about that time. Oh, well...
polly7
(20,582 posts)I don't appreciate being lied about.
kcr
(15,321 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)apologize too for any discomfort I've caused you.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Gah! Can't you see how hostile and offensive you're being?
polly7
(20,582 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i have a challenge going to that. as much as others think i am a hard ass. i am really the complete opposite and find looking in that direction a challenge. it is all kinda foreign to me.
kcr
(15,321 posts)You might get strident at times, especially when talking about something you believe in, but you are never nasty. I don't think you're a hardass at all. I see many DUers who are downright nasty to others who are very popular.
polly7
(20,582 posts)from a safe group to pass around in pms with the sole purpose of painting someone as incompetent and making that person physically ill, - disgustingly nasty. And insisting on the right to use sexist terms for myself and another women, even calling her a hypocrite for objecting to it - nasty. Etc., etc., etc. I guess you see what you want to see. Other women don't matter.
kcr
(15,321 posts)and sold it on the street. I certainly haven't, I say. Etc and all that.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Par for the course when 'advancing feminism' consists for some of dominating, demeaning and authoritarian, disgusting abusive treatment.
kcr
(15,321 posts)I just thought if we were going to throw out wild accusations, well, why not?
polly7
(20,582 posts)Unfortunately.
But keep on yukking it up.
Given how you just interacted with me and how thinks were so bizarrely twisted? And the fact that if what you claim is true I would think Sea would have been banned? Color me skeptical.
Many of us thought so at the time .......... some people here though just seem immune from what would have happened to anyone else. No worries, there are plenty of us who remember that horrible time.
What was bizarrely twisted in my comments to you just now besides your claim I asked you what a humanist was - obviously that didn't happen. What else?
kcr
(15,321 posts)Yeah, you didn't ask what a humanist was, you asked a slightly different question, the whole point being I didn't claim you said what you claim I did. Twisty twisty gotcha twisty. Again, forgive me for being skeptical.
kcr
(15,321 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)I'm just always amazed and amused at how, when presented with FACTS, and defending oneself against your nasty 'humanists' are just blah, blah crap it's turned completely around to me twisting anything.
Better get a mirror out.
kcr
(15,321 posts)I was being nothing but civil. I'm not the one that attacked another DUer in a very nasty manner, leveling very serious accusations like you did with Sea. Your claim that you had to defend yourself is pretty weak. I had never claimed you said the things you claim I did. Right off the bat, accusations leveled at me that weren't true. I was the one that, from the beginning, had to defend myself against you. This is a classic example of what I've been talking about. Who's the nasty one? I can see exactly why you have problems with other DUers.
Are you reading those posts backwards or something?
Your disparaging, ugly comments about being a humanist are still there. It's hard to change history when they don't magically disappear. I defended myself and everyone else here who sees all human beings as equally deserving of equal rights, compassion, protection and dignity.
But suddenly it's all been one nasty attack on poor you.
Par for the course. And guess what ....... many of us are used to this sort of thing. It gets old and tiring.
I see you edited. Better ask 'Sea' about those 'nasty accusations', every one of them true.
And I only have problems with DU'ers who insist on the rights to twist the words and motives of others, insult them, bully them and then run away from it all to play victim.
kcr
(15,321 posts)I certainly have not disparaged people who see all human beings as equally deserving of equal rights. I just don't see comments like "I'm not a feminist (or whatever discussion of equality is taking place), I'm a humanist" as promoting that equality. The person making that comment may not realize it comes across that way. But it does. Because not all human beings are treated equally. Distancing yourself from whatever movement being talked about is sending the message you're dismissing that movement, whether you intend that or not. Lashing out at me and calling me ugly doesn't change the fact many people see it that way.
polly7
(20,582 posts)But you're just 'you'. Who called you ugly? I said you made ugly allegations.
kcr
(15,321 posts)I'm hardly the only one that thinks this. Why is it that some feel the need to say the phrase "I'm not a feminist"? It's the same reason feminists on this board are treated the way they are. And it has nothing to do with the way feminists behave. It's closely related to the way liberals are treated. You'll very often hear people say I'm not a liberal even when they believe in very progressive things. It's the same thing.
polly7
(20,582 posts)I say I'm not a feminist because I see how many who claim they are denigrate half the population to the point it's almost a joke believing there's any room for honest discussion between the two, and I long ago decided that fighting for the rights of ALL, whether you believe everyone deserves it or not, suits me better. I HATE the divisiveness I see here, and it is purposeful.
Here, maybe you can crap all over this great post by a beautiful person:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4233822
kcr
(15,321 posts)Do you believe this because you were on the side who thought that, in the latest "gender war", it was being claimed that men couldn't look at women? Just wondering, because I just don't see how you think many here denigrate half the population.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Have you READ the posts in HOF and elsewhere denigrating men, and women like me, day after day?
I just told you WHY I believe what I do. Don't presume anything else about it and make shit up. Cause it hasn't worked well for you so far ........ at all.
kcr
(15,321 posts) polly7
(20,582 posts)same people you yourself make up lies about what they've said. See above. Obvious agenda is obvious.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts) maddezmom
(135,060 posts)Smh
polly7
(20,582 posts)And then we're preached at about integrity. How hilarious is that.
Shaking my head at all the handwringing about the awful feminists. It's like they're deliberately ignoring the posts like this, or worse, they agree with it. This is supposed to be a progressive site!
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)PassingFair
(22,434 posts)I can't handle this.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)funny, huh.
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Squinch
(51,075 posts)"when women dress in a business suit instead of a sun dress or something feminine to attend a business meeting, they are saying, in my view, that the men have won and I will compete under the terms the males have set."
You really aren't being serious, are you? You're not really requiring that feminists dress in a certain way that seems feminine to you? Really?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)when coming to this post.
no, i think he really said it.
ah hahahah
Squinch
(51,075 posts)
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Squinch
(51,075 posts)It's like me saying that you should be wearing some fetching swim trunks or a muscle T to your business meetings. Because then you would be taken a lot more seriously.
You get that, right?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)let's see who gets more dates!
Squinch
(51,075 posts)You're really sticking with this?
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Maybe because the last time your beliefs on feminism and masculinity were vogue with the progressive left, slavery was still legal.
Squinch
(51,075 posts)Lol back at ya.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)I'll be honest with you, I can't believe you actually take your argument seriously. It is laughably outdated and totally nonsensical.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)I told her I had been sick and she brought me over some packets of ginger tea and some fisherman's friends.
I said, "OMG, you are so sweet, can I get your phone number?"
She said yes, we chatted, and I think this will be a quality date.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)a woman's approach anxiety is about 1,000 times stronger than a man's.
If they do anything to flirt with you, looks, smiling, bumping into you, twirling their hair, asking about anything, they want you to engage them.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)If she kicked you in the groin would you still be of the same belief? Methinks not.
Certain personality types attract certain types of people. The overbearing person who never takes no for an answer will attract a person who never says no.
To many men confuse sexual harassment with social or emotional bravery and solitude with "frigidness." Not everyone is alive to serve you.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)your - 'groin' - then that's another thing entirely....... isn't it?
Flirtations are a sign of interest. But also a woman saying "I don't know if I can date a guy with a beard.." - while she pulls your beard - can be a sign of interest too, correct?
I do agree that some men confuse sexual harassment with social or emotional bravery and solitude with "frigidness."
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)But rings hollow. As if you just realized how ridiculous it is to suggest that women shouldn't wear suits to business meetings and now you're trying to dig yourself out of the mine shaft you're at the bottom of.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)is as ridiculous as men feeling compelled to wear evening gowns to business meetings. It means you've adopted the male framing from the start, but whatever..... Trumad should stay.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)That context is that you believe men should be masculine and women should be feminine. You believe it's biological. You like to gloat about how much of a player you are.
Within that context, your argument here is utterly ridiculous. We aren't deconstructing the nature of business meetings here. We are responding to your rather absurd assertion that women should only wearing sun dresses to meetings because that will make men feel better or that it is the role of women to be feminine. That's not a commentary on potential clothing gender bending; you aren't a radical. It's you being a blatant sexist.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 31, 2013, 02:18 AM - Edit history (1)
Women should wear what they want, but they've been cowed into playing the boys game by the boys rules, just in my view, mind you.
PS - I still love my mineshaft.
PPS - Happy New Year! Best to you and yours in 2014
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)OMFG I just spit coffee all over my computer.
OMG I am dyin' over here.
That is just precious.
Women need to wear... "sundresses".
Whoo boy howdy.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)wear sundresses in business meetings as well.
And yes, I'm quite serious about that. Time to dump the faux "power clothes" and let people stand on their own ideas, not the cut of their lapels. It's rather obvious that one gender is expected to run around half naked, with no sleeves, teetering on shoes that prevent them from getting up any speed should they need to move quickly, and the other one gets to stay warm with several layers, feet planted firmly on the ground.
That sort of clothing inequality needs to just end, now.
People should be free to dress as they'd like, so long as they aren't leaving marks on the furniture! What's good for the half naked goose is good for the half naked gander!
boston bean
(36,224 posts)Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)conceded some ground to each group in order to resolve the dispute. But in your charge of false equivalency are you going to grant that one side is correct in their claim and the other not? Then where does that leave us?
Are you saying, as one party is claiming that:
1. All feminist arguments are aimed at dividing and conquering DU?
Or, as the other party counter claims:
2.) Zero feminist arguments can be characterized in such a way?]
It seems this "I want it all" attitude from both sides is what is driving this war.
kcr
(15,321 posts)Our media downplayed their actions by portraying their traitorous actions as a standoff by two parties who were equally responsible, using a false equivalency argument. What good did that do?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)that was a fail.
kcr
(15,321 posts)I mean, right in this thread, blatant sexism, being ignored by those who are making that argument, while others are all the feminists hate the men! Just like the media ignoring the Republican's shenanigans.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)is equating the media's portrayal of the republican-democratic conflict as equivalent to what is going on at DU?
I'm not calling either party here as traitorous. Are you? I'm saying both are overreacting because clearly 1.) not all feminists here are accusing DU men of being rapists and 2.) not all DU men are accusing all DU women of being male bashers.
Now if trying to find the rational middle between those two extremes is creating a false equivalency, what is the nature of depicting one of the two sides as one of the extreme choices above?
kcr
(15,321 posts)Analogies don't have to be exact to work. I'm not calling anyone on DU a traitor.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)are accusing all du women as male bashing.
so you see the offensive with you suggestion? surely, we can point out that NO feminist has accused any du man of being a rapist. and not get in trouble for that or considered agitators.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)whether DU members were guilty of any of the questionable accusations. I was postulating a worst case scenario beyond DU as a way of bringing both parties to a mutual appreciation for the perspective of the other. True, maybe one perspective may have been in error but that doesn't change the feeling of injustice or that such injustices could happen. And the fact that such injustices could be happening I think should be enough for a party to address it sensitively, without getting defensive, in good faith.
The alternative is to believe one side is outright maliciously making up their concern. Is that what you'd have DU believe?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)ask what i mean, i will clarify. words matter. i am specific what i choose. when accused of soemthing that did not happen, i will call it out.
i am not sure what you are expecting of people on du. no.... i am not going to be defined in an untrue manner.
i will have to re read your posts in the morning, to see if i can get it. i do not think i am getting it now. now it feels highly offensive. not personally to you... i know i am missing something.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)And perhaps I'm a bit sleepy now too and haven't been clear.
Highly offensive wasn't what I was going for.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)thanks shank
redqueen
(115,103 posts)one man came out and said that he may have/probably raped someone. That the woman was passed out drunk at a party, and that he thought it was expected that men would be raping her, or some shit.
There was another similar one too, but I don't quite remember it.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)then whiskey came up with an OP at the same time getting very close to saying the same.
libodem
(19,288 posts)That makes so much sense to me. That's what I would have said if I were nearly as articulate. Bravo.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)I hardly do anything but think about this stuff. I don't think I am that articulate, though. Most of my thought appear like a chaotic mishmash to me. But Thanks.
libodem
(19,288 posts)I spend time off DU trying to articulate messages to other posters in my head. I also have had much difficulty trying to figure out what it is that does not feel right to me. It's that uncomfortable, unexplainable intuition I have felt around molesters. They seem to really like kids but there is a secret agenda, for wanting to spend a lot of extra time around them. You just know something is wrong. It feels false, unsafe Same way with abusers, sometimes the child sides with the mean and scary person to feel safer. (just analogies for an example not an actual comparison)
I couldn't put it into words. I hate that nebulous whirlwind floating conversations around in my head. It has probably distracted me from worthwhile contemplations.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)When I feel I have something to say too big to organize I just go with the one thought or two and leave it that...No need to pressure myself with a full treatise.
libodem
(19,288 posts)I often over think things when I can't make sense of what I'm experiencing. I want to put my world in order. Compartments for everything.
And yes, I have met those kind of people.
sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)section and not in General Discussion?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)discussed on GD?
doesnt sound very progressive.
sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)Like it has been for a few weeks now.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)It obviously needs to be discussed. It happens with Duck Dynasty, 2016, the NSA, Hiroshima/Nagasaki, etc.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)but honestly many have been titled by design to draw flame wars
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)but some things you just know going in aren't going to end well so you might as well just stay out
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)there were over a 130 recommended to the Op and many voices, should not be posted cause others will be bothered.
that is what trips me up
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)now you have me curious
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)The news we keep getting out of India together with some documentary reports I've seen on TV, - the way they treat women over there is very disturbing.
But is the PSA appropriate for a country where they rape women almost at will, truck drivers bring home HIV to their wives, and gangs kidnap and traffic women into prostitution without fear from law enforcement. - probably not so much
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I mean, far be it for me to suggest that anyone who logs onto DU to day after day solely for the purpose of complaining about DU to DU, and to continuously take the moral inventory of other DU members, find other shit to do..
but...
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)to consider finding something better to do. It's not like they are convincing each other or disproving each other or agreeing or even agreeing to disagree. They are doing nothing more than wasting time and being nasty to one another. Why? I don't get it.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)boston bean
(36,224 posts)kcr
(15,321 posts)Is all the complaints about the tone of the feminists. They're so mean! They attack the men! Some claim to be feminists but they're scared to say anything. But yet no one talks about the awful comments by the ones who come on DU to troll them. They never get mentioned. And they are truly awful. No one cares about the comments like the one who told women to wear burquas if they don't like how they're treated. I honestly don't get it.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)who are willing to cooperate and respect one another. I find I get more done that way. Arguing with someone who is sexist I find myself just going around in circles and wasting my time and creating more animosity. I would rather foster a positive environment.
kcr
(15,321 posts)That's your right. But there's nothing wrong with fighting back, either. And I have a huge problem with the way those who choose to do so are being treated here. It's impossible to even be respectful about this topic without being attacked. There is a strong effort to get this subject shut down. There are calls for it to be banned in GD. That is what they want.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Just as an example. If Jewish DUers went around being extremely aggressive towards all of the folks who in any way seemed less than completely non-anti Semitic, the wars would be neverending and ugly. Here is some of what I am talking about:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1223820
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1223536
Being part of a group that experiences discrimination doesn't exempt you from being told your tone is exceedingly obnoxious and aggressive to the point it is making DU suck.
People from all different groups have been tombstoned because their aggressive advocacy for their group crossed the line into being trollish.
If someone seems determined not to get along with fellow DUers, I don't care what their religion, ethnic, gender or orientation is, they are probably going to get shown the door at some point.
kcr
(15,321 posts)For one thing, other groups aren't trolled in the same way, because it wouldn't be tolerated. They'd be banned in a heartbeat. I don't think responding to the trolling and defending oneself is obnoxious. I also find it quite telling that "Wear a burqua" isn't' called out as obnoxious and is quite forgotten.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)And complaints and alerts are more often than not completely ignored. Here is the point.
By and large, DUers are extremely receptive to the points that both of the more modern waves of feminists agree on. And their receptiveness goes up even more if the issues are presented in a way that is positive and non-accusatory. In particular:
1. I think it is counterproductive for any feminist here to focus the attention on issues that 2nd and 3rd wavers disagree about. Knowing that disagreement exists and then feigning surprise when any OP that does this gets contentious is disingenuous IMHO.
2. Posting an OP that solicits ideas for how to identify DUers that might be MRAs is also what I would call counterproductive. Frankly, I don't see any talking points on DU that resemble what I saw when I researched what MRAs are all about. And this bizarre obsession some seem to have to insult fellow DUers by calling them MRAs is not exactly how to win friends and influence people.
3. While we are at it, characterizing people who defend kinds of porn on 1st amendment grounds as consumers of that kind of porn is also pretty counterproductive and IMHO should result in a tombstone.
Are those tone issues? Well, some of them are considerably beyond that, but they all involve folks who clearly are out to cause fights, not further equality.
kcr
(15,321 posts)But where are all the threads about the tone all those Jewish DUers are taking, and ruining DU for everyone else. How afraid some DUers are of them? That something needs to be done about them? That's my point. No one does that. Feminists get treated in a way no one else does on DU. Because the trolls get away with it. Right here in this thread there are sexist posts. I guarantee you, though, there will still be more made out about how awful the gender wars are at best, and how awful the feminists are and all they do is attack the men.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)They don't do that because by and large, Jewish DUers don't behave that way. We don't start 9-10 OPs in a row designed to provoke fights with people. That's MY point.
And by the way, see the response from Seabeyond to me which was another example of a strawman typical of certain people who only seem to want to cause issues.
"They don't do that because by and large, Jewish DUers don't behave that way" They don't behave that way because the level of trollery that feminists face isn't allowed. The equivalent of "wear a burqua if you don't like it" would not be allowed. Anyone faced with constant comments like that would "behave" similarly.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)push. i saw it in action. and i plainly state, it is not gonna happen. you do nto define what women discuss. that simple. no strawman. a simple, no.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)A strawman like the one you created is always evidence that a person doesn't have a strong argument so one has to be made up.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)we can talk about. yes. we have already been here and you were a major part of it. all about porn for you. we will talk about what we want. you can call it a strawman, i say i am addressing your post that is telling us feminist not to talk about YOUR porn.
not gonna happen.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)then you go to make a specific point about your fuckin porn on the last point.
lordy, you are persistent with demanding feminist embrace your porn and say nothing. you just always remind me of this cartoon.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)You know that the third wave you like to ridicule was created by women and the vast majority of its adherents are women, right?
They are the ones you are ridiculing with those cartoons that you still seem to find funny the 40th time you post them.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)At Sun Dec 29, 2013, 12:15 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
bullshit. you and i both know the difference you refer about the two waves. your fuckin porn.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4243991
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS:
Disruptive and rude. These cartoons are dismissive and rude to anyone that doesn't follow Sea's brand of feminism. This is what's making DU suck. Please hide.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Dec 29, 2013, 12:32 AM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: agree with the alerter
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: Voting to hide to try to bring some semblance of civility to this thread.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Whether you agree with the post or not, I see nothing that requires it to be hidden.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: hot topic, people flame.... as to my agreement or disagreement, it's moot. Adults will be adults at times... but don't agree with the person who sent the alert.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)The "Your porn" suggestion is a personal attack.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)The vernacular, the casual message board, having read seabeyond's posts for years now ...
I could be wrong but, seabeyond would have to clarify.
526 replies ... holy moly. what a clunky thread.
on edit: maybe she did mean personal you which poses more questions for me about you ...
ugh. want out of this clunky mess of a thread.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)defend porn on 1st amendment basis. If you defend a kind of porn, they accuse you of consuming it.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)first amendment argument that takes me to my position. come on. really? we use to talk about this a lot.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)with it. why would you suggest that would be a personal attack??? should be a huge, meh
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)In the last several years, I have changed my personal position on the legalization of all so-called vice issues. Drugs, porn and prostitution. I don't think they should be illegal.
It has nothing to do with whether I consume any of the above or whether I consider it a good idea to consume any of the above.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)second alert shown to me. the first one i had three people send it to me, lol.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i know you want it to, but not gonna happen.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)thing.
Is she about to call out Skinner and EarlG for trying to do something to them?
polly7
(20,582 posts)It's enough just to toss it out and hope no one checks up on it. Just more of the same old perpetual victimization thing.
boston bean
(36,224 posts)And then apologized months later...
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)They're also transparent.
boston bean
(36,224 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Didn't you post something like that in the other thread when you told me to grow up?
boston bean
(36,224 posts)I haven't denied it. However this poster is denying it has ever happened.
Carry on!
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)But... I'm sure that no one here would be that hypocritical.
boston bean
(36,224 posts)You can sound it out all you like.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)just trash that group. Ever since I've avoided that place, I feel like Homer Simpson when the kids went off to camp. I've lost weight and grown four new hairs. Looking in there can cause hair to ache, which I didn't even know was possible until I stumbled onto the place.
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)Overt racist language: banned immediately
Overt anti LGBT language: banned immediately
Overt misogyny: not perceived as discrimination.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Anti-Semitic posts are allowed to stand most of the time.
Number23
(24,544 posts)I am INCREDIBLY uncomfortable with the idea of primarily white, middle class Western women discussing the ills that befall the Middle East, India, Africa etc. If DU was more diverse then it would not be an issue. But it's not.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)in Africa. I'll give you that. But there are issues here in the US that need to be dealt with as well. I just don't like to discuss them here on DU because there is no such thing as a civil discussion on DU.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Dear God....
SIGH
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)
This is why I don't get in back and forth arguments. Useless and pointless. Good bye.
Number23
(24,544 posts)so many people of color are uncomfortable discussing any thing here, particularly anything that affects our communities. Your comment was ignorant and culturally biased.
"Africa" is a land of many, many cultures and many, many issues and you just kind of boiled everything down into one very ignorant sound bite. You can get mad at me if you'd like, but that doesn't negate that. But yeah, your comment is exactly why I stay out of the the "isn't India/Africa/the Middle East just AWFUL??!" threads because alot of it feels like this exchange.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)on your interpretation of one "sound bite". Your assumptions and hostility are exactly why I don't get involved in these threads. You are going on ignore. This is the last you will hear from me. Again, good bye.
Number23
(24,544 posts)I won't miss a thing.
boston bean
(36,224 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)It could have been an opportunity to discuss with that person precisely WHY their comment was so yucky as well as discuss their really strange "you don't know me!!" response to my response.
But since that person would rather run away to ignore, then that's that, I guess.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Africa is not one great monolith of violence. It's a continent made up of 54 countries with great diversity in all aspects of life.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I think on those issues where 2nd wave and 3rd wave feminists agree, 95%-99% of DUers agree with the feminist viewpoint.
- Equal pay for equal work
- Pro-Choice, women deserve reproductive control over their bodies
- There needs to be a lot of improvement in sexual assault prosecution and, even more important, we need to take whatever steps to prevent these assaults from happening.
- Victim blaming on sexual assaults has to stop
- There is still a huge gap in opportunities for women in many fields. The Bechtel test is one of many that shows how the gap manifests itself in movies, for instance.
- Misogyny is still a widespread issue that must be addressed.
Yes there are disagreements beyond that. But the mean spirited-ness belies all of the agreement that I think exists.
libodem
(19,288 posts)You put it very well. We are basically all on the same side but no one stops yelling long enough to listen.
I've had many people on ignore but I am not ignoring anyone currently. I'm trying to hear the message.
I'm trying not to be upset by characters in black-and-white text, representing other humans, in cyberspace. It's foolish. You know. I've cried to you in the past when I got hurt feelings.
You were neutral but not unkind. I suspect you saw both sides.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)The message to which you responded outlined the feminist positions to which I am unswervingly committed and on which 95%-99% of DU agrees.
In #267 I said:
1. I think it is counterproductive for any feminist here to focus the attention on issues that 2nd and 3rd wavers disagree about. Knowing that disagreement exists and then feigning surprise when any OP that does this gets contentious is disingenuous IMHO.
2. Posting an OP that solicits ideas for how to identify DUers that might be MRAs is also what I would call counterproductive. Frankly, I don't see any talking points on DU that resemble what I saw when I researched what MRAs are all about. And this bizarre obsession some seem to have to insult fellow DUers by calling them MRAs is not exactly how to win friends and influence people.
3. While we are at it, characterizing people who defend kinds of porn on 1st amendment grounds as consumers of that kind of porn is also pretty counterproductive and IMHO should result in a tombstone.
Now, nowhere do I attribute the power to myself to define what should be discussed. No one besides Skinner and EarlG can do that.
You can see the kinds of responses you get when you try to calmly discuss how these issues occur and how to possibly prevent divisiveness. Just look at #271 and the responses that follow.
Hosnon
(7,800 posts)I'm not sure I like this place.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)that desperately need META back.
CTyankee
(63,926 posts)There's a certain slant of light,
On winter afternoons,
That oppresses, like the weight
Of cathedral tunes.
Heavenly hurt it gives us;
We can find no scar,
But internal difference
Where the meanings are.
None may teach it anything,
'Tis the seal, despair,-
An imperial affliction
Sent us of the air.
When it comes, the landscape listens,
Shadows hold their breath;
When it goes, 't is like the distance
On the look of death.
Iggo
(47,586 posts)It's the usual suspects involved (myself included).
Which ones of us do you think are here to divide and conquer?
Squinch
(51,075 posts)Which posters?
The poll was erroneous in including MRA - there is a group for men here, it's called the 'Men's Group' and they've got every right to exist and discuss issues mainly affecting men or pretty much anything the hell they like. From what I've seen, it's pretty well moderated and any MRA types or posts that may be even mistaken as MRA talking points have been locked or vigorously argued. Which shows a HELL of a lot more integrity than HOF where women here who don't toe the line are called dogs and any other ugly old thing .... and the men, well they may as well be Satan, the way they're discussed. This has all gotten quite funny, actually, the need to paint good, progressive people in such horrible ways because they dare to express opinions.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Including, but not limited to:
asking people to be more civil
suggesting males have a biological drive to procreate
using inflated vocabulary or proper syntax
claiming there are no MRA people on DU (oh no, you might of done that!)
polly7
(20,582 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Gee, what could be wrong about that?
polly7
(20,582 posts)the 'enemy' has to be made so horrible and so bad that their own bullying, authoritarian tactics seem acceptable and even necessary. The fact that there are no MRA's here - they'd be booted by both the dreaded Men's Group and administration so fast their heads would spin, doesn't matter, the trick is to keep repeating it. And I think it's a shamefully divisive tactic.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)in a false premise designed to trick people. I can't find fault with your analogy. It's spot on.
What is interesting is how in their group, they have not only spent countless time trying to define fellow DUers as MRAs, they have spent time justifying behaving antisocially here.
The whole objection to the 'tone' argument when you boil it down is their attempt to push back against any DUer who finds their behavior objectionable. They should be able to behave any way they want because they are the only ones who have any kind of worthy cause and their cause trumps the rules that everyone else should have to follow.
polly7
(20,582 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Once you get finished barfing, you won't make that mistake again.
On edit: These are good places to start:
http://mattforney.com/
http://www.avoiceformen.com/
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Just because people link to MRA sites, or post MRA talking points - that doesn't mean they're MRAs. No no no no no, MRA's are just a boogeyman, that's all!
polly7
(20,582 posts)to describe women, I wouldn't be so quick to make bullshit claims as the above.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)And you know it.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)The people pushing this nonsense are a ragtag bunch of bigots and paid provocateurs, imho.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)I'm sure it was started purely for discussion purposes.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)You will find it difficult, if not impossible, to do so. Many of these "debates" exist as nothing more than target practice. The goal is not to convince the other side, as doing so is not really within the scope of possibility, but instead to win.
Nietzsche once stated that if the criminal and low-life existed for no other reason, it was to show how to be wrong. In the process of observing these individuals, we learn what it means to be right. It's up to you to decide who's the idiot. I certainly have my mind made up.
TheBlackAdder
(28,242 posts)
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)off to facebook for the rest of the night...
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)None of the individuals accused of being Men's Rights Activists, are.
There is not one person on DU who self-identifies as an MRA.
seaglass
(8,173 posts)none?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)... and find people who claim to be DU trolls (much like we can find people here who claim to be FR trolls).
I haven't looked very hard, but I know that there are DU'ers who do (the NSA has nothing on these people), and their lack of success at finding any suggest to me that there are none to be found.
Response to FreakinDJ (Original post)
davidn3600 This message was self-deleted by its author.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)automatically makes one an MRA.
TBF
(32,118 posts)I certainly do as a feminist.
As a realist however I do think it's an easy thing for a troll to latch on to and use to stir the pot. And I think we've seen a great deal of that.
A 5 year old could pick those trolls out.
A troll will post a story about a women in a negative light. There is really nothing wrong with that on occasion... but just take a look at the name of the person who started the Op and a great majority of the time it's the same person over and over and over.
A troll is always be in a thread about women's issues or concerns and be the one with the opposite opinion. Every time Just take a look at the thread and you will see the same names every time.
Again---they are easily spotted.
Crunchy Frog
(26,701 posts)I think this is just group dynamics and DUers doing this to each other all on their own.
Sometimes I feel like I'm dealing with the People's Front of Judea when I read DU these days.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)If the policy you're supporting would be illegal if the equal rights amendent were law, you're not about equality; you're about advocacy.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Could fully grasp a concept as large as "equality?"
When laws were passed making interracial marriage legal, were those advocating for gay marriage not advocating for equality because what they were advocating for was illegal at the time?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
Succinct, simple and perfect.
Those advocating for gay marriage are asking the courts to enforce the 14th amendment. The individual laws wouldn't be necessary if the courts would simply enforce the constitution.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)And does it protect individual gender identities?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)The be all end all of laws on equality is absurd.
Affirmative action is a perfectly acceptable concept that would not get past the ERA if it is as simple as you say.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)It is certainly a distraction from political issues and not productive.
.
.
