General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis message was self-deleted by its author
This message was self-deleted by its author (Flying Squirrel) on Mon Nov 7, 2016, 09:46 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.
1000words
(7,051 posts)"What if the gay men on this site were to start posting pictures and videos in GD objectifying men? Guess what, they don't do that. Think about that for just a minute, dear reader."
Recently, there was a dedicated thread about the star of "Arrow." Pics galore and many comments bestowing sly remarks about a particular "asset." I guess using phrases like "his cutey patootie," make it innocent fun.
the thread was posted in the LBGT forum, not general discussion. That makes a rather large difference. I think such a thread would have been wholly inappropriate in the GD forum just as I think the SI cover thread is. But in a LGBT forum especially since it was a thread about him making a pro LGBT statement, it was wholly appropriate.
1000words
(7,051 posts)dsc
(52,130 posts)or another similar place. I do realize that would put me at odds with some of the critics of that thread. Though you did skip over the other salient difference, that being the pro gay statement. The photo was, if I am not mistaken, taken from the site which reported the comment. I don't think the SI thread had any such political content.
1000words
(7,051 posts)It was objectification, pure and simple. Equality means sharing the same standards.
Jetboy
(792 posts)rather sorely.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)1000words
(7,051 posts)Specifically the claim made in the OP, regarding gay men.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)People go in the lounge at their own risk.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)I can tell they don't visit The Lounge when they say it.
signed,
Veteran of The Lounge War
Jetboy
(792 posts)That's the meanest place around here.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)GoneOffShore
(17,309 posts)dsc
(52,130 posts)First, the original OP was entirely about the man's comments about gay rights. It wasn't about how cute he was, or anything else. I also checked to be sure, and yes the photo was from the original news source (the Advocate). Yes there were a couple of comments about his looks but the vast majority, as in all but one or two, were either about his activism or about the character he plays as written in the comic from whence it came. There are twenty nine comments in the thread (28 and the OP). Posts OP, 8,9,11,19,10,12,25 are about the OP or about the actor Amell. 1,2,8 are about the character. 3,4,6 are about the Olympics (the original post mentioned a post about the Olympics). 5,6,7 were du stuff. 13,14,15,17,18,19, and 21 were on his looks. 20,21,22,24,26 were about another actor who had played the same character on Smallville, and 26,27,28 were about Revenge the show upon which the other actor is currently playing. Wanna bet the break down of the SI thread is not even remotely like this. Yes, some objectification was going on, but the majority of the thread was about other things.
1000words
(7,051 posts)I don't even understand a) how you could have even read my post that fast and posted back and b) how you read my post and posted what you wrote. You wrote that the Amell thread, which you first dishonestly claimed was in GD when it wasn't, was about "pure objectification". I then wrote to point out that the majority of the thread wasn't and PROVED IT by providing a post by post count as to what was and wasn't about his looks. You then write that the OP was mistaken.
1000words
(7,051 posts)that since the thread origin wasn't created with sexual objectification as a premise, it somehow diminishes the fact that's exactly where it led. Which dispels the notion put forth in the OP that gay men are not engaging in the offensive behavior.
dsc
(52,130 posts)where we know that straight people hang out for political discussion. I would, and already have said, that GD shouldn't have a thread about objectifying men any more than it should have a thread about objectifying women. But I see no earthly reason why in the LGBT forum we can't say who we do and don't find attractive. Many of us still can't do that in around our coworkers even in non work settings, can't do so around our straight acquaintances, nor in some cases around our own families without causing problems. I don't see why we should be castigated for doing so in the one forum that is given over to us nor do I see our doing so as equivalent to posting such threads in GD.
1000words
(7,051 posts)When I'm with my buds, watching a game in the man cave where nary a woman is around, it is not objectification?
dsc
(52,130 posts)but it isn't around women which makes a pretty big difference in my book. GD is supposed to be a discussion of topics related to politics it is not supposed to be a t and a forum. It also shouldn't be a beefcake factory.
1000words
(7,051 posts)Thanks for your time and patience. It's nice to have civil discourse, regarding a sensitive subject. It's not something DU does well, at the moment.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)love seeing these moments on DU3
Vanje
(9,766 posts)is the damn point.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)And the primary reason I almost never venture there. After a string of beefcake threads, I dared to suggest that it gave the group the feel of being in a bathouse (although I was not that explicit), and not a place I felt welcome. I was called a man-hater. The post was hidden, but for far too long the hosts refused to do anything about the anti-lesbian bigotry of that post in a forum which should have been a safe space for me - and some of the hosts even joined in the pile-on.
So I don't see any significant difference, and many gay men - including some on DU have large blind spots about aking into account how their behaviour impacts the women around them.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)during which I had some behind the scenes conversations with a number of women, who were disgusted at how I was treated - many of whom also stopped (or had stopped) hanging out in the LGBT group for similar reasons. And I have barely been back since then. It is often a point of tension in mixed gender LGBT groups, unless they make a concerted effort to address making women (and now bi adn trans* individuals) welcome. I've responded to dsc's post, since his post doesn't link to the underlying conversation, so people can judge for themselves.
Although I have little interest in the DU LGBT group, I am not willing to allow "It's ok, because it was in the LGBT group," pass given my history with the LGBT group on this issue. As far as I am concerned, it is no more ok there than it is in GD - and some gay men tend to excuse it for the same, or similar, reasons as straight men.
dsc
(52,130 posts)I am quite sure he won't do so again. I notice you don't address at all that not one single solitary word from you appears in either that thread or my inbox complaining in real time about the delay. But now, all of the sudden complaints. Trust me I wish as well I wasn't dealing with my dad's death at that time and been there to ban him immediately.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)because it was in the LGBT group is what triggered the current "complaints." I don't want people treated as sex objects even there, AND that group reacted at least as strongly, for very similar reason to those currently being given in GD, when I (one of the members of the group) agreed with another member by suggesting we should talk about whether we wanted beefcake threads in our space.
That reaction (and the unacceptable response by the hosts to the attack on me) is the reason I no longer participate there. So when I see commentary in GD that it's OK, because we like that in our space, I am going to respond. It seems to me the very same dynamic that is keeping me out of a space in which I had been a participant: Images of people being paraded about as sex objects are objected to, and the person who objects is villified for suggesting that we should talk about whether that is really what we want in our space and (in my case) leaves the group. That doesn't make it OK because it is in LGBT space. It means that those of us who believe it is not appropriate have gotten the message that our voices aren't welcome.
I have never accused you of anything in connection with your behavior during that 12 day period, or suggested that you should have been doing anything other than tending to your father. But the fact that your father was in the final stages of his life does not excuse the behavior of others - or change the dynamics in the group.
As for not responding to your announcement that the hosts had finally acted - as I said in my previous response, the tone of your post did not feel like an invitation to further conversation.
But - FWIW - Here is one request, in real time, two days after the attack, for action from the hosts.
Here is another comment, 11 days later, before the hosts acted, about the failure of the hosts to act in any manner, and the delay:
Yes, you did bar the person from posting after my post publicly complaining - in real time - about an 11 day period of non-response by the hosts. But re-read your announcement, putting yourself in my shoes. Does it really read to you like you were sorry for how I was treated, for the hosts failure to do their job, and an invitation to further conversation? It read to me at the time, and still does, like a grumbling acknowledgement of your awareness that the hosts, in your absence, had been caught with their pants down and that you felt you had no alternative you could take with integrity other than banning Queerart.
I saw no reason to respond directly. Put yourself back in the host's room at that time. You must know, as I do, how close to the surface the anger was in some hosts toward me for (1) asking the question and (2) complaining about the lack of response to the attack on me (anger which still bubbles up from some hosts to this day in interactions which have nothing to do with the subject in this thread). Had I responded, no matter how politely, it would have gotten very ugly, very quickly. So I chose to leave. Not because I would not like to be part of the group - but because the price for being part of the group was higher than I was willing to pay.
Had you been present when the exchange initially occurred, I suspect you would have responded immediately in some manner. Failing to respond to Queerart's comments would not have been consistent with any of my interactions with you prior to that incident - so I accept your statement that you would have banned him immediately.
But you are not the only host and your absence should not have paralyzed the group from taking the steps they would have taken had any other person posted a homophobic attack in the group on a member of the group. And - failure to respond to the attack aside - the response in that group to asking the question about whether the beefcake threads are appropriate sounds a lot like the response in GD to the obections being raised here. Which was the point of my initial comment here. Being in LGBT space does not inherently make it acceptable to everyone who is (or wants to be) in that space.
dsc
(52,130 posts)threads, that is your prerogative. What you don't have the right to do is come here and post a post that made it sound like we let posters who post, posts calling lesbians man haters to remain posters in the forum. We didn't then and we don't now. You never, not once pmed me privately during that time, when you had no idea where I was since I had told no one here where I was during that time. I am not a mind reader.
Again, I think the LGBT forum is kind of a combination of the lounge and GD in that we do post personal type threads which at times are going to mention and maybe even god forbid show, attractive people. I think a thread that is labeled as such, regardless of whether it contains women or men, is hardly the end of the world. Have you looked at OUT magazine?
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)did allow the poster to remain for 12 days. Again, you aren't the sole host in that forum. I commented several times in the thread about the lack of response, hosts were participating in the thread (some of them attacking me), and I had conversations with at least one (perhaps more - I don't recall that detail by now) female hosts who were trying to convince the hosts who were active to take action. The active hosts knew. It was a deliberate decision (or a blocking of consensus to act) among the hosts who were active during those days to allow the poster to remain for so long.
Common decency, and safety from homophobic attacks in the LGBT group, should not depend on PMing the lead host about the egregious behavior for there to be action. And when the dust settled, at an absolute minimum, I would have expected some formal communication from the hosts letting me know - personally - the action which had been taken, and an apology (or at least acknowledgement) that it was handled poorly.
Nothing I said in the original discussion, or here, suggested beefcake threads would be the end of the world. But there is different sensibility, by and large, between lesbians and gay men about the display of sexual imagery. It isn't a blanket difference - but on average, there is a difference. That difference, in mixed LGBT company, often makes women feel excluded. In spaces which intentionally set out to be inclusive, an effort is made to have conversations and make conscious decisions about how we act in our shared space so that we aren't stomping all over everyone else's boundaries.
If you read that thread, I expressed my personal hope that the beefcake threads be kept out because they contribute to a male-focused sexually charged atmosphere which (by and large) makes many women (including me) uncomfortable (and adding female beefcake threads isn't the solution there - I don't find scantily clad pictures of women in an LGBT space any better than in straight space).
But my primary request wasn't to ban the threads, but to have a conversation about what we want in our space - which I said over, and over in that thread - so that any decision is deliberate, and not just something that happens by default, which is generally that beefcake threads show up because the men want them. Just like (a few vocal and primarily) men want SI swimsuit threads in GD. I've had this conversation - or similar ones about how the dynamics in our subgroup mimics wider society - with every LGBT group in which I have participated in real life. Frankly, the dynamics are often even more challenging because gay men and women are often even less in touch with how we come across to each other because our intimate interactions with someone of the same gender tends to accentuate the differences. They aren't always easy conversations, and in some instances finding common ground has taken years (adding Bi and Trans to the name of one group, for example).
But all I did in that conversation, initially, was to support someone else asking for a conversation. I hadn't intended to raise it on my own, but I certainly supported it taking place - which is what triggered the attack. So the reason I left isn't even whether there should be beefcake threads - but the clear message I got from that experience that we aren't even allowed to talk about it, and anyone who tries is fair game for attack. Even homophobic attacks. Even in an LGBT safe space. That is not a message I got from you, personally, but it is the the message which I got from 12 days of silence or being under attack by people who were chosen to keep our space safe from that and who knew it was going on.
As for OUT magazines (or other similar ones), I don't read any gay specific magazines. I don't really want to be bombarded with images of mostly naked people of either gender - and the news I get there isn't different enough from what I can get elsewhere to make it worth it to me to wade through the pictures.
dsc
(52,130 posts)My dad died on May 11, 2012. I posted this on May 30th which is the day the poster who insulted you was banned. You neither responded in that thread, nor my inbox, with any problems in the handling of this situation. To now publicly accuse me, and every host of the LGBT forum of ignoring your concerns at the time is just plain wrong. One last edit, the insulting post toward you was on May 19, 2012 during the height of my May from Hell.
One, no host can remove a post no matter how egregiously the post violates the purpose of the forum. Our powers are limitted to locking threads, pinning threads, blocking posters, and naming posters hosts. Posts which contain insults, much less homophobic ones, are clearly against the community standards of DU and should be taken care of by juries. Sadly, juries haven't always been doing their jobs so it has fallen to our hosts to do their jobs for them. I have, and will continue to, block unrepentent posters for posting comments that are across the line regardless of jury decisions. To be clear, accusing female posters (straight, bi, or lesbian) of being man haters is unacceptable conduct (frankly I think for DU let alone here). Such posts will lead to a host asking for it to be removed and for an apology. If neither are forthcoming, then action will be taken.
Two, May has been a very bad month for me and I have had very limitted time to spend on DU. I made two trips to Ohio (one to watch my dad die and bury him, and one to clear up loose ends such as signing thankyou notes etc.) I missed 6 days of school and faced grade deadlines that fell before Memorial day requiring twelve hour days. In short, I have not been as present as normal and thus people such as William have had to step up. For the most part, I think things went fairly smoothly.
Three, In the case of the thread where the conduct occured, the jury system worked (Halleluah) and I think that is why hosts were reticent to act further. In my case, I frankly didn't see the post as I was traveling and/or working. There will be a block put on the offending poster as soon as I am done posting this. Again, to be clear, such posts have no place here and will result in host action.
Four, As to the beefcake threads, I don't find them problematic frankly nor would I find such threads aimed at those who find females attractive. I would hope this forum wouldn't be entirely made up of such threads, but I feel that clearly labeled threads that are aimed at showing us attractive people, are not a huge problem. I don't view them at work and suggest that others don't either, but otherwise I think they are no more a problem than similar things in say Out Magazine.
Five, As to the lack of female hosts, I plead for any female who reads this forum to please consider being a host. In particular I hope that Yardwork would consider being reinstated. I put any person who wanted to be host in as host so far.
Hope this clears things up.
end of quote
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113714686
Again not a single solitary word from you in that thread, nor in my inbox, you did write me about another matter and I do recall speaking to person in question. You owe me, and every host in that forum, and abject apology but I won't be holding my breath. On edit, in case you are going to claim you didn't see this thread, it has been pinned to the top of the LGBT forum since 30 May 2012.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)resolved peacefully and, maybe some females will sign up as hosts in that group.
My condolences to you for your father. May he rest in peace.
dsc
(52,130 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)whether I should apologize for being disappointed that hosts of the LGBT group failed for 12 days to block the poster who attacked me in this thread:
My comment
It is our space, we can do what we want in it, and as far as I know this particular question has not been discussed.
The beefcake threads bother me mildly - I would prefer they not be here, but hadn't said anything. The space feels pretty male to me, which is not my thing, and the beefcake threads are a part of that.
If that is what most of the people want - fine. No big deal. But I suspect over time that may play a role in who feels comfortable or welcome hanging out in this space.
The first response:
Really? ... and just "who" pray tell is "our space".....
As I tell you what, either you missed my name "QUEERART".... or you feel you are now in charge?
Shall we now refer to you as "Madame President"?
The thread is a "call out".... no matter how hard you try to spin it.... it's a CALL OUT!
... and to say that the beefcake is "soft core porn" is a stretch beyond that rubber band can expand to....
You know it's a call out, I know it's a call out.... and your next door neighbors dog knows it's a call out.....
My response:
This group belongs to all of us - not just you. Not just gay men. And I have no clue why you think expressing an opinion means I think I am in charge. I'm taking part in a discussion on a discussion board in a group I have been part of for a number of years.
As of the December, or so, the admins gave us control of deciding how we want our space to run. A question was raised about what we want in this space. You have an opinion, I have an opinion, other people have other opinions, we discuss them and figure out what we want.
And the second response:
The "only one" that is angry is you.... "angry at men, over all"...... and.... ESPECIALLY AT GAY MEN......
So I tell you what, you go and play at being the President of the man haters club, as you are not worthy of any more of my time....
I only feed trolls twice.... and you are at your limit of "Manwiches" for today.....
The LGBT group is a safe haven group. Regardless of what you think about whether a mixed gender safe haven group for LGBT individuals should be hosting beefcake, I find it inexcusable that it took 12 days for a poster who made the homophobic comments above to be blocked from group participation. You were understandably unavailable at the time, but you did not need to be available for the remaining hosts to act. They not only chose not to act, they were silent or participants in a continued attack on me.
For 11 days there was no formal action by the hosts toward Queerart, at which time I posted a detailed summary of my concerns in response to an inquiry about whether the LGBT group was meeting my needs. A day later, the hosts finally took action and banned the member who had attacked me 12 days earlier using specifically homophobic comments.
Your comments were basically (aside from finally banning the poster) a lot of rationalization for why there was no action. Safe space for LGBT individuals is safe space. Period. Since when does anyone else get to post homophobic comments in the LGBT group, and the hosts' response is, "the jury system worked (Halleluah) and I think that is why hosts were reticent to act further." As you said, "Our powers are limitted to . . . blocking posters" - a power which the LGBT hosts have used liberally, and immediately - except for this instance. It was inexcusable for it to have taken 12 days to block the poster. Not to mention, that it would't have happened at all except that I felt an obligation to provide a response in a second thread rather than just walk away.
While you were understandably unavailable at the time, your rationalization about the rest of it after the fact told me all I needed to know about whether the LGBT group was a place which was dedicated to making itself welcoming to all its members (something the lack of female hosts should also have been a clue about). Take an honest look at the thread I've linked to, and the response you posted above, and consider whether, had the roles been reversed, your response would have made you feel supported - or invited into further conversation - in view of the then recent attack with the sub silentio approval of the male hosts who were able to be active at the time. There was really no need for me to continue to beat my head against a brick wall - and trying to talk to you about why your response both saddened and angered me would not have been productive.
So no - don't hold your breath waiting for an apology. Although it is mildly amusing that you expect an apology from me when there is not a single apologetic word in your post for the failure of the LGBT hosts to perform the simple act of immediately banning a poster from the LGBT group who made a homophobic attack on me within the confines of the LGBT safe space. Nor were there apologies from the other male hosts who were active at the time.
But - as to this thread. I was responding to your justification of a recent thread with posts of sexualized images of men (I'm guessing from the description) as appropriate because the thread was in the LGBT group. I still disagree that it is appropriate even there.
I no longer hang out in the LGBT group because of the attitude that such images are not only beyond objection, but that the male hosts who were active at the time even felt it was tolerable to ignore homophobic attacks on anyone who raised an objection. And, after the verbal beat-down I received for raising the issue, I strongly disagree that I had any obligation to hang around and chat with you, or anyone else about it - or to remain silent when it is publicly asserted that such things are ok (or inherently different) when they are posted within the LGBT group.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)No, hell, you don't. I happen to know my own gender, thank you very much, and I am a female host in the LGBT Group. So, stop saying there are no female hosts.
What gets me about those of you who were so "concerned" during that time is that you rarely, if ever, posted in the LGBT Group even BEFORE the "beefcake" threads. All of a sudden you felt the need to post, just to complain and nothing more. Maybe if you had spent less time only posting when you wanted to complain and more time finding and posting quality content for lesbians, you would have had less trouble. Last I checked, you are not blocked from the group. You can either participate and get the discussion going for more lesbian content in the group or you can grumble and badmouth the hosts on the rest of DU. I see which path you have taken. That certainly isn't going to add any lesbian content to the group.
The LGBT Group on DU is open to lesbians and any lesbian that wants to can post in there. Funny, I have no problems posting in there and feeling perfectly welcome. I'm not sure what your problem is.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)Feel free to go back and read the threads I've linked to, and as a quick hint - because it captures it so well, even though I didn't write it, read the resignation post of one of the female hosts I've linked to below. And I would also suggest that you are not aware that I have been an active participant, off and on, since I joined DU in 2004. (Just a few examples - from 2005, 2008, 2009, 2012)
As far as female hosts, it was dsc who referenced the "lack of female hosts," not me. My use of the word male in the previous post was to exclude the female hosts whose contributions in the thread (and from my understanding behind the scenes as well) were productive - but who felt unable to take any formal action. At least one of the female hosts resigned as host because of how it was handled.
The point of this sub-thread was solely to counter the observation that the beefcake thread was ok because it was in LGBT space. Being in LGBT space does not make it inherently acceptable. Some of us who have been active participants in that space are no longer, both because of the presence of things like the beefcake threads - and because of the reaction to the suggestion that we at least talk about whether we want such threads in our space.
Both the issue, and the reaction to raising it, mirror what is going on in GD now - which was the point of my original response to dsc.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)One simply needs to read that thread AND CHECK the list of LGTB hosts to realize what a load of bullshit all this groaning is.
Vanje
(9,766 posts)though I haven't been very active on DU lately.
I'm unlikely to get very worked up about Urgent concerns about a forum conversation that TOOK PLACE 2 YEARS AGO, and was apparently settled by the offending poster being rightfully blocked.
I'm sorry Ms. Toad was offended. How many Hail Mary's and Our Fathers do the hosts need to do at this point?
dsc
(52,130 posts)I am sure he won't do so again. BTW you failed to mention he was blocked at all in your first post leaving the very real impression he wasn't blocked at all.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)"The post was hidden, but for far too long the hosts refused to do anything about the anti-lesbian bigotry of that post in a forum which should have been a safe space for me - and some of the hosts even joined in the pile-on. "
That does not say the hosts did nothing, ever. It accurately says they refused to act for far too long. While "forever" is also far too long, the normal connotation to that phrase is that the hosts acted, but waited too long to act. 12 days is far too long, when such blocks are normally instantaneous in that group.
Please stop trying to portray me as an unreasonable person who expected you to stop caring for your father and tend to the LGBT group. I have never even suggested that.
While I realize you were not in a position to act at that time, you are not the only host. The timing of your father's death does not excuse the behavior of the hosts (and other members of the group) who were not caring for your father - or change the atmosphere which that behavior reinforced.
And - back to the reason I raised this encounter - the assertion was being made in this thread that gays don't parade this stuff where it makes others uncomfortable. An example of a recent thread was given where it apparently wasn't true - and you responded, essentially, that it was OK because it was in the LGBT group. I did not raise the issue in this thread - nor did I drag whether it was acceptable within the LGBT group into this discussion. But once that question is on the table, I am not going to be silent about my own concerns about such threads within the LGBT group, how I was treated when I raised those concerns, or why I am no longer an active participant there. Particularly since the concerns are very similar, and the reaction there is such a close echo to the discussion going on currently in GD.
plantwomyn
(876 posts)I may be wrong about this but I was under the impression that the posts that many felt objectified women included the post being called out as offensive as part of the thread. You seem to have been offended by the Arrow thread yet you failed to post that fact. I went and reviewed that post and your "Pics galore" statement doesn't seem to be accurate. Granted I didn't go to the link but that wasn't part of your post.
It seems to me then that the difference here is that those who posted and participated in the threads that objectified women ignored those that called it out as offensive while no one called out the post in the LGBT forum. In short, it's about respecting the opinions expressed in the forums and within the threads.
JustAnotherGen
(31,681 posts)And thank you for your honesty and humble admission of mistakes made in the past.
The only thing I might disagree with is PPR ing the crew - they have a lot to learn. If we keep talking with them - and engaging them - perhaps they can learn something.
CFLDem
(2,083 posts)if one doesn't want smoke, don't make a fire.
In a truly gender equal society, the SI cover would've been met with a yawn at worst and support for the models at best.
Instead we get conservative prohibitionist ranting and ravings. Don't want to see T&A? Trash it or ignore it.
It's called the price of living in a free society. And what is more liberal than freedom?
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)who are getting national recognition and a venue that will advance their careers. Most of them want to be actresses and recognition like this will have agents and producers noticing them.
Kali
(54,990 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Kali
(54,990 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)all. I will be sure to post you the link so you can all come and read but can't reply nor alert on.
Response to Cleita (Reply #197)
Democracyinkind This message was self-deleted by its author.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Don't be discouraged. Plenty of people here (me, too) deal with plenty of stupid responses and pile-ons in the land of GD. Now, I know you know this, but when we've had our fill of it (e.g., long past the time I've had my fill on "Creative" speculation), there is solace in other favorite groups of which you are part.
In life (and on DU) you'll have the occasional mother-fucking-dick-headed statement now and then. Just give them a polite "fuck you" or the lecture long deserved, then find another wave until whoever said what are quashed by an exhaustive thread equal.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)But let me explain. I used to be a bartender and people would sometimes start to fight. It was my job to intercede and tell them to take it outside and off the property, being the owners were wary of lawsuits. I have been stalked and bullied here in a very passive, aggressive way by two groups because a) I approve of the Pope and b) I think real feminists issues have nothing to do with using sex for a job, e.g. be a swim suit model, work at Hooters etc.. I finally imploded and said some nasty things. I was banned for a day and frankly I'm moving on. DU is turning into a kinder, more intelligent version of Free Republic and I don't need to be part of it until that changes.
On the other hand, I don't want to become one of them and piss all over this website like they are doing, so I'm taking the fight outside so to speak. They have accused me of something so awful and are still talking about it in their little salons without taking a look to see what really happened in that situation. I'm inviting them to my blog and they can say it to my face so to speak and we can duke it out if they have the stomach for it. I do. If they are sincere they will do it. If they are trolls, then we will then know for sure because there will be no SOPs or rules or alert buttons to get in the way..
But thank you for thinking the good thoughts.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)As a volunteer. Rather than starting your own website, which does nothing.
I promise you, it's fascinating. And there is nothing like the feeling of being at an election party for some local school-board official who just beat out some GOP wingnut candidate who wanted to teach creationism in schools.... and the margin of victory is considerably less than than the number of people you dialed and/or canvassed to get the support for your candidate.
Just a piece of advice. There is a whole world out there where you can have a real positive impact.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
Cleita
(75,480 posts)work involved, not to mention paying for gas to get places. A blog I can do from my computer, but it's a great suggestion just the same.
SunSeeker
(51,367 posts)BainsBane
(53,001 posts)Last edited Sat Feb 22, 2014, 10:34 PM - Edit history (1)
When did one of those models post here? How do you know what they want anyone to think? Do you imagine it hurts them if those pictures aren't displayed in the center of a public office building or at city hall but instead are simply something people look at in their homes? Did it occur to you they might even have an issue with reproducing those images online, possibly in violation of copyright, rather than purchasing the magazine?
Rather than continuing to make up crap and invent strawmen for the arguments by people you clearly don't respect enough to bother understanding (all 177 who rec'd Warren Stupidity's thread), just admit you don't give a shit. You sure as hell don't support the dozens of women on DU who have said they find those threads part of a hostile environment. And then there was your cruel ridicule of a survivor of repeated rape beginning from child hood. After that, I would be surprised if anyone (except for those who look for collaborators to justify their opposition to equal rights) takes seriously your lectures about "supporting women." I guess if the women are presented as disembodied rear ends and breasts they have value, but if they are full human beings with ideas, life experiences, and opinions, if they are fellow DUers, they must be ridiculed at all costs, as you did to JTFrog.
For context: JTFrog's heartfelt testimony is here. http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4536619
People can read the responses for themselves.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,681 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)in GD women (out of few places in life) can have political discussions without the ramifications of men's ability to size us by by appearance....Here we can discuss and debate without our "sexuality" being in the mix....That should be preserved. By putting objectifying posts up....it sends a message to women....that even on DU in GD....we are reminded of "how we are perceived" in the rest of the world. Can't we just preserve ONE fair playing field that we DON'T have to be reminded of that?
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)You missed another option (probably the most important option) .... If you don't want to see T and A on a progressive site ... SPEAK OUT ... the ability to do so is an advantage of "living in a free society" (though DU is a private message board and the rules are set by those that own it) ... people had the freedom to speak out, they did ... "what is more liberal than freedom?"
CFLDem
(2,083 posts)"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)Response to etherealtruth (Reply #223)
CFLDem This message was self-deleted by its author.
Squinch
(50,773 posts)CFLDem
(2,083 posts)it doesn't apply to me.
Squinch
(50,773 posts)it does.
CFLDem
(2,083 posts)Response to CFLDem (Reply #148)
Post removed
CFLDem
(2,083 posts)A) It's an ass hat.
B) They're still as prude as the Amish are plain.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I can only imagine the ethical and mental convenience given to those who conflate civility and prudishness.
CFLDem
(2,083 posts)I sleep very well at night.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Your post is a perfect example of misrepresenting another group's argument.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)CFLDem
(2,083 posts)but in this case it's called an accurate assessment.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Despite not having a single clue what it actually constitutes.
There's a very important book on the subject called A Theory of Justice that I highly suggest you at least attempt to skim through before continuing with this. Many other books exist to which college freshmen have at least an elementary understanding that I suppose you could also check out at the library.
Hell, you could even take some classes.
CFLDem
(2,083 posts)and got the degree. Hell I even got some t-shirts out of it, too.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Because no one who's been through any introductory political theory course should have such an uneducated conception of "freedom."
CFLDem
(2,083 posts)Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)CFLDem
(2,083 posts)You should feel accomplished.
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)Last edited Sat Feb 22, 2014, 09:50 PM - Edit history (1)
We don't live in a gender equal society. Now your notion of conservative is giving a shit for women and respecting the Civil Rights Act of 1964, while liberal is returning to white male supremacist control? Really. Very interesting notion of conservative you have. Guess what? Skinner locked the Upton thread and told the GD hosts no more of that stuff is to be allowed. You can always go over to the cave to participate in this "liberal" view of the world you hold in such high esteem. Those "lefties" are in full solidarity with you guys on this one. The rest of us will keep living in the 21st century rather than working feverishly to restore the "liberal ideal" of a half century ago.
RC
(25,592 posts)All those almost naked Mannequins Dozens of them, wearing skimpy bras and panties. Larger than life color pictures of real models, modeling the same type of skimpy underwear. Kids see that stuff too. Yet here on an adult political web site, where almost everything can be and is discussed, you want everything narrowed down to meet your approval? If you want that, build your own web site, then you can impose your own rules.
Somehow what you say you want reminds me of the Taliban and their control of women. Only with you it is both men and women you want to knuckle under to you. Men for enjoying pictures of scantly clad ladies and women for willingly posing for such pictures.
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)There is no need to involve me with the conversations you have in your own head, especially since they bear no relationship to me or anything I have ever argued.
The administrators already locked those threads and told the GD hosts that no more bikini pics are allowed. Case closed.
As for the rest of your ramblings:
pintobean
(18,101 posts)You keep trying to make that claim, and it just isn't true. No surprise there, though.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024498713
RC
(25,592 posts)If'n you don't give a shit?
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)In about ten years of DU This was the first time that I saw SI posted. It's you that wants to change this website, live up to it.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)from those who will allow no criticism of their right to not only post jerk-off material, but also to attack anyone talking sbout it as a political issue for women.
People can be having an intelligent discussion, analyzing media messages about women, citing expert sources and attempting to share understanding ---and still, the usual suspects will jump in to dump sarcam, baiting, insults and ridiculous circular sophistries.
And they keep at it, over and over again. Such obvious, dedicated efforts to shut down a specific type of speech is obvious.
Claiming some imagined "right" to stroke deliberately in the faces of people who dont want to be treated that way is immature hubris.
Allowing such repeat offenders to stay and keep doing it--because they are obviously getting off on their trolling--undermines the reason DU exists.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)"to stroke deliberately in the faces of people"?
"more offensive than the actual post"!
Im no MD, but those phallic adjectives look to my eyes to be a possible case of penis envy and should be treated with a hearty 'that's what she said.'
But I'm open to other diagnosis.
CFLDem
(2,083 posts)I'm sick of seeing the HoF crowd's jerkoff material, too. All your points are spot on.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Of being continually attacked-- and no consequences for the instigators.
That is how it looks from my vantage point.
CFLDem
(2,083 posts)that glasses may be needed as well (⬆️See above for full regimen⬆️ .
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Please clarify. Can't discuss on a fair level with hidden meanings. It sounds like baiting rather than good faith.
CFLDem
(2,083 posts)BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Give me a link.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"And what is more liberal than freedom..."
The unintended and sometimes negative consequences of that same freedom being called out publicly...*
*a bumper-sticker answer in response to a bumper-sticker question-- insert distinction without a difference here
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)so don't worry about trying to change anything..
Why that is not what being a Liberal is all about huh? JUST accept the status quo.....we must "conserve" the system as it stands....
uh...wait what???
Cleita
(75,480 posts)full frontal nudity, I would be in agreement with those who objected because that in fact would be close to pornography. But to call three pretty girls posed like The Three Graces in bikinis, which something you can see at any beach or poolside in the flesh, pornography and causing a wankfest is hyperbole at best. In this case they can use the trash function. I opened a thread that showed videos of human organs beating and I found it very disturbing for me. I asked the poster to put a warning on it. He didn't so I trashed the thread and moved on. Most other DUers like the thread. Who am I to deny them that pleasure. If posters put a warning, near naked ladies inside, or something like that, perhaps that would be proper for those who are uncomfortable with that and they can trash the thread without opening it.
RBStevens
(227 posts)do you really see 3 young women naturally and spontaneously being topless, holding each others waists and displaying their backsides closely to anyone (everyone) on the beach?
This is a serious question.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)I've seen a lot of hugging among women in bikinis when they play beach volley ball and they are winning. No one considers it dirty.
RBStevens
(227 posts)which was "do you really see 3 young women naturally and spontaneously being topless, holding each others waists and displaying their backsides closely to anyone (everyone) on the beach?"
Teammates hugging on the beach is an entirely different scenario than what I asked.
CFLDem
(2,083 posts)I wish I took a pic to prove it.
RBStevens
(227 posts)(beach) with their backsides presented very closely to the gaze of *someone*? Were they a group of teenaged girls?
CFLDem
(2,083 posts)I was just as excited about it as you are.
RBStevens
(227 posts)CFLDem
(2,083 posts)And you seem a little too interested in this.
I know it's exciting, but it's really no big deal when it happens.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)photos that are similar. If you want to see dirty, then I can't stop you but don't make the rest of us do it. So if you don't like their bare backsides, what side do you like? Also, slut shaming isn't very feminist.
RBStevens
(227 posts)perhaps I Should emphasize the word spontaneously here "do you really see 3 young women naturally and spontaneously being topless, holding each others waists and displaying their backsides closely to anyone (everyone) on the beach?"
You are claiming that this happens often in your experience. But you reference beach sports and photo shoots.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)and backsides for that matter? Many women go topless at the beach and around the pool in many countries. Do you think SI only caters to Americans? You are slut shaming again. I think you really hate women.
RBStevens
(227 posts)Again, I said spontaneously at a presumably public beach. Are women spontaneously behaving this way in your experience?
Cleita
(75,480 posts)the models but the crew and photographers? Do you think they should work spontaneously? Or would you admit that hours of planning and blocking of the shoot has to happen before it happens. Also, you are coming across to me as not very progressive. Your authoritarian manner is a bit off putting.
RBStevens
(227 posts)"do you really see 3 young women naturally and spontaneously being topless, holding each others waists and displaying their backsides closely to anyone (everyone) on the beach?
I was not talking about photo shoots or women's beach volleyball or nude beaches here or around the world, I am still talking about regular everyday women hanging out on a presumably public beach without a contract of any kind regularly posing themselves in the way we see on the SI cover.
Do they really do that?
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Don't look at it if you think it's dirty. If feel sorry for you if something like this occupies your mind. It doesn't occupy mine. I have fracking, earthquake and nuclear plant issues that need attention.
RBStevens
(227 posts)that you have not answered. And I am not talking about the cover of the magazine, I am talking about real life.
It's a simple question. Do they or don't they?
Cleita
(75,480 posts)If your moral outrage bothers you so much go talk to a priest and stop looking at magazines that outrage you.
RBStevens
(227 posts)Again I asked you (seeing as how you are a member of a beach community) if in your experience women naturally and spontaneously at a presumably public beach remove their tops, place their hands on each others lower backs and present their backsides to someone or anyone sans contract for doing so.
Also again I am not talking about magazine covers, morality or anything else but your experience.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)things you think of looking at a colored piece of paper with images of young women on it.
RBStevens
(227 posts)Cleita, seriously, I'm not interested in sin or "slut shaming" I'm interested in your experience observing women at the beach and if they actually do the kind of thing that is portrayed on the cover of SI.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)giving me orders to answer your questions is truly out of line. Now go to church where you belong and stop what you are doing here. It's not nice. btw you know your line of reasoning is a big red herring.
RBStevens
(227 posts)What is my line of reasoning?
Cleita
(75,480 posts)RBStevens
(227 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Puritanical baloney aside....
RBStevens
(227 posts)community and who apparently has a great deal of experience hanging out at the beach. I have not been lucky enough to enjoy the beach for several years and I wanted to know if that's the sort of thing that is happening at public beaches these days.
So many people are ascribing all sorts of strange ulterior (puritanical?) motives to me asking this simple question and I still do not understand why Cleita would not just say *Yes, I see this all the time* or *No, I do not see this*. That's all I wanted to know.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)That seems to be one of your key sticking points.
RBStevens
(227 posts)spontaneity has a lot to do with whether or not women normally present themselves, in public and of their own volition, without any *reward* (of money or other things) in the way the SI cover did.
Keep in mind that the SI cover is meant for public display in order to sell their product to a certain a demographic, whereas a public beach usually has some sort of rules for minimum attire and behavior in an effort to make the public space a comfortable space for the public at large - basically the taxpayers of the community.
Personally I have never seen a group of young women on a public beach remove their tops hold one another about the waist and present their backsides to anyone (everyone) in their general vicinity just for the *fun of it*. I should think that at least they would fear getting a warning from citizens enjoying the space that their behavior was inappropriate or possibly arrest for *public indecency* or however the local code states it.
So that was my interest, again since it has been a few years since I've had the chance to be at the beach, if that was indeed the case - do groups of women spontaneously do that?
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)I just don't have any idea why a magazine cover is expected to be spontaneous. Most covers are adorned with posed photographs--from Reader's Digest to Forbes to Oprah's mag, and everything in between.
I'm sure I'm missing some point of your post, but it eludes me still.
RBStevens
(227 posts)in a single post that's why I was hoping for some sort of conversation about it in general.
Basically I am talking about the difference in non-spontaneous, highly orchestrated sexual objectification of women to sell a product versus the everyday reality of women.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)non-spontaneous ways. Personally, I don't give a rip if it is a posed picture or a candid, spontaneous shot. It bears little resemblace to real life either way. If the end result is basically to convey the message: "Hey, here's a sexy, lustable piece of meat! You men should all want to have and dominate this meat because it is so hot and you will be seen as a sex machine if you conquer her, and you frumpy women and impressionable girls should all aspire to look just like this impossibly gorgeous supermodel so that men will WANT you in a carnal way," then that is a message I do not want my daughters to see, and I do not want them dating males who have been programmed by that message.
At the same time, as for the supermodels, fine, your body, your choice. If you want to pose like that, that's your prerogative. Because there are so many cavemen guys out there who want to see your body in all sorts of suggestive poses and (barely) outfits, I'm sure you'll have a lucrative career and sell lots of whatever it is you're selling.
But the message is, undoubtedly, sex is everything, you have to be overtly suggestive and risque and implausibly attractive to be sexy, and what is on the outside is so much more important than who or what is on the inside. It's not a new message. It's actually very old, and very tired. But it's the way of the world, and if I don't like it I can just find another world.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)There are only two answers to that - how would you reply to either one.
You don't need someone to answer a yes/no question to give your reply.
My view on that. I don't see ghosts and vampires running around, but I like watching Supernatural.
As far as three young ladies doing that, google image spring break. Check out some womens' facebooks/twitter accounts.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)The market for the photographs in that edition is "men", men buy approximately zero bikinis.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)The audience of SI is almost entirely men, including the stupid SSE. Men do not buy bikinis. Either the editors and publishers are fucking idiots, decades long idiots, or you are simply wrong about the intended purpose of those photographs.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)who read Sports Illustrated that they are men.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)I get the feeling you aren't really even trying to have an honest discussion.
Soundman
(297 posts)So what's your point? As a matter of fact if you have a problem with the si cover you would have gouged out your eyes if you saw last nights public display, gasp! It was awful.......
RBStevens
(227 posts)anyone thinks I have a "problem" with the SI cover (or that I have any need to see a priest for my *dirty thoughts*) when I have not said one word about having a problem with the cover of a magazine.
My question is whether or not women just naturally present themselves in such a fashion as a regular matter of course in public spaces. A public beach in this case because one does expect to see people in swimsuits after all.
You say that they do. Okay. Why do you think they are doing that?
Soundman
(297 posts)That yes they do. I see it all the time. I see this kind of stuff so often I am some what immune to it. Case in point is last nights show. A friend of my wife was at the gig and and at some point she tapped me on the shoulder and asked if I was enjoying the show? I replied yes (my mix was really on the mark last night), then she tapped me again and pointed to the spectacle on the dance floor. I just shrugged and said yeah, it happens.... Not a big deal to me. I imagine it was some gals blowing off some steam. Who knows? I don't spend a lot of time trying to figure out things I will never understand.
I guess that is why I feel preached at by the Hof people. I see it as akin to having the dope dealing brother who lives two doors down and blaming the buyers for all of the traffic and trash generated. You know, clean up your own backyard before you tell me what to do with mine sort of thing.
RBStevens
(227 posts)I do want to understand why women would partially disrobe and present themselves in such a way in a public space like a beach.
I gather that you were mixing at a club that is presumably at least 18+ admittance? Probably alcohol available? That's not exactly the same thing as a public beach, in my opinion.
Soundman
(297 posts)I have actually seen the same and worse at public beaches. If you wanted to see this type of behavior for yourself, Florida will inundated with it next month.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)But they do in works of fiction, which is exactly what every magazine cover is.
RBStevens
(227 posts)Granted it's been a while since I've been lucky enough to enjoy a beach but I've never seen women presenting themselves in such a way even at the nude beaches I've hung out on.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)there is no mandate for any publication to represent real life. Nor is there any mandate for any publication, especially works of fiction, to conform to any ideological position.
RBStevens
(227 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)And not by the group that is so routinely slandered as misogynists.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)Once this runs out of steam what will be next?...November is coming and I am sure someone will come up with something.
Perhaps the religious wars, where atheist will be offended if someone posts something by the Pope in GD?
I would say that this is intentional to fracture DU but that would be a CT and that is also banned.
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)seaglass
(8,170 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Do I recall any posts by Riff?
The answer is no, I do not recall Riff posting in our group. Has she EVER? Maybe, but it is so infrequent that it has not pinged my radar.
seaglass
(8,170 posts)you participate in.
Which is probably also why you are not aware of the connection between her posting in that thread, knowing that objections have been raised about it in the past and then posting the SI thread in GD.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)There is a certain gleeful prodding aspect to that thread that I do not wish to participate in. It is not my intention to goad anyone.
I am more of a counterpuncher when I see blows aimed in my direction and I am quickly irritated by attention-seeking behavior as you may have noticed.
seaglass
(8,170 posts)Last edited Sun Feb 23, 2014, 07:57 AM - Edit history (1)
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)There are so few people who post in there, you can't remember one of the few regulars?
Apparently you also missed the other host of the men's group arguing why she had posted that thread as a form of "civil disobedience."
Edit: Hold on. It was you who posted this thread on her behalf. http://www.democraticunderground.com/111411793 Now you're claiming you didn't know she posted there? Not wise, Bonobo. Far too transparent.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)from her stating she was shit-stirring to someone else claiming that. The problem is, he corrected you and said he was not referring to her reasoning, but giving his reason for reccing that thread.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)Howzabout calling out the other one, now?
Trash thread.
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)The threads were posted with the deliberate purpose of creating drama and inciting conflict. Now you want to blame everyone who fed into their game? If so, you better look beyond HOF.
RC
(25,592 posts)They are jumping up and down and waving their hands and yelling too loud for attention in General Discussions. They have their own Group, have 47 or so DU'ers locked out of their Protected Group, yet they still insist on dragging their (insert adjective here) into General Discussions, causing disruptions by not being respectful of other viewpoints. Pile-ons, targeting, baiting those not of the Group, that post something not sufficiently HoFiey. Yet they maintain the problem is elsewhere. Well, elsewhere doesn't see it that way and are starting to find their voice and speaking up..
I'm sure that there are more than 177 members that the see the hostilities in GD and stay our of it altogether.
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)As all the recs on the threads pointing out how hostile, disrespectful, and reactionary the flamebait threads designed to exclude women from this site are. You can't see what's in front of your face. It truly is sad. You want to pretend something that has been standard in this country for decades is all due to some posters you dislike in HOF. These are issues about equality and inclusivity and you lack the courage to address them as such so you deflect by trying to create scapegoats out of a few members. You complain about "disrespect" from HOF members, while you make a point of seeking me out and calling me out (to the point of creating screen shots out of a post of mine and engaging in bizarre fantasies about what you think it means) when I don't initiate any discussion with you at all.
When you called me out in GD the other day and then ran away, I made it very clear I had no interest in any discussion or contact with you. You need to stop using complete strangers--or at least me--as proxies for your rage against the modern world. I have absolutely nothing to do with your life, and I intend to keep it that way.
RC
(25,592 posts)When you called me out in GD the other day and then ran away, I made it very clear I had no interest in any discussion or contact with you.
And yet you keep responding to me. Put me on Ignore, pretty please, it you don't like what I have to say.
And speaking of disrespect, the disrespect, the twisting, purposelessly mis-reading, the continuous contentiousness of some people's posts, the trying to treat General Discussion as a protected group, blaming others for what they themselves are doing, to try to deflect the problems they are causing onto others, the posting of known OP flame bait, is what I have a problem with. That is what I am objecting to. I speak up when I see abuse, and I see too much abuse from a certain few people here. So, I speak up. I don't care the gender, sex, or anything else. It is the individual persons actions, their contestant contentious posts, full of anger against the rest of DU that is the real problem. Their argumentative inability to accept differing viewpoints.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)THAT is what you are objecting to...
There are 3 threads I am told (and was shocked to discover) in the MRA that are for the express purpose of doing just that...but they want THAT to bleed to the GD so that it can be used to stifle women's voices by creating a hostile environment....
THAT is what you are advocating...
RC
(25,592 posts)The women being "objectified" sure don't mind. How do I know? Because they get paid big money to get their picture taken. Modeling is a highly prestigious, high profile, well paid job. You can use your argument against any ad that has people in it. So, so what? Society at large sure is not down on the Sports Illustrated issue. It get sole everywhere. And not in a plastic wrapper either.
Instead of making a nuisance here on DU, why don't you go after the magazines, the photographers photographing them? The models themselves. They are the ones doing what you are objecting to. All the people on DU, that you are objecting to, are doing is talking about current events.
Posting here is nothing more than letting off steam and does nothing to change anyone mind or effect what you see as a problem.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)used and how on DU in GD
EPIC change the subject FAIL!
and now I have discovered you are another one perpetrating this sham...
polly7
(20,582 posts)There's no 'MRA' here. Why not stop with that bullshit?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)besides I am interested in the General Discussion where women SHOULD NOT be sexually intimidated.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Spell it out.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)do your own research
polly7
(20,582 posts)It never fails.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)The only trolling going on is by the MRA types.
RC
(25,592 posts)Never was. I've been saying for many decades that women are people, autonomous individuals. But that doesn't matter here, because I don't toe the HoF narrow views of things, so I get accuse of being one of those evil males. This isn't a HoF vs MRA problem, this is plain and simple bullying, lead by a small group of people. You seem to be blind as to who is doing a lot of the trolling.
It is the constant bullying by a certain high profile Group, I have a problem with. So I object when they do it.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)And I can only disagree with your assessment of the "small group". I don't see them as trolls, and many other men on DU don't see them as that either.
RC
(25,592 posts)I posted that MRA comment for clarification.
And that 'small group" and their enablers, are definitely trolling. Like a gang intimidating the neighborhood to show how tough they are.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)That's about all that's left to say for me here.
RC
(25,592 posts)Interesting.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)Have a good day anyway!
RC
(25,592 posts)Well alrighty then.
bul·ly 1 ( bl¶) n. pl. bul·lies 1. A person who is habitually cruel or overbearing, especially to smaller or weaker people.
2. A hired ruffian; a thug.
3. A pimp.
4. Archaic A fine person.
5. Archaic A sweetheart.
v. bul·lied bul·ly·ing bul·lies v. tr.
1. To treat in an overbearing or intimidating manner. See note at intimidate .
2. To make (one's way) aggressively. v. intr.
1. To behave like a bully.
2. To force one's way aggressively or by intimidation: They bully into line at the gas pump
I guess because I am archaic, I am a bully. Almost 70 is archaic, correct?
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)That's about the only thing to be learned from our interaction.
RC
(25,592 posts)BainsBane
(53,001 posts)Am I correct in concluding that I am his so-called bully? If so my bullying consists of articulating my views and telling him I am not interested in engaging in personal conflicts with him. Whereas he calls me out in subthreads where I am not even participating. This charge of bullying seems to correspond to the audacity of women like me having the nerve to believe we are human beings with equal rights.
I have pointed out that hundreds of members have recommended threads denouncing objectification, supporting HOF members in calling out misogyny, and saying enough of the sexist bullshit, yet a few refuse to see what is in front of them in black and white. It really comes down to an absolutely inability to consider the lives or views of anyone but those just like themselves as having any legitimacy whatsoever, so that whatever the majority says means nothing if they don't affirm how they see the world.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)And yes, I think it is implied that you - and your "small radical group" - but surely you in particular - are the bully.
Which is quite surreal to me. I think you're a challenging poster, and I don't agree with you on everything, but I don't think that you're a bully for beibg determined in speaking out.
This thread makes abundantly clear who the bullies are and which side of the argument suffers from a persecution complex.
You know that cartoon with the ice cream... the one about misandry...posted on DU several times. That says it all.
Keep up the good fight and try not to fall for their current goading campaign.
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)You nailed that one, alright.
Complete disconnect.
Squinch
(50,773 posts)UtahLib
(3,179 posts)demmiblue
(36,744 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)- and I've had positive interactions with members of both - it's clear to me that the HoF'ers have taken the brunt of unfair abuse. I think the OP's description of the reactions to them is spot on.
polly7
(20,582 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)And you accuse others of trying to control the discussion, but demanding people be "civil" and "objective" no matter what, amounts to the same thing.
RC
(25,592 posts)a certain Group on those that dare disagree with them. The only thing in am "demanding" is to stop the bullying, harassment, flame baiting of those that object to a well known clique's intimidation. What is wrong with being civil? Of giving the same respect you demand of others? What you are doing is objecting to my objections. Isn't that also trying to control the discussion?
libodem
(19,288 posts)That is a false narrative. There is one group for men and 5 groups for the women. Yet some people still want to see an unfair advantage. Men and women should be treated as equal. That's all there is to that. Both have equally important functions in society. I don't know why the train has come off the tracks in these discussions. I just know I've never been personally attacked and made to feel like an outsider ....by the men on DU.
polly7
(20,582 posts)as well as all the posts about wanting it shut down.
Nothing I've ever read there has even come remotely close to what some have copied and pasted here from sites they're stating are MRA. Every human on this planet has interests and challenges that are unique to their own group, whether it's gender, or any other. To deny they have a right to even exist smacks of something pretty unpleasant.
libodem
(19,288 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)with this post. And while I've had disagreements with Men's Group members, overall I wouldn't remotely consider most of them enemies of mine.
polly7
(20,582 posts)for you or anyone else? Why would you even comment on it now, after all this time?
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)into a pretzel trying to make them look bad. And there are those who seem to view either the Men's Group or HoF as some source of great evil, which in either case I find frankly absurd.
polly7
(20,582 posts)I think trying to associate the Men's Group here with the evil MRA is laughable and over the top absurd.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)oversimplify, as anything more nefarious.
polly7
(20,582 posts)many times though it's malicious and purposeful mis-characterization, imo. The sad part is, it too often works, and good people are demonized for something they'd never even thought, let alone stated. ie., me as a rape-apologist and many other women and men here labeled the same, and worse. It's dishonest and ugly and a lot of people are just pretty much sick and tired of it.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)All of us bring our own issues to the table, and sometimes we can't manage to look past our own personal pain, to see the good in others we may disagree with. It's happened to me as well - I've overreacted, unfairly maligned people, etc. - so I'm speaking from experience here, somewhat.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)libodem
(19,288 posts)Links please.
Response to BainsBane (Reply #63)
Post removed
pintobean
(18,101 posts)Response to pintobean (Reply #352)
uppityperson This message was self-deleted by its author.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)when they only casitgate one side, like only one side is taking part in the war and needs to stand down.
I don't think I have a side myself, but it certainly seemed like I was obliquely called out in the linked thread. One of those evil white males fighting to hang on to his 'privileges' and telling other people to shut up.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)I'm sure it would look that way to people involved.
pacalo
(24,721 posts)As a woman, I see through these current (& past) gripes of the day. It's an effort to exert their authority over DU -- if it's not obvious to you already, take a good look at the HoF members' way of communicating their wishes & compare it to your last paragraph. Along with their behavior, focusing on other DUers & deriding them for their personal perspectives rather than on what the Republicans are doing to women undermines their credibility.
Some men can't read women the way other women can, & that's why many women have spoken up against their pettiness. If you were defending their right to obsess over the Republicans' agenda for women, you'd have my support. What you're defending is a group that has earned a reputation for focusing on human behavior of other DUers, rude behavior, & a need to control others. It makes DU suck for me.
I'm so tired of the HoF's extremely rude way of doing business that I have hidden their forum & I have used the keyword auto-trash function for every buzz word I can think of that will prevent me from seeing their petty outrages of the day. I suggest others do the same thing.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Does that make you the pot or the kettle?
pacalo
(24,721 posts)What is my solution as you've interpreted it?
Blocking the problem from my consciousness is what I meant.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)I just reanimated Freud and he told me that's not correct.
pacalo
(24,721 posts)The word "gentlemen" apparently should have been on the list.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)You
pacalo
(24,721 posts)coming from you, Manny.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Back at you
This is a vexing problem; there's a small group of very upset people, their basic reason for being upset has merit but they seem to be implacable, read the worst into any behavior, and anything sets them off. It's making this place less fun.
DontTreadOnMe
(2,442 posts)and they drive people away, especially DUers on this site that support Feminist positions like equal right and equal pay, etc.
They have a radical approach and an agenda to start arguments here on DU.
Bok_Tukalo
(4,322 posts)<OPE>
mokawanis
(4,434 posts)which is why I take issue with anyone who puts forth the attitude that all would be well if only this group or that group would change their ways. HoF is not full of women who hate men and want to remove their private parts, and the Men's group is not full of guys who view women as little more than objects of sexual desire. Yet both groups get portrayed what way, or something like it, over and over, and the result is truly ugly.
I think you are right to say the SI cover isn't worth fighting for. Posting that in GD does amount to provocation, imo.
As for your comment "if I were Skinner, I'd PPR you all", I don't know which individuals you're talking about, but I'm glad you, or myself for that matter, don't get to make that determination. Best to leave those decisions to Skinner.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)And I normally try to stay out of others' personal beefs as much as I can, because I consider that a distraction from actual issues, gender equality included.
Squinch
(50,773 posts)But really well said.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)It does not appear to have sunk in.
Kali
(54,990 posts)that crap doesn't belong in GD
in fact it is worse that a woman posted it. makes her look like she is just a shit-stirrer or more out to be one of the boys than an intelligent woman looking to discuss real issues on a political forum.
hlthe2b
(101,715 posts)Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)What it does say, however, is "no whining about DU".
I'm sure if it wasn't allowed in GD, it would've been locked (it hasn't been!).
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Aren't there better venues for that sort of thing, if nothing else?
rrneck
(17,671 posts)I did...
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)In others words, you want me to be a white knight or act in a benevolent manner because some are not strong enough to close a thread they don't like? Good lord.
I am bad if I treat the sex I was born to prefer in a different manner and I am a misogynist if I don't.
Here's another example: What if the gay men on this site were to start posting pictures and videos in GD objectifying men? Guess what, they don't do that.
First, I wouldn't care if they did. Second, what you consider someone being used as an object and what others do can be different (remember what you were just saying about people thinking different?)
"Is it really worth fighting for the ability to post SI covers and video of Kate Upton in free fall in GD?"
Not arguing with others over whether or not I should get the blessing of others over what I post. Arguing with being accused of all manner of untrue things hurled at many of us.
Now...You tell me:
Do you think someone who didn't agree on the issue hates women?
Do you think we just look at such pics and want to whack off to them?
Do you believe we feel women are sub human?
Do you honestly believe that we should all feel the same about whether the cover is harmful to all women and if not we don't care about issues relating to women?
If so on the last - why not direct the outrage to the women themselves on the cover. They have twitter accounts.
Not a big fan of sports or swimsuit covers and the like in GD myself to be perfectly honest about it. But we are a big tent, it is 'general' discussion and we have one whole forum for politics, and plenty of people post things I don't like or want in GD.
I simply look at one of the other many threads I do like instead of asking people to white knight it all, for which I will later complain about them doing and telling them they were sexist for doing it.
JAbuchan08
(3,046 posts)it sure seems like gender-policing ie. "If you want to be a real man (like myself) than you would give deference to the lady-folk (like I do)"
It also reminds me of a similar discussion I observed on another forum regarding the politeness of crossing the street in order to avoid creeping out a solitary woman whom you happen to be walking behind late at night. One person, who was arguing in favor of this "politeness" said something to the effect of "of course men aren't required to cross the street when walking behind women late at night, but it is polite" to which another poster replied (more or less) "okay, but how long does it take for "politeness" to become an expectation of behavior?" Which is, in effect what politeness is: a societal expectation of "correct" behavior.
Manners in general are a form of social control. I think we all generally agree that it is good to be "polite," but taken to its extreme "polite" behavior is a way for those with social standing to weed out those without that social power, ie. those who don't know which fork is the salad fork and who don't know how to properly drink their afternoon tea.
I'm not saying that their should be no "politeness" ie. social controls invoked to prevent unpleasant behavior. I have myself argued that what some call "political correctness" could be more accurately described as "having manners;" however I also think that there is a point where dictating peoples behavior goes beyond the proscription of good manners into extremely controlling and (I'm trying not to be too hyperbolic) authoritarian behavior.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)authoritarian behavior" then the problem may lie more with oneself.
I'm not personally picking on you or accusing you of anything, which is why I worded things very carefully.
JAbuchan08
(3,046 posts)I actually didn't describe any of the posts here as "extremely controlling and authoritarian behavior" I was speaking generally about the shaming culture we have (in society in general and the web in particular) which allows people to feel good about themselves by exposing and destroying "villains" who may or may not actually be villains, and who (if they are villains) aren't exactly Dr. Doom.
I was speaking (generally) of how this culture uses the mandate of politeness and respect for each others feelings (usually uni-directional) to shame people who disagree into silence and I was stating that I believe this behavior is rooted in an authoritarian mindset. This mindset is at odds with the liberalism that I grew up with, which was based on free speech and the free exchange of ideas.
I was describing how I do believe that politeness and respect for each others feelings are important, but that the expectation of politeness can be abused. I'm sure you have seen this on a micro-level where an individual uses their personal sensitivities to manipulate and control people and I'm sure you wouldn't consider it an attack on politeness or sensitivity to call out that manipulation where it occurs.
All I'm saying is that controversies like this can be illustrations of similar behavior on a macro level.
and I admit that's a bit of a dodge to say I'm speaking in generalities, but honestly I rarely post here because it's like tip-toeing through a minefield and vagaries are a learned defense mechanism. Certain things; however like proscriptions for "real man" behavior (regardless of the source or intent) give me a niggling urge to tickle my keyboard.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)This is not going to go over well with the ones that are not.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)to calling women witches, harpies, or whatever.
Are you truly so tone-deaf to your own behavior that you are incapable of ANY degree of self-criticism?
Look on this thread and tell me what people have went out and attacked women as being "hysterical" or "screechy" or "bitchy" or anything similar to what you do every fucking other post?
I know the "look in the mirror" thing is tossed around a lot, but you really, really should try it.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)and does mental age and emotional maturity always come with physical age?
I understand, in a way, where you are coming from here but, there is big difference
in calling out emotional immaturity and calling people names.
She did not call these guys any number of derogatory terms that I could post here but, will not.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)There are enemies to the cause of equality that are far more worthy of people here -although I recognize it is more useful -as a device- to point out chauvinism here.
Still, it crosses the line too easily into squabbling that is not ONLY counterproductive, but it at its core dishonest IMO.
There is definitely a dynamic at work in which one side finds the need to demonize the other side as much as possible (call it 'scoring points') in order to "win".
This post is part of the goading process, step 1 to the escalation which leads to the "Aha!" moment.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)a win for True Feminism is a win for all.
At it's core, Feminism is a Human Dignity Issue and is a World Wide Effort.
When I read posts like JTFrog's I am reminded what is truly at stake here.
as usual DU goes places with topics
or as Buzz Lightyear would say: To Infinity and Beyond.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)I must be in the top 5 enemies list in HOF and I completely agree.
So how then has it come to this point?
Through goading and demonization. That is my opinion.
Even pleas to tone down the harsh rhetoric are themselves turned on their heads and called "tone arguments" when only courtesy is being asked for. If we could discuss things with courtesy, we would not be in the situation we are in. But I must also admit that I KNOW that some on both sides are enjoying it or feeling that it works to their benefit to create the appearance of enemies.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)has caused me to lash out at times as well. I think overall we probably agree far more, politically, than we disagree. But on a site which - at least in theory - represents a relatively narrow portion of the political spectrum, the differences are likely to be accentuated.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Without trying to imply anything negative about anyone - Bonobo, I have nothing personal against you, I swear! - I have to say that that comment really hits the nail on the head. And I, in my sometimes verbose, sometimes intemperate way, have been trying to express a similar idea in many of my own posts.
Basically, what it boils down to, is we live in a truly ugly world, probably even more so as regards the treatment of women and girls. I've heard/read more than a few personal stories that have nauseated me and filled me with rage. What can practically be done about it, I honestly don't know, but I'm looking for answers as much as anyone on here. I intend no malice towards any DUer, I realize that we're mostly on the same side RE: the really important stuff. But sometimes my frustration with the world does boil over a bit.
Drew Richards
(1,558 posts)and conform to whatever a small militant group on DU says or else...ignoring the fact that you just perpetuated the same problem by not recognizing that there are woman that some of us see as rad fems because they do nothing but post attacks after attack on men...kinda like this op...it only speaks to the MEN having a problem....
Well how about take into consideration that some of us are so god damn sick of the attacks that we read by the so called feminists that now we want to post snark and arguments against them for no other reason than we are sick of their bullshit attacks on people.
I for one am for absolute equality I am a humanist but at this point there are about 10 DUERS that can go ....themselves I don't care what they have to say anymore....its always comes down to " men are pigs" and All of DU must bow to OUR Opinion or face our concerted attack in each and every post.
So in a nut shell your post sucks and just encourages more of the genders wars flame bait...
Maybe you should read what I have said and rewrite the OP if you are actually serious about diffusing the situation...if not well trash thread is still available.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)pacalo
(24,721 posts)And its use is most appropriate here in this discussion.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)....what makes a "fem" radical?
Am I radical , because I dared to ask?
pacalo
(24,721 posts)What makes a radical fem is the following:
-- Obsessing about human nature; men & women will always appreciate attractiveness.
-- Obsessing about words that are used in everyday language in real life (we all had to check the "I am over 13 years old" box when we joined DU). If the word nannies can throw the f-word around like drunken sailors, then they aren't too sensitive for words that describe Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, & Michele Bachmann.
-- Constant policing & badgering other DUers to conform to their narrow-minded views in their female vs. male crusade.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)Mercifully I do not believe I have heard the term "radical feminist' in everyday language in my "real life".
Racial, ethnic, religious and sexuality epithets and slurs are used (by some) in "everyday language in real life" ... does it follow that you believe that these words should be acceptable here? "We all had to check the "I am over 13 years old" box when we joined DU"
pacalo
(24,721 posts)I'm not talking about "racial, ethnic, or religious" slurs. It goes without saying that those are not acceptable in real life or a progressive discussion site. However, these additional points are frequently thrown into the mix to hide behind & to bolster one's feelings of righteousness. Cheap tactic. We should be able to express how we feel about Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, & Michele Bachmann without rad fems defending these cretins because of the sole fact that they are women.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)Palin, Bachman and others of their ilk provide a wealth of things to legitimately complain about ... their feminity is not one of them.
pacalo
(24,721 posts)I so agree!
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)that women are people. That definition courtesy of TDale313.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)self-centered enough that they're unable to seriously consider any issue which doesn't directly affect them. In other words, if they don't personally see a problem, then there is no problem. Same thing with (a lot of) white people, and race.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)I know of one DUer who claims it. It seems quite common.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)I think the use of the term can be likened to the use of the term "militant black" in the 1960s and 70s ... back then the term was used to describe African Americans that DEMANDED equality and were not willing to sit back and wait for someone to give them something that was rightfully theirs. The term was largely used by white society in an attempt to portray a right to equality that was being demanded , as a negative (and frightening thing).
The terms in and of themselves aren't wrong, nor are they offensive. When they are applied with the intent of marginalizing folk ... it is offensive.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)I don't consider myself a radical feminist. For that matter, I don't consider myself a feminist at all, and most of the feminists here wouldn't dream of considering me one. So it might well be insulting if I used the term, depending on who heard it and why. Generally speaking I won't tap dance on that landmine.
But having said that, I don't thing most people here who consider themselves radical feminists would mind the appellation unless it was obviously used to insult them.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)... the term was used as a pejorative. Which is why I asked that poster to define the usage of the term.
The language we use is important and sometimes it needs to evolve.
My parents are in their mid-70s. They used the word 'thug' to describe anti union folk (union busters) ... that is what will always come to my mind when I hear the word used ... a violent corporate lackey. The word is now used as a code word to disparage African American men. I would not use the word now because it has been used by so many as a racial slur (though that would never even cross my mind in association with the word).
Kali
(54,990 posts)where I live there is a word that can be a simple descriptor or it can convey a lot of nasty bigotry, depending how it is said and in what context. Mexican.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)... used the term as a pejorative ... "by not recognizing that there are woman that some of us see as rad fems because they do nothing but post attacks after attack on men." .... which is why I asked for the term to be defined
yewberry
(6,530 posts)See post 40 & 76.
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)endorsing the position that those threads constitute a hostile environment. You keep pretending it's all the fault of a "small militant group." That is demonstrably false, as the many recs for threads opposing the T and A threads have showed. That small militant group didn't pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that forms the legal basis for a hostile environment. That was that militant LBJ. I get that some here think society has only gone downhill since then, but the rest of us don't despise progress.
So you keep ignoring issues of equality and inclusivity to pretend it's all about a "militant group." That is the tried and true method of avoiding self-reflection and the actual issue under dispute.
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)Have you held a job at any point in the past thirty years or left the house at all? Cause that shit flies exactly no where in public and that is a result of the legal prohibitions against a hostile environment, whose legal basis is the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I find it difficult to believe that any of this is new to anyone here. That you attribute something that standard in public places, all government offices, businesses, and non-profits offline to a "radical fringe" on this site is strange, to say the least. That ship sailed thirty years ago, dude. Time to wake up to the 21st century.
Drew Richards
(1,558 posts)Jury lets her slide and if I directed an attack at one person it would be hidden... I spoke my peace honestly and directly...i dont like the way some people on this board bully others... And in return I get this kind of DIRECT PERSONAL attacks....
Sure its the men that are the problem....pathetic.
Squinch
(50,773 posts)RC
(25,592 posts)RC
(25,592 posts)Thank you for putting it so clearly. I was struggling to say the same thing, only you said it better.
It is only a few people and their enablers that are the problem. Deal with those people and the rest will settle down.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Well said.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)as "rad fems"?
Think about it - people have been hurt, abused, sometimes severely, in their lives. Specifically, many women (including on DU) have been badly hurt by men. Which is not intended on my part as a condemnation of all men - I am a man - but an attempt to put things in perspective. Not everyone is equally capable of dispassionate objectivity - or what passes for it - and oftentimes there's a good reason for that.
And frankly, if someone being mean on a message board is a major concern in your life, I'd have to say you're pretty damn fortunate. I suspect your everyday life is relatively free of discrimination, abuse, et. al. - but what do I know?
polly7
(20,582 posts)and I mean physically ......... like almost dead, and yet were called horrible things on that very same thread? Do you think it was men who did that? I don't understand why you defend some to the extent you do, and basically tell the rest of us - including men who dare disagree with a comment here and there very slightly, we're to blame for all the strife on this board? Seems a bit one-sided, no?
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)any more than anyone else is, and I don't claim to be.
At least theoretically, I try to argue with ideas rather than people. I don't always succeed in that, though.
I don't think either "side" is responsible for "all the strife on the board." And I'm not trying to personally disparage anyone either. I just get frustrated when people who try to tell the ugly truth about the world we live in, get shouted down as "radicals" or "man-haters" or related bullshit. And it's not any better when one woman calls another a "dog" - but that particular post has been rightly condemned over and over again, and I saw no reason to join in the pile-on.
So yes, I'm sorry people have been such assholes to you. From what I can tell, you didn't remotely deserve that kind of treatment. But at the same time, certain HoF members have been attacked and caricatured so relentlessly that I feel the need to stick up for them somewhat.
Again, I'd like this to be about real issues, not personal beefs. But I guess I'm a dreamer...
polly7
(20,582 posts)I actually don't care what's been said about me anymore, but when I see others treated really badly, it drives me up the frigging wall! I've been that way for as long as I can remember and don't see myself changing any time soon. But you're absolutely right, we should all concentrate more on the issues and stop the divisiveness and blame that helps no-one.
Have a good night!
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)hlthe2b
(101,715 posts)I hope some here will listen.
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)and props to you for growing as person throughout your life. That is something we can all learn from and aspire toward.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)which is why feminism is on the decline.
Humanism on the other hand is on the rise. Learn the difference.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Most likely because you don't understand but I never doubt the possibility that such framing is done from a position of total understanding and is actually quite malevolent.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)I think that kind of stuff is part of the problem.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Why is this such a common issue with this subject?
Orrex
(63,084 posts)You wrote:
By your own assertion, in a sentiment quite common among a certain crowd here, anyone who disagrees with you either doesn't understand (i.e., is a dolt) or is acting with evil intent (i.e., is a troll).
You presume your own righteousness is most likely and that it is most unlikely that you are incorrect.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Some people really don't understand what they're talking about. However, there are others who do know, have been told before, yet continue to repeat the same garbage.
The feminism vs. humanism argument is absurd and worn through. It is an unnecessary, useless dichotomy used to frame feminism as opposed to humanist sentiment. The philosophy of both are compatible.
Orrex
(63,084 posts)In this discussion of feminism, I imagine that you are correct.
My objection was poorly considered, and I withdraw it.
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)men who stand up for equal rights? Yeah, that didn't go over too well.
Appealing to a sense of consciousness, as Flying Squirrel seeks to do, certainly won't work for everyone, but it adds to the voice of those who support equal rights and diversity and don't seek to turn the clock back a half century. The majority of DUers have been clear where they stand on this issue, and they have said they oppose the posting of those pics, as did Skinner when he locked the Upton thread and EarlG when he locked Benny's thread.
Kali
(54,990 posts)a most effective social tool for influencing human behavior. too bad education and common sense don't work first.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)of social progress. To me, saying "Screw feminism! I'm a humanist!" honestly seems like a way of discounting specifically female concerns.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Last edited Sat Feb 22, 2014, 11:02 PM - Edit history (1)
If not, then there's no problem. People seem to want to talk about it. Every time the issue comes up, it spawns big honking threads.
The real question is why is it an issue and what are we to do about it?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)to some individual(s) or entity, as in a 12 Step program. Then await further instructions. There seems to be some dim recognition that the approaches & tactics to obtain these admissions has to-date been met with mixed success, and there is a need for new approaches & tactics.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)All these differences of opinion (and all the fights) should be about how best to elect Democrats to office. I suspect that a great many of these fights have more to do with brand loyalty than political strategy. And that loyalty is not necessarily to the Democratic party liberal/progressive ideals but rather issues that may have a core of importance but have been co-opted by profiteers and transformed into boutique issues that are little more than emotional comfort food.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Tanuki
(14,893 posts)"The title of the movie, along with a musical number in the movie, gets its name from an incident in 1976 when US President Gerald Ford's Secretary of Agriculture Earl L. Butz was forced to resign after it was reported that he joked that "the only thing the coloreds are looking for in life are tight pussy, loose shoes, and a warm place to shit." "
Is that actually something people of good will say where you come from?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)mine applies to anyone who has found a comfortable routine and manner, and has no intention of changing. I can't say the reference is meant to have good will toward the object of the joke, I sure don't pretend any.
But then, I have been hidden for referring to Chicago's gun laws as "Jim (large, raucus black bird)." And that wasn't a joke, either.
yewberry
(6,530 posts)When the topic comes up, there is a contingent of DUers who simply deny the existence of such of thing. The argument is that it is not a real thing. I myself was the lucky recipient of just such a lecture this morning. Fortunately, the thread referring to those who believe that obectification of women is a problem as "prudes with a stick up their asses" was locked.
I'm not sure that there is really a good starting place for this discussion, and the thread that started this wave of festivities (the Sports Illustrated thread) was certainly not it, as it was admittedly posted to goad other DUers.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)while I agree that objectification is an actual phenomena, so are quarks. I'm not really sure anybody really knows what they are talking about when they refer to it, or they are talking past each other when they try.
It could be that objectification is so dependent on context and the internal states of the objectifier and the objectified that there is no meaningful legislation possible. And if it is an issue needs to be dealt with, the only way to deal with it is through redesigning cultural mores, which is like adjusting the flavor of ten thousand gallons of soup a teaspoon of salt at a time.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)I for one am strongly anti-censorship, even for material that personally appalls me.
"...redesigning cultural mores... is like adjusting the flavor of ten thousand gallons of soup a teaspoon of salt at a time." Unfortunately, I think you're correct there. Really changing the way people think takes time, a LOT of time.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)I know why it is an issue for me and I know what I did about it.
hint: 2A
rrneck
(17,671 posts)In the end, it might be only effectively dealt with by the principles involved.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)I can only speak for me in regards to how this two topics intersect and I am seeing a lot of intersection taking place.
Remember how I was one of the biggest defenders against calling guns phallic symbols and how sexist that was.
gun-humping ... totally offensive.
what else?
seems like there are tons but, I am "drawing a blank" at the moment ....
rrneck
(17,671 posts)when applied to gender politics. I'm aware of "intersectionality" but I suspect, without any careful examination, that it has more to do with marketing than political action.
I'm less interested (here) in people's attitudes than why they have those attitudes and how they came to embrace them.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)between 2A and the gender issue. I am probably not explaining it well and for that I apologize. It is still germinating in my own head and hard for me to verbalize.
There is an intersection as a female gun owner that might be at cross purposes ... or something.
Also the two subjects seem to draw a lot of the same posters from the same groups here on DU3. And that is an intersection, to me.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)I posted a series of OP's that actually could be applied to the gender issue. They do bear a suspicious resemblance.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)LostOne4Ever
(9,267 posts)And would have avoided the flame wars we had recently.
I expect conservatives to spit on that, not progressives and liberals.
liberalmuse
(18,670 posts)no matter how well intended, is almost always going to result in a clusterf*ck in the comments. I guess things were much easier when we women knew our place and kept our mouth shut. It's sad, but I'm going to have to trash these well-intentioned threads, because if liberal men are this f*cked up on gender issues, we women don't stand a chance for at least another 100 years, and frankly, I find this unacceptable.
Squinch
(50,773 posts)Though I would suggest that those men who have such problems with gender issues are, by definition, not liberal.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)I think some people have different opinions about gender issues - but, the reason for the latest dust up has a genealogy that explains it, imo. But I could be wrong.
If you want to follow along, it went like this - someone posted a video from some Christian ministry about the evils of porn. Right wing fundie boilerplate. People, both male and female were joking about it. (I'm female, if that matters to someone about someone's opinion, to me, it doesn't.) It was hard to tell if it was a parody or the real thing, for me. But it's apparently a real vid.
Some, who you will see in the thread, thought this was a personal attack on them. Why anyone would think a right wing religious fundie porn video would be an attack on them... well, I don't know.
In that thread, someone called Riff a dog and, in HoF, women, plenty of them, have referred to her as a dog who just wants a pat on the head. This sort of insult goes on here frequently... to the point that, when I defended Jennifer Granholm's opinion about a person rather than an anonymous blogger - someone here said I was a pedophile enabler, and, thus, by extension, that person was calling Granholm a pedophile enabler. That's not considered over-the-top for some people here, iow, because they're so "radical."
So, Riff is a big sports fan, she posted the thread with a clearly identified title so no one had to click on the thread if they didn't want to, though, of course, she knew the outrage brigade would show up. And from there some people were going off on how disgusting the magazine was (way overaction, imo), but the same person apparently, has lived an isolated rural life where everyone expected everyone else to conform in order to get along because... you know... that's so necessary? really? I would hate to be a transexual in that place. And that person posted a shame-based thread about other women, making judgmental assumptions about them that are not in evidence, but, again, that small-town mentality tends to be xenophobic. So, this is interesting to see because objectification theory itself is based upon shame-based views of the human body. To accept objectification as the definition of your interaction in the world requires you to internalize that shame. No thanks.
I think sexism exists and I think women have a historical basis for claims for gender-based govt. actions to help level the playing field of centuries of sexism that arose from religion... and the shaming of females that is the central message of the story of humankind within western and, especially Anglo society with, say, Milton, still one of the most lauded writers in the English language. Any theory that requires me to internalize and then judge others, a philosophy that is, at its core, a view of the human body as disgusting... well, that's not my kind of feminism. To rid one's self of this shame, judgment puts the issue elsewhere.
This doesn't just hold for this one issue, fwiw, in terms of cultural cues. It is a feature, too, of homophobia when found in men who may have homosexual feelings... who are also overwhelmingly found in certain religious cultures.
Interestingly, in a recent meta study of porn, the right wing-funded porn studies that are the basis for "porn addiction" belief found that homosexual men within religious cultures felt the most damaged from using porn. They are internalizing the religious shame attached to their natural sexual orientation and latch on to explanations like, "porn is addictive." That's where the claim comes from - among homosexual men who are in environments that reject their sexuality.
fwiw.
I don't think Riff should've posted that in GD. I think it's fine to keep such things out of GD. The Upton post that followed was trolling because not everyone shares the same pov about how "horrendous" something might be.
So, all this really comes down to, again, is fights between personalities here and people who "side" with them. The men's group said they had opened their group except for one or two people - one I think sent someone some really hateful email or something. not sure. cursing at him, etc. Anyway, I don't see why the post can't be there. I looked at that forum (I've never posted there, rarely read there) and they have such a thread and both hetero men, women, and gay men have all posted photos of people and joked about this or that. I didn't even know the thing was here for a long time - but if you go looking for something to be offended by, I guess you can find it.
But from this latest flare up, I've come to discover that the cultural gap between people here is very wide sometimes, as far as what is offensive. I think DU has to try to find a happy medium and the men's group thing seems like a decent compromise to me.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I cannot imagine the shitstorm that would erupt if a male poster in the Men's Forum wrote that women were dogs.
Why is HoF getting a pass?
RainDog
(28,784 posts)that double standard. her name doesn't look like a female, so maybe that's it.
I know Hof people had tried to insinuate I'm male, and maybe even a transwoman. Which made me lol. Should I send them proof? LOLOLOL. for the record for those who want to justify their judgmental attitudes, however, I gave birth to two kids and nursed them both. If a transwoman has a doctor who can accomplish that... well... wow. I don't know a lot about that world. And ppl on DU know me irl.
Those who really know me irl know I question anything that easily aligns with the dominant ideology of a culture b/c it can manifest itself in so many ways. Shaming women for their sexuality aligns with that dominant culture.
When women from that group post that people think women and children are trash... I'm amazed that they make this sort of projection.
The reason the writers and intellectuals in the U.S. left the states and moved to Paris - the non-religious, the homosexuals, the African Americans - was because that rural small-town conventional mentality felt like a hand over their mouths that was suffocating. The reason people move to cities is to have more interaction with different cultures that are not permitted when conformity is deemed the primary value. The great American writers of the early 20th c. wrote about this - and it's a trait that remains, as we see in the rural/urban divide between the Democratic and Republican party - tho, obviously, not all rural people are Republicans. But Republicans appeal to that rural sentiment.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)they claimed to be, online.
The alert specifically stated that such a thing was point-blank against the rules, each time. Every time. Period.
And that's fine, to my knowledge I've never done that since.
However it's interesting that some people seem to be able to engage in exactly that, with impunity, repeatedly--- and in fact don't seem to think twice about it.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)I'm just glad I don't have to supply proof cause I wouldn't know where to put the photo id. x10
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)you know, something for the sophomores to fuck around with on their off-time.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)tho I have been around a few interesting algorithms in my time....
math is just one great big heartbreaker, that big palooka!
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)is my inability to read those damn captchas.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)RainDog
(28,784 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)"I'm searchin' for a lucky charm, with a needle hangin' out of its arm..."
1000words
(7,051 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)RainDog
(28,784 posts)no problem!
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)gender...then of course, it was explained to me by a member here who also had her gender questioned. But nothing should surprise us, should it? I mean, we have 5 women's groups on DU. 5. And, not content with FIVE groups, GD has to become a cesspit every single time the FIVE groups can't contain it all.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Orrex
(63,084 posts)RainDog
(28,784 posts)The one that some here claimed was the equivalent of racism (which they also accused him of.)
Nice to see Democrats with such open-minded views of the world. It's like being in upside down world, too often, to try to talk with some people about this, esp. the person who is saying everyone should conform to her rural homogenous group think. She and another person from that group also accused me of supporting rape.
And you'll find them in threads telling homosexuals to not be upset with the Pope 2.0, even if the church is one of the most sexist and homophobic institutions around.
They're so progressive!
eta: and recently, when I took issue with the emotional claim about porn made by that rural person in relation to an incident of horrific domestic violence, one of the feminists here told me, in essence, that she wanted to negate my personhood - she said I was void and blahblahblah because I wouldn't let that steaming pile of bullshit propaganda stand.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)and see how I said ... "like a dog"
analogy.
metaphor.
simile.
literary device.
reading comprehension.
juried post allowed to stand.
Riff is free to post whatever she wants and I can sit here and think whatever I want.
Who are you? The thought police that you will try to mind control my thoughts ...?
Maybe I expressed myself clumsily and for that I apologize but, the jurors understood so I do not think it was so awkwardly worded that the majority of DU3 did not understand what I was trying to say.
RiffRandell
(5,909 posts)Notice the word "boys". For the record, when you posted it I didn't have my blacklist filled out.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4537038
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)RiffRandell
(5,909 posts)I'm not being snarky; I'm being sincere.
While I believe the jury system works fairly well, I have no doubt it can be biased so it's for your own protection.
polly7
(20,582 posts)R B Garr
(16,920 posts)I've never seen her post anything except denigrating other posters and even taking things out of context to do so. The other day, I corrected one of her posts where she took credit for the SI "discussion", when she actually just posted pictures and didn't participate in any discussion except to belittle people. Her next post to me was something about MEN and watching sports. WTH. There is some competition in her mind that connects her posts here with men that is not going on in my mind. I think it's about getting people's posts hidden.
Violet_Crumble
(35,954 posts)Because I'm just not getting how that works. The way I read it, the post said that Riff is just like a dog looking for pats from its owner where its loyalty to its owner is unconditional and unthinking. As a woman and a feminist saying that to another woman just because she doesn't agree with someone else is making out that she doesn't have the intelligence to make her own decisions and choices in her life is offensive. That's the sort of crap misogynists come out with...
If I'm mistaken and there's some other way of reading that post, I'd like to know what it was, because I've been pretty disgusted with the way a few people who take offence at much less said to them have refused to say that the post was over the line and wrong. Which has made me realise that for some it's not about being opposed to sexism against women, just being opposed to sexism against women they see eye to eye with. And it was another example of a jury failing, a topic I know some have been very loud about lately...
R B Garr
(16,920 posts)The rest of my post was about their games to get posts hidden, and your friend seems to be deep into that to the exclusion of anything else. Why else are they talking about who's on someone's jury blacklist in this thread. It's no one's business who is on someone's jury list, but they want to keep things hyper-personalized which brings a higher chance of getting posts hidden. There's a lot more names I can come up with for that kind of agenda.
Feminism is what has been hijacked by those who just want to goad people here to get their posts hidden, so you can keep your sanctimonious crap.
Violet_Crumble
(35,954 posts)As there was no attempt to explain the supposed analogy to me, I can safely assume that the way I read that post was the only way it could be read. What's really bothered me about it has been the way the person who posted it has repeatedly doubled down on it and the way some who have dismissed it as just being mild name-calling would have a completely different reaction if it'd been aimed at them. If it'd been aimed at me I would have alerted on it (and I rarely alert), and if I'd been on the jury for it I'd have voted to hide it because I think equating women with dogs is something that shouldn't be acceptable at DU...
While you seem to think that's far less important than jury blacklists at DU, I don't, which is why I didn't bother with the rest of yr post, which was a blatant 'Look! Over there!' type of thing. We're supplied with a jury blacklist, and I've got mine strategically filled with folk who I think would judge any post of mine that's alerted on based on *me* rather than the content of the post. Nothing wrong with people discussing their jury blacklists and who's on them. If it bothers you, try alerting on it and see how you go, but make sure yr consistent and also alert on posts in this other thread where a few people are discussing who's on their jury blacklists...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=38630
Have a nice day...
R B Garr
(16,920 posts)to your question. It was a very thoughtful question in most regards because you explained your reasoning for asking without it being confrontational, and I've been thinking that it deserved a more thoughtful answer. Unfortunately that involves discussing individual posters and their agendas, hidden or otherwise, so it doesn't seem like a good idea and it seems like the very trap that they would like to lead people into so that they can alert on posts.
I have no interest in reading other discussions about jury blacklists since I'm only responding to what I've seen, and that is the posters I read were attempting to goad someone into saying something about them personally that they can alert on. You can even see it in the thread somewhere where they are asking to be insulted. Gee, I would imagine that if you ask to be insulted, you have an agenda that involves trying to get the insult hidden by a jury.
Have you ever said it was a dog-eat-dog world? Are dogs actually eating each other? No, it's a phrase that denotes competition. It doesn't mean that the people or situations you are discussing are actual dogs. It's a figure of speech.
Have you ever used the term ankle-biter? It's a figure of speech for something annoying, generally kids or small dogs that are pestering you. It doesn't mean that someone you might direct it to is an actual dog biting your ankles.
R B Garr
(16,920 posts)Does that mean I'm unattractive and can't get men, so I must hate them?
seaglass
(8,170 posts)to a dog's. Your tale is biased but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it is due to ignorance not purposeful.
The bottom line is that there is some conflict between personalities and that conflict is based on disagreements about ideas and how people interact when they disagree. There is some thinking the worst of each other, misinterpretation of what others are saying/have said deliberately and not and some actual nasty stuff that has been said. There is no doubt that the SI thread was started to stir shit.
But I am ever hopeful that something positive will come out of this. A good number of DUers recognized that posting T&A threads in GD helped to create a hostile environment on DU for women. A number of posters who did not recommend that thread and disagree about objectification have recognized within individual posts that the thread was not appropriate for GD. Skinner locked one and EarlG locked another related to this topic. So maybe even DUers who disagree that objectification is a thing or an important thing will refrain from posting T&A in GD in the future because while they may disagree, they are listening. Or maybe they won't do it because they don't want a locked thread, a hide or a week's worth of threads about the topic.
polly7
(20,582 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4120434
134. I knew you would. and Truly -- you are most welcome.
You deserve it.
that you can continue to laugh at simple old jokes and enjoy being petted by these men.
sort of like their old pet dog, reminds me.
the picture I have of you in my mind when I see you posting.
a good old hunting dog. loyal. pet. pet. good doggie. here let me throw you another morsel ...
lord. You crack me up.
haha. Hilarious. truly LMAO over her.
Mermaids Smoke Seaweed
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4537038
It validates her existence.
Good for her.
Who Cares.
I know I don't care.
It is not about SI.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4325366
seaglass
(8,170 posts)RainDog
(28,784 posts)I think that's really all that's required, many times, to be able to talk about things and not hurl insults. It's true that I don't follow all the back and forth. I've also never posted T&A, although I have posted boobies (birds) as a joke.
Just because I try to view something in one way or another also doesn't mean I agree with men making this or that statement - because most often I don't, although there are some good points to discuss, if we can all just maintain some civility.
Squinch
(50,773 posts)posters have posted multiple posts whose purpose was to bait the whole site?
Please.
And if HoF blew up the site every time someone called one of them a name, we could light up Los Angeles with the explosions.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Squinch
(50,773 posts)They will be Charleton Heston at the submerged Statue of Liberty, eons in the future, damning us to hell. Because someone called someone a name.
When HoF is called names - truly nasty names - multiple times a day.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)I'm not making a "they did so this is okay" statement. I think would be simplifying too much if I just said it was about an insult toward someone because the overarching issue seems to be about those whose idea of what is offensive is oftentimes very different - as in the example I posted - not the dog insult, but the people on that thread who think laughing at the fundamentalist religious view of porn is an offense against themselves.
Or maybe they were bringing in other garbage to that thread to continue a fight with others that, if someone has not been in that fight, would have no knowledge of. The thread was alerted on, even. I assumed it was because someone thought it was meant as a literal post... i.e. in support. Others assume it's because the porn crusaders share more common ground with religious fundamentalists.
No one has ever apologized for insults in these situations, that I know of. Instead, they've doubled down.
I'm talking about my interactions here and the stereotypical assumptions made by women toward me. I know what they're assuming and when I can step back, it makes me laugh because it demonstrates such a small mindedness. In the midst of being told I support child abuse - as a mother, that one really, really pissed me off. That person has nothing worthwhile to say to me because, instead of acknowledging what a asshole that made the person, it's dismissed... oh, these old grudges. Well, no. The person continues to do the same thing in various ways. The way I dealt with this, initially, was to put those people and those who supported them, often, on ignore until I could get beyond my disgust for their way of conducting themselves here.
For some strange reason, some here think they cannot just ignore people with whom they find no common ground when they can't discuss something without insults. That's one reason I posted the video from a woman talking about youtube comments.
Various people can and do create hostile environments here, iow.
RiffRandell
(5,909 posts)I do want to add that I also found discussions about certain gender issues that have been posted tiresome, flamebait and mean-spirited...if you didn't agree you were attacked.
Continuous cycle, which I would mostly stay out of because they were completely pointless to me.
Now, since posting the SI cover, in a group my gender is being questioned, lies are being spread that I've been to DU Meetups...I've stated this before but it's so bizarre until I consider the source.
In this thread the groups I participate in are being brought up. WTF??
Thanks, RD.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)There may well be some truth to this, though the discussion may also be beyond the scope of DU. I tend to think "prude-shaming" is just as dumb and misguided as "slut-shaming" a lot of the time, but I also place myself firmly in the anti-censorship camp. I have no problem with cheesecake photos as such, I just think there are better venues than GD for such material.
What we call "lust" is a perfectly natural, animal response. Whereas capitalist commodification of "lust" (e.g. Kate Upton's boobs all over the place) is not, and I think it's unfortunate how a lot of people seem to conflate their own sexuality with capitalist commodification of same, as if by, say, critiquing the porn industry, one were personally attacking them as a sexual being.
Otherwise, I'm in total agreement that no one should be ashamed of their own body or their own desires, so long as they don't act out in a way that's harmful to others. I think there's still way too much shame and judgement around sex in our culture, and I agree that any form of feminism which contributes to that is questionable at best - I just think the "you hate men/sex" card is thrown out way too frequently, and oftentimes as a pure strawman.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)Last edited Fri Feb 28, 2014, 12:18 PM - Edit history (1)
by someone else and extrapolating from there. I had hidden that thread from the person, but decided to go see what was up. What was up was a bunch of women making assumptions not in evidence about others, judging them on this basis - and I guess if that's good enough as an argument for them, it works for me, too.
In the case of that particular person, her attacks based upon what I perceive as, honestly, an inability to separate her emotional response to an argument has rendered anything she might say worthless for me. Others, obviously, will disagree, and do. My way of dealing with such people and their relentless insults because they lack an argument worth noting is to ignore them, mostly.
But when they attack me, they will get back the same.
If they don't, they will get the same.
It's pretty simple, to me. It's funny how people, women and men, don't like to be attacked on this site, no matter what side of an issue. In the great big scheme of things, it's somewhat worse to be attacked as a supporter of rape than someone with low libido.
If you're not a woman, you may not know the way that women criticize other women to try to keep them in line...whether it's their mode of thinking, their actions, their presumptions about someone they know little to nothing about... It's typical old-skool anti-feminist behavior. The only response they understand is if you attack them back, apparently. What they give is what they get back, but, of course, it's all someone else's doing.
Fortunately, I am gaining more ability, over time, to simply see the arguments put forth as little more than emotional tantrums, many times, that some here substitute for valid discussion and reasoned positions. I've come to that position by seeing their responses to others, not myself, which helps me to gain some perspective.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)at the expense of real, often vitally important issues. It's a shame, really.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)It's a shame when people make their personal beefs substitutes for thought, too. But, in this case, and others here, I'm at a point where I don't really care anymore, thankfully.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)Other than the Kate Upton in space thread (which was rightly locked).
I can wait.
FYI, DU is not work. It's not a workplace. It's not the break room in the workplace. It's a website and only a website.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Or the one about the wankfest.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)greatlaurel
(2,004 posts)Thank you so very much for your very thoughtful OP. IMO several of the posters seem to be bent on causing problems by posting offensive and obviously divisive statements. The numbers of these destructive behaviors seem to be increasing in recent weeks in an obvious attempt to distract us from the huge Republican scandals created by the horrendous GOP governors, Christie, Kasich, Walker, as well as the massive environmental problems created by the appalling lack of regulation of the fossil fuel industries.
Thank you again for being such source of reason.
AAO
(3,300 posts)Kudos!
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)I honestly don't think any gender threatens me, only individuals, corporations and governments do that. If I was forced to choose which gender to support in this argument, I would have to choose women. In fact, I would like to see women run the entire World for the next few centuries. Men have been in charge heretofore and they have done little but mash us up to the detriment of all living things and the planet itself.
As to Skinner doing a mass PPR on those who perpetuate this rivalry: That would most likely be highly destructive to DU and how could he really be sure of a clean sweep anyway. Screw the "War of the Sexes." What a waste of time.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)K&R
[center]Sometimes you should just take time to stop and look.....
[/center]
RiffRandell
(5,909 posts)I take All responsibility, but no apologizing for the posting of a magazine cover.
All insults are welcome; I'm a woman I can deal.
Bring it on.
1000words
(7,051 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)RiffRandell
(5,909 posts)In the past, yes.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Perhaps, with daily prayers and ablutions for the trillions of innocent souls you sent screaming to their doom with your heartless wanton act of sports illustrated swimsuit-posting, you can begin -yea, begin!- to wash the deep, black stain from your soul. Perhaps someday you can even rejoin the community of decent, God-Fearing folk.
Perhaps.
Violet_Crumble
(35,954 posts)They're very godly!
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I'm there.
polly7
(20,582 posts)She missed the deadline discount to be saved.
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0101/planofsalvation.html
I'm so sad for Riff.
(Can we all get together and raise $839.00 so this doesn't happen again?)
1000words
(7,051 posts)"What Would Jesus Do?" thong?
With a picture of Christ right "there" ... to remind you he died for the sin you are about to commit. Sexy!
Repent, indeed.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)RiffRandell
(5,909 posts)[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
edbermac
(15,919 posts)RiffRandell
(5,909 posts)I'm such a rebel.
Thanks for recognizing my screen name...not many do.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)<flush>
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)C'mon, admit it. You were just a pawn in the nefarious plot to deliberately make people freak out over a magazine cover which has been posted pretty much every year previously.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)You complain that, "These constant battles on DU detract from our primary purpose - by continuing them, you're doing the GOP's dirty work for them."
Yet I looked at the GD thread index by author, and this is the only OP you have on it. If the problem is that other issues aren't being talked about because of "these constant battles"--why on earth would you post another thread adding to them instead of any about "our primary purpose" that you claim is being ignored because of them?
kiawah
(64 posts)n/t
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I have spent years trying to bring attention to issues that are problems for men. Partly for moral but partly for practical reasons. The gender gap in politics is catastrophic - for us. Only 31% of unmarried women voted for Romney, but 53% of married women did.
Why do women suddenly change their voting patterns when they marry? I have to think that a part of it is the openly hostile rhetoric directed at men by feminist organizations. Once women marry, they also have husbands and sons whose wellbeing is important to them, and are fooled by the rhetorical differences the respective parties take toward those men.
It'd be easier to convince men that the democratic party is on their side when people like the president don't describe a 3:2 bias toward women in college as "a great accomplishment".
Men commit suicide 5x more often than women. Men die of workplace injury 12x more often than women. Men die younger of every preventable cause. Men are more likely to be unemployed. Men suffer more mental illness. Men are more likely to be homeless. They are more likely to be victims of violence.
Etcetera.
Etcetera.
Etcetera.
When I (or anyone) bring up these topics, an entirely predictable group of people tell the poster to shut up, man up, and stop whining.
So lately, poster after poster have written self-serving OP's telling "the men of DU" to stop being dicks because the important thing about this site is that it does not pose any challenging questions to or about feminism.
Yeah, I'm ambivalent to swimsuit threads in GD because I think there are much more important things to discuss, such as why education is failing boys so abysmally. You want to raise hackles and cause consternation? Ask that question.
The swimsuit threads were passive aggressive and superficial flamefests because we can't talk about important shit.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)If women made more money, men would have more options too, like being stay-at-home dads.
Likewise, the workplace has to accept that Americans have families and both parents have lives away from their homes and their jobs. When working people have no union power to create such conditions, they generally don't happen outside of companies that are trying to hire the newest new thing on a large scale. Most people don't work in those jobs.
When men and women both work outside the home, say in blue collar situations, there is more gender equity in the household, at least the last time I read about this. Women still do most of the work, but it's a better situation.
Most white collar professional jobs are salaried and the expectation in them is that employees will put in more than 40 hours a week in order to advance or even maintain for a while. That's an impossible expectation for two working parents. Something has to give and it's the partner with the lower salary, and that's more often women.
JustAnotherGen
(31,681 posts)And financial success of the wife prior to marriage.
In my situation and circle of women getting married now in their late 30's for the first time . . .
If you marry making six figures - its only money - but it's your money honey. It didn't come easy and for gen x women that slipped through the cracks of sacrifice made by baby boomer women in corporate America most of us are aware that we still have a long way to go. Add in being a minority woman - and my knuckles are bared.
Right now the Democratic Party speaks to everything aside from my financial interests. My husband is a juried artist who turned his restoration and design abilities into two solid lines of business in the US (sold his HVAC company end of last year). IE I married well. His lines now rely solely on people that shower when they come home from work to be productive - but lets face it. Bankers and Hedgies buy custom made iron railings and huge gates/fences for their homes.
I'm not willing to throw the people under the bus that can afford to buy from him - when of the now 26 employees - the lowest paid is an Admi/Receptionist clerk with a new Associates degree making $19 an hour. If the Democratic Party drops the ropes of social justice and equality for all - I will shift my loyalty to that which enables us to make sure the black female welders, asian male hipster receptionist, and 58 year old guy who moved from Michigan to do restoration work after being out of work for three years can continue to prosper.
My point in sharing this - perhaps that 20 something woman who married and had kids while entry level shifts her loyalties because she thinks someone dropped the rope on her on their end - so why should she hang on?
Everyone believes they have their own interests at heart. Everyone. It's called survival.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)It's not necessarily simply the age, but the sort of career one has. It's a joke among some friends that male musicians married nurses because nursing jobs are always in demand and their incomes were spottier, often. This wouldn't put either of them into an upper class, financially, but they were both willing to make that decision.
As far as shifting loyalties - I'm not sure what you mean? Voting for Republicans because those women married at a younger age? Could be. That's why it's important for women to live some life before they get married to learn about other ways of being, imo.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)My generation was expected to work outside and inside the home. I'm gratified to see that the young men see the need to do their share of the household and child rearing chores in this day and age. That's more progress and equality for women real progress and equality.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)But when a young working couple decides to start a family, there's only one way it works - you can't negotiate who's responsible for bearing the child - to maintain standard of living, the man must work more hours or get a better paying job to make up for her lost wages.
Once she reenters the workforce, the math of childcare means that they will only keep a tiny fraction of those additional wages, so her net contribution doesn't mitigate the need for him to keep the overtime/more hazardous and thus higher paying job.
When that family decides that they're done having children, the couple will learn that although a tubal ligation is free (because of ACA) a vasectomy is not (because of ACA).
In my experience, the only thing that enables a family to swap childrearing and worker-bee roles is a layoff of the man. It was a wonderful experience for me, but it only came about because of a major financial crisis.
And hours worked is essentially the same for men and women. Men work far more hours outside the home while women work more hours on household tasks. The pay gap, the hours worked gap, and the dangerous jobs gap show exactly what you would expect biology to dictate.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)confused with biology.
iow, it's not the default to assume that the traditional work arrangement in the U.S. since, say, the 1950s is the only way work is conducted.
the workplace, iow, has to acknowledge its problems - and those problems stem from gender assumptions - although, yes, the parent who decreases his or her outside work commitment is, for a lifetime, most likely to be punished, financially and within the field of a particular career as far as advancement, by taking that time - i.e. women will earn less if they take time out of the workforce to care for children.
This is why one feminist is so adamant that women should NEVER be stay at home moms only because it hurts them and, ultimately, all other women.
I say... the work force has to accept the cultural dynamic is no longer the model of the 1950s.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I've been accused of seeing all problems as math problems, with some justification.
A working career is roughly 40 years. The average number of children per married couple is 2.x. Let's call it three to make the math easier.
The woman in that relationship typically spends 33 weeks in maternity leave, and by child #3, the cost of childcare at an average of $11,000 annually, (say $30,000 for all three kids) is more than the median wage. If either of the grownups earn less than the median (probable) it makes economic sense to be a one-earner household.
More often than not, this role falls onto the man because he's been working overtime during the pregnancy and her maternity leave anyway.
When the woman is finally able to return to work, it's often part time to work around the kids school schedule, again because that makes more economic sense than dad changing jobs for one that offers more flexible hours (and thus less money).
When you factor all those things together, an average woman's working career is about 10% shorter than a man's, which combined with the difference in hours worked, nicely explains the chronic pay gap despite the fact that paying women less for the same work has been illegal for 50 years.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)But the reason for the calculations is because of the way work is perceived.
In Europe, for instance, families are paid a stipend when they have children, all families, no matter their income, to offset the cost of child care and to help with the expense of raising a child because, yes, it does take a village. It's ridiculous that women have so little support, both financially and culturally, for bearing and, stereotypically, being the chief caretakers of children.
It's work. As you know, and esp, you know since both you and I have autistic children - who often really impact the entire scope and spectrum of the idea of raising a child to take her or his place as an adult in society.
Our society claims it loves its children, but does not act in ways that support that claim.
There's no real way to substitute for actual time spent in a job, as far as advancement - so that's one of those things people have to realistically account for when they have children. Everyone makes compromises in life based upon where they are.
But all women who have children do not automatically fit into one stereotype or another about their goals in life for the long term - and this more mobile sort of interaction with work is something that needs to be considered too, in our society, if we want to treat people as humans not work cogs.
Some women and men have enough combined income to pay for things that would traditionally be additional responsibilities of one partner or the other - and then you get into the idea of the exploitation of the working class so that one set of jobs makes such possible while others do not.
Anyway, the reason I mentioned this in the first place was to note that women who are married to men who make a lot of money, but they don't, have their own motivations for voting republican - to validate their position and decisions - but you could also wonder if those men don't select women who are not going to expect equality either, as a condition of their relationship.
Marriages have power struggles too, and women could be considered "labor" in this dynamic, imo.
The unpaid work of women has been devalued since forever. I'm not talking about the division of labor for tasks that are part of home life - I mean the task of creating the next generation of voters.
This reality is another reason I support the idea of a basic minimum income - to acknowledge that being a parent in our society is also work.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)had a 2-3 month disruption in work and went right back to being the bigger or sole bread winner pretty seamlessly. Many were career professionals married to more laid back creative or self employed types and it was only their own stability in pay and benefits - that allowed their husband to take the risks, do their own thing or take it easier while be able to afford a child or two. A good half of them had their husband included for at least a few months if not years of their child rearing plan because they often have to work well beyond 50 hours.
Twenty years ago, that was a rarity. Now no one bats an eye in more enlightened workplaces. Everyone feels like the woman is lucky not to have to any damage her career at all.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)I can think of some guys (IRL) who desperately need one... And yeah, I'm evil for that...
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)And of course higher suicide rates, incarceration rates, death rates, among men, are important issues that need to be addressed. I just hope we can address them in a way that doesn't needlessly blame or undermine feminism.
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)This yields a pretty clear picture as to who the source of the incivility is here.
Squinch
(50,773 posts)Bennyboy
(10,440 posts)after deciding not to open any SI swimsuit issue thread until I had the issue in my hand< i went to my mail box and there it was. A day late which is unusual for SI. And it reeked.
I cam on here with the "I got my SI issue today" thread. I posted no pictures. I posted nothing whatsoever sexual in any way at all. I said it was late which was unusual and that it smelled.
My objective here was NOT flamebait. I was under the impression that for once, (lately) we could have an honest discussion about the mag.
my next post was something equally innocuous, aobut my favorite swimsuit, how the line between the layouts and the advertising was blurred.
No pictures. No "Hubba hubba", not "she's hot". Nothing. My next post, which i could not post, was going to be about walter Ioss and how much he has meant to me as a photographer.
The respondents to that thread really are some of the most incredibly mean people I have ever encountered. The suggestions that if a man sees a pretty girl that he immediately satisfies himself, is so sexist it is not fucking funny. (for the record, I have once "treated my body like an amusement park" to SI. in the fifty years I've seen it..... Cheryl Teigs).
I have never ever not one fucking time ever on this board, ever been that fucking mean to anyone, yet it is a constant with the crowd lately.
Yet, I see flamebaiting threads all day here. Right now there must be five of them on the front page. Of course they all see to have the same flavor to them...
So then, because I would really like to spit in the face of a couple of posters here (you know who you are), I thought some sarcasm was in order. I thought a funny story with my female friend (who is hot as hell) who photos golfers did a strip club tourney would do the trick. (I thought it was pretty funny) Well that was def flamebait, but again, so fucking what? That too (Once past my obvious sarcasm) could have become a discussion about how much my friend (who is hot as hell) has to make little compromises to do her job. Or how she (even though she is hot as hell) is fortunate enough to not have to become a stripper in order to support herself. Or how she works all day taking photos for a few bucks but the strippers get that stuffed in their G string every five minutes. Or how Walter Ioss is HER favorite photographer too and she thinks that being an SI photographer is THE DREAM JOB.
really I've been here a long time and we used to be able to discuss stuff. I know that I have added to it myself, sometimes, probably because I am not with a female partner now, and every once in a while I feel the need to piss someone (a woman or women usually) off, and I do it on DU. But look at my past posts and you wills ee that I seldom post int he sex wars thread. I'd much rather talk about important stuff but the posts die. The list of shit DU don't care about is getting longer everyday (see the TTP thread today for an example) and this board is becoming a one issue forum. (See the anti men threads today for example)
But it is so bad now, Coming to DU now is like having your Mom, your wife, you ex wife and your daughter telling you how to behave every minute.
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)You decided to post another very similar. What did you expect would happen?
RBStevens
(227 posts)This is a need you have and you choose to fulfill it here? Wonderful.
DLevine
(1,788 posts)Wonderful indeed.
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)because apparently it's our responsibility to take it.
RBStevens
(227 posts)What is really disturbing though is he does this because he doesn't have a IRL woman to piss off just right handy around the house.
I wonder why?
DLevine
(1,788 posts)Now pardon me while I go throw up.
RBStevens
(227 posts)Un-flipping-real.
Bennyboy
(10,440 posts)Try next time reading the whole post instead of making it a war.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Nice to see one admit it.
And note that he blames all women generally! No wonder he has periods without one.
Squinch
(50,773 posts)to take a class or something.
And sometimes you need to "to piss someone (a woman or women usually) off, and I do it on DU."
Do you understand that that is a completely shitty thing to do? Do you understand that that is sexist and simply nasty? Do you understand that no one has to stand by at the receiving end of your need to piss of a DU woman, and take that crap?
And still, you paint yourself as some kind of victim.
Really, do you seriously not know how crazy that is?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)What I don't understand is the second to last paragraph where you basically admit that you deliberately post here to "piss women off". It sort of destroyed the whole "poor innocent me" shtick.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)He really doesn't like women.
RBStevens
(227 posts)We know he has/had a mother. I wonder if he treats her the way he treats women here at DU.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)LOL
RBStevens
(227 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)And if he thinks expressing that opinion equals "bullying" him then he has a very myopic, self-centered worldview.
Bennyboy
(10,440 posts)And why this place is so hard to be now.
I don't hate women. In fact my very best friends are women. Almost every single close friend I have is a woman and my very very very best friend is gay and a female. And as I have said here many many times before, I have almost always in my life (except when i am with a hetero woman), have a gay female friend.. I prefer the company of women.
So go on jump to your conclusions and be sure to keep the fucking fires going.
boston bean
(36,186 posts)350. it is absolutely hostile and why this will be my last post here ever.
Seriously, in the past two days I ahve seen the absolute worse from people I thought wre my allies. FUCK THEM. Bunchafuckingcrones.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4553678
Definition:
crone
/krōn/
noun
plural noun: crones
1.
an old woman who is thin and ugly.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)and address it. I see you and I came to the same conclusion.
Why would any woman want to be with a man that has that attitude about his own family members?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I can't beleve you posted this.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)someone (a woman or women usually) off" because you are "not with a female partner now" you feel "DU now is like having your Mom, your wife, you ex wife and your daughter telling you how to behave every minute."
Sounds like a anger management problem you need to sort out with a therapist? Respect for your fellow DUers is not something you get to throw out the window whenever you can't have enough sex. It really isn't out fault if no one wants you.
idendoit
(505 posts)Can't say? Even behind the anonymity of your keyboard you're to chickenshit to say. You wouldn't do it if you had the chance anyway.
there is probably a damn good reason your Mom, your wife, you ex wife and your daughter may have been telling you how to behave every minute.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)the first rule of holes is when you are in one - stop digging.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)He seems to be disappointed.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024548058#post350
rrneck
(17,671 posts)fishwax
(29,146 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I thought empathy and self-moderation were liberal/progressive traits ... after reading through less than half the responses to your well reasoned call for the same, that clearly is not the case.
Hekate
(90,189 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I'm not clicking on that kate upton crap. What a waste of valuable research time in the vomit comet.
That airframe can only take so many cycles, the dive that produces free-fall is incredibly hard on the aircraft.
It's stupid, it's pointless, and waste of my time. I'm as 'red blooded' as any other male, but that's a complete waste of electrons.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Just out of curiosity LOL-
"I assure you, your manhood - such as it is - will remain intact if you modify your behavior slightly to accomodate those on DU who think differently from you"
Should I hide my gas hedger so you can't use it as a weapon
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)gentleman and gentlewoman.
I think you are onto something here.
not all men are gentlemen and not all gentlewomen are women
but,
all gentlemen are men and all gentlewomen are women.
Thank you for that Subject line. Gave me pause to think.