A number of my issues with the brand of Feminism on DU

[Veilex]

are represented here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017213190

I realize it is a bit meta, so I'll go into a little explanation here:

There is a whole kerfuffle over the Spiderwoman Cover... largely kicked off by someone claiming to be a Feminist.
Her (his?) issue with the cover, according to her argument, stems from the Spiderwoman's position. Someone else points out the position is fairly close to several typical Spiderman positions... she makes an argument that boils down to "nu uhhh". A number of images get posted that show Spiderman in fairly compromising positions and she gets asked her thoughts on them... she refuses to address them except to say they're no where near the same thing.

So it came down to she was offended by something that men might enjoy seeing... but had no problem with eye-candy for women.

So, my thought for the day is this:
If you're for equal rights... then be for equal rights... not just the ones convenient for you.

[Doctor_J]

1. It is such a strange dynamic. The "Greatest" page is nearly always plastered with

threads started by HoF members, pertaining to misogyny or spousal abuse or "the patriarchy", and so forth. From today:

In light of Ray Rice assaulting on his wife, and the victim blaming going around:

Biden: stop blaming women for their abuse, dammit!

The woman who started #WhyIStayed on Twitter:

What can society do the make it less acceptable to beat your wife or girlfriend?

Obama: ‘Hitting a woman is not something a real man does’

Why am I always reminded here on DU that women can be abusive just like men?

She married him because she is an idiot.

some women will put up with anything for money (attack on a DUer who posted that sentiment)

and so on. There are more. That's all well and good, but then despite all of these posts, and last week's debacle of a poster bringing a rape threat from another site entirely, and turning it into an attack on DU and other DUers, we are still told (in redqueen's GBCW thread)

Well I think she is leaving because of the rampant Misogyny women face here every day.

um, yeah.

Frankly between the HoF-ish threads, the vanity posts ("I'm not ashamed to say I love president Obama and always will!!!", and the duplicates (do we really need 25 separate threads on Chuck Toad?), the site's kind of lost its purpose. It was for the first several years a political discussion board for Dems and especially liberal politics. It's useless for that now.

Stick to "Good Reads" and LBN. Ignore the rest.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

2. It's been decided, in an OP saying "Yeah, yeah....I know men get abused, everyone knows that!"...

That men being abused is not real abuse....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025508545#post130

Women lack societal power. Becuase of the patriarchy they cannot really control men. Domeatic abuse requires power and control, so even when a women does strike a man, its not actually domestic violence. Therefore, until true equality is achieved, the female on male domestic violence is a non issue that need not be addressed.

[Veilex]

3. And let's not forget...

It isnt true abuse in the same way a white man cannot be a victim of racism.

Also: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025508545#post130

Even better, both were alerted and voted to be kept

[Behind the Aegis]

4. That is bad.

I know this isn't a competition, but when I saw "you can't rape the willing" in regards to men being raped by women (and implying gay men can't be raped), I went through the roof! The fact it wasn't hidden was jarring. Fortunately, there were a number of women who took her to task.

Abuse is abuse.

[nomorenomore08]

9. A dubious argument to be sure.

Just because women are far more likely to be seriously injured or killed by an intimate partner, doesn't mean abused men have nothing to complain about. Abuse of a person one is supposed to love and care for, is wrong no matter who it involves.

[Veilex]

41. Exactly right!

[lumberjack_jeff]

49. The fact that reciprocally violent relationships are the ones most likely to produce injured women..

... illustrates some urgency to dealing with the entire cycle of violence.

Even if one were completely indifferent to the plight of male victims of IPV, there are still good reasons to change the way we do things.

[nomorenomore08]

54. I think dealing with intimate partner violence as a whole is vitally important, yes.

You and I might perhaps differ on the exact approach, but at least we both acknowledge there's a serious problem.

[Warren DeMontague]

5. There have been easily 500 times more DU posts upset about spiderwoman's butt, than about ebola.

That right there ought to tell you something.

[Eleanors38]

7. J.Lo's butt pulled ahead of Kardashian AND Spider Woman's.

[nomorenomore08]

10. We're a shallow, superficial culture that likes to squabble over the most inane bullshit.

So a 500-post thread RE: Spiderwoman's ass - while ridiculous - doesn't greatly surprise me.

[Warren DeMontague]

12. Oh, it doesn't surprise me a bit. I've been here long enough.

I wonder, sometimes, what the assorted axe-grinders of all stripes think they're going to accomplish... I mean, really accomplish.

I'm sure The spiderwoman's butt internet kerfuffle, for instance- by no means limited just to DU, mind you- only served to invariably drive up the value of the limited edition cover.

Goooooooo figure.

[nomorenomore08]

13. On the one hand, I'm not going to dictate to someone else what they should consider important.

On the other hand, I think we could all stand to pick our battles a little better.

[Warren DeMontague]

15. I wont either.

But then I also reserve the right to find things ridiculous when they strike me as such.

[nomorenomore08]

16. Same here. There's a lot of silliness on DU, and it's not limited to any particular faction. n/t

[nomorenomore08]

11. I can more or less see where you're coming from, but I still think you're over-generalizing.

That Spiderwoman thread was a pretty spectacular flame-out - even if I can sympathize with her frustration over being mocked and ignored much of the time. While I might occasionally see her as misguided, overall I "get" her point of view RE: misogyny and violence against women, especially knowing some of her personal history. I just think she should maybe pick her battles a little more carefully.

And yes, I have had positive interactions with most of the HoF members, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything they say.

[Warren DeMontague]

14. The thing is, when people insult and personally attack others fairly regularly

It becomes a bit specious for them to complain about being "mocked".

In my experience what passes for "mocking" often, usually, turns out to be someone better at being funny, than they are.

I had someone get posts hidden for calling me a racist who hates disabled people, and yet among some circles here that person did no wrong, rather i was guilty of "microagressions" because... Fuck, I dont remember exactly but I think it shook out to me not being baited despite rpeeated attempts.

I am sympathetic to peoples' personal history- hell, I have personal history too- but I dont think that anyone here tends to get a reputation for causing issues (and that includes me) unless they have earned it over time.

[nomorenomore08]

17. I do think you've been treated unfairly, and misrepresented, by certain posters. I've said as much

before. Some people just seem to have this need to divide the whole world into "good guys" and "bad guys" when reality is more nuanced than that.

Like I said, I can sympathize with someone and still find their approach misguided at times. And while I disagree with some of the personal attacks on other posters by certain HoF members, seems to me they get as good as they give. On Discussionist especially, some posters have a downright hilarious obsession with this one little "clique" that evidently wields enormous power (and not just on DU). Again, real life is way too complex to be reduced to these absurd caricatures (and all "sides" do it, undoubtedly).

[Veilex]

20. "Some people just seem to have this need to divide the whole world into "good guys" and "bad guys" "

This another rather big issue I have with the brand of feminism on this site. There's a tendency to very quickly otherize people who don't view feminism as the top priority issue of DU.

Feminism is important! However, it is far and away not the only important issue out there... and yet it often gets defended aggressively as though it were.

To be fair, not all the feminists on this site act that way... but there's a notable number who do.

[Warren DeMontague]

23. There are good guys. And there are bad guys.

[nomorenomore08]

26. "There ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy..."

OMFG DAVE MASON EARWORM AAARRRGGGHHH!!!

[Warren DeMontague]

30. You're far too young to have Dave Mason stuck in your ear, sonny.

Careful, next thing you know you'll be leaving a cake out in the rain.

[radicalliberal]

32. You asked for it!

[img][/img]

Oh noooooo, o-oh no-ooooo!

[youtube]

[/youtube]

I actually like this song! [img][/img]

[nomorenomore08]

25. Point taken. But I think you have to consider what's at stake, not just in this country but globally

Rape, domestic abuse, even FGM are at epidemic levels in much of the world. And even the U.S. - by First World standards at least - is a very violent, sexist country.

So I wouldn't blame anyone, least of all a woman, for placing a high priority on "women's issues." And when someone else doesn't share the same urgency, I think it's quite easy (even if not entirely justifiable) to see them as part of the problem.

[Veilex]

27. "you have to consider what's at stake, not just in this country but globally" - And I do.

I'm an Egalitarian... I view everything through the scope of equality for everyone... so I do consider the stakes in quite a few different areas.

"So I wouldn't blame anyone, least of all a woman, for placing a high priority on "women's issues." " - You and I differ here specifically because of the level of high priority being foisted on others on this site. This is Democratic Underground... not Feminist Underground. While Feminist issues are important here, they are not paramount... they should not be elevated to a level that other aggrievements are considered merely a distraction from Feminist issues. That happens here... and its not right. In fact, its one of the things that pushed me away from feminism. Took me a while to find out that I'm an Egalitarian... someone who supports equal rights, both social and economic, for all... not just the loudest or most recent group trying to dominate the site.

I support feminists... but I refuse to support them to the exclusion of others social and economic issues.

[nomorenomore08]

28. "I refuse to support them to the exclusion of others social and economic issues."

And if anyone truly expects you to do so, then they're being unreasonable.

But personally, I tend to see it more the other way around - a lot of otherwise left-leaning folks (not all of them male) have a tendency to be somewhat dismissive of feminist issues in the name of "focusing on what's really important." And as I alluded to above, from the perspective of a woman (or even a sympathetic man) in a violent, dangerous, highly sexist world, feminist issues indeed are "what's really important."

Understand that I'm not personally accusing you of being dismissive. And there are indeed feminists who gloss over issues of race and class in their pursuit of gender equality. But by the same token, there are those progressive activists who give greater weight to racial and economic inequality while comparatively ignoring gender.

[Veilex]

29. "folks (not all of them male) have a tendency to be somewhat dismissive of feminist issues"

And this needs to be struck down for the exact same reasons I've outlined.

People, in general, need to embrace the idea of looking outside themselves to understand issues other people have... this would go a long way toward dealing with the ails of our society.

[nomorenomore08]

31. I can't argue with that.

[Warren DeMontague]

22. Well, anybody who knows who I am over on DI

has figured out that I certainly don't take that place any more seriously than I do this one.

[Veilex]

18. In her case...

I took issue with her duplicitous outlook... that she saw the compromising pose of Spiderwoman as wrong, but was perfectly fine with the compromising poses Spiderman is frequently in. I just cannot tolerate a double standard... and this was textbook example of one.

[nomorenomore08]

19. The world is filled with double standards, many of which do great harm to one gender or even both.

I just think it's a shame that she chose this particular hill to die on.

[Veilex]

21. "The world is filled with double standards" - While true, that doesn't excuse it.

Its not the sort of thing that should be allowed to stand either.

[nomorenomore08]

24. I didn't say it excused it. But frankly, I have better things to worry about.

And it's not like anything anybody says is going to stop me from admiring the female form.

[Hayabusa]

33. You can add GamerGate to the list

Yep, the revolt against corruption in games journalism is clearly all about harassing the women in the business. I hadn't seen that much about it on here, but apparently that's because I wasn't paying attention. All I've seen in the threads that I've searched have pointed to the same thing: Zoe Quinn is being harassed because a vengeful ex-boyfriend aired dirty laundry. The truth, however, is more like this:

* In mid-August, Quinn's ex-boyfriend released The Zoe Post, documenting the end of their relationship including text logs. Other than an outpouring of empathy (since several of those logs can easily be read to hint at an emotionally abusive relationship) was the identity of a few of the people that she had had affairs with: one of which was a video game journalist that had covered her video game Depression Quest. Despite the fact that the timeline on the article and the affair didn't match up, the issue of such a conflict of interest began to raise questions about the integrity of games journalism and how truly unbiased where they, especially after the events of DoritoGate (when a gaming television reporter did a segment in front of Mountain Dew and Doritos plastered with the logo of Halo 4) and when a Gamespot reviewer was fired for giving a bad review to Kane and Lynch.
** Admittedly, there were trolls out in force. Trolls will be trolls.
* A massive censorship of the story was carried out on sites such as 4chan and Reddit, where a thread there had over 20,000 comments deleted after a mod on it had tweeted Quinn.
* Several online gaming publications then released --within 24 hours-- several articles proclaiming that gamers were dead and that the misogynists in the movement didn't want their "Boy's club" invaded.
* Actor Adam Baldwin coins the term #GamerGate to refer to this backlash and several surmise that the articles had to be coordinated somehow.
* A Brietbart UK tech reporter is e-mailed a series of Google Group messages showing that the articles had indeed been coordinated and urged the online magazine The Escapist to purge discussion on their forums. When they refused,they were shunned.

Sorry for the wall of text, but I wanted to get the other side of the story out there. It's been framed as sexist from the beginning, mainly by the very ones that are trying to avoid being called out on their lack of ethics. And on DU, as well even Wikipedia, that is the only narrative that is being spun.

[Veilex]

34. I highly doubt there are many (if any any) clean hands on this one...

I have little doubt that Quinn and Ex were throwing barbs at each other... few people are mature enough to avoid doing that after a break-up due to raw emotions and reasons and phycology that I won't get into here (it'd need a separate thread for that)... somewhere along the line, things clearly got out of control and took on a life of their own... so much so that entire identities of people were demonized... all because of the actions of minorities that resided within those self-identified categories.

Fortunately, I think most reasonable people see through those efforts, and recognize them as the garbage they are... and recognize the issues as being valid, yet largely isolated.

I don't know if I'm right or wrong on this... I do know there is a lot of sides to this issue... and I also know I won't let fringe groups claiming to be feminists get away scot free with demonizing the term Gamer... nor will I allow those who committed those heinous acts, while waving the gamer flag around, to go un-admonished/unreported/blocked/etc. Those who committed those acts have no right to the word Gamer, and I'll be damned before I allow them to appropriate it for their own use.

[Hayabusa]

35. There are trolls on both sides

and a lot of people on the GamerGate side are doing their best to keep them under control, but it's a difficult job. As for the other side, way too many strawmen have been destroyed.

[Veilex]

36. Yet another perfect example of issues I take with the DU's brand of Feminism

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017218520#post12

&

Sexism CANNOT be practiced by both sexes in a patriarchy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017218520#post9

So, in effect, "you're a man... you can't be objectified/abused/raped by a woman"

[hifiguy]

37. Jury results

This poster's constant attack on DU's feminists is really inappropriate. Feminism is part of the Democratic Party platform. I can't believe that people actually engage in feminist bashing here... COMPLETE with call-outs... Completely rude, insensitive and inappropriate.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was COMPLETED at Thu Oct 2, 2014, 04:47 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: As a feminist, I disagree with the linked posts as yes, sexism can go both ways. Upthread on that linked thread is the quote "the -ism is about systemic discrimination, not individual BEHAVIOR." Ism can be both systemic and individual. No matter who is the ruling power, individually, yes, any ism can go either way. That said, I do not see this as an attack on DU's feminists but instead sharing in this rather closed group.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Totally agree with alerter.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: First of all this was posted in the Men's Group, which gives this alert a strong whiff of post stalking. Secondly, linking to or accurately QUOTING things posted by other DUers is neither "bashing" nor "attacking." Nor is it calling out. If you don't want to stand by a statement, distance yourself from it; if you wrote it, own it with all that implies. hifiguy
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
____

I have taken to signing my jury votes.

[Veilex]

38. Interesting.

"This poster's constant attack on DU's feminists is really inappropriate" - My so-called constant attack has been bringing light to the duplicity of some assertions that have been made here.

It is inappropriate to claim special dispensation over an offense, and then turn around and deny dispensation for that very same offense simply because the offended person(s), are not part of your specific group.

This is an issue of fairness. Rather than discussing the issue, someone would rather shut down the whole conversation... because they don't want to be fair about it.

"Feminism is part of the Democratic Party platform." - Feminism is absolutely part of the platform! As it should be! However, some have taken to thinking that Feminism is somehow antithetical to men (or any other group) having their rights as being part of the party platform as well. As an Egalitarian, I firmly believe BOTH groups are part of the party platform. We all have issues we want addressed, and we all have a right to stand up for what we believe in.


"I can't believe that people actually engage in feminist bashing here..." - There was no bashing that happened here.

"Completely rude, insensitive and inappropriate." - If by this, you mean I didn't just roll over and buy into the notion that men should not be defended as well as women... then sure, its true. There are no shortage of aggrieved people in the world... Feminists are one group among many.

As I've said before: If you're for equal rights... then be for equal rights... not just the ones convenient for you.

[hifiguy]

44. Quoting (and linking to) their own posts is viewed as an attack or "bashing".

As is pointing out the Palinesque word salad nature of particular posts. That is pathetic.

[Veilex]

45. +1 - It also dilutes and distracts from the valid push of feminism.

We end up playing games where popularity becomes more important than facts.
The fact is men can be victims of sexism. This fact in no way detracts from the seriousness of the issues surrounding feminism... but some seem to think it does.

It is never okay to ignore one wrong to focus exclusively on another.

[Veilex]

39. Thanks for sharing hifiguy

[Major Nikon]

40. "Sexism CANNOT be practiced by both sexes in a patriarchy."

Unadulterated nonsense.

Both victim and the harasser can be either a woman or a man, and the victim and harasser can be the same sex.

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sex.cfm

[Veilex]

42. +1

And this is one of the pervasive concepts adopted by some (certainly not all!!!) feminists on this website.

How something so blatantly wrong could possibly be considered part of feminism is absolutely beyond me.

[Hayabusa]

43. You see this a LOT with this particular brand of feminism.

"White people cannot be racist against because privilege...", "Women cannot be sexist against men because oppression levels..." It's ridiculous and an almost textbook example of moving the goalposts.

[nomorenomore08]

47. In what sense are white people, or men, systematically discriminated against?

Anyone can be a hateful asshole, sure, but social and political power is a factor too.

[lumberjack_jeff]

48. Great question. Can we establish some definitions first?

a) would you agree that institutional discrimination is discriminatory treatment of individuals by institutions such as governments based on stereotypes related to immutable characteristics such as sex, orientation or race?
b) would you agree that a primary unsubtle manifestation of institutional discrimination would be laws which treat one group (characterized above) of individuals as a class preferentially relative to another?

Are we agreed as to definitions?

[Major Nikon]

51. I'm not sure anyone who makes such claims will agree to any definition

If they actually do, I'd love to see what it is. All I ever see are examples which pretend to meet some unspecified definition. Any example you give to counter it will be automatically disqualified because of no better reason that "teh patriarchy" and men are in power even though women have made up the majority of voters since Johnson was elected.

http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/voters/documents/genderdiff.pdf

[lumberjack_jeff]

53. Hope springs eternal.

I'd like to get past the idea that equality demands greater levels of retributive injustice.

[nomorenomore08]

55. More or less, yeah. Those definitions are a good start at least.

I just don't see women, overall, as being given "preferential treatment" in any greatly meaningful way. I see that as similarly spurious as the argument that affirmative action equals racism against whites.

[lumberjack_jeff]

57. So examples that comply 100% with the definitions given upthread would fall on deaf ears?

I can see only one rationale for that. Present injustices and institutional discrimination are punitive collective punishment for perceived past sins. In other words, "yes, institutional discrimination exists, but we approve of it".

... Actually I can see two. The other rationale is that individuals within the two groups are inherently and fundamentally unequal, and society needs to intervene on the behalf of one of the parties, i.e. The Americans with Disabilities act.

Personally, I apply the same standards to the concept of gender injustice and privilege as I do to race.

Let's avoid the minefield and start in a place of broad agreement. Can you think of some anecdotes or statistics exemplary of white privilege and/or racial injustice? Crime? Homelessness? Education? Unemployment? Health? Wealth? Violence?

Let's then apply those same metrics and measures to gender and see if we can reach any conclusions.

[nomorenomore08]

58. Men do have a lot of legitimate problems in this society - incarceration, homelessness, etc.

But aren't those largely related to policies enacted by other men? I don't see how you can spin it into some notion of men being oppressed by women.

[lumberjack_jeff]

59. So discrimination against men administered by other men is not oppression?

For instance, it was an all-male supreme court who, in 1981 that ruled that men lack 14th amendment protection. Would not a nation whose supreme court explicitly holds that men are not entitled to equal protection under the law, be institutionally discriminatory?

[nomorenomore08]

62. Of course it's still oppressive. I didn't really mean to suggest otherwise.

Patriarchy (or whatever you want to call it) is just as bad for men, in many ways, as it is for women. All the more reason to pass the ERA, and if it leads to the dismantling of whatever laws have supposedly "favored" women, then so be it. I still think it would be a net gain for both genders in the long run.

I guess maybe I'm taking a longer historical view, where women were explicitly denied the vote (and many other rights of citizenship) as women, whereas men, historically, were not disenfranchised on the basis of gender - race, class, etc. being a different story obviously. Much like with racism, the laws have changed, but ingrained cultural attitudes lag behind. And the disproportionate influence of Evangelical Christianity on contemporary American politics certainly doesn't help, with the idea of men having authority over women and women's bodies still being appallingly widespread in many parts of the country.

But no, two wrongs do not make a right, and I tend to think Rostker v. Golberg was dead wrong. The Selective Service should be abolished entirely IMO, but if not, it should be expanded to include women.

[Major Nikon]

65. Historical racism is not the same thing as historical sexism

If your great grandmother was denied the right to vote, you are just as likely to be male as female.

[lumberjack_jeff]

66. So you'd call it oppressive, but not "systematically discriminated against"?

I'd consider the latter a more easily defensible view than the former.

[nomorenomore08]

67. Okay, I'll grant you that point.

But I would never use it as a reason to downplay systematic discrimination against women, as some people (not necessarily you) seem to do. Like I said, rigid gender roles hurt both genders (see your Selective Service example).

[Major Nikon]

68. That's a fair point, but one that works both ways

Remember this all started with a discussion around someone who claimed discrimination against men is impossible.

[nomorenomore08]

69. Systematic discrimination against men *by women* probably isn't possible other than in very specific

cases. But otherwise, men arguably face just as many unfair gender-based expectations as women do.

[lumberjack_jeff]

70. Would you concede that education is one of those "specific cases"? n/t

[nomorenomore08]

73. Like a school district where the majority of administrators are women, discriminating against male

students? I can't think of any specific cases, but I suppose it would be possible.

[lumberjack_jeff]

74. how many "school administrators" educated you? nt

[nomorenomore08]

75. Replace "administrator" with "teacher," then.

Are you arguing the educational system is fundamentally biased against male students? Much as it has been, traditionally, biased against female students interested in mathematics or the sciences?

As I've said before, I do think that young men in this society face a variety of challenges, many if not most of which are tied to overly rigid gender roles.

[Major Nikon]

71. If that's true, then the reverse is even more true

Remember that women make up the largest voting block.

[nomorenomore08]

72. If you completely ignore all of history and "tradition." n/t

[Major Nikon]

76. I don't understand how 1950 is relevant to your assertion

So perhaps you can explain that to me. In 2014, it's pretty hard to understand how women can be systemically discriminated against while simultaneously making up the largest voting block unless women are going along with it.

[nomorenomore08]

77. A hell of a lot of women *are* going along with it. That's the thing.

I usually tend to dismiss Andrea Dworkin as sort of a crackpot, but she did raise some valid points in her writings RE: "right-wing women" (the phrase she herself used).

[Major Nikon]

78. Which is the same thing as saying lots of women like traditional gender roles

Spend more time with family and less with being a wage slave while the men traditionally get the other end of that stick. Not a bad deal, really. Being pro-choice should mean respecting those choices so long as they are indeed a choice. Equal opportunity does not necessarily mean equal outcomes which is exactly how gender discrimination is fundamentally different than race discrimination and underscores the peril of trying to conflate those two things. Choosing a traditional gender role is NOT discrimination regardless of how much the Dworkin parrots want us to believe that women lack agency.

[bettyellen]

79. it sounds that you actually like traditional gender roles - and so, excuse the enforcement of them.

explains a lot.

[Major Nikon]

80. Assumptions are the mother of all fuckups, which also explains a lot

Personally I was raised in a situation which ran completely contrary to traditional gender roles and I have never had any use for them. Had you bothered to read very many of my posts you would have found I have on many occasions advocated strongly against them as they serve no useful purpose. However, I just choose not to bend reality to fit my ideology. When there is no requirement for traditional gender roles, yet large segments of the population remain within them, one can reasonably assume without too much risk of fucking up that they are maintained by choice.

[bettyellen]

81. I guess you could feel that way if you don't get around much. Traditional roles are rapidly dying

out in most urban centers, and the rest of the population will discard them as well in the next 30-40 years. Our economy does not support them for most people anymore. The SAHM model is for the upper classes and deeply impoverished, most Moms work these days.
Sad that they are most often still pressured to keep house too.

[Major Nikon]

82. I get around enough not to rely on anecdotal evidence and biased perceptions

Average hours per week spent doing unpaid household and paid work by sex, 2003–07

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2009/07/art3full.pdf#page=7

[bettyellen]

83. Dad as primary earner is a dying breed- down half in 30 years to just 20%

It is no longer the norm at all, and very common in the city to see Dads taking care of children. The genie is way past out of the bottle on this is major cities, just a matter of time -with the rates women are choosing to educate themselves - that this will be the norm nationwide in 20 years.

Those stats have completely flipped if you go back 50-60 years, because women have fought hard -during that time- to have options that they just did not have back then.

[Major Nikon]

84. That's a different dataset

Women are earning more because they are becoming better educated. This doesn't necessarily mean they are working more hours in income generating activities. Those differences just aren't trending that much. Men have been consistently spending about 40% more time in income generating activities for at least the last 10 years. There are also other explanations for those changes. Stagnant wages over the last 40 years means two incomes are required to maintain or improve standards of living which is a coping mechanism the middle class has had to make.

[bettyellen]

85. LOL, anything else you can think of to deny that women actually like working and or deserve to be as

well compensated for it? Seems both are a sore spot for you, not sure how well you'll enjoy the rest of this century.
Women are evolvong right past these bullshit roles that used to be just accepted without question. We don't fall for these crap excuses and "data sets".

[Major Nikon]

87. Strange how you think I'm the one with the sore spot on the subject

When you are the one getting emotional over facts. I'm not going to continue to have this discussion with you if insist on being derisive for no good reason.

Have a nice day.

[Veilex]

88. Seemed to me you had a pretty well reasoned point...

the counter seemed to be merely a dismissal of evidence based details in favor of anecdotes... and mild mockery... all in all, pretty tepid as counters go.

Thanks for sharing, Major Nikon

[bettyellen]

95. his point is all women "deserve it" because we don't all vote progressively enough. you would have

to say all of us Dems deserved the Reagan years, or the Bush years, if you believed such tripe.
In other words, bullshit- and not anything close to a progressive POV.

[Major Nikon]

99. My point wasn't even within a cab ride and that is NOT my quote

Those words don't even appear in this thread until you used them. I haven't misrepresented your posts. I'll thank you not to blatantly libel me. Please edit your post and remove it.

[bettyellen]

100. nonsense, you repeatedly assert that if women wanted things any other way, they'd have voted for it

because they vote in slightly larger numbers than men do. you blame women for their current inequality ALL THE TIME.

[Major Nikon]

101. Point to the post where I wrote your quoted text

If you can't, then you misquoted and misrepresented me. It's just that simple. Nowhere did I say women deserved discrimination or implied any such thing. You are simply trying to be a bully here.

[bettyellen]

105. Nonsense, you imply it all the time. Sorry- you cannot post making excuses for regressive bullshit

all the time, and not have people take note.

[Major Nikon]

106. You cannot continue to dishonestly spread catty rumors

This isn't about implying anything which I never did in the first place. If you inferred as much you were wrong.

This is about you quoting something I never wrote and dishonestly attributing it to me. It's one thing to make an honest mistake. It's quite another to insist your obvious misrepresentation is accurate and refuse to correct it when it's brought to your attention and asked politely. I have been quite patient and polite with you while you have been nothing but derisive and bullying. I'm afraid I must insist on a certain level of civility here.

[Major Nikon]

102. Seems to be a pretty good validation of your OP

Equal rights doesn't mean everyone has to be the same. It just means everyone gets the same opportunity. Regardless of how appealing a genderless society sounds, both men and women are simply going to be quite happy embracing traditional gender roles.

[Veilex]

103. Indeed.

Some are so convinced that they have a magical view into the heart of all women... some are convinced that they secretly all want to be in the workforce... which reminds me of the wrongheaded notion of some men to think when a woman says no, she really means yes. Women are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves in what they want and don't need some augur declaring what their thoughts are. No one person can ever speak for an entire class of people. We all have individual choice, and right to express that choice... free of the assumptions of others.

Women have a right to choose to be whatever they want to be. They don't have to be in the workforce... they don't have to be feminists (though, they'd likely be better off in my opinion).

Men, on the other hand, are still judged as worthless if they do not hold a job. House husbands, while on a slow rise, are still looked down on. There is no acceptable social rights advocate for men. They have to just suck it up and stop whining... or they are the patriarchy so they can't be wronged, or this reason or that reason or whatever reason.

Equality cannot be a one sided thing. We either have equality or we don't. Women (or perhaps more accurately; (some) Feminists) blame men for their ails... and yet men suffer too... but if they seek advocacy, they are wrong? They are the bad guy? Even the words "bad guy" assumes the villain is male.

The bottom line is this; Everyone, without exception, should have a right to choice in how they wish to live, free of persecution, so long as their not harming anyone.

If people are going to claim they are for equality, then the need to be for equality. Not just when it is convenient... or when it fits their most recent diatribe-based narrative.

[bettyellen]

89. I'm so sorry you can't handle the conversation without having emotional issues-

whether it's your own hurt ego @ derision, or my "emotions"- that exist only in your imagination- it's a darn shame.

Was so looking forward to many more cherry picked surveys that rationalize women getting cheated out of equal pay and more denial of the huge changes in the bread winning trend over the last 50 years. I know that is a LOT for people who prefer the old ways to handle.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

91. This is why I use mansplaining exactly how it is meant = as a conversation ENDER

because god help me off the merry-go-round. Who wants to ride this carousel ?

Moving On.

To more productive conversation/discussion elsewhere.

but, bless you for trying bettyellen.

patience of Job.

[bettyellen]

92. Yeah, that was classic gaslighting.... and I am sure they would argue that gaslighting is something

that doesn't exist. Instead of something they are happy there are no accurate stats on, so they can pretend it doesn't happen.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

93. ... lol ... I can see it now ...

#NotAllThey ...

[bettyellen]

94. It's fucking hilarious that anyone would claim that women do not want equal pay or opportunity

I guess you could get stupid ideas like that if you believed societal issues just magically disappear overnight.
At best it's incredibly naive, but I don't think that is what it is.
In essence it is saying women deserve less rights - including reproductive- because some women vote against their best interests. That is like saying all of us Dems deserved the Reagan years. That is just plain cruel, as well as ridiculous. Not a progressive POV at all.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

96. patience of Job. You have it. eom.

[lumberjack_jeff]

97. When asked, more women than men respond that time off is more important than money

This shows up in hours worked per week.

http://www.statcrunch.com/5.0/viewreport.php?reportid=7996

And when men and women work the same hours in the same jobs, they are paid essentially the same.

The whole goal of feminism is empowerment, right? Just hypothetically, what if some women prefer to be empowered to do something that you wouldn't choose?

[bettyellen]

98. empowerment is nothing without equal opportunity and pay- neither of which exists

despite your claims otherwise. Ledbetter is useless, and the few places where they are able to accurately track pay, like civil service jobs- there have always been unexplained disparities.
Aside from that, your post has nothing to do with mine, about the argument presented that women deserve less because too many vote against their interests. Anyone who claims that is doing nothing more than rationalizing discrimination- and that is just not progressive.

[lumberjack_jeff]

104. fundamentally nonsense.

Until equal numbers of women elect to be chemical engineers and welders instead of teachers and daycare staff, the pay gap will always exist. So long as women choose careers with emphasis on nonmonetary reward, "equal pay" as you define it will never exist.

If unequal pay is primarily a manifestation of patriarchy and discrimination, why are self-employed women paid less then self-employed men? Is her boss discriminating against her too?

Empowerment is progressive. It is the act of forcing women to make the choices meeting with your approval that is not.

[Veilex]

141. +1

"Empowerment is progressive." -

- "the act of forcing women to make the choices meeting with your approval that is not" -

[Major Nikon]

52. For race, yes. Gender, not so much.

14% of the US population are black which means they can and are marginalized socially and politically.

The problem people run into when they try to conflate race and gender discrimination is they conveniently ignore that women make up a majority of the population and turn out to vote in significantly higher numbers.

[nomorenomore08]

56. I see the distinction you're trying to make, but I don't think raw numbers tell the whole story.

For just one example, think of the right-wing Evangelical woman who votes "the way my husband does/tells me to." I'm certainly not saying the majority of American women think or behave that way, just that being a slim majority doesn't necessarily equal having a comparable share of power.

Just out of curiosity, what's your theory on why Congress is over 80% male despite voters being over 50% female? I've spent some time puzzling over that one myself.

[lumberjack_jeff]

60. You see it everywhere from school board, to city council to the presidency.

Few women run for office. I could not presume to tell you why.

[Major Nikon]

61. Actually it means exactly that

Not only do women make up a greater share of the electorate, they show up to vote in greater numbers. That means they have more political power than men. The Democratic Party is well aware of this and courts that demographic. Women elected Obama. Men did not. Nobody can legally vote for anyone else. If anyone votes for someone based on what anyone else told them, that's certainly their prerogative.

As far as members of congress being whatever gender, lots of employment situations are disproportionate by gender simply because different genders gravitate to different jobs. What's the theory on why 90% of registered nurses are female? When people are allowed to chose what career fields they want, men and women are going to self-segregate to various degrees for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with discrimination. Assuming all or any segregations are due to discrimination, is just that, an assumption.

Volunteer for a campaign sometime and you'll find more women doing most of the leg work for actually getting candidates elected. My theory is that women are smart enough to support candidates that represent their interests regardless of what sexual hardware they were born with. I don't really think women's interests will be better served with more Michelle Bachmanns and less Sherrod Browns. YMMV.

[nomorenomore08]

63. "I don't really think women's interests will be better served with more Michelle Bachmanns and less

Sherrod Browns."

Of course. But I also don't think it's any coincidence that the countries with the highest proportion of female legislators (e.g. Sweden) generally score the highest on gender equality.

[Major Nikon]

64. How can you be so sure?

Germany has twice the female participation rate in legislature, yet has a higher gender pay gap.

Don't forget we are talking about discrimination which directly relates to opportunity rather than outcomes which does not. In the case of social and political racial discrimination, one can draw a pretty clear path between cause and effect. There simply are no non-discriminatory cultural causes that can explain how certain races are disadvantaged. You can't say that about gender. That's how people fuck up when they try to conflate racial and gender discrimination. It's a classic association fallacy.

[nomorenomore08]

46. To be fair, I think she was referring to "sexism" in a systematic - not individual - sense.

[Major Nikon]

50. I'm not so sure

That certainly wasn't what the poster she replied to meant, so taking context of the conversation into account, you can't get there from here.

Even if you can tilt your head and accept that context, it's still unadulterated nonsense as their are numerous examples of "systemic discrimination based on gender", which go the other way.

[Darkhawk32]

86. DU has become a cesspool for fake feminists.

If you're not a milquetoast, wussy male, then you don't belong at DU apparently.

[Veilex]

110. I wouldn't go to that extent.

There are some who have wrong-headed ideas, but I wouldn't necessarily call them fake feminists. Just as there are democrats with a wide array of beliefs and backgrounds, the same holds true for Feminism. There's quite a few different minds of thought with feminism.

Some, I wholeheartedly endorse and embrace... others are very out there, in my opinion. There is at least one form of feminism that believes in subjugating men as a form of revenge... obviously I don't agree with that. In fact, any form of feminism that endorses some form of revenge, rather than justice and equality, I'm vehemently against.

The one thing that they all tend to be unified on is bringing women's right up to par with men's rights. This is something I wholeheartedly agree with.

The problem some feminists have (both on this website and elsewhere) is the notion that men are disadvantaged in specific ways due to not being female, and I'm 100% against that as well.

I often end my comments with: "If you're going to be for equality, then be for equality... and not just when its convenient for you." because people on both sides of the equation often want the other side to consider their perspective within a vacuum devoid of the opposite gender... except that such a perspective in unrealistic. Men CANNOT exist without Women and vice versa. So, anyone pretending that women are the only ones being disadvantaged is laughable at best, and self deluding at worst.

We all need to be a bit more sensitive to the needs of each other and opposing genders.
Otherwise, we are a house divided that cannot stand.

[vdogg]

108. I dared

Last edited Tue Nov 11, 2014, 07:23 AM - Edit history (1)

To share an unfavorable opinion of Anita Sarkeesain. Nearly got my head chopped off. My criticism of her approach and style as it relates to games criticism was turned into me supporting rape and death. How do you have a rational conversation with someone when they accuse you of that? It's ridiculous.

[lumberjack_jeff]

109. You can't.

In some circles, that "irrationality" is tactical. In that sense, it's eminently rational; it effectively and quickly silences dissent.

[Veilex]

111. And that silencing of dissent is another of the issues I take...

with the brand of feminism on DU.

Some feminists here are more than willing to have a good discussion about issues without conflating or mischaracterizing the conversation. By and large, I tend to agree with those individuals a vast majority of the time. They tend to see equality as not just an issue women face, but men too... just on different issues and to different degrees... but they agree the issues exist on all fronts and need to be stamped out on all fronts.

These are, in my mind, the stalwart guardians of true equality based feminism.
They are the ones to make feminism a movement that is attractive to participate in.
And, they are often the ones that keep me holding out hope for humanity.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

112. The comic book pinup shirt fiasco.

That is all.

Well, this too.

[Veilex]

114. So, I posted a video, and the response I got... well, I should say it was surprising, but it wasn't

So, I got alerted over the below comment:

"your experience with feminism has been less than optimal" - This is true.

Up until perhaps 4 months ago, I considered myself a feminist. However, I didn't realize how many forms of feminism there are out there, and ran into one that believed in the notion that men needed to be punished and that revenge against men was the order of the day.

Now, rather than accept the view of a harmful few, I've chosen to call myself an Egalitarian, which not only supports Feminism's movement to bring women's right on par with men, but also advocates for men, religious, non religious groups and many others.

And another poster was kind enough to display the results: 0 - 7 (Leave it alone)
and the commentary of the alerter:

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"but also advocates for men, religious, non religious groups and many others. "

More anti-feminist drivel from one of DU's resident men's right's advocates. Not sure why this poster is still here. He has a thread dedicated to bashing DU's feminists in the men's rights group here. This not only makes DU sucks, it goes against everything Democrats stand for.

This was followed by a couple of baiting comments (which, admittedly, I should have simply ignored) from a specific poster followed by rather toxic responses such as: "But, again, please inform us poor, benighted women what YOUR idea of "healthy feminism" is...."

Then, a twisting of my words to suit her/his/its narrative to make it look as though I were granting permission rather than giving an invitation: "Yeah, funny how I know that I am "more than welcome" to provide my ideas on Feminism..."

I'm fairly sure the above commenter has been post stalking me, though that's somewhat difficult to prove. Either way, the poster pointedly said: "And, BTW, I did read something you wrote about feminism on DU" and linked here... as if this was supposed to be damning in some way shape or form.

Twisting of words, baiting and picking fights does not further the goals of Feminism. Point of fact, that style of activity is what causes some to judge Feminism in such a negative light, and serves only to give ammunition to GOP operatives who'd love nothing more than to tear apart feminism.

The conversation can be found at the link below:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017226847#post24

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

115. ".......in the men's rights group here"

Sigh.

I'd like to believe part of the reason the jury summarily ignored them was that bullshit.

[Major Nikon]

116. I suspect the vast majority of that alerter's alerts do get ignored

As well as probably most everything else they author with everyone who doesn't share their extreme views.

[FBaggins]

117. This one was alerted as well

Just one vote shy of the likely-deserved smackdown

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:32 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

So, I posted a video, and the response I got... well, I should say it was surprising, but it wasn't
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1114&pid=14523

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Rude call-out and further feminist bashing by this poster.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:40 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I refuse to hide any threads from Mens or Womens Group on DU. Both of those forums are nothing but argumentative sniping and complaining about being insulted. If you want to play over there, be prepared for it to get nasty.
I think they should both be dissolved.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's only a call-out if it's obvious who's being talked about. There's no username, or other identifying info in this post. This is just whining, and need not be hidden.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Hide this TRASH!
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Two mules fighting over a turnip.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This seems more like "further post stalking" by the alerter than "further feminist bashing" by the poster. Perhaps I would feel otherwise if I read all of the threads involved... but from here that looks like a waste of my time.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Veilex]

119. Thanks for the heads up!

[ProdigalJunkMail]

118. alerted... again

On Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:32 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

So, I posted a video, and the response I got... well, I should say it was surprising, but it wasn't
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1114&pid=14523

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Rude call-out and further feminist bashing by this poster.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:40 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I refuse to hide any threads from Mens or Womens Group on DU. Both of those forums are nothing but argumentative sniping and complaining about being insulted. If you want to play over there, be prepared for it to get nasty.
I think they should both be dissolved.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's only a call-out if it's obvious who's being talked about. There's no username, or other identifying info in this post. This is just whining, and need not be hidden.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Hide this TRASH!
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Two mules fighting over a turnip.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This seems more like "further post stalking" by the alerter than "further feminist bashing" by the poster. Perhaps I would feel otherwise if I read all of the threads involved... but from here that looks like a waste of my time.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Veilex]

120. Thanks for posting this.

Would appear I do indeed have a post stalker.

Not sure if I should be amused or exasperated.

Maybe both.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

121. i definitely choose amused

online discussion boards are not real life and not worthy of worry or stress...

sP

[Veilex]

122. Agreed

[Eleanors38]

123. "post stalking?" Never happens in the Gungeon.

[Veilex]

124. This would certainly be my first experience with it.

I guess everyone has to have a hobby right?

[lumberjack_jeff]

126. Get a star and make full use of the jury blacklist.

That's my advice, but it seems like you're doing okay regardless.

[Veilex]

127. "it seems like you're doing okay" - Indeed

As a rule, I never let bullies impact what I would normally do.

I really should get a star though. Thanks for the advice

[Major Nikon]

125. Atticus Finch is now the bad guy

(CNN) -- Pundit Glenn Reynolds recently wrote: "So as I understand it, Atticus Finch is now the bad guy in "To Kill A Mockingbird," because he doubted a story about rape." How right he was.

...

And, therein lies the origin of today's "rape culture" frenzy. This is not to say that there are not unreported and unprosecuted sexual assaults. I have dear friends who suffered such injustice, and I believe their stories with every drop of blood in my body. I'll bet that nearly everyone knows someone who has a verifiably true story. But, is that really "rape culture?" What does that silly phrase mean? It means the same thing as Jim Crow stories of rape meant. It means the same thing that Tawana Brawley meant. It means that someone has an agenda, and they want to harness the emotional power of rape to promote it.

...

Which brings us to the University of Virginia. When Sabrina Erdely's Rolling Stone story about a gang rape in a UVA frat house hit the presses, it went viral. Why? It was like a horror movie. I'll admit that when I read it, my own prejudices rose up, and I believed "Jackie" (the victim in the story). I thought of my friends who had been harmed and couldn't even begin to doubt that "Jackie" was telling the truth.

Why wouldn't I believe her? The antagonists were a bunch of over-privileged white fraternity jerks from UVA, it seemed. The victim was yet another young woman who had had justice withheld. The story confirmed what I wanted to believe: that the elite run roughshod over the rest of us. It proved so much, and I "knew" which side was right. And it confirmed the bias of left-wing academics who have collectively decided that the "war on boys" must have more victims, because everything with a penis is a rapist.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/05/opinion/randazza-uva-rape-allegations/index.html

[Major Nikon]

129. If you are a man and are raped, deep down you really liked it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026070209#post128

[Veilex]

130. So agresiously wrong its ridiculous...

More of the "How could you understand? You're just a man!" mentality.

Lord forbid everyone treat everyone else like human beings! Can't have that!
People want equality? Quick! Drive yet another bogus wedge between the sexes so
we can ensure they don't do something smart, like work together and whack-a-mole all
sexism right the hell out of existence! ARGH!

[Major Nikon]

131. The actions of some of the gender warriors betray any sort of movement towards equality

When you start believing that when bad things happen to the opposite sex it's some sort of social justice, it's not hard to see that equality is pretty far down the list of things they care about.

[Veilex]

132. Indeed.

[Veilex]

133. Here's another one...

Notice how the alerter assumes the comment is directed at women and ignores that this issue affects both men and women.
Rather than face reality, the alerter would rather take comments out of context and apply them to his or her specific narrative. This does not strengthen or further the goals of Feminism. Even better, some of the judges attempt to view this as "leading their abuser on" which was neither stated nor implied. That judge must've broken their arm in reaching for that one.

Apparently it is okay for members of the group-that-shall-not-be-named to make stuff up in order to avoid discussion and to silence those who absolutely will never just sit back and nod at whatever they say.

"Some people take advantage of others who have romantic feelings for them" - Very true!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1114&pid=14736

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Wtf? "It is NEVER EVER good to lead someone on in that fashion." "This can also lead to some of those instances of violence or other bad behavior" Is this guy actually saying that a woman is responsible for a guy beating her up or other bad behavior because "some people take advantage of others who have romantic feelings for them"? Seriously? I've seen some fucked up things posted on DU, but the crap that gets posted in this "Men's Group" is just unbelievable.

"This is disturbingly common". No, it's not. This is another MRA talking point. Just like false rape accusations are not disturbingly common.

It's time for admins to take a serious look at this group.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Fri Jan 23, 2015, 07:22 AM, and voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh for fucks sake. this is without a doubt the most stupid alert I have ever seen. I think you have a big problem, your just not right if THIS is what you feel the need to complain about. It is NEVER EVER good to complain and alert about something like this, it shows a lot about you.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Sounds like a domestic violence apology. Nope.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Defending violence towards others (men or women) based on "hurt feelings" over requited love and blaming the victim for "leading their abuser on?"!!! REALLY? Umm, NO!
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Just based on this post, I have to vote to leave. Juries can't rule on anything but the post that was alerted.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

[lumberjack_jeff]

134. It is obvious that most of the traffic on this forum is from people looking for something to alert.

They've gotten quite good at wording alerts to create "facts" that are not in evidence.

[Veilex]

135. "people looking for something to alert" - Indeed

Somehow, those individuals seem to think that framing the words to fit their narrative will silence people who speak up. The nice thing about democracy and freedom of speech, is that we have it...and I, for one, will NEVER EVER be silent. They can troll, lurk and post stalk the men's group all they like... but it will not give them the moral high ground, nor does it make them right. And it never will.

Many of those who've been aggrieved by MRA groups have chosen to associate, wrongly, this men's group and its members as being "The enemy". Nothing we say or do will ever convince them otherwise. This is actually another one of the issues I take with the brand of feminism on DU. Namely: that some of the self-proclaimed feminists blindly or willfully assume or portray men in the men's group are "The enemy".

In fact, given the post-stalking-nature of some of those who claim to be feminists... I've decided that from here on out, I will term those feminists who go out of their way to silence, mischaracterize, distract and ridicule those with valid points of discussion, as Hit-And-Run-Feminists.

Because, lets face it, those who refuse to engage in meaningful conversation, and are looking to purely disrupt and distract, are not benefiting anyone, except perhaps, their own ego. It is no more fair for a Hit-And-Run-Feminist to derail a conversation in the men's group than it is for anyone else to derail a conversation in a feminism group.

[lumberjack_jeff]

138. The irony is that this is a protected group, yet the standard of conduct is higher.

Even the most benign posts get alerted because "men's group". In fact, I've never seen an alert on a post in this group in which the alerter didn't feel it vitally important to point out in which group the post resides, and in fact is usually the most prominent feature of the alert.

But whatever you do, don't call it bigotry.

In practice, it is the opposite of a protected group.

[Veilex]

139. "But whatever you do, don't call it bigotry."

Last edited Thu Feb 12, 2015, 08:09 PM - Edit history (1)

Courtesy of a google search:

big·ot·ry

/ˈbiɡətrē/

noun
intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

"the difficulties of combating prejudice and bigotry"

https://www.google.com/#q=bigotry

So, sexism on the basis of gender, or bias against a gender.
Also, efforts to demonize, intentionally mischaracterize or otherwise malign an entire group/gender.

Quite frequently, people take what they hear from anecdotal sources, and enshrine it as "The truth", and no one may dissuade from "The truth"... particularly dissenting voices... that merely gives way to confirmation bias.
This is the functional and working definition of zealotry... also known as "blind faith".

Zealotry itself is a form of predisposed, or automatic bigotry, when taking the form of maligning a group or gender.

It is unfortunate that some people cannot, or are unwilling, to think past the end of their own nose.

[Major Nikon]

137. ...

[Veilex]

136. And again...

Here's another one...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1114&pid=14744

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is some weird doubling down and calling out of a feminist group. Is that what the Men's Group is for on DU? To combat feminism and feminists? I'm pretty sure the Democratic Party platform is supportive of feminism. Not saying that everything posted on DU has to be in lockstep with the party, but this is incredibly harmful and inappropriate.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Jan 23, 2015, 01:41 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I stay out of this group. I do not think following people around alerting on posts in protected groups is cool. If he had said something truly outrageous, then sure, alert, but this... I just don't see how it crosses the alert threshold.

And yes, it is very common (people leading people on) from both men and women. His response was " ", but not to the level of hiding this post, because of the previous post that was hidden.

I do not like the idea of alerting until you get somebody a vacation over a post like this.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: It's victim blaming and that's just not acceptable anywhere

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Major Nikon]

140. ...