I have unblocked iverglas

[redqueen]

This discussion thread was locked by redqueen (a host of the Feminists group).

As the only main host who was ever fairly nominated and agreed on, I am making this decision unilaterally, due to the fact that I was told the decision to block her was made unilaterally by the new host who was made so automatically as a function of the software.

I have also been dismayed to see disruptors allowed to run rampant. This will not continue.

The statement of purpose of this forum is clear. If people refuse to participate in the spirit of that SOP then they will be shown the door after a discussion of the situation among the hosts, not unilaterally.

Thanks for your understanding, and if there are any issues with my decision, please let me know in this thread so that we can discuss it openly.

[seabeyond]

1. good. we all spoke out promising a member would not be banned, when they have broken no rules

and it would take more than one voice to ban anyone with clear violations.

[unblock]

2. my ears are burning

[seabeyond]

3. that is suggesting you are hearing stuff. wanna share? nt

[unblock]

9. if you seabeyond the body of my post, you might get a little chuckle out of it.

ok, a small chuckle, but hey, i try....

[seabeyond]

10. ya...

i am sure... it is my bad. it has been a tough weekend

[iverglas]

11. how about a

snork.

Two now, I guess!

[redqueen]

4. lol

[boston bean]

5. I have no problem with it. And actually, I think that you should

be the top host again. You were voted on, and yes you made an error in leaving, but we can forgive that. You felt really dragged down, and can I understand that!

I think we should ask skinner to re-instate you as the top host of this forum.

I just think that if we are going to have a host, it should be someone that was voted in.

Neoma, please do not take any offense to this. I have nothing personally against you or any of the hosts in the forum or any member of the feminist group, but, on principle, I think we should have a top host that was voted by the majority of members of this group.

The reason for my feelings on this, is that if you make a decision someone does not agree with, it could cause issues, with people saying you were not voted in.

I'm not averse to holding a new election for top host either, if neoma wants to be top host and gets voted in. That would be fine with me.

[redqueen]

8. I will leave any discussion about a new election

to the members who participate here on a regular basis.

There's really no need to put any more demands on Skinner or the other admins. Once people decide who they'd like to have as host and co-hosts, we can appoint those people in order and the rest retire if needed.

[Scout]

6. good. because frankly, if iverglas were blocked from this forum

i would have less reason and desire to come here to read posts.

I think iverglas and redqueen and seabeyond should be hosts.

[CrispyQ]

15. Ditto.

All three are fair members who are on DU a lot.

to redqueen as top host.

And if someone wants to step up & take my place as co-host, I would be fine with that. I have so little time. I miss most of what goes on here.

[iverglas]

24. for co-hosts

We will have redqueen with laconicsax, seabeyond and iverglas left. (I recommend that order, personally.)

For a fifth, a nice odd number, I'd propose Remember Me, whom I know to be whole-heartedly committed to women and feminism.

[iverglas]

27. okay, second thoughts

laconicsax is swell, but, well, you know.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-finally-put-in-charge-of-struggling-feminist-m,2338/

When I was 17, I went back "home" for a few weeks in the summer, and attended the first ever "women's liberation" meeting in my home town. It was a motley crew of a couple of dozen people. My now old friend, then a Maoist and now an Anglican priest, who was 3 or 4 years older and remembered me from a Vietnam demo two years earlier when my mother had hauled me off the sidewalk and home. A woman even older than I am now, listening to Tom Jones on her transistor radio and telling us she was going to be Canada's first woman prime minister. And my high school French teacher's husband, a family court psychologist, who got elected "chairman" of the meeting.

The hosts in order after redqueen should be women, so I guess that would make the order seabeyond, iverglas, laconicsax and ? as a fifth, in my suggestion.

It looks like the main qualification for being host is to have a lower-case username.

[Remember Me]

93. I agree absolutely nt

[iverglas]

7. Neoma should resign as co-host now

and be re-added to the list if there is essentially unanimous agreement.

For info:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1139740#post92

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 03:31 PM

iverglas

92. me personally

I can't imagine that I would *ever* block anyone. I can't imagine an emergency arising that would call for unilateral action -- but if something dreadful did happen, and hopefully there were at least other members around, I'd do it if it seemed to be the host's duty to do it. Otherwise, I might think someone needed blocking and put it to other hosts, or pass on requests for blocking to the rest.

There would also have to be some concrete event, substantiation of a complaint, demonstration of something characterized as "dismissive or abusive behaviour toward feminists" that really amounted to a pattern, and not just a bad hair day. I'm pretty tolerant of rough and tumble; my posts should always be read that way (apart from the invisible tongue-in-cheek idiotfaces).

I'm not tolerant of other people being lied about, their words twisted, ideas attributed to them that they have not espoused, and the like, in order to portray them as reprehensible.

But again, I can only imagine that banning decisions would be made not in haste, and not unilaterally, and not without at least an opportunity for hopefully all hosts to weigh in, and I would never expect that to happen in the space of less than a day. I'm not on a banning campaign, honestly. And I'd always prefer to ask that someone agree to lurk and come back next week rather than ban them.

I'm not big on shutting off avenues and sources of ideas and discussion, truly. I'm big on civil discourse -- which doesn't mean making nice, it means addressing what is said, not dismissing it, not misrepresenting it, not addressing something that was not said, not pretending something was said that wasn't, not pretending to know what someone thinks, not claiming to hold some trump card, and not going after the speaker rather than the words.

As an ordinary poster, I'm just looking for genuine engagement, and I'm almost always willing to say the well is never too poisoned to start that process. I want to see it start, though. Some straightforward talk.

[boston bean]

12. If everyone resigned except requeen, then she would be re-installed as top host

and can then make appointments or re-appointments for co-host. Or run another poll on who we would want as co-hosts and the order.

I'm cool with that idea too.

edit for sp

[iverglas]

13. as long as Neoma goes first ;)

[boston bean]

16. Well, it wouldn't work unless everyone except redqueen resigned.

Neoma, are you considering this?

[iverglas]

17. that's true

but Neoma is still "host" at this point and could simply remain there and proceed with a purge / appoint whomever she liked. I don't expect that any of the other co-hosts would do anything as they moved up the list, other than resign and proceed as you suggest. And I see no need for any changes to the existing co-hosts, other than Neoma leaving, possible along with one person whose circumstances have changed, leaving less time for the task.

Good faith requires that Neoma resign, and do it first.

[boston bean]

18. I still think it's important to have a host up the top who has been voted in.

That person is redqueen.

ETA or we should have another election for top host. it should be a group decision who is top host.

[seabeyond]

19. i think that has to be a given. nt

[iverglas]

21. bb, I am *agreeing* with you

I am simply saying that no other co-hosts should resign unless and until Neoma does, and then the others should, and redqueen should reappoint them.

[boston bean]

25. I do hope that this is the course that is taken.

All hosts except Redqueen should resign, as she was voted in as top host.

I particularly am not looking forward to an issue in the feminist group where this is done publicly.

It's not a good thing to see. I've seen it in other groups. I don't wish it on anyone.

Hopefully, the right decision is made by all the hosts now and this can head that type of spectacle off. It is preferable to me and I think better for the group as a whole.

[seabeyond]

14. true that. nt

[redqueen]

94. I should have said this earlier...

Last edited Mon Feb 13, 2012, 04:29 PM - Edit history (1)

I disagree that she should resign.


I think that the members of this group need to have a new discussion of who they want to serve as the host and co-hosts.

[maddezmom]

20. No problem with your decision

As for the hosts, I'm fine with reconfiguring the current lineup if there is a consensus and adding an additional female LGBT feminist to the group.

[seabeyond]

22. interesting. thanks for the input maddez.... nt

[LeftyMom]

26. How about we just agree not to make anybody with a history of homo- or transphobic comments a host?

That seems like a reasonable baseline from which to start.

edit: Or racist or classist comments, but thankfully THAT doesn't appear to be an ongoing issue.

[iverglas]

28. frankly,

NONE of it appears to be an ongoing issue.

The crew has got rid of most of whom they wanted to get rid of, and there are no suggestions of anyone harbouring any bigotries or hatreds to be appointed as, or continue as, host/co-host.

How about we just agree not to invent issues where none exist?

[LeftyMom]

29. What crew?

The only people who were "got rid of" were sock puppets and zombies, so I suppose you mean the MIRT team and the admins?

edit: Again, is documented bigotry on DU a reasonable bar to service as a host? If it hasn't happened, then why the resistance to establishing that as a criteria for evaluating candidates?

[iverglas]

32. again,

are you implying that there is documented bigotry in issue here?

There was a poster or posters in this forum who were PPRed for reasons some MIRT member or members believed to be valid. That's that. It's over and done with.

No such poster or posters was ever a host/co-host or proposed as host/co-host of this forum, to my knowledge. No such poster or poster is being proposed as host/co-host at present. No changes to the pre-existing host/co-host roster is being proposed, other than the reduction in numbers resulting from the proposed resignation of one or possibly two, and one or two possible replacements.

If you see someone being proposed for host or co-host to whom you object for any reason, feel free to voice those objections, I'd say.

My own request would be that anyone who voices such objections do so completely honestly and straightforwardly and state, rather than insinuate, the basis of their objections.

I would also expect anyone seeking a voice in this process to be someone who has been involved in this group for reasons other than attempting to influence the group's purposes and host selection.

[LeftyMom]

52. I'm not implying anything.

Several people who are currently/proposed hosts have either made or defended appalling homophobic and transphobic remarks. This can be verified using the search function, by checking out the transparency pages on members whose pages are visible, or just by poking around in this forum, Hosts and Help and Meta.

I don't think we can really have a substantive discussion about issues until the ground rules for doing so in a fair and decent way are established with a reasonable degree of consensus. I'd be delighted to discuss issues of mutual interest once a safe space for all feminists is established.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

30. your defense of transphobia this week makes you VASTLY unqualified to be a host of this forum

having a person who hosts this place who is so tolerant of transphobia, makes this place hostile to LGBT people.

of course i dont expect the majority of this forum to take this issue seriously, still i do want to make it clear that i feel hosts of this forum should not be bigoted or defend bigotry.

[iverglas]

31. your misrepresentation of my words and myself

to the point of persisting in this FALSE representation simply removes yourself from the conversation.

If you ever come up with something of mine you would like to QUOTE to back up your allegations, well, you have had every opportunity to do that, and I think it's just too late now for you to have any credibility.

I am also keeping in mind that YOU do not speak for ALL LBGT people/lesbians. Maybe you could do the same.

I think it is simply time you stopped speaking ill of the hosts, co-hosts and members of this protected group. There are lots of other places you can go to pursue this effort.

[TriMera]

34. The fact that you continue to deny

that there was a problem with trans-phobic / homophobic remarks that were posted in this group tells me that you condone the behavior. You stood up for this bigotry 3 times and you are still doing it by denying that it ever happened, even after the guilty parties were shown the door by the admins for those remarks.

[iverglas]

35. the fact that you continue to misrepresent anything and everything

tells me that you are not here for a reason consistent with the group's statement of purpose.

Substantiate your allegations or retract them, please.

[redqueen]

43. I'm not trying to take sides here, but I would like to see some evidence as well.

Please provide an example where iverglas "stood up for bigotry".

[TriMera]

49. See post #47. n/t

[iverglas]

33. I'm going to be more direct

Please retract the allegation you have made against me if you are not prepared to substantiate it.

An unsubstantiated allegation like the one you have made is not appropriate at DU, let alone in this forum.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

37. I will not provide links because there were plenty of conversations

where you defended sera bellum and feldspar and the transphobic comments they made. its really disingenuous to claim that this didn't happen unless i provide quotes or links.

[iverglas]

39. more misrepresentation

Alrighty then.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

40. are you claiming that you did not defend the comments feldspar and sara bellum made?

the same comments that made earl g & the MIR team ban them for transphobia?

[redqueen]

44. I think it's obvious that by asking for a quote,

that she's attempting to find out exactly what the substance of the allegation is.

[redqueen]

42. No one defended transphobic comments.

IMO it is disingenuous to claim that that is what happened.

[maddezmom]

45. sorry, I strongly disagree with you here redqueen

Mann Coulter is transphobic and to say it's an imaginary slight is wrong on it's face.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11392520
and this is just one example.

[redqueen]

50. Right, so she did defend "mann coulter" as not being transphobic.

And I agree that it is.

So on that one, point taken.

[TriMera]

47. iverglas did, indeed, defend Feldspar from the very start.

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1139&pid=1927

[redqueen]

53. I asked about all these transphobic comments she defended.

Not whether she defended a DUer who has since been PPR'd.

So far, I've seen her state that one transphobic insult was not a transphobic insult, and that's it. To me, that says it needs to be discussed, not that she needs to be banned from this group.

But in the spirit of hosting with the best of intentions, I would leave that decision up to a consensus of the host and co-hosts. That is how we decided in advance to host this group.

[TriMera]

57. There were 3 days between when Sera Bellum made her trans-phobic

comment and when she was PPR'd. Was she ever blocked from the group? And, if she hadn't been PPR'd would she have been blocked?

[redqueen]

71. Sera Bellum has been PPR'd twice.

Which instance are you referring to?

Or are we talking about Feldspar? (Since this is a sock puppet account, from what I'm reading.)

There have been a few situations in this forum, so specificity would help when discussing them.

[TriMera]

74. I'm sorry, redqueen. You're right. I'm referring

to this last one. When she posted this:

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/11392087

[redqueen]

87. See, here again, this group would benefit from discussion of these things.

I didn't pick up on any transphobic statements in that OP. I don't think most other people did either.

Was it just her use of the term FAAB? I can see that the usage was odd, but that didn't in and of itself stand out as a transphobic statement to me.

I think one thing people are avoiding is the issue that some women do have a problem with non-FAAB people in the feminist movement. I can't say I completely understand why... there was one long post in H&M explaining one user's issues with it, but I've forgotten the details already.

The point is, though, that no, based on that OP, I would not have automatically seen a reason to block her again. That does not mean I defend transphobia... just that I was not, on the basis of that post, understanding that her comments were transphobic.

[TriMera]

98. Yes, FAAB in this instance was a dog whistle.

Part of the problem, however, is that no one ever in the group tried to make it clear that women are welcome here whether they are FAAB or not. How do you think that someone reading that post who is transgender would feel? Would they feel welcome in this group? Should they? As a lesbian, I don't feel welcome in this group. I mean, with talk of quotas and questioning our loyalty to feminism.

[redqueen]

102. I thought I did make that clear.

I think that was my first response to that OP, as a matter of fact.

And I have been consistent in this opinion, as I have said the same in response to the various PMs I've received about the issue as well.


There was not 'talk of quotas' (as far as I have seen)... ONE person said that. One very angry person who was banned unfairly. I don't think anyone else has a problem with it, and if so they can say so in the thread to decide the new host and co-hosts.


As far as the questioning of loyalty, I think we all know where that started (the discussion between iverglas and Lioness after the beauty pageant dust up), and unless and until some issue which *does* conflate the interests of women with the interests of LGBT individuals, I would hope that we could all leave it in the past.

[Remember Me]

104. i don't think it was proven it was a sock-puppet account

or if it was, I haven't seen "evidence" of it.

I'm especially sensitive to that issue since I am continuously accused of being a sock puppet of iverglas. Hell, we're not even compatriots!

[maddezmom]

107. yes it was proven

here are EarlG's comments in the MIRT forum

Response to maddezmom (Reply #2)

Sun Feb 12, 2012, 06:04 PM

EarlG

8. I banned Sera_Bellum

You are correct, she was Evolve_Already, previously banned for transphobia.

[seabeyond]

108. i thought feldspar was. nt

[maddezmom]

110. Feldspar as far as I know was Sera's partner

and was banned for transphobia not for being a sock. But I can see why people might think she was a sock as both had other names on DU.

[seabeyond]

119. i heard feldspar was the one posting as evolve_. i heard it was TWO women.

sera was ittakesavillage and feldspar was evolve_. feldspar made the vampire comment. sera did not make one of those comments that i know of.

does that mean i am defending anyone? no. it means this is the information i have. i should be able to say it out loud, that it is all the info i have, without accustaion (not by you) that i am a transphobia.

[maddezmom]

124. here read through this

I'm thinking they were all the same but the way I found that Evolve was the same as ITAVP and Sera Bellum was to google mansplain.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11392087#post123

[redqueen]

109. I don't know what goes on in the MIRT group...

I just assume they've got their ish together and proceed accordingly.

[boston bean]

126. that troll certainly got it's money's worth.

see people attacking eachother.

But that is what trolls do.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

66. i didnt say she had to be banned from the group. i said she is unsuitable to be a host. nt

[redqueen]

72. Noted.

Thanks.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

51. yes, she did and imo so did seabeyond

but i would argue that seabeyond is new to feminist theory and therefore maybe is not as used to arguments that have already been had by people who have been in organized feminist movements for years. i would think her desire to discuss whether transwomen are really real women, comes more from ignorance than intent.

whereas iverglas defense of feldspar and sara bellum and the use of the word mann coulter, defending feldspar's comment about how transwomen are to blame for misogyny etc were extremely transphobic and bigoted.

[seabeyond]

54. "discuss whether transwomen are really real women" what? nt

[redqueen]

56. I can't see defending a DUer as being a defense of bigotry or transphobia.

I will say again that most people missed the transphobia of that comment, and that it would have been far more constructive to point it out and discuss it in addition to the alert and ban... than to wait till three hours into a flamefest which arose specifically because of the impression that being hostile to one group = immediate ban, and being hostile to women = that's ok, we understand.

I don't think my observation of the situation is unique or difficult to understand.

[seabeyond]

58. it was me, once i understood the issue was the phrase, that i started ASKING posters for information

and googling to get definitions. at that point, we started UNDERSTANDING what the position was, yet there was a refusal for anyone to take into account is was not flat out, pure bigotry, as accusations continued to be hurtled. and comments like me wanting to argue if transwomen are real women are the heart of the issue. since i have never even considered this, i know there was no comment by me, anywhere, to suggest that i felt there was a discussion if transwomen are real women.

it cannot be a one way street. it cannot be ONLY one side listening. and there cannot be someone putting words in anothers mouth.

nothing will go smoothly or be resolved if we make things up, for the sake of argument.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

60. here as some examples. though i really think again this is an issue

where people are being deliberately blind to suit their convenience


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1139&pid=1973

“A decision has evidently been made -- and if you followed the history, you will think, as I do, that it was based on the profit motive as well, i.e. taking the path of least resistance and caving -- that what the LGBT group here wants, the LGBT group gets. That group was the squeaky wheel. It has been granted immunities and impunities and privileges and protections that women/feminists can only dream of, having been denied even the most basic protections from harassment and hatred at this website. “


http://www.democraticunderground.com/11392520

“Where in the FUCK are the people nattering on and on and on about how "call a spade a spade" and "Mann Coulter" and "pearl-clutching" and god knows what other imaginary insults to some disadvantaged group or another are what they are not, when women are being called bitches and cunts at this website? “

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1240&pid=42030

this thread is full of it. Honestly, I cant even understand how someone who participated and read this thread can honestly pretend that iverglas was not defending transphobic trolls.

[redqueen]

76. Sorry, but all I see as far as evidence that she actively defended transphobia

is the "Mann Coulter" comment.

The rest alludes to her perception that rules are enforced when the target is attacked with LGBT slurs (or not even personally attacked), yet anti-woman attacks or comments are left to stand. I do see some sweeping statements in that post about LGBT issues in the rant about a profit motive, but I am missing the defense of transphobia.

As for your allegation that people are ignoring things out of convenience, I am not doing that, and I don't think anyone else is, either.

[boston bean]

100. That is not clear to me.

Last edited Mon Feb 13, 2012, 04:44 PM - Edit history (1)

I think a distinction was being made, surrounding what is acceptable on DU as bigoted terms and what is up for discussion.

But I could be wrong, the statement is left up for interpretation, but I think asking, would be beneficial.

Iverglas, do you think that the term mann coulter and pearl clutching is not bigoted to the LGBT community?

I actually think it's bigoted to all women and the men in the LGBT community.

[justiceischeap]

90. If I defended someone considered a disruptor in this group

how would I be viewed?

For example, if I defended someone recently banned because I thought he was helping the cause? And I was told, nope, he's actually saying some pretty bad stuff there. Let's say I then went into another thread in another part of this board and said the same thing? I may not say the words myself but my defense of this person would speak volumes... whether that was the intention or not. Heck, even you eventually came around and saw that defending SB was defending transphobic speech, unless I read your posts wrong in that thread.

Whether we like it or not, it's about perceptions. And the perception on this one isn't great.

[redqueen]

99. I agree that perceptions are a big part of the picture,

but we can't make decisions about banning people from the group based on perceptions. That has to be a decision that comes from a discussion among the host and co-hosts.

If you sincerely thought that someone who I considered a disruptor was acting in good faith, I would assume you were defending that disruptor, not agreeing with what they said... not unless you explicitly said so.

And no, I never would conflate defending a DUer with defending the things they say.

[justiceischeap]

113. That's cause you rock!

Still, I stand by what I'm saying. If someone defends someone else who made bigoted comments continuously, it would be easy to perceive how that person agrees with those thoughts. I've not seen any outright bigoted comments from the individual but defending someone who makes them, it skirts a line.

It's kinda like I was saying in that thread in H&M about anti-semitism, if someone of a minority group decries that something is bigoted, more likely than not it is (or can be perceived that way).

[seabeyond]

121. there was ONE comment by feldspar. that is not continually. we didnt know what the comment meant

we did not respond to her on the thread. and we were not defending her comment.

so... how does that mesh with your statement.

[boston bean]

38. I certainly understand that the issues for many minority groups

may be more profound, less, or the same for disparate groups or people belonging to more than one minority group.

Here is how I see it. I think the root cause of sexism and misogyny is what we all have in common. I truly believe that is the case.

And I think all groups should be able to discuss, like adults, those issues we have in common in the root cause and learn from eachother how each of those root causes affects the particular groups we also fall into and do not fall into.

I have seen you basically say, that you couldn't trust straight feminists and that your loyalties would lie with another group over straight feminists in general. I think I can understand that. But, also, I do think it sort of cuts off the conversation and makes it hostile. Again, I do not believe we are natural enemies, I believe we are natural allies.

And with that in mind, we should all be helpful and supportive of eachother working through the issues.

I understand the issues surrounding the second wave and how lesbians felt removed from the equation. I do know that it happened. It also happened to women suffragettes when black men received the right to vote and women did not. It was not right. However, I don't think we can extrapolate those long ago, real issues, into today and broad brush the feminist movement or civil rights movement. I also recognize that there are gender issues in the LGBT community as well. I only point this out, because I wouldn't expect you to look upon the gay males in the community as enemies or untrustworthy, and hope to point out that it should be the same with straight feminists.

We should all listen, learn, discuss and understand all of these issues and really shouldn't separate ourselves.

I understand this is not in direct response to your comment to iverglas, but I wanted to take the opportunity to try and discuss this with you here. And I hope my post is taken as it is meant, to bring forth a conversation, and a willingness to learn and understand, and most importantly to listen to others points of view.

[Scout]

46. and i feel the hosts of this forum should be feminists first and foremost. n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

48. you can only be a feminist "first and foremost" if nothing else oppresses you more.

by your logic only white straight women can be hosts in the feminist forum on du. which is probably both accurate and sad.

[Scout]

61. well then fine. if you aren't a feminist, go post in a different group.

if "something else oppresses you more" then you should go join that group and deal with the more serious oppression you face, don't you think?

if you aren't a feminist first and foremost, then this isn't the group for you. simple.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

62. no, you don't get to make these absurd rules. i can be a feminist and have other identities

you don't like it, i could care less.

[Scout]

80. look, you were the one who said you can't be a feminist first and foremost if something...

else oppresses you more.

i am not making ANY rules. i am following your own words to their logical conclusion. you don't like it, i could not care less.

and obviously you care very much what i've said, because you keep posting to me. and remember how you said you were glad that you annoyed me? i think you DO care and to say that you don't is a lie.

and BTW, they saying is "I could NOT care less." LOL

[La Lioness Priyanka]

85. its also the saying not they saying.

your entire argument is really dishonest. you started arguing with me first, i didn't start this. you want me to leave because you think i can't have an identity stronger than feminist and i refuse to let you define feminism on du.

the four or five of you don't own the word feminism. you can't act as though you do, but you don't.

[seabeyond]

88. omg... totally dishonest? i am still waiting to hear what right you had to make your false comment

about me. and why you feel you do not have to apologize or correct yourself or back it up

[La Lioness Priyanka]

97. i just did. nt

[seabeyond]

106. and it makes me distrust even more. that you would chose to interpret as you did.

then make a false accusation on this thread.

and i am not going to go thru all my pms to try to find out the context in conversation.

but the thing about it is lioness, i pretty well know what i think, so i was pretty damn sure you had nothing that said i want to argue transwomen are not real women

[Scout]

129. just did what? nothing. n/t

[Scout]

105. i did not start arguing with you.

i stated my opinion in reply to one of your posts...

you went off from there....

i did say you have to leave, i did not say i want you to leave. i made a suggestion to you based on your own comments.

you do not own the word feminism either.

how is my "argument" dishonest? i'm not allowed to state my opinions?

and don't forget you did post how you are happy to annoy me. what civil discourse! what a mature, reasoned attitude.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

117. i said that in response to your snarky comment about wanting to see me leave.

please dont pretend that any of your responses to me have been mature.

[Scout]

127. nevertheless, you DID say it. so we know where you stand. n/t

[LeftyMom]

69. I don't think bullying is a productive way to produce consensus.

[Scout]

77. who, pray tell, is engaged in bullying? n/t

[maddezmom]

67. I don't see anything wrong about including a female LGBT feminist

sorry if you do.

[Gormy Cuss]

36. If people are shown the door because they don't participate in the spirit of the SoP

iverglas was rightly shown the door. Nearly all of the recent flamefests in this forum have had iverglas front and center. It's iverglas who is racking up the most hidden posts in threads related to the feminist forum.

I would miss the context and content that she brings to feminist discussions but I really don't see that she is making any effort to act with civility even after her temporary block from the group. I think you should reconsider your decision, redqueen.


As for the main hosting issue, did Neoma ask to be primary host? IIRC the system is designed to bump up the first co-host automatically. After reviewing the posting over the weekend I think she made a tough, but correct choice to nip the problem in the bud by blocking an argumentative co-host who kept fueling the flames. I think Neoma deserve a chance to be primary host for a bit longer before calling for a selection again.

[redqueen]

41. Are members of this forum banned from being in heated discussions?

"A safe community where all those interested in discussing and trying to resolve the problems that are inherent to women in society can come and work together, without having to defend the basic premise that issues do exist which specifically affect and limit women, their rights and their potential."

There is nothing about heated arguments or hidden posts in that SOP. If we wish to make such things a condition of participating in this group, we need to outline that and make it clear.

As it is, the unilateral decision to block a member of this group was indefensible IMO. This is why we have co-hosts, so that these things can be discussed so that any actions taken are fair to all involved.

No, Neoma didn't ask to be primary host, which is why I mentioned that it was done by virtue of the functionality of the software. This is just one more reason why the unilateral decision to block a member of this forum could be viewed as particularly unfair, particularly in light of recent events/personal attacks.

[Gormy Cuss]

55. Wrong question. Instead, ask whether the member was repeatedly turning discussions into heated

debates. Ask whether without that member's contribution,would the discussion have been more civil?
It's one thing to be part of heated discussions. We are both have been participants in heated debates. The difference as I see it is we don't participate and fuel MOST heated discussions in this group.

As for the SoP, I could point to many OT posts by that same member in the past week alone. That's over and above the posts hidden for not meeting community standards. I'm pretty sure that if I had acted that way you would have shown me the door. That's one of the reasons that I trusted you as primary host -- to be objective and able to make the hard decision to block ANY member based on such behaviors.

As for a host acting unilaterally, the host and co-hosts should work that out among yourselves. I don't know if the hosts ever set up ground rules on how to host the group. I suspect not, since the hosting hasn't been in place that long. Not all groups expect hosts and co-hosts to reach consensus on all actions. If there isn't an establish plan among the host, it's indefensible to question the primary host's decision when she was acting in good faith.

You do not need to answer this, but I'm curious: did you discuss your unblocking with all the other co-hosts and Neoma and come to a consensus, or did you act unilaterally?

[seabeyond]

59. lioness just said that i wanted to argue if transwomen were real women. my options...

keep my mouth shut on a totally bogus made up accusation, or speak out.

what are my choices, per your perspective?

[Scout]

63. we all know what your choice is sea....

lioness just isn't getting enough attention.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

65. lol. clearly that's not a sexist position

to claim that i am only arguing to get attention. how quaint.

[seabeyond]

70. why did you make that statement about me? and why havent you addressed it?

you just made it up. out of the blue. why?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

95. is this something you have said, either in pm or in a public post?

"this is such bullshit. and they have effectively stated that if you do not treat a tranwoman as a woman and hold the belief they are absolute woman and not argue that the transwoman has grown up with male privilege, then you are a bigot. "

[seabeyond]

101. so what? are you getting my pms from peole? i am saying, and i will say it now....

no, you cannot discuss it. i did not say that i believe that. i did not say that is my position. i cannot believe you have people giving you fuckin pms.... is that a pm?

now, show me where i say i question transwomen being real women, or the DISCUSSION of..... which as YOU guys were able to discuss OUTLOUD in your forum the position of SOME feminists that believe exactly what was in your post. you had a conversation. you talked about it out loud. and NO ONE said you were a bigot or that you were ARGUING that transwomen are not real women.

and you wonder, why there is lack of trust. wow

[boston bean]

130. if you didn't believe it, why would you post that?

it seems as though someone is trying to put FUD in seabeyond as a poster.

We don't know where it came from, we don't know if it was true, but it's out there for the world to see.

That is just not a fair thing to do.

[seabeyond]

68. it seems to be that any kind of misrepresentation is allowed and if a person dares to be bothered

then they are the guilty party.

it is put out that i want to argue the merit of whether a transwoman is a real woman. how is a person allowed to say that out loud, as an accusation and the very women saying they want open communication does not address lioness? does not challenge that non truth?

and if no one challenges that, what happens to the communcation?

it cannot be one sided.

[seabeyond]

64. redqueen did not act unilaterally. that is against our understanding. nt

[LeftyMom]

73. Are you calling redqueen a liar? Her OP says "I am making this decision unilaterally"

I have unblocked iverglas

As the only main host who was ever fairly nominated and agreed on, I am making this decision unilaterally, due to the fact that I was told the decision to block her was made unilaterally by the new host who was made so automatically as a function of the software.

[seabeyond]

75. i sent a post to neoma pointing out the rules and our agreement that no one could ban

a member of the forum unilaterally, with laconicsax and redqueens voice. the three of us discussed it and redqueen unbanned iverglas. other members of the forum weighed in. i am guessing redqueen took responsibility for her actions, hence her comment.

[LeftyMom]

79. So you're calling her a liar.

She stated perfectly clearly

I am making this decision unilaterally

You are stating the exact opposite. This concerns me because you're both hosts and apparently one of you isn't reliable to honestly explain how a hosting decision was made. I have no clue which one is the problem, hopefully one of the other hosts will speak up and clarify what actually went down.

[seabeyond]

81. this is disgusting leftymom. truly. nt

[LeftyMom]

84. So was the decision made unilaterally or with consensus?

[seabeyond]

86. both. she had our support thru conversation. she made the decision to unban at that moment. hostile

discourse every step of the way. refusal to converse and insistence on making your demands.

again... this appears that it is supposed to be only a one way street and that you can behave however you like without recourse.

[LeftyMom]

89. Ma'am, I'm asking a question because two people are telling mutually contradictory stories.

Now you're trying to thread the needle between the two, but that requires twisting the meaning of the words involved beyond recognition. Had you initially told the story I'd think nothing of that, but I'm positive redqueen knows what "unilaterally" means, and that it doesn't mean that she held a cabinet meeting and then made an executive decision.

[seabeyond]

91. no. two people are not. you are insistent on making it a gotcha moment.

there is not. it has been mapped out to you. piece, by friggin piece. what you are doing, is being demanding and hostile and an unwillingness to reason.

[LeftyMom]

92. I'd just like to get a clearer picture of how hosting is occurring.

RQ seems to have disappeared, but it's during the work day so I'm not terribly surprised. I'm willing to wait for clarification from her.

[Remember Me]

116. Here's something I learned from the LGBT forum --

If people ask questions you don't like, just ignore them. The uglier the questions, the more this would apply.

Because here's the truth: the more you give them, the more they'll demand of you, the more fodder they have for even more questions.

[TriMera]

122. You learned that from the LGBT forum, did you? n/t

[yardwork]

112. LeftyMom, your post was alerted on. A jury voted 5-1 to leave it alone.

I was one of the jurors voting to leave it alone:

At Mon Feb 13, 2012, 12:02 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

So you're calling her a liar.

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Accusing the other poster of calling someone a liar is a gross misrepresentation of things, as she didn't do that at all.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Feb 13, 2012, 12:15 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: There is nothing wrong with this post. In fact, it sounds like somebody is on a nasty vendetta against LeftyMom.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The post isn't well phrased, and not exactly delicately put, but the intent is understandable--the question "are you calling her a liar" is implied, seeking clarification.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Whatever. Sounds pretty mild to me.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This post is not disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate enough to hide.


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

[Violet_Crumble]

114. Y'know, posting jury results is a real big part of the problem this group has had...

As is people who have only appeared in this group to attack members the way one or two have been doing....

[yardwork]

118. LeftyMom is participating in this thread and asking reasonable questions.

This forum is not owned by the hosts. Other DUers have a right to read here and post here.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

123. in a nutshell this has become the problem with how this forum is being run

less than 10 people seem to "own" it. the rest of us are treated like suspicious intruders.

in the lgbt forum, no one has to pledge allegiance than being gay is more important to you than anything else.

[boston bean]

125. To be honest with you, I thought leftymom

was being a bit aggressive in her questioning. I probably wouldn't have hidden the post either, but she does own some of the discourse in this thread.

Just because a jury decided to not hide it, doesn't mean that the poster is completely innocent in how this entire conversation has turned out.

[yardwork]

128. I disagree. I think that LeftyMom's questions are appropriate and understandable.

Over the past week there have been horrific - I will call them that, horrific - posts made in this forum. Many of them have been hidden, appropriately.

It is not surprising that people are upset.

[boston bean]

131. by redqueen? by seabeyond?

That is what leftymoms post was about.

Leftymoms post wasn't about ferd...... whatever, and the other sock.

[seabeyond]

78. " Are you calling redqueen a liar?" btw lefty, it is comments and interaction like this

that one can argue, leaves little room fro positive discourse.

[LeftyMom]

82. Please see my comment above,

there's no sense having the same discussion in two subthreads.

[seabeyond]

83. why dont you weigh in on the civility of those that have come in here to argue their points.

where is their responsibilities in civil discourse? i see no one addressing the hurtling accusation and unwillingness to discuss this in an adult, mature manner. lets get voice of reason, where we actually chat in a civil manner.

[Remember Me]

111. It's ALWAYS possible to have a more civil discussion if one party submits

That shouldn't be required here. And in fact, I think it's inappropriate for you to try to tell the hosts here how to do their jobs. But that's just me.

you can also have more civil discussions if nothing controversial is ever said -- and in this forum, some of the people who are posting here who are also members of another forum seem to have a gift for making things controversial.

As for a host acting unilaterally, the host and co-hosts should work that out among yourselves. I don't know if the hosts ever set up ground rules on how to host the group. I suspect not, since the hosting hasn't been in place that long.

You suspect wrong, as has actually already been explained upthread somewhere. What is being said here is that the co-hosts DID work that out among themselves first.

You do not need to answer this, but I'm curious: did you discuss your unblocking with all the other co-hosts and Neoma and come to a consensus, or did you act unilaterally?

She actually already answered that too.

[The empressof all]

96. CAN WE ALL JUST STOP THIS PLEASE!

Must we REALLY live out every awful stereotype about mean girls and women not being able to get along?

This is getting disgusting.

Lets just turn the page and put those that irk you on ignore. Seriously....

People make mistakes, people get mad and say stupid things, some people may be ignorant who the fuck cares... but it's time to let this pissing match go already....

[seabeyond]

103. i agree. i can do that. easily. lets. nt