http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4174231&mesg_id=4191619If this (thread) was actually "a bunch of men disgusted by blatant hypocrisy" at least one would have noticed that my initial question was about consistency with purported values-- I did not accuse anyone of being a fascist or hypocrite. I raised a question that went ignored, except to excite a hysterical, victimized, super-sensitive reaction that exemplifies the cliches typically thrown at women. The following is addressed to the general posters here, YSML, not directly to you.
There is a range of sexist comments and attitudes on DU, as you ALL know. Sure, you can make fun of the apparent triviality of picking on "tit" and "nice set." (and miss the point on purpose). And obviously, you can associate every "feminist" with all the others, and all the horror stories and cliches aided and abetted by the "feminazi" mindset of Limbaugh the Hut.
The sort of comments you expect us to overlook (lest you accuse us of "CENSORSHIP") send the message that "we're all guys here and if you don't like it fuck off." There are a lot of men and women at DU who don't like the crudeness, but don't call you on it either. Many DU men assume that they are talking to men-- and then change their posts when they realize they are talking to women. Why is "default" set to "Male"? Is DU a locker room or a meeting room?
The 14 Points of Fascism was placed for context-- evidently I should have preambled it somehow.... how you guys turned it into an accusation of being a fascist is too twisted for me to get. Touchy! Can you broaden your view to include how sexism serves the purposes of those forces you are combatting. Will you consider that sexism in all its forms feeds their power? (But NOOOoooooO-- Mongoo turns it into a kneejerk joke).
The thread I started to document the various eye-jabbings we receive on DU was not intended as the "witch hunt" that some are insinuating. (If you read the thread it explains). Those who "just don't see what the problem is" can visit and see a collection of posts that may seem "no big deal" individually, but collectively resonating against each other gives the open-minded-semi-clueless a better feel for how it looks to us as a continuous presence on DU. (If you still don't get it, visit the AA Issues Group and witness their experience of racism on DU and the reluctant resignation to another form of bigotry that props up The Powers That Be).
When DUers are Newbies we are referred to the Rules and Goals and the Alert button-- encouraged to believe they mean something. Again, why is it outrageous to expect behavior consistent with purported standards and priorities? At the least why not "exercise the appropriate level of sensitivity toward others and take extra care to clearly express your point of view"?
Well, one reason is ability as much as attitude. There are people who can't express themselves without being crude and don't want to try for the sake of shared goals. So be it. (btw, I resorted to some crude humorous taste-your-own-medicine table-turning this weekend that is not my style, but as a last resort in these circular arguments.....)
I don't thing ImpeachW's blog is "bad." That's how he chooses to express himself. Then he comes to DU and wants to continue-- why shift? I would venture to say he may want to reconsider the persistent aggressive tone because the number of comments to his blog posts is 0.
And there's a clue: Aggression. Bullying. Anger. Violence. No Pink Tutus. Not Enough Balls. Is there a point where the boys concerned about the Bullies in the White House consider that more bullying and aggression isn't the answer? Yeah, anger is motivating-- it can lead to movement and it can lead to violence. It can shut down communication. (Please don't kneejerk to "feminists are "angry" women"-- if you have read this far, please keep the crack in your mind open a bit longer).
The Green Party has included the respect concept in their Principles and Platform-- identifying the relevance of eliminating gender bigotry to reach our larger goals. Perhaps the Democrats need to consider something similar. Especially since all the hot button Repug wedge issues hinge on cementing the balance of power and rigid roles of gender.
This is the crux of the biscuit. This is why sexism matters and does need to be challenged, not accepted:
We don't want the disruptions and distractions of disrespect that divides DU and limits the discussion, hobbles the solution-building.
We are skeptical of the community that persists in ignoring the relevance of sexism to the broader issues and insults those who bring it up, interject it or challenge its presence on DU.
THE WHOLE GAME OF REPUBLICAN WEDGE ISSUES IS ABOUT RIGID GENDER ROLES AND KEEPING THE STATUS QUO-- INCLUDING TURNING THE CLOCK BACK ON RECENT DECADES' SOCIAL PROGRESS. Is this news to you? Is this what you choose to support?
Motivation of The Powers That Be for attacks on:
Gay Marriage: (keep traditional gender power roles intact and rigid)
Women's Rights: (keep traditional gender power roles intact and rigid)
Reproductive Privacy Rights: (keep traditional gender power roles intact and rigid)
All of the Above: divide and conquer-- disrupt and distract the opposition
I have enough confidence and respect for DU to ask these questions and raise these issues. I actually am curious about how men who sig line or blog with grand statements of concern for various progressive issues stop short of connecting the dots to women's rights. If the answer is "fuck off," that's a real discussion killer.
As much as none of us want to believe how bad it is, Eloriel is exactly correct:
"DO YOU GET THAT: WOMEN'S LIVES ARE AT RISK because of the sexism and misogyny in THIS culture. YOU don't get to hang onto your male privilege and add to it. If you consider yourself a progressive or liberal or anything other than a sexist pig, then if you can't bring yourself to give a damn about WORKING for equality for women and other oppressed groups, the least you can do is refrain from contributing to our problems.
"It defies common sense to imagine that things like job discrimination all the way down to violence against women follows some other rule of human behavior: if it's okay to objectify women, call them names, etc., it's sure as hell going to be okay in some people's minds to do worse. The sad thing is that it won't even necessarily be a conscious decision or self-conversation but rather just automatic."
It is automatic behavior expressed as casual sexist bigotry that we don't like and you guys don't like us pointing it out. We make you think about it. You make us the problem. You don't want to be bothered, you want to do what you always do with no one questioning your righteousness, your autonomy, your integrity, your commitment to our shared goals. You don't want anyone pointing out (inadvertently) that you don't know how to express yourselves any differently and that you REFUSE OBSTINATELY TO TRY.
As perhaps you've heard from other Democrats, LANGUAGE MATTERS. Women's rights are human rights.
Now that ya'll get it, can we talk about something else now?
:bounce::bounce:
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
