How women activists are silenced

[noamnety]

... Sierra had been receiving increasingly abusive comments on her website, Creating Passionate Users, over the previous year, but had not expected them to turn so violent - her attackers not only verbally assaulting her ("fuck off you boring slut . . . I hope someone slits your throat") but also posting photomontages of her on other sites: one with a noose next to her head and another depicting her screaming with a thong covering her face. Since she wrote about the abuse on her website, the harassment has increased. "People are posting all my private data online everywhere - social-security number, and home address - a retaliation for speaking out."

While no one could deny that men experience abuse online, the sheer vitriol directed at women has become impossible to ignore. Extreme instances of stalking, death threats and hate speech are now prevalent, as well as all the everyday harassment that women have traditionally faced in the outside world - cat-calls, for instance, or being "rated" on our looks. It's all very far from the utopian ideals that greeted the dawn of the web - the idea of it as a new, egalitarian public space, where men and women from all races, and of all sexualities, could mix without prejudice.

(snip)

Jill Filipovic, a 23-year-old law student who also writes on the popular blog, Feministe, recently had some photographs of her uploaded and subjected to abusive comments on an online forum for students in New York. "The people who were posting comments about me were speculating as to how many abortions I've had, and they talked about 'hate-fucking' me," says Filipovic. "I don't think a man would get that; the harassment of women is far more sexualised - men may be told that they're idiots, but they aren't called 'whores'."

(snip)

One website, run by law professor and occasional New York Times columnist Ann Althouse, devoted an entire article to how I was "posing" so as to "make breasts as obvious as possible". The post, titled "Let's take a closer look at those breasts," ended up with over 500 comments. Most were about my body, my perceived whorishness, and how I couldn't possibly be a good feminist because I had the gall to show up to a meeting with my breasts in tow. One commenter even created a limerick about me giving oral sex. Althouse herself said that I should have "worn a beret . . . a blue dress would have been good too". All this on the basis of a photograph of me in a crew-neck sweater from Gap.

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2051580,00.html

The emails began, the countless pages of hate accrued beneath the mail slot. The death threats mounted, the graphic descriptions of what they would do to me when they found me continued to escalate. I tried to call for help but everyone kept telling me that the locks on the door were secure and that there was nothing to be done for me.

But the thing is that I didn’t feel secure and the locks didn’t feel safe and I knew that it would only take one of them to get through the door. Despite everyone telling me that the screaming men were harmless THEY were saying that they weren’t harmless. And who you gonna believe? The man who is holding the snarling dog at bay? Who is telling you that he’s actually a pussycat? Or the snarling dog who is snapping at your legs and threatening to rip your throat out if it gets loose?

I believed the dog.

It was only after the death threats reached a level that began to involve my children that I finally balked. I could no longer hear the gentle scratching of the other women writing in their own books, all I could hear was the screaming and violence outside this small space. The violence that I desperately wanted to shield the others from.

http://bitingbeaver.blogspot.com/

Both of these predate the recent issue with Cindy Sheehan.

I saw Ann Wright speak last night. She said Cindy was also getting these sorts of emails - the kind that are reminiscent in tone of lynchings - those that not only disagree with her position, but spew misogynistic hate speech and threats at her. Every day, her inbox was flooded with these. Her friends had convinced her to stop reading her mail.

There was a woman at the event last night passing out fliers to women, trying to get women to run for office. I handed mine back, with the "you must be ought of your mind" look that I suck at hiding.

There is a special kind of hatred reserved for women who speak out. It's ugly to witness on DU, and I witness it every day here - as I do on nearly every blog I visit, with a few notable exceptions - and it doesn't matter whether those blogs are political in nature, or tied to graphic design ... it just doesn't matter. It targets women who are republicans, who are democrats, who are spouses, and pundits and independents. It ties hatred to every aspect of their physical female bodies, from Laura Bush to Janet Reno to Chelsea Clinton to Ann Coulter. We hold up men who are long time civil rights leaders as heroes, persistent enduring never tiring heroes who are always at the forefront of the struggle, and we embrace them. I have seen threads here canonizing men who made their fortunes specifically from the degradation and exploitation of women. And when women speak out, they are allowed their 15 minutes of fame, MAYBE, or maybe not, maybe they hold a sign at a protest for 5 minutes, and then they are accused of being a whore - and their sexuality is attacked - and I am not even talking about Cindy Sheehan here.

What I'm getting at is that Cindy Sheehan is not unique. This is part of a system, and it's a system that encourages men AND women, on all sides of the political fences, to attack women AS women, to threaten them, to demean them AS women, in order to get them to shut the hell up.

The abuse that Cindy has put up with - and I'm going to call it abuse, because it goes beyond "criticism" into flat out vile sexist abuse and threats designed to terrorize women who speak out - is rampant, is consistent with women's experiences once their voice starts to be heard, and is tolerated as "normal" - as a normal part of political discourse. For every woman like Cindy who is silenced - even temporarily, as I hope it will be - there are a hundred other women, maybe more, who are silenced, who won't run for office, who will avoid the spotlight, because they don't want to hear the nonstop sexist bullshit hatred and threats that comes with the territory.

[LostinVA]

1. Good post -- k&r

[EFerrari]

2. Yes. K&R

[Horse with no Name]

3. Very nice post.

K&R

[Captain Hilts]

4. I can't imagine letting stuff people say to me on the Internet getting to me.

I understand women get it rougher - women professors in college, women newspaper columnists and reporters, etc. I understand that.

But in the anonymity of the Internet? No.

[EFerrari]

6. It's not anonymous when they personally attack you. n/t

[tavalon]

279. Yep

And you just happen to be one who knows of what you speak. The stuff that got thrown your way for daring to try to save a fellow activist's life was just astounding and I suspect what you got privately was 100s of times worse.

I do think, though, that in that situation, they would have treated a man (and they did - Andy) in the same heinous fashion but it doesn't justify it in any way, shape or form.

[Cassandra]

361. Andy was sick...

and hence weak and vulnerable in their eyes.

[EFerrari]

425. And they thought because I was a woman that I would cave somehow.

I got some really nice emails from those mofos. But, it didn't matter what they tried. We had DU.

[noamnety]

No, you don't understand it.

When you are part of a hated group without power, and those IN power who have a history, statistically, of raping and mutilating the people in YOUR group, and you spend an hour every day, or maybe two or more hours every day, reading threats where people describe in excruciating detail how they are fantasizing about mutilating you or raping you, and then you have scheduled appearances in public in those same towns without security, THEN you will understand it.

If you were black, lynchings were still going on, and every black person you knew had a friend or a family member who had been lynched - and you started getting a flood of letters DAILY from white people talking about wanting to lynch you, maybe THEN you would get it.

[LostinVA]

16. Threats of sexual violence and sexual aggression are scary

"Hate fucked"? OMG. Having men comment in nasty ways on your breasts, etc.? Calling your sexual morals into question in vile ways?

A TSed troll who was spewing vile sexual filth at me and other gay posters in GD sent me a horrible PM right before he was TSed. It shook me up for several hours.

Of course it affects you.

[Captain Hilts]

36. Yes, it is scary. nt

[noamnety]

58. apologies

I was unnecessarily harsh in that last post in response to your note.

On an anonymous forum, you can decide to walk away when the abuse is too much. I've posted things on other forums before - like a comment about ... I dunno, the world bank. Something purely political. And then gotten a series of responses like "You dumb c***, you need to get laid."

But for women who blog on their own site, or want to work as activists in the public, like Cindy, it becomes impossible to do that anonymously. People do get (and post) your private information even if you intended to be an anonymous blogger.

If women give them a target, they'll fire.

[Le Taz Hot]

299. You just wrote something very significant

which proves the point: "On an anonymous forum, you can decide to walk away when the abuse is too much." It just silenced you, didn't it? (I'm not speaking of you personally).

[Fleshdancer]

41. holy crap, seriously?

I'm sorry to hear about the PM. :(

[LostinVA]

44. Yup

It apparently was a mole from one of the other places.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

126. ...

:hug:

I'd kick that guy's ass if I ever saw him. :mad:

[Autobot77]

221. I agree with you.

[smtpgirl]

225. LostinVA, sorry to hear that

I may disagree with other posters on this forum, but I nave never sent a post that would make someone scared.

Maybe the troll had latent criminal tendencies. Glad they were tombstoned.

[Darth_Kitten]

238. that's terrible........

It's amazing the kind of violence and hate out there.

I once had to call the police because of a voice message left on my phone after I wrote a Letter to the Editor. No, I really don't deserve to have my head kicked in, thank you. Tell some loser on the street to please don't run into me with your bike or car and I'm a b##ch, c###, wh##e, etc etc. So much venom.

It does affect you and shake you up a bit. But apparently, in our society, you can't really talk about discrimination against gender, because then you are an "uptight" feminist.....we are equal, see?

[China_cat]

33. The thing is that it doesn't stay anonymous.

These people go to great lengths to find you, transmit your information, your family status, mess with your employment, your personal relationships, etc.

If you think you can't be found, you're naive.

[Captain Hilts]

39. I don't use my real name on the Internet. nt

[Fleshdancer]

43. if you're posting at home or work, it doesn't matter what name you use

you can still be found.

[China_cat]

47. Do you really believe that protects you?

Hate to tell you, but it doesn't.

[Captain Hilts]

48. There's no such thing as being completely safe. But, despite vigorous...

use of the Internet on political fora, I've received no threats.

More good luck than good management I'm sure to some degree, but I'll take it.

[smtpgirl]

229. this why woman are verbally acosted, TOTAL anonymity

That is why those cowards, that are so called men lash out at any turn.

They have no morals and no backbone!!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

Once I posted on someone's blog and a rightwinger somehow found

my private e-mail address and started spamming me with hate mail. Not only that, he posted my private e-mail on the blog, although the blog owner deleted it. Ironically, his hate mail accused me of hiding behind a pseudonym!

I sent the little troll a scathing e-mail telling him that if he persisted (he had used his real name and a local ISP) in harrassing me, I would sic the cops on him. That stopped him. Just for good measure, I added his address to the spam filter so that messages from him would bounce.

I was lucky that he was merely a "mother's basement" type of troll, not a real psycho.

[WilliamPitt]

55. Try getting them as a public figure

Then try forgetting them when your at a podium, under lights, before a similarly anonymous crowd.

It's a different ballgame when it's for real.

Trust me on this one.

[Name removed]

359. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bobbolink]

370. .

:hi:

[DemBones DemBones]

373. . . .

:hi:

[bobbolink]

380. .

Sometimes it's just gotta be said, and I'm glad I was able to see it (before it gets gone?)

You see, there are words that can lift spirits.

:rofl:

[DemBones DemBones]

360. Double post- delete

[Book Lover]

86. Mook, if you had a picture of you photoshopped with a noose 'round *your* neck

I have a feeling you'd let it get to you, big guy.

[Captain Hilts]

109. I didn't say it wouldn't upset me.

But my Nom de net is not associated with any face.

Can't let the Bad Guys win.

ps. I'm female.

[Book Lover]

114. I apologize for my assumption

that you were a man.

[Captain Hilts]

116. Problemma nyet.

I basically agree with you.

Our difference is one of degree not content.

[TygrBright]

234. I think one point the OP and cited article are trying to make...

...is that jealously guarding your anonymity is the ONLY way to escape harrassment. Think of the 'net as a giant city park, sort of like Central Park. Then imagine that the ONLY way for a woman to enjoy that park safely is to wear a burka and never let her face be seen, her name be known, etc.

Why should women have to be anonymous in a public place in order to avoid a type and degree of harrassment that men rarely experience? Why should it be "socially acceptable" in the 'net sense (as in, you don't get kicked off sites/fora/etc., you don't get warned by Admins that you're engaging in criminal conduct--verbal threats of the magnitude discussed here ARE criminal in many jurisdictions, they rate as a form of assault or 'terroristic threats', etc.,--and that if you don't cease and desist your IP info. will be turned over to the police, etc.) to engage in such behavior?

Why is this kind of vile criminality shielded as a "free speech" issue? There is a real difference between (for example) a creepy misogynist going on a generalized rant about how awful all women are, and a creepy CRIMINAL misogynist writing explicit threats about committing violent, criminal acts against one woman. The first, while disgusting, is probably protected speech. The second should, simply, be completely banned from all internet sites. Period.

People who get away with this online have their creepy attitudes reinforced and encouraged, further perpetuating the world's acceptance of treating half of humanity worse than domestic animals.

FWIW, I do see the problems inherent in banning specific words. It can be perfectly legitimate to say something like "Well, I just hope that this doesn't provide an excuse for them to bitch about it." OTOH, telling someone "Well, thought she just acted like a total bitch," falls into a less-acceptable middle ground, and direct name-calling ("You bitch!") is right out. I think we as users have a right to expect the owners/administrators of internet sites to understand these complexities and monitor their sites and keep them civil accordingly. Anyone who isn't willing to do so should probably not HAVE a site.

judiciously,
Bright

[Triana]

121. It's TERRORISM - and when they threaten you, your family and post...

...your personal information and threaten to use it to destroy your life or kill you or attack you or your family it's hard NOT to let it get to you.

It's hate crime and terrorism, plain and simple.

[smtpgirl]

237. Agreed Triana

We should fight terrorism here, on our internets & tubes and get those who do this to people outta here.

They are probably mostly AOL users anyway.

[DemBones DemBones]

358. You're a man, you can't get it. What you're saying is like

any of us white people telling black people what should and should not "get to" them.

Edit: Wait, you said you're not a man. You're a woman and you don't get it? That confuses me.

[bobbolink]

371. Not so confusing. It has to do with whom one is identified with.

There are white-identified blacks (used to be referred to as Uncle Toms) and there are male-identified women (Aunt Tomasinas?)

I wrote in another post that I think it may be trying to prove one is "tough", because "tough" is "in".

Sad.

Edited to say that not all women are feminists. Which is why all this voting for a woman because she's a woman is nonsense.

[rosesaylavee]

5. Feminism needs to be revived on a national scale.

This happens locally as well. It is accepted behavior.

Read your sig line - to which DU avatar are you referring?

[noamnety]

251. sig line stuff

that would be Alex, the "sympathetic" rapist character from A Clockwork Orange.

[defendandprotect]

397. Why is Democratic Underground permitting these comments?

Sorry -- I'm just hearing about this issue.
Why aren't the websites making sure that personal attacks -- especially on females -- aren't posted?

[noamnety]

398. According to the DU Rules

It's recommended (but not prohibited) that members not use obviously racist or sexist terms.

If SOME members don't agree that a word is a bigoted slur, then the moderators apparently feel justified in allowing those slurs.

The moderators are themselves "ambivalent" about removing words that are sexist and bigoted and demeaning toward women.

The moderators want to ensure that posts which are "otherwise perfectly fine" - except for their use of BIGOTED SLURS - aren't getting deleted, because that would be "confusing" to people.

[rosesaylavee]

406. The offending avatar is removed.

Just got a nice note from Skinner re that this evening. Yay!

[noamnety]

410. Thank You!

And thanks to MookieWilson for being the one to originally question the appropriateness of that avatar to represent this forum.

[Lars39]

7. Those in leadership positions set the tone,

whether it's the Bush administration or DU's administration.
DU lost progressive voices when 'bitch' was allowed to be acceptable.

[bobbolink]

141. You're so right, but of course it won't be acknowledged.

I'm surprised your words of truth weren't vaporized.

The sexism allowed here is truly pathetic.

And the very opposite of creating peace.

Thank you for having the courage to speak the truth!

:applause:

The only reason, I fully believe, that this last ugly example was brought to light was because it happened to someone who had the access to press to make it a national issue. It caused embarrassment, as well it should.

Just the fact that it hurts another human being doesn't seem to count.

But, just don't embarrass us.

[Captain Hilts]

165. Agree about DU leadership as well as the use of 'bitch'. Few female avatars. nt

[Vanje]

215. ...few female avatars....

...and, if i'm not mistakenn, NO cindy sheehan avatars.
i just looked.

[DemBones DemBones]

363. A lot of people have left DU because the

rules against religious bigotry are not seen as being enforced.

Note to mods: I did not say they weren't being enforced, I said that is the perception that many have gotten.

[bobbolink]

375. Then *I'll* say it.

A lot of the rules aren't enforced.

Which brings us back full circle to why the Cindy flap happened.

It's *not* that it was wrong to slam a woman in that way... it's that it's now embarrassing that DU was caught doing to a woman with national exposure what happens here all the time.

[Warpy]

8. I'd recommend this mulitiple times if I could

because this is a very important post.

Men just don't get how injurious these sexual slurs are to women. Reducing men to one body part doesn't seem to get through to them, probably because so many of them LIVE for that one body part.

Until men stop seeing themselves as predators and women as natural prey, this stuff will continue. Women have a difficult choice: either retreat into silence and the illusion of safety, or stay out there and risk being attacked physically as well as emotionally.

My best advice to my sisters is to stay out there but guard your anonymity completely. Do NOT give out your name or phone number to anyone, no matter how convincing the sob story is.

After all, if these men didn't attack us, we wouldn't know we were doing it all right.

[LostinVA]

17. Good post n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

341. As the OP pointed out, women also engage in this behavior. I remember a thread

about the bush twins in Agentina, and the stuff said about them, the sexual slurs, the pure unadultered hatered came from both genders.

[vanlassie]

9. A Favorite Put-Down: "She's Shrill"

I have noticed that calling a woman "shrill" is commonly used to minimize someone who is outspoken.

vanlassie

[Captain Hilts]

49. Check out the way the dust up between O'Donnell and Hasel back was described.

Really sexist.

[moonlady0623]

140. Yeah add Rosie to the list for sure

if you're not an ATTRACTIVE mainstream type woman you might as well forget being heard...

way it looks anyway

[truedelphi]

99. hey they even called Howard Dean shrill

Their favorite tactic right now is to say that we are "so angry"

To which I have been answering, The right wing is so Snide."

[tavalon]

281. Yep, it makes sense to offer up truth for truth

We are angry, they are snide.

We have damn good reason to be angry.

[Arugula Latte]

137. O'Leilly uses that one all the time.

Like HE'S not shrill?

[Telly Savalas]

429. That guy is the physical embodiment of "shrill".

[AnnieBW]

252. Calling someone a whore, for one

I've been on-line since 1994, in the old Compuserve days. I've been called a whore before. And a bitch. And any other sexual slur you can think of. Usually by other women. I've been called numerous names on this forum for stating opinions contrary to the DU mainstream. I just don't let it get to me. However, I've never been stalked or had people threaten my, my husband, or my home. Then again, I have a husband who is an information security professional. If someone threatened me, they would find their account hacked with all kinds of nasty viruses.

:evilgrin:

[Cerridwen]

10. I have only enough time to recommend this post and kick it

before I'm off to work.

lwfern, well said! Very well said, indeed!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

11. Women can be like Boudica (probably called an A. W. by the Romans in AD 60)

If all the world's leaders PMs, CEOS, Presidents were all women we would have a better deal.

Boudica (Boudicea) rules!

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudica

(when they start to hurl abuse, scream, spin at you etc you know you hit their nerve)

[LostinVA]

19. Boudica does rule!

And, if the damned tide had been different, she would have routed the Romans and history -- and probably women's lives -- would have been a whole lot different.

[unpossibles]

12. K&R!! bravo!

this sickens me, not only as a man, but as a human. I've seen this happen on a wide variety of boards too - on one of my music boards, it's not uncommon to see (especially from the right wing troll crowd) someone attack a female based on gender instead of actual arguments or logic. One friend of mine even started posting under a man's name to avoid it, and it's sad to see how it works: people actually respect her opinions and don't call her stupid and hateful names when they lose their arguments.

[Morgana LaFey]

222. Can we count on you standing up to other men here at DU when they

call any woman some of those names?? That's what we need: an end to the buddyism and cronyism and male bonding that goes with sexism. We need MEN to say: enough! Enough with the sexism, enough with the gender slurs, enough violence against women.

Can I count on you?

[Umbram]

276. You can count on me, but...

Considering you attack someone's historical analysis in post #263 because of the sex of the person you are responding to, I'll stand against you when you are wrong as well.

[Morgana LaFey]

407. You know, you are probably right

Anyone who mistakes that condescending garbage as "historical analysis" or anything close probably isn't up for the job. Tbere was nothing in his post that reflected the historical reality in any way.

NOR was I attacking him on the basis of his gender, but the basis of his errors AND the condescension he hid so well from you by cloaking it in terms that apparently made him sound to you like he knows what he's talking about. Let me assure you, he does not.

I'm also surprised -- and disgusted -- that you didn't pick up on what women have had to endure since time immemorial: yet another man telling us what to do, what to think, how to behave about OUR issues, our lives, our own thoughts and our own movement. BUTT THE FUCK OUT is my attitude. If you find that offensive - that we're sick and tired of having men butt in and order us around (and esp. if you can't even recognize instances where that's what's happening), then yes, you're not right for the job.

[Umbram]

420. Ok, I think I'm clear.

If a man agrees with YOU (you do not represent all women or even all feminists) then they may speak their mind on issues of gender and feminism. If a man disagrees with you, he should "Butt the f*%ck out."

I presume women are allowed to disagree with YOU (again, you represent only your own thoughts on this matter, however much you might like to think otherwise) then they are allowed to express their thoughts.

I'm definitely not right for the job. I weigh ideas on the basis of their merits, not based on the chromosomes of the speaker.

I could (and may!) agree with you on EVERY fact concerning oppression of women and STILL come to the conclusion that it is the value of ideas and not whether they come from a man or woman that are important. In two posts now you've disagreed with that. I guess we have to agree to disagree.

You assume that I agreed with everything (or anything?) that the previous poster stated. I wouldn't state that. Then again, I don't believe in the existence of a "historical reality" of a movement like you do. Sounds like truthiness to me.

[Morgana LaFey]

428. You don't believe in a "historical reality" of a movement --

now ThAT is interesting. Yes, I was incredibly misguided with my original assessment of you. You're about on the same plane as MrPrax.

If a man disagrees with you, he should "Butt the f*%ck out."

Uh, no. I'll take that as another deliberate mischaracterization of what I said. If a man wants to tell women how to behave, what to think and how to think it, how to behave to get his approval and to earn what should be our rights as humans, and how and why we "failed" to do better, he should butt the fuck out. It's condescending sexism.

Then again, I don't believe in the existence of a "historical reality" of a movement like you do. Sounds like truthiness to me.

You don't "believe in" history? Gee, are you a Flat Earth Sovciety member too? What an interesting attitude. Sorry, but interesting. If some jerk who clearly and demonstrably knows NOTHING about the women's movement wants to post garbage, myth, lies and fiction posing as what really happened ("what really happened" -- otherwise known as: HISTORY), that's apparently okay with you. Amazing. And you have the nerve to try to accuse me of having a bias toward a certain make-up of a person's chromosomes. No, I am biased toward the facts and truth. I am quite biased AGAINST sexism and misogyny which quite often makes me biased against sexist and misogynist DUers who happen to be male. Also some women.

BTW, you and Prax can keep your truthiness.

I'm definitely not right for the job. I weigh ideas on the basis of their merits, not based on the chromosomes of the speaker.

I'm not at all sure that's true -- about how you weigh ideas. In any case, you're clearly not that good at it.

Goodbye.

[Umbram]

430. I'm sorry.

I like to have philosophical discussions - it's how I learn about topics I don't know enough about. Clearly I made a mistake in attempting to better understand your particular philosophy. You've stressed in two straight posts that I lack the intellectual capacity to engage in the critical thinking necessary to understand your viewpoint (pure truth).

As to history, if you think it is pure fact, let it be so. Those facts can only be analyzed via methods or lenses and there is no ONE method. A marxist feminist and another style of feminist may have wildly different accounts of the feminist movement while analyzing the same "facts".

If you find it rewarding to dismiss me as either stupid or chauvinist for even attempting to learn by a dialectical method, so be it. I have found little in feminist theory that I disagree with, but clearly you are on an inquisition and desperate for heretics. I am glad to have had enough exposure to care theory and other feminist theory/philosophy so as to not think that your militant you're-either-with-ME-or-against-US philosophy is prevalent.

[Morgana LaFey]

432. You and Douglas Feith --

he thinks it's okay to make up intelligence to suit the occasion or perhaps the mood, and you're perfectly fine with blatant falsehoods trotted out and expressed as if they were historical facts.

I DO understand history is subjective in the analysis stage. But not so subjective you admit lies and falseshoods. You persist in seeing "analysis" where there was instead pure myth, fantasy or flat out lies. Hah! And then you want to blame me and my anti-male bigotry for daring to point it out to you. :shrug:

I was THERE, were you? Was MrPrax? I can't imagine. Anyone who comes up with an "analysis" that compares anything about the 2nd Wave Feminism today or any day to the Temperance Movement (other than, perhaps, they were "manned" by women and not terribly popular) is smokin' somethin', period.

And to top it all off, you claim *I'm* the one who's at fault because we can't have a nice philosophical conversation.

If you find it rewarding to dismiss me as either stupid or chauvinist for even attempting to learn by a dialectical method, so be it.

One small correction: I don't see you attempting to learn ANYthing, by any method.

And with that, I think we're done here.

[Umbram]

433. Yep, I agree

We are done.

Anyone omnipotent enough to know what I'm attempting to learn is beyond me. Why educate me when as the self-appointed pope of feminism you have excommunicated me after two posts and a probing search of my soul have deemed me unworthy of discourse.

Fair enough. I'll continue to read about feminism from those members of the movement that care enough about it to educate others rather than spend their time vivisecting people on message boards. On the other hand, maybe I'll just "Butt the f*#(" out, because it's not my problem, right?

I look forward to agreeing with you on another thread on another subject.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

13. Do You TRULY Believe The Recent Issues With Cindy Have Had ANYTHING To Do With Her Being Female?

Really? C'mon now.

[Lars39]

21. Consistently invalidating, maligning and ridiculing women is abusive.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

27. So You TRULY Believe The Abuse Towards Her Was Because She Was A Woman? Really?

Personally, I find that to be a huge stretch from reality. Of all the comments I've seen that were critical of her, there was never a hint of them being rooted in the fact that she was a woman. I can't help thinking that the OP is just trying to squeeze her into an agenda for sake of bringing light to that agenda, even if it didn't apply here.

[noamnety]

32. There is an entire Snopes page devoted to lies about her status as Casey's "Mother"

That was just stage one of the abuse, she's a failure AS A WOMAN and as a WIFE - quoting the snopes debunked letter in which it's alleged someone else raised Casey (false) because she was remarried (false): "Cindy sounds like a feminist opportunist who did not have the sense of responsibility to even raise her own son."

You don't think the hate toward her is related to her status as female? REALLY?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

38. No, Not By A Long Shot.

For your premise to work, her being female would have to be the root of the anger. I don't think for a second that's the case. Once the anger is present, sure some may choose female oriented put-downs to hurt her with, but that's secondary and not a catalyst of why they hated her to begin with. In addition, some obscure small percent overall posts along the lines of what you put above does not give your premise any legitimacy either. For your premise to have any legitimacy, her being female would have to account for a majority of the root cause of criticism. With all due respect, I doubt highly that it comes anywhere NEAR a significant part of it.

So no, not for a second do I think her being female has a thing to do for the opposition to her. The fact she was speaking out against the war strongly, was highly critical of *, and now was highly critical of the Dems, does.

To each their own reasoning, but I can't see for a second how you would truly believe that it was about her being a woman.

[Psyop Samurai]

69. The topic isn't WHY women are silenced...

...it's HOW women are silenced. It's opportunistic. And there is not a corresponding sexualization of hate towards men. That presents an additional obstacle to women participating.

Further, there are plenty of cretins out there with serious "issues", for whom it IS about being a woman, whether that be primary or secondary. This occurs against a societal background where milder and relatively innocuous forms of gender-specific put-downs/framing are often invisible and accepted.

[lukasahero]

125. Hey - excellent response

Thanks for the input and (rather belatedly) welcome to DU! :hi:

[hfojvt]

419. I note with some sadness

that Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, Deb Saunders, Diane West, Margaret Carlson, etc., etc. have STILL not been silenced, and Dreamboat Annie has been spewing her vitriol for over a decade.

I think the attacks are likely to be more severe and more prevalent when a person is perceived as going against the mainstream. Not sure how that applies to Carrie Nation or the WCTU though.

[bettyellen]

179. you can only see motive, not opportunity? LOL. guys pick on who they can get away with it easiest.

that's how things have always worked, snap out of it.

[urgk]

182. Straining at gnats while swallowing camels.

Of course the anger directed toward Sheehan was first and foremost about her opposition to the war. That's not at all in dispute. But I have to agree with the posters that the tone and the manner of the response had everything to do with the fact that she is a woman. The conservative (read: current pro-war) movement is rooted in a patriarchal pseudo-Christian subculture where men run the household. I read part of the anger as people who can't believe that a woman has the audacity to speak up. Can you honestly imagine the same dismissive attitude being leveled at a man whose son had died? More importantly, are there even cultural equivalents for "bitch" and "whore" that could be directed towards a man in the same situation?

On a side note, if you agree, in principle, with the idea that women who speak up are treated in an indefensible, morally bankrupt way by posters who want to intimidate them into silence, why waste your time and energy initiating a nitpicking match rather than actually trying to help solve it?

[zippy890]

184. excellent points

and very well written.

"Can you honestly imagine the same dismissive attitude being leveled at a man whose son had died? More importantly, are there even cultural equivalents for "bitch" and "whore" that could be directed towards a man in the same situation?"

No and no are the answers.

welcome to DU! look forward to more posts from you.
:hi:

[Cabcere]

353. I think you've hit the nail right on the head.

Excellent post, urgk. And welcome to DU! :hi: Great to have you here, and I'll certainly be looking forward to more of your insightful and well-written posts. :hi:

[Captain Hilts]

34. Women are considered easier targets. Here's an example.

The university I taught at told me that 75% of all grievance cases against professors were male students against young female professors.

The Wash Post stated that female correspondents and columnists get more and nastier hate mail.

One of my personal experiences is in riding my bike home up the Potomac on the Crescent Trail, I'd take my helmet off on really hot days. As I'm going uphill, I'm riding pretty slowly. There wasn't a time I did that that a male cyclist wouldn't berate me to put my helmet back on. A male cyclist with whom I often rode did the same thing but had never been told to put his helmet back on. Men feel more comfortable criticizing women than other men.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

40. Yeah Right. Tell That To Kerry, Or Dean, Or Gore, Or The Slew Of Others. n/t

[bettyellen]

176. oh, i love the "men are victims" card.. those who play it cannot see the irony.

while the rest of us gape and laugh at the freak show.

[DemBones DemBones]

365. I wish you could be a woman for a few months.

A few weeks might even do it. You'd see what it's like for us and would be begging to be a man again.

[hfojvt]

417. that has been done in movies and TV

Episodes of 'Highway to Heaven' and 'Quantum Leap' come to mind and the one teen movie about the girl who pretended to be a guy. There was even a recent story about that on the news about a woman who passed as a man for about a year. She claimed that it was much better being a woman and was struck by how much power women had in relationships. That as a man, she/he had to go out on a limb and approach a woman and that women had the power to swat her/him away like some annoying insect.

I think you know better than that, but you made it sound like it is some sort of cakewalk to be a man or a boy. Tell me, who is better off - Casey or Cindy Sheehan. Cindy got threatened and called a bunch of names and wore herself out trying to stop this war, but she lived twice as long as Casey, had progeny, and is still alive today. Casey would still be alive today, chances are, if he had been born a girl.

Alpha males, if they are wealthy, may be at the top of the social food chain. Omega males, however, are far below even beta females, and there are lots of us shovelling the sh*t and taking the bullets and either being spit on or ignored.

"Single men suffer from twice as many mental health impairments as single women; they are more depressed, more passive, more likely to experience nervous breakdowns and all the designated symptoms of psychological distress - from fainting to insomnia." Susan Faludi

[eridani]

142. Cycling is a good analogy

My husband and I both get crap from car drivers, but the extra ration of shit that I get only happens when I'm riding alone. When he rides with me, it doesn't happen and I can't explain it to him.

[bettyellen]

178. walking down the street alone has become problematic, and the men i know don;t see it

when i brought it up, actually in a pretty lighthearted way (because it's just verbal harassment, after all) guys who have never doubted my word before suddenly just did not want to believe that harrassment and catcalling towards women have become SOP on our main street thurs thru saturday nights. this is what not allowing smoking in bars has done, created groups of men- totally white coller, mind you, who holler at women as if they were construction workers. one friend who totally discounted my story, i didn;t have the heart ot tell him it was some of his friends harassing me. guys do not want to hear it. they don;t believe it till it's their little sister crying her eyes out. that's nothing new.

[noamnety]

186. I almost posted about that a few days ago.

My daughter's home from college for two weeks. She asked us to get her bike out of the attic. I gave her some grief about that, because she's not gonna ride it more than a couple times while she's here, and only short trips at that.

She said she knows. But there's no car for her here during the day, and she can't walk to the corner store without getting yelled at.

It makes me feel like a crap parent that I can't figure out a way to shield her from that.

[bettyellen]

193. yeah, biking got real dangerous... to many cute little swerves toward me, startling honks

and comments that were supposedly intended to flatter? wtf? way to get my attention boys, or maybe just keill me.
and yes, the guys we know are blissfully unaware this goes on. often after telling them, i think they feel that if they believed it, they would actually be expected to be all "manly" and do something about it. doubting it goes on keeps guys in their comfort zone.

[Captain Hilts]

231. Yes, I got honked at on my bike by a guy "just being friendly." I read him the riot act about ...

honking needlessly to a cyclist.

[hfojvt]

414. drivers do it to me all the time

and my Pavlov reaction is to flip them the bird. Except they are usually friends of mine, and they cannot seem to understand that a car horn only has one message "get the fu$% out of my way". It does not matter if you tap it, or lay on it, that only changes the volume. FU is FU whether it is whispered or screamed. Then they say 'but I just tapped twice' so I would ask them, 'if I flip you the bird really fast, twice, does that mean hello?'

Most drivers do not get it though, because their experience is only as pedestrians or drivers. When you are standing on a sidewalk and a car honks at you, you are going to have a different reaction than you will on the street. Same thing if you are in another car. In a car you are not threatened by all the other cars which are so much faster and heavier than you. You don't have to look behind you before you make a left turn. It is very rare for somebody to pass you in your car and then turn right in front of you. Even if they do you have the option of blasting your horn at them or slamming into them and hurting them as much as they hurt you.

[puebloknot]

431. Crap parenting is in the eye of the worried parent.

When my daughter was in high school, she had a friend who had left Iran, with her parents, because of the Islamic Revolution there. My daughter loved her because she was so educated, and so different from American girls.

They lived across from the high school my daughter attended, and a couple of times I was a little late picking my daughter up, in the daytime, mind you. So this couple was always looking out for Jen, inviting her in to wait in their house for me. One day, the father kind of read me the riot act about being more careful about my daughter's safety.

Of course, they had just left Iran. But it set me thinking that we really do have to no longer assume that it's safe to be out doing normal things -- like riding a bicycle -- because as much as we want our children to be independent, we also want them to be safe.

I am not a spring chicken, and I remember a childhood where no one ever talked about this kind of thing. I rode my bicycle all over, alone, and never felt threatened.

So this isn't advice because there isn't any I can give. It's just a nodding of the head with you.

[urgk]

189. Something to try...

I don't mean this at all flippantly, but record it. Take a little digital or tape recorder with you. Or palm your cell phone and take a short movie. Show your guy friends what the women they know are putting up with. Of course, you shouldn't have to prove it to them, but it may help.

[bettyellen]

196. my next phone will have video becuase of you, LOL... and welcome to DU !

unfortunately the denial you see here may taint the experience for you, but you posted to Iwfern, one of the best DUers ever born, so you're off to a great start!
:hi:

[Morgana LaFey]

223. That's a wonderful idea, with the ADDED benefit that it might have

a "chilling effect" on the video-ee!!! Woohoo! Women who don't have video phones ought to try and fake it with the cell phones they do have.

[eridani]

255. Men are like observers trying to document the behavior of nocturnal animals

Turn a flashlight on them, and they're no longer nocturnal. My husband's very presence on the scene eliminates the phenomenon I'm trying to explain to him.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

318. How to educate men on this topic:

If there's a particularly bad area for street harrassment, have the guy walk so that it doesn't look as if you're together, a few feet behind, but close enough to see and hear what's going on.

It will be an educational experience.

[bobbolink]

377. Good idea.

It would be even *more* helpful if men would just learn to LISTEN to women's experience!!

That'w what we were working on 40 years ago!

Damn! What does it really take?

[DemBones DemBones]

366. Even driving is not safe. Many men think they have the right

to harass women at any time and any place. And then there are the repairmen and auto mechanics, and doctors, who treat women like they're dumb or flirt with them.

[jpgray]

198. This is true. Men are also, in general, more aggressive towards women than men

When they disagree.

[bettyellen]

202. i've noticed with guys at work they can be competative assholes with men and get over it- like it's

a game, no big deal, but god forbid a woman does better than them, they never let it go. it's pretty fucked up, and very common.

[jpgray]

204. To be fair, men can also be terrified of women

:scared:

:P

But in general there seems to be an extra animosity there. I guess it goes without saying that empathy has more chances to decrease the less you identify with someone.

[bettyellen]

207. swag's a liar, i'm not that scary at all. hardly much at all.

i can just hold waaay too much whiskey down. :shrug:

[jpgray]

210. Can't compete with that. Two drinks and I'm anybody's.

[bettyellen]

219. that's handy information

oh shit, maybe i am a little scary.

[jpgray]

271. Remember as a man I think I'm socially obligated to compete

So long as you drink me under the table rather than under someone I don't recognize, my dignity will be maintained. :D

[raccoon]

302. And do men ever get told by total strangers to "Smile!" nt

[John Q. Citizen]

347. Yes. Although as best as I can gather, not as often as women do. On the

other hand, men probably get told to "suck it up, or "act like a man," or are more likely to be erroneously accused of sexism by complete strangers more often than women are.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

316. That was my experience as a college professor, too

The "young macho guy" culture does NOT respect women. We women professors (at a small college) would sit at lunch complaining about a certain male student (and there were several such over the years) whose surliness and undermining were always just below the borderline of what we could call him on, and the men professors would look puzzled and say, "I've never had any trouble with him. He's always been cheerful and cooperative with me."

[John Q. Citizen]

346. It often depends on whose ox is being gored. Just as majority ethnic groups

sometimes have a difficult time conceiving of bigotry experienced by minority groups, so to do some men have a difficulty conceiving of misogyny against women.

I also believe that some women have difficulty conceiving of sexism being directed against men, whether by other men or women.

Unfortunately, humans, as a group, seem quite capable of engaging in this type of behavior while being unconscious of that behavior, or at least of being unconscious of that type of behavior occurring even if they themselves aren't engaging in it.

[truedelphi]

101. I think, being from an era when women were expected to be hard working but not heard

That there is a certain segment of the population that resents women who achieve power.

Or visibility, which is really just power under another name.

And you are not supposed to lament those who have fallen. Stiff upper lip and all that.

I am sure that Cindy has been told that she is dishonoring Casey's memory
by making such a "public spectacle" of herself.

I wrote one column in the Coastal Post listing all of those who had died in Iraq (in a four weekperiod) and within two weeks of it being published, I was under attack from the Right Wing.

[bettyellen]

174. Yes, And You;d Be Blind To Miss It... she's menopausal, shrill, too emotional, a drama queen....

if you don;t see it, it's because you desperately want to believe shit like that doesn;t happen. even when women tell you it's happening, i bet you doubt their asssesment, write it off as hysterical.

[urgk]

183. To put what others have said another way...

Operation, I think you're confusing a couple of issues. One issue is whether people are angry simply because she (meaning any one of the women described in this thread) is a woman. Which, I think, given the prevailing attitudes of the parts of the US where conservatives make up the greater percentage of the population, is very likely to be true. The other, and I think the more relevant issue here, is that people are angry at her opposition to their own ideas, and are willing to exhibit that anger in a more violent, sexual, aggressive manner because she's female.

I think the second issue is absolutely true. People whose personally held beliefs won't stand up in the face of logic, facts and reason would rather hide behind violent threats.

[bliss_eternal]

155. Of course the person you are responding to questions this...

:eyes:

This person routinely demands that women, glbt people, people of color and others treated as (thought of as minorities) prove that their thoughts, feelings and ideas are valid. When this person is called on being dismissive of said person's thoughts, feelings and ideas--he goes through the usual song and dance (as they are now) of "what are you talking about?" ..and all their other usual behavior.

It's beyond old. But it is a prime example. Thankfully, we can can't on OMC to always prove this point. :)

Anyone that doubts this only has to read their comments in this thread.

Oh and thanks lars! :hi: Good to see you!

[LostinVA]

22. Of course they do

[RaleighNCDUer]

45. Not the issues, but the attacks on her.

To avoid addressing the issues she is attacked as an attention whore, a woman who abandonded he family and wife/mother duties for he quest for self aggrandizement - which is self evident because she got a divorce, yada yada yada.

Half the attacks on her have nothing to do with the issues - but with her being a woman.

That is the problem and the OPs point.

[WilliamPitt]

56. "whore"

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

63. I Believe There To Be A Difference Between The Root Of Anger And The Expression Of It.

Undoubtedly the expression of the anger by some has had obvious connections to gender. That would make sense since simple minded people who criticize always go for the most simplistic criticisms they can think of; which in this case would be copping out to gender.

But I do not think for a second that the root of the anger resides in her being a female, which is what I'm taking the OP to imply. I think the root of the anger stems from her stance and her actions, regardless of how some of the morons have chosen to express that anger.

[Tsiyu]

97. I believe you have no clue what it means to be an outspoken female

None whatsoever.

You can't even try to approximate the experience.

[Lars39]

104. Has no intention of trying, either.

[Arugula Latte]

138. Oh, see, he's the voice of authority here on DU because he uses capital letters

Ooooooh! ... How impressive his boorishness looks in those capitalized words!

[Moochy]

259. LOLZOMC

I R teh DU's TOUGHEST ITG !!! RAWR!

Sorry I R been reeding http://icanhascheezburger.com/page/2/ 4 2 long..

[BoneDaddy]

291. I hear ya

and by the stupidity of the comments responding to you, they have made the point even more clear.

[Tsiyu]

333. My comments are stupid?

Nice.

What point was he making? That a woman was not put down due to her gender but due to her actions? Hmmmmmm.

So why was she called so many ugly names that had absolutely nothing to do with her actions? And all of those names referred to a female who is less than the male standard:

The male standard being: Must be sexy and the perfect male fantasy vision of female beauty or she is worthless as a human being, must speak in low tones, must not have those nasty female body parts, must be a virgin (or she is DIRTY DIRTY DIRTY for even THINKING about sex becasue good girls never do), must not do anything out of the ordinary, must not curse, must not interrupt IMPORTANT men, must not leave the house if she has a family, must never be emotional, must always accept the fact that if she does, she will be called all of those ugly gender-oriented names.

What the hell did any of those evil name-callers think when they were calling her those names? That she could have used another strategy? There are gender-neutral names to express a dislike for someone's strategy.

No, these were names she was called because some perpetual adolescent males said, "Oh, lookie! A WOMAN. Where is my list of filthy names to call WOMEN? Don't I sound like a big man now!"

And if there were women who did the same, shame on them. They are enablers of the perpetual 12-year-old male mindset that is responsible for getting our nation in the mess it's in.

If you can't see it, you must be blind.

[nashville_brook]

62. YES! same with Rosie, same with Code Pink, same with Jane Fonda

there's a special sort of bullying reserved for women who dare speak out.

[NashVegas]

74. The Issues, No, The Attacks, Yes

Maybe it's just something most guys will never see; you're far less likely to be on the receiving end.

Men are traditionally accustomed to being able to give (or in extreme cases, bark) orders to women and have them followed. Women are traditionally expected to sit down and shut up when they're told, and when a woman refuses to back down, the shit often tends to hit the fan.

[yurbud]

14. Not just women, I noticed this on an open board

I was having good discussion with a wide range of people, then started getting very abusive responses and the same person posting over and over. It turned me off to the board. It shouldn't have because it was a good venue to get more people thinking, but I wonder if some PR firm hasn't figured out exactly how to hit the off switch on people.

[EFerrari]

25. You're right. It's not just women.

It's the same groups that are targeted by bigots off line.

[yurbud]

35. ideas targeted and shouted off the stage

[yurbud]

70. CASE IN POINT: check out some of the anti-Nader posters like this guy:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1002802&mesg_id=1003186

[yurbud]

73. and the same guy anti-Chavez:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1003642&mesg_id=1003652

[eridani]

145. The anti-Chavez stuff isn't SEXUALIZED n/t

[yurbud]

218. yeah, just the same level of venom. Also, the sexual angle is not as insulting to guys

unless a woman says we have a small penis (and she's seen it to judge)

[eridani]

258. The reason it isn't as insulting--

--is that there is no implied threat to mens' physical safety behind it.

[yurbud]

275. that's why racist comments bother blacks but not really whites

there is at least a history of implied threat to blacks, but a slap at whites is just heard as "I don't like you."

[Moochy]

272. "Out of Context"

And linking to choice BS posts like that will be called "out of context" but in this case,
the messenger is the message.

[eridani]

144. The anti-Nader stuff isn't SEXUALIZED n/t

[northzax]

327. you mean Ralph "I would rather have George Bush than Al Gore" Nader?

Ralph Nader has a lot of blood on his hands, in my book.

everytime you feel sorry for Ralph Nader, remind yourself that Ralph Nader's Ego is the reason George Bush is President. Nader is the reason for everything that has happened since 2001. no words are too harsh.

[DemBones DemBones]

368. Wrong. You cannot prove that Nader voters would have voted for Gore

and most say they wouldn't have, my brother being one of them. So if those who voted for Nader had stayed home and not voted, the result would have been the same.

Also, my brother was in a red state that was obviously going to go for Bush. So was I but I did my duty by voting for Gore, and for Kerry. I wish I'd voted for Nader in 2000 and 2004 as a protest vote, since my votes for Gore and Kerry meant nothing.

In reality, SCOTUS gave Bush the White House, with advance help from Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris.

[northzax]

381. George Bush won florida, in the final count

as judged exact, by fewer than 3,000 votes. 60,000 people in FLorida voted for Ralph Nader. you mean that fewer than 5% of those Nader voters would have voted for Gore, if Nader wasn't in the race?

bullshit. you can justify what you want, but Ralph Nader was one of the major deciding factors in the race. and in his egoistic quest, attacking the democrats more than the republicans, he helped bring George Bush to power.

his justification was "there is not a dime's worth of difference between the democrats and the republicans' do you believe that? he said it didn't matter whether Al Gore or George Bush won. do you believe that? denial must be a wonderful thing.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

15. Recommended. Post says it all. No comment necessary. n/t

[coffeenap]

18. k, r, and thanks, lwfern. It takes courage these days just to put

these thoughts and observations out there. I commend and thank you.

[Dhalgren]

20. Excellent, much needed post. K&R.

I agree with you, completely. This is a brutal, paternalistic society, filled with women haters. I do not understand it. We have to fight against this idiotic hatred. And it is idiotic. Stupid. Moronic. Perverse. Criminal. We none should tolerate this kind of behavior, this treatment of more than half of our society. I will not tolerate it. I am ashamed of most men - and yes, I say "most men", because it is true...

[Connonym]

23. or dismiss us with the term "bitch"

bitches and whores. Any accomplishment we make can be wiped out with those two dismissive words. I've heard it from male friends who I know consider themselves to be pro-women. Example: "Why don't you like Hillary Clinton?" "Because she's a bitch." What the hell is that supposed to mean and why isn't there a male equivalent?

Why do men fear women so much?

[LostinVA]

26. My Dad said that about to my mother HRC ONE time

[Captain Hilts]

110. Yay Mom! nt

[Captain Hilts]

37. BINGO! Our language makes it easier to criticize women. There is no male version of 'bitch'.

The noun OR the verb.

[Morgana LaFey]

226. Not only that, it works both ways (two way street)

The language makes it easier (when we think critically about women we have the language to go with that), AND at the same time the languge causes us to think in terms of criticizing women-because-they-are-women in the first place. Once again: that's why I try to confront EVERY instance of any gender slur at DU (bitch, whore, etc.) -- those words harm ALL women, not just the rightwing women they're usually used against.

I invite you to join me.

[BlooInBloo]

42. Quite the opposite. Most men are pure cowards - attacking those they KNOW they can get away with....

... I know it makes some feel better to picture men as being afraid of them, but it just ain't so.

[BoneDaddy]

203. Fear?

Or don't really care much what you or other people in general think or whether you consider bitch to be offensive. I don't like to be told what to say, by GW Bush or by you. I am pro-women but think threads like these are used to vent anger say silly things like "Why do men fear women so much?". I don't fear women or womyn. I admire and respect but do not fear.

One, it simply isn't true, nor is it true for my friends that we fear women.

TWo, if the shoe fits for some women then the word is appropriate. Funny, I mostly hear that word from women used to describe other woman and rarely hear that word used by me or my friends. Sometimes bitch is the best word in the context of a situation.

Three: I think that "word policing" is dangerous. I would reject any censorship of that sort. This is where the LEFT meet the far RIGHT.

Four: There is no equivalent to the word Bitch in our minds because we don't care about words and if it did hurt, we wouldn't tell you. Why should I? I can tell you have some anger towards men and I would notice that from the beginning. I wouldn't trust you with my emotional self.

[Morgana LaFey]

227. Of course you wouldn't trust her with your emotional self --

which perfectly reveals YOUR fear. Fear of rejection, fear of being found out, fear of being confronted about your own sexism, and other faults.

The type of fear being discussed in the post you're referring to is subconscius, much like your own (which is actually more conscious than most). It's not the kind of fear that makes you shake in your boots, shiver, declare, "I'm frightened!"

Sometimes bitch is the best word in the context of a situation.

Yes, when you're referring to a female dog. And only then.

[Name removed]

286. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Connonym]

321. Yeah, that's not at all misogynistic

[noamnety]

239. Sometimes Bitch is the best word for the context.

And that is why DU continues to allow it.

This is not unlike the Eskimos and all their many words for snow. When you are in a culture that has a great need to describe a thing, the culture creates words. Many kinds of snow, many words.

In our culture, we apparently have a "need" for many kinds of degrading words for women. We need one word to degrade them if they aren't appeasing enough. We need another word or two for women we want to degrade who have had sex with men. We need another way to degrade them if they have sex because they need money. And we need a word that can degrade them if they WON'T have sex with a man. And another word to degrade them when they are nice (and thus invoke an obligation to sleep with a man) but in the end do not have sex afterall. And we need some words that will degrade them properly if nobody wants to have sex with them.

There is no equivalent to the word Bitch that refers to men because we don't have a cultural need for rich language that degrades men.

We do, however, have equivalent words. Those are the slurs that are used for any group that is "The Other" - for any group that we have a need to degrade. The equivalent to Bitch is Nigger. Or Faggot. Or Hadji. Or Gook.

The reason there is no equivalent word for men is not because men are so superior in their thinking that they don't care about words. It's because without the reality of being beaten, lynched, raped, tied to fences, and murdered because of their identity, the words - when applied to straight white men - carry no historical weight.

We have a need for derogatory words - in order to keep "those" people in their place. What is a slur against a straight white male going to do? Keep them in their place - at the top of the ladder? That wouldn't be an equivalent word, then.

[Connonym]

243. exactly as you say

:applause: Very well stated

[prairierose]

325. Thank you, lwfern for this very important thread...

I read the OP yesterday and came back today to check on the conversation. The reason for the range of vocabulary for marginalizing any group is about power. In the western world white men have always had the power and have developed vocabulary that enhances that power. People often say, "they are just words" but words have power. Witness the way the media describes women who speak up.

What I have seen is that in the past 27 years, as neocons gained power in the media the use of abusive language toward women and others has increased again. There was a time when we were making progress toward marginalizing that abusive language toward various groups but today it is on the upswing. In fact, the hate speech has become so much more violent than it was in the past. Worse, there are people who feel that the violent acts are justified. I worry about our culture and its future.

Many men choose not to see the violence in name calling based on gender or "otherness". White men have never faced the type of everyday discrimination and diminishment that women and other groups face.

I have to say that after almost 40 years of this conversation, I am really tired of trying to explain it to people who have no desire to learn or move forward. It makes me very sad but very angry that we have to continue to have the conversation and be called b*****s for bringing it up.

[bobbolink]

378. Of course words have power! As I said earlier, verbal abuse is often the precursor of physical

abuse.

A woman is "softened up" with verbal abuse (as were prisoners at Abu Ghraib!!), so she is less likely to fight back or leave when the physical abuse starts.

I'm with you about being exhausted after 40 years of the same shit. People who now don't "get" the power of verbal abuse are just...obtuse.

What I will disagree with you on is that it's RW. It's ALL spectrums. I'm getting very tired of Jon Stewart's sexist crap that he keeps repeating, and sometimes wonder if his wife puts up with it.

Not to mention what is said right here at DU.

[Connonym]

241. You say word police I say improve your vocabulary

I'm not telling you that you can't use the word bitch. I'm telling you that if you sum up a dislike of a woman by calling her a bitch, especially in the absence of any bitchy behavior (ignoring you doesn't count), then you are being sexist. I ask that women be treated with the same respect as men and you think that makes me bitter. I'd say that means clearly you're the one with the bitterness issues. Don't stick labels on us especially when you have no basis for doing so. Bitch is the sexist equivalent of nigger, wop, kike, etc. If you're comfortable revealing your inner biggot, please, feel free to call us bitches any time you want. I prefer it when people wear their ass-holery on their sleeves. Makes it easier to figure out which ones to ignore.

And for the record? I can be a grade A prize winning bitch when I feel like it and I make no apologies.

[BoneDaddy]

288. So then doesn't that make you a hypocrite

If you acknowledge the label of bitch as part of you and that the word "bitch" is the best way to describe it, then what is the problem?

Where I would agree that people (women too)can use the term inappropriately to describe a strong assertive woman and if it is said in my presence I will challenge it's usage. But if it applies to a woman who is acting as every negative connotation of the word, then it is appropriate.

[Connonym]

317. re-read my post

I said "I'm telling you that if you sum up a dislike of a woman by calling her a bitch, especially in the absence of any bitchy behavior (ignoring you doesn't count), then you are being sexist." I didn't say we should stop the use of the word.

It's wrong to summarily call women bitches in the absence of bitchy behavior. It's used dismissively and THAT is the problem more so than the word itself. It's an attempt to put women down. A catch-all term for any woman who displeases a man.

And calling myself a bitch? Women own the word, we've reclaimed it as a positive attribute. I'm a bitch because I'm opinionated and not deferential to men. Calling myself a bitch would only be hypocritical if I wasn't.

Your defense of the word says something really ugly about your attitude toward women.

[noamnety]

324. And here we have a man coming along

to lecture women on how women are allowed to use words that refer to women.

Lecture notes:

1. Words that describe women who act assertively may only be used in a derogatory way.
2. When such words are used to confer a positive meaning, it is inappropriate.


Personally, I don't use the word in a positive OR negative way (except to critique the use of the word itself), because I think when I use it, it gives legitimacy to anyone who uses it. Members of various oppressed groups have differing opinions on the issue of reclaiming hate words.

However, I've yet to see any oppressed people argue that derogatory slurs against them should remain in usage, but only in their derogatory sense of the word. And I've yet to see any oppressed people argue that those with privilege should decide how oppressed people can or cannot refer to themselves.

Hmmmm, I wonder why that is?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

24. I think the key to change in this country is through women

women have to get motivated and bring down the evil tyrants. Simple.

[smtpgirl]

248. So your'e vote is for Hillary in 2008?

Sean Insannity loved to show film loops of Hillary being shrill.

I do hope Hillary in in the WH in 2008, what will Insannity complain about then???

More venom I suppose.

Faux Noise has put the bug in everyone's "Convervative Republian" ear.

Let's pray there is no contest in 2008, DEM all the way.

BTW, Ron Paul has some balls.

[Connonym]

319. Guess what, Hillary isn't the only woman in the US

just like Jesse Jackson isn't the only black person in the world. One woman does not speak for all women just because she's female.

[smtpgirl]

403. But I do believe in a majority of white men

Hillary is the ONLY WOMAN RUNNING AS PRESIDENT~~~~~~

[cwydro]

28. k and r

:kick:

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

29. Sadly, there are still many men who...

...do not like the idea of women in authority, or holding any kind of important decision making positions, or sounding off publicly and expressing themselves. This is not unique to Neocon males, although, as a group, they are probably more likely to openly express contempt for, and threaten, women.

This explains in part the reason it is so important to the GOP elite that Hillary be the Dem nominee -- they're counting on her to energize their base like never before.

[Captain Hilts]

46. Yes. On Trek boards they have a problem with "Janeway rape" threads.

Janeway was criticized for the same traits for which Kirk, etc. were praised.

It's still a problem.

[no_hypocrisy]

30. Personal experience with a local humanist chapter 20+ years ago.

I was a founding member of a local affiliate of the American Humanist Association. I was the editor and publisher of the monthly newsletter. I noticed that the leadership was controlled by three middle-aged to elderly men who were more misathropic than humanist and decided it was time for a change. An election for officers was coming up. I put myself up for president (I think big). I found the most undemocratic procedures -- ever. The same men made themselves the Election Committee and organized the vote by making up one slate of candidates (themselves), presenting it to the group at large and the "democracy" was a "yes-or-no" vote FOR ALL THREE CANDIDATES. No write-ins or oppositional choices. I stormed out of a meeting, calling the whole experience a travesty.

And yes, I did catch a lot of criticism for my outspoken (and necessary) criticism. Later, after I had quit and they took back control of the newsletter, I noticed that the only mention of contributions from the very few women in the group were in terms of "Maryann (the president's wife) made an out-of-this-world Black Forrest Cake for the meeting". My last communication with them was in response: The Humanists of xxx finally have found a niche in the group where women finally can make a difference . . .

It's a shame when you are challenged ONLY because of your gender. Nothing you can say or do will be recognized and you in turn will not truly exist in such a setting.

I'm sure things are somewhat different today, but I found the whole experience to be a sore subject for a group that tells the world how enlightened it is. (I know, I know, a few individuals with power complexes should be overgeneralized to condemn the AHA. I'm not. I'm just saying that even in small groups, you have to fight to be heard.)

[Clark2008]

50. That thinking is prevalent in more of society than just philanthropic groups.

I am the one who had the money to put down on this house - not my husband. Yet, I'm relegated to the "co-borrower's" position and the mail regarding the house came to him. I say "came," because I called and complained. Now, at least, both our names are on the envelope.

Why am I subservient in place to my husband just because I got married?

Stupid.

[no_hypocrisy]

52. Yeah, I know. It's like people who don't know me always address me as "Mrs." as in their

mind it would be unthinkable for a "mature" woman as me to not have a marital sponsor.

BTW, the waiters bring my male dinner partners the check when I pick up the tab a majority of the time.

[Clark2008]

59. I know! I usually carry the money in our relationship and they

STILL bring it over to hubby despite the fact that I'm the one clearly pulling the debit card/cash out of my wallet.

:grr:

One would think that after 30+ years of some semblance of a feminist movement, businesses would learn that women aren't second-class citizens with regards to money, finances and/or ability anymore.

[no_hypocrisy]

67. When I graduated from one of the last independent, all-women's colleges,

I experienced culture shock. For four years, I was trained to be independent, sure of what I was doing, and not dependent upon men to "help" me. Everything changed. When I was in law school and tried to participate in lectures like college, got the answer when nobody else did, in response from the back rows of male compatriots, I was given a derisive "Ooooooooooooooooooooo!" To this day, I feel like Eliza Doolittle returned to the flower market.

[Iris]

31. Salon did a series of arcticles about this a month or two ago.

And also took steps to try to cool down some of the outrageous comments that readers post at their site.

[shance]

51. Organized harassment and "gang" or cause stalking is essentially being funded by this Administration

through various "citizen corps" groups.


"Today the Bush Administration through various programs, seemingly extensions of the COINTELPRO program is recruiting individuals and neighbors to engage in certain forms of intimidation upon other neighbors in particular, against those who oppose this Administrations' policies.

There are many names for it, organized harassment, gang stalking, cause stalking, mobbing - however the goal is essentially the same.

To create chaos, to isolate citizens who speak out against the Administration, and to intentionally manufacture distrust and division between otherwise well meaning individuals.

To separate and divide is a tactic long used and an effective way to maintain power at the expense and freedom of everyone else.

We've seen many assaults enacted by this Administration - both here and abroad.

Now it seems they are attmpting to attack the very core of our existence - our homes, our neighbors and our communities.




What is Community-based Harassment?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community-based harassment is a grown-up version of school yard bullying.

Gang stalking enjoys a long and sordid history.

It was a part of the KKK’s infamous lynching campaign that lasted well into the the twentieth century, was called Jew Baiting prior to the Holocaust, was perfected by the East German secret police who were called the Stasi, was called "Rat F'ing" by the Nixon administration, and has also been known as Blacklisting, McCarthyism, The Red Scare, Cause Stalking, Stalking By Proxy, and The Politics of Personal Destruction.

People ranging from activists (democrat and republican) to whistle blowers to women who have dared to break up with abusive partners are being targeted.

Organized Harassment is a form of abuse designed to control, intimidate, and ultimately destroy.

Nobody is immune.

Organized harassment is an equal opportunity form of torture.

Because of it's covert nature organized harassment or organized harassment or gang Stalking is well known among those who are targeted by it and those who practice it as America's "dirty little secret".

In the United States those in power can't legally imprison or torture those who oppose them politically or who threaten to expose crime, greed and corruption.

But some people with power and money can have those they hate targeted for gang stalking until they commit suicide, are set up and jailed, become homeless, or are forced into prostitution.

The point of gang stalking is to marginalize a person who has been labeled a threat by driving them to insanity, poverty, or suicide.

Experts estimate that one out of every 12 women will be stalked within her lifetime and one out of every 45 men will be stalked in his. If this epidemic is allowed to continue unabated, in ten years everyone in the United States will either be stalked or know someone who is being stalked.

Organized Stalking is a tool employed by essentially those with fascist tendencies who seek to quash freedom of speech along many other Constitutional rights.


Organized harassment can be far more damaging than a physical attack because not only is it very hard to prove, but it is extremely traumatizing for the victim.

(Also known as cause stalking or gang stalking).

Who is behind the stalking groups?

Corporations

Religious Insztitutions

Governmental agencies

Groups are used by corporations use to stalk their enemies or potential enemies.

Organized crime:

Many groups have links to convicted criminals, and associations with organized crime.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who is considered a threat to a corporation or industry?

Whistleblowers

Activists


What sets community-based harassment apart from the related examples to the right is that the reason it takes place is often obscure to the victim.

Without a solid reason for its occurrence, victims are often dismissed as delusional.

In addition, this form of harassment often leaves the target a victim of ridicule among friends and family because of the subtle nature of the attacks, which further compounds the trauma to the victim.

It is emotionally draining and isolating to the victims because it is extremely difficult to prove, and virtually impossible to prosecute."

For more information, go to:

http://www.c-a-t-c-h.ca /

www.starfishgirl.org

[IronLionZion]

53. um, the web can be quite anonymous too

there are many posters on this very site who you can't tell if they are male or female and there's no reason to care.

Gender is not the problem. Male activists get called "pussies", "fags", "bitches", "fairies" and worse. Pretty much every liberal man has experienced this stuff at some point. That's the conservative way. It's the standard method of attacking anyone who disagrees with them.

[WilliamPitt]

57. See post 55

[IronLionZion]

61. point taken Will, I sure as hell don't want to be a public figure

but I will gladly support good women who choose to fight for what's right.

[noamnety]

64. You see a pattern there?

Male activists get put down ... by equating them to women, and then using hate speech geared toward women.

And no, it's not the "conservative" way. It's just "the way."

[IronLionZion]

95. Well, that's the wrong way to do things

I see your point and yes you're absolutely right.

My point was just that both genders get it. I'll concede that calling men "women" is insulting to both men and women.

I'm pretty sure that liberal men are much more likely than our knuckle-dragging right-wing counterparts to love and respect women.

[sam kane]

123. Exhibit A: "Pink Tutus"

Ballet dancers are incredibly strong athletes, and 99% of the people here would not be able to endure the physical demands for 20 minutes that they can for 6 hours. They only get there by commitment, endurance and sacrifice.

Yet all over DU, the favorite phrase to say when the Democrats wimp out is that they put on their "pink tutus." Logically, it really doesn't make any sense. So why is it such a "common sense" response here? Because they are worn by women. Gender is a weapon here too.

[noamnety]

296. Exhibit B: "Panty-waisted. Bitches."

The opening from a post on DU with 87 votes, right now, for greatest page.

"find your fucking testicles"

That's a sign of how acceptable it is to degrade women. Even some of the women HERE in THIS thread who are claiming to recognize WHY that sort of language is bigotted and destructive, are voting that shit up.

How does that happen? If it was the SAME EXACT letter, except written from a WHITE supremacist point of view instead of MALE, would DU still kick it, because you know, the rest of it is so fine? If it opened with "You nappy-haired niggers" and proceded to give a well-deserved tongue lashing to all those complicit in the war, would we vote it up or alert on it?

"Today it's Terrorists. Yesterday it was Blacks/Gays/Jews/Hippies. Before that it was Communists. Before that, it was Uppity Colonials with Secondhand Muskets and Pitchforks."

Minor correction. Today it's the Terrorists and women.

[bobbolink]

391. Your voice is so strong and clear--I'm so glad you're here!

I've been saying the same thing, but it feels so good to read it in your voice!

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[noamnety]

400. Exhibit C: "That Crazy Old Bitch"

"Ya know, she is probably what Monica Goodling is going to look like in 5 years or so."

Thought process: I hate THIS woman, that reminds me, she is representative of a whole CLASS of WOMEN that I hate ... oh, that reminds me of THIS OTHER woman I hate, did I mention I hate both their physical bodies and they are unfuckable.

[Imagevision]

404. Exhibit D: "She's a whore"

[nashville_brook]

66. notice that the abuse is couched in FEMINIZING the person -- gender is the weapon

[terisan]

76. The terms used to "insult" liberal men are terms reserved for denigrating women.

The men are being told that they are not men, but mere women. The ultimate insult. Right wing hatred of women is at the core. This is why it is a gender issue.

[VelmaD]

79. don't believe for one second it is only right wing men

There are plenty of alleged lefties on this board (and in left-leaning politics in general) who will scream 'til they are blue in the face to defend their right to use gender slurs. It happens here on DU all the fucking time.

[LostinVA]

102. I was wondering whether or not to post this very thing

I didn't want lwfern's thread to be jacked by cries of, "But women are spousal abusers! But women are rapists! etc."

But, I should have. Thanks for posting this.

I haven't seen you in a awhile, btw.


on edit: wrong word!

[VelmaD]

105. been taking a bit of a break...

but it looks like I've been sucked back in. :)

[LostinVA]

106. It's so easy, eh?

[Captain Hilts]

117. Even on this board...

men are denigrated by calling them vulgar names for women or women's parts.

What could be worse than be equated with anything female?!

[bbgrunt]

115. "girlie men"

[lukasahero]

128. Ah yes, perfect example - probably not in the way you meant though...

What's the worst thing you can call a man? A "girl".

How exactly are people missing the point here? When the best way to insult men is to compare them to women, what exactly does that say about how we value women? It may speak individually to the man it is being used on but it speaks universally to women.

[Captain Hilts]

232. The inverse of that is to "compliment" a woman by saying she "has balls."

Or a black person by saying "that's awfully white of you!"

[lukasahero]

306. "He's so articulate..."

Try as we might to deny it, words have power and meaning beyond that which the speaker may intend. Intelligent, compassionate, thoughtful people seek out and try to understand the "hidden" meanings of their words. Others fight for their right to be as offensive as possible - especially in situations where they run no risk of real harm.

[lukasahero]

130. "Male activists get called "pussies", "fags", "bitches", "fairies" "

"Or worse." What, of course, could be worse than calling a man a pussy, right? Feminizing him. Oh the fucking horror. So compares to detailed rape threats. Only not.

FTR, search DU sometime for Rush Limbaugh's comments on Michael J. Fox. Then search for Patricia Heaton's comments about him. Count the number of times the word bitch is used re: Limbaugh and compare them to the number of times it's used re: Heaton. Bitch is not as gender-neutral as people here want to pretend it is.

[Morgana LaFey]

230. Well said

And aren't YOU tired of the "but men have problems too" posts.

Puh-leez, fellas. If you are so damned insecure and narcissistic -- not to mention anti-woman -- that you can't leave your own damn self-interests as a MALE out of threads like this, then go take a sensitivity course or something. We're sick of your self-absorption, your sense of entitlement, your WHITE MALE PRIVILEGE.

[Name removed]

311. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IronLionZion]

331. What are you talking about?

How is it anti-woman to say that liberal men get attacked too with the exact same insults? I'm neither white nor privileged but thanks for bringing race into this discussion.

[noamnety]

350. Unless you are a woman of color AND a lesbian

you have some automatic privilege in our culture, whether or not you are aware of it. Add in American vs. some country where we spew our polluted industrial excrement without regulation, and employ sweatshop labor, and there's a whole other layer of privilege added in.

Being a member of one oppressed group does not negate all the privileges you receive for your membership in other groups.

A large number of posters here in this thread are capable of recognizing that they are both oppressed, and they simultaneously have privilege. White and Female? Privileged and oppressed. Gay and male? Oppressed, and privileged.

[Oak2004]

356. and disabled

just pointing it out, since hatred of people with disabilities (disguised often as "concern" or "pragmatism") is another popular theme with some people on this board (so much so my fellow disabled friends won't come here).

[noamnety]

357. Thanks for the reminder.

The first time I observed a deaf woman in my office trying to make reservations through a relay service, I was shocked.

I actually kind of lost it. The woman on the receiving end of the call refused to work with my colleague. I ended up jumping on the TTY, impersonating her supervisor (hey, whatever works) and reading her the riot act, and letting her know she WOULD be taking a reservation through the relay service, or I would be filing formal charges against her and her company. And I put the original person back on the phone, cause I wasn't giving the woman on the other end the satisfaction of being able to switch to someone else who was capable of using the queen's fucking english. I got a whole separate rant in me on that subject, on feeling all superior to people and refusing to work with them because English is their second language.

I cannot fathom how a person summons up the energy to deal with that shit on every single damn piece of business they try to accomplish, including seeing a doctor.

And that's someone who was physically fine, capable of doing anything, the only obstacle for her was the DISability of others to deal with her.

[IronLionZion]

332. men get rape threats too, hell men get raped too

It's a damn shame what the bastards do to liberal women activists but why do you say it doesn't happen to men too? The same insults used against women are used against men. Why are you doing this?

[noamnety]

338. "Why I write not of men"

Anytime any women get together to have a conversation about women's problems, there's always a man there to say, "That happens to men, too!" or "You just want to take away what we have!" or "You have no idea how your feminism makes me feel!" Men who say these things are not feminists. Why do we still listen to them? Why do we bother letting them catch us up in stupid arguments about whether it's worse to be forced to have babies or to be forced to go to war? No one's drawing any comparisons, sweetheart. We're just dealing with these women's issues right now, you see, and if you'd like to help us solve these problems, please do. If you want to go solve the problems of the dominant culture, you're welcome to do so any time of any day. Most men have had the luxury of dealing with their own goddamned problems for, oh, at least 5,000 years.

http://bitchphd.blogspot.com/2006/03/why-i-write-not-of-men.html

When women say it is anti-woman to derail a conversation about the oppression of women and turn it into a discussion of the oppression of men, it is because the men who do that are actively preventing a discussion of HOW WOMEN ARE OPPRESSED AS WOMEN from happening.

If someone on medicaid is discussing how they can't get medical care, I am not going to get in their faces to complain that they are not adequately addressing my health-insured privileged ass concerns about how I had to wait a day to get an appointment. (Oh, look, it happens to me, too.) I am sure the hell not gonna confront someone who is dying because they can't get basic medical care for a curable disease, and demand that they fight for my rights as an insured healthy person who sometimes gets substandard care.

It's not the job of oppressed groups to fight for the rights of privileged groups who have been oppressing them. In the case of rape, when MEN get raped, it is OVERWHELMINGLY MEN who are raping those other MEN. It is anti-woman to demand that WOMEN, who are OVERWHELMINGLY the victims of rapes by MEN, spend their time dealing with the concerns of MEN who are victimized by MEN. Likewise, it's not the job of black folks to spend their energy ensuring that white folks aren't giving other white folks a hard time.

Furthermore, if you examine the reasons men are raped, what you'll find is that homophobia (i.e. hatred of men who challenge the patriarchy) is the root cause of it. If men worked to demand respect for women as humans, instead of degrading them as women or standing by silently as others degrade them as women, it would go a long way to solving their own fucking problems (no pun intended).

[DKRC]

54. K&R!

:applause:

[pitohui]

60. and if the verbal abuse doesn't work out, escalation is real ala judy bari

it's more than verbal abuse, if the smears, the lies, the verbal abuse, the lynching by media and words don't work, there are always good old-fashioned police state tactics like arrests, guns, bombs

anyone not familiar w. judy bari's case should be, here's a link:

http://www.judibari.org/

it is easy to say, oh well, maybe sheehan suffers from clinical depression (who wouldn't in her shoes?), maybe she needs bigger "stones" to tune out the words of hate -- but say she did tune out the words of hate and ignore the warnings, the next move would almost certainly be some more violent kind of attack

for that matter, it works that way in the usa whether you be a male or female protestor, if you get attention, if you are at all sympathetic, you'll get what martin luther king got if they can't discredit you another way -- or least you have to strongly consider the possibility

many avoid the spotlight because, in the end, being arrested, being falsely accused of crime (it even happened to hillary clinton), or being actually shot or bombed are real risks of speaking out in these united states -- oh, they'll go w. the easier methods first to avoid making martyrs but one way or another if they want you silent you'll be silenced, won't you?


if even the clintons can't stop the endless hate attacks and accusations and "investigations," then how can those of us who really have nothing in the way of money or power?

this problem is bigger than just silencing female protestors, males are silenced too -- who in the mainstream took scott ritter seriously once it was claimed that he was an online sexual predator?

[nashville_brook]

65. big k 'n r -- you nailed it.

[VelmaD]

68. what you said

And I notice some of the usual suspects have already been around to tell you it's not that big a deal and not to worry our pretty little heads about it. *snort*

[noamnety]

71. and my personal favorite "it happens to men, too"

So long as there is at least one white male who is a victim of violence or lives in poverty, racism and sexism don't exist.

[LostinVA]

103. Ain't that the truth

[Morgana LaFey]

236. and not just men, but important men -- "public figures" men,

authors and such. Not only is it terrible for them, it absolutely blinds them to what women face of the same nature. Apparently.

[nadinbrzezinski]

72. Yep it happens

and it another sign of the fascistic environment we live in

[MrPrax]

75. What kind of activist

is Sierra? I know about Cindy Sheehan. But I've never heard that term applied to Sierra?

BBC did something on this at about the same time this happened in March. There is some balance on the central issue.

Rather amazing that a titan of the industry, ONLY a couple of months ago, discovered John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory and now she can't leave her yard?

[donsu]

77. true - men's war against women is alive and well

worldwide

[RevCheesehead]

78. It happens in the workplace ALL THE TIME.

And yes, it happens in the institutional Church, too.

Goddamned fine piece of work there, Fern!! :applause:

[Spazito]

80. Excellent OP, thank you for posting this!

Just reading the posts in the various "Cindy" threads are proof of what you have written, the continued assaults on women who are activists are mirrored in those threads, imo.

[petunia.here]

81. K&R

[maggiegault]

82. It's Amazing, What Some People Think They Can Say To You When You Are A Female And Anti-War

The "whore" thing always comes up. Just yesterday, I wrote a post in our hometown newspaper about Memorial Day and my brother, and how we are opposed to this war, and it took about 30 minutes for the Freeper Freaks to come out of the woodwork, attacking my sexuality, calling me a "feminazi" and a "liberal bitch." I've been threatened in the past, even before Andy's death, with sexual violence as a result of my views. I got into a scrap with the local Democrats, actually, and the man with which I had the argument went about smearing me by attacking my physical appearance, calling me a "fat and ugly bitch." I am neither, but that is an easy mode of attack to use with women.

[VelmaD]

83. and thanks for illustrating...

a point I made upthread. It isn't just right-wing or republican men who do this shit.

[maggiegault]

85. You're Very Welcome. It Isn't A Behavior Limited To GOP Idiots, Unfortunately.

Actually, the Democrat dude with whom I had the argument engaged in some very scary behavior towards me, and went on a pretty intense campaign to impugn my good name. He combed over my blog, taking things out of context, and posted them all over the place, even going so far as to email everyone in our group with his so-called "evidence." He called me all sorts of terrible names, and what I found especially disturbing was the sexual element to the things that he was saying. It wasn't that I opposed him, it was that he was a MAN and I was a WOMAN and I opposed him.

I am convinced that he would not have gone to these lengths if I were a man. No freaking way would he have behaved that way.

[Morgana LaFey]

240. Exactly. He did it because he could get away with it.

With a man, he might have been confronted physically. Not likely you'd hit him in the chops.

Horrible story. So sorry you had to go thru that. How did it finally resolve itself?

I think this is an example of a form of stalking, btw. Probably doesn't fit any legal definition of same, but the effect (result) is similar: a way of harassing if not terrorizing you.

[maggiegault]

247. I Quit The Group, Even though I had been one of their most active members.

I just couldn't take it or him or anything that he did. So I quit. :hurts:

[Grateful for Hope]

84. Excellent Post -- K&R

[hfojvt]

87. "The world is full of hate"

"Do you really think that's true, Charlie Brown?"
"I know it's true. The whole world hates me."

The sad thing is that our side will attack Ann Coulter et al. and think it righteous or proper. Both sides tend to want the other side silenced. At least I would like to take away their microphones and their paychecks. Somebody like Tony Snow, for example, makes a good living shilling for the rich. The work he does seems harmful to me, and the paycheck he gets for it does not seem fair either.

I mean, would we love to see Rush Limbaugh write this:

"I am resigning as the head of the Right Wing Noise Machine. For the past 15 years I have been trying to promote greed, stupidity, hatred and bigotry, and I am just worn out. There is too much generosity, intelligence, kindness, and tolerance in this country. Battling the forces of love and understanding has been an exercise in futility that I no longer have the energy for."

'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished for.

But hatred should not be the only thing you see. We need to be more active in our encouragement.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1000822&mesg_id=1001329

[noamnety]

89. This thread is not about that.

It is not about how opposing sides want to shut each other down, and use hate to do it.

This is a thread about how women are systematically terrorized and ridiculed AS WOMEN and how hatred of their gender is used as a weapon to silence women.

[intheflow]

88. Thanks, lwfern.

This was needed and reasoned. I'm so glad you're on my side! :hug:

[19jet54]

90. Psychological Warfare

What do you expect, hugs and kisses for challenging the existing power base? You are challenging the "War Machine" who have spent their lives designing, producing and enacting war. There are huge sums of money involved, and if people are pawns in their game, who are you? While you have a compassionate heart, I think you are a bit naive also. I mean if Abu Ghraib prison & Gitmo are SOP for winning, what are a few insults your way? Psychological warfare is to find out what "matters to you" and use that against you. You might be surprised what you can get lab rats to do, which is just the study for human manipulation and behavior. These tactics are used in warfare, business management of people and a few other areas to control the masses. The tactics you mention for women, is because you are a woman; of course it is different for a man - but the sex usually involves sexual degradation for both.

I do not justify any of this, but welcome to the real world. Please do not respond to me as if this is my opinion. Besides, if I wanted your opinion, I will beat it out of you :grr: :sarcasm:

[noamnety]

92. I think this post misses the point in four ways.

1. It belittles my analytical skills based on my being a naive female. Fuck that. 'Nuff said.

2. It ignores the systemic nature of this throughout our society, and instead attempts to narrow the blame to the conservatives supporting the war machine, as if lefty men and women aren't every damn bit as guilty. Nobody attacking Cindy with gender slurs was attacking an "existing power base." Nobody threatening sexual assault against her or the bloggers listed in the OP was threatening the war machine.

3. It deliberately trivializes the issue - much like the right trivialized the torture at Abu Ghraib and equated it to frat pranks. Consistent graphic threats of death and sexual assault are not "a few insults."

4. It fails to connect the dots between unchallenged misogyny that occurs in the blogosphere, the threats and real violence that occur as a result of that unchallenged misogyny, and the reason we HAVE the war machine and the torture at Abu Ghraib. It's the same dame thing. An earlier post of mine on that topic: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x226858

[LostinVA]

96. Good post n/t

[19jet54]

98. People are sheep!

You totally missed my :sarcasm: :yourock:

[noamnety]

100. thought the sarcasm referred to the last part

("if I wanted your opinion, I will beat it out of you")

if it referred to the entire post, then it was quite well done. :D

[19jet54]

108. On a serious note

Not all men treat women like your post - some of us treat our wives like the queens they are, and other women as equals - unfortunately, there are a few (women & men) that give us all pause?

[noamnety]

133. Yep, absolutely

And I am waiting for the day when oppressed groups can have conversations about systemic problems concerning gender and race without having to take time out, in each and every one of those conversations, to soothe the consciences of all the individuals who feel defensive.

[19jet54]

134. dialogue or monologue?

dia (greek - throughly)
mono (greek - one)
logos (greek - words)

[noamnety]

153. patronizing

to behave in an offensively condescending manner, such as how men frequently talk down to women as if they are breaking things into very simple terms so the women's childlike brains can grasp the concept.

5. "Not all men do/think/act fill in the blank" - used when a woman or man has the "audacity" make a declarative statement rather than placating the reader with conditional words such as "some," "not all, but" "with all due respect," and so on, when writing about traits, actions, ideals which have traditionally been associated with a perverted and anti-survival for of "masculinity." It is usually an attempt to deny the existence of patriarchal systems of domination and their horrible impact on women and men. (abusive: because it is used to divert and/or silence the message.)"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=341&topic_id=7654&mesg_id=7747#G.

The longer you discuss feminist issues in any forum, the more you will recognize this sort of comment inserted into every such conversation, the constant reminder that oppressed groups must take time out of that conversation to appease and pay homage to those with privilege before continuing on. For those that are new to these conversations, it seems like an important new insight, I know. For those that have been having these conversations for years, it's incredibly wearisome, like a kid kicking the back of your seat during an entire cross-country flight to get attention.

Same happens with race.

I like these notes - written by white people - for white people attending a conference for Women of Color:

Realize that "it's not about me." Avoid over-personalizing issues that people of color raise. If you are feeling attacked, defensive, guilty, or depressed, talk with another white person about your feelings. Your feelings are always valid, but this conference is not the appropriate venue to “vent” at the expense of people of color. If you are feeling uncomfortable, good! Welcome feelings of discomfort as an opportunity to reflect on your own thinking, feelings, and information that may have been left out of your education/experiences as a white person.

Maybe there is something in that that you can apply to this situation - women are often NOT acknowledged, not in terms of their contributions to our history, not in terms of the arts, not in terms of their contributions to science, not in the media, they are talked over in conversations. It's uncomfortable for you to NOT be acknowledged, right? Learn from that. That's what women and people of color and GLBT folks deal with, every damn day. It's okay for an occasional conversation to happen without your feelings and concerns as a male being addressed.

[19jet54]

190. Damn...

...I am sorry I have a penis!

I happen to be a student of Homeric/Konia Greek & I am that condescending with everybody!

[noamnety]

201. Oh, by all means, yes.

In this thread about HOW WOMEN ACTIVISTS ARE SILENCED

let's please shift the focus to YOUR FUCKING PENIS.



I swear, if my editing time wasn't over, I would go back right now and change my thread title to How Women Activists Are Silenced And That Issue Affects Mr. 19jet54 And His Penis.

[19jet54]

217. Garp! Garp! Garp!

[Quantess]

163. My thoughts exactly.

It seems that there is a constant need for a soothing recognition of the delightful and respectful males in this world, otherwise there is defensiveness, and accusations of being a man-hater, or something.

To the defensive men who are afraid they are getting stereotyped:
Yes, we know there are outstanding, wonderful men out there. Those are not the men we are talking about. Now, please stop denying what women are saying about their experiences with jerks.

[19jet54]

195. Like the recient Supreme Court decision?

180 days from 19xx whatever - bad call by the 5 Bush Boys!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

323. I don't believe what men say; I believe what they do

I'm not impressed that some guy would never rape or harass a woman. That's just a minimum requirement for common human decency.

I'm impressed with a man who stands up to other men and calls them on their sexist bullshit. It doesn't happen very often.

[Morgana LaFey]

242. #5

It's not even about the war or the war machine or even Ciny Sheehan except as current examples of the PATRIARCHY's response to, denigration and general handling of ALL WOMEN, from time immemorial. So his little rant about "wake up" is really more appropriately aimed at himself, I'd say.


Edit: I now see the whole post was sarcasm. :shrug:

[me b zola]

91. k&r

[LostinVA]

93. Kick -- important OP

[Pooka Fey]

94. K&R

[bbgrunt]

107. sexism is far from dead, but it is still invisible to some--just

like it was to many who had to reawaken in the 70's with a "click" when they first recognized it. Thanks for the graphic post that shows the harrassment for what it is.

[Captain Hilts]

112. I'm consistently stunned by the sexist language and opinions on DU. nt

[Umbram]

274. Like post #42? nt.

[earth mom]

111. Great post-though I'm not sure what happened with Cindy the past couple of days...

any DU links? Even though I don't know exactly what happened, I totally agree that there is a boatload of misogyny out there. Look no further than the trashing that has been done to Cindy, Rosie, The Dixie Chicks, Whoopie, etc., the past several years. I so admire their bravery! Though, truth be told, I'm not as brave and that's why I changed my profile to "undeclared". :hide:

[Anita Garcia]

113. Moving, agreed to, thank you for posting

Thank you posting this:
"There is a special kind of hatred reserved for women who speak out. It's ugly to witness on DU, and I witness it every day here - as I do on nearly every blog I visit, with a few notable exceptions - and it doesn't matter whether those blogs are political in nature, or tied to graphic design ... it just doesn't matter."

[Karenina]

118. K&R!

:toast:

[Triana]

119. K & Friggin R!!

I get so SICK of it all. Women are harassed, abused, threatened, and silenced both in public and in the home in their private lives all too commonly and it's time that this crap was called out, IDENTIFIED, and NAMED as the abuse, hate crimes, and sexist aggression that it is, and STOPPED.

When fully one half of the population of the country or this world is denied a voice and denied even basic human rights, there is a problem - and folks, there IS a problem.

Thank you for SAYING so and for publicizing it. We need a LOT more of this until it becomes both socially and legally unacceptable for women to be denied a voice and to be denied basic human rights in daily society both online and off.

[yardwork]

120. k&r - there is nothing I can add to this excellent post except to thank you

[Danger Mouse]

122. Disgusting. Suppression of women is largely based on Christian thought...

since many passages in the Bible support the suppression of women. Other passages say that 'we are all equal, man and woman,' but it's easy to ignore the parts that don't justify your hatred.
Unfortunately, it's a deeply deeply ingrained part of our consciousness...a poison that has lingered in our systems for generations.
While radical Christianity still holds a lot of sway, progress will continue to be held up significantly.
Unfortunately, there are many at DU, whether Christian or not, who have bought into this view of women: that they are to be objecitified, exploited, and marganlized.
Yes, attacks based on gender always get uglier and uglier. If a female dares speak out, the vileness that pours forth towards them is often stunning. I've seen much, much more vile stuff directed at women than at men.
These men who perpetrate this are miogynistic bullies who get off on pushing around those they perceive as 'weaker' than them.
Our whole society, top to bottom, is severely messed up. I'm not sure what the solution is, but a big part of it is to undermine the influence of fundamentalist Christians, and to call people out on their sexism rather than simply excepting it.
Neither is very easy.
I'm a man...uhm...but I agree with you. And support you. As should all males on DU who are serious about supporting equality for ALL.

[19jet54]

127. That's what happens

... when you confuse a primarly "history book" for a modern day plan of action? Missed the whole damn point of the book!

[Danger Mouse]

158. That's what happens when you take it literally, too

You can justify pretty much anything with the Bible if you really wanted to: Incest, Slavery, Murder, Torture, Genocide, Misogyny, Racism...

[Morgana LaFey]

257. Patriarchy, of which Christianity is a subset, but only ONE subset

Plenty of atheists and agnostics plus men from all the other religions I can think of are sexist too. No fan of Christianity, but it's only ONE cause. Pretty virulent, true, but still only one cause.

[DemBones DemBones]

383. Jesus was quite fair in

His treatment of women, except that He didn't allow them to be disciples, but I think that may have been for their safety. This was a culture that stoned women for adultery, and also for rape unless they screamed loud enough for people to hear.

If society followed the words of Jesus in the Gospels, women would be treated much better than they are.

It's not Jesus's fault if people ignore the Gospels and get hung up on the Old Testament or St. Paul or Revelation.

[FourScore]

124. Disgusting. n/t

K&R

[DemExpat]

129. Thanks, Good post.

DemEx

[Tekla West]

131. Sad

very sad - K&R

[Vinnie From Indy]

132. Ignorance and Hate team up to take on all sexes

It's part of the human condition.

[VelmaD]

135. actually no they don't...

I'm having a hard time thinking of any culture where men as a group are oppressed and treated as second-class citizens or chattel or worse JUST because they are male.

This is something that annoys me no end. No matter how much a man is oppressed because of his religion or his ethnicity or what have you...he can always lord it over the women in his same group. Who then get the double whammy of being discriminated against for by the larger culture for her race/ethnicity/religion/etc AND being treated like shit for being a woman by the men in the dominant culture AND the men in her own.

[Vinnie From Indy]

146. So without all the ranting, your point is that women are ALWAYS victims of

ignorance and hate more than men?

I would be fascinated to know your views more fully. Do you have a list of these things? Where do minority men fit in your "hate & ignorance" matrix? Are they less victims of hate & ignorance than your generic female? How about Jews or some other religion? Would a male Jew in Hitler's Germany be more or less a victim of hate than your average women living today?

Lastly, what about all those men that went down with the ship while the women and children floated away in life boats? You see, there is always an exception to the rule.

[VelmaD]

148. way to completely miss my point...

but I figure that's intentional.

I'm not falling into your false comparison of groups across time. My point was that that Jewish man in Hitler's Germany could always go home and take it out on his wife...she was oppressed by the Germans for being Jewish and by men, both German and Jewish, for being female. Being female is always an added layer of discrimination.

[LostinVA]

310. "Ranting"? oh boy -- way to prove The OP's point.

[Horse with no Name]

136. Check this out

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1002424

[bobbolink]

139. Verbal violence preceeds physical violence, and usually precipitates it.

Anyone who knows women's issues AT ALL, knows this about the cycle of violence.

We were fighting all this 40 years ago, and now it's even worse.

To now see WOMEN proudly proclaiming how it doesn't bother them is the death knell for any rights for women. I guess for some women, it makes them feel stronger and ... more manly... to say it doesn't bother them. Verbal Violence bothers EVERYONE... it's part of being human. It HURTS.

It also weakens women to the point where they start believing they deserve it, and then are accepting of the physical violence.

I get the strong feeling that the only reason there has been a kerfluffle about this now is because it went PUBLIC that a national figure was the recipient of verbal violence on DU. It doesn't seem to matter that many of us have suffered this here, with no support. It only counts when it happens to someone who brings national attention to it.

:mad:

And, yes, I've received hate mail from DUers. At MY HOME ADDRESS!!

Yes, some have so much hate that they will spend whatever time necessary to find where you live, and threaten you there.

That's PEACE for ya.

[VelmaD]

143. Preach it!

I too am wondering where this outpouring of support was for me every time I've been attacked and called vile names because I wouldn't sit quietly like a good little girl. *snort* I've been called a helluva lot worse than "attention whore".

[bobbolink]

147. I'm so sorry you've experienced this, too! There used to be some support among

us women here, but it has desolved.....as someone else mentioned, many have left, and others have just lost hope.

I don't even know what to say.... I never thought I'd see people treating women like this ---it's so much worse than it was when we left anti-war groups en masse during Vietnam!!

Any ideas why we're letting it continue?? Or, more importantly, how NOT to let it continue?

The ignorance is boggling....

And I suppose I'll get plenty of hate mail for daring to say it....

:hug: Velma... (my aunt's name!)

[VelmaD]

149. well, one thing that doesn't help...

is that the admins/mods won't let women use the Feminist Group as a place to organize or even really discuss how women are treated on DU. Any thread on that topic ends up locked with a message about "questions about the rules should be addressed to the admins" or a snotty comment about alerting on specific posts. Dealing with it one post at a time is not the answer. :eyes:

[bobbolink]

152. Absolutely. It's a clear indication that caring about the pain of others isn't

a priority here.

That's why I don't think this current movement for "peace" is going anywhere.

There's no sense of walking in the shoes of another (just tell 'em to "grow a skin"), there's no listening to how the pain affects us, there's no concern about reaching out to accept others.

I see it in businesses, and I see it in organizations. The management sets the tone, and the atmosphere follows.

Just don't embarrass 'em, now, hear? :rofl:

Shall we see how many of these we can get "disappeared"? :hi:

[VelmaD]

154. we are so on the same wavelength

I was posting late last night or this morning about how our culture doesn't encourage empathy, which is a trait I consider one of the hallmarks of being a fully grownup human being. As far as I'm concerned most people in our culture never really completely grow out of their adolescence and they aren't really encouraged to. Memememememe...it's all about me. *sigh* Their right to be an asshole is VASTLY more important than anyone else's feelings. I see it everywhere too. I have no clue what to do about it other than to keep an eye on my own behavior, try to catch myself when I head that direction, and try to model something better. I fall down a lot, though.

[bobbolink]

156. thank you!! I remembered seeing that, but then couldn't find it to reply!

YES!!

A whole society of adolescents.

Sociopathic adolescents.

The idea of walking in the shoes of another is totally foreign.

YET.... then we don't get the connection between how we treat EACH OTHER as liberals, and our damned foreign policy! SAME/SAME

It's ever so easy to stand back with arms folded on chest and advise and judge, without ever considering how it might feel to be "the other".

Will Rogers told the story about how his Cherokee ancestors, when meeting each other on a trail, would turn and look at where the other had been heading. As he explained it, you don't know about another person until you see where they have come from.

What wisdom, eh?

Geee, it almost sounds like ....

......

........................PEACE....

Peace to you, VelmaD!

:hug:

[VelmaD]

160. peace at ya

And thanks for helping with the thread-jacking. :)

[bobbolink]

161. Ain't doin' no jackin'

Jes' clarifyin' a bit... :hi:



~~~smearing highlighter all over~~~

[Vinnie From Indy]

150. There could be all sorts of reasons.

Being a female is just ONE possible reason for your less than satisfactory interactions with others. Unless you are a telepath, you cannot be certain in every instance that your less than polite interactions are due to your chromosones.

[VelmaD]

151. ya know...when it's almost always on threads...

related to women's rights and aggitating for them...and it's always the same people yelling and me and other women who are willing to stand up for themselves and their rights...I figure it's not me. But thanks for playing.

[bobbolink]

159. There you go again....

....with that damned female logic...

:rofl:

:hug:

[Vinnie From Indy]

162. I have no idea who you are and I have never replied to any of your posts

I am simply attempting to initiate a discussion. If you mistake any slightly differing opinion or thought as aggression or "yelling", it could very well be that some of the instances you mention about being a target of vitriol have nothing to do with your sex. I find it mildly amusing that our brief exchange has morphed in your mind to an assault on women's rights and women that stand up for those rights. That is quite a breathtaking jump in logic don't you think?

[VelmaD]

164. way to blow what I said completely out of proportion

on edit: You're doing exactly what this thread is talking about...minimizing and denying the experience and perception of women because you don't like what we think. I'm done. Feel free to have the last word.

[Vinnie From Indy]

167. I only know you from the words you have chosen to reply to my posts.

I guess you are bit put out by my offering that not ALL of your unsatisfactory or unpleasant interactions with men are the result your being a woman.

In addition, to be fair, I have seen a multitude of posts of women attacking women with sexist vitriol. The disease in not solely a male affliction. Go back and search through some Ann Coulter posts and you will find a plethora of nasty, vile and sexist attacks on her by some of the women here on DU.

I admire your passion and grit, but I would offer that you think a bit more about the words you choose to express yourself. The only absolute generalization that is ever true is that all absolute generalizations are never completely true.

[lukasahero]

173. "I would offer that you think a bit more"

Would you so readily speak to a man like that? Talk about proving the point, dude.

[Morgana LaFey]

260. He's a one-man show

when it comes to sexist attitudes and behaviors, isn't he? I LOVE the patronizing tone. Amazing.

[Vinnie From Indy]

313. That is complete nonsense.

In fact, I would offer that it is you that has blown our little discussion out of proportion. I would offer that it is you that has attacked me in this last outrageous post. You have taken my relatively innocuous statement that hate and ignorance team up to destroy people regardless of their sex to a place where you accuse me "doing exactly what this thread is talking about". I find that accusation disgusting. You don't stop there however. You also accuse me of denying and minimizing the experience and perceptions of women because I don't like their thoughts. That baseless slur against me paints you as the bully in this conversation. If your previous posts are a guide, I fully expect you to escalate my offenses against women simply because I disagreed with you that your sweeping generalizations are not, in my opinion, valid. This will be my last word to you as I believe you are incapable of rational discussion. Slime away Velma!

[Karenina]

394. Way to go, Vinnie!!!

You sure do come out looking like "Exhibit A." Incapable of rational discussion, indeed. Only on YOUR terms using YOUR definitions and exnominations. Thank you! Your post have further illustrated (in technicolor and panavision) the many salient points of the OP!! :toast:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

395. Maybe he's doing a parody of the clueless.

[bobbolink]

157. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

THanks for proving the point. :applause:

[EFerrari]

166. No. Bullies see women as "the weaker sex" and start from there.

During the stalking of Andy, people at that other place wished my husband would kill me. That's a pretty high order of emotional manipulation.

I don't recall any of Andy's male advocates being spoken about in this way.

But, I do agree with you that women aren't the only targets of this stuff. We're just the majority of them. :(

[Vinnie From Indy]

169. I agree that sexist attacks on women seem to be the first

reflexive response from a large percentage of men in regard to a woman expressing ideas or opinions.

Do you think that Ann Coulter should be mentioned in this discussion? To be fair, I have seen many posts denigrating or degrading Ann Coulter's sex rather than her hate filled comments. Also, I believe she routinely attacks men for their lack of masculinity because she disagrees with their ideas.

[EFerrari]

170. I don't even think it's that polarized. How many women has Coulter

attacked? Malkin? Bay Buchannon? You don't have to be an actual male to engage in this behavior.

[noamnety]

171. From my OP

"ties hatred to every aspect of their physical female bodies, from Laura Bush to Janet Reno to Chelsea Clinton to Ann Coulter."

I routinely alert on or berate posters who reduce criticism of Coulter to sexist/transphobic bullshit.

She uses her voice to reinforce white male supremacist views. It's not helpful for us to condemn her by also reinforcing white male supremacist views.

[lukasahero]

175. I think if you do some research

you will find that the posts that denigrate Coulter for her sex are not made by the women you are speaking to here. The women you are generally speaking to here are often on those threads calling people out for the unnecessary gender slurs. There's a good many other reasons to criticize Coulter - her gender should not be one of them.

[BoneDaddy]

290. What if the women

are the bullies? I refuse to accept your paradigm as women as eternal victim. It is a dangerous avenue to gain power this way.

[EFerrari]

411. I didn't preclude the idea that women can be bullies.

See my post on Coulter, Malkin, etc.

[noamnety]

412. I wasn't even gonna bother responding to that

based on this line in the OP: "it's a system that encourages men AND women, on all sides of the political fences, to attack women AS women ..."

Nobody in the thread has disputed that, but he seems to want an argument on that point anyway. Not sure who he's gonna argue WITH. Himself, I guess.

Maybe there's a need there to cling to and promote a preconceived negative stereotype about people who want to gain power? And such a curious choice of words - "It is a dangerous avenue to gain power this way." I guess the message, with that ever present subtle threat to women embedded in it, is it would be SAFER for us if we didn't upset the existing power structure. You know, he's just concerned for our well-being. ;)

Regardless of the dynamics of keeping women in their place, once it escalates to gendered violence, it's overwhelmingly men who are committing, or threatening, that violence. I've yet to hear a woman say she'd like to hate-fuck another woman or smash her head in. I was surprised to see that elsewhere in the thread - the head smashing threat. Is that a common thing? I've gotten that before (face to face, not online). "I ought to smash your skull in." (gendered violence - a response to me not wanting to sleep with him).

[urgk]

194. Wow...

"Being a female is just ONE possible reason for your less than satisfactory interactions with others. Unless you are a telepath, you cannot be certain in every instance that your less than polite interactions are due to your chromosones."

Doesn't that assume that the women who've just said, right here on this thread, they've experienced that kin of sexism first-hand really don't know when they're being confronted based on their gender? Are they incapable of picking up verbal cues? Or is it something else? Are they too hysterical (latin root: hystericus meaning "of the womb" ) to make that kind of decision? Too silly? Too uneducated? Why would your first reaction be that they couldn't decide that for themselves?

Not that you meant it as directly as that, but look at the underlying assumptions.

If I dismissed my gf like that, I'd be on the couch for a week.

[Vinnie From Indy]

197. You missed my point entirely

My point was in regard to the sweeping generality expressed in another's post about men. For anyone, man or woman, to ascribe sexism to each and every situation in which they are attacked for their views or opinions is most certainly incorrect. That would be an impossibility.

[urgk]

208. Okay, let's see...

1. Nelma said: "Preach it! I too am wondering where this outpouring of support was for me every time I've been attacked and called vile names because I wouldn't sit quietly like a good little girl. *snort* I've been called a helluva lot worse than "attention whore"."

2. And then you posted - "There could be all sorts of reasons. Being a female is just ONE possible reason for your less than satisfactory interactions with others. Unless you are a telepath, you cannot be certain in every instance that your less than polite interactions are due to your chromosones."

No, I'm afraid I didn't miss anything. The women on here say they've experienced sexism from other posters...you dismissed it with what some might consider a condescending response that suggested they were wrong.

I may have missed your intent, but not what you actually posted. It's your responsibility to provide the adequate words to convey what that intent may be, not mine to imagine it.

[Vinnie From Indy]

250. Well maybe you should read the rest of her posts.

I don't want to pick a fight with you, but I am certainly willing to mix it up if you are. I'll check back to see if you are feeling froggy.

[urgk]

256. "Well maybe you should read the rest of her posts."

Maybe you should post comments relevant to the thread or quote side threads if you're going to refer to them. As it is, I've read her posts on this thread and my last comment stands. She, and the other women posting here are angry about being treated as less than men in debates. And they're tired of threats and implications of sexual violence entering into it. Meanwhile, you take a somewhat pedantic tack of trying to get her to admit that some nitpicked point (that you've either paraphrased or made up entirely) is wrong in a purely semantic sense. What you're doing doesn't add anything to the discussion, it only lets you belly up to the keyboard, crack your knuckles and engage in some sort of debate-related wordsports.

And as far as your offer to "mix it up," I think I've made my point. If I feel the need, I may answer back, but as far as I'm concerned, this more than answer your weak jab about men giving up their seats in the lifeboat.

1. 73 percent of family violence victims are female. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fvs.pdf)
2. Homicide is second leading cause of death among pregnant women. (Source: “Homicide: A Leading Cause of Injury Deaths Among Pregnant and Postpartum Women in the United States, 1991-1999.” American Journal of Public Health. March 2005, Vol 95, No.3.)
3. 83 percent of spouse murderers are male. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fvs.pdf)

[Vinnie From Indy]

265. Your response is mildly amusing

Words mean things whether you choose to accept that fact or not. When a person generalizes that anytime she is confronted with an opposing thought or idea that the other person must be a sexist Neanderthal is just silly.

Lastly, your statistical references really have nothing to do with our discussion. The fact that men kill and commit violence on a scale much greater than women is well known and no surprise to anyone. If you are going to engage in projection and pull our little disussion away from the topic, I would suggest you look up the rates of violence of men on men.

As for the rest of your piffle, I simply don't care.

Cheers!

[urgk]

283. Let me map it out for you...

1. You - Ignorance and Hate team up to take on all sexes It's part of the human condition.

2. VelmaD - actually no they don't...I'm having a hard time thinking of any culture where men as a group are oppressed and treated as second-class citizens or chattel or worse JUST because they are male.

This is something that annoys me no end. No matter how much a man is oppressed because of his religion or his ethnicity or what have you...he can always lord it over the women in his same group. Who then get the double whammy of being discriminated against for by the larger culture for her race/ethnicity/religion/etc AND being treated like shit for being a woman by the men in the dominant culture AND the men in her own.

3. You (commenting, apparently, on something you'd made up entirely) - So without all the ranting, your point is that women are ALWAYS victims of ignorance and hate more than men?

I would be fascinated to know your views more fully. Do you have a list of these things? Where do minority men fit in your "hate & ignorance" matrix? Are they less victims of hate & ignorance than your generic female? How about Jews or some other religion? Would a male Jew in Hitler's Germany be more or less a victim of hate than your average women living today?

Lastly, what about all those men that went down with the ship while the women and children floated away in life boats? You see, there is always an exception to the rule.

4. VelmaD - way to completely miss my point...but I figure that's intentional.

I'm not falling into your false comparison of groups across time. My point was that that Jewish man in Hitler's Germany could always go home and take it out on his wife...she was oppressed by the Germans for being Jewish and by men, both German and Jewish, for being female. Being female is always an added layer of discrimination.

-------------

I see no such generalization on VelmaD's behalf. What I see is you, via a lukewarm Ignatius J. Reilly impersonation, trying to verbally bully someone into accepting your version of their reality. In effect, you are trying to answer some very real anger about moral and ethical standards with some kind of silly, personal ego battle.

As for the rest of your piffle...I have quickly learned to expect it.

[Vinnie From Indy]

300. Welcome to DU!

Here is another word for you - projection. My original post was an observation that hate and ignorance touch all humans regardless of their sex. Velma offered that that was not true. She proposes that woman always suffer more because of their sex regardless of the situation being examined. While her observations are mostly true, they are not absolutely true. If you believe that pointing that out is a silly, personal ego exercise, so be it.

While I do sometimes feel like Ignatius, you are most certainly Angelo Mancuso.

[Morgana LaFey]

262. I think I like you.

AND your girlfriend.

Welcome to DU!! :hi:

[lapislzi]

308. I've received hate mail for my LTTEs

Someone would have had to spend time and probably money too finding me...and the verbiage is much the same every time: "shut up (bitch-lesbian-whore); what you need is a good beating"...etc.

It actually amazes me that my (presumed) sexuality has to be brought into a political or scientific discussion, and that somebody thinks this is a valid rhetorical technique. Does this ever happen to men? Are their arguments invalidated by other people calling them "tom cats" or "satyrs" (or whatever--I have to stretch to find a derogatory term for a promiscuous man, probably because that's considered by other men to be a virtue)? No. You can insult a man by calling him a female epithet. As other posters have ably pointed out above.

[MuseRider]

168. Brava lwfern!

Just Brava and a big :hug:

Happens all the time. Thank you for putting this together.

[AbbyR]

172. Hey, it's ok to discriminate against women

The Supreme Court said that a woman can't sue for sex discrimination unless she does it fast.

And thanks for a great post.

[Straight Shooter]

177. Don't forget DU's own Ava. She was threatened with rape and death, and rape after death.

The comments were violent and the sickness of the viciousness levied against her was staggering.

[noamnety]

188. Thank you. I cannot believe I forgot about that.

I hope to see Ava chime in here about how women who speak out are treated.

[Straight Shooter]

209. And it's ironic that her web site (and motto) is "Peace Takes Courage."

Those who threaten Ava, or any woman, whether anonymously or in their face, are unmitigated cowards. I cannot believe how brave Ava has been throughout all this, especially for one so young.

I wasn't chastising you for forgetting her, it was just a general statement to everyone that one of our own has witnessed firsthand the consequences of standing your ground for what you believe in.

The New Jersey Girls have been verbally assaulted, as well. A poster noted that the Dixie Chicks were a target, but not just them, their families, too.

The list, I'm sure, is endless. The basic message to the women is always, SHUT UP.

[nam78_two]

254. What? Sick people

She is a child :puke:.

[Raksha]

277. But Ava's only 15, maybe 16 now?

They went after a kid like that??? It's bad enough when the victim is an adult woman, but to threaten and harass someone that young is about as low as it gets.

This is a great thread, BTW. I haven't posted until now because there doesn't seem to be anything I can add to the discussion. It's something that has needed airing out for a long time. Sexism is all-pervasive, and STILL so taken for granted it's virtually imperceptible to most people.

[noamnety]

293. That's the NORM, not an exception.

Women are sexualized and harrassed from very young ages. From the informal poll I posted in Feb, it appears for the vast majority of DU women, this began while they were still preteens. For folks who missed that:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x6213376

[prairierose]

329. Exactly, lwfern...

Thanks for bringing that up. Her age does not protect Ava from the hate speech.

[Madspirit]

180. k&r...n/t

[Jed Dilligan]

181. Kinda makes me want to send rape threats

to male Republican bloggers. But that would be wrong...

[noamnety]

191. and the reason it would be wrong ...

is that it would yet again be reinforcing male supremacy.

As was mentioned upthread, the worst thing you can do to a man is feminize him - because ain't nothing lower than a woman. Rape threats against men are inherently misogynistic because they seek to degrade men by attacking them AS IF THEY WERE WOMEN - it's a way to assert male domination (supremacy) over their now female-like selves.

[Jed Dilligan]

192. All right...

I'll tone it down to vivisection. :hi:

[Swamp Rat]

185. k&r

:applause:

[Lars39]

187. I'm glad you're back, Swamp Rat !

:hug:

[bobbolink]

199. It's interesting how we decry the "hate" from the RW, but ... we women are supposed

to tolerate all manner of slings and arrows from our "brothers" on the left.

How, again, does that happen?

[MrPrax]

200. Oh my...

Jeez, I wonder who else is talking about one half of the planet at war with the other half...can't imagine who in these times.

A word of advice;

it's this moralistic closed-minded anti-intellectual (dare I say religious) intolerance that drove otherwise intelligent women away from the womens' movement

Do you want to know something ... The real womens' movement died awhile ago in the US, and all this stuff is just the old Temperance movement re-bottled under social change aimed at changing habits.

Now before you hit that reply think of this:

Women in America in the 70s got within a hair's breathe of a Constitutional Amendment. Do you remember why? It's because everyone co-operated.

Now ask yourselves...why did everything start to go wrong?

Because people started to talk like this:

"flat out vile sexist abuse"
"nonstop sexist bullshit hatred and threats"
"spew misogynistic hate speech"
"My point was that that Jewish man in Hitler's Germany could always go home and take it out on his wife"
"She uses her voice to reinforce white male supremacist views."
"the worst thing you can do to a man is feminize him - because ain't nothing lower than a woman."???

Talk like is calculated to drive people away -- then what?
Back to 'womens-only' protesting like Greenham Commons...?

jeez...with all this retro-schtick you THINK it was successful

(to hell in handbag)

[BoneDaddy]

205. I happen to agree

See above response. It continues to divide the sexes and turning off plenty of women as well. Never going get what you want that way. And be rest assured if some far left government gets into office and tries this "Politically Correct policing" of our language, then they have just lost my support and I would begin to actively protest.

This is where the left goes so far right.

[bettyellen]

233. "Never going get what you want that way." Would you be referring to equal rights we DESERVE?

I know, I'm supposed to pout and show cleavage....Otherwise you guys won't "give us what you want"

LOL get real. I cannot believe this is a Dem site. It sure as fuck ain't all that progressive to assert it's ever okay to withold basic human rights.
Hope you're proud of yourself... making excuses for depriving people of their equality. You have lots of bigoted company here.

[Name removed]

289. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bettyellen]

295. wow, i'm less than equal and a facist.... since i do regard your thoughts as total bullshit

that dozen;t hurt at all, LOL.
in fact i'm honored to be disliked by the likes of your hallucinatory highness. and saddened by your need to spout sexist and racist epitaphs just for the hell of it.
wanting equal rights is radical? climb back under that rock dude, or take a time machine back to the fifties where you ight be happy.

[BoneDaddy]

348. LOL

You are so amazing blind to your own destructive thinking.

[bettyellen]

382. oh i know it's ALL MY FAULT you like to use sexist racist words! my UPPITY + SHRILL WAYS

have come home to roost and all the sexism and bigotry of the world can be blamed on me... for not being nice enough about it. Dream on and keep breaking the rules. The mods must have a folder on you an inch thick by now. :yaen: .

[noamnety]

399. Oh! So YOU'RE the one!

I cannot believe you've been preventing men from treating the rest of us women with respect since the 70's. Have you NO SHAME?

You know, I was thinking of not using a racial slur once, but then I heard one of them folks COMPLAIN about me using slurs. And they weren't even complaining NICELY. The nerve! So, you know, now I keep using them bigotty words. What choice do I have, really? They brought it on themselves, the way I see it.

[BoneDaddy]

413. Do you think I really

care about the mods having a "file" on me? Your thinking is not much different than the fascist mindset, is it? You feel your revenge mindset is justified and show so very little self awarenes.. Quite sad

[bettyellen]

423. you broke DU rules- which are not facist, btwand are blaming the consequnces on others, child...

grow the fuck up already. :hi:
this is NOT libertarian asshole underground, get over it....and you were way over the line, way past the rules YOU agreed to. If you regret promising the mods you wouldn;t be a sexist racist asshole, then leave.

[nashville_brook]

301. "Never going get what you want that way." -- wish i could nominate this post...

for sheer stupidity.

[bettyellen]

396. just begrudging people their equal rights because they're all uppity. can you f'ing belive it?

calling it stupid is too kind.
:hi: nash.

[noamnety]

206. Oh, My, indeed

Yep, this is just how blacks won their civil rights, if I recall. They shut the hell up about racism and worked real darn hard to appease their masters and not cause trouble, right? And they never called racism by its name, never used the phrase "white supremacy" because that's just so ... unpleasant.

If we womenfolk would just be quiet and smile more, and not use such harsh and offensive language like "vile sexist abuse" when men tell us they want to hate-fuck us and slit our throats, then we wouldn't have these problems. We pretty much bring it on ourselves. In fact I'd go so far as to say women are the CAUSE of hatred against women.

This government has been here for over 200 years now. You really want to pretend the reason women don't have equal rights is because we got too uppity in the 70's?

You really think ANY of the women here are going to believe the reason we got the vote is because "everyone cooperated"?

You think ANY group in this country ever got ANY rights they were fighting for because "everyone cooperated"?

[MrPrax]

211. Two points...that's it

You think ANY group in this country ever got ANY rights they were fighting for because "everyone cooperated"?
Yeah...the Founding Fathers.

Yep, this is just how blacks won their civil rights, if I recall.
Yeah...in 1965 finally in spite of Supreme Court rulings in the 40s that were never enforced by a Federal state who was too damn scared of losing a vote in the South!!!!

That's the problem when 'prophets' tear off large chucks of time and preach through symbols, code and 'meta-narratives'...they miss their complicity and so they can present themselves as victims to that history, even when they are exploiting women.

Try class analysis sometime...it solves that problem of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism">essentialism.

[noamnety]

216. The founding fathers got their rights cause everyone cooperated?

Wasn't there a little war thing roughly around that time?

[MrPrax]

228. That's my point...!?

I didn't want to belabour the war part but emphasis the political co-operating part.

Good thread...some fine folks talking and everyone co-operating.

You Mighty Dems pick yourselves up, dust yourselves off Get In There and

Fight! Fight! Fight!

Hockey, feminism and hard liquor don't mix at moment ;-)

[Captain Hilts]

235. White, male landowners got their rights....the rest of us had to work at it. nt

[Morgana LaFey]

263. Oh, look, ladies. We have an expert on the Women's Movement

who has deigned to come tell us like it is/was, AND how we should "behave" if we want to change anything. And hint, hint (surprise, surprise): it ain't by speaking up, or noticing and confronting the oppression, or demanding anything BETTER. :sarcasm:

Damn, it's not even ORIGINAL. You'd think they could come up with some new stuff, dontcha? They can't. It's all a small set of rehashed, regurgitated logical fallacies, propaganda, and such.

[MrPrax]

294. What?

Well you know you could have said something original yourself.

Topics of originally:

1) neither activists are silenced

2) victimization merely undermines accomplishment (scroll back to my original post where I ref. to Ms. Sierra has a titan of the industry...excuse me, sister, if I prefer to dwell her accomplishments under the tyranny of patriarchy instead of pointing out, LIKE YOU, that even if you are the Queen of England your useless and under heel)

3) narrow minded male bashing doesn't really rise above the level of classist Judge Judy-ism which is more reflective of the same vile misognist American corporate culture that presumeably you decry -- hate mongering

4) perhaps, you could have pointed out that neither Curtis Silwa or Sean Hannity posted their death threats anonymously but did so publicly and with full approval of shareholders -- surprised with all this talk of 'code of conduct' on the internet, a person posting an OP about oppressive vioolence against women CHOOSE to emphasize something that is quite illegal and is being investigated. How's that Silwa investigation going. Don't really need new internet rules controlling free speech to stop that kind of thing. But I will defer to your understanding of women

5) Tough question or "logical fallacies"; how if, when everywhere women are in chains and have been so since the dawn of time, do you explain the noticeable differences between the rights of women in the US and elsewhere in the patriarchy?
How do you explain the noticeable difference between Protestant and Catholic views regarding the ordination of women?
Perhaps something to do with the fact that as secularism rose in the 19th century and INDEED emancipated women through rejecting traditional values of a womens' role?
I have found it odd that while at the same time William Booth was saying things like, "My best men are women!" and then putting his wife in charge of the Salvation Army, the Catholic Church was issuing rosary beads and playing with Aquinas's longstanding definition of 'life' beginning AFTER birth. (shurely shome logical fallacy that)

Could it be that this type of 'negative' feminism is more a reflection of the American moralist movement and that's why on VERY SIMPLE MATTERS like protecting a womens' right to choose medical services (and a universal health care!! patriarchal bonus for women that behaved, I guess!) is so under attack.

Oh BTW I have it on good authority that you don't speak for women...women have told me for the last twenty years. So take your little rad butt and go out and at least get women in your country out from under all those 'trigger laws' at least.

Imagine being forced to carry a rapist baby to term...imagine a democratic woman signing it...imagine there is no other place in the English-speaking world that it would even get to that point, that I can use it to slam some BSer expert like you) <-- might be more of that 'tricky logic' in there, huh

[Vanje]

351. '" little rad butt"?

nt

[MrPrax]

354. Why R U reply?

Didn't you get the message?


I am NOT an expert on the womens' movement! (never claimed to be, just a activist)
I am encouraging passivity in women, so me and my patriarchal masters can reap rewards
I do little more than 're-hash'
I only 'regurgitated logical fallacies'
I spew 'propaganda, and such'

You are not suppose to listen to me...but thanks for your concern on civil non-aggressive debate tactics...you are right that was uncalled for because the person is really not that 'rad'.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

212. K&R. Anybody who fails to see the misogyny in the attacks on Cindy

lives in Denial.

[femrap]

213. Thank you for posting....

This is long overdue. I haven't read the comments yet....hope I don't have to hit the 'Ignore' button very often.

[Totally Committed]

214. K & R

Makes me so mad.

TC

[Morgana LaFey]

220. And then, when any sensitive woman is reading this kind of tripe

she is made to feel because of these misogynist attacks that being a female is not a good thing, not an honorable thing, not something to be proud of and to celebrate, but a ShAMEFUL thing. We are made to feel filled with shame simply because we are female.

It is a horrible, fearful thing to be hated and attacked simply because of part of your basic humanity that you can't do anything about.

Plus, they make sex dirty, and then sexualize you-as-female so that you are dirty too. You, as female ARE sex, you ARE dirty. They want you, and they hate you. They hate you because they want you; they want you because they hate you. Their hate makes it easy to humiliate you, hurt you -- verbally, physically, socially, economically, societally, any way they can figure out to hurt you and make you feel small and worthless and if at all possible shameful about what you are: female.

And there is nowhere to hide, nothing any female can do to escape from the threat of this. The Queen of England herself, the wife of a U.S. President or a female U.S. President herself, the wealthiest woman in the world -- all, ALL, ALL are vulnerable women and can be laid low and silenced and humiliated with these techniques aimed at shaming us and attacking us silencing us and hurting us (verbally and/or physically) purely because we are female.

I knew a woman who was running for a local office and would have been wonderful. Neal Boortz hated her with a white hot passion. I heard him say of her that there wasn't a meeting (or whatever) of any kind that she'd miss, that she was SO political that she'd "bend over backwards and self-lubricate...." I was so shocked and horrified -- the attack on my acquaintance had certainly done its job on me too. I made the mistake (or was it a favor? I'll never know) of telling her campaign manager about Boortz's comments. She left the race shortly thereafter.

No woman on earth should be subjected to anything remotely like that. It's why I'm so big on pointing out and trying to get gender slurs deleted at DU: they don't belong here. There is NO difference, except in degree, between calling Ann Coulter a bitch and the unwarranted highly sexualized public verbal attack on this politician. There is NO difference, except perhaps in degree, between calling Ann Coulter a bitch and calling Clarence Thomas the N word. None. It's all the same, and the intent is the same: to silence, to diminish, to reduce to nothingness.


Don't attack people on the basis of their race, sex, sexual orientation. Just don't. Don't use gender slurs to criticize women you don't like. It hurts all of us. ALL oppression, all discrimination, all prejudice is linked and diminishes all of us.

Please.

[pitohui]

245. why are we surprised that bad people do bad things?

you are telling us not to use racial or gender slurs, but why tell us? the bad guys will attack any point of perceived weakness, and they honestly believe that women are inferior and weak, hence, they attack us in those terms -- it is no use telling DUers to "just stop it," the people making these attacks are not true DUers or true progressives, they are evil, insane, or have a financial motive in these attacks and they don't give a rip for our ideas about common courtesy

the world is as it is, bad guys do bad things, they don't hesitate to shoot (martin luther king) or bomb (judy bari) activists who are saying unpopular things, why on earth would you expect them to hesitate to badmouth good people?

they fight full on without hesitation, fear, or regret, while we sit back and agonize about calling an evil bitch like ann coulter an evil bitch, and we wonder why we're losing?

we need to toughen up and get real, the bad guys will ALWAYS use name-calling as long as it gets results, talk is cheap, cheaper than a bullet, cheaper than a bomb, sure they'll use that first -- if we're afraid to even talk back to them, it's fairly pathetic, isn't it?

i don't really believe sheehan quit because she was called bad names by disrupters on DU, i believe she quit for the reasons she said (america cares more about american idol than about her son and the other dead soldiers) and also because she appears to have significant health issues, physical issues obviously and possibly also some depression as a result of her great grief

everybody in public life gets called names, we call chimpy names (isn't chimpy rather hateful when you stop and think about it), this is human nature, to be in public life means that you need to shrug off the stupid-ass name-calling

it's ugly, it's scary, but it's the least of our worries, drummed-up accusations (look at the clintons and the endless investigations) and actual violent attacks on our leaders/activists are the greater worry in my view, there are too damn many martyrs on the left for my taste

we can't fall apart about being called a name or being attacked with a verbal slur, we just can't, because if that's all that it takes to stop us, it's useless

if your friend dropped out of public life because a neo-nazi said she lubricates, well, that's fairly pathetic, isn't it?

[bettyellen]

249. it's pathetic to be disturbed by sexually threatening messages and we should just get used to it?

fuck that. that's not way to progress as a society, to behave for a moment as if this shit is inevitable or something to get used to.
it's not acceptable. and btw, some of these men are progressive on every other issue. it's a fucking blindspot.

[pitohui]

345. some of these men are progressive on every other issue? no, they're not

sorry, bettyellin, i don't agree

the men (and women) who mercilessly attack any perceived weakness in order to destroy the progressive community are NOT progressives "on every other issue" -- the men (and women) who automatically assume that any woman is weak or a tool or a fool are not progressives, they are troglodytes

the people attacking cindy sheehan were not progressives nor were they anti-war, they were pro-war assholes and they aren't going to stop with the name-calling just cuz we ask nicely -- begging the likes of dick cheney and fans to behave decently makes as much sense as begging hannibal lector to take a chill pill

yes, we make ourselves look pathetic when we break down and cry because chimpy's followers call us a bad name

we have got to toughen up, we just got to

[Morgana LaFey]

266. Some of DU's oldest and "finest" members are sexist, some are

downright misogynist. Do I think of them as "bad people"? I think of them as "not my friend," but not necessarily bad people. OTOH, the exact proportion that they are combative about their own sexism as opposed to willing to learn ("educable") tends to push them more towards the "bad people" category.

they fight full on without hesitation, fear, or regret, while we sit back and agonize about calling an evil bitch like ann coulter an evil bitch, and we wonder why we're losing?

What apologist nonsense. First, you women don't have the RIGHT to object to sexism here at DU because there are MORE IMPORTANT things needing to be addressed, and it certainly ain't your stupid equality;

Second: not only are there more important things, but your stupid demands actually tie OUR hands behind our backs and prevents us from fighting the right wing. You don't have the right to have basic rights of equality; we've got MORE IMPORTANT THINGS going on. If you don't want us to lose to the right, shut the fuck up. If we DO lose, or whatever we lose, is your fault.


Listen, there's NO FUCKING REASON YOU CAN'T CALL COULTER AN EVIL WOMAN instead of evil bitch. As soon as you call her an evil bitch, you have demeaned the entire sex, more than half the whole population of the whole world, and you have demeaned and denigrated me. And every other DU woman. And my mom, and yours. Because ANY of us can be called bitch and worse, and stopped in our tracks, and made to feel worthless and shamed and humiliated simply because we ARE women. THere's no reason to resort to gender slurs. They SHOULD BE beneath you. You SHOULD BE able to see that. If you don't use the N word, you shouldn't use the B word either. Or any other gender slur (or racial slur).

[pitohui]

349. so this is about crapping on other DUers? i thought it was about bad guys attacking peace activists

you need to re-read the original post, it is not about some DUers speaking in the language that ordinary americans use, as bartcop would say it

it is about systematic attacks and harassment, which may start with verbal crap, but which escalates to death threats, stalking, and in some cases actual violence

as a woman, i'm more offended to hear ann coulter called "an evil woman" than "an evil bitch," she is no kin to me, you know?

i can and have been called a bitch, and you know what? if being called a bitch stops you in your tracks, you are not a strong person, and you have no idea what the average woman who tries to step out of the ordinary line faces every single day, because being called a bitch is not even a pimple on the butt of what you have to deal with

i call 'em as i see 'em, people who crumple up because they were called a name are of no use to anybody

listen up: this post is about what the bad guys are doing to threaten cindy, to threaten will pitt, to threaten scott ritter, even to threaten those of us who figure we're relatively unknown and yet who get hit with hate and verbal abuse just for squeaking up against the war -- the bad guys are not going to stop calling names and making threats because you crumple up and cry, when you crumple up and cry and say oh the bad man called me a bad name YOU ARE GIVING HIM BLOOD IN THE WATER, YOU ARE GIVING HIM POWER

fuck that shit, i'm not going to give them the satisfaction of curling up and crying because they called me a bitch, with me, they have to get physical -- it isn't fun to be stalked and beat up because you are different, i've been there, i don't much feel like talking about it, maybe it would be better if i was a little fainting flower who gave up on life at the first word of discouragement -- but that isn't who i am and i don't respect little fainting flowers who give up at the first hint of a nasty word either -- i simply can't respect someone that fragile, i'm not a doctor but to me if someone is that fragile that you have to walk on eggshells formulating every word then they have a mental illness that makes them less resilient than average -- nothing admirable about like and, as a woman, i refuse to have my entire gender classified as a bunch of wimps who are stopped in their tracks by being called bitch, that is just insulting to me as a female on every level

if that makes me a bitch, i'm damn proud of it! bitch happens to be a word with multiple meanings in english, a bitch can (often is) a strong woman with a steel backbone, it can be (often is) the highest term of respect that someone will verbalize, a bitch is feared and respected, a whiner crying that she was called a bad name...not so much

executive summary: bad people will call bad names, if you want to cry in front of bad people, fine, but they won't respect you for it and they won't change their behavior when you feed them exactly what they were looking to be fed


and executive summary part deaux: pick your battles, while whiners are crying that someone called them a bitch, somebody else has to get the real work done, we've diverted too much of the feminist movement already into nonsense about monitoring other people's language and all we've done is make the entire movement look ridiculous -- meanwhile basic things like equal pay get further away with each passing year

[Morgana LaFey]

408. meanwhile basic things like equal pay get further away with each passing year

precisely because people like you don't understand that language in the form of condescending, demeaning, humiliating gender slurs impacts how people feel about women -- and NOT in the positive sense -- and therefore what they can do to women.

If women don't count, if they can be called gender slurs with impunity, then they don't deserve equal pay, and it's not even a conscious thought; it's subconscious, fed by ugly words women are called and supported by other women who just don't get it.

It's not about tears: it's about fighting for women's equality on ALL fronts.

[smtpgirl]

224. K & R, I am WOMAN, I WILL NOT BE SILENCED

Haven't had to experience this, but if I did, I would take measures that that person wouldn't do that anymore to anyone.

It just goes to show how many men are really violent in nature. Can't argue a point, just fight.

FIGHT DOES NOT MAKE RIGHT.

[Marie26]

244. Wonderful post.

Lwfern, thank you so much for this post. I definitely agree that there's a misogynistic undertone to the attacks on Cindy Sheehan, and other women who actually speak their minds. And it seems to be just as bad on either side of the political spectrum. What do you think the solution is? Maybe the only thing women can do is keep fighting, keep organizing & keep their voices heard.

[bear425]

246. Error: You've already recommended that thread. n/t

[nam78_two]

253. K&R from this "hysterical, emotional" woman

:)

[puebloknot]

261. As woman and mother, I salute this post; however...

There's always a however, in my world.

There is no doubt that irrational hatred of women is abroad in the land, and it is something to be feared and given the seriousness it should have. My 30ish daughter and I have frequent discussions about this issue. This very night, discussing the fact that there is a serial rapist roaming around Santa Fe, my daughter described a guy sitting in a car in a parking lot, staring at her inappropriately, "leeringly," if there is such a word. She stared him down, and then she came home just *so* frustrated and angry about not being able to leave the house without running into this kind of crap.

When a woman strolls through the political/activist "parking lot," what is described in this post takes on much darker significance, especially given the anonymous nature of posting on the Net. I understand the reasons for using "handles" on sites such as this, but I think it is a practice that allows for a lot of abuse of the kind that Cindy Sheehan and many others have had to endure.

My "however," above, has to do with this: When Nancy Pelosi first took office (before that, actually), I posted a message containing some criticism of the way she was then (and is now, actually) handling her new status as Speaker -- not as personal criticism but as strong disagreement with her views and stated intentions. Whereupon, a series of posts appeard in the same thread, not addressed to me personally, but clearly inspired by what I had said, and the gist of those posts was that "it's always women who are jealous of other women who raise their heads above the pack; it's women who are the most critical of other women."

I have felt, and have expressed, from the very beginning of Pelosi's tenure as Speaker, that I reserved the right, as a woman and a citizen, to criticize her policies, and that doing so did not mean that I was descending to the level of observing that she wears Armani, or critiquing her makeup. I very clearly stated that I reserved the right to criticize her, as a loyal American and Democrat, REGARDLESS OF HER GENDER. I still reserve that right to myself. If the new Speaker had been a man who was proposing the Pelosi agenda, I would have been equally critical.

I have great fears for the future of women in America. The right-wing religious zealots would see us all in burkas, metaphorically speaking, and they are working very hard to roll back the rights we as women have fought for over time. So I stand my ground as a devoted feminist, in the sense that women should have equal rights under the law. And I would even go a bit further to say that, given the nature of the male/female dichotomy -- women *are* the "weaker" sex, physically speaking -- women should have the extra protection being considered under the hate crimes law, with consideration of gender, that George Bush will likely veto. And we should have laws to make it a crime to use the Internet to threaten anyone -- male or female! (Perhaps they exist. I can't keep up with *everything* that needs tending.)

I am simply concerned that we keep our perceptions and actions clear. Criticizing a woman does not necessarily add up to gender bias, or sexual abuse. It depends on the nature of the criticism, and how it is expressed. Criticizing style of dress, or making allusions to body parts, is contemptible. Saying that taking impeachment off the table is an act of supreme arrogance (my view), makes no reference to gender, and in my case, was not inspired by it. I simply abhor the political consequences of such an act. I would hold the same criticism for a man acting as Pelosi has done. (And let me also state here that my criticism of women in politics extends well beyond Nancy Pelosi. She is simply the woman politician who has me by the throat at this juncture, given her leadership role in last week's betrayal of the Democratic Party and the country -- my personal view, of course.)

Attitudes and acts like the ones outlined in this original post are, of course, a horse of a different color. Threats, blatant or faintly suggestive, are abhorrent, and act in the worst interest of the whole society. They too often serve to silence one half of the dialogue that is desperately needed in this country today.

I do not doubt that Cindy Sheehan has received hate mail, and that given her physical and emotional state right now, that only adds to her distress. But Cindy Sheehan is a tiger of a woman, and we should not presume, on her behalf, that her decision to take a sabbatical can be laid at the feet of any one occurrence. Having the courage to hang out in a ditch, in fundamentalist Texas, challenging the Powers that Be, just says it all about Cindy's strength. Thinking about her over the last 48 hours has reminded me of a bumper sticker I saw once:

"I am woman! I am invincible! I am tired!!!!!!!

So let us honor her tiredness, and let *her* decide how much pressure she can take.

And so, I would like to end this with a return to the original post, and the seriousness of this kind of threat against We the Women. We must keep our collective wits about us, and not water down the important issue of violence against women, verbal and/or physical, by attributing gender bias when it may not be there. We must strive to be impeccable in our relations with each other...first!

And we must *not* be silent!

[Morgana LaFey]

267. You're the only peson I've seen attribute gender bias

where there isn't any. Seriously.

NO feminist I know of would suggest for an instant that Nancy Pelosi ought not be criticized for her politics because she's a woman or even a fellow feminist.

Great post otherwise. But I think most of us women, esp. feminists, are way over any notion that we can't or shouldn't criticize our own.

[puebloknot]

278. Maybe you just didn't happen to read the post I mentioned. I assure you...

...that what I wrote happened. To suggest otherwise....

DU is a big place, and it's simply not possible to keep up with everything that happens here. And you have not seen me attribute gender bias where there isn't any. Seriously!

[Morgana LaFey]

409. You misunderstood my point

no problem. It's not worth trying to explain it to you.

[puebloknot]

424. "It's not worth trying to explain it to you."

Well, you're probably right. I am, after all, just a dumb woman! :shrug: :rofl:

[Morgana LaFey]

426. You misunderstood that one too

Seems we have a pattern here.

MY point, the 2nd one, was that my first point wasn't that good, wasn't worth taking the energy I didn't feel I had at the moment to try to make it clearer. Had nothing to do with you. But if you insist on personalizing it, you're on your own.

[jpgray]

280. Great post.

[puebloknot]

282. Thank you! nt

[noamnety]

285. I interpret that gender bias slightly differently than you.

"Whereupon, a series of posts appeared in the same thread, not addressed to me personally, but clearly inspired by what I had said, and the gist of those posts was that "it's always women who are jealous of other women who raise their heads above the pack; it's women who are the most critical of other women."

What I read there is a blatant attempt to shut YOU up, because you're female. The gist of what you are describing is that your critical thinking skills were belittled and dismissed because of your gender, your problem with Pelosi OBVIOUSLY isn't that you have ideological differences with her, but rather that, being female, your thoughts are tainted by the petty jealousies that drive all women. Only men, doncha know, are allowed to criticize women, because only men have unclouded vision in these matters.

Me, I'll criticize Pelosi whenever the hell I want to, gender be damned. What you won't see me do is provide commentary on the "lovely cut and color of her designer suit which was just so wonderful to see at the podium compared to all those gray suits and just set off her eyes so well" barf. Give it a fucking rest. I'm not voting for people based on their value as a decorative accessory. I want them to stop funding an illegal occupation, and the whole lot of them could wear burlap sacks for all I care.

[puebloknot]

402. In fact, let's insist that they wear burlap sacks. Hairshirts, maybe...

...to atone for what they're doing to the country. I am so disgusted with the Congress, and especially with the Democrats, that I despair of getting out of the hole we've fallen into.

Thanks for your response! It's appreciated.

[9thkvius]

264. God, I wish it wasn't true

but it is. Just today I was listening to NPR as Terri Gross was interviewing a feminist activist from Iraq. As you can imagine they have all sorts of things that they have to deal with there, but I was struck at how many similarities there still are between the struggles of women in a country like Iraq and those in a country like ours. Most men still don't get it, in either country. The worst offenders tend to be the roll-back-the-clock fundamentalists (Muslims there, Christians here) but they are hardly the only ones. I wish I knew why this misogyny is so prevalent all over the world. It is so deeply imbedded in our own culture that even progressive men (and I definitely don't exclude myself) will frequently say or do something sexist and stupid without realizing it, or worse, when we know its wrong.

I don't know what else to say. It's pretty damn depressing.

Anyway, bravo to you, lwfern, for a excellent post.

[Morgana LaFey]

268. Thank you, thank you

There are so few males who actually "hear" us let alone champion our cause here at DU. I REALLY appreciate those who do. You have just become "Saint 9thkvius" to me. You're now a member of a very small but VERY important club.

[Name removed]

269. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spag68]

270. Men as idiots

I'm 65 and have a wife and a daughter and one deceased. It's about time for elder men to stand up for women in general. When we hear anti-women jokes not only should we not laugh to be part of the game, but we must make our feelings known. I for one will never stand for this crap not only because of the women in my life, but because it's time for all to "do the right thing" I worked in construction all my life and i'm ashamed to admit that it took until my children to be born before I became more sensitive to this issue, but don't we all have mothers? Peer pressure can be used in a good way. I apologize to all you women who have been insulted by my gender. It's time to turn the page on this crap and remember male or female we are only one or two genes from apes>

[Der Blaue Engel]

273. Excellent post

The fact that anyone could read this post and still not get it (as evidenced by a minority of responses)...it's soul crushing. :(

[mainer]

284. Is there no way to identify these men who are posting?

Since these could be construed as death threats?

[BoneDaddy]

304. Because people

have a different view than you? Death threats? Talk about the heights of victimhood.

[Lars39]

309. The poster was referring to the OP, which you need to read, btw.

[BoneDaddy]

312. ah

I thought they were talking about the criticisms in this thread...ty for the clarification.

[lukasahero]

320. Um, actually, I think the poster is referring to ACTUAL death threats

like those mentioned in the OP and elsewhere in this thread - you know, the ones that talk about dismembering a specific individual, threatening their family, brutally abusing them... etc.

I understand you refuse to believe that anyone posting graphically descriptive acts of violence towards individual women should be taken seriously, but I'm pretty sure our legal system might disagree with you.

[glowing]

287. I completely agree... how many times even here do we see...

oh that dumb blonde twit on blah blah just said this, at least she's good to look at though.

Disrespect of women is not new and I don't think its going away tomorrow...

[Thor_MN]

292. Verbal violence is not acceptable in any form

Some random thoughts, for which I might be attacked and told I don't get it and it's different for women, but I find these things to be true and irrelevant of gender, race, whatever.

Disagreements between individuals often devolve to personal attacks.

People will use whatever is effective at disturbing their opponent. A weapon become effective because it affects its target. The target and weapon are intertwined, people will always use the thing that hurts the other person. Yin Yang, inseparable. If one has a vulnerability, your opponent will use it.

Conversely, there is little point in attacking a person with something that does not affect them. Wielding an ineffective weapon actually makes a person a weaker - they essentially waste their effort for no effect.

Abuse can not exist without both an abuser and an abused. Abuse should never be acceptable, both individuals need help to get rid of the abuse. Treating one half of the problem can not solve it.

Taking a public stand on a controversial matter will result in people disagreeing with you. Some of those people will be hateful, with no hope of arguing their side logically, so they will resort to personal attacks. The attacks are not acceptable, but should be expected. The attackers are trying to influence the opinion of the person speaking out, just as the person speaking out is trying to influence the opinion of anyone who listens.

[noamnety]

297. It's different for any OPPRESSED GROUP. Not just women.

Bigottry is not a "personal attack." It's an attack on an entire group.

People who are targets of misogyny and racism and don't need to be "treated" as if they are "one half of the problem."

A black person who has a cross burned in their yard in the middle of the night is not "one half of the problem."

There is a world of difference between trying to influence a person's opinion, and trying to terrorize a person into submission and hiding because of their identity in a group.

[Cults4Bush]

298. Best post ever.

and I mean that Ive ever read here.

I cant believe the crap Ive seen about Ann Coulter, being TG myself and in a horrid place about it half the time. Reading the transgender innuendos that are complete BS on DU lets me know that hypocrisy runs as deep here as any other political site on any side of the aisle.


This post of yours.... really really moved me. When will people wake the hell up.... I hate this life.

[1932]

303. Some DU'ers do the same thing to Condoleeza Rice

Criticism of her is often sexualized. It's weird.

[slackmaster]

367. DUers have even used racial caricatures and stereotypes of Dr. Rice

Criticizing anything other than a person's behavior is highly inappropriate.

[PA Democrat]

305. Great post. There are still a lot of people who feel women should be submissive.

Outspoken women are labeled a "bitch". I've been there done that for MANY years. I got a managerial job almost 30 years ago in a very conservative company. If I took the exact same actions as a man, he was "assertive" and "a leader"; I was a "bitch" and a "woman's libber" (the speaker considered this an insult). There's still way too much of that attitude around today.

Go look at the crazy "Concerned Women for America". They are doing everything they can to keep women submissive. They still talk about their opposition to the ERA, they are against an HPV vaccine even if it's optional, they are for "abstinence only", they oppose most forms of birth control, and I'm sure you know what their stance is on choice.

Consider this VILE sexist attack on Nancy Pelosi by right wing pundit Ben Shapiro:



The media would hammer any Republican congresswoman who dragged her grandchildren with her to work; it would rightly be considered a political ploy with children as props. Nancy Pelosi, however, could breastfeed on the speaker's podium and receive the plaudits of the mainstream media. "It seemed the ultimate in multitasking: taking care of the children and the country," fawned Charlie Gibson of ABC News. The paternalism of the left has reached new lows -- taking care of children and taking care of Americans are now two sides of the same coin.

No woman in the history of politics has used her womb like Nancy Pelosi. According to Pelosi, the power of childbearing gives her extra-special abilities when it comes to recognizing national security threats. When asked on CBS's "60 Minutes" what qualified her for leadership on national security, she answered: "I, as a mother and a grandmother, 14 years on the intelligence committee. Don't tell me I have any underestimation of what the threat is to our country." Obviously, cleaning up spit-up prepared Pelosi to clean up terrorism.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/homeland.php?id=578191

[Le Taz Hot]

307. K & R

Excellent points, all.

[Nikki Stone1]

314. We don't hear enough about this

Anytime a woman or minority threatens to fight for rights, violent white males threaten violence. This violence is a way to "keep in line" those who might actually threaten the sense of entitlement that white males have.

[mike_c]

315. this is one of the most IMPORTANT posts on DU in some time....

Thank you for posting it. I'm not going to comment directly because my thoughts are still coalescing, but I'm absolutely blown away by the OP.

[Nikki Stone1]

322. Hey, you got threatened too, professor Mike

But I don't think you got threats against your body and emails wanting to rape you.

All the same, there are a lot of violent nutjobs out there.

[mike_c]

326. exactly-- not only did they not seriously threaten violence...

...but the tone of the threats was non-sexual-- that's the part of the OP that disturbs me the most. Sexual violence is so deeply ingrained in human culture that it is a fundamental part of our language and some men-- many men, maybe most/all men-- threaten violence against women almost instinctively.

This is one of the most thought provoking posts I've read here. Every now and then reality sneaks up and smacks you in the head. I'm stunned.

[Nikki Stone1]

405. I find it terrifying how easy it is for some rather sick males to escalate to this point

I agree with you that this post is one of those that just hits you between the eyes.

[Control-Z]

328. Thank you for posting this

It is such a big part of why I find it so difficult to talk about my mom (Gerri Santoro). I know I could potentially be a strong voice for women. Now, more than ever, with the Supreme Court abortion ban decision and with the recent release of a film documenting my mother's life, I know I should be stepping up to the plate.

But, even with my mother having been the subject of numerous threads here at DU, I find myself still reluctant to choose the voice of truth over the safety of silence.

[noamnety]

330. This is why I was SO angry when Flynt was held up as a champion of free speech here.

He terrorized and bullied women who tried to speak out by publically threatening and encouraging sexual violence against them.

He was a great champion for men who wanted the right to demean women. And he very deliberately and calculatingly used HIS free speech to silence women activists he had personal issues with by publically degrading them, by publishing photos of them in nooses, and so forth.

Legal rights do not translate into actual rights, not for oppressed people. Anyone who watched the government stand by and do nothing when segregation was technically illegal understands the difference.

Flynt was not a champion of my rights. He contributed to a climate of fear for women who wished to speak out.

[blm]

334. Can we get another KICK in?

.

[Cleita]

335. I was called a fat, greasy, Mexican lesbian on another board.

I answered that I was proud to be all those things. That sent the OP into a hissy of the vilest words I have ever seen in print. I pictured him frothing at the mouth. He was so racist, sexist and just hateful and I was amazed that people like this still existed. Years later from visiting internet forums, I'm not amazed anymore, just sad.

[Divine Discontent]

337. ha you did what I was going to say to you when I saw your title post

do the rosie thing, say, yes, I'm all of that and here's the truth on top of that! good on you! God bless you, you're wonderful.

www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<-- check it out, top '08 stuff

[DemBones DemBones]

379. Me gusta como tu piensas!

:toast:

(Hope that makes sense grammatically.)

[Cleita]

385. I wouldn't know if it's grammatically correct. LOL!

My Spanish has gotten pretty rusty over the years.I do get the meaning though. :-)

[DemBones DemBones]

387. LOL. Just so you got the meaning. My

husband's Spanish is pretty rusty, too, though he always manages to carry on conversations when the opportunity arises.

My Spanish is almost all "dog Spanish" because I once kept a Puerto Rican pal's peek-a-poo, Paco, for two weeks. She'd trained him in Spanish, so I learned "Sientete" and "No se assez," complete with wagging my finger the way Mariel did. Paco also knew tricks -- "Give me your left paw" and "Give me your right paw," for which I no longer remember the Spanish since this was many years ago.

[Cleita]

388. I have never trained a dog in any language, but maybe this will

jog your memory, "la pata derecho y la pata esquierdo" roughly any way. LOL.

[lapislzi]

418. An obnoxious man once told my SO that I'm a "mouthy bitch"

I think he thought he was doing my SO a favor by pointing this out, and offering advice on how to shut me up.

My SO smiled politely and thanked him. "I know," he said, "Isn't it great?"

[coffeenap]

336. kick

[Gold Metal Flake]

339. Hartmann is all over this issue thus morning.

Playing Fox hosts regular attacks on women and such. Sorry, can't live blog.

I see the usual gang of naysayers has made it into this thread. Boys will be boys, right? It's all in your head, right?

One correction..
"says Filipovic. "I don't think a man would get that; the harassment of women is far more sexualised - men may be told that they're idiots, but they aren't called 'whores'."

No, men attack other men sexually with gay slurs. Men who will attack women in a sexualized nature will also attack men in a sexualized nature.

[EFerrari]

343. And when men attack other men in that way, often they are

"feminizing" them.

[Gold Metal Flake]

344. A slight correction...

And when men attack other men in that way, always they are "feminizing" them.

JMO. From that standpoint, we can look at individuals for motive IE: feminizing them out of fear, or out of repressed desires. Regardless, it's mighty fucked up, to put a technical term to it.


Edit: forgot to close the code.

[EFerrari]

364. I've been thinking about this, and don't believe it works that way.

**Warning: graphic language.**

Because that would make rape an act that can be only done to women, for example, and that seems to be untrue.

And, if we think back to the types of violence done at Abu Graib, there seems to me to be a difference between sodomizing a young man with an object and "tainting" him with what he believes is menstrual blood.

It seems to me that a man can be hurt as a man and that's a different situation than hurting him by "feminizing" him -- the latter being one way to make a man feels powerless and humiliated but not the only way it can be done.

[noamnety]

372. Rape of men by men is still gendered violence

and I believe it's directly related to feminizing them.

Hence the term "prison bitch." When you hear that, is there ANY doubt in your mind who is doing the penetrating, who is being penetrated? Is there any doubt as to whether it involves contempt for women embedded in that notion of men raping men?

[EFerrari]

376. Oh, of course. But it's not clear to me (at all) that this is

always the case -- that's the only hair I'm splitting.

Another example that came to my mind was the case of black men would were mutilated and killed in lynchings. Were those men being feminized? I don't know but tend not to think so -- although black men being made to feel powerless and humiliated via feminization was and is common as corn.

[KAT119]

340. K&R!! Thank you....

[Lorien]

342. Look at the Rosie/ Elizabeth spat recently

the RW always refers to Rosie as a "fat ugly dyke", while someone here at DU posted that all Elizabeth brings to the table are "a nice pair of tits". Sexist abuse is rampant everywhere, and sadly, not just on the other side.

[Cabcere]

352. K&R.

:kick: This needed to be said...this kind of crap is ridiculously degrading at best and horrifyingly dangerous at worst. Thanks. :thumbsup:

Edited to add: OK, so apparently the rec window has closed, but I did try! :hi:

[orleans]

355. kicking. i agree--it's exactly what happened to cindy here. it was not a

woman who referred to her as an a.w.

[Raksha]

362. Robin Morgan's fire-breathing manifesto "Goodbye To All That"

is very relevant to this thread, and I'm surprised nobody has brought it up until now (as far as I know anyway). It was first published in the far-lefty journal RAT in 1970. In some areas we haven't actually come a long way, baby.

Goodbye to lovely pro-Women's Liberation Paul Krassner, with all his astonished anger that women have lost their sense of humor "on this issue" and don't laugh any more at little funnies that degrade and hurt them: farewell to the memory of his "Instant Pussy" aerosol-can poster; to his column for Cavalier, to his dream of a Rape-In against legislators' wives...goodbye forever to the notion that he is my brother who, like Paul, buys a prostitute for the night as a birthday gift for a male friend...

http://books.google.com/books?id=2uMwEGfAMSQC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=robin+morgan+liberal+men&source=web&ots=kQLBccoIeU&sig=sbXiI-sp8w5EOJMDJ9GvaqwseBU#PPA54,M1

[Feron]

369. How do I begin..

It's difficult to explain to a man the minefield of nuance women must navigate through. Ultimately though, a woman will fail to pass muster no matter how valiant her efforts are. The only way to win is to not play, but society strictly punishes the women who refuse to conform.

Women are viewed through the lens of fuckability (tm the wonderful Feministe blog). That is pretty much what it boils down to, but it doesn't do the ever changing and hypocritical standards justice. It also does nothing to make a person understand the additional feelings of self-hatred women learn from their mothers and society.

In addition to what you said, I think that if feminism is going to make progress, then women need to reclaim their bodies. My body doesn't belong to the public or to a person nor am I going to enslave myself to the standard corporations set to sell products. It's sad reading threads from women worrying if they are too fat for shorts or undergoing painful procedures in order to live up to some idiotic societal standard.

And I've found that attitude here on DU. Recently a poster said that older women should cut their hair because long hair is something young (and presumably fuckable) women have. I'm not even old, but give me a break. I don't know if the poster was trying to be offensive or simply parroting ingrained rubbish, however it's no secret that older women are unworthy in our society.

You can be a feminist that loves men, has a sense of humor, and wears lipstick and high heels. But once you self-hate then you allow someone else to control you. Be subversive, Be yourself. A woman with self-esteem is a dangerous thing.

[noamnety]

384. I remember that post.

"Recently a poster said that older women should cut their hair because long hair is something young (and presumably fuckable) women have."

And your interpretation is spot on.

People get remarkably offended - downright irate - when those Unfuckable women have the gall to go parading about in the acoutrements of the fuckable. Hence overweight women are not only unattractive, but an offense to humanity, if they dress in a way that shows off their rolls. Thin (fuckable) women can wear shirts that expose their abs. If a heavy woman does that, people don't just "not find it attractive." They are ANGRY that they've been made to cast their eyes upon an unfuckable female body.

And of course, as I quoted in the OP, if you ARE deemed fuckable, and you're in public, you'd best remember your place - which is to be seen but not heard. Don't be bringing those breasts into a political event if you're there to discuss business, unless you want to advertise to the world that you are a "hussy" or a "slut."

Sometimes women in the public eye even manage to simultaneously do both. They give offense by being "ugly" (unfuckable) and give offense by not standing in a way so as to minimise their breasts, or by styling their hair as though they were fuckable when they are "supposed" to look assexual. DU has been right in the midst of that, helping to police up women who act inappropriately by slipping a tenth of a point in one direction or another from where they are allowed to be on that scale.

There is no way to win that game. Like I said, hatred is tied to EVERY aspect of the physical female body.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

386. Oh, yes, men who are not exactly fashion plates themselves act as if

women are required to provide scenery for them.

When I was trying to decide which airline to take to Japan in 2002, I read a bunch of online reviews, and it was disgusting how many times male reviewers complained that the flight attendants on their flight were "old" and "ugly." I guess that meant that they were over 30 and didn't look like super-models. (I never once saw a woman complain about the appearance of the male flight attendants.)

It's the same mentality that lets men think they can tell a strange woman on the street to "smile."

[Raksha]

389. That's a very useful concept: Fuckable vs. unfuckable women.

That really is what it boils down to, isn't it? It also reconfirms my long-held belief (and certainly not mine only) that to NAME a thing is to gain power over it. That goes all the way back to the beginning of Women's Liberation (aka Phase 2 Feminism) in the late 60s and early 70s. Just calling male chauvinism by that name was a way of beginning to dissolve its power. When it was the norm, it didn't have a name. It was just the Way Things Were.

I agree that people (men AND women, unfortunately) get absolutely outraged when an "unfuckable" woman (i.e. old or fat or both) dares to parade around in the accoutrements of the fuckable. It might be understandable to see a woman who presents herself that way as ridiculous or pathetic (in some cases anyway), because after all there is still such a thing as appropriate and inappropriate, flattering and unflattering in matters of clothing and hairstyle, etc. But the ANGER??? That doesn't make any sense.

[puebloknot]

427. Corrugated Woman

I want you to know that I do take this whole thread very seriously. I've spent years observing how we women are treated in this male-dominated world. I have just never been willing to become so obsessed with the unfairness of bias toward women that I fail to keep my balance. For every slight I've ever suffered, as a young woman, and now as an older (but never *old*) woman :), I simply have to recall that all over the world, both men and women are suffering from wars and starvation, and my life is a charmed one -- even with all it's sorrows.

The subject of the post refers to my daughter and I attending a farmer's market in San Clemente, CA a few years ago, and seeing a woman there who will be with me for life, in my mind. I noticed her inspecting the tomatoes and picking up a head of lettuce, and then I noticed that she had to be 85 years old, was dressed in shorts (short ones) and a halter top. She was beautifully tanned, every solid little wrinkle from her head to her toe on her reed-thin body, and was the "uppity-est" woman I've ever seen. Her skin really looked finely corrugated, like cardboard boxes are corrugated.

I'd like to have that kind of self-assurance! That woman owned herself!

[Neecy]

374. Here's another woman who threatened the power structure...

And we all know how she was treated.



This is Anita Hill today.

[Karenina]

393. "The Language War," by Robin Tolmach Lakoff

I HIGHLY recommend this book. It's 7 years old and refers back to Hillary as 1st Lady and Anita Hill. She covers those and other topics with an unparalleled comprehension of linguistics.

[bobbolink]

390. I want to thank all the strong and beautiful women for adding their voices here!

This has been the most uplifting and hopeful post I've read on DU for many a moon... and possibly bar none!

I can't yet allow myself to hope that this will lead to more, but... I have been so impressed with the quality of the words spoken and so encouraged by the strength behind those words.

Love and peace to you all!

:grouphug: :loveya: :grouphug:

[gollygee]

392. This thread has been fabulous

the original post and the discussion after it.

:)

[bobbolink]

421. Absolutely! All the roaring is uplifting!

:hi: :pals: :hi:

[nashville_brook]

415. the quality of discourse is simply wonderful!

it's such a breath of fresh air when we get a thread like this. i DO think it (will) lead to more as long as the DU women responsible for it stick around!

lwfern rocks!

[bobbolink]

422. heh--- I thought I was pretty articulate, ^_^, but I"ve copied some of the

comments for my own little rolodex....

:rofl:

We really are strong together!

:grouphug:

edited to say... BTW, I'm clean, too. :hi:

[hlthe2b]

401. Congrats, Fern... Thom Hartmann apparently referred to this post

as there is mention on Crooks & Liars:
Thom Hartmann referred to this excellent diary at DU on how these guys actively try to silence women activists. The sentence follows a video clip and discussion of O'Rielly and McCain essentially admitting that they are "afeared" that "white male" America was losing out to immigration, etc. http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/31/bill-oreilly-the-white-christian-male-power-structure-is-in-jeopardy/


Really excellent thread... Kudos! I was late for work because I kept reading this morning and was pleased to come back this afternoon. LWFern, excellent... Some of your comments in particular put my own feelings in context and using clear arguments that I will certainly remember in the future.

:thumbsup:

[lligrd]

416. Yep, I Heard It - He Referenced Fern And DU

It was great.

[Nikki Stone1]

434. Cool. I love Thom Hartmann

:)