group host / statement of purpose

[iverglas]

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

It was pointed out in the other thread that the discussion had become a little obscure, so here's a new thread.


1. The proposals for host/co-hosts are as follows:

La Lioness Priyanka
PeaceNikki
BlueIris
seabeyond
iverglas
redqueen

My understanding is that each is willing or can be persuaded -- anyone not willing, speak today or forever hold your peace! If I have left anyone out whose name has been mentioned, forgive me, let me know and I will edit.

Shall we state our preference for host, and (I would suggest) two co-hosts whom the host would then appoint?


2. Statement of purpose

It would be pinned on the board by the co-host.

I will reproduce the SoP from the old DU group, and can we say whether we agree with retaining it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=341x1

The purpose of the DU Feminists Group is to provide a safe and non-threatening community where all those interested in discussing and trying to resolve the problems that are inherent to women in society can come and work together free from defending the basic premise that issues do exist which specifically affect and limit women, their rights and their potential.

We believe that women do not start on the same rung as men on the ladder of success; that misogyny and sexism do indeed exist in America circa 2005; and that the progress made for women's rights is being seriously and immediately threatened by this administration.

The goal of this group is to understand the problems (and how they affect women), identify the myriad causes (and how they can limit a woman's vision and opportunity) and propose solutions (and how we can bring those solutions in a meaningful way out into the greater community).

About this Group

- This is not a group to discuss gender, class or sexual orientation rights and issues. It is specifically to discuss women's rights and issues as they affect women from a woman's perspective and experience.

- If, for example, you believe that women have already achieved "full participation in the mainstream of American society..., exercising all privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men... in all aspects of citizenship, public service, employment, education, and family life,"* then this is not the group for you.

- If, for example, you believe that women who have concerns about the prevalance of pornography in our society are uptight, sexually-repressed prudes who need to be enlightened to the "facts" and "realities" of the sex industry, this is not the group for you.

- The terms "feminist/feminism" and "misogyny" have established meanings in the context of women's history. While terminology may be debated, the denigration of these relevant terms will not be allowed.

- Attempts to minimize or dismiss women and/or the issues being discussed are not welcome.

- Like-minded DUers of all genders are encouraged to participate.

* Excerpted from NOW's "Statement of Purpose". http://www.now.org/organization/bylaws.html#ArticleII

[seabeyond]

1. sounds good to me. nt

[iverglas]

2. ahem

You are willing to be a host. Got that much!

Would you want to have one host with two co-hosts?

If so, the names would be .....


And you agree with keeping the SoP?

Speak up now.

[iverglas]

3. I answer myself

1. I think we should have hosts, and my choices are:

redqueen for host

seabeyond and iverglas for co-hosts

(just to keep it all lower-case )


All three of us are long-standing members of the group and have posted frequently at DU on women's issues of all sorts, and share the vision of the group expressed in the original SoP adopted by the people who founded the group.

I offer proof of my even-handedness and fair-mindedness and eagerness to defend whoever needs defending, no matter who it is. The OP here was someone I tangled with at every turn in the Guns forum (and who was tombstoned not long after for reasons I was never aware of, but it's common in that forum):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=778538&mesg_id=788712
and posts 16, 29 and 139 in that thread.



2. I support keeping the SoP as is, rather than trying to refine or redefine it.

There could always be discussion of that later.



First duty of hosts -- go to the old DU (or search here at the new one, such as one can) and send out PMs to all the regular members of this group who haven't posted here yet!

[redqueen]

4. Sounds good to me!

A host and co-hosts of however many people... two seems adequate given the pace of this forum but if anyone disagrees I'm not opposed to more.

And I would accept the nomination from iverglas as host, but leave that up for further discussion.

[iverglas]

6. true, no need for limits ;)

However, I would want to be satisfied that the perspective in question was consistent with the long-standing agreed-to perspective of the group, myself.

[Gormy Cuss]

7. I object to limiting discussion to just today. There are many DUers who don't visit forums daily,

who post only on the weekend, who post only during work hours, who may be on vacation, etc. IMHO we should leave the thread open for at least a week.


As to the SoP language, the first bullet leaves the impression that there is no room to discuss gender, class etc as it relates to feminism. If that is the intent, I object . If it's not the intent then I see no point to highlighting those attributes in that way.

I find the third bullet problematic in that it nixes one form of intolerance (calling people "uptight, sexually-repressed prudes" ) while introducing another (women who argue that pornography and the sex industry needs to be discussed from more than one viewpoint) and as such represents a violation of the fifth bullet because it is an attempt to dismiss some women and their views on such issues.


As to a host, I'm still thinking about who would be best primary host but I would like to see two or three cohosts representing a broad range of philosophy.

eta: IMHO we should discuss and agree on an expanded SoP first since at least two of the host candidates have stated that they aren't interested based on inclusion or exclusion of the proposed SoP. Trying to accomplish both in the same thread, especially while trying to limit the discussion to today feels like unnecessary urgency. There's been exactly one dust-up here since DU3 went live. We can take the time to reach consensus from many subscribers rather than just those of us who are here daily.

[iverglas]

8. sorry, I didn't mean!

I just wanted to get things going, so I was addressing only the people whose names were already on the list -- say yay or nay for your name standing, today.

I definitely didn't mean to end the process today, and I apologise if it sounded that way!

I don't necessarily object to agreeing on an SoP first; the outcome of that discussion could influence my interest in hosting, of course, since I'm not interested in hosting a free-for-all.

I was just kind of trying to get things moving, as I see a need for hosts.

I don't think the SoP decision is necessarily a prerequisite; anyone who became a host and wanted to withdraw based on disagreement with an SoP then adopted could do so.


"This is not a group to discuss gender, class or sexual orientation rights and issues."

My own take on that is that this is not the place to discuss those issues in and of themselves. If gender, class or sexual orientation become relevant to a discussion of women's rights and issues as they affect women from a woman's perspective and experience, that seems reasonable to me. Women's perspectives and experiences do include those of women of different classes, for instance, and I don't think anyone intended that the perspective of a woman as specifically, say, a working-class woman was not welcome.

But to call a spade a spade: if someone wants to tell me that my perspective and experience on the subject of pornography or prostitution are wrong, or should take a back seat, and priority should be given to another position on the issues because, for example, the perspective and experience of some gay men are different, for example, they can fuck off.

If someone wants to explain to me how the perspective of some gay men, while seemingly inimical to mine, advances women's interests in some way or in the long run, I'm happy to listen (and I, personally, will not be starting from a position of complete ignorance or with a closed mind -- and I actually do bring some degree of ambivalence to almost every subject).

If someone's perspective has at its base a rejection of patriarchy and a recognition that women are a vulnerable and disadvantaged group, and are exploited and oppressed as women, including by the institution of prostitution and the phenomenon of pornography, among other things, and if they demonstrate a sincere desire to address feminists' concerns and work in women's interests, I don't know why I would not be interested in discussion with them.

[Gormy Cuss]

10. Then may we please start over with just a discussion of the SoP and try to get consensus on that?

As I pointed out above, by calling out those attributes without qualification it certainly reads as if any discussion of gender etc is being nixed in the SoP, as pri pointed out in the other thread. If we agree they are acceptable topics within discussions of feminist thought then either that bullet point should say so explicitly or the bullet point shouldn't be part of the SoP.

As for someone calling your PoV invalid here, I think telling the person to fuck off in a civil manner is acceptable behavior. I've certainly done that, although usually by pointing out why I think their assertion is a bunch of horse shit.

As for gender and sexual orientation, we shouldn't forget that women are diverse in those domains just as we are in others and appearing to exclude a lesbian perspective from the discussion is not at all what we want to be about. Inevitably perspectives from other than straight woman will involve discussion of gender equality because the two are intertwined. Again, that's why I think either the bullet point needs to be modified or it needs to go.

[redqueen]

13. I agree that a discussion of the SoP is a good idea.

FWIW I didn't read it as saying that any discussion of intersectionality was forbidden, just that those discussions shouldn't take priority over the main thrust of women's issues (i.e. that a discussion that was mainly about other issues as opposed to the feminist aspect of those issues, or those issues in a feminist context, or as they relate to feminism, would be more appropriate in another group or forum).

[Gormy Cuss]

24. To be honest, I read it the same way initially.

When another interpretation was pointed out however I realized that there was too much gray in that statement.

[iverglas]

15. again ...

As for gender and sexual orientation, we shouldn't forget that women are diverse in those domains just as we are in others and appearing to exclude a lesbian perspective from the discussion is not at all what we want to be about.

And I do not believe it ever was.

There is history here, and the history is ongoing.

I'm going to be repeating myself if I keep going and I'm hoping others will join in.

The point of this group is for feminists to discuss feminism and women's issues from a woman's perspective.

Sexual orientation issues are not by definition women's issues. There may be intersection, there may be overlap, there may even be identity on some points. But the fact that something is a sexual orientation issue does not make it automatically a women's issue.

The perspective of a lesbian may be the perspective of a woman, but the woman in question may be (and some have flat out said they are) speaking from the perspective of the LGBT community and not speaking as a woman. Let's just acknowledge that women don't always and automatically speak in the interests of women qua women, about issues of concern to women qua women.

The intent, as I understand it, was to

- avert the insertion of issues that other people want feminists to focus on, and causes that other people want feminists to adopt, either contrary to what feminists see as women's interests or in priority to what feminists see as women's concerns

- avert challenges and confrontations stemming from the notion that feminists should do that

I don't think La Lioness Priyanka "pointed out" that discussions of gender etc. are nixed; I think she claimed that. I replied to her that what is nixed is such discussions that do not focus on women's rights and issues as they affect women, from a woman's perspective and experience, and attempted to explain my understanding of the nuance. I will look forward to her response. And I wish anybody else who agrees or disagrees with me, or doesn't have a clue what I'm saying, would say so!

[redqueen]

17. I for one agree with you completely.

I've seen this play out on various feminist sites repeatedly.

[Gormy Cuss]

22. I've been around this group for a very long time and I've seen many serious disputes

and I disagree. There was a long simmering feud between people who aligned more strongly either with 2nd wave or 3rd wave and there were many, many attempts to shut down one side by the other.

We have a choice here. It seems to me that the we can choose to strike language that at least one post-2nd waver finds exclusive or we can amend it to make it more explicit to clear up any doubt. The one choice that makes no sense to me is to dig in our heels and say as it stands it's self-evident.

[seabeyond]

25. how would you suggest the phrasing to be more inclusive? on edit... i also

what to put in my two cents that i think battle is a waste of time. i have never totally agreed on all things, and i never expect to. i dont think that means we need to have a battle even in disagreement or we cant discuss it either.

didnt i already say this? and maybe to you, lol

[Gormy Cuss]

27. It either needs to explicitly limit the statement to discussing those things outside of a feminist

framework or the bullet needs to disappear. As I wrote to redqueen my initial read didn't find that bullet offensive but I have to respect that to some members it felt exclusive of some post 2nd-wavers.

I agree that we should be able to discuss such differences without a battle but the history of this group proves that in the past battles are exactly what we got. That I or you don't find the phrasing exclusive is irrelevant if other members do. It's sort of like the "bitch" wars out in GD. Because some members like us find it highly offensive to describe women that way I'd like to think that other DUers would set aside their personal opinion on it for a bit and try to understand why we feel that way. Same deal with 2nd vs. 3rd wavers vs. some other perspective within the umbrella of feminism -- I'd like to set a tone where all can be heard without verbal fisticuffs. If we start out with an SoP that feels offensive to members, that's not very welcoming.


FWIW, I'm pretty much baffled by some post 2nd-wave theories but I'm willing to listen.

[iverglas]

29. I can't agree

I have to respect that to some members it felt exclusive of some post 2nd-wavers

To some posters it appears to feel exclusive to those whose primary identification, or at least equally ranking identification, is not with women / as feminists.

That isn't "within the umbrella of feminism", it's feminism as long as feminism doesn't clash with some other perspective.

I feel quite strongly that this other identification/perspective is being masked as "third wave feminism".

[Gormy Cuss]

31. This reminds me of "bitch" wars in GD.

Every time it comes up for discussion some of us state that bitch as a label on a woman is sexist and others say they have no problem with it so our concern is invalid. I'm of the opinion that when someone asks me to use different language because s/he finds a term offensive it's best to simply make a substitution and stop the distraction from whatever other issue is being discussed.

I understand and agree that derailment of feminist discussions is not acceptable in this group. I just think that there's no loss and potential gain in careful phrasing to make it clear that the ONLY goal of that statement is to avoid derailment of feminist-based discussions.

[iverglas]

38. it had already reminded me of the "douchebag" war

Last edited Wed Jan 11, 2012, 07:01 AM - Edit history (1)

When one of the crowd from that incident launched her ugly attack on me this month.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=341x13828

Check that out and then say you don't appreciate the point being argued here.


edit to clarify

What you'll find in that thread is two leading lights of the self-described feminist contingent hereabouts behaving like fools, but really nasty fools, in their sustained if incoherent attack on several people including myself. Because of them, and their invasion of the group, the thread was locked.


edit ...

And looking back through it, I see that a third one of the nasty fools is now a host in the LGBT group.

(Just in case anybody wonders, including anybody on any jury that might happen by, this is a protected group so I can say anything I want about anybody, just as was done about me by one of the other nasty fools in that old thread, and is still being done about me by numerous others, in the LGBT group, in between ugly comments about Muslims. Take a bow, kids. I'm being so respectful I'm not actually going to put your names here, as was done when I was attacked and lied about by name. And not even spelled right, ffs.)

[redqueen]

48. Wow.

I had to stop reading that.

What a galling display of derailment... and women calling feminists 'shrill' and 'hysterical'?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

32. i think you should be the main host

you show the temperament needed to be tolerant to all voices of feminism and recognize that people need to participate in these discussions and not be rushed around.

i dont see this in anyone else

[Starry Messenger]

9. The year should probably be updated there. The statement says 2005. :)

Being a Group host elsewhere on DU, I would humbly recommend that all who are interested on the list take on host duties in the Group. Having a variety of voices to bring to consensus discussions is a great asset.

The genesis of this first point has always puzzled me:

This is not a group to discuss gender, class or sexual orientation rights and issues. It is specifically to discuss women's rights and issues as they affect women from a woman's perspective and experience.

Re: gender, class, or sexual orientation? To me, all of these things seem to intersect in a woman's experience and it would be difficult to imagine discussions that exclude the total experience of a woman's perspective. A lesbian woman of color could have a different view of women's rights than mine, which is white and straight. I'm just wondering what the genesis of that exclusionary point was.

I can definitely cosign on most of the rest there. "We believe that women do not start on the same rung as men on the ladder of success"--amen!

[iverglas]

11. heh heh

I copy, I paste, I don't read.

Which brings me to:

We believe that women do not start on the same rung as men on the ladder of success; that misogyny and sexism do indeed exist in America circa 2005; and that the progress made for women's rights is being seriously and immediately threatened by this administration.

Perhaps we could just say "misogyny and sexism do indeed exist" and leave out the whole rest of it, since that's the nub of the thing anyhow ... since I don't imagine anybody really wants to be saying that about your current administration.

Actually, if I can get more picky ... I like the word "success" and I talk about people having equal opportunities for success, because success includes so many things and can be defined by people for their own lives -- not just a promotion at work, which is kind of what "the ladder of success" sounds like here.

Could we make it something like simply:

We believe that women do not start with the same opportunities as men, and that misogyny and sexism do indeed exist.

?

[Starry Messenger]

16. I really like this:

"We believe that women do not start with the same opportunities as men, and that misogyny and sexism do indeed exist. "

Such a simple statement, but so true.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

35. agreed

[iverglas]

12. I've tried to respond to comments about

the gender, class or sexual orientation rights and issues bit in several posts in this thread and the original thread about hosts.

I think it is really not accurate to describe it as "exclusionary".

I'm hoping to get some response, from any perspective.

[Starry Messenger]

14. Oops! I posted before I saw your answer to GormyCuss.

Good reply up there. No "exclusionary" isn't a good word, I just got off work and was typing with a sandwich in one hand. I should have reread before hitting post.

This section from your reply is awesome. I'd love to see this crafted into the SOP somehow:

"If gender, class or sexual orientation become relevant to a discussion of women's rights and issues as they affect women from a woman's perspective and experience, that seems reasonable to me. Women's perspectives and experiences do include those of women of different classes, for instance, and I don't think anyone intended that the perspective of a woman as specifically, say, a working-class woman was not welcome."

[iverglas]

18. maybe simple is best!

This forum is for discussion of women's rights, concerns and interests, and discussion of issues as they affect women, from the perspective and experience of women.


Seems clear.

Hm, I'm used to the use of "interests" as meaning things like "women's security interests" or "women's economic interests". I find it useful. But it comes off there sounding like it might mean baking or snowboarding.


Sharing news is interesting, but without some subject matter for discussion the proceedings would be dull. As I say, I personally would welcome discussion that reflects particular women's experiences and perspectives -- but not discussion from the perspective that starts from the premise, or makes the argument, that the concerns or interests of some other group a woman may belong to supercede the concerns and interests of women that feminists here consider to be legitimate.

Yes, we're caught in the vortex of "who's a feminist". Well, my own position, I guess, for the purposes of this group, would be someone who starts by putting women's concerns and interests (not their own, not some subgroup of women's, not some other group's) at the top of the list -- a spot it might share, but not be ousted from.

Does my brief restatement work for that?

[Starry Messenger]

19. I think that is really thoughtful and good.

It's expansive but makes it clear that derailing to make an argument that class supersedes feminism (for an example) would not be on-topic (I come up against that one a lot in male-dominated socialist circles).

[iverglas]

21. ah, third wave

hits same barriers as second wave.

My experience was novel. I got drawn into formal "women's liberation" in 1969 through the campus Trots, with whom I hung out for a few months until they told me to go away. I didn't seem to be good comrade material. They saw it, at the time, as a way of extending their reach, in true Trot fashion.

My earliest encounters with the formal form were my French teacher giving me a copy of The Second Sex a couple of years before, and the Canadian magazine Chatelaine during the 1960s when I was in high school. Doris Anderson was given Chatelaine and told to make a profit in two years or it was dead. It had previously resembled Family Circle or Woman's Day. She turned it into a feminist organ aimed at ordinary women -- it had cooking and health, but it had articles about the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, and reproductive choice, and you name it in terms of the emerging women's issues. It has lost its way in recent years, but it was probably the most significant public influence on Canadian women's lives for the decade starting in the mid-60s.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/187861

Anderson and her team of writers looked at everything from abortion to sexism and made it appealing to everyone from the "prairie housewife to the Toronto sophisticate," Landsberg said. "She brought forward all the key issues for women and made them palatable and understandable ... To her, equality just made sense. It was a question of human rights and fairness."

Anderson had a profound impact on the face of Canadian feminism.

She agitated for the creation of a Royal Commission on the Status of Women through the 1960s. That commission's report eventually launched Canada's feminist revolution.

And she was responsible for women getting equality rights included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Landsberg said.

Anderson resigned her position as chair of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women over the issue. Her resignation prompted a wave of protests and lobbying by women for their rights to be included in the Charter.

I've told my favourite anedote here before I imagine: two things I read separately. Someone asked Steinem why Ms. carried makeup ads and the like. She spoke at some length about how women like to make themselves look nice, blah blah. Anderson was asked the same question. She said: because we need the money.

Anderson ran for Parliament as a Liberal ... which obviously I think awful. And she is decried as a "liberal feminist" by some. But to deny her outstanding and enormous contribution to the welfare of women in Canada because she didn't have a class analysis ...

I'm off on a tangent, but I can't resist. I have been googling to see how Chatelaine addressed sexual orientation.

http://www.cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/download/1692/1822

... and it's a protected pdf and I can't copy it, having lost track of my unlocker when my hard drive went boom ... a little:

<1960s> With regard to lesbian content, Chatelaine was North America's trend-setter when, under editor Doris Anderson, it published the first, cautious but informative article that focused on lesbians ... <1970s> Part of the reason for Chatelaine's delayed reaction might have been the conservatism of many of the magazine's readers, who tended to react quite strongly to articles on sexuality in general, and abortion and lesbianism in particular. Anderson recalls that when there was a strong backlash against a Chatelaine article, she would assume the magazine had gone too far and drop the subject for a time.

Anyhow, things were different here. I don't recall experiencing the same male domination of left politics (not that there weren't problems), and Canadian society in general became and still is far, far less patriarchal than the US, and feminism here has never actually died.

[iverglas]

20. statement of purpose - thoughts?

If you've read the discussion in the thread, I've made some proposals and received some approving response, so, not to lose the momentum ...

Possible restatement below. Could we also remove the "American" from the NOW quotation? Violet Crumble and I would feel more at home.

The pornography part might be restated ... again, simpler? and also maybe a bit broader, if I may suggest:

If, for example, you believe that women's concerns about the prevalance of pornography or the practice of prostitution are illegitimate, and that the women who express those concerns are speaking from sexual prudery or animus against men, then this is not the group for you.

?

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

The purpose of the DU Feminists Group is to provide a safe and non-threatening community where all those interested in discussing and trying to resolve the problems that are inherent to women in society can come and work together free from defending the basic premise that issues do exist which specifically affect and limit women, their rights and their potential.

We believe that women do not start with the same opportunities as men, and that misogyny and sexism do indeed exist.

The goal of this group is to understand the problems (and how they affect women), identify the myriad causes (and how they can limit a woman's vision and opportunity) and propose solutions (and how we can bring those solutions in a meaningful way out into the greater community).

About this Group

- This forum is for discussion of women's rights, concerns and interests, and discussion of issues as they affect women, from the perspective and experience of women.

- If, for example, you believe that women have already achieved "full participation in the mainstream of ... society..., exercising all privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men... in all aspects of citizenship, public service, employment, education, and family life,"* then this is not the group for you.

- If, for example, you believe that women who have concerns about the prevalance of pornography in our society are uptight, sexually-repressed prudes who need to be enlightened to the "facts" and "realities" of the sex industry, this is not the group for you.
<see my proposed restatement above>

- The terms "feminist/feminism" and "misogyny" have established meanings in the context of women's history. While terminology may be debated, the denigration of these relevant terms will not be allowed.

- Attempts to minimize or dismiss women and/or the issues being discussed are not welcome.

- Like-minded DUers of all genders are encouraged to participate.

[Gormy Cuss]

23. I like the rephrasing of the porn/prude bullet n/t

[Remember Me]

181. I find it problematic, perhaps in the extreme

Since it restricts pro-porn arguments to JUST those revolving around the sex industry, it leaves open all the myriad other reasons that can be dredged up to pummel anti-porn feminists about the head and shoulders with their porn magazines. And believe me, it's a big myriad.

[ZombieHorde]

26. I would update the year from 2005 to 2012, to reflect the move to DU3.

But that is a tiny detail.

[iverglas]

28. check post 20

for updates.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

30. i am not comfortable with this statement of purpose

Last edited Wed Jan 11, 2012, 02:35 AM - Edit history (1)

it seems to willfully disregard women who may not have the same experiences, sexual orientation, race, class and experiences as the majority of women here.

i would be ok with this SOP if this was re-labelled a second wave feminist group. If however the broader label of feminism is used, then this group should rephrase the first part of the SOP to include: race/class/sexual orientation analysis of feminism will be accepted so long as the focus is still on women's rights (or something to that effect).

second wave feminists do not own the word feminism and i am against giving up the use of the word, just because i a queer, person of color, immigrant, bi-cultural feminist and my views are shaped my multiple identities.

as for hosts: i want gormycuss as main host and of the other two hosts, i think peacenikki and redqueen would be fair choices. all three hosts should not belong to the same school of feminism, personally i do not think all three should be white/middle class & straight either

[iverglas]

33. any chance of you answering direct questions?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113921#post44

Personally, I will be concerned about what you will "be okay with" if I believe that you are speaking as a woman and a feminist.

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1139&pid=249

"its also important to keep in mind that if you are white and middle class in this country and a women, you have only one oppression to worry about. therefore you can feel like all women should bond together. however, the more oppressions i have, my in groups maybe different. my allegiance to the lgbt community will always outweigh my allegiance to straight women. my allegiance to the south asian immigrant lgbt community will outweigh my allegiance to the larger lgbt community. these are all things we should keep in mind, when talking about movements/issues/politics/whatever"

From what I can tell, that allegiance will outweigh other individuals' interest in their reputation and your (presumed) interest in truth in public discourse, as well.

Are you speaking as a woman and a feminist in this post now? When you have said flatly that, where you assert a conflict of interests, presumably, you will abandon women? How could you ever claim to speak as a feminist?

I can't see how you could, since your primary allegiance is to a group or groups other than women -- and you can say "straight women" if you like, but that is just you asserting a divergence of interests that others, including some non-straight women, simply don't agree with. You might speak as a woman; but a feminist?

I have no intention of being in a group labelled "second-wave feminist". That is an ethnocentric label that has little to do with me and doesn't accurately represent the situation where I am even to the extent that there have been second and third waves of feminism here, outside the USofA, and a label that, as defined by you, would not apply to me even if I were in the US.

Second-wave feminists do not own the word feminism? Well, whatever group it is that you belong to and are speaking as a member of doesn't define feminism, let alone me.

Either one sees patriarchy as a source of oppression at least equal to the class structure, to homophobia, to racism, to all other sources of oppression, or one doesn't. Either one sees women's problems as at least as important as the problems of every other exploited or oppressed or victimized group, or subgroup, or one doesn't.

Either one chooses to dissociate one's self from, and not advocate in the interests of, some sub-group of women, in your case "straight women", or one doesn't. I don't. I don't elevate my interests as a member of any sub-group of women, or as a member of any other group, above the interests of women. By your actions in the rotten thread in the GLBT group, and your plain words in the other thread in this group, you have at least made it appear that you do.

Straight women as a group are not the oppressors of the LGBT community, or of Asian immigrants, or of anybody else. Second-wave or any other feminists most certainly are not. And I reject any analysis that says we are.

Certainly individual women belong to the oppressor groups -- women in the ownership class, women in the religious right. The same is true of African-Americans: they have their right-wingers and their gun militants. Does the LGBT community throw African-Americans under the bus because of Clarence Thomas or Kenn Blanchard? Those women are not feminists, and those African-Americans are not civil rights leaders.

I will discuss potential conflicts as well as confluences of interests with someone who recognizes the legitimacy of feminists' concerns and analysis. Not with someone who starts out by telling me they will always be at the back of her bus when, at least, she alleges a conflict.

My feminism has NEVER excluded race/class/sexual orientation analysis, so why would I need a statement telling me to include it? And quite simply, your race/class/sexual orientation analysis, or anyone else's, is not gospel.

Your views are shaped by multiple identities. Not everyone with any or all of those, or other, identities has decided that "woman" is the least important of them -- or that their own identities other than "woman" are what they will choose to govern their political analysis and action.

Pick and choose your identities as you wish, and assign whatever weight to them you will -- your choice is entirely your own and not for me or anyone else to judge in any way, not having your experience and perspective. But kindly do not tell me, once you have done that and woman/feminist is not at the top of the list whether alone or in company, that the purpose of the Feminists group should accommodate you and thus exclude those of us who do not wish to be defined as the oppressor or as less worthy of concern than some other group or subgroup.

I actually don't go around telling working-class men that their concerns as members of the working class are illegitimate and must give way to women's concerns in the event of conflict, or that the concerns of any other exploited or oppressed or victimized group must give way. I'll talk about why part of the wage pool in an enterprise should be allocated to on site childcare even if it means a slightly lower direct wage, and listen to the arguments against, and possibly ultimately agree to disagree as reasonable people of goodwill can do. I won't be told that the working-class interest in higher wages automatically supercedes women's interest in access to employment. And in a discussion of pornography, I won't be told that the LGBT community's interest in recognition of the legitimacy of their sexuality as essential to their human dignity automatically supercedes women's interest in recognition of our humanity as essential to our security and equality of opportunity. I might agree to disagree. I will not sit and have epithets (let alone lies) thrown at me to discredit me or to discredit feminists' concerns. Not here.

I think my proposal conveys the intention perfectly adequately, but others might suggest different ways of framing it:

This forum is for discussion of women's rights, concerns and interests, and discussion of issues as they affect women, from the perspective and experience of women.

Women come in all classes and colours and sexualities, but the prerequisite here is that a poster be a feminist and speak as a woman (or as a man who is speaking from the perspective of women's rights, concerns and interests) first and foremost.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

34. ofcourse i am speaking as a feminist

my allegiance to queer women will outweigh my allegiance to straight women. i do not see how these things are contradictory.

i am not sure what your question in all of this is, but to presumably question whether or not i am a feminist.

[iverglas]

36. you got it

Your overarching allegiance to a completely different group, at the expense of women wherever you perceive a conflict, outweighs your allegiance to women.

How far exactly does this definition of "feminism" stretch?

How come my definition of "non/anti-homophobe" as stretching to include myself, who has never said or done anything to support a claim that I am hophobic, doesn't rule in that group? (Group in the sense of group of people, not DU's select group.)

If you get to define who's a feminist, why don't I get to define who is not a homophobe?

My definition in that case is not actually open to dispute. I fail to see how the same applies to yours.


By the way:

my allegiance to queer women will outweigh my allegiance to straight women

-- that is not what you said and I quoted you as saying, and it is not what the evidence suggests.


If anybody at all thinks I or any other member of this group is going to put up, in this group, with ugly, vicious, lying shit -- from members of that other group you identify with above women -- like happened in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=341x13828

or like happened several days ago in the other group or in GD, they need to think again.

I think the problem is rather obvious, myself.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

37. are you lgbtq? if so you get to decide who is and who is not a homophobe

am i not a woman because i am gay? if i am then i get as much right as you to define who is a feminist

are lesbians not women? if i say my allegiance to a particularly marginalized women is more than to the average women, how does this detract from my feminism?

incidentally, if an african american women says her allegiance to her race is more than to her gender, do you get to be the one to decide whether or not she can define herself as a feminist? or do you only do that for people who say their allegiance to lgbt people are higher than to straight women?

[iverglas]

39. you almost seem to take my point (edited)

Last edited Wed Jan 11, 2012, 06:36 AM - Edit history (1)

if i say my allegiance to a particularly marginalized women is more than to the average women

THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU SAID. Cripes almighty.

You said (with my emphasis this time)

my allegiance to the lgbt community will always outweigh my allegiance to straight women.

and I take you at your word.

And I said that anyone whose allegiance to ANY community outweighs their allegiance to WOMEN is not a feminist.

Equals, yes. Outweighs, no. Simples.

One can imagine what you would be thinking if I said that, say, my allegiance to the working class outweighed my allegiance to lesbians.


am i not a woman because i am gay? if i am then i get as much right as you to define who is a feminist

Your claim now is that being a woman entitles you to define feminism?

Good luck with that.

Dog knows why you'd ask me "am i not a woman because i am gay?" since I never said or implied or whispered or thought such a thing.



edit because your edit came later

incidentally, if an african american women says her allegiance to her race is more than to her gender, do you get to be the one to decide whether or not she can define herself as a feminist? or do you only do that for people who say their allegiance to lgbt people are higher than to straight women?

Yeah, I do get to decide that. For fuck's sake. And it's sex, not gender.

And no, I don't only do it in that case, and where in the fucking hell do you get off even asking me that, when I have made it so plain it could not be plainer that what I have said applies to ANYONE who states that their allegiance to ANY group supercedes their allegiance as a woman?

But hey, keep singling out us straight women as the demons you have no meaningful allegiance to, who must sit at the back of your bus and be happy while you smack us around.

I mean, that's what it comes down to. You want to say that your allegiance is to pretty much any other group you can fit yourself into, and then hang around here telling others of us, to whom you feel miminal responsibility, about the errors of our ways.

Here's one for you.

If an African-American lesbian woman says her allegiance to her race comes above her allegiance to her sexual orientation group, where are you on that? Can she join the DU LGBT group and lecture you all there about how you are completely ignoring the concerns and interests of people of colour and it's about time you applied a race analysis in your discourse?

All I'm seeing there at the moment on that subject is some really ugly shit about Muslims, myself. How's that race analysis coming along for you? You don't seem to have had anything to say there.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

41. actually i do think its gender not sex. transwomen for instance, imo belong to the feminist movement

as much any cisgender female.

"..Can she join the DU LGBT group and lecture you all there about how you are completely ignoring the concerns and interests of people of colour and it's about time you applied a race analysis in your discourse? "

Yes, i would. I belong to many queer people of color alliances that specifically state that sometimes the greater gay interest does not accommodate for the needs POC queers face.

Incidentally I am on holiday with limited access to internet, i have defended blanket bigotry against muslims multiple times on this site, if you search enough you can find it yourself

and no, just because you feel ones allegiance to ones gender as the highest allegiance, defines feminism, i don't. a lot of people who have other marginalized identities, dont either.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. On the divvying up and labelling of women...

my allegiance to queer women will outweigh my allegiance to straight women.

I don't understand why there's a need to divide women up into different categories (eg straight, middle-class*, etc etc) and then proclaim that allegiance lies to one category and outweighs all else. Seriously, I'm a single mother of a child with a disability, who experienced a lack of support networks. It'd be wrong for me to announce that my allegiance to single mothers of disabled children outweighs my allegiance to all other women, and I wouldn't do it, because I don't think in such a compartmentalised way. What's so hard about having an allegiance to all women who suffer discrimination instead of dividing them up into groups and prioritising them?

Also, as a non-American, I second iverglas' call for the removal of the word 'American', lest us non-Americans at DU feel excluded...



* Maybe it's coz I live in a country that's a classless society, if you don't count sporting heroes being a class all to themselves, that I find the term 'middle-class' to come across as a pejorative....

[La Lioness Priyanka]

42. because sometimes straight women want things that queer women

may not, in that case i will without hesitation be part of a queer alliance. i am just honest about where my analysis/life lies.

additionally straight women have much more privilege in society than queer women do, so to pretend that this does not factor in to any analysis of privilege is silly

[iverglas]

43. let's stop beating around the bush

Actually, I've started a thread with a focus on more specifics, so you can answer there.

because sometimes straight women want things that queer women
may not, in that case i will without hesitation be part of a queer alliance.

Can we not say what we're talking about? I'm imagining they're not equal pay for work of equal value, or affordable, accessible childcare, or services for victims of violence.

Are we dancing because the things in question are things like legal prostitution, and the positions in question are things like pornography is great stuff and language doesn't matter?

And the wants and positions of women who don't think they're put at risk by those things (which does not mean they are not put at risk by them, by the way) should outweigh the needs of women who, in the opinion of a whole load of people, are put at risk by them?

Is that just a one-way street? You're right because you're queer?

Maybe you can teach us that trick, so we can tell misogynist men we're right because we're women, and that will be an end of it.

Do you have to argue your position at all, or can you just say that's my position and it's feminism because I say so?

Being honest about where your analysis lies, you could indeed be. Being honest doesn't make one a feminist.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

44. i have yet to see why you get to define feminism and i don't

having taken plenty of women's studies classes and queer studies classes, i want to know exactly on what authority you define only your brand of feminism as feminism

mostly i think you are sore at the lgbt community hear for getting banned from that forum, and are re-defining feminism and who can and cannot be a feminist because of it

[iverglas]

45. I have yet to see where I said I did (edited)

Other than facetiously.

What I have yet to see is an explanation of how someone who states flat out that she will throw women under the bus if she perceives women's interests as divergent from some other group's interests is any different from all the people who have done that to women for decades and decades.

Women have come a distant second, at best, to people of colour (who's your President? remember the Black Panthers?), the proletariat, winning elections ...

How come it's women who get that?

Does being doubly disadvantaged really mean that your disadvantage as a member of the other group is greater than your disadvantage as a woman? If that were the case, I'd expect to see gay men being more disadvantaged than women as a whole, or straight women. I don't.

Back before Adler wrote Sisters in Crime, I wrote a sociology paper called "Women Criminals / Criminal Women: Double Deviance". I'm familiar with the concept (and keep in mind that deviance is a construct, not a judgment). Women are deviant people; criminals are deviant people; women are deviant criminals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_school_of_criminology
(not an authoritate source, but serves my purposes)

... This 'sexism' in criminology also influences the sentencing, punishment, and imprisonment of women who are not expected to be criminals and, if they are, they may be described as 'mad not bad'. The attribution of madness to women flows from the entirely outdated construct that women who conform are pure, obedient daughters, wives and mothers who benefit society and men. If they dared to go against their natural biological traits of 'passivity' and a 'weakness of compliance', they must be mentally ill: a classic androcentric view which has been held by few academics in decades. ...

Further, those of the feminist school of criminology claim that males are the dominant group and the standard of normality and have maintained inequality through control of the definition of deviance and of the institutions of social control. Naffine argues that women have been defined as different from men and, hence, inferior; that stigma has acted to deny them their full civil rights and access to societal resources (Naffine: 1996).

Are women criminals more disadvantaged as criminals, or as women?

Was Clinton more disadvantaged by her sex than Obama was by his race?

Are lesbians really more disadvantaged by their sexual orientation than they are by their sex?

You do know that not all lesbians would say so. Perhaps they're just white and middle-class. Forgive me if I sound snide, but I don't see anyone using language to attack non-white non-middle-class non-straight people the way it is being used to attack people to whom those characteristics are being ascribed.



mostly i think you are sore at the lgbt community hear for getting banned from that forum, and are re-defining feminism and who can and cannot be a feminist because of it

Mostly I think you're deluded if you think I give a crap, but thanks for the further demonstration that personal attack is what you have to offer.

(But I can tell you my fingers are itching to get at your colleague with the idiotic statement "European countries interpret all bigoted speech (even without explicit violent threats) as 'inciting hatred' and thus a crime. I guess the 1st amendment can't work in every nation' that they win today's ribbon for most uninformed, ethnocentric statement of the week to date. And that's my informed internationalist analysis. But you can thank me for delivering you of the troll to whose remarks I was the only one to object.)

[seabeyond]

46. you came into this thread of over 300 posts and made ONE. one post. on mine. it was a jab and you

walked away. you didnt address men rating the woman like an animal. thru out the thread i never said anything about the woman, at all. period. i had one post saying when men are in a pageant then.... and the other posts addressed the rating women and men spewing derogatory name calling at women. (which you participated with your one post to me. "infantile&quot right below was a subthread from rep, that we actually discussed a gay woman being in a pageant, and the effects to the gay community and women as a whole. in that subthread i had already posted " i am glad she is the one to win, breaking that glass ceiling of norm. i am sad she is reduced to men on du not appreciating that but feeling more important to place a number on her. i get it."

even though i brought it to your attention, you never posted back on the insults you threw my way. it was a hit and run insult. why? what did i do to warrant that?



"is both newsworthy and worthy of discussing on du

again, this is my problem with the feminism/feminists on du, some of you need more than one lens to see the world with. this white middle class straight feminism that refuses to acknowledge other ways of being a feminist is infantile "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=136930


you state in this thread there is only ONE that would be fair. and go gormy cuss, i dont care. you decide who we are as women, what we are capable of, as i watch iverglas work hard to be honest, precise, exact. who we are as middle class white straight women. what our fuckin sex life is. and we have no say in it. you dont acknowledge what we say, you ignore it and you tell us we are wrong.... about who we are. i dont get that.

i think redqueen would be a great host. and fair. i think many women in the forum can do the job, and be fair. you dont like me. you dont want me as a host. doesnt hurt my feeling at all. none of this battle is important to me.

i have been consistently told by you there is no way i can even begin to understand what you say and experience, ergo, any of my thoughts and views are irrelevant. but that does not seem to be your position with me. or others. you seem to know everything we experience, think and feel and what we have to say is irrelevant, even talking about ourselves.

why did you hit and run, on that thread, like you did?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

55. not everything is about you and your feelings

i am on holiday and spend limited time online. that which i do, maybe i dont want to waste on you

[seabeyond]

58. thank you so much for taking the time to clear that up for me. nt

[Remember Me]

182. Nol but a direct question about attacks YOU made to HER most certainly IS

about her.

But apparently your vacation is more important. Enjoy yourself. So glad you could afford it while a student.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

185. yes, my vacation is a priority over an internet argument.

[Gormy Cuss]

65. seabeyond, please tell me why you referenced me in that post

because I can't figure it out in context. Thanks.

[seabeyond]

67. #30. i want gormycuss as main host

"as for hosts: i want gormycuss as main host and of the other two hosts, i think peacenikki and redqueen would be fair choices. all three hosts should not belong to the same school of feminism, personally i do not think all three should be white/middle class & straight either"

"you show the temperament needed to be tolerant to all voices of feminism and recognize that people need to participate in these discussions and not be rushed around.

i dont see this in anyone else"


i was referring to these two posts that lioness posted

[Gormy Cuss]

73. Thanks, I missed those.

[seabeyond]

74. but nothing else. there is nothing else to say about that post?

i know i am starting to sound "mean". another poster on another thread just said how "mean" i am. mean, me.

looking to understand. asking questions that dont get answered. listening to the otherside to try and understand. expressing to try to be understood.

but me.... i am mean.

sorry. just walk away from that post. mean, me. i dare to speak

[Violet_Crumble]

109. What things? That's what I'm not understanding...

Could you give me a few examples of issues where straight women would want something that gay women don't, or where gay women want something that straight women don't? I thought about it a lot after I read yr post, and I can't think of a single thing, but my head is all clogged up with a nasty head cold right now and my thought process is: 'self-identity, I get it *cough* *sniff* *sneeze* *cough some more*. Now what was I thinking before I dived for the lozenges and tissues?'

I'm with another person in this thread who said they don't see why there needs to be sides taken. We're all feminists, and of course we're all going to self-identify in different ways that takes us across a whole lot of different groups, but the bottom line is that we should be supporting each other, especially when it comes to women who've suffered discrimination, imo...

This thread is a bit heated and I don't want to be mistaken for being confrontational or anything like that, especially as I've got a lot of respect for what I've seen you post at DU2 about I/P and speaking out against anti-Muslim bigotry. So when I say that my life experience as a woman and how I self-identify have the word 'privilege' nowhere to be found, that's not meant as an attack or to be hostile. If you want to reply by PM so as it's taken away from what has become a heated thread, yr someone who'd be more than welcome to pop up in my inbox

[JustAnotherGen]

47. I want seabeyond to be a co-hostess

I've seen some of the back and forth and I have to say - she 'speaks' to me. In regards to different classifications -

Women first.

I'm an affluent multi-racial gen x woman whose net worth is at the million dollar mark. I'd be lying if I told you I did not love the man I do - because he IS such a man's man. I'd also be lying if I told you I didn't think that Feminism made a critical mistake during the suffragist/temperance movement s- actually - several critical mistakes. I'd be lying if I didn't say: When non black feminists applaud the book and movie The Help - they do a disservice to black women in America.

Those are just a few thoughts I have/things I have to share.

But at the end of the day - I know in THIS group I can share the personal in the political from the perspective of a woman who has to compete EVERY SINGLE DAY in the good old boys club and that I can get support for Equal Pay For Women . . . Not lesbian, straight, latina, Korean, bi-racial, caucasian, etc. etc. wome - but WOMEN. And if that is not one's allegiance - i.e. identifying inequities and trying to discuss how we can make even the tiniest of personal changes to give EVERY woman a fair shake regardess of race, religion, sexuality, socio-economic status - then I'd say one is not here to discuss feminist issues.

We don't need group think - but we do need a common thread amongst us all. And that common thread requires that a lesbian woman is asked throw a gay male Republican under the bus who votes against WOMENS' interests - then I respectfully ask she do that.

[iverglas]

49. you wanna be one too? ;)

I mean, having the guts to come out and admit to being rich (I merely hinted at it with that art acquisition thing -- and unless property prices go up a little more, I won't hit that mark for a bit longer) ... that's the bravery that's needed!

Other than real estate price inflation, every penny I have I have worked to acquire, at what is essentially a piecework rate, although in a highly skilled "intellectual worker" occupation -- and did that for over a decade while also working for peanuts to provide legal representation for various disadvantaged client groups, including women refugees who had been victims of sexual violence, for example.

What was I supposed to do? Not go to university? I struck it lucky there; I'd been too young and too preoccupied with politics, and too working-class, to know about the importance of applying to "good" schools, so I applied to where I thought I'd like to live for law school. I arrived the year the old Irish Catholic boys' club dean left -- which mean that my class was 30% women, instead of the 6 women out of 107 in the class before me. Had I not made it into law school, I'd have found some other well-paid occupation -- but a lot of vulnerable people would not have had the legal representation they got from me. My success was crucial to their success. I think that's an intersectionality that might be worth noting.

I suspect that your gay male Republican would not be safe at the hands of our third-wavers / other perspective-ers. What I can't figure out is where that line is drawn, and how it affects their relationship with the broader feminist movement and we who are on the other side of the line -- which is why I started the thread that has been hidden from the board now (but you can still read it).

[JustAnotherGen]

50. I can't be one

I was raising hell on a thread a few days ago so it will just bring unwarranted attacks on us.

Seriously though - wealth is just ONE thing. Know what I mean? And I was born at the right time, and had entry into the 'right industry', and selected the, right womb, to be born to. Hard work - but also the luck of 'who my grandparents were' if that makes sense?

But regardless - I was almost afraid to come back here after I posted that.

My point is NOT to create hostility towards women who don't share my sexual orientation. It's to say to them: Straight or Gay - we EARN less money on the dollar than a man. . . so choose your allegiance well. Black, White, Latina, Asian - we EARN less money on the dollar than a man . . . so choose your allegiance well. UU, Catholic, Agnostic, Atheist, Lutheran, Hindu, Muslim, Earth Religion, Spiritualist, etc. etc. - choose your allegiance well.

I've also publicly stated at DU - that this is my hot button issue. And my key reason for saying that after infrastructure/job creation MUST be triggered at equal pay - is because there is such a strong movement for gay marriage in this country.

So two gay male attorneys who adopt a child will be better able to provide that child advantages in education and economic stability that two gay female attorney won't be able to provide . . . just because they are women. That's so so sooooooooo wrong. It's just wrong.

[iverglas]

53. snork

You think you can beat me at bringing unwarranted attacks on us?

(check out seabeyond's thread)


I think La Lioness Priyanka said, in the thread about people's priority issues, income inequality. So common ground does exist.

Me, I generally get myself tangled in ... you can't have income equality without equal education and training, not just equal opportunity ... because equal opportunity won't be effective if there are constraints on choice deriving from stereotypes ... and stereotypes can't be smashed without addressing the widespread pornographic images and objectification of women ... and the largely exploited workforce in the sex industry can't be reduced if there are no other opportunities for the workers ... and unless and until men share household and family duties equally then equal employment opportunities are meaningless ... and hell, what's the point of it all if women aren't safe on the streets and in their homes and workplaces? ... so give me ALL OF IT!

Which is why I can never decide whether I'm a socialist feminist or a radical feminist or what have you. I just know I can't be anything but a straight middle-class white feminist at bottom.

[redqueen]

51. I would like to say "amen" to your fifth paragraph. (nt)

[CrispyQ]

108. I agree. I think it's the crux of what this group is about.

I didn't visit the feminists forum much on DU2, but DU3 doesn't feel as friendly & I've found myself posting in mostly groups. And who knew we had a Loners group? I fit right in over there.

Until a few weeks ago, when I came over here, I had never heard of 2nd wave/3rd wave feminism. I'm looking forward to finishing a long, complicated project so I can take some time to do some leisure reading. Ha! A feminist forum as leisure reading. ~lol.

[seabeyond]

110. i was having a blast at the dinner table tonight talking about all the many groups

and how fun t was going down latest thread and ending up in some forum i would never have been in the past.

a wave hi

no, gd does not feel so welcoming. the flat out purposeful disrespect. i just took a glance.

[Remember Me]

183. Me too

And that paragraph is:

But at the end of the day - I know in THIS group I can share the personal in the political from the perspective of a woman who has to compete EVERY SINGLE DAY in the good old boys club and that I can get support for Equal Pay For Women . . . Not lesbian, straight, latina, Korean, bi-racial, caucasian, etc. etc. wome - but WOMEN. And if that is not one's allegiance - i.e. identifying inequities and trying to discuss how we can make even the tiniest of personal changes to give EVERY woman a fair shake regardess of race, religion, sexuality, socio-economic status - then I'd say one is not here to discuss feminist issues.

Here's what I don't get in the "allegiance wars," I'll call them.

WHY!!??!!????

What is there to choose allegiance over or about? That's the mystery to me. How divisive is that? There should be nothing to choose allegiance over in any regard, for any of these groups. In the feminism I know and embrace, there IS no choosing necessary: all is for all, and even the benefits to women don't come at the expense of men (though loss of male privilege is often seen as very expensive, but it's an unearned reward and therefore an unfair benefit and immoral if it serves to keep women oppressed.)

And the same goes for the other groups. THERE SHOULD BE NO CHOOSING ALLEGIANCES REQUIRED -- or desired. Anyone who sees the need -- or advantage -- of pitting groups against one another or choosing among them is operating from a seriously flawed set of operating principles. My oppression as a white middle class female is just as important as yours if you're black female, just as important as yours if you're a black male. Your oppression as a gay male of whatever color is just as important -- and intrinsically tied to -- my oppression. There is no group you can name whose oppression is MORE IMPORTANT than mine, or LESS IMPORTANT than mine because it is ALL OF ONE PIECE, even if there are different manifestations of it.

The feminism I know and embrace understands that, embraces that, teaches that. WHAT KIND OF FEMINISM DOESN'T???? I can't tell you how many times I carried those round purple N.O.W. signs against racism, in favor of gay rights, pro-choice... it's all of a piece, people and IMO the feminism I know and embrace, with its healthy dose of Marxist analysis, holds the key to unlocking the oppression for ALL the world's oppressed peoples, no matter what their color, shape, gender, sexual orientation or affinity, etc.

I would suggest that anyone feeling a need for "choosing" either do some heavy duty inner reflection on what is the split they are feeling internally in order to do some persona l haling, and/or do or seek some analysis about feminism and how they can rise above the apparent dichotomy they are feeling or sensing to see the unity, or a way to achieve unity in their goals and aspirations without having to "choose" allegiances, if that makes any sense.

[justiceischeap]

52. As a lesbian and someone who considers herself a feminist, I have a comment on all this back & forth

Ganging up on lesbian feminists because of our allegiance to our community
My allegiance too is to the queer community and here's why...First, I still smart a little over the 2nd-wave feminists initially pushing lesbians out of their cause because we were too controversial or claiming our rights weren't their rights--I hold a bit of grudge, what can I say? I've encountered modern-day feminists who feel the same way; that somehow my lesbianism makes me less of a woman and therefore, I can't be a feminist.

Back to the topic of my allegiance to the queer community; I can still be fired from my job just for being gay. I can be denied housing, just for being gay. Some places of business can deny me service, just because I'm gay. I still can't get legally married (except in a handful of states) and be recognized nationally because I'm gay. Most states won't allow me to adopt children just because I'm gay. I'm judged solely by some on the fact I'm gay. I'm referred to more often as a dyke than a bitch. Until the gay part of me gets the same rights as the woman part of me, then my allegiance to the gay community stands. I at least want to be equally discriminated against like any other woman, right now I'm not equal on that scale.

On the topic of feminism and being a lesbian:
Being a lesbian informs my worldview. I see things differently as a lesbian feminist then, I imagine, a straight feminist does. That doesn't mean I don't want ALL women to excel in this world or that I don't want ALL women to be equal but it does mean that I don't see the world through the eyes of a heterosexual woman and there are things that effect me in the world that don't effect heterosexual women. For example, as a lesbian woman, not only could I get underpaid for being a woman but at some places I may not even get a job or get fired for being a lesbian (as I stated above). Because of that, I'm going to view the world differently and form different opinions on things and it's going to make my feminism different.

As I said, I'm not trying to marginalize or put women in different classes BUT, my worldview is definitely different, as I'd imagine a woman from a small town would have a different worldview than a woman in an urban area (where she may have better opportunities) or a woman of color has a different world view than a white woman. It's not a competition but to say that it doesn't make our view of feminism unique does everyone a disservice.

I agree with La Lioness Priyanka that it may be better to have a diverse group of hosts only because diversity in thought (as is there diversity in feminism) is a good thing and it brings different perspectives to discussion. No matter how hard I try, I am not going to know what it's like to be a straight woman living in this world, nor no matter how hard a straight woman can try, she's not going to know what it's like to go through the world as a lesbian. And all our unique experiences inform our feminism.

You can't put the definition of feminism in a box and then expect all of to be able to conform to that definition, it's unrealistic. And getting mad that, as a lesbian, I don't necessarily agree with your view or definition of feminism doesn't make me any less a feminist, it just makes me a different feminist. Is being a different feminist a bad thing if we want the same things? And how does one decide if I sincerely want the same things as the next person other than my word on it? And are my feminism 'creds' any better or worse because my allegiance, first and foremost, is getting the equal rights we all deserve? Remember, lesbians don't have the same rights as straight women...

[seabeyond]

54. You can't put the definition of feminism in a box ... but it seems like some can with people

here is the thing,

"I still smart a little over the 2nd-wave feminists initially pushing lesbians out of their cause because we were too controversial or claiming our rights weren't their rights--I hold a bit of grudge, what can I say? I've encountered modern-day feminists who feel the same way; that somehow my lesbianism makes me less of a woman and therefore, I can't be a feminist."

i get it. i get what you are saying. and you are gonna feel it whether i say you are "allowed" or not. it is our nice way of saying, you get to. but the thing, i seem to have been put in this box. unbeknownst to me. i didn't know 2nd and 3rd. i didnt particpate in it. i was a kid and young teen at the time. YET... i am firmly and insistently put in that box, so a person can resent me a bet.

so, though you agree with lioness on this issue, i really want to know why we are continually told we cannot even begin to understand so we cannot have an opinion or even state it, when we are continually ignored talking about ourselves and being told we dont know who we are. we dont even have a say about ourselves.

i gotta get that answer. because i am not getting it at all.

[justiceischeap]

56. Now I don't know if I'm getting your point

I don't know how explaining that all of us have different points of view and ways of thinking somehow infringes upon your having an opinion or says that you can't state an opinion. I don't know how stating that I've encountered, basically what is sexism from other feminists because of my sexuality has anything to do with your opinion or stating said opinion.

Lioness, Gormy Cuss and myself are asking for the SOP to take into consideration that not everyone has the same point of view on feminism but that doesn't seem to have anything to do with infringing upon your opinions.

What am I missing?

[seabeyond]

60. ok. thanks. nt

[Lisa D]

57. You can have an opinion and state it whenever you wish

I've been reading a variety of interesting opinions on this thread, including yours. What people should not expect, though, is 100% agreement with their opinions. And that is a good thing.

[seabeyond]

59. i have never expected, nor would i ever expect 100% agreement. nt

[Starry Messenger]

62. I think it is a matter of acknowledging whatever privilege one might bear in a conversation or

situation. All of us as women and feminists talk about the concept of male privilege, and we see a lot of it in play on DU and discuss it. But there are forms of privilege that I as a white cisgender straight woman have, and I acknowledge that there are forms of oppression that I will never experience because of it. It's not that I can't understand a little, but I'm sure there are things I miss constantly because I just don't know what I'm looking at when that oppressive situation might occur.

If I were to say or do something to marginalize a woman who has other forms of oppression to deal with, I would hope that she would put me right and tell me where my speech and actions are contributing to her oppression. Even that can be tiring to deal with, education of the dominant majority, as we women know.

[Lisa D]

66. Perfectly stated.

And this is such an important point:
"I'm sure there are things I miss constantly because I just don't know what I'm looking at when that oppressive situation might occur."

[seabeyond]

69. find one post, ONE post i have not worked at, struggled with to hear the other side. ONE.

would you like me to list the number of posts i asked the same consideration to be heard, for what i said to be thought about and asked for a response so i could better UNDERSTAND.... and received nothing, or a slammed door in my face.

[Lisa D]

71. I'm sorry, but I was not criticizing you in any way.

I realize that I was replying to a post in this subthread, but I was not referencing you or anything you've done or not done. I was talking globally, and agreeing with Starry Messenger's quote that we all need to remember that privilege has the potential to make us unaware of discrimination others might face and that it's a good thing to get different perspectives.

I, like you, struggle to hear the other side, but I know that my privilege can make that more difficult, no matter how empathetic I am with the struggles of others. That's why discussions, from different feminist points of view, are SO important.

I believe that you also hear and want to understand other perspectives.

[seabeyond]

72. but we are not demanding the same. it CAN NOT be just one sided. we cannot say we are putting in

ALL the effort because we understand our failings of not having more 'isms, and though harsh, i do NOT mean it disrespectfully. we KNOW we are not in the same boat as a gay woman, or a black woman or any other minority. we KNOW. i was not part of 2nd feminism. i learned from others what they did. i have in all my posts supported gay women and their uniqueness in our community.

that cannot mean that someone can run roughshod over everyone else in the group, with no consideration to fairness, or listening, not judging, too. it has to be a two way street.

a person should not be able to throw out a one two in insult, walk away and not own up to her mistake. then be patted on the back as being picked on by the white middle aged women.

why the hell would anyone want it to work that way.

[Lisa D]

79. Why are people picking sides?

We're all feminists--even though we may not agree in every instance.

I am a feminist. I don't classify myself as second wave or third wave and I allow no one to put me in either category. I support other feminists, whether they be white, black, straight, or gay. I will not always agree with them but that doesn't mean I'm not on their side.

It's almost like this thread has become some sort of litmus test for feminists.

You posted:
"a person should not be able to throw out a one two in insult, walk away and not own up to her mistake. then be patted on the back as being picked on by the white middle aged women"

I think you may be taking some of these posts much too personally. I see people passionately standing up for their beliefs (from all perspectives), and sometimes that can come across as harsh or insulting. I've seen insults by both "sides" as it were (not by you). I'll admit there are references to other threads in other forums that I have not followed, so I may be unaware of exactly what you mean.

The purpose of this thread is to select hosts/subhosts. Ultimately, I hope those hosts can be even-handed in their duties even when they see a post or feminist perspective with which they disagree.

[seabeyond]

82. that is the point. the whole point i have been arguing from post ONE. sides. we have the GD sides

i a not on a side either, but i have been boxed in, placed on a side. i was too young. i didnt know shit. but i am squarely in middle class white hetero sexual woman and is used as an insult to me. along with all the other insult of 2nd wave, that i dont know shit about.

that is why we have to be honest and real.

this is becoming one big ole mess of them against us and i call bullshit.

we cannot continue, if we continue to allow it to be done with sides. one good, one bad. one right, one wrong.

it. wont. work.

[iverglas]

102. why are people picking sides??

omg, yes yes yes!! The html buttons have appeared before mine eyes! Yes! This is not a cave locked in the 20th century after all!

Ahem.

Why are people picking sides?

Ask the people who picked sides, please.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002133497

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11372559

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11372627

If you want to know what the discussion is about, you will want to read those threads. Or at least some of them. Those are the actual subject here.

I don't think you will be wanting to say "I think you may be taking some of these posts much too personally" then. I hope.


The purpose of this thread is to select hosts/subhosts. Ultimately, I hope those hosts can be even-handed in their duties even when they see a post or feminist perspective with which they disagree.

Please, can we get this straight?

No one, absolutely no one, not one person, at least not on this side of the fence, us straight white middle-class (and surely middle-aged) feminists, is objecting to any perspectives, or plotting to banish people with different perspectives to the outer GD.

We are talking about people who have, very recently, participated in attacks on those of us who dared to express an opinion on what we very much consider to be a woman's issue: the practice of hetersexual male posters at DU rating women on their appearance, in this case a lesbian contestant in a beauty pageant. There were dozens upon dozens of posts in that thread vilifying any woman who voiced an opinion on that subject, let alone the subject of beauty pageants themselves. No one from the LGBT/feminist side of the fence spoke up against the misrepresentation, insult and intimidation fired at us there; some gleefully participated.

The victims in this whole thing are NOT lesbian women or the LGBT community.

And some of us are trying to figure out what grievances on that side of the fence are being referenced, and how they could possibly justify the behaviours in those threads -- or what else might justify those behaviours.

[Lisa D]

104. I'm not sure why you felt

the sarcasm was necessary to make your point.

I chose not to go to the threads in the other forums because I knew they were train wrecks. This thread seems to have run its course as well.

I'm following seabeyond's new thread. I hope you will join us there.

[iverglas]

106. uh

Thanks for the solidarity.

And unfortunately, yes, that one actually is sarcasm.

You asked a question and I answered it and you are not interested in the answer.

If you're not going to visit the train wreck to find out what we're talking about, again, it would really be best if you didn't talk about it. I'm sorry if that sounds rude or something, but addressing our concerns by dismissing them isn't addressing them. That may sound familiar.

[Lisa D]

107. I'm not dismissing your concerns.

I never said you didn't have some valid points. That doesn't mean I have to be in agreement with everything you say.

And for the record, I will talk about whatever I want to talk about.

[seabeyond]

105. and i KNOW why you felt people were picking sides. and i know you are trying your best to be

understood. that is what we are all looking for.

come into that other forum and please tell us what you think. you are kick ass at being just.

[Remember Me]

184. Taking things too personally --

I agree with author Marya Mannes:

Women are repeatedly accused of taking things personally. I cannot see any other honest way of taking them.

Seabeyond may or may not feel insulted by that remark, but I am.

[seabeyond]

68. of course that is a factor. nor have i ever denied any of that nor been unwilling to discuss.

it is the continuous accusation that i am unable to, when it appears i am more than willing to and the oppressed refuses and tells me who i am instead of mutually listening.

because someone has more 'isms than i, does nto give that person cart blanche to behave however she wants with immunity, surely? i ask you?

have one of you addressed the post, that i put up about being insulted and called out, with absolutely not ONE person reaching out toward me for understanding? it cannot always be a one way street. i am not seeing anyone willing to even try to understand the other sides issue. that isn't balanced. i don't do imbalance.

[Starry Messenger]

75. I am also speaking globally as a reply in the subthread to justiceischeap's post.

I think that if a marginalized member of a group was telling me repeatedly that I wasn't getting something, even if I thought that I was, I would listen harder.

If who I consider myself to be doesn't match up with someone else's assessment of me, who's responsibility is it to reflect harder on the exchange? I might think I'm understanding and listening, but someone says "No, you're not understanding" and they are speaking from a perspective that I will never experience. It *isn't* balanced, and it won't be, because I have more privilege than the person telling me that I'm messing up. How can it be even when I have more power?

The more "isms" a person has doesn't give them cart blanche, of course not. But I think it gives we who don't share the "isms" a greater load or responsibility to try to take a step back and look at the situation, even if we feel offended at first. That's all I'm trying to say.

[seabeyond]

76. so... because i am a middle aged women i should readily accept i am a prude, anti sex, asexual,

dysfunctional sex life, ugly, jealous, infantile and any other name they chose to throw at me because i am at an advantage. and say, i understand.

and not expect any consideration of being heard.... at all.

that is really what we have reduced ourselves to. that we are so willing to be open and frank and honest.

[seabeyond]

78. so, not only do i have to listen to all these demeaning comments over and over and over from the men

in GD

i have to listen to them from the women

in feminism forum.

it hardly makes it worth it, does it.

[Starry Messenger]

81. Was justiceischeap saying any of those things in her post?

That you are a "a prude, anti sex, asexual", etc.? I don't see that in her statement. I would alert on a post that called anyone names.

More than one lesbian has said that they don't feel welcome in traditional feminist discussions, some of them here on DU, perhaps some of them in this forum. Is there something that can be done to amend that going forward? That's what we're trying to hammer down here.

[seabeyond]

85. Is there something that can be done to amend that going forward?

yes. lets. and that means not pretend that there is not a two way street of mutuality and listen to both adn understand both and be a better person.

this is becoming a.... either with us or against us.

it is being allowed because we are not being honest.

this is not that hard. we dont have to create an enemy within these walls but that is what is happening. i am not going ot be an enemy to another group. i wont.

[Starry Messenger]

89. I don't see the with us or against us.

I honestly don't. We all have things to contribute and I think there are women who want to be heard who haven't felt heard, because the SOP looks a little limiting as it currently stands. We all know how that feels to not feel heard, I know that you do! I think there are ways to make the SOP worded a little better, and many fruitful suggestions have been put forth already. I concur with this statement of Gormy's down below:

"What I'm hearing from Pri and justiceischeap is that asking them to divorce their LGBT identities from the argument is too much and I agree. It would be like asking you or I to respond to economic arguments without drawing on our perspective as women.

It seems to be that none of us want to have an SoP so open that it allows for raging, off-topic feuds but we do want to hear, digest, and debate issues from accepted feminist POVs (accepted as in academia includes them as feminist thought) rather than just sticking to the orthodoxy we personally accept"

[seabeyond]

91. i ahve asked a couple times how it needs to be worded. i dont care. i havent heard anyone put a

statement. lets. all this over "little". i dont get that.

a statement. whoever has one. throw it out. i will vote for it.

[iverglas]

103. sorry, but you just do not know the history

And there is a history, and it is as real for those of us who suffered the mistreatment as the lesbian feminists' history in the outside world is to them.

Yes, "we" have been subjected to a campaign of abuse over years, portrayed as uptight, prudeish, anti-sex, asexual, anything else you can think of along that line. I was called Victorian in the beauty pageant thread, along with reams of other things.

We actually aren't making these things up.


More than one lesbian has said that they don't feel welcome in traditional feminist discussions, some of them here on DU, perhaps some of them in this forum.

If one of them here present would stand up and type three short sentences, or 10 long paragraphs, I don't care, telling us WHY, we would all be thrilled to read them. This has not yet happened. We have had several pronouncements of feelings of exclusion hearkening back to the dark ages, but nothing to explain why these feelings exist now in relation to this group. Really. Nothing.

And to my mind, someone does not get to hang around pronouncing and acting aggrieved, give no explanation for these feelings, and then get all huffy about being repeatedly asked for some explanation, and rely on that as their basis for being aggrieved. And that's all I see happening.

I am aggrieved by the way I was treated over the beauty pageant thing; seabeyond is aggrieved; redqueen is aggrieved. Others there were similarly attacked. All were left hanging out to dry, if not directly attacked, by members of the lesbian feminist group.

I am seeing nothing else that looks like a genuine grievance, or even apprehension, on anyone's part.

The fact is that there is virtually certainly overlap between those who do not feel welcome at present and those who very definitely were NOT welcome in the past, because of their use of terms like "sex-positive feminism" for themselves to portray other women here in extremely negative terms, and their horrifically disruptive behaviour in this group. Did you glance at another thread linked to?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=341x13828

Regardless of where you might come down on any particular issue, it is the behaviour of a particular element that was and is simply not tolerable in this forum.

And so this discussion was starting from a point you weren't at, among people with knowledge of that history.

And unless and until I get a statement of what these issues are on which we will necessarily have such divergent positions, or what our divergences will be in terms of what issues we consider appropriate for discussion, I'm going with my gut feeling, reinforced by the garbage in the beauty pageant thread, that this is what it's really all about.

[Lisa D]

83. You are not a prude, not anti-sex, and not asexual, etc.

I am also a middle-aged woman. Embrace your power, seabeyond! Do not allow others to define you. People who throw insulting names at you are not worth the effort, frankly. When another person resorts to personal insults, that means you've won the argument.

But also realize that general statements are not always to be taken personally. Take the subject of pornography. If someone who's against porn says "People who watch pornography perpetuate violence against women!" Then a feminist who enjoys pornography may feel that person is accusing them of violence against women. She may be offended and call the poster's view prudish. Soon, the discussion revolves around personal insults instead of a very important discussion about pornography's effect on society. (Please note I'm not taking sides in the pornography debate here, just using it as an example.)

Seabeyond, you have important things to say as a feminist. No one has the power to make you stop talking.

[seabeyond]

86. thank you for talking to me like a person, instead of a caricature. i think that is what i was

feeling. just a glimpse at my posts and then a pat answer.

this is the first one where i feel like i have been addressed. thank you. i am going to think about this.

[iverglas]

61. as the person who posted this in the thread where I was attacked

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11372559

justiceischeap
37. Don't come into the LGBT forum with your issues about this thread

Whether you agree with pageants or not, this is a milestone for the LGBT community. Let us have our friggin' milestone without ruining it for William769 (again!).

If you want to fight about this thread, go over to the Lounge or in the Help forum.

and then refused to clarify, in response to a query there and my PM (when I could not post), that you were NOT talking about me and others who had posted similarly in that thread:

justiceischeap
42. I meant to reply to those coming into the LGBT forum and cause trouble over this thread

so, no, not <to> the OP. I thought I made that clear in my post that some folks were causing trouble in William769s thread on the issue.

-- "some folks were causing trouble in William769s thread on the issue" is NOT how you would have described the LGBT group members you claimed to be talking about in this, sorry, incoherent PM to me:

justiceischeap
Re: how dare you?

You weren't the only one's that were bringing issues into the thread (and you didn't even bring the fight to the LGBT forum). Did I call you out personally? No, I didn't. So how do you deduce that I was referring to you? I was referring to (X and Y -- one a long-standing LBGT group member and one simply attracted by another opportunity to trash me, from what I can tell) who came over from GD causing trouble. So I don't owe you, or anyone else, an apology for anything for not wanting that OP to blow up...again.

The LGBT forum isn't a place to hash out problems from another forum--which is why I suggested you take your fight elsewhere (per the rules, you should have alerted on the call-out and taken that over to the Help forum where you and (X) could have fought it out under the watchful eye of the Admins and they could have maybe done something about the call-out). Instead, you call me out over email for a perceived slight and make a comment about it in the Feminists forum because you ASSUMED my post was aimed at you.

The LGBTQ community puts up with enough shit elsewhere on DU without it spilling into our little neck of the woods.

You know full well that NO ONE interpreted your post as referring to those people. You said NOTHING to them in public. And referring to the attack on me as a "perceived slight"? There seems to have been agreement on how to trivialize the attack. Others here don't perceive it as a "perceived slight".

(And no, I could not alert on the call-out, as that had already been done and failed.)


So as I was saying -- I'm not really at all concerned about what you, as the person who wrote those posts and that message, have to say.


First, I still smart a little over the 2nd-wave feminists initially pushing lesbians out of their cause because we were too controversial or claiming our rights weren't their rights--I hold a bit of grudge, what can I say?

Were any of them me? Do you have one single shred of basis for lumping me in with these alleged persons -- or anyone else in this group or at this site? If not: so what?

I've encountered modern-day feminists who feel the same way; that somehow my lesbianism makes me less of a woman and therefore, I can't be a feminist.

I don't know, that just sounds dumb to me. Certainly, as a lesbian, you won't share some of the "personal is political" issues of straight women. Certainly, I hope you don't disparage women who do have those issues. I'd want to know a whole lot more about this allegation.

You see, coming here and making blanket statements about a group you label a particular way, to make a point with the women *here*, just doesn't quite work.

Back to the topic of my allegiance to the queer community; I can still be fired from my job just for being gay. ...

Well, not anywhere in Canada you can't. Not fired, not denied housing, not denied marriage, not denied spousal benefits under private insurance plans, not denied adoption, not denied immigration sponsorship or inheritance or next-of-kin or pension rights or family leave, all whether married or not -- not treated differently in any other way in the public or private sectors based on this irrelevant distinction. And that's how it should be, and that's what my political party has fought for, and that's what I've always maintained. Cripes, one of my very first posts ever at DU (which makes it over a decade ago) was to challenge a view I couldn't believe I was seeing at a progressive website: that landlords have property rights that should enable them to refuse to rent housing to whomever they like; I think that case involved an unmarried heterosexual couple, but obviously I challenged the idea that such discrimination could be practised on any irrelevant personal characteristic, which sexual orientation is in that situation. Couldn't believe my eyes.

I know you don't live up here in socialist Utopia. At DU, I support people seeking changes like that, and like universal healthcare, for instance. I know you still don't have rights. If feminists don't support that struggle, well, I wouldn't call them feminists. I don't know that they can be expected to take it on directly though, is the thing. Like women being the driving force behind abolition in the US, and so many other social and political causes -- and always leaving their own (or being told to leave their own) aside: there are women's issues that are equally important, just different. And that do affect you as a lesbian woman.

I'm referred to more often as a dyke than a bitch.

Here at DU? I doubt that. I think you're protected from that here, no? But women haven't been protected from being called bitches ... and you don't object? Not sure what you're saying. Would other feminists here not object to lesbians being called dykes??

Until the gay part of me gets the same rights as the woman part of me, then my allegiance to the gay community stands.

It does not compute. Or at least it does not address the issues at hand here.

Certainly it is understandable that you would focus on the violations you experience of the most basic rights. But how does that call for denigrating women who focus on issues of greater concern to them? Say, male intimate partner violence against women. Maybe you don't want to devote your scarce time and energy to that; no problem for me. Neither do I, as it happens. Choices have to be made. But I admire advocates in that field, just as I do advocates in the cause of your own that you cite.

That isn't a question of allegiance. It isn't an either/or in terms of analysis or mutual support or mutual respect. It's just a question of choice, given scarce resources. There's no conflict between public/private sector equality for GLBT people and protecting women from male partner violence, or working for workplace equality for women, for example, ideologically or philosophically. Has someone suggested to you that there is?

For example, as a lesbian woman, not only could I get underpaid for being a woman but at some places I may not even get a job or get fired for being a lesbian (as I stated above). Because of that, I'm going to view the world differently and form different opinions on things and it's going to make my feminism different.

But again, what are these differences? You undoubtedly view the world as even more hostile than some other women do. (As a victim of a life-threatening sexual assault, I view it as pretty damned hostile, I can tell you!) But why project those problems onto other feminists, which is what we see happening? A fuck you, we have our own problems and yours can go to hell attitude. I've said before: feminists are not the oppressors. Why the hostility to us?

What is the actual conflict between the two sets of issues here?

I agree with La Lioness Priyanka that it may be better to have a diverse group of hosts only because diversity in thought (as is there diversity in feminism) is a good thing and it brings different perspectives to discussion.

I'm going to have to stick to my position that I will need to see a nominee who has NOT engaged in dismissive or abusive behaviour toward feminists at this website in order to agree to the nomination, myself.

Neither you nor Priyanka meets that criterion, in my personal books.

Anyone who wants to contend that I or any other nominee also fails in that regard is of course welcome to present the reasons - in the form of things like actual quotations, not allegations.

[Gormy Cuss]

63. Okay then. Let me be the first.

You have exhibited in this thread and others in this forum such a blatant intolerance of different POVs that I do not think you would be able to host this forum in a manner that encourages open discussion of feminist views across theories and generations.

[seabeyond]

70. gormy? can you find any posts where this other side (since i have been put on a side i dont want)

has put forth any effort for a back and forth interaction to understand what is being said.

other than a stone wall, and blatant demands, i am hearing nothing from the lbgt community in working together.

[Gormy Cuss]

77. seabeyond, I've argued repeatedly over the first bullet point because I believe it was and is

a reaction to flame wars between different members of this community (both the Feminists group and DU at large.) Iverglas linked to the douchebag war, which is the most epic example of this. I contend that the first bullet can be modified to be less divisive and still allow conversations from different perspectives here in a civil manner.

What I'm hearing from Pri and justiceischeap is that asking them to divorce their LGBT identities from the argument is too much and I agree. It would be like asking you or I to respond to economic arguments without drawing on our perspective as women.

It seems to be that none of us want to have an SoP so open that it allows for raging, off-topic feuds but we do want to hear, digest, and debate issues from accepted feminist POVs (accepted as in academia includes them as feminist thought) rather than just sticking to the orthodoxy we personally accept. As I wrote somewhere else in this giant discussion, I'm baffled by many non 2nd wave feminist positions but I'm willing to hear the case in favor of them. I'm also straight but have had enough GLBT friends to know that I don't get it from their perspective on a number of issues unless and until we've had thoughtful discussions.

That's why I think our SoP needs to exhibit broad tolerance and our hosts should be those we trust to interpret the SoP in that spirit. Let me be clear though: if the group chooses to go with an SoP that I don't think is sufficiently inclusive I understand that I'm the one who needs to leave the group.

[iverglas]

88. what you're hearing ...

What I'm hearing from Pri and justiceischeap is that asking them to divorce their LGBT identities from the argument is too much and I agree.

... is nobody asking them to do anything of the sort.

What I'm hearing is them saying they place their interests re those identities above the interests of women -- and I have been trying to figure out what the hell that means and having no success whatsoever.

I have absolutely no clue where they see divergences or conflicts, and what would then prompt them to privilege one over the other.

There is no conflict whatsoever, not a stitch of an iota of conflict, between working to advance the formal equality interests of the GLBT community and any element of a feminist agenda, or analysis, or ideology, or philosophy. And that's the only thing I've got so far.


It seems to be that none of us want to have an SoP so open that it allows for raging, off-topic feuds but we do want to hear, digest, and debate issues from accepted feminist POVs (accepted as in academia includes them as feminist thought) rather than just sticking to the orthodoxy we personally accept.

WHAT orthodoxy? What are we talking about????

I have no clue. I simply have no clue.

All I have is the very, very strong feeling that we are talking about the same old tired thing without naming it: that "we" are not sex-positive, and they are, and so our objections to prostitution and pornography and objectification in all its forms are bad and we are to be dismissed. And denigrated in public whenever possible.

The people posting here have attacked several of us in public repeatedly, not least this week. What on earth do they expect us to be doing? Not asking why??

I have never, ever seen an effort from that "side" to engage on those issues - to listen, to acknowledge legitimacy. I have seen organized attacks and that is all. Maybe I missed something.

I was perfectly happy with the forum muddling along with random topics of conversation. None of the LBGT group seemed the slightest bit interested in joining in then, and I don't recall anything being said or to them up until now. What brought this on now? I think it's clear. They didn't succeed in attacking other feminists in public and then going off to their private place and continuing the attack and not getting called on any of it. Suddenly they want to join in all the reindeer games.

Has Priyanka answered seabeyond's question about the reason for the unprovoked attack on her in the beauty pageant thread? Having had numerous opportunities to do that? I'll have to go have a look again.

Shall I stay or shall I go? I've never "gone" at DU, just wandered off for a few weeks or months when I got bored or annoyed enough. Then wandered back in for the same reasons. The pattern will likely continue.

[Gormy Cuss]

93. What you're hearing is not what was said.

It's what you feel is being said, it's what you feel is the real subject, etc.

All I have is the very, very strong feeling that we are talking about the same old tired thing without naming it: that "we" are not sex-positive,...

That hasn't been said yet in any thread under DU3. If it comes up, we can deal with it directly. I believe the porn/prude clause in the proposed SoP is intended to give guidance there.

None of the LBGT group seemed the slightest bit interested in joining in then, and I don't recall anything being said or to them up until now.

I believe it was Priyanka who started the first thread asking about whether we were going to assign a host and that was sometime ago. I don't know who else has been posting or subscribed here who also is a member of that group but I would guess there are a few more who overlap.

Pri's interactions with seabeyond outside of this group should be assessed by juries. That's the DU3 way to handle it. Once there are hosts assigned here, seabeyond or any other one of us can make the case that Pri is too disruptive for the group and the group can decide to block her.

[iverglas]

101. let's not be disingenuous

Pri's interactions with seabeyond outside of this group should be assessed by juries.

And others' interactions with me. That's why they're here. They weren't here before and they're here now. Quelle coincidence.

My Supreme Court makes bad decisions sometimes. I can name one really, really bad important one this decade. The juries at DU make decisions. Imagine how impressed I am with 75% of them. At least when you have a real judge/jury, you know who they are, you know what the offence you're charged with is, you know what law creates that offence, you have the right to be heard, and you generally have a right of appeal. What we have at DU are kangaroo juries. I believe I am not the only holder of that opinion.

This is of no relevance to what is going on here. It is a pattern of behaviour, but there have been specific examples demonstrating that pattern offered. You made an allegation against me with nothing to back it up. I find that disappointing.

It's absolutely fascinating to me that raising feminist concerns in the LGBT group would be automatically rejected, but raising LGBT concerns in the Feminists group should be automatically welcomed. I am NOT saying they should not be here. NOT saying that. Just saying how fascinated I am.

My blocking from the LGBT group was not a result of one post. I was not wanted, since a long time ago, and that was a result of a campaign of vilification against quite a number of women, and the odd man with. I just happen to be the only one of the targets of that campaign who didn't get it, and wandered over to LGBT occasionally to share some news or some such, and then wonder vaguely about the complete lack of response, but Canadians are used to that from USAmericans, so never thought much about it.

I believe it was Priyanka who started the first thread asking about whether we were going to assign a host and that was sometime ago.

Yeah. Interesting, that.

However, I have NOT said anything about anyone, anyone at all, being "too disruptive for the group", and I very much hope you weren't implying I was.

The subject was hosts, and to my mind, the two people in question are not suited because of their improper attacks on long-time members of this group.

That isn't a matter for a jury to decide. It is discussion of who the best choices are for hosts of this group.

[seabeyond]

90. i ahev to agree with iverglas. you guys are saying that lioness has issues. i dont get what they

are either. there was a thread where i tried to understand and i was soundly put down for my effort. i too have not seen anyone go after anyone.

and now it is an issue. and i am with iverglas saying wtf. as i listen to her being attacked

not getting it either.

and it all seems to be stemming from the pageant thread.

and if that is the issue, if that is the problem, should that be addressed? or let it go adn work together.

it is feeling like this has become a forum war. forum battle. not a womans issue.

[justiceischeap]

95. Thank you for getting what I was saying.

I thought I had said it clearly. I read it and reread before posting because I wanted to make sure no one could take in personally or the wrong way.

I've lurked in the feminist group for some time (Both here and DU2) and it wasn't until recently that I started feeling comfortable dipping my toe in the water. I'll be honest and say my toe isn't enjoying the waters much because it fears being bitten off. It's bad enough to worry about how I'll be treated as a lesbian in my real life but to then have to worry how I'll be treated in this group because I may disagree with someone may be a bit too much for me.

Any way, thanks for understanding and clarifying my point.

[seabeyond]

96. how do you want it worded so you are comfortable with you. i want your whole body in, not just a

toe. exact working you would like to see

[justiceischeap]

97. I posted it in the thread you started.

I just took the stuff out about gender, class, etc. I think it's obvious this group is about feminism but I think gender, class, etc. make up a woman's view of her world and may be germaine to discussions that come up.

[iverglas]

84. uh huh

And that amounts to something other than a bald assertion ... how?

I am blatantly intolerant of BEING ATTACKED.

Forgive me, I have sinned.

[Lisa D]

64. Question

You said:

"I'm going to have to stick to my position that I will need to see a nominee who has NOT engaged in dismissive or abusive behaviour toward feminists at this website in order to agree to the nomination, myself.

Neither you nor Priyanka meets that criterion, in my personal books."

If you become a host and believe that the two people you mentioned above have "engaged in dismissive or abusive behaviour toward feminists", does this mean that you would block them from the Feminists group?

[iverglas]

92. me personally

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lisa D]

94. Thank you for your answer.

I appreciate it.

[justiceischeap]

80. It seems you're angry with me

That's the point I'm getting from the first part of your reply. Fine, be angry. The whole rant before saying "I'm not really at all concerned about what you, as the person who wrote those posts and that message, have to say." totally proves this sentence false. I've explained myself about that situation, I'm not going to go over it again because it isn't germaine to the SOP or host discussion in this thread.

Were any of them me? Do you have one single shred of basis for lumping me in with these alleged persons -- or anyone else in this group or at this site? If not: so what?

So what? You're going to dismiss something the feminist community did to the lesbian community out of hand. Not taking into consideration that it may well effect people that may participate in this site or this group? Also, not everything is about you iverglas.

I don't know, that just sounds dumb to me. Certainly, as a lesbian, you won't share some of the "personal is political" issues of straight women. Certainly, I hope you don't disparage women who do have those issues. I'd want to know a whole lot more about this allegation.

You see, coming here and making blanket statements about a group you label a particular way, to make a point with the women *here*, just doesn't quite work.

None of what I stated in my comment ever said that my personal experiences had anything to do with DU. I live my life outside of DU. Just because you think it's dumb that feminists have told me, to my face, that because of my lesbianism I can't be a feminist doesn't make it any less true or any less sexist but it's happened. I can't provide a link to a personal conversation but I can convey MY experience with these kinds of feminists.

But women haven't been protected from being called bitches ... and you don't object?

As part of explaining how being a lesbian feminist forms my point of view, you ignore that and go on to ask whether or not I object to women being called bitches. Which, I do, but that wasn't the point. Just because I may not be referred to as a dyke on DU, doesn't mean it doesn't happen outside DU and, again, form my point of view.

I've said before: feminists are not the oppressors. Why the hostility to us?

The only hostility I'm seeing is coming from you, frankly. No one said feminists were the oppressors and you kinda make it sound as though I've implied or stated that. Lioness made a statement that she'd put the queer community first and you seem to take offense to that and question whether she could be a host of the feminist group because she puts the queer community first. IMO, that says nothing about how she would handle hosting duties in this group if chosen.

It does not compute. Or at least it does not address the issues at hand here.

It goes toward explaining why a lesbian feminist would have allegiance to the queer community first. You can't compute because you don't experience an additional level of discrimination unless you're a lesbian. Which would explain why I may have a different point of view on feminism than you might. That was the whole point of making sure the SOP is inclusive.

But again, what are these differences?

I think I stated the differences in my post. Lesbians experience an additional level of discrimination (in the US anyway, I can't speak to Canada) based on our sexual orientation and a look or having people no longer talk to you can't really be explained other than saying we experience an additional level of discrimination that forms our worldview.

I'm going to have to stick to my position that I will need to see a nominee who has NOT engaged in dismissive or abusive behaviour toward feminists at this website in order to agree to the nomination, myself.

Neither you nor Priyanka meets that criterion, in my personal books.

I never once stated that I wanted to be a host or even suggested hosting, nor would I. As far as your being a host, I put your post in reply to my comment as proof that you aren't fit to be a host. Instead of 'defending' Lioness or my opinion that there can be different viewpoints on feminism you've actually argued that we aren't fit to host the community because we didn't stand up in your defense in another thread. You've denied my experiences or called them dumb.

Instead of trying to see what I'm saying, you've taken my comment personally when it wasn't directed to you but the community as a whole.

[iverglas]

98. there we go

You've chosen to ascribe an emotion to me right off the bat rather than acknowledge that I said something.

I think this sort of thing may actually come from the c1970 days of second-wave feminism ...

I wasn't a good touchy-feely feminist. You may not be surprised that in the other forum where I post regularly, where most posters are men, and in all the places on the internet where I am hated with a white hot passion as a result of that posting (and I'm not ascribing that emotion; they state it), I am assumed by virtually every comer to be a man on first contact. I don't deal in emotions much.

The whole rant before saying "I'm not really at all concerned about what you, as the person who wrote those posts and that message, have to say." totally proves this sentence false.

Very civil. Very civil. What I wrote was a "rant" and it disproves my statement that I am not concerned about your "comment on all this back & forth".

Did you seriously not follow that? I thought it was pretty clear that I was not concerned about your opinion in this thread because you are someone who behaved as you did in the LGBT group.

So what? You're going to dismiss something the feminist community did to the lesbian community out of hand. Not taking into consideration that it may well effect people that may participate in this site or this group? Also, not everything is about you iverglas.

You see, here's where I am always torn between thinking someone really believes what they said, and thinking they're just saying it for effect, and not knowing which is worse.

So what -- in the context of this discussion obviously. What does the behaviour of some people I've never heard of, three or four decades ago, have to do with what we are being told in this thread, which does have to do with me?

If it affects people who may participate here, like you, how? In what way, that it would result in them privileging the interests of their other identity group or groups over the interests of women? Hold a grudge against those women all you want. What does it have to do with anyone here?

Hell, tell us about it. Tell us how it made you feel, how it affected your life, how it affected your community, teach us something. If you don't think it's your job to teach (and I, for one, would not really fault you for that), consider sharing it with us. Get pissy with anybody who doesn't respond as you think is appropriate. I have no problem with pissy. As long as it is honest.

But don't come here laying blame and insinuating and disparaging and dismissing. (And I speak to a nebulous collective you here.)

Just because you think it's dumb that feminists have told me, to my face, that because of my lesbianism I can't be a feminist doesn't make it any less true or any less sexist but it's happened.

I should have realized that was going to come off unclear. I meant that what you described other people as doing sounded dumb on their part.

I've lived a fairly sheltered feminist life -- in a medium-sized city in Canada, we just tended to get on with the job, and also, nationally, the job in general has tended to be the "liberal" aspects -- which can be criticized, but it does mean that we have secured all the rights you have not yet got. Women's equality rights in the Constitution. No criminal restrictions on access to abortion. Equality rights, period, in the constitution. Equality rights extended to gay men and lesbians. (I don't know whether anybody's tried to discriminate against a trans person or any other member of your community yet, but if they did, it wouldn't work.) Loads of benefits for women: parental leave covered by unemployment insurance (in addition to short-term actual maternity leave, a year to be divided by the parents as they see fit -- including adoptive parents, and including same-sex parents); pension rights for same-sex partners (years and years ago). In my field, a large proportion of the public service workforce is gay and lesbian; my old boss years ago and her partner, both in the same organization, are; one of the handful of people I was brought in to train at odd times was; my current partner on a long-term contract we're sharing, at my invitation, is; several of the people working directly with Parliament are. And that's just of the not too many whom I know personally. Although I've never met my current partner in real life since he's way far away; the internet is grand.

We had a federally-funded thing called the Court Challenges Program, up until the new right-wing government killed it a few years ago. It paid for constitutional challenges to rights violations by governments. It covered a lot of GLBT issues, up to and including same-sex marriage. The program funded challenges by any group covered by the prohibition on discrimination, which includes the ground of sexual orientation, by the interpretation of the Supreme Court quite a while back.

So my experience is totally outside yours. There were some lesbian-straight conflicts, yes, but I was not involved and I couldn't really tell you much what they were about. Not a great admission, but there I was, working on my own end of things, much as you say you are. I've actually been far more active in tenant rights, immigrant rights and international solidarity than I have in formal feminist stuff.

Your experience still doesn't speak of anyone here, or justify any mistreatment of anyone here. And there has been mistreatment, from your "side". Whether there has been mistreatment in the other direction -- I have never seen any. Dissent is not mistreatment.

Are you more sensitive to dissent than others might be? Than me, no doubt. But because of your experiences, do you feel dissent as mistreatment? Say so. Get clarification.

You can't compute because you don't experience an additional level of discrimination unless you're a lesbian. Which would explain why I may have a different point of view on feminism than you might. That was the whole point of making sure the SOP is inclusive.

And I am still waiting for someone to tell me what that different pov might be, and how it might stem from these other identities. Could we not cut the meta-discussion and cut to the chase?

I think I stated the differences in my post. Lesbians experience an additional level of discrimination (in the US anyway, I can't speak to Canada) based on our sexual orientation and a look or having people no longer talk to you can't really be explained other than saying we experience an additional level of discrimination that forms our worldview.

But it does not say anything about anyone else here. And that's the issue. Not whether your issues should be discussed here as encompassed by feminist issues (that would be up for discussion, I suppose, based on what they were and how they were to be discussed). But why there is this prima facie hostility to other feminists, flowing from your "side". I'm not hostile you you or your issues or your concerns; I'm hostile when I'm attacked without cause.

Instead of 'defending' Lioness or my opinion that there can be different viewpoints on feminism you've actually argued that we aren't fit to host the community because we didn't stand up in your defense in another thread.

No, I didn't. You both participated in the attacks, and the "you" in question was not just me, let's remember. And I can't imagine why someone who has attacked members of this group in other forums would consider hosting this group. Would that happen in the LBGT group?

If your worldview really is so coloured by bad experiences that you can't see other feminists and what they say for what they actually are, rather than for what you for some reason expect or want them to be, well, don't know what to say. Spend some more time reading here, maybe, standing back a little farther.

For pity's sake, I have no idea why I would want to narrow the discussion to only one branch or version or subset of feminism. I'd have to rule myself out if that progressed too far (and of course in a much more sophisticated way than I'd expect to see here! -- no offence to those who are more sophisticated in this area than I).

I am simply one of many who has had too much of being attacked, and not engaged.

[justiceischeap]

99. "I am simply one of many who has had too much of being attacked, and not engaged."

There is NO engaging you! If anyone tries engaging you, it becomes an attack so I give up. Several people were able to read my comment, no one chastised me for "attacking you" in any way or pointed out that I was attacking anyone for that matter. You seem to be intentionally not comprehending wait I've tried to say so, I'm gonna guess this is why I'M NOT engaging you.

I will try and find my feminist education and discussion elsewhere. Everyone else, good luck!

[Lisa D]

100. Please don't leave.

I find your input both valuable and educational.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

111. thank you for writing out what i was too busy too

and dont necessarily have time to as my access here is limited

[seabeyond]

87. do we need to start fresh with a new thread and put this one behind. someone type the SOP,

in question, in an acceptable manner and put this stuff behind and get on with it?

what think you

[iverglas]

112. there are some who need to spend an hour reading this thread

along with the old DU threads linked in it.

Of course, then they wouldn't have the plausible deniability covering for their ass anymore.

[iverglas]

113. oops! look what my mailbox gave me as I posted that last

Last edited Wed Feb 8, 2012, 03:34 PM - Edit history (2)

And in less than a half hour, the surveillance team picks it up! --
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11374629#post15

(I went looking there originally only because I knew what I would find, following on yesterday, you see.)


At Wed Feb 8, 2012, 12:48 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

If you're referring to a certain Canadian...


REASON FOR ALERT:

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


YOUR COMMENTS:

"If you're referring to a certain Canadian...
...that one is simply a vicious, toxic personality."

Okay, the group is protected and gets to discuss its *issues* as it chooses.

Does this really, really include discussing other *another DUer* using language like this? -- one whose identity is known to everybody in the group, and anybody outside it who has the slightest knowledge of recent events -- and who is identified by nationality, moreover?

Can one hope not?


JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Wed Feb 8, 2012, 01:10 PM, and voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: The poster should alert on the DU'er he's sniping at directly, and NEVER take pot shots at fellow DU'ers. This is a personal attack, nothing else. DU'er needs to try this again, the right way.

Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: Disruptive call out. Counter-intuitive, perhaps, but restraint might be the better way out of this conflict.

Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I don't have a clue who might be the one indicated in the post. People need to butt out of the groups and stop trying to run them from the outside.

Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

At least it's nice to see at least two people who are still operating out of goodwill and in good faith.

But the message is clear, isn't it?

No one in the LGBT even commented negatively on that post, let alone alerted on it for the vile personal attack it was. (Note that the poster in question is a Guns forum regular, the attack via my nationality being a standard in that forum, and posted in this group yesterday in the most inappropriate way ... and yet was not attacked, or even banned from the group ... as more than one host did think would be appropriate ...)

That group will do as it fucking well pleases, to whom it fucking well pleases, and its victims can go fuck themselves.

And will just keep on pretending and denying when called on its behaviour.

But hey ... maybe the surveillance team will heed that last comment:

"People need to butt out of the groups and stop trying to run them from the outside."

Okay, maybe that juror was practising telling jokes with a straight face.


But anyhow, the surveillance team has seen this thread, so I guess we won't be hearing any more of the denials and false allegations we've been hearing.

[Violet_Crumble]

114. This isn't helping things...

For the record, I've got no problems with the LGBT group, hope they have no problem with me, and know that just like any other group at DU, it's got one or two nasty types who fling personal attacks at others, but I see no reason at all to hold their behaviour against the entire group....

I think posting jury results like that in this group is inflaming the situation, and that's not what's needed. I'd like to see any issues resolved and see everyone get on...

[iverglas]

115. really? then how about this one?

About three hours ago. In a thread I can't post in.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/124041878#post227

Jamastiene
Response to iverglas (Reply #36)

Wed Feb 8, 2012, 04:36 PM
227. The phrase "pearl clutching" is another anti-gay slur that you use continually.

You even used it in this very thread. Just admit you are against gay people and be done with it. That is all there is to this. You just hate the GLBT community of DU. Plain and simple. We know it and there is not a damn thing we can do about it other than keep you out of our forum. Sorry you cannot come into the GLBT forum and call us names any more, but you just can't. Get over it and move on. Your petty rampage against us has gone on long enough now. It is getting to the point of being childish at this point.

It's false. The whole lot of it. It is so false that I can't picture somebody saying it out loud without their tongue falling out and their nose hitting the moon. It is so false that the word false just doesn't do it justice, but I have a limited vocabulary, you see.

WE ALL KNOW that "pearl-clutching" is a dismissive right-wing meme used against people who are concerned about some aspect of the public welfare. I have had it used against me by misogynists at this site repeatedly. Has it been used somewhere in the world against somebody in the LGBT community? I wouldn't know. DU is the only place I've ever seen it personally, and I find it staggeringly dumb and rude.

Here's what I actually said in that thread, about an earlier post by the now PPRed poster:

The point was obviously that Women's Rights and Issues was not a "special interest" or "minority interest" in that poster's opinion. The laughable outcome was that a lesbian using the word "queer" as her community uses it had her post deleted as a result. Now there's some pearl-cluthing for ya.

Hell, I can't even spell it right. And anybody who doesn't know that the term was being used as a sarcastic echo of the people who use it to dismiss and silence just isn't paying attention, or is trying hard to preserve plausible deniability.

I doubt that it was even an LGBT person who alerted on the post where she used the word queer.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113811

I am being attacked, repeatedly and dishonestly, around this website. Outright falsehoods are being posted, probably as we speak, to discredit me and this group. Anybody think it might stop if I died tonight? Don't delude yourselves, if so. Unless you actually are willing to fall down and play dead.

Anyone who dares to voice the opinion that women's interests do not always and entirely coincide with the interests of the LGBT community will be a target for the rest of time here. Another Miss California thread will come along, and unless you do all fall down and play dead, it will happen all over again.

Women to the back of the bus, if they aren't being thrown under it.


Have you taken the time to look, VC?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113811

Do you see anyone in that thread objecting even mildly to the 100% shit being flung?

No. The tone is purely congratulatory.

That group is NOT the real-world LGBT community, and does NOT represent any members of that community that I know and have known. NOTHING I have said at DU has been said about anyone or anything outside of DU. And nothing being said about me at DU contains even the seed of a pearl of truth.

Do I want to be refuting every false filthy thing said about me at this website?

I actually do have better things to do with my time. But I really do hold civil discourse in high esteem. There is no civility without honesty, and as long as words that are not honest are permitted here, there is no possibility of civil discourse.

[iverglas]

116. unbelievable; beyond belief

At Wed Feb 8, 2012, 08:33 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

I'm amazed only one person got nuked in that thread

Prism
203. I'm amazed only one person got nuked in that thread

Not only is it full of open, almost celebratory transphobia, but it is drenched in a heavy anti-lesbian vibe. Some regular posters do just about everything except outright refer to many DU lesbians as a marauding group of male-identified bull dykes - they just heavily intimate it in their language.

Am I the only one who read that thread and wondered how tombstones weren't aflyin'?

Ridiculous.

What a bunch of fucking bigots we have here.

The reason for the alert was:

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

You added the following comments:

"What a bunch of fucking bigots we have here."

The reference is to members of the Feminists group at DU, posting in a thread in the Feminists group's forum. That is plain from the post; the subject of the OP is a post in that exact thread.

The fact that it is not a remotely accurate characterization of the discussion in that group is not relevant.

What matters is that it has never been acceptable for DU members to call other DUers, individually or by broad-brush smears, "bigots". That principle has been upheld by juries at DU3 and most DUers hope to see it maintained. Thank you.


A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this post at Wed Feb 8, 2012, 04:12 AM, and voted 1-5 to keep it.

Thank you.

(i.e. the decision had been made on an earlier alert. I assumed no one had alerted because it didn't occur to me that someone had and the post had been allowed to stand.)


Where are these community standards?

When did it become acceptable for any user of this website to refer to a group at this website as "a bunch of fucking bigots"?

Why would any other user saying that about any other person or group here have had that post hidden by a jury, but this one stands, 1-5 no less?

Where is this let's all get along spirit?

These are not expressions of any desire for discourse that I am seeing here.

They are something very different, and we could all think of 10 words in 10 seconds to describe them.

[CreekDog]

117. Where is this "let's all get along spirit"? How ironic you've forgotten what thread this is.

You invite many women to take their concerns elsewhere because they're related to gender or orientation, and now, having done and defended that, you are seriously asking to be treated with respect here?

Would you like to be treated with more respect than you afforded to the others whose opinions you not only disagree with, but don't even want discussed in this forum?

How well would you like to be treated by the people you are trying to silence here?

ps-one final thought:

You should be calling a spade a shovel. This is not complicated. If you don't want to be called a bigot, you can stop saying things that bigots say and that's one of them.

[Violet_Crumble]

118. Are you serious? I use the phrase 'to call a spade a spade' all the time...

If anyone wants to call me a bigot because of that, or think that accusations of bigotry against me are justified because of it, they can knock themselves out, coz my care factor would be zero...

Nothing justifies the lies I've seen being spread about iverglas. I'd like to think if people found me so intimidating that my mere presence in a group is translated by them as them being silenced, they wouldn't stoop to spreading disgusting and untrue rumours about me round DU, both publicly and by PM...

[iverglas]

121. I'm damned if I can find it now

(oops, that was meant as a reply to Creekdog ... and I'm wondering where I've seen that name before in this forum ... have I? Or did someone come here for no reason but to attack this group? Hmmmmmm.)

but last night I saw a short exchange about me and that "pearl-clutching" thing. I had said sarcastically, about the jury decision to hide the post in the Women's Rights forum in which the lesbian poster used the word "queer", that it was pearl-clutching.

Someone has pronounced that this was bigoted of me because I KNOW that the term originated in something or other having to do with the LGBT community and some person named Rick Warren.

Well, here's a clue. Oops, they already have it. I'm Canadian.

I've never heard of Rick Warren. I have no idea who Rick Warren is. Further, I don't really give a shit who Rick Warren is.

I have been accused of "pearl-clutching" by the would-be silencers in the Guns forum, who use demeaning language to chill any discussion of using firearms policy to protect the public.

That's where I've seen the term used. And that's about the only place I've seen it used. I've never heard the term in Canada. Maybe it's because we tend not to tolerate demagoguery the way people tolerate it (and engage in it) south of the border.

So, sorry, folks. That's just another failed attempt at character assassination.

But hey, don't let that put a damper on your little efforts.

[CreekDog]

131. Is it that important to you to use the phrase "call a spade a spade"?

the term has a history, it has racial connotations.

isn't that enough for you?

you fully admit your ignorance on the term and it's history in the US, but you're still defending its use?

look if you are unable to accept feedback on using the "spade" phase, then we'll never get through to you on anything.

[seabeyond]

134. there is NO racial connotation in the term. YOU are creating one. but that is not the facts. nt

[tammywammy]

141. Actually spade is a racist slur used against black people.

Though there is debate about if there are racial connotations to the phrase 'calling a spade a spade'.

There have been a few threads in DU2 regarding the phrase.

[redqueen]

142. And "to call a spade a spade" has nothing to do with that usage.

As the vast majority of people are aware.

Apparently creekdog is ignoring me, but if you would be so kind as to find one example of someone on DU who took offense to that non-racist phrase as if it was racist simply because it had the word 'spade' in it that'd be great.

[tammywammy]

148. I've updated my post.

There were a few threads on DU2 discussing the phrase. Some do consider it a racist phrase.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&biw=480&bih=208&q=site%3Ademocraticunderground.com+racist+calling+a+spade+a+spade&oq=site%3Ademocraticunderground.com+racist+calling+a+spade+a+spade&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=11252l12799l0l14113l7l7l0l0l0l0l578l578l5-1l1l0&mvs=0

[redqueen]

153. One person.

Might be a good idea to read the things you're linking to.

One person was laboring under the delusion that the phrase itself is racist.

It could be argued that the person writing a letter about Obama and using the phrase was likely using it to get a racist dog-whistle type dig in, but the phrase used in its other way, no...

Like I said, one person thought it was a racist phrase. Every other person was aware of the reality that the phrase is in no way related to the racist usage of the term. Thanks for proving that it's not a racist phrase.

[tammywammy]

155. There was a much longer thread years ago on the phrase

I don't have the ability to hunt it down right now. It was enough that I do remember it happening and it stuck with me.

I've only stated that the phrase is considered by some here to be racist. It's like the phrase tar baby, there's always a discussion regarding the connotation of it. Now, personally I don't think 'calling a spade a spade' is racist, especially in the way iverglas used it.

Edited to add: since this was brought up in this subthread, I also believe bitch and cunt shouldn't be allowed on DU.

[redqueen]

156. I don't think it's racist the way she said it, either...

but I do see how it could be (like that letter-writer).

I do agree with your point that there is always the risk that someone could find it offensive due to the possible connotation of the word 'spade'... however I think we should be careful about being too US-centric, because although this is a board about US politics, it is also frequented by many people from other countries, and many people outside the US really don't have an awareness of all the terms that are considered to have a racist connotation here.

Also I'm really glad to be reminded that you consider anti-woman slurs to be just as offensive as any other kind.

[tammywammy]

160. I will also say that

I also don't use the phrase 'pearl clutching' and didn't realize that some members of the LGBT community at DU feel it's a slam on them. Once I read that it was due to issues around Rick Warren I could see what they're saying. I usually only see that phrase used in the 'normal' way here, as in a sexual prude or uptight. I just take that view point as just another reason to not use that phrase.

[seabeyond]

157. tar baby is and has always been, hands down, a racist term derived as a derogatory

comment to blacks.

i dont see how that could be in question at all. one can google to make sure. i did. always knew it was a racist term

[seabeyond]

144. yes. it is. that is why i didnt use it. and then i did research on spade for spade because of

conversations on du. there is NO connection between the racist and a shovel.

that is fact

i have also said repeatedly on du that i wont use that term because some people are confused on the issue. out of respect. kinda gal i am.

[tammywammy]

150. Yes, there are people on DU that say the phrase is racist.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&biw=480&bih=208&q=site%3Ademocraticunderground.com+racist+calling+a+spade+a+spade&oq=site%3Ademocraticunderground.com+racist+calling+a+spade+a+spade&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=11252l12799l0l14113l7l7l0l0l0l0l578l578l5-1l1l0&mvs=0

[seabeyond]

152. yet FACT would argue what some people think. but, i recognize we have had this discussion on our

board in the past. even recently. as i have put in my posts here and in the posts on bitch. i have discussed it often. i am well aware of the issue. like i said.

[redqueen]

139. What are your thoughts on the words "cunt" and "bitch"?

Just curious.

Do you call people out when they use them, as you're doing here?

Have you contributed to any of the many discussions of the slurs in H&M or elsewhere?

[CreekDog]

158. yes i've called out name-calling in all kinds of forms

i've alerted and called out posts for being anti woman.

i've been a regular PITA to admins and moderators (when we had them) on posts that i felt disrespected, stereotyped or denegrated women.

next?

[iverglas]

140. I'm sorry, but the notion that "call a spade a spade"

has any history other than real history, and has any racial connotations, is just to weirdo to even try to reply to.

It is enough for me that I speak English, that English is my language, that I will speak English as it is spoken where I live and where the vast majority of the English-speaking world lives, and that I will not be ordered around by a particular bunch of people with oddball ideas that have no application outside their own culture and are not even remotely reasonable within their own culture.

I have never admitted my ignorance on the expression and its history in the US, because there is no such fucking history to be aware of. I have certainly seen people bleat about other people using the expression, but that means no more to me than someone bleating about a mother dog being called a bitch.


Now, as I mentioned, I'm not around the computer most of today, but if any other host wishes to show you the exit door from this forum, given that you have not come here to participate in any discussions relevant to the forum, I will not object.

[iverglas]

178. and now in other news ... well they ain't gonna have iverglas to kick around for a while!

But if they try, they might just get a taste of



because that's what I'll have handy for the foreseeable future.

Covering up approximately this (this is what a fibula looks like when it belongs to a very clumsy person):



temporarily, while I await the call from the "walking wounded" office (ha, very funny) with an appointment for surgery to put the plate and screws in, sometime in the next few days. Then I'll be laid up for a month.

Yes, I spent 8 hours loitering around the ER getting xrayed and poked and ignored yesterday, and a big old cast is all I got for my troubles. But hell, all the bones I've broken in my life, and I've spent three months in traction, but I've never had a cast, so it's a thrilling new experience. Actually, the thought of 6 weeks in a state of loss of autonomy is depressing as hell, but whaddaya do.

I'm supposed to be languishing on my fainting couch with the vapours (brought on by drugs of course) at this very moment, so I'm gonna go do that. Star Trek reruns, here I come.

[Scout]

179. oh no! i hope you get better quickly.

i've been lucky never to have broken a bone (knock wood).

i hope you have some really good drugs

[Whoa_Nelly]

187. Why lie? Your photo is jacked from the Internet

http://www.allfacebook.com/facebook-april-fools-2011-03

[LeftyMom]

188. Have you ever broke your stock photo?

It hurts like hell, but the recovery is a lot faster if you borrow a tweenage boy's leg.

[Whoa_Nelly]

189. .............

[justiceischeap]

127. Depending on where you live, yes, "to call a spade a spade" would have racial overtones

in Missouri and possibly other states (southern) african-american's are referred to as "spades" and it's not a compliment.

[seabeyond]

132. we understand. if you will google the saying, you would know that spade for spade was established

way before the term spade was used on blacks. we have had this discussion often on du. and i repeatedly used it on the "bitch" threads along with niggardly. another word that has nothing to do with blacks. repeatedly i said that thought nggardly is a favorite word, and has nothing to do with blacks, i dont use the word anymore because so many people THINK it has something to do with blacks. and i dont use spade a spade because SOME people take it the wrong way.

BUT.... the term has NO racial conotation to accuse someone as a bigot if they use that is offensive.

[Violet_Crumble]

171. Well, it's a common turn of phrase here in Australia and has been for ages...

Also in Canada and many other places. I'll file that one away with the objection I once saw to me using the phrase 'beyond the pale'

[iverglas]

119. well why don't you tell me?

Where is that "let's get along" spirit?

Can you direct me to something I have actually said that warrants any of this shit from the sources in question?

Can you justify any of the allegations you have just made?

It's called copy and paste. I'm sure you know how to do it.

I'm not asking to be treated "with more respect", or well, or any other way. I don't give a crap about being respected by people I will now never respect.

I'm stating that lying about other users of this website is intolerable.

Would you like to be treated with more respect than you afforded to the others whose opinions you not only disagree with, but don't even want discussed in this forum?

C'mon, copy and paste. I'm sure you can find something that backs up these allegations.

The members of this group chose not to have attacks on them posted in this forum.

So the attacks are being posted elsewhere.

Who's doing the dividing here, hm? Looks like they're being pretty successful, don't it?

If you don't want to be called a bigot, you can stop saying things that bigots say and that's one of them.

What's this "that", friend?

Pretty strange little word salad you've got there.



edit

... You're not serious, are you? "You should be calling a spade a shovel." You're seriously saying that "call a spade a spade" is something bigots say? I'm surrounded by ...

How about: what you have just said is something that bigots say. You seem to think that people who do not reside in the US should alter OUR language to comply with some totally off the wall fucking bizarrro notion somebody in the US has come up with about how WE should talk.

I'm going to be spending the day doing some household moving stuff, which will involve clearing some spades out of my garage. There will be some shovels there too. Perhaps you are aware that there is a difference. If I started calling my spades shovels, I'd be an idiot.

[iverglas]

123. ha,yeah

Let's see 'em all go into the Guns forum and tell the gang there that they're being homophobic when they call decent people pearl clutchers.




Cripes, if anybody needs real targets for eliminating homophobia at this website, they don't actually have far to look.

Imagine focusing all that energy on the natural and real allies in the women's movement when there is so much real work to be done ...

Kinda makes one figure there's an agenda, doesn't it?

[ellisonz]

176. +1

It was used this tonight in the Gungeon, I alerted on it as misogynist and the jury let it stand 1-5. I looked it up and it seems the primary connotation is misogyny with a subtext of transphobia that is really a sorta you really have to be in the know. This article doesn't turn up at all in the DU search engine and so I am going to go ahead and post it in GD because I found some of the responses to be very disappointing: let the term rot - http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002292298

A Plague of Pearl Clutching
How clutch the pearls became a lady blogosphere cliché.

By Torie Bosch|Posted Friday, Jan. 20, 2012,

Unless you’re former First Lady Barbara Bush, pearls may not be in style. But accusing people of clutching them is.

The phrase pearl clutching, which means being shocked by something once-salacious that should now be seen as commonplace, like sex, is ubiquitous on blog posts, especially in media geared towards women. For instance, a recent post on Jezebel called Girl Land author Caitlin Flanagan a “professional pearl clutcher.” Less than two hours later, another Jezebel writer called a sexy Calvin Klein ad “sure to inspire pearl-clutch-y local news stories across the nation.” The feminist website Feministe used the phrase in a blog post about privilege and oppression; another feminist website, Tiger Beatdown, used it to deride a Wall Street Journal writer who was panicking about the subject matter of YA novels. But the phrase isn’t just used in the lady blogosophere: A Washington Post columnist wrote dismissively last week about the “pearl-clutching that hippies’ parents did in the 1960s.” Basically, a writer who discusses pearl-clutching is saying, “I’m too blasé and worldly to be shocked by this.”

“Clutch the pearls” first appeared on In Living Color in the show’s 1990 debut season in an April 15 “Men on Films” sketch. After Blaine Edwards (played by Damon Wayans) waxes about how “daring” producers were to cast a male actor as the “female” lead in Dangerous Liaisons, his sidekick Antoine Merriweather tells him that Glenn Close is actually a woman, prompting Blaine to gasp, “Clutch the pearls!” The sarcastic phrase and its many permutations existed prior to In Living Color, of course; for instance, “she clutches her pearls” appeared in a 1987 article in an Australian newspaper about ladies who lunch. But it was the “Men on …” sketches that brought the phrase into widespread, albeit sometimes too literal, use in the early ‘90s, appearing, for example, in a couple of Billboard album reviews as well as a Newsday piece about—who else?—Barbara Bush’s jewelry in 1993.
Advertisement

Judging from the instances of “clutch the pearls” and “pearl clutching” that I found in a Nexis search, the expression showed up only periodically through about 2004, almost always as a pun about wealthy women and literal pearls. Take a 2000 episode of World News Tonight in which co-anchor Alison Stewart said there was “a lot of pearl-clutching going on” in the high-end auction business following accusations of criminal price-fixing. The expression then went largely dormant. There are only 16 Google results for “pearl clutching” between Jan. 1, 2000, and Jan. 1, 2004, though it did appear in a 2003 academic work called Speaking in Queer Tongues: Globalization and Gay Language.

More: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/01/pearl_clutching_how_the_phrase_became_a_feminist_blog_clich_.html

[iverglas]

177. thanks for that! (nt)

[ellisonz]

180. You're welcome.

Thank you for being you!

[CreekDog]

124. disagreeing with Iverglas is breaking the rules of the forum?

i see how it is.

[seabeyond]

125. calling her a bigot for saying spade a spade. the hostility of your post. false claims

that this is a thread showing the shut down of diverse views, is against the rules.

no, i dont think you see how it is.

are you going to be confrontational in other protected groups? dare ya. double dare ya. double dog dare ya. lets see it done and see if the people of the forum is like, 10x's more hostile than what you received here. what you find is poeple challenging misrepresentation, reminding you of rules, and calling out your accusations of bigotry, respectfully and honestly.

what we have not found with your posts is you actually addressing what is posted to you.

how often do you use the word pearl clutcher? how often have you called out people that use pearl clutcher? how much of the replies in this thread did you read, before your accusations made to a member?

where is your responsibility? or do you have none?

[Scout]

126. you see NOTHING beyond the nose on your face, and i'm not too sure about that.

NO ONE SAID "disagreeing" with iverglas is breaking the rules.

[CreekDog]

128. for taking iverglas to task over what many call a racial slur

and for taking her to task over advocating exclusion has earned me accusations of breaking the rules.

so while nobody *said* it's against the rules to disagree with iverglas, it's plain to see that was the only thing I did.

[redqueen]

135. Who calls that a racial slur?

Seriously, who?

Can you find me even *one* DUer who thinks that's actually a racial slur?

And no, you didn't just disagree with someone, you repeated this idiotic notion that some people aren't welcome in this forum.

What happened was there was a beauty pageant, and some people just could. not. fucking. stand. that the fact that she was gay didn't trump that she was participating in patriarchy-embracing and patriarchy-enabling bullshit.

What resulted was that it was put forward that in this forum, feminist concerns come first. That's it. That's all. Hopefully there will be a Diversity or Intersectionality group soon and that way people who want to put porn stars and strippers and prostitutes on a pedestal of feminist empowerfulness can do so without the threat of anyone disagreeing with them. Apparently having even a handful of people sullying a thread intended to celebrate beauty pageant contestants (no, sorry, a contestant, just the femme one, not the butch one of course, cause ... well, patriarchy) simply because they're gay is just intolerable and a major problem.

[iverglas]

143. y'know actually

The original issue in the beauty pageant thread was that a number of heterosexual men were rating the contestant in question on her looks, on the old one to ten scale. That was the only reason I saw the thread: I was summoned to jury duty on the first post where that was done.

That was the real issue in the thread. Several feminists objected to the way the thread had gone, and not a single one of the lesbian-beauty-contestant boosters had a word to say to any of the creeps engaging in that behaviour.

I finally just couldn't stay silent on the comments about somebody whose "beauty" was so obviously collagen-enhanced ... still not saying a word about the individual herself, only about the reaction to her looks ... but that was enough of an opening for one of the usual suspects to wedge their dishonest accusations into and parade around ...

That thread was sullied beyond repair long before any feminists got to it.

[redqueen]

146. Oh right, good point. I missed the start of it.

I still don't see how it justifies thinking that just because she (the pretty contestant, not the other gay one, cause, yeah) is a lesbian, that anyone who finds beauty pageants objectionable should STFU / move to the back of the bus (again).

[seabeyond]

151. another point. not about objectionable pageant because every person that had issue stated FIRST

they are not condoning pageants, they know pageants objectify, not into pageants......

so it is not even that we disagreed on what a pageant is. though i dont htink many of us even addressed the issue of pageant.

we had issue with men putting numbers on a woman

i know that was my only issue.

[redqueen]

154. Ha yes, I'm probably the only one who is so militant about that stuff.

[seabeyond]

147. we have defended four gay WOMEN and we have been attacked for each one.

being accused of anti gay.

that is what is trippy for me.

[CreekDog]

161. Well I am one person (but I guess you're saying my opinion doesn't count as your ONE DUer)

But nevermind that, it's so easy to answer your questions, I will do just that:

But be aware: From now on, you can't act incredulous that the phase "call a spade a spade" or use of the word "spade" is considered a racial slur. Why not? Because before your question, you could claim ignorance that anyone saw it that way, but you cannot any longer. So, if the issue comes up again and you pretend not to have heard anybody complain that it's a slur, then you're being dishonest.

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


And a wikipedia entry:

The phrase predates the use of the word "spade" as an ethnic slur against African Americans, which was not recorded until 1928; however, in contemporary U.S. society, the idiom is often avoided due to potential confusion with the slur.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_call_a_spade_a_spade

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

Here are the 5 DUers I'm quoting who call it a slur --there are MANY more and you only asked for one.

Here's 1

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2493232&mesg_id=2493237

Here's 2

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7992753&mesg_id=7992830

Here's 3

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4759261&mesg_id=4760821

Here's 4

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=2181015&mesg_id=2181042

Here's 5

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2630040&mesg_id=2630685

(there are more...)

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

[redqueen]

164. Are you fucking serious?

First of all, stop conflating the word "spade" with the PHRASE "call a spade a spade". That will help lots, thanks.

Second of all ... your list?

#1 was the one I referred to.
#2 is referring to the word, not the phrase
#3 is referring to the word, not the phrase
#4 seems to be referring to the word 'jigaboo'
#5 seems to be referring to the phrase 'tar baby'

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears to me that you didn't prove jack shit. All you did was back up my initial assertion that ONE person at DU at one time apparently labored under the delusion that the phrase "call a spade a spade" is racist.

[CreekDog]

165. The use of the word and/or the specific term is unwise

and you seem more animated that i dared raise this question with the person who used it than any other issue.

priorities.

[redqueen]

166. The use is problematic, I already agreed elsewhere about that...

I also said that if someone isn't from the US they might not have that background (not saying for sure that they don't, but that it might be cause to question them about the use rather than accuse them of being a bigot right off the bat).

[CreekDog]

167. I didn't call that poster a bigot --nope.

I said if you don't want to be called one, don't say that phrase.

And for the record, I don't think that poster is one.

[redqueen]

169. Oh yes, that's right... that's you not knowing the context - again.

That poster was referring to a post elsewhere, in which Feminists were slurred as being a "bunch of fucking bigots" for not knowing the latest lingo and ins and outs about trans politics.

Seriously this shit is ridiculous.

What happens when people make anti trans slurs? Immediate alert, immediate ban. (And I'll give you $10 if you can find me THREE WHOLE DUERS who regularly participate in this forum who had the slightest inkling about what "gynergy vampires" were or "male-identified lesbians" either... I was under the impression they might be lesbians who think calling women bitches and cunts is awesome, or butch lesbians... fuck I don't know... the point is the bigotry against them is not blindingly obvious like 'bitch' and 'cunt' are, at least not to most people who regularly participate in this group.)

What happens when they make anti-woman slurs? Huge discussions, lots of 'pearl clutching' accusations, and everyone gets to say 'bitch' and 'cunt' as much as they care to, because juries are like that.

Can you please tell me why feminists should be expected to put up with being told feminist concerns should come second in this group, especially in the light of all this other crap going on?

I mean in the grand scheme of things it's meaningless... it's one discussion board among many. But it's the principle of the thing that gets to me.

[redqueen]

168. And ah yes, priorities. I ignored this part because it is patently untrue.

"You invite many women to take their concerns elsewhere because they're related to gender or orientation"

That is simply not true.

What was said is that feminist concerns come first in this group. That's it.

No one ever said that they should take those concerns elsewhere, just that they don't trump feminist ones. And this being, you know, the Feminist forum, I don't see how that's all that hard to understand.

Now I want to go back and see how all this bullshit started. I know it was between Lioness and iverglas, but I don't know why it suddenly became such a huge fucking issue to have to state that feminist concerns come second, and if anyone disagrees they're an anti-gay bigot.

[Vanje]

170. +1 !

[Violet_Crumble]

172. No, but turning up just to have a go at a member of this group sure is...

Correct me if I've missed yr contributions to this group on feminist issues, because I'd be really interested to see them if they exist

[CreekDog]

129. i never used the term "Pearl Clutcher"

and i would be happy to be a scold to someone who did.

i argue against stereotypes on DU all the time.

and who are you? you are the person lecturing me about the rules who addressed me and others with "fucking bigots".

apparently you believe the rules apply to others and not yourself and being a host, you have the power to enforce that.

[seabeyond]

130. ummm..... you really did not read iverglas's posts before going into your rant and criticism?

why am i not surprised.

[CreekDog]

133. well i quoted her other posts

i also discussed the things she keeps saying.

so your charge is totally made up, but perhaps in service of your fantasy has some utility.

[seabeyond]

136. pearlclutcher, post 115. fuckin bigots by prism, post 116. misrepresented

you did not quote. you misrepresented and made false accusations about iverglas's other posts.

[CreekDog]

162. I read them, I did not *memorize* them

and the quoting is so inconsistent, it's pretty unclear when she's responding to a epithet or delivering one.

[seabeyond]

163. you didnt address the accusation of bigotry with pearl clutching. you didnt address the people in

this forum being accused of "fuckin bigotry" and you interpretation (not quote) of what iverglas said was incorrect in other regards.

that is the issues we have in this forum creekdog.

no more or less.

this forum, this thread specifically shows we are not a forum to exclude. we work hard to be inclusive, listen and compromise. you totally misrepresented our action for nefarious reason. that is wrong.

[iverglas]

122. something I'd also just like to point out

is that by having a post of mine deleted in boston bean's thread in this forum, the alerter had me blocked from posting in that thread.

The alert was malicious in more ways than one.

[CreekDog]

138. You're saying you have never used the "alert" function?

or are you saying that you had malice when you did so?

[iverglas]

145. are you saying that you don't tell the truth

or are you saying that your nose is very long?

You've heard of false dichotomies, I imagine?

I think it is time for you to take a bow and exit stage right.

[seabeyond]

149. do you have any intention of participating for the group according to the group's stated purpose

it is important in every group forum. if you cannot, then you will have to be banned from this group. you are welcome to participate, as long as you follow the rules. we have patiently discussed this with you, and you are showing an unwillingness to participate per the rules. this is your choice.

[CreekDog]

159. of course I am following the rules and as host, if this discussion is against them

why are you peppering me with questions that continue it?

am i mistaken when i think that a discussion on the terms that two hosts have started and continued is against the rules for me to participate in?

[Violet_Crumble]

173. Point me to the rule that says it's okay to appear out of the blue and abuse a member of this group.

Is that somewhere in the small print I haven't read?

Personally, I think the hosts have every right to block you from this group, as you don't appear willing or able to partipate in a constructive manner, and the last thing we need right now is more flame-wars...

Have a lovely day!

[CreekDog]

174. need a quote of what you're talking about.

also a quote from the rules that shows the quote of my writing here is in violation of.

[Violet_Crumble]

175. Here ya go...

I do this novel thing when I'm replying to posts. I read what's said and address it. So the quote yr looking for is right here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1139740#post159

When it comes to these rules, yr going to have to show me where they are. Am I wrong in thinking that safe havens aren't places for people to turn up trying to stir up trouble with members of whatever group it is? And that hosts who are very patient can get sick of anyone who makes it clear they're in a group to disrupt and block them?

btw, you must have missed the question I asked you upthread. Could you point me to yr contributions to this group that involve discussing feminism? Y'know, feminism, the thing that just about everyone in this group wants to get back to discussing?