Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Feminists

Showing Original Post only (View all)

justiceischeap

(14,040 posts)
Thu Feb 16, 2012, 06:05 AM Feb 2012

My thoughts on Neoma's actions (as if they matter at all) [View all]

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

Special Elections:
If everyone would take a moment and take a few deep breaths and think of this from a non-emotional place by silence or agreement, you "elected" Neoma as main host when Redqueen quit. She points this out very clearly in posts #15, #18, #21, #23, & #24. At that time not one member of the group disagreed with this decision. So to claim now that she somehow "grabbed" or "usurped" her position is disingenuous at best--one person made that decision for the group. And instead of being angry at the person who made this decision for the ENTIRE group, a lot of you have opened up a can of whoop ass on Neoma when your silence tacitly screamed your approval. She then makes a decision to block iverglas from the group, and again, she made a very clear case as to why she did this (and I will go on the record as supporting that decision 1000%). For the brief 24hrs that block was in place, there was, finally, a harmony among the group--people were actually talking and listening about why transphobic comments were bad; there was no over-the-top defensiveness and it seemed like we could all breathe for a moment and amazingly, there were no tired claims of vengeance or vendetta's. That's when a small few of you decided that Neoma was no longer allowed to be the main host that you did indeed elect.

Some of us suggested we wait a few days and calm down, Redqueen agreed with this sentiment but a day later, it was decided this "election" must happen with iverglas leading the charge that Neoma MUST resign. For all appearances sake, for those of us who pay attention to this sort of thing, it looked like iverglas had a personal beef with Neoma for blocking her and the perception is that something happened behind the scenes because suddenly a special election is called for. Yet, 24hrs earlier, not a peep from one of you. It wasn't until Redqueen actually unblocked iverglas that talk of special elections were held. Then there is some question about whether or not Redqueen acted on her own (which she says she did but seabeyond denies -- I'd like that bit cleared up) to unblock iverglas. If she did act on her own, then people should be DEMANDING that she resign as host as well. You cannot have that double-standard, folks. Where is the fairness in that to Neoma?

Some of us asked that the elections be held longer than three days, but nope, can't do that. I believe I read a comment that said if we waited longer, it'd only give Neoma time to rally her crew. And woe be the person that publicly supports Neoma (so much for a safe community for all--to me, at this point, it's really only a safe community for a few and it certainly isn't safe for Neoma or anyone who supports her but I know for a lot of you, her actions of removing all the other hosts will never be forgiven).

So it was decided by some of you that "we" must get her out now. Some of the members of this group only come on this site on weekends, keep that in mind. Basically, what irks me, is that some of you are making a decision for them just like the decision was made for you to make Neoma main host to begin with. Again, I ask, where is the fairness in all this for all the members of the group?

You're Fired!
Let me just paste the group SOP below (emphasis mine):

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


What I want to ask the former group of hosts is the following--why after this hateful rant from iverglas aimed at the LGBTQ community and LGBTQ members of this group was action not taken to make this a safe place for ALL (and I'm not talking about some jury decision to simply hide a truly hateful post)? I didn't see one host condemn her comments and I didn't see one member of this group condemn those comments either.

And again, I have to ask, why would LGBTQ members NOT feel uncomfortable after reading that and not having our hosts take action? It took an almost all-out flame war for some of you to believe us when we told you that some comments were transphobic. It took non-hosts to ferret out the fact that the very person you had initially defended, was in fact, a sock puppet. Yet, somehow, again, it's our fault according to one.

I've been talking all week since the sock-puppet debacle about appearances and perceptions... they matter. If they didn't I would never once have to write the above paragraph.

And I'd like to ask another question that hasn't been answered satisfactorily by the person y'all want as your main host again: Why is it in the "election" thread, the only two people iverglas decided to "engage" with just happen to be the two lesbian's she doesn't feel are worthy to host this group? Redqueen asked for people to state what makes them uncomfortable, several people reply. I am the only one iverglas takes to "task" for answering Requeen's question though a couple other's answered as well. Again, how am I supposed to perceive that and trust the hosts will do something about it, even after it's pointed out to them? Am I being too "sensitive?"

Another example, I'd like to point out: When someone suggests that a member from the LGBTQ community be considered as a host, so everyone in the feminists group has a voice, once again, one person objects to this, and if I recall that post is hidden as well. Which, then becomes a "vendetta" by the LGBTQ to target her. If she can't see that these words are wrong but a jury can, then that's a problem. Just the fact that she would have a problem with someone from the LGBTQ representing other LGBTQ feminists on this board should have been dealt with by the hosts.

So I am formally asking the following: When we get the whole hosting situation figured out, please do something about this. Some of us have told you numerous times that we are uncomfortable in this group because of iverglas' comments. I'm sure this will be perceived as a call-out but I'm just finally answering the questions she always hounds me to answer.

Neoma: A Few Suggestions
If you're going to lock threads, at least let people know why you're locking them. Again, it's all about perceptions. You're looking a bit tyrannical.

Second, if you have proof this move was sanctioned by the admins, meaning it's not just an interpretation of the rules, please post it. This would go a long way to bolster your claims and make you appear less... tyrannical.

Hosts:
Maybe this group needs a time out from hosts for a while and let the juries handle any situations that may arise. This would certainly keep a lot of the finger pointing in check.

If you decide to go ahead with choosing hosts, I think Mineral Man made some great suggestions in this thread on how to do it.

The End is Nigh
I only got the courage to start posting in this group about a month ago. A friend of mine, her quote is my signature line, started engaging me about feminism and I thought I'd like to learn more and maybe participate in this group. I was reading through the group host/statement of purpose thread when I came across La Lioness Priyanka's comment about feeling the SOP may be a bit exclusionary. I read the ensuing sub-thread and made the biggest mistake of my DU life, I replied to iverglas. It's a decision I regret to this very day because her reply to my, what I thought was a well-reasoned post, was to have something that happened in the LGBT group brought up (this is after the hosts over there decided to block her--which I had no part in other than driving while gay, apparently). After that was thrown out there, she then decided to reply to the actual post. No, "Hey, how ya doing? Welcome to the group," for me, just jumped on with both feet and a sledgehammer--not once have I really been welcomed to this group. What I hoped would be a learning experience has been ruined by a tired grudge, attempts to bully, claimed ignorance by the hosts, it's quite turning me off the whole feminism thing to be honest--if this is what I am to judge it by, and again, it's all about appearances, then I don't judge feminism worthy of me. I am a better person than some of the crap that has been going on around here.

And with that I bid adieu!

P.S., I don't care to read rationalizations--any time the points above are brought up, that's all there seem to be, is people rationalizing what's been going on.

Good solid answers at this point would be welcome.

P.S.S: To Jury members, I really am not calling any one out, I'm trying to get some questions answered honestly and I'm making the claim that one specific person is the apex of this problem. There are more than enough links provided to see what I'm saying is indeed the truth.
73 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
You are wrong in your third paragraph boston bean Feb 2012 #1
It's nice to know those are the only facts you dispute. justiceischeap Feb 2012 #2
No, that is one I know for a fact that is wrong. boston bean Feb 2012 #4
Did I once link to anything you said? justiceischeap Feb 2012 #7
Hello, I wrote the post, calling for the new election. boston bean Feb 2012 #10
this is where the problem arises. you can now say this forever more and it will still come back to seabeyond Feb 2012 #11
To both Boston Bean and Seabeyond justiceischeap Feb 2012 #14
we had an election just a month ago. it stayed open for a couple weeks. redqueen was elected hands seabeyond Feb 2012 #15
I'm aware of all of this sea justiceischeap Feb 2012 #17
yes. see how wrong i was. seabeyond Feb 2012 #18
What about what Neoma has done? boston bean Feb 2012 #19
Wow, do you even know my name? justiceischeap Feb 2012 #23
No, I am not angry, boston bean Feb 2012 #24
I've not knowingly attributed anything to you but anger justiceischeap Feb 2012 #26
What you are saying here was said in the post, but the reasoning was different than boston bean Feb 2012 #16
What you seem to be missing is I made two separate statements about the elections justiceischeap Feb 2012 #20
I try to go to the source of a problem boston bean Feb 2012 #21
Or we can look at the other side of the penny justiceischeap Feb 2012 #25
She is locking threads. She has that power. boston bean Feb 2012 #28
Darnit! You caught me... justiceischeap Feb 2012 #29
The distrust of her was made clear by members of the group. boston bean Feb 2012 #30
you cannot just create a story that there was lack of trust, without some kind of reasoning for seabeyond Feb 2012 #31
I'm not the one creating narratives justiceischeap Feb 2012 #32
And I am stating the fact boston bean Feb 2012 #34
i could say the moon is blue, that is why i.... there was no reasons for her not to trust us seabeyond Feb 2012 #35
Here is one possible reason for that distrust Lisa D Feb 2012 #33
Seems to me that neoma boston bean Feb 2012 #36
I don't read it the same way. Lisa D Feb 2012 #40
that post that she was so right about was hidden by a jury. boston bean Feb 2012 #44
I'm talking about the post Lisa D Feb 2012 #51
me too, I am talking about the post off site. boston bean Feb 2012 #53
we had a number of members and host suggest trickster get blocked. he has a number of seabeyond Feb 2012 #37
I think there's enough unreasonableness to go around justiceischeap Feb 2012 #41
I never said you were unreasonable Lisa D Feb 2012 #42
if she refuses to adhere to SoP, if she refuses to listen to co hosts and members, if she suggests seabeyond Feb 2012 #45
When did she refuse to adhere to the SOP? Lisa D Feb 2012 #58
i agree with iverglas' post that you quoted. Scout Feb 2012 #39
So iverglas gets to decide Lisa D Feb 2012 #46
No a jury decided to. boston bean Feb 2012 #47
Well, if we're basing whether or not Lisa D Feb 2012 #56
No, that is not true and not what I implied or said. boston bean Feb 2012 #57
And I'm not saying I necessarily agree Lisa D Feb 2012 #59
Who cares. she said it in confidence to the host herself. boston bean Feb 2012 #60
It wasn't in confidence Lisa D Feb 2012 #62
And she has taken unilateral actions. boston bean Feb 2012 #64
And I ask again. Lisa D Feb 2012 #65
to keep on discussing. not go behind their backs boston bean Feb 2012 #67
So what I hear you saying is... justiceischeap Feb 2012 #66
neoma unilaterally removed a co-host and blocked her from the group. boston bean Feb 2012 #68
She's said it a few times now. Specifically used the term unilaterally justiceischeap Feb 2012 #69
whatever, it doesn't make neoma's actions boston bean Feb 2012 #70
I believe I've said that justiceischeap Feb 2012 #71
I don't recall you asking me that.. boston bean Feb 2012 #72
That's okay, there's been a lot of back and forth justiceischeap Feb 2012 #73
backtracking is never fun snooper2 Feb 2012 #38
It's a little known fact - but "calling out" people is not against the TOS in DU3 kdmorris Feb 2012 #3
Thank you for welcoming me justiceischeap Feb 2012 #5
one of my sins, per neoma, is i quoted a poster that called us "fucking bigots". jury allowed seabeyond Feb 2012 #6
Is this for kdmorris or me? justiceischeap Feb 2012 #8
poster said no name calling, calling out allowed. yes, i was speaking to kdmorris. nt seabeyond Feb 2012 #9
It's not because you disagree with me, Seabeyond kdmorris Feb 2012 #12
because i disagree with you, or others i am feeding the flames. yet, for people that hold a seabeyond Feb 2012 #13
"cannot allow anyone to fabricate a story for personal gains" kdmorris Feb 2012 #22
this would be an example of what i am talking about. "i have not tied my star to anyone." seabeyond Feb 2012 #27
Sigh.. kdmorris Feb 2012 #43
you will hear me correct nontruths. in you perception that is defending her. in mine, seabeyond Feb 2012 #48
Would you like me to post links to the offsite group hosts forum? kdmorris Feb 2012 #49
i am not running away from wht was posted on the site. i am stating, your interpretation seabeyond Feb 2012 #50
Emphasis Mine kdmorris Feb 2012 #54
sea, when I state the iverglas seems to have an issue with LGBT group justiceischeap Feb 2012 #52
yes... i think you both have an issue with each other. equally. nt seabeyond Feb 2012 #55
I've openly admitted I have an issue with her justiceischeap Feb 2012 #61
justiceischeap William769 Feb 2012 #63
Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»Feminists»My thoughts on Neoma's ac...»Reply #0