One in three women suffers violence, WHO global study finds

[malaise]

WHO research reveals shocking extent of attacks on women, the vast majority of which are carried out by male partners
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jun/20/one-in-three-women-suffers-violence
<snip>

More than a third of all women worldwide – 35.6% – will experience physical or sexual violence in their lifetime, usually from a male partner, according to the first comprehensive study of its kind from the World Health Organisation (WHO).

The report reveals the shocking extent of attacks on women from the men with whom they share their lives, with 30% of women being attacked by partners. It also finds that a large proportion of murders of women – 38% – are carried out by intimate partners.

"These findings send a powerful message that violence against women is a global health problem of epidemic proportions," said Dr Margaret Chan, director general of the WHO. "We also see that the world's health systems can and must do more for women who experience violence."
--------------------------
Frightening indeed!

[niyad]

1. k and r--and waiting for the usual suspects

[Bonobo]

2. What typically happens in these threads...

Is that someone points out that more men are victims of violence, murder, jail, war, etc...

And then YOU say, "But it is other men that do that to them"

But I can never understand why it matters that the person doing the violence has the same genitalia as the victim.

It is almost as if you are blaming the victim. Male victims are not really victims because they both have penises?

It's well...kinda weird.

[niyad]

5. as has been pointed out before, there is nothing stopping you or any of the others so

concerned with male on male violence, to post threads on that subject. nice try at the usual deflection, though. promulgating arguments you say others are going to make, and then answering these unmade statements.

[Bonobo]

7. If you don't want a deflection, I invite you to lay off the snarky invitation.

You asked for the usual suspects.

AND you, of course, have no answer for the glaring fact that you blame male victims because they share the same genitalia as their attackers.

[niyad]

8. again, nice try. as I said, YOU can post about your chosen subject. AND, you do not put words

in my mouth, because I never said any such thing about male on male violence. but keep trying, someone might actually believe you. remdi95

[Bonobo]

10. Uh oh! You broke out the remdi95!

Actually I can post about my chosen subject wherever I like -and I will.

[BainsBane]

41. Why does it matter?

It only matters if one thinks women's lives have value. You never pass up an opportunity to demonstrate your view on that. You could read the report to get a clue about how it's different for women, but that would require giving a damn. Cue: goes back to his safe space to whine about how horrible it is for men to be subject to reports about endemic abuse and rape of women by their partners.

[BainsBane]

14. It takes a particular kind of person to respond to this kind of news

by completely ignoring the serious world health and human rights concerns in order to make it all about oneself. Is it really to much to expect people to be able to care about something other than themselves?

[niyad]

17. the response, of course, does not surprise any of us. goddess forfend we should discuss issues

of interest to women.

[BainsBane]

18. Me either

but I said it anyway.

[hfojvt]

34. no usually the title or the OP will make it about themself.

the OP will not just say "one in three women experiences violence" is will often include some disparaging remark about men. "WTF is wrong with men?" or some such blanket attack.

At which point, it is about them, at least a little. And that somebody replies on that does not make it ALL about them. Maybe they care about opposing bigotry against groups. Maybe they care about injecting a little bit of reality into an otherwise black and white discussion. It's possible anyway.

[BainsBane]

35. How awful for you to have to endure such abuse

So much worse that what the WHO report documents.

[niyad]

37. or maybe some men just cannot stand for women to talk about themselves for even a mnute.

one can, of course, simply ignore those threads which annoy one. "injecting a little bit of reality into an otherwise black and white discussion"? I just LOVE the assumption that, without certain input, the discussion is not based in reality. but then, that sort of assumption is not exactly new, is it?

[BainsBane]

42. Reality = women's lives don't count

[hfojvt]

58. sure that's what I am trying to say

I mean, I spent yesterday at my niece's wedding and today hanging out at my sister's house with my nieces, my three sisters, my mom, my aunt, my cousin and her two young daughters, and some guys too, because I believe that women's lives don't count.

[niyad]

59. just because you spend time with the women of your family does not indicate that you care

about the lives of women in general. your constant, dismissive attitude shows that. tell yourself whatever you like, what you post here on du tells us something very different.

[hfojvt]

74. perhaps logic 101 would tell you something different

if A then B
not B
therefore not A

in this case A is "women's lives do not matter"

Since, my nieces. my sisters, my mom, my aunt are all women (except the niece who is only 12) then that would imply

B "my nieces', my sisters', my mom's lives do not matter"

B is false, therefore Not B.

therefore A is false as well, or Not A.

Irregardless of what you think you read in my post.

If I am dismissive of anything, it is not of the real problems that women face, it is of this "sex war" frame of "females = victims" and "men = oppressors". Yes, I do reject that. I think the real conflict in our society is not men vs. women, it is more like "all vs. all". It's women vs. women, women vs. men, men vs. women and men vs. men. To pretend that only one of those battles is happening, to narrow your focus to just one thing, and want to exclude all other concerns, is, in my view, not true to the real world. It is not so much, "what about the men?" as it is "what about the big picture?" To look at the big picture is not to dismiss any victim, it is to include all victims. To include male victims does not mean that "female victims do not matter" or "male victims are more important than female victims", it is simply to say that "male victims should matter too".

[niyad]

75. as we keep pointing out, you are free to post about male victims as much as you like. the fact

that there is this constant whine about women talking about violence against women, without, quel horror, talking about the men, indicates that that is the real problem. women talking about themselves.

but keep trying. we all understand exactly what is going on.

[hfojvt]

76. am I also free to not have you boss me around

I am free to start a thread if I choose (and what happens to a thread i start on almost ANY topic?)

In the same way, I am also free to NOT start a thread if I so choose.

The fact that I (quelle horror) choose to post in threads that others have started (and thus keep them alive and on the front page (again quelle horror) to disagree with things I think are wrong or narrow-minded, seems to me one of the purposes of a discussion board - for people to discuss.

And I may note, that I have NOT said anything in this thread about violence against men, EXCEPT in the context of a meta-discussion that was started by somebody else who said "why do some people always do X?"

Of course, that was meant to be a rhetorical question that "we all understand" the answer to - because they are sexist pigs with some kind of personal defect (whether that defect is intellectual, emotional, or some combination of every defect known to humanity). Except I proposed a different answer.

In fact, before ANYBODY "whined" about men, somebody else made a post about them. "Waiting for the usual suspects to show up and start whining about men" and then some people who felt they were being talked about, called out, and disparaged actually DID show up to talk about a subject that SOMEBODY ELSE had introduced.

Which sorta proves my theory, some men show up to talk about men, ONLY AFTER some OTHER people FIRST show up to BASH men, or even just to BASH the men who always show up to defend themselves after they have been bashed.

[niyad]

79. bossing you around? that is one of the funniest things I have heard today. pointing out that

you are free to start a thread on a topic of your choosing is "bossing you around"?? wow.

but, keep trying. I really need the laughs.

[MadrasT]

46. "or maybe some men just cannot stand for women to talk about themselves for even a minute"

^^^ THIS ^^^

Every. Single. Fucking. Time.

"BUT WHATTABOUT THE MEN!!!!!!"

Like clockwork.

I will not give the time of day to folks who make a habit of this.

It is pure derailing.

[lumberjack_jeff]

52. This is GD.

The thing you're complaining about is exactly why DU has created safe haven groups.

Take advantage of those groups to talk about and among yourselves to your hearts content. But if you come here to lecture the rest of us, you've brought me into the conversation.

[niyad]

60. even the so-called "safe haven" groups are not safe from a certain mindset.

since this is gd, we, of course, are also free to talk to our hearts' contents even here, and free to respond to the predictable commentary. Lecture? no, the ones doing the lecturing are the ones who cannot stand for women's issues to be brought into the light of day. and how interesting that you seem to be implying that women's issues have no business in any but the safe haven groups. I do hope I am wrong about that.
keep trying, though.

[lumberjack_jeff]

51. It's a catch-22. It IS blaming the victim, but since men aren't victims it's okay.

Exactly right.

[Beacool]

3. That doesn't come as a surprise to any woman.

[malaise]

4. Truthfully one in three is a surprise to me

I know women who have been victims of violence but one third of all of us is shocking!

[BainsBane]

15. Truthfully, I thought it would be higher

I've read statistics than 1/3 is for the US, whereas the WHO has the region of the US and Western Europe at closer to 24%. Of course that could be balanced out by lower rates in Europe.

[bunnies]

6. I am the 35.6%

And Im not surprised its that high. sadly.

[malaise]

24. Hope you're an ex-member of the 35.6%

[bunnies]

26. Yes. I am.

It was a long time ago. Thankfully! Took me YEARS to get him completely out of my life though. That bastard.

[BainsBane]

43. So am I

And will never join that 35.6% again.

[hfojvt]

9. okay so I am reading GD and I see this thread

and the thread right below it says

"John Oliver savages Paula Deen"

Makes it more real when you name one of the victims.

[niyad]

19. why are we not surprised?

[hfojvt]

33. who is this "we"?

Is your real name "legion"? Do you represent the Aspersion Society of America when you post? Thanks for injecting a little disdain into my day. Truly, you are a light to the world.

[BainsBane]

44. Add me to the we

[La Lioness Priyanka]

47. umm. that makes no sense. nt

[hfojvt]

57. maybe you had to be there

for me I saw these thread titles together.

"One in three women suffers violence, WHO global study finds"
"John Oliver savages Paula Deen"

The juxtaposition seemed to give an example, right there, of Paula Deen suffering violence.

And although there is certainly nothing funny about people suffering violence, the proximity of those two threads struck me as funny. So I thought I would share that in an attempt to bring some humor to others.

Hopefully some laughed, and doubtless others didn't get it, but it kicks the thread anyway.

Others felt the need, to not only not laugh, but to throw some insults my way.

I guess that demonstrates that they are much better people than I am. Somehow.

[marions ghost]

11. Girls should get self-defense training

in high school or college as a part of the curriculum. I guess that's NA in places where girls don't even get to go to school, but in more enlightened nations.

This could go a long way to helping end this. They need to learn where the line is and how to protect themselves. Too many women are psychologically vulnerable to abuse.

[niyad]

12. NO--girls should get self-defense, martial arts, starting in pre-school. females experience

violence at every age, and the youngest amoung us should also know how to defend themselves.

[marions ghost]

20. OK let's say at least

by the time they get out of high school they should have had self-defense training. I was referring more to the type of violence that women experience as teens or twenties when they begin to get into VOLUNTARY relationships with boys, not when they are preyed upon by pedophiles and child abusers. But you have a point.

[Whisp]

16. Boys and men should get training to not treat women and girls like that. n/t

[niyad]

21. that, too.

[marions ghost]

25. When everything in society tells boys it's OK

I think realistically you are looking more at self-defense as a primary strategy.

But if you have self-defense for boys also, the discussion of what is appropriate behavior & how to control aggression comes up and it could include how to respect girls and women, or "weaker" people in general, including children. I agree, it's not being taught at home by very many families. Too afraid their son will be a wuss.

[redqueen]

22. That does nothing to end it.

That merely enables them to come out of the violent encounter with less serious injuries, maybe.

Treating symptoms is not the way to deal with this.

[marions ghost]

27. It is a primary line of defense

that empowers the vulnerable.

Not only does self-defense training teach how better to handle a violent encounter, it gives women the psychological strength not to make themselves vulnerable in the first place. Self-defense training has positive effects in many aspects of life, including encountering abuse that does not involve physical attack, but which can be just as devastating.

It also sends a message to girls that society has your back and will support you if you are attacked. Self-defense can completely change a person's outlook and self-esteem. Give more confidence and maturity. I'd favor it for boys also.

--I'm not claiming this is the WHOLE answer to the problem--just that it would go far to helping women to NEVER form a victim mentality. I have other ideas too.

[CTyankee]

80. Fine. But shouldn't BOYS get training early on NOT to do the abuse in the first place?

THEY are the ones doing the abuse. Why should just girls get "self-defense training"? I know we have to have it now but it SHOULD be something MALES take care of themselves, not leave it to young girls to fend of attackers on their own!

[marions ghost]

81. Ideally boys would be trained not to abuse

but that is not what is happening generally. I don't think we're going back to the age of chivalry (not that it was so great anyway) anytime soon. Social behavior will need to be re-defined for a new age. Of course I agree that self-defense training is not the ONLY strategy

I think it will take decades, if not centuries, to turn around these sexist predatory attitudes. They are deeply engrained in our society, not to mention even more oppressive cultures. One day this will be history--I'm an optimist about it and believe in fighting against any sort of abuse and exploitation directly and as hard as possible--but the fight is a long one. The reality is that we have to think self-protection at this point in time, for women who voluntarily go out with or marry men but are then abused (not talking about child abuse and pedophiles). I am talking about not being quite so vulnerable.

I have said a couple of times here, that IMO self-defense training is good for everybody. It teaches discipline and self-control, and helps with anger management. But if you were to train girls as a matter of course in basic self-defense (not talking about anything that calls for special athleticism)--it sends a very important message. It sends the message that women are not going to be easily victimized. It sends the message to the girls and to others that --"society has your back." It sends the message that girls can be strong and can set boundaries for themselves--and I mean mentally strong. This is not merely about physical self-defense.

I think many people are misunderstanding my points here. So I guess I'll just have to hang it up. I had hoped to get some supporters but maybe a lot of people don't understand the meaning of self-defense training. It's very empowering in a lot of ways, for anyone who experiences it. I would like to see more girls exposed to it at about middle school age. Statistics tell us that they will encounter
some sort of exploitation or abuse as young women. If boys can be taught to respect girls & women more, that would be great too, but women need to have strategies in case they don't. It would help the whole situation IMO.

This is as clear as I know how to be.

[CTyankee]

82. I'm not against strategies for self defense of anyone, but it seems to me that the offenders should

be taken care of before the victims! Doesn't that make sense? We simply MUST make it clear that abuse is NOT tolerated, and back it up.

And, again, yes, girls should be empowered at any level to get all the self defense strategies they can get. It's just that boys should be trained EARLY that abuse of females is UNACCEPTABLE. That will go a long way to changing "hearts and minds."

If they don't, well, there should be HEAVY penalties!

[marions ghost]

90. I don't see it as either/or

--or one thing before another.

Teaching girls self-defense sends a strong message to boys that may be as, or more effective than lip-service by parents and teachers that is often ignored, especially in a sexist society. It is hard even for good parents, who want to do the right thing by their boys, to overcome the subliminal & not so subliminal messages that tell boys to dominate and even to disrespect girls. It is ingrained in society at every level. Boys of all backgrounds know that it is always better to be a boy....still--that backward idea still persists. The statistics about abuse of women tell them that, if what they actually see doesn't.

All I'm saying is--girls learning self-defense and how to set boundaries with boys--can lower the statistics and is one way toward a better future. If it goes along with training more boys to respect women, that's the best scenario. In societies that are so far down the bad road, women need all the help they can get not to be victimized. Women who have sheltered upbringings are especially vulnerable IMO.

I'm all for heavy penalties. But would rather focus on prevention.

[BainsBane]

13. 85% of them at the hands of a partner

[lumberjack_jeff]

23. I would be curious to know what that figure is for men.

I am also curious to know why no one else is curious.

[bunnies]

28. A percentage is not easy to come by...

but I did find this:

(snip)

Due to cultural norms that require men to present a strong façade and that minimize female-perpetrated abuse (Mooney, 2000; Straus et al, 1997; Sorenson & Taylor, 2005), men are less likely to verbalize fear of any kind.
(snip)

Surveys find that men and women assault one another and strike the first blow at approximately equal rates.
(snip)

Men and women engage in overall comparable levels of abuse and control, such as diminishing the partner’s self-esteem, isolation and jealousy, using children and economic abuse; however, men engage in higher levels of sexual coercion and can more easily intimidate physically.

Halfway down the page: http://dvrc-or.org/domestic/violence/resources/C61/

[bemildred]

30. I'm curious about that too.

I would wager that many if not most men experience harassment and violence too, less of it sexual, and more of it violent. I know I have been subject to both, and I'm 6' 2' 200 lbs and mean looking when I'm pissed.

But it would be interesting to know if it is statistically safer to be a man today, or not. I'd wager that historically the answer is "not", but today I'm not so sure, and you have to consider things like female infanticide which is popular in large parts of the planet.

[Major Nikon]

49. Historically and today the answer is the same

Men are murdered at 3 times the rate of women. Men are also more likely to be the victim of violent crime.

[bemildred]

53. That's what I thought.

Of course most of the time we are killed by other men, not women, but it's not true that just because you are a guy you are protected or lucky in life.

[galileoreloaded]

61. Can't you taste the privilege? Nt

[bemildred]

64. Oh I can see male privilege, it's quite real, I'm pointing out it can get pretty expensive too. nt

[BainsBane]

93. And chickens lay eggs

This report is about domestic violence and rape, which affects high numbers of women and few men. But don't pass up a chance of play victim.

[Major Nikon]

94. Do you not like the answer I gave?

If you have something relevant to offer to refute it, then please do so.

I'm not the one playing the victim. You've already covered that angle quite well.

Just sayin'

[BainsBane]

86. Read the report

Is it really that difficult?

[bemildred]

87. I wasn't that curious. nt

[BainsBane]

88. I didn't think so

but why pass up an opportunity to validate the guys who can't stand the fact women speak in public about issues that concern them?

[bemildred]

89. Quite. nt

[niyad]

38. you could look it up, if you are, indeed, that curious.

[BainsBane]

91. Reading is too much work

besides the real problem is women daring to speak in public about issues that concern them. And here you thought this was the 21st century!

[BainsBane]

48. Most men experience violence outside

the home, while women are mostly beaten, raped, and /or killed by their partners. There are many global reports on violence. I myself regularly post a on gun violence yet I don't recall your participating in those threads. Yet WHO releases a report on endemic violence against women and you swoop it to display outrage after showing zero interest in the many daily threads about gun violence. You all could not be more transparent.

[lumberjack_jeff]

50. a) you're talking to me. Not "you all".

b) I don't participate in the gungeon. The tools of violence are less important than the violence itself.
c) The WHO stats on violence against women include all forms of violence. I find it intriguing, yet unsurprising, that they don't compile and report on the same statistic for men. If they did, I suspect it'd look something like this.



or this

[BainsBane]

54. Silence enables abuse

My threads about guns are in GD and have received hundreds of replies. If you don't care about gun proliferation, you don't care about violence against men.

You could post an OP about violence anytime you want instead of shitting on a thread about violence against women. It's quite obvious you and the other 2 in this thread see women's lives as worthless. Go whine in the men's group about how Persecuted you are for seeing a thread about women. Or just use
trash thread. But it is nauseating
for you to
play this outrage game every time
anyone dares to mention half of the
human race that doesnt include you. As much as you might like us to disappear, we have a right to speak and a right to be free of abuse and rape. So deal with it.
All the men who beat, rape, and kill their
wives doubtless share your outrage that anyone would talk about those crimes.

[lumberjack_jeff]

56. Yes it does.

So here we are, discussing your posts.

Your level of nausea at the topic of victimization of men doesn't appear to change whether the issue is raised in op or reply. So get up off the fainting righteous indignation couch and explain to me why it's a good idea that WHO doesn't measure and report the violent victimization of men.

Preview: if you fall back to your typical rationalization that most victimizers are men, then be aware that this response isn't "sorta" blaming the victim, it's EXACTLY blaming the victim.

Worse, it's blaming the victim based on your stereotypes and factors entirely out of his control; namely the fact that he shares the same style of plumbing as the perpetrator.

[BainsBane]

65. read the report

If you Want to know why WHO committed the atrocity of conducting a report on violence against women, Read the fucking report.
Then you can moan some more about how anyone dared to imagine women's lives have any value. Imagine the nerve to think we are actually human beings.

[lumberjack_jeff]

72. "And with that, she flung herself from the room..."

"flung herself upon her horse and rode madly off in all directions."
― Stephen Leacock (paraphrased)

I know it seems comforting to argue against a statement that you're pretending I made, but it's really a false sense of comfort.

What I asked, twice, is if you think it is appropriate for the WHO (tool of the institutional patriarchy that they are) to not gather data or report on the incidence of violence against men.

Absent that bit of info, the entire premise of the OP has zero context and is thus not useful. Is 35.6% more or less than one would expect? Anecdotally, I'd be surprised that it is that low among men. Pretty much 100% of the men I know have been on the receiving end of violence at some time in their lives.

[BainsBane]

73. Ludicrous assumption

based on willful ignorance. They do gather data about men, which you would know if you bothered to read. You have no interest in the daily threads about violence but become enraged that women dare to speak about their concerns in public. You could always petition Skinner to make GD about men only.

Don't worry about my throwing my self from the room. Blessedly, you and I will NEVER be in the same room. I have no plans to take a trip back to the stone age.

[galileoreloaded]

62. And with this

"If you don't care about gun proliferation, you don't care about violence against men."

...... the train just jumped the logic tracks on its way to "Make Sense Junction".

[BainsBane]

66. I'm not talking to you

Remdi95

[galileoreloaded]

68. clearly, because i deal in logic, and that statement was borderline

Snuffleupagus666

[BainsBane]

69. Borderline?

Then let me make it crystal clear. I despise misogynists. The positivist pretense only makes it worse.

[galileoreloaded]

78. I was referring to Cluster 2 BPD. That statement, and some others, but that one

specifically seem to point in that direction.

Namely the constant reframes and contextual hijacks. I teach folks that when you meet someone who constantly shames and erects barriers in any interaction, run away. They are ill and toxic to the rational mind.

[BainsBane]

83. Your efforts to stigmatize the mentally ill are repulsive

There doubtless are members on this site with BPD, which is a highly treatable disorder, but your using it as an insult further stigmatizes mental illness and makes it less likely for people to seek help. That kind of bigotry is entirely unacceptable.

[galileoreloaded]

92. That's not really what your first response said. :(

Good luck and be well.

[malaise]

67. I have to agree

This is a thread about violence against women.

[lumberjack_jeff]

71. Of course the OP is about women... out of necessity.

Because the world health organization doesn't measure or report on violence against men.

It is reasonable to speculate why and also reasonable to ask if this is appropriate.

[BainsBane]

84. Again, your refusal to read is astounding

But ignorance must be carefully nurtured and you do an astounding job.
The WHO reports on all kinds of illness that afflict men and women. The fact is that Domestic violence is endemic against women and rare against men. It has severe health consequences, which is why they did a report on it to alert health professionals how to deal with it. To make you feel better, should we all wish 40% of men are beaten and raped by their partners. Would that make you feel better? Then you could give birth to low birth weight babies and be at risk for a whole host of diseases that result from that battery and rape. Since you are so anxious to be the victim, maybe you should live as woman in India for a few years.

[Marrah_G]

29. I think it's probably higher

Many never report it and never are polled.

[bemildred]

31. Yeah, I find that pretty low. nt

[Hatchling]

55. Much higher if you include threats.

My ex once cornered me in the kitchen and told me: " My father hit my mother but I've never hit you." The unspoken "yet" terrified me and I toed the line pretty carefully after that. I also spent the next few years planning a safe exit from that marrige.

[lunatica]

32. It would be interesting to see what percentage of men abuse 35.6% of women

One father can be abusive and violent to the entire family.

[BainsBane]

36. 85% of those women are abused by their partners

according to the report I heard on NPR last night. No unless I misunderstood, that would not suggest a small percentage of men are inflicting most of this violence.

[lunatica]

39. I was suggesting that the study may not be as comprehensive as it could be

And I don't believe that only 35% of women are abused. Maybe 35% talk about it or report it, but there's many more than that. In some countries it's part of the culture even to the point of being actively promoted by religion and government.

Maybe the study is saying that 35% of American women are subject to abuse and violence.

[BainsBane]

40. No, they give a regional breakdown

So that number is global. I agree it's likely an underestimate.

[liberalhistorian]

45. Given the absolutely astounding "blame the victim"

responses on this GD thread yesterday, I'm waiting with bated breath to hear from some of those posters why this isn't a big deal, why all women have to do to avoid it is to be issued a crystal ball at birth so that we can foretell what every man we meet in our lives will do to us and if we don't, then WE are the ones at fault, not the men who assault, rape and control us. I was truly shocked to read these posts here on DU. It only shows that the blatant, open sexism I've noted occuring more and more frequently nationally has even reached into the ranks of an allegedly progressive site. Unbe-fucking-lievable.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023059894

[niyad]

63. oh my ******* god--I missed that one. I would say I am going to be ill, but, sadly, the mindset

exhibited in that thread is all too common here.

[Cerridwen]

70. Beg your pardon?

This site has the following in its "Terms of Service":

Don't be a wingnut (right-wing or extreme-fringe).

Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.

Emphasis added and the link is here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

Under these "Terms of Service", MLK who committed civil disobedience and advocated for same, would not be allowed to post on DU.

This is a big "D", Democratic Party site that promotes big "D" Democrats and voting for same:

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

There is, under the "Terms of Service", no room for nuance or the big "D" Democrats who have nothing to do with democratic ideals. See, for example, "Dixiecrats"; politicians with the big "D" after their name who by today's DU "Terms of Service" I would be "required" to endorse and vote for. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat See for example the histories of ronald reagan, strom thurman, and george wallace.

[liberalhistorian]

77. WTF are you babbling about?

What the HELL does all of that have to do with what I was discussing in my post? I am a staunch Dem and have every intention of remaining one. Not sure how you could have inferred otherwise.

And I've been on here for ten years, so I think I know what the TOS are.

[BainsBane]

85. Apparently

Valuing the lives of women is no longer considered Democratic?

[liberalhistorian]

95. I know, pretty sad and

disgusting, isn't it? I find it especially irritating that one cannot even bring up the subject of violence against women without men taking it as a personal affront against them. Bleh.