Why is DU in a gender war anyway?

[davidn3600]

We are mainly fighting over semantics, definitions, and minor little disagreements and these threads blow up into 200+ replies and no one gets anywhere because ultimately everyone agrees more than they realize.

Everyone who is here wants equal rights, equal opportunities for everyone. No one here wants a woman to be raped and nobody here blames a victim for being raped. No one here pretends that domestic violence isn't a problem for both genders and needs attention. We all agree on these big things even though we might have some minor disagreements about the finer details.

The disagreements here are very minor but very heated. And I think a lot of people lose perspective of the bigger picture. Like I was reading an article by some right-winger that talked about how feminism is destroying society, emasculating men, and how we need to go back to the 1950s-style gender roles (written by a woman, by the way). That kind of thing is the REAL enemy and will find that stuff in many places, but not here. The type of disagreements found here by staunch feminists is nothing compared to what you would encounter on say Free Republic...or worse, an MRA site. There are no teabaggers and MRAs here. So you are preaching to the choir and picking a fight with the wrong people when you jump down anyone's throat that has even a slight disagreement or question.

A woman shouldnt be afraid to bring up discussion on an issue she feels is important. But men shouldnt be afraid to bring up an issue either. A man and woman's opinion should be treated equally.

And that's my New Year's Message...

[1000words]

1. There are cliques at DU who seem to crave drama

The irony being: it's doing everything but help advance their respective causes.

[demosincebirth]

59. Totally agree. nt

[AgingAmerican]

69. Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

We have a winner!!

[leeroysphitz]

134. It got this way in the lounge once... n/t

[PeaceNikki]

207. lol... "once". yeah, once. let's go with that.

[DeadEyeDyck]

2. Front row seat.

[msanthrope]

6. Did you bring the bourbon? Fuck the popcorn...WHERE IS THE BOURBON??? nt

[loli phabay]

8. ppppfffftttttt. wheres the stoly.

[msanthrope]

11. Overpriced. Svedka. Run it through an almost blown brita filter and put it in a Grey Goose bottle.

The yuppie scum won't know the difference.....

[loli phabay]

12. lol, just like stoly, habit i suppose.

[msanthrope]

13. Hey...you can run the Svedka, and put in in the Stoli bottles! Das Vidanya! nt

[loli phabay]

17. lol nyet tovarich.. though there is a cheap vodka from the balkans i like, cant remember the name

[msanthrope]

18. Cheap vodka from the Balkans? You didn't notice what was being put into the gas tank???? nt

[loli phabay]

20. rofl, probably, still good stuff though round a camp fire when its cold.

[Initech]

37. Stoli? Svedka? Fuck that shit. Give me some American distilled Titos any day!

[Packerowner740]

70. I like Snow Queen vodka

[LadyHawkAZ]

76. Five Wives

Distilled in Ogden. I've started to love it more than my usual Stoli:



One of the few things Utah gets right.

[1000words]

14. Knob Creek, please.

[msanthrope]

16. You said "knob".... huh..... sorry....

Maker's Mark woman myself....

[1000words]

19. LOL

Nothing wrong with Maker's, at all. You are living life well.

[msanthrope]

23. I have been blessed....a client reserved a cask in my name. nt

[loli phabay]

21. dont like the drink but the cigars i like.

[madinmaryland]

57. Sorry, I'm going with the Bacardi 151. Obliterate my memory of any gender war on du!!

[Initech]

35. Who needs butter? I've got plenty!!

[onehandle]

3. Embedded trolls are taking over DU.

Last edited Wed Jan 1, 2014, 01:09 AM - Edit history (3)

Freeper gun fucks have mega-organized and the owners don't have the guts to do something about it.

On edit: Interestingly, multiple accounts I have on ignore have responded to this post.

Top secret boy band fail.


More and more ignorees have responded to the bat signal.

Seriously, Skinner.

[aikoaiko]

9. bwa-hahahaha.

You're amazing.

[rrneck]

24. Yep.

They're out to get you.

[cherokeeprogressive]

39. Um...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

97. General "Buck" Turgidson:

"Sir, you can't let him in here. He'll see everything. He'll see the big board!"

[beevul]

48. ...

[notadmblnd]

52. I do think that a group of ultra right wingers are here masquerading as liberals

And I think that their real agenda is to disrupt and destroy the credibility of this site.

Edited to add- that I did not encounter these particular disrupters in any HOF or MRA forum or thread.

[demosincebirth]

60. I think they can only go so far, then their stupidity surfaces and off they go. Banished!

[Eleanors38]

108. Gun control: Like corn sweetener, it creeps into everything.

Talk about gender issues, WOOP! there it is!
Talk about foreign affairs, WOOP! there it is!
Talk about the NSA, WOOP! there it is!
Talk about swine flu, WOOP! there it is!
Talk about cats, WOOP! there it is!

Seriously, indeed.

[Vinnie From Indy]

4. For some, conflict is a drug.

Cheers!

[demosincebirth]

61. I couldn't have said it better

[Curmudgeoness]

5. I am not so sure that everyone posting here wants the things you list.

There are a few who stir the pot. Some people are too easily offended, and some people don't know when to keep their thoughts to themselves, but I think that there are some who post here who are not what they profess to be, and they are not on our side.

I don't even read the DU gender war posts anymore. I saddens me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Trash and ignore are your friends

Serious

[customerserviceguy]

33. You are so very right

I've refused to get involved in the divide-and-conquer.

[DocMac]

63. Happens all the time here.

[DocMac]

64. below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024254982

[BKH70041]

10. I see what you're doing.

But you're going to ruin it for we non-participants who are enjoying sitting on the sidelines laughing our asses off.

[NoOneMan]

15. Oh, I see how devious this is

Being reasonable and all

[MannyGoldstein]

22. Sorry, but NO ALWAYS MEANS NO

Always. Not negotiable.

I'm not sure what part of that you don't understand.

Don't look at me that way.

[1000words]

82. You don't know me ... but I love you, Manny.

I know that's inappropriate.
I am so ashamed.
God, I suck.

[gollygee]

25. OMG wish me luck but I'm going to answer this!

And only because I think people don't see or understand the other perspective, and maybe it'll help clear things up if you do. Maybe I have a desire to start off the new year with some clearer communication. Or maybe this is a mistake and is going to turn into a mess.

People on DU post about all sorts of progressive issues, not just feminist issues, but obviously including feminist issues. There's nothing "gender war" about starting a post about a feminist issue.

But something happens in threads about feminist issues that doesn't seem to happen in threads about other issues. Except threads about race, I've noticed. We get the "+1" and "I read about that" and other types of responses, but we get a few responses that say something like, "Why are you telling us this?" or "That isn't just a problem for women" or "why is this on DU" or whatever. And then those responses turn into flame wars.

To me, THAT is where the gender war problem starts. If you see something about how you should give decent tips to waitstaff, do people ask why people feel like they have to tell people at DU that? Do people say, "Waitstaff aren't the only underpaid workers!" No, you have a bunch of responses that are "+1" and some talking about how they figure tips. But feminist issues give people what looks almost like an allergic response, certainly anyway a response that other issues don't give people.

I don't think that's the fault of feminists posting feminist issues. And yeah there's been so much blowback against any feminist issue at all being posted in GD that we're getting pissed off about it and are probably sounding pissed off some of the time. That's what happens.

Feminist issues are going to be posed on GD just like other issues are talked about here. It's a progressive community and feminist issues are progressive issues.

[redqueen]

26. Well said. nt

[niyad]

27. wish I could rec this post.

[one_voice]

29. Gonna have to disagree with you here...

If you see something about how you should give decent tips to waitstaff, do people ask why people feel like they have to tell people at DU that? Do people say, "Waitstaff aren't the only underpaid workers!

Yes, that most certainly turns into a conversation about other underpaid jobs. Without question.

As a matter of fact this response

"That isn't just a problem for women"

is treated with such 'how dare you' bring up it's not just women, cuz everyone knows women own it attitude that it's that that sets off the flame war.

Every other topic allows for comparisons and talking about who else it may effect, EXCEPT in this area.

I'm a woman and it annoys the shit out of me the way certain subjects seems to have a women only door. Go back to the thread from Sunday (rape is never the victims fault thread) everyone was beside themselves as to why it was so controversial, the problem wasn't the subject of the thread, it was the content of the thread. As soon as someone asked why it didn't address men...as if men aren't victims...it got stupid.

Yes I said it stupid. I understand the graphic had women on it, but if you're going to have a thread title that say, rape is never the victims fault--then be prepared for ALL VICTIMS to chime in, otherwise why start it.

I will stipulate that the initial question about the graphic was a bit absurd, BUT once the subject of men being victims was brought up it should have been a valid subject but it wasn't. Instead anyone that even mentioned it was dismissed and ridiculed. That was wrong.

That's only one example of why there are these flame wars.

Happy New Year

[NoOneMan]

30. Aren't you referring to the "Fly Trap" thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4247742

Just curious.

Anyway, who cares. Tonight I agree to disagree about the root of the controversy. Who has time to bitch. Its New Years. Lets party

[gollygee]

31. Let's look at that thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4247317

The first response was one designed to try to elicit anger - it was trolling for flame responses.

Then look at post #3. Look at it - "Who the fuck said it was?" That's exactly what we see. Nobody does that about most issues at DU that people agree with - progressive issues. But we get that all the time.

Then we get some more similar responses of that sort. "Why are you saying this on DU?" People don't ask that in most threads about progressive issues they agree with. They usually say, "+1." Feminism is one of the few issues where we see that. (Race too, as I said.)

Then #71 asks the question about why there aren't pictures of men. Now, if the thread hadn't already been a complete flame fest by then, the correct answer might have been given, which is "This is about people who are blamed for being raped based on what they're wearing, which is usually women." It isn't about rape in general, but a particular thing that happens very frequently to women victims of rape, where the first question people ask her after she was raped is, "what were you wearing?" And as someone else said, none of the pictures are of children either, and children are frequent rape victims, but they are also not usually asked what they were wearing as if that would explain the rape.

I think that discussion could have been valuable and helpful if the thread hadn't already devolved because of the responses that came before it. I don't think it's accurate at all to say THAT is why it turned into what it turned into.

[NoOneMan]

36. Yep, the self-admitted Fly Trap thread

Look, where I come from, when you start a topic with the intent to stir the pot and upset people, its called trolling. But hey, sorry that Fly Trap didn't go the way you'd like. If you could outline exactly how men (or anyone else) are supposed to respond to a pot stirring fly trap, you let me know. I won't upset you again. Cheers

[hfojvt]

67. men are just supposed to say +1, or +1,000 or knr

but I guess that is supposed to be the response to every thread on DU.

OR that it actually already IS the response to every thread on DU, except threads about feminist issues.

Which means either that nobody here is FOR Hillary or that nobody here is AGAINST Hillary.

And it also means that nobody here thinks Nader caused Bush to be elected in 2000, or that everybody here thinks Nader caused Bush to be elected in 2000.

Other than feminist issues, DU is in 100% agreement. It is only on those issues that there are flies in the ointment.

But the proper response is to NOT be a fly. I mean presumably if I wrote some OP about how "increasing economic inequality is a bad thing" there would not be a bunch of flies jumping in and arguing loudly in favor of massive income inequality.

But if I did somehow post a thread in order to lure such people out of hiding. Would I be the one at fault, or would it be the flies who were at fault?

[Squinch]

96. But it is posted over and over that everyone in DU IS in agreement that

women should have equality, no means no, and rape is never the victim's fault.

So why the flame? And if you simply agree but don't feel it needs to be said, why respond at all? Why would that statement be seen as a trap?

I seriously doubt that a post that said something as self-evident as, "Rick Perry is a moron" would become a flame fest, or be seen as a trap. Yet a post that says something as self-evident as "rape is never the victim's fault" does become a flame fest, and is seen as a trap.

[MH1]

111. ^^^ Exactly.

I missed your post and just posted a wordier response saying much the same thing. Glad to see I'm not the only one here!

[Squinch]

115. It's amazing, isn't it?

[NoOneMan]

119. "and is seen as a trap"

Why did the original poster call it a "Fly Trap" if it wasn't meant as a trolly trap?

Yes, we're all in agreement. Void of context, there wouldn't of been a damn thing controversial about the post. Void of the simultaneous adjacent shit slinging fest, everyone would of said, "right on". Void of the claims DUers promote "rape culture" (elsewhere, simultaneously), it would of been a great thread. Considering context of shit fling and assertions, and the posters claim it was a "Fly Trap", that's why all hell broke loose. Not because no one agreed with it.

[Squinch]

123. I believe you were the first that I saw calling it a trap. The OP has nothing in it about traps.

And no, given that YOURS was first reply to the OP in that thread and it included an insult and flame bait, it was never going to be a great thread.

You saw to that.

[NoOneMan]

128. Huh? I am quoting the poster of that thread: "Fly trap my friend"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4247742

Belief can clearly be dangerous.

And no, given that YOURS was first reply to the OP in that thread and it included an insult and flame bait, it was never going to be a great thread.

My reply included 1) A complete agreement, 2) A sarcastic retort to the context in which the thread was contributed in, which is an ongoing, unproven assertion that DU promotes "rape culture".

Considering the context, I did not find the OP itself to be anything by a trollish retort in its own right. Of course, that was confirmed in that link above.

That's all I got to say on it. Ill let the facts speak for themselves. Its pretty damn clear and we aren't stupid here. Being obtuse for sport is a bore

[Squinch]

130. Um, yes. That's what I said.

"A sarcastic retort to the context in which the thread was contributed in, which is an ongoing, unproven assertion that DU promotes "rape culture". "

You decided the post was not worthy, therefore should not be discussed. Even though it is something "we all agree on."

[MH1]

110. Huh?? (I'm new here. To the so-called "gender war at DU" anyway)

1) what was it about the o.p. of that thread that suggests it has the " intent to stir the pot and upset people"? WHY would anyone at a progressive political forum be upset by a statement that's about the equivalent of "the sky is blue"?

2) here's a couple ways you could respond to a thread that says something so freakin' obvious one (such as yourself apparently, though not so much like me) might be compelled to assume a nefarious agenda ("pot stirring fly trap&quot : 1 - don't. 2 - with agreement. 3 - with commiseration and examples of recent news events where our actual enemies, the misogynistic right-wing douchebags, violate this simple obvious moral principle.

You see, not every post is meant to be an initiator of an argument.

3) how not to respond: insulting the poster of the thread. If that's all you've got, then go with 2)1. - don't. You may not have noticed, but there's lots of other stuff at DU.

[NoOneMan]

118. "1) what was it about the o.p. of that thread that suggests..."

Just ask the poster:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4247742

Pretty clear?

2) here's a couple ways you could respond to a thread that says... a nefarious agenda

I'm not entirely sure its constructive to limit or define the manner in which DUers should respond to a troll thread. Yes, ideally, we should ignore trolling. Though, the context behind this thread was there was already a heated argument (with the original poster being included in) and it was merely a continuation of the ongoing conflict by taking a jab at DU (by playing on the DU promotes "rape culture" assertion).

You see, not every post is meant to be an initiator of an argument.

Absolutely. But this one was. The poster admitted that. See above. And also note their aggressive tone and usage of explicit language throughout the entire exchange.

3) how not to respond: insulting the poster of the thread.

The post was an intended insult to DU or parts of DU (self admitted pot stirring playing on the "rape culture" meme that is not supported by any evidence). Sure, we can all ignore insults and bullying and just be shouted down. But just be clear on exactly what you want people to do: "shut up and be insulted"

[Squinch]

124. That trumad post looks to me to be a description of what the thread degenerated into, to a large

Last edited Wed Jan 1, 2014, 01:17 PM - Edit history (1)

extent thanks to your contribution. Not a nefarious plan. But, hey, conspiracies abound in some worlds.

[NoOneMan]

125. He called his thread a Fly Trap.

His words. Not mine.

[Squinch]

126. After it had clearly turned into one. After the flies swarmed.

If it was intentional, I'd lose respect for him. Bringing out the flies is just too freakin' easy to be a worthy use of one's time.

[sufrommich]

138. Have you ever heard the expression " like flies

to shit"? It indicates when an utterly predictable occurrence takes place,I'm pretty sure that's what Trumad was relaying.

[Squinch]

143. Again, if trumad had said, "Rick Perry is a moron"

would they have considered it flame bait? Would it have turned into a shit-fest?

Then all we are asking is why is an equally self-evident statement - "rape is never the victim's fault"- considered flame bait?

THAT is what those who were so offended by it should be considering. WHY is it utterly predictable that that particular self evident statement should erupt into a flame war?

[Squinch]

155. Sorry. I think I misread your post!

Last edited Wed Jan 1, 2014, 02:10 PM - Edit history (1)

I have edited mine.

[pintobean]

153. That thread was also shortly after

this thread, where he had a post hidden.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024234697

And, his self-deleted post in that thread, where he said he loves sticking it to the men of DU. That post would probably still be there if it hadn't been worded to be an extremely offensive joke.

A long history told a lot of people, right off the bat, that his thread was a "fly trap". There was nothing wrong with the post itself, it was what was seen as the motive behind it that was the problem. It was a "poke" at the men of DU, later admitted in the "fly trap" comment.

Just call it years of experience

Of reading these types of Ops and matching the names of who posts them.

It's so obvious .... but hey...If not to you...oh well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024234697#post29

[PassingFair]

205. Buzz, buzz, buzz...

[MH1]

133. At the time you posted your (THE) first response to that thread

that hadn't been posted yet. So it's not like the poster ANNOUNCED, "hey guys this is a fly trap thread, have at it!!".

And anyway, as Squinch notes and as is obvious, the comment that the thread was a "fly trap" accurately indicated what it had turned into. That doesn't mean it was the intent.

But anyway, sure seems you are calling yourself a "fly" in this series of responses; who will be "trapped" as someone who would actually ARGUE with the notion that a rape victim is not the one at fault in a rape . Why would you want to admit that?

[tblue37]

187. Actually, when I read that "flytrap" post, I took it to mean that a reply to the OP

was intended to be a flytrap, so the OP intended to avoid a direct response to it.

[one_voice]

43. Well thank you for completely ignoring...

my first point...

As to the you looking at the thread--First, my point wasn't to go in and find any ole dumb responses I was very specific to what I talking about. If you wanna just go pull stupid responses I can do that too. But that wasn't my point and wasn't what I was addressing.

Now you point out 71 which I did say was absurd--yes I did. However once it was brought up and OTHER people myself included said well that's a valid point (not they way it necessarily brought up) men are victims--NOT THE GRAPHIC having no men---we were treated hostilely. Which was the point of my response to you.

There was no reason for those of us---many victims--spoke up and said do not dismiss us and treat us rudely when we ask that you include men as victims in this thread. Did you also read in that thread where we were told that if we wanted to talk about me or gay people being victims that we should start our own thread?

I find that completely unacceptable on a progressive board and am shocked you didn't see any of that.


Oh, and for the record

Let's go over that post #3 "Who the fuck said it was?" He was clearly talking about DU--which he stated in post #27 The op stated in post #17 he meant (as he searched the interned not DU) the internet. That was a miscommunication the poster of post 3 thought DU'ers were being accused of that and was clearly shocked.

I imagine if someone posted a graphic that said it's not ok to call a black person the 'n' word --you might get at least one of those if someone thought it was directed at the people of DU


post #30 asked who posted this DU (it's the victims fault) Post #37 (answered by the OP) No one posted this on DU

Again, your first point is less than honest. That person didn't post that being a jerk, they thought it was directed at DU.

I just re-read up to post 71, it wasn't a complete flame fest. It was the who the fuck said that comments, a bunch of agreements, a few more who said that on DU, there was ONE that called the message stupid, a few people talking back and forth. But no where near a flame fest.

Then post 71...and that's when all hell breaks lose. You might wanna re-read that again.

I stand by my original comments.

[NoOneMan]

49. "...if someone thought it was directed at the people of DU"

Part of the context behind that specific "fly-trap" thread are other threads (and yes, I have links) that contend some DUers promotes "rape-culture". Such a thing was simultaneously being debated by the poster of that thread at the very time it was created. There was a logical reason to assume that was aimed at DUers. There was a logical reason to assume it wasn't meant as a simple PSA (and the poster admitted to this as well, calling it a "Fly Trap&quot .

I think much of DU agrees on feminist issues and matters of equality. Its the trolling, defaming, bullying, etc, that we do not agree on.

I hope 2014 brings in a nice bit of change to this crap. I really honestly do. Maybe the bans will help promote civility and more thoughtfullness (myself included).

[BainsBane]

50. I didn't see the part of that thread about men as rape victims

I believe that to be an important subject and I see no reason for it to be downplayed or why it undermines the significance of women as rape victims. Rape is a crime, and while 90% of known victims in civil society are women, that doesn't make the experience any less horrific for male victims.

What I did observe in that thread is insistence by a few members that "no one" on this site every blames rape victims, which is clearly false. When people gave summaries of cases in which rape victims were blamed, those same members insisted they didn't exist and demanded proof. When proof was supplied, they either quickly absented themselves from the thread or became angry that their posts were linked to.

Part of what I see is that some seem to think simply by virtue of posting here it makes them immune from all societal influences and ills. I find particularly irritating the insistence some make that the fact they are Democratic or pro-choice makes them my ally on gender issues, while they turn around and insist rape isn't really a social problem and that huge numbers of women lie about rape to punish men, or that the jails are too crowded to keep serial rapists locked up. The fact is this site has a small number of very vocal, intensely reactionary members who are extremely conservative on gender issues. They think the fact they post here means they should not be subject to criticism on those positions. I submit that if they don't want those views countered, they should avoid posting on them.

[Renew Deal]

32. The problem is downstream from the "original post"

The problem isn't usually with the original post and like the OP in this thread stated, most people agree on most of the issues. The problem is usually further down in the discussion where people can't accept disagreement. Those that disagree with the perceived/accepted "feminist" point of view are treated as (and often labeled) rape supporting oppressors of women. Disagreement with the point of view of the day is unacceptable to some people on DU.

Of course, the problem isn't entirely downstream. There are a few DUers that think all men are rape supporting oppressors. Don't believe me? Just look at the mountains of garbage posted by some people here.

And the last bit of the problem with these issues on DU comes from Trolls® that are here to exploit an obvious schism. They are the same people that got meta shut down with their trash.

I mostly agree with the OP. I think most DUers agree on these issues.





***No, I'm not going to post links. These are my observations over the last few months.

[RC]

40. +1000

That is a pretty good picture of what is happening here.

The root of the problem:

Those that disagree with the perceived/accepted "feminist" point of view are treated as (and often labeled) rape supporting oppressors of women. Disagreement with the point of view of the day is unacceptable to some people on DU.

[BainsBane]

45. Really? Point to posts where anyone said

ALL men are rape supporting oppressors of women. Go on. It should be easy, given you claim it's so common.

[alphafemale]

87. The Litmus Tests?

And the people that seem to keep some kind of record of previous postings?

Obsessive stalking on most other subjects would be trashed for what it is.

[Katashi_itto]

154. Brilliantly said!

[lumberjack_jeff]

142. I don't think "whaaa! the poor menz!" is the fault of people posting mens perspectives either.

Equality is a progressive issue.

[historylovr]

160. +1.

[Amaril]

214. Beautiful!

That's it, exactly!

[treestar]

28. You still see those MRA-ish arguments

And a few other arguments that spur disagreements. There are still people on DU that will start with the old insistence we are different and that leads to consequences. There were a few actually supporting that women who dress a certain way should expect to be stared at.

[Initech]

34. The outrage machine has become self aware.

[Niceguy1]

46. oh we had better watch out lol

[Initech]

51. And better not cry!

[bloom]

38. I've seen a lot of dismissiveness and cluelessness....

today and over the years - here at DU.

Sure men and women here are not as nuts (ie unfeminist) as at some other places - but that does not mean that some have a long way to go.

[boston bean]

41. It is not a gender war. Women and especially feminists here are not at WAR with men.

[BainsBane]

42. The question is why do some have such a problem with feminist points of view?

and work so hard to shut them down? I'll elaborate on Gollygee's post which I support whole heartedly. Arguments that feminists are trolls illustrates the idea that some on this site consider the only acceptable politics to be those framed from the point of view of white men. I find it particularly ironic that on a discussion board that is supposed to be geared toward Democrats--a party that is majority women and people of color---that some steadfastly insist on enforcing conservative world views of the sort articulated by Republicans. If you want a conception of politics that revolves entirely around white men, that's what the GOP is for. I for one and not going to sit back while some work to constrict Democratic discussion to increasingly reactionary points of view.

Here is a basic fact. Time is progressing. As offensive as some may find the concept, women and people of color are allowed to post about what interests them. You can ignore it if you don't want to hear about it. If you are going to post on a Democratic website, you will occasionally encounter some progressive points of view that consider the life experiences of someone besides yourself.

The notion that only the points of view of white men are acceptable is what has driven so many people of color off the site. Now the effort turns to silencing women who have the audacity to think their lives are worth anything. You of course can post about anything you want and carry out any efforts you want to restrict political discourse on this site, but don't for a second think think such efforts are anything but reactionary.

I for one fine it amazing that so many are completely impervious to all developments in higher education and intellectual discourse of the past 35 years, but clearly some work hard to block out all such influence. That is why the most basic concepts such a male privilege and white privilege can be met with hostility, or why concepts like intersectionality come as a revelation to some.

So the fact that some are pro-gun, anti-feminist, and anti-LGBT isn't particularly surprising. What is surprising is that they have the nerve to argue that articulation of Democratic views on a Democratic website called Democratic Underground amounts to trolling. I think people forget where they are, just as they forget which century they live in.

I will again post what supposedly launched this recent string of "gender war" posts. Redqueen posted this PSA in GD. A handful of members were furious and decided to take it as a personal attack on themselves. You'll have to ask them why they felt to compelled to create shit over it. That's something rational people have trouble understanding.

Issues like rape and domestic violence are not mere "semantics." They are about HUMAN RIGHTS, and constant efforts to trivialize those concerns show the low regard with which some take those rights. When certain members make a point of defending every accused rapist, attacking every rape victim, and insisting that the prisons are too crowded to keep rapists in prison, it tells me that they oppose my basic right to life, and that is something I take very seriously. That such a person pases himself off as a Democrat means nothing to me, since clearly my life means nothing to him. I get to decide who my friends and enemies are, and anyone who takes my right to basic safety as trivial is someone I have NOTHING in common with. I happen to know some Republicans far more progressive on gender issues than some who claim to be Democrats, just as there were Republicans in the 1960s more progressive than Orville Faubus and George C. Wallace.

[boston bean]

44. How quickly it's forgotten we were told to put on a burqa if we didn't want the leering, sexual

comments from strangers/men on the street.

How quickly they forget the many comments about how complimentary it is to be leered at in a sexual manner by stranger/men on the street, and we should be so lucky.

How quickly they forget that the denial of the patriarchy or system of oppression of women is flaunted around DU constantly.

How quickly they forget that there were posts of a man who admitted to raping women in his past and got kudo's on DU for acknowledging in his old age that he did this.

How quickly they forget the twisting of stats that say men face more domestic violence than women.

How quickly they forget the denial of rape culture and the offense taken for even the mere discussion of it.

How quickly they forget the creep shaming threads, blaming feminists for pointing out we don't like to be sexually objectified.

How quickly they forget the false rape claims of 45% they speak of here on DU, to try to diminish and minimize the occurrence of rape of women.

How often they forget how often we hear that all these differences between us are biological, as if women are meant to be oppressed.

How often we are told by men on DU what feminism should be.

How often we are told by men on DU who is a good feminist and who is a bad one.

How often we are told that feminists are hurting our own cause because of our tone.

How often we are called prudes by men on DU.

How often feminists are called damaged goods, ie.. asking if you've had something traumatic happen to you that makes you understand basic feminism that's been accepted for years.

I could give more examples, but I'm about ready to get ready for the new year.

[seabeyond]

65. this needs to be its own OP. and ya... more. nt

[Ghost Dog]

84. That's quite a comprehensive list. Good work.

Sure, there's more...

[BainsBane]

85. Show me where I have created thread after thread attacking men?

Last edited Wed Jan 1, 2014, 09:41 AM - Edit history (2)

Go on. As for race baiting, mentioning the existence of race is not "baiting." it's an observation. I didn't include you anywhere in my post. Since you just joined, claiming that I create "post after post" attacking men is quite a blanket statement. If you think the fact I talk about rape and domestic violence amounts to attacking men, that puts you among a very small minority of men on this site. I await proof of your allegations that I have posted thread after thread attacking men. The odd thing about imagining posts about violence against women as an attack on all men is that it assumes all men are rapists or batters, something I have never said or thought.

[BainsBane]

90. So why is it that you don't take the threads about congress or bankers as a personal attack?

But decide you somehow see yourself attacked in threads on violence against women? Bankers and most of congress are male. If someone posts about murder or robbery, do you decide that is an attack against you personally? Yet you decide when I post about rape or domestic violence I'm talking to you, when you have been a member of this site for only a couple of hours. It seems to me that those men who see threads about violence against women--as opposed to any other crime or subject--as directed at them personally have issues. Most men do not view the threads that way. They know they aren't sexual predators, and they understand that rape and other violence against women is prevalent and therefore affects the lives of a large portion of women on this site. They also aren't so self absorbed they insist on telling people to shut up when they post about a thread that doesn't directly affect them. Additionally, there is no evidence of any correlation between voting behavior and tendency to rape or beat a partner. In simple demographic terms, your assumption that those people are absent from this site is absurd. The idea that you would suggest that is strange, to say the least.

The "focus is on the women" because of the misogyny and victim blaming that is endemic to rape culture. Clearly you aren't the choir if you insist that the only discussion of rape focus on the responsibility of victims rather than predators.

Most importantly, if you can't handle hearing women speak in public about concerns to us, that's your problem. It takes a lot of fucking nerve to sign up as a new poster and tell me what I don't have a right to post about. If you want a male only perspective, go elsewhere. The fact is 1 in 3 American women are raped or beaten by a partner or family member. Our human rights matter, and that you don't want to hear about them is your failing entirely. It also makes clear you are no ally of mine. So no, I don't wish to preach to you or speak to you at all, on this or any other subject. I don't dismiss what you say because you are male. The world is filled with socially conscious men who wouldn't dream of taking the position you have here. I dismiss what you say because you make clear my basic rights are so inconsequential that discussion of them should be silenced. So by all means, ignore what I write. You clearly find it too threatening to cope with. I will happily return the favor.

[JustAnotherGen]

92. Hmmm

Race Baiting - I've never seen that from BainsBane.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

93. There is some baiting going on though.

Edit: was

[pintobean]

129. You seem to post that video at least once

in every thread on this subject. Why is that? You and your friends claim that its posting in GD was the beginning of the current shit storm (not even close).

You knew when you posted it in HOF that it would cause problems in GD, and you practically dared RQ to post it in GD.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125532778
The exchange starts at post #4 if anyone wants to see.

[sufrommich]

135. Gosh,you mean the feminists in HOF predicted

the utterly predictable response that a feminist message would have for some in GD? Those massively evil conspirators strike again.

[redqueen]

141. It deserved a much wider audience, and most DUers were very happy it was posted here.

Why that person is trying to stir up shit over even that, I have no idea (lol just kidding, it's obvious as hell).

[sufrommich]

144. It does deserve a huge audience. I've now

seen it all over the internet,which is great.

[cthulu2016]

53. Because men are intrinsically evil

[last1standing]

72. LOL! Someone alerted on your post.

Obviously it didn't work but you should know that someone's hunting for you tonight.

[beevul]

54. You're asking the wrong question.

No doubt you'll get answers that are themselves true and factual answers to your question, yet are only answers to the question you asked, rather than a clear picture of whats really going on.

With any issue, there are multiple sides. Here on DU there are certain issues that are contentious and have more than one legitimate point of view. It is issues that fall under that umbrella, which are the wellspring of the symptoms you've made mention of.

Within those issues, posters form into two main camps, and vie for control of the issue here on DU. Control of the language pertaining to that issue, control of the establishment of perceived legitimacy of points of view on those issues, and control of the message via control of the messenger via abuse of the jury system, are some but not all facets of this. The gender wars and gun rights vs gun control are demonstrable examples of this.

When the jury system went live, it handed unscrupulous people the tools with which to to wage these wars, which I believe was completely unintended by the admins.

[TheKentuckian]

156. I dunno, seemed to be so predictable at the time as to be a near lock. I tend to find it difficult

to just accept the most obvious and likely outcomes to be accidentally arrived at.

The new policy seems to be a double down rather than a correction. I tend to believe most of the rule "innovations" are message discipline strategies to prop up economically conservative, authoritarian leaning statist partisans well beyond their numbers and to bog up the flow of liberal conversation as dominant without having to be seen as putting a thumb on the scales.

The paradigm bakes in a structural advantage to those with little concern for free expression and encourages the unscrupulous, particularly with those focused on spin control or message domination to form alert gangs under cover of darkness.

Those of us philosophically bent toward the greatest possible observation of free speech cannot win the game theory at play here, we cannot function in the same way tactically and as such, the curve must bend their way no matter how absurd the number advantages.

The resistance to transparency and limits for alerts and to my mind transparency for juries (yes, I sign mine and explain my vote) is what makes me tend to think this is intentional design rather than surprising outcome, all corrective efforts bolster spin control and encourage drama seekers to act monkey. The thin skinned and perpetually outraged are provisioned with a machine gun with infinite ammo and ZERO accountability, in fact actually treated as protected.

I'm sure it is possible that I'm misreading the situation but I'm just saying how it reads to me from my vantage point and frame of reference brought into the dynamic.

[Notafraidtoo]

55. As a male i have not once read anything from feminist that offended me or i disagreed with.

Don't get why people are out of shape toward feminist, i know people instinctively lash out at inconvenient truths but that's not the fault of feminist. I am proud people speak truth to power and i am proud of the feminist here on DU.

[seabeyond]

62. your name fits. thank you notafraidtoo... that is a wonderful thing to hear.

i appreciate your voice.

happy new years to you and yours....

[Skittles]

79. you're my kind of guy, Notafraidtoo

I wish you could bottle your confidence and pass it around to some of the guys who constantly feel threatened

[BainsBane]

86. Good, and there is no reason you should

Posting about harassment, rape, or violence against women isn't an attack on anything but those practices. Unless someone is a predator, there is no reason they should feel attacked. For some bizarre reason, a few members filter everything through their own egos and can't imagine that something isn't about them personally.

[madinmaryland]

56. Let it go. trumad is taking a break from DU. nt

[demosincebirth]

58. Seem like most here on DU do not like to be contradicted and continue to argue their point right to

the last dying click of their keyboard. Thank God for the Ignore button.

[Captain Stern]

66. There's a "gender war" on here because of OP's like this.

There are lots of threads started up on here about specific gender-related issues that when looked at in isolation appear to be innocent thread starts where the OP is just asking a question, or making a positive statement. But when the OP is examined related to other recent threads..not so much. Some folks don't feel like their message is getting paid enough attention to in ongoing threads, so they start up new threads about the exact same shit...with their point of view (that didn't get paid enough attention to the first five times in other threads) as the subject.

My question: All of these threads are directly related. Why can't all of the posts about that stuff stay in one thread? If you post a response in that thread, and nobody comments, it doesn't mean they didn't see it.....it means they didn't care enough to comment. Just please stop with all the new threads. They make baby Jesus cry.in

Edited to add: I don't mean there's anything inherently bad about what you are saying...just that it could have been said equally well in a bunch of other threads. Instead, we'll get another thread with the same old, tired, arguments that we've all read a million times.

[Vashta Nerada]

71. No kidding.

I hid over 40 threads in the last eight days because one person didn't think he/she was being heard in one thread so they had to start one of their own.

It's ridiculous.

[Fumesucker]

237. Once threads get to a considerable length they become a real pain to follow

Particularly if your internet connection is not a fast one, DU is a fairly quick site but long threads often take a while to load on a less than stellar connection.

At times when my connection is not behaving as it is supposed to I'll sometimes click on a long thread and then go look at another site for a while while the thread slooooowly loads and then come back to it.

[MrMickeysMom]

68. What if "they" gave a gender war and nobody came?

That's my attitude, anyway. It's only there if you participate in it.

[LadyHawkAZ]

73. Long story short? Because it has zippitydoodah to do with rape, equal rights or feminism

It's entirely about online personalities.

We have a few people who have a long history of abusive behavior toward other posters, and these issues enable them to continue that behavior, while providing a convenient cover to hide behind when trying to avoid the consequences.

We have a few people who care a whole lot less about the issues than they do about being on top of the pecking order on an online forum and controlling the discussions.

We have a new rule coming into effect shortly that locks out any poster with more than 5 hidden posts, and some people are putting out "fly traps" and trying to bait people they don't like into posting things a jury will hide.

A lot of other posters, who've been dealing with this for a while now and know what's going on, simply react to those people, rather than reacting to the issues. And the 200+ replies start to fly. It's a vicious cycle.

That is why we have a gender war on DU. Best just to avoid it. It will hopefully get a little better shortly.

[Captain Stern]

74. well yeah, that too (nt)

[The Straight Story]

75. I do believe you have stated it quite well

And, just to be clear, I have also offered such kinds words to DU'ers with names that appear to designate they are male -- So my comment was not an attempt to have sex with you, mind rape you, treat you in any way different than anyone else (had to put that qualifier in there in case others have not seen me say nice words to both genders and leap upon me as being a benevolent sexist. You know us sexists, we are sly and always trying to sneak in a stare or a slide open a door unnoticed).

[Egnever]

80. /end thread

I think you nailed it.

[boston bean]

89. for me it has everything to do with the issues you mention.

rape, equal rights, feminism. And those issues and how prevalent they are in our culture.

[TransitJohn]

95. Good post.

[polly7]

100. Nailed it, LadyHawk! +1000.

Last edited Wed Jan 1, 2014, 12:51 PM - Edit history (1)

I'll also add that imo there's not ONE member on this board who believes:

- women deserve to be raped based upon what they wear
- women's issues are less important than any other, or any of the other accusations made over and over and over.

Definitely, there have been people ppr'd for misogynist shit and rightly so, but I see a LOT of twisting of posters' words here to imply that this board is overrun with woman-hating bigots, yet when asked for specific examples .......... there's nothing. Which is why I find the deliberate misconstruing of words and intent and using it as an example for yet another outrage - like a game of telephone gone bad - to be really sad.

It's impossible to discuss many issues anymore that used to be interesting, with input from both men and women. Now, every single time, it's turned into a war.

[LadyHawkAZ]

172. Oh, there's certainly some misogynists here...

I have a few links.

Happy New Year, Polly!

[polly7]

173. You could be right, I do miss a lot here and am often surprised.

Happy New Year to you also!

[seveneyes]

101. Hammer meets Nail

[Logical]

107. Someone alerted this 5-1 to allow it to stay.....

REASON FOR ALERT:

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Incredibly rude, insensitive and dismissive to claim that those who stand up and speak out against rape, equal rights and feminist here day in and day out in the face of the war on women in this country have some other "agenda". This constant attack on feminists and feminist issues is embarrassing for DU.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Jan 1, 2014, 09:02 AM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: I had to think about this post long and hard. I changed my mind several times. in the end I found that the post IS dismissive of gender issues and gender inequality.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Maybe the dumbest alert I have seen this month. Wow, feel free to counter the poster with your own post. Quit using the alert system to silence things you disagree with.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: the poster mentions a "few" people who are forum bullies and tend to be successful derailing discussions here at DU, not everyone who posts meaningfully about gender issues.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Not buying the alerters explanation for one second. LadyHawkAZ is expressing an opinion about people on DU playing games to stir up trouble for people they don't like. She has every right to have and express that opinion.

Using the alert system to go after people who express an opinion you don't like, and falsely claiming you're standing up for feminists by doing so, is what's embarrassing.

[pintobean]

116. I expect a whine fest about this

back at home base. Maybe an ATA complaint, too.

[NoOneMan]

120. ffs, this is what its coming to

The OP here and this response provide a perfect nuanced assessment of this situation. And the alert only solidifies what they are saying.

[Logical]

121. Alerter need to be made public. Less stupid alerts. n-t

[NoOneMan]

122. That's probably a good step.

[Comrade Grumpy]

149. Yes. People need to own their alerts. That would put an end to these crap alerts.

Many of which are more revealing of the mind set of the alerter than anything else. And not in a good way.

[Logical]

151. So true. n-t

[polly7]

159. I would love to see that.

There are so many accusations made about who is alerting, it would be very interesting and revealing to see who actually is doing most of it.

[Logical]

161. I just asked Skinner on the ask the admin forum. We will see. n-t

[Waiting For Everyman]

165. Especially in light of this sort of thing...

...reason given by Skinner for ppr:

Sockpuppet of BainsBane, which appears to have been created to get around limits on alerting imposed by the software.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=302058&sub=trans

(This is a page posted by admin and available for every DUer to view in the name of transparency. )

Frankly, this shocked me.

[hootinholler]

202. Woah I missed that

But then again I'm not following the most controversial threads.

You may have been shocked, but I'm not.

[BainsBane]

236. I know

You just can't trust people who think there is something wrong with old men ogling little girls. They are just so uptight. They actually blame their molesters for behaving shamefully rather than putting the blame on themselves and their families.

[rrneck]

240. Yeah, right. The ends justify the means and DU is the center of the universe.

Try not to trip over your cape. Sock puppets used to get people banned and you knew better.

[bonzaga]

206. So you're allowed to have sockpuppets?

Because BainsBane is still here.

[In_The_Wind]

231. That's a surprise to me.

[BainsBane]

235. If you have something to say to me

Do so directly rather than behaving like you are in a junior high school cafeteria. Then again, you could try actually talking about some issue related to politics or society rather than engaging in petty gossip about someone behind her back.

[Waiting For Everyman]

241. I don't take orders from you, BainsBane.

[BainsBane]

242. I am sorry that you feel unable

to raise a disagreement or concern with me (or others, like Sheldon) rather than talk crap about people behind their backs. You clearly have nothing to say to me (even about the sock you claim to be concerned about), so I request you not speak about me at all. I never suggested you take orders from me. What I am do is calling you out on your behavior. I don't know you from Adam and to my knowledge have engaged you only once in discussion, when you were then talking shit about another woman against whom you decided to carry out a personal vendetta. People have all kinds of opinions on all kinds of issues, but most care enough about something of substance to engage on those issues rather than simply talk smack about other members.

[Waiting For Everyman]

243. I don't care about your call outs, your criticisms, or what you like or approve of.

I will do what I decide to do, and how I decide to do it. I will address whatever subject I choose, be it you, the poster you mentioned, some issue, or the man in the moon. You have no say about it. I hope that's clear this time.

[snooper2]

198. you can't tell who wrote that alert based on writing style?

I'll give you a hint, the Flintstones

[arely staircase]

158. someone alerted on it lo fucking l

I have about five posters in mind that could have sent that alert.

[Violet_Crumble]

170. Wow. I thought LadyHawke's post was good and am shocked to see it alerted on...

The alerter seems to believe that LadyHawke isn't a feminist and is in fact attacking feminists. Weird...

[LadyHawkAZ]

171. LOL! Being a woman on the Internet, it sure is a dog's life.

I guess I'm not on everyone's iggy list yet.

[pintobean]

176. Some people pretend to have people on ignore

but don't really, because one can't alert on what they can't see. Once in a while, they screw up and post in a sub-thread that they shouldn't be able to see. I can't imagine why they would play these silly games with themselves.

[hootinholler]

203. Funny you mention that

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=302058&sub=trans

[In_The_Wind]

232. I thought it was a good post.

[99Forever]

109. Well said.

There are some with an agenda, and have very few scruples about pushing it.

[Luminous Animal]

183. Um yes. Feminism is on my agenda and I have few scruples about pushing it.

I'm not present as much on this board because I find anonymously discussing feminism with ignorant mocking assholes far more exhausting and unproductive than discussing it face to face with ignorant mocking assholes.

Face to face yields results.

I admire the women of HOF who continue to take on ignorant mocking assholes day in and day out.

[99Forever]

184. Classy, as always.

You must have a wonderful life.

[Luminous Animal]

188. I do. I have great and wonderful friends.

Who would do anything for me. I have a great and wonderful husband and a great and wonderful daughter. And her friends respect and love me enough to spend New Year's Eve with me. I've offered and given many of them a safe haven over the years. And I continue to support their endeavors through their 20s.

I just went through a protracted legal battle with my landlord and won. My husband and I are so loved in our community that 200+ people showed up to celebrate our victory.

I am one fucking kind and generous human being who has attached herself to another fucking kind human being who together have raised a fucking kind human being.

I take in strangers into my home with no enumeration. In fact, I just took in a 19 year old 2 days ago who told me that she felt as though she were meeting a legend. It made me cry.

How's your life?

[99Forever]

192. My life doesn't..

... include running around with a huge chip on my shoulder and then whining about it when someone I just insulted for no damn reason knocks it off. Other than that, how my life is, is none of your damn business.

Stay classy.

[pintobean]

117. Bingo. I'm glad a woman said it. /nt

[gopiscrap]

139. welcome to DU

[hrmjustin]

140. who were you?

[Squinch]

145. LOL!

[hrmjustin]

146. Wellmposts like these will attract former members.

[Squinch]

147. Like the family, coming home for the holidays!

[hrmjustin]

148. well they will be back.

[arely staircase]

157. yep nt

[Waiting For Everyman]

162. Exactly. If discussion was wanted

they wouldn't have made their own group (History of Feminism, or "HoF" for short) into an echo chamber where no point of view is allowed except 100% agreement with them.

Why refuse to discuss there, and then haul it all in here and claim a discussion is wanted? It's a hypocritical and silly assertion on its face. If any more people in GD wanted to agree with them without question or raising any points of their own, they could certainly do it very easily by merely going over to HoF and saying so! This "discussion" hoax they trot out is hilarious to me!

What they really want is to eventually make GD as narrow and one-sided as HoF is.

[JNelson6563]

77. Some people like to divide.

And are very good at it.

Julie

[DontTreadOnMe]

81. Can't we just shoot all the gun nuts?

Like stand your ground ruling .. or something?

[thelordofhell]

83. It's so simple.....a child can explain it.........

[seaglass]

98. There is no gender war on DU.

SOME women and SOME men disagree strongly on feminist issues.
SOME other women support the men in disagreement.
SOME other men support the women in disagreement.

And lastly there is a mix of men and women who have held grudges FOR YEARS, are not interested in discussion of feminist issues but see it as an opportunity to attack those they hold grudges against.

It is not possible for it to be a gender war when the disagreements are not divided by gender.

[MadrasT]

102. ^^^ This right here ^^^

There is no gender war, and I suspect that people who want to label the situation that way are purposefully trying to create one.

(coughs and looks the direction of the OP)

[boston bean]

104. +1000 Woohoo Seaglass, knocked it out of the park! nt

[redqueen]

127. +1

[Tuesday Afternoon]

131. yes

*cough* Libertarians *cough*

[RainDog]

179. I don't think this actually explains all of it.

Last edited Wed Jan 1, 2014, 10:22 PM - Edit history (1)

The assumption that women agree with men in situations where people have conflict is one way this whole situation gets skewed.

My problem has been with these assumptions and the attacked-based "arguments" - which aren't really arguments at all, they're attacks, when someone disagrees on one issue or another.

To be told that your principle-based stance on certain 1st amendment issues is a desire to wear "fuck me shoes" isn't a way to discuss an issue. To be told such a principle is selfish is another problem. Such arguments are not arguments, they're personal attacks.

To say "religions are based upon superstition" is a claim that can be debated. When the response is "you're a bigot" - there's nothing more to say to someone who attacks the writer rather than the claim, especially when the claim is distorted to single out one religion, when that was not the context of the initial remark.

To say someone enables pedophiles by doubting a source is a personal attack. Who wants to have anything to do with that sort of interaction?

To claim that anyone who disagrees with you is a "clown / frat boy / pig / cheerleader" is not discussing issues, it's attacking others who disagree.

To state, honestly, that you are not part of a group, etc. is ignored for some conspiracy. Maybe there are people who are fighting one another in ways that are claimed, but that's not the case for every such claim made - which makes those who are believed to be part of the same doubtful about the claim at all.

If there are men here who are trolling by making stupid remarks - well, I don't reply to every stupid remark I read here and, after a while, I put someone on ignore if that's what I see from them over and over. The best way to keep something like that from derailing a post is to say, "yes, there are some situations when x is y." then go on with the issue in question.

The reason people have held grudges is because those who have attacked them do the same thing over and over again.

Even as I type this, I hesitate to even say anything about this issue, but not all of us see it the same way, and there are reasons for this.

edit to add: when some women claim that other women cannot have an opinion that differs of their own accord, that's sexism, and that's a frequent attack from certain people here. It should come as no surprise that those sorts of attacks are mentioned when, again, they don't address the substance of an issue, but merely constitute personal attacks of the lowest sort. It's intellectually dishonest, but such claims get a lot of "amens" in a certain corner of DU.

[badtoworse]

99. Whatever happened to just putting down the toilet seat?

[ConcernedCanuk]

103. Why won't women just leave the toilet seat UP?

.
.
.





Happy New Years all!



CC

[badtoworse]

106. Good question!

[no1uno]

132. Well in that case...

why have a toilet seat at all? OHHHHH I forgot so THE MAN can have his 'crowning' glory.

[polly7]

137. I have one good, commonsense answer to that.

Because that would also involve leaving the lid up, and when small trucks and little plastic people somehow find their way in, it's a * getting them out .... and of course, it takes someone with hands small enough to fit down there.

Why don't men just get smaller hands?

[Orrex]

163. Why do you hate men? And women?

Hater.

[polly7]

174. LOL! nt.

[pintobean]

164. Because that would make it more difficult to...

Never mind. I don't want to fan that flame.

[polly7]

175. errrr .......

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

Happy New Year pintobean.

[pintobean]

178. Happy New Year polly

[snooper2]

199. I would be happy if MIL would just flush the fucking thing

Don't care what state she leaves the seat in

[ConcernedCanuk]

204. THAT would be gross

.
.
.

Despite my comment, I was "taught" by me ex-wife to leave the seat DOWN.

Rather, I retrained myself after getting blasted 3 times.

It's very simple to solve that problem . . .

SIT!

No more problems with the fairer sex (regarding toilet seats, anyoo),

never miss, and if "the other guy" decides he wants to do some business,

I'M READY!

CC

[madokie]

105. We are equal, man and woman

Hell in my eyes all living things on this earth are equals and I treat them as such.

Now I'll bow out and go on about my business of staying out of these threads

Oh yes, Happy New Year everyone

[Glassunion]

113. There is a war!?!?!

How come I was not invited!?!?!

[Iggo]

114. Insecurity.

[JVS]

150. There is an incivility war.

[Gormy Cuss]

152. Want to stop the gender war? Try listening rather than responding defensively.

Try engaging on topic rather than distracting to a different issue. For example, if the topic is shifting the focus of rape education on college campuses from one where all emphasis is on women protecting themselves to a focus on men not raping, it's not a good time to pipe in and state the obvious, that men are also the victims of rape or that most men don't rape. It's time to talk about whether shifting the focus to men is an effective strategy for reducing rapes on campus.

Also, don't fall into the trap of false equivalence. Men and women are both victims of domestic violence. That doesn't mean that both genders suffer equally. That also doesn't mean that both are equal aggressors. MRA sites love to find some top level statistic that makes it seem as if they are and I've seen such stats repeated here. In fact, I've seen a lot of cherry-picked statistics repeated here from MRA sites so while there may not be anyone here who self-identifies as MRA there ARE DUers who buy into their arguments.

Finally, about those staunch feminists. If the feminists here were preaching to the choir there would be no "gender war." No need.

Happy New Year.

[Ino]

169. Exactly right. Thank you! (nt)

[Squinch]

228. Boom! All done here!

[Zorra]

166. Oppressed minorities often point out inequities or institutionalized/enculturated behaviors

Last edited Wed Jan 1, 2014, 06:12 PM - Edit history (1)

resulting from historical inequality, inequities and behaviors that the dominant oppressor majority can't perceive, or has difficulty perceiving, because of both their historical, and present, position as dominant and privileged in social order.

Because of this, it may take a significant amount of discussion and illustration in order for an oppressed minority to make a point to the oppressor/dominant majority in order to help the willing among them understand the full nature and scope of the oppression in terms of respective inequality. In the of case many gender equity/women's issues discussions on DU in which the OP is posted as a women's concern thread, there is very often something of a "method to the madness" of the feminist that posts the thread.

The prevalence of sexism -- benevolent or hostile -- was not the study's primary focus, nor its major reveal. The more significant finding had to do with how men and women's beliefs about sexism changed after they became aware of its prevalence. In addition to asking participants to record instances of sexism, researchers also evaluated the degree to which subjects tolerated sexist behavior.

Researchers found that after recording the sexist incidents they observed, women were more likely to deem the behavior less acceptable. Men, on the other hand, continued to endorse sexist behavior even after becoming more conscious of it.

But when asked to empathize with the female targets of specific sexist incidents, male participants were less likely to sanction blatant sexism.

In one example, men who were told to consider women's feelings were less likely to think women overreact when responding negatively to sexist behavior.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/27/men-dont-recognize-benevolent-sexism_n_885430.html

Consider the possibility that a primary reason that the majority of men here at DU appear to have a relatively recently elevated level of understanding of women's equality issues is because of repeated in depth discussions begun by DU feminists, posted for the purpose of illustrating both broad and fine aspects of the continuing subject inequality experienced by women in almost every existing culture on the planet.

Consider the possibility that an even deeper level of understanding of the general inequality of women on this planet is possible, an understanding that can help us all become more equal.

It's like, you never really get it until you really get it.

[JTFrog]

211. +1 n/t

[applegrove]

167. Because single women overwhelming voted for Obama in 2012 and the GOP

has sent out sockpuppets to alienate women from democratic places like the DU. Could be what is up.

[Egalitarian Thug]

168. Being dismissive of half the members is always a good way to start.

Congratulations, you've succeeded again.

[RKP5637]

177. I'm just watching the tennis game, back and forth, back and forth ...

[Jamastiene]

180. Uhm, there is a MRA Group on DU.

Plus, there are plenty of MRAs here AND I would not doubt quite a few teabaggers who are instigating a lot of fights. I wouldn't say that so nonchalantly as if you are THAT sure there are none of those here, because you'd just be shitting and falling back in it by saying that. Many get PPRed by MIRT that we don't even see, because they are doing the best job they can. They spare us a lot of BS, but they can't catch them all.

[pintobean]

181. I can't find the DU MRA Group

Do you have a link?

[lumberjack_jeff]

229. Ooh... the're much too clever for that!

I suspect that the MRA group is a carefully hidden subforum of cooking and baking the password to which is stenciled to the underside of the toilet seat at DU HQ.

The fact that not. one. person. here. identifies as an MRA doesn't slow 'em down much, does it?

[In_The_Wind]

234. I never looked for the subforum.

[img][/img]

[NuclearDem]

182. There isn't a gender war.

There are posters who deny male privilege exists and don't want to acknowledge that some of their behaviors and attitudes contribute to a culture that devalues both women and men.

And then there are people who do the exact opposite.

[davidn3600]

185. Terms like "male privilege" and "rape culture" is what causes divisons

Those terms are problematic because they don't explain what you are getting at. A lot of men take it as an insult. It kills the message you are trying to get across because it puts men on the defensive. It sounds as if you are attacking the entire male gender.

When you say, "male privilege," it causes a man to look at themselves and come to the conclusion that they aren't privileged (even if they are, they wont see it in this fashion). And then they go on the offense and claim places where women have "privileges."

And then the war begins....

[NuclearDem]

186. Sorry, but privilege enjoyed by the male gender = male privilege

And a culture that facilitates rape = rape culture.

The terms aren't the problem. If someone bases their entire argument around what terms are used, then that's completely shallow.

Maybe people just need to stop acting so defensively every time the topic comes up. If those people would just listen to what the definitions of these terms are, it wouldn't be so confusing and they wouldn't have any need to feel persecuted.

[davidn3600]

190. It is what it is..

Im just telling you, when you talk to men about male privilege, get ready for a lot of "female privilege" talk in response. I'm just telling you the way it is. People always think the other gender has it easier. The "grass is always greener...." effect.

As for "rape culture" most people outside feminist academia and feminist readings have no clue what that even means. They may not have even heard of the term before as it's never discussed in the mainstream media. And there are feminists that dispute the relevance of the term. So its even a debate within the feminist movement itself.

[Dash87]

191. Neither of those terms are an attack on men.

Is "white privilege" an attack on all white people? There seems to be the misconception that pointing out privilege means:
- You should feel shame for the rest of your life
- There's nothing you can do and we hate you because you have privilege
- It's "us vs. men, white people, whatever"
- We think you're a bad person because you were born with privilege
- We want you to do impossible things to not be privileged, or otherwise you're a bad person

Nobody ever says any of those things. We just want you to acknowledge that the privilege exists and that the power structure is still lop-sided towards men (or white people, etc.).

How is "rape culture" an attack on men? Nobody said all men are rapists. I'm not sure why "rape culture" would be offensive. Pointing out a cultural problem doesn't mean that we're accusing everybody of being rapists. That's silly.

[NuclearDem]

193. Pretty much.

Seriously, would any of this pushback against the concept of privilege make any sense or be any more acceptable with any other minority?

"I can't even say the n-word without some civil rights activists getting on my case."

"I got pulled over for speeding once and the cop was perfectly polite to me. Why do people have such a problem with them?"

"White liberals only voted for Obama because of white guilt."

[Major Nikon]

194. Those terms mean whatever the person using them wants them to mean

They aren't inherently offensive, but rather simply poorly defined terms which can't be quantified. If you asked 50 people on the street what they mean you'd get 50 different answers.

Most people that try to describe "male privilege" have to use "white privilege" to do it. There are few, if any privileges associated with being non-white. You can't say that about being non-male. When asked to quantify "male privilege" we are given checklists with things like, 'women have trouble finding clothes that fit'. "Rape culture" is just as ambiguous and if asked for cause and effect data we are greeted with allegations of "rape apologia" because denying "rape culture" or not agreeing on how that's defined naturally means you're part of the problem or you're an "MRA" (used in the pejorative). The people who use those terms generally require no dissent from whatever idea they are promoting. If you don't walk lock-step with them, then you're part of the problem even if you agree on whatever political remedies exist or have been proposed. What's offensive is you can't even attempt to have a rational discussion about the topic without being defamed and it gets rather banal after a while.

[NuclearDem]

195. You do have a point about male privilege.

It is difficult to define because not all men are the same. Unless you're an upper class, straight, white, cis-gendered man, there will be other societal roadblocks set up, depending on race, orientation, gender identity, and income level. That's where different privileges overlap.

What I've typically seen as male privilege is:
-Taking unsolicited comments from strangers about one's body (positive ones, anyway) as compliments. When directed at women, it's usually a manifestation of control or men believing they deserve a positive response from the woman.
-Workplace discrimination/unequal pay for equal work.
-Constant pressure to not offend/discomfort the other gender. Be pleasant to look at or otherwise interact with.

Again, this only applies to the male aspect of a male. Other factors can make these privileges difficult to obtain, though not by virtue of being men--income disparity between minorities and whites, workplace discrimination over orientation and gender identity, etc.

But the overarching idea is that those men face those problems for completely different privilege-related issues (white privilege, straight privilege, income privilege), and a woman identical in every other way to the man in those examples has to deal with the additional burdens that come with gender discrimination.

Rape culture is a group of societal attitudes that facilitates rape:
-Law enforcement apathy in prosecuting rape (both date/acquaintance rape and violent aggravated rape). Facilitates rape by giving the perpetrator the idea they might get away with it or be able to intimidate the victim ("no one will believe you&quot
-Jokes about rape/acceptance of certain types. Date rape and prison rape especially. Facilitates rape by creating a cultural understanding that these things are just "supposed to happen." Drunk women (and men) are going to be taken advantage of, and some prisoners are going to be raped in prison, and even deserve it.
-Street harassment and unwanted attention. Facilitates rape by wearing down boundaries and giving others the idea that they can get more aggressive and not be shamed by most people.
-Victim blaming. Facilitates rape by giving the rapist the idea they won't be held responsible, or that people will blame the victim for the rape. Steubenville is Exhibit A for this.

This doesn't mean all men are rapists, or that men aren't victims of rape. It includes that as well, but the statistics just show women are far more likely to be the victims.

[Locrian]

196. nice post

I think of it as more of a "dominator" issue. Our society is largely based on domination - men 'tend' to benefit from that to some extend depending on how aligned they are with taking advantage of that societal construct.

We are so steeped in a culture of ranking people over others, and 'power' being based on aggression and force that we have a hard time thinking there is any other system.

[Major Nikon]

221. Illegal discrimination has to do with civil rights

Civil rights and privilege are two different things.

There's also countless ways men are disadvantaged. Both men and women are privileged in different ways. At best it's a wash. White privilege absolutely does exist. There are very few ways anyone has an advantage for being non-white.

Rape culture is a group of societal attitudes that facilitates rape:

I get this part about "rape culture" and you are absolutely correct that certain attitudes most certainly do facilitate rape. However, as I mentioned different people have different ideas about exactly what that entails. With no agreed upon definition or quantifiable standards the term becomes meaningless.

From wiki:

Although the concept of rape culture is used in feminist academia,[8] there is disagreement over what defines a rape culture and to what degree a given society meets the criteria to be considered a rape culture.[3]

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

So the term has value in academia so long as someone is clearly defining what they mean by that term. Certainly some aspects of it go without saying. Promoting the idea that a woman can't be raped inside marriage. Victim blaming. Preventing people from reporting rape in prison by threats of violence. However, some lump everything they don't like into "rape culture" without any demonstrable evidence that it's true. Also from wiki:

Pornography has also been commonly targeted as a contributor to rape culture because it is said to contribute to larger patterns of oppression. Feminists frequently link rape culture to the widespread distribution of pornography, which is seen as an expression of a rape culture that objectifies women, reducing the female body to a commodity.

Now maybe this is true and maybe it isn't, but at best it's a poorly supported hypothesis. When porn is up exponentially and rape and violence against women is down significantly, the hypothesis has a serious problem with demonstrating cause and effect. Then you have the body of evidence that rejects this notion and even suggests an inverse relationship exists. But if you try to have a discussion with someone who has already made up their mind about what "rape culture" means, you are greeted with accusations of rape apologia. As I alluded to, many just use the term to defame anyone who dares to disagree with them. Whether they realize it or not this simply cheapens the whole idea and detracts from any value the term might have.

This doesn't mean all men are rapists, or that men aren't victims of rape. It includes that as well, but the statistics just show women are far more likely to be the victims.

Actually not all statistics show that.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/21/us-more-men-raped-than-women

Prison rape is arguably the easiest part of the "rape culture" dynamic to solve because by definition you have a captive perpetrator set. Yet if you dare mention anything about this aspect of the problem you are branded as quoting "MRA stats" as if rape is somehow a zero sum game where the rape of men and the rape of women can't be addressed simultaneously.

[NuclearDem]

222. Yikes, I hadn't seen those statistics on prison rape.

That's not an MRA stat, it's a rape culture stat. Nobody deserves that. Fighting rape isn't a zero sum game.

[Major Nikon]

223. Agreed

[Dash87]

189. There isn't. It's just more pointless forum drama. The type nobody cares about.

[Romulox]

197. I notice a lack of commitment to broad-based equality and populism in general from many

self-professed "feminists".

For example, discussions about class and economic inequality are not welcome by many feminists, and are often ignored. It seems like despite all the talk of "intersectionality", class-based analysis strains a lot of current feminist thought. With this in mind, I have to wonder if some of the multitudinous "gender discussions" (almost always accusatory and confrontational from their conceptions) are intended as distractions from critiques of the status quo that favors corporations and the wealthy over everyday people.

Thus discussions of "feminist" issues such as the percentage of female CEOs, and how left-leaning men need to "check their privilege" predominate out of all proportion versus discussions about class inequality, working conditions for the poorest, infrastructure decline, and declining resources for children, all of which disproportionately affect women, people of color, and the poor, categories for which there is a massive overlap.

I don't think this is an accident or coincidence.

[NuclearDem]

200. No disagreement here.

Male privilege isn't the only privilege out there. Women of color (and in many cases, trans- women) aren't represented to the extent they should be in the movement.

[Shandris]

239. In fact, transwomen are also (by certain segments)...

...not only not included, but actively shunned from the movement. It seems to be a 'wave' thing, but I may well be wrong on that part.

Now I am not saying that the certain segments are a majority, simply that they are a 'larger than negligible' number. Its also -very- seldom talked about, at least that I have seen. Your comment is the first to mention it that I actively remember (but I'd be such a liar if I claimed to remember -everything-! )

[davidn3600]

210. You hit the nail on the head

And that's always been a big critique I've always had with feminism is that it's too exclusionary and inflexible. It tends to alienate people more than brings people together. Look at how many politicians are afraid to call themselves a "feminist." It's become a politically-toxic word. My suggestion would be that it would be more successful as an egalitarian movement.

Straight up feminism isn't as effective anymore because there isn't much that can be accomplished legally anymore. The problems women face today are more social, cultural, and economic. Those are things that have a lot of crossover into other issues of equality like racial, economic, and sexual orientation. Yet feminism tends to want to keep itself isolated into a certain niche of the left-wing.

[rrneck]

219. Well, there are obvious advantages

to writing an esoteric tome from your tenure protected office or trolling for eyeballs with your blog on the internet over walking a picket line in the middle of winter or eating tear gas.

[LadyHawkAZ]

224. It isn't accidental

Some of us still remember how one of the groups was formed, and around whom it was formed. It was very much about separating "feminist" issues from any and all other issues, particularly those of the LGBT and men.

I happen to believe that most of the underpinnings of feminist issues (in the context of feminism as a broad social issue) are in fact based in class warfare- poverty and oppression of women are necessary to continue production of the next generation of profitable worker drones and cannon fodder; women's rights (especially reproductive rights) interfere heavily with that agenda. Giving the masses someone of their own class to fight with (women for men, men for women, gays for heteros, other skin tones for whites etc.) keeps them from going after the source of the problem en masse, which might result in an overturning of the social order keeping them oppressed. Most of our civil rights issues are class issues at the bottom of it all, and they all do overlap at that level, as well as on other levels.

As I've said before, DU is noticeably driven in many ways by mass media, and mass media is corporate-owned. There's a heavy media investment in different groups not getting along, and gender battles have proven effective even among the more progressive elements of society. This will continue exactly as long as we allow it to. So far, we're allowing it.

This is harmful to all of our causes. Don't buy the hype, don't drink the Kool-Aid, and always take the red pill.

[rrneck]

225. +1 Well said. nt

[Romulox]

227. I really appreciate this response. Well put. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

230. This post and the one above it are the two most insightful things I've read here this week. n/t

[tridim]

201. Divide and (try to) Conquer

It has been going on since Obama became our nominee in 08.

[Capt. Obvious]

208. MUST PROTECT OBAMA

EVEN WHEN NO WAY RELATED TO TOPIC.

[tridim]

213. Yes, I will defend the best president of my lifetime on this DEMOCRATIC forum.

Assuming you don't, may I ask why?

[Capt. Obvious]

215. Here's a term you're familiar with

[tridim]

217. So you think it's funny to trash our Democratic President on Democratic Underground.

Check, Mr. Obvious. That's all anyone needs to know about you.

[Capt. Obvious]

220. That's what this thread is all about

Trashing our Democratic President on Democratic Underground.

I think it's even in the OP title.

[NuclearDem]

218. Because Obama didn't have any goddamn thing to do with the subject!

[NuclearDem]

209. Not every subject here has to involve Obama.

[Capt. Obvious]

216. He begs to differ

[hughee99]

212. I know this won't cover everything, but starting an argument with "Shut up and listen"

doesn't make a person more likely to listen quietly with an open mind.

It also doesn't help that people read posts with, what would seem, the desire to attribute the most offensive meaning they can think of.

[BeyondGeography]

226. Boredom

[Skidmore]

233. Divide and conquer.

If we are busy fighting amongst ourselves, then our focus is not on them. I do believe some of these people are disruptors.

[BootinUp]

238. All we need is Love...da dee da dee dum. nt