If I actually thought there were "Anti-Feminists" in this group, I would kick them out.

[Bonobo]

So now is your chance.

If you are harboring "anti-feminist" ideas -that is to say, if you are AGAINST the idea of women getting full rights to work, health care, protection against violence, and everything else, please speak up.

Defend yourself. Be brave!

Are you out there?

As for me, a poster recently said something interesting that I must correct. They said something about how the "proxy war against Feminism was being carried out through personal vendettas." I thought that was most interesting because it is precisely the opposite.

It is, in fact, a personal clash of personalities that is being played out "AS IF IT WERE A WAR AGAINST FEMINISM".

It is not.

It is, in fact, the kicking back against slimers, smearers and people who twist people's reputations so that they can have an "enemy" to rally against. In point of fact, there are very, very few real enemies against Feminism anywhere on DU and if I knew of them, I would vote to oust them.

[Major Nikon]

1. The idea that disagreeing with one or a group of feminists, makes one anti-feminist is rubbish

If that were true that would make an awful lot of feminists anti-feminists, including many who so casually toss around those allegations.

Certainly there are some out there who are anti-feminist, but some here seem to believe that because someone isn't in lock step with their narrow feminst ideology, they must be an anti-feminst. The same people seem to believe they speak for all of feminism when clearly they don't.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

2. I'm always amused at the "You're not doing feminism correctly" snark from certain quarters

They certainly have a lock it seems on how to do it, and tell plenty of women how to do so, quite often.

[lumberjack_jeff]

3. Feminism is advocacy for women.

There is nothing wrong with advocacy, and when that advocacy takes the form of a search for equality, I'm fully supportive.

I'm unclear what you mean by "anti-feminist". Does that mean anti-woman? Anti-equality? Anti-choice? If that's what you mean, then I agree.

However, every law that would be invalidated by the equal rights amendment benefits women. I support the ERA, therefore, I guess I am opposed to those laws. Is that what you mean by "anti-feminist"?

If you mean that everyone at DU is a feminist, that isn't true. Feminists can't universally agree what it means to be a feminist, and I certainly don't agree with many of the definitions thrown about. I wouldn't self-describe as feminist for the same reason I won't self describe as an MRA; I don't want others extrapolating my views based on a one word description that has no agreed definition, particularly when some of the definitions in practical use are so heinous.

Shouldn't be all that controversial, really. Many of the definitions of feminism hold that men can't be one. I guess I'll be that kind of feminist.

[Warren DeMontague]

4. If I had time to get bothered about every ridiculous name some random Ginkus calls me on DU

...I'd have a lot more time than I, actually, do.

Hell, as it is I barely have time for the Satan worship ...not to mention the bigfoot porn.

[nomorenomore08]

5. As I've said before, I think we on DU generally agree on 90% of the really essential stuff.

We all have our flaws and our blind spots, but by and large we have mostly good intentions, and desire to see a better, more just world. Which is why some of the discussions over things like "white privilege" (or "rape culture&quot frustrate me so much - because if we're all mostly on the same page, then why should the use of a simple, non-offensive phrase which describes a more or less self-evident phenomenon, be controversial? And if the problem is really just one of semantics, then why can't some folks just let it go?

[Bonobo]

6. Because it is a personal war for some. nt

[nomorenomore08]

7. For instance, if one admits that systemic racism is still a problem in this country - which is a big

DUH for anyone who isn't (politically) fucking blind - then why should the use of a two-word phrase, which is a convenient shorthand (or euphemism) for a whole lot of ugliness, bother them? Yet people still complain about the word "privilege" as if it meant being born with a literal silver spoon up their ass, which is not at all the meaning of the word in this context.

[Bonobo]

8. People invariably see things from their own vantage point.

If you say to a person that they experience privilege, they will take it personally and feel attacked because, from their POV, they had to struggle -as everyone struggles.

Of course there is privilege, but on the level of individuals, that does not hold true so clearly.

What makes the conversation difficult is that egos exist. People live personal, private lives. There is sensitivity. When you tell a 60 year old man who just lost his job and who struggles to put food on his table that he has privilege, what do you expect him to feel? The hypothetical man is experiencing pain and worry. He does not feel privileged.

I am not saying there is no male privilege, white privilege. There is. But there are also privileges that tall men have, big-breasted woman have, fast people have, educated people have, etc. etc.

The conversations break down when it gets personal. I am just trying to answer your question.

[nomorenomore08]

11. I don't disagree with any of that. I understand perfectly well where some of these reactions come

from. Still, self-censoring in the name of sparing people's feelings doesn't help anybody either - because, for instance, conservatives use race, or more specifically the supposedly pernicious phenomenon of "reverse racism," to stir up (and exploit) the innate selfishness and racial paranoia of the white American right-winger.

I understand what you're saying, but we have to be able to talk candidly about race - and gender, and sexuality, and social class, etc. etc. - because otherwise we're essentially letting the other side win.

[westerebus]

10. Because the implication within the statement isn't their experience.

White privilege implies white superiority (economic cultural control).

They don't feel superior.

They understand poor. They have lived poor.

They understand exactly what it means to be poor.

They resent being told they have failed at being white (in control) because they are poor.

Worse, the implication they are too stupid to understand there are people worse off than themselves.

What is difficult to express for themselves is knowing they identify with the struggle against oppression which flourishes in our capitalist system.

A system that at its core is white privilege (economic cultural control) writ large.

To tell them otherwise is insulting to what they hold to be true.

Their experience.

Their experience tells them oppression is wrong on any level.

Which just may be why they are here in the first place.

It's not to tell people what to think, on the contrary, it's to RELATE to others in the same boat.

Could this be why there's push back?

Those who aren't interested in making allies of the very people who came here to share their experience, their pain, their commitment to help were they can, are missing the message completely.

But what the fuck do I know.

I got the white male privilege.

[nomorenomore08]

12. Denying the mass-level effects of racism doesn't help working-class white folks in the slightest.

All it does is allow the right wing/GOP to continue to push a false narrative of white victimhood all the while picking the pockets of average white (and other) Americans.

[westerebus]

13. Who is denying it?

[nomorenomore08]

14. Maybe not in those exact words, but people reacting so defensively to discussions about racism

doesn't suggest that they're very knowledgeable, or even wish to be, on the subject. Not to mention I've seen people on here literally throw out the "You want to make us ashamed to be white!" canard and other such reactionary shite, that more properly belongs on Free Republic or even Stormfront.

Bottom line, I'm not big on purity tests but I'm not sure that some DU'ers' views on race are all that progressive...

[westerebus]

15. If you intend to frame this as either they are racist or they are dumb.

Then you are missing what they are trying to explain.

It's not about them.

They are here to help. To share what they experience.

What economic oppression looks like to them.

If you tell a person their experience does not count what do you expect?

Flowers?

So quit making it about them.

The common denominator among oppressed people is poverty.

It is not race.

The argument you are making boils down to this: if you are not a minority, you do not know what it means to be oppressed in this country.

The response is: We know that our experience is not the same as yours. Our experience is this.

Using race to divide people is a tool to control those opposed to injustice.

[nomorenomore08]

19. Social class is a vitally important distinction as well. Some downplay it far too much

though I've never done so. But that doesn't diminish the impact of race and how it stratifies society - all it means is that classism is a "thing" on par with racism.

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. If you ask if racism exists, you will find broad agreement.

If you change it so that the focus isn't on the discrimination, oppression and disadvantage that racial minorities face, but instead reframe it as the unearned privileges whites (men... of course. Always "white males&quot enjoy, you begin to see pushback.

And for some arguably good reasons. If we're talking about ending oppression and disadvantage for those that suffer from it, everyone agrees. If we're talking about ending the injustice of the fact that your brother in law got you that job at the loading dock, or only getting a ticket for that can of beer after work... then that support disappears.

It's the difference between the injustice of the fact that people of color are getting a shitty deal or the injustice of a white person getting a mostly survivable one. One articulates justice by lifting someone up. The other seeks justice by mashing someone down, who more often than not is already mostly flat. Worse, it doesn't benefit the minorities who serve as the benchmark for equality. At best, it makes for a crowded basement.

Whether or not "white privilege" is true (imho it is) misses the point. We're probably the most liberal community on the web and it pisses off liberals.

It's counterproductive.

Privilege isn't the problem, disadvantage is.

[nomorenomore08]

17. All I'm saying is we each have to be able to articulate our reality honestly, without self-censoring

to spare anybody's feelings. If we can't do that then there's no way we can ever truly give people a voice, particularly people who've found themselves relatively marginalized within the larger society.

Civility, genuine civility based on honesty and respect, is a fine and good thing, but not the false civility of just going along to get along - certainly on an anonymous message board which professes liberal values, that sort of spurious "politeness" shouldn't be necessary.

IMO these issues are too important to get bogged down in discussions of "proper" tone or tactics. As I said, we have to let people speak their own truth, and speak it as loudly as necessary.

[lumberjack_jeff]

18. I think I've demonstrated my general broad support for "speaking one's mind"

But I have to concede that lobbing a turd into the punchbowl don't always inspire people to agree with me.

It might be true, and it might be a novel argument, and it might be cathartic... but it's still annoying to the thirsty guests who now must fill those tiny cups from the drinking fountain.

[nomorenomore08]

20. And yes, harsh truth needs to balanced with a more conciliatory aspect. I don't disagree there.

No one can be on their "rage" setting 24/7 - anyone who tried would probably drop from exhaustion pretty quick.

[lumberjack_jeff]

25. Work = Force times distance.

As it pertains to gender issues, the distance the DU football needed to travel to even reach the point where we could agree on a set of facts and open communication could begin was huge.

With regard to issues of racial discrimination and disadvantage (which is easily demonstrable and widely supported here) that degree of force isn't necessary.

When all that is required is a nudge to mobilize support or refocus attention, I think blame, punishment and ridicule (all three of which are intrinsic to the "privilege" argument) are counterproductive.

As a concept, white privilege is generally true.

Net male privilege is not true. Is it counterproductive rhetoric? If the goal is equality, then yes. Is it advocacy? In that case maybe not. Feminist is apparently the chivalrous thing to be.

[Warren DeMontague]

21. You'll forgive me if I don't get too worked up over the "silencing" of so-called "heroes"

like the guy who felt compelled the other day to call me a misogynist, a racist AND someone who apparently has it in for disabled people- all because I would not offer some ridiculous pre-approved blank check of condemnation against all possible jokes that supposedly met some arbitrary criteria, before the fact and without context.


Never mind that I have a family member with CP. Does DU know that? Probably not. Why would they? I don't really talk about it here, because I'm generally not on DU to work through my personal shit, certainly not to use total strangers as proxy enemies for whatever it is I've got bugging me in my own life.

So some dude is a hero, "bravely speaking truth" because he flies off the rails and can't keep himself from insulting people in a thread? He's a victim of totalitarianism a la Martin Niemöller? REALLY? "First, they came for the thread hijackers"... Give me a break.

No, honestly, here I will toot my own horn: what was heroic there was my keeping my friggin' patience when told to my face I don't give a shit about disabled people.

Someone is not a hero for getting a timeout on a message board, because they can't keep from dragging personal insults into a conversation. That's not "heroism".

And I look at all the wailing, the gnashing of teeth over the "silencing"- and I look at the transparency pages of the silenced- and I have to wonder, what is the important speech which is being "unfairly" silenced? Judging by the transparency pages, it seems what some are angry about, is that they and their pals don't have the freedom to freely toss out the worst, nastiest, most personal insults at the people they've deemed their "enemies"-

...I don't just mean the name calling directed at me, I'm talking the lapdog comments, the shit about B's family member... these are things which they would never in a million years think they should put up with, if they were directed at people on their "side".

So.... it's bullshit.

Here's another example. A while back someone on DU posted a personal attack against someone I've disagreed with, vociferously, over the years. The person doing the posting was someone I have some stuff in common with, someone whom I have had pleasant exchanges with over the years. Someone I would consider a friend. The person on the other end of the attack has certainly done more than enough in the time I've been here, to alienate a large chunk of the board.

Nevertheless, when I saw what the person on my "side" said about the person on the other "side", I sent my friend a PM. I said that while I understood being frustrated, the particular comment was, in my mind, over the top. I told him that, in my opinion, he probably owed that poster- the one he insulted, my "enemy"- an apology.

Did I do this to get points on DU? Head pats? As part of some devious master plan? No. I did it because it was the decent fucking thing to do. And I never would have brought it up again, except that it provides a glaring contrast to recent events. Because in addition to what I did do, here's what I did NOT do- since that person had their account, at least temporarily, suspended. I did NOT rush over to ATA to complain about the 'unfairness' of their account lock, the hides, some improbably goofy 'conspiracy' to silence them.

I did NOT start a thread lauding their wonderful contributions and "needed commentary" or whatever-the-fuck, making the clear implication that said needed commentary was the totally uncalled for shit they just flinged at the person I don't, personally, get along with.

[nomorenomore08]

22. I didn't say intaglio was a hero. He was being a complete asshole to you and that wasn't fair.

I don't agree, by any means, with everything posted in HoF. Though I'm not going to go into a protected group and start railing against the members, or the OP's posted - I don't do that in this group either.

I wasn't just talking about feminism/gender issues either. It could apply just as much to recent discussions of racism and "white privilege" where certain posters have taken offense at things intended in no way as personal.

I know you've gotten a bad rap from some folks on here, and that sucks. As I've said, I hate when substantive issues are obscured by personal beefs. And I still think you're a good guy even if some evidently consider you Satan's MRA nephew.

[Warren DeMontague]

23. I do have a Devil's Haircut.

Good guy, bad guy.. I can be a shithead, I'm certainly not perfect. The "MRA" thing is, really, a riot.. I mean, okaaay.

I don't mess with protected groups, either. It's a space for one thing, I respect that. On the rare occasions I post in HoF, it's certainly not to challenge the parameters of that.

That's why I'm talking about this here, and not there, for instance.

The threads you talk about; they didn't offend me, but their unfolding was fairly predictable. There is raising awareness about inherent societal unfairnesses and discrimination, and then there is criticizing groups of people for no other reason than to get a reaction- in fact, some of the people in the threads you mentioned, acknowledged that the fact that the threads got a reaction WAS THE point of the threads, in as many words.

I question how productive that sort of thing actually is, particularly when I believe most people on this site are here under genuine auspices, most people here are politically engaged Democrats- while we may not agree on everything (or even 90% of everything) we're all ostensibly on the same team, so who does the division help?

Still, like I said- a thread mentioning "white privilege" doesn't offend me, personally. A thread mentioning "male privilege" doesn't offend me, nor does one mentioning "white, male privilege". (Not even one mentioning "White male devastatingly handsome, and **** like a ***** privilege. ...Hey, what can I say?)

I appreciate your acknowledgement that certain behavior in the aforementioned thread, was over the top. I think that's the common thread with all the "time outs"- people; and I've done it myself, it doesn't mean they're "bad people"- who have lost their temper or otherwise crossed lines into personal insults. It's not about trying to silence a particular point of view.

And when people get 'offended' by a thread in GD, they usually end up kicking it and getting it more attention.. so that's not really silencing, either. I guess the long and short of it is, I don't feel that any viewpoint has really been "silenced" on DU, rather, admin has decided to try to do something about certain behaviors, not limited to any one group, which have been a long-running problem, using this sanction.

I think admin's posts- about alerts and hides since the new policy- bear out that in general, it is working.

[lumberjack_jeff]

26. You don't appear to pull punches very often here.

I do occasionally read HoF and I don't sense the same degree of candor. I frankly find that understandable.

Granted, "when in Rome..."

The eggs used as cobblestones have thicker shells here.

[Behind the Aegis]

31. +1

[nomorenomore08]

34. Maybe above all else, I try not to wade in beyond my depth.

Thus why I feel more comfortable arguing (though mostly rather amicably) with other men, in the Men's Group. I've certainly disagreed with people in HoF before, but as it's not my house (so to speak) I'm even more careful to be polite about it.

[Bonobo]

24. Thank you, Warren. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

30. I did not know the backstory.

Let me add, belatedly, how sorry I am for your loss.

[Behind the Aegis]

32. Boy, you are verbose!

But so well spoken!

[Major Nikon]

9. I have no issues with the term "white privilege"

There are few, if any privileges associated with being non-white in this country. The term "male privilege" is a bit more problematic. While there are privileges associated with being male, the same is true for being female. At best it's a wash. The same people who demand people accept the term "male privilege" reject "female privilege" even after you quantify "female privilege" and they refuse to quantify "male privilege". At some point the discussion is banal and becomes much like religion in that you have to believe in something that's completely abstract. You also have those who conflate the two into "white male privilege" which is meaningless.

[Dash87]

27. I think we can agree -

- Younger women are often
treated like unintelligent sex "things" in the media, sending a toxic message to young girls.
- Divorce courts treat men like shit, mostly from the idea that men are clueless parents / are less nurturing / less able.
- The "Pro-Life" people are more about restricting womens' rights.
- The "be a man" and "don't be a p*****" mentality thrown at our boys is toxic. It's not encouraging - it's a form of shaming that leaves scars.
- Gender platitudes and stereotypes are stupid and should just go away - eg "Women are the home keepers" and "Men are the breadwinners."

I don't follow DU drama and I really don't care. Seems like a waste of time.

[libodem]

28. I think you would knock them out

I would, too. All of hof seems to hate my guts cuz I'm not the same style of feminist that they are. Started with the bitch wars ended with the rape and porn wars. I think they have thought I was male trying to infiltrate them or that I was a troll. It started on du2.

The first thing I tried to write, was taken down in the regular feminism group, maybe it was a copyright violation but it felt unfriendly. Then I answered an op by redqueen and had over iverglas jump my shit. She tore into me in the meanest way and I wasn't even addressing her. It never felt safe after that. They seemed to have kept that same mean tone when we moved over here and the big blow up exploded all over meta about who was hosting the feminism group.

I have my theories about disruption for the sake of disruptions but I don't want to sound ridiculous or get a hidden post.

[Bonobo]

29. Once they paint you with that brush

You will always be a "them" in their "us vs. them" version of reality.

They do not have any balance.

[libodem]

33. You were probably

Scared to say the 'broad brush', huh?

[Bonobo]

35. Good one! nt