Thread to discuss sexism and misogyny you encounter on DU.

Thank you for pining this. Thank you for being such a gracious host as well.

It's time for us to call this crap out. I am with you.

Much appreciated!

You go girl!! WTF?

Good to see you around thems there/here parts!

Back at ya...I've seen this kind of thing all too often on the web in political forums over the last year. Don't let em get you down.

I rethought the issue and I think it's better not to draw attention to their games.

I'm a bit shy when it comes to compliments like that, I don't see myself or anything I've done to be especially admirable. thank you, though, for the kind words and thoughts! It's Duers like you who we don't hear too much from, but seem to get it and support members like myself, who make it all the more worthwhile.

Please come in the group and join us more often.

Your voice is important and a pick me up when we feel beat down!

I hope the people who have been going alert crazy decide to piss off and let the group exist in peace

Thanks for stopping in and showing your support.

Believe me there aint a one of us that are perfect in this group. Me probably having the most imperfection!

Your support means more than you know!

just sayin'.

Imagine getting so bent out of shape over something they don't even have to read if they want to. I've heard some say take that post to HOF where we don't have to see it. Then they poke around HOF looking for stuff to be OUTRAGED about. Yeah, I used the O word.

Thanks for your support Arcanetrance.

on Bill Maher's show, looking like he was "grabbing the tits" of Huff Po's "Millennial Bimbo"? A woman posted this drivel, and my alert got 5-1 to leave it.

The poster responded to my concerns by calling me "honey" and "silly."

Furthermore, have you noticed that Femen protests are "brave" and daring, but the protests of DU feminists are attempts to tell others how to protest, or are representative of puritanical "outrage" about women baring their breasts?

It seems to me that those who seek to diminish DU feminists are growing ever more derisive and divisive -- striving to be "right" or to have the last word. Sad that Skinner hasn't revised the TOS...

And yes, I agree that the attacks on DU feminists are getting more vehement and more frequent. It's kind of amusing because they are really starting to look like they are coming unhinged. The attacks are way out of proportion to the perceived offenses.

ANOTHER thread, calling me a "word nazi."

A jury voted 3-3 to keep it...

Oh, the horror. Oh, the oppression. I can hardly stand it.

I'm a "word nazi" now, and I need to "get a life."

Is it me, or are the personal attacks increasing?

everyone knows it's not real feminism if you are fully clothed.

that all feminists on DU are shrill, puritanical, dried-up ol' prunes -- aka The Sisters of Perpetual Outrage!

(I forgot to mention the consistent use of absolutes herein below ...)

If I announced I post while topless?

Does that mean I'll have to confess that I post wearing my jammies?

everyone posts in jammies.

I guess it shouldn't be too surprising.

Thanks for speaking up.

A jury voted to hide the last personal attack against me in the aforementioned thread. I have a list of twenty names that will go on my IL when I've finished my OP re: sexism on DU.

with some of our friends and got banned for my efforts. However will I carry on?

most of this brouhaha (I've bookmarked several OPs to reference in my own OP about sexism and misogyny on DU), I've noticed the following:

~specific DUers are being maligned and their posted comments misrepresented.

~an identifiable few routinely show up to post derisive, defensive screeds.

~most of these specific nabobs have little or no knowledge of feminism, sexism or patriarchy.

~attempts to recommend books or articles are ignored or ridiculed.

I would like to think that the members of DU are better educated, have superior critical thinking skills, and are capable of discussions without snarks, sarcasm or personal attacks. I'm finding that this is not so.

I've left once before because of the malicious and relentless sexism and misogyny (and what does his inaction say about Skinner?!?), but I intend to stay and counter the worst offenders -- diplomatically and supportively...at least until it becomes clear that all attempts are fruitless.

and I did search for it yesterday. Can you provide me a link?

Every time I think the vitriol has run its course, someone else posts a provocative OP. I will most assuredly let you and many others know.

(I thought the person who just ridiculed "today's women" had a feminist bent, but apparently I was mistaken...)

you'll never post. It ain't stopping.

fascination with Femen's breasts, which I'm sure will run its course soon, given Femen's sparse numbers and our species' short attention span.

I must say I find it disheartening that so many women are participating in the derision meted out to certain DUers, and the derogation of feminism.

around here. A lot of women are invested in male approval, even when it's only virtual. Of course some simply disagree, as is their every right. Disagreement, however, doesn't explain the vitriol.

Is that deep down in that place within ourselves that most people don't acknowledge until they are silent and still and thoughtful, they *know* that they've chosen a path of repression and collaboration with the P and are fighting an inner battle with themselves to repress that knowledge. Or they could be totally shallow people with no deeper intellect or self-awareness and are only reactive. Could go either way...

Some just don't like other women. They've been taught to seek male approval, and to do that they feel they need to turn on other women. I imagine everyone has encountered women like that offline.

But thought it might get too long and contemptuous. We all know women who say - I don't get along with other women. Or to men - I'm not like *those* women. I'm cool. I think we all know women like that. And again, I try to find it in me to empathize with them and think about the culture that drove them to that attitude rather than think of their collaboration with the P for their own gain.

I have nothing but disdain for the collaborators but I try to moderate my own thinking on it because I am self-aware enough to know that it's only my own rebelliousness and refusal to conform that makes me think that way. I make my life harder by refusing to conform to societal expectations of what female is - even in the small stuff. Giving an inch would make my life easier but living with myself harder.

I subject myself to needless ridicule by refusing to "do" female drag. Was subjected to it at lunch yesterday, actually.

My choice, with eyes wide open.

Luckily, I'm almost past the age where men (and women) think they have the right, no the duty, to comment on my attractiveness to the male of the species.

got smart. and said fuck that. lol

the women who openly collaborate in sexism. While I explain it on a surface level, I don't really understand it. I know it's the result of socialization. I've never been someone who doesn't like the company of other women, so I can't really understand where they are coming from. They generally justify their attacks by claiming the feminists they dislike don't like men, yet don't seem to have an awareness of how much they appear to dislike other women. I've even seen some defend rape apologists or actively engage in rape apology themselves.

So it seems that women, just as other oppressed groups, often perpetuate the same prejudicial thoughts or behavior that they’ve experienced in a way to separate themselves from the oppressed group and be accepted as part of the positive majority. Competition is formed in order to be ingratiated to those in positions of power or those seen as possessing positive characteristics. And yet, Steinem explains, when an opportunity is created for the sharing of experiences, a sense of community emerges. A sense of sisterhood, if you will.

http://engenderingequality.wordpress.com/2011/11/14/sisterhood/

oppression by becoming collaborators. It's nothing new and I try to feel sorry for them rather than hating them. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Some of them don't even recognize their own oppression. Again, nothing new under the sun, right?

someone is really bent outta shape over our little group.

Pathetic.

draw this (and her other hidden OP) to Skinner's attention. Call it posting while feminist. I'm not the best messenger at the moment, so I don't feel I can do it myself.

It seems that Skinner doesn't give a rats ass.

I say we just continue, post again and again.. screw them. Nobody is forcing anyone to come and read in HOF. This is obviously someone with an ax to grind.

I say fuck it, continue on!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022635878

a perfect example how femen is not about feminism flashing tits at Berlusconi and putin. flashing putin for the women that are working to have to endure hours of tit jokes from the men. both Berlusconi and putin sneering and ridiculing the women in dismissive and demeaning manner putting women in their place.

so fuckin effective.

then, the men that cheer femen, do not even consider the uncomfortable and hostile environment the rest of the women have to work in because of this one demonstrator. fuck the women, right?

And probably many of Putin's supporters were also convinced of whatever argument that young woman was making. With her boobs.


To see someone on DU say about Putin, "THIS is a leader!"



Yeah, this method of 'protesting' is surely effective.

and the rest of the day, the women continually without voice cause of tit jokes. must they join in on the tit jokes, laugh along with them, show their tits to be heard?

i get the initial reaction to funny.... of putin. but, .... he is a creep and ALL of meriks power of voice was suck out and given to putin in this one little flash.

women who felt this may backfire.

Well, hell it did back fire, and now it's all one big ole damn joke about boobies!

wtf

i really am liten'n up. i get the joke, probably beyond more than sees it at the surface. i do think it funny. and how in your fuckin face in less than a week.... funny.

'But see! People are talking about the protest now!'

Um, no. They're talking about Putin's supposedly amusing face. Or her boobs. No one is talking about the message, except in the effort to prove there actually is one.

Can't see the sexism in front of their eyes or even coming out of their own headw

purposely obtuse. or simply pretending otherwise.

I mean why do I have to be antisex and antinudity to think these protests aren't effective and do more harm than good

has defined what the issue is.

this is a lie. it is used to dismiss and silent the argument. god forbid any of these discussions actually have to do with what is being discussed.

..."conservative".

It's a lame smear tactic.

without supportive suggestions about what "effective" really is, that constructive thought simply feeds into the more contemptuous critics of that protest. Absent Big Lawyers, Guns and Money, it's just that oppressed groups have to protest in their own way.

Well-intentioned criticism stated from the relative security of a non-oppressed (officially, anyway) group members on how 'best' to do it would be more helpful. It doesn't mean you have to think a certain way; it just means that you could bear witness, give some moral support even if you don't agree with the means; or take your cues from women about how they want to go about getting what equalizes their institutional, financial or social status.

Women continue to try what has worked, sometimes not worked; and recently, women, along with Occupy, are bearing the brunt of militarized male led conservers of power.

Women tend to be ignored, whether dressed or not, when they protest...might as well go for high visibility on the world stage. The theater of it helped. Contempt and ridicule are short-sighted responses. Russian liberality about sex and gender will come the way it has in most other countries -- with jail, public punishment, etc. -- but eventually.

I dont keep up with news much so I know nothing about the femen "movement" and it's intellectual grounding. I understand that they bare thier breasts as part of the protest, but what are thier stated ideals? What are they trying to open people's hearts and minds to?
Do they have a rational for the use of nudity as part of thier attempts to garner attention and sympathyzers for thier movement?
This not an attempt at snarking or anything~ I'm genuinely interested.

Was from someone who posted in this group arguing that FEMEN's point was to demonstrate that women's bodies shouldn't be a site for determining male honor. I can't remember the poster's name but he has an Ohio state flag as his avatar.

Muslim women have objected to FEMEN's focus on veiling and asserted that their clothing is not their business. FEMEN is anti-religion and anti-Islam in particular. Their messages tend to be very basic: "fuck the Qur'an, fuck dictatorship," etc. They marched into a women's conference and told the participants they talk too much. Many on this site outside of HOF love FEMEN, but I'm not sure they could tell you what the women are protesting.

We're "spun up" and only created this thread to get other people to alert "for us". Or some such nonsense.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1114&pid=7720

Pure projection in an effort to diminish women and make them seem paranoid and hysterical and not empowered to handle their own shit.

what are the new rules on alerting?

Meant so much to me, according to others, I guess I should know.

Can anyone fill me in?

But it was important, veeery important.

We both must have missed the last Convocation of the Sisterhood of Perpetual Outrage (where they apparently discussed these horribly restrictive new alerting rules and concocted this thinly veiled plot to get other people to alert for us, and then, um, somehow beamed you subliminal suggestions to create the thread for that purpose).

I hate it when I miss a Convocation. Ruins my whole week.

But I love it when people project so far that their conclusion actually leaves the solar system.

other night

meh

and happy bday to you.

you look excellent in that number

I am partial to a nice Arrogant Bastard, myself.



"Liquid Arrogance"

See how funny and that is even withou the booze. I crack me up

as posting while feminist.

this is what is disgusting me. making shit up out of nothing. absolutely nothing.

the least he could do is act like it might possibly be a guess, or assumption, or result of, instead of a fact that is the purpose of this thread.

all about the dumb.

The usual suspects in that thread wonderfully illustrating an obtuse, trout-brained, sub-literate denial of the obvious.



"projection in an effort to diminish women and make them seem paranoid and hysterical..."
Between you and me, the only hysterical paranoia is embedded in that thread.

find great humor in the gang rape and suicide of a 17 year old girl. Tell me again how we are on the same side?

The other allies stay out of a thread so they can get called to jury duty.

Not a hint of compassion for the poor girl. Just an excuse to piss on the mean ole feminists. Really disturbing.

In their own words.

At Mon Apr 1, 2013, 07:32 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

Judge Questions Fairness Of Citigroup's Tits - Reuters/HufPo
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022600924

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

YOUR COMMENTS:

really? why was "tit" put in the subject line, if not to offend.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Mon Apr 1, 2013, 07:39 PM, and voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: I vote hide for false expectations
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: When did we become so easily offended...and I am a 60 year old woman. Good grief..
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Just suggest that they take the word "tits" out. OK?
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you.

This was allowed to stand. The only one that said to hide was because of false expectaions. Oh, and the admonishment to ask that they take the word out. Like someone who purposely does something to be offensive will all of a sudden see the light if I ask nice enough? WTF.WTF do "tits" have to do with a banking story? The word is not even in the actual title of the article. The poster purposely inserted it there.

At Tue Apr 9, 2013, 08:03 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Because she's bitch that's why.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2643160

REASON FOR ALERT:

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Doubling-down on sexist slur (bitch).

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Apr 9, 2013, 08:39 PM, and the Jury voted 5-1 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No need for sexist language
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: So many children, so few adults on DU. If Maraya was born in 1969 they are old enough to know better.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch,
bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch,
she's a stupid bitch,
Kyle's mom's a bitch and she's
such a dirty bitch!

Not sure what to make of Juror #6.

Note: This was not my alert - I was on the jury.

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/south-park-bigger-longer-and-uncut-1999


"...Key plot point: The deaths of Terrence and Phillip would be the seventh sign of the Apocalypse, triggering Armageddon. It's up to the South Park kids to save the world. All of this unfolds against an unending stream of satirical abuse, ethnic stereotyping, sexual vulgarity and pointed political commentary that alternates common sense with the truly and hurtfully offensive.

I laughed, as I have reported. Sometimes the laughter was liberating, as good laughter can be, and sometimes it was simply disbelieving: How could they get away with this? This is a season when the movies are hurtling themselves over the precipice of good taste. Every week brings its new surprises. "

Anyone who needs to use that in a thread title is just doing it for attention and this ensures that I will not be seeing it or feeding their need at all

surely we do not object to differing opinion?

At Tue Apr 9, 2013, 08:17 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

Seriously sick shit. Those rapists should be locked up for a decade or so. Fuck them.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2644122

REASON FOR ALERT:

YOUR COMMENTS:

gheez louise. Poster trying everything possible to blame females for the rape and resulting death. Blame the mothers? Really?

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Tue Apr 9, 2013, 08:29 PM, and voted 4-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: Yikes.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: But nothing. You seriously need to grow up. You sound like a woman hating neanderthal, someone that belongs on Free Republic. Your vendetta against people here at DU surrounding the issue of sexism and misogyny has completely clouded your judgment. In no way is your post appropriate. If you need to say these things so badly do it somewhere else but give this young lady the respect she deserves. Shame on you.

behave however they like.

i was glad to see this hide.

because I was afraid it might come back 0-6 to leave. It was a nice surprise for a change.


ETA: If this is sent to a jury please do not believe the compulsive Alerter who states that call outs are not allowed. They are allowed and are posted all of the time on DU3. Thank you.

Is the hide on the snarky comment to me. It didn't occur to me to report that.

It's hard to keep track of conflicting arguments. Supposedly we hate sex and the naked body and that's why some of us aren't over the moon for FEMEN. But then it's a woman's responsibility to not dress provocatively in order to avoid being raped. Sl** is not a gendered term because it applies to men as well as women (despite the fact no one shames men that way). Then the fact a girl is shamed by her rapists is the fault of mothers because they must be just like feminists on this site. So the true guilty party is not rapists but women--that's the one commonality in all the tortured arguments.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022646773

Profile here - http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=284540

ETA: Poster has been banned by EarlG -

Apr 10, 2013 Reason: Sexist.

too bad, he had to knock them upside the head with the misogyny before finally deciding to recognize it.

This just goes back to our concerns not being taken seriously. And by them, I mean juries, Duers, and admin. I mean, we have all known about this creep for sometime. Yet he's been allowed to wreak havoc against feminists on DU for months. No one listening or trying to understand.

turn the poor white against the poor blacks and the women against the men. Make the women think they have more in common is the Sandberg's and Clinton's of the world then they do with the guy down the block.

I was sort of following along until the "Sandberg/Clinton" part. Perhaps you are suggesting that the right wing disruptors on DU are part of a Rove Ratfucking plan.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/gender-gap-near-historic-highs/

So ... yeah.

Maybe these issues should be treated more seriously, and not treated like an afterthought.

Of the sexism on both the left and the right. If I had to make my choice on women's issues, I would never vote. Sexism on the left is just as common as sexism on the right, but usually (though not always) a kindler, gentler sexism. On the left, you don't get people coming out and saying that a woman belongs in the home under the control of her male owner (be it father, spouse or brother.) On the left, you just get attitudes that say the same thing while thinking they are enlightened. Not so virulent or in your face, but still harmful.

the difference between the left and the right is in how the boot should be positioned on our necks. (something like that anyway)

To one group, we're private property, to the other, public. Neither considers women full human beings because society as a whole doesn't consider women to be full human beings.

To see how endemic this is just consider rape, or revealing pictures.

In the context of rape, women are assumed to have given consent. We have to prove we said no. We have to prove we didn't want it. It is assumed that, as a default position, we wanted it. Public property.

In the context of revealing pictures, women are expected to take all the blame when such pictures are distributed. Whether they're given or stolen, the idea that they will/should be shared is taken as a given. It is assumed that women should simply accept the blame for even having been photographed that way, or taking such photographs. Contrast that with someone telling a secret. If I tell you a secret, and you tell someone else, does anyone else chide me for telling secrets? And tell me I could expect no different? No. All the blame and shame goes on the person who betrayed my confidence.

But when it comes to the idea of women's bodies, different rules come into play. Whether our physical selves, or simply images, the default setting is: public property. (And this also plays in the abortion 'debate' - our bodies are treated like a policy position. Our very healthcare is a chit to be debated, restricted, and bargained with.)

love it. and it perfectly explains it. thanks

who have clarified and crystallized this point over the years.

fits so well. wow.

Public property: 'Liberal' men think they should be able to fuck freely in front of an ice cream store, if you disagree and think that private things like that should be kept private, well then you are a dried up prudeprune that hates sex. That women should be hung up on meat hooks so the men can walk by and choose like they would at a butchers. After all, that is the ultimate in 'freedumbs' isn't it? And the women, they like it, don't be silly.

Private property: The chattel days where men decide what freedoms women should have. This is happening right now, back to the stone age for the RW and what they are doing to women.

And men on the left think they are doing a favor by being "allies." And expect a cookie for it. Like it's so big of them. Fuck that. Be an ally in deed and action - like treating women as full human beings. Adjusting language when requested. So simple but so far beyond the apparent mainstream that it receives violent reaction on a supposed left board.

Men on the left, IMO, killed the feminist movement of the 60's/70's with the 80's backlash. It wasn't just conservatives who voted for Ronnie Raygun and Thatcher and their ilk. That was the people who considered themselves liberals who decided the minorities and women just wanted *too* much. I guess it was too much to ask of them to think of their partners as people and equals and not as another minority group wanting a "handout" or "special treatment." They wanted all the benefit of women's empowerment (think sex) without any of the change in thinking that comes along with that. Along with women owning their own bodies and freely choosing their sexual partners came the expectation that women wouldn't be punished for that. But men on the left are just as invested in slut shaming and controlling women's actions through collective threats of sexual violence. Because it's all still about men.

I consider myself a radical feminist. Much too radical for many. But what's so radical about that?

Why I consider myself a radical feminist: I would like society to move beyond the binary thinking of male vs female and think of human. But to get to that point, there's a lot of privilege that needs to be discarded. But to even point out privilege is to be "radical" - just look at the reaction to wholly mainstream feminist thought that gets posted here. I guess privilege, to paraphrase, will have to be ripped from their cold, dead hands.

And before anyone alerts, dead from the passage of time, not anything else. It's going to take the dying off of the Archie Bunker types WHILE AT THE SAME TIME changing the thought patterns of society.

The way to change the thought pattern of the younger generation is to be loud and to change the way people think. And that includes language. Language is thought. And if that's through those of us on the radical fringes being vilified and hated by those refusing to change, all the while, providing a new way of thinking to those coming up - well, that's the way it will have to be.

Just think back on what was acceptable even 20 years ago in other areas - the way language has changed alone will turn into change in ways of thinking. In ways of being.

So when someone says - hey, the President pointing out someone's appearance is not professional. Well, maybe someone watching and reading hadn't though about it, but now, giving it some thought, realizes - yeah - only women are subjected to that. Now, what they may not get is that it's because women's only value used to be (and still to some extent does) reside in her attractiveness to men, and not in herself. And that is changing . But to point out her attractiveness, or lack thereof, is unprofessional because of that... I think that leads to change.

So I accept the charge of radical and I will continue to point things out because the status quo only changes when we MAKE it.

Sorry to go off on a riff - just caught my attention

this should be its own OP. excellent points all the way thru. and your TONE even sounded so reasonable, mellow, laid back and gentle'ish, lol.

I love that riff.

And yes, radical feminists are getting fed up with being sidelined, marginalized, demonized, etc. There's a reason that shit goes on, and we are saying ENOUGH.

Is there a tension between systemic presumption of innocence and justice for victims of rape?

If so what is the solution do you think?

The conflict is not between the presumption of innocence and justice for rape.

The conflict is between the way these crimes against women are treated vs. the way almost every other crime (if not every single one) is treated.

So you're talking about the social reaction to claims of "I just got robbed" vs. "I just got raped." In the former case social bias presumes that the claimant is telling the truth (regardless of legal status) while in the latter not so much. Right?

I wasn't clear on your context and your reply makes a lot of sense.

It sends a very clear message.

The basis of property -- control and manhood -- is an historically male dominated concept.

That's why I think it's important that we start suggesting readings for those who fall into these presumptuous thought traps. These days, the history of half the planet -- the recovery of which is ongoing -- is largely unknown to large numbers of them.

I like to assume that male language isn't consciously sexist -- since there are no consequences for it, most of the time -- simply group reinforced; and that, if reasoned with, they come around to understand better the hidden thought structures that allow them or their brothers their careless thinking-turned-policy.

But we have been trying to reason with the people on this site for years, and it's like talking to a brick wall.

I now think there's only time to talk to people who haven't enthusiastically championed patriarchal values (and there are a SHIT TON of people here who are deeply committed to championing those values).

and time. You've been here and can see change or the lack of better than I. But I've learned that there's also the probability that we hardly see the results of our efforts immediately, and that they go off more than they come back in big and small ways. Many men's hearts and minds are changing, and thus there's less unconscious, self-indulgent groupthink kicking around. But we have no real way of measuring that, do we, except over time. I'm going to keep paying attention now.

I am lucky but I find the whole DU to be a safe place.

the same as you are.

but, i am glad it is a safe place for you.

One, the OP openly admitted intentionally starting a flame bait thread using rape stats--a rehash of the same old shit of attempting to minimize the prevalence and impact of rape.

The other a particularly disgusting use of the disabled to 'discuss' sex workers. I have to say that last one troubled me--these things usually don't--it could have been a great topic, a much needed discussion on the ways the disabled are perceived. What troubled me was the blithe unconcern for the disabled. As health care worker, I felt the ignorance and unconcern was also dangerous, as disability comes in many forms and in some cases would need medical advice prior to engaging in any type of sex much less procuring the 'expertise' of a sex worker. I didn't get into that though.

My point(s) were, even though the article featured a female client, sex workers are overwhelmingly female, the disabled are not exactly rolling in funds required for the services of a 'sexologist', and sex workers themselves work in a dangerous circumstances.

One the OP gave me an strong enough indication that the thread was sexist flame bait, I trashed it.

I don't mind reasonable discussions, I don't expect to be agreed with all the time, but I dislike disingenuous posts that are little more than an attempt at a cover for rape apologist, and a denial of what the life of an average worker is really like.

I'm glad the men (and it is almost always men) are so comforted by those statistics.

I've had my experiences, and I have two daughters. I'm not about to shut up about rape.


As for the other, as soon as someone describes sex with another person as a "need", you know it's pointless to attempt reasoned discussion.

And regardless, many disabled people are able to find partners without paying to use them as masturbatory aids, so this portrayal of them as uniquely unlovable is just ugly.

There are lots of people who for one reason or another have trouble finding a romantic partner. The issue isn't helping the disabled, its legitimizing the idea that buying sex is acceptable.

And demagoguing the issue by conflating a desire for intimacy (genuinely understandable) with a desire to have someone else facilitate an orgasm for you (LOL) is, IMO, sick.

That actually discusses that root problem, which is HOW those who aren't within 'abled' standards are perceived as 'non-sexual' therefore undesirable. Again, part of patriartical control of sexuality and desirability. which is, in essence sexual repression. Aside from fetishizing, who is addressing that?

I did read an article that addressed a couple of my medical concerns, as autonomic dysreflexia in quads, with 'trained sex workers'--quite expensive, and male- gendered oriented.

Not a solution. The disabled are a vulnerable population often in poverty.

To see the issue used that way was extemely sick.

I couldn't even tell you were pissed off.

Where is the money to be made?

It really is sick and disgusting that people would demagogue the issue using disabled people. I know many in loving relationships. But hey, why bother ourselves with reality where there's an agenda to be pushed?

I wish more people would think about why some work so hard not to see the agenda behind dumbassery like this. Did you see the article about human trafficking in Germany? Where prostitution is legal? Which is supposed to magically make human trafficking less of an issue? Except in reality it doesn't? It's sad that liberals have such an enormous blind spot where this shit is concerned. Billions of dollars and organized crime just kind just fade into the background.

The jury decision to hide this post 4:2 was reassuring, but this one juror comment-- justifying their decision not to hide-- certainly underscores our concerns regarding what message is being received by some posters. I'm just going to post that one comment:

At Sat Apr 13, 2013, 07:00 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Beaver Street.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2663038

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:
Rude, disruptive, sexist.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Apr 13, 2013, 07:05 AM, and the Jury voted 4-2 to HIDE IT.

for the post.

If women were subject to the same level of violence as the Congo, then there might be a problem.

I am happy for the support, sometimes I don't comment because I am so disheartened I can't think of anything to say. But I really appreciate all of you who come on here and fight for us. Thank you!

Sarcasm meter on.......

Supposedly by a troll with several zombie accounts.

I said that I didn't think people should talk about subjects for which they have little or no formal education or experience. This was specifically against someone who claimed to know that sexual identity and gender identity were innate.

Furthermore, I was ganged up on for saying that masculinity was inherently violent. Which it is. The masculine ethos is one of aggression and physical confrontation as well as the repression of any sort of loving or vulnerable emotional displays.

This is a "Thread to discuss sexism and misogyny you encounter on DU".

Your comment is not really discussing sexism or misogyny encountered on DU.

In some way, your comment may actually be perpetuating sexism on DU, because without quite a lot of exposition, saying "masculinity is inherently violent" can be seem to be a sexist statement.

If someone stated that "femininity is inherently warm and nurturing" I would go through the fucking roof with smoke coming out of my ears.

how many people, including those that will jump on that OP have stated aggression is inherently male.

i do not agree. i argue. and i know you do, too.

but, i am not playing bonobos game.

the stance of "personal correction?"

For instance, can't we just provide research, or book titles (with exerpts, even) that show how essentialist claims of both sexes are false? Can't we provide some applications of those sources out in the world that don't appear as anomalies?

It seems that the "inherent" arguments get too personal too fast, and a quick, fact/authority-based apprising of that argument with evidence that squashes it might go a long way toward changing male minds in DU.

It seems like women here in the History of Feminism would do that as a first response. Then, if there's another alert-worthy post, go for it.

Obviously,this is an active Duer, that set up a sock to spout this bs.

Here's another couple of snippets from a glaring example, which was smartly deleted, but only after he had his ass handed to him repeatedly. I hope he understands now how fucked up his comment actually was.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2825212

i didnt read the thread, until you provided the link.

all that makes me a bit sick. and very sad.

i am really not in a place right now, where i see so clearly how men feel about women.

women hating men on du causing us problems.

hmmm.

lol

And that by "displaying" said boobs, people are inviting others to have an opinion about them.

This bit of genius level insight was of course cloaked in 'I'm talking about this, not that!' disingenuousness, but when an OP is about that, then.. well, yeah.

And as anyone with an IQ above 50 knows, we all get to have opinions. And therefore that the point is about something besides simply the fact that men have opinions about boobies.

But by pretending you're too stupid to understand such incredibly simple context, you can get away with all kinds of dishonest bullshit. Which comes as a shock to absolutely no one, of course.

Apparently misandry now means insisting women have a right to decide who they have sex with. If a woman argues no means no, she's a misandrist, since that gets in the way of the man's right to have sex with whomever he wants whenever he wants. Prosecuting men for rape is also misandry because it provides "special protections" for rape victims. When rapists are male, they need protection from women who think they have the right to choose who they want to have sex with.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023009387

And I'm really starting to wonder how long before enough people notice, so that acceptance of this shit starts to change.

I read some of the threads in the men's group (I don't post anything there, I just read, it feels too much like a boy's club and I feel like I shouldn't even be reading it) and they're complaining about the same thing. Alerts on posts that don't break the rules and trolling. Is there some kind of alert war going on?

Also, if women complain about people who engage in blaming rape victims for being raped, that's sexist.

Also, girls/women who get drunk have to accept at least some responsibility for being raped.

And almost no one at all is saying jack fucking shit about it.

Time for a long fucking break from this misogyny loving forum.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023220832

I don't really like either of them myself, but is attacking their appearance really necessary?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1018486916

Can we hope this bodes for things to come? Might people take jury service more seriously under this new framework?

Even if it's just blatant flame bait, it's pretty disturbed. A child's toy, no less.

Ugh.

I clicked on your link. Not sure what I was going to see. Saw a link to the Locked post and stupidly clicked. I nearly hyperventilated before I could figure out how to get it off my screen.

Aren't threads locked for a freaking reason?!?!? WHY are they still VIEWABLE??? Doesn't do much to zap them if they're still there.

What sick fk came up with that anyway? And - well - I could look no further, but please tell me whoever the hell posted it was banned for life. And reported to some authority somewhere as a potential offender. (Of course, I'll probably get called "hysterical" by somebody on DU for my post.)

At Mon Sep 30, 2013, 08:50 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

He is the teabaggers' bitch.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3755013

REASON FOR ALERT:

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

YOUR COMMENTS:

It is insulting to women to use sexist words on this site.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Mon Sep 30, 2013, 08:56 PM, and voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I understand the emotion, but he is the tea party's bitch in that he is the breeder of their ideas.
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 HIDE IT and said: A bitch is a female dog, not a human being.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

"If women want equal treatment then they have to accept equal blame when they fuck up."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023913069#post47

thanks for this thread.

i'm a major lurker, but i love this group, and i hope i can contribute more.

It seems whatever they post is immune. But whatever we post is hidden immediately.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: One of your posts has been hidden by a DU Jury
Mail Message
At Thu Dec 26, 2013, 11:08 PM, an alert was sent on the following post:

Women can't discuss feminism on DU because it's infested with pigs.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4234117

REASON FOR ALERT:

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Enough already! Stop this please jurors. Read the SOP.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Thu Dec 26, 2013, 11:21 PM, and voted 6-0 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: This one's marginal to me, on the edge of excessive.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: This has indeed gone too far. Gravitycollapse has been spouting insults with impunity for far too long. Hide this.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: Voting to hide because I believe this person to be a repeat troll.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: We lately have seen quite a flurry
Of posts full of gender-based fury
But if this one's not hidden,
Then DU's over-ridden
With folks who should steer clear of juries.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: Rules, on DU, you cannot refer to other
members as pigs. It won't fly. Hide.

and got two votes to hide seems a pretty clear case of not only sexism but seeking to silence efforts to point out endemic sexism.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4614033

that is obnoxious. the poster knows all of that in less than 500 posts. seems fishy that a new member can assume so much about another poster.

about this post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4899598


Result 5-2 leave it,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024921775

There is a lovely example of an MRA abuse happy to enable abuse. My reply to his post which was titled Uhm, if they aren't jealous rageaholics who don't trust their spouse, why would... is below. If you look at his post there is a minor trigger warning

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4924056

poster Dipsy Doodle is serving up the word "cunt" for laughs. I tried to educate

him on the differences between the use of that word in the UK and the US,

but he doesn't seem interested. I alerted on him. I'd appreciate it if you or anyone on HOF

could call him out. Thanks.

There's more blatant, in-your-face misogyny and homophobia on DU than I can EVER recall in my 12 years here. Threads worthy of the worst of FR which should have been immediately deleted, yet the posts being alerted on and deleted are those of women who've had the audacity to take umbrage at crap being thrown in their faces.

DU has never been what I would consider "woman friendly" but this situation has gone 'round the bend and I no longer have any faith in the jury system.