I think certain sexists who insist women don't have a right to determine

[BainsBane]

what feminism means for us should not be allowed to come into this group for self promotion. If you agree, rec this thread.

[Arcanetrance]

1. I would think every woman would see feminism different for each individual person.

Because not all women have the same life experiences. But that's my thinking as a guy looking at the idea.

[BainsBane]

3. Indeed

Women do vary, but when a man tries to tell me which movements I should support and tries to pigeon hole me into certain categories, that pisses me off.

[Arcanetrance]

9. None of us can tell any woman what would benefit her we aren't going through it

[BainsBane]

11. That would seem a basic concept

for anyone not part of the group they are addressing. That's why it pissed me off so much. I've never in a million years do that.

[Sheldon Cooper]

2. Is there more than one?

[BainsBane]

4. no

[seabeyond]

5. call out in a very very blatant manner baines. i cant go for that. nt

[BainsBane]

6. no?

I thought it fair to put it to a vote, and I didn't mention names.

[seabeyond]

7. lol. no. but i loved the post you did in the reply. it was spot on. nt

[BainsBane]

8. See if the edited version of this OP is better

[seabeyond]

10. better. how about this. fuck men that tell women what a feminist is when it is all about sex for

them

nah. that doesnt fly either. you were much better articulating the issue

but t does piss me off. that is the aggressive me, btw

[MadrasT]

12. *shrugs*

I just ignore those sorts, in general... It amuses me when men think they can tell feminists they're doing it wrong. It especially amuses me when it appears that the underlying core issue is ultimately really about protecting men's unfettered access to women's bodies for sex.

Many "sex positive" men are just hilarious to me.

[BainsBane]

13. Fair enough, but I don't think we should have to ignore them within HOF

They don't need to come in here.

[MadrasT]

14. "Trash thread" works fine for me.

Others may disagree, and that is fine. I am only one voice.

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

15. This is puzzling.

How are ideas evolved without the participation of varying viewpoints? Are you seeking genuine discourse or like-mindedness? Censorship of any stripe is damaging in the long term.

[BainsBane]

16. So you're saying the NAACP should invite the KKK to their meetings?

How does that help?

Or is it just women who should be talked down to and told they don't know what's best for them?

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

20. No one should be talked down to,

they should be talked to. Condescension sets a negative tone in any discussion. I'm advocating the free exchange of ideas in a peaceful manner.

[seabeyond]

22. then if the kkk member expresses his racism peacefully that is a good thing and should be welcomed?

[BainsBane]

24. so the NAACP should invite the Klan?

Or is it just women who are expected to have men tell them what rights they can ask for?

[seabeyond]

17. lets allow homophobia, racism and sexisim cause it will make us all a better person? really? that

works for you? you must not be woman, black or gay.

[BainsBane]

18. Nevermind we're on a Democratic site

but suddenly we're supposed to open to reactionary views on gender.

[seabeyond]

19. yup. but only the issue of sexism. i do not imagine this poster will agree racism and homophobia

should be embraced as simply differing views.

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

28. Allow me to explain.

At the risk of giving too much away, I am an educator in the discipline of social anthropology. This is the lens I view things from. The topics you note all have differing views, surely equally toxic on some level. Not being willing to rationally discuss topics brings with it a certain danger not allowing for a full investigation of things.

[BainsBane]

30. So the KKK does belong at the NACCP meetings?

for a "full investigation of things"?

[seabeyond]

31. yet the stereotype you provoke and use. rationally? are we being irrational? no. you fail in

explanation. i asked a simple question. you did not answer.

are women and blacks and gays to be subjected to sexism, racism and homophobia as a valid point of view? are groups that fight for a cause to give equal weight to those that fight against their basic human rights.

[niyad]

34. try telling that to the mra's who so frequently try to hijack rational discussion

[rosesaylavee]

69. This forum is not academia or a classroom far removed from person to person contact

This is the real world and bigotry should not be allowed or tolerated in any form.

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

21. I didn't say that.

You are relying upon assumptions.

[seabeyond]

25. of course you did not say racism and homophobia should be accepted but ya, you are saying sexism

must be welcomed and allowed or else we are what? i will have to look at your post again. just a minute, be right back

[BainsBane]

26. but you are saying women should listen to views of those who oppose their rights

but not African Americans or gays? Why?

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

45. No, I say all groups.....

.....need to listen to other groups. Middle aged white guys need to shut up once in a while and listen to everyone else. Just this week, I had a poster call me a white, guilt laden apologist. This is my point, everyone not listening to anyone, gets very static like.

[BainsBane]

48. So everyone includes the NAACP listening to the Klan

If I have to listen to sexists, surely the NACCP must have to listen to White Supremacists?


You do know the key characteristic of a sexist or misogynist is a refusal to listen to women? So they talk and we are expected to listen, and never the other way.

[seabeyond]

27. Censorship of any stripe is damaging in the long term. evolved with differing ideas. we are talkin

sexists. misogynists. and you are telling us we must listen or we censor adn that is bad. we need these differing ideas (sexism and misogyny).

so why would i not conclude that racism and homophobia are valid, viable ideas to be listened to also.

[niyad]

29. according to your profile, you have been around a long time. apparently you have not seen the

"varying viewpoints" to which the OP is referring. either that, or you think that shutting down discussion of women's rights by the snark and ugliness and outright hatred for women that is exhibited by some is okay. there is NO possible discussion with some, and you must be aware of that fact. if not, suggest perhaps you might want to acquaint yourself with some of the so-called "varying viewpoints of discussion" which we have seen over the years, and most especially in the last year or so.

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

38. I understand what you are saying.....

.....and must admit that hateful language can be emotionally and psychologically debilitating. However, I refuse to give into such. Steadfastness in one's point of view, my promotion of civil rights for all for example, will be continued and in a peaceful manner.

[seabeyond]

42. i think we are being very "peaceful" even in this discussion with you. wouldnt you agree?

so, where is the problem or better, why the lecture.

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

47. Yes,

and thanks, it is greatly appreciated. Forgive the lecture approach please, just responding.

[seabeyond]

53. that is good to hear jimbo. i think that is the first thing in your post that was an answer in a

manner that was absolute. you understand when coming into a group and making open statements that can be taken different ways, makes it very hard for someone to be on level ground. and when straight answers are not given to straight questions, it just simply makes it more fuzzy and confusing.

[niyad]

88. actually, no --lecturing women about how they should speak to men is extremely annoying. how

utterly patronizing, even if not consciously intended (and what does THAT say about motivation and expression?).

[niyad]

87. the point is, as a white male, you are not subjected to the utter hate and vitriol against women

even on this board, whenever any issue, including rape, comes up. how about going into the men's rights group (a concept which makes me shake my head) and tell THEM that perhaps speaking in a moderate and civil tone would advance their views.

until then, quite frankly, I really do not want to hear, even from an academic standpoint, about how WOMEN are supposed to speak. we have been hearing that for millenia, and are absolutely sick of it. the reality is, does not matter HOW we speak, how deferentially, how diffidently, how meekly, how humbly, or with normal voices, there are those who hold their ears and scream at us for DARING to express ourselves.

[noiretextatique]

90. damn straight!

[hlthe2b]

43. JimboBillyBUbbaBob....

As co-host of this group--a safe sanctuary group for feminists who agree to abide by the SOP linked at the top of the groups page (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1255 ).

If you continue to disrupt, I will block you. 9/29/2013 10:39 AM MST

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

60. That will be unnecessary.

I will not post further.

[gtar100]

79. That is laughable. Sexism isn't just another "point of view" to be considered. It is an attack and a

judgment on persons without regard to who they really are. So unless the "discussion" is about defending your very right to self-determination and to not be subjugated by someone who only cares to use you for their own benefit, what would be the purpose of engaging with them. There is no real reason to even entertain the idea they have any legitimate claim to a valid perspective. They are wrong simply on the basis of their disrespect for human rights. When we allow that kind of attitude to remain and give it some level of legitimacy, it's allowing a poison into our minds and our culture. Racism and homophobia are on the same par as sexism. Yes, know what they are so you can recognize them even in their subtle forms, but don't raise them up to any sort of legitimacy. They are evidence of the ignorance that leads to hurting others and we do neither them nor ourselves any favors by pretending that their attitudes are normal.

[nomorenomore08]

115. It's not about "varying viewpoints" though. It's about certain people trying to shout others down

literally or figuratively. In this case, MRA types invading feminist spaces and trying to tell them what's what.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

23. isn't this a safe group? shouldn't participation be determined on a case by case individaul by

the hosts of the group? Have no idea WHO you are ON about, btw.

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

32. Well,

this is the point I'm attempting to address. This was featured on the main page, I didn't hunt the depths of DU seeking something to stir the pot about. What you folks are telling me is I can't post here because of a perceived difference of opinion. How does one advance their cause when not being willing to discuss that cause?

[seabeyond]

36. are you a misogynist? then no. it would not serve you or us for you to post in this group.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

40. is this the person you all are discussing?

lost here. haha ... as usual

[seabeyond]

46. lol no. i do nto know jimbubbabobbyjean or whatever. but the name is saying a hell of a lot.

i am not gonna out someone cause i do not particularly believe in that.

this poster though seems to be telling us something but he doesnt want to come out and say it. leaving people to try and interpret what the fuck he is saying.

that is always an irritant for me.

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

50. What is my name saying to you?

All I am saying is that I, as a male who has supported women's rights because they are human rights for over 45 years now, is that I reject the notion that I cannot have a view on a subject because I am not demographically a component of that subject.

[seabeyond]

55. no one has said you cannot have a view. what we have said is sexism adn misogyny is not allowed in

this group and cannot be the leadership of a feminist group. you can have all the views you want. and supporting womens right is the easy part of feminism. challenging male privilege and patriarchy is where the challenge comes in.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

52. I hate that, too. Just say it already. I try to follow the philosophy of:

Mean What You Say.
Say What You Mean
and
Try NOT to be Mean when You Say It.

I fail at this a lot ... lol ... but, I try. That counts, right.

[seabeyond]

58. we are not expected, nor can we be perfect. that is not a desired goal for me. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

65. that is a good attitude, sea. I think I strive for perfection too much.

and what is MY Idea of perfection anyway? who am I to determine perfection? that is dumb just on the face of it, right.

Anyway, this subthread is off on a tangent.

Not sure this thread is the right way to go about whatever/whomever you guys have an issue with.

or let me say that I would not go about it this way.

I would PM a host with my concerns and explain why ... include links to posts as evidence to why I believe said poster to be a disruptor.

[seabeyond]

66. since my kids were babies i would tell them that they were perfectly imperfect.

the only perfect person i knew was imperfect in her perfection. and that is an absolute truth.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

72. hmmm ... not sure that last line adds up ... mathematically it negates itself but, I get

your drift. haha, drift/sea ... I crack myself up sometimes

[seabeyond]

74. are you kidding. int he universal law world do you know how imperfect perfection is.

it so makes sense in my wonderfully fun and fuzzy brain. lol

gotta get to RL. things to do and about an hour behind.

see all later.

[DURHAM D]

44. Unless jimbobilly... is a sock

the OP is not about you.

[seabeyond]

49. the number of posters with low counts and a number of years. just the other day... 48 posts in 9

yrs to throw up a sexist video. interesting that.

[hlthe2b]

33. BB, you have two hosts that are available (as much as possible) to act on alerts

if there is a problem with a "visiting" DUer not participating within the SOP for this group. While I have been quite busy recently and expect that BostonBean has similarly, I do try to check in daily... However, a cursory glance at threads did not make it clear to me to what/whom you might be referring.

You can PM me or BostonBean (or make a STATEMENT OF PURPOSE FOR THIS GROUP alert via the usual channels).

I can assure you that this will be far more immediate and direct-- while also avoiding serving up issues for others to use to agitate against this group and its members ...

Thanks.

[BainsBane]

35. Truthfully

I rarely see you two around anymore.

[hlthe2b]

37. ...

If you have issues with either me or BostonBean, kindly engage in some private discourse with us via PM.

[BainsBane]

41. Would you like me to self delete this thread?

[hlthe2b]

51. ...

that is your choice. I have intervened based on what I have thusfar seen from the poster, but would appreciate all using more direct alert channels in the future. Life intervenes sometimes and each of us have to step away on occasion.

If you feel as though we need additional co-hosts to fill the time that BB and I are not available, we would of course be happy to consider this. Drop BB or me a PM if you like.

[BainsBane]

54. Okay, I will keep it

unless you think keeping it up is harmful to the group.

[boston bean]

82. No, keep the thread up. What is harmful is your judgment

of your sisters here, who host this group.

If you have a problem or concern, email me.

[BainsBane]

83. You didn't read what I said, obviously

I said I thought you were both great, but that I hadn't seen you around much. That's not a judgment. It's an observation.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

86. how can you block someone who has never posted here? isn't that physically impossible?

[seabeyond]

98. hosts can block whomever they want for whatever reason they have. no explanation needed. now,

our two women hosts go beyond that and not only explain, but they leave open the door for anyone who would like to discuss the block allowing a possibility of ending the block. it has happened in the past. they do not put up with shit, and they are very reasonable. but their priority appears to be this group and the women in this group, not every tom dick and harry.

they did not block the poster in question, to make it clear.

that i know of. i have been busy with dinner and company and a lovely time we had.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

101. sea, what I am saying is that from what I understand

the person HAS to post in the group. That is the only way the host can block. They click on THAT post and block FROM THAT POST. They can not just choose ANY post on DU and block.

Their powers are only allotted to posts within the group that they host.

Once a person DOES post in here and if they choose to block that person then they click on the post in the group and an option appears for them to block ...

.

So0 they can not block someone even if they want to unless and until that person posts in the group

[seabeyond]

103. ooooh. yes yes. i believe you are right. ya. well, i bet they could find one of his old posts in

this group if they really wanted to. lol. but, i see. you are right. thanks for the correction.

and anyway. you know this job. me? too long ago. ages. and i forget yesterday.

you are right.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

104. Yes, the point the OP is making is moot unless the person in question has posted in this

safe haven. Otherwise, they are entitled to post their ignorance and stupidity as they see fit and then the recourse is to take the questionable post to a jury and hope for the best.

I do not know if the person(s) in question has ever posted in here.

[DURHAM D]

105. Yes indeed he has.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

107. Then I would think an appeal to the Hosts stating the case for blocking should be made.

I am not sure how you all go about in here but, it would seem that if a majority of group members find the DUer in question to be disruptive and not conducive to productive conversation .... then the Hosts should have no problem with blocking said DUer.

[boston bean]

110. Who are we talking about that would be helpful.

Someone pm me please.

[seabeyond]

39. and yet... they do a wonderful job leaving a forum for us to discuss and welcome others

with like minds. and still keep the forum clear of misogynists. i will always have our hosts back. because though they may not be on du a lot, they created a place for us at a time we really needed it and we continue on, strong. they have our back

[hlthe2b]

56. thank you, sea...

And, as I suggested to Bainesbane, if the group feels a need for additional co-hosts during the times when BB and I can not be around, we would surely be open to that suggestion.

[DURHAM D]

62. Hi hlthe2b

I think you and BB do a great job.

I also think his self-promotion in HoF is a legitimate issue to discuss.

[hlthe2b]

73. back at ya, DD

thanks...

[BainsBane]

57. They are both fantastic

I would never say otherwise.

[seabeyond]

59. clarification. all good stuff. i think this thread is interesting. lol. it has gone in

unexpected directions.

that can always be fun

[BainsBane]

61. Yes, but we aren't getting an answer on the Klan

I've asked at least four times now.

[seabeyond]

63. no. we are not. and i think the inability to give a straight answer says a hell of a lot.

it leaves each of us to decide exactly what it says. which is unfortunate that a person that states ideas should be heard would leave so many in this quandary.

[BainsBane]

64. quite the irony

Still, the subject itself is an interesting one.

[PotatoChip]

67. I just posted for the first time in here only

about 15 minutes before you started this thread. So I can't help but wonder if there is a problem what I posted? Please tell me if there is....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125526713#post17

Or does this have to do with some other totally unrelated thing?

[seabeyond]

68. hugzzzz........ no no no. lol. ya, read the post. interesting. it has me wanting to

create an OP, just cause of your post. you are welcome. and you are fine. and no, it was not about you

[PotatoChip]

75. Thanks so much.

I really admire both you and BainsBain. Heck, I admire all of the regular posters here. So, I was worried that perhaps I had done something wrong.

I'm relieved to know that it was not the case. And hugs backatcha!

[BainsBane]

70. Not at all

Totally unrelated. I hadn't seen your post before you directed me to it. I found it interesting.

[PotatoChip]

78. Thanks so much for clearing that up.

And I'm glad you liked the post. As I mentioned to seabeyond, I very much admire you guys! You have the guts to say what many of us other DU women are thinking, but are too intimidated to say to some of the misogynist regulars out there... I'm sure you know who I mean.

[seabeyond]

71. hey, btu thank you so much for being bold enough to ask and not just assume it was about you.

i really appreciate the opportunity allowed to clear things up instead of misconceptions.

[Demeter]

76. I encountered a man on a different website

who defined "radical feminism" as nothing less than misanthropy and lesbianism as a political choice.

There isn't time enough to deal with such.

[BainsBane]

77. You'll find that much nearer than you think

Feminism in general is misandry as far as some are concerned. We've had men come in this group and tell us as much. No, there isn't time to deal with that. Moreover, it's a lost cause. They refuse to listen. They've spent a lifetime tuning women out. We can't change that.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

80. As someone who worked on the ERA back in the day...

I want to see it PASS.

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

The sad thing is a lot of people, including women, thought it already did pass.

Well?

[BainsBane]

81. I'm with you on that.

It's a travesty that something so basic has not been able to pass. It's also disheartening to see Democrats recite points from Phyllis Schlafly.

[ismnotwasm]

84. What the hell. Rec.

I'm not sure what's going on, but I'm not "nice" today

[BainsBane]

85. It's in the thread about how everyone hates feminists

and environmentalists, which is now nearing 500 posts.

[ismnotwasm]

89. Oh. I trashed that one

It was clever in a way, because it's a 'lets play--fuck with the feminists thread', and the environmentalists stayed mostly silent. Unless that changed.

[BainsBane]

91. Yeah, you have it pegged right

The first version of my OP is clearer about who prompted this thread.

[ismnotwasm]

92. I took a peek

Figures. That's just sad.

[seabeyond]

99. bah hahahaha. i love you. i love all you woman. so much fun.... nt

[hlthe2b]

93. I think I misunderstood you to be talking about a post within this group....

Did you mean this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023735810 ?

If so, I share your disdain and in fact was one of two voting to hide on a jury that went 4-2 to keep. It was an intentionally flame-baiting and ugly thread and I agree that this DUer has no business posting in this group with this attitude, as has been the case in the past--with a fair amount of snark.. They have been blocked.

I'm afraid I was confused earlier....

[BainsBane]

94. Yes, that thread

and my irritation with a particular poster in that thread who sees fit to lecture us about which forms of feminism we should support and even tell us what "wave" we are. I'm not a fucking wave. I'm a person with my own ideas and I get to decide what feminism means to me, and if I don't like the fawning over FEMEN, I have a right to say so. And I am sick of his hawking his radio show in here.

[NuclearDem]

95. I hadn't read the FEMEN subthread of that OP until now.

What I took away from it is that poster just thought he, as a white male, was more qualified to speak on feminism than female feminists.

He also seemed to assume all of feminism is homogenous and thus must agree with FEMEN to be called feminists.

[BainsBane]

96. Did you also see the accusation

that I have some hidden reason for not loving FEMEN? What do you suppose that is? They are hotter than me? Of course they are. They are half my age. So what? Now "true feminism" is supposed to be measured by how hot some idiot finds a woman? Fuck that.

[DURHAM D]

97. To be honest...

I think the problem goes back to The Great DU Fem War when he (like many) decided that HoF posters as a group are evil and they made a lot of broad (wrong) assumptions. The feminists have all moved way beyond that period but a few of the guys are still stuck and one or two (including other participants in that thread) have retained a notion of good feminists vs. bad feminists.

So it goes to their personal obsession of looking for points of separation rather than points of agreement among women because they like to meddle and throw gas on the fire and probably think they are protecting some that don't know their own mines or don't speak up.

It does get harder and harder for them to have their fun and as we know some guys are just really really threatened by women working in concert because we just might take over the world.

[ismnotwasm]

100. Some don't strike me as particularly stable

But your probably right, it's reactionary, emotional behavior, much like what women were once accused of if they're not outright misogynists. There's a few floating around in the toilet bowel still.


The ones that wonder in from the greatest page usually don't understand the background of bulling harassment and derailing of threads that occurs.

[redqueen]

108. I wonder if y'all are talking about the guy who tried to get me PPR'd for saying MRA talking points

are posted on DU.

I'm done with that thread, so much stupidity and willful ignorance. It's fucking shameful.

[BainsBane]

109. He did that in that same thread?

Or at some point in the past?

[seabeyond]

111. while ago. nt

[redqueen]

112. No, this was a while ago.

I don't hold grudges, but I will not forget that bullshit.

When someone not only ignores the kind of anti-feminist propaganda that's shared here, but then goes a step further and tries to silence the only people calling the propaganda out... that really says a whole hell of a lot to me. A whole HELL of a lot... about them and anyone who lined up to support their attempt to silence those who called out the hateful shit.

[BainsBane]

113. Anyone who pays attention

can see that stuff is posted here.

[seabeyond]

102. if i am remembering correctly when this forum first started he came in and did the same. got blocked

he probably petitioned to get unblocked and has behaved in this forum. but, if i remember, he came in with his third wave swagger of sex positive and felt the need to diss our sexuality the way some men like to play that stupid, immature game, women against women. i lost all respect for him. literally, all. we used to have discussion and it was fine in disagreement, but that was petty.

he seems to have done that with you

it is catty. petty. a little person that snidely will challenge a womans sexuality in that manner. a nasty person.

i thought maybe he had grown up a bit, but guess not. he is like the mean girl in this behavior.

i pretty much stop reading his posts when he did that the first time. there is just no place for that behavior.

fuck it. he is mostly ignored. and that femen issue about says it all. boobies, so believe whatever lie is told. if that is all it takes, sad sad. whatever.

[MadrasT]

106. Any man (and I mean *any*, not a particular individual posting on DU)

Who wants to run that line of shit is on permanent "ignore" in my mind.

Do they not realize how utterly transparent and absurd it is for a heterosexual man to be lecturing women about how women are supposed to behave when it comes to anything related to sexuality?

It is literally impossible for them to be objective; therefore, what they say simply does not matter to me.

In my mind, they are all petulant three-year-olds throwing a fit.

[PassingFair]

114. Those people can ride the second or third wave right into another "Feminist" room....

Mostly men in there anyway.

Ironically.