to all those men so "offended" by the feminists

[DonCoquixote]

Look here, I am male, and yes, I have had the occasional verbal sparring match with people on here. I use the term sparring match very deliberately, as when boxers spar, be they Gina Carano or Lennox Lewis, they do not intend to hurt or disrespect their sparring partner, but give and take in the hopes that they get stronger, more skilled, and more aware. That is what happens in DU when I argue, because for the most part, when someone of any gender shows they are just going the shriek at me and repeat the same damned points that are already in bad repute, I either walk away, or at worst, use the ignore function. That is what mature people do when they have a genuine disagreement that cannot be resolved.

Yet, I have had to see some people WHO CLAIM TO SPEAK FOR MEN,
note I say CLAIM, as in SELF-APPOINTED
which we all know means that they would not win an election,

some self appointed "men's rights types" cheer as people were harassed and left.

Look, if you cannot handle criticism on the internet, a place where no one (save perhaps the NSA) knows who you are, then frankly, you might want to consider if you should be on the internet. You should certainly not BULLY a bunch of women because you feel that somehow you got shafted.

And yes, I understand it can get confusing and frustrating out there, that is life. But it is not the level of BS your sisters, mothers, daughters, friends., and simple fellow humans that are female have to deal with. maybe if you really were a bunch of "nice guys" you might listen and learn something. If not, you have done something more productive with your time than watching Gilligan's island reruns.

I realize there is not much I can do. Heck, the MRA types who bragged about how they used sock puppets are probably here now, while certain others, sadly, are not. Rules only matter when people give a damn, and sadly, many men have been convinced that rules and courtesy do not matter to them. Chivalry is quite dead, yet many barbarians insist on women staying the role of fair damsels in their towers.

But I can say, as admittedly one male out of several million on the internet, several thousand on DU.

You do not speak for me,
and those you drove off
spoke for me far more than you ever will!

[A-Schwarzenegger]

1. Tell it.

[el_bryanto]

2. Well said. nt

[quinnox]

3. sorry, reflex action when I see Gilligan's Island mentioned -

[chervilant]

90. Perhaps, you might consider

Last edited Mon Jan 13, 2014, 02:56 PM - Edit history (1)

viewing this video to better understand why sarcasm, derision and condescension in response to feminist issues say a lot more about the progenitors of such responses than about the 'radical feminists' that are getting routinely derided.

[quinnox]

164. Damn, it was just a funny picture

It is not something to analyze, or subject to in depth scrutiny. Most people think Gilligan's Island was funny, such as the Skipper and Gilligan in this amusing and typical pic!

[chervilant]

196. Yes, in your current riposte

it's just a funny picture. However, you might benefit from viewing the video I linked, and expanding your knowledge of feminists' issues.

[Squinch]

4. Kick. Well said.

[LumosMaxima]

5. This is important:

"Chivalry is quite dead, yet many barbarians insist on women staying the role of fair damsels in their towers."

Very well put. Thank you.

[NoOneMan]

6. DU needs meta

[Iggo]

16. I hear the Hosts forum is a hoot.

[Gormy Cuss]

96. Nah, we have GD.

Now DUers don't need to visit a special forum to see the fights.

[RainDog]

7. I'm a woman

And those women and men you are defending were nasty to me. They lie and try to provoke anyone who disagrees. They rarely have a sufficient argument to defend their claims, and then they go back to a protected forum here and LIE about people on this site, accuse people here of terrible things... one of them has called a woman here a DOG because she dared to disagree with her... and this post was left, and, yes, people can get you a link, and probably will.

I realize you are trying to be gallant, a "white knight" as it's called by some - but the reality is that women who are feminists here are attacked by women from that group you think is being maltreated.

Just so you know there's more than one side to the story.

Everyone who got sent to purgatory when this new rule began was someone I had on ignore. Some were male, some never participate in many feminist threads that I see - so, maybe people claiming they've been mistreated should think about how they treat others here.

In that same forum, someone is now praising someone who was SO RUDE to women and men here yesterday that FOUR POSTS in one thread were hidden. The person called someone a bigot because the person said context for humor matters. That was after calling him a bigot a few other times, and telling a women she was sexist because she wasn't upset by a fucking lame tylenol joke about a headache for a woman.

Now, at the same time, there are some men here who are being assholes and provoking. No doubt. but not all, and they aren't the only ones doing so.

just so you know another point of view about this bullshit.

[BainsBane]

8. funny, because what I'm noticed is the complete opposite

many posts by you talking about members of this site but I have never seen anyone talking about you.
If Seabeyond called someone a dog, you should provide proof. Or Xula? Intaglio is male. I don't believe the post you are referring to was by any of the people who have left. Why is it you decide to blame a whole broad array of people for a post one member wrote?

[RainDog]

9. In response to what someone has done

funny, isn't it, tho, that I haven't had threads locked for being so rude, posting a meta thread...the thing you have done since you came on to this board, in fact.

I served on juries for posts where you were trying to get threads hidden, so spare me.

You're not worth the bother of a reply.

[BainsBane]

10. Actually no, I saw you on two occasions talking in a thread where that person wasn't even present

It was not in response. In fact, your posts in this thread are clear evidence of what you say others have done. They are not in this thread. I have not attacked you. I once had a disagreement with you about Islam, many months ago. That was our one and only discussion. Yet here you are telling me I'm "not worth the bother of a reply."

I don't claim absolute knowledge of all that goes on this site, particularly before I joined, but I do know what I have personally seen. Again, you have blamed the members not with us due to 5 hides for a post someone else made. How is that fair? How does it even make sense?

As for your point about my trying to get thread hidden on juries that you've served on? How can you possibly know who is the alerter on a post? And why would you vote based on who you think alerted? People are often wrong when they make such assumptions. And if I had been the alerter, how is that a problem? Do I not have the same right to alert as anyone else?

[RainDog]

22. bye

[BainsBane]

25. Could you tell me what in my post

you believe constitutes hatred?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

23. Some people have reading comprehension issues and, are not familiar with commom literary

devices known as analogy/metaphor/simile/parable.

Not my fault that their receiver is broken and the jurors weren't.

THIS WILL BE MY ONE AND ONLY TIME TO ADDRESS THAT POST.

I DON'T CARE IF THAT THREAD ABOUT ME IN THE MEN'S GROUP GOES ON FOREVER.

I ALWAYS SECRETLY ENVIED GRAYWARRIOR HER THREAD THAT WOULDN'T DIE.

NOW, I HAVE ONE OF MY OWN.

[El_Johns]

59. There are secret forums here where people privately make fun of other posters?

That explains a lot.

[RainDog]

60. pardon?

I don't know of any secret forums here.

eta - I was talking about protected forums. there are sub-forums on DU where people can choose to participate. Two of them seem to engage in hostilities from time to time. I don't participate on either one.

[nomorenomore08]

231. I'm probably one of the very few who regularly participates in both HoF and the Men's Group.

Part of it is that I see feminism in its essence as being anything but anti-male - and I think most DU'ers accused of "man-hating" have been unfairly maligned - but since I'm not committed to either "side" I'd like to think I can have a measure of objectivity on this subject. And I think both sides have been guilty, at times, of caricaturing the other - the Men's Group members labeled "MRA's" or the HoF members labeled various vaguely sexist things.

P.S. Great screen name. I love that album!

[RainDog]

235. that's good to hear

maybe you can help with misunderstandings. However, a remark on this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/125534767

leads me to think there are different views of reality occurring.

BlancheSplanchnik (9,154 posts)
8. indeed...and i also agree with ismnotwasm's post

Which was hidden.

Oh how true that the provocateurs who enjoy playing games usually know how to be smooth enough to seem acceptable, reasonable. Often they use that "reasonable, logical" way of wording which fools many people.

But look a little deeper and it's clear that they switch topics, twist meanings, employ debunked arguments and ridiculous, unintellectual accusations--such as telling someone they're a prude or have no sense of humor.

When their interlocutors react angrily out of frustration, as the provocateur had hoped, it is then the perfect opportunity to alert.

That's how they work it.

(I don't know what isam, etc. post said - but it was hidden, so I assume it must have been deemed sufficiently insulting to have been hidden.)

If someone thinks Intaglio was provoked, rather than treated like the troll he was being - we're not gonna find agreement.

This, esp: Often they use that "reasonable, logical" way of wording which fools many people.

People, heterosexual and homosexual men and women and others whose ids I know nothing about - I just put it that way to say that it's a cross section of opinion - have told others they are being rude. The response, if it's a male is "You're not gonna shut me up." No one wants to shut anyone up - at least not that I know. What they want is for people to stop the personal attacks and the bullying and the lying about their positions on issues, their political affiliations, and various other insults that are tossed with no regard for the issue. If it's a women, we're MRA supporters, etc etc.

If people on that thread excuse Intaglio's behavior, they are contributing to the problem here.

But, in that thread, you do see that the people commenting talk about a vast conspiracy against them. This is why I, generally, am not interested in feminism that has to put "reasonable" and "logical" in quotations. And here is the thread mentioned where everyone here can form her or his own opinion on who, on that thread, is making DU suck.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4315181

sincerely, Tom Waits fan

[nomorenomore08]

242. I think intaglio probably overreacted there, but doesn't deserve a suspension over that

stupid little sub-thread. I've seen far worse fly on DU, believe me - even if it's not as frequent as a few people claim. I mostly disagree with the idea of an anti-feminist conspiracy on here - and with the labeling of certain posters as MRA supporters - but I do think some have been treated unfairly for not "toeing the line" in whatever sense. I would agree that both sides have engaged in what could be considered bullying behavior, though admittedly I'm more willing to let that slide when it comes from a place of genuine victimhood, or of justified anger.

[RainDog]

244. Intaglio was bullying a woman on that thread

Why shouldn't he get a suspension if he's going around DU bullying women?

He put words in WDe's mouth. When WDe refused to engage in the baiting, Intaglio escalated, trying to call WDe a bigot, a racist, a misogynist, and someone who ridicules the disabled - and WDe was doing none of those things. Why shouldn't he be suspended for that sort of dishonest, asshole-defining behavior?

When women here bully other women, lie about what they said, and on and on - who is coming from a place of genuine victimhood or justified anger?

Maybe you should take people's actions here as gender neutral and evaluate them by what their actions demonstrate about them. That's what I do.

I didn't know Intaglio here before that thread. Didn't know if he (so I'm told) was male or female.

Doesn't matter.

anyway, thankfully I'm back to sick of the shite mode. However, please note, once again, that it was someone posting in defense of someone who has been rude to people here that is the reason for this meta thread in GD, and the "group think" thread in Hof.

[nomorenomore08]

246. I agree Warren was treated unfairly on that thread. People can go too far in their righteous anger

for damn sure. What happened was largely intaglio's fault, but that doesn't mean certain posters don't have it in for him.

I basically agree with you, though, about the name-calling. It needs to stop all around.

[RainDog]

247. Okay

So, more than 24 people have it out for Intaglio (whose name, btw, had never registered for me before) and were involved in the alerts and the juries?

Not according to Skinner.

But if people are engaging in groupthink, they will ignore their own actions, excuse the actions of the group, find an external enemy, rather than their own behaviors, and sacrifice their own logical consistency for the sake of group cohesion.

...not the kind of feminism I want any part of.

And it wasn't just Wde. Intaglio was telling a woman, who was there on the thread joking around about her, or his husband (again, I assume a women, tho maybe not...I'm not keeping score on DU regarding someone's gender, sexual orientation, race, disability etc.)

He deserved the suspension.

[nomorenomore08]

248. I don't know, honestly. I do know some HoF members have been unfairly characterized

but that doesn't exempt anyone from the rules of civil behavior, which intaglio almost inarguably violated on that thread. I didn't even see all his posts there, just the ones on his transparency page, so maybe it didn't quite sink in at first (for me) how badly he went off the deep end.

[RainDog]

249. it was a foaming-at-the-mouth performance

I posted a link to the entire thread, above, in this conversation with you.

How have hof members been unfairly characterized? --specific examples.

I can tell you ways they have unfairly characterized other women, both in individual responses and in thread on hof. actually, I posted about it here already, downthread. specific examples.

[nomorenomore08]

250. There's seemingly always the insinuation that they hate men, or hate sex, or related silliness.

People are labeled "Dworkinites" because they have qualms about violent, abusive porn that often has less to do with sex per se than with pure degradation. Personally I agree with Friedan a lot more than Dworkin on the free-speech thing, but freedom of speech has to include being able to talk about the things that bother us, scare us, or it's meaningless.

[RainDog]

252. And this has nothing to do

with the way they have attacked others here who are not anti-porn?

You might want to ask some other women about that.

As I noted, below, when I posted about 1st amendment issues, I was told I only wanted to wear fuck-me shoes as a reply.

I was by someone, recently, that I wrote boring, blahblah whatever defending rapists.

When you dish it out here, you can expect to get it back.

That's my experience. And then I put them on ignore. I had many, and still have a few members of hof on ignore for nearly a year. Some for more than a year. I take them off, and see they're doing the same old things.

Don't assume that it's only the women in hof who have experienced traumas, been sexually harassed, etc. etc. because that's not reality. The reality is that specific people are being intentionally rude to others here.

And, yes, I agree, as I said before, that some men are doing the same thing. Why don't people put others on ignore rather than bother with them? That's what I don't understand.

Unless they are anger junkies or something.

[nomorenomore08]

253. As I said, both sides do it. And it's wrong either way.

I refuse to wholesale condemn HoF or the Men's Group because the collective is not responsible for what the individual does.

[RainDog]

255. Sure

But when you read threads in hof in which many people who are there are justifying boorish behavior and attacking other women, it's sort of hard not to assign a groupthink label to those doing the same.

And, again, if men had said things to me here that women have - I would have the same reaction to them.

And, as I've said - I'm sure I don't see all the back-and-forth because I ignore those who do it. I didn't know someone had called another woman here a dog for joking around in a thread about fundie anti-porn until I saw it linked in another thread b/c I had subthread person on ignore.

DU has been a much more informative experience for me when I put certain people on ignore, rather than get drawn into their trolling via insults.

I recommend it for anyone who finds someone (male or female) is too obnoxious for them on this site.

[nomorenomore08]

256. Tempers run too high here for sure. And personal beefs, sadly, tend to take precedence over issues

of real importance. But that's the Internet for ya.

*Edit: corrected spelling error.

[RainDog]

257. true

I was out last night, came home, cranked up the DU and...whoa!

DU is also a great form of procrastination...and getting really invested in a topic is part of that.

(and here's me, raising my hand, saying I'm doing that in this thread.)

best wishes and luck in your attempts to negotiate the land mines of subforums!

[nomorenomore08]

258. Same to you. And I realize most of us probably agree on 90% of the really important stuff.

Which is one reason why the War of the Subforums is so baffling to me.

[BainsBane]

280. I'd like to point out

That Intaglio participates in the feminists forum more than he does in HOF. This game being played is to attribute to a few HOF posters every shitty thing that goes on around here. You'll note the poster above accuses the members on leave with a statement a non-suspended member made. She then goes on to be friendly to the poster who actually made that statement while continuing the blame the suspended members, one of whom she has called out and trashed repeatedly, as the links I provide in another post in this thread demonstrate.

The "attacking women" canard is most often made by those who go for the jugular of feminists who view the world differently from them. They use the excuse of someone attacking them once a year or more ago. People need to get over it. If someone is so troubling to them, they can put them on ignore, but that means they should simply forget they exist rather than nurturing grudges.

I also find it bizarre that some seem to think women unable to defend themselves. I've been accused of "attacking women" for asking them to clarify their views. I don't know if these are people who are unable to deal with differences of opinion or they just invoke empty charges because they have nothing to say. Regardless, it's strange. You yourself can witness my "attacks" at the top of this subthread.

Again, I will state that it is clear to me that this is all about creating gang-like identities: us vs. them. Attack the right people, talk shit about the right people, make up shit about the right people, and you're in the in crowd. It's ugly and there is nothing civil about it. That an opinion is popular does not make it right or just.

[Scout]

281. well stated. n/t

[nomorenomore08]

282. I agree with nearly everything you said. Some folks really have it in for certain posters

and as I've said, I hate when discussion of real issues is overwhelmed by personal beefs. Why this happens, I can only speculate, but I have to think it's partly discomfort with certain issues, or at least certain ways of discussing them.

[redqueen]

289. Or straight-up trolling.

Let's not forget that possibility. And when so much bullshit is being shoveled in the attempt to fan flames, well... I know what I'd put my money on.

[nomorenomore08]

292. Oh yeah, no doubt. I guess it's still "trolling" even if longtime members do it, because the intent

is more or less the same.

[lumberjack_jeff]

283. With all due respect.

HoF is the only group with a thread intended as a wailing wall dedicated to mourning the righteous martyrs.

So it's not credible to blame everyone else for associating abusive posters individuals who have difficulty maintaining civil conversation with HoF.

Chickens aren't just coming home to roost, they are being netted, caged and put on display.

[BainsBane]

284. So if I care about someone

That means I wrote what they said? Is that your argument? If you have a friend who commits a crime, does that mean you too are guilty?

Your argument is absurd and simply shows your refusal to treat people as individuals.

If we're engaging in collective guilt, would that mean that you too, like GalileoReloaded, consider 95% of women under 35 to be "disgusting"? Should I presume you are no different from HopeHoops?

[lumberjack_jeff]

286. This isn't about you, personally.

This is about the content of your post and your argument that HoF is subject to unfair treatment.

The HoF hosts apparently think that celebrating those who, by definition, are the most abusive active DU'ers complies with the SOP of the group. It's a protected group, so it doesn't matter what I think in that regard. That is the hosts call... but I can tell you how that looks from the outside.

I'm optimistic that several of the posters in the penalty box will return and become positive contributors too. But that potential isn't what's being venerated in the HoF thread. What's being mourned is the absence of the abusive rhetoric sorely missed voices that got them in trouble in the first place.

If you were to see me (or even the Men's group) pining for the good old days and lighting a candle for HopeHoops or some other PPR'd poster, then yes, by all means call me out.

[BainsBane]

287. Yet your assertion is that HOF is a collective

and that all of us are responsible for what others write. That is the point I drew attention to, that a poster above was using a post from a non-suspended member against those who have been suspended.

I wrote that HOF OP. I disagree they are the most abusive members of this site. I find the most abusive members of the site continue undaunted precisely because juries don't hide their attacks, since they attack the right people. People are well aware that they can say anything to or about certain members and it will not be hidden. My HOF thread, however, was not a comment on those members' jury hides but simply that their voices are missed. The hidden posts were a tiny fraction of what they wrote. More than 40 members agreed.

I have seen members of the men's group defend and even repeat abusive attacks that were hidden. I could be specific, but that would only contribute to the drama. In fact, I have also seem members of your group complain about alert stalking, when from what I can see you could post virtually anything in there and a jury would allow it. When Unrepentant Liberal was PPR'd, members of your group insisted that was because of alert stalking. I have learned a lesson from this, however. Next time I see someone flagged, I shouldn't think, oh they have a time out, hopefully they'll try to be less insulting when they return. I should instead hunt down additional posts to alert on to make sure they are gone for 3 months. I can think of one person who would not be around if I had done that since I saw a number of abusive posts after his flag, but I didn't want to alert because it seemed vindictive. But it turns out that as usual I was wrong.

[lumberjack_jeff]

290. No. You're responsible for what you write. Contributors to that thread are responsible for theirs...

... "'the forty members" who recommended the thread (let's call them "the persecuted and silenced&quot are responsible for their part, and the hosts are responsible for giving it legitimacy by certifying that it is consistent with the groups SOP.

Dictionaries mean things. No active DU'ers have more posts hidden for abusive, over the top or disruptive content than the ones you singled out in your thread. They represent the cream of the crop, the hall of fame in that regard.

Your complaints of guilt by association might very well be unfair if it was someone other than YOU YOURSELF who is making the case that they represent the most valued members of HoF.

Occam's razor might be useful in this regard. Those who are not in the penalty box are members in good standing because they avoid attacking other DU'ers.

[BainsBane]

293. lots of garble

If you believe juries are impartial, you aren't paying attention or even reading comments. Are you honestly claiming that you haven't seen attacks allowed to stand? If so, why devote an entire thread in YOUR GROUP to calling out a member by name? If that post wasn't hidden, by your definition and appeal to "the dictionary" it could not have been offensive or abusive. Yet you as host allowed a thread aimed at denouncing that member by name to stand. That thread in the Men's Group was not hidden, despite violating guidelines about insults and calling out. You yourself complained about a single jury hide for months on end.

The dictionary has nothing to do with jury verdicts. Those are the result of people, some of whom make clear in their comments that they vote based on their views of the people involved in the exchange. Imagining a random collection of DUers determines the meaning of the English languages is bizarre. Your appeal to objectivity is the typical refuge of Positivism. It might even be persuasive if this were the nineteenth century.

I didn't say most valued members of HOF. In fact only one of those people is a regular HOF poster and friend of mine. I said their voices were missed. Period. Then again, why worry about someone actually says? That you let random groups of jurors determine your views of people and limit your friendships is truly unfortunate. I think for myself, and I bear no shame for caring about human beings that don't meet your approval.

If you can't deal with people as individuals, that is entirely your problem and one that is shared by some others. Since I do not exist as an individual human being to you, there is no need for you to bother talking to me. You have already decided what the view of the single HOF hoard is anyway.

[pintobean]

291. HOF and ATA

have a lot of whining about hidden posts of HOF members and non hides of posts of non-HOF members.

Here's just one example.

[redqueen]

288. FUCKING THANK YOU!!!!!!!!

It's fucking disgusting the games some people play around here.

Peddling absolute bullshit of the highest order.

Nauseating that so many seem to buy it.

[opiate69]

251. There's no fucking "largely" about it. There is one

And only one person responsible for intaglio's banishment.

[nomorenomore08]

254. Yes, I acknowledge he was way out of line. I was being too equivocal before because I didn't have

quite the whole story yet. But looking at his posts in that thread as a whole, yes, he went way over the top and deserves a time-out.

[BainsBane]

61. For some in it's V and M or GD

or anywhere.

[rbixby]

206. You totally raise some valid points

but I guess some people don't enjoy when someone tries to reason with them.

[BainsBane]

208. No, and apparently asking for evidence

or asking why someone should be blamed for comments they didn't even make themselves amounts to an "attack." The bar seems to be as long as you talk crap about the right people, it's okay, even if not true. But the wrong person asking for a clarification, that's unacceptable.

[BainsBane]

68. Here are examples

of what I referenced. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4224696

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017162372#post54

[RainDog]

69. Yes.

Last edited Mon Jan 13, 2014, 11:40 PM - Edit history (2)

According to your time here, you haven't been around for all the fun and games. Those things, tho, were the reason I have had seabeyond on ignore for a while.

what I talked about is known by others here.

If she hadn't attacked me, I wouldn't mention it.

If you hadn't attacked me, I wouldn't mention it. I put you on ignore after you attacked me. I just took you off ignore this week. I am not interested in interacting with you after I've seen how you behave here.

That's how it works.

And, I also know that you want to draw this out into some attack crap and, frankly, I'm not interested. Not gonna go any further.

DU existed before you arrived. Just because you didn't see something - doesn't mean it didn't happen. You have object permanence down pat, I'm sure.

This is my last reply to you.

take care.

eta to add - someone else said it so well, doesn't seem like repeating, but this thread was full of nothing but attacks until the person making them deleted them, seemingly because Intaglio was sent to time out, but who knows. This person explains why I have no desire to interact with the person in question, based upon my past interactions, which I am not going to repeat here, nor get drawn into a conversation by framing this issue as one regarding this thread. BB knows I am talking about an entire history, not this thread, so, please. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4312755

[BainsBane]

70. I haven't come close to attacking you here.

I disagreed with you, asked you to clarify yourself, and provided examples that contradict your assertions above. I quite happily put my posts in this thread in comparison to yours. People are going to disagree on issues, and on accounts of events. It is unfortunate that you choose to see that as an attack.

[ismnotwasm]

11. Well I personally don't know this person

Don't read her posts or OPs. Too bad she feels that way.


I think the OP is being truthful and fully understands no one is looking for a 'white knight'-- just a place to speak your piece.

[DonCoquixote]

12. note that I emphasized

"chivalry is dead" I might have added "Good riddance"

but the silence of people around controversy, especially when people are getting shoved into the paddy wagon, is intolerable...I chose not to be silent.

[BainsBane]

15. You know I think there is a period of time

in US history between the era of gentlemanly values and awareness of gender inequality, and it is that middle period from the 1960s to the 1970s that was particularly problematic in terms of ideas of how men relate to women. This is just a theory, so bear with me. Men educated in the humanities and the social sciences in the past 15-20 were taught to understand the role of gender in society. Men before the 1960s were taught to be gentleman. Both kinds of value systems engender a certain respect toward members of the opposite sex that may have been absent for those coming of age in the 1960s -early 80s. Not for everyone, of course. People are individuals and vary as much on ideas of gender as any other topic, but I have to wonder if there weren't particular challenges for folks coming of age during those decades.

[nomorenomore08]

243. That is a very interesting theory, actually. I was born in 1984 and I can't recall any particular

resistance or hostility to feminist ideas on my part, even as an adolescent. Gender equality, and LGBT equality, were ideas I just sort of took for granted growing up in a liberal part of Northern California. Which is partly why this recent hard-right swing on gender issues - primarily in certain red states but reverberating outward from there - is so shocking to me.

[ismnotwasm]

17. Thank you very much

The funny thing is-- feminism is a liberal ideology, it changes and involves with the times but the need for it hasn't gone away; and it's worldwide, there are women under siege-- literally, which will generate sympathy--if little action; but addressing core causes gets nothing but discredited pseudoscience or unreasonable pushback

[BlancheSplanchnik]

28. while trying to discuss core causes of other oppressions

Don't cause uproar among self-avowed liberals who *happen* to belong to the privileged group.

But misogyny/sexism is a different story. Too bad there's that confluence with Ess. Ee. Ex......it really muddies the waters.

It's hard to have discussion when a group of men take personally any attempts to deconstruct the system that supports misogyny. The attitudes and images and assumptions that make women less human, yet are so normalized that trying to openly say they exist causes some people to get freaked out and scared....which leads to hostile acting out.

[1StrongBlackMan]

146. Hmmm ...

It's hard to have discussion when a group of men take personally any attempts to deconstruct the system that supports misogyny. The attitudes and images and assumptions that make women less human, yet are so normalized that trying to openly say they exist causes some people to get freaked out and scared....which leads to hostile acting out.

I've found this in play in threads related to race/racism, as well.

[BainsBane]

213. Without question

One thread on white privilege let to an array of follow up threads complaining that people are "constantly lecturing" about white privilege. What is it that people are so sensitive about anyway? I'm been white my whole life, and never, never felt that way about discussions of racism. A place is not inclusive if it insists on the parameters of discussion being framed in ways that exclude great swaths of the population. There is a reason this site doesn't have anywhere near the diversity of the Democratic Party itself or America at large. It strikes me as a 1960s view of diversity: You can be here if you act and think in ways that make us comfortable.

[1StrongBlackMan]

214. So true ...

It strikes me as a 1960s view of diversity: You can be here if you act and think in ways that make us comfortable.

I was in a discussion, just this weekend, wherein a DUer stated that having it pointed out that, even with his privilege, he still is found wanting, having been passed up by some of the un-privileged, hurts his feeling.

I don't know if he was being candid, or making a poor attempt at sarcasm.

[nomorenomore08]

245. "A place is not inclusive if it insists on the parameters of discussion being framed in ways that

exclude great swaths of the population." Thank you! This is more or less what I've been trying to say, but couldn't quite articulate. If anyone who discusses anything that makes certain posters uncomfortable gets shouted down, told to be "nicer," etc. how is that anything but an oblique form of censorship? Dismissing people who, for instance, post blatant right-wing arguments, is one thing, but this is supposed to be a left-leaning site. For Christ's sake, can't we discuss fairly basic progressive ideas without someone taking offense?

[BainsBane]

259. Ironically

It is they who complain about perpetual outrage, while they are the ones engaged in outrage that feminists and others dare post about issues they don't want to think about.

[nomorenomore08]

260. Like I said, you'd think "trash thread" and such didn't exist. But everything has to be about them

all the goddamn time, no matter what. As a guy it appears to me to be classic male narcissism - don't mean to be essentialist, just observant of phenomena.

[BainsBane]

261. I have often thought that

Of course I don't say it. I see lots of threads that don't interest me or I think cover old ground. I just pass them by. They feel entitled to assert control over what people can and can't post, what they can and can't care about. And then complain about thought police. Truly astounding.

[nomorenomore08]

263. I guess one way to "use" privilege productively is say things I can "get away with" as a white guy

but others can't, so to speak. I mean primarily from the perspective of other white men, that is.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

276. that doesn't surprise me, sad to say.

I missed those threads……I admit, my radar is up for sexism, so that's what catches my attention.


if you have any links, I would be interested to see how the racist bias plays out.

[hrmjustin]

19. Good for you my friend! I admire you courage.

[tammywammy]

62. "Paddy wagon" is a slur against the Irish. n/t

[Atman]

78. BWHAHA!

I'm of Irish descent. Give me a moment to get drunk so I can be sufficiently outraged!

[Gormy Cuss]

100. I'm of Irish descent too and grew up in an Irish American community.

"Paddy wagon" was a slur best avoided in our area. I said it once in my house when I was about 7 or 8 --only once because it made my father so angry that I thought he was going to burst a blood vessel. All of the oldest people in my area were immigrants and there was nothing laughable about that phrase to them.

[Atman]

177. I totally agree with you!

Amazing, though, how such a SLUR against so many people doesn't even raise an eyebrow. It's not the bane of anyone's existence. No Irish geeks are speaking up. I suppose if were an Irish feminist, people would get their panties in a wad.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

217. I always thought it was called a paddy wagon

because most of the cops were Irish and they drove the wagon.

My first boyfriend (44 yrs ago) was born and raised in Ireland and would call himself a paddy.

My mum is Welsh (born and raised) and I heard the Welsh referred to as Taffys (Taffs) and it was not taken as derogatory.

Times have changed and people are so easily butt hurt..

[Gormy Cuss]

236. No, it was called that because it was used to haul off paddys.

Surely you understand the difference between someone within a group using a slang term jocularly and someone external to the group using it as a slur.

Times haven't changed, only the epithets.

[Jamastiene]

278. That is good to know.

I'm glad I learned that it is a slur. I've never used it, but never knew it was a slur either. Thanks for that information.

[nomorenomore08]

240. "...no one is looking for a 'white knight'-- just a place to speak your piece."

Absolutely. And when people try to talk about the things that are important to them, and get shouted down by those who don't want to hear it - as if "trash thread" and so forth didn't exist - the accusations of white knight-ing seem disingenuous to say the least.

[Orrex]

21. kick

[BainsBane]

40. You kick that post

Does that mean you agree that people should be blamed for posts they themselves never wrote? How precisely does the blame transmit form a poster whose post was not even hidden to two unrelated members who are now off the site? Does the mere act of posting in HOF establish a collective guilt? Or is it based on positing about certain issues that some don't like? I am curious as to why some attacks on members are applauded and others hidden by juries.

[Major Nikon]

52. +1

[Katashi_itto]

73. Well Said!

[L0oniX]

156. +1

[chervilant]

160. Perhaps, you might consider

viewing this video to better understand why sarcasm, derision and condescension in response to feminist issues reveal a lot more about the progenitors of such responses than about the 'radical feminists' that are getting routinely derided and called out on DU.

[RainDog]

166. perhaps, you might consider

Last edited Tue Jan 14, 2014, 12:57 AM - Edit history (2)

That a feminist presenting a case for 1st amendment issues in relation to porn, and I'm not the only one who shares this pov, is subject to stupid attacks by some women here with remarks like I only want to wear fuck me shoes, or I'm not a feminist, or I can't talk about the 1st amendment in relation to porn (!), etc. etc. - personal attacks that have NOTHING to do with the issue, but are simply the sort of thing someone does who has no valid argument and wants to tell someone to shut up... about 1st amendment concerns that were, in fact, shared by other feminists when this issue was at the forefront of politics with the Meese commission, etc.

I am not talking about what any man has done here. Because I put so many people on ignore who were so rude, or simply ignored them in other ways, I'm sure I don't see many of the fights that go on.

Yet, I have seen women in Hof support another who talks about women just wanting a "pat on the head" from men because women disagree with the women in question, who, from what I have seen, again and again resort to personal attacks because they can't adequately defend their opinions. Frankly, it looks like juvenile bullying from one group of women against individual women here whose opinions ON ISSUES differ.

One such example is when I was told I was a pedophile enabler because I chose to accept the opinion of Jennifer Granholm, in relation to one person who wrote something so long ago it's not online, against the claims of an anonymous blogger and a woman here. I did see that men were also accused of the same, simply because I happened to be interacting on the same issue.

The person who so blithely though it was okay to call others here a pedophile enabler is one of the hosts of Hof, or was.

And, again, in Hof, people are mourning for a poster who went off on something so entirely silly - this sort of behavior makes DU suck. Intaglio lost posting privileges for acting like a troll, not because Intaglio is some great defender of feminist principles. I thought the joke was old, ho-hum, Straight and I don't agree on many things and have even spoken about our disagreements, somewhat heatedly - but neither or us personally insulted the other, called the other names, etc.

eta: here is a link to that entire thread, so people can see for themselves what I'm talking about and where I'm coming from: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024315181#post235

Someone in Hof routinely twists the words of what people say here then pretends this is not what is happening. People are tired of it. I'm not interested when I argue that religions are based upon superstition by a reply calling me a bigot. But that's what passes for elevated discussion on issues for some. People get drawn into it - not worth the time, to me.

Here on this thread you have another women, yet again, discounting what any woman says who disagrees with her or, I assume, others in Hof's positions about issues - discounting the opinions of WOMEN as a way to insult, not argue.

Who needs that sort of crap? Not me. I'm talking about women GANGING UP on other women here - something I've experienced that has led me to certain opinions about certain people. If they want respect, they can treat others with the same.

And, related to this - allow me to provide a link to a thread in which a woman is soooo offended by a man and woman (tho she doesn't know this person is female) about privilege. Maybe this sort of cluelessness puts people off of those who claim they are "fighting the good fight." I suppose someone could think that, in an Abbott and Costello sort of "who's on first" kinda way.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024261447

eta: another example of trolling on a thread intended as humor: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4117420

eta to add: talking about a feminist issue without attacking others... well, except for one person at first with some snark, who is a feminist. the only person who tried to turn the thread into an insult. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022623249

[polly7]

174. Excellent, RainDog. nt

[OilemFirchen]

185. It does a tremendous disservice to Feminism...

when some stridently suggest that an individual feminist cannot be rude, condescending, hostile, or, god forbid, wrong about something. That suggests that there is a feminist hive mentality, a binarian mindset - which is, in itself, demeaning. All of Progressivism should embrace nuance and contention, yes?

[RC]

189. You called it the way I see it too.

[LadyHawkAZ]

210. [phone]

[pintobean]

13. Yeah, this is what we need

yet another thread on this subject. It might be like many and get a couple hundred replies, contain a handful of hidden posts, and accomplish nothing more than driving the wedge a bit deeper.

When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead...

[ismnotwasm]

18. White Rabbit!

Took me about 15 seconds.

[NoOneMan]

20. Hey there!

So I take it you're not part of the mass exodus the OP is referring to?

[ismnotwasm]

26. Me? Uh huh.

I watch mostly. Although I did get my 2nd hide ever today.

It was a social experiment.

[NoOneMan]

27. Congrats. The third is the charm

Then you're really becoming someone in the world.

[ismnotwasm]

29. Ah, but off of DU

I am somebody in the world. This is this equivalent to a roadside attraction, or perhaps bungee jumping...

Until the elections anyway.

[NoOneMan]

30. You watch trainwrecks from the road side ever?

Sometimes that seems to be what's happening. But other times its good stuff.

Have a good night

[ismnotwasm]

57. Train wrecks are rare; I've never seen one

Since I'm a nurse I've been a first responder at several car accidents. Good Samaritan law and all that. I like to think I've done some good in the world.

You have a wonderful night as well

[hrmjustin]

14. Well said my friend! I can not stand the poor men crowd.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

24. Ally!

You get it.

[DeSwiss]

31. K&R

[awoke_in_2003]

32. No real man...

would be offended by feminists.

[LeftyMom]

34. ^THIS.

Well, by feminism anyhow. Some individual feminists are assholes, because feminists are people and some people are assholes.

[awoke_in_2003]

37. There are assholes...

in every walk of life. I am a man who was lucky to have 4 very strong women in my life- my mother, grandmothers, and wife. I am the man I am because of them.

[NoOneMan]

38. ^THIS

[AgingAmerican]

43. You mean 'Feminism'?

I have been both amazed AND offended by feminists. Feminism, different story.

[awoke_in_2003]

66. I meant what I said. nt

[AgingAmerican]

67. So...

Feminists do not have the ability to offend people, by virtue of their belief system?

[snooper2]

85. No real person should be offended by anything...

delicate sensibilities make us weak...

We need to be strong!

Like PUTIN!

[awoke_in_2003]

91. Now that's offensive

[Vashta Nerada]

33. I'm offended by people

who start threads and play the "woe is me" card when others call them out on their b.s.

[LeftyMom]

35. Didn't you just play the "woe is me" card on another thread because women won't date you?

Way to be consistent, buddy.

[Vashta Nerada]

36. I didn't start a thread about it.

It was a reply to an apropos OP.

[Bonobo]

41. Bitter apples and nasty oranges, LeftyMom.

The poster was discussing the heightism against men.

Are you REALLY going to shame him for that?

That is rather shitty behavior. Actually rotten I think.

[LeftyMom]

42. I'm really not interested in the opinion of somebody who hates women.

[Bonobo]

46. I don't hate women at all and your way over the top comment speaks volumes about YOU not me. nt

[LeftyMom]

47. The jury disagreed.

[Bonobo]

50. Yes, they disagreed that you were engaging in hate speech.

I still think your behavior is rather rotten and I know of course that you do not agree.

[Bonobo]

54. That is the lowest, sleaziest post I have ever seen. nt

[LittleBlue]

63. I wasn't going to reply to this thread at all but

that was an absolutely shocking, classless reply.

LeftyMom, shame on you.

[JVS]

64. Seriously.

[mythology]

81. Agreed

It's a perfect example of why people should sometimes spend less time on the internet if they are going to be that disgusting.

[Vashta Nerada]

65. Two ugly posts from that poster in this thread.

At least a jury got one right.

[CreekDog]

93. in your alert you said that Leftymom said you killed your sister

since she didn't say that, i think that lie is very low and sleazy. what do you think?

did you think the jury wouldn't hide her post if you didn't say that Leftymom accused you of killing her?

Hate speech? You're the one who hates women so much you buried your sister under a male name.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4322512

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

OK, now this is VERY personal. My sister, a DUER, died and this poster is saying I killer her. Please, I beg you, to hide that.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sun Jan 12, 2014, 11:53 PM, and voted 6-0 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I don't know the backstory, but the post is clearly personal. The person to whom it is directed also deserves to get their posts hidden. The whole sub thread is icky.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: no explanation necessary.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Lefty Mom, I think that you are being pushed into a nasty fight and it's going beyond where you would normally go. Please don't let one poster and their ignorance push you into a place where you wouldn't normally fray. Your voice is very much needed here, and respected. I know we all have our "hot buttons" and can be pushed by some in the wrong way, at the wrong time, and we do something or say something, we normally wouldn't.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agree with the alerter, extremely inappropriate personal attack
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: "That is the lowest, sleaziest post I have ever seen."

[Comrade Grumpy]

95. All jurors had to do was read the post. The jury got it. It was pretty foul.

[CTyankee]

168. based on what I just read it doesn't appear LeftyMom said he "killed" anyone.

[hrmjustin]

170. He might have gotten angry when he wrote the alert and did not read it right.

We should never get personal here.

[CTyankee]

172. but it is being repeated by others. What am I not seeing that they "see"?

[hrmjustin]

175. I don't see it being repeated. I think the jury members read the comment and felt

It was not appropriate. I was not on the jury but I think we should not get personal like that.

[CTyankee]

178. read the question. it is just as it is asked.

[CTyankee]

184. And I think you should leave this alone. I asked a question based on what was

posted. I think I have my answers, both from you and hrmjustin.

[opiate69]

193. "I think I have my answers, both from you and hrmjustin."

As it would appear, Jeff does as well.

[seaglass]

194. No, that isn't what LeftyMom said or meant at all. n/t

[CTyankee]

198. well, then, why do they say LM said it?

It seems so obvious to me if you just read what was written. reading all this I wonder if I've been catapulted into an alternate reality...

[seaglass]

200. Because the jurors don't know how to read and believed the alerter. n/t

[pintobean]

205. How did they know what the alerter said

if they can't read?

[seaglass]

215. I'm sure you can figure it out. n/t

[pintobean]

218. Yes, the jurors read the post

and judged it to be disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. They can read, after all.

[seaglass]

219. I agree that the post was hurtful. I disagree with the alerter's comments. n/t

[RainDog]

221. this moment is why I say the issue is about personalities

it's not about feminism.

The remarks about bonobo are entirely unrelated to feminism. They are related to individuals and sometimes groups (not necessarily a group here at DU) who find others here offensive. I don't necessarily agree with what bonobo says, but I don't agree with making such a personal insult, either.

There are people here who had major disagreements in the lounge and got into back and forths about things in no way related to any political issue, as well. They're issues of personal dislike or disagreement. Some people do come here to DU to attack what someone says after they discuss the same with their friends. I've seen it. I wasn't interested in being a part of it. It's a waste of my time.

I come here as an individual and want to take everyone here as an individual. I only "keep score" when someone has attacked me personally. I usually respond by putting the person on ignore. After a while I take someone off to see if they're doing the same thing. When someone is on ignore, I don't see what they post unless I decide to look at replies while I'm not logged in. I never alert on those people b/c I don't see them.

One woman here, and I were on two different sides of an issue that really had nothing to do with us. She and I were able to make peace. I tried to reach out, a while back, to TA, as well, but I'm not gonna ignore someone insulting in the way that was mentioned, above, even if it's an insult to a woman here I don't even know and hadn't interacted with before.

When people gang up on others, they're not acting as individuals, and when they're concentrated in one group, I mention the group. And, honestly, you know there are threads that say things like... X (or, say, Straight) is posting about women who commit crimes and imply this is an attempt to undermine the idea that women are not the overwhelming victim, not perpetrator of, say, a specific crime. Is this really a good use of energy and time... when someone, say, Straight, for example) posts about all sorts of weird crime things? Not to me. Apparently to others such posts are attacks. I think... wow, what a waste of time.

And I think that people who attack others here, coming from a group of friends outside of DU are also wasting time - which is their right to do, but the nastiness seen here in relation to something ENTIRELY separate from the issue of feminism, is where so much dissension here comes from.

At the same time, some people here feel like they have to fight against people making statements they disagree with. I say, counter those things with some common sense, rather than attacks. That includes issues of feminism, race, politics in general, or whatever else someone finds to object to here... Olive Garden, ad infinitum.

[Bonobo]

224. I was so shocked to see it that I misread.

I am amazed that anyone could think that their pain about someone they knew online is greater than the pain of my loss of a sibling of 45 years.

I was just so shocked, that's all I can say.

I see that I misread, but it s way, way too personal and hurtful to do this to me. I think you all should think about this seriously. I am a person with feelings and wounds too.

You should all delete your posts if you have any sense of humanity.

[polly7]

226. I knew exactly that's what had happened.

I'd have been too shocked to read it correctly also.

I'm sorry for the loss of your sibling, Bonobo, and disgusted and sorry for this sickening display.

[pintobean]

227. +1 - I can't imagine what kind

of mind even thinks about posting something like that, much less goes through with it. It was clearly intended to wound as deeply as possible.

[polly7]

229. A simple, small little mind. nt

[Bonobo]

230. It succeeded in that. Well done. nt

[quinnox]

238. I apologize you were subject to such a disgusting post

And I will be blunt, I would seriously consider bringing that horrible, despicable post to the admins attention if I were you. It is literally one of the most disgusting posts I have ever seen at Du.

[Katashi_itto]

187. Lol!

And this OP is calling out Men's behavior?

[AgingAmerican]

44. Wow...

That was rude.

[FatBuddy]

48. i'm offended by people

period.

[liberal_at_heart]

39. why are all the call out threads towards the men? There are men and women on DU

that behave badly when it comes to debating gender. I would say that both genders need to be called out but calling out bad behavior on DU does no good. That is why I usually just trash DU war threads or put the more offensive people on ignore.

[AgingAmerican]

45. I am only offended by them when they are offensive

Otherwise not.

[redqueen]

49. K&R nt

[DonCoquixote]

55. thank you

and this snip from your signature expalins why I said what I said, and despite the fact I AM named after a knight, I will tell you chivalry aint got nottin t'd do wit it!

"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends" - Martin Luther King Jr. * What you allow is what will continue. *

[redqueen]

92. Precisely. Solidarity is not chivalry.

Asserting that it is, despite all evidence is, well...

[lumberjack_jeff]

56. "as people were harassed and left"

Downthread you said "hauled off in paddywagons", so I assume you're talking about individuals who have 5 or more hides in a 90 day period.

Personally, I find the minefield fairly easy to navigate, and that the tone of discussion has improved. It improves more each day.

I realize there is not much I can do. Heck, the MRA types who bragged about how they used sock puppets are probably here now, while certain others, sadly, are not. Rules only matter when people give a damn, and sadly, many men have been convinced that rules and courtesy do not matter to them. Chivalry is quite dead, yet many barbarians insist on women staying the role of fair damsels in their towers.

This is unclear. Are you saying that feminism should be immune from criticism because chivalry? If so, I think you're missing the point of both feminism and chivalry, but because it's a convenient misconception, I doubt that there is any motivation to straighten you out.

[DonCoquixote]

94. let me make it clear then

Nothing is immune from criticism, NOTHING.

However, there is a difference between the childish, fact free, logic free insult throwing that is becoming more accepted in DU, and criticism. Read the TOS and see how many rules are run over like so much roadkill. "do not make a personal attack" Wow, that died years ago.

Of course, if you read my article, you would have noted where I already slammed the idea of chivalry (maybe you skipped over the "good riddance" part) or redqueen's fine explanation that "SOLIDARITY IS NOT CHIVALRY" (caps mine.) What I am saying is that a lot of critics of feminism are hiding the fact that they would like these mythical "good old days" back, when "girls were girls and men were men" to quote the old Archie Bunker theme.

and please, as for as straightening ME out, check the number of people in this thread that apparently agreed with me. Maybe i'm not the crooked one here. And as far as you discussing what the "the point of both feminism and chivalry" are, well, I will take my feminism from the feminists, and Chivalry is extinct, to which I might repeat "GOOD RIDDANCE" as it was a sauce used to cover up the nasty way women were treated, as well as the way they were supposed to be made to act grateful for it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

109. Okay, then help me understand.

Childish, insulting, logic free discussion is now the norm because the individuals whom juries judged most abusive of community standards have been sent to their rooms?

Occam's razor suggests that it isn't the people still here who are the problem.

Since Redqueen was obliquely responding to my post, I "skipped over it" because it hadn't been written yet.

[CTyankee]

223. Don, you are an honorable man. And I honor you as many women here do.

Thank you for standing up and standing out. As a strong Feminist, I applaud you!

[UtahLib]

72. K&R

And by the way, I do not believe you are in need of being "straightened out" as alluded to by another poster. Seeing an opinion expressed with an open mind and understanding heart is like a breath of fresh air. I find it sad that some cannot resist dragging their animosity into what could otherwise be a healing moment for DU.

[polly7]

74. And that can be completely turned around and be perfectly accurate.

Last edited Mon Jan 13, 2014, 09:49 AM - Edit history (1)

The bullying from 'some' 'self-proclaimed feminists' and their sock puppets on this board against men and other women alike, in no way speaks for many of us who've borne the brunt of it or disagree with it.

People are people. Some are mean, bullying shits who couldn't care less about equality, dignity or anything else that 99% of us on this board agree with ..... theyt just need to dominate. Male and female alike.

[BainsBane]

75. I think what disturbs me most is the idea that there is a single HOF horde

A poster attributes to the members on suspension remarks made by a completely separate person, and people applaud. They know very well who made the comment since there is a thread in the Men's Group calling out that person by NAME. They know she hasn't been suspended, but it doesn't matter. We don't exist as individuals in our own right. We are one HOF hoard. What one person says they think is connected to others is the fault of people who never even saw the post. This whole thing has degenerated into a mentality of rival gangs, Crips vs. Bloods. Hate the right people, attack the right people, fabricate stuff about the right people--the comment HOF enemy--no one cares if it's true. You're in the gang, and the other side is targeted for removal, as Intaglio discovered. Not that he didn't deserve some hides, but to go beyond the point he was flagged to continue to alert stalk until he had 5 hides shows just how committed some are to truly silencing dissenting voices. They may well succeed in driving every feminist off this board and making it a space where those who oppose discussion of gender and feminist issues control the entire debate. But whatever they do here cannot turn back time. The fact is women will continue to increase our rights, we will succeed in combating rape and rape culture. Men will soon have to compete on completely even playing fields, and while they can use the rules of suspension to drive feminists off DU, that can't drive them from the workplace or public life.

There is nothing extreme about most of the HOF feminists. That people think we are speaks to their limited understanding of the broader world. This isn't the 60s anymore. Women and people of color don't need to act and think just like the dominant culture to be accepted. We are actively shaping the culture and political life of America, and we will continue to do so. You can shut feminists on here, but you can't shut them up in the Democrat party or in America at large. Women and people of color are the majority of the Democratic Party and the nation, and our presence is only growing. With that comes new ideas and priorities that you may resent here on DU but can do nothing to stop in real life.

[polly7]

76. People get hides because a jury believes their post deserves to be hidden. Period.

I can't fucking stand watching the whining over getting posts hidden. It's like grade school ..... push and push with nasty behaviour and then crying when it finally gets the attention it deserves.

[seaglass]

106. Let's be honest, only whining from people you dislike bothers you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4253155
quinnox (18,753 posts)
125. I just got a thread that was clearly humorous hidden, I think something fishy is going on

I have a feeling someone is alert stalking on me, and I complained to one of the admins about this. They have access to all alerts and also jury members decisions, so I think I will be able to find out what is going on, hopefully.

It seems like a tiny sub-group on DU is attempting a takeover of some sort. They are ruining DU, god help DU if they are successful!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4253254

Star Member polly7 (9,666 posts) Response to quinnox (Reply #125)

Mon Dec 30, 2013, 09:23 PM
134. LOL!

I know .... I laughed and commented on it then went to run my mom out some homemade soup and bread, when I got back - poof!, it was gone!

Cripes, I didn't think my sense of humour was that warped!

Sorry, don't mean to laugh, but how ridiculous was that!

[polly7]

112. You have no idea who I like or dislike, why would you think you know that?

I admit, I've probably made another comment at some time over the past year about a hidden post of someone's. I don't remember what quinnox's post was, do you? Clearly I was surprised that something I found funny was alerted on and hidden. Shit happens.

It's the non-stop, never-ending whining by certain posters over every single hidden post, you can count on the same reaction and the same sympathetic crowd they gather while suffering through their martyrdom.

[seaglass]

157. Because your dislike is obvious.

Go take a look at this thread which is a continuation of the complaint you responded to 2 weeks ago:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4321589

[polly7]

159. I haven't even posted in that thread, why would you post it in a reply to me

over something I've stated 'I' can't stand?

Couldn't you find anything else?

And I could say that your dislike is obvious but that would be completely ignorant of me, because I have no idea, nor do I care, who you 'like', 'dislike' or 'don't give a flying fuck about'.

[seaglass]

162. Pointless. n/t

[polly7]

163. It sure was. nt.

[DonCoquixote]

140. ere, let me add something though

If the jury sustem is not tampered with, your statement would work. What does worry me is that there are people who brag about abusing the system, and teaming up to get rid of people, or protecting people who do deserve punishment.

Honestly, the fact that SB managed to get four hits in ONE DAY is what sends up red flags. If I was to pay cash money to someone to try and get four hits in one day, I doubt the success would come close to outnumbering the failures. Yes, people do get struck by lightning, or draw Royal flushes in Las vegas, however, in light of the outright follishness as of late, there shoudl at least be an investigation. I do not have access to whatever stats the MGMT has, but I will bet even they wonder what happened.

[pintobean]

150. Here, investigate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=193650&sub=trans

There was a poster who had 11 hides in one day about a year ago. They were all deserved, as well.

[Capt. Obvious]

158. Where are these braggarts posting?

I assume not here, as it would be weird to not have it brought to the Admins' attention.

[polly7]

161. Who is SB?

If it's seabeyond, she had 12 hides at one time ffs. She stole personal medical information from a safe haven to pm to her bully pals and admin to get them to think she was incapable of hosting a forum (but wouldn't admit to it, hiding for days and letting everyone believe that person was lying). She bullied that same person (along with her bully friends) to the point she became physically ill. She's called me and other women sexist terms and claimed we're hypocrites for objecting. She's bullied, insulted and flat-out lied about people here for years.

But, all this over your poor angel. I haz a sad.

[pintobean]

167. He obviously doesn't know what he's talking about.

It was intaglio, not seabeyond. And it was 5 hidden posts, not four.

It's kind of weird, to start a thread like this, and be so misinformed.

[polly7]

171. That makes more sense then.

Even though I have no idea who intaglio is. But anyone who gets more than four posts in one day has already planned for their own vacation, imo.

[zappaman]

169. Thanks Polly

I'm glad I am not the only one who remembers that shitty incident.
The re-writing of that history is just as disgusting.

[polly7]

173. Thanks zappaman, we're not the only ones, by far ...

and I'm happy to say that the amazing person who went through that nightmare is doing extremely well!

[zappaman]

180. Yes she is!

[pintobean]

79. I'm always amused when you whine about alerts.

This post and the two replies right below it were hilarious.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024266467#post44

And, there's this classic:

adogslife's Profile
Transparency Status
Information on this Transparency page is currently displayed to logged-in members because the member's posting privileges were revoked on Apr 4, 2013.
Posting Privileges Revoked
Revoked on Apr 4, 2013
Reason - Sockpuppet of BainsBane, which appears to have been created to get around limits on alerting imposed by the software.
For more information see Terms of Service
Revoked by - Skinner (Administrator)

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

[Egnever]

116. Holy cow nice find.

And not the least bit surprising

[Vashta Nerada]

134. How is that poster not PPR'ed?

[pintobean]

139. Judgement call by admin.

I wonder what would happen if they had it to do over again.

[Violet_Crumble]

80. Skinner's said that there isn't any alert stalking going on...

I personally don't think it's right to lump all those who post in HoF in the same basket. There's a few there who I think are pretty nasty, but most folk there, including the hosts who I have a lot of respect for, are pretty damn decent and reasonable folk. Lumping them all together is as annoying as when someone comes along and takes it upon themselves to speak on behalf of every feminist at DU. For the record, I'm a feminist, and haven't noticed anyone trying to drive me off or trying to silence me. Speaking as someone on the outside looking in now, I think that the threads in HoF calling out other DUers don't have anything to do with feminism, but DU war games, and if they were dialled back a notch or two I suspect there'd be few folk who'd have an issue with anything posted in HoF, because all this warring is about personalities, not feminism...

I don't think anyone's trying to silence feminists at DU. IF anyone's trying, they're doing an abysmal job seeing there's a shitload of us here. What I have seen happening is anger at the fact that one or two people you like can't post for a while because they decided to ignore the very prior warning Skinner gave everyone about the time-outs for five hidden posts and continued the exact same way they always have. Most of those hidden posts were well-deserved, and if someone's going to insist on being abusive when they post, the chances are high that eventually a jury will vote to hide a few of their posts. It's pretty hard to get a hidden post. I haven't had a single post hidden at DU3 even though back at DU2 I posted in a forum where my posts were deleted on an almost daily basis.

So, I think the only people responsible for those having time-outs are the people cooling their heels right now. Hopefully they're using the time to take responsibility for how they behave at DU and will come back changed. But if they're impressionable and easily led, then they may well listen to those who are very loud in insisting that it's not their fault, it's all a plot to rid DU of feminists, and their time-outs are unfair. I hope they don't listen to that for their own sakes...

[BainsBane]

111. Violet

Going after someone to the point of five hides within a few hours, after that person has already been flagged, appears to me to be a very clear case of both alert stalking and a concerted effort to silence.

[tammywammy]

122. Or the posts were so odious they still deserved to be hidden regardless of the poster's status.

I can understand a poster spectacularly flaming out deserving 4 or 5 hides, for instance a poster that keeps saying "colored" after being told it's offensive.

I've seen a poster flagged for review, but their post telling someone else "F you" still deserves a hide.

Since skinner has said there's no alert stalking, it's much more likely the person with multiple hides deserves them due to their own behavior.

[BainsBane]

124. I've seen offensive posts from people flagged

People I did not care for, who had been systematically nasty to me. I did not alert. Why? I thought, what would be the point other than vindictiveness? Once a person is flagged, the administrators will already review their account to see if they should even remain. Of course now there is a point to continuing to alert--to get them off DU for three months, even if the administrators decide to lift the ban.

[tammywammy]

127. I would alert if it was offensive.

Because if I find it that offensive, regardless of the persons status, it's against what I perceive the community standards are. And leaving a post that says "f you" because a poster is flagged is just allowing others to think that behavior is acceptable.

[pintobean]

128. How do you know it wasn't 5 different alerters

or that anyone knew the account was, or could be, flagged? You assume a lot here. And why would it matter? If the account was flagged after the first two hides, and the alerter/s stopped there, the worst post would not have been hidden - the one with a string of racial slurs. Why would a flagged status mean someone should get away with that?

[opiate69]

130. So there should be some kind of self-imposed "mercy rule"?

If a poster goes off the rails, and posts, say, ten ridiculously egregious posts, and the first three get hidden (thus triggering a "flagged for review" status), everyone else should refrain from alerting on the rest of the offending posts??? Seriously??

[opiate69]

138. Oh, no, you didn't!!!

[pintobean]

142. I'd better delete that

[opiate69]

143. Heh.. unfortunately, probably a wise move...

[BainsBane]

149. I don't know

I suppose I could have hunted you down when you were flagged to try to make sure you got five hidden posts, but it would have seemed awfully slimy to me. Despite our history, I'm not built that way. To each his own.

I personally would like to see the alert function changed so that after a person is flagged, alerts go to administrators as they do with posts over 24 hours.

[JVS]

212. Multiple hides within a short period is far more likely the result of a particularly bad outburst...

than some kind of alerting conspiracy.

[tammywammy]

216. I completely agree.

Especially if the poster has multiple posts hidden in the same thread. Multiple hidden posts is indicative of the poster's behavior not alert or juries.

Edited to add: especially since Skinner has said multiple times the alert stalking theory promoted by some is bunk.

[OilemFirchen]

129. That would mean that at least 21 people are involved in this conspiracy.

And that they were randomly, but simultaneously, assigned jury duty on this "targeted" individual.

Jury woo. I think a new thread is in order...

[hootinholler]

233. You only need 4 per jury

So 5 hides is 20. To do *that* in a relatively random draw, even if there are only 300 logged in actively reading, I get brain freeze thinking about calculating the odds.



I asked Skinner about the notion of alert stalking, he effectively and much more politely called bullshit.

[OilemFirchen]

239. I was accounting for the alerter.

Thought I was being generous, assuming that one poster might have alerted on all five posts, thus excluding him or her from a jury. However, if more than one person alerted, and all the alerters served on juries, then the total would have been twenty.

Bah. Set theory hates me.

[CTyankee]

83. If they think feminists can be silenced here on DU, they will be sadly disappointed.

Feminists and the men who care about them are causes for celebration in my life, since I have seen it in my own family, and also, here at DU. The men who are smart will catch on that men who love and respect the feminists in their lives, whether they be their mothers. sisters, wives or lovers, are very happy guys. I know so many. And they are shaping the lives of their children. I have grandsons who will be as strongly feminist as my granddaughters are. This is, after all, the best of having last laughs.

As for the others, left behind...well, such sad creatures, living out a life cramped by misconceptions and by some deep bitternesses. It is too bad.

[snooper2]

86. Do you even know what a Hof Hoard is? You should spend more time doing research LOL

There are BILLIONS! of websites out there to learn new things!


Now I present you with...


The real HOF HOARD! (It gets real good at 2:05!)

[lumberjack_jeff]

87. For better or worse, one of the hallmarks of HoF is solidarity.

Right now, there's a memorial wall thread in HoF mourning the loss of, by definition, the most abusive posters on DU.

[Vashta Nerada]

234. I saw that thread.

You are right. They are the most abusive posters here. But somehow it's everyone else's fault that those people are on a naughty break.

[DLevine]

77. Hear, hear! nt

[mythology]

82. I'm offended by stupid people

Some of them claim to be feminists, some claim other things. It's their behavior that makes them offensive. If people can't handle criticism, or people who see things differently, then perhaps they shouldn't declare themselves public arbiters of what is true and right.

The fact that you only seem to see one side doing this, is part of the problem, on both sides. I mean come on, there's a post in the this thread talking about somebody's deceased sister. Are you really going to attempt to pretend that's the only post that has crossed the line coming from a feminist on this board?

[DonCoquixote]

147. and said post was shuit down by jury

unlike many others.

[Capt. Obvious]

84. Who was driven off?

[NoOneMan]

88. A boatload of people had 5 or more jury hides

You can either take from that they were being suppressed or they were being rude. Pick whatever one confirms your biases best.

[MineralMan]

99. Actually, it was only a handful of DUers.

Not a boatload at all. At one point, Skinner said there were seven people whose transparency list would be exposed when the rule went into effect. I know of five of those, myself. So, it's hardly a boatload.

In fact, the vast majority of DUers have never had a single post hidden, including many who are quite outspoken on some issues. Those who can't post right now will soon be able to again, just as soon as their number of hidden posts within the past 90 days drops to four. I suppose it's possible that some won't return, but I expect that most will.

No boatload. A handful.

[FSogol]

101. It was 7. One is already back. n/t

[MineralMan]

102. Yup.

It's just not a major list of DUers. Some of those who can't post right now are people I generally agree with, while others are just the opposite. However, I'm not pleased to see any of them not able to post. I hope that they are able, when they return, to avoid the posting styles that end with hidden posts.

DU is full of contention. It would be surprising if it were not. But, there are ways to disagree without getting posts hidden, and many here are able to do that again and again and still have no hidden posts. That doesn't mean that they don't vehemently disagree with other DUers. It just means that they're able to state their disagreement without violating community standards. It's not difficult.

[FSogol]

103. Those 7 are a diverse group, but they all lack the self control to not fly off the handle and

tell people off. Time-outs are a good idea for toddlers and perhaps will help here also.

[MineralMan]

114. Well, I hope it works.

All of those folks have stuff to contribute to the discussion, I think.

[MicaelS]

117. Maybe if they would THINK about what they post..

Before they do so, not post so much fluff, proofread their posts so they are legible, and not post insults, they wouldn't get their posts hidden, and they wouldn't be on suspension. I don't feel a damn bit sorry for those on suspension. As far as I'm concerned, they earned every bit of their "time out". And if their suspension makes them so mad they never return, it is no great loss, IMO.

If we had hundreds of members on suspension, they might be a reason for concern that the accusations of alerting this or that had some basis in truth. But less than 10? Pffft.

[MineralMan]

118. I think that was the goal of the policy.

Hope it works.

[MicaelS]

119. I think it is an excellent policy.

One is that is long over due. And I believe it is already having the intended effect.

[FSogol]

120. Agree. n/t

[JVS]

121. I don't think it's going to work if the people who violate the rules see themselves as victims of...

the rules rather than violators.

[MicaelS]

123. It will if they can't post for 30 days at a time.

And frankly, I would extended the policy. Three suspensions in one 12 month period, and it is PPR time. In fact I am going to recommend that to that Admins.

[ScreamingMeemie]

126. I would hope not. That would ratchet up the attempts of some to get

people they did not like banned.

That's an awful idea, and admin can make PPR decisions on their own, without our input.

[JVS]

131. Nobody can force a person to repeatedly break the rules.

The posters in question here seem to be demonstrating that Walt Starr type "fuck you and your rules, I'll do as I please" mentality and that kind of contempt for rules and civility doesn't work on a moderated message board.

[ScreamingMeemie]

133. No, but I have seen some appear to be targeted. I still trust admin when it comes to

PPRing long term posters (for the most part and outside of the great purge). Simply put, DUers don't like each other very much, and too many of those DUers already have too much control over my fate.

[MicaelS]

132. I disagree.

Skinner has already said the concept of "Alert Stalking" does not exist. So the idea of some people chasing others to get their posts hidden, and them suspended is not there.

[ScreamingMeemie]

137. We will agree to disagree then.

and, if I was the admin of a large, popular site, I would deny it as well. I know what I see on jury alerts.

[pintobean]

104. It was eleven.

I guess the boat got bigger between the time Skinner said seven, and d-day.

[hrmjustin]

141. it was 11 originally.

[FSogol]

152. Yes, Pintobean corrected my reply already.

I stand before you chastised for quoting Skinner's estimate rather than the actual number known only to secret hosts mysteriously working in their secret host forum.

I apologize and offer many apologies from my offspring and their future offspring!

[hrmjustin]

153. I did not mean to insult you. And it was not a secret.

[FSogol]

154. Haven't I apologized enough?

Relax, just yanking your chain.

[hrmjustin]

155. Thanks.

[Gormy Cuss]

107. Depends on the size of the boat.

You try jamming seven people into a rowboat and then tell me it's not a boatload.

[MineralMan]

108. Ah, well, you're right, of course.

My personal fishing boat is only 12' long. Two's the limit if they're adults, although I can put two adults and a small kid in it. So, I guess there have been a boatload (smallish) group who can't post for a while.

I guess I was thinking of a larger boat.

[NoOneMan]

110. I was one

I was under the impression there were lots more. I feel incredibly special now being amongst such a fine, small group of exceptional people

[MineralMan]

113. Were you? I didn't know that.

It's a very small group, actually, as I said. I knew of five of the seven that Skinner referred to. Now I know about six. But, you're back and posting again. I didn't know you weren't able to post for a while.

I'm sure I'll see your posts. I've seen them many times in the past, and hope to many times in the future.

[CFLDem]

89. Good for you.

Have a cookie. 🍪

[WorseBeforeBetter]

202. Or a plate of cookies.

^^Asshole Republican governor Pat McCrory of North Carolina.^^

(My lame attempt at injecting politics into an über-Meta thread...)

[tblue37]

97. KnR. nt

[ScreamingMeemie]

115. Welcome to DU... you'll figure it out soon enough I'm sure.

No need to start taking notes so quickly.

[hrmjustin]

144. This is an honest opinion from this poster.

Welcome to du and enjoy the forums my friend.

[DonCoquixote]

145. er, minor thing

The TOS does not want people called out by name, and I am not going to walk right into a trap. However, look upo Men's rights, or "sockpuppets" on here, and you will see plenty of what I am talking about. If nothing else, look up seabeyond, and then wonder what she could have done to get four hits in one day, especially when you stay here and realize that is like hitting a billion dollar powerball lottery and getting struck by lightning at the same time.

[lumberjack_jeff]

151. better yet, look up the transparency pages of any of the individuals in question.

Helpfully, a list of them has been provided by HoF.

Look up the user, click on their transparency page, and use it as an example of shit you shouldn't say.

[lumberjack_jeff]

201. This might be best posted in welcome and help

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1256

But a transparency page shows up in ones profile when they have had 5 posts hidden by juries.

A member is given a temp-ban and can't participate in any meaningful way when they've acquired more than 5 hidden posts in a rolling 90-day window. This is an example of the transparency page of a temp-banned poster.

One could do worse than to use the above example as "don't be like this".

There is a lot of speculation that alerts are abused for ideological reasons (possible) and that juries are part of that abuse (unlikely).

[lumberjack_jeff]

209. The admins put a lot of thought and work into the infrastructure.

Much of it in an attempt to mitigate the rough edges of human nature. It would be misleading to say they were 100% successful.

[pintobean]

211. People don't tend to dislike someone without reason.

There's nothing wrong with a juror taking someone's general behavior into account when judging a post. That said, I've been on over 300 juries and rarely know much about the poster I'm judging. I was on a couple of juries for trumad's posts a long time ago. I voted to leave them alone because I didn't think they deserved to be hidden, despite knowing how abrasive he can be.

[SomethingFishy]

148. Patience Grasshopper...

Within a few days you will discover the "Hot topics" on DU. These topics insure a nice battle when posted, they include subjects like Guns, Feminism, Smoking, Pit Bulls, Olive Garden and Wal-Mart.

Welcome to DU. And don't worry you'll get used to it, there is enough good stuff and good people here to stick it out. You can trash the threads you don't like and ignore the people who bother you.

[geek tragedy]

125. my favorite are the men who make sexist remarks and then whine about

a feminist conspiracy that gets their posts hidden.

THey just wallow in male privilege, gleefully and shamelessly.

[redqueen]

136. And the women who defend them!

Can't leave them out.

[opiate69]

165. 'Cause, they're not "real" feminists, amirite?

[polly7]

179. Course not, we're just faithful old dogs in need of some

googling educating!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4120434

[opiate69]

181. Ah.. so many possible inappropriate replies, so little time..

[polly7]

182. LOL! I know .... nt.

[opiate69]

197. That reminds me...

I better hurry up and order that new collar my wife wants, so we can get it in time for our anniversary...

[pintobean]

186. Wow. And to think about

all the lectures we get about the 'b' word. Is there any difference?

[PassingFair]

191. You know what they say...

"If the muzzle fits."

[polly7]

192. Go for it ....

it's never worked for me or any other woman I've associated with here or in RL - I guess it's all yours. Make sure you get the right size - probably an XL, just a wild guess.

[Waiting For Everyman]

204. "If the muzzle fits." is that your cutesy way of calling polly7 a dog?

Last edited Mon Jan 13, 2014, 08:00 PM - Edit history (1)

Jury results are in. Oh yes, I alerted. And I will every time I see this kind of thing. I'm disgusted that anybody can call themselves a feminist and address any woman on DU like this. At least it was close this time, 3-3, thanks jurors. "Feminists" doing this, just wow! What a nerve some people have. And they wonder why they have no credibility. Gee, I can't imagine why.


On Mon Jan 13, 2014, 10:50 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

You know what they say...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4325366

REASON FOR ALERT

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

YOUR COMMENTS

A backhanded way of calling polly7 a dog.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Mon Jan 13, 2014, 11:02 PM, and voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Polly7 used the 'dog' metaphor first in this thread; PassingFair was replying to that. I think the whole thread is quite bizarre, but I don't this one post can be singled out.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: In the context of this thread, I'd say leave it. There are lots of insults and innuendos. If you don't want to continue to engage in the endless argument, then stay out of the thread. Not enough for me to hide it.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I agree with the alert.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This post IS rude, hurtful...
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Not even funny, even if they are friends. Also, too fucking close to the word "Bitch". Hide.

Thank you.

[polly7]

228. LOL!

- you shouldn't have, lol. I've been called much worse by the gang ....... it's all white noise after a while because you know who it's coming from - big, brave people day after day after fucking day typing out tiny little insults to anyone and everyone who doesn't bow down to authoritarian, bullying bullshit.

[davidn3600]

190. Everyone at DU is a feminist

According to my dictionary, feminism is the belief of the social, economic, and political equality of the sexes. Everyone here believes in equality. If anyone here doesn't, then they are not a progressive and this is not the site for them.

The problem is there is a certain brand of feminists here who have gone onto a tangent and have lost what equality really means.

[redqueen]

195. There are different kinds of feminists.

Yeah, some want equality with men.

Many don't. I don't. Equality with men in this patriarchal clusterfuck of hierarchical bullshit is taking our place alongside those who oppress others so they can be 'on top'.

I have no interest in 'leaning in' so I can grab the corner office in the executive suite and build a nice nursery for my kids while cutting telecommuting benefits for other moms.

Yeah, liberal feminism is necessary in the short term. But make no mistake, it is so not the end game of feminism in general. No, a complete revolution, a sea change in the structure of society is the goal of radical feminists. One that replaces competition with cooperation, hierarchy with cooperation, etc.

[CTyankee]

207. AND, might I add that there are feminist men who feel just as you have so well stated!

These men are pretty damn happy with their philosophy as it has brought them untold gifts in life. Delight in women, their aspirations, their talents and goals.

I get a really sad insight into some men's existence here at DU. They rail against feminists when misogyny is the real enemy to their own happiness. They just don't know it.

[sibelian]

232. Wow.

"They rail against feminists when misogyny is the real enemy to their own happiness. They just don't know it."

So is this like atheists needing Jesus? Or gay people needing to be told how to walk straight? Or people under the influence of chemtrails needing to "WAKE UP, SHEEEPLE!!!"



Have you considered the possibility that explaining human relationships in terms of ANY monomythic belief structure is maybe a little bit stupid?

(Hint - that would include feminism.)

[CTyankee]

267. apart from your ploy of "marginalization," you seem to be under a misapprehension about Feminism.

Your argument "assumes" that Feminism is something you call a "monomythic belief structure." If you do just a bit more reading and research into the subject and have an open mind, you will find it is far from "one" and "fictional, untrue." Feminism is at its base a belief in humanistic values and in fact interchangeable. It is my strong belief that feminists values are humanist values and vice versa. These values are the underpinnings of the liberal, progressive project and we gather here at DU under that banner. It is entirely appropriate to be discussing human relationships in terms of that philosophy.

[sibelian]

277. ...

and "fictional, untrue." - that's not myth. That's FICTION and FALSEHOOD. Myth is neither.

Capitalism is a political structure. It is also a MYTH. Some of it works. Some of it DOESN'T.
Communism is a political structure, it is also a MYTH. Some of it's true. Lots of it ISN'T.

The word "myth" is used occasionally (and erroneously) to describe works of fiction, but in textual analysis it is mostly (or at least used to be) used to describe works that can be described, for the sake of discussion of the phenomenon, as neither true nor false. It is also the only honest way feminism can be described as substantial chunks of the movement's theory contradict each other.

It would be great if feminism could explain human relationships but it doesn't want to. It wants to explain women. Fantastic! Great idea! Let's have more of that, please!! IN FACT as much as possible... EARTH NEEDS WOMEN!!!! Who knows, with some honest effort it might even

But can we also dispense with the silliness that it's got anything to do with liberating men? It's only interested in "liberating" men from doing things it doesn't like. That's not "liberation".

If you do just a bit more reading and research into the subject and have an open mind...

[CTyankee]

279. goodness! thanks ever so much for enlightening me about what feminism is...

But let's see. you frame this as feminism "explaining human relationships" and I prefer to say feminism provides context for human relationships just as you might say humanism does. or progressivism. or liberalism. They all have underlying concepts that inform the way we conduct our lives. Presumably, that includes human relationships as well as many other areas. pretty simple idea, no?

You seem to have such a crabbed view of what feminism can do FOR men and that is sad. Yes, feminism is interested in preventing "men doing things it doesn't like." You might just as well say that preventing slaveholders from owning human beings was an "interest" of abolitionists and those enslaved, for example. Righting wrongs in society, making a society more equitable often requires such effort. However, the further point was about the liberating effect of feminism FOR men. This is what I meant about doing further research. There is a lot of literature out there that can explain that concept much better than I can. But I can tell you that I am a woman surrounded by feminists who are men, who "get it" and who are happier for it. These men are married to women deeply committed to feminism in every facet of their lives. They are fathers of daughters and sons and they are friends and coworkers. I look at their lives and I see some very enriched human beings. They don't moan and groan about how awful feminism has made their lives.

You are missing a bet if you don't understand what I am trying to tell you and it is truly your loss.

Be well, Sibelian. I only hope the best for you.

[Vinnie From Indy]

222. It would be interesting to read more about your utopia.

Anything else replaced with cooperation?

[BainsBane]

220. . . .

Yes, I can't really be a feminist because I don't support MRA groups. What is wrong with me. I guess the African Americans who don't like the Klan aren't really for civil rights either.

All that equal pay for equal work stuff. Damn.

You know what is worse? There are some women on this site who think rapists should be prosecuted! Can you imagine that? Some thing repeat rapists belong in prison! These crazy feminists have really lost the plot.

[davidn3600]

262. You see, this is what Im talking about...

I never said you were not a feminist. And I never said rapists shouldnt be prosecuted. That's just stupid to suggest such a thing. Now I have said in certain cases that it didnt appear there was enough evidence to bring a case. That doesnt mean I support rapists.

Where you will run into heated conflict with myself and others here is when you get into the Catharine McKinnon and Andrea Dworkin crap and start saying things like that all pornography promotes rape, or when you attack the sexual activities of consenting adults. Such feminists were even trying in the 1980s to use federal civil rights laws to try to ban any LEGAL porn they believed was exploitative. The sex wars pretty much killed the second wave which began to attack sexual exploitation. But the third wave is more libertarian. Feminists today, especially the youth, in the mainstream have no interest in banning porn, banning BDSM, or putting restrictions on the individual woman. On the contrary, most feminists today think women should be able to express themselves sexually in any manner they choose to, and that it should be society that should change the negative attitudes it has against such women that express themselves in that manner.

I had a professor back when I was in college that was very openly feminist. She at one time said she even supports the decriminalization of prostitution. (I could go into why she thought that, but that's another topic).

You are free to believe and have whatever opinion you want. But understand that there are feminists out there that dont share all your beliefs in exactly the same way. And just because someone has a different opinion than you does not make them a misogynist or sexist.

[BainsBane]

285. I never said ANY of that crap

I never advocated banning all porn. That I find rape porn repulsive and am concerned about human trafficking, slavery and working conditions for sex workers is not banning all porn. Sexually expressing oneself is entirely different from being enslaved and sold for profit. There is no expression without consent or free will. Denying the reality of the conditions of sex workers is not supporting female sexuality. It is turning one's back on human rights. I have advocated responsible consumption of porn through licenced and regulated porn producers and distributors, something no one here will agree to and in fact insist on ignoring my argument and cry about "banning porn." The circumstances of the workers who make that porn are simply not important to many. Some here even oppose something as basic as requiring porn producers to have their actors use condoms, the equivalent of mechanisms for preventing black lung in the coal mines or brown lung in the textile mills. Why should sex workers have fewer rights than those in other industries?

Many men and women on this site have accused me and others of not being feminists. Your assertion above that "feminists today" believe in x shows exactly that tendency. Before you said you had never heard of a feminist who opposed pronograpy. I am not a wave. I am an independent thinking human being who is entitled to advance the ideas I believe rather than fit into the categories you insist are legitimate or not.

This is the "feminism" you have advanced: You said the jails were too crowded to keep imprisoned a serial rapist in CA who had committed over 20 rapes, including a reoffense on the very last day of his release. You responded to an article with evidence of a 50 history of universities and judicial authorities pushing rape under the rug and insisted that it must have been because there was inadequate evidence. You reveal an astounding lack of awareness of the way in which rape culture affects the judicial system.
You claim DNA evidence, bruises and vaginal tearings are insufficient evidence for the Heisman trophy rapist to be prosecuted yet you didn't raise the issues of innocent until proven guilty in the case of a woman accused of a false rape allegation. Yet you continue to argue for the innocence of accused rapists? Why? Why do you feel that is necessary? Why do you feel compelled to continually accuse women of making false accusations when DOJ stats show very, very few ever do? Overall, a picture comes together that shows what you do and don't value.

You have said feminists have a responsibility to fight for men's rights and in fact claimed feminists do not care about equality because they don't busy themselves with looking after men's issues. If feminists don't care about equality, why would you claim to be one?

You are entitled to your views, as I am entitled to mine, including whom I see as my ally. Posting here is evidence of nothing other than someone has an active account. I learn people's positions and values based on what they write, not on some sort of assumption about what being a member of DU entails. When somone make clear time and time again that he opposes what matters most to me, he is not my ally.

[sibelian]

199. ...

You do not speak for me,
and those you drove off
spoke for me far more than you ever will!

"Drove off"... MY ARSE.

They chose to post what they posted, nobody else. Juries can't "drive people off."

What exactly do you think is to be gained from conflating "MRA types" ( ) with the entirety of DU's available jury pool? Do you think anyone's going to feel sympathetic? Every jury can see the whole thread that they adjudicate ON.

[DonCoquixote]

264. a missed point

ok, a jury gopt together and chose to PUNISH someone. That is what Juries do, and if said juries were manipul;ated, or if there is a suspicion, we have every right to ensure we have an authority look into it, even if the verdict is "OK, nothing funny went on." Or else, Juries are just mobs with desks. Simple concept, because right now, if people believe the jury system is a joke, than it will be nothing but all out anarchy, and I do not mean the peaceful type some people like, but raw, nasty, savagery.

[pintobean]

266. You've served on 174 juries

Did you ever "get together" with other jurors? Did you ever feel manipulated? What exactly are you suspicious of? All you seem to have is disagreement with some verdicts.

Yeah, there's something funny going on here, but it has nothing to do with the juries.

[DonCoquixote]

272. gee, getting personal here?

And even my ego is not limited by thinking that my 174 times is the whole of DU, however, have I seen my results come back where 4 or 5 no explanation givens are there, or where someone outright parrots the insults that were against the tos, yes.

[pintobean]

273. Those are normal jury results

regardless of the outcome. There's nothing wrong with not leaving an explanation - it's an option provided by admin. If someone is abusive with their comments, you can alert the automated message and point it out to admin. You have provided absolutely nothing in this thread that would indicate to a reasonable person that there is any conspiracy and/or jury tampering going on here. It just boils down to people you like behaving badly and paying the price for it. Trying to make excuses for them just looks silly. Their hidden posts and the jury votes are on their transparency pages for all to see.

[Harmony Blue]

225. Shaming never works

and this is why threads like these tend to fall flat. My opinion is that for the feminist movement to improve criticism must be accepted and embraced. That is the only way the movement will improve from my view point and start to be more inclusive. I would argue the feminist movement at the start was very inclusive but it has become very elitists these days.

This explains why women in the U.S. call themselves feminist in general, but do not want to be associated with a feminist group. They like the ideas (of feminism_ but they don't like the groups approach to achieving this ideas and goals. They use shock jock tactics similar to what Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh utilize but the difference is that they are entertainers. Feminism needs to go back to the roots of education with the use of facts.

[Squinch]

237. "Threads like these tend to fall flat," says the 225th poster.

And thank God! Someone is finally telling feminists how they are doing feminism wrong. That's always unexpected! And so refreshing!

Just in case it's needed:

[Harmony Blue]

268. Number of thread posts

indicates that this thread is so long because of the arguing of details that spill over in this thread from previous threads.

[cinnabonbon]

294. I liked the part where

he said "shaming never works" then went on to shame feminists for doing "feminism wrong" and being "elitist".

[HappyMe]

241. +1

Inclusive?

What a concept!




Never gonna fucking happen. My way, or the highway - that's it lest you be called 'pathetic', a 'dog', or a ...

[Harmony Blue]

269. I can always try

and my feelings are not hurt by giving a shout out for what I believe can improve all of humanity.

[DonCoquixote]

265. there is criticism

and then there is pranks and malice. Can you honestly say that, even if you are against Seabeyond, that some people have not already jumped the shark in this very thread? I mean, it is one thign to say "I disgree with Andrea Dworkin or Camille Paglia because of this this and that" and some responders have tried to do so in good faith...then comes people who threaten to "straighten you out" or make "dog" jokes. And some people speak of the jury system as if it was something never to examine or criticize, the old conservative line of "only bad people get punished."

I dislike shaming, but when people are already getting blood on their hands, trying to get people PPRED, well then, you at the very least cannot stand out there saying "why can't you be nice to me?" because sadly, the macho types see that as weakness, and a license to abuse.

[Harmony Blue]

270. I will let the moderators and jury system take care of

any situation that spirals out of control. I do participate on juries, however I am not a white knight coming to save the day for anyone. We are all adults and we can fend for ourselves. I don't offer any gender, race, or ethnicity preferential treatment or give them privilege. I treat them as a human being and most important of all this is the internet so there is no way to know 100% the person you are interacting with (mods probably have more info) what they say is true. I simply accept what they tell me at face value unless it doesn't logically make sense.

[DonCoquixote]

271. white knight

I do not know if that was yoru intent, but I already discussed chivalry. I spoke out because, at the very least, there is some concern that the jury system is NOT working as it should, and if you do not speak out, the problem just gets worse. This is not about prefernetial treatment of anyone, it ios about whether or not we can have a common forum where people can be honest, because if DU cannot be that, we are ALL in trouble.

[BainsBane]

274. Ignore it

They are simply trying to shame you for standing up for the wrong people. At least six people demanded I denounce a post I hadn't made against a female member they felt should be protected. It's pure bullshit. You're an ally, and they cannot stand that fact.

Note that many who would cry white knight have no problem proclaiming themselves arbiter of who a real feminist is. If you disagree with a small group of men on anything, they claim you aren't a real feminist. It's all a huge smokescreen and I seriously doubt that even they believe it.

[pintobean]

275. I see you've been busy lately

Other than your POV, I'd say you fit in well.

None of them are me. I've told you that before.