I am sickened by the men who think women are objects

[rbrnmw]

As a woman and a mother of two daughters I strongly object to the mysogynist posts on DU. I thought this was a progressive site maybe I was wrong.

[Gravitycollapse]

1. Objectification is not all or nothing. All men see women as objects on some level...

And in many ways all women also view women as objects. Really, objectification as a simple psychological concept encompasses all human relations.

At the risk of sounding like a fool, I think what is actually at play in objectification is the lack of subjective identity. It is not the existence of one thing so much as the absence of another. Maybe this is overly dichotomous but I believe it's an important distinction.

What this does is essentially take away the passivity of the general population by pronouncing them culpable for how they treat women, or even how they let others treat women.

The hero is not the one who denies he objectifies women (that is precisely the man you should never trust). The hero is the one who realizes his culpability and makes a personal demand that he confront it at every conscious point AS WELL AS constantly reevaluate the structure of his thought patterns. In other words, he has to question the very philosophy of his life in order to alter the way he acts.

I don't think I've ever encountered anyone who truly believes a woman is a total object; in other words, I've never met anyone who totally denied the subjective identity of women. I think the issue runs much deeper than that.

[smirkymonkey]

5. And all women see men as objects.

Sex objects, success objects, etc. It's just the nature of human beings.

That's just the way we women are. We can't help it. We just have to understand that we objectify men and reevaluate the structure of our thought patterns. We have to question the very philosophy of our lives in order to alter the way we act.

I don't think I have ever encountered a woman who truly believes that a man is a total object. In other words, I have never met anyone who totally denied the subjective identity of man. I think the issue runs much deeper than that.

See how that works?

[rbrnmw]

6. +1000

[merrily]

7. I wonder how much women saw men as sex objects a century ago.

[smirkymonkey]

12. Not so much, but certainly as success objects.

It's different these days.

[merrily]

14. You know how women saw men a century ago?

[smirkymonkey]

21. Yes, that was my point. And now we don't have to.

We can see them as complete human beings. Isn't that better?

[merrily]

24. Your point was that you know how women really saw men a century ago?

[RobinA]

69. Literature

The literature of the time is a pretty good indicator of how men, women and chidren, among many other things, were looked at during a given time period.

[merrily]

90. I don't know that repressed women expressed their innermost

thoughts in literature.

[Iris]

163. perhaoa not but there are also diaries and letters that can provide insight

[merrily]

174. Good point about the diaries.

Yet, I kept one as a little kid, but was careful about what I put into it. I half expected my parents to go through it, especially my father, and kept that in mind as I wrote, even as little girl.

But, maybe Edwardian ladies, or whatever they were, had more confidence in their privacy.

[NealK]

191. Of course.

But not only literature of the time, most Historians are not obsessed by Kings and Queens and do a great job at reseaching how most people where living at a given time and what their culture was.

[Gravitycollapse]

9. One of the first things I said is that it's not all or nothing. Therefore, it is degrees of severity

I think the patriarchal society has played upon male objectification of women so that it becomes a dominant form of objectification, eclipsing others.

There is nothing essential about hegemonic masculinity. There is nothing which, in a logical sense, necessarily posits that men MUST, by their "nature", oppressive, objectify and abjectify women. Which makes the fact that it is so pervasive in our culture all the more obscene. We have the power to control it. We have the power to deconstruct a social and intellectual schema which we did not create. But we choose, instead, to perpetuate it.

[merrily]

26. I think it goes back to cave dweller days, so I am not

sure that it is not hard wired by now. Or the closest thing to hard wired.

Frankly, I think women scared the poop out of cavemen.

But, I don't know if hard wired or not is a route I wish to go. Farting without self-restraint is probably the more "natural" thing for most humans, but most decent people try to restrain themselves in public out of respect for those around them.

And there's certainly nothing hard-wired about posting sexist crap on message boards.

[rbrnmw]

33. I think some RWNJ's are still cave dwellers

[merrily]

35. Cave dwellers may have been superior in many ways.

I've heard Neanderthals were a gentle species.

ETA: I probably have my timeline wrong, but someone will probably correct me.

[rbrnmw]

43. sorry cave dwellers and Neanderthals

Of course you were more progressive and gentler than the current brainwashed rwnj's

[nomorenomore08]

51. "And there's certainly nothing hard-wired about posting sexist crap on message boards."

I just wish the MRA types would realize this...

[rbrnmw]

57. exactly

[merrily]

172. I think they do realize it. I think they are enjoying it.

I rarely assume that someone just doesn't get it.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

47. "I don't think I have ever encountered a woman who truly believes that a man is a total object"...

Not even an asshole?

[Gravitycollapse]

61. Nope. On some level, even if incredibly diminished, they recognize her subjective identity.

That isn't to say they aren't assholes. And this is more a matter of semantics on my part than a deviation from the idea that men objectify women.

[Orsino]

67. The artificial cultural barriers we erect and perpetuate are all objectification.

I wouldn't even say that all objectification is necessarily bad...but we should at least be able to recognize it, and admit to its existence.

[mercuryblues]

83. funny that

I don't see men as objects at all, so your ALL women do is just plain old crap.

[Gravitycollapse]

158. I think there exists a sort of superposition of object and subject in our perception of others.

Both have full symbolic potential (we understand that a human being is both a literal object as well as a discrete consciousness), but only one is really sensed when the other is lessened.

In other words, you probably see men as objects. Or, at least, your subconscious does. But such a view is not usually perceived because your perception of subject is stronger. This balance has the potential to change for each person you interact with.

Thus, there is this constant flow (like a Deleuzian machine) of subjectivization and objectivization from us and we can only really measure which one is more pronounced by observing our actions.

[zazen]

177. you make great points--and I wonder if we "oversubjectify" men . . .

which is really to say, there is a tendency under male dominance for men and women to over-attribute (which is another construction/projection and therefore not real openness to the presence of someone's subjectivity) interior presence, motives, grandeur, etc. It's like our culture revels in some supposed inner greatness of anything (angst, ambition, vision, spiritual quest) of certain men to the same degree that the presumed interior space/meaning of gender=female is lessened.

This is changing to some degree, but as you've said above, these tendencies are deeply embedded and pervasive across most of humanity since neolithic times (from what we can infer from pre-literate societies).

But I REALLY appreciate your point that, even with an utter sociopath, we don't fully objectify females . . . the whole point of power, exploitation, and certainly sadistic abuse is that the target shows evidence that she understands her subjugation and recognizes the social superiority of her oppressor. Dominance implies an enjoyment on some level that the subjugated project back evidence that their oppressors are superior in some way. You can't get validation from a complete object.

[B Calm]

97. +2000

I've been told more than once that I have nice buns by women. .

[Jamastiene]

178. How worried were you that she was going to follow you home, overpower you,

and rape you though? That is where the difference comes into play. Yes, women can rape men, and sometimes do, but most of the time, women do not feel entitled to do so...nor do most women gloss it over saying he was asking for it, deserved it because of how he was dressed, or had a bad reputation and still deserved it because he was not pure enough. Most men are not overly worried about being overpowered and/or raped by women either. The objectification of women goes much further than catcalls. Objectification of men does happen too, but the impact is not nearly the same.

[sendero]

176. I wondered...

....... when someone was going to point out the obvious. Men are treated as objects just as much as women, albeit for different purposes. Wanna know what it feels like to be a "financial security" object? Be a man. Saying that is morally better than being a "sex object" is sort of a fundamentalist sex-is-bad attitude IMHO.

[noiretextatique]

128. i don't think i know any rapists

but i believe most of them see their victims as objects. too easy.

[AverageJoe90]

138. And, IMO, I would suspect that you are indeed correct.

And, if I may add, many rapists were probably raised in highly culturally reactionary homes, which exposed them to views about women that many even 60 years ago would have found to be horrifying. Unfortunately, even today, there isn't enough being exposed about this tragic reality, as many still believe that something like 90%, or whatever, of rapists are random strangers who come out nowhere in the park, who are just "genetically defective", or whatever.

[raccoon]

180. "And, if I may add, many rapists were probably raised in highly culturally reactionary homes"

I expect you are right. Unfortunately, there are still plenty such homes--particularly in conservative areas.

[Squinch]

187. Given the percentage of women who are raped in our society, you probably do know one or two.

[AverageJoe90]

156. There is some truth to this.

Although, I do *slightly* disagree with you on ONE thing: I DO think there are a few truly assholish men out there who really DO view women as total objects. Even with that small disagreement aside, I still think this post was a rather good one. I only wish there'd been more like this one today.

[niyad]

160. I'd like some raspberry balsamic vinaigrette for that word salad.

[Gravitycollapse]

162. Give me an example of a term you don't understand and I'll try to simplify it.

[Rex]

164. ALL women see other women as objects? What the hell have you been smoking?

That's some blanket statement bullshit and you know it. ALL men are base creatures that view women like furniture? MAYBE in YOUR world that is true and maybe you let us all in on your mindset toward the genders.

You sound like a fool.

[Gravitycollapse]

165. Try and read some nuance into my argument...

It is a nuanced one. It isn't to say that all men are base creatures. It's to say that objectification is a universal issue among social beings. How severe it is and who specifically is making it worse is a different story.

As I said to someone else, we have to resolve the fact that we are physical objects with the fact that we have discrete consciousness. That's the issue surrounding object and subject. How power discourse manipulates this relationship is different from it existing in the first place. Does this make sense?

[Rex]

166. I don't think you have much of an argument when you use ALL.

There are SOME men and women out there that don't look at the other gender as an object. You make sense, only if you don't go to such great lengths to mandate it be ALL.

That is impossible.

[Gravitycollapse]

167. The point of my argument is to say that we all need to consider how we play a part...

In the objectification of the social female body (through creating idealized images of women) as well as how we do this to individual women even if our individual actions are almost imperceptibly minute.

Yes, there are men out there who are special cases for the word asshole. But there's a much larger body of men who perpetuate the problem on a lesser level, individually, while trying to maintain their own innocence. And I think that this disavowal of culpability feeds into the problem of female objectification.

[Rex]

168. Okay that makes sense to me.

Sorry for the snark, I need sleep...

I just don't believe that every human, man or women, is into objectifying every other living human. It would seem to live in the realm of impossibility. It would require ALL of us to forget about the human experience on some level or another.

Empathy just seems to prohibit such thought. Not that everyone has empathy, seems like maybe it is a 50/50 deal.

[Gravitycollapse]

169. I believe deeply in the subconscious.

So this allows me to believe in two sides of the psyche. There is the "above-board" operation which is metaphorically our face that we show to the world. Then there is the mirky netherworld underneath. Kind of like Freud's Id but not so cartoonish evil. This unconscious contains all of the machinery instilled in us by society. Because this is popular machinery installed in an individual, it naturally follows popular trends.

Because there is such a popular social issue with the oppression of women, among other groups, we have to evaluate how this underlying machinery of our psyche plays a part. That is what I'm speaking to when I say we all objectify. We may consciously believe that we are innocent. But never discount the possibility that you're wrong.

It's okay to identify the real assholes. But it's also important to step back and ask ourselves how we might be contributing unknowingly to the problem. I suspect the crowd nature of female oppression is discounted unjustly. Or, at least, we often admit that there is a large social issue while always claiming the issue lies with others in the group. We don't want to admit our own part.

[Rex]

170. True our own egos can get in the way of being completely objective.

But I also think it is true that we can look at other human beings as something far beyond mere objects like a table or lamp. That we recognize, even at a subconscious level, that there is something different about humans or any living creature for that matter. They are not rocks, they are not waves on the ocean, they are something that will react to what I do or say and can be hurt or even killed by whatever I decide...a table cannot get it's feeling hurt, a lamp will never react just by me calling in names. I respect all living things, I have no respect for my comb - it is a true object with only material value.

IOW, I respect other living things as vital to my own existence...a lamp, not so much.

No doubt, having said that, my id or ego or superego runs through all my insecurities in life daily and to cope I objectify others. On some level...I agree with you 100%.

[Jamastiene]

179. I get your point.

It makes more sense to point out that some actually do these things, but not to claim ALL do it.

[JI7]

2. it's supposed to be but there are many who are hostile to women

[rbrnmw]

3. it has gotten out of control lately

[TDale313]

4. Yep, it really has. n/t

[smirkymonkey]

10. +1000

That is an understatement.

[merrily]

8. I think DU is more tolerant of sexism than it is of some other biases.

Then again, I have seen members of other groups posting that DU is not friendly to them. So, I don't know.

[rbrnmw]

11. it's 2014 not 1014 when will women get the respect due?

It's all over the internet I thought a democratic forum would be a safe-haven for women.

[merrily]

15. "when will women get the respect due?" Beats me. Soon, I hope.

Is it really all over the internet about DU?

[rbrnmw]

18. no I meant the sexism is all over the internet

I thought a Democratic site would have more class than those other places sadly I was wrong

[merrily]

20. I could be naive, but I think sexism comes mostly from the RW in

the first instance. How mods and admins and others respond is a separate issue.

[nomorenomore08]

54. "Primarily" and "solely" is a very important distinction here.

Does sexism/misogyny come primarily from the right? Yes, in many respects, I think it's safe to say so.

But solely? Not even close. Forgive me if this seems an obvious truism, but even we left-leaning guys have a bit of work to do on ourselves, by and large.

[merrily]

173. That's why I didn't say "solely."

Some posters get annoyed with me because I tend to put qualifications in my posts. (Though they pounce quickly enough when I don't. Maybe that's the point.)

But, I find that absolutes are rare.

I think one difference is that most on the right will deny they are being sexist and mock women for taking offense, while many on the left do less of both those things.

Thank you for being willing to do the work.

BTW, some women have to do the work, too. They've internalized some of the attitudes that have been coming at them for centuries. I have to check myself less than I used to, but it was a process for me as well and I strongly suspect I am not the only woman who has had to check herself.

[LeftyMom]

13. The problems are usually the same people. The worst offender tonight has posted some racist doozies.

[rbrnmw]

16. I saw that how low can he go?

My opinion is that he should be off this site

[AverageJoe90]

85. That I can agree with, 100%.

Actual racism, when it does occur, has no place on a site like Democratic Underground.

[merrily]

17. I don't know who that is. I just got here after a few days absence.

I agree that it's probably the same people--and my guess is that they are what they call "moles" and we call "RW trolls."

However, if we are talking forum bias, it's not so much what a few people post, but how the forum reacts to them.

I try to be sensitive to all bigotry, but I may be more sensitive to certain kinds. Having made full disclosure, I repeat: DU seems to me to treat anti female bigotry differently from other kinds of bigotry.

[redqueen]

89. "it's not so much what a few people post, but how the forum reacts to them."

This right here

[etherealtruth]

124. Exactly

There will always be idiots ... but it is the support for it (tacit or overt) that is really disturbing

[AverageJoe90]

84. Link, please?

[noiretextatique]

129. well...racism is pretty much A-ok here

of course the most egregious posts are deleted, but the more subtle ones often are not. i just consider the source.

[merrily]

171. I have no doubt.

Over at Discussionist, I saw a RWer calling it a "sport" to post at DU and see how close to edge he or she could come without getting banned.

He or she did not mention racism, specificially, but I wouldn't be surprised.

[Skittles]

19. they still cannot get over being rejected by a girl in junior high

pathetic critters they are

[merrily]

22. Maybe, but there's an awful lot of RW propaganda on the subject.

Has been since before the ERA. Emphasis on "awful."

I think--not sure--that it's all tied up with a combination of Roe v. Wade and the RW politicians' exploitation of religion--and some clergy's exploitation of RW politicians, too. One fundraises off the other.

[rbrnmw]

23. exactly the offender self-deleted his post that suggested

Women should go protest Hobby Lobby topless

[nomorenomore08]

55. Seems like he just can't help himself from belittling people in the most tasteless fashion.

I don't know what psychological issues or character flaws might spawn that, but there's got to be something at work.

[JI7]

68. and then trying to make yourself out ot be the victim

when people object to the horrible treatment of other humans.

[AverageJoe90]

104. IIRC, the guy who runs We Hunted the Mammoth has a pretty huge list of guys he's run across.........

Who are just like that.

manboobz.com

[XemaSab]

134. So you spend a lot of time on that site, eh?

Surprising.

[AverageJoe90]

136. "Surprising." Why is that?

I think Dave Futrelle has many interesting things to say. And he is certainly almost always right on the money with the most prominent figures of the MRM movement, guys like Warren Farrell, Roosh V(or Douche V, as I call him).....pretty much every one of them is fucked up in some fashion. And some, like Heartiste, for example, are just downright nasty folks.

I do try to stay away from the comments, at times, though, as some of the commenters are a little on the, err.....fringe side of things(not all of 'em, though. Some are really likeable once you get to know them a little.).

[BainsBane]

25. most men here are good progressives

Unortunately there exists a vocal minority that do not treat women with equal respect.

[rbrnmw]

27. the vocal minority has been quite busy lately

[BainsBane]

29. indeed they have

Believe me. I feel it too. I wish it weren't allowed, particularly the stuff that is eerily reminiscent of MRA discourse.

[rbrnmw]

31. yes I wish MIRT would look into it

I alerted on the earlier post the jury had already voted to leave it earlier. However he did finally self-delete it

[cyberswede]

32. MIRT can only look at newbie trolls/disruptors

Long-term posters are the business of the site administrators.

[rbrnmw]

36. OH I didn't know that thanks

[Rhiannon12866]

37. But it does help MIRT if DUers send alerts and juries vote to hide offensive posts

That way, at least MIRT becomes aware of problems here.

[merrily]

38. I didn't know that. Do you know if alerts on long time posters

get referred to the admins, or only banning decisions?

[cyberswede]

40. Community standards alerts go to juries, but Admins see them all.

7-0 hidden posts. Go too MIRT, but they only act if the poster is new/low count.

[merrily]

41. Thank you for the explanation.

[rbrnmw]

42. thanks

[BainsBane]

34. MIRT only had power over newbies

Others fall to administrators. You might consider posting an ATA question about it.

[rbrnmw]

39. Thanks

[TDale313]

44. Right on both counts.

Fortunately, it does feel like that vocal minority has been getting a fair amount of pushback recently. But still, too many juries give them a pass and too many juries hide the call-out. Le sigh.

[BainsBane]

45. tell me about it.

I am beyond fed up with the double standard.

[AverageJoe90]

103. And those people who ARE causing actual problems SHOULD be called out.

The problem that some of us, both men and women, btw, have, is that there are some people who are exaggerating, sometimes quite severely, the extent of the problem on this site. And it's gotten a bit problematic in recent months(including a few using such as an excuse to be jerks towards men they don't agree with, and, occasionally, women who disagree as well).

[redqueen]

113. Who's being a jerk? Could it not be that women are tired of men telling them what they should

find important, whether their reactions to events are appropriate, what does or does not constitute sexism, how their perceptions of misogyny and sexism are wrong, etc?

[AverageJoe90]

119. And could it be.....

That perhaps, just maybe, that there *are* a few individual perceptions that may not be accurate(i.e. "all men are potential rapists&quot , and a few reactions that may indeed be inappropriate in some circumstances? And yes, it does go both ways; for example, a guy saying that he thinks all feminists are evil man-haters just because he reads something written by Solanas, or Dworkin, etc., would definitely be uncalled for.

Saying that there may be a problem, or potential problem, with how someone views the world isn't the same as silencing them(left or right!). For example, I used to get into a fair bit of verbal sparring with white supremacists regarding their views on Jewish people, or black folks, etc., and every so often, they would pull out the "censorship victim" card on me, even though I was not in a position to shut them up anyway(and in fact, it wasn't uncommon for these guys to turn around and block ME after I gave them a good verbal lickin'.).

[MadrasT]

175. For the 6000th time

To a woman, all men ARE potentially rapists. When we meet a man that is unknown to us, we have NO WAY of knowing if he is a rapist, or not rapist. We don't know. Thus, from a woman's point of view, for any unknown man, the potential is there.

This is not complicated or hard to understand. Therefore, I have no choice but to believe when people take umbrage to the statement "All men are potential rapists" they are just intentionally being jerks.

[BainsBane]

115. exaggerating in your opinion

Which of course trumps the experience of women who experience sexism. I think the reaction to the Hobby Lobby decision pretty much proved what you say are exaggerations. When so-called progressives justify something like that or insist it doesn't matter, that is a serious problem. It's now spreading to LBGT members, some of whom are actually men, and it will spread further until if starts to affect the people who don't care about the majority of Americans.

[Jamastiene]

182. Oh, ffs.

Is it your mission in life to come to DU every day and complain about women? You seem to be in every thread about women's rights and/or male chauvinism to complain about women and pretend not to see the misogyny on DU. I can understand women wanting rights and talking about it quite a bit on DU. What I don't understand are posters who are obsessed with mansplaining to women how horrible we are for daring to point out the horrors we have to face.

[AverageJoe90]

183. I'm really not sure what I can say to this.

So you *really* think that somehow, I'm opposed to women's rights or that I'm complaining about women as a collective group? Really? FFS. That's patently just plain B.S., full stop.

[NealK]

193. Quote:

"there are some people who are exaggerating, sometimes quite severely, the extent of the problem on this site. And it's gotten a bit problematic in recent months"

So women who are sick of being treated like sex objects and are being harassed, sometime on a daily basis, are exaggerating what they have to endure? Bullshit. If you have a problem with this then don't read the threads or go register to another site.

[Fred M]

28. Lena Dunham is Not Helping

A lot of people at the base, men and women, just can't get enough og Girls. They actually have had massive discussions about certain episodes the day after. Personally, as a heterosexual man, I think the show is a big wad of misogynistic crap.

[rbrnmw]

30. never heard of that show

I don't watch TV, Netflix, or Hulu much but my older kids do I'll Google it

[BainsBane]

46. notice it's always a woman's fault

I've seen people blame objectification on women's
wearing heels and lipstick. Now Lena Dunham. (I haven't seen the show myself).

[rbrnmw]

48. of course it is we are objects of ridicule because it's never men

Sounds like Limbaugh calling us sluts and telling us not to have sex I've been married 19 years and have 5 kids. I had to have an emergency total hysterectomy last year I worry about other women who also need one being denied by some religious nut-job who thinks she shouldn't have one because of procreation.

[Fred M]

181. I was talking about one woman, BainsBane

A woman who controls every aspect of her television program.

As for the men that aren't helping, they vastly outnumer gals like Dunham. The reason I didn't list them is that there are way too many!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

64. welcome to DU3

enjoy you stay

[JohnnyRingo]

49. Are there really that many?

I think I'd be seeing them if there were, but I haven't a clue of all these mysogynist posts you're talking about.

Wouldn't it be more efficient and less provocative to call them out individually instead of posting it in open letter form?

I wouldn't dream of writing an OP that said I was sickened by the women who openly voice hostilities against men in DU. I think it's called mysandry and it happens often enough here.

[rbrnmw]

50. if you haven't seen them I'm sorry

But my OP is after months of these type of posts one last night suggested women should protest Hobby Lobby topless. Is that OK?

[JohnnyRingo]

70. Was that an original post?

I wonder because there's been a recent onslaught of call outs to men that challenge comment. I can't excuse such a statement, but I find it hard to believe that any man here would post an original thread that suggested women protest topless. If that comment was buried in the comment section of a post I wouldn't have seen it, and I assume it was soon rightly hidden.

On the other hand, I see almost daily challenges to men at DU to step up and declare their allegiance. The wording of such original threads are meant to provoke and have titles like "to 'certain men' at DU", or "I love sex". While the latter can be described as the ultimate answer to a question that nobody asked, the intent is obvious, to draw comments that can be slapped down enforce. In the first thread the last line was "go fuck yourself", and in the other was an explicit dare to call her a slut. I didn't check to see if anyone did, but I highly doubt it.

In a recent OP the author argued for an end an end to the "Men's Group" because people there were demeaning women on a regular basis. I immediately searched the group and found no such threads. I don't live on DU, but I'm not seeing all these anti-women threads that you claim to be so prevalent. In another recent original post, I saw a plea to end the deluge of "MRA threads" in DU. Not only do I not see such threads, I had to research to see what MRA even stood for. I finally figured out that it has something to do with men's claim to superiority.

I usually avoid the almost daily call outs to men like a savvy denizen of the TV show "Bait Car", but it's getting so common now that it's becoming an insult to my gender. I'm not your enemy, and carpet bombing DU to weed out insurgents does more to weaken support for your cause than it does to garner empathy in the GOP war on women. Don't place a needless shot across my bow when I'm sailing in friendly waters, lest you expect return fire.

[rbrnmw]

91. I have seen all the post you claim you haven't as have many men and women here

[mercuryblues]

92. here ya go

he self-deleted

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025172737

[hfojvt]

118. a thread from Monday last week

that was kept alive by people saying "uhm, no" kicking it until last Thursday.

It wasn't generally well received.

[Squinch]

58. Oh, please. What bullshit. When was the last time a woman here responded to an injustice against

your sex by telling you to whip it out in protest? When was the last time some woman here told you that they should have as much control over your body as you do?

When was the last time there WAS an injustice against your sex?

Do tell what these oppressions you have experienced here are.

[Sheldon Cooper]

63. No, not AS MUCH control over your body as you do.

They want MORE control over your body than you. Disgusting.

[Orrex]

75. What the hell are you talking about?

Why should women have ANY control over their bodies?

What are you? A commie or something?

[JohnnyRingo]

65. Let me begin by telling you that I'm not your enemy

I'm not Rush Limbaugh hiding behind an internet pseudonym either.

Having said that, the gist of my comment concerns an uptick in preemptive strikes in the war against women aimed squarely at men in DU. On any given day there's a call out to DU men on the site's front page. One posted earlier today involved the Hobby Lobby decision and maintains the belief that men on the Supreme hate women more than they love corporate loopholes that allow them to avoid costly govt regulation. The post ends with a demand that men here pick one side or the other in the comment section and reeks of provocation.

These provocative posts predate the SC decision however. A few weeks ago I read an OP that expressed a desire to remove the Mens Group forum because posters there were making comments that undermined women in general. While I don't frequent that forum, I went there immediately to see what the problem was. I saw no such original threads that could even be loosely construed to beat up on women. After some thought, I wondered why the post's author was perusing the forum to begin with, unless it was to find some mysogynist tidbit to be outraged over.

Until this week I've avoided such provocative posts, much like the more savvy denizens of the TV show "Bait Car", but these anti-men posts have become much more blatant of late. A few days ago a poster addressed her thread "To "certain men" of DU. The post ended in the words "go fuck yourself". Of course I assume I'm not the target of that post, but the intent to provoke a response that can be piled on was obvious. To be clear, I'd never title a post to "certain women" at DU. I'm sure such a brazen call out to females here would never be accepted anyway, as well it should not.

That post was followed up the next day by a post where she proclaimed how much she likes sex. In what had to be the prize winner of "great answers to questions that nobody's asking", she went on to detail just how much enjoyable sex she has and dared anyone to call her a slut. Once again, I'd never come to DU to brag about how often I get laid, nor would I challenge women to demean my TMI public boasts about it, though I'm sure I'd get it in spades. To me, it's like putting a chip on one's shoulder and daring someone to knock it off.

Another recent post described the deluge of "MRA" posts from the men at DU. I had no idea what that meant, so I Googled it. I didn't get anywhere on that, but from the gist of the post, I gathered that it has to do with men on DU posting superiority threads. Once again, while I don't live on DU, I fail to see this onslaught of men declaring themselves superior in any way. I do however, see almost daily call outs to men, often daring comment that isn't a committed form of kudos.

I feel sometimes like I surfed into a war zone of a conflict that I wasn't previously involved in. One false move, and I get slapped down, much like in your harshly worded reply to me. I didn't make one anti-woman comment, but you called bullshit on my observation and prompted me for further clarification, presumably to see who's uniform I was wearing in this war on women.

I'm sure many of these complaints, such as the OP here, are about comments assigned to provocative posts rather than original posts themselves. That would explain why I don't see regular posts about how women should "know their place", or how women should attend a protest "topless". In that regard, I'd think it more productive to address the comments directly rather than an open letter clearly intended to draw out any opposition in advance. I doubt a comment that advised women to protest "topless" would survive a jury, and perhaps that's why the poster can't address it directly, but daily challenges thrown out for being born with a Y chromosome is swiftly becoming an annoying trend in DU that is rudely insulting to me, and I'm sure, other men at DU.

To reiterate, I'm not your enemy here, I just think carpet bombing is an inefficient way to wage a war because of the collateral damage it causes that leads to a weakening of support. In other words, I'd find more empathy in your cause if you aren't calling me another stereotypical clueless male who just wants to control your vagina.

[RobinA]

71. Good Luck

getting this point across. Many have tried. Article in the NYT this weekend about outrageoholics on the Internet. Not about this particular subject, but in general. Interesting reading.

[Squinch]

93. OK. So.

1.) A poster said she likes to have sex when she wants to have sex and that doesn't make her a slut. So that oppresses you.

2.) That poster said that those men who were using the Hobby Lobby decision to tell the women on DU who are, obviously and rightfully furious at that decision, that they are hysterical and making a mountain out of a molehill should go fuck themselves. Though you say you are NOT one of those men who did this. But you didn't see those posts from those men, so they must never have happened. Notwithstanding the numerous threads and comments in which people did say those things. But you didn't see them so all those people (men and women, by the way) responding to them must have been wrong. And that oppresses you.

3.) Someone said the men on the SC hate women. I believe this is true and they prove it frequently. So that oppresses you.

4.) A poster doesn't like the men's group. Have you never noticed the frequent posts from people trashing HoF? But the fact that a poster doesn't like the men's group oppresses you.

5.) You don't think post about women protesting topless was an OP. And you don't think it would survive a jury. You are wrong on both counts. It was eventually taken down by the author, after he had stirred enough shit to consider it successful. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025172737
Somehow the anger at this post oppresses you.

6.) You don't like the way people argue against these things.

SO. Here you are expressing the ways in which women on DU have annoyed you and made you feel like you are "in a war zone." And that is just fine. But when women do the same, in response to a SUPREME COURT DECISION, not an argument on an internet site, but a decision that affects them in real ways throughout their whole lives, they are met with derision. When they respond to that derision they are oppressing you. The poster who responded to your last comment sees it as nothing more than "outrageaholics."

But all that terrible misandry! You don't see any of the posts that the women here are responding to, but woe! All the misandry! "I think it's called mysandry and it happens often enough here," you say.

Right. You are another one of those allies who must not be alienated. With friends like that...

[Sheldon Cooper]

120. Outstanding!!!

[JohnnyRingo]

157. I'm sorry you feel so beleaguered.

Last edited Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:05 PM - Edit history (1)

And I suppose no man in DU has ever been the victim of gender bias according to you, but many threads like this one, and the ones I outlined, are seen by me as serving no other purpose except to demean men and put them in their place preemptively.

As for the Supreme Court, judging the history of the Roberts Court, I believe if you could incorporate your vagina and give it a proper IPO, they'd see to it you got all the govt deregulation and subsidies they deem available. Just because this decision appears directed toward some women doesn't mean it's a lucky coincidence that it provides a legal loophole for huge chains to avoid paying for employee health care.

If John Roberts etal are devout Christians making decisions based on the bible, then they're the worst Christians since Caligula. If they rule based solely on an unexplained hatred of women, then they're little children. If they make judgments that faithfully enrich corporations, then they're mainstream conservative justices doing what they see as their duty.

Don't misunderstand me, the GOP war on women is very real, I've seen it in action and it's a pox on their party, but daily call outs to men on DU for sharing their gender is offensive. Indeed, I don't think these provocative posts can be described as defensive in any meaning of the word.

I've stated my case and have no intention of further clarification. You may have the final word.

[Squinch]

186. Your "case" is nothing but projection and nonsense.

This conversation between you and me began because of your poor beleaguered feelings. Remember? You are all beleaguered because a woman here dared to point out that there have been some men here who have had a disgusting reaction to a Supreme Court decision. That made you all sad that people were being mean to you. Plus, misandry, misandry, misandry.

"Just because it appears directed toward some women"

It appears to be directed toward women? Are you for real? That may be the dumbest statement about the decision I have seen yet, given it's astonishing dismissal of the hardship it creates specifically for woman. Let me guess: you're one of those guys who thinks this is no big deal until it falls down the slippery slope and affects YOU.

"Daily call outs to men on DU for sharing their gender."

I presume you are saying that the call outs on DU are because men share the justices gender. Seriously, you ought to READ these posts before you complain about them. They have nothing to do with sharing their gender. They have to do with a number of men on DU who have made asinine statements about the decision and about women's reactions to the decision.

I am sure none of this means anything to you. The OP wrote her post to say that she is upset about the ridiculous response that the decision has received here in a number of threads. I am sure there is no way to convince you that she has the right and the reason to say what she did, or that sometimes people say things here that are not all about you. That says more about you than it does about any of the people you are complaining about.

Carry on fighting the brave fight against all the terrible oppression you are under because a woman stated her reasonable reactions in an OP.

[StevieM]

154. The last major injustice against my sex (male) was actually the result of misogyny, not misandry.

I am speaking of the legalized kidnapping of Dusten Brown's daughter, Veronica.

We allow the adoption industry to engage in ruthless behavior in order to take children away from loving parents. The main target of this policy is women. Conservative lawmakers believe that all children born out of wedlock should be given up for adoption. They want a 100% relinquishment rate. In the minds of these politicians, women who get pregnant outside of marriage are "whores" who do not deserve to keep their own children. So we allow a predatory industry to target them and bully them into coerced adoptions.

This policy is rooted in misogyny. But it inevitably leads to a good deal of collateral damage, as the adoption industry goes on a rampage to make their coveted profits by stealing children that are coveted by prospective adopters. That includes denying men the right to raise their children when a woman relinquishes. And they will tell any lie, perpetrate any fraud, or manipulate any appearance when needed to achieve their objectives. The courts have repeatedly let prospective adoptive parents get away with this--because they want the adoption to happen.

So a pro-relinquishment culture, developed in order to punish so-called sinful women, has boomeranged on men. And that is the great injustice against my sex.

Of course, the greatest injustice is against the children, who are needlessly separated from their blood relatives.

[Sheldon Cooper]

62. Misandry!

[boston bean]

76. .

If one doesn't experience it, it truly is not their experience. Sad they can't look beyond themselves... wish they could.

[Squinch]

100. Yes. He sees it frequently. But somehow the misogynist threads that everyone else has seen have

escaped his notice.

[AverageJoe90]

101. Everyone, Squinch?

I haven't seen a lot of actual misogyny around here, either. Even regular sexism(directed towards either sex) isn't that common, despite what some might want us to believe.

[Squinch]

102. Yes Joe, we know that you think that.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

131. I actually did

laugh out loud there...

[ReRe]

52. For now...

... keep on alerting on this person(s) when they get all misogynist-bent out of control. But I will tell you this: These kinds of folks are like schoolyard bullies. What they get a kick out of is saying something totally unacceptable to get a rise out of as many (women) as possible. Don't respond to them. Just alert on them if you think they have gone too far. If you argue with them in the heat of the moment, HE will alert on you! Don't let him pull you down to his level. He's a sick perverted dick-head prick and does NOT have a life to speak of except for trolling. Put him on ignore. Thanks for the OP so this can be discussed.

[AverageJoe90]

53. I don't appreciate misogyny myself.

And I've seen a few truly objectionable posts myself from time to time so it does happen. To be honest, however, the truth is, even regular sexism isn't nearly as widespread as some have made it out to be; if anything at all, it's a few outliers, and some trolls, who are causing 99% of the problems in this regard. And they are usually taken care of pretty quickly once outed(well, usually. Sometimes the Jury System can be a real crap shoot, though. But the job does get done most of the time).

[rbrnmw]

56. when it's someone with a high post count sometimes juries

Look at that instead of the reason for the alert especially when it's a host

[AverageJoe90]

66. That's true, I think.

In any case, I do realize that we are not totally immune from these kinds of problems, and whenever they actually do pop up, they certainly should be addressed.

[boston bean]

73. I'll be happy to be the judge of what I find sexist or not, absent of what you think, ok?

[AverageJoe90]

77. You have the right to your opinion as I do mine. nt

[boston bean]

79. Well, thank you for that.

[AverageJoe90]

82. Well, I wouldn't say it if I didn't believe it, TBH. nt

[boston bean]

88. TBH you can believe what you want. Doesn't make you an expert or right.

TBH of course.

[ProfessorGAC]

80. I've Been On Many Juries. . .

. . .and i've never pay attention to the number of posts. Not of the post under review or the alerter.

I think you would need a little data to make that accusation. I have a difficult time believing i'm that unique in this regard.
GAC

[Squinch]

59. Yes, Joe, we get it: TBH, in your opinion, honestly, the truth is, this isn't really a problem. It's

just them damn wimmen overreacting again.

TBH, the truth is, really, just saying, to be honest.

[rbrnmw]

60. exactly

[redqueen]

94. !

[boston bean]

72. Are you a woman who experiences sexism?

If not, how the hell would you know what someone feels daily, or sometimes, or never, or often?

[AverageJoe90]

74. *sigh*.

If not, how the hell would you know what someone feels daily, or sometimes, or never, or often?

You do realize I never claimed to speak for anyone, right? Or did you just not care? Somehow, I'm guessing it's probably the latter.

[boston bean]

78. Oh you pontificated quite nicely how it's nearly non existent.

That means you are speaking for more than your lonesome self.

[AverageJoe90]

81. Do you have any proof that actual misogyny *is* widespread?

I'd honestly think we'd be in real trouble if that was the case, but I've never seen much of anything other than the occasional jerkass troll(does anyone remember Speck Tater, by the way? That guy really was a total ass).

[boston bean]

87. why yes I do.

A guy being pro forced birth just yesterday.

Men on this site wanting women to be hush hush about the hobby lobby decision cause it's so tiresome you know. Multiple threads on that.

Asking us to protest with our tops off, because they will enjoy it so much more.

That's just off the top of my head. I can send you a bunch of links as I run across them, however I don't want you poo pooing it with it's really not that big of a deal. All these micro aggressions add up day after day. If you don't see them or don't agree with them does not mean they are non existent. Also, you don't have to deal with it, so you may not be so enlightened as you claim to be with your never ending denials of sexism here and out in the real world.

[AverageJoe90]

95. Well, okay, that first guy is definitely an asshole, no doubt.

However, though, I have some very legitimate doubts about number two. If you're referring to quinnox, do realize that there is often a problem about the topic de jure clogging up the GD forums from time to time; and sometimes, it can be a real pain in the ass wading thru all of them(frankly, I have come to feel that way about 2016 Election stuff in particular.).

The third example may or may not be a misogynist. If anything, though, he's probably just a little immature.

That's just off the top of my head. I can send you a bunch of links as I run across them, however I don't want you poo pooing it with it's really not that big of a deal.

You can at least try.

All these micro aggressions add up day after day.

And what about those instances in which something that was written, that some individuals might have thought was a microaggression, but actually wasn't?

If you don't see them or don't agree with them does not mean they are non existent.

True, but the vice verse operates here as well: just because you may see a few idiots from time to time doesn't mean the problem is widespread on this site.

Also, you don't have to deal with it,

I'm afraid that hasn't been true in my case, unfortunately. For example, there have been instances where I have been brushed off and my opinion made out to be totally irrelevant simply because I was a male(and in fact, maybe this is a good example!). So yes, sexism does happen against men from time to time; this is hardly controversial.

so you may not be so enlightened as you claim to be with your never ending denials of sexism here and out in the real world.

If that was true.....well, actually, I'm not sure this even deserves much of a response. Because it's blatantly false, and if you knew anything about me, you'd understand that quite well.

[boston bean]

98. Actually, your incessant postings telling women they are wrong and can't recognize sexism when

it slaps them in the face, can be interpreted as sexism.

Carry on with your denials.

[AverageJoe90]

99. Really? Care to provide some links for that?

Or are you just going to evade, as so many other accusers have?

You might as well be honest with yourself, at this point. This isn't so much about sexism as it is a personal vendetta.

[boston bean]

106. Are you denying you deny sexism when women point it out.

That you find some other reason other than sexism, in essence making a denial?

I hope not, you only need read your responses in this thread.

[AverageJoe90]

110. Depends on what you think is denial.

I recognize that sexism does crop up on here from time to time. All I was saying in that one reply is that sometimes, we need to look for context. For example, "rape culture" is a controversial term because, to the layperson, it implies that all of culture of a given nation wholeheartedly endorses or approves of rape; from what I've read, however, that's not the case, as the context is rather different(at least we can both agree on this ONE thing, yes?).

[boston bean]

111. TBH I read what you write, however painful, and don't agree with you

most times.

We are at a standstill. But if it makes your day to keep telling women who experience sexism how wrong they are for feeling that way... go.for.it.

No one can stop you.

[AverageJoe90]

126. The problem is, you apparently seem to think I'm going after *all* women.....or even all feminists.

And that's not the case.

The only problem I've ever personally had is with a small number of radicals who do say some screwed up things from time to time; i.e. "all men are potential rapists".

[boston bean]

127. In the context, you oh so love to hang your hat on, it is a true statement.

For instance, to women, walking in a dark parking lot at night or down the road, all men are potential rapists, because we can't tell a good guy from a rapist, so keep your distance please and don't think you are being discriminated against.

Wow, that's really different to understand

[AverageJoe90]

132. To ALL women? That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Here's a question; what if the sentence were hypothetically changed to something like, oh, I dunno, "all blacks are potential gangsters, because we can't tell a good black person from a gangbanger, so keep your distance please....."? Or " "all whites are potential neo-Nazis, because we can't tell a good white person from a neo-Nazi, so keep your distance please....."? Wouldn't that sound pretty fucked up?

My point is, the way things can be phrased may make it seem like one harbors some serious prejudices against said group, even if there's no malicious intention behind such.

[boston bean]

133. You take it that someone is speaking for the whole of everyone and everything

to take umbrage with.

However a woman who makes a post like that is speaking for herself and probably many other women. Look at it like that instead of thinking someone is making discriminatory statements towards all members of the male sex.

[XemaSab]

140. Fish gonna swim, birds gonna fly

n/t

[redqueen]

116. What? How is "rape culture" being a "controversial" term *outside of progressive, feminist-friendly

circles*, constitute an example of whether sexism crops up *here* from time to time?

[AverageJoe90]

123. You seem to have misread what I wrote.

What I was actually saying was, the debates around "rape culture" are a good example of how context can sometimes misread, misattributed, etc., whether intentionally or not.

[Zenlitened]

112. Right? Sexism, racism, homophobia...

...somehow the question of whether these things exist on DU is best decided by people who never have to live it.

Amazing, huh? Have they never heard of the word "patronizing"?

It'd all be funny if it wasn't so sad. Pathetic and absurd.

[boston bean]

114. I think it's best to just let them keep pontificating

the veil will lift for most reading at some point or another.

[redqueen]

117. TBH it's fucking tiresome at this point.

Seriously how much more transparent does this need to be?

[AverageJoe90]

125. Nobody is saying sexism doesn't exist, period. Because it does sometimes happen.

And to be fair, as stated before, there are indeed the occasional assholes who do cause real problems on this site. But what I and others are pointing out is, it's not quite the widespread problem that some claim it is, and that exaggerating the scope doesn't help any of us in the long run, least of all those women who actually have been victimized by real misogyny.

And, also, I can safely say that I have never experienced homophobia; I am heterosexual. And I don't recall anyone having crossed the racism line on DU(though it has happened elsewhere, unfortunately). But I have, unfortunately, been the target of sexist attitudes on occasion. This is not to denigrate or minimize the individual experiences of victims of misogyny(or homophobia, etc.), or even that men have it as bad as women. Not at all.

But pointing out that individual sexism can be targeted towards men isn't, or at least shouldn't be, controversial. And to be truthful, in many, many cases, other men are actually the nastiest offenders in that regard.

[bravenak]

139. You seem to do this type of gish gallop thing anytime sexism or racism is brought up.

I notice it often and wonder if you are actually seeing what's going on around you.

How bout trying to not jump in and do the not all men thing all the time? You constantly try to correct people who probably have degrees in, or live with the things you try to explain to and interpret for them.
Remember that thing about mansplaining? That's the thing. You try to explain racism to black people on here often. Now you try to explain sexism to feminists. Remember that thing about mansplaining? That's the thing. I never see you explaining racism to white people or sexism to men. Think about how strange that is for a white dude to always find it in himself to explain racism to black people and sexism to women.

[XemaSab]

141. Marry me?

[bravenak]

143. Yes!!!

[XemaSab]

144. .

[Jamastiene]

188. Will y'all adopt me?

You got there first to ask her to marry you. So, will y'all adopt me? I like you both a lot and thank you both for trying to explain that we see through that poster. They take it upon themselves to tell AAs on DU what racism is and is not and then take it upon themselves to tell women what sexism is and is not. Never mind the fact that they don't ever listen to a word we say. It's a round and round argument constantly.

[XemaSab]

189. You're totally adopted!

[Jamastiene]

190. Thank you!!!

[AverageJoe90]

146. Oh, please. That's a bunch of malarkey.

Firstly, do stow the "you're just targetting black people" bullshit, would you kindly? That's not true, and never has been true(in fact, not a few of the people I've disagreed with on certain thing, have been "white" themselves, and at least sometimes male at that.).

And furthermore, I can't help but SMH at the "mansplaining" comment. Frankly, I've been the recipient of a fair amount of 'splaining myself.

In any case, I really wish you'd wake up and smell the coffee. You may not agree with some things I say, but it's hardly fair to assume that I'm targetting people. That, frankly, isn't just uncalled for, but reeks of an ad hominem as well. Not cool.

[bravenak]

148. I never said the 'quote' you typed in.

See what i mean about this issue? You just fake 'quoted' me.
Then you implied i need to wake up and smell the coffee......
I never used the words target either. Nice strawmen you built. Sorry i burned them down.

What i said was something else entirely and you can go back and read it, slowly, then you'll get it.

[AverageJoe90]

153. It was very much what you implied. Please don't lie.

Here's the actual quote:

Remember that thing about mansplaining? That's the thing. You try to explain racism to black people on here often. Now you try to explain sexism to feminists. Remember that thing about mansplaining? That's the thing. I never see you explaining racism to white people or sexism to men. Think about how strange that is for a white dude to always find it in himself to explain racism to black people and sexism to women.

In that very first sentence, you basically accused me of targeting black DUers in particular. You may not have used that exact wording, true, but the implication was as plain as day.

And that accusation you made is, again, blatantly untrue, and even some of the other people who've had issues with some things I've said, will at least understand that.

[bravenak]

155. I said.

"You OFTEN try to EXPLAIN racism to BLACK people."
And
"Now, you try to explain SEXISM to FEMINISTS."

There was nothing about you TARGETING anybody.

I just observed that you explain things to those two groups that they already know. It's no lie, sir. I notice your posts, just like you obviously notice mine.

I then wondered if you knew how strange it was for you to do so.
I used the exact wording i needed and i imply nothing. You must admit, i always say exactly what i mean. No need to read into it. Ask me if that's what i mean and i will always answer. Especially for you.
You were on my list of DUers i wanted to meet. I always have a second to spare for you.

[Zenlitened]

142. Aristotle is credited with saying...

..."It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

I'd suggest a corollary exists: that the inability to accept ideas that challenge -- and even demonstrably refute -- our own opinions is the sign of a constrained intellect.

It is the worst sort of cognitive failure, I'd argue, one that destroys all credibility in the individual over time.

When the facts are at odds with our opinions, what do we do? That's the true measure of a mind. And a useful gauge of our character, as well.

[AverageJoe90]

150. "When the facts are at odds with our opinions, what do we do?" I've asked myself that same general..

type of question from time to time. But here's the thing; the facts aren't exactly on the side of those who think that all men are potential rapists, or that women can't be sexist (individually, at least), etc.....just as they certainly aren't on the side of extremist MRAs who think that every woman to the left of Ann Coulter is out to destroy all men, etc.

That's the true measure of a mind. And a useful gauge of our character, as well.

I could say the same thing. But what to do when the facts are on our side but some refuse to try to understand where we're coming from? This is a position I've found myself in many times, including here on DU(and on this very thread!). I do have a pretty high tolerance for tomfoolery, etc., but there comes a point where one can't stand it anymore; does one continue to try to set the record straight, or give up and let the other person wallow in their B.S. & ignorance?

[Zenlitened]

151. Is that a rhetorical question? Because TBH and in all fairness...

...it seems to me that you have chosen to wallow.

Apologies if that's not the answer you were looking for.

[Anansi1171]

105. With the best of intentions, many are making this way too complicated!

Everyone is DUE simple human dignity and respect in any civilization we could willingly aspire to.

All men(patriarchy), white guys and their wives(Republicans), the USA, the Catholic Church, the Third Riech, the USMC, the Khmer Rough, fundamentalist parents and scores of groups and institutions have systemitized destructive behavior that is truly murderous in intent. Rape, chattel slavery, holocaust all have the same seed - people willingly allowing some other to be murdered even if indirectly.

Holocaust survivor Primo Levi said, "Monsters exist, but they are too few in number to be truly dangerous. More dangerous are the common men, the functionaries ready to believe and to act without asking questions.”

We, myself included, are RESPONSIBLE for mysoginy to a large degree, as we exist in the institutions that support it's practice on you and your sisters. I think in a small way, DU serves as a useful purpose as a platform where we can envision and enact progress towards social justice. I think it's a good thing going, and I believe our enemies know that.

I do hope you will stay and be encouraged that a new world is possible - it really is.

[Squinch]

108. Wow. This is pretty great. Welcome!

[JustAnotherGen]

159. Well said!

[AverageJoe90]

184. Well....this honestly isn't quite one of the best posts....but

I did find a real gem here, however:

Everyone is DUE simple human dignity and respect in any civilization we could willingly aspire to.

And I'm sure 99% of people on this site will agree with that.

Other good parts-

Holocaust survivor Primo Levi said, "Monsters exist, but they are too few in number to be truly dangerous. More dangerous are the common men, the functionaries ready to believe and to act without asking questions.”

There's some truth to that.

I do hope you will stay and be encouraged that a new world is possible - it really is.

I think so as well. I only hope that we can hold ourselves together to ensure that it does happen.

[Squinch]

107. Yours couldn't have been a more mild expression of upset over what has been going on around

here. I thought it was amazingly restrained and simply showed your dismay. And yet even that very mild expression is way too much for the virgin ears of some of our "allies" here.

But thank you for the post. I agree with you entirely.

Next week people of color will be made to feel the way we feel now. And the week after that LGBT people.

[rbrnmw]

109. sadly I've seen "there is no white privilege" posts here

[Squinch]

121. Me too. Often and insistently stated.

[AverageJoe90]

130. And to be honest, what's wrong with that?

In that regard, some of us have indeed pointed out that "white privilege" does not actually exist in a literal and tangible form, contrary to the certain intrepretation of said theory, that some more fringe individuals that has emerged in more recent years.

I mean, it's hardly a controversial thing to point out. Only a minority of liberals, even progressives, actually subscribe to it. Even many People of Color don't buy into it(contrary to what you may have heard on here).

[XemaSab]

135. What site did you get that off of?

n/t

[AverageJoe90]

137. Just various observations I've made over the years.

There's even been a few here who have openly admitted that they believed in literal "white privilege&quot IIRC, one person tried to use Peggy McIntosh to try to justify that). And no, I won't name any names in public, as I'm not keen on potentially violating Community Standards(I've already been the victim of a couple of bogus alerts as it is).

[bravenak]

145. I almost just called you morning Joe.

That's so strange. I wrote it out and deleted it. LOL!

I confess. I believe in White Privilege. You can name me, it's fine if you do. I have thick skin.

[AverageJoe90]

147. Well, okay. You have the right to your opinion, as I do mine.

I'm not seeking to silence people just because they disagree, or whatever.....even if such isn't always reciprocated.

But I'm not going to be goaded into violating Community Standards, either, intentionally or not.

[bravenak]

149. Oh, you were worried about community standards.

I get that, makes sense.

[BootinUp]

122. Well it is a progressive site, but it is also an internet site

it is hard to keep all the bad apples out... you know?

I wouldn't still be a member if I didn't think that overall it was a good place for progressives to share their views.

[orpupilofnature57]

152. Misanthropes, it's not just about Woman, but All people .

I'm also sickened by Woman who play into it .

[niyad]

161. there are a good many threads and posts that make one wonder if one has been switched

to another site by mistake.

[NealK]

192. Misandry!

This thread is full of it!!!1! Why do ALL the women hate men so much?

(Do I really need to use the sarcasm thingy?)