I posted this in General Discussion (First Openly Gay Woman Competes for Miss California)

[William769]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002133497#top

I thought it was a interesting story. I am amazed at the response it has gotten.

I might add such a beautiful lady also.

[Vanje]

1. I'll watch with interest

I hav'nt paid any attention to a beauty pagent for....35 years or so. But I'll watch this one.

[Vanje]

2. Iverglass eventually denigrates this beautiful young woman's appearance

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002133497#post180

In the old days, that was called, "shallow".

[iverglas]

21. is this what we used to call a CALL-OUT?

And nobody alerts. Who would alert if I told you to fuck off, I wonder?

You are making false statements about me for the purpose of holding me up for contempt in public. And you do not get to do that, let alone behind my back.

Someone in the thread claimed that the woman's lips were collagen-enhanced; I was replying to the denial of that claim, in response to another slew of photographs of the woman. Her lips are so obviously collagen-enhanced it hurts ... probably literally.

I don't give a shit how she chooses to mutilate her body. Well, I do, in the broader context of what women are urged and driven to do to their bodies to conform to the female beauty standard du jour; but in this context, it was simply not my concern.

My concern was, and is, the fact that this website, DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, was hosting what amounted to a cattle show: a woman put on display and then rated on her appearance by a pack of men who thought this was an appropriate thing to do, let alone to do in public, let alone to do at DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND.

I will qualify that. I doubt very much that they thought it was an appropriate thing to do. Any more than men who leer at and comment on/at women in public think it is appropriate. They do it to exclude women from and silence them in the public spaces of their society: the streets and the internet discussion boards, and the schools and workplaces and everywhere else women dare to intrude into.

In the post you linked to, I SAID:

I comment not on her looks, you see, just on the hilarious reaction of the boys' brigade to them.

What, I was lying? Is that what you're saying when you say "Iverglass eventually denigrates this beautiful young woman's appearance"? (I guess there's a reason for misspelling my name.)

Is asserting that someone has undergone cosmetic procedures -- I said "snork - Yeah, no collagen in those lips" (that and the sentence above being the sum total of that post) -- denigrating someone's appearance? If it's denigrating someone's appearance to say they have undergone a cosmetic procedure ... I can't even complete that sentence meaningfully ... I dunno, why would people have such procedures? Don't they have them to look "better"? So surely that would mean commenting on the procedure would mean they look better ...

I was not there to comment on anyone's looks. I was there only because I was asked to serve on a jury to rule on the alert on the post that said:

I give her a 7
out of 10.

You want to say something about that remark, Vanje? I'm sure you can spin it into something lovely; you seem to be good at spinning things into what they aren't.

I thank my stars for the strength of my values and principles.

Otherwise, being betrayed like this by members of the GLBT community might shake my decades-long, outspoken commitment to the absolute, full equality rights of that community (and every other vulnerable, disadvantaged in my society).

Fortunately, I don't demand that all members of such a group speak and act in solidarity with whatever such groups I may belong to - women being the obvious one here - or with other such groups, and withdraw my support for their cause if they don't. If I were such a person, you'd be looking to lose me about now.

[Vanje]

26. Shit, Man

You got foam on my monitor.

[iverglas]

31. you're too cute for words

Last edited Tue Jan 10, 2012, 08:52 PM - Edit history (1)

Not that I couldn't think of some. Man.

[petronius]

32. There was an alert last night on Post #2 in this thread, on grounds of a call-out

the jury split 3-3...

[Fearless]

45. Ok we need to back way up here...

That's everyone involved needs a big old time out.

There are two points I would like to make now as a host of both the General Discussion forum where the thread originated and of the LGBT group where it is now.

1. LGBT's group protected status. This group maintains rules that are far stricter than the GD or any of the other forums. We have the right to control membership and bottleneck discussion. These are tools used to make sure that this group and it's community members feel safe here discussing issues of an LGBT nature. In this case, I can assure you that it was meant far FAR less personally attacking than you have taken it. Don't get me wrong, I can understand why you have taken it this way. But that doesn't change the point that in this forum, discussion about members will sometimes occur in terms of a broader discussion of LGBT rights. I believe the reason you were singled out in this instance was because you are seen as taking a negative view on this woman in the beauty contest. It isn't a personal attack. It's a method for us to discuss the LGBT condition in America. I hope that you can see the fine line between malicious and meaningful dialog in this way. If you have trouble with this, I could try to explain further and would willingly do so in an effort to iron out this conflict.

2. Personal Attacks. I have stated above that mentioning your presence in the other thread, explicitly or implicitly, does not necessarily constitute a "call out" as the group's purpose (in part) is to discuss perceived attacks against LGBT figures. Let me stress perceived, as I do not think it was your intention to attack the woman in question. That said, I need to ask of you one thing. When coming into the LGBT forum, it is decidedly unacceptable explicitly call out our members (some of whom are our hosts) with google searched talking points. The reason that this is unacceptable is because it constitutes a personal attack on a protected group of people in a protected group. Would this behavior be allowed in GD? As of late, depending on the jury. But, it is certainly unacceptable in the LGBT group.

My request is that everyone. And I mean EVERYONE, put the claws away. In the LGBT group we discuss matters based on merit to the LGBT cause and not out of hurt feelings or personal pride. This issue has become personal and should it continue, undoubtedly the hosts of this forum, myself included, will take action to rectify any and all disruption to the group's purpose.

[iverglas]

30. you've been at this little game for quite some time now, haven't you?

I was googling for something else and ran across one of your earlier efforts. All my sincerest apologies for not having had a clue who you were when I am obviously so uppermost in your thoughts at all times.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=341&topic_id=13828&mesg_id=14006

(And this was the second of two successive misrepresentations, and not the only two by you against me in the thread; the link in the one immediately preceding no longer works and I don't recall, three years on, what it was misrepresenting, except that it contained the completely and what could only be the wilfully false allegation that I "don't tolerate lesbian posters". The entire thread makes entertaining reading and makes the campaign of disinformation pretty obvious.)

Vanje
Mon Mar-02-09 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #8

9. Well, to be truthful...

I am very interested in homophobia when it shows up anywhere on DU.

I'm quite shocked. I didnt in my wildest dreams , think I'd find it so close to the feminist forum.

Iverglas:"I have always harboured some resentment about same-sex marriage activism. (We're talking about a couple of decades ago, when it first became an issue to give serious thought to.) Why did the activists not want to join us feminists in smashing the thing altogether? Why did they want to sign on to an institution that had been the instrument for the oppression of women for millennia, and still was (and is)? "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4522316&mesg_id=4536530

Blame the gays!

The link in your post doesn't seem to work now, but fortunately I had quoted my ENTIRE post, the one you misrepresented above, back at you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=341&topic_id=13828&mesg_id=14018

Here is what I said:

I have always harboured some resentment about same-sex marriage activism. (We're talking about a couple of decades ago, when it first became an issue to give serious thought to.) Why did the activists not want to join us feminists in smashing the thing altogether? Why did they want to sign on to an institution that had been the instrument for the oppression of women for millennia, and still was (and is)?

... But in a society that respects individuals and guarantees equal treatment and opportunity, it is not for me to object to someone wanting to do what it is perfectly legal for me to do.

Here is what you have alleged I said:

"problem with same sex activism"

If you want to explain your actions, feel free.

You apparently didn't want to.

Given the attention you obviously pay to me, you know for a certainty that I have advocated for same-sex marriage rights at DU at every opportunity I encountered, and that I have supported same-sex marriage rights in real life for decades, and boasted repeatedly at DU about Canada's leadership role in that regard. The political party I have been a member of since 1969, and three times a candidate for, has been in the forefront of the struggle for GLBT rights for almost that long; I supported the (unsuccessful) candidacy for leadership of Svend Robinson, our first openly gay member of Parliament, and supported the (unsuccessful) effort to throw the one MP in our party who voted against the same-sex marriage legislation out of caucus (she lost the nomination shortly after that).

Hell, back in the 1970s I was legal counsel to the first gay and lesbian rights organization in town, and for years I was one of the less-than-a-handful of legal referrals on their books. I mentored the gay candidate who succeeded me in my constuency, and the gay lawyer who succeeded me in my legal practice. And to quote a Canadian consul in a US city to whom I was submitting a client's immigration application: "Is this another one of your lesbian clients, iverglas?" He was kidding, and I don't even know how he knew; he approved the application. (That was a few years before same-sex couples and unmarried couples of any sex began being treated equally in Canadian immigration law and policy, as they are now. Marriage itself isn't such a big deal in Canada, you see - about 20% of all couples, mine included, and over 35% in RC Quebec, aren't married - but hell, it's there if you want it. We Canadians, and we Canadian feminists, tend to be more advanced in these areas.)

I have no doubt that you would spin that as "some of my best friends". The fact, however, is that I have for my entire life supported, advocated and voted for the full range of rights, and recognition of the equal dignity, of every human being without discrimination, and in particular, both politically and professionally, for the rights of gay men and lesbians, immigrants and refugees, and women.


You have been engaged in an ugly campaign of vilification of myself based on misrepresentation long enough, and this is where it stops.

[Vanje]

33. You are mistaken

I dont concern myself with you.

Though I'm sure you were someone very important in the seventies, Its 2012. I've moved on.

You are not much fun.

[racaulk]

3. That thread is a total trainwreck.

I saw the thread earlier but didn't comment, just because I wanted to avoid the whole mess. I'm with you, I'm surprised by some of the comments there.

I personally do not see the appeal of beauty pageants, but I'm not going to knock anyone's decision to take part in one. And if that's what Miss Thomas wants, then I certainly wish her the best of luck in the competition and I hope she does well. I also think anything that brings gay visibility to a traditionally straight arena (and anything that challenges conventional ideas of what beauty is) has to be a positive thing for all of us.

It would also be nice if Thomas could win the Miss California title and use her voice on marriage equality to reverse some of the damage done by the former titleholder Carrie Prejean.

[stevenleser]

13. I would have totally predicted issues with that due to second wave thinking

Second wave feminists would not appreciate this happening at all.

I discuss that more here--> http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002133497#post229

[DURHAM D]

14. Stop it.

I am a 2nd Waver. Not all (or majority) of us have our elbows out.

gheez

[stevenleser]

15. I'm not going to fight this battle here, but the arguments fall exactly along those lines

The reactions of some in that thread are exactly some of the reasons why feminists like Walker and others thought a new feminist paradigm was necessary, one that went beyond the gender binary, included LGBTQ inclusion, sex positivity, etc.

[DURHAM D]

16. Lovely -

You make an extremely broad brush statement and then unilateraly declare "I Win", end of story, conversation over.

What's that? - White Male Privilege or are you just an Ageist.

See - not fun...

now I am done...

[stevenleser]

17. You are the one who said "Stop it" as to stop the argument after you got your piece in.

I'm quite willing to have this discussion in an appropriate place, i.e. the feminist forum, or wherever else.

And for the record, I am not white, AND since I am middle aged, exacty whom are you accusing me of being an 'ageist' against?

[iverglas]

22. how would it be ...

It would also be nice if Thomas could win the Miss California title and use her voice on marriage equality to reverse some of the damage done by the former titleholder Carrie Prejean.

... if she ran as a Republican and won, and used her voice on marriage equality to reverse some of the damage done by Rick Santorum ... while the Republican government she was part of reinstituted school prayer, outlawed abortion and abolished corporate income tax?

Is there no way that an ambitious, intelligent lesbian can serve her community without serving the patriarchy and being complicit in the oppression of other women at the same time?

I will go out on a limb and bet there is.

[Zorra]

4. I think she looks a bit like the woman in the bottom picture here: (pic heavy)

[dsc]

5. gee that thread did go to the toilet

not my cup of tea but geeze you would think she killed bambi's mother using the blood of a busload of nuns while peeing in Obama's food.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

7. LOL

good one

[joeybee12]

6. She's very pretty...

I hope she does well...visibility anywhere is good..

[La Lioness Priyanka]

8. agreed

[DURHAM D]

9. My goodness William. Look what you started...

I see the usual garden variety bullies showed up to proselytize and take it off topic.

DU needs a forum/group called The Moral Highgrounders.

It should not be moderated as it would allow them to wear themselves out in private and out of view.

[William769]

11. Saw a interesting story posted it and bam!

I stayed in there for a little while then got the hell out.

[iverglas]

23. what an appalling, ugly, ignorant attack

Last edited Sun Jan 8, 2012, 09:37 PM - Edit history (1)

And cowardly to boot.

[xchrom]

10. she's Lovely and she's Fabulous.

but yes -- i hated that thread -- it was awful.

and denigrating to lesbians -- as if she couldn't know her own mind and what she wanted.

[William769]

12. Agreed.

[William769]

18. Shit!

Looks like I have done it again.

[iverglas]

24. yeah, there you go, poor innocent you

Interesting how you have nothing to say yourself.

[obamanut2012]

19. I'm really sorry that happened

I tried to at least bring a little balance back to it at the end, as did Justiceischeap.

I am still confounded by the whole Sasha Grey subthread.

It is a very interesting topic, so it sucks that happened.

[William769]

20. I appreciate all the help that you put forward in that thread.

[obamanut2012]

25. My pleasure

*hugs*

[justiceischeap]

27. Sorry to see you deleted the thread in GD. nt

[obamanut2012]

28. I agree with you

[Eliminator]

29. I don't think you should've locked it

Don't let a bunch of sexually repressed puritans muzzle discussions.

[justiceischeap]

35. Whoa, that's not helping things.

Just because you don't agree with their opinions or the way they express themselves doesn't mean you should come over here and insult them.

[obamanut2012]

36. Yeah, this thread is already getting derailed

Again. Poor William759. No one can ever discuss poor Mollie Thomas in his threads about her!

[DURHAM D]

39. You are so right.

Everyone, and I mean everyone, should have just given her a thumbs up and moved on.

AttaGirl Mollie!

[justiceischeap]

37. Don't come into the LGBT forum with your issues about this thread

Whether you agree with pageants or not, this is a milestone for the LGBT community. Let us have our friggin' milestone without ruining it for William769 (again!).

If you want to fight about this thread, go over to the Lounge or in the Help forum.

[obamanut2012]

38. Agreed

[Ruby the Liberal]

41. Did you mean to reply to the OP?

[justiceischeap]

42. I meant to reply to those coming into the LGBT forum and cause trouble over this thread

so, no, not the OP. I thought I made that clear in my post that some folks were causing trouble in William769s thread on the issue.