Someone just called me "repressed"

[VelmaD]

*snort*

Me.

Hell, I thought I was half the reason Skinner banned sex threads.

Y'all gotta see this.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1286825#1287078

[tigereye]

1. didn't see the Condi thread

how bad was it? Is it worth looking for to get my feminist ire going?

[VelmaD]

4. Go for it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1286455

[tigereye]

6. oops, too late it's gone

[La Lioness Priyanka]

2. repressed what?

can you only be repressed sexually..what if you repressed the evil in you? or the murderer ?

[GOPisEvil]

3. Hahahahahaha...I knew there was a good reason I avoided that.

Is Thursday flame war day around here? All the big ones seem to be on Thursdays.

[VelmaD]

5. I know...

maybe Skinner should change it from Flame War Day to Ice Cream Day. :)

[Aristus]

7. Oh well.

He don't know you like we do, sweetie. :-) Uninhibited doesn't mean offensively sexual.

[VelmaD]

8. Thanks sweetie

I had to come back over to the Lounge to make sure I was still a perv. :)

[KinkyDem]

10. Don't worry

You are. And all still know it.

[VelmaD]

15. Thanks hon

All Hail Velma! Queen Perv of the Lounge!

[VelmaD]

9. WOOHOO - we won

Those threads both got locked. Strike another blow against rampaging sexism on DU.

[mouse7]

32. Here's a "you said it, not me" moment

You think you're in some sort of sexism war. You come on threads where people are telling jokes, insult most of the people on the thread, then come in here claiming both ignorance to any issues regarding sexual repression AND victory in some imaginary battle?

[VelmaD]

33. I insulted people...that's pretty goddamn funny...

coming from someone who engaged in personal attacks on that thread and belittled a hell of a lot of women in the process.

I will say it again...what makes your perception that that thread was a joke more valid than the perception of the women who saw it as sexist? That you believe your opinion is more valid than ours says something about you.

[mouse7]

36. Because YOU demand your version of "sexism" be enforced

You made it plain that you think your opinion is more valid because you demanded your interpretation of sexism be enforced. I did not hit alert on any of your posts or any other posts on the thread. You did. You are the one that demends that all be held to your definition of sexism. I was not threatened by the presence of your arguments on the thread. You demanded posts be deleted and the threads be locked.

I'm clearly more confortable discussing opinions that are not carbon copies of mine. You are enraged by views that differ and seek their removal.

I'm confortable with discussion. You're not. That means my outlook is reasonable and heathy. That means your outlook is closed and inflexible.

[VelmaD]

38. Back up the truck

I alerted only on the original post. Hell, I flat out stated that I wanted your posts to stay. Granted it was because I thought they were hilarious. But I did explicitly state in the thread that I didn't want them deleted.

I would argue that your behavior does not indicate that you were not threatened by the opinions of the women on that thread. People who are not threatened don't have to resort to name-calling. And whether you want to admit it or not, calling me repressed and puritanical without knowing anything about me was name-calling. People who are comfortable with differing opinions don't have to resort to commentary on the sexuality of the person they are arguing with.

And you never once addressed the real issue as far as the women on that thread saw it...why the thread was started about Condi but not any of the men in the administration (the copy-cat thread that came later doesn't count). Why was the woman singled out? Simple. Sexism.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[VelmaD]

41. I alerted on that thread...

because some of the men on it were using it as a place to continue the flamewar from the previous thread. Which is against the DU rules. I alerted on that thread because it was being used to make fun of the women's concerns on the other thread. I alerted on that thread because some of the men on it were using it as an example of some sort of sexism double standard and made pointed comments that we had better be alerting on it too.

Oddly enough I did not alert on your personal attacks against me.

[mouse7]

44. That's exactly what I said

VelmaD said, "I alerted on that thread because it was being used to make fun of the women's concerns on the other thread."

Yes. Exactly. The mere presence of a non-sexist thread about neo-con sexual repression was taken by YOU as making fun of YOU. It doesn't matter there wasn't a single word of text on the thread suggesting such a thing before you entered the thread screaming. YOU took the mere existance of a non-sexist thread about the topic as a personal insult.

YOU are the one that needs the filter adjustment on the messages they are recieving from posts, not me.

[VelmaD]

45. Actually I entered the thread...

and just said that it didn't make the other thread about Condi any less sexist for you to post one about Karl.

Then I had a bit of interesting conversation with someone who didn't think it was sexist for a man to tell another man he needed to "get laid". He had an interesting POV even if I don't completely agree with it. (Think it demeans men to imply they think with their cocks. Which I stated in the thread.)

Didn't really start "screaming" until some on the Karl thread started engaging in the same nonsense from the previous thread. Once it got turned into a continuation of the previous flamewar then it deserved to get alerted on.

You can try to make your thread getting locked about me all you want to but the simple fact is that I wasn't the only one offended. I wasn't the only one who alerted the mods. I wasn't the only one who thought you were intentionally mocking the previous thread. And I wasn't the one who started the name-calling. (That would have been you.)

[mouse7]

47. Right. You admit YOU brought the Condi thread up FIRST!!!!

You were the first one to drag the mess from the Condi thread onto the Karl Rove thread. You just admitted it. YOU BROKE DU RULES, not us. After YOU brought the whole Condi flame war TO the Rove thread, we replied to YOUR flames.

[VelmaD]

49. You might want to go back and reread...

I was having a fairly civilized discussion about whether it was sexist for one man to tell another man he needed to get laid before YOU jumped in and called me names. If that thread turned into a flamewar it is because YOU started one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1286825#1287115

[rumguy]

50. Ok you two - you've both made your points

time to let it go...

[VelmaD]

51. Sorry, but I've got my daddy's voice in my head...

telling me "Don't ever start a fight, but if you find yourself in one you damn sure better be the one who finishes it." :-)

[Screaming Lord Byron]

52. I love Ann Coulter. She's a doll. And with such great ideas in that pretty

little head of hers.

Come on, flame me!


On edit - Just trying to break the tension through inanity.

[VelmaD]

54. Oh Byron

You're so cute when you're all cave-man. :eyes:

[Screaming Lord Byron]

55. Must be the loincloth. I thought it was a little tight, but I think I pull

it off.

[VelmaD]

61. Really shows off...

those gams of yours.

And the color really sets off your eyes ;)

[Screaming Lord Byron]

62. Yup. Ya just can't beat Beaver Pelt.

[VelmaD]

66. Ok. That's it. BENT OAFER!!!

:spank:

[mouse7]

53. I did. Look like you need lessons on rereading

Here's the first post you put on the Rove thread...

VelmaD (1000+ posts) Thu Mar-25-04 10:41 AM
Response to Original message

7. just so you know


Posting this thread doesn't make the one about Condi Rice any less sexist.



Your first post on the thread WAS a flame and WAS a violation of DU rules. YOU carried the flame war from the Condi thread to the Rove thread with your first post on the Rove thread.

[VelmaD]

58. The whole topic started...

in the Condi thread about why people never said the same kind of thing about the men in the adminsitration. (Even though the thread has been deleted I know it started there because I'm the one who brought it up.) You specifically stated that you were going to start a thread about that and I told you then and there that it wouldn't make the Condi thread any less sexist. It could also be interpretted that you started a second thread to continue a flamewar that was already going on.

Not sure how my first post in the Karl thread qualifies as a flame, especially given the initial reasonable reactions to it from posters who were not you.

[mouse7]

63. 1) It violated DU rules 2) It flinged the insult "sexist"

Please teel me how a person who is supposedly fighting this war against sexism and "danced" for the victory against sexism earlier in the thread suddenly doesn't see it as an insult when calling others sexist? That's what you accused in your first post on the Rove thread.

And NO you cannot violate DU rules for carrying flame wars fropm one thread to another becasue you've decided you've met persoanl criteria that allows YOU to violate DU rules.

There are no criteria for carrying flame wars from onbe thread to another. It against the rules, and not allowed under any circumstance, not just when you decide it's okay and isn't okay.

[VelmaD]

65. Oh good lord...

since when is "sexist" an insult? Tell me exactly how we're supposed to confront sexism on this board or in the world at large without using the word sexist. :eyes:

And btw, re-read again. I did not call you sexist. I didn't even call your post sexist. No inslut was flung your way.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mouse7]

74. How ridiculous. You determine who's racist and sexist in the world?

You have the right to determine you can call me something insulting because you can personally absolve yourself from guilt because you are all seeing and can determine the content of the human heart behind the keyboard, and therefore you are telling truths and every one else isn't.

You have GOT to be kidding.

[VelmaD]

76. For the record...

I did not call you a sexist. I called that thread about Condi "sexist".

I did call you misogymist...but only after you engaged in typically misogynist behavior (i.e. referring to a woman who disagrees with you as "repressed")

[mouse7]

78. You're all knowing on misogynists too, huh?

YOU decide what "typical mysogynist behavior" is, you are all knowing on what a person behind the keyboard does in real life, and therefore you can make that charge 100% accurately, and therefore, it's not an insult either?

Gee, I wish I were all-knowing like you. It would make certain aspects of life so much easier.

[rumguy]

11. Unbelievable that thread got locked

At most it should have been moved to the Lounge

[VelmaD]

16. Nope, even in the Lounge...

it would still be sexist.

[TXlib]

12. You don't repress anything.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

13. (snort) I've seen your website.

Repressed is not the first word that comes to mind.


obviously the first word is charming -(cowers)

[TrogL]

17. Website? What website?

[VelmaD]

18. You can either look on my user profile...

or I suppose I could just give you the link:
http://www.ravenswing.com/EVILTWINS/main/home.html

I'm also the main owner of:
http://www.ravenswing.com/bic

[Zomby Woof]

14. I am oppressed!

It's the violence inherent in the system!

[supernova]

19. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Thanks for the laugh VelmaD. That is funny. :D

I didn't see the original post. That got pulled. still the concept is hilarious.

[VelmaD]

20. It gets better

I was also called "puritanical" and a "neo-con" who needed to check her repression at the door before entering DU.

It was a fuckin' laugh riot.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[VelmaD]

35. Projecting much there

I called the initial post sexist. You were the one who engaged in name calling on that thread.

How very interesting that you think enjoying boy-on-boy smut qualifies as "sexual issues". Would you say the same of a man who enjoyed watching 2 girls I wonder.

[mouse7]

37. I say that combination of sexism insults AND website shows issues

I'll stick by that. You claim the right to determine what is reasonable, what is not, what is allowed, and what isn't.

There is an issue regarding control over things sexual in your presence. You demand control and enforcement. Not me.

[VelmaD]

39. You show again that you know nothing about me

My complaint about that Condi thread had nothing to do with sexuality. It had to do with sexism.

And I was not the only one who thought that thread was unreasonable. But then again that's a typically sexist response to women who stand up against sexism...calling us "repressed". :eyes:

[mouse7]

42. Your response to the Rove thread proves my case

I made it clear the issue being lampponed was far-right sexual repression, not sexism, buy starting the identical Karl Rove thread.

You had that thread locked becasue it completely disproved your case.

I was about to put up a "Matt Drudge meeds to get laid" thread, too, when the threads got locked.

But you're so completely out of touch on the subject that you claimed the Rove thread was making fun of YOU.

Again... there is an issue here regarding yourself and control of sexual content in your presence. I hope in the future you will think about working that out, and not forcing you issue upon DU threads.

[VelmaD]

43. Spare me the amateur psychology

I will say it one more time...you may see the issue as far-right sexual repression but a lot of the women seemed to think you were wrong. We saw the issue as one of demeaning us by asserting that a woman can't do her job properly unless she's getting laid.

And frankly, I've been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I'm done with that and I'm going to be blunt. I saw that Rove thread as intentional flame-bait. I saw it as an attempt to mock the concerns expressed on the Condi thread. Apparently the moderators agreed with me and the others who alerted for the same reasons. (Which is unusual given that they let a lot of sexist nonsense slide on this site.)

That you are incapable of seeing the distinction between posts about sexuality and sexist drivel like that Condi thread is something that maybe you need to work on.

[mouse7]

46. Exactly. You saw an INNOCENT attempt to even scales as insult

On the Condi thread, I said I understood why there might be an issue of balance. I therefore immediately posted a "Karl Rove needs to get laid" thread to ensure there was a male counterbalance to ensure that nobody would think we were making fun of women AND YOU TOOK THE WHOLE EFFORT TO BE FAIR AND EQUAL AND WARPED IT INTO A PERSONAL INSULT!!!!!

You are the one who created insults out of whole cloth. You are the one who took an innocent piece of satire and created a whole insulting flame war mess.

[VelmaD]

48. Somehow I sincerely doubt...

I was the only one who saw that as something other than an attempt to be "fair and equal".

Starting the thread about Karl in no way lessens the sexism of the thread about Condi.

[mouse7]

57. You violated DU rules by carrying Condi fight to Rove thread

You are defending the right to violate DU rules against carrying a flame war from one thread to another based on you're own system of rules you are trying to project upon DU.

Because YOU are the one who feels offended, it's suddenly okay to bring a flame war from one thread to another one... AS LONG AS IT'S YOU DOING IT WHEN YOU DECIDE IT'S OKAY IN PROMOTING YOUR AGENDA.

And you claim you're not the one trying to force their personal rules upon the community? PLEASE!

[Screaming Lord Byron]

59. So. What did you think of 'The Passion of the Christ"?

A lot of people suggest that it's anti-semitic. Do you think it's anti-semitic?

[VelmaD]

60. As stated above...

it could also be interpretted that you carried the flame war into the second thread by starting it in the first place.

Maybe we should consolidate this argument into one place on the thread. :) We're getting repetitive.

[mouse7]

69. NO... no excuses for violating DU rules for carrying flame war over

Where do you see any exceptions for allowing carrying flame wars over into other threads?

Geee... there aren't any, are there? SO WHY THE HELL SO YOU KEEP CLAIMING THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS FOR YOU?

I said I was starting a thread to provide balance. You read that as some paranoid personal insult. That's YOUR problem. That's you creating personal insults that don't exist.

There are NO EXCUSES for the flame war you made. There were no excuses for carrying your flame war to a different thread.

[VelmaD]

72. I never claimed an exception for me...

if you thought I violated the rules you should have alerted. If you did alert, well then obviously the mods didn't agree with you.

You say you started that thread to provide balance. Frankly, after watching your behavior in both threads and your unwillingness to consider the opinions of the female DUers who disagreed with you...I don't believe you. Apparently I wasn't the only one.

And I didn't have to create personal incults that didn't exist. You did a perfectly fine job of flinging insults at me without my help. That thread has not been deleted. Anyone who wants to can go look and see most of the names you called me (with the exception of the first time you called me a repressed, puritanical, neo-con, which got deleted.)

[mouse7]

75. All that content was RESPONSES to your rhetoric

Gee... when people get called racists, sexists, etc without merit, they get pissed and fling back angry words themselves.

How strange.

Oh, that's right. Like you said below... you don't cast insults, just truth, and your "insults" aren't insults because you have all-encompassing knowledge and moral certainty of the heart behind the keyboard.

How nice it must be to live in a world where it's impossible for you to personally ever say or do anything wrong.

[VelmaD]

77. I have answered this charge above...

and have to say again that we are getting redundant and should probably consolidate the argument in one place on the thread or the other.

I would like you to explain to me exactly how I am supposed to point out when people are acting in a sexist manner if I'm not allowed to call them sexist?

I also find it ironic that you are whining about me calling you sexist (which I did not do) but have had no problem calling me names all afternoon. Consider the log in your own eye.

[commander bunnypants]

21. You repressed?

Whaddya work with Puritans?

DDQM

[VelmaD]

22. Oh no...

it was a fellow DU who called me that.

[commander bunnypants]

23. You are kidding

Well that person is wrong, You are witty, funny, out there, probably lots of fun to party with. Repressed. HAH


DDQM

[VelmaD]

24. It was just the same old sexist crap...

if a woman complains about sexism she must be frigid or repressed. :eyes:

[commander bunnypants]

25. AHH

ignore them.

wanna see my butt?

Sorry could not resist. People need to relax


DDQM

[VelmaD]

26. Of course...

I wanta see your butt. What a silly question. ;)

[commander bunnypants]

27. You know

I work with 95% females. Talk about sexism. I get to hear about weddings, lactation, that monthly visitor, ass hole boyfriends, mood swings, hot flashes.

I probably could have a legit complaint. But who cares? I just let it slide

DDQM

[VelmaD]

28. I'm confused...

with the exception of asshole boyfriends (which often leads to conversations about how all men suck), I'm not sure how any of the rest of those conversation topics qualify as sexist.

[commander bunnypants]

29. It really does not

But like a woman must cook dinner= sexist

Having to over hear what a bitch the visitor is, alot of times,= could be sexist

IMHO


Or I am just totally screwed up. Not many males in my field


DDQM

[VelmaD]

30. You're the DU social worker aren't ya

My undergrad degree is in social work but that's not what I'm doing now.

I always have a hard time knowing what to call it when women call another woman names that if a man said it I would call them a sexist. I don't know whether to call it sexist or not...but it's sure as hell wrong.

[commander bunnypants]

31. Uh Yea

Seriosly sexism is wrong. Enjoy that person for who they are and no steriotypes are allowed. Well gee Mrs. Cleaver you are not allowed to wear pants!!


DDQM

[kaitykaity]

56. You did great work on both those threads.

:thumbsup:

I remember a time when I got into a spat with a guy because he didn't think telling a joke about a woman's smell was sexist. We went round and round and round about it.

There's just no getting through if somebody doesn't get it.

:hi:

[VelmaD]

64. Thank you

It has been an interesting day. Not often that you find me and slinkerwink fighting side by side.

[kaitykaity]

67. Not a Dean supporter, eh?

If you ever need support in this kind of battle again, you can count
on me.

(My bad, I didn't realize slinkerwink was a girl. Oops.)

[BiggJawn]

68. YOU???? "She who has fun with Cel-Phones"?

:evilgrin:

They must have been joking, right?

[VelmaD]

70. Nope.

Serious as a heart attack apparently.

And who told about the cel-phone thing? It was only that once. I swear. Cross my heart. Ok. Maybe twice. :evilgrin:

[Moderator]

79. Locking

The flame war here has gone on long enough.