Any interest in a Women's Rights and Issues Group?

[lukasahero]

There has been talk in this forum about creating a "safe" place to discuss Women's Rights and Issues much like the different religious (and non-religious) groups have a place to go to discuss their ideas - not defend them.

Mention has been made of the Women's World group but I get the feeling that most people feel that group is more a place for the lighter side of being a woman and the group we are proposing would not be that. Most of the comments I have heard about this suggest we wouldn't want to intrude on or alienate the folks who frequent that group.

So, here it is - who's in? I'm not much of a leader usually but I'm willing to do the legwork on this if there's enough interest.

Thoughts? (And if you have any ideas for a mission statement, I'd love to hear 'em.)

PS - This would in no way be "girls only". We'll have to figure out a way to describe the mission statement that makes clear what we're looking to provide and what we expect from the group.

[Hello_Kitty]

1. Sounds good

The Women's Rights and Issues forum can be retained for those wishing to debate gender issues. Actually, it might be good to change the name of the forum to Gender Issues.

Then again, though, it'd probably get pretty ugly in there! :scared:

[lukasahero]

4. True - could get ugly

On the other hand, it might finally be a way for the guys who we think are "fighting" feminism to have their own place to vent. Funny, I suggested to a guy once that he go start his own Men's Forum if he felt there was a need. I never expected we'd be the ones who ended up giving him such.

There is a need to discuss gender issues and some guys are right to feel their being "lumped in" with the misogynists and women-haters while they themselves are not. Maybe if we have a safe place to talk about our own feelings, we'll be in a better place to come back here and reach a hand to them as well.

[beam me up scottie]

21. That is a really good point.

I know I will definitely be less defensive in the forums if I know I have a safe place to vent.
It's a fantastic idea and we really do need men's input.
Great job, Lukesahero, thank you ! :patriot:

[Bunny]

2. You can count me in as a donor signature.

I'll try to get some thoughts together and post later or tomorrow re: mission, etc. I don't want a Girls Only clubhouse either.

Edited to add: FYI - once we get ten donors, and a Mission Statement, we e-mail the link for this thread to Skinner, and ask him to review it.

[lukasahero]

5. Cool - thanks! eom

[Hello_Kitty]

6. Same here. Just tell us what to do. n/t

[lukasahero]

7. What we need first are 10 donor signatures

I have pm'd a few people who have expressed interest in this previously. If you know anyone who might be interested, let them know we're looking for signatures.

Once we've got the signatures, we need a mission statement. That's going to be the tough part so "put on your thinking cap". And it's most definitely where I'll need the most help.

I suspect it will take a couple of days for this to get the signatures though so we have some time to think about how to explain why we want the group. I suggest we just do some brainstorming here with our ideas. Then we can whittle everyone's ideas into some semblence of a statement and send it off to Skinner.

Thanks for your interest!

[beam me up scottie]

3. I'm in.

I'll check in after work.

[Ripley]

8. Sign me up as a signator.

I'm going to be really busy the rest of this week, so I don't know if I can help you with the mission statement. However, I really, really want there to be some kind of proviso that we do not want to spend post after post, thread after thread debating whether such basic things like misogyny and sexism even exist in 2005 in the USA. That is what gets so exhausting in the other forums...explaining women's history and current statistics to those who claim they're unaware, or that there are even problems.

Other than that...I think this will be a nice balance to the other Women's Group.

Thanks lukasahero!

[beam me up scottie]

9. What Ripley said. nt

[lukasahero]

10. Absolutely.

That's been my mantra here lately. Thanks for the input and we'll figure out a way to get it in the mission statement.

[cally]

11. I'm in!

Thanks for starting this thread. I want like minded men to be included. I just want what Ripley wants. A place to discuss these issues without defending whether the problem exists.

[Bunny]

12. Okay, we have six signators so far, we need four more!

[kalibex]

13. Works for me.

Fairly new here, but if I understand correctly, appears I can contribute a vote for a new group formation...if so, add me to the list.

-B

[cally]

16. Welcome to DU

I'm glad you are willing to join us! My understanding is that any DU member who has donated gets to support formation of a group.

[lukasahero]

43. Thanks kalibex

Yes your vote counts! (Well, here at least ;-))

You've also made some posts that really caught my attention so I think we're all glad to have you on board at this point.

Welcome to DU!

[Swamp Rat]

14. Sign me up!

We may need a special moderator for this group. ;)

[lukasahero]

39. Hmmmmm....

Hadn't thought of that. Wonder if Skinner's going have my head just for suggesting this given that we'll probably keep his crew pretty busy at first? :evilgrin:

[Swamp Rat]

42. I doubt Skinner will deny the request as it is very important,

but the group will likely come under attack from rabid right wingers and, perhaps, a few DUers who get pissed when folks question the patriarchy. We've already seen this, no? I think we should have moderators who are also regular members of the group, and are already known to support women's rights, excluding me - I never want to be a mod in any capacity... I refuse to touch the One Ring. ;)

[lukasahero]

51. Been thinking about this

I don't know if we can "request" a moderator (can we?) but we really should discuss (not necessarily in the mission statement) how we want to handle disruptors.

Part of the problem in this forum is that the disruptors have been allowed to do just that - disrupt. They take us away from our focus on the issues and the solutions by getting us to engage with them, defend ourselves. I don't think we should do that in the group.

If the mission statement is clear enough, we should just be able to alert on anyone who's not following the "mission" but we have to make a point to ourselves not to fall into their trap.

[Swamp Rat]

52. Agreed

On the other hand, we should be able to spank 'em a few times before they are deleted. :spank: :D

[lukasahero]

53. :-) That'll work! eom

[Lars39]

15. Yes! I'll sign on.

:)

[Senior citizen]

17. Me too, me too!

How many does that make now? (Methinks we've got a minyan!)

But it will take real genius for the mission statement.

This is where we see what DU is really made of. Can we have a safe place, or do the porn-trolls rule? We live in a culture where "female equals porn" even for many females. The minute anyone sees "women" in a group name, they assume it is another porn site and get extremely irate if they find it is not. Free speech seems to mean that sexists and pedophiles have a right to have their say, while feminists should shut up and stop trying to spoil the party.

So, it looks like I'm the 10th. Please, Goddess, we need you now!

[Solly Mack]

18. I'm in

[lukasahero]

36. Cool!

Glad you found this! Add another "fighter" to the list. :hi:

[Solly Mack]

44. I'm meek, I tell you. I'm meek.

:)

[Jamastiene]

19. I'm interested.

And yes, men would definitely have to be welcome as well. I have one teacher who is male, but says lots of things that are pro women (and said he'd rather work with a woman in eletrical work this very morning) and one teacher that thinks the opposite. It's amazing to know that they are at opposite ends of the issues, especially since the one that is for women is the better teacher. Definitely allowing men to share sounds good for my $.02 worth.

I'd love a place to go to mention the latest I have heard in women's rights news and issues.

[lukasahero]

31. My own vision of the group

(and obviously this will be debated by all those interested) is not a "woman's group" in any way. I'm looking for it to be a place for all those interested in discussing the causes and proposing solutions to women's rights and issues to come and work through the problems that are inherent to women in society. To be honest, in my personal life, I know more men than women who support women's rights. (That will probably be a thread - why do women do that?)

I would also like the group to be in no way a "male bashing" rant-fest. I'm interested in solutions. Just as we can't get to fixing the problems if we're stuck defending that the problems exist, neither can we resolve things if all we're interested in is placing blame.

I am so psyched to see the response this has generated. Now, as Senior Citizen notes elsewhere, this will take a "genius mission statement" so today, I guess, we tackle that.

[Eloriel]

99. Are you SURE this is going to be different from the other women's

group? Doesn't sound like it to me:

not a "woman's group" in any way.

I would also like the group to be in no way a "male bashing" rant-fest.

I think you could've lifted those requirements straight from their original organizing thread.

Just as we can't get to fixing the problems if we're stuck defending that the problems exist, neither can we resolve things if all we're interested in is placing blame.

Those are not either/or propositions. It's perfectly fine to be solution-oriented, but if you try to exclude discussions of WHAT the problems are, and HOW we got there, you're not going to be very effective in coming up with solutions.

ANd how impressed I am that you intend to craft SOLUTIONS. All the women who've been involved in feminism up to this point haven't gotten us any farther than we are, but THIS group is going to FIX all that. And the magic ingredients, apparently, are "no male bashing" and "no women only."

:sarcasm:

Sorry, I DO know that's not what you're saying, but I actually do think you're being just about that ridiculous and most of all impractical.

You know, it just occurred to me as I stepped away from the computer: One of the big problems in this world (for women) is the "sense of male entitlement" that so many male people are raised with or adopt. How the hell do you even MENTION that without "male bashing"? How do you talk about domestic violence or violence against women without male bashing? How do you discuss porn and all the rest of the sex industry without male bashing? How do you discuss child sexual abuse without male bashing? How do you talk about SEXISM without male bashing? It's NOT like women invented it, you know.

Several American women will die tonight at the hands of men who profess to love them. Please explain to me why it's so important not to bash males in your proposed Group.

[beam me up scottie]

101. Eloriel,

It is not her group, it is meant to be for all of us, Lukesahero is only trying to organize.

I have stayed out of the women's forums and I like the idea of a new group, but what should we do differently?

[Eloriel]

105. I don't have any other comments than what I've already posted

which have been rather strong (too strong) and sarcastic at times. This isn't something that will fit me or be of any value to me whatsoever, I'm afraid. Nothing to offer here.

Good luck! and good night.

[beam me up scottie]

106. I'm sorry.

I have actually learned a lot from your previous posts and I thought maybe you could help us.
Thanks for the good wishes.
Goodnight.

[lukasahero]

108. I escaped an abusive marriage with the clothes on my back and my dog

I have since married a wonderful, kind, generous, loving man. I don't feel the need to bash males - I feel the need to bash the idiot I married who felt it was his right to smack me around. I know the difference between my current husband, a male, and my former, also a male. That's the disctinction I would like to make.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post right now because I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that it never occured to you that someone who had the shit beaten out of them regularly by a male might still be able to separate the good from the bad.

[Eloriel]

112. Oh, I don't need your benefit of the doubt, thank you very little

I have since married a wonderful, kind, generous, loving man. I don't feel the need to bash males - I feel the need to bash the idiot I married who felt it was his right to smack me around. I know the difference between my current husband, a male, and my former, also a male. That's the disctinction I would like to make.

So, you WOULD bash males -- starting and perhaps ending with "that idiot" you once married. I see. But in your Group, you'd prevent others from engaging in any male bashing, apparently out of some loyalty issues relating to that wonderful, kind, generous, loving man you married next. Hmm, doesn't make too much sense to me -- does it you?

But it brings up another subject as well. You really ought to define what bashing is -- and perhaps what it is not. Most people now interpret "bashing" to include any and all criticism. I never considered criticism bashing, but admit to having fallen into the morass created by so many sloppy thinkers and use it just as sloppily myself as a rule, at least here at DU. So, what IS bashing?

I know the difference between my current husband, a male, and my former, also a male. That's the disctinction I would like to make.

Well, then MAKE it. Don't confuse one with the other. I'm thrilled you got yourself a wonderful mate. (It took me 2 tries as well, tho I wasn't beaten in my first marriage.) But I can assure you that your husband is neither diminished nor hurt nor is his lot in life undermined if SOME women have some bad things to say about certain OTHER males -- the bad ones.

An aside, sort of. A lot of people might call me a manhater. That's not quite true. I absolutely adore men who ARE feminists, or who are educable. Many men are; many more, it seems, are not. I will NOT be nice or tolerant of men who fully adn eagerly support systems that oppress me and all my sisters, the men who made your first husband possible to start with. I will NOT be nice or tolerant of men who actively harm women, and there are many of them, SOME of them right here at DU.

And if that keeps me out of a new Women's Issues Group, so be it.

You'd also ban male "mocking" as well, which completely eliminates all jokes, as already discussed. I did some email inbox housekeeping this afternoon and tossed away two adorable emails I'd gotten with the most gentle, sweet but FUNNY "anti-male" humor that I'm afraid would have been verboten under those rules. I just don't see the point or advantage of this rule, but I do see a chilling effect on what can be discussed and some FUN.

So with your guidelines you've eliminated challenging and confronting men, you've eliminated having a giggle at their expense, and you've made SUCH a big deal about inviting them, that it sounds like the group can't exist -- or we wouldn't WANT it to -- without their presence. You might consider spending a little time and effort figuring out if there's anything left that can be talked about -- and IF SO, precisely how, because I see a lot of diminishing returns here and chilling effect on speech. I know *I* wouldn't find it a safe or pleasant place to be with these rules. It wouldn't be safe because, as I've pointd out already, women are getting killed every single day by their male partners, but we can't speak badly of men who deserve it in the Group. What is wrong with this picture?

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post right now because I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that it never occured to you that someone who had the shit beaten out of them regularly by a male might still be able to separate the good from the bad.

Oh, I've been separating the good from the bad for a lot longer than you have, probably longer than you've even hd to think about it.

Look, there is a difference between your husband and all other men, and not all men are your husband. Things that affect some or all other men aren't necessarily the same things that will affect your husband, and vice versa. I'm not quite sure why you're conflating the two -- your husband and other men. but you are not being disloyal to or unappreciative of your husband if you speak poorly of men who deserve being spoken about poorly. I don't know if you do any personal psychological or emotional healing work, but this whole little confused nexus of yours would probably be good to explore and heal.

Or not, your choice.

[Ripley]

115. Pardon me.

I know you were not addressing me, but I'd like to say something. I believe the issue about including men is simple. There would be outrage at DU if some guys got together and formed a Men's Only Group and turned it into a locker room telling sexist jokes and posting porn.

Oh wait, there's the Lounge.

Well, you know what I mean. I believe lukasahero is trying to view this from that perspective and foresee the havoc that would ensue if this were a female only Group. Frankly, you and I both know there is no way Skinner would allow such a segregated group. (There are no restrctions on the AA group that I know of - or any other group where certain people are not allowed to post, except for non-paying members). Now I know what you are going to say. Males are the dominant group and females are the oppressed group and they deserve a space that is free from their oppressors.

That will never happen at DU which is run by 3 men and I've seen the way they run this board.

I say let them come in and post. I'll bite their head off and others who are better at writing than me and more cool-headed can enlighten them.

In order to have this Group where there are "protections" unlike the Forums which are not, compromise has to be made.

Why not post as you would like in the new Group if it gets off the ground, then see how your posts are handled?

[Misunderestimator]

162. Some people ARE banned from posting in certain groups...

if their behavior in the group is deemed disruptive. I think that that rule protects the group from the kind of people Eloriel is worried about. I agree with you that there is no way that we should have a segregated group. I want the opportunity of hearing from progressive men who support my rights... and the opportunity to educate those who need a little more information.

[lukasahero]

116. I've thought long and hard about whether or not to respond to this post

I will say this, your personal attacks about my emotional and mental health are wearing thin and doing nothing to promote your point of view.

Your post seems to suggest you do identify a difference between "feminist men" and "mysoginist men" but that you still feel no need to make that distinction when speaking about the issues women face. I do feel the need to make that distinction. We have a difference of opinion.

I will not, however, question your need for "personal psychological or emotional healing" simply because I see things differently than you do. Seems to me that's an ineffective approach to dealing with women's issues as well.

I don't expect to change your mind. I would only ask that you leave the personal attacks on me out of it at this point.

[cally]

117. This is a group proposal

and I am bothered by your personal attacks on one member. I'm sorry you don't like the proposal and don't feel that you want to be a member. Others of us feel that the mission statement and proposal works for us. If you have a different group idea, maybe you should propose it. Maybe we should all see how this group works and propose changes if necessary.

I appreciate all the efforts a few have put into this.

[beam me up scottie]

118. Your accusations are unfair.

Lukesahero is a reluctant organizer. She took the initiative to try to pull this group together when nobody else would.
From the start she has continuously asked for our input and criticisms.
You are twisting her words to make it sound like she is dictating to the other supporters of the group.

"But in your Group, you'd prevent others from engaging in any male bashing"

"You'd also ban male "mocking" as well"

"but we can't speak badly of men who deserve it in the Group"

Where does she say any of those things?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

20. Me too!

[lukasahero]

37. Excellent!

Thanks for the vote!

[Misunderestimator]

22. Beautiful. I'm in.

Too exhausting fighting people who are blind to the problem.

[lukasahero]

35. I somehow knew you'd be here!

Thanks for never ducking a fight, but hopefully this will be a place where we can just talk and get away from the fighting for a while.

:hi:

[Bouncy Ball]

23. Me, too.

My fellow women can teach me not to use words that are offensive to my sex. I'm JUST KIDDING!

:hug:

Good idea!

[beam me up scottie]

26. LOLOLOLOLOLOL !

That will be enough humor, Young Lady!

[lukasahero]

38. Yes, as long as Bouncy Ball is in, humor will follow. :-)

Thanks for the vote.

[fleabert]

24. sounds good to me...I am sure that it could be a great

place to feel like we could speak from the heart without trying to defend the concept that there is a gender gap, but even among women there are vast differences in how we feel about different issues; so it could get flame heavy. But at least it could be from a starting point of the basic understanding that women don't start on the same rung as men on the ladder of success.

I would think that I would be a frequent visitor...but I would like to cast a vote for a mix of a Lounge and GD vibe, not totally serious, but still a place where we could be dead serious if it was warranted.

[lukasahero]

32. Hi fleabert!

To quell your concerns please see my post # 31 - I don't envision this group being a group for women but rather a group for people interested in discussing and trying to resolve the problems surrounding women's rights and issues.

There will be differences of opinion but I think the primary tenet of the group should be something to the effect of "we believe there are issues in society that specifically affect women, their rights and their potential". Basically if you agree with that, we can talk but if a person wants to come in and start talking "but men face discrimination too!", this would not be the group for it.

Yes, men do face discrimination too, which is why it was proposed elsewhere that we even consider requesting that this existing forum be changed to something like "gender rights and issues" - a place to talk about the discrimination that cuts both ways and holds everyone down. The "group" however would be a place to discuss the issues that are inherent to women in our society - not bicker about whether or not they exist or who's fault it is.

As for the "lighter side" of things, we have chosen to try and start a new group rather than interfere with the already existing "woman's world" group which is more in line with the "feel" of the lounge. Personally, and again, this is open to discussion, I would prefer not to specifically foster a "lounge attitude" in this group because it opens up the possibility of responses like "it's just a joke" and "get a sense of humor". Obviously this group will have to be carefully constructed and it will probably be a work-in-progress for a while. I'm not suggesting that it will be humorless, but I do want to avoid the type of responses I mention because that's a tactic well-used in many other forums on DU to put women down and (not-so) subtly dismiss our concerns which is what we're trying to avoid.

[Ms. Clio]

25. Sure thing

I don't have any particular suggestions at the moment, but I think this is a great idea.

Edited to add: count me as a signator, please!

[lukasahero]

33. Thanks s. Clio!

:hi:

[Gelliebeans]

27. count me in

woo hoo :bounce: I am running out right now but I will be back to see how this is progressing

[lukasahero]

40. Excellent!

We've got the signators, now we need a missions statement. Hurry back - we'll need your ideas too!

[omega minimo]

28. Radical Egalitarian

Please don't disappear from the main forums.

When you've had your safe space and vented/organized, please post important ideas and issues up in GD, GDP, Editorials, Media, etc. IMHO the visibility is important and will help create more awareness/acceptance.

:evilgrin:

[omega minimo]

29. and why should we be excluded from this

camaraderie in the DU general population by crude rude bigots?

I'm all for killing em with kindness, ignoring when necessary, standing up to bullies and educating/learning from those who know how to communicate with -- there's that word again-- RESPECT.

DUer claps his comrades on the back:

"We've been battling for 2 days now over The Compromise. I think it stinks. Many agree. Others think it was the right thing to do. Many agree.
Each side lays out cogent arguments to back their positions. Some argue with passion, others with reserve. Some ask to look at history, some ask to look at politics.
I do not trust a Republican promise as far as I can throw one, but others argue that efforts to thwart the promise will be swift and sure.
The sides are convincing, the give and take well reasoned, heartfelt, and honest. And because of it, I learn. Each time I lay out a premise, cocksure that I have the got'cha, I am reminded of the brilliance that is this place, as someone takes me to task, forcing me to think along new lines or re-enforce old ones.
I honestly can't think of a better place to play political baseball.
Take a bow, ya bastards. You deserve it."

Or maybe women and cool men aren't "cocksure," don't want to "play baseball" and don't think of themselves as "bastards."

Oh well..

:hi:

[Senior citizen]

30. We have lost good people.

People whose posts I admired and respected, who told me they'd left DU because of the rampant sexism. I still have some email addresses, and if we're able to get this thing going, I might be able to talk them into coming back. That alone would be worth it all.

[lukasahero]

41. That would be awesome!

I hope they consider it.

[Eloriel]

100. I left DU for a while in part for that reason, the rampant sexism

and it's STILL the reason I don't contribute any more than about the minimum to allow me to participate in the Groups.

I do have to say, tho, that we won a major victory (tho no one announced it) when Admin redid the DU rules recently and included a prohibition against words like "bitch," "whore" (except media whore is allowed), and so forth. MAJOR victory. I and many others had been harping, pleading, begging, nagging, yelling, stomping our feet about that for YEARS now.

[lukasahero]

34. Hi omega minimo

That is in fact exactly what I'm hoping we can do - come up with solutions, fight it out amongst ourselves as to how best to represent our thoughts and ideas and then, yes, bring them back to the other forums as solid, well-reasoned ideas. My reason for doing this is that we can't even get that far if we're stuck defending that the problems exist. But it can't stop there - solutions and ideas do nothing if they're kept secret. :-)

[beam me up scottie]

45. Maybe this will give us some ideas for a mission statement:

This is from National Organization for Women's website

#####
NOW Bylaws

Article II. Statement of Purpose

NOW's purpose is to take action to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of American society now, exercising all privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men. This purpose includes, but is not limited to, equal rights and responsibilities in all aspects of citizenship, public service, employment, education, and family life, and it includes freedom from discrimination because of race, ethnic origin, age, marital status, sexual preference/orientation, or parenthood.

#####


http://www.now.org/organization/bylaws.html#ArticleII

[lukasahero]

47. Excellent.

Thanks for looking that up!

[beam me up scottie]

49. I really like their statement.

It is concise without being exclusionary.

[cap]

55. dont forget the unisex toilets...

jus' kiddin'

Seriously, i think it's a great idea

[beam me up scottie]

57. *Snort*

When I was in the Marines, most of the base had no women's bathrooms.
I went to school at Camp Johnson and the instructors would give us a break every couple of hours. The men in my class (I was the only female) would let me use the facilities first.
You will never know how safe I felt with 42 Marines standing guard while I peed.
:evilgrin:

[ultraist]

46. I'm down for that! Sign me up

Thanks lukasahero.

[lukasahero]

48. Glad you found this!

I'm trying to pull the ideas from this thread to put a mission statement together now. Back soon. (BTW, there's good old some women hating going on in the Lounge right now if you have nothing better to do. ;-))

[lukasahero]

50. A first pass at the Mission Statement

I tried to get in a variety of points: the problems exist and we don't want to fight about that, this is not a "girls club" and we are interested in understanding the problems, identifying the causes and finding solutions. Let me know what you think.

Mission statement:

"The purpose of the "Women's Rights and Issues" group is to provide a safe and non-threatening community where all those interested in discussing and trying to resolve the problems that are inherent to women in society can come and work together free from defending the basic premise that issues do exist which specifically affect and limit women, their rights and their potential.

The goal of this group is to understand the problems (and how they make women feel), identify the myriad causes (and how they can limit a woman's vision for herself creating a vicious circle) and propose solutions (and how we can bring those solutions in a meaningful way out into the greater community of DU, America and the world).

DUers of all gender are encouraged to participate."

[Bunny]

54. I think this is a great start.

Thanks for getting the ball rolling!

[lukasahero]

56. Just kicking this for the evening crowd - need input please!

on the statement. Too wimpy? (Yes, we know I'm a wimp and not the "scrapper" most of you all are.) Too vague? Not vague enough?

Please fill me in and I can make adjustments - I want to ge this right. :-) Thanks all!

[Senior citizen]

58. Perfect! Only my opinion, of course.

But the mission statement sure does look good to me.

[Ms. Clio]

59. Sounds good to me

Thanks!

[Gelliebeans]

63. Sounds about right to me also n/t

[Solly Mack]

60. Works for me!

[omega minimo]

61. DU Proposal: General Discussion Macho Forum or Neanderthal Group

Whereas:
DU rules are semi-self-regulated and founded on the basic principal of mutual respect;

Whereas:
The majority of DUers recognize the disparity of women's power in the world as compared with, and subjected to, men's power; and those DUers who invalidate this disparity are a minority (comparable to the number of DUers who debunk Evolution or deny the Holocaust);

Whereas:
The issues of the day and of DU are urgent, ongoing and dependent upon the focused energies of the majority of DUers

Whereas:
Some males feel persecuted or antagonized by the majority of women and men on DU who share a common sense of courtesy and respect; these males need a safe place to discuss issues in the way they are most comfortable, without the threat of unwelcome ideas or unfamiliar attitudes;

We hereby propose a dedicated DU Forum OR Group for:

General Discussion Macho Forum
An alert-free zone for:
--colorful and traditonal male-dominant language, terminology, imagery, opinions, attitudes, assumptions and subject threads
--cheesy graphics, sexist icons and uncensored signature lines
--any posts and threads that point out the need for "Balls"
--serious discussion of the pros and cons of Mutually Assured Destruction

OR

Neanderthal Group
An area dedicated to the Male Gaze and:
--safe for the assumption that all posters are males or women who "get it"
--comfortable for Machoes to discuss, without defending, their right to aggressive behavior and obsolete worldviews
--fostering a brotherhood of consciousness lowering and fart jokes
--concentration on how boring, repetitive, restrictive and regressive sexism is; this will allow recovering Machoes to return to the larger DU population with new insights, communication skills and willingness to contribute to solutions-- not perpetuate (or even deny the existence of) problems




:evilgrin:

:bounce::bounce:

[lukasahero]

65. I understand this is meant "in fun" but

I'd just like to go on record that I believe, as I mention upthread, men do have their own set of issues in relation to gender roles and have a right to discuss them without mockery. My issue has always been that perhaps trying to do so on a forum called "Women's Rights and Issues" might not be the best place to garner support and understanding.

I will bow out of the group if it stands any chance of becoming a place to bash and mock men - period. There have been warnings in some of the other groups that they are not intended to be simply sounding boards where people of "like minds" can go and rant about how horrible and stupid those who think differently are.

Am I being too sensitive, too wimpy, maybe need to get a sense of humor? Probably. I usually just think of it as polite to offer the same respect I am asking for. This group idea is too important to me to have it dismissed because some people think it's fun to make fun of some guys who like to make fun of us. No wonder they feel threatened by the discussion.

Please, let's not do this.

[omega minimo]

69. Yet you posted that you didn't want us to be "humorless"

This was a very gentle razzing. The point is not to "mock men." Given that otherwise healthy threads have been shut down by one persistent disruptor, given the daily prevalence of being smacked in the eyeballs with some sexist bullshit, I think men and anyone with a sense of humor can look past the mild "fart jokes" and "uncensored signature lines" to see the point.

The point is that the disruptors and aggressive/defensive sexists are the MINORITY.

Perhaps the solution to the issues raised here and on "What Can We Do About the Sexism On DU?" is simply increased diligence on the part of Admin and Mods to correct the problem of disruptors, flamethrowers and DU Rule breakers. Hmmmmm?

IMHO we have larger issues that are vital and urgent. We don't need to convince boneheads that sexism exists and we don't need to convince each other.

I would love to see more balance and respect in the General DU population so that we can focus on the major and life-threatening issues of our era. If unrepentant sexists need to regroup and support each other, let THEM retreat.

:kick:

[lukasahero]

73. I don't see calling people "Neanderthals" a "very gentle ribbing"

but maybe I'm in the minority. I have been told on more than one occassion to "get a sense of humor" by guys when I don't find their sexist comments funny so it's really no suprise that I'd hear the same remark when I suggest that I don't see the humor in sexist comments made in reverse.

Re: the opinion and feelings of the minority and they being the ones who should retreat, I understand the Republicans in Congress have the same feelings about how Democrats should be behaving. Personally, I don't see it as retreating but your mileage may vary.

Re: convincing ourselves that sexism exists - that is not the point of the group and a reading of the proposed mission statement should have made that clear. Perhaps it needs to be re-worked? The point of the group is to acknowledge it exists and discuss ways to rectify it. If you don't want to be part of that because it's not a big enough issue for you, I can respect that, however, there are apparently those of us who think it's worth discussing.

I think I should try to bow out of this conversation for a while and let others have a say. If all agree I'm just too "humorless", I will let it drop (and honestly not be offended). If others want to pursue this, I'll pick up the ball again at a later time. If no one cares either way then this will just fade on it's own.

[Senior citizen]

75. This is important to a lot of us.

I like your mission statement & KT's in post #67.

There are enough of us here to warrant going ahead.

It is probably healthy to see ahead of time what we're going to have to deal with, and figure out how to do so.

I'd like to see something like: Inappropriate posts will be moved or deleted even if they are labelled satire, sarcasm, just a joke, or anything similar. The entire rest of DU with the exception of this group will find such posts acceptable, so they will be moved to an appropriate space if possible, or deleted when not possible.

Harsh? Sure. Like excluding batterers from battered women's shelters. It is harsh but necessary in order for the place to serve its purpose.
Please don't forget that Priscilla Owen is female, Condi is female, and Pickles is female--but I would not welcome them to this group or tolerate their posts.

Bullying is often passed off as, "just having a little fun." Having fun at the expense of others who are hurting is sadistic. There is nothing to stop people from forming their own S&M group if that's what they're into and if Skinner accepts that it is about power, not about sex. We need a space where people who are hurt by sexism in other forums can feel safe. Telling them to grow a thicker skin, just ignore it, or be able to take a joke is merely a way to alienate people from DU. DU has already alienated, and lost, some VERY brilliant, witty, and insightful people, whose posts I used to look forward to and regularly enjoy. Enough is enough. I haven't seen anyone I admire on DU who lacks a sense of humor, however the more intelligent, politically aware, and sensitive a person is, the more intelligent, politically aware, and sensitive their sense of humor is likely to be. When someone is accused of lacking a sense of humor, what is really meant is that their sense of humor isn't crude enough by someone else's standards.

[beam me up scottie]

76. No, don't worry, we won't let it fade.

And please don't bow out, you've worked far too hard.
I definitely agree that the mission statement should address all issues inherent to women in a patriarchal society.

I don't think you're humorless, your previous posts prove that! :)

I will vouch for Omega's good intentions, though. I really believe this poster can bring a lot to our (future) group, judging from previous posts.

While humor can be extremely inappropriate and tasteless, it can also bring some levity to an otherwise serious thread-so I would hate to censor all of it.

Some posters will be unaware of past insults and disruptions we have had to endure in GD and even in this forum.
To give someone the benefit of doubt, perhaps just a gentle reminder (or not so gentle) would be in order, and if a poster doesn't take the hint, it would be considered disrupting. Trust me, they wouldn't last long with this bunch!

Again, this is just my .02.

[omega minimo]

79. I used humor

to illustrate a point. :hi:

I did not accuse
you of being humorless.

My concern is that
(just as it was when the Women's World Group was at this stage)
women and their various issues will lose visibility in the general DU population.

"...given the daily prevalence of being smacked in the eyeballs with some sexist bullshit...."
the use of "Neanderthal" is hardly outrageous. I thought we were discussing this Group idea and "what to do about sexism on DU" because WE HAVE been assaulted verbally on a continual basis.
And please, I hope at least some of my creativity gave you a chuckle. The "Whereas" was a big clue that it was MEANT to be ridiculous.

"...the disruptors and aggressive/defensive sexists are the MINORITY."

My concern is that the more that women retreat and their voices and concerns are not on the main forums, the less chance there is that the disruptive sexism in those forums will ever be addressed.

Good luck.to all

[omega minimo]

81. Relevant quote found on another thread

"How ironic; and, yet, irony is often the most crystal clear mirror of reality."

[Eloriel]

102. There is absolutely no such thing as reverse sexism

Just as there is no such thing as reverse racism, tho there can be anti-male bigotry and anti-white bigotry. They are NOT, however, reverse sexism and racism.

Sexism is a SYSTEM of oppression by the dominant gender AGAINST the non-dominant gender. Period. As a SYSTEM of oppression, it has (esp. in the past but still to a certain extent) infiltrated every facet of life, from social contracts and sanctions to legal issues, employment, health, etc., etc., etc. It has been and to a certain extent still is all pervasive.

There is NO WAY ON EARTH that men stand ANY chance of being an oppressed class. They CANNOT be harmed as a class or as individuals (other than perhaps their widdlw feewings being hurt) by jokes aimed at them as men.

There is a very long tradition of oppressed classes poking fun at the dominant/dominator class. If you don't think slaves had their jokes about their masters, think again. Nearly all of our sitcom formulas (except Father Knows Best) involve men characters who are seriously flawed if not kinda pitiful. Why? Because that's one of the most important forms of humor: the oppressed poking fun of their oppressors. ABD BECAUSE MEN STILL RULE THE WORLD. No amount of jokes about them as men will ever harm individuals or men as a class.

I don't know and don't care whether or not you're "humorless." I just think you have too many rules for me to be comfortably involved. No fun. The more I read in this thread, the less interesting, the LESS safe, the less helpful and hopeful and potentially useful it sounds.

But then I've never gotten over my own primal rage at patriarchy and the men and women who protect and nurture and promote it, once I came to understand it back in the early 70s, thanks to a lot of women who did some really hard work and weren't afraid to offend a few MEN while they were at it.

The only thing I find more problematic -- tho I think it's a toss-up, really -- are the so-called post-modern feminists. They're the ones who say women have every right to enjoy their sexuality, therefore they can be sex kittens and enjoy it and make men happy too while they're being such adorable, flirtatious, seductive sex kittens (or whatever). Smile and relax, it's the new LIBERATION, baby! Yeah, right.

[lukasahero]

109. You're right, my mistake and a poor choice of words on my part

Anti-male bigotry would have been the correct choice.

If this idea has too many rules for you then I'm sure you'll be just thrilled to know that I've been asked to define "the rules" even more. It's so much fun being bullied by both sides. :eyes:

[Kerrytravelers]

62. Love it... I'm in... mission statement thoughts...

First off... count me in all the way. I've been tossing the thought around in my head and am glad someone else thinks it's a great idea, too. Thanks to Scottie for contacting me since I haven't been on in two days and will be gone over the long weekend.

I also took a pass at the mission statement, but instead of being inventive, I simply combined the first two passes. Read it an tell me what you think! I realize the second on is tounge firmly placed in cheek... but there were quite a few thoughts of vlaue there!






Whereas:
DU rules are semi-self-regulated and founded on the basic principal of mutual respect;

Whereas:
The majority of DUers recognize the disparity of women's power in the world as compared with, and subjected to, men's power; and those DUers who invalidate this disparity are a minority (comparable to the number of DUers who debunk Evolution or deny the Holocaust);

Whereas:
The issues of the day and of DU are urgent, ongoing and dependent upon the focused energies of the majority of DUers

Whereas:
Some males feel persecuted or antagonized by the majority of women and men on DU who share a common sense of courtesy and respect; these males need a safe place to discuss issues in the way they are most comfortable, without the threat of unwelcome ideas or unfamiliar attitudes;

We hereby propose a dedicated DU Forum OR Group for: "Women's Rights and Issues"


Mission statement:

The purpose of the "Women's Rights and Issues" group is to provide a safe and non-threatening community where all those interested in discussing and trying to resolve the problems that are inherent to women in society can come and work together free from defending the basic premise that issues do exist which specifically affect and limit women, their rights and their potential.

The goal of this group is to understand the problems (and how they make women feel), identify the myriad causes (and how they can limit a woman's vision for herself creating a vicious circle) and propose solutions (and how we can bring those solutions in a meaningful way out into the greater community of DU, America and the world).

DUers of all gender are encouraged to participate.




In addition, due to the sensitive nature of the discussion, the following expectations will be expected:

An alert-free zone for:
--colorful and traditonal male-dominant language, terminology, imagery, opinions, attitudes, assumptions and subject threads
--cheesy graphics, sexist icons and uncensored signature lines
--any posts and threads that point out the need for "Balls"
--serious discussion of the pros and cons of Mutually Assured Destruction

An area that is dedicated to being:
--safe for the assumption that all posters are males or women who "get it"
--comfortable for all genders to discuss, without defending, aggressive gender-biased behavior and obsolete worldviews
--free to express how boring, repetitive, restrictive and regressive sexism is; this will allow those who refuse to accept the role of society and it's enforcement on the gender roles new insights, communication skills and willingness to contribute to solutions-- not perpetuate (or even deny the existence of) problems






One quick question.. I left this sentence in, but I would like clarity on this sentence from above. Please excuse me if it's obvious and I"m a bit slow this evening.

--serious discussion of the pros and cons of Mutually Assured Destruction




Personally, considering what we're asking for here, I think the explination at the beginning, the mission statement and the conclusion are all warrented. I happen to like everything I read believe a combinatin of both passes at the mission statement can work well in conjunction with one another.

Any thoughts on this?




Peace and Strength,

kt


edited because when I reread my posts, I noticed some poorly edited parts that didn't make any sense! What can I say... it's 12:20 am here and we're going on vacation tomorrow!

[lukasahero]

64. At this point I can't tell who's kidding and who's not but

doesn't this "Whereas: Some males feel persecuted or antagonized by the majority of women and men on DU who share a common sense of courtesy and respect; these males need a safe place to discuss issues in the way they are most comfortable, without the threat of unwelcome ideas or unfamiliar attitudes;" basically propose just the opposite of what we're trying to accomplish with the new group?

[Ripley]

66. I'm confused too!

I like what you have posted in #50. I looked at a couple of other DU Group mission statements and they really are short and sweet; so I don't believe we need all the "whereas" clauses.

Thanks again for doing this. While I'm not a "regular" daily poster at DU, I really look forward to checking into this new group when I'm here.

:hi:

[Kerrytravelers]

67. Try this out:

Mission statement:

The purpose of the "Women's Rights and Issues" group is to provide a safe and non-threatening community where all those interested in discussing and trying to resolve the problems that are inherent to women in society can come and work together free from defending the basic premise that issues do exist which specifically affect and limit women, their rights and their potential.

The goal of this group is to understand the problems (and how they make women feel), identify the myriad causes (and how they can limit a woman's vision for herself creating a vicious circle) and propose solutions (and how we can bring those solutions in a meaningful way out into the greater community of DU, America and the world).

DUers of all gender are encouraged to participate.

The "Women's Rights and Issues" is an area that is dedicated to being
comfortable for all genders to discuss, without defending, aggressive gender-biased behavior and obsolete worldviews and an area free to express how boring, repetitive, restrictive and regressive role of sexism. It is not to perpetuate or even deny the existence of problems.








Thanks for the feedback. I haven't really read many mission statements, so I just threw a few concepts together and hope everyone will hash it out!

I won't be as reliable to check back until Monday evening/Tuesday morning, but please hack away at my pass (if you wish.) I'm not taking any edits/cuts/changes personally.


(Be gentle, I specifically came to this thread to check before work and am on my way out!)

[omega minimo]

72. AAARrrrrrrrgggGhhh

It was satire

:hi:

[Kerrytravelers]

82. I take my satire served before 7 pm and with coffee.

Sorry to be an idiot. :blush:

If it makes you feel any better, when I read it again the enxt day, I laughed really hard. :rofl:

Please stay around and make us laugh. :grouphug:


kt

[omega minimo]

84. Over ice with a twist for me

I'll wet my dry wit next time.


You were busy and tired.
I was caught by surprise.
I read the "proposal" again, trying for objectivity, to maybe grasp how it got misread.
There were some funny bits. :evilgrin:

I support whatever is best for the Group. Gently. No fart jokes. You're very kind to extend a :hi:

I have a personal solution for the problem of "rampant" and disruptive bigotry toward women on DU-- 2 tools called "ignore" and "hide thread."

I mean really-- today perusing GDP, why in Godz name do I have to look at a thread title: "Charles Rangel can suck my d--k"? I don't.

Someone commented above that we needn't get entrapped in disruptor BS. What if we ignore them?

Thanks for the touch, Kerrytravelers. :yourock:

[beam me up scottie]

83. Whaddaya say, Omega?

We need laughter, both in the virtual world as well as the real one.
You have supported and stuck up for us MANY times and we appreciate it.
Maybe at the very least lurk?

I get the feeling we'll have a lot of lurkers until they realize that we don't want to persecute men or non-feminists.
:hide:

[omega minimo]

85. Is this funny?

The OP for "Charles Rangel can suck my d--k" went on with some rant about running in the wrong direction, going faster... I suggested:

"Don't run so fast you trip over your peepee." Actually, one other person's reply called the OP on his shit: "Classy thread line, dude."

It is my illusion that the comments on DU could be less boneheaded (if we stay out of the Lounge) and more respectful (illusion enabled by the DU Rules). I will use "ignore" and "hide thread" to finesse that view of DU. Custom!

The sexism on DU won't be addressed. The women's Group will succeed and flourish. I will create my own reality with the battle cry,

"IGNORE THE IGNORANCE!"

:evilgrin:

[beam me up scottie]

86. Nice title.

Glad I missed that one.
Sounds like a charming date, though.
That was really in GDP ?
Any response from the op to your peepee post?
:evilgrin:

I share your illusion (delusion?) that we should be more respectful.
I get discouraged looking at GD sometimes.
But I guess I will start with me and try to remember that we all share the goal of deposing the boy king and his goons.

[omega minimo]

87. I don't know

anything.

:hi:

[Kerrytravelers]

68. I wasn't meaning to be funny... honestly.

Honestly, I was just trying to incorporate everyone's thoughts. The first time I read the post, I wasn't reading the humor, just looking for some thoughts. In my defense, it was quite late and some of it passed right by me without me seeing it was intended to be tounge in cheek. I did misread some lines. (as you can see, I did edit my post.) I zoomed through many posts without reading them too carefully.

Anyway, mocking your idea certainly wasn't my intention. I just read your response to that post and saw your feelings, so I wasnted to clear things up. I took a second pass at the mission statement about 10 minutes ago.

kt

[lukasahero]

71. No worries KT

I'm bowing out for now.

[omega minimo]

70. Since my point was more widely missed than I could have imagined

PLEASE DON'T USE MY WORDS TO BUILD UPON.

AT ALL.

Thank you.

[beam me up scottie]

77. Gently, Omega.

I have jumped on posters for posts that I thought were insulting only to find out it was satire, and I have also cracked wise and offended posters I really like - it sucks, I know.

It usually causes hurt feelings and I always end up apologizing (which I HATE to do).

Maybe just until we are a little less defensive?
:hug:

[omega minimo]

80. Not at all

My post was misunderstood, misrepresented (I won't even respond to #75-- I KNOW she's not talking about me) and to top it all off-- misappropriated!

Not cool.

[FizzFuzz]

74. I'm in!

While it can be invigorating to wrangle with a fool, it gets unproductive after awhile.

I would love a place to check in, where we can vent, and be supported, sure, but also gather a little more focus on moving forward positively.

I'm sure there plenty of posts here that I want to reply to, but I really need to get my ass away from the computer right no--this DU addiction is driving me nuts!

Laterrrr!

[Tinoire]

78. Yes.

There's a need for such a group at DU.

I am against groups because I think they splinter our voices however as long as we have groups at DU, this one is badly needed.

You have my vote and full support...

The only group I would prefer to this is one started to abolish all groups ;)

[lukasahero]

88. Back from a much needed mental health break and ready to apologize

to anyone I pissed off last week. :blush: I know this group is controversial and I think there are people watching it so I didn't want to draw in anyone who comes here routinely just to pick fights. I think that is why I got so touchy about the possibility of it turning into a "guys who don't agree with us are idiots" thread. When we make our request to the admins, Skinner and crew are going to have a link to this thread to check out the support we've garnered for it.

We've received lots of support for this group and also some constructive criticism that has had time now to be digested and considered. We're not going to agree with everyone's point of view on every issue but I was hoping we could at least get through the forming of the group first. ;)

I have received some feedback via PM as well and have made some minor modifications to the statement. If everyone's cool with it (or more likely, if no one bitches about it ;-)), I'm going to send it off to Skinner tonight. This thread alone has given me ample ideas of threads I'd like to open in our new group. Smiles everybody.

"The purpose of the "Women's Rights and Issues" Group is to provide a safe and non-threatening community where all those interested in discussing and trying to resolve the problems that are inherent to women in society can come and work together free from defending the basic premise that issues do exist which specifically affect and limit women, their rights and their potential.

The goal of this group is to understand the problems (and how they affect women), identify the myriad causes (and how they can limit a woman's vision and opportunity) and propose solutions (and how we can bring those solutions in a meaningful way out into the greater community).

Inappropriate posts will be moved or deleted and attempts to minimize or dismiss women and/or the issues will not be tolerated as other venues exist for such activities.

DUers of all genders are encouraged to participate."

[FizzFuzz]

89. I like that mission statement, L.

I could barely get into DU diring the weekend, so I've missed alot of discussion here.

And, I've been on too long now, so have to shove off for now.

A thought about "Inappropriate posts will be moved or deleted and attempts to minimize or dismiss women and/or the issues will not be tolerated as other venues exist for such activities."
----who will decide whether a post is inappropriate? I mean, since it seems that charmingly worded humiliation posts can't seem to get taken seriously by the moderator team. Will we end up having to argue our point, as usual?

[lukasahero]

90. That's probably why I didn't include the language originally

I've discovered this whole thing is fraught with serious grey areas that could prove difficult to manage in reality. However, someone up thread mentioned the possibility of having a moderator who is also a group member and by putting the actual words in the mission statement, I think it would be difficult for even the most lenient mod to ignore if group members send up alerts.

I don't think we can anticipate every potential scenario and address it in the opening statement. In my mind I've tried and the result for me has been stagnation - "How can we handle this? I don't know. Let's just give up." At this point, I think we have to try it and see how it goes. We can be organic and respond to the growth of the group but if we never get the seed in the ground (to continue the metaphor), we'll never harvest the fruit.

[Kerrytravelers]

92. Great mission statement! I'm in all the way!

[cally]

93. I like it

and thanks for taking the initiative.

[beam me up scottie]

94. Sounds good to me.

Too many parameters will limit discussion.
It does seem like most groups manage to police themselves without much help from the mods. And of course we can always count on the mods to investigate when an alert is warranted.

I like the idea of growing and changing according to the needs of the group.

Great job LAH! :patriot:

[Eloriel]

103. One other gray area you may or may not have to contend with

I had serious problems with a gay male on another forum who was a disruptor extraordinaire -- EVERY thread about women's issues, feminism, sexism, whatever, he DOMINATED with his complaints about gender issues from his point of view, a point of view that was decidedly narrow, pretty selective, and not usually germane to the issue at hand at all.

And with that final heads up, I'm outta here.

Best wishes with your Group. I hope you actually are able to carve out what it is you have in mind, but it obviously won't include my paricipation.

[Bunny]

91. I like it and I wouldn't change a thing.

Thanks for doing this. :thumbsup:

[Ripley]

95. Well worded, except I would add...

A very specific statement like: The terms Feminist and Misogyny have established meanings in the context of women's history. While terminology may be debated, the denigration of these relevant terms will not be allowed.

Is that too much? I'm no wordsmith, so maybe someone can say it better than me.

[lukasahero]

96. This is actually part of a discussion I'm having with Skinner right now

Can you explain further what you mean by it?

I deliberately tried to avoid words that had been co-opted by the RW and equally misused by the "left". My comments to Skinner were "some people call themselves feminists yet aren't interested in changing the cultural status quo for women and there are other people who wouldn't use the word for fear of being labelled something that may or may not apply even though they are interested in changing the culture."

Your comments could help in that discussion (as long as I'm sure I understand your meaning). Thanks!!!

[Ripley]

97. My comments....

Feminist = women and men who believe our society is stacked against women achieving positions of power and just plain old equal respect in the workforce (as well as out).

Misogynist = the acceptance that only Men can do certain things (say, be President of the USA) and women are best suited to only do certain tasks.

Does that help?

[Eloriel]

104. Your definition of Misogynism is more like that for sexism

Misogynism is hatred of women, as a class and as individuals, purely because they are women. The people who are misogynists don't always think words like, "I hate women." Many of them actually think they LOVE women, but what they love is using women (love 'em and leave 'em, typically, but not exclusively). You'll find deep seated resentment or disdain of women and/or women's affairs (like all kinds of reproductive issues from menstruation to having babies to women's health issues, and so forth). And so forth.

[lukasahero]

111. Yes it does, thanks

Your definition of "feminist" is especially helpful since that seems to be the word in contention at the moment.

Thanks again. I'll give a follow up later today, I hope.

[Eloriel]

98. Why, why, why, WHY does every, EVERY damn

effort of this type HAVE to include this rule:


PS - This would in no way be "girls only".

What the hell is WRONG with "girls only"? Don't men have enough parts of the world that they can invade and dominate?

I'd probably love the idea of a serious women's issues Group, and I'll read the rest of the thread, but I find this approach seriously disheartening -- make that dis-spiriting.

[Senior citizen]

107. Because there actually are feminist males.

There are males who see patriarchy for what it is--something that tries to estrange them from the females they love and turn them into cannon fodder. Just because a male is gay does not make them feminist. Just because a male is straight does not make them macho or misogynist. Not all males wish to invade and dominate.

While it would be impossible to have a serious group simply by discriminating on the basis of sex, it is also impossible unless we discriminate on the basis of viewpoint--DU, for example, does not welcome the viewpoint of freepers because it is disruptive and would make DU as miserable a place as freeperville.

People who don't like men or don't like women, simply don't get it. People who recognize our common humanity and treat others with the respect they themselves prefer, are considered feminists merely because in a patriarchal society, most males (and quite a few females)consider condescension towards females their birthright.

It is extremely threatening to patriarchy to think that there might be even a tiny group where condescension towards females is not acceptable. The enemy is not males or wingnuts. The enemy is patriarchy because, by definition, it does not permit anyone their full humanity. It is, like Commander Cuckoobananas, a divider, not a uniter.

[Eloriel]

113. There are precious few feminist males at DU

If I could remember just who I'd include in that category, I could count them on one hand.

Having been here at DU since there were 12,000 or so total registrations, I feel confident in assuring you that unless the qualifications for male participation are VERY cleverly written, (and "feminist male" would probably do it for me, except that we seem to have some other little problem with the word "feminist" -- ugh!), you'll have a lot of disruption, quite a bit of it but probably not all of it intentional, and won't have the ability to evict them.

Not all males wish to invade and dominate.

No, but one problem that men in general have, even many of the very GOOD ones, is that they are so used to invading and dominating -- it's their natural birthright, don't you know -- that they can't even see when they're doing just that.

We had that problem with a dear older man who was very active in the local N.O.W. that I was also very involved in for several years. He would pipe up and "lead" when what he needed to do was take a pretty much permanent back seat and let the WOMEN "lead" their organization. He didn't even realize it, and had trouble seeing it when pointed out to him, even tho believe me, HIS heart was in the right place.

I even have the problem with my own husband at times, who is as close to a feminist as most men get who aren't also activists. He just doesn't understand the physical space he occupies (and "commands"), and the physical space he EXPECTS to occupy (and command) because of his maleness and because of his size, and that sometimes this is an issue he should be more sensitive about. It's a small thing, but it's sooo symptomatic for men, and there are days when it drives me bananas simply because I've had to endure ENOUGH garbage from other sources. (Is this male bashing? Male mocking?)

[lukasahero]

110. Um because some men are trying to help?

Wouldn't that be like excluding white people from a discussion on how to address racism in America? The people who hold the power are generally the ones who make the rules and if we want to change the rules, we'll need a few of them on our side. Least that's how I see it. Your mileage may vary though.

[Eloriel]

114. It's not as if there's no other place(s) at DU where such "helping"

conversations could take place. In fact, they'd be BETTER held elsewhere where more people would see them and participate -- ESP. if there are, indeed, "helping" men involved.

But, as I just posted, I could probably count the men who get it and DO truly want to help on one hand. In fact, come to think of it, the "want to help" stipulation brings the number down even more -- one or two or maybe three is all I can think of. I can actually name 2, and one of them is way too busy to spend any time in that Group, maybe the other one too. And I'm not so sure how ACTIVELY either one would want to be involved in helping, anyway.

Wouldn't that be like excluding white people from a discussion on how to address racism in America?

Not in my book. It's important for those who are oppressed to have safe places where they are NOT badgered by their oppressors. There have been studies that even the PRESENCE of a man in a group of women changes the dynamics of the group of women and their behaviors (including what they say and how they say it) significantly.

[lukasahero]

119. One more time (comments from Skinner incorporated)

Ok folks, here's the latest pass at the "mission statement".

Skinner had some comments regarding the mission statement and also requested that we choose a different name for the group that is not so similar to the existing forum. I'm plum out of creativity so please, suggestions anybody?

Re: his comments on the mission statement. He suggested we be more specific about our "membership" and while I went back and forth with him on this some, I've also spent a great deal of time reading this thread and the one that initiated it to try and figure out what the group really wants in this area.

As a result, I've added some "Rules for Engagement" in the group. It's a lot longer and less succinct but may save us some grief in the long run. (I've pilfered from some folks here so be warned. ;-)) Please let me know if any of this is too strong, not strong enough, too limiting, too vague or too broad. And more importantly, please let me know if you simply don't agree with any of the statements.

"Insert-new-name-for-the-group-here"'s mission statement:

The purpose of the "Women's Rights and Issues" Group is to provide a safe and non-threatening community where all those interested in discussing and trying to resolve the problems that are inherent to women in society can come and work together free from defending the basic premise that issues do exist which specifically affect and limit women, their rights and their potential.

We believe that women do not start on the same rung as men on the ladder of success; that misogyny and sexism do indeed exist in America circa 2005; and that the progress made for women's rights is being seriously and immediately threatened by this administration.

The goal of this group is to understand the problems (and how they affect women), identify the myriad causes (and how they can limit a woman's vision and opportunity) and propose solutions (and how we can bring those solutions in a meaningful way out into the greater community).

The "Rules of Engagement":

- This is not a group to discuss gender, class or sexual orientation rights and issues. It is specifically to discuss women's rights and issues as they affect women from a woman's perspective and experience.

- If you believe that women have already achieved "full participation in the mainstream of American society..., exercising all privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men... in all aspects of citizenship, public service, employment, education, and family life,"* then this is not the group for you.

- The terms "feminist/feminism" and "misogyny" have established meanings in the context of women's history. While terminology may be debated, the denigration of these relevant terms will not be allowed.

- Attempts to minimize or dismiss women and/or the issues being discussed will not be tolerated and inappropriate posts will be deleted.

- Like-minded DUers of all genders are encouraged to participate.

* Excerpted from NOW's "Statement of Purpose". http://www.now.org/organization/bylaws.html#ArticleII

[beam me up scottie]

120. How about the "DIE YOU FILTHY MALE SWINE !!!" group?

Too harsh?
:evilgrin:


edited to add I will seriously read and ponder when I get home from work.

[lukasahero]

121. Maybe just a tad. ;-)

Thanks - I needed a laugh, I'm presently brain-dead.

[Ripley]

122. Thanks for taking the time to do this.

I like it, except I don't think the first "Rules of Engagement" is necessary, but maybe there is a reason for that I am unaware of. I also think there should be something more limiting, but I'm not sure how to say it. While I don't have a problem with men giving their POV, I really, really dislike it when men speak on a particular subject for women. Say, a man speaking as an authority about women in the sex industry. I find that offensive.

As for a name...can't think of one at the moment, will ponder it.

[lukasahero]

145. Seems I missed all the fun ;-)

Hi Ripley,

If you've read (or not because most of it doesn't exist any more) the thread below, your question about the first bullet point might be answered by now. ;-)

Anyway, the answer to your question about that point, I think addresses your second point although it may still be too vague so we might want to discuss it further.

It's easier to explain this way:

- "This is not a group to discuss gender," - I added this because too many times threads in this (the Women's Rights and Issues) forum turn into "yeah but men have issues too". (See deleted posts below for examples ;-))

"class" - this was added to stop the ever-present "it's not racism, sexism, whatever-ism, it's rich versus poor".

"or sexual orientation" - added this in response to Eloriel's experience with women's issues being turned into gay rights issues, a not uncommon trend.

"...It is specifically to discuss women's rights and issues as they affect women from a woman's perspective and experience." - The last part of this was added for the very concern you mention: that women really are the authoritative voice on how these issues affect women.

That's not to say these other "groups" don't have legitimate concerns (I am particularly concerned about gay rights, myself) but the people who want to discuss those problems can form their own group to do so if they wish. It's also not to say that gays and others can't contribute considerable value to the discussion but when push comes to shove, a homosexual male doesn't understand what it feels like to be a woman in America, just as I can only imagine how it feels to be homosexual in America.

We can support each other because of the similarities (and sometimes the very same underlying causation) of the problem but I think it has to be understood that, in this one place, the basis of the discussion is women's issues and a woman's perspective and experience is preeminent. It may (MAY) give some people the opportunity to listen, to really hear how it feels, how it affects us if we can just speak. Maybe, just maybe, if someone stops trying to push their "me too" for a moment long enough to listen, they might learn something.

If nothing else, it'll give us a place to come and work through things without the constant interuption of being told what we think and feel has been "debunked". ;)

[Ripley]

149. I understand now. Gee, I thought a Women's group would be obvious.

I guess we have to work in code here at DU. ;)

It seems absurd that we have to spell out exactly what is wrong about someone posting what appears as blatant disruptive posts to the moderators, male or female. I guess it just goes to show how pervasive the problems are even on a liberal board.

In fact, I saw a post in GD by a female with the title something like "Think misogyny doesn't exist? Think again." Then posts some pretty awful shit.

I guess that would be our first post in the new Group. Explain what it is and give examples less radical.

[lukasahero]

150. You would think, huh? ;-) n/t

[cally]

123. Thanks for your perseverence

and efforts. I'm comfortable with the mission statement.

How about feminists forum for a name?

[lukasahero]

147. Opinions wanted - "Feminists Forum"

It seems variations of the name you suggest are already being used "downthread".

I'd like to hear what others think. Is this our new group? :)

[chicaloca]

182. I like Feminists' Forum!

As others have said, let's not allow "feminist" to become a four-letter word.

[lukasahero]

188. I liked feminists forum too - we got feminists group - check it out folks!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=341

Yay!

(Forum wouldn't work because it's a group and not a forum even though, personally, I prefer the alliteration.)

[omega minimo]

124. Will this discussion and the one you are having with Skinner

lead to improvements in the areas that inspired this retreat from the main forums in the first place?

The two threads that motivated this discussion were both very long; they engaged scores of DUers and dozens of posts in healthy discussion (I read the second, not the first locked one) and one information-challenged disruptor shut the whole conversation down.

Will this continue? Will women be expected to put up with that OR sequester in the ______ Group?

My tongue-in-cheek Group proposal above was meant to point out that the disruptors and abusers are in the MINORITY and in violation of DU RULES.

Perhaps the Admin could create a new Prohibited Locked Forum collect posts and threads that are disruptive and unwelcome. This would allow belligerent and unclear-on-the-concept types to view (without responding) examples of what is UNACCEPTABLE AND MONITORED at DU. (What if these poor fellas really do need their behavior mirrored and some education so they can grow up and sit at the big table?)

Let's start with:

(I guess titling "The president is a motherfucker" is okay?)

Post subject titles containing "ugly slut" and "big pussy"

Thread OP titles like "We'll rape your women, heck we'll rape our women" and (just last night, got over 40 responses) "Are non-white or ugly white women safer than pretty white women?"

With all DU respect, what the "heck" is "Are non-white or ugly white women safer than pretty white women?" doing on DU for longer than the time it takes to Alert and for Admin to respond?

I've expressed my reasoning and concerns on this thread and others. Given DU rules and context of its purported mission and the dangerous times we live in, I don't quite understand why DU main forums cannot be inclusive and supportive of "a safe and non-threatening community where all those interested in discussing and trying to resolve the problems that are inherent to women in society can come and work together free from defending the basic premise that issues do exist which specifically affect and limit women, their rights and their potential."

Unless we are to conclude that DU is less concerned about sequestering women than it is about monitoring (possible "offending") men.

"Trying to resolve the problems that are inherent to women in society" belongs in the general Forum population. IT'S 2005 FER GAWD'S SAKE. I wanna sit at the big table.

:hi:

[chicaloca]

134. sounds good!

I think that, unfortunately, we do need the rules of engagement section, otherwise things will turn out just the same as they are here. I understand what omega's saying about how it's pretty absurd that we can't expect the rest of DU to treat over half the world's population as humans, and that we have to have a group specifically for recognizing women as human beings that bans people who think otherwise. I think that's something we should definitely brainstorm about on this new group, because as we've learned here, it's not possible to have a constructive conversation about ending DU's sexism on any existing forum. It might also be helpful to ask some folks on the other groups, such as the African-American group, if they think having a group has done anything to erode the racism on DU, and if it has, how.

[lukasahero]

146. Excellent idea

about asking other groups what their experience has been. I do think it's unreasonable that, in 2005, we have to look to form a place with rules laid out that we want to have this discussion free from harassment but, as we can see even in this thread, it is obviously needed.

My expectations of reducing sexism on DU and out in the world are really minimal - I'm not really that naive ;) - however, I would hope that in gaining a place to discuss the issues freely, we can ourselves learn effective ways of combating it in our daily lives.

I, personally, do not believe we will see a shift in the mass culture, in fact, I believe we're seeing a mass shift in the opposite direction. What I do believe is that we can change, affect, mentor individuals and enough of those individuals together can change the world. (Sorry, I really am the eternal idealist.) I'm hoping to learn effective ways to do this and have seen by this discussion alone that the folks who want to try this have great insight and wonderful ideas. Thanks for speaking up and bringing another great idea to the table.

[beam me up scottie]

148. I vote for "Feminist Group"

I refuse to let them make "feminist" into a four letter word the same way they did with the word "liberal".
And both genders can be feminists.

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

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

[Hello_Kitty]

126. Thanks for stopping by

See ya!

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

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

[Senior citizen]

128. Not sure I understand the concept.

Are you saying that men need a similar forum, but that they can't manage to do it by themselves, so you've come here to ask women to do it for them?

Have you come here to suggest that the best place for a men's forum would be inside a women's forum?

Have you come here to suggest that this is a matriarchal society and that you're tired of having all female U.S. Presidents, all female professional baseball teams, more than 90% female CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, etc., and that you want a space where males can discuss how they can become part of the greater society?

Are you here because males, on the average, earn less than women in similar occupations?

Are you here because, until recently, males were not allowed to own property?

Are you here because, until recently, females were permitted by law to beat their husbands?

Are you here because, until recently, males were not permitted to enter the professions?

Or are you here because, until recently, males had absolute power over females, and now that there has been a tiny bit of erosion of that power, you are feeling insecure and need mommy to comfort you?

Or are you just here because the group proposed here doesn't yet exist, so you can still disrupt any serious discussion of women's issues in ways that the proposed group would prohibit?

Personally, I see the issues in your link as bogus: Divorced fathers not wishing to continue to contribute to the support of their children, male child molesters wanting custody of the children they molested, all-male (or more than 90% male) graduate school faculties angry that entering classes in the last few years do not reflect the faculty demographics as before, etc. And selective service? Did you just get a draft notice or something?

When the first wife-rape laws were proposed, Esquire magazine had a cover headline: "Men Fear Wife-Rape Laws." Fear? Fright that they might no longer have the absolute right to physically force themselves on their wives? Or fear that their 5,000 year privilege might be slightly eroded?

Patriarchy has held sway over most of the world for thousands of years. There are so few examples of matriarchy that many scholars dispute that it exists or ever existed at all. But feminists are not suggesting matriarchy. We are suggesting equality. That is a men's issue because it proposes limiting male privilege and opening opportunities to females so as to make a more even playing field.

It is not a special privilege to allow females to do things that males have always been permitted to do. It is not a special privilege to permit females to compete with males in male-dominated fields.

You don't seem to understand that DU permits overtly sexist posts and we need a space where that doesn't happen.

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

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

[Bunny]

130. Why don't you take a few minutes to read up on the method for

requesting a group, and then follow through with that?

[chicaloca]

132. and while he's at it...

in the interests of equality, maybe he should also suggest a White Issues group, since there's already an African-American group. :eyes:

[Bunny]

133. Yeah, but he'll need to head over to the African-American

group to propose that! :rofl:

[chicaloca]

135. OMG.....

ROFLMFuckingAO!

[Senior citizen]

131. Bunny's suggestion (post #130) is excellent. Try it!

But before you do, try to think of an appropriate place to post your idea. If you don't want to start a new thread all by yourself, and insist on inserting your idea into another discussion, why not read that discussion first to see if that is an appropriate place to post?

Feminists here are discussing a proposed group. As I said, although meat-eaters may have issues, the proper place to post a suggestion for a meat-eaters group would not be in the middle of a thread discussing a vegetarian group. Even if feminists or females are discussing something, does not mean that you have a right to ignore the discussion totally and attempt to disrupt it with something completely off topic.

You say you didn't come here to ask women to run a men's issues forum. What else could you have wanted when you decided to post your idea in the middle of this discussion? If you don't need women to help you understand the rules for suggesting and starting a group, why come to a feminist discussion to suggest it?

Your suggestion might be viable--particularly on whatever board you came from--but you would have to take some initiative and suggest it in an appropriate place. As Bunny said, read the rules, follow through, and try to do it in an appropriate place in an appropriate way.

Unless, of course, that might defeat your whole purpose in coming here.

[Hello_Kitty]

139. Just shows how entrenched it is

"Are you saying that men need a similar forum, but that they can't manage to do it by themselves, so you've come here to ask women to do it for them?"

Yup, that's exactly what he's saying. In the patriarchal society, men are viewed as incapable of expressing and dealing with their emotions and incompetent when it comes to handling personal issues. So of course, the onus is on women to understand and interpret their needs while casting ours aside to accomodate them.

I think it DOES suck to be male in inumerable ways. But the pressure men feel to live up to a bullshit ideal of John Wayne manliness comes from patriarchy, not from women.

I also think the "issues" in that link were bogus. They'll find a few anecdotes of men who were treated badly in divorce court or in sexual harassment cases and extrapolate it to make it seem widespread.

I really chuckled at the media portrayal one. So a few sitcoms and commercials feature bumbling buffoons needing to be rescued by their smart wives. (Personally, I think it's more negative for women because it promotes the idea that I have to be a skinny and super-competent sex goddess just to get a shlub to marry me but that's beside the point.) But like that really equates to the endless stream of images of women served up as sex-toys and recipients of violence. GMAFB. Watch a typical R-rated movie and TELL ME that guys get a raw deal. Sure, most of villians will be guys but so will the heroes. What few (young and hot looking only please) female characters there are mostly stand around, occasionally say something like "Honey be careful!" or "Honey, come back to bed!", but really serve no purpose other than eye-candy. Which is why any film that has the audacity to feature a female protagonist or female characters with any complexity is derisively labelled a "chick movie".

[Senior citizen]

140. We WILL need special mods.

Not all moderators are liberals. (If I recall correctly, there have been instances of mods being revealed as freepers.)

Not all liberals are feminists.

For a feminist forum to work, we will need moderators who are themselves feminists and will not fiercely defend sexism, misogyny, wingnut bullshit, and freepers. We will need moderators who are capable of listening to feminist voices and taking them seriously. We will need moderators who do not themselves argue against the existence of women's issues or the existence of patriarchy. We will need moderators who do not condescend towards women. We will need moderators who "get it" and who care.

Otherwise we'll waste all our time fighting freepers and sexists, and the mods will spend their time defending them.

[omega minimo]

141. Will this continue outside a new Group? Improvement possible? Lost cause?

"You don't seem to understand that DU permits overtly sexist posts and we need a space where that doesn't happen."

[beam me up scottie]

142. I am hoping, at least in my case,

that having a safe haven will improve my temper and I will be more likely to try to educate instead of terminate the offending posters.
I hope I will not feel as defensive.

[omega minimo]

143. It's like pantyhose bondage-- expense, discomfort, daily damage, fretting

Imagine the incredible creative power of women's energy to contribute to other important issues, if it wasn't harnessed with the responsibility to reinvent the wheel and fend off "offending posters" that DU rules do not apply to.

[beam me up scottie]

144. You are brilliant.

What an astute observation.
Indeed, how much energy is wasted...?
It boggles the mind.

(Oh, and the pantyhose bondage analogy is hysterical, I do so hate those f*cking things!)

[omega minimo]

151. Your thoughtful post #142 made me think

it's not your responsibility. Why do you have to temper yourself and educate others?

This discussion and Group proposal go back to:

"You don't seem to understand that DU permits overtly sexist posts and we need a space where that doesn't happen."

If the Group is formed, will there be improvements in other areas of DU as a result of the discussion-- or does it formalize a "safe" zone for women, outside of which is a de facto "safe" zone for disrespect and sexist threads/posts/attacks?

Now is the time to consider whether segregating will address the original problems that brought up the Group proposal.

"We need a space where that doesn't happen." IMHO that "space" needs to be the general forums, where Admin and Mods elect to apply already existing DU rules; where the "education" comes from Admin feedback and Mod attention; where the disruptors have to mind THEIR tempers and grow up.

:kick:

[beam me up scottie]

152. It is a difficult question

I don't think I can answer.

Forums allow dissenting opinions but also disruptions.

Groups prevent disruptions but can be exclusionary.

Would one be better than the other or can both exist and support each other?

[beam me up scottie]

136. What is it with you people?

Why do you have a problem with women's issues?
Why do you feel it necessary to use this forum to further your own agenda?
Why do you provide links that lead back to misogynistic shills?
Do you think we won't bother to check your sources?

Mensactivism.org's is a partner site of Men's News Daily.
Let's take a look at MND, shall we?

The links at the top of the page include:

Anastasiaweb.com, which, according to their website "is the fastest, easiest and most reliable way of making contact with the mail order brides throughout the former USSR. We have the largest database of ladies - more than 8000 active profiles at this very moment!"

and: America Is Full.com! which, what a shocker, is anti-immigration.
They sell t-shirts with slogans like: "Arizona is full" and "Wake up America! Close the borders!"

And further down the page:
"HELP FIGHT THE LEFT! VISIT DISCOVERTHENETWORK.COM"

Also, predictably enough, Men's Activism links to Wendy McElroy's iFeminists.com website:

"In partnership with The Men's Activism News Network, the Individualist Feminist movement offers proof that feminism doesn't have to be anti-male. Wendy McElroy and her iFeminists.com web site provides a forum for feminists who believe in equal rights and responsibilities for men and women."

Those unfamiliar with Ms.McElroy can find another reference here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=229&topic_id=1781&mesg_id=1964
****

Your link was to an article titled: "What Are Men’s Issues?"
which was, according to the credits, adapted from “What is the Men’s Movement” by Trudy W. Schuett.

Here is more of her article:

****
Workplace issues

Discrimination is alive and well in the workplace. Affirmative action programs have done little to provide equal opportunity for anyone, while giving preference to women who may or may not be the best qualified candidate for a given position. The myth of the 'glass ceiling' has been repeatedly debunked, yet feminists continue to use it as an excuse to demand preferential treatment.

****
Education

Along with feminism came what is called "Women's Studies" on college campuses in many parts of the world. Although the specific title of the department may vary from place to place, the basics are the same. It is feminist ideology, and little else. Much or all of "Women's Studies" curriculum is based on works written by, for and about women. There is a decidedly anti-male slant here, but woe be to anyone who dares to disagree. When you sign up for one of these courses, you are sometimes required to sign a statement at the beginning swearing you will never disagree with the teacher. Her word, no matter how illogical or incorrect, is law.
****

These days, a boy in school automatically has the deck stacked against him. Because feminist ideology calls for boys to be educated the same as and encouraged to be more like girls, a boy's natural tendency to be more active and outspoken will always be a problem.
****

If you have the stomach for it, the rest can be found at her website: http://www.desertlightjournal.com/movement.html

To get a better idea just how much Ms. Schuett despises her own sex, check out this article, also from her website:

****
Myths of domestic violence

Another myth is that women, due to their lesser size, are somehow less
dangerous than men. This is also wrong. It is because of their lesser size that they are more dangerous. Why? Because women use weapons. Practically anything can become a weapon in the hands of an angry, out-of-control woman. A CD case, a bent paper clip, a simple nail file can become harmful, even lethal weapons. Most women know that to hit a man with her fists is simply not effective if her intention is to cause harm.

http://www.desertlightjournal.com/movement.html
****

I'm particularly fond of this wonderful quote which she posted on top of her home page:

"A woman needs a man like a fish needs the river."



Next time, do us all a favor and come up with something a little more original when you decide to use this forum to post anti-feminist reichwing propaganda.

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

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

[omega minimo]

153. "Porn is only a real problem for teenagers when they expect real women"

My question(s) remain unanswered. Today the answer presents in GD on a porn thread...

Women give up and go away (they were already invisible anyway, what's the big deal?) leaving more room for Democratic causes like XXX web domains.


....:wow:
:bounce: :bounce:


QUOTE:
Fuck those fascist, sheeplike, ding bats

Problems?
You mean these repressed women might be tempted to take a peek? 

CWA's husbands neverously look at each other
pssst can't you keep her quiet?
I....(looks around) I'm trying to...... (breaks off eye contact) .....(signals the first guy to call him)

Why not just teach them about porn?
Porn is only a real problem for teenagers when they expect real women to act like that and are disappointed (and violent) when they don't. 

Actually it's a good idea
Stupid Christian woman. I guess they want to see porn

jeesh...
i guess they're showing breastfeeding pics there, right?

and I am sure these repressed idiots will be gleefully monitoring
for the XXX content. 

Because clearly there is no greater threat than pictures of nekkid boobies
clearly.

Are these the same folks
That want to ban the existence of nipples?
It's so hard to keep them all straight.

They are probably more against lesbian porn than any other form of porn
since both homosexual women AND heterosexual men look at lesbian porn.
I'm just sayin'.

Lesbian porn is God's gift to heterosexual men.
Lesbians exist *only* for the fantasy that a man can have two women entertain him, not one. Bubba 2:11-14

[Senior citizen]

154. Pornography is a political problem.

Being anti-porn is often equated with being rightwing.

In fact, as we have frequently found, those on the right who are the loudest to condemn something, are often guilty of whatever "sin" they are condemning.

Wishing to personally avoid pornography, pornographers, and pedophiles, is often viewed as being for censorship, against free speech, and against sex. The distinction between pornography (or dirty pictures as it is defined in that thread) and erotica (which celebrates sexuality without degrading females or portraying violence)is completely lost on those who see females as sex objects.

Pornography is so prevalent and accepted in our culture that any attempt by DU to limit pro-porn views would not be possible.

Although I didn't read it, I remember seeing the title of a thread called "Beauty pornography." In my view, if it is dirty pictures, it is porn, and if it celebrates sexuality without degrading women, it is erotica. "Beauty porn" to me is like saying "Pretty filth." But I'm in a tiny minority because I DO see a difference between porn and erotica. If young males could see it without anybody having to worry that they might then have unrealistic expectations of women or sex, that might lead to violence, then it is, in my opinion, erotica, not porn.

I think that being objectified, sexualized, and trivialized, are important issues impeding equality for females. I don't think most liberals would argue with that statement. But if I then say that I think females should not be objectified, sexualized, and trivialized, those same liberals are going to call me a wingnut.

[omega minimo]

155. So this belongs in GD Politics?

QUOTE:
"Fuck those fascist, sheeplike, ding bats" (Who is this guy, Archie Bunker?)

"repressed women might be tempted to take a peek?" (repressed women?)

"teenagers when they expect real women to act like that and are disappointed (and violent) when they don't." (We could have a rollicking thread on several aspects of that one!)

"Stupid Christian woman. I guess they want to see porn" (Stupid Christian women-- Great!)

and I am sure these repressed idiots will be gleefully monitoring for the XXX content."  (Gleeful repression!)

"pictures of nekkid boobies" (Dismissive lout)

"ban the existence of nipples?" (So clever)

"Lesbian porn is God's gift to heterosexual men." (Yeah, whatever)

"Lesbians exist *only* for the fantasy that a man can have two women entertain him, not one." (So what?)

I respect what you and the others forming the Group are trying to do. My concern was (I give up now) that the general areas will not be improved, even after this discussion (in WR&I) and consideration (by Skinner). The problems that occurred when Lukasahero started this idea will remain.

Whatever the issue, porn or what have you, we have the privilege of perusing the general forums where men are free to act like pigs (see above), scratch themselves, pretend we are invisible or non-existent, make derogatory remarks about women, etc. As it has been pointed out several times, ignorant and flameruptor posts stand while the responses from rightfully outraged others are deleted.

The thread I quoted is just mouthing off-- they're not saying anything. Compared to that, seeing these fantastic, bright women leave the general area to have important discussions seems a shame. Your presence and ideas, including on "women's" issues are important to the general community.

My motivation in advocating some improvement now in applying GD "respect" rules to sexist posts was this:
Democrats need women voters.
The issues we must address hinge on the re-incorporation of women's perspective and issues to the concerns of the nation.
I could be wrong but I'm not.

DU would have been an excellent place to practice this.

Good luck.

:hi:

BTW my suggestion for the group name would be "Women's Rights Group"

[Senior citizen]

156. It has often been said that Dems take females & people of color

for granted. All they have to do is stay a fraction of a degree to the left of the pukes and suppress third parties, leaving liberals no place else to go.

You are absolutely correct about "respect" rules. If there were any chance whatsoever that DU would apply "respect" rules to sexist posts, this proposed group would not be necessary.

[omega minimo]

157. As Dr. Phil would say, "Democrats, howzthat workin forya?

"All they have to do is stay a fraction of a degree to the left of the pukes and suppress third parties, leaving liberals no place else to go."

Republican Lite will continue to fail and Democrats will continue to lose with watered down Repug tactics.

Dems can no longer count on liberals having "no place else to go." And it's foolish to ignore the potential voting power of disaffected Republican and Independent voters, especially women. Republcian Lite will not work with them, either.

I could be wrong



But I'm not.


:evilgrin:

Of course all this is moot if we have Black Box voting charades next time around......

[highlonesome]

159. Off topic but.....

Omega-

This is off topic to the thread, but thought I'd offer my opinion as to how the Dems can re-capture the Whitehose.

Rather than proposing govt solutions to the issues Dems hold dear, it's time to begin proposing alternative financial structures to provide the needs of health care, child care and houseing.

For example on healthcare:

Begin building cooperative health insurance structures, but not simply purchasing cooperatives )there's already one of those in WA state that insures around 500,000 people), but ownership coops where the people receiving the insurance own the company. Rather than efficiency and cost reduction being passed on to a small group of shareholders as profit, it's passed on to the recipients as lower cost insurance.

Couple that structure with investment in phama and biotech in order to give those companies guaranteed robust finances -- thereby lowering risk and overhead -- and you can also bring down the cost of prescription drugs without harming new drug development. By that method, the people ultimately receiving the insurance could also in many ways direct the course of drug development and pricing.

Each shareholder/recipient would vote once a year for new services to be offered or old ones deleted according to their own values.

I think that this sort of ideas are what people are looking for.

[lukasahero]

158. Hi omega

You know, a good part of why I got involved in this effort was because without such a place, I will end up leaving DU. And it will happen because of posts like the one you note. On the other hand, having a place to meet like-minded, brilliant, strong women to hash out ideas and yes, even talk about how we approach (en masse) such threads on DU in the future, gives me the strength to get "back in the fray" of GD. (Sorry, but the Lounge is useless).

I do believe women need to push the Democratic party (and "liberals") to take us seriously or we need to find a viable alternative. Since there is no real viable alternative at this point, I'd like to start by exploring the possibility of pushing the party.

I have been beyond disgusted with some of the views of "liberal" men and women on this board quite frankly in all areas, not just women's issues. People are too quick to condemn, so arrogant in their opinions and unwilling to consider for just one moment what another has to say and recognize that maybe that other person has given thought to their positions. And I acknowledge that I am guilty of that as well especially in regards to women's issues.

I understand your concern but for me personally, I see the group offering the possibility of exactly the opposite of what you fear. You fear we will leave the greater DU community because of the group. I fear we will leave without it.

[lukasahero]

160. Let's talk about the elephant in the room, shall we?

I would like to add one more "rule of engagement" and want your input.

- If you believe that women who have concerns about the prevalance of pornography in our society are uptight, sexually-repressed prudes who need to be enlightened to the "facts" and "realities" of the sex industry, this is not the group for you.

There, I've said it. I think overall most women here want to have a conversation about a varitey of issues that impact women - including porn, sexualization, objectification, etc. etc. We will not all always agree. But to have someone come into the discussion with an obvious self-interest to try to "educate" us about porn and the various realms of the sex industry is not productive.

Women know how women feel about porn, how it impacts our lives, our relationships, our self-image/worth. Studies and statistics on both sides are controversial. Suggesting one study has merit and all the others have been "de-bunked" is as dishonest as saying "evolution is just a theory".

This post will probably get reported as a "personal attack". I've tried to keep the personal out of the mission statement but ultimately, if the shoe fits...

[Misunderestimator]

161. Thank you for bringing that up. I couldn't agree with you more.

[lukasahero]

165. Thanks m.

:hi:

[FizzFuzz]

163. agreed. and I see nothing here that is redline worthy.

If it happens, let me know. I would join in speaking up.

I'm not against all porn as a general statement, but I am against it when its not clear that it is CONSENSUAL FANTASY.

What I AM very VERY against is the infiltration of porn attitudes and conceptualizations of women in mainstream media imagery. Movies, TV, advertising. Women as sexually hungry bimbos are everywhere, to the exclusion of any women who are average and/or have succeeded by their own efforts.

[lukasahero]

164. That's the point fizz -

we can't even have that discussion here. I think we will find that women have a variety of opinions/understanding/education/experience about the issue and there are grey areas that we can (and should) discuss.

[FizzFuzz]

167. please let me know if you need a vote from me or anything to get the group

up. I'm sure you have plenty without me, but I absolutely support it.

Let me know when it gets running too if ya can.

Thanks Lukasa!

[lukasahero]

169. Your vote earlier helped a lot

Now I'm just trying to make sure we have all the bugs worked out before resubmitting the "mission statement" and group name to Skinner.

So far the group name is tentatively "Feminists Group" so if you have thoughts or comments about that, feel free to speak your mind. (There was another suggestion of "Women's Issues Group" but I think it's still a little too close to this forum and will be rejected by Skinner.)

I will defintely let everyone who expressed interest here when it gets up and running. I'm just waiting for some more feedback on this last point before submitting it again. Thanks for the support!

[FizzFuzz]

171. Yay!

Gotta run to work now. Crap, DU makes me late all the time.
;)

Laterrrr

[Bunny]

173. I appreciate everything that you've done to date, and I

heartily endorse your efforts, mission statement, rules of engagement (especially the porn one), etc. Thank you lucashero!

[lukasahero]

176. Thanks - request has been sent to Skinner.

I'll keep everyone posted on it's progress.

Thanks for everybody's effort in trying to get this to happen.

[beam me up scottie]

168. Yes, exactly.

I'm tired of being told how I SHOULD feel about it.

[beam me up scottie]

166. We might have lost Ripley

partly because of this issue.
Has anybody heard from her?

[lukasahero]

170. Sh*t.

I think she was posting yesterday but I haven't seen her today. Have you pm'd her? I'll check my messages to see if she said she was going to be away for a while. I don't want to lose her.

[beam me up scottie]

172. This is what happened:

it started here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=229&topic_id=2146&mesg_id=2146

and continued here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=229x2238#2261

She was very upset, I tried pm'ing her but didn't hear back from her.

[lukasahero]

174. I figured that out by following the threads

I saw the thread yesterday but didn't think she meant leaving "this place" for good. I hope it's not true and that she'll come back when we get the group up and running.

I pm'd her too and showed her this latest bit of the statement. Hopefully she'll at least check her messages. I know I take time off from this place regularly - maybe that's all she's doing for now. Keep me posted if you hear from her.

[omega minimo]

175. I got yer elephant right here

"You are absolutely correct about "respect" rules. If there were any chance whatsoever that DU would apply "respect" rules to sexist posts, this proposed group would not be necessary."

“You fear we will leave the greater DU community because of the group. I fear we will leave without it”



"We should remember that the process that determines our decisions and actions is just as important as achieving the outcome we want."

--Social Justice and Equal Opportunity
We must consciously confront in ourselves, our organizations, and society at large, barriers such as racism and class oppression, sexism and heterosexism, ageism and disability, which act to deny fair treatment and equal justice under the law.

--Feminism
We have inherited a social system based on male domination of politics and economics. We call for the replacement of the cultural ethics of domination and control, with more cooperative ways of interacting which respect differences of opinion and gender. Human values such as equity between the -sexes, interpersonal responsibility, and honesty must be developed with moral conscience. We should remember that the process that determines our decisions and actions is just as important as achieving the outcome we want.

--Respect for Diversity
We believe the many diverse elements of society should be reflected in our organizations and decision-making bodies, and we support the leadership of people who have been traditionally closed out of leadership roles.

[mongo]

177. elephant checking in here -

Have fun with your group, since my experience is that the bulk of you do not wish to discuss issue, or see any dissenting opinion. Dissenting opinions are met with personal attacks, or in my case ANY opinion is met with a personal attack.

You are looking for a support group, where you can say absolutly anything that fits into the forum groupthink (which is outside the mainstream of DU BTW), without being challenged on it.

And I'd still like to know what I said in this thread that deserved the nasty personal attack I got in reply.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=229x2238#2261

Women know how women feel about porn, how it impacts our lives, our relationships, our self-image/worth. Studies and statistics on both sides are controversial. Suggesting one study has merit and all the others have been "de-bunked" is as dishonest as saying "evolution is just a theory".

Nice blanket statement about women - why not just say ALL women HATE porn? And I'm sure that your new group will be a safe haven to repeat that statement and other things I've read in this forum, like most porn is made by sex slaves, or is the filming of actual rapes, most porn is violent, porn causes violence against women, etc.

I'm sorry that you feel so threatened by the discussion of this topic you need a special place to hide on DU.

[beam me up scottie]

178. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Yes, the ONLY reason we want to start a group is so that we can discuss all of our preconceived notions about the evil pornography industry without ever realizing what a wonderful contribution to society it is.
:rofl:
Get over yourself, will ya?

How pathetic is it that that is all you can think about when it comes to women?

[Bunny]

180. This reminds me of the astrology threads in the old Meeting Room.

There was a determined group of so-called skeptics (mostly men) who just could NOT stay away from the astrologers (mostly women). It was amazing how these men just HAD to constantly insert themselves into peaceful conversations, assuring one and all that THEY, and only THEY, held the correct view. It was such a blatant control grab, obvious to anyone with half a brain. Just another group of men, being sure to tell the "little ladies" how deluded they were.

When the DU Groups were formed, and the astrologers finally had a calm, safe place to discuss their interests, there was actually whining by one of the "skeptics" because he was forbidden to go in there. It was pretty funny, in truth.

So, there are some men who just cannot stop inserting themselves into conversations where they are CLEARLY not wanted. They are bound and determined to exert control over the womenfolk, at any cost. Which only further proves the need for a Feminist Group. Of course, you realize that it's all our fault, right? If we could just accept dissent, they wouldn't have to be so obnoxious.:eyes:

[beam me up scottie]

181. Of course, and it's because we don't want men or dissent

invited to our pajama party.
Totally ignores the fact that men can and do post here without telling us that our opinions are WRONG.
I have changed my mind many times because of thoughtful posts from respectful DU members.
That's why I come here, for the diversity of the people and their ideas.

[omega minimo]

183. Sounds like they have a fixation

on inserting and exerting themselves.

:sarcasm:
:rofl:


"these men just HAD to constantly insert themselves...such a blatant control grab...just cannot stop inserting themselves...to exert control over the womenfolk."

[Bunny]

187. Heh.

Too true! :)

[FizzFuzz]

185. I remember that. They neeeeded to have the women agree with them

Seemed to be some kind of fetish, one guy in particular sooooo needed to see the women "admit" to being idiots. Shame, he was a funny, clever poster otherwise. But geeeez, what a warpage he had on that issue.

I look forward to a women's group.
Though it would not be a bad idea to just simply put the control freaks on ignore. Don't feed 'em, ya know. There is no need to engage with people who clearly are not interested in discussion, but merely in not letting a woman "win" the "argument".

[lukasahero]

179. Look mongo,

"Nice blanket statement about women - why not just say ALL women HATE porn?" See, this is why we want a place to discuss the grey. God forbid someone suggest that women know how we feel about porn. Of course, to you that means we are saying "all women hate porn". To me it means that I'd like to hear a woman discuss her thoughts about it because she understands her feelings about it. She may be for it, she may be against it, she may see shades of grey. I'd like to hear from HER, not always and only just you.

As noted in the statement "if you think all women who have concerns about the prevalance of pornography in our society are uptight, sexually-repressed prudes" then this ONE group is not for you.

[omega minimo]

184. If I wasn't already convinced of

Why this new Group is necessary:

__ Not-so-nice blanket statements about women and those on this thread in particular-- CHECK

__ The sweet, sticky tang of confusion/hostility/arrogance-- CHECK

__ Misunderstanding and/or misrepresentations of female DUer's posts-- CHECK

__ Arguing with misunderstanding and/or misrepresentations of female DUer's posts-- CHECK

__ Bald attempt to divert attention from subject at hand-- CHECK

__ Misplaced insertion: discussion of industry that objectifies, trivializes, dehumanizes and abuses women, into a thread discussing a Group to protect female DUers from posts that objectify, trivialize, dehumanize and abuse women-- CHECK

__ Parting shot: dismissive, patronizing insult-- CHECK




.........:bounce::bounce:
:kick:

[beam me up scottie]

186. Right on again, Omega.

nt