Is DU better than Afghanistan on women's rights?

[Senior citizen]

When I lived in Afghanistan, not only were women considered property and therefore not permitted to own property, but when it came to legal matters there had to be two male witnesses, or one male witness and two females (you could not have four females).

Maybe this is tinfoilhatting and the only problem is that this is a weekend with mods in short supply, but the thread discussing a proposed feminist forum has been disrupted by an obvious freeper who hasn't been tombstoned. I can tell from responses to the freeper that numerous alerts have been sent to the mods (in addition to my own).

So.....I'm now wondering if it takes twice as many female alerts on DU to get a freeper tombstoned as it would take male alerts.


:tinfoilhat:

[NMDemDist2]

1. please PM me a link, and you don't seriously believe that do you?

if you research the current mods you will see that women are at least half of the contingent if not more.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. Completely unnecessary and divisive tinfoil hat.

It's the weekend - mods, including female mods, have lives too you know. We have enough hatred in this world - don't create it where it doesn't exist.

[Senior citizen]

3. Well, I admitted that I could be tinfoilhatting.

And I specifically noted that the problem could simply be that it is a weekend.

As for creating hate, well, uh, there actually was a problem and I didn't create it, I just mentioned it.

Here's the link to the topic:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=229&topic_id=1852&mesg_id=1852

The freep, who hopefully has been tombstoned by now, and a bunch of responses, are at the very end of the topic. I wonder if the mods have some way to count the number of alerts and note the times that they were sent.

And then, if you'll forgive my divisiveness, compare that to the number and times of alerts it takes on a weekend to get a freeper tombstoned in any other forum. I would really like to be wrong, and I sincerely apologize in advance if I am.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[Bunny]

5. The post suggesting a men's forum "should not be looked upon

with disdain for any reason"? Thanks for telling us how to look upon a post, and for proving a point.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. Quite offensive? Patronizing?

I apologize if I've done that. I don't think that I have.

And I did address that I can perfectly understand why women would be extremely defensive if such a suggestion is made - perhaps if you read MY statements instead of just labelling me hateful, you'd have noticed that.

Why should we stifle ANY discussion? Isn't that the point of these forums?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. Let me go over the issues I think are bullshit in this brochure

I don't want you to misunderstand me, so I will go into greater detail.

The group's "media concern" strikes me as totally bullshit. I can't say much else on that one.

I partially agree with the Education segment. School violence is a big problem, but I think the laws need to be applied more evenly. Title IX is a straight up quandry. On one hand, it's absolutely necessary, and yet on the other, I feel it needs to be applied more intelligently to accomodate a lack of interest in women's sports where such a problem does exist. I feel/hope the lack of interest in women's sports will be quelled in the coming years, as young girls will grow to be encouraged to participate in athletics, but in the meantime, the problem does exist. As far as college representation, the "hostile atmosphere" is completely bullshit, however, I think there needs to be more opportunities for men to gain scholarships. Economically disadvantaged males do have far fewer funding options than females. That disparity needs to be leveled. Denying one to make up for historical wrongs isn't the right thing to do either.

I think divorce and domestic violence ARE major issues for men, and a legitimate ones at that. I've seen too many good fathers be denied custody of their children in favor of horrendous mothers. I've also seen men attacked by their wives and little is done about it.

I think the major failure of mankind in general is that we too rarely see that there are shades of grey. Saying there are issues that concern men is not to say we should at all forsake, or even give one inch, of any of the progress that we've made in women's rights. This does not have to be an either/or discussion, and again, I can fully understand why you'd be defensive whenever the issue is broached (and making matters worse, it usually IS a misogynist that broaches the topic).



On edit: Continuing... As for men's health. I've had this discussion with women before, and quite honestly, I think this is a case of "the grass is greener on the other side". Personally, I see nothing but women's health fairs, brochures, research, etc. I know women see things exactly the opposite. It's likely to be somewhere in the middle, and I'll be the first to say it's probably a little more on the men's side. That said, I don't think advocating for increased health for ANYONE is a negative thing to advocate.

As for the workforce segment again, bullshit.

Finally, the miscellaneous section. Selective service does need to be leveled out. If we're arguing equality, there's no reason for a double standard. Unequal sentencing... I have no idea. I certainly am not going to rely on a study by their group. Without more info, I can't make a decision on that. False accusations are a big problem for ALL of society, and I think we need to overhaul the justice system so that neither accuser nor the accused is revealed to the public until after a conviction is made. The media circus is vastly unhealthy for our country and our judicial process.

[beam me up scottie]

8. "a lot of women find men organizing on their own issues to be threatening"

Are you fucking serious? Did you really just say that?
Did you bother to read the information I provided?
Never mind, obviously not.

" But there's no reason that the interests of men shouldn't be discussed "

IN A THREAD ABOUT FORMING A WOMEN'S GROUP IN THE WOMEN'S FORUM?

What the hell, let's start posting columns from Anne Coulter and Phyllis Schlafly, why not? I see no reason to not allow these "misguided" people from posting.
After all, we wouldn't want to be unFAIR, now would we?

Thank you for providing us with yet another example of why we need a group.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. So if I started a completely separate thread, no women would comment?

Are you trying to tell me that if I started a thread saying men should form their own issues group that not a single woman would do exactly what was done in this thread?

Shall we perform that test right now?

on edit: There should be NO stifling of discussion, so long as it complies with the rules of DU. Period.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. Please, tell me what hostile action I took.

I admit, my opening post was hostile, but that was before I had any chance to review the statements. And clearly, accusing DU mods of being sexist when more than half of them are female is simply outlandish and unnecessary. I don't see ANY problem with my criticism there.

[Bunny]

11. It's really mind-boggling, isn't it?

Can't decide if it's intentional, or completely clueless. But offensive, nonetheless.

[beam me up scottie]

16. I am fairly sure it's intentional.

But then, if I say so, my post will get deleted.
How predictable, eh?

[Moderator]

14. Locking, Please address these concerns directly with the Administrators

http://www.democraticunderground.com/contact.html