With all DU respect

[omega minimo]

Following is a love letter to DU. The relevant bits were posted in full to Skinner in the "Rules have changed" thread. I am posting here to thank everyone concerned and turn in my language labrys :evilgrin:

The clitoris thread was the dealbreaker for me. We will each have a different solution. Mine is to simply "Ignore" on sight the most objectionable posts (and posters). I am still concerned about the chilling effect.

I am posting this to share what I've learned and not to fight it. I'm through :banghead:

:kick:

(edited)
Here is one of the reasons that sexist language matters-- aside from it “cheapens the discourse for everyone” -- it makes the poster seem ignorant and lacking credibility. IMHO.

It’s unfortunate that the use of respectful language-- and the practice on a “progressive” discussion board via peer support or education-- is seen as “censorship.” Nuff said.

DU women are told that if we perceive something as disruptive or derogatory, that it isn’t necessarily so. It doesn’t matter how it affects women, it matters whether or not someone else perceives it that way.

When DU women discuss women’s issues, women’s perspective, women’s experience, we are frequently assailed by DU men who PERCEIVE that this is somehow an ATTACK on them PERSONALLY. No amount of rational discussion will get through to them that we mean no harm WHILE we maintain the right to discuss our ideas. These men perceive the simple fact that we are discussing women’s POV as derogatory to them (it’s not) and disrupt many threads with their demands and derision. Somehow on DU their perception-- of derogation at the mere fact that we discuss women’s ideas-- has more power and legitimacy than OUR perception that sexist bigotry deeply embedded in common language IS derogatory and disruptive.

The reality of our experience on DU versus the idealism expressed in the Rules will inevitably have a chilling effect on the presence and visibility of non-sexist people on DU. So then that “vast majority” of DUers that you mentioned has self-selected and deleted the alternative voices that might have added to the process, the discussion, the ideas, the solutions and the character of the party comes out of all this.

This is from one of the threads where I did try to communicate with the belligerent beraters:

“I have enough confidence and respect for DU to ask these questions and raise these issues. I actually am curious about how men who sig line or blog with grand statements of concern for various progressive issues stop short of connecting the dots to women's rights. If the answer is "fuck off," that's a real discussion killer.

“It is automatic behavior expressed as casual sexist bigotry that we don't like and you guys don't like us pointing it out. We make you think about it. You make us the problem. You don't want to be bothered, you want to do what you always do with no one questioning your righteousness, your autonomy, your integrity, your commitment to our shared goals. You don't want anyone pointing out (inadvertently) that you don't know how to express yourselves any differently and that you REFUSE OBSTINATELY TO TRY.

“As perhaps you've heard from other Democrats, LANGUAGE MATTERS. Women's rights are human rights.

“Now that ya'll get it, can we talk about something else now?”

I have learned a lot from the belligerent beraters --as much as they cause otherwise worthwhile threads to "go off topic" and waste a lot of time and energy (is that called "disruptive"? :evilgrin: ) --because I listen to them. They make the mistake of projecting their fear and anger onto the cartoon cutout feminists they think they are dealing with; they mistakenly assume we have no humor, either. I learned that they are not "refusing obstinately to try" when they don't know how to see things from another point of view.

I still believe that women’s rights are human rights; that women’s issues are integral to progressive issues; that recognition and support for those issues are integral for progressive successes in the future.

:hi:

[BlueJazz]

1. Yep..I agree.

"Women's rights are human rights"
The Empathy that a person feels for another's suffering..whether it be because of discrimination or what-ever, will carry over to other aspects and feelings for his/her fellow Human Beings.

I've thought many times how being a Woman in non-Progressive times would truly "Suck the Big One" :)
..Especially if she felt she was all alone..

[omega minimo]

2. You said it all with one word. Empathy. Perfect

Thank you :hug:

[atommom]

3. Great post! Thank you.

[bloom]

4. I think

the issue is us wanting to this to be a "progressive" board with our idea that progressive means - people who are interested in equality and respect and that sort of thing.

I think that DU is actually a place that tries to be open to both "progressives" AND to "libertarians" (including "men's right's" activists - as long as they aren't too obvious in their misogyny ) who don't have a problem with sexual harassment (of women) & those who argue FOR the "rights" of men to be irresponsible after conception and that sort of thing.

It does seem like a problem to me, also - if we just "ignore" people who denigrate women - that it seems like it makes it easier for them to thrive - like a virus. It is a matter of the owners of the board - what kind of board they want. And if that's what they want - that's what they'll get. I am afraid a lot of women will leave. It would an interesting study - to know - how many women leave or don't bother signing up - under "insulting to many women" conditions than with a more controlled environment.

It seems to me - there are fewer women bothering to engage in arguments about women's rights, etc. than there used to be. I suppose that would seem like a good thing to some people....

[Name removed]

5. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[omega minimo]

6. Everything you say is true

" if we just "ignore" people who denigrate women - that it seems like it makes it easier for them to thrive - like a virus."

"It is a matter of the owners of the board - what kind of board they want. And if that's what they want - that's what they'll get."

"I am afraid a lot of women will leave."

"It seems to me - there are fewer women bothering to engage in arguments about women's rights, etc. than there used to be. I suppose that would seem like a good thing to some people...."

"(I think that DU is actually a place that tries to be open to both "progressives" AND to "libertarians" (including "men's right's" activists - as long as they aren't too obvious in their misogyny )

--It has become too obvious.

"the issue is us wanting to this to be a "progressive" board with our idea that progressive means - people who are interested in equality and respect and that sort of thing."

As you said above, "It is a matter of the owners of the board - what kind of board they want." And how much we choose to :banghead: I repect their right to run it as they perceive. You may be interested in the complete reply to Skinner in the "Rules have changed" thread. I agree with everything you say. It is a matter of perception and "what kind of board they want." Experience has proven to me where the defining line is.

Bloom, we would probably agree that continuing to have an "issue" with it would be because we care about DU, it's promise, power and potential-- and that the loss of women's participation harms everyone.

:hug:

[bloom]

12. To me it is seems so clear

that people who are trying to argue for men's "right" to be irresponsible are right-wingers.

After one of the recent discussions about men who don't think it's "fair" that they can't choose abortions - I looked into who started this nonsensical argument anyway and it mostly seems to have originated from a group of people who call themselves "libertarian feminists" and associate with other men's rights groups like "American Coalition for Fathers and Children". They also show up on sites like www.intellectualconservative.com & www.theconservativevoice.com

These people often show up on ifeminist.com which is actually anti-feminist. As I posted on a feminist group thread - some of the more outrageous quotes from the site:

"We recognize that the conventional wisdom- that men are the perpetrators while women are the victims- is based on politics rather than on fact."

"By the late 20th century, government cemented gender hostility into society by assuming a paternalistic role that advantaged women at the expense of men (e.g., affirmative action). "

"Women's studies programs are a good example of why universities should not be publicly funded."

-------

What worries me more than just DU - is if progressives of the male or female variety - esp. the younger ones - have little to no understanding of women's issues. It seems like some things shouldn't have to be argued over - as if we're in Freeperland or something.

But perhaps the worst thing is when the tone of the board overall - by the language, itself - suggests that large numbers of would-be progressives - have no clue about respect for half of the population.

And yes - I do agree - with DUs potential to bring a variety of people with progressive ideas together.

[omega minimo]

13. Dittoheads don't think for themselves--of course they hate real discussion

and prefer fighting.

We don't have to all agree, but on a discussion board it would be useful to know how to actually discuss and "listen without defensiveness." ( :hi: ) Some folks prefer competition and oneupsmanship to actually learning or thinking something new. There was a thread in GD yesterday praising some DUers for going on Freepboards and "kicking ass" over there. So be it.

The reason it seemed worth trying to discuss the larger issues (if we could ever get to them) at DU is: the Big Picture, the Crux, the oh-there-goes-OM-again-trying-to-connect-the-dots, the similarity of bullying on the micro- and macrocosmic level, the necessity of bullying and divisiveness to the exploitative TPTB that are running-- and ruining-- the planet.

The young women and other board members you speak of have been subjected to the revision of history, the reversal of progress, the perversion of language to indoctrinate and soothe the public back into the same old patterns of behavior and belief-- in the "radical soda pop" (thanks Tom Frank) candy-colored flavors of the moment that make EVERYONE think they are modern.

We don't really discuss that indoctrination --and the mechanisms for it-- much on DU. Another time perhaps.

:hi:

[omega minimo]

7. Doesn't it get OLD?

"When DU women discuss women’s issues, women’s perspective, women’s experience, we are frequently assailed by DU men who PERCEIVE that this is somehow an ATTACK on them PERSONALLY. No amount of rational discussion will get through to them that we mean no harm WHILE we maintain the right to discuss our ideas. These men perceive the simple fact that we are discussing women’s POV as derogatory to them (it’s not) and disrupt many threads with their demands and derision. Somehow on DU their perception-- of derogation at the mere fact that we discuss women’s ideas-- has more power and legitimacy than OUR perception that sexist bigotry deeply embedded in common language IS derogatory and disruptive."

[mongo]

8. I think that you will find in the two threads I linked to above

that no one was assailed by DU men. So somehow it is not just a matter of

"These men perceive the simple fact that we are discussing women’s POV as derogatory to them "

Of course, there are some that see any disagreement of their own point of view as "demands and derision"

And there are also some that no amount of rational discussion will get through to them that their own sexist attitudes prevelant in their writing is what hurts the causes that they wish to advance.

[omega minimo]

10. I have learned a lot from the belligerent beraters

They make the mistake of projecting their fear and anger onto the cartoon cutout feminists they think they are dealing with; they mistakenly assume we have no humor, either. I learned that they are not "refusing obstinately to try" when they don't know how to see things from another point of view.

[Finder]

9. Well there are DU women that do the same...

to other DU women who try to offer a different perspective.

I do agree that perceptions are the root of many disagreements but they are not limited to a specific gender by any means.

[omega minimo]

11. Tit for tat?

Thanks for bringing this up, Finder. Somehow my statement is not clear enough, to convey that in no way am I saying any perceptions ARE “limited to a specific gender.” The truth in my statement...

"When DU women discuss women’s issues, women’s perspective, women’s experience, we are frequently assailed by DU men who PERCEIVE that this is somehow an ATTACK on them PERSONALLY”

...does not conflict with whatever your perception or experience is. I am not making pronouncements about ALL men or ALL perceptions or ALL anything. The black and white thinking that is a hazard of communicating through disembodied words, the either/or attitudes that contribute to misunderstandings and knee-jerk overreactions, are part of why so much time and energy is wasted arguing over stupid crap instead of discussing ideas.

The truth is “when DU women discuss women’s issues, women’s perspective, women’s experience” we are frequently attacked for supposedly making pronouncements about ALL men or ALL perceptions or ALL anything. We are shouted down from trying to discuss OUR personal point of view or OUR individual experience or OUR unique ideas. Given that there are 70,000+ people on DU now for belligerent folks to try and pick fights with, you gotta ask yourself why women (simply for discussing our point of view) are a favorite to put on the defensive, disrupt and demonize.

“No amount of rational discussion will get through to them that we mean no harm WHILE we maintain the right to discuss our ideas. These men perceive the simple fact that we are discussing women’s POV as derogatory to them (it’s not) and disrupt many threads with their demands and derision. Somehow on DU their perception-- of derogation at the mere fact that we discuss women’s ideas-- has more power and legitimacy than OUR perception that sexist bigotry deeply embedded in common language IS derogatory and disruptive."

This place could be an opportunity for us to learn from each other. Instead, the cliched thinking and projected hostility based in fear really does have a chilling effect on sharing ideas and information.

Those who shout us down are afraid. They taught me this. They are in a panic because they sense a threat to them in the challenges to the status quo that are part of the Larger Issues-- so for us to discuss our personal experience or ideas terrifies them and they lash out. Even when we say that our empowerment does not mean their disempowerment, THEY have already decided that it does.

The waste of time and energy, the missed opportunities, the senseless hostility, the feeble paranoia, the pathetic insults-- who needs it? It is too bad for those men who are so afraid that they will miss the opportunity to learn from us, to have trust and confidence enough to listen without projecting their fear and anger.

The really funny bit is that cliche about men: “It’s not all about YOU!” Over and over again, SOME men prove that, in their minds, it really is ALL ABOUT THEM. They cannot see things from another person’s (or woman’s) perspective and they get really pissed off when we keep thinking that if they simply tried.......


btw: Whatever your experience of women doing whatever you said in your post.... I have never found a discussion of women’s perspectives to be hijacked or locked because women en masse jumped in to gang up and shout down.

I also seriously doubt that a woman posted this OP Headline in GD:

"So is it OK if I cut off just little tiny slice of your clitoris?"

It received 147 replies and some “Greatest” votes before being locked by a Mod who wrote:

“148. Locking. Perhaps a topic worthy of discussion, but this thread has received too many alerts to keep it open. Thanks.”

My main point is/was that there are different ways to present a topic for discussion. The board sends a message when it is acceptable for us to be gobsmacked with an OP HEADLINE like that on a Topics page. If this is a “topic worthy of discussion” it could be handled with the “appropriate level of sensitivity” the Rules encourage or at least a little respect.

Using that sort of discretion is seen by some as “censorship.” That is what bloom was referring to about the kind of board that DU owners want to have and the perhaps different perception we have of what it means to be progressive.

In my experience, from my perspective, the line has been drawn:

"Somehow on DU their perception-- of derogation at the mere fact that we discuss women’s ideas-- has more power and legitimacy than OUR perception that sexist bigotry deeply embedded in common language IS derogatory and disruptive."

[Finder]

14. I think your message gets muddled by your terminology.

Who is/are "them" and "their" in your writings? Is it DU men, men in general or any who challenge?

As far as your statement regarding never seeing a thread hijacked or locked...just try to discuss wage gaps or a woman's right to do what she wants with her body(unless we are talking reproductive only) or discuss why obesity is not healthy.

It is acceptable--IMO--among progressives to have different views and important to debate/discuss especially from the the perspective of women themselves.

I am not familiar with the post you reference but I assume it is connected to circumcision by the title. I do agree with you that if posts are locked because of the number of alerts received that is wrong and will only lead to what I call "lists."

[omega minimo]

15. I don't doubt your individual experience on DU

I don't know about "never seeing a thread hijacked or locked." I avoid the hostile types and hostile situations-- perhaps I notice when the hostile come after a discussion I'm in and just try to trash up the place without really saying anything.

:bounce:

That OP/title deserved to be yanked immediately. You misunderstand my inclusion of the post count and votes:

"I do agree with you that if posts are locked because of the number of alerts received that is wrong and will only lead to what I call "lists.""

Actually, my interpretation of the mods comment was bafflement-- if there were that many alerts MAYBE THAT MEANS THERE WAS A PROBLEM. ! ! ? ! !

Again: "My main point is/was that there are different ways to present a topic for discussion. The board sends a message when it is acceptable for us to be gobsmacked with an OP HEADLINE like that on a Topics page. If this is a “topic worthy of discussion” it could be handled with the “appropriate level of sensitivity” the Rules encourage or at least a little respect. Using that sort of discretion is seen by some as “censorship.”

IF there was a topic there, it was presented in a way totally absent of respect or discretion or "appropriate level of sensitivity." The OP's message inside was a continution of the OP headline's sick suggestion and had zero content to justify.... anything. This was INTENDED to be a sneering, violent, misogynistic, threatening question, as if this was the equivalent of WHATEVER THE OTHER, UNREFERENCED, the-OP-assumes-we-assume-we-know-what-the-hell-he's-talking-about thread. This was not the start of a "topic worthy of discussion." This was a sick, juvenile, slimy role-reversal by someone who didn't understand enough about anatomy to know HOW wrong the OP was on HOW MANY levels.

Mods could look at free-standing posts like that (or, for example, those objectionable "dead, blue-eyed blonde chicks" OPs that were so "popular" for a while) individually and not assume that all 80,000 of us at DU know what is being referenced (with no clues in the OP). (As if knowing or assuming the reference justifies the objectionable OP or post.)

The popularity (or not) of the post doesn't doesn't justify the presentation. That's what the Rules are supposedly for. This one showed me where the line is drawn at DU.

As for your other question, the pronouns may make sense if you read what I have written-- if not, sorry. I'm going forward, not back.

The bottom line:

In my experience, from my perspective, the line has been drawn:
"Somehow on DU their perception-- of derogation at the mere fact that we discuss women’s ideas-- has more power and legitimacy than OUR perception that sexist bigotry deeply embedded in common language IS derogatory and disruptive."

[Marie26]

16. I've stayed silent

Hey, I'm pretty new here, but I've felt a little hesitant to post on some things I find sexist because it seems like people who do are sort of instantly labeled &/or flamed. It does feel a little hostile, & I've felt creeped out a couple times. It's actually made me question if I want to keep coming back. So, to let you know, other women have noticed.