You were right.

[omega minimo]

When you wanted to create a Group to have a safe place to discuss women’s issues that weren’t possible -- without continuous disruption -- in the Big Forums or even in the designated Sub Forum, I questioned the need for retreat and advocated a higher visibility and level of interaction/education, backed up by DU Rules.

When you wanted to create another Group to have a safe place to discuss women’s issues that weren’t possible -- without continuous disruption -- in the Big Forums or even in the designated Sub Forum or the other Group, I questioned the need for retreat and advocated a higher visibility and level of interaction/education, backed up by DU Rules.

When you wanted to create another Group in addition to the designated Sub Forum to have a safe place to discuss women’s issues that weren’t possible -- without continuous disruption -- in the Big Forums or even in the designated Sub Forum or the other Group or the other Group, I questioned the need for retreat and advocated a higher visibility and level of interaction/education, backed up by DU Rules.

Women’s issues are central and crucial to all the big issues that the nation and the planet face. The marginalization and subjugation of women to the status quo are symptoms of the broader illness. The marginalization and subjugation of women to the status quo are so embedded that they are easily overlooked and ignored.

The more women have to retreat to address these issues, the more that the successes and progress of the pre-Reagan era are undermined and buried in the macho, Dittohead, retrogressive Backlash Inc.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=779564&mesg_id=780822

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=780796&mesg_id=780995

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=768642&mesg_id=768642

[bananas]

1. The first thread is gone ("Missing topic"). nt

[omega minimo]

2. It is a convincing argument for a new group

to discuss abortion in a setting where no one refers to abortion as "infanticide," "murder," etc. as happens in the Choice forum. Where people acknowledge that that language is inflammatory and continue to use it or pretend they didn't say what they said.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=779564

[Orrex]

3. I have a potentially dumb question

Perhaps I've misread the structure of DU, but it has seemed to me (in practice, if not in fact) that a Topic Forum, such as Women's Rights is open to all participants and necessarily permits a wide range of views, even those that are strongly objectionable to some. In contrast, a DU Group seems a friendlier venue, because participants are expected to be of broadly similar feeling on the given subject. That's why hardcore skeptics don't post to the Astrology, Spirituality & Alternative Healing Group, and posters to that group likewise seldom show up in the Skepticism, Science and Pseudoscience Group.

It's entirely possible that I've misunderstood the structure, but this assessment seems consistent with my observations, at least.

So, rather than creating another Topic Forum in which discussions reproductive rights can proceed without disruptive input from assholes, might a new DU Group be the way to go?

Sorry if this seems obvious or redundant.

[omega minimo]

4. A potentially dumb answer

Instead of cause valuable members to remove themselves, why not remove "disruptive input from assholes"?

[Orrex]

5. Not a dumb answer at all

I just thinking more in terms of ease of maintenance. That is, since the Topic Forums have a precedent for tolerating really bitter disagreement, a new Topic Forum would likely follow the same pattern. I mean, discussions in the Religion/Theology and Health forums get quite heated almost daily.

But the DU Groups have an "assholes check your disruptive input at the door" policy, whereby posters subject their behavior to a tighter degree of scrutiny. For that reason I think that a Topic Forum sounds better suited to what I perceive (perhaps incorrectly) that you have in mind.

Of course, now that I think of it, non-donors can't post to DU Groups, so that could present a problem, I guess...

[omega minimo]

6. ?

I thought DU had a "assholes check your disruptive input at the door" policy"

[Orrex]

7. Oh, come now! Haven't you read my posts in other Forums?

But I should have been more precise. Clearly you're correct that DU bars assholes whose sole purpose is to disrupt, and rightly so. But from the discussions here about the current "Choice" forum, it sounds as if there's an additional problem with people whose dissent can be unduly harsh or bludgeoning, even if their intent per se isn't to disrupt.

I'm not sure how to explain what I'm getting at. If someone is strongly at odds with other posters in a Forum but doesn't actually engage in personal attack (condemning abortion-as-a-topic without condemning a particular woman, for example), I'm not sure that the TOS provides for that person's removal.

But in a DU Group, the expectation (as I understand it) is that all participants are more or less on the same page. That is, one doesn't go to the Addiction/Recovery group and condemn alcholics. Instead, we see a community that is, practically by charter, supportive and positive and, where possible, downright helpful.

That, it seems to me, sounds more like what we're hoping for in a new "Choice" group.

And assholes certainly need not apply.

[omega minimo]

8. It's a fine line, isn't it?

"DU bars assholes whose sole purpose is to disrupt, and rightly so"........."people whose dissent can be unduly harsh or bludgeoning, even if their intent per se isn't to disrupt."

"Intent per se" being the operative words there. Someone whose intent is NOT to disrupt finds a way to not be "unduly harsh or bludgeoning."

"If someone is strongly at odds with other posters in a Forum but doesn't actually engage in personal attack (condemning abortion-as-a-topic without condemning a particular woman, for example)"

"The fact that the rules do not forbid a certain type of post does not automatically make an uncivil post appropriate, nor does it imply that the administrators approve of disrespectful behavior. Every member of this community has a responsibility to participate in a respectful manner, and to help foster an atmosphere of thoughtful discussion. In this regard, we strongly advise that our members exercise a little common decency, rather than trying to parse the message board rules to figure out what type of antisocial behavior is not forbidden."

It's too bad the bullies win and the reasonable people end up marginalized.

IMHO.

[Orrex]

9. Indeed

Someone whose intent is NOT to disrupt finds a way to not be "unduly harsh or bludgeoning."

I think that we're seeing this point in two different ways. A strong opinion, even forcefully stated, doesn't necessarily equate to the intent to disrupt, at least IMO. And unless we're prepared to enumerate exactly what is and isn't acceptable civil discourse, we're stuck with the possibility that someone might write something more harsh than is strictly necessary. But even in that case, I think that we can distinguish between "God dammit, Orrex, I told you a pencil is eight inches!" from "Orrex, you're a stupid dipshit if you think that a pencil is 7 1/2 inches."

In the end, I guess it's my perception that the Topic Forums (this one, for instance) are places where DU'ers can actively (and fiercely) debate topics without fear of being bounced simply for dissenting. But the DU Groups are gathering-centers where members can go to discuss a topic when a debate isn't what they want.

The excerpted TOS that you posted is right on the money, but there seems a further distinction that could, in the case of a "Choice" Group, be used to considerable advantage when hoping to create a safe haven for discussion.

[omega minimo]

10. So -- it all comes down to "Eight inches or less?"

:evilgrin:

Well -- I wouldn't have put it that way myself, but if you say so. :hi:

No, Orrex, we are not seeing it two different ways. You aren't seeing it at all. Or seeing it in the way that's convenient for the bullies to see it, arbitrarily moving the bar to fit their needs and then act like they're still on the right side of the line.

One question I always had about it was how we were supposed to tell the difference b/w bullies and all the other creative phrases you have to describe them.... and the trolls and disruptors who really don't belong here at all. FWIW.

"The fact that the rules do not forbid a certain type of post does not automatically make an uncivil post appropriate, nor does it imply that the administrators approve of disrespectful behavior. Every member of this community has a responsibility to participate in a respectful manner, and to help foster an atmosphere of thoughtful discussion. In this regard, we strongly advise that our members exercise a little common decency, rather than trying to parse the message board rules to figure out what type of antisocial behavior is not forbidden."

+

Someone whose intent is NOT to disrupt finds a way to not be "unduly harsh or bludgeoning."

=

Not Being A Disruptive Asshole.

That's what we're talking about and you can call it "A strong opinion, even forcefully stated" or "someone might write something more harsh than is strictly necessary," but that's just pandering to people who don't take the time or make the effort to express themselves in the spirit that the quote from the Rules purports.

"In the end, I guess it's my perception that the Topic Forums (this one, for instance) are places where DU'ers can actively (and fiercely) debate topics without fear of being bounced simply for dissenting."

You can call it "simply dissenting" but we all know it's much more than that. And that innocent routine that would be funny if it weren't so damn damaging.

"But the DU Groups are gathering-centers where members can go to discuss a topic when a debate isn't what they want."

You can call it "debate" but we all know what it really is. Claiming that peope retreat to groups because they don't want "debate" just adds insult to injury. What they don't want is abusive asshole disruptors who climb through all the loopholes that you have pointed out here.



The damn damage that it does is extensive and not limited to the Group that has to be "hoping to create a safe haven for discussion."



(Re: "Intent": see the checklist)

[Orrex]

12. Yeah, I realized after posting that it was a poor choice of example

But it mirrors an actual, foolishly acrimonious discussion that I once heard in real life, so I thought it would be a light-hearted example here. That's what I get for letting my hot, throbbing rhetoric get out of control.

From this and other threads it's become clear to me that it's not within my power to convince you that I am anything other than a bully or a disruptor. Therefore I will withdraw from this discussion rather than drive it further from its original purpose.

Sorry to have incited a digression.

[omega minimo]

13. Apparently your logic isn't hot and throbbing too

:wow: It's quite clear that I did not refer to you as "a bully or a disruptor." I pointed out the soft-focus terms you are using for something that we know is much more divisive and hateful. Pointed out the BS in claiming that people who don't want blatant abuse in open forums are seeking to avoid "debate" or "dissent." You've seen what women and feminists and other subgroups here put up with. Let's not pretend that it is innocous and appropriate and that foiks who don't like "debate" should just get a tougher skin.

"The administrators of Democratic Underground are working to provide a place where progressives can share ideas and debate in an atmosphere of mutual respect."

:Despite our best efforts, some of our members often stray from this ideal and cheapen the quality of discourse for everyone else."

And it does.

The "original purpose" was to acknowledge that those in retreat -- and seeing it as a postive and necessary step -- are right. And it's a damn shame. Thank you for the "digression."

[Orrex]

15. Whoops--one last thought

I wrote:

From this and other threads it's become clear to me that it's not within my power to convince you that I am anything other than a bully or a disruptor.

and you responded:

It's quite clear that I did not refer to you as "a bully or a disruptor."

Rereading the post to which I was replying, it's now obvious to me that you are correct, and that you did not refer to me in that way.

I apologize for my accusation. It was a dumb, kneejerk response to a misreading of your post.

[omega minimo]

16. Cool

No apology needed. Thank you for the re-read.

"A potentially dumb answer: Instead of cause valuable members to remove themselves, why not remove "disruptive input from assholes"?"

If women, feminists, various subgoups, must remove from the Big Forums and even from the relavant designated Forum to another level of invisibility to the Democratic community ........ what's left? What's Left?

[Warpy]

20. That's why I was against the two forums

I like this one just fine. If some antichoicer is nitpicking, I just ignore his posts. If someone gets abusive, I ignore HIM/HER.

I won't be nibbled to death by ducks and I won't be abused. However, I recognize the right of good people to be wrong, even on something as basic as half the population's right to self determination.

I've been standing up to bullies since I was 10 and put one into the hospital.

[omega minimo]

21. And that fine line gets obliterated............

"If someone is strongly at odds with other posters in a Forum but doesn't actually engage in personal attack (condemning abortion-as-a-topic without condemning a particular woman, for example)"


It doesn't seem unreasonable to think that no one here would feel the need to "condemn-abortion-as-a-topic"
It doesn't seem unrealistic to expect that most understood that "condeming-abortion-as-a-topic" IS condemning women's rights and "particular women."


:yourock:

[lukasahero]

11. Perhaps I'm joining this discussion a little late but

Hi Orrex. :hi:

The "safe havens" being discussed here are "groups". The women's rights forum and choice forum allow dissenters to speak their mind (although it is still beyond me why, on a progressive board, there are people who would actually have dissent to voice on women's "rights" but that is perhaps for another discussion).

About 2 years ago, a group of (mostly) women here realized that indeed there were people on this board who only visited the women's rights forum to do just that - dissent on the ideas being put forth here (i.e. - discussion of the effects of a patriarchal society on women and how we might identify and resolve the problems it causes in our lives). As such, it was decided a "group" would be a good place to discuss these ideas without having to ever "prove" to every passerby why women still needed to address them. And hence was born the "Feminists Group".

With the latest decision re: abortion, I think we find ourselves in that position again - we want to talk about how we can fight for our reproductive rights (many of us see that as self-determination and a wholly owned subsidiary of our human rights), post resources we can utilize to pursue this battle and what specific actions we can take without always having those who just want to argue about whether or not we should even have this right usurp the thread. It just turns into a fight and nothing productive gets done leaving our rights in jeopardy.

You are correct - the "forums" do not regulate a position on the issues being discussed. The "groups" can and do. For those of us who want to discuss how to fix a problem and not fight over whether or not there is one, the groups provide a necessary "safe haven" to do so.

[omega minimo]

14. Thank you lukashero

"The women's rights forum and choice forum allow dissenters to speak their mind (although it is still beyond me why, on a progressive board, there are people who would actually have dissent to voice on women's "rights" but that is perhaps for another discussion)."

Great post. Yet, the reasons for the move are beyond the terms being used here. There's a difference between "Dissenters" and divisive abuse. If someone can "dissent" on abortion in a Choice Forum (as you say, a questionable position on a progressive board) without referring to it as "infanticide" and "murder," that's fine. If they can't, then they should be leaving, not the people who want to have productive discussion.

[noamnety]

17. I have a dream

Discussions on women's rights (not debate on whether women should have them, but discussion of rights) would be in the main forum, and discussions of which women's asses look big in certain fabric colors would be relegated to a dungeon that has even less visibility than the 911 forum.

(Alright, so it's not exactly the MLK, Jr. speech, but still, is it really so much to ask for?)

[uppityperson]

18. That would be very nice.

[omega minimo]

19. Classic!

:rofl: :yourock:

I have a dream that the Rules are clear and respect means just that. I had a fantasy that "progressive" was progressive. I had a delusion that boards could be used to unify rather than divide........................

I had a nightmare that Reaganism turned the clock back on decades of social progress and the people ate it up and asked for more abuse and idiocy.

[BoneDaddy]

22. So what is stopping you from doing so?

My question is what are you looking for? A place where everyone agrees with you? Cool that is no problem...just start your own webpage and invite only those people who agree with you. If you think you are going to be able to operate on DU without any controversy I think that is a bit naive. We are a large camp and not everyone may see it as you do.

[noamnety]

23. Thank you.

It's quite convenient to have the demonstration right here in this thread, instead of having to follow links to other threads all over DU to find out why the group is necessary.

Also, it's helpful for us to realize if we want to "operate" in an area where women's rights are discussed, rather than disputed, we should consider leaving DU. ;)

Love it or leave it. Whatever you do, don't try to change it. The Battle Cry of human rights activists everywhere. :eyes:

[BoneDaddy]

24. That would be refreshing

but, as a male, I have to say that there is a difference between discussing women's rights (which I am all for) and trashing men in the process. It isn't that I am over sensitive to it, a "poor baby" as I have been called in the past or a misogynist (because I don't agree 100%), it is because a good amount of the "women's issues" topics are carefully couched attacks on anyone who does not agree with the radical left feminist ideology (which I reject). Sex positive discussions will certainly be more attractive than topics started by women who have had a history of abuse, has received no real treatment for it, who then thinks that because of their experience they can behave irrationally, abusively or irresponsibly towards anyone who does not agree with their every point.

[lukasahero]

25. "Sex positive discussions will certainly be more attractive "

What a surprise... 'Nuff said.

[Scout]

26. we must be sure to only post discussions that men will find attractive! n/t

[BoneDaddy]

28. If you want a dialogue

yes, it will be a way to engage men in a conversation that is very important. If you don't, then find a place, other than a progressive, liberal board, to post because free speech is encouraged. If you want a room full of "preachers to the choir", or to slam all that is male then start a private board where you can do what you want without a difference of opinion.

[Scout]

29. you make many assumptions about what YOU think I want ... they are wrong.

But that is typical ... you know, men telling women what we should want, what we should think, and what we should talk about.

[BoneDaddy]

30. Oh please stop

with that tired old innacurrate meme. If you followed the logic of OP's request for a viable forum, my response was to her, not you, as she was asking the question.

Plus your hypocrisy is astounding, but you wouldn't see it. A good number of people's demands in this forum are about telling men how they should think, what they should think and do, so please open up your eyes a wee bit.

Edit: Don't put forth out inflammatory information and then when people call you on it, cry wolf. If you put it out there it is up for discussion, debate and/or dialogue.

[Scout]

31. oh please stop yourself

you're the one telling women what we should talk about, that we should only post "sex positive" points of view, no matter what our own experiences have been...

i think it would be a better us of your time to go play with your bone, daddy :eyes:

of course, it's your time...

[BoneDaddy]

32. Listen to yourself

you can't even have a conversation...how pathetic.. I have never told women what to talk about but if you want any male support you need to stop attacking all men with your general judgements. The funny thing is that your views will NEVER go mainstream, thank the Gods.

[Book Lover]

64. There are conversations, and then there are conversations

"I have never told women what to talk about"
You may have written this intending for it to be read rhetorically, but it does not come across that way in the context of this forum:

Post 22:
My question is what are you looking for? A place where everyone agrees with you? Cool that is no problem...just start your own webpage and invite only those people who agree with you.

Post 28:
...find a place, other than a progressive, liberal board, to post because free speech is encouraged. If you want a room full of "preachers to the choir", or to slam all that is male then start a private board where you can do what you want without a difference of opinion.


"but if you want any male support"
Feminists generally don't glance over their shoulders, looking for men who are following their leadership. It seems to me you post here intending to engage in a vigorous debate testing the tenets of feminism. (If that's not right, please correct that.) If you read this forum regularly, you may notice that discussions generally don't follow that paradigm. The "Politics of Body Hair" topic is, I think, the best example of how this forum can operate.


"you need to stop attacking all men with your general judgments."
All I can say here is that if you feel you personally are being attacked, you should alert, because that is against DU rules. If you see a post, however, that says "All men X," instead of "You know, I know all men aren't like this, but can you believe that three different guys I talked to today did X!" and you decide from that that all men are being attacked, then I suggest you mentally substitute the latter for the former, because using the shorter form is a rhetorical device and you know that. I am sure most DU posters do it in all forums here. Do we DUers truly believe, for example, that every single Republican loves Bush? If you were to read GD or GD: P literally, perhaps so. But you and I know that real life is more nuanced than that. Simply put, taking it all personally isn't a very logical thing to do.


"The funny thing is that your views will NEVER go mainstream,"
I would love to know what ideas you would hate to become mainstream. But in a separate thread, if you please.

[noamnety]

34. Perhaps we could compromise and have two groups

one where the women talk, and another where the women sit quietly and the men tell us what they'd like us to say. :D

[BoneDaddy]

40. Or one

where neither gender writes the other off just because nature determined they either have a penis or a vagina. A group where maturity dictates healthy dialogue about the sexes instead of the childish victim fantasies that fuel the radical fringe which in turn give them the perceived "right" to behave like those they say have "oppressed" them.

[Scout]

51. Or one

where neither gender tells women that their life experiences are "childish victim fantasies."

:eyes:

[BoneDaddy]

33. Then expect

to have your bullshit challenged.

[iverglas]

37. yeah

ind a place, other than a progressive, liberal board, to post because free speech is encouraged

Now let's all go find some forum hereabouts where they're talking about the rights of people of colour, and "disagree" a little. Damn choir-preaching nonsense; they need some DEBATE, that's what they need.

Free speech! Free speech! Free speech! has nothing to do with anything. I mean, so far I haven't read you reporting that your door has been busted down or your computer confiscated ...

What on earth is up with someone who posts in a forum called Women's Rights solely to complain about women? yeesh.

[BoneDaddy]

41. Funny

I don't remember complaining about women at all. I complain about the irrational very small pockets of fringe radical feminists (you don't speak for all women) who feel compelled to share their hatred of men.

As for your comparison to the black issue. The reason we do not have similar problems on DU regarding the issue of race is because their isn't a black irrational minority in here that pervasively attacks all "white" people simply because they are white, unlike the rad fems who generalize men on a daily basis.

What don't you get. My issue is not with women, my issue is with the militant gender fundamentalism that you and others spew.

[iverglas]

44. moi??

(you don't speak for all women)

?? I don't actually recall having said anything at all. Not any content, or any representation of such content as being anything other than mine own.

Maybe we just all look alike in the dark.


The reason we do not have similar problems on DU regarding the issue of race is because their isn't a black irrational minority in here that pervasively attacks all "white" people simply because they are white, unlike the rad fems who generalize men on a daily basis.

Funny how how things look sometimes depends on where you're standing, ain't it?

To me, it looks rather more like the difference might be that we don't have a white irrational minority in here that constantly demands that people of colour behave the way it wants them to. And we don't have a white irrational minority that is constantly telling people of colour what they need and don't need, what they're entitled to and are not entitled to, and, perhaps most particularly, what their experience is and what it isn't. And of course, we also don't have a white irrational minority, and its people-of-colour cheerleaders, constantly calling people of colour, individually or collectively, ugly names when they step out of line.

What don't you get. My issue is not with women, my issue is with the militant gender fundamentalism that you and others spew.

You do just keep providing your own case in point, doncha?

I have no idea what spew of mine you might be referring to. I seldom have much to say about women's issues, apart from reproductive choice and the effect of easy access to firearms on women's security.

But I'm just one of THEM, I guess. And your own spew continues to make all the points that might need making.

[BoneDaddy]

48. Yep

Guess it depends on where you stand.

[BoneDaddy]

27. Do you know the difference

between "sex positive" feminists and "radicals". Wow, how little you know of feminism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-positive_feminism
as opposed to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism

Thanks to Lukashero to provide me with the most potent example of what I am talking about. I find radical feminism to be as "fundamentalist" in it's ideology as right wingers and religious fanatics. Their worldview is the right one and if you are outside the "tribe" (meaning if you have a cock), you are the enemy.

[noamnety]

35. No, it's not that.

I think we universally embrace Thomcat here, for example.

I don't want to speak for everyone, but I have a hunch we're just having some issues with a few folks who are excessively condescending and arrogant who attempt to dominate and control conversations, as if it's the natural state of things that men should control all conversations amongst all people - even when we know there is a long history of them excluding everyone else from their conversations when they are plotting to take over the world. And I wish that was an exaggeration, but actually, it's just basic fact.

I look at it that way, and I think, well, what's the worst that could happen? We sit around in a tiny little section of a forum, and privately plot to take over the world?

The whole outrage is just kind of ... small and humorous to me. All those years we spent fighting for the right to own property, fighting for the right to work - even if we are *gasp* married or pregnant, we had to fight for the right to vote, we had to fight for the right to have access to birth control, and now ... what exactly is the problem? We are oppressing men by talking amongst ourselves? We're oppressing them by ... by privately discussing how the porn industry hurts women? Is that even a right - the right to prevent other people from discussing issues that affect them, unless you are monitoring their conversation? Are your personal feelings about porn something I need to concern myself with? It's just so ... absurd. I think there's a short story in that, somewhere.

I had a dispute with someone on another forum recently about an essay that a third party had written, and it resulted in me writing the author with my opinion. The other guy on the forum informed me several times - once using my personal email account - that he would like copies of all my private correspondence with that author. I think in his head, that sounded like a reasonable demand.

Can you imagine?

[BoneDaddy]

43. And you think

only men can be controlling? Wow, what limited experience of life you must have.

[BoneDaddy]

47. I make no bones (pun)

about my presence here. I am not to dominate the conversation but to reply to the illogical statements I see in here and in the main forums. If me responding to you is domination, then I don't know what else to do to enter into discussion on a message board. If you want control and domination, just review your own postings on topics. I tell you that it is amazing the lack of self awareness and projection by you and others.

You project your own domination and control onto me. All I am doing is responding to what I think are some irrational, illogical and immature comments about your views of men.

AS for Thomcat, I can't speak for him but my guess is he tells you exactly what you want to hear and behaves exactly how you think men should act. Not my problem

[iverglas]

36. ooooo, I've been edumacated!

Sex positive feminism! Yessir, THAT's what Hugh Hefner was on about. He just didn't have the right name for it yet.

The eternal eternally-available woman. What we all aspire to be. Or oughta.

[noamnety]

38. Here's an example of what BD's trying to peddle here

And why Flynt is being upheld by some here as a martyr of free speech (his own):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/larajade/513641346/

[BoneDaddy]

39. Wow you are possessed

if you think that

[noamnety]

42. You think people are out there buying that DVD?

You think that's right?

[BoneDaddy]

46. Do you really care

what I think? Nice try.

[noamnety]

50. That response tells me you aren't here for debate. nt

[BoneDaddy]

52. See I lose both ways

if I bow out of the conversation, then "you are not really here for debate" yet if I explain my views "you are dominating the conversation".

See my point?

I would love to have a real conversation.

[Scout]

53. I lose both ways

So? maybe this is a clue and you should answer the clue phone?

Why do you have to "win?"

[BoneDaddy]

55. A bit literal aren't we?

It is a figure of speech. How bout you buy a clue for $100 Alex.

You know exactly what I am saying so don't try and interpret it as about winning. It is about unless I agree with you 100%, my point has no validity in your eyes.

Learn to think metaphorically, it helps with life.

[Scout]

56. there you go, telling women what to do again....

i'm just going by the words you type dude, if it's not about "winning" why use the word?

[BoneDaddy]

58. You are impossible

No matter what I say, regardless of my point, it will be turned and twisted by you to meet the need you have to see it as. That is my point. So why don't we just move on and let this go as it will obviously not be a discussion of any substance.

If you can't see figures of speech as figures of speech we will not be able to communicate.

[Scout]

60. works for me, go ahead and just move on n/t

[BoneDaddy]

62. Hi ho silver

Scout

[iverglas]

45. eek! possessed!

I've got the stake and the kindling; who's got the matches?

[noamnety]

57. Darnit, possessed isn't even on my card. :(

[BoneDaddy]

59. Wow

YOu should add it

[Scout]

61. be sure to do what daddy tells you now! ;-) n/t

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

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

[lukasahero]

49. Do you understand the difference between having a conversation

and dictating that said conversation be held on your terms? You basically said that women should discuss their rights within the bounds of what men find comfortable and on that, I call bullshit. Perhaps, instead, men could grow a thicker skin and not require women to speak of issues that affect us without the requisite "some".

I'm quite aware that not all men are combative, manipulating control freaks - I'm married to one. I just also recognize that men who come in to a forum on women's rights wanting to dictate how women should have that discussion in order to gain the support of men probably don't quite "get it".

[BoneDaddy]

54. Oh I get it alright

and until I see women like you call the sexism against men for what it is instead of justifying it, there will be no dialogue.

You can't have it both ways. Grow "thicker skin"? Sounds like you are asking me not to be sensitive. So let me get this straight.. Men should be more sensitive but not when their gender is being attacked, like it regularly is on these boards.

[Morgana LaFey]

65. I can only speak for myself. I don't hate men, but I do hate sexists

(of both genders). If men want NOT to be "bashed" (aka: criticized for their boorishness and misogyny), perhaps they should consider not being sexists.

You don't need thicker skin, you actually need MORE sensitivity -- but to something other than your own precious ego.

You need to get over it that women are asking for and expecting full rights. That's not going to stop. Anyone who suggests that we need to "be nice" in order to GET those rights is practicing his sexism for all he's worth.

It's a shame: I realize it's what you were taught. But the bigger shame is that you show NO interest in doing better. You're just hanging on to the patriarchal paradigm and oppressive shit for all your worth. It won't work, and it will neither win you friends here in this forum OR change the way any of us see things. So you can keep banging your head against the wall if you want: that will only further demonstrate your Neanderthal tendencies, AFAIC.

[ismnotwasm]

66. A wiki reference, eh?

I guess I'll just toss the all my social science, history, anthropology, biology and women's studies books right out the window.

Let me explain it this way;
A girl child is born. At some point in her life, in whatever culture, with whatever social expectations or outright laws, she'll be be put in one of two categories that will supersede all others. the first category is "fuckable" This might include virginity, infibulation, the right family tree. In the Good ol' US it generally has to do with what men find attractive. And what men find attractive, conveniently, is always for sale, in one form or another. (Imagine that!)

The second category is "unfuckable" This includes obesity, or what is considered inadequate body parts, (tit's, ass etc.) age. Anyone can add on. (One might be tempted to think it has to do with what one finds desirable, but one would be wrong) In some cultures an act of rape renders the women unfuckable.
The fuckable/unfuckable dichotomy is overcome to a point, but it leave scars on womankind, both the kind you see and the kind you don't.

This is a simplest place to start I can think of, given the evident anger and basic lack of understanding of not only feminism, but what it means to be female in a patriarchy. (Don't get angry about the word patriarchy, again, SIMPLY put, it's the social structure we live in) You seem intelligent-- start with those two categories and elucidate conditions, laws or what might be state of being a woman. Think of it as a mental exercise.

I'm a radical feminist because it's common sense, not an agenda.

[omega minimo]

67. You were right about the need and I still don't agree with being further marginalized

Here we are talking about and formally proposing another "group" for women and cool men to discuss WITHOUT DISRUPTION AND ABUSE issues that affect all of us, issues that are CRUCIAL to the broader issues we face.

Only in a protected and private "group" can DUers expect consistent support for progressive discussion and "respect" that is presented in DU Rules.

A progressive board supports women and acknowledges the basic truths of women's issues -- are the fundamentals up for violent debate among progressives? In that case, what do we think "progressive" is?


THE MARGINALIZATION OF WOMEN IS A SYMPTOM OF THE DISEASE, NOT A SOLUTION.

The real solution for DU would be a Women's Rights research thread for some of the serial attackers to get some education.