babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » rabble content   » rabble reactions   » Why can't "some" men at babble allow women to have their own dialogue?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Why can't "some" men at babble allow women to have their own dialogue?
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 06 November 2008 09:30 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Seriously, some men's intent to have your voices heard and to have your say, in a woman's space with a thread directed specifically to women, with the same old crap you have posted over and over again elsewhere, is beyond belief and male supremist in the extreme...

It is nasty, and marginalizing and silencing to women, and it is completely regressive male dominance, and yet some of you have the gall to pride yourself on you alleged progressive credentials, and cast dispersions upons others for what you choose perceive as their progressive lacks.

Why do again do we have a feminist forum that is supposed to be a safe place for women to dialogue amongst ourselves?

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: remind ]


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 06 November 2008 10:14 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You started a thread in the feminism section ostensibly for the purpose of encouraging female babblers to dump on male babblers for criticizing Obomba. There is nothing preventing female babblers from posting in any of the existing threads about Obomba, and many, if not all of them have done so. But you sought to create a space where you could attack male babblers for what they were saying in other threads and at the same time try to prevent them from replying to your criticisms.

Your Opening Post consisted mostly of a reposting from another thread of an article, written by a man, that was very complimentary to Obomba and had nothing to do with feminism. I posted a reply to that article written by another man - again, a repeat of a post I made in the other thread from which you lifted your article. But you didn't want that side of the debate (which, again, was not about feminism) to be expressed in "your" thread.

I was quite prepared to leave the matter there but you just had to provoke me by making a personal attack and suggesting that the article I posted was off topic (!), then playing shadow moderator by telling me to go away. So I responded.

Then you had to make an absurd claim about how men were ganging up against women in the other Obomba threads. I called you on that fabrication. You are trying to shoehorn the debate over Obomba into a men versus women issue, which it is not.

The title of this thread is an absurdity. Nobody is trying to silence you or the other women here. Rather it is you who are trying to silence anyone who disagrees with you.

It is a familiar refrain. Any male who disagrees with you is a patriarchal male supremist who wants to marginalize and silence you. That line is getting awfully tired, and frankly, I'd be surprised if anybody takes it seriously.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 06 November 2008 10:27 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am fine with women having a woman-only space if they care to and indeed I find remind's hypothesis and some of the texts quoted - esp. by BCG - very insightful. I agree that many males, but also Whites and leftists are unsettled by Obama's victory rallying so many people as it has, even despite his sidestepping our usual discourses/habits of political sense-making and organization. There will be much to learn from the breakthrough his election symbolizes and by how it shakes up our conceptions and positions, all the while revealing bizarre undercurrents, such as Steinem's ode to fathering as an alternative to female power (if that was paraphrased accurately). I will be doing a lot of reading and listening to women (whose positions are quite diverse but stemming from shared oppression with Afro-Americans). (Did people read Judith Butler's piece on Uncritical exuberance?
I didn't realize, when I responded to Tim Wise's flight of words, that remind's "Women of Canada..." opening implied that she preferrd to have that thread closed to men but I can totally live with that. Who are we to claim the right to rebutt anything said about us?

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 07 November 2008 02:54 AM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If we look at the history and challenges of the AR forum in comparison, having a dedicated space for marginalized groups doesn't seem to be much to ask for, and indeed, the existence of those areas do not hinge upon our self-absorbed generosity.
From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Makwa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10724

posted 07 November 2008 06:50 AM      Profile for Makwa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
you sought to create a space where you could attack male babblers for what they were saying in other threads and at the same time try to prevent them from replying to your criticisms ... You are trying to shoehorn the debate over Obomba into a men versus women issue, which it is not.

The title of this thread is an absurdity. Nobody is trying to silence you or the other women here. Rather it is you who are trying to silence anyone who disagrees with you.

It is a familiar refrain. Any male who disagrees with you is a patriarchal male supremist who wants to marginalize and silence you. That line is getting awfully tired, and frankly, I'd be surprised if anybody takes it seriously.


It is perfectly reasonable for feminists to request a feminist reaction to political issues in the feminist forum, without male criticism and participation. Your response here is disparaging and anti-feminist in tone. I hope you rethink your approach to feminist analysis within rabble.

From: Here at the glass - all the usual problems, the habitual farce | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
TVParkdale
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15681

posted 07 November 2008 07:31 AM      Profile for TVParkdale     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay, call me simple-minded.

This is on my "DO NOT GET" list.

I look in the feminist base and there are obvious *males* posting.

Now, WHAT is discussed, even if a female babbler is upset with a male babbler doesn't matter.

Uh, female space is female space, in my estimation.

Now is it feminist space or not???

And you Guys...

You can be pro-feminist but you can't be "feminists" since you lack the necessary gender identification, no matter what your political stance is.


From: DaHood | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 07 November 2008 07:38 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I strongly disagree. Men can certainly be feminists, just as white people can be anti-racists. Would you deny that white people who were murdered in the US civil rights movement or the South African anti-apartheid movement were anti-racists? And there have been many male feminists in history.

That is a different question than insisting that the relevant movements be led by people suffering sexual, racial etc oppression, or calling for an autonomous space for women-only, people of colour or Aboriginal people etc only.

If the original post had nothing to do with feminism, then perhaps putting it in the feminist section was a way of warding off legitimate criticism? (I'm saying this not having read the relevant thread. It is simply a general point).


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 07 November 2008 07:46 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I generally consider myself a feminist - and a lurker in the feminist forums.
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 07 November 2008 08:01 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I thought the convention or consensus arrived at of late-- this debate is as old as babble itself-- was that in the feminist, aboriginal or anti racism forum, when women, aboriginals or people of colour didn't want input on a subject, the topic starter would make that request.

And...maybe I am inventing this...memory is maleable... that such topics would not include attacks on people requested to butt out?

I know we get testy, but we're not each other's enemies here. At least until we rid ourselves of our bigger ones....


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
TVParkdale
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15681

posted 07 November 2008 08:11 AM      Profile for TVParkdale     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
I strongly disagree. Men can certainly be feminists, just as white people can be anti-racists. Would you deny that white people who were murdered in the US civil rights movement or the South African anti-apartheid movement were anti-racists? And there have been many male feminists in history.

That is a different question than insisting that the relevant movements be led by people suffering sexual, racial etc oppression, or calling for an autonomous space for women-only, people of colour or Aboriginal people etc only.

If the original post had nothing to do with feminism, then perhaps putting it in the feminist section was a way of warding off legitimate criticism? (I'm saying this not having read the relevant thread. It is simply a general point).



Euro-American people may be anti-oppressionist but they can't be BLACK/Native/Asian/whatever. And if they're honest, they'll admit they live with privilege and can never know what it is to BE a minority.

Males can *support* feminism but they can't be WOMEN.

That is the point.

And if they have ANY respect for the same people they claim to be supporting then they don't try to push themselves into the forefront of the movement or invade the discussions of those who are the minority.

Claiming martyrdom of some of the ruling class on behalf of the oppressed class, doesn't negate that relevancy.

If you see a room that says, "Minority discussion in progress TOPIC TONIGHT....[________]" you don't push your way into the room then complain when you aren't welcomed.

Not just when you LIKE the topic, not just when you think, "Oh well, let 'em discuss that, it's harmless" ....

*Respect* is when you do NOT shove your way into the room *regardless* of what is posted on the door for discussion and *especially* when you do not like it.

Otherwise, it's paying lip service to anti-oppression while believing that males/Caucasians/whatever have some sort of RIGHT [privilege] to invade the room because they're feeling offended by the subject matter.


From: DaHood | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
TVParkdale
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15681

posted 07 November 2008 08:14 AM      Profile for TVParkdale     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
I thought the convention or consensus arrived at of late-- this debate is as old as babble itself-- was that in the feminist, aboriginal or anti racism forum, when women, aboriginals or people of colour didn't want input on a subject, the topic starter would make that request.

Perhaps that should be sort of posted or something loud and clear?

That would be helpful.

Cuz I didn't see that idea anywhere....


From: DaHood | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 07 November 2008 08:15 AM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I share Tommy_Paines memory of how this issue has evolved.

Also, in terms of how I define myself, I can accept both TVParkdales restriction on the use of the term feminist, as well as Lagatta's equally, though they appear mutually exclusive. It's not difficult really, as it's just a label and doesn't effect my behaviour or attitude.

Oh, and seeing as no one has yet acommodated TVP's modest request,... hey, you're simple-minded.


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 07 November 2008 08:17 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, new people arrive, people come and go. I take long hiatuses when I (not other people-- sorry) get tired of myself, so these things get lost.

Heck, maybe I'm entirely wrong. It happens. There was that time in the 70's....


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
TVParkdale
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15681

posted 07 November 2008 08:19 AM      Profile for TVParkdale     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by oldgoat:
I share Tommy_Paines memory of how this issue has evolved.

Also, in terms of how I define myself, I can accept both TVParkdales restriction on the use of the term feminist, as well as Lagatta's equally, though they appear mutually exclusive. It's not difficult really, as it's just a label and doesn't effect my behaviour or attitude.

Oh, and seeing as no one has yet acommodated TVP's modest request,... hey, you're simple-minded.


Which request and why am I [or someone else] simple minded?

*confoozed look*


From: DaHood | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 07 November 2008 08:23 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Males can *support* feminism but they can't be WOMEN.

Puts me in mind of the thread (or threads) about the Vancouver Rape Crisis center that fired a councellor because she was transgendered. If memory serves, the divisiveness on that issue makes today's arguements look like love in.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Polly Brandybuck
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7732

posted 07 November 2008 08:25 AM      Profile for Polly Brandybuck     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by TVParkdale:
Okay, call me simple-minded.



From: To Infinity...and beyond! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
TVParkdale
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15681

posted 07 November 2008 08:29 AM      Profile for TVParkdale     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Polly Brandybuck:
[QB][/QB]

Ah, "uncomplicated" might have been better?


From: DaHood | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
TVParkdale
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15681

posted 07 November 2008 08:33 AM      Profile for TVParkdale     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:

Puts me in mind of the thread (or threads) about the Vancouver Rape Crisis center that fired a councellor because she was transgendered. If memory serves, the divisiveness on that issue makes today's arguements look like love in.


Ah, now "trans" I wouldn't debate because she is *living* with the oppressive circumstances [and then some!] although it's been a furious debate in some Native communities as well.


From: DaHood | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 07 November 2008 08:43 AM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
Seriously, some men's intent to have your voices heard and to have your say, in a woman's space with a thread directed specifically to women, with the same old crap you have posted over and over again elsewhere, is beyond belief and male supremist in the extreme...

I agree with the spirit of what you're saying completely. I don't understand why every time Obama is mentioned that we automatically have to say that he isn't progressive enough in order to appease certain people.

We get it already. He isn't progressive enough for you. Can he be progressive enough for us? Is that ok? Can we believe that the spirit in which he can take the US be more progressive? Is that ok? Or do we have to hear AGAIN about how YOU (not you remind) don't think he is.

And since some people apparently have enough time during the day to post the same dogmatic crap again and again, WE GET IT EVEN MORE. How about a voice for the rest of the posters.

Sheesh.

If defining the terms of the discussion means limiting it to women just to have some different voices at the table then fine by me.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 07 November 2008 08:49 AM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And if they have ANY respect for the same people they claim to be supporting then they don't try to push themselves into the forefront of the movement or invade the discussions of those who are the minority.

Well put.

quote:
Men can certainly be feminists

I have such a hard time agreeing or disagreeing with lagatta or TVparkdaleís take on if men are Feminists or can only be pro-feminist. I can total argue both views. But I donít think it really matter in this instance Ė this was a discussion requested to be limited to women, just women not our allies. Sometimes itís nice to have a discussion just with women as there is much we experience that men canít know. They can empathize to a point but they canít really know.

quote:
I thought the convention or consensus arrived at of late-- this debate is as old as babble itself-- was that in the feminist, aboriginal or anti racism forum, when women, aboriginals or people of colour didn't want input on a subject, the topic starter would make that request.

I think your right but it shouldnít have to be hard and fast babble law though, if you canít respect other peopleís request without the ďlawĒ forcing you to you arenít as frickiní great of an ally as you think you are. A simple request for space shouldnít result in such hostility.

quote:
Puts me in mind of the thread (or threads) about the Vancouver Rape Crisis center that fired a councellor because she was transgendered. If memory serves, the divisiveness on that issue makes today's arguements look like love in.

That wasnít a finer moment in babble history, myself included, and itís still for sometime to come going to be an issue that divides Feminists Ė I am who I am because of how society impacts me and it treats me differently then it treats men Ė I donít think I am just a women because I have the correct anatomy I think I am the sum of a lifetime of being treated as a women in the society I live in. Itís like that experiment where a white family changed the colour of their skin and lived as a POC family for a few weeks Ė while it teaches a lesson it wonít make them worry about driving while white after the experiment. It teaches awareness it doesnít change their prior experience. And their reactions to experiencing racism are those of someone from a background of privilege. Shock, hurt and anger, not resignation or fear for example. I think both sides of the orginal mess wanted their experiences to count and neither side was great at finding understanding for the othersides perspectives.

quote:
He isn't progressive enough for you. Can he be progressive enough for us? Is that ok? Can we believe that the spirit in which he can take the US be more progressive? Is that ok? Or do we have to hear AGAIN about how YOU (not you remind) don't think he is.

So seldom we agree Heywood but this is exactly how I feel. Change has to start some where, what better time than now Ė just to paraphrase a little Rage.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 07 November 2008 11:04 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
If defining the terms of the discussion means limiting it to women just to have some different voices at the table then fine by me.

Says the man who just posted in the thread in question.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 07 November 2008 11:16 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Can he be progressive enough for us?

For a Harper Conservative? I'm sure he can be. I'm sure, in fact, he is just progressive enough which means not at all, to be sure.

ETA: If women want a restricted topic, then restrict it. But don't have an open topic and say only certain people are welcome to participate. It is like trying to have a private conversation in front of an open mike at a convention for debaters.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Polly Brandybuck
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7732

posted 07 November 2008 11:29 AM      Profile for Polly Brandybuck     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:

I don't understand why every time Obama is mentioned that we automatically have to say that he isn't progressive enough in order to appease certain people.


Couldn't agree more!


From: To Infinity...and beyond! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 07 November 2008 11:32 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You couldn't? So what people are being appeased by saying Obama isn't progressive enough (is he progressive at all? By what standards?)? Are we appeasing war resistors? Social justice advocates? Those who are opposed to bailing out America's richest while the poorest wallow in cardboard homes and hunger? Who exactly is being appeased?

Sure Heywood thinks Obama is progressive enough. He thinks Stephen Harper is progressive enough too.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 07 November 2008 11:53 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
He's saying that if the same loudmouths keep repeating the same opinions over and over, that isn't discussion. Whatever the topic is, a diversity of opinion is a goal for some of us, and there are cases where the best way to promote that is to make boundaries in certain spaces. I'm all for it.
From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Polly Brandybuck
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7732

posted 07 November 2008 11:56 AM      Profile for Polly Brandybuck     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A diversity of opinion? Novel idea - I like it.
From: To Infinity...and beyond! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 07 November 2008 12:03 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
ETA: If women want a restricted topic, then restrict it. But don't have an open topic and say only certain people are welcome to participate. It is like trying to have a private conversation in front of an open mike at a convention for debaters.

FM: It was restricted to women only that's the point of this thread. The topic was not open.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 07 November 2008 12:07 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:
He's saying that if the same loudmouths keep repeating the same opinions over and over, that isn't discussion. Whatever the topic is, a diversity of opinion is a goal for some of us, and there are cases where the best way to promote that is to make boundaries in certain spaces. I'm all for it.

He said that? Or are you saying he said that? And who is he?

Is diversity of opinion, it seems to me, is always a laudable goal so long as the observer or participant agrees with the opinions presented as diverse.

For example, babble is a left wing board where certain opinions are not tolerated.It has discussion topics with rules that limit diversity of opinion. You say you value diversity of opinion, but would you tolerate well an opinion that supports, defends, and promotes slavery?

And, I would point out, the opinion being expressed here by some, including myself, for which there seems to be a lack of tolerance, is that Obama is not really a progressive.

There are those who disagree. They are welcome to that. What will make them change their minds if not the people Obama surrounds himself with? Falling bombs?

ETA:

quote:
FM: It was restricted to women only that's the point of this thread. The topic was not open.

But it is open. I mean, if you want to restrict it then restrict access to certain babblers. Make posting dependent upon user name. Otherwise, it remains a public discussion where anyone, welcome or not, can interject. And, gosh darn it, just like people, they do.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 07 November 2008 12:07 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:

Says the man who just posted in the thread in question.

You really don't get it, do you?

The problem isn't Remind. Or Scout, Or Polly. Or the Feminist Forum.

The problem is You. For gods sake shut the hell up. We get it already. You have ample space to say you piece. Repeatedly. Stridently. Loudly. Dogmatically. Dominantly.

Maybe you don't see it as male privelige when you inject more of the same dogmatic stuff to EVERY thread on Obama. Maybe it isn't male privelige. Or white privelige. Maybe you just need to be right all the time. I don't know. I'm not one to articulately put together a thesis on it. However, it seems to me that being a part of the dominant voice in society reinforces a belief that you have be a part of every discussion and that no-one is right but you.

I don't know that you're necessarilty being anti-woman or anti-feminist so maybe having Remind describing your position in that light gets your hackles up. Being a guy, I don't see it like that. I see it as your're pro-Spector. Only Spector. Spector is always right. All others must acknowledge that.

You know what? You aren't. Get over yourself.

I didn't "get" the FF before. I do now. So I owe some apologies. Especially to Remind and Scout. I may not have said it out loud but I've had some uncharitable thoughts about you in the past regarding the FF. They were undeserved. I'm sorry.

I don't always agree with how you approach a position but I get it a whole lot more now.

I'd also like to give a genuine thank you to M. Spector. Your actions and behavior helped me realise why we need the FF.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 07 November 2008 12:13 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A Harper Conservative defending the feminist forum? How perfect. Didn't Harper cut funding to women's organizations that could and did make real differences in the lives of Canadian women? I'm almost sure he did. But, of course, the Harper Conservatives are always telling people to "shut up", aren't they?

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 07 November 2008 12:16 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, I get all right. Loud and clear. The whole point of this exercise is to silence me and any other progressive critics of Obama. You've just proven that once again.

Unlike you I am not part of the "dominant voice in this society". So while anybody can watch TV or pick up a newspaper and read about how the new millennium has finally arrived for real because Obomba got elected, babble is one of the few places where dissenting voices on the left can be heard. So kindly stop telling me to shut up.

Of course the "stay out of the feminism forum" message that you so eagerly endorsed doesn't seem to apply to you. You haven't addressed that particular hypocrisy.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 07 November 2008 12:19 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
An Ad Hominem argument?! Can't you find fault with my position?
From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Left J.A.B.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9046

posted 07 November 2008 12:20 PM      Profile for Left J.A.B.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The attack mentality, left unchecked by moderators, by a few posters who say the same thing over and over and over again is one of the reasons I have stopped visiting babble much lately. Harvest has a bit to do with it too of course, but Yay! I finished combining at 4 am this morning before the rain.

While those posters are constantly attacking lots of others who just aren't pure enough, I have noticed identifiable women seem to get an extra shout down.

Here's a hint. If you have made the same frikkin point at least 50 times before - that's probably enough for even the most thicked skulled to get it.


From: 4th and Main | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 07 November 2008 12:20 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Conservative government is closing down most of its Status of Women Canada offices, saying they are not doing enough to serve women directly.

Here we are.

Why do women need an organization that "works to advance women's economic equality and human rights, and eliminate violence against women" or the courts challenges program when they have a feminist forum on babble?


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 07 November 2008 12:25 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:

Of course the "stay out of the feminism forum" message that you so eagerly endorsed doesn't seem to apply to you. You haven't addressed that particular hypocrisy.

While this is more of the same appeasement that you seem to need, and while you even demanding this reinforces my opinion of you, I will address this.

I screwed up. I posted in error when I made the post in response to Polly's as I neither looked at what forum it was in, nor did I read the opening post.

I hope you feel appeased now. You've had your voice heard again, your ego petted, your demands met, and you've had a chance to feel like you are in control of the conversation again.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 07 November 2008 12:26 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I screwed up. I posted in error

Oh, yeah! Me too. I, mean, I just had no idea ...

From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 07 November 2008 12:29 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But it is open. I mean, if you want to restrict then restrict it to certain babblers. Make posting dependent upon user name. Otherwise, it remains a public discussion where anyone, welcome or not, can interject. And, gosh darn it, just like people, they do.

We should we have to lock ourselves and our discussions away because a few men canít restrain themselves? Does that sound progressive to you FM?

quote:
A Harper Conservative defending the feminist forum? How perfect. Didn't Harper cut funding to women's organizations that could and did make real differences in the lives of Canadian women? I'm almost sure he did. But, of course, the Harper Conservatives are always telling people to "shut up", aren't they?

FM you are out of order. Heywood gets it, it may have taken time and it was not a lot of fun but the fact that he gets it means something to me.

quote:
Of course the "stay out of the feminism forum" message that you so eagerly endorsed doesn't seem to apply to you. You haven't addressed that particular hypocrisy.

You had already frickin destroyed the thread so donít go pointing fingers now it's pathetic.

quote:
Why do women need an organization that "works to advance women's economic equality and human rights, and eliminate violence against women" or the courts challenges program when they have a feminist forum on babble?

I am emailing a mod. I am done.

Heywood, thank you.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Scout ]


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 07 November 2008 12:44 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Left J.A.B.:
If you have made the same frikkin point at least 50 times before - that's probably enough for even the most thicked skulled to get it.
If I make the same frikkin point repeatedly it is only in response to others who repeatedly push the opposing frikkin point of view. Believe it or not, debate is permitted on babble, last time I checked.

If the gushing admirers of Obomba choose to run 6 threads simultaneously on virtually the same topic of "what the return to power of the Democratic Party means for social progress in Amerika", then I'm sorry, but you're going to have to put up with my posts in all of them.

In any event, most of what I post are the words of people other than myself (no, it isn't all about me). These are people who are not my political co-thinkers but in almost all cases U.S. left-liberals whom I consider to be on my political right, but who have trenchant and articulate criticisms of right-wing politics in the USA. These are criticisms that few people are exposed to in the mass media, including the internet, and I think Canadian progressives who are removed from the U.S. scene should be taking note of what their counterparts there are saying.

I know that some of the more right-wing babblers are disconcerted about that, because they prefer a political discourse more in keeping with what goes on in the MSM. Don't expect me to apologize for that.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 07 November 2008 12:48 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
We should we have to lock ourselves and our discussions away because a few men canít restrain themselves? Does that sound progressive to you FM?

Yes if the intent is a restricted discussion. How is this constant silly bickering progressive? I could argue remind created the post as bait, couldn't I? But it wouldn't matter if those allegedly being baited couldn't rise to it.


quote:
Heywood gets it, it may have taken time and it was not a lot of fun but the fact that he gets it means something to me.

So he no longer supports those same Harper policies? Did he vote Liberal or NDP? Getting it isn't telling someone to shut up.

From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 07 November 2008 12:51 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
...I would point out, the opinion being expressed here by some, including myself, for which there seems to be a lack of tolerance, is that Obama is not really a progressive.

That's not the point of this thread. It wasn't entirely the point of the thread that led to this thread. There are other aspects of Obama's election that are significant (at least for some) and worthy of discussion (at least for some) such as the fact that less than 50 years after people were still being murdered over the issue of even registering African Americans to vote in the United States, an African American was just elected to their highest office.

But it seems that any discussion that mentions Obama's name must include the same few people raising exactly the same points about the man even when that's not the subject of the thread. There are a few here who developed their own narrative concerning the American elections some months ago and they've been doing their best to shout down anyone who wanted to discuss the event from a different angle. Obviously they can't actually raise the volume so they've compensated by saying the same thing so often there's now a danger of a worldwide shortage of dead horses. They've all been beaten so thoroughly there's nothing left to drag away and bury.

Until the last couple of days I've mostly avoided discussions about American politics here for quite a few weeks though I made the mistake of getting involved in a couple and then regretted it. The air got sucked out of the room so quickly it made me cranky. This thread has certainly reminded me why. It isn't a lack of tolerance for a particular point of view. It's a lack of tolerance for listening to it being chanted endlessly.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
bagkitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15443

posted 07 November 2008 12:53 PM      Profile for bagkitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When all else fails, resort to a YouTube page with Monty Python.

Let's have an argument.


From: Calgary | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
pookie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11357

posted 07 November 2008 12:55 PM      Profile for pookie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Heywood: Thank you.
From: there's no "there" there | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 07 November 2008 01:01 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
An Ad Hominem argument?! Can't you find fault with my position?
What part of your silly diatribe was not Ad Hominem? Please, point it out, and I'll be glad to respond, if I haven't done so already.

It seems you want me to shut the hell up, but then taunt me for not being able to find fault with your "position"! Get back to me when you've made up your mind.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 07 November 2008 01:03 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But it seems that any discussion that mentions Obama's name must include the same few people raising exactly the same points about the man even when that's not the subject of the thread.


I agree his election has historical significance. I know and acknowledge the meaning of the event is much different for African Americans and Americans across the color barrier than it is for me as a Canadian.

But you know, I don't see white hegemony starting and stopping with North American borders. I see it spread across the globe in the camps of Darfur, the killing fields of the Congo, in the destroyed culture and history of Iraq, in the squalid ghetto of Gaza, and in the mountainous ruins of Afghanistan.

And while the world revels in the hope that Obama has sold everyone of "change", I don't see it. I really, really would like to be wrong. Nothing would please more than being wrong on Obama. But when I look at the people who are advising him, I sense I'm not going to be.

And no matter how much I try, I just can't ignore that. If you can, great. I can't.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 07 November 2008 01:07 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
What part of your silly diatribe was not Ad Hominem? Please, point it out, and I'll be glad to respond, if I haven't done so already.

It seems you want me to shut the hell up, but then taunt me for not being able to find fault with your "position"! Get back to me when you've made up your mind.


Whoops. I wasn't responding to you but to FM. You slipped a post in before I finished posting. I wasn't accusing you of an Ad Hominem. At least not in that case.

Yet my point remains clear. Instead of addressing the issues you attempt to re-exert control over the conversation.

Anyhow. I'm done.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 07 November 2008 01:12 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
I agree his election has historical significance.

Good. The next two paragraphs of your post raise issues we've never discussed so you actually don't know whether I agree with you or not though you seem to have used magical mind reading powers to determine what I can or can't ignore. Amazing!


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Polly Brandybuck
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7732

posted 07 November 2008 01:13 PM      Profile for Polly Brandybuck     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Heywood, thanks for trying
From: To Infinity...and beyond! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Left J.A.B.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9046

posted 07 November 2008 01:13 PM      Profile for Left J.A.B.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Would it be innapropriate to point out the hilarious irony of a boy trying to start a pissing contest with others in this particular thread?

Really, it to funny for words to not notice and mention it.


From: 4th and Main | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 07 November 2008 01:16 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Good. The next two paragraphs of your post raise issues we've never discussed so you actually don't know whether I agree with you or not though you seem to have used magical mind reading powers to determine what I can or can't ignore. Amazing!

Not at all. My sense is that you want a "I HEART OBAMA" thread. I got that sense because you seem to be suggesting that we should discuss the election of Obama with only praise and without dissent.

From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 07 November 2008 01:20 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I object to the thread title. I have studiously allowing women to conduct discussions free of my input in the Feminist Forum for many many months. The title is objectionable, because it is accusatorally directed at "all men", without nuance.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 07 November 2008 01:21 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Not at all. My sense is that you want a "I HEART OBAMA" thread. I got that sense because you seem to be suggesting that we should discuss the election of Obama with only praise and without dissent.


If you're going to keep that much straw on hand, I hope you have a sprinkler system installed. I didn't say any of that.

From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 07 November 2008 01:21 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Again, re-asserting your right to oppose a particular opinion on Obama wherever you like proves the point others are making. There are plenty of Obama threads. You have made your point in them and can do so again. Here, the issue is something entirely different where Obama was only used as one fleeting example. It spite of that, you feel you can hijack the thread to make this argument for the umpteenth time.

The point is, creating boundaries around certain spaces can encourage more diversity of opinion. Like all those "discuss blank from a pro-blank point of view" threads a while back. You can make your own anti-blank thread, but you can't be anti-blank in this one. It's a recognition that some opinions do get shouted down, which you can't deny.

And actually, I would allow pro-slavery positions personally, but I understand why the board does not, and am comfortable with that. Obviously the diversity I speak of would not violate babble policy.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 07 November 2008 01:33 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Would it be innapropriate to point out the hilarious irony of a boy trying to start a pissing contest with others in this particular thread?

Really, it to funny for words to not notice and mention it.


It would be funny if it wasn't so sad and mundane.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 07 November 2008 01:33 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There are a lot of criticisms of babble you can make, but lack of diversity of opinion is not one of them.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Left J.A.B.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9046

posted 07 November 2008 01:34 PM      Profile for Left J.A.B.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There is that I am afraid Scout

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Left J.A.B. ]


From: 4th and Main | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 07 November 2008 01:35 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I have studiously allowing women to conduct discussions free of my input in the Feminist Forum for many many months

You're either trying to be ironic or your just being straight up sexist with your use of "allowing", neither is acceptable.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 07 November 2008 01:37 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I didn't say any of that.

No, but you imply it.

quote:
The point is, creating boundaries around certain spaces can encourage more diversity of opinion.

This forum has no boundaries around it. You feel no limitations on your ability to counter me, why should I feel there are any limits on my ability to counter someone else, or you?

There is a barely a thread on babble to be found without thread drift and, in this case, Obama is central to the discussion. So why shouldn't I offer my insights? You seem to feel free to offer your own. And, of course, your opinions are always welcome by me, anyway.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 07 November 2008 01:39 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scout:
You're either trying to be ironic or your just being straight up sexist with your use of "allowing", neither is acceptable.
That was the word that was used in the thread title.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Polly Brandybuck
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7732

posted 07 November 2008 01:43 PM      Profile for Polly Brandybuck     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scout:

You're either trying to be ironic or your just being straight up sexist with your use of "allowing", neither is acceptable.


I think he was just quoting the thread title?


From: To Infinity...and beyond! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 07 November 2008 01:46 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
That was the word that was used in the thread title.

Certainly possible and likely but necessary? Hardly. That's my point, why engage in that gambit? Just because it's cueball it doens't change that the content is sexist and out of bounds, and just dismisses the issues at hand. Did he really have to pop by? The gangs all here now! Lucky us.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Scout ]


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 07 November 2008 01:47 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Certainly it is the word used in the thread title.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 07 November 2008 01:55 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That doesn't make it alright for you to to drive-by-wiseass this thread Cueball. If you have nothing of value to add mind your own business. What the hell is wrong with people.

quote:
This forum has no boundaries around it. You feel no limitations on your ability to counter me, why should I feel there are any limits on my ability to counter someone else, or you?
There is a barely a thread on babble to be found without thread drift and, in this case, Obama is central to the discussion. So why shouldn't I offer my insights? You seem to feel free to offer your own. And, of course, your opinions are always welcome by me, anyway.

Obama is not central to this disussion. He's not mentioned in the OP. The discussion is a reaction to a babble phenomenon. It has nothing to do with Obama. Spector can't get enough of his own voice and hijacked the thread to further expound on Obama. That's not thread drift. This thread was not meant to be about Obama but thanks for trying to dictate our dialog some more.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Left J.A.B.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9046

posted 07 November 2008 02:01 PM      Profile for Left J.A.B.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thread drift = Oh look it is raining outside is it raining there?

Hijacking= I can't get enough about me, so lets talk about my favourite subject for the month "me" and how I relate to this other topic like a political leader or party and what I think about it.

By the way context is Queen. Allow in the thread title and allowing in the post in question are two very different uses of the root word.


From: 4th and Main | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 07 November 2008 02:05 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Dismissing the issue. Precisely.

I am not commenting. I think it is crap really. I think its perfectly legitimate for the Feminist Forum to be a place that preferences women's discourse. I am also well aware that this whole issue begins as a bunch of really snide personal attacks against certain Babblers, based in weird identity politics, which amounted to saying over and over again that certain posters didn't like Obama because he was directly interfering with white male previlege of those thread participants.

Any defence against this accusation, was then identified as yet more evidence for it.

Its an interesting comment, and perhaps has some traction as speculation, but no one really has a crystal ball here that they can use to devine the inner intentions of those persons. There was however many statements by people expressly making a case in the official record of facts and statements made by Obama, and it seemed to me that derrisively speculating on the personal motives of some posters in liu of rebutal to their arguements amounted to a continuous and ongoing ad hominem personal attack, without any provable foundation.

This attack was then moved to the Feminist Forum for some reason.

On top of that the broad swipe smear against "male babblers" as group is more of the same, and in my view an attempt to widen divisions and start more pointless arguements. I have be refraining from comment. But the statement was specifically directed at me, as a "male Babbler" and therefore an invitation for me to comment.

Now I have.

So, you are right I am deliberately been dismissing the whole thing because I think it is a bunch of shit.

With sincere respect... Scout.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 07 November 2008 02:08 PM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Speaking from experience,

Some men happen to find gender issues interesting ... EVEN if they're not gay. I know this is a surprise to a lot of people. But some people do get excited at the chance to discuss things they rarely get to discuss.

I ended up no longer posting in the feminist forum, due to a combination of spending less time on babble and what I perceived as an undeserved belligerence. But if it took me a couple go-arounds, I would think brand new posters who are not aware of any history would probably take comparable amounts of time. And seeing as how there will hopefully never be a shortage of new posters, I would have to agree with FM's view that when people want a private conversation, they should conduct it in a private manner, which should be easy to leave as an option for people posting topics.


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 07 November 2008 02:23 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
One interesting awareness-raisisng experience I have sometimes been part of is called the fishbowl. A gender-mixed group that agrees to it splits along those lines and forms two concentric circles. The people in the inner circle, all women or all men, speak among themselves. The people in the outside circle refrain from speaking; they just listen. This lasts long enough for self-consciousness to wind down and issues to really get explored. Then, or on a later occasion, the circles are reversed. If women had been in the inner circle, they are now in the outer one.
It seems to me that if the original poster of any thread was given the freedom to call "in" a specific group of participants, it would be an equally enlightening experience for onlookers to play along and remain silent.
A few people would have to be more upfront about their gender or ethnic or class or whatever identity.
We could compare the dynamics and benefits of such threads with the anyone-can-chime-in run-of-the-mill variety.
No?

From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 07 November 2008 02:33 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scout:
Spector can't get enough of his own voice and hijacked the thread to further expound on Obama.
That's twice you have accused me of hijacking the other thread. [ETA: Sorry, it's only once. The first such accusation came from another babbler]. For those who would like to know what really happened, I invite them to read my first post in the present thread as well as the other thread itself.

Remind hijacked her own thread by posting an article that was irrelevant to the alleged topic - in the OP! I simply posted an article directly responding to that article. That's not hijacking. That's presenting an opposing view to the one in the OP, which by the way was a scurrilous ad hom attack - by a man - on people who share my point of view. That would have been the end of my involvement if remind hadn't insisted on repeatedly attacking me.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 07 November 2008 02:39 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Point taken cueball, and I have changed the thread title as I broadly based the title, while indicating just "some" in my OP, and I should have indicated "some" in the thread title too.

Thank you very much Heywood! It is much appreciated.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
ElizaQ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9355

posted 07 November 2008 03:16 PM      Profile for ElizaQ     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector

Remind hijacked her own thread by posting an article that was irrelevant to the alleged topic - in the OP! I simply posted an article directly responding to that article. That's not hijacking. That's presenting an opposing view to the one in the OP, which by the way was a scurrilous ad hom attack - by a man - on people who share my point of view. That would have been the end of my involvement if remind hadn't insisted on repeatedly attacking me.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ][/QB]


No it wasn't irrelevant to the topic. Regardless of the the initial question that topic was asking for female viewpoints and she posted an article, that was posted in another thread by a female poster which as she said quite clearly she felt didn't get a whole lot of response, so lets post it here and perhaps discuss it.
That you felt that you had to immediately jump in with something that you had already posted in that other thread, which to me at least implied, some sort of, 'oh look, they may discuss this without MY viewpoint' (which thank you at least for clarifying that that why you posted it in the first place, as a representation of your view) was the issue.
That you intended to leave the discussion after that, as said here, is also telling. Drive by...let's make sure that those feminists over there will talk about the right things....

And you wonder why there some issue with people talking about trying to control the conversation?


From: Eastern Lakes | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 07 November 2008 03:17 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And they all lived happily ever after.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 07 November 2008 03:23 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
That's twice you have accused me of hijacking the other thread. [ETA: Sorry, it's only once. The first such accusation came from another babbler]. For those who would like to know what really happened, I invite them to read my first post in the present thread as well as the other thread itself

I am talking about this thread, not the other thread. This is the thread you brought your fight from the other thread into by going on about Obama. The OP in this thread is about men posting in a thread where women-only was indicated in the first bloody paragraph. I said "the thread", I meant this one I am a not living in some battle from the thread your obsessed with. I took this thread at face value as it discusses an ongoing issue on babble. This thread is not about Obama. Do you understand yet? Stop projecting yourself onto this thread. And learn to fucking read.

This thread is about an issue that occurs to often on babble - pretend or shout at us that it's just a way to get back at someone else who disagreed with someone's else all you want it. Your behavior is pathetic.


quote:
So, you are right I am deliberately been dismissing the whole thing because I think it is a bunch of shit.

Then piss off. Seriously. if you don't care and it's all shit to you why do we need to listen to that? I know your "allowed" to post in any thread you feel the need to but do you really need to? I am fed up with your type of post. Don't care about something don't post, don't for one second think that by telling people your adding value your just trolling.

quote:
I am also well aware that this whole issue begins as a bunch of really snide personal attacks against certain Babblers, based in weird identity politics, which amounted to saying over and over again that certain posters didn't like Obama because he was directly interfering with white male previlege of those thread participants.

Do you happen to know the lottery numbers for tomorrow night too?


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 07 November 2008 03:25 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That is the way it looked to me.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 07 November 2008 03:38 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scout:
I am talking about this thread, not the other thread.
Well, then your comment is even stupider than I thought. I didn't hijack this thread or any other.

The whole purpose of this thread was to launch a personal diatribe against me and encourage others to join in. I responded, and then let others babble away. Naturally, they took up remind's gratuitous opportunity to make personal attacks on me. Pardon me for responding.

quote:
I said "the thread", I meant this one I am a not living in some battle from the thread your obsessed with.
I'm not obsessed with any thread. This "rabble reactions" thread was clearly prompted by remind's unhappiness with the other thread. The obsession is hers, not mine.
quote:
And learn to fucking read.
Learn to fucking write.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 07 November 2008 03:42 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scout:

Do you happen to know the lottery numbers for tomorrow night too?


That is the way it looked to me. Those people were accussed as such, and then when they protested, those protests were thrown back as more evidence. In the end it really began to seem that any criticism of Obama amounted to a defence of white male privilege.

I expressed a different view:

It does stand as an act of black empowerment.
One of the things that I thought was so interesting about Colin Powell's recent statement about Barak's muslimness, and its lack or relevance, was the implicit message that certain forms of anti-racist analysis can be maintained in an capitalist and imperialist environment. The US stands as an state edifice that is uniquel suited for the creation of an imperialism based in a purely national construct, and not one based in ethnic nationality.

I for one have to be entirely convinced, for example, that Rome was inhernetly racist, in the manner that European imperialism is ideologically racist, and I think it is perfectly possible for imperial power to act in a repressive manner free of racial identification. However much I think racism might serve as a tool of imperial power, I am not sure it is absolutely necessary.

To be fully enfranchised in the US means that one can fully share in its imperial process. I guess the hope is that the acceptance of people of colour into the corridors of power in the US will break open the old paradigm, and open the corridors to new ones beyond race politics.

That is a hope that is worth having. But hope is an intangible that should always be connected to a hard nosed and realistic analysis.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 07 November 2008 03:47 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ElizaQ:
That you intended to leave the discussion after that, as said here, is also telling. Drive by...let's make sure that those feminists over there will talk about the right things....
Nice. Now I'm being criticized for not intending to make repeated posts in a thread that the same critics say I wasn't welcome in in the first place!

I had made my point; there was no reason to say any more - until remind kept dragging me back in by making ridiculous allegations against me.

quote:
And you wonder why there some issue with people talking about trying to control the conversation?
Since you ask, no, I don't wonder at all. I've been around babble too long for that to be a mystery.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 07 November 2008 03:51 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Well, then your comment is even stupider than I thought. I didn't hijack this thread or any other.

You were the first person in this thread to invoke Obama and accuse remind of nefarious purpose to attack poor male babblers.

Remind asked for women only you ignored it blithely and with out remorse and then you hijacked this thread. Telling me I'm stupid for calling you on it doesn't change the reality that you are trying to make this thread about something it's not. Your not the only guy on babble to disrespect a request in the FF your just the most recent.

quote:
The whole purpose of this thread was to launch a personal diatribe against me and encourage others to join in. I responded, and then let others babble away. Naturally, they took up remind's gratuitous opportunity to make personal attacks on me. Pardon me for responding.

Get off the cross already.

quote:
I'm not obsessed with any thread. This "rabble reactions" thread was clearly prompted by remind's unhappiness with the other thread. The obsession is hers, not mine.

I'm unhappy you were the first man in that other thread too. Not because it was about Obama. I'm unhappy you ignored her request to make the thread women only. And it ain't just 2 people that are unhappy when men do that.

quote:
Learn to fucking write.

Snappy come back from the guy who accused me of twice doing something I didn't even do once.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 07 November 2008 03:57 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry, I should have added: Learn to fucking read.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 07 November 2008 03:58 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Nice. Now I'm being criticized for not intending to make repeated posts in a thread that the same critics say I wasn't welcome in in the first place!

I had made my point; there was no reason to say any more - until remind kept dragging me back in by making ridiculous allegations against me.


Hello! Anyone in there! YOU HAD NO RIGHT TO MAKE A POINT IN THAT THREAD. She didn't force you to post, take some accountability.

You are being criticized for posting where men were expressly asked to not post, it's irrelevant to me what you thought you just had to tell us. The fact that you think you have the right to make a point regardless of when or where is a fucking concern. Stop trying to make remind your scapegoat.

It's not the content it's the intent.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 07 November 2008 04:00 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Sorry, I should have added: Learn to fucking read.

How do I read this then:

quote:
Women across Canada,

I'm having a hard time with the first word.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 07 November 2008 04:29 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Scout:...men were expressly asked to not post...
On the fifth post we were, yes, or at least M. Spector was, but the original post merely addressed a question to women, not any express request for men not to post. I support such requests, but hadn't deduced it myself from the OP.

From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Makwa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10724

posted 07 November 2008 04:40 PM      Profile for Makwa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Sorry, I should have added: Learn to fucking read.
I know you were not the first to drop the f-bomb, and I am not adverse to using it myself from time to time, but I hope this is the last of the one line cussin' matches at this time. This thread is already painfully past it's best-by date. I'm not modding here, but I am asking people to take a deep breath and meditate a bit before continuing this brouhaha. I just wanted to use the word brouhaha. I've never heard it pronounced anywhere other than in a King Crimson song, and I like the sound of it. Brouhaha. ha. I'm sure a real mod will be along any minute now. Whistling. Anyway, let's all pretend to be friends, shall we?

From: Here at the glass - all the usual problems, the habitual farce | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
RevolutionPlease
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14629

posted 07 November 2008 04:40 PM      Profile for RevolutionPlease     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For what it's worth, my 3 Sisters, Mother and Father all agree Feminism is not a gendered topic. It very much means my Father and I in the discussion.
From: Aurora | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
wage zombie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7673

posted 07 November 2008 04:40 PM      Profile for wage zombie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
it's like an arena in here.
From: sunshine coast BC | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Makwa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10724

posted 07 November 2008 04:41 PM      Profile for Makwa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
the original post merely addressed a question to women, not any express request for men not to post. I support such requests, but hadn't deduced it myself from the OP.
Why don't we all assume that when an OP is addressed to a specific group, that those are the people who are anticipated to respond. It should not be necessary to spell it out in cap lock mode. Now if you will excuse me, I have to get back to Moral Orel.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Makwa ]


From: Here at the glass - all the usual problems, the habitual farce | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 07 November 2008 04:58 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Now if you will excuse me, I have to get back to Moral Orel.

Now, that is jaw droppingly dark humour.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
bagkitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15443

posted 07 November 2008 04:58 PM      Profile for bagkitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by wage zombie:
it's like an arena in here.

Just like that, with the possible exception that Tina Turner is not wearing chain mail and stealing the screen here.


From: Calgary | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
TVParkdale
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15681

posted 07 November 2008 05:21 PM      Profile for TVParkdale     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Makwa:
Why don't we all assume that when an OP is addressed to a specific group, that those are the people who are anticipated to respond. It should not be necessary to spell it out in cap lock mode. Now if you will excuse me, I have to get back to Moral Orel.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Makwa ]


Thank you for being succinct.

I will be less succinct and very direct.

If a thread is in a Native/Women/Black/[Pick the oppressed group] BASE...

...and as such, someone posts asking for input from [said oppressed group]

It does NOT matter WHAT the topic is...

DO NOT POST there.

Do not whine that someone is trying to "shut you down". There's a million miles of forum space to babble on without being intrusive and rude.

You can even start your very own thread!

And certainly, if [said oppressed group] tells you to STFU or GTFO...

You are in NO position to complain that "[said oppressed group] was MEAN to me."

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: TVParkdale ]


From: DaHood | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 07 November 2008 05:24 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"The sign says NO HomerS"
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 07 November 2008 06:04 PM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think it's wrong that only one company makes the game Monopoly.

Steven Wright

For my birthday I got a humidifier and a de-humidifier... I put them in the same room and let them fight it out.

Steven Wright


From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 07 November 2008 06:19 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
another...

I hooked up my microwave to my fireplace. Watched it burn all night in five minutes.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 07 November 2008 06:23 PM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'll call your Steven Wright

When I was a little kid we had a sand box. It was a quicksand box. I was an only child... eventually.

And raise you an Ogden Nash

The FireFly

The firefly's flame
Is something for which science has no name
I can think of nothing eerier
Than flying around with an unidentified glow on a
person's posteerier.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Bookish Agrarian ]


From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 07 November 2008 06:50 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey, check this out:

GenderAnalyzer

quote:
We created Genderanalyzer out of curiosity and fun. It uses Artificial Intelligence to determine if a homepage is written by a man or woman.

You just paste in the URL of any site, and it pops out the answer. So far, looks frighteningly accurate to me.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
RevolutionPlease
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14629

posted 07 November 2008 06:55 PM      Profile for RevolutionPlease     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
oop[s.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: RevolutionPlease ]


From: Aurora | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 07 November 2008 06:58 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
Hey, check this out:

GenderAnalyzer

You just paste in the URL of any site, and it pops out the answer. So far, looks frighteningly accurate to me.


It says that there is a an 86 percent change that this page is written by a woman.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 07 November 2008 06:59 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

It says that there is a an 86 percent change that this page is written by a woman.


How did I know this would be the first page to be tried out?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 07 November 2008 07:00 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Because Babblers are lazy?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 08 November 2008 06:17 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am so glad this discussion hasn't gone of the rails.

quote:
Originally posted by Scout:
This thread was not meant to be about Obama but thanks for trying to dictate our dialog some more.

Funny you should say that, Scout. Because I only came into this discussion after Heywood Floyd said "We get it already. He isn't progressive enough for you. Can he be progressive enough for us?" He, being none other than Obama. And then you immediately chimed in with total agreement with our resident Harper Conservative by adding, "So seldom we agree Heywood but this is exactly how I feel. Change has to start some where, what better time than now Ė just to paraphrase a little Rage."

So it would seem, Scout, you really have no objection to the discussion being about Obama when you agree with what is being said. It seems, really, that you want to "dictate" to the rest of us what we can talk about or even whether we can just respond to a post within a thread.

Or have I got you all wrong and the above example is ... er, different?

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 08 November 2008 06:36 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, this has been special. Done!
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca