Anti-feminist websites abound on-line. Can they not abide the existance of a single space where people can discuss feminism without having to be constantly interrupted by "lions prove that patriarchy is inevitable", "help, help, I'm being oppressed by the man-haters", "forget feminism, just *love* each other" and other BS?

I say, we should treat them like trolls. Can we do that?

The thread about the witch hunts broke down like this:

First 20 posts:
Male - 8
Female - 11
Ambiguous - 1

Next 20 posts:
Male - 8
Female - 7
Ambiguous - 5

Next 20 posts:
Male - 9
Female - 11
Ambiguous - 0

Next 9 posts:
Male - 5
Female - 3
Ambiguous - 1

Likewise, I have certain opinions possibly considered by many feminists to be anti-feminist (you can probably figure out what they are), therefore I do not talk about those in a forum designed for support of feminism, even if one can argue (correctly) many feminists also hold those views. In other words, perhaps men do not understand the purpose of this forum is not to argue about the central tenets of feminism constantly but to discuss tangential feminist issues themselves. It would be similar to starting a thread about socialist issues and have pro-capitalists piping up constantly BUT PROFIT IS GOOD, WE NEED PROFIT! YOU SOUND LIKE STALIN! or somebody quoting from the Bible or whatever, etc. etc. (In fact, I think I just got accused of wanting to start the cultural revolution over in the other thread, just for suggesting men should diaper babies! See how RADICAL it is? )

Now please don't force me to talk to you like you're a pair of simple-minded four year olds. There mere fact that a thread about the increasing domination of the feminist forum by men is almost immediately dominated by male babblers, who feel the need to aggressively state their support of feminism (or, at least their non-anti-feminist stance, whaddever THAT is) while their behavior is most definitely not, shows so very clearly that you

I'm not saying "ban all men": I am saying that, sometimes, the best thing a pro-feminist/feminist man can do to show support is keep quiet and listen.

And I do think that, if a man is constantly going on to a feminism thread, saying something that clearly is upsetting, and then spending much of his time arguing about how he's such a good feminist, or insisting that HIS point MUST be addressed, whether or not it is directly related to the subject at hand (and completely derailing a thread as a result), that man has some serious need to think about how, exactly, he's being pro-feminist and why, exactly, he needs to go to a woman-positive space and demand that everyone look at him, look at him, look at him.

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: writer ]

quote:

---

I'm not saying "ban all men": I am saying that, sometimes, the best thing a pro-feminist/feminist man can do to show support is keep quiet and listen.

---

quote:

---

I'm not saying "ban all men": I am saying that, sometimes, the best thing a pro-feminist/feminist man can do to show support is keep quiet and listen.

---

It is this kind of crap and more like it that is posted in this thread and else where that drives the wedge deeper between those who want to understand and those who need to be understood.

And before you get started with the "men telling the women" BS you should take your own advice and keep quiet and listen to what is being said.

The thread started over what we can now see as a slight that never was. Once it was pointed out that the facts show otherwise, then the elitists come out, as you just have, and point out that the forum is only for positive discussions about femminism and according to you, unless a man is willing to sit quiet at the end of the leash till
you want it to speak.

As for listening: Slick Willy, when did I post in the thread on witch hunts? Late into it. Why? Because I was *reading* not *posting.* That's because I had something to *learn.* But when it got to a man pulling the "anti-male" rabbit out of the hat once again, I had to call attention to the fact that the thread was being taken over by men. And that this isn't a new thing on a feminist thread.

First 20 posts:
Male - 8
Female - 11
Ambiguous - 1

Next 20 posts:
Male - 8
Female - 7
Ambiguous - 5

Next 20 posts:
Male - 9
Female - 11
Ambiguous - 0

Next 9 posts:
Male - 5
Female - 3
Ambiguous - 1

quote:

---

Once it was pointed out that the facts show otherwise, then the elitists come out ...

---

quote:

---

I just did a survey of the posts on the Global Patriarchy thread. 44 posts were by men, 12 posts were by women, and 19 were by adlib and TerryJ, who have not specified their genders - but even if both were women, it would still be a lot more posts by men than women.

---

44:12 - 44:31, max, male to female on a feminism forum thread. No, no - no domination here. Double-plus good and all that. Don't want to be an elitist.

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: writer ]

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: singh ]

If you don't know about feminism and would like to learn, please feel free to educate yourself. There are plenty of resources. You are also free to raise your questions in the many many forums there are in babble that are NOT explicitly pro-feminist.

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: writer ]

quote:

---

At the risk of looking totally ignorant, what are the main tenets of "Feminism 101"?

---

Try reading some feminist authors. That's where I started. I've read some Greer, Steinem and some of the Third Wavers as well. That's Feminism Lite. If you want to get into the heavy stuff, then there's Dworkin and MacKinnon.

Failing that, there's a million websites out there.

My experience in feminist forums and trolls has always been to want to have discourse with pro-feminist men. However, I get tired of teaching and explaining, only to have it backfire and find myself with someone who wants to explain to me why I'm going to hell for being pro-choice.

I'm white and it's akin to my going to an anti-racist gathering and explaining to the leaders there why my ideas are better and how they'll never achieve anything unless they do it my way.

quote:

---

It is this kind of crap and more like it that is posted in this thread and else where that drives the wedge deeper between those who want to understand and those who need to be understood.

---

quote:

---

If men want to support women, the very least they could do is listen to women when they state how they'd like to be supported.

It's weird to me that men would insist on wanting to march, thus showing their "solidarity" with women by doing the exact opposite of what women have stated they need in order to feel empowered.

---

I think it's a bit off the mark to ask men not to participate in the feminism babble. We women should most certainly feel free to tell anyone that their post is off topic or offensive, if that's our opinion, but to cut anyone out of a discussion is most likely counterproductive.

And this is, unapologetically, a pro-feminist forum. It's the only one on babble. It is supposed to give us a break from having our issues constantly swallowed up by the kind of posturing, bullying and ignorance so evident in some of the posts above.

As a black woman I know said at a white-dominated meeting: "It's not my job to educate all of you."

Sometimes the best learning comes from ... listening. And being aware that it's not cool to drown out the voice of the oppressed in their own forum.

I mean, we have to put up with being put down and misunderstood everywhere else we go. Can't we have a break?

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: writer ]

The whole point of a Take Back the Night march, for example, is that women should be able to walk unaccompanied through the streets at night. Since when does unaccompanied mean that they take their friends and partners with them!?!?!? If men are truly supportive of the cause, they'd recognize that this one event needs to be women-only.....by all means, wait for us at the end with goodies, but stay off the streets when we're trying to reclaim them, k?

Anyway, no one is suggesting this forum become woman-only. But at the very least we should not be made to feel silenced in a feminist space.

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: vickyinottawa ]

quote:

---

Don't we need to communicate with and educate everybody, including men and self-professed anti-feminists on the relevant issues? Even if it's desperately frustrating?

---

Imagine my horror (what was I thinking?!). Imagine my complete lack of surprise.

I see what you (and she) are getting at with this, but by this point in my life, I've learned to accept this simple doctrine: "If I don't do it, I bet nobody else will either."

We can't possibly hope to change anything if we refuse to educate, simply because we're talking about something else. I'll qualify that, though and say that it only really applies IF a babbler honestly admits to his (or her) ignorance, while also expressing earnest interest by asking a relevant question.

It's up to us (dare I say it? - 'real')feminist babblers to manage the discussion and make sure that we're actually talking about what's important and not letting men (or anyone else) take over with stupid, self-interested, inflammatory or irrelevant posts.

I understand the reason for feminist "separatism" at certain points, but I just hope it doesn't get carried to extremes.

quote:

---

So Audra and Co., then whites who wanted to march with blacks for civil rights should have been excluded? I'm glad Dr. King didn't think that way.

---

And Audra and Co. don't think this way either, to all available evidence. But if whites claimed to be pro-civil rights, then turned around and lectured blacks, condescendingly, just how and where they were doing things wrong -- well, I'd have sympathized with any blacks who wanted to exclude them. As indeed ended up happening in the 60s civil-rights movement, though for rather more complex reasons.

Anyway, just this sort of thing -- condescending lecturing, that's to say -- has taken place in the feminism forum since its inception. The feminist lecturees, with rare exceptions, have been remarkably patient about it, from where I sit.

Edited to add: Oh. I see y'all were talking, specifically, about marches. Nemmine.

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: 'lance ]

quote:

---

And as someone whose mother marched for women's rights over thirty years ago, and who picks up and takes care of the kids every day after work because my wife works longer hours that I do, and who takes off the majority of the time when the kids are sick, I am one who doesn't need lectures (Blake) when it comes to familial responsibility.

---

quote:

---

It's up to us (dare I say it? - 'real')feminist babblers to manage the discussion and make sure that we're actually talking about what's important and not letting men (or anyone else) take over with stupid, self-interested, inflammatory or irrelevant posts

---

quote:

---

So Audra and Co., then whites who wanted to march with blacks for civil rights should have been excluded? I'm glad Dr. King didn't think that way.

---

Edited to add: Thank you 'lance. Very much appreciated.

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

quote:

---

then whites who wanted to march with blacks for civil rights should have been excluded?

---

I think you're missing the point. If the organizers of take back the night want an evening of women showing that they can march through the streets on their own without male protection, then it defeats the purpose to have men accompanying them as a form of "support." When women march on Int'l Women's Day, or commemorate December 6th, or do a variety of things where solidarity from pro feminist men can use (and should) their presence as a form of support, then it's wonderful that men and women can march through the streets together voicing a message they both believe in.

quote:

---

Telling men to stay off the streets (for one night) in order that women have a chance to "reclaim them" is problematic, because it tars all men with a broad brush, whereas harassment by males is committed by a very small group of males.

---

You just don't get it, dude. I'll say this slowly.

-Many women don't feel safe walking alone on the streets at night.
- Some women want to organize a protest that highlights this fear, the reasons for it, and how it should be their right to walk on streets at night, alone.
- These women organize a march which is women-only, because it's about the injustice of women not being able to walk alone on the streets at night.
- Men are, in fact, free to walk as many streets as they like on the same night as that march, as women are not all-powerful.
- Men are simply asked not to walk as part of the protest. That's because the protest is NOT about how we need more good men to accompany women so they can walk on streets alone at night. 'Cause, uh, if men are accompanying them then, uh, women are not alone.
- Sympathetic men who want to show their support for women's right to walk alone on streets at night are free to put up posters about the event, talk to other men about the event, organize their own event to supplement the march, organize a wonderful reception for the women at the end of the event ... do any number of things. Just not march with women who are marching for the right to walk alone. Without men. And feel safe.

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: writer ]

To use an analogy, if I wanted to help in the fight against cancer and I went to the Canadian Cancer Society to volunteer, would I happily serve where and how requested or would I question their judgement and insist I could better manage the operation for them and here is a list of what is wrong with their methods?

This is so common. In Afghanistan, the only organization that has uniformly and without question opposed the Taliban regime and which has consistently opposed the use of arms, RAWA, a woman's organization, has been systematically ignored in the west's desire to improve their lives. The west is better placed to know what they need?

quote:

---

They need the help I say they need. Certainly they must recognize my superior problem solving skills.

---

Just so, WingNut. Rooted, of course, in your superior sense of logic, spatial orientation, and so forth, to all of which you're genetically predisposed.

As a group, men are dominating FEMINIST THREADS. Some feminist women seem to find this to be a problem. We are expressing our worry. We are asking whether men can, gee, sometimes hold back from posting when they see that women are being squeezed out of discussion of issues that concern/interest them in a forum dedicated to being "pro-feminist."

How are men being "pro-feminist" if they are drowning out, uh, feminist women and their issues?

Why the need to take over everything? To not allow just ONE SPACE where women aren't dominated?

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: writer ]

This isn't a verbal discussion forum, we can choose to respond to or ignore any post in any thread, and do it almost seamlessly. If men pipe in too often and 'dominate', it's at least partly because we respond to them, no?

And I know I'm treading on thin ice here, but perhaps if there are more men than women participating, we ought to instigate and inspire more female participation, rather than *asking* the men not to post so often.

Either way, leaving it up to men's discretion is clearly not a solution.

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: Lima Bean ]

quote:

---

I have no problem with the Take Back the Night Marches. My point was only that the exclusionary concept shouldn't be taken too far.

---

quote:

---

If they were attempting to educate me out of my benighted state, too bad. I post to babble comparatively rarely. I post on the aspects of threads that interest me.

---

Secondly, in order to dominate or avoid dominating the threads in this forum, you presuppose a level of coordination among male babblers that is simply impossible. See girlpublisher's comments. I will post my views where I see fit. I am not dominating anyone, nor do I think any such accusation is legitimate. Perhaps you can create a guideline and have it entered into babble policy? The guideline must specify the following:

1. The views and discussions that qualify as feminist.
   
2. The ratio of male to female posters such that any male-dominance on this forum is not achieved.
   
3. The specific behaviours on the part of male posters that count as domination.
   
4. A mechanism of handling such male posters.
   

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: Mandos ]

And I know this it was AFTER I raised the concern in that specific thread that this thread was started. And I know that I've also challenged the notion that the problem is centred around anti-feminist men. I think it's broader than that.

I for one have had my fill of explaining how this serious problem is not all about you and you alone.

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: writer ]

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: writer ]

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: writer ]

Edited to add: Nah, scrap that. I ain't givin' up.

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

quote:

---

Rapists are male. What's so hard to understand about that? Why do non-raping men take that so personally?

---

This type of statement alienates people and serves no useful purpose. Sure, all people who use a penis to rape are, duh, male. That's like saying, "all people who perform self-induced, third trimester abortions, are female. Yet how do these statements further debate?

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: singh ]

-Many women don't feel safe walking alone on the streets at night.

- Some women want to organize a protest that highlights this fear, the reasons for it, and how it should be their right to walk on streets at night, alone.

- These women organize a march which is women-only, because it's about the injustice of women not being able to walk alone on the streets at night.

- Men are, in fact, free to walk as many streets as they like on the same night as that march, as women are not all-powerful.

- Men are simply asked not to walk as part of the protest. That's because the protest is NOT about how we need more good men to accompany women so they can walk on streets alone at night. 'Cause, uh, if men are accompanying them then, uh, women are not alone.

quote:

---

Sympathetic men who want to show their support for women's right to walk alone on streets at night are free to put up posters about the event, talk to other men about the event, organize their own event to supplement the march, organize a wonderful reception for the women at the end of the event ... do any number of things. Just not march with women who are marching for the right to walk alone. Without men. And feel safe.

---

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: Ed Weatherbee ]

quote:

---

it tars all men with a broad brush, whereas harassment by males is committed by a very small group of males.

---

Here's what bugs me. I can never seem to discuss men as a social group. The male posters here think I am referring to them personally and individually. I just don't see what can be gained in feminism if we can't make generalizations. I simply cannot consider each one of 3 billion men seperately. Feminist issues reach far beyond our own homes and lives.

quote:

---

perhaps men do not understand the purpose of this forum is not to argue about the central tenets of feminism constantly but to discuss tangential feminist issues themselves. It would be similar to starting a thread about socialist issues and have pro-capitalists piping up constantly BUT PROFIT IS GOOD, WE NEED PROFIT! YOU SOUND LIKE STALIN! or somebody quoting from the Bible or whatever, etc. etc.

---

Mandos, if I may paraphrase (clumsily and imperfectly, I'm sure, but please correct me, and I am being sincere here) what I take to be your position earlier in this thread, you feel that you cannot agree with this insight of SuperGimp's (with which I do, predictably, agree) because you believe that what SG calls tangential issues are necessarily dependent on getting the tenets or the first principles right -- and you believe that feminism has run into trouble precisely because SG's gambit implies what is to you a mistaken tenet, ie: social construction. Or something like that. It hurts my head at this hour to write like this.

But we know vaguely the territoire we're on here, yes? And however much I disagree with you, I can see that this is an important intellectual and political problem. It is, in fact, SO important that I think people should start threads about it, specifically about the philosophical foundations of feminism and their possible shakiness, in either the Ideas or the Politics forums. Why not? Feminism is not a serious thought? Feminism is not political?

But I think you have to accept that the way this forum has been defined in the first place (the "pro-feminist point of view" part) puts it by definition clearly on the conceptual turf that SuperGimp's quote above is assuming -- the social construction of gender is already being assumed in this forum. Some of us might say that we are happier with bricolage than you would be (although I suspect that on many other specific topics, you descend to a fair bit of bricolage of your own -- don't we all?).

Worse: I really want to be able to make bad jokes about men sometimes; I want to be able to run on my anger about the stereotypes occasionally because so many of them still make themselves cartoons, and there are days when I feel I've run into all of those guys ...

Please don't groan, but ... one of the things that used to be fun about the women's movement was really letting all that pent-up hostility hang out occasionally ...

quote:

---

But I think you have to accept that the way this forum has been defined in the first place (the "pro-feminist point of view" part) puts it by definition clearly on the conceptual turf that SuperGimp's quote above is assuming -- the social construction of gender is already being assumed in this forum.

---

So now I'm going to make myself really unpopular, but I have to ask - do all feminists assume the social construction of gender? That would surprise me greatly.

This is one thing that has niggled away at me since this forum was started. Since there are so many different brands of feminism, who decides what is "pro-feminist" and what is not? (And before all you guys jump in, how about letting the women answer this one, since I think maybe we have more stake in whatever the answer is going to be.) There is at least one self-described feminist on babble who is against abortion completely. Frankly, I waffle on that issue. So what is "pro-feminist" in this case? Are you an anti-feminist if you believe in cultural evolution or evolutionary psychology? Or a biological base for certain behaviour?

REBECCA WEST: Now please don't force me to talk to you like you're a pair of simple-minded four year olds.

Since Mandos and I were the only two males who had posted at that point, I assume we are the "pair"? (NOTE: It actually makes little difference to me; I am talked to like a simple-minded four year old most of the time anyway, since I have CP. I say this simply to point out all men do not have the same levels of male privilege that you assume we have.)

REBECCA WEST: There mere fact that a thread about the increasing domination of the feminist forum by men is almost immediately dominated by male babblers

I find the put-down unnecesary; I merely apologized if my previous post on the "witch hunt" thread offended anyone--this is not "domination". I posted on the "patriarchy" thread when Adlib (who started this one) asked some of these questions, and I felt she was positive towards my responses. If she had not been, I would not have replied on THIS one. There is no reason to be rude and assume the worst about me, I have not even been posting here that long.

SKADIE: Here's what bugs me. I can never seem to discuss men as a social group. The male posters here think I am referring to them personally and individually.

Skadie, see above. Rebecca WAS talking about us, the "pair"...when personal insults start, they create a climate wherein it is assumed all posts are meant personally, even if they are not.

DISOBEDIENT: If you want to get into the heavy stuff, then there's Dworkin and MacKinnon.

I have read these authors extensively. In fact, I think it would be interesting to discuss their ideas about pornography, which I mentioned in the "patriarchy" thread. Adlib actually asked me to start a thread on the porn issue, since I brought it up as a feminist subject...but I was hesitant to do so, since I am male (although I think it IS primarily a pro-feminist male subject since men are the consumers of porn and as such, are the only ones who can decide to STOP buying it). I am certainly glad I did NOT take her advice, now. What would everyone here have said if I had?

Audra, I thought Blake's pro-feminist post (who you said "got it") was presented it a dogmatic, preachy and arrogant way...a rather male-oriented style that some feminists do not respond well to, and have criticized in this very thread when coming from other men. Maybe it is a question of style or interpretation, or the fact that you already know and like Blake and understand his cultural background, etc?

BLACK DOG: As a man, here is my new philosophy on posting on the "pro-feminism" forum.
Don't.

quote:

---

Telling one gender to sit still and be quiet

---

Yes. You men. Be quiet for once. Don't tell me how pro-feminist you are and then complain about a women's only march. Shut up and listen, we did for centuries a few seconds on a message board isn't too much to ask. It's really not too much to ask. Get over your damn selves and the reason anyone feels defensive is generally guilt.

Mados: Go hijack some other thread or start one of your own. Here is a title for you :'He-Man Women Haters Club". Don't like my sarcasm? Tough. Maybe some threads are of interest to you but for some of us they are about our actual lives and experiences. If your asked to step back a pace, be a man and do it.

How is it possible so many of the men here keep missing well stated points? What the fuck is wrong here? They are really articualte women, I don't get it.

Go to your workplaces and check out who makes what money, ask your women friends if they have every been groped in a bar, hollered at on the street or sexual assaulted. Ask them how often boys got picked to answer questions in public school over girls. listen to them and get a grasp of why we might want you to be quiet and listen, we'll ask for your opinion when we want it. And don't whine to me about equality either, even in equality not everything will be fair. Because I don't think many men here really get it, your too busy talking about what is and isn't feminism and how we should deal with our cause. We don't all think of feminism as merely an "ism" but a fact of life.

There is a lot more to feminism than a sound bite we can give you to understand it. We have to explain it to each other sometimes because race and religion factor in and we can't know what it is to walk in anothers shoes. which is why we ask you don't outnumber our voices, we need to share as much with each other as we do with men.

Give us our due and learn to listen, eventually there won't be so much to tell if you just learn to listen.

quote:

---

BLACK DOG: As a man, here is my new philosophy on posting on the "pro-feminism" forum.
Don't.

Yeah, I have decided the same.

---

Does this mean you think I should have started the thread Adlib asked me to start? Or would I have been criticized for that too? (I notice you did not respond to the substance of my remarks.)

quote:

---

Scout, by chance have we met on another message board? Just curious.

---

quote:

---

singh: Men should keept quiet and listen because .... they are men?

---

Yes! Sometimes. Sometimes I have to be quiet when I'm in a forum for lesbians because I'm not a lesbian. Sometimes I have to be quiet in a forum for sex trade workers because I'm not a sex trade worker. If you are committed to feminism, you will recognise that women have not been able to express themselves for pretty much all time, and that means you have to be quiet from time to time.

quote:

---

singh: Not unlike various Take Back the Night Marches that explicitly ban men (even though said marches take place in public areas). Why stifle discussion?

---

You know what, a Take Back the Night march isn't a place for discussion. I don't want to sit down with a whole bunch of men when I'm angry (and rightly so!) that I stand a good chance of being a victim of rape by a male. I don't want to hold your hand while you're coming to terms with this. Likewise on a feminist forum, I don't want to have to explain who Susan Brown Miller or Audre Lorde is.

quote:

---

singh: Telling men to stay off the streets (for one night) in order that women have a chance to "reclaim them" is problematic, because it tars all men with a broad brush, whereas harassment by males is committed by a very small group of males.

---

Small??? I have an issue with the word small in this case. 25% of Canadian women, are likely to be victims of abuse by males. That's a heck of a lot of women. I'm not going to mince words or hold back because some guy may have issue that in a mob of countless men, he's not being singled out as the sole wonder of mandom. I don't even do this for my partner who is actively involved in anti-violence against women campaigns. I know a lot of men, and of the men I know, I safely say that the majority of them, still have misogynistic ideals reinforced by patriarchy. If you are someone secure in knowing that you are CONSISTENTLY doing the WORK within yourself to become as anti-oppression as possible, I don't think that you should demand to be appreciated at a Take Back the Night rally.

quote:

---

singh: This type of statement alienates people and serves no useful purpose. Sure, all people who use a penis to rape are, duh, male. That's like saying, "all people who perform self-induced, third trimester abortions, are female. Yet how do these statements further debate?

---

What debate?

quote:

---

Slick Willy: It is this kind of crap and more like it that is posted in this thread and else where that drives the wedge deeper between those who want to understand and those who need to be understood.

---

One of the most valuable things I have learned in anti-oppression training so far is that "you own your shit" (I hope I can say that). If you are committed to fighting the good fight for equality of all people, you continue that even if people tell you to lay off a little in this area. It is not my or any other woman's responsibility to cater to you to make sure "you're okay" in ending patriarchy. I don't ask that I am consistently appreciated as one of the only bi woman living in a hetero relationship at meetings supporting equal rights for lesbians. Likewise, if I'm told to lay off, I suddenly don't get all sulky and withdraw my support. Why? Because I do my work because *I* cannot stand seeing inequality, and NO ONE can take that away from me. If you are doing that for the same reason as opposed to some selfish reason, then NO ONE can take that away from you, no matter how big you perceive a wedge.

quote:

---

josh: So Audra and Co., then whites who wanted to march with blacks for civil rights should have been excluded? I'm glad Dr. King didn't think that way.

---

This comment often comes up. I wasn't around during that time, but I'm willing to bet that there were still moments where the civil rights movement had their caucus. Which would mean no whites allowed. Would you fault black people who wanted to discuss police brutality for an hour without always having to justify and explain to white people what happens and why? The same goes for women, I'm not going to go into a huge justification to someone who is using patriarchal standards why I believe a lot of the "scientific" evidence discounting women based traditions is bunk on a feminist forum. Obviously this forum is set up so men can participate, but I'm not going to bend over backwards explaining to them why I feel and think a certain way. Nor am I going to entertain their "logical" arguments based on a system that has benefitted and has a strong foundation in oppressing women and minorities. Don't like it, tough!

Last quote I promise!

quote:

---

Michelle: You have a husband!? You're not a REAL feminist! (kidding)

---

DISOBEDIENCE: I've seen you on another site and duly noted your distinct lack of popularity with the feminists there. And no, you won't know who I am, I don't actually post there anymore.

WHAT???

I was referring to a southern message board...SCOUT is a name used by a lot of southern women (who move all over the world, of course) since it was the name of the girl in TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. I thought she was Scout on the Southeastern Conference board!

I post on several boards of all descriptions, but I would not call me "unpopular"! Last four times I tried to get this name though, it was taken--so that could be it...who'd a thunk it??? (I had it FIRST!)

I dunno what "forget a dinky car?" means...

SuperGimp: If you just look below my post you'll see I am Canadian.

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: Scout ]

quote:

---

Sympathetic men who want to show their support for women's right to walk
alone on streets at night are free to put up posters about the event, talk to
other men about the event, organize their own event to supplement the
march, organize a wonderful reception for the women at the end of the
event ...

---

A white man insisting he be served at a whites-only diner in solidarity with those who weren't going to be served wouldn't have really worked.

A white woman insisting that she should be allowed to sit at the front of the bus as an act of solidarity would have just been silly.

(And thanks, Meades!)

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: writer ]

Thomas Jefferson once remarked that he had never seen anyone change thier mind durring an argument, or discussion.

This puzzled me, because I share Jeffreson's observations, but I also know that people do change their points of view.

I don't know how a person can be dominated by another when we're all behind keyboards, separated by miles.

I can certainly understand women's groups that meet physically to discuss feminist issues to do so sans men. Even as a male, I've come across other guys who think adding volume and aggressive body language is a valid point making technique; that physical domination some how has a bearing on facts and evidence.

But that's not the case here. If someone is "dominating" because they are rude, or using the straw man argument, or ad-hominem attacks, then call them on it.

At some point, you have to trust others in the forum to recognize that those kinds of debating tactics are a signal that the issuant has lost and is being petulant about it.

Now, I am perhaps forgetting what it was like many years ago when I first fell in love with forums, and then first felt the sting of an ad-hominem attack, or a declarative counter to an idea. And maybe I've developed a thicker skin over the years, I don't know.

But, I've learned that just because I may be wrong about, say evolutionary psychology and it's impact on today's social conventions (and don't get yer hopes up, this is just an example ) doesn't mean I'm wrong about everything, or have some deep seated character flaw.

Ad-hominem attacks, or taking the ball and going home instead of swallowing your ego and saying "Mea Culpa", or "I never considered that", however, is.

And, I refuse to believe women in this forum, or any other, need protection from bloviates, or that thier ideas, and the way they express them, cannot compete against vitriole, or even just insistant declarations.

I've a thick skin on line. About the only thing that can sting anymore is lack of feed back. That may be because I crave attention. Hey-- I'm sure that's some part of it. As it is with every human on the planet, present company certainly not excluded.

But you can't learn to much without feedback.

It's like playing chess against yourself, and that's what a female only feminist forum would end up being.

It reminds me a lot of my best friend would say.

Well, I'm glad to see people are passionate about the subject. Predictably, the people who have been dominating on the other threads have come here to whine about how "excluded" they are... wah wah wah... Most of them wouldn't recognize being excluded if it danced naked in front of them...

SuperGimp: I wasn't actually referring to you in my original post- I haven't personally found your posts disruptive. Regarding being a disabled man, maybe you and my bf can have a chat about the differences, bc as he knows well, a disabled man still has some male privilege. (He looks over my shoulder to ask if you know anything about self-defense classes for people with limited mobility. He's trying to organize one in town but doesn't have a lot of contact with other disabled people...)

Regarding MLK, the Civil Rights movement, as well as the Black Power Movement, the Indian Independance movement led by Mahatma Gandhi, the American Indian Movement, as well as many other struggles, have consistently requested the same thing of their supporters: thank you for supporting us on our terms, and not trying to take over.

I did expect that this thread would become a debate about men's "exclusion". I just wanted to bring back what I said in my first post, which I think might have been forgotten.

Do you think that we could treat intrusive, disruptive and anti-feminist posts as trolls, and simply ignore them?

This is just an observation, prompted by Michelle's last post. Over the last year, several of the more ... perhaps not heated, but tense threads in the FF have developed entirely among women posters. Occasionally that tension has been great enough that not only the thread concerned but the whole forum has gone silent for days, maybe a week or so -- as though we were all tip-toeing around something that really hurt, or that we recognize really hurt someone else.

quote:

---

Shenanigans : You rock!

---

quote:

---

Ad-hominem attacks, or taking the ball and going home instead of swallowing your ego and saying "Mea Culpa", or "I never considered that", however, is.

---

Feminism is, by all accounts, about balance and equity. So noting that the Feminist Forum was becoming dominated by male posters (or, at the very least, that some women were perceiving it that way), and asking that the men posting recognize and understand why this might be a problem for women really shouldn't have been construed as exclusion, but rather a request for self-restraint, balance, and understanding.

But it wasn't construed that way. The debate became polarized: either men be permitted uncritical and unrestrained access to the feminist forum, or they be entirely exluded. Neither option was ever put forward by any of the women in the forum as far as I could see (quite the opposite - many went out of their way to say that they did not want men exluded), but nevertheless this is clearly how some of the men felt. And no amount of patient (or impatient) explaining seemed to erode that feeling of being excluded.

The sheer volume of outrage directed at those of us who insisted, repeatedly and angrily, that this was not about men being excluded, but rather about women constantly feeling excluded, especially within spaces that were supposed to be supportive of women, was very revealing.

We still have a very long way to go towards understanding each other, I'm afraid.

quote:

---

Since Mandos and I were the only two males who had posted at that point, I assume we are the "pair"? (NOTE: It actually makes little difference to me; I am talked to like a simple-minded four year old most of the time anyway, since I have CP. I say this simply to point out all men do not have the same levels of male privilege that you assume we have.)

---

quote:

---

Of all the complaints to Canada's Human Rights Commission, the overwhelming number are generated by white disabled men. Not, as is generally assumed, from people of colour or women. Revealing, no?

---

quote:

---

This could be revealing, but in what direction, I'm not quite sure. Are you insinuating that their complaints are unjustified? And how is this related to the previous discussion?

---

quote:

---

I'm not baiting -- I'm just not willing to say that the complaints of disabled white males reflect some type of power structure in which disabled white males somehow get preferential treatment

---

quote:

---

Not, as is generally assumed, from people of colour or women. Revealing, no?

---

singh, you're being thick.

RW made it explicit that she is challenging a widespread assumption -- that HRCs are being manipulated by "special interest groups" and hairy-legged feminists with an agenda. I've certainly run into that claim; in fact it has turned up on this board. And RW challenged it with a fact.

Both would be more valuable than one or the other, I think.

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: Lima Bean ]

quote:

---

But it wasn't construed that way. The debate became polarized: either men be permitted uncritical and unrestrained access to the feminist forum, or they be entirely exluded. Neither option was ever put forward by any of the women in the forum as far as I could see (quite the opposite - many went out of their way to say that they did not want men exluded), but nevertheless this is clearly how some of the men felt. And no amount of patient (or impatient) explaining seemed to erode that feeling of being excluded.

---

Well, I'm not imune from the deffensive, knee jerk reaction, it seems, and the exclusionary tone was what I picked up on, and reacted to. Upon more careful review of the thread, you are quite correct.

Where I'm coming from is that whether women here realize it or not, you all take care of yourselves more than adequately in debate with men. And your voice is one of the finer and more admirable examples of this.

I dunno. The feminist forum is fun and I think the most thought provoking on the whole. I know it's often a lightning rod for idjit males with a right wing agenda, but they don't last long there or on babble, and that has more to do with our decorum than it does administrative action.

quote:

---

they sort out the sheep from the goats, maybe (peace, Spring Chicken).

---

A*HEM*... I *have* been following this debate skdadl. (pax te cum too) I just didn't have the cojones to post. (please note the multi-level ironic humour)

To be more substantive however, I recall a thread some time ago when men where specifically asked not to post, and it was respected by all but one male who I don't think read the initial post. His comment was fairly innocuous anyway. Actually I was kind of surprised that it worked out. I don't know if thats really a useful solution.

quote:

---

Do you think that we could treat intrusive, disruptive and anti-feminist posts as trolls, and simply ignore them?

---

quote:

---

I'd like to think that most guys get the idea that women would like to take a turn speaking once in a while.

---

Violating my own rule here, but...

quote:

---

I can see how the issue would be problematic in a face-to-face situation where men could use shouting or physical intimidation (ie. aggressive body language) to put women off the discussion. But here? There's a Post Reply button under here that anyone can use to their heart's content.

---

Some of you get it. Some of you don't. And it's clearly not about us being inarticulate shrinking violets. Which obviously most of us aren't. It's not about an inability to stand up for ourselves, which clearly most of us can. It's about a broad-based contemporary social value set and a history of gender discrimination and persecution that stretches as far back as you might care to go in human history. It informs our consciousness, in its entirety, whether we identify as feminists or not.

edited to add: I was addressing the above to black_dog. Singh hasn't convinced me that he's trying to understand what a pro-feminist position might look like.

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: writer ]

quote:

---

To follow these threads and really listen, without worrying about composing responses, helps me to grok the issues more on a feeling ,or experiential level.

---

So while skadie has moved the discussion to Ideas, and that's fine with me (except that it pulls the whole discussion out of context and somewhat diminishes my enthusiasm for it), I still see nothing wrong with occasionally raising the issue on the Feminism forum where I think that it is relevant, like on the Witch Hunt thread. Since this whole brouhaha began with one post and the responses to the rotten tomatoes thrown at me , I don't think that I overstepped any boundaries of Good Behaviour either. Is this begin defensive? You bet! A Gauntlet was thrown down by someone at the beginning of this thread who desired that I stifle my views for totally misguided reasons, and I don't apologize for rejecting that or ignoring the Helpful Advice given by Scout, etc. If I had said, "evolution has made women naturally inferior to men", or even "patriarchy doesn't exist" I would have been out of line, but I don't think that I am so stupid.

And Michelle has provided a handy breakdown of how my observation was, in fact, at the time, a reality. Men WERE beginning to dominate the witchy thread. And how it was also true in another.

In fact, her first example clearly showed that men had not only begun to dominate a thread in the feminism forum over time, but had dominated that thread entirely.

I'm bored of this merry-go-round. Are you?

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: writer ]

[

quote:

---

I am challenging an axiom of feminism and thus deserve to be Exiled to ideas or politics (since the rest of babble has already been defined as the space for potentially anti-feminist discussion).

---

Oh, please.

quote:

---

I stifle my views for totally misguided reasons, and I don't apologize for rejecting that or ignoring the Helpful Advice given by Scout

---

Of course, you couldn't possibly listen. Your to busy speaking. What's misguided is you think you have a right to ignore our requests in the feminst threads, to not take over .

I think that if their was any real listening and understanding going on around here, there would be a whole lot less posts telling us we are wrong about we are feeling is happening and a lot less "I' didn't do that", and alot more "Oh shit, we didn't mean to hog your issue or "Oh shit, the more we run off at the mouth the more we are proving their point.".

Let's make it really simple, if I say your stepping on my toes, you proably are.

quote:

---

Unless some posters are going down the road of saying that men are more able to use computers, post-reply buttons being mechanical and all.....

---

quote:

---

Do you think that we could treat intrusive, disruptive and anti-feminist posts as trolls, and simply ignore them?

---

quote:

---

25% of Canadian women, are likely to be victims of abuse by males. That's a heck of a lot of women

---

Yes, that does sound like a lot of women, abused by a lot of men. But this statistic misrepresents reality (as a lot of stats do). How are you defining abuse? Someone who pushes ahead of you on a bus? Rape? A nasty look? Off-colour joke? Hitting? You see, not all abuse is equal.

Scout: So, like, two of those paragraphs were to skdadl, because I think that skdadl deserves clear and well-written responses, and I have a horrible paranoia about oversimplification (like this whole discussion...). Please interpret it in light of skdadl's post, which had actual content to respond to. I am not steering the discussion, I am being steered

quote:

---

I invite the rest of the people who want to have a real solid debate about feminism to join me.

Don't feed the trolls!

---

Excellent advice. But so far it's not working. How do we all agree on who's a troll? What do we do when others start to feed one? Where do we keep the list of people not to bother with? How do we let newbies know what we're doing and why?

Also, please don't forget to let Audra know if there's someone posting on the feminism forum who's not making an effort to follow its mandate. We shouldn't have to put up with chronic trolling from the same suspects. But Audra can't give people warnings if she doesn't know who they are. And she doesn't have the time to read each and every thread every day, every hour.

Include a sample of an offending post, with the time it was posted and the URL of the thread it was posted in.

[email protected]

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: writer ]

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: vickyinottawa ]

quote:

---

singh: You might want to shut your cake hole. Your treading a mighty fine line with that last post of yours.

---

"Shut your cake hole" is a term that tends to lower the tone of debate. "Treading a mighty fine line" -- isn't it the moderator's job to determine such things, not fellow posters?

This person wants me to "shut my cake hole" because I suggested her assertion, that 25% of all woman have been abused by males, is a somewhat meaningless statistic. How are you defining abuse? How are the stats collected?

I remember when this statistic coming out in the news, about 3 or 4 years ago. A number of respected, Canadian sociologists took issue with it. Just do a google search -- you can revisit the issue. Were these sociologists wrong to question the stat? Was I wrong?

quote:

---

I invite the rest of the people who want to have a real solid debate about feminism to join me.

Don't feed the trolls!

---

Really, this advice is so good. And the examples of why it's not worth the effort to feed trolls really do abound, don't they? I mean, trolls seem to be so hungry! They never get enough!

It makes me think of the wonderful recipes babblers would share with each other from time to time in the past.

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: writer ]

quote:

---

It makes me think of the wonderful recipes babblers would share with each other from time to time in the past.

---

quote:

---

Ah yes, in fact I'm getting hungry just thinking of them. But it didn't seem effective in dealing with trolls. As you say, however full of it they may seem, they never actually feel full.

---

Too true, 'lance. But it was fun while it lasted. I agree though, the sharing has had its day.

Back to the subject of this thread. It seems the majority agree that we don't want to *ban* men from the discussion. We're just asking for some r-e-s-p-e-c-t.

I'm amazed at the amount of hostility that is coming out as a result of suggesting guys should consider holding back a bit on the feminism threads. Well, not totally amazed. Disappointed, really.

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: writer ]

quote:

---

We're just asking for some r-e-s-p-e-c-t.

---

Exactly. Then take it. Can you imagine R&B legend, Aretha Franklin, singing:

R-E-S-P-E-C-T
That's what I want the male-dominated recording industry to give to me...

Seemed a bit too rich to swallow, on a forum dedicated to feminism, anyway. We all have to put up with it everywhere else. Why here, too?

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: writer ]

quote:

---

...without being bullied and brow-beaten by folks with absolutely no first-hand knowledge of our lives!

---

quote:

---

So ... in a debate, detailed and intimate biographies should be passed around, so we all have first-had knowledge of the past lives of all participants. Sounds a wee bit cumbersome.

---

The thread called "Sharing Stories of Sexual Violence" was:

1. Not set up as a debate.
2. By definition, asked participants to share personal information.

And, with that redundant and unnecessary point of clarification, that's it for you and me, singh my man. You are making no effort, NO EFFORT, to understand the mandate of this forum.

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: writer ]

quote:

---

You are making no effort, NO EFFORT, to understand the mandate of this forum.

---

quote:

---

So, go sing about respect somewhere else singh!

---

Re. quote #1 -- do YOU set the mandate of a forum? Do YOU determine what content is officially approved, the directions of debate, whether it is "okay" to question a questionable statistic? Shades of Big Nurse.

Re. quote #2 -- respect = not telling people to shut their cakehole (source: Etiquette for Dummies)

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: singh ]

quote:

---

Yes, that does sound like a lot of women, abused by a lot of men. But this statistic misrepresents reality (as a lot of stats do). How are you defining abuse? Someone who pushes ahead of you on a bus? Rape? A nasty look? Off-colour joke? Hitting? You see, not all abuse is equal.

---

quote:

---

The REAL statistic is 1 in 4 woman in Canada are sexually assaulted. Real enough for you?

---

Source? If you wrote an article, you must have a source.

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: singh ]