Author
|
Topic: Do you find it hard to post to babble?
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 28 December 2005 05:56 PM
This is a restricted thread. In a way, I am sorry to restrict it to women, because I have heard the same worries from some fine male babblers as well. Maybe at some later point we can open the discussion up. But for now, this is a space for women. This afternoon, the macho culture of backrooms or ... some other spaces ... has become a subject on a couple of babble threads. And given the election, the whole board is just going wonky, as usual at election times. I know that some really valuable babble voices go silent when debates become heated. I know that from private conversations mainly, and especially with women. The discussion about Mr Klander's scurrilous website made me think: some of what I saw on that site is not so different from some of what I often see on babble and have just become inured to. Does babble sometimes seem like a flap-mouthed macho backroom to you? And are you tired and/or bothered and/or fearful of flap-mouthed backroom conversations? I really hope that no one will post so aggressively in reply to my questions as to silence anyone else who might want to respond. I know that I often sound like a smart-mouth m'self, but I don't admire that kind of debate, and it is beginning to get to me.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay Williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11367
|
posted 28 December 2005 06:30 PM
Restrictions based on gender are against the Babble policy of inclusiveness. Besides, gender is a social construct. The word might not exist in some languages, and when it does, the meaning is not what the Western writings on it imply. Even in English, its first meaning in most dictionaries is as a grammatical term. For example, The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as "two or more categories," arbitrary ones, such as masculine, feminine, and neuter. A chair-in a language other than English-might be masculine, a fork feminine, a car neuter. But beyond that, the skeptics say, gender's "other meanings" make little sense. Or does it? Can't social roles and cultural life also partake in the same aspect of "arbitrary" sexing? Is what men and women do and how they act "naturally" masculine or feminine? It's well established that a great deal of social and political energy goes into creating masculinity and femininity. Look at your magazine stand. Magazines tell women how to be beautiful, or men how to be successful in business. If gender is "natural," would there be a need for such sex-segregated readership? The very demand for that kind of knowledge suggests that manhood and womanhood is learned and applied. In other words, gender is a social construction. The difficulty in translating gender from West to East reflects the reluctance of people to admit to the growing awareness that gender does exist, that it is present in every country, every city and neighborhood, in the workplace, and at home. We were each born into our distinct culture and take on the different values, attitudes, and behaviors that shape our identities. Our sexual or gender identities are no different. Some of us were dressed in blue and others in pink. Some were given cars to play with; others were asked to help Mommy in the kitchen. In fact, there is nothing wrong with being dressed in pink and helping in the kitchen. What is damaging, however, are the rigidities-only girls are dressed in pink and persuaded to help Mommy with the cooking, cleaning, ironing, and shopping. What about the boy who would like to help Mommy, or the girl who finds pushing a toy car down the hallway pleasing? Why confine children so? Those stereotypes do real harm because they prevent each child from fulfilling his or her rich human potential. So there is no "gender" per se. Just people.
From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tehanu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9854
|
posted 28 December 2005 06:41 PM
... and immediately getting into a discussion about gender construction could in itself be seen as silencing, when it was specifically asked that only women post to the thread. A fine topic that deserves its own thread but which really derails this one. skdadl, to answer your original question, here are some reasons why I might hesitate to post to babble: - some forums are more friendly than others. I take things personally (too much) and so might hesitate to post, particularly if I'm not an "expert"; - sometimes things get very personal, very fast, and it's hard to know what's going to set one person off, just as it's hard to know how to respond to someone who's being an articulate, difficult and aggressive person; - some forums just seem to have a lot of guys; I'm not saying that it's intimidating per se, and I don't always check people's profiles, but it does lend a certain tone to the debate -- that said, there are a lot of posters of both (or any) genders who are pretty aggressive; - sometimes I just don't want to get into a fight! The debate/dialectic approach where there are two sides gets a bit tiresome IRL, let alone in a forum where there can be anonymous pileups; - there's the sense that there is a tight community here, which is super in most respects, but it's difficult to gauge how much to jump in, particularly for someone like me who reads a lot of threads, gets to "know" people, but isn't known myself. I have to remind myself that it goes both ways. Actually, I'm just listening to CBC Toronto right now on the Yonge Street gun violence, and they've got a male announcer, male guests, male callers ... and a woman just called in and the announcer said something along the lines of her being the female voice. Maybe look at why women aren't expressing themselves enough? A lot of this has to do with space. I feel like the feminist forum is one in which I feel most comfortable posting, and conversely when there's an inrush of men it feels more threatening than it would elsewhere. -- Oh, and I was about to apologise for not being totally articulate, but then said to myself, stop *&^*(^ apologising!!!
From: Desperately trying to stop procrastinating | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513
|
posted 28 December 2005 06:46 PM
Getting back to your focus, skdadl: yes, absolutely, always have thought so. And have been expressing my concern for years. And getting some flak about it. Even from you! babble does have its problems, and shows that it is a human endeavour as a result. But an endeavour that, with attention, can improve and evolve. What can we do? Demand change. Refuse to play. Start threads like this one. Many thanks. Edited to add: I was posting at the same time that T sent her excellent response. [ 28 December 2005: Message edited by: writer ]
From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sineed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11260
|
posted 29 December 2005 06:21 AM
quote: ...and immediately getting into a discussion about gender construction could in itself be seen as silencing, when it was specifically asked that only women post to the thread.
After I read the first post, before scrolling down, I thought, "I bet the first reply will be from an outraged male protesting against restricted threads," and was amused (and unsurprised) to find that I was right.I'm a new babbler, and the first discussion I posted to was a remembrance of the Montreal massacre. It was supposed to be a memorial thread, but it got hijacked by a (male) troll making comments about the "offensiveness" of all female memorial services. The second thread I posted to was about white ribbon campaigns, and how some women find them unsettling for some reason. Naturally, men interrupted the discussion with lengthy posts stating how vehemently they disagreed with what we were talking about. It's as if somebody started a thread saying, tell us about your tattoos, and twenty people post to say they don't have any. Like I said, I'm new here. If women can start a women-only thread, surely men are free to start their own thread if they want, and that's what makes this site inclusive?
From: # 668 - neighbour of the beast | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Fed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8926
|
posted 29 December 2005 02:06 PM
A very interesting question, skadl.Sometimes I won't bother posting on something if it seems like the general flow of discussion is going elsewhere and I don't feel like getting into all the hassle of trying to make my point. I wouldn't call it intimidation---more like either lazyness or lack of time. FWIW, I don't usually know the gender of the other folks in a thread unless I've gotten to recognize them from other posts elsewhere. I hardly ever check profiles. Election times do tend to bring out the worst. Politics is a highly propagandized subject---"our side" vs. "their side." I love Jacques Ellul's book "Propaganda" written in the early 1960s. Propaganda dehumanizes, reduces to stereotypes, and is incapable of back-and-forth dialogue. All the problems with the "back-room flap-mouthed culture" you mention. Am I fearful of that? Not personally, on babble, but I am fearful for the world because I see us going more and more that way all the time. Tired and bothered? More tired than bothered. If I had $1,000,000 I'd buy everyone in Canada a copy of Ellul's book so they can see how propagandized we all are!! Closest I've been to feeling intimidated is when you get a cluster of posters who are very anti-religious...my relationship with God is very important to me, and I tend to take people crapping on the Church kinda personally. Many atheists and non-religious types are not hostile to religion, and that is great. I'm not hostile to them either, though I do feel they are missing out on something great. Kinda like when you get a really good dessert at a restaurant and you are saying "here, here, try some of this, it's wonderful!" and people are going "no, no, that's OK". But other non-religious folks are genuinely hostile and outright dismissive, for whatever reasons of their own. Most times I just move on and read a different thread. Exploring another's background hurts is something that has to be done slowly, gently, and in person, after a long friendship in the real world, not in a post or two dashed off on a board. But sometimes I have posted replies, once I even started a thread (on how the orthodox/dissenting spectrum is quite distinct from the political left/right spectrum). Anyways, thanks for asking the question. It was an interesting one to ponder, and I hope this answer is useful to you.
From: http://babblestrike.lbprojects.com/ | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061
|
posted 29 December 2005 03:09 PM
Good topic Skdadl. I sometimes feel that it is okay, even in the feminist forums, for men to come in and rail against women, or rail against feminism or their exclusion. It gets very tiresome trying to explain things to people who don't get it, don't want to get it, and yet continue to insist the problem lies with women, and not them. The rape forum was a particularly bad one for me to have posted in and to this day I regret that I shared such personal experiences as I did, only to have them whittled down (at least part way) by a male poster. How can anyone feel safe when this happens? And an even better question is, why do certain males feel the need to belittle women's experience so much? Are they threatened? It seems to me that even though we are in the year 2005, not a whole lot has changed for us in the big picture. Oh and thanks for listening Skdadl. And asking the question. [ 29 December 2005: Message edited by: Stargazer ]
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
deBeauxOs
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10099
|
posted 29 December 2005 03:38 PM
quote: posted by skdadl: This is a restricted thread. ... But for now, this is a space for women. ... I know that some really valuable babble voices go silent when debates become heated. ... Does babble sometimes seem like a flap-mouthed macho backroom to you? And are you tired and/or bothered and/or fearful of flap-mouthed backroom conversations? ... I really hope that no one will post so aggressively in reply to my questions as to silence anyone else who might want to respond. I know that I often sound like a smart-mouth m'self, but I don't admire that kind of debate, and it is beginning to get to me.
Has anyone out there - activist, scholar or free thinker - documented the several stages of becoming politically aware or socially conscious? IMHO, it ressembles the five stages of grieving: 1)Denial (This isn't/cannot be happening to me! stage) 2)Anger (Why is this happening to me/now? stage) 3)Bargaining (I promise I'll be a better person if... stage) 4) Apathy (I don't care anymore stage) 5)Acceptance (I'm ready for whatever comes. Bring it on! stage.)This process I have observed in survivors of sexual and conjugal violence, as well in any individuals suddenly confronted and affected by an event that changed their view of the world. The last stage of the process is the activist one, when someone speaks up or gets involved in some meaningful way. However, just as in the grieving process, one can go back and forth in the stages, sometimes immobilized by a feeling of powerlessness, at other times enraged beyond words. When I first started posting to internet boards, I channeled a lot of displaced anger and grief about my sister's death to ovarian cancer in seemingly unconnected threads and discussions. But is was cathartic and it boosted my self-esteem considerably when I posted cogent and well-articulated responses to irrational diatribes about the right of Bush to declare a God-sanctioned war on those perceived to be the enemy of the US. It also helped me move beyond my personal wallowing to a greater sense of engagement with all that is still alive in the world. So, the point of this rambling digression is that we are continuously processing and advancing in our political and social consciousness. There are moments when we are not prepared to answer a specific challenge and then, when we are ready, nothing can hold us back. Sometimes silence is an appropriate response; one can choose the time and manner to assert one's values and opinions. There may be female babblers who have not yet contributed, but may have transformed their lives, as a result of reading information or perspectives posted here. I usually select my battles to suit my needs and my level of political and social involvement. Occasionally, my anger will erupt when I read a post that I consider to be a transgression of responsible netiquette or blatant baiting; other times I simply wish to rise to the challenge of the topic and present a different view. [ 29 December 2005: Message edited by: deBeauxOs ]
From: missing in action | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402
|
posted 29 December 2005 04:09 PM
I don't find men - even aggressive, hostile and foul-keyboarded ones - particularly intimidating on internet forums. (In walking life, yes!) far more intimidating to me are knowledgable and passionately convinced women, probably because i still care what they think of me.I've generally stayed away from news and politics for a long time now, mainly because i haven't bothered to keep myself informed. I've always stayed away from international matters, for the same reason. I always look at the feminst forum, but rarely post; again, because i'm not current on most issues; because my pov is often unfashionable; because i'm not comfortable sharing intimate experience (especially if somebody who could not possible have had a similar experience is sure to explain it away from a lofty perspective). And all the big-picture topics have been done before. That leaves humanities & science (lately, all about the most depressing aspects of climate change... gahhh!), body & soul, and banter. Not much to be intimidated about on those forums. And yet, some people take every slightest opportunity, even there, to browbeat those of us who don't have a firm stance, backed by multiple learned links, on every single topic. It's a bit discouraging, yes. But one perseveres... and i have a ton of recipes for zucchini.
From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222
|
posted 31 December 2005 12:47 PM
Thanks, skdadl, for bringing this up. Lagatta said, "I guess the test [when discussing religion] is to not say anything one would not say to a valued friend or relative with whom one disagrees on matters of faith." That would be my test for any post, regardless of the topic.I was talking with an acquaintance last week about Babble. She said that she's been looking at the board but not posting and asked me what my babble name is. For a moment, I was taken aback and then told her. Mentally, I was sort of making sure that I hadn't said anything on the board that I wouldn't stand by in person. We then went into talking about what we both saw as extremely disrespectful levels of discourse and expressed the thought that we wished and hoped that people would "speak" to each other here with the same level of respect one would (hopefully) use when having a face to face conversation, particularly with a neighbour, friend or family member. It's too bad that isn't happening. Regardless of the position being argued, if it's argued in a way where I believe that I'll be attacked, I won't post. I've had that experience on another board (ironically, "Ship of Fools", a so-called liberal religious board where I was chastised for naming someone's point of view as sexist) and don't care to repeat it. As well, the dialectic approach is not, in general, how I function in regular life. With 5 children, all of whom are very different, that style of functioning wouldn't work very well for me. Adding layers of perspective is more what I attempt to do, regardless of the setting. I don't know whether it's the nature of any discussion board or whether it's the difference in styles among the members (probably some of both) but I find that these circumstances don't lend themselves well to the above.
From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222
|
posted 31 December 2005 01:24 PM
quote: This is a progressive board, and I don't think such highly reactionary outlooks are kosher here.
I completely agree with this, Lagatta. I like to think that there are ways of setting boundaries around these kinds of posts without posting things that we couldn't stand by in real life. Please bear in mind that I'm not referring to moderators here but other babblers. My view is that, no matter how how reactionary a post is, stooping to name-calling (as opposed to naming a behaviour or the nature of the post) and other disrespectful exchanges, fosters the sense (at least for me) that this isn't a safe place. My thoughts are this, what if I post something in a way that isn't clear for someone else, they mistake my intention and then I get blasted? Even participating in this discussion feels risky, frankly. What I always thought this board was about is a place for progressives and those exploring progressive ideas to discuss various topics and issues. What it often has become is a place where those who hold other positions are challenging progressive ideas. Often, the exchanges between those folks degenerates and the thread(s) ceases to be a viable discussion. Could this be what those with reactionary viewpoints want? If I was one of those folks, I might consider this as a valid tactic. First, the response to those folks is vicious. That probably means those who genuinely would like to know more about a subject they know little about are afraid to ask. As well, those who want to shoot down progressive ideas are managing to undermine the deeper levels of discussion that I think are important to progressive thinkers. Also, some of us are very reluctant to participate thus there is a loss of ideas and energy. So, I guess the question is, how do we respond to reactionary views in ways that allow them little if any space? If we don't figure this out, they win (if I may speak dialectically here).
From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582
|
posted 31 December 2005 04:33 PM
quote: Originally posted by Loretta:
So, I guess the question is, how do we respond to reactionary views in ways that allow them little if any space? If we don't figure this out, they win (if I may speak dialectically here).
Since this is the feminism forum, let's be specific about which reactionary views we're talking about. I think anyone espousing misogynist views here should get the boot, no warning, no leeway, no comebacks. When it comes to anti-feminism, things are not so clear and get even murkier when it comes to abortion. There are shades of anti-feminism. There are whiffs of anti-feminism. There are sneaking suspicions of anti-feminism. As has been asked (and asked and asked), if a poster is 'progressive' on most issues but reactionary on [insert hot-button issue], should that person be welcomed? I dunno, but lean towards 'no'. To get back to the skdadl's question. Yes, I do find it hard to post in response to something that is, or seems to me anyway, to be of the shady/sneaky anti-feminist type. I have responded to such things and been jumped on. Now, I wait to see which way the wind is blowing. As for the people who come here to 'explore' progressive ideas, I am really really sick of arguing issues from first principles. I would suggest to someone like that that he or she read around in the archives for a while before coming in with a (perhaps faux) naive question.
From: away | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045
|
posted 31 December 2005 08:31 PM
There are subjects I avoid, often because of lack of interest, often because I know I'm not the least bit informed on the subject and sometimes because the same back-and-forth ya did ya didn't yer mudda's anudda fatigue'd me before I'd read the posts.I get tired of some of the quips and jokes about things which, to most women I know, aren't the least fekkin bit funny. I try not to "react" but I often do, and sometimes I go for the throat. I am so sick and tired of feeling we need to APPEASE them lest we be summarilly dismissed or subjected to full frontal attack. Sometimes it feels as if we're almost pandering to them, being overly gentle with them, trying to lead them from some point on which they are determinedly stuck... and sometimes what has been written by some men just makes me so out and out SAD that I can't bring myself to do anything but go make a pot of tea and hope to god their mother's never find out what total dweebs they've raised. Some of the men who have blundered into the feminist forum are so...deliberately hateful... that I am not convinced they had mothers! And then there are those boring and endless forays into dialectic wotzit... as if any part of it actually MEANT anything! Thanks, Skdadl, for this . Maybe we should do it more often. It feels very safe, and I didn't have to gird a single loin before I began typing!!
From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
justluckylittlecharm
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11546
|
posted 02 January 2006 03:37 PM
From my own experience, I try to avoid a lot of confrontations. I can defend myself quite well but I feel in general, I shouldn't have to. This doesn't mean that I don't enjoy an informed discussion-you don't have to agree with me, and I don't have to agree with you, but we do have to respect the fact that we are each entitled to our own opinions-Now let's discuss them. I do find it harder to post to an area where there are a large number of aggressive people, male or female, though the ones most likely to run someone else down seem to be male. I consider my opinions and what I am writing carefully before posting, and I am less likely to post if there are a large number of males involved than if there are females. I've seen a few P'ing contests going on here and there and I don't want to feel like I'm the next target. My first post here was a query about the rules of netiquette here and where the line is for abuse of the rules. This was precisely why I wrote that post. And to be honest, one of the members I've seen being pretty aggressive and less than polite to some others, jumped into that thread. I guess he figured I was looking to start scrapping or something. I told him that I wasn't expecting someone to start something with me, just needed to know the process if someone did.
From: Ontario | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
rinne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9117
|
posted 04 January 2006 05:23 AM
"And given the election, the whole board is just going wonky, as usual at election times."Since I was not here for the last election, this is all new to me. The poll threads have just amazed me, I'm sure because I absolutely do not understand the appeal of them. One day I did a poll of a poll and discovered that of the 48 babblers, 44 identified as male, 4 identified as female and 4 did not identify themselves. I don't have any idea of the ratio of male to female babblers and perhaps that explains the difference but it did make me wonder what other women think of polls. I think our political process has been corrupted by strategizing and gamesmanship, not that they weren't always a part of it but now it seems too often that that is all it is. Winning is more important than ethics or integrity. I see a connection to polls in this, it's like the polls are the sports casters announcements on the plays in the game. Perhaps that is what you mean with, "Does babble sometimes seem like a flap-mouthed macho backroom to you?" My answer is yes. I recall one thread, it was in the feminism forum, and it was mostly men, mostly young men and I don't know why I bothered to continue because I could see that other intelligent women had abandoned the thread to them. I wouldn't do it again although continuing did give me some sympathy for regular posters who come out swinging when they encounter bigots. So, to answer your question, no I don't find it hard to post to babble but I avoid certain threads so as to keep my good humor and my temper.
From: prairies | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582
|
posted 09 January 2006 01:35 AM
I am often surprised when I check out a babbler's profile--the gender bit. I don't check that often; I prefer to speculate. My alias is taken to be feminine. (It's actually the title of a Dylan Thomas poem, but no matter.) As the election nears, discussions are heating up. Seems that what I (fern hill, a gril) say in one of the political threads gets skipped over. Someone else (a byo) says it afterwards and it gets taken seriously. But then, why should anyone be surprised? T'was ever thus.
From: away | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 10 January 2006 10:03 AM
AA, when I first saw the piss-takes beginning (I think they started with the pro- and con-Neil Young threads, and then continued from there), I felt very slightly torn because I did think they were funny - I thought we could afford to laugh at ourselves a bit. But I know what you mean. It might feel easier for some of us to treat those lightly because we have been around longer and treat them as community-building games - the people who show up in them tend to be the regulars who care about babble and who join in jokey conversations mainly to keep up that sense of community. That is a bit of a problem for me. I really like babble - I feel a loyalty to the whole creation as well as special loyalties to smaller groups with more focused commitments. There have been times when I've known that some of the nicest babbler men were feeling completely bamboozled by our having a protected space and our reactions even to their attempts to be sympathetic supporters. Whenever that happens, however justified anyone is on either side, I end up in knots because I care so much about what got built here - the whole of it. And a lot of the people who made it are - you should forgive the expression - men. And to Sineed: No way! Some of the nastier trolls we've had either have been women or at least have presented themselves as women.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
googlymoogly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3819
|
posted 13 January 2006 12:26 AM
I, too, have found it extremely difficult to post to babble lately, but at the same time, backing down is out of the question. I resent the suggestion by anyone that we should appease people, trolls or not, when we get really upset at the way we are treated on here. "We" could be anyone. The recent topics on gender go to the core of who I am, and it hurts like hell to hear people say that they "Don't consider (me) member of my real gender, but a transgendered person." Once a transperson, always a transperson, never the person I know I really am. It's a knife in the gut, really. But I'm the one who has to calm down and avoid the alleged personal attacks. I'm sorry; that had to come out.
From: the fiery bowels of hell | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582
|
posted 15 January 2006 12:04 PM
I realize that it is bad form to quote oneself, but I got a PM asking me to give an example of what I said above in this thread. quote: Originally posted by fern hill:
Seems that what I (fern hill, a gril) say in one of the political threads gets skipped over. Someone else (a byo) says it afterwards and it gets taken seriously.
I've looked in the election and politics forums and can't find. My memory is not what it used to be. I apologize. I still think what I said is true, but I can't find an example of it. Now I'm off to respond to the PM. [Note to self: make notes.]
From: away | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Glorified Ape
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11758
|
posted 15 January 2006 08:03 PM
I'm quite familiar, from experiences on other boards, with the tendency that discussions have of descending into heated, unproductive exchanges of thinly veiled (if at all) insults. I'm curious as to whether people feel "threatened" by the dissent and debate itself (or in part), or only when it takes on a more malignant tone ( "you don't get it", "that's stupid", etc. are usually the harbingers thereof). If the former, is there really anything that can be done with the exception of excluding dissenting voices? I'd wager discussion would become extremely boring in such a case, consisting generally of pats on the back and endless utterances of "I agree". In the latter case, do you think an expansion of existing guidelines of conduct would help? If so, what are some ideas for policies which might generate a more dignified and productive environment for discussion/debate? After reading through the forum policy statement, there seems to be a proscription against the use of exclusionarylanguage (homophobic, racist, sexist, etc. which I assume applies in sentiment not only to statements but to practices as well) but this would seem to address only the most overt and crass cases. There is a prohibition on "...personal insults, attacks and mischievous antagonism (otherwise known as trolling)" which would seem to cover a good deal so is the question then one of enforcement or just greater specificity of terms within the statement?
From: Canada | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Glorified Ape
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11758
|
posted 15 January 2006 08:51 PM
quote: Originally posted by fern hill: This is the feminist forum and this thread is restricted. Just to let you know Glorified Ape, that means no male posters.
I understood the feminism forum to be non-exclusionary insofar as sex is concerned. As the forum policy statement establishes that exclusionary language is prohibited, one can infer that exclusionary practices would be doubly so, as they go far beyond the effect of language. I imagine a thread's "no minorities" exclusion would be null and void as it is racist in practice and implication. I assumed similarly in this case, as the exclusion is sexist. As I wished neither to "troll" nor derail the thread from its topic - the atmosphere of discussion, an issue I've found of great importance on boards everywhere - I ignored the offending exclusion and attempted clarification of the sentiments expressed here and sought a continuance of discussion on how improvements might be made to the atmosphere of exchange here (and hopefully elsewhere).
From: Canada | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Glorified Ape
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11758
|
posted 15 January 2006 09:53 PM
quote: Originally posted by fern hill: Read the first post. In this forum, people starting threads can ask that women only reply. This is one such thread. Not many threads in this forum are, but you hit on one that is.
I read over your first post (again) and must confess I don't see where it applies. You discuss people posting misogynist and anti-feminst views, neither of which I have done.
As for the feminism forum rules, I've gone both to the FAQ and searched under "feminism forum", "restricted thread(s)", "feminism forum rules (and every variation thereof)", "posting rights", etc. but can find no provision for exclusion from a thread based on one's sex. I'll be the first to admit I may have missed something and would appreciate it greatly if you could point me in the direction of a policy statement that provides for the exclusion of posters on the basis of their sex. All I found which seemed to pertain to this was the "posting rights" section at the bottom of the forum window which stated "All registered users may post replies in this forum." Again, I'd appreciate a link to the feminism forum rules, if a separate set exist, to avoid future problems.
From: Canada | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Tehanu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9854
|
posted 15 January 2006 10:30 PM
M'thinks that the overconstructed bletherings of our newest visitor, and his limited peregrinations solely to this forum, exhibit a sub-viaductian propensity for gnawing on skeletal remains ... while we eagerly anticipate the emergence of his latest gems during his undoubtedly short duration with us. Just a thought. [edited to add a mistakenly omitted apostrophe] [ 15 January 2006: Message edited by: Tehanu ]
From: Desperately trying to stop procrastinating | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|