Here in this auntie.com thread about political correctness (in case the tinyurl trick doesn't work)Babble

And this one in feminism on the tv movie "Choice"Babble.

In the first one, feminists (unnamed) are accused of "hurling abuse" and being unprogressively intolerant of an anti-feminist, anti-abortion Babbler, who, however, advances her so-called arguements in a simpering, passive-aggressive style that does not break the rules.

Expecting feminists to be tolerant of an anti-feminist (however nice s/he is) is rather like expecting a gay or lesbian person to be tolerant of a homophobe who "loves the sinner" but "hates the sin" and goes on to pile on all the traditional slurs against the sin, but note bene NOT the sinner.

In the second thread, an otherwise interesting discussion of the bad old pre-Morgentaler days got stalled by a couple of guys arguing about whether men are "allowed" to post in the feminist forum. I imagine it stalled because other potential posters like me thought: Aw fuck, here we go again.

So, (in good New Year style) I have already resolved to ignore the anti-feminist Babbler and now I've decided to ignore a) all purportedly male defenders of same and b) the males who don't get it.

The problem is, we get it all too well. And your problems have nothing at all to do with feminism, which you use a crutch to excuse your abuse of others. You want to ignore Hailey? You want to ignore me. Fine. The way to do that is to simply do it. No need to make a big announcement.

[ 11 January 2005: Message edited by: RealityBites ]

quote:

---

Rather cowardly of you to set up a thread to attack individual babblers in the feminist forums.

The problem is, Scout, I get you all too well. And your problems have nothing at all to do with feminism, which you use a crutch to excuse your abuse of others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RealityBites:
Rather cowardly of you to set up a thread to attack individual babblers in the feminist forums.

---

Jesus Christ!

The progressive males don't bother me. Sometimes they "get it" more than we give them credit for, and sometimes we're a little too defensive ourselves to listen to a not opposing, but different perspective. Whether they entirely "get it" or not (some days I'm not even certain I do...), they mean well and are trying. I think that should be encouraged.

[ 11 January 2005: Message edited by: Zoot ]

quote:

---

Jesus Christ!

We find ourselves in rare agreement. I think I owe you a pint for this, ... so if you're ever in Vancouver, let me know.

---

You agree that I'm a coward for something another poster does?

quote:

---

Originally posted by RealityBites:
[QB]Rather cowardly of you to set up a thread to attack individual babblers in the feminist forums.

---

I'm not attacking any individual. As for the "big announcement", I was trying to inspire others to also ignore infuriating stuff.

Your use of the word "cowardly" seems rather broad. I'm cowardly because I start a thread, Scout is cowardly because she -- well, I'm not sure why exactly. Maybe you mean it like George Bush as in "those terrists are cowards", with "coward" meaning "inscrutable, unpredictable and scary".

Anyhoo, isn't it a BIG BAD to name babblers not participating ina thread (see politically correct thread)? Though I should be quietly grateful that I was called merely "snide". Yoicks, what's next? Rude? A bully?

[ 11 January 2005: Message edited by: fern hill ]

[ 11 January 2005: Message edited by: Scout ]

It's amazing how trivial a lot of things get...

[ 11 January 2005: Message edited by: Zoot ]

I just finished reading the auntie thread, and I'm speechless. And I feel sort of sick.

I just kept thinking: they can't be doing this. As you say, fern, talking about female babblers in overgeneralizations, not naming us but thereby compounding the nastiness, all the way to, yes, feminist bashing.

I couldn't believe it. I can't possibly be bothered to argue against it. But there are a few people I used to think of as friends and allies and brothers whom I'll be giving a wide berth for a while.

[ 11 January 2005: Message edited by: skdadl ]

quote:

---

who, however, advances her so-called arguements in a simpering, passive-aggressive style that does not break the rules.

---

If "the letter of the law" doesn't reflect "the spirit of the law", isn't it time to change the law?

I know that can be difficult in the "real" world, but babble is "private property". If babble's governing body wanted to, the rules could be changed overnight to include anything they wished, including tying up any loopholes left by the letter.

quote:

---

Doesn't this make more sense than being angry because somebody's following the rules? Isn't that what the rules are for? If the speedlimit says "100", and you're doing 100, what right does anyone have to get upset at you??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
People get upset if you aren't doing passing speed in the passing lane and are thereby impeding the flow of traffic. This can be dangerous can it not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

If "the letter of the law" doesn't reflect "the spirit of the law", isn't it time to change the law?

---

Also, that definition is very weak. What is "pro-feminist" anyway? Who decides what that is? The difficulty of this causes the forum to go on an endless merrigoround. Other forums have their own merrigorounds, like the Middle East forum in particular, but the feminism forum is really the only one go to on a merrigoround like this.

Some of the guys who've been saying that overnight are nice guys, and as usual, being a soft-hearted woman, I immediately worry about how we could have hurt the boys' feelings and what we should have been doing better, explaining better, so that they could come home at six and flop into their favourite chair and put their feet up and ...

Oops!

quote:

---

I immediately worry about how we could have hurt the boys' feelings and what we should have been doing better, explaining better, so that they could come home at six and flop into their favourite chair and put their feet up and ...

---

I looked at the auntie thread. It seemed to be going on OK for a while And then suddenly it veered into a weird nether universe on the matter of Hailey. Some people seem to be claiming that defense of Hailey is a backlashy double standard. But Hailey isn't the only conservative on babble.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mandos:
.

Also, that definition is very weak. What is "pro-feminist" anyway?

---

Umm, in favour of feminism? And feminism, at the very least, is the notion that women and men are equal under the law, have the same rights to self-determination.

quote:

---

I looked at the auntie thread. It seemed to be going on OK for a while And then suddenly it veered into a weird nether universe on the matter of Hailey. Some people seem to be claiming that defense of Hailey is a backlashy double standard. But Hailey isn't the only conservative on babble.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mandos:
Also, that definition is very weak. What is "pro-feminist" anyway? Who decides what that is?

---

Golly, Mandos, I'm SO glad you asked that. In another thread, you pissed me right off with your "truth is truth whether it's woman-centred or man-centred" which didn't recognize that different people have different takes on what "truth" is depending on where they stand as an individual and as a player in society.

But now, you seem to be grasping the fact that things are often open to interpretation depending on whose point of view you're coming from.

So here's the answer to your question:

It is up to FEMINISTS - and primarily FEMINIST WOMEN - you know, women, the people whose point of view has been lacking throughout the ages? - who get to decide what is pro-feminist. And that goes for babble, too. It is primarily feminists, and feminist WOMEN on babble who get to decide what is pro-feminist.

That doesn't mean men can't participate. It just means that men get to follow in that particular forum rather than lead. That's all.

quote:

---

What is "pro-feminist" anyway? Who decides what that is?

---

All of those things, I think, can avoid easy definitions as they are moving targets always evolving one day and devolving the next. Moving left today and right tomorrow. More spiritualism one year; less the next.

And while conservatives will resist being defined by socialists and vice-versa, so feminists will resist being defined those other than themselves.

quote:

---

Some people seem to be claiming that defense of Hailey is a backlashy double standard. But Hailey isn't the only conservative on babble.

---

I think sometimes lately some of the defence has seemed double standard-ish, that’s just how I see it. If some of what I have found offensive had been said by a conservative about gays, they would be toast no matter how nicely they said it, this has actually happened and the screams of “bigot, bigot” still echo.

quote:

---

So I'm forced to give credence to some of the claims that the matter of feminism itself is being used to defend an attack position on Hailey that isn't applied to others.

---

Hailey is the only poster regularly spreading disinformation about feminists and with a strong track record of derailing threads on abortion with issues of feminism or feminist threads with issues of abortion. Other posters with an anti-abortion point of view seem to be able to control themselves; I believe someone used Heywood as an example. So it seems feminism and feminists are that which needs defending and by doing so it is being suggested that we are using it as a weapon. If there was another Hailey floating around they’d get the same treatment.

I recall around election time, we had a poster derailing threads and generally being a pest about what the NDP should do to win, he was a liberal, and his schtick went over poorly. Very poorly and now he is gone. So should we put NDP supporters on trial for that behaviour or is it just feminists being held to a higher standard? Or are expected to be nicer.

Many of our current regular righties don’t seem to trot out the same old tired stereotypes they previously had over and over, they actually seem to learn something.

quote:

---

But clearly many babblers believe that to be anti-abortion is to be anti-feminist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by faith:

It was specifically Hailey that was brought up as an example, by men indulging in bashing feminism and feminists in order to defend her. Feminists did not derail the thread on political correctness, they simply responded to a somewhat covert attack.

---

Mandos, faith is describing here what I suddenly found myself wading in when I tried to read through that thread.

Women babblers hadn't mentioned Hailey. But suddenly there were all these Sir Galahads talking about how bitchy some women babblers were to her. And it went on and on and on.

Like -- where did that come from?

quote:

---

And while conservatives will resist being defined by socialists and vice-versa, so feminists will resist being defined those other than themselves.

---

On the now-infamous "Shaving" thread, there were some feminists who said "what's the big deal; shave if you want", and others who thought differently. Similarly, some thought shaving to be a "human" enough issue to warrant both male and female input, others not.

When feminists themselves disagree, who gets to decide?

For example, in another thread I posted a link and quoted from a historian who said: "Every democracy needs a liberal fundament, a Bill of Rights enshrined in law and spirit, for this alone gives democracy the chance for self-correction and reform. Without it, the survival of democracy is at risk. Every genuine conservative knows this."

quote:

---

But that would be the point though, wouldn't it Magoo? That feminsists decide whether shaving is feminist or not and they can agree to disagree?

---

Then what would be the difference if a few more opinions got tossed into the mix?

If I seem to be holding the same position as a feminist in a thread in the Feminism forum, does that make a de facto feminist, and is my contribution thus de facto "pro-feminist"?

What if that contribution is therefore diametrically opposed to another feminist's viewpoint?

Sometimes men get carried away. Instead of following the logic of that thread, a few men just carted it off and began to discuss the issue from a male point of view.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
When feminists themselves disagree, who gets to decide?

This alone makes "Discuss feminist issues from a pro-feminist point of view" a bit ambiguous, IMHO.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Then what would be the difference if a few more opinions got tossed into the mix?

If I seem to be holding the same position as a feminist in a thread in the Feminism forum, does that make a de facto feminist, and is my contribution thus de facto "pro-feminist"?

What if that contribution is therefore diametrically opposed to another feminist's viewpoint?

I guess I'm asking: is one's viewpoint automatically "feminist" if a woman holds it? If it agrees with a woman/feminist's viewpoint? Or is it objective/content based?

---

quote:

---

If I seem to be holding the same position as a feminist in a thread in the Feminism forum, does that make a de facto feminist, and is my contribution thus de facto "pro-feminist"?

What if that contribution is therefore diametrically opposed to another feminist's viewpoint?

I guess I'm asking: is one's viewpoint automatically "feminist" if a woman holds it? If it agrees with a woman/feminist's viewpoint? Or is it objective/content based?

---

What if you decide something today and wakeup tomorrow thinking, "no, that is completely wrong!" Does that mean you are not really yourself?

No, Magoo, you are not asking any such question. You are also trying to force feminists into a corner by having them do what you do not require any others to do: definitively identify their philosophy as a sort of dogma. And should they, then you would accuse them of being dogmatic, unyielding, and guilty of the exclusiveness they sometimes condemn on the part of segments of the greater society.

Tell you what, you define your politics. Define precisely what it means to share your politics and precisley what another must agree to and disagree with to share your politics, including rules of debate and to what degree dissent is allowed, and I will then do the same for my politics and together we can demand the same from feminists. And then, then, we will all fit nicely into little predefined pigeon holes.

Take your time. I will check back in an hour.

[ 11 January 2005: Message edited by: WingNut ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Hey, Budd, why don't you piss off if you have nothing of substance to contribute besides your needling.

---

Should I take this as a warning from the moderators?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Budd Campbell:
Should I take this as a warning from the moderators?

---

Sorry.

[ 11 January 2005: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

Although FWIW, I stand by the strategy. And I used her name as an example of what I was trying to highlight off the top of my head.

[ 11 January 2005: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

No. As I have explained many, many times, I moderate the Middle East forum and the babble banter forum.

---

Okay. In the auntie forum thread on "politically correct" I had asked you to expand on what you said about the "woman centred" nature of the feminist forum:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Michelle:
... the fact that women would like to lead the feminist movement and that feminist discussions should be woman-centred, rather than sitting back and letting men tell us what direction we should go.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here you have added new requirements, that the discussion in the feminist forum be "woman-centred" and that "women would like to lead the feminist movement". Is this a hard and fast rule in terms of posting to the babble feminist forum? If so, how does a male poster engage in a "woman centred" discussion, and how does he ensure that his participation not undermine the desire for women to lead the feminist movement?

quote:

---

Golly, Mandos, I'm SO glad you asked that. In another thread, you pissed me right off with your "truth is truth whether it's woman-centred or man-centred" which didn't recognize that different people have different takes on what "truth" is depending on where they stand as an individual and as a player in society.

But now, you seem to be grasping the fact that things are often open to interpretation depending on whose point of view you're coming from.

---

On the other hand, in attempting to limit discussion who is and who isn't qualified to opine on a particular matter, it is possible to assume definitions that do not exist. "Pro-feminist" is a weak definition. Being subject to argument, it itself creates this merrigoround on the feminist forum.

In other words, in both cases I was presenting the problem with a forum in which "who participates" has been limited or directed in some way.

quote:

---

That question could be asked about anything Mandos. What is progressive? What is socialism? What is conservatism? For that matter, the great unresolved question of the 20th century, what is Canadian?
And who decides the answers?

---

quote:

---

It is up to FEMINISTS - and primarily FEMINIST WOMEN - you know, women, the people whose point of view has been lacking throughout the ages? - who get to decide what is pro-feminist. And that goes for babble, too. It is primarily feminists, and feminist WOMEN on babble who get to decide what is pro-feminist.

That doesn't mean men can't participate. It just means that men get to follow in that particular forum rather than lead. That's all.

---

quote:

---

But the one thing I think most of us can agree on is that while we value the point of view of the men in our lives and on babble, we don't want men taking over feminist discussions or trying to dictate the terms or the content of the discussion. And we would like men to recognize the fact that women experience the world differently than men (and therefore, may not share the universal male point of view!) due to the different realities of living as a woman in this society

---

quote:

---

Women babblers hadn't mentioned Hailey. But suddenly there were all these Sir Galahads talking about how bitchy some women babblers were to her. And it went on and on and on.

---

That isn't being "pro feminist", no matter how well intentioned it may be.

I'd consider H.G. Wells to be "pro feminist". He was a major voice in the sufferage of women. But, one can also see Wells-- correctly, I think-- as a man who attacked anti-women Victorian laws and morals on the basis that those laws and morals cramped his sex life.

In many ways, a giant of feminism, and in many ways, a complete cad.

There is ambiguity in the definition, certainly. I think women look at, and listen to men, and see the same ambiguity.

I have read Michelle's posts and those of others and don't have any problems. When terms such as
"..women would like to lead the feminist movement.." and
"..feminist discussions should be woman-centred.." and
"..men get to follow in that particular forum rather than lead..",

it's perfectly clear what that means. It DOESN'T mean that men are excluded.

Anyway (and it's been said better before), it's not as if men don't get to lead and dominate in pretty much every other sphere of society.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
Just a thing that may have been over-looked I'm willing to stand up and say yes I'm the one who started it by mentioning Hailey. However it was a comment based upon the fact that the left believes in tolerance, and I thought she was a good example (except in a few cases like the 'feminists not making good mothers' and abortion case) of someone with a contrary view that wasn't being respected thus making progressives look hypocritical.

It was not intended as a veiled attack against anything except for progressive hypocrisy, something I think would take away from meeting general attempts to create a more egalitarian society. Yet again if certain people were offended I apologize but it was not a veiled attack against feminism.

---

I'm having much the same feeling. I NEVER meant anything I said to be a thinly veiled attack on anyone, though some people seemed to take it personally. I was building on VK's example. If that was misinterpreted, I apologise.

I am not an anti-feminist in any sense, that I know of, though I continue to learn. If I have been perceived as such, that is unfortunate, but it was certainly not my intention to attack anyone, nor to promote some sly anti-feminist agenda. It has become clear that on the 'other' thread that some people read that into my words, but it was emphatically not the case. I also quite definitely did NOT say anything about 'women babblers' while we were discussing Hailey. That was entirely read into what I said, which is unfortunate, because I was not thinking about either gender when I wrote it.

[ 11 January 2005: Message edited by: arborman ]

quote:

---

Why don't the guys start their own separate discussion forum on feminism from their own perspective? I suspect it's because at least some of you would miss the 'fun' of attempting to bait women, and feeling all superior and smart.

---

quote:

---

I really liked that quote, Wingy, so much so that it made me wonder whether I'm really a conservative after all.

---

Skdadl,your in danger of falling in line with everyones favorite thinker, Samuel Huntington. He wrote a essay in the late 50s called "Conservatism as an Ideology", in it he argues "the liberals must be conservatives in America today...the grestest need is not so much the creation of more liberal institutions as the successful defence of those which already exist."

[ 11 January 2005: Message edited by: Rand McNally ]

quote:

---

"What is pro-feminist?" however becomes a constant issue.

---

Simple of rule of thumb, to use a politically incorrect term, if the usual denizens of the forum are being hostile, you are probably not being perceived as pro-feminist.

quote:

---

1. It's hard to start a new discussion forum without Audra's approval. For values of hard that mean "impossible."

---

I think we have that defacto now as it seems all the women, feminist or otherwise, have left the thread.

quote:

---

Why don't the guys start their own separate discussion forum on feminism from their own perspective? I suspect it's because at least some of you would miss the 'fun' of attempting to bait women, and feeling all superior and smart.

---

That's fair. I think, though, that a male thread on what feminism means to them would be as quickly, or more quicky, derailed by trolls than feminist threads here.

The "ambiguity" of "pro-feminist" is a handy tool for the moderator to deffend what is a contentious forum. I guess one could look at that as "wrong" or "censorship", and open to abuses, but I don't have a better way, and I'm certainly not in position to be too critical of a task I wouldn't take on for a moment.

I can only speak for myself. Do doubt there's men who enjoy baiting women, arguing with them. I don't. Actual ad hominem arguments leave me feeling ill, and it's not what I come on line for.

Am I guilty of baiting? Yeah. But as many know, my "smarts", such as they are, are of the plodding kind, and I have never had much patience for so callded "postmodernist" philosophy or other modes of magical thinking. In my mind, I'm being "pro-feminist", because deep in my heart of hearts, I believe the facts are on the side of equality for women, and that the battle field for equality is on the street and not in the halls of acedemia. I have at times baited people who believe the opposite, but I don't believe I've ever done so on the basis of gender.

quote:

---

If you don't explicitly identify as a feminist, or at least as an ally of feminism and self-identified feminists, then this is probably a good clue that you should stay out of the feminism forum and make your points elsewhere on Babble. It's really not a hard concept to grasp. I'm not sure why some people feel so put out by it. There's plenty of other forums on Babble where people can discuss the issues.

---

BTW, I consider myself to be in support of feminism, as a concept. But some people occasionally don't think that my arguments fit this definition, and this is true of others as well. It's because other people don't agree with this, and this is subject to debate, that I think that the forum is ill-defined.

[ 11 January 2005: Message edited by: Mandos ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mandos:
Largely because I don't like being told I can't contradict someone where I see something being contradicted. Unashamedly, I come down on the side of me being allowed to debate.

BTW, I consider myself to be in support of feminism, as a concept. But some people occasionally don't think that my arguments fit this definition, and this is true of others as well. It's because other people don't agree with this, and this is subject to debate, that I think that the forum is ill-defined.

[ 11 January 2005: Message edited by: Mandos ]

---

More and more you are sounding like a spoilt brat. Like a child at a park I saw recently (coincidentally or not a boy surrounded by girls) who wasn't getting his way on a playground spinning contraption - he simply stood up, climbed on the spinning wheel in the centre, and said 'everybody off!'

quote:

---

More and more you are sounding like a spoilt brat. Like a child at a park I saw recently (coincidentally or not a boy surrounded by girls) who wasn't getting his way on a playground spinning contraption - he simply stood up, climbed on the spinning wheel in the centre, and said 'everybody off!'

---

To go back to your earlier posts, there's a basic point you are missing, which is that gender politics and relationships in a general sense are absolutely unequal, as they have always been. Men have been getting a greater share of the pie. So what the hell is wrong with women/feminists having one tiny little virtual space where they can make the rules, they can control what goes on, and they can feel that it is theirs?

quote:

---

It's possible, under that definition, to squeeze in an anti-abortion point of view. Behold this example argument: "If men could get pregnant, then I would also say that they shouldn't have abortion."

---

equal under the law in Canada no longer means "equal treatment under the law," but rather "equal benefit of the law."

quote:

---

OK, wrong example, although your inference that someone is telling you to 'get off' certain forums is once again a distortion of the truth.

---

quote:

---

To go back to your earlier posts, there's a basic point you are missing, which is that gender politics and relationships in a general sense are absolutely unequal, as they have always been. Men have been getting a greater share of the pie. So what the hell is wrong with women/feminists having one tiny little virtual space where they can make the rules, they can control what goes on, and they can feel that it is theirs?

---

quote:

---

You should feel priveleged that you are allowed to participate in the first place!

---

quote:

---

equal under the law in Canada no longer means "equal treatment under the law," but rather "equal benefit of the law."

It is impossible for men to have babies. As a result, a ban on abortion clearly has a greater impact on women than men, and disadvantages women under the law compared to men.

---

quote:

---

Because unless it is declared explicitly women-only (I won't object to that) it won't work on a discussion board, and I actually don't think it leads to honest discussions. ie, it becomes a kind of minefield.

---

Your entitled to your opinion but it seems we don't care. Plenty of the boys around here have shown today that in fact they can participate in this forum without being out of order and accept and understand what we want. And those of you that don't get it feel free to take your toys and go home, it's likely your opinion wasn't all that important in the first place. If you can't respect us enough to follow some simple guidelines do you really think you have anything to say that we want to hear?

quote:

---

Tell you what, you define your politics. Define precisely what it means to share your politics and precisley what another must agree to and disagree with to share your politics, including rules of debate and to what degree dissent is allowed, and I will then do the same for my politics and together we can demand the same from feminists. And then, then, we will all fit nicely into little predefined pigeon holes.

---

I'll make it totally clear for you then: all responses to this post must be pro-Magoo.

quote:

---

Take your time. I will check back in an hour.

---

One proposal, which despite the extra work, I would strongly support, would be to make this forum a closed forum such that:

*everyone could read the forum
*only babblers pre-authorized could post to it
*"recent rabble-rousers" wouldn't be given posting ability--you'd have to have a track record at the site
*the moderator could remove any participant for violating the essential purpose of this forum, with no further ado
*participants could be any sex or gender, but all self-identified feminists
*the forum description could tell you to PM the moderator if you want posting ability

Of course, this is a lot of extra work at first, and it might be unfair/unreasonable to expect Audra to do it. Eventually, it would be simple maintenance work. I'd be willing to do it, but I'm a man. Would a) Audra agree; and b) any woman moderator be willing to volunteer?

[ 12 January 2005: Message edited by: rasmus raven ]

quote:

---

Mandos, the feminism forum is not about you; it is not set up as a place for you to get into a debate; it is not a place for you to play 'gotcha'. You do not own it; you do not set the rules; you do not tell anyone what they should talk about or how to discuss it or what is important; you do not define feminism; you do not demand that anyone else give you a definition so you can debate it.

---

Okay, that's exaggerating (that you're my favorite person. What you said was spot on). But close.

[ 12 January 2005: Message edited by: meades ]

Personally I don't have a problem with closed forums, caucuses, etc. I've been on many. Babble itself is not an entirely open forum. And I am grateful for that.

[ 12 January 2005: Message edited by: rasmus raven ]

quote:

---

Rather cowardly of you to set up a thread to attack individual babblers in the feminist forums.

The problem is, we get it all too well. And your problems have nothing at all to do with feminism, which you use a crutch to excuse your abuse of others. You want to ignore Hailey? You want to ignore me. Fine. The way to do that is to simply do it. No need to make a big announcement.

[ 11 January 2005: Message edited by: RealityBites ]

---

How cute, you changed it after I quoted you! It still doesn't make any sense dumbass.

Which one of us did you stalk into here to bitch out now? Can you even tell us apart!

As for this "we" your talking about, who are you including? You have told half of babble to go fuck themselves, I just don't see them lining up in droves to pile on with the abusiveness you love to dish out.

[ 12 January 2005: Message edited by: Scout ]

quote:

---

Mandos, the feminism forum is not about you; it is not set up as a place for you to get into a debate; it is not a place for you to play 'gotcha'.

---

quote:

---

You do not own it; you do not set the rules; you do not tell anyone what they should talk about or how to discuss it or what is important; you do not define feminism;

---

quote:

---

you do not demand that anyone else give you a definition so you can debate it.

---

quote:

---

You are like a spoiled brat screaming that the game has to be played by his rules; and when you stop to catch your breath, maybe you will notice that everyone has left.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by meades:
Contrarian is my new favorite person...
...Okay, that's exaggerating (that you're my favorite person. What you said was spot on). But close.

---

quote:

---

*shrug*

---

quote:

---

Your entitled to your opinion but it seems we don't care.

---

quote:

---

Plenty of the boys around here have shown today that in fact they can participate in this forum without being out of order and accept and understand what we want. And those of you that don't get it feel free to take your toys and go home, it's likely your opinion wasn't all that important in the first place. If you can't respect us enough to follow some simple guidelines do you really think you have anything to say that we want to hear?

---

quote:

---

Some guys get it, some don't, so the problem doesn't seem to be the guidlines.

---

quote:

---

If that's how you feel why are you wasting yours and our time posting, over and over again in this thread, in this forum?

---

quote:

---

Mandos, your last few posts are full of gotchas; that is part of the problem. Go back and read the entire thread and quit picking out details you can give a gotcha answer to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasmus raven:

*everyone could read the forum
*only babblers pre-authorized could post to it
*"recent rabble-rousers" wouldn't be given posting ability--you'd have to have a track record at the site
*the moderator could remove any participant for violating the essential purpose of this forum, with no further ado
*participants could be any sex or gender, but all self-identified feminists
*the forum description could tell you to PM the moderator if you want posting ability
raven ]

---

Your rules are far too lax if you want to make this forum true.

implicit assumption tests

They attempt to measure unacknowledged, unconscious sources of bias, including gender bias.

The first time I took the gender one, I was quite shocked to see that it revealed a greater level of sexism (of the traditional kind) than I had expected to see in myself. It was useful as a springboard to examine whtehr or not I was as feminist as I thought I was, and what feminism meant to me, and all that other stuff that seems to come up over and over (and over and over) again here.

I remember reading a study a year or so (maybe more?) back which concluded that a person's stated level of "feminism" did not correlate in any meaningful way with their own attitudes, so that a self-avowed feminist was just as likely to be sexist as anyone else. Disheartening, but revealing, I think. What we think we believe is often not what we really believe, at all.

Well, yeah. That's because the test first associated Male and Science and delay occured when they switched them and I took a second to adjust.

Research on implicit assumption tests

Some scattered thoughts: again and again, feminists end up on the defensive in the feminist forum. We haven't entirely figured out why.

Elsewhere on the board, most of us have little trouble identifying open racism, or homophobia. And as I thought about those two cases, I had to admit that I've often revised my own posts here and elsewhere to combat what I guess I would have to admit is my own sexism -- that is, I do make a lot of assumptions about men, especially; I know that I do; and I know that I would be called on them very quickly on this forum or any other.

I don't think, though, that I make many assumptions about the women posters here. Odd, that, isn't it?

I would say that my lazy assumptions about men are much more the result of my life-history than of my feminism, but I can't deny that I run on them quite a bit. Having them challenged by meeting so many enlightened males on babble has actually been an interesting jolt for me, if undeniably a jolt.

At the same time: I am therefore detecting a distinction. Opposing sexism per se on this board seems to be fairly easy. We all seem to know what we mean by that term. And for me, anyway, it works mainly to increase respect for many men, many younger men, especially.

But we don't seem to know for sure what we mean by feminism itself or by thinking positively of feminism. Or at least, that is severely contested territory.

There is in practice a distinction made on babble between being sexist, which will get you censured, and being anti-feminist, which most of the time will not. In fact, being anti-feminist is pretty easy on babble, and happens a lot without even being recognized ... until one or another feminist suddenly squeaks in pain.

And often those of us who squeak get vilified for it.

quote:

---

You have completed the Black People-White People IAT.

The line immediately below summarizes the results of your task performance.

Your data suggest little or no automatic preference for Black People relative to White People

...

The interpretation shown above is described as 'automatic preference for Black People' if you responded faster when Black People faces and Good words were classified with the same key as opposed to White People faces and Good words. It is marked 'automatic preference for White People' if you were faster when giving the same response to White People faces and Good words. Depending on the magnitude of your result, your automatic preference may be described as 'slight', 'moderate', 'strong', or 'little to no preference'.

---

And I think a part of hte problem is that sexism is more than the easy, obvious stuff. It's not just outright misogyny, the "women deserve what they get," stuff. I think, for instance, that vilifying a woman who speaks out against anti-feminism is sexist. AT least in part, I think it depends on a certain conception of what would are supposed to be like and how they should behave--be nice, stoke mens' egos, don't participate in conflict, that's not what good girls do, you know.

But it's a much more subtle form of sexism, much harder to discuss--because often the people who hold those viewpoints know better, at least consciously. They know that sexism is bad, that women should be treated as the full equals of men. And then to be told that they're not acting like it has got to smart, but that doesn't mean that it's not true.

I've come to believe that it's impossible to grow up in a sexist culture without incorporating some sexist beliefs, however much we consciously would be horrified of them. But I think this makes it really important to acknowledge that if we're all sexist, then being called "sexist" is not an insult, it's a challenge to think through your behaviour or thought patterns. Which, if you're not willing to hear the charge and think it through without histrionics, won't ever change.

I think a lot of the anti-feminist stuff I've seen on Babble IS sexist. If you tease the arguments back to their roots, it's based on certian ideas about men and women that are not defensible. But it's hard to do that teasing back adn discussing without the whole conversation degenerating into "what do you mean I'm sexist! How dare you? I"m a good person."

I'm not sure how to get around that, mind you, but I do know that for me taking those tests did the trick. It got me to start thinking that--hmm, maybe there are some thought patterns and behaviours I could examine and change.

quote:

---

Wingnut, all I can say is, I'll trust the published research and the methodology over your assertion that it's too much like a video game to be reliable.

---

Fine by me but I'm betting I can win every one.

On the larger question, there is probably sexism involved but I don't think in every case. In some cases, I think it is just human nature.

Put it this way, one of the goals of some feminist organizations, back in the 70's was to break into male only establishments whether country clubs, sports reporting (including male dressing rooms), business clubs, etc ... Why? In part, I think, just because those places excluded woman and not neccessarily because woman thought they would enjoy the company and conversation of old men chomping on cigars at the local businessman's association. It was to break down barriers.

Feminism is perceived as exlusive to women. Men can't belong. And I think some progressively minded men, consciously or not, see a barrier they want to break down. But they can't so that leads to frustration and attacks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mandos:
1. It's hard to start a new discussion forum without Audra's approval. For values of hard that mean "impossible."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Walker:
Sorry, but it seems many men here are off the track completely.

I have read Michelle's posts and those of others and don't have any problems. When terms such as
"..women would like to lead the feminist movement.." and
"..feminist discussions should be woman-centred.." and
"..men get to follow in that particular forum rather than lead..",

it's perfectly clear what that means. It DOESN'T mean that men are excluded.

Anyway (and it's been said better before), it's not as if men don't get to lead and dominate in pretty much every other sphere of society.

---

I beg to differ, if I may.

I don't think any of these criteria are at all clear and I asked Michelle if she could elaborate on them.

That's the polite way of saying they are empty, circular statements, elastic definitions that are just euphemisms for "agree with me or shutup, ... or else you'll be banned or suspended."

You're right, they don't mean men are excluded. They do mean that male posters had better watch what they say and not get into intense arguments with the regulars, the usual denizens as I think you refer to them in a later post.

quote:

---

That's the polite way of saying they are empty, circular statements, elastic definitions that are just euphemisms for "agree with me or shutup, ... or else you'll be banned or suspended."

You're right, they don't mean men are excluded. They do mean that male posters had better watch what they say and not get into intense arguments with the regulars, the usual denizens as I think you refer to them in a later post

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
[QB]... Plenty of the boys around here have shown today that in fact they can participate in this forum ... /QB]

---

quote:

---

If there are boys around here, are there any girls?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
... We don't want men telling us how to discuss feminism, we don't want men telling us we are having a silly, stupid, useless, pointless debate, we don't want men telling us how to be better activists, we don't want men telling us how much worse they have it. If you have an honest, insightful opinion, you'll be welcome. If you can't grasp this you will have a rough ride in the forum.

---

Well, at least the male posters have now graduated into adult men instead of boys. I guess that's progress of a sort.

It's implicit in what you've said and not said that you want a different standard applied to male posters in that you don't state that it would be just as upsetting if a female poster says a discussion is silly or pointless.

In another post I pointed out that the "pro-feminist" requirement on the feminism forum is not a rule that babblers agree to, it's not in the babble policy statement. It's just a descriptor alongside the forum heading in the list of forums, on a par with the youth issues forum being described as "the babble school cafeteria". I asked your friend Scott if anyone had ever been banned for discussing youth issues outside the framework of a school cafeteria but so far he hasn't got back to me.

Furthermore, as many have been at pains to point out in detail, the term pro-feminist doesn't have any operational meaning whatsoever. It's just an elastic catch-all term allowing regulars to denounce anyone whose opinion or analysis or gender they don't happen to be comfortable with.

The prohibition on the use of racist and sexist language, contained in the babble policy statement, is quite different. That's clear and enforceable and I don't have a problem with it. On the contrary I fully support it, again, provided it's applied in good faith and without favouring the insiders and regulars.

[ 12 January 2005: Message edited by: Budd Campbell ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:

Are you being serious?

---

Absolutely. If a male poster here had refered to you or other female posters as "the girls", that would be regarded as a serious problem. So why the conspicuously differential treatment?

[ 12 January 2005: Message edited by: Budd Campbell ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Budd Campbell:
...It's implicit in what you've said and not said that you want a different standard applied to male posters in that you don't state that it would be just as upsetting if a female poster says a discussion is silly or pointless...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by audra trower williams:
Gosh, good point! Because if you flip the genders, the situation would be exactly the same.

Le barf.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Contrarian:
The problem is not with all male posters; the problem is that some male posters stand up and yell "Talk about me! Talk about my opinions! Talk about what I think is important! Pay attention to me because my concerns am more important than some feminist's concerns!" And they keep yelling and they will not shut up. And that is the problem.

---