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

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » feminism   » (Some of) The Men Don't Get It: I'm Giving Up

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: (Some of) The Men Don't Get It: I'm Giving Up
fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582

posted 11 January 2005 12:06 PM      Profile for fern hill        Edit/Delete Post
"It" being feminism. Well of course our pet neo-cons don't get it, but some otherwise apparently progressive males (or apparently male progressives) don't get it.

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.

I expect my blood pressure will benefit.


From: away | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438

posted 11 January 2005 12:09 PM      Profile for Hailey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fern Hill:

Your second url as posted doesn't work so you might want to edit your message.


From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 11 January 2005 12:12 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ignoring it doesn't work unfortunately sister, I tried. Now I am a bully and a coward apparently. I am looking up courses on passive-aggressive simpering to make myslef more acceptable to the male progressives.
From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 11 January 2005 12:24 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
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 ]


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 11 January 2005 12:31 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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.


I didn't start this thread you dumbass.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Budd Campbell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7019

posted 11 January 2005 12:33 PM      Profile for Budd Campbell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
Rather cowardly of you to set up a thread to attack individual babblers in the feminist forums.


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.


From: Kerrisdale-Point Grey, Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 11 January 2005 12:34 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm not so fond of anti-feminists or passive aggression, either. But I still think one has to actually wait for the hypothetical passive-aggressive anti-feminist to actually DO something before dog-piling him/her.

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 ]


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 11 January 2005 12:48 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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?

Zoot: I agree, the ones that are trying to get it should be encouraged. The rest...well...I get a tad frustrated.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582

posted 11 January 2005 12:50 PM      Profile for fern hill        Edit/Delete Post
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 ]


From: away | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 11 January 2005 12:51 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've got too much else going on to let it become that important a frustration. The level of rage that I can muster amounts to about a shrug and a half.
From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 11 January 2005 12:52 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You wouldn't want to offer a course would you Zoot?

[ 11 January 2005: Message edited by: Scout ]


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 11 January 2005 12:55 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, first you start your own business, take on a bunch of contract work, have a couple of kids, grow them until they hit the age where extracurricular activities begin to rule and schedule your off hours for you, in addition to directing traffic around the house in terms of meals, laundry, household chores and pet care (we also have 3 cats and a dog)...

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

[ 11 January 2005: Message edited by: Zoot ]


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 11 January 2005 01:32 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The best way of ignoring annoying patronizing posters is - not answering their posts, particularly on a thread that is intended for just that purpose.
From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 January 2005 02:00 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, I'm glad someone started this thread.

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 ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 11 January 2005 02:06 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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.

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??


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 11 January 2005 02:20 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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??

Is it illegal to block the passing lane by doing 100km? 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?


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 11 January 2005 02:23 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, as a non-driver, perhaps I bit off more than I could chew.

However, if people are expected to do 120 in the passing lane, I see no reason why the sign couldn't say that. If it's that important, why would it be "best left unsaid"??


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 11 January 2005 02:24 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is a dumb analogy anyway. Sorry, Magoo. There is no rule. There is only a request that certain guidelines be respected in posting to the feminism forum.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Budd Campbell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7019

posted 11 January 2005 02:25 PM      Profile for Budd Campbell        Edit/Delete Post
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?


It can also be a helluva lot of fun. You've got some redneck in big crew cab, or a yuppie in a sports car, tailgating you, and in the rear view mirror you can clearly see their faces changing colour.


From: Kerrisdale-Point Grey, Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582

posted 11 January 2005 02:30 PM      Profile for fern hill        Edit/Delete Post
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?


Well yeah. That's one of the things that's been confusing me. Right there on the Forum Home page under feminism, it says "Discuss feminist issues from a pro-feminist point of view" (this is from memory and may be slightly off). So, if a non-pro-feminist weighs in in this forum, isn't that trollish, if not downright trolling?


From: away | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 11 January 2005 02:40 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We do on occasion accept conservative points of view that are not trollish.

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 people blame this on people not respecting the definition. I blame it, really, on the weakness of the definition itself.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 January 2005 02:42 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It makes me semi-sad, semi-angry, that some male babblers have been claiming that this is a "boys can't post" forum.

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!

And that's when I get angry.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 11 January 2005 02:44 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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 ...

Female guilt. I have it too. I hate feeling it and am ever on guard against it and having it used against me.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 11 January 2005 02:50 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So I'm going to ask a question that is likely to offend: where do you draw the line into oversensitivity?

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.

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.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
fern hill
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3582

posted 11 January 2005 03:04 PM      Profile for fern hill        Edit/Delete Post
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.

Am I missing something? Seem pretty damn straightforward to me.


From: away | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 11 January 2005 03:07 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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."

But clearly many babblers believe that to be anti-abortion is to be anti-feminist. Am I wrong? So it's not really so simple.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 11 January 2005 03:13 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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.

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.


From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 11 January 2005 03:30 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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.

It also doesn't mean that there is only ONE feminist point of view. As you can see from the feminists on babble, we don't all agree with each other on everything. We don't have to. Feminists discuss things and even argue about feminist issues with each other. 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.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 11 January 2005 03:34 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What is "pro-feminist" anyway? Who decides what that is?

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?

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.

I think to try and have them do something most others could not, is a possibly surreptitious attempt to have them paint themselves into a corner.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 11 January 2005 03:35 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Go Michelle!

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, thats 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 theyd 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 dont 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.

Many of us do, and we have our hands full working together without the mulberry bush or dealing with the actually issue of abortion over and over.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 January 2005 03:45 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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?

It was exactly as if a few heteros had found themselves a little corner and started gossiping about how some of the SSM advocates were really going over the top, dontcha think. It was exactly like that.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 11 January 2005 04:28 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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?

This alone makes "Discuss feminist issues from a pro-feminist point of view" a bit ambiguous, IMHO. If a troll suggested feminism is a monolith, they'd be shot down in a heartbeat. But isn't to assume that there's one definition of feminism, and that everyone does or should know what that is, the same mistake?


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 11 January 2005 04:40 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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?

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."

Does every conservative know this? I have heard many conservatives criticize Canada's bill of rights and argue rights legislation ought to be left with the supremacy of parliament. Surely this is an issue for conservatives to decide. Or in any case, it is not one the conservatives would choose to leave to the feminists of babble. Or would they?


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 January 2005 04:51 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I really liked that quote, Wingy, so much so that it made me wonder whether I'm really a conservative after all.

One teensy problem: look up "fundament" in the dictionary. That made me wonder about the writer a bit.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 11 January 2005 05:04 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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?

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?


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 11 January 2005 05:05 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, I wondered about that too but decided he meant "an underlying theoretical basis or principle" as opposed to "1. The buttocks 2. The anus."

Only in the english language ...


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 January 2005 05:10 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I know. It's not fair, is it, Wingy. It's so easy to see what he meant, but once you've read the definition, the wee smile is hard to restrain.

Anyway, I approved of the thought.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 January 2005 05:13 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mr Magoo, it's simpler than that.

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.

I mean, someone had to pipe up.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Budd Campbell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7019

posted 11 January 2005 05:23 PM      Profile for Budd Campbell        Edit/Delete Post
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.



I agree.


From: Kerrisdale-Point Grey, Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Budd Campbell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7019

posted 11 January 2005 05:24 PM      Profile for Budd Campbell        Edit/Delete Post
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?


Once again, your logic is undeniable. It will, therefore, be denied. You're wasting your time. That's truly undeniable.


From: Kerrisdale-Point Grey, Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 11 January 2005 05:46 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey, Budd, why don't you piss off if you have nothing of substance to contribute besides your needling.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 11 January 2005 06:57 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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?



If you share an opinion with a skinhead, on let's say, combs, does that make you a skinhead?

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 ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Budd Campbell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7019

posted 11 January 2005 07:01 PM      Profile for Budd Campbell        Edit/Delete Post
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?

In the recently closed auntie thread I asked about your statements about "woman centred" discussions in the feminist forum, but that thread is now closed. Perhaps you could reply here?


From: Kerrisdale-Point Grey, Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 11 January 2005 07:08 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Budd Campbell:
Should I take this as a warning from the moderators?

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


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 11 January 2005 07:31 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Aww crap -- I probably started this with my example in the auntie.com politically correct thread. It had nothing intentional to do with feminism or whatever women have to go through. I was talking about the way people were reacting in certain circumstances and why I think that's an ineffective strategy to change minds. It was purely a comment about strategy.

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 ]


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Budd Campbell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7019

posted 11 January 2005 07:48 PM      Profile for Budd Campbell        Edit/Delete Post
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?

I am not trying to be dense here. I am trying to point out, politely, that these requirements are purely subjective, and in most cases a euphemistic way of saying "agree with me or shutup".


From: Kerrisdale-Point Grey, Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 11 January 2005 08:01 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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.


You are seeing a contradiction where there really isn't one. At some level, reality really is. So it is best to separate that from who is speaking. Consequently, "truth is truth whether it is woman-centred or man-centred." So who participates (or who "leads" or whatever) shouldn't ideally be dependent on the sex of the individual in question. This is analogous to my argument with remind a while back over IIRC whether a woman's perspective about her experience of sexism could be wrong and validly contradicted by a man (I claimed it can).

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.

The rest of babble is, by and large, moderated by well-defined notions of what you can't say. You can't troll racistly. That too has its ambiguities, but it's a lot easier to pin down. On the other hand, the feminist forum is the only forum here where the perspective you should take is expressly limited. Because it is hard to define this, the feminism forum always erupts.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 11 January 2005 08:04 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
BTW, I myself do also think that people are really quick to trollify anti-SSM posters, making that discussion another one on which people must walk on eggshells. Note that Newbie was kicked off for going overboard on this. But I think that the feminism forum is far worse in its cyclical tendency to erupt.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 11 January 2005 08:07 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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?
While this is defined as a progressive board, it is still possible to come here and write as a conservative on many subjects, including economic subjects. Many conservative posters come here as destructive trolls, and for those behaviours they are banned. But the questions "what is progressive", etc, are rarely explicitly raised on these matters. "What is pro-feminist?" however becomes a constant issue.

From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 11 January 2005 08:17 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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.


So which feminist woman gets to decide whether a man is following or leading? See, I'm forced to see this as a kind of (unintentional) "gotcha" scheme.
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
But what if a man's point of view is correct? You may think that on some issues it is relative, but that we can even have this discussion and disagree on this point suggests that the forum is not well-defined and you really cannot have constructive discussion on the terms you set.

In other words, I actually don't believe it's possible to rectify the privileging of one point of view by creating spaces where another is nebulously privileged.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 11 January 2005 08:18 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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.
I'm tentatively willing to see it this way, for the sake of argument.

But then, even if there is a double standard, is the treatment of Hailey correct?


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 11 January 2005 08:30 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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.


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 11 January 2005 08:51 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I dunno, I've certainly had my problems in this particular forum, and I decided that while I believe I was and remain "pro feminist", it's wrong for me and other men to come in here and side track, derail or attempt to dominate here.

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.

It's an ambiguous life, I think.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Walker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7819

posted 11 January 2005 09:09 PM      Profile for Walker     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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.

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.


From: Not Canada | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 11 January 2005 09:11 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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 ]


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 11 January 2005 09:12 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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.
1. It's hard to start a new discussion forum without Audra's approval. For values of hard that mean "impossible."

2. It has nothing to do with baiting. When someone says something I genuinely disagree with, I think I should be able to express my disagreement.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rand McNally
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5297

posted 11 January 2005 09:14 PM      Profile for Rand McNally     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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 ]


From: Manitoba | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Walker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7819

posted 11 January 2005 09:15 PM      Profile for Walker     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, I see frequently that posts veer very close to being condescending, patronising, sarcastic and throwaway, rather than thoughtful and constructive (at the risk of sounding boring).
From: Not Canada | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 11 January 2005 09:17 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's true, but we do this on every forum.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Walker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7819

posted 11 January 2005 09:24 PM      Profile for Walker     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mandos, you seem to be mighty obsessed with pinning down what pro-feminist is. The way I read your posts I can only assume that this is in order to use any definition AGAINST feminists anytime they stray from THE definition.
Sorry, but to me this is always going to be interpreted differently. In the same way that feminism itself is interpreted differently by groups and individuals.

From: Not Canada | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 11 January 2005 09:31 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"What is pro-feminist?" however becomes a constant issue.

And why is that? Because, I think, some of us insist on harping on it in a way we don't otherwise. That is possibly because the forum's description begs the question and maybe the moderators can give some thought to that. But that doesn't excuse the incessantness of it either.

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.

So boys, what does it mean to be feminist. For me, it means I can let my hair down and browse through my wife's Cosmo mags. Like, did you know there were so many different ways to please a man? I didn't. I'm a man. Oh, where do I begin? Well, I can skip all the ones that require a partner ...


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 11 January 2005 09:59 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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.
From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 11 January 2005 10:17 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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.

It's been my observation that the overwhelming majority of posters can't separate their ego's from thier opinions, and none of us can do it all the time. I'm less forgiving of myself on this matter than I am on others-- it's a rather common human failing-- but I do wish we could be better at it here.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 11 January 2005 10:46 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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.
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 ]


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Walker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7819

posted 11 January 2005 10:53 PM      Profile for Walker     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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!'

Sorry, but on this topic I agree with others: you just can't make the rules.


From: Not Canada | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 11 January 2005 11:07 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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!'
I am clearly not the one telling anyone else to get off anything. I come to a discussion board, first and foremost, to discuss. The feminism forum often explodes without warning.

From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Walker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7819

posted 11 January 2005 11:33 PM      Profile for Walker     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
OK, wrong example, although your inference that someone is telling you to 'get off' certain forums is once again a distortion of the truth.

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?

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


From: Not Canada | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 11 January 2005 11:51 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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."

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.


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 12 January 2005 12:13 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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.
Full disclosure: my 'beef' with the feminism forum starts with from the Evolutionary Psychology wars, about 2-3 years ago. I was, in fact, told to get off the feminism forum. I now pay a lot less attention to it, except when it erupts. Then I put in my 2 cents.

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?
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.

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

From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 12 January 2005 12:15 AM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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.

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.


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 12 January 2005 12:15 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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.


1. What I said was for the sake of argument, not as part of this discussion, though I am happy to digress.

2. For the sake of argument, we are talking about moral principles, not legal ones. It is possible to argue from both principles and yet claim to be talking about equality.


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 12 January 2005 12:30 AM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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?

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


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 12 January 2005 12:31 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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.

Ooops.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 12 January 2005 12:39 AM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was actually a little too careful for my own good with my suggested guideline, and I left too much wiggle room. I would now say, quite simply, if you don't identify as a feminist -- if you wouldn't, for example, be comfortable saying to someone in real life, "I am a feminist", then you shouldn't be posting in this forum. You are plenty free to answer any point in this forum, anywhere else on this site.

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 ]


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 12 January 2005 12:46 AM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't want special measures taken for this forum, I just want it respected.

I don't want to be coddled and I don't want to be told to coddle folks that come in here with less than positive view points on feminism no matter how cutesy they are about it. I also don't think people defending this forum deserve to be called bullies and cowards for doing so, inside this space to boot. Funny how no one ran to "Sir Gallhad" either Fern or myself.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 12 January 2005 12:50 AM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Contrarian is my new favorite person:
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 ]


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 12 January 2005 12:53 AM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think it's coddling, I think it's recognizing that certain people aren't ever going to get it, and therefore, the current approach isn't going to work anytime soon. Of course it's their responsibility, but the reality is, they don't get it, they won't get it, they don't respect it, they won't respect it. No amount of repetition seems to work. So then, the question is, is having this forum important enough to take a different approach to create a safe space? Or, sticking more to a principle that there shouldn't be special measures, etc., de facto, give up on it? This seems to be the current approach. It's obvious who is responsbile for the breakdown of discourse on the feminist forum. I guess my pragmatic question, which is separate, is, is this ever really going to work?

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 ]


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 12 January 2005 12:57 AM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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.

Reality Bites' antics in both version of his post are a violation of babble policy especially in light of the forum he decide to spew his poison all over.


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

posted 12 January 2005 01:00 AM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
rasmus, your points are valid but I personally hate the idea of having to lock it down. It seems unfair that to get respect around here we'd have to resort to such a thing. It's just my opinion though.

[ 12 January 2005: Message edited by: Scout ]


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 12 January 2005 01:00 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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'.
I did not play gotcha. It's other people who play that game, sometimes apparently without realizing it. That is the problem.
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;
I never did these things above. Physician, heal thyself!
quote:
you do not demand that anyone else give you a definition so you can debate it.
No: in fact I consider it impossible to give a definition that wouldn't run into these problems. Hence attempting to mandate a point of view on the feminism forum is a recipe for "gotchas."

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.
*shrug*

From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 12 January 2005 01:03 AM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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.


Mostly repeating what others have said.

From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 12 January 2005 01:04 AM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
*shrug*

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?


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 12 January 2005 01:06 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Your entitled to your opinion but it seems we don't care.
I'm quite aware of this.
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?
The guidelines aren't simple.

quote:
Some guys get it, some don't, so the problem doesn't seem to be the guidlines.
There is obviously no problem with the guidelines. How can there be? They don't exist and appear to be made up as things go along. ie, when someone decides, all of a sudden, that a particular line of discussion is anti-feminist or something, when it isn't obviously so.

From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 12 January 2005 01:08 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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?
I think you know that from the very beginning I hardly expected anyone of consequence to agree with me. Nevertheless, I still found it interesting to argue the point.

From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 12 January 2005 01:11 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Since I always err on the side of permitting more argument (it's a lot safer, more interesting, and avoids metadiscussions), naturally I would think that the problem is in the definition of the forum. The main difference is that some people would rather err on the side of creating the spaces the want to create. I don't think it works, and I don't think it leads to optimal discussions either.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 12 January 2005 01:22 AM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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.
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 12 January 2005 01:56 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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.
I think your definition of gotcha is different from mine. What do you mean by gotcha? I think I gave reasonable answers to the central points made by my interlocutors.

From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jeit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7780

posted 12 January 2005 05:30 AM      Profile for Jeit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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.

-Anti-feminists should not be able to read the forum, for they will derive creative ways to attack it.
-Only women can identify as true feminists and therefore only women should be given reading/posting privileges.
-There has to be some way to punish those who attempt to break these rules.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
athena_dreaming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4574

posted 12 January 2005 08:43 AM      Profile for athena_dreaming   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Anybody else ever tried these?

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.

It seems relevant to a conversation where (again) people are saying, "I am a feminist, what do you mean I'm not acting like one?" Maybe it's because you're not one. Maybe.


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 12 January 2005 09:23 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm not greatly impressed with that test. According to it, "Your data suggest a moderate association between science and Male relative to Female." Which may be tru, except it was more like a game. It says "if you responded faster when Science and Male words were classified with the same key as opposed to Liberal Arts and Male items."

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.

If there was any bias, that I couldn't help to notice, it was that in almost every case I associated "Astronomy" with a female term. Go figure.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
athena_dreaming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4574

posted 12 January 2005 09:46 AM      Profile for athena_dreaming   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here is a bibliography of published research for these tests.

Research on implicit assumption tests

I remember reading it in some detail when I first took them, and their methods seemed sound to me.


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 12 January 2005 09:49 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Athena, I have been turning just that quandary over and over in my mind as I read through the overnight section of this thread.

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.

I'm still thinking this through.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 12 January 2005 09:49 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maybe, but knowing how the tests work, and thinkiong of it as a video game, I went back and did the race one. Here are the results:

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'.



Not bad for a white guy from Toronto, eh?

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 12 January 2005 10:11 AM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thread drift:
I tried the race one...
"Your data suggest little or no automatic preference for White People relative to Black People"

I don't see how that shows my opinion on the races, it is correct, but how it gets to that other than how quickly I have no clue, and if it is solely based on the speed of my clicks, well, I have bad reflexes.


From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
athena_dreaming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4574

posted 12 January 2005 10:20 AM      Profile for athena_dreaming   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, Skdadl, I do know hwat you mean. The funny thing is when I talked about these test results with my hubby away back when, he said, "See, I knew you feminists had a problem with men" or something to that effect. It took some doing to explain to him that, no, the test had actually revealed an unconscious preferences FOR men. I thought, "What? I'm not sexist, I'm a feminist!"

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.

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. Lots of psychological theories are tested with games. It's not a new approach.


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 12 January 2005 10:52 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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.

This is just a thought for whatever its worth.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 12 January 2005 11:01 AM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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."

If only that were true, the internet would be a very different place.


From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Budd Campbell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7019

posted 12 January 2005 12:00 PM      Profile for Budd Campbell        Edit/Delete Post
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.

The regulars are allowed to swear profusely at anyone whose attitude they don't like, but to reply in kind will earn you at least a suspension, possibly a permanent ban.


From: Kerrisdale-Point Grey, Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 12 January 2005 12:05 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete 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


No, really, it's simpler than that, but you don't want to know that do you? 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.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Budd Campbell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7019

posted 12 January 2005 12:08 PM      Profile for Budd Campbell        Edit/Delete 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]


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


From: Kerrisdale-Point Grey, Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 12 January 2005 12:12 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We spell that "grils" in these parts, podner.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 12 January 2005 12:16 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If there are boys around here, are there any girls?

Are you being serious?


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Budd Campbell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7019

posted 12 January 2005 12:19 PM      Profile for Budd Campbell        Edit/Delete Post
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 ]


From: Kerrisdale-Point Grey, Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Budd Campbell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7019

posted 12 January 2005 12:20 PM      Profile for Budd Campbell        Edit/Delete Post
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 ]


From: Kerrisdale-Point Grey, Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 12 January 2005 12:26 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gosh, good point! Because if you flip the genders, the situation would be exactly the same.

Le barf.


From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 12 January 2005 12:30 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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...
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.

From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Budd Campbell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7019

posted 12 January 2005 12:34 PM      Profile for Budd Campbell        Edit/Delete Post
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.


I am afraid not Audra. If you look up further you'll see that Scout called us boys for not seeing it her way. No one else said anything about it, which is probably why she couldn't believe that I did.


From: Kerrisdale-Point Grey, Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Budd Campbell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7019

posted 12 January 2005 12:35 PM      Profile for Budd Campbell        Edit/Delete Post
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.


And if a female poster did the same thing, is that a problem?


From: Kerrisdale-Point Grey, Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 12 January 2005 12:37 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
YOU are the problem. Your next suspension will be -- like a diamond -- forever.
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

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

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca