I like porn and think it's fun, even some types of porn that don't have "progressive" themes. The only times I haven't liked porn have been when I've been in a bad relationship with someone who was an asshole, and porn then only exacerbated his assholish tendencies. But it can be fun and exciting with someone you're having a good relationship with - heck, even alone! It can be a turn-on to fantasize about being overwhelmed by your partner, tied up in bed, spanked, and other Things That Will Buy You A Ticket To Feminist Hades. Especially if, in your non-sexual day-to-day life, you're strong as hell, hold up your whole world on your shoulders, are an authority figure (whether at home or at work), and pride yourself on not taking any shit off anybody. It's sometimes fun to strip that off in bed along with your clothes.

I think some very revealing clothes can be very sexy and some can be dumb-looking. I don't think this depends on how much skin is showing or how fat or skinny the person is who wears it. I think make-up is fun and sexy. I shave my legs and my armpits, although I will admit to laziness in the winter when I'm not involved in a sexual relationship or planning to go swimming.

I am also not a feminist because I have discovered that the people most likely to piss me off the most and make me not want to go anywhere near a feminist discussion, at least on babble, are nasty, hateful, puritan feminist WOMEN who think it's okay to dictate to pseudo-feminists like me what we should wear, what we find comfortable, and what sexual fantasies should turn us on.

I also think that prostitution is not inherently degrading, and that it could probably be an interesting and lucrative job for women who do it because they want to (or, as much as anyone wants to do any job), if the labour practices could be cleaned up, or if women could work for themselves at it.

When I read all this wrangling over why men are wrecking thread in the feminism forum, and whether we should have an all-woman forum, or have the first 10 posts in the thread be by women, or whether we should have parallel threads with the same question, one thread for women, one thread for men, the first thought that comes to my mind is - that will make me want to participate less rather than more in the feminism forum because there will be no appropriate place for me.

If it's a choice between a thread dominated by men who are generally pro-feminist, or a thread dominated by a few women (and their allies) who are quite willing to take over where patriarchal, chauvanist men in society have left off and start dictating sexual and behavioural mores to the rest of us, then I think I would choose the generally pro-feminist men, thanks very much.

And now I finally realize why! After deluding myself for all these years, I have finally had to face up to the undeniable fact that I have been a pseudofeminist all along. A poseur. A wannabe. It's actually kind of a relief to come to that conclusion. I probably should have realized it a few months back when I was reading the Ms boards, where they attacked Audra and the owner of the Scarleteen site for their anti-feminist, loose sexual mores. At the time, we deluded pseudo-feminists on babble were scoffing at them for being so rigid.

But now, I realize that the problem was mine all along - women who like sex, like porn, don't condemn prostitution, have "unprogressive" sexual fantasies, think revealing clothes and make-up can be very sexy, and hate hearing these things described as "slutty" - we are not real feminists. At least, not here. This isn't our forum.

Good luck with all those proposed changes. I'll be in the other forums with other pseudo-feminists and the pseudo-pro-feminist men.

[ 11 October 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

posted by Michelle: I have discovered that I am actually NOT a feminist, or at least not the type of feminist that the babble feminism forum welcomes. ... now, I realize that the problem was mine all along - women who like sex, like porn, don't condemn prostitution, have "unprogressive" sexual fantasies, think revealing clothes and make-up can be very sexy, and hate hearing these things described as "slutty" - we are not real feminists. At least, not here. This isn't our forum.

Good luck with all those proposed changes. I'll be in the other forums with other pseudo-feminists and the pseudo-pro-feminist men.

---

I get enough of the "I'm not a feminist" from many younger women I work with. Usually it's in the context of denying that there's any more work to be done. It's disheartening to see a strong feminist woman feeling turned off by infighting, and that's one of the issues I've had with academic feminism -- that it quite often turns into a holier-than-thou-jargonistic my-theory-trumps-your-theory debate.

I haven't weighed in on the porn debate because I'm very conflicted about it (I'm off to skdadl's thread after this post), but that doesn't mean that I haven't seen articulate and thoughtful points made on both sides ... and I recognize that those (multiple) threads were probably hideously exhausting for the participants.

But that's no reason at all to give up on being a feminist!!! Lotsa feminists have given me hell for "selling out" my purity on various issues [as an aside, not as many as have lesbians for me identifying as bisexual, but that's another, not entirely unrelated, issue]. I'm still a feminist, dammit. And the umbrella should be wide enough for all of us.

I've been thinking about this a lot -- still a relative newbie but a longtime lurker -- I really don't think that men should be excluded from the feminist forum. Allies aside, among other things, having had some time to step back from a pretty heated debate, men interjecting comments that upset me caused me to refine, redefine, rephrase, restate ... all somewhat tiring, especially on an emotional topic, but valuable, very valuable indeed for my own ability to articulate what I think and believe and know.

Which doesn't take away the responsibility of all posters, myself included, to try and listen and respect what others are saying.

So I guess the gist of it, Michelle and others, is that I wish you wouldn't say "I'm not a feminist"!!! We all need each other. Screw people who don't realize that or who are too narrow-minded or entrenched in their own dogma to acknowledge multiple viewpoints.

I've hung around this forum for a while before I could gather the courage of posting... I am really shy and even with the protection of online anonymity, I had a hard time jumping in... That gave me the occasion to read lots of threads from a distance, and I noticed that sometimes male posters were unfairly treated. Some of the female posters offended me a lot more than the guys, but now there's talks of preventing males from posting in the feminist forum? I don't think that's a good idea. I'm one of those who believe males can be feminists, not just pro-feminists, with my definition of feminism being equal opportunities for all... My brothers are amongst the best feminists I know, and it shocks me when people say a guy can't be a feminist as much as it bothers me to hear straight people can't be gay rights activist. Now that doesn't mean men can pretend to know what women feel or go through (or that I can know what it feels like to be discriminated against as a gay/lesbian), so I would support female only threads when the question is about how something as impacted women's lives.

quote:

---

Originally posted by deBeauxOs:

As usual, I find myself of two minds here. I agree with all you have said above, as it rings true for me, BUT I can see the benefits of requesting that 1 (one !) thread be reserved for female babblers, as a experiment.

---

I think it's one of those

Sure it works in practice, but does it work in theory?

type things.

Although I don't feel the same about pornography - it just creeps me out - obviously it does something for others, women and men.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tehanu:
Hey, WAIT a second!

I get enough of the "I'm not a feminist" from many younger women I work with. Usually it's in the context of denying that there's any more work to be done. ...
But that's no reason at all to give up on being a feminist!!! Lotsa feminists have given me hell for "selling out" my purity on various issues [as an aside, not as many as have lesbians for me identifying as bisexual, but that's another, not entirely unrelated, issue]. I'm still a feminist, dammit. And the umbrella should be wide enough for all of us....

So I guess the gist of it, Michelle and others, is that I wish you wouldn't say "I'm not a feminist"!!! We all need each other. Screw people who don't realize that or who are too narrow-minded or entrenched in their own dogma to acknowledge multiple viewpoints.

Rant over

---

I'm pretty sure Michelle was being cynical and sarcastic, and that she is quite happy in her own mind about being a feminist.

It's the same with most of us- we think we are all on the same wavelength, and essentially we are, but when others start nitpicking or defining what a feminist is or excluding people based on gender or lack of lived experience or whatever, you start to wonder.

quote:

---

posted by Yst: ... You know, sure, in practice, a women-only thread results in some interesting and unique discussion which might not occur elsewhere, but what does it result in in theory?

---

REALLY? Exactly how does a post sound like a man or a woman? What is it in a post that makes it quintessentially male or female? Surely there is enough diversity of opinion here to knock this simplistic idea on the head.

i will never give up wearing thongs.
i am not a feminist.
i like many kinds of porn. (i don't like "romance" porn though).
i am not a feminist.
i have always liked wearing short skirts.
i am not a feminist.
i don't hate men.
i am not a feminist.
i don't dictate to all other women what they should think, do or wear.
i am not a feminist.
i shave everywhere. my arms, my legs, even my pubes. i've been doing this since i was very young. it's kinda nice. it feels very clean.
i am not a feminist.
i don't mind being whacked in the bedroom every once in a while. i also whack back.
i am not a feminist.

*deep sigh of relief* there! i said it! michelle, you are a courageous, inspiring soul. i love you.

ETA: debeauxos, you should take your suggestion to audra. e-mail her.

[ 12 October 2005: Message edited by: ephemeral ]

*clap* *clap* *clap*

quote:

---

Originally posted by FrenchGrrl:
However I hope you're sarcastic when you say you're not a feminist...

---

Yes, I was, although I wasn't being sarcastic about what kind of feminism seems to be welcome in the babble feminism forum lately.

I've been here, lurking for the past few weeks, having not a lot to add to the very heated and very divided discussions both in and about the feminist forum.

And since I've already asked you to marry me, what else can I say?

MICHELLE thank you SOOO much for your eloquent and perfectly worded post. I joke to my friends somtimes "Oh my, I enjoy XYZ, I hope they don't come and take my feminist card away from me!" Michelle, both you and ephemeral listed many things that I too enjoy.

I will always be a feminist. Always.

to Michelle

P.S. I have just been published in an anthology called "With a Rough Tongue: Femmes Write Porn".

[ 12 October 2005: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by deBeauxOs:
Well, perhaps it is too early to formulate a theory from one thread or event. How about the following hypotheses? When a thread is reserved for women, interesting and unique discussions occur as a result of the absence of male-centered posts. A good example of such a post here - the 28th.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sleeping Sun:
Thanks, Michelle and others, for putting into words, even if done tounge-in-cheek, the internal debate I've been having for the last couple of weeks. I don't like labels, and have hesitated to call myself a feminist, but deep down, I always figured that that was what I was. I've learned a lot from the debate in the feminist forums, but it has had be questioning my 'feminism'.

Maybe the label 'believer-of-equal-rights-and-opportunites-to-live-life-to-its-happiest-ist' would be more apt?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jas:
Women of colour argued for years that white middle class feminism is not their feminism. Since then, i thought feminists agreed that there is no one 'ism', but rather a plurality. So what's the problem? You can't handle contention? Sure, MD is strident and provocative, but so are you. If you don't like what someone is saying, stop reading it. Ream them out once and ignore them after that. Frankly, I'm getting sick of all this 'poor me' ism. A healthy feminism can accommodate debate, without people getting their egos hurt, or willingly getting involved in trivial debates that are not the real issue.

And I'm sorry to read that Thalia is gone, she must have written something pretty terrible to warrant that. But weren't you provoking her?

---

quote:

---

You can't handle contention?

---

quote:

---

But weren't you provoking her?

---

Which is it, jas? Should a well-formed adult be able to withstand some contention? Or should they allow themselves to be provoked?

Perhaps Audra said it best:

quote:

---

No one is allowed to use babble software to send hateful abusive messages.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Baboon:
I don't quite understand what's so offensive about it. I was just stating a fact.

---

quote:

---

I don't quite understand

---

quote:

---

i shave everywhere. my arms, my legs, even my pubes. i've been doing this since i was very young. it's kinda nice. it feels very clean.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ephemeral:
[QB
i will never give up wearing thongs.
i am not a feminist.
i like many kinds of porn. (i don't like "romance" porn though).
i am not a feminist.
i have always liked wearing short skirts.
i am not a feminist.
i don't hate men.
i am not a feminist.
i don't dictate to all other women what they should think, do or wear.
i am not a feminist.
i shave everywhere. my arms, my legs, even my pubes. i've been doing this since i was very young. it's kinda nice. it feels very clean.
i am not a feminist.
i don't mind being whacked in the bedroom every once in a while. i also whack back.
i am not a feminist.

*deep sigh of relief* there! i said it! michelle, you are a courageous, inspiring soul. i love you.

[ 12 October 2005: Message edited by: ephemeral ][/QB]

---

What irks me, is the ill-informed assumption that all feminism is of the narrow, dogmatic and reactionary brand that Michelle rightly rails against.

[great rant, BTW]

Every movement has its fringe element - movements and social philosophies that we both agree with and oppose. Fundamentalism is wrong, wrong, wrong, in any context. It exists in its own little extreme universe where everything must be regulated, controlled or repressed.

It's so odd that this extremist branch of feminism becomes, through its inflexible moralizing tone, what the feminist movement, in general, has worked to change - the domination of women (and men and children)by any one voice or authority.

P.S. I had a therapeutic pedicure a few months ago. Am I a bad person?

:D

[ 12 October 2005: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

I find it hard to swallow that these two posters most of you are all so careful to not name caused all this damage to the forum. Of course, it could have been their mysterious allies.

I seem to have gotten into a whole hell of a lot of hateful hot water when I defended their right to have views I disagreed with and speak them in the appropriate forum. I was insulted, harassed and derided for defending the spirit of the forum, not to mention told I was a bad feminist for not joining in on the gang bang to shut up these two dissenters. In no uncertain terms I was made to feel like my last four years here didn’t exist and that some guys knew my politics better than I did and could tell me off for things I never said or ever believed. That some how I was not the same person I was the day before.

Then again this could just all be a big popularity contest and that wouldn’t surprise me one bit.

Why all the defensiveness about get a pedicure, wearing heels or thongs, etc.? This bragging doesn’t seem positive to me it seems defensive. So defensive you have to start a thread dictating how proud you all are of doing things that on some level to you seem to see as being anti-feminist or that you believe some nasty feminazis’ see as anti-feminsit? And when some feminist comes a long and calls you on engaging in a behavior that obviously on some level seems anti-feminists to you as well, you all freak? You don’t shrug it off with the confidence of your belief in your right to have pretty nails or no VPL you get all Mean Girls. For me personally, feminism is about a confidence in making choices like the ones you are all so proud of making without being proud or ashamed of them. No need having to have a screaming match over thongs or heels. I feel no need to shame other feminist if they want to talk about shaving or not shaving. I feel no need to insult or hurt a woman who doesn’t like any porn either. I think calling them a prude reeks of men angry at women that won't put out. Most of these things are no longer on my agenda.

I have seen three people actively posting on a topic, with occasional support from a handful of others, and the entire rest of the board attacking them viciously for it. They have made, to use skdadl's phrase, "principled democratic arguments" for their position, quoting cases and linking to documents. In return, there has been a more or less non-stop tirade of condescension and insult -- not to mention an almost complete lack of response to the arguments made. While making mellifluous arguments about the inviolable sanctity of "free speech", the majority have repeatedly told these three to shut up, stop talking, stop disrupting the forum, go away. Despite the dozens of abusive posters on the majority side, including something approaching all the moderators, apparently it is the minority who control the forum, who have made it into unfriendly, unsupportive, "polarized mayhem", and who are dictating this, that and the other thing to the helpless, powerless waifs who start thread after thread attacking them. Our brave free-speechers have more-or-less literally screamed at these "fascist" few for having the temerity, for daring, to suggest that maybe, just possibly, pornography and prostitution might not be the highest and most sacred duty and calling of all women -- that maybe, just possibly, there might, somewhere, sometimes, be women who are very directly, very literally, hurt by these things, and perhaps something should be done about that (clearly, a political position right there with Calvin and Mussolini). I am hardly surprised now to discover that these same ardent champions of "free speech" have jettisoned one of the minority from the board -- apparently, for her "hateful, abusive speech".

I don't, obviously, have any idea what may or may not have been exchanged in private messages. I don't (perhaps some might have noticed) agree with every word that Thalia and MasterDebator have written, nor would I expect that they agree with every word that I've written. But, seriously people, listen to yourselves. Hell, count. Show a little minimal self-awareness that you are the ones engaged in "cultural enforcement of norms". Or are you even capable of identifying what is and isn't the "norm" in this forum?

It has been a very punishing, very draining experience to have tried to make coherent, principled arguments here when every word is utterly ignored, save where it can be used to back up some ignorant preconception -- when the very attempt to make those arguments is treated as the crime of the century, and I (an ever so frightening temporary secretary) am treated as an aspirant to be the next Savonarola. I literally shake every time I read this board, and the only thing that helps is to try to respond, calmly, clearly, deliberately.

quote:

---

They have made, to use skdadl's phrase, "principled democratic arguments" for their position, quoting cases and linking to documents.

---

Actually, they're both more famous for their pigheaded insistence that they know better than the women of babble what "IS" and "IS NOT" comfortable.

How is that principled, or democratic, and how can one back such an absurd position.

No, they weren't "suggesting" anything. They weren't "proposing" a "possibility". They were simply telling adult women that they didn't know what was comfortable for them, unless they happened to agree. If you believe thongs to be uncomfortable, you're rational enough to choose. If you believe them to be comfortable, and wear them for that reason, you're wrong. Not "possibly wrong". Not "maybe mistaken". Wrong. Full stop.

By the end, they had at least gotten to where they could be honest enough to say, point blank, "and you're lying". Yay.

Chris, I'll take this post to say to you that I don't think you are a totalitarian. I don't think you're even advocating totalitarianism without knowing it.

For the record, I used to think MD was a man for some reason, but now I believe MD is a woman who does work with ex-"sex industry" workers. And I believe that Thalia has seen a lot of the ill-effects of that sort of stuff too.

I agree with a lot of what MD and Thalia said. I'm certain that 95%, 98%, 99.99% of the world's prostitutes would rather be doing something else. That a lot of women in the porn industry have serious emotional problems.

That a lot of mainstream porn is deadening, degrading, misogynistic.

I have no problem with admitting any of that.

But for the record, Chris, when skdadl mentioned her fears about the consequences of that Mackinnon law, ... about how the legal precedent of allowing people to sue for damages if they felt harmed by some form of media, would produce fear for the publishing industry which would subsequently have an adverse affect on writers and expression in Canada, you said that anyone more worried about "censorship" than the harms of pornography, was more a liberal than a feminist. You also accused her of caring more about capitalist publishers than about women.

That is the sort of name-calling, insult-hurling, that is not conducive to productive debate. Whether skdadl is correct or not (and i thought she was), what you said was over-the-top.

(I never engaged directly with anybody else too much on these topics, so i'll leave off on other people's behaviour.)

Arguably, those who said that your wanting a world where people didn't even have, couldn't even conceive of sexist, violent, thoughts; where it never occurs to people to take pleasure at degrading others, ... was some form of totalitarianism and mind-control, ... rather than a transformation of social values (as i read you), ... are guilty of the same sort of hubris.

But, you, me, they, us, we all have to try to watch our language when debating important, contentious issues with each other.

As I said, i'd devote more time to this if i could, not because the 200 or so people active on "babble" at any given time are so important, but because i'd like to hope that there could be an example of decent people with widely divergent views encountering each other with respect and an open mind, and whether or not they came to an agreement, a compromise, they walked away in continued mutual respect.

I'm sure that comes as funny coming from a poster who has told another poster that he had "fukkin shitferbrains," but that guy wanted to keep an open mind about the veracity of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Some stuff I have no time for.

At that point, I had a long period of introspection and revisited the long series of meta-threads in order to develop some good rules of thumb so that I would be less apt to be anti-feminist.

To summarize my findings:

• Men claiming women should be free to do what they want= anti-feminist.
• Women calling other women liars= pro-feminist.
• Women denying other women's preferences= pro-feminist.
• Women denying other women's experiences= pro-feminist.
• Men doing the same= anti-feminist.
• However--and this one was the hardest rule for me to learn-- men criticizing women for their calling other women liars, denying other women's experiences and preferences= also anti-feminist.
• Women prescribing specific rules about acceptable behavior of women= pro-feminist.*
• Even if these rules seem inherently anti-feminist, to question these prescribed rules= anti-feminist.*

The solution to all of these problems: ban all men from the feminism forum so that the 'real' feminist women can be free to prescribe each other's behaviors. In a pro-feminist fashion, of course.

[ 12 October 2005: Message edited by: Dex ]

I guess it's of absolutely no interest to anyone that the restricted threads have been very civil, have *not* seen any much-feared male-bashing - despite some very annoying and stupid interference - and have inspired other marginalized voices to create spaces of their own. Oh yes, and inspired some griping. And taunting. And pouting. And even one send-up thread.

[ 12 October 2005: Message edited by: writer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by writer:
As the person who started two of the three women-only threads in the feminism forum, I've got to say I really appreciate the feeding frenzy that's going on here. Hats off! Carry on, oh brave and brazen pro and/or not-a-feminists! Do not allow me to continue to oppress you in the ways outlined over and over again, though few can in fact be applied to my behaviour on this board since its creation! Huzzah!

I guess it's of absolutely no interest to anyone that the restricted threads have been very civil, have *not* seen any much-feared male-bashing, and have inspired other marginalized voices to create spaces of their own. Oh yes, and some griping. And taunting. And pouting. And even one send-up thread.

---

Speaking for me, there's a big difference between requesting female participants in a thread here and there and closing a forum entirely to male participation (for the record, I'd be just as against creating a gay-only forum; I'm a gay rights activist who happens to be straight and I think it would be a disservice to the cause if all of the gay folks here packed up their Lego and created an exclusive club). If somebody starts up a thread about a letter-writing campaign in support of a feminist issue (e.g., Morgetaaler's visit to Western), hell yes I want to lend my support to it as a man. I cannot for the life of me imagine how male participation in something like that would be a detriment. Rabid anti-women propaganda comes from both genders, as has been so ably demonstrated over the last while.

We had a really cool situation here in Wichita related to protests and counter-protests outside an abortion clinic (it involved a traveling caravan as well as local children). But do you think for a second that I would start such a thread under the current climate? Not in a million years.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Borst:
I have replies still to write to direct questions from Magoo and skdadl in the other thread, but since there seems to be a preference here for metadiscussion (talking about whether we have the right to talk about something and, if so, how) rather than direct discussion, permit me to share my perceptions of the atmosphere in these threads.

---

Terming them your "perceptions", is, I think, a good start. Particularly since some of these "perceptions" don't appear, to my mind, especially perceptive. But let's look at your post a little more specifically:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Borst:
I have seen three people actively posting on a topic, with occasional support from a handful of others, and the entire rest of the board attacking them viciously for it. They have made, to use skdadl's phrase, "principled democratic arguments" for their position, quoting cases and linking to documents. In return, there has been a more or less non-stop tirade of condescension and insult -- not to mention an almost complete lack of response to the arguments made.

---

Firstly, I don't think that the arguments were necessarily principled or democratic. If you look at a number of the threads, as has already been pointed out, you will see that the two main targets of negativity were fairly busy trolling people in other threads in regard to their choices of personal expression through clothing, personal presentation and sexual practice. So long before the porn thread that you participated so heavily in, they had earned (note the term EARNED) a certain amount of hostility.

Next, while links supporting the arguments in question were posted, that does not mean that all other posters have to buy them as particularly good or reliable sources, or agree with their conclusions. And IIRC, there was a fair bit of venom expended by the side you defend at the refusal of some to simply take what was posted as gospel. Sweet little lambs they were not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Borst:
While making mellifluous arguments about the inviolable sanctity of "free speech", the majority have repeatedly told these three to shut up, stop talking, stop disrupting the forum, go away. Despite the dozens of abusive posters on the majority side, including something approaching all the moderators, apparently it is the minority who control the forum, who have made it into unfriendly, unsupportive, "polarized mayhem", and who are dictating this, that and the other thing to the helpless, powerless waifs who start thread after thread attacking them.

---

There is only one moderator in the feminist forum, and that is audra. Whether some posters were moderators on other fora is irrelevent, and you're using it as hyperbole in order to make a predictable response to a pair of abrasive individuals seem much worse than it was.

I don't recall anyone asking them to simply shut up -- more that they were asked to stop being histrionic, rude and disrespectful to other posters and their experiences.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Borst:
Our brave free-speechers have more-or-less literally screamed at these "fascist" few for having the temerity, for daring, to suggest that maybe, just possibly, pornography and prostitution might not be the highest and most sacred duty and calling of all women -- that maybe, just possibly, there might, somewhere, sometimes, be women who are very directly, very literally, hurt by these things, and perhaps something should be done about that (clearly, a political position right there with Calvin and Mussolini). I am hardly surprised now to discover that these same ardent champions of "free speech" have jettisoned one of the minority from the board -- apparently, for her "hateful, abusive speech".

---

Well, here we have quite the stew of rhetoric, don't we?

One of the best tidbits here: "...to suggest that maybe, just possibly, pornography and prostitution might not be the highest and most sacred duty and calling of all women..." Now, this is where you depart from hyperbole and descend into logical fallacy. Nicely expressed straw man argument, but baseless all the same.

Nobody, not one single person, argued that porn, or all porn (hell, it's well nigh impossible to agree on the definition of where the line is) is good or beneficial or innocuous or completely harmless. I, however, appreciate skdadl's interjection on where freedom of expression collides with either legislated or civil censorship -- btw, you can studiously not call it censorship, but if it walks like a duck and quacks, it's probably a duck, eh? -- because that has a serious effect on anyone in the arts. It is a valid point and was met with largely emotional, not rational, or if you prefer "principled democratic arguments".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Borst:
It has been a very punishing, very draining experience to have tried to make coherent, principled arguments here when every word is utterly ignored, save where it can be used to back up some ignorant preconception -- when the very attempt to make those arguments is treated as the crime of the century, and I (an ever so frightening temporary secretary) am treated as an aspirant to be the next Savonarola. I literally shake every time I read this board, and the only thing that helps is to try to respond, calmly, clearly, deliberately.

Obviously, I am a part of the problem ...

---

quote:

---

As the person who started two of the three women-only threads in the feminism forum, I've got to say I really appreciate the feeding frenzy that's going on here. Hats off! Carry on, oh brave and brazen pro and/or not-a-feminists! Do not allow me to continue to oppress you in the ways outlined over and over again, though few can in fact be applied to my behaviour on this board since its creation! Huzzah!

---

What is happening here is that a lot of feminists who have felt frustrated by what's going on in this forum are finally coming forward to air their concerns in public. You haven't been mentioned in this thread. Why take it so personally?

[ 12 October 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

It's extremely amusing and sad to see women who I admire throwing off and belittling feminism, and then making that out to be all about TWO women posters. The real issue, as I see it, is that, once again, the idea of feminism HAS been dictated to us, again, by many people who have posted in the feminist form. mainly men. The fact that no one appears to notice is a tad dismaying but....

So now, all the sudden if you're not down with degrading porn, you're not a feminist?

I shave my legs, I wear feminine dresses, I put on perfume and have my hair done but by hell or high water I AM a feminist. I also balance out all the nice little girly girl shit that has been shoved down my throat by a patriarchal society by actually *gasp* giving a shit about what women say, what their experiences are of porn and life, and the world we live in, and I also want to make the world a better place for the next generation of our little girls to grow up in. I will NOT toss off my feminist hat just because some guys have decided that it's wrong to dislike brutal and degrading porn and like, if you do well then you're just a man hating bitch, out to stifle other women's sexuality. I call bullshit on this one.

This is my take on what has happened. Remember just my take.

quote:

---

Actually, you were stating your opinion that "DP and TP aren't exactly shocking. I'm sure we all know a few people who have participated in at least a DP." You can hardly assert with a straight face that this is fact. I suggest that most people don't personally know any womyn who have engaged in simultaneous anal/vaginal intercourse, although no doubt a few might. Therefore, one wonders if such hyperbole is intended to trivialize the concerns that were being expressed about pornographically informed sexual practice.

---

[ 12 October 2005: Message edited by: Stargazer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

No, they weren't "suggesting" anything. They weren't "proposing" a "possibility". They were simply telling adult women that they didn't know what was comfortable for them, unless they happened to agree. If you believe thongs to be uncomfortable, you're rational enough to choose. If you believe them to be comfortable, and wear them for that reason, you're wrong. Not "possibly wrong". Not "maybe mistaken". Wrong. Full stop.

---

I guess I just fail to see what's so soul-crushing about the thong debate, and so "oppressive" about one babbler's attitude about thongs for thong-wearers and supporters of thong-wearers (do you guys have rallies? Pins? T-shirts?) that you feel compelled to crash just about every feminism thread subsequent to that one, ignoring all other points made. In how many different threads now has the 'thong debate' been dragged in? Let it go! Nobody cares!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by writer:
And who has called for a women-only feminism forum? Requested it, rather than mused about it? Demanded it? Could we have names attached to this straw woman?

And, once again, stating the obvious, nowhere in my post did I indicate that it was only men on this thread.

---

The women-only thing has come up a whole bunch of times. There have been a few threads requesting women only. Yes, you've started two. Honestly, I'm fine with that. There are lots of topics where I think women-only perspectives would be great. There are lots of others, however, where I think pro-feminist views from males are just as valid (and certainly more valid than anti-feminist views made by women, seeing as the forum is explicitly to be from a pro-feminist point of view), and perhaps even helpful. On top of that, at least a half dozen or so other threads had both men and women participating, at which point one of the self-nominated gate-keepers repeatedly requested that men not participate. Here's an entire thread devoted to making the feminism forum women-only (granted, I don't know if you've seen the thread before or not since it's not here in the feminism forum; you haven't participated in it that I see, so it's a distinct possibility). That thread as well as some of the more ridiculous threads lately are a pretty good synopsis of what I think people are railing against in this thread.

Seriously, if you haven't found at least a handful of blatantly hypocritical posts by a variety of self-proclaimed feminists in any number of threads over the past several days as it relates to categorizing things as pro- versus anti-feminist, then I'm afraid I just don't know what to say.

Because here's the thing -- we have ALL been conditioned by our culture. All of us, men and women, hetero and homo and all the combinations. There always have been and, I imagine, always will be people who want to control our sexuality. Just as there have always been what used to be called 'libertines' who will call into question any claim that a person actually likes the kind of sex that is being promoted as natural, normal at the time.

I DON'T know how much of what I find sexy is me, my own, and how much is conditioned by my culture. But I CAN think about it, question my desires, my lover's. Talk to people about it. . . oh, maybe not. That, to me, seems to be where we go off the rails in this forum. On the one side, it seems that people are saying 'It's all conditioned, you are a total slave to what your culture has imposed on you, you are a dupe'. On the other, people are saying 'none of it is conditioned, my desires are totally my own and you are a totalitarian fascist'.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
The real issue, as I see it, is that, once again, the idea of feminism HAS been dictated to us, again, by many people who have posted in the feminist form. mainly men. The fact that no one appears to notice is a tad dismaying but....

---

[ 12 October 2005: Message edited by: Dex ]

I thought about when and where I saw my first thong. I wondered why I bought my first thong at 17, which was a sports thong. Which I think means it matched my sports bra. I bought it a size to small so it wasn't comfortable and I didn't bother with thongs much for years.

Then they became really mainstream. I can by them at Old Navy for pity sakes (strangely theirs are some of the most comfortable underwear no matter the stlye that I have ever bought). And this time around I bought the right size and it is more comfortable under certain pants and more comfortable under my yoga pants. And I know sometimes I wear them for my husband cause he digs them. So I am left wondering who and what influenced that first purchase and the subsquent ones.

I know my life wouldn't be different if I had never tried them or ever found a comfortable pair. But I do wonder how much my purchases were inspired by the media and society and the new found trendiness of things and I wasn't even paying attention and I just let it happen to me.

I think those posters that are being maligned for their views on thongs actually made me stop and think about one of those choices I make that I am neither proud nor ashamed of. It made me pause and think about why I do something which is hardly a bad thing and it certainly didn't piss me off.

I will certainly still wear thongs but I will wonder at the idea of a thong for a pre-teen with a bit more awareness and concern. Why does it it discomfit me to think of a 12 year old in a thong but not myself, when are you old enough for a thong? Is it a bad idea to be marketing this to kids? If so why? Just thinking and wondering, doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.

And that to me is what the damn forum was meant for in the first place.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
Michelle, I agree with you on the issues you claim make you a pseudo-feminist. I always have.

...

It’s great to see we have boiled feminism down to being proud of high heels, nice nails and behaving like porn stars in bed. It’s just so funny. Because truly, we should be able to be that girl if we want without judgment but Goddamn doesn’t it all have potential to sound strangely wrong? We fight against those stereotypes to just embrace them all over again?

---

See, you start out saying one thing, and then say the opposite. Frankly, I find the first statement disingenuous when the post ends with the second half, bolded for emphasis. In other words: I don't believe you.

edited to add:

Why does the sex of the person in the conversation matter so much? You can only learn about yourself from other women? Doesn't that seem a little odd?

Frankly, I don't want a conversation with either men or women who insist on telling me they know better how I should live/think/dress/be than they do.

[ 12 October 2005: Message edited by: Zoot ]

[ 12 October 2005: Message edited by: Zoot ]

quote:

---

And that to me is what the damn forum was meant for in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
Frankly Zoot, I don't give a damn what you think. I thought we'd already established that.

---

Can we all stop the pissing match? This is getting ridicules.

quote:

---

And we've also established that this is a public board and that you have anger issues. Point?

---

Someone just told me that Michelle posted a really interesting rant. I thought I'd respond to some of the frustration I saw there with my point of view.

So far, most of what I've seen in this thread supports my reasons for not bothering to read the other threads in the Feminist Forum.

And I just knew that if I posted here, having posted nothing for quite some time anywhere on babble, someone would, somehow, find something in the content of my blurb to take a shot at.

Most interestingly, it was the largely meaningless, tongue-in-cheek quip I tagged on the end.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:

Zoot do you have a point or are you just trying to derail the thread?

---

Actually, my question was whether you had a point and was wondering if you were trying to derail the thread:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
Frankly Zoot, I don't give a damn what you think. I thought we'd already established that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And we've also established that this is a public board and that you have anger issues. Point?

---

My original point, before you got all pissy, was that you contradicted yourself in your first post to the thread, and I questioned some of the content of the second. This was all in the context of the thread and, most importantly, ON TOPIC. You took it off the rails by taking a nasty pot-shot at me.

quote:

---

Well I do. I count too. Scout's words also spoke for me. I didn't find her post to be disingenuous nor did I hear Scout say she didn't believe how Michelle feels. Scout simply posted her reaction to Michelle's post. Like we all did.
Can we all stop the pissing match? This is getting ridicules.

---

Only if you can explain why it's a response when Scout posts and a pissing match when I post.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Well I do. I count too. Scout's words also spoke for me. I didn't find her post to be disingenuous nor did I hear Scout say she didn't believe how Michelle feels. Scout simply posted her reaction to Michelle's post. Like we all did.

---

Actually, she clearly implied that Michelle was at the very least covering her feelings subconciously, using the "lady doth protest to much," principle, here:

quote:

---

Why all the defensiveness about get a pedicure, wearing heels or thongs, etc.? This bragging doesn’t seem positive to me it seems defensive. So defensive you have to start a thread dictating how proud you all are of doing things that on some level to you seem to see as being anti-feminist or that you believe some nasty feminazis’ see as anti-feminsit? And when some feminist comes a long and calls you on engaging in a behavior that obviously on some level seems anti-feminists to you as well, you all freak?

---

I think that peoples expressed feelings should be taken at face value, and that "psychologizing" peoples ideas into meta-meanings is a dirty trick. It is something that men have done to women for years as a manner of controlling the discourse by eliminating the expressed "real world" experiences of women from the discourse by substituting a preffered meaning.

This is psychologically invasive and can be damaging because it implies that peoples personal experience of the world are fraudulent, and can lead to neurotic self doubt that in some instances can take on pathological proportions.

[ 12 October 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Actually, she clearly implied that Michelle was at the very least covering her feeling subconciously, using the "lasy doth protest to much," principle, here:

---

I assumed Michelle's opeining post was satirical and sarcastic. Boiled down, she was saying that some people have a too narrow interpretation of what it means to be a feminist, and when this happens people are squeezed out of the 'clubhouse' because they aren't wearing the right underwear (to use a pointed reference).

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
Has there ever been a thread in the feminist forum(featuring both male and female babblers) that hasn't degenerated into a shouting match?

---

quote:

---

Boiled down, she was saying that some people have a too narrow interpretation of what it means to be a feminist, and when this happens people are squeezed out of the 'clubhouse' because they aren't wearing the right underwear (to use a pointed reference).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:

It's alway nice to have a man explain what I really meant Cueball.

---

Oh was I wrong? It is always nice to have what one says dismissed on the basis of gender.

quote:

---

Because some feminists treat everything like it's an attack on feminism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:

Certainly, but some seem to disagree about who exactly is being pushed out of the clubhouse and I for one am not too keen on the passive agressive action being taken to do the pushing. I also think some people's ideas of feminism are too narrow. I don't support calling other feminists prudes because they aren't down with my underwear or porn. I don't support a wholesale campaign of baiting and harrassing of them when their POV didn't violate the forums guidlines.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:

Do you really think this comment is helpful?

---

quote:

---

It seemed to me that Michelle's opening post was at least partly a reaction to a really agressive private message from one those facist people. It would seem that Audra saw fit to ban the person on the basis of that PM, and that is good enough for me.

---

Not how I read this thread. It appears the nasty PM came after the intial post. I'm only going by what Michelle said however. It also seems to have come form a person Michelle spoke about in that first post and not in glowing terms yet failed to name. In essence she was talking behind someone's back. And that person chose to take her anger straight to the source.

quote:

---

Oh was I wrong? It is always nice to have what one says dismissed on the basis of gender.

---

quote:

---

Discuss feminist issues from a pro-feminist point of view.

---

quote:

---

Oh please, don't start whining, it was me you were attempting to speak for, my mouth you put words in. I feel I can be dismissive in that case, if you as a man choose to assess my motives for speak out about how feminists are attacking each other. Try only speaking for yourself in this forum Cueball.

---

Take your own advice. Your comment that you sensed Michelle's "defensiveness" indicated something other than what she was saying, is an exact example of speaking for someone else. That was my point.

It seems to me that you are being a little defensive here, on this issue, perhaps it indicates your subconcious recognition of your own hypocrisy... gender aside.

[ 12 October 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:

Then again this could just all be a big popularity contest and that wouldn’t surprise me one bit.

Why all the defensiveness about get a pedicure, wearing heels or thongs, etc.? This bragging doesn’t seem positive to me it seems defensive. So defensive you have to start a thread dictating how proud you all are of doing things that on some level to you seem to see as being anti-feminist or that you believe some nasty feminazis’ see as anti-feminsit? And when some feminist comes a long and calls you on engaging in a behavior that obviously on some level seems anti-feminists to you as well, you all freak? You don’t shrug it off with the confidence of your belief in your right to have pretty nails or no VPL you get all Mean Girls. For me personally, feminism is about a confidence in making choices like the ones you are all so proud of making without being proud or ashamed of them.

---

All of the italicized is "psychologizing" as well as "speaking for someone else, especially: "that obviously on some level seems anti-feminists to you as well..."

Bye bye.

[ 12 October 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Many posts in this thread in their hurry to be self righteous about their Feminism end up just attacks on women who have different politics. It bullying and not pro-feminist. And it's not better that what these unnamed babblers are guilty of. They at least came right out with their accusations. In your face for sure. None of this passive agressive guilt tripping.

"I like porn so I must be baaaaaddddd!" bullshit.
"I like high heels so I must be baaaaaddddd!" bullshit.

"It appears the nasty PM came after the intial post. I'm only going by what Michelle said however. It also seems to have come form a person Michelle spoke about in that first post and not in glowing terms yet failed to name. In essence she was talking behind someone's back. And that person chose to take her anger straight to the source."

I don't think Audra would have booted off a babbler for a little anger. She called it hateful and abusive. I suppose we would all have to read the PM to decide for ourselves, but I trust her judgement, and from reading the banned babbler's previous posts, I am sure rabble is a wee bit more progressive and tolerant as a result of the ban.

quote:

---

posted by Scout: ... I wish some of you had the "ovaries" to come out and say what you really mean and who your really talking about. Say that Feminist who don't like porn and prostitution are troubled prudes you don't want around here. They can take their articles and exprience and reasoned arguments and shove it. If they don't you'll harass them, insult them, stalk them, talk about them behind their backs, ban them so they can't defend themselves, and start a thread about them and anybody who didn't drown them out along with all the other babblers who made it there mission to get rid of these women.

---

quote:

---

I don't think Audra would have booted off a babbler for a little anger. She called it hateful and abusive. I suppose we would all have to read the PM to decide for ourselves, but I trust her judgement

---

I'm sure it was. I'm not saying Audra was wrong. I'm saying it's wrong to talk about people behind their backs and not expect a reaction. I can imagine that after having this nice thread started about her Thalia was a tad pissed. I can imagine after some of the attacks she has had to put up with, out in the open, day after day she was a tad uptight. If her posting didn't warrant a banning they didn't warrant constant harassment did they?

quote:

---

and from reading the banned babbler's previous posts, I am sure rabble is a wee bit more progressive and tolerant as a result of the ban.

---

-"ah, this is what we came for really...
Its, eh...give peace a chance so sing along with it.
Ive forgotten all the bits in between but I know the chorus
so..."

Ein, schwei, ein, schwei, drei, vier!

Evrybodys talkin bout:
Bagism and dragism and bagism and shagism-ism,
That-ism, prisonism, ism, ism.
All we are saying is give peace a chance,
All we are saying is give peace a chance.

quote:

---

You do get to the point, unlike all those other deliberately unnamed babblers who it seems, you wish were more like you. You rail against passive agressiveness, yet you seem to indulge when it suits you?

---

quote:

---

posted by Scout: Is this multiple choice accusation time?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jas:
Women of colour argued for years that white middle class feminism is not their feminism. Since then, i thought feminists agreed that there is no one 'ism', but rather a plurality. So what's the problem? You can't handle contention?

---

You are quite right, and I agree with you that there is no one "ism", and that there is definitely contention and that's not always a bad thing. In fact, this is one of the things I have been unhappy about lately - being told in no uncertain terms that there is a right and a wrong way to be a feminist. I have absolutely no problem with women who don't want to watch porn, don't want to wear thongs, don't like revealing clothing, etc.

I actually don't have a big problem with people analyzing the marketing of images of women. I see what's attractive about Thalia and MD's ideas, and I don't even completely disagree with them. I have spoken quite critically of porn in other threads, and of the industry that makes women feel bad about their bodies or oversexualizes women's bodies. If Thalia and MD had stuck to that, I wouldn't have had a problem with it. But that thread about the sexualization of young women - it started out with a question about whether feminism had failed because women are wearing slutty clothing.

See, the angle that really got to me was this idea that feminists were proclaiming that women are projecting a slutty image when they wear revealing clothing, and that too many women were buying into the idea that they have to look like sluts, whores, whateverotheroffensivewordyoucanthinkof. Well, I personally don't think that women who wear thongs look like sluts. I don't think women who wear lowrider jeans or show midriff or wear tight baby tees look like whores. That was the whole attitude I was objecting to. I think as feminists, we have to stand up and say, no, it doesn't matter WHAT we wear, we are not sluts, whores, or any other degrading thing, and we don't LOOK like sluts/whores either.

Then of course it got into the whole, "are women wearing thongs because they're comfortable or because they're trying to imitate porn" thing. And some people took the ridiculous position that people who wear thongs have not had any outside influence whatsoever, which is silly considering that anything that is fashionable and on the market that you buy is due to some kind of outside influence. But I see how they were pushed into that corner - they were pushed into that corner by people who were setting up a duality - either you're trying to imitate some porn queen in a gang bang flick, or you're completely oblivious to outside influences.

It's ridiculous. One could very well ask a woman why she wears cotton briefs when she could be wearing bloomers. No, no, don't tell me you're wearing the cotton briefs because they're comfortable and look nice - clearly bloomers are much more loose and comfortable, and you must be trying to dress like a total whoreslut copying a porn film if you choose something with less coverage. O, life was so much better when women said, "fuck you, hubby, I'm wearing long underwear to bed! None of these porn queen nightshirts! They show too much leg!" I mean, honestly.

Fashions change. Does the fashion industry push change and push certain "looks" over others? Damn right it does. But everything you see in the store, from cotton briefs to thongs to bustiers to granny dresses are pushed by the fashion industry. No matter what choice we make at the store, it's one that the fashion industry has planned for us. We have choice within what is available at the store, and we choose based on our personalities and preferences. And to claim that women who choose the more revealing fashions, as opposed to the more modest ones, are projecting a "slut" image, is so deeply anti-feminist and woman-hating that I can't even wrap my brain around it. It's like having Jerry Falwell invade the feminism forum. Just the fact that any feminist would even use the word "slut" to seriously describe a woman because of the way she is dressed makes me ill.

See, this is what irks me. I have no problem with women who don't like porn, don't like thongs, don't like revealing clothing, etc. The truth is, I have never worn a thong in my life, and I don't wear revealing clothing either.

The DIFFERENCE is, I don't go into the feminist forum talking about how women who like this stuff "look slutty" or are not real feminists. Nor do I tell women who don't like thongs or porn that they have to like them in order to be real women or real feminists.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
I don't support calling other feminists prudes because they aren't down with my underwear or porn.

---

You are right, I have used the word "prudery" several times in the past, in response to MasterDebator and Thalia. Let me clarify, however, that I was not calling it "feminist prudery" because they don't like watching porn or wearing thongs. I don't want to convince other feminists that they have to like the same stuff I do. Definitely not. My problem, as I stated above, has never been with feminists analyzing the marketing of images of women, or the consumer choices we have. My problem isn't with women who do not want porn in their lives or revealing clothing in their closets.

In the past on babble, I'm sure I must have said that I think that any woman who does not want to be subject to pornographic images either in her home or in her workplace has every right to demand that of her surroundings (within reason - I mean, you can't go telling some woman on the bus to cover her butt crack because her jeans are riding too low ).

Where I think feminist prudery comes in is when feminists start dictating to OTHER women the sexual conditions they must meet in order to be considered real feminists. Thalia and MasterDebator didn't just say THEY don't like to wear thongs and dress skimpily and engage in consensual BDSM. They were arguing that not only would NO ONE who is a self-aware feminist like doing those things, but also, that it was impossible for any woman to like those things (the thong example is the best one of course, because they made themselves ridiculous arguing that no woman could possibly like thongs or find them comfortable) and that any woman who claims she does is simply lying.

For me, this is just as bad as anti-feminist moral majority men sticking red letters on women who disagree with them on what is "feminist", or who dress like "whores" or engage in sexual activities that they don't like. It's feminist sin, even with consent, even if the woman in question likes it. I'm not really a big fan of "sin", whether religious, feminist, or otherwise.

So, anyhow, if the discussions over the past few weeks had been merely as you folks have said - women talking about why they personally don't like these things, I'd have been fine with that. In fact, I haven't had any hard feelings towards the vast majority of the women who have disagreed with me on these issues. The only people I have felt very angry with are the ones who have tried to dictate to the rest of the women on the board what they should like and not like, and who have called women liars when they have shared their firsthand opinions and experiences.

THAT is what I consider feminist prudery. And I stand by that. It's as bad as religious prudery. Would I call someone a prude for not liking what I like? Hell no. But when they try to tell me what I'm allowed to like if I want to be a real feminist, or if they call other women liars when they share their experiences, as Thalia and MasterDebator both have done - yeah, that's feminist prudery, and it stinks.

Note to those who have been discussing the private message: yes, Thalia sent me the private message AFTER I started this thread. Yes, it was extremely nasty, which I'm sure is why she sent it privately - I'm sure she knew that if she had posted it publicly that no one would defend it.

As for pushing people out of the clubhouse, or baiting and harassing people who disagree with my point of view - I feel that is a mischaracterization of my participation here. I think that I have been quite straightforward. Yes, sure, my first post in this thread was cynical, but I think my meaning was completely clear. And I have been quite clear in past threads where I stand on these issues.

I did not push anyone out - certainly not Thalia. I did not make Thalia write that private message. She did that all by herself, and I know from at least one other babbler that I wasn't the first person she did it to. I have every right to complain to Audra if I get a harassing message by private mail, and I don't feel that I am to blame for "provoking" such a message, when Thalia was quite free to respond right here in this thread, just as the rest of you have.

Should I have mentioned it in this thread? I guess that's debatable, and others will disagree with me, but I thought it was directly relevant to the subject at hand. Also, I was pretty sure that when Audra saw the contents of that private message, she would likely ban Thalia, and I felt that by stating publicly that I had received a really vicious PM from her and was reporting it to Audra, it would be better than having Thalia just drop off the radar unexpectedly and then have people suspect that she was banned (perhaps even by me!) for disagreeing about porn or whatever.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I have discovered that I am actually NOT a feminist, or at least not the type of feminist that the babble feminism forum welcomes.
...

---

Michelle,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Actually, they're both more famous for their pigheaded insistence that they know better than the women of babble what "IS" and "IS NOT" comfortable.
...

---

Mr Magoo,

[ 13 October 2005: Message edited by: Bacchus ]

from what i can remember in my drunken state, i think some people tried to conclude that the majority of babblers were against MD and thalia, therefore a minority can't possibly be oppressive. utter tripe. a minority can be powerful enough to be oppressive when they're judgemental and hateful. (maybe i misread something, and what i just said is utter tripe).

some people have defended MD and thalia by saying that they were up against people who couldn't tolerate a different point of view. it's an unfair thing to say. MD and thalia have done more than express their point of view. they expressed that if people don't agree with them, people are liars. MD and thalia are certainly no good at tolerating different view points.

i've given a lot of thought to what it means to be a feminist over the last few days. it's hard to form conclusions. we've wasted so much time on piddly, trivial issues. myself and others have had our feminist ideals, ethics and integrity questioned because our stance on just ONE issue conflicted with MD and thalia's. in all the thinking i have done, i have decided that feminists, like any other group of people, are very diverse. we don't have to agree on everything, and we never will. maybe we are feminists, maybe we're not. in the end, we are individual human beings who should have the liberty to make choices just like any other individual, regardless of gender. everything boils down to choice, and the liberty to make our own choices. if a man is going to pipe up in the feminism forum to give me advice, i'm not about to reject it just because he's a man. that would be sexist. it would be painting all men with the same dirty brush. i'll decide for myself if i want to take his advice or not, and my decision will be based on what the advice is.

i really liked some of MD's and thalia's posts. there was a lot of food for thought. a lot of controversial things to think and talk about. i don't think they were 'wrong' about everything. they provided educational insight into porn. however, i don't appreciate their bullying attitude. i don't appreciate being judged for what i wear. someone complained that we talk too much about thongs. it's the perfect example, however. MD can't trust other women to decide for themselves what they find comfortable, and will judge a woman's feminist ethics based on what she wears. this here feels oppressive to me. my choices are being morally criticized. who cares if my choices are influenced by fashion fads or not? it's still MY CHOICE, and as long as my choice isn't harming somebody, nobody has a right to try to inflict guilt upon me for making such a choice. and dammit, MD doesn't even know that in real life, i'm miss plain jane with mis-matched socks who doesn't have fucking clue what's fashionable. i buy second hand clothes, and cheap clothes that support local aspiring fashion designers. i go shopping 2-3 times a year. (i'll try not to digress too much).

oppression from thalia: supporting the statement that if a woman isn't actively fighting to eradicate porn, she's not a real feminist. yes, i've said i like porn, but i also believe that there is sexism in a lot of (but not all) porn, and i don't think eradicating porn is the solution to changing sexist attitudes. with thalia, everything was so black and white. you're either for it, or you're against it. there was no middle ground. one is almost forced to take sides on the issue. you're either on thalia's side, or you're not a feminist. OPPRESSION! as for actively fighting porn, it's just one issue among hundreds that need to be addressed, changed and/or eradicated in our world. we each have only so little time in our daily lives. so, we pick and choose our battles. i used to write about the environment. the environment was my pet issue that i chose to tackle, to raise awarness about, to educate people on. i didn't say a word about the porn industry. in my daily life, i try to buy organic, fair-trade products. i watch porn, maybe 2, 3 times a year. does it make me a non-feminist because i am not actively fighting porn or working in a women's shelter or something? i don't know. and i don't know if i care anymore. i did apply to volunteer at various women's shelters, but i never got a call back. it has been exhausting reading these tense threads. i walk for women take back the night, and i share conversations with my girlfriends about the strength and beauty of women.

i'm not sure where i'm going with all this anymore. i will start a new thread here.

[ 13 October 2005: Message edited by: ephemeral ]

The most hurtful, stinging, alienating and discrediting insults that feminists have used against me in political arguments, have simply been old male chauvinist insults translated. They’re still sexist.

These insults are recognizable because they consistently avoid the content of a woman’s words and draw attention to her: appearance, clothing, sexual history, or sexual interests. There are other categories of insults as well. We could probably devote a whole thread if we so chose, to sexist insults that have been translated into feminist language. As often takes place when a word or cliché phrase makes a culture leap, the language doesn’t even change that much.

Sexism is RAMPENT in the feminist community! Or perhaps, sexual harassment is a more accurate term: discrimination that seeks to discredit a person (in this case a woman) on the basis of her sexuality.

From what I can see, the harassment is so rampant that you are feeling pushed out of the community all together!

Well stick around sister because we need you!

What the bloody hell can be un-feminist about a woman sharing her story?
What the hell can be un-feminist about a woman articulating her feelings; about a woman enjoying sexual play with somebody she finds attractive??? To be forbidden to do so is down right oppressive!

The problem is not with the way you as a woman dress, but with a person’s choice to harass you on the basis of your clothing.

If I wear a short skirt and heels, and I happen to be at a party where I get into a political debate, and if at this party some men there snicker and dismiss my words on the basis of my clothing, I hope that most feminists here would recognize that as sexist.

I hope that no feminists here would say that I “asked for it” because of the way I was dressed.

Now if I am wearing the same clothing and I am at the after-party for a feminist gathering, and I make some comments in a political conversation, and some of the women present turn to each other and snicker and dismiss my words on the basis of my clothing, I hope that you would also recognize that as sexist.

I hope that you would also recognize that I did not “ask for it” because of the way I was dressed.

It is every bid as prejudicial and sexist to discriminate against one woman for her short skirt, long hair and heels as it is to discriminate against another for her masculine slacks (belt under the belly), short hair and Dacks leather shoes.

[ 13 October 2005: Message edited by: Saber ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:

I wish some of you had the "ovaries" to come out and say what you really mean and who your really talking about.

---

quote:

---

I think someone tried to point this out earlier, but here you are complaining about how "some" unamed persons are too cowardly to say what they really mean and "who your really talking about." Just to make it clear, what is ironic about this is your failure to name who you are really talking about. Perhaps you would care to name those persons whom are guilty of failing to name names, and thereby "talking behind someones back," other than yourself of course.

---

The people who posted to this thread are the ones I am speaking to, that's how these things usually work. I am not addressing people who haven't weighed in here without naming them.

And frankly in light of Michelle's last post where she actually talks about the feminists by name that she had issues with I am pretty certain she understood I was talking to her when I mentioned the person who started the thread in at least one post I made. It may not be why she addressed them by name but in her latest post but I doubt she didn't know I was talking to her, she's a smart cookie. She may have gotten mixed up about who I was talking to and thought I was talking to Macabee, I was so terrinbly vague after all but I don't think so.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

I think that peoples expressed feelings should be taken at face value, and that "psychologizing" peoples ideas into meta-meanings is a dirty trick. It is something that men have done to women for years as a manner of controlling the discourse by eliminating the expressed "real world" experiences of women from the discourse by substituting a preffered meaning.

This is psychologically invasive and can be damaging because it implies that peoples personal experience of the world are fraudulent, and can lead to neurotic self doubt that in some instances can take on pathological proportions.

---

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

---

It was actually directed not at Michelle, but at those who seek to enforce restrictive definitions of 'feminism'. (cf. the anti-thong brigade)

quote:

---

I very much admire the role you play of resident humourist on Babble. Your good natured wittiness has helped to reduce tension on many occaisions, and the courage you show is truly outstanding.

---

I wish I could see your tongue, to know if it's sticking out, firmly in cheek, or neither.

quote:

---

Originally posted by deBeauxOs:
Shhhh! Pepople are tryin' to seeep...

---

This had me in the aisle laughing. Humour is so much about timing and delivery. Well delivered and well timed. I notice you didn't even have to edit the comment, you knew what would follow.

[ 13 October 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Those comrades might consider that such generalized references might actually be intended to depersonalize the discussion, so as to avoid personal acrimony in favour of reasone discussion.

---