threads started by HoF members, pertaining to misogyny or spousal abuse or "the patriarchy", and so forth. From today:

That men being abused is not real abuse....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025508545#post130

I know this isn't a competition, but when I saw "you can't rape the willing" in regards to men being raped by women (and implying gay men can't be raped), I went through the roof! The fact it wasn't hidden was jarring. Fortunately, there were a number of women who took her to task.

Abuse is abuse.

Just because women are far more likely to be seriously injured or killed by an intimate partner, doesn't mean abused men have nothing to complain about. Abuse of a person one is supposed to love and care for, is wrong no matter who it involves.

... illustrates some urgency to dealing with the entire cycle of violence.

Even if one were completely indifferent to the plight of male victims of IPV, there are still good reasons to change the way we do things.

You and I might perhaps differ on the exact approach, but at least we both acknowledge there's a serious problem.

That right there ought to tell you something.

So a 500-post thread RE: Spiderwoman's ass - while ridiculous - doesn't greatly surprise me.

I wonder, sometimes, what the assorted axe-grinders of all stripes think they're going to accomplish... I mean, really accomplish.

I'm sure The spiderwoman's butt internet kerfuffle, for instance- by no means limited just to DU, mind you- only served to invariably drive up the value of the limited edition cover.

Goooooooo figure.

On the other hand, I think we could all stand to pick our battles a little better.

But then I also reserve the right to find things ridiculous when they strike me as such.

That Spiderwoman thread was a pretty spectacular flame-out - even if I can sympathize with her frustration over being mocked and ignored much of the time. While I might occasionally see her as misguided, overall I "get" her point of view RE: misogyny and violence against women, especially knowing some of her personal history. I just think she should maybe pick her battles a little more carefully.

And yes, I have had positive interactions with most of the HoF members, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything they say.

It becomes a bit specious for them to complain about being "mocked".

In my experience what passes for "mocking" often, usually, turns out to be someone better at being funny, than they are.

I had someone get posts hidden for calling me a racist who hates disabled people, and yet among some circles here that person did no wrong, rather i was guilty of "microagressions" because... Fuck, I dont remember exactly but I think it shook out to me not being baited despite rpeeated attempts.

I am sympathetic to peoples' personal history- hell, I have personal history too- but I dont think that anyone here tends to get a reputation for causing issues (and that includes me) unless they have earned it over time.

before. Some people just seem to have this need to divide the whole world into "good guys" and "bad guys" when reality is more nuanced than that.

Like I said, I can sympathize with someone and still find their approach misguided at times. And while I disagree with some of the personal attacks on other posters by certain HoF members, seems to me they get as good as they give. On Discussionist especially, some posters have a downright hilarious obsession with this one little "clique" that evidently wields enormous power (and not just on DU). Again, real life is way too complex to be reduced to these absurd caricatures (and all "sides" do it, undoubtedly).

This another rather big issue I have with the brand of feminism on this site. There's a tendency to very quickly otherize people who don't view feminism as the top priority issue of DU.

Feminism is important! However, it is far and away not the only important issue out there... and yet it often gets defended aggressively as though it were.

To be fair, not all the feminists on this site act that way... but there's a notable number who do.

OMFG DAVE MASON EARWORM AAARRRGGGHHH!!!

Careful, next thing you know you'll be leaving a cake out in the rain.

[img][/img]

Oh noooooo, o-oh no-ooooo!

[youtube]

Rape, domestic abuse, even FGM are at epidemic levels in much of the world. And even the U.S. - by First World standards at least - is a very violent, sexist country.

So I wouldn't blame anyone, least of all a woman, for placing a high priority on "women's issues." And when someone else doesn't share the same urgency, I think it's quite easy (even if not entirely justifiable) to see them as part of the problem.

I'm an Egalitarian... I view everything through the scope of equality for everyone... so I do consider the stakes in quite a few different areas.

"So I wouldn't blame anyone, least of all a woman, for placing a high priority on "women's issues." " - You and I differ here specifically because of the level of high priority being foisted on others on this site. This is Democratic Underground... not Feminist Underground. While Feminist issues are important here, they are not paramount... they should not be elevated to a level that other aggrievements are considered merely a distraction from Feminist issues. That happens here... and its not right. In fact, its one of the things that pushed me away from feminism. Took me a while to find out that I'm an Egalitarian... someone who supports equal rights, both social and economic, for all... not just the loudest or most recent group trying to dominate the site.

I support feminists... but I refuse to support them to the exclusion of others social and economic issues.

And if anyone truly expects you to do so, then they're being unreasonable.

But personally, I tend to see it more the other way around - a lot of otherwise left-leaning folks (not all of them male) have a tendency to be somewhat dismissive of feminist issues in the name of "focusing on what's really important." And as I alluded to above, from the perspective of a woman (or even a sympathetic man) in a violent, dangerous, highly sexist world, feminist issues indeed are "what's really important."

Understand that I'm not personally accusing you of being dismissive. And there are indeed feminists who gloss over issues of race and class in their pursuit of gender equality. But by the same token, there are those progressive activists who give greater weight to racial and economic inequality while comparatively ignoring gender.

And this needs to be struck down for the exact same reasons I've outlined.

People, in general, need to embrace the idea of looking outside themselves to understand issues other people have... this would go a long way toward dealing with the ails of our society.

has figured out that I certainly don't take that place any more seriously than I do this one.

I took issue with her duplicitous outlook... that she saw the compromising pose of Spiderwoman as wrong, but was perfectly fine with the compromising poses Spiderman is frequently in. I just cannot tolerate a double standard... and this was textbook example of one.

I just think it's a shame that she chose this particular hill to die on.

Its not the sort of thing that should be allowed to stand either.

And it's not like anything anybody says is going to stop me from admiring the female form.

Yep, the revolt against corruption in games journalism is clearly all about harassing the women in the business. I hadn't seen that much about it on here, but apparently that's because I wasn't paying attention. All I've seen in the threads that I've searched have pointed to the same thing: Zoe Quinn is being harassed because a vengeful ex-boyfriend aired dirty laundry. The truth, however, is more like this:

* In mid-August, Quinn's ex-boyfriend released The Zoe Post, documenting the end of their relationship including text logs. Other than an outpouring of empathy (since several of those logs can easily be read to hint at an emotionally abusive relationship) was the identity of a few of the people that she had had affairs with: one of which was a video game journalist that had covered her video game Depression Quest. Despite the fact that the timeline on the article and the affair didn't match up, the issue of such a conflict of interest began to raise questions about the integrity of games journalism and how truly unbiased where they, especially after the events of DoritoGate (when a gaming television reporter did a segment in front of Mountain Dew and Doritos plastered with the logo of Halo 4) and when a Gamespot reviewer was fired for giving a bad review to Kane and Lynch.
** Admittedly, there were trolls out in force. Trolls will be trolls.
* A massive censorship of the story was carried out on sites such as 4chan and Reddit, where a thread there had over 20,000 comments deleted after a mod on it had tweeted Quinn.
* Several online gaming publications then released --within 24 hours-- several articles proclaiming that gamers were dead and that the misogynists in the movement didn't want their "Boy's club" invaded.
* Actor Adam Baldwin coins the term #GamerGate to refer to this backlash and several surmise that the articles had to be coordinated somehow.
* A Brietbart UK tech reporter is e-mailed a series of Google Group messages showing that the articles had indeed been coordinated and urged the online magazine The Escapist to purge discussion on their forums. When they refused,they were shunned.

Sorry for the wall of text, but I wanted to get the other side of the story out there. It's been framed as sexist from the beginning, mainly by the very ones that are trying to avoid being called out on their lack of ethics. And on DU, as well even Wikipedia, that is the only narrative that is being spun.

I have little doubt that Quinn and Ex were throwing barbs at each other... few people are mature enough to avoid doing that after a break-up due to raw emotions and reasons and phycology that I won't get into here (it'd need a separate thread for that)... somewhere along the line, things clearly got out of control and took on a life of their own... so much so that entire identities of people were demonized... all because of the actions of minorities that resided within those self-identified categories.

Fortunately, I think most reasonable people see through those efforts, and recognize them as the garbage they are... and recognize the issues as being valid, yet largely isolated.

I don't know if I'm right or wrong on this... I do know there is a lot of sides to this issue... and I also know I won't let fringe groups claiming to be feminists get away scot free with demonizing the term Gamer... nor will I allow those who committed those heinous acts, while waving the gamer flag around, to go un-admonished/unreported/blocked/etc. Those who committed those acts have no right to the word Gamer, and I'll be damned before I allow them to appropriate it for their own use.

and a lot of people on the GamerGate side are doing their best to keep them under control, but it's a difficult job. As for the other side, way too many strawmen have been destroyed.

This poster's constant attack on DU's feminists is really inappropriate. Feminism is part of the Democratic Party platform. I can't believe that people actually engage in feminist bashing here... COMPLETE with call-outs... Completely rude, insensitive and inappropriate.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was COMPLETED at Thu Oct 2, 2014, 04:47 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: As a feminist, I disagree with the linked posts as yes, sexism can go both ways. Upthread on that linked thread is the quote "the -ism is about systemic discrimination, not individual BEHAVIOR." Ism can be both systemic and individual. No matter who is the ruling power, individually, yes, any ism can go either way. That said, I do not see this as an attack on DU's feminists but instead sharing in this rather closed group.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Totally agree with alerter.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: First of all this was posted in the Men's Group, which gives this alert a strong whiff of post stalking. Secondly, linking to or accurately QUOTING things posted by other DUers is neither "bashing" nor "attacking." Nor is it calling out. If you don't want to stand by a statement, distance yourself from it; if you wrote it, own it with all that implies. hifiguy
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
____

I have taken to signing my jury votes.

"This poster's constant attack on DU's feminists is really inappropriate" - My so-called constant attack has been bringing light to the duplicity of some assertions that have been made here.

It is inappropriate to claim special dispensation over an offense, and then turn around and deny dispensation for that very same offense simply because the offended person(s), are not part of your specific group.

This is an issue of fairness. Rather than discussing the issue, someone would rather shut down the whole conversation... because they don't want to be fair about it.

"Feminism is part of the Democratic Party platform." - Feminism is absolutely part of the platform! As it should be! However, some have taken to thinking that Feminism is somehow antithetical to men (or any other group) having their rights as being part of the party platform as well. As an Egalitarian, I firmly believe BOTH groups are part of the party platform. We all have issues we want addressed, and we all have a right to stand up for what we believe in.


"I can't believe that people actually engage in feminist bashing here..." - There was no bashing that happened here.

"Completely rude, insensitive and inappropriate." - If by this, you mean I didn't just roll over and buy into the notion that men should not be defended as well as women... then sure, its true. There are no shortage of aggrieved people in the world... Feminists are one group among many.

As I've said before: If you're for equal rights... then be for equal rights... not just the ones convenient for you.

As is pointing out the Palinesque word salad nature of particular posts. That is pathetic.

We end up playing games where popularity becomes more important than facts.
The fact is men can be victims of sexism. This fact in no way detracts from the seriousness of the issues surrounding feminism... but some seem to think it does.

It is never okay to ignore one wrong to focus exclusively on another.

Unadulterated nonsense.

And this is one of the pervasive concepts adopted by some (certainly not all!!!) feminists on this website.

How something so blatantly wrong could possibly be considered part of feminism is absolutely beyond me.

"White people cannot be racist against because privilege...", "Women cannot be sexist against men because oppression levels..." It's ridiculous and an almost textbook example of moving the goalposts.

Anyone can be a hateful asshole, sure, but social and political power is a factor too.

a) would you agree that institutional discrimination is discriminatory treatment of individuals by institutions such as governments based on stereotypes related to immutable characteristics such as sex, orientation or race?
b) would you agree that a primary unsubtle manifestation of institutional discrimination would be laws which treat one group (characterized above) of individuals as a class preferentially relative to another?

Are we agreed as to definitions?

If they actually do, I'd love to see what it is. All I ever see are examples which pretend to meet some unspecified definition. Any example you give to counter it will be automatically disqualified because of no better reason that "teh patriarchy" and men are in power even though women have made up the majority of voters since Johnson was elected.

http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/voters/documents/genderdiff.pdf

I'd like to get past the idea that equality demands greater levels of retributive injustice.

I just don't see women, overall, as being given "preferential treatment" in any greatly meaningful way. I see that as similarly spurious as the argument that affirmative action equals racism against whites.

I can see only one rationale for that. Present injustices and institutional discrimination are punitive collective punishment for perceived past sins. In other words, "yes, institutional discrimination exists, but we approve of it".

... Actually I can see two. The other rationale is that individuals within the two groups are inherently and fundamentally unequal, and society needs to intervene on the behalf of one of the parties, i.e. The Americans with Disabilities act.

Personally, I apply the same standards to the concept of gender injustice and privilege as I do to race.

Let's avoid the minefield and start in a place of broad agreement. Can you think of some anecdotes or statistics exemplary of white privilege and/or racial injustice? Crime? Homelessness? Education? Unemployment? Health? Wealth? Violence?

Let's then apply those same metrics and measures to gender and see if we can reach any conclusions.

But aren't those largely related to policies enacted by other men? I don't see how you can spin it into some notion of men being oppressed by women.

For instance, it was an all-male supreme court who, in 1981 that ruled that men lack 14th amendment protection. Would not a nation whose supreme court explicitly holds that men are not entitled to equal protection under the law, be institutionally discriminatory?

Patriarchy (or whatever you want to call it) is just as bad for men, in many ways, as it is for women. All the more reason to pass the ERA, and if it leads to the dismantling of whatever laws have supposedly "favored" women, then so be it. I still think it would be a net gain for both genders in the long run.

I guess maybe I'm taking a longer historical view, where women were explicitly denied the vote (and many other rights of citizenship) as women, whereas men, historically, were not disenfranchised on the basis of gender - race, class, etc. being a different story obviously. Much like with racism, the laws have changed, but ingrained cultural attitudes lag behind. And the disproportionate influence of Evangelical Christianity on contemporary American politics certainly doesn't help, with the idea of men having authority over women and women's bodies still being appallingly widespread in many parts of the country.

But no, two wrongs do not make a right, and I tend to think Rostker v. Golberg was dead wrong. The Selective Service should be abolished entirely IMO, but if not, it should be expanded to include women.

If your great grandmother was denied the right to vote, you are just as likely to be male as female.

I'd consider the latter a more easily defensible view than the former.

But I would never use it as a reason to downplay systematic discrimination against women, as some people (not necessarily you) seem to do. Like I said, rigid gender roles hurt both genders (see your Selective Service example).

Remember this all started with a discussion around someone who claimed discrimination against men is impossible.

cases. But otherwise, men arguably face just as many unfair gender-based expectations as women do.

students? I can't think of any specific cases, but I suppose it would be possible.

Are you arguing the educational system is fundamentally biased against male students? Much as it has been, traditionally, biased against female students interested in mathematics or the sciences?

As I've said before, I do think that young men in this society face a variety of challenges, many if not most of which are tied to overly rigid gender roles.

Remember that women make up the largest voting block.

So perhaps you can explain that to me. In 2014, it's pretty hard to understand how women can be systemically discriminated against while simultaneously making up the largest voting block unless women are going along with it.

I usually tend to dismiss Andrea Dworkin as sort of a crackpot, but she did raise some valid points in her writings RE: "right-wing women" (the phrase she herself used).

Spend more time with family and less with being a wage slave while the men traditionally get the other end of that stick. Not a bad deal, really. Being pro-choice should mean respecting those choices so long as they are indeed a choice. Equal opportunity does not necessarily mean equal outcomes which is exactly how gender discrimination is fundamentally different than race discrimination and underscores the peril of trying to conflate those two things. Choosing a traditional gender role is NOT discrimination regardless of how much the Dworkin parrots want us to believe that women lack agency.

explains a lot.

Personally I was raised in a situation which ran completely contrary to traditional gender roles and I have never had any use for them. Had you bothered to read very many of my posts you would have found I have on many occasions advocated strongly against them as they serve no useful purpose. However, I just choose not to bend reality to fit my ideology. When there is no requirement for traditional gender roles, yet large segments of the population remain within them, one can reasonably assume without too much risk of fucking up that they are maintained by choice.

out in most urban centers, and the rest of the population will discard them as well in the next 30-40 years. Our economy does not support them for most people anymore. The SAHM model is for the upper classes and deeply impoverished, most Moms work these days.
Sad that they are most often still pressured to keep house too.

It is no longer the norm at all, and very common in the city to see Dads taking care of children. The genie is way past out of the bottle on this is major cities, just a matter of time -with the rates women are choosing to educate themselves - that this will be the norm nationwide in 20 years.

Those stats have completely flipped if you go back 50-60 years, because women have fought hard -during that time- to have options that they just did not have back then.

Women are earning more because they are becoming better educated. This doesn't necessarily mean they are working more hours in income generating activities. Those differences just aren't trending that much. Men have been consistently spending about 40% more time in income generating activities for at least the last 10 years. There are also other explanations for those changes. Stagnant wages over the last 40 years means two incomes are required to maintain or improve standards of living which is a coping mechanism the middle class has had to make.

well compensated for it? Seems both are a sore spot for you, not sure how well you'll enjoy the rest of this century.
Women are evolvong right past these bullshit roles that used to be just accepted without question. We don't fall for these crap excuses and "data sets".

When you are the one getting emotional over facts. I'm not going to continue to have this discussion with you if insist on being derisive for no good reason.

Have a nice day.

the counter seemed to be merely a dismissal of evidence based details in favor of anecdotes... and mild mockery... all in all, pretty tepid as counters go.

Thanks for sharing, Major Nikon

to say all of us Dems deserved the Reagan years, or the Bush years, if you believed such tripe.
In other words, bullshit- and not anything close to a progressive POV.

Those words don't even appear in this thread until you used them. I haven't misrepresented your posts. I'll thank you not to blatantly libel me. Please edit your post and remove it.

because they vote in slightly larger numbers than men do. you blame women for their current inequality ALL THE TIME.

If you can't, then you misquoted and misrepresented me. It's just that simple. Nowhere did I say women deserved discrimination or implied any such thing. You are simply trying to be a bully here.

all the time, and not have people take note.

This isn't about implying anything which I never did in the first place. If you inferred as much you were wrong.

This is about you quoting something I never wrote and dishonestly attributing it to me. It's one thing to make an honest mistake. It's quite another to insist your obvious misrepresentation is accurate and refuse to correct it when it's brought to your attention and asked politely. I have been quite patient and polite with you while you have been nothing but derisive and bullying. I'm afraid I must insist on a certain level of civility here.

Equal rights doesn't mean everyone has to be the same. It just means everyone gets the same opportunity. Regardless of how appealing a genderless society sounds, both men and women are simply going to be quite happy embracing traditional gender roles.

Some are so convinced that they have a magical view into the heart of all women... some are convinced that they secretly all want to be in the workforce... which reminds me of the wrongheaded notion of some men to think when a woman says no, she really means yes. Women are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves in what they want and don't need some augur declaring what their thoughts are. No one person can ever speak for an entire class of people. We all have individual choice, and right to express that choice... free of the assumptions of others.

Women have a right to choose to be whatever they want to be. They don't have to be in the workforce... they don't have to be feminists (though, they'd likely be better off in my opinion).

Men, on the other hand, are still judged as worthless if they do not hold a job. House husbands, while on a slow rise, are still looked down on. There is no acceptable social rights advocate for men. They have to just suck it up and stop whining... or they are the patriarchy so they can't be wronged, or this reason or that reason or whatever reason.

Equality cannot be a one sided thing. We either have equality or we don't. Women (or perhaps more accurately; (some) Feminists) blame men for their ails... and yet men suffer too... but if they seek advocacy, they are wrong? They are the bad guy? Even the words "bad guy" assumes the villain is male.

The bottom line is this; Everyone, without exception, should have a right to choice in how they wish to live, free of persecution, so long as their not harming anyone.

If people are going to claim they are for equality, then the need to be for equality. Not just when it is convenient... or when it fits their most recent diatribe-based narrative.

whether it's your own hurt ego @ derision, or my "emotions"- that exist only in your imagination- it's a darn shame.

Was so looking forward to many more cherry picked surveys that rationalize women getting cheated out of equal pay and more denial of the huge changes in the bread winning trend over the last 50 years. I know that is a LOT for people who prefer the old ways to handle.

because god help me off the merry-go-round. Who wants to ride this carousel ?

Moving On.

To more productive conversation/discussion elsewhere.

but, bless you for trying bettyellen.

patience of Job.

that doesn't exist. Instead of something they are happy there are no accurate stats on, so they can pretend it doesn't happen.

#NotAllThey ...

I guess you could get stupid ideas like that if you believed societal issues just magically disappear overnight.
At best it's incredibly naive, but I don't think that is what it is.
In essence it is saying women deserve less rights - including reproductive- because some women vote against their best interests. That is like saying all of us Dems deserved the Reagan years. That is just plain cruel, as well as ridiculous. Not a progressive POV at all.

This shows up in hours worked per week.

http://www.statcrunch.com/5.0/viewreport.php?reportid=7996

And when men and women work the same hours in the same jobs, they are paid essentially the same.

The whole goal of feminism is empowerment, right? Just hypothetically, what if some women prefer to be empowered to do something that you wouldn't choose?

despite your claims otherwise. Ledbetter is useless, and the few places where they are able to accurately track pay, like civil service jobs- there have always been unexplained disparities.
Aside from that, your post has nothing to do with mine, about the argument presented that women deserve less because too many vote against their interests. Anyone who claims that is doing nothing more than rationalizing discrimination- and that is just not progressive.

Until equal numbers of women elect to be chemical engineers and welders instead of teachers and daycare staff, the pay gap will always exist. So long as women choose careers with emphasis on nonmonetary reward, "equal pay" as you define it will never exist.

If unequal pay is primarily a manifestation of patriarchy and discrimination, why are self-employed women paid less then self-employed men? Is her boss discriminating against her too?

Empowerment is progressive. It is the act of forcing women to make the choices meeting with your approval that is not.

"Empowerment is progressive." -

- "the act of forcing women to make the choices meeting with your approval that is not" -

14% of the US population are black which means they can and are marginalized socially and politically.

The problem people run into when they try to conflate race and gender discrimination is they conveniently ignore that women make up a majority of the population and turn out to vote in significantly higher numbers.

For just one example, think of the right-wing Evangelical woman who votes "the way my husband does/tells me to." I'm certainly not saying the majority of American women think or behave that way, just that being a slim majority doesn't necessarily equal having a comparable share of power.

Just out of curiosity, what's your theory on why Congress is over 80% male despite voters being over 50% female? I've spent some time puzzling over that one myself.

Few women run for office. I could not presume to tell you why.

Not only do women make up a greater share of the electorate, they show up to vote in greater numbers. That means they have more political power than men. The Democratic Party is well aware of this and courts that demographic. Women elected Obama. Men did not. Nobody can legally vote for anyone else. If anyone votes for someone based on what anyone else told them, that's certainly their prerogative.

As far as members of congress being whatever gender, lots of employment situations are disproportionate by gender simply because different genders gravitate to different jobs. What's the theory on why 90% of registered nurses are female? When people are allowed to chose what career fields they want, men and women are going to self-segregate to various degrees for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with discrimination. Assuming all or any segregations are due to discrimination, is just that, an assumption.

Volunteer for a campaign sometime and you'll find more women doing most of the leg work for actually getting candidates elected. My theory is that women are smart enough to support candidates that represent their interests regardless of what sexual hardware they were born with. I don't really think women's interests will be better served with more Michelle Bachmanns and less Sherrod Browns. YMMV.

Sherrod Browns."

Of course. But I also don't think it's any coincidence that the countries with the highest proportion of female legislators (e.g. Sweden) generally score the highest on gender equality.

Germany has twice the female participation rate in legislature, yet has a higher gender pay gap.

Don't forget we are talking about discrimination which directly relates to opportunity rather than outcomes which does not. In the case of social and political racial discrimination, one can draw a pretty clear path between cause and effect. There simply are no non-discriminatory cultural causes that can explain how certain races are disadvantaged. You can't say that about gender. That's how people fuck up when they try to conflate racial and gender discrimination. It's a classic association fallacy.

That certainly wasn't what the poster she replied to meant, so taking context of the conversation into account, you can't get there from here.

Even if you can tilt your head and accept that context, it's still unadulterated nonsense as their are numerous examples of "systemic discrimination based on gender", which go the other way.

If you're not a milquetoast, wussy male, then you don't belong at DU apparently.

There are some who have wrong-headed ideas, but I wouldn't necessarily call them fake feminists. Just as there are democrats with a wide array of beliefs and backgrounds, the same holds true for Feminism. There's quite a few different minds of thought with feminism.

Some, I wholeheartedly endorse and embrace... others are very out there, in my opinion. There is at least one form of feminism that believes in subjugating men as a form of revenge... obviously I don't agree with that. In fact, any form of feminism that endorses some form of revenge, rather than justice and equality, I'm vehemently against.

The one thing that they all tend to be unified on is bringing women's right up to par with men's rights. This is something I wholeheartedly agree with.

The problem some feminists have (both on this website and elsewhere) is the notion that men are disadvantaged in specific ways due to not being female, and I'm 100% against that as well.

I often end my comments with: "If you're going to be for equality, then be for equality... and not just when its convenient for you." because people on both sides of the equation often want the other side to consider their perspective within a vacuum devoid of the opposite gender... except that such a perspective in unrealistic. Men CANNOT exist without Women and vice versa. So, anyone pretending that women are the only ones being disadvantaged is laughable at best, and self deluding at worst.

We all need to be a bit more sensitive to the needs of each other and opposing genders.
Otherwise, we are a house divided that cannot stand.

Last edited Tue Nov 11, 2014, 06:23 AM - Edit history (1)

To share an unfavorable opinion of Anita Sarkeesain. Nearly got my head chopped off. My criticism of her approach and style as it relates to games criticism was turned into me supporting rape and death. How do you have a rational conversation with someone when they accuse you of that? It's ridiculous.

In some circles, that "irrationality" is tactical. In that sense, it's eminently rational; it effectively and quickly silences dissent.

with the brand of feminism on DU.

Some feminists here are more than willing to have a good discussion about issues without conflating or mischaracterizing the conversation. By and large, I tend to agree with those individuals a vast majority of the time. They tend to see equality as not just an issue women face, but men too... just on different issues and to different degrees... but they agree the issues exist on all fronts and need to be stamped out on all fronts.

These are, in my mind, the stalwart guardians of true equality based feminism.
They are the ones to make feminism a movement that is attractive to participate in.
And, they are often the ones that keep me holding out hope for humanity.

That is all.

Well, this too.

So, I got alerted over the below comment:

Sigh.

I'd like to believe part of the reason the jury summarily ignored them was that bullshit.

As well as probably most everything else they author with everyone who doesn't share their extreme views.

Just one vote shy of the likely-deserved smackdown

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:32 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

So, I posted a video, and the response I got... well, I should say it was surprising, but it wasn't
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1114&pid=14523

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Rude call-out and further feminist bashing by this poster.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Nov 17, 2014, 01:40 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I refuse to hide any threads from Mens or Womens Group on DU. Both of those forums are nothing but argumentative sniping and complaining about being insulted. If you want to play over there, be prepared for it to get nasty.
I think they should both be dissolved.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's only a call-out if it's obvious who's being talked about. There's no username, or other identifying info in this post. This is just whining, and need not be hidden.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Hide this TRASH!
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Two mules fighting over a turnip.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This seems more like "further post stalking" by the alerter than "further feminist bashing" by the poster. Perhaps I would feel otherwise if I read all of the threads involved... but from here that looks like a waste of my time.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.