i like violets suggestion that we get a host. and two cohosts and we can work out the SOP. but i think that is pretty well taken care of, too.

really, i would like to get 'er done because i want to get onto other stuff, lol

Is there a reason we have to limit the number of co-hosts?

Why not four? It increases the likelihood of someone being available.

the jury system of 6 drives me crazy. three three and they leave it. hard for me, thinking wise.

plus me as host.

Maybe we could get the host position sorted first and then deal with the # of co-hosts issue?

forever to get a consensus with four.

i can get on with life.

we can discuss why just two, but yes, i think there are good reasons to limit co hosts. firstly, i think most all, literally, i think all, but most all will be fair and just. it isn't going to be that hard to follow rules. this place is not that busy. and too many cooks in the kitchen makes it very hard to get things done. i think 3 people will balance well. three can come to a consensus much easier than 6. i don't think there are going to be any host or cohost that is not reasonable. nor posters, for that matter.

about who the hosts of this forum might be. We've already had two long threads discussing the SOP/hosts. I think going with one host and four or five co-hosts will go a long way in alleviating those concerns and allow a wider range of feminist perspectives.

and i am not being snotty. i hear what you say. i just disagree. it gets clogged up and messy. but i am not opposed to others speaking out. that is just my position in the way business, committee and others are run, from experience. i am all for people expressing. (i am rushing, have stuff to do). i think women tend to group in situations like this and i dont know if it is always the answer.

putting in my two cents.

hey.... do you know how other forums are set up? that would be interesting. maybe they have the knowledge why one way or another works better.

and i think we really have to get beyond this side/battle thing.

i think this feeds it.

again. a differing of opinion. no more.

then I think all three positions should be put to a vote. Members who are nominated/volunteer will be listed and the membership will have a certain window of time to vote. The member with the most votes will be the host, and the next two highest number of votes will be the co-hosts. I think that's how it was done in the LGBT forum, not sure about some of the other forums. I think it depends on how active they are.

The downside of a vote is that it can lead to hurt feelings, but if we're going to limit the number of hosts, then that seems the fairest way to do it.

there are people that have very strong feelings about the women in this forum. how is any of that controlled. people who will never come in here, not post a single post, ever, yet vote to be disruptive.

i was curious about this a couple days ago.

I've seen posts in this forum by feminists who didn't know there was a Feminist Group and were eager to join.

There are feminists like me, who haven't been able to participate on DU much in the past but now have the time and ability to do so.

There are feminists who like the way DU3 makes groups more visible and user-friendly and want to participate.

I understand your concern about trolls or people who want to disrupt this forum coming in here to cause trouble, but that's what the SOP is for. If this group is for former DU2 members only, I would like to know that now. I certainly don't want to be suspect just because I started posting here recently.

dont assign motive. we will about always get it wrong.

i agree with the first three points that you have said. at the beginning of this whole "to do", i was excited for all three of those reason, making this an active forum. thank you for the reminder.

i started a thread in meta. it was locked because it does not belong in that forum. it was off another locked thread. i only did it as a fun thread. the person who locked it, pm'ed me the reason and understood i meant nothing bad by it. quite a while, an hour?, after it was locked, someone alerted on it to give me a "hidden" post. no reason, but to be an ass.

i am called out regularly on gd and other forums. because i do speak out. i put myself out there.

i have a couple three posters that follow my post, with the only contribution a snide comment. like, use your shift key.

hostility to women is growing in GD and not a single namecalling, call out, rude comment has been hidden, when it comes to sexism, from what i see.

part of being knew to the forum is not having a history of 8 years. an understanding of animosity built up and then to have a new board where there is no control at all. part of being new to du3 is not knowing posters, their styles, and way of communicating. combative? cooperative?

so though i love welcome new posters to du and to the feminist forum, and i do it regularly, i also know there might be history you do not understand.

you look and say, why arent people working together. why cant all be included. trust in the SOP.

i was told to trust that du3 would be able to combat the sexism and create a civil environment.

i am not saying this in anyway to dismiss your voice. i dont do that, i wont do that. i am giving you information.

we often say on du.... welcome, dont take anything personally and you will do fine. it can get ugly. and it can be very uniting, too.

you arent new. you have been here a lont time, havent you? maybe not a big poster. but a member, anyway. i am not going to take that stuff out addressing new posters, in case it is helpful to them. but i recognize it really does not address you.

anyway, in the shower i was thinking. the other forums (not groups because i dont know) have quite a few co hosts. so maybe i am looking at it from a perspective adn others are seeing the format of du. which i overlooked. i will look forward to hearing what others say.

I truly do. And you expressed them well in your post. I believe the co-hosts should be members who have a history with this group. I liked the list of potential hosts in the group host/statement of purpose thread started by iverglas.

I don't know the answer. Perhaps the hosts should be members who don't have a combative history with other members of the group. Perhaps I shouldn't opine on this since I don't have a history with this group. I will bow out now and let others make these decisions.

even the guys she is combating with in GD

and if we dont like her in 90 days we can kick her happy little tush to the curb.

My tush is quite ample I will have you know.

but I do raise some occasional feminist hell in GD.
I'd be happy with redqueen as forum host.

but I also agree with what LisaD wrote. We have over 70 subscribers. Most of them have not posted in the recent threads but that doesn't mean they aren't reading them and thinking about what this group's goal is or how it should be hosted. There's probably a subset of subscribers who haven't visited DU in the last couple of days (for example, they're on vacation this week or they look at DU only on the weekend.)

I'm not fond of the open vote system used by the LGBT group but I really think that after the last few days we need a public vote.

I'm not convinced we need to do that. IIRC you're the only one who has volunteered herself. That says to me that the rest of the nominees like me aren't as interested in the primary host spot. We certainly want a motivated host!

JMHO, but I think that if we leave this thread open for awhile (say through next Wednesday just to give as many people as possible a chance to see, think about, and comment on this thread), we 'll see if there are more yeas than nays for you as primary and if so, call it a done deal. What do you think?

I think the hard work will be picking cohosts and doing the final polishing on the SoP.

when Lioness first brought up the issue. We have several threads on it which many people chimed in on.

I suppose another five days isn't much, but I'd be lying if I said it didn't seem like overkill to me.

even though i saw that most everyone that uses this forum is already aware of the situation. they locked the thread. this was the comment left by gkhouston.

"It seems to me that the people most interested in who's hosting a group already read that group."

i have to agree with her.

the posters of this forum know about it. the outside du knows about it. all have said yea to redqueen. redqueen has met everything in that post you gave us (and thank you).

there is no reason for redqueen not to contact skinner.

I'm not surprised that there's lots of support for redqueen. She's always seemed evenhanded to me and very interested in this forum.

What I've been babbling about is that because of the discussions earlier in the week there are clearly members who have a difficult time being civil to each other and respectful of divergent but legitimate feminist thinking. As part of that discussion some proposed redqueen as host but so were several others including me.

When I stepped back from the discussion and try to look at it impartially, the real issue seemed to be that members were trying to protect diverse opinions rather showing a strong preference for one person over another.

I also realized that very few members had posted at all in that discussion. My suggestion to give the active discussion of who should host enough time so that other members could comment is a way of cutting off any suggestion that redqueen was named host without consensus.

it cannot be viewed the time has not been given for consent. it has been given either with silence or with verbal approval.

that is the point.

However, even including the threads earlier in the week today is the first weekend day of the discussion.

At this point I've said it several times -- it does no harm to let the discussion continue but IMHO it could be detrimental to foreshorten it. That's my opinion, not a rule.

Last edited Sat Jan 14, 2012, 03:18 PM - Edit history (1)

it with the knowledge this would be used against the women in this forum as being unfair or whatever the issue is.

i think monday is a fair time for redqueen to send it to skinner.

and yes, we have discussed even on the earlier threads about hosts, and no one has said anything negative about redqueen.

and giving people the weekend to weigh in, with no objections it sure sounds like a consensus by Monday to me.

And yes, that was my point --didn't want it to appear that we were rushing the choice as a way of cutting out some members from the discussion.

i needed a time frame.

I like 1 host, 4 co-hosts.

I would not base any case on the number of subscribers to the forum. People who subscribe and do not post may be interested in reading discussions of feminist issues but have no real stake in the group. I also have no doubt there are subscribers who are subscribed for wholly different reasons.

PS -- I've never paid attention to "subscribe". How does one tell how many people are subscribed to a group or forum?

the only times i have been in it is when i accidently hit it. then i back out. lol

that what it does is put it in the list on the left-hand side, so you don't have to open "Gender & Orientation" to click on "Feminists". So I'll leave it there now.

I subscribed to my favorite subforums my first day here, cause I'm lazy like that.

No idea how to find out how many are subscribed but I aim to find out.

edit: Aha, it's shown in "About this group", we're up to 81 now.

It's in the "Announcements" area

Would you like to serve as a Host of a Group? And does your Group even need a Host?

Again, this is an announcement about Group Hosts, not Forum Hosts....

Does your group need a Host at all?

The first thing that needs to happen in any Group before someone is assigned as a Host, is that the regulars in that group need come to some general agreement that they want a Host at all. The position of Host (especially the most senior Host) holds a significant amount of power in a group -- with the abilities to lock threads, hire and fire other Hosts, and block people out of the group. Are you sure you want to hand that power over to anyone?

Keep in mind that if you do not choose to have a Host, your group will still enjoy some amount of protection. No matter where they are posted, violations of our Community Standards are handled by the random member juries. So even if your group does not have a Host, there is still a system in place that will be able to handle disruptive posts in the group.

With that in mind, there may be some Groups where it might make sense to leave the position of Host vacant:

If your group is dedicated to a non-controversial topic, then there is probably no harm in assigning someone as a Host. You are unlikely to need someone to lock threads or block people out of the group, but it might be useful to have someone who can take ownership of the group.

If your group is a "Safe Haven" where only one viewpoint is welcome, then you should probably assign a Host to help run the group. It is likely that you will need a Host to lock off-topic threads and block out people who disagree with the purpose of the group.

If your group plays host to open debate on a particular topic, and welcomes a wide range of viewpoints, then the choice might not be so simple. If you select a Host, it needs to be someone who is trusted to be fair by people holding a wide range of viewpoints. You may decide that it is better not to assign anyone as the Host of your group, to avoid the risk that that person might use their power to benefit a particular viewpoint.

If you decide that you do wish to have someone assigned as the Host of your group, the next step is to pick someone. The first person selected as Host holds the most power in the Group. The first can add and remove other Hosts, but no other Hosts can remove the first Host. In short: Choose someone you trust.


What to do if you want to serve as a Host? (THESE INSTRUCTIONS HAVE CHANGED)

If the members of your group decide to select a Host, then you must decide who will serve as the first Host. The DU Administrators will assign ONLY ONE host to each Group, and then it is the responsibility of that Host to select other members of the Host Team (if anyone else wishes to serve).

Hopefully in most Groups, selecting a first Host will be a simple matter of awarding the job to the first person who posts in the Group to volunteer for the job. If more than one person is interested, then you need to discuss the choice of Host amongst yourselves until you come to some sort of consensus regarding who should have the job.

If you want to serve as a Host of a particular Group, the first thing you need to do is post in that group to let the members of that group know you are interested in serving as the Host. If a consensus is reached and you are chosen for the job, then -- and only then -- you can report back to this thread and let me know.

Post a reply in this thread telling me which group you have been selected to Host. Include a direct link to your post in the group where you want to serve. I need that link in order to give you host powers.
I will only assign ONE host to each group. After that first host has been assigned, then that first host has the power to grant host status to anyone else. So, if a host is already assigned to a group, then you need to contact that host to become a host.

Good luck selecting your Hosts.

Skinner
DU Admin

Overladies?

Go for it!

if we can't agree on the sop.



that being said, i am kinda done with this group and may propose a "Feminists Group for Intersectional Politics" or something of that sort to skinnner when i have time.

So all in all, i dont really support anyone being the host till the SOP is decided but not sure I care all that much.

If selecting a host is left till agreement is reached on a SOP, there'll never be a host because there's never going to be a point where everyone agrees. The role of a host is simple, and I want someone doing it who has the interests of this group first and foremost...

Hosts have been appointed to groups and then a SOP is discussed afterwards. While we didn't get a vote, hosts were assigned to the I/P group and then we were invited to discuss a new SOP based on the old I/P guidelines (and if you think hammering out a SOP for this group is bad, the long list of rules from the old I/P forum make this look like a walk in the park)....

been addressed.

one not publicly, on the name calling part. but that is just a matter of the poster putting it out, dealing with both 2nd and 3rd wave protection and freedom of expression and discussion.

let's choose the host, finish the SOP after the host has been selected.

although the last version of the SOP that i saw, i did vote to approve ... it was in "the other thread"

i saw. it protects both 2nd and 3rd wave voice. respect. i can appreciate that.

i dont think this is much of an issue. i think it will pretty much address everyones issue.

and am waiting for the Feminism and Diversity group to be created. When it does get created, I will subscribe to it. In the meanwhile, since i dont expect to be a regular participant here, I am removing any objections i have stated earlier

I posted it in a recent thread and was really hoping you'd give me even one example of where what gay women want conflict with what straight women want...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1139&pid=966

btw, I was suspecting when I read that thread in H&M about wanting a new group that it was all about setting up a competing group to this one. Now with yr post, I'm absolutely positive about the motivation behind it and hope Skinner doesn't support dividing the feminist community at DU the way it will if he creates another group...

its not a competing group, its a different group that i feel more comfortable about. a group that doesn't expect me to prioritize my gender over my sexual orientation or race, but understands that these various oppressions play into any analysis of power.

the priorities of what second wave feminists think are the most concerning like porn/"pornification" of women, very rarely are the primary concerns for me or queer women. infact i am extremely uncomfortable judging what other women choose to wear, and comparing skimpy clothing to the hijab enforced by governments.

more importantly no one will strip me of my feminist identity in an intersectional group, just because the rights of gay men are important to me.

I'd like to see what you think are areas where you think what gay women want conflict with what straight women want, because I can't see anything and would like some help understanding...

Personally I don't give a shit about all that second/third wave crap, and I think pigeon-holing feminists into little groups where you tell them what their priorities are supposed to be is just a bit on the exclusionary side. Shouldn't we be committed to fighting all discrimination and exploitation of all women rather than focusing on which feminist is sitting under what tidy labels, and discarding some because their fight isn't yr fight? See, I've got some pretty different views of prostitution than probably a lot of other feminists in this forum, but if the subject comes up, I'm not going to rush off and demand my own feminists group so I can block anyone who disagrees with me

btw, you've confused the hijab with the burqa. The hijab is the headscarf worn by many Muslim women, including a friend of mine, and has been banned from countries like Turkey. The burqa, on the other hand, is that all-encompassing sack thing, which is a very different story....

I'm not sure what rights of gay men you think trump anything to do with feminism. Would that be the right of them and other men to come into the group if the mood took them and yell abuse at some of the feminists in this group?

i am just making a point that state sanctioned clothing is nothing similar to whatever it is that women in this culture wear out of choice. hijab/burqa/chador/purdah etc are not similar to someone wearing next to nothing at the grammy's.

i dont have time to do this, but iverglas made a claim that i dont get to be a feminst if i prioritize the rights of the lgbt community over straight women. i think thats a bunch of bullshit determined by people who cannot see how their straightness is a huge privilege in this society (and really any society, even ones in which gays have equal rights).

it took a long time for straight feminist to even acknowledge gay feminists in the feminism movement, this is why it is important to me to acknowledge that our priorities may not be the same. while you seek equality in your marriage, i seek the rights to marriage. while pornification may be a big deal to you, it almost doesn't register as particularly important to me. porn, sex-work and visibility of queer women are places that i have most recently found huge difference with feminists in this particular forum.

Lest the conversation steer onto the argument of whether Muslim women are forced to wear coverings (Afghanistan under the Taliban, Saudi Arabia and Iran are some of the few countries that do - Turkey on the other hand bans them because of its strictly secular nature overriding all else), a few of us are trying to kick off the Islam/Muslim group as a bit of a come and ask questions/educational resource type thing...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1224

You claimed in a post that there's things that gay women won't that straight women don't, and I still haven't seen you give a single example of where their interests would clash. Porn and prostitution? That's not something where opinions split neatly along some gay or straight lines. When it comes to discrimination against the LGBT community in the US, I've been appalled by what I've read at DU of what it's like there, and am failing to see why this would become a bone of contention in this group. But you need to acknowledge that calling women like me who've faced a lot of discrimination 'privileged' comes across as completely dismissive of any feminist who hasn't had exactly the same life as you and who doesn't fit into the same little categories you've created for yrself....

'while you seek equality in your marriage, i seek the rights to marriage. while pornification may be a big deal to you, it almost doesn't register as particularly important to me. porn, sex-work and visibility of queer women are places that i have most recently found huge difference with feminists in this particular forum.'

Who's 'you'? And again, porn and prostitution aren't issues that divide along gay and straight lines....

is in an off itself an example of why i think a new group where people acknowledge their privileges is important

that you dont see white/straight as inherently more privileged than gay/people of color is laughable

on edit: i am ending the conversation here as i dont want to re-visit an issue that quite frankly i have lost interest in

How dare you sit there and tell women who've been victims of domestic abuse, rape, etc that they're privileged? What would you know about anyone else's life apart from yr own? I really think that not having empathy for anyone else's suffering because people are too focused on their own is a problem quite a few people have...

What's laughable is how you couldn't bring up a single example of where the interests of gay women conflict with those of straight women, despite announcing they did in another thread. And then to try to make out that I don't think there's discrimination against the LGBT community in the US is even more laughable. What I find pathetic is the need to construct a hierarchy of being discriminated against and what appears to be a demand that people must agree with yr hierarchy in every post. Sorry, but whatever yr 'brand' of feminism is, it's one that's very exclusionary and self-serving, imo...

you dont think lesbians have been raped? or been victim of domestic abuse? or rape?

the fact that your straightness privileges you over gay women has nothing to do with rape/domestic abuse.

btw, that pigeonholing thing I was talking about is there loud and clear in yr post. You don't know the first thing about me, yet you've been peppering yr posts with comments telling me all about what I'm supposed to be and what I supposedly think.

What a bunch of silly 'questions'. Where did I say anything of the sort? I didn't....

So according to you, a homeless woman in the US with a history of mental illness who just happens to be straight would be more privileged than you? And that if one were to post in this group talking about her experience as a woman and a feminist, you'd inform her that she's straight and she's more privileged than lesbians? I'd really hope not, because that sort of attitude would be a self-centred and exclusionary one...

I've noticed you make a lot of claims that just aren't backed up when yr asked about them. You claimed there were things gay women want that straight women don't and when asked about it the only thing you could come up with was porn and prostitution, something which opinions don't divide neatly down straight or gay lines. I've seen you up in H&M claiming that any views apart from those of a few people in this group aren't allowed. I've only been here since DU3, but that's completely wrong. There's nothing stopping you from discussing feminist issues that are of interest to you, but I haven't seen you do that, which is a shame because for all you know I could actually agree with some of them. And so what if someone disagrees? Isn't that what discussion forums like DU are for? When someone disagrees with you, they're voicing a dissenting opinion, not disallowing you from voicing yr own opinions. So what I'd suggest is that you should start voicing yr opinion and go from there instead of going off in a huff because people have opinions you don't agree with or don't hold the same single-minded focus as you do....

privileges her over me as a working-class kid?

In actual fact, my class has really been the single most determining disadvantage in my life, in objective terms. My sex hasn't been a big deal in those regards -- i.e. when it came to education and employment, the areas where equality strictly speaking is the big issue. My class denied me just about every opportunity going, in those areas. It was even, arguably, the determining factor in the life-threatening sexual assault I was a victim of: rich kids didn't hitchhike everywhere they went.

Intersectionality, intersectionality.

I'll be quite happy to talk about the intersecting disadvantages of my life here, and oddly enough, I am not living in fear of the opprobrium of the group if I do.

The thing is, I can distinguish between myself and women. And I know that if any woman is oppressed or exploited or abused because she is a woman, none of us is safe.

I overcame my class disadvantage -- to some extent, in fact what could be considered quite a large extent. I'm not working-class in objective terms now. But I'll always be a woman, and I'll always be subject to the disadvantages associated with that status, and I'll always stand in solidarity with other women because of the common set of problems it brings, even if we experience them to varying degrees, and in varying combinations with other problems.

ok. i am privileged. i know. i have had a very good life. i am a very lucky person. a lot of easy has come my way.

and i have had experiences in life that are not so sweet, that i dont share on du for fear that it will be thrown back at me when i am in a discussion/argument with the more misogynist males.

i dont have time to do this, but iverglas made a claim that i dont get to be a feminst if i prioritize the rights of the lgbt community over straight women.

Quote me, or, with all due respect, hold your peace and refrain from saying things that are not true.

If you don't have time to address something someone has actually said and prefer to make shit up instead, I'm sure there is somewhere you can post that where it will be welcome.

Perhaps you were attempting to offer an example of the real problem here -- which is not what anyone else does or says.

On the point made later in this subthread: am I, as a straight woman who survived an abduction, rape and attempted murder, and as a result (in combination with other experiences), suffer significant post-traumatic stress that colours my perception of the world in every regard, less "oppressed" than a lesbian who has never been a victim of sexual violence or abuse?

Of course lesbians have suffered such victimization. Not all lesbians have. Not all lesbians have been discriminated against in the workplace or housing market on the basis of sexual orientation. Not all lesbians are more oppressed or victimized than any straight woman simply because they are lesbians. Hell, my best lesbian friend comes from a much higher socio-economic status than I do, never had to worry about how she was going to pay for her education, and had no difficulty at all securing a prestigious, well-paid job in government. Yeah, she's Canadian, but hell, she's a woman and a lesbian. Your issues are not actually universal either.


it took a long time for straight feminist to even acknowledge gay feminists in the feminism movement, this is why it is important to me to acknowledge that our priorities may not be the same. while you seek equality in your marriage, i seek the rights to marriage. while pornification may be a big deal to you, it almost doesn't register as particularly important to me. porn, sex-work and visibility of queer women are places that i have most recently found huge difference with feminists in this particular forum.

Well, finally. Your priorities as a lesbian may not be the same as ours as women. Pornification may be a "big deal" to us. Hey, you're not dismissive at all. But ... sex work is somehow a lesbian issue (I'm still failing to see in what different way), but our perspective as straight women is not worth bothering about, I guess. Who might care about the effects of those phenomena on women, or even just straight women, when they (allegedly) affect lesbians differently? Who might want to consider that their perspective should take other women's into account?

You're making it clear. You're privileging the alleged different interests of lesbians (not all lesbians concurring) over the stated and demonstrable interests of vast numbers of women world-wide.

So I see this proposed new group as just a front for that position, and I'd be impressed if someone had just come out and said so.

about the manner we walked this.

there were issues and i feel we listened and reached out, even connected.

there were two issues. on both those issue, i think we came to reasonable compromise.

i think we made clear that no faction would be attacked or allowed to be attacked.

i think we worked at not creating a battle. us against them, mentality.

i am ok with how this transpired. and i respect others that choose to create their own environment. however that pans out.

i am ok with us.

and I am also okay with some DUers choosing to create another place for feminists to discuss issues.

As for co-hosts, laconisax, seabeyond & iverglas would all be acceptable to me, as would others who post here frequently, just can't think of those names right now.

no questions. You will be great.