Thanks for posting Texasgal!

I agree with your expectations, they seem reasonable to me.

universities to try to recruit from!? Also, what the pay should be.

Bean, darlin', I've been an avid feminist for mumble,mumble, going on 40 years now and I don't feel I could fit the first "expectation" listed.

However, as long as it's not being written in stone or something that can be used to toss someone out later, I suppose there's no harm in dreaming. At least I hope not.

Welcome to the forum, TexasGal.

At least we have some positive participation, eh?

I like the four that you listed. I would add a fifth:

5. Clear rules that apply to all posters

I think since there is such an issue with the host and behaviors I think the members should post what our expectations are.

I hope everyone posts theirs.

That's harder than it sounds. It requires putting aside our own views and observing discussions carefully to see that feminist voices from many perspectives are welcomed and it also requires steering discussion which off OT back to topic.

Apart from what you've mentioned, a host should be willing to communicate with members of the group and place the goal of the group being a welcoming place for all feminists above everything else. And they need to be someone who's trusted by the membership.

We should be able to trust our host.

I am ready to facilitate more conversation and more education myself.

consistent with the SOP.

3) Willingness to eliminate posters whose postings are not consistent with SOP. This includes not just trolls, but obvious disruptors, including those who insist on rehashing the flamewars.

4) Consistent participation in this group. I'm a co-host for another group and I check it every day, just to stay current. I expect anyone who asks for and accepts the responsibility of hosting to show up and do the damn job.

5) I think it would be best if the host(s) could keep posters in the loop about the reasons for their choices. If a host locks a thread, I would like to see the host explain why. Someone's blocked? At least a few words about why. And please, no more of these nasty, secretive, holier-than-thou, "private" conversations about the hosts activities stuck exclusively in the hosts forum, or worse, off site. Own your decisions, and your behavior.

ETA: Okay, now I see why people thought I was asking for a transcript of everything the hosts said about us and about blocking members. I'm not. Although I do find the idea of lengthy, behind the scenes gossip about our members or disruptors to be creepy, unnecessary and the kind of thing that fuels flamewars. It also promotes the myth that members here cannot be 'fair' or honest in our evaluations of participants.

I may not post in my groups every day but I do check them.

And if someone is blocked it should be explained to them why it happened.

But I do think that hosts of a group should be allowed to discuss freely the blocking of a member from the group.

The MIRT team on DU is not out in the open to all of DU. I believe for sensitivity reasons surrounding the ban and the discussion speaking directly, open and honestly about the member they may or may not ban. It would not be fair to the person being discussed to have it out in the open. Also, it prevents hosts from being able to speak freely, and ties their hands in some says. To the detriment to the group overall.

I don't think the hosts of this forum should be held to a different standard than the MIRT team. They should be able to discuss in private the banning of a member from this group.

After a couple of years of watching DU Admin refuse to discuss (most) bannings, and after watching the crap storm the "private" discussions about blockings created here this week, I think acknowledging at least something about why they happened is the most efficient way to address them, and the way that is least damaging to the group.

I also don't think the hosts' refusal to discuss the blockings publicly will keep them private. Not on this website, anyway. It's the Internet. Since people are going to find out anyway, I think those doing the blockings should just put their reasons out there and deal with our reactions.

ETA: By asking for disclosure of the reason(s) a poster is blocked, I wasn't asking that every aspect of the hosts' conversations about the reasons for the block be put up on the board for all to view. For the most part, I don't care what they say about us behind "closed doors." What I think would be beneficial is for the hosts to say, "This is why we blocked that person in the end." It would cut down on the amount of squabbling and genuine confusion people express after some blockings. It would also clarify what is and isn't acceptable content here.

set things up. i received no advice. so, i like this thread. it is not that anyone was doing anything sneaky or nefarious. the thing about the outside forum, is the link is up and you will find it was just basic conversation on blocking a couple disruptors. it really is not a big deal.

but i was reading this thread last night and i really appreciate it. this forum is for all of us. personally, i feel we all have a say to run it. when i blocked creedog it was not even my feeling he should be blocked but a couple host suggested it and three regulars. they are the ones that made the decision because it is there environment. when i woke in the morning to the fifth person to suggest a block, i did it. adn had no issue. enough people had spoken out.

i have no problems at all, when this mess is settled, having a thread discussion of exactly how we are doing this. i like the idea. i dont like power (blocking, locking) with vague. it think it is a good idea to have visible guidelines.

one of the issue i was having prior to saturday "to do" and pming hosts about, is our lack of coherent policy on blocking and other expectations. suggesting us discuss it. doing it in pm was very hard. so a site was suggested so we could knock ideas back and forth and get stuff set up.

remember, no one has had much time in this position.

but i like better, the idea as a community, discussing this stuff back and forth, and coming up with conclusion.

i love this thread and suggestions.

this is what i was looking for in my thread in host forum

that there should be clear rules that apply to all posters. Because at this point, true or not, there's an appearance of favoritism in the hosts forum. I am actually rather surprised that PMs from three group members could have that much influence on banning a poster.

If that's true, then I, and I hope others, will start sending PMs to the hosts about someone who is constantly disrupting this forum, but always seems to get a pass.

yet critique this forum, continually make jabs at this forum (i am NOT talking about you), that there is no difference from a member who participates, discusses feminist issues and has for years, and a person that has never posted in this forum, walk in and attack a member.

let me say this clearly, and it will be something we all can talk about when we have a thread hashing this out. if you dont think there is a difference between the two posters, you are so wrong. it really is that simple.

just like, a poster that comes in with one post, making a snotty comment anywhere on du is treated differently from the poster that has been here ten years and 70k posts. it is just a reality.

also, imo, and this is another thing i think we need to hash out in a thread. i dont tippy toe. i dont walk on egg shell. i dont go around the bush, under, over, in order to make a point. i go right thru the bush. i dont feel there is anything wrong with it. i appreciate it as a matter of fact. it doesnt leave me wondering, when someone talks to me like that. someone that tippy toes leaves me wondering what they are saying. i dont like THAT. lol. i think THAT is passive aggressive and annoying.

i saw a poster say see.... not nice. when really i saw blunt opinion, but not offensive.

we cannot have a forum (i would not think any of us would want it and many simply could not do it) where only one style of communication is allowed to ensure no hurt feelings. we can do our best, like i am trying to o now, but none of us can always be successful.

but yes, i do think that is another important point. i do think that is a good idea to pm when having that kind of issue. i think we will also need to discuss what and how we take care of that. we are not moderators. cannot lock or delete a single post.

thanks

But the reason for a discussion surrounding a ban I believe is to take into consideration the potential ban-ee's feelings about that being made publicly. I can imagine that many wouldn't particularly like being discussed out in the open. The MIRT team does not do this out in the open. In the profile, we are told they are banned with a couple of words for the offense. It shouldnt be some long drawn out discussion for all Duers to partake in.

We can see who is banned from this group by clicking on the about button. That's pretty transparent. I assume, if the host wants to make a simple reason known, like they didn't follow the SOP, well they could.

We elect hosts to do this type of thing. We should trust them.

ETA If someone has an issue with a ban, they can take it to meta.

be blocked from posting in the group.

Did you contact the other hosts as well?

Why didn't you put the request on the board?

What did you expect me to do with that request? Not discuss it with the other hosts?

You chose not to put it on the board, so I respected your privacy. I also respected the privacy of the person you asked be blocked, by not discussing the request at this forum or in the Hosts forum.

As you and nearly 500 other people have now seen, it was discussed at the hosts forum off-site. It was one of the few things discussed there.

I'm sorry, but I'm just very confused here. Maybe it's the percocet.

And you did respect my privacy re: that personal message...until your lovely post here.

I contacted you by random selection, really, and it was less about having a "private" discussion and more about not knowing who was in charge after redqueen's brief hiatus. I actually didn't know my PM to Neoma had been discussed at the off site discussion forum, because I haven't been paying attention to that petty b.s., but the idea that my request got out anyway is why I no longer think that reasons for the blockings should be a covert affair. They won't remain secret anyway, so why bother?

However, because I think my above post was not entirely clear--I wasn't asking that every host make public every word of discussion they have about why they want to ban someone. Just that they acknowledge the reason someone was banned in this group.

In the interest of full disclosure, here is the text of the PM I sent you:

> mistertrickster, the jerk who dirtied up a thread about sexual assault in GD last week, has just shown up in the feminist group. I alerted on his 'contribution', on the grounds that it is a snide insinuation that the feminists of our group are anti-male.
>
> http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1139&pid=2407
>
> Since I know it won't be removed, I think the hosts should take action to ban him, especially considering he has an established history of anti-feminist statements on DU.
>
> But I confess, I'm confused about whom to send my suggestion to. Who is the 'official' group host of this forum, now? Is it still redqueen?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Iris/Jen

it was not one host that was calling for this person to be blocked. 3 hosts were and a handful of members were.

that matters.

and i did take your suggestions serious. sometimes i just do. i do like posting somehow.... we will have to figure out how, the reason a poster was blocked. and we have ONE poster blocked. ONE. i need to put that in big print, in title somewhere. it isnt like we go around blocking people all over the place, like others are suggesting.

but i liked what you had to say. it made me think of some stuff we can hash out in a thread once things are in order

I want some acknowledgment about why a block happened. "This poster broke this rule, or that rule, or here is why this poster was considered a disruptor, etc." I was not asking that every single last statement the hosts made be aired in front of the group. I don't feel a need to look at all discussion. I just think it would be important to mention the salient reasons for blocking.

(I also wasn't demanding that all PMs sent between posters here be shared.)

However, in reading all these other posts, I also think it is very important to address the feelings of people who are upset that communications they thought would remain private were thrown about on an offsite discussion board. I also think some discussion about why hosts here felt the need to do that would be warranted.

Why did anyone here feel the need to go to an offsite discussion board?

ETA: After reading iverglas' post below, I guess I can see why iverglas felt offsite discussion would be better than one happening here. For the official record, I do not feel it would be a positive or beneficial thing for this to happen anymore. It clearly bothers the posters in Feminists. For the record, I think it's creepy, a little juvenile, and unnecessary. I'm a host for another group, one which is also not viewed favorably here on DU3, and it would never have occurred to me to take any discussion of my hosting responsibilities offsite. Why? Because something about that kind of secrecy feels inappropriate to me. Also, that's what the DU group hosts forum is for.

there are five hosts. we want to talk to every one about figuring something out we were typing the message, copying, and sending to three others individually. we were sending posts back and forth saying, so and so said this, and so and so said this and in comes another message, but they didnt receive the other message.

it was very very challenging to get on the same page. we needed to discuss how we were going to handle disruptors. what if there was a disruptor, obvious disruptor. only one host. do we send out pms to everyone and wait for replies to all. do we need one other. oh wait, an idea, we can block them. then as people get the message we can unblock if we decided. but others wanted a consensus.

can you see 5 people talking about this with individual pms and how challenging it would be.

one place

were we all see the message and we all see the replies and we all see the ideas adn we all communicate.

i dont get why we would assume the very worst of people. why we would think there was anything bad going on. nobody has proven to be that kind of person. and the link is up. it clearly shows... that it was merely a conversation that this person needs to be blocked.

host... no, he is right. we talk about gender too much. too much hating men.

no, he is disruptive. members and hosts are saying he has been warned, he needs to be blocked.

that is ALL it was.

I also can't get behind the idea that there was no "nefarious" or at least questionable intent on the part of the hosts who wanted to go offsite. If it was so up and up, why not have that convo in the group hosts forum? Also, I don't buy iverglas' explanation that it's because the people in the hosts forum on DU.com have nothing to do with the Feminists group. So what? Those members who don't understand or agree with what you're doing are folks the hosts could (and should) just ignore.

I also think it's significant that we have posters here who are very upset this has taken place. Whether the intent was "nefarious" or not, the creation of an offsite discussion board has clearly hurt people. So it's not something that can be brushed off as no big deal.

i will go in and check, but i check the host forum a couple times a day, and i have yet to see a thread of a forum or group have a conversation about blocking posters. i know there have been posters blocked. so how are all these other hosts communicating a desire to block a poster breaking rules in their forum, i wonder?

To me, those continuing to rationalize what happened and to minimize the upset of those who are unhappy and offended, is an indication that the hosts understand what you did was inappropriate.

I'm curious to know the answer too.

asking for tips and how to set it up. since everyone did it when the site first opened, i didnt know how other groups arranged things. but i will ask.... thanks

idea. i am glad that you gave your opinion. i think it is right on.

It should be with the agreement of the group, and be clear from the SOP (or a pinned post) that it will be happening, the site for the discussion should be private (the one used previously was not), and there needs to be an agreement among the hosts (with the guidance of the group) as to what (if anything) will be disclosed once a decision is reached (Is each speaker in control of whether her/his comments may be repeated? Can anything other than the decision be reported? Can the sense (but not specific words or attributions) be shared?)

That would go a long way toward decreasing the likelihood that anyone will perceive the hosts as abusing power (or toward being able to make a clear case to the admins, if needed, that the lead host is not acting in accordance with the wishes of the group).

This is a good thread - by the way. I have suggested before (in the LGBT group) that the hosts exercise of their discretion should be guided by the group, to avoid the kind of rancor that has happened here the last few days.

This group decided to have a lead host and co-hosts. It was clear from all the discussion in that regard that the expectation was that no host would act unilaterally (and the candidates committed to that -- I know I did, anyhow) and would always consult the other hosts before taking any action within a host's power, unless there were some urgent situation like an invasion of disruptors and requests for action from other group members.

The hosts would consult. That was the expectation of group members and of candidates for hosts, and of the host chosen and the co-hosts she selected.

Did anyone here actually expect to see the hosts conducting a discussion among themselves about how to deal with some situation that arose in the group, in a thead in the forum?

Did anyone not expect that hosts would be in communication by PM when the need for consultation arose?

Has anyone here tried to carry on a five-way conversation by PM?

I received a request from a member here that a particular poster be blocked from posting in this forum. It suddenly dawned on me that I was going to have to pass that message on to four other people, get them to send their replies to me and three other people, reply to each reply with copies to three other people ... and my head exploded. I'm familiar with boardhost so I just zipped off and set up a quickie forum and sent the url to the other hosts so we could discuss that particular request and the surrounding situation and consult on what action to take.

I have yet to see any valid objection to that being done.

I have seen discussions of individual posters, held by group hosts, in the Hosts forum. My preference was not to do that -- not to discuss individuals and their standing in the Feminists group, in a place where dozens of people who have nothing to do with the Feminists group are reading the discussion. I just don't happen to think it's fair to any individuals involved to do that. Does anybody really have some valid objection to keeping discussions of individual DUers and their standing in the Feminists group out of the public DU eye? Does anyone here want to be discussed in a forum where they are not present, but a load of other people, some of whom they "know" and some they don't, are reading and may even speak?

If the hosts had communicated, each with each other, by PM only, how would that have been different from communicating collectively as we did?

How, exactly, did people here think that the hosts were going to fulfil the expectation/commitment that all the hosts would consult before taking any action as hosts of this forum?


I'm going to put this here and probably this won't be the only place I put it. This was the timeline in the hosts forum that was set up (where there are a total of 40 posts).


final posts in the discussion thread that was last posted in there:

Last thread before I became aware of others viewing the forum:



Between the timestamps on Neoma's last post in that first thread and my "forum defunct" post on the board, Neoma removed me as co-host and blocked me from posting on the board. Obviously, this is what her "I'm sorry, this has gone too far" heralded (emphasis above mine).

I smiled at "banning" Neoma from the off-DU hosts forum. The gesture was symbolic, as I also converted that forum to registration-only, so as far as I know, it cannot be posted in now. What you see is what there was.

I don't know at what point Neoma entered into communication with the people who brought the issue of that off-site forum to this board. Very possibly they were viewing that board while the above discussion was going on, or she was already receiving communications from them about the actions she then took as host.





The forum that was used was private in the sense that no one but the hosts was aware of where it was, until Neoma decided to pass on the url to others. (Has she or have they identified them/selves yet?) It was set up hastily, ad hoc, to deal with a situation that had arisen. More foresight and better planning was obviously needed. One must remember that even paranoids have enemies.

Yes, there should probably be all sorts of agreements and commitments as to what the hosts should do and any host may do regarding host discussions and decisions. Trust obviously is not enough of a safeguard.

I wasn't asking to see a line by line reproduction of the hosts' discussions of the issue.

if some of what was clear to you was actually decided among at least the hosts, and preferably the entire group, up front rather than on the fly.

Some people clearly thought the off site discussions were confidential (and got upset when they were disclosed). On a completely open forum the conversations were literally not confidential, regardless of whether anyone thought they were or not.

Aside from that disconnect between reality and expectations, confidentiality of decision making discussions has a range of flavors. If there is confidentiality at all, it is probably a good idea to decide whether to report out JUST the decision, a decision + an agreed upon explanation, a decision + everyone is free to share their own opinion, etc.

And - it seems to me that some people in the forum have concerns about private conversations at all.

Without rehashing what happened this time more than is necessary to identify gaps in expectations, it seems to me it would be good to try to do a little planning up front to avoid such misunderstandings in the future. Unless you think all of this chaos and emotion have been good for this group or for DU.

Started happening. Was it a pain in the ass that we didn't have the process in order. Ya... shit happens. We had people coming in here to disrupt, threads in meta calling us out, new hosts with no procedures and a host with differing agenda. So in hindsight, ya, it would have been nifty to have had everything in place. Thanks.

so you're better prepared before next time hits

dont take this personally, but i think that is one big ass

no shit

because their version of feminism may differ from yours, being transparent about decisions and remembering that hosts like politicians work FOR the people who post in this forum and we should get to question decisions and get respectful answers and a person who will not just randomly quit one day without thinking of how this affects other hosts/group members etc.

everyone single one of us to remember and guide us through difficult discussions, sometimes heated when trying to make a point and our misunderstandings.

I think we should definitely discuss feminism more around here and how we view it from our point of view, versus making it personal about other feminists that belong to DU.

And that goes for every which way to Sunday. I'm not talking about any one person, it should go for us all. That is definitely good advice.

meets all of those criteria, more than anyone else around, I'd say.

In particular, regarding another post, she has made an enormous effort to pot topical items in this forum and encourage discussion of the items she posts.

Let us keep in mind that misogyny, rather than "sexism", is what most of us regard as the important issue, in the world and at DU.

sexism and misogyny both.

I don't think we should be trying to limit ourselves to one topic of discussion. People learn at different speeds and levels. We should be open to discussing all feminist issues.

I think you agree, but I just wanted to point out that someone might take it that issues of sexism weren't allowed here.

Do you think "misogyny" is limiting but "sexism" isn't?

Misogyny is the root cause of sexism.

Edited to add: Here's the definition I found:

I think iverglas was wanting to make sure that the larger context is also included. Those "behaviors and attitudes" about the "traditional stereotypes of sexual roles" are CAUSED by our patriarchal society's rank misogyny.

Here's the definition of misogyny :



So, adding misogyny is being sure to include the overarching reason or ground from which sexism springs.

But probably not the other way around.

I wasn't implying to limit the conversation at all. I was attempting to include both.

I will agree both stem from the patriarchy.

It is possible to be racist -- to believe in the inferiority of a particular racial group, or to hate members of that group -- and not be a racialist, i.e. not advocate different treatment in the public sphere or the private sector based on race.

Ditto for misogyny: it is possible to believe in the inferiority of women / hate women and not advocate unequal pay, etc.

Whether it's possible to be sexist and not misogynist ... sure. Just like it's possible to be anti-choice and not give a damn about fetuses. Policies that oppress and discriminate against women can be advocated for reasons having nothing to do with beliefs about women, and purely for the usual reasons why any group wants to maintain control over other groups: profit and privilege, generally.

with each side explaining themselves a little more clearly. hurrah!!!!!

Here is my take. I know men who are sexists, but I do not believe would not fit in the category of a misogynist. Someone who hates women.

They can feel a gender bias toward women at a particular point in time, maybe not always, and sometimes even unknowing to themselves. The patriarchy infects us all.

I don't think that means that they hate women.

I hear what you are saying and if we link the two inextricably, I can see how one can come to that conclusion.

Both are important topics and hey I might be convinced to your way of thinking. Sometimes you (as in me) just don't get it, until you get it.

In MineralMan's thread I also addressed the issue of "hate", from the other direction. You can talk to me there too if you like.

I just have to go take some more codeine and put my foot up. (I tried the percocet yesterday, and I'm still trying to shake the fog out of my head; no more of that I think.) Surgery is next week!

I do think understanding motives is important. The motivation behind the formal anti-choice brigade, for instance, is misogyny, even though some individuals may have been persuaded that as good people, they have to be all worried about fetuses.

On the other hand, there are people who are pro-choice who are also anti-abortion. Their motivation for being pro-choice is sometimes (not always) the opposite of misogyny: sincerely caring about women and women's rights as full human beings.

I'm not sure how individuals (not members of the 1%, and so on) can be sexist without being misogynist. It's hard to advocate oppressive treatment of a group without either thinking that group is inferior or harbouring ill will toward them.

But we will speak more later!

i am working today, so I might not be able to get over there. But I'll be in and out, and reply if I can.

Riiight? With the surgeons name and the facility address as well please!

especially say to you, all these years and it is just recently i was really anticipating hearing, listening, watching, as you walked this. i am disappointed, sad that i am going to miss it. and i am thrilled, for whatever reason you have decided on a course in your life that is a shift from where you were before. yea, you. thank you for the last couple months.

of conversation here...please?

Some of us are new to the movement and would appreciate being able to discuss things in a learning fashion without being scolded or embarrassed that we have used the wrong terms.

how the person I was speaking to found the exchange interesting.

I can see how the poster felt that way.

Not that I think you meant any harm, but I can see it. We all have different posting styles and sometimes it takes time to get to know one another to see how we should be interpreting things.

your post did come off a little gruff. Realize that sometimes people might take away a different meaning or tone than you how meant it. It happens to everyone.

I often come off as quite harsh! LOL

have come across rudely in that post, I apologize. Not my intent at all. Still learning here. Mea Culpa?

But don't think this means at all, that I am going to stop being harsh, brash, or whatever! LOL

I have been known to have a mouth like a trucker, and I like doing it!

Like I say, I think some of this stuff, is people just not knowing a posters style.

I'm waiting for Iverglas to rip me a new one..... Maybe I deserve it.

not gonna be a lot of soft talk. just not who we are.

But sometimes we might have to explain why that is from a feminist perspective, why we need to let women be who are they are.

And plus when people are asking to learn, a little more time and patience and explaining would be in order.

And with people who are new to feminism, they don't understand this seabeyond, so just asking them the first time not to be offended, when they are, because as a feminist you shouldn't be, is going to have them shut down, not open up.

They are learning the concepts and I think being a little sensitive to that is a good thing.

Those are just my two cents in trying to keep the discussion of feminism, not individual feminists on DU.

I only say this, because people in this thread are asking to learn.

when i wrote it the first time, thought i was in the more aggressive ... why is this post pinned, thread .

when i realized i was in the gentle lets help thread.... ... i edited.

and i never apologize for it.

see, i started reading this little subthread. didnt finish one post and didnt read the others,

and that is ok.

Do you know who Neal Boortz is?

He's a Rush Limbaugh wannabe radio talkshow host -- and attorney, btw -- who is fond of making the following argument, or did when I last listened to him some years ago:

Referring to African Americans as Kool cigarette smokers and Malt Liquor drinkers and a bunch of very objectionable and unflattering stuff he would then claim when callers called him on it as racist that those statements are NOT racist. Why? Because:

*Please note: this is an example of the type of argument I've heard him make repeatedly, not necessarily an exact verbatim quote, except for the first sentence. That's pretty much a direct quote, or close enough.

Now, I would like to believe that everyone in THIS group knows better, knows that racism is a system of oppression that proceeds from -- is the natural societal outcome -- of how it's defined in the dictionary. Racism, we all know, manifests in myriad ways well beyond what any dictionary definition or even encyclopedic entry can cover. Many books have been written about racism, and have probably not said it all yet. Boortz's stereotypes are absolutely racist as I believe he knows full well. Boortz's remarks (not to mention his justification!) helps keep this society's residual racism firmly in place, anchored.

Our sexist friends may not actively or consciously hate, resent or distrust women and therefore might be able to protest their innocence far more honestly than Boortz, but their sexism -- the sexism they could only have learned from a thoroughly misogynist society -- proceeds from that same source (misogyny), AND in turn helps keep that misogyny in place just as surely as Boortz's comments do for racism. Their sexism normalizes sexist behaviors and attitudes (especially when the women near them allow it to go unchallenged); their sexism teaches others to engage in sexist attitudes and behaviors; their sexism helps normalize all other kinds of disrespectful attitudes and treatment of women; their sexism cancels out your efforts to gain equality for all. Etc.

Disrespect is a very dangerous thing because it's such a slippery slope, also quite prone to the influence or agitation of others. You teach or convey enough disrespect for certain other humans either as individuals or classes and you can hurt or kill them or cause them to be hurt or killed or stand by while they're hurt or killed and not feel very bad about it at all. If enough people share your disrespectful views of those people, you can do all of that with impunity. We never go to war without thoroughly demonizing our "enemy." Troops wouldn't kill them if they respected them as humans, so they have to be made less than human.

Personally, I think not confronting the sexism we encounter in daily life esp. in those we know, however sweetly and gently we might choose to do so ------ Well, let me quote something I learned from my Gay Rights brothers and sisters when I was more physically involved in political activism (in the 80s and 90s):

SILENCE CONDONES.

i agree with your post. that is how i see it. something so little as....

yesterday talking to hubby about valentines day he made a comment... men are going to get some. oh i know, we were talking about how we ate all this food and men almost assured they were going to get some and their tummy too full.

my mouth dropped open. i said you know, it is not a one way street. women are getting some, too. lol

he had to stop and think about that and

ya

later on that night, ... ok, never mind.

our language has decided the woman is giving it and the man is getting it. that is my new awareness for the week. i seem to find one to get it out of my head and shift it away from sexist mannerism.

it is all over. the littlest to the most obvious and in your face

don't know if people notice or not... LOL

And yes I know Neal Boortz, and yes he is a racist, and I know him to be a racist.

I also know men who can be sexist but are not misogynists.

Don't think I've ever run into a misogynist who wasn't sexist though.

not to other feminists who post in the forum, not to your friends who post in other forums, not for "emotional support" because the job of host is just too trying.

6. Answer questions that are asked of you in a timely fashion.

7. Don't lie.

Don't let power corrupt and sack hosts who'd been elected fair and square by the group...