it is allowed. the number of names i was called in a very small amount of time is indicative of what is now allowed. the whole thread is a mess of sexism and name calling. threads cannot be locked, sublthreads cannot be deleted and only one post at a time can be alerted on.

we have had many declare sexism is not a reality
that all should be free game with no censorship
that bullying wins
that even if it breaks the rules, they will allow it to stand.

there was an excellent thread about a 15 yr old girl attacked verbally, cheers of rape ect.... simply cause she had a nonprovaocative picture of herself holding a book. many of the men came on the thread outraged. couldnt believe it. yet.... when it happens on du, they stand back quietly keeping there mouth shut.

H&M shows this constantly. The number of DUers in denial about the problems with DU3, while infuriating, is totally believable. It also doesn't help that the denial goes all the way to the top.

instructions for frat boys doesnt seem so out of line.

and that I am leaving and probably will forget that it is (I am assuming it will not be deleted) there. Enough alcohol and tomorrow I will not remember, I hope.

You go seabeyond! Yank on those pearls woman! I will send you mine and you can yank on those too since I am thankfully out the door in 2.

Just head on over to GD.

And hey! I'm taking a few for the team too!

In fact, I started it all. Were it not for the damned jury service thing, I would never have seen it. Got asked to adjudicate a post scoring a woman 7 out of 10. Guess what I said.

store. (had hubby read that one, was disgusted). orgy thread. and on it goes....

the board has literally said, women, really, you are not welcome.

The economic transactions one -- the jury was for the post in the thread saying "you straights" in the subject line, which I thought was badly worded, but the content of the post clarified it.

The paper the thread was about (not that I think the thread itself might not have had evil intent) was actually very interesting and I don't have any problem with it at all. I worship economists.

It was descriptive, not prescriptive. It said that women's value is determined by their sexuality, that they have a market value based on trading sex for "x", not that it should be determined that way -- and the thing is, that's true. It's the heart of the problem, and having it analysed like that is actually good and instructive, I'd say.

Not that any discussion it might prompt hereabouts would necessarily be.

thru mans control and since the independence of freedom for women today is not even considered, it doesnt much work for me.

It's about how things ARE, not why they are, or why they shouldn't be.

An analysis of how things are is worth reading. When it's done by economists and not feminists, somebody might even pay attention.

i read it a while ago. i did find some lazy, stereotype thinking of a conditioned response. cant remember though. but i have heard more in a week how all wlem are whores, one way or another and if not we make them that.... i dont want to reinforce. i hear what you are saying.

personally. i never let men ever pay my way because of this oh so funny joke.

This is hardly a new thing. The only real difference is that the worst of the misogyny isn't being hidden anymore.

but I want to share it here:



I was there.

Two universities in Canada (the two with the most politically progressive/active student bodies) elected feminists as their "Miss".

A bunch of us at WLU organized a disruption of the pageant to coincide with their planned action.

At the right moment in the proceedings, the two women in the contest denounced it from the stage, we marched out, the show never aired on television as it was supposed to, and there was never another Miss Canadian University.

Well, I shouldn't say never. I googled it a while back, and I think some commercial promoter has actually managed to revive some version of it, but not with university or student body participation.

Now wouldn't it be nice if the lovely lesbian Miss California contestants would do the same?

Ah, wishful thinking.

I missed the rating thread.

I avoided the 'all women are really just prostitutes' thread, after one dismissive comment.

I wonder why. I thought it was a really interesting thread.

this was a hard one.

to flatly ask a question only resulted in ignores. as the battle lines were formed. the interesting.... the men rating the woman like animals were aligned witht he 3rd wavers. my perception is the battle is not against patriarchy, but all bottom lines to pro porn and anti porn.... lol lol. for fuckin real.

so the men rating the women like animals are with the 3rd wave feminists and the women that were standing up for the woman, being rated like an animal are the enemies.

nah.... they didnt want to talk about it.

chose to start another thread, in another forum calling all us out. when one tried to say wha???? they told her to quit making trouble and lets honor the intent of the OP.... seeing tht it was a call out, i thought her going in to understand and be understood was just that

all oddish.

something i probably didnt want to step into. something i probably dont want to post outloud. but i am always into human behavioral puzzles.

lots of info. just trying to put it in its place.

just as a calm thoughtful exchange of ideas involving more than just the 'hysterical sex-hating prude bullies' started.

And obviously missed a lot of fun . . . that said - from piecing it together -

Is it okay with you all if on a regular basis of Tit for TaT and Turn About Is Fair Play mind if I post how much money my fiance makes and note what a hot tight ass he has?

Hear me out - from time to time a single man on DU gets on and whines about how he 'doesn't make enough money' and 'isn't bad boy enough for women' so oh woe is me - women are 'shallow'.


If they want 'shallow' I'll give them shallow.
If they want 'lookism' and 'ageism' in so-called reverse - I'll give it to them.
If they want to be 'sit in the chair and be a good girl now' - then I'll shove it in their faces that yep -- you STILL have to pay when courting because that's what my love did- oh and you ALSO have to hold the door for me.

Is that rotten? Probably. But seriously - you want to see the DU men really flip their lids - be they straight or gay?

Let's start a daily hottie thread. I've got a beautiful pic of The Gio's tush as he's leaning on the terrace railing. From there I elect Idris Elba, George Clooney, etc. etc.

Make a few of them real uncomfortable with women that love a sexy man - and that like pointing them out.

Okay - off my petulant childish soapbox but seriously - it's all I *think* they can possibly wrap their pretty little heads around.

pictures of womens tits and moderators leaving them up. in the lobby of course. o redqueen, our redqueen put up hard ons. and more and more women put up pictures of hard ons. now, all of these hard ons were fully clothed, but the fun we had talking about each and every hard on.

as the men came in and cried foul. and cried foul again and again. then our threads were locked, as the tit threads remained open. so more hard on threads, and more gigglin over aqAquit and not so adaquit, tilting, or looking a picture of 8 and all tilting left, threads. starting seeing what time they were showing. and more men became outraged.

until finally

they locked the tit threads.

thank you redqueen. i have used that often when posting to moderators about leaving a tit thread open. is it time for some hard on threads. fully clothed of course. not so with the tits.

So I was wrong. (we cross-posted)

Well, I'd say what they were pissed about was really just uppity women thinking they could do what they liked. Not about the attempted objectification, per se.

I really do lead a sheltered life around here. I don't think I've ever seen a tit thread. Back to the gungeon with me. At least there, they are ever soooo concerned about women's welfare.

I had fun trying to open some people's eyes. Alas.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1139&pid=189

eHarmony and the pissing and moaning of men.

The problem is, what you propose would not have the desired effect. Precisely because of patriarchy. Being leered at / commented on / rated etc. doesn't have the effect on men that it predictably (and therefore intentionally) has on women: to intimidate. Because women don't exercise the power over men that men exercise over women.

I'm put in mind of an incident back around 1975. I was working for a prestigious government research agency while I was in law school. I went to work in bare feet and ripped blue jeans, with the hair and body to round out the hot chick look of the day, but that was really just me not giving much of a toss what I looked like. We juniors used to hang out at the high-end classy hotel bar next door after work, looking generally grotty. One day, I was walking up the circular staircase in the lobby to the women's washroom, and some drunken business man called something offensive up after me. I had long since realized that "Fuck off", a retort that had worked well five years earlier to cause the sources of unwanted attention to take great offence and get all pissy, had lost its sting. So I turned around, sneered down at him, and said: "Eat shit." He replied: "I can think of something I'd rather eat, woo hoo."

You can't beat them at their game. You are the object, they are the subject. They know it.

a lot of women jumped into those threads. also a hard on is a lot more personal, coddled, revered, than just a mere picture of the butt. and women? critiquing? shivers. what nightmares are made of.

But I might be on here elsewhere proving my point in a different way.

Let them panty bunch all they want. The panty bunchers!

When it's turned around - they can't take it.

We're told we paint men in broad smears.
We've hurt their feelings.
When we 'honey and sweetie' them - we are condescending.
We are man hating women - WHEN WE SPEAK UP.

I actually feel bad for these two men at DU who are fighting a good fight with me right now. I just wish they would be as vocal when it's women being objectified and put into very narrow slots.

Where are they when we need them?

a host would be a good idea? It's been suggested to me that it might now. I know it was felt originally that it might not be necessary, but without the statement of purpose we had before ... well, maybe we should import that too.

So, if that thought occurs to others ... I'm thinking I'd like to volunteer.


edit -- oops. See the thread on the subject!

recommend a GD post?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002149824