You are willing to be a host. Got that much!

Would you want to have one host with two co-hosts?

If so, the names would be .....


And you agree with keeping the SoP?

Speak up now.

1. I think we should have hosts, and my choices are:

redqueen for host

seabeyond and iverglas for co-hosts

(just to keep it all lower-case )


All three of us are long-standing members of the group and have posted frequently at DU on women's issues of all sorts, and share the vision of the group expressed in the original SoP adopted by the people who founded the group.

I offer proof of my even-handedness and fair-mindedness and eagerness to defend whoever needs defending, no matter who it is. The OP here was someone I tangled with at every turn in the Guns forum (and who was tombstoned not long after for reasons I was never aware of, but it's common in that forum):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=778538&mesg_id=788712
and posts 16, 29 and 139 in that thread.



2. I support keeping the SoP as is, rather than trying to refine or redefine it.

There could always be discussion of that later.



First duty of hosts -- go to the old DU (or search here at the new one, such as one can) and send out PMs to all the regular members of this group who haven't posted here yet!

A host and co-hosts of however many people... two seems adequate given the pace of this forum but if anyone disagrees I'm not opposed to more.

And I would accept the nomination from iverglas as host, but leave that up for further discussion.

However, I would want to be satisfied that the perspective in question was consistent with the long-standing agreed-to perspective of the group, myself.

who post only on the weekend, who post only during work hours, who may be on vacation, etc. IMHO we should leave the thread open for at least a week.


As to the SoP language, the first bullet leaves the impression that there is no room to discuss gender, class etc as it relates to feminism. If that is the intent, I object . If it's not the intent then I see no point to highlighting those attributes in that way.

I find the third bullet problematic in that it nixes one form of intolerance (calling people "uptight, sexually-repressed prudes" ) while introducing another (women who argue that pornography and the sex industry needs to be discussed from more than one viewpoint) and as such represents a violation of the fifth bullet because it is an attempt to dismiss some women and their views on such issues.


As to a host, I'm still thinking about who would be best primary host but I would like to see two or three cohosts representing a broad range of philosophy.

eta: IMHO we should discuss and agree on an expanded SoP first since at least two of the host candidates have stated that they aren't interested based on inclusion or exclusion of the proposed SoP. Trying to accomplish both in the same thread, especially while trying to limit the discussion to today feels like unnecessary urgency. There's been exactly one dust-up here since DU3 went live. We can take the time to reach consensus from many subscribers rather than just those of us who are here daily.

I just wanted to get things going, so I was addressing only the people whose names were already on the list -- say yay or nay for your name standing, today.

I definitely didn't mean to end the process today, and I apologise if it sounded that way!

I don't necessarily object to agreeing on an SoP first; the outcome of that discussion could influence my interest in hosting, of course, since I'm not interested in hosting a free-for-all.

I was just kind of trying to get things moving, as I see a need for hosts.

I don't think the SoP decision is necessarily a prerequisite; anyone who became a host and wanted to withdraw based on disagreement with an SoP then adopted could do so.


"This is not a group to discuss gender, class or sexual orientation rights and issues."

My own take on that is that this is not the place to discuss those issues in and of themselves. If gender, class or sexual orientation become relevant to a discussion of women's rights and issues as they affect women from a woman's perspective and experience, that seems reasonable to me. Women's perspectives and experiences do include those of women of different classes, for instance, and I don't think anyone intended that the perspective of a woman as specifically, say, a working-class woman was not welcome.

But to call a spade a spade: if someone wants to tell me that my perspective and experience on the subject of pornography or prostitution are wrong, or should take a back seat, and priority should be given to another position on the issues because, for example, the perspective and experience of some gay men are different, for example, they can fuck off.

If someone wants to explain to me how the perspective of some gay men, while seemingly inimical to mine, advances women's interests in some way or in the long run, I'm happy to listen (and I, personally, will not be starting from a position of complete ignorance or with a closed mind -- and I actually do bring some degree of ambivalence to almost every subject).

If someone's perspective has at its base a rejection of patriarchy and a recognition that women are a vulnerable and disadvantaged group, and are exploited and oppressed as women, including by the institution of prostitution and the phenomenon of pornography, among other things, and if they demonstrate a sincere desire to address feminists' concerns and work in women's interests, I don't know why I would not be interested in discussion with them.

As I pointed out above, by calling out those attributes without qualification it certainly reads as if any discussion of gender etc is being nixed in the SoP, as pri pointed out in the other thread. If we agree they are acceptable topics within discussions of feminist thought then either that bullet point should say so explicitly or the bullet point shouldn't be part of the SoP.

As for someone calling your PoV invalid here, I think telling the person to fuck off in a civil manner is acceptable behavior. I've certainly done that, although usually by pointing out why I think their assertion is a bunch of horse shit.

As for gender and sexual orientation, we shouldn't forget that women are diverse in those domains just as we are in others and appearing to exclude a lesbian perspective from the discussion is not at all what we want to be about. Inevitably perspectives from other than straight woman will involve discussion of gender equality because the two are intertwined. Again, that's why I think either the bullet point needs to be modified or it needs to go.

FWIW I didn't read it as saying that any discussion of intersectionality was forbidden, just that those discussions shouldn't take priority over the main thrust of women's issues (i.e. that a discussion that was mainly about other issues as opposed to the feminist aspect of those issues, or those issues in a feminist context, or as they relate to feminism, would be more appropriate in another group or forum).

When another interpretation was pointed out however I realized that there was too much gray in that statement.

As for gender and sexual orientation, we shouldn't forget that women are diverse in those domains just as we are in others and appearing to exclude a lesbian perspective from the discussion is not at all what we want to be about.

And I do not believe it ever was.

There is history here, and the history is ongoing.

I'm going to be repeating myself if I keep going and I'm hoping others will join in.

The point of this group is for feminists to discuss feminism and women's issues from a woman's perspective.

Sexual orientation issues are not by definition women's issues. There may be intersection, there may be overlap, there may even be identity on some points. But the fact that something is a sexual orientation issue does not make it automatically a women's issue.

The perspective of a lesbian may be the perspective of a woman, but the woman in question may be (and some have flat out said they are) speaking from the perspective of the LGBT community and not speaking as a woman. Let's just acknowledge that women don't always and automatically speak in the interests of women qua women, about issues of concern to women qua women.

The intent, as I understand it, was to

- avert the insertion of issues that other people want feminists to focus on, and causes that other people want feminists to adopt, either contrary to what feminists see as women's interests or in priority to what feminists see as women's concerns

- avert challenges and confrontations stemming from the notion that feminists should do that

I don't think La Lioness Priyanka "pointed out" that discussions of gender etc. are nixed; I think she claimed that. I replied to her that what is nixed is such discussions that do not focus on women's rights and issues as they affect women, from a woman's perspective and experience, and attempted to explain my understanding of the nuance. I will look forward to her response. And I wish anybody else who agrees or disagrees with me, or doesn't have a clue what I'm saying, would say so!

I've seen this play out on various feminist sites repeatedly.

and I disagree. There was a long simmering feud between people who aligned more strongly either with 2nd wave or 3rd wave and there were many, many attempts to shut down one side by the other.

We have a choice here. It seems to me that the we can choose to strike language that at least one post-2nd waver finds exclusive or we can amend it to make it more explicit to clear up any doubt. The one choice that makes no sense to me is to dig in our heels and say as it stands it's self-evident.

what to put in my two cents that i think battle is a waste of time. i have never totally agreed on all things, and i never expect to. i dont think that means we need to have a battle even in disagreement or we cant discuss it either.

didnt i already say this? and maybe to you, lol

framework or the bullet needs to disappear. As I wrote to redqueen my initial read didn't find that bullet offensive but I have to respect that to some members it felt exclusive of some post 2nd-wavers.

I agree that we should be able to discuss such differences without a battle but the history of this group proves that in the past battles are exactly what we got. That I or you don't find the phrasing exclusive is irrelevant if other members do. It's sort of like the "bitch" wars out in GD. Because some members like us find it highly offensive to describe women that way I'd like to think that other DUers would set aside their personal opinion on it for a bit and try to understand why we feel that way. Same deal with 2nd vs. 3rd wavers vs. some other perspective within the umbrella of feminism -- I'd like to set a tone where all can be heard without verbal fisticuffs. If we start out with an SoP that feels offensive to members, that's not very welcoming.


FWIW, I'm pretty much baffled by some post 2nd-wave theories but I'm willing to listen.

I have to respect that to some members it felt exclusive of some post 2nd-wavers

To some posters it appears to feel exclusive to those whose primary identification, or at least equally ranking identification, is not with women / as feminists.

That isn't "within the umbrella of feminism", it's feminism as long as feminism doesn't clash with some other perspective.

I feel quite strongly that this other identification/perspective is being masked as "third wave feminism".

Every time it comes up for discussion some of us state that bitch as a label on a woman is sexist and others say they have no problem with it so our concern is invalid. I'm of the opinion that when someone asks me to use different language because s/he finds a term offensive it's best to simply make a substitution and stop the distraction from whatever other issue is being discussed.

I understand and agree that derailment of feminist discussions is not acceptable in this group. I just think that there's no loss and potential gain in careful phrasing to make it clear that the ONLY goal of that statement is to avoid derailment of feminist-based discussions.

Last edited Wed Jan 11, 2012, 07:01 AM - Edit history (1)

When one of the crowd from that incident launched her ugly attack on me this month.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=341x13828

Check that out and then say you don't appreciate the point being argued here.


edit to clarify

What you'll find in that thread is two leading lights of the self-described feminist contingent hereabouts behaving like fools, but really nasty fools, in their sustained if incoherent attack on several people including myself. Because of them, and their invasion of the group, the thread was locked.


edit ...

And looking back through it, I see that a third one of the nasty fools is now a host in the LGBT group.

(Just in case anybody wonders, including anybody on any jury that might happen by, this is a protected group so I can say anything I want about anybody, just as was done about me by one of the other nasty fools in that old thread, and is still being done about me by numerous others, in the LGBT group, in between ugly comments about Muslims. Take a bow, kids. I'm being so respectful I'm not actually going to put your names here, as was done when I was attacked and lied about by name. And not even spelled right, ffs.)

I had to stop reading that.

What a galling display of derailment... and women calling feminists 'shrill' and 'hysterical'?

you show the temperament needed to be tolerant to all voices of feminism and recognize that people need to participate in these discussions and not be rushed around.

i dont see this in anyone else

Being a Group host elsewhere on DU, I would humbly recommend that all who are interested on the list take on host duties in the Group. Having a variety of voices to bring to consensus discussions is a great asset.

The genesis of this first point has always puzzled me:

Re: gender, class, or sexual orientation? To me, all of these things seem to intersect in a woman's experience and it would be difficult to imagine discussions that exclude the total experience of a woman's perspective. A lesbian woman of color could have a different view of women's rights than mine, which is white and straight. I'm just wondering what the genesis of that exclusionary point was.

I can definitely cosign on most of the rest there. "We believe that women do not start on the same rung as men on the ladder of success"--amen!

I copy, I paste, I don't read.

Which brings me to:

We believe that women do not start on the same rung as men on the ladder of success; that misogyny and sexism do indeed exist in America circa 2005; and that the progress made for women's rights is being seriously and immediately threatened by this administration.

Perhaps we could just say "misogyny and sexism do indeed exist" and leave out the whole rest of it, since that's the nub of the thing anyhow ... since I don't imagine anybody really wants to be saying that about your current administration.

Actually, if I can get more picky ... I like the word "success" and I talk about people having equal opportunities for success, because success includes so many things and can be defined by people for their own lives -- not just a promotion at work, which is kind of what "the ladder of success" sounds like here.

Could we make it something like simply:

We believe that women do not start with the same opportunities as men, and that misogyny and sexism do indeed exist.

?

"We believe that women do not start with the same opportunities as men, and that misogyny and sexism do indeed exist. "

Such a simple statement, but so true.

the gender, class or sexual orientation rights and issues bit in several posts in this thread and the original thread about hosts.

I think it is really not accurate to describe it as "exclusionary".

I'm hoping to get some response, from any perspective.

Good reply up there. No "exclusionary" isn't a good word, I just got off work and was typing with a sandwich in one hand. I should have reread before hitting post.

This section from your reply is awesome. I'd love to see this crafted into the SOP somehow:

"If gender, class or sexual orientation become relevant to a discussion of women's rights and issues as they affect women from a woman's perspective and experience, that seems reasonable to me. Women's perspectives and experiences do include those of women of different classes, for instance, and I don't think anyone intended that the perspective of a woman as specifically, say, a working-class woman was not welcome."

This forum is for discussion of women's rights, concerns and interests, and discussion of issues as they affect women, from the perspective and experience of women.


Seems clear.

Hm, I'm used to the use of "interests" as meaning things like "women's security interests" or "women's economic interests". I find it useful. But it comes off there sounding like it might mean baking or snowboarding.


Sharing news is interesting, but without some subject matter for discussion the proceedings would be dull. As I say, I personally would welcome discussion that reflects particular women's experiences and perspectives -- but not discussion from the perspective that starts from the premise, or makes the argument, that the concerns or interests of some other group a woman may belong to supercede the concerns and interests of women that feminists here consider to be legitimate.

Yes, we're caught in the vortex of "who's a feminist". Well, my own position, I guess, for the purposes of this group, would be someone who starts by putting women's concerns and interests (not their own, not some subgroup of women's, not some other group's) at the top of the list -- a spot it might share, but not be ousted from.

Does my brief restatement work for that?

It's expansive but makes it clear that derailing to make an argument that class supersedes feminism (for an example) would not be on-topic (I come up against that one a lot in male-dominated socialist circles).

hits same barriers as second wave.

My experience was novel. I got drawn into formal "women's liberation" in 1969 through the campus Trots, with whom I hung out for a few months until they told me to go away. I didn't seem to be good comrade material. They saw it, at the time, as a way of extending their reach, in true Trot fashion.

My earliest encounters with the formal form were my French teacher giving me a copy of The Second Sex a couple of years before, and the Canadian magazine Chatelaine during the 1960s when I was in high school. Doris Anderson was given Chatelaine and told to make a profit in two years or it was dead. It had previously resembled Family Circle or Woman's Day. She turned it into a feminist organ aimed at ordinary women -- it had cooking and health, but it had articles about the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, and reproductive choice, and you name it in terms of the emerging women's issues. It has lost its way in recent years, but it was probably the most significant public influence on Canadian women's lives for the decade starting in the mid-60s.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/187861

I've told my favourite anedote here before I imagine: two things I read separately. Someone asked Steinem why Ms. carried makeup ads and the like. She spoke at some length about how women like to make themselves look nice, blah blah. Anderson was asked the same question. She said: because we need the money.

Anderson ran for Parliament as a Liberal ... which obviously I think awful. And she is decried as a "liberal feminist" by some. But to deny her outstanding and enormous contribution to the welfare of women in Canada because she didn't have a class analysis ...

I'm off on a tangent, but I can't resist. I have been googling to see how Chatelaine addressed sexual orientation.

http://www.cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/download/1692/1822

... and it's a protected pdf and I can't copy it, having lost track of my unlocker when my hard drive went boom ... a little:



Anyhow, things were different here. I don't recall experiencing the same male domination of left politics (not that there weren't problems), and Canadian society in general became and still is far, far less patriarchal than the US, and feminism here has never actually died.

If you've read the discussion in the thread, I've made some proposals and received some approving response, so, not to lose the momentum ...

Possible restatement below. Could we also remove the "American" from the NOW quotation? Violet Crumble and I would feel more at home.

The pornography part might be restated ... again, simpler? and also maybe a bit broader, if I may suggest:

If, for example, you believe that women's concerns about the prevalance of pornography or the practice of prostitution are illegitimate, and that the women who express those concerns are speaking from sexual prudery or animus against men, then this is not the group for you.

?

-------------------------------------------------------------

The purpose of the DU Feminists Group is to provide a safe and non-threatening community where all those interested in discussing and trying to resolve the problems that are inherent to women in society can come and work together free from defending the basic premise that issues do exist which specifically affect and limit women, their rights and their potential.

We believe that women do not start with the same opportunities as men, and that misogyny and sexism do indeed exist.

The goal of this group is to understand the problems (and how they affect women), identify the myriad causes (and how they can limit a woman's vision and opportunity) and propose solutions (and how we can bring those solutions in a meaningful way out into the greater community).

About this Group

- This forum is for discussion of women's rights, concerns and interests, and discussion of issues as they affect women, from the perspective and experience of women.

- If, for example, you believe that women have already achieved "full participation in the mainstream of ... society..., exercising all privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men... in all aspects of citizenship, public service, employment, education, and family life,"* then this is not the group for you.

- If, for example, you believe that women who have concerns about the prevalance of pornography in our society are uptight, sexually-repressed prudes who need to be enlightened to the "facts" and "realities" of the sex industry, this is not the group for you.
<see my proposed restatement above>

- The terms "feminist/feminism" and "misogyny" have established meanings in the context of women's history. While terminology may be debated, the denigration of these relevant terms will not be allowed.

- Attempts to minimize or dismiss women and/or the issues being discussed are not welcome.

- Like-minded DUers of all genders are encouraged to participate.

Since it restricts pro-porn arguments to JUST those revolving around the sex industry, it leaves open all the myriad other reasons that can be dredged up to pummel anti-porn feminists about the head and shoulders with their porn magazines. And believe me, it's a big myriad.

But that is a tiny detail.

for updates.

Last edited Wed Jan 11, 2012, 02:35 AM - Edit history (1)

it seems to willfully disregard women who may not have the same experiences, sexual orientation, race, class and experiences as the majority of women here.

i would be ok with this SOP if this was re-labelled a second wave feminist group. If however the broader label of feminism is used, then this group should rephrase the first part of the SOP to include: race/class/sexual orientation analysis of feminism will be accepted so long as the focus is still on women's rights (or something to that effect).

second wave feminists do not own the word feminism and i am against giving up the use of the word, just because i a queer, person of color, immigrant, bi-cultural feminist and my views are shaped my multiple identities.

as for hosts: i want gormycuss as main host and of the other two hosts, i think peacenikki and redqueen would be fair choices. all three hosts should not belong to the same school of feminism, personally i do not think all three should be white/middle class & straight either

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113921#post44

Personally, I will be concerned about what you will "be okay with" if I believe that you are speaking as a woman and a feminist.

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1139&pid=249

"its also important to keep in mind that if you are white and middle class in this country and a women, you have only one oppression to worry about. therefore you can feel like all women should bond together. however, the more oppressions i have, my in groups maybe different. my allegiance to the lgbt community will always outweigh my allegiance to straight women. my allegiance to the south asian immigrant lgbt community will outweigh my allegiance to the larger lgbt community. these are all things we should keep in mind, when talking about movements/issues/politics/whatever"

From what I can tell, that allegiance will outweigh other individuals' interest in their reputation and your (presumed) interest in truth in public discourse, as well.

Are you speaking as a woman and a feminist in this post now? When you have said flatly that, where you assert a conflict of interests, presumably, you will abandon women? How could you ever claim to speak as a feminist?

I can't see how you could, since your primary allegiance is to a group or groups other than women -- and you can say "straight women" if you like, but that is just you asserting a divergence of interests that others, including some non-straight women, simply don't agree with. You might speak as a woman; but a feminist?

I have no intention of being in a group labelled "second-wave feminist". That is an ethnocentric label that has little to do with me and doesn't accurately represent the situation where I am even to the extent that there have been second and third waves of feminism here, outside the USofA, and a label that, as defined by you, would not apply to me even if I were in the US.

Second-wave feminists do not own the word feminism? Well, whatever group it is that you belong to and are speaking as a member of doesn't define feminism, let alone me.

Either one sees patriarchy as a source of oppression at least equal to the class structure, to homophobia, to racism, to all other sources of oppression, or one doesn't. Either one sees women's problems as at least as important as the problems of every other exploited or oppressed or victimized group, or subgroup, or one doesn't.

Either one chooses to dissociate one's self from, and not advocate in the interests of, some sub-group of women, in your case "straight women", or one doesn't. I don't. I don't elevate my interests as a member of any sub-group of women, or as a member of any other group, above the interests of women. By your actions in the rotten thread in the GLBT group, and your plain words in the other thread in this group, you have at least made it appear that you do.

Straight women as a group are not the oppressors of the LGBT community, or of Asian immigrants, or of anybody else. Second-wave or any other feminists most certainly are not. And I reject any analysis that says we are.

Certainly individual women belong to the oppressor groups -- women in the ownership class, women in the religious right. The same is true of African-Americans: they have their right-wingers and their gun militants. Does the LGBT community throw African-Americans under the bus because of Clarence Thomas or Kenn Blanchard? Those women are not feminists, and those African-Americans are not civil rights leaders.

I will discuss potential conflicts as well as confluences of interests with someone who recognizes the legitimacy of feminists' concerns and analysis. Not with someone who starts out by telling me they will always be at the back of her bus when, at least, she alleges a conflict.

My feminism has NEVER excluded race/class/sexual orientation analysis, so why would I need a statement telling me to include it? And quite simply, your race/class/sexual orientation analysis, or anyone else's, is not gospel.

Your views are shaped by multiple identities. Not everyone with any or all of those, or other, identities has decided that "woman" is the least important of them -- or that their own identities other than "woman" are what they will choose to govern their political analysis and action.

Pick and choose your identities as you wish, and assign whatever weight to them you will -- your choice is entirely your own and not for me or anyone else to judge in any way, not having your experience and perspective. But kindly do not tell me, once you have done that and woman/feminist is not at the top of the list whether alone or in company, that the purpose of the Feminists group should accommodate you and thus exclude those of us who do not wish to be defined as the oppressor or as less worthy of concern than some other group or subgroup.

I actually don't go around telling working-class men that their concerns as members of the working class are illegitimate and must give way to women's concerns in the event of conflict, or that the concerns of any other exploited or oppressed or victimized group must give way. I'll talk about why part of the wage pool in an enterprise should be allocated to on site childcare even if it means a slightly lower direct wage, and listen to the arguments against, and possibly ultimately agree to disagree as reasonable people of goodwill can do. I won't be told that the working-class interest in higher wages automatically supercedes women's interest in access to employment. And in a discussion of pornography, I won't be told that the LGBT community's interest in recognition of the legitimacy of their sexuality as essential to their human dignity automatically supercedes women's interest in recognition of our humanity as essential to our security and equality of opportunity. I might agree to disagree. I will not sit and have epithets (let alone lies) thrown at me to discredit me or to discredit feminists' concerns. Not here.

I think my proposal conveys the intention perfectly adequately, but others might suggest different ways of framing it:

This forum is for discussion of women's rights, concerns and interests, and discussion of issues as they affect women, from the perspective and experience of women.

Women come in all classes and colours and sexualities, but the prerequisite here is that a poster be a feminist and speak as a woman (or as a man who is speaking from the perspective of women's rights, concerns and interests) first and foremost.

my allegiance to queer women will outweigh my allegiance to straight women. i do not see how these things are contradictory.

i am not sure what your question in all of this is, but to presumably question whether or not i am a feminist.

Your overarching allegiance to a completely different group, at the expense of women wherever you perceive a conflict, outweighs your allegiance to women.

How far exactly does this definition of "feminism" stretch?

How come my definition of "non/anti-homophobe" as stretching to include myself, who has never said or done anything to support a claim that I am hophobic, doesn't rule in that group? (Group in the sense of group of people, not DU's select group.)

If you get to define who's a feminist, why don't I get to define who is not a homophobe?

My definition in that case is not actually open to dispute. I fail to see how the same applies to yours.


By the way:

my allegiance to queer women will outweigh my allegiance to straight women

-- that is not what you said and I quoted you as saying, and it is not what the evidence suggests.


If anybody at all thinks I or any other member of this group is going to put up, in this group, with ugly, vicious, lying shit -- from members of that other group you identify with above women -- like happened in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=341x13828

or like happened several days ago in the other group or in GD, they need to think again.

I think the problem is rather obvious, myself.

am i not a woman because i am gay? if i am then i get as much right as you to define who is a feminist

are lesbians not women? if i say my allegiance to a particularly marginalized women is more than to the average women, how does this detract from my feminism?

incidentally, if an african american women says her allegiance to her race is more than to her gender, do you get to be the one to decide whether or not she can define herself as a feminist? or do you only do that for people who say their allegiance to lgbt people are higher than to straight women?

Last edited Wed Jan 11, 2012, 06:36 AM - Edit history (1)

if i say my allegiance to a particularly marginalized women is more than to the average women

THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU SAID. Cripes almighty.

You said (with my emphasis this time)

my allegiance to the lgbt community will always outweigh my allegiance to straight women.

and I take you at your word.

And I said that anyone whose allegiance to ANY community outweighs their allegiance to WOMEN is not a feminist.

Equals, yes. Outweighs, no. Simples.

One can imagine what you would be thinking if I said that, say, my allegiance to the working class outweighed my allegiance to lesbians.


am i not a woman because i am gay? if i am then i get as much right as you to define who is a feminist

Your claim now is that being a woman entitles you to define feminism?

Good luck with that.

Dog knows why you'd ask me "am i not a woman because i am gay?" since I never said or implied or whispered or thought such a thing.



edit because your edit came later

incidentally, if an african american women says her allegiance to her race is more than to her gender, do you get to be the one to decide whether or not she can define herself as a feminist? or do you only do that for people who say their allegiance to lgbt people are higher than to straight women?

Yeah, I do get to decide that. For fuck's sake. And it's sex, not gender.

And no, I don't only do it in that case, and where in the fucking hell do you get off even asking me that, when I have made it so plain it could not be plainer that what I have said applies to ANYONE who states that their allegiance to ANY group supercedes their allegiance as a woman?

But hey, keep singling out us straight women as the demons you have no meaningful allegiance to, who must sit at the back of your bus and be happy while you smack us around.

I mean, that's what it comes down to. You want to say that your allegiance is to pretty much any other group you can fit yourself into, and then hang around here telling others of us, to whom you feel miminal responsibility, about the errors of our ways.

Here's one for you.

If an African-American lesbian woman says her allegiance to her race comes above her allegiance to her sexual orientation group, where are you on that? Can she join the DU LGBT group and lecture you all there about how you are completely ignoring the concerns and interests of people of colour and it's about time you applied a race analysis in your discourse?

All I'm seeing there at the moment on that subject is some really ugly shit about Muslims, myself. How's that race analysis coming along for you? You don't seem to have had anything to say there.

as much any cisgender female.

"..Can she join the DU LGBT group and lecture you all there about how you are completely ignoring the concerns and interests of people of colour and it's about time you applied a race analysis in your discourse? "

Yes, i would. I belong to many queer people of color alliances that specifically state that sometimes the greater gay interest does not accommodate for the needs POC queers face.

Incidentally I am on holiday with limited access to internet, i have defended blanket bigotry against muslims multiple times on this site, if you search enough you can find it yourself

and no, just because you feel ones allegiance to ones gender as the highest allegiance, defines feminism, i don't. a lot of people who have other marginalized identities, dont either.

my allegiance to queer women will outweigh my allegiance to straight women.

I don't understand why there's a need to divide women up into different categories (eg straight, middle-class*, etc etc) and then proclaim that allegiance lies to one category and outweighs all else. Seriously, I'm a single mother of a child with a disability, who experienced a lack of support networks. It'd be wrong for me to announce that my allegiance to single mothers of disabled children outweighs my allegiance to all other women, and I wouldn't do it, because I don't think in such a compartmentalised way. What's so hard about having an allegiance to all women who suffer discrimination instead of dividing them up into groups and prioritising them?

Also, as a non-American, I second iverglas' call for the removal of the word 'American', lest us non-Americans at DU feel excluded...



* Maybe it's coz I live in a country that's a classless society, if you don't count sporting heroes being a class all to themselves, that I find the term 'middle-class' to come across as a pejorative....

may not, in that case i will without hesitation be part of a queer alliance. i am just honest about where my analysis/life lies.

additionally straight women have much more privilege in society than queer women do, so to pretend that this does not factor in to any analysis of privilege is silly

Actually, I've started a thread with a focus on more specifics, so you can answer there.

because sometimes straight women want things that queer women
may not, in that case i will without hesitation be part of a queer alliance.

Can we not say what we're talking about? I'm imagining they're not equal pay for work of equal value, or affordable, accessible childcare, or services for victims of violence.

Are we dancing because the things in question are things like legal prostitution, and the positions in question are things like pornography is great stuff and language doesn't matter?

And the wants and positions of women who don't think they're put at risk by those things (which does not mean they are not put at risk by them, by the way) should outweigh the needs of women who, in the opinion of a whole load of people, are put at risk by them?

Is that just a one-way street? You're right because you're queer?

Maybe you can teach us that trick, so we can tell misogynist men we're right because we're women, and that will be an end of it.

Do you have to argue your position at all, or can you just say that's my position and it's feminism because I say so?

Being honest about where your analysis lies, you could indeed be. Being honest doesn't make one a feminist.

having taken plenty of women's studies classes and queer studies classes, i want to know exactly on what authority you define only your brand of feminism as feminism

mostly i think you are sore at the lgbt community hear for getting banned from that forum, and are re-defining feminism and who can and cannot be a feminist because of it

Other than facetiously.

What I have yet to see is an explanation of how someone who states flat out that she will throw women under the bus if she perceives women's interests as divergent from some other group's interests is any different from all the people who have done that to women for decades and decades.

Women have come a distant second, at best, to people of colour (who's your President? remember the Black Panthers?), the proletariat, winning elections ...

How come it's women who get that?

Does being doubly disadvantaged really mean that your disadvantage as a member of the other group is greater than your disadvantage as a woman? If that were the case, I'd expect to see gay men being more disadvantaged than women as a whole, or straight women. I don't.

Back before Adler wrote Sisters in Crime, I wrote a sociology paper called "Women Criminals / Criminal Women: Double Deviance". I'm familiar with the concept (and keep in mind that deviance is a construct, not a judgment). Women are deviant people; criminals are deviant people; women are deviant criminals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_school_of_criminology
(not an authoritate source, but serves my purposes)

Are women criminals more disadvantaged as criminals, or as women?

Was Clinton more disadvantaged by her sex than Obama was by his race?

Are lesbians really more disadvantaged by their sexual orientation than they are by their sex?

You do know that not all lesbians would say so. Perhaps they're just white and middle-class. Forgive me if I sound snide, but I don't see anyone using language to attack non-white non-middle-class non-straight people the way it is being used to attack people to whom those characteristics are being ascribed.



mostly i think you are sore at the lgbt community hear for getting banned from that forum, and are re-defining feminism and who can and cannot be a feminist because of it

Mostly I think you're deluded if you think I give a crap, but thanks for the further demonstration that personal attack is what you have to offer.

(But I can tell you my fingers are itching to get at your colleague with the idiotic statement "European countries interpret all bigoted speech (even without explicit violent threats) as 'inciting hatred' and thus a crime. I guess the 1st amendment can't work in every nation' that they win today's ribbon for most uninformed, ethnocentric statement of the week to date. And that's my informed internationalist analysis. But you can thank me for delivering you of the troll to whose remarks I was the only one to object.)

walked away. you didnt address men rating the woman like an animal. thru out the thread i never said anything about the woman, at all. period. i had one post saying when men are in a pageant then.... and the other posts addressed the rating women and men spewing derogatory name calling at women. (which you participated with your one post to me. "infantile&quot right below was a subthread from rep, that we actually discussed a gay woman being in a pageant, and the effects to the gay community and women as a whole. in that subthread i had already posted " i am glad she is the one to win, breaking that glass ceiling of norm. i am sad she is reduced to men on du not appreciating that but feeling more important to place a number on her. i get it."

even though i brought it to your attention, you never posted back on the insults you threw my way. it was a hit and run insult. why? what did i do to warrant that?



"is both newsworthy and worthy of discussing on du

again, this is my problem with the feminism/feminists on du, some of you need more than one lens to see the world with. this white middle class straight feminism that refuses to acknowledge other ways of being a feminist is infantile "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=136930


you state in this thread there is only ONE that would be fair. and go gormy cuss, i dont care. you decide who we are as women, what we are capable of, as i watch iverglas work hard to be honest, precise, exact. who we are as middle class white straight women. what our fuckin sex life is. and we have no say in it. you dont acknowledge what we say, you ignore it and you tell us we are wrong.... about who we are. i dont get that.

i think redqueen would be a great host. and fair. i think many women in the forum can do the job, and be fair. you dont like me. you dont want me as a host. doesnt hurt my feeling at all. none of this battle is important to me.

i have been consistently told by you there is no way i can even begin to understand what you say and experience, ergo, any of my thoughts and views are irrelevant. but that does not seem to be your position with me. or others. you seem to know everything we experience, think and feel and what we have to say is irrelevant, even talking about ourselves.

why did you hit and run, on that thread, like you did?

i am on holiday and spend limited time online. that which i do, maybe i dont want to waste on you

about her.

But apparently your vacation is more important. Enjoy yourself. So glad you could afford it while a student.

because I can't figure it out in context. Thanks.

"as for hosts: i want gormycuss as main host and of the other two hosts, i think peacenikki and redqueen would be fair choices. all three hosts should not belong to the same school of feminism, personally i do not think all three should be white/middle class & straight either"

"you show the temperament needed to be tolerant to all voices of feminism and recognize that people need to participate in these discussions and not be rushed around.

i dont see this in anyone else"


i was referring to these two posts that lioness posted

i know i am starting to sound "mean". another poster on another thread just said how "mean" i am. mean, me.

looking to understand. asking questions that dont get answered. listening to the otherside to try and understand. expressing to try to be understood.

but me.... i am mean.

sorry. just walk away from that post. mean, me. i dare to speak

Could you give me a few examples of issues where straight women would want something that gay women don't, or where gay women want something that straight women don't? I thought about it a lot after I read yr post, and I can't think of a single thing, but my head is all clogged up with a nasty head cold right now and my thought process is: 'self-identity, I get it *cough* *sniff* *sneeze* *cough some more*. Now what was I thinking before I dived for the lozenges and tissues?'

I'm with another person in this thread who said they don't see why there needs to be sides taken. We're all feminists, and of course we're all going to self-identify in different ways that takes us across a whole lot of different groups, but the bottom line is that we should be supporting each other, especially when it comes to women who've suffered discrimination, imo...

This thread is a bit heated and I don't want to be mistaken for being confrontational or anything like that, especially as I've got a lot of respect for what I've seen you post at DU2 about I/P and speaking out against anti-Muslim bigotry. So when I say that my life experience as a woman and how I self-identify have the word 'privilege' nowhere to be found, that's not meant as an attack or to be hostile. If you want to reply by PM so as it's taken away from what has become a heated thread, yr someone who'd be more than welcome to pop up in my inbox

I've seen some of the back and forth and I have to say - she 'speaks' to me. In regards to different classifications -

Women first.

I'm an affluent multi-racial gen x woman whose net worth is at the million dollar mark. I'd be lying if I told you I did not love the man I do - because he IS such a man's man. I'd also be lying if I told you I didn't think that Feminism made a critical mistake during the suffragist/temperance movement s- actually - several critical mistakes. I'd be lying if I didn't say: When non black feminists applaud the book and movie The Help - they do a disservice to black women in America.

Those are just a few thoughts I have/things I have to share.

But at the end of the day - I know in THIS group I can share the personal in the political from the perspective of a woman who has to compete EVERY SINGLE DAY in the good old boys club and that I can get support for Equal Pay For Women . . . Not lesbian, straight, latina, Korean, bi-racial, caucasian, etc. etc. wome - but WOMEN. And if that is not one's allegiance - i.e. identifying inequities and trying to discuss how we can make even the tiniest of personal changes to give EVERY woman a fair shake regardess of race, religion, sexuality, socio-economic status - then I'd say one is not here to discuss feminist issues.

We don't need group think - but we do need a common thread amongst us all. And that common thread requires that a lesbian woman is asked throw a gay male Republican under the bus who votes against WOMENS' interests - then I respectfully ask she do that.

I mean, having the guts to come out and admit to being rich (I merely hinted at it with that art acquisition thing -- and unless property prices go up a little more, I won't hit that mark for a bit longer) ... that's the bravery that's needed!

Other than real estate price inflation, every penny I have I have worked to acquire, at what is essentially a piecework rate, although in a highly skilled "intellectual worker" occupation -- and did that for over a decade while also working for peanuts to provide legal representation for various disadvantaged client groups, including women refugees who had been victims of sexual violence, for example.

What was I supposed to do? Not go to university? I struck it lucky there; I'd been too young and too preoccupied with politics, and too working-class, to know about the importance of applying to "good" schools, so I applied to where I thought I'd like to live for law school. I arrived the year the old Irish Catholic boys' club dean left -- which mean that my class was 30% women, instead of the 6 women out of 107 in the class before me. Had I not made it into law school, I'd have found some other well-paid occupation -- but a lot of vulnerable people would not have had the legal representation they got from me. My success was crucial to their success. I think that's an intersectionality that might be worth noting.

I suspect that your gay male Republican would not be safe at the hands of our third-wavers / other perspective-ers. What I can't figure out is where that line is drawn, and how it affects their relationship with the broader feminist movement and we who are on the other side of the line -- which is why I started the thread that has been hidden from the board now (but you can still read it).

I was raising hell on a thread a few days ago so it will just bring unwarranted attacks on us.

Seriously though - wealth is just ONE thing. Know what I mean? And I was born at the right time, and had entry into the 'right industry', and selected the, right womb, to be born to. Hard work - but also the luck of 'who my grandparents were' if that makes sense?

But regardless - I was almost afraid to come back here after I posted that.

My point is NOT to create hostility towards women who don't share my sexual orientation. It's to say to them: Straight or Gay - we EARN less money on the dollar than a man. . . so choose your allegiance well. Black, White, Latina, Asian - we EARN less money on the dollar than a man . . . so choose your allegiance well. UU, Catholic, Agnostic, Atheist, Lutheran, Hindu, Muslim, Earth Religion, Spiritualist, etc. etc. - choose your allegiance well.

I've also publicly stated at DU - that this is my hot button issue. And my key reason for saying that after infrastructure/job creation MUST be triggered at equal pay - is because there is such a strong movement for gay marriage in this country.

So two gay male attorneys who adopt a child will be better able to provide that child advantages in education and economic stability that two gay female attorney won't be able to provide . . . just because they are women. That's so so sooooooooo wrong. It's just wrong.

You think you can beat me at bringing unwarranted attacks on us?

(check out seabeyond's thread)


I think La Lioness Priyanka said, in the thread about people's priority issues, income inequality. So common ground does exist.

Me, I generally get myself tangled in ... you can't have income equality without equal education and training, not just equal opportunity ... because equal opportunity won't be effective if there are constraints on choice deriving from stereotypes ... and stereotypes can't be smashed without addressing the widespread pornographic images and objectification of women ... and the largely exploited workforce in the sex industry can't be reduced if there are no other opportunities for the workers ... and unless and until men share household and family duties equally then equal employment opportunities are meaningless ... and hell, what's the point of it all if women aren't safe on the streets and in their homes and workplaces? ... so give me ALL OF IT!

Which is why I can never decide whether I'm a socialist feminist or a radical feminist or what have you. I just know I can't be anything but a straight middle-class white feminist at bottom.

I didn't visit the feminists forum much on DU2, but DU3 doesn't feel as friendly & I've found myself posting in mostly groups. And who knew we had a Loners group? I fit right in over there.

Until a few weeks ago, when I came over here, I had never heard of 2nd wave/3rd wave feminism. I'm looking forward to finishing a long, complicated project so I can take some time to do some leisure reading. Ha! A feminist forum as leisure reading. ~lol.

and how fun t was going down latest thread and ending up in some forum i would never have been in the past.

a wave hi

no, gd does not feel so welcoming. the flat out purposeful disrespect. i just took a glance.

And that paragraph is:

But at the end of the day - I know in THIS group I can share the personal in the political from the perspective of a woman who has to compete EVERY SINGLE DAY in the good old boys club and that I can get support for Equal Pay For Women . . . Not lesbian, straight, latina, Korean, bi-racial, caucasian, etc. etc. wome - but WOMEN. And if that is not one's allegiance - i.e. identifying inequities and trying to discuss how we can make even the tiniest of personal changes to give EVERY woman a fair shake regardess of race, religion, sexuality, socio-economic status - then I'd say one is not here to discuss feminist issues.

Here's what I don't get in the "allegiance wars," I'll call them.

WHY!!??!!????

What is there to choose allegiance over or about? That's the mystery to me. How divisive is that? There should be nothing to choose allegiance over in any regard, for any of these groups. In the feminism I know and embrace, there IS no choosing necessary: all is for all, and even the benefits to women don't come at the expense of men (though loss of male privilege is often seen as very expensive, but it's an unearned reward and therefore an unfair benefit and immoral if it serves to keep women oppressed.)

And the same goes for the other groups. THERE SHOULD BE NO CHOOSING ALLEGIANCES REQUIRED -- or desired. Anyone who sees the need -- or advantage -- of pitting groups against one another or choosing among them is operating from a seriously flawed set of operating principles. My oppression as a white middle class female is just as important as yours if you're black female, just as important as yours if you're a black male. Your oppression as a gay male of whatever color is just as important -- and intrinsically tied to -- my oppression. There is no group you can name whose oppression is MORE IMPORTANT than mine, or LESS IMPORTANT than mine because it is ALL OF ONE PIECE, even if there are different manifestations of it.

The feminism I know and embrace understands that, embraces that, teaches that. WHAT KIND OF FEMINISM DOESN'T???? I can't tell you how many times I carried those round purple N.O.W. signs against racism, in favor of gay rights, pro-choice... it's all of a piece, people and IMO the feminism I know and embrace, with its healthy dose of Marxist analysis, holds the key to unlocking the oppression for ALL the world's oppressed peoples, no matter what their color, shape, gender, sexual orientation or affinity, etc.

I would suggest that anyone feeling a need for "choosing" either do some heavy duty inner reflection on what is the split they are feeling internally in order to do some persona l haling, and/or do or seek some analysis about feminism and how they can rise above the apparent dichotomy they are feeling or sensing to see the unity, or a way to achieve unity in their goals and aspirations without having to "choose" allegiances, if that makes any sense.

Ganging up on lesbian feminists because of our allegiance to our community
My allegiance too is to the queer community and here's why...First, I still smart a little over the 2nd-wave feminists initially pushing lesbians out of their cause because we were too controversial or claiming our rights weren't their rights--I hold a bit of grudge, what can I say? I've encountered modern-day feminists who feel the same way; that somehow my lesbianism makes me less of a woman and therefore, I can't be a feminist.

Back to the topic of my allegiance to the queer community; I can still be fired from my job just for being gay. I can be denied housing, just for being gay. Some places of business can deny me service, just because I'm gay. I still can't get legally married (except in a handful of states) and be recognized nationally because I'm gay. Most states won't allow me to adopt children just because I'm gay. I'm judged solely by some on the fact I'm gay. I'm referred to more often as a dyke than a bitch. Until the gay part of me gets the same rights as the woman part of me, then my allegiance to the gay community stands. I at least want to be equally discriminated against like any other woman, right now I'm not equal on that scale.

On the topic of feminism and being a lesbian:
Being a lesbian informs my worldview. I see things differently as a lesbian feminist then, I imagine, a straight feminist does. That doesn't mean I don't want ALL women to excel in this world or that I don't want ALL women to be equal but it does mean that I don't see the world through the eyes of a heterosexual woman and there are things that effect me in the world that don't effect heterosexual women. For example, as a lesbian woman, not only could I get underpaid for being a woman but at some places I may not even get a job or get fired for being a lesbian (as I stated above). Because of that, I'm going to view the world differently and form different opinions on things and it's going to make my feminism different.

As I said, I'm not trying to marginalize or put women in different classes BUT, my worldview is definitely different, as I'd imagine a woman from a small town would have a different worldview than a woman in an urban area (where she may have better opportunities) or a woman of color has a different world view than a white woman. It's not a competition but to say that it doesn't make our view of feminism unique does everyone a disservice.

I agree with La Lioness Priyanka that it may be better to have a diverse group of hosts only because diversity in thought (as is there diversity in feminism) is a good thing and it brings different perspectives to discussion. No matter how hard I try, I am not going to know what it's like to be a straight woman living in this world, nor no matter how hard a straight woman can try, she's not going to know what it's like to go through the world as a lesbian. And all our unique experiences inform our feminism.

You can't put the definition of feminism in a box and then expect all of to be able to conform to that definition, it's unrealistic. And getting mad that, as a lesbian, I don't necessarily agree with your view or definition of feminism doesn't make me any less a feminist, it just makes me a different feminist. Is being a different feminist a bad thing if we want the same things? And how does one decide if I sincerely want the same things as the next person other than my word on it? And are my feminism 'creds' any better or worse because my allegiance, first and foremost, is getting the equal rights we all deserve? Remember, lesbians don't have the same rights as straight women...

here is the thing,

"I still smart a little over the 2nd-wave feminists initially pushing lesbians out of their cause because we were too controversial or claiming our rights weren't their rights--I hold a bit of grudge, what can I say? I've encountered modern-day feminists who feel the same way; that somehow my lesbianism makes me less of a woman and therefore, I can't be a feminist."

i get it. i get what you are saying. and you are gonna feel it whether i say you are "allowed" or not. it is our nice way of saying, you get to. but the thing, i seem to have been put in this box. unbeknownst to me. i didn't know 2nd and 3rd. i didnt particpate in it. i was a kid and young teen at the time. YET... i am firmly and insistently put in that box, so a person can resent me a bet.

so, though you agree with lioness on this issue, i really want to know why we are continually told we cannot even begin to understand so we cannot have an opinion or even state it, when we are continually ignored talking about ourselves and being told we dont know who we are. we dont even have a say about ourselves.

i gotta get that answer. because i am not getting it at all.

I don't know how explaining that all of us have different points of view and ways of thinking somehow infringes upon your having an opinion or says that you can't state an opinion. I don't know how stating that I've encountered, basically what is sexism from other feminists because of my sexuality has anything to do with your opinion or stating said opinion.

Lioness, Gormy Cuss and myself are asking for the SOP to take into consideration that not everyone has the same point of view on feminism but that doesn't seem to have anything to do with infringing upon your opinions.

What am I missing?

I've been reading a variety of interesting opinions on this thread, including yours. What people should not expect, though, is 100% agreement with their opinions. And that is a good thing.

situation. All of us as women and feminists talk about the concept of male privilege, and we see a lot of it in play on DU and discuss it. But there are forms of privilege that I as a white cisgender straight woman have, and I acknowledge that there are forms of oppression that I will never experience because of it. It's not that I can't understand a little, but I'm sure there are things I miss constantly because I just don't know what I'm looking at when that oppressive situation might occur.

If I were to say or do something to marginalize a woman who has other forms of oppression to deal with, I would hope that she would put me right and tell me where my speech and actions are contributing to her oppression. Even that can be tiring to deal with, education of the dominant majority, as we women know.

And this is such an important point:
"I'm sure there are things I miss constantly because I just don't know what I'm looking at when that oppressive situation might occur."

would you like me to list the number of posts i asked the same consideration to be heard, for what i said to be thought about and asked for a response so i could better UNDERSTAND.... and received nothing, or a slammed door in my face.

I realize that I was replying to a post in this subthread, but I was not referencing you or anything you've done or not done. I was talking globally, and agreeing with Starry Messenger's quote that we all need to remember that privilege has the potential to make us unaware of discrimination others might face and that it's a good thing to get different perspectives.

I, like you, struggle to hear the other side, but I know that my privilege can make that more difficult, no matter how empathetic I am with the struggles of others. That's why discussions, from different feminist points of view, are SO important.

I believe that you also hear and want to understand other perspectives.

ALL the effort because we understand our failings of not having more 'isms, and though harsh, i do NOT mean it disrespectfully. we KNOW we are not in the same boat as a gay woman, or a black woman or any other minority. we KNOW. i was not part of 2nd feminism. i learned from others what they did. i have in all my posts supported gay women and their uniqueness in our community.

that cannot mean that someone can run roughshod over everyone else in the group, with no consideration to fairness, or listening, not judging, too. it has to be a two way street.

a person should not be able to throw out a one two in insult, walk away and not own up to her mistake. then be patted on the back as being picked on by the white middle aged women.

why the hell would anyone want it to work that way.

We're all feminists--even though we may not agree in every instance.

I am a feminist. I don't classify myself as second wave or third wave and I allow no one to put me in either category. I support other feminists, whether they be white, black, straight, or gay. I will not always agree with them but that doesn't mean I'm not on their side.

It's almost like this thread has become some sort of litmus test for feminists.

You posted:
"a person should not be able to throw out a one two in insult, walk away and not own up to her mistake. then be patted on the back as being picked on by the white middle aged women"

I think you may be taking some of these posts much too personally. I see people passionately standing up for their beliefs (from all perspectives), and sometimes that can come across as harsh or insulting. I've seen insults by both "sides" as it were (not by you). I'll admit there are references to other threads in other forums that I have not followed, so I may be unaware of exactly what you mean.

The purpose of this thread is to select hosts/subhosts. Ultimately, I hope those hosts can be even-handed in their duties even when they see a post or feminist perspective with which they disagree.

i a not on a side either, but i have been boxed in, placed on a side. i was too young. i didnt know shit. but i am squarely in middle class white hetero sexual woman and is used as an insult to me. along with all the other insult of 2nd wave, that i dont know shit about.

that is why we have to be honest and real.

this is becoming one big ole mess of them against us and i call bullshit.

we cannot continue, if we continue to allow it to be done with sides. one good, one bad. one right, one wrong.

it. wont. work.

omg, yes yes yes!! The html buttons have appeared before mine eyes! Yes! This is not a cave locked in the 20th century after all!

Ahem.

Why are people picking sides?

Ask the people who picked sides, please.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002133497

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11372559

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11372627

If you want to know what the discussion is about, you will want to read those threads. Or at least some of them. Those are the actual subject here.

I don't think you will be wanting to say "I think you may be taking some of these posts much too personally" then. I hope.


The purpose of this thread is to select hosts/subhosts. Ultimately, I hope those hosts can be even-handed in their duties even when they see a post or feminist perspective with which they disagree.

Please, can we get this straight?

No one, absolutely no one, not one person, at least not on this side of the fence, us straight white middle-class (and surely middle-aged) feminists, is objecting to any perspectives, or plotting to banish people with different perspectives to the outer GD.

We are talking about people who have, very recently, participated in attacks on those of us who dared to express an opinion on what we very much consider to be a woman's issue: the practice of hetersexual male posters at DU rating women on their appearance, in this case a lesbian contestant in a beauty pageant. There were dozens upon dozens of posts in that thread vilifying any woman who voiced an opinion on that subject, let alone the subject of beauty pageants themselves. No one from the LGBT/feminist side of the fence spoke up against the misrepresentation, insult and intimidation fired at us there; some gleefully participated.

The victims in this whole thing are NOT lesbian women or the LGBT community.

And some of us are trying to figure out what grievances on that side of the fence are being referenced, and how they could possibly justify the behaviours in those threads -- or what else might justify those behaviours.

the sarcasm was necessary to make your point.

I chose not to go to the threads in the other forums because I knew they were train wrecks. This thread seems to have run its course as well.

I'm following seabeyond's new thread. I hope you will join us there.

Thanks for the solidarity.

And unfortunately, yes, that one actually is sarcasm.

You asked a question and I answered it and you are not interested in the answer.

If you're not going to visit the train wreck to find out what we're talking about, again, it would really be best if you didn't talk about it. I'm sorry if that sounds rude or something, but addressing our concerns by dismissing them isn't addressing them. That may sound familiar.

I never said you didn't have some valid points. That doesn't mean I have to be in agreement with everything you say.

And for the record, I will talk about whatever I want to talk about.

understood. that is what we are all looking for.

come into that other forum and please tell us what you think. you are kick ass at being just.

I agree with author Marya Mannes:

Women are repeatedly accused of taking things personally. I cannot see any other honest way of taking them.

Seabeyond may or may not feel insulted by that remark, but I am.

it is the continuous accusation that i am unable to, when it appears i am more than willing to and the oppressed refuses and tells me who i am instead of mutually listening.

because someone has more 'isms than i, does nto give that person cart blanche to behave however she wants with immunity, surely? i ask you?

have one of you addressed the post, that i put up about being insulted and called out, with absolutely not ONE person reaching out toward me for understanding? it cannot always be a one way street. i am not seeing anyone willing to even try to understand the other sides issue. that isn't balanced. i don't do imbalance.

I think that if a marginalized member of a group was telling me repeatedly that I wasn't getting something, even if I thought that I was, I would listen harder.

If who I consider myself to be doesn't match up with someone else's assessment of me, who's responsibility is it to reflect harder on the exchange? I might think I'm understanding and listening, but someone says "No, you're not understanding" and they are speaking from a perspective that I will never experience. It *isn't* balanced, and it won't be, because I have more privilege than the person telling me that I'm messing up. How can it be even when I have more power?

The more "isms" a person has doesn't give them cart blanche, of course not. But I think it gives we who don't share the "isms" a greater load or responsibility to try to take a step back and look at the situation, even if we feel offended at first. That's all I'm trying to say.

dysfunctional sex life, ugly, jealous, infantile and any other name they chose to throw at me because i am at an advantage. and say, i understand.

and not expect any consideration of being heard.... at all.

that is really what we have reduced ourselves to. that we are so willing to be open and frank and honest.

in GD

i have to listen to them from the women

in feminism forum.

it hardly makes it worth it, does it.

That you are a "a prude, anti sex, asexual", etc.? I don't see that in her statement. I would alert on a post that called anyone names.

More than one lesbian has said that they don't feel welcome in traditional feminist discussions, some of them here on DU, perhaps some of them in this forum. Is there something that can be done to amend that going forward? That's what we're trying to hammer down here.

yes. lets. and that means not pretend that there is not a two way street of mutuality and listen to both adn understand both and be a better person.

this is becoming a.... either with us or against us.

it is being allowed because we are not being honest.

this is not that hard. we dont have to create an enemy within these walls but that is what is happening. i am not going ot be an enemy to another group. i wont.

I honestly don't. We all have things to contribute and I think there are women who want to be heard who haven't felt heard, because the SOP looks a little limiting as it currently stands. We all know how that feels to not feel heard, I know that you do! I think there are ways to make the SOP worded a little better, and many fruitful suggestions have been put forth already. I concur with this statement of Gormy's down below:

"What I'm hearing from Pri and justiceischeap is that asking them to divorce their LGBT identities from the argument is too much and I agree. It would be like asking you or I to respond to economic arguments without drawing on our perspective as women.

It seems to be that none of us want to have an SoP so open that it allows for raging, off-topic feuds but we do want to hear, digest, and debate issues from accepted feminist POVs (accepted as in academia includes them as feminist thought) rather than just sticking to the orthodoxy we personally accept"

statement. lets. all this over "little". i dont get that.

a statement. whoever has one. throw it out. i will vote for it.

And there is a history, and it is as real for those of us who suffered the mistreatment as the lesbian feminists' history in the outside world is to them.

Yes, "we" have been subjected to a campaign of abuse over years, portrayed as uptight, prudeish, anti-sex, asexual, anything else you can think of along that line. I was called Victorian in the beauty pageant thread, along with reams of other things.

We actually aren't making these things up.


More than one lesbian has said that they don't feel welcome in traditional feminist discussions, some of them here on DU, perhaps some of them in this forum.

If one of them here present would stand up and type three short sentences, or 10 long paragraphs, I don't care, telling us WHY, we would all be thrilled to read them. This has not yet happened. We have had several pronouncements of feelings of exclusion hearkening back to the dark ages, but nothing to explain why these feelings exist now in relation to this group. Really. Nothing.

And to my mind, someone does not get to hang around pronouncing and acting aggrieved, give no explanation for these feelings, and then get all huffy about being repeatedly asked for some explanation, and rely on that as their basis for being aggrieved. And that's all I see happening.

I am aggrieved by the way I was treated over the beauty pageant thing; seabeyond is aggrieved; redqueen is aggrieved. Others there were similarly attacked. All were left hanging out to dry, if not directly attacked, by members of the lesbian feminist group.

I am seeing nothing else that looks like a genuine grievance, or even apprehension, on anyone's part.

The fact is that there is virtually certainly overlap between those who do not feel welcome at present and those who very definitely were NOT welcome in the past, because of their use of terms like "sex-positive feminism" for themselves to portray other women here in extremely negative terms, and their horrifically disruptive behaviour in this group. Did you glance at another thread linked to?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=341x13828

Regardless of where you might come down on any particular issue, it is the behaviour of a particular element that was and is simply not tolerable in this forum.

And so this discussion was starting from a point you weren't at, among people with knowledge of that history.

And unless and until I get a statement of what these issues are on which we will necessarily have such divergent positions, or what our divergences will be in terms of what issues we consider appropriate for discussion, I'm going with my gut feeling, reinforced by the garbage in the beauty pageant thread, that this is what it's really all about.

I am also a middle-aged woman. Embrace your power, seabeyond! Do not allow others to define you. People who throw insulting names at you are not worth the effort, frankly. When another person resorts to personal insults, that means you've won the argument.

But also realize that general statements are not always to be taken personally. Take the subject of pornography. If someone who's against porn says "People who watch pornography perpetuate violence against women!" Then a feminist who enjoys pornography may feel that person is accusing them of violence against women. She may be offended and call the poster's view prudish. Soon, the discussion revolves around personal insults instead of a very important discussion about pornography's effect on society. (Please note I'm not taking sides in the pornography debate here, just using it as an example.)

Seabeyond, you have important things to say as a feminist. No one has the power to make you stop talking.

feeling. just a glimpse at my posts and then a pat answer.

this is the first one where i feel like i have been addressed. thank you. i am going to think about this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11372559


and then refused to clarify, in response to a query there and my PM (when I could not post), that you were NOT talking about me and others who had posted similarly in that thread:


-- "some folks were causing trouble in William769s thread on the issue" is NOT how you would have described the LGBT group members you claimed to be talking about in this, sorry, incoherent PM to me:


You know full well that NO ONE interpreted your post as referring to those people. You said NOTHING to them in public. And referring to the attack on me as a "perceived slight"? There seems to have been agreement on how to trivialize the attack. Others here don't perceive it as a "perceived slight".

(And no, I could not alert on the call-out, as that had already been done and failed.)


So as I was saying -- I'm not really at all concerned about what you, as the person who wrote those posts and that message, have to say.


First, I still smart a little over the 2nd-wave feminists initially pushing lesbians out of their cause because we were too controversial or claiming our rights weren't their rights--I hold a bit of grudge, what can I say?

Were any of them me? Do you have one single shred of basis for lumping me in with these alleged persons -- or anyone else in this group or at this site? If not: so what?

I've encountered modern-day feminists who feel the same way; that somehow my lesbianism makes me less of a woman and therefore, I can't be a feminist.

I don't know, that just sounds dumb to me. Certainly, as a lesbian, you won't share some of the "personal is political" issues of straight women. Certainly, I hope you don't disparage women who do have those issues. I'd want to know a whole lot more about this allegation.

You see, coming here and making blanket statements about a group you label a particular way, to make a point with the women *here*, just doesn't quite work.

Back to the topic of my allegiance to the queer community; I can still be fired from my job just for being gay. ...

Well, not anywhere in Canada you can't. Not fired, not denied housing, not denied marriage, not denied spousal benefits under private insurance plans, not denied adoption, not denied immigration sponsorship or inheritance or next-of-kin or pension rights or family leave, all whether married or not -- not treated differently in any other way in the public or private sectors based on this irrelevant distinction. And that's how it should be, and that's what my political party has fought for, and that's what I've always maintained. Cripes, one of my very first posts ever at DU (which makes it over a decade ago) was to challenge a view I couldn't believe I was seeing at a progressive website: that landlords have property rights that should enable them to refuse to rent housing to whomever they like; I think that case involved an unmarried heterosexual couple, but obviously I challenged the idea that such discrimination could be practised on any irrelevant personal characteristic, which sexual orientation is in that situation. Couldn't believe my eyes.

I know you don't live up here in socialist Utopia. At DU, I support people seeking changes like that, and like universal healthcare, for instance. I know you still don't have rights. If feminists don't support that struggle, well, I wouldn't call them feminists. I don't know that they can be expected to take it on directly though, is the thing. Like women being the driving force behind abolition in the US, and so many other social and political causes -- and always leaving their own (or being told to leave their own) aside: there are women's issues that are equally important, just different. And that do affect you as a lesbian woman.

I'm referred to more often as a dyke than a bitch.

Here at DU? I doubt that. I think you're protected from that here, no? But women haven't been protected from being called bitches ... and you don't object? Not sure what you're saying. Would other feminists here not object to lesbians being called dykes??

Until the gay part of me gets the same rights as the woman part of me, then my allegiance to the gay community stands.

It does not compute. Or at least it does not address the issues at hand here.

Certainly it is understandable that you would focus on the violations you experience of the most basic rights. But how does that call for denigrating women who focus on issues of greater concern to them? Say, male intimate partner violence against women. Maybe you don't want to devote your scarce time and energy to that; no problem for me. Neither do I, as it happens. Choices have to be made. But I admire advocates in that field, just as I do advocates in the cause of your own that you cite.

That isn't a question of allegiance. It isn't an either/or in terms of analysis or mutual support or mutual respect. It's just a question of choice, given scarce resources. There's no conflict between public/private sector equality for GLBT people and protecting women from male partner violence, or working for workplace equality for women, for example, ideologically or philosophically. Has someone suggested to you that there is?

For example, as a lesbian woman, not only could I get underpaid for being a woman but at some places I may not even get a job or get fired for being a lesbian (as I stated above). Because of that, I'm going to view the world differently and form different opinions on things and it's going to make my feminism different.

But again, what are these differences? You undoubtedly view the world as even more hostile than some other women do. (As a victim of a life-threatening sexual assault, I view it as pretty damned hostile, I can tell you!) But why project those problems onto other feminists, which is what we see happening? A fuck you, we have our own problems and yours can go to hell attitude. I've said before: feminists are not the oppressors. Why the hostility to us?

What is the actual conflict between the two sets of issues here?

I agree with La Lioness Priyanka that it may be better to have a diverse group of hosts only because diversity in thought (as is there diversity in feminism) is a good thing and it brings different perspectives to discussion.

I'm going to have to stick to my position that I will need to see a nominee who has NOT engaged in dismissive or abusive behaviour toward feminists at this website in order to agree to the nomination, myself.

Neither you nor Priyanka meets that criterion, in my personal books.

Anyone who wants to contend that I or any other nominee also fails in that regard is of course welcome to present the reasons - in the form of things like actual quotations, not allegations.

You have exhibited in this thread and others in this forum such a blatant intolerance of different POVs that I do not think you would be able to host this forum in a manner that encourages open discussion of feminist views across theories and generations.

has put forth any effort for a back and forth interaction to understand what is being said.

other than a stone wall, and blatant demands, i am hearing nothing from the lbgt community in working together.

a reaction to flame wars between different members of this community (both the Feminists group and DU at large.) Iverglas linked to the douchebag war, which is the most epic example of this. I contend that the first bullet can be modified to be less divisive and still allow conversations from different perspectives here in a civil manner.

What I'm hearing from Pri and justiceischeap is that asking them to divorce their LGBT identities from the argument is too much and I agree. It would be like asking you or I to respond to economic arguments without drawing on our perspective as women.

It seems to be that none of us want to have an SoP so open that it allows for raging, off-topic feuds but we do want to hear, digest, and debate issues from accepted feminist POVs (accepted as in academia includes them as feminist thought) rather than just sticking to the orthodoxy we personally accept. As I wrote somewhere else in this giant discussion, I'm baffled by many non 2nd wave feminist positions but I'm willing to hear the case in favor of them. I'm also straight but have had enough GLBT friends to know that I don't get it from their perspective on a number of issues unless and until we've had thoughtful discussions.

That's why I think our SoP needs to exhibit broad tolerance and our hosts should be those we trust to interpret the SoP in that spirit. Let me be clear though: if the group chooses to go with an SoP that I don't think is sufficiently inclusive I understand that I'm the one who needs to leave the group.