History of Feminism
Related: About this forum"A small group" is responsible for all that ails DU
So we are told. Reactionary men could happily live in a world where no one ever suggested to them that they should treat woman as human beings rather than mere objects of lust of rage, if only for a few radical fringe feminists on DU. How many times have we heard everything here is the fault of a "small fringe group"? The comment reveals profound self-delusion. They want to ignore key issues about equality and inclusivity to make it all about a few feminists on this site. Only they are railing against practices that have been standard in every public place for decades in this country. They act like they never before heard there was anything objectionable about posting pictures of bikini babes in public places. They act like they never heard about the concept of a hostile environment before it was raised here recently. They deceive themselves by insisting that only a few loud-mouthed feminists care about such issues, even while posting in a thread with over 177 Duers expressing disapproval of the hostile environment engendered by such pics. They do so knowing that Skinner locked one such thread and instructed the GD hosts to allow no others. Yet it's all because of HOF members, despite the fact that they couldn't get away with any of that stuff in any public space anywhere in this country and haven't been able to for decades.
So what's going on here? Why do they so resent progress? Why do they refuse to consider the concerns of anyone but themselves? Why to they respond cruely to someone who shares a hearbreaking story of repeated rape from a very young age? Why do they systematically refuse to consider the testimony of victims of child abuse, legal rulings and evidence, and repeat the lies generated by the publicity machine of a wealthy, accused pedophile? Why is it they insist on telling people of color they are just too touchy when they point out the obvious--that stereotypical meals of fried chicken and watermelon are purposefully racist and do not "honor" African American culture. To deny the voices of feminists and people of color in articulating what they find offensive represents a clear determination that some see those groups of Americans as unworthy of basic respect or the same rights afforded to white men.
The "small group" didn't post the T and A pics. A small group didn't post the callout threads and posts in GD, all placed for the explicit purpose of creating drama and belittling the views and lives of those they see as entirely without value. One member of the small group did post Dylan Farrow's testimony, and that was an outrage. To consider the views of a woman was an anathema and triggered a meltdown by one particularly angry member. Many others simply refused to read her testimony or the court record showing Woody Allen's entire story was a lie because they didn't want facts to get in the way of their determination to defend an accused pedophile, who's victim was only a girl, hardly anyone who mattered. A member here who expressed a heartfelt story of her own assault was called a liar, insulted and ridiculed, even though what she described happens to millions of girls and boys across our nation. What this small group does is raise the viewpoints of human beings whose lives some consider entirely insignificant.
The fact is we are dealing with some very angry people who hate progress more than anything else. They despise the fact that they are expected to treat others as human, that they can't insult women as b and cs at will (even though they do and juries let them get away with it). Yet the fact that someone might object to their determination to treat women as subhuman is to them an outrage. We see an increase in use of racial slurs, and now we see them attacking LGBT members as loud-mouthed "crusaders" who would be better off keeping their mouths shut. To them, the only ones entitled to speak are themselves and those who support them. Anyone who questions their privilege and suggests that equality does matter is to be attacked and deligitimated at all costs. They personalize the issues to make it about a few HOF members, a few uppity African Americans, and a few LGBT "crusaders" because they won't examine what they are really trying to establish: white, heterosexual male supremacy. They seek to establish in a little corner of the internet something that exists no where offline in the USA. They do so precisely because they so despise the progress of the past half century and they especially resent members of subaltern groups who insist that we too are full citizens entitled to all the same rights, opportunities, and respect that straight, white men enjoy. All of us they so resent on DU could disappear tonight and their lives would not improve in the slightest. They will still live in a society that seeks to expand rather than retract civil rights. They will still live in a world where they have to compete based on merit, education and experience, rather than mere accident of birth. Yet they make it all about a "small group" because they refuse to confront the issues of equality and inclusivity that they are so determined to fight against.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)I'm sure for those who want GD to be a boys' club of swimsuit models, Kate Upton's boobs, and anti-feminist jokes, we are ruining their GD experience.
I'm good with that.
JustAnotherGen
(34,239 posts)shedevil69taz
(512 posts)and pictures of them, but not all the time, and if I want to see them DU would be the last place I would even WANT to look.
BainsBane
(55,404 posts)and I'm quite attached to them. I haven't got a thing against breasts. People can look pictures of boobs all they want, but they don't need to post them in GD to do so.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)shedevil69taz
(512 posts)but hey I can't converse with a picture...but go figure when doing so with a live women I have no problem looking her in the eyes
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,606 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Feminist is not a pejorative term. I love calling myself a feminist, because I am a feminist.
BainsBane
(55,404 posts)Is when some guy claims he's a real feminists and that I or others aren't because we don't like rape porn or some such crap.
redqueen
(115,177 posts)it makes me wonder why they aren't laughed off the site.
CTyankee
(65,554 posts)based insult. I thought that was rich!
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)sheshe2
(89,213 posts)So very well said BainsBane. Every last word.
"They personalize the issues to make it about a few HOF members, a few uppity African Americans, and a few LGBT "crusaders" because they won't examine what they are really trying to establish: white, heterosexual male supremacy."
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Baines ... wow ... so good. so damn good. Rocking The House.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)subjects are allowed to live in the big house and who gets relegated to the guest house. There's an obvious tipping point in GD when the perception is that the guest house inhabitants are getting a little too frisky in the main house and it's not just feminists,it's minorities and LGBT too. I didn't even go into the Straight White Male thread yesterday because I knew it was going to be an embarrassing display of straight white male temper tantrums. Every single time GD gets too many feminist/minority/LGBT threads going,which make the main house uncomfortable,we start getting those stupid "why can't we focus on real issues" OPs.Here's what those pleas mean :You want to talk about issues that are important to feminists,go on over to Feministing,you wanna talk about white male privilege,go on over to The Grio,you want to talk about gay issues go on over to Out. The big house is for serious shit. There's a lot of sub forums on DU,which is good,the problem is when sub forums actually represent whole groups of people,like women,minorities and gays,the assumption is that their issues should stay in sub forums. In other words,go back to your guest cottages and leave the Main house alone.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)wrote ... or am I the only one to see it that way?
Maybe I have too vivid an imagination.
but, anyway ... that is what I saw when I was reading that.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)in a lot of political forums is straight white male,the rest of us are just living in their world.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Response to sufrommich (Reply #9)
Name removed Message auto-removed
BainsBane
(55,404 posts)He had to reanimate the thread. No idea what he said though. (and yes, I'm assuming it's a he.)
Rhiannon12866
(227,241 posts)BainsBane
(55,404 posts)Rhiannon12866
(227,241 posts)Must have done a search for real estate...
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)relatively leftish folks. After all, none of us are immune to ingrained cultural biases, no matter how relatively enlightened any of us might be in other respects. Add to that the self-centeredness that seems endemic to nearly all of humanity, and you've got the perfect recipe for even self-identified progressives to be complete jackasses from time to time.
But I guess the question is, what do you do when they just won't listen no matter how "nice" you are about it? Even worse when they keep throwing out ridiculous strawmen which bear little resemblance to reality, e.g. "ZOMG YOU'RE TRYING TO BAN BOOBIES!" or some related bullshit. Really, I can't believe that full-grown adults who supposedly possess a modicum of intelligence would carry on like this.
Squinch
(53,798 posts)to the loss of unearned privileges. I can deal with the strawmen because I know they are just statements of ignorance.
What I can't stomach is the gleeful cruelty that I have seen in the last few days, and the smug entitlement of those who are now insisting that the experiences of others are unimportant when held up against their discomfort or inconvenience.
What I also find tragic are those who are so pitiful, and so obvious in their need for attention, who keep cropping up and saying, "Look over here! I created this conflict, and I deserve credit for it! Don't forget about me! I have to have attention for this! Look at me!"
All I can do in the face of these responses is recognize that, grotesque as they are, they are just death throes of ignorant and obsolete attitudes.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)redqueen
(115,177 posts)It's clearly not about discussing political ideas for some. Once again I'm reminded of what JAG said.
CTyankee
(65,554 posts)and really drive them over the edge (I think it is true, being married to one). However, it wasn't worth the drama, even tho some of it might have been interesting...from a purely sociological view, you understand...I didn't because it would be considered "cruel and unusual punishment" and god knows what would happen...
Squinch
(53,798 posts)... but it's true!
But you probably made the right choice.
CTyankee
(65,554 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Anything that disturbs their conception of reality can be enough to drive them to murder, even mass murder.
JustAnotherGen
(34,239 posts)It is true!
CTyankee
(65,554 posts)diminish the punch in the gut I am sure some men would feel if I did. Now the feminist men in my family and friends would gently smile and my feminist women friends would get a nice laugh out of it. But here it is different. Until recently I thought it was just an open secret here on DU that nobody needed to talk about but knew was true, but now I have changed my mind. And I don't really want to punch some guy who is feeling really bad about stuff in his life...I want to help, not hurt.
JustAnotherGen
(34,239 posts)You would actually be doing him a favor ct. And my husband would not smile meekly - his head would grow ten times larger and he'd start beating his chest. :lmao:
CTyankee
(65,554 posts)JustAnotherGen
(34,239 posts)See I can post on this thread amongst you all that I'm short waisted so I avoid one piece swim suits.
^this would be totally lost on them". So what were they trying to "share" with that nonsense.
CTyankee
(65,554 posts)R B Garr
(17,515 posts)I guess there wasn't enough carnage of hidden posts in the original SI thread that they are now openly requesting that you insult them -- obviously so they can alert on your posts. The more you talk about them personally, the more chance they have of getting your posts hidden. It's so obvious.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)on the good side (politically at least)? It's enough to make me despair for humanity...
ismnotwasm
(42,531 posts)A few just like to stir it up and a few who probably shouldn't be allowed outside.
Fuck that "small group' bullshit. It's stupid, and by now kind of boring. I don't post much outside this group, but if I did so what?
Anyway. I still think they're just debris. Time is passing them by and the revolution starts now.
And since I have healthy ego-- there's always this sentiment
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Most are just acting like immature idiot boys - when it comes to sex or women's bodies they just get thrown all askew and their brains shut down, but yeh, a couple/few are fucking scary.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)It's getting ridiculous. I was just told that DU's feminists goad men in the same way that these MRA losers goad you.
I'm not sure I'd still be here if I were a woman. Very similar to the change in DU's views on race, what with the whole "sorry for being white" schtick.
Frat culture. The new DU. Controversy sells, even if it's manufactered.
Squinch
(53,798 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Spot on. So long as there's something to gawk at - like Kate Upton's mammary glands - the folks in the cheap seats will keep coming back for more. And narcissistic bullshit like the infamous "I used to be a rapist" thread will keep getting recs.
Squinch
(53,798 posts)seen in other threads.
It's pretty disgusting, really.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Like people who talk about "reasonable time limits" on abortion - as if they're presuming to tell women, all women really, when they may or may not terminate a pregnancy. And now we have someone trying to tell me that "late-term abortion" = "frivolous baby-killing" is not a right-wing strawman when it so manifestly is. Yet if I were to call the staunch RKBA advocates "baby killers" - and one could easily argue that they have far more blood on their hands than any pro-choicer - my post would likely be hidden.
Squinch
(53,798 posts)progressive topics here, every damn time!
And it's all the SAME right wing trolls, many of whom have been tolerated here for years!
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)their bullshit. One of the worst, ironically, took his user name from a certain Welsh socialist.
All I can figure is that Skinner tries too hard to be all things to all people. Which, at least in a context like DU, doesn't really work out to anyone's satisfaction.
Squinch
(53,798 posts)here lately as it is in my tea-bagger brother's house. That's not an exaggeration. And I have to have the SAME arguments.
Precious little "D" in DU lately.
BellaKos
(318 posts)You wrote:
"The fact is we are dealing with some very angry people who hate progress more than anything else. They despise the fact that they are expected to treat others as human, that they can't insult women as b and cs at will (even though they do and juries let them get away with it"
Generalize much? How can you presume to characterize people here with such a sweeping generalization, based on nothing more than your apparent mind reading capabilities?
We can't deem each and every offense as cruelty, when, more likely than not, it's a result of cultural indoctrination that
takes a lifetime to overcome. Yes, point out a comment as offensive, but say *why* explicitly in an effort to educate, instead of reflexively condemning people as being deliberately cruel, angry, and unwilling to treat others with respect.
After all, there are far larger issues happening today that do demand outrage and that we can safely assume are predicated by cruelty, anger, and disrespect for race, gender, or sexual orientation. But when it comes to DUers, education would likely work. But it would have to be education delivered honestly with the intention to explain and not prefaced by an insinuation that the DU member is *less than* one who is truly and purely progressive, open-minded, knowledgeable, and enlightened.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)I see your back with your patronizing crap. Do you honestly think that we haven't tried "education"? Seriously? Your condescension is duly noted.
BellaKos
(318 posts)Reflexive much?
BainsBane
(55,404 posts)after the one on the thread with Dylan Farrow's testimony, where someone accused Dylan of being the "abuser" and she endorsed the sentiment. That told me everything I needed to know about that member.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)All I got back that what I was doing was "being mean." Because that is our only purpose with trying to calmly explain the wider implications of the focus on t&a - our meaning is "to be mean."
I challenge you to read the following subthread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024532061#post103
and point out to me where I didn't try "to educate" but was instead "reflexively condemning people as being deliberately cruel, angry, and unwilling to treat others with respect."
Go on, I dare you.
BellaKos
(318 posts)I was addressing BainsBane specifically, who wrote sweeping generalizations about a segment of DU members.
That said, I didn't participate in those threads that seem to be the root of the controversy here, because somehow I knew that they would contain a mishmash of accusations.
But if you did try to educate -- explain why certain comments, phrases, nuanced remarks, pictures, activities, organizations, etc. -- are insensitive, thoughtless, and offensive, then I commend you. If what you got in return was determined, narrow-minded ignorance, then consider the source and move on. Willful ignorance cannot be penetrated with education regardless of the intention.
But all I am saying is that to dismiss people based on the assumption that he or she is being deliberately cruel, as some here seem to do frequently, is a rush to judgment -- especially within the *context* of a community of progressives. Culture, background, experience, and parents embed a point of view, a perspective, within the first three years of life. That childhood imprint sits within the subconscious for a lifetime and will leak out occasionally, regardless to what extent one has embraced a progressive philosophy, intellectually. It takes constant work, education, travel, and a cold, hard, honest self-review to *unlearn* the impressions of that imprint. And I've never seen anyone in my life -- even among the well-educated and well-known -- who have been able to overcome that imprint effectively. No one on earth is perfectly, politically correct.
I say give people a break.
boston bean
(36,650 posts)against feminists here on DU.
That you continue to only concern yourself with disputing this OP, is mighty telling.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)it's their own fault if they are upset about it is cruel. Doubling down on that is being deliberately cruel. Being told that we are sick if we describe our reality is being deliberately cruel. I'm not letting that slide under the guise of 'cultural indoctrination.' If the activists of yore had done that, you wouldn't have the right to vote, and African-Americans would still be slaves.
I expect better of people who call themselves Democrats, lefties, progressives, liberals. No one is perfect, but that doesn't mean that we should let cruel and demeaning behavior continue. You may be ok with that, but I am not.
It seems that you have no problems condemning a this group of "rushing to judgment", but give a pass to everyone else.
BellaKos
(318 posts)You wrote:
"...that doesn't mean that we should let cruel and demeaning behavior continue. You may be ok with that, but I am not."
I never implied that I was okay with the kind of behavior you describe.
Also:
"It seems that you have no problems condemning a this group of "rushing to judgment", but give a pass to everyone else."
In no way did I condemn anyone. Nor did I give a pass to everyone else. And I don't even know who you mean by "this group" or "everyone else." I wasn't part of the battles on the other threads.
Oh and ... you rushed to judge me. Just sayin'.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)I've expanded my ignore list by two. The elderly originator of that OP was on my first IL. I wish I'd left her there. Ah, well, better late than never...
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)After 12 years as a member on DU, I have always thought that I shouldn't put anyone on ignore, but I think that I am naive in that regards. I have wanted to be able to see what people say, all posters, but when such hostility is left to stand, what worth does DU have as a forum for discussion? I really should just let my star lapse, and then when the ads come back, that'll ensure that I will stay away (I hate ads, and that's mainly why I have a star.) If Skinner isn't interested in having a site that is for progressive Democrats anymore, then why should I contribute to his site hits?
chervilant
(8,267 posts)the sexists, the racists, the homophobes, and the verbal bullies. I've learned to purge it occasionally, since the racists and homophobes tend to get a pizza. (That the originators of this website have been so reluctant to address the sexism says more about them than they seem to realize...)
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)And they appear to be completely oblivious to it.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)that two threads were locked -- but the offensive post of the SI swimsuit cover is NOT locked. I guess we have to be happy with the locks on the other OPs...
ismnotwasm
(42,531 posts)After all there years, I'm finally using ignore. It's useless to argue in most cases.
"They"Remind me of this quote from "The Terminater"
chervilant
(8,267 posts)with the owner of our company (they're butt buddies), during which they made several racist remarks about Obama and concluded that "we just need to exterminate all the Democrats."
Keep your fingers crossed that I find another job soon...wish I could put those two on my ignore list.
seaglass
(8,181 posts)Squinch
(53,798 posts)If so, you are wrong.
Your post is exactly what is being discussed here: you admonish those who disagree with you not to notice the cruelty of others' positions, and tell them they must be tolerant of the "cultural indoctrination" of, let's face it, the angry white man.
And in the same breath, you dismiss that those who DO notice that cruelty as "reflexively condemning people." And, predictably, you throw in the old canard of, "These issues are simply not as important as the things that I think are important."
According to your post, "cultural indoctrination" allows one to treat others with disregard and cruelty, but those on the receiving end of that cruelty must respond with patience and a desire to "educate."
Here's the answer: No. Grow up. Educate yourself. Your ignorance is not my responsibility.
Take your double standard and shove it.
You wrote:
"... you admonish those who disagree with you not to notice the cruelty of others' positions, and tell them they must be tolerant of the "cultural indoctrination" of, let's face it, the angry white man."
Nope. Not at all. I never *admonished* anyone. Nor did I suggest that one be tolerant of insensitivity, but instead, realize that if one is insensitive, it may not be deliberate cruelty as BainsBane has suggested. Many, many times. Key word: *deliberate*.
Also:
"According to your post, "cultural indoctrination" allows one to treat others with disregard and cruelty, but those on the receiving end of that cruelty must respond with patience and a desire to "educate." "
I certainly didn't say that either.
And this:
"Here's the answer: No. Grow up. Educate yourself. Your ignorance is not my responsibility.
Take your double standard and shove it."
Did you intend to be cruel, intolerant, hurtful, or just mindlessly insensitive when you said that I was immature, uneducated, ignorant, and harbored a double standard? Just wondering.
Squinch
(53,798 posts)supporting my argument?
If you think I might have been being cruel and intolerant, shouldn't you just be chalking that up to my cultural indoctrination?
Well, actually, Squinch, I was thinking that your misreading of my remarks and your attacking me personally were evidence of my argument.
But in answer to your question, I thought that your mindless insensitivity was the result of some residual anger carried over from battles on other threads. I didn't take it personally, but it was hurtful nonetheless.
Squinch
(53,798 posts)entitled double standard you require.
So, there it is...
No, I did not consider your misreading of my remarks and then adding a personal attack as being appropriate. And I don't even know what you mean by "entitled double standard."
But your inappropriate responses serve no purpose whatsoever other than to add to the rancor around here. They don't inform, educate, enlighten, or expand the discussion. They were all about you, Squinch -- trying to get in some licks on somebody she or he considers unworthy.
Congratulations, you win.
And now I understand why elections are so close and why the Repubs may win the Senate this year. It's because Dems are constantly picking on each other -- *ass*uming the worst about each other -- looking down on others as *less than* perfectly tolerant, knowledgeable, progressive, and enlightened.
It's self-righteous Bull%hit of the first order. Judgmental. Self-righteous. Hypocritical BS!!!!!!
But take heart, you're not the only one around here who looks down on those of us who don't understand persecution, discrimination, intolerance, and prejudice as well as you do, Squinch. We just can't possibly know what it's like. Only you do. And only those of you who are puffed up by a sense of indignation and persecution can judge.
We, who have had the same or even worse thrown at us, cannot possibly be considered worthy or *good enough* to participate or, god forbid, object to the opinions of the herd. We're simply not outraged enough according to the tenants of our "betters" -- although we just may have struggled a lifetime to try to understand. That's all. Just tryin' to understand.
Squinch
(53,798 posts)objectifying nonsense with tolerance about "cultural indoctrination" and an effort to "educate" people. So that is why Republicans will win the Senate.
Yeah. That makes a lot of sense.
If we lose the Senate, it will because women on the whole, in spite of the mammoth shit that the Republicans have thrown at them, still don't feel motivated enough by the Democratic party to get out the vote. Wonder why.
When you begin your argument with the idea that I need to be tolerant of self-righteous bullshit because it comes from "cultural indoctrination" and therefore those who hold the "cultural indoctrination" get a pass, then clearly, no. You don't understand. I don't know if you can possibly know what it's like. What I do know is that you are working hard not to.
And if, after a lifetime of struggling to understand, you STILL don't get that it is obnoxious to post T&A photos in places where people have said they don't want them, then you need to struggle harder.
BainsBane
(55,404 posts)and will not vote for Democrats again, yet somehow raising trivial concerns about "equal rights' means a Republican victory is our fault. I thank God the Democratic Party doesn't share their values and insist that women and people of color need to keep their mouths shut.
ismnotwasm
(42,531 posts)I mean I'm very literate, but that made very little sense from a logical standpoint.
DURHAM D
(32,874 posts)Bellicose is from Latin bellum "war." A near synonym is belligerent, from the same Latin noun. You may wonder if they're connected to the Latin bellus "pretty, handsome," which gives us the names Bella or Isabella, as well as belle "a beautiful woman." They're not. War and beauty are not related, except in the case of Helen of Troy.
cinnabonbon
(860 posts)Take your double standard and shove it."
I don't see what was inappropriate about this response? Educating ourselves on issues we don't know enough about is kind of the point of coming to a political discussion board.
If we want oppressed people to educate us, we should be paying them to do so. I mean, think of it from their position, for a change. Do you want their whole life to be nothing but educating ignorant people 1) who rarely gets it and 2) are openly antagonizing them for voicing their experience?
It's no wonder people get impatient and snappy. Especially considering that most of what ignorant people are wondering about can be found through google.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Believe me, I've tried to express things in as conciliatory a way as I can, and people still whine and complain and take every damn thing personally.
"Generalize much? How can you presume to characterize people here with such a sweeping generalization, based on nothing more than your apparent mind reading capabilities?"
I'm not a huge fan of sweeping generalizations myself, but if you pay enough attention you can start to notice fairly obvious patterns of behavior. And when that behavior is clearly unbecoming of conscientious, progressive people, someone has to call it out lest it become the acceptable norm.
"We can't deem each and every offense as cruelty, when, more likely than not, it's a result of cultural indoctrination that
takes a lifetime to overcome."
I don't disagree with this at all. But just because people's attitudes or behaviors are the result of "indoctrination" doesn't make them okay. And if no one ever tells them that this or that isn't okay, how will they know?
"Yes, point out a comment as offensive, but say *why* explicitly in an effort to educate."
Fine by me. But people will still take something personally when you didn't mean it that way at all. After a while it frankly gets to be exhausting.
"But when it comes to DUers, education would likely work."
You're a bit more optimistic than I am, I must say...
"... not prefaced by an insinuation that the DU member is less than one who is truly and purely progressive..."
I know what you're saying, but honestly that's a bit rich when the very attitudes we're battling against are predicated on the notion that one race, gender, etc. is inherently superior to another. Even the complaining about "white privilege" - as a concept or simply as a phrase - smacks implicitly of white supremacy, as if white people's relative advantages in society were simply the natural order of things.
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)They don't view it as "progress".
To them, it is a zero sum game, and if life improves for women, LGBT, or people of color, then that means to them that they themselves are also losing something.
They are circling the wagons to protect what they view as their ever-shrinking territory. The more threatened they feel, the louder and nastier they holler.
Response to MadrasT (Reply #27)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)But the right-wing ideology - and yes, denying the existence of systemic racism, sexism, homophobia is right-wing at its core - they fall back on perhaps without even knowing it, won't save them either. Matter of fact, it's that very ideology which has nearly destroyed our country over the past few decades.
DonCoquixote
(13,754 posts)There are many who hate the GOP when the elephant jabs it's tusk into them, but were quite happy when it was stomping others. In any case, we refuse to let our country, our party, or this forum, become the province of a few that gain power due to their ability to whine, yell, or back stab.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)the "good" part only applied to working- and-middle-class white men. Now that many of those men have been largely dragged down to everyone else's level, they're understandably not happy about that...
DonCoquixote
(13,754 posts)especially since they realize that they were used as Puppets.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)ANARCHY to me ....
I have to keep reminding myself that people have the right to be as dumb as they want to be.
Maybe Darwin's Law will get them eventually.
BainsBane
(55,404 posts)hlthe2b
(107,611 posts)LWolf
(46,179 posts)if the sudden surge in gender wars has anything to do with 2016.
I remember being shocked, disillusioned, and finally disgusted with what happened in '08, when DU, supposed "liberals," created a race vs gender war during the primaries.
I guess it was easier for me not to dive into that morass because I frankly didn't want either candidate to be nominated. Gender and race aside, they were, and are, both too centrist to get my support. I cried on election night, because it was a big deal that a person of color was elected to the White House, regardless if he was someone I could get behind politically. Still, I never really regained the respect lost for Democrats who would pit gender against race for an election, because I'm one of those idealists who is all about issues, and the issues always lose when it comes to choosing candidates for national elections. Which is why I can't get excited about primaries; I'll always lose.
Suddenly, as the midterm elections draw near during a lame duck president's last 2 years, there have been more and more conversations about '16; a hard-core, take-no-prisoners group pushing HRC like she's the only choice, and others pushing back, if not quite as hard.
I'm wondering if that's what has sparked the recent gender-related fights on DU. Are we going to do this all over again?
hlthe2b
(107,611 posts)KitSileya
(4,035 posts)Well, not really, but you know what I mean. It's all these claims that things are never going to change. Objectification will always be there, because advertising companies uses it. Men will always objectify women because hormones/apes/sex.
Well, my question is this - why are most of the Democratic left trying to cobble together a health care option? Why are we trying to eradicate racism? Why are we trying to give LGBT people equal rights? Companies want to use health insurance as a way to keep their workers oppressed and shackled to their jobs. This country was founded on racism. Tons of straight people think gay sex is "icky" and against their sexual preference.
They are so hypocritical it reeks!
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)with the human libido. As I've said before, "lust" is a perfectly natural, animal response, whereas the capitalist commodification of it (e.g. Kate Upton's boobs all over the place) is not.
But the way some complain, you'd think someone was personally coming after them with a scalpel!
RBStevens
(227 posts)JFC, it's a need.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)Wow, that's awful.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)I found the whole post to be BS, trying to justify shit-stirring posts that were locked by admin and hidden by jury. I find the above quote disturbing and telling.
BainsBane
(55,404 posts)Now that the tide has turned.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)He only represents himself. I don't want to spit in anyone's face or piss off women. I saw his OPs for what they were, before they were locked or hidden. I typed out a reply to his hidden post telling him how fucked up it was, but it was hidden before I posted. It said that there is a word for what he's doing, and that word can be found in admin notes on former DUers' transparency pages.
I was going to alert on the linked post, but I figured one of you already had.
There are lines that shouldn't be crossed. I think you dance on both sides of it. He crosses it and flaunts the fact that he does.
BainsBane
(55,404 posts)As a way to justify mistreatment of women on DU?
seaglass
(8,181 posts)Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)They've forfeited any right to privacy with a post like that.
DLevine
(1,790 posts)Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)I have him and the rest of that gang on ignore, so I missed it.
DLevine
(1,790 posts)I almost never alert, and this is why. It's a waste of time.
redqueen
(115,177 posts)I also doubt anyone who is active in feminist groups thinks it is at all unique to that one individual, or that it is not common among men who show a hostility towards non-brogressive-approved forms of feminism.
RBStevens
(227 posts)it only surprised me that he said it straight up like that. I mean, talk about a complete lack of subtlety! Lol
And then that the jury let it stand? That blatant crap on women? WOW
Nope, no misogyny here folks - move along.
redqueen
(115,177 posts)Last edited Sun Feb 23, 2014, 07:47 PM - Edit history (1)
Why should it say anything at all about sexism or misogyny? Really, now. We ladies just need to kindly and gently educate everyone with our sweetest internet voices and that will fix everything!
DonCoquixote
(13,754 posts)is very much a useless set of words. You can define hierarchy by who can blatantly get away with breaking it and who they punish for even appearing to touch it.
R B Garr
(17,515 posts)I can't help but look at many of the posts attacking feminists here as coming from a right-wing mentality. That's where I tend to think their agenda is coming from, and it's hard for me to take their so-called arguments seriously because of that.
I totally agree with your sentiments here, and I do think that they try to personalize things as a way to marginalize people and provoke them.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)it ain't -this- group ... ;
BainsBane
(55,404 posts)Though I couldn't say for sure because I have it in the trash can.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)bashing me seven ways from Sunday and, then allowed me back in using the excuse that they do a year end purging of their ban list.
I can only imagine what my thread looks like now.
DonCoquixote
(13,754 posts)When frankly all sides were on their worst behavior, where people trotted out so many "My minority deserves to win and yours sucks" posts it showed how truly low things had gotten. The actual merits of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were ignored, outright discarded.
Now, the old cliche of "angry white male" is weaker, but mostly because women and minorities got to the polls and did the work that these men used to claim all the credit for. Let's face it, the stronger candidates on the Democratic side are Women, and to be even more frank, the GOP has a list of Female candidates ready to leap right into the cockpit when their favored candidates crash dive. Simply put, these folks used to be the gatekeeper of everything, and they now know that when they talk to us, it is not the old "OK, I will be polite to you, but you know you will give me exactly what i want, exactly how I want it, and if you are nice, I may do something nice, not that I am in any fucking way obligated to!"
So they will get on the internet and try to be the cowboys and action heroes they thought they were destined to be. It's like a reverse of the movie FIGHT CLUB. I say the reverse in that instead of actually attacking the corporations and politicians that really DID emasculate them, they pick on those that they falsely perceive as weak.
That's ok little boys, we will save this country, despite you. And we know better than to ask you to thank us, because we know you do not have the integrity or the honesty to admit you were fools.
BainsBane
(55,404 posts)Exactly.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I'm a straight white guy from the South; I can't begin to describe the seduction of pretending where I am is because of what I did. That's the problem, isn't it? The system hides it. It has to. I was lucky that I had parents who taught me about Seneca Falls in addition to my school's teaching me about the Declaration of Independence.
I'm not penning some apologia here; as Lionness pointed out in GD, this takes work -- a lot of work. But as someone who was groomed up as the "supreme" side of things, I can't stress enough how absolutely transparent the supremacist process is made.
From my view in the cheap seats, the synthesis is this:
* sexism is a moral flaw
* I am a moral person
* accusations of sexism against me cannot be sincere, because I am manifestly moral
From its own standpoint, that's a fair synthesis, which is exactly what is so dangerous here, because it completely undermines the entire concept of overcoming oppression. To use race as a proxy for sex, it's not the case that my many relatives in Mississippi (whom, by the way, I love) were immoral people in the 1950's and became gradually more moral as time went on: they were perfectly normal people in a very, very sick system in the 1950s which became gradually less pathological over time (and still has a lot of work to do).
This (again, from the cheap seats) is the unfortunate result of making sexism "about" the sexist. It was what could be done, back in the day, but it ignored the fact that making oppression "about" the oppressor still does oppression's work. If the task of antiracism is to "redeem" racist people, then it's no longer something I care about that much; ditto antisexism and sexist people. We don't need more redemption stories about the privileged guy who finds his way to being a good person thanks to the spunky intern. We need stories that really aren't about us (the privileged guys) at all. If I get redeemed along the way, fine, but as long as that's the point, it feeds more of this unfortunateness.
Anyways, I'm not a frequent HOF contributer though I own the name "feminist" and appreciate feminist history, but I wanted to propose something of a thesis, if possible:
To the extent that sexism is presented as an attribute of the individual rather than of a social or cultural system in which that individual lives, that presentation will fail because of the (false but persuasive) synthesis I outlined above. I know you all probably know that, but I haven't actually seen that stated in what I've read and I think it's worth considering.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)ismnotwasm
(42,531 posts)Texasgal
(17,187 posts)RUN! RUN for your lives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Texasgal
(17,187 posts)comical daily!
Baines got it right, most of the SI threads were started by non-hof blaming hof that we are ruining everything!!!
Just wait until the privilege thread finger pointing starts! UGH!