Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Feminists
In reply to the discussion: group host / statement of purpose [View all]iverglas
(38,549 posts)33. any chance of you answering direct questions?
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.
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.
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
189 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I object to limiting discussion to just today. There are many DUers who don't visit forums daily,
Gormy Cuss
Jan 2012
#7
Then may we please start over with just a discussion of the SoP and try to get consensus on that?
Gormy Cuss
Jan 2012
#10
I've been around this group for a very long time and I've seen many serious disputes
Gormy Cuss
Jan 2012
#22
It either needs to explicitly limit the statement to discussing those things outside of a feminist
Gormy Cuss
Jan 2012
#27
are you lgbtq? if so you get to decide who is and who is not a homophobe
La Lioness Priyanka
Jan 2012
#37
actually i do think its gender not sex. transwomen for instance, imo belong to the feminist movement
La Lioness Priyanka
Jan 2012
#41
you came into this thread of over 300 posts and made ONE. one post. on mine. it was a jab and you
seabeyond
Jan 2012
#46
i was having a blast at the dinner table tonight talking about all the many groups
seabeyond
Jan 2012
#110
As a lesbian and someone who considers herself a feminist, I have a comment on all this back & forth
justiceischeap
Jan 2012
#52
You can't put the definition of feminism in a box ... but it seems like some can with people
seabeyond
Jan 2012
#54
I think it is a matter of acknowledging whatever privilege one might bear in a conversation or
Starry Messenger
Jan 2012
#62
find one post, ONE post i have not worked at, struggled with to hear the other side. ONE.
seabeyond
Jan 2012
#69
but we are not demanding the same. it CAN NOT be just one sided. we cannot say we are putting in
seabeyond
Jan 2012
#72
that is the point. the whole point i have been arguing from post ONE. sides. we have the GD sides
seabeyond
Jan 2012
#82
and i KNOW why you felt people were picking sides. and i know you are trying your best to be
seabeyond
Jan 2012
#105
of course that is a factor. nor have i ever denied any of that nor been unwilling to discuss.
seabeyond
Jan 2012
#68
I am also speaking globally as a reply in the subthread to justiceischeap's post.
Starry Messenger
Jan 2012
#75
so... because i am a middle aged women i should readily accept i am a prude, anti sex, asexual,
seabeyond
Jan 2012
#76
so, not only do i have to listen to all these demeaning comments over and over and over from the men
seabeyond
Jan 2012
#78
i ahve asked a couple times how it needs to be worded. i dont care. i havent heard anyone put a
seabeyond
Jan 2012
#91
thank you for talking to me like a person, instead of a caricature. i think that is what i was
seabeyond
Jan 2012
#86
gormy? can you find any posts where this other side (since i have been put on a side i dont want)
seabeyond
Jan 2012
#70
seabeyond, I've argued repeatedly over the first bullet point because I believe it was and is
Gormy Cuss
Jan 2012
#77
i ahev to agree with iverglas. you guys are saying that lioness has issues. i dont get what they
seabeyond
Jan 2012
#90
how do you want it worded so you are comfortable with you. i want your whole body in, not just a
seabeyond
Jan 2012
#96
"I am simply one of many who has had too much of being attacked, and not engaged."
justiceischeap
Jan 2012
#99
do we need to start fresh with a new thread and put this one behind. someone type the SOP,
seabeyond
Jan 2012
#87
Where is this "let's all get along spirit"? How ironic you've forgotten what thread this is.
CreekDog
Feb 2012
#117
Are you serious? I use the phrase 'to call a spade a spade' all the time...
Violet_Crumble
Feb 2012
#118
there is NO racial connotation in the term. YOU are creating one. but that is not the facts. nt
seabeyond
Feb 2012
#134
tar baby is and has always been, hands down, a racist term derived as a derogatory
seabeyond
Feb 2012
#157
yes. it is. that is why i didnt use it. and then i did research on spade for spade because of
seabeyond
Feb 2012
#144
yet FACT would argue what some people think. but, i recognize we have had this discussion on our
seabeyond
Feb 2012
#152
and now in other news ... well they ain't gonna have iverglas to kick around for a while!
iverglas
Feb 2012
#178
Depending on where you live, yes, "to call a spade a spade" would have racial overtones
justiceischeap
Feb 2012
#127
we understand. if you will google the saying, you would know that spade for spade was established
seabeyond
Feb 2012
#132
Well, it's a common turn of phrase here in Australia and has been for ages...
Violet_Crumble
Feb 2012
#171
calling her a bigot for saying spade a spade. the hostility of your post. false claims
seabeyond
Feb 2012
#125
another point. not about objectionable pageant because every person that had issue stated FIRST
seabeyond
Feb 2012
#151
Well I am one person (but I guess you're saying my opinion doesn't count as your ONE DUer)
CreekDog
Feb 2012
#161
No, but turning up just to have a go at a member of this group sure is...
Violet_Crumble
Feb 2012
#172
ummm..... you really did not read iverglas's posts before going into your rant and criticism?
seabeyond
Feb 2012
#130
you didnt address the accusation of bigotry with pearl clutching. you didnt address the people in
seabeyond
Feb 2012
#163
do you have any intention of participating for the group according to the group's stated purpose
seabeyond
Feb 2012
#149
of course I am following the rules and as host, if this discussion is against them
CreekDog
Feb 2012
#159
Point me to the rule that says it's okay to appear out of the blue and abuse a member of this group.
Violet_Crumble
Feb 2012
#173