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]justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)80. It seems you're angry with me
That's the point I'm getting from the first part of your reply. Fine, be angry. The whole rant before saying "I'm not really at all concerned about what you, as the person who wrote those posts and that message, have to say." totally proves this sentence false. I've explained myself about that situation, I'm not going to go over it again because it isn't germaine to the SOP or host discussion in this thread.
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?
So what? You're going to dismiss something the feminist community did to the lesbian community out of hand. Not taking into consideration that it may well effect people that may participate in this site or this group? Also, not everything is about you iverglas.
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.
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.
None of what I stated in my comment ever said that my personal experiences had anything to do with DU. I live my life outside of DU. Just because you think it's dumb that feminists have told me, to my face, that because of my lesbianism I can't be a feminist doesn't make it any less true or any less sexist but it's happened. I can't provide a link to a personal conversation but I can convey MY experience with these kinds of feminists.
But women haven't been protected from being called bitches ... and you don't object?
As part of explaining how being a lesbian feminist forms my point of view, you ignore that and go on to ask whether or not I object to women being called bitches. Which, I do, but that wasn't the point. Just because I may not be referred to as a dyke on DU, doesn't mean it doesn't happen outside DU and, again, form my point of view.
I've said before: feminists are not the oppressors. Why the hostility to us?
The only hostility I'm seeing is coming from you, frankly. No one said feminists were the oppressors and you kinda make it sound as though I've implied or stated that. Lioness made a statement that she'd put the queer community first and you seem to take offense to that and question whether she could be a host of the feminist group because she puts the queer community first. IMO, that says nothing about how she would handle hosting duties in this group if chosen.
It does not compute. Or at least it does not address the issues at hand here.
It goes toward explaining why a lesbian feminist would have allegiance to the queer community first. You can't compute because you don't experience an additional level of discrimination unless you're a lesbian. Which would explain why I may have a different point of view on feminism than you might. That was the whole point of making sure the SOP is inclusive.
But again, what are these differences?
I think I stated the differences in my post. Lesbians experience an additional level of discrimination (in the US anyway, I can't speak to Canada) based on our sexual orientation and a look or having people no longer talk to you can't really be explained other than saying we experience an additional level of discrimination that forms our worldview.
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.
Neither you nor Priyanka meets that criterion, in my personal books.
I never once stated that I wanted to be a host or even suggested hosting, nor would I. As far as your being a host, I put your post in reply to my comment as proof that you aren't fit to be a host. Instead of 'defending' Lioness or my opinion that there can be different viewpoints on feminism you've actually argued that we aren't fit to host the community because we didn't stand up in your defense in another thread. You've denied my experiences or called them dumb.
Instead of trying to see what I'm saying, you've taken my comment personally when it wasn't directed to you but the community as a whole.
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