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)88. what you're hearing ...
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.
... is nobody asking them to do anything of the sort.
What I'm hearing is them saying they place their interests re those identities above the interests of women -- and I have been trying to figure out what the hell that means and having no success whatsoever.
I have absolutely no clue where they see divergences or conflicts, and what would then prompt them to privilege one over the other.
There is no conflict whatsoever, not a stitch of an iota of conflict, between working to advance the formal equality interests of the GLBT community and any element of a feminist agenda, or analysis, or ideology, or philosophy. And that's the only thing I've got so far.
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.
WHAT orthodoxy? What are we talking about????
I have no clue. I simply have no clue.
All I have is the very, very strong feeling that we are talking about the same old tired thing without naming it: that "we" are not sex-positive, and they are, and so our objections to prostitution and pornography and objectification in all its forms are bad and we are to be dismissed. And denigrated in public whenever possible.
The people posting here have attacked several of us in public repeatedly, not least this week. What on earth do they expect us to be doing? Not asking why??
I have never, ever seen an effort from that "side" to engage on those issues - to listen, to acknowledge legitimacy. I have seen organized attacks and that is all. Maybe I missed something.
I was perfectly happy with the forum muddling along with random topics of conversation. None of the LBGT group seemed the slightest bit interested in joining in then, and I don't recall anything being said or to them up until now. What brought this on now? I think it's clear. They didn't succeed in attacking other feminists in public and then going off to their private place and continuing the attack and not getting called on any of it. Suddenly they want to join in all the reindeer games.
Has Priyanka answered seabeyond's question about the reason for the unprovoked attack on her in the beauty pageant thread? Having had numerous opportunities to do that? I'll have to go have a look again.
Shall I stay or shall I go? I've never "gone" at DU, just wandered off for a few weeks or months when I got bored or annoyed enough. Then wandered back in for the same reasons. The pattern will likely continue.
... is nobody asking them to do anything of the sort.
What I'm hearing is them saying they place their interests re those identities above the interests of women -- and I have been trying to figure out what the hell that means and having no success whatsoever.
I have absolutely no clue where they see divergences or conflicts, and what would then prompt them to privilege one over the other.
There is no conflict whatsoever, not a stitch of an iota of conflict, between working to advance the formal equality interests of the GLBT community and any element of a feminist agenda, or analysis, or ideology, or philosophy. And that's the only thing I've got so far.
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.
WHAT orthodoxy? What are we talking about????
I have no clue. I simply have no clue.
All I have is the very, very strong feeling that we are talking about the same old tired thing without naming it: that "we" are not sex-positive, and they are, and so our objections to prostitution and pornography and objectification in all its forms are bad and we are to be dismissed. And denigrated in public whenever possible.
The people posting here have attacked several of us in public repeatedly, not least this week. What on earth do they expect us to be doing? Not asking why??
I have never, ever seen an effort from that "side" to engage on those issues - to listen, to acknowledge legitimacy. I have seen organized attacks and that is all. Maybe I missed something.
I was perfectly happy with the forum muddling along with random topics of conversation. None of the LBGT group seemed the slightest bit interested in joining in then, and I don't recall anything being said or to them up until now. What brought this on now? I think it's clear. They didn't succeed in attacking other feminists in public and then going off to their private place and continuing the attack and not getting called on any of it. Suddenly they want to join in all the reindeer games.
Has Priyanka answered seabeyond's question about the reason for the unprovoked attack on her in the beauty pageant thread? Having had numerous opportunities to do that? I'll have to go have a look again.
Shall I stay or shall I go? I've never "gone" at DU, just wandered off for a few weeks or months when I got bored or annoyed enough. Then wandered back in for the same reasons. The pattern will likely continue.
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