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
 

iverglas

(38,549 posts)
40. "a lot of other posters"
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:37 PM
Jan 2012

And of course we all know who they are, or will just take it on faith.

Look, let me be clear. There are people who I want to be so uncomfortable it itches if they even click on this forum. I've just been spending a pleasant time reading some very old threads in the Feminists forum. Some real pieces of work there. And some of them were in fact men, by their profiles.

You've posted in about 6 times as many threads in Guns as in Feminists -- Guns must have been more pleasant. rofl. In Feminists, 3 from 26 Aug to 21 Sep 2005, all on pregnancy-related issues. The threads seem quite tame. The whole sex-positive assault team garbage happened in 2007. Maybe you missed it. In which case you don't know what we're talking about. Something suddenly happened in in September 2005 to put you off Feminists?

This really may not be clear to some.

What didn't happen was that a bunch of feminists got together in the Feminists group and started bashing minority feminists. What happend was that all over DU, "sex-positive feminists", and really we're talking about a very small group, bashed and thrashed (and I don't think they ever did it except in company) women and feminists who raised concerns and issues relating to the victimization and objectification of women in pornography and prostitution. They loves them some porn, and they know lots of happy hookers, and they're self-actualized women, and the rest of us can fuck off and die, and that was the message repeated so long and so loud that it realy was unmistakable to those within earshot. No conversation could be had that examined the issues and identified the problems and considered solutions without their utterly self-absorbed, rude, nasty, pointless disruption.

Now, I was not an earliest joiner at Feminists. I see indications that there were divisions along the lines being alleged here. I can't access Archives at old DU so I can't pinpoint it, if it's there. I see allegations, like I'm seeing here, about the straighties not recognizing the legitimacy of the others' concerns, and so on. But I can't tell whether those allegations are true and fair because I do not know what they were, other than these same non-specific expressions of grievance that we are seeing here.

I and the others trying to figure it out are stuck. We are presumably being asked to apologise for or atone for or swear off behaviours that we are in complete darkness about.

On the other hand, the behaviours we find problematic, that have gone on this very week, and that goddamn it are problematic on their face, to put it very mildly, have not been apologised for, have not even been explained.

If someone was even falsly accused of being a man trolling the group for the lulz, well cheez, it doesn't sound like their behaviour was, er, very ladylike.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I propose changing the controversial line to the following: justiceischeap Jan 2012 #1
I like your proposal. Lisa D Jan 2012 #2
Yes, I agree. I sometimes forget that men/trans can be feminists. :) nt justiceischeap Jan 2012 #3
thanks justice. and does it feel good to move down, or does that not bother you. seabeyond Jan 2012 #5
I don't care about the placement. justiceischeap Jan 2012 #6
Yes ismnotwasm Jan 2012 #54
yes... with feminist. thank you. lets see what others see. nt seabeyond Jan 2012 #4
I like this too. Starry Messenger Jan 2012 #7
I also think it should read "feminist perspective," not "woman's perspective." nt BlueIris Jan 2012 #8
I hope that members who didn't comment on the previous thread will comment here. Gormy Cuss Jan 2012 #9
I think the third bullet should be removed obamanut2012 Jan 2012 #10
seeing how i am continually, consistently and often attacked in this manner, seabeyond Jan 2012 #12
You don't need the bullet for that obamanut2012 Jan 2012 #17
over 7 yrs on du and this move to du3 and more open attack, i would prefer a bullet. seabeyond Jan 2012 #22
You don't understand, it's not like that in a Group obamanut2012 Jan 2012 #26
i dont want anyone banned. and the temptation will be too great, i assure you. people cannot help seabeyond Jan 2012 #27
it was intended to be exclusionary iverglas Jan 2012 #16
Thank you for admitting it was intended to be exclusionary obamanut2012 Jan 2012 #20
I didn't admit a goddamned thing iverglas Jan 2012 #28
Then the group needs to be renamed. LeftyMom Jan 2012 #30
is it really that hard not to call other women names when discussing an issue? nt seabeyond Jan 2012 #31
Not at all, which is why I didn't. LeftyMom Jan 2012 #32
grinnin. you never disappoint. if it is not hard to not call names, then none of us seabeyond Jan 2012 #33
Feel free to put me on ignore. LeftyMom Jan 2012 #34
i dont put people on ignore. and i dont have a problem with your posts. yes, you talked to someone seabeyond Jan 2012 #35
look at all the nice shiny new names! iverglas Jan 2012 #36
You're kind of making my point. LeftyMom Jan 2012 #39
"a lot of other posters" iverglas Jan 2012 #40
My other posts in Feminists must have fallen pray to the old Deleted Subthread. LeftyMom Jan 2012 #42
be nice iverglas Jan 2012 #43
This message was self-deleted by its author Bunny Jan 2012 #19
Your opinion is as valid as mine obamanut2012 Jan 2012 #21
all of the bullets can be considered exclusionary. that is the purpose of them seabeyond Jan 2012 #23
Yes, very true. Gormy Cuss Jan 2012 #44
This message was self-deleted by its author Bunny Jan 2012 #29
thank you iverglas Jan 2012 #38
This message was self-deleted by its author Bunny Jan 2012 #41
I really hate those mischaracterizations of feminists. Gormy Cuss Jan 2012 #45
I vote for this. (nt) redqueen Jan 2012 #46
what are you suggesting. i am all for the discussion. i am not into having someone tell me i am a seabeyond Jan 2012 #47
I think she's saying no name calling, just exchanging ideas with no minimizing or insults redqueen Jan 2012 #48
i... i did yesterday. and it feels good not being a part seabeyond Jan 2012 #49
Yes, redqueen. That's exactly what I'm saying. Gormy Cuss Jan 2012 #51
that is fine. adding a bit. the bit where it says... if discussing porn no name calling like seabeyond Jan 2012 #52
This message was self-deleted by its author Bunny Jan 2012 #53
no, I did not say that iverglas Jan 2012 #37
bunny and i are not on the same side. we often disagree, lol. hey bunny, good to see you in here. seabeyond Jan 2012 #24
I move to keep this one: Starry Messenger Jan 2012 #11
This message was self-deleted by its author seabeyond Jan 2012 #13
just for completeness, iverglas Jan 2012 #14
check out post 1 and 2 and see what you think. and thanks for this. nt seabeyond Jan 2012 #15
frankly, at this point, iverglas Jan 2012 #18
ok. nt seabeyond Jan 2012 #25
i like this post for the SoP Scout Jan 2012 #50
Why don't the hosts get picked first, and then work on the SOP later? Violet_Crumble Jan 2012 #55
lol lol. that was kinda funny. nt seabeyond Jan 2012 #56
do you think VC might be a civil servant? ;) iverglas Jan 2012 #57
I propose this concise SoP: Gormy Cuss Jan 2012 #58
I approve. redqueen Jan 2012 #59
raisin hand... is anyone gonna get to call me (ready?), prude, pearl clutcher, frigid, anti sex, seabeyond Jan 2012 #60
No, I expect all the co-hosts will agree that such namecalling is unacceptable. redqueen Jan 2012 #61
Not more than once Gormy Cuss Jan 2012 #62
thanks. not that i am not weary, lol seabeyond Jan 2012 #64
This message was self-deleted by its author Bunny Jan 2012 #63
Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»Feminists»fresh thread. i purpose ...»Reply #40