General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMisogyny should not be tolerated on DU
And neither, for that matter, should complaining about "misandry" which is just a reactionary way of complaining about feminism in 99.999% of cases, give or take.
The things that are totally antithetical to Democratic and progressive principles should not be tolerated. Misogyny is among those things.
Lest we forget... http://www.democrats.org/people/women There's a whole section in the Democratic Party devoted to women. There's not an equivalent one for men-as it should be. Know why? Because men aren't a socially disenfranchised class, not historically and not currently in the US. Fact.
Feel free to rec this post if you agree, feel free to trash it if you disagree. But I am tired of seeing the most odious, right-wing talking points re: women and feminism on a supposedly progressive site, routinely, day after day. And I know I am far from alone in that regard.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
bravenak
(34,648 posts)But i am not really amused. Just irritated.
Or when i see someone bring up that lady that shot Andy Warhol before i was even born. I guess that one lady evened up the score for all eternity.
Rest easy ladies, a lady shot Andy Warhol so misogyny was over 40 year ago. You are imagining things. Thats how i feel about that.
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)Even if it involves jokes about male genital mutilation which would never be tolerated if the gender roles were reversed.
http://www.google.com/search?q=bobbitt+jokes+site:democraticunderground.com
And who can forget about the suggestion that all males be castrated at puberty? That one was a real knee slapper.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)As for the rest..... I have seen a man here tell a woman that he hopes she gets raped orally and expires from lack of oxygen. He was not joking. I did not see you speak out against that. Did you? I may not have noticed your post. But i have seen you bring up a lady who shot a guy years before i was born and act like that makes things even.
Let me know when women start going on man killing rampages, rape murdering men by the thousands, and recieving support from feminists. Until then, i think you have a weak case for misandry being the real problem.
You should start a foundation. Men against women laughing at men. You'll make money.
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)Because that's when the last one was posted. If you want more examples your generation would have an easier time understanding, just set your DU google to "limp dick". There is no "makes things even" when it comes to sexism. Most people of my generation learned by grammar school two wrongs don't make a right. I hope it's the same for yours.
Perhaps your omnipotent crystal ball is just clearer than mine, but I just don't see every single post on DU out of thousands that are posted daily. I have spoken up about sexism on DU regardless of whether your crystal ball revealed it to you or not and if the post happened exactly as you describe, I most certainly would have in that instance also.
I never claimed the post in question made anything even. I'm sure you must think strawman gibberish is a brilliant rhetorical device, but I can assure you it only works on those too ignorant not to see right through it. Otherwise it tends to have the reverse effect once it's called out for exactly what it is. You might want to think about bringing your A game as this is entirely too easy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Work on that.
I do not need your lecture. Ever.
You have no real point except to whine about how nobody is worried about misandry. Guess what?
I don't see misandry all day every day. But i do see racism and misogyny everyday. So i'll worry about that while you save men from being laughed at. Because thats the real problem you have to focus on.
I think it is funny how every time misogyny comes up, some dude has to butt in to complain about misandry. It's almost like you don't want misogyny discussed at all and are trying to derail the conversation and make us talk about what you want to talk about because you think your subject is way more important. Or that men are more important than women.
Never bother to try to lecture me again. I do not go for that type of stuff. Save it for your friends and family. If i want a man i don't know to give me a lecture, i'll watch cosmos.
Never think you are the smartest person in the room. You will always be wrong.
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)But if you are going to cite examples of misogyny on DU that I'm evidently not doing enough about, then at least try not to get wrapped around the axle when someone points out that far worse gets a free pass when it goes the other direction. I have one standard for defining sexism. If you have two, then please don't pretend you are the least bit concerned about equality because you've just proved you aren't.
Dissent is part and parcel to substantive discussion. If you can't stand to have your ideas challenged, then either don't throw them out there for public consumption, use the DU tools at your disposal to filter them, or go to the echo chamber. "derail the conversation" is nothing more than codespeak for shut the fuck up and let me educate you which looks a lot more like finger wagging than anything you described.
Just sayin'
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Do you understand the words that you are reading?
I said, ' If i need a man i don't know to lecture me, i'll watch Cosmos.'
I really did mean it. No means no, as in, no i will not continue this stupid conversation about nothing with you. You are trying to make this about you and your feelings and thoughts and you want me to care about that and ignore my own feelings and thoughts. I told you that i am not interested in your subject change. I want to discuss misogyny.
If you want to discuss misandry, go find a friend to discuss that with becsuse i am simply not interested at this time. You shouldn't be so overbearing an forceful when trying to change the subject. I can see right through that kinda stuff because i have a fully operational bs meter.
Misandry is not the subject not matter how much you want it to be. Your tactics are obvious.
I hope you are done now.
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)Reply or don't reply to whatever you want. I'll do the same. Nobody is forcing you to do anything.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Blah.
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I figured that was a part of the problem. Catch up with me in a few years and we'll have the talk if you need it. When you are a bit older.
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)I never saw that one coming. You got me there.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Two wrongs, blah, misandry!! Men hurt! Women happy! Poor us mens!! Women vote more!! Misandry!!
BUT WHAT ABOUT MEEEE!!! WHAT ABOUT MENS!!! BOSSY WOMEN TALKING ABOUT MISOGYNY!! MUST. STOP.THE.WOMEN.
?w=549
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)
randys1
(16,286 posts)
Oh lord, what will the term be for when white/str8t/protestant males have to compete on an even playing field with Women and Gay people and Brown people and they cant, what will they call that?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)
abakan
(1,819 posts)
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Beautiful.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)This guy, eh?
randys1
(16,286 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Can't fit them into one shot. 
They're 4 and 8 now.
ismnotwasm
(42,041 posts)
opiate69
(10,129 posts)
mackerel
(4,412 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)I figured it would go down like this.http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5010496
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts) bravenak
(34,648 posts)
Ms. Toad
(34,187 posts)substantiating your claimthat "far worse gets a free pass."?
There is a lot of trash on DU that no one ever bothers to alert on because people have gotten tired of alerting and being told to put their big boy/girl pants on - or the various other condescending narratives which go along with leaving trash standing. So the fact that it is standing means nothing.
I do agree with you that it shouldn't be tolerated in either direction on DU. What I disagree with is your conclusion that the fact that you can still find examples that aren't hidden means that it is given a free pass. It is only given a free pass if "far worse" against men is regularly alerted on and allowed to remain unhidden - when similar comments made against women are hidden.
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)But no, I don't agree that just because it isn't alerted on, then it means it wasn't given a free pass. The fact that far worse exists for whatever reason should be telling you something. For one thing it tells you that nobody cared about it enough to alert, and/or even if they did those alerts weren't successful. And there is no parity between sexism directed at women and sexism that gets directed at men. There just isn't. So one of those two reactions may be correct, but certainly not both.
If we can reduce Rush Limbaugh to his genitals, including making disparaging remarks on their operation, then we should be able to call Ann Coulter a word that rhymes with 4th and long.
Or
If we can't call Ann Coulter a word that rhymes with 4th and long, then we shouldn't be able to reduce Rush Limbaugh to his genitals.
I'm not the alert police and I'm not going to go around alerting on all this stuff. I'm just pointing out that for whatever reason, two different sets of community standards exist and this just isn't confined to DU although a progressive site like DU makes for an excellent example because if we can't get it right then there's little hope for anywhere else.
For those that want to go around cleaning up one side of this, I could really care less whether they do or not. When I'm on a jury I vote to hide it regardless of which direction it goes so that I'm not part of the problem. I don't participate or encourage either side of it here or anywhere else. I just don't see the point in only cleaning up one side of it because inevitably someone is going to point out that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and they will be right. As far as those who want to make half-fast "poor menz" arguments, I just wonder what they think they are accomplishing. Equality can and only will exist when there is parity and that should always be the goal. One set of standards applied equally in all things. If we can't manage that, then there will never be gender equality because we will always be trading privilege for privilege and using one to justify the other. Many feminists get this and I respect them for it. Some don't.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)or your post will be censored and hidden for being insensitive, or you will be called names and shouted down. The class war is heating up. Divide and conquer isn't the preferred tactic of ruling classes for nothing. Rather than head for the castle, the peasants have aimed their torches and pitch forks at one another. What is most amazing is how easily working and middle class people can be turned against themselves and are too blinded by the managed perceptions of their masters to see it. I guess there are more authoritarian followers on the left than I thought. It makes me wonder if we really are too stupid to govern ourselves.
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)Perhaps you spend your time reading every post on DU. I don't.
I think I did say had I seen it, I would have said something. Perhaps you missed that.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)except to post about the victimization of males.
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)Always good to hear from someone who amuses themselves with the tap....tap....tap sound of their keyboard posting incoherent ramblings.
Please do keep them coming.
Che1969
(9 posts)
liberalhistorian
(20,822 posts)meet kettle!
pintobean
(18,101 posts)How many Duers did? 10? 2O? 30? More?
How many DUers didn't? 10,000? 20,000?
It's a ridiculous accusation. I would assume any DUer would find that horrific. The asshole who made those attack posts was PPRed pretty quickly. That speaks for the community.
BrainMann1
(460 posts)
BrainMann1
(460 posts) joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Why does one have to choose which forms are "worthy" of advocating against and which are ignored?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)It's the subject.
This is like when i talk about racism against black people and someone mentions Reginald Denny.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)I'm gonna just stick to misogyny on this thread.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)I had a female senior director making 250k a year. It was extremely frustrating because, as a manager two levels below her, I could run circles around her. However, I could accept it as she was promoted in a different time for our department and was probably a top performer then (we had serious issues - restatement, fines, etc., that led to huge turnover and investment in new talent).
What bugged me though was the she clearly favored a female manager that was a bottom performer. This manager got bonuses that were denied to the rest of the department. Thus, she was effectively stealing money from top performers and funneling it to this manager.
I am capable of saying that was wrong and an example of a female abusing her position of authority through sexism.
However, this in NO way claims that this is the norm. This in NO way says the bigger issue is not the sexism most/all women face on a daily basis.
It is just possible to identify all examples of sexism and condemn them.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)You do realise that?
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Is this your first visit to a message board?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Really? This, what you are attempting to do is called 'derailment'. Have you ever heard of that word?
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)You have spent more time talking about what you refuse to discuss than if you would have just discussed it to begin with. You and I both know why that is.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Whenever we discuss misogyny.
You have a what about me complex.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)True Colors and all...
liberalhistorian
(20,822 posts)your own true colors. And she's right about you and others derailing with cries of "misandry". This site just will not allow full discussions of misogyny and STICKING to that topic. It just won't. For a progressive, liberal board, that is disgusting, dismaying and despicable.
And weren't you just on another thread earlier today yelling at people for not being charitable enough because "we're supposed to be the party of charity and caring". And didn't you ask in that same thread "is this DU or RU?" Well, lemme tell ya, you apparently don't see the blatant misogyny and patriarchy right here on DU, nor do you seem to care about that.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Like I said, some of us are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. An NO point did I say the larger issue was not the sexism women face on a daily basis. In fact, I explicitly said it IS.
However, I also said it is possible of calling out ALL types of sexism. Calling that derailment is bullshit and dishonest.
liberalhistorian
(20,822 posts)And nowhere did I read your answer to my question of why it is that threads meant to deal specifically with misogyny never stick to that but always get derailed, and largely by male posters. We are not talking about misandry, which isn't really a problem and nowhere near what so many "aggrieved" men claim it is, we are not talking about some mythical "all types of sexism". In fact, your response just proved the point of my question, the point that so many very, very frustrated women (and some men) here have been trying to make-that misogyny is not considered the same as racism, classism, etc., it is downgraded, lumped in with a bunch of other stuff, and threads dealing with it never, ever stick to that. Thank you for proving our point.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Misandry was specifically brought up in the original post. I did NOT derail the thread by bringing something up that was not already brought up in the original post.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Last edited Thu May 29, 2014, 09:04 AM - Edit history (1)
And i could care less what you think about me. Fiddle dee!
Bet you'll never see me troll a thread from the mens group and whine thats theyre not talking about what i want to talk about. Imagine that!
( couldn't care less , oops)
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Your problem is imaginary. You claim oppression. How are you oppressed by women? How common is this phenomena of male oppression by a female dominated society in America today?
This is why i do not discuss misandry. I am sure there are some women that hate men, there are many men who hate women, as evidenced by the large number of serial killers that were male and targeted women. This doesn't often happen in reverse, i can only name 1 female serial killer who targeted males, Eileen W.
Every woman i know has been raped or molested as a child or abused by a spouse or lover. That is why i focus on misogyny. When i was 7, a man kicked my neighbors door down and shoot her in front of my friend killing her while she was cooking dinner. He sat down and ate the food. Her crime? Dumping him for abuse. This happens all the time.
You can concentrate on whatever you please. I will do as i please. The fact that you are trying to push it so hard is evidence of the male centered culture we live in.
Pressuring people to change the subject to suit your concerns is rude and obnoxious. The polite thing to do when people tell you they are not interested in the subject you want to discuss is to move on and have that discussion with a willing partner. I am not willing. Please stop trying to force me to bend to your will. I will not.
I have never seen you care about the racism i deal with or the sexism i face on a daily basis. Yet now i should care about your issues over mine? I care as much about your problems as you care about my facing racism daily and sexism all my life.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Again, I agree with 100% of what you said. The problem is that you think it is an issue of caring about one issue over another, or more accurately, only being able to care about a single issue. I would love a society where none of this shit occurred. And I completely agree the vast majority of our effort needs to be addressing the areas that affect the most people the most often. However, it does not mean I have to turn a blind eye to other issues.
liberalhistorian
(20,822 posts)refuse to actually discuss and STICK TO DISCUSSING misogyny in these threads, preferring to put down, belittle and disdain those of us who DO try to stick to it. Gee, now, I wonder why that could be? Hmmmm................
liberalhistorian
(20,822 posts)how condescending and patronizing and patriarchal that sounds? Do you really not see that? Or is it that you think we pretty little womenfolk just aren't capable of understanding and carrying on a conversation and shouldn't bother our pretty little heads about it? There are too many posts from men on here illustrating exactly what the problem really is.
Of course, there are women misogynists, too, which is almost worse.
liberalhistorian
(20,822 posts)on misogyny, it always gets derailed with this particular meme, that we can never talk about "just" misogyny? You don't see that on threads about racism, classism, homophobia, environmentalism, etc. Those threads tend to STICK to that subject. But not threads on sexism and misogyny. They ALWAYS get steered off track with this nonsensical nonsense. There are still way too many misogynists on here.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Sorry that you feel it is derailment if someone talks about fighting for all being being victimized. Especially when I readily admit that we need to focus the majority of our attention on women being victimized because that is clearly 99% of the problem.
And the stereotype is women are better at multi-tasking.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)men do not feel bad
is that what you are saying?
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)You would need to ask them what their issue is.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Those three dudes run Philly now.
abakan
(1,819 posts)I don't know if this man is one of those you think are misogynous or not, but I think if he says he didn't see the offensive post, he should be believed. I don't know about you but there are days I can't read another rant, so I don't read them, many, many of them.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)No. I have nothing against him. Just sticking to the sunject at hand.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Sad but true.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I would never have thought it, but it's been shown to be true.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)liberalhistorian
(20,822 posts)child support "male enslavement" and who can't let a thread on DV pass without whining that no one cares at all about violence against men. And it's allowed.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)waging psychological warfare against my nephew who fears her, I can understand that there are types on both sides. but not paying your child's support is not enslavement. its called being a responsible father.
Thanks Liberalhistorian. Interesting times we are living in, no?
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)about males doing crazy things because they are supposedly less-endowed.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I'm guessing that's not a majority view; i'd be surprised if that were even the posters actual point of view.
Bryant
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)I'm equally sure it was blatant misandry which shouldn't be tolerated anymore than misogyny should be tolerated, yet one is and other isn't. I'm just not sure how anyone can have tolerance for one and not the other without a serious case of the doublethink, regardless of how desperately some try to make excuses for the double standard. Equality can never exist without parity.
The person was even called on it within the thread, which they most certainly didn't back away from so I just don't find much reason to believe it wasn't their actual point of view. If we are to believe the only real differences between the genders is the plumbing, then it stands to reason that gender hate is going to exist on both ends of the spectrum. Hate is most certainly equal opportunity.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I don't care so much if someone is drunk in a bar, but if someone is drunk behind the wheels of a car it's a big deal. The worst thing most misandrists can do is make males feel slightly uncomfortable - misogynists can and do considerably more than that to their chosen target.
Bryant
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)If one limits themselves to intimate partner violence strictly in terms of male on female or female on male violence, then the impacts are certainly disparate, but they aren't zero on one side.
thucythucy
(8,167 posts)THAT is one brilliant analogy. Really, seriously brilliant.
I would never have thought of putting it that way in a million years.
You should post this as an OP of its own.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)It was in a post about anti-abortionists. People who think they should control women's bodies, and she was sarcastically suggesting controlling men's bodies. As in, people are fine with controlling women's reproducitve systems, but imagine if there were a suggestion to control men's reproductive systems.
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)Just yesterday in fact on a completely different subject.
Funny. Haha.
The problem is, it wouldn't be funny if the gender roles were reversed and someone floated the idea of cutting out women's sex organs at puberty, sarcasm or not. It would be promptly labeled as misogyny and the pitchforks and torches would come out. Please tell me I'm wrong here.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)there are sarcastic comedians, and sarcasm can be used in jokes, but not everything sarcastic is intended to be funny. As Sea said above, it looks like it was intended to make people think - to make a point about how horrible trying to control women's reproductive systems is - as horrible as controlling men's bodies.
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)Now please tell me I'm wrong.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)That was the explanation.
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)If someone on DU floated the idea of cutting out women's genitals at puberty, what do you think would be the reaction?
Are you honestly with a straight face trying to tell me it wouldn't be labeled as misogyny and face a 2 dozen thread meta-fest?
gollygee
(22,336 posts)No one actually floated the idea of castrating boys. It was a sarcastic comment intended to show how wrong the issue it was compared to is - it is just as wrong to try to control a woman's reproductive system as it would be to control a men's. The comparison wouldn't work without the assumption that castrating boys at work is wrong. Therefore, it very clearly was not "floating the idea" of doing it.
If someone saw any issue A that was not taken seriously and considered any issue B that seemed similar and they knew WOULD be taken seriously, and made a sarcastic comment designed to show how wrong issue A is based on that comparison, it would be fine.
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)Someone did float the idea of castrating boys. Now perhaps it was sarcastic and wasn't serious. Fine. So let me further refine my question.
If someone on DU floated the sarcastic idea of cutting out women's genitals at puberty, what do you think would be the reaction?
Are you honestly with a straight face trying to tell me it wouldn't be labeled as misogyny and face a 2 dozen thread meta-fest?
Please note than I'm not asking whether you think it would be fine or not. I'm asking you what do you think would be the reaction.
If you don't want to answer the question, then please at least be candid enough to say so.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)If it was done similarly to the post you're objecting to, and if the comparison was valid (and that comparison is not perfect honestly), and if it didn't assume that men were an oppressed class - which is what I think the real issue is - then I don't think it would. But yeah there would be a lot of room to create offense, and depending on how it were done it might create a huge shitstorm.
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)But I respect your answer, even if I can't completely agree with it. You might be right, I might be wrong. It was nothing more than a mental exercise.
Dems2002
(509 posts)Why isn't it sarcastic the other way? Because in a lot of cultures, female genital mutilation is actually happening. Can you show me a culture where male castration is the norm?
And what was being debated in that thread? The fact, not pretend, but fact that right here in America it is considered a part of reasonable debate to allow either individual men and/or the state, which is overwhelmingly govered by men, to take control over a woman's body once it has begun to house a potential future life.
The only control the state has chosen to exert over men and not women is forcing them to sign up for conscription service. As we have not had a draft since the seventies because middle class white men and their families revolted, even this is currently pretty meaningless.
AAO
(3,300 posts)It's called male circumcision. It's barbaric.
liberalhistorian
(20,822 posts)my now-grown son circumcised at birth, despite intense medical and family pressure to do so; at that time, it was almost a default setting for newborn boys. I saw no reason whatsoever for it and there was no reason whatsoever for it. I've never, ever regretted it and my son thanks me for it. I'm glad to see that the rates are going down now.
AAO
(3,300 posts)My Father wasn't cut, so he did the same for me ( I thank him forever ). Then my brother was born and the doctors must have gotten in his ear about the latest study or whatnot so my brother got -sized. I think my brother has always been a little pissed that he was treated differently. Well, I grow up, get married, and have a son. I put my foot(long) down and made sure he didn't get mutilated. The joke turned out to be on me, though, when we found out my son got phimosis (a condition in males where the foreskin cannot be fully retracted over the glans penis) so he ended getting cut when he was about 4 years old (ouch!). He took it well, but I was sad that he lost his skin. People should be able to wait until they are at least old enough to make the decision by themselves.
I'm so happy I have my skin (so is the wife)...
AAO
(3,300 posts)I'm sorry, but what's the difference between washing your dick and washing any other part of the body (other than it feels better to wash your dick)? 
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Go for it, she is as deserving a target as all those asshole who want to control women.
redqueen
(115,112 posts)
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Ms. Toad
(34,187 posts)Left standing?
And the fact that no one in the thread called the poster on it doesn't mean much - the thread is probably getting more views from click-throughs from this thread than it originally had, considering there were all of 8 posts, by 6 members. Given the time of day the thread started (after midnight) and the lack of response, what the few members who participated in the thread said (or didn't say) really isn't much of a guide as to whether such comments are given a free pass.
paulkienitz
(1,296 posts)I mean, there are such things as people who hate men. Just as there are such things as people who make false accusations of rape, or claim their daddies abused them when they didn't. They are not nonexistent. It's just that these things are not the real problem we need to deal with. So if somebody dismisses any of the above issues, and someone responds with "but they exist!", the correct answer is "so what?" I mean, virgin births also exist, they're medically possible. That doesn't mean we have to debate the possibility every single time there's an unintended pregnancy. It's not sufficiently relevant. It's like bringing the chance of being struck by a meteor into a gun debate, or arguing that we have to stay in Afghanistan because it might be invaded by China.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Thats my issue too.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)Thanks for posting this.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)I've seen no misogyny here. Find me a post that is misogynistic (not including drive-by trolls that were MIRT).
Now what I have seen is many DUers that don't totally agree with your version of feminism. Vast majority of Americans do not want to be called a "feminist." But this doesn't automatically make those people a misogynist.
Heck, one poll I saw shows only 1/3rd of the Democratic party calls themselves a "feminist." Does that mean the other 2/3rds of the party is misogynist?
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And I think the objective of this OP to establish that they are hear and need to be dealt with.
Soon to be followed by words or phrases that identify them as one...then a full court press on the alert button until that word or phrase can no longer be used...then on to the next one.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)hopemountain
(3,919 posts)just like they tried with the efforts to ban gmos in southern oregon. (claiming that hybrid plants are the same as dna genetically modified plants. it's one thing to splice a pear tree variety onto another pear tree and a whole 'nother thing to splice insecticide dna into the dna of a pear tree.)
so in this case - if one is not a feminist then one is a misogynist? got that? and "since only 1/3 of dems admit to being feminists, well, by gum, thens the rest of em's is hypocrites because they's misogynist like the rest of us".
smoke and mirrors.
psiman
(64 posts)As long as it's done to groups you despise.
How very radical, your mother must be so proud.
And laugh while you can(*) because the GMO anti-science woo is making us look just as bad as the anti-vaxxer nutbags.
(*) As a hint to the stupid and weak minded, this is an obvious reference to the classic movie Buckaroo Bonzai: Across the Eight Dimension. Interpret it as a threat if you are an irremediable dork.
polly7
(20,582 posts)After I saw the hate being ramped up to the point it was directed at even other women to the point it made one person ill, and even that was used against her .... I dumped that label. Labels have never impressed me much, but they seem to be all important here, so I call myself a humanist (and I do know that's not the proper usage for the term, but whatever.) Be empathetic to the struggles of all ... it helps everyone in the long run.
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)and there has to be a way to be a humanist toward all living things. thank you, polly7
Hekate
(91,232 posts)No, actually not.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)To me that is textbook misogyny, straight out of the forums frequented by people like Rodger. Any Democratic or Republican politician who said that the rarity of false rape reports was something concocted by 'radical feminists' would get Akinized instantly.
You obviously disagree, since you said it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024138451#post4
Skittles
(153,470 posts)that is one easilty-threatened guy 
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)...and I worded it poorly. It doesn't make me a misogynist to question why that story didnt bother people. The fact any innocent person is put in prison under any circumstance is a travesty of justice. When people spend decades behind bars and get released because they were really innocent, but then a certain group of people claim its "irrelevant"...that made me upset.
But that, by the way, is the only post I have ever had hidden since being on DU.
Yet several in a certain feminist group on here have had posts hidden countless times, a few have been in "time out" multiple times. Look at the banned list on that group....it's a mile long. Meanwhile the Mens Group has 4 people on it. Yet people who post in the men's group is out of touch with DU? Yet you are going to say I'm the troll that is not in sync with DU's principles when I've only ever had 1 post hidden out of almost 3,000 posts I have made? OK. Whatever.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)been banned by Skinner or EarlG as trolls?
4th law
Galileoreloaded
Loli phabay
Pab sungenis
Data suspect
Dokkie
The doctor
Zalatix
Taverner
Mistertrickster
Unrepentantliberal
Quite a collection of all-stars
The reason its banned list is short is because women at DU don't troll it the way SOME men troll the feminist groups.
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)And what's your definition of "regulars"? One post, if that?
Some on your list have zero.
What a magnificent face plant.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)As was galileoreloaded.
But kudos to the MRA group for having part of its FAQ draw a jury hide for helping promote the extreme misogynist myth (as in the Rodger mentality) that an "industry" is responsible for brainwashing all non-MRAs into thinning that domestic violence hurts women more than men, and that most domestic violence is women's fault.
This excerpt from an anti-woman hate group is pretty much exactly what the CW re domestic violence is in the MRA group at DU.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/domestic-violence-industry/feminism-needs-domestic-violence/
It has been many years since feminists have fought for anything remotely resembling equality between the sexes. I know most ordinary feminists still think equality is the name of the game, but they are mistaken. All anyone has to do in order to see this, is look at what feminist policy makers, movers and shakers, and intellectual leaders (and I use that term rather loosely) have actually accomplished during the last two or three decades. No equality there. None.
This article is a very basic introduction to a single concept that most people will instantly reject on a visceral level: That feminist policies breed Domestic Violence while pretending to prevent it. I’m not going to quote lots of statistics and studies, or variables and technicalities. I will however, state that the Duluth Model* of domestic violence, on which virtually all DV policy and “education” is based, has been thoroughly debunked – it represents as common, the very least common type of Intimate Partner Violence (brutal male/innocent female.)**
Cf.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1114754#post2
1. It has been known for decades that domestic violence is largely reciprocal.
But there's an industry which depends on pretending that it isn't true.
The myth of a "domestic violence industry" is a staple of woman-hating creeps like Rodger and the extreme rightwing. Wanna know how many people took up domestic violence advocacy for the money? Answer is nobody ever.
According to the MRA group, men are more often victims than women, and when men do commit violence, it's because a woman provoked it.
*Order of the Perpetually Offended ™
Oh, and the MRA group also stands with John Boehner against the entire Democratic Party on the issue of pay disparity.
Also fans of woman-hating pig filth rape cheerleader Warren Farrell.
So, the MRA group serves as much the same ideological foothold for anti-progressive sewage as does its doppelgänger, the NRA group.
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)I mean if the MG has to accept responsibility for people who never even posted there, does the 2nd feminist group escape all culpability for TERFs who were cheerleaded while they were using that group as a springboard for their TERF hate all over DU, and who still pall around with current DUers even after they were banned?
Just curious.
It's mostly a rhetorical question anyway as I'm sure the answer is far too inconvienient for you to bear.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)who didn't receive a warm welcome from y'all. Hey, I even left off the domestic abuser who was warmly received by merely most of y'all because warren (and warren alone) actually decided that opposing DV was more important than man vs woman solidarity.
Violet_Crumble
(35,996 posts)And there were a few of them who've been returning since then and being nuked for their persistence. Not to mention Iverglas, who's nuking message covered it all. So, smearing one group because of bigots who've been welcomed there is fraught with danger if yr not prepared to be just as critical of another group for the same thing with other bigots. My stance has always been that the whole guilt by association thing is lame, no matter if it's aimed at HoF or the Men's Group. btw, there's no MRA group at DU. Apart from being a former host and co-founder of HoF, I've posted every now and then in the Men's group, and know a few really nice blokes who post in there. There's stuff I don't like, but there's also stuff I don't like posted in other groups and forums at DU, so I think that MRA line was really lame...
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)--any feminist group--was guilty of pushing transphobia?
Opposing the Democratic Party on pay equity and advocating for women to face discrimination in health insurance pricing by themselves indicate they are in MRAville, and are not progressives or allies of women. And there's a lot more than that. Long history of it, which is why men who are mainstream progressives don't post there.
When its members INSIST that it 's unfair to call MRA groups hate groups , that is a solid gold tell.
Violet_Crumble
(35,996 posts)Or is transphobia just not that important? I find both misogyny and transphobia revolting, but I'm a woman and a feminist, so that may have something to do with it. See, just like MRA's (and the Men's Group isn't the MRA group), transphobes aren't progressives or allies of women either.
Bullshit. I know of a few men at DU who are progressive who have posted in there. I've posted in there and I'm a female, feminist and I guess I'm a mainstream progressive.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)That group is what it is--and yes there is a reason it sees so little traffic and why its primary function is as a backlash to feminism.
Heck, I've posted in there once or twice, but the group is largely libertarian Republican (pro choice and fans of porn)in ideology when it comes to gender.
Violet_Crumble
(35,996 posts)I contributed Eddie Vedder and a younger Lou Barlow to that thread
Just on the prochoice and fans of porn thing - I'm prochoice, and while I find porn kind of boring most of the time coz it has no storyline, I'm opposed to any calls to ban it or to make out there's something wrong with people who watch mainstream porn. It doesn't make me a fan, but I'm not the other side of the coin either. But what I don't have anything in common with is libertarian Republicans...
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)health insurance because you're a woman?
Do you side with Boehner and the Tea Party on the issue of pay disparity, or with President Obama and every feminist org in the USA?
Do you think that there's a domestic violence industry that distorts domestic violence law so that it discriminates against men?
Those are the types of things that makes them Republican on gender, just like the RKBA group are very much Republicans on guns and other issues.
Violet_Crumble
(35,996 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Violet_Crumble
(35,996 posts)G'night! 
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts) Response to geek tragedy (Reply #165)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)It's not like Republicans don't look at porn.
P.S. "Porn is great" is different than "protect the first amendment"--
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #332)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)group are Republicans on gender because they align with Republicans on pay disparity, and blame feminists and women for men's wages falling.
And the rightwing troglodyte talking points on domestic violence and rape.
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #344)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)about this AGAIN>.... in the best of whines. warren. that is not anti censorship. you and yours work very very hard at censoring.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I'm sorry, I don't understand your post. Where did I say what?
Violet_Crumble
(35,996 posts)If yr working hard at it, yr being subtle, as I haven't noticed yet. I know DU will have something to worry about when you start to advocate for the banning of popcorn icons, or even better, ignoring other forum hosts and locking OPs you don't like...
kcr
(15,334 posts)But it's perfectly ok to smear an entire group for the actions of one. And claim equivalency to boot!
kcr
(15,334 posts)"Both sides are the same!" false equivalency nonsense. If anyone fighting for equality had to constantly do what you suggest, we would never have made the progress we have. This decrying of "terfs" is for one thing vastly overstated, feuled by the obsession of one poster long ago banned. What isn't mentioned is the incident that started the chain of events that led to her banning started over an argument about banning a poster from the Feminist forum. That poster was eventually banned for misogyny. Those who objected to that poster's presence were right. But they're "terfs"
Violet_Crumble
(35,996 posts)'This decrying of 'terfs'" was DUers at the time speaking out against bigotry. In this case the bigotry was transphobia, and it was being peddled by a few trolls who took a liking to the feminist group. And I had a ringside seat to what went on back then, btw. It all kicked off with feldspar/sarabellum, fuelled by iverglas, but those ones weren't banned for misogyny. They were banned for being transphobic and in the latter's case, also trying to drive a wedge between DU feminists and the LGBT community.
I'm pro-Palestinian, and have experience of anti-semites attaching themselves to a cause near and dear to my heart. I see the transphobic types as similar to the anti-semites. Trying to minimise them or not speaking out against them isn't the way to go, imo. Even if they are embracing a good cause they need to be told to fuck off, because they're actually in the business of caring more about their own hatred and bigotry than the cause they've attached themselves to...
kcr
(15,334 posts)What does it matter if they aren't right wing? First of all, I didn't say they were, I was demonstrating your logic. Can't criticize them or their message unless one's own "side" is pure? Nonsense in the same way it's perfectly ok for liberals to criticize right wing dogma. The same "both sides" derailment is often used there, too.
Violet_Crumble
(35,996 posts)What yr saying is making no sense at all, apart from appearing to want to minimise the transphobia that happened. I don't give a shit who hates which group where at DU, and I'm not going to be a hypocrite and sit there and condemn one group for something that another group has had the same sort of thing happen to.
kcr
(15,334 posts)See, right there, that's the reason why the "terfs" claim is so inflated. Because I'm not going along with the smearing of a group over baseless facts. Because my response to the misogyny on DU isn't, "but, terfs"! But it seems you're all to willing for someone who doesn't give a shit about who hates whom.
Violet_Crumble
(35,996 posts)It's not some baseless claim or anything. It happened, and people who spoke out against it weren't inflating anything.
Also, what smearing? You need to go back and read where I said I dislike the smearing and guilt by association stuff aimed at either group.
Here's what I said only a few posts back:
kcr
(15,334 posts)The people who were speaking out against it were too often smearing good DUers, all because of one very unpopular DUer. I'm not defending that unpopular DUer. I'm speaking out against baseless accusations.
Violet_Crumble
(35,996 posts)I saw a lot of DUers speaking out against it, and I didn't know close to half of them, so I don't know about personal gripes and stuff. What I did see was them speaking out against transphobia and I have absolutely no reason to doubt their motivation.
kcr
(15,334 posts)is baseless. You mean lots of DUers joined in the pileon? I'm not a bit surprised.
Violet_Crumble
(35,996 posts)I don't remember them being in HoF, as all that went down in the feminists group and HoF hadn't been created yet.
Since when has speaking out against bigotry been a pileon?
kcr
(15,334 posts)HoF was created out of that mess. It's a pile-on when it's baseless. A good indication of how baseless it is? That one has to go all the way back to that incident to cite evidence of terfdom on DU.
Violet_Crumble
(35,996 posts)I was asked for an example here, and I gave one.
Though if I'd been asked to cite evidence of transphobia at DU, I wouldn't have to go too far back at all, and it was here in GD about Chelsea Manning.
kcr
(15,334 posts)One DUer made homophobic statments. The pileon ensued, smearing the entire forum because "they weren't speaking out against it!" Funny how no one holds the Men's Forums to nearly the same standards. And there are well more than one post by one DUer in that case.
Violet_Crumble
(35,996 posts)So was sarabellum. Iverglas also made transphobic as well as homophobic comments.
kcr
(15,334 posts)
Violet_Crumble
(35,996 posts)kcr
(15,334 posts)Not getting why this is difficult. Your claim two others were also trans phobic doesn't make your case look any better. I'd say that your claim of telling those who complain about misogyny to back off, because, "terfs!" is baseless.
Violet_Crumble
(35,996 posts)I reposted what I said for you, and pointed out that I'd been asked a question, which I answered. Nowhere did I tell people who complain about misogyny to back off. I'd suggest you try to focus on what I've said in my posts rather than go with some alternate version that doesn't exist.
Goodnight...
kcr
(15,334 posts)claiming terfs make feminism just as bad And brought up these supposed "terfs" that make the feminists just as bad, that that is what you meant to do.
boston bean
(36,229 posts)I went around and around similarly regarding a comment that stated self-righteous types who see misogyny under every stone are the reason why misogyny won't be discussed by them. I pointed out that was an unfair characterization and piss poor reason to not speak about against misogyny when they see it and are in agreement. Then was accused of making personal attacks while they glossed over the type of attacks they were making in the first place, stating they NEVER do what they were accusing me of.
This subthread here seems par for the course. The denial of doing something while within the same post doing exactly what it is they are denying.
Violet_Crumble
(35,996 posts)I guess you were too busy rewriting what happened to have time to go get the link, so here it is...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025002630
You started an OP claiming to be asking a genuine question. So I gave you a genuine answer here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5005481
You proceeded to pepper-spray the response to me with a bunch of accusations and made it personal with all the references to 'you'. There were other DUers in that thread who pointed out to you that you were giving a good real-time example of why DUers like me do tend to avoid those threads.
Tell you what, Boston Bean. As yr so bent out of shape that I dare be critical of some of the frequent fliers on one 'side' in this one, I'll expand on what I said and give it the detail I gave to those on the other side. Not only are there a few folk who do see misogyny under every rock except when they or a member of their cliquey group are engaging in it, but there's also a few who arrive at DU, clock on, and ride into battle ready to lob bombs at the opposition, and also cut down everyone who doesn't agree with them 110% on everything. Plus there's also a few shit-stirrers in the mix as well.
Better?
boston bean
(36,229 posts)have a good one.
Violet_Crumble
(35,996 posts)Or are you just repeating what people were saying to you in that thread about you proving the point about what I'd said?
Have a lovely day!
boston bean
(36,229 posts)
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)How can she be expected to just forgive and forget!
Violet_Crumble
(35,996 posts)I didn't jump to the defence of anyone. There was a guilt by association tactic being used, and I pointed out that guilt by association can be applied to HoF, as well as the Men's Group. And it was applied very heavily to HoF back when I was a host, and I copped a lot of guilt by association type accusations at the time, so I know how it feels.
Here. As yr still confused about what I said and what I meant, here's my initial reply that covers it all. Go back. Read it till it starts to sink in, because I don't think it's that complicated or anything. If yr still confused, feel free to ask questions and we'll work together to try to clear up any confusion on yr part. You may find that's far more constructive than sitting there telling me I meant something I didn't...
And there were a few of them who've been returning since then and being nuked for their persistence. Not to mention Iverglas, who's nuking message covered it all. So, smearing one group because of bigots who've been welcomed there is fraught with danger if yr not prepared to be just as critical of another group for the same thing with other bigots. My stance has always been that the whole guilt by association thing is lame, no matter if it's aimed at HoF or the Men's Group. btw, there's no MRA group at DU. Apart from being a former host and co-founder of HoF, I've posted every now and then in the Men's group, and know a few really nice blokes who post in there. There's stuff I don't like, but there's also stuff I don't like posted in other groups and forums at DU, so I think that MRA line was really lame...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5011098
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)Do you even read what you write, FFS?
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)....of someone who was banned for misogyny was, and it rarely turns out to be the one the usual suspects would like you to think it is. It's even more hilarious when you find out they NEVER POSTED ONCE there. It's happened a lot.
redqueen
(115,112 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)
Great way to make your point, geek.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)-criticizing feminists
-promoting Republican talking points on pay equity
-false rape reports
-physical aggression by women towards men
-claiming that men suffer more from rape than do women
-complaining about anti-rape efforts and policies
-evangelizing on behalf of porn
-talking about how men are more often the victims of domestic violence than women
-how "rape culture" and the "patriarchy" and "objectification" are just loony ideas hatched by feminists
-how some random article PROVES
that Evo psych is right and thus discredits feminism
-how women in general are privileged vis a vis men
then tell us why the MRA label is inaccurate
pintobean
(18,101 posts)You're the one applying asinine labels.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)he mostly stays with issues about people and du. that would be very very cool, after all these years, to actually hear pinto address that long list of issue. i am curious myself.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)it to pb. pinto is the coolest of cool and cant see anyone getting confused.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)You'd rather just repeat something about me that you heard from a friend, who heard it from a friend. I don't get involved in pointless long battles that do nothing but divide DU. Dividing DU seems to be a goal for many. I simply pointed out the ridiculous tactic of applying asinine labels to a group of DUers. A label that originated in hof and is used in an attempt to discredit anyone who disagrees with them.
boston bean
(36,229 posts) pintobean
(18,101 posts)The host of hof/meta, who banned me from that group for having the nerve to defend myself after repeated call-outs.
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/125542939
boston bean
(36,229 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)jumping in and poking at the flames, ect....
i truly have never read one post from you actually discussing issues. ever. so, when i saw a list of issues i thought, how fun would it be to hear pb actually talk about something other than duers. that is all.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)We use to be very friendly. You know better. Like many others, I went under the bus for the cause.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)that talk about other duers... or stoke the flame. or, in recent history anyway. i cannot claim all time. admittedly, my memory is not great. but. it is what it is. and i read lots of du. so that is saying something. now. that does not mean, nor imply you do not talk about any issues ever. it is only what i see.
i have not seen one discussion on issues from you, only duers.
that has nothing to do with when we got along. yes. we use to get along. sorry to see that end. again, is what it is.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)into actual policy discussions.
redqueen
(115,112 posts)And yet I was told I should have been PPRd for saying MRA talking points were posted here
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)redqueen
(115,112 posts)who step in to back them up.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)redqueen
(115,112 posts)should have set off alarm bells.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)we can hold on to the knowledge redqueen, just how fuggin far we have gotten in the last five years. when we look outside of du, we see all the young voices. all they say in brilliance. a whole new vision, of the awesome we can all be. those that let go, can ride the wave. those that are fearful, the wave will take 'em under.
now.... (this is too fuggin cool. i am brilliant)
i was a competitive swimmer for two decades. at 12 a licensed lifeguard and swim instructor. i know how to dive under the wave...
i will be a life jacket.
for all the dudes, surrounding me that do not quite have the knowledge, ability and support.... (i digressed again, didnt i)
du is a little of the whole. i am comfortable our ability to carve out some space. and have a comfortable, respectful space for all.... if they choose.
i am good with what i see, too.
in every situation there is a higher and lower. we choose.
adn in the lowest of low. there is always a higher and lower. we choose.
i focus on the higher, regardless.... it is our choice, after all.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Once on DU2 for calling feminists "fire-breathers" and making all kinds of derogatory comments about women. I was the alerter on that post. Wish I'd saved a copy. His zombie didn't last here long either.
This, after he'd sworn up and down that group would monitor "real misogyny", like he was the fucking king of feminism.
That group has become just what many of us claimed that it would, and the FAQ at the top is the door that brings them in.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)their most vocal supporters. wanting men to have the right to have a place to be, discuss, think, grow and heal. cause we know. that is the only way we women will progress also. and we love men.
and i stood with comtec. i wonder if he is the one taunting me the c word in my pms? i wonder if he is the one creating rape porn scenarios for me to experience, for his own pleasure. i wonder which one...... amongst all.
starry. i had forgotten about him.
so many. hmmmm.
edit to say.... almost all the smart, knowin' what they are talking about feminists here on du were telling us why it would not work. yet, we wanted to believe.
but. those women were right. right on.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)and they said that they didn't want to talk about them with feminists, like we parent in a different way, that was a huge red flag to me.
The fact that a bunch of guys said they would self-police misogyny was so absurd on its face, that I was sure the Admins would think twice about the whole idea. Obviously, I totally overestimated *that*, lol.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)of a micro here on du, that is the developed macro of rl, political and otherwise, over the last decade.
you guys had it down. i did not know that much about all this. i was pretty much the peace... humanist, woman. just putting my toe into feminism. i had tons to learn. and tons yet to learn.
interesting. this is good to remember. so whoever started this. thanks.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)But that was a beautiful post, all the same.
-Laelth
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)It has a Men's Group.
And not a very active one at that, at least last time I looked.
Your efforts to divide this place and slander everyone who doesn't agree with you are odious.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)violence laws, weird concern with false rape cases, etc?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/111412900
http://www.democraticunderground.com/111412796
http://www.democraticunderground.com/111412474
http://www.democraticunderground.com/111412305
http://www.democraticunderground.com/111412275
Not to mention the constant "get a load of this/these evil feminists" posts.
Do they touch on issues like parenting, the problematic role of hyper/toxic masculinity and how it harms men, or do they constantly complain about how women/feminists treat men and how women have it better than men?
And, yeah, majority of posters on this site are men, yet it's one of the slowest traffic groups here. which is actually reassuring
Though my favorite may be the whining about the fact that there's no International Men's Day but there is an International Women's Day.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/111413299
You can't make this shit up.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Why do you and others make this crap up? You seem to love to instigate hate. That says a whole hell of a lot, whether you realize it or not.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)or at least, there is a group with members whose views are functionally indistinguishable from those of MRAs. Sorry, but when the hosts of a specific group feel the need to poke into pretty much every single thread in GD on women's issues, and bleat about "misandry" and "but more women vote than men!" and "but women are less likely to be ticketed/arrested!" and "but more women graduate from college!" and "but what about male victims of domestic violence?" and "but women don't have to register for selective service!" et cetera ad nauseam (all of which are, by the way, MRA talking points)...I'm prepared to say that if it quacks like a duck, it probably isn't a platypus.
Violet_Crumble
(35,996 posts)MRA's are hate groups. There's absolutely no disputing that. So yr saying that Skinner would create a hate group? And not only that, the hosts of HoF and the Feminists group would have worked with a hate group on a truce between the members of each group? Yr saying that feminists would post in a hate group?
I dunno. If the existence of any DU group gets up yr nose that much, either hide it or go complain to Skinner about it...
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)I don't think that anyone rational can look at the arguments advanced with tiresome regularity by certain members of that group (not all of them, but enough)...arguments that are basically indistinguishable from MRA talking points....and think that the label "MRA" is unreasonable.
If they don't want to be thought of as MRAs then they shouldn't be using their arguments. It's really that simple.
Violet_Crumble
(35,996 posts)I see arguments I find revolting and not the slightest bit progressive pushed with tiresome regularity by certain members of other groups, but I don't fling around wild accusations of those DU groups being hate groups or RWers. That's because rational people don't go using a big, sloppy broadbrush to attack an entire group based on what a few say or do.
Like I said, if you think Skinner created a hate group at DU, go over to ATA and inform him of that and ask him to delete it.
boston bean
(36,229 posts)only use broad brush sweeping general accusations against those discussing misogyny.
ie, find misogyny under every stone.
Violet_Crumble
(35,996 posts)Do you understand what a broad brush generalisation is? I don't think you do. What an absolutely ugly accusation to throw at me, knowing that I'm a feminist who'd never broad-brush feminists. Here's a link to what I actually said in the context it was said in. You've been reminded of this a few times now, but appear to prefer to imply that I'm some supporter of misogyny because I dare not agree 100% on everything a few DUers say, and that I actually find one or two rather irksome and don't think they get a free pass because they're feminists...
So, here it is again. I guess I'd better bookmark it as I get a feeling this won't be the last time you try this...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5017178
boston bean
(36,229 posts)Ok, that has been my issue with your posting, I guess I am just imagining when you say things like many on DU see misogyny under every stone. That's not a broad brush generalization? Ok, if you say so.
I'm not broad brushing you, I am speaking to you about your words. I don't believe you are a supporter of misogyny. Where did I ever say that. A link to that would be great. My postings to you have been about since you are a feminist why won't you speak out against misogyny when you see it. And all I get back is that because of other people on this board you don't like. That's a summary and pretty much on target, if people go and read the link you provide, they will see it too.
Violet_Crumble
(35,996 posts)Imagine that. You are imagining that. And that's giving you a very diminishing benefit of the doubt and assuming you still haven't bothered to read what I've said.
I said:
which you got all bent out of shape over, so I expanded to:
That's NOT broadbrushing an entire group. I'm not saying it about most or all feminists. I'm saying there's a small band on either side who exhibit the behaviour I described. You don't have to like it, but there's no need for you to follow me around misrepresenting what I said...
boston bean
(36,229 posts)to this:
Yet you never said that, ok. And that is not a broad brush generalization.... ooookkkkaaaaayyyy....
Violet_Crumble
(35,996 posts)Yr deliberately trying to accuse me of things I never said. Not cool or genuine at all, imo...
boston bean
(36,229 posts)to keep you from discussing misogyny when you see it.
Ok, mea culpa on saying many. I figured if it was such a small inconsequential group of persons, it wouldn't be an issue for you.
Violet_Crumble
(35,996 posts)It doesn't take many at all to make an environment just a bit toxic and unwelcoming. While I don't react well to demands that people *must* discuss an issue, I've found it is possible every now and again to have an exchange with someone who's there for genuine discussion. I do that because I want to, not because someone's telling people that they shouldn't be silent and all that stuff...
boston bean
(36,229 posts)and went to admin, as you suggest everyone else does who finds posters who make an environment toxic and unwelcoming.
You are in this thread discussing toxic environments on DU. Someone else does the same thing and the advice is to take it to admin.
I.don't.get.it.
Violet_Crumble
(35,996 posts)My advice was to someone who was complaining about a DU group being an MRA group. MRA groups are hate groups, which is why I suggested they approach Skinner. On the other hand, the irksome and annoying few I described are irksome and annoying, not bigoted. See the difference? I don't tend to go whining to Skinner about things that annoy me in GD, and I don't intend to start...
boston bean
(36,229 posts)same types of posts from you. I look forward to it!
Violet_Crumble
(35,996 posts)...many times in the past, and said in this thread that I detested the broadbrushing aimed at HoF. Having missed those, I'm not holding out much hope you'll see any similar future posts.
boston bean
(36,229 posts)leaving it vague, that is the right thing to do.
I don't know if I will follow that advice. Likely to get many a hidden posts.
Violet_Crumble
(35,996 posts)Though that post has inspired me to rush off to ATA and ask Skinner to create a new group called 'Give Ourselves Advice And Swiftly Reject It In The Same Post'. It'll be a winner!
And with that, the equivalent of an ad break for the Bold & The Beautiful has arrived, so it's time for me to depart for the evening...
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)You said that. I'll thank you to not put words into my mouth.
What I said is that certain members of that group (including the hosts of that group) routinely respond to threads on women's issues with MRA talking points. (Which they in fact do; it's indisputable and anyone who wants to can easily find those threads.)
And it's rather telling that there are many people who have the same perception I do; I wouldn't think that was merely a coincidence. (I don't really have any interest in trying to shut down any particular group, though; if nothing else it's kind of useful to be able to tell where certain people are coming from.)
Violet_Crumble
(35,996 posts)There's no denying that. In response to Polly saying 'There is no fucking MRA group here.', you replied with 'Of course there is'. So I'm not putting words in yr mouth.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)"there is a group with many members who frequently use MRA talking points", then? Same thing, isn't it?
Violet_Crumble
(35,996 posts)I wouldn't have a problem with that...
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)those DUers who use MRA talking points? Include both of the hosts of the group in question. So I don't especially think that's an unfair characterisation, at all.
boston bean
(36,229 posts)and has the same ideology as them, but denies being an MRA, that makes them not as hateful?
Please explain.
boston bean
(36,229 posts)In my mind, we tried to be reasonable so they would leave us the fuck alone.
That in no way has any bearing on the fact that MRA talking points are posted there, that is UNDENIABLE. That has never been a question to any person who posts in HoF. Hell, we were under such fire from them, and their destructive tactics that we tried to be adults, it didn't fucking work. To use that attempt at trying to live in under the same roof with them as a sign that HoF agrees with that bullshit is beyond the fucking pale.
I'm going to barf. And remember you quit hosting early on, you had absolutely nothing to do with the truce. So, your words here mean very little.
Violet_Crumble
(35,996 posts)Where did I say I had anything to do with the truce? I didn't, so I've got no idea what yr going on about. I wasn't aware that it was only the hosts of the three groups that knew about the truce. Learn something new every day!
I dunno, BB. Maybe if you bothered reading what I said in the post yr replying to, you'd get what that proves. Rather than carrying on with some lame 'I'm going to barf' nonsense because you've changed from hating how DUers (and it was a lot of DUers, many of whom have never posted in the Men's Group) attacked HoF to now being all on board doing the exact same thing to another group that was done to ours.
Yeah, coz there was and never is any nasty meta-style attacks coming from one or two participants in HoF, right? Strange, that's not how I remember it.
boston bean
(36,229 posts)You posted this:
423. No, there's not.
MRA's are hate groups. There's absolutely no disputing that. So yr saying that Skinner would create a hate group? And not only that, the hosts of HoF and the Feminists group would have worked with a hate group on a truce between the members of each group? Yr saying that feminists would post in a hate group?
I dunno. If the existence of any DU group gets up yr nose that much, either hide it or go complain to Skinner about it...
There was no three way truce. Again proving you know nothing of which you speak. I didn't say you knew, I said you wouldn't know and would not know the reasons for it, you were not involved!
And also, if any existence of any Duers on DU gets up your nose, you know those ones who find misogyny under every stone, you can either hide it or go to skinner about it.
One thing you are honest about, you don't discuss misogyny, I agree wholeheartedly with that. You discuss the people discussing misogyny quite a bit.
Violet_Crumble
(35,996 posts)And from what I can work out it's because yr pissed off about me daring to answer a supposedly genuine question you asked in an OP from the other day. Don't ask me. I think it's plain weird, to be honest.
I'm not quite sure what yr point is, if you actually have one. Maybe it's another one of those secret ones known only to yrself?
Thanks for the advice on what to do if anyone ever gets up my nose. No-one has as yet, as I tend to avoid ATA, hiding threads, putting people on ignore, and all that sort of stuff, but if I ever become overly sensitive I'll keep yr sage advice in mind.
There's quite a few issues I tend to avoid at DU because of the shit-fight factor. But you'd be mistaken if you don't think I ever discuss those issues. You may not have noticed, that's all, as I tend to stick to discussing them with people who look like they're in it for actual discussion and not to yell at other people...
boston bean
(36,229 posts)I'm not pissed about anything. I might have used a couple of exclamation points, but that doesn't mean I'm pissed.
You say something, and someone responds and they are pissed at you? No, they are not.
You say something and someone gives your own advice back to you and you don't think that advice you give to others it pertains to you.
You say you avoid the shit fight factor, but here you are talking about groups and what not.
This is becoming laughable, Violet.
Violet_Crumble
(35,996 posts)Just a bit of advice here. When trying to radiate an aura of not being pissed off about something I said in another thread, it's probably a good idea not to arrive in this thread towing that thread behind you, while forgetting to bring the link along for the ride. And while I can't be sure, implying in yr posts that I support misogyny in any way when you know very well I don't, could be seen as a whole bunch of things, but I'd be suspecting in a bit of a tizz.
Okay, this bit doesn't make sense. What are you talking about?
Also, if you remember, I said I've retired from my former DU2 I/P forum Queen Of The Poo-Flinging role. Which means while I do try to avoid it most of the time, there's times when I can't help getting dragged back in. Ever had those times when yr home from work sick and you haven't watched the Bold & The Beautiful for over a year coz you decided it was boring shit? But suddenly there it is on the telly again, and without even realising it yr dragged into the whole thing again briefly before an ad happens and you think to yrself 'Do I really care enough to keep watching and find out how many times Brooke and Ridge have been married and divorced since I last watched it?' That's the poo-fling thread feeling...
BainsBane
(53,137 posts)Which anyone can tell by going to the MRA reddit. http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/ The exact same articles posted there turn up in that group as well as in GD, and the exact same arguments. So really any distinction you want to claim is irrelevant when the content is the same.
Have you ever visited the MRA reddit, A Voice for Men, or any of the other MRA sites? If so, how can you claim that there is some distinction? If you haven't visited them, why do feel compelled to deny something you haven't looked into? How do you suppose the same articles featured on that MRA reddit magically appear on DU? How is it that certain members here magically channel the identical arguments voiced on those MRA sites?
Violet_Crumble
(35,996 posts)I have posted a few times in the Men's Group, though, but I was really only there for Warren's super popular hot celebs thread coz I had a few important additions to add to it...
on edit about reddit: I will go and have a read of the link you gave me. The only time I've seen reddit before was back when Gordon Ramsay encountered an absolute nutjob of a restaurant owner and I followed some links from DU to reddit..
BainsBane
(53,137 posts)that in order to make such a blanket denial, one would have to know the content of MRA groups. Since you don't know what is posted on MRA sites, your declaration is without foundation.
Understand this: Cries of misandry are about hostility to feminism. They are no different from pretending whites face greater racism than blacks. They come from the same impulse to stop the advance of the subaltern toward equality and are about bemoaning their once absolute privilege that they see as so natural that any mobility by women is viewed as an attack on men.
You'll note they decry the fact that girls get higher grades in school and have higher admittance rates in college. That is a crisis because they believe there should be not even a single area in which women outperform men. Female academic achievement subverts what they see as the natural order where men are ALWAYS superior.
They point to the simple biological fact that women live longer as evidence of female "privilege," and the higher rates of male deaths from suicide and war as examples of male oppression, with absolutely no attention to the fact that biology is not an indicator of social status. They also ignore the fact that male dominated governments start and perpetuate wars, and that male politicians ensure unfettered access to the guns with which men use to kill themselves. Instead, what men do to themselves is used as evidence of male oppression. The argument has no logic, and it is a reactionary attempt to try to place misandry and misogyny on the same level. There are not, no more than whites whining about their persecution is on the same level as racism against blacks.
Violet_Crumble
(35,996 posts)I'm in total agreement with you on what you said there.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)good to see you back, Baines.
Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #417)
polly7 This message was self-deleted by its author.
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)
Squinch
(51,122 posts)and many of them were here for a long, long time."
Dems2002
(509 posts)Thanks for tracking that link down. I definitely know there are many examples such as the one you shared, but I am less familiar with the previous threads.
Demit
(11,238 posts)The definition of feminist has been distorted by things like Rush Limbaugh using the word 'feminazis' and making it sound like it's a synonym. It is impossible to draw any coherent conclusion from the response to "Are you a feminist." Ask the question "Do you believe in equal pay for equal work?" and the people who shrink away from the label feminist will say, surprised, "Of course."
The people who would answer No are misogynists.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and this is why.
i have always spoken out for womens issue. well, duh. i have also always spoken out for every underdog issue there has ever been in all of my lifetime. since a kid.
it has been who i am all my life. and i never called myself a feminist. for different reasons. but mostly, cause i did not think had earned the right to wear the title.
with the repugs. with society as a whole. the utter humiliation, shame, degradation, submission of women in porn, ect..... it has been the last decade but mostly the last 5 yrs of the aggressive, ugly ass, in our face, lefting a middle finger to women, saying out loud, HATE of women.
literally fuckin HATE.
and i am raising two boys.
being respectful of their being... they get to love every single piece of their boys, as i get to love every bit of my woman.
(i am digressing, i will get to the bottomline)
though i lived it, i spoke out to it, i taught my boys in it, i NEVER called myself a feminist.
i respect those women so. they are so smart. put in the time. put in the work. got educated. i did not. i just lived it.
i NEVER thought i earned or deserved the title of feminist. even when everyone was calling me one. as if they were insulting me. and i would take self away from the title. not cause they shamed me. but, i didnt deserve it
i wanted to say that last night when i read davids post.
the title feminist has never been taken in majority. and it never will. a feminist.... is me. and so many other women and young women.... oh they are bold, strong, loud (and they do not apologize) and they will not do it nicely.
we gotta get comfortable in the skin of it. a lot of our young are.
i do call myself a feminist now, though. it feels good on me. it LOOKS good on me. dontcha think? lol. i do.
different perspectives.
Demit
(11,238 posts)Though they didn't call it that then. I just knew I wanted to do—to be able to do—what men were allowed to do. Why should I take some demure back seat to what men did? Why should I be some kind of second fiddle? Why should I pretend to be inept at something so it wouldn't make a man feel bad that I outshone him? Why does he get to make all the decisions? Why should I be the one to clean the house & do the laundry? I remember when my husband & I started looking for a house, we were sitting with one real estate agent (female), and every time I asked her a question she would answer my husband.
It was a time of being patronized, and condescended to. It might not be how it is now, so that today's young women think everything has changed, changed permanently, and there's no need for feminism, but there's a bad undercurrent. Not that there wasn't a backlash then, but the backlash today is much darker and more sinister. This business of men saying overtly that they have a right to sex and that women owe it to them is scary. The men on this board scrambling to rationalize that thinking, trying to derail the topic of misogyny by making some big deal of 'misandry'—as if men don't still enjoy a balance of power in this world! As if the implications could ever be equivalent! —is mind-boggling. And scary. Definitely scary.
I've aged out of the demographic where I have to be worried about being killed by a woman-hating man—I think—but I do fear for younger women who do have to worry. Things are worsening.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)guys my age optimistic and open. i did not experience the oppression you did. we were basking in the out loud, .... progression. i watched us regress.
interesting.
i was playing in other words. i was reaping the rewards. lol. in calif. and reno
uppityperson
(115,682 posts)MIRT is the malicious intruder removal team and I wanted to be sure of what you are saying. thanks
Dems2002
(509 posts)So, I'm not a frequent poster on this site. But the reason my name is Dems2002 is because I joined Democratic Underground shortly after the 2000 election. My name reflects the fact that I was looking forward to taking back Congress in 2002.
Be that as it may, I have always been a fairly regular visitor if irregular poster. And while I chose a gender neutral username for the exact same reason Digby did the same, and there was definitely some sexism displayed every now and again, I never saw rampant misogyny on this board...until the past six months or so. (Maybe year, time definitely has had a tendency to fly lately.)
It's been rather stunning to me to see 'debates' about rape high up on the greatest threads. I'd love to know what has caused this change. Is it the new board system in comparison to the old? Is it the proliferation of sites like Reddit that didn't exist when this board first came about? An overconsumption of porn? Is it just a general coarsening of the culture as we all adopt worse behaviors supported by anonymity?
Personally, I'm not sure I buy the anonymity argument. I just keep reading too many stories of behavior that is deemed acceptable in male dominated work environments (like the gaming industry and tech), that I find just stunning in 2014.
As a first generation Title IX baby, textbooks that blatantly stated women were less intelligent than men were things I laughed about as a child. Now, it feels like the textbooks are gone, but the sentiment has roared back.
I can understand how this came about to a degree with rising levels of inequality. But I would have expected a site like DU to host men daring to do and be better. I admit to being disappointed.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)I have been around a while, too. A long time lurker before joining and getting more active several years ago. I have never been one to post a lot. But the change in tone has been noticible and has definitely gotten me to get more vocal myself. I do think we saw a real increase when DU3 and the Jury system were implemented.
Dems2002
(509 posts)Yes, I have started to feel the need to jump in more on some of these threads. For myself, it's the over-the-top levels of disrespect, snideness and hostility that i classify as misogynist.
I am a strong woman more than capable of having a heated debate. You hurl facts and figures at me and I will hurl them right back. You start getting rude, demeaning and snide and questioning the intelligence of certain posters because you disagree, I'm going to call a spade a spade.
betsuni
(25,927 posts)To add another voice, or at least support, to all the great DU members. I hate the change in tone, ugly.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)We know damned well not everyone here works 'in good faith'. The jury system has rottenized this place.
SunSeeker
(51,906 posts) Dems2002
(509 posts)I may wade in a bit more here/there. At least when I have something to say.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)On DU2, despite the rancor behind the scenes, borderline misogyny didn't survive. Maybe it did and I just don't remember.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i love your voice. and each woman in the subthread that is speaking out.
A Little Weird
(1,754 posts)I live in a red state and I joined DU to be able to interact with left-leaning people. In many areas of conversation I am not disappointed, but the sexism here rivals what I see and hear from my rightwing neighbors. I hope it's just an indictment of the jury system and not an indication of a rightward swing in the democratic party.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)by far, the sexism i experience with the repug men in my real life, sittin here in texas. and the difference between the sexism. just another learin moment for my son. to get the feel of the differences, even in hte name of liberal and progressive. and different levels of respect. ect....
Squinch
(51,122 posts)
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)dropped from an air plane, run over by a M1 tank, fermented in a swimming pool, dredged up, beaten again should not be tolerated on DU.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)And I'm addressing all of DU with that, not you personally.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Using it takes much less effort than coming into the thread to lecture the participants on how you are annoyed by thread.
If more people did that, imagine how much more peaceful it would be on this site...
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)This season ticket holder hopes I never see you at a game.
Darkhawk32
(2,100 posts)Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I sure wouldn't want to have to interact with you in person.
/ignore.
Squinch
(51,122 posts) Hekate
(91,232 posts)NOT.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)You nailed it. After a while it's performance art.
Jesus
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Because Dr.Dre. And to go watch Real Housewives of Atlanta. Because, you know, ( i'm black, shhh).
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and that is the guy that i swear two people are using the acct. lol.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Sometimes cool, then that kinda stuff slips out and gets self deleted.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts) bravenak
(34,648 posts)Tu eres muy negativo, y aburrido tambien. No tienes que hablar conmigo, verdad? No quiero tener conversationes con un hombre repugnante. Adios!
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I have that effect on men. I say dejame, they must try to keep it going. I'll let you have the last word. You da man. You must need it more than me. Tonto.
Squinch
(51,122 posts)uppityperson
(115,682 posts)Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Squinch
(51,122 posts)Or, if you find the threads so unproductive, should you just stay out of them? Clearly these threads have hit some chord in you.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)a number of men, mostly pm me thanking me for info that has allowed them to see in a way they hadnt before. and that it has helped them in different ways in life. i have had many women that have pmed me thank me for a voice that they were unable to use, for different reasons. i have myself grown in knowledge and insight to the point it has allowed me to be a better and smarter person, ergo in my parenting allowed me to give my boys insight that will give them a real jump start in life.
it is a ripple, and goes out. getting larger.
it works for me
when people feel better, grow, learn, inspire others.
it works for me.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)There aren't many of them, but they tend to be vocal. It's the same half-dozen posters who always pop up in any thread on certain topics to make whining noises about "butbut there are more men in prison than women! And there are more women getting college degrees! And men have a higher suicide rate! Therefore all of these womens' issues you're talking about are totally irrelevant! What about the men?" Or else they're announcing that "misogyny only means 'hatred of women' so stop using it to refer to sexism and cultural prejudice" without actually addressing those issues at all. Or they're referring to any discussion of cultural issues that affect women more than men as "gender wars" and blaming it on those nasty feminists stirring things up by daring to have an opinion that isn't "why, yes, thanks, I love being sexually objectified. Please, leer at me and tell me how much you like my tits".
Hekate
(91,232 posts)Some guys are just uncomfortable and clueless but usually well-intentioned. But you know what? After these past days I'm ready to say tough shit, grow up, shut up, and LISTEN TO US. For God's sake please LISTEN TO US.
AllTooEasy
(1,261 posts)I haven't seen one case of a person saying that this subject is "uncomfortable". You've posted this "Uncomfortable Subject" reply numerous times, and they are increasingly illogical and assinine. If a person is "uncomfortable" talking about a subject, then they wouldn't join the discussion and post!!! Disagreement does not equate discomfort. I disagree with Repukes all the times, and I'm damn comfortable confronting them about it! Makes my day, to tell you the truth!
Lastly, you don't control the conversion or have to right to decide whether you or which side of the gender gap has the right to chime in on ANY subject. Both sides should listen, and speak. Not just men, not just women. BOTH. How hard is that to understand? A oneway discussion is just a rant; equally wasteful and useless. Women shouldn't shut up and just take from men, and the reverse is equally true. Such a position in either direction is profoundly arrogant, and is the greatest impedance to progress on any issue.
And if you can't tell, I COULDN'T BE MORE COMFORTABLE, so please let's not change the subject!
BTW, what exactly happened "these past days"?
Hekate
(91,232 posts)I've said so repeatedly. I used to live in Isla Vista. I used to work at UCSB, and later the County of SB. This is my community.
I don't know who you are, having never seen your handle before this, and you sure as hell don't know me.
AllTooEasy
(1,261 posts)You and I are on different wavelengths. Yeah, that asshole was misogynist, but the original poster was complaining about misogyny on DU. I was addressing that. I thought everyone else was.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)And this goes for racial/religious minorities and LGBT folks just as much as women.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)....on a supposedly progressive site"
Me too. And I hope more men will speak out, and Iask them to listen a bit before flying into a defensive stance.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Perhaps those who indulge themselves by dismissing or outright abusing women here, may want to rethink what they are doing here in line with the stated mission of DU. And I wonder how much of the misogyny is being tolerated because of *cough* this guy:
The First Feminist President, Barack Obama
by Mandy Van Deven
March 23, 2009
On January 20th the first self-identified feminist was named President of the United States of America. Just two days after taking office, Barack Obama performed his first presidential act of solidarity with women around the world by repealing the Global Gag Rule. Established in 1984 by President Reagan, the Global Gag Rule denies aid to international groups "which perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning." The Global Gag Rule has come to be seen as a litmus test of the current US President's stance on women's rights, though it is just one aspect of the complicated story of the impact of American reproductive rights policy in countries around the globe. [17]
After witnessing the impact of President Bush's reinstatement of the Global Gag Rule, Michelle Goldberg, journalist, author, and long-time critic of the Bush Administration's policies on sexual and reproductive health, decided that a book about the global battle for reproductive justice was long overdue. So she wrote The Means of Reproduction: Sex, Power, and the Future of the World [17]. The cover art depicting a woman holding the Earth on her shoulders is more than appropriate for this deeply-researched, historically-informed examination: fifty years worth of research about four continents has convinced Goldberg that women's oppression is at the crux of many of the world's most intractable challenges. She illustrates how US policies act as a catalyst for or an impediment to women's rights worldwide, and puts forth a convincing argument that women's liberation worldwide is key to solving some of our most daunting problems. "Underlying diverse conflicts - demography, natural resources, human rights, and religious mores - is the question of who controls the means of reproduction," she writes. "Women's intimate lives have become inextricably tied to global forces."
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2009/03/23/controlling-means-reproduction-an-interview-with-michelle-goldberg/
The war on women is not just a war on women, but on men, too. Men who don't support women's rights are sealing their own fate. That's what division does, divide and conquer, and those so conquered are not winning anything by their callous treatment of fellow humans.
Some will say they never saw it coming. I say, take a deeper look at what's being sold to us. It's not just an American problem. It is about global control and reducing all of mankind to commodities.
What is done to women and minorities is a move against all humanity, and if one calls oneself either a champion of the good or a victim of this evil scheme, they'd better join up with us because the people who are trying to dehumanize us are not going to stop.
Women and minorities are being attacked by those who hate Obama on other sites as he's clearly in their corner from the onset. The knee jerk reaction against him translates less into ODS and more into one that is a reaction against the people and values he supports. It's no wonder this is happening.
Those who do this should stop being team members for the reducing humanity to things which is what has been done to women and minorities. We should not play this game at DU.
Just sayin'
Heavily edited from:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/110212801
ancianita
(36,273 posts)not each other.
Lunacee_2013
(529 posts)951-Riverside
(7,234 posts)...Step out of suburbia-land and tell that to native americans, hispanic and black men but I'm sure you'll find some way to explain why those groups were never disenfranchised "not historically and not currently in the US".
[IMG]
[/IMG]Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)951-Riverside
(7,234 posts)If you honestly believe native american, black and Hispanic men never were disenfranchised in this country then its time to step outside suburbia and visit the "intercity" where you will probably find a young black or hispanic man being stopped and searched without reason or cause.
Life is quite different outside of the manicured gardens and cul de sacs.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)However that has nothing to do with their masculinity and a lot more to do with racism. (Which is a problem that gets discounted in importance around here just as often as cultural misogyny does, actually. See all the people who would rather talk about general income inequality than specific racial wealth gaps and the relative social privilege being white carries in the USA.)
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)* Black and Hispanic drivers were significantly more likely to be searched, ticketed and arrested than white drivers when stopped by police. For example, black drivers were more than twice as likely to be searched or arrested when compared with white drivers. Hispanic drivers were almost three times as likely to be searched when compared with white drivers.
By combining data dealing with race and gender, Briggs found the differences between men and women do not hold up for all races. Out of all racial and ethnic categories of male and female drivers, white women were most likely to receive a perceived benefit in a traffic stop, such as receiving only a warning or no outcome at all. But the same is not true for black and Hispanic women, who were just as likely as white men to be ticketed, arrested or searched instead of receiving a warning or no outcome.
Black and Hispanic men were the most likely to be ticketed, arrested or searched during a traffic stop. Black men were 2.5 times as likely as white men to be arrested and twice as likely to be searched. Hispanic men were 1.5 times as likely as white men to receive a ticket and more than three times as likely to be searched.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120621130716.htm
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)(Because that's precisely what that is, the bit about "white women most likely to only receive a warning", anyway.) That doesn't change what I said about racism though.
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)When being black AND male increases your chances of being searched by 2.5, it's hard to imagine how it doesn't change what you said about racism. When being male further disenfranchises one over and above being black, trying to excuse the motives or reasons is of less interest to the one actually being disenfranchised. If you need more examples, see educational attainment, life expectancy, homicide rates, suicide rates, incarceration rates, capital punishment rates, and quite a few other topics where being black AND male works to one's extreme disadvantage.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Shouldn't you be off somewhere lecturing feminists on the dictionary definition of "misogyny", or something?
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)Then it must follow that sexism that benefits men really isn't sexism against women. Assuming no double standard of course, which would be sexist (not sure if that would be benevolent or hostile, so perhaps you can fill in the blanks with an expert feminist opinion here).
Good to know.
Seems like you rather go down the road of diversion rather than support your "that has nothing to do with their masculinity" assertion, so I'm not sure you should be lecturing anyone on anything.
Just sayin'
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)My interactions with you have given me a pretty fair idea that you have difficulty processing certain concepts. Let's try explaining this slowly: paternalistic, "benevolent" sexism that may "benefit" women is a result of patriarchal assumptions. I never said it was a good or positive thing. Again, since you apparently couldn't be arsed to click the link and read it last time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambivalent_sexism
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025010483#post53
Reeling you in back on topic, how exactly is a clearly defined statistical advantage women have NOT discrimination based on gender (aka sexism), which clearly benefits women and disadvantages men? I've read your regurgitated wiki link twice now and I can't seem to find that specific example or anything within a cab ride of it.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)"weaker sex", "need protecting", etc etc. I am shocked that you appear to be a functional adult and need this explained to you.
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)...that is being discriminated against.
The next time a black male is being profiled by the cops, perhaps you should lecture him on how lucky he is to be a guy and is spared the indignity of being let off with nothing more than a warning. Who knows, you might make some new friends.
Just sayin'
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Because this conversation isn't about racial discrimination against blacks, it's about gender discrimination against women. I'm not going to play your game of "let's change the subject to something else and minimise this issue" that you seem determined to pull in just about every thread on this issue.
redqueen
(115,112 posts)It's wasted effort really. Whether it's willful if ignorance or stupidity, there are some who simply will not learn (e.g. the "Asian privilege" thread).
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)benevolent sexism properly when it suits.
what is that when they absolutely get it. adn pretend they do not for weeks, months. yet use it when it is their advantage?
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)Evidently you made this a conversation about racial discrimination about blacks when you chose to respond to this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5010768
So whatever subject was changed certainly wasn't by me and you were gleefully participating long before I jumped in. Bailing out after you've painted yourself into a corner just isn't all that impressive.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Not try and insert a completely different reference.
But of course men are really, really the ones who suffer - NOT
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)But I'm not deriving any meaning from them.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)You have attempted to support that fraud by going into a completely different argument.
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #33)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025010483#post35
Response to 951-Riverside (Reply #35)
However that has nothing to do with their masculinity and a lot more to do with racism.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025010483#post37
I even quoted the relevent text in my subject line so there would be no mistake about what I was replying to. Not sure where you got lost.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)always the same six or maybe seven posters.
Bet someone is going to ask me to name them, or "prove it", LOL.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Not intercity. Second, since it is apparent you have never been there, how can you lecture someone else? I am Black...I grew up in Compton. And I know that Male privilege benefits black men. It affected me deeply when I was a child, because my dad was a sexist jerk.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)can tell you that Hispanic women tend top get it worse than males, because the Anglo-Saxon Americans who are often in positions will be brazen enough to call the men racial slurs, but still think they can say "well, we are both dudes, we do not want those women to get out of place."
And sadly, many minorties fall for that, forgetting that when they allow their wives mothers sisters to be put down, they are undermining their own strength.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)birthed white privilege which has birthed hyper-masculine behavior which has birthed the sexism we are talking about?
Hekate
(91,232 posts)NOT.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)that hurt someone's feelings, well I think I would actually not get to talk.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Not because they were men.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Because racism was really about disenfranchising men. 
Is it really that hard to understand that men, as a group, are not discriminated against or disenfranchised because of their gender?
I like how you're pitting opponents of racism against opponents of misogyny and sexism-as if they're mutually exclusive positions to hold. It's totally in bad faith, but it's funny all the same.
AllTooEasy
(1,261 posts)I need an example to comment on, for or against regarding any subject. Just the way I do things.
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)Because apparently misandry is just a figment of our imagination and calling it out is really nothing more than anti-feminism
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=25339
AllTooEasy
(1,261 posts)The original poster says that there is a lot of misogyny on DU. Okay, show me a specific example so I can comment.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Pretty much every woman I know has been either raped, molested, sexually assaulted, groped, harassed, the victom of domestic violence, etc. Men? Not so much.
You can complain about misandry when a substantial number of women in Congress are calling for compulsory castration of men at puberty (the way a substantial number of men in Congress are currently attempting to control the reproductive choices of women).
When we talk about "misogyny"? We're talking about cultural and institutionalised attitudes. All you have to point to re "misandry" is a few pissed-off individuals who don't have anything like the same collective power.
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)3 Supreme Court justices out of 9 (and only four total in history).
Did you actually have a point?
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)When 3/5ths of the voters are women, you are correct in that "collective power" is not the same, but you just have it exactly assbackwards.
On the subject of "reproductive rights" men and women are split nearly right down the middle. So whatever point you had about gender polarization on the subject seems to hold water like a sieve.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)the point made that he should keep his manipulation of the facts over at that site which rhymes with "reductionist."
If someone belives that women, despite no presidents, the vast minority of congress, the vast minority of senators, the low minority of judges, governors and CEOS, despite being more than 50 percent of the population have equal power, even dominant power, you are not going to gain anything arguing with them.
The actions of MRA reminds me a of quote from a fine sexist pig, bigamist and wifebeater named L.Ron Hubbard. Yeah, I am talking about the guy Scientology claims to base itself on. He said the purpose behind lawsuits his church was known for was never to win, but to exhaust the opponent. They know that sooner or later, you will get impatient, exhausted, or simply give up. That is what I see with the MRAS, the Centrist DINOS, and others that simply mock the idea of discussion; they know they do not have the facts on their side, but as long as they can keep babbling, they feel the can ignore the facts.
Oh, Hubbard was also known for saying that " a society where women are not devoted to the caretaking of men is on it's way out", he woudl fit right in DU now, wouldn't he?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)we keep on. but wow. such an easy strategy that i had not thought of.
good post.
chrisa
(4,524 posts)If there was a list of the top most disgusting human beings in modern history, he would probably make it. It's no wonder his "religion" is nothing more than a UFO death cult whose only purpose is to push the values Hubbard believed in during his shitty life: Money, destruction, and unfeeling brutality.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)That was very well said.
redqueen
(115,112 posts) Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)I'm pretty sure I'm quite straight on the facts, which are that women have been the majority voters in every presidential election since 1980. If the women who claim to speak for all women actually did have all women behind them, obtaining power just wouldn't seem that difficult. There's more women than men and not as many men bother to vote or even participate in the political process.
If ad nauseum actually were the strategy, seems like those with 100K+ post counts and multiple threads on the same subjects day after day, year after year with the same results would seem to be winning. Whatever winning means. Another flaw with your theory is there's no shortage of women and feminists on DU who also have little use for the peanut gallery's finger wagging.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)"I'm pretty sure I'm quite straight on the facts"
Well, if you can glide past the fcat there there have been no female presidents, few female congresspeople, few senators, few governors, few CEOS, few heads of large religous demoniminations, etc.
but let's show some facts :
http://history.house.gov/Exhibition-and-Publications/WIC/Women-in-Congress/
"Since 1917, when Representative Jeannette Rankin of Montana became the first woman to serve in Congress, a total of 298 women have served as U.S. Representatives or Senators."
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/07/08/2266831/number-of-women-ceos-at-major-companies-jumps-by-4-percent/
"last week, the number of women at the helm of a Fortune 500 company rose by 4 percent, now standing at a grand total of 22."
Let's take your second "point"
"If the women who claim to speak for all women actually did have all women behind them, obtaining power just wouldn't seem that difficult. There's more women than men and not as many men bother to vote or even participate in the political process. "
Ah, but note that CEO figure. You knwo damned well that no one wins in American Polticis without MONEY, and those in pwer do not like to give it to women. Hell
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091027192234AAPb3zx
When women make 70 cents to every man, they cannot compete in terms of MONEY, which is the real power in America. But of course, that fact conflcits with your fact
OK, do the math, all the congress since 1917, plus all the CEOS, a whopping total of 304. Now add in supreme couet justices O connor, SotoMayor, Ginsberg and Kagan, we are at 308. Of course, no presidents.
So, we could not even break 312, even bringing in all the congress and sentors since 1917.
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)Now work your way back up the thread and pay particular attention to where the person in which I replied mentioned "same collective power".
You can spout off facts about the political makeup of congress or the executive all you want, but your "facts" do not address the argument. "Collective power" is contained within the electorate. That's how it works. I presented facts that were directly related to the subject at hand, sourced from a feminists organization, which unambiguously show that women have considerably more "collective power" than men. Rather than acknowledging this or even bothering to address it, you just conveniently ignored it. So whatever charge you've made about gliding past the facts seems kinda like a pot/kettle situation.
But since you brought it up, I'll be glad to address your irrelevant facts if nothing else but to demonstrate how misguided your conclusions of those facts are. Believe it or not, the political right has no problems presenting female candidates, and what plumbing they happened to be born with really just seems to be far less relevant than whether there's an R or a D after their name. Do you really think the cause of women would be better served with a majority of Bachmans in congress with Palin at the helm? I'll take a Bernie Sanders over a Kay Bailey Hutchison every day of the week and twice on Sunday. YMMV.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)"Collective power" is in and of itself, a straw man.
Yes, if you were to drop several thousand gallons onto a fire, it would be more effective than a drop here, a drop there. However, before you can put any fires out, you have to be able to gather and channel that water. The men in power are very good at making sure women never unite to be able to use that collective power. Part of that stregy is to use the Palins and Bachmanns you mentioned, to be able to run woman against eahc other. Another way is to ensure that women have to work hard for that 70cents on the dollar (funny how you did not address that) that they cannot get involved in politics, because they know their asshole boos will not let them off work to vote, nor support the early voting hours that, funny thing, had women voting before those males took it away. Let's also take the media which focused more on demonzing women, be they martha Stewart, Monica Lewinksy, or any woman that dares use her power, while the Bill Clintons and Ken Lays get a Pass, and even get admired. The underprivilged in America would have collective power, but the power struicture is good about making sure they cannot collect to use that power. One of their most effective tools to p[revent that collection is people like the MRA who whine and go "WAH, women have too much powah!" or "wah, if only da wimmin listned to us and let me be a real men, we could be Progressives." Yeah, that last one sounded awful, and it sounds even dumber form people who claim to be progressive, yet spend a lot fo time harassing women and whining about how men have been hurt by dose eveil feminists.
If you really want to avoid gliding past the issue, ask yourself, when you go ahead and start attacking femisists, who beneifts, hint, it is not the Democrats.
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)Honestly I'm not sure where you went with any of this. There doesn't seem to be a beginning or end to any of it and it looks more like a collection of run on sentences filled with random thoughts thrown together.
You mention "collective power" is a strawman, yet you utterly failed to explain why, so any reader is left to guess what your thoughts here were. Regardless, I wasn't the one who brought up "collective power" in the first place. Near as I can tell you are somehow trying to say "collective power" is an illusion, which may very well be true, but if one is to accept that notion then it follows it's no less of an illusion for men or women collectively and has a lot more to do with class than gender.
Funny how you'd even mention I didn't address "70cents on the dollar". I mean this is really, no-shit funny. For one thing, it wasn't mentioned. For another, there is no "70cents on the dollar". I suspect you are talking about the raw wage gap figure from the BLS, which is actually listed as 77c for yearly wages, and 80c for weekly wages. I've spoken about the subject many times and I really don't care to do so here given this level of discourse, but if you want to educate yourself on the subject and if nothing else at least get the number right, here's a good place to start:
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/08/gender_pay_gap_the_familiar_line_that_women_make_77_cents_to_every_man_s.html
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)though I quote a source that said 70, let's go ahead and go with your 80. How is *) cents on the dollar EQUAL?
and let my break this down for you:
"Honestly I'm not sure where you went with any of this. There doesn't seem to be a beginning or end to any of it and it looks more like a collection of run on sentences filled with random thoughts thrown together. "
Simple, as long as women make less than men for the same amount of work, and as long as women have the minority of positions that are allowed to make decisions, they will NOT have power, and that the men who currently have that power will not want to give it up. Those facts you were so annoyed at were facts that proved that woman;s work is not valued the same as a man, and that women do not have as much political power, despite being the majority of the population. There, that simple enough for your digestion?
Asfar as only arguing buy analogy, you did seem to skim over the facts. You cannot say that the number of CEOS, Congress, Senators, Governors is equal to males, because the raw numbers will not hold your weight. To quote an Italian saying "mathematics is not an opinion", and when you count the number of women in decison making positions versus men, the imbalance of power is obvious. Here is another blue link:
http://www.thisnation.com/congress-facts.html
Men and Women in the 112th Congress
While the partisan composition of the Congress is fairly close to that of the electorate, there are larger disparities between the Congress and the general citizenry in term of sex and race. In the House, there are currently 362 men and 76 women. In the Senate, there are 17 women and 83 men.
Last, the "Fact" you summoned, from the allmighty Slate magazine, says that women;s wage are 80 cents on the dollar, as opposed to 70 cents. WOW. Maybe someday they might make 85 cents to the dollar, if they are good little girls that play nice. Of course that would nto affect their ability to organize, right? But then again, since you ignored my explanation for why a projection of "collective power" is false, I can leave it to you to explain how people with less money and less representatives in offices of power are not hindered.
But of course, if you cannot debate facts, go ahead and act as if you are not amused. I assure you, the rest of us who deal with the reality fo power in this country are not amused either.
barbtries
(28,835 posts)if any good at all comes of what happened in Isla Vista let it be the renaissance of feminism.
women are people. period.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)This issue is too important to ignore, and the risk of greater censorship is that we will shut down some conversations from which many could benefit. I'd rather discuss, learn, grow, and educate, and if that means tolerating a little misogyny in order to keep the conversation going, I think it's worth it. It appears to me that the costs of greater censorship outweigh the potential benefits.
-Laelth
redqueen
(115,112 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)I have a lot of respect for the principles embedded in the 1st Amendment. It's both a blessing and a curse, but it's uniquely American, and I am not ashamed of my preference for more speech over less speech.
-Laelth
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)video one of our young women put up for all to see. and both she and i noticed... the shutting down a woman for a men to have their speech.
lets see how much you get here. cause she was never allowed to make the point. they kept shutting her up. demanding their right for free speech.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)... to me that you ascribe to me the worst possible motives for what I do and what I have to say.
That certainly shuts down conversation. If that's your goal, I admit to being opposed to it.
-Laelth
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)this would be my point giving you this right here, right now. in talking free speech. which you brought up. feminists have been made clear in every circumstance, that free speech is for the men. not us women. the point, for us women, is for us to be shut up.
i gave you a video as an example.
and. when i have time. cause it is going to take time and thought. i will read you post. think. and respond. the one you and i keep mentioning.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I, in turn, will try to keep an open mind about what you have to say.
-Laelth
"feminists have been made clear in every circumstance, that free speech is for the men. not us women. the point, for us women, is for us to be shut up. "
redqueen
(115,112 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)And if so, why? I'd like to see the results too.
-Laelth
boston bean
(36,229 posts)That's for people to stop begging out of these conversations and let their voice be heard. And juries start hiding this shit.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Isn't being progressive mean that every individual is at least entitled not to be disrespected just on the basis of gender?
If you think our society is messed up - fine. There's ample evidence to support that view. That's why we;re progressives. But turning the world upside down doesn't solve any problems.
betsuni
(25,927 posts)Oh wait, that's a Broadway musical, right? Les Misandryables. I think it was a movie too?
Violet_Crumble
(35,996 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)They're just trying to devalue my comment because of my apparent gender.
Violet_Crumble
(35,996 posts)It kind of reminded me of once or twice in the past when I've seen people at DU claim that Islamophobia doesn't really exist...
betsuni
(25,927 posts)How many misandrysts does it take to screw in a light bulb? None. There are no misandrysts.
Violet_Crumble
(35,996 posts)But I've always been quite discerning when it comes to stand up comedy...
betsuni
(25,927 posts)how many misogynists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Thats my best guess.
?w=549
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)What do we seem to be finding out, are the same people who are really defensive about white privilege, often the same who think misandry actually is an issue?
Who deflect concern about misogyny with a made up nonsensical issue about men being mistreated?
Me thinks so..
redqueen
(115,112 posts)As sociologist Allan Johnson notes, "misandry" has no place in a male-identified, male-centered world. Moreover, Johnson states: “And it takes almost no criticism at all in order for men to feel "bashed," like it's "open season on men." In fact, just saying "male privilege" or "patriarchy" can start eyes rolling and evoke that exasperated sense of "Here we go again.” (Allan Johnson, “Privilege, power and difference,” p. 197)
"Accusations of male bashing and man hating work to discredit feminism because people often confuse men as individuals with men as a dominant and privileged category of people. Given the reality of women's oppression, male privilege, and some men's enforcement of both, it's hardly surprising that EVERY woman should have moments when she resents or even "hates" men.” (Allan Johnson, "The gender knot," p. 107
“Both movements (white supremacists and male supremacists) attack women and people of color for playing the victim card because they see white men as the real victims. (Michael Kimmel, "Privilege: A reader," p. 325)
The slightest deviation from male and white centeredness is perceived as a profound loss of privilege. This is why with each tiny step that women and minorities take toward equality, the outcry of white and male supremacists about how "oppressed" white men are has been getting louder.
The conservative backlash is in overdrive to protect their illegitimate, unethical, hierarchal system of privilege. Many White heterosexual men feel "oppressed" and rave about the mythic "misandry."
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i cant get that one out of my head, sittin and watchin with son. society telling him, giggle giggle..... call women liars. do. you can. and you can laugh about it.
wtf.....
lol
now i will continue to read your post. cause i know it is already awesome.
demmiblue
(36,966 posts)I don't read DU as much as I used to because of the misogynists. Even some of the most liberal/progressive members here have shown an insensitivity (and occasional downright mocking) toward DU women who express their opinions/experiences regarding misogyny and sexism. Sadly, I do not think that the admins are going to do anything about this situation.
LiberalLoner
(9,762 posts)
City Lights
(25,171 posts) CFLDem
(2,083 posts)It will allow us to finally disassemble the HoF subforum because DU will officially become one big HoF forum.
Hey maybe skinner's next project could be a website just for DU radfems?
Sounds good to me. 👍
scruboak
(34 posts)and saying, "This has nothing to do with me! I didn't do it so why are you blaming me?"
It's not okay for white people to do that when it's about race. Why is it okay for men to do it when it's about sexism?
chrisa
(4,524 posts)There is no such thing as systemic Misandry. Anyone who says there is is usually a misogynist or "nice guy™" bull crap peddler.
Everytime I see whines about "teh radfems!!eleven!" or "nice guys finish last!!!" I know that this person is really whining about "uppity wimmen" having too much power.
Elliot Rodger may have been psychotic, bit his views alone were typical of MRAs if you read his manifesto. The only difference is that he was a killer.
Violet_Crumble
(35,996 posts)And it'd be a reasonably rare form of bigotry. Unlike misogyny, which is very common....
I opted out of reading that manifesto after another DUer posted a snippet from it that included his desire to put all women in concentration camps and starve most of them to death. I thought I'd spare myself the rest as that was just a taster...
chrisa
(4,524 posts)I only read it because I'm interested in the psychology of people who do such things. The psychotic narcissism and loss of reality is intriguing. I also like to study humanity from a character standpoint - just an interest of mine.
You can tell how loose of a grip Rodger had on reality when reading his writings. It's a shame nobody stopped him in time.
Violet_Crumble
(35,996 posts)I get the interest in that stuff, but the little bit I read of that was just so sick I couldn't bring myself to read more.
From what I've been reading in the media, his family did try to do something and contacted the police when they saw stuff from him online, but the police checked him out and said he was okay. That was a huge, huge mistake on their part 
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)A made up "problem" to distract.
Darkhawk32
(2,100 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Darkhawk32
(2,100 posts)I'll just stick to my "LMAO" and "
".
seabeyond
(110,159 posts) 
dionysus
(26,467 posts)lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)Neither should any other type of sexism or bigotry, including that directed towards men as a group.
We should try for equal, respectful treatment of ALL genders, sexual orientation and race, and try to understand that every group has its own unique issues to deal with, which takes nothing away from any other group's fight for its own interests.
We can accomplish more by being inclusive and empathetic to the struggles of everyone, rather than what seems to be dividing people here into groups according to who should be hated most. It's sad and frustrating to watch, and I can't believe progressive adults here actually do this, when working together and understanding one anothers' issues would do much more than the constant arguing, berating and insulting.
Of course some groups have it much more difficult in the world today, we all recognize that, and I think 99% of people here believe misogyny, homophobia, transphobia and racism are disgusting, dangerous, and work towards countering it in real life and here. Forgetting though, a whole group who are also struggling tells me that some here are not interested in equality for everyone. Fight for one, fight for all ... or don't even bother proclaiming you believe in equality.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Yes, we al do have to stand together, because the power structure that calls a black person a racial slur will call a woman a slur. We know that in the hallowd halls of power, the Oligarchs and their ilk laughs about how they let one or two of their minorioty servants become a mere Millionaire. However, the one obstacle to that unity is the fact that there are too many people who frankly will look the other way when someone is oppressed, because it means they can take advantage of it. It is not just the bigotry of the very top, it is the bigotry amongst ourselves that allows those at the top toplay us like puppets.
polly7
(20,582 posts)The Oligarchs and their ilk don't care whether they're screwing white, black, male or female. And NOTHING we do or don't do to one another affects them in any way. They don't even SEE us. What we do as a unified group to THEM will make a difference, and that will take a unified effort where the difficulties and needs of all are taken into account. Do you really believe ignoring and diminishing the plight of half the human population - including males of every race, is doing any good when it comes to this? Millions of male farmers committing suicide in India, millions more dying in wars started by the have's to fill their war coffers, millions all over the world suffering under brutal austerity. Absolutely, women and minorities have a long way to go before we gain true equality, and we're very lucky in the west that we have the ability to vote in people who will help us achieve this but as a world-wide effort to rid the world of inhumane conditions that affect all of us directly and indirectly, it will take working together as one angry, fed up group. We seem to have more interest though in divisiveness and shaming for the least little thing, as if these gender wars on a message board mean a damned thing in the long run.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)" Do you really believe ignoring and diminishing the plight of half the human population - including males of every race, is doing any good when it comes to this? "
Whoa, sticking up for woman is ignoring the male population, wow. If anything, helping women, or for that matter, any minoprity, is helping males, because the things used to divide and waken us get patched. Our walls are only as strong as the weakest point, if we ignore women or minroties in the name of the "noble cause", we will give the oligarchs a means to break our walls dow again and again.
You talk so much of unfied effort, but how pray tell do they destory unfied effort: answer, by making us think it is ok to screw over group x y or z for the greater good.
polly7
(20,582 posts)And please, at least not such stupid ones - they're yours, claim them yourself.
ancianita
(36,273 posts)Let's be more judicious here.
It takes more than a few misogynistic statements to make a poster appear to be a misogynist. One must be careful not to alert without having seen a pattern of evidentiary statements that promote or indicate cultural acceptance of misogyny. Make a case, but never ignore context, tone and intent. When reading what seems to be a misogynistic statement, be sure to get the poster to clarify why s/he said it or how s/he meant it.
Women need to accept fair criticisms and negative judgments that come from good intentions, logic, links and evidence.
Growing a thick skin around here, exhibiting patience and forbearance, will go a long way toward creating a space in DU where people can express their best selves.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
what can i say. that is too close to it is the tone. speak nicely. hush, when we get to you. kinda thing. personally.... i sit in chair, taking up my space, leaning forward. what i am comfortable with. i cannot collapse within myself.
i tried. cant do it. nope
did i misinterpret? i could have. easily.
ancianita
(36,273 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i am getting real close to the kumbiya.... life is damn good, and going into a dance, i love you all.....
kinda moment. so. i am off to enjoy some music. and get some of this happy spent. to be able to focus a little better.
and i know you are doing a, huh? it is all in the "whole".
ancianita
(36,273 posts)
I'm goin' to da pool and chill. seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
rrneck
(17,671 posts)noun
hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.
So when you spot misogyny you are detecting what you perceive to be an emotion exhibited by another. In text. Anonymously. On the internet.
Are you really able to do that, or is something else happening? Are you confusing differences of opinion regarding political methods and objectives with hate? Does a mere difference of opinion constitute hate? Does a failure to embrace feminist ideology with sufficient fervor constitute hate? Does not telling you what you want to hear constitute hate?
If you want to make sweeping determinations about who belongs where, you need to come up with a criteria that involves something more than how you feel about the subject. It's horribly unfair and manipulative to evaluate the integrity of others based on your own emotions.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)for objecting to misogyny. Nope.
I'm sure all of those over- emotional women appreciate your mansplaining misogyny to them and setting them straight .
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Last edited Wed May 28, 2014, 01:13 PM - Edit history (1)
or run a country. a business. god says so. opppps, evo psych says so on du.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Because I didn't offer a criteria. Or are you being manipulative?
How much is "overly"?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)answer you questions in the order you asked =
Are you really able to do that, YES or is something else happening?NO
Are you confusing differences of opinion regarding political methods and objectives with hate?NO
Does a mere difference of opinion constitute hate?no
Does a failure to embrace feminist ideology with sufficient fervor constitute hate?
substitute the word human for feminist and ponder your own question.
Does not telling you what you want to hear constitute hate? I would rather deal with your honest hatred than your mealymouthed, smarmy, passive/aggressive comebacks
Please note this was answered by an Individual of the Human Race. There is no MindMeld. Other PEOPLE may answer your questions differently. I speak only for myself.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i have had a very productive day. and i think you are sending me off, with a arm slung around the shoulder.... we are pals. you and i.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)I don't think it's wise to substitute an ideology with ones humanity. But that's just me. It seems that when people have done that in the pasth horrible injustices were done in the name of an ideology that denied heretics their humanity.
I would rather deal with your honest hatred than your mealymouthed, smarmy, passive/aggressive comebacks
Of course you assume there is hatred. Probably because I seem to be disagreeing with you. Hm.
As for the rest, well, all you've really done is shout at me. Unsupported one word pronouncements convey nothing but, well, emotion.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)You're slipping.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)In the pantheon of things I have to do, watching someone swing an emotional cudgel at me is waaaay down the list.
So, do you want to attempt a discussion, or do you want to yell some more?
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Line breaks: mis|ogyny
Pronunciation: /mɪˈsɒdʒ ə ni
/
noun
[mass noun]
Dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/misogyny
I could be off base here, but these same people who turn up every time this issue comes up to whinge about how "misandry" is more of a problem because XYZ, that "no our society can't be misogynist because more women vote and more men are in prison", to basically belittle and dismiss the collective lived experience of women who comment on these things and dismiss it with "but not all men are like that", or "what about the men"? That looks an awful lot like contempt and ingrained prejudice from where I'm sitting.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
it has been a pleasure reading you this last 24. i need to enjoy a little of my real life beauty. just a
thank you
rrneck
(17,671 posts)The post to which you replied would hold true for misandry as well as misogyny. No doubt the MRA crowd does their share of whinging (I love that word) for it's own sake. The ingrained prejudice comes from both sides, just as both sides have a legitimate axe to grind. It just happens that women have a larger axe that needs attention.
Evaluations of others based on our interpretation of how much they hate us simply are not healthy. They aren't good for individual relationships and they are not good for societies. Claims of either misandry or misogyny are based on such a subjective standard as to be almost useless. If you think somebody hates you but they don't do anything about it, do they really hate you? How would you know without evidence? And strangely enough, even people that hate each other can work together toward a common goal. People don't have to like you to help you, unless liking you is the objective.
All these complaints about misandry and misogyny are based on evaluations of affect. Thus, an ideology that depends on such evaluations can become an affectation. And that's fine, but don't expect it to get you anything other than a convenient enemy to rail at.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)You ladies stop discussing misogyny or you'll get a lecture on what the word really means in the form of dedicated, unabashed, non-selfaware, mansplaining. And if you don't play along, then, misandry.
Because they cannot just pass by and let you all discuss it without telling you how wrong you are for discussing it in a way that makes them uncomfortable. You know, by leaving out the misandry when talking about misogyny.
Misandry is their Benghazi.
redqueen
(115,112 posts)I guess they gave up on that little quest.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Probably not to me though. I don't care if it bothers people who go out of their way to be overbearing.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)More so a few years ago. People would whip out the dictionary and say "I'm not afraid of gays!!!11 so how dare you call me homophobic!!11" and then spew a bunch of bs. It's like clockwork.
I think someone even tried to invent straight pride in reaction. This place goes insane anytime someone wants to talk about anything that doesn't affect white straight cis dudes.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Lol! I noticed this too, it's like that thing where you say something is racist against blacks and somebody says Reginald Denny or A black guy beat me up in jr.high, or Beyonce. I find it pathetically amusing.
Don't get me wrong, i use dictionaries too. Just not to prove a non point.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)So predictable.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)ismnotwasm
(42,041 posts) 
hughee99
(16,113 posts)antithetical to Democratic and progressive principles. Charges of misandry should also not be tolerated.
So, if actual misandry is displayed, it should be allowed because men aren't a socially disenfranchised class.
Do I understand this correctly?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)misogyny and charges of misandry shouldn't be tolerated.
That would mean that if actual misandry occurs (and I'll agree that it's very rare) you shouldn't be able to call someone out on it.
Science Crow
(21 posts)Perhaps bettyellen will explain this to us.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I'm not interested.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)It's OK to let women express anger - even when it's at us.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)But if one is going to automatically declare all claims of misandy to be false, what is the recourse if it actually occurs?
Science Crow
(21 posts)A member of the oppressor class can not, by virtue or their membership, be oppressed regardless of their individual circumstances, culpability in the actions of their group, or lack thereof. Should they attempt to point out that equality can exist for no one when double standards are permitted, they are to be mocked with gifs and internet memes.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)toward hypothetical misandry is disruptive and hurtful.
There has not been a recent example of a woman posting hateful screeds against men and then committing multiple murders to punish them for perceived slights.
The events in Isla Vista have, understandably, struck a nerve with many of the women on DU. Perhaps we should let them express themselves without judgement?
hughee99
(16,113 posts)but to declare that any such charge should be automatically dismissed (without being judged on their merits) doesn't seem right to me either.
I'm not looking to stir up controversy over women's opinions on the Isla Vista killer, but this is a message board, and one is judged every time they click "post my reply" whether someone actually replies to that post or not.
Science Crow
(21 posts)and yet, the first response to this post was an attempt to discredit anyone who would raise the topic of misandry. It is one thing to tell someone that they are raising an issue in the wrong venue, quite another for someone to raise that issue themselves and dismiss as baseless and laughable the concerns of those who feel that, however miniscule the problem of misandry may be in comparison to misogyny, it still merits consideration as part of the larger problem.
I would never have logged in if those who objected did so for the reason that this is neither the time nor place for their complaints, but that is not what they did: they objected because they felt that those who brought up misandry had no right to do so at all.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)The insertion of "what about misandry" arguments into the Isla Vista threads are a pretty naked attempt to disrupt, distract and derail. I can certainly imagine why some posters have little tolerance for it and react strongly.
Science Crow
(21 posts)Read the original post - it states explicitly the OP's views that misogyny is not to be tolerated as per Democratic principles and misandry is an invalid complaint. This is not an Isla Vista thread, nor was there an attempt to hijack a post. This is an unequivocal statement from an individual who believes their complaints merit concern, the complaints of others do not. I more than happy to listen to those who feel that they should be heard, not happy at all when they insist that others need to shut up.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Isla Vista discussion.
This thread does not exist in a vacuum.
Science Crow
(21 posts)and see no reason to interpret the OP as anything other than the naked attempt to declare policy that it is. Isla Vista is not mentioned. That asshole kid isn't mentioned. The Democratic Party is mentioned, as is a women's group within it. And we, the readers, are told what we should think about those things.
I am not obtuse, I just see no reason to discern intent where intent is expressed
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)You may want to work on that.
Ohio Joe
(21,784 posts)What we should be asking, is why is it tolerated.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)And you say it's unfair to women?
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)Ohio Joe
(21,784 posts)The overwhelming majority of posts do one of two things... Bash feminists/Feminism or attempt to show men as being the truely oppressed.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)It seems that's the issue here. That if a certain group of feminists here says something, that debating or giving a somewhat different opinion automatically equals misogyny.
Just like there were a few here who would say we need to censor pornography because it's degrading to women. And I challenge them on that and suddenly called a misogynist.
Who made the HOF group the ultimate authority on feminism?
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)A totally honest one too.
It might open some eyes.
Ohio Joe
(21,784 posts)
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Just off the top of my head...
1. Im pro-choice
2. I support equal pay for equal work
3. I support breaking down gender roles that restrict both women and men
4. A woman shouldnt be discriminated against
5. Women and men should be valued equally
What I disagree with is some of these radical ideas like "rape culture." There may potentially be a bigger problem with concerns in the military. But admittingly, I haven't done a whole lot of research on that angle of it.
But I dont consider myself a "feminist." I prefer the label of egalitarian because I support equality for everyone, and I recognize that there are some gender equality issues that affect men that feminists pretend don't exist. And I am not MRA for the same reason...MRAs act as if gender issues that affect women don't exist.
Ohio Joe
(21,784 posts)"MRAs act as if gender issues that affect women don't exist."
Sheesh...
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)You asked a question, and I answered it. If you dont want to debate the actual issues and are more interested in trying to find a way to insult me...Im moving on.
Ohio Joe
(21,784 posts)I can't help but agree with that.
Stuebenville... Countless other incidents with sports teams... Untested rape kits... Schools calling rape by other names so they don't have to reports rapes of kick rapists off campus... Women being shamed and attacked for reporting rape... Women being threatened with rape for discussing women's issues... The list goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on.
There is no debate any more then there is one for climate change. There are those that accept reality and those that don't.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)My original post stated that just because someone disagrees with a feminist on some issue doesn't mean that person is a misogynist. You asked me what I agree with feminism on. You then completely ignore everything I agree with feminists on... and you jumped on the one single issue I mentioned that I have a disagreement with. You then say that automatically means Im a misogynist.
You are going in a circle in order to insult me... im done with you.
Ohio Joe
(21,784 posts)Denial of reality is not 'having a disagreement'... It is denial of reality.
I did notice you did not address the reality and instead want to walk off in a huff so as to keep your... "disagreement" intact.
Fascinating.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)discrepancy?
i cannot remember for sure. but i do know, every womens issue i have seen you in, you are not supporting women.
but, those two, i think i remember conversations.
dont you argue that men get beat up by women as much as men?
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)I said that before ACA was passed that insurance companies would charge women more in premiums because statistically women would file health insurance claims more than men. Women would use the system more. That's backed up with statistics. Women go to the doctor more than men.
My problem with that issue is NOT that health insurance should be equal on gender...but that we claim its discrimination in one type of insurance but not in another.
As for pay discrepancy...I have not said a discrepancy didn't exist. I've argued that the gap is not as big as feminist groups say it is. Feminists say women make 77% that a man makes. From my research it's more like 88-93% when you take into account hours worked and career and family choices among women. I also posted a study that showed that the pay gap vanishes when you look at just single women under 30 who don't have children.
As far as men getting beat up more than women. I've never made that claim. I don't know what you're talking about. I have posted statistics that men are the victims in 40% of domestic violence. And that number is from the CDC.
As for posting on feminist issues....you dont talk about anything else but rape and sex! 80% of topics on women's issues is rape culture this or rape culture that, or attack pornography. There are a few topics here and there on reproductive rights or pay gap issues. But everything else is obsession with rape culture. Do you REALLY believe anyone on DU actually supports rape?
Example... I posted an article on here maybe a month ago or so that talked about how only 15% of movies today have a female protagonist as the central character and how women are underrepresented among Hollywood writers and directors. I got some recs on that post, but how many replies? ZERO!!!! But post a topic about rape and it will get 200 replies by the end of the night.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)clarity. and just of the couple that had been tickling my brain.... i was right.
appreciate the clarification
thucythucy
(8,167 posts)and rating them on their "hotness" or whatever.
Last time I checked those were by far the most frequented OPs there.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I know, "oogling!" O no!
opiate69
(10,129 posts)
Response to opiate69 (Reply #357)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)
Response to opiate69 (Reply #362)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)
Response to opiate69 (Reply #369)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)opiate69
(10,129 posts)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)being so busy with the all-consuming one dude crusade against the Dastardly DU mens group, an' all.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)
Ohio Joe
(21,784 posts)The poor, poor oppressed white men... nobody even tries to understand their struggles...
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)
Ohio Joe
(21,784 posts)Oh...
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)IN THE WHOLE ENTIREST HISTORY OF WORST THINGS, even.
It's so awful it's the most viewed thread on DU, that's how bad it is.
But really I find DU in general oddly repetitive these days. Not exactly sure why.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Have not read all the comments...but:
Why do we have white supremacist groups? Because other colors are starting to take over in numbers and they are gaining equality. Because these men are afraid of losing their status and privilege.
Why do we have men who are afraid to acknowledge the discussion of misogyny? Because over time women have been winning equality...slowly but surely. Because these men are afraid of losing their status and privilege.
Because these men are afraid. Period.
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)The problem is those who want to conflate gender and racial issues don't seem to be as interested in making those conflations when the intersections form the other way. There's all sorts of ways that being a person of color AND male works to their social disadvantage. When you bring those things up the gender warriors tend to scatter or claim you are "derailing" a conversation that evidently they are only allowed to participate so one has to wonder what fear has to do with that.
Equality is not just a woman's issue. It's a people issue. It's a family issue. Believe it or not, it's also a men's issue. It's not just a white suburban woman's issue. You are correct in that the equality war is being won, but this often in spite of the counterproductive efforts that some employ. Certain stripes of feminists are losing their pet battles and they are being replaced by the next generation of feminists who just don't share their priorities. There's also quite a bit of fear associated with that.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Yet I have not seen any woman here trying to speak for "all women". Maybe in defense of all women, but not for all women. We all know there are plenty of women, even in this enlightened country, who still allow men to "rule" because of their religious beliefs.
So where are you getting this?
And I'm not conflating gender and racial issues. I could have used any number of examples besides race. My point was, when a group of people are afraid of change, especially when they see their previous position of status threatened, a minority of them will gather into a "hate" group or "self defense" group and try to belittle the change that is threatening them.
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)How does that work? Women aren't a single minded monolithic group anymore than men are. Many have their own ideas about what defense of all women looks like which are often exactly contradictory. Even within the feminist community this is true. As far as where I'm getting this, how often have to seen a person treat a simple disagreement as an attack against "feminists" which one can only believe implies all feminists. Meanwhile other feminists which have conflicting ideas are derided as "fun fems", as if they aren't real feminists.
Your point about race seems a bit more clear now, and I agree with it completely. But if we are to believe every shred of dissent becomes "MRA" or whatever other pigeonhole someone wants to put you in out of some kind of warped purity test, at some point we become an echo chamber where ideas may never be challenged. For whatever reason some people can deal with their ideas being challenged and they want to make things personal. One has to wonder how really secure they are with their ideology if they only want to be surrounded by people who nod their heads. I like to think of the political left as the side that values science, reason, and facts over rhetoric, ignorance, and prejudice. Progressive ideology requires open minds, not closed ones.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Not just fear, but rage - especially at other women who don't believe in the divisiveness that does nothing but make those who can scream the loudest think they've accomplished something.
And you're right, it is a people issue. We all need one another to combat the inequalities and bigotry that keep certain groups down much more than others, but unless we're willing to deal with the very real concerns of ALL humans in this world, we won't accomplish a thing. For example, men in India are commuting suicide at an unbelievable rate d/t disastrous food production regulations imposed by multi-national corporations - they leave widows and children behind in horrible, abject poverty. The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. etc. have killed hundreds of thousands of men who leave behind families with the same results. Until we address the inequality for ALL in a world controlled more every day by those few at the top willing to use men, women, and even children as disposable and collateral damage, there will be no real change for the majority of those suffering.
I'm very concerned about men here in the west, who d/t the same economy are often faced with hopelessness and all those things that follow not being able to make it and support those they love. Definitely, women face all those same challenges here and more, but it seems the struggles of men are more often than not laughed at or brushed off, and that does nothing to help anyone ... it's cruel, imo.
One thing I'm happy about, we in the west can use our voices and laws to vote in people to represent us and bring about the changes we need. People need to work harder to elect those who will fight for them, and never stop letting those candidates know exactly what is expected and demanded of them. We have no idea how lucky we are ... if only we would do the work to take advantage of it.
Just one more thing ..... I always wonder what these efforts to divide one another here really accomplish, other than proving mostly that the people who scream the loudest 'win' something or other. It's a message board. Do those demeaning others who don't toe the line do anything outside of DU to help the women, children, and yes, men - who've been abused, made homeless, thrust into poverty, etc? There are so many ways to help. I hope they do.
Major Nikon
(36,828 posts)I think those who have rage issues tend to focus that on the people around them who are convenient. In many cases rage is at least understandable although perhaps not excusable. Some people have very bad experiences which often can and do manifest in very negative ways more easily than it can be focused into positive efforts. At some point we all need to ask ourselves if we are becoming slaves to our emotions. You are exactly right. There are so many ways to help and many ways to make a difference.
For those who think you or I are the enemy, they really should probably reevaluate their priorities. I've never once voted for anyone who wasn't a Democrat in any partisan election. I place a high value on diversity. I'd be thrilled if half or more than half of our elected officials were women. I think the US and the world would be a better place for it. But rather than focusing on where we intersect, some are determined to focus on what divides us and this is to the detriment of us all and whether they realize it or not is counterproductive to probably even their own goals.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)We need to focus on equalizing everyone, regardless of skin color, religion, gender, mental state, etc. We need to recognize we can't make everyone equal "clones" of each other. We should celebrate our diversity of life experiences too, but we should be working for a world of equal opportunity and respect for everyone, and one that we don't try to categorize and prejudge others too much without really getting to know them as individuals, though our human nature sometimes drives us to make that sort of judgement at times.
It's not just misogyny, but things like judging those who may be mentally ill as potentially all being evil killers as well. That's just as problematic too. That doesn't mean we excuse mentally ill behavior when it is out of bounds either, but it again does mean that we try not to categorize people too much.
I'd really hoped to have my sister visit me today when I had the chance to see Senator Merkley and Senator Warren at a fundraiser, and to have her relate her personal experiences being involved in a lot of the banking messes at Countrywide and Bank of America, amongst other places like that. But haven't been able to reach her in a week. And I have a bad feeling that that murder affected her a lot as well personally, especially since she's just now trying to move away from a community where just a few miles away from her now was the high school that one of the murder victims from last Friday attended. I want to comfort her if that is affecting her heavily, and to also relate how much of a reward it was to meet Senator Warren today and hope that someone like herself leads our country soon! We all need her leadership! Not just women! She IS in my book the right PERSON for the job!!!
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Let's assume these men you describe are afraid. What should we do about that?
-Laelth
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)People have to be responsible for themselves and their emotional maturity.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)However, putting aside my dislike of the word "broken," and assuming that we're talking about "fearful" men, it may still be in our best interests to address the fears of these men, even if it's not our responsibility. That, in essence, is the argument I make here.
The idea I am exploring is this:
If I am right, and these "fears" we are discussing are part of a culture-wide backlash, then shouldn't we address this, even if it's not our responsibility to do so? That's the strategy I am pondering, in any event. I want to find a way to get people to stop voting against their best interests, and the "fears" we are discussing, according to the theory I am toying with, are the primary cause of the counter-productive voting pattern we see among working class men (and the women who love them) who vote for the o-so-manly Republican Party.
Is it not in our best interests to try to change this voting pattern?
-Laelth
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)So our job, is to not let it overpower us. Fight for everything we've won and fight to hold on to it, through education and voting. This forum is a source of that education. And that is what I am here for. To observe, learn and participate. Participation and sharing our ideas and working together as a community is how we achieve strength and provide change a smoother path forward.
It will take generations to breed out the most fearful, those who refuse to open their hearts and minds to change. And as we slowly move forward, the most fearful will dig deeper in the trenches to hold on and not allow that change to happen. But over time they are losing the battle. We just can't give up. It is a lifetime battle.
Unfortunately, with the gun issue, money is a major player and the NRA is pushing the gun culture on us. So those men who are already "fearful" of the changes they see happening around them are much easier to scoop up into the net. Our current plutocracy is not conducive to change, so we really need to work together to fight that. And promote leaders in our government who get that, and fight for us...the people.
I know there are a lot of men, especially here on DU, who are with us, but I do think that it's women who will change the world for the better. I think women have always been the bedrock of community and social change. We really need more women representing us in government. That is one thing I've been on a personal mission to do. Support and vote in every capable woman who is put on the ballot. Get some balance back in our system of laws. But not just any woman...women like Warren. Calm, wise and strong women. If our government was more balanced we might have already passed some more effective gun laws.
There...now I've just scared a whole bunch of men on DU!
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Here's what I have to offer. "Condemnation" and "education" are ineffective strategies for adults (the people who I want to stop voting for Republicans), and that is so because condemnation and education are condescending.
We need new and better strategies if we want people to stop voting against their best interests. Condemnation and education work well on children, and it's not surprising to me that many women fall back on those strategies (as they do most of the childrearing), but those strategies fail to persuade adults because those strategies are, as I said, condescending.
You can find more on that subject here.
-Laelth
Squinch
(51,122 posts)not women or people of color do about that?
Not a lot. We all had to deal with the fear ourselves.
The fear you talk about is different, though. It is not fear of oppression, it is a fear caused by the loss of unearned advantage.
I suggest that WE don't have to do anything about that. Men need to come to terms with a fear of losing unearned advantages and fear of having to live on the same playing field as the rest of us. Because at the bottom of that fear is entitlement and a conviction that those new members of that playing field shouldn't be allowed to be there.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)What I am arguing is that it is in our best interests to address these fears.
Please see post #418, supra.
-Laelth
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)....is a "libertarian", not liberal platform is someone I'm not comfortable with deciding who they think is and isn't a misogynist here.
Che1969
(9 posts)....it is really both liberal and libertarian.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)
"Witch", "Bitch", "Cunt"----now that was some kind of political discourse. I wonder what it would take to get us at DU using words like those again?
"No! We'd never do it! No ever! Cross our hearts!" says DU 2014
And yet, no matter how enlightened we became as a species, sexism always seems to be the fallback -ism. If you advocated paying Blacks or Latinos less, you would be run out of the country. Certainly, you'd be run out of DU. But lots of people still try to make a biologic case for paying women less. And if you have one underpaid labor force then you drag wages down for everyone.
Which is the real, economic reason why misogyny never dies. And every time a guy says "How short was your skirt?" what he is really saying is "The Koch Brothers need someone to work for shit wages in crap conditions in their Dixie Cup factory. Hey, you with the two kids to feed and no college degree, you get the job!"
Be very careful when you allow yourself to resort to sexism for political purposes. Sexism is corporatism---meaning any time you use a sexist slur in order to advance an agenda, the Koch Brothers earn another buck.
PS First person who writes "Get over it" makes the Koch Brothers Two Bucks for reinforcing the stereotype that women's concerns about equality are always secondary to every other political concern.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Perhaps should should do the same with the posts you see "routinely, day after day" that you find offensive.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I also take into account the posters intentions. Together, it can usually tell you what is going on.
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)thread.
sofa king
(10,857 posts)...disagree with you!
I am pleased to point out that I've seen some welcome changes in the workplace since the late '80s, early '90s. Most of my best mentors and trainers and bosses were women; it is they who finely tuned my abilities and trained me to learn any workplace task.
I think there are really only two mindsets at work, here. One seems to be adversarial, and while I'm not criticizing it because it's the adversarials who have achieved most of the successes that created the modern workplace, I think we all need to agree that it is from this camp that the men versus women arguments arise; the opposing sides of that fight are really one faction in which everyone agrees that something must be fought over. I think most people in this faction have direct and often highly negative experience with sexism in the workplace, either dealing it out or dealing with it; this makes them far more personally invested in the fight as well.
The other mindset is collective. It's about what can we do to make our workplace better and bring true equality to all of us. These are the people who have already fought and won through the adversarial course and have come to agree that consensus and respect for all are the ways to get things done, and incidentally improve the lives of workers, as well.
The collective route is winning out in the workplace because those places draw in and keep the most capable employees. I'm not saying the fight doesn't have to still be fought; I'm saying the victories are consolidated by the peacemakers, not the fighters.
flashbang
(18 posts)I agree with the thread title.
Some of the people rationalozing are being disingenuous and you know you are. The only males I've met in real life who feel 'oppressed by misandry' are my 9 and 12 year old nephews when their Mom tells them to clean up after themselves.
No idea what they might call it when Dad does. White knighting? lol
Gee, thanks for telling me.
No, strike that. Go read MY other posts BEFORE directing me to more of your own. Then come back and tell me what you think of what I think. No respect given, no respect gotten. I don't care how much we do or do not see eye to eye politically.
Meanwhile, I dom't really like wearing shoes without socks. Oh sure, I mean sometimes my Converse will get pulled on...uh, my black Converse that is...without putting footies on, but usually just to go get the mail. But otherwise? No. Nope, I have to put some kind of cloth between my skin and shoe. I mean, geez, why risk the stench? I can't just buy shoes any ol' time I want! Besides, I hear cops think sockless people are probably dopers and even if I was one, I wouldn't want to be bothered!
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Some people come here for discussion and education, and others have different motives. It appears I made a mistake regarding your motives. Sorry.
-Laelth
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)No one can spot Misogyny quicker. So why not? Let's give the HOF the power to determine who and what passes muster here.
redqueen
(115,112 posts)with their whines about the HoF.
I wonder why that is.
Maybe having a spotlight shone on the similarities between MRA talking points and men's group topics is making some folks eager for any kind of distraction at all.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)says a hell of a lot.
Rhinodawg
(2,219 posts)they are both wrong.
Hosnon
(7,800 posts)For example, we are often told that rape/sexual assault is a man on woman crime, and that all porn objectifies women (I see no women in my porn).
Kick in to the DU tip jar?
This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.
As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.
