Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


iemanja's Journal
iemanja's Journal
February 26, 2014

New Poutrage: da Bear opens da doors


Heart attack ensues:

February 25, 2014

AHHHHHH, save mankind from the matriarchy of doors!

Stolen from RBStevens

February 22, 2014

"A small group" is responsible for all that ails DU

So we are told. Reactionary men could happily live in a world where no one ever suggested to them that they should treat woman as human beings rather than mere objects of lust of rage, if only for a few radical fringe feminists on DU. How many times have we heard everything here is the fault of a "small fringe group"? The comment reveals profound self-delusion. They want to ignore key issues about equality and inclusivity to make it all about a few feminists on this site. Only they are railing against practices that have been standard in every public place for decades in this country. They act like they never before heard there was anything objectionable about posting pictures of bikini babes in public places. They act like they never heard about the concept of a hostile environment before it was raised here recently. They deceive themselves by insisting that only a few loud-mouthed feminists care about such issues, even while posting in a thread with over 177 Duers expressing disapproval of the hostile environment engendered by such pics. They do so knowing that Skinner locked one such thread and instructed the GD hosts to allow no others. Yet it's all because of HOF members, despite the fact that they couldn't get away with any of that stuff in any public space anywhere in this country and haven't been able to for decades.

So what's going on here? Why do they so resent progress? Why do they refuse to consider the concerns of anyone but themselves? Why to they respond cruely to someone who shares a hearbreaking story of repeated rape from a very young age? Why do they systematically refuse to consider the testimony of victims of child abuse, legal rulings and evidence, and repeat the lies generated by the publicity machine of a wealthy, accused pedophile? Why is it they insist on telling people of color they are just too touchy when they point out the obvious--that stereotypical meals of fried chicken and watermelon are purposefully racist and do not "honor" African American culture. To deny the voices of feminists and people of color in articulating what they find offensive represents a clear determination that some see those groups of Americans as unworthy of basic respect or the same rights afforded to white men.

The "small group" didn't post the T and A pics. A small group didn't post the callout threads and posts in GD, all placed for the explicit purpose of creating drama and belittling the views and lives of those they see as entirely without value. One member of the small group did post Dylan Farrow's testimony, and that was an outrage. To consider the views of a woman was an anathema and triggered a meltdown by one particularly angry member. Many others simply refused to read her testimony or the court record showing Woody Allen's entire story was a lie because they didn't want facts to get in the way of their determination to defend an accused pedophile, who's victim was only a girl, hardly anyone who mattered. A member here who expressed a heartfelt story of her own assault was called a liar, insulted and ridiculed, even though what she described happens to millions of girls and boys across our nation. What this small group does is raise the viewpoints of human beings whose lives some consider entirely insignificant.

The fact is we are dealing with some very angry people who hate progress more than anything else. They despise the fact that they are expected to treat others as human, that they can't insult women as b and cs at will (even though they do and juries let them get away with it). Yet the fact that someone might object to their determination to treat women as subhuman is to them an outrage. We see an increase in use of racial slurs, and now we see them attacking LGBT members as loud-mouthed "crusaders" who would be better off keeping their mouths shut. To them, the only ones entitled to speak are themselves and those who support them. Anyone who questions their privilege and suggests that equality does matter is to be attacked and deligitimated at all costs. They personalize the issues to make it about a few HOF members, a few uppity African Americans, and a few LGBT "crusaders" because they won't examine what they are really trying to establish: white, heterosexual male supremacy. They seek to establish in a little corner of the internet something that exists no where offline in the USA. They do so precisely because they so despise the progress of the past half century and they especially resent members of subaltern groups who insist that we too are full citizens entitled to all the same rights, opportunities, and respect that straight, white men enjoy. All of us they so resent on DU could disappear tonight and their lives would not improve in the slightest. They will still live in a society that seeks to expand rather than retract civil rights. They will still live in a world where they have to compete based on merit, education and experience, rather than mere accident of birth. Yet they make it all about a "small group" because they refuse to confront the issues of equality and inclusivity that they are so determined to fight against.

February 16, 2014

What a SI cover honoring women would look like

Sports Illustrated is about sports. It's in the title, right? So if the magazine wanted to honor women, they would focus on some of the great female athletes. This is what an SI cover might look like in a world without sexism, if they published for an audience that valued women for what they accomplish in sports.

Now those are some fierce women!

February 3, 2014

Most favored rapist status

It occurred to me than some accused sexual assailants enjoy most favored rapist status on this site. The obvious examples are Julian Assange and Woody Allen. Another case is James Winston, Heisman Trophy winner, who was not prosecuted despite DNA evidence, a medical exam that showed vaginal tearing and severe bruising, and the examining physician's determination that the victim had been raped. A dozen or two members insisted he too was innocent.

Those are the cases I recall by name. I thought others here might share cases they remember where people made a point of defending an accused rapist.

Lastly, I'd like to know whether you think it's a case of famous guys getting a break, or that this community, like the country in general, always believes accused rapists over victims? Certainly some accused assailants attract more defenders than usual. For some reason Woody Allen seems to be enjoying more support even than Julian Assange, and clearly far more than James Winston. So I wonder if it's a matter of some men being above the law, that people can't believe that men they admire would do such a thing, or that there is a default position of innocent until proven guilty that sexual assailants enjoy here that those accused of perpetrating other crimes do not? Or is there some other explanation? Lastly, why? Why is it that being accused of child molestation or rape elevates a person's standing above other accused perpetrators, like the guy in Florida who killed the teenager who was playing loud music?

Here I feel compelled to post a few caveats. Of course everyone is innocent until proven guilty in our justice system. That, however, does not govern discussion on DU. Nor does it explain why the "innocent until proven guilty" argument is always made for rapists but seldom for those accused of other crimes, and never for women accused of making false rape accusations. I have never seen anyone come into Weird News and say "that woman accused of injecting poop in her husband's I.V. is innocent until proven guilty." Nor have they said "Those McDonalds employees accused of selling Heroin in the Happy Meals are innocent until proven guilty." Cheney, Bush or Christie are not innocent until proven guilty. They are, according to DUers, guilty. So why should accused rapists be held in higher esteem than elected officials?

Final caveat: Of course some accused persons are innocent. Trials determine legal guilt; discussion boards do not.

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Member since: Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:49 PM
Number of posts: 53,023
Latest Discussions»iemanja's Journal