Should men be banned from posting in the "Feminism" forum?

71 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Sat, 2012-06-30 02:08

Sven

Rebecca West wrote:

The "be treated like a man" statement is most offensive. I'm not a man.

I don't necessarily want to get into a discussion about parsing words, but I didn't say I would treat you as though you were a man. I would speak with you like I speak with anyone, man or woman (or, if you prefer, when I talk with a man, then I'd say the same thing to him if he were a woman -- even if he objected and said, "I'm not a woman" -- to which I'd respond, "Well, no shit, but you are a human being").

What could possibly be objectionable or "offensive" about that talking with men and women in the same manner?

I agree with you that "[b]eing male is not the standard." The standard should be: "Are you a human? Yes? Then I'll speak with you like you're a human."

Sat, 2012-06-30 02:20

#53

eastnoireast

years ago i went to an art show. it was political, it was feminist. fairly big show. off to the side was a little plinth, and on top of it were some pens and a note asking that women and only women write their comments or impressions or whatever. pretty well the entire writing surface was covered by stuff men had written complaining about being denied access to that space. i don't remember any of the other pieces, but i sure remember that one.

the feminist forums here somewhat remind me of that. and really, men are just asked to dial it back a bit.

hey, if you're in somebody else's house, you have discussions, and they might even get heated, that's ok, but it's nice to be asked over, so don't go picking fights, you can nod and smile, it won't hurt you. and if they really drive you crazy, just don't go over anymore. "sorry, i gotta work on my f150 truck tonight"

personally, i mostly prefer co-ed (multi-ed?) situations, be it bands, parties, work situations, forums, whatever. way more interesting and dynamic. because nobody's got the exclusive franchise on truth, or bullshit.

Sat, 2012-06-30 03:09

#54

NDPP

Rebecca West wrote:

Sven wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Rebecca West wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Why not a clearly marked and pinned thread entitled: "The Rules", Las Reglas, etc?

"Discuss issues from a feminist perspective." If you don't know what a feminist perspective is you can either do some reading and ask questions of women participants without being aggressive, domineering or argumentative when answers are provided, or you can choose not to participate.

I don't think it can be any clearer than that.

That bold text is really something, Rebecca. If a woman says something that doesn't make sense to me (either because I think it's wrong or because I don't understand it), is asking direct, pointed questions of her being "aggressive, domineering or argumentative"?

Now, I can imagine you thinking right now that I'm being "aggressive, domineering or argumentative" in even asking these questions of you. But, I'd say the same thing if you were a man. Why should women be treated as though they will fall apart if challenged on something they say?? Frankly, in your case specifically, I have more respect for you than to treat you differently than I would a man.

Sorry Sven, but that's probably the most comprehensive pile of self-serving bullshit I've seen here recently.

The "be treated like a man" statement is most offensive. I'm not a man. Nor is any other woman here. Being male is not the standard. Would you go into a forum for people of colour and defend your behavior as treating people like they're as white as you are, because that's the standard of fairness? Sorry, but that's deeply fucked up.

Once again, I'm pondering why you're here Sven. You aren't progressive. You're not even a liberal by US standards. I'm thinking your only purpose here is to be a provocateur - for what, I have no idea.

Mr Tea wrote:

But I don't think you can say it's open to everyone and then condemn men for dominating the discussion when everyone is free to post. You can't really have it both ways. I'm also not sure (but am open to being corrected) why the presence of men's voices make the space unsafe for women.

Still not getting it, are you. You may, yourself, buy into the fantasy that because the FF is in a public space that it can be a free for all for anyone about anything, but you would be wrong. You are also pointedly confusing the issue with the craptastic point that men's voices aren't welcome in the FF. They are, but they have to recognize that this is our space, and the rules are clearly defined. Break them, and you'll be asked to leave the discussion. Continue on, despite the warning, and you'll be suspended.

ETA: I'll ask the same question of you that I asked Sven: why are you here? You aren't progressive, you dive into discussions where you'll disrupt and derail the thread in the worst way. I challenge you to give me an answer that won't get your sorry ass banned.

NDPP

And I challenge you to stop your rude insulting, threatening behaviour. Completely outrageous and unnecessary this. Chill out. No wonder people are fleeing this place in droves.

Sat, 2012-06-30 03:21

#55

Ken Burch

Who, precisely, are you issuing that particular challenge to, NDPP? There were four people being quoted in that block of posts.

Sat, 2012-06-30 07:11

#56

Ghislaine

I thought I would chime in, with my womanly status.

I will be honest that I was sad when the thread about the prospects for Egyptian women under the Muslim Brotherhood turned into a "men, please don't post here " thread. I much prefer replying to what everyone says. I think that as women, if 52 posts are by men and one by a woman and we only want to discuss an issue with women - we are free to only acknowledge or respond to that one post (this does not include trolls, they should still be banned along with spammers).

That said, I though Catchfire's post was very rude, coming right after a female mod had just made that request. My understanding was that both mods had equal status vis-a-vis authority and it appeared that a male mod was disregarding what a female mod had just requested, let alone the content of the comment that made the completely offensive assertion that Sharia law wasn't particularly anti-woman or bad for women. I had not desire to post further after that comment.

Sat, 2012-06-30 08:55

#57

Boom Boom

Seriously - didn't I have the right idea in post #3 in this thread?

"I hope the Mods shut this thread down and just lay down the law regarding the Feminist Forum."

Sat, 2012-06-30 09:32

#58

Catchfire

@Ghislaine, I'm sorry you feel that my one post in that thread was rude -- Rebecca and I had already talked about that thread and agreed that the discussion was back on track. As you can see from the thread, the request for the men who had been in that conversation to leave (I was not one of them at that point) was made two days and 25 posts before mine, and at least two other men had already re-entered the disussion. But the main thing is that Rebecca and I had conferred, as we do with almost all decisions major and minor. So I disagree with your insinuation that I have more "authority" than RW. And of course, I never said anything about Sharia law not being anti-woman. I have no idea how you read that from my comment.

As for the general talk here which asserts that there is an unmarked category of "human" whom we can address as a universal subject without prejudice, I am of the opinion that such an idea is a fantasy of white capitalist patriarchy and that the unmarked subject is, in fact, a white heterosexual man of economic means. I've tried, along with other allies, over the years of posting here, to assert that ideology as a methodology, both of analysis and moderation, with middling to low success. Hegemony is a tough nut to crack. I'm not going to repeat those arguments here, because of repeated them to Sven personally many times over the years, and he is too content with his own opinions to try to alter them. That probably goes for many people, myself included -- at least on this score.

As for the usual bullshit Stalinist accusations brought up in this thread, which somehow has again become about the moderators, I'll only point out that Sven is still here. And perhaps those of you who claim to be pro-labour but ceaselessly berate and hector the moderators, whose labour makes this place happen, for minute grievances you can't get over, I respectfully and in the nicest possible way suggest you lighten the fuck up.

If you disagree with the above, particularly the fact that we need to identify and acknowledge difference if we are ever going to enter into a meaningful dialogue which produces and profits from diversity, I'm not going to work too hard here to convince you. I will only point out the blindingly obvious: there are no women here. Save a very select few, they're gone. Gone. They won't be back, and they're not being replaced. I can count the non-ex-mod women here on one hand. You can blame whomever you like, I honestly don't care. But until we -- and I mean all of us -- admit this fact to oursleves -- really, really take hold of it -- and think about what I, personally, have done to enact this reality and what I might do to change it, it won't stop. And we're all culpable, we're all implicated. So to insist on maintaining the status quo, not changing our harmful patterns which continue to drive women and persons of colour away, is absolutely disingenuous and toxic to the community of this place.

And if you don't believe that, we're lost.

Sat, 2012-06-30 10:24

#59

quizzical

Catchfire wrote:
@Ghislaine, I'm sorry you feel that my one post in that thread was rude -- Rebecca and I had already talked about that thread and agreed that the discussion was back on track. As you can see from the thread, the request for the men who had been in that conversation to leave (I was not one of them at that point) was made two days and 25 posts before mine, and at least two other men had already re-entered the disussion. But the main thing is that Rebecca and I had conferred, as we do with almost all decisions major and minor. So I disagree with your insinuation that I have more "authority" than RW. And of course, I never said anything about Sharia law not being anti-woman. I have no idea how you read that from my comment.

i think your post is unhelpful and in fact adds to the prblem you're lamenting. did you listen to a woman's voice? or did you tell her she is wrong 'bout everything she perceived?

Sat, 2012-06-30 10:34

#60

Polunatic2

I have no problem with explicitly identified "women only" or other "____-only" threads to discuss particular issues, but not an entire forum. Men can (and should be) feminists - i.e. support equality and expanding the rights of women.

Sat, 2012-06-30 11:21

#61

onlinediscountanvils

I think it's always helpful to be reminded that not all conversations between babblers - including the mods - happen in public view. I think the fact that that RW and CF had been discussing that thread privately was relevant to Ghislaine's concern that CF had undermined RW by joining the discussion. (I think it's also worth pointing-out that CF's post was made to welcome and support comments made by a woman who was brand new to babble(!).

Not that I wanted to participate in that thread any further - I only jumped-in to support quizzical's objection to the use of the word 'hysteria' - but it was never clear to me whether RW was asking [i]all[/i] men to leave the discussion, or [i]only[/i] the ones who had hijacked it away from being a feminist discussion. I read it as the latter, but wasn't entirely sure, so CF's comments helped clarify that for me. [ETA: This was further supported by the fact that two other men who hadn't participated in the discussion prior to RW's request were able to post without any objection; as well as the fact that RW subsequently thanked NDPP for one of his later posts.]

Sat, 2012-06-30 11:41

#62

Aristotleded24

Sven wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:

Am I the only person finding it ironic that this very discussion has been dominated by men?

Posting is not "dominating" a conversation.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

I think it would be appropriate to have the perspective of the women of babble on this matter.

Anyone can post here.

I'm sorry, but I refuse to think of women as being so timid and fragile that, even if they want to say something, they're afraid to open their mouths because the atmosphere isn't "safe". Women can be asked pointed questions and they are perfectly capable of debating an issue logically. If someone, whether it's a man or woman, chooses not to engage in a conversation in that manner, then it's their choice.

Sven, my point is that the feminism forum is a space do discuss issues facing women, and it's ultimately the women who should decide these things. This thread has majority male posters discussing an issue that affects female posters, and if this is really an issue, I think the more appropriate thing would be for the men to listen to what the women are saying. That's what I'm getting at: men on this thread deciding something for women.

Sun, 2012-07-01 03:14

#63

Wilf Day

Catchfire wrote:
there are no women here. Save a very select few, they're gone. Gone. They won't be back, and they're not being replaced. I can count the non-ex-mod women here on one hand. You can blame whomever you like, I honestly don't care. But until we -- and I mean all of us -- admit this fact to oursleves -- really, really take hold of it -- and think about what I, personally, have done to enact this reality and what I might do to change it, it won't stop.

(Ahem) Ottawa Observer. (/Ahem)

Sun, 2012-07-01 05:35

#64

jjuares

I thought that the title of this thread was simply an exercise in irony. Given all the positive responses I guess it wasn't. Absolutely the most self-defeating, undemocratic proposal I have heard in awhile.

Sun, 2012-07-01 05:51

#65

Left Turn

I don't support turning the feminism forum into a women's only space -- and it seems that the women who've posted in this thread don't support this idea either -- though I do think that it's important for the feminism forum to be primarily women's voices. When I start a thread in the feminism forum, I want to hear women's views.

There really is no justification for men making the majority of posts in threads in the feminism forum. It's drowning out women's voices, and it's problematic regardless of the content. And it's really not that hard to avoid. If the majority of posts in a thread in the feminism forum are by men, and you are a man, don't post until there have been more posts by women. I don't post under such circumstances, even if I have something to contribute to the topic. It's that simple. And I won't post in feminism forum threads if there are no posts by women.

Maybe if all us men did this, we wouldn't drive away so many valuable women babblers.

Sun, 2012-07-01 23:33

#66

MegB

Left Turn wrote:

I don't support turning the feminism forum into a women's only space -- and it seems that the women who've posted in this thread don't support this idea either -- though I do think that it's important for the feminism forum to be primarily women's voices. When I start a thread in the feminism forum, I want to hear women's views.

There really is no justification for men making the majority of posts in threads in the feminism forum. It's drowning out women's voices, and it's problematic regardless of the content. And it's really not that hard to avoid. If the majority of posts in a thread in the feminism forum are by men, and you are a man, don't post until there have been more posts by women. I don't post under such circumstances, even if I have something to contribute to the topic. It's that simple. And I won't post in feminism forum threads if there are no posts by women.

Maybe if all us men did this, we wouldn't drive away so many valuable women babblers.

Thank you for this post. It's both sensitive and pragmatic.

Mon, 2012-07-02 02:43

#67

Ken Burch

Perhaps we could set up a system in that forum whereby men were expected to ASK before they could post...and then the mod and the female posters could decide if they were able to.

(a male poster would face progressive discipline...suspensions of increasing lengths, culminating in banning)if he posted without asking)

Obviously the post in which the poster asked for permission wouldn't count, so long as there was nothing in that post OTHER than the request itself.

One possible solution.

Mon, 2012-07-02 11:32

#68

6079_Smith_W

I don't have a problem at all with an exclusive women's space. After all, it exists in other places, and even in the real world, and is perfectly normal. And it seems to me the question is primarily about creating a safe space.

It might not help promote the learning process that some here are advocating (and which I support, but will always be a process). But it would be clear and simple. Men don't go there, and aren't expected to respond.

(edit) actually, the opportunity should still be there, because really, it should apply in the entire forum, not just in one area.

I think LeftTurn presents an ideal that we certainly should work for. Problem is, none of us - not all men, and not all women - are on exactly the same page when it comes to what that ideal means in practice.

I have seen a few times where the OP includes a request that only women participate. I think that is an excellent model to follow.

And one problem with a ban is that with many women not here, it might be hard to sustain an exclusive space.

So really, I am fine with either way of doing things. And I don't think it is, or should be seen as a big deal. It is as simple as some women deciding (and it is their decision to make) that they want a private space for themselves.

Mon, 2012-07-02 13:07

#69

Fidel

6079_Smith_W wrote:
I have seen a few times where the OP includes a request that only women participate. I think that is an excellent model to follow.

And that's partly been my problem. Sometimes I don't see the caveat or new rule inserted somewhere in the middle of the thread which states something like: ~ No males shall post after this one called it stamped it. Although in the last instance where I was issued a 24-hour suspension the decree was posted immediately before my last post in the feminism thread, which I suppose nullifies my protest. Besides being hard of hearing I also have low vision which makes discovering spur of the moment spot decrees a tedious task at the best of times. I admit being caught dead to rights violating the spot decree in that thread. What can I say. I might suggest highlighting in red font any mid-thread rules with consequences if trespassed. Just a thought.

Mon, 2012-07-02 13:12

#70

jjuares

Should n't marginalized groups try to engage the wider world as much as possible?

I hate the emphasis the left places on these issues. Hey, we don't win elections but we win the language wars.

Mon, 2012-07-02 13:13

#71

MegB

Well, this discussion has run its course. We've seen suggestions ranging from the practical to the whiny, rude and assertive of privilege.

There will be no new "rules" for the feminist forum - the existing guidelines are sufficient, and I'm hard-pressed to guess why any woman here would particularly care about what "rules" men devise for a feminist space. I do, however, have one final suggestion.

If you can't understand the existing mandate of the feminist forum, if there is any lurking mystery as to what is appropriate behavior in the FF, don't go there. Just don't.

Closing.

Pages

Topic locked