*
Back-Off, and I don't have to say please.
Fri, 2014-06-20 22:06
#1
Back-Off, and I don't have to say please.
Fri, 2014-06-20 22:10
#2
I welcome men participating in the feminist forum but sometimes you are taking over and dominating conversations before women even have a chance to begin participating. There are few members and even fewer women. They don't all sign on every day. We don't have a chance to shape threads before men jump in and you don't have the same perspective on issues as we do. For example, very few women have trouble with Canada's age of consent laws. Women are far more divided on the issue of prostitution so when men weight in it skews the discussion. Men impacted the nature of the discussion in Yes All Women.
Men's posts are often in opposition to whatever is being presented, or defensive. Instead of women having a mutually supportive conversation we are embroiled in debate defending the validity of our views or explaining ourselves. The purpose of a thread is often lost before it even begins.
Unless a thread is dead for 48 hours consider letting us have the first 5 responses and if a thread is going strong consider holding back a bit and learning what we say to each other when you aren't influencing the discussion. When you are participating check to make sure women are getting enough time to get a post or two in rather than participating in rapid-fire discussion, especially with other men. Allow the conversation to move more slowly in the feminist forum even if one feminist responds and you are itching to counter. You don't get the last word in the feminist forum.
It's not that I want men out of the feminist forum, I do appreciate your input. I just don't want you to behave as though you are equal here. We have a right to be dominant here. We have a right to say "back off", not "don't post" just "back off". If we are rude it's because we feel you are over-stepping and you won't hear us unless we are blunt and forceful. We don't want to do battle with men here. We shouldn't have to fight you to take the lead in our conversations. You definitely shouldn't be changing a thread to focus on men's concerns unless invited to do so. If you are told you are taking a thread off topic the correct response is "Sorry, I'll shut-up for a bit" not "I'm right blah blah blah".
Feminists will invariably do battle with each other but that isn't a signal for you to jump right in, pick a side and gang up. That is one of the reasons feminists feel alienated from progressive men.
We shouldn't have to defend ourselves against you at all, even if you think one of us attacked you. If a woman attacks you in the feminist forum it's because you have done something that upsets her. Maybe what you did wasn't so bad and you just hit a nerve. It doesn't matter. Women should never feel intimidated or pushed around in the feminist forum by men. When you get aggressive that is how it feels. It's depressing. I don't want to fight men in the feminist forum. I just don't.
If I say "back-off" I am obviously feeling pushed. Your response should be to back-off, maybe even say sorry. It doesn't even mean don't respond, it means to check yourself . Examine your own behavior for aggression. Does what you are doing support feminism? Are you needling on purpose? Is the point you are making important enough to upset a woman in the feminist forum? Is that really what you want to do to us here? Get us to fight? Undermine our discussions? Put us on the defensive? Play head games because you like sparring or you need to win? If you are in the feminist forum at all it should be to support us, all of us.
Is it really asking for too much to tell you to accept that in the feminist forum we dominate? When you won't back off it is refusing to take no for an answer.
This pertains solely to the Feminist Forum. It is not gender neutral. We have this space because we are oppressed. Men dominate the world. That you won't allow us to dominate our own itty bitty feminist forum, I don't know what to say….
When you are in the feminist forum your first concern should always be the women that you are interacting with not yourself. It doesn't matter if women are fighting with each other or being snarky. We get to do that because we are women. We get to attack each other, you don't get to attack any of us.
This thread is not an exception guys. Resist for either 48 hours or five posts please, whichever is soonest.
Fri, 2014-06-20 23:01
#3
i hear you. i wouldn't post in the damned if you do threads after the discussion turned to age of consent and men started trying to explain their actions and saying they weren't wrong and weren't sexual abusers and the age of consent was wrong and all the other yapping about.
i was sexually assaulted at 14 when the age of consent was 14 by a 21 year old man who paid large to prove it was consensual in court. it wasn't. i don't wanna hear or see the crap of how a 14 year old can consent.
Fri, 2014-06-20 23:21
#4
EDIT: sorry, missed the request at the bottom of the post. Mods can delete this if they want.
Sat, 2014-06-21 17:43
#5
Thank you voice of the damned.
Quizzical, your experience is exactly what I am talking about. You refrained from participating in a thread. I stopped participating in the feminist forum as a whole for several days because I did not want to deal with defending feminism. Then I had the thought of creating a woman only thread, which I still want to get back into at some point. Then the complaint thread condemned it, and the men (much appreciated) agreed that he was being unreasonable. It still bothered me because there is just so much of it I get discouraged.
That was followed by the age of consent discussion which bothered me for similar reasons to your own. I don't know a single woman who has a problem with the age of consent laws although I am not saying there aren't any.
My focus was that girls are being pressured by boys to sexting thinking they have to do it for acceptance. When they refuse, they are labeled prudes, if they comply they are labeled sluts and stupid. It's a no win situation.
Aristotle understood what I was getting at without prompting so it wasn't that I was being obscure about the focus of the thread.
I figured fine, give it up, just reboot. Start over. Be even more clear. The first post was male objection to a comment I made. He got the first post in both threads even though the second was created specifically because he took the other one off-topic.
Pondering: you are trying to be supportive rather than pushing a male perspective that prioritizes sexual access to women and continues to promote the idea that any attempt to reject male sexual expectations and desires is an indication of sexual repression and prudery.
Male: If you are trying to tar me with that shit I object. If not then please post a quote so we can figure out who has been pushing that perespective.
It wasn't about him, but now I'm supposed to explain myself and justify my comment by pointing out specific men instead of discussing the topic of the thread.
In the Liberation Feminism topic it was inferred through a link that I am a 1970's man-hater who believes that all men are the enemy and mainstream feminist organizations are traitors.
I didn't want to fight it, so I stopped posting.
It's just such a struggle to have constructive discussions. Like I said, I do appreciate the men's presence. They help keep the forum alive. It's just too overwhelming with so few feminists on the board.
I'm disappointed that more feminists haven't commented on this topic.
If other feminists disagree with my comments here I would very much like to hear your thoughts. My experiences here and my expectations of what it should be like don't necessarily reflect that of the other feminists here.
Sat, 2014-06-21 18:18
#6
Maybe the first post doesn't count, but I just wanted to say that I agree with you wholeheartedly. There are too many men on this board who can't figure out how to check their privilege.
Sat, 2014-06-21 19:37
#7
Please Pondering don't use me as a foil after asking me not to post in this thread.
Sat, 2014-06-21 20:38
#8
Please Pondering don't use me as a foil after asking me not to post in this thread.
I know that not using your name doesn't exactly provide anonymity but I didn't use it because your approach to the forum is not unusual. It's not that you are worse than other men in here. I am just using the most recent incidences to describe a trend that feels overwhelming because of the numbers, not because of the individual acts. I apologize for making you feel singled out without an opportunity for self-defence.
If what transpired between us is all that happened over the past couple of weeks it would be nothing. I would just handle it like any other disgreement anywhere on the board. We'd work it out, or not, even in the feminist forum. I don't think you are a particularly bad or insensitive guy or any of the others I mentioned. I don't want you to leave. I was so pissed at Captain Obvious over that link I was ready to banish him to Siberia, but since then I have seen a totally different side of him and really appreciated his constructive contribution to the discussion.
I read Captain Obvious' suggestion of a sticky for this forum and I do think it is a good idea but I would want to hear other feminists opinions and of course it would be up to the moderators. I agree that it is unfair to get angry without providing some guidance on expectations
I guess the thread is wide-open for posting. I hope women just haven't gotten around to it because they are outside soaking up sunshine, but I think it also highlights how few women are here.
Sat, 2014-06-21 23:13
#9
In the Liberation Feminism topic it was inferred through a link that I am a 1970's man-hater who believes that all men are the enemy and mainstream feminist organizations are traitors.
Oh Pondering.
That wasn't my intention at all. I thought the point in the thread was the creation of a non-patriarchal society. My link was to an early discussion about how the feminist movement was co-opted by the liberal ideology, and one which accepted certain patriarchal structures. The point wasn't an attack on you. It was a rapprochment for heaven's sake. Of course she's a radical, but so what? I'm not judging that and I wasn't threatened by a 40 year old article either. (I also didn't read anything in there about man-hating? She's talking strategy!) I didn't explain what I thought the significance was because I didn't want to be accused of mansplaining. I meant what I said; I thought it was interesting and relevant. I was hoping it would lead to a discussion of what a non-patriarchal society would look like, as well as how the feminist movement became divided to begin with.
Geez. I honestly thought it was an olive branch. Look, here it is, straight. I'm sorry that I hurt you in the liberation thread. I thought my disclaimer would be read for what it was. I am also sorry that we argued in our first interaction here. I still don't agree with or like the term mansplaining, but I shouldn't have continued the argument after it was clear it was getting out of hand. It was also a poor way to make a transition from lurker to regular, so I deserved what I got. I also genuinely meant well with the thought about the sticky in rabble reactions. I could tell this was stressing you out, and I still think it is an easy solution so you don't have to write long posts like this. You could even write it yourself and get it stuck there. *shrug* Maybe it is pointless, I don't know. But my intentions were good, in all seriousness.
The only way I can think of to show you that I really did mean well is to leave this forum to you. I take your point about male contributions, but mine are leading to conflicts. Again, my apologies.
Sun, 2014-06-22 03:11
#10
No no don't go. I like your idea about the sticky. I just don't want to overstep myself. I don't speak for all the feminists of babble. They may not feel the same way I do. I read Catchfire's post but I still think it is something we should discuss. If it will lead to less tension why not?
This thread, for me anyway, is working well. I think it's very productive.
I'm very happy to know that the message I got from the link was not the one you intended. This is why I thought different:
Liberation feminism is a new term, something barely starting, It's not the same as "Women's Liberation".
You opened your post with "Everything old is new again".
Carol Hanisch was claiming that Village Voice Ms. Magazine, some of the Village Voice writers, and the “women's lib ladies” in communities all over the country are all liberal opportunists who betrayed radical feminists. She accuses them of being the right-hand women of the male liberal/left.
Hanisch believes they got power by refusing to name men as the enemy (oppressor) blaming society instead. They also divided, silenced and drove out the pro-woman radicals. They named structure (society) as the problem instead of male supremacy.
She states:
"Two kinds of leadership emerged in the groups: 1) straight-forward people who became leaders by putting their politics out in the open and fighting for them. 2) sneaky "anti-leaders" who shouted loudest against leadership but maneuvered quietly to push the group in their direction by withholding information, not telling their politics and leading personality assassinations on those who did speak up honestly. Ironically, women have become leaders fighting for the principle that there should be no leaders. Further, these anti-leaders often are or give support to the superstars that are created by the press and male establishment….
She is saying subversive anti-leaders were supporting the superstars, meaning mainstream feminists, by undermining efforts to create leaders within the radical feminism.
As the liberals have obtained control of the women's liberation movement, their tactics have shifted. Rather than attacks, they now pretend that the pro-woman radical feminists and the politics we represent simply do not exist or do not exist anymore. We are not asked to speak or write for movement programs and journals and newspapers, now controlled by the pseudo-left liberals..
It's a very paranoid and condemning interpretation of the development of the women's liberation movement and why certain forms did not gain prominence.
You seemed to be suggesting that Carol Hanisch represents the type of feminist that I am (extreme radical), and I should learn from the "mistakes" she outlined: name men the oppressors and condemn moderate feminists as traitors to the cause and pick a leader.
I think you can understand why I did not take kindly to your message. I totally thought you were being sarcastic. This came right on the heels of my being challenged in the Nordic thread to declare if I accepted fringe Tea Party/libertarian feminist types who are rejected as anti-feminist feminists and who are supported by men's right's activists.
I still feel you guys need to check yourselves, but I also feel a lot better knowing that I was misinterpreting some things.
I sincerely do not want you to leave Captain Obvious. A confluence of things happened at the same time that pushed my buttons consecutively. I think we are communicating great now.
I don't think there are enough women to keep the forum moving if the men all stopped posting here. I think I did have to have a hissy fit to get the attention of men as a group but maybe now that I have we can move forward constructively. I'm still looking forward to hopefully hearing the thoughts of other women, and men, just more specifically women.
Tue, 2014-06-24 07:00
#11
Maybe it is time to make the Feminist Forum women only.
Tue, 2014-06-24 11:45
#12
Maybe it is time to make the Feminist Forum women only.
I've been saying that(well, mostly to myself) for years now.
Having the whole forum women-only might be going a little far, but I'd see no problem with more threads being declared women-only by their OPs. I don't think one needs to be a gender-separatist to see the value in that.
Mind you, as I am forever pointing out, it is impossible to know the real gender of anyone you have only met on-line(hello Master Debator!), so there would have to be some way of deciding who qualifies for the benefit-of-the-doubt in that regard.
Tue, 2014-06-24 12:12
#13
Mind you, as I am forever pointing out, it is impossible to know the real gender of anyone you have only met on-line(hello Master Debator!), so there would have to be some way of deciding who qualifies for the benefit-of-the-doubt in that regard.
There is no sure way of determining that, and I wouldn't be too worried, because anyone going to those lengths is surely going to troll their way into trouble sooner or later.
Tue, 2014-06-24 16:23
#14
Mind you, as I am forever pointing out, it is impossible to know the real gender of anyone you have only met on-line(hello Master Debator!), so there would have to be some way of deciding who qualifies for the benefit-of-the-doubt in that regard.
There is no sure way of determining that, and I wouldn't be too worried, because anyone going to those lengths is surely going to troll their way into trouble sooner or later.
Yup, and it is very difficult to hide. Many people choose neutral names but gender affects our lives to such an extent that it is almost impossible to be in a community for any significant amount of time without revealing your gender.
In the Sticky thread it was mentioned that I apologized to a man for my lack of clarity leading him to take what I was saying personally. It is true that not all women go around apologizing all the time, and men do apologize, but it's much rarer.
Women fight (bitterly) but we have a stronger peacemaking impedous and a greater desire for consensus. This is not part of our nature. We are not born that way. We are socialized to it and our life responsibilities encourage those skills.
Even when we fight we have our own style.
I found the following interesting. It's an example of the complexities in actually being a feminist man as opposed to a man that supports feminists in theory.
http://quiteirregular.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/but-im-a-man-arguments-gender-and-privilege/
The other day I was told, not for the first time, that some man must have hurt me badly to produce that chip on my shoulder. I’ve mention before that the Internet, combined with my androgynous first name, allows certain readers to spin absorbing little narratives for themselves about my motives, personality and attributes. (Broomsticks, lesbianism, cats, divorces…) It’s telling that the criticism I get as a man writing about gender issues is so different from the abuse I get when I’m occasionally mistaken for a woman. It’s also amusing to (in this case) write an article which suggests that the life experiences and gender of a person matters when considering the way their speech might be “sexist”, and be told that this is complete shit, not to mention sexist, and my opinions should be discounted because I’m clearly an embittered woman.
The initial impulse is obviously to respond by pointing out my gender. I don’t make a secret of being a man in my writing, and I think it’s an important discipline for men who write on gender issues to flag that fact. It helps remind us that we’re speaking within a discussion which isn’t centred on us, and speaking about issues which other people have much more experience with. It also prevents us from disappearing into a style of writing and thinking which is supposedly “neutral”, “objective” and “rational”, when these are all adjectives which have been traditionally constructed as both the ground of truth and a male province.
Men are trained to shape their style in this particular dialect, which obscures the specificity of the person speaking behind a facade of objective authority. It’s useful to remind ourselves that this dialect is gendered, and that it is connected to power.
Of course I don't instantly know when I am talking to a man as opposed to a woman. Women can be aggressive; but a point comes when I just know. The behaviors he describes above are dead giveaways.
Concerning how to be sure, it really doesn't matter. This is such a small board and the mods have a lot of discretion. I really don't think we need to exclude men.
Say we had a "Guidance in the Feminist Forum" thread. Say the same man was directed to check it 15 times over 3 months by 5 regular posters. (Male posters could tell guys to check themselves too (nicely.) Even if a particular post isn't that objectionable the over all behavior can be. At that point a feminist could say to a mod, look, this guy just won't get it. The mod can take into account who is complaining in case of bias. For example, if abolitionists were picking on a man because he supports sex workers the mods are not naive, they would take a harder look. I would hope that most of the time it wouldn't come to that. Most men would understand and be less aggressive so I expect mods would rarely be involved.
Men aren't stupid. The regular ones would get it, the others would be easier to pick out.
Tue, 2014-06-24 16:30
#15
You would be surprised how many posters have caused surprise and astonishment after years when their gender came to light here
Tue, 2014-06-24 17:07
#16
You would be surprised how many posters have caused surprise and astonishment after years when their gender came to light here
Not really, I would expect more of that in a progressive community as gender nonconformists are much more likely to be on this end of the political spectrum than the Conservative end for obvious reasons.
That is quite different than a man concealing his gender as a technique to demand equal rights in a feminist forum. That kind of anti-feminist aggression will reveal itself. If that is not his motivation, and he is just seeking acceptance, then I don't care how he presents himself. He won't disrupt the forum.
I don't have a problem with men in the forum, nor with men fully expressing their thoughts as long as they are feminists, not just men using feminist arguments to pit us against one another or disrupt our conversations.
Men who are here to be allies are more than welcome.
Tue, 2014-06-24 17:55
#17
On Babble or other progressive lists I assume the progressive intent of all the writers until proved otherwise. I believe that insisting on public declarations of principles is often counter productive to dialog with people who are differently minded. Many of the most bitter and hurtful arguments I have experienced have been with other activists, including within feminist organiIng groups. Overall I think that discussion is not possible without civility and often without formal speaking lists.
Tue, 2014-06-24 18:20
#18
On Babble or other progressive lists I assume the progressive intent of all the writers until proved otherwise.
Progressive intent is not the same thing as feminist intent. Apparently there are people accepted as progressives who do not believe that women in Canada are oppressed.
As I understand the feminist forum participants are expected to be supporters of feminism, not simply progressive.
Tue, 2014-06-24 18:43
#19
To my mind you cannot be progressive without being a feminist. Moreover I am always very uncomfortable when a conversations starts withstood etching like " please affirm that you you are not a member of the Communist party". .For me insisting on a preliminary declaration of beliefs is a little to close to the thought police. How someone defines a particular belief is often troubling. Further speaking only for myself, I find someone else's insistence that I declare my beliefs or affiliations really bossy. I don't like bossy.
Tue, 2014-06-24 18:46
#20
The sentence should read I am always uncomfortable when a conversation starts out with something like.... The posted text was influenced by my fingers, spell check and a crowded bus. Sorry....again
Tue, 2014-06-24 19:23
#21
You would be surprised how many posters have caused surprise and astonishment after years when their gender came to light hereNot really, I would expect more of that in a progressive community as gender nonconformists are much more likely to be on this end of the political spectrum than the Conservative end for obvious reasons.
That is quite different than a man concealing his gender as a technique to demand equal rights in a feminist forum. That kind of anti-feminist aggression will reveal itself. If that is not his motivation, and he is just seeking acceptance, then I don't care how he presents himself. He won't disrupt the forum.
There was a male poster here about a decade ago, who did exactly what you describe, ie. pretend to be female and feminist in order to pit feminists against one another and against other marginalized groups. Several threads were devoted to serious discussion about "her" obsessions with supposedly self-hating Third Wave feminists and misogynistic gay men.
And, while I think some people might have had a few suspicions, there was no widely expressed skepticism about the poster's gender, and quite a bit of surprise when the troll outed himself on a blog.
So no, I don't think it will always reveal itself, at least not in such a way so as to attract notice from anyone with the power to regulate the troll's actions. Thing is, though, if the standing rules are consistently enforced, it won't matter. As long as the poster knows that, eg. attacking Third Wave feminists or gay men will result in reprimand, they won't bother creating the fake persona in the first place.
Tue, 2014-06-24 20:04
#22
To my mind you cannot be progressive without being a feminist. Moreover I am always very uncomfortable when a conversations starts withstood etching like " please affirm that you you are not a member of the Communist party". .For me insisting on a preliminary declaration of beliefs is a little to close to the thought police. How someone defines a particular belief is often troubling. Further speaking only for myself, I find someone else's insistence that I declare my beliefs or affiliations really bossy. I don't like bossy.
If you join a communist message board they expect that you support communism.
To my mind you cannot be progressive without being a feminist too, but apparently I am wrong.
If I say I am anti-racist, but I don't believe racism exists in Canada, I will undermine any discussions of racism in Canada.
If I say I am progressive, but Canada is already progressive so no need for it here, I will undermine discussions.
If I say I am anti-homophobic, but then say it isn't a problem in Canada, I will undermine discussions.
If I say I am a feminist, but that women have pretty much achieved equality in Canada, I will undermine discussions.
It's facetious and unprogressive to claim to support a cause but then argue from the perspective it has been achieved. It's playing semantics in the worst way.
No one actually has to declare themselves but they should understand the premise of the feminist forum assumes posters are here to advance feminist causes in Canada not just in other countries.
Tue, 2014-06-24 20:05
#23
stupid double post
Tue, 2014-06-24 21:07
#24
No one actually has to declare themselves but they should understand the premise of the feminist forum assumes posters are here to advance feminist causes in Canada not just in other countries.
Who are you to presume who does and does not understand the premise of the feminist forum. What is with the dichotomy of women in Canada and others. Aren't all women important. You post articles about the US and womens issues from that foreign country all the time.
Your liberal views and preference for Trudeau as a PM leads me to doubt that your poitical views are progressive. But then that would have to be a term that had the same definition for you as it does for others. If being left of Harper is progressive then most Canadians are but that would be a meaningless definition. The actual babble terms set out something very different. By the way for your information anti-imperialism is also in that list and frankly the pro-NATO crap around here is far more offensive than most other anti-progressive posts like the ones promoting a fucking Liberal government.
Tue, 2014-06-24 21:44
#25
To my mind you cannot be progressive without being a feminist. Moreover I am always very uncomfortable when a conversations starts withstood etching like " please affirm that you you are not a member of the Communist party". .For me insisting on a preliminary declaration of beliefs is a little to close to the thought police. How someone defines a particular belief is often troubling. Further speaking only for myself, I find someone else's insistence that I declare my beliefs or affiliations really bossy. I don't like bossy.
I think this is what i try to describe, but haven't expressed it quite so well.
I am also wondering if what is needed isn't a sticky rule or limits on who can post in the feminist forum so much as a new forum just for women's issues, with or without a feminist affirmation such as the one you describe (re; communist)
Tue, 2014-06-24 22:37
#26
No one actually has to declare themselves but they should understand the premise of the feminist forum assumes posters are here to advance feminist causes in Canada not just in other countries.
Who are you to presume who does and does not understand the premise of the feminist forum. What is with the dichotomy of women in Canada and others. Aren't all women important. You post articles about the US and womens issues from that foreign country all the time.
I am a feminist and a woman in the feminist forum. All babble feminists have a right to discuss what that means.
The forum is described as Feminists discussing feminist issues from a feminist point of view.
If my interpretation is wrong, or if other women disagree, that is their right. In fact you also have an opportunity to express your thoughts.
Who are you to challenge feminists on our right to determine the parameters of our board? Nowhere did I suggest feminist discussions should be limited to only Canadian issues or examples. Yes All Women was borderless.
Your motives for being so hostile over this puzzle me while simultaneously convincing me that guidelines are needed. You don't seem to recognize that this forum belongs to feminists and feminism is a woman's movement. This forum is here to serve us. It is not a "women's issues" forum it is a feminist forum.
Your drift into party politics and passing judgement over me is exactly the sort of behavior that is inappropriate in the feminist forum. This is not your space to express your views on what is important to you. I have a problem with your sense of entitlement in the feminist forum.
You are nowhere near being a feminist discussing feminist issues from a feminist point of view. You are here to pick a fight.
You are over-stepping.
Wed, 2014-06-25 01:09
#27
Please I do not need a mini lecture from you. I have been on this board for a very long time and I also know who I am in my real live. You have a posting style that is as aggresive and condescending as a man's.
I will try to ignore your right wing rants on subjects and I will not post in this thread again, unless you use me as a foil. Have a great day promoting the progressive Trudeau the lesser.
Wed, 2014-06-25 01:27
#28
I'm taking another break. My expections are not in sync with the board and it's just too much of a struggle.
Wed, 2014-06-25 02:02
#29
Pondering i think you would find more agreeable audience by visiting megan murphy's blog that has comments. I feel that your comments are something that she would approve, since she is so eager to silence the voices that disagree with her, i don't think that you would do anything to challenge her so you would find more posters there with your point of view. :)
Personally i would be happy to think that abolitionists were starting to feel the pinch of disapproval and the challenge of having to back up their now failing claims. They spent and continue to spend a lot of time attacking the people they claim to want to save, whether their victims want it or not.
Wed, 2014-06-25 08:29
#30
This thread is oppressive.
Wed, 2014-06-25 09:21
#31
As I understand the feminist forum participants are expected to be supporters of feminism, not simply progressive.
Yes, but that covers a wide variety of opinion, some of it in direct opposition.
It is one thing for a women in a feminist forum to tell another she is wrong, and not a real feminist.
It would be quite another for a man to do that. Although think we are quite capable of holding valid opinions on feminist issues - and voicing them - it would be quite another for me to come here and tell a woman she is wrong. It doesn't just have to do with her experience, but also the climate of men controlling debate that makes spaces like this a necessary thing. After all, we men have the rest of the world to tell women how wrong they are, don't we?
The other thing is some of my opinions, like some of the opinions of all of us here, are going to be in direct opposition to some feminist thought. That's the reason I simply don't call myself one. We had a discussion about this not too long ago; it's just a bit simpler that way. Same thing with this fight and spinning it as all about individual freedom; it's not about freedom, because this isn't about opinion. I've been able to state my opinion on any issue here, even opinions that some would consider anti-feminist (no matter what side of abolition you are, it's anti-feminist to someone). The problem is when it turns to invalidating the opinions of others.