The feminist forum

I agree that the problem is there are few women and a number of them are leaving because of the tone of the conversation.

I agree that men are lot of the problem. However saying this is ALL the fault of the men divides this place more firmly on gender lines and encourages every conflict to be seen in that paradigm.

In this paradigm, exchanges between men and women that go negative are presumed to be a result of disrespect for the woman -- all the man's fault. Many of us have no idea whether we are addressing a female or a male. The presumption that when there is a conflict between a man and a woman on babble -- even if you do not know the genders -- the man is necessarily wrong won’t fix anything.

Men who argue in a sexist manner, using sexist language or presumptions or with gender hostility towards women must be stopped here (and it should not matter if they are using such language when addressing another man). To confuse those situations with two people have a disagreement that is not gendered won't help. Making automatic presumptions of fault will create needless antagonism between the moderators and many of the participants, perhaps leading to less, rather than more respect for the rules of this place. To presume all women are reasonable and all men are not is sexist.

If all the women and all the men who ever registered were still participating you would still find there would be way more men than women. This is one reason why women's voices here are so valuable -- there are far fewer of them to begin with.

I think many of us often do not know which gender we are addressing and likely don’t care to know so disrespect is not likely to be due to gender.

There are disturbing numbers of women who have left. But it is not only women who have left because of the tone. The scarcity of women here is why we notice the loss. And no doubt women have left due to sexism which is toxic.

I think it is important to distinguish between the behaviors and not suggest to large numbers of people (the men) that their very presence here is the problem; that the place would be better if they just went away; or that men are so plentiful that we should and could lose a bunch of them and somehow the place would be better because they are overpopulated. If we look at behavior -- the partisan pissing contests -- it is well known that participation in these pissing contests is not exclusively male -- particularly of late.

The suggestion this is all the men's fault requires assuming that all the close to a dozen or so participants who have argued with one female babbler are wrong and she is right and they are all sexist males who are harassing her because she is female.

Women do engage in some of the same behavior that other women consider to be part of the male noise here. Women also participate in driving other women off through their excessive partisanship. I suspect that some women, annoyed at the partisanship, might be unaware that some of the "male jerks" are not even male. Not disagreeing that the majority may be -- I am challenging the exclusive language that is the structure of this discussion.

If you only blame the men and not the behaviors (that at times are exhibited by both genders) you will not be able to address the underpinnings of the patriarchal system in this little corner of the world. To suggest the men here are exclusively the problem and exclusively the solution to driving women away from here loads every conversation between a male and a female here to the point of impossibility.

The other issue in this thread is the terms of the feminist forum. I get why it is different from the rest of the site. When it comes to attitudes, expressions etc. then I agree the whole site should have the same principles and values. Sexism should not be given a pass anywhere on this site. People who approach a conversation with ideas disrespectful of women should be educated no matter where they are on the site. It is not helpful to presume that disregarding a woman's experience of sexism is somehow okay anywhere on the site. If you are harmonizing the standards you must be sure to raise the standard to the one in the feminist forum rather than reduce it.

That said, I suspect that most of the conflicts here are not about gender, even when they are between men and women.

The tone that is stereotypically male does have to change to a less partisan, more respectful, inclusive, one. The way to do that is not to enforce it by gender but to demand this better tone from all people equally and enforce it equally. That will bring greater respect and compliance.

There have been comments to parenting on this site with respect to how things get run and the enforcement of rules. The best advice to parents: treat your children respectfully, equally, fairly, and above all, consistently. When there is a conflict, taking sides is easy but not effective. Mediation is better and requires all the best traits of parenting listed above and attempts to cool conflict rather than punish.

When it comes to the creation and interpretation of the rules of this site I suggest the same applies. It seems some of these principles may be improving here. I submit that can help reduce the outflow of women.

Sean: you are one of the smartest and most thoughtful people posting on this board. But I am going to suggest, and I hope it can be taken for granted that this is not an attack on you or "all men," that it would be worth sitting, thinking about Meg's amazing and postive and constructive opening post, and much sadder and very telling second post, and listening a bit more before jumping in with both feet. 

Do we really need everything prefaced with "this does not apply to all men"? 

Meg and others: I'm sorry for the sarcastic tone of some of my posts and will work to post more constructively when I do post. I'm going to leave it there for the moment, hoping that this does nto become only  anotehr conversation among men. 

Sweet jesus.  If ever there was a more clear illustration of the problem of male domination, Sean, your post is it.

For starters, your post in itself is longer than the rest of the thread.  You take up a lot of space, and you appear to feel entirely entitled to it.  This is a typical guy thing.  We often complain that there are a variety of men taking up more space than the others, but you're a one-man-band, buddy.

To make matters worse, you start out with "not all men".  I was reading along and thought to myself, "Dear god, he didn't just...  Why, yes, he did!"  This is fucking classic.  Here's why you shouldn't go there:

Quote:

The meme is fitting because in discussions about women's issues or rights, the "not all men" argument is a disruptive derailment that serves only to absolve the speaker of personal responsibility. It does not really move the argument forward or backward, it just kind of sticks its face in there. Meanwhile, the real issue being discussed, whether it be sexism, misogyny or rape culture goes completely unacknowledged and untouched.

http://ca.askmen.com/news/entertainment/not-all-men.html

I re-read Meg's two posts prior to yours, Sean, and I don't see her claiming, in either of them, that it's a case of "...exchanges between men and women that go negative are presumed to be a result of disrespect for the woman -- all the man's fault."  That claim really is unfounded.  However, you go on to say:

Quote:

I think it is important to distinguish between the behaviors and not suggest to large numbers of people (the men) that their very presence here is the problem; that the place would be better if they just went away; or that men are so plentiful that we should and could lose a bunch of them and somehow the place would be better because they are overpopulated. If we look at behavior -- the partisan pissing contests -- it is well known that participation in these pissing contests is not exclusively male -- particularly of late.

Sean, Meg didn't say that.  No-one has said that on babble ever.  You are creating a straw man.  It would be most helpful to the discussion if you would stop doing that. 

You then go on to explain (mansplain?) to Meg et al that the conflicts here are not due to gender.  Um.  You are totally missing the point.  It's not whether or not the discussions or debates are *about* gender, it's about how there is a difference in how these debates are *approached by different genders*.  In other words, you make long-winded, condescending posts that take up twice as much space as anybody else's and then tell us what the *real* parameters of the discussion *ought* to be, because you should somehow be the one to define that.

It's kind of a guy thing.

Can you please stop doing that thing?

Unionist wrote:

Sean - you dealt (at length) with one aspect. You didn't deal with this:

MegB wrote:

Even the feminist forum, which has come so far over the years, is still dominated by male voices, though so many of those voices are sensitive, articulate and well-intentioned.

Just wondering if you see that as a separate problem. I think it is.

I agree.

I'll keep this brief:

There is nothing wrong with having spaces that are defined as women only. There is no reason why there cannot be two feminist forums co-existing on babble -- one where you encourage both genders to participate and one exclusively women only. Women who start a thread can decide where they want to place it. Men who post in the one they are allowed to post it won't get the message that they should not have (unless their content merited that).

ETA: also I said above this was not ONLY men -- I did not say not all men which is a different argument and one I simply did not make. Since we had a two month shitstorm between one partisan poster and most of the rest of the board -- and that particular poster was female it is hard to hear that it is just men responsible without wanting to say this particular male behaviour is engaged in by at least some females as well. Isn't it the behaviour we are after rather than gender anyway?

okay, okay, I'll go away

As someone who took a break from babble and started doing a little more listening and a lot less talking it's kind of sad that this conversation is still happening, and with the exact same point-counterpoint since i was last here.

Would it be too hard (in the computer programming domain) to actually create an actual forum for these issues with a dedicated sign in so that only women could post?   it wouold show up in the regular active topics--encouraging everyone to read and learn and have an opinion--but we could skip these ongoing arguments about men posting and distracting from the intended purpose of the forum?

maybe not the greatest solution, but seems like it might be a start. i know it's been tossed around as an idea before, why hasn't it been tried?

Sean, I take things to heart too so I can sympathize but you are too smart not to get past it. When women go into a male environment they have to adapt to the male communication style or give up. Men are not necessarily doing this deliberately they are just being the way men are socialized to be (more or less taking into account individuality). Women are entering a male environment, so we adapt.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The suggestion this is all the men's fault requires assuming that all the close to a dozen or so participants who have argued with one female babbler are wrong and she is right and they are all sexist males who are harassing her because she is female.

I am not going to take offence because I don't think you meant to give offence but we are discussing me so lets not beat around the bush.

There is an implication that if I am debating against 12 then I am most likely the one who is wrong and it has nothing to do with sexism. I agree that it doesn't have a lot to do with sexism but there are subconscious expectations based on my sex, a standard I am held to, an expectation that I should yield more in debate.

In the other thread I am arguing against you and Rokossovsky both of whom are as long-winded as I am as well as AC and a few others. I am fending off arguments based on it being sexual harassment and it being sexual violence. I am defending on the front of feminist principles, the well-being of the women involved and of women in general, and the political aspect of how each party and leader has handled the situation arguing in defence of Trudeau.

That is another reason why I hesitated to get into the discussion. I am badly outnumbered not only by gender but also by political persuasion. Getting involved is a huge time sink and I am not willing to just add a couple of comments that get instantly annihilated and buried. I either prepare to defend or don't bother posting because I know it is very unlikely anyone will acknowledge my points and I will most likely face a barrage of personally desparaging comments which can get demoralizing, especially when I am being discussed as though I am not present.

I hesitated to respond to the thread on progressiveness for fear it would turn into a "pissing contest". I rarely post in more than 3 threads. With posting in this thread I have hit my max.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I apologize for writing long. Really, I am best at writing article lengths because I organize the ideas in a comprehensive way. I guess you are explaning why I should not be participating on any forum at all.

No, you are just being asked to hold back a bit to make sure women's voices can determine the direction of the discussion for a bit.You are being asked to listen more rather than introducing new angles to the discussion.

Maybe we will be saying exactly what you were going to, or maybe we will miss some angle, but either way we will get to dominate a discussion even if it takes a week for some women to add their thoughts. Many women can only post a day or two a week. If men fill up a thread fast some women don't even get a chance to get a word in before the conversation evolves and moves on.

Slumberjack wrote:

I'm not in favour of performative based discussions either, or anything really that hinges around the valorization of a particular identity through the assignment of a negative value to an individual or group being performatively identified as such.  That will be my only contribution here.

Thank Christ for that.

i could see that Timebandit, i wonder though if more women would come around if they knew it wasn't going to be a place where they would have to justify and explain themselves to men on these issues?

i see the same arguments about how men comment going on for litereally years, a huge distraction and the essence of dominating/derailing/mansplaining discussions.  it's also probably a major reason a lot of women decide rabble is not a good place to talk about these issues and eventually leave or stop posting, we've all seen it happen...

i mean, if any two people sat down for a beer and discussed this stuff i'm sure it would be an amicable great conversation where both people would benefit.  in practice, on the internet in a forum setting it will inevitably end up where it has now because there's always someone who hasn't taken the time to listen and get a little more informed who will sign up and start posting going right back to square one.  

sure it might make some of the men here uncomfortable because it has the appearance of "you cant post because youre a dude" but maybe we could all swallow that sentiment because we know why it's important for women to have a place to talk, and there's a million other places for us to talk about the subject if we feel the need to voice our opinions on womens issues.  

to be honest, if men want to address womens issues, we should be voicing our opinions to ther men primarily, they're the ones who need to hear a progressive voice, surely we can accept not doing it on one internet forum if it means women have a place to talk that they're stoked on.

swallow wrote:

Timebandit wrote:

swallow wrote:

Sean: you are one of the smartest and most thoughtful people posting on this board.

That is a highly subjective assessment.

Yes. You think it's better to drop the sugar coating? I sure agree with everything you wrte, by the way.

I really hate it when someone threatens to flounce and people beg them to stay. It's such a drama queen move - the flounce, that is, as a set up for others to chime in about how valued you are. Plus, I can't say I'm a fan. Thanks for agreeing with me, though! <3

Meg, you would have to have a section under the account for members indicating gender then, wouldnt you?

Sorry. It wasn't intended that way.

Though any shortness was directed at complication that might not be necessary (and can't really be monitored anyway), and not against the good reasons for having that space.

I used "women only" because you used that term (in #23) in talking about this technical issue.

I did actually read what you said upthread about women who simply do not want to read mens' voices regardless of intention. I take it as something valid and different than the arguments that have been made for NOT having that safe space (something I know has been discussed, and I have consistently spoken for as a valid option when it has come up).

Bowing out now.

(edit)

cross posted. @ bagkitty. Of course one would think, but it never seems to be foolproof (emphasis on the "fool")

This thread reminded me of this: I Don’t Support Feminism If It Means Murdering All Men

I like Timebandit's posts in this thread. I don't know how to fix it. Sometimes I think that babble was started with a huge contingent of brilliant and articulate women and then gradually, like we do to every good thing, men slowly but unstoppably colonized it. And now we've won, and the women have left and they won't be back.

Most of them hang our at The Toast nowadays, I think.

ETA: This thread also reminds me of Move the fuck over bro and Men taking up too much space on the train

MegB wrote:

Because of the imbalance we need a place where women can post without fear of attack in a male-dominated environment (yes, I know, some women do their fair share of wading into disputes, but that's another issue). They can discuss issues without feeling overwhelmed by male voices. Some women have told me that they simply do not want to read a male opinion - regardless of how sensitive and intelligent it is - in a sensitive discussion because of past trauma. Another told me she loves to read babble but usually feel too vulnerable to post. It's needs like these that could be addressed with a safe space.

I can empathize with these sentiments. It's not my place to decide what should be done with the feminist forum, but I do hope that it can become a safe space for all women who would like to post there. If progress could be made in the FF maybe it could eventually lead to babble making safe space for other oppressed and marginalized voices too.

Respectfully, it is up to the moderators to set the tone. I get that the volunteer aspect restricts that. What is it that welcomes this hostile attitude? For sure, the community needs to speak up, but alas to deaf ears at times. The medium is failing too.

[mansplaining]Why can't women speak up here? Is there really much activity beside those with a political interest? It ain't the same as it used to be.

Just questions. I don't think it's a case of women not being welcome, I think this place just isn't what it's envisioned to be.[/mansplaining]

Again, moderation sets the tone. You allow free for alls in one forum don't be surprised when it spills out the yard.

Four women are in a room arguing about a gendered issue that they disgree over, 2 on one side, 2 on the other.

Six men come in and all agree backing one side of the argument.

Now 2 women are arguing against 8 people.

The six men are only arguing the same point as 2 of the women so what's the problem?

Women's voices are still getting drowned out.

Some of the men here have been sensitive to this issue in the feminist forum and check themselves. Some men have also spoken up to check another man. That works really well. I'd like to see that happen more.

What about the basic idea that we all learned as children to treat people with respect? Are the problems that complex that something like that wouldn't work?

And seriously, it's the bloody Internet. What is it about being on babble that makes all of us interact with other people here in a hostile manner beyond which any of us would dare if we were all meeting face to face?

Red Winnipeg wrote:

To me, the very idea of a "safe place" for women is patronizing. It's as if we're delicate flowers who need protection from the words of men.

I think "safe space" in this case is a misnomer. Safe spaces do exist on the net but babble can never be one. Effective safe spaces are exclusive and created for populations vulnerable to intimidation and victimization even in a virtual setting. They are not just places for avoiding triggers. New members are accepted individually and sometimes the first few posts are cleared individually.

There is another aspect of safe spaces that is more transferable because it is more about respect and allowing a disadvantaged group have their say and communicate with one another without external influence.

A safe space for incest survivors would not include therapists because incest survivors need a place to trash therapists without the therapists getting defensive and therapist-splaining why the incest survivor is misunderstanding the therapeudic rationale. Another survivor might even put forth the exact same explanation as a therapist would but the other survivor doesn't have the weight of authority behind them and does have shared experience.

babble can't offer that level of exclusivity and protection therefore calling any space here "safe" is a misnomer. As Meg has recently pointed out all of babble should be respectful of women's equality and be non-sexist not just the feminist forum. Same goes for POC and LBGTQ.

These special areas are not just topic designators, like "Canadian Politics" or "Current Events" in which everyone is on an equal footing. Respect in these special topic areas means showing deference to those with lived experience even if the person with lived experience is factually wrong. The fact can be corrected, but only with deference, and I don't mean by saying "I know you're a woman but". I mean speaking in the tone you would if you were correcting your professor from whom you intend to ask for a letter of reference.

P.S. If some gay people in the LBGTQ were having a general discussion, even one about straight people, and asked straight people to back off a bit, would that be acceptable?

The need for this thread would be one of the reasons, Allah.

To me the problem is no matter how you cut it, clearly a lot of women are frustrated with the way the forum is currently working, evidenced by the numbers who have left and that this very discussion has been ongoing for years.

To me the word "progressive" means looking for and experimenting with new solutions when the status quo clearly isn't working as opposed to just accepting the way things are.

why not try changing some things and see if it helps?  

Red Winnipeg wrote:

To me, the very idea of a "safe place" for women is patronizing. It's as if we're delicate flowers who need protection from the words of men.

Seriously.

catchfire wrote:

Timebandit wrote:

Maybe a helpful suggestion could be:  "OY!  Those of you with dicks!  Stop swingin' 'em!!!"

I am going to start petitioning to get this as a header to every babble thread.

Lol, catchfire. Or maybe there can be an emoticon. But what would it look like?