fresh thread. i purpose that the sop gender issue is moved down

[seabeyond]

so it is not as if that is the most important and calling any group out. far down. all the way to the bottom. like an after thought.

lets have someone put up a clear and concise wording, clear no forum wars and all thoughts acceptable. however one wants to do it cause we know i can't

[justiceischeap]

1. I propose changing the controversial line to the following:

• This group is here specifically to discuss women's rights and issues as they affect women from a woman's perspective and experience.

[Lisa D]

2. I like your proposal.

I'm just wondering if we should change it from "a woman's perspective" to "a feminist perspective"

Thoughts?

[justiceischeap]

3. Yes, I agree. I sometimes forget that men/trans can be feminists. :) nt

[seabeyond]

5. thanks justice. and does it feel good to move down, or does that not bother you.

placement.

[justiceischeap]

6. I don't care about the placement.

As long as it's in there and the hosts and members know it's there, then where it lives is of no concern to me.

[ismnotwasm]

54. Yes

One of my most interesting friends is a transgendered MTF, actually just female since she's gone through the entire procedure. She is also a decorated Vietnam veteran. Discussing feminist politics with her is an enlightening experience. When she was physically male, she was a friend of my husbands, and I always thought she was very off center in a way her sufferings from PTSD didn't fully decribe. Now she's one helluva woman, a helluva human being. That off center vibe is completely gone.

Men have a hard time discussion feminism because they have a hard time understanding male entitlement IMO, but it's not impossible of course. Anyone from a place of entitlement has to work harder to understand those not so entitled, whether it's race, gender, or socio-economics.

[seabeyond]

4. yes... with feminist. thank you. lets see what others see. nt

[Starry Messenger]

7. I like this too.

And thank you seabeyond for the OP. Good discussion.

[BlueIris]

8. I also think it should read "feminist perspective," not "woman's perspective." nt

[Gormy Cuss]

9. I hope that members who didn't comment on the previous thread will comment here.

For those who missed the first thread, this was the proposed language:

[div class='excerpt']The purpose of the DU Feminists Group is to provide a safe and non-threatening community where all those interested in discussing and trying to resolve the problems that are inherent to women in society can come and work together free from defending the basic premise that issues do exist which specifically affect and limit women, their rights and their potential.

We believe that women do not start on the same rung as men on the ladder of success; that misogyny and sexism do indeed exist in America circa 2005; and that the progress made for women's rights is being seriously and immediately threatened by this administration.

The goal of this group is to understand the problems (and how they affect women), identify the myriad causes (and how they can limit a woman's vision and opportunity) and propose solutions (and how we can bring those solutions in a meaningful way out into the greater community).

About this Group

- This is not a group to discuss gender, class or sexual orientation rights and issues. It is specifically to discuss women's rights and issues as they affect women from a woman's perspective and experience.

- If, for example, you believe that women have already achieved "full participation in the mainstream of American society..., exercising all privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men... in all aspects of citizenship, public service, employment, education, and family life,"* then this is not the group for you.

- If, for example, you believe that women who have concerns about the prevalance of pornography in our society are uptight, sexually-repressed prudes who need to be enlightened to the "facts" and "realities" of the sex industry, this is not the group for you.

- The terms "feminist/feminism" and "misogyny" have established meanings in the context of women's history. While terminology may be debated, the denigration of these relevant terms will not be allowed.

- Attempts to minimize or dismiss women and/or the issues being discussed are not welcome.

- Like-minded DUers of all genders are encouraged to participate.

* Excerpted from NOW's "Statement of Purpose". http://www.now.org/organization/bylaws.html#ArticleII


in the earlier thread, iverglas had suggested this rewording of the third bullet:

If, for example, you believe that women's concerns about the prevalance of pornography or the practice of prostitution are illegitimate, and that the women who express those concerns are speaking from sexual prudery or animus against men, then this is not the group for you.

[obamanut2012]

10. I think the third bullet should be removed

Whether or not it was intended that way, it very much reads as exclusionary. I think it also stifles some very needed dialogue, for the fear that what is posted will be seen as breaking SOP.

I doubt this will be a problem here, but if it does become one, then it can be addressed, but I don't think it will be.

[seabeyond]

12. seeing how i am continually, consistently and often attacked in this manner,

i would like to be allowed one place where i am not told repeatedly i am asexual, antisexual, prude and the list goes on, if i dare to discuss this issue.

[obamanut2012]

17. You don't need the bullet for that

It won't happen here. Anyone posting anything like that is already breaking the SOP of this Group, and can be blocked immediately.

[seabeyond]

22. over 7 yrs on du and this move to du3 and more open attack, i would prefer a bullet.

i have watched post after post go thru jury allowing personal attack or sexist comments with absolutely no recourse what so ever. i would like one place where my sexuality is not continually challenged.

[obamanut2012]

26. You don't understand, it's not like that in a Group

If something goes against the SOP of a Group, the Hosts can block that person ASAP. Say if someone went into Veggie and Vegan, and said Vegans were unamerican jerks or something, or said eating a vegan diet is unhealthy. They would probably be banned by the Hosts. That's what can happened here. If you were talking about porn, for instance, ans someone said you only think that because you were a prude, bam! SOP alert and they get banned from the group, and maybe banned from DU, if it's bad enough. It has NOTHING to do with juries. o you understand?

I understand if you want to keep the bullet, your opinion is as valid as mine, I just want you to understand how the SOP of Groups work.

[seabeyond]

27. i dont want anyone banned. and the temptation will be too great, i assure you. people cannot help

themselves calling me some name challenging my sexuality. if there is a rule, then the temptation may be gone, and there may be no need to ever ban

and

i really dont want to just wait for it. or try to convince someone that it was meant as an insult and not constructive criticism. i am tired of that. i get so much of that out and about.

on edit... and you are right. we both have an opinion. and we are expressing our view. respectfully. capably. i get that and appreciate it.

[iverglas]

16. it was intended to be exclusionary

It was intended to exclude the self-described feminists who had persistently and concertedly attacked women/feminists in this forum, both in this forum and elsewhere, to stifle discussions of the problems associated with pornography / prostitution / the objectification of women, and who continue to do so to this week.

I see you have been a member here for one month. I say this not to discredit you, but to point out that you are not to be expected to have any knowledge of that history, unless someone informs you.

I note that you were posting in the beauty pageant thread, and that when someone posted, in reply to a post of yours:

Maybe if everything in the world wasn't sexism to a few people around here...But you're going to get this shit every time a post talks about anything to do with women and something even REMOTELY sexual. Because we have social conservative puritans here who just love to pounce on it.

you said nothing in reply. You allowed that vicious mischaracterization of long-time members of this group here, Feminists, and of other women at DU, to stand unchallenged. I would not have taken it from other things that you said that you agreed with it. I hope I am right in making that assumption.

Your posts in the subsequent threads in LGBT, however, do not inspire my confidence. I have no idea why you would speculate, for example, about the nature of PMs sent by me about which you knew nothing.

I have little doubt that the previous problems will recur in this group if the group does not make it clear that the posters in question are not welcome, and their kind of discourse is not welcome.

[obamanut2012]

20. Thank you for admitting it was intended to be exclusionary

I'm also tickled pink to see that now I'm being called out by you for posting in LGBT. I feel honored to be included with the other ladies you have called out about this.

I neither ask for nor want to "inspire your confidence." You do not control what people post outside of this group, nor what we post in it.

I refuse to engage with you anymore, for as JIC stated, you cannot discuss, as your post to me proves.

[iverglas]

28. I didn't admit a goddamned thing

I told you something. Something I thought you needed to know. I would not be at all surprised to learn that you already knew it, in detail.

And I don't thank you for misrepresenting me and what I said.

But I am neither surprised nor disappointed. You have been a quick learner.

I neither ask for nor want to "inspire your confidence."

Woo hoo. Shall we dance? I couldn't care an iota less what you ask or don't ask.

You do not control what people post outside of this group, nor what we post in it.

And the sun doesn't rise out of your backside. Got any other glaringly obvious yet totally irrelevant facts up your sleeve?

You don't "refuse to engage with me anymore". You refuse to engage with me. I'm hurt.

[LeftyMom]

30. Then the group needs to be renamed.

Either there needs to be a group for feminists, with all the variation in opinion that rather big tent includes AND a Feminist Opinions iverglas Approves Of group (call that whatever you like,) or the SOP needs to be modified to include feminist thought as a whole. The current exclusionary approach where only Feminism As Understood By Straight, White, Middle Class Women Who Think All Important Feminist Thought Occurred In the Seventies counts as real feminism is preventing the thoughtful discussion of women's issues and needs on DU.

[seabeyond]

31. is it really that hard not to call other women names when discussing an issue? nt

[LeftyMom]

32. Not at all, which is why I didn't.

Is it really that hard to use the shift key?

[seabeyond]

33. grinnin. you never disappoint. if it is not hard to not call names, then none of us

are being excluded.

[LeftyMom]

34. Feel free to put me on ignore.

I didn't call anybody names, and I was replying to iverglas' post to begin with. If you ignore my posts you won't be tempted to reply to them incoherently and it will do wonders for both of our blood pressure.

[seabeyond]

35. i dont put people on ignore. and i dont have a problem with your posts. yes, you talked to someone

else, and yet, i replied. lol. that is what happens on a discussion board.

[iverglas]

36. look at all the nice shiny new names!

Suddenly, this group is so very popular.


The current exclusionary approach where only Feminism As Understood By Straight, White, Middle Class Women Who Think All Important Feminist Thought Occurred In the Seventies counts as real feminism is a figment of the extremely overheated imagination ... or something even less savoury, and I fall on that side of the fence on the question ... of a certain segment of the DU population whose agenda is so transparent children are gathering to point and stare.


Leftymom, your names shows up on a search of the old Feminists group, 2003 to the present, in precisely three threads -- all in 2005.

Should I be charging a commission here or something?

Why don't you and I just toddle back to the gungeon and agree on something now, LeftMom? One of the recurring attempts to bootstrap men's interest in guns via women's interests in reproductive choice is underway as we speak ...


Maybe can posters who want to jump in and stomp on my head identify themselves and the nature and source of their concerns with me briefly, so I have equal information? Seems only fair.

Just tick one:

- I'm a sex-positive feminist
- I'm a gun militant
- I'm an anti-vaxxer
- I'm an anti-Canadian
- I'm a misogynist jerk
- Where am I?


Oh, and read post 18.

[LeftyMom]

39. You're kind of making my point.

I am a woman and a feminist. I only posted a few times in DU2's Feminists group because any diversion from the thinking of a very small group of people resulted in ridiculous flamewars, and in one laughable case, accusations that female posters (some of whom I know IRL and can confirm are definitely female) were secretly males trolling the group for the lulz. Honestly, it was insane and I wanted no part of it, and a lot of other posters who are definitely feminists felt the same way. That sort of behavior isn't acceptable and it's not promoting feminist thought or the circumstances of women, and it certainly shouldn't be enshrined in the group's rules.

You feel free to post in the gungeon, I have less than zero interest in doing so.

[iverglas]

40. "a lot of other posters"

And of course we all know who they are, or will just take it on faith.

Look, let me be clear. There are people who I want to be so uncomfortable it itches if they even click on this forum. I've just been spending a pleasant time reading some very old threads in the Feminists forum. Some real pieces of work there. And some of them were in fact men, by their profiles.

You've posted in about 6 times as many threads in Guns as in Feminists -- Guns must have been more pleasant. rofl. In Feminists, 3 from 26 Aug to 21 Sep 2005, all on pregnancy-related issues. The threads seem quite tame. The whole sex-positive assault team garbage happened in 2007. Maybe you missed it. In which case you don't know what we're talking about. Something suddenly happened in in September 2005 to put you off Feminists?

This really may not be clear to some.

What didn't happen was that a bunch of feminists got together in the Feminists group and started bashing minority feminists. What happend was that all over DU, "sex-positive feminists", and really we're talking about a very small group, bashed and thrashed (and I don't think they ever did it except in company) women and feminists who raised concerns and issues relating to the victimization and objectification of women in pornography and prostitution. They loves them some porn, and they know lots of happy hookers, and they're self-actualized women, and the rest of us can fuck off and die, and that was the message repeated so long and so loud that it realy was unmistakable to those within earshot. No conversation could be had that examined the issues and identified the problems and considered solutions without their utterly self-absorbed, rude, nasty, pointless disruption.

Now, I was not an earliest joiner at Feminists. I see indications that there were divisions along the lines being alleged here. I can't access Archives at old DU so I can't pinpoint it, if it's there. I see allegations, like I'm seeing here, about the straighties not recognizing the legitimacy of the others' concerns, and so on. But I can't tell whether those allegations are true and fair because I do not know what they were, other than these same non-specific expressions of grievance that we are seeing here.

I and the others trying to figure it out are stuck. We are presumably being asked to apologise for or atone for or swear off behaviours that we are in complete darkness about.

On the other hand, the behaviours we find problematic, that have gone on this very week, and that goddamn it are problematic on their face, to put it very mildly, have not been apologised for, have not even been explained.

If someone was even falsly accused of being a man trolling the group for the lulz, well cheez, it doesn't sound like their behaviour was, er, very ladylike.

[LeftyMom]

42. My other posts in Feminists must have fallen pray to the old Deleted Subthread.

As for the rest of your post, I'm just going to say this: nobody has to justify their feminism to you. Searching years-old threads for dirt on people is stalkery.

[iverglas]

43. be nice

Searching years-old threads for dirt on people is stalkery.

No it is not. Please do not make accusations like that in public.

DU has (or at least had) a search function that allows for searching by username in a forum. Since I didn't recall ever seeing you in the Feminists forum, I used it to refresh my memory.

nobody has to justify their feminism to you

I love it when somebody goes to the trouble of stating the obvious, as if somebody else had said the opposite. It's easier than addressing things that are said, or answering questions.

[obamanut2012]

21. Your opinion is as valid as mine

Mine is as valid as yours.

I don't understand why it's even needed, as saying anything like that is already against SOP. Iverglas stated in this thread it was meant to EXCLUDE a segment of DU Feminists. I thought that was a bad thing?

[seabeyond]

23. all of the bullets can be considered exclusionary. that is the purpose of them

you break the rule, you are out.

i am not real good at getting this whole thing. i am grabbing the words you all are. sop, bullet. so if i make a mistake, ah well.

[Gormy Cuss]

44. Yes, very true.

That's why I think we need to be very careful to exclude only people who aren't supportive of feminism and feminist theories. We've made some progress (the rewrite of the first bullet being a big one.)

[iverglas]

38. thank you

You're soft and cuddly.

[Gormy Cuss]

45. I really hate those mischaracterizations of feminists.

I agree that in the past there have been pretty rancorous fights over porn and the sex industry and we don't want to see that again ever. However, I do see merit in having feminists from different schools of thought discuss those realms here in constructive/instructive ways because it's being discussed by feminists IRL.

I'd like to get that bullet point to stress that such topics are no excuse for trivializing the opinions of others through name calling. What about you?

[redqueen]

46. I vote for this. (nt)

[seabeyond]

47. what are you suggesting. i am all for the discussion. i am not into having someone tell me i am a

prude or frigid.

and it happens. a lot. all the time. from women.

here.

so, what are you saying? you want that out of the bullet?

[redqueen]

48. I think she's saying no name calling, just exchanging ideas with no minimizing or insults

No calling women who criticize porn, prostitution, stripping names (prudes, uptight, whatever else), and no calling sex workers... whatever it is they find offensive (honestly all I've ever seen is people twisting words to take offense, e.g. because you point out some sex workers are exploited that means you're calling all sex workers stupid! type of bullshit).


But yeah anyway that's how I read it.

I need to step back cause I'm really getting fed up with some of the idiocy that's flying high in GD lately.

[seabeyond]

49. i... i did yesterday. and it feels good not being a part

though i am finding a couple that are talking more about the issue then calling people names.

thanks

[Gormy Cuss]

51. Yes, redqueen. That's exactly what I'm saying.

Discussing issues like adults rather than flinging labels and other poo.
Listening to each other rather than reducing each other to caricatures.

And thinking about it in the context of other bullets, the issue is covered by this bullet:

Attempts to minimize or dismiss women and/or the issues being discussed are not welcome.

Maybe we should add a portion of the other bullet as an example within this bullet?

[seabeyond]

52. that is fine. adding a bit. the bit where it says... if discussing porn no name calling like

prude, frigid, anti sex, asexual, pearl clutcher, swooning on the couch, middle aged ugly old hags......

thats all.

[iverglas]

37. no, I did not say that

Do you have copy and paste? Do you think everyone else is visually impaired to the point of inability to read?

I said:

It was intended to exclude the self-described feminists who had persistently and concertedly attacked women/feminists in this forum, both in this forum and elsewhere, to stifle discussions of the problems associated with pornography / prostitution / the objectification of women, and who continue to do so to this week.

Anything still not clear there?

Excluding people who make an art form out of attacking other women/feminists, impugning their sexuality, lying about them ... this is bad?

Were you wanting to include those people in this group?

Yes or no will do.

[seabeyond]

24. bunny and i are not on the same side. we often disagree, lol. hey bunny, good to see you in here.

and thanks for your input. i hope more women make it in.

[Starry Messenger]

11. I move to keep this one:

- "If, for example, you believe that women have already achieved "full participation in the mainstream of American society..., exercising all privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men... in all aspects of citizenship, public service, employment, education, and family life,"* then this is not the group for you."

I wish we could just paste that on the top of DU.

This is a good line too:

- "The terms "feminist/feminism" and "misogyny" have established meanings in the context of women's history. While terminology may be debated, the denigration of these relevant terms will not be allowed."

[iverglas]

14. just for completeness,

In response to discussion, I had actually proposed the following amended version.

- it simplifies the misogyny exists statement

- it removes "American" from the NOW quote because this is exclusionary (and is an exclusionary use of the word itself)

- it rewords the "prude" bullet

- it simplifies the perspective bullet

I neglected to copy the NOW footnote here.



-------------------------------------------------------------


The purpose of the DU Feminists Group is to provide a safe and non-threatening community where all those interested in discussing and trying to resolve the problems that are inherent to women in society can come and work together free from defending the basic premise that issues do exist which specifically affect and limit women, their rights and their potential.

We believe that women do not start with the same opportunities as men, and that misogyny and sexism do indeed exist.

The goal of this group is to understand the problems (and how they affect women), identify the myriad causes (and how they can limit a woman's vision and opportunity) and propose solutions (and how we can bring those solutions in a meaningful way out into the greater community).

About this Group

- This forum is for discussion of women's rights, concerns and interests, and discussion of issues as they affect women, from the perspective and experience of women.

- If, for example, you believe that women have already achieved "full participation in the mainstream of ... society..., exercising all privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men... in all aspects of citizenship, public service, employment, education, and family life,"* then this is not the group for you.

- If, for example, you believe that women's concerns about the prevalance of pornography or the practice of prostitution are illegitimate, and that the women who express those concerns are speaking from sexual prudery or animus against men, then this is not the group for you.

- The terms "feminist/feminism" and "misogyny" have established meanings in the context of women's history. While terminology may be debated, the denigration of these relevant terms will not be allowed.

- Attempts to minimize or dismiss women and/or the issues being discussed are not welcome.

- Like-minded DUers of all genders are encouraged to participate.

[seabeyond]

15. check out post 1 and 2 and see what you think. and thanks for this. nt

[iverglas]

18. frankly, at this point,

I don't much care. The discussion can run its course and hopefully a consensus can be reached. And then if problems arise, we consider whether the SoP addresses them, and if not, we fix it.

[seabeyond]

25. ok. nt

[Scout]

50. i like this post for the SoP

and i think iverglas, seabeyond and redqueen would all make good/great hosts for this group.

[Violet_Crumble]

55. Why don't the hosts get picked first, and then work on the SOP later?

It's just I get the feeling that if I wander off and then return towards the end of the year, there'll be threads about what the SOP should be still going on. I'm tempted to suggest putting together a SOP Steering Committee, and for a SOP Working Group to convene every Friday at 11am to discuss the progress of discussing the progress of the SOP, but if I do that I might get taken seriously, so I won't

[seabeyond]

56. lol lol. that was kinda funny. nt

[iverglas]

57. do you think VC might be a civil servant? ;)

You see, I think that's all a great idea in real life. It generates mission statements, statements of goals and objectives, committee meeting minutes, reports from committee chairs and all the subcommittees struck, frameworks for evaluating achievements, invitations to tender for doing evaluations, evaluation reports ... and they all come to me for my particular attentions, and I get paid.

Discussion of the SoP is actually discussion of current issues in feminism. We could just make this thread the only one in the forum! The search for common ground ...

Anyhow, I vote for the shorter and more unadorned the better for the SoP. Fewest points, fewest qualifying interpolations, etc.

[Gormy Cuss]

58. I propose this concise SoP:

A safe community where all those interested in discussing and trying to resolve the problems that are inherent to women in society can come and work together, without having to defend the basic premise that issues do exist which specifically affect and limit women, their rights and their potential.

[redqueen]

59. I approve.

I think it's probably best to stay very simple with the SOP. We can get a group of co-hosts with diverse views, and work out any issues as they arise.

[seabeyond]

60. raisin hand... is anyone gonna get to call me (ready?), prude, pearl clutcher, frigid, anti sex,

asexual, swooning on the couch, ugly, jealous, overwrought, hysterical, on that time of the month, puritan...... white middle aged hag?

just askin

lol

no wonder NO ONE likes me. lol.

[redqueen]

61. No, I expect all the co-hosts will agree that such namecalling is unacceptable.

That said, there seems to be an unexpected (unexpected to me, at least) level of fear about posting controversial opinions here, so I'd also like to take this opportunity to say that no one will be banned without a warning, a chance to explain whatever misunderstanding may have occurred, and of course a consensus of the hosts.

As our long-time participants in the Feminists forums here and on DU2 know, contentious opinions and spirited disagreements are nothing new, and I don't expect them to change. I wouldn't ever think of banning someone for being passionate, but if a line was ever crossed, I would expect that we could work out our disagreements or at least call a truce and move forward.

[Gormy Cuss]

62. Not more than once

if you catch my drift.

[seabeyond]

64. thanks. not that i am not weary, lol

backatcha.