# How can I become more involved in the feminist movement?



## mrsfran (Apr 10, 2013)

I've been complacent for a long time and it's only shamefully recently that I've realised that jesus christ, not only does the world still have a very long way to go, but it's getting _worse_. I want to do something, but I have no idea where to start. Direct me?

ETA: I do realise there is no one movement, no centralised Feminist Headquarters. I guess I'm looking for an activist group to join where I could join in with protests and campaigns.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 10, 2013)

mrsfran said:


> I've been complacent for a long time and it's only shamefully recently that I've realised that jesus christ, not only does the world still have a very long way to go, but it's getting _worse_. I want to do something, but I have no idea where to start. Direct me?
> 
> ETA: I do realise there is no one movement, no centralised Feminist Headquarters. I guess I'm looking for an activist group to join where I could join in with protests and campaigns.


are there any particular things about sexual inequality that motivate you?

I occasionally campaign for (and I donate to the) Abortion Support Network, and I know May K is involved in the campaign to get lads mags and other 'glamour' images moved out of children's eyeline in newsagents. There's the 'Let toys be toys for girls and boys' campaign, which is a lot of letter writing, afaict...

I tthink it's such a huge thing, that narrowing it down to specific battles makes it more likely that you can have a genuine impact. It also means that you don't have to get bogged down in the competing ideologies.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 10, 2013)

mrsfran said:


> I've been complacent for a long time and it's only shamefully recently that I've realised that jesus christ...


 
Thank fuck for the rest of the post - I thought for a second you'd got religion!


----------



## mrsfran (Apr 10, 2013)

spanglechick said:


> are there any particular things about sexual inequality that motivate you?
> 
> I occasionally campaign for (and I donate to the) Abortion Support Network, and I know May K is involved in the campaign to get lads mags and other 'glamour' images moved out of children's eyeline in newsagents. There's the 'Let toys be toys for girls and boys' campaign, which is a lot of letter writing, afaict...
> 
> I tthink it's such a huge thing, that narrowing it down to specific battles makes it more likely that you can have a genuine impact. It also means that you don't have to get bogged down in the competing ideologies.


 
The "let toys be toys" campaign appeals. I can write letters. But other than that I don't really know, which is why I'm floundering. It's just.. EVERYTHING!


----------



## el-ahrairah (Apr 10, 2013)

are you on facebook?  i can send you a lot of facebook group links.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Apr 10, 2013)

off the top of my head, UK Feminista are pretty active.


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2013)

i've started doing work, research and promotion stuff for a women's history group. probably not quite what you're looking for, but can show the range of options. whatever you do, ti's got to be something you do cause you want to, not just because you think it's a duty to.and showing the history of how women have been treated and why things are as they are today is part of the story.

and there's a group of us that are working on pressuring the uni to run 'don't rape' rather than 'don't be raped' campaigns.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 10, 2013)

just be careful of the fawcett society. my old landlady was involved with that and I really don't like her at all


----------



## treelover (Apr 10, 2013)

The CEO of them was at my college same time as me, Womens Officer as well..


----------



## cesare (Apr 10, 2013)

What are your politics apart from feminism? That'll have a bearing.


----------



## treelover (Apr 10, 2013)

> and there's a group of us that are working on pressuring the uni to run 'don't rape' rather than 'don't be raped' campaigns.


 
Great idea, but has to be done so that it doesn't look like it is blaming all males


as you were...


----------



## mrsfran (Apr 10, 2013)

Ok, I've looked into the Let Toys Be Toys campaign and that's something I can really get behind, so there's that. Thanks.


----------



## mrsfran (Apr 10, 2013)

cesare said:


> What are your politics apart from feminism? That'll have a bearing.


 
Left, woolly, grew up protesting disability rights.


----------



## treelover (Apr 10, 2013)

won't that just mean young girls playing with guns?


----------



## cesare (Apr 10, 2013)

mrsfran said:


> Left, woolly, grew up protesting disability rights.


Maybe check out if other people in Let Toys Be Toys have similar views, I guess. I don't know how easy that is to do unless you can get a feel for it via website, social media etc. Feminist campaigns (like any other single issue campaigns) can be driven by people that are only connected by that single issue and with little else they share, and you might not like actively campaigning with a bunch of rightish middle class do-gooders. Not that I'm suggesting that Let Toys Be Toys are like that, but you get my drift.


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2013)

mrsfran said:


> The "let toys be toys" campaign appeals. I can write letters. But other than that I don't really know, which is why I'm floundering. It's just.. EVERYTHING!


The @everydaysexism feed on twitter (link to website there too) is a good place to start, if you want letter-writing inspiration. They've done some good twitter storms targeting specific companies too, and have got some results.

It's very much focused on "just.. EVERYTHING!" and tackling the 'small' stuff, which ain't actually so small when it is so fucking normalised.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Apr 10, 2013)

the fawcett society are just fine, though pretty liberal. 



treelover said:


> Great idea, but has to be done so that it doesn't look like it is blaming all males
> 
> 
> as you were...


 
congratulations, you win the award for being a dickhead.  when a campaign says "MEN! DON'T RAPE" what sort of person gets upset by that and worries about it being an attack on all men.  ffs.  are you thinking "Well, i wasn't going to, but seeing as it assumes i do... "


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2013)

treelover said:


> won't that just mean young girls playing with guns?


No.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 10, 2013)

There's the "pink stinks" campaign which you could get behind.

IMHO the most useful thing which you can do for feminism is to get it firmly into your daughter's head that what she can or can't do needn't be limited by the fact that she was born female.  BTW the same goes for any male children - no need for them to be defined and limited by their genitals either.


----------



## DrRingDing (Apr 10, 2013)

mrsfran said:


> I've been complacent for a long time and it's only shamefully recently that I've realised that jesus christ, not only does the world still have a very long way to go, but it's getting _worse_. I want to do something, but I have no idea where to start. Direct me?
> 
> ETA: I do realise there is no one movement, no centralised Feminist Headquarters. I guess I'm looking for an activist group to join where I could join in with protests and campaigns.


 
There may be a weekend long feminist pow wow coming soon in London....well in the summer anyhoo. It'll be bringing in all sorts of feminists groups. Maybe you could come along to that, participate and see what takes your fancy.

I'll keep yer updated.

Where in the country are you?

London?

http://www.feministfightback.org.uk/


----------



## mrsfran (Apr 10, 2013)

ymu said:


> The @everydaysexism feed on twitter (link to website there too) is a good place to start, if you want letter-writing inspiration. They've done some good twitter storms targeting specific companies too, and have got some results.
> 
> It's very much focused on "just.. EVERYTHING!" and tackling the 'small' stuff, which ain't actually so small when it is so fucking normalised.


 
Yes, I've been following them for a while, they are in part why I'm feeling motivated to do something.


----------



## mrsfran (Apr 10, 2013)

cesare said:


> Maybe check out if other people in Let Toys Be Toys have similar views, I guess. I don't know how easy that is to do unless you can get a feel for it via website, social media etc. Feminist campaigns (like any other single issue campaigns) can be driven by people that are only connected by that single issue and with little else they share, and you might not like actively campaigning with a bunch of rightish middle class do-gooders. Not that I'm suggesting that Let Toys Be Toys are like that, but you get my drift.


 
Thanks. I shall do my research.


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 10, 2013)

UK Feminista have a summer school and links to local groups. Where are you? The nearest one to Brixton is the Goldsmiths Feminist Soc. They have a FB page. Anyone can join. 

The de facto leader of British feminists would seem to be Kat Banyard, you could read her book. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/feb/21/the-equality-illusion-kat-banyard

The best thing you could do would be to unite the disparate feminist groups around a central mission. What they're lacking is focus. Since women got the vote and equal pay legislation there hasn't been a goal for everyone to work for. A bit of noise about violence or abortion or FGM or Page 3 or whatever doesn't make much difference.


----------



## cesare (Apr 10, 2013)

Jesus fucking wept. "A bit of noise about [eg] abortion". Fuck right off, frumious.


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2013)

There's no point actually tackling the problems women face, cesare, all we need to do is state that they are equal at meetings and things and give them separate meetings if the blokes get a bit aggro, and then everything will fall into place. Did you not get this memo?

Oh, you're a woman. No, you weren't copied in either. Scratch that.


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 10, 2013)

So cesare, how would you achieve parity for women in this country? Do you not agree there's been fuck all progress for decades?


----------



## treelover (Apr 10, 2013)

> 'A flat-out sexist, misogynist pig': Johnny Rotten criticised after astonishing verbal assault on Australian TV presenter
> 
> Lydon, better known by his stage name Johnny Rotten, repeatedly told Carrie Bickmore, panellist on Channel Ten’s entertainment news show _The Project_ to “shut up” and not to interrupt “when a man is talking”.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...sault-on-australian-tv-presenter-8566919.html


 

Oh dear...

might need its own thread, very sad...


----------



## mrsfran (Apr 10, 2013)

Oh dear.


----------



## cesare (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> So cesare, how would you achieve parity for women in this country? Do you not agree there's been fuck all progress for decades?


History lessons for people like you would be a start


----------



## Limerick Red (Apr 10, 2013)

cesare said:


> Feminist campaigns (like any other single issue campaigns) can be driven by people that are only connected by that single issue and with little else they share,


 
Tis hardly a single issue "campaign" though is it?


----------



## mrsfran (Apr 10, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> There may be a weekend long feminist pow wow coming soon in London....well in the summer anyhoo. It'll be bringing in all sorts of feminists groups. Maybe you could come along to that, participate and see what takes your fancy.
> 
> I'll keep yer updated.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks. I'm in West London, but I don't exactly have whole weekends free to attend pow wows unfortunately, I've got a 2 year old. Unless they provide a creche...


----------



## cesare (Apr 10, 2013)

Limerick Red said:


> Tis hardly a single issue "campaign" though is it?


If one concentrates on ad-hoc "feminist" campaigns excluding the wider class context, then yes. Single issue is how I'd describe it.


----------



## DrRingDing (Apr 10, 2013)

mrsfran said:


> Thanks. I'm in West London, but I don't exactly have whole weekends free to attend pow wows unfortunately, I've got a 2 year old. Unless they provide a creche...


 
They probably will!


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 10, 2013)

cesare said:


> History lessons for people like you would be a start


You don't appear to be able to think. Or read. Why tell me to fuck off? Can't you think things through?


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> You don't appear to be able to think. Or read. Why tell me to fuck off? Can't you think things through?


Why don't you think things through, you smug liberal cunt?


----------



## cesare (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> You don't appear to be able to think. Or read. Why tell me to fuck off? Can't you think things through?


You're quite right frumious. I shouldn't have challenged your portrayal of the fight for rights over our own bodies


----------



## treelover (Apr 10, 2013)

knew this was going to happen...


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2013)

treelover said:


> knew this was going to happen...


That a bunch of men would turn up and tell the women what's what with feminism? How could you not know?


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 10, 2013)

Inevitable. Just like the Q&A at the feminist film festival, when all the men were asked to leave.


----------



## killer b (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Inevitable. Just like the Q&A at the feminist film festival, when all the men were asked to leave.


on the evidence of this thread (and many others) that seems reasonable tbh.


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2013)

cesare said:


> History lessons for people like you would be a start


 
working on that at my end


----------



## DRINK? (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Inevitable. Just like the Q&A at the feminist film festival, when all the men were asked to leave.


 
bit sexist


----------



## Limerick Red (Apr 10, 2013)

cesare said:


> If one concentrates on ad-hoc "feminist" campaigns excluding the wider class context, then yes. Single issue is how I'd describe it.


 
Ah fair point, I just don't think feminism is either single issue or a campaign, but ya if its taken out of a class stuggle context, you are getting into liberal campaign territory.


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Inevitable. Just like the Q&A at the feminist film festival, when all the men were asked to leave.


Because you didn't just storm onto a thread, state that feminists have been getting it all wrong and this is what they should be doing, and then fail to shut the fuck up and think about it when told to shut the fuck up and think about it?

You fucking twat.


----------



## Limerick Red (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Inevitable. Just like the Q&A at the feminist film festival, when all the men were asked to leave.


 
Would people/did people actually have beef with this?


----------



## DRINK? (Apr 10, 2013)

ymu said:


> You fucking twat.


 
Bit sexist


----------



## Greebo (Apr 10, 2013)

Limerick Red said:


> Would people/did people actually have beef with this?


I'd have a problem with that happening, if all the men were asked to leave instead of merely any individuals (be they male, female, intersex or transgender) who were being disruptive.


----------



## sojourner (Apr 10, 2013)

I don't think it's fair to keep derailing fran's thread. If people can't help, don't post. If you want to discuss other matters, set up a new thread eh?


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2013)

This is the type of thing that @everydaysexism gets results for. They've been going after facebook for a while now, and I've just seen this:



> EverydaySexism
> Hi @Motorola are you happy with your advert appearing on this @Facebook page inciting domestic violence? http://t.co/XGpR8Z4QeO


 
Getting their advertisers involved.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 10, 2013)

Feminist Fightback as already mentioned, although they're over in East London.

There's London Feminist Network that hold monthly central London meetings - they also run Reclaim the Night.

UK Feminista is the group led by Kat Barnyard and usually has links to various campaigns that are going on around London and UK.

I'm sure there's numerous local groups around which are particularly aligned to the various anti-cuts movements at the moment, or those that spring up around particular community issues (closures to drop-in centres, etc). It's a case of keeping your eyes peeled really on forums, blogs, etc. such as The F-Word.

I used to be involved with an anarcha-feminist group in the 90s (protesting against anti-abortion groups, cuts to support services, subverting/stickering, analysing gender oppression based on capitalist/class grounds, etc.) but not been involved in much for quite a while now. Although I did go along to support the Women's Library occupation a few weeks ago.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 10, 2013)

sojourner said:


> I don't think it's fair to keep derailing fran's thread. If people can't help, don't post. If you want to discuss other matters, set up a new thread eh?


Following cesare's point, I'd personally beneift from some links around contemporary feminist politics/campaigns/sites and how they relate to more general political positions. University of Urban and all that. 

Edit: already happening ^


----------



## Firky (Apr 10, 2013)

I am surprised there's no thread for this...  maybe a feminist sub-forum would go down well? 



Frumious B. said:


> Inevitable. Just like the Q&A at the feminist film festival, when all the bigots like me were asked to leave.


 
Fixed.

Frumious B. Who think it's OK to use the world 'paki' because it's no different to 'brit' and women have different brains to men that stops them from processing the same information.

And now takes it upon himself to shit on a thread which doesn't concern him or 'his type'.


----------



## Limerick Red (Apr 10, 2013)

http://femcellssouth.wordpress.com/author/femcells
http://femcellsnorth.wordpress.com/

Seem to be a bit quite lately but some good people involved.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Apr 10, 2013)

Greebo said:


> I'd have a problem with that happening, if all the men were asked to leave instead of merely any individuals (be they male, female, intersex or transgender) who were being disruptive.


 
tbh i can see the arguments in favour of both.  i've been at feminist events and been asked to leave or step outside for a minute or to do useful things in the backroom or whatever.  i don't think i'm being prejudiced against, i think that any group fighting for rights etc. needs both safe spaces AND solidarity from those not of that group.  it's not an either / or thing.  it's about understanding that being part of the struggle as a man means that it's not all about me and what i want!


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2013)

Firky said:


> I am surprised there's no thread for this... maybe a feminist sub-forum would go down well?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I'll like that if you can reassure me you were being sarcastic about the feminist sub-forum.


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> tbh i can see the arguments in favour of both. i've been at feminist events and been asked to leave or step outside for a minute or to do useful things in the backroom or whatever. i don't think i'm being prejudiced against, i think that any group fighting for rights etc. needs both safe spaces AND solidarity from those not of that group. it's not an either / or thing. it's about understanding that being part of the struggle as a man means that it's not all about me and what i want!


I think that was fine forty years ago. Nowadays, I think we should be expecting men to get to grips with this stuff and make it possible for this to be discussed in plenary without the childish backlash shit.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Apr 10, 2013)

fair enough.  but i think that's a discussion for the floor and i'll abide by the results without stamping my foot.


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 10, 2013)

There was a creche at last year's UK Feminista summer school. Prolly be one this year too, but they haven't published details yet. 

http://ukfeminista.org.uk/events/creche-booking-summer-school-2012/

UK Feminista also maintains a map of local groups at Google Maps 

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?hl...54.265224,-3.55957&spn=8.991443,25.927734&z=5


----------



## weepiper (Apr 10, 2013)

We don't have equal pay or anything fucking like it, despite us having 'won' that battle years ago

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/08/four-decades-on-equal-pay-yet-to-come



> men take home higher pay than women in 370 of the UK's 426 job classifications, while women earn more in only 53 categories, according to data supplied by the Office for National Statistics and analysed by the Guardian. Equal pay prevails in three job categories only.


 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-11016890



> The survey found that even at junior management level, the pay gap still existed, with men being paid £797 more than female executives in Scotland.
> Across the UK as a whole, women in the Midlands fared the worst, taking home on average £10,434 less than men.
> Those in the North East fared the best, where the gap was smallest at £8,955, according to the survey of more than 43,000 managers in 200 organisations...
> A spokesman for the Equality and Human Rights Commission said: "Forty years after the Equal Pay Act, women can still expect to earn less than 85 pence for every pound their male colleagues earn. In some sectors the pay gap is far worse."


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 10, 2013)

Buying a pair of dungarees would be a good start.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 10, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> Buying a pair of dungarees would be a good start.


 
Fuck off.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 10, 2013)

ymu said:


> I think that was fine forty years ago. Nowadays, I think we should be expecting men to get to grips with this stuff and make it possible for this to be discussed in plenary without the childish backlash shit.


 

Don't recon its just about childish backlash tho is it, theres some stuff some women don't feel comfortable discussing outside of a single sex environment. Thats a bit shit but it is how it is.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> You don't appear to be able to think. Or read. Why tell me to fuck off? Can't you think things through?


 
Close your ears Cesare I don't wanna embarrass you 

You obviously read fuck all on here or at least pay no attention to what you read. 
Cesare is one of the most clued up people on these boards. 
Not only clued up but over all pretty laid back and cool about things. 
She is not someone who is quick to jump down someones throat and is a wealth of knowledge and resources. 
You need to pay more attention!


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 10, 2013)

There was a creche at last year's UK Feminista summer school. Prolly be one this year too, but they haven't published details yet.

http://ukfeminista.org.uk/events/creche-booking-summer-school-2012/

UK Feminista also maintains a map of local groups at Google Maps

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?hl...54.265224,-3.55957&spn=8.991443,25.927734&z=5[/quote]

Plus they have a listing of upcoming events:


> 14/04/2013 Upstairs Downton: The Improvised Episode
> _Windmill Hill Community Centre, Bristol_
> 16/04/2013 The Invisible War Screening & Panel Discussion
> _Arts 2 Queen Mary University, Mile End Road London_
> ...


 
http://ukfeminista.org.uk/events/


----------



## kittyP (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Inevitable. Just like the Q&A at the feminist film festival, when all the men were asked to leave.


 
You just don't notice that there are plenty of men who mange to remain reasonable and informed and do not start any arguments on these threads. 
You only notice the ones that cause trouble and get told to fuck off for it.


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2013)

kittyP said:


> You just don't notice that there are plenty of men who mange to remain reasonable and informed and do not start any arguments on these threads.
> You only notice the ones that cause trouble and get told to fuck off for it.


 
he's one of those with form for being a twat when he's called out on poor behavior.

he will anounce hes put you on ignore in a minute cause he can't handle anyone disagreeing with him


----------



## kittyP (Apr 10, 2013)

sojourner said:


> I don't think it's fair to keep derailing fran's thread. If people can't help, don't post. If you want to discuss other matters, set up a new thread eh?


 
Sorry I will leave it now x


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 10, 2013)

You're making ignorant assumptions, as usual.


----------



## Firky (Apr 10, 2013)

You're not well liked, Frumious, because you're a bigot. Simple as that.


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 10, 2013)

Firky said:


> You're not well liked, Frumious, because you're a bigot. Simple as that.


You called me a bigot when we were discussing why so few women in the British army want front line infantry jobs. I said women don't have the appetite for killing that men do. And you call that bigotry.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> You called me a bigot when we were discussing why so few women in the British army want front line infantry jobs. I said women don't have the appetite for killing that men do. And you call that bigotry.


 
They'd be no good doing long-range drone strikes either cos they're rubbish at video games.


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> You're making ignorant assumptions, as usual.


 
going by past form, that's your job


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2013)

8ball said:


> They'd be no good doing long-range drone strikes either cos they're rubbish at video games.


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 10, 2013)

toggle said:


> going by past form, that's your job


Ooh what a clever remark. Do you feel better now?


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Ooh what a clever remark. Do you feel better now?


 
so you didn't put me on ignore.

a liar as well as a fool


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> You're making ignorant assumptions, as usual.


Because you're anti-sexist right? Because you're one of those nice guys who would never think of women as less than equal, right? And that's all the thinking you need to do, right? No woman can tell you your posts are sexist when you've decided that you're not a sexist, dammit.


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 10, 2013)

toggle said:


> so you didn't put me on ignore.
> 
> a liar as well as a fool


 
You are on ignore, but I clicked on Show Ignored Content. Silly me for feeding the troll. Won't happen again.


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2013)

Of course! She's a troll. There can be no other explanation.


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 10, 2013)

ymu said:


> Because you're anti-sexist right? Because you're one of those nice guys who would never think of women as less than equal, right? And that's all the thinking you need to do, right? No woman can tell you your posts are sexist when you've decided that you're not a sexist, dammit.


You've got no idea what my views are on women's rights, because I haven't explained them. What would be the point when simpletons like you just make assumptions without reading anything?


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> You are on ignore, but I clicked on Show Ignored Content. Silly me for feeding the troll. Won't happen again.


 
isn't it nice when the idiots announce themselves so loudly.


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> You've got no idea what my views are on women's rights, because I haven't explained them. What would be the point when simpletons like you just make assumptions without reading anything?


 
you've made it very clear in other threads that you refuse to consider that your evidence free assumptions about how women think, could possibly be wrong. whatever you choose to whitewash  the rest of your posts with, your underlying beliefs about men and women are sexist and there's no getting away with that until you choose to start to consider the evidence that challenges those assumptions.

but instead of doing that, you put people on ignore and throw around accusations of trolling.

you are not only ignorant, you are one of those who is determined to remain ignorant, fight to remain ignorant and abuse anyone who gets in the way of that.


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> You've got no idea what my views are on women's rights, because I haven't explained them. What would be the point when simpletons like you just make assumptions without reading anything?


Oh, I know plenty just from what you've posted on this very thread. If you understood the point you were responding to, you'd know that. Instead, you're just digging deeper.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> So cesare, how would you achieve parity for women in this country? Do you not agree there's been fuck all progress for decades?


 
With a fucking sword, if necessary, given that rational argument doesn't work against the various historical interests ranged against gender equality.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 10, 2013)

toggle said:


>



He was being sarky.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 10, 2013)

cesare said:


> If one concentrates on ad-hoc "feminist" campaigns excluding the wider class context, then yes. Single issue is how I'd describe it.


 
I think that because feminism tends to be *represented* in such a way by the media, when actually it's *incidences* of feminism that are occurring - not "single issue campaigns" but fractions of a larger whole - there's plenty of misconceptions about "feminism" (in fact about most -isms that stand in opposition to what is construed by the media to be "normal") around that tend to muddy the waters.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 10, 2013)

treelover said:


> won't that just mean young girls playing with guns?


As a young girl who did just, your point is what exactly? That toys should have a gender? That there are only some toys that girls should play with? That I shouldn't have played with my brothers?


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 10, 2013)

ymu said:


> Oh, I know plenty just from what you've posted on this very thread. If you understood the point you were responding to, you'd know that. Instead, you're just digging deeper.


Woe is me, toggle and ymu are liking each other's drivel so much, I'm miserable and friendless. Odd that neither of you nitwits has tried to answer MrsFran's question. I look forward to ignoring you in whatever thread you stalk me on next.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Woe is me, toggle and ymu are liking each other's drivel so much, I'm miserable and friendless. Odd that neither of you nitwits has tried to answer MrsFran's question. I look forward to ignoring you in whatever thread you stalk me on next.



Surely easier to just fuck off?


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> He was being sarky.


 
it is farly easy to get irritated when you've heard too much of that kind of shit from people who really mean it though


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 10, 2013)

Yeah. Fair dos.


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Woe is me, toggle and ymu are liking each other's drivel so much, I'm miserable and friendless. Odd that neither of you nitwits has tried to answer MrsFran's question. I look forward to ignoring you in whatever thread you stalk me on next.


 
obviously you haven't read the posts where i have, otherwise you wouldn't be making this kind of comment


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Inevitable. Just like the Q&A at the feminist film festival, when all the men were asked to leave.


 
What's wrong with that? If everyone were equal, you might have a reason to be annoyed, but everyone isn't equal, and some things may, with obvious profuse apologies to your ego, need to be discussed away from the male gaze. That merely seems like good sense to me, until or unless equality becomes a social as well as a legal reality.


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 10, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> Surely easier to just fuck off?


 
I'll go in my own time, thanks. At least I gave mrsfran some of the info she wanted. Not my fault the thread has gone to shit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 10, 2013)

DRINK? said:


> bit sexist


 
And not at all sexist for a bloke to assume he had the right to sit in on and contribute to a Q & A on feminism?


----------



## kittyP (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> You've got no idea what my views are on women's rights, because I haven't explained them. What would be the point when simpletons like you just make assumptions without reading anything?


 
In all seriousness, if you really think that you are being misrepresented then I would think the best thing to do is clearly explain exactly what you think and why and possibly apologise for any misunderstanding. And then you are likely to receive the same in kind. 
But all I have seen you do is argue and bicker about semantics and tell women how they should think and feel about something.


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> I'll go in my own time, thanks. At least I gave mrsfran some of the info she wanted. Not my fault the thread has gone to shit.


 
nothing ever is your fault is it, it just happens that feminist/feminism discussions always turn to shit whenever you join them


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> I'll go in my own time, thanks. At least I gave mrsfran some of the info she wanted. Not my fault the thread has gone to shit.


 
I'm saddened but unsurprised that your petulance at being argued with is as pathetic here as it was on the thread about the Vauxhall lapdancing club.
Face relevant fact - if you have a dick, you're speaking from an extremely secondary position. Your opinion on female oppression will never be as informed as that of most females. It *cannot* be, because we, having cocks of whatever colour or class, aren't subjected to the same social and economic forces that women are.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 10, 2013)

mrsfran said:


> Thanks. I'm in West London, but I don't exactly have whole weekends free to attend pow wows unfortunately, I've got a 2 year old. Unless they provide a creche...


 
TBF, they're more likely to have a creche than many other places.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 10, 2013)

Firky said:


> I am surprised there's no thread for this... maybe a feminist sub-forum would *go down* well?


 
So tempting.....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 10, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> Buying a pair of dungarees would be a good start.


 
A Scots bloke I worked with once referred to being put off by a woman because she wore a pair of "those lesbian dungarees" on a date. It took him about 20 minutes of hard thought before he got what I meant by "how the fuck did you know what sex the dungarees were?", wandered over and said "aye, good one!".


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> You called me a bigot when we were discussing why so few women in the British army want front line infantry jobs. I said women don't have the appetite for killing that men do. And you call that bigotry.


I call that sexist bigotry actually, and I made my thoughts clear at the time.

mrsfran WISE (women into science and engineering) isn't an activist organisation as such but they do a lot about promoting science and engineering as careers for women, and their blog is made up of different women & feminists each month, writing on different topics.

I particularly enjoyed this blog post and thought it might show you had a little bit of challenge via letter/email writing will still achieve results:
http://www.wisecampaign.org.uk/blogs/getset-women/2013/02/keep-sexism-out-of-space




> When I turned 30, I decided that I wanted to be an astronaut. My friends thought me crazy, but I gave myself the challenge of getting to space before I was 40. You can imagine my excitement upon hearing that a competition, promising the prize of spaceflight, was about to launch.
> 
> I signed up fast and set about collecting votes, but the images that I was offered to share on Facebook made me feel uneasy. If I didn't want my own picture or the generic branding, I could select an image of a pretty woman draped over an astronaut, or even one suggesting that she'd stripped for him.


 


> Am I making a fuss over nothing? It seems that that's what Lynx would have you believe. A statement from them said their adverts were “designed to be light-hearted”. But would we allow a bit of “light-hearted” racism?
> 
> I emailed the Head of NASA about the issue and he arranged for me to be provided with a statement (the full text of which can be found in my original post). “Even today in 2013, many images of women (and stereotypes of men) in the media show that we still have a lot of work to do regarding the role of women and their importance to fields like STEM”.
> 
> ...


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 10, 2013)

kittyP said:


> In all seriousness, if you really think that you are being misrepresented then I would think the best thing to do is clearly explain exactly what you think and why and possibly apologise for any misunderstanding. And then you are likely to receive the same in kind.
> But all I have seen you do is argue and bicker about semantics and tell women how they should think and feel about something.


Given the responses I get I really don't see the point. If an intelligent discussion of feminism starts, I might join in. But I just don't see that happening at urban. I'd rather spend the time in face to face discussions with constructive, informed grown-ups. The feminist film festival was great in that respect - had a good chat with Linda Bellos, which was worth 1,000 threads here.


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2013)

actually.

something like offering to handle the blog/social media of a group might be an idea. you have some experience in these things as i recall.

and it doesn't have to necessarily be for a political feminist activist group. While not every women's group is a feminist one, there are a lot that do some very good stuff that isn't about activism. could you help teach conversational English to immigrant women that can't afford the lessons for example? While letter writing campaigns and marches can be good, there are options that could make a lot of difference to individual women that are part of the struggle as far as i'm concerned. they are however ignored by those 'names' who want to be seen to be doing something


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 10, 2013)

8ball said:


> They'd be no good doing long-range drone strikes either cos they're rubbish at video games.


Reported as sexist. 

And we're not, actually.


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 10, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> I call that sexist bigotry actually, and I made my thoughts clear at the time.


 
Please explain. I didn't understand your logic then, and I don't now.


----------



## mrsfran (Apr 10, 2013)

This is the kind of stuff that puts me off to be honest. I don't want to spend my time telling idiots on the internet to fuck off, I want to campaign for real change.  Although I understand it needs challenging, I don't give a shit that Frumious B's internet persona is such that he enjoys winding people up. There's a reason I rarely post in P & P - I am not up for banging my head against a brick wall.

But I appreciate the nudge in the right direction re: smaller campaigns, UK Feminista etc.


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Woe is me, toggle and ymu are liking each other's drivel so much, I'm miserable and friendless. Odd that neither of you nitwits has tried to answer MrsFran's question. I look forward to ignoring you in whatever thread you stalk me on next.


For a bloke who claims he isn't one of the usual suspects, you're acting an awful lot like one.

Where's your argument? You're not just resorting to insult straight away because you don't have one, surely? Why do you need to dismiss your opponents as both a monothought clique and stupid? Why are you lying about what has been said on the thread? Why are you trying to claim victimhood?

And when the fuck have I stalked you, you sad little fuckwit? Do you assume it's a conspiracy every time more than one person says you are wrong? Fragile ego?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> You called me a bigot when we were discussing why so few women in the British army want front line infantry jobs. I said women don't have the appetite for killing that men do. And you call that bigotry.


 
It's an interesting opinion, but it's not exactly supported by what we know of female frontline troops, although admittedly, they're from other cultures, which *might* have an impact. In terms of the British army, we don't have enough females _per se_ in the army to make any realistic prediction as to anything but their particular their fondness or not for frontline duties based on even a complete sample of them. Their predelictions will not necessarily represent those who follow.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 10, 2013)

mrsfran said:


> This is the kind of stuff that puts me off to be honest. I don't want to spend my time telling idiots on the internet to fuck off, I want to campaign for real change. Although I understand it needs challenging, I don't give a shit that Frumious B's internet persona is such that he enjoys winding people up. There's a reason I rarely post in P & P - I am not up for banging my head against a brick wall.
> 
> But I appreciate the nudge in the right direction re: smaller campaigns, UK Feminista etc.


 
To be honest, unfortunately this tends to happen more in mixed groups. But I really recommend having a look at some of the links and starting out getting involved in a small way, like the everydaysexism stuff.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 10, 2013)

mrsfran said:


> This is the kind of stuff that puts me off to be honest. I don't want to spend my time telling idiots on the internet to fuck off, I want to campaign for real change. Although I understand it needs challenging, I don't give a shit that Frumious B's internet persona is such that he enjoys winding people up.


 
Yeah. It's a dead end.


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Please explain. I didn't understand your logic then, and I don't now.


 
cause you put most of the peopel trying to explain it on ignore you fucktard


----------



## kittyP (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Given the responses I get I really don't see the point. If an intelligent discussion of feminism starts, I might join in. But I just don't see that happening at urban. I'd rather spend the time in face to face discussions with constructive, informed grown-ups. The feminist film festival was great in that respect - had a good chat with Linda Bellos, which was worth 1,000 threads here.


 
If you had started off trying to explain clearly how you felt and all you came across was people having a go at you or being childish then I would understand but I for one have yet to see you explain anything at all. 
In fact, you have already admitted that you have yet to explain your stand point on it all. 
If your not going to explain how you feel about it, then why enter in to the discussion other to wind people up? 
That is a genuine question .


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 10, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> And not at all sexist for a bloke to assume he had the right to sit in on and contribute to a Q & A on feminism?


The responses to this question are perfect examples of the illogical assumptions which plague this place. You and half a dozen others have jumped in with an opinion without troubling to ask how the Q&A session was organised and promoted, or on what basis the tickets were sold, or on what prompted the request for men to leave, or even on whether I stayed or left. So what is the point in discussing anything?


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> The responses to this question are perfect examples of the illogical assumptions which plague this place. You and half a dozen others have jumped in with an opinion without troubling to ask how the Q&A session was organised and promoted, or on what basis the tickets were sold, or on what prompted the request for men to leave, or even on whether I stayed or left. So what is the point in discussing anything?


cause this thread isn't about you


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Please explain. I didn't understand your logic then, and I don't now.


Try reading the responses you got on that thread, whilst hanging onto the idea that it is possible for your smugness to be wrong about something. Making people repeat themselves because you couldn't be bothered to read it before is arrogant, time-wasting bullshit. You know where your posts are, try reading the fucking thread.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Please explain. I didn't understand your logic then, and I don't now.


You said 'women don't have the appetite to kill that men do'. I said I find it sexist bigotry. This is because:

1) Not all men have the appetite to kill. Indeed, an 'appetite for killing' is generally what all serial killers have.
2) Not all men are serial killers.
3) This statement relies on stereotypes, that men are strongly and macho and ruthless and women couldn't possibly be any of those these things


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 10, 2013)

kittyP said:


> If you had started off trying to explain clearly how you felt and all you came across was people having a go at you or being childish then I would understand but I for one have yet to see you explain anything at all.
> In fact, you have already admitted that you have yet to explain your stand point on it all.
> If your not going to explain how you feel about it, then why enter in to the discussion other to wind people up?
> That is a genuine question .


Because when people make silly assumptions or attack me for the sake of it I don't have any expectation that I'll get a fair hearing. That's my genuine answer. I would need a couple of hundred words to put my point across, but people here don't read that far. They get their fun by making a snarky comment - they don't think beyond that.


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> The responses to this question are perfect examples of the illogical assumptions which plague this place. You and half a dozen others have jumped in with an opinion without troubling to ask how the Q&A session was organised and promoted, or on what basis the tickets were sold, or on what prompted the request for men to leave, or even on whether I stayed or left. So what is the point in discussing anything?


I don't care if the Q&A was run by crap feminists or disrupted by crap men.

I was spectacularly impressed long before that by your suggestion that feminists had been getting it all wrong all these years, that focusing on trivialities like violence and abortion were a waste of time, and that a mum with a 2 year old should get out to meetings and summer schools to sort these silly women out once and for all. Really insightful, I thought.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Because when people make silly assumptions or attack me for the sake of it I don't have any expectation that I'll get a fair hearing. That's my genuine answer. I would need a couple of hundred words to put my point across, but people here don't read that far. They get their fun by making a snarky comment - they don't think beyond that.


What 'silly assumptions' have been made? kittyP is right - you've made no attempt to articulate your positions. She asked a perfectly reasonably question.

And don't you think 'silly' is a bit of a red flag on this thread?


----------



## JimW (Apr 10, 2013)

toggle said:


> cause you put most of the peopel trying to explain it on ignore you fucktard


 Genuine laugh there.
You're miles out into oddball Mr Logic territory, Frumious and I can't believe you wouldn't be aware of that if you were halfway genuine or not a complete pillock so not worth engaging with any road.


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Since women got the vote and equal pay legislation there hasn't been a goal for everyone to work for. A bit of noise about violence or abortion or FGM or Page 3 or whatever doesn't make much difference.


 
That's because whilst women's equality/smashing gender oppression is the overall 'goal' of feminism, given the different feminist persuasions (lib feminism, marxist-feminism, anarcha-feminism, radical feminism, etc), and all manner of areas that are important to women/constitute gender inequality, then we shouldn't just ignore certain battles. And in my opinion, its important that these movements are broad, just as wider left movements are (encompassing pro-working class, anti-capitalist, anti-fascist, eco, gay rights, and more prominently at the moment, anti-cuts movements).

Ultimately, there's all manner of feminist objectives - whether that be fighting the present cuts that disproportionately affect women, there's pay equality areas (legislation hasn't suddenly made everything equal), there's lesbian/bme/trans intersections, domestic violence, abortion rights, equality of childcare, FGM, objectification, pro-sex worker, anti-porn, etc.

When it comes to fighting the cuts/neo-liberalism of now, more than ever we need unity and personally I think that means working primarily along anti-capitalism/anti-cuts/smashing class lines - but that doesn't mean we need to suddenly drop other issues - if anything, lots of actions - whether unified or more disparate all help.


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> You said 'women don't have the appetite to kill that men do'. I said I find it sexist bigotry. This is because:
> 
> 1) Not all men have the appetite to kill. Indeed, an 'appetite for killing' is generally what all serial killers have.
> 2) Not all men are serial killers.
> 3) This statement relies on stereotypes, that men are strongly and macho and ruthless and women couldn't possibly be any of those these things


 
there's also the point that the people who have an 'appetite' for causing death are the people that army recruitment really really want to weed out. cause they are a massive danger to anyone near them.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Because when people make silly assumptions or attack me for the sake of it I don't have any expectation that I'll get a fair hearing. That's my genuine answer. I would need a couple of hundred words to put my point across, but people here don't read that far. They get their fun by making a snarky comment - they don't think beyond that.


 
Which people here?
All of them? 
So you are willing to write everyone off from hearing your stand point because you have got in a spat with one or two?


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 10, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> You said 'women don't have the appetite to kill that men do'. I said I find it sexist bigotry. This is because:
> 
> 1) Not all men have the appetite to kill. Indeed, an 'appetite for killing' is generally what all serial killers have.
> 2) Not all men are serial killers.
> 3) This statement relies on stereotypes, that men are strongly and macho and ruthless and women couldn't possibly be any of those these things


I didn't see the need to point out that not all men have the appetite to kill. It's self evident. Like saying that water is wet.

The context of our discussion was that, of the small number of women in the British army who had passed the relevant tests, not one had asked for a front line infantry job. We were speculating about the underlying reasons. My opinion is that the stereotype about men being more violent/bloodthirsty than women mostly holds good. That is proven by the gender balance of violent criminals. I know of a number of men in the US army who joined in order to have the experience of killing. I got to know one of them quite well. I just can't imagine a woman with that urge. There might be the odd one. As you say, female serial killers exist. But I believe that urge is so rare in women that it may explain why no women in the British army have yet volunteered to be front line infantry. I don't see that as bigotry. I'm just acknowledging that men and women are different. The word 'bigot' is pretty nasty. It implies that I have contempt for women. I don't.


----------



## idumea (Apr 10, 2013)

mrsfran said:


> I've been complacent for a long time and it's only shamefully recently that I've realised that jesus christ, not only does the world still have a very long way to go, but it's getting _worse_. I want to do something, but I have no idea where to start. Direct me?
> 
> ETA: I do realise there is no one movement, no centralised Feminist Headquarters. I guess I'm looking for an activist group to join where I could join in with protests and campaigns.


 
Resolutely ignoring the by-now quasi-mandatory/inevitable derailing: 

Are you in London? A friend of mine is involved in the London Feminist Network (something like that - will double check the name.) 

There's also the Feminist Library, who do loads of events and volunteering ops and are close to Brixton (not sure where you are geographically, sorry!) 

I agree with spangles who said it very much depends on the kind of thing you're interested in.


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> I didn't see the need to point out that not all men have the appetite to kill. It's self evident. Like saying that water is wet.
> 
> The context of our discussion was that, of the small number of women in the British army who had passed the relevant tests, not one had asked for a front line infantry job. We were speculating about the underlying reasons. My opinion is that the stereotype about men being more violent/bloodthirsty than women mostly holds good. That is proven by the gender balance of violent criminals. I know of a number of men in the US army who joined in order to have the experience of killing. I got to know one of them quite well. I just can't imagine a woman with that urge. There might be the odd one. As you say, female serial killers exist. But I believe that urge is so rare in women that it may explain why no women in the British army have yet volunteered to be front line infantry. I don't see that as bigotry. I'm just acknowledging that men and women are different. The word 'bigot' is pretty nasty. It implies that I have contempt for women. I don't.


 
Violence is a man thing because they are born violent and not because patriarchy encourages them to be violent?

Do you have any idea how politically naive your opinions are, let alone how insulting to men and women?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 10, 2013)

toggle said:


>


 
The trouble with sarcasm is that it doesn't work if you sign-post it - bit of a tightrope...


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 10, 2013)

idumea said:


> Are you in London? A friend of mine is involved in the London Feminist Network (something like that - will double check the name.)


 
Yep, London Feminist Network 



idumea said:


> There's also the Feminist Library, who do loads of events and volunteering ops and are close to Brixton (not sure where you are geographically, sorry!)


 
Is this the one, idumea? Always mean't to check that place out.

Fran's West London but I must admit I don't know of any feminist/action groups that way tbh. East London's been a hotbed over the years


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> I didn't see the need to point out that not all men have the appetite to kill. It's self evident. Like saying that water is wet.
> 
> The context of our discussion was that, of the small number of women in the British army who had passed the relevant tests, not one had asked for a front line infantry job. We were speculating about the underlying reasons. My opinion is that the stereotype about men being more violent/bloodthirsty than women mostly holds good. That is proven by the gender balance of violent criminals. I know of a number of men in the US army who joined in order to have the experience of killing. I got to know one of them quite well. I just can't imagine a woman with that urge. There might be the odd one. As you say, female serial killers exist. But I believe that urge is so rare in women that it may explain why no women in the British army have yet volunteered to be front line infantry. I don't see that as bigotry. I'm just acknowledging that men and women are different. The word 'bigot' is pretty nasty. It implies that I have contempt for women. I don't.


Yet, to be honest, your first comment really does imply that you do have that contempt. 

My cousin is in bomb-disposal and trained in logistics,driving soldiers to and from camp every day in Iraq and Afghanistan, before that. She was as much on the front line as soldiers in infantry divisions when she was there. Defining frontline soldiers purely by their bloodlust - or supposed lack thereof - is insulting and ignorant of the many reasons people of both genders join the army.


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 10, 2013)

Firky said:


> Who think it's OK to use the world 'paki' because it's no different to 'brit'


 
Reported.  What a nasty lying stalker you are.


----------



## Firky (Apr 10, 2013)

Report away, Frumious. Does that B stand for bigot?



Frumious B. said:


> Are any women up for hand to hand fighting, with bayonets? You shouldn't put yourself forward for the infantry unless you accept that you might have to do it. No doubt some women have done that in past wars, e.g. in Russia and Vietnam, but I can't imagine many British women would be up for doing that in one of the foreign wars we persist in participating in.


 


Firky said:


> Why would women not be able to accept that (bayoneting people) over their male colleagues could be part of the job? Your premise is that, is it not?
> 
> There's quite a few female pathologists knocking around and probably women who work in slaughter houses.


 


Frumious B. said:


> That's very close to my premise. I find it very hard to imagine a woman genuinely accepting that as part of the job, in the context of serving in the UK volunteer army, going overseas to fight a bunch of people who don't present much of a threat to our country. Not many men accept that. I doubt more than a handful of current U75 members would. But let's say that 10 women pass the AACC next year. I find it hard to imagine even one of them accepting bayoneting as part of their job. If the UK were invaded, that would be very different. But volunteering to go into situations where you might have to plunge a knife into a member of the Taliban...I can't visualise a woman doing that.


 
What a progressive man. Smashing that glass ceiling down.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 10, 2013)

I feel like less of a man now - I'd probably have trouble with bayoneting someone.


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 10, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Yet, to be honest, your first comment really does imply that you do have that contempt.


 
Eh? Where?



equationgirl said:


> My cousin is in bomb-disposal and trained in logistics,driving soldiers to and from camp every day in Iraq and Afghanistan, before that. She was as much on the front line as soldiers in infantry divisions when she was there. Defining frontline soldiers purely by their bloodlust - or supposed lack thereof - is insulting and ignorant of the many reasons people of both genders join the army.


 
Well done for intentionally misinterpreting everything I wrote. Yes, I know everyone is on the frontline these days. And I know about the reasons people join. I can give you a long list of friends and relatives in the army and air force.


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2013)

8ball said:


> The trouble with sarcasm is that it doesn't work if you sign-post it - bit of a tightrope...


You might find the problem is actually that you choose some fucking inappropriate moments to try to be funny. It gets boring. You might want to think about who to target and when, if you actually intend it to be funny and not just another drip drip drip of "you don't matter" from a bloke who is too lazy to turn the tropes on his unreconstructed bredren.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 10, 2013)

ymu said:


> You might find the problem is actually that you choose some fucking inappropriate moments to try to be funny. It gets boring. You might want to think about who to target and when if you actually intend it to be funny and not just another drip drip drip of "you don't matter" from a bloke who is too lazy to turn the tropes on his unreconstructed bredren.


 
Fuck - where to start...


----------



## andysays (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Inevitable. Just like the Q&A at the feminist film festival, when all the men were asked to leave.


 
Well that's a fucking stupid thing to say. Can you really not tell the difference between criticising you for making a rather crassly expressed comment (to give you the benefit of the doubt) and telling you can't take part because you've got a dick?

Just because you *have* a dick, BTW, doesn't mean you have to act like one...


----------



## idumea (Apr 10, 2013)

steph said:


> Yep, London Feminist Network
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Yep that's the one! I've been a few times for things and they're lovely.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 10, 2013)

Good to see sone of our white male posters are behaving like entitled dickwads  

Mrs Fran - the London feminista conference is usually a day rather than a whole weekend. It's really worthwhile and very empowering.  I'd say that M is probably a little young to go to the crèche there tho - it's slightly haphazard IME which is fine with older kids but I wouldn't leave an under 3 there


----------



## mrsfran (Apr 10, 2013)

trashpony said:


> Good to see sone of our white male posters are behaving like entitled dickwads
> 
> Mrs Fran - the London feminista conference is usually a day rather than a whole weekend. It's really worthwhile and very empowering. I'd say that M is probably a little young to go to the crèche there tho - it's slightly haphazard IME which is fine with older kids but I would leave an under 3 there


 
Good to know, cheers.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 10, 2013)

mrsfran said:


> Good to know, cheers.


Wouldn't, obviously. Am crap at typing on my phone


----------



## andysays (Apr 10, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> tbh i can see the arguments in favour of both. i've been at feminist events and been asked to leave or step outside for a minute or to do useful things in the backroom or whatever. i don't think i'm being prejudiced against, i think that any group fighting for rights etc. needs both safe spaces AND solidarity from those not of that group. it's not an either / or thing. it's about understanding that being part of the struggle as a man means that it's not all about me and what i want!


 


ymu said:


> I think that was fine forty years ago. Nowadays, I think we should be expecting men to get to grips with this stuff and make it possible for this to be discussed in plenary without the childish backlash shit.


 
ymu: can you explain what you mean by this? I think what el-ahrairah has suggested above is a sensible position. I'd also suggest that if a meeting or part of a conference or whatever is to be a women-only space, it would be sensible to declare that before the event rather than for one individual to take it into their head to get up and request/suggest/demand that all the men make themselves scarce.

It's kind of understandable that some men would find that a bit off, and a bit unnecessarily confrontational, even if they might be broadly sympathetic. It's not a great idea to antagonise people just for the sake of it.


----------



## andysays (Apr 10, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> Buying a pair of dungarees would be a good start.


 
FFS, don't you have a Jim Davidson DVD to watch or something?


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Eh? Where?
> 
> 
> Frumious B. said:
> ...


This is what I was objecting to. You didn't see the need to point out that not all men have the appetite to kill, yet have no problem saying that women definitely don't have it. The way you said it also comes across as patronising in it 'oh it's so obvious, but you're just a woman of course you didn't pick it up' kind of way. You may not have intended it in this manner but that's the way it's comes across.


Frumious B. said:


> Well done for intentionally misinterpreting everything I wrote. Yes, I know everyone is on the frontline these days. And I know about the reasons people join. I can give you a long list of friends and relatives in the army and air force.


 
*gives up*

I've tried twice now on this thread and the other one to say why your relying on stereotypes and sweeping assumptions is wrong. I've not sworn or been insulting but you still persist in this 'I know better than you, woman' logic. I did not misinterpret anything. I gave you an example of a fearless woman soldier volunteering for one of the most dangerous and front line active duty positions and you still persists with this 'women have different brains' bollocks. 

You just don't want to be told your way of thinking is sexist or wrong.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 10, 2013)

weepiper said:


> We don't have equal pay or anything fucking like it, despite us having 'won' that battle years ago


 
Ok - bit of a naive question coming, since I've not had any pay gap to fight against, but with the legislation in effect and employers claiming to pay equally:

i) How do the employers get away with it?

ii) How do you fix it?

The second bit assumes the legislation isn't broken and the gap isn't due to some other 'gaming' of the system, obv.  In jobs I've worked in where people discussed their pay with each other the pay was equal but these were temping jobs - where I work now it is kind of frowned upon to discuss your salary, though the company tries to frame that in a more unambiguous 'thou shalt not' kind of way...


----------



## mrsfran (Apr 10, 2013)

Tell you what, let's not do the rest of this thread and just pretend we did.


----------



## andysays (Apr 10, 2013)

ymu said:


> Violence is a man thing because they are born violent and not because patriarchy encourages them to be violent? Do you have any idea how politically naive your opinions are, let alone how insulting to men and women?


 
No, he really doesn't


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2013)

8ball said:


> Ok - bit of a naive question coming, since I've not had any pay gap to fight against, but with the legislation in effect and employers claiming to pay equally:
> 
> i) How do the employers get away with it?
> 
> ...


 
My boss took her employer to a tribunal and won several years' worth of back pay-rises that had been withheld.

She had to find a new job before she could risk it mind.

Great when the law is on your side, eh?


----------



## weepiper (Apr 10, 2013)

8ball said:


> Ok - bit of a naive question coming, since I've not had any pay gap to fight against, but with the legislation in effect and employers claiming to pay equally:
> 
> i) How do the employers get away with it?
> 
> ...


 
Well, in some cases they get away with it by having equivalent jobs on different pay grades, or by paying bonuses in jobs which are more likely to be filled by male employees. See this case in Edinburgh where female-dominated public sector jobs like classroom assistants, school dinnerladies, careworkers were not paid bonuses but male-dominated jobs like binmen and labourers were.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-16496913

It took those women eight years to win that case. They got back pay, but unfortunately when the council brought in proper equal pay rules, instead of bringing the women up to the men's pay levels, they brought the men down to the women's 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/workers-fury-at-pay-threat-from-edinburgh-1489007

Basically, bosses are cunts.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 10, 2013)

mrsfran said:


> Tell you what, let's not do the rest of this thread and just pretend we did.


I just found this for you 
https://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=femfight

Don't know if the thing they're doing tomorrow is of any interest?


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2013)

andysays said:


> ymu: can you explain what you mean by this? I think what el-ahrairah has suggested above is a sensible position. I'd also suggest that if a meeting or part of a conference or whatever is to be a women-only space, it would be sensible to declare that before the event rather than for one individual to take it into their head to get up and request/suggest/demand that all the men make themselves scarce.
> 
> It's kind of understandable that some men would find that a bit off, and a bit unnecessarily confrontational, even if they might be broadly sympathetic. It's not a great idea to antagonise people just for the sake of it.


I've said precisely what I mean, twice. It was OK forty years ago, when boorish men were the societal norm. It is not OK forty years on when people are still suggesting that women go somewhere else because it's easier than making the boorish men behave themselves.

I don't have a problem with specific circumstances which might make it necessary, but I'd want those circumstances to make it very necessary before it was considered preferable to exclude men rather than require them to behave themselves and think about these issues. I think this problem still exists now precisely because women's caucuses were used as a way to sideline women instead of the boorish men. It is now time to sideline the boorish men. They are the minority, not us.


----------



## toggle (Apr 10, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Well, in some cases they get away with it by having equivalent jobs on different pay grades, or by paying bonuses in jobs which are more likely to be filled by male employees. See this case in Edinburgh where female-dominated public sector jobs like classroom assistants, school dinnerladies, careworkers were not paid bonuses but male-dominated jobs like binmen and labourers were.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-16496913
> 
> ...


 
 was this one of the cases where the unions told the women to fuck off rather than giving them support?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 10, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Well, in some cases they get away with it by having equivalent jobs on different pay grades, or by paying bonuses in jobs which are more likely to be filled by male employees. See this case in Edinburgh where female-dominated public sector jobs like classroom assistants, school dinnerladies, careworkers were not paid bonuses but male-dominated jobs like binmen and labourers were.


 
I've read about the mechanisms by which more female-dominated jobs can be systematically devalued, and obviously that's shit and the get-out is 'that's what the job pays and we pay our male careworkers the same'.  What about those jobs where the ratios aren't so gender-skewed - I figure there must be lots of jobs like that.



weepiper said:


> Basically, bosses are cunts.


 
No argument from me there.  This week's shenanigans has been a bit depressing in highlighting how people seem to think the solution is more female bosses.


----------



## Firky (Apr 10, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> You just don't want to be told your way of thinking is sexist or wrong.


----------



## mrsfran (Apr 10, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> I just found this for you
> https://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=femfight
> 
> Don't know if the thing they're doing tomorrow is of any interest?


 
Thank you 

No, I can't do small-child's-bedtime time events at one day's notice unfortunately.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 10, 2013)

mrsfran said:


> Thank you
> 
> No, I can't do small-child's-bedtime time events at one day's notice unfortunately.


 
This is a big problem for feminist activism generally. Too many of the people who might want to get involved can't easily drop their caring commitments.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 10, 2013)

mrsfran said:


> Thank you
> 
> No, I can't do small-child's-bedtime time events at one day's notice unfortunately.


Ah, sorry, didn't see the time, my fault completely, I thought it was a daytime event.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 10, 2013)

weepiper said:


> This is a big problem for feminist activism generally. Too many of the people who might want to get involved can't easily drop their caring commitments.


It should be made more inclusive then shouldn't it? Especially given that the majority of airing and childcare falls to women, shouldn't feminist groups be the most accommodating?
Also, if children are going or grow up feminist then they need to see their parents as feminists, as activists, as powerful so putting them in childcare denies them the oppourtunity to witness their mothers as powerful, positive and active beings in their own right.


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> It should be made more inclusive then shouldn't it? Especially given that the majority of airing and childcare falls to women, shouldn't feminist groups be the most accommodating?
> Also, if children are going or grow up feminist then they need to see their parents as feminists, as activists, as powerful so putting them in childcare denies them the oppourtunity to witness their mothers as powerful, positive and active beings in their own right.


It should. But, in practice, feminism has been hijacked by middle-class women who can buy the time to get involved. Hence much progress on education, training and access to jobs for women, and fuck all on housework and childcare (the nanny and the cleaner can take care of that, you see). So now we need two people in work to cover the bills, with the same amount of domestic work needing to be done, still mostly by women.


----------



## andysays (Apr 10, 2013)

ymu said:


> I've said precisely what I mean, twice. It was OK forty years ago, when boorish men were the societal norm. It is not OK forty years on when people are still suggesting that women go somewhere else because it's easier than making the boorish men behave themselves. I don't have a problem with specific circumstances which might make it necessary, but I'd want those circumstances to make it very necessary before it was considered preferable to exclude men rather than require them to behave themselves and think about these issues. I think this problem still exists now precisely because women's caucuses were used as a way to sideline women instead of the boorish men. It is now time to sideline the boorish men. They are the minority, not us.


 
Thanks for taking the trouble to say it a third time. I didn't understand what you meant before, but I do now.

And for what it's worth, I'm in total agrement - just wish there was an effective way of sidelining the boorish men here so that threads like this didn't get (at least partially) derailed


----------



## mrsfran (Apr 10, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> It should be made more inclusive then shouldn't it? Especially given that the majority of airing and childcare falls to women, shouldn't feminist groups be the most accommodating?
> Also, if children are going or grow up feminist then they need to see their parents as feminists, as activists, as powerful so putting them in childcare denies them the oppourtunity to witness their mothers as powerful, positive and active beings in their own right.


 
This is it. I want to take my daughter on marches. I want her to know her mother believes she can be anything, do anything, and that this pink, princess, pretty bullshit is just that - bullshit. I want her to see her mother being strident and knowing that it's good to stand up for yourself. That women can be angry and loud and funny and powerful.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 10, 2013)

ymu said:


> It should. But, in practice, feminism has been hijacked by middle-class women who can buy the time to get involved. Hence much progress on education, training and access to jobs for women, and fuck all on housework and childcare (the nanny and the cleaner can take care of that, you see). So now we need two people in work to cover the bills, with the same amount of domestic work needing to be done, still mostly by women.


But even affluent feminists can, surely, support a move for children to see their mothers as powerful women.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 10, 2013)

mrsfran said:


> This is it. I want to take my daughter on marches. I want her to know her mother believes she can be anything, do anything, and that this pink, princess, pretty bullshit is just that - bullshit. I want her to see her mother being strident and knowing that it's good to stand up for yourself. That women can be angry and loud and funny and powerful.


Let get badges made: Mothers are Feminists too

Maybe you could start a small meeting group to discuss politics, art or books from a feminist perspective which welcomes babies and children.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 10, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> But even affluent feminists can, surely, support a move for children to see their mothers as powerful women.


 
I guess if they see their mothers as powerful women when the other female influences they see are to a minor degree the cleaner and the woman they see most of is the nanny, then that's diluting things a bit in terms of their absorption of gender roles.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 10, 2013)

Sorry mrsfran I have been guilty of carrying on the derail of this thread and will stop now. 

If anyone is up for getting a contingent of urban peeps for this "London feminista conference" going I would be interested. 
I, like you Mrsfran, have been wondering how I can enlighten myself about more about this stuff. 
I just hope that I am well enough by the time it comes around.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 10, 2013)

8ball said:


> I guess if they see their mothers as powerful women when the other female influences they see are to a minor degree the cleaner and the woman they see most of is the nanny, then that's diluting things a bit in terms of their absorption of gender roles.


Yes, there is muddying of both gender and class waters there. I don't have a solution for that but there's no reason why affluent feminists shouldn't support and include women with less social power than they have and engender a change of attitude in future generations by doing so.
I just can't understand why mothers are excluded from these things, it makes no sense to me whatsoever.


----------



## mrsfran (Apr 10, 2013)

kittyP said:


> Sorry mrsfran I have been guilty of carrying on the derail of this thread and will stop now.
> 
> If anyone is up for getting a contingent of urban peeps for this "London feminista conference" going I would be interested.
> I, like you Mrsfran, have been wondering how I can enlighten myself about more about this stuff.
> I just hope that I am well enough by the time it comes around.


 
That would be great! It would be nice to go in an Urban group rather than on my own all timid-like.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 10, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> *I just can't understand why mothers are excluded from these things, it makes no sense to me whatsoever*.


 
In male lefty politics at least, there has always been a bit of a 'rooms above pubs, not in front of the children' thing going on.
I wonder if there has been a degree of cross-pollination in expectations about how you do these things..


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 10, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> This is what I was objecting to. You didn't see the need to point out that not all men have the appetite to kill, yet have no problem saying that women definitely don't have it. The way you said it also comes across as patronising in it 'oh it's so obvious, but you're just a woman of course you didn't pick it up' kind of way. You may not have intended it in this manner but that's the way it's comes across.
> 
> 
> *gives up*
> ...


 
So you can't see the essential difference between infantry and bomb disposal. And you think I'm patronising you because you're a woman. I give up.


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2013)

andysays said:


> Thanks for taking the trouble to say it a third time. I didn't understand what you meant before, but I do now.
> 
> And for what it's worth, I'm in total agrement - just wish there was an effective way of sidelining the boorish men here so that threads like this didn't get (at least partially) derailed


It's very easy to silence the boorish men. The same way we silence racists. We tell them their behaviour is not fucking acceptable and shun them if they refuse to quit it.

When enough people do that, it will work.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> So you can't see the essential difference between infantry and bomb disposal. And you think I'm patronising you because you're a woman. I give up.


I know the difference, but doesn't matter because you're essentially saying that because she's not in a very narrowly defined section of the army (in your mind) the dangerous role she does counts for zero according to you.

I'd love to see you explain this to her...


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> But even affluent feminists can, surely, support a move for children to see their mothers as powerful women.


They can. What they cannot see is where the barriers actually are, because they don't face them.

This is true of all political movements on the left, not just feminism BTW. The loudest voices get their way, and the middle-class has the loudest voices.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 10, 2013)

ymu said:


> They can. What they cannot see is where the barriers actually are, because they don't face them.


I don't think that's true, I think the scheduling of events is a really obvious and simple way in which they can include mothers. Barrier one: gone.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 10, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> I don't think that's true, I think the scheduling of events is a really obvious and simple way in which they can include mothers. Barrier one: gone.


 
I think with people's working lives these days it's really hard to include everyone - the people who get shat on hardest are going to be the ones who have the most unpredictable and antisocial hours for fairly self-evident reasons.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 10, 2013)

mrsfran said:


> That would be great! It would be nice to go in an Urban group rather than on my own all timid-like.


 
Yes. I think I would struggle on my own even if well enough.
Maybe the likes of idumea who have been before could come and show us the ropes so to speak?


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> I don't think that's true, I think the scheduling of events is a really obvious and simple way in which they can include mothers. Barrier one: gone.


It is obvious and simple. Yet it rarely happens. Why?

It's not about what they can do, it's about what they actually do. What they prioritise. How they think.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 10, 2013)

8ball said:


> I think with people's working lives these days it's really hard to include everyone - the people who get shat on hardest are going to be the ones who have the most unpredictable and antisocial hours for fairly self-evident reasons.


I'm quite sick of hearing this to be honest. Having spent the last ten years unable to attend meetings because of having a small child I am resolutely of the opinion that its not good enough. Events should be organised to include mothers as we are important members of society too. If feminism doesn't grasp this then what hope is there of any other movement/ institution?


----------



## trashpony (Apr 10, 2013)

ymu said:


> It should. But, in practice, feminism has been hijacked by middle-class women who can buy the time to get involved. Hence much progress on education, training and access to jobs for women, and fuck all on housework and childcare (the nanny and the cleaner can take care of that, you see). So now we need two people in work to cover the bills, with the same amount of domestic work needing to be done, still mostly by women.


IME, a lot of the activism is led by young women who don't have any caring responsibilities but they work during the day. I have caring responsibilities AND I work so there really isn't a time that works for me. TBH I think this is a bit of a non-argument - evenings are generally best for most people. Most women with caring responsibilities have partners so evenings aren't really a terrible time.

ETA: Meetings that happened before 7pm would mean I could attend them and could shove the kid in the corner. That might be a compromise


----------



## 8ball (Apr 10, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> I'm quite sick of hearing this to be honest. Having spent the last ten years unable to attend meetings because of having a small child I am resolutely of the opinion that its not good enough. Events should be organised to include mothers as we are important members of society too. If feminism doesn't grasp this then what hope is there of any other movement/ institution?


 
I just meant that things are set up in such a way that those with the least power tend to get excluded from the means to meet and organise with others - no one _should _be excluded on that basis - didn't mean it to come over that way.


----------



## mrsfran (Apr 10, 2013)

Honestly ymu, if you're doing your best to put me off, it's working. You're so "them and us" that it makes me feel like if I don't agree with you 100% I'm the enemy.

I'm middle class. I pay for childcare. I feel like you don't want me in your gang.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 10, 2013)

8ball said:


> I just meant that things are set up in such a way that those with the least power tend to get excluded from the means to meet and organise with others - no one _should _be excluded on that basis - didn't mean it to come over that way.


Yeah I know, it's just that when I hear 'its hard to include everyone' I infer 'it's more important to include some rather than others'. Whichmay not be your intention but its how it feels to people who have been on the frustrating end of it.


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2013)

trashpony said:


> IME, a lot of the activism is led by young women who don't have any caring responsibilities but they work during the day. I have caring responsibilities AND I work so there really isn't a time that works for me. TBH I think this is a bit of a non-argument - evenings are generally best for most people. Most women with caring responsibilities have partners so evenings aren't really a terrible time.
> 
> ETA: Meetings that happened before 7pm would mean I could attend them and could shove the kid in the corner. That might be a compromise


I think it's the "young women" thing that is key. Young + middle-class generally means career before babies. The interest in childcare is theoretical. It's the difference between understanding this stuff with your heart and not just your head, I suppose. No one can do everything, and they naturally do what they are in the best position to do, of those things they prioritise.

And the reason the middle-class activists always come to dominate is that they are articulate and confident and think they know it all already so they don't fucking listen, they have access to time and money to get shit done, and they are the people the media talk to and who have access to people in the media and politics via their social networks.

Feminism can be a single-issue but, as Cesare alluded to, it can't and won't achieve the same as feminism rooted in class-based politics. Feminism in class-based politics is struggling right now because of the backlash on the class-based left against all things identity thanks to the identity-based lot being such a bunch of twats.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 10, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> Yeah I know, it's just that when I hear 'its hard to include everyone' I infer 'it's more important to include some rather than others'. Whichmay not be your intention but its how it feels to people who have been on the frustrating end of it.


 
I can see that - wasn't what I meant, honest.


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2013)

mrsfran said:


> Honestly ymu, if you're doing your best to put me off, it's working. You're so "them and us" that it makes me feel like if I don't agree with you 100% I'm the enemy.
> 
> I'm middle class. I pay for childcare. I feel like you don't want me in your gang.


I'm middle-class. I've worked out why childcare is so fucking expensive. Because people like me don't think it matters until we are faced with a problem we are now too old and knackered to fight against.

Just like men cannot decide to be feminists without thinking about it, middle-class people cannot just be on the left without thinking about it. If you're interested in feminism as a single issue, that is fine, I don't think everyone has to take the same approach. But ShiftyBagLady wanted to know why these meetings are not accessible to precisely the people who need them most. And I answered her.


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 10, 2013)

Has anyone already suggested the OP should get her tits out?


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 10, 2013)

mrsfran said:


> Honestly ymu, if you're doing your best to put me off, it's working. You're so "them and us" that it makes me feel like if I don't agree with you 100% I'm the enemy.
> 
> I'm middle class. I pay for childcare. I feel like you don't want me in your gang.


I don't want you to be put off because if there is an 'Us' then it includes you and it includes your children and their children. It's important to us all as women and a vital part of our lives as mothers, I believe, because we are not only acting and speaking for ourselves but as examples and instructors for the next generation. Once it is abstracted from the everyday experiences of women to the broader structures of society and then to a pseudo-intellectual realm of identity politics feminism can seem off putting, divisive and challenging but first and foremost it is about experience; the test of the theorising and posturing is how it changes women's experience.

It should never be about competing with or judging each other, that's not a gang I would want to join.


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> Has anyone already suggested the OP should get her tits out?


Not the thread for it. Please.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 10, 2013)

ymu said:


> They can. What they cannot see is where the barriers actually are, because they don't face them.
> 
> This is true of all political movements on the left, not just feminism BTW. The loudest voices get their way, and the middle-class has the loudest voices.


The implication in this post though is that the middle classes are oblivious, don't care or it is simply not in their interests to empower mothers. That's disheartening.


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> The implication in this post though is that the middle classes are oblivious, don't care or it is simply not in their interests to empower mothers. That's disheartening.


I didn't intend that implication.

The problem is being able to see outside of your own bubble. Why would a twenty-something graduate from a middle-class background, getting involved in politics in their massive amounts of spare time as a single student/job-seeker, think about how mothers can attend the meeting? They get babysitters, don't they? They have husbands who can do it, don't they? They have loads of energy in the evening after an easy day playing with the kids, right?

And people who don't operate from these assumptions tend to be less able to get their voices heard, even if they can get to the meeting in the first place.

It's not about moral fibre. It's about the blinkers that get in the way of seeing what the problem actually is.


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 10, 2013)

ymu said:


> Not the thread for it. Please.


Sorry!

http://femen.org/


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Apr 10, 2013)

ymu said:


> I didn't intend that implication.
> 
> The problem is being able to see outside of your own bubble. Why would a twenty-something graduate from a middle-class background, getting involved in politics in their massive amounts of spare time as a single student/job-seeker, think about how mothers can attend the meeting? They get babysitters, don't they? They have husbands who can do it, don't they? They have loads of energy in the evening after an easy day playing with the kids, right?
> 
> ...


My only response to this is an idealist one: that they should be concerned with the lot of all women including themselves but also mothers, young girls, elderly women, disabled women, poor women, faraway women...
Perhaps I expect a lot from young women but for somebody to be politically active in a moment I would expect more than a self serving approach you describe.


----------



## ymu (Apr 10, 2013)

Have a read of the Alex Callinicos/Laurie Penny thread.


----------



## emma goldman (Apr 11, 2013)

I would also definitely recommend checking out the Feminist Library. Lots and lots of feminism to read, and lots of information on current campaigns and active groups. They always need people to get involved and volunteer there and all the women involved are active in lots of other campaigns and struggles, and so could advise you on where/ what your energy might be best spent. Lots of feminist groups meet there and children are also totally welcome at the library.


----------



## treelover (Apr 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> I didn't intend that implication.
> 
> The problem is being able to see outside of your own bubble. Why would a twenty-something graduate from a middle-class background, getting involved in politics in their massive amounts of spare time as a single student/job-seeker, *think about how mothers can attend the meeting? They get babysitters, don't they? They have husbands who can do it, don't they? They have loads of energy in the evening after an easy day playing with the kids, right?*
> 
> ...


 

I really don't think this is correct, the political activities I was involved with, (sadly dominated by the M/C) we always tried to sort out a crèche, childcare, etc, however, I do think that part of organising a meeting, etc has slipped down the agenda in the last few years, though that's only what I have read as not really involved now..


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> You might find the problem is actually that you choose some fucking inappropriate moments to try to be funny. It gets boring. You might want to think about who to target and when, if you actually intend it to be funny and not just another drip drip drip of "you don't matter" from a bloke who is too lazy to turn the tropes on his unreconstructed bredren.


 
I don't think you're being fair there to be honest. It wasn't all that clever given that the way tedious b has behaved on this thread will inevitably have had a negative impact on plenty of peoples senses of humour. Some rolleyes or something would have meant this was avoided completely. But I'm pretty sure he was just taking the piss out of tedious b who actually was making sexist assumptions - he even quoted him.

Here:



Tedious B. said:


> You called me a bigot when we were discussing why so few women in the British army want front line infantry jobs. I said women don't have the appetite for killing that men do. And you call that bigotry.


 


8ball said:


> They'd be no good doing long-range drone strikes either cos they're rubbish at video games.


 
I guess it's a bit like if someone said we couldn't have socialism because the working class wouldn't be able to organise it properly and someone replied 'yeah, stupid proles' or something.

Not sure I agree with what you said about a rejection of identity politics leading to people not taking oppression seriously either. Obviously you can never do enough while sexism, racism, etc still exist but outside the post-split SWP (and there's some fairly specific reasons why they're doing that - at one point they were well into identity politics) I don't think people on the left are generally dismissive of identity related issues - at least it's not the impression I've got and I have identitarian issues (I picked that one up from one of Laurie Penny's twitter followers, pretty sure it's not a real word lol) of my own, and neither is it something that's been mentioned to me by people I'd expect to notice for obvious reasons - and I do go out of my way to ask. Obviously I can only comment on the circles I move in but I have no reason to think they're the exception.

I think the problem is that in contemporary politics those who shout the loudest about these issues tend to be identity politickers (evidence of more of the middle class dominance you meantioned I guess) and so a rejection of identity politics is often taken to be a rejection of the issues they claim to care about. I think it would be good for critics of identity politics (and I include myself here) to be a bit clearer about what we mean by identity politics - ie. where identities are essentialised and taken to be the key organising principle in politics - where gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality and so on are taken to be the only things that matter and no attempt is made to integrate it into a class based framework - pretty much the opposite of the kind of politics people like you, cesare and steph have been saying is needed. And where class is talked about it's in terms of just another identity group - often the 'white working class' - and the black working class is never talked about because class doesn't apply to them - they're just black, that's their identity.

The worst examples of this I've seen have, unsurprisingly, come from Laurie Penny - can't be bothered to look for it but in one of her articles - think it might have been one of the ones on the SWP - she claims that the left are 'uniquely' sexist because of a focus on the working class. The obvious implication being that the working class are inherently sexist, even more so than the rest of society. I think this is inevitable when you apply the logic of subjective identity to something like class (which in reality permeates everything, including race, gender and so on) - it's a recipe for stereotyping and shit politics more generally.

I hope you don't think I'm 'mansplaining' here - that's certainly not my intention.


----------



## ymu (Apr 11, 2013)

Gawd no, not at all spiney. You are not one of those with the analysis that has lost its nuance. I think the IWCA take on things, especially, is very good. My beef is with those who are lazy and stop at "identity politics sucks, so take that, bitches!"

And I'm not exaggerating. This series of threads may appear recent to a lot of people, but it's been over two years for me. A thread about a feminist protest was hijacked by some boychildren in the middle of the night, and when I challenged their behaviour they descended into every sexist insult and trope you'd expect from '70s man. And then had the gall to claim that they were feminists but retained the right to needle women who annoyed them. Like you would with them coons and poofs too, obv.

Beyond that, I've noticed increasingly dismissive language in general coming from elements of the left, and I don't think it's getting picked up on as much as it could be in the maelstrom of righteous (and rightful) anger at the crap identity-based 'left'. Which is why that is often what I post about on the Laurie Penny thread, if I think it's worth pointing out a lack of nuance or whatever.


----------



## ymu (Apr 11, 2013)

I think I pointed out on another thread that its hard to discuss this without defining terms. Is identity politics to do with recognising sources of disempowerment, or to do with displacing class politics? Identity matters in a class-based analysis, not least because it is a major determinant of class and a major tool used to divide the working-class, but that does not mean identity-based politics, where class is conveniently consigned to one amongst many privileges so they can stop apologising for having been born lucky.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 11, 2013)

8ball said:


> Ok - bit of a naive question coming, since I've not had any pay gap to fight against, but with the legislation in effect and employers claiming to pay equally:
> 
> i) How do the employers get away with it?


 
Through a combination of circumstances. Although "sexual equality" in the workplace is fairly long in the legislative tooth, it's never been policed with even the lackadaisical attempt at thoroughness given to "racial equality" in the workplace, and is heir to similar problems with regard to "institutionalised" behaviours.
Add to that an attitude among employers of "seeing what can be got away with" (an attitude that neoliberalism has arguably tried to establish as a mandatory practice), and the established institutional prejudices of those organisations set to police specific revealed instances (i.e. arms of the criminal justice system), and employers get away with it more often than not simply because the weight of custom and habit is behind them. It takes strong and well-organised people to resist sexism (or any other -ism) on an individual basis, which is possibly why the most successful cases tackling pay inequality issues recently have been ones supported by unions (often the same unions that allowed such practices to go on unchallenged for decades, mind).


----------



## toggle (Apr 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Through a combination of circumstances. Although "sexual equality" in the workplace is fairly long in the legislative tooth, it's never been policed with even the lackadaisical attempt at thoroughness given to "racial equality" in the workplace, and is heir to similar problems with regard to "institutionalised" behaviours.
> Add to that an attitude among employers of "seeing what can be got away with" (an attitude that neoliberalism has arguably tried to establish as a mandatory practice), and the established institutional prejudices of those organisations set to police specific revealed instances (i.e. arms of the criminal justice system), and employers get away with it more often than not simply because the weight of custom and habit is behind them. It takes strong and well-organised people to resist sexism (or any other -ism) on an individual basis, which is possibly why the most successful cases tackling pay inequality issues recently have been ones supported by unions (often the same unions that allowed such practices to go on unchallenged for decades, mind).


 
either that, or it's high profile, well off people who can afford to take the risk that they could make themselves unemployable.

A lot of people will accept illegal terms and conditions, unpaid overtime, discriminatory practice, just cause if we don't, we don't work at all.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 11, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> This is what I was objecting to. You didn't see the need to point out that not all men have the appetite to kill, yet have no problem saying that women definitely don't have it. The way you said it also comes across as patronising in it 'oh it's so obvious, but you're just a woman of course you didn't pick it up' kind of way. You may not have intended it in this manner but that's the way it's comes across.
> 
> 
> *gives up*
> ...


 
What he's drawing his example from is a narrow thread of infantry combat training - the use of a bayonet - and he's basing his opinion on 2 things:

1) His "feeling" that women wouldn't want to use a bayonet (modern bayonets, btw, aren't like the old 18" jobbies of WWs 1 & 2, they're the size of a medium sheath knife), which to me, kind of gets contradicted by fact that training is such that your likes don't come into it. You're trained to do it, and you do it.

2) The "fact" of his reading of current "trends" (trends that are short-term, small sample, and meaningless if weighed against need, i.e. if the Uk needed female infanteers, it'd accept them in a flash!).

I think that on both counts, he's allowing his personal preferences to inform and/or cloud his judgement.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 11, 2013)

toggle said:


> either that, or it's high profile, well off people who can afford to take the risk that they could make themselves unemployable.


 
Yep. Not quite the same doing it with insulation from any negative results.



> A lot of people will accept illegal terms and conditions, unpaid overtime, discriminatory practice, just cause if we don't, we don't work at all.


 
Yep, seen it and done it myself, as long ago as the mid 1980s, and blokes often didn't (and don't) get half as much piss taken as women and/or ethnic minorities.


----------



## toggle (Apr 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yep. Not quite the same doing it with insulation from any negative results.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, seen it and done it myself, as long ago as the mid 1980s, and blokes often didn't (and don't) get half as much piss taken as women and/or ethnic minorities.


 
depends, i think there's less expectations we will completely ignore safe working practice. but more assumption we should be a walkover who dosne't klnow we have any rights


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> What he's drawing his example from is a narrow thread of infantry combat training - the use of a bayonet - and he's basing his opinion on 2 things:
> 
> 1) His "feeling" that women wouldn't want to use a bayonet (modern bayonets, btw, aren't like the old 18" jobbies of WWs 1 & 2, they're the size of a medium sheath knife), which to me, kind of gets contradicted by fact that training is such that your likes don't come into it. You're trained to do it, and you do it.
> 
> ...


 
Just to really piss on his chips may I mention a couple of relevent facts?

1. Special Operations Executive.

2. Some of the KGB's best assassins were women. Some of Mossad's no doubt still are.

3. There were female Ninja in Feudal Japan.

4. While rare, there have been female executioners.

5. Boudicca.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 11, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> So you can't see the essential difference between infantry and bomb disposal. And you think I'm patronising you because you're a woman. I give up.


 
When the crunch comes, *all* soldiers are infantry.


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 11, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Inevitable. Just like the Q&A at the feminist film festival, when all the men were asked to leave.


 
Are you serious? That is fucking disgusting, that's shocking... yeah, way to go, ''equality''! FFS.


----------



## killer b (Apr 11, 2013)

it isn't really.


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 11, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> Buying a pair of dungarees would be a good start.



Oh, Drew. Tut.


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 11, 2013)

killer b said:


> it isn't really.



I think it is, very much so. How the hell is that leading to equality; disallowing people to stay based upon their gender? I find it rather backwards, it's a bit contradictory, isn't it? Once it was women who were not permitted... so now we play tit for tat? Just seems so backwards to me and I don't see how things like this constitute equality.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 11, 2013)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> My only response to this is an idealist one: that they should be concerned with the lot of all women including themselves but also mothers, young girls, elderly women, disabled women, poor women, faraway women...
> Perhaps I expect a lot from young women but for somebody to be politically active in a moment I would expect more than a self serving approach you describe.


 
Unfortunately infighting has always been a big issue with leftist groups, well all groups I guess but I suppose I notice it more with the left as that's where my politics lie. 
With in any group or 'ism' you will always get people with loud voices who fail to see further than the end of their nose and their own ideas. 
It's just a fact of life and why I have been put off joining any left affiliated groups in the past. 
But you can lead by example and keep going with what you believe to be important if it's something you are passionate enough about. 
Although I do not have children so maybe I am being a bit flippant but that is not my intent.  
I think I would find it easier to get behind the right feminist group for me than say the SWP or SP etc.


----------



## toggle (Apr 11, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> I think it is, very much so. How the hell is that leading to equality; disallowing people to stay based upon their gender? I find it rather backwards, it's a bit contradictory, isn't it? Once it was women who were not permitted... so now we play tit for tat? Just seems so backwards to me and I don't see how things like this constitute equality.


 
if the incident even happened as he said it did. which i seriously doubt.

if that twat was asked to leave a discussion space, it was most likely cause he behaved there like he does in threads here on feminism, as a loudmouth, disruptive, mansplaining prick who tried to make it all about his opinions on women, not women's own experiences. And if someone like that can't behave themselves, they need to be excluded so the adults can talk.

it's not man hating or anti equality to remove a disruptive misogynist from a space that is intended to discuss feminism,


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 11, 2013)

It seems that if the incident did happen, there's still plenty on here who'd agree with it, and support it... utterly bonkers


----------



## Limerick Red (Apr 11, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> Are you serious? That is fucking disgusting, that's shocking... yeah, way to go, ''equality''! FFS.


 
I really dont understand why people have a problem with this, I would be guessing that 95% of people who would attend a feminist film festival would be feminists, therefore would accept that women are an oppressed group in society , the slave of the slave as James Connolly refered to working class women, and organising/discussing/debating on their own is an essential part of any movement struggling for equality, and is surely progressive as part of a wider class stuggle, but like a previous poster mentioned without the wider stuggle its just liberal identity schtuff.


----------



## Cakes (Apr 11, 2013)

spanglechick said:


> are there any particular things about sexual inequality that motivate you?
> 
> I occasionally campaign for (and I donate to the) Abortion Support Network, and I know May K is involved in the campaign to get lads mags and other 'glamour' images moved out of children's eyeline in newsagents. There's the 'Let toys be toys for girls and boys' campaign, which is a lot of letter writing, afaict...
> 
> I tthink it's such a huge thing, that narrowing it down to specific battles makes it more likely that you can have a genuine impact. It also means that you don't have to get bogged down in the competing ideologies.


The Abortion Support Network is awesome by the way. In lieu of the equality fairy waving her magic wand over Ireland, this is the most direct way to help a woman or girl out of such a desperate situation.


----------



## toggle (Apr 11, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> It seems that if the incident did happen, there's still plenty on here who'd agree with it, and support it... utterly bonkers


 
i'm happy to support the removal of people who can't discuss this without beinbg a prick.

and on this thread, that's including you.


----------



## killer b (Apr 11, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> It seems that if the incident did happen, there's still plenty on here who'd agree with it, and support it... utterly bonkers


Says the man making dungaree jokes in a feminism thread. 

Can you honestly not see why sometimes its appropriate for feminists to have women-only space?


----------



## kittyP (Apr 11, 2013)

toggle said:


> i'm happy to support the removal of people who can't discuss this without beinbg a prick.
> 
> and on this thread, that's including you.


 
It may have been inappropriate but I think we have to add past form to consideration in these matters and Drew is normally pretty cool and was just messing.


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 11, 2013)

toggle said:


> if the incident even happened as he said it did. which i seriously doubt.
> 
> if that twat was asked to leave a discussion space, it was most likely cause he behaved there like he does in threads here on feminism, as a loudmouth, disruptive, mansplaining prick who tried to make it all about his opinions on women, not women's own experiences. And if someone like that can't behave themselves, they need to be excluded so the adults can talk.
> 
> it's not man hating or anti equality to remove a disruptive misogynist from a space that is intended to discuss feminism,



Thought _all_ men were asked to leave, not just one disruptive person. Of course, it's not wrong to remove a disrespectful person.


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 11, 2013)

killer b said:


> Says the man making dungaree jokes in a feminism thread.
> 
> Can you honestly not see why sometimes its appropriate for feminists to have women-only space?


 
Why are you not allowed to make jokes in a feminist thread?


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 11, 2013)

killer b said:


> Can you honestly not see why sometimes its appropriate for feminists to have women-only space?


 
Not really...

What would their position on trans-people be btw ? Do they stay or go ?


----------



## killer b (Apr 11, 2013)

You are allowed to make jokes on feminist threads. just dungaree jokes are a bit off. Kind of like making jokes about watermelon on a thread discussing racism.


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 11, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> Why are you not allowed to make jokes in a feminist thread?


 
ooh, ooh , I know the punchline to this one....


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 11, 2013)

Limerick Red said:


> I really dont understand why people have a problem with this, I would be guessing that 95% of people who would attend a feminist film festival would be feminists, therefore would accept that women are an oppressed group in society...


 
I have a huge problem with it. However, if it was initially made clear to the men that there would be a point at which they'd be asked to leave and they agreed with this then I think that's fine.

Just because say, 95% of the group ''accepts'' that women are an oppressed group, doesn't mean it's right (or constructive) to treat men how women once were. My opinion.

There are plenty of men who are oppressed in society too, only we don't care about that too much, 'cos feminism is more important, of course....


----------



## toggle (Apr 11, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> Thought _all_ men were asked to leave, not just one disruptive person. Of course, it's not wrong to remove a disrespectful person.


 

we have no idea what happened.

his whole attitude stinks and i don't trust him to be truthful about that as far as i could spit him.

and i could think of a lot of scenarios where women would want a women only space for discussion. someone pouting about that is showing no understanding of the issues women can face. and is prooving why he doesn't belong in women's discussion.I wouldn't demand to be inside a trans discussion space for example. i'd accept that trans people might want to discuss stuff not in front of me. their space, their control, i'd check my privilege at the door. this fool seems unable to do anything other than demand that he gets to be where he wants to be. and it's bigotry for his demands not to be acceded to.

ffs, it could have been discussion about violence or sexual abuse, or other triggering subjects. the group may have had experience of men turning up to deliberately be dicks and decided to bar them. they may have had an inkling of what sort of bigoted and disruptive fuckwad frumious is, and made sure he wasn't given a chance to fuck up their festival. or the whole thing may be a figment of his imagination that is deliberately designed for him to be able to claim he tried to engage with feminism, but them nasty bigoted womenz were bad to him.

I can think of hundreds of scenarios where a group might want to create a limited access space and if you can't see any of them, you lack imagination



kittyP said:


> It may have been inappropriate but I think we have to add past form to consideration in these matters and Drew is normally pretty cool and was just messing.


 
hence saying it was on this thread he was being a dick.he's not normally as far as i can see, but.....

the inappropriate sexist and homophobic humor thrown at women who try to discuss feminism is part of the problem IMO. it's not funny. it's boring and fucking idiotic. anyone throwing it about is being a dick. he needs to stop that.


----------



## toggle (Apr 11, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> ooh, ooh , I know the punchline to this one....


 
caused it's rude, it's sexist and it's not actually funny to anyone with half a working brain.

can you please stop being a fuckwit


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 11, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> What would their position on trans-people be btw ? Do they stay or go ?


 
Or gender-fluid?


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 11, 2013)

toggle said:


> ffs, it could have been discussion about violence or sexual abuse, or other triggering subjects.



or it could have been a discussion about racism... they should ban all the people there of a certain ethnic origin... y'know just in case they're a "trigger"

daft logic


----------



## gaijingirl (Apr 11, 2013)

Can also recommend the Abortion Support Network.  One of my closest friends is a director/trustee and I hear from her some of the amazing work they do.  She also holds down a full time job elsewhere.  She's amazing.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Apr 11, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> It seems that if the incident did happen, there's still plenty on here who'd agree with it, and support it... utterly bonkers


 
do you believe in safe spaces?


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 11, 2013)

Feminists, really... people who identify as gender fluid; do they stay or are they asked to leave?


----------



## killer b (Apr 11, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> or it could have been a discussion about racism... they should ban all the people there of a certain ethnic origin... y'know just in case they're a "trigger"
> 
> daft logic


_
Rape victims should just man up. Not wanting to discuss rape with men in the room is actually sexist when you think about it. _


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 11, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> do you believe in safe spaces?


 
Depends, in theory, yes, in the right time, context, and situation.

But banning a whole particular sex/gender out of principle under the guise of a "safe space" is just sexist itself.


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 11, 2013)

killer b said:


> _Rape victims should just man up. Not wanting to discuss rape with men in the room is actually sexist when you think about it. _


 
So would you allow trans/gender-fluid people in that room ?


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 11, 2013)

killer b said:


> _Rape victims should just man up. Not wanting to discuss rape with men in the room is actually sexist when you think about it. _


 
Especially given one in ten rape victims are men.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> What he's drawing his example from is a narrow thread of infantry combat training - the use of a bayonet - and he's basing his opinion on 2 things:
> 
> 1) His "feeling" that women wouldn't want to use a bayonet (modern bayonets, btw, aren't like the old 18" jobbies of WWs 1 & 2, they're the size of a medium sheath knife), which to me, kind of gets contradicted by fact that training is such that your likes don't come into it. You're trained to do it, and you do it.
> 
> ...


Thanks VP 

I'd still like to see him explain this train of 'thought' to my cousin...


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 11, 2013)

Bakunin said:


> Just to really piss on his chips may I mention a couple of relevent facts?
> 
> 1. Special Operations Executive.
> 
> ...


Thanks, your input is appreciated, Bakunin


----------



## el-ahrairah (Apr 11, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> Depends, in theory, yes, in the right time, context, and situation.
> 
> But banning a whole particular sex/gender out of principle under the guise of a "safe space" is just sexist itself.


 
right, so really it's this particular event that you don't approve of.  fair enough, at least it's a question of degrees and not the principal itself that the discussion is about.


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 11, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> So would you allow trans/gender-fluid people in that room ?


 
They two different identities. But yeah...Where would they stand, get asked to leave or could they stay?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Apr 11, 2013)

bi0boy said:


> Especially given one in ten rape victims are men.


 
so you believe that the issue is not actually a gender issue, despite the fact that 90% of rape victims are women?


----------



## cesare (Apr 11, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> so you believe that the issue is not actually a gender issue, despite the fact that 90% of rape victims are women?


Rape's a power issue.


----------



## killer b (Apr 11, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> So would you allow trans/gender-fluid people in that room ?


it's not for me to allow or otherwise - thats for women to decide. it's an ongoing discussion amongst feminists that i confess i don't particularly have a handle on. instinctively i'd say 'allow', fwiw.


----------



## killer b (Apr 11, 2013)

bi0boy said:


> Especially given one in ten rape victims are men.


oh shut up.


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 11, 2013)

killer b said:


> You are allowed to make jokes on feminist threads. just dungaree jokes are a bit off. Kind of like making jokes about watermelon on a thread discussing racism.


 
So who makes up these rules?


----------



## killer b (Apr 11, 2013)

i did. i'm king of all the feminists.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 11, 2013)

me


----------



## el-ahrairah (Apr 11, 2013)

cesare said:


> Rape's a power issue.


 
yes, but still one that impacts mostly on women and is mostly committed by men, based on notions of entitlement, iyswim.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 11, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> So who makes up these rules?


 
People who are pissed off by this kind of thing object to it. Hey presto, a 'rule'.


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 11, 2013)

weepiper said:


> People who are pissed off by this kind of thing object to it. Hey presto, a 'rule'.



So how about the people who identify as gender fluid; do they stay or are they asked to leave? Who decides that one?


----------



## cesare (Apr 11, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> yes, but still one that impacts mostly on women and is mostly committed by men, based on notions of entitlement, iyswim.


Yeah I know the end effect but if you think of it as driven by gender you can forget that it's actually abuse of power.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 11, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> So how about the people who identify as gender fluid; do they stay or are they asked to leave? Who decides that one?


 
I would imagine it would depend from group to group and event to event. 
I don't think it is a rule for all feminist events as standard. 
If it actually happened anyway.


----------



## killer b (Apr 11, 2013)

kittyP said:


> I would imagine it would depend from group to group and event to event.
> I don't think it is a rule for all feminist events as standard.
> If it actually happened anyway.


i think they consult the big book of feminist rules. unfortunately i lent mine out last week, so i can't check right now.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 11, 2013)

A feminist, yesterday


----------



## kittyP (Apr 11, 2013)

killer b said:


> i think they consult the big book of feminist rules. unfortunately i lent mine out last week, so i can't check right now.


 
I think Autochthonous had a point though. 
This is what we were talking about earlier that people make decisions and have ideas but only really think within their own bubble still.


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 11, 2013)

kittyP said:


> I don't think it is a rule for all feminist events as standard.


 
Well, no, I do know that, Kitty.  Guess I was trying to get some real answers... as I never have, I guess there aren't any. Admittedly, was trying to raise a point. Prob not in best way.
My partners and myself have had struggles with feminist groups regarding trans or gender fluid identity, and gender ambiguity and feminism touches a nerve with me.

This is not the right place for it when the OP is asking how to become involved in a movement.


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 11, 2013)

Ha, Kitty, yep, you got it! Just saw your post #251. Exactly. 
As trying to explain above. Leaving thread now. Will wait for a more suitable one.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Apr 11, 2013)

cesare said:


> Yeah I know the end effect but if you think of it as driven by gender you can forget that it's actually abuse of power.


 
i guess so.  it does seem to me that a lot of it is that some men think they are entitled to do what they like to women.  i work with a lot of rapist clients and their excuses are always the same; either flat out denial that it was rape (she wanted it and stitched me up); or a belief that their desires over-ride all over considerations (i.e. that women are not allowed to say no to me).  i used to believe it was solely about power - someone who feels powerless exercising what power they have over another in any way they can, but i'm increasingly seeing it as a combination of power and believing that women do not have value beyond sex.  rape is cross-cultural, committed by rich and poor, socially strong and socially weak.  power is definitely a major factor, but it seems to be combined with a belief that women are valueless - iyswim?  i am not sure i am explaining my thoughts that well, but there you go!


----------



## killer b (Apr 11, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> Well, no, I do know that, Kitty.  Guess I was trying to get some real answers... as I never have, I guess there aren't any. Admittedly, was trying to raise a point. Prob not in best way.
> My partners and myself have had struggles with feminist groups regarding trans or gender fluid identity, and gender ambiguity and feminism touches a nerve with me.
> 
> This is not the right place for it when the OP is asking how to become involved in a movement.


fwiw i think there have been discussions on the topic in the past here - it's not something i know enough about to be able to offer much of an opinion thought tbh.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 11, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Thanks VP
> 
> I'd still like to see him explain this train of 'thought' to my cousin...


 
Before or after she inserts an IED up the orifice he talks out of?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Apr 11, 2013)

kittyP said:


> I would imagine it would depend from group to group and event to event.
> I don't think it is a rule for all feminist events as standard.
> If it actually happened anyway.


 
ah, we're approaching the "what is gender" argument discussion.  when that happens then we'll see some feathers fly


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 11, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> I think it is, very much so. How the hell is that leading to equality; disallowing people to stay based upon their gender? I find it rather backwards, it's a bit contradictory, isn't it? Once it was women who were not permitted... so now we play tit for tat? Just seems so backwards to me and I don't see how things like this constitute equality.


 
Unfortunately, FB didn't tell us why this was requested, so we don't know the whys and wherefors. Not *necessarily* "tit for tat", though.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Before or after she inserts an IED up the orifice he talks out of?


After 

I'm almost completely certain she'd help him out...


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 11, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> ah, we're approaching the "what is gender" argument discussion. when that happens then we'll see some feathers fly


Yeah, that's why I have an issue with feminism, because I have an issue with gender and what it is (to us as a society).

But I'm a pansexual, gender-fluid individual trapped inside the body of a genetic woman who doesn't know what it's like to be or feel like a man or a trans person, who detests and opposes the gender binary, who identifies as queer and loves celebrating anything that is not cis-gender!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 11, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> It seems that if the incident did happen, there's still plenty on here who'd agree with it, and support it... utterly bonkers


 
Depends on the reason(s) why it happened, surely? Been to a few political meetings in my time where it was demanded that "all men leave the meeting", and mostly (even here, in so-called "loony Lambeth" as it was then known), the demanders got short shrift. If it was a discussion that either had little relevance to men, or involved issues that participants felt uncomfortable speaking about with men present, then most men happily went and got a cuppa. None of us, male or female, have the right to intrude on the space of others if we're not wanted/required, are we?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 11, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> Yeah, that's why I have an issue with feminism, because I have an issue with gender and what it is (to us as a society).


 
So you actually have an issue with those fractions/facets/parts of feminism that are lagging on the gender debate, as opposed to "feminism" _per se_, then?
Asking because feminism means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 11, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> Not really...
> 
> What would their position on trans-people be btw ? Do they stay or go ?


 
The answer to that seems to vary from feminist to feminist. Not every feminist being a trans-hater like Julie Bindel.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Apr 11, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> Yeah, that's why I have an issue with feminism, because I have an issue with gender and what it is (to us as a society).


 
it's really really tricky.  i am sympathetic to the whole notion of gender as a social construct.  but that seems unsympathetic to trans-people.  which i am not, i believe that everyone should have the right to self-identify and be respected and safe in that identity.  is being a woman (for e.g.) the culmination of years of indoctrination as to what a woman should be, or is it innate?  does growing up female make you a woman or not?  tricky tricky stuff and not something i'd ever want to be the judge of. 

of course, i boil it all down to the one size fits all value: don't be a dick.  nothing else really matters except trying not to be a massive fucking dickhead to each other.


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> So you actually have an issue with those fractions/facets/parts of feminism that are lagging on the gender debate, as opposed to "feminism" _per se_, then?
> Asking because feminism means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.


 
Correct (mostly), I do have issues with those facets of feminism that are muddled on the gender debate, but other things too regarding men, also I just don't agree with the divide that feminism can cause. Yes, it does mean different things to different people and that is why it is just so complicated. And gender is complicated. So answers won't exist, just views and opinions and then we have people making ''rules'' based upon those, which could be unfair and will also cause lots of upset, pain and anger, or for some individuals even an involuntary change of lifestyle or identity altogether.


----------



## cesare (Apr 11, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> i guess so. it does seem to me that a lot of it is that some men think they are entitled to do what they like to women. i work with a lot of rapist clients and their excuses are always the same; either flat out denial that it was rape (she wanted it and stitched me up); or a belief that their desires over-ride all over considerations (i.e. that women are not allowed to say no to me). i used to believe it was solely about power - someone who feels powerless exercising what power they have over another in any way they can, but i'm increasingly seeing it as a combination of power and believing that women do not have value beyond sex. rape is cross-cultural, committed by rich and poor, socially strong and socially weak. power is definitely a major factor, but it seems to be combined with a belief that women are valueless - iyswim? i am not sure i am explaining my thoughts that well, but there you go!


 
It's cross cultural, cross class, and also cross gender ... I suppose is what I'm saying.


----------



## Kidda (Apr 11, 2013)

This thread went well then


----------



## el-ahrairah (Apr 11, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> The answer to that seems to vary from feminist to feminist. Not every feminist being a trans-hater like Julie Bindel.


 
exactly.  julie believes that gender behaviour is dictated by society and thus there are no female traits or male traits, just chromosomes.  she sees trans women as being men pretending to be women and then expecting women to treat them as equals in the struggle whilst making demands to be special - i.e. bringing a male entitlement without having experienced a female social conditioning. she cites her notion that transwomen engage in performance feminity - i.e. a patriarchal view of what women should look like and behave like.  she treats them like we working classes treat laurie penny and her pretending to be working class horseshit.

but that approach is fundamentally wrong-headed, because it is hating the player rather than the game.  it seems to me that trans-people are victims of social gender contructions but in a different way to biological women - that the issues are different - related yes - and that surely support should be given on that basis - fellow travellers against patriarchy.


----------



## purenarcotic (Apr 11, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> Depends, in theory, yes, in the right time, context, and situation.
> 
> But banning a whole particular sex/gender out of principle under the guise of a "safe space" is just sexist itself.


 
Well in some cases it really is down to safety.  It is not safe for a DV organisation to employ male refuge workers for example.  For what I hope would be fucking obvious reasons.

Unless you're referring to the more holistic concept of 'safe spaces' than literal safe spaces.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 11, 2013)

bi0boy said:


> Especially given one in ten rape victims are men.


 
"Especially"? Really? Or did you just make a not-very-clever choice of words there?

Anyway, depending on whose statistics you look at. BCS *estimated* (never helpful to criminologists and other criminal justice academics, that!) 1 in 8 in 2011, other sources for 2011 have estimated as low as 1 in 15. Split the difference and you've got 1 in 11.5. That's one man raped *by other men* for every 11.5 women *raped by men*. Draw your own conclusions from that, but please make sure they're informed ones.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 11, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> or it could have been a discussion about racism... they should ban all the people there of a certain ethnic origin... y'know just in case they're a "trigger"


 
What, Roy Rogers' horse, or a dim bloke in a sitcom?


----------



## DrRingDing (Apr 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> This is true of all political movements on the left, not just feminism BTW. The loudest voices get their way, and the middle-class has the loudest voices.


 
Don't they just.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 11, 2013)

Kidda said:


> This thread went well then


 
TBH it has got reasonably back on track.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 11, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> Well in some cases it really is down to safety. It is not safe for a DV organisation to employ male refuge workers for example. For what I hope would be fucking obvious reasons.
> 
> Unless you're referring to the more holistic concept of 'safe spaces' than literal safe spaces.


 
I don;t think that kind of thing was what was being talked about.


----------



## purenarcotic (Apr 11, 2013)

kittyP said:


> I don;t think that kind of thing was what was being talked about.


 
Hence why I said 'unless you're referring to the more holistic concept of safe spaces than literal ones'.  If that's what's being discussed then my post can just be ignored.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 11, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> ah, we're approaching the "what is gender" argument discussion. when that happens then we'll see some feathers fly


A word with many different meanings to different people, unfortunately, so we often end up talking at cross-purposes.


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 11, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> Yeah, that's why I have an issue with feminism, because I have an issue with gender and what it is (to us as a society).
> 
> But I'm a pansexual, gender-fluid individual trapped inside the body of a genetic woman who doesn't know what it's like to be or feel like a man or a trans person, who detests and opposes the gender binary, who identifies as queer and loves celebrating anything that is not cis-gender!


 
.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 11, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> it's really really tricky. i am sympathetic to the whole notion of gender as a social construct. but that seems unsympathetic to trans-people.


 
I don't think that being sympathetic to a notion that effectively says "the limits of what defines gender are constructed around the perceptions of the majority of a society" is unsympathetic. If anything it can be used as an acknowledgement that for trans-people, as a minority, the current *normative** definition of gender has little relevance for them.

*As opposed to more esoteric/academicised definitions.



> which i am not, i believe that everyone should have the right to self-identify and be respected and safe in that identity. is being a woman (for e.g.) the culmination of years of indoctrination as to what a woman should be, or is it innate? does growing up female make you a woman or not? tricky tricky stuff and not something i'd ever want to be the judge of.


 
Tricky for the bigots, too. They *want* to proffer an explanation based on biology, or, at it's most complex (hah!) genetics, but biology and/or genetics are manifestations of biological reality. *Mutable* manifestations, with regard to current surgical and endocrinological practices.They say nothing about psychological and psychosocial development, and without doing so, they're pretty meaningless, and ridiculously reductive. We're more than the sum of our genitals.



> of course, i boil it all down to the one size fits all value: don't be a dick. nothing else really matters except trying not to be a massive fucking dickhead to each other.


 
Hallelujah!


----------



## Santino (Apr 11, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> Why are you not allowed to make jokes in a feminist thread?


In this case the joke depended on a well-worn misogynistic trope about feminists, which is itself a part of the cultural arsenal used to perpetuate a vile repression of women.


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 11, 2013)

Santino said:


> In this case the joke depended on a well-worn misogynistic trope about feminists, which is itself a part of the cultural arsenal used to perpetuate a vile repression of women.



Yeah, them dungarees can be pretty repressive.


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 11, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> Yeah, them dungarees can be pretty repressive.


 
especially when you wear the wrong size


----------



## toggle (Apr 11, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> Yeah, them dungarees can be pretty repressive.


for someone making the claims above, you're pretty quick to start shitting on women who say they find drew's crap offensive.


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 11, 2013)

toggle said:


> for someone making the claims above, you're pretty quick to start shitting on women who say they find drew's crap offensive.



Oh, c'mon... it was a joke. Lighten up. Chill out. Smile. Don't take the things that don't need to be taken seriously, serious!


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 11, 2013)

And I only shit on women if they want me to. But submissive women who LIKE to be degraded...well that's another muddled area for feminists, innit.


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 11, 2013)

dungarees are srs business tbf


----------



## toggle (Apr 11, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> Oh, c'mon... it was a joke. Lighten up. Chill out. Smile. Don't take the things that don't need to be taken seriously, serious!


 
there are a large number of women on these boards who are actively fighting the manifestations of sexism here. that includes your boyfreind's completely inappropriate sexist humor, and your insistence he can do no wrong.

thoroughly fucking sick of being told I'm humorless because i don't find someone being a sexist prick funny. and i will call it out when i see it. even if the person supporting it is making claims of how much they understand these issues.


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 11, 2013)

toggle said:


> there are a large number of women on these boards who are actively fighting the manifestations of sexism here. that includes your boyfreind's completely inappropriate sexist humor, and your insistence he can do no wrong.


 
I never said he can do no wrong. He's plenty wrong!


----------



## toggle (Apr 11, 2013)

he's plenty fucking wrong now, that's not stopping you from encouraging him.


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 11, 2013)

toggle said:


> he's plenty fucking wrong now, that's not stopping you from encouraging him.


Sorry, Miss.


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 11, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> Oh, c'mon... it was a joke. Lighten up. Chill out. Smile. Don't take the things that don't need to be taken seriously, serious!


 
Also, my claims above...what re gender? Yeah, how comes all the trans-women femmies I know have a smashing sense of humour?


----------



## Wilf (Apr 11, 2013)

On the 'men leaving women only meetings' issue: would I have problem with that (as a bloke)?  the most honest and direct response I could come up with would be 'no, why the fuck _would/should I have a problem with it'_?  

However, if you wanted to actually get into it, the issue of meetings/spaces for specific groups, the answer's equally obvious.  Those groups might want to discuss things that are specific to them and their identity, relationships to others etc.  They might want to discuss issues away from people who at least share some of the social characteristics of groups and societies that have oppressed them.  Doesn't mean all of the people thus excluded are guilty of those crimes.  Might be a difficult issue but it's pretty bloody obvious how the presence of men might might victims of rape uncomfortable.  If anybody wants to reduce this down to 'but I want my white males group', er fine - there's plenty of them  .  More to the point, if men want to get involved in campaigns on sexual violence, childcare or whatever, there's plenty of other meetings they can go to to do that.  Sorry, some statements of the bleedin' obvious. My 'why the fuck should I have a problem with it' was sufficient.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 11, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> Also, my claims above...what re gender? Yeah, how comes all the trans-women femmies I know have a smashing sense of humour?


presumably because your friends are a group selected by personality etc. because they're your friends.

to imply that all male to female transsexuals (or any other group) have a smashing sense of humour is as crass as saying all black people have a great sense of rhythm or all fat people are jolly.

edit - sometimes the girls i teach, in a very sweet effort to proclaim their broadmindedness, will proclaim "oh I love gay people, they're great".  At which point i need to then point out that some of them are lovely and some are arseholes and some are boring and some are funny etc etc just like everyone else.


----------



## Left (Apr 11, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> And I only shit on women if they want me to. But submissive women who LIKE to be degraded...well that's another muddled area for feminists, innit.


 
No.



Wilf said:


> On the 'men leaving women only meetings' issue: would I have problem with that (as a bloke)? the most honest and direct response I could come up with would be 'no, why the fuck _would/should I have a pr__oblem with it'_?


 
Yes.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Apr 11, 2013)

or because all women are humorless fuckers except the women who were born men?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Apr 11, 2013)

perhaps that crack isn't quite right either.  it's late and i can't tell if that is cutting satire or just offensive in lots of different ways.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 11, 2013)

the transgender issue has damaged the perception of feminism a lot of late. personally i subscribe to the idea that a woman is anyone who identifies as such, or who wishes to do so for that moment in time. People who entirely eschew gender binary may then find themselves not catered to, but ime, if the female experience is one that they feel applies to them, then they will be welcome.

Feminism is so many issues. Not every person identifying as female will have the experience that applies to every discussion. I have no experience of domestic violence, or rape, or motherhood. I might participate in the movement around those issues, but i will not share my experience. I will listen. And if those who do have those experiences wish me to listen and not talk, or to be absent from some part of the discussion, then I see no insult in that. This then, is practice that can be applied to transgender or non-gender-binary, people, and ultimately by extension, those who identify as men.


----------



## toggle (Apr 11, 2013)

TBH, it's not helpful to the cause of promoting the right of anyone identifying as woman to be in a woman only space when someone is proclaiming that ciswoman feminists are humorless compared to transwomen cause they don't find your bf's sexist jokes funny. It wouldn't be that hard for someone who didn't have different experiences of transwomen to take that as evidence for denying them access to women only space, because they were likely to behave disrespectfully. and throwing sexist humour is a feminist discussion is disrespectful. There are stereotypes of transwomen as being loud, disrespectful to ciswomen and a caricature of some extreme aspects of femininity that is part of the cause of the issues that divide us and it's not needing any further promotion.


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 11, 2013)

spanglechick said:


> to imply that all male to female transsexuals (or any other group) have a smashing sense of humour is as crass as saying all black people have a great sense of rhythm or all fat people are jolly.


 
Oh, please. Again, wasn't being utterly serious. Though, actually I would say my transgendered friends are the friends who make me laugh the most (through being comical, witty and sharp, I'm not laughing at them, like...well sometimes I do).



spanglechick said:


> presumably because your friends are a group selected by personality etc. because they're your friends.


 
I know many trans people. Some of them are funny. Not all of them are my friends. Some of them are not my friends, even the ones I find funny. My last three partners were trans and they were the funniest people I have ever met. So, it was just an observation. Maybe it was me who made them laugh? I expect so. I'm fucking funny.



spanglechick said:


> edit - sometimes the girls i teach, in a very sweet effort to proclaim their broadmindedness, will proclaim "oh I love gay people, they're great". At which point i need to then point out that some of them are lovely and some are arseholes and some are boring and some are funny etc etc just like everyone else.


 
Obviously. Just like feminists (you get cool ones, those are the ones that want to touch my fake boobs, add a "wow", a cheeky wink and let me pat them on the arse as they walk away or you get the moody ones who look me up and down and call me a disgrace to women).


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 12, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> Oh, please. Again, wasn't being utterly serious. Though, actually I would say my transgendered friends are the friends who make me laugh the most (through being comical, witty and sharp, I'm not laughing at them, like...well sometimes I do).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


great - so you know all this, and that's grand.  the thing about urban is, we can only go on what you give us to read.  and you can only go on what you read that others have written.  So if you're not being entirely serious you're probably going to need to say that or otherwise make it obvious (i'm not big on smilies myself, but they do the job), otherwise you'll get someone explaining something that you already know.  which probably feels quite patronising. which was not my intention.

thing is, there is a sense of humour failure a lot of the time in feminism. as there is, i'm told, in lots of other groups striving for equality.  not all of them, but a lot.  because actually it's fucking depressing kicking against the pricks, and when someone has a joke with that, it can feel an awful lot like they're devaluing your struggle.  

our problem? possibly.  but one thing guaranteed to make people even more pissed off is being given the whole 'lighten up' attitude.  because it feels an awful lot like you're being told that you shouldn't be pissed off about things.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 12, 2013)

i'd also rather hope there are feminists who neither want to touch your boobs nor give you evil looks.  Binary isn't just a problem with gender.  

Or, if you like: there are two types of people in the world - people who think there are two types of people in the world, and people who see things in more detail than that.


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 12, 2013)

toggle said:


> TBH, it's not helpful to the cause of promoting the right of anyone identifying as woman to be in a woman only space when someone is proclaiming that ciswoman feminists are humorless compared to transwomen cause they don't find your bf's sexist jokes funny.


 
I did not proclaim that "that ciswoman feminists are humorless compared to transwomen" at all. I just said the trans people I know who call themselves feminists have a great sense of humour. And it's true, all three of them. Though only one actually identifies as a ''trans-woman''.



toggle said:


> There are stereotypes of transwomen as being loud, disrespectful to ciswomen and a caricature of some extreme aspects of femininity that is part of the cause of the issues that divide us and it's not needing any further promotion.


 
Yes, there are vile stereotypes of transwomen, it's a pity that some feminist groups let these play part to the divide.


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 12, 2013)

spanglechick said:


> Or, if you like: there are two types of people in the world - people who think there are two types of people in the world, and people who see things in more detail than that.


 
Yeah my "_...you get cool ones, those are the ones that want to touch my fake boobs, add a "wow", a cheeky wink and let me pat them on the arse as they walk away or you get the moody ones who look me up and down and call me a disgrace to women.._." was a joke too, if you failed to catch that. I actually, honestly don't think that there are two type of feminists. Really. I used to be one and you caertainly can't put me in a box.Clear? Ok. Good.


----------



## toggle (Apr 12, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> Yeah my "_...you get cool ones, those are the ones that want to touch my fake boobs, add a "wow", a cheeky wink and let me pat them on the arse as they walk away or you get the moody ones who look me up and down and call me a disgrace to women.._." was a joke too, if you failed to catch that. I actually, honestly don't think that there are two type of feminists. Really. Clear? Ok.


 
your 'humour' really isn't translating all that well here, is it.


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 12, 2013)

toggle said:


> your 'humour' really isn't translating all that well here, is it.


 


spanglechick said:


> ...thing is, there is a sense of humour failure a lot of the time in feminism. as there is, i'm told, in lots of other groups striving for equality. not all of them, but a lot. because actually it's fucking depressing kicking against the pricks, and when someone has a joke with that, it can feel an awful lot like they're devaluing your struggle.


 
That's why. You're just too damn pissed off about 'the struggle'.


----------



## killer b (Apr 12, 2013)

christ. well, this was unexpected.


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 12, 2013)

Great how we're now focusing upon how funny or unfunny you find my humour and not upon the rather interesting things that've been raised.


----------



## killer b (Apr 12, 2013)

it isn't actually how funny or unfunny they found it is it?


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 12, 2013)

killer b said:


> it isn't actually how funny or unfunny they found it is it?


 
I really don't care one bit. Can't we talk about why some feminist groups allow vile caricatures of trans-women determine how anyone trans is treated, or why some feminist groups feel they have the right to tell a person that they're not female enough for their group, for instance?


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 12, 2013)

Ahh, what's the point...


----------



## killer b (Apr 12, 2013)

i'm sure there's a discussion to be had on the topic. probably best to start another thread if that's what you want to talk about though. 

you can't really blame people for reacting to the posts you actually put on this thread though tbf.


----------



## toggle (Apr 12, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> Great how we're now focusing upon how funny or unfunny you find my humour and not upon the rather interesting things that've been raised.


 
problem is, a lot of us face crappy humour on a daily basis and this is one of the few places there are where we can challenge it. the fucking POS of my boss's boss likes rape jokes. the alternative to putting up with that shit would most likely involve my partner getting crap from atos and being pressured to give up my masters. i don't have a choice out there, i do here.and part of the issue is that if it's ok for one person to say that, it becomes ok for everyone to. and then this place isn't any more comfortable than where i work

what you have raised is that feminism mirrors the attitudes towards expression of sexuality that everywhere else does. and that it can be very common for anyone who doesn't take some form of approved line, as in not too far off the traditionalist views of sex, to be sneered at. I guess cause feeling free to express it as loudly and as openly as we choose is interpreted as doing it for the men, as buying into the culture of objectification, not for our own enjoyment.


----------



## xslavearcx (Apr 12, 2013)

was the joke that one about the dungarees?


----------



## toggle (Apr 12, 2013)

killer b said:


> you can't really blame people for reacting to the posts you actually put on this thread though tbf.


 
like this:



> That's why. You're just too damn pissed off about 'the struggle'.


 
completely dismisses our experiences.


----------



## Firky (Apr 12, 2013)

The man who made the crack about dungarees wears black satin shirts, ffs. He is clearly a fashion victim.


----------



## ymu (Apr 12, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> So how about the people who identify as gender fluid; do they stay or are they asked to leave? Who decides that one?


This is one of the reasons why I am against separate spaces for women altogether. The primary reason being that I think it's about time all spaces were recognised as being equally for women and it is those who still refuse to behave themselves that should be sent away.

I am utterly opposed to the gender separatist feminists, who have turned to trans-phobia in their quest to hate and denigrate all things male. It is entirely reasonable to say that trans-women will have a different perspective than cis-women and many of them do need to be asked to remember that, whilst it might be a personal tragedy for them, having been brought up male means they do not and cannot tell a cis-woman what their experience is. But that doesn't mean they are not women, and it doesn't mean that we should still be keeping this information to ourselves as if men (cis or trans) cannot understand it, should not be required to respect it, and are not worthy of being part of our world.

In terms of Psychology 101, this kind of feminism strikes me as dominated by women who just don't like men, whether due to choice or experience, and they mirror the embittered anti-feminist men who have been unsuccessful in relationships and blame all women, bolstered by the misogynist wing of the gay scene.

Men suffer under patriarchy too, and I think modern, positive forms of feminism needs to look at the whole picture, what men can gain from broadening their horizons as well as what women can gain from sharing their spaces.

More women in the workplace should mean more men at home. It should mean more choice for everybody, not what it has resulted in: more hours in the workplace for women, who still take responsibility for 90% of the housework and childcare. Complaints about women being objectified in magazines and advertising should mean fewer people being objectified at all, not what it has resulted in: more men being objectified in magazines and advertising, more male expenditure on cosmetics, gyms and plastic surgery and a rise in eating disorders amongst men and boys.

The extreme, separatist feminists are responsible for much of the negative image of feminism amongst women as well as men, because they are easy to caricature and give good soundbite for the media. Nuance is harder, but it is important, because this kind of extremist and exclusionary twaddle seeks only to perpetuate a pointless and damaging battle between the sexes when what we need is to unite and fight against the forces that say we're different, that women don't like sex so men must take it, that competing against men on their unaltered turf is the way to achieve equality. There have been some modest achievements but nowhere near enough progress.


----------



## ymu (Apr 12, 2013)

kittyP said:


> TBH it has got reasonably back on track.


Oh no, sorry mrsfran. So many of these threads ongoing, I forget which one I'm on.


----------



## ymu (Apr 12, 2013)

But I will say something about dungarees anyway. 

I was a tomboy and still wear practical clothing, usually short hair, no make-up. I'm not bothered about my appearance. I used to, and occasionally still do, get arseholes cracking jokes about me being a lesbian, which is really ... odd to deal with. They're trying to say I'm ugly and not good enough for them to sleep with (how crushing), but they're doing it via a completely neutral characteristic, sexuality. If I was gay I'd say so, and long ago resolved never to reveal my sexuality to anyone who wasn't obviously interested in sleeping with me. There's no insult there, so I can't respond, save for pointing out what sad comment it is.

So, yeah. Any joke which targets the oppressed rather than the oppressor deserves a bit of shit for being lazy and, when made in the context of threads like this, hostile. But dungarees?


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 12, 2013)

Interesting feature in the Standard yesterday about the recruitment of female directors. I can't link to it as it's not on their site, but here are some snippets:



> Lord Davies' report last year into 'shockingly' low female board representation called on FTSE 100 companies to double the percentage of women at the top from 12.5% by 2015....After a fairly frantic hiring spree since the report, boards are now 17.3% female. In the first half of the financial year 44% of board level appointments at FTSE 100 firms went to women, but that slowed to 26% in the second half...There are just three women chief execs in the FTSE 100.
> 
> A report last week into the culture at Barclays that led it into crisis found a bank that was "arrogant and aggressive"...It seems likely that Barclays would have got itself in less trouble if calmer, female, heads had prevailed over the hard-charging bankers obsessed with this year's bonus.
> 
> Denise Wilson, a businesswoman who advised Lord Davies, says "There is a better level of debate with women around the table. They will ask more challenging questions and probe from different angles - they increase the richness of the debate. Men become more mild-mannered and considerate, it brings out a much kinder atmosphere. And women don't go along so easily with 'groupthink' - they are prepared to be out on their own and say things others may think risky. They are also unafraid of saying when they don't understand. Both of these attributes help everyone."


 
There's no mention of childcare or job sharing, nothing about how to make it practical for mothers to compete for the top jobs.  But IMO it's great to see some acknowledgements that a less male-dominated society would get itself in less trouble. (That's my view - that feminism is good for men as well as women.)


----------



## Santino (Apr 12, 2013)

Women should be given just as much chance as men to be first against the wall CTR.


----------



## killer b (Apr 12, 2013)

ah yes. women in business are calmer, more nurturing. whereas men in business are more aggressive.


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 12, 2013)

killer b said:


> ah yes. women in business are calmer, more nurturing. whereas men in business are more aggressive.


Yes.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 12, 2013)

killer b said:


> ah yes. women in business are calmer, more nurturing. whereas men in business are more aggressive.


----------



## killer b (Apr 12, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Yes.


i've not found that to be the case.

the nature of business is the problem, not the gender of the participants.


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 12, 2013)

My experience mirrors Denise Wilson's.  An all male meeting of senior managers in a big corporation has a rugger-bugger atmosphere. Testosterone rules.  The presence of a woman of equal rank transform things.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 12, 2013)

Wilf said:


> On the 'men leaving women only meetings' issue: would I have problem with that (as a bloke)? the most honest and direct response I could come up with would be 'no, why the fuck _would/should I have a problem with it'_?


 
Quite.
And even if you *do*[ have a problem with it, you should have enough respect for the wishes of others to at least consider complying.



> However, if you wanted to actually get into it, the issue of meetings/spaces for specific groups, the answer's equally obvious. Those groups might want to discuss things that are specific to them and their identity, relationships to others etc. They might want to discuss issues away from people who at least share some of the social characteristics of groups and societies that have oppressed them. Doesn't mean all of the people thus excluded are guilty of those crimes. Might be a difficult issue but it's pretty bloody obvious how the presence of men might might victims of rape uncomfortable. If anybody wants to reduce this down to 'but I want my white males group', er fine - there's plenty of them  . More to the point, if men want to get involved in campaigns on sexual violence, childcare or whatever, there's plenty of other meetings they can go to to do that. Sorry, some statements of the bleedin' obvious. My 'why the fuck should I have a problem with it' was sufficient.


 
Unfortunately, society as a whole has been pretty slow at grasping the finer points of behaviour with regard to making victims of sexual assault of *any* sort feel comfortable. Using officers of the same sex as a victim only became standard practice a couple of decades ago (late '90s, IIRC), and even then was a "guideline", not a rule. If the various arms of the state are insensitive to thousands of examples of everyday oppression across a spectrum of severity, setting an example of patriarchalism pretty much, expecting decency from individuals who're often motivated to press their own agenda is pissing into the wind.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 12, 2013)

killer b said:


> ah yes. women in business are calmer, more nurturing. whereas men in business are more aggressive.


 
Another of those generalisations that never quite holds up under even a minimal degree of scrutiny, IME.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 12, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> My experience mirrors Denise Wilson's. An all male meeting of senior managers in a big corporation has a rugger-bugger atmosphere. Testosterone rules. The presence of a woman of equal rank transform things.


 
My experience is different, although Civil Service, rather than corporate. In my experience, the women tended to conform to the male behaviour, at least partly because conformity as opposed to questioning sexism had (in their opinions, if not in reality) smoothed their upward ascent through the ranks. I magine how shocked many of them were when the sexism was turned on them, and they ended up talking to my opposite numbers in Prospect or the First Division Association!


----------



## toggle (Apr 12, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Interesting feature in the Standard yesterday about the recruitment of female directors. I can't link to it as it's not on their site, but here are some snippets:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no mention of childcare or job sharing, nothing about how to make it practical for mothers to compete for the top jobs.  But IMO it's great to see some acknowledgements that a less male-dominated society would get itself in less trouble. (That's my view - that feminism is good for men as well as women.)


 
yeah, isn't it great we can focus on the prospect of a few women clawing their way to the top in a society that teaches people they have to be arseholes to get there, but try to promote some stereotype that women aren't capable of being arseholes. in the meantime, fuck the other 99%.


----------



## toggle (Apr 12, 2013)

and seriously, feminism does not mean feminisation.


----------



## cesare (Apr 12, 2013)

toggle said:


> and seriously, feminism does not mean feminisation.


Good phrase!


----------



## killer b (Apr 12, 2013)

pink boardrooms! Flowers on every desk! Forward to a more caring, sharing capitalism!


----------



## Wilf (Apr 12, 2013)

killer b said:


> pink boardrooms! Flowers on every desk! Forward to a more caring, sharing capitalism!


Behind every bunch of daffs lurks a redundancy notice.


----------



## cesare (Apr 12, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Behind every bunch of daffs lurks a redundancy notice.


Behind every single white minimalist orchid and Jo Malone candle burning lurks a discussion about minimising labour costs.


----------



## Firky (Apr 12, 2013)

HR Managers. The milk of human kindness whatever their biology.


----------



## cesare (Apr 12, 2013)

Firky said:


> HR Managers. The milk of human kindness.


I think you'll find that they're footsoldiers for the boardroom


----------



## Firky (Apr 12, 2013)

I have only ever had three HR managers in my life, all of them women. One was a little short arsed woman in her late fifties, I called her the poisonous dwarf. She was horrible. She also put me in a very awkward position within my first week of work. Cut a long story short: client requests an ambulance, she refused. I went ahead and phoned the ambulance. She pulled me up for it, gave me a right bollocking (very unprofessional and nasty with it) I kept my cool until and told her she's lucky she is explaining her actions to me and not a court. Feeling I may have just put head above the parapet I went to my manager who supported me fully and she was given a written warning and suspended from the RAFA.

My first week at work in that job


----------



## Wilf (Apr 12, 2013)

Firky said:


> I have only ever had three HR managers in my life, all of them women. One was a little short arsed woman in her late fifties, I called her the poisonous dwarf. She was horrible. She also put me in a very awkward position within my first week of work. Cut a long story short: client requests an ambulance, she refused. I went ahead and phoned the ambulance. She pulled me up for it, gave me a right bollocking (very unprofessional and nasty with it) I kept my cool until and told her she's lucky she is explaining her actions to me and not a court. Feeling I may have just put head above the parapet I went to my manager who supported me fully and she was given a written warning and suspended from the RAFA.
> 
> My first week at work in that job


 Greenwing


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 12, 2013)

IMO much, much more job sharing is essential if society is to become significantly less patriarchal. There's a campaign to make it possible for MPs. I'd also like to see an enforced quota for employers.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/38829
http://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/promoting-job-sharing-lets-start-at-the-top/
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ruth-fox/parliamentary-jobsharing-_b_2722484.html


----------



## Firky (Apr 12, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Greenwing


 
What's Greenwing?


----------



## cesare (Apr 12, 2013)

Btw, it's usually the Finance Director that's leading the boardroom arguments for minimising labour costs.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 12, 2013)

Firky said:


> What's Greenwing?


 A ch4 (?) comedy - hospital with laddish doctors and a splendidly unpleasant female head of HR.


----------



## Firky (Apr 12, 2013)

cesare said:


> Btw, it's usually the Finance Director that's leading the boardroom arguments for minimising labour costs.


 
There's a Steve Bell (think it is one of his) sketch of an Finance Director holding a big missile to the back of an HR Manager who is holding a machine gun to the back of a supervisor, who in turn is holding a smaller machine gun over the entire factory floor.


----------



## cesare (Apr 12, 2013)

Firky said:


> There's a Steve Bell (think it is one of his) sketch of an Finance Director holding a big missile to the back of an HR Manager who is holding a machine gun to the back of a supervisor, who in turn is holding a smaller machine gun over the entire factory floor.


That's pretty much how it works in many organisations.


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 12, 2013)

Here's a campaign which is working - the #everydaysexism people at Twitter are notifying advertisers when their ads appear next to a misognyist Facebook group. http://www.everydaysexism.com/


----------



## toggle (Apr 12, 2013)




----------



## Firky (Apr 12, 2013)

I wonder if Frumpy Bigot is trying to shake off his reputation as a nasty bigot by posting all the links he comes across when googling 'feminism websites'. I hope he shoots himself in the foot by recommending the bigot that is Julie Burchill


----------



## toggle (Apr 12, 2013)

Firky said:


> I wonder if Frumpy Bigot is trying to shake off his reputation as a nasty bigot by posting all the links he comes across when googling 'feminism websites'. I hope he shoots himself in the foot by recommending the bigot that is Julie Burchill


 
i have this feeling he's trying to educate us about stuff we've known about for years and in a way that shows his complete lack of understanding of the complexities. I haven't had feminism this badly mansplained to me in a while though, and since ti's not actually in my face sexism or mansplaining, it's quite entertaining to watch the moron make a complete fool of himself.


----------



## Sprocket. (Apr 12, 2013)

Firky said:


> HR Managers. The milk of human kindness whatever their biology.


 
Always cringe at the title HR Manager, I remember when I was a person and had a Personnel Manager, these days I am just a resource!


----------



## editor (Apr 12, 2013)

Firky said:


> I wonder if Frumpy Bigot ...


Can you two lovers put each other on ignore please?


----------



## mrsfran (Apr 12, 2013)

toggle said:


> i have this feeling he's trying to educate us about stuff we've known about for years and in a way that shows his complete lack of understanding of the complexities. I haven't had feminism this badly mansplained to me in a while though, and since ti's not actually in my face sexism or mansplaining, it's quite entertaining to watch the moron make a complete fool of himself.


 
I know he's a dick, but to be fair this thread was started by someone who HASN'T known about this stuff for years, doesn't know about the complexities and is specifically asking for this kind of entry-point stuff. You may be old hands but I'm not. It turns out I do know about everydaysexism though, I am at least that far in.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 12, 2013)

mrsfran have you seen this website?

http://www.feminist.com/


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 12, 2013)

mrsfran said:


> I know he's a dick, but to be fair this thread was started by someone who HASN'T known about this stuff for years, doesn't know about the complexities and is specifically asking for this kind of entry-point stuff. You may be old hands but I'm not. It turns out I do know about everydaysexism though, I am at least that far in.


You're welcome.


----------



## toggle (Apr 12, 2013)

mrsfran said:


> I know he's a dick, but to be fair this thread was started by someone who HASN'T known about this stuff for years, doesn't know about the complexities and is specifically asking for this kind of entry-point stuff. You may be old hands but I'm not. It turns out I do know about everydaysexism though, I am at least that far in.


 
there's a lot better advice by people who have a clue.

he has form not only for trying to mansplain feminism, but also for trying to mansplain the experiences of being a woman. he apparently knows what we can and can't do, what we want and don't want to do better than all women. he is the kind of domineering know it all prick that is responsible for women feeling they need seperate space, cause he won't discuss unless he can control.


----------



## toggle (Apr 12, 2013)

editor said:


> Can you two lovers put each other on ignore please?


 
nice to see you taking such an egalitarian approach to modding. rather than blaming the disruptive sexist for the disruption.


----------



## editor (Apr 12, 2013)

toggle said:


> nice to see you taking such an egalitarian approach to modding. rather than blaming the disruptive sexist for the disruption.


This is why I hate modding at times. I get a vague reported post or two. I haven't read the entire thread. I don't _want_ to read the entire thread, but I know there may be a complaint or two the reported post is ignored.

So I thought I could at least make a start by suggesting that the two people who seem to be rubbing each other up the wrong way could put each other on ignore. Not ideal but it might at least stop the antagonism - but all that's done is garner a sarcastic remark and criticism from you.

But here's the problem: unless several people make detailed reported posts, it puts an awfully big onus on the mod who is expected to go through a thread of over 350 posts to find out who is in the wrong. And sometimes that's not easy and other times, in our haste, we may get it wrong and then find ourselves at the receiving end of another earful later.

Tricky, no?


----------



## ymu (Apr 12, 2013)

mrsfran said:


> I know he's a dick, but to be fair this thread was started by someone who HASN'T known about this stuff for years, doesn't know about the complexities and is specifically asking for this kind of entry-point stuff. You may be old hands but I'm not. It turns out I do know about everydaysexism though, I am at least that far in.


If he'd read the thread, he'd know that I'd already posted about @everydaysexism, and even the exact same campaign on it, and that you've said you already knew about it. But that would mean listening to what other people have to say, so of course, he has not read the thread.


----------



## EastEnder (Apr 12, 2013)

On a lighter note, thought some of you might like reading the reviews of these silly pens: BIC Cristal For Her Ball Pen


----------



## ymu (Apr 12, 2013)

editor said:


> This is why I hate modding at times. I get a vague reported post or two. I haven't read the entire thread. I don't _want_ to read the entire thread, but I know there may be a complaint or two the reported post is ignored.
> 
> So I thought I could at least make a start by suggesting that the two people who seem to be rubbing each other up the wrong way could put each other on ignore. Not ideal but it might at least stop the antagonism - but all that's done is garner a sarcastic remark and criticism from you.
> 
> ...


If the mods are asked to shut a disruptive sexist up on an anti-sexist thread, I don't think it is asking too much. Sojourner and others did ask him to shut it some time ago, to no avail.


----------



## toggle (Apr 12, 2013)

editor said:


> This is why I hate modding at times. I get a vague reported post or two. I haven't read the entire thread. I don't _want_ to read the entire thread, but I know there may be a complaint or two the reported post is ignored.
> 
> So I thought I could at least make a start by suggesting that the two people who seem to be rubbing each other up the wrong way could put each other on ignore. Not ideal but it might at least stop the antagonism - but all that's done is garner a sarcastic remark and criticism from you.
> 
> ...


 
Ok, i'll give you that. but here's the background....

Fb has a history of baiting firky, in a way that came across to me as mirroring rape appologism. Because firky didn't appreciate a nice view of teenage vagina, he faced attempts to shame him as not being man enough.

FB's also telling women what they are like and what they are capable of as women. To me, it's a mirror of the way in which people used to say there weren't enough black people in uni, cause black brains were too different to be properly educated, they should have known their limitations. Women still get that, they get people who haven't experienced being a woman telling them they should accept evidence free assertions they are biologically different to men, not taught, conditioned to be different, but actually different.He's actively promoting one of the fundamental sexist myths that cause a lot of the problems women and men face. and just shrugging shoulders and pretending he can't understand when anyone contradicts his crap.

FB has now come onto this thread to start to 'teach' about feminism, from a position of not really having a clue. We have someone promoting sexist mythology, trying to teach women about feminism. Damn right I'm going to back firky for attacking that kind of behavior.

I've not reported anything on this thread, cause i think FB is being careful not to cross the line into open sexist abuse, but he's certainly being a pain in the fucking arse all over the place.


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 12, 2013)

editor said:


> This is why I hate modding at times. I get a vague reported post or two. I haven't read the entire thread. I don't _want_ to read the entire thread, but I know there may be a complaint or two the reported post is ignored.
> 
> So I thought I could at least make a start by suggesting that the two people who seem to be rubbing each other up the wrong way could put each other on ignore. Not ideal but it might at least stop the antagonism - but all that's done is garner a sarcastic remark and criticism from you.
> 
> ...


 
I've been accused of sexism and racism in this thread. Not pleasant. But you won't be getting detailed reported posts about my sexism or racism because they've been invented. I have childish stalkers who contribute nothing but personal attacks.


----------



## toggle (Apr 12, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> I've been accused of sexism and racism in this thread. Not pleasant. But you won't be getting detailed reported posts about my sexism or racism because they've been invented. I have childish stalkers who contribute nothing but personal attacks.


if so many people are accusing you of being sexist and disruptive, have you actually stopped to think what you are doing to cause that?

you are being accused of sexism for promoting sexist mythology, for telling women what they want and then bitching at those who don't appreciate it. cause you apparently can tell women more about the expereinces of being a woman and what women want them women themselves. Do you not see a problem in this?


----------



## editor (Apr 12, 2013)

ymu said:


> If the mods are asked to shut a disruptive sexist up on an anti-sexist thread, I don't think it is asking too much.


Asking me to immediately read 350+ posts can be a bit much at times, you know.

I often find it very hard to work out what humour is acceptable because it can be hard to find the context.


----------



## ymu (Apr 12, 2013)

I'm sure post reporters would happily PM more info if they were asked to. This happens on every feminist thread and sometimes it just needs someone being told to shut up after they've been asked to and haven't. On threads like this, the trigger should be a lot more easily pulled, I think.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Apr 12, 2013)

ymu said:


> I'm sure post reporters would happily PM more info if they were asked to. This happens on every feminist thread and sometimes it just needs someone being told to shut up after they've been asked to and haven't. On threads like this, the trigger should be a lot more easily pulled, I think.


 
TBF to the editor, although you're absolutely right about the way these threads go, intervening because someone won't shut up when they've been told to by other posters is pretty difficult and would bring in a new area they've never had to police before. 

I'd have had no objection at all to a number of bans being dished out over the course of these threads, personally, but I'm not sure about that particular line.


----------



## ymu (Apr 12, 2013)

Fridgemagnet does it sometimes, when he is around. Warning to leave the thread is usually enough.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Apr 12, 2013)

ymu said:


> Fridgemagnet does it sometimes, when he is around.


 
Well I'd imagine he does it because he's had time to read the posts and has decided the person in question is being out of order, which is fine. I'm just not quite comfortable with the mods being asked to intervene on the basis that people should shut up when they've been told, even though I can see some ways it would be a good thing. If that makes sense.


----------



## toggle (Apr 12, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> TBF to the editor, although you're absolutely right about the way these threads go, intervening because someone won't shut up when they've been told to by other posters is pretty difficult and would bring in a new area they've never had to police before.
> 
> I'd have had no objection at all to a number of bans being dished out over the course of these threads, personally, but I'm not sure about that particular line.


 
the problem is there are certain posters who try to make these threads all about them.to the point that any reasonable discussion about feminism or any discussion about abuse or women's experiences gets drowned under a torrent of either funny guys telling sexist jokes, or blokes telling women what they think, or people just simply saying that feminist discussion is too shit and boring to have a place on urban. it usually then moves onto attack of any woman who woin't shut up like a good girl and let the men talk


for the majority, a threat by the mods, which was then ignored, then a temp ban has made them leave well alone. I think some will need a second warning. I don't want anyone banned cause they haven't been taught enough manners to know that a discussion about sexism isn't the place for 'funny' sexism or telling women how to be women, but i would like them to get a lesson in manners and the temp ban seems to work for that.


----------



## toggle (Apr 12, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Well I'd imagine he does it because he's had time to read the posts and has decided the person in question is being out of order, which is fine. I'm just not quite comfortable with the mods being asked to intervene on the basis that people should shut up when they've been told, even though I can see some ways it would be a good thing. If that makes sense.


 
it got to the point where there was a persistent level of disruption from a small group of people who made sure there could be NO disucssion on certain topics. and that needed to be stopped. why shoulod they have the power to block women from discussing their expereinces of sexism?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Apr 12, 2013)

toggle said:


> it got to the point where there was a persistent level of disruption from a small group of people who made sure there could be NO disucssion on certain topics. and that needed to be stopped. why shoulod they have the power to block women from discussing their expereinces of sexism?


 
I didn't argue that they should. I can see it happening very well and I've no problem at all with them being banned. My point was only that the ban should be on the basis of the mods reading what they've said and finding it unacceptable, not purely because they've not stopped when told. In part it's a (probably excessively nerdy) point about the principles of board moderation, but I do also think it's reasonable for the editor to point to lack of time sometimes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 13, 2013)

cesare said:


> Good phrase!


 
I'm *really* tempted to have that printed up as a t-shirt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 13, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> IMO much, much more job sharing is essential if society is to become significantly less patriarchal. There's a campaign to make it possible for MPs. I'd also like to see an enforced quota for employers.
> 
> http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/38829
> http://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/promoting-job-sharing-lets-start-at-the-top/
> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ruth-fox/parliamentary-jobsharing-_b_2722484.html


 
Jobsharing has been proposed as a "solution" for decades (I remember going to a seminar about it, done by _Spare Rib_, I think) way back in the mid-'80s, and even then it was acknowledged that it could only ever ameliorate an existing problem - that it does nothing to tackle the actual issue.

You may believe that reformism is a fine thing, but in my experience it's so fucking gradualist as to allow the powers-that-be to maintain the imbalance of "equality", rather than allowing that imbalance to be redressed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 13, 2013)

EastEnder said:


> On a lighter note, thought some of you might like reading the reviews of these silly pens: BIC Cristal For Her Ball Pen


 
Three cheers for weepiper!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 13, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> I've been accused of sexism and racism in this thread. Not pleasant. But you won't be getting detailed reported posts about my sexism or racism because they've been invented. I have childish stalkers who contribute nothing but personal attacks.


 
Interesting. You choose to criminalise and infantilise those who tell you you're wrong, and yet if anyone is acting immaturely, it's you. 

You've got absolutely no self-awareness, have you?


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 13, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> You choose to criminalise those who tell you you're wrong


 
Care to explain that?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 13, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Care to explain that?


 
Nice selective quoting. Showing yourself up again. 

You're accusing people of criminal behaviour when you accuse them of stalking you, you plum.


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 13, 2013)

toggle said:


> Fb has a history of baiting firky, in a way that came across to me as mirroring rape appologism. Because firky didn't appreciate a nice view of teenage vagina, he faced attempts to shame him as not being man enough.


 
This is a flat lie. I didn't even post in the thread you are referring to. You're trying to get me banned by smearing me as a rape apologist. Shame on you.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 13, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> I've been accused of sexism and racism in this thread. Not pleasant. But you won't be getting detailed reported posts about my sexism or racism because they've been invented. I have childish stalkers who contribute nothing but personal attacks.


I dispute this. I certainly did not make any personal attacks against you, I tried to debate the issue whereas you just belittled my arguments because they didn't coincide with your views.

But if you want to paint yourself as the victim of the horrid feminazis, you go right ahead.


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 13, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nice selective quoting. Showing yourself up again.
> 
> You're accusing people of criminal behaviour when you accuse them of stalking you, you plum.


 So you're arguing that stalking on the boards is the same criminal offence as following people around in real life. Fabulous. That's the funniest thing I've read here in ages.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 13, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> This is a flat lie. I didn't even post in the thread you are referring to. You're trying to get me banned by smearing me as a rape apologist. Shame on you.


 
Very few people are trying to get you banned, they're trying to get you to open your fucking mind, rather than crapping out your opinions as though they're verities.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 13, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> So you're arguing that stalking on the boards is the same criminal offence as following people around in real life. Fabulous. That's the funniest thing I've read here in ages.


If you'd been a victim of internet stalking, maybe you wouldn't find it so funny.


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 13, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> I dispute this. I certainly did not make any personal attacks against you, I tried to debate the issue whereas you just belittled my arguments because they didn't coincide with your views.
> 
> But if you want to paint yourself as the victim of the horrid feminazis, you go right ahead.


You only have to read firky and toggle's attacks on me. Why do you assume that I'm accusing you? I'm not.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 13, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> You only have to read firky and toggle's attacks on me. Why do you assume that I'm accusing you? I'm not.


I assumed nothing. I merely pointed out that not everyone is making personal attacks, as you seem to assume.


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 13, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Very few people are trying to get you banned, they're trying to get you to open your fucking mind, rather than crapping out your opinions as though they're verities.


I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to toggle. She wrote a long post about me for editor's benefit. Try reading before posting.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 13, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> So you're arguing that stalking on the boards is the same criminal offence as following people around in real life. Fabulous. That's the funniest thing I've read here in ages.


 
So you've missed the last couple of years of legislation, then? Stalking, physically, by phone or over the net, is legally construed as harrassment.

I previously believed that only Jazzz was worthy of the honour, but I've just promoted you to Cptin Fceplm too.


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 13, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> I assumed nothing. I merely pointed out that not everyone is making personal attacks, as you seem to assume.


I didn't say that everyone is attacking me. Please don't assume my assumptions for me. If you want to know what I think you could always ask me.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 13, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to toggle.


 
You think it makes any difference who you were talking to? You were talking shit. *That* is what matters.



> She wrote a long post about me for editor's benefit. Try reading before posting.


 
I do read before posting. I even challenge my own assumptions sometimes. You should try it. You might humiliate yourself less frequently.


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 13, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> So you've missed the last couple of years of legislation, then? Stalking, physically, by phone or over the net, is legally construed as harrassment.
> 
> I previously believed that only Jazzz was worthy of the honour, but I've just promoted you to Cptin Fceplm too.


Right. So you think I should report Firky to the police.


----------



## Firky (Apr 13, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> You only have to read firky and toggle's attacks on me. Why do you assume that I'm accusing you? I'm not.


 
They're not attacks. They're people telling you like it is, and we are not alone. Others do it too... maybe a bit less vehemently but it is there.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 13, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> I've been accused of sexism and racism in this thread. Not pleasant. But you won't be getting detailed reported posts about my sexism or racism because they've been invented. I have childish stalkers who contribute nothing but personal attacks.





Frumious B. said:


> I didn't say that everyone is attacking me. Please don't assume my assumptions for me. If you want to know what I think you could always ask me.


 
Which is it?


----------



## Firky (Apr 13, 2013)

I was about to do that!


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 13, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Right. So you think I should report Firky to the police.


No, now you're being obtuse, and deliberately so.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 13, 2013)

Firky said:


> I was about to do that!


Sorry


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 13, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> No, now you're being obtuse, and deliberately so.


No, VP is the one being obtuse. Do keep up.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 13, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Right. So you think I should report Firky to the police.


 
I think you should do exactly what you think is appropriate.You don't need guidance from me.

You accused people of criminal behaviour, but you've failed to make a case for them doing anything much more than pulling you up on the bullshit you've written, and tetchily ticking you off for being a mansplaining wanker. If I'm conversing with someone who consistently repeats the same mistake again and again, I tend to get tetchy too.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 13, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> No, VP is the one being obtuse. Do keep up.


Do stop being patronising.

ViolentPanda has been perfectly clear on this thread, and has actually read the OP. More than you have.


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 13, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Which is it?


Your question makes no sense. It shows that you didn't even read the posts of mine which you are quoting. Which explains why you don't understand what I say.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 13, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> No, VP is the one being obtuse. Do keep up.


 
Because, of course, it's obtuse to point out to someone when their language is contentious.

I bet you don't even get the irony of *you* pushing such a view, Cptin!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 13, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Your question makes no sense. It shows that you didn't even read the posts of mine which you are quoting. Which explains why you don't understand what I say.


 
Wow, not just a mansplainer and obtuse, but disingenuous too, Cptin!


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 13, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Your question makes no sense. It shows that you didn't even read the posts of mine which you are quoting. Which explains why you don't understand what I say.


My question is perfectly clear - which statement is it?

Is it that you are the victim of 'personal attacks from childish stalkers' or that, as per your second statement, you're not? You can't have it both ways despite your persistent attempts to do so.


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 13, 2013)

Both statements are true. The first one does not say that everyone here is a childish stalker, accusing me of sexism and racism. Please read it again.


----------



## toggle (Apr 13, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> This is a flat lie. I didn't even post in the thread you are referring to. You're trying to get me banned by smearing me as a rape apologist. Shame on you.


 
yes you did.

and

i've not done anything of the sort, your reading skills aren't up to much, are they.


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 13, 2013)

toggle said:


> yes you did.
> 
> and
> 
> i've not done anything of the sort, your reading skills aren't up to much, are they.


The thread is still there. See if you can find a post by me. There isn't one.


----------



## toggle (Apr 13, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> The thread is still there. See if you can find a post by me. There isn't one.


http://www.urban75.net/forums/search/20293221/

not one.

many.


----------



## mrsfran (Apr 13, 2013)

toggle said:


> http://www.urban75.net/forums/search/20293221/
> 
> not one.
> 
> many.


 
It says the requested search could not be found.


----------



## mrsfran (Apr 13, 2013)

So this thread has succeeded in putting me right off. I do not have the emotional resiliance, patience, or fucks to give to fight battles like this one.


----------



## ymu (Apr 13, 2013)

mrsfran said:


> It says the requested search could not be found.


 


> *Have you pulled on a bus?*
> And did anyone spot that when I was irritated by weeps' non-sequitur, I assumed she was a man? How sexist of me!​Post by: Frumious B., Mar 23, 2013 in forum: health, relationships, sexuality
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 13, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> This is a flat lie. I didn't even post in the thread you are referring to. You're trying to get me banned by smearing me as a rape apologist. Shame on you.


Yes you did. Here are several posts on p3 of the thread, including the ones where weepiper explained why the thread was about sexual abuse and the one where you posted you didn't care about the thread or the person it was aimed at.
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/have-you-pulled-on-a-bus.307834/page-3
ETA ymu beat me to it.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 13, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> The thread is still there. See if you can find a post by me. There isn't one.


You lied. And got caught in your lie.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 13, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Both statements are true. The first one does not say that everyone here is a childish stalker, accusing me of sexism and racism. Please read it again.


 
'Read it again'? Why should i bother, you don't read any posts that are put to you.


----------



## mrsfran (Apr 13, 2013)

He'll claim he assumed you were talking about another thread, not that one.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 13, 2013)

mrsfran said:


> He'll claim he assumed you were talking about another thread, not that one.


Of course. Standard operating procedure.

I thought you might like this as well, from Stanford University 'No Turning Back: A guide to feminist resources on the internet'
http://ntb.stanford.edu/resources.html


----------



## toggle (Apr 13, 2013)

mrsfran said:


> He'll claim he assumed you were talking about another thread, not that one.


 
he can make up whatever excuses he wants. it's just more bullshit from a known bullshitter.


----------



## xslavearcx (Apr 13, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Of course. Standard operating procedure.
> 
> I thought you might like this as well, from Stanford University 'No Turning Back: A guide to feminist resources on the internet'
> http://ntb.stanford.edu/resources.html


 
bookmarked


----------



## toggle (Apr 13, 2013)

there's loads out there.

some of the popular blogs can be a good starting point for campaigns, although a lopt of the ones i've checked out recently are very us-centric.


found this one though. made me laugh.

http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/resources/mirror-derailing-for-dummies/


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 14, 2013)

mrsfran said:


> He'll claim he assumed you were talking about another thread, not that one.


Indeed. See if you can find a post anywhere which suggests I'm a rape apologist. I'm amazed that people here tolerate Toggle's vicious muck-raking.

But the important thing is that all the women stick together, yes? Seems it's a threat having a male feminist on your turf. You do realise that equal rights are everyone's responsibility? I'm desperate for more progress in getting men to share the power.  Sweden managed to get 50% representation of women in parliament in the '70s. They've since slipped to 44% but it's still a different planet compared to here. If we want to get there men and women need to work together. So I won't be put off by all the witless remarks here.

In real life I have always found the majority of feminists welcome men to the cause. Some of the more radical ones are an exception - for example the axe-wearing separatists I studied with 30 years ago in the Manchester uni English dept. They had a hell of a lot to say about patriarchy in literary criticism, the university and the world, and all of it was true. I also support their right to live a separatist life. Their reasons are well founded. The separatist communities in the US had to confront the issue of how to raise males who were born in those communities, but they managed it (as did Linda Bellos). The separatists at university were never able to study separately but they made some big changes which all the men benefited from. I learned a lot by listening to them - I'd say they probably taught me more than any of the tutors. I only wish they had gone on to have more impact in society. At the time I assumed that every university department had a group like that, and they were going to work together to bring about some massive upheavals. That's why I'm disappointed by the pace of progress.

Here's the film festival story:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/03/asking-men-to-leave-feminist-film
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/07/feminist-troublemaker-film-festival

Funny how none of the feminists in this thread were aware of it.

I didn't leave the Q&A. If you want a women-only Q&A, you shouldn't sell tickets to men. I'd paid to listen to Linda Bellos and travelled across London for it, so I stayed. Sadly the session was dominated by the question of whether Julia Long should have asked men to leave, so there was no discussion of the subject of the film (separatist communities) or any other issues. But I did have a long chat with Linda in the bar afterwards, which more than made up for it.

P.S. The founder of this charity www.gingerbread.org.uk is looking for help with new projects. I meet her most weeks in Brixton, so if anyone wants to be introduced let me know. She's moving to Camden soon so maybe some North London urbs would like to work with her. She's one of the most wonderful people you could ever have in your life. http://bit.ly/YFDvBX


----------



## weepiper (Apr 14, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> But the important thing is that all the women stick together, yes? Seems it's a threat having a male feminist on your turf.


 
wow, you really are an arse.


----------



## JimW (Apr 14, 2013)

weepiper said:


> wow, you really are an arse.


That is a classic  Frumious, every time you post you confirm for anyone not following your ongoing antics (never noticed you previously myself) what a complete arse you are.


----------



## ymu (Apr 14, 2013)

Hush, he's a feminist (of some unspecified type ). That means he doesn't have to think about what the word 'feminist' means. He is entitled to tell us what it is because he is one.


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 14, 2013)

Keep it up! All you plonkers are making me look better and better.


----------



## trashpony (Apr 14, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Keep it up! All you plonkers are making me look better and better.


Who to?


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 14, 2013)

Just a thought on my part but, considering that the usual suspects don't seem to mind appearing for a group troll of feminism or sexism-related threads, they can seem curiously defensive when people round on them for doing so.

If they don't want a fight then perhaps they could explain why they act and post in a way that strongly suggest they're looking for one. Or is it that they want to pick fights and then start whining when they face that irksome occupational hazard of actually losing one?

Just a thought.


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Keep it up! All you plonkers are making me look better and better.


 
who on earth do you think you're impressing?


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 14, 2013)

If you read the whole thread and see who's answered the OP and who hasn't, it's pretty clear who the trolls are.


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 14, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> If you read the whole thread and see who's answered the OP and who hasn't, it's pretty clear who the trolls are.


 
Oh yes, it's _very_ clear who the trolls are.


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Indeed. See if you can find a post anywhere which suggests I'm a rape apologist. I'm amazed that people here tolerate Toggle's vicious muck-raking.


 
anyone who has actually read that thread and my post on it will clearly see the comments i'm referring to, where you start the kind of victim blaming bullshit that is the usual purview of rape apologists.

you condem yourself with your own words


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 14, 2013)

toggle said:


> who on earth do you think you're impressing?


The thread's not all about you and your bile. It could be a useful resource for activists if visitors put the trolls on ignore.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 14, 2013)




----------



## JimW (Apr 14, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> If you read the whole thread and see who's answered the OP and who hasn't, it's pretty clear who the trolls are.


So the current evidence of your feminism is that you claim to be one and have posted a few links, against which we must set the evidence of your actual behaviour. Shouldn't think the jury will be out too long.


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> The thread's not all about you and your bile. It could be a useful resource for activists if visitors put the trolls on ignore.


 
it's not about your attention seeking and constant mansplaining of how women think and feel.

if we didn't want men discussing this, can you perhaps explain why, out of all the men posting on this thread, none of them are supporting you and none of the women are complying at them?


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 14, 2013)

JimW said:


> Shouldn't think the jury will be out too long.


----------



## Frumious B. (Apr 14, 2013)

toggle said:


> can you perhaps explain


Thanks, but I'd rather talk to my cat. Have a great day.


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Thanks, but I'd rather talk to my cat. Have a great day.


 
http://jezebel.com/5992479/if-i-admit-that-hating-men-is-a-thing-will-you-stop-turning-it-into-a-self fulfilling-prophecy

cause you can't explain it other than to admit that the women who have posted here against you just don't like you. we like men, other men. men who treat the issues we care about with respect, men who understand, or men who don't understand but are prepared to learn. it's not men in general, it's you.it's not man-hating to not like you, you're not likable. you're deliberately rude and ignorant and try to pretend you know more about the experience of being a woman than women do. I don't like men who do that. so i don't like you.


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 14, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Thanks, but I'd rather talk to my cat. Have a great day.


 
((((((((kitteh)))))))))


----------



## cesare (Apr 14, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Thanks, but I'd rather talk to my cat. Have a great day.


If you try and lecture it about cat behaviour, it'll probably ignore you.


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 14, 2013)

cesare said:


> If you try and lecture it about cat behaviour, it'll probably ignore you.


 
That won't stop FB from trying.

If self-awareness was dynamite he couldn't blow his nose.


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

Bakunin said:


> That won't stop FB from trying.
> 
> If self-awareness was dynamite he couldn't blow his nose.


 

my sweetie.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 14, 2013)

Okay, I know this is late and the thread is pretty thoroughly disrupted but, Frumious B, if you could leave this alone from now on I would be most _awfully_ grateful.


----------



## captainmission (Apr 14, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> But the important thing is that all the women stick together, yes? Seems it's a threat having a male feminist on your turf.


----------



## ymu (Apr 14, 2013)

I like that, but it's a bit unfair when he's been asked to leave the thread.

If he fails to leave the thread, all bets are off, of course.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 14, 2013)

Ok. I know you shouldn't have to, but, no one is agreeing with anything FB had to say on this thread, it's not like other threads where there have been a gang of blokes telling women how to think, plenty of decent blokes here, so, how about its time to just totally ignore him? 
As I said I know you shouldn't have to, but it's just him causing trouble and winding people up, no one is agreeing him or being swayed by his arguments. 
Just maybe leave him to talk to himself?


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 14, 2013)

It's not having a male feminist on our 'turf' that 'threatens' us, it's having a mansplaining muppet telling us how we feel and how we're doing feminism all wrong that, to put it bluntly, makes a lot us pretty damn pissed off.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 14, 2013)

I don't think it should be up to mods to remove people for expressing an opinion no matter how deluded/wrobg/fucked up. 
Unless they are doing or saying something that could be judged as legally dubious if said in public. 
The endless arguing is getting in the way of important conversation. 
Engaging people like FB etc ie not helping anything. 
If it was working and their minds were being expanded then fair enough but they're not. 
And it's putting people like MrsFran (and me) off.


----------



## Buckaroo (Apr 14, 2013)

I think it was the first post from FruminousB that scuppered the thread. In answer to OP, 'How can I become more involved in the feminist movement?'

'The best thing you could do would be to unite the disparate feminist groups around a central mission. What they're lacking is focus. Since women got the vote and equal pay legislation there hasn't been a goal for everyone to work for. A bit of noise about violence or abortion or FGM or Page 3 or whatever doesn't make much difference.'

It's the political equivalent of a man telling a woman to take Rosehip or whatever for PMT. What you should do love is unite the disparate blah-di-blah...what they're lacking is focus....so stop whinging about violence and that etc..

(Oh and please, anyone, an idiot's guide to the quotes thing!)


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

kittyP said:


> I don't think it should be up to mods to remove people for expressing an opinion no matter how deluded/wrobg/fucked up.
> Unless they are doing or saying something that could be judged as legally dubious if said in public.
> The endless arguing is getting in the way of important conversation.
> Engaging people like FB etc ie not helping anything.
> ...


 
it's about removing people who have a pattern of disrupting discussion on certain subjects from threads on that subject.

and i'm so delighted to know you're having trouble with those of us who are trying to make these boards a less sexist place. perhaps if the sexists would fuck off or shut up then there wouldn't be any need to offend anyone's delicate sensibilities by challenging them.

and yes i'm pissed off right now, because i do get pissed off when anyone is complaining at those challenging sexism and not complaining at the sexists. if you don't want to challenge them, fine, just stay out of the way of those of us who do.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 14, 2013)

Buckaroo said:


> I think it was the first post from FruminousB that scuppered the thread. In answer to OP, 'How can I become more involved in the feminist movement?'
> 
> 'The best thing you could do would be to unite the disparate feminist groups around a central mission. What they're lacking is focus. Since women got the vote and equal pay legislation there hasn't been a goal for everyone to work for. A bit of noise about violence or abortion or FGM or Page 3 or whatever doesn't make much difference.'
> 
> ...


Press the button on the RHS of 'spoil' on the bottom row of buttons when you click 'post reply' & enter your text between the two sets of square brackets.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 14, 2013)

ymu said:


> I like that, but it's a bit unfair when he's been asked to leave the thread.
> 
> If he fails to leave the thread, all bets are off, of course.


He's still reading the thread, he's liking posts.


----------



## ymu (Apr 14, 2013)

Buckaroo said:


> (Oh and please, anyone, an idiot's guide to the quotes thing!)


Options:

1. Hit the reply box under the post you want to quote, and it's all done and in quotes for you at the bottom of the page.

2. Hit the quote icon (open quotation marks symbol) at the far right of the second row of icons above the new post box and paste your text in between the two quote tags: [qu0te]-->> here <<-- [/qu0te]

3. Highlight the text you want in quotes and hit the quote icon.

1. is best for quoting posts because it will give you a link to the original within the quote box.


----------



## Buckaroo (Apr 14, 2013)

.Thanks ymu


----------



## Buckaroo (Apr 14, 2013)

.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 14, 2013)

toggle said:


> it's about removing people who have a pattern of disrupting discussion on certain subjects from threads on that subject.
> 
> and i'm so delighted to know you're having trouble with those of us who are trying to make these boards a less sexist place. perhaps if the sexists would fuck off or shut up then there wouldn't be any need to offend anyone's delicate sensibilities by challenging them.
> 
> and yes i'm pissed off right now, because i do get pissed off when anyone is complaining at those challenging sexism and not complaining at the sexists. if you don't want to challenge them, fine, just stay out of the way of those of us who do.


 
 Did you read my previous post?



> Ok. I know you shouldn't have to, but, no one is agreeing with anything FB had to say on this thread, it's not like other threads where there have been a gang of blokes telling women how to think, plenty of decent blokes here, so, how about its time to just totally ignore him?
> As I said I know you shouldn't have to, but it's just him causing trouble and winding people up, no one is agreeing him or being swayed by his arguments.
> Just maybe leave him to talk to himself?


 

I don't have delicate sensibilities and I don't have trouble with you trying to make the boards a less sexist place.  
I am (and others) are a bit worn out of seeing the same old arguments between the same people and getting nowhere. 
I am not complaining at you, I am complaining about FB and I was just suggesting that constantly engaging FB is not helping and maybe ignoring him ourselves might be better than expecting a mod to read every post on every thread to make an opinion as to whether to ban/remove. 

Please don't start on me as well because you totally misread my intentions.


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

kittyP said:


> Did you read my previous post?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
yes.

it's egging him on, whether that is your intention or not.

We've covered the complete futility of ignoring this kind of poster repeatedly. it doesn't work. it lets them think ti's ok to post crap. it encourages others to post crap and there's less feminist discussion because women won't post to have their experiences turned into entertainment for sexists. the only thing that has been shown to work is having a mod remove them from the threads about sexism and temp ban if they don't.

there has been more open discussion about this issue since mods fridgey and mrs m have started doing this than in many months before, and the men who were previously the worst offenders for disruption have not posted at all here. give it a few more threads and we might actually be in a place tyo have a relatively troll free discussion rather than where we were before of having no discussion. it's about breaking eggs before you make the omelet. this is the breaking eggs stage.


----------



## ymu (Apr 14, 2013)

Actually, spanglechick speaking out had a far greater practical impact than any bannings IMO. A lot of this nonsense is because they think those who disagree with them are marginalised extremist 'feminazis' and can be bullied with impunity.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 14, 2013)

Aye, spanglechick's speaking out made a lot of people realise that viewpoints needed to be modified.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 14, 2013)

toggle said:
			
		

> yes.
> 
> it's egging him on, whether that is your intention or not.
> 
> ...



It was just a suggestion. I am not demanding people do what I say. 
I am not saying ignore every sexist comment that is made. 
In my opinion you are egging on FB far more than I have. 

It comes across that you are willing to lose the very people who you are really speaking to for the sake of constant arguing with one fucker who is not going to listen.


----------



## ymu (Apr 14, 2013)

She's not egging him on. She is not allowing him to hijack a thread to lick his wounded ego on. You might disagree with her tactics, but it would be more fruitful to frame the suggestion that we all ignore him as an attack on him not as an attack on those who are disagreeing with him.

sojourner asked him to leave the thread days ago and he ignored it. Say what you think, but he is the problem, not those who are telling them what they think of his behaviour. It does not go away if you ignore it, it gets worse.


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

ignoring them does not work. if it worked, there wouldn't have been any need to start complaining, cause we'd been ignoring it for ages. if we're on to complaining that we have the same discussion over and over again, then add 'why don't you just ignore them' to your list.

we've been ignoring a level of background sexism on here for ages. not discussing feminism cause it turned into a bunfight. not challenging the mansplainers and sexists. if ignoring them worked, then there wouldn't be the crap above, cause there wouldn't be any sexism left on these boards after we ignored it for so long.

it's getting better and IMO, will continue to get better. there are far fewer people making sexist comments, far fewer people egging on those that do, and a lot of people have out their head up above the parapet and told everyone that they support feminism. it's becoming more clear that people like me and ymu and eg and cesare aren't the minority here. it's the sexists that are and by creating this atmosphere it will empower more people to speak up and marginalize the sexists even more. if you can't handle this turning into a bunfight, then stay out of it until we're done.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 14, 2013)

ymu said:
			
		

> She's not egging him on. She is not allowing him to hijack a thread to lick his wounded ego on. You might disagree with her tactics, but it would be more fruitful to frame the suggestion that we all ignore him as an attack on him not as an attack on those who are disagreeing with him.
> 
> sojourner asked him to leave the thread days ago and he ignored it. Say what you think, but he is the problem, not those who are telling them what they think of his behaviour. It does not go away if you ignore it, it gets worse.



I wasn't actually saying she was egging him on, just more than I was. 

And I was actually framing the ignoring as an attack on him if you read my first post on the matter. 
But what happened, she attacked me, someone who has stated over and again that I am interested in the whole issue and what she has to say. 
She argued with me rather than explaining why she disagreed with me. 
I'm not the fucking enemy. He is. 
By arguing with me, someone who actually agrees with her point of view, I think is fueling FBs standpoint and arguing for the sake of arguing. 

Yes, you may be upset with having to keep explaining calmly but really what is the better option? 

It just now comes across as arguing with everybody that doesn't say exactly what you're saying. Which is pointless and ignoring the cause. 

Ffs. Now I'm fucking angry and I was reading and replying to this thread to better educate myself on feminism. 

I understand why you're angry but what are you achieving?


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

ymu said:


> Actually, spanglechick speaking out had a far greater practical impact than any bannings IMO. A lot of this nonsense is because they think those who disagree with them are marginalised extremist 'feminazis' and can be bullied with impunity.


 
that as well.


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

kittyP said:


> I understand why you're angry but what are you achieving?


 
there's one disruptive prick trying to fuck up this thread. a few weeks ago, there would have been more.

we're aiming for none.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 14, 2013)

toggle said:
			
		

> ignoring them does not work. if it worked, there wouldn't have been any need to start complaining, cause we'd been ignoring it for ages. if we're on to complaining that we have the same discussion over and over again, then add 'why don't you just ignore them' to your list.
> 
> we've been ignoring a level of background sexism on here for ages. not discussing feminism cause it turned into a bunfight. not challenging the mansplainers and sexists. if ignoring them worked, then there wouldn't be the crap above, cause there wouldn't be any sexism left on these boards after we ignored it for so long.
> 
> it's getting better and IMO, will continue to get better. there are far fewer people making sexist comments, far fewer people egging on those that do, and a lot of people have out their head up above the parapet and told everyone that they support feminism. it's becoming more clear that people like me and ymu and eg and cesare aren't the minority here. it's the sexists that are and by creating this atmosphere it will empower more people to speak up and marginalize the sexists even more. if you can't handle this turning into a bunfight, then stay out of it until we're done.



For the record, I think spanglechick, sojourner, equationgirl and cesare have dealt with it all pretty well. 
You seem to just be attacking people at random.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 14, 2013)

toggle said:
			
		

> there's one disruptive prick trying to fuck up this thread. a few weeks ago, there would have been more.
> 
> we're aiming for none.



And you have already had the op of the thread saying she's had enough. 

How many people who are on your side are you willing to risk losing for the sake of a couple of pricks? 

I am not saying don't call people out but there are ways and means of doing it.


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

kittyP said:


> For the record, I think spanglechick, sojourner, equationgirl and cesare have dealt with it all pretty well.
> You seem to just be attacking people at random.


 

pmsl.


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

kittyP said:


> And you have already had the op of the thread saying she's had enough.
> 
> How many people who are on your side are you willing to risk losing for the sake of a couple of pricks?
> 
> I am not saying don't call people out but there are ways and means of doing it.


 

if you think you can do better be my guest.

otherwise...




> if you can't handle this turning into a bunfight, then stay out of it until we're done.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 14, 2013)

toggle said:
			
		

> pmsl.



Why did you attack me then? 

You didn't have to agree with me but you instantly went for me.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 14, 2013)

toggle said:
			
		

> if you think you can do better be my guest.
> 
> otherwise...



But this thread was started by someone asking for advice. 
You don't have to have a bunfight on every single god dammed thread. 

No I won't stay away because I want to learn. 
It's sad that you are willing to let me go from this subject.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 14, 2013)

And I don't think I can do better because you have more knowledge and experience than I do. 
I just object at being spoken to in the way you have. 
When I'm on your side it's unnecessary.


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

kittyP said:


> But this thread was started by someone asking for advice.
> You don't have to have a bunfight on every single god dammed thread.
> 
> No I won't stay away because I want to learn.
> It's sad that you are willing to let me go from this subject.


 
oh dear.

i could avoid the bunfight by letting the sexism go unchallenged. that does not stop the sexism. it encourages more.


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

kittyP said:


> And I don't think I can do better because you have more knowledge and experience than I do.
> I just object at being spoken to in the way you have.
> When I'm on your side it's unnecessary.


 
you're not on my side when you're attacking me for attacking the sexist.


----------



## 8115 (Apr 14, 2013)

I think the point kittyP is making is that (this time) someone made a point about single issue feminism that was maybe a valid point, but was clumsily made. They were rapidly told to fuck right off, and called a smug liberal cunt, and hence the bunfight. It all seems a bit unnecessary to be honest.

eta: sorry if that's not what you mean, but that's how I see it.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 14, 2013)

toggle said:
			
		

> oh dear.
> 
> i could avoid the bunfight by letting the sexism go unchallenged. that does not stop the sexism. it encourages more.



Where did I say let sexism go unchallenged? Where ffs? 

I was just sick of the arguments between FB and others taking over the entire thread. Which they had. On this thread. 

I am not saying ignore all sexist comments from now. 
And you didn't have to agree with me but I'm sorry, I am allowed to take umbrage with being spoken to in the manner you did when I'm on your fucking side. 

You cannot ignore the fact that it's just degenerating in to arguing rather than informing and expanding minds and ideas. 
FB is not about to say "you know what, you were right and I was wrong" is he?


----------



## ymu (Apr 14, 2013)

Sorry, kitty, I missed where that started.

And what you're probably missing is the sheer volume of shit toggle has had to put up with. And me, given that you clearly think I'm well out of order too.

I've had it up to here with this. Two fucking years of trying not to let these arseholes get away with it and still there is still more opprobrium for feeding the sexist trolls than being a fucking sexist troll. Sod that for a game of soldiers.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 14, 2013)

toggle said:
			
		

> you're not on my side when you're attacking me for attacking the sexist.



No I wasn't at all.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 14, 2013)

ymu said:
			
		

> Sorry, kitty, I missed where that started.
> 
> And what you're probably missing is the sheer volume of shit toggle has had to put up with. And me, given that you clearly think I'm well out of order too.
> 
> I've had it up to here with this. Two fucking years of trying not to let these arseholes get away with it and still there is still more opprobrium for feeding the sexist trolls than being a fucking sexist troll. Sod that for a game of soldiers.



Oh ffs I knew I shouldn't have left your name off. 
I don't think you're "well out of order" at all. 
Your arguing with the wrong person.


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

I feel that what you've done is walk in to the end of this and ask why I can't be a nice little girlie and not challenge anyone and not be argumentative. effectively to be nice and feminine. and let the menz talk over me, then there wouldn't be a big scary fight.

that works if your aim is to avoid a fight. but that isn't my aim.because it is time to have a fight about this rather than stay quiet.

my aim is to challenge the sexism and encourage others to do so.

as I've said above, a few weeks ago, there would have been a lot more sexist posts in this and a lot more people egging on the sexists and a lot fewer people willing to challenge them. if the price of that is a few bunfights until the sexists learn to stfu, then that is the price.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 14, 2013)

8115 said:
			
		

> I think the point kittyP is making is that (this time) someone made a point about single issue feminism that was maybe a valid point, but was clumsily made. They were rapidly told to fuck right off, and called a smug liberal cunt, and hence the bunfight. It all seems a bit unnecessary to be honest.
> 
> eta: sorry if that's not what you mean, but that's how I see it.



Sorry you did get it wrong. 
I wasn't agreeing with anything FB said.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 14, 2013)

toggle said:
			
		

> I feel that what you've done is walk in to the end of this and ask why I can't be a nice little girlie and not challenge anyone and not be argumentative. effectively to be nice and feminine. and let the menz talk over me, then there wouldn't be a big scary fight.
> 
> that works if your aim is to avoid a fight. but that isn't my aim.because it is time to have a fight about this rather than stay quiet.
> 
> ...



I have been following this thread and others from the beginning. 
I'm not asking you to be "a nice little girlie". 
I'm not scared of a fight. 
Just that this time, this time, it was starting to defeat the object and become fucking futile.


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

8115 said:


> I think the point kittyP is making is that (this time) someone made a point about single issue feminism that was maybe a valid point, but was clumsily made. They were rapidly told to fuck right off, and called a smug liberal cunt, and hence the bunfight. It all seems a bit unnecessary to be honest.
> 
> eta: sorry if that's not what you mean, but that's how I see it.


 
from someone who has a history of posting up some quite unpleasant sexism. posts in a thread on feminism attacking feminists over an incident that may or may not have happened, but is certainly being used as ammunition against us.

of course that is going to cause a problem.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 14, 2013)

toggle said:
			
		

> from someone who has a history of posting up some quite unpleasant sexism. posts in a thread on feminism attacking feminists over an incident that may or may not have happened, but is certainly being used as ammunition against us.
> 
> of course that is going to cause a problem.



And I have stated that he was wrong and I wasn't agreeing with FB. Just to clarify.


----------



## 8115 (Apr 14, 2013)

toggle said:


> from someone who has a history of posting up some quite unpleasant sexism. posts in a thread on feminism attacking feminists over an incident that may or may not have happened, but is certainly being used as ammunition against us.
> 
> of course that is going to cause a problem.


 
Yeah fair enough, I just read a bit further and it all gets a bit messy. But things have just blown up from small things when feminism is discussed recently on these boards, I don't know why. Even on other contentious issues like Palestine it never seems to get so heated so fast, I don't know why that is.


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

kittyP said:


> I have been following this thread and others from the beginning.
> I'm not asking you to be "a nice little girlie".
> I'm not scared of a fight.
> Just that this time, this time, it was starting to defeat the object and become fucking futile.


 


no it's not.

it's got the sexist to dig a big enough hole for himself that it's become more obvious what he is, he can't hide behind ambiguity anymore. he's been disruptive enough to be asked to leave. if he tries this kind of disruption again, it will be easier to have him forced to stop. and it's empowered others that i haven't seen post on the subject before to openly comment in support. that isn't futile.

asking me not to argue after the arguing is what has allowed discussion to get as far as it did, and has got us to the point where there's one sexist not 6 on this thread and a lot more outspoken supporters is asking us to shut up and let the sexists get away with it.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 14, 2013)

toggle said:
			
		

> no it's not.
> 
> it's got the sexist to dig a big enough hole for himself that it's become more obvious what he is, he can't hide behind ambiguity anymore. he's been disruptive enough to be asked to leave. if he tries this kind of disruption again, it will be easier to have him forced to stop. and it's empowered others that i haven't seen post on the subject before to openly comment in support. that isn't futile.
> 
> asking me not to argue after the arguing is what has allowed discussion to get as far as it did, and has got us to the point where there's one sexist not 6 on this thread and a lot more outspoken supporters is asking us to shut up and let the sexists get away with it.



I haven't asked you to shut up and not call out sexists. 
You are either purposefully misreading what I said or are so blinded by your own argument that you can't see what I was actually saying. 
I give up. 

Oh and for the record I give up with this particular argument with you, not the whole issue.


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 14, 2013)

A thought:

If people turned up on the mental health threads in nobbing and sobbing and started loony-baiting, or posted racist remarks and jokes on a race-related thread, or anti-Semitic remarks on a thread about Judaism or Islam, or started openly baiting disabled and sick people on the various ATOS and DWP threads, would it be tolerated? Would anyone doing that habitually and claiming it was merely jesting or robust debate or trying to stimulate discussion be believed and tolerated?

No, they wouldn't. And quite rightly.

So why would people not tolerating various forms of bigotry have an issue with a zero-tolerance approach to sexism and related trolling?

Anybody?


----------



## kittyP (Apr 14, 2013)

Bakunin said:
			
		

> A thought:
> 
> If people turned up on the mental health threads in nobbing and sobbing and started loony-baiting, or posted racist remarks and jokes on a race-related thread, or anti-Semitic remarks on a thread about Judaism or Islam, or started openly baiting disabled and sick people on the various ATOS and DWP threads, would it be tolerated? Would anyone doing that habitually and claiming it was merely jesting or robust debate or trying to stimulate discussion be believed and tolerated?
> 
> ...



I am quite able to take the piss out of myself and the situation regarding my mental health problems but no, it wouldn't be accepted, just like bigotry, misogyny, sexism shouldn't and wouldn't be accepted anywhere either. 

I have not said it should be accepted have I? 
Have I? Honestly?


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

8115 said:


> Yeah fair enough, I just read a bit further and it all gets a bit messy. But things have just blown up from small things when feminism is discussed recently on these boards, I don't know why. Even on other contentious issues like Palestine it never seems to get so heated so fast, I don't know why that is.


 

look at frumious above. he's claiming to be a feminist. he might even believe he is. but he is taking a paternalistic attitude and telling women what their experiences of feminism should be. that paternalistic attitude is sexist, whether he believes it is or not.

the reason for the fights recently is that we've been challenging this recently. some of us have decided it's time to challenge it whenever we see it. it blows up because they are used to getting away with it and not being challenged or don't understand why they are being challenged.

from where i'm sitting, it's getting less of a fight. and some of the mods are reacting faster.

palestine threads don't get heated so fast, because people have spent a long time challenging the unthinking pro zionist position. there's not been a group that have got away with posting up loads of pro zionist imagery, jokes and making general anti palistinian comments all over the board, while claiming to be pro palistinian. those who have those beliefs tend to keep it to themselves, don't spread it all over the boards, for the most part, there are some exceptions, but you don't tend to get a group of them and their supporters hitting every thread that is even vaugely about palestine and people asking those who challenge them to 'just ignore them'.


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

kittyP said:


> I haven't asked you to shut up and not call out sexists.


 



> But this thread was started by someone asking for advice.
> You don't have to have a bunfight on every single god dammed thread.


 
I'll challenge the sexists wherever they post. if they stfu, there's no bunfight. if they don't, there is.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 14, 2013)

toggle said:
			
		

> but you don't tend to get a group of them and their supporters hitting every thread that is even vaugely about palestine and people asking those who challenge them to 'just ignore them'.



Have I hit every thread about feminism saying "just ignore the sexists"? 
Have I even said this on this thread? 
No, no I haven't. 
I was just suggesting that the one, one, particular situation with Frumious was masking the rest of the thread. 
And that's all it was was a suggestion.


----------



## 8115 (Apr 14, 2013)

I don't see that men can't offer a pespective on feminism personally.  I think that we might differ over the issue of where that crosses into telling women what they should think.

All the being a wanker came after things blew up.

But you're right that I don't know what's led up to this.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 14, 2013)

And equationgirl, you liked my post suggesting that.


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 14, 2013)

kittyP said:


> I am quite able to take the piss out of myself and the situation regarding my mental health problems but no, it wouldn't be accepted, just like bigotry, misogyny, sexism shouldn't and wouldn't be accepted anywhere either.
> 
> I have not said it should be accepted have I?
> Have I? Honestly?


 
So am I and I'll regularly joke about being loopy. 

You haven't said it should be accepted by any means, but I was addressing the site as a whole as the principle is the same. If anybody did what certain posters have done on threads devoted to, say, religious or ethnic minorities, the disabled and sick, or any other grouping and then tried to pass it off as merely humour or trying to shock some life into those debates then they'd be eaten alive and we wouldn't even be debating whether or not that was a good or necessary thing.

So why are people even having to debate whether or not its permissible for some folk to exercise similar behaviour on sexism or feminism threads when it would be firmly and quickly stamped on on other issues?


----------



## kittyP (Apr 14, 2013)

8115 said:
			
		

> I don't see that men can't offer a pespective on feminism personally.  I think that we might differ over the issue of where that crosses into telling women what they should think.
> 
> All the being a wanker came after things blew up.
> 
> But you're right that I don't know what's led up to this.



There are plenty of men on these boards with feminist pov's that are accepted. 
That wasn't being debated.


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

kittyP said:


> I am quite able to take the piss out of myself and the situation regarding my mental health problems but no, it wouldn't be accepted, just like bigotry, misogyny, sexism shouldn't and wouldn't be accepted anywhere either.
> 
> I have not said it should be accepted have I?
> Have I? Honestly?


 
yes. you've told ME to avoid the bunfights. I only do that by tolerating the sexism until we have fought enough to make this place intolerable for sexists.

this is a result of us starting to take a zero tolerance approach to sexism. it will calm down in a while. it's better already


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 14, 2013)

kittyP said:


> And equationgirl, you liked my post suggesting that.


I liked your post because I agree with what you said, that you weren't agreeing with FB.

Just as I'm about to like another one because I agree with what you've said.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 14, 2013)

Bakunin said:
			
		

> So am I and I'll regularly joke about being loopy.
> 
> You haven't said it should be accepted by any means, but I was addressing the site as a whole as the principle is the same. If anybody did what certain posters have done on threads devoted to, say, religious or ethnic minorities, the disabled and sick, or any other grouping and then tried to pass it off as merely humour or trying to shock some life into those debates then they'd be eaten alive and we wouldn't even be debating whether or not that was a good or necessary thing.
> 
> So why are people even having to debate whether or not its permissible for some folk to exercise similar behaviour on sexism or feminism threads when it would be firmly and quickly stamped on on other issues?



If there was one particular poster that was ruining one particular thread with stupid posts and masking the intent of that thread, whatever the issue at hand, I would suggest, suggest ignoring them particularly if it was obvious they were not going to change their minds. 
And it would just be a suggestion. I don't expect anyone to do what I say.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 14, 2013)

I think that we can all agree that this thread is better without FB on it.

Here's a more global feminist resource for anyone that's interested:
http://www.genderacrossborders.com/feminist-resources/

There's a research survey running at the moment, on attitudes towards feminism.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 14, 2013)

toggle said:
			
		

> yes. you've told ME to avoid the bunfights. I only do that by tolerating the sexism until we have fought enough to make this place intolerable for sexists.
> 
> this is a result of us starting to take a zero tolerance approach to sexism. it will calm down in a while. it's better already



See. You have misread what I said. 

I have not said avoid the bunfights. Plural. 

I was saying that on this particular thread, the arguments with FB in particular where proving futile. 
That's it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Indeed. See if you can find a post anywhere which suggests I'm a rape apologist. I'm amazed that people here tolerate Toggle's vicious muck-raking.
> 
> But the important thing is that all the women stick together, yes? Seems it's a threat having a male feminist on your turf.


 
You're a male feminist?
If that's the case then why are you waving your dick in the faces of women? 

Could it be that your feminism is of the sort that gets forgotten when some bitch dares argue with you?



> You do realise that equal rights are everyone's responsibility?


 
Do you?



> I'm desperate for more progress in getting men to share the power. Sweden managed to get 50% representation of women in parliament in the '70s. They've since slipped to 44% but it's still a different planet compared to here. If we want to get there men and women need to work together.


 
Sweden isn't the UK. The fact that we share a basis in something called "social democracy" means nothing compared to the way our systems have evolved. It's utterly tedious when people spout comparisons without having weighed the systems they're comparing. We're not similar enough to hope to achieve what they did at the speed they did, even with all other things beng equal, because of the aforementioned structural and social differences.



> So I won't be put off by all the witless remarks here.


 
Because obviously, anyone who contradicts you, tits or no tits, is "witless" for not paying attention to what you're saying.



> In real life I have always found the majority of feminists welcome men to the cause. Some of the more radical ones are an exception - for example the axe-wearing separatists I studied with 30 years ago in the Manchester uni English dept. They had a hell of a lot to say about patriarchy in literary criticism, the university and the world, and all of it was true. I also support their right to live a separatist life. Their reasons are well founded. The separatist communities in the US had to confront the issue of how to raise males who were born in those communities, but they managed it (as did Linda Bellos). The separatists at university were never able to study separately but they made some big changes which all the men benefited from. I learned a lot by listening to them - I'd say they probably taught me more than any of the tutors. I only wish they had gone on to have more impact in society. At the time I assumed that every university department had a group like that, and they were going to work together to bring about some massive upheavals. That's why I'm disappointed by the pace of progress.


 
Ah, the whole _schtick_! The "establishing of credentials"; the name-dropping: the indication of listening to *real* feminists who aren't bitches who interrupt and contradict.



> Here's the film festival story:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/03/asking-men-to-leave-feminist-film
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/07/feminist-troublemaker-film-festival
> ...


 
And more credentials.

So what?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Keep it up! All you plonkers are making me look better and better.


 
To whom?
To yourself, perhaps.


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

8115 said:


> I don't see that men can't offer a pespective on feminism personally. I think that we might differ over the issue of where that crosses into telling women what they should think.


 
those men that want to engage WITH feminism and feminists are more than welcome.

the issue* is* those that won't accept women's experiences. tell us how we should think and feel and try to dominate and control discussion to make it about what women think of them and why they can't get a gf. and those who try to shame other men for supporting women or not being masculine enough. those who tell sexist jokes and those women who start either encouraging the above or using the thick man card (men can't look after themselves, washing powder advert etc.). i could post up examples of all of the above that I've challenged in the past couple of weeks. but i don't need to reopen most of that now tbh.

most of the men who engage are self aware enough to listen if the women posting tell them something is out of order if they made a sexist comment by mistake, or if a woman says that they are telling her how to think. they may not agree, but they will listen and usually try to avoid causing offense. even if they don't agree, they will engage as to why. I've agreed to disagree with men on some of these issues. cause they don't make it all about them.and they don't play the massively offended card because i've said something they have said is sexist.


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

kittyP said:


> See. You have misread what I said.
> 
> I have not said avoid the bunfights. Plural.
> 
> ...


 
you do though.

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...eminist-movement.308803/page-17#post-12145681

and the number of people engaging against frumious now compared to those engaging against sexism a few weeks ago shows the point.

this is working.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2013)

JimW said:


> So the current evidence of your feminism is that you claim to be one and have posted a few links, against which we must set the evidence of your actual behaviour. Shouldn't think the jury will be out too long.


 
He's done more than just that, Jim.











He's name-dropped Linda Bellos a couple of times, too. 
And for those who might have concluded that Ms. Bellos is or was some rad-fem separatist, given FB's post, she wasn't/isn't. back when I (passingly) knew her in the '80s, she was a thoughtful, forceful feminist determined to give a voice to as many feminisms as wanted a voice, as well as a voice to working people in general in Lambeth. What we used to call an "inclusivist".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2013)

toggle said:


> it's not about your attention seeking and constant mansplaining of how women think and feel.
> 
> if we didn't want men discussing this, can you perhaps explain why, out of all the men posting on this thread, none of them are supporting you and none of the women are complying at them?


 
I'm guessing that it's because us chaps are all "pussy-whipped" and/or on the cruise for women who are gullible enough to fall for our _faux_-feminism.


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm guessing that it's because us chaps are all "pussy-whipped" and/or on the cruise for women who are gullible enough to fall for our _faux_-feminism.


 
worked for bakunin.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 14, 2013)

8115 said:


> I don't see that men can't offer a pespective on feminism personally. I think that we might differ over the issue of where that crosses into telling women what they should think.
> 
> All the being a wanker came after things blew up.
> 
> But you're right that I don't know what's led up to this.


If you read the thread you will see that a number of men have offered their perspectives, but not in the aggressive 'I know more about feminism than you women do, AND you're doing it all wrong' way that FB has.

My experiences are that feminists of all genders have productive discussions on urban, however for a long time every thread was wrecking by one or more men bandying together and telling the feminists what to do, or belittling them and their opinions, or being snide, or generally just being dicks. I personally appreciate the men who have pointed out to one of their number when they behaved in a sexist manner towards me, and I was off the boards at the time. It is their feminist perspective I am interested in, not FB's.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 14, 2013)

toggle said:
			
		

> you do though.
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...eminist-movement.308803/page-17#post-12145681
> 
> ...



I can't see on my phone but I'm assuming it was well after my original comment that you attacked and then got my back up. 


My main question is why you started attacking me rather than engaging in conversation. 
I have agreed with virtually everything you have said on these boards. 
Your a cool person with good beliefs. 
That's why I was shocked with being instantly treated like the enemy over one fucking suggestion. Yes one comment that was just a suggestion.


----------



## andysays (Apr 14, 2013)

I'm wary about getting into this, because feelings are understandably running high atm.

I think there's very little difference of opinion as to whether certain behaviours, certain types of comment are acceptable. The difference is around what is an appropriate response when we're faced with them.

I think it's best that comments judged out-of-order are challenged immediately, and that those doing the challenging are backed up by others who feel the same. But I also think there can come a time, within a particular thread, when it becomes apparent that the person being challenged isn't going to recant or shut up, when there's a danger that continuing to focus on challenging them ends up derailing the thread in a way which may be equally destructive to those who want to have a thoughtful conversation.

I think (and I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong) that this is what kittyp is arguing here. She certainly doesn't seem to be arguing that FB or whoever shouldn't be challenged at all.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 14, 2013)

andysays said:
			
		

> I'm wary about getting into this, because feelings are understandably running high atm.
> 
> I think there's very little difference of opinion as to whether certain behaviours, certain types of comment are acceptable. The difference is around what is an appropriate response when we're faced with them.
> 
> ...



Yes thank you that was my suggestion.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2013)

toggle said:


> worked for bakunin.


 
Damn you, just snotted half-swallowed tea out of my nose!


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 14, 2013)

I think it's difficult to step back when tensions are running high.


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

kittyP said:


> I can't see on my phone but I'm assuming it was well after my original comment that you attacked and then got my back up.
> 
> 
> My main question is why you started attacking me rather than engaging in conversation.
> ...


 
because you haven't been engaging until the fight is over, then you're telling me how i could have done it better.that i should have used tactics that we KNOW don't work, that have led to this size of problem in the first place. and i feel you're blaming me for this turning into a fight, because i challenged and wouldn't shut up.

I'd rather not have a fight. I'm not doing this to wank over. I'm doing this because I want this to be one place where that shit is challenged and I can't sit back and expect other people to do that for me, although I'm very very grateful to those also fighting here. the fight is over when sexism here is stopped. not before.

that may disrupt a few threads in the meantime, but not fighting with sexists and they have a free hand to disrupt the threads with sexism. the difference is that by fighting the sexism, the disruption will be reduced. it's already been reduced.


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Damn you, just snotted half-swallowed tea out of my nose!


 
that was the edited version of what i just said to him. greebo is probably grateful i didn't post that and choke you completely.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 14, 2013)

equationgirl said:
			
		

> I think it's difficult to step back when tensions are running high.



Ok see that is fair enough.


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

andysays said:


> I'm wary about getting into this, because feelings are understandably running high atm.
> 
> I think there's very little difference of opinion as to whether certain behaviours, certain types of comment are acceptable. The difference is around what is an appropriate response when we're faced with them.
> 
> ...


 
if ti's clear that someone is not going to back off, then the discussion si already lost, unless mod action is taken. backing off them and they have free reign to post what they want, and will move on to attack the next thread on similar subjects.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> If you read the thread you will see that a number of men have offered their perspectives, but not in the aggressive 'I know more about feminism than you women do, AND you're doing it all wrong' way that FB has.


 
Although, in fairness, this isn't entirely a male trait, it does tend to manifest itself most dickheadedly in blokes.



> My experiences are that feminists of all genders have productive discussions on urban, however for a long time every thread was wrecking by one or more men bandying together and telling the feminists what to do, or belittling them and their opinions, or being snide, or generally just being dicks. I personally appreciate the men who have pointed out to one of their number when they behaved in a sexist manner towards me, and I was off the boards at the time. It is their feminist perspective I am interested in, not FB's.


 
In my own opinion, it's not the place of male feminists to tell women how to act. It's our place*, if we have one, to support, and that doesn't mean regaling people with our feminist credentials in order to overwhelm them and impress them with the depth of our feminism/length of our metaphorical dicks. It's to offer critique and/or discussion if/when asked for it, or it's just so much reproduction of patriarchy.

* I just know Greebo will use these words against me at a future date.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 14, 2013)

toggle said:
			
		

> because you haven't been engaging until the fight is over, then you're telling me how i could have done it better.that i should have used tactics that we KNOW don't work, that have led to this size of problem in the first place. and i feel you're blaming me for this turning into a fight, because i challenged and wouldn't shut up.



Arg ffs. You're still not listening. 
I am not telling you how you could have done it better. 
I'm saying, at this point, I suggest, suggest, it's going nowhere. Suggest. 
I'm not "telling" you anything. 
I am not telling you you should have used any tactics other than you did. You did well in your fight..

I am "suggesting"  "at this point in the proceedings" that engaging with "frumious in particular" is going nowhere. 

Why is that so difficult to understand? 
Why do you keep completely misquoting what I've said?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2013)

toggle said:


> if ti's clear that someone is not going to back off, then the discussion si already lost, unless mod action is taken. backing off them and they have free reign to post what they want, and will move on to attack the next thread on similar subjects.


 
And frankly, relying on moderators to police threads is a hiding to nothing, if for no other reason than we have a finite number of mods, with a finite amount of time, and all with slightly different interpretations of what might or might not constitute moderation-worthy behaviour. Best to police ourselves as much as possible, IMO.


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Although, in fairness, this isn't entirely a male trait, it does tend to manifest itself most dickheadedly in blokes.
> 
> In my own opinion, it's not the place of male feminists to tell women how to act. It's our place*, if we have one, to support, and that doesn't mean regaling people with our feminist credentials in order to overwhelm them and impress them with the depth of our feminism/length of our metaphorical dicks. It's to offer critique and/or discussion if/when asked for it, or it's just so much reproduction of patriarchy.
> 
> * I just know Greebo will use these words against me at a future date.


 
there's also a very valuable input you can have in translating what we're saying to people that don't get it. sometimes another bloke can make them get it where being told by a woman won't.helping to explain how chivalry isn't benign, how it hides some very nasty attitudes and how women for the most part don't want that, even if they are usually too polite to say so.

and we're not the only ones damaged by patriarchy. I believe macho culture is damaging to men as well as to women. the effects of that are part of my definition of feminism and I can't have that discussion for you without doing to you what I don't like being done to me, and telling you what you're experiences and feelings are. That is your discussion where I can support.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 14, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> And frankly, relying on moderators to police threads is a hiding to nothing, if for no other reason than we have a finite number of mods, with a finite amount of time, and all with slightly different interpretations of what might or might not constitute moderation-worthy behaviour. Best to police ourselves as much as possible, IMO.



Yes this was also my point earlier.


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

kittyP said:


> Arg ffs. You're still not listening.


 
I'm not listening?

you have completely failed to engage with every point I've made about why i've continued.


----------



## andysays (Apr 14, 2013)

toggle said:


> the fight is over when sexism here is stopped. not before. that may disrupt a few threads in the meantime, but not fighting with sexists and they have a free hand to disrupt the threads with sexism. the difference is that by fighting the sexism, the disruption will be reduced. it's already been reduced.


 
I'm glad you think it's been reduced. I haven't been reading/posting here long enough to come to any conclusions on that. I think you're right to challenge sexism etc, but it will continue to be necessary for a while yet, and it will be more than a few threads which will be disrupted, not that that's a reason not to do it.



toggle said:


> if ti's clear that someone is not going to back off, then the discussion si already lost, unless mod action is taken. backing off them and they have free reign to post what they want, and will move on to attack the next thread on similar subjects.


 
Unless you succeed in getting them banned, they continue to have free rein, but each of us also has a choice in whether or how to respond. It is possible for most of the thread to decide to ignore someone whose obviously trolling, even if it's difficult to put into practice. You may not agree that's the correct choice, but it is an option.


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> And frankly, relying on moderators to police threads is a hiding to nothing, if for no other reason than we have a finite number of mods, with a finite amount of time, and all with slightly different interpretations of what might or might not constitute moderation-worthy behaviour. Best to police ourselves as much as possible, IMO.


 
but we do need that backup for when it is clear a disruptive, sexist troll will not respond to being told by everyone else to go away.

as fridgey did on this thread.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 14, 2013)

toggle said:
			
		

> I'm not listening?
> 
> you have completely failed to engage with every point I've made about why i've continued.



And you have completely failed to engage with me reasonably from the first post I made about the subject. 
If you had talked to me reasonably from the beginning we wouldn't be here. 

I have said I understand and you didn't have to agree. 

I have explained that I have taken umbrage with the way you spoke to me. 

Why are you continuing to talk to me like shite when I'm on your side?


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 14, 2013)

I'd sooner see the FAQ mention of sexism being more firmly and consistently enforced, tbh.

Why not use some kind of traffic light system for anyone posting up things that are obviously intended to provoke or offend for the sake of doing so?

For example:

First reported post: 'OI, apologise for the offence caused and wind your neck in a little.

Second similar post: 'Do that again and you can have 24 hours off to think it over.'

Third similar post: 'Here's that 24 hours in the cooler I warned you about earlier. See you later.'

Sexism is mentioned in the FAQ as a no-no here. Fine, there's a rule stating that sexist trolling and conduct won't be tolerated. Prohibition stated that getting pissed wouldn't be tolerated but, as it wasn't firmly and consistently enforced, nobody gave a toss about obeying that one either.

A rule without proper enforcement is just a line on a screen or a few words on a scrap of paper. Nothing more. Properly, firmly and consistent enforcing rules is the only way to actually give them any weight or substance and see that they're actually obeyed. Perhaps a three-step system would allow for people's intentions being accidentally misinterpreted while enforcing the pre-existing rule in the FAQ.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 14, 2013)

Bakunin said:
			
		

> I'd sooner see the FAQ mention of sexism being more firmly and consistently enforced, tbh.
> 
> Why not use some kind of traffic light system for anyone posting up things that are obviously intended to provoke or offend for the sake of doing so?
> 
> ...



But who decides what is "sexist enough" for a warning/banning? 

Frumious is an odious little shite but still I would like proof of anything he said that would be grounds for a serious consideration of banning?

I am not saying he didn't but I would like an example to consider personally.


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

andysays said:


> Unless you succeed in getting them banned, they continue to have free rein, but each of us also has a choice in whether or how to respond. It is possible for most of the thread to decide to ignore someone whose obviously trolling, even if it's difficult to put into practice. You may not agree that's the correct choice, but it is an option.


 
I've been reading this kind of thread long enough to know that if it is ignored, then it gets worse, and I've explained that on this thread alone quite a few times. and a whole group comes out to play and that is more disruptive to discussion than a bunfight, we know this from expereince. and if they have free reign on one thread, they are worse on the next, we have had this prooven to us as well. to the point where even those of us who have been most argumentative on this thread won't post stuff on feminism, cause it's hard to have that kind of fight on your own, (although apparently though not so hard for sexist arseholes that sit behind a keyboard and touch themselves while they insult women).

I don't particularly want people banned, I just want it to be made clear to them that their trolling can result in a ban, and some temp bans have been handed out to posters who have ignored the kind of warning fridgey gave above. that has been effective in keeping most of the worst offenders off these threads. one troll on this thread. a few weeks ago there would have been a LOT more. that is a partial victory. a win is when we can have this kind of discussion without any.


----------



## ymu (Apr 14, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> And frankly, relying on moderators to police threads is a hiding to nothing, if for no other reason than we have a finite number of mods, with a finite amount of time, and all with slightly different interpretations of what might or might not constitute moderation-worthy behaviour. Best to police ourselves as much as possible, IMO.


I agree with this. But the alternative is being abused as feminazis and being told to shut the fuck up by people, often by people who also claim to agree with the point we're making. It gets old.

They don't stop if you ignore them, they hijack the thread. And it's nigh on impossible to get everyone to ignore them because people like you canuck threads and open up old arguments after someone has requested that we all ignore them.

People have suggested we ignore frumious many times on this thread. I've done my best, but it's hard to remember which thread you're on when so many are being disrupted by sexist twats.

How about people who don't want to see sexism on these boards speak out about it until it stops?


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

kittyP said:


> And you have completely failed to engage with me reasonably from the first post I made about the subject.
> If you had talked to me reasonably from the beginning we wouldn't be here.
> 
> I have said I understand and you didn't have to agree.
> ...


 
you're not on my side if you're 'suggesting' to me stuff i know dosen't work and not listening when ti's explained why it doesn't work. and whining at me because i don't aggree with your suggestions.


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 14, 2013)

kittyP said:


> But who decides what is "sexist enough" for a warning/banning?
> 
> Frumious is an odious little shite but still I would like proof of anything he said that would be grounds for a serious consideration of banning?


 
If somebody posts up something others take serious offence to then with 'three strikes' they'd still have chances to modify their behaviour before getting 24 hours off.

If, after two reported posts and two entirely unambiguous warnings of an impending 24 hours off, they're still continuing to troll then they've had their warning, they've had their chance to make amends and clarify their intentions and they've still acted the maggot. I'm not suggesting a permanent ban and the use of the Nuclear-Tipped Banhammer, just a firm rap over the knuckles to serial offenders for the benefit of the rest of us.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 14, 2013)

toggle said:
			
		

> you're not on my side if you're 'suggesting' to me stuff i know dosen't work and not listening when ti's explained why it doesn't work.



I have listened. 
I have said you don't have to agree with me. 

I'm sorry if you think I'm the enemy because of one idea you don't agree with but I think that's sad.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 14, 2013)

Bakunin said:
			
		

> If somebody posts up something others take serious offence to then with 'three strikes' they'd still have chances to modify their behaviour before getting 24 hours off.
> .



It seems by the way this thread has gone that I would be threatened with banning. 

I think that would be totally unfair. 

What if the mods don't agree with the majority of the thread?


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

kittyP said:


> I have listened.
> I have said you don't have to agree with me.
> 
> I'm sorry if you think I'm the enemy because of one idea you don't agree with but I think that's sad.


 

you're going to turn this 'i'm your enemy' into a self fulfilling statement at this rate.

it's a shame you couldn't engage AGAINST the disruptive sexists in this manner.


----------



## andysays (Apr 14, 2013)

ymu said:


> How about people who don't want to see sexism on these boards speak out about it until it stops?


 
That's a policy I'm more than happy to support, assuming it appears to be one which is generally agreed on. But I think we all need to recognise that while we can and will reduce it, we won't get rid of it completely.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 14, 2013)

Look. I really didn't intend for this to happen. 
It just got my back up being spoken to like that. 
I will accept I may have been misguided in what I said. 
All it needed was explaining. 
I'm sorry ok?


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 14, 2013)

toggle said:


> I don't particularly want people banned


 
Liar.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 14, 2013)

toggle said:
			
		

> you're going to turn this 'i'm your enemy' into a self fulfilling statement at this rate.
> 
> it's a shame you couldn't engage AGAINST the disruptive sexists in this manner.



I have here and did on other threads.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2013)

ymu said:


> I agree with this. But the alternative is being abused as feminazis and being told to shut the fuck up by people, often by people who also claim to agree with the point we're making. It gets old.
> 
> They don't stop if you ignore them, they hijack the thread. And it's nigh on impossible to get everyone to ignore them because people like you canuck threads and open up old arguments after someone has requested that we all ignore them.
> 
> ...


 
Well, that's kind of my point - you self-police *as far as possible*, and rely on calling in a mod as the last resort when/if reasoned argument, mockery and heckling of sexist fuckwits (in other words, "speaking out about sexism") doesn't work.
Personally, I'd also try to convince the editor to post a quotes-only sticky "rollcall of sexist fuckwits", including excerpts from some of the most egregious examples (public shaming occasionally works!), but I don't think he'd go for it.


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

andysays said:


> That's a policy I'm more than happy to support, assuming it appears to be one which is generally agreed on. But I think we all need to recognise that while we can and will reduce it, we won't get rid of it completely.


 
no, we won't. but we can and we are making it less acceptable.

and we have made it more acceptable to speak out against it. to the point it's clear that the sexists, not the feminists are the minority.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Liar.


 
Fuck off, dwyer.


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Liar.


 
another who wants to create a self fulfilling prophesy


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 14, 2013)

kittyP said:


> It seems by the way this thread has gone that I would be threatened with banning.
> 
> I think that would be totally unfair.
> 
> What if the mods don't agree with the majority of the thread?


 
Two clear and unambiguous warnings resulting from two reported posts from the same poster would indicate to me a pattern of deliberate behaviour rather than a one-off blunder. Two chances to clarify any potential misunderstanding and smooth over any offence caused that are offered and then wilfully ignored would suggest a general disregard for the FAQ which does clearly state U75's apparent position on sexist behaviour.

Three strikes and you're out for 24 hours doesn't seem like the worst idea in the world, frankly.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 14, 2013)

toggle said:


> another who wants to create a self fulfilling prophesy


 
Not really.  It's just that this entire thread is utterly mad.

A bunch of loonies jabbering away about how they can ban everyone else.

I don't suppose you can see the absurdity of the situation though.


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

kittyP said:


> Look. I really didn't intend for this to happen.
> It just got my back up being spoken to like that.
> I will accept I may have been misguided in what I said.
> All it needed was explaining.
> I'm sorry ok?


 
ok.

same.


if you want to talk more, probably better after i've had some sleep.


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Not really. It's just that this entire thread is utterly mad.
> 
> A bunch of loonies jabbering away about how they can ban everyone else.
> 
> I don't suppose you can see the absurdity of the situation though.


 

and now you can loose the discriminatory language.


----------



## Firky (Apr 14, 2013)

Fuck it, am going full Canuck and not reading all the posts.

FWIW I think KittyP was actually saying that Frumious Bigot was being a nob and is best ignored. Where as Toggle et al don't think that ignoring him is the answer and he should be challenged. Everyone seems to agree that Frumious Bigot is a mansplaining arse but have different opinions on how to deal with said arse. Also there is the point of how the 'don't be a dick' rule is practised by mods to add to the mix. Meanwhile Mrs Fran is wishing she never asked.

As one famous feminist icon of the left said on these very boards, "this is why we can't have nice things".

Honestly though... women fighting women on something they all agree is out of order is frustrating. <--- a bit of mansplaining 

Toggle, KittyP, Weepiper, Cesare, Spangles, ymu and all the rest are on the same wavelength IYSWIM.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 14, 2013)

toggle said:


> ok.
> 
> same.
> 
> ...


 
Sleep?  How can you think of sleep at a time like this?


----------



## ymu (Apr 14, 2013)

andysays said:


> That's a policy I'm more than happy to support, assuming it appears to be one which is generally agreed on. But I think we all need to recognise that while we can and will reduce it, we won't get rid of it completely.


And I think we need to recognise that if the topic were race, sexuality or disability, there would not be this kind of mealy-mouthed apologetics going on.

We're not asking for instant nirvana. We're asking people to speak up when something is wrong.


----------



## Firky (Apr 14, 2013)

Now Phildwyer has liked my post I am thinking I said something terribly wrong


----------



## kittyP (Apr 14, 2013)

ymu said:
			
		

> And I think we need to recognise that if the topic were race, sexuality or disability, there would not be this kind of mealy-mouthed apologetics going on.
> 
> We're not asking for instant nirvana. We're asking people to speak up when something is wrong.



I agree.


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Sleep? How can you think of sleep at a time like this?


 
add something constructive or piss off, there's a good dwyer


----------



## kittyP (Apr 14, 2013)

Firky said:
			
		

> Now Phildwyer has liked my post I am thinking I said something terribly wrong


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 14, 2013)

toggle said:


> and now you can loose the discriminatory language.


 
Sorry.  A bunch of exceedingly eccentric individuals jabbering on about how everyone else should be banned.

Please don't let me stop you though.


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

kittyP said:


>


 
there's somethjing we can definately aggree on


----------



## andysays (Apr 14, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Sleep? How can you think of sleep at a time like this?


 
Funnily enough, when I see you've joined a thread, the idea of sleep becomes instantly appealing.


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 14, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Not really. It's just that this entire thread is utterly mad.
> 
> A bunch of loonies jabbering away about how they can ban everyone else.
> 
> I don't suppose you can see the absurdity of the situation though.


 
This is another problem with allowing sexist trolling, it then attracts 'Rent-A-Troll' types, the Martini Men who'll troll anytime, anyplace, anywhere because they like trolling for trolling's sake regardless of the subject matter or debate at hand. 'Rent-A-Troll' types are attracted to pre-existing bunfights like flies to shit which only makes everything more unpleasant for everybody else.

You can drop the offensive word about the mentally-ill as well. Oh, and by the way...

FUCK OFF DWYER.


----------



## Buckaroo (Apr 14, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Sleep? How can you think of sleep at a time like this?


 
Sleep? You're always thinking of sleep or deadlines or such like. Fuck off and get some coffee.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 14, 2013)

toggle said:


> add something constructive or piss off, there's a good dwyer


 
Very well.

I think Bakunin's suggestion of a "three strikes and you're out" rule makes a reasonable amount of sense. But what if the disrupter chooses to refuse to leave the thread? What then? Maybe we could have a rule whereby, after having received three warnings from a Mod, the offender could receive a 2-day ban unless they promise to limit themselves to three posts an hour for the first five days after they get back, and also never to contribute to any of the "sexism" threads without first making sure that at least 17 sensible posts have immediately preceded their own. In which case, the player to the right of the dealer must sit out the next 6 turns until no more than seven voices are raised against him (or her) before the full moon rose on the seventh son of twelfth night.

Bunch of nutters that you are.


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Very well.
> 
> I think Bakunin's suggestion of a "three strikes and you're out" rule makes a reasonable amount of sense. But what if the disrupter chooses to refuse to leave the thread? What then? Maybe we could have a rule whereby, after having received three warnings from a Mod, the offender could receive a 2-day ban unless they promise to limit themselves to three posts an hour for the first five days after they get back, and also never to contribute to any of the "sexism" threads without first making sure that at least 17 sensible posts have immediately preceded their own. In which case, the player to the right of the dealer must sit out the next 6 turns until no more than seven voices are raised against him (or her) before the full moon rose on the seventh son of twelfth night.
> 
> Bunch of nutters that you are.


 
nice strawman.

like to try again for constructive?

or just piss off like a good little troll


----------



## Firky (Apr 14, 2013)

Fridge usually tells someone to leave the thread once, then again and then hits the button. Gromit and JC2 can testify to that one.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 14, 2013)

toggle said:


> like to try again for constructive?


 
I am being constructive.

We don't all restrict ourselves to monotone literalism to convey our points.


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> I am being constructive.
> 
> We don't all restrict ourselves to monotone literalism to convey our points.


 
i think you need to opt for the piss off option then.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 14, 2013)

toggle said:


> i think you need to opt for the piss off option then.


 
And miss the conclusion of this debate? 

You must think I'm mad.


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> And miss the conclusion of this debate?
> 
> You must think I'm mad.


 
keep digging little troll


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 14, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> And miss the conclusion of this debate?
> 
> You must think I'm mad.


 
You quite like making degrading references to mental illness, don't you? After all this is the third one you've made since joining this thread.


----------



## Buckaroo (Apr 14, 2013)

It's not a debate as such but a thread about how someone could become more involved in the feminist movement. Involved in a good way. And yes, you are mad. But not in a good way.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 14, 2013)

andysays said:


> That's a policy I'm more than happy to support, assuming it appears to be one which is generally agreed on. But I think we all need to recognise that while we can and will reduce it, we won't get rid of it completely.


 
Oh I agree. I think we all need to recognize that while we can and will and may not ever reduce it to a minimum, I think we should all need to consider that if it appears to be the one we all agreed on, there may nevertheless be some who continue to agree that we must all not disagree about it.

That is a policy which I am more than happy to support.

But what I am not more than happy to support however is the suggestion that by assuming we all need to acknowledge that there may nevertheless be one who continues to deny that while he did and could increase it, it could never be replaced until the moon falls from the sky.

I'm going for a quick swim, please save the funny bits till I get back...


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Oh I agree. I think we all need to recognize that while we can and will and may not ever reduce it to a minimum, I think we should all need to consider that if it appears to be the one we all agreed on, there may nevertheless be some who continue to agree that we must all not disagree about it.
> 
> That is a policy which I am more than happy to support.
> 
> ...


 
don't hurry back


----------



## Buckaroo (Apr 14, 2013)

Quick swim? Worried he might drown.


----------



## Firky (Apr 14, 2013)

Shit floats.


I was hoping someone was going to post that, Buck. Had it lined up when he said he was going for a swim.


----------



## Buckaroo (Apr 14, 2013)

Quick, while he's in the pool, loads of posts about about loon theory and banking etc.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 14, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Not really. It's just that this entire thread is utterly mad.
> 
> A bunch of loonies jabbering away about how they can ban everyone else.
> 
> I don't suppose you can see the absurdity of the situation though.


Post reported.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 14, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Very well.
> 
> I think Bakunin's suggestion of a "three strikes and you're out" rule makes a reasonable amount of sense. But what if the disrupter chooses to refuse to leave the thread? What then? Maybe we could have a rule whereby, after having received three warnings from a Mod, the offender could receive a 2-day ban unless they promise to limit themselves to three posts an hour for the first five days after they get back, and also never to contribute to any of the "sexism" threads without first making sure that at least 17 sensible posts have immediately preceded their own. In which case, the player to the right of the dealer must sit out the next 6 turns until no more than seven voices are raised against him (or her) before the full moon rose on the seventh son of twelfth night.
> 
> Bunch of nutters that you are.


Post reported for 'nutters' comment.


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

that makes 5 reports that i know of.

no chance of any claims this wasn't brought to mod attention


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 14, 2013)

I'd also note that 'Rent-A-Troll' only started with the looney remarks once he realised I was contributing.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 14, 2013)

Oh Dwyer 

Completely missing the point and ruining the situation for anyone with a legitimate disagreement.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 14, 2013)

I don't care what dwyer's motives are, using mental health as a perjorative is not on under any circumstances.


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 14, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> I don't care what dwyer's motives are, using mental health as a perjorative is not on under any circumstances.


 
No, it's totally unacceptable and I'll be more than happy to report people for doing so.


----------



## Buckaroo (Apr 14, 2013)

Or just ignore him or engage with nonsense, the thread got silly straight off. Apologies for not getting it but does anyone really care what some daft lad thinks about anything? It would be funnier if the thread continued without interaction with him at all.


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

and for the record, i don't _want_ dwyer banned, I want action taken to stop him trolling this thread and others with derogatory comments about anyone's mental health. if he is unable to control himself, then that is entirely his fault and i won't miss him while he's on holiday from here. but it causes less shit if he would just stfu.


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

Buckaroo said:


> Or just ignore him or engage with nonsense, the thread got silly straight off. Apologies for not getting it but does anyone really care what some daft lad thinks about anything? It would be funnier if the thread continued without interaction with him at all.


 
why should he get away with derogatory comments?


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 14, 2013)

toggle said:


> and for the record, i don't _want_ dwyer banned, I want action taken to stop him trolling this thread and others with derogatory comments about anyone's mental health. if he is unable to control himself, then that is entirely his fault and i won't miss him while he's on holiday from here. but it causes less shit if he would just stfu.


 
Agreed.

If he wasn't looking for a row with me then I wouldn't be giving him one.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 14, 2013)

Are mods able to ban individuals from individual threads?


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 14, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> I don't care what dwyer's motives are, using mental health as a perjorative is not on under any circumstances.


 
I'm aware that the opportunities they provide for self-righteousness is the prime motive for most of the clowns here assembled to get involved in threads like this one.  And I'm loathe to spoil your pleasure.  But this really is _de trop _in my view.

Hypocrisy thy name is "Equationgirl."

Back in a minute, just have to grab a cuppa.



equationgirl said:


> Nah, a nutter would be interesting. He's just an eejit.


 


equationgirl said:


> And he's a scientology nutter.


 


equationgirl said:


> (man was a nutter but interesting family





equationgirl said:


> I thought he was a nutter.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 14, 2013)

I find the process of spelling out what is acceptable and what you can be banned for a difficult one and even a bit overly formalised (though having said that I by and large agree with it and mods certainly need it). Not being a racist, not being a mysoginist, not having digs at people around their sexuality or mental health should be pretty much second nature. Unfortunately it ain't so you need something (and I've been pulled up myself).  However when someone wants to abuse people for *fun*, they can truly fuck off.  It's the combination of being abusive and a childish idiot that gets me.  Shouldn't worry too much about calibrating the offence to the banning - fuck 'em (well, _him_ in this case).


----------



## Buckaroo (Apr 14, 2013)

toggle said:


> why should he get away with derogatory comments?


 

He shouldn't. I didn't get the derogatory comments regarding mental health or anything, not so far, on this thread in any case. I don't really understand the policy on banning people tbh but if he was out of order then yes he should be.


----------



## ymu (Apr 14, 2013)

No one has asked for him to be banned. They have asked for him to be removed from the thread because he is here to disrupt, as usual.


----------



## Buckaroo (Apr 14, 2013)

Is he getting a cuppa and going swimming at the same time?


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 14, 2013)

ymu said:


> But I will say something about dungarees anyway.
> 
> I was a tomboy and still wear practical clothing, usually short hair, no make-up. I'm not bothered about my appearance. I used to, and occasionally still do, get arseholes cracking jokes about me being a lesbian, which is really ... odd to deal with. They're trying to say I'm ugly and not good enough for them to sleep with (how crushing), but they're doing it via a completely neutral characteristic, sexuality. If I was gay I'd say so, and long ago resolved never to reveal my sexuality to anyone who wasn't obviously interested in sleeping with me. There's no insult there, so I can't respond, save for pointing out what sad comment it is.
> 
> So, yeah. Any joke which targets the oppressed rather than the oppressor deserves a bit of shit for being lazy and, when made in the context of threads like this, hostile. But dungarees?


 
I shave my head from time to time and get called "dyke" or "lesbian", yeah I agree they're expressing that they do not fancy me (as you said; how crushing, really). I do not care one bit if someone does or doesn't fancy me (excluding partner, obvs). I wear baggy jeans and tops, and I rarely wear make up; only when I'm doing my "tranny with a fanny" thing when I go clubbing. I'm a woman so does that mean I'm oppressed? I don't feel it. And I don't find stereotype-like jokes insulting or oppressing at all. I have many female mates who joke about dungarees all the time, but when a man says it's all hell breaking loose.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Apr 14, 2013)

fuck off dwyer ffs.


----------



## phildwyer (Apr 14, 2013)

Buckaroo said:


> He shouldn't. I didn't get the derogatory comments regarding mental health or anything, not so far, on this thread in any case.


 
Maybe not on this thread, but Equationgirl certainly makes a habit of abusing people on grounds of their mental health.

I've cited several examples above.  They're not even the most offensive.  She has a long history of such behavior.

Now, I don't necessarily want to see her banned.  But I do think that she ought to be forced to apologize a million billion times.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Not really. It's just that this entire thread is utterly mad.
> 
> A bunch of loonies jabbering away about how they can ban everyone else.
> 
> I don't suppose you can see the absurdity of the situation though.


 
Except, of course, that the thread barely mentions banning.

Why do threads about feminism and/or sexism always set you off, phil?


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

there's a huge difference between telling stereotyping jokes that target your own grouping and telling jokes that target someone else though. just because my bf calls himself loopy, doesn't mean anyone else gets to.he does find that insulting unless he knows them well enough to know they don't mean it. and he can't even read me well enough to be certain when i'm joking, so there's very few people that can.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 14, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> <snip>Now, I don't necessarily want to see her banned. But I do think that she ought to be forced to apologize a million billion times.


Grow up, if you can remember how.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2013)

Firky said:


> As one famous feminist icon of the left said on these very boards, "this is why we can't have nice things".


 
TBF, what that particular feminist icon said was "this is why we can't have nice things like revolution", which from the like of her politically-unaligned (except to whatever vaguely socialist fringe sells best on that particular day) self, is a little bit bullshittism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2013)

Firky said:


> Now Phildwyer has liked my post I am thinking I said something terribly wrong


 
Feeling soiled, eh?
Don't worry. Apparently a lot of folk feel like that after contact with dwyer.


----------



## ymu (Apr 14, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> I shave my head from time to time and get called "dyke" or "lesbian", yeah I agree they're expressing that they do not fancy me (as you said; how crushing, really). I do not care one bit if someone does or doesn't fancy me (excluding partner, obvs). I wear baggy jeans and tops, and I rarely wear make up; only when I'm doing my "tranny with a fanny" thing when I go clubbing. I'm a woman so does that mean I'm oppressed? I don't feel it. And I don't find stereotype-like jokes insulting or oppressing at all. I have many lesbian mates who joke about dungarees all the time, but when a man says it all hell breaking loose.


We make racist/sexist/homophobic/disablist jokes regularly, but funnily enough, the target is always the bigots.

Assuming your lesbian friends do actually make the same kinds of jokes as the bigots do, do they make those jokes during conversations which are being determinedly disrupted by a few sexist men? Because I'd be very surprised if they thought that was an appropriate context.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 14, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> I'm aware that the opportunities they provide for self-righteousness is the prime motive for most of the clowns here assembled to get involved in threads like this one. And I'm loathe to spoil your pleasure. But this really is _de trop _in my view.
> 
> Hypocrisy thy name is "Equationgirl."
> 
> Back in a minute, just have to grab a cuppa.


Going to give any context for those posts of mine Phil? Or when I made them? Because I'm pretty sure they're not recent.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 14, 2013)

Oh I've only stopped replying coz once Dwyer is involved there is really no point.


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 14, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Maybe not on this thread, but Equationgirl certainly makes a habit of abusing people on grounds of their mental health.
> 
> I've cited several examples above. They're not even the most offensive. She has a long history of such behavior.
> 
> Now, I don't necessarily want to see her banned. But I do think that she ought to be forced to apologize a million billion times.


 
You still here?

I was wondering what the puerile stench was.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 14, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Maybe not on this thread, but Equationgirl certainly makes a habit of abusing people on grounds of their mental health.
> 
> I've cited several examples above. They're not even the most offensive. She has a long history of such behavior.
> 
> Now, I don't necessarily want to see her banned. But I do think that she ought to be forced to apologize a million billion times.


Oh I do do I? 

Care to elaborate?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> I'm going for a quick swim, please save the funny bits till I get back...


 
Here's hoping you don't forget how to swim while doing so.

Honest.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2013)

Buckaroo said:


> Or just ignore him or engage with nonsense, the thread got silly straight off. Apologies for not getting it but does anyone really care what some daft lad thinks about anything? It would be funnier if the thread continued without interaction with him at all.


 
The problem being that if you don't question/challenge the shit, it usually means the signal to noise ratio is affected, and other twats think "if he can get away with it, so can I!".


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 14, 2013)

phildwyer said:


>


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> I shave my head from time to time and get called "dyke" or "lesbian", yeah I agree they're expressing that they do not fancy me (as you said; how crushing, really). I do not care one bit if someone does or doesn't fancy me (excluding partner, obvs). I wear baggy jeans and tops, and I rarely wear make up; only when I'm doing my "tranny with a fanny" thing when I go clubbing. I'm a woman so does that mean I'm oppressed? I don't feel it. And I don't find stereotype-like jokes insulting or oppressing at all. I have many female mates who joke about dungarees all the time, but when a man says it's all hell breaking loose.


 
Unless the man's name is Cleatus, and he works on a farm in West Virginia, in which case he's a hillbilly, and it's okay for him to talk about dungarees.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 14, 2013)

Well the first post dwyer quoted was from this 2007 thread
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/the-urban-lonely-hearts-thread.27393/page-1682

I was talking about my boss at the time and his increasingly bizarre ideas. Bluestreak posted:


> sounds like a nutter to me.


to which I responded:


> Nah, a nutter would be interesting. He's just an eejit.


 
If we're nitpicking over a 2007 post, I wasn't using it as a perjorative in that context.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 14, 2013)

The second post is also 2007, and dwyer has edited out the context. I was responding to a picture of Tom Cruise and I said:


> Now, I've gone right off Tom since he was mean to Nicole Kidman. And he's a scientology nutter.


Not perjorative because of Tom's well-known eccentricities about Scientology.


----------



## ymu (Apr 14, 2013)

Oh, Dwyer. So crude, searching for evidence without checking what it is. You've reached the canuckian low point.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 14, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Here's hoping you don't forget how to swim while doing so.
> 
> Honest.


Panda, granted there's no love lost between you but that's going a bit far. Others are far more deserving of a watery (or other) grave; Cameron for one, IDS for another.

Speaking of rightwingers, can anyone suggest an effective way of dealing with women who maintain the (antifeminist by default) establishment?


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 14, 2013)

Third post dates from 2006 and refers to that bastion of stability, HITLER, Yes, dwyer edited out the context again:



> I never read age appropriate material. My mum taught me to read at home way before I went to school, so by the time I went I was reading about two-three years ahead. By the time I was ten, I was reading my mum's library books about love and affairs - Jamaica Inn by du Maurier springs to mind -and books from my dad's bookshelf on hitler (*man was a nutter but interesting family stuff*) and Christie (10 rillington place killer - including the graphic pictures of dismembered corpses - but I was just curious about why he would murder his wife). I'm sure if the school had found out they would have gone spare, but my parents never bothered as they knew I was just learning stuff. To this day I find crime intriguing and reading lots of books on the subject taught me that there is no such thing as the perfect crime, so no point trying to get away with murder.


 
Is phil really trying to argue that calling Hitler a nutter isn't justified? Really?

Fourth post, also from 2006, talking about a very bizarre programme on Channel 4:


> I watched the programme last night.
> 
> I was frankly horrified at the chap with the huge round silicon enhanced penis and balls. He may be challenging society's perception etc (his words, not mind) but I thought he was a nutter.


Should I have used nutter in that context? Maybe not. So for everyone clearly traumatized by my 7 year old post, I apologise for my inappropriate choice of words.


----------



## Buckaroo (Apr 14, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Maybe not on this thread, but Equationgirl certainly makes a habit of abusing people on grounds of their mental health.
> 
> I've cited several examples above. They're not even the most offensive. She has a long history of such behavior.
> 
> Now, I don't necessarily want to see her banned. But I do think that she ought to be forced to apologize a million billion times.


 
Well then she's out of order with that kind of behaviour. You're being too kind mate, a zillion apologies wouldn't be enough. Equationgirl should be charged with hate crime, having a go at you and your mental health problems and that. This place is mad! There was me thinking you were the daft bastard and all along it was her and her crazy friends. Take no notice mate, go for a swim and grab a coffee and just ignore the haters.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 14, 2013)

Get off the thread, dwyer.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Well the first post dwyer quoted was from this 2007 thread
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/the-urban-lonely-hearts-thread.27393/page-1682
> 
> I was talking about my boss at the time and his increasingly bizarre ideas. Bluestreak posted:
> ...


 
Searching your posts for the word "nutter" turns up a whole 14 posts, two of which are explanatory ones on this thread, with half of the remaining ones being contextually inaccurate for what dwyer is attempting to accuse you of.
As usual, old sweaty-palms is trying to monster someone. As usual, he hasn't realised that his talents in that direction are somewhat less than the talents an incontinent tramp has to keep themselves unscented by piss.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 14, 2013)

Buckaroo said:


> Well then she's out of order with that kind of behaviour. You're being too kind mate, a zillion apologies wouldn't be enough. Equationgirl should be charged with hate crime, having a go at you and your mental health problems and that. This place is mad! There was me thinking you were the daft bastard and all along it was her and her crazy friends. Take no notice mate, go for a swim and grab a coffee and just ignore the haters.


Might I suggest you actually read my posts before you agree with Dwyer about what I've supposedly said?
Perhaps you'd care to comment on why my posts pulling people up for using 'retard' in a perjorative context are actually abusing those with mental health issues?


----------



## weepiper (Apr 14, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Might I suggest you actually read my posts before you agree with Dwyer about what I've supposedly said?
> Perhaps you'd care to comment on why my posts pulling people up for using 'retard' in a perjorative context are actually abusing hose with mental health issues?


 
I think he/she's taking the piss


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Searching your posts for the word "nutter" turns up a whole 14 posts, two of which are explanatory ones on this thread, with half of the remaining ones being contextually inaccurate for what dwyer is attempting to accuse you of.
> As usual, old sweaty-palms is trying to monster someone. As usual, he hasn't realised that his talents in that direction are somewhat less than the talents an incontinent tramp has to keep themselves unscented by piss.


 
has anyone pointed out that you are definately on form tonight?


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 14, 2013)

weepiper said:


> I think he/she's taking the piss


They better be


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2013)

ymu said:


> Oh, Dwyer. So crude, searching for evidence without checking what it is. You've reached the canuckian low point.


 
Pfft. He reached that point long ago, with his ridiculous assertions about Freemasonry, that he'd garnered from a conspiracy site which, to the amusement of most other posters on that thread, he hadn't realised was a conspiracy site.


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 14, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Get off the thread, dwyer.


 
And Phil 'Top Gun' Dwyer, heroic commander of Urban's Troll Squadron, suddenly realises just how much people actually dislike him:


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2013)

Greebo said:


> Panda, granted there's no love lost between you but that's going a bit far. Others are far more deserving of a watery (or other) grave; Cameron for one, IDS for another.
> 
> Speaking of rightwingers, can anyone suggest an effective way of dealing with women who maintain the (antifeminist by default) establishment?


 
Permanently, or temporarily?


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

weepiper said:


> I think he/she's taking the piss


 
i'm waiting for phill to point out that referring to my bf's mental health in discussions about his atos assessments are an issue.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 14, 2013)

toggle said:


> i'm waiting for phill to point out that referring to my bf's mental health in discussions about his atos assessments are an issue.


 
I didn't mean dwyer, he's being a dick as usual btw.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2013)

Buckaroo said:


> Well then she's out of order with that kind of behaviour. You're being too kind mate, a zillion apologies wouldn't be enough. Equationgirl should be charged with hate crime, having a go at you and your mental health problems and that. This place is mad! There was me thinking you were the daft bastard and all along it was her and her crazy friends. Take no notice mate, go for a swim and grab a coffee and just ignore the haters.


 
She would have gotten away with it, if it hadn't been for those pesky kidz!


----------



## Firky (Apr 14, 2013)

*goes back to posting shit pics on bandwidth thread*


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Might I suggest you actually read my posts before you agree with Dwyer about what I've supposedly said?
> Perhaps you'd care to comment on why my posts pulling people up for using 'retard' in a perjorative context are actually abusing those with mental health issues?


 
He's taking the piss out of dwyer, not having a pop at you.


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 14, 2013)

Firky said:


> *goes back to posting *shit pics* on bandwidth thread*


 
Kinky...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2013)

Firky said:


> *goes back to posting shit pics on bandwidth thread*


 
I never had you down as a coprophile, Firky!


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 14, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> He's taking the piss out of dwyer, not having a pop at you.


As always, sarcasm doesn't come through...


----------



## toggle (Apr 14, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Permanently, or temporarily?


 
the issue is how many women who support the system are in fact victims of it....

for example, I don't tend to think that the young women who are promoting the quiverfull movement, who were raised within the movement, can be attacked for doing so. even if they are supporting some very sexist ideals.


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 14, 2013)

Where as I liked this post a lot, I had to pick it a apart a tad...




ymu said:


> ...whilst it might be a personal tragedy for them, having been brought up male means they do not and cannot tell a cis-woman what their experience is. But that doesn't mean they are not women, and it doesn't mean that we should still be keeping this information to ourselves as if men (cis or trans) cannot understand it, should not be required to respect it, and are not worthy of being part of our world.


Our world? Whose world? You mean planet earth, right? You’re not talking of some feminist world are ya?

That bit; “brought up male” is not always tragedy, just reminded me of summat my ex fiance said _“I don’t know what it’s like to be a girl, I don’t know what it’s like to be a boy, I just know what it’s like to be me.”_

Feminists struggle with oppression against women, many of us struggle with the gender binary itself as a form of control, hierarchy and oppression. So, feminists think women have it tough, some do, and some trans-women have it far tougher than any cis-women as cissexual privilege means that trans people are always disempowered... disempowered by men _and_ women! 




ymu said:


> In terms of Psychology 101, this kind of feminism strikes me as dominated by women who just don't like men, whether due to choice or experience, and they mirror the embittered anti-feminist men who have been unsuccessful in relationships and blame all women, bolstered by the misogynist wing of the gay scene.


Then they're not really feminists, they're just fucked up women who are in need of therapy?




ymu said:


> Men suffer under patriarchy too, and I think modern, positive forms of feminism needs to look at the whole picture, what men can gain from broadening their horizons as well as what women can gain from sharing their spaces.


Yep, totally and nothing will change unless we do share those spaces! Isn't segregation just ironic? I will never understand how, why feminists believe this dividing business could be a way forward. It excludes and hinders education, awareness and acceptance of other genders, not just male.

And the people who are comfortable in a binary system seem to forget that the vast majority of LGB and T (and everything in between) are not! We need to tear down old paradigms of ''man and woman''!



ymu said:


> The extreme, separatist feminists are responsible for much of the negative image of feminism amongst women as well as men, because they are easy to caricature and give good soundbite for the media. Nuance is harder, but it is important, because this kind of extremist and exclusionary twaddle seeks only to perpetuate a pointless and damaging battle between the sexes when what we need is to unite and fight against the forces that say we're different, that women don't like sex so men must take it, that competing against men on their unaltered turf is the way to achieve equality. There have been some modest achievements but nowhere near enough progress.


 
I personally see feminism as I see religion. I find it frustrating that some women think they _need_ feminism - I hate those memes; those photos of people holdings signs “I need feminism because...”. You do not need feminism to understand atrocities committed against women, to be independent and strong, to speak out and fight for rights. Oh and you don’t have to be a feminist to hate everything about Sex in the City or Cosmo magazine. 

Seems people assume any anti-feminist is a woman-hating man. You get plenty of anti-feminist women too, anti-feminist women who don’t hate anyone! I’m one as are many of my trans-women and cis-women friends. Just like religion; I try not to knock it, I just don’t agree with it or want to be a part of it. I dislike people assuming I'm a feminist because I am a woman, I've no issues with people assuming anything else, people assume my sexuality, they assume I’m straight, gay or bi... I am none of those.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 14, 2013)

Bakunin said:


> Kinky...


 
Great minds think alike, and all that!


----------



## Firky (Apr 14, 2013)

Bakunin said:


> Kinky...





ViolentPanda said:


> I never had you down as a coprophile, Firky!


 
Glass coffee tables are the heart of my home.


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 15, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Great minds think alike, and all that!


 
Especially as we're both disgusting filthmeisters.

I'm thinking of appointing myself Grossmeister-General.


----------



## Buckaroo (Apr 15, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> Might I suggest you actually read my posts before you agree with Dwyer about what I've supposedly said?
> Perhaps you'd care to comment on why my posts pulling people up for using 'retard' in a perjorative context are actually abusing those with mental health issues?


 
I was taking the piss out of him, can't believe he's tolerated here, wouldn't agree with the fucker about anything, ever.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 15, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Permanently, or temporarily?


In the interest of sustainably achieving change from within, temporarily dealing with them of course.  As in "non lethally".

Longer term solutions would be welcome as long as they were also non lethal, humane etc.


----------



## toggle (Apr 15, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Great minds think alike, and all that!


 
REmembers the conversations i had with Greebo about what would happen if you 2 ever met. it could be catastrophic


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 15, 2013)

toggle said:


> REmembers the conversations i had with Greebo about what would happen if you 2 ever met. it could be catastrophic


 
I suggest making a podcast involving me, VP, a digital voice recorder and a litre bottle of Tyrconnel.


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 15, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Unless the man's name is Cleatus, and he works on a farm in West Virginia, in which case he's a hillbilly, and it's okay for him to talk about dungarees.


That genuinely made me pee my baggy jeans.


----------



## ymu (Apr 15, 2013)

Greebo said:


> Panda, granted there's no love lost between you but that's going a bit far. Others are far more deserving of a watery (or other) grave; Cameron for one, IDS for another.
> 
> Speaking of rightwingers, can anyone suggest an effective way of dealing with women who maintain the (antifeminist by default) establishment?


Same as we deal with the men who maintain it.

It's not a battle between X and Y chromosomes, it is a battle against the abuse of power, which is often a battle to get people to understand what power is and how it is abused. Women internalise oppression as much as men internalise the means of oppression. Some are happy that way, and that's fine, as long as they don't try to impose their fucked up beliefs on the rest of us (and the women amongst them know where the shelters are, and to use them when necessary).


----------



## Greebo (Apr 15, 2013)

Buckaroo said:


> I was taking the piss out of him, can't believe he's tolerated here, wouldn't agree with the fucker about anything, ever.


I wouldn't go that far, he occasionally comes out with something sensible and well argued, almost in spite of himself. You could almost believe that the irritant he posts as here is just a persona.

BTW sorry for talking about you behind your back and to your face at the same time, Dwyer, it's incredibly rude. Even you deserve better than that. *Ahem* nothing to see here, just a little refreshed since last Monday


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 15, 2013)

toggle said:


> the issue is how many women who support the system are in fact victims of it....
> 
> for example, I don't tend to think that the young women who are promoting the quiverfull movement, who were raised within the movement, can be attacked for doing so. even if they are supporting some very sexist ideals.


 
That's the problem with (for want of a better, more precise word) indoctrination w/r/t being raised in *any* movement. If you're reared in what we could crudely call a "closed society", then it's hard to know where reaction via your indoctrination stops, and thinking/reasoning your reactions through via independently-acquired knowledge starts.

More generally with regard to "the system", there's also IMO a big issue with regard to the fact that while many people *do* still hold to collective ideals and altruistic behaviour for "the common good", people are subjected to a constant barrage of influences that press instrumental individualist behaviour on us as some kind of epitome of living decently. Even shit like "because you're worth it" can be seen as encouraging people to "indulgence as acceptable behaviour".

As per usual, I believe the answer lies in education, but I'm somewhat of an optimist.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 15, 2013)

toggle said:


> has anyone pointed out that you are definately on form tonight?


 
Thank you kindly.


----------



## ymu (Apr 15, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> <snip>
> 
> I personally see feminism as I see religion. I find it frustrating that some women think they _need_ feminism - I hate those memes; those photos of people holdings signs “I need feminism because...”. You do not need feminism to understand atrocities committed against women, to be independent and strong, to speak out and fight for rights. Oh and you don’t have to be a feminist to hate everything about Sex in the City or Cosmo magazine.


You're maybe a bit younger than me, but my father was a vile sexist bully when I was a kid and, despite him having grown up a lot and apologised for it, it still fucks me off. I remember the 1970s and 1980s. I remember being the only female scientist in meetings and getting ignored until someone wanted coffee pouring or their expense forms dealing with.

If you think you don't need feminism, it is because you're lucky enough not to have lived through that shit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 15, 2013)

Greebo said:


> In the interest of sustainably achieving change from within, temporarily dealing with them of course. As in "non lethally".
> 
> Longer term solutions would be welcome as long as they were also non lethal, humane etc.


 
Education, then. It's the only way.

Because we all know that the liberals won't sanction the bastinado.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 15, 2013)

ymu said:


> You're maybe a bit younger than me, but my father was a vile sexist bully when I was a kid and, despite him having grown up a lot and apologised for it, it still fucks me off. I remember the 1970s and 1980s. I remember being the only female scientist in meetings and getting ignored until someone wanted coffee pouring or their expense forms dealing with.
> 
> If you think you don't need feminism, it is because you're lucky enough not to have lived through that shit.


 
I think you may both be attaching different meanings to "need". You're talking about feminism as a generalised social force, wheras A1 (who I'm sure will correct me if I'm wrong) is speaking more from a personal perspective.


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 15, 2013)

ymu said:


> You're maybe a bit younger than me, but my father was a vile sexist bully when I was a kid and, despite him having grown up a lot and apologised for it, it still fucks me off. I remember the 1970s and 1980s. I remember being the only female scientist in meetings and getting ignored until someone wanted coffee pouring or their expense forms dealing with.
> 
> If you think you don't need feminism, it is because you're lucky enough not to have lived through that shit.


 
Yeah, pipe down luv, you're too young to understand


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 15, 2013)

ymu said:


> We make racist/sexist/homophobic/disablist jokes regularly, but funnily enough, the target is always the bigots.
> 
> Assuming your lesbian friends do actually make the same kinds of jokes as the bigots do, do they make those jokes during conversations which are being determinedly disrupted by a few sexist men? Because I'd be very surprised if they thought that was an appropriate context.


 
I guess my mates and I all take the piss out of ourselves a lot, we don't take things too seriously... I call my female friends ''slut'' and ''bitch''... and our male mates do too, but it's in a loving way and kinda goes with the scene in which we all met (where sexuality is morphed and played around with mucho). Yeah, of course it'd be different if strangers called me "slut/bitch/whore", but I don't take that as an insult to my gender, just an insult (if it wasn't that it's be summat else, that's what rude people want; a reaction). You'll always get sexist men, as you'll always get any ''ists'' in life. And I didn't mean to say the word ''lesbian'' either, I meant female...the dungarees made me think of lesbians.


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 15, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Education, then. It's the only way.
> 
> Because we all know that the liberals won't sanction the bastinado.


 
Or anybody going all Corporal Jones with a cattle prod, sadly.


----------



## toggle (Apr 15, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I think you may both be attaching different meanings to "need". You're talking about feminism as a generalised social force, wheras A1 (who I'm sure will correct me if I'm wrong) is speaking more from a personal perspective.


 
i need other feminists from a personal perspective, cause i need their support in order to keep fighting. and i need them because we're stronger together. and i need them because by talking through this stuff we understand it better. and i need them because they are my friends. and i need them because i read their stories and they are my heroes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 15, 2013)

Bakunin said:


> I suggest making a podcast involving me, VP, a digital voice recorder and a litre bottle of Tyrconnel.


 
You can have the Tyrconnel, I'll have a bottle of Heaven Hill!


----------



## Firky (Apr 15, 2013)

wrong thread.


----------



## Firky (Apr 15, 2013)

wrong thread.


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 15, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> You can have the Tyrconnel, I'll have a bottle of Heaven Hill!


 
Bakunin and VP post-evening drinks:


----------



## ymu (Apr 15, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> I guess my mates and I all take the piss out of ourselves a lot, we don't take things too seriously... I call my female friends ''slut'' and ''bitch''... and our male mates do too, but it's in a loving way and kinda goes with the scene in which we all met (where sexuality is morphed and played around with mucho). *Yeah, of course it'd be different if strangers* called me "slut/bitch/whore", but I don't take that as an insult to my gender, just an insult (if it wasn't that it's be summat else, that's what rude people want; a reaction). You'll always get sexist men, as you'll always get any ''ists'' in life. And I didn't mean to say the word ''lesbian'' either, I meant female...the dungarees made me think of lesbians.


So, what made you feel OK about barging in on a thread full of strangers and chucking insults around?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 15, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> Yeah, pipe down luv, you're too young to understand


 
TBF drew, look at any period of history in the 20th century, and the massive changes in social relations with regard to sexism do mean that women a single generation older than another will very often have experienced a much greater degree of normalised sexism in the home and the workplace. It used to put my teeth on edge back in the '70s and '80s just hearing blokes of my generation referring to (when talking to, not about) older women as "girls" and using their first names without permission. If I'd ever referred to my nan as a girl, she'd have torn my ears off, and then stapled them back on.

Upside down.


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 15, 2013)

ymu said:


> So, what made you feel OK about barging in on a thread full of strangers and chucking insults around?


I wasn't. Drew said summat in a jovial way that offended some (way too serious) people...then we had a banter, that's all, but if you look over the thread you'll find the majority of my posts have been decent and on topic. Like the mahoossive one I just wrote to you.

And I will "barge" my way in anywhere I want, thanks. I don't really see it as barging, sorry you do.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 15, 2013)

Bakunin said:


> Bakunin and VP post-evening drinks:


 
Only if you're Richie and I'm Eddie!


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 15, 2013)

ymu said:


> So, what made you feel OK about barging in on a thread full of strangers and chucking insults around?


 
Oh sorry, is it invite only on this thread ? Cos to me it does appear to have the feel of a bunch of "mates" all backslapping each other tbh.

You lot even managed to get someone kicked off this thread, well done, must make you feel right powerful and like you own it.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 15, 2013)

oh no it's the monothought clique!


----------



## toggle (Apr 15, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> Oh sorry, is it invite only on this thread ? Cos to me it does appear to have the feel of a bunch of "mates" all backslapping each other tbh.
> 
> You lot even managed to get someone kicked off this thread, well done, must make you feel right powerful and like you own it.


 
we would like to discuss sexism without someone acting like a right fucking idiot.

and we've had 2 chucked off this thread for being right fuckjing idiots.

are you trying to be number 3?


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 15, 2013)

The monothought clique's Enforcement Officer, yesterday:


----------



## kittyP (Apr 15, 2013)

.


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 15, 2013)

toggle said:


> we would like to discuss sexism without someone acting like a right fucking idiot.
> 
> and we've had 2 chucked off this thread for being right fuckjing idiots.
> 
> are you trying to be number 3?


 
Astounding 

"This is our thread, get orf our thread"

You're just proving the exact point I made, well done.


----------



## toggle (Apr 15, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> Astounding
> 
> "This is our thread, get orf our thread"
> 
> You're just proving the exact point I made, well done.


 
if you act like a fuckwit, you can get treated like one.


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 15, 2013)

toggle said:


> we would like to discuss sexism without someone acting like a right fucking idiot.
> 
> and we've had 2 chucked off this thread for being right fuckjing idiots.
> 
> are you trying to be number 3?



Funny how you focus upon the backslapping, ganging up and bickering over the actual decent material here that could turn into stimulating conversation or debate. Truly it is. Tut.


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 15, 2013)

Or is it that you know nothing of the topics I raised in my post ten minutes ago? Funny that.


_Yep, let's just shout at the folk who shouldn't be here!!! Yeah!!_

_Unless you agree with us, GET OUT. _

That's the spirit that I know of femmie groups.... sadly.


----------



## toggle (Apr 15, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> Funny how you focus upon the backslapping, ganging up and bickering over the actual decent material here that could turn into stimulating conversation or debate. Truly it is. Tut.


 
get rid of those acting like fuckwits, then those left can have a decent and uninterrupted conversation.


----------



## toggle (Apr 15, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> Or is it that you know nothing of the topics I raised in my post ten minutes ago? Funny that.
> 
> Trying so hard not to utter "typical femmies..."


 
are you really playing that card.

seriously?


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 15, 2013)

toggle said:


> are you really playing that card.
> 
> seriously?


Tut.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 15, 2013)

Would you like an egg so you can better demonstrate your point?


----------



## toggle (Apr 15, 2013)

thing is, she can keep digging, but she's not actually good enough at this to play windup. she's just embarassing herself trying to talk down to me. same as her partner is.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 15, 2013)

weepiper said:
			
		

> Would you like an egg so you can better demonstrate your point?



Huh?


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 15, 2013)

*This was a post a ten mins ago, by myself for the attention of one of ya who quoted me, i merely came onto the thread to REPLY ...but seems you'd prefer to bicker than actually respond or discuss some of the issues I raise.*​​Feminists struggle with oppression against women, many of us struggle with the gender binary itself as a form of control, hierarchy and oppression. So, feminists think women have it tough, some do, and some trans-women have it far tougher than any cis-women as cissexual privilege means that trans people are always disempowered... disempowered by men _and_ women! ​​

> ymu said: ↑In terms of Psychology 101, this kind of feminism strikes me as dominated by women who just don't like men, whether due to choice or experience, and they mirror the embittered anti-feminist men who have been unsuccessful in relationships and blame all women, bolstered by the misogynist wing of the gay scene.


 
Then they're not really feminists, they're just fucked up women who are in need of therapy?​​

> ymu said: ↑Men suffer under patriarchy too, and I think modern, positive forms of feminism needs to look at the whole picture, what men can gain from broadening their horizons as well as what women can gain from sharing their spaces.


​Yep, totally and nothing will change unless we do share those spaces! Isn't segregation just ironic? I will never understand how, why feminists believe this dividing business could be a way forward. It excludes and hinders education, awareness and acceptance of other genders, not just male.​​And the people who are comfortable in a binary system seem to forget that the vast majority of LGB and T (and everything in between) are not! We need to tear down old paradigms of ''man and woman''!​​


> ymu said: ↑​The extreme, separatist feminists are responsible for much of the negative image of feminism amongst women as well as men, because they are easy to caricature and give good soundbite for the media. Nuance is harder, but it is important, because this kind of extremist and exclusionary twaddle seeks only to perpetuate a pointless and damaging battle between the sexes when what we need is to unite and fight against the forces that say we're different, that women don't like sex so men must take it, that competing against men on their unaltered turf is the way to achieve equality. There have been some modest achievements but nowhere near enough progress.​


​I personally see feminism as I see religion. I find it frustrating that some women think they _need_ feminism - I hate those memes; those photos of people holdings signs “I need feminism because...”. You do not need feminism to understand atrocities committed against women, to be independent and strong, to speak out and fight for rights. Oh and you don’t have to be a feminist to hate everything about Sex in the City or Cosmo magazine. ​​Seems people assume any anti-feminist is a woman-hating man. You get plenty of anti-feminist women too, anti-feminist women who don’t hate anyone! I’m one as are many of my trans-women and cis-women friends. Just like religion; I try not to knock it, I just don’t agree with it or want to be a part of it. I dislike people assuming I'm a feminist because I am a woman, I've no issues with people assuming anything else, people assume my sexuality, they assume I’m straight, gay or bi... I am none of those.​


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 15, 2013)

Was that backslapping, bickering or being a twat? Nope.

Ymu quoted me, SO I CAME ON THE THREAD TO REPLY.
Then got shitloads of abuse. Nice.


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 15, 2013)

toggle said:


> thing is, she can keep digging, but she's not actually good enough at this to play windup. she's just embarassing herself trying to talk down to me. same as her partner is.


 
The only person I've seen consistently talking down to people on this thread is you.

You're embarrassing yourself, playing the wannabe mod too, the way you're dishing out threats to people about being banned from the thread is cringeworthy.

In the meantime your partner plays the clown by posting up wacky pictures to try and lighten the mood.


----------



## ymu (Apr 15, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> I wasn't. Drew said summat in a jovial way that offended some (way too serious) people...then we had a banter, that's all, but if you look over the thread you'll find the majority of my posts have been decent and on topic. Like the mahoossive one I just wrote to you.
> 
> And I will "barge" my way in anywhere I want, thanks. I don't really see it as barging, sorry you do.


OK, sorry. I didn't realise your boyfriend said it originally.

I am now even more puzzled. You think taking the piss out of women is OK as banter between friends, but not otherwise, so why aren't you telling him to behave himself instead of telling us off for telling him to behave himself? It's not magically OK when a man does it, now is it? If I went onto an anti-racist thread and started chucking racist tropes around for fun, I'd be dumped.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 15, 2013)

Can I just say btw that attacking people via their partner's postings is crap; it's a Canuck trick, accusing couples of tag-teaming. Address people individually if you have a problem with them.


----------



## Firky (Apr 15, 2013)

((((mrsfrans thread))))


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 15, 2013)

Oh,


ymu said:


> OK, sorry. I didn't realise your boyfriend said it originally.
> 
> I am now even more puzzled. You think taking the piss out of women is OK as banter between friends, but not otherwise, so why aren't you telling him to behave himself instead of telling us off for telling him to behave himself? It's not magically OK when a man does it, now is it? If I went onto an anti-racist thread and started chucking racist tropes around for fun, I'd be dumped.


 
After Drew said that, my first comment was "Tut. Drew". I then assumed you all knew of him (being an old member) and knew he was joking. Then we had a banter, as that's what we do. And I have told you all (or expressed) how I dislike all the bickering and ganging-up and backslapping...over what, one silly comment?

Of course, I don't care if my bf says sexists things, as I know he is not sexist. 

He is more woman than I am, ffs...


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 15, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Can I just say btw that attacking people via their partner's postings is crap; it's a Canuck trick, accusing couples of tag-teaming. Address people individually if you have a problem with them.


Damn straight. If I piss people off that's nowt to do with Drew, same other way.


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 15, 2013)

If you look back you'll see that Autochthonous1 only came on this thread to pull me up about my admittedly shit cliched joke. Since then neither of us have been acting like fuckwits or been disruptive.

Autochthonous1 has made plenty of well thought out posts in the meantime which tackle and question some of the more complicated aspects of feminism. For whatever reason some of the posters who are trying to "boss" the thread are finding it tricky to actually respond to those points, so they then go around playing the "fuckwit" "disruptive" or "troll" card to try and shut down the debate.

Daft. No doubt they're now going round trying to report my posts and have me "removed" from the thread. Sorry to disappoint you but that ain't gonna work.


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 15, 2013)

Right, about that stimulating conversation....


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 15, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> The only person I've seen consistently talking down to people on this thread is you.
> 
> You're embarrassing yourself, playing the wannabe mod too, the way you're dishing out threats to people about being banned from the thread is cringeworthy.
> 
> In the meantime your partner plays the clown by posting up wacky pictures to try and lighten the mood.


 
All that was originally wanted was for people to stop trolling feminism/sexism threads which they had been doing regularly for weeks now with not a vast amount being done about it. I've no objection to sensible, rational, intelligent discussion about anything. I do have an objection to people trying repeatedly to discuss an issue that matters and their being shouted down, patronised, insulted and generally made to feel that even raising an issue is an open invite to be fucked with by regular trolling and occasional aiding and abetting by passing pricks who'll take any opportunity to amuse themselves.

That's my personal opinion, let people engage in debate, not have it endlessly, regularly and repeatedly derailed and then have the wolfpack mentality thrown at them for wanting something done to curb the trolling. It wouldn't be tolerated if it were around issues of race, colour, religion, the sick and/or disabled etc, but for some reason it's been left to fester here and personally I find having reasoned, informative debate a great deal easier without people trying to sabotage it.

These are supposed to be discussion forums, after all.


----------



## Firky (Apr 15, 2013)

Drew doesn't want to kip in the huffy bed tonight


----------



## ymu (Apr 15, 2013)

Apologies for the confusion over who said what and why.

My problem with the rest of @Autochthonous1's posts is that they appear to be entirely ignorant of what feminism is, and mostly informed by stereotypical sex negative forms, promoted by the tabloid media and almost nobody else. Perhaps if she knew what the feminists she was engaging with actually thought, it would help.


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 15, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> For whatever reason some of the posters who are trying to "boss" the thread are finding it tricky to actually respond to those points, so they then go around playing the "fuckwit" "disruptive" or "troll" card to try and shut down the debate.


 
Do you have an opinion on the fact (and it's a fact) that feminism and sexism-related threads have been being targetted for disruption for at least the last few weeks on a sustained, constant and deliberate basis?

Would you be feeling the same if it was an attempt to have a serious discussion about race, religion, mental health, disability, insert issue open to particularly venomous trolling here, and people were doing the exact same things, using the exact same dirty tactics?


----------



## toggle (Apr 15, 2013)

ymu said:


> Apologies for the confusion over who said what and why.
> 
> My problem with the rest of @Autochthonous1's posts is that they appear to be entirely ignorant of what feminism is, and mostly informed by stereotypical sex negative forms, promoted by the tabloid media and almost nobody else. Perhaps if she knew what the feminists she was engaging with actually thought, it would help.


 
but she won't find that out until we remove the bullshitters off this thread, because I know from experience, most won't get onto discussion about the serious stuff if there's someone around who is likely to mansplain to then why they are wrong about their own expereinces, or try to take the piss out of them for it, because that discussion can take us to some very vulnerable places. it only takes a few experiences of someone using the experience of, for example,  a sexual assault as ammunition for their jokes or oneupmanship, to really put everyone off unless we can clear enough space to know that if anyone behaves like that then it will be the victim not the perpetrator that will get community support.


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 15, 2013)

Bakunin said:


> Do you have an opinion on the fact (and it's a fact) that feminism and sexism-related threads have been being targetted for disruption for at least the last few weeks on a sustained, constant and deliberate basis?
> 
> Would you be feeling the same if it was an attempt to have a serious discussion about race, religion, mental health, disability, insert issue open to particularly venomous trolling here, and people were doing the exact same things, using the exact same dirty tactics?


 
Yeah of course that's sensible to an extent, but as long as the targets are right, and it's not used as a tool to shut down debate, carry spats over from previous threads, and get people thrown off threads just because you don't like what they are saying.

Obviously I can't say shit because the shit joke I made on my first post could easily be interpreted as trolling


----------



## toggle (Apr 15, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> Yeah of course that's sensible to an extent, but as long as the targets are right, and it's not used as a tool to , and get people thrown off threads just because you don't like what they are saying.
> 
> Obviously I can't say shit because the shit joke I made on my first post could easily be interpreted as trolling


 
so instead of getting the trolls thrown off this thread, we should allow them to troll to 'shut down debate, carry spats over from previous threads'

nice to see what your priorities are.


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 15, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> Yeah of course that's sensible to an extent, but as long as the targets are right, and it's not used as a tool to shut down debate, carry spats over from previous threads, and get people thrown off threads just because you don't like what they are saying.
> 
> Obviously I can't say shit because the shit joke I made on my first post could easily be interpreted as trolling


 
Personally I don't mind people saying things that need saying but which people might not necessarily want to hear. That's all part of a robust debate as far as I'm concerned. If the recurring trolling had been on a thread about religion, race or any other issue I'd have turned out against it. But, personally, if I see the more heavyweight threads where I've got something worth saying then I'll weigh and I haven't then I won't. What I won't do is pick out particular subjects and particular posters and jump on every thread they post, following them round the place and deliberately trying to wreck every debate they're trying to have.

If a poster doesn't want to engage in a debate, fine, they can do whatever else makes them happy. But if they're deliberately targetting other posters and the issues that matter to them for sustained trolling over an extended period, then gien the choice I'd sooner see them told to wind their necks in so that those who want a sensible, intelligent debate about any issue under the sun feel confident to actually have one.


----------



## ymu (Apr 15, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> Yeah of course that's sensible to an extent, but as long as the targets are right, and it's not used as a tool to shut down debate, carry spats over from previous threads, and get people thrown off threads just because you don't like what they are saying.
> 
> Obviously I can't say shit because the shit joke I made on my first post could easily be interpreted as trolling


 
Its not "because we don't like what they're saying", it's because they've turned up on a thread about feminism and, as men, assume the right to tell us what's what, repeatedly, despite being told, repeatedly, that they need to shut the fuck up and listen because they can't just decide they are feminists and put no further thought into how that should affect their behaviour.

There's a huge difference. If you've missed the other threads, maybe you haven't spotted the pattern yet?


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 15, 2013)

toggle said:


> so instead of getting the trolls thrown off this thread, we should allow them to troll to 'shut down debate, carry spats over from previous threads'
> 
> nice to see what your priorities are.


 
Yes, because that's EXACTLY what I said


----------



## ymu (Apr 15, 2013)

If you knew what the fuck you were talking about then yes, yes it is. You don't know what you're talking about, so you will say stupid things. You should probably listen when people try to explain it.


----------



## toggle (Apr 15, 2013)

but, thanks for admitting that joke was misplaced.

you got a reaction for it because of the amount we've been trolled to shit for daring to discuss feminism,sexual harassment and other things in recent months. the trolling has clearly been a deliberate attempt to shut down any sensible discussion of those topics. you may say this thread was trolled to shit, but it's actually an improvement on a month ago where it would have been a good half dozen trolls within the first 10 posts and anyone attempting to defend against that trolling or even posting on topic being turned into the butt of a few dozen sexist jokes and called, in effect, a feminazi or pussy whipped.

our reaction has been to demand those trolls be removed from these threads. and it's shut up the majority of the worst offenders and the majority of the drive by trolls have given up because it has been made clear that the sexists posting on these threads will be the minority.

it's not about demanding no disagreement, it's about demanding disagreement be done through engagement and respect, rather than disagreement by sexist abuse and humikliation


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 15, 2013)

ymu said:


> If you knew what the fuck you were talking about then yes, yes it is. You don't know what you're talking about, so you will say stupid things. You should probably listen when people try to explain it.


 
Do you ever make unpatronising posts ? Just wondering like...

and the irony of doing so on a thread about feminism. tut


----------



## toggle (Apr 15, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> Do you ever make unpatronising posts ? Just wondering like...
> 
> and the irony of doing so on a thread about feminism. tut


 
she's right though.


----------



## ymu (Apr 15, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> Do you ever make unpatronising posts ? Just wondering like...
> 
> and the irony of doing so on a thread about feminism. tut


 
No. I am a patronising twat.

Are you saying you do know what you're talking about but you thought you'd troll this thread anyway?


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 15, 2013)

ymu said:


> No. I am a patronising twat.
> 
> Are you saying you do know what you're talking about but you thought you'd troll this thread anyway?



Apart from my first post, where exactly am I "trolling" this thread ?


----------



## ymu (Apr 15, 2013)

There. In your first post. If you knew what you were talking about then that post would not exist. Unless you are deliberately trolling this thread.


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 15, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> Apart from my first post, where exactly am I "trolling" this thread ?


 
Strikes me as being possibly an effect of the last few weeks of feminist/sexism threads being constantly trolled, IMHO. Scratch the same raw spot over and over again and eventually it makes people hyper-sensitive. I don't think it was the poor joke that got people's backs up so much as your mot taking the first opportunity available to smooth things over. What may have been just a bit of joshing on your part might well have been viewed through eyes rendered more than slightly ready to rip you apart unless you'd taken the first opportunity to hold your hand up and cop for it, something IIRC you didn't do until later on.


----------



## toggle (Apr 15, 2013)

and the whole reaction to being called out on that joke to continue taking the piss rather than accept it was out of order.

it came accross very much as the common attempts to humiliate women for not finding sexist humour funny. having a good laugh at the expense of those humorless feminists.

whether or not that was yur intent, that was what you achieved and yo0u poured petrol onto the fire of the fight we've been having over the last few weeks to stop the sexist trolling.


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 15, 2013)

The first post I made just by reading the thread title, I hadn't even bothered reading the previous fuck knows how many pages before I made it either. It was merely a shit joke in response to the question the thread title was asking, and I didn't think anything of it until I checked back on the thread when Autochthonous1 quoted me.

I then stupidly got myself dragged into the debate when I saw the reaction from some posters about this supposed incident when a load of feminists asked men to leave a meeting, and asked the question about whether trans-people would be allowed to stay ?

I'm perfectly allowed to have my opinion on that supposed incident, which to me is that it's like using apartheid to solve the problem of racism.

That's neither sexist or trolling, so I don't see why I should now be harangued into leaving the thread.


----------



## ymu (Apr 15, 2013)

Who the fuck is telling you to leave the thread, you precious little whingebag?


----------



## toggle (Apr 15, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> The first post I made just by reading the thread title, I hadn't even bothered reading the previous fuck knows how many pages before I made it either. It was merely a shit joke in response to the question the thread title was asking, and I didn't think anything of it until I checked back on the thread when Autochthonous1 quoted me.
> 
> I then stupidly got myself dragged into the debate when I saw the reaction from some posters about this supposed incident when a load of feminists asked men to leave a meeting, and asked the question about whether trans-people would be allowed to stay ?
> 
> ...


 
you haven't actually responded to my post.

can you read it again and see what i'm actually complaining about.




> and the whole reaction to being called out on that joke to continue taking the piss rather than accept it was out of order.
> 
> it came accross very much as the common attempts to humiliate women for not finding sexist humour funny. having a good laugh at the expense of those humorless feminists.
> 
> whether or not that was yur intent, that was what you achieved and yo0u poured petrol onto the fire of the fight we've been having over the last few weeks to stop the sexist trolling.


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 15, 2013)

ymu said:


> Who the fuck is telling you to leave the thread, you precious little whingebag?



I was threatened with being person number three to be forced off the thread.

As I'm not a "precious little whingebag" I found the threat laughable, and treated it as such.


----------



## ymu (Apr 15, 2013)

So you are trolling it?


----------



## xenon (Apr 15, 2013)

These serious threads that go ballisic, make me laug because no one can ever admit they're wrong or overreacted.


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 15, 2013)

toggle said:


> and the whole reaction to being called out on that joke to continue taking the piss rather than accept it was out of order.
> 
> it came accross very much as the common attempts to humiliate women for not finding sexist humour funny. having a good laugh at the expense of those humorless feminists.
> 
> whether or not that was yur intent, that was what you achieved and yo0u poured petrol onto the fire of the fight we've been having over the last few weeks to stop the sexist trolling.


 
A grand total of two people called me out on the joke before my own girlfriend did 24 hrs and pages later. Sounds like extreme outrage to me. How exactly did I continue "taking the piss" btw ???


----------



## toggle (Apr 15, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> A grand total of two people called me out on the joke before my own girlfriend did 24 hrs and pages later. Sounds like extreme outrage to me. How exactly did I continue "taking the piss" btw ???


 

it won't take you all that long to search your own posts on this thread. when you've done that, get back to me and we will see if you're actually either self aware or have any awareness of feminist issues.


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 15, 2013)

xenon said:


> These serious threads that go ballisic, make me laug because no one can ever admit they're wrong or overreacted.


 
I was totally wrong for making the shit joke, it was me being fucking daft, won't be the first time and no doubt wont be the last. But tbh if I'd realised there was a big recent issue of people trolling feminist threads on here (which I had no idea at the time) then I would have probably have thought twice about it.


----------



## ymu (Apr 15, 2013)

ymu said:


> So you are trolling it?


Oh, this is where I prove xenon's sweeping statement wrong and admit I misread RaverDrew as saying the thread was laughable, rather than the threat. 

Apologies Drew.


----------



## toggle (Apr 15, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> I was totally wrong for making the shit joke, it was me being fucking daft, won't be the first time and no doubt wont be the last. But tbh if I'd realised there was a big recent issue of people trolling feminist threads on here (which I had no idea at the time) then I would have probably have thought twice about it.


 
if you'd done that rather than taking the piss to start off with, there would have been no problem.

but thankyou.


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 15, 2013)

This has been lovely. I hope to do it again sometime.


----------



## toggle (Apr 15, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> Re-read.


 


read with context.

your turn


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 15, 2013)

toggle said:


> read with context.
> 
> your turn


 
You misread summat. No need to get angry, dear. Was merely helping you out.


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 15, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> I was totally wrong for making the shit joke, it was me being fucking daft, won't be the first time and no doubt wont be the last. But tbh if I'd realised there was a big recent issue of people trolling feminist threads on here (which I had no idea at the time) then I would have probably have thought twice about it.


 
If you'd just done this to start with I doubt there'd have been a massive ruckus. It's something I've done before and will no doubt ending up doing again at some point and it's like having a tooth out, the quicker it's done the quicker it's forgotten about.


----------



## toggle (Apr 15, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> You misread summat. No need to get angry, dear. Was merely helping you out.


 
angry?

not angry. more amused at your choice to remain ignorant.

the person who apparently can't read stuff properly is you.

the keyword for today is context. if you don't know what that means, look it up. as well as looking at the rest of the thread including the ones where i've specifically explained the context of that post.

over to you.

dear.


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 15, 2013)

Bakunin said:


> If you'd just done this to start with I doubt there'd have been a massive ruckus. It's something I've done before and will no doubt ending up doing again at some point and it's like having a tooth out, the quicker it's done the quicker it's forgotten about.



Nah, tbf the ruckus was actually a witch hunt, so utterly uncalled for... Why get so nasty. Beyond me.


----------



## toggle (Apr 15, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> Nah, tbf the ruckus was actually a witch hunt, so utterly uncalled for... Why get so nasty. Beyond me.


 
it seems drew is far more capable of responding maturely to this than you are.


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 15, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> You misread summat. No need to get angry, dear. Was merely helping you out.


 
In all fairness, that could very easily be interpreted as baiting to try and restart a ruck that was just beginning to wind down.


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 15, 2013)

toggle said:


> angry?
> 
> not angry. more amused at your choice to remain ignorant.
> 
> ...


 
Seriously. If all you want to do is fight join a boxing class or summat.


----------



## toggle (Apr 15, 2013)

Bakunin said:


> In all fairness, that could very easily be interpreted as baiting to try and restart a ruck that was just beginning to wind down.


 
of course it is.


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 15, 2013)

Bakunin said:


> In all fairness, that could very easily be interpreted as baiting to try and restart a ruck that was just beginning to wind down.


Oh here we go. Just stop it. Simple.


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 15, 2013)

toggle said:


> it seems drew is far more capable of responding maturely to this than you are.


No I just think the amount of ABUSE that came from it was so utterly awful and uncalled for, there was no need for that nastiness AT ALL.


----------



## toggle (Apr 15, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> Seriously. If all you want to do is fight join a boxing class or summat.


 
keep digging




easier than admitting you just made yourself look like a complete muppet



dear


----------



## toggle (Apr 15, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> No I just think the amount of ABUSE that came from it was so utterly awful and uncalled for, there was no need for that nastiness AT ALL.


 

today's keyword is apparently still 'context'


dear


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 15, 2013)

Wasn't aware that i did. Even if I did, which I don't think I did, I really would not care one bit, mate.


----------



## toggle (Apr 15, 2013)

how nice for you.



dear


----------



## toggle (Apr 15, 2013)

you apparently care enough to now start trolling this thread.

it it to be all about you now


dear?


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 15, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> Nah, tbf the ruckus was actually a witch hunt, so utterly uncalled for... Why get so nasty. Beyond me.


 
Hardly a witch hunt, given the context of recent feminism/sexism threads, IMHO. I don't think posting in a way that's starting to resemble pouring paraffin on the embers of an already bitterly fought row is exactly going to make things any less strained and fractious. It's also without doubt a bad time for anybody to post in a way that smacks of baiting other people either out of devilment or a desire to be the centre of attention. It's also a line of attack that's entirely unhelpful to having a decent level of debate.


----------



## toggle (Apr 15, 2013)

Bakunin said:


> Hardly a witch hunt, given the context of recent feminism/sexism threads, IMHO. I don't think posting in a way that's starting to resemble pouring paraffin on the embers of an already bitterly fought row is exactly going to make things any less strained and fractious. It's also without doubt a bad time for anybody to post in a way that smacks of baiting other people either out of devilment or a desire to be the centre of attention. It's also a line of attack that's entirely unhelpful to having a decent level of debate.


 
she's just having a sulk that i didn't respond to her baiting the way she hoped.


she's not good enough to properly bait anyone.


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 15, 2013)

Decent level of debate. Yeah, sure. 

This thread's been highly entertaining, folks, but I'm off to get shagged senseless now. I think you should have sex too, it may chill you out a little.


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 15, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> Decent level of debate. Yeah, sure.
> 
> This thread's been highly entertaining, folks, but I'm off to get shagged senseless now. I think you should have sex too, it may chill you out a little.


 

So it's either continuing to indulge you or going to bed with my fiance, is it?

Hmmmmm, the agony of choice...


----------



## toggle (Apr 15, 2013)

well, i hope for drews sake, she's better at entertaining him than entertaining us here.


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 15, 2013)

toggle said:


> well, i hope for drews sake, she's better at entertaining him than us.



I wasn't entertaining ya, was trying to have a conversation about cis-gender privilege and trans erasure and such but you didn't grasp any of that...

And I can send you photos if ya want?


----------



## ymu (Apr 15, 2013)

Time fucking out. 

Autochthonous1, perhaps you could explain why you think feminism is shit? From what I have seen of you, I think it is because you think there is only one feminist ideology and that it is anti-sex and attempting to control women's bodies as much as patriarchy does. Two questions:

1. Have you ever come across sex-positive feminism?

2. Do you really think that simply declaring that people are people and that is enough will actually achieve anything in terms of people being equally free (actual freedom, not theoretical choices) to stay at home with the kids, go out to work, get paid the same as other people doing the same job, all that jazz?


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 15, 2013)

toggle said:


> well, i hope for drews sake, she's better at entertaining him than entertaining us here.


 
Considering that I've watched footage of executions that were less excruciating that her attempting to make herself the centre of attention, this wouldn't be all that difficult.


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 15, 2013)

ymu said:


> Autochthonous1, perhaps you could explain why you think feminism is shit? From what I have seen of you, I think it is because you think there is only one feminist ideology and that it is anti-sex and attempting to control women's bodies as much as patriarchy does.


 
Eh?? I've said NOTHING of the sort! My issues with feminism revolve around gender, nothing to do with any anti-sex ideology!

1. Yes, of course.
2. Don't get ya..."declaring people are people"?? Huh.

Like I said; I'm going now, need to get rest for tomorrow. Would've been great to have asked me this an hour ago instead of all the fighting (that's not aimed at you Ymu).


----------



## toggle (Apr 15, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> I wasn't entertaining ya, was trying to have a conversation about cis-gender privilege and trans erasure and such but you didn't grasp any of that...
> 
> And I can send you photos if ya want?


 
and you're actually going to use that to try to gain attention?

but tbh, i seriously doubt there's anything you can show me that i haven't played with already.

ymu's right. you're assuming feminism is sex negative, you've certainly assumed that of me. The only problem is that you're assumptions are wrong, it's just that i'm not using my sex life to try to make people look at me.


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 15, 2013)

toggle said:


> i seriously doubt there's anything you can show me that i haven't played with already.


 
Still got enough energy for a shag, then?


----------



## toggle (Apr 15, 2013)

i'm now starting to understand her previous posts of 'feminists don't like me'. she entertains herself baiting women until they are sick of the sight of her, then tells herself that feminists hate her, so it's ok that she entertains herself at their expense. it's the female version of what i had to explain to frumious earlier.

she can't tell the difference between feminists not liking her because of sex/gender issues and not liking her because she's a nasty piece of work


----------



## ymu (Apr 15, 2013)

I think she has a perfectly reasonable beef with the transphobic 'feminist' twats. She should probably stop to check what other people think before assuming to know, but there's some sense inside the exhibitionism.

And before I'm jumped on again with an irrelevant diatribe about being some kind of sex-hating prude , once more Autochthonous1, I don't have any problem with exhibitionism as long as it's not happening in restaurants that carry kids' menus, or other inappropriate public spaces.


----------



## toggle (Apr 15, 2013)

she's not discussing the issues though, she's using them to get people to talk about her. and I'm not engaging in that. if i want to engage in some nekkid play with someone getting a kick out of that, I'll go do that in person.


----------



## ymu (Apr 15, 2013)

Well, I am asking her to discuss the issues and it's only fair to give her the chance.

I'm not going to spend the rest of the evening talking about her when she is not here.


----------



## toggle (Apr 15, 2013)

ymu said:


> Well, I am asking her to discuss the issues and it's only fair to give her the chance.
> 
> I'm not going to spend the rest of the evening talking about her when she is not here.


 
when i get discussion that isn't attached to an attempt at windup or prude shaming, I'll discuss. until then, she can get back what she gives.


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 15, 2013)

toggle said:


> i'm now starting to understand her previous posts of 'feminists don't like me'. she entertains herself baiting women until they are sick of the sight of her, then tells herself that feminists hate her, so it's ok that she entertains herself at their expense. it's the female version of what i had to explain to frumious earlier.
> 
> she can't tell the difference between feminists not liking her because of sex/gender issues and not liking her because she's a nasty piece of work


 
That's hilarious. I NEVER said feminist don't like me! EVER. Some of my best friends happen to call themselves feminists... Like I said earlier; I do not knock them or their beliefs, I just do not wish to be a part of it, much like religion; I accept it but it's not for me.


As for ''baiting women''? Not even sure where to start! I could start by explaining that I am pansexual, or even skiliosexual; *that I do not see gender -* I do not segregate people by their gender, only by their personality; their actions and words. IF I am baiting anyone (which I am not, that's your view) then it has NOTHING to do with gender.


And re your last line there... I have no issues with ANYONE hating me; male, female, trans, gender fluid, black, white, brown, old, young. Yes, I can be cheeky, and I have no issues with sticking up for myself (or my friends), and I won't back down. But I have no time for hate or the people hating. Hate is a terrible thing. Hate causes division, and that is what I am against. So, hate me all you want. I am confident enough in myself and the wonderful and amazing people around me, who know and love me that I am fucking beautiful, inside and out (as they are also). 


If you live in London, I invite you out for a pint, and we can get to know each other and you can see what sort of person I am.


Oh and I've not called anyone of this thread any of the nasty names you lot were throwing about, and never would. Just so you know.


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 15, 2013)

ymu said:


> I think she has a perfectly reasonable beef with the transphobic 'feminist' twats. She should probably stop to check what other people think before assuming to know, but there's some sense inside the exhibitionism.
> 
> And before I'm jumped on again with an irrelevant diatribe about being some kind of sex-hating prude , once more Autochthonous1, I don't have any problem with exhibitionism as long as it's not happening in restaurants that carry kids' menus, or other inappropriate public spaces.


 

Nope, it's way more, and goes FAR deeper than "having beef with the transphobic 'feminist' twats" and if you read the long post I made out to you about three hours ago, you may understand a little more. In that post I was nothing but polite and focusing upon the topic whilst actually attempting to raise more relevant topics (but bickering took place instead).


I've also not implied ANYONE is a prude? Or sex-hating? I've not said anything of the sort. Not sure why you've accused me of that as I would find it very hard to believe anybody hates sex.

And if somebody _did_ ''hate'' sex I would certainly not call them a "prude."

I hope you are all having sex right now, in fact.


----------



## ymu (Apr 15, 2013)

I did read your long post. It shows how little you understand about what feminism is, which is why I am trying to get you to articulate it properly.

You did imply that someone else needed to have some sex and it struck me as a bit shit. Maybe you're just very keen to let the rest of us know you're having sex, I dunno.

I've only come across you once before this. The discussion was Hooters and whether it was OK for them to simultaneously be licensed as an adult establishment (to get around employment law) and have children's menus and advertise themselves as a family place. All you did was refute arguments that no one had made whilst telling us how much you love being naked in public. If this is going to be like that, don't bother.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 15, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> I've also not implied ANYONE is a prude? Or sex-hating? I've not said anything of the sort. Not sure why you've accused me of that as I would find it very hard to believe anybody hates sex. And if somebody did ''hate'' sex I would certainly not call them a "prude."
> 
> I hope you are all having sex right now, in fact.


 


Autochthonous1 said:


> Decent level of debate. Yeah, sure.
> 
> This thread's been highly entertaining, folks, but I'm off to get shagged senseless now. I think you should have sex too, it may chill you out a little.



Yeah you know what? I like fucking too. Hold the front page. You don't have to be a frustrated sex-hater to be a feminist. You child.


----------



## toggle (Apr 15, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Yeah you know what? I like fucking too. Hold the front page. You don't have to be a frustrated sex-hater to be a feminist. You child.


 
thing is, what she doesn't seem to get is that there's a difference between sex positivism and prude shaming. she's tried baiting people with the latter.

but to me, being positive about sex has to include whatever sex women are having that they are enjoying. whether it's orgies every night or with a single lifelong partner. that's their choice.


----------



## toggle (Apr 15, 2013)

anyone have that misogynist bingo card lying about?


----------



## killer b (Apr 15, 2013)

my word. what a bellend.


----------



## toggle (Apr 15, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> If you live in London, I invite you out for a pint, and we can get to know each other and you can see what sort of person I am.
> 
> 
> .


 
i don't choose to spend time with people who try to bait others because of that they care about. and you have chosen to indulge in that.

you can make claims that you're not trying to press buttons, but it is very, very clear from every post you're making you are. I'm not so blinded by your constant chatter about how much sex you have to not notice the nasty shit you're trying.


----------



## sojourner (Apr 15, 2013)

ymu said:


> She's not egging him on. She is not allowing him to hijack a thread to lick his wounded ego on. You might disagree with her tactics, but it would be more fruitful to frame the suggestion that we all ignore him as an attack on him not as an attack on those who are disagreeing with him.
> 
> sojourner asked him to leave the thread days ago and he ignored it. Say what you think, but he is the problem, not those who are telling them what they think of his behaviour. It does not go away if you ignore it, it gets worse.


Whoa there!

I asked NO ONE to leave this thread - what I actually said "I don't think it's fair to keep derailing fran's thread. If people can't help, don't post. If you want to discuss other matters, set up a new thread eh?"

Don't use my words incorrectly ymu - you all carried on regardless anyway didn't you, inconsiderate bunch of twats sometimes in here


----------



## toggle (Apr 15, 2013)

sojourner said:


> Whoa there!
> 
> I asked NO ONE to leave this thread - what I actually said "I don't think it's fair to keep derailing fran's thread. If people can't help, don't post. If you want to discuss other matters, set up a new thread eh?"
> 
> Don't use my words incorrectly ymu - you all carried on regardless anyway didn't you, inconsiderate bunch of twats sometimes in here


 
someone else blaming anyone other than the troll.


----------



## sojourner (Apr 15, 2013)

toggle said:


> someone else blaming anyone other than the troll.


Fuck off - pack that right fucking in now

Ymu took my words and tried to use them for her own ends. And you have all done a fucking marvellous job of kicking the shit out of fran's thread. Well done.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 15, 2013)

Bakunin said:


> Do you have an opinion on the fact (and it's a fact) that feminism and sexism-related threads have been being targetted for disruption for at least the last few weeks on a sustained, constant and deliberate basis?
> 
> Would you be feeling the same if it was an attempt to have a serious discussion about race, religion, mental health, disability, insert issue open to particularly venomous trolling here, and people were doing the exact same things, using the exact same dirty tactics?


 
If it were merely the last couple of weeks, I'd brush it off as sour grapes from a handful of eejits, but some of this bullshit whiny crap from male posters goes back years - as long as I've been here, at the least.


----------



## toggle (Apr 15, 2013)

yep, definitely.

it's fighting against the trolling in the hope that things will continue to improve that is causing more trouble than trolling to go by this. I think perhaps ymu assumed you wouldn't take this attitude. I would have done so as well tbh.shame that.

at least we are trying to make an improvement instead of sulking on the sidelines


----------



## ymu (Apr 15, 2013)

That's not true sojourner. I'm stupid, but not stupid enough to deliberately misquote something anyone can check, let alone tag the person I am quoting so they can call me out on it.

I was too lazy to go and find your post. I will go and find it now and quote it. And I apologise for misrepresenting you.


sojourner said:


> I don't think it's fair to keep derailing fran's thread. If people can't help, don't post. If you want to discuss other matters, set up a new thread eh?


 
It's completely different from the post I remember, so I may have managed another mistaken identity. I will go and check.


----------



## sojourner (Apr 15, 2013)

Check first next time eh? If you hadn't tagged me in that post I wouldn't have known what you'd done.

I'm leaving this thread now.


----------



## ymu (Apr 15, 2013)

Yeah, I tagged you for absolutely no reason, hoping you wouldn't see it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 15, 2013)

toggle said:


> but she won't find that out until we remove the bullshitters off this thread, because I know from experience, most won't get onto discussion about the serious stuff if there's someone around who is likely to mansplain to then why they are wrong about their own expereinces, or try to take the piss out of them for it, because that discussion can take us to some very vulnerable places. it only takes a few experiences of someone using the experience of, for example, a sexual assault as ammunition for their jokes or oneupmanship, to really put everyone off unless we can clear enough space to know that if anyone behaves like that then it will be the victim not the perpetrator that will get community support.


 
Much as I'd love to think that people using personal info as "ammunition" in arguments is a rare occurrence, it isn't. There's a certain brand of poster who can't "let go" in arguments, even when they've dug themselves right into the shit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 15, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> I was totally wrong for making the shit joke, it was me being fucking daft, won't be the first time and no doubt wont be the last. But tbh if I'd realised there was a big recent issue of people trolling feminist threads on here (which I had no idea at the time) then I would have probably have thought twice about it.


 
Drew may be a nugget, but he's no ninjaboy.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 15, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Drew may be a nugget, but he's no ninjaboy.


Nor does Dwyer usually stoop quite that low, even if bored.


----------



## jjuice (Apr 15, 2013)

Revisited this thread today, very disappointed, I was hoping for some lively discussion and  debate with some like minded feminists , not afraid to use the 'f' word.

Are we ready to leave the squabbling behind now ?

For 'f's' sake


----------



## ymu (Apr 15, 2013)

Yeah, but don't rely on me for any of that no squabbling shit. I need a minder.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 15, 2013)

jjuice said:


> Revisited this thread today, very disappointed, I was hoping for some lively discussion and debate with some like minded feminists , not afraid to use the 'f' word.
> <snip>
> For 'f's' sake


FWIW I can't imagine anything more tedious and less lively than trying to debate with somebody of like mind.  As for whether I'd be of the same mind as you about every feminist issue, that remains to be seen.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 15, 2013)

Greebo said:


> FWIW I can't imagine anything more tedious and less lively than trying to debate with somebody of like mind. As for whether I'd be of the same mind as you about every feminist issue, that remains to be seen.


 
Well quite. We are not all just supposed to agree with each other as standard. That would be a very short conversation. 
But I think the amount of arguing that has gone on has outstripped the matter at hand.


----------



## toggle (Apr 15, 2013)

it's getting better.


----------



## ymu (Apr 15, 2013)

Is jjuice going to post something we can talk about then or what? It doesn't happen by magic you know.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 15, 2013)

ymu said:


> Is jjuice going to post something we can talk about then or what? It doesn't happen by magic you know.


Public transport vs prams, shopping trollies, and baby buggies: Would the aisles be wider and the luggage racks more usable if the manufacturers of wheeled goods were forced to interact with bus and train companies?


----------



## kittyP (Apr 15, 2013)

Greebo said:


> Public transport vs prams, shopping trollies, and baby buggies: Would the aisles be wider and the luggage racks more usuable if the manufacturers of wheeled goods were forced to interact with bus and train companies?


 
I remember a good friend of mine with Hammer and Sickle tats crying out "mother and baby parking spaces are a sign of oppression"...... then he had a kid


----------



## Santino (Apr 15, 2013)

I've done it, I've read all the thread.


----------



## zenie (Apr 15, 2013)

Santino said:


> I've done it, I've read all the thread.


 
You are a better (wo)man than me.  I started when mrsfran first posted and then it went batshit.

Can I have a summary please? 

And mrsfran your thoughts?


----------



## Santino (Apr 15, 2013)

zenie said:


> Can I have a summary please?



LOL, feminists wear dungarees
No, that's not sexist and let me tell you why.
Fuck off Dwyer


----------



## Wilf (Apr 15, 2013)

Santino said:


> LOL, feminists wear dungarees
> No, that's not sexist and let me tell you why.
> Fuck off Dwyer


One of those at least is a point around which urban can unite.


----------



## Firky (Apr 15, 2013)

jjuice said:


> Revisited this thread today, very disappointed, I was hoping for some lively discussion and debate with some like minded feminists , not afraid to use the 'f' word.
> 
> Are we ready to leave the squabbling behind now ?
> 
> For 'f's' sake


 
Have you really been here for 9 years and still expect that?


----------



## kittyP (Apr 15, 2013)

Santino said:
			
		

> [*]LOL, feminists wear dungarees
> [*]No, that's not sexist and let me tell you why.
> [*]Fuck off Dwyer



Oh 

Other than Dwyer obvs


----------



## ymu (Apr 16, 2013)

Firky said:


> Have you really been here for 9 years and still expect that?


Nine years and 500 posts. Fucking hell. A lurker came out to tell us off.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 16, 2013)

Google image search seems to suggest that dungarees are predominantly women's clothing with the remainder being small children and very occasionally a young male model.

Which makes me wonder whether I'm completely wrong about why that original comment was offensive.

Bloody fashion...


----------



## ymu (Apr 16, 2013)

What was your original hypothesis?

(If it'll start up a bunfight, just whisper the post number. )


----------



## 8ball (Apr 16, 2013)

ymu said:


> What was your original hypothesis?


 
I'd say a bunfight is an inevitability at this stage but I assumed it was something along the line of some trope involving feminists wearing dungarees while getting up to unholy and subversive activities very probably involving power tools, likely based around dungarees being considered an unfeminine item of clothing despite the contrary insistence of Google image search, possibly reflecting current sartorial trends*.

* - Given the _cis _relation between my genital configuration and my external socio-cultural gender presentation, I'm obviously in no position to comment on whether my assumption is the result of a patriarchally-transmitted false consciousness.


----------



## cesare (Apr 16, 2013)




----------



## ymu (Apr 16, 2013)

8ball said:


> I'd say a bunfight is an inevitability at this stage but I assumed it was something along the line of some trope involving feminists wearing dungarees while getting up to unholy and subversive activities very probably involving power tools, likely based around dungarees being considered an unfeminine item of clothing despite the contrary insistence of Google image search, possibly reflecting current sartorial trends*.
> 
> * - Given the _cis _relation between my genital configuration and my external socio-cultural gender presentation, I'm obviously in no position to comment on whether my assumption is the result of a patriarchally-transmitted false consciousness.


That is the trope. Stereotyping of "wimmin". Insulting to feminists but also designed to put women off feminism, by reminding us that we won't be considered attractive if we speak out, and what use is an unattractive woman?

Dungarees were work gear 40 years ago. Co-opted by fashion at various times since.


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 16, 2013)

Hey, RaverDrew, they're _still_ on about dungarees.


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 16, 2013)

Feminists trolling themselves


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 16, 2013)

toggle said:


> i don't choose to spend time with people who try to bait others because of that they care about. and you have chosen to indulge in that.
> 
> you can make claims that you're not trying to press buttons, but it is very, very clear from every post you're making you are. I'm not so blinded by your constant chatter about how much sex you have to not notice the nasty shit you're trying.



I have not, do not "bait" anyone; I just have a different view from you. That's all. You call it "baiting" because I do not agree with you.
Also, I have NOT once mentioned ''how much sex'' I am having. Not once on this thread or anywhere else. 

You seem to like to make things up. I've not called anyone a prude either like you all keep suggesting. I don't call names, nor do I even use the word "prude", never have, never would.


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 16, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Yeah you know what? I like fucking too. Hold the front page. You don't have to be a frustrated sex-hater to be a feminist.



I agree. I have never EVER said somebody had "to be a frustrated sex-hater to be a feminist", I've never thought that at any point in my life. I am glad you like fucking.


----------



## ymu (Apr 16, 2013)

Quit the shit-stirring.


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 16, 2013)

Quit shutting down debate by misquoting and misrepresenting other posters.


----------



## ymu (Apr 16, 2013)

You mean, the poster that asked everybody to stop fucking around on this thread?

Start a new thread if you want to pick fights. Hijacking this one again is not going to go down well.


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 16, 2013)

ymu said:


> Start a new thread if you want to pick fights.


 
Oh the irony


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 16, 2013)

ymu said:


> I did read your long post. It shows how little you understand about what feminism is, which is why I am trying to get you to articulate it properly.


 

I didn't talk of feminism in that long post, only my views and why I was not a feminist. So you do not know how much or how little I know about feminism. I know though and that is all that matters to me.



ymu said:


> I've only come across you once before this. The discussion was Hooters and whether it was OK for them to simultaneously be licensed as an adult establishment (to get around employment law) and have children's menus and advertise themselves as a family place. All you did was refute arguments that no one had made whilst telling us how much you love being naked in public. If this is going to be like that, don't bother.


 

I worked in Hooters over ten years ago, in Canada. I worked there for three weeks. And so I felt I could contribute to that thread (about Hooters), I was the only one who had ever worked there and so my posts were interesting. There was no bickering, it was a nice discussion and people liked my input, I enjoyed that thread. I did not talk about myself and how I am a nudist, for no reason; people were asking me questions and I expressed myself. A discussion (which rarely happens here on this thread as you all prefer to gang up on people and just bicker).


----------



## Autochthonous1 (Apr 16, 2013)

toggle said:


> thing is, what she doesn't seem to get is that there's a difference between sex positivism and prude shaming. she's tried baiting people with the latter.


 
I have never called anybody a "prude". It is not something I would say to anybody. I don't even believe in "_prude_".

If a person has an issue with sex, is uncomfortable with it or scared by it, or even dislikes it I would be nothing but understanding, empathetic and also private. I have not said that anybody dislikes sex, not once, not here or anywhere!

I am unsure as to why you keep saying this, you are wrong. Just because I am not a feminist doesn't mean I hate feminists; many of my close friends call themselves feminists. It's just not for me, like religion, or meat. Or Coldplay.


----------



## mrsfran (Apr 16, 2013)

zenie said:


> You are a better (wo)man than me.  I started when mrsfran first posted and then it went batshit.
> 
> Can I have a summary please?
> 
> And mrsfran your thoughts?


 
I've given up on the thread. The self-righteousness on all sides of the debate, the personal attacks - this is not what I'm here for and it's put me right off. Although I understand the importance of combatting perceived sexism, I have neither the time nor inclination to argue on the internet. What I wanted was some ideas about how to make a difference in the real world, and I was helpfully given some good pointers, so thanks for those. The idiocy and in-fighting can do one.


----------



## Santino (Apr 16, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> I have not, do not "bait" anyone...


 
Yes, dear.



Autochthonous1 said:


> You misread summat. No need to get angry, dear. Was merely helping you out.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 16, 2013)

This thread is proper urbans.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 16, 2013)

How can I become more involved in the feminist movement? Avoid getting into tedious online arguments.


----------



## ymu (Apr 16, 2013)

Apologies mrsfran. There's a lot of these threads going on, all of them horrible. And part of the reason for that is that some of us have decided that we're not going to put up with this sexist shit any more.and will call it out until it stops.

There has not been an untrashed feminist thread on here in years. The only possible way you will get one is to ask for information only, no discussion, in the OP and hope there's a mod around to enforce it, should you choose to ask them to.


----------



## prunus (Apr 16, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> I didn't see the need to point out that not all men have the appetite to kill. It's self evident. Like saying that water is wet.
> 
> The context of our discussion was that, of the small number of women in the British army who had passed the relevant tests, not one had asked for a front line infantry job. We were speculating about the underlying reasons. My opinion is that the stereotype about men being more violent/bloodthirsty than women mostly holds good. That is proven by the gender balance of violent criminals. I know of a number of men in the US army who joined in order to have the experience of killing. I got to know one of them quite well. *I just can't imagine a woman with that urge*. There might be the odd one. As you say, female serial killers exist. But I believe that urge is so rare in women that it may explain why no women in the British army have yet volunteered to be front line infantry. I don't see that as bigotry. I'm just acknowledging that men and women are different. The word 'bigot' is pretty nasty. It implies that I have contempt for women. I don't.


 
Now read this (don't worry, it's short) *rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity*

And then have a little think.


----------



## ymu (Apr 16, 2013)

There is an extraordinarily high rate of rape of female soldiers by male soldiers in the armed forces. I imagine that is why very few women are willing to volunteer for units where there will be very few other women around a lot of the time.

I think that's a _bit_ more plausible that the idea that we get lumbered with most of the unpaid caring work because we love it really. But I'm only a woman, so what insight could I possibly have into the choices women make?


----------



## mentalchik (Apr 16, 2013)

ymu said:


> I think that's a _bit_ more plausible that the idea that we get lumbered with most of the unpaid caring work because we love it really. But I'm only a woman, so what insight could I possibly have into the choices women make?


 
and of course the majority of the shittily paid caring and cleaning jobs done by women is because we love it and are soooo much better at it................


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> I am unsure as to why you keep saying this, you are wrong. Just because I am not a feminist doesn't mean I hate feminists; many of my close friends call themselves feminists. It's just not for me, like religion, or meat. Or Coldplay.


 
i'm not racist, i have black friends.....

i'm not anti feminist, i just mouth off at them and tell them they need to go have a fuck and shut up.


----------



## ymu (Apr 16, 2013)

Oh, it's this thread again.

Can people stop fucking reading and posting on it so that it can go the way it was originally intended to.


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

Santino said:


> Yes, dear.


 
the problem with that one is she thinks we're too thick to see her obvious baiting, so she can deny it all.


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

the one thing that really, really gets to me is a strong woman claiming that feminism never did anything for her.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Besant

had her children taken off her because she was involved in publishing a guide on how to limit family size.we have access to contraception because of women like her. this is before we get onto the 60's campaigns for access to the pill. talking about contraception was deemed 'obscene'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contagious_Diseases_Acts

this is how women in the sex industry were treated once, the hypocrisy about men using prostitutes, yet shaming the prostitutes not the men was responsible for a lot of married women in that era being very, very ill, cause doctors wouldn't embarrass their husbands by telling the wife that hubby had given her syph. other women campaigned against this. like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Butler

Would you like being told that your husband or father had the vote and would protect your interests better than you could? Women went on hunger strike and were force fed to try to get the vote. before more women got into universities and started writing feminist histories, male historians would comment that they had enjoyed the experience of force feeding, and that the only real downside was that it could risk a woman's most important asset 'her looks'. because of them, i know the stories of these women

we can talk about the right to work in your choice of jobs, the right to keep a job after getting married, the right to keep your own property after getting married, the right not to get married, the end of the magdalane laundries,the right to safe abortion, the right to divorce.

you get to do what you do because a thousand feminists stood up before you and risked everything to give you that.


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

and that is why I'll say my contribution to the struggle is promoting women's histories.

what did they do for me?

fucking everything.


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ucts-page-glorifying-rape-domestic-abuse.html


----------



## 8ball (Apr 16, 2013)

Autochthonous1 said:


> I didn't talk of feminism in that long post, only my views and why I was not a feminist.


 
I've only just read the gap between my last comments and the comment I made about dungarees appearing to be predominantly female clothing these days - anyway enough about dungarees - my only real opinion on them is that you have to be proper skinny to wear them and carry them off (I had some purple ones back when I was 3 stone lighter and they made me look fat even then).

Was interested in your posts about not identifying as a feminist, though.  I can see how encounters with hostility in some groups that claim to be fighting for equality can leave you with the feeling that you want nothing to do with them.  While being understandable, I think there's a degree to which you can fall into the same 'black and white, the world is divided neatly into the damned and the saved' mode of thinking that pushed you away from those groups. 

I can also understand why some in the 'feminist camp' are having trouble dealing with trans people - obviously that doesn't justify poor behaviour.

Personally, I don't self-identify as a feminist due to not being a woman, but I'm on side with the struggle for equality and social justice - I don't think the words should matter that much, just leads to further division - I have similar problems with the word 'anarchist'.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 16, 2013)

What problem do you have with the word 'anarchist'? The only problem I have is the media label anyone who engages in destructive direct action as one.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 16, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> What problem do you have with the word 'anarchist'? The only problem I have is the media label anyone who engages in destructive direct action as one.


 
Another derail point - apols to all involved. (  at self)

Yes, what you say is one of them. Also, you can go into quite a lot of detail about your political perspective with someone but as soon as you mention the 'A word' the shutters come down, all prior discussion is seemingly forgotten and you are a dangerous extremist who must be kept at a distance. So a bit like the 'F word' in that respect.

Labels come with baggage.


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

8ball said:


> Personally, I don't self-identify as a feminist due to not being a woman, '.


 
that's been a hugely divisive problem for years.

can you be a feminist? IMO, yes.

I have no issue at all with men defining as feminists. the more the merrier. it is only when they start telling me they can define my experiences better than they can, that i get upset. for example, a man who identifies as feminist cannot be telling women that street harassment of women isn't happening, cause he hasn't noticed it. he needs to listen to the experiences of women who are street harassed for being women.

Is feminism fighting for you as well? Yes.

This is where we need male feminists. I cannot tell you how the patriarchy has fucked you. How being expected to behave in a certain way to be considered a proper man has caused you problems. If my fight against patriarchy includes you and fights for you, I need you to tell me where to fight first. and what fight i need to have. otherwise I'm doing to you what i don't like being done to me.



ETA: I'll be honest, I don't read much of their stuff, but the majority of men's rights campaigners seem to be wanting to promote a status quo, or a roll back the clock, and the right for men to be arseholes to women. I think in terms of wanting real change for men's rights, wanting them to be equal in all areas, like in being parents, as well as being the well paid boss, those of us who accept men as feminists are more men's rights campaigners than they are.


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> What problem do you have with the word 'anarchist'? The only problem I have is the media label anyone who engages in destructive direct action as one.


 
Nods.

the extremist label is something anarchists and feminists have. you're smashing shit up, i'm beating up men who hold the door open for me.I love what i've read of andrea dworkin's writing, she wanted to sympathize with and respect all women, not just those who were on her side. but look at the shit she got. she was the stereotypical fat, dungaree wearing lesbian, and she was massacred by the mainstream media and everything she said twisted into assumption she was a feminist and a lesbian cause she was too fat for men to want her.

because it suits the mainstream media to focus on the extreme aspects, because that makes the whole campaign look crazy and it doesn't allow us to co-opt the majority into promoting real social change.


8ball said:


> Another derail point - apols to all involved. (  at self)
> 
> .


 
derails that add intelligent content are great. we learn what divides us and usually it isn't as much as we thought.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 16, 2013)

toggle said:


> that's been a hugely divisive problem for years.
> 
> can you be a feminist? IMO, yes.
> 
> I have no issue at all with men defining as feminists. the more the merrier.


 
A lot of feminists do have issues with it (for reasons you partly go into).  I'm aware opinions are changing but I respect the boundary in the meantime and I don't think there is anything practically different in whether a male supporter adopts the label so see it as a fairly neutral issue. 



toggle said:


> This is where we need male feminists. I cannot tell you how the patriarchy has fucked you. How being expected to behave in a certain way to be considered a proper man has caused you problems. If my fight against patriarchy includes you and fights for you, I need you to tell me where to fight first. and what fight i need to have. otherwise I'm doing to you what i don't like being done to me.


 
I think the term 'patriarchy' as used by feminists is a way of looking at issues of power that is necessarily through a female perspective.  I'm not convinced that human beings will achieve gender equality without sorting out issues of power in general (assuming we ever do either), so I don't see it as me personally being 'fucked by patriarchy' and wanting to address that so much as wanting to hold power to account in general.


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

it's both.Imo.



it's the attitude that is still out there that tells men who back us that they aren't real men cause they don't tell us to fuck off or be raped.the 'men in charge' attitude that permeates downwards from the men who are in charge.

which fight to have first has always been a conflict, where it is clear there are 2 issues.

the answer to me is 'both'. it has to be.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 16, 2013)

toggle said:


> it's the attitude that is still out there that tells men who back us that they aren't real men cause they don't tell us to fuck off or be raped.the 'men in charge' attitude that permeates downwards from the men who are in charge.


 
That's not what I thought you meant - I thought you meant the general gendered social conditioning that men get from birth, but I agree with your point.


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

8ball said:


> That's not what I thought you meant - I thought you meant the general gendered social conditioning that men get from birth, but I agree with your point.


 
it's both, it's all of it. 

this is where we need to be able to talk and define terms.

what feminism means to us all. what these terms mean to us all.

to me, patriarchy is both the power structure and effect.

to me, feminism started off as a belief in equality of women, and the fight for that equality, but has to start to include real equality of others in order to continue.demanding equality for women only gives us thatcher, who strengthened the patriarchy.


----------



## ymu (Apr 16, 2013)

8ball said:


> I think the term 'patriarchy' as used by feminists is a way of looking at issues of power that is necessarily through a female perspective. I'm not convinced that human beings will achieve gender equality without sorting out issues of power in general (assuming we ever do either), so I don't see it as me personally being 'fucked by patriarchy' and wanting to address that so much as wanting to hold power to account in general.


That's certainly not how I use the term. You are right that it is all about holding power to account, which is what Cesare was talking about right at the beginning of the thread: feminism as a single issue, or feminism rooted in class-based politics?

It just so happens that the power is in the hands of rich white men, a condition known as 'patriarchy'. Virtually everyone suffers under it. Which is why, of course, the media owned by these rich white men are so keen to promote and distort the extremes. The working-class uniting to defeat them can never be allowed to happen. Men must be persuaded that feminism is about taking stuff away from them and that this is unfair, and women must be reminded that their only purpose in life is to provide sex and children...

... and/or that life is just too fucking short to complain about this shit because of the torrent of abuse and threats of violence it will bring down on their heads. I'm being fucking stalked by fragile male egos elsewhere on the boards for making this an issue. It is beyond pathetic. I am not easily intimidated but it is very easy to see why so few women do speak out. The childish response from those who are happy with the status quo makes life just that little bit less pleasant and it is very tempting to just hide out in P&P to get away from the mindless thuggery. It'd be a lot easier to just pretend that these people do not exist. But if we all do that, they'll never cease to exist.


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

sometimes someone has to stick their head above the parapet, then we can all cut through the shit well enough to be able to talk sensibly.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 16, 2013)

toggle said:


> that's been a hugely divisive problem for years.
> 
> can you be a feminist? IMO, yes.
> 
> ...


 
I've never had much time for "masculinism" activists, for much those reasons. The whole Iron John "blokes going off together into the woods to discover their true selves" thing made me nauseous. Came across as just another excuse to not bother to grow the fuck up.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 16, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I've never had much time for "masculinism" activists, for much those reasons. The whole Iron John "blokes going off together into the woods to discover their true selves" thing made me nauseous. Came across as just another excuse to not bother to grow the fuck up.


 
Is that what 'masculinism' is - I always thought it had something to do with blokes who want male-only golf clubs and those people who dress up as Batman and climb onto council buildings.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 16, 2013)

8ball said:


> Is that what 'masculinism' is - I always thought it had something to do with blokes who want male-only golf clubs and those people who dress up as Batman and climb onto council buildings.


 
They're part of it, rather than the entirety.
I wouldn't mind masculinism so much if it were meaningful - if it were struggling to win men denied rights, for example - but it isn't. It's mostly petulant children in adult bodies complaining because a system that's already loaded in their favour in most respects, doesn't happen to be in their favour in *all* respects.
I've gone looking for coherent arguments and meaningful struggles, but I've found very few that don't get bogged down in childish name-calling and whining. I've seen a few good articles over the years on parenting issues (usually in favour of making sure that children get decent parenting from both parents, and don't get used as a battleground by parents), but the "rights" stuff does tend to the "why shouldn't I be able to discipline my wife? She's my wife!" type of shite.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 16, 2013)

toggle said:


> sometimes someone has to stick their head above the parapet, then we can all cut through the shit well enough to be able to talk sensibly.


 
I agree. But if that person then stands above the parapet yelling at anyone that happens to disagree with them or they disagree with, the talking sensibly goes out the window. 
I have not seen _much_ discussion other than those who are all in agreement anyway.  
If you can't have a discussion with someone with a differing point of view, that is not trolling or baiting, then what's the point?


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

kittyP said:


> I agree. But if that person then stands above the parapet yelling at anyone that happens to disagree with them or they disagree with, the talking sensibly goes out the window.
> I have not seen _much_ discussion other than those who are all in agreement anyway.
> If you can't have a discussion with someone with a differing point of view, that is not trolling or baiting, then what's the point?


 
when someone won't back down from promoting stereotypes of what they think all women are like, then sensible discussion is already lost.

now the bullshit has been forced off the field, we can have a sensible discussion and will continue to do so until the next idiot who thinks he knows women better than they do, or the next joker comes along. if some of us weren't prepared to make enemies of those idiots, then this discussion would still be overrun by a dozen trolls. you only need to look at feminism threads over the last few years to see that. watching a thread turn into a bunfight is no fun. but it has resulted in some space to talk. doing nothing and watching it get trolled and there would be no space to talk.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 16, 2013)

toggle said:


> when someone won't back down from promoting stereotypes of what they think all women are like, then sensible discussion is already lost.
> 
> now the bullshit has been forced off the field, we can have a sensible discussion and will continue to do so until the next idiot who thinks he knows women better than they do, or the next joker comes along. if some of us weren't prepared to make enemies of those idiots, then this discussion would still be overrun by a dozen trolls. you only need to look at feminism threads over the last few years to see that. watching a thread turn into a bunfight is no fun. but it has resulted in some space to talk. doing nothing and watching it get trolled and there would be no space to talk.


 
You have misunderstood me.
I am not talking about you getting rid of the idiots.
I am not saying you should have to put up with sexists.
I am talking about you attacking people you happen to disagree with.
Some good people have (and one with particularly good femenist creds) been fucked off from or walked out of this thread when they did nothing wrong.
Can you not understand that other people do understand your cause but are just leaving you to talk amongst yourselves because there isn't any leeway for disagreement?
Do you want to end up with 4-5 of you on every thread about feminism just talking to and agreeing with each other?
I am not saying that you have to put up with sexism but this is what's happening to these threads.
Is there not some area in between?

I dunno why I am asking this because I know your just going to shout at me.
It took me ages to build up the courage to post in here again too


----------



## ymu (Apr 16, 2013)

It depends what you think of as trolling or baiting. You'd have to have actually read all these threads to understand why some people get jumped on much quicker than others.

Men who repeatedly turn up to tell us we're getting this feminism thing all wrong; or that things are already equal and can't we all just be people (maaaan); or complain about women treating them like potential rapists because they are not rapists and it's not fair to treat them as if they might be (their feelings being more important than our safety); or who pop in to shit stir but are too gutless to actually explain why they are so offended by feminism; or who just call you a feminazi/extremist/other insult the moment you suggest there might be a difference between male and female perspectives, or any of the dozens of other crappy tactics so familiar to female writers that there are several piss-taking taxonomies and bingo cards outlining the tactics available via an internet search near you.

I try to be quite kind with unknown quantities but, just like the woman who has been harrassed several times already that day before she bites the head off some innocent bloke who wants to talk to her, my patience has limits. I do accept that people need a chance to learn, but sometimes I wonder how in hell so many of them managed to get to adulthood (technically, at least) without learning it already.

I don't agree with everything other feminists say, and they don't agree with everything I say. Discussing those differences is useful, and it is how I arrived at my opinions in the first place. I get much more antsy about racism, but on threads about racism there is never a small group of racists being allowed to destroy it before we get to the interesting stuff..

Hacked off with being told off for speaking out? Yes. Yes I am. I'm an aggressive, opinionated arsehole. That is who I am. That doesn't mean you have to tacitly condone this sexist shit to tell me off about it. Fuck's sake.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 16, 2013)

Whatever your reasoning, no matter how pissed off you and have had enough with having to explain things to idiots, it is a fact that loads of decent people who might want to broaden their ideas and maybe get invoked in a conversation have said "fuck that, I am going nowhere near that thread" because of the attitude that screams from the pages. 
It's a fact. Sorry. People are now scared to engage. 
That to me seems really sad. 

Oh and for the record, that is not me saying that you should have to put up with sexist idiots.

& 


> That doesn't mean you have to tacitly condone this sexist shit to tell me off about it.


 
I don't even know what that means. I am not tactically condoning anything.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 16, 2013)

Oh and I am aware that that ^ also goes for a lot of issues in P&P not just this one.


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

kittyP said:


> You have misunderstood me.
> I am not talking about you getting rid of the idiots.
> I am not saying you should have to put up with sexists.
> I am talking about you attacking people you happen to disagree with.
> ...


 
fantastic.

that is another post in which you are completely failing to listen to what i'm saying. this is the problem, you are sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending that if we stop fighting the trolling, there will be a nice friendly discussion. there won't. there will be 100 of them lining up to call you a crazy femininazi.

there is no issue with respectful disagreement. i have not attacked anyone for respectful disagreement. i have attacked those who have trolled, who have insisted on explaining how women think to me or who are telling me off for confronting the trolls and not being a quiet little girlie.and i am fucking sick of both tbh.



there are more people speaking out ion this since we started fighting back. not fewer.

there are more discussions on this, not fewer.

there are fewer trolls on these threads. not more.

that there aren't 15 bad taste jokes on this between your post and mine shows it is getting better.

that every woman on this thread hasn't fucked off in disgust shows ti's getting better.

anyone who is driven away by the fight against trolling would IMO, have also been driven away by the trolling and anti feminist abuse that we have been getting for years. the difference is, that one way leads to more trolling and the other leads to some space to talk.

i've chosen what tactic i'll use, because i know what result i want.


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

kittyP said:


> Whatever your reasoning, no matter how pissed off you and have had enough with having to explain things to idiots, it is a fact that loads of decent people who might want to broaden their ideas and maybe get invoked in a conversation have said "fuck that, I am going nowhere near that thread" because of the attitude that screams from the pages.
> It's a fact. Sorry. People are now scared to engage.
> That to me seems really sad.
> 
> ...


 
do you think a thread full of sexist trolls would be better?

seriously?

cause that is the alternative.


----------



## ymu (Apr 16, 2013)

That's your impression, kittyP. I don't think it is an accurate one. There are several people who have posted on these threads recently to say that they stay off them because they're fed up of the disruption and wary of the venom they'll get if they speak out.

spanglechick has had a near miraculous effect with her recent posts on these threads. This one in particular. Some of the arseholes have not been back, since realising someone they like and respect thought they were acting like pricks.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 16, 2013)

toggle said:


> do you think a thread full of sexist trolls would be better?
> 
> seriously?
> 
> cause that is the alternative.


 
No, no I don't.
You are the one that is not listening. 

Forget it, I am off again. Well done.


----------



## ymu (Apr 16, 2013)

kittyP said:


> I don't even know what that means. I am not tactically condoning anything.


Tacitly, not tactically. You're attacking those who speak out more than you attack the intentionally disruptive sexists. I know it's not your intention, but that sends a message. That they're right and we're extremist feminazis who can safely be ignored and abused whilst they trash every thread they find threatening to the very weak grip they have on their masculinity.

You're far from being the only person who does this and I'm not accusing you of anything at all. Just pointing out that there is another side to this story, and you don't seem willing to accept that.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 16, 2013)

ymu said:


> That's your impression, kittyP. I don't think it is an accurate one. There are several people who have posted on these threads recently to say that they stay off them because they're fed up of the disruption and wary of the venom they'll get if they speak out.
> 
> spanglechick has had a near miraculous effect with her recent posts on these threads. This one in particular. Some of the arseholes have not been back, since realising someone they like and respect thought they were acting like pricks.


 
If you look at the way Spangles dealt with it, that may be your key. 
No aggression.


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

.


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

ymu said:


> Tacitly, not tactically. You're attacking those who speak out more than you attack the intentionally disruptive sexists. I know it's not your intention, but that sends a message. That they're right and we're extremist feminazis who can safely be ignored and abused whilst they trash every thread they find threatening to the very weak grip they have on their masculinity.
> 
> You're far from being the only person who does this and I'm not accusing you of anything at all. Just pointing out that there is another side to this story, and you don't seem willing to accept that.


 
exactly

it drives me potty tbh.

play nice, play nice, play nice.

if i don't shovel out the shit, then we are all neck deep in it before long. and anyone who dosen't delight in wading through shit will leave. shovel it out will raise a bit of a stink while you do it, but then it's gone. and we can play nice, until the next moron with compulsive diarrhea comes along


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 16, 2013)

kittyP said:


> If you look at the way Spangles dealt with it, that may be your key.
> No aggression.


 
The aggressive feminists on this thread are merely trolling themselves, like a punch-drunk boxer constantly fighting his own shadow. Failing to hear that the bell for the final round has long since gone...


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> The aggressive feminists on this thread are merely trolling themselves, like a punch-drunk boxer constantly fighting his own shadow. Failing to hear that the bell for the final round has long since gone...


 
show me the constructive content you've posted on this thread drew?


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 16, 2013)

tbf in my first post I did actually give an answer to the question in the thread title


----------



## ymu (Apr 16, 2013)

kittyP said:


> If you look at the way Spangles dealt with it, that may be your key.
> No aggression.


I think you'll find it is because she is not dismissed as one of a feminazi minority because she rarely posted on those threads before, precisely because of the disruptive cuntery.

And I'll go and find the post of hers I am thinking of, in the hope that it might prompt you to wonder whether maybe, just maybe, there is another side to this story and you will not get respect for your point of view unless you at least attempt to listen.

Fuck it, I still cannot find it/ T'was a beaut. But here's one that addresses the other side of this:



spanglechick said:


> Really? He's very on-topic to me. He explains how, as a man, he feels about threads discussing sexism, and why he finds certain men's posting styles unhelpful. It's somewhat galling to think that it somehow takes a man to say all those things, but sadly he probably will be taken more seriously by some posters than women who are explaining similar stuff.
> 
> After the thread became mired in circular and upsetting posts, this one actually strikes me as having potential to move things on.


 
spanglechick, please come and kick my arse if I am misrepresenting you in any way. And if you know which post it is that I'm looking for, please repost it.


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 16, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> Quit shutting down debate by misquoting and misrepresenting other posters.


 
And I'd actually say that this post was far more constructive than 99% of the other posts here, but hey, carry on going round falsely and aimlessly accusing anyone who has a different opinion to you of trolling and baiting. You've done an exceptionally fine job of putting off any potentially interested feminists from posting on this thread, or having any kind of debate without being shouted down.


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> tbf in my first post I did actually give an answer to the question in the thread title




still not funny


----------



## kittyP (Apr 16, 2013)

ymu said:


> I think you'll find it is because she is not dismissed as one of a feminazi minority because she rarely posted on those threads before, precisely because of the disruptive cuntery.
> 
> And I'll go and find the post of hers I am thinking of, in the hope that it might prompt you to wonder whether maybe, just maybe, there is another side to this story and you will not get respect for your point of view unless you at least attempt to listen.
> 
> Fuck it, I still cannot find it/ T'was a beaut. But here's one that addresses the other side of


 
Arg I was going 




> I think you'll find it is because she is not dismissed as one of a feminazi minority because she rarely posted on those threads before, precisely because of the disruptive cuntery.


 
This is my point, because of the way in which Spangles approached this issue, people were more likely to listen. 
Surely that is evidence that just shouting at everyone is not the best approach. 

I am fully aware that there is another side to the story. That is exactly what I am trying to say. 

I have attempted to listen, that's why I haven't posted much, because I have been reading and digesting what's been said. 
Please do not patronise me.


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> And I'd actually say that this post was far more constructive than 99% of the other posts here, but hey, carry on going round falsely and aimlessly accusing anyone who has a different opinion to you of trolling and baiting. You've done an exceptionally fine job of putting off any potentially interested feminists from posting on this thread, or having any kind of debate without being shouted down.


 
if autoc doesn't want to be interpreted as saying feminists need to get to get laid. then she needs to stop telling them to get laid.

if she wants to stop being accused of trying to bait people, then she wants to cut out the baiting that is so crap and obvious that even the aspie is laughing at her rather than responding to it


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

kittyP said:


> I have attempted to listen, that's why I haven't posted much, because I have been reading and digesting what's been said.
> Please do not patronise me.


 
you're not listening though. cause you are clearly not responding to the fact the trolling has decreased since we started attacking the trolls.

the choice is not attack trolls or have a good feminist discussion atm. it should eventually get there. but right now, the choice is attack the trolls or see the tread turned to a mass of shit trolling.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 16, 2013)

toggle said:


> you're not listening though. cause you are clearly not responding to the fact the trolling has decreased since we started attacking the trolls.
> 
> the choice is not attack trolls or have a good feminist discussion atm. it should eventually get there. but right now, the choice is attack the trolls or see the tread turned to a mass of shit trolling.


 
Yes, I am aware trolling has decreased, but Ymu said herself, it was Spangles posts that had the biggest effect. She was calm and conversational in her approach to the subject.

After my initial post, which I will reiterate, was just a suggestion to ignore *JUST FRUMIOUS*, I have not said "Don't call out the trolls".
Its the way you deal with every one that you disagree with that comes across as aggressive that I have an issue with.


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 16, 2013)

toggle said:


> if autoc doesn't want to be interpreted as saying feminists need to get to get laid. then she needs to stop telling them to get laid.


 
She said fuck all about telling "feminists" to get laid ffs... she simply suggested that a load of riled up shouty posters (regardless of gender or whether they label themselves as feminists or not) arguing amongst themselves might want to chill the fuck down and go and have a shag like she was off to do at nearly 3am.

BIG difference.

But I'm not surprised at all it's been twisted to fit certain agendas... seeing as none of these shouty angry posters seemed to actually want to debate her on any of the valid points she had made (and which she made perfectly calmly and politely at that, without throwing out abuse left, right, and centre)


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 16, 2013)

kittyP said:


> Please do not patronise me.



Good luck with that one...


----------



## idumea (Apr 16, 2013)

It's not just the trolls you are attacking
ymu you are speaking in rather a rude and patronising way to someone (kittyP) -- so far as I can tell based purely on the fact she hasn't engaged with the thread in precisely the way you would like.

I am a proud feminist and really sad and disconcerted at this thread.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 16, 2013)

toggle said:


> if autoc doesn't want to be interpreted as saying feminists need to get to get laid. then she needs to stop telling them to get laid.


 
autoc seemed to be saying some interesting stuff (well, i thought it was interesting) but a few comments got people's backs up, which I understand - especially the one you are bringing up, but if all threads of this nature are going to be defended extremely aggressively in order to achieve some kind of ideological purity then a lot of people with things to say are likely to get chased away.

I wouldn't be surprised if mrsfran's perception of the answer to 'how can I become more involved in the feminist movement' is 'very carefully'.


----------



## ymu (Apr 16, 2013)

kittyP said:


> Arg I was going
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Please don't tell me to be someone I am not. I am an aggressive woman. Get over it.

I'm not patronising you. I am asking you to fucking listen. I have been asking you for days to fucking listen.

I have had it up to here with this passive-aggressive shit.


----------



## ymu (Apr 16, 2013)

kittyP said:


> Yes, I am aware trolling has decreased, but Ymu said herself, it was Spangles posts that had the biggest effect. She was calm and conversational in her approach to the subject.
> 
> After my initial post, which I will reiterate, was just a suggestion to ignore *JUST FRUMIOUS*, I have not said "Don't call out the trolls".
> Its the way you deal with every one that you disagree with that comes across as aggressive that I have an issue with.


It had the biggest effect because you could virtually hear the blood draining out of spymaster's face when he read that post.

You'd know that, if you were capable of listening.

"Ignore X" rarely works, because a lot of people don't read to the end of the thread before posting. And because it does nothing to stop them carrying on.


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> She said fuck all about telling "feminists" to get laid ffs... she simply suggested that a load of riled up shouty posters (regardless of gender or whether they label themselves as feminists or not) arguing amongst themselves might want to chill the fuck down and go and have a shag like she was off to do at nearly 3am.
> 
> BIG difference.
> 
> But I'm not surprised at all it's been twisted to fit certain agendas... seeing as none of these shouty angry posters seemed to actually want to debate her on any of the valid points she had made (and which she made perfectly calmly and politely at that, without throwing out abuse left, right, and centre)


 
lol.

so she did tell feminists to go get laid.

you're just trying to twist it into something that's a positive, not exactly the same misogynist baiting bullshit we have all had to put up with.


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

8ball said:


> autoc seemed to be saying some interesting stuff (well, i thought it was interesting) but a few comments got people's backs up, which I understand - especially the one you are bringing up, but if all threads of this nature are going to be defended extremely aggressively in order to achieve some kind of ideological purity then a lot of people with things to say are likely to get chased away.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if mrsfran's perception of the answer to 'how can I become more involved in the feminist movement' is 'very carefully'.


 

if she didn't want a reaction, she shouldn't have indulged herself in a game of mysogenist bingo.

when she stops throwing bullshit about like confetti, i'll engage with her, until then, i'll throw shit back.


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

idumea said:


> It's not just the trolls you are attacking
> ymu you are speaking in rather a rude and patronising way to someone (kittyP) -- so far as I can tell based purely on the fact she hasn't engaged with the thread in precisely the way you would like.
> 
> I am a proud feminist and really sad and disconcerted at this thread.


 
i'm getting fed up with her telling me to be a good little girlie and stop attacking the trolls.


----------



## ymu (Apr 16, 2013)

idumea said:


> It's not just the trolls you are attacking
> ymu you are speaking in rather a rude and patronising way to someone (kittyP) -- so far as I can tell based purely on the fact she hasn't engaged with the thread in precisely the way you would like.
> 
> I am a proud feminist and really sad and disconcerted at this thread.


And she hasn't been rude and patronising?

You do not know how long we have been discussing this, and nor have you been on most of the threads where this shit was really bad and it was just one or two of us challenging a dozen men who think it's fun to take the piss out of feminism.

For me, this is the culmination of two years of challenging this shit. Yeah, I am a bit hacked off. I think I have a right to be.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 16, 2013)

toggle said:


> if she didn't want a reaction, she shouldn't have indulged herself in a game of mysogenist bingo.
> 
> when she stops throwing bullshit about like confetti, i'll engage with her, until then, i'll throw shit back.


 
I've seen incredibly angry male posters to be told they should 'maybe step away from the keyboard and go and have a wank or something'.  It doesn't seem unreasonable to think that's all she meant.


----------



## ymu (Apr 16, 2013)

8ball said:


> I've seen incredibly angry male posters to be told they should 'maybe step away from the keyboard and go and have a wank or something'. It doesn't seem unreasonable to think that's all she meant.


Which (if any) stereotypes are being tapped into in each case?


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

8ball said:


> I've seen incredibly angry male posters to be told they should 'maybe step away from the keyboard and go and have a wank or something'. It doesn't seem unreasonable to think that's all she meant.


 
go look at some of the misogynist bingo cards. compare it to her posts.

and nice assumption that we were all 'angry'. cause seriously, 'you're all too angry at everything' is another tick off that card.

i wasn't

and even if i was, would getting angry at sexism be a bad thing?


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 16, 2013)

8ball said:


> autoc seemed to be saying some interesting stuff (well, i thought it was interesting) but a few comments got people's backs up, which I understand - especially the one you are bringing up, but if all threads of this nature are going to be defended extremely aggressively in order to achieve some kind of ideological purity then a lot of people with things to say are likely to get chased away.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if mrsfran's perception of the answer to 'how can I become more involved in the feminist movement' is 'very carefully'.


 
Probably the sanest post on this thread of recent, but no doubt 8ball will be shouted down by the two posters who have completely trashed this thread, and most of the time they have done so by not even posting in a coherent way, and with seriously unneeded anger and nastiness.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 16, 2013)

ymu said:


> It had the biggest effect because you could virtually hear the blood draining out of spymaster's face when he read that post.
> 
> You'd know that, if you were capable of listening.
> 
> "Ignore X" rarely works, because a lot of people don't read to the end of the thread before posting. And because it does nothing to stop them carrying on.


 
I am fucking capable of listening ffs!! I am aware of what you just said! You are very rude aren't you? 
Oh but that's OK because you are who you are. 

I have said that OK I was maybe wrong in suggesting ignoring Fumious but you and toggle have turned that suggestion in to me saying "ignore all sexist comments and trolls" which was not what I said from the beginning. You are the one not listening and you're making shit up. 
I was attacked from the begging. That is what I take umbrage with. The complete inability of some posters on here to talk to anyone, not just trolls and sexists, but anyone like a reasonable human being.  
There was no, "well actually kitty if I can just explain why that might not work" it was shouting and chest beating.
We wouldn't be here if you could actually take the time to speak to people properly, like spangles did. 

You are the ones with your fingers in your ears and twisting stuff to meet your own agenda.


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 16, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> Probably the sanest post on this thread of recent, but no doubt 8ball will be shouted down by the two posters who have completely trashed this thread, and most of the time they have done so by not even posting in a coherent way, and with seriously unneeded anger and nastiness.





toggle said:


> if she didn't want a reaction, she shouldn't have indulged herself in a game of mysogenist bingo.
> 
> when she stops throwing bullshit about like confetti, i'll engage with her, until then, i'll throw shit back.


 
Well it didn't take long at all to prove that point


----------



## kittyP (Apr 16, 2013)

toggle said:


> i'm getting fed up with her telling me to be a good little girlie and stop attacking the trolls.


 
I AM NOT SAYING THAT!!!


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 16, 2013)

toggle said:


> i'm getting fed up with her telling me to be a good little girlie and stop attacking the trolls.


 
What part of "you are merely trolling yourself" do you not get ???


----------



## ymu (Apr 16, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> Probably the sanest post on this thread of recent, but no doubt 8ball will be shouted down by the two posters who have completely trashed this thread, and most of the time they have done so by not even posting in a coherent way, and with seriously unneeded anger and nastiness.


Your first post on a thread asking for advice about how to get involved in feminism was a sexist joke, which you then went on to defend/compound for pages before apologising, and then started up the disruptive shit again late last night, and now you're complaining that some people got a bit annoyed with you for it?

You poor, oppressed, little man.You threaten violence to DWP workers and get pissed off when challenged on that, but you can't take a bit of abuse when you act like a cunt?

It must be so hard, being such a sensitive little flower. How do you cope?


----------



## purenarcotic (Apr 16, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> She said fuck all about telling "feminists" to get laid ffs... she simply suggested that a load of riled up shouty posters (regardless of gender or whether they label themselves as feminists or not) arguing amongst themselves might want to chill the fuck down and go and have a shag like she was off to do at nearly 3am.
> 
> BIG difference.
> 
> But I'm not surprised at all it's been twisted to fit certain agendas... seeing as none of these shouty angry posters seemed to actually want to debate her on any of the valid points she had made (and which she made perfectly calmly and politely at that, without throwing out abuse left, right, and centre)


 
I had actually written a post about some of the stuff she raised about gender binaries, cos I think it's very interesting to discuss, especially for me as my current placement is at a DV organisation so it feels very pertinent. 

But then I deleted because I couldn't be fucked with all the bullshit.  Shame really.


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

you need to get laid

you're angry all the time

you're too aggressive

women aren't aggressive

feminism has done nothing for me

yes dear/sweet/hunny.

you're humourless

that was a joke, get it?

other women think I'm funny


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> Well it didn't take long at all to prove that point


 
and you're prooving that you really were only here to stir up shit.

where's your 'on topic' posts on this thread drew? we're still waiting to see that.


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

kittyP said:


> I AM NOT SAYING THAT!!!


 

YES YOU ARE


----------



## 8ball (Apr 16, 2013)

toggle said:


> go look at some of the misogynist bingo cards. compare it to her posts.


 
I know its pretty close to a bingo card trope, but going on the attack at everything that shows a partial match with a trope is likely to lead to chasing off a lot of people.  The only people likely to know every possible trope and avoid all potential matching memespace* with any level of skill are people who already know every pattern, so you just end up with people with nearly-identical views and even then a lot of them are likely to be too scared to post.

Or, more simply, comparing every post with potential attack patterns is going to get you a lot of false positives.

Well, maybe not more simply, but shorter.

* - yuk - couldn't think of a better term


----------



## ymu (Apr 16, 2013)

kittyP said:


> I AM NOT SAYING THAT!!!


Well then you should probably be aware that that is exactly what it sounds like. You might not be aware of the sexist tropes that get chucked at us all the time, but we are, and you are tapping right into them from where I'm sitting.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 16, 2013)

toggle said:


> you need to get laid
> 
> you're angry all the time ...


 
All of these are common dismissals and put-downs.
I get it. Everyone gets it.

It doesn't mean in itself that being as angry as humanly possible all the time is necessarily appropriate, helpful or doing your blood pressure any favours, though.

It doesn't mean you shouldn't be angry about sexism or any other injustice to acknowledge that.


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 16, 2013)

ymu said:


> Your first post on a thread asking for advice about how to get involved in feminism was a sexist joke, which you then went on to defend/compound for pages before apologising, and then started up the disruptive shit again late last night, and now you're complaining that some people got a bit annoyed with you for it?
> 
> You poor, oppressed, little man.*You threaten violence to DWP workers* and get pissed off when challenged on that, but you can't take a bit of abuse when you act like a cunt?
> 
> It must be so hard, being such a sensitive little flower. How do you cope?


 
Really ??? 

Yet another misrepresentation of what someone actually said, how many times have you done that now in this thread  ?

I'm not complaining about you getting annoyed at me, cos frankly I couldn't give a fuck, I think it's hilarious in fact watching you two blow a gasket and completely undermine ANY valid points you may have had for nearly a week now 

But seriously read back the thread and have a think about how your unneeded hostility has totally alienated the posters you're supposedly reaching out to... it's really quite tragic.


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

8ball said:


> I know its pretty close to a bingo card trope, but going on the attack at everything that shows a partial match with a trope is likely to lead to chasing off a lot of people. The only people likely to know every possible trope and avoid all potential matching memespace* with any level of skill are people who already know every pattern, so you just end up with people with nearly-identical views and even then a lot of them are likely to be too scared to post.
> 
> Or, more simply, comparing every post with potential attack patterns is going to get you a lot of false positives.
> 
> ...


 
her stuff was more than a partial match to one thing, it was a match to a whole list of the most obvious ones.far too many to be accidental IMO.

blatent attempt at a windup ending in 'you're angry' and 'you need to get laid'.


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> Really ???
> 
> Yet another misrepresentation of what someone actually said, how many times have you done that now in this thread ?
> 
> ...


 
ah ymu.

you're a girl, you can't get angry. you're not allowed to. it's only men wh0o are allowed to do that.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 16, 2013)

ymu said:


> Well then you should probably be aware that that is exactly what it sounds like. You might not be aware of the sexist tropes that get chucked at us all the time, but we are, and you are tapping right into them from where I'm sitting.


 
It's exactly how it sounds to you and toggle. 
Well how come a whole range of people seem to be liking a lot of my posts on the subject? And back from when this started. 
Oh I know, because they are_ all_ wrong. They are _all_ sexist appologisers. They must be for disagreeing with your tactics. 

Your way of addressing things is not the only way of addressing things.


----------



## ymu (Apr 16, 2013)

I'm going to chill out by laughing at my enraged stalkers on other threads. Have fun all.


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

8ball said:


> All of these are common dismissals and put-downs.
> I get it. Everyone gets it.
> 
> It doesn't mean in itself that being as angry as humanly possible all the time is necessarily appropriate, helpful or doing your blood pressure any favours, though.
> ...


 
i'm not angry atm, i wasn't angry at the time that was posted.

why assume any time a woman is assertive, she's angry?


----------



## kittyP (Apr 16, 2013)

toggle said:


> ah ymu.
> 
> you're a girl, you can't get angry. you're not allowed to. it's only men wh0o are allowed to do that.


 
Again. You are the only ones saying that.


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

kittyP said:


> It's exactly how it sounds to you and toggle.
> Well how come a whole range of people seem to be liking a lot of my posts on the subject? And back from when this started.
> Oh I know, because they are_ all_ wrong. They are _all_ sexist appologisers. They must be for disagreeing with your tactics.
> 
> Your way of addressing things is not the only way of addressing things.


 and yours never addressed anyhting at all, it's what got us into this mess.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 16, 2013)

toggle said:


> i'm not angry atm, i wasn't angry at the time that was posted.
> 
> why assume any time a woman is assertive, she's angry?


 
I would assume anyone was angry from the way you post. In fact you have said your self you are angry. 
Why twist that in a woman hating comment?


----------



## kittyP (Apr 16, 2013)

toggle said:


> and yours never addressed anyhting at all, it's what got us into this mess.


 
Because as soon as I started saying anything, and I meant it with all the best possible intentions, even if I was wrong, I was attacked.


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

go back a page or 2, there's debate.

look at who was debating then look at who rejoined the thread and turned it all into bickering again.

give you a hint, it wasn't me and ymu trying to restart bickering


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 16, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> I had actually written a post about some of the stuff she raised about gender binaries, cos I think it's very interesting to discuss, especially for me as my current placement is at a DV organisation so it feels very pertinent.
> 
> But then I deleted because I couldn't be fucked with all the bullshit. Shame really.



Well it looks like the two thread trashers have got exactly what they wanted ie. shut down debate.

Round of applause


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

kittyP said:


> I would assume anyone was angry from the way you post. In fact you have said your self you are angry.
> Why twist that in a woman hating comment?


 

i'm not twisting that.

it is a direct attack on women who stand up for themselves.

and ti's the same crap you've been throwing at us. go away, be quiet nice girls, behave like women are supposed to.


----------



## RaverDrew (Apr 16, 2013)

toggle said:


> go back a page or 2, there's debate.
> 
> look at who was debating then look at who rejoined the thread and turned it all into bickering again.
> 
> give you a hint, it wasn't me and ymu trying to restart bickering


 
Autochthonous1 has only ever come back on to this thread to reply to people that have quoted her (and she even managed to do it without throwing round abuse at other posters).

But nice attempted use of a scapegoat for your thread trashing.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 16, 2013)

toggle said:


> i'm not angry atm, i wasn't angry at the time that was posted.
> 
> why assume any time a woman is assertive, she's angry?


 
Not sure which post you're referring to, some have a definite angry tone, some don't.

You're doing the trope-matching thing again - I'm not assuming all assertiveness is anger but you've found another partial match so you're calling me on it.  We can go over post by post which ones look angry to me and you may or may not disagree, and others on this thread may not interpret each one exactly the same way as me, but you surely not going to deny this is a pretty fucking angry-looking thread, are you?


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> Autochthonous1 has only ever come back on to this thread to reply to people that have quoted her (and she even managed to do it without throwing round abuse at other poster).
> 
> But nice attempted use of a scapegoat for your thread trashing.


 

still waiting to see that on topic post of yours.


----------



## cesare (Apr 16, 2013)

> Twentieth century feminism has consistently opposed biological determinism: the view that shared biological features among a certain group lead inevitably to certain social roles or functions. For example, one early opponent of women's suffrage suggested that women and men had different metabolic systems—katabolic (or “energy-expending”) in men, and anabolic (or “energy-conserving”) in women—that precluded women's effective or informed participation in politics (see Moi 2000, 3–21 for discussion). Feminist identity politics, then, takes up the task of articulating women's understandings of themselves (and of men) without reducing femininity (or masculine dominance) to biology. Whatever experiences women share will be experiences of femininity not necessarily resulting from an immutable sexual difference but rather from social injustice. Put less usefully, perhaps, although sex (the features of bodies we typically aggregate as male and female) may be biological, gender (the social roles we call femininity and masculinity) is “socially constructed.” Claims about the “social construction” of the identities of identity politics permeate the field as a logical extension of its mandate, although with tremendous philosophical vagueness attaching to the content of the phrase, which serves primarily to emphasize the contingency of (the content of) any particular category or concept (see Haslanger 1995, 2005; Hacking 1999). The fear of biological determinism has led to tremendous caution in feminist theorizing: any invocation of features of female bodies as a basis for identity political claims risks being seen as (inadvertently) complicit with sexist views. Furthermore, the very idea of reclaiming women's identities from patriarchy has been criticized as merely an affirmation of a slave morality—a Nietzschean term describing the attachments of the oppressed as they rationalize and valorize their condition. Attempts from various quarters to capture and revalue the distinctively feminine (by theorizing, for example, “maternal thinking,” [Ruddick 1989], or écriture féminine [Cixous 1976]) risk, critics claim, endorsing existing power relations. Thus the heated debates surrounding the “ethic of care” in moral psychology, for example, line up around two constellations of positions: on the one hand, advocates of the ethic of care as a distinctively feminine contribution to moral reasoning point to its benefits for negotiating a human social world characterized by webs of relationship, and to the pathologies of the dissociation that is culturally linked to masculinities. Carol Gilligan is the best known proponent of this position (although the details of her complex paradigm are often glossed over or misrepresented) (Gilligan 1993 [1982]). Her critics charge that she reifies femininity—were women not oppressed, they would not speak in the voice of care, thus casting doubt on the desirability of attempts to reclaim it as part of a liberatory framework. In other words, the current construction of femininity is so deeply imbricated with the oppression of women that such attempts will always end up reinforcing the very discourse they seek to undermine (Butler 1999 [1990]); this critique has strong affiliations with poststructuralism (which are discussed below).
> 
> The narrative of feminist interpretation of gender relations most commonly offered points to universalizing claims made on behalf of women during the so-called “second wave” of the feminist movement in the late 1960's and 1970's in Western countries. The most often discussed (and criticized) second wave feminist icons—women such as Betty Friedan or Gloria Steinem—are white, middle-class, and heterosexual, although this historical picture too often neglects the contributions of lesbian feminists, feminists of color, and working-class feminists, which were less visible in popular culture, perhaps, but arguably equally influential in the lives of women. For some early radical feminists, women's oppression as women was the core of identity politics, and should not be diluted with other identity issues. For example, Shulamith Firestone, in her classic book The Dialectic of Sex, argued that “racism is sexism extended,” and that the Black Power movement represented only sexist cooptation of Black women into a new kind of subservience to Black men. Thus for Black women to fight racism (especially among white women) was to divide the feminist movement, which properly focused on challenging patriarchy, understood as struggle between men and women, the foundational dynamic of all oppressions (Firestone 1970, esp. 103–120).
> 
> ...


----------



## kittyP (Apr 16, 2013)

toggle said:


> i'm not twisting that.
> 
> it is a direct attack on women who stand up for themselves.
> 
> and ti's the same crap you've been throwing at us. go away, be quiet nice girls, behave like women are supposed to.


 
You really are quite blinded by your own argument aren't you. 
Why on earth would I suggest that women shouldn't stand up for themselves. 
You saw one thing in what I said and then stuck to it no matter how much you were told otherwise. 
I will decide what I mean thank you very much. Not you. 
You are now doing exactly what you are having a go at every one else for doing, having a go at me for standing up for myself. 
I am saying what a load of other people feel about how this thread has gone.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 16, 2013)

Was that for Auto1? 
Is it American?


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

8ball said:


> Not sure which post you're referring to, some have a definite angry tone, some don't.
> 
> You're doing the trope-matching thing again - I'm not assuming all assertiveness is anger but you've found another partial match so you're calling me on it. We can go over post by post which ones look angry to me and you may or may not disagree, and others on this thread may not interpret each one exactly the same way as me, but you surely not going to deny this is a pretty fucking angry-looking thread, are you?





false accusations of 'anger' whenever women defend themselves is a method of silencing women. I don't think yo9u're one of the bad guys, but please don't indulge yourself in behavior commonly used to silence women's voices.

if you don't want to be called a cat, don't miow like one

even if i was angry, would that be a bad thing?  really?


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

kittyP said:


> You really are quite blinded by your own argument aren't you.
> Why on earth would I suggest that women shouldn't stand up for themselves.
> You saw one thing in what I said and then stuck to it no matter how much you were told otherwise.
> I will decide what I mean thank you very much. Not you.
> ...


 
to trasnlate: i decide what i mean, and i decide what you mean.

and you're being mean to me.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 16, 2013)

toggle said:


> i'm not twisting that.
> 
> it is a direct attack on women who stand up for themselves.
> 
> and ti's the same crap you've been throwing at us. go away, be quiet nice girls, behave like women are supposed to.


 
So this is all my fault for saying something you didn't agree with? 

I couldn't even get a bloody foot in the door before the attack started.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 16, 2013)

toggle said:


> false accusations of 'anger' whenever women defend themselves is a method of silencing women.


 
Yes. We know it is. But that wasn't what was happening.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 16, 2013)

toggle said:


> to trasnlate: i decide what i mean, and i decide what you mean.
> 
> and you're being mean to me.


 
Again, Twisting it to meet your agenda. I didn't say that at all.


----------



## cesare (Apr 16, 2013)

kittyP said:


> Was that for Auto1?
> Is it American?


It's for anyone to discuss.


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

kittyP said:


> Yes. We know it is. But that wasn't what was happening.


 

yes it is.

it's assertiveness being interpreted as anger.

consistent accusations of anger are then used to try to provoke anger, so you can point to that as evidence.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Apr 16, 2013)

ymu said:


> Apologies mrsfran. There's a lot of these threads going on, all of them horrible. And part of the reason for that is that some of us have decided that we're not going to put up with this sexist shit any more.and will call it out until it stops.
> 
> There has not been an untrashed feminist thread on here in years. The only possible way you will get one is to ask for information only, no discussion, in the OP and hope there's a mod around to enforce it, should you choose to ask them to.


 
She _did_ do that, tbf, afaics?!

Not to downplay at all the fucking irritation felt when you've been doing it for far longer (and so why you justifiably feel the need to challenge it every time) but the fact is that, like a lot of us I imagine, mrs fran has _not_ been having that battle over an extended period of time (not to say she won't  ) but she _had_ expressed an interest in being pointed to some groups (being _informed_) and the end result is that there was a bit of that, but not enough.....and then enough arguing that it's put her off altogether (via here, at least). 

How do you include people who are *interested in* but less informed about feminism...but who don't want/are not ready to make the arguments against twattish interference on the various threads....without losing them altogether?

Fwiw, I don't see that she could have been any less specific about asking for *info* in her OP?


----------



## cesare (Apr 16, 2013)

Auto1 might be interested in this part though:



> Nowhere have conceptual struggles over identity been more pronounced than in the lesbian and gay liberation movement. The notion that sexual object choice can define who a person is has been profoundly challenged by the advent of queer politics. Visible early lesbian and gay activists emphasized the immutable and essential natures of their sexual identities. For some, they were a distinctively different natural kind of person, with the same rights as heterosexuals (another natural kind) to find fulfillment in marriage, property ownership, and so on. This strand of gay organizing (perhaps associated more closely with white, middle-class gay men, at least until the radicalizing effects of the AIDS pandemic) with its complex simultaneous appeals to difference and to sameness has a genealogy going back to pre-Stonewall homophilic activism (see discussion in Terry, esp. 353–7). While early lesbian feminists had a very different politics, oriented around liberation from patriarchy and the creation of separate spaces for woman-identified women, many still appealed to a more authentic, distinctively feminist self. Heterosexual feminine identities were products of oppression, yet the literature imagines a utopian alternative where woman-identification will liberate the lesbian within every woman (e.g. Radicalesbians 1988).
> 
> The paradigm shift that the term “queer” signals, then, is a shift to a model in which identities are more self-consciously historicized, seen as contingent products of particular genealogies rather than enduring or essential natural kinds (Phelan 1989 and 1994; Blasius 2001). Michel Foucault's work, especially his History of Sexuality, is the most widely cited progenitor of this view: Foucault famously argues that “homosexuality appeared as one of the forms of sexuality when it was transposed from the practice of sodomy onto a kind of interior androgyny, a hermaphrodism of the soul. The sodomite had been a temporary aberration; the homosexual was now a species” (Foucault 1980, 43). Although Foucault is the most often cited as the originator of such genealogical arguments about homosexuality, other often neglected writers contributed to the emergence of this new paradigm (e.g. M. McIntosh 1968). In western popular culture such theories co-exist uneasily with biologically essentialist accounts of sexual identity, which look for a particular gene, brain structure, or other biological feature that is noninteractive with environment and that will explain same-sex sexual desire. At stake are not only epistemological and metaphysical questions about how we can know what kind of thing “sexual orientation” might be, but also a host of moral and political questions. If sexual identity is biologically caused, then it is as hard to hold an individual morally responsible for being homosexual as it is to blame someone for being Black (which may not be as hard as some would like to think). Some gay activists thus see biological explanations of sexuality as offering a defense against homophobic commentators who believe that gays can voluntarily change their “immoral” desires. Indeed, much of the intuitive hostility to genealogical or social constructionist accounts of sexuality within gay and lesbian communities seems to come from the dual sense of many individuals that they could not have been other than gay, and that anything less than a radically essentialist view of sexuality will open the door to further attempts to “cure” them of their homosexuality (through “ex-gay ministries,” for example).
> 
> ...


----------



## Serotonin (Apr 16, 2013)

What a shock, another thread about feminism that could have been interesting and enlightening shat all over. U75 seems to have a serious problem with some closet MRAs.


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

kittyP said:


> Again, Twisting it to meet your agenda. I didn't say that at all.


 

you're happy to state you will interpret my posts as anger, but then whine that i'm misinterpreting you?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 16, 2013)

toggle said:


> false accusations of 'anger' whenever women defend themselves is a method of silencing women. I don't think yo9u're one of the bad guys, but please don't indulge yourself in behavior commonly used to silence women's voices.
> 
> if you don't want to be called a cat, don't miow like one


 
No one has come out with any kind of 'you're being hormonal and hysterical so your opinions don't matter' nonsense.
There's a difference between coming out with that kind of crap and trying to point out that you don't have to chase everyone off the thread at every perceived sleight ('shovelling out the shit', as you say). 

It's hard to engage with anyone if you've set yourself up as the thread's ideological vanguard and the drawbridge is up.



toggle said:


> even if i was angry, would that be a bad thing? really?


 
I think I've dealt with that.  Nothing wrong with being angry.  Plenty of things to be angry at.


----------



## Voley (Apr 16, 2013)

8ball said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if mrsfran's perception of the answer to 'how can I become more involved in the feminist movement' is 'very carefully'.


 
I'd be interested to hear how mrsfran feels about her original question, too.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 16, 2013)

Serotonin said:


> What a shock, another thread about feminism that could have been interesting and enlightening shat all over. U75 seems to have a serious problem with some closet MRAs.


 
Dunno about closet - people I know in the Mountain Rescue Association seem to hardly ever shut up about it.


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

sheothebudworths said:


> How do you include people who are *interested in* but less informed about feminism...but who don't want/are not ready to make the arguments against twattish interference on the various threads....without losing them altogether?
> 
> ?


 
the trolling on this is a crapload less than it would have been even a few weeks ago. and there's been some discussion in between that wouldn't have happened either.

i'd suggest that if anyone isn't prepared to deal with the trolls then they let us handle them for now, rather than getting in the way and encouraging them to post more shit. it is getting better and will continue to so so. more women are speaking out about this and more men are telling the trolls to fuck off.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 16, 2013)

toggle said:


> you're happy to state you will interpret my posts as anger, but then whine that i'm misinterpreting you?


 
This is just going round in circles. Maybe we are all just misinterpreting each other 
It's quite likely.

You have already said that you are angry about this through out the thread. In fact Ymu PMed me to tell me you were angry. 
How are we supposed to tell, on a forum, when you are angry and when you are not?


----------



## kittyP (Apr 16, 2013)

8ball said:


> Dunno about closet - people I know in the Mountain Rescue Association seem to hardly ever shut up about it.


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

8ball said:


> No one has come out with any kind of 'you're being hormonal and hysterical so your opinions don't matter' nonsense.


 
accusations of anger are still a method of silencing women. it's trying to invalidate their argument, and tell them they are not behaving as women should.they don't have to be attached to other methods to still be something i recognize as something i've experienced as a method of silencing.

and i've asked people to stop using something i've experienced as sexist silencing. i'm now being told that isn't proper sexist silencing. cause it isn't a different method of sexist silencing.

if you're not wanting to be seen as a cat, stop miowing.


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

kittyP said:


> You have already said that you are angry about this through out the thread. In fact Ymu PMed me to tell me you were angry.


 


maybe she was just trying to use language she thought might get through your walls. IDK. she doesn't show me her pm's so i have no idea what she said.

and if you can't tell what someone is feeling, then you probably shouldn't be throwing about assumptions based on what you think someone is feeling. just a suggestion,


----------



## sheothebudworths (Apr 16, 2013)

toggle said:


> the trolling on this is a crapload less than it would have been even a few weeks ago. and there's been some discussion in between that wouldn't have happened either.
> 
> *i'd suggest that if anyone isn't prepared to deal with the trolls then they let us handle them for now, rather than getting in the way and encouraging them to post more shit.* it is getting better and will continue to so so. more women are speaking out about this and more men are telling the trolls to fuck off.


 
What, including the _OP?_


----------



## ymu (Apr 16, 2013)

If the OP wants a troll-free thread, she needs to be willing to police it, or ask someone else to.

There are half a dozen active threads getting shat on at the moment. I have apologised at least three times for not realising which one I was on when posting.

This is how these threads go. They were way, way worse two years ago, both for the sheer number of twattish men and the near absence of anyone willing to stand up to them, and the sheer number of women willing to tell me off for feeding the trolls without ever directing a word at the trolls themselves.

It's a million times better than it was back then, for which I am grateful, but every time these threads leak out into general and bring in posters who don't normally read threads about sexism/feminism, there's a renewed wave of abuse being heaped on our heads by people who claim to be on the same side but refuse to consider any context other than that which they are already aware of.

And it does my fucking head in.

Back off to laugh at the frustrated angry men who are trying to drag this into other threads where they think they'll get support because they are too gutless to post on the feminist ones any more.

Laters.




NVP said:


> I'd be interested to hear how mrsfran feels about her original question, too.


If you read the thread, she has already said how she feels.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 16, 2013)

toggle said:


> accusations of anger are still a method of silencing women. it's trying to invalidate their argument, and tell them they are not behaving as women should.they don't have to be attached to other methods to still be something i recognize as something i've experienced as a method of silencing.
> 
> and i've asked people to stop using something i've experienced as sexist silencing. i'm now being told that isn't proper sexist silencing. cause it isn't a different method of sexist silencing.
> 
> if you're not wanting to be seen as a cat, stop miowing.


 
Now that's not an angry tone. Assertive, a bit patronising too, but not angry. I *can* tell the difference.

If I'd tried to silence you I'd both expect and deserve a rocket up my arse, but I haven't tried to silence you anywhere, and I haven't said anger invalidates your argument. You may scare off a good few twats by aggressively policing threads, but you'll scare off a good many others too. I think it is better to entice like-minded people to a discussion rather than adopt a scorched-earth no-trainers no-bike helmets no-hoodies policy.

I'm not trying to tell you how to 'do feminism' - I've already said I'm not in any way qualified to do any such thing - I'm just suggesting that re-synching your files on 'how to make friends on tinternet' might not hurt too much.

Everything that is furry and roughly the size of a cat is not necessarily a cat.


----------



## ymu (Apr 16, 2013)

You don't think you tried to silence her, from the perspective of someone who does not experience this method of silencing.

Forgive me, but you're still failing to grasp what the problem is. You didn't answer my questions about the stereotypes involved in your analogy earlier, so I'll spoonfeed you.

Telling an angry man to go off and have a wank is sensible advice about testosterone release. Telling an angry feminist that she needs a good fuck is tapping into the sexist tropes about unattractive, sexually frustrated wimmin who are lesbians and feminists because they cannot get a man.

You cannot say "this is what happens to me, a man, and therefore I understand what it means when it happens to you, a woman." You have to think a lot harder than that, and you can't pull the information straight out of your brain because you can't know anything about it that a woman has not told you.

I'm trying to explain. Patiently. You and I have been talking about this kind of thing wrt racism and sexism for weeks now and i know your intentions are good. But you're still not getting it. I hope the above helps.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 16, 2013)

ymu said:


> Telling an angry man to go off and have a wank is sensible advice about testosterone release.


i would be astonished if that didn't exacerbate the situation. and i can conceive of a number of situations where dishing out that advice would result in a p45 in the post for the person stupid enough to give it.


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

8ball said:


> Now that's not an angry tone. Assertive, a bit patronising too, but not angry. I *can* tell the difference.
> 
> If I'd tried to silence you I'd both expect and deserve a rocket up my arse, but I haven't tried to silence you anywhere, and I haven't said anger invalidates your argument. You may scare off a good few twats by aggressively policing threads, but you'll scare off a good many others too. I think it is better to entice like-minded people to a discussion rather than adopt a scorched-earth no-trainers no-bike helmets no-hoodies policy.
> 
> ...


 
anything other than scorched earth has had little or no effect.

and if you're not wanting to be seen as a cat, stop miowing.


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i would be astonished if that didn't exacerbate the situation. and i can conceive of a number of situations where dishing out that advice would result in a p45 in the post for the person stupid enough to give it.


 
aggree with you on this one tbh.

it's insulting and likely to result in increasing someone anger, were they angry, or causing anger if they weren't. the only difference i saw was that it didn't have the same level of baggage associated with it as telling a woman she needed a good fuck to make her shut up, or variations thereof

and does at times include the threat to rape women into good behavior, that's one of the reasons why telling a woman she needs a good fuck to stop being opinionated is a trigger, it can be a really nasty threat of sexual violence and if you've not had the expereince of that kind of threat, you will never know why some seemingly inocuous stuff on those bingo cards come with a built in panic attack for some women.

however, it is still baiting, prejudicial and should be unaceptable.


----------



## ymu (Apr 16, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i would be astonished if that didn't exacerbate the situation. and i can conceive of a number of situations where dishing out that advice would result in a p45 in the post for the person stupid enough to give it.


And yet, it is fine to tell an angry feminist she needs a good fuck, and if she objects, she's in the wrong.

Funny old world, isn't it. Oh, wait no. It's not funny, it's patriarchy.


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

and look, feminists disagreeing about stuff and neither of us has imploded.


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 16, 2013)

8ball, I think what Toggle is driving at is the difference between how a remark is intended and how it may actually be perceived. Being an Aspie I've often upset people by trying to be humorous with some pithy, witty remark thinking they'd be as tickled as I was and them thinking I wasn't joking at all and was genuinely trying to upset them, for example.

I'm still grappling with the fact that knowing what I mean by a remark doesn't mean that whoever I'm addressing won't get the wrong end of the stick and react accordingly to something I meant as a joke and they interpreted as a personal attack.

What's meant by a remark and how it's perceived by the person being addressed don't always meet in the middle.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 16, 2013)

Bakunin said:


> What's meant by a remark and how it's perceived by the person being addressed don't always meet in the middle.


 
I've been trying to make this point as gently as possible but I'm still clearly not getting it.


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

8ball said:


> I've been trying to make this point as gently as possible but I'm still clearly not getting it.


 
if i made a quip at bakunin that hits close to some of the abuse he's had in the past, cause although I hadn't heard it before it was commonly thrown at people for being aspie and loopy, it wouldn't matter whether i was trying to be funny, or if i was trying to be clever or even trying to calm me down. he would be genuinely upset and i'd have a fair bit of apologizing and explaining to do, and i would try to avoid doing that again.

what i wouldn't do is defend my right to make that comment because i didn't mean offense and expect him to accept my position as right. i would try to understand that it was something unpleasant that was outside of my usual frames of reference and I would try to remember not to use it again.

this has actually happened more than once.


----------



## cesare (Apr 16, 2013)

Those were two sections of an essay called "Identity Politics" btw. Written by Cressida Heyes and Edited by Edward Zalta. First written in 2002 with a couple of major substantive changes in 2007 and last year. You can find it on the open access SEP if anyone wants to read the rest.


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 16, 2013)

8ball said:


> I've been trying to make this point as gently as possible but I'm still clearly not getting it.


 
You (and I) may know full well we don't mean to offend. That doesn't always mean that whoever we've upset knows that and that's the point. You don't strike me as the type that indulges in casual meanness for kicks, but that doesn't mean that if you make a joke or remark that you don't realise might come with a bit of personal baggage for whoever you're talking to that they won't either misinterpret that remark or that their threat response won't kick in before they've had time to consider it more logically.

If you touch somebody's raw spot then it might hurt them without you meaning to, but they might just find it hurtful enough that emotion overrules logic and they react by feeling the sting rather than rationally considering what you might actually have meant. Emotion is often the enemy of logic and while I personally tend to think using my brain rather than my heart (because that's what a brain's for as far as I'm concerned), that doesn't mean everybody's mind works the same way mine does.


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

and i can try to explain the stuff that 'you're angry' touches, but it is involved in repeated silencing and threat.

you're angry, you're emotional, you're not thinking, i'll think for you, i'll give you something worth being angry about.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 16, 2013)

toggle said:


> and i can try to explain the stuff that 'you're angry' touches, but it is involved in repeated silencing and threat.
> 
> you're angry, you're emotional, you're not thinking, i'll think for you, i'll give you something worth being angry about.


 
Don't make a fuss. Nice girls don't make a fuss.


----------



## ymu (Apr 16, 2013)

toggle said:


> if i made a quip at bakunin that hits close to some of the abuse he's had in the past, cause although I hadn't heard it before it was commonly thrown at people for being aspie and loopy, it wouldn't matter whether i was trying to be funny, or if i was trying to be clever or even trying to calm me down. he would be genuinely upset and i'd have a fair bit of apologizing and explaining to do, and i would try to avoid doing that again.
> 
> what i wouldn't do is defend my right to make that comment because i didn't mean offense and expect him to accept my position as right. i would try to understand that it was something unpleasant that was outside of my usual frames of reference and I would try to remember not to use it again.
> 
> this has actually happened more than once.


This is something I've learnt with my partner too. We take the piss out of racists, sexists and homophobes a lot, but he really hates unnecessary mention of his skin colour, so I don't initiate jokes about racists now (unless the only palatable alternative is hitting one of them).

Or if it's really, really funny, he doesn't mind those.

On one of the monkey-chanting threads, some of us were explaining just how frequent racist abuse is to the shocked and surprised white posters. It's very common, but it's rare for white people to witness it these days (Q: How does every racist joke start? A: With a glance over the shoulder to check who's listening.)

Someone complained that their neighbour had accused them of racism for some apparently trivial incident. I know my partner makes unjust assumptions sometimes too, because there are just too many incidents for all of them to be harmless. The anger can be triggered by a category error: innocent mistake vs deliberate racism. If that person had understood that, instead of posting what was a pretty hostile post about a black person they could have posted "Ahhhh, that's why ny neighbour reacted like that t'other day. Cool, I can live with that."

It's also triggered by people suddenly talking 'street' to him when they don't normally. But that anger is justified each and every time, despite the fact that the 'street' talker thinks he's being friendly and cool and ting. 

The parallels with sexism are not precise but they are strong. He's the least sexist person I know because of the racist abuse he has dealt with and the decision he made to never, ever knowingly be the cause of any misery based on ignorance of other people's lives. I am fucking lucky to have found him, because urban would have become unbearable years ago if I didn't have him to laugh with about this shit.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 16, 2013)

edit, wrong place


----------



## killer b (Apr 16, 2013)

i was at a trade fair today and was given this  beermat. 







the industry i work in (transport planning) has plenty of women working in it, and mostly local authority clients, yet it's still seen as ok to have ads like this. plenty of lycra clad models about too. mindboggling.


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

ymu said:


> The parallels with sexism are not precise but they are strong. He's the least sexist person I know because of the racist abuse he has dealt with and the decision he made to never, ever knowingly be the cause of any misery based on ignorance of other people's lives. I am fucking lucky to have found him, because urban would have become unbearable years ago if I didn't have him to laugh with about this shit.


 
same with mine, cause he's had to put up with a lot of shit for being different. he doesn't always get everything, but it's not usually hard to explain it.


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

killer b said:


> i was at a trade fair today and was given this  beermat.
> 
> 
> 
> the industry i work in (transport planning) has plenty of women working in it, and mostly local authority clients, yet it's still seen as ok to have ads like this. plenty of lycra clad models about too. mindboggling.


 
not enough facepalms for that


and when this shit is widely acceptable, it's not supprising a lot of blokes don't see anything wrong in casual sexism and don't get why some women won't tolerate it. cause that kind of shit says it's normal


----------



## ymu (Apr 16, 2013)

I think one thing men often don't get is that we do see a lot of the world through their eyes, because they are the default. Women are under-represented in the media, especially older women, so we are used to watching strong male characters and reading strong male opinions, and we mostly don't have a problem with it.

[Until and unless we start thinking about it, at which point whatever coping mechanisms seem appropriate apply: drink, drugs. hitting walls, taking the piss out of thick sexist fucks, or just straight up giving them a kicking, that kind of thing.]

Yet there are threads on this board with _titles_ that refer to not liking 'girl' films, TV etc, let alone the frequent mentioning of how very emasculating it is to enjoy anything with strong female characters in it.

My partner started a sentence with "The heroine of my drama series ..." the other day. I was glowing with more love than I could really cope with for days. 

It's not emasculating for a man to enjoy positive portrayals of women. It's a sign that his adolescence is over and he is finally feeling secure and confident in his masculinity. The precise opposite of emasculation. My father is ashamed of his younger self, and that's enough. Mistakes are mistakes. Not correcting those mistakes is a cunt's trick.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 16, 2013)

ok - I've kept from posting here because it's just so unpleasant, and i have too much other stuff going on at the moment: i can't do stress in my free time too...

My opinion, for whatever it's worth, is that some people feel like challenging the patriarchy aggressively, and some people don't - but that neither has the right to tell the others how to post.  And by extension, I guess i'm saying that people have a right to troll, or be disruptive or ignorant too.  I don't like policing. I don't like people being told to fuck off the thread: whether those people are the aggressive feminists or the frustrated peace-seekers or the wrongheaded non-thinkers, or I suppose even the trolls, actually. 

For feminists to have free speech, we must afford the same to everyone... and then challenge the results of that in whatever way we see fit.

I think what pretty much everyone is saying is how much of a shame it is that we can't have detailed and deep discussions in a mature and calm way about the issues.  But somehow, someone always seems to post something people find offensive and then follows that up with a point blank refusal to listen to others' points of view and challenge their own beliefs... and if we don't have those two processes we can't have productive debate.  The problem is not how people react to that. The problem is the person posting ignorantly in the first place.  Tackling the reaction - taking those people to task, is a bit like victim-blaming, and it makes people furious with indignation.


----------



## Firky (Apr 16, 2013)

NVP said:


> I'd be interested to hear how mrsfran feels about her original question, too.


 
I reckon mrsfran is sick of being tagged


----------



## Firky (Apr 16, 2013)

You can tell spangles is a teacher!


----------



## colacubes (Apr 16, 2013)

spanglechick said:


> ok - I've kept from posting here because it's just so unpleasant, and i have too much other stuff going on at the moment: i can't do stress in my free time too...
> 
> My opinion, for whatever it's worth, is that some people feel like challenging the patriarchy aggressively, and some people don't - but that neither has the right to tell the others how to post. And by extension, I guess i'm saying that people have a right to troll, or be disruptive or ignorant too. I don't like policing. I don't like people being told to fuck off the thread: whether those people are the aggressive feminists or the frustrated peace-seekers or the wrongheaded non-thinkers, or I suppose even the trolls, actually.
> 
> ...


 
I would like this x20 if I could.  I've been reading this thread from the sidelines and been immensely frustrated by all sides tbh.  This sums exactly what I feel about it in words I've been thinking about and failing to express.


----------



## cesare (Apr 16, 2013)

Why do people tag people on a thread they're already on?

/aside


----------



## ymu (Apr 16, 2013)

cesare said:


> Why do people tag people on a thread they're already on?
> 
> /aside


I don't always tag if they're on the thread already but when I do it is because: some people don't come back to threads forever and ever, some don't read every post, sometimes it's important they see it and sometimes it's because if you're mentioning them it is polite to make sure they know that.


----------



## Firky (Apr 16, 2013)

cesare said:


> Why do people tag people on a thread they're already on?
> 
> /aside


----------



## cesare (Apr 16, 2013)

ymu said:


> I don't always tag if they're on the thread already but when I do it is because: some people don't come back to threads forever and ever, some don't read every post, sometimes it's important they see it and sometimes it's because if you're mentioning them it is polite to make sure they know that.


Ah, cheers. My tagging etiquette probably needs some work tbf.


----------



## jjuice (Apr 16, 2013)

ymu said:


> Is jjuice going to post something we can talk about then or what? It doesn't happen by magic you know.


 
I'd like to discuss the negative impact of internet porn on young people. I've been working  in domestic violence services (refuge/counselling) for 25 years, and I'm noticing that more younger women (16/20) are accessing our services than ever before,  disturbingly, the physical and sexual abuse of these young women is more extreme in nature. Other front line d/v services are reporting the same trend. I'm making a connection here with the 'porn generation', I'd like others thoughts on this.  
A recent conversation with a social worker from the leaving care team, who said 'anal is the new blowjob' , she felt that young people are pressured into foursomes/moresomes/etc by the mainstreaming effect of internet porn. It's the new normal.
It seems to me that a misoginist view of sex as a list of 'achievements' is being promoted that is very unhealthy and full of limitations.  The beautiful, natural thing that is sexuality is cheapened by this, it's a disservice to all that is erotic. Sexuality is a process where people develop their own path, discover what turns them on for themselves, and where they go with it is self-determining.
Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with anal sex, just trying to make a point about expectations and pressure on young people.


----------



## purenarcotic (Apr 16, 2013)

jjuice said:


> I'd like to discuss the negative impact of internet porn on young people. I've been working in domestic violence services (refuge/counselling) for 25 years, and I'm noticing that more younger women (16/20) are accessing our services than ever before, disturbingly, the physical and sexual abuse of these young women is more extreme in nature. Other front line d/v services are reporting the same trend. I'm making a connection here with the 'porn generation', I'd like others thoughts on this.
> A recent conversation with a social worker from the leaving care team, who said 'anal is the new blowjob' , she felt that young people are pressured into foursomes/moresomes/etc by the mainstreaming effect of internet porn. It's the new normal.
> It seems to me that a misoginist view of sex as a list of 'achievements' is being promoted that is very unhealthy and full of limitations. The beautiful, natural thing that is sexuality is cheapened by this, it's a disservice to all that is erotic. Sexuality is a process where people develop their own path, discover what turns them on for themselves, and where they go with it is self-determining.
> Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with anal sex, just trying to make a point about expectations and pressure on young people.


 
We've had a lot of young women tell us that they think it's normal for their partner to check their phone, tell them who they can and can't be mates with and what they can and cannot wear.  This apparently is a sign that your partner loves you.


----------



## ymu (Apr 16, 2013)

jjuice said:


> I'd like to discuss the negative impact of internet porn on young people. I've been working in domestic violence services (refuge/counselling) for 25 years, and I'm noticing that more younger women (16/20) are accessing our services than ever before, disturbingly, the physical and sexual abuse of these young women is more extreme in nature. Other front line d/v services are reporting the same trend. I'm making a connection here with the 'porn generation', I'd like others thoughts on this.
> A recent conversation with a social worker from the leaving care team, who said 'anal is the new blowjob' , she felt that young people are pressured into foursomes/moresomes/etc by the mainstreaming effect of internet porn. It's the new normal.
> It seems to me that a misoginist view of sex as a list of 'achievements' is being promoted that is very unhealthy and full of limitations. The beautiful, natural thing that is sexuality is cheapened by this, it's a disservice to all that is erotic. Sexuality is a process where people develop their own path, discover what turns them on for themselves, and where they go with it is self-determining.
> Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with anal sex, just trying to make a point about expectations and pressure on young people.


That would be an important thread. Too important to lose in here.

Do you feel comfortable starting it? I'm sure someone else will, if you don't. Not me though. I'm like shit to flies at the moment so it would get trashed instantaneously if I did it.


----------



## jjuice (Apr 16, 2013)

'Twilight' may have something to answer for here -  she falls for the one with lots of abusive traits, stalking, isolating tactics etc . Not good role models at all, and extremely popular


----------



## weepiper (Apr 16, 2013)

jjuice said:


> 'Twilight' may have something to answer for here - she falls for the one with lots of abusive traits, stalking, isolating tactics etc . Not good role models at all, and extremely popular


 
50 Shades Of Grey too.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 16, 2013)

kittyP said:


> This is my point, because of the way in which Spangles approached this issue, people were more likely to listen.
> Surely that is evidence that just shouting at everyone is not the best approach.



Would you (or any of the others seemingly making the same argument) hold this stance towards anti-fascists though? That they should be just a little bit more polite to people attacking their stance and by extension accept racism as it's people 'holding different views'?

I'm sorry but I doubt you would. So why is sexism/feminism different?


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

the popularity of 50 shades seems to worry more. I've not read it, cause every source i trust is saying ti's blurring the boundaries between sex game and abuse. and that will cause more problems.


----------



## jjuice (Apr 16, 2013)

Fifty shades of abuse, romanticised.


----------



## ymu (Apr 16, 2013)

Is it really? Fuck's sake. A woman wrote that too. Internalising our own oppression is one thing. Actually encouraging men to internalise the means of oppression is beyond the fucking pale.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 16, 2013)

jjuice said:


> 'Twilight' may have something to answer for here - she falls for the one with lots of abusive traits, stalking, isolating tactics etc . Not good role models at all, and extremely popular


 
Pretty standard/common examples of abusive behaviour/relationships.


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)

jjuice said:


> Fifty shades of abuse, romanticised.


 
seen a fair bit of discussion, even from people who are, or are close to being _lifestyle_ players who are really bothered by it.


----------



## Wilf (Apr 16, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> We've had a lot of young women tell us that they think it's normal for their partner to check their phone, tell them who they can and can't be mates with and what they can and cannot wear. This apparently is a sign that your partner loves you.


fuck, that's depressing. Looks like every bit of progress has to fought and refought over.


----------



## jjuice (Apr 16, 2013)

I really can't understand the popularity of it, there's so much that wrong about it. Apart from anything else it's badly written, there are lots of much better erotic books out there .


----------



## kittyP (Apr 16, 2013)

killer b said:
			
		

> i was at a trade fair today and was given this  beermat.
> 
> the industry i work in (transport planning) has plenty of women working in it, and mostly local authority clients, yet it's still seen as ok to have ads like this. plenty of lycra clad models about too. mindboggling.



Bloody hell


----------



## kittyP (Apr 16, 2013)

Citizen66 said:
			
		

> Would you (or any of the others seemingly making the same argument) hold this stance towards anti-fascists though? That they should be just a little bit more polite to people attacking their stance and by extension accept racism as it's people 'holding different views'?
> 
> I'm sorry but I doubt you would. So why is sexism/feminism different?



Imho they are not really comparible in quite the same way.


----------



## toggle (Apr 16, 2013)




----------



## kittyP (Apr 16, 2013)

Rutita1 said:
			
		

> Pretty standard/common examples of abusive behaviour/relationships.



I love the twilight / buffy comparisons. 
Buffy rocks


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 17, 2013)

kittyP said:


> Imho they are not really comparible in quite the same way.



One is people fighting against inequality while the other are women?


----------



## toggle (Apr 17, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> One is people fighting against inequality while the other are women?


----------



## kittyP (Apr 17, 2013)

toggle said:
			
		

> seen a fair bit of discussion, even from people who are, or are close to being lifestyle players who are really bothered by it.



I have too. 

I have not read it either but it seems it was written in a kind of Cosmo way that was enticing women to find that kind of thing something to aim for. And that was carrying on the power imbalance. 

If you want to mess about with power for sexual play  then fair enough but let it start from even playing field.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 17, 2013)

Citizen66 said:
			
		

> One is people fighting against inequality while the other are women?



I'm not sure I understand.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 17, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> We've had a lot of young women tell us that they think it's normal for their partner to check their phone, tell them who they can and can't be mates with and what they can and cannot wear. This apparently is a sign that your partner loves you.


 
Wtf


----------



## ymu (Apr 17, 2013)

In other news, #everydaysexism has achieved another victory in double-quick time. The Daily Mail is running this:



> *Outraged advertisers find their products on Facebook pages glorifying rape and domestic abuse*
> 
> 
> Vodafone, Dove cosmetics, the homeless charity Shelter, the RSPB and Amazon have complained
> ...


It is a very effective means of achieving visible change from the comfort of your own sofa. As I said a couple of times before the thread got hijacked.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 17, 2013)

8ball said:
			
		

> Wtf



That is quite upsetting


----------



## 8ball (Apr 17, 2013)

killer b said:


> i was at a trade fair today and was given this  beermat.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Wandering off topic again but is it just me that doesn't have the faintest idea what that's advertising?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Apr 17, 2013)

ymu said:


> I think one thing men often don't get is that we do see a lot of the world through their eyes, because they are the default. Women are under-represented in the media, especially older women, so we are used to watching strong male characters and reading strong male opinions, and we mostly don't have a problem with it.
> 
> [Until and unless we start thinking about it, at which point whatever coping mechanisms seem appropriate apply: drink, drugs. hitting walls, taking the piss out of thick sexist fucks, or just straight up giving them a kicking, that kind of thing.]
> 
> ...


 
I wasn't going to comment on this thread but that post was  bang on to me - Not the bit about your dad so much (which is yours and his business), but the bit about not liking "girl" films - As a kid I read all the horrors (James Herbert, Shaun Hutson n that) and Sven Hassel, then stopped reading sometime in my early teens. Got back into it in my early twenties but had no confidence as a reader, didn't know about which authors I might like nor fuck all - I started off with Kelman, who led to other scots Alisdair Gray (who I never understood til years later), Janice Galloway, and from them to Trocchi. But I always felt, as long as I was self concious about reading female authors as a somehow _other_ thing, I hadn't really grown up as a reader and that was a failing on my part -  Not a failing that I went outta me way to rectify, coz that woulda been false, just a failing I had to overcome naturally.Which I reckon I did - Just by slowly expanding my canon over the years (ooer).

Films though, I don't give a shit about - Most of em are boring, some are alright, they all just pass the time though. But I'd rather watch a "girl" film than some action bullshit. The only thing worse than action bullshit is sci fi bullshit. And the only thing worse than that is fantasy. It's all bullshit though, init? Apart from that B&W Yugoslavian/Czheck (somewhere like that anyway) film with that naked young woman having to walk through the gauntlet of those fully uniformed and not unkind looking policemen who, nonetheless, had their cocks out and were pissing on her. Some sorta metaphor, that. Probably.

/massive derail anyway. Soz.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 17, 2013)

purenarcotic said:


> We've had a lot of young women tell us that they think it's normal for their partner to check their phone, tell them who they can and can't be mates with and what they can and cannot wear. This apparently is a sign that your partner loves you.


I've done some work on this with the kds i teach. Part of what confounds me is that the girls think they have a right to check their partner's phone too.  and then onto DV, many of the girls i teach think it's ok to hit their boyfriend, because that's what being a strong woman looks like.  I try to explain that hitting anyone is assault, and they look at me in a 'tschh, Miss, you wouldn''t understand - it's a Peckham thing' ... kind of way (or actually say similar)... and it's hard to show them a wider perspective.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 17, 2013)

8ball said:


> Wandering off topic again but is it just me that doesn't have the faintest idea what that's advertising?


It's poles for signs. They collapse when you accidently drive into them, so they don't hurt you.

www.zippole.com


----------



## 8ball (Apr 17, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> It's poles for signs. They collapse when you accidently drive into them, so they don't hurt you.
> 
> www.zippole.com


I don't think I'd have guessed that on my own after 50 tries.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 17, 2013)

kittyP said:


> I'm not sure I understand.


 
They're both fighting against inequality, surely? Why does one garner support whilst the other hostility?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Apr 17, 2013)

spanglechick said:


> I've done some work on this with the kds i teach. Part of what confounds me is that the girls think they have a right to check their partner's phone too. and then onto DV, many of the girls i teach think it's ok to hit their boyfriend, because that's what being a strong woman looks like. I try to explain that hitting anyone is assault, and they look at me in a 'tschh, Miss, you wouldn''t understand - it's a Peckham thing' ... kind of way (or actually say similar)... and it's hard to show them a wider perspective.


 
Sometimes it _is_ alright to hit someone though. It's never alright to look through someone else's phone though - But who's never done it? I'm honestly not having a go but maybe these kids understand the wider perspective more than you think, but reject your version of it?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 17, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Sometimes it _is_ alright to hit someone though. It's never alright to look through someone else's phone though...


 
Not sure where you're going with this...


----------



## jjuice (Apr 17, 2013)

Hitting someone is never okay. It's far from okay


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 17, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Sometimes it _is_ alright to hit someone though. It's never alright to look through someone else's phone though - But who's never done it? I'm honestly not having a go but maybe these kids understand the wider perspective more than you think, but reject your version of it?


 

I think you may be missing an important point. The discussion is about unsafe personal boundaries, unnecessary violence and controlling behaviour, otherwise known as abuse. These points arose from posts made by people working in the DV sector, working with abused women/girls etc, the discussion includes examples of this 'abuse' being reflected in popular literature/culture. You seem to be saying that it's okay and the kids who 'act out' this stuff have it right? 

There is a massive difference between doing something and thinking it is okay to do so. Pretty sure very few of us would be proud of checking other people's phones, violently lashing out or controlling others...even if we had done it in the past.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Apr 17, 2013)

8ball said:


> Not sure where you're going with this...


 
I'm going nowhere, mate except for another derail maybe - I do think, under certain circumstances, it's ok to hit someone though - Why do you think our hands are the way they are - Things we can express ourselves with in so many ways, gestures, embraces, caresses, writing, even music an that, but can also be balled up and used as clubs? It's the beautiful paradox of humanity. To deny it is to lie. To embrace it is to sell yourself out & be a barbarian - To accomodate it is to walk the very fine line of what it means to be a person. To chat shit is to.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Apr 17, 2013)

jjuice said:


> Hitting someone is never okay. It's far from okay


 
Gonna start another thread - Not gonna derail this one further.


----------



## jjuice (Apr 17, 2013)

I would agree that being there is human expression in hitting with a balled up fist. For instance,it expresses that a person is an abusive bully who needs to control and dominate. Where is the paradox ?
It is never okay to hit someone


----------



## jjuice (Apr 17, 2013)

I'm glad Frances Lengel has made the decision not to derail. I am talking about abuse within intimate relationships here, not about issues of self defence.


----------



## ymu (Apr 17, 2013)

jjuice said:


> Hitting someone is never okay. It's far from okay


No. But if hitting is happening, I'm glad the girls are hitting back. Even if they will inevitably end up getting a worse beating if they do. Because if some cunt hits me, he will get hit back as fucking hard as possible for as long as he is still trying to hit me or I am unconscious.

There are advantages to having a twin brother. No fucking man will get the pleasure of knowing he's caused me any kind of pain, but he will fucking feel some pain himself.

YMMV: it helps if you fucking hate your insecure sexist shithead of a twin brother. (Theres a reason I can peer into these ugly psyches. I've watched one of them fail to grow up for 43 years.)

If it's girls hitting boys because they know the boys will not hit them back, then shame on them. I'm sad that I doubt this is the case, but I really hope it is. At least boys are more likely to be able to defend themselves and restrain the violence.

And of course no one should ever hit anyone else. Reality is not that simple.

The only time a man hit me, I was stopping him from hitting another man for hitting a woman. These chivalrous, not in front of the ladies, types are pure macho bullshitters who haven't spent a moment actually thinking about what they believe.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Apr 17, 2013)

killer b said:


> i was at a trade fair today and was given this  beermat.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I second that 

Would it be wrong to get in touch and tell them that the 1970s called and wants its shite advertising back?

sadly there's still a lot of "lads" in the transport planning field.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Apr 17, 2013)

jjuice said:


> I'm glad Frances Lengel has made the decision not to derail. I am talking about abuse within intimate relationships here, not about issues of self defence.


 
Nice one, I wasn't talking about relationship abuse and you weren't on about self defence, so it seems we've nowt to argue about - I can't help feeling let down   Nah, only messing.


----------



## ymu (Apr 17, 2013)

We don't check each others phones, but we get our internet from one of them, so whoever goes out first uses the other one and we inevitably see each others texts because of stoopid flashy smart phone apps and needing to listen to voicemails. We share a laptop and all the passwords are auto-filled, so we can check anything we wanted if we wanted. Sometimes do if something is needed at a distance (eg me on phone -> him on the computer checking for an email I need to know about).

That's not the level of trust you can have as a teenager, or necessarily ever. But I'm very glad we have it. The moment you need to start snooping is the moment the relationship is dead IMO. My dad cannot visit some of his grandchildren because his batty wife is jealous of my twenty years happily married mother who lives nearby. If you don't trust someone, you don't love them. It's an oymoronic state of affairs.

IMO, obv. I do understand that jealousy can be hard to control, but for fuck's sake, talk about self-fulfilling prophecy. You might as well tell them to leave you for someone else to get the inevitable over quickly and with far less pain.


----------



## xenon (Apr 17, 2013)

The thing is. What would balanced equitable advertising look like anyway. (Not that I can see the pic but you take my point.) We're all commodified. Everything is open to the marketters stunted imagination. 

I don't really know where I'm going with this but whilst there is of course sexism patriarchy and hundreds of years of mainstream dominent history informing our idea of normality. There will never be equality in the eys or flowing from the pens of those who wish to sell you something. It's not in the interests of the powerful to help kids grow up to challenge or think for themselves, not that I believe it's conspiracy. Just power resides where its' most well defended... Sorry waffle. I'm no femmenist. I don't know what it would mean to describe myself as such as a bloke in his late 30's but I hate people being boxed in by ideas and presribed to. </hippy> (I aint no hippy)

<bit drunk etc>


----------



## ymu (Apr 17, 2013)

killer b said:


> i was at a trade fair today and was given this  beermat.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Get @everydaysexism onto it.

And send it from a male-name account. They get extra lurrrve on there.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 17, 2013)

8ball said:


> I don't think I'd have guessed that on my own after 50 tries.


There was an website address on the advertisement. I looked it up


----------



## toggle (Apr 17, 2013)

xenon said:


> The thing is. What would balanced equitable advertising look like anyway. (Not that I can see the pic but you take my point.) We're all commodified. Everything is open to the marketters stunted imagination.


 
just think of how you'd feel if it was a bloke in that pose. it would be ridiculous unless it was a gay escort. actually, i think it would still be ridiculous even then.


----------



## ymu (Apr 17, 2013)

xenon said:


> The thing is. What would balanced equitable advertising look like anyway. (Not that I can see the pic but you take my point.) We're all commodified. Everything is open to the marketters stunted imagination.
> 
> I don't really know where I'm going with this but whilst there is of course sexism patriarchy and hundreds of years of mainstream dominent history informing our idea of normality. There will never be equality in the eys or flowing from the pens of those who wish to sell you something. It's not in the interests of the powerful to help kids grow up to challenge or think for themselves, not that I believe it's conspiracy. Just power resides where its' most well defended... Sorry waffle. I'm no femmenist. I don't know what it would mean to describe myself as such as a bloke in his late 30's but I hate people being boxed in by ideas and presribed to. </hippy> (I aint no hippy)
> 
> <bit drunk etc>


You're all right. For a bloke.  <-- wink and sticking my tongue out at you, for the benefit of your voice-ware

I said something on another thread that I think is relevant here, so I'll just post it. Sorry friedaweed, this is a courtesy tag and absolutely nothing you need to read, just a link to the QOFE thread. Nothing more to see here. Move along now, there's a good chap.



ymu said:


> No, you are not. When you were a teenager this might have been considered socially acceptable. When it no longer is considered socially acceptable, 'banter' will mean 'teasing' and not 'goading'. But right now? Not socially acceptable and the sooner everyone realises that the sooner you can go back to joking about it instead of 'joking' about it.
> 
> Turn your wicked sense of humour and utterly sound bloke-ishness to ripping the piss out of the neanderthals* who have been wrecking every thread on feminism for years and you will be the man I would want to marry if I wasn't already hopelessly in love with someone else.
> 
> ...


Advertisers should do that ^^ too. And we should tell them that ^^ all the fucking time until they get the message.

If killer b (as one of the, probably hundreds, of always have been great blokes and supportive of women on here for years types) can pull off a coup with @everydaysexism and his beermat, @mrsfran's thread will bear its first fruit.


----------



## toggle (Apr 17, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> There was an website address on the advertisement. I looked it up


 
that's cause you're Dr Clever around here.


----------



## xenon (Apr 17, 2013)

I probably shouldn't have posted in response to that. I'm thinking, typing allowed. Wel my thoughts are unclear TBH. I hate the mainstream, need more women in the boardroom type femmenism stuff and ideas of chattles possession of another human, Tea Party esk dominion over reproductive rights and the objectification of people as jizz sacks, baby carriers, cannon fodder...


To me it's all about power. The rest is sorta window dressing. I try not to be an ignorant  cunt, that's aboutas involved I get in gender issues I spose.


----------



## ymu (Apr 17, 2013)

xenon That political position is what might reasonably be called "class-based feminism". That other shit is single-issue shite. (There is crossover in places, of course.) See Cesare at the start of this thread (pre-neanderthal attack) for details.


----------



## toggle (Apr 17, 2013)

xenon said:


> I probably shouldn't have posted in response to that. I'm thinking, typing allowed. Wel my thoughts are unclear TBH. I hate the mainstream, need more women in the boardroom type femmenism stuff and ideas of chattles possession of another human, Tea Party esk dominion over reproductive rights and the objectification of people as jizz sacks, baby carriers, cannon fodder...
> 
> 
> To me it's all about power. The rest is sorta window dressing. I try not to be an ignorant cunt, that's aboutas involved I get in gender issues I spose.


 
i like you, cause although you're not certain, you're thinking and asking.and you're not all that far off getting it all imo.


yes, it's about power. to me, patriarchy is the power structure of a few white men and the top, which filters down into an effect on all below, but the male control filtering through means it's more so on women.

but putting a few white women, or a few black people, or transgender people, or whoever, isn't going to make it better. thatcher didn't make it easier for women. not unless they were also arseholes clawing their way to the top who bought into the status quo.

how to get all the way there, IDK. it has to involve sorting out class and other equality issues as well as gender issues.

but sometimes we have to prioritize some battles, and things like fighting about reproductive rights as you said, and dealing with rape culture and harassment culture are priorities to me. that's why i'm in this part of the battle.


----------



## ymu (Apr 17, 2013)

Does your software read out your likes BTW? And if so, does it get annoying when it reads out everybody elses', or is the 'digesting the audio-post' time useful?

xenon

killer b's beermat pic is of a woman draped around a new type of "collapses when you hit it" signpost.

Does it read out those quote marks in the sentence before to make it easier to parse that sentence, or is it hard to understand heavily punctuated but ungrammatical text?


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 17, 2013)

jjuice said:


> Hitting someone is never okay. It's far from okay


 
So if someone attacked you it isn't OK to defend yourself?  Sorry etc but at school when I started getting shit from older bullies a smack in their teeth was the only thing they listened to.


----------



## ymu (Apr 17, 2013)

toggle said:


> i like you, cause although you're not certain, you're thinking and asking.and you're not all that far off getting it all imo.
> 
> 
> yes, it's about power. to me, patriarchy is the power structure of a few white men and the top, which filters down into an effect on all below, but the male control filtering through means it's more so on women.
> ...


 
I agree with almost all of that. But I don't think most of the shit filters down onto women. I think we get a different kind of shit.

Our shit makes us poorer and more likely to fall into poverty, and more vulnerable to violence than we should be, given that our (on average) weaker muscles and smaller stature and higher fat % makes inevitable at times from the kind of fucked up brain that is born that way (and I think this is possible, if not proven).

But we do get to spend more time with our kids, and if our family are fortunate enough to allow one partner to spend more time at home, we're less likely (if straight) to be the one with the suffocating responsibility to provide, the emasculating (or de-humanising, if we are to be unisex about these things, as I prefer) and de-responsibilising effect of waged labour and hierarchical structures, or be forced to repress our emotions to the extent that they explode in violent rages, often at other men, who are their own biggest threat, but also often directed at the physically (or otherwise) weaker (you gutless snipers).

Their shit makes them have well, not that ^^. And in return they get to goad, demean, assault and rape pretty much whenever they feel like it, and they'll get approval down the pub for it an' all. They need it to bandage those incredibly fragile male egos by gaining approval from other damaged psyches. How does it feel to be so threatened by a _girl _you gutless creeps?

And at this point I want to acknowledge Spymaster for his genuine and much appreciated apology and 100% backing off (despite some minor shitery in the teenage killers thread, which is his politics, not his other shit). It took guts to write it and I wont share the details with anyone because it really was that genuine and painful to read.

_<leads round of applause which turns into a standing ovation and the crowd go WILD!>_


----------



## toggle (Apr 17, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> So if someone attacked you it isn't OK to defend yourself?  Sorry etc but at school when I started getting shit from older bullies a smack in their teeth was the only thing they listened to.


 
nods, my son finally loosing it and throwing himself on the bullies, he came home with bruises the size of plates and the biggest grin ever. the teacher of the class he was in at the time waited until my son was about finished before breaking it up apparently.


----------



## xenon (Apr 17, 2013)

ymu said:


> Does your software read out your likes BTW? And if so, does it get annoying when it reads out everybody elses, or is the 'digesting the audio-post' time useful?
> 
> xenon
> 
> ...



Doesn't describe pics but the alerts number appear by the username control links.

Asides vanity,  I use alerts to see what's happened on a thread I've posted on. (don't do subscribe.)
Oh yeah e2a. I got the quotes the "" BTW. Bizarre and offensive sounding advert gathered from that.


----------



## toggle (Apr 17, 2013)

ymu said:


> I agree with almost all of that. But I don't think most of the shit filters down onto women. I think we get a different kind of shit.


 
sorry, but i'll take the pressure of being the breadwinner over the threat of sexual violence any day.

and i have done.


----------



## ymu (Apr 17, 2013)

I have been the breadwinner since we have been together. I bailed out his (v small) debts on day 2 and whisked him to Brum. Coming up to nine years. We're both disabled, but I was fortunate enough to come from a privileged background and had the chance to get some decent skills under my belt before it became intolerably difficult to work a 'normal' job. I only do public sector work (ethics) and they've cut most of the funding that we used to survive on.

He was disabled by racists in his first year at university and never managed to finish that or any other course (severe cluster headache).

Which is why he never, ever pulls this shit on the vulnerable and will always round on those who abuse their power and back up anyone who is challenging them. When it is safe to do so, of course. #1 get home safely #2 take no shit.

Of course neither of us are disabled in Atos terms, but we cannot physically fulfill JSA demands. We're eking out the last of our sellable possessions and trying out different strategies not to get rejected on the grounds of easily adjustable-to disabilities. Equal Opportunities policy my arse. My field is too small to risk taking you fucks to tribunal for disability for discrimination and you know it. Well hear this: I have nothing left to lose.

And the unions get the paperwork, as they did last time. And the last prick lost his job because my more powerful boss could take him and them to tribunal for sexism, clean them out, get him censured, sacked (and moved fucking sideways, two of 'em, as per fucking usual with these mediocre, counter-productive, ladder-climbing, creepy, obsequious, stubbornly entitled, willfully blind, incompetent, richly rewarded fr obedience, sell-out cunts. ).

It cost them unknowable millions. £2m-ish per year, indefinitely, both our names on that grant, she as lead, me as one of many extras. Plus some of my personal grant. But not the £30k they stole from it. The work I had previously done was so shoddy after they told the scientists to quit using me as a consultant (half the work, twice the money, no bullshit work, pure quality) DoH had to visit and take the grant off them. You could say, that is _my_ kind of tribunal. Conducted by science vs the establishment. 

Knock out in Round 1, first punch (made it through way less than half the average countdown, they're so uninterested in the credibility of their work compared to profit and obedience from, buyable (although often naive from birth tbf) drones.

So yeah. I understand that suffocating, terrifying, soul-destroying pressure. And the world around me defaults to male (white, middle-class, straight, able-bodied and cis type). There's a reason we're renowned for our empathy, you know? It's not fucking empathy, we get to live a lot more of the male world than men can ever possibly live of ours.

And that does include, whilst also partially excluding, trans-women. We stand with them always, but they must not assume that being brought up male has had no effect on their attitudes or assumptions. They rightfully demand that we stand with them. And we do. But they need to put the same effort into standing with us or it is not rightful, it is self-righteous. It's what entitled males do. This is not triangulation, this is communication. Communication designed to make all of this identity shit as relevant as eye colour. Eventually.

Empathy is learnt as much as it is developed. You have to do some thinking as well as opinionating.


----------



## Voley (Apr 17, 2013)

spanglechick said:
			
		

> ok - I've kept from posting here because it's just so unpleasant, and i have too much other stuff going on at the moment: i can't do stress in my free time too...
> 
> My opinion, for whatever it's worth, is that some people feel like challenging the patriarchy aggressively, and some people don't - but that neither has the right to tell the others how to post.  And by extension, I guess i'm saying that people have a right to troll, or be disruptive or ignorant too.  I don't like policing. I don't like people being told to fuck off the thread: whether those people are the aggressive feminists or the frustrated peace-seekers or the wrongheaded non-thinkers, or I suppose even the trolls, actually.
> 
> ...



Ace post. Totally agree with all of it.


----------



## Firky (Apr 17, 2013)

killer b said:


> i was at a trade fair today and was given this  beermat.
> 
> the industry i work in (transport planning) has plenty of women working in it, and mostly local authority clients, yet it's still seen as ok to have ads like this. plenty of lycra clad models about too. mindboggling.


 
It is sexist on both levels, scantily clad woman clutching a pole and it is a beer mat. Because men love beer.

Might be worth sending them an email, their marketing bod is a woman:

Anja Lievens
Sales and Marketing
+32 478 68 05 25
anja.lievens@safety-product.eu

I don't know if they have twitter. Twitter scares me.


----------



## Firky (Apr 17, 2013)

jjuice said:


> Hitting someone is never okay. It's far from okay


 
There are exceptions: Danny Alexander, Nick Clegg, David Cameron, Ian Duncan Smith, George Osbourne, Tony Blair, Alistair Campbell, Toby Young, Laurie Penny, Nick Lezard, Sunny Hundal, Richard LittleJohn etc. can all be legitimately kicked into the heart of the sun.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 17, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> They're both fighting against inequality, surely? Why does one garner support whilst the other hostility?


 
ETA: I'll leave it as I don't want to derail any further.


----------



## toggle (Apr 17, 2013)

kittyP said:


> ETA: I'll leave it as I don't want to derail any further.


 
please don't.

really would like an explanation for that bizarre comment you made.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 17, 2013)

Firky said:


> There are exceptions: Danny Alexander, Nick Clegg, David Cameron, Ian Duncan Smith, George Osbourne, Tony Blair, Alistair Campbell, Toby Young, Laurie Penny, Nick Lezard, Sunny Hundal, Richard LittleJohn etc. can all be legitimately kicked into the heart of the sun.


 
Not familiar with Sunny Hundal or Nick Lezard but I'd hardly think Laurie Penny has ever done any harm on the scale of the others you mention.

Being a naive mouthy youngster hardly puts her up there with IDS.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 17, 2013)

For the record, what does "cis type" mean?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 17, 2013)

kittyP said:


> For the record, what does "cis type" mean?


 
When you're not talking about biochemistry, just that your gender psychology lines up with your genitals, really.


----------



## purenarcotic (Apr 17, 2013)

kittyP said:


> For the record, what does "cis type" mean?


 
I don't know what cis type specifically means, but someone who is cis gendered is someone who has no conflict between their gender and their biological bits.  So somebody who was born 'female' and feels 'female' / born 'male' and feels 'male'.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 17, 2013)

toggle said:


> please don't.
> 
> really would like an explanation for that bizarre comment you made.


 
Really? 

OK. Sorry I was tried last night and not expressing myself or thinking properly. 

I was going to say that actually, I do think this thread and issue have garnered support from me and many others.

I would also _maybe_ _suggest _(suggest, not tell or demand) someone in a thread about racism to maybe stop being aggressive if I thought that all they were doing is shouting "you are only talking to me like that because I am black" at people, over and again, not engaging then in proper conversation and well, being generally aggressive and taking away from the discussion at hand.  Not that this has ever happened on here.
Obviously because I am not black this would be trickier to handle than feminist issues for me and I would not expect someone to be calm about relaying a specific incident. 
This is why it is tricky and they are not totally compatible because, well, they are different subjects, and they invoke different feelings in different people, for different reasons. 

I will ask you not to quote me because all I am doing is trying to explain something that you asked me to explain, I probably have not explained it very well and if all I get is a load of abuse, I'll take it down.


----------



## kittyP (Apr 17, 2013)

8ball said:


> When you're not talking about biochemistry, just that your gender psychology lines up with your genitals, really.





purenarcotic said:


> I don't know what cis type specifically means, but someone who is cis gendered is someone who has no conflict between their gender and their biological bits. So somebody who was born 'female' and feels 'female' / born 'male' and feels 'male'.


 
Thank you


----------



## toggle (Apr 17, 2013)

the issue is that someone only mouthing off at black posters, stalking black posters over the boards, using language towards them that has baggage designed to silence and demean black people, attacking those who stood up for them as 'wigger' etc, etc would involve banning.

treating someone differently in debate because they were black would be unacceptable, unless the discussion was about black experiences. and then telling them that you as whitey knew the experience of racism better than they did, told them about the black character, where blacks couldn't do and didn't want to do what whites did, then there would be more bannings.

why is treating women and feminist/ally men acceptable, where the above is not?

why is sexism still acceptable, where racism is not?

why is a comparison of different discriminatory practices not allowable?


----------



## Firky (Apr 17, 2013)

8ball said:


> Not familiar with Sunny Hundal or Nick Lezard but I'd hardly think Laurie Penny has ever done any harm on the scale of the others you mention.


 
She ignored the advice of mental health professionals who told her to refer a suicidal man to their services, instead she used him to further her career. Fuck her.


----------



## ymu (Apr 17, 2013)

Then we disagree on nothing at all kittyP. I'm sorry for my part in the nasty standoff. You know I don't dislike you, and I agree with so much of what you say. 95% at least. On this, always elsewhere. It's an emotive issue for all sorts of reasons.

Two anti-sexists, three opinions. As the old joke doesn't quite go.

You have guts. I'm scary. I apologise.

I'm off because I promised people i'd shut up and get some sleep.

<3


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Apr 17, 2013)

toggle said:


> why is treating women and feminist/ally men acceptable, where the above is not?
> 
> why is sexism still acceptable, where racism is not?
> 
> why is a comparison of different discriminatory practices not allowable?


 

Woman is the nigger of the world
Yes she is...think about it
Woman is the nigger of the world
Think about it...do something about it

We make her paint her face and dance
If she won't be a slave, we say that she don't love us
If she's real, we say she's trying to be a man
While putting her down, we pretend that she's above us

Woman is the nigger of the world...yes she is
If you don't believe me, take a look at the one you're with
Woman is the slave of the slaves
Ah, yeah...better scream about it

We make her bear and raise our children
And then we leave her flat for being a fat old mother hen
We tell her home is the only place she should be
Then we complain that she's too unworldly to be our friend

Woman is the nigger of the world...yes she is
If you don't believe me, take a look at the one you're with
Woman is the slave to the slaves
Yeah...alright...hit it!

We insult her every day on TV
And wonder why she has no guts or confidence
When she's young we kill her will to be free
While telling her not to be so smart we put her down for being so dumb

Woman is the nigger of the world
Yes she is...if you don't believe me, take a look at the one you're with
Woman is the slave to the slaves
Yes she is...if you believe me, you better scream about it

We make her paint her face and dance
We make her paint her face and dance
We make her paint her face and dance
We make her paint her face and dance
We make her paint her face and dance
We make her paint her face and dance


----------



## Firky (Apr 17, 2013)

Please don't lower this any further by posting John Lennon songs. They're even more abhorrent than genocide.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 17, 2013)

Firky said:


> She ignored the advice of mental health professionals who told her to refer a suicidal man to their services, instead she used him to further her career. Fuck her.


 
Not nice.  Did he top himself?


----------



## kittyP (Apr 17, 2013)

toggle said:


> the issue is that someone only mouthing off at black posters, stalking black posters over the boards, using language towards them that has baggage designed to silence and demean black people, attacking those who stood up for them as 'wigger' etc, etc would involve banning.
> 
> treating someone differently in debate because they were black would be unacceptable, unless the discussion was about black experiences. and then telling them that you as whitey knew the experience of racism better than they did, told them about the black character, where blacks couldn't do and didn't want to do what whites did, then there would be more bannings.
> 
> ...


I didn't say it wasn't allowable, just that I find them difficult to compare.
I pretty much agree with everything else you have said. 
Now I don't want to derail even further.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 17, 2013)

Ah, John Lennon, the wife-beater.


----------



## Santino (Apr 17, 2013)

Give him his due, when he imagined no possessions, he had to work at it much harder than most.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 17, 2013)

Santino said:


> Give him his due, when he imagined no possessions, he had to work at it much harder than most.


Is it just me that has less and less time for the Beatles (both musically and as personalities (minus George H maybe)) as I grow older?


----------



## spawnofsatan (Apr 17, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Is it just me that has less and less time for the Beatles (both musically and as personalities (minus George H maybe)) as I grow older?


 
Just wait till you reach 64...


----------



## Santino (Apr 17, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Is it just me that has less and less time for the Beatles (both musically and as personalities (minus George H maybe)) as I grow older?


The fact that they are/were a bunch of dicks takes nothing away from being the best band ever.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 17, 2013)

Santino said:


> The fact that they are/were a bunch of dicks takes nothing away from being the best band ever.


 
<paging El Jefe..>


----------



## Santino (Apr 17, 2013)

8ball said:


> <paging El Jefe..>


He only disliked them because he thought it was cooler to do so. As if the manufactured rebelliousness of the Rolling Stones somehow made for a more authentic listening experience.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 17, 2013)

Santino said:


> He only disliked them because he thought it was cooler to do so. As if the manufactured rebelliousness of the Rolling Stones somehow made for a more authentic listening experience.


I dislike the Stones as much as the Beatles. Jagger was a misogynist too, just like Lennon. I guess for their time they weren't too out of kilter with the mainstream?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 17, 2013)

Sucked the marrow out of bone...


----------



## Santino (Apr 17, 2013)

TruXta said:


> I dislike the Stones as much as the Beatles. Jagger was a misogynist too, just like Lennon. I guess for their time they weren't too out of kilter with the mainstream?


Well within normal boundaries, I'd imagine, except for having the wealth and influence to not worry about the consequences of their actions.


----------



## Firky (Apr 17, 2013)

Santino said:


> The fact that they are/were a bunch of dicks takes nothing away from being the best band ever.


 
Get to fuck


----------



## Santino (Apr 17, 2013)

Anyway, I'm going to stop talking about the Beatles in this thread.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 17, 2013)

Santino said:


> Well within normal boundaries, I'd imagine, except for having the wealth and influence to not worry about the consequences of their actions.


There's that.

END OF DERAIL


----------



## toggle (Apr 17, 2013)

Santino said:


> Well within normal boundaries, I'd imagine, except for having the wealth and influence to not worry about the consequences of their actions.


 
ask my led zep obsessed bf to pass on some of the stories hes read about them sometime. they took it to a whole new level.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 17, 2013)

TruXta said:


> END OF DERAIL


 
There's no going back to the rails.

The rails were lost several pages back - no one is quite sure where they are but it's likely a retail park has been built on top of them.


----------



## Bakunin (Apr 17, 2013)

Firky said:


> She ignored the advice of mental health professionals who told her to refer a suicidal man to their services, instead she used him to further her career. Fuck her.


 
She did indeed. Which was when I went from being merely cynical about her and her motives to being entirely contemptuous. She didn't do an especially good job of weaselling her way out of that one as I recall.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 17, 2013)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Woman is the nigger of the world....SNIP


 
Read a great blog post by a Latino woman calling out some idiot that thought it appropriate to join in 'Slut Walk' in NYC with a banner saying this.

A little like you coming onto this thread and posting those lyrics in fact. 

This could bring the thread back on topic:

*Here it is:*

tigerbeatdown.com/2011/10/10/my-feminism-will-be-intersectional-or-it-will-be-bullshit/ … MY FEMINISM WILL BE INTERSECTIONAL OR IT WILL BE BULLSHIT!


----------



## ymu (Apr 17, 2013)

Firky said:


> Please don't lower this any further by posting John Lennon songs. They're even more abhorrent than genocide.


It's a Yoko Ono pretentious era song. Sneaks in under the wire for relevance and content.

Nice work ElizabethofYork. 

Youtube video embeds get less stick. 



Bed!

_<slaps self>_


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 17, 2013)

Santino said:


> Anyway, I'm going to stop talking about the Beatles in this thread.


Could you just stop talking about the beatles completely?


----------



## mrsfran (Apr 17, 2013)

The BEATLES? This thread is about the BEATLES NOW?


----------



## TruXta (Apr 17, 2013)

No.


----------



## ymu (Apr 17, 2013)

"Don't be a dick."

Re-rail imminent.

killer b: @everydaysexism update?


----------



## killer b (Apr 17, 2013)

bit poorly atm ymu, but if i can be bothered i'll email them in the next day or so.

i thought you were going to bed?


----------



## toggle (Apr 17, 2013)

killer b said:


> bit poorly atm ymu, but if i can be bothered i'll email them in the next day or so.
> 
> i thought you were going to bed?


 
i'm going to get annoyed with her if she dosen't soon.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 17, 2013)

ymu said:


> "Don't be a dick."
> 
> Re-rail imminent.
> 
> killer b: @everydaysexism update?


 
I think this is more a case of laying down new rails...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 17, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> Well it looks like the two thread trashers have got exactly what they wanted ie. shut down debate.
> 
> Round of applause


 
Sanctimonious much, drew?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 17, 2013)

cesare said:


> <long article>


 
Interesting.
It provokes what's probably a very uncharitable question in my mind, which is "why, when it was so obvious that sexism was only a part of the socio-cultural equation that is class, were some academic feminists so determined to separate their feminisms off into what became effectively a ghetto?".
Obviously, my own opinions are coloured by experience as effectively an outsider in the '80s, but it always seemed to me that there were feminists entirely willing to forego movement (i.e. solving/resolving issues around inclusivity etc) in order to preserve ideological purity, and that's at least partly why some feminisms got involved in worm-eating-its'-own-tail identity politics - to refine and purify their feminisms rather than to advance the cause.


----------



## toggle (Apr 17, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Interesting.
> It provokes what's probably a very uncharitable question in my mind, which is "why, when it was so obvious that sexism was only a part of the socio-cultural equation that is class, were some academic feminists so determined to separate their feminisms off into what became effectively a ghetto?".
> .


 
because they were reacting to what they had seen, recognition of the rights and voices of other social groupings, but a maintenance of the status quo for women. i've only looked into feminist historiography, rather than through academia in general.

but annales, the Marxist groups told the working class stories, but still told a male story. they really did believe they had to speak for women, cause no one else would speak for women. I'll try to dig up my copy of the papers i have on the historiography of suffragism. the way in which male historians described them was sickening.



> However, the Marxists were often still focused solely on male agency. There was little examination of the roles of women in history and when women were considered, many assumptions were made. An example of why women academics were angry at the treatment of female figures in history can be seen in Purvis’ account of the historiography of the suffragettes. When the women were described as gaining a ‘positively unhealthy pleasure’ from abuse in prison, force-feeding was declared to be ‘not dangerous’,  while Harrison was to proclaim that ‘clumsiness in the prison-doctor during forcible feeding could destroy woman’s greatest assets, her looks’  then it is hardly surprising that women readers of this would be angered by the assumptions made. Feminist history was not only about the application of theories of repression and patriarchy to history, but to also give women a voice in history and for female students to be taught a history that included them.


that's what i wrote on this late last year.
i'll see if i can find you a copy of Purvis. my main reference for this.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 17, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Don't make a fuss. Nice girls don't make a fuss.


 
My sister's ex-M-i-L said that to her once.


Just the once.


----------



## toggle (Apr 17, 2013)

at least i would if i could find a fucking search function in win8.


----------



## cesare (Apr 17, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Interesting.
> It provokes what's probably a very uncharitable question in my mind, which is "why, when it was so obvious that sexism was only a part of the socio-cultural equation that is class, were some academic feminists so determined to separate their feminisms off into what became effectively a ghetto?".
> Obviously, my own opinions are coloured by experience as effectively an outsider in the '80s, but it always seemed to me that there were feminists entirely willing to forego movement (i.e. solving/resolving issues around inclusivity etc) in order to preserve ideological purity, and that's at least partly why some feminisms got involved in worm-eating-its'-own-tail identity politics - to refine and purify their feminisms rather than to advance the cause.


Aye, it's a long article about Identity Politics.


----------



## toggle (Apr 17, 2013)

got it

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09612029500200073


that there was space to publish on this in 1995, this story still needed telling then, says a lot.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 17, 2013)

spanglechick said:


> ok - I've kept from posting here because it's just so unpleasant, and i have too much other stuff going on at the moment: i can't do stress in my free time too...
> 
> My opinion, for whatever it's worth, is that some people feel like challenging the patriarchy aggressively, and some people don't - but that neither has the right to tell the others how to post. And by extension, I guess i'm saying that people have a right to troll, or be disruptive or ignorant too. I don't like policing. I don't like people being told to fuck off the thread: whether those people are the aggressive feminists or the frustrated peace-seekers or the wrongheaded non-thinkers, or I suppose even the trolls, actually.
> 
> ...


 
Excellent post which gets to the heart of the fact that posts can provoke us. We might all wish to reply in a spirit of neutral observation and comment, but we can't always manage it, even when we want to!


----------



## kittyP (Apr 17, 2013)

spanglechick said:


> ok - I've kept from posting here because it's just so unpleasant, and i have too much other stuff going on at the moment: i can't do stress in my free time too...
> 
> My opinion, for whatever it's worth, is that some people feel like challenging the patriarchy aggressively, and some people don't - but that neither has the right to tell the others how to post. And by extension, I guess i'm saying that people have a right to troll, or be disruptive or ignorant too. I don't like policing. I don't like people being told to fuck off the thread: whether those people are the aggressive feminists or the frustrated peace-seekers or the wrongheaded non-thinkers, or I suppose even the trolls, actually.
> 
> ...


 
Sorry I missed this post earlier. 
I heartily agree.
I am totally guilty of getting too wrapped up in my own argument and missing the point. 
I am just the kind of person that hates confrontation (it's not something I can help) and stupidly that leads to more confrontation sometimes  at self  
I really didn't mean it to come across as victim blaming but I can see how it does that.  
I still won't find it easy to interact with people who are aggressive in their posting style but I guess that is my issue to deal with.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 17, 2013)

Wilf said:


> fuck, that's depressing. Looks like every bit of progress has to fought and refought over.


 
It does, across the social field, which is why I get so fucked off by this or that political grouping claiming to have won a great battle on this or that issue. Stop patting yourselves on the back, and get on with preparing for the next battle, because you can be as sure as fuck it's going to come!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 17, 2013)

kittyP said:


> Imho they are not really comparible in quite the same way.


 
I'm not so sure. Oppression is oppression, whatever colour clothes it wears. The consequences may not be exactly alike, but they are often so similar that the differences are pretty much invisible to the naked eye.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 17, 2013)

kittyP said:


> I love the twilight / buffy comparisons.
> Buffy rocks


 
Well, Buffy's writers did bother to tackle abusive relationships in a novel way, and to show that they could be two-way as well as one-way.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 17, 2013)

Santino said:


> He only disliked them because he thought it was cooler to do so. As if the manufactured rebelliousness of the Rolling Stones somehow made for a more authentic listening experience.


 
TBF, he didn't like the Stones either!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 17, 2013)

8ball said:


> Sucked the marrow out of bone...


 
Put the V in Vietnam too, apparently.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 17, 2013)

cesare said:


> Aye, it's a long article about Identity Politics.


 
Copied it to a .doc to peruse later. Thanks!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 17, 2013)

toggle said:


> got it
> 
> http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09612029500200073
> 
> ...


 
Indeed it does. It was only when reading a couple of biographies of Sylvia Pankhurst about 20 years ago that I realised just how thin and revised what gets taught in schools about the movement was.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Apr 17, 2013)

kittyP said:


> I still won't find it easy to interact with people who are aggressive in their posting style but I guess that is my issue to deal with.


 
Nothing wrong with you - if only more people thought this way many a forum might be a nicer place to be.  A forum I used to post a lot on, now very rarely (and I won't name it!), has become quite right-wing politically IMO, their Thatcher thread almost the reversal of on here to the extent of posters almost universally praising her.  It sadly seems to have given some right wingers the courage to add random insults on to the end of any of their posts (in a way that doesn't add anything to their argument).  When people can't debate without name-calling, I now just get put off posting in that thread.  N.B. It doesn't actually mean the aggressive folk have won, quite the opposite in fact in that others just turn their ears away.


----------



## oryx (Apr 17, 2013)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Nothing wrong with you - if only more people thought this way many a forum might be a nicer place to be. A forum I used to post a lot on, now very rarely (and I won't name it!), has become quite right-wing politically IMO, their Thatcher thread almost the reversal of on here to the extent of posters almost universally praising her. It sadly seems to have given some right wingers the courage to add random insults on to the end of any of their posts (in a way that doesn't add anything to their argument). When people can't debate without name-calling, I now just get put off posting in that thread. N.B. It doesn't actually mean the aggressive folk have won, quite the opposite in fact in that others just turn their ears away.


 
FWIW I'm interested in feminism, have been a feminist as long as I can remember and am deeply proud to call myself one, and liked mrs fran's OP.

I've dipped into this thread and can sum it up in three little words 'can't be bothered'.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 17, 2013)

ymu said:


> Nice work ElizabethofYork.


 
What was 'nice' about EoY's posting those lyrics? 

Do you think JL actually knew what it is like to be either Black (called and characterised as a _Nigger_) or a woman?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 17, 2013)

oryx said:


> FWIW I'm interested in feminism, have been a feminist as long as I can remember and am deeply proud to call myself one, and liked mrs fran's OP.
> 
> I've dipped into this thread and can sum it up in three little words 'can't be bothered'.


 
'Bothered' is, at the very least, a medium-sized word.

I thank you very much - I am here all work to sate your pedantry and nit-picking needs. <bows>


----------



## ymu (Apr 18, 2013)

killer b said:


> bit poorly atm ymu, but if i can be bothered i'll email them in the next day or so.
> 
> i thought you were going to bed?


Just tweet them the pic. They'll do the rest. 

I did the sleep thing. 

It may not have helped. 

/coffee


----------



## ymu (Apr 18, 2013)

Rutita1 said:


> What was 'nice' about EoY's posting those lyrics?
> 
> Do you think JL actually knew what it is like to be either Black (called and characterised as a _Nigger_) or a woman?


It's a metaphor.

You think Yoko Ono had no insight?

Was that monologue in The Commitments also offensive to you?

Why is it OK for people to call me a feminazi but not to call you a nigger?

I want to know.

Tell me.


----------



## ymu (Apr 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Interesting.
> It provokes what's probably a very uncharitable question in my mind, which is "why, when it was so obvious that sexism was only a part of the socio-cultural equation that is class, were some academic feminists so determined to separate their feminisms off into what became effectively a ghetto?".
> Obviously, my own opinions are coloured by experience as effectively an outsider in the '80s, but it always seemed to me that there were feminists entirely willing to forego movement (i.e. solving/resolving issues around inclusivity etc) in order to preserve ideological purity, and that's at least partly why some feminisms got involved in worm-eating-its'-own-tail identity politics - to refine and purify their feminisms rather than to advance the cause.


Separatism is a common element in all liberation struggles that I can think of.

Speak out -> get ignored -> we need our own state/society if we want to be treated like equals -> [protest/violence/terrorism/reverse chauvinism/things happen -> ...

If they get their own state, they become chauvinist nationalists. But I think separatism is more of a stage, and often an important one. It can create a kind of mini co-operative economy, whereby its members swap interactions with abusive groups for interactions with their own group, strengthening the economic position of that group but also providing a space where these arguments can play out without domination by more powerful groups.

It's a stage as much as an endpoint, I think, and a pretty common response to emerge from oppressed groups in the early stages of fighting a public battle for recognition that their oppression is wrong.

Because, you know, people turn round and say "it's not that bad" or "it's not as bad as what I have to put up with".

Divide and rule works. Separatism is a response to a society full of oppressed people who don't want to stick up for other oppressed people. Because they're special and no one else can be oppressed as much as <insert favoured oppression here> so why do all the <other oppressed people> keep making all this fuss?

Perhaps we can all just agree that abuse of power is wrong and no one should go out of their way to make vulnerable people more vulnerable?

Is that bland enough for everyone?


----------



## andysays (Apr 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Interesting.
> It provokes what's probably a very uncharitable question in my mind, which is "why, *when it was so obvious that sexism was only a part of the socio-cultural equation that is class*, were some academic feminists so determined to separate their feminisms off into what became effectively a ghetto?".
> Obviously, my own opinions are coloured by experience as effectively an outsider in the '80s, but it always seemed to me that there were feminists entirely willing to forego movement (i.e. solving/resolving issues around inclusivity etc) in order to preserve ideological purity, and that's at least partly why some feminisms got involved in worm-eating-its'-own-tail identity politics - to refine and purify their feminisms rather than to advance the cause.


 
I don't think that it is so obvious to everyone - there are many people, not all of them radical feminists, who would argue that sexism is entirely separate from class (not me, to be clear)

But if we do accept that it is only a part of the wider socio-cultural thing, that perhaps tells us something about the probable class background and loyalties, whether they like it or not, of many academic feminists


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Apr 18, 2013)

Rutita1 said:


> What was 'nice' about EoY's posting those lyrics?
> 
> Do you think JL actually knew what it is like to be either Black (called and characterised as a _Nigger_) or a woman?


 
There's nothing "nice" about those lyrics.  They weren't meant to be "nice".  The message is surely that racism and sexism are equally vile.  However badly black men have been treated, black women have been treated worse.  The use of the word Nigger is intentionally provocative - an offensive put-down.   Women are the targets of offensive put-downs every hour of every day.


----------



## ymu (Apr 18, 2013)

andysays said:


> I don't think that it is so obvious to everyone - there are many people, not all of them radical feminists, who would argue that sexism is entirely separate from class (not me, to be clear)
> 
> But if we do accept that it is only a part of the wider socio-cultural thing, that perhaps tells us something about the probable class background and loyalties, whether they like it or not, of many academic feminists


 
I think that's exactly right. But there is a chicken/egg question here.

Are separatist movements a philosophical response to the existence of discrimination, or are they a reaction to the majority (measured in terms of power, not simplistic numbers) going _"la la la I can't hear you, you don't matter and you never will, your oppression isn't important and neither are your experiences so be quiet <insert dismissive insult>. Know your place (below me, ha!)"_

Why does something as simple as "don't be a dick" turn into a hysterical anti-anti-sexist reaction each and every time. How in hell did this bunfight start? I know I'm a dick, but I want to know why only one person made any real effort to tell the other dicks to stop being dicks, because I'm pretty sure the dickishness started with them, or was my original comment really that offensive and I just can't see it?

It's a short bunfight, and does not need bumping, it is to illustrate what I think is a mercifully short example of what is done to destroy every thread that is about feminism, and turn every incident of sexism elsewhere into a derailing bunfight.

_Don't demean me for being female and don't do things that increase the risk of women experiencing poverty and violence simply because they are women._

Isn't that just: Don't be a dick?

Why does it cause the predictable hysterical reactions from anti-anti-sexist men, and even some self-described anti-sexists, everywhere except the deepest depths of class-based politics in P&P (where the shitheads either don't go or can't derail because the entire thread jumps on them instantly if they do).


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 18, 2013)

ymu said:


> It's a metaphor.
> 
> You think Yoko Ono had no insight?
> 
> ...


 
*Two questions:*

Why are you *telling* me I am/was offended? Do you think I am incapable of telling you/others if that is the case?

*Where* have I said it is okay for people to call you a feminazi but not call me a nigger?

Please don't ascribe me feelings and/or beliefs.I am more than capable of telling you how I feel, what I think and why.

I don't believe in a hierarchy of suffering/oppression.

I am happy to discuss this stuff with you but I won't be told how I feel and why, i'm sure you understand that. 

I asked you a question because I was generally interested in why you thought it 'nice' that those lyrics were posted on this thread in that way. I also linked to a blog that I read recently which deals with complexity of intersectionality, expectations and experiences, using these lyrics as an example.

I have responded to your PM as well in which I have shared a very real example of how this can play out, i'll share that here too:





			
				ME said:
			
		

> For example, when I thinking about it yesterday, it reminded me of being asked here on Urban whether I would be more offended by being called a _bitch_ or a _Black bitch_.


 
Using some of the language from your questions above...would it be more offensive to call me a Nigger feminazi or just a feminazi, or just a Nigger?


----------



## andysays (Apr 18, 2013)

ymu said:


> How in hell did this bunfight start?


 
To avoid possible derails/restarting another bunfight, I've gone PM on this one


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 18, 2013)

ElizabethofYork said:


> There's nothing "nice" about those lyrics. They weren't meant to be "nice". The message is surely that racism and sexism are equally vile. However badly black men have been treated, black women have been treated worse. The use of the word Nigger is intentionally provocative - an offensive put-down. Women are the targets of offensive put-downs every hour of every day.


 
Oh gee! I knew none of that....  You needed to spell it out for me. 

Now, did you read that blog I linked to?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Apr 18, 2013)

Rutita1 said:


> Oh gee! I knew none of that....  You needed to spell it out for me.
> 
> Now, did you read that blog I linked to?


 
I'm relieved you knew that.  Your earlier post indicated that you didn't understand, which I found a bit worrying.

Yes, I read the blog you linked to.  It wasn't very impressive. What did you think of it?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 18, 2013)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I'm relieved you knew that. Your earlier post indicated that you didn't understand, which I found a bit worrying.
> 
> Yes, I read the blog you linked to. It wasn't very impressive. What did you think of it?


 
I think it very clearly illustrated why you, me or anyone else don't have a monopoly over when you can/can't use provocative statements/metaphors/whatever in _shared/unified spaces_ and not expect a reaction/be willing to reflect on/justify our usage.

You posting those lyrics here without explanation and now condescending to me because I have questioned you doing so in the way you did I think is similar to a participant in 'slut walk' rocking up to the protest with them on a banner and not expecting or appreciating that others may feel/think/interact with them differently.

I don't care if you were impressed or not, you seem to have missed the point entirely anyway. The first example/consequence of that was to imagine i didn't/don't understand the lyrics and to 'worry' about that seemingly because I dared question/ask about how/why they seemed appropriate/relevant to you/ymu...you assumed a position of authority over me as a result, I don't consent to you doing so.


----------



## cesare (Apr 18, 2013)

andysays said:


> I don't think that it is so obvious to everyone - there are many people, not all of them radical feminists, who would argue that sexism is entirely separate from class (not me, to be clear)
> 
> But if we do accept that it is only a part of the wider socio-cultural thing, that perhaps tells us something about the probable class background and loyalties, whether they like it or not, of many academic feminists


Do you think feminist academics are more likely to be middle class than other academics?


----------



## andysays (Apr 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> Do you think feminist academics are more likely to be middle class than other academics?


 
No, I don't, and I hope I haven't said anything which suggested that.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Apr 18, 2013)

Rutita1 said:


> I think it very clearly illustrated why you, me or anyone else don't have a monopoly over when you can/can't use provocative statements/metaphors/whatever in _shared/unified spaces_ and not expect a reaction/be willing to reflect on/justify your usage.
> 
> You posting those lyrics here without explanation and now condescending to me because I have questioned you doing so in the way you did I think is similar to a participant in 'slut walk' rocking up to the protest with them on a banner and not expecting or appreciating that others may feel/think/interact with them differently.
> 
> I don't care if you were impressed or not, you seem to have missed the point entirely anyway. The first example/consequence of that was to imagine i didn't/don't understand the lyrics and to 'worry' about that...you assumed a position of authority over me as a result, I don't consent to you doing so.


 
I'm sorry if I've missed the point.  And I certainly am not assuming a position of authority over you or anyone else.

I'm a working class woman in my early 50s.  I've very recently started becoming "politically aware" if that's the right term.  Thanks in no small part to reading and posting on Urban and having my position challenged and questioned.

I understand why so many Urbs are wary of posting on the Politics section. 

Anyway I'm sorry that I got it wrong.


----------



## andysays (Apr 18, 2013)

ymu said:


> How in hell did this bunfight start?


 
OK, I've read through the thread you've linked to, at least up to the end of page 13 by which point the feminazi shit seems to have died away.

Thanks for subjecting me to more horse jokes that I really wanted to read. Ever.

For what it's worth, I'm in pretty much total agreement with the points you made. 1927's interventions in particular were ridiculous, and as soon as anyone uses the term feminazi, they've lost any claim to be listened to seriously.

However, the answer to your question above is, I'm afraid, it started when you posted this:

"I don't know whether to applaud their solidarity against the bosses or deplore their support for a sex pest. "

I realise it wasn't meant entirely seriously, but it seems to me to be quite a leap from the previous post to bringing sex pests into the equation.

As a man, I obviously don't have the same experience you do with regard to sex-pests, but I do have the experience of attempting to avoid not only being a sex pest but giving any inadvertent sex pest impressions (not trying to draw any equivalence obvs).

It can be upsetting when statements are made which seem to suggest that all men are potential SPs (again, obvs not as upsetting as being subjected to a SP), and your post could be interpreted like that by someone who had a mind to.

But if that's what started it, it was 1927's immediate response which really got it going; most reasonable people without a particular axe to grind (ie me) would just have thought "perhaps a little unnecessary from ymu, but not worth making a big deal about".

Anyone who throws around "feminazi" probably can't help themselves when they read a comment like yours. I'm not suggesting you shouldn't make whatever comment you think is appropriate, and I suspect that most of the time I'll be on your side in any given row informed exchange of mutually respecting views, but I'm sure you're experienced enough and intelligent enough to know that as an assertive woman you will continue to get shit thrown at you whether your comments are entirely justified (as they usually are) or occasionally a little hasty or without thought as to possible reaction (but none of us are immune from that).

"was my original comment really that offensive and I just can't see it?"

I think it was unnecessary and unfortunate, but not genuinely offensive. Only someone actively seeking to take offence, the sort of person who thinks "feminazi" is a sensible word to bandy about, would claim to find it so.


----------



## cesare (Apr 18, 2013)

andysays said:


> No, I don't, and I hope I haven't said anything which suggested that.


You made it clear that you don't think sexism is separate from class, so I wasn't thinking you were heading down the route of feminism = middle class pursuit, if that's what you mean.

But it's a natural question to ask when you highlight feminism in the context of academic thought and draw attention to probable background class and loyalties; because (unless feminist academics are different to other academics) you could invite the same attention to the probable class and loyalties of any kind of academic thought.


----------



## ymu (Apr 18, 2013)

Rutita1 said:


> *Two questions:*
> 
> Why are you *telling* me I am/was offended? Do you think I am incapable of telling you/others if that is the case?
> 
> *Where* have I said it is okay for people to call you a feminazi but not call me a nigger?


You haven't. There is a context. There is a reason why anti-sexists are having to reach for extreme and shocking analogies because: d_on't demean women, you're increasing the already unacceptably high risk of poverty and violence they experience_ gets you accused of being a feminazi mentalist. I know it's fucking ridiculous, but it's actually true. If it's not in a P&P thread populated mainly by sound class-based lefties, the misogyny is allowed to run riot, and we get blamed for mentioning it.



Rutita1 said:


> Using some of the language from your questions above...would it be more offensive to call me a Nigger feminazi or just a feminazi, or just a Nigger?


It's a meaningless question. Does using two demeaning adjectives instead of one put you in your place even more firmly? Depends how much you are bothered (personally) by the racism and sexism in your life and whether or not you are willing to use the incident to put the bigot in their place (in which case two adjectives would definitely be welcome to me) or whether it's a situation where it is simply not safe to mention is because it will put you at risk of of abuse/physical violence.

I don't find these insults demeaning. They say more about the speaker than they say about me. But then, I am in the fortunate position of being safe to speak up about most of the things that affect me. I lower my head and avoid eye contact when running the gamut of "just being friendly" men on the way to the shop, and I can't risk a tribunal for disability discrimination because my field is too small.

But I can safely speak out when some racist or sexist or other kind of bigoted wanker thinks it's amusing to press buttons, or uses their power over other people to try and demean them rather than engage with anything they might want to say, or just thinks it's OK to abuse random strangers for being different to them.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 18, 2013)

ElizabethofYork said:


> *I understand why so many Urbs are wary of posting on the Politics section.*
> 
> Anyway I'm sorry that I got it wrong.


 
I have my own version/experiences of this too. 

I realise I have a tendency to tune into/focus on meta-communication, which isn't always appropriate in generalised discussions and can lead to misinterpretations of what my feelings/opinions are or lead others to become defensive/imagine I am being defensive. I don't do this purposely, it's the way I am wired.

I appreciate your apology, thank you.


----------



## andysays (Apr 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> You made it clear that you don't think sexism is separate from class, so I wasn't thinking you were heading down the route of feminism = middle class pursuit, if that's what you mean.
> 
> But it's a natural question to ask when you highlight feminism in the context of academic thought and draw attention to probable background class and loyalties; because (unless feminist academics are different to other academics) you could invite the same attention to the probable class and loyalties of any kind of academic thought.


 
OK, I wasn't seeking to highlight feminism in particular in the context of academic thought (also bear in mind that my comment was a reply to ViolentPanda, from whom I picked up the theme of some academic feminists being "determined to separate their feminisms off into what became effectively a ghetto").

But my wider position would be that many forms of resistance have developed significant strands of academic thought and, to the extent that those academic strands have dominated the overall development of say feminism, marxism etc, they've become divorced from their original purpose and the majority of those who might wish to make more of them than an academic subject.

Talking about academic feminism or academic marxism as a middle-class pursuit therefore makes more sense than disparaging academic physics as such, even if most academic physicists do have a middle class background and appropriate loyalties.


----------



## andysays (Apr 18, 2013)

Rutita1 said:


> I have my own version/experiences of this too.
> 
> I realise I have a tendency to tune into/focus on meta-communication, which isn't always appropriate in generalised discussions and can lead to misinterpretations of what my feelings/opinions are. I don't do this purposely, it's the way I am wired.
> 
> I appreciate your apology, thank you.


 
I think we all do that to a greater of lesser extent


----------



## cesare (Apr 18, 2013)

andysays said:


> OK, I wasn't seeking to highlight feminism in particular in the context of academic thought (also bear in mind that my comment was a reply to ViolentPanda, from whom I picked up the theme of some academic feminists being "determined to separate their feminisms off into what became effectively a ghetto").
> 
> But my wider position would be that many forms of resistance have developed significant strands of academic thought and, to the extent that those academic strands have dominated the overall development of say feminism, marxism etc, they've become divorced from their original purpose and the majority of those who might wish to make more of them than an academic subject.
> 
> Talking about academic feminism or academic marxism as a middle-class pursuit therefore makes more sense than disparaging academic physics as such, even if most academic physicists do have a middle class background and appropriate loyalties.


I only picked up on your reply to VP, btw, because it was me that started the ball rolling about identity politics by posting the excerpts from the article that VP was commenting on.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 18, 2013)

ymu said:


> You haven't.


 Exactly. However your questions to me implied I had.


> It's a meaningless question.


 
Not entirely IMO, as you said yourself using this kind of language can _' say more about the speaker than they say about me.' _That's how I felt about being asked the original question as to whether I would be more offended by being called a _bitch_ or a _Black bitch_. I didn't answer it, I didn't feel a need to. It wasn't my lesson to learn/reflect on.


----------



## andysays (Apr 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> I only picked up on your reply to VP, btw, because it was me that started the ball rolling about identity politics by posting the excerpts from the article that VP was commenting on.


 
So it was *you* that started it 

This thread is by now too long for me to keep complete track of who said what to whom and exactly what position each poster is arguing


----------



## cesare (Apr 18, 2013)

andysays said:


> So it was *you* that started it
> 
> This thread is by now too long for me to keep complete track of who said what to whom and exactly what position each poster is arguing


Yeah, it was me. I fairly much set out my stall right at the start of the thread


----------



## ymu (Apr 18, 2013)

andysays said:


> To avoid possible derails/restarting another bunfight, I've gone PM on this one


It's not OK to take it to PM when I am being stalked for speaking out.

This is not a problem with one or two posters, it is a problem with these forums and only the posters on it can sort it out.

And that won't happen by PM. It just a time-waster.


----------



## ymu (Apr 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> Do you think feminist academics are more likely to be middle class than other academics?


They are, by definition, middle-class.

Are they more likely to come from a working-class background than other academics is an interesting question. I have no idea. Would be interesting to look at that across all subject areas. And sub-specialties. More women than men in public health, but they tend to get steered to stuff like diet and nutrition whilst the men grab cancer and heart disease.

[And yes, gutless stalkers, I did choose those verbs for a reason. No, I am not interested in having a bunfight about it. You are free to display your ignorance if you wish.]


----------



## andysays (Apr 18, 2013)

ymu said:


> It's not OK to take it to PM when I am being stalked for speaking out. This is not a problem with one or two posters, it is a problem with these forums and only the posters on it can sort it out. And that won't happen by PM. It just a time-waster.


 
At your suggestion, I've reposted my original PM on this thread, so anyone who wishes can read and respond to it.


----------



## ymu (Apr 18, 2013)

andysays said:


> ...
> However, the answer to your question above is, I'm afraid, it started when you posted this:
> 
> "I don't know whether to applaud their solidarity against the bosses or deplore their support for a sex pest. "
> ...


It might seem like quite a leap to you but, forgive me, you're a man. How do you know how a woman might interpret the anecdote?



bignose1 said:


> I was in Tescos near me.....the big new fucker in Stretford late last night after the match and a guy was trying to have the banter with a check out girl over it and he was told by a supevisor to leave the store.....3 people in other aisles left big trolleys full of stuff in support and walked out..........touchy...!


 
And is:



ymu said:


> I don't know whether to applaud their solidarity against the bosses or deplore their support for a sex pest.


 
Really such an outrageously poor taste comment that it deserved what follows?

Explain, because I am still fucking mystified.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 18, 2013)

Two things here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/18/are-you-too-white-rich-straight-to-be-feminist

The rubbish at the beginning about Helen Lewis, and that repetition of the Suzanne Moore created story that Suzanne Moore was hounded off twitter for one incidental stereotype used in an article, rather than the spewed transphobic stuff she came out with when she was challenged over her use of said stereotype. Oh, and Caitlin Moran, who responds to people asking her questions and wanting to be involved by adopting a childish 'I don't give a shit' attitude, despite being a focus for a lot of people.

Essentially, that's the media bubble reassuring itself that the actual opinions of the readership are merely nasty horrible trolls, rather than people engaging with the discussion and trying to make the debate more inclusive, rather than be lectured at from a weekly column about how the columnists fought so hard and experienced a lot, but that's all done now and we can stop fighting and struggling and defining ourselves and the fights that are still to be fought and just listen to our beneficient patricians, the authoritative voice of the movement, be good boys and girls and listen. Yeah, Social Media's really popped that little bubble.

However, this article finishes strongly.



> But then I heardHelen Belcher of Trans Media Watchspeak at a public meeting this week. She said the media had three ways of portraying trans people: "The first is that they're fraudulent. They're not really who they say they are. We'd better humour them in their delusion. The second is trans as undeserving deviant. The number of times you get costs – usually inflated – set against the money you could have spent on kiddies. The third is trans as comedy."
> 
> In other words, all the prejudice that has been disallowed by modern standards is now concentrated on this one, pretty small group. It is very extreme, these days, to refer to gay people as deviant, but still allowable to make this insinuation about transsexuals. It is apparently permissible, in our mean-spirited age, to talk about how much disabled people cost the state, but I can't imagine it would be OK to laugh at them. Transsexuals are dealing with a prejudice way out of proportion to their number, facing not only the people who hate the idea of transsexuality but all the people who wish they were still allowed openly to hate gays, openly to laugh at the disabled – hell, probably a few who wish they could still openly despise women.
> 
> Women of colour, likewise, when they call white feminists "colour-blind", are not saying every conversation about misogyny must start and end at the point where it bisects racism, rather that battles white feminists assume to be over have merely been shifted elsewhere (when theEqual Opportunities Commissionexisted, they did some research and found that 80% of black and ethnic minority women had been asked at their last job interview – illegally, needless to say – whether they intended to get pregnant). *And that's the better reason to "check your privilege" – not from some restrictive idea about how authentic you are, or whether you've endured the hardship to qualify as a progressive voice, but because not all prejudice is extinguished – some of it is just displaced. If someone else is taking the flak you would have got, in eras past, that flak is still your problem.*


 
Bang. On.


----------



## ymu (Apr 18, 2013)

Rutita1 said:


> Exactly. However your questions to me implied I had.
> 
> 
> Not entirely IMO, as you said yourself using this kind of language can _' say more about the speaker than they say about me.' _That's how I felt about being asked the original question as to whether I would be more offended by being called a _bitch_ or a _Black bitch_. I didn't answer it, I didn't feel a need to. It wasn't my lesson to learn/reflect on.


I think it says quite a lot about the speaker that they can ask such a meaningless question, and I think the context was them trying to quantify oppression or something daft.

As you say, it wasn't your lesson to learn. But:

Was it safe for you to try and explain that it was their lesson to learn?

Or were you sick and tired of having to explain something so basic by that point that you walked away?

Or was it not safe to do anything other than walk away?

Those are much more important questions, IMO.


----------



## ymu (Apr 18, 2013)

andysays said:


> At your suggestion, I've reposted my original PM on this thread, so anyone who wishes can read and respond to it.


Thanks.


----------



## ymu (Apr 18, 2013)

Balbi said:


> Bang. On.


The conclusion is.

The argument is a bit dismissive of other struggles. Disabled people have been getting that faker shit and the piss ripped for years. And this bit:



> Women of colour, likewise, when they call white feminists "colour-blind", are not saying every conversation about misogyny must start and end at the point where it bisects racism, rather that battles white feminists assume to be over have merely been shifted elsewhere


 
should read "middle-class feminists", not white feminists.


----------



## andysays (Apr 18, 2013)

ymu said:


> It might seem like quite a leap to you but, forgive me, you're a man. How do you know how a woman might interpret the anecdote?


 
I made a point of saying it *seemed like a leap to me*. Implicit in that is the recognition that I'm ill-equipped to judge from a woman's point of view. BTW, I also suggest that, just as not all men would read it the same way, so not all women would.



ymu said:


> is:
> 
> ...
> 
> Really such an outrageously poor taste comment that it deserved what follows?


 
No, of course not. I thought I'd already made that clear. But neither is it surprising that at least one dick jumped in with accusations of feminazism.

I have a lot of respect for you (and others) for taking the stand you're taking, but (and this is why I originally began this conversation by PM) I don't think even you are beyond what is meant to be constructive criticism, or a suggestion that there are times where you might (in my opinion obvs) be occasionally taking a partially unproductive approach.

But I'm got going to enter into a row with you over it...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 18, 2013)

ymu said:


> I think it says quite a lot about the speaker that they can ask such a meaningless question, and I think the context was them trying to quantify oppression or something daft.
> 
> As you say, it wasn't your lesson to learn. But:
> 
> ...


 
I can't remember exactly but I think it was more a case of 'are you for real' type response from me.

I remember exchanging PMs with the person afterwards in which she invited me to 'tell her about herself' to which my response was that 'telling others about themselves' was not something I do often or assume I have a right to do.

I'm pretty sure that my refusal to answer the question and that non-response was what led to her PM-ing me, realising that perhaps she needed to ask herself a few more questions so to speak? Was a long time ago so these PMs no longer exist to check exactly.

I wasn't particularly upset by it, as I said it wasn't my lesson to learn and I realised that. Probably because it wasn't my first nor my last experience of this kind of thing.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 18, 2013)

ymu said:


> The conclusion is.
> 
> The argument is a bit dismissive of other struggles. Disabled people have been getting that faker shit and the piss ripped for years. And this bit:
> 
> ...


 
Yep, I suppose it's in the context of Suzanne Moore & Helen Lewis' situations (which they, mostly, got themselves into).

My mate's already emailed me it saying "yeah, it's a start - but could be much more".


----------



## ymu (Apr 18, 2013)

So, so much more. Yes.


----------



## ymu (Apr 18, 2013)

Rutita1 said:


> I can't remember exactly but I think it was more a case of 'are you for real' type response from me.
> 
> I remember exchanging PMs with the person afterwards in which she invited me to 'tell her about herself' to which my response was that 'telling others about themselves' was not something I do often or assume I have a right to do.
> 
> ...


She sounds like an identity politics sort. And annoying ("tell me about yourself"). They often go together.


----------



## toggle (Apr 18, 2013)

cesare said:


> Do you think feminist academics are more likely to be middle class than other academics?


 
I'm on a masters course atm, the one out of us that has written the more provocative and controversial feminist histories (policing prostitution), rather than just women's social history, or early middle class suffragism, is an ex squaddie who has gone back to education, dropped out of school with about 2 gcse's and signed up at 16. he's a fucking genius.

my answer would be, only because most academics are middle class atm, when people like my freind get the opportunity now that they didin't used to get cause the idea of a tattoo'd ex squaddie as a professor would have filled people with horror, then it won't be.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 18, 2013)

toggle said:


> I'm on a masters course atm, the one out of us that has written the more provocative and controversial feminist histories (policing prostitution), rather than just women's social history, or early middle class suffragism, is an ex squaddie who has gone back to education, dropped out of school with about 2 gcse's and signed up at 16. he's a fucking genius.


 
Like the post, but I think there are many who would say being on a Masters course means he is middle class. 

NOTE: I AM NOT TRYING TO START A FIGHT


----------



## Balbi (Apr 18, 2013)

ymu said:


> So, so much more. Yes.


 
Still it is, I believe, the first article to even consider that maybe understanding privilege, and how it relates to others experiences, isn't just the preserve of nasty internet trolls 'hate wanking' jealously at the middle class media bubble. In a mainstream paper, anyway.

The argument's shoddy, but that concluding bit's a table thumper. I am a sucker for a bit of good, easily repeatable, rhetoric.


----------



## ymu (Apr 18, 2013)

8ball said:


> Like the post, but I think there are many who would say being on a Masters course means he is middle class.
> 
> NOTE: I AM NOT TRYING TO START A FIGHT


 
She didn't say that.

I said being an academic makes you middle-class.

Being a student does not make you middle-class. It has the potential to passport you in, but many are turned away at the border. 

Class is mutable shock!


----------



## 8ball (Apr 18, 2013)

ymu said:


> I said being an academic makes you middle-class.  Being a student does not make you middle-class.


 
Seems reasonable, but I've heard plenty say the act of going to university alone makes you middle class.

I'm not making their case for them, though.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 18, 2013)

Ooh, a few mates of mine from working class backgrounds legged it onto Masters Courses to try and wait out the recession in full time education. The class traitors


----------



## 8ball (Apr 18, 2013)

Balbi said:


> Ooh, a few mates of mine from working class backgrounds legged it onto Masters Courses to try and wait out the recession in full time education. The class traitors


 
I do hope you had them all shot.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 18, 2013)

I would do, but they know some physics masters and they've joined forces.

Every time I raised the rifle they dialectally dematerialised


----------



## toggle (Apr 18, 2013)

8ball said:


> Like the post, but I think there are many who would say being on a Masters course means he is middle class.
> 
> NOTE: I AM NOT TRYING TO START A FIGHT


 
we going back to cambodia where being able to read makes you a class enemy?


----------



## ymu (Apr 18, 2013)

Balbi said:


> Still it is, I believe, the first article to even consider that maybe understanding privilege, and how it relates to others experiences, isn't just the preserve of nasty internet trolls 'hate wanking' jealously at the middle class media bubble. In a mainstream paper, anyway.


But it's still on about divisive hierarchical-ising of oppressions.

Trans people get it worse because disabled people and women don't any more. 

They get it worse because it is still socially acceptable. As is racism if you say it's about religion or culture really. As is sexism if it's a 'joke' or the unions can't be bothered to negotiate to equalise women's pay without forcing the men to take a paycut. And the government is very busy punishing women for being more likely to be poor (and less likely to speak out because we're not allowed to do that kind of thing, according to a large pack of boorish men) and openly inviting people to attack the disabled (unsurprisingly, verbal and physical attacks have increased because of it).

Some people will bully whoever they can get away with bullying, because people who feel powerless often make themselves feel better by kicking people who are in an even worse position than they are. And the elite will encourage it because it's what keeps people from uniting to fight them.

One line in that article is OK. The rest is pish.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 18, 2013)

Balbi said:


> I would do, but they know some physics masters and they've joined forces.
> 
> Every time I raised the rifle they dialectally dematerialised


 
One rule for us and one rule for them...


----------



## 8ball (Apr 18, 2013)

toggle said:


> we going back to cambodia where being able to read makes you a class enemy?


 
It ain't just Cambodia. 

The first time I ran into this thinking was at Uni, ironically enough.  I was apparently middle class due to being at university, whereas this sociologist guy was working class despite being at university because he was 'class-conscious'...


----------



## ymu (Apr 18, 2013)

Ideological halo-polishing with the aim of weakening our forces so we can talk about revolution forever and ever and not actually have to do it. That would be a bit risky with that job interview coming up and a decent chance of making it to supervisor in a couple of years.


----------



## TruXta (Apr 18, 2013)

Working in academia might make you middle-class. Having "academical" skills in writing, research and analysis hardly makes you middle-class.


----------



## toggle (Apr 18, 2013)

ymu said:


> She didn't say that.
> 
> I said being an academic makes you middle-class.
> 
> ...


 
where that isn't set how it used to be, you can show the distinction between class as work, pay and security or how you socialise and who with, or political attitudes. a secure middle class job will change the former, but not necessarily the latter 2. and that is important to have people who don't think they need to change everything about themselves to work there, cause then people entering uni don't see all the staff as something 'other' than them.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 18, 2013)

Or you could go the BBC route and decide based on whether you like Coldplay and know a postman.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 18, 2013)

ymu said:


> Separatism is a common element in all liberation struggles that I can think of.


 
Not sure about "element", although it's certainly a common impulse. Some liberation struggles "get past" separatism, although usually through strict policing.



> Speak out -> get ignored -> we need our own state/society if we want to be treated like equals -> [protest/violence/terrorism/reverse chauvinism/things happen -> ...
> 
> If they get their own state, they become chauvinist nationalists. But I think separatism is more of a stage, and often an important one. It can create a kind of mini co-operative economy, whereby its members swap interactions with abusive groups for interactions with their own group, strengthening the economic position of that group but also providing a space where these arguments can play out without domination by more powerful groups.


 
I agree. It does all the above. Unfortunately, it also provides a fairly robust platform for the more "cultic" side of politics, with all the "true believer" bullshit that entails.



> It's a stage as much as an endpoint, I think, and a pretty common response to emerge from oppressed groups in the early stages of fighting a public battle for recognition that their oppression is wrong.
> 
> Because, you know, people turn round and say "it's not that bad" or "it's not as bad as what I have to put up with".


 
I'd never have guessed. 



> Divide and rule works. Separatism is a response to a society full of oppressed people who don't want to stick up for other oppressed people. Because they're special and no one else can be oppressed as much as <insert favoured oppression here> so why do all the <other oppressed people> keep making all this fuss?


 
Whilst separatism may be a reaction to "divide and rule", it's also a sustainer of "divide and rule". It feeds the very thing it purports to be escaping from. We're *always* stronger together than we are apart, if only we could remember!



> Perhaps we can all just agree that abuse of power is wrong and no one should go out of their way to make vulnerable people more vulnerable?


 
Perhaps we could also just agree that as power will always exist, perhaps a better approach is to attempt to ensure it is only ever exercised in the most minimal way congruent to the situation it is being exercised in? Power as persuader rather than power as controller.



> Is that bland enough for everyone?


 
So bland my stomach is heaving!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 18, 2013)

andysays said:


> I don't think that it is so obvious to everyone - there are many people, not all of them radical feminists, who would argue that sexism is entirely separate from class (not me, to be clear).


 
I've heard such arguments many times over the last 30 years. What they always have in common is that they're unconvincing *unless* you're already ideologically-committed to the idea of a feminism shorn of its' connections to class, ethnicity, "race" and culture.
Of course, if you *are* ideologically-committed to such a feminism, then you'll be nigh-on unable to articulate it, because it'll be divorced from most of the frames of reference from which it usually hangs, and you'll be stuck with a concept that can't actually be concretised "in the real world", because every feminist is also a member of a class; of a culture; of an ethnicity. 
It's the same with "race" issues and class issues. They all cross-cut to some degree, and ignoring the influence of any one factor on the overall intellectual framework risks weakening or corrupting the entire endeavour.



> But if we do accept that it is only a part of the wider socio-cultural thing, that perhaps tells us something about the probable class background and loyalties, whether they like it or not, of many academic feminists


 
I believe it tells us something alongside what their work tells us. In those cases where their sympathies aren't already abundantly apparent. We need to always keep in mind that *any* academic, however they may struggle for neutrality, will always have instinctive sympathies that can't be wholly eliminated from their work (if they want to do so. Some academics like taking sides!).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 18, 2013)

ymu said:


> I think that's exactly right. But there is a chicken/egg question here.
> 
> Are separatist movements a philosophical response to the existence of discrimination, or are they a reaction to the majority (measured in terms of power, not simplistic numbers) going _"la la la I can't hear you, you don't matter and you never will, your oppression isn't important and neither are your experiences so be quiet <insert dismissive insult>. Know your place (below me, ha!)"_


 
I think you've missed option c: That sometimes they're a calculated reaction designed to garner and then concentrate power for instrumental reasons.
Sure, that's a massively *minority* pursuit, but it's a pursuit borne out by the history of separatist struggles, unfortunately.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 18, 2013)

andysays said:


> OK, I wasn't seeking to highlight feminism in particular in the context of academic thought (also bear in mind that my comment was a reply to ViolentPanda, from whom I picked up the theme of some academic feminists being "determined to separate their feminisms off into what became effectively a ghetto").


 
Yep. My point being that feminism, as with other "-ism"s, has suffered the problems of academicisation and professionalisation (appropriation, in other words), with all the accompanying going off down abstruse narrowly-defined side-roads/dead ends that *that* can entail.


> But my wider position would be that many forms of resistance have developed significant strands of academic thought and, to the extent that those academic strands have dominated the overall development of say feminism, marxism etc, they've become divorced from their original purpose and the majority of those who might wish to make more of them than an academic subject.
> 
> Talking about academic feminism or academic marxism as a middle-class pursuit therefore makes more sense than disparaging academic physics as such, even if most academic physicists do have a middle class background and appropriate loyalties.


 
It's not loyalties to historic ties that bother me, it's loyalties to "the main chance". In the social sciences that often means jumping a theoretical bandwagon, or constructing your own, and then sticking with it come Hell or high water. That isn't healthy for "-isms" as a whole, because it means that they can be led down paths that may only be tangentially-relevant to those "-isms" out there in the rest of the world beyond academia.

I'm coming across as an anti-academy type of person aren't I?


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 18, 2013)

threads like this perhaps illustrate the reasons why people dont get involved in the feminist movement

so many arguments about tiny points, hierarchies of oppression and hyperbolic statements about something that somebody has randomly said


----------



## ymu (Apr 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I think you've missed option c: That sometimes they're a calculated reaction designed to garner and then concentrate power for instrumental reasons.
> Sure, that's a massively *minority* pursuit, but it's a pursuit borne out by the history of separatist struggles, unfortunately.


Still chicken and egg. Which came first, the voicelessness or the argument for separatism becoming overwhelmingly attractive?

I'd argue that it eventually becomes overwhelmingly attractive to exhausted activists who just can't take the mindless abuse any more.

Note the timing of Firky's thread about a separate feminism forum. Massively disagreed with because this is not the 1970s any more and things _should_ have moved on by now.

Why haven't they?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 18, 2013)

ymu said:


> Still chicken and egg. Which came first, the voicelessness or the argument for separatism becoming overwhelmingly attractive to exhausted activists who just can't take the mindless abuse any more?
> 
> Note the timing of Firky's thread about a separate feminism forum.


 
It's a good point, but the two can feed off each other.

I don't know what the solution is aside from maybe sharing strategies to avoid getting burned out and fucked off with the whole thing.


----------



## ymu (Apr 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm coming across as an anti-academy type of person aren't I?


And rightly so. It's a ridiculous structure in a million ways. Start a thread and I'll write an essay on why.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 18, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> threads like this perhaps illustrate the reasons why people dont get involved in the feminist movement
> 
> so many arguments about tiny points, hierarchies of oppression and hyperbolic statements about something that somebody has randomly said


 
There are good bits between the fighting now and then, though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 18, 2013)

ymu said:


> And rightly so. It's a ridiculous structure in a million ways. Start a thread and I'll write an essay on why.


you'll regret those hasty words


----------



## ymu (Apr 18, 2013)

8ball said:


> It's a good point, but the two can feed off each other.
> 
> I don't know what the solution is aside from maybe sharing strategies to avoid getting burned out and fucked off with the whole thing.


Some argue that the Basque separatists are motivated by being richer and whiter than the rest of Spain (and others say this is nonsense). If true, then it's more of an apartheid movement that never got off the ground thing than a liberation struggle.

The direction of the oppressive arrow matters. I cannot think of a separatist liberation movement that was not built on unsuccessful struggles for equality. The Nation of Islam was quite specific about it: we can only become strong if we trade only with each other and put money in our own pockets.

It's a stage. Some might view it as a destination, but they're easily ignored (unless your only source of information is the mainstream media) once separatism is no longer required because the majority are starting to behave themselves and enlisting them to join the struggle makes much more sense.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 18, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> threads like this perhaps illustrate the reasons why people dont get involved in the feminist movement
> 
> so many arguments about tiny points, hierarchies of oppression and hyperbolic statements about something that somebody has randomly said


 
Problem is that unless you address all the points, including the tiny ones, there's always a big risk of leaving a philosophical hostage-to-fortune for "the enemy" to take advantage of.
Which, to me, is why it's important to knock the idea of hierarchies of oppression on the head. In this context "oppression", for me, means "subjection to normative social forces constructed around prejudice and/or instrumentality", rather than "my mum told me to tidy my room", by the way (just thought I'd make that clear!). If you're oppressed, you're oppressed.
Now, it may be that you're the vector of more than one type of oppression, but that doesn't make your oppression more egregious or necessarily more worthy, unless you adhere to some sort of perverse points system , which would be stupid!

Hmmm, PD project...points system for scoring place in hierarchy of oppression....


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 18, 2013)

ymu said:


> And rightly so. It's a ridiculous structure in a million ways. Start a thread and I'll write an essay on why.


get posting 

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/whats-wrong-with-the-academy.309184/


----------



## ymu (Apr 18, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> you'll regret those hasty words


I doubt it. If the stalkers think they give me anything but joy, then they are as thick as they appear.

E2A: Ah! Nice one.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 18, 2013)

8ball said:


> Or you could go the BBC route and decide based on whether you like Coldplay and know a postman.


 
TBF, liking Coldplay shouldn't be a significator of middle-class status, it should be a significator of the necessity of re-education camps summer schools, come the revolution.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 18, 2013)

ymu said:


> The direction of the oppressive arrow matters.


 
Interesting post. I agree that the direction matters, though with regard to some cases (like perhaps the Basque separatist case), there can be multiple arrows and not all pointing in the same direction.

I'm being really speculative now, but when you say you cannot think of a separatist liberation movement that was not built on unsuccessful struggles for equality, I think there may be some tautology buried in there with regard to the use of the word 'liberation'.

Remove the word 'liberation' from 'separatist liberation movement' and you obviously include apartheid movements. I don't know much about how apartheid structures get started but I would guess that the separateness is implemented as a way to break down resistance to control, so you could almost argue that apartheid movements are built on unsuccessful struggles for absolute domination.

This may make no sense whatsoever. 

(edited to make very slightly less garbled)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 18, 2013)

ymu said:


> Still chicken and egg. Which came first, the voicelessness or the argument for separatism becoming overwhelmingly attractive?


 
One might as well ask "which came first, the urge to accumulate personal power, or the situation that fuelled the urge?". We can have perspectives on the answer, but they're merely (sometimes more, sometimes less) educated guesses.



> I'd argue that it eventually becomes overwhelmingly attractive to exhausted activists who just can't take the mindless abuse any more.
> 
> Note the timing of Firky's thread about a separate feminism forum. Massively disagreed with because this is not the 1970s any more and things _should_ have moved on by now.
> 
> Why haven't they?


 
I'd argue that they have moved on, insofar as the barrage would have been far more relentless and disgustingly-distasteful if all males were still '70s-style MCPs. That's not to excuse any of the boneheaded stupidity trotted out on threads about feminism on here, but it is to say that *some* progress has been made, and that the troglodytes are a despised minority, as opposed to the entitled majority their ilk were 35-40 years ago.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Apr 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'd argue that they have moved on, insofar as the barrage would have been far more relentless and disgustingly-distasteful if all males were still '70s-style MCPs. That's not to excuse any of the boneheaded stupidity trotted out on threads about feminism on here, but it is to say that *some* progress has been made, and that the troglodytes are a despised minority, as opposed to the entitled majority their ilk were 35-40 years ago.


 
I'm inclined to agree with that.  And that can be said for racism and homophobia (and probably quite a few other things) too.

Arguing that everything is perfect now because some people who are [insert minority group here] have "made it" in some way and that everyone else should stop whining is fairly absurd.  (this argument often tends to be put forward by a few people in said minority group who have 'made it' by trampling on everyone else)

But it's also a bit over the top to argue that no progress at all has been made in the last 40 years.


----------



## toggle (Apr 18, 2013)

.


----------



## ymu (Apr 18, 2013)

8ball said:


> Interesting post. I agree that the direction matters, though with regard to some cases (like perhaps the Basque separatist case), there can be multiple arrows and not all pointing in the same direction.
> 
> I'm being really speculative now, but when you say you cannot think of a separatist liberation movement that was not built on unsuccessful struggles for equality, I think there may be some tautology buried in there with regard to the use of the word 'liberation'.
> 
> ...


We're talking about separatism in the context of liberation movements It's not a tautology, it is on topic.

You cannot analyse the white South African nationalist movement in the same terms as you analyse the ANC. You cannot analyse Jewish nationalism pre 1947 in the same terms as you analyse the politics of the state of Israel.

The direction of the oppressive arrow matter.


----------



## ymu (Apr 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> One might as well ask "which came first, the urge to accumulate personal power, or the situation that fuelled the urge?". We can have perspectives on the answer, but they're merely (sometimes more, sometimes less) educated guesses.


Not what I asked. With bolded brackets to remove any possible ambiguity, I asked:



> Still chicken and egg. Which came first,* [the voicelessness]* or *[the argument for separatism becoming overwhelmingly attractive]*?





ViolentPanda said:


> I'd argue that they have moved on, insofar as the barrage would have been far more relentless and disgustingly-distasteful if all males were still '70s-style MCPs. That's not to excuse any of the boneheaded stupidity trotted out on threads about feminism on here, but it is to say that *some* progress has been made, and that the troglodytes are a despised minority, as opposed to the entitled majority their ilk were 35-40 years ago.


I know some progress has been made. I didn't say otherwise.

I'm saying it is no longer appropriate to use solutions like feminist sub-forums because that is why men still feel safe to shout women down in public, and chat shit about them to prove how very manly they are, and all that other discrimination and violence encouraging cuntery.

All public spaces should be safe for women, and sending us off to talk about our issues alone is saying that they are not. Because some men still see it as our issue and not theirs, and they shout so fucking loud it is just easier to send anti-sexist women somewhere else, but it's not a solution and it will never stop until people start shouting down the '70s throwbacks more than they shout down the people who ask them to behave themselves.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 18, 2013)

ymu said:


> We're talking about separatism in the context of liberation movements It's not a tautology, it is on topic.
> 
> You cannot analyse the white South African liberation movement in the same terms as you analyse the ANC. You cannot analyse Jewish nationalism pre 1947 in the same terms as you analyse the politics of the state of Israel.
> 
> The direction of the oppressive arrow matter.


 
I agree that the direction of the arrow matters - I wouldn't take that post as much more than sleep-deprived rambling.

I was mulling over liberation movements and relating them to oppressive movements and also cases where you may have two antagonistic groups with possibly legitimate grievances on both sides, how that might play out, and what is justified and what isn't.  Also that when separatism is being proposed by an oppressor that is a response to failed struggles of a kind (in this case musing whether it could relate to the ruling class in SA being overruled in the previous century by the British anti-slavery laws - an act of colonialism in itself - though a lot happened between that and the beginning of apartheid). 

I don't know the history well enough to really say - was just pondering separatism in general, and wasn't suggesting any kind of moral equivalence.

Tautology was the wrong word too...


----------



## ymu (Apr 18, 2013)

Real world in messy shock!


----------



## toggle (Apr 18, 2013)

ymu said:


> We're talking about separatism in the context of liberation movements It's not a tautology, it is on topic.
> 
> You cannot analyse the white South African liberation movement in the same terms as you analyse the ANC. You cannot analyse Jewish nationalism pre 1947 in the same terms as you analyse the politics of the state of Israel.
> 
> The direction of the oppressive arrow matter.


 
I should be able to give a really long and intelligent post about this, cause i'm supposed to understand it by now. but i've got too much still to read and i'm not entirely certain whether i'm at cross purposes with you again. i'm also paraphrasing a paper i read 2 years ago.


but the similarity between oppressive regimes is a perception of, or a history of persecution, followed by a reinforcing incident (which is such a disgustingly neutral term to use) before they gained power. Israel, the Boers, to some extent ulster unionism, but that is a bit more twisted into fitting than a progression. the real issue in the creation of separatist neo fascist regimes is that the formerly oppressed are overcompensating to make sure no one gets to fuck them again.i don't think the fear of a formerly oppressed group taking charge of their own space is a fallacy. there is evidence to show it going horribly wrong. or manipulation to create perception or fear of oppression to make it go wrong. you can't look at ruling oppression as separatism and liberation separatism separately, because one can lead to another.


----------



## toggle (Apr 18, 2013)

8ball said:


> Also that when separatism is being proposed by an oppressor that is a response to failed struggles of a kind


 
more of a end response to a won struggle.

IMO.

and a fear it will happen again.

as far as i'm aware the key incident was the war, what happened after and before the creation of a set of laws enforcing seperatism was fear of more deaths, fear of loss of control over their own destiny, again and reinforcement of that fear.

and the direct cause of the Boer war was the boers weren't seen as being very nice people, they didn't get on with their neighbours (like the British should have been condemning them for that) and Rhodes didn't like anyone else having gold in southern Africa. Radical Joe (financed by his family's arms manufacturing) stirred up the pot for Rhodes. the Boer war really was that sordid. even before we opened the camps.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 18, 2013)

toggle said:


> more of a end response to a won struggle.
> 
> IMO.
> 
> and a fear it will happen again.


 
So you don't think it was a 'next best thing' to what they really wanted, but a consolidation?



ymu said:


> Real world in messy shock!


 
'My posts' in messy shock!


----------



## toggle (Apr 18, 2013)

8ball said:


> So you don't think it was a 'next best thing' to what they really wanted, but a consolidation?


 
yes.

a maintance of position.- eta: a belief they had to maintain and enforce their dominance to survive

which is why sanctions reinforced the siege mentality in South Africa.

and criticisms makes israel act similarly



I'm working through understanding this atm. not there yet.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 18, 2013)

ymu said:


> Not what I asked. With bolded brackets to remove any possible ambiguity, I asked:


 
And I didn't answer your "question" directly *because* it can't be answered, except theoretically.

Thanks awfully for the patronising bolded brackets, though! 




> I know some progress has been made. I didn't say otherwise.
> 
> I'm saying it is no longer appropriate to use solutions like feminist sub-forums because that is why men still feel safe to shout women down in public, and chat shit about them to prove how very manly they are, and all that other discrimination and violence encouraging cuntery.


 
Not so much "saying" as re-stating something that the majority of people already agree with, as you'll have noticed from the posts on the feedback forum thread about a feminist sub-forum.
Because, let's be honest, a lot of contributors to that thread said right away that as good an idea as it might be in theory, it's a pisspoor one in reality, because it removes from view a debate that needs to be had in public, if anywhere.



> All public spaces should be safe for women, and sending us off to talk about our issues alone is saying that they are not. Because some men still see it as our issue and not theirs...


 
Some people still see race and/or religion and/or ethnicity as only issues for minorities.They're idiots
You can't legislate for idiots, you can only educate them or kill them, and you're not allowed to do the latter, unfortunately.



> and they shout so fucking loud it is just easier to send anti-sexist women somewhere else...


 
Fuck what's "easy"! Who's trying to send women anywhere?



> ...but it's not a solution and it will never stop until people start shouting down the '70s throwbacks more than they shout down the people who ask them to behave themselves.


 
Neutered dogs tend to bark the loudest. Usually empty boasts about how big their bollocks are. Cogency usually wins out against volume, especially if the cogency is laced with the occasional comment about the emptiness of the yapping dog's scrotum.


----------



## treelover (Apr 18, 2013)

> Facebook's big misogyny problem
> 
> "At first, people started posting pictures of women and young girls being raped or beat up and commenting on the page saying things like, "I will skull-f**k your children," explains Hendren. "Then the harassment moved offline after our personal information was posted all over Facebook. I was called and emailed repeatedly. Later my address and children's names were posted as well."
> Despite the fact that Facebook representatives may have done their best to work closely with Rapebook, the administrators closed the page after months of receiving up to 500 messages a day, *including photographs of actual rapes and child pornography*. Hendren's photo was used to create rape memes. She has left Facebook. It's important to note that people who supported Rapebook's efforts were unwilling to publicly show their support in Facebook, for fear of similar targeting.
> ...


 

Anyone read this?, absolutely shocking stuff..

Why aren't the authorities arresting these people?


----------



## ymu (Apr 18, 2013)

I think I'm with you on that toggle.

This isn't relevant. It's because 8ball said I was cheating by using the term "separatist liberation struggle" and I was just saying that I didn't think it was right to analyse separatist feminists in the same way you would, say, the BNP.

And yes, I completely agree. Nationalist liberation struggles are problematic. It's one reason I don't support the PSC except in passing solidarity. They call for self-determination for the Palestinian people, when rather a lot of the Palestinian people want one bi-national state where they are treated as equals, not self-determination at all.


----------



## ymu (Apr 18, 2013)

toggle said:


> yes.
> 
> a maintance of position.- eta: a belief they had to maintain and enforce their dominance to survive
> 
> ...


They used the same language as Israel did and does. "They want to push us into the sea", etc. South African pro-Palestinian activists are really interesting on this. If there's any about?


----------



## ymu (Apr 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> And I didn't answer your "question" directly *because* it can't be answered, except theoretically.
> 
> Thanks awfully for the patronising bolded brackets, though!


It wasn't intended to be patronising, I just couldn't see what anything you said had to do with my post that you quoted at the top. I assumed you'd answered a different question. My bad, I suppose.


----------



## ymu (Apr 18, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not so much "saying" as re-stating something that the majority of people already agree with, as you'll have noticed from the posts on the feedback forum thread about a feminist sub-forum.


Did I claim it was an entirely original thought? I've been saying it for years, and I know that lots of other people have too.

But thanks for patronising me.


----------



## toggle (Apr 18, 2013)

ymu said:


> I think I'm with you on that toggle.
> 
> This isn't relevant. It's because 8ball said I was cheating by using the term "separatist liberation struggle" and I was just saying that I didn't think it was right to analyse separatist feminists in the same way you would, say, the BNP.
> 
> And yes, I completely agree. Nationalist liberation struggles are problematic. It's one reason I don't support the PSC except in passing solidarity. They call for self-determination for the Palestinian people, when rather a lot of the Palestinian people want one bi-national state where they are treated as equals, not self-determination at all.


 

i think it all boils down to how you define nationality, and identity. whether it is self determined or determined by some external authority. inclusive or exclusive. and i'm not completely sold that they are different.

IDK the palestine situation all that well, not enough hours in the day to tbh. but....

for example, the majority of the cornish nationalists would tell me 'cornish is a state of mind' i'm cornish if i say i am, and i'm accepted by them for wanting to be part of the community here. wheras the bnp would define british or rather English, cause they ain't fucking British, are they, by their own set of definitions, not by my choice. i accept the value of the former, but not the later.

white nationalism and the extreme end of feminism both refuse to accept outsider as member and both use membership characteristics as determining factor rather than personal choice to be member/ally/in the group. that is my issue.


----------



## toggle (Apr 18, 2013)

ymu said:


> They used the same language as Israel did and does. "They want to push us into the sea", etc. South African pro-Palestinian activists are really interesting on this. If there's any about?


 
i've only read the acedemic stuff on this, with the comparison to 'ulster'

politics of fear. the causation is a similar set of patterns.


----------



## xslavearcx (Apr 18, 2013)

Sorry i haven't read this in its entirety so that will be one factor in the pish im about to say. Also just i've probably not thought through this issue well at all either... But it seems to me that the whole notion of seperatism to take a group away form being in a disempowered situation in society fails to deal with dynamics that lead to segments gaining power over others (I'm not going to even attempt to say how that comes about since it is something i know fuck all about) and then even if one does create some kinda promised land theres just going to be a new set of power differentials to deal with, but by the very disconnected-ness from the rest of society means that theres less scope for such power differentials to become accountable. Like for instance, the critique of the patriarchal family where the cut-off nature of it from the rest of societies gaze via the notion of privacy and the abuses that it can bring is well documented. I've got a friend that works for a womens organisation that would have that kinda critique going on, but by the fact of it striving to become seperate from patriarchial society, seems from what i've heard has a lot of informal hierarchies going (despite being opposed to hierarchy) on with very little scope for being accountable.. It seems to me in a sense that the problems that breed shit that goes on behind closed doors applies equally to that kinda situation....


----------



## toggle (Apr 18, 2013)

> the very disconnected-ness from the rest of society means that theres less scope for such power differentials to become accountable


 
i specifically wanted to pull this out, because from what i've read, it is the pull up the barricades, circle the wagons, inward looking mentality that is a key factor. where any criticism is attempted destruction.


----------



## xslavearcx (Apr 18, 2013)

Yeah id like to say more about what ive heard about that particular organisation using that mode of practice but not advisable since it is an arena of employment etc...


----------



## 8ball (Apr 18, 2013)

ymu said:


> It's because 8ball said I was cheating by using the term "separatist liberation struggle" and I was just saying that I didn't think it was right to analyse separatist feminists in the same way you would, say, the BNP.


 
That's not quite what I was saying - I'm not sure it was as coherent as that.


----------



## ymu (Apr 18, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> Sorry i haven't read this in its entirety so that will be one factor in the pish im about to say. Also just i've probably not thought through this issue well at all either... But it seems to me that the whole notion of seperatism to take a group away form being in a disempowered situation in society fails to deal with dynamics that lead to segments gaining power over others (I'm not going to even attempt to say how that comes about since it is something i know fuck all about) and then even if one does create some kinda promised land theres just going to be a new set of power differentials to deal with, but by the very disconnected-ness from the rest of society means that theres less scope for such power differentials to become accountable. Like for instance, the critique of the patriarchal family where the cut-off nature of it from the rest of societies gaze via the notion of privacy and the abuses that it can bring is well documented. I've got a friend that works for a womens organisation that would have that kinda critique going on, but by the fact of it striving to become seperate from patriarchial society, seems from what i've heard has a lot of informal hierarchies going (despite being opposed to hierarchy) on with very little scope for being accountable.. It seems to me in a sense that the problems that breed shit that goes on behind closed doors applies equally to that kinda situation....


It's what happens if you use anything other than a class-based analysis. Power gets abused and that is the only thing that matters. Minimising the potential for the abuse of power. Class is not another -ism, it is the over-arching power relation. Discrimination is about putting more people at the bottom so other sorts of people can rise above them. If the people at the bottom or top are got rid of somehow, then a whole new set of arseholes take control and no one is better off on average, it's just different people getting shat on.

See also: social mobility vs income equality


----------



## toggle (Apr 18, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> Yeah id like to say more about what ive heard about that particular organisation using that mode of practice but not advisable since it is an arena of employment etc...


 
i thyink a lot of campaign groups in particular decent into seperatism. compete for funding, for members, gfor supporters. if they get the resources, our group goes without.

while the press bay for blood if a group seen as particularly obscure get any finding for anything.

OUTRAGE as cancer charity denied funding. money goes to black transgender lesbians.


----------



## toggle (Apr 18, 2013)

ymu said:


> It's what happens if you use anything other than a class-based analysis. Power gets abused and that is the only thing that matters. Minimising the potential for the abuse of power. Class is not another -ism, it is the over-arching power relation. Discrimination is about putting more people at the bottom so other sorts of people can rise above them. If the people at the bottom or top are got rid of somehow, then a whole new set of arseholes take control and no one is better off on average, it's just different people getting shat on.
> 
> See also: social mobility vs income equality


 
and the more layers of other you create, the easier it is to remain on the top. cause everyone below knows if they step out of line, they can be forced down the ladder. made to be worse off than the lower.


----------



## xslavearcx (Apr 19, 2013)

ymu said:


> It's what happens if you use anything other than a class-based analysis. Power gets abused and that is the only thing that matters. Minimising the potential for the abuse of power. Class is not another -ism, it is the over-arching power relation. Discrimination is about putting more people at the bottom so other sorts of people can rise above them. If the people at the bottom or top are got rid of somehow, then a whole new set of arseholes take control and no one is better off on average, it's just different people getting shat on.
> 
> See also: social mobility vs income equality


 
to borrow some terminology from my philosophy classes it is only when these neccesary conditions are conjoined with class that they become a sufficient condition


----------



## xslavearcx (Apr 19, 2013)

toggle said:


> i thyink a lot of campaign groups in particular decent into seperatism. compete for funding, for members, gfor supporters. if they get the resources, our group goes without.
> 
> while the press bay for blood if a group seen as particularly obscure get any finding for anything.
> 
> OUTRAGE as cancer charity denied funding. money goes to black transgender lesbians.


 
totally, i worked in the third sector for a few years and i was particularly interested in trying to get my boss to do funding apps so that we would get funding (and id get a paid post) over some other organisation. very cutthroat world.


----------



## equationgirl (Apr 19, 2013)

Balbi said:


> Ooh, a few mates of mine from working class backgrounds legged it onto Masters Courses to try and wait out the recession in full time education. The class traitors


I did research for three years 1995-1998 for the same reason - the engineering sector was so depressed there were very few jobs anywhere for graduates.


----------



## ymu (Apr 19, 2013)

Anyone got around to tweeting that beermat to @everydaysexism yet? It does work, you know?


----------



## Corax (Apr 19, 2013)

ymu said:


> It does work


Eurgh.


----------



## weepiper (Apr 19, 2013)

8ball said:


> Seems reasonable, but I've heard plenty say the act of going to university alone makes you middle class.
> 
> I'm not making their case for them, though.


 
Bollocks does it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 19, 2013)

ymu said:


> Did I claim it was an entirely original thought? I've been saying it for years, and I know that lots of other people have too.
> 
> But thanks for patronising me.


 
I knew you wouldn't be able to resist that!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Apr 19, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Bollocks does it.


 
 I have heard that said though...but of course it doesn't. I'd say both my stints at Uni were very much influenced by my w/c background but I didn't change class by going to uni at all. In some ways I think I became more w/c as a result or perhaps just much more politically aware in the academic sense.

Ah, the joys of having a self aggrandising Middle Class lecturer refering to me as _truculent_...I can still see her little smile, she felt so very pleased with herself.  She wasn't alone in her arrogance either...my uni was brimming with this attitude towards w/c students.



> *truc·u·lent  *
> 
> /ˈtrəkyələnt/
> Adjective
> ...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 19, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> Sorry i haven't read this in its entirety so that will be one factor in the pish im about to say. Also just i've probably not thought through this issue well at all either... But it seems to me that the whole notion of seperatism to take a group away form being in a disempowered situation in society fails to deal with dynamics that lead to segments gaining power over others (I'm not going to even attempt to say how that comes about since it is something i know fuck all about) and then even if one does create some kinda promised land theres just going to be a new set of power differentials to deal with, but by the very disconnected-ness from the rest of society means that theres less scope for such power differentials to become accountable. Like for instance, the critique of the patriarchal family where the cut-off nature of it from the rest of societies gaze via the notion of privacy and the abuses that it can bring is well documented. I've got a friend that works for a womens organisation that would have that kinda critique going on, but by the fact of it striving to become seperate from patriarchial society, seems from what i've heard has a lot of informal hierarchies going (despite being opposed to hierarchy) on with very little scope for being accountable.. It seems to me in a sense that the problems that breed shit that goes on behind closed doors applies equally to that kinda situation....


 
The whole "nuclear family" concept has done more harm than good since its' emergence in the early-Victorian era "western" _bourgeoisie_.   As well as (as you say) locking the family away from the sort of public/community scrutiny that the practices of many extended families promoted, it also removed the "support network" inherent to the extended family format. This isn't to say that extended families couldn't be the site of the oppression of women, of course, only that it was more public, so the personal sense of shame of the perpetrator could be brought into play by the entire community, if so desired. We tend to forget that "community policing", as was practiced prior to the formation of police forces, often dealt with domestic violence issues summarily when it came across them, and while women being forced to wear a scold's bridle was rare, men being put in the stocks or the pillory for abusing those to whom they owed responsibilities wasn't. Still part of patriarchy, undoubtedly, but in some cases slightly more open than that "behind closed doors" nuclear family patriarchy.
As for informal hierarchies, some make sense. A kid doing what mum asks is rational behaviour. Blindly obeying everything dad demands because he's "the head of the household"/a man is eminently irrational behaviour, and is usually enforced through varying degrees of coercion from religion to physical violence.


----------



## cesare (Apr 19, 2013)

weepiper said:


> Bollocks does it.


Going to uni definitely doesn't automatically make someone middle class nowadays. But that's a relatively recent thing. That's one of the reasons why employers have to be very careful with making automatic assumptions about formal qualification criteria because they can end up making decisions where older people particularly women, and particularly working class women, can get unfairly screened out at advertising and sift stage.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 19, 2013)

toggle said:


> i specifically wanted to pull this out, because from what i've read, it is the pull up the barricades, circle the wagons, inward looking mentality that is a key factor. where any criticism is attempted destruction.


 
Yep, across the social, not just in the field of sexism.
A big problem, it seems to me, is that it's all too easy to provoke some people into such an "inward looking mentality". We've seen this with regard to the unemployed; with the disabled; with "single mothers" (as though the fathers have nothing to answer for!); with people of *any* sort of minority.
I once advanced an idea with regard to scapegoating on here that earned me some "fuck off and dies" from a few of my fellow Jews, because I stated that Jews actually aren't that special, except insofar as the supposed "crimes" of the Jewish race made us scapegoats _par excellence_, and that without that little misunderstanding in Jerusalem with that Emmanuel fellow, we'd have been just another bunch of dicks from the Middle East. My point was that *anyone, any individual or group* can be made into a scapegoat - that in fact doing so is terrifyingly easy if you're the ruling class, and that the scapegoating doesn't *need* any basis in truth because there will always be a significant minority of people whose psychological make-up is such that they feel more comfortable shifting blame outward than in practicing a bit of introspection that might point up the flaws in their wish to place blame elsewhere


----------



## xslavearcx (Apr 19, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> The whole "nuclear family" concept has done more harm than good since its' emergence in the early-Victorian era "western" _bourgeoisie_. As well as (as you say) locking the family away from the sort of public/community scrutiny that the practices of many extended families promoted, it also removed the "support network" inherent to the extended family format. This isn't to say that extended families couldn't be the site of the oppression of women, of course, only that it was more public, so the personal sense of shame of the perpetrator could be brought into play by the entire community, if so desired. We tend to forget that "community policing", as was practiced prior to the formation of police forces, often dealt with domestic violence issues summarily when it came across them, and while women being forced to wear a scold's bridle was rare, men being put in the stocks or the pillory for abusing those to whom they owed responsibilities wasn't. Still part of patriarchy, undoubtedly, but in some cases slightly more open than that "behind closed doors" nuclear family patriarchy.
> As for informal hierarchies, some make sense. A kid doing what mum asks is rational behaviour. Blindly obeying everything dad demands because he's "the head of the household"/a man is eminently irrational behaviour, and is usually enforced through varying degrees of coercion from religion to physical violence.


 
Great informative post there violent panda. Do you have any reading suggestions about how these different familial models had upon how domestic violence was dealt with out of interest?
Also , i take your point about informal hierarchies, i was being a bit euphamisitc there simply because i cant say much more than than by virtue of it being an employer and what not but there is a bit more to it than just that...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 19, 2013)

xslavearcx said:


> Great informative post there violent panda. Do you have any reading suggestions about how these different familial models had upon how domestic violence was dealt with out of interest?


 
I'll have a dig through my library.



> Also , i take your point about informal hierarchies, i was being a bit euphamisitc there simply because i cant say much more than than by virtue of it being an employer and what not but there is a bit more to it than just that...


 
Sure! I was just making the point that *some* informal hierarchies may more or less make sense in some situations.


----------



## toggle (Apr 19, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yep, across the social, not just in the field of sexism.
> A big problem, it seems to me, is that it's all too easy to provoke some people into such an "inward looking mentality". We've seen this with regard to the unemployed; with the disabled; with "single mothers" (as though the fathers have nothing to answer for!); with people of *any* sort of minority.
> I once advanced an idea with regard to scapegoating on here that earned me some "fuck off and dies" from a few of my fellow Jews, because I stated that Jews actually aren't that special, except insofar as the supposed "crimes" of the Jewish race made us scapegoats _par excellence_, and that without that little misunderstanding in Jerusalem with that Emmanuel fellow, we'd have been just another bunch of dicks from the Middle East. My point was that *anyone, any individual or group* can be made into a scapegoat - that in fact doing so is terrifyingly easy if you're the ruling class, and that the scapegoating doesn't *need* any basis in truth because there will always be a significant minority of people whose psychological make-up is such that they feel more comfortable shifting blame outward than in practicing a bit of introspection that might point up the flaws in their wish to place blame elsewhere


 
nods.


off topic: didn't the scapegoating start because they were moneylenders? it's easier to throw a pogrom than pay the bills.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 19, 2013)

toggle said:


> nods.
> 
> 
> off topic: didn't the scapegoating start because they were moneylenders? it's easier to throw a pogrom than pay the bills.


 
Well, it started because we murdered the Christ, but pursuant to that the Church allowed us to only practice the trade of money-lending, so then there was a double-whammy to hit us with.
Kind of makes you think that the blood libel was just sheer sadism on the part of the Vatican!


----------



## cesare (Apr 19, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well, it started because we murdered the Christ, but pursuant to that the Church allowed us to only practice the trade of money-lending, so then there was a double-whammy to hit us with.
> Kind of makes you think that the blood libel was just sheer sadism on the part of the Vatican!


And that blood libel thing was only in one of the gospels and it was about one line or something. Pretty bloody flimsy to hang a whole "you killed our jeebus" on.


----------



## Firky (Apr 19, 2013)

8ball said:


> Seems reasonable, but I've heard plenty say the act of going to university alone makes you middle class.


 
That is a good moron filter. People who come out with that speil are inevitably morons.


----------



## Greebo (Apr 19, 2013)

toggle said:


> nods.
> 
> 
> off topic: didn't the scapegoating start because they were moneylenders? it's easier to throw a pogrom than pay the bills.


AFAIK yes.  Lending money to people with more power than you is seldom a good idea.


----------



## cesare (Apr 19, 2013)

Firky said:


> That is a good moron filter. People who come out with that speil are inevitably morons.


People that analyse class just by one factor aren't exactly the go-to for understanding, eh.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 19, 2013)

cesare said:


> And that blood libel thing was only in one of the gospels and it was about one line or something. Pretty bloody flimsy to hang a whole "you killed our jeebus" on.


 
the blood libel thing actually allowed medieval paedos to get away with killing kids.


----------



## toggle (Apr 19, 2013)

cesare said:


> People that analyse class just by one factor aren't exactly the go-to for understanding, eh.


 
turns into a competition to prove your working class credentials.

i always loose that one.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 19, 2013)

toggle said:


> turns into a competition to prove your working class credentials.
> 
> i always loose that one.


 
Do you have a radiohead album?

I'm sure that was on the BBC list...


----------



## cesare (Apr 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> the blood libel thing actually allowed medieval paedos to get away with killing kids.





I doubt people even realise how some of this shit came about. This is one of the reasons that I'm so anti-Dawkins. I've got nothing against atheism but the trend for automatically rejecting and dismissing religion without any attempt to understand its social and historical impact is worrying. I thought I had a fairly decent grasp of the old and new testaments (for example) until I met button who obv has studied this fairly thoroughly  It was he who explained about the blood libel thing to me, and I was fucking shocked.


----------



## toggle (Apr 19, 2013)

8ball said:


> Do you have a radiohead album?
> 
> I'm sure that was on the BBC list...


 
fuck no.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 19, 2013)

toggle said:


> fuck no.


 
Then you are working class.


----------



## cesare (Apr 19, 2013)

toggle said:


> turns into a competition to prove your working class credentials.
> 
> i always loose that one.


On here, yeah  But in day to day life it's more often people competing to prove how much better they are, striving for that middle class thing. Thatcher legacy.


----------



## toggle (Apr 19, 2013)

the bbc quiz thing was a horrific oversimilification of a much more complex study though.


----------



## toggle (Apr 19, 2013)

cesare said:


> On here, yeah  But in day to day life it's more often people competing to prove how much better they are, striving for that middle class thing. Thatcher legacy.


 
one of the reasons i shacked up with a working class lad is the way that oneupmanship crap made me sick. always did. pointless load of twats.

but he's the one working as a writer and i clean bogs for a local club.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 19, 2013)

cesare said:


> I doubt people even realise how some of this shit came about. This is one of the reasons that I'm so anti-Dawkins. I've got nothing against atheism but the trend for automatically rejecting and dismissing religion without any attempt to understand its social and historical impact is worrying. I thought I had a fairly decent grasp of the old and new testaments (for example) until I met button who obv has studied this fairly thoroughly  It was he who explained about the blood libel thing to me, and I was fucking shocked.


 
I am hardly the greatest fan of christianity, I think that those lines in the new testament gave a theological justification to the killing and persecution of jews very very easily, as did the whole idea that if your not a christian you're going straight to hell when you die (that allowed various rulers to put a religious gloss on all sorts of imperialist ventures on the grounds that the people they were invading the countries of were being saved).

I don't think the blood libel was mentioned anywhere in the new testament though although the medieval catholic and orthodox churches used it in order to blame the jews for bullshit. I don't think it appears anywhere in the new testament though, I've read the new testament many years ago and I'd remember it if it did.


----------



## killer b (Apr 19, 2013)

8ball said:


> Then you are working class.


that must make firky blue blood royatly then.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 19, 2013)

killer b said:


> that must make firky blue blood royatly then.


 
I was getting a little concerned that he hadn't responded by now tbf - it's been nearly 15 mins


----------



## cesare (Apr 19, 2013)

toggle said:


> one of the reasons i shacked up with a working class lad is the way that oneupmanship crap made me sick. always did. pointless load of twats.
> 
> but he's the one working as a writer and i clean bogs for a local club.



I could go on alarming about it  There used to be an updated Marx model that I remember seeing ages ago, but I can't find it now. The trouble with that BBC travesty is that it's going to become the latest bloody myth about how people can analyse their class and a referrent for one up man ship.


----------



## toggle (Apr 19, 2013)

killer b said:


> that must make firky blue blood royatly then.


 
maybee, that depends what class his liver is.


----------



## toggle (Apr 19, 2013)

cesare said:


> I could go on alarming about it  There used to be an updated Marx model that I remember seeing ages ago, but I can't find it now. The trouble with that BBC travesty is that it's going to become the latest bloody myth about how people can analyse their class and a referrent for one up man ship.


 
i can see how the study is trying to say there's a complex mix of where you work, how you live, how you socialise and whether you want to go anywhere else etc. but all the 3 class model of marx was blurring when he wrote it and any model is either a generalisation or too complex to use.


----------



## cesare (Apr 19, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I am hardly the greatest fan of christianity, I think that those lines in the new testament gave a theological justification to the killing and persecution of jews very very easily, as did the whole idea that if your not a christian you're going straight to hell when you die (that allowed various rulers to put a religious gloss on all sorts of imperialist ventures on the grounds that the people they were invading the countries of were being saved).
> 
> I don't think the blood libel was mentioned anywhere in the new testament though although the medieval catholic and orthodox churches used it in order to blame the jews for bullshit. I don't think it appears anywhere in the new testament though, I've read the new testament many years ago and I'd remember it if it did.


It comes from Matthew "his blood be upon us" I think. I'll ask button later if you like? He's like a walking reference source on this stuff


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 19, 2013)

cesare said:


> It comes from Matthew "his blood be upon us" I think. I'll ask button later if you like? He's like a walking reference source on this stuff


 
oh that shit, yeah. there's all sorts of other shit as well like the "synagogue of satan" and all that crap. not that the old testament is much better with its command to kill every descendant of amalek i mean jesus


----------



## cesare (Apr 19, 2013)

toggle said:


> i can see how the study is trying to say there's a complex mix of where you work, how you live, how you socialise and whether you want to go anywhere else etc. but all the 3 class model of marx was blurring when he wrote it and any model is either a generalisation or too complex to use.


Yep. I was thinking of the visual one where it factors in nursing and teachers for example - does that ring a bell?


----------



## toggle (Apr 19, 2013)

cesare said:


> Yep. I was thinking of the visual one where it factors in nursing and teachers for example - does that ring a bell?


 
it dosen't.

might have seen it at some point, but i do fill my head with a lot of shit, so some useful stuff doesn't stick

i've just read some of the historical debate about class,


----------



## cesare (Apr 19, 2013)

toggle said:


> it dosen't.
> 
> might have seen it at some point, but i do fill my head with a lot of shit, so some useful stuff doesn't stick
> 
> i've just read some of the historical debate about class,



Dave Cinzano or butchers probably have it somewhere, I'll ask them if I remember. I might actually have it myself come to think of it. I'm v disorganised about this stuff.


----------



## cesare (Apr 19, 2013)

8ball said:


> I was getting a little concerned that he hadn't responded by now tbf - it's been nearly 15 mins


----------



## Firky (Apr 19, 2013)

cesare said:


> People that analyse class just by one factor aren't exactly the go-to for understanding, eh.


 
It is like a badly designed flowchart. It was and still is a bit WC aspiration for parents for their children "to do better than them [parents] and go to university".


----------



## Firky (Apr 19, 2013)

Reminds me, "poncing off to Barnsley".


----------



## el-ahrairah (Apr 19, 2013)

toggle said:


> maybee, that depends what class his liver is.


 

it must have been a posh liver, no working class liver over the age of 16 is in a good enough condition to transplant.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 20, 2013)

lots of posh livers aren't either to be fair.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 20, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> it must have been a posh liver, no working class liver over the age of 16 is in a good enough condition to transplant.


 
Firky was not given a human liver. He was given a bonobo liver.

I thought everyone knew that Firky is monkey liver boy!


----------



## 8ball (Apr 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Firky was not given a human liver. He was given a bonobo liver.
> 
> I thought everyone knew that Firky is monkey liver boy!


 
Bonobos aren't monkeys you fucking racist!!


----------

