I'm a little peeved, to put it lightly
This discussion thread was locked by Neoma (a host of the Feminists group).
Last edited Tue Feb 7, 2012, 08:01 PM - Edit history (1)
that some of our sisters on this website are giving cover to sexists.
I know we need to feel for them, as they live in the same world we do, and they are influenced by the patriarchy, whether they realize it or not, and that we should all stick together.
But this is a real test for me. They are collaborating with the patriarchy whether they know it or not.
How does one discuss this very real issue with women who are collaborating.
I have tried and the discussion doesn't often end well. It usually ends up along the lines, that a woman can be what she wants and thinks what she wants and who am I to tell another woman any differently.
And then the sexists use that continue their ways.
uggghhhh.......
= new reply since forum marked as read
I've noticed in a couple of threads here this afternoon that not everyone reading and posting in the group may be aware of its status as a protected group, and familiar with its statement of principles. It seemed that a gentle reminder or two would not go amiss.
I meant to add it here in a way that was general and not personal, and ended up looking like I was talking to you directly and only. Mea culpa, that was the complete opposite of my intention! I was just "dropping" the message in the thread, for the consideration of anyone who wanted to contribute to it.
Your post is fine by me! When I'm not quite so tired as I am tonight, I'll even try to think of an intelligent response. 
28. When I see the word typed out on DU as a slur against women, this is the vision that pops into my mind.
I am against using the word as a slur against women and I am trying to make a point as to how some women feel about the derogatory, bigoted, sexist use of the word.
I'll take the liberty of also mentioning my reply, since I think it might speak to you as well:
58. and that point was eloquently and painfully made many years ago at DU
by a woman in the original multiple-hundred-post "bitch" thread. (Not one of the "hard-core feminist" crowd, just an ordinary kind of DUer whom I had never even read before, and for whom even adding to the thread was obviously a difficult choice.)
That was her personal experience of the word, and that was indeed the vision that came to her mind when she saw it, only she was looking from the inside out.
That was actually a new perspective to me at the time -- not within my personal experience. My objection was (and of course is) based on the power of language, by its effects on the listeners in terms of how it colours their and society's view, and treatment, of women. The effect of the word on someone against whom it had been used as a direct and integral part of the way she herself was abused -- not to make her angry as it does me, but to make her feel, all over again, the pain and shame and humiliation -- ... I just don't know. Why does someone want to do that?
I would be very interested in hearing more from your perspective.
I will suggest that we put it off for a little bit.
Last edited Wed Feb 8, 2012, 08:50 PM - Edit history (1)
I'm bumping the original text of this post down to the bottom to add this, and ask the question in the subject line.
I'm amazed only one person got nuked in that thread
203. I'm amazed only one person got nuked in that thread
Not only is it full of open, almost celebratory transphobia, but it is drenched in a heavy anti-lesbian vibe. Some regular posters do just about everything except outright refer to many DU lesbians as a marauding group of male-identified bull dykes - they just heavily intimate it in their language.
Am I the only one who read that thread and wondered how tombstones weren't aflyin'?
Ridiculous.
What a bunch of fucking bigots we have here.
The reason for the alert was:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
You added the following comments:
"What a bunch of fucking bigots we have here."
The reference is to members of the Feminists group at DU, posting in a thread in the Feminists group's forum. That is plain from the post; the subject of the OP is a post in that exact thread.
The fact that it is not a remotely accurate characterization of the discussion in that group is not relevant.
What matters is that it has never been acceptable for DU members to call other DUers, individually or by broad-brush smears, "bigots". That principle has been upheld by juries at DU3 and most DUers hope to see it maintained. Thank you.
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this post at Wed Feb 8, 2012, 04:12 AM, and voted 1-5 to keep it.
Thank you.
That work for you, folks?
The members of this group are a bunch of fucking bigots?
For any ignorant souls in the vicinity, "male-identified" HAS FUCK ALL TO DO WITH TRANSGENDERED.
It is a term used to refer to women who identify with THE PATRIARCHY, who see their interests as lying in agreeing with and supporting men who oppose feminists and feminism. Phyllis Schlafly. Anita Bryant. Surely the third-wavers have someone in their living memory they can think of. We have lots of them right here at DU.
God all fucking mighty.
-------------------------------------------------
Sadly, I'm the pefect lightning rod / scapegoat.
So many lies have been posted about me over so many years at this site by a very particular element, there are probably people who actually believe them.
See my post on marriage that I've just bumped up.
The quantity and quality of people by whom one is hated has always seemed to me like a decent measure of one's worth.
And hell, if it wasn't me, it'd be you.
but that strikes me as a rather large issue, and starting a new thread on it that would be on display for the world and its dog to see on Latest struck me as a bad idea.
On the original issue raised, much ink has indeed been spilt!
Generally, many feel that women who choose to identify with patriarchal attitudes and definitions of women's concerns gain more by doing that than they stand to lose if they don't.
What they gain could vary widely: dateability ... protection from having to examine the disadvantages they suffer themselves as women and thus possibly lose the benefits of thinking "I'm not one of them" and having to deal with how being oppressed affects their self-image ...
I decided long ago that while I had assets that enabled me to overcome many of the inherent disadvantages of being a woman, I am in fact une femme comme les autres -- an ordinary woman. And I decided that all the young men who said things like "wow, you're not like other women" might be intending it as a compliment, but I had to remember what was really behind it: the notion that women were not smart and competent and independent, and the unfortunate fact that many women act as if they are not smart and competent and independent, whether because they have not been allowed to or they have been taught not to or they have decided doing otherwise is more profitable.
I always hope that at some point, people with attitudes like this will encounter a crisis of cognitive dissonance.
An example, I have found from personal experience, is the good-hearted, well-meaning "pro-lifer" who truly believes that abortion is bad for women and pro-choice feminists are ogres who do not care about women. I've turned a few personally by unwittingly rebutting that notion, e.g. by demonstrating more concern on an internet board for a woman obviously suffering from horrific post-partum depression than all the "pro-lifers" did with their "you must love your baby you awful woman, get on with it and stop complaining". And then we moved on to all the ways that abortion is good for some women, and denying women abortions is really very bad for some women, and that one-time anti-choicer became a bit of a strong advocate for choice.
Because she saw herself as a good person who truly cared about women (and clearly was), she could no longer adhere to an ideology that harms women. It conflicted with her self-image as a good person, so it had to go.
What kind of dissonance would it take for a male-identified woman to come around?
I guess, to start with, she might have to really care about women, and then get tired of sitting on the suitcase full of dissonance because her actions aren't consistent with caring about women.
Another kind might arise more out of plain self-interest. The senior executive fails to get the promotion and can just not deny, no matter how much she has denied to herself and the world that she is une femme comme les autres, that it is because she's a woman, what is she to do?
Sit hard on the suitcase of dissonance and try to keep it from getting out, by whatever means necessary no matter how illogical or self-defeating, or let it all out and let her world and worldview shift as it may? Which will feel better in the long run?
If women really do get more by identifying with men and men's definitions of women, etc., than by taking up the cause against things that genuinely harm women, there isn't likely much one can do.
Rich people really do get more by keeping their money than by giving it away or voting for it to be taxed away -- unless they have a really strong ethical definition of what a good person is and are really attached to their own image of themself as a good person, and as a result can't tolerate the dissonance that being rich and stingy causes them.
As long as some people have more invested in either
- their "me"ness and rejection of shared "woman"ness (my freedom of speech, my freedom to do what I want, you're not the boss of me, I'm not like the others)
or
- the benefits they gain by not identifying with women (more dates, more security, speaking tours and book deals -- whatever is more available to "I'm not a feminist" women than to others)
than in their self-image as a woman who cares about other women, I can't think of much that will persuade them. What would it take to persuade an Ann Coulter or a Margaret Thatcher? A whole lot of money, maybe.
And that leaves not much in the way to talk to them, I guess.
To persuade someone, you first have to identify your existing common ground -- the fundamental values that you share. Then you proceed from there to see whether their specific positions are consistent or inconsistent with those values.
The problem that arises, of course, is that the fundamental values that we all share (not just us good guys) are in fundamental conflict from the outset: we all value freedom, and we all value security, for ourselves and for everyone. It becomes a question of which side each of us comes down on on any particular issue: freedom/security, me/the rest of you.
But it is still the only way to begin a persuasive argument. With your n-word/c-word example, start by identifying the facts relevant to the decision in the first case (historical disadvantage, etc.), the values to which the proscription on the one responds, how the proscription promotes or infringes one value or the other, how it subordinates the me to the rest of you or vice versa, and how your interlocutor conducted the balancing and tradeoff exercise to arrive at their preferred result.
Then apply it all mutatis mutandis to the other group. Your interlocutor needs to come up with relevant distinctions in order to reject the proposal that the two are like and must be treated as like. If "free speech" doesn't defeat a prohibition on one word, then it can't defeat a prohibition on the other word, unless there is some distinction between the situations that actually operates to make them unlike in a material way.
The huge barrier to doing this here, I'd say, is just the monumentally incivil discourse that is practised and rewarded here. One cannot ask a simple, straightforward question without being met by diversion; one cannot make a simple, straightforward statement without being met by misrepresentation. And always the character assassination at every turn.
Maybe somebody could model the process for the audience here.
here in this group, the rest of DU and in any public or official setting. 
I appreciate your posts and perspective. 