Seems as though you are an MRA looking at your screen name? Are you?

Not to mention a lot of ideological territory, and some varieties of feminism are incompatible with others as a matter of logic. Disagreements exist in any community and feminism is no different in that regard. You seem to assume it is one thing. Clearly it is not, as even a cursory reading of DU shows. So who decides what is and isn't?

And principled, reasoned disagreement expressed politely and rationally, rather than via trolling or abusive language, should always be tolerated within the TOS.

Feminists discuss our differences.

But mostly in my circles and throughout my life, we agree in the goals of feminism. We may not always agree on how we get there.

ie, achieving:

political, social and economic equality, changing the culture where women are seen as human beings ect.

And of course there are fringe elements to any movement, but it's mostly anti feminists that would like to brand mainstream feminists with fringe ideology.

An MRA, is interested in no such dialogue, which is to whom I am responding above.

A definition is of some importance, though, if a TOS modification is undertaken. LeftyMom's post downthread seems to me a fine starting point.

It is very difficult to have a definition because it encompasses so much trollish behavior.

The denial, the derailment, the baiting, comment stalking, most of it to me is obvious, and it is more of a pattern of an individual poster, who makes life very difficult for a feminist here.

and will remain more or less subjective. Disagreements will arise even where people share meta-goals when it comes to individual cases. That you OR I feel particularly strongly doesn't mean that either of us is necessarily right or wrong. But where a rational basis for an opinion - and that is what we're discussing here - exists both sides deserve a hearing. No one person or group on ANY side should hold a veto power over civilly presented opinions that are within the TOS. Tone is very important but disagreement, expressed civilly, is not disrespect and that is something we all need to remember.

What DU needs in my mind is a bit more civility and mutual respect, generally. That is achievable, I think.

This has been a good and productive discussion IMO.

EVER.

NEVER DESERVES RESPECT.

Sickening justification but not surprising.

is that reasoned disagreement framed in terms of civil discourse with anyone who self-identifies as feminist, on any subject, is misogyny. Glad we got that clear. One viewpoint is all that's necessary to hear. Nothing totalitarian about that.

I enjoyed the exchange I was engaging in with boston bean and found it informative. Thanks for spoiling that.

After all, as they say, feminism is simply the notion that women are people.

Yes.

The idea that women are people? And all that follows from that?

What does your user name stand for? How are you so sure that misogyny is "thrown around rather loosely" here? Why are you already making such comments about this in your 5th post?

Seems very odd to jump into something like this with such an already formed opinion so soon...

"Seems very odd to jump into something like this with such an already formed opinion so soon..."

because any guy who gets ignorant presents an opportunity for learning that he's just not going to like very much. In the meantime, those on the fence also get schooled.

Misogyny has always been the dirty laundry of the left. Airing it out is the best way to deal with it.

Something has to be done. They just aren't spouting stupid shit once and a while, they are here to disrupt. That is not good for DU.

people here on DU can not be hating women. is that too strong a comment?

I DON'T FEEL VERY WELCOME HERE ANYMORE.
AT LEAST ON MY FB PAGE, someone gets over the top, crappy, rotten, hating etc, i can delete the comment. Here when I see a bad comment that i feel is intended to hurt females, i want to curl up in the fetal position and hide.

yesterday just about did it for me.

I was told to leave. yes. Don't leave mad just leave. That was said to me in my own thread in the Lounge.

The whole place has just become infested with ugly.

and the crap on display last night and the tactical apology.

and then bragging about kicking seabeyond out again.

It is all over the board.

It is childish and stupid and mean.

I was SINCERE in my apology. Like I said before; I can't win.

you can't win because you don't want to be a winner.

Being a winner means you can not play the victim anymore.

As for your question to me.

I have moved on.

You are the one that keeps dragging it around.

Please, put down that stone.

It must be getting heavy and, it does not look good on you.

Just Stop.

That is all you have to do. Is Stop. Same thing that was told to Atman. Stop.


on edit: are you referring to the way you and opiate69 hijacked my thread in the lounge yesterday? Because I fail to see how me starting a thread a day earlier makes me at fault here.

It really is That Simple.

Peace.

YOU. STOP. IT.

Gees, kicking someone when they are upset. Are you happy with your attitude? JUST STOP IT.

Yeah, NOTHING INSULTING has ever been said to me.

The difference is I'll own it and NEVER play victim.

Our job is to call them on it, ask them how they'd feel if somebody did it to them.

The wankers need to be called out for wanking in public.

'women as a group'

I hadn't even noticed that. What an odd distinction

That's the opening statement on the change and they expect to refine it.

Honestly I have never seen it go un-alerted - message auto removed - until YOUR POST

More importantly - is your post "Gender Baiting"

that have been taken for granted on DU from the start. Fark has not done anything special.

I linked to, and quoted, their "hard line against Misogyny". I don't think it's as 'hard' as the existing DU standards.

The Op is making Hey over nothing - which sadly enough is becoming quite common around here as of late

imposed by men upon women (but not themselves) for doing what THEY do, and are PRAISED as "studs" for.

Hell, even Thomas Paine saw the insanity and oppression in that way back when:

"Pity the Tender Sex for they have to deal with Men, who are, at once, their Seducers

and their Judges".

Thomas Paine

We're back to either the jury system (which we have) or moderators again.

The jury system won't change the way they vote just because something is added to the TOS. No one reads it anyway. And everyone already considers misogyny under "disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate" stipulation. Those few who don't consider misogyny rude won't enforce the rules through juries anyway, not just because a sentence was added to the TOS.

Bringing back mods will just result in what DU had before. Arguments with mods about what constitutes misogyny. This is why Skinner did away with mods. He wants the community to regulate itself. Bringing back mods would degenerate into arguments about whose comments in the Spiderwoman's butt thread constituted misogyny.

Fark actually does less than DU to combat misogyny. There is really no good solution. Which is why every time this comes up, Skinner does nothing. There isn't anything he can do that won't make it worse. For better or worse, juries are here to stay.

The admins enforce the TOS.

They vote leave for things that should be hidden, and they hide posts that should be left.

The rules are just there so someone can point to them and say, "see, this jury has guidelines. We have a real system here." But jurors are free to completely ignore instructions. It's so subjective what is offensive anyway.

Admins only seem to step in when it's blatant newbie trolling or an old member has a complete meltdown. Hosts can't really do anything. MIRT only deals with fledglings.

I cannot think of a change that would actually improve DU, except to modify the jury system.

nine times out of ten, pay attention to the thread's content momentum and the apparent intent of the alerted poster before they judge. That's not voting how they "feel." Any "Leave It" voting is usually erring on the side of productive disagreement, which then makes it the alerter's responsibility to try to bring to the poster s/he alerts on. Too many people here want censoring of what they disagree with instead of producing credible, fact-based, linked, authoritative arguments. Silencing must have better cause than wanting someone hidden because of the alerter's arguable interpretation of what the poster said or deciding on the poster's intent without first asking them.

Admittedly, I've been on the losing end of an unfair 'hide' when a juror's simple reading of the context would have made my intent clear. Also, the person I responded to completely understood what I was doing; it was simply someone else who saw a word "out of context" and decided my intent was built into the word itself.

Skinner has outright banned a poster for PMing a threat to me, too. As admins say, things around here work well when people restrain their first impulses, judgments and promote civil discourse in airing disagreement.

But I hardly find any jurors like the ones who judged me, and to this day I just don't agree with this maligning of a perfectly functional system. I think sweeping claims against DU juries are unfair. I'd rather see posts of jury decisions than read these unfair claims. This place would be a rat's nest of fighting if the jury system and MIRT didn't exist.

Not let them linger and antagonize for months on end. Pay attention would be my first word of advice. Read threads where this is happening.

Members speak out against it more loudly and more clearly.

Make it a place that is welcoming to women, versus a place hostile to them.

Tighten up the TOS to include the words sexism and misogyny. We have asked and that has been denied. Why I'm still not all that clear on. What would it hurt? It would at least bring is in line with other progressive forums in written word.

Well done.

That is what has been lacking all along.

I don't know why there is such an aversion to giving more play to it in TOS. The refusal to do so is curious.

Remember when LGBT people and allies were scolded for being too strident and demanding? "Reasonable people can disagree" etc. It wasn't that long ago, and it wasn't long before national politics made that stance look dated and embarrassing.

Hopefully lessons were learned.

We'll see.

I'd like to add to this, though, just a tiny bit(my own additions in italics):

Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, anti-choicers, "men's rights activists", "MGTOWs&quot Men Going their own Way&quot and other anti-feminists, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.

Do not post bigotry based on someone's race or ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion or lack thereof, disability, or other comparable personal characteristic. To be clear: This includes any post which states opposition to full equal rights for gays and lesbians; it also includes any post which denigrates women as a class or opposes their equal rights including equal pay and health care access, disparages men who are also feminists, including ridicule, name-calling, or claiming that men who are feminists are "gender traitors" or self-loathing, etc.; it also includes any post asserting disloyalty by Jewish Americans, claiming nefarious influence by Jews/Zionists/Israel, advocating the destruction of the state of Israel, or arguing that Holocaust deniers are just misunderstood. In determining what constitutes bigotry, please be aware that we cannot know what is in anyone's heart, and we will give members the benefit of the doubt, when — and only when — such doubt exists.

Do you support gay marriage?

This is a private website for democrats. Not MRA's. Are you an MRA?

I wonder what happened to it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1256&pid=5381

"Do not post anything bigoted/insensitive.

When discussing certain topics -- especially those relating to each human being's unique personal identity -- DU members have a responsibility to show greater understanding and sensitivity. To help promote a welcoming atmosphere for all of our members, the moderators are empowered to remove any post that they deem insensitive. Such topics include, but are not limited to: race or ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity, religious believers or non-believers, Jews or Judaism, Muslims or Islam, geographic region or place of origin, disability (mental or physical), weight or other physical characteristics, or age."

All the feminist groups came together a couple of years ago and asked for the current TOS to be amended to include sexism in the current list, and to specifically provide guidelines against misogyny. http://www.democraticunderground.com/11399347

What is so hard about respecting women and treating us as equals?

Do we need rules about racism? Seriously, it's not that difficult. And if someone is not sure if or why something is sexist they can take the word of the women who explain how and why it is instead of continuously insisting that it isn't.

The admins enforce the TOS, they have stated that under the umbrella of gender is sexism and misogyny.

to please add sexism to the TOS, probably 2 years ago now.

He refused to do so. There is really no good reason. Why not make that concession?? It's such a small thing to do.

and subject himself to neverending "why was my post hidden but not his?" questions. The jury system is a work of genius and provided permanent, blessed relief from that kind of thing. Now it's just the community enforcing its own standards. And bear in mind that what the site owners want, for their bottom line, is page views. With that in mind the owners' favorite members are probably those who post things that are a little contentious but not offensive enough to be hidden by a jury. Those are the posters that produce threads resulting in thousands of page views and corresponding advertising revenue. A DU full of "Ted Cruz sucks" "+1" "K&R" type threads would make much less money.

You write: "And bear in mind that what the site owners want, for their bottom line, is page views."

I assume that DU's revenue sources are ads (which is how page views make money) and Star memberships. The question is the proportion of each. If policy is set to produce a level of contentiousness that increases page views, as you suggest, but the resulting discord reduces the number of people who feel enough loyalty to the site to donate, is it a net gain or a net loss? I'd guess that losing even one Star member outweighs quite a few page views.

So why should it be so hard to identify misogynistic ones? (Hint: they're the ones that make women feel offended, devalued, or even assaulted.)

In general, if someone (or a group of someones) tells you your post is offensive or hurtful to them, it is.

that happen to agree with HoF, don't post in HoF. So what group are you speaking of?

Post a picture of a female comic book character....misogyny.
Post a picture of a Sports Illustrated cover....misogyny.
Post a news article of a woman breaking the law....misogyny.
Say an accused rapist is innocent until proven guilty....misogyny.
Say that BDSM porn of consenting adults is OK....misogyny.
Say rape culture doesn't exist (which is debated even within feminism)....misogyny.
Point out a way in society that men are a victim of a gender role....misogyny.
Say that prostitution should be legalized....misogyny.

Now these are just off the top of my head, im sure there are more. But in every single one of those kind of threads in GD you have a regular from your group claiming the op in those threads is a "misogynist." Or alerting the post claiming it's hatred against women. Most of these threads start out as a civil discussion. Then they blow up into 400+ replies of insults and alert-stalking.

Your group throws that term around so much that no one even knows what it means anymore. That's why I sarcastically said it seems anything should be banned unless it's HOF-approved.

Your attacks on the evils of a straw feminism that exists only in your mind aside, if you keep getting accused of misogyny it might be because women can read.

I so much appreciate you!

Which in itself is a sick thing to accuse me of. I suspect most of us longtimers at DU are in broad agreement on what constitutes sexism, but there's outliers at both extremes who either have such a broad or such a narrow definition of what it is that they're never going to be happy...

big deal. Calm and reasoned disagreement is one thing. Being snarky or trolling is quite another. Grownups should be able to discuss even controversial topics civilly.

Misogyny is misogyny. It has nothing to do with any group here. You can look up the definition. It's pretty clear.

Which I haven't seen any of that here.

Now maybe some are getting it in private messages... I dont know. But that's a problem that has nothing to do with what is posted in GD.

If there is a misogynistic thread in GD....which one is it. Give me a link. Give me an example of misogyny, that is clear example of misogyny according to the definition, on DU that is being permitted.

I want to know what the baseline is supposed to be for "misogyny." That needs to be established before you can just say to ban anyone who's opinions you don't like.

If you think it's against terms to post a specific thread....fine. Then describe a thread or a topic that you have seen here that is specifically misogynistic that was allowed to stand (got through jury/MIRT).

Disagreeing with a feminist about some issue does not equal misogyny. You apparently think it should. Such a rule would be a chaotic mess since not even feminists agree with each other on everything. You have a safe haven to discuss feminist issues...multiple safe havens. If you want to bring those discussions out to GD, by all means, do it. But understand general discussion means general discussion...you will almost certainly encounter people who have a somewhat different opinion or view of whatever you are discussing. Just because they see things differently than you doesn't mean they hate women nor does it mean they don't believe in equality.

Can't post a link or call out anyone but I will direct you to a thread with plenty of examples: "Why I suspect reaction to Hobby Lobby is somewhat hair-on-fire". Feel free to do a search and read for yourself. It even has cartoons.

So your (willful) ignorance of the vile misogynistic bullshit that so many here on DU-a growing number of women AND men as well-have had the misfortune to read on a daily basis trumps all of those experiences?

Hello, world. I am man, and I see no misogyny. It is your privilege as a man to be a willfully ignorant contrarian.

Meanwhile, women continue to be viciously attacked, bullied, demeaned, mocked, dismissed, disregarded, and treated as less than human by some of the "progressive" bros here ("Brogressives&quot . Because only the issues of men-and largely straight, upper-middle class white men at that-matter.

There are cases that clearly are and cases that clearly aren't, but there's a significant gray area.

The only way to make a bright-line test is the one stated or hinted at by some people in this thread: It's misogyny if X says it's misogyny, with X being all women, most women, some women, at least one woman, or perhaps some subset of women who are certified as misogyny experts. This approach seems to assume that misogyny is purely objective and that there are some people who are infallible at identifying it.

Another approach, apparently the one taken by Fark, is to concede that there's a gray area, but to rule that any legitimate disagreement must be resolved in favor of suppressing the post. (That's the practical consequence of telling people to avoid the gray area.) The result would be to cut off quite a bit of legitimate debate.

I agree that misogyny should be considered a ToS violation. My point is just that implementing that principle is more difficult and complicated than many posters in this thread seem to realize.

So they are still a bunch of misogynist patriarchal liberal hating trolls.

Just peruse entertainment there - no way in HELL people would post some of those pics here, you think the SI cover was one of the horsemen of the patriarchal apocalypse, they got a whole stable full the size of sarah palin's ego over there (note: I mentioned sarah because of alaska and that being a big state/ego, not because I am a misogynist and only make comments or jokes about women whom I hate and such. Should I edit and use romney? Smaller state so doesn't invoke the same imagery but I don't want to upset anyone...or has that ship sailed?)

Does my feeling sorry for you make it easier to bear the burden you must be bearing?

So not a matter of my feelings, just an observation of the way people conduct discussions.

You don't get to brag that nobody on FR ever called you a misogynist.

Thanks for the link.

if posts get a bit emotional, as long as it's topic relevant and the poster has a good posting record, I don't have a problem with jury decisions. I'd like to think that the frequency of hides does set a pattern that admins do notice and deal with, along with trolls and stalkers.

I do, however, as an experienced juror, have a problem with alerters who conflate their own feelings about what's posted with community standards. And I really can't stand when an alerter interprets what a poster means and wants their post hidden before allowing the poster to explain. Too often people here prefer censoring others to engaging with them.

There's much to gain here when people try to be their best conversational, informed selves. I love this place.

I am also beginning to think that CS needs some details. Just a couple of hard and fast, will NOT be tolerated type phrases and I think juries could experience different outcomes with less aggravation and discussion.

Really, I am glad to clarify that it is CS that needs the adjustment not just the ToS.

I think we are focused in the wrong direction when we talk about changing Only The ToS.

Thanks for your help, ancianita

I have to say how much I luuuv your signature!

because many TOS violations are essentially disruptive and inappropriate. But no, jurors only base their votes on their best judgment of what our community standard is. That's why "You're a poopy head" is much more likely to get hidden than a statement like &quot Insert group name) members are always looking for bigotry where there is none. "

I also think that you have hit the nail on the head re: how the community that is here may be different from the community imagined and that's why the jury outcomes seem peculiar at times.

in order to address this issue. I think it should be a NO TOLERANCE policy and strictly enforced especially in light of what Baines has posted with her and two other DUers Rape Threats.

It is Not a Joking Matter and Should Not Be Tolerated.

enforcing a simple rule that is ALREADY IN THE TOS.

No PERSONAL INSULTS.

Yes, you can say candidate xyz is a sleaze, but no Duer abc is a sleaze for supporting XYZ.

It is a rule that is ignored, but that would save us so much fuss on all levels.

this all possible.

It was my understanding there's still some type of moderation at DU

Don't slurs etc get an automatic zap?

If you just say things like "I think you are mistaken" as opposed to "you are full of shit" you won't get posts hidden.

like an odd value system.

to refer to women.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025121954

Would such an opinion be tolerated under a "hard line against misogyny"?

That said, I don't use the word, partially because it upsets many women, partially because it's just crude and partially because I grew up in a society that doesn't use the word.

Given that DU is generally a site frequented by Americans, I can see the word being at best infrequent here. But in other contexts, I don't expect my perspective to be the one used by everybody else in every context.

For example, I don't use the n word in every day conversation. But the word is frequently used in both American History X and in Blazing Saddles, two of my favorite movies. The same word is used rather powerfully in Huck Finn. All three of those stories would be much less powerful without the otherwise horrid word and in none of them is the intent to use the word to hurt.

www.google.com

Just in case you need it.

As has been noted, Fark and the others are trying to catch up to what already happens here.

As I understand it, if you say you are against gay marriage you get PPRed, and that's as it should be. However, posters who say they are against abortion are allowed to stay. How is it that a woman's right to have autonomy isn't a given position at DU?

But being added to ToS would be a good start.


No bigoted hate speech.

Do not post bigotry based on someone's race or ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion or lack thereof, disability, or other comparable personal characteristic. To be clear: This includes any post which states opposition to full equal rights for gays and lesbians; it also includes any post asserting disloyalty by Jewish Americans, claiming nefarious influence by Jews/Zionists/Israel, advocating the destruction of the state of Israel, or arguing that Holocaust deniers are just misunderstood. In determining what constitutes bigotry, please be aware that we cannot know what is in anyone's heart, and we will give members the benefit of the doubt, when — and only when — such doubt exists.

If an elected Democrat is a misogynist, support of misogyny will be allowed. Because party always trumps issues, and it always has.

Part of the transition from an "underground" self-describing as "left-wing" to a more mainstream group, with a neo-liberal "D" in the WH, includes embracing the Democratic Administration's more centrist and center-right profile. That automatically puts social and economic justice in the shadows, and often all the way under the bus.

I don't really see any way around that, because of the partisan nature of the site.

I've seen that the site owners tread a thin line, attempting to keep discussion as open as possible while adhering to their partisan intent. I respect that.

I'd like to see the board be as open as possible, as well. The more narrow the discussion becomes, the more of an echo-chamber, the more pointless. Maintaining open discussion with civility is a really big challenge on an anonymous board. Anonymity allows people to express themselves more freely. It also allows them to leave good manners and basic civility behind. I think a large part of the problem would be solved if jury members held posters to a higher standard of civility.

If racism, sexism including misogyny, agism, classism, and religious bigotry are not "liberal" or "left" (or whatever DU is currently calling itself) principles, are not Democratic principles, then posters shouldn't be displaying them and should be shut down.

What's more important? That the big tent include racists, misogynists, agists, classists, and religious bigots so that we can garner more votes and "win," or that we hold ourselves, whether as partisans or liberals, to higher standards?

As a matter of fact, if bigotry is not "liberal," should we be displaying political bigotry? Should we not be making our political points with civility, rather than hatred, juvenile name calling, and mindlessly repeating "talking points" heard elsewhere?