I think we can do better to ensure that all feel like the group serves them.

More conversation. While a K & R is nice, it would be better if people actually talked about articles and things that are posted. I post things that are of interest to me and, I hope, of interest to others. Not always easy to tell if that's the case.

I would just like to see more participation from our friends that only lurk.

I spend a lot of time reading and educating myself, but I usually refrain from posting. Sometimes, you learn a lot more just from listening.

Our allies are very important to us!

I'm also, for the most part, a lurker.

Most of the time by the time I see a thread that has peaked my interest, multiple persons have already said much of what I'd say anyway... many times you've already stated my thoughts pretty thoroughly.

But I would love to be able to respond to your OP's (hint, hint).

for the first time i can recall, i typed, about myself, thati was a dyke, damned internalized homophobia. not just a lesbian, which i am, not just a femme, which i am, not just a woman, which iam, but a dyke, which i am. so thanks you all

this thread I would have described my issues as minor. They are no longer minor.

I wasn't thrilled about the beefcake threads, or the mostly intangible gay men's club atmosphere in this forum (relatively typical in mixed LGBT space). The threads didn't bother me enough that I would have raised it myself, but I was certainly supportive of them being discussed - because they were something which I noticed and which made me feel somewhat as if I was a tolerated interloper in gay men's space.

My participation in the thread was polite and open to discussing what I felt about the beefcake threads and how they contribute to why I have, as a woman and a lesbian, at times felt tolerated rather than welcome in this forum.

I am disappointed and angered at how the "discussion" was handled. As an absolute minimum for this group to meet my needs, I expect the hosts to enforce zero tolerance with regard to anyone tossing out homophobic taunts, and I expect everyone participating in discussions about how this group operates to be treated respectfully.

For anyone who missed it:

• I was called a man-hater (a homophobic statement playing on a stereotype about lesbians that would have earned an instant block had it been uttered by a straight interloper to the group, rather than a gay man);
  
• Not a single host publicly denounced that comment (other than an acknowledgement that it was over the top buried in thread in response to my complaints about the lack of responsiveness of the hosts to the comment). It was treated as a "community standards" issue. That kind of comment is not a community standards issue, alone, and not just over the top. It goes to the heart of this group. This is a safe haven group, and it is the hosts responsibility to take steps to ensure that no one need fear homophobic statements being leveled at them. To be blunt - at this point, I have no expectation that any action will be taken to protect lesbians as long as the bigotry is leveled by a gay man. You don't have to like what I have to say - but permitting a homophobic attack on me as a lesbian to go unanswered, is not consistent with this being a safe haven for LGBT individuals (which includes being a safe haven for lesbians);
  
• My contributions to the discussion were repeatedly misstated, and the misstatements dismissed (often derisively or rudely) for reasons that are completely unrelated to the explanation I had given (when I was not just being told I had no right to even discuss the matter);
  
• One of the few female hosts resigned because of how the discussion was handled, with this explanation;
  
• Just when the heat died down, and it appeared as if there might be an opening for some conversation (rather than merely attempts to shut conversation down) the hosts locked the thread;
  
• Immediately following the lock of the thread, the "To Keep Our Participation Pleasant" thread was pinned and locked calling out "concern trolling" while inviting constructive, edifying criticism - immediately after shutting down a thread in which there was an attempt to engage in constructive discussion about a challenge which is very common in LGBT groups. Although the tolerance I felt, rather than welcome, was unspoken before the thread; it was made express by the dismissal as "offensive" of the expression by any woman (and I was not the only one) that this group did not feel welcoming.
  
• And - the ultimate irony - the pinned thread now declares this space is "safe space" even though there has still been no public action by the hosts imposing sanctions, or even condemning, the anti-lesbian bigotry of the "man-hater" comment.
  

I hope the hosts can figure out a way to affirmatively address the way in which this was handled. As I repeatedly said in the thread, the beefcake threads were relatively minor - something I preferred not be part of our group. The way in which the discussion about those threads was handled, however, was abysmal and makes it far less likely that I will participate much in this group.

I'm sorry that you're unsatisfied and grateful that you took the time to outline your position in such detail. Thanks!

Discussion about discussion is not allowed.

Beatings will continue until morale improves. Etc.

but how it escalated was really strange to me.

we should be mindful of picking a diverse group in terms of gender, race and gender expression

and i still think that's an ongoing issue i have with this group. far too few people of color, and sometimes this group feels a bit male.

i am totally not blaming any one person or group of people for it, but its something to be mindful of.

First, we have discussed that several of our hosts are vocal members of the community. A majority of those hosts are male. We have made a concerted effort going forward to ensure that public representation of our hosting body is seen more evenly along gender lines. We're having our female counterparts act as our public voice in issues more often, and asking that our frequently vocal hosts just let someone else have a shot at... locking threads, blocking posters, and otherwise releasing statements on behalf of the hosts or conversing with our members in an "official" capacity.

Second, we have been addressing the "gender issue" for the past few weeks, even before the problem arose that brought it into the light. TriMera and Obamanut have both been added as hosts and we are actively seeking Yardwork's return if she would deem it appropriate. All of these actions were done to diversify the hosting pool a little. We are continuing to look at that situation and will continue to alter the hosting pool in the near future. The problem is we need to discuss it first and we have had a very busy week! There is a lot of discussion going on behind the scenes on this, and it will be further addressed.

Also, we are looking to our members to post more (in particular) lesbian-related threads so as to attract a larger lesbian population to the group. This is more of a long-term strategy, but hopefully will help to balance out everyone's concerns.

If you have any other questions or concerns, feel free to post them or else PM me if they are of a more sensitive nature. I will relay them, as I have this thread, word for word to the hosts and we will discuss them!

adding women towards the top, would have been my preference, and that could have happened if the group had made an effort to pay attention to my comments when i made them in the first place.

again, i am NOT blaming you fearless but its upon us all to take the marginalized groups into account.

If you don't have trans representation, female representation and people of color representation, that culture trickles down to affect everyone.

as we expect straight people to acknowledge their privilege, we should look at the privileges we have over others in our community, and ensure that their voices get heard ESPECIALLY in leadership positions.

We held elections, all in our community were asked to participate no one in our community was stopped from being in the election nor was anyone stopped from voting in the election.

DSC even took it one step further, after the elections anyone that wanted to be a host was made a Host.

DSC appointed hosts in the order of the votes they received in the election, thats why people are in the slots they are in.

Like so many others.

Have a nice day.

why was this thread created?

However, the hierarchy came about because of number of votes cast per individual, so there was no overt bias in the selection.

I implicity trust the male hosts in our group to not use the hierarchical order to squelch dissent or unfairly dominate group decisions.

That said, I wholeheartedly agree with you that it would be in the best interests of the group to have a body of hosts that was as diverse and inclusive as is possible and practical.

That is one of the primary reasons why I asked you if you would consider becoming a host.

what i am saying is that it was not deliberately inclusive, which is what imo it should have been.

here is how hierarchy can be used to squish dissent: william769 just removed me as host of the hiv/aids forum because of my comments here

to say that one should not worry about hierarchy would be naive

I can address why the top hosts ended up being male.

As you may remember, we voted on who would be primary host. DSC was selected by the group. In an effort to remain within democratic ideals of fairness I suppose, DSC then selected the 2nd through 13th(?) highest vote getters (essentially all those who asked to host and who got votes). At the time, I think the thought was twofold, these are the people who are most trusted by the community as a whole to do the job and equally that these are the only people who wanted the job. I would not claim to speak for DSC, but based on my experience in facilitating the voting process.

As DSC stated here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/113714686) the diversity of our hosting group should be addressed. If any members step forward and want to host, that would be most helpful.

Last edited Wed May 30, 2012, 04:39 PM - Edit history (1)

That's a pretty awful abuse of his hosting duties.

I've gently tried many times both online and in conversations among gay, while, male friends to get them to acknowledge their white and male privilege. But in far too many instances, they unfortunately feel strongly that the gay cancels out any of their unearned male and white privilege.

about your last para: i too have had this convo in real life, and experienced the same resistance.

good to see you here.

I read your post and walked away and all of a sudden I thought, "Wait a minute, it it an abuse?" I don't know. I don't have the foggiest clue what is going on in this particular situation but I do know that the guys built the system this way. And unless I missed something they gave no guidelines on how it was to be used. If I understand this place at all it would be each groups responsibility to address it.

As you know I modded on DU2 for 3 years. I am therefore wired to work with consensus. Period. I would no sooner remove a host beneath me without a group discussion then fly to the moon tomorrow. That said, I realize others might not feel that way and if I were removed for whatever reason I would try really hard to not get pissed and get my feelings hurt. How successful I'd be at that I am not sure but it IS the way things work.

And any white gay guy who doesn't think they have white and male privilege is simply wrong.

And you are very mistaken if you believe my comments came from a place of naivete.

But back to the subject line of this post -

The host system that we are currently employing is relatively new. We now have a reasonable amount of practical experience with the system. We can now build upon this experience to work out some bugs, and make the host's group, and the whole of the LGBT Group, better for everyone.

I believe that is what this thread is all about.

Your insight and input is extremely valuable here, and fully worth consideration.

I seriously hope that you will be reinstated as Host of the HIV/AIDS Group ASAP.

just that hierarchy matters when things get shitty

Balance in perspective and insight are good things for a group that is serving a community.

Oh, and yeah, I can be pretty naive.

But I'm not being naive about group politics here.

Hopefully, this discussion will evolve into something very positive and constructive for everyone.

I am deeply grateful that this has not been swept under the rug just because the thread was locked and dropped out of sight.

Personally, I was going to just step back - but decided that after my extensive participation in the thread about sexy images of men that I owed it to the group to at least share the impact of that thread on my feelings toward this group.

I was quite pleasantly surprised that it did not just generate another blast of anger - and even more surprised and pleased that there are steps being taken to address the concerns. It isn't a perfect world, and in any mixed gender group LGBT group I have ever been in, gender dynamics have been an issue unless (and sometimes even when) they are is intentionally addressed. I don't expect an instant sea change, but the recent responsiveness to the feelings I expressed in that thread (and to the specific steps I suggested were necessary to start undoing some of the alienation I felt as a result of it) go a long way toward demonstrating to me that the group is willing to try to be responsive to concerns about gender dynamics. I've got quite a bit of patience, and tolerance for the occasional unintentional jab in the rib, as long as it doesn't feel like I'm being told to shut up.

As to LLP's suggestion (below) regarding host hierarchy. In a perfect world, there would be no need to be concerned about hierarchy. In a striving to be perfect world - but not there yet - gender would be relatively and deliberately balanced. In my primary LGBT community, we removed our gender balance requirement 2 years ago, after a practice of strict equality that had been in place since around 1980. From a practical perspective, in this situation, I don't have strong feelings as to how necessary it is to rearrange host hierarchy, since the only practical implications I am aware of in connection with the hierarchy are the ability to terminate hosts below you and the appearance of power based on order in the list. I don't have the impression that host hierarchy played a role in the recent interactions, it seemed to me more a consequence of online presence and personalities.

As William769 pointed out the current hierarchy was not deliberately created. But if the group now decides it is important to rearrange the hierarchy, it is simple enough to accomplish. Just have hosts below DSC resign, and rename them in alternating gender order for as long as the alternating pattern can be carried out. (And if there are hosts who do not identify with one gender or the other, I would suggest putting those individuals in as every third host but otherwise continue the alternation - so the rotation would be M(DSC)-F-Z-F-M-Z-M-F, with "Z" for individuals not not identifying as M or F on the gender binary scale.) As a general principle, it isn't a bad idea. But I don't have strong feelings that it needs to be done or would have a significant impact on how the hosts function.

Ms. Toad, I hadn't read the male erotica thread before until you mentioned it in a post above.

I wish I had opened the thread so I could have supported you. While my reaction to male erotica is basically "Meh, who cares," I am amazed at the huge overreaction to your reasonable, balanced statements as well as your concern for the community.

Your calm demeanor under pressure is commendable.

If we'd had some discussion and voted on the image threads I'd have been satisfied - win or lose. My preference is that they not be here. But I was not prepared for the response to the attempt to discuss whether or not that is what we want here - and deeply troubled by it.

But - I am also pleased by the response to my comments earlier in this thread. It doesn't make everything perfect - but little in life is. We're moving in the right direction (talking with - and listening to - each other, and trying to be more intentionally inclusive).

Open discussion and the free exchange of ideas was difficult in a thread I recently started about NSFW posts. I had hoped for a thoughtful discussion free from the notion that some were "right" and others were "wrong". It was inquiry on my part; not disruption or friction (as has been alleged). In that thread, a lesbian was insulted and treated with contempt. Two people and one former host objected publicly to the hostility directed toward her. There was too much silence about the offending post. It deserved universal condemnation.

Secondly, it seems to me a small number of hosts are too defensive in their responses to other members (see this thread). And then there was the pinned thread concerning "concern" -- so unnecessary, imho.

From my perspective, there seems to be a shortage of lesbians, trans, and people of color posting to this group. I'd like to see a little more unity toward creating a space that welcomes more people and points of view. I'll ally with anyone who wants to lend some energy to that effort.

Finally, no one needs to have a defensive response to this post or any other in this thread. People are recounting their own experiences here -- and there's room for everyone.

You had every right to do so without being railroaded or treated rudely. You were simply opening up an appropriate topic of conversation for community discussion.

I don't post alot, but I do read alot.

You are like a family if all families were open and accepting. This is the one forum where I KNOW that I am welcome and where it is safe for me to speak from the heart.

Watching LLP and Will in this thread is like watching my brother and sister having a slap fight over Thanksgiving dinner. It's uncomfortable to see.

People need to remember that we can discuss things without needing to "win" and that if someone has a concern about this little internet family the best response is not defensiveness and anger, it is discussion, empathy and a genuine interest in trying to understand the others point of view.

I know I sound preachy, but we just need to remember to treat each other as if we were hanging out in real life. Every single person here is special and unique. We need to value one another.

LLP mentioned it in a thread in Meta. So, I think that has been resolved.

Last edited Sat Jun 2, 2012, 08:45 AM - Edit history (1)

I've already read most of the LGBT news. I like subtlety and humor and, at the times when I was a daily reader of the content in here, the prevailing winds seemed to favor black-and-white polarities with few shades of gray. (There are some notable exceptions.)

Perhaps that's why I'm reluctant to bring up topics that interest me. Grindr, for example. I discovered its existence two months ago when I was with a colleague in a train station. As a woman and a lesbian, I was floored by it. Seeing the gay men in the station as dots on a GPS -- picking one out for him and then having the guy show up five minutes later...

Maybe I was just a little bit envious, too.

Can you imagine the flame war that an OP on the topic would have started?