Address the Core Issue and Build Those Coalitions, Pretty Please?

This final peacemaking post was prepared before the thread was locked by Admin who wrote:

“Unfortunately, this thread seems to have become little more than an excuse to attack each other. Thank you for understanding.”

In the interest of further understanding, I would like to say (again) that my main concern is not merely the perceived and/or abused power of women-- the concern is:

What will happen to progressives, Democrats, etc. if the power of women is misperceived, undervalued and habitually abused? The allusion to Rosa Parks in the attached thread was because,

(open window) “WE’RE MAD/SAD AS HELL AND WE’RE NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE.”

:hi: :bounce: :hi:

I invite DU to let me have this final post, this final call, this final notice that the parties that do not embrace wholly women’s issues, women’s rights and women’s energies will be on the wrong side of history and the wrong end of the elections.

Women ain't goin to the back of the bus

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2182189&mesg_id=2192596


The lack of respect for women’s presence, skills and contributions is proven by the sanctioned presence of bullies on this bus, who drive women back, back, back to the back of the bus and out the back door, if they can manage it.

They are frightened, perhaps by their own lack of power, and interpret the blossoming of women’s powers as the collapse of their own virility.

The OP calls for recognition of the commonality of resistance to oppression.
The OP points out that women’s issues are central to all the major issues that progressives and Democrats are facing; and advocates addressing the core issue of oppressive patriarchal systems, as crucial to any hoped-for successes.
The OP calls for inclusion of women’s unique perspective, experience and skills in addressing the core issue and its offspring.

We cannot be shocked that the bullies come out and threaten, intimidate and toss their pebbles. We wonder if the driver will finally take charge.

Some on this thread have been huffy about my invocation of Rosa Parks. Even though the call is for the common human impulse against repression, oppression and aggression. Bigotry is bigotry. Human rights are human rights. Respect is respect.

Like Rosa Parks, I am tired, tired of the same old bullshit. Weary and resistant, every time another bigoted, abusive, hostile, flippant and/or uninformed anti-woman post goes up and stays up.

The lack of respect for women’s presence, skills and contributions is proven by the presence on this thread of those who attack, intimidate, stalk and slander (all in violation of DU Rules) on a repeat offender basis. And get away with it.

And this recent long-lived thread title was a dealbreaker:

“So is it OK if I cut off just little tiny slice of your clitoris?”

:evilfrown:

So, this OP was a final attempt to communicate the cruciality of valuing women’s issues, women’s energies, women’s contributions and women’s presence amongst progressives.

One difference between our oppression and that of Rosa Parks is:

We can get on another bus.

:scared:

ON EDIT: Woman have come a long way, but in our society it's a shame that there is still a long way to go.

we will build our power, face our common issues and quit falling for Divide and Conquer.

:kick: :bounce:

take another bus. ;-)

We can take turns

:yoiks:
:bounce: :bounce:

I expect to always read something very informative from you. You make me think in ways that are different than the way my brain wants to go. This to me, is the most amazing thing about this place. However, there are "those" threads always peaking through.

My contribution to civil rights, something I think is one of the most important issues facing us, http://kansasequalitycoalition.org/.

Not uniquely for women but partly. :hi: :)

"You make me think in ways that are different than the way my brain wants to go. This to me, is the most amazing thing about this place."

That is really something. And the reason that I have continued to plead, cajole and persuade is-- DU needs to understand that "those" threads and posts send away bright creative voices that are vital to the goals of DU and Dems (and they break DU Rules). DU needs to understand and decide if that's how they want it.

:toast:

Name Your Daughters "Rosa"
DU Articles on Sunday http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/05/10/29_rosa.html

October 29, 2005
By Dennis Rahkonen

The death of Civil Rights icon Rosa Parks sparked a flurry of insightful, moving tributes to a woman who proved that history isn't really made by dashing figures on exquisite horses, but by ordinary people whose daily lives collide with remarkable circumstances that command their consciences to take charge. Then take decisive action, in ways that bring about tremendous change. Ironically, in Rosa Parks' case, it was decisive inaction. She simply sat when ordered to rise, and move, thereby undercutting Jim Crow's supremacist assumption that Blacks would indefinitely defer to a whites-first/whites-best mentality.

<rip>

Now, however, its editorial writer observes that by sitting still on an apartheid bus in Alabama -- fifty years ago -- she caused the earth to shake beneath her feet, ultimately bringing down the entire evil edifice of institutionalized Southern racism.

<rip>

Probably a day didn't go by in her unfair life when she didn't have pained reason to think about the imposed second-class citizenship endured by her race.

<rip>

It was the spirit of Rosa Parks that infused every soul resisting systemic wrongdoing throughout the Rebel Sixties. And in subsequent decades. Every battler for peace, women's rights, union recognition, gay equality, etc.

<rip>

Rosa Parks did the right thing, at the right time, for all the right reasons. By so doing, she became a figure for the ages -- the matrix for ensuing, individual bravery, linked to the collective strength of great movements driven by imperative necessity. Her name will shine through time. ...The stirring power of her story, told again and again, by countless voices, can redeem our entire species.

:bounce: :bounce:

Eventually, women have to face, as many have, that there is a vicious hatred of women by male bigots, and that they are not all Republicans. You cannot somehow get rid of it by discovering that they are "liberals."

I think every thread that women have posted here at DU praising women, or referring to oppression, or angry and demanding change, has eventually been locked, and every time it was because males attacked with their hysterical hate. As long as we push "their" issues, we are "acceptable," but if you ever dare to turn and face them, and say, "Me, too--I am oppressed, I deserve to be free and safe, and I am oppressed by you"--look out. For those of us who read the other thread at various stages and who therefore know what was on the deleted posts, it was shocking and depressing, yet again, to know that we were not going to escape their attack on us, here either. The replies were furious, but standard, and of course, the same names showed up. They are the ones you will find laughing and sneering on the "I Hate the Dead, Raped Missing White Woman"-type threads, or the "No Bitch is Going to Tell Me I Can't Have Rape Porn"-type threads.

The "conservative Republican" male bigot will tell you, "Get back in the kitchen, Bitch"; the "liberal" "Democrat" will tell you, "Get in the fucking bedroom and put on a show for me, Bitch." They pretend to be so different, but it all stops when it comes to us. The routines are always the same, WE hate, not them; our concerns are all "trivial," oh if only we would realize what was really important, (and that would be, not us); or you get the phony, "you goddamned bitches are so horrible--you do this, and this, and this, and this wrong--but I am a feminist!"

You wait and wait, year after year, your whole life, for any male to criticize other males for their treatment of us, and get nothing. Yet wait for their spitting hate if we so much as praise ourselves for the good that we do have, or wait for their cheers as they, meanwhile, pretend that only they have anything good--yet again, they call for "us all" to have "balls," (pretending that expression could only mean "good"--I believe that would be "uniquely" only their good; no, none of them criticized their bigotry), or pretend that only males die in war or were heroes on Sept. 11th. It was an education, yet again, to get the violent response of their hate, after such a mild beginning to the thread. It makes you face things.

“They are the ones you will find laughing and sneering on the "I Hate the Dead, Raped Missing White Woman"-type threads, or the "No Bitch is Going to Tell Me I Can't Have Rape Porn"-type threads.”

Not very “progressive” is it? :evilfrown:

“You wait and wait, year after year, your whole life, for any male to criticize other males for their treatment of us, and get nothing. Yet wait for their spitting hate if we so much as praise ourselves for the good that we do have, or wait for their cheers as they, meanwhile, pretend that only they have anything good--yet again, they call for "us all" to have "balls," (pretending that expression could only mean "good"--I believe that would be "uniquely" only their good; no, none of them criticized their bigotry), or pretend that only males die in war or were heroes on Sept. 11th.”

“Uniquely” :rofl: Yes, another thread OP title today asked the age-old question “Where do we find ‘06 candidates with balls of steel.” I wuz thinkin the answer is “robots.”

Inside it said “Of course that includes men and women...” Of COURSE :eyes:

“It was an education, yet again, to get the violent response of their hate, after such a mild beginning to the thread. It makes you face things”

The denouement of facing things.

Thanks HS, as ever for your lucidity.

is that you would want to censor a post that came about after a long (flammable) discussion on male circumsision, that makes a parrallel to women, yet you seem to feel just fine throwing the 'B' word about when you were one of the primary architects to have its usage BANNED from DU.

So wrongo and so RIGHTEOUS. How can one person be so wrong so often in so many ways?

How can requesting DU Rules be applied be considered "censoring"?

Because you seem to be assuming a lot about male liberal Democrats.

The "conservative Republican" male bigot will tell you, "Get back in the kitchen, Bitch"; the "liberal" "Democrat" will tell you, "Get in the fucking bedroom and put on a show for me, Bitch." They pretend to be so different, but it all stops when it comes to us.

As far as the verbiage offending you ("balls"), am I missing something here? This is not flamebait. This is a serious question.

Please do not pretend that you are unaware that there is any kind of male bigotry against us, and quit attacking us with flamebait, as you are doing now, every time we accurately portray our lives or your treatment of us. "Can you give some examples?"--you can't really be serious unless you just dropped from another planet. I suggest you and yours stop fighting every single thing we say about our own lives, and you yourself will have to face what you are. You can start by admitting your motive for writing this message. It is not because male oppression of us is so subtle that you couldn't find it anywhere.

You then shove my face in it by fake-"cooly" pretending to be blissfully unaware as to how ANYONE could take "balls" as an insult--"am I missing something here??"--but since you have no conscience with regard to my group, then change the example and imagine a series of threads on DU, "What We Need for 2006 is Candidates With White Skin," meaning "good," "intelligent," etc. "Let's Get Some Real Whiteness Here!" Do not pretend that the--as you call it from the other side of the street--"verbiage offending you" would not then be obviously offensive to you.

A hint--when you are attacking women and flaming a thread, remember that the "please provide evidence" approach, when we have been trying to get you to face your behavior for generations and you will not, makes people angry, just as you intend, and that the pretense that you are so emotionally cool--not flamebait, just asking--does not fool anyone because it is not original. Why do none of you ever confront your own group's bigoted treatment of us, instead of spending your whole lives trying to sabotage us?

I never questioned the existence of sexism as a whole. I'm questioning your attacks against male liberal Democrats re: sexism.

As far as the "balls" comment, I think you're missing the metaphor here. By the intended definition, Barbara Boxer and Cindy Sheehan have "balls." It has nothing to do with machismo or the patriarchy. It has to do with standing firm in their beliefs against the real enemy.

One of DU's rules is to not make broad-brush statements against any group. Yet, in your post, you are claiming you have been trying to get us to face our behavior against women for generations. You seem to be implying that every single man is in a position of power over every single woman.

Personally, I don't go about my day with the intent to dehumanize women. That's just me. And perhaps you could better attract people to your cause if you weren't making broad statements against half the population, many of whom, like me, are on your side.

"It has nothing to do with machismo or the patriarchy" that the "intended definition" of a metaphor is "standing firm in the their beliefs."

That metaphor, the intended definition of which is "standing firm in the their beliefs" is the symbol of male genitalia.

Women should not "miss the metaphor" and understand the "intended definition" as applying to them, if they "stand firm in their beliefs," even though they never have, and never will, possess the actual metaphoric symbol.

It would also help if --when men tell women that what they said is not what they meant, but is actually what men think they meant --the women understand and don't misinterpret that thinking what they thought they meant has more validity than what the men tell them they actually meant.

Like the Bible says, women were created from men's body, when God took a rib out of the man he had created from the dirt and told it to help Adam and not bug him if he forgot to take out the trash once in a while.

If Man actually came from Woman's body, well that would be an entirely different metaphor.

:think:

"It has nothing to do with machismo or the patriarchy. It has to do with standing firm in their beliefs against the real enemy."

Um, who is the real enemy again? :hi:

Fine, use whatever the hell symbol you want, but the "real enemy" I am referring to is the shithead who just nominated a SC justice who will do much, much more harm to women than any "crude" word I or any other male liberal will ever use.

Perhaps you should focus your anger on the current regime and not on the men who happen to be on your side.

....:wow:
:bounce: :bounce:

I am also pointing out the tendency on occasion periodically of some or a few males to assume (even with good intentions as you probably are) that everything would be FINE if women would just:

Accept the male point of view as normal and the standard and quit trying to interject a female point of view for balance

Accepting the male image and lingo and even male BODY as normal and the standard and quit trying to create balanced lingo and imagery

Quit "missing the metaphor" and accept that the meaning that men tell us to take from it is the correct one-- rather than express what it actually means. what it means to us. and the fact that not being GRANTED our point of view points up the problem and proves the point (yet again)

"Perhaps you should focus your anger on the current regime and not on the men who happen to be on your side."

btw: I am not angry. I asked you the question. Did the type not come out lighthearted? The "Um" didn't do it? Not enough smilies?

The assumption and projection of anger ONTO women is another impediment to any discussion.

This is why I originally suggested the value of "listening without defensiveness." I am not defensive about having a point of view. I am defending my right to have one.

Perhaps you should focus your anger on the current regime and not on the women who happen to be on your side. Perhaps after reading this thread you will consider the impact that your language actually has.

Thank you.

I'm so glad you keep telling us that you are "one of the good ones," unable to be criticized, and that you are "on our side," because with all of your carping and attack--and nothing directed against the known male bigots on this thread--I never would have known otherwise. You agree, you are one of us, etc., etc., yet during post #39, you instruct me, as males always do, on how to "attract people to your cause"...but, I thought it was your cause, too.

Since you refuse yet again to listen, I will try yet again (now maybe you will admit why it takes generations): You claim your balls are the universal good, and nothing of us is. Let's try this again. Imagine a black person who was really smart and perceptive, and you were so impressed by the discussion that you said to that person: "You have got as much whiteness as I do! You are so white! I was so impressed with your total display of glorious white skin, and of course when I say we should all have white skin, I mean you people, too." Please explain why you believe this would not be infuriating and completely insulting. You have claimed a fake "superiority" for yourself and taken respect from us, and you do not deserve it.

On post #49, you used a strangely angry (since you don't get angry) title: "So now you're complaining about..." etc. I don't understand it at all. Why would you be attacking the poster for continuing the discussion? You then do the typical thing males do, which is to give us orders as to how we will think. Maybe you think we would be good feminists if only we would knuckle under and obey you. (This is called irony.) "Perhaps you should focus your anger on..." whatever I tell you to. Why? Why don't you, instead, listen to someone who is, for once, not you.

Please do not sink to the level of the woman-hater on this thread, and do not come back with a "clever" insult or endless attempt to find "hypocrisy" everywhere else. Please do not give us orders, and instead learn to live with us as equals. omega minimo is one of the best posters on this website and has explained things very well and very clearly. If you can stop being defensive and instead just think of the comments as our experience, and not even directed at you, but just objective, maybe you will get a little more empathy toward other people, and not just attack and give orders.

I NEVER said I was unable to be criticized. I said (or implied, if you want) that this particular verbiage is a harmless euphemism, and your attacks on me on such a trivial matter are missing the big picture.

I don't care what euphemism you use, and I would never tell you or anyone which one to use. I never said or implied the term "balls" was a "universal good," as you think I do.

And I'm not telling you how to think. I simply and sincerely asked why the term "balls" (whose use, if you haven't got it by now, I could care less about) was offensive to you. I was not trying to flame you. I was honestly trying to find out why you were so upset about it.

My "angry" title was merely exasperation, since omega minimo (who, contrary to what you believe, has not explained things clearly -- just reference her responses to other posters on this thread) was being flippant about my response.

I see you assume that I don't want to live with women as equals. The fact that you extrapolated that chestnut of hyperbole from me simply questioning verbiage is much more a reflection of you than it is of me. And, no, not a reflection of you as a woman (as you might like it to be), but a reflection of you in terms of your levelheadedness, REGARDLESS of your gender.

I've noticed some DUers tend to focus on every little potentially offensive/destructive thing right down to the subatomic level. For example, check out the fairly recent thread about Rick Warren's quote being put on Starbucks coffee cups, and, of course, this sub-thread.

President Dumbass is actively trying to set back women's rights 50 years, and yet you attack me, who, believe it or not, would like to keep things civil, particularly since we would agree on most issues (hence our presence on DU).

To put it another way, why are you worried about raindrops when you're headed for an iceberg?

As I recall, HiddenStillness and I called you on the fact that you want us to look at "balls" the way you think we should. You don't get the perspective of women on this, and think we're "missing" something?:

"As far as the "balls" comment, I think you're missing the metaphor here. By the intended definition, Barbara Boxer and Cindy Sheehan have "balls.""

And now you're doing it again!

"I said (or implied, if you want) that this particular verbiage is a harmless euphemism, and your attacks on me on such a trivial matter are missing the big picture."

It's a "harmless euphemism"-- if we disagree we are "attacking'" you and still "missing" something? A real discussion would be one where the differing perspectives were considered rather than corrected. You don't see how that's-- what's the word...... patronizing? And if we were able to have an actual discussion, we could get to the point where some men might begin to understand why language does matter and why-- rather than "trivial"-- it is integral to the "big picture."

"My "angry" title was merely exasperation, since omega minimo (who, contrary to what you believe, has not explained things clearly -- just reference her responses to other posters on this thread) was being flippant about my response."

I was having a bit of fun-- is that allowed or does that blow the "angry feminist" theory all to shreds?

I have explained beyond all reasonable explanation-- and clearly-- everything anyone might care to know about these issues in this thread and the linked one. A point comes at which the incomprehension of those still asking for MORE while resisting, is it incomprehensible. Is it for real? Is it open at all? Is it worth it?

Don't know about you, SA, but once any DUer has crossed a line of abusive hostility, I lose interest in pretending that we're still having a discussion. So where you "reference her responses to other posters on this thread" that point may have been passed or even past.

:bounce:

You mean this wasn't clear?:

"It would also help if --when men tell women that what they said is not what they meant, but is actually what men think they meant --the women understand and don't misinterpret that thinking what they thought they meant has more validity than what the men tell them they actually meant."

For example, you:

I am also pointing out the tendency on occasion periodically of some or a few males to assume (even with good intentions as you probably are) that everything would be FINE if women would just:

Accept the male point of view as normal and the standard and quit trying to interject a female point of view for balance

Accepting the male image and lingo and even male BODY as normal and the standard and quit trying to create balanced lingo and imagery.

I consider that an attack. You are assuming a whole hell of a lot about men when you say something like that. Just because men don't agree with you on every single detail of every single little thing re: sexism, it doesn't mean we want to re-create "The Handmaiden's Tale."

This is why I originally suggested the value of "listening without defensiveness." I am not defensive about having a point of view. I am defending my right to have one.

The stereotypes you projected on me do seem to contain a wee bit of defensiveness.



As for Hidden Stillness:

Since you refuse yet again to listen, I will try yet again (now maybe you will admit why it takes generations): You claim your balls are the universal good, and nothing of us is.

Omega Minimo, you mentioned DUers crossing a line of abusive hostility. Doesn't Hidden Stillness' comments above reek of the very same thing, particularly when I did NOT imply what she claims I did?

You then do the typical thing males do, which is to give us orders as to how we will think. Maybe you think we would be good feminists if only we would knuckle under and obey you.

She mentions "the typical things males do." Isn't that a stereotype? Isn't that considered abusive hostility?

Omega Minimo, from previous threads you have posted in (particularly the one involving the "t" word re: a part of the female anatomy awhile back), I seem to recall you attacking me, which was odd, considering I was having a side conversation with another DUer (impeachdubya) that was not about the OP. When I asked why you were attacking me, your responses quickly devolved into childish retorts.

I'm not quite sure what makes you so defensive, and I'd like to think you were just having a couple of bad days and that you are normally more inviting and civil. I'd like you to prove me right (again, nothing to do with gender :eyes:). What do you say?

These conversations are like trying to communicate with paper cups and a string-- where both parties have the butt end of the cup up to their ear.

Pardon me, SA, but when I write:

"on occasion
periodically of
some
or a few...."

...that might convey an impression of a gentle, or even humorous approach to the subject.....

I was attempting to clarify, in a way that would be comprehensible to the open-minded, the divergent POV that is so elusive to some, or a few males, periodically or on occasion-- so elusive and foreign and somehow so THREATENING that even to discuss it is seen as "attacking"?

It goes right back to our right to have a point of view. From our point of view, why should "balls" be what you say it is? Because you say so? Because you have them? Because you don't see what the big deal is because it's not YOUR point of view, so who cares? Can you just for one moment try to look at it from a different angle?

You are so busy being personally offended that you are not considering any truth in what I wrote.

The strangest part of this recurring DU phenomenon is that the more the resistence of those of the testicular persuasion, the MORE the cliches that they resent are reinforced by their remarks! Go figger!

I mean, when we say, playfully or in all seriousness that it's NOT ALL ABOUT YOU how do YOU end up feeling personally attacked by general concepts?

"The stereotypes you projected on me do seem to contain a wee bit of defensiveness."

I didn't project stereotypes on YOU but YOU are offended and accusing ME of defensiveness. Honestly, when I saw your post title I had to laugh (no offense). At some point, the hostile and offended menfolk just look pathetic and needy.

So, I have learned a lot from these circular conversations that go nowhere. (I don't recall the ones you are referring to in the past).

One thing I learned is: I used to think that the most resistent and obtuse men at DU didn't WANT to get it, didn't TRY to get it, didn't open their closed minds up enough to even CONSIDER what was being said.... then I learned that they really CAN'T get it and it's not FAIR to treat them as if they could open their minds and think fresh and consider new concepts.... and now I'm back to thinking its just stubborn pride. Is that sexist? :rofl: You can see I'm really trying to understand. Or was.

The biggest block here is the difference between viewing discussion as COOPERATION or COMPETITION. And guess what!? THAT'S WHAT THE OP WAS ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's what that bloody LIST was about.

:yoiks: :yoiks: :yoiks: :yoiks: :hi:

I DON'T CARE if you don't like the word "balls." I don't care if you use it, or if you don't. And I am not offended by your problem with that particular word, whatever your logic may be.

What offends me is your black-and-white thinking in regards to men's views of sexism. I never implied it was "all about me." I was asking an honest question. Perhaps the fact that simple metaphors hardly anger me as much as the current regime, I tend to focus on the big picture and NOT start a circular firing squad under the guise of "unity," as you ostensibly seem to do.

And maybe you should run a search of the old post containing your nonsensical remarks attacking me for no reason whatsoever. Then maybe you would learn something, as you claim you have from these circular conversations.

And I do want to cooperate with my fellow liberals (regardless of gender), but you seem to make it into a competition, as evidenced by the previous "women are unique" comments. Take a look. I have to go to sleep now.

to think or hope or suggest that SOME men SOME times are capable of --through merely understanding language --able to see things from a woman's point of view. :rofl: Silly me.

It may be in their nature-- it is not in their nurture. Up until very recently WOMEN WERE LITERALLY NOT ALLOWED A POINT OF VIEW and in many families and many cultures THEY STILL ARE NOT ALLOWED A POINT OF VIEW TO THIS DAY. Why should anyone think that even in the U.S., even on a progressive web site, men would be willing to think about anything from OUTSIDE the male (read "normal" "standard" "correct") perspective?

:kick:

"And maybe you should run a search of the old post containing your nonsensical remarks attacking me for no reason whatsoever. Then maybe you would learn something, as you claim you have from these circular conversations."

I don't need to do a search. One of the things I learned early on is to avoid characters that are belligerent and condescending to ANY mention of women's perspective (altho we gave it a good go this one last time!). The poster you mentioned is one of those. I don't go looking for fights. I avoid them. What I protested was being gobsmacked on a continuous basis on DU with Rule-breaking OP and post titles that were OUT THERE in our faces.

I remain open-minded to DUers until the stubborness makes any discussion pointless. You have broken another Rule which is bringing forward whatever antagonism you perceived (and it was a LONG time ago whatever it was).

The people who are belligerent on this thread are only able to copycat and catalogue what others have said and don't seem capable of unique and independent thought.

What's the point?

The point used to be that this sort of bullshit "cheapens the discourse for everyone" and drives out women's voices.

Congratulations.

:yoiks:







I DON'T CARE if you don't like the word "balls." I don't care if you use it, or if you don't. And I am not offended by your problem with that particular word, whatever your logic may be.
What offends me is your black-and-white thinking in regards to men's views of sexism. I never implied it was "all about me." I was asking an honest question. Perhaps the fact that simple metaphors hardly anger me as much as the current regime, I tend to focus on the big picture and NOT start a circular firing squad under the guise of "unity," as you ostensibly seem to do.
And maybe you should run a search of the old post containing your nonsensical remarks attacking me for no reason whatsoever. Then maybe you would learn something, as you claim you have from these circular conversations.
And I do want to cooperate with my fellow liberals (regardless of gender), but you seem to make it into a competition, as evidenced by the previous "women are unique" comments. Take a look. I have to go to sleep now.

...who think they are somehow better than you because of their gender, or that your gender - which, of course, you had no choice over - is to blame for every evil under the sun.

I would imagine you'd feel the same way. Sadly, your OP and the resultant thread (full of undeleted attacks against men in general) did not live up to that ideal.

I really couldn't work with someone who doesn't recognize the irony and hypocrisy inherent in that thread and apologize for the subsequent sexism.

YMMV.

It might help you understand what the OP and the thread were about.

The OP challenged the patriarchial systems that we-- women and men-- live within; calls for recognition of the commonality of resistance to oppression; points out that women’s issues are central to all the major issues that progressives and Democrats are facing; and advocates addressing the core issue of oppressive patriarchal systems, as crucial to any hoped-for successes; calls for inclusion of women’s unique perspective, experience and skills in addressing the core issue and its offspring.

Nowhere did the OP attack men. Nowhere did the OP express “people who think they are somehow better than you because of their gender, or that your gender - which, of course, you had no choice over - is to blame for every evil under the sun.”

Women are different from men by virtue of gender; by virtue of gender we have different experiences; by virtue of our experiences we develop different skills. Deal with it. I am not such a simplistic thinker that I would suggest that skills are definitively owned by one or the other-- that wouldn’t be sexist, that would be STUPID. :hi:

If you could drop the projection for one moment, and grasp that: AFFIRMATIVE STATEMENTS ABOUT WOMEN ARE NOT ATTACKS ON MEN you would be able to hear us.

First on the list was “Listen without defensiveness.” If you want me to cop to some sexist overgeneralization-- here it is: some men have a problem with that. Some men don’t even know what that is. Some men jump to false assumptions that affirmative statements about women = negative statements about men. :wow: :crazy: DU has helped me understand better the nature of that automatic defensiveness.

However, the violent, hateful, and bigoted verbal attacks on women by so-called progressives are totally unacceptable.

Real discussion killers.

:bounce: :bounce:

What a coincidence! Think of the following, inserting "sexism" for "racism."

October 29, 2005
By Dennis Rahkonen

She simply sat when ordered to rise, and move, thereby undercutting Jim Crow's supremacist assumption that Blacks would indefinitely defer to a whites-first/whites-best mentality.
<rip>
Now, however, its editorial writer observes that by sitting still on an apartheid bus in Alabama -- fifty years ago -- she caused the earth to shake beneath her feet, ultimately bringing down the entire evil edifice of institutionalized Southern racism.
<rip>
Probably a day didn't go by in her unfair life when she didn't have pained reason to think about the imposed second-class citizenship endured by her race.
<rip>
It was the spirit of Rosa Parks that infused every soul resisting systemic wrongdoing throughout the Rebel Sixties. And in subsequent decades. Every battler for peace, women's rights, union recognition, gay equality, etc.
<rip>
Rosa Parks did the right thing, at the right time, for all the right reasons. By so doing, she became a figure for the ages -- the matrix for ensuing, individual bravery, linked to the collective strength of great movements driven by imperative necessity.

Perhaps a more palatable phrase than "patriarchal systems."

"It was the spirit of Rosa Parks that infused every soul resisting systemic wrongdoing throughout the Rebel Sixties. And in subsequent decades. Every battler for peace, women's rights, union recognition, gay equality, etc."

Just as affirmative statements about women are not attacks on men, challenges to "systemic wrongdoing" are not attacks on men.

"I decided that as a person, if I did not want to be mistreated, it would never end, if I accepted mistreatment on a continual basis."

:patriot:

at the center of the ongoing (and intensifying) debate over the differences between the Democratic and Republican parties -- whether those differences are genuine, if so what they might be, and (therefore) whether the Democratic Party can ever be returned to its New Deal roots -- is ultimately a debate about the stubborn refusal to recognize the uniquely American depth of victimization: economic victimization (the result of capitalist savagery) and/or the coequal (and equally hateful) victimizations based on gender, race, sexuality, age, mental state, physique or any of the other diverse criteria by which Americans routinely single out their fellows for bigotries large or small. This is the real 800-pound gorilla in the living room of American politics, and until it is acknowledged, it is likely any effort to develop or restore progressive political values as a majority viewpoint will be obstructed by denial.

In what I believe is the most important work of social journalism since the Civil War, Paul Krugman has addressed the pivotal role of race hatred in the fact the United States has the most viciously genocidal welfare policies in the industrial world. But even Krugman dares not address the fact that U.S. hostility to welfare and welfare recipients is far more sexist than racist: that welfare recipients are overwhelmingly female -- depending on how "welfare" is defined, anywhere from 80 to 90 percent. By contrast, and again depending on how welfare is defined, only about 48 percent of the recipients are black. The sexism these statistics reveal -- a sexism overlooked by too many feminists (no doubt due to their bourgeois contempt for the poor) is undeniable.

Krugman's analysis that U.S. welfare policies are shaped by race hatred -- welfare policies including the murderous lack of universal healthcare -- is available here:

http://www.pkarchive.org/column/091905.html

My analysis -- that such genocidal policies are even more reflective of gender hatred than racism -- is set out here on DU for the very first time. A synthesis of my long and fruitful dialogue with OM, Krugman's work and my own knowledge as a social-issues writer, it is fully confirmed by U.S. history: the fact that women in this nation were officially subhuman -- that is, denied the right to vote -- for fully 50 years after all blacks were liberated from slavery and male blacks were given (at least theoretically) the full rights of citizenship.

Probably -- for reasons I will explain below -- this is my last post ever on DU. I am in fact making a special effort to share the understanding it represents, not the least because it supports what OM has been saying all along: that the oppression of one of us is the oppression of all -- but until we grasp that fact (that is, until we understand it both intellectually and emotionally), we will not be able to reach out to one another in any sort of genuine solidarity. One does not fight oppression by denying the oppressed the right to be heard or refusing to listen when they speak.

The problem, as I have said so many times before, is identification with the oppressor: the conditioned, reflexive assumption of the values of our patriarchal/capitalist overlords. This blinds us to oppression in two ways: our often unconscious but always instinctive belittling of the oppressed, and our human tendency to grow comfortable with our shackles -- so that we increasingly mistake imprisonment for liberty. This is precisely what OM and her sisters protest. Those who fail to acknowledge the validity of their grievances deny one of the most bitter truths of history.

*********

What makes this probably my last post is that my computer is dying. I had written this post twice before, only to have my work destroyed at the last possible minute when the computer suddenly and without warning turned itself off. It will now run only for about ten minutes before it crashes, so I have written this (third) version of this material on a truly reliable machine: a 1935 Royal Standard typewriter, the typescript of which I am now trying to peck into this machine before it dies again. I am a writer and editor -- not a clerk-typist -- but the failure of this computer will not allow me time to edit or spellcheck, so I apologize in advance for any typing errors or misspellings that occur.

That said, the breakdown of this computer effectively seals my economic doom. Even if I could afford to repair or replace it, which I cannot -- it would cost probably $1,000 to replace it and something like $280 per hour for repairs -- coping with the failure will take at least one and probably two weeks out of my life: that long before I am again fully operational. This means it will be impossible for me to meet November's writing deadlines, which terminates my freelance income forever, leaves me only my Social Security pension to live on, and flings me irrevocably into bankruptcy. So finally now at age 65 I have suffered a defeat from which no recovery is possible save by a miracle -- and the only such occurrences in my life are inexplicable but ruinous disasters.

I have truly enjoyed my time here -- especially my dialogue with OM. I will of course return here if it is possible. But I cannot imagine any way that could ever happen. Thank you one and all.

newswolf56


Edit: typos. (Shut the computer off and then turned it back on to stave off the inevitable crash.)

dust?
You should be able to repair or replace your pc for a lot less than you fear. :)

"The problem, as I have said so many times before, is identification with the oppressor: the conditioned, reflexive assumption of the values of our patriarchal/capitalist overlords. This blinds us to oppression in two ways: our often unconscious but always instinctive belittling of the oppressed, and our human tendency to grow comfortable with our shackles -- so that we increasingly mistake imprisonment for liberty."



You will find a way, I know it.
OM

You could have brought up your issue for discussion without the following:



In addition to the clearly sexist indication that men don't have those qualities, is the over-generalized idea that all women do. Including that in your OP was the cause of its downfall. I hope you can see my point of view without defensiveness. :)

It is your projection that this is "the clearly sexist indication that men don't have those qualities, is the over-generalized idea that all women do."

Every insistence on the "downfall" of the OP refutes my right to not assume the automatic exclusivity that you interpret there.

As I said above:

"Women are different from men by virtue of gender; by virtue of gender we have different experiences; by virtue of our experiences we develop different skills. Deal with it. I am not such a simplistic thinker that I would suggest that skills are definitively owned by one or the other-- that wouldn’t be sexist, that would be STUPID."

:hi:

I would also suggest that rather than edit or censor my OP, those who value these qualities or find them in anyone available, might encourage more of the same, in order that we might make some progress.

We need better listeners, better communicators, better cooperators and fewer dominators trying to shout down any idea that they feel threatens their ego.

edit: correction: nowhere did I say "that men don't have those qualities" or "that all women do." The touchiness about a reasonably generalized statement (maybe men in general aren't aware that women in general DO have these qualities-- give yourselves a break :rofl:) and the hostility foisted with the over-generalized projected assumptions, just makes it look MORE like some guys really need to Get Over Themselves!!!!

btw: since you approached this in such a friendly way, I will tell you a little secret-- the infamous list in the OP was made with some lightheartedness (and I repeat, affirmation, not demonization) and I THOUGHT that the whimsical "Did I forget anything?" with a :hi: at the end would invite some humor. The hatred was really unexpected.

Thanks for asking.

"My prerogative to say minus mutual exclusivity limited views insist upon", for example. What are you trying to communicate?

If it doesn't make rational sense to you why your post was inflammatory due to its sexist implications, can't you at least try to empathize with those you offended?

I hope the body of the message was clear where the title was telescoped....

Empathy yes. Hostility no.

If we could discuss (as you and I are) the different views without attack, that would be most welcome. The attacks that occurred over there, I mainly stayed away from.

However, I will defend my right to not have the same assumptions as those who misunderstood, and to not have those assumptions foisted upon me, or be told those are my assumptions and I just don't know it or--- geez, what a waste.

Is the following true? :



A simple yes or no will suffice, but elaborate if you like. :)

You're still stuck in either/or.

Now you bring up the value of seeing the grey areas? (To greyl?) My point was that your statement was "in a box", "broad-brush" "black and white thinking" "sans-nuance".

Instead of responding to my question, you 'attacked' me.

How bout this question then: Is the following true?

what I have to say about the OP and the confusion it engendered. If you are really interested, you can read what I've written.

If you had read it and I was clear enough, there would be no need to make your "point was that your statement was "in a box", "broad-brush" "black and white thinking" "sans-nuance." I don't accept the idea that because others miss the nuance, I am supposedly the one thinking in a box, broad-bushing myself into a corner. Forget that. I won't have my words twisted-- or my arm.

It seems to me that I have made the point: that saying that women have these skills does not equal "men don't." I have not said "all" about either, I have tried to point out there is no assumption of ownership on my part, but that skills based on different experience will be different. That could be a jumping off point for discussion, not a discussion killer. The hostile focus on that list (which was intended as a point of departure and invited friendly comment) totally deflected and detracted from the spirit of the OP.

One reason that women have learned to "listen without defensiveness" is that traditionally, women have been punished brutally for not responding-- or answering-- in the way that dominant figures demanded.

I did not come to DU to campaign for or about women's rights. When I came to this "progressive" site I was surprised-- continuously-- at the contempt expressed toward women. This "cheapens the discourse for everyone."

As I have also said too many times: if this contemptuous treatment silences or banishes women's voices from DU, it is a loss for everyone concerned.

Thank you for asking. :hi:

btw: I am sorry you saw the previous post as an 'attack.' By "either/or" I meant that by you putting my words in a box, changing my words to change the meaning, flip-flopping what WAS a nuanced bit of writing to present a false either/or choice, reinforced the mistaken notion that to say women have these skills to offer means that men don't. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

finally: "It seems to me that I have made the point: that saying that women have these skills does not equal "men don't." This hair-trigger assumption about what I meant and the vehement insistence that I agree with those who misunderstood-- deepens the impression that its difficult for some men to grasp (and its healthy for them to encounter on DU) the fact:

Men: It's not always ALL ABOUT "YOU".

The statements that you made were reasonably seen to be a co-opting of Rosa Parks' truth. It wasn't so much a dilution of the quality of Rosa Parks as it was a clumsy, sexist, piggy-backing attempt.

All woman are unique. All men are unique.
We can all stand to be inspired by Rosa Parks, and help make the world a place friendly to rational dissent supported by emotions.

Rosa Parks was a "I will not stand for their bullshit" kind of human, and in turn, I'll say that I'm not buying yours. Taking responsibility is virtuous, is it not?

"clumsy, sexist, piggy-backing attempt."

I think you should admit your responsibility for the locking of that thread, and try to be more straightforward.

Bullying is a big part of the problem (various levels of the patriarchal pyramid) that needs healing and changing. I won't be bullied into submission. I have explained it beyond redundancy. You still may be interested in the article linked in post #7.


Arguing is pointless and unecessary. Is there some war here? Some need to topdog?

I ain't buyin YOUR "bullshit."

All I was taking issue with from your other post was what I quoted of you here.

I haven't been demanding that you shut up. I've been 'asking' you to think and speak for yourself and to elaborate. Your painting me as some chauvinistic bully who is forcing you to the back of the bus is a fine example of a pointless, unnecessary, and fallacious argument. It's a technical personal attack. It's also false. I fear it also shows a lack in willingness (or hope?) on your part to reach an understanding through communication with someone you too hastily label as "unfriendly to women".

I think your OP in the locked thread would have gotten a much less critical response at a site where no men are allowed. But I think the chances are good that it would receive some criticism.
What do you expect with all these independent thinkers running around?

independent thinkers do not take a "my way or the highway approach." There is a difference between a "critical response" and a "hysterical" hatefest.

You seem like a smart kid-- perhaps you can see the irony in a few men getting so damn defensive about me writing that women are able to "listen without defensiveness."

:freak:

"I've been 'asking' you to think and speak for yourself and to elaborate."
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :yoiks: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Yes, we men do tend to deal with women by placing them in an inferior status. Its not right. The fact that we do leads to many of the problems our society faces: the situation IS part of the core of our world wide problem.

We are all born of women. Womanhood is in each and every one of us, and the denial of that womanhood is a denial of our basis. No wonder we have so many problems, eh?

By virtue of that placement into an inferior status, we open ourselves up to being placed into an inferior status. The world goes round and round, and what goes around comes around.

To unfairly condemn one aspect of our humanity is to condemn all humanity: there is no separation.

Recently on Charlie Rose ( does anyone know who the heck I am thinking of from last week) he discussed the failures of the Islamic world and tied it into the the oppression of women.

In fact, he and his guest ( who I can't remember at the moment- old dog memory gaps LOL) both agreed that those societies that liberate women, allow them voting rights, education, and a place in the job market are the only ones that thrive.

Now, the neocons like to chicken hawk focus our attention to Natan Sharansky's idea that it is democracy that is the sine qua non of peaceful and productive society. And, they mentioned, as I have here, that Hitler rose to power under a democratic election.

But, the neocons love to be war like, as their species: "chicken hawkiensis fat assus" demands of them by nature, and they crapinski on the old "leftie" social issues.

Too sad for the dumb chicken hawks. We went to war- for peace. *cough*

We sought to impose democracy at the point of a gun. *cough*

When, in reality, we should have been bellowing and advocating a real change that would bring peace and prosperity, the goal is beyond over throw of despotic, delusional mustachioed, Stalin wanna be's, and enforced democracy, which, with out any prep work will lead to sharia like laws curbing womens rights, the goal should have been establishing governments that protect the rights of women and their ability to flourish i society above and beyond child bearing.

Because, the real malaise in the middle east stems from oppressing women, keeping them out of the mainstream of society and using them as brood mares.

If anyone saw that Charlie Rose show please jump in here, I think what I remember hearing fits in well with the whole concept of women's rights not as another left wing "side issue" but critical to the success of society.

the importance of women's rights issues.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007112

>Unfree Under Islam
Shariah endangers women's rights, from Iraq to Canada.
In every society where family affairs are regulated according to instructions derived from the Shariah or Islamic law, women are disadvantaged. The injustices these women are exposed to in the name of Islam vary from extreme cruelty (forced marriages; imprisonment or death after rape) to grossly unfair treatment in matters of marriage, divorce and inheritance.

Muslim women across the world are caught in a terrible predicament. They aspire to live by their faith as best they can, but their faith robs them of their rights. Some women have found a way out of this dilemma in the principle of separation of organized religion and state affairs. They fight an uphill battle to achieve and hold on to their basic rights. Two cases demonstrate just how difficult that struggle can be, in the context of new as well as established democracies.

The first is the draft constitution of Iraq, now due next week. Iraqi women like Naghem Khadim, demonstrating on the streets of Najaf, are fighting to prevent an article from being put in the constitution that would establish that the legislature may make no laws that contradict Shariah edicts. The second case is the province of Ontario, in Canada. There, Muslim women led by Homa Arjomand, an activist of Iranian origin, are fighting--using the Canadian Charter of Rights--to keep Shariah from being applied as family law through a so-called Arbitration Act passed as law in Ontario in 1992.<

it's why DU has gained so much popularity.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:hi:

Totally my fault. Thought we were riffing.

(You'd have to admit though; what I said was true.)

Now THERE'S a good example of how language is skewed for gender. "Hysterical" based on a root word for WOMEN'S reproductive organs.

:sarcasm:
Funny how that works :puke:

The first person to use the common usage of the word hysterical in this thread was HS:
"I think every thread that women have posted here at DU praising women, or referring to oppression, or angry and demanding change, has eventually been locked, and every time it was because males attacked with their hysterical hate."
You thanked HS for their lucidity.

The second person to use the word was you.

Then I used the word, and you use that as an opportunity to create a strawman argument by implying that I, or someone in this thread, said "please don't get hysterical" as a chauvanistic demand to a woman.

Furthermore, we've all heard the rumor that "hysterical" originated as a sexist insult toward some biological inferiority of women. However:



Clearly, nobody in thread was using the term "hysterical" to accuse another DUer of having irregular movement of blood from their uterus to their brain.

I've become totally convinced that you aren't interested in honest communication. Congratulations.

In the mind of a few select DU'ers, if a woman says hysterical, or B____, it is for the greater purpose.

But if a MAN says it, or any number of common english phrases, then he is a sexist prick who has no business even being on DU...

Welcome to hypocrisy land.

could have a problem with women using the words bitch and hysterical in posts that point out how men use those words to marginalize women. :eyes:

use these words to marginalize women.

Post #9 I think every thread that women have posted here at DU praising women, or referring to oppression, or angry and demanding change, has eventually been locked, and every time it was because males attacked with their hysterical hate.

Post #42 independent thinkers do not take a "my way or the highway approach." There is a difference between a "critical response" and a "hysterical" hatefest.

But of course if a man says:

Post #36 People who hysterically badmouth DU at another site and keep coming back here to try to justify their martyrdom as opposed to adding to thoughtful discussions.

The reply from one of these same people is:

Post #51 Please don't get hysterical Now THERE'S a good example of how language is skewed for gender. "Hysterical" based on a root word for WOMEN'S reproductive organs.

it's about a language that is used every day in little ways to demean an entire gender. How difficult is it for you to grasp that if a common phrase demeans women (or any group for that matter)...then maybe it should no longer be in common use? God(dess) forbid we should ever ask anyone to consider that maybe they ought to temper their right to free speech with a little courtesy and consideration for the feelings of others. :eyes:

:patriot:

But if you want to talk about langauge in general, how about these quotes currently in GD:

Libby is either very stupid, has bad counsel, or is an arrogant prick

Call me an asshole , but, I hope that smug little prick is suffering...

This is huge, regardless of the indictments. These pricks will pay, but best of all, they may take every prick down with them and the public will get to see, that we on the "Left" were right all along.

hey Rove, wipe the image of those folk in New Orleans out of my mind CAN'T BE DONE, YOU SICK PRICK

Byron's a effete prick

Ist this what you mean by language that is used every day in little ways to demean an entire gender? Except no one on DU gets upset about the usage of the word "prick" Tempering speech on DU only means tempering speech that is "demeaning" to women - which also tends to mean that it is only demeaning if said by a man.

for millenia then I'll put more of my energy into being upset about language that hurts men. It's not that I'm not interested and wouldn't like to see all demeaning language reduced...I've just got bigger fish to fry than put downs on the dominant group.

And since men have been predominantly responsible for creating the language of oppression...if you don't like it you have only yourselves to blame.

If one was overheard saying ""The Student as Nigger" is an interesting book", it would be inappropriate to reprimand the speaker for using the word "nigger". To do so would disrespect the intended meaning of the speaker.

Purrs, barks, and growls were the beginning of the language we are using with each other right now. After millions of years of evolution, our understanding of each other has been enriched by the utility of, and sensitivity to, articulation and context. Words have expanded in meaning to the point that many have several "common usage" meanings, depending on the context.

Hysterical is one of those words.
My mom used the phrase "that's hysterical!" as frequently as I use the phrase "that's awesome!".

Now, look up the word "unique" in your preferred rulebook of the English language, and apply any of the meanings to the following statement:



with regard to the context, of course.
Which, on this site anyway, was the death of Rosa Parks, whose actions were among other priceless catalysts in the debunking of the idea that privilege in our society should be granted based on biological differences.
exhale


"We ask justice, we ask to be considered unique, we ask that all civil and political rights that belong to the citizens of the United States be guaranteed to us and our daughters forever, and if our enemy (you know who they are ;);) uses the words "hysterical" or "balls" during a dialectic battle, we will stand strong and begin to fight dirty! Inequality is real after all, inequality is real after all!"

- Susan B. Anthony, 19th- & early 20th-century leader of the Women's Movement /satire)

"Everything is everything"

- Many of us

:)

This is a good example of how Rule-breaking derogatory language "cheapens the discourse for everyone" and discredits you and whatever it is you are trying to say.

I included a dictionary definition in one of my posts, which of course didn't stop the hatefest and intentional (or unwitting) incomprehension of everything I've said.

This hatefest and intentional (or unwitting) incomprehension of everything I've said is proof that we need this more than ever:


"Women are in a unique position to challenge, heal and change this system. We have unique skills to offer:

The ability to listen without defensiveness
The ability to think about and do more than one thing at a time
The ability to see other points of view
The gift of empathy
The power of communication
The power of cooperation
The awareness that one person can make a difference"

You want to shout down and shut out women's perspective and contributions?

Congratulations.

:yoiks:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"People who hysterically badmouth DU at another site and keep coming back here to try to justify their martyrdom as opposed to adding to thoughtful discussions."

Not conducive to thoughtful discussion.

FIRST:
Hidden Stillness (432 posts) Sun Oct-30-05 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
#9. This is My Country, Too
<snip>
I think every thread that women have posted here at DU praising women, or referring to oppression, or angry and demanding change, has eventually been locked, and every time it was because males attacked with their hysterical hate. As long as we push "their" issues, we are "acceptable," but if you ever dare to turn and face them, and say, "Me, too--I am oppressed, I deserve to be free and safe, and I am oppressed by you"--look out.

--OM: I think “hysterical hate” is pretty descriptive here, boys. "Strident hate" or "rabid hate" would have done as well. :hi:

SECOND:
greyl (1000+ posts) Mon Oct-31-05 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #32
#36. It's also classic for disruptors to call participators disruptive with no rational statements to back it up.
In addition, there's a new classic: People who hysterically badmouth DU at another site and keep coming back here to try to justify their martyrdom as opposed to adding to thoughtful discussions.

ACTUAL RESPONSE TO YOUR #36 FOR THE RECORD and to counter wrongomongering:
omega minimo (1000+ posts) Mon Oct-31-05 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #36
#41. We don't need to argue

And in resonse to this snark:
greyl (1000+ posts) Mon Oct-31-05 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #46
#48. Oops. I didn't know I was forbidden to comment on your post. Totally my fault. Thought we were riffing. (You'd have to admit though; what I said was true.)

...came the THIRD:
omega minimo (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-01-05 07:33 AM
Response to Reply #48
51. Please don't get hysterical
Now THERE'S a good example of how language is skewed for gender. "Hysterical" based on a root word for WOMEN'S reproductive organs.

Funny how that works :puke:

--OM: I am correcting the record because you have unwittingly provided a classic example of the confusion that goes on here.

Not only is the following untrue:

greyl (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-01-05 08:51 AM
“The second person to use the word was you.” (actually was you, greyl)

but the following is a total fabrication and projection:

“Then I used the word, and you use that as an opportunity to create a strawman argument by implying that I, or someone in this thread, said "please don't get hysterical" as a chauvanistic demand to a woman.”

I didn’t imply anything. I used the word because it was already in play and to poke fun at your sarcastic #48. Although you tell me “I've become totally convinced that you aren't interested in honest communication” it is the filter of your own mistaken assumptions that hobbles this conversation.

It’s also VERY difficult to understand how you have actually researched the history of the word “hysteria” and found that:

“The term hysteria was coined by Hippocrates, who thought that the cause of hysteria was irregular movement of blood from the uterus to the brain"

and yet you don’t see how that SHOWS that “that "hysterical" originated as a sexist insult toward some biological inferiority of women”? It has been pointed out on this thread that only men have balls. Men do not have wombs. Only people who have wombs experience this "IRREGULAR movement of blood from their uterus to their brain." (Men being "regular" of course). You haven't really identified what "hysteria" is, except to say that Hippocrates thought that being a women was the cause of irregular brain activity.

You say: “Clearly, nobody in thread was using the term "hysterical" to accuse another DUer of having irregular movement of blood from their uterus to their brain.”

Hoist on your own petard.

:shrug:

“It strikes me like a slap in the face the unspoken core element... at the center of the ongoing (and intensifying) debate over the differences between the Democratic and Republican parties -- whether those differences are genuine, if so what they might be, and (therefore) whether the Democratic Party can ever be returned to its New Deal roots -- is ultimately a debate about the stubborn refusal to recognize the uniquely American depth of victimization: economic victimization (the result of capitalist savagery) and/or the coequal (and equally hateful) victimizations based on gender, race, sexuality, age, mental state, physique or any of the other diverse criteria by which Americans routinely single out their fellows for bigotries large or small. This is the real 800-pound gorilla in the living room of American politics, and until it is acknowledged, it is likely any effort to develop or restore progressive political values as a majority viewpoint will be obstructed by denial.
........
“Probably -- for reasons I will explain below -- this is my last post ever on DU. I am in fact making a special effort to share the understanding it represents, not the least because it supports what OM has been saying all along: that the oppression of one of us is the oppression of all -- but until we grasp that fact (that is, until we understand it both intellectually and emotionally), we will not be able to reach out to one another in any sort of genuine solidarity. One does not fight oppression by denying the oppressed the right to be heard or refusing to listen when they speak.

“The problem, as I have said so many times before, is identification with the oppressor: the conditioned, reflexive assumption of the values of our patriarchal/capitalist overlords. This blinds us to oppression in two ways: our often unconscious but always instinctive belittling of the oppressed, and our human tendency to grow comfortable with our shackles -- so that we increasingly mistake imprisonment for liberty. This is precisely what OM and her sisters protest. Those who fail to acknowledge the validity of their grievances deny one of the most bitter truths of history.”

I first encountered Newswolf56 on a rollicking thread in Women’s Rights and Issues, where some broad and opinionated statements as fact by him got some hackles up. “Listening without defensiveness” I asked him about what he said. We were not afraid to discuss and didn’t assume the other was angry or an asshole. This is an example of the potential and the benefit of DU-- in discussion, in information, in community-building.

Maybe it takes a certain confidence or sense of humor or just plain manners (or voluntary adherence to the intended DU Rules based on respect) to not trash and trick other posters.

This thread is another good example of all the time, energy, talent and even INTEREST wasted in playing petty little bullshit mindgames. What were we talking about? Oh yeah!

Challenging and healing sexist bigotry at this crucial political moment is not an afterthought, it is an imperative. As the opposition to the current administration continues to reinvent itself, women's issues and participation are at the heart of any success that progressives hope to have.

The Right Wing wedge issues are all based on one thing. The gay marriage issue, the abortion issue, women's rights issues all hinge on CONTROL-- on maintaining the male dominant hierarchy at all levels of this patriarchal system.

This system is what must be challenged, healed and changed. This system is the genesis of war, bloodshed, exploitation and the triune desert sky-god religions trying to annihilate each other.

This system is what allows the continuing suppression of women’s contributions by shouting down, dismissing, distracting and denigrating the contributions and the women themselves.

As NW56 put it:

“One does not fight oppression by denying the oppressed the right to be heard or refusing to listen when they speak.

“The problem, as I have said so many times before, is identification with the oppressor: the conditioned, reflexive assumption of the values of our patriarchal/capitalist overlords... This is precisely what OM and her sisters protest. Those who fail to acknowledge the validity of their grievances deny one of the most bitter truths of history.”

Yet, we are not the bitter ones. One reason that women are more skilled at “listening without defensiveness” (not entering a discussion as a competition, challenge, war, head-butting, circle jerk, etc.) is that it is a SURVIVAL SKILL.

We don’t need to be insulted or shouted down. We don’t need to cast pearls before the 800-pound gorilla in the middle of the living room.

Perhaps if we identified more with the Oppressor, we too would see any challenge to the system of oppression as a personal threat, the annihilation of our own power, a challenge to our self-importance and -- unable to separate ourselves to get perspective on how that oppression also affects us-- as really being all about out little lives, our little minds and not about the Big Picture....

But I doubt it.

:hi:

this discussion has turned into too personal, and is also a continuation of a formally locked thread.