So, what did we learn last night?

A few thoughts re: the tee-shirt ad and the accompanying threads.

First off - I was, of course, appalled, but deep down felt there had to be a misunderstanding. As bad as I think it gets sometimes here, I could not imagine Skinner, et al knowingly accepting those ads. Yes, I blew off steam, but I was really waiting for a response from Admin before going completely off the deep end. I went to bed last night before the ad was pulled, and I was real glad to see this morning that the issue was addressed promptly.

Second - there are a LOT of men here who do 'get it'. They came out to say, in no uncertain terms, that the ad was unacceptable. I am heartened to see this, I knew there were lots of guys here who are on our side. My question: how do we get these guys to participate more in discussions of sexism? How do we keep them engaged? I think that it's important that they lend their support to us as much as possible - it may help the Neanderthals get a better understanding of the problem if they hear their fellow men speak out too.

Third - I was dismayed at the amount of people, mostly men I guess, who just didn't seem to get what the problem was. Calls of censorship, calls for tolerance in a free society, live and let live, even. Sheesh. I admire the many women here who are able to calmly and clearly delineate the issues to them. I am not that articulate or controlled, I typically lash out angrily, which helps nothing. It just seems that there is a small but determined crew that apparently will stop at nothing to torment us, especially in light of last week's SCOTUS nomination and the possible repercussions from it. The whole bullying aspect of kicking people when they're down has really come to the forefront, and it's shocking, actually. I'm dismayed by this. How do we even begin to fix this?

My final question - this past week or so, I've had a kind of scorched-earth policy with regard to the sexist threads and comments. I've really had it up to here with the nonsense, basically, and I'm calling bullshit all over the place. I think this is causing me to lash out at ANYTHING that I feel is the least bit sexist, regardless of intent or even content at times. I'm thinking that maybe I am being too sensitive, and I'm perceiving slights where none were intended. How do each of you, as individuals, draw the line as to what you'll put up with?

is that someone in the Lounge just accused us of bullying. Somehow calling women names whenever they stand up for themselves is not bullying. But insisting that DU not tolerate sexism is. :wtf:

wrote that. Pretty weird, isn't it? Or, maybe not. ;)

As if no one saw that coming. ;)

she doesn't like the 'pack' mentality.

Where do I go to read Skinner's posts, again?

Holy shit. That was on THIS site? Don't know why I'm surprised but--damn. Some assholes.

but this is a general theme here. Some just want to blame women for all their woes. I haven't seen Skinner's post about the ads but I assumed that he would pull them. As much as I get furious at this site, admin has never condoned sexism as blatant as that. (Unlike Kos)

I think women are seeing the consequences of the backlash. It's permeated the culture and we are seeing leftist leaning men and women buying into the hype. I just try to keep in mind how long earlier women fought for the right to vote. They faced similar hostility from men and women they had fought next to in earlier battles on other issues. It's just our turn. This is me on a good day. :hi:

But truthfully, why is it our turn AGAIN? I thought we were on the way to being done with this stuff, and could focus our attention elsewhere! Is it going to be the Blacks turn again, then Asians, Latinos, etc? Sigh.

PS - I like you on good and bad days! :hi:

no matter what else is going on in the world you can be guaran-goddamn-teed that it will ALWAYS be our turn.

My Ignore list is going to become huge today. I don't have the energy to keep it up right now. After a little breather, I'll be back in fighting shape!

1. Skinner rocks.

2. I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it any more.


As for the folks that don't get it, I think we're victims of RW framing to some degree. Political correctness is an issue precisely because it is incorrect to use words to demean people. It's called harrassment, and if it happened at work, people would get fired over it. But the concept of political correctness has been deliberately demonized by the right, and some people have bought into that - like they have a right to harrass people, and if you prevent them from doing that, you are the one infringing on their rights.

Also, folks like Rush Limbaugh have very successfully framed women who refuse to be demeaned as "feminazis." I don't get the comparison - nazis were hardly known for demanding respect and equality for all.

I keep trying to tie it back to racism, because the same folks that are perfectly happy referring to women as "the C-Word" would never ever dream of calling blacks the N word. They would likely alert on those posts as well, because they recognize it's a way to identify those people as second class citizens, subhumans.

The RW has demonized PC, yes indeed. People who complain about political correctness are just trying to justify their attempts to exercise their god-given right to be an asshole.

So, in the spirit of trying to find solutions, how do we address this? What can we do to make the climate here a little more agreeable? Are the folks who seem to be agitating this stuff truly progressives? Are they trying to sow discontent? If so, should we just Alert and Ignore them?

Some are so threatened or annoyed by us that they called us the DU Brigade, and said we were a disgrace to DU, feminists, and progressives! How do you take something like seriously, or should we even bother?

DU has come a long way in its education re: sexism, and all props are due Skinner and Admin. Things have certainly changed for the better, and it is very much appreciated.

I personally think it's worth keeping the pressure on. It's the only way I know that demeaning speech is phased out of a culture.

1. It's acceptable to call a black person the N word.
2. People start to get more offended by it as they begin seeing blacks as equals.
3. People who use the N word get hassled for it.
4. They tell other people to quit being so sensitive, it's just a word.
5. The other people continue to harass them.
6. The racists continue to think of blacks as N*****'s but stop using the word because they're sick of all the PC folks whining about it.
7. They recognize that it's an offensive word, and learn that if they are openly racist, they will be ostracized.
8. The pressure not to be racist becomes strong enough that openly racist conversations dramatically subside, and you no longer have racists fueling each other.

Isn't that basically how it went?

Can we get more women on board with this? So many women are so afraid of being called a feminist that they avoid this stuff like the plague. If there were more women involved, other than just our small group, it would be harder for them to marginalize us.

being daddy's girls like the plague.

that the sexist words got added to the rules not because the admins cared, but because they were tired of the alerts and complaints, and it just got easier to tell people to avoid the words than to deal with the uppity DU brigade.

That's fine by me. That's part of step 6. :)

Nothing wrong with that!

we don't really CARE what they "think" it's their BEHAVIOR, including the language they use to others, that concerns us. They remain perfectly free to think whatever the hell they please.

"Some are so threatened or annoyed by us that they called us the DU Brigade, and said we were a disgrace to DU, feminists, and progressives! How do you take something like seriously, or should we even bother?"

:smoke: :rofl: DUH Brigade.

We can call them on their shite but there is no reasoning with them. They need to come to it on their own. Like cats, it has to be their idea. Like dogs, they have limited attention spans.

"So, in the spirit of trying to find solutions, how do we address this? What can we do to make the climate here a little more agreeable?"

Transcend.

"Are the folks who seem to be agitating this stuff truly progressives?"

That's the question. And the answer.

Did you notice when I used an analogy to racism with one of the men who made themselves comfortable in this forum told me it was "unfair" for me to use that, but never answered my question to him about it? I thought it was freakin' hilarious: "Hey, I have no answer for that, therefore, that's UNFAIR!"

I find that so very odd. I get the same comment when I try to compare the fight for rights in my work with the gay community. The fight for rights is the fight for rights. We are talking about human rights and we are human right?

It was so obvious how frustrated he was, he was almost sputtering. "It's not FAIR for you to to use that analogy." And that was his best argument. Poor guy (not).

And yes, of course it's about human rights and yeah, last time I checked I too was human, as are you. :shrug:

I've mostly been on hiatus this past week so have missed a good bunch of the fun :eyes: but have seen enough to get the "big picture". :eyes: again.

Your second point is one we really need to address - how do we get the "guys" who do get it more involved, more willing to take a stand? I certainly have no immediate answers but it was largely the reason, I think, that the consensus was to include them in the group rules. I absolutely understand Eloriel's point about how men change the dynamics just by being present in a group and we have certainly had our share of "disruptors" as a result of that "rule" but I also see the value (indeed and unfortunately, the need) to have them involved in the solution. Hey, men are in power and we simply can't change the power without changing those who are in power. That's just the way I see it.

However, your question is, how do we get them to stand up for women's rights when so many others are so bloody terrified of losing that power that they are willing to shred anyone who disagrees with them - even and especially other men. Well, how willing are we to enter the fray for rights that don't specifically affect us? To some degree, I think we, as women, probably are much more likely to do so but I think it's because we're so much better attuned to seeing the need for such. However, I know for myself, there are times I'm not even willing to enter the firestorm for our own rights and I can often, on the boards anyway, think "I just can't do this right now".

There are also some times when I'm conflicted about the value of such a fight so I can understand why some guys don't want to "get involved". That doesn't mean I think ducking the fight on my part or theirs is "right", it just means I can kind of understand it occasionally.

Your final question/point is also very poignant. This phrase "I'm perceiving slights where none were intended" really struck a chord with me. I think we are seeing a "backlash" on DU largely due to the formation of this group to be honest. We have become more vocal and feel more supported and it would seem perhaps to some, we have become more "powerful". That's going to frighten a lot of people here. So when the SCOTUS nom came out, it was an opportune time to put us "back in our place" by telling us not to worry, to sacrifice our "interests" for the good of the party ("get back in line little girl and let the "men" handle this one").

Anyway, back to your point, yes, I think I'm taking some things too personally. I am not suggesting you are or anyone else is, but I know my own heart and I try to be self-aware and one of the things I've been working through since about two weeks ago when another fray occurred right here in this group is how my personal interest is coloring my perceptions. I know the break I took did me some good both in what I didn't have to witness and in how I was able to take a step back.

That said, I really doubt you are "perceiving slights where none were intended". I think you're perceiving slights where some are absolutely unquestionably intended. I'm just not sure arguing with people who would behave so miserably is going to accomplish much.

I can see where people are just too weary to get into discussions, especially when it's the same old stuff, over and over. I back off of things frequently, myself. I just don't always have the energy or the stomach for a fight.

I think I will make a personal effort to publicly thank every male that makes a supportive post. Maybe send more PM's as well. Positive reinforcement is known to work, after all! :)

I will join you in that effort.

as always...

Just a few quick thoughts:

As Bunny pointed out, there are many men on DU who "get it." And I do think men have more impact on sexist male posters when we call them on their crap, just by virtue of our gender. I certainly intend to continue doing so. I really like lwfern's version of how openly racist language is no longer accepted - it took a lot of work by a lot of people over a long period of time. It is a shame that we still have so much work to do confronting sexism on DU, but it is a necessary fight. I can understand people needing a break from it - we ourselves need to be whole before we can take on other people. But true social change is difficult and maddeningly slow. I'm heartened that Bunny has expressed her belief that DU has come a long way regarding these issues, and members of this group and others are the primary reason for that. The struggle, however, continues.

The issue of perceiving slights where perhaps none were intended really resonates with me as a man of color. I learned long ago that one of the ways racism wounds minorities is this heightened sensitivity. We know there are times people are being racist due to malice, times when people are being racist due to ignorance and stereotypes, and times when people are just being rude or assholes and it has nothing to do with my skin color. It is extraordinarily difficult to tell in a given circumstance which is which, so we must live with these lingering suspicions on a regular basis. The analogy with what women have to go through is clear to me.

Your second paragraph is very enlightening to me. Sometimes people really are just assholes, and I don't need to feel offended, but how can I ever shake the suspicion?

That "ambiguity" also lets those who are being truly malicious off the hook with the eternal "you're just being sensitive" put-down. It makes us doubt ourselves which, in turn, keeps us from speaking out and keeps us "down". And the vicious circle continues...

But what I really want to know is what'd you do to your name? :)

for freepers to uncover my personal info. The sig line will go in a couple of weeks.

Back on topic - I get really sick of the "you're just being sensitive" dynamic. As you point out, what is really maddening about it is that sometimes you ARE "just being sensitive," but this is because of all the crap you DO have to put up with. So it's just blaming the victim.

just that I didn't think they needed to be HERE, in this GROUP, especially since there are all kinds of other places where they can be including the Women's Issues Forum, GD, GDP, Lounge, on and on.

Well, how willing are we to enter the fray for rights that don't specifically affect us? To some degree, I think we, as women, probably are much more likely to do so but I think it's because we're so much better attuned to seeing the need for such. However, I know for myself, there are times I'm not even willing to enter the firestorm for our own rights and I can often, on the boards anyway, think "I just can't do this right now".

I almost always wade into issues about racism; and often enough about homophobia, and I try to address classism. One of my alerts yesterday included a complaint about xenophobia. I'm not as good on issues of differently abled or even poverty (which is related, IMO, to classism) and to a large extent, just addressing the damn sexism here can keep one busy enough. I consider racism and homophobia too intimately bound up as part and parcel of the dynamics of sexism to ignore, most of the time. I have been known to stay out of abortion threads, because they make me so mad (and really, just how much adrenalin does a person NEED in any given day? :grr: ).


As for taking things too personally, I rather like this quote:

Women are repeatedly accused of taking things personally. I cannot see any other honest way of taking them. -- Marya Mannes

One of the problems rife in this culture is that we DON'T take things subjectively, that we glorify "reason" and "rationality" at the expense of the personal. We thus divorce ourselves from an incredibly important and powerful font of wisdom, our inner selves, our hearts, our consciences, our intuition.

I had a huge, epiphanous "click" during the hearings just before silicone breast implants were taken off the market (for a few years), back in the 1990s. Dozens of women testified and hundreds of women had the most horrifying personal stories about what happened to them, AND YET the Dow scientists would whine, "but there's no scientific evidence...." The REAL stories and wrenching experiences of REAL women whose lives were shattered mattered not one whit -- we elevated the (highly manipulated and/or non-existent) "science" over their testimony, their truth-telling. Like I said, something snapped for me with that.

I'm not anti-science, but I AM a critic of its centrality in and deification by this culture, because the same factors which contribute to that imbalance are part and parcel of the kinds of factors that also combine to relegate women as "less than." Since we are the "emotional (not rational = irrational)" gender, the subjective gender, that makes us in a science-deifying world, all the more "less than" and inferior, or less than and inferior for yet another reason.

Put another way, I do believe science definitely has a place in our world. MY problem with science is that it doesn't KNOW its place.

(Not quite sure how I got off onto my science rant, but I obviously did.)

That's one of my favorite subjects. And one of my favorite books is The Gendered Atom: Reflections on the Sexual Psychology of Science by Theodore Roszak, who has written quite a few good books on culture.

"Male scientists," Roszak observes, "have always been more male than scientist."

"Scientists have done such a thorough job of portraying themselves as the guardians of rationality that many of them may believe they -- uniquely -- have no psychology at all. Is this not what we have been taught to honor as the scientific method -- a way of seeing the world that is wholly unblemished by subjective taint? Ideally, the scientific mind should be a purely rational instrument, solidly logical to the core. Only theology purports to be as capable of speaking with divine authority, free of personal feeling and historical context. In real life, nothing remotely like that kind of detachment is humanly possible."

Book Description on Amazon:

Beneath the scientist's purportedly rational, objective surface, Theodore Roszak identifies a maelstrom of sexual prejudices and gender stereotypes, and shows that even physics, the "hardest" of the sciences, is as profoundly shaped by unconscious and irrational drives as any human pursuit. Roszak argues that, in its masculine drive to control and exploit, mainstream science has ultimately corrupted our relationship to nature. Even the concept of the atom, long pictured as the very foundation of physical reality, is tainted with gender bias.

Deftly weaving insights from diverse sources ranging from Mary Shelley's Frankenstein to the field of feminist psychology, The Gendered Atom looks forward to a gender-free science that finally respects nature and promises a healthier, more fully realized form of knowledge.

One of my favorite quotes from the book:

...patriarchy has succeeded in disguising itself as objective truth. "By masculinist epistemology," observes Ellyn Kaschak, "I mean systems of knowledge that take the masculine perspective unself-consciously, as if it were truly universal and objective," Or as she puts it more succinctly, "masculinity is the only point of view that does not know it is one."

One of the insights in the book about scientists who try so hard to be "objective" and "unemotional" -- "It is a principal of modern psychology that the feelings most apt to influence behavior are those that we try hardest to suppress....honesty -- a clear declaration of one's tastes, preferences, vested interests, and emotional involvement -- may be more important than objectivity, if by objectivity one means affecting a blank and neutral state. In that latter sense objectivity may be a pretense that hides profound distortions."

"If feminist psychology is correct, the very conception of scientific 'objectivity' as a disciplined withdrawal of sympathy by the knower from the known, is male separation anxiety writ large. Written, in fact, upon the entire universe."

Then there's Evelyn Fox Keller, who wrote Reflections on Gender and Science and Feeling for the Organism (biography of Nobel Prizewinner Barbara McClintock).

The Politics of Women's Biology by Ruth Hubbard is also very good, and especially relevant right now. Lifting the Veil: The Feminine Face of Science by Linda Jean Shepherd, Ph.D, another impressive book.

THanks. I LOVE this (you knew I would):


"Male scientists," Roszak observes, "have always been more male than scientist."

Here's another one of MY favorite quotes about science:

(Scientists) do not seem to realize the extent to which their mental conditioning limits their methods of investigation; the answers they find -- and have found -- may be "true" in terms of and within the limits of the point of view they adapt, but they are certainly not "true" explanations of total reality because the scientific method is built upon the systematic exclusion of all that the method cannot cope with. -- Alexander Ruperti in Cycles of Becoming

Ruperti is an astrologer. I too have studied astrology and a lot of OTHER things the scientific method simply "cannot cope with."

And one of my favorite books is The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra. It discusses the implications of the New Physics (Quantum Physics) and the incredible fact that what quantum physicists have found may indeed track perfectly with what the ancient Chinese (and actually other cultures') mystics had discovered in other ways: ch'i (or qi or ki). It is to me an extremely energizing and triumphant book because as a teenager I read a slim little book called The Universe and Dr. Einstin and as someone who was already interested in and studying (reading about) the more mystical things of this world, I closed the book and said to myself: SOMEday, science and religion will merge. I said that not realizing that once upon a time they WERE merged, or that really I meant mysticism (metaphysics) rather than religion, probably, since it seems the job of most religions is to take the mysticism OUT of the mix and leave an empty shell, OR (most importantly) that it would start to happen in my lifetime.

And I'll share another secret: the OTHER thing men are afraid of (aside from our sexuality and ability to give life) is women's spiritual power, which is immense. That's why The Burning Times, and it's also why women will NEVER officially be allowed to be priests within the Catholic Church (no way they can risk anyone remembering let alone using the word "priestess" -- nosirreeeeeee).

Until all women object to being objectified, especially all "progressive" women... we will always be called whiners and bullies. I think I need a break from here for a while. x(

First, just because someone says in their profile that they're a woman doesn't mean they actually are.

And second, some women have had their brains washed and can't do a thing with 'em. Just because they don't understand what's at stake doesn't mean we shouldn't keep fighting for them anyway.

I scratch my head sometimes when I see what they write.

that being a feminist is nothing to fear.

I think one of the biggest things that separates women from other oppressed groups is that we don't stick together. Whereas most black people, for instance, will band together when another black person is being attacked (think of the racial divide in opinions on the O.J. trial) women don't stick up for each other, and in fact often participate in keeping each other down. After all, following the mass rapes in New York City and at a Mardi Gras in Seattle, women didn't come out in force to decry those events. Of course, other groups infight as well, but not nearly to the extent that women do. And, quite frankly, I think the women who do express anti-woman attitudes usually do it primarily to curry favor with men, although they themselves often don't realize this. We've all observed how the entire dynamic of an all-female group changes as soon as one male enters the conversation. I also remember in a video I saw in a class I took on sexuality, a transgender man who'd recently transitioned was talking about how he'd never noticed how much women catered to men, but after he became a man, women went out of their way to make him comfortable, to be nice to him, etc. I think we see a lot of this in the Lounge -- get the women who defend men in a setting where no men are present, and they'd sing a whole different tune. I just wish we could change this somehow, but women are still so stuck on thinking that the epitome of existence is to have men's approval, whether in friendships or romantic relationships, even if it means acting against their own best interests (although you could argue that in the short term, it is in their best interests to cater to men, since they still have most of the power in society). :(

I think the women who do express anti-woman attitudes usually do it primarily to curry favor with men,

Please remember that this is the way women have been socialized, acculturated, in this culture and this culture isn't all THAT changed yet. Please remember that the REASON we have been acculturated like that has to do with our very survival.

I think for younger women, that's not so clear. But having grown up in the 50s and then liberating 60s, those memories are still vivid enough.

Even during the 50s and early 60s, women had NO career options other than secretary, nurse, flight attendant, teacher, domestic worker and cook, and that's about it. Many if not most of those jobs ENDED as soon as she got married or if not, definitely when she became pregnant. There weren't any if's and's or but's about it. That meant that economic survival for most women (unless they wanted to be nurses, teachers, etc., and never marry) depended largely on their attracting and marrying some "good catch" who could provide for them well, and their children.

That inevitably sets up a COMPETITION between women for the available men. Even now, if a married man is unfaithful, it's the "other woman" who is to blame and the man who violated his wedding vows gets off the hook to a large extent. I never saw it that way: SHE isn't responsible for HIS wedding vows or HIS fidelity to his wife, he is. (I'm not entirely sure she's off the hook -- there is something to be said for honoring others' vows -- but the blame and shame STILL go to her in disproportionate measure.)

I think these things are buried deep in our collective unconscious, frankly, and hell, maybe even our genes. I don't feel particularly competitive with other women, esp. re men, but I also know there are aspects of how women have been acculturated for centuries and millennia that are nevertheless a big part of my own make-up and behavior. Some of it's internalized oppression, but I'm not sure that accurately accounts for all of it.

You got it. Look at how women are taught to view money and autonomy. We still get fed these fantasy stories about how Prince Charming is going to ride in and rescue us financially via narratives (Pretty Woman? Maid in Manhattan?), all based upon the idea that if we are seen by some guy and impress him with our charm and grit or whatever all our worries will be taken away. So too many women blow their credit on appearance enhancing crap and don't attend to their retirement plans because otherwise it's like admitting defeat. It's so sad.

A friend of mine recently called me in tears. The reason was her toilet had malfunctioned. She very capably went to the home store and got all the parts she needed and fixed it herself. The reason she was crying was because she felt like a loser because she didn't have a man to do it for her. When I thought about it, it really floored me. Because I could honestly see myself reacting, at least initially, in the same manner. It doesn't matter how capable I am on my own. Society makes it clear that your ultimate worth is based upon whether or not men find you toilet-fixing worthy.

It's very powerful. And no matter how aware you are of the injustice, no matter how much you've had your consciousness raised, you may still buy into the idea that if you are the "fairest of them all", whether because you're deemed the physically prettiest, or because your posts on a blog are deemed the most man-friendly, you will somehow be delivered from the mundane struggles of life. You won't. And that's the message we need to get across.

This seems to be a turning point. After what has happened at DU over the past few days, we're ripe for change.

Below Bunny (?) says "I can't believe he is really that obtuse..." After recent threads, I can believe and even accept the obtuseness. It has been revealed as vulnerablity/fear and plain inability to express any better. Poking at it with Rules and good questions only irritates it further, trapped in the corner it belligerently painted itself into.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=229x3016

My question (hi CCbombs :yourock:) was about consistency of progressive values/issues with behavior (specific to being non-sexist as part of the package). Geez, those questions they don't want to answer REALLY piss them off.

That's really the best they can do. Maybe they can learn something when they see that we have quit focusing on their verbal farting and are progressing with threads that transcend their frat boy bluster.

What could be interesting is to look at that inconsistency of self-professed progressives who are defensive and hostile about their right to talk sexist shite on DU (this is old news to Second Wave feminists) NOT TO demand that it wake the fuck up, but to ask, what does that tell ya?

IMHO it presents an enormous blind spot in progressive efforts. So there is clearly a need for some of us to address HOW and WHY it is imperative that women's rights and human rights be integrated INTEGRATED into progressive efforts.

They need us to connect the dots. Maybe then they'll see the Big Picture.

edit: for praise

1. This is a brilliant thread-- all of you

2. I asked Admod for consensus on a recurring slur: got great communication, an ambiguous answer, but the rampant slur subsided. Admod rocks.

A friend of mine recently called me in tears. The reason was her toilet had malfunctioned. She very capably went to the home store and got all the parts she needed and fixed it herself. The reason she was crying was because she felt like a loser because she didn't have a man to do it for her. When I thought about it, it really floored me. Because I could honestly see myself reacting, at least initially, in the same manner. It doesn't matter how capable I am on my own. Society makes it clear that your ultimate worth is based upon whether or not men find you toilet-fixing worthy.

It's very powerful. And no matter how aware you are of the injustice, no matter how much you've had your consciousness raised, you may still buy into the idea that if you are the "fairest of them all", whether because you're deemed the physically prettiest, or because your posts on a blog are deemed the most man-friendly, you will somehow be delivered from the mundane struggles of life.


This got me thinking...ironically being born with a dick in this culture often,too often..really means you do not do your own laundry , or diaper the babies and wipe the poo off thier butts..,Nor are you are required to mop,vacuum clean bathtubs,cook dinner after your job and do the endless dishes you can wallow in filth because someone elsewill always have less tolerance of it and clean it up so YOU don't have to..You don't Get your ass slapped by rude people you do not want touching you..

And having a dick means you never get rude comments about your body on the street thatthreaten your sense of safety and you will never get blamed for being raped,

Being born with a dick,you do not have to wear a chest harness as soon as your chest shows that rubs your skin raw everyday.. You will never get talked to like a piece of meat or a slave or patronized like you have no sense, and you will not get humiliated for domination, You will never have your partner push you to have sex with you,against your better judgement to prove you love her,than have her roll over and leave you alone when they've had thier fun..Dicks mean you will never be led to assume you are hystreical if you dissagree with a woman, No woman will call you a nazi if you feel insulted,and No woman will call you a slut if you like sex or a prude if you don't want sex.. In this culture...Being born with a dick means you are not ever pushed into being a grown adults mommie ..and instead every female who is cultured into a submissive role by religion,parents, by desperation or shame will mommy YOU rather than be all alone.
Dick privelege means you ARE delivered from MANY mundane struggles of life..because the little woman does it all!!

Fancy that.

I wrote:

although you could argue that in the short term, it is in their best interests to cater to men.

I thought about adding a disclaimer to my post, but I figured nobody here would think that I'm so stupid that I hold this against women. Also, I'm a woman myself and I've sought men's approval to survive before. The proof is probably somewhere in DU's archives, in my pre-feminist days.

Sometimes I have a tendency to go into rant mode without regard to the original poster who stimulated the stream of consciousness rant in the first place. It's not so much that I missed your disclaimer OR that I thought YOU needed my little lecturett, as the mere fact that I was in rant mode. Don't take it personally, not even the "remember" part, which I'm sure SEEMED addressed to you specifically and a little patronizing to boot.

I'll join you with :headbang: I can't believe so many defended those ads.

I laughed at some of the posts from women who frequent this group and many of you are right that we are annoying folks because we're taking a stand together. Take a bow everyone. Well done!

Oh, who do you think the certain strata is?: :sarcasm:

This is from a poster who started a few threads on this:

"My problem is with the clear culture here of trying to eliminate anything that a certain strata of DUers collectively finds offensive.

There is no guranteed right to never be offended.:

bender over this, so I'm just ignoring his nonsense. I cannot believe he is really that obtuse, so I have to conclude it's deliberate. Another one for the list...

I know I say that a lot but that shit yesterday just reinforced that the atmosphere in there is really bad for us. But thankfully there are many posters there who don't seem to post anywhere else on the site so we don't have to deal with them in other forums.

By the way...congrats all on getting that ad pulled. I had the feeling Skinner, et al didn't know what was going on and would pull them once they were alerted on it.

Where I may be particularly offended by the OP but I am pissed at the kneejerk attacks on anyone who is.

The "Godfather got an X because of a tit" one is a good example of that. I usually just think "what an idiot" when I see a subject line like that and don't even bother opening it. But in that case, what did offend me and cause me to jump in the fray was the blatant hostility shown to a DUer who questioned the sexist tone of some of the respondents. She was then accused of all sorts of censorship and fascism. They pulled the usual projection and victim shtick. Not to mention the typical condescension and dismissiveness.

Maybe what you perceive as oversensitivity to minor slights is really a gut reaction to the climate of backlash that has arisen in the wake of the formation of this group and recent political developments. At least that's what it is for me. It's not so much what they're saying as what's obviously motivating it.