and it would take more than one voice to ban anyone with clear violations.

ok, a small chuckle, but hey, i try....

i am sure... it is my bad. it has been a tough weekend

snork.

Two now, I guess!

be the top host again. You were voted on, and yes you made an error in leaving, but we can forgive that. You felt really dragged down, and can I understand that!

I think we should ask skinner to re-instate you as the top host of this forum.

I just think that if we are going to have a host, it should be someone that was voted in.

Neoma, please do not take any offense to this. I have nothing personally against you or any of the hosts in the forum or any member of the feminist group, but, on principle, I think we should have a top host that was voted by the majority of members of this group.

The reason for my feelings on this, is that if you make a decision someone does not agree with, it could cause issues, with people saying you were not voted in.

I'm not averse to holding a new election for top host either, if neoma wants to be top host and gets voted in. That would be fine with me.

to the members who participate here on a regular basis.

There's really no need to put any more demands on Skinner or the other admins. Once people decide who they'd like to have as host and co-hosts, we can appoint those people in order and the rest retire if needed.

i would have less reason and desire to come here to read posts.

I think iverglas and redqueen and seabeyond should be hosts.

All three are fair members who are on DU a lot.

to redqueen as top host.

And if someone wants to step up & take my place as co-host, I would be fine with that. I have so little time. I miss most of what goes on here.

We will have redqueen with laconicsax, seabeyond and iverglas left. (I recommend that order, personally.)

For a fifth, a nice odd number, I'd propose Remember Me, whom I know to be whole-heartedly committed to women and feminism.

laconicsax is swell, but, well, you know.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-finally-put-in-charge-of-struggling-feminist-m,2338/

When I was 17, I went back "home" for a few weeks in the summer, and attended the first ever "women's liberation" meeting in my home town. It was a motley crew of a couple of dozen people. My now old friend, then a Maoist and now an Anglican priest, who was 3 or 4 years older and remembered me from a Vietnam demo two years earlier when my mother had hauled me off the sidewalk and home. A woman even older than I am now, listening to Tom Jones on her transistor radio and telling us she was going to be Canada's first woman prime minister. And my high school French teacher's husband, a family court psychologist, who got elected "chairman" of the meeting.

The hosts in order after redqueen should be women, so I guess that would make the order seabeyond, iverglas, laconicsax and ? as a fifth, in my suggestion.

It looks like the main qualification for being host is to have a lower-case username.

and be re-added to the list if there is essentially unanimous agreement.

For info:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1139740#post92

and can then make appointments or re-appointments for co-host. Or run another poll on who we would want as co-hosts and the order.

I'm cool with that idea too.

edit for sp

Neoma, are you considering this?

but Neoma is still "host" at this point and could simply remain there and proceed with a purge / appoint whomever she liked. I don't expect that any of the other co-hosts would do anything as they moved up the list, other than resign and proceed as you suggest. And I see no need for any changes to the existing co-hosts, other than Neoma leaving, possible along with one person whose circumstances have changed, leaving less time for the task.

Good faith requires that Neoma resign, and do it first.

That person is redqueen.

ETA or we should have another election for top host. it should be a group decision who is top host.

I am simply saying that no other co-hosts should resign unless and until Neoma does, and then the others should, and redqueen should reappoint them.

All hosts except Redqueen should resign, as she was voted in as top host.

I particularly am not looking forward to an issue in the feminist group where this is done publicly.

It's not a good thing to see. I've seen it in other groups. I don't wish it on anyone.

Hopefully, the right decision is made by all the hosts now and this can head that type of spectacle off. It is preferable to me and I think better for the group as a whole.

Last edited Mon Feb 13, 2012, 03:29 PM - Edit history (1)

I disagree that she should resign.


I think that the members of this group need to have a new discussion of who they want to serve as the host and co-hosts.

As for the hosts, I'm fine with reconfiguring the current lineup if there is a consensus and adding an additional female LGBT feminist to the group.

That seems like a reasonable baseline from which to start.

edit: Or racist or classist comments, but thankfully THAT doesn't appear to be an ongoing issue.

NONE of it appears to be an ongoing issue.

The crew has got rid of most of whom they wanted to get rid of, and there are no suggestions of anyone harbouring any bigotries or hatreds to be appointed as, or continue as, host/co-host.

How about we just agree not to invent issues where none exist?

The only people who were "got rid of" were sock puppets and zombies, so I suppose you mean the MIRT team and the admins?

edit: Again, is documented bigotry on DU a reasonable bar to service as a host? If it hasn't happened, then why the resistance to establishing that as a criteria for evaluating candidates?

are you implying that there is documented bigotry in issue here?

There was a poster or posters in this forum who were PPRed for reasons some MIRT member or members believed to be valid. That's that. It's over and done with.

No such poster or posters was ever a host/co-host or proposed as host/co-host of this forum, to my knowledge. No such poster or poster is being proposed as host/co-host at present. No changes to the pre-existing host/co-host roster is being proposed, other than the reduction in numbers resulting from the proposed resignation of one or possibly two, and one or two possible replacements.

If you see someone being proposed for host or co-host to whom you object for any reason, feel free to voice those objections, I'd say.

My own request would be that anyone who voices such objections do so completely honestly and straightforwardly and state, rather than insinuate, the basis of their objections.

I would also expect anyone seeking a voice in this process to be someone who has been involved in this group for reasons other than attempting to influence the group's purposes and host selection.

Several people who are currently/proposed hosts have either made or defended appalling homophobic and transphobic remarks. This can be verified using the search function, by checking out the transparency pages on members whose pages are visible, or just by poking around in this forum, Hosts and Help and Meta.

I don't think we can really have a substantive discussion about issues until the ground rules for doing so in a fair and decent way are established with a reasonable degree of consensus. I'd be delighted to discuss issues of mutual interest once a safe space for all feminists is established.

having a person who hosts this place who is so tolerant of transphobia, makes this place hostile to LGBT people.

of course i dont expect the majority of this forum to take this issue seriously, still i do want to make it clear that i feel hosts of this forum should not be bigoted or defend bigotry.

to the point of persisting in this FALSE representation simply removes yourself from the conversation.

If you ever come up with something of mine you would like to QUOTE to back up your allegations, well, you have had every opportunity to do that, and I think it's just too late now for you to have any credibility.

I am also keeping in mind that YOU do not speak for ALL LBGT people/lesbians. Maybe you could do the same.

I think it is simply time you stopped speaking ill of the hosts, co-hosts and members of this protected group. There are lots of other places you can go to pursue this effort.

that there was a problem with trans-phobic / homophobic remarks that were posted in this group tells me that you condone the behavior. You stood up for this bigotry 3 times and you are still doing it by denying that it ever happened, even after the guilty parties were shown the door by the admins for those remarks.

tells me that you are not here for a reason consistent with the group's statement of purpose.

Substantiate your allegations or retract them, please.

Please provide an example where iverglas "stood up for bigotry".

Please retract the allegation you have made against me if you are not prepared to substantiate it.

An unsubstantiated allegation like the one you have made is not appropriate at DU, let alone in this forum.

where you defended sera bellum and feldspar and the transphobic comments they made. its really disingenuous to claim that this didn't happen unless i provide quotes or links.

Alrighty then.

the same comments that made earl g & the MIR team ban them for transphobia?

that she's attempting to find out exactly what the substance of the allegation is.

IMO it is disingenuous to claim that that is what happened.

Mann Coulter is transphobic and to say it's an imaginary slight is wrong on it's face.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11392520
and this is just one example.

And I agree that it is.

So on that one, point taken.

Not whether she defended a DUer who has since been PPR'd.

So far, I've seen her state that one transphobic insult was not a transphobic insult, and that's it. To me, that says it needs to be discussed, not that she needs to be banned from this group.

But in the spirit of hosting with the best of intentions, I would leave that decision up to a consensus of the host and co-hosts. That is how we decided in advance to host this group.

comment and when she was PPR'd. Was she ever blocked from the group? And, if she hadn't been PPR'd would she have been blocked?

Which instance are you referring to?

Or are we talking about Feldspar? (Since this is a sock puppet account, from what I'm reading.)

There have been a few situations in this forum, so specificity would help when discussing them.

to this last one. When she posted this:

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/11392087

I didn't pick up on any transphobic statements in that OP. I don't think most other people did either.

Was it just her use of the term FAAB? I can see that the usage was odd, but that didn't in and of itself stand out as a transphobic statement to me.

I think one thing people are avoiding is the issue that some women do have a problem with non-FAAB people in the feminist movement. I can't say I completely understand why... there was one long post in H&M explaining one user's issues with it, but I've forgotten the details already.

The point is, though, that no, based on that OP, I would not have automatically seen a reason to block her again. That does not mean I defend transphobia... just that I was not, on the basis of that post, understanding that her comments were transphobic.

Part of the problem, however, is that no one ever in the group tried to make it clear that women are welcome here whether they are FAAB or not. How do you think that someone reading that post who is transgender would feel? Would they feel welcome in this group? Should they? As a lesbian, I don't feel welcome in this group. I mean, with talk of quotas and questioning our loyalty to feminism.

I think that was my first response to that OP, as a matter of fact.

And I have been consistent in this opinion, as I have said the same in response to the various PMs I've received about the issue as well.


There was not 'talk of quotas' (as far as I have seen)... ONE person said that. One very angry person who was banned unfairly. I don't think anyone else has a problem with it, and if so they can say so in the thread to decide the new host and co-hosts.


As far as the questioning of loyalty, I think we all know where that started (the discussion between iverglas and Lioness after the beauty pageant dust up), and unless and until some issue which *does* conflate the interests of women with the interests of LGBT individuals, I would hope that we could all leave it in the past.

or if it was, I haven't seen "evidence" of it.

I'm especially sensitive to that issue since I am continuously accused of being a sock puppet of iverglas. Hell, we're not even compatriots!

and was banned for transphobia not for being a sock. But I can see why people might think she was a sock as both had other names on DU.

sera was ittakesavillage and feldspar was evolve_. feldspar made the vampire comment. sera did not make one of those comments that i know of.

does that mean i am defending anyone? no. it means this is the information i have. i should be able to say it out loud, that it is all the info i have, without accustaion (not by you) that i am a transphobia.

I'm thinking they were all the same but the way I found that Evolve was the same as ITAVP and Sera Bellum was to google mansplain.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11392087#post123

I just assume they've got their ish together and proceed accordingly.

see people attacking eachother.

But that is what trolls do.

Thanks.

but i would argue that seabeyond is new to feminist theory and therefore maybe is not as used to arguments that have already been had by people who have been in organized feminist movements for years. i would think her desire to discuss whether transwomen are really real women, comes more from ignorance than intent.

whereas iverglas defense of feldspar and sara bellum and the use of the word mann coulter, defending feldspar's comment about how transwomen are to blame for misogyny etc were extremely transphobic and bigoted.

I will say again that most people missed the transphobia of that comment, and that it would have been far more constructive to point it out and discuss it in addition to the alert and ban... than to wait till three hours into a flamefest which arose specifically because of the impression that being hostile to one group = immediate ban, and being hostile to women = that's ok, we understand.

I don't think my observation of the situation is unique or difficult to understand.

and googling to get definitions. at that point, we started UNDERSTANDING what the position was, yet there was a refusal for anyone to take into account is was not flat out, pure bigotry, as accusations continued to be hurtled. and comments like me wanting to argue if transwomen are real women are the heart of the issue. since i have never even considered this, i know there was no comment by me, anywhere, to suggest that i felt there was a discussion if transwomen are real women.

it cannot be a one way street. it cannot be ONLY one side listening. and there cannot be someone putting words in anothers mouth.

nothing will go smoothly or be resolved if we make things up, for the sake of argument.

where people are being deliberately blind to suit their convenience


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1139&pid=1973

“A decision has evidently been made -- and if you followed the history, you will think, as I do, that it was based on the profit motive as well, i.e. taking the path of least resistance and caving -- that what the LGBT group here wants, the LGBT group gets. That group was the squeaky wheel. It has been granted immunities and impunities and privileges and protections that women/feminists can only dream of, having been denied even the most basic protections from harassment and hatred at this website. “


http://www.democraticunderground.com/11392520

“Where in the FUCK are the people nattering on and on and on about how "call a spade a spade" and "Mann Coulter" and "pearl-clutching" and god knows what other imaginary insults to some disadvantaged group or another are what they are not, when women are being called bitches and cunts at this website? “

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1240&pid=42030

this thread is full of it. Honestly, I cant even understand how someone who participated and read this thread can honestly pretend that iverglas was not defending transphobic trolls.

is the "Mann Coulter" comment.

The rest alludes to her perception that rules are enforced when the target is attacked with LGBT slurs (or not even personally attacked), yet anti-woman attacks or comments are left to stand. I do see some sweeping statements in that post about LGBT issues in the rant about a profit motive, but I am missing the defense of transphobia.

As for your allegation that people are ignoring things out of convenience, I am not doing that, and I don't think anyone else is, either.

Last edited Mon Feb 13, 2012, 03:44 PM - Edit history (1)

I think a distinction was being made, surrounding what is acceptable on DU as bigoted terms and what is up for discussion.

But I could be wrong, the statement is left up for interpretation, but I think asking, would be beneficial.

Iverglas, do you think that the term mann coulter and pearl clutching is not bigoted to the LGBT community?

I actually think it's bigoted to all women and the men in the LGBT community.

how would I be viewed?

For example, if I defended someone recently banned because I thought he was helping the cause? And I was told, nope, he's actually saying some pretty bad stuff there. Let's say I then went into another thread in another part of this board and said the same thing? I may not say the words myself but my defense of this person would speak volumes... whether that was the intention or not. Heck, even you eventually came around and saw that defending SB was defending transphobic speech, unless I read your posts wrong in that thread.

Whether we like it or not, it's about perceptions. And the perception on this one isn't great.

but we can't make decisions about banning people from the group based on perceptions. That has to be a decision that comes from a discussion among the host and co-hosts.

If you sincerely thought that someone who I considered a disruptor was acting in good faith, I would assume you were defending that disruptor, not agreeing with what they said... not unless you explicitly said so.

And no, I never would conflate defending a DUer with defending the things they say.

Still, I stand by what I'm saying. If someone defends someone else who made bigoted comments continuously, it would be easy to perceive how that person agrees with those thoughts. I've not seen any outright bigoted comments from the individual but defending someone who makes them, it skirts a line.

It's kinda like I was saying in that thread in H&M about anti-semitism, if someone of a minority group decries that something is bigoted, more likely than not it is (or can be perceived that way).

we did not respond to her on the thread. and we were not defending her comment.

so... how does that mesh with your statement.

may be more profound, less, or the same for disparate groups or people belonging to more than one minority group.

Here is how I see it. I think the root cause of sexism and misogyny is what we all have in common. I truly believe that is the case.

And I think all groups should be able to discuss, like adults, those issues we have in common in the root cause and learn from eachother how each of those root causes affects the particular groups we also fall into and do not fall into.

I have seen you basically say, that you couldn't trust straight feminists and that your loyalties would lie with another group over straight feminists in general. I think I can understand that. But, also, I do think it sort of cuts off the conversation and makes it hostile. Again, I do not believe we are natural enemies, I believe we are natural allies.

And with that in mind, we should all be helpful and supportive of eachother working through the issues.

I understand the issues surrounding the second wave and how lesbians felt removed from the equation. I do know that it happened. It also happened to women suffragettes when black men received the right to vote and women did not. It was not right. However, I don't think we can extrapolate those long ago, real issues, into today and broad brush the feminist movement or civil rights movement. I also recognize that there are gender issues in the LGBT community as well. I only point this out, because I wouldn't expect you to look upon the gay males in the community as enemies or untrustworthy, and hope to point out that it should be the same with straight feminists.

We should all listen, learn, discuss and understand all of these issues and really shouldn't separate ourselves.

I understand this is not in direct response to your comment to iverglas, but I wanted to take the opportunity to try and discuss this with you here. And I hope my post is taken as it is meant, to bring forth a conversation, and a willingness to learn and understand, and most importantly to listen to others points of view.

by your logic only white straight women can be hosts in the feminist forum on du. which is probably both accurate and sad.

if "something else oppresses you more" then you should go join that group and deal with the more serious oppression you face, don't you think?

if you aren't a feminist first and foremost, then this isn't the group for you. simple.

you don't like it, i could care less.

else oppresses you more.

i am not making ANY rules. i am following your own words to their logical conclusion. you don't like it, i could not care less.

and obviously you care very much what i've said, because you keep posting to me. and remember how you said you were glad that you annoyed me? i think you DO care and to say that you don't is a lie.

and BTW, they saying is "I could NOT care less." LOL

your entire argument is really dishonest. you started arguing with me first, i didn't start this. you want me to leave because you think i can't have an identity stronger than feminist and i refuse to let you define feminism on du.

the four or five of you don't own the word feminism. you can't act as though you do, but you don't.

about me. and why you feel you do not have to apologize or correct yourself or back it up

then make a false accusation on this thread.

and i am not going to go thru all my pms to try to find out the context in conversation.

but the thing about it is lioness, i pretty well know what i think, so i was pretty damn sure you had nothing that said i want to argue transwomen are not real women

i stated my opinion in reply to one of your posts...

you went off from there....

i did say you have to leave, i did not say i want you to leave. i made a suggestion to you based on your own comments.

you do not own the word feminism either.

how is my "argument" dishonest? i'm not allowed to state my opinions?

and don't forget you did post how you are happy to annoy me. what civil discourse! what a mature, reasoned attitude.

please dont pretend that any of your responses to me have been mature.

sorry if you do.

iverglas was rightly shown the door. Nearly all of the recent flamefests in this forum have had iverglas front and center. It's iverglas who is racking up the most hidden posts in threads related to the feminist forum.

I would miss the context and content that she brings to feminist discussions but I really don't see that she is making any effort to act with civility even after her temporary block from the group. I think you should reconsider your decision, redqueen.


As for the main hosting issue, did Neoma ask to be primary host? IIRC the system is designed to bump up the first co-host automatically. After reviewing the posting over the weekend I think she made a tough, but correct choice to nip the problem in the bud by blocking an argumentative co-host who kept fueling the flames. I think Neoma deserve a chance to be primary host for a bit longer before calling for a selection again.

"A safe community where all those interested in discussing and trying to resolve the problems that are inherent to women in society can come and work together, without having to defend the basic premise that issues do exist which specifically affect and limit women, their rights and their potential."

There is nothing about heated arguments or hidden posts in that SOP. If we wish to make such things a condition of participating in this group, we need to outline that and make it clear.

As it is, the unilateral decision to block a member of this group was indefensible IMO. This is why we have co-hosts, so that these things can be discussed so that any actions taken are fair to all involved.

No, Neoma didn't ask to be primary host, which is why I mentioned that it was done by virtue of the functionality of the software. This is just one more reason why the unilateral decision to block a member of this forum could be viewed as particularly unfair, particularly in light of recent events/personal attacks.

debates. Ask whether without that member's contribution,would the discussion have been more civil?
It's one thing to be part of heated discussions. We are both have been participants in heated debates. The difference as I see it is we don't participate and fuel MOST heated discussions in this group.

As for the SoP, I could point to many OT posts by that same member in the past week alone. That's over and above the posts hidden for not meeting community standards. I'm pretty sure that if I had acted that way you would have shown me the door. That's one of the reasons that I trusted you as primary host -- to be objective and able to make the hard decision to block ANY member based on such behaviors.

As for a host acting unilaterally, the host and co-hosts should work that out among yourselves. I don't know if the hosts ever set up ground rules on how to host the group. I suspect not, since the hosting hasn't been in place that long. Not all groups expect hosts and co-hosts to reach consensus on all actions. If there isn't an establish plan among the host, it's indefensible to question the primary host's decision when she was acting in good faith.

You do not need to answer this, but I'm curious: did you discuss your unblocking with all the other co-hosts and Neoma and come to a consensus, or did you act unilaterally?

keep my mouth shut on a totally bogus made up accusation, or speak out.

what are my choices, per your perspective?

lioness just isn't getting enough attention.

to claim that i am only arguing to get attention. how quaint.

you just made it up. out of the blue. why?

"this is such bullshit. and they have effectively stated that if you do not treat a tranwoman as a woman and hold the belief they are absolute woman and not argue that the transwoman has grown up with male privilege, then you are a bigot. "

no, you cannot discuss it. i did not say that i believe that. i did not say that is my position. i cannot believe you have people giving you fuckin pms.... is that a pm?

now, show me where i say i question transwomen being real women, or the DISCUSSION of..... which as YOU guys were able to discuss OUTLOUD in your forum the position of SOME feminists that believe exactly what was in your post. you had a conversation. you talked about it out loud. and NO ONE said you were a bigot or that you were ARGUING that transwomen are not real women.

and you wonder, why there is lack of trust. wow

it seems as though someone is trying to put FUD in seabeyond as a poster.

We don't know where it came from, we don't know if it was true, but it's out there for the world to see.

That is just not a fair thing to do.

then they are the guilty party.

it is put out that i want to argue the merit of whether a transwoman is a real woman. how is a person allowed to say that out loud, as an accusation and the very women saying they want open communication does not address lioness? does not challenge that non truth?

and if no one challenges that, what happens to the communcation?

it cannot be one sided.

I have unblocked iverglas

As the only main host who was ever fairly nominated and agreed on, I am making this decision unilaterally, due to the fact that I was told the decision to block her was made unilaterally by the new host who was made so automatically as a function of the software.

a member of the forum unilaterally, with laconicsax and redqueens voice. the three of us discussed it and redqueen unbanned iverglas. other members of the forum weighed in. i am guessing redqueen took responsibility for her actions, hence her comment.

She stated perfectly clearly

discourse every step of the way. refusal to converse and insistence on making your demands.

again... this appears that it is supposed to be only a one way street and that you can behave however you like without recourse.

Now you're trying to thread the needle between the two, but that requires twisting the meaning of the words involved beyond recognition. Had you initially told the story I'd think nothing of that, but I'm positive redqueen knows what "unilaterally" means, and that it doesn't mean that she held a cabinet meeting and then made an executive decision.

there is not. it has been mapped out to you. piece, by friggin piece. what you are doing, is being demanding and hostile and an unwillingness to reason.

RQ seems to have disappeared, but it's during the work day so I'm not terribly surprised. I'm willing to wait for clarification from her.

If people ask questions you don't like, just ignore them. The uglier the questions, the more this would apply.

Because here's the truth: the more you give them, the more they'll demand of you, the more fodder they have for even more questions.