rigorousintuition.ca

Nordic wrote:so is that misogyny thread locked yet?

"tarbaby" is right.

All other matters aside, I would be disturbed if this board were to lock a thread that's already hit 83 pages.

.

Well here is a call out to those drifting
on the space bar on the keyboard sea of life….
HOW IS THAT GOD DAMNED FUCKING VOTE
YOU ALL HAD TO MAKE (and HAD to berate
those of us way ahead of you!) WORKIN’ OUT?

He was so great, so good, such a fucking
Community Organiser (you all must never
have known any, any for real!)… He would
do so much good, the rest of us were RACISTS
and worse he was Jesus, he was Martin, he
was FDR, he was JFK, RFK, Ike… he was
everybody! His mother was this, his father
was that… He was manna from somewhere!!
(And he was – and is – nobody, that was my take.)

Gonna do it again in a couple of years?
I hope you all choke on it. And feel
rising vomit every time you look in a mirror.

Here is another thing, what you lot deserve
is to have street cons run on you every day.
Propositioned for and accepting a three card
monte challenge. Every step of the way in life.

Because you WILL fall for it.
marisacat – 24 April 2011

Anyway I purposely have not read the misogyny thread, but I have noticed the inevitable bullying vibe here, among the valuable info I treasure.

JackRiddler wrote:

Nordic wrote:so is that misogyny thread locked yet?

"tarbaby" is right.

All other matters aside, I would be disturbed if this board were to lock a thread that's already hit 83 pages.

.

ok, maybe it can be ri's very own version of a coal-seam fire.

brainpanhandler wrote:I suppose if no one ever tells you what a twit you are you'll never know, not that you will now either. twit. But I don't mean that in a bad way.

Gee, thanks. I guess we all need a twit or two in which to compare our exaggerated self images from time to time. I'll just take that as a compliment for the role I play.

I'll second others in pleading to Maddy and Canadian_Watcher: Please reconsider, please don't go.

Tokenism really sucks because if you're the lone representative of a group of people or a constellation of opinion in a group it's almost impossible to be heard. It's not enough for a group to claim to be inclusive when there is only one woman or person of color in it. Diversity requires having more than one so that a dissenting point of view, or alternative perspective is known to be understood by at least one other.

The misogyny thread contains much insight. I'm very happy C_W started it and worked so hard to keep it going along.

I'm not really up to speed here and still rather incompetent. My first reaction to the last half dozen pages of the Misogyny thread was more or less "Don't feed the trolls." But then a line had been crossed and didn't and don't know what to do about it. All I can say is that I value very much hearing the perspective of women here.

JackRiddler wrote:

Nordic wrote:so is that misogyny thread locked yet?

"tarbaby" is right.

All other matters aside, I would be disturbed if this board were to lock a thread that's already hit 83 pages.

.

yes. that would be a shame. especially considering how nice OP ED was trying to be.

[OP ED would hate to see less women hereabouts, btw, but y'all must be the deciders of ye're own fatez]

Canadian_watcher wrote:

jam.fuse wrote:best and only i know of female operated political blog

http://marisacat.wordpress.com/

what? there are bunnies and dogs on there. And Royals.

Try this one: http://firedoglake.com/ for starters

all right, all right.. I can get past the bunnies. But I guess it's amazing to me that that's the only "political" blog that is run by a female that could be brought to mind.

Still, there's an element that is tied up in the bunnies and puppies that says this: "When you open up your mouth to speak, could you be a little weak?" (Madonna)

RI is the good ol' boys club

I don't think it is.

no tits allowed (unless we're willing to suck it - or perhaps them! - up).

Tits are not only allowed, but encouraged. I think Jeff has made a concerted effort to attract women and create a space where they can feel free to speak their minds.

Clearly discussion of any sort that threatens the boys' points of view can't be had

I think that's clearly untrue.

and any attempts to engage in communication beyond what the boys want to hear is going to be met with failure (re: futile frustration); much less attempting to let them know any part of a woman's experience.

way too broad a brush stroke.

You can't teach men anything

It is a tricky and difficult task to get the other gender to truly understand what it is like to walk in your shoes, even when they want to, but again, way to broad a brush you're using here.

just like you can't change the world.

Would you put that brush down already.

The only way around it is to simply not engage with them, and pull your own little world together as best as you can, as individuals.

Yes. let's all retreat into our own little worlds. That'll fix things.

I'm outta here.

I can't respect that decision on these grounds, but that's your call.

Have fun, boys.

I'm not a boy and I'm not having fun, at least at the moment.

brainpanhandler wrote:

RI is the good ol' boys club

I don't think it is.

no tits allowed (unless we're willing to suck it - or perhaps them! - up).

Tits are not only allowed, but encouraged. I think Jeff has made a concerted effort to attract women and create a space where they can feel free to speak their minds.

Clearly discussion of any sort that threatens the boys' points of view can't be had

I think that's clearly untrue.

and any attempts to engage in communication beyond what the boys want to hear is going to be met with failure (re: futile frustration); much less attempting to let them know any part of a woman's experience.

way too broad a brush stroke.

You can't teach men anything

It is a tricky and difficult task to get the other gender to truly understand what it is like to walk in your shoes, even when they want to, but again, way to broad a brush you're using here.

just like you can't change the world.

Would you put that brush down already.

The only way around it is to simply not engage with them, and pull your own little world together as best as you can, as individuals.

Yes. let's all retreat into our own little worlds. That'll fix things.

I'm outta here.

I can't respect that decision on these grounds, but that's your call.

Have fun, boys.

I'm not a boy and I'm not having fun, at least at the moment.

can you tell me the purpose of this?
there may only be a small group of "boys" who fall into the category of disruptive sexist on this board, but the thing is Maddy is feeling frustrated that they are allowed to get away with their shenanigans and driving out females.

cw wrote:there may only be a small group of "boys" who fall into the category of disruptive sexist on this board, but the thing is Maddy is feeling frustrated that they are allowed to get away with their shenanigans and driving out females.

If she had said that minus the "driving out females" I would have had no objection. Women can choose to freely come and go, speak or not.

My purpose was to register my objections as I think I clearly did.

brainpanhandler wrote: If she had said that minus the "driving out females" I would have had no objection. Women can choose to freely come and go, speak or not.

quite so.. but we don't want to want to go. And the people here should ask themselves why we would choose not to stay. Don't you think?

I guess it's a little like Catholics who try and change the status quo in the Church. I wondered why they would bother.. why wouldn't they just leave the Church if they didn't like it? But then I realized that their fight was to make something that they loved even better. They didn't want to choose between belonging to something that they partly loved and leaving it altogether - they wanted a voice in making it the best place it could be.

Is that wrong?

You do not have to be driven away by an asshole or two or twenty. Even if all of us assholes ganged up you wouldn't need to driven away.

OP ED suggests ignoring them and continuing conversation with those who are capable of carrying one in a mostly civil manner, however much they might disagree. [Mr Morgan is a good example]

This would allow breathing space for actual growth and learning rather than bandwidth consumed by the inevitable friction-fires resultant from continuing to beat head against wall.

There isn't much any of the other "boys" could do for you about this.

At least nothing productive or otherwise differing from stereotypical male solutions to the annoying aggressions of other males. By which i mean, if you want, OP ED could get your thread locked and probably even get your bullies banned. OP ED has done this before, quite on purpose [barracude knows] but OP ED had been trying not to do this to a thread which has lasted so long and has actually produced quite a bit of interesting discussion if one is willing to wade through flames to find it.

OP ED does not wish to see thee wimmens chased away, but OP ED has also grown tired of engaging in toastiness. Try not giving them what they want (validation of their moronic notions of innocent entitlement) and they may well tire out and give up.

[its what mother always suggested, but OP ED rarely listened]

anyhow. these are thoughts.

[love is the law]

how do you not give a bunch of posters who follow you from thread to thread instigating unrest between you and others what they want? please tell me.
ignoring did not work, so another solution is in order.

This one was for you, OP ED.
I wouldn't mind an answer.

Canadian_watcher wrote:

brainpanhandler wrote: If she had said that minus the "driving out females" I would have had no objection. Women can choose to freely come and go, speak or not.

quite so.. but we don't want to want to go. And the people here should ask themselves why we would choose not to stay. Don't you think?

I guess it's a little like Catholics who try and change the status quo in the Church. I wondered why they would bother.. why wouldn't they just leave the Church if they didn't like it? But then I realized that their fight was to make something that they loved even better. They didn't want to choose between belonging to something that they partly loved and leaving it altogether - they wanted a voice in making it the best place it could be.

Is that wrong?

Of course not, but if one of the reasons women are choosing not to stay is because they believe RI is a "good ol' boys club" I think they are wrong and doing a disservice to themselves as well as disregarding the obvious attempts Jeff has made to make the board more women friendly. Maybe I'm blind to it. Can one of the women show me how RI can be fairly described as a "good ol' boys club"?

brainpanhandler wrote:

Canadian_watcher wrote:

brainpanhandler wrote: If she had said that minus the "driving out females" I would have had no objection. Women can choose to freely come and go, speak or not.

quite so.. but we don't want to want to go. And the people here should ask themselves why we would choose not to stay. Don't you think?

I guess it's a little like Catholics who try and change the status quo in the Church. I wondered why they would bother.. why wouldn't they just leave the Church if they didn't like it? But then I realized that their fight was to make something that they loved even better. They didn't want to choose between belonging to something that they partly loved and leaving it altogether - they wanted a voice in making it the best place it could be.

Is that wrong?

Of course not, but if one of the reasons women are choosing not to stay is because they believe RI is a "good ol' boys club" I think they are wrong and doing a disservice to themselves as well as disregarding the obvious attempts Jeff has made to make the board more women friendly. Maybe I'm blind to it. Can one of the women show me how RI can be fairly described as a "good ol' boys club"?

no, no one can, but that's not because the vibe does not exist.