Deleted threads

[GloriaVanderbilt]

Hello,

I just reported a thread started by 'Dittony' which had a title attacking another poster and provided a link to a blog post.

It looked like a few others had reported it too as they had posted on it.

However in A/C there is another thread with the same title, which when you click on it takes you to a page saying 'error: thread deleted at OP's request'.

The OP however would appear to be someone who posted on the first thread, but not the same person who started it.

So can anyone please clarify what happened here...assuming the second thread was not posted by the same person as the first, (which has now gone) under a namechange?

(really hope not!)

Ignore who?

Hully do you not see that it is mean to treat dittany as someone with a victim mentality. And not a little ridiculous.

Beach, I am not treating her thus, it's how she comes across to me.

All of the by now infamous threads arose out of women on mn feeling pushed off the fem boards, bullied, and patronised. I thought that was a shame and counterproductive and tried to engage with the issue.

There was a complete refusal to hear or engage with it, from most people, instead of the issue being considered, it was taken as a personal attack. That, to me, is evidence of a victim mentality.

In the real world if 500 people say XYZ, really you kind of have to think about why they are saying that, open your heart and mind and really look at it, not just say poor me, I'm being hounded.

Wamster et al. Do you think white people should set the agenda for discussion spaces in which black people wish to discuss race issues?

Or do you think they should STFU and listen and respect and accept that they don't know where black people are coming from because they have never experienced life as a black person in a white supremacy?

Well it is a similar argument being made WRT men in feminist discussions.

The argument that feminists saying 'um, please could you respect our discussion space' is somehow similar to centuries of male supremacy is very very stupid.

Can we please, for the love of all that is sane, have a sticky explaining what it means to be part of a 'privileged group' or a member of the 'non-privileged group'.

I would answer, tethers, but I'm ignoring you.

Ultimately, it is unlikely to be resolved, unfortunately.

That's why I suggested yesterday that simple politeness should be the way forward.

I'm ignoring this whole thread because it stopped being about me

"Irony overload ...Irony overload..."
"Cannot compute..."

LRD you are my heroine

Oh please Hully. Dittany knows that she is abrasive, she has said so many times. In answer, I refer you back to SGB's post about people who poo their pants when someone disagrees with them.

I read a post by you where you were very unpleasant about dittany and made a very personal comment about her personal happiness. It was unacceptable.

I don't really want a he said/she said discussion about all this - it feels weird to be discussing dittany when she is not actually here.

Lots of people take offence because dittany uncompromisingly points out that they have forgotten to remove their patriarchy blinkers. Well that is hardly a surprise - people don't like robust radical feminism.

The long numerous threads of people picking dittany apart were a fucking disgrace.

Well, she's gone, so it is one up for the people who crap themselves when they come across feminism in a feminist board and nil to feminism. Result eh?

I wished dittany love.

still do.

hate to see anyone unhappy.

make of that what you will. you will anyway.

I don't want a discussion either. We wouldn't be having one had you not talked about me in my absence upthread.

OFGS - get over the fact a man wants to be here

Why, why why can't you see each person for each post? This section is laughable now. It's all poor me, poor me.

Some people say sexist things but just being male doesn't equal automatic sexist. Edd I'm meh about but from what I've seen of Bob - I haven't seen any blatant trolling or sexism. He was rounded on from his first set of posts (about extremely distressing situation) and from then on he can't say anything without being pounced on. I can see why he stays here and is arguing, many give up when the feminists pounced - you all just want him to shut up and leave, the same as many others that came before him

And to have a go at Hully/reality, for discussing why the feminist section can be offputting is crazy - all a few people wanted was to be heard occasionally and not put down constantly. Can people really not see that the behaviour of some is stopping other feminists joining and having their say?

No, not today perhaps Bob. Most of us here have memories longer than a goldfish however.

THIS ISN'T ALL ABOUT YOU ANYWAY ACTUALLY.

I was talking in GENERAL.

You dismissing me discussing feminism from a feminist angle with a commonly held feminist argument in a feminist space with other feminists as 'spurious' is dudely behaviour BTW.

Ah so actually forget what I said in the first line.

Well, I am a woman (or a 'black person' in your analogy) and I welcome men's views here.

'Privileged group' there are only two sets of people that I can think this ^really* applies to in life- the rich and the poor.

Or is a starving man in Africa more 'privileged' than an affluent woman in the West? .

Yeah Hully I remember you spreading that particular brand of Hully love when you wished that dittany could become a happier person .

I read it with a face like this .

Bob, it is not a spurious argument, it is generally accepted tenet of minority debate that the "majority" cannot claim to be victims of the minority because they are, for once, not being accorded their usual default entitlement to general societal deference.

I repeat: make of it what you will. you will anyway.

Nothing I can do about how you choose to interpret stuff.

There ya go, Bob, this section of the site should be reserved for women only-unless of the 'm' word variety. Give you a clue: has 'ina' on the end. Obviously, the patriarchy will now be totally justified in telling women to keep out of their spaces, because, after all, that is what women are happy to do to them.

Wamster you don't understand the basic premise of feminism then - I believe this has been explained to you on a number of occasions on this board, so forgive me if I don't take up my time by explaining it to you again.

You are talking about intersectionality. A quick google or about 3 minutes on feminism 101 will answer your query.

You have to compare like with like is the basic rule of thumb.

Rich black people have economic privilege - that doesn't mean that racism doesn't exist and that the whole of white supremacy had gone up in a puff of wishful thinking smoke.

This whole fucking section is eating itself. It's horribly fascinating to watch, but a bloody shame.

An oft repeated tale but none the less....

Many years ago I attended a lecture by Dale Spender, a noted feminist academic. She announced at the very beginning that she would take questions afterwards, but the way she would answer them was based on the research she was discussing. She then proceeded to give a very entertaining and enlightening lecture about the gender inbalance in the amount of attention given to girls and boys in schools. She qupted a lot of research and facts and figures about how, without realising, teachers even self identified feminists give more attention to boys, allow them to speak more, allow them to overrule girls and generally reinforce the male=active, female=passive paradigm.

She then took questions from the floor. Except, she reversed the male/female ratios from the research. So she only took the occasional comment from a male, she allowed the women to contradict anything said by a male without comment or censure. Any man who was noisy, assertive or physically imposing himself was ignored or asked to leave etc. She was very clear before she started that this was what she was going to do and that she was doing it to illustrate a point.

If anything it was even more entertaining than the lecture. The men in the audience, despite knowing what the rules were, got more and more angry and aggressive. The tantrums from grown men and academics was, frankly, hillarious to watch as they struggled to make themselves be heard over the voices of the women.

Whenever I hear the "what about the menz" argument I remember that lecture and smile at the memory of the brutal awakening of some of the male audience as to the daily experience of women.

For anyone who is interested Dale Spender I particularly recommend 'The Schooling Scandal' (which is what the lecture was about and 'Man Made Language'

I know I'm probably gonna get a lot of hate for this but:

Or is a starving man in Africa more 'privileged' than an affluent woman in the West?

Actually, in the terms that we're discussing (patriarchal priviledge), yes he kinda is. His status in his city/ town/ village will always be higher than the equivilent female. His word would be believed over a woman.

We were discussing male priviledge rather than financial priviledge. In almost all cultures from Africa to London, men have more status because of their gender. There are plenty of interpretations of priviledge.