The Feminist Pub is Open - Chat, Rant, or pull up a chair here!

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

This thread started when we all decided to imagine what the perfect local for feminists would be like. So far, it has taps with plenty of good real ale, and some decent non-alcoholic alternatives too. There are comfy chairs and there's a feminist film night, as well as lots of nice feminist-friendly books on the shelves and space to curl up and read. The open-mic nights are attracting feminist singers and comedians, and we're just sorting out the feminist creche.

Please come along, draw up a stool, and have a good chat about whatever you fancy - as serious or as trivial as you like.

For starters, I have a half-pint of lemonade. What can I get anyone?

Yes. Everything is ok if you consent [eye roll]

I was pondering something earlier.

You know how back when there was one 'feminism topic' there was a big discussion about whether it should be a feminist topic or a feminism topic, ie posts about feminism (which could include 'feminism's shit') or posts from a feminist standpoint. MNHQ came firmly down on the side of the former.

However, now we have a whole bunch of feminism topics, couldn't just ONE of them be a feminist topic? Then those of us who are agreed about the basic tenets could have those more in-depth discussions we used to have before the goaders arrived (and which some of us have elsewhere these days).

That would be great.

I was also thinking about how HQ handled that. At the time I understood why, and I think perhaps they were not wrong, because I think there was a strong tendency for dearly departed posters to come in with the 'you're not a feminist, go away'. I think there is much less of that now. I could be totally wrong. And it would be difficult to judge.

Could we not use Feminist Theory for that, Tunip?

Feminist theory doesn't really make sense as a feminist topic though? You can't separate theory from women's personal experiences. You need both.

The rape myths thing....

so this is a case where if myths get posted they do damage for the whole time they are live and visible. It is also relatively clear cut whether or not someone is parroting a rape myth. So why not empower a few frequent posters on those threads to dump posts into an 'awaiting moderation' state. MNHQ would have the final stand on what stays and anyone using it to hide things inappropriately would obviously have the priviledge removed.

I would love MN to be a place where it is essentially impossible to see the phrase 'women need to dress more conservatively if they don't want to be raped' etc.

What do you think?

They could do the same thing with racism / disablism....

oh and troll hunting....it is totally trivial to note when someone has just been called a troll.

I think the language of feminist theory puts some people off - I know I find some things quite alien and I am used to reading boring complex scientificky stuff IYKWIM. And I understand that every specialist subject has its own language and expressions, but I just think that the vast majority of women have never stopped to consider the implications of PIV sex for instance, they just have it. I know I've never heard the expression until on hear.
I've said it before I am not well read on feminist subject and certainly in the short-term filling that gap is not high on my list of priorities, but I enjoy learning on here.
So, in summary , I do thing there is a place for 'feminist theory' kinda seperate from 'everyday sexism' and women's experiences like on Relationships (which is of course not exclusively for relationships between men and women or even exclusively between partners).

IceBeine, I don't think you can stop anybody posting anything, but I agree that kind of statement should be zapped really quickly - ideally with a comment more enlightening than "deleted for breaking Talk guidelines". I'd like 'deleted for perpetuating rape myths' or something similar.

It is also really pissing me off now how many posters are saying that there was a 'hysterical' reaction to AF being banned - yes, her suspension set the whole thing off, but to me it is far more important to look at posters who goad, target outspoken posters, talk about them on other sites, follow them around the internet and the whole PA shit. In some ways I'd rather be called a cunt than be given a head tilt!!

Good grief, IceBeing. Sorry, I cannot even get names right this morning...

I just want to respond to something I said earlier about provocation, although I realise that the discussion has moved on.

I still think that the idea, the concept, of provocation is a problematic one. I can totally understand LRD's rape myth example. But if you analyse it in terms of provocation, what's the rule? It's ok to have personal attacks if they are provoked by MRA's? What if you aren't sure it is an MRA troll? What about other trolls? If provocation is an excuse there, why isn't it if people are abusive on a vaccination thread or another contentious topic?

I still feel that that analysis of provocation is a window to excusing aggression. And that there is a serious risk that excusing aggression in that way actually, long term, undermines what we are trying to achieve. You can also bet your bottom dollar that some of those subtler MRAs would be mighty careful to use the rule to their best advantage.

And that's where it links back to ideas in criminal law that I mentioned. Provocation rules rarely actually protect the people who seem most deserving of protection.

Carrying on with LRD's example, I'm also not sure what we think should happen. So thread reaches a point where AN Other poster calls a twat a twat. Then what happens? HQ just leave the thread? Because often that doesn't shut the poster up and they just continue with the alternative silencing technique of 'now you are just becoming emotional and irrational'. Until it all just turns into one big screaming match.

I think that, as a community, we need to become less tolerant of the behaviour, but not using provocation as an analysis. Just saying, quite calmly, 'We, as a group, will not stand for this.' One technique is to respond to the poster once and then just repeat like a stuck record that you aren't going to engage with that argument any further for the reasons you have explained and to try and keep the thread moving on its original topic. If enough of us did that, it would make a difference.

With the one off "I'll jsut throw a nice MRA comment in the middle of your FWR thread" ones (I'm thinking of one particular poster here who often does this) I don't even respond, but try to ensure that I post a couple of substantive and fairly long posts immediately below. Because then other posters respond to me and their idiot comment gets lost. I know that doesn't work as well in relationships or threads created to goad though.

There must be other techniques...

Well yes, but Feminist Theory is an underused topic with a title that will put off some of the goaders. I'm not saying we should only post about the reification of the gender binary etc... discussions would inevitably range more freely, but, one would hope, without continually being dragged back to first principles.

I think it's unlikely that MN will commit to the increased moderation required to keep a whole topic free of anti-feminists. They are run off their feet as it is.

I think on the MNHQ side, what I would like to see if effectively a 'priority report' button for certain categories. MNHQ get a lot of reports. I would like to see a few categories - like perpetuating rape myths, any threats of violence (although thankfully I think that is very rare on here), racism, etc given their own category. There is already a separate one for spam (which I presume makes it low priority). Wouldn't that help them get to this stuff quickly?

Possibly they already do this, but another option would be to give certain categories known for aggressive trolling - like relationships- automatic priority if reports come in on those categories.

The spam report I think is separate so they don't have to reply.

Frankly, if replying to us is slowing down the delwtions, I'll happily go without.

So the suggestion is to use feminist theory to try and discuss feminism properly without getting derailed?

Hi everyone

I actually think "feminist theory" is the least theoretically suitable for being a feminist place (as opposed to be a place to talk about feminism), despite the good points about it being the most practically suitable. Because in theory, anything is up for argument and discussion. It is in practice that that is hurtful and unbearable and in practice that we all need to be goddamn feminists.

I am sick at heart.

I think the squeamishness about aggression in its various forms is laudable but ultimately does us terrible disservice.
I am extremely comfortable with some forms of aggression and I don't like feeling that it is not allowed in my palette. It is (this is not an argument, just a personal emotional feeling) akin to the feeling I was given when younger that other aspects of my self are insuitable for a woman: being analytic, not being pretty, being too heavy, not being suitable to do ballet etc. It makes me feel marginal, present at the grace of the goodwill of those who are allowed to be aggressive, or not be pretty, that is, men. (again, these are only feelings, not arguments)

I still feel that that analysis of provocation is a window to excusing aggression. And that there is a serious risk that excusing aggression in that way actually, long term, undermines what we are trying to achieve.

I wholeheartedly agree. We can choose to engage, and keep trying to win the argument, or (after saying we think we are being goaded) ignore. I don't see that personal attacks are really a valid form of response, however tempting it gets.

That is my suggestion, yes. I don't think there's much to lose, and I do think that a 'feminist board for FEMINISTS ONLY' would encourage every goady whiner within miles to pile in.

pacificfucker I really hear you about the "cunt" v thing.
The rules on MN don't always seem fair.
I have seen some very unpleasant posts which don't break guidelines and then a "fuck off" response get deleted. but then I don't really find profanity offensive.
Sometimes I wonder if posts should all just be left there (unless the are legal implications) and if they're just bloody nasty then they're marked as such. So as with the rape myths that LRD spoke of, there's an MN HQ "this post is bullshit" banner tagged on it. So evyone can see quite how nasty the original post was, and that it wa obviously consider "wrong" and the sweaty reply is just that. Iyswim

TheGhost, I think that is a great idea.

Actually I think the whole outlawing of personal attacks is stupid and wrong headed. If I am having an argument with someone and say "shut up you slag" it makes me look terrible. No one is going to think "well that person is of loose sexual morals, they must be now they have been called a slag, so I will discount everything they say".

On the other hand - there are ways of genuinely casting nasturtiums on people's character that are not deemed personal attacks and are allowed to stand.

I actually think both are fine - all's fair in love and war.It is arguably a personal attack to say "I don't care what you think about this as you go to lap dancing clubs and defend them therefore I consider you to be a sexist arsehole" but I think this is fine. I think "shut up you slag" is far from fine, but only reflects badly on the person who said it

I am not anti-moderation. I am anti this naive sort of playground moderation, it is like a verbal version of "no hitting" which is so weak and flimsy and easily manipulated

SinisterSal
Btw what is PIV sex?
And should I be having more or less of it?

Glugs back Fleurie (this is a pub after all)

PIV is penis in vagina sex.

The point really is that PIV is presented as sex. When in reality sex could involve lots of sex acts. Having sex doesnt have to involve PIV to be sex.

It is up to you what you do with your own sex life.