Maybe it's me?

[womanformallyknownaswoman]

Maybe it's me - in many of the recent posts I sense, see and smell a set up - I see a wolf dressed as Grandma.

An OP who I don't recognise posts a question used to enable concern trolling and sealioning. Comments suddenly appear from newish unfamiliar accounts to challenge the inch given and demand that we conform to their inclusive demands which require us women giving up a pound of flesh. The thread appears to generate goady responses and maybe Twitter clickbait

Oh if I could bag all that concern and turn it into gold, I'd be a rich woman

I don't want to talk about them and their tactics - that's boring.

I want to talk feminism. For example -

Why are feminists expected to pander to anyone else's demands? Why can't feminists say no without sanction? What's so wrong with feminists being self centred and looking after women's needs? After all men do it all the tine. Why do social media platforms repeatedly demonstrate they are part of the problem and not of the solution? Why do they ignore 51% and why don't we withhold our presence from Twitter etc. Why does this keep happening and what other measures can we take?

Just checking:)))

As a person undefined why not just ask the person in question? Why make such an ambiguous post if not for attention?

Call out culture?
The misogyny that is always directed at women who have the nerve to behave like people without apology.
Definitely a few dozen false flag rat fuckers in the past few months.
I was not here for the MRA invasion that people have mentioned so I do not know how that was survived. Though I understand that was what drove Dittany and others away from the site.

I think the security breach created a bit of a vacuum when so many women left and it is being filled with people who are much like sharks who smell blood in the water.
I agree that many new people appear to have brought an agenda with them and it has nothing to do with Feminism or women's rights.
It is hard to recognize the new people who just found out what is happening in the schools and want to talk when the threads are full of people nut picking.
The "you are all bigots if you don't help us flog this woman" accusations came as a surprise to me. Not just a surprise, a shock. It reminded me of this:
www.jofreeman.com/joreen/trashing.htm

Why make such an ambiguous post if not for attention?
All posts are always for attention. That is why we speak. That is why we write. That is why we start posts. To draw attention to something.
Your criticism makes no sense.

The "you are all bigots if you don't help us flog this woman" accusations came as a surprise to me. Not just a surprise, a shock. It reminded me of this:
https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/trashing.htm

This is emphasised in the linked article's reference to the dismissive tactic of "how can you defend her" and that more than simple disagreement is at play when it's used.

It's hard to know who is behind what accounts on SM so in a way easy for me to discount those using those tactics as having other agendas. To be confronted with that in real life from other feminists would, and is hard, to stomach. And yes the terms and conditions under which engagement takes place have to be conscious and enforced - bullying does need to be called out - whether covert or overt and irrespective of whether the commenter is conscious or not of that side of them.

I notice on Reddit GC that the engagement is more impersonal than here but also there is less infighting due to the rigorous modding stance.

Thx for the link - that article has so many layers to it. I do think the elephant in the room is not having clearly defined goals and rules of engagement plus keeping the focus on those.

I also think the point about rage is well said. I have noticed repeatedly that where women are being subjugated/bullied, they will often displace their rage onto another empathic woman, because the person causing the rage, invariably abusive man in many guises, withhold their acknowledgement of the harm their behaviour causes- so the woman has to discharge her rage either into herself - her own body - or like static electricity- onto that which is grounded -ie awake feminists who are in short supply and in high demand for their aware, wise listening and caring. Women as well as men get angry when that listening and caring is withheld I have observed. Hence why I've always thought of withholding as such a powerful weapon in our collective arsenal.

I'll reflect on that awesome article - let's get our house in order. The Pam debate has certainly raised done important infrastructure issues!!

*PP not Pam

*Some not done

Hang on you oldies and formally goodies posters, derail the race and class thread then start a thread whinging about how women have to do all the work?

You've been asked not to be bigots it's not hard work.

I've read fem chat for ages, ive been posting for a couple months nc frequently. I'm NC again soon and not posting here again or deleting my account. So don't worry everything will eventually be all white and women can = just MC white women again.

Agree : I get very annoyed about continually having to discuss what provisions women should make for men who want to enter female spaces. The provision we make should be a sign saying 'female only - you need to find a solution amongst yourselves'. It should mean the end of a thread. That's a NO from us.

But is it ever - 800 posts later people are still suggesting opaque shower curtains or special training or floor-to-ceiling walls or reversible door locks or tampon baskets inside cubicles or any old nonsense attempting to distract you from the fact that men with no respect for female boundaries are now in your space.

No
Is
Enough

The consistent callout of ‘white mc feminists’ when the poster has no idea of the skin colour of posters is very telling, a put down based upon class is also lazy.

You've been asked not to be bigots it's not hard work.

"to be"...

From the linked article:

Trashing involves heavy use of the verb "to be" and only a light use of the verb "to do." It is what one is and not what one does that is objected to, and these objections cannot be easily phrased in terms of specific undesirable behaviors

"Specific undesirable behaviours" would be, in my opinion, actual quotes (not paraphrases or distortions), along with an explanation of why they are viewed as bigoted (as opposed to legitimate criticism of a religion): something that, in the threads I've seen, seems to be very much lacking in many instances.

Hmm...upon reflection, my earlier post should have said "direct quotes that are complete and in their context" - it's often very easy to "quote-mine" actual phrases so that they are misunderstood, either because the quote-miner didn't understand the quote themselves, or because they are trying to misrepresent them.

Perception is strange, i saw posters quote and explain then they were told they were nitpicking. It was like whatever they said or did wasnt good enough.

But alas I have no direct quotes so it would appear to be I am speculating.

white mc

It bugs me how much this is used on social media to shut people up and invalidate their opinions, often by white mc people themselves.

Another thing in the article that really jumped out at me was this:

But if your defense is dismissed with an oft-hand "How can you defend her?"; if you become tainted with suspicion by attempting such a defense; if she is in fact indefensible, you should take a closer look at those making the accusations.

IIRC correctly, that literal sentence, How can you defend her was used at least once, and was also the implication of a number of posts.

We're being brigaded. It's tiresome. And annoying when good faith posters get drawn in.

But it's not hard to spot - these people all have language and vocabulary tics that give them away. They don't do variations on a theme at all well.

Calling someone a bigot/ mc white racist / character smearing someone by phrases like "how could you defend her etc etc" are all examples of psychological manipulation.

They are designed to silence and exclude the target by shaming them. Men do it to control women; women do it because often they are themselves policing other women on behalf of men.

Irrespective, without specific examples of where the targets' behaviour may have caused offence plus a willingness to engage respectfully, inevitably means that the accuser is more interested in stopping someone than reaching agreement.

They are more interested in being right. They cannot be reasoned with. This is psychological abuse in action.

hmm. I think if someone says something daft on the internet it's OK to ask them what they meant. And I'll keep doing it.

Women with gender critical views don't get a free pass to talk offensive nonsense on other subjects, or not from me at any rate.

I think if someone says something daft on the internet it's OK to ask them what they meant. And I'll keep doing it

Has it been suggested otherwise- if so where? To clarify I am talking about OPs who don't want to discuss but dominate, despite what they say to the contrary - in other words brigade.

I see someone has started another 'lets ignore racism and exclusion because we love a particular person' thread.
If anyone calls this out you show the 'poor me, you must be a troll, MRA, TRA' card

@reluctantcamper thank you

Let's have a reality check. I rarely if ever see an OP with an unfamiliar username dominate. There are a small number of very prolific posters who do dominate. And that's OK. If I don't want to hear what they've got to say I'm at liberty to go elsewhere.

I could live without the constant dark insinuations that posters with opinions that differ from the prevailing orthodoxy are men / seagulls / MRAs / TRAs / Potatoes / brigading. To me they do damage discourse by putting people on the offensive.

And when we do get someone who is clearly one of those things, the fact that it's a constant accusation means it can lessen the impact of calling out that behaviour.

sigh

for offensive, please read defensive

@womanformallyknownaswoman

How can you have a respectful discussion when you are being gaslighted? When a poster asks another about Prevent because she mentioned she's a Muslim teacher? When they start mentioning bombs? When ppl think there is nothing wrong with xenophobic tweets? When they start throwing the old 'its only free speech' crap at you when you try to call out bigotry.
It's like trying to have a respectful conversation with an MRA or a TRA. You can't because they stick their fingers in their ears and close their eyes and says 'blah blah I can't hear you!'

Asking people what they meant is precisely what such posters don't do - instead, they tell other people what they meant. They also use innuendo to imply something was meant, when it wasn't actually said. Basically lots of variations of strawman fallacy.

That's because racism is often masked these days. Some ppl are racist and don't even admit it to themselves hence you learn to read between the lines e.g. when the poster started asking about bombs and Prevent then she tried to backtrack.