It is nasty, and marginalizing and silencing to women, and it is completely regressive male dominance, and yet some of you have the gall to pride yourself on you alleged progressive credentials, and cast dispersions upons others for what you choose perceive as their progressive lacks.

Why do again do we have a feminist forum that is supposed to be a safe place for women to dialogue amongst ourselves?

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

Your Opening Post consisted mostly of a reposting from another thread of an article, written by a man, that was very complimentary to Obomba and had nothing to do with feminism. I posted a reply to that article written by another man - again, a repeat of a post I made in the other thread from which you lifted your article. But you didn't want that side of the debate (which, again, was not about feminism) to be expressed in "your" thread.

I was quite prepared to leave the matter there but you just had to provoke me by making a personal attack and suggesting that the article I posted was off topic (!), then playing shadow moderator by telling me to go away. So I responded.

Then you had to make an absurd claim about how men were ganging up against women in the other Obomba threads. I called you on that fabrication. You are trying to shoehorn the debate over Obomba into a men versus women issue, which it is not.

The title of this thread is an absurdity. Nobody is trying to silence you or the other women here. Rather it is you who are trying to silence anyone who disagrees with you.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
you sought to create a space where you could attack male babblers for what they were saying in other threads and at the same time try to prevent them from replying to your criticisms ... You are trying to shoehorn the debate over Obomba into a men versus women issue, which it is not.

The title of this thread is an absurdity. Nobody is trying to silence you or the other women here. Rather it is you who are trying to silence anyone who disagrees with you.

It is a familiar refrain. Any male who disagrees with you is a patriarchal male supremist who wants to marginalize and silence you. That line is getting awfully tired, and frankly, I'd be surprised if anybody takes it seriously.

---

This is on my "DO NOT GET" list.

I look in the feminist base and there are obvious *males* posting.

Now, WHAT is discussed, even if a female babbler is upset with a male babbler doesn't matter.

Uh, female space is female space, in my estimation.

Now is it feminist space or not???

And you Guys...

That is a different question than insisting that the relevant movements be led by people suffering sexual, racial etc oppression, or calling for an autonomous space for women-only, people of colour or Aboriginal people etc only.

And...maybe I am inventing this...memory is maleable... that such topics would not include attacks on people requested to butt out?

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
I strongly disagree. Men can certainly be feminists, just as white people can be anti-racists. Would you deny that white people who were murdered in the US civil rights movement or the South African anti-apartheid movement were anti-racists? And there have been many male feminists in history.

That is a different question than insisting that the relevant movements be led by people suffering sexual, racial etc oppression, or calling for an autonomous space for women-only, people of colour or Aboriginal people etc only.

If the original post had nothing to do with feminism, then perhaps putting it in the feminist section was a way of warding off legitimate criticism? (I'm saying this not having read the relevant thread. It is simply a general point).

---

Euro-American people may be anti-oppressionist but they can't be BLACK/Native/Asian/whatever. And if they're honest, they'll admit they live with privilege and can never know what it is to BE a minority.

Males can *support* feminism but they can't be WOMEN.

That is the point.

And if they have ANY respect for the same people they claim to be supporting then they don't try to push themselves into the forefront of the movement or invade the discussions of those who are the minority.

Claiming martyrdom of some of the ruling class on behalf of the oppressed class, doesn't negate that relevancy.

If you see a room that says, "Minority discussion in progress TOPIC TONIGHT....[________]" you don't push your way into the room then complain when you aren't welcomed.

Not just when you LIKE the topic, not just when you think, "Oh well, let 'em discuss that, it's harmless" ....

*Respect* is when you do NOT shove your way into the room *regardless* of what is posted on the door for discussion and *especially* when you do not like it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
I thought the convention or consensus arrived at of late-- this debate is as old as babble itself-- was that in the feminist, aboriginal or anti racism forum, when women, aboriginals or people of colour didn't want input on a subject, the topic starter would make that request.

---

Perhaps that should be sort of posted or something loud and clear?

That would be helpful.

Also, in terms of how I define myself, I can accept both TVParkdales restriction on the use of the term feminist, as well as Lagatta's equally, though they appear mutually exclusive. It's not difficult really, as it's just a label and doesn't effect my behaviour or attitude.

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:
I share Tommy_Paines memory of how this issue has evolved.

Also, in terms of how I define myself, I can accept both TVParkdales restriction on the use of the term feminist, as well as Lagatta's equally, though they appear mutually exclusive. It's not difficult really, as it's just a label and doesn't effect my behaviour or attitude.

Oh, and seeing as no one has yet acommodated TVP's modest request,... hey, you're simple-minded.

---

Which request and why am I [or someone else] simple minded?

quote:

---

Males can *support* feminism but they can't be WOMEN.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TVParkdale:
Okay, call me simple-minded.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly Brandybuck:
[QB][/QB]

---

Ah, "uncomplicated" might have been better?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:

Puts me in mind of the thread (or threads) about the Vancouver Rape Crisis center that fired a councellor because she was transgendered. If memory serves, the divisiveness on that issue makes today's arguements look like love in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Seriously, some men's intent to have your voices heard and to have your say, in a woman's space with a thread directed specifically to women, with the same old crap you have posted over and over again elsewhere, is beyond belief and male supremist in the extreme...

---

I agree with the spirit of what you're saying completely. I don't understand why every time Obama is mentioned that we automatically have to say that he isn't progressive enough in order to appease certain people.

We get it already. He isn't progressive enough for you. Can he be progressive enough for us? Is that ok? Can we believe that the spirit in which he can take the US be more progressive? Is that ok? Or do we have to hear AGAIN about how YOU (not you remind) don't think he is.

And since some people apparently have enough time during the day to post the same dogmatic crap again and again, WE GET IT EVEN MORE. How about a voice for the rest of the posters.

Sheesh.

quote:

---

And if they have ANY respect for the same people they claim to be supporting then they don't try to push themselves into the forefront of the movement or invade the discussions of those who are the minority.

---

Well put.

quote:

---

Men can certainly be feminists

---

I have such a hard time agreeing or disagreeing with lagatta or TVparkdale’s take on if men are Feminists or can only be pro-feminist. I can total argue both views. But I don’t think it really matter in this instance – this was a discussion requested to be limited to women, just women not our allies. Sometimes it’s nice to have a discussion just with women as there is much we experience that men can’t know. They can empathize to a point but they can’t really know.

quote:

---

I thought the convention or consensus arrived at of late-- this debate is as old as babble itself-- was that in the feminist, aboriginal or anti racism forum, when women, aboriginals or people of colour didn't want input on a subject, the topic starter would make that request.

---

I think your right but it shouldn’t have to be hard and fast babble law though, if you can’t respect other people’s request without the “law” forcing you to you aren’t as frickin’ great of an ally as you think you are. A simple request for space shouldn’t result in such hostility.

quote:

---

Puts me in mind of the thread (or threads) about the Vancouver Rape Crisis center that fired a councellor because she was transgendered. If memory serves, the divisiveness on that issue makes today's arguements look like love in.

---

That wasn’t a finer moment in babble history, myself included, and it’s still for sometime to come going to be an issue that divides Feminists – I am who I am because of how society impacts me and it treats me differently then it treats men – I don’t think I am just a women because I have the correct anatomy I think I am the sum of a lifetime of being treated as a women in the society I live in. It’s like that experiment where a white family changed the colour of their skin and lived as a POC family for a few weeks – while it teaches a lesson it won’t make them worry about driving while white after the experiment. It teaches awareness it doesn’t change their prior experience. And their reactions to experiencing racism are those of someone from a background of privilege. Shock, hurt and anger, not resignation or fear for example. I think both sides of the orginal mess wanted their experiences to count and neither side was great at finding understanding for the othersides perspectives.

quote:

---

He isn't progressive enough for you. Can he be progressive enough for us? Is that ok? Can we believe that the spirit in which he can take the US be more progressive? Is that ok? Or do we have to hear AGAIN about how YOU (not you remind) don't think he is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
If defining the terms of the discussion means limiting it to women just to have some different voices at the table then fine by me.

---

quote:

---

Can he be progressive enough for us?

---

ETA: If women want a restricted topic, then restrict it. But don't have an open topic and say only certain people are welcome to participate. It is like trying to have a private conversation in front of an open mike at a convention for debaters.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:

I don't understand why every time Obama is mentioned that we automatically have to say that he isn't progressive enough in order to appease certain people.

---

quote:

---

ETA: If women want a restricted topic, then restrict it. But don't have an open topic and say only certain people are welcome to participate. It is like trying to have a private conversation in front of an open mike at a convention for debaters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:
He's saying that if the same loudmouths keep repeating the same opinions over and over, that isn't discussion. Whatever the topic is, a diversity of opinion is a goal for some of us, and there are cases where the best way to promote that is to make boundaries in certain spaces. I'm all for it.

---

Is diversity of opinion, it seems to me, is always a laudable goal so long as the observer or participant agrees with the opinions presented as diverse.

For example, babble is a left wing board where certain opinions are not tolerated.It has discussion topics with rules that limit diversity of opinion. You say you value diversity of opinion, but would you tolerate well an opinion that supports, defends, and promotes slavery?

And, I would point out, the opinion being expressed here by some, including myself, for which there seems to be a lack of tolerance, is that Obama is not really a progressive.

There are those who disagree. They are welcome to that. What will make them change their minds if not the people Obama surrounds himself with? Falling bombs?

ETA:

quote:

---

FM: It was restricted to women only that's the point of this thread. The topic was not open.

---

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:

Says the man who just posted in the thread in question.

---

You really don't get it, do you?

The problem isn't Remind. Or Scout, Or Polly. Or the Feminist Forum.

The problem is You. For gods sake shut the hell up. We get it already. You have ample space to say you piece. Repeatedly. Stridently. Loudly. Dogmatically. Dominantly.

Maybe you don't see it as male privelige when you inject more of the same dogmatic stuff to EVERY thread on Obama. Maybe it isn't male privelige. Or white privelige. Maybe you just need to be right all the time. I don't know. I'm not one to articulately put together a thesis on it. However, it seems to me that being a part of the dominant voice in society reinforces a belief that you have be a part of every discussion and that no-one is right but you.

I don't know that you're necessarilty being anti-woman or anti-feminist so maybe having Remind describing your position in that light gets your hackles up. Being a guy, I don't see it like that. I see it as your're pro-Spector. Only Spector. Spector is always right. All others must acknowledge that.

You know what? You aren't. Get over yourself.

I didn't "get" the FF before. I do now. So I owe some apologies. Especially to Remind and Scout. I may not have said it out loud but I've had some uncharitable thoughts about you in the past regarding the FF. They were undeserved. I'm sorry.

I don't always agree with how you approach a position but I get it a whole lot more now.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

Unlike you I am not part of the "dominant voice in this society". So while anybody can watch TV or pick up a newspaper and read about how the new millennium has finally arrived for real because Obomba got elected, babble is one of the few places where dissenting voices on the left can be heard. So kindly stop telling me to shut up.

Of course the "stay out of the feminism forum" message that you so eagerly endorsed doesn't seem to apply to you. You haven't addressed that particular hypocrisy.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

While those posters are constantly attacking lots of others who just aren't pure enough, I have noticed identifiable women seem to get an extra shout down.

quote:

---

The Conservative government is closing down most of its Status of Women Canada offices, saying they are not doing enough to serve women directly.

---

Here we are.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:

Of course the "stay out of the feminism forum" message that you so eagerly endorsed doesn't seem to apply to you. You haven't addressed that particular hypocrisy.

---

While this is more of the same appeasement that you seem to need, and while you even demanding this reinforces my opinion of you, I will address this.

I screwed up. I posted in error when I made the post in response to Polly's as I neither looked at what forum it was in, nor did I read the opening post.

quote:

---

I screwed up. I posted in error

---

quote:

---

But it is open. I mean, if you want to restrict then restrict it to certain babblers. Make posting dependent upon user name. Otherwise, it remains a public discussion where anyone, welcome or not, can interject. And, gosh darn it, just like people, they do.

---

We should we have to lock ourselves and our discussions away because a few men can’t restrain themselves? Does that sound progressive to you FM?

quote:

---

A Harper Conservative defending the feminist forum? How perfect. Didn't Harper cut funding to women's organizations that could and did make real differences in the lives of Canadian women? I'm almost sure he did. But, of course, the Harper Conservatives are always telling people to "shut up", aren't they?

---

FM you are out of order. Heywood gets it, it may have taken time and it was not a lot of fun but the fact that he gets it means something to me.

quote:

---

Of course the "stay out of the feminism forum" message that you so eagerly endorsed doesn't seem to apply to you. You haven't addressed that particular hypocrisy.

---

You had already frickin destroyed the thread so don’t go pointing fingers now it's pathetic.

quote:

---

Why do women need an organization that "works to advance women's economic equality and human rights, and eliminate violence against women" or the courts challenges program when they have a feminist forum on babble?

---

I am emailing a mod. I am done.

Heywood, thank you.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Scout ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Left J.A.B.:
If you have made the same frikkin point at least 50 times before - that's probably enough for even the most thicked skulled to get it.

---

If the gushing admirers of Obomba choose to run 6 threads simultaneously on virtually the same topic of "what the return to power of the Democratic Party means for social progress in Amerika", then I'm sorry, but you're going to have to put up with my posts in all of them.

In any event, most of what I post are the words of people other than myself (no, it isn't all about me). These are people who are not my political co-thinkers but in almost all cases U.S. left-liberals whom I consider to be on my political right, but who have trenchant and articulate criticisms of right-wing politics in the USA. These are criticisms that few people are exposed to in the mass media, including the internet, and I think Canadian progressives who are removed from the U.S. scene should be taking note of what their counterparts there are saying.

quote:

---

We should we have to lock ourselves and our discussions away because a few men can’t restrain themselves? Does that sound progressive to you FM?

---

quote:

---

Heywood gets it, it may have taken time and it was not a lot of fun but the fact that he gets it means something to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
...I would point out, the opinion being expressed here by some, including myself, for which there seems to be a lack of tolerance, is that Obama is not really a progressive.

---

That's not the point of this thread. It wasn't entirely the point of the thread that led to this thread. There are other aspects of Obama's election that are significant (at least for some) and worthy of discussion (at least for some) such as the fact that less than 50 years after people were still being murdered over the issue of even registering African Americans to vote in the United States, an African American was just elected to their highest office.

But it seems that any discussion that mentions Obama's name must include the same few people raising exactly the same points about the man even when that's not the subject of the thread. There are a few here who developed their own narrative concerning the American elections some months ago and they've been doing their best to shout down anyone who wanted to discuss the event from a different angle. Obviously they can't actually raise the volume so they've compensated by saying the same thing so often there's now a danger of a worldwide shortage of dead horses. They've all been beaten so thoroughly there's nothing left to drag away and bury.

quote:

---

Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
An Ad Hominem argument?! Can't you find fault with my position?

---

quote:

---

But it seems that any discussion that mentions Obama's name must include the same few people raising exactly the same points about the man even when that's not the subject of the thread.

---

I agree his election has historical significance. I know and acknowledge the meaning of the event is much different for African Americans and Americans across the color barrier than it is for me as a Canadian.

But you know, I don't see white hegemony starting and stopping with North American borders. I see it spread across the globe in the camps of Darfur, the killing fields of the Congo, in the destroyed culture and history of Iraq, in the squalid ghetto of Gaza, and in the mountainous ruins of Afghanistan.

And while the world revels in the hope that Obama has sold everyone of "change", I don't see it. I really, really would like to be wrong. Nothing would please more than being wrong on Obama. But when I look at the people who are advising him, I sense I'm not going to be.

And no matter how much I try, I just can't ignore that. If you can, great. I can't.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
What part of your silly diatribe was not Ad Hominem? Please, point it out, and I'll be glad to respond, if I haven't done so already.

It seems you want me to shut the hell up, but then taunt me for not being able to find fault with your "position"! Get back to me when you've made up your mind.

---

Whoops. I wasn't responding to you but to FM. You slipped a post in before I finished posting. I wasn't accusing you of an Ad Hominem. At least not in that case.

Yet my point remains clear. Instead of addressing the issues you attempt to re-exert control over the conversation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
I agree his election has historical significance.

---

quote:

---

Good. The next two paragraphs of your post raise issues we've never discussed so you actually don't know whether I agree with you or not though you seem to have used magical mind reading powers to determine what I can or can't ignore. Amazing!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Not at all. My sense is that you want a "I HEART OBAMA" thread. I got that sense because you seem to be suggesting that we should discuss the election of Obama with only praise and without dissent.

---

The point is, creating boundaries around certain spaces can encourage more diversity of opinion. Like all those "discuss blank from a pro-blank point of view" threads a while back. You can make your own anti-blank thread, but you can't be anti-blank in this one. It's a recognition that some opinions do get shouted down, which you can't deny.

quote:

---

Would it be innapropriate to point out the hilarious irony of a boy trying to start a pissing contest with others in this particular thread?

Really, it to funny for words to not notice and mention it.

---

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Left J.A.B. ]

quote:

---

I have studiously allowing women to conduct discussions free of my input in the Feminist Forum for many many months

---

quote:

---

I didn't say any of that.

---

quote:

---

The point is, creating boundaries around certain spaces can encourage more diversity of opinion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
You're either trying to be ironic or your just being straight up sexist with your use of "allowing", neither is acceptable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:

You're either trying to be ironic or your just being straight up sexist with your use of "allowing", neither is acceptable.

---

quote:

---

That was the word that was used in the thread title.

---

Certainly possible and likely but necessary? Hardly. That's my point, why engage in that gambit? Just because it's cueball it doens't change that the content is sexist and out of bounds, and just dismisses the issues at hand. Did he really have to pop by? The gangs all here now! Lucky us.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Scout ]

quote:

---

This forum has no boundaries around it. You feel no limitations on your ability to counter me, why should I feel there are any limits on my ability to counter someone else, or you?
There is a barely a thread on babble to be found without thread drift and, in this case, Obama is central to the discussion. So why shouldn't I offer my insights? You seem to feel free to offer your own. And, of course, your opinions are always welcome by me, anyway.

---

Hijacking= I can't get enough about me, so lets talk about my favourite subject for the month "me" and how I relate to this other topic like a political leader or party and what I think about it.

I am not commenting. I think it is crap really. I think its perfectly legitimate for the Feminist Forum to be a place that preferences women's discourse. I am also well aware that this whole issue begins as a bunch of really snide personal attacks against certain Babblers, based in weird identity politics, which amounted to saying over and over again that certain posters didn't like Obama because he was directly interfering with white male previlege of those thread participants.

Any defence against this accusation, was then identified as yet more evidence for it.

Its an interesting comment, and perhaps has some traction as speculation, but no one really has a crystal ball here that they can use to devine the inner intentions of those persons. There was however many statements by people expressly making a case in the official record of facts and statements made by Obama, and it seemed to me that derrisively speculating on the personal motives of some posters in liu of rebutal to their arguements amounted to a continuous and ongoing ad hominem personal attack, without any provable foundation.

This attack was then moved to the Feminist Forum for some reason.

On top of that the broad swipe smear against "male babblers" as group is more of the same, and in my view an attempt to widen divisions and start more pointless arguements. I have be refraining from comment. But the statement was specifically directed at me, as a "male Babbler" and therefore an invitation for me to comment.

Now I have.

So, you are right I am deliberately been dismissing the whole thing because I think it is a bunch of shit.

With sincere respect... Scout.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Some men happen to find gender issues interesting ... EVEN if they're not gay. I know this is a surprise to a lot of people. But some people do get excited at the chance to discuss things they rarely get to discuss.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
Spector can't get enough of his own voice and hijacked the thread to further expound on Obama.

---

Remind hijacked her own thread by posting an article that was irrelevant to the alleged topic - in the OP! I simply posted an article directly responding to that article. That's not hijacking. That's presenting an opposing view to the one in the OP, which by the way was a scurrilous ad hom attack - by a man - on people who share my point of view. That would have been the end of my involvement if remind hadn't insisted on repeatedly attacking me.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector

Remind hijacked her own thread by posting an article that was irrelevant to the alleged topic - in the OP! I simply posted an article directly responding to that article. That's not hijacking. That's presenting an opposing view to the one in the OP, which by the way was a scurrilous ad hom attack - by a man - on people who share my point of view. That would have been the end of my involvement if remind hadn't insisted on repeatedly attacking me.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ][/QB]

---

No it wasn't irrelevant to the topic. Regardless of the the initial question that topic was asking for female viewpoints and she posted an article, that was posted in another thread by a female poster which as she said quite clearly she felt didn't get a whole lot of response, so lets post it here and perhaps discuss it.
That you felt that you had to immediately jump in with something that you had already posted in that other thread, which to me at least implied, some sort of, 'oh look, they may discuss this without MY viewpoint' (which thank you at least for clarifying that that why you posted it in the first place, as a representation of your view) was the issue.
That you intended to leave the discussion after that, as said here, is also telling. Drive by...let's make sure that those feminists over there will talk about the right things....

quote:

---

That's twice you have accused me of hijacking the other thread. [ETA: Sorry, it's only once. The first such accusation came from another babbler]. For those who would like to know what really happened, I invite them to read my first post in the present thread as well as the other thread itself

---

I am talking about this thread, not the other thread. This is the thread you brought your fight from the other thread into by going on about Obama. The OP in this thread is about men posting in a thread where women-only was indicated in the first bloody paragraph. I said "the thread", I meant this one I am a not living in some battle from the thread your obsessed with. I took this thread at face value as it discusses an ongoing issue on babble. This thread is not about Obama. Do you understand yet? Stop projecting yourself onto this thread. And learn to fucking read.

This thread is about an issue that occurs to often on babble - pretend or shout at us that it's just a way to get back at someone else who disagreed with someone's else all you want it. Your behavior is pathetic.

quote:

---

So, you are right I am deliberately been dismissing the whole thing because I think it is a bunch of shit.

---

Then piss off. Seriously. if you don't care and it's all shit to you why do we need to listen to that? I know your "allowed" to post in any thread you feel the need to but do you really need to? I am fed up with your type of post. Don't care about something don't post, don't for one second think that by telling people your adding value your just trolling.

quote:

---

I am also well aware that this whole issue begins as a bunch of really snide personal attacks against certain Babblers, based in weird identity politics, which amounted to saying over and over again that certain posters didn't like Obama because he was directly interfering with white male previlege of those thread participants.

---

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
I am talking about this thread, not the other thread.

---

The whole purpose of this thread was to launch a personal diatribe against me and encourage others to join in. I responded, and then let others babble away. Naturally, they took up remind's gratuitous opportunity to make personal attacks on me. Pardon me for responding.

quote:

---

I said "the thread", I meant this one I am a not living in some battle from the thread your obsessed with.

---

quote:

---

And learn to fucking read.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:

Do you happen to know the lottery numbers for tomorrow night too?

---

That is the way it looked to me. Those people were accussed as such, and then when they protested, those protests were thrown back as more evidence. In the end it really began to seem that any criticism of Obama amounted to a defence of white male privilege.

I expressed a different view:

It does stand as an act of black empowerment.
One of the things that I thought was so interesting about Colin Powell's recent statement about Barak's muslimness, and its lack or relevance, was the implicit message that certain forms of anti-racist analysis can be maintained in an capitalist and imperialist environment. The US stands as an state edifice that is uniquel suited for the creation of an imperialism based in a purely national construct, and not one based in ethnic nationality.

I for one have to be entirely convinced, for example, that Rome was inhernetly racist, in the manner that European imperialism is ideologically racist, and I think it is perfectly possible for imperial power to act in a repressive manner free of racial identification. However much I think racism might serve as a tool of imperial power, I am not sure it is absolutely necessary.

To be fully enfranchised in the US means that one can fully share in its imperial process. I guess the hope is that the acceptance of people of colour into the corridors of power in the US will break open the old paradigm, and open the corridors to new ones beyond race politics.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ElizaQ:
That you intended to leave the discussion after that, as said here, is also telling. Drive by...let's make sure that those feminists over there will talk about the right things....

---

I had made my point; there was no reason to say any more - until remind kept dragging me back in by making ridiculous allegations against me.

quote:

---

And you wonder why there some issue with people talking about trying to control the conversation?

---

quote:

---

Well, then your comment is even stupider than I thought. I didn't hijack this thread or any other.

---

You were the first person in this thread to invoke Obama and accuse remind of nefarious purpose to attack poor male babblers.

Remind asked for women only you ignored it blithely and with out remorse and then you hijacked this thread. Telling me I'm stupid for calling you on it doesn't change the reality that you are trying to make this thread about something it's not. Your not the only guy on babble to disrespect a request in the FF your just the most recent.

quote:

---

The whole purpose of this thread was to launch a personal diatribe against me and encourage others to join in. I responded, and then let others babble away. Naturally, they took up remind's gratuitous opportunity to make personal attacks on me. Pardon me for responding.

---

Get off the cross already.

quote:

---

I'm not obsessed with any thread. This "rabble reactions" thread was clearly prompted by remind's unhappiness with the other thread. The obsession is hers, not mine.

---

I'm unhappy you were the first man in that other thread too. Not because it was about Obama. I'm unhappy you ignored her request to make the thread women only. And it ain't just 2 people that are unhappy when men do that.

quote:

---

Learn to fucking write.

---

quote:

---

Nice. Now I'm being criticized for not intending to make repeated posts in a thread that the same critics say I wasn't welcome in in the first place!

I had made my point; there was no reason to say any more - until remind kept dragging me back in by making ridiculous allegations against me.

---

Hello! Anyone in there! YOU HAD NO RIGHT TO MAKE A POINT IN THAT THREAD. She didn't force you to post, take some accountability.

You are being criticized for posting where men were expressly asked to not post, it's irrelevant to me what you thought you just had to tell us. The fact that you think you have the right to make a point regardless of when or where is a fucking concern. Stop trying to make remind your scapegoat.

quote:

---

Sorry, I should have added: Learn to fucking read.

---

How do I read this then:

quote:

---

Women across Canada,

---

quote:

---

Scout:...men were expressly asked to not post...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Sorry, I should have added: Learn to fucking read.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
the original post merely addressed a question to women, not any express request for men not to post. I support such requests, but hadn't deduced it myself from the OP.

---

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Makwa ]

quote:

---

Now if you will excuse me, I have to get back to Moral Orel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by wage zombie:
it's like an arena in here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makwa:
Why don't we all assume that when an OP is addressed to a specific group, that those are the people who are anticipated to respond. It should not be necessary to spell it out in cap lock mode. Now if you will excuse me, I have to get back to Moral Orel.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Makwa ]

---

Thank you for being succinct.

I will be less succinct and very direct.

If a thread is in a Native/Women/Black/[Pick the oppressed group] BASE...

...and as such, someone posts asking for input from [said oppressed group]

It does NOT matter WHAT the topic is...

DO NOT POST there.

Do not whine that someone is trying to "shut you down". There's a million miles of forum space to babble on without being intrusive and rude.

You can even start your very own thread!

And certainly, if [said oppressed group] tells you to STFU or GTFO...

You are in NO position to complain that "[said oppressed group] was MEAN to me."

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: TVParkdale ]

Steven Wright

For my birthday I got a humidifier and a de-humidifier... I put them in the same room and let them fight it out.

When I was a little kid we had a sand box. It was a quicksand box. I was an only child... eventually.

And raise you an Ogden Nash

The FireFly

The firefly's flame
Is something for which science has no name
I can think of nothing eerier
Than flying around with an unidentified glow on a
person's posteerier.

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: Bookish Agrarian ]

GenderAnalyzer

quote:

---

We created Genderanalyzer out of curiosity and fun. It uses Artificial Intelligence to determine if a homepage is written by a man or woman.

---

[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: RevolutionPlease ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Hey, check this out:

GenderAnalyzer

You just paste in the URL of any site, and it pops out the answer. So far, looks frighteningly accurate to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

It says that there is a an 86 percent change that this page is written by a woman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
This thread was not meant to be about Obama but thanks for trying to dictate our dialog some more.

---

So it would seem, Scout, you really have no objection to the discussion being about Obama when you agree with what is being said. It seems, really, that you want to "dictate" to the rest of us what we can talk about or even whether we can just respond to a post within a thread.

Or have I got you all wrong and the above example is ... er, different?

[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]