Speaking on behalf of the oppressed

98 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tehanu

remind wrote:
Discontinuity means a gap, in this case a gap in what is professed and what is understood, or rather not understood or not realized, especially implication wise.

Did not want to get into it,  not only because it is a bit drifty, but also given the painful experience in respect to the issue of gender identification disagreements. But I wanted to note that the discontinuity in position held still exists, hoping you would think about it further, given the thinking person you are.

Overcoming patriarchial indoctrination is often hard to do, and sometimes we do not even realize when we are victimizing ourselves with it, as women.

Well, remind, I'm not too sure how to react to this, because it sounds to me as thought you're saying I'm either being willfully inconsistent when I'm talking about the importance of acknowledging and acting on privilege, or that I'm blinded by some form of patriarchal indoctrination that I have failed to examine in myself. I've spent a lot of time thinking of the indoctrination I've experienced (including on trans issues, for that matter) and I think that I am pretty self-aware of any discontinuities in what I profess and what I understand, and am open to having any instances of that pointed out so I can think about them. But since I don't know what the issue is that you're saying I need to examine, it makes it a little hard to do so.

Oh well. I wanted to share my thoughts on the thread topic, I have, it's all good and I'm heading back to enMasse.

See y'all!

Michelle

Nice to see you, Tehanu - drop in any time. :)

susan davis

remind wrote:

Lee Lakeman wrote:
what I find all too familiar is that a civil libertarian activist like Allan Young rejects the notion of violence against women requiring the rule of law

Well...we all know how that ideology has worked so far for women, given VAW stats.

It does not matter if it has the civil libertarian label, or the  label of patriarchy, that we currently suffer under, it is not thought that women require the rule of law to apply to anything, let alone violence against them.

That social liberalism is dancing so close to civil libertarianism, is disquieting. It means, to me, that patriarchy has yet again co-opted women's equality endeavours in a very serious way.

 

alan younge believes 1 set of laws regarding violence against women should be suffiecient. as i have stated before having 2 sets of laws, one for violece against sex workers, and one for violence against women makes violence against us seem different, less , unimportant. are we not all women, could we not have one set of laws regarding violence and exploitation? why seperate sex workers from ther women in this regard?unless of course women see themselves as different than sex workers, or violence against a "real" woman as different from violence against a sex worker?  

this seperation is the reason for the systems failure to protect us. police see violence against a sex worker seperated as different andit allows them to set it as a lower priority. as is seen whenever a younge blonde female child from an affluent neighbourhood goes missing and 100 police are discptched to work on it...as opposed to sex workers going missing and barely making the news. that is beginning to change but it is still disproportionate protection and use of resources. why? because of this kind of othering created by the current legal frame work.

remind remind's picture

No need to react at all Tehanu, and I am sure you will keep thinking about it, as you are a deep thinker.

Glad you stopped by, always interested in your insights and words.

remind remind's picture

The law does not protect any women susan, and there is not 2 sets of laws, there is barely one set of laws.

susan davis

prostitution laws make illegal exploitation of youth or a sex worker. we already have laws making exploitation illiegal, trafficking, unlawful confinement, assault, rape......why do we need laws specifically realted to exploitation of sex workers? there are 2 sets of laws......

Lee Lakeman

Just a couple of basics I hope you will agree with and keep in mind:

Sexual violence is alredy highly gendered.  On the whole men do it.  It is true that some men do it to other men.  It is true that a few women do it and even fewer women do it to girls and women, but on the whole men do it and they do it to girls, boys, the men who they perceive as like women and to women.  Overwhelmingly men sexually assualt women. 

Whether you care to classify prostitution/trafficking as violence against women or not, it is men who do the prostituting and women who are sold, rented, bought or used as sexual objects.  And globally it is women who are the vast number of those prostituted in both domestic and global trade

So we might more clearly ask why then is the law not gendered.  When we drafted a version of a new rape law as a coalition of sixty womens groups from across the country, (yes including women in prostitution, domestic workers, migrants, etc) we called for a preamble that laid out these facts.  When we invented sexual assualt centers and coalitions we built into our constitutions, the knowlege that violence against women was a force that held all women down: that each act of violence tolerated by society worked to prevent the "rising of the women".  Most centers still operate with that feminist lens even if they are not activist in their orientation.  That is why in 2001 and then 2005 all the cneters in CASAC participated in debates and discussion as to how we should relate to the NEW crisis of prostitution in the NEW context of neoliberalism and globalization rit large. 

We came to the conclusion that the demand for prostitution in our cities was fueling the forced migrations and/or trafficking of women and children from the poorest regions of the world to service the imagined needs of men around us for the profit of other men and that our laws and practices were making that so.  We decided to struggle to achieve both more open immigration especially for women and for women and children from the poorest areas and to increase support for the aboriginal women within Canada, and to fight racism in our selves and others and to fight for economic justice particularly by looking at the movement for a guarnateed livable income.  But closest to our hearts was to fight prostitution as an institution that allows men to oppress women, to lable and fight it as form of violence against women.  that meant fighting for exit services, for protections for sexually exploited youth and for better criminal law and social policies for all women.  That motion was brought by women in Quebec and supported by a large majority of centers across the country

Now I have to let this conversation go on without me.  Our shelter is full, our volunteers need training, our weekly protest against the next killed wife will be in the street on Sunday, and the abolition coalition is presenting talks this week so I am needed to do my job.  Thanks for hearing/reading me out

 

Infosaturated

Thank you Lee, I am copying your words to study so I can better express my own feelings on the topic when I am at a loss for words.

 

susan davis

all sex work is not violence....dangit.....i just visited with 2 clients between posting and was not a victim of violence. i understnad the need to protect people from violence but there are alot of gaps in rape reliefs plans. ie- no plan specifically realting to sex work- we have exiting programs, the ngo's in charge support decrim- we tried to creat exiting opportunities with our cooperative but rape relief and their allies misrepresented our intentions and crippled our efforts to achieve our goals....so it's all very well for ms lakeman to claim they support all these things but do they? or do they in fact impead prgress with their uninformed actions against sex workers them selves?

rape relief are not involved in any city or police committees i am on, so exactly where are they working on the issues they claim to support......

 

Makwa Makwa's picture

Many women, men and trans people around the world have a stake in developing safe avenues for sexualized commerce.  Sexualized commerce has become an established set of institutions in most urbanized environments, and the most important thing we should be concentrating on is how to maximize the safety and security of both the workers and the clients in these systems.  Were we to continually marginalize these working people, we would risk their having their health compromised, which could lead to their clients health being compromised. These are the vectors for the transmission of some particularly deadly issues.  

Infosaturated

Makwa wrote:

Many women, men and trans people around the world have a stake in developing safe avenues for sexualized commerce.  Sexualized commerce has become an established set of institutions in most urbanized environments, and the most important thing we should be concentrating on is how to maximize the safety and security of both the workers and the clients in these systems.  Were we to continually marginalize these working people, we would risk their having their health compromised, which could lead to their clients health being compromised. These are the vectors for the transmission of some particularly deadly issues. 

The most important issue is to protect the majority of prostitutes who are women and children forced into sexual slavery.

The second most important issue is to protect the tiny minority of willing sex workers whose competition is increased due to decriminalization which results in lower income and being forced to perform more dangerous sex acts such as not using condoms.

 

Lee Lakeman

I don't think your intervention qualifies as moderating a discussion.  You are biased and cheating.   I would like to know where we are to protest unfair use of the moderators chair and power?

As to your opinion: I do not nor does anyone else have to accept prostitution to save men from aids or any other STD.

I do not marginalize prostituted men or women and I resent that characterization of my opinion and my work.  The fact that you are  in my opinion, not only wrong but patonizing and cheating with your moralistic clap trap.  If you want in the debate play by the rules. If you don't I won't

Infosaturated

Lee Lakeman wrote:

 

I don't think your intervention qualifies as moderating a discussion.  You are biased and cheating.   I would like to know where we are to protest unfair use of the moderators chair and power?

I agree. I believe there are numerous examples of multiple moderators blatantly favoring one side of the discussion.

Summer

All the mods here also participate in the discussions to varying degrees. They're allowed to have opinions just like the rest of us.

Makwa was voicing his opinion, not moderating.

Unionist

Perhaps certain persons here are unaware that complaints about moderation do not belong in this thread. Furthermore, arrogant, belligerent, and bullying attacks on Makwa, or indeed on anyone, do not belong in any thread.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Heh. Formalizing consent are we now?

Since when was it claimed that the site was moderated from the perspective unbiased "objectivity"? I don't think that Smith would assert such a value was even plausible. The standpoint of any web site is established by its moderation, and the moderators. This site includes among it moderators persons who are from (to a greater or lesser extent) "marginalized" groups in this society, and only has one "white male" among four. Viewed from that perspective Rabble hardly qualifies as bastion mainstream consensus, and in fact was intended not to reflect that consenus as its mandate.

There is a little "institutional ethnography" for you.

I notice that Lakeman enters this discussion with a call to refrain from "charachter assassination" then not to much later flat out accuses Allan Young of rejecting "the notion of violence against women requiring the rule of law".

Laughing

Funny this complaint about bias in the context of a debate where such stark accussations are allowed to stand, when Susan Davis is taken to task by a moderator for calling certain people liars -- the moderator even taking the highly unusual step of editing her post.

I'll go back to the beyond now....

Lee Lakeman

Thanks for the note that moderatora are encourgemed to express their own opinion.  I accept that but I do not accept using the authority of that position plus an authoritative voice like "what is important is"  to express an unsupported opinion and in my opinion an opinion hardly supportive of a socialist conception of human relations.  Since when is commercializing human relationships and basic human needs an aspiration for freedom seekers.

As to bullying I think you need to reread this thread which has yet to be allowed to get on to the topic proposed and iun which I intervened to end the character slamming of an important group of women.

 

Infosaturated

Summer wrote:

All the mods here also participate in the discussions to varying degrees. They're allowed to have opinions just like the rest of us.

Makwa was voicing his opinion, not moderating.

This thread was about the right to speak and who has it. It has been dressed up in the garb of theoretical discourse over what is "on behalf " what is 'ally" what is "representing" etc. 

All threads touching on prostitution are being brought back to what Makwa just said.

The basic premise seems to boil down to sex workers and their supporters have the right to speak and other voices will be tolerated but discouraged and discriminated against because they aren't sex workers.

The mods are ignoring my questions and refusing to protect threads from becoming a free-for-all focused on who gets to speak and on individual sex worker rights which effectively silences any attempt to focus evaluation of systems in different countries.

An attempt to post the actual words of aboriginal groups in a protected thread so they wouldn't be drowned out was prevented. Insinuations that I am responsible for the deaths of women stand unchecked by moderators and yet a moderator will deliberately misinterpret my words applying them to a group of people I was not referring to and give me a warning over it. Baiting and personal attacks against me or my right to speak are tolerated yet I am not allowed to respond in kind.

Lee Lakeman is right. If the mods will not address my concerns here then I need to know who to present my case to.

 

Makwa Makwa's picture

Unionist wrote:
Perhaps certain persons here are unaware that complaints about moderation do not belong in this thread. Furthermore, arrogant, belligerent, and bullying attacks on Makwa, or indeed on anyone, do not belong in any thread.
_____________________________________________

Maha.  Thank you kindly Unionist for your reasonable observation.  I do wish someone would at least consider the resource I suggested, which I think, gives a fair hearing to those who speak from the established environment of the sex worker. My opinion is based on reading such as this, as well as some knowledge of the lives of some sex workers I have known as friends. I am a little taken aback at the vitriol expressed here.

Infosaturated

Cueball wrote:
The standpoint of any web site is established by its moderation, and the moderators.

No it isn't. This website was established as a place for rabble readers to discuss topics from a progressive standpoint. Mods were hired to faciliate that end.

The personal political perspectives of the mods and who they are buddies with should have nothing to do with moderating decisions.

susan davis

Lee Lakeman wrote:

I don't think your intervention qualifies as moderating a discussion.  You are biased and cheating.   I would like to know where we are to protest unfair use of the moderators chair and power?

As to your opinion: I do not nor does anyone else have to accept prostitution to save men from aids or any other STD.

I do not marginalize prostituted men or women and I resent that characterization of my opinion and my work.  The fact that you are  in my opinion, not only wrong but patonizing and cheating with your moralistic clap trap.  If you want in the debate play by the rules. If you don't I won't

you marginalize me pretty good......thanks for all your support for the coop and once again calling me a prostitute....

Cueball Cueball's picture

Infosaturated wrote:

Cueball wrote:
The standpoint of any web site is established by its moderation, and the moderators.

No it isn't. This website was established as a place for rabble readers to discuss topics from a progressive standpoint. Mods were hired to faciliate that end.

Precisely the point. What constitutes a "progressive standpoint" is determined by the moderators based on their personal political standpoint: this is not contextually objective, but subjective. All institutions have an innate bias, and this web site is no exception.

Infosaturated wrote:

The personal political perspectives of the mods and who they are buddies with should have nothing to do with moderating decisions.

As we can see the ONLY persons taken to task so far in this discussion has been Susan Davis. Your complaint simply seems to revolve around a single adminstrative decision to close a thread you started, because it was deemed to cause thread proliferation. No one at any time prevented you from saying anything that you wanted to say, and have said, but instead asked you to say it in a different place in order to focus the discussion.

Meanwhile they have even cautioned Susan Davis, and even edited her posts, explicitly to rectify a specific allegation, even before Lakeman "intervened to end the character slamming of an important group of women", as she put it, a moderator had already intervened to that effect, saying:

Michelle wrote:

Whoa whoa whoa.

Sorry, but we can't be posting people's e-mail addresses here like that.  I'm going to remove them.

You also can't call individual people "liars" here because that leaves babble open to libel claims.  I'm also going to remove that from your post.  Sorry, but a difference of opinion does not mean someone else is a "liar".

Where is the evident bias?

Now it seems you have moved further on, basically accusing the moderators of being biased because they are "buddies" with Susan Davis, and I guess part of some wider Rabble conspiracy of insiders, even though Davis is the only one who has been seriously cautioned. Noting of course that such allegations are pretty spurious since Davis registered her account less that two months ago, one really has to ask on what basis you accuse them of making moderating decisions based in "who they are buddies with"? 

remind remind's picture

HUH!

To say I am extremely surprised that this has brought Cue out from his boycott of babble, is to understate it.

Where is the puking icon when you need it?

 

remind remind's picture

 

Found one

Cueball Cueball's picture

I have been following this debate very closely. I haven't said anything other than to point out that Infosaturated's accussations about bias in moderating, because they "closed" and then "reopened" one of Infosaturated's threads, and now indeed that they are somehow "buddies" with Susan Davis is the height of underhanded pukeworthiness. Simply put it was an obvious moderating call of the kind designed to stop single issue posters from thread spamming the TAT, every time they find some new piece of information or article that supports their position.

Nuff said.

Cueball Cueball's picture

That's it eh? No arguements? No thoughts? Just what Lakeman calls "charachter assassination", nastiness and bile.

Bye.

remind remind's picture

You can't be serious.... :rolleyes:

Infosaturated

Cueball, I was not referring to Susan or to solely to this thread

Cueball Cueball's picture

Oh then if you don't really have any evidence that the moderators are showing bias, in this particular thread or in this particular debate, or favouring any of the persons engaged, why are you bringing the issue up at all in this particular thread and in this particular debate in discussion with the persons engaged?

Seems to me like you are engaging in generalized smear tactics aimed at the moderators, generally as a way of leveraging your position, and indeed attempting, yet again, to silence someone who speaks from the position of the "marginalized", in this case Makwa, Rabble's single First Nation's moderator, spuriously and without supporting evidence when he voiced an opinion not entirely in line with your own, even though he legitimately has a place in this discussion and speaks at least to a certain extent from the standpoint of those who you say you are defending.

I think his views should be given credit and observed, rather than simply being dismissed because of some perceived bureaucratic adminstrative norm you chose to assert, and vague accussations about "bias".

Polunatic2

I saw a film last week named "Call & Response". It's about human trafficking and modern-day slavery. While the film does not take a position on sex work "per se", it does go out of its way to define slavery in the context of one person owning another, working for nothing and the inability of slaves to walk away from their situation. Check out the trailer

It describes modern day slavery as a rapidly growing problem (27 million people globally) with more human trafficking taking place now than at any time in history e.g) 2.2 million girls and women sold into sex slavery every year. It calls for the development of a 21st century abolitionist movement to eradicate slavery in all its manifestations - "child soldiers, child slavery, sex slavery and labour slavery" (the film's categories). It implies the need for the development of a "slave-free" label on consumer products, not unlike, but different from "fair trade". 

I highly recommend this very moving film, directed by musician Justin Dillon which is punctuated with musical performances from a number of artists who responded to the call to take a stand to highlight this scourge. 

Cornel West is brilliant in making the links between US slavery and modern music bringing the film full circle. He comes up with such zingers as "Never forget that justice is what love looks like in public." If I could embed video, I would embed the second clip on the West page. He posits that we need each other to have strong voices to move our struggles forward.

Call & Response is an interesting case study of the line between speaking "in support of" and not "on behalf of" oppressed people. It is imperfect no doubt but better that the film be made with some flaws than not made at all in my opinion. 

remind remind's picture

Thanks polunatic, sounds like a film actually worth supporting.

~

Also want to note that men coming into this discussion to attack women posters, even couched and obliquely, who have serious issues about this topic, understandablyl so,  is unpleasant in the extreme.

Michelle

Just letting folks know that I'm not any more "buddies" with anyone participating in this discussion than anyone else, and I've never met Susan Davis in my life - although I certainly do respect her from what I've seen of her on babble.  I encourage her, and anyone else who is directly affected or involved in sex work, to voice their opinions, and I give those opinions great weight.  I also appreciate Lee's input and that of others in this thread.

I would also like to note that Infosaturated is not my employer, nor that of any of the other babble moderator, and therefore has no authority to outline what our job description is here, or any special insight or knowledge of what we were "hired to do" here.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

There are a couple of points that I would like to address that have arisen since my posting last night.

If I may quote briefly from Lee Lakeman's post (#57):

Quote:
Just a couple of basics I hope you will agree with and keep in mind:

Sexual violence is alredy highly gendered. On the whole men do it. It is true that some men do it to other men. It is true that a few women do it and even fewer women do it to girls and women, but on the whole men do it and they do it to girls, boys, the men who they perceive as like women and to women. Overwhelmingly men sexually assualt women.

Whether you care to classify prostitution/trafficking as violence against women or not, it is men who do the prostituting and women who are sold, rented, bought or used as sexual objects.

I have a number of problems with these paragraphs. While I agreed totally with the assertions in the first two sentences of the second paragraph, my agreement starts breaking down near the end of the third sentence and all of the final third paragraph.

At the risk of "speaking on another's behalf", I would point out that this discussion does not take place in isolation and in fact takes place in the aftermath of the discussion of M2F transgendered individuals in this thread and which carried over to this one. In light of this, I am both confused and concerned about the statement describing those who may be sexually assaulted as "the men who they perceive as like women". Is this a backhanded reference to transgendered women or an assertion that is it "effeminate" males who are attacked? Is something else implied -- am I reading too much into what was written?

The third paragraph might have been salvagable had the qualifier "overwhelmingly" been inserted before the word men, and the word "primarily" inserted before the word women.

I think "the basics" that we could all agree upon would be that: 1) sexual violence is highly gendered, 2) men are overwhelmingly the offenders and 3) the primary victims of this violence are (cis)gendered women and minors. That is a lot of common ground to work from. I believe we can have a worthwhile discussion without having to accept the premise that sex work is violence against women or that it is exclusively women who are "sold, rented, bought or used as sexual objects". Indeed, it is in light of the what I am interpreting as widespread acceptance of this second premise, the "exclusivity" premise, I would refer back to the links I posted in my original post (#47) and reproduce the relevant passage here:

Quote:
Another part of the problem of sexism is the assumption that men in the industry do not need protection, rights or support. Since men cause all the problems in prostitution, what do male sex workers have to worry about? Surely a man would not attempt with another man the same shit he tries with women. Again, the narrow men vs. women model of prostitution ignores the other combinations, but the erroneous assumption that guys can handle themselves is reflected in the amount of services and education geared toward men in the industry.

What precarious support there is exists in the form of rescuing boys, since the rescuing of children shares similar popularity with the rescuing of women.

I agree with with what I believe is implicit in a number of posts on these topics, that it is primarily (cisgendered) women and minors who suffer the negative consequences of sex work (and I hope I am not understating the case with the description "negative consequences"). At the same time there is a long way to travel between primarily and exclusively. I think it important to look at the question of proportionality. For those at the greatest risk, those who are doing street level (front line?) sex work, I think there is sufficient anecdotal evidence to contend that among those disproportionately represented are transgendered women and (primarily young) marginalized men (regardless of their actual sexual orientation). I would refer to the description offered in the second link I posted in #47:

Quote:
Transgendered children who get kicked out of their homes, like other children in the same predicament, must resort to one or more of three basic means of survival: prostitution, theft or drug dealing. [emphasis added]

In much the same way that posters are willing to acknowledge that there are marginalized groups of women who are disproportionately represented in street level sex work (FN women are the group most frequently identified in this thread), transgendered women and marginalized young men are disproportionately represented. It is unfortunate that their voices are not present here, but I will go back to my assertion from my first posting -- it is our responsibility to step outside of our own skins and make at least an attempt to picture the effects of how what we are proposing will impact these marginalized groups.

While I am aware that those who are opposed to decriminalization are neither speaking with a single voice, nor necessarily defending the existing body of law (indeed, I think they are pretty clear that the status quo is failing badly, particularly in reference to the responsibility to protect), I am more than a little uncomfortable with what I consider to be a failure on their part to explore the possible ramifications of their position. Speaking now from entirely within my own (middle aged, gay male and admittedly pallid) skin, I would wonder aloud how they would propose balancing their desire to see the state fulfil its responsibility to protect (under criminal law) with the regrettably obvious tendency of the same state to attempt to regulate (again under the self-same criminal law) marginalized communites. The specific example that comes to mind is the one that exists under the status quo, the bawdy house laws, purportedly in place to to ban brothels, but in practice disproportionately used to regulate and intimidate gay men for our "lewd behaviour". It is a very particular example, but I would suggest that a lot of marginalized groups would recognize the pattern, sloppy criminal law being interpreted by the enforcement arm of the state as a licence to regulate, control and manage those not part of the dominant group.

Infosaturated

bagkitty wrote:
  I am both confused and concerned about the statement describing those who may be sexually assaulted as "the men who they perceive as like women". Is this a backhanded reference to transgendered women or an assertion that is it "effeminate" males who are attacked? Is something else implied -- am I reading too much into what was written?

I think it refers to status as opposed to gender or biological sex. For example, from what I hear, men in prison are assigned the role of females. Once they are percieved " as like" women, even though everyone knows full well that they are man, they have female status and are rapable. 

bagkitty wrote:

1) sexual violence is highly gendered, 2) men are overwhelmingly the offenders and 3) the primary victims of this violence are (cis)gendered women and minors. That is a lot of common ground to work from. I believe we can have a worthwhile discussion without having to accept the premise that sex work is violence against women or that it is exclusively women who are "sold, rented, bought or used as sexual objects". Indeed, it is in light of the what I am interpreting as widespread acceptance of this second premise, the "exclusivity" premise,....

Sometimes it's important to break populations down but depending on the topic many times it's immaterial. Normally when sex doesn't matter we say "men" or "mankind" and everyone just assumes women are in there too. In the case of prostitution the default should be "women" because it is women who are prostituted almost to the exclusion of men. When speaking of street work the disproportionate number of transwomen, like aboriginal women, needs to be addressed. When speaking more globally I consider transwomen in the same basket as aboriginal women. We don't need to say women, aboriginal women and transwomen.

bagkitty wrote:
While I am aware that those who are opposed to decriminalization are neither speaking with a single voice, nor necessarily defending the existing body of law (indeed, I think they are pretty clear that the status quo is failing badly, particularly in reference to the responsibility to protect), I am more than a little uncomfortable with what I consider to be a failure on their part to explore the possible ramifications of their position.

Discussing situations and outcomes for individual populations is impossible.  We haven't even been able to explore one of the models in other countries.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Infosaturated wrote:
 When speaking more globally I consider transwomen in the same basket as aboriginal women. We don't need to say women, aboriginal women and transwomen.

In my humble opinion, "we" most definitely do need to identify those women who are systemically marginalized in different ways. For example, some sex workers experience individual and systemic racism. Some do not.

Caissa

thread drfit/good to see you Cueball. How do you like the new Babble where people have agreed not to attack others? Working well, eh?/ end thread drift

Maysie Maysie's picture

Caissa, please don't enter threads to post negative snarky comments. Thank you.

Angella

When speaking more globally I consider transwomen in the same basket as aboriginal women. We don't need to say women, aboriginal women and transwomen.

I agree, I think you do need to identify who you are referring to, partly because not everyone is aware that women could be marginalized in different ways, or consider how that might be the case.  Also, I think identifiying, for example, women, aboriginal women, and transwomen, highlights where their voices might be missing.

 


Slumberjack

Welcome back Cueball.

Michelle

I might be more likely to say, "Women, including aboriginal women and transwomen" so that people don't mistake it to mean that aboriginal women and transwomen aren't women.

In fact, I've often wondered when I've seen "women and transwomen" in announcements and such, which to my mind makes it look like transwomen aren't being included as women.  Considering the (amazing and pretty unbelievable in this day and age) fact that there are some feminists and feminist groups who actually DON'T consider transwomen to be "real" women, and who discriminate against them, it always gives me a little jolt when I see it, and I wonder, if I don't know the group or the woman saying it, whether it indicates inclusion or exclusion.

Michelle

It's off topic in this thread.  If you have nothing to contribute to this thread but off-topic discussions about babble etiquette, please just don't post in the thread.  That includes any post you might be tempted to make after reading this one.

Thanks.

Caissa

Maysie my comment was not snarky. Feel free to take it at face value. I asked Cueball two questions upon which I would appreciate his opinion.

ETA: Cueball answered my questions by PM.

Caissa

thread drift/ I asked a serious question, I received a serious answer via PM. I resent being accused by two moderators of being snarky. Is this the new Babble we are trying to build?/ End thread drift.

Michelle

Caissa, okay, now you can just stay out of the thread entirely.  That is not a request.  That is an editorial decision on my part, that your comments are disruptive in this thread.

Caissa

And what pray tell will the consequences be? A suspension, a banning? If moderators want to objectively review the comments in this thread they will find that my two simple questions are far from being egregious.

Maysie's comment and your intervention Michelle arise from the difficulty with reading tone on the internet. I asked Cueball two simple questions. He obviously thought they were simple because he responded to them via PM. If I meant to be snarky, I would have used an appropriate emoticon. I value Cueball's opinion on this question because he left over the tone and seemed to be getting a rough ride upthread.

Keeping with the thread title I feel like I'm being oppressed by two moderators in this thread and am speaking on my own behalf.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

"I think it refers to status as opposed to gender or biological sex. For example, from what I hear, men in prison are assigned the role of females. Once they are percieved " as like" women, even though everyone knows full well that they are man, they have female status and are rapable."

 

The start of the second sentence ; "For, example, from what I hear"  is a great example of how not to speak on behalf of the oppressed.  This person is speaking on a subject they have claimed no personal knowledge of and has drawn conclusions from anecdotal evidence without citing any sources or studies.  IMO it is neither respectful of people in prisons nor adds anything to the discussion except perpetuating stereotypical images of incarcerated people gleaned from shows like "Oz."

Michelle

Fine.  Whatever, Caissa.  I see what you're doing now.  This is simply an exercise to prove your point that moderators should be suspending or banning people.

Since this thread is almost full and off topic anyhow, I'll just respond to you, Caissa, by saying that if you can't stay on topic in a thread, we'll ask you to stay out of it.  And if you keep posting in it, maybe we'll just start deleting any and all posts you post after we've asked you to stay out of a thread.

Honestly?  I don't know.  I thought we were all adult enough not to play these stupid, juvenile games.  And most of us are.  But perhaps it's the people who complained the most about the moderators not being able to suspend or ban people who recognized that THEY are the ones without enough self control to act like adults on the boards without the mods treating them like children.

I'm going to do what I usually never do, and give myself the last word, since I doubt this thread will get back on topic again before a hundred posts.

Pages

Topic locked