Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

iverglas

(38,549 posts)
33. any chance of you answering direct questions?
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 04:27 AM
Jan 2012
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113921#post44

Personally, I will be concerned about what you will "be okay with" if I believe that you are speaking as a woman and a feminist.

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1139&pid=249

"its also important to keep in mind that if you are white and middle class in this country and a women, you have only one oppression to worry about. therefore you can feel like all women should bond together. however, the more oppressions i have, my in groups maybe different. my allegiance to the lgbt community will always outweigh my allegiance to straight women. my allegiance to the south asian immigrant lgbt community will outweigh my allegiance to the larger lgbt community. these are all things we should keep in mind, when talking about movements/issues/politics/whatever"

From what I can tell, that allegiance will outweigh other individuals' interest in their reputation and your (presumed) interest in truth in public discourse, as well.

Are you speaking as a woman and a feminist in this post now? When you have said flatly that, where you assert a conflict of interests, presumably, you will abandon women? How could you ever claim to speak as a feminist?

I can't see how you could, since your primary allegiance is to a group or groups other than women -- and you can say "straight women" if you like, but that is just you asserting a divergence of interests that others, including some non-straight women, simply don't agree with. You might speak as a woman; but a feminist?

I have no intention of being in a group labelled "second-wave feminist". That is an ethnocentric label that has little to do with me and doesn't accurately represent the situation where I am even to the extent that there have been second and third waves of feminism here, outside the USofA, and a label that, as defined by you, would not apply to me even if I were in the US.

Second-wave feminists do not own the word feminism? Well, whatever group it is that you belong to and are speaking as a member of doesn't define feminism, let alone me.

Either one sees patriarchy as a source of oppression at least equal to the class structure, to homophobia, to racism, to all other sources of oppression, or one doesn't. Either one sees women's problems as at least as important as the problems of every other exploited or oppressed or victimized group, or subgroup, or one doesn't.

Either one chooses to dissociate one's self from, and not advocate in the interests of, some sub-group of women, in your case "straight women", or one doesn't. I don't. I don't elevate my interests as a member of any sub-group of women, or as a member of any other group, above the interests of women. By your actions in the rotten thread in the GLBT group, and your plain words in the other thread in this group, you have at least made it appear that you do.

Straight women as a group are not the oppressors of the LGBT community, or of Asian immigrants, or of anybody else. Second-wave or any other feminists most certainly are not. And I reject any analysis that says we are.

Certainly individual women belong to the oppressor groups -- women in the ownership class, women in the religious right. The same is true of African-Americans: they have their right-wingers and their gun militants. Does the LGBT community throw African-Americans under the bus because of Clarence Thomas or Kenn Blanchard? Those women are not feminists, and those African-Americans are not civil rights leaders.

I will discuss potential conflicts as well as confluences of interests with someone who recognizes the legitimacy of feminists' concerns and analysis. Not with someone who starts out by telling me they will always be at the back of her bus when, at least, she alleges a conflict.

My feminism has NEVER excluded race/class/sexual orientation analysis, so why would I need a statement telling me to include it? And quite simply, your race/class/sexual orientation analysis, or anyone else's, is not gospel.

Your views are shaped by multiple identities. Not everyone with any or all of those, or other, identities has decided that "woman" is the least important of them -- or that their own identities other than "woman" are what they will choose to govern their political analysis and action.

Pick and choose your identities as you wish, and assign whatever weight to them you will -- your choice is entirely your own and not for me or anyone else to judge in any way, not having your experience and perspective. But kindly do not tell me, once you have done that and woman/feminist is not at the top of the list whether alone or in company, that the purpose of the Feminists group should accommodate you and thus exclude those of us who do not wish to be defined as the oppressor or as less worthy of concern than some other group or subgroup.

I actually don't go around telling working-class men that their concerns as members of the working class are illegitimate and must give way to women's concerns in the event of conflict, or that the concerns of any other exploited or oppressed or victimized group must give way. I'll talk about why part of the wage pool in an enterprise should be allocated to on site childcare even if it means a slightly lower direct wage, and listen to the arguments against, and possibly ultimately agree to disagree as reasonable people of goodwill can do. I won't be told that the working-class interest in higher wages automatically supercedes women's interest in access to employment. And in a discussion of pornography, I won't be told that the LGBT community's interest in recognition of the legitimacy of their sexuality as essential to their human dignity automatically supercedes women's interest in recognition of our humanity as essential to our security and equality of opportunity. I might agree to disagree. I will not sit and have epithets (let alone lies) thrown at me to discredit me or to discredit feminists' concerns. Not here.

I think my proposal conveys the intention perfectly adequately, but others might suggest different ways of framing it:

This forum is for discussion of women's rights, concerns and interests, and discussion of issues as they affect women, from the perspective and experience of women.

Women come in all classes and colours and sexualities, but the prerequisite here is that a poster be a feminist and speak as a woman (or as a man who is speaking from the perspective of women's rights, concerns and interests) first and foremost.
sounds good to me. nt seabeyond Jan 2012 #1
ahem iverglas Jan 2012 #2
I answer myself iverglas Jan 2012 #3
Sounds good to me! redqueen Jan 2012 #4
This message was self-deleted by its author Bunny Jan 2012 #5
true, no need for limits ;) iverglas Jan 2012 #6
I object to limiting discussion to just today. There are many DUers who don't visit forums daily, Gormy Cuss Jan 2012 #7
sorry, I didn't mean! iverglas Jan 2012 #8
Then may we please start over with just a discussion of the SoP and try to get consensus on that? Gormy Cuss Jan 2012 #10
I agree that a discussion of the SoP is a good idea. redqueen Jan 2012 #13
To be honest, I read it the same way initially. Gormy Cuss Jan 2012 #24
again ... iverglas Jan 2012 #15
I for one agree with you completely. redqueen Jan 2012 #17
I've been around this group for a very long time and I've seen many serious disputes Gormy Cuss Jan 2012 #22
how would you suggest the phrasing to be more inclusive? on edit... i also seabeyond Jan 2012 #25
It either needs to explicitly limit the statement to discussing those things outside of a feminist Gormy Cuss Jan 2012 #27
I can't agree iverglas Jan 2012 #29
This reminds me of "bitch" wars in GD. Gormy Cuss Jan 2012 #31
it had already reminded me of the "douchebag" war iverglas Jan 2012 #38
Wow. redqueen Jan 2012 #48
i think you should be the main host La Lioness Priyanka Jan 2012 #32
The year should probably be updated there. The statement says 2005. :) Starry Messenger Jan 2012 #9
heh heh iverglas Jan 2012 #11
I really like this: Starry Messenger Jan 2012 #16
agreed La Lioness Priyanka Jan 2012 #35
I've tried to respond to comments about iverglas Jan 2012 #12
Oops! I posted before I saw your answer to GormyCuss. Starry Messenger Jan 2012 #14
maybe simple is best! iverglas Jan 2012 #18
I think that is really thoughtful and good. Starry Messenger Jan 2012 #19
ah, third wave iverglas Jan 2012 #21
statement of purpose - thoughts? iverglas Jan 2012 #20
I like the rephrasing of the porn/prude bullet n/t Gormy Cuss Jan 2012 #23
I find it problematic, perhaps in the extreme Remember Me Feb 2012 #181
I would update the year from 2005 to 2012, to reflect the move to DU3. ZombieHorde Jan 2012 #26
check post 20 iverglas Jan 2012 #28
i am not comfortable with this statement of purpose La Lioness Priyanka Jan 2012 #30
any chance of you answering direct questions? iverglas Jan 2012 #33
ofcourse i am speaking as a feminist La Lioness Priyanka Jan 2012 #34
you got it iverglas Jan 2012 #36
are you lgbtq? if so you get to decide who is and who is not a homophobe La Lioness Priyanka Jan 2012 #37
you almost seem to take my point (edited) iverglas Jan 2012 #39
actually i do think its gender not sex. transwomen for instance, imo belong to the feminist movement La Lioness Priyanka Jan 2012 #41
On the divvying up and labelling of women... Violet_Crumble Jan 2012 #40
because sometimes straight women want things that queer women La Lioness Priyanka Jan 2012 #42
let's stop beating around the bush iverglas Jan 2012 #43
i have yet to see why you get to define feminism and i don't La Lioness Priyanka Jan 2012 #44
I have yet to see where I said I did (edited) iverglas Jan 2012 #45
you came into this thread of over 300 posts and made ONE. one post. on mine. it was a jab and you seabeyond Jan 2012 #46
not everything is about you and your feelings La Lioness Priyanka Jan 2012 #55
thank you so much for taking the time to clear that up for me. nt seabeyond Jan 2012 #58
Nol but a direct question about attacks YOU made to HER most certainly IS Remember Me Feb 2012 #182
yes, my vacation is a priority over an internet argument. La Lioness Priyanka Feb 2012 #185
seabeyond, please tell me why you referenced me in that post Gormy Cuss Jan 2012 #65
#30. i want gormycuss as main host seabeyond Jan 2012 #67
Thanks, I missed those. Gormy Cuss Jan 2012 #73
but nothing else. there is nothing else to say about that post? seabeyond Jan 2012 #74
What things? That's what I'm not understanding... Violet_Crumble Jan 2012 #109
I want seabeyond to be a co-hostess JustAnotherGen Jan 2012 #47
you wanna be one too? ;) iverglas Jan 2012 #49
I can't be one JustAnotherGen Jan 2012 #50
snork iverglas Jan 2012 #53
I would like to say "amen" to your fifth paragraph. (nt) redqueen Jan 2012 #51
I agree. I think it's the crux of what this group is about. CrispyQ Jan 2012 #108
i was having a blast at the dinner table tonight talking about all the many groups seabeyond Jan 2012 #110
Me too Remember Me Feb 2012 #183
As a lesbian and someone who considers herself a feminist, I have a comment on all this back & forth justiceischeap Jan 2012 #52
You can't put the definition of feminism in a box ... but it seems like some can with people seabeyond Jan 2012 #54
Now I don't know if I'm getting your point justiceischeap Jan 2012 #56
ok. thanks. nt seabeyond Jan 2012 #60
You can have an opinion and state it whenever you wish Lisa D Jan 2012 #57
i have never expected, nor would i ever expect 100% agreement. nt seabeyond Jan 2012 #59
I think it is a matter of acknowledging whatever privilege one might bear in a conversation or Starry Messenger Jan 2012 #62
Perfectly stated. Lisa D Jan 2012 #66
find one post, ONE post i have not worked at, struggled with to hear the other side. ONE. seabeyond Jan 2012 #69
I'm sorry, but I was not criticizing you in any way. Lisa D Jan 2012 #71
but we are not demanding the same. it CAN NOT be just one sided. we cannot say we are putting in seabeyond Jan 2012 #72
Why are people picking sides? Lisa D Jan 2012 #79
that is the point. the whole point i have been arguing from post ONE. sides. we have the GD sides seabeyond Jan 2012 #82
why are people picking sides?? iverglas Jan 2012 #102
I'm not sure why you felt Lisa D Jan 2012 #104
uh iverglas Jan 2012 #106
I'm not dismissing your concerns. Lisa D Jan 2012 #107
and i KNOW why you felt people were picking sides. and i know you are trying your best to be seabeyond Jan 2012 #105
Taking things too personally -- Remember Me Feb 2012 #184
of course that is a factor. nor have i ever denied any of that nor been unwilling to discuss. seabeyond Jan 2012 #68
I am also speaking globally as a reply in the subthread to justiceischeap's post. Starry Messenger Jan 2012 #75
so... because i am a middle aged women i should readily accept i am a prude, anti sex, asexual, seabeyond Jan 2012 #76
so, not only do i have to listen to all these demeaning comments over and over and over from the men seabeyond Jan 2012 #78
Was justiceischeap saying any of those things in her post? Starry Messenger Jan 2012 #81
Is there something that can be done to amend that going forward? seabeyond Jan 2012 #85
I don't see the with us or against us. Starry Messenger Jan 2012 #89
i ahve asked a couple times how it needs to be worded. i dont care. i havent heard anyone put a seabeyond Jan 2012 #91
sorry, but you just do not know the history iverglas Jan 2012 #103
You are not a prude, not anti-sex, and not asexual, etc. Lisa D Jan 2012 #83
thank you for talking to me like a person, instead of a caricature. i think that is what i was seabeyond Jan 2012 #86
as the person who posted this in the thread where I was attacked iverglas Jan 2012 #61
Okay then. Let me be the first. Gormy Cuss Jan 2012 #63
gormy? can you find any posts where this other side (since i have been put on a side i dont want) seabeyond Jan 2012 #70
seabeyond, I've argued repeatedly over the first bullet point because I believe it was and is Gormy Cuss Jan 2012 #77
what you're hearing ... iverglas Jan 2012 #88
What you're hearing is not what was said. Gormy Cuss Jan 2012 #93
let's not be disingenuous iverglas Jan 2012 #101
i ahev to agree with iverglas. you guys are saying that lioness has issues. i dont get what they seabeyond Jan 2012 #90
Thank you for getting what I was saying. justiceischeap Jan 2012 #95
how do you want it worded so you are comfortable with you. i want your whole body in, not just a seabeyond Jan 2012 #96
I posted it in the thread you started. justiceischeap Jan 2012 #97
uh huh iverglas Jan 2012 #84
Question Lisa D Jan 2012 #64
me personally iverglas Jan 2012 #92
Thank you for your answer. Lisa D Jan 2012 #94
It seems you're angry with me justiceischeap Jan 2012 #80
there we go iverglas Jan 2012 #98
"I am simply one of many who has had too much of being attacked, and not engaged." justiceischeap Jan 2012 #99
Please don't leave. Lisa D Jan 2012 #100
thank you for writing out what i was too busy too La Lioness Priyanka Jan 2012 #111
do we need to start fresh with a new thread and put this one behind. someone type the SOP, seabeyond Jan 2012 #87
there are some who need to spend an hour reading this thread iverglas Feb 2012 #112
oops! look what my mailbox gave me as I posted that last iverglas Feb 2012 #113
This isn't helping things... Violet_Crumble Feb 2012 #114
really? then how about this one? iverglas Feb 2012 #115
unbelievable; beyond belief iverglas Feb 2012 #116
Where is this "let's all get along spirit"? How ironic you've forgotten what thread this is. CreekDog Feb 2012 #117
Are you serious? I use the phrase 'to call a spade a spade' all the time... Violet_Crumble Feb 2012 #118
I'm damned if I can find it now iverglas Feb 2012 #121
Is it that important to you to use the phrase "call a spade a spade"? CreekDog Feb 2012 #131
there is NO racial connotation in the term. YOU are creating one. but that is not the facts. nt seabeyond Feb 2012 #134
Actually spade is a racist slur used against black people. tammywammy Feb 2012 #141
And "to call a spade a spade" has nothing to do with that usage. redqueen Feb 2012 #142
I've updated my post. tammywammy Feb 2012 #148
One person. redqueen Feb 2012 #153
There was a much longer thread years ago on the phrase tammywammy Feb 2012 #155
I don't think it's racist the way she said it, either... redqueen Feb 2012 #156
I will also say that tammywammy Feb 2012 #160
tar baby is and has always been, hands down, a racist term derived as a derogatory seabeyond Feb 2012 #157
yes. it is. that is why i didnt use it. and then i did research on spade for spade because of seabeyond Feb 2012 #144
Yes, there are people on DU that say the phrase is racist. tammywammy Feb 2012 #150
yet FACT would argue what some people think. but, i recognize we have had this discussion on our seabeyond Feb 2012 #152
What are your thoughts on the words "cunt" and "bitch"? redqueen Feb 2012 #139
yes i've called out name-calling in all kinds of forms CreekDog Feb 2012 #158
I'm sorry, but the notion that "call a spade a spade" iverglas Feb 2012 #140
and now in other news ... well they ain't gonna have iverglas to kick around for a while! iverglas Feb 2012 #178
oh no! i hope you get better quickly. Scout Feb 2012 #179
Why lie? Your photo is jacked from the Internet Whoa_Nelly Feb 2012 #187
Have you ever broke your stock photo? LeftyMom Feb 2012 #188
............. Whoa_Nelly Feb 2012 #189
Depending on where you live, yes, "to call a spade a spade" would have racial overtones justiceischeap Feb 2012 #127
we understand. if you will google the saying, you would know that spade for spade was established seabeyond Feb 2012 #132
Well, it's a common turn of phrase here in Australia and has been for ages... Violet_Crumble Feb 2012 #171
well why don't you tell me? iverglas Feb 2012 #119
Post removed Post removed Feb 2012 #120
ha,yeah iverglas Feb 2012 #123
+1 ellisonz Feb 2012 #176
thanks for that! (nt) iverglas Feb 2012 #177
You're welcome. ellisonz Feb 2012 #180
disagreeing with Iverglas is breaking the rules of the forum? CreekDog Feb 2012 #124
calling her a bigot for saying spade a spade. the hostility of your post. false claims seabeyond Feb 2012 #125
you see NOTHING beyond the nose on your face, and i'm not too sure about that. Scout Feb 2012 #126
for taking iverglas to task over what many call a racial slur CreekDog Feb 2012 #128
Who calls that a racial slur? redqueen Feb 2012 #135
y'know actually iverglas Feb 2012 #143
Oh right, good point. I missed the start of it. redqueen Feb 2012 #146
another point. not about objectionable pageant because every person that had issue stated FIRST seabeyond Feb 2012 #151
Ha yes, I'm probably the only one who is so militant about that stuff. redqueen Feb 2012 #154
we have defended four gay WOMEN and we have been attacked for each one. seabeyond Feb 2012 #147
Well I am one person (but I guess you're saying my opinion doesn't count as your ONE DUer) CreekDog Feb 2012 #161
Are you fucking serious? redqueen Feb 2012 #164
The use of the word and/or the specific term is unwise CreekDog Feb 2012 #165
The use is problematic, I already agreed elsewhere about that... redqueen Feb 2012 #166
I didn't call that poster a bigot --nope. CreekDog Feb 2012 #167
Oh yes, that's right... that's you not knowing the context - again. redqueen Feb 2012 #169
And ah yes, priorities. I ignored this part because it is patently untrue. redqueen Feb 2012 #168
Post removed Post removed Feb 2012 #186
+1 ! Vanje Feb 2012 #170
No, but turning up just to have a go at a member of this group sure is... Violet_Crumble Feb 2012 #172
i never used the term "Pearl Clutcher" CreekDog Feb 2012 #129
ummm..... you really did not read iverglas's posts before going into your rant and criticism? seabeyond Feb 2012 #130
well i quoted her other posts CreekDog Feb 2012 #133
pearlclutcher, post 115. fuckin bigots by prism, post 116. misrepresented seabeyond Feb 2012 #136
This message was self-deleted by its author redqueen Feb 2012 #137
I read them, I did not *memorize* them CreekDog Feb 2012 #162
you didnt address the accusation of bigotry with pearl clutching. you didnt address the people in seabeyond Feb 2012 #163
something I'd also just like to point out iverglas Feb 2012 #122
You're saying you have never used the "alert" function? CreekDog Feb 2012 #138
are you saying that you don't tell the truth iverglas Feb 2012 #145
do you have any intention of participating for the group according to the group's stated purpose seabeyond Feb 2012 #149
of course I am following the rules and as host, if this discussion is against them CreekDog Feb 2012 #159
Point me to the rule that says it's okay to appear out of the blue and abuse a member of this group. Violet_Crumble Feb 2012 #173
need a quote of what you're talking about. CreekDog Feb 2012 #174
Here ya go... Violet_Crumble Feb 2012 #175
Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»Feminists»group host / statement of...»Reply #33