Skip to main content

I don't give a flying fig if it's a metaphor, a simile, or any other kind of rhetorical device.

Imagine someone coming here for the first time and seeing all this meta bullshit.

Then try to convince them that the left side of the political spectrum is the one that stands for acceptance and tolerance.

Good luck with that.

If you people want to play the Republican Purity Games and go after each other like that, with venom and bile, feel free.

I'll pass.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Bravo! (11+ / 0-)

    Those diaries present, shall we say, a less than flattering picture of this community.  

    As Wilma would say in the Flintstones, "Fred, what are the neighbors going to think?".

    "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

    by blackhand on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 03:35:25 AM PDT

  •  Curious...would this be considered GBCW? (6+ / 0-)

    I know they're frowned on, but frankly, somebody had to write this diary. Thanks Tommy T.

    Charity is no substitute for justice withheld. -- St. Augustine

    by 3idirish on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 04:47:16 AM PDT

  •  I'm only commenting in this diary (22+ / 0-)

    because I'm not allowed in any of the other ones.

    "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist." Dom Hélder Pessoa Câmara

    by Haningchadus14 on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 04:58:06 AM PDT

      •  You're derailing my self pity party right now (10+ / 2-)

        and you're not allowed to do that. Beat it.

        "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist." Dom Hélder Pessoa Câmara

        by Haningchadus14 on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 06:57:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  "Derail the discussion," defined as (7+ / 5-)

        writing anything which any woman on the thread disagrees with in the least?

        “Republicans...think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people... And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.” Harry S. Truman

        by fenway49 on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 06:58:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, really (5+ / 0-)

            Obviously not in every case. Some comments made by men (who commented over and over again) were disgusting and hijacked the threads. That's definitely true.

            But the "derailing" accusation was not limited to those circumstances. It was not limited to the types of comments made in the "STFU" diary. In some cases there were statements made (and heavily rec'ced) that were just not OK, and anyone who said, "hang on a sec" was given the same treatment.

            “Republicans...think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people... And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.” Harry S. Truman

            by fenway49 on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 07:32:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Can you direct us to any of those? (7+ / 0-)

              Because I participated pretty heavily in most of those diaries, and don't remember a lot of that happening.

              Oh, I think it's entirely possible that in the heat of the moment, someone said something to someone that might have been OTT, but I don't think there was any wave of comments telling people to STFU for simple disagreement if they weren't derailing.

              •  Suresh (0+ / 0-)

                Here is a good example

                http://www.dailykos.com/...

                I didn't even have to disagree, all I had to do was say that I didn't think a good conversation was possible (which I meant because it was so heated an te original diary so fucked up for reasons I laid out elsewhere)

                And I get a ton of totally fake accusations of being sexist dumped on my head.  (And don't you far think of doubling down on them. ). So yeah, it happened quite a bit this business of making up things that people didn't say in order to attack anyone with even a hint of criticism.  
                And you know what?  We very time I have people deny my experience and perceptions makes me a lot less likely to accept or respect their perceptions and experiences because people need to start practicing what they preach.  If you recognize the importance of being heard, you ought to be able to listen also

                Frankly, I stand 100% behind my conclusion that the particular "discussions" that have been on this site have not been productive.  

                •  Where? (5+ / 0-)

                  I don't see anyone accusing you of being sexist in that thread.  I see someone supporting you and someone else pointing out that you might be trying to have a different discussion than what the diary was about.  I also see you misconstruing entirely what the diary was about.

                  Further upthread I see a lot of other people trying to claim someone told all men to stfu and not participate in the discussion, which clearly wasn't what the diary said.

                  Most of all I see a whole lot of talking about men...and their feelings..and their problems..again...which is the exact thing the diarist was trying to get people not to do.

                  Someone disagreed with you, true.  But they didn't beat the snot out of you the way you're claiming, and you still aren't realizing WHY they were disagreeing with you.  It's not because they didn't like your opinion, it's because you had no idea what the discussion was all about in the first place.

                  •  As I said (0+ / 0-)

                    Please don't double down on the same errors.  K thx

                    You need to pay a little more attention to the utterly fake claims that I was somehow not listening to women.  From that point forward I was dealing with the fake and unsupported accusations.from that point forward, any request to not respond is out the door.  

                    •  Well, maybe you posted the wrong link (4+ / 0-)

                      The thread your link took me to has one response from one woman asking you in rather strong language to write your own diary if you wanted to talk about something other than the #YesAllWomen topic.

                      I don't think the person who responded to you was correct in saying that, in that diary, because that diary was so much more meta than the originals.  In fact, that diary would have been a good place to discuss exactly what you were trying to discuss.

                      But I didn't see

                      a ton of totally fake accusations of being sexist dumped on my head.
                      I saw one.  And I saw you continue to misinterpret what that diary said over and over
                      Did it escape your notice that this diary stand for the proposition that no matter what my story might be, it is not worthy of being heard.
                      which is utterly untrue.

                      I don't know what errors you think I'm doubling down on, but I've been trying to figure out what you're talking about, and it's making no sense at all to me.

                  •  Mindful has been up to this for the past week. (0+ / 0-)

                    Just FYI.

                    Screw John Galt. Who's John Doe?

                    by Mike Kahlow on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 12:04:33 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  In fact (0+ / 0-)

                    Did you not notice that I was expressly asked about my feelings after I had declined to elaborate? In fact, my initial instinct to just not even discuss it was correct.  No way would talking about my point of view if it was in anyway critical be received rationally and I was correct

                     For fuck's sake, getting on someone's case about talking about reactions when expressly asked just shows the entirely dysfunctional character of this "discussion". (It isn't a discussion, it is a rant.  Rants aren't noted for being rational.  That is fine but don't try to claim everything has been sweet and civil.  That claim is flaming bullcrap)

                    Long story short, this diarist is correct.  No point engaging here for now

            •  This is why I am rec'ing to offset that HR (7+ / 0-)

              Right here:

              the "derailing" accusation was not limited to those circumstances. It was not limited to the types of comments made in the "STFU" diary. In some cases there were statements made (and heavily rec'ced) that were just not OK, and anyone who said, "hang on a sec" was given the same treatment.
              There was a metric fuckton of what I've bolded.  And the initial comment is asking a fucking honest question, so that HR should come off, particularly given the thoughtful followup.

              "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

              by lunachickie on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 07:41:42 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I agree. That shouldn't have been HRd (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                fenway49, Vayle

                even though the original question was quite snarky.  But I don't agree on the metric fuckton of people being told to STFU just for simple disagreement in those diaries.

                •  There was that and more (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Vayle, fenway49, Mindful Nature

                  and you really should refrain from asking for examples to be linked--in this case, there were thousands of comments generated, so it's a little unreasonable to ask for at this point in time.

                  A lot of this mess is driven by perception, which, to me, ought to be an additional tag on this diary.

                  "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

                  by lunachickie on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 07:53:02 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  There weren't (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    howarddream, Yasuragi

                    Not in the sense we're talking about here, which would be a disagreement over some aspect of the discussion at hand.

                    There was a lot of heat being generated about the fact that these diaries kept getting hijacked though, which is pretty funny because the topic of the diaries was:

                    Our diaries keep getting hijacked.

                    •  Yeah? (0+ / 0-)

                      PLENTY of diaries get hijacked around here, regardless of title or topic, unless they're IGTNT and maybe a couple other "series" subjects.

                      It has always appeared to me that certain  Powers That Be have been made aware of that fact repeatedly over the years, yet were, in essence, told that "hijacking", like "trolling", comes with the territory, even when it's completely disgusting. And that's what Community Moderation is for.

                      So, look--I didn't like it myself. But us women aren't any more special in this regard either. Yeah, that really sucks, but there it is.

                      "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

                      by lunachickie on Mon Jun 02, 2014 at 03:46:49 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  I agree (10+ / 0-)

                  The original question was snarky and I apologize for it.

                  I've been touchy about a sense in this set of diaries about a tendency to assign participating men to one of two groups:

                  You're in Group 1, a "good guy" who "gets it," if you:

                  --made no comment in any of the diaries other than "you women are totally right and I stand by you and support you 100%"

                  AND

                  --think the STFU diary, title and all, is just dandy

                  AND

                  --did not rec, tip, comment favorably on, or otherwise taint yourself with any diary suggesting "STFU" is not a good way to change hearts and minds.

                  If you fall outside any of those categories, at any time, you are in Group 2 and you are going on a list of "bad dudes." You:

                  --think your widdle fee-fees are more important than women expressing their experiences and seek to silence their voices
                  --probably think you widdle fee-fees are more important than women's bodily intregrity
                  --seek to maintain your privilege in a rotten patriarchal society
                  --are an apologist for rape and misogyny
                  --might very well be responding to inflammatory comments not because they're inflammatory comments, but because they hit too close to home and you're a closet sexual assaulter and domestic abuser who can't stand letting women express themselves.

                  Now, people in some or all of those categories did turn up in these threads. I saw it. I also saw a woman write that she can't take seriously the complaints of any men that they've been victimized in this society because, after all, "men" run society, right? That comment got over 100 recs. I saw one guy resist it and I saw most of the accusations above thrown at him. I jumped in for a minute (probably with some snark, as here) and saw most of the accusations above thrown at me.

                  To me it's one thing to jump in with discussion of men's grievances gratuitously. It's another thing to do so in response to an assertion that men, by definition, can have no grievances. That distinction, it seems, has been lost on people. I'm very supportive, even as concerns most of the "meta" like the derailments in the STFU diary). I just don't appreciate being told to be supportive even of patently false things like or, as in the image in this diary, be lumped in with a guy in the process of abusing a crying woman.

                  “Republicans...think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people... And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.” Harry S. Truman

                  by fenway49 on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 08:31:26 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  This is very well said. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    lunachickie, fcvaguy

                    -6.38, -6.21: Lamented and assured to the lights and towns below, Faster than the speed of sound, Faster than we thought we'd go, Beneath the sound of hope...

                    by Vayle on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 08:57:42 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I hadn't seen that diary (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Vayle

                    Did someone mention the word "ego"?

                    Good grief.  

                    "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

                    by lunachickie on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 09:04:40 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I actually think it was posted in earnest (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      ruscle, fcvaguy

                      The diary for women commenters only came first, and I think the one I linked to was a genuine attempt to create a space where men could speak freely and, perhaps more importantly, speak without derailing or being accused of derailing. It still rubbed me a little bit the wrong way, mostly because of the "you're this or you're that" approach.

                      I think I've had my annual "I'm irritated by Daily Kos and therefore irritable" spell and will try to start being (mostly) non-snarky again.

                      “Republicans...think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people... And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.” Harry S. Truman

                      by fenway49 on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 09:14:14 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  You do a good job of describing (6+ / 0-)

                    The attempt by some on here to divid everyone into two camps. Divide and conquer is the strategy.  It is a political strategy most often used by the Right.

                    Progressives tend to see more shades of gray and they resist being labeled "good" and "bad".  Progressives, by nature, tend to resist black listing and similar tactics.  Yet one commenter I read said (s)he was putting everyone who rec'ed one particular diary on a list.  

                    Uh oh.  I'm on a black list here on Daily Kos!!!  (3 bangs means it's snark)

                    What eventually happens...as we can see in this diary's comments...is that some frustrated people reduce their efforts at "having a conversation about this topic" to simply rude, bitter and aggressive comments/attacks on those who may agree with them on the bigger subject, but who don't feel comfortable with the divide and conquer tactic.  

                    It isn't an effort to have a discussion.  It is an effort to shut down discussion.

                    You are either with us or against us.
                    -- George W Bush during efforts to seek us his phones war in Iraq
                    And that is what I find disturbing here.  A perfectly great opportunity to have a conversation about an important issue has turned into an effort to divide the community.  
                    You can't participate in this diary, you can in that one.  We don't even want to hear what you have to say over in this group.  We are assigning you to that group where you belong because you've already been judged and found lacking.  
                    Sad to see these tactics employed so heavily here.  
                    •  I wouldn't call it sad (0+ / 0-)

                      I have a number of other adjectives, all of which would be considered inflammatory in this context, so I will refrain.

                      But put it this way--in case anyone was thinking about trying it out further, I, for one, am not going to be corralled into behaving a certain way, depending on the goddamn subject matter. Sorry, but that is just not going to happen.

                      "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

                      by lunachickie on Mon Jun 02, 2014 at 03:49:43 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  HR count (0+ / 0-)

            My comment, the tone of which I've already apologized for: 4 and counting

            This comment: 0

            Do I dare say it out loud? (9+ / 0-)

            Men think with their member, not their actual brain located in their head.  Everything they do everyday has to do with their member and if they deny it, they are lying.

            (emphasis added)

            “Republicans...think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people... And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.” Harry S. Truman

            by fenway49 on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 08:43:05 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks for the Apology. HR Removed. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BMScott

          I'm a "right-wing freak show," or at least that's what one nobody on DKOS seems to think.

          by kefauver on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 08:54:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Oh, horseshit. (19+ / 0-)

      Unless you were HR'd for being a moronic goober, stop pretending you were somehow disallowed to participate in EVEN ONE DIARY.  

      Now, you may have found it just too horrifically burdensome to listen respectfully to your fellows here--I mean, having to exercise good manners is just so goddamned oppressive, I know, but no one, anywhere, forbade you to comment in any diary about anything you pleased.

      Jesus Christ with the offended sensibilities because diaries asked you to listen more for once than you speak.

  •  Do (or should) liberals and progressives (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AlexDrew, Flying Goat, red ear slider

    really stand for 'acceptance and tolerance' ?

    Not sure you really thought that one through . . . .

    •  Apparently, many on this site don't believe (11+ / 1-)

      in acceptance or tolerance. And they don't recognize their own intolerance.

      •  Because asking someone to just listen for (28+ / 0-)

        a little bit and try to understand without immediately inserting their own take is certainly a very intolerant position.  It MUST be those who refuse to STFU for a minute and listen to someone else who isn't often given the floor who are the tolerant ones.

        What a bunch of of bull.

        •  There is a difference between saying STFU (22+ / 0-)

          and asking someone to listen. I know it's a very subtle, but there is a difference.

          "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist." Dom Hélder Pessoa Câmara

          by Haningchadus14 on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 05:58:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  "who isn't often given the floor" (18+ / 0-)

          This, along with a number of other comments lately, have reminded me of A Room of One's Own.

          I went, therefore, to the shelf where the histories stand and took down one of the latest, Professor Trevelyan's History of England. Once more I looked up "Women", found "position of," and turned to the pages indicated. "Wife-beating," I read, "was a recognized right of man, and was practiced without shame by high as well as low....Similarly," the historian goes on, "the daughter who refused to marry the gentleman of her parents' choice was liable to be locked up, beaten and flung about the room, without any shock being inflicted on public opinion. Marriage was not an affair of personal affection, but of family avarice, particularly in the 'chivalrous' upper classes.... Betrothal often took place while one or both of the parties was in the cradle, and marriage when they were scarcely out of the nurses' charge." That was about 1470, soon after Chaucer's time. The next reference to the position of women is some two hundred years later, in the time of the Stuarts. "It was still the exception for women of the upper and middle class to choose their own husbands, and when the husband had been assigned, he was lord and master, so far at least as law and custom could make him. Yet even so," Professor Trevelyan concludes, "neither Shakespeare's women nor those of authentic seventeenth-century memoirs...seem wanting in personality and character."...Indeed, if woman had no existence save in the fiction written by men, one would imagine her a person of the utmost importance; very various; heroic and mean; splendid and sordid; infinitely beautiful and hideous in the extreme; as great as a man, some think even greater. But this is woman in fiction. In fact, as Professor Trevelyan points out, she was locked up, beaten and flung about the room.

          ...

          But what I find deplorable, is that nothing is known about women before the eighteenth century. I have no model in my mind to turn about this way and that. Here am I asking why women did not write poetry in the Elizabethan age, and I am not sure how they were educated; whether they were taught to write; whether they had sitting-rooms to themselves; how many women had children before they were twenty-one; what, in short, they did from eight in the morning till eight at night. They had no money evidently; according to Professor Trevelyan they were married whether they liked it or not before they were out of the nursery, at fifteen or sixteen very likely. It would have been extremely odd, even upon this showing, had one of them suddenly written the plays of Shakespeare, I concluded, and I thought of that old gentleman, who is dead now, but was a bishop, I think, who declared that it was impossible for any woman, past, present, or to come, to have the genius of Shakespeare. He wrote to the papers about it. He also told a lady who applied to him for information that cats do not as a matter of fact go to heaven, though they have, he added, souls of a sort. How much thinking those old gentlemen used to save one! How the borders of ignorance shrank back at their approach! Cats do not go to heaven. Women cannot write the plays of Shakespeare.

          I thought of this essay a couple of days ago, too, when a man here claimed to have been tuned in to equal rights for women a good five years before women "got wind of the issue."

          This is the part that, to me, is the most frustrating; that men can't see how their insistence on an asterisk meaning "present company excluded, of course" works to shift the discussion from women to men. We end us issuing disclaimers before we get to our point or, to use your words, we end up conceding the floor for the important introductory acknowledgement of the good work of the good guys.

        •  You must be new to the Internet. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ozsea1, linkage

          Places with comment sections aren't exactly the best place to find an audience that will simply be quiet and allow someone to have a one-way conversation.  Whether it should be that way or not is another discussion entirely, but that's the reality of the situation.

          Everyday Magic
          Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
          -- Clarke's Third Law

          by The Technomancer on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 08:26:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So you're telling her to shut up. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            m00finsan, T100R, Yasuragi

            Oh, gustynip, you poor little girl, you must be new to the internet. Let me explain it to you. Silly thing, you think that a blog dedicated to community might be a good place for a conversation about how women are treated by society. That's just the reality.

            The only thing you didn't do is ask her to thank you for sharing your thoughts.

            Your comment is patronizing. And yes, that word and "patriarchy" share the same stem.

            Screw John Galt. Who's John Doe?

            by Mike Kahlow on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 09:53:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Quote where I am. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Rick Aucoin

              Sorry, dude.  Your bullshit's not flying.

              If you're telling people to shut up and listen, you're not having a conversation.  If you're posting at a place with comments and expecting people to not comment, you're probably going to be very disappointed no matter where you're doing it.

              The fact that we're even having this talk and that these meta-diaries exist is proof of that.  If you think I'm wrong, by all means, go ahead and craft a rebuttal.  Wouldn't be the first time in my life that's happened, and if so, it wouldn't be the last, either.

              It would be nice if things were that way.  I think we've got over a decade of proof here and the years since Eternal September as proof on the 'Net as a whole that when given the opportunity to make comments, people will.  Expecting people to not talk about something in a public forum and just listen doesn't happen on the 'Net, and like I said in the post you responded to -- whether or not that should be the case is another matter entirely, but the fact that we have pie fights at all (And about this topic in particular) is proof that Kossacks have much in common with every other lightly-moderated community on the 'Net.

              Everyday Magic
              Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
              -- Clarke's Third Law

              by The Technomancer on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 10:03:38 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Here's where you said it: (4+ / 0-)
                Places with comment sections aren't exactly the best place to find an audience that will simply be quiet and allow someone to have a one-way conversation.
                Or, in fewer words, - women, don't post about your experiences if you don't want guys disagreeing with you or belittling you.

                This is at least the second comment where you've told women that if they don't want men to contradict them, they shouldn't post stuff.

                That's telling women that they shouldn't be telling their stories here. That's telling women that they should just be quiet. That's silencing women's voices.

                You do acknowledge that it would be nice if things were different. How about if, rather than shrugging our shoulders and saying "too bad", instead we try to make this place the place where it's different?

                And you can spare me the bullshit dude crap.

                Screw John Galt. Who's John Doe?

                by Mike Kahlow on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 10:13:06 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Really? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Rick Aucoin, BMScott

                  My post was not gender focused in any way.  Nor have I told anyone not to post.  What you quoted in no way, shape, or form tells anyone they should shut up.  If you're reading it that way, you're wrong.  But please, tell me more about what I'm saying.

                  The way you make this place different is to have active moderation, or have a much smaller community.  Those are the methods that work to have the kind of community you're looking for.  Theres quite a few of them on the 'Net.  I visit some.  I'll be happy to toss you some links if you like.

                  But you and others are expecting a crowd that tends to be more opinionated than the population a whole, more politically active than the population as a whole, more educated than the population as a whole, enjoys debate and discussion, and so on and so forth, to not be all those things.  Expecting it when there's a metric fuckload of raw emotion and strong feelings around a topic is even more unrealistic, which is why I've abstained from participating in diaries on this topic except for one comment until today.

                  Even now, you mean to read what I post in the most offensive way possible,  It's understandable.  It's a charged topic, and you're charged up, and there's not a damn thing wrong with that.  It'd be nice if you weren't as charged up, but I'd be wrong to expect people who are posting to act otherwise.  I'm not pointing this out to you as a way to disparage you in any way.  You're human.  It's expected.

                  This is the point I'm trying to make.  Not that anyone should shut up.  Not that it's right for people to come in and make it about them.  Not that anyone, especially women, shouldn't be assertive and passionate about topics that touch them.  Not that it's right for men to choose this time to make their points.  

                  Seriously, if you think that's what I'm trying to say, then I deeply apologize for my lack of eloquence and clarity.

                  But it baffles me that you, being a rational, kind person by all evidence I have, are reading what I'm saying in the way you are, then wondering why this place can be different.  Not because you're wrong for doing it, but because you (and myself in other threads, I'm no saint myself) and everyone else are showing with every post that it ain't gonna happen.

                  Everyday Magic
                  Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                  -- Clarke's Third Law

                  by The Technomancer on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 10:41:08 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Let me tell you about a workplace. (5+ / 0-)

                    I once worked in a place where women were just starting to be hired. We had a number of "liberal" men there, who believed strongly in the "marketplace of ideas".

                    When the women would try to bring their perspective to the discussion, the men would say "well, that's stupid". They expected that the women would respond as men were trained to do, to say, "oh, yeah? Well, here's where I'm right and you're wrong". Instead, the women just went quiet.

                    So the men felt that they had "won", and their ideas prevailed. In actuality, they "won" only to the extent that their voices were the loudest and others feared to openly challenge them.

                    When the women started acting in the workplace in ways that reflected their perspective, the men got all  pissed off. "WE DECIDED THIS! YOU DIDN'T COMPLAIN IN OUR MEETING! YOU CAN'T DO THIS!". This didn't exactly encourage the women to participate openly...

                    By the time the dust settled, about a third of the group was gone.

                    Why am I writing this? Because DKos can often be a lot like that group of liberal men. We bluster, we berate, we belittle. We expect that others will advocate for their ideas in an equally forceful manner, and that the best ideas will naturally rise to the top in the "marketplace of ideas".

                    Well, they won't. People who are not accultured to this type of conversation will leave. A lot - not all, but most - of those who remain will be white men (sounds like the population we have here?). Why? Because that's the way we work, it's how we're comfortable in a conversation.

                    So to bring this back - DKos should be a safe place for all people to discuss their perspectives. Not without limits, of course, but the default should be that we are respectful. We should encourage others to bring their perspective to the table... and if this isn't the place where women, GLBT, nonwhites, etc. can do that, then we should change it so that it is.

                    I for one have learned a lot through the past week by listening to the stories of my brothers and sisters here, and I am glad that they shared.

                    Screw John Galt. Who's John Doe?

                    by Mike Kahlow on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 10:59:38 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  All valid points. (0+ / 0-)

                      I see where you're coming from.  Especially with the work analogy.  I work in tech, and my current gig is the first once where there's actual diversity among the ranks.  Like you, I've learned a lot from reading some of the diaries.  Others are more about taking themselves too seriously rather than the topic seriously.

                      What do you propose as a solution, then?  Because as far as I can see, DKos is one of the most welcoming communities on the web (you think our pie fights are bad, by comparison with the 'Net at large, they aren't), one that's one of the, if not the most aware of privilege and the need to tamp it down as much as possible when it's not constructive.  It's one of the most broadly tolerant places on the 'Net out there, and it consistently contains high-quality information and writing.

                      And this still happens.

                      But I'm not the type to keep quiet.  People on the 'Net that comment on a site (which is generally around 10% of the viewership of the site or less) generally aren't.  I haven't spoken up in many of the diaries precisely because as a dude who hopes he's not treating people like crap (or, at least, a dude that tries not to, I've got my faults like anyone else), I don't have anything to add to those diaries.

                      The viewpoint that these comments themselves are are bad takes the point of view that discussion drowns out voices.  This isn't meatspace.  You, I, or anyone else can't talk louder than anyone else here.  The fact that I'm a big dude and apparently look intimidating, or that you've got decades of wisdom and education has a professor and office-holder doesn't matter on the 'Net.  The message itself matters, or it doesn't and we're giving it undue weight based on some characteristic of the person saying it.  Every person here has all the technology they need in front of them to not look at anything they want, and if they don't know how, ask a friend that does, or ask me.

                      In fact, I'd even take the opposite approach -- the community as a whole is pretty much flatly ignoring any wisdom the diaries on this topic have had in favor of throwing a pie fight to try to shut other people up, as evidence by this diary and others.  The good diaries about this topic are inherent evidence that we have a community where women feel safe to share their opinions.

                      Everyday Magic
                      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                      -- Clarke's Third Law

                      by The Technomancer on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 11:25:27 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Excellent comment (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Mike Kahlow, Yasuragi

                      Thank you for this.

                      Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole. - Ta-Nehisi Coates

                      by moviemeister76 on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 06:05:50 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

        •  There are numerous people on this site who blame (4+ / 0-)

          everything bad that has ever happened on straight, white, (whatever other adjective) males.
             Personally, I'm not a mass murderer nor am I responsible for any of the great wrongs of history. Not only that, I have no power in government or in corporations.
             Nor do the vast majority of white males.
             I (and most white men) have nothing to do with the Santa Barbara shooter, or campus rapes, or any of the rest of your grievances. And I am powerless to do anything about them.
             So, when you folks fire off one of your stemwinders about the "privileged straight white male, I just assume that you are an uninformed bigot and skip[ the rest of your screed.
             

      •  I think it's more an acceptance and tolerance of (23+ / 0-)

        what, exactly, rather than a blanket acceptance and toleration for all things possible in the human condition.  

        I doubt many (if any) here would accept or have a tolerance for things such as: racism, anti-semitism, homophobia, murder, child molestation, 1% economic predation, theocracy, child labor, elder abuse, animal abuse, corporate environmental pollution, food mislabeling, wage theft, domestic violence, the Westboro Baptist's picketing of military funerals, most wars, Wall Street manipluations, union busting, domestic violence, rape, misogyny ...  

        This most recent dust up was mainly about creating some room, an uninterrupted space, for some of the women in the community to share some personal truths regarding their experience of misogyny in our culture given the most recent mass killer's misogyny.  

        The STFU phrase seems to have upset quite a few people.  Rudeness can have that effect.  I took it as mainly an effort on some supporters' part to yell -- Be quiet and listen.However, I also learned that STFU itself may have triggered some seriously emotional reactions stemming from childhood emotional abuse situations where some flashed back to a time where they were overpowered, stifled, and scared into silence.  

        Listening, another thing I was repeatedly struck by was how often phrases about luck were used.  As in:

        - I'm on of the lucky ones, I've only ever been groped but not raped.
        - I was raped at 12, but I was lucky to be able to fight back and get away 2 x without getting beaten.
        - I'm lucky that I was only ever beaten and not raped.
        - I've been lucky and never beaten or raped, but my best friend was in 6th grade.
        - I was lucky that the guy only saw me as one of the guys ... after he told me that he'd served time for rape.

        I'm still thinking about that. I know that I don't like it one bit that we have a culture, a culture that as an adult I own a part in forming, that has women thinking:

        I'm lucky if I don't get ____.
        (Fill-in-the-blank: groped on mass transit frequently, molested my boss or clergy or ___, beaten, harrassed, murdered, raped by a stranger, raped by a family member, raped as a child, raped on a date ...)

        Still proccessing all the powerful thoughts and feelings shared, but I know already that it's been an interesting discussion and sometimes argument.  I know I learned things I didn't know before, and I am grateful for that. Most good relationships don't always avoid conflict, in fact, most seem to go through periods of it to come out on the other side with a greater degree of intimacy.  I'm not embarassed by this community's most recent dust up.  Quite the opposite.  

        Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

        by bkamr on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 06:19:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think you just nailed it right here (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sunbro, Kentucky DeanDemocrat
          I also learned that STFU itself may have triggered some seriously emotional reactions stemming from childhood emotional abuse situations where some flashed back to a time where they were overpowered, stifled, and scared into silence.  
          Some of the rest of your comment I don't necessarily agree with, but I'm rec'ing it for this paragraph. SO true. Thank you.

          "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

          by lunachickie on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 08:01:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What precisely, and I mean precisely (11+ / 0-)

            Do you disagree with in the rest of the comment you just responded to.  The rest of it is a woman reporting the abuse women have received at the hands of men, and the twisted world in which they feel lucky they have not been raped.

            And yet the part you agree with is the one part that notes how you might feel uncomfortable with some of the rhetoric.

            Interesting.

            If you want to know why I wasn't polite in my original diary, this is the reason right here.  Cause when women are polite, and note the discomfort of men before discussing their own serious issues...the only thing some men hear is that women validate their discomfort.

            "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

            by Empty Vessel on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 08:25:45 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I find the CONTROL aspect (0+ / 0-)

              of this debate appalling. All of you going on about CONTROL and how bad it is to do it to a woman, and here you are, Mr. Kicked-Off-A-Huge-Piefight, trying to control MY womanly reaction to the tone YOU set.

              HERE is what I disagreed with in that comment, right the fuck here:
               

              I'm not embarassed by this community's most recent dust up.  Quite the opposite.  
              And that is, precisely, the problem I have with the methods of enforcement of "sides" around here. It's gotten out of hand since your diary posted, and it is appalling. I don't normally give two shits or a damn what people think of me, but I'm looking at the larger picture. This community is not JUST me. Or you.

              SO, Empty Vessel, where's your empathy for this, anyway?

              I also learned that STFU itself may have triggered some seriously emotional reactions stemming from childhood emotional abuse situations where some flashed back to a time where they were overpowered, stifled, and scared into silence.  

              "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

              by lunachickie on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 08:34:42 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I have empathy, and noted (11+ / 0-)

                It in lilithgardeners diary where she noted this.  But I also have anger, anger at those who honestly think tone matters more than culturally pervasive violence against women.

                My diary was a 2x4, one I wrote only after many polite expressions by numerous women at DKos were shit on by men's rights assholes and notallmen assholes.

                "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

                by Empty Vessel on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 08:41:29 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  And I was NOT one of them (0+ / 0-)
                  after many polite expressions by numerous women at DKos were shit on by men's rights assholes and notallmen assholes.
                  so direct your leftover bile at someone else, please.

                  "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

                  by lunachickie on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 08:44:22 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  But no empathy for anyone else? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Kentucky DeanDemocrat
                  STFU itself may have triggered some seriously emotional reactions stemming from childhood emotional abuse situations where some flashed back to a time where they were overpowered, stifled, and scared into silence.

                  "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

                  by lunachickie on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 09:13:59 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I have a question. Do you have children? (0+ / 0-)

                  Is your father or grandfather still alive? Would you tell any of them to stfu?

                  Another aspect of this is, and it can be seen as pro and con to what you were trying to do is when Hollywood makes a movie about white oppression about blacks, they always cast a white hero whose courage above the black weakling is the central reason for things going right for the black man/woman at the end of the movie. I might be wrong, but in this fight for women's right to be heard and win full equality, I don't think they're looking for a male hero in their quest. Nor are men at least who login to this website need to be told to respect the voices of women by telling them to stfu.

                  I freely admit I made a mistake by injecting anything into a thread of comments thinking I was helping them. It made me realize I have to leave here because my days of opining here are over. The only help they wanted from me was to listen and learn. You injected yourself by telling everyone either listen to you and agree with everything the women said, whether there were any elements a man can construe that they didn't agree with. You were trying to help, but as I may have done myself, you were also trying to be their male hero.

                  Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others....Groucho Marx

                  by tazz on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 05:08:43 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  !!!SIDES on DKOS!!! !!!OBAMA!!! (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                lunachickie

                aieeeeeeeeee!    run for your lives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                "From single strands of light we build our webs." ~kj

                by kj in missouri on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 09:04:35 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Apparently many on this site (19+ / 0-)

        don't believe in understanding a conversation before they want to jump in and take control of it.

        •  And there we have The Winner (5+ / 0-)
          take control
          It may have started out being about misogyny and whatever other truly valid subject kicked this mess off--but it has descended into a flamewar that intends to continue dividing us further.

          Diaries like this don't necessarily help, but that tag. Holy shit, that tag.


          Get over yourselves
          That doesn't refer to everyone here.

          "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

          by lunachickie on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 07:23:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Ah, so sad (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        charlatan

        some straight guys get yelled at once and  it is the end of the world.

        The lack of self-awareness is stunning.

        •  I'm sorry, if you don't mind me asking (0+ / 0-)

          How do you know what the sexual orientation of all the men who were yelled at who felt it was the end of the world?

          Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others....Groucho Marx

          by tazz on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 05:30:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Pluralism as a positive ideology (6+ / 0-)

      I thought we solved that one long ago: Progressives stand for acceptance and tolerance of all groups that themselves practice tolerance. I.e. we do not accept/tolerate the ones who reject/isolate. This is the difference between pluralism and the Moonbeam cardboard cut-out that folks have from the right's satires.

      "man, proud man,/ Drest in a little brief authority,. . . Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven/ As make the angels weep; who, with our spleens,/ Would all themselves laugh mortal." -- Shakespeare, Measure for Measure II ii, 117-23

      by The Geogre on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 05:35:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  IOW, we pretty much accept ourselves . . .. (4+ / 0-)
        Progressives stand for acceptance and tolerance of all groups that themselves practice tolerance.
        which was kinda my point, there's a whole lot of shit out there that we * shouldn't * be accepting and tolerant of.
        •  Absolutely: Qv theocracies (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Roadbed Guy

          The problem with pluralism came to a crisis with theocrats. Do we tolerate groups and populations that, when they arrive as immigrants or advocate if elected, the exclusion and denial of rights for masses of others? The answer was already technically encoded in law, where we required citizens to support the constitution, but what that meant was, "No. Part of being American means accepting other ethnicities as equal."

          In 1990, we were flat footed in foreign policy over this same fracture. "Hooray for independence movements!" we said. "Oh, crap, they now want theocracy that is in favor of disenfranchisement," we said. "Oh, no," we said, "independence movements keep splitting states infinitely small." Bush I had a schizophrenic policy toward the break up of the USSR, for example.

          "man, proud man,/ Drest in a little brief authority,. . . Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven/ As make the angels weep; who, with our spleens,/ Would all themselves laugh mortal." -- Shakespeare, Measure for Measure II ii, 117-23

          by The Geogre on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 06:05:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  DKos this week: "everyone stfu (except me)" (14+ / 1-)

    Four-year-old A: Shut up.
    Four-year-old B: No, you shut up.
    Four-year-old A: No, you shut up.
    Four-year-old B: No, you shut up.
    Four-year-old A: Make me.
    Four-year-old B: Just shut up.
    Four-year-old A: You shut up.
    Four-year-old B: No, you shut up.

    DKos diarist: STFU
    Commenter: No, here's a comment
    DKos diarist: You have to STFU
    Commenter: No I don't mwahahaha
    DKos diarist: OK, only men have to STFU
    Commenter 1: That'll show 'em, sister.
    Commenter 2: Exactly how?
    Commenter 3: That's female privilege for you.
    Commenter 4: STFU, sexist
    Commenter 5: Well, maybe you're not as feminist as you think you are..
    Commenter 6: STFU
    DKos diarist 2: STFU, except me of course so I can write this

    Roger Ailes, Glenn Beck, etc: Let's run a story on how the left are a bunch of four year olds.

    20,000,000 viewers and readers: Look, harharhar, them lefties is a bunch of four-year-olds...

    and this week: they are right.

  •  I'll admit it's been pretty easy not to read (15+ / 0-)

    diaries based entirely on their titles. I could make a long list of things I don't even open up.

    “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

    by ban nock on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 05:19:12 AM PDT

  •  Dude, if you wanted everybody agreeing with (17+ / 0-)

    everyone else, you should have been a republican.

    How I HATE the word DUDE...moronic western big hat bullshit.

    by old mark on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 05:22:49 AM PDT

    •  Nonsense. This isn't about disagreeing, its about (17+ / 0-)

      Telling people to STFU before they even have a chance to disagree.

      •  It's about asking people to listen rather to talk, (20+ / 0-)

        particularly if they're going to choose to be obnoxious and callous when they do talk.

          •  And we must always be pleasing to those (26+ / 0-)

            whose privileges entitle them to always being pleased.  Got it.

            "Injustice wears ever the same harsh face wherever it shows itself." - Ralph Ellison

            by KateCrashes on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 06:00:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly (7+ / 0-)

            I listen to everyone, but when someone tells me to shut the fuck up and listen it kind of changes things.

            "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist." Dom Hélder Pessoa Câmara

            by Haningchadus14 on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 06:01:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Are you really that literal in all your life? (14+ / 0-)

            I mean, my god.  So someone used a phrase that you found offensive.  Big Fucking Deal.  If you actually read - and comprehended - the diary, you know the request was to quit derailing diaries and to listen to others.  You want to be offended because a particular phrase was used to make a point, go right ahead.  But it's incredibly childish and silly to focus on four fricking words when the subject is so large.

            Somehow, I have absolutely no sympathy for someone who's so easily offended by four words when others are dealing with issues like being raped and molested and killed.

            •   What does it have to do with being literal? (9+ / 0-)

              There are many many ways of trying to get people to listen.  And that particular choice is a consciously obnoxious one as far as I'm concerned.

            •  There was more than one diary (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Kentucky DeanDemocrat, tazz

              I read one of them that was asking, in a reasonable way, for the comments section to be a place for only women to comment so they could tell their stories without it being commented on by men.

              I didn't find anything objectionable in that one. I read it, scanned some of the comments and then left without commenting. As a woman I would have been "allowed" so speak there, but don't want to tell my abuse stories here at this time, haven't been following the shooter news and don't twitter so don't know anything about the hashtag group and ... so I didn't comment. Didn't have a problem with the ask.

              Then there was another diary, that said in the title Men Shut the Fuck Up, and it made the argument that on the topic of women being sexually abused, raped, and fearful of men, men have nothing to add to the discussion. Not now, not ever. They also have no role to play in solutions, no good ideas. Everything they think of or might say is fucking stupid.

              This one was not just asking for men to listen to women's perspective. It was telling them they have nothing of value to add and no role in any discussion of the topic, period. I profoundly disagree with that diary. I profoundly disagree with the way it was phrased, and with its message. Ironically it turns out to be a man saying this ... a man deciding that all men have nothing to say and no role in the solutions. I still really don't understand why it was so popular with so many people, men and women alike, but I realize I'm in a tiny minority who don't agree with it. Guess I can live with that.

              Then I saw a diary for men only to comment. That made me smile because when I saw the first Women Only thread, I wondered how long it would take for a Men Only thread to appear. Not long. I read that one too, and some of the comments and found that I agreed with many of them and wished I could participate in their discussion. But respected the gender-rules and moved on. I hope the gender-exclusive threads don't become a trend here.

              I think there is now a lot of conflating going on between these various discussions. So I want to make clear that for me at least, the negative reaction to the STFU message, was not to the one asking for a space for women to comment. It was to the idea that a man decided that all men need to shut up about it, because none of them have anything of value to add, it was done in a very alienating way that the first one did not use. There's a big difference between them.

              •  I think you're overstating Empty Vessel's diary. (9+ / 0-)

                What you said:

                Then there was another diary, that said in the title Men Shut the Fuck Up, and it made the argument that on the topic of women being sexually abused, raped, and fearful of men, men have nothing to add to the discussion. Not now, not ever. They also have no role to play in solutions, no good ideas. Everything they think of or might say is fucking stupid.
                What EV wrote in his diary (my bold):
                Many women here have written powerful diaries explaining what sexual violence they face and what men should do to help prevent sexual violence.  Most men have read these diaries respectfully and recommitted themselves to help women in the fight against sexual violence and sexism.  Other men have decided it’s a good time to explain to women what really should be done to advance women’s issues, or better yet, decided now would be a good time to explain the hardships men also face.  I have a suggestion for all the latter men.

                Shut The Fuck Up and Listen To Women.

                STFU was directed at the latter group. Not to men as a whole, not telling us that we were stupid or had nothing to add to the conversation.

                I can sympathize with those who didn't like the title. I get it. Personally I think it needed to be said, but YMMV and I won't dispute anyone else's view that the title was inflammatory.  

                Screw John Galt. Who's John Doe?

                by Mike Kahlow on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 09:43:19 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  First highlighted point in the diary was this (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Rick Aucoin
                  For those men who think they have the answer to violence against women.

                  Whatever fucking brilliant idea you have to solve violence against women, its fucking stupid. Women have already thought of it and realized it won’t work.  Seriously, do you really think that none of the 3.5 billion women on this planet haven’t already thought of your brilliant idea and tried it?  Do you think that if it worked they wouldn’t have told their friends, and every woman would be doing it by now.  Stop being a paternalistic asshole and accept the fact that women probably have a better idea on how to be women than you do.  So take your brilliant idea and Shut the Fuck Up.

                  This is the part I am referring to. Note that first, it doesn't even mention listening. It just says, any thoughts that ANY man has about "how to solve violence against women" is "fucking stupid" and ends with how men -- all of them -- should take all their brilliant ideas and shut the fuck up.

                  -- Men have nothing to say in any discussion on solving violence against women!

                  That is where it lost me, right off the bat.

                  •  "For those men who think they have the answer" (6+ / 0-)

                    "accept the fact that women probably have a better idea on how to be women than you do."

                    I wasn't offended. In the context of some of the comments & diaries that had been written in previous days, the diarist was telling men who thought they had a better idea than women - to listen to women.

                    Do I think it needed to be said? Yes. Would I have written it this way? No. Would I have said it as effectively as that diarist? Probably not. Had I written the diary, it would have been less overtly offensive, but probably a hell of a lot less effective.

                    Again, YMMV.

                    Screw John Galt. Who's John Doe?

                    by Mike Kahlow on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 10:19:38 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Depends on how you define effective I guess (3+ / 0-)

                      I had this discussion with someone else yesterday, regarding the "effectiveness" of this type of discussion. I think it depends on what effect you want.

                      Telling people to shut up in a rude way and saying they are "fucking stupid" pretty much never works to accomplish positive change or to build stronger coalitions, and those are ways I define effective. In my view that diary was divisive and simplistic. Even upon re-reading it again now, and many men like you agreeing with it ... it makes my stomach churn. It feels to me like a man trying to combine brown-nosing to women and ducking responsibility ... 'heck, we're just dumb men, what do we know... ladies, it's up to YOU fix violence against women.'

                      I fully realize that the diarist has said that was not his intended message, and that many people, both men and women, think that he said something else, and that it was great message and right on the money. I've read it again, I've read the explanations and followups. I still do not like it.

                      As a writer I know that you cannot fully control how readers react to your words. Nor can any reader decide for any author whether they achieved their goals or not. If EV feels he did what he wanted to do, then great. But clearly a lot of readers didn't like it either. If pissing people off was one of the goals then effective, yes. But then don't complain that people are pissed about it~! :)

                      •  Your points are good. (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        CS in AZ, BMScott, gustynpip

                        I'd only like to give my take on one... to me, the past week of diaries and comments was not so much that it's up to women to fix violence against women. It's we, as men, who need to do that. I think that's what EV was trying to say.

                        However, to do this we (as men) need to work with and listen to women.

                        That was one of my biggest take-home messages. But then I believe that anyways, so maybe I was reading selectively. ;-)

                        Screw John Galt. Who's John Doe?

                        by Mike Kahlow on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 10:43:46 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm gonna let you in on a secret (7+ / 0-)

                    Wanna know why I wrote it the way I did, cause it would make men remember it, which you clearly have.  With luck, next time you have an idea for what women can do to reduce or otherwise prevent sexual violence, you might pause, even for just a second, before posting.  And that's a good thing, cause men have telling I women what they should do for a damn long time, and MOST of it is paternalistic bullshit.

                    I grant that it is possible you will have something valuable to add that women haven't already considered, not likely, but possible.  But if you pause for one second to consider it, I will feel that my diary did some good.

                    I'm not stupid, and I know my diary had the subtlety of a 2x4, but given the things that were being said in other diaries, lots of  men weren't listening.  Whatever else, I got eyeballs, and somewhere down the line some of the people behind those eyeballs might, just might, pause for a second before posting some seriously condescending shit about women.

                    I paused for a long time before posting that diary.  I was genuinely worried that women would get pissed because I was acting like the MAN who could come in and explain everything for those sweet ladies unable to "say it like it is."  As it turned out, with a few exceptions, pretty much only men have been offended by what I wrote, women were good with it.  And for that I am thankful.  But I paused, and that pause was critical

                    If that diary will get men to pause before writing about women's issues, even if you think I am an asshole, it did exactly what I set out to.

                    "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

                    by Empty Vessel on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 10:49:48 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Bless your heart. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      gustynpip

                      -6.38, -6.21: Lamented and assured to the lights and towns below, Faster than the speed of sound, Faster than we thought we'd go, Beneath the sound of hope...

                      by Vayle on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 10:57:21 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  I am a woman Empty Vessel! So guess what: (3+ / 0-)

                      I'm right and you're wrong! Shut the Fuck Up, man!

                      LoLOLOL -

                      •   sorry about that. (4+ / 0-)

                        But I will hold to my point that rude as my diary was, and it was intentionally rude, some men will think twice before posting paternalistic or mysoginist crap next time.

                        "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

                        by Empty Vessel on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 11:18:36 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Heh... thanks (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Empty Vessel, BMScott

                          I was just about to add another comment thanking you for the paternalistic lecture. ;)

                          Just sayin... you might consider taking your own advice on that one. No one takes well to being talked down to. Like I said in another comment, if pissing people off was your goal and you're happy with the outcome, great. As the writer you get to define effectiveness for your piece.

                          As I reader, I don't like it. I said why above already, I'll leave it at that. I do believe your intentions were good even if your methods suck - in my womanly opinion. And actually you are free to disagree all you want. I don't mind men speaking their mind back to me. :)

                    •  A guess what else, Mr. Big Listener! (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Empty Vessel

                      I said I was a women in my comment:

                      As a woman I would have been "allowed" so speak there, but don't want to tell my abuse stories here at this time, haven't been following the shooter news and don't twitter so don't know anything about the hashtag group and ... so I didn't comment. Didn't have a problem with the ask.
                      So much for you listening to women!!!

                      LolLOLOL

                  •  I think that could have been stated better (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    BMScott, gustynpip

                    but I don't think it deserves the whole interpretation you're giving it.  Neither do I think the rest of the points should be thrown out with the bath water because you don't like the first one.

                    •  Well, gee... sorry you don't think that what I (0+ / 0-)

                      think is important or relevant.

                      Noted.

                      •  Now, I didn't say that, did I? (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        gustynpip, Yasuragi

                        What I did was disagree with you.  I said I thought your view was incorrect.  It was a perfectly reasonable disagreement with you about something someone else wrote, and your response to my comment, as well as the diary we're talking about seem strange to me, as though you're purposely trying to pick a fight.

                        •  No I'm not trying to pick a fight but I am getting (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Yang Guang, fenway49

                          tired of being lectured to and spoken down to and -- ironically -- people not listening to what I'm saying.

                          Do you see the irony of this at all... ? probably not. Oh well. I don't want to defend my reading of the diary or how I feel about it. I think I deserve to have the reaction I had to it.

                          It's hilarious to me that I said I was a woman in my first comments here, and the diarist who wrote that men should "shut up and listen to women" totally ignored what I said, spoke right over me, lectured me, didn't even read what I said enough to note I was a woman, assumed I was a male and lectured my useless ass instead of listening to me.

                          And he gets rec's for that, while I am told that I don't deserve to even have my own reaction to his diary. It would be annoying if I let it... but I'm off to lunch with my husband and a friend now so no - I'm not interested in fighting with you. Have a great day.

                          •  So what are you saying? That the men responding (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Yasuragi, Clues

                            to you should be shutting the fuck up?

                            Don't you even get how inconsistent you're being?  You're upset that some man suggested that men should listen to women, then you're upset because they're disagreeing with you and demanding that they should not disagree with you because you're a woman.  If they disagree with you, they're lecturing and talking down to you?  

                            I, as a woman, appreciated the suggestion that men should take a moment to listen to women.  OTOH, I never expected them to simply agree with everything I say and that any disagreement or misunderstanding was a horrific act that proved they were giant hypocrites.

                          •  I'm saying exactly what I said (0+ / 0-)

                            That it's ironic. Don't you find it "inconsistent" that the specific man who decreed that all men have nothing of value to say on the subject of violence against women, and that all men should shut the fuck up and listen to women, doesn't bother doing so himself? He did the opposite of that, not taking a moment to listen, in fact SO not listening to a woman in his haste to start lecturing that he called me a man, and acted like a blustering asshole to me. I think that's pretty funny! He's the one who said men should defer to women in this matter, not me!! LOL

                          •  And you know, one last thing (0+ / 0-)

                            I had perfectly reasonable discussions with the men who answered my comments, including Empty Vessel who was far more responsive than you. If you actually care what I think, read my other comments and try listening to what I said. It's interesting that you felt the need to jump on me now, dismiss my thoughts and attack me, and try to put me in my place. Very interesting.

        •  Nope. Asking them to listen is asking them to... (22+ / 0-)

          ...listen. Telling them to shut the fuck up is telling them to shut the fuck up.

          Two different things.

          Obama: Pro-Pentagon, pro-Wall Street, pro-drilling, pro-fracking, pro-KXL, pro-surveillance. And the only person he prosecuted for the U.S. torture program is the man who revealed it. Clinton: More of the same.

          by expatjourno on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 06:25:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  In the diaries that preded the one that has (14+ / 0-)

            so many men upset, how many times did women politely ask men to please just listen? Once? Twice? Hundreds of times? Thousands of times?

            A man saw what was happening and wrote a diary to other men telling a few of them to shut up and listen. Indignant outrage ensues.

            Tell Warner Brothers Pictures that Rooney Mara is #NotYourTigerLily.

            by ExpatGirl on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 07:25:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Grrrr. Preceded. (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kj in missouri, T100R, BMScott, Yasuragi

              Tell Warner Brothers Pictures that Rooney Mara is #NotYourTigerLily.

              by ExpatGirl on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 07:34:51 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Can we dispense with the idea that STFU only (8+ / 0-)

              has The Men upset? Like, starting right now?

              "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

              by lunachickie on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 08:10:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Hey look! Some men agree with you ;) (0+ / 0-)

                Apropos of nothing, badger, I just had a look at some of your past diaries and you write some really interesting stuff. I'm looking forward to reading more.

                Tell Warner Brothers Pictures that Rooney Mara is #NotYourTigerLily.

                by ExpatGirl on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 09:15:39 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  That is not an accurate comment. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Rick Aucoin

              "Thousands of times"? No.

              "Politely"? Sometimes yes, sometimes no, not that it matters a lot.

              "A few"? No. Not in the title, which is the thing some people are taking exception to.

              "Upset"? I have no way of knowing how upset they are and neither do you.

              Also, apparently it has escaped your notice that this is a written medium.

              That means people who are reading are "listening," even people who are commenting, so there's no need to tell anyone to shut the fuck up.

              Finally, apparently it has escaped your notice that telling people to shut the fuck up doesn't incline them to listen on a blog or anywhere else.

              Obama: Pro-Pentagon, pro-Wall Street, pro-drilling, pro-fracking, pro-KXL, pro-surveillance. And the only person he prosecuted for the U.S. torture program is the man who revealed it. Clinton: More of the same.

              by expatjourno on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 09:21:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The point isn't to get people (men) to listen. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Tommy T

                The point is just to get in your punches while you can.

                That's what most of this site is about anyway.  

                Watching your enemy for that opening where you can get your body blows in on them while they are unable to defend.

                This killer forced an opening in the diarists enemies defenses, gave the opportunity for the diarist, and others, to bash as much as they liked without much in the way of repercussions.

                The problem, of course, is that none of this helps anyone.  It does allow for means hearted people to sucker punch people they don't even know, for kicks and giggles.

                But that's about it.

                "It puts the lotion on its skin, or it gets the GOP again." - The Democratic Party (quip courtesy of Nada Lemming and lotlizard)

                by Rick Aucoin on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 12:26:53 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I'm replying to this because you have (0+ / 0-)

                genuinely tried to engage. Many have told you that you have missed the point and been incredibly condescending in the process, but I truly believe you are trying.

                I suggest your read Ranger995's diary currently on the Rec List. It is amazing and maybe after you have read it, we can talk again.

                Tell Warner Brothers Pictures that Rooney Mara is #NotYourTigerLily.

                by ExpatGirl on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 01:17:28 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  gad. (14+ / 0-)

        There've been dozens of recommended diaries,  several with almost a thousand comments in each.    The claim that people have been told to shut up before they've had a chance to disagree is preposterous on its face.  

      •  Well, to be more specific (17+ / 0-)

        (since it looks like you, too never read the STFU diary), it's about telling people to STFU if they plan to use any of a set list of tactics to derail a diary.

        It's not a general STFU, or even a STFU if you disagree.  It's -  this is the topic we're discussing, stop derailing it.

        I don't see how a reasonable person can have a problem with that.

        •  Subjective Reality (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lunachickie, sunbro

          Sorry, but I read that original diary and that is not the interpretation I'd put on it.  Perhaps we're back at that old debate on the internet about where's the editor when you really needed one.

          "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

          by PrahaPartizan on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 07:19:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're referring to the STFU diary? (6+ / 0-)

            If so, I'm interested to hear your interpretation of it, and also to know whether you had read the diaries that prompted it.

            •  STFU and Don't Participate (0+ / 0-)

              After reading the diary involved, I walked away with the impression that I was to STFU and don't expect to participate or anything, because any ideas that I might have about the situation were not wanted, period.  Did I get that right?  That concept seemed to get stated quite frequently in the commentary.  Did I misunderstand?

              I had read several of the diaries which prompted the now notorious "STFU" diary but could not develop any idea if any potential solutions to the problems had been presented.  We would all do better if there were some action that could be taken which could correct the situation in which we find ourselves.  I had a very difficult time trying to release it from all of the words being poured into the ether.  Just what impression did you have of all of the diaries and commentary which addressed this question?

              "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

              by PrahaPartizan on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 05:19:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Dear me, did you even read it? (6+ / 0-)
            Many women here have written powerful diaries explaining what sexual violence they face and what men should do to help prevent sexual violence.  Most men have read these diaries respectfully and recommitted themselves to help women in the fight against sexual violence and sexism.  Other men have decided it’s a good time to explain to women what really should be done to advance women’s issues, or better yet, decided now would be a good time to explain the hardships men also face.  I have a suggestion for all the latter men.

            Shut The Fuck Up and Listen To Women.

            •  I'd Like to Know the Answers (0+ / 0-)

              Frankly, I read the dairies and the comments hoping to find some sliver of potential solutions to the issues which cause these problems and came away with nothing.  That is frankly my biggest frustration with the whole exchange.  I've no interest in writing about men's problems, but I do have an interest in learning if some potential solutions might be on the horizon.  Perhaps then we can all actually address this discussion with just a little less passion.

              "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

              by PrahaPartizan on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 05:11:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Only one of these diaries I've fully read or (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    loretta, lunachickie

    recommended.

  •  Individuals addressing sexes = dumb (7+ / 0-)

    Any person addressing a sex (49/51% of the population in all nations, all cultures) or gender and making a generalization is inaudible, as far as I'm concerned.

    "Women do this" and "Men do this" is nonsense. "Masculinity in the United States as I experienced it" is meaningful but limited. "Femininity in the United States as I experienced it" is meaningful but limited.

    Yes, all women face dangers. Most women will have had a bad experience, and most persons have bad experiences stand out and shape experience more than all the ambivalent or good ones (because we're human). Men have also had bad experiences with men, although usually not so sexualized. Ok. Most women... Most men... In the United States... In the lower classes it's worse than the upper classes? Could sex and gender be part of class? Could they be attenuated? Could they be individual?

    Could they be so damn complex that generalizing is just a waste of energy that aggravates. . . losing whatever catharsis it might have offered in implication?

    "man, proud man,/ Drest in a little brief authority,. . . Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven/ As make the angels weep; who, with our spleens,/ Would all themselves laugh mortal." -- Shakespeare, Measure for Measure II ii, 117-23

    by The Geogre on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 05:30:31 AM PDT

  •  So, either STFU with the STFU, or you'll STFU? (12+ / 0-)

    Btw I don't think it was intended beyond that one diary, although some did try to "enforce" it beyond it anyway. But at some point, discussion is necessary and inevitable, even on that topic. In fact especially on that topic. But only after stopping to listen, think, and let it sink in. I think that was the point.

    "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

    by kovie on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 05:35:01 AM PDT

  •  Maybe there should be some sort of (37+ / 0-)

    reading comprehension test for the site.  As far as I know, nobody was really actually told to STFU.  They were told to stop derailing diaries, and shoving them off-topic.

    It's a little surprising to see a diary like this one, that completely misunderstands any of what's happened on the rec list.  It's a diarist's perogative to say what their diary is about and to keep the discussion on topic.  After making numerous attempts to do so, some diarists resorted to telling commenters that if they were going to choose any of the standard derailing techniques they should just STFU instead.

    Seems pretty reasonable to me, considering what some of them were doing.

    •  Is a Middle Ground of Some Kind Possible? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Brecht, sunbro, lunachickie

      For the last week, I've been reading a lot of the YesAllWomen-oriented stuff. I've appreciated the fact that much of it was (very appropriately, I thought) male-exclusive. My personal impulse was indeed to "STFU," read and reflect -- not because I was advised to do so, just because it seemed the reasonable thing to do under the circumstances.

      Anyway, might it be possible to have it both ways? To tone down -- at least a little -- some of the harsher "STFU" and "clueless male" stuff while still enabling and encouraging lots of passionate speaking out on these issues?

      •  It's not really a matter of that, I think. (23+ / 0-)

        Well, to make a long story even longer,  it's not so much that this a women's topic and you shouldn't participate.  Or that people were talking about "clueless males" in some sort of generic way.

        The problem was that these diaries were all about the fact that as soon as women start to discuss how restricted and complicated their lives are because of this culture, the discussion always got turned around to talk about the men -  how it's not all men, or how men feel about it, or how some statistic says only 1% of men are rapists.  And those were just the comments from people claiming to support feminism.  Other comments were downright ugly.
        But the discussion, as always, was soon all about men and the women were not getting to have the discussion they were trying to have.  (Which was exactly that point -  that all the discussions were about the men.)

        Especially in those first few diaries, nobody minded at all if men participated and gave their opinions in there...if they would stay on the topic of how All Women in our society were putting their lives into complicated cages.  

        So someone wrote a diary with STFU in the title, but what the diary really said was if you are going to chime in with this derailing tactic or that derailing tactic, then stop it..and stfu.    To my mind, there is no "harsher STFU stuff", it was just somebody telling people to stop derailing these women's diaries.  Of course now everyone's running around throwing their hands in the air claiming we're not inclusive and that women are telling men to STFU indiscriminately.

        They don't know the truth about what's going on here because they refuse to actually READ the stfu diary, and they claim this is perfectly ok, because it has stfu in the title so their feelings are hurt.

        •  That All Looks about Right, I Guess ... but (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Clues, Sylv, T100R, BMScott

          What some of us have found more than a bit off-putting is language that's gratuitously harsh and abusive within the comment sections. I'd guess that the reasonable, well-intentioned, widely-commented diary - on virtually ANY political subject - that does NOT get hijacked (at least to some extent) by gratuitously abusive posters is the exception, not the rule. The problem's in no way limited to this matrix of issues.

          •  Look At Old Israeli-Palestinian Diaries (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            workersuntie

            If the lexigraphic barrages that were traded on this topic are anything at all like the exchanges about the Israeli-Palestinian situation, it's gonna be a long hot summer.  The meta involved has had the same taste and feel too.

            "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

            by PrahaPartizan on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 07:23:52 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I guess you've got to consider the source (16+ / 0-)

            and the history of the commenters.  For some women the ideas expressed in #YesAllWomen are the revelation of a lifetime.  Some of the women commenting here are remembering things they've intentionally suppressed for years.  If someone makes an insensitive reply to them, then I'd say they have a right to rebuttal containing strong language.

            It all makes me think of the old story about the bacon and egg breakfast -  the chicken is involved, but the pig is committed.

            If a man makes a snarky comment to a woman who has just opened up about a lifetime of abuse....well, for the man it's a comment on the internet.  For the woman it's a lifechanging experience.  You can see the disparity in the degree of involvement easily around here, especially when people dismiss this easily as just another pie fight.

          •  Women's stuff is always more emotional (7+ / 0-)

            Stuff that involves you so very personally is always more emotional, more black/white, more with-me-or-against-me.

            It levels out after a while, but in the moment you just can't be measured and kind and use the right language and make nuanced judgements.

            It's really hard to see, but the women talking about men were talking about men as a generic, the unknown man, the I know him in a crowded room, but what is he like behind closed doors man. It wasn't a particular guy, it was an symbol.

            Women have spent their lives negotiating the Madona, Whore, Crone symbol, and we recognize it, usually, and are able to let it run it's course in a conversation without too much interference. Men feel personal attacked by the "men" stereotype, I guess because women used to use it only in private.

            Now we're having those conversations. We're bandaging our wounded, reaching out to those who were hurt or confused by what went on.

            I find it easiest to look at it as a storm, that blew through here, and then you clean up after and make sure everyone is o.k.

            •  Far Be It from Me (5+ / 0-)

              To curtail, in any way, any woman's efforts to deal with what you've described and alluded to. Please rest assured, that's not what I find problematic.

              What I find problematic is that so many comments -- on virtually every side of every issue -- are so very much harsher than they need to be -- and much of the time for NO good reasons. Turns the place into a horrible, putrid cesspool in a big ole hurry.

              And it concerns me more than a little that my (or anyone else's) objections even to that tends to attract tepid support at best, but no shortage of objections. That just does not strike me as being in any way reasonable.

              •  It's not reasonable, it might be understandable. (5+ / 0-)

                Maybe intentions matter, maybe they don't. Women lost some support here this week, and maybe we'll get it back and maybe we won't. Some people who now don't want anything to do with particular people or subjects may change their mind in the future.

                I know I personally hurt some people who didn't deserve it. I've tried to tell them I'm sorry, and some will forgive me and some won't. For some people I'll just be that crazy chick for the rest of my life.

                This is a BFD. People have had PTSD flashbacks. People have remembered things that have kept them up nights since, even though they've slept easy with those memories for years.

                I personally was dumbstruck by how some people responded to what was obviously a person in deep emotional pain. I'm trying to believe that this was a one-off, that they wouldn't be like that in person, but it's not easy.

                I want to do what I can to make the group o.k. again, and I think enough other people do that it will be.

                •  Women Also Gained Support (5+ / 0-)

                  Lots of us found much of the YesAllWomen-related stuff to be enlightening and helpful -- even if (or maybe because) it was not always especially happy.

                  (Maybe "happy" is over-rated. I consider every day that I can respond to "How ya doin'?" with, "I'm getting by" to be a major friggin' miracle. Seriously. Expecting more strikes me as childishly naive.)

                •  please don't apologize (0+ / 0-)

                  From what I gather you're somewhat fretting about the reaction to your "crazy" anger or something along those lines...honestly, the men here personally offended by the anger expressed over this issue are not here to help.

          •  we all have different ideas about (0+ / 0-)

            what is "gratuitously harsh." In my mind, "STFU" to what empty vessel was responding to is entirely justified. His diary (as an example of harsh language going around) didn't devolve the debate but was an attempt to elevate it by above the bullshit being spewed by many here by calling that bullshit out for what it was. And here I've used harsh language in my summary, but if you let that dissuade you from reading on, I can't help but think you're rather not interested in what I have to say (general you there, not particular you).

            To assume that your definition of decent discourse is the most productive one is to shut yourself off to things you might be learn from hearing.

            As I've said elsewhere, there are more genteel environs to grow up. People can google feminism and derailing and do some reading on their own. A big part of genuinely taking cogent criticisms to heart is not quibbling with the particulars of how they're expressed. In other words, men need to grow up and get past phrases like STFU because in my mind there are countless times when even the most reformed of us deserve it.

            So no, I don't buy this false equivalence, middle ground stuff. One side in this "debate" (harhar) was plainly wrong, derailing, and unthinkingly misogynist.

            •  Your Language Is 'Harsh'? No Way. (0+ / 0-)

              Not even a little bit. "Straightforward"? Sure. "Direct"? Okay. But "harsh"? Nah.

              Do I have problems with "STFU"? Virtually none. Even before Empty Vessel posted his much-discussed diary, my initial thought on reading some of the earliest of the YesAllWomen-oriented posts was that I need to STFU (seriously: that's the acronym that crossed my mind), read, reflect and stay the hell out of the way while folks who are legitimately aggrieved have their say. As it says in Ecclesiastes, there's "A time to post on DKos, and a time to shut the fuck up." (Rendered otherwise in some translations.)

              It's obviously vile and idiotic to equate some of the brutish male Internet spewings (to say nothing of real-world outrages) we've all seen with the righteous rage expressed by the female objects of that brutality. That's false equivalency of the highest order.

              And while we do indeed all have different ideas about what constitutes "gratuitously harsh" and what doesn't, such instances are not at all what I'm talking about. I'm questioning posts that the overwhelming majority -- pretty damn close to 100 percent -- of open-minded progressives would judge to be way the hell out of line.

              Maybe all I'm really saying is this: Let's not be handing out any blank checks here. Just because one's on the right team doesn't justify abandoning all semblances of honesty, reason and decency. And if you haven't seen examples of their abandonment coming from the otherwise sane sides of these discussions (often, ironically enough, from overzealous males who seem intent on proving their feminist bona fides), trust me: there've been more than a few. Some have been seriously wacko -- by pretty much anybody's standards.

              •  I don't buy it (0+ / 0-)

                I think you're basically continuing with the false equivalence thing. I put "debate" in quotations for a reason. It's not a matter of my being on the factually correct side of a debate - it's about some people acting humanely, and others not. By all means, those inhumane people should be run out of here and anywhere else they visit.

                As for my harshness, I was referring to my use of obscenity, which apparently was enough to put the diary entirely.

                And no, to be honest, I haven't seen those humane people with blank checks abandoning sanity, whatever that means.  If men are really interested in these things they have a responsibility to get comfortable with some angry rhetoric directed at them, maybe personally. Start with the SCUM Manifesto. Does Solanas' "blank check" disturb you? If so, an even closer reading is in order, I think.

                •  *to put some people off the diary entirely (0+ / 0-)
                •  Will You Accept 'Yes' (+ yes, yes ..) for Answers? (0+ / 0-)

                  I wholeheartedly agree that there is no "debate."

                  I wholeheartedly agree that "inhumane people should be run out of here and anywhere else they visit."

                  I wholeheartedly agree that being "put off a diary entirely" by extremely mild obscenity is a crock of horseshit ... and worse.

                  I wholeheartedly agree that men "have a responsibility to get comfortable with some angry rhetoric directed at them, maybe personally."

                  I find the SCUM Manifesto and its history intriguing. If I had the time I'd like to take a deeper look. Right now I don't, so I honestly can't. But I do appreciate your reminder of its existence and your prodding (intended or otherwise) to refresh my memory about it.

                  All that said, one question: Do you think it's at least possible that there exist some well-meaning, otherwise humane, otherwise clear-thinking people who routinely get gratuitously abusive in their posts regarding not only these issues, but others as well?

                  •  yeah i didn't mean you in particular read it now (0+ / 0-)

                    I just meant, that sort of rhetoric is a part of feminism, it's a part of lots of social movements. Feminism is broad and deep, and to appreciate that you need to be open to hearing all kinds of voices.

                    Sure it's possible in general. I didn't see it here, and I find it very disturbing that M E C is worried that her passionate expressions will isolate her from this community. That's a sign of a toxic environment. From my reading (which may be wrong of course), you seemed less disturbed by M E C's reaction.

                    But of course, I really feel that obviously derailing people should be shouted down and out, so again I think our definitions of gratuitous are probably so different.

                    What you're saying now sounds very different to me than your earlier talk of a middle ground, which is the kind of false equivalence I was really objecting to.

                    •  Maybe Not So Different (0+ / 0-)

                      I don't mean to be overbearing with this construction (or to appear as if I'm doing backflips to try to curry favor), but again, I wholeheartedly agree that "obviously derailing people should be shouted down and out." Amen, brother (can an atheist say that?)

                      And again, I wholeheartedly agree with your condemnation of a glaringly obvious false equivalency.

                      I don't doubt that what I'm saying now might have a different feel from what I've said at various other points along the line, although that certainly is/was not my intent. But if so, shame on me for being excessively sloppy in my writing. Words have consequences, and if I've chosen mine sloppily (especially in an area such as this) I suppose I should be chidden.

                      Not that it really matters much in the grand scheme of things, but I assure you that my basic beliefs and intents are about the same today as they were a week ago as they were a year ago.

                      When I said "middle ground," what I was driving at was a middle ground between saying what needs to be said either too meekly on one hand, or with pointless, needlessly vicious bombast on the other. I'm all for speaking and writing forcefully when circumstances merit, but I think the Internet tends to encourage and foster speaking and writing that's irresponsibly nasty -- often, very irresponsible and very nasty. And NotAllWomen-relating writing and speaking is no more immune from that curse than any other matrix of topics.

                      •  i really didn't see it (0+ / 0-)

                        the pointless bombast, that is, from the "sane side." I think we need to be particularly wary of tone policing in cases like this, and I don't think your approach is thorough enough on that front. In other words, there is a sense in which notallwomen should be somewhat immune from our standards when it comes to other subjects, and failing to acknowledge that isn't treating the subject with enough respect, imo.

                        But again, I can honestly say I don't think the devolving of this debate has been very ideologically diffuse.

                        I appreciate the thoughts about language. We on dkos are quite used to seeing false equivalence in the media, and it's often hiding in our language in subtle ways. Phrases like middle ground really rankle in the context of the recent violence.

                        •  All My Agreeing Is Starting To Irritate Me (0+ / 0-)

                          But I can't help it:

                          #NotAllWomen itself (although not all discussion related to it) probably should be immune -- or something very close to it -- from "normal" standards of discourse. #NotAllWomen is something very different -- unique, maybe.

                          And I certainly see your point about "middle ground." It would not have been hard to have chosen a different phrase, and in this context, doing so might have been a prudent choice.

                          To change the subject entirely, among the many, many works I wish I had time to read are some of you contra-historical novels. The only contra-historical novel I ever read was Harris's Fatherland. If you've read it, I'm curious about your opinion(s) of it. (Apologies for kind of monopolizing your time, here. At some point I really will let you get back to work. Promise.)

                          •  OOPS! I Meant #YesAllWomen (0+ / 0-)
                          •  i'm just a fan (0+ / 0-)

                            sorry to disappoint you.

                            The reason I happened upon this thread in the first place is because M E C had kindly recommended a few of my posts. I was dismayed by the conversation here, that no one seemed alarmed by her worry about how her passionate comments had been received by her purported allies. Someone reassured her that women had also gained many allies during this debacle, but that doesn't really go to what she really said - that she was made to feel hysterical in that classically gendered way by her reception here.

                            And yeah, aside from that phrase, the subtle false equivalence was the comparison between this subject and any other debate. I fail to see how your estimation of certain comments as "pointlessly" bombastic isn't tone policing - the bombast may very well be grounded in arguments, experiences or emotions that we haven't yet come to appreciate, and to render judgments like these is to limit the conversation in precisely the way limiting the tone does.

                            Another false equivalence is the one that many follow-up diaries to empty vessel's took, that all meta comments about the conversation on this site are equally circuitous and devolve the debate in the same way, that angry expressions of all kinds are equally valid, rather that they are all equally invalid.

                          •  'Disappointed'?! I'm CRUSHED. (0+ / 0-)

                            Kidding.

                            Actually, if you're a fan of Turtledove's work (so much of which is contra-history), maybe my question would be more productively posed to you, the (presumably) critical reader, than to the author. So ... Do you know Harris's contra-historical novel Fatherland, and if so, what are your thoughts? (If you don't mind my simply walking away from a few ideas I think you and I have flogged pretty thoroughly now.)

      •  It would certainly help (0+ / 0-)
        Might it be possible to have it both ways? To tone down -- at least a little -- some of the harsher "STFU" and "clueless male" stuff while still enabling and encouraging lots of passionate speaking out on these issues?
        We couldn't have been having a successful one-sided piefight. Right?

        "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

        by lunachickie on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 08:12:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I have a STFU spam filter (13+ / 0-)

    When I see those four letters in a title,
    I usually move my cursor on to something else.
    Some enjoy a good snark war, but most times I'm not interested in joining the perpetual storm.
    The internet is a full buffet and each of us loads up our plate to our own particular taste.

    “The true hero is one who conquers his own anger and hatred.”

    “Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible.”

    - Dalai Lama XIV

    If cats could blog, they wouldn't

    by crystal eyes on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 05:37:15 AM PDT

    •  That is how I viewed it (4+ / 0-)

      If you want people to pay attention and listen to you, you do not insult them first.  It is the quickest way to lose the very audience that you want to listen to what you have to say.  As I posted in another diary, telling people to STFU is not a winning strategy, either politically or in real life.  It has already established an atmosphere of adversarialism.

      "I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~ Dr. Cornel West "...isn't the problem here that the government takes on, arbitrarily and without justification, an adversarial attitude towards its citizenry?" ~ SouthernLiberalinMD

      by gulfgal98 on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 08:57:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This place can get pretty stupid sometimes (6+ / 0-)

    "It's the (expletive) 21st century man. Get over it." - David Ortiz

    by grubber on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 05:43:58 AM PDT

  •  Look beyond the F-word to the context. (23+ / 0-)

    Read the entire diaries and all the comments.  Then take a while and reflect on them.

    Some diaries and comments are bad; some are great.

    Best Scientist Ever Predicts Bacon Will Be Element 119 On The Periodic Table

    by dov12348 on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 05:43:59 AM PDT

  •  The 'Left' Has ALWAYS Been Into Purity Games (13+ / 0-)

    Repiglicans do NOT have a monopoly on purity games. Never have. I've been an active lefty since LBJ was president, and the purity crap has always been appalling on "our" side, too.

    Remember the scene from Life of Brian in which The People's Liberation Front of Judea gets into (among other things) petty pissing matches concerning political purity? I always assumed those bits were (among other things) send-ups of the idiotic, off-putting battles amongst lefties -- not only in the 1960s and 1970s, but before, as well. In the early 20th century, Marxism worldwide was all about squabbling -- often very bitterly -- over insanely fine points of doctrine.

    In 40 years and more, I've always found that on the so-called Left, one's vote is never enough. One MUST give one's total, unconditional love as well, or the purists -- on "OUR" side -- will hound the mere voting ally out of town.

  •  "I don't like everything others are saying (23+ / 0-)

    here, so I'm going to take my ball and go home!  (Although I'll make sure my five sentence diary is worded so I can bring my ball back later when I don't have to worry about my fee fees getting offended.)

    Big fucking deal.  The subjects being discussed and the efforts being made to derail anything a woman had to say about anything is a hell of a lot more important than whether you choose to read diaries here.

  •  There are a zillion diaries a day. (13+ / 0-)

    Maybe 10 (maybe 5?) are about this.  The idea that you'd walk away because those diaries displease you is pretty weird.  

    It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

    by Rich in PA on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 05:57:09 AM PDT

  •  best diary in months (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sunbro, BlueBlackDog, red ear slider

    We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

    by Lepanto on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 05:59:02 AM PDT

  •  Clean up on aisle 11 (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, sunbro, Onomastic

    "The good Earth — we could have saved it, but we were too damn cheap and lazy." Kurt Vonnegut - "A Man Without a Country", 2005.

    by BOHICA on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 06:28:47 AM PDT

  •  Please listen to my/our experiences (14+ / 0-)

    Is a welcome message. "Dear Men, STFU" is not, no matter how it is meant or the context. The headline stands apart from the full post as a message, sitting atop the rec list as it did for the better part of a day. It was not a positive message.

    Even when there is something that needs to be said there is a wrong say to say it.

    •  Reading many of the initial diaries, this was (28+ / 0-)

      tried over and over and over again.  The derailing just didn't stop.  The STFU diary was one male poster's effort to try to get other men on the site to stop the derailing.

      I find it ironic that the big deal/ main story, now, seems to be that some men were told to STFU.  Not surprising, really.  In fact it's kind of so expected that I do find myself chuckling softly and sadly.

      Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

      by bkamr on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 06:42:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Treat others how you want to be treated. (6+ / 0-)

        There's a right and a wrong way to do things. These aren't just platitudes, but ways to build a community and a society.

        How can we go out into the broader society and tell men to treat women equally when we've just told men to STFU? How can we sell that?

        •  How can we go out to the larger society (13+ / 0-)

          and speak when even here there are too many people all too happy to try to shut down the discussion? Why do we always have to play nice, even when the men aren't?

          P.S. I am not a crackpot.

          by BoiseBlue on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 07:28:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Ian, you may have a difficult time believing this; (19+ / 0-)

          however, the fellows who were finally told to shut up by another fellow had been repeatedly, in every way known by member after member to -- listen.  They were pleaded with.  They were reasoned with.  They were asked every which way.  

          This isn't a new dynamic.  It's happened before when Black  or Gay or Trans or Native American or just about any disadvantaged group of Kossacks have tried to share their truths and stories.  Some here seem to feel compelled to interrupt with ... Yeah, well, what about ME?  

          And the entitlement that can sometimes go with that can get pretty darn ugly.  This time, it prompted one male kossack to try to call out some specific forms of rude behavior and rudely tell them to knock off being rude. The irony in the move was pointed and intentional.

          Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

          by bkamr on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 07:51:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I do believe it, and I agree that those men were (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sunbro, Kentucky DeanDemocrat

            behaving like (insert epithet here). I 100% agree with the sentiment behind what was being said. I read the full post in question, and agreed with the content of it.

            But think about how much different the discussion would have been if that one post had had a headline such as:

            "Dear Derailers, STFU"

            or even "Dear Men Who Derail, STFU"

            Would that have been so hard? The post would have had universal support from everyone other than the specific jerks it meant to target. Can you understand what it's like to see a headline that targets you as a gender on top of the recommended list, for a full day? I'm sure you can. It's wrong to do women, and it's wrong to do to men.

            •  #notallmen (3+ / 0-)

              I have to admit, Ian, you're about the last fellow I would have expected to see delivering this particular message to the community, but there it is. I salute your capacity to empathize, oblige and satisfy the sense of entitlement of men. I guess there are some folks with whom I am not interested in building a community.

              The Stand Your Ground defense is like bleach. It works miracles for whites, but it will ruin your colors. -- Jessica Williams on The Daily Show

              by tytalus on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 08:13:37 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, exactly. (4+ / 0-)

              Thank you for making this point. The title "Dear Men, STFU" impliedly directed anger at too large a section of society. It was bound to offend people it was not meant to offend and some, like myself, would find it abusive.

              I don't care whether it is men or women, it is not okay to be abusive to anyone.

              -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

              by sunbro on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 08:58:58 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Ian, you're a smart guy (10+ / 0-)

              I invite you to step back and contemplate what you're doing.

              When women are talking about our lives as women, and then the men come in to complain that their bona fides weren't acknowledged (or were but insufficiently so), or they tell us that more men would be on board if we were nicer about how we talk, you are changing the subject from one about women to one about men.

              You and they are underscoring our reality that your voice and your opinions and your feeling are more important than ours.

              You and they are exemplifying our lifelong message that among our most important virtues is to be kind; that we serve the world better by suffering our daily indignities in silence so as not to offend or even cause a stir.

              I invite you to look at the works of, say, Frederick Douglass or John Stuart Mill. They stood by us in our fight for equality yet never demanded of their female contemporaries a disclaimer reading "not all men, of course, just some."

              •  I'm not changing the subject. This post is not (0+ / 0-)

                About women's experiences. I wouldn't dare bring this up in such a post. That would be the kind of derailing you and I condemn. Doing so would be deserving of exactly the criticism you leveled above.

                This is a post about specifically the headline in question. This is the subject of this post. There are many discussions happening simultaneously on this site.

                •  Reread my words, please. (4+ / 0-)

                  I'm not talking about this post. I'm talking about women's discussions, to wit:

                  When women are talking about our lives as women, and then the men come in to complain that their bona fides weren't acknowledged (or were but insufficiently so), or they tell us that more men would be on board if we were nicer about how we talk, you are changing the subject from one about women to one about men.
                  This happens to us all the time. We can't say something like, "if only men understood thus and such" because some man will be within earshot and he'll huff and puff and about how very well he understands and how very unfair it is for the women to lump him in with those who don't. One or all of the women will issue a disclaimer -- "oh, we didn't mean all men! we know there are good ones out there" -- and, at that point, nobody's talking about thus and such anymore.

                  Maybe you have to live it to see and feel it.

              •  Reverse the circumstances: (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                fenway49

                If a man dismissed the majority of women, but then pointed to caveats in his diary as an excuse for his diary title, he would still be heavily criticized for generalizing negatively about women. He might well be hide rated into oblivion and banning for such generalizing.

                His request for someone to 'just listen' would be maligned as him being able to generally insult all women and try to get away with it because he is using his pain and suffering as an excuse for being misogynistic.

                Yes, he has suffered. Yes, he has pain. But he should be able to share that pain in a respectful manner because 'blaming' women in general would be misogynistic.

                Everyone should be accorded courtesy here on KOS, and that courtesy should't be based on gender.

                -6.38, -6.21: Lamented and assured to the lights and towns below, Faster than the speed of sound, Faster than we thought we'd go, Beneath the sound of hope...

                by Vayle on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 09:35:38 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                  •  Totally confused (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Vayle

                    Nine years ago, Kos kept an offensive ad up on a fledgling site and make some snotty comments about the "women's studies set," for which he apologized the same day, and which were not in the title or referring to all women. How is that analogous to a hypothetical diary today entitled, "Dear Women: STFU?"

                    If it has been my call, I'd have pulled the ad as unworthy of the community, particularly after considerable feedback demanding it. I also reacted negatively to the flippant, dismissive comments Kos made. But I don't see the relevance to Vayle's point.

                    “Republicans...think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people... And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.” Harry S. Truman

                    by fenway49 on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 07:03:20 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  My first reaction on seeing that diary title (11+ / 0-)

            on Friday night was decidedly negative. As I have become involved in the subsequent discussion of it, I am getting a better understanding of what was behind it and why there are a lot of people here who feel that it was necessary in that particular context.

            What this really points up for me is that there is a very real problem here with this site being an environment that is comfortable for women and minorities. We need to work together to make it more so. I don't pretend to have the final answer as to how to do that, but I do think that we need to focus on more specific ways to do that.

        •  Have you actually read any of the diaries (21+ / 0-)

          dealing with endemic violence against women and how women lead their daily lives trying to avoid it that have been posted over the last few days?

          Have you read the discussions in those diaries?

          Women and yes, men, have been engaging in looking at and sharing some extremely troubling, at best, realities.

          It has been a lot of things - painful, frustrating, liberating and much more.

          Men have been free to share their fears for their wives, daughters and friends.

          They got it. They did not feel as if they were being told to STFU and I'll bet my bottom dollar that they don't consider their fears for the people they love as "meta."

          I'll bet that a father who expressed his outrage over his daughter being raped would not have to ask permission to be heard.

          Or would he? Would he have to beg to be heard like so many women do?

          Would he have to say, "please. I need you to listen?"

          And even if he did all that and other men kept trying to minimize it, kept trying to excuse it, or even better, say that it was his daughter's fault in the first place - would it be understandable that that man, the father who loved his child, might say - "STFU and listen!"

          Because that is what has happened here.

          How "polite" do people have to be, when so much is at stake, when so much hurt and fear is being discussed, with people who do not want you to speak in the first place?

          This isn't "Miss Manners" and this is not Meta. This is a discussion about life and death and living in a cage of invisible bars that most don't see or don't want to see that affects all of us.

          It's a difficult, painful, and uncomfortable conversation and sometimes it will not be handled with all grace. How could it?

          Why is outrage about our economy being gutted and illegal wars acceptable and legitimate, but outrage about the very real war on half of humanity is only to be spoken of in the carefullest of terms and merely "meta?"

          I'm sorry, Ian. This focus on "STFU" is in far too many cases more about "I don't want to hear why you felt you had to say "STFU" in the first place."

          Caring more about a "phrase" than the actual discussion going on rather proves the point.

          There is something in us that refuses to be regarded as less than human. We are created for freedom - Archbishop Desmond Tutu

          by Onomastic on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 08:08:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Ian, I respect you immensely (6+ / 0-)

          but you're wrong here. Empty Vessel  did not tell "men" to STFU, he was talking about a specific subset of men who we had been dealing with in previous diaries and over the years:

          Many women here have written powerful diaries explaining what sexual violence they face and what men should do to help prevent sexual violence.  Most men have read these diaries respectfully and recommitted themselves to help women in the fight against sexual violence and sexism.  Other men have decided it’s a good time to explain to women what really should be done to advance women’s issues, or better yet, decided now would be a good time to explain the hardships men also face.  I have a suggestion for all the latter men.

          Shut The Fuck Up and Listen To Women.

          •  All of you are worthy of respect and being heard (0+ / 0-)

            The most unfortunate thing about this is now an exercise in condescension. Who cares how it started, who cares who is right or wrong. The shame of this is there are women who want to be heard about their struggles with men, with misogyny, with rape and now with murder. They want their voices to be heard by all but more than that they need the camaraderie of other women to communicate together. That is the shame of it all because I really believe 99% of this community are well intentioned. Many men who commented who may have felt being spoken down to, or even sensing a critical view on men in general became offended. To me, that's too bad as well.

            However, this is a blog. The purpose of this blog is to improve the chances of liberals and progressives in seeking to improve politics, government, war & peace as well as to partake in discourse. No one gets to pick & choose someone else's thoughts or their right to be heard. I made a mistake by indulging in discourse when whatever I could have said was not welcome. Even though I let it be known I do not have the same expertise in the subject & that women obviously have a better sense about this subject, it is obvious the women who wanted to be heard about their experiences did not appreciate my inclusion whether it was supportive or not. I respect that.

            What I don't respect is the arbitrariness of deciding who are victims, heroes and stereotyping. The condescension, the lecturing, the accusations only tend to bring out the worst in anyone. No one wants to be lectured or told they are part of a group that "has no clue", or to stfu if they have something on their mind and feel the need to get it out.

            As demeaning as some of the comments were from men who may have felt the need to defend the male species, there were an equally amount of comments from women who painted with a broad brush. I wanted to let women know there are many of us men who are listening. However, listening to someone comes with a caveat regarding anything. Listening to anyone who condescends or talks down is not the same as having a conversation. A conversation is two way. Regardless of the correctness of the comments or the issue, there is no way this issue will have the priority and support it should if it is only one way. This is not rocket science. People like to express themselves. There are consequences to everything so if someone feels the need to respond to something they read, whether male or female, sometimes they read it in a newspaper and their response is a letter to the editor. 99.99% of those letters never get published! but at least you expressed yourself. So if a man reads something on a woman's topic and feels the need to express something, isn't that one of the beefs women are writing about when they try to be heard in a mans world?

             I am leaving this website not because it is my gbcw diatribe. It is because there really is nothing I have in common with this community anymore. I am an older man, struggling with health issues, a seriously ill woman I love, and having to be made to feel as though this community has progressed past me is not conducive to what I'd like to be part of. There is no poor me, nor do I want to advise anyone here. It is just what it is. This kind of shit happens here a great deal, and it's not worth reading this kind of thing anymore. And that's the biggest shame of it all. Considering the violence committed against women, it shouldn't be this kind of ugliness and vitriol that turns people off and away.

            Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others....Groucho Marx

            by tazz on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 01:36:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Isn't it funny? (6+ / 0-)

        It's like groundhog day all over again.

    •  Oh, good. (19+ / 0-)

      Tone trolling.

      By god, yes, when you're writing a comment about your own rape or drugging or stalking or abuse, and you're literally begging other people to listen to you, the critical thing is not what you're saying, but how you say it.

      Are you serious right now?

  •  don't let the door hit your ass on the way out (7+ / 0-)

    don't let the door hit your ass on the way out

  •  Well, okay then. Your choice (18+ / 0-)

    Sometimes people speak out of pain and frustration and their tone might not be so pretty or ladylike. Sorry for your delicate sensibilities.

    the woman who is easily irritated

    by chicago minx on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 06:37:55 AM PDT

  •  wow, some guys really can't handle piping down (22+ / 0-)

    every once in a while. In fact, even the suggestion is offensive.

    The diary was very obviously directed at a portion of the male commentariat here that, which, judging from this diary among others, is still stubbornly refusing to listen.

    An impassioned discussion about violence and gender? Shhh! The neighbors might hear! The idea that these kinds of discussions are unseemly is a very old way of shutting them down, and it's gross to see here.

    •  Nothing obvious to me. I hadn't even commented (3+ / 0-)

      and I have a daughter who was a victim of sexual assault that causes me great pain still.

      I see "Dear Men, STFU" and it's atop the rec list, and it's not snark, I AM DONE.

      I am here to advance this diary and others like it.

    •  Erm...Right...since everyone complaining (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sunbro

      about the STFU are the same guys who were targets of the command.

      •  guys who are put off a discussion about gender (7+ / 0-)

        because they don't want to hear anger or passionate words, or because they're worried they might get "lumped in" are more worried about themselves than interested in the content of the discussion. So yes, the guys complaining are exactly who it was directed at.

        •  "Passionate diaries..." (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          red ear slider

          Great, I'll look forward to a diary next week calling people "doody-heads".

          •  so did you read it or not? (4+ / 0-)

            again, if you really cared about this subject the rhetoric of the title wouldn't phase you.

            •  Yes, I did... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sunbro, badger

              And I still saw no need to tell people to shut the fuck up.

              And I'd rather disagree with calling swearing at the intended audience rhetoric.

              •  right, this is my point (5+ / 0-)

                you are more offended by the swearing than you are interested in the discussion. I'd be embarrassed to admit that, but apparently it's a point of pride for some.

                •  What discussion? (0+ / 0-)

                  The discussion on misogyny and sexual assault?  I haven't commented in those for quite a number of reasons.

                  And weren't you just claiming I was the intended audience for the STFU, since I object to telling people to STFU in general?

                  •  i believe that particular diary (6+ / 0-)

                    was a discussion about methods of derailing used by many men on this site.

                    No, you are the intended audience if manners are more important to you than listening to women. Manners have traditionally been used as a way to silence women, and I see that going on here.

                    If genuinely care about these issues, anger is understandable, angry rhetoric is often justified, and you should be able to handle that.

                    •  Manners are more important than listening (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      badger

                      to women?  Pardon?  How do you get that from what I said?

                      I certainly have read the diaries and comments by women on the topic, I just stay out of the discussion (Do I really have anything to add to women talking about being abused and assaulted?  No, I do not).

                      •  so what is your issue? (3+ / 0-)

                        STFU is rude, and people derailing the conversation shouldn't be told that?

                        Priorities, priorities.

                        •  STFU is rude and counter productive. (5+ / 0-)

                          Replace "STFU" with "be quiet and listen", and remove the part about all men's ideas being "fucking stupid", and I'd actually pretty much agree with the diary.

                          Do you really think that telling people to STFU is a productive way to talk to them, rude or not?

                          •  i think guys have a responsibility to get over it (3+ / 0-)

                            and yeah, I think your prescription for politeness would silence women about all sorts of subjects they want to speak passionately about.

                          •  I fail to see how swearing at the people (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            sunbro, Dr Swig Mcjigger

                            you're talking to is necessary in order to speak passionately.  You need to swear, be my guess, you need to swear at someone, and tell them to shut up....  Do you actually want them to listen to you attentively?

                          •  once more (5+ / 0-)

                            angry rhetoric has been used for ill and for good for a long time. Sometimes it's justified and effective, other times not. You don't believe it was either in this case, I do. The idea that you've set the bounds of decency and that venturing beyond them is useless seems like a very arrogant attitude to take.

                            Guys who really care about this subject don't moderate their interest based on the politeness of the speaker.

                          •  I dunno...If it were addressed at me, (0+ / 0-)

                            I'd call it out.  It would be hypocritical of me not to call it out if it's not addressed to me.

                            Guys who really care about the subject probably don't need to be told to STFU, anyways.  It's how the guys being addressed take that really matter, no?

                            I'd also point out that it's largely derailed the conversation, perhaps more than the comments it was complaining around did in the first place.

                          •  no (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            most peculiar mama, T100R, Yasuragi

                            the derailing is just continuing with a new and more elaborate excuse because that diary helpfully debunked many of the most common tropes.

                            This diary is what's derailing. You are derailing, by focusing on politeness (as I've said, one of the oldest derailing tricks in the book), and you're blaming others for it.

                            Guys who really care about the subject probably don't need to be told to STFU, anyways.
                            Guys of all kinds need to be less sensitive about angry feminist rhetoric directed at them, so it's good practice for everybody, I think. : )

                            Most of the people here, yourself included, I'd put in the "not interested" category, to be honest, as I've said, just based on your apparently overwhelming focus on manners.

                          •  What can I say? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            badger

                            I view "STFU" as bullying, which is one thing I have zero tolerance for.

                            You could certainly point out that the underlying issue is basically women being bullied, so shouldn't I be on their side?  I am, but per my earlier comment, really have nothing to add to the discussion, and I'd certainly never compare my experiences to theirs.

                          •  on what planet is that bullying? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            T100R, Yasuragi

                            talk about an over-broad definition. It's the title of a diary clearly referencing an ongoing discussion on-site, with copious explanation within. Maybe out of context, in the real world, shouted, it's bullying, but not here. Every definition of bullying relies on the exercising of a power differential, and in what sense are men on the losing side of a power differential on this site? The answer is, they aren't at all. These men are huffy because they aren't being listened to as much as they'd like and their expertise has been called into question.

                            Lastly, and again, I find it hard to believe you're really interested this subject or "on women's side" in this regard, because if you were you'd make some attempt at understanding the anger (which as a man I share and sympathize with) rather than getting so hung up on it. Your priorities are screwed up. To be honest, I can't imagine any situation where manners should be your primary moral concern. It's a scary and fundamentally conservative worldview.

                          •  Anger I understand... (0+ / 0-)

                            Taking anger out on others, however...  That I take issue with.

                          •  well, what can be said, then? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            T100R, Yasuragi

                            Couldn't any expression of anger be interpreted as "taking it out" on someone? Aren't you then polite-policing people into silence again?

                            I wonder if we can think of any historical expressions of anger from the leftist side of things. Do you fault those people for taking their anger out on others? Why not?

                            Do you see how your myopic focus on manners is derailing, and denies important angry voices their due? Who are you to make the rules? Is it really so unimaginable that someone with a markedly different conception of decency might have something to say you could learn from? You're 100% certain you were raised with the most socially useful conception of decent discourse? Talk about narrow-minded privilege!

                          •  Hardly.... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kentucky DeanDemocrat

                            I never said anyone should shut up, remember...It was actually someone else did that.

                            I had never realized before that feeling empathy for people who were cursed at was a conservative value, or myopic.  Maybe I'll start swearing at people to try to broaden my horizons!  It's even better if I can take out my rage at one person on someone completely different person!  That's a great idea!

                          •  yeah, getting hung up on cursing (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            T100R, Yasuragi

                            is kind of definitionally a conservative thing, maintaining old social mores and all that that really don't have much to do with social justice.

                            Telling people they should express themselves differently is one way to not to have to listen them, one way of shutting them up, sure. As I've said, maybe some people can't express themselves the way you'd like. Maybe some people don't care about your rules. The idea that they have nothing interesting to say is silly. I've asked why you think the definition of decent discourse you were raised with is always the right one, but that's apparently another question that doesn't interest you. Or maybe it's just too hard.

                            Now you're twisting what I've said (to oh-so-comic effect) into a prescription for obscenity, when what I've said is I don't let swears keep me from listening. And yeah, I think that's a liberal (and adult) idea.

                          •  You're still having trouble understanding me... (0+ / 0-)

                            Or deliberately twisting my words, yourself.  It's not the cursing, it's swearing AT people that I'm complaining about.  I'm telling people they shouldn't curse AT people when expressing themselves.  It's not productive, and just not a good idea.

                            You pretty clearly called me myopic for condemning swearing at people.  Clearly if I shouldn't condemn it, it should be ok for me to do, too, no?

                            Though I notice neither of us have sworn at each other here, though you have called me myopic and conservative, while I've...called you nothing, though I have mocked you for, yes, advocating for directed invective.

                            Anyhow, this is my last comment to you in this thread.  Feel free to get the last word in.

                          •  Oh, and I should add... (0+ / 0-)

                            My mockery was completely a result of being called myopic and conservative (See?  Flinging insults:  Not useful).  Ok, I'll shut [the fuck] up now.

                          •  of course i wouldn't fault you (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            T100R, Yasuragi

                            for swearing about whatever you feel passionate about. As I've said the, idea that a man was bullying other men in that diary is a joke, given that men are hardly at a disadvantage on this site (why haven't you engaged with this point? part of my frustration with this discussion is that you've been at your pithiest in response to many of my more detailed questions.)

                            Do you know that in the US many minority or disadvantaged groups were ignored because their grievances weren't expressed in the proper fashion? That, historically speaking, the white or male or able voices speaking for or against those groups' interests were given more weight because they could speak more genteely or more academically or less passionately? That history has no thinking on your response here?

                            I'm not saying you're myopic in general, I'm saying your focus on manners in this context is. I'm not calling you conservative as an insult, it's just a fact. People who get hung up about cursing are more likely to be conservative. Get past it, and realize that people angry, maybe even people angry AT you (say, for your derailing conduct here) might have something to say you can learn from.

            •  it seems to me (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kj in missouri

              That a good portion of the people put off by the title are not accustomed to being called names as an adult or being judged.

      •  Once again (3+ / 0-)

        generalizing is the bane of our existence. This conversation is no different.

        Treat others how you want to be treated

        "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

        by lunachickie on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 08:24:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  what if I want (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lunachickie, m00finsan, T100R, Yasuragi

          others to listen when I'm justifiedly angry?

          •  We don't always get our way. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Flying Goat, pgm 01

            NONE of us do. Some of us, more than others.

            This is an online forum that you can be as angry on or as friendly on as you want to be. And you can ask that others listen, but you can't control them into listening.

            Further, when you demand that others listening by yelling Shut The Fuck Up, and then go on to try to enforce that, you can be sure that plenty of people will cover their ears just on general principle, no matter how justified your anger may be.

             

            "Inevitability" diminishes free will and replaces it with self-fulfilling prophecies."--Geenius At Wrok

            by lunachickie on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 09:11:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  yelling? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              skohayes, m00finsan, Yasuragi

              Please. This was the title of a long and detailed diary in response to ongoing discussions on this site. Enforcement? With what? Words?

              Not everyone can express themselves the way you think is proper. People who close their ears to an important because of a swear word aren't worth that discussion's time. There's plenty of more genteel environs for people to grow up, like say, googling the basics on feminism or derailing.

              Some minor alterations to the last bit:

              Further, when you demand that others speak the way you want them to by complaining about their language, and then go on to try to enforce that, you can be sure that you have covered your ears just on general principle, no matter how justified their anger may be.
            •  and anyway, what kind of human response is that? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Yasuragi

              Someone asked derailing men to shut the fuck up, and your response is "we don't always get our way?" They're being "controlling" for asking that basic decency of the men here? Someone asked that your purported allies be allowed to speak loudly and freely and angrily without being harangued by the same old bullshit, and your response is "we don't always get our way"? I don't really see how callousness like that fits in my tent, no, and I'm not sorry if that's too narrow-minded for you.

    •  Gives new meaning (9+ / 0-)

      to the term 'manchild,' doesn't it?  Suggest, even hint that boys might be temporarily excluded, and they throw a hissy fit, get all irrational and hormonal.

      The irony -- how often have I used that word recently -- is that there was no exclusion or "silencing."  Just, as some here have pointed out, a request to hush up for a moment, listen, and think.

  •  There are Many Diaries with Hyperbolic Titles Here (19+ / 0-)

    It's more of a way to draw eyes to a diary. People have been doing it here for years.

    Instead of thinking "Gah!!! I'm offended!" I would believe more people with open minds would think "Huh? What's this all about? Maybe I should read the diary to get a better understanding."

    It was actually a pretty meaningful diary. I doubt it would have received 500 recs if it was so gosh-darn terrible as some here make it out to be.

    I'm a "right-wing freak show," or at least that's what one nobody on DKOS seems to think.

    by kefauver on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 06:46:25 AM PDT

  •  I have learned a lot from those diaries. (21+ / 0-)

    I have seen women - and men - who have bared their fears, their experiences, their pain.

    I've learned a lot about how I can do better at welcoming and accepting others, and paying attention to their reality.

    I've been affirmed by women - lesbians, no less! gasp! - in the ways that sexism hurts me as a white male as well. I've never, in any of those diaries, felt personally attacked for being a white male.

    I've had conversations with people who I've never met before and have been heartened that there are so many good people in this community.

    I read and rec'd the diary that asked for women's comments only, and then I left out of respect. Because I understand that a woman's experience in our culture is different than my own.

    I also ran into a few, mostly men, who tried to shut down the conversation, not by saying STFU, but by threadjacking, by questioning the validity of the experience of women. By talking too much when they really needed to listen.

    And so, Tommy T, I'll ask you to read the diaries and some of the comments. Stick around if you want to make a positive impact. Learn about the people here.

    Screw John Galt. Who's John Doe?

    by Mike Kahlow on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 06:47:49 AM PDT

  •  New Rules - no boo hooing over strawmen (10+ / 0-)

    and this furor over the STFU diary is indeed one of the biggest strawmen ever posted to DKos.

    Are people just too lazy to go find out what the real issue is?  They're certainly not too lazy to spend the time spewing all over the place in here about it.

    •  Its not about the 1 diary,its about the seemingly (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Choco8, red ear slider

      endless diaries, and counter diaries, and call out diaries.

      •  huh? (6+ / 0-)

        Are you saying the diarist is objecting to the sheer number of diaries on women's issues?  

        This whole STFU thing is about the derailing of diaries.  I don't think you'll find a lot of people being told to STFU for making on-topic comments in those other diaries, and what you REALLY won't find is that any of the women involved in these talks issued any general STFU to all men for all these diaries, which is what's being claimed here.

        The STFU diary started this whole thing, and only because people didn't read it or understand what it said.

        •  The responsibility (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Kentucky DeanDemocrat

          for understanding a diary is with the diarist to write an understandable diary. The STFU diarist FU'd in this, quite obviously.

          Oh, we read the diary, all right. Wishing we hadn't.

          The difference between STFU and Please Listen isn't just politeness. It's a 100% different strategy. The diarist intentionally chose the destructive one, and there you are. No excuse.

          •  Well, that's just wrong (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            skohayes, m00finsan, jayden, T100R, Yasuragi

            The first diary I ever had on the rec list was called "Shut Up and Listen. Maybe You'll Learn Something."

            No one claimed the title was destructive or complained about my lack of politeness.

            •  False equivalence (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VetGrl, Kentucky DeanDemocrat

              Your title was generic and didn't target a specific group of people but instead was directed at the individual reader whether they be male, female, gay, straight, white, black, etc... If you had targeted a specific audience with a title such as "Gays, shut up and listen. Maybe you'll learn something" the response to your diary may very well have been completely different.

              •  Not really (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jayden, T100R, Yasuragi

                You're right that my post wasn't controversial, but I was responding to the specific charge that "shut up" is destructive, etc.

                Mainly because I'm tired of the laments about tone.

                •  I understand your point (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  VetGrl

                  but wouldn't the perceived tone of your title change if you had indeed singled out a specific group of people? Also, by using a common phrase as a title as you did it does compel the reader to find out if you're being serious or using it as a humorous device to attract readers.

                  For many men starting off with "Men!" is perceived as a command like one would expect from a coach or commander. There is little room for interpretation that the entire group isn't being addressed and it is rarely used as a humorous device.

                  In the context of the topic here it is understandable that some have taken issue with the perceived tone of the diary title.

                  •  jkl; (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    jayden, Yasuragi

                    You make good points in your first paragraph; I won't quibble.

                    As for the rest, yes, it's easy to understand the perception and the reaction. But it's rather a "welcome to my world" sort of moment (or it ought to be) and I wish that, rather than outrage, we saw a collective breath be taken and a Tootsie-like moment of realization.

                    One thing that did bother me quite a bit was the cover gjohnsit's diary gave to commenters from other diaries whose good faith participation here was at least questionable.

                    Indeed, lots of things bother me about what I've read the last few days -- much of which isn't even new, mostly the way that what's happening here reflects the workings of patriarchy in our larger culture. The saving grace, I suppose is that because we're all online there are no men getting our eyes confused with our boobs while we're talking.

                    •  I my line of work there are often situations (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      VetGrl

                      where I need to anticipate objections clients may have. I do everything I can to eliminate giving them an "in" with their reservations or criticism. The last thing I want to do is give a client something to latch onto that diverts us from making progress. In this particular situation I think the "STFU" diarist would have better served the issue and the community if he'd chosen a less divisive and potentially inflammatory title for some to grab hold.

                      When I mess up and give my clients something to criticize or object to the last thing I do is blame them for it. From that point on it becomes a matter of putting the objection behind us and getting back on track so we can continue making progress.

                      I wonder how differently this all would have played out had the title simply been "Some Men Need to STFU" instead of painting with such a broad brush.

                      •  It wouldn't have played out differently (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        jayden, Yasuragi

                        Not at all. I've seen this before and it'll happen again.

                        With that, I have to end my part in this conversation because I'm due somewhere in less than half an hour.

                        Let me thank you before I go for the pleasant exchange.

          •  See, you still have the wrong end of the stick (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Yasuragi

            here -  

            The difference between STFU and Please Listen isn't just politeness. It's a 100% different strategy
            It's not just STFU and it's not "please listen"

            It's:

            if you plan to derail the women's diaries in the following ways, please just STFU

            and:

            please don't contribute if all you want to do is turn the discussion around to be about men...again

            It's not so much a difference in politeness as it is this problem people have with jumping to the conclusion that someone is being mean to them and then interpreting all the rest of the text as "blah blah blah".  And because of this, now we get to discuss the topic of

            how you must speak to men so as not to upset them while they are interrupting a discussion you are trying to have about why all women's discussions end up being about men.

            The circular nature of this is driving many of us crazy.  It seems we really CAN'T talk about women here.  It's always got to be about men -  what they think, how they feel, how they can "help" us.  If we try to tell them to stop doing that, they mostly refuse.  If we tell them louder, they (sometimes willfully) misunderstand and then we get to talk all about how bad we made them feel.

            I'm about to give up trying to explain this.  It's nuts.

  •  This helps n/t (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pasadena beggar, raptavio, Onomastic, Sylv

    Speak softly and carry a big can of tuna.

    by Cat Whisperer on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 06:49:08 AM PDT

  •  So if I get this right (17+ / 0-)

    instead of saying STFU, you are saying: until these discussions happen in a way that you approve of, you're going to hold your breath till you're blue in the face.

    Okay, I see the difference...

  •  this place.... Thanx, Tommy! (4+ / 0-)

    Legal means "good".
    [41984 | Feb 4, 2005]

    by xxdr zombiexx on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 07:00:26 AM PDT

  •  This happens every few years. Enjoy the break. (5+ / 0-)

    I've been through a number of dKos pie fights - learned to ignore them eight years ago.  It's all part of any social network's growth.  People get to know each other a little, find issues to bond over, then competing issues and opinions gain similar footing, and there's a little disagreement.  Some people change their opinions and there's a sense of betrayal.

    Usually, a series of sarcastic diaries surface after some time to help people realize we don't have to agree on everything. (OTT vs. UTB was a great one)

    I suspect the comments in this diary (without looking) span the realm of "This violates GBCW rules" to "Purity police" and "We can't sterilize ourselves like the Republicans"   That's all part of the way things work here.  

    This diary itself is also part of the formula. The nice thing about having hundreds of thousands of users is someone is around to play each part. (I'm playing the part of 'wise old man who stumbled in here and doesn't even know what the disagreement is even about so who gives a crap what he says')

    Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

    by darthstar on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 07:02:05 AM PDT

  •  Wow (26+ / 0-)

    I can't count how many times I've been told to STFU on the internet. Is it really that terrible of an experience, especially in the context that it was said?

    Geez. I wish I had time to be upset about such nonsense. You didn't like a diary title. Women don't like having their experiences downplayed and/or questioned and they don't appreciate having their conversations derailed by men who refuse to listen.

    If you're not one of those men there was no reason for offense. If the shoe doesn't fit......

    P.S. I am not a crackpot.

    by BoiseBlue on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 07:16:46 AM PDT

    •  i loved your diary (6+ / 0-)

      and i understand the context of the meta storm. and i appreciate that it has been healing and empowering for some. but here's what bothers me.

      there are men in this community who have survived abuse. bullied. beaten. raped. who have been told to stfu about it their entire lives. and then they come here and see those headlines.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 08:18:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What I am getting as a take away from (8+ / 0-)

        this is not that we need more diaries with STFU in the title. It is that this has highlighted the long known fact that this site does not provide an environment that is as accessible for women and minorities as it should be. It is passed time to make an concerted effort to make it more so.  

        •  all one needs do is look at the masthead (3+ / 0-)

          this site has been making a concerted effort for some time. the one upshot from all of this is that everyone in this community- everyone- needs to listen more.

          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

          by Laurence Lewis on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 08:30:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yesterday Wee Mama (6+ / 0-)

            posted a response about women on the site that she received from Marcos in a Q&A diary. We were discussing how different it was from the days of the original pie fight. Yer, there has been progress.

            It would be nice if everybody could just be persuaded to become good listeners. However, I don't think that is going to magically happen. I think that we need to focus and refine to community expectations about the appropriate response in situations where someone is not only not listening, but is also disrupting and distracting others who are trying to listen.

        •  This site is generally not welcoming... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Laurence Lewis, Yang Guang

          to anyone who holds a contradictory viewpoint on anything. I can attest to this as someone who supported Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama.

          The response to anyone who dares to disagree on anything is to label them. PUMA, misogynist, sexist, racist...whatever the label.

          It's past time to demand respect and openness for all voices. ALL voices.

          "Without alienation, there can be no politics" ~ Arthur Miller

          by jwalker13 on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 09:28:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  from the top down (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Yang Guang

            there has been self-reflection on that. if i recall, markos even publicly stated that he thinks hillary and her supporters were not given a fair shake, in 2008.

            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

            by Laurence Lewis on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 10:16:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It was a really abusive time... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Laurence Lewis, Yang Guang

              And I know it made me really angry. However, I think it's human nature as well. People just don't like to be challenged or criticized. I don't. Nobody does, but we have to learn to listen to our better angels, as they were.

              "Without alienation, there can be no politics" ~ Arthur Miller

              by jwalker13 on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 10:54:07 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Do you really think (4+ / 0-)

            there is a valid "contradictory viewpoint" in diaries where women are disclosing that they've been victims of violence and discrimination?

            You obviously did not read the diary in question.  You're reacting to STFU.

            If a veteran came here and posted a diary about his/her experience in combat, and dozens of other soldiers came forth with similar harrowing, life-changing experiences, would there be any sort of acceptable valid "contradictory viewpoint" that didn't deserve a resounding STFU?

            •  Depends on the content. (0+ / 0-)

              I read the diary. I found it to be immature and offensive as it told men to shut up and listen to women's stories. It reduced men to a status of passive listeners. Men should not be passive listeners. They should be active and engaged participants.

              You can tell me what you think I'm reacting to, but you cannot tell me what I'm reacting to. There's a difference.

              If a veteran says, "Shut up and listen to my story. You can't understand my  pain at all. You're just some privileged civilian," then you bet I would argue that the veteran should not make passive listeners out of those who could add to the conversation. I would argue that their misdirected anger is only serving to hurt their cause in attempting to seek understanding for sharing their story.

              Telling someone to sit there and listen does nothing but allow you to tell other people what happened. It does not solve the underlying problem at all.

              If you are feeling anxiety, stress, and depression because you were abused as a child...telling me about that abuse will do nothing to resolve the anxiety, stress, and depression in the long term. You will experience it again. If you allow me to naturalize your pain, identify that it was wrong, and then work with you to identify strategies to cope, you'll see much longer-term "fix."

              This is what many men want to do, but we're told we're privileged, can never understand, and we should shut up because women are talking now. That sure makes you feel good for now, but it's going to change absolutely nothing in the future.

              "Without alienation, there can be no politics" ~ Arthur Miller

              by jwalker13 on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 11:17:26 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  But how are (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                howarddream, Yasuragi

                any of the specific statement being told STFU going to "naturalize your pain, identify that it was wrong, and work with you to identify strategies to cope"?

                And how in the hell does a guy know anything about how to help a woman "cope" with rape, violence, and/or ongoing gender bias?

                And isn't it a bit condescending to presume we need your psychoanalysis at all, let alone that we need you to "fix" us?

                We don't need you to do that.

                Would you tell a soldier that you can solve their PTSD?  Or help a black man feel better about racism?

                Here, let me argue a bit about the holocaust, to help Jews cope with it.

                Those specific comments delineated were not helpful and deserved the STFU.

                And your comments above are ridiculously condescending and paternalistic.  Who asked you to solve anything?  We don't need you help identify that what happened is wrong.  My gawd, we're not children.  And you can't "fix" things by "fixing" us.  Women are raped and abused every single day.   How is anything you say going to fix that?

                You can't even see that, and that's emblematic of the problem.

                And also very sad.

                •  I'm a licensed mental health professional. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Kentucky DeanDemocrat

                  I am professional trained and appropriately credentialed to help a woman cope with rape and violence. Gender bias is nothing like the pure trauma that occurs to men and women after molestation and rape.

                  Yes, I would tell a veteran I can help them to manage and potentially overcome their PTSD. Why? I'm a licensed professional. I can do that by law and because I'm trained in that.

                  Racism is not like PTSD. One of these is a psychiatric diagnosis. Another is a sociocultural phenomenon.

                  I have had quite enough, as a gay man, of heterosexual women telling me to shut up or else I'm condescending and paternalistic. Save the dime store labels.

                  You do not get to tell me to shut up. I do not get to tell you to shut up. We respect each other without calling each other names (well, one of us does). THAT is how this is supposed to work.

                  "Without alienation, there can be no politics" ~ Arthur Miller

                  by jwalker13 on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 11:38:33 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  We're not here (4+ / 0-)

                    for your psychoanalysis, though.  

                    Misogyny is a sociocultural phenomenon as well, and that's precisely the point.

                    If you would not question the statements of a victim of racism about his experience, then you should not question the statements of a victim of misogyny.

                    You are being condescending, and ridiculously so.

                    We have to tell little girls that they are not safe, that they have to take steps to protect themselves that little boys do not need to take, and we have to learn how to wriggle out of situations where a man is being disgusting and invading our personal space without making him mad or he might harm us.  

                    We say we have a boyfriend because "I don't want to go out with you" might spark violence.  We endure being groped and touched inappropriately by strangers while onlookers ignore what's going on.  

                    A sociocultural phenomenon.

                    That is what was being expressed.  Not "please help me, I'm fucked up because I was raped and need your help getting over it".

                    You don't have to STFU, and I didn't tell you to.  Feel free to say what you want.  Shout it from the rooftops.  I didn't write that diary, and I didn't like the title.

                    But I read the diary, and the comments the diarist didn't like were at the least hide-worthy in a diary about expressing the cultural experience of 50% of the world.

                    Just a pointer, seriously from the heart:  unless someone here specifically asks you, it's probably not a good idea to probe someone here with the intention of psychoanalyzing them for a "long-term fix".  

      •  I'm not sure I agree with that (11+ / 0-)

        If they read beyond the headline, they would know specifically who needed to STFU.

        It's been my experience that men who have suffered abuse are more sensitive to women's issues, and I think it's quite extreme to assume that women want all men to STFU.

        Writers absolutely have a responsibility to write responsibly, but some of that burden must lie with the reader as well. We know to not judge a book by its cover. We need to remember that we can't always judge a diary by its title.

        P.S. I am not a crackpot.

        by BoiseBlue on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 08:40:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  but why would they bother (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BoiseBlue, jayden, Yang Guang

          reading past the headline, when the headline itself was jarring?

          in the past couple months, a man i was close to his entire life died in his mid-40s, after a lifetime of struggle and, as an adult, self-abuse. a couple weeks later, the successful mid-40s business partner (a man) of a good friend (a woman) committed suicide, leaving a wife and three young children and plenty of shell-shocked friends and colleagues. there's plenty of pain going around. a blanket stfu can cause more.

          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

          by Laurence Lewis on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 08:58:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Disagree. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Vayle, Laurence Lewis, Yang Guang

          On a site that yammers endlessly about "broad brushes" a diary title shouldn't be excused from that standard simply because there might be caveats inside the diary. I doubt some of this meta would even be happening if the title had been "Some Men Need to STFU" or something similar.

          Substitute "Gays" or "Jews" or "Blacks" or "Christians" in place of "Men" in a diary titled "Men, STFU" and even with a bevy of caveats listed in the diary the response to such a title would be swift and harsh.

          Simply responding "If you're not one of those people you shouldn't be offended..." isn't exactly helpful nor does it address the message of the title.

          I am blunt and foulmouthed. But even I know that sometimes it's best to choose words carefully and wisely lest the underlying message be lost. Choosing an effective and productive title is no exception.

    •  Awesome Explanation. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      howarddream, T100R

      This couldn't have been stated any better.

      It's a shame that so many here don't get it (or refuse to get it).

      I'm a "right-wing freak show," or at least that's what one nobody on DKOS seems to think.

      by kefauver on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 08:38:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well.... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rick Aucoin, Yang Guang
      "I can't count how many times I've been told to STFU on the internet. Is it really that terrible of an experience, especially in the context that it was said?"
      Only for people checking this site out for the first time - people just starting to get involved in politics.
      Do you think they're going to hang around if all the posts on the rec list are people telling each other to STFU?

      Of course, the Democratic Party and the Progressive movement don't need any more people to get involved, and/or vote. That goes without saying.

      I cringe when I see Progressives shooting themselves in the foot via Purity Wars.

      It's the kind of thing on Free Republic that amuses me - watching them tear each other apart.

      Here, not so much.

    •  yeah (4+ / 0-)

      I find it interesting that there's all after this outrage and diaries over stfu and yet not one about the guy who confessed to witnessing a gang rape.

      Where's the outrage diaries about that?

  •  Is it the "F" part that is the problem? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raptavio, OIL GUY, Sylv

    Can we use STHU? Is it the use of certain language, implied or explicit, that is the issue?
    One of your recommended diaries uses the word "ChickenSh*t" in the title. Is that acceptable?

    kos takes a rather liberal view of the use of colorful language that is allowed on this site; seems reasonable.

    Is it the tone of the argument?

    kos takes a rather liberal view of the tone that is allowed on this site; seems reasonable.


    The collapse of civilization will be preceded by the extinction of the thankless job.

    by glb3 on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 07:19:25 AM PDT

  •  To get all analytical and "meta" (oh, boy) (13+ / 0-)

    a big reason some of us are progressives is that we believe in claiming the prerogative of authority regarding our own experiences. Our "betters"--rich to poor, male to female, white to nonwhite, straight to lbgt--have traditionally lectured less-privileged groups about how they "should" be, but are woefully out-of-place doing so. A white, straight male who pontificates to an lbgt African American woman on her workplace experience, for instance, actually is in no position to deliver a moralistic lecture. He is in no position to do anything but listen humbly to another describe personal experience that's very different from his own, but is every bit as valid. If said hypothetical white straight male claims expertise here, where he has none--if he starts to get too big for his britches--in my view, he can ethically, with no apology or concern for his hurt fee-fees, be told to stfu.

    Yes, there is a place in polite discourse for that expression.

    Hope I'm clear.

    It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

    by karmsy on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 07:19:44 AM PDT

  •  That's a shame, but good luck to you. (6+ / 0-)

    Having been abused, I understood the discussions.  It's a shame you didn't.

    The GOP will destroy anything they can't own.

    by AnnieR on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 08:07:27 AM PDT

  •  We on the left never claimed that we (0+ / 0-)

    aren't idiots. We just claim that we're much less idiotic than the right.

  •  I don't tell anyone to STFU. (0+ / 0-)

    Ever.  It's a discussion board.  If you have an opinion, bring it.  It's not like your responding is going to interrupt my comment.. or physically threaten me... or do anything to stop my expression of ideas except possibly show where they are false.

    And that's what STFU means.. don't answer me, because I might be wrong.

    Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations. - George Orwell

    by Wayward Son on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 08:08:29 AM PDT

    •  You didn't (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clues, Yasuragi

      read the diary either.

      What if the diary title said STFU and it was aimed at people who are upset that Jews complain about the holocaust as if "all us non-Jews did it!"

      waaaaah!

      Sometimes STFU is the only answer.  Too bad the community here didn't blast some of those comments into hiding.  

      Then no STFU diary would be necessary to respond to shit like "I don't believe this based on anecdotal evidence!  Show me the stats!!"

      •  My comment stands for itself. (0+ / 0-)

        I read the diary, such as it is, and wanted to express myself.  If you have a problem with that, you seem familiar with the now-standard response to hearing things you dislike.

        As to discussions on the Holocaust.. with a nod to Godwin's Law yet again proving true.. I would use conversation to determine if a valid discourse were being held.  If not, I would let the moderators handle it.  In no case would I say STFU.

        So, no, STFU is not the only answer.  It may be the only answer of which you can conceive, but there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio.

        Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations. - George Orwell

        by Wayward Son on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 12:40:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Well said. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    badger

    While I have always marveled at the effectiveness of the monolithic approach and lockstep behavior of the other side, I also realize that if we imitate their tactics, we "become" them.

    What the people want is very simple - they want an America as good as its promise. —Barbara Jordan

    by Bendra on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 08:19:39 AM PDT

  •  being told to shut up, or worse, to shut the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NancyWH, Onomastic

    fuck up usually preceded a beating by an older sibling in my experience, or even worse, someone I didn't even know. I  don't think I'm about to lose that association because someone thinks it's a good way to express themselves more emphatically. Empathy goes down a lot easier. This has all come up over violence against women, which should induce anger, but I beg those who consider themselves good, please stop crapping in the well.

    bring your own petard.

  •  i don't bother (0+ / 0-)

    there is nothing but lose in this.

  •  Thanks (5+ / 0-)

    for deliberately missing the point of #YesAllWomen.

    My heroes have the heart to live the life I want to live.

    by JLFinch on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 09:25:49 AM PDT

  •  I spent a lot of (0+ / 0-)

    childhood struggling with mental illness, cuz "what would the neighbors think?" FTS.  Sorry.

    "The light which puts out our sight is darkness to us." Thoreau

    by NancyWH on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 09:28:08 AM PDT

  •  Amen! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tommy T, Yang Guang

    That is exactly right.
      It's "Republican Purity Games" insanity.

     We are liberals and leftists here. When it comes to being misogyny, racism, and homophobia, the range of opinion here is between "no" and "Hell no!"
      There is no one, not a single person here, who's opinion is "sometimes" for any of those things.

      So where in the Hell does STFU fit in? Obviously it doesn't unless you are working on a political purity test.

    "The oppressors most powerful weapon is the mind of the oppressed." - Stephen Biko

    by gjohnsit on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 09:53:03 AM PDT

    •  You're wrong. (7+ / 0-)

      Just a couple days ago there was a comment to the effect of "I don't believe so many women experience this just based on anecdotal evidence.  Show me the statistics".

      Instead of "wow, I never knew it was like this for women", it's "I'm upset because you make it seem like it's all men!" or "use nicer words?"

      If the range of opinion was "no" and "hell no", no one would be saying STFU.

      The range of opinion is "no/hell no" to "not me though, want to make that clear!" to "show me the evidence" to "I watched a rape but didn't join in because I didn't want sloppy 5ths"

      STFU fits in every fucking time some guy:

      thinks this discussion is a good time to talk about men's rights
      thinks this discussion is a good time to talk about women's violence against men
      is bothered that this seems like we're attacking all men
      finds it difficult to figure out what rape is
      Yep, STFU is a perfectly acceptable answer to that sort of stinking tripe.
      •  Statistics (0+ / 0-)

        #YesAllWomen was insightful and a good read, but is it really unreasonable to ask for statistics to back up an assertion?

        There may have been more context to the comment I wasn't catching...

        •  Oh, yes (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Yasuragi

          it is unreasonable to ask for statistics to back up 1,000s of women's statement of their experience.

          The fact that you don't understand says something pretty negative about you.

          What if it were a diary about people affected by racism, and someone said "I don't believe this is that pervasive.  Where are the stats."?

          You obviously didn't read the fricken STFU diary in question, either, which says a lot about you as well.

          •  I, uh, disagree? (0+ / 0-)

            "it is unreasonable to ask for statistics to back up 1,000s of women's statement of their experience."

            Some things can't be quantified, of course - the everyday racism example is a good one. And those experiences are worth reading and considering on their own merits.

            But - and again, I haven't seen the comment in question - if it IS something that can be quantified, and it is part of the discussion? Statistics are simply worth more than anecdotes. That's true in economics, campaigns, heck even sports analysis. Don't see why that wouldn't apply here.

            And I did read the diary.

            •  It HAS been quantified (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Yasuragi

              geez.

              Since you have not read the comment in question, I submit you have no standing to comment.

              The comment was about the "everyday misogyny" that can't be quantified.

              But it is quantified in the number of murders by partners, that more than 50% of us nationally have experienced physical abuse, that nearly one in 4 women will be raped, that a woman in the military is far more likely to be raped by a fellow officer than killed in battle.

              Stop already.

              •  I agree! (0+ / 0-)

                I was going to say, any serious issue that could arise from this conversation that CAN be quantified can be shown to back up the larger points of #YesAllWomen.

                My solitary point is that wanting statistics isn't itself some kind of objectionable behavior. I stand by that completely.

            •  Because the statistics are a hijack to (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Eric K, BMScott, Yasuragi

              the discussion.  The discussion is about how ALL WOMEN have to live their lives a certain way because of how our society operates.  

              The kinds of statistics people were trying to bring into the discussion ended up with people arguing about what percentage of women were really raped, and whether they were lying about it and what percent of men were really rapists.  It was all such a load of bullshit, because the discussion was not just about rape and because the statistics people failed to realize our point -  all women engineer their lives in complicated ways because of misogyny.

              The exchange I'll remember most in all this was about statistics.  Someone said to me, "Look, only 1% of men are rapists.  If this was as prevalent as you say, it would be an epidemic!  Everyone would be up in arms."

              I said, "That's what we're trying to tell you, if you would stop focusing oh how it's #NotAllMen and focus instead on the fact that it's #YesAllWomen.  It IS a fucking epidemic, and the reason you haven't noticed it is because you won't stop talking about men and talk about the women instead."

              •  Is that inherently true? (0+ / 0-)

                I agree, if some dude gets real statistics and starts going off on how women are liars, you got yourself an asshole.

                But statistical analysis, from a social science standpoint, is absolutely the best way to view social situations and numbers such as this. And the statistics bear out the point. I don't think the fact some morons won't take it that way as a reason to call out "asking for statistics" as some kind of diversion tactic (which, again, was my only original point).

                •  Well, it wasn't just the lying bit (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TheLandstander, Yasuragi

                  and I'd hate for that to be taken as the main problem with the statistics.  The main point is that if every woman in the country is saying they have to plot a trip to the grocery store as though it's a CIA mission, then this affects them all.  It doesn't matter if they've been raped, or how many men are rapists, they still have to behave in all these convoluted ways.  All of them.

                  There are no statistics that measure how many times a woman crosses to the other side of the street while walking to the library, or how many elevators she passes up because a single man in them is not safe.  

                  Every time someone introduced statistics it was an attempt to get off the #YesAllWomen topic and redirect the conversation elsewhere.

      •  "a comment" (0+ / 0-)

        So a single comment and all attempts at discussion go right out the window, huh?
          Are you new to the internet?

        "The oppressors most powerful weapon is the mind of the oppressed." - Stephen Biko

        by gjohnsit on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 11:10:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You know (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mike Kahlow, Yasuragi

          you're right!

          I was only referring to that one comment!

          Actually, no, you're wrong.

          The range of opinion is "no/hell no" to "not me though, want to make that clear!" to "show me the evidence" to "I watched a rape but didn't join in because I didn't want sloppy 5ths"
          These are actual comments here at DKos!

          The main offensive comment is "it's not all of us!", a close second being "well, men suffer abuse too".

          Read a bit further down and you'll see the actual comments that the diarist was saying STFU to.

          •  OK, that's fucked up (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mike Kahlow, cville townie
            "I watched a rape but didn't join in because I didn't want sloppy 5ths"
            That deserves a STFU. But that's what HR's are for.

            "The oppressors most powerful weapon is the mind of the oppressed." - Stephen Biko

            by gjohnsit on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 11:22:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  & poster gave additional 14 comments to mansplain (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Yasuragi

              what he meant.

              If you think you can stomach it, have a look at the original comment here:

              http://www.dailykos.com/...

              Take a browse through the hiddens for the past five days... I'll bet it's the same for nearly all of them, the poster of the hidden comment just kept piling on for an additional 5, 10, 20 comments, trying to justify their posts.

              That was the context for the STFU diary.

              Screw John Galt. Who's John Doe?

              by Mike Kahlow on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 11:59:31 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I remember that last comment. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kj in missouri, Yasuragi

            A guy talking about a gang-rape that he didn't participate in "because he wasn't aroused by that sort of thing", but he also didn't stop it.

            One of the most blood-chilling things I've read here. And then he had the balls (yes, I'm using that term intentionally) to try to double-down and justify himself.

            STFU is mild in perspective.

            Screw John Galt. Who's John Doe?

            by Mike Kahlow on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 11:24:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mike Kahlow, kj in missouri, BMScott

              But that doesn't mean the other stuff is okay - the "but we don't all do it" and "why are you attacking all men" and "men suffer too!" comments.

              They aren't as disgusting but they still do not belong in discussions wherein women are expressing some deeply hurtful and (unfortunately) shaming experiences.

              We shouldn't be ashamed.  Aren't you curious why this outpouring of grief and anger?

              Because we've been ashamed!  Because rape is associated with being drunk and careless and domestic violence is associated with trailer parks.  

              So we keep it to ourselves lest it diminish us in others' eyes when it is the men who do these things that should be ashamed.  

              The point here being that the range of comments at DKos on this issue SHOULD be between "no" and "hell no", but they're not.  Pretty much anything outside that range doesn't belong here and deserves the STFU.

              Funny how STFU to those crap comments is "intolerant" but "puhleeze, it's not all men and beside that, men get hurt too, so why are all these women going on about this" is not considered "intolerant".

    •  You're right (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gjohnsit

      Virtually everyone here should be viewed as a potential ally in this. If you think a potential ally is straying down the wrong path, you coach them, you guide them, you reason with them, you try to show them the error of their ways.

      You don't tell them to STFU, unless you don't care and are just trying to alienate them and drive them away. Because throwing someone on the defensive immediately is one of the worst ways to try to convert to your cause.

      "No children have ever meddled with the Republican Party and lived to tell about it." - Sideshow Bob

      by ThinkerT on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 11:22:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  roxxers, suxxers, stfu (0+ / 0-)

    you people are silly.

  •  I disagree wholly (11+ / 0-)

    with your characterization of those Diaries as "Meta bullshit".

    Sorry.

    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

    Who is twigg?

    by twigg on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 10:24:13 AM PDT

  •  I totally disagree (10+ / 0-)

    I didn't like the title, but I actually bothered to read the diary.

    It wasn't a metaphor, or a turn of phrase.

    It said "If you actually believe X, STFU".

    Substitute:

    If you actually believe that Climate Change is a hoax, STFU
    If you actually believe Obama is like Hitler, STFU
    If you actually believe the Republicans are a reasonable bunch, STFU
    If you actually believe that there is no such thing as "rape culture", STFU
    See how that works?  Are you upset by the first three comments?

    No one was shutting down the discussion, just as no one would be shutting down discussion here by stating the first three things.

    What if the discussion were whether racism exists, or whether it was wrong to use the N word, or whether the holocaust actually occurred?  Would STFU be okay in those situations?

    More than 3 women are killed every day by their partners.

    One in 3 women will experience rape, violence and/or stalking
    More than 50% of women nationwide report they have experienced physical abuse
    The leading cause of death for a woman in the workplace is at the hands of her partner
    Between 2001 and 2012: 3,073 people killed in terror attacks in the U.S.; 2,002 US troops killed in Afghanistan; 4,486 US troops killed in Iraq; 11,766 American women killed by their husbands or boyfriends
    And that's in the supposedly "developed" United States of America.  Worldwide?
    More girls were killed in the last 50 years, precisely because they were girls, than men killed in all the wars in the 20th century. More girls are killed in this routine gendercide in any one decade than people were slaughtered in all the genocides of the 20th century.
     Nicholas Kristof
    Yet someone here say they don't want to hear a bunch of bullshit about how it bothers men that we don't add into every post that it's "not all men" (well, duh it's not all men), or "I don't believe this anecdotal evidence, where are the stats?" (see above), or "that's your issue" (really?  more than half of the people in the world are only "our" business?), and people are so offended by WORDS that they don't want to associate with Dkos anymore?

    You're not offended by so much abuse and violence?  Or by some of these offhand, painful comments?

    Would you go into a diary about racism and say "that's just anecdotal, where's the stats?"  Or "Well, how dare you? it's not all white people!"  

    Or "my brother/father/son never lynched anyone!"

    Or "Does racism exist?  Let's discuss."

    Or "That's the African Americans' issue, not mine!"

    You'd get pummeled here for that, and rightly so.

    Stop crying because someone used the term STFU.  

    Why aren't you as upset that your fellow humans are telling you their lives are impacted, and many severely so, by a pervasive, systemic bias against, and/or misunderstanding of, the role and value of women?

    •  "not all men" (9+ / 0-)

      It just occurred to me that the insistence on couching everything in the cloak of "it's not all men" represents our own DK equivalent to the loathsome "both sides do it."

      It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

      by Radiowalla on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 11:00:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you (5+ / 0-)

      Someone doesn't like the "meta" or the venting.

      I really don't like that my daughter lives in America where some men, not all but ENOUGH of them to make her life UNSAFE.

      Think reading a blog makes men uneasy?? Try getting home from work at the mall as a 19 year old blonde woman...

      More than ever the STFU discussions have made it clear that we need to be saying STFU way more than we have.

      We need to speak up more often... and not worry about the feelings of men.

      The men on our side know how to act and react.  The other ones...  one thing I've taken note of is that you can now spot which walks their talk here.  

      I'm done with the diaries of the 'you hurt my fee fees with all your outrage and STFU.

      We have real work to do.

      "Love One Another" ~ George Harrison

      by Damnit Janet on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 11:21:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In one of the diaries (5+ / 0-)

        a man received a message from his SO that she would take longer to get home because there was a windowless van parked next to her car and she wanted to wait until it left.

        What sort of fucked up world is that?  That we have to teach our daughters that there are boogie men everywhere - because there might actually be boogie men?

        We put up with abuse because it's actually dangerous to us to put a stop to it.

        When a guy at work put his hands in my crotch (from behind, as close to a gynecological exam as you can get with clothing on), I said nothing, to anyone, out of shame and fear that I might get fired.

        I didn't tell my fiance either.

        Where did I learn that it's better to keep quiet than rock the boat and call attention to the fact we'd been violated?

        We virtually ALL learn that!  

        Isn't that something to be outraged about?  And people here are crying about WORDS!

        Sheez.

        •  I hear you (4+ / 0-)

          I have a "potty mouth" and I'm "profane" when I'm discussing rape.

          Oh... I'm sorry, I should have prettied it up for you and made you a martini and brought you your slippers before I bothered you with my widdle tale of brutal rape...

          My daughter carries pepper spray.  She knows it might not even be enough.

          She worries about which co-worker is SAFE to ask for a ride home from work at night because 5 men are at the bus station  however which co-worker won't take you asking for a ride home as an invite to your body?

          Don't cause a scene - is what we've been told.  STFU!!!!  

          I remember hearing a young mother share her survival story for the first time.  And the "counselor" there - a man - said, "not all men are rapists"....  Yeah, but we weren't talking about all men - this young woman was talking about a rapist - she doesn't need to hear about all men.  Like somehow she had managed to come in contact with the ONE man who was a rapist?

          Men need to STFU and just listen respectively.  Just Listen.  

          And if you can't just listen... then STFU. :)  Which is the point I got from the initial diary.  

          Men will even make violence against women's rage - about themselves. Not all.  But damn well enough of them.

          "Love One Another" ~ George Harrison

          by Damnit Janet on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 01:44:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  There are so many strawmen here (2+ / 0-)

      I had to double check whether I'd stumbled into a cornfield.

      But even if I grant everything in your comment, it doesn't change the fact that STFU is a terrible way to try to reach people.

      If you view those making the comments you're offended by as irredeemable enemies that you'd prefer to just rage at and shame, keep using STFU. If you'd rather try to reach them and show them how they're wrong in order to bring them around, I'd suggest another tactic.

      "No children have ever meddled with the Republican Party and lived to tell about it." - Sideshow Bob

      by ThinkerT on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 11:28:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  But how will you know when that is? (0+ / 0-)

    Just curious

    No one is coming to save us, the future is in our hands.

    by koNko on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 10:46:11 AM PDT

  •  It ain't the left if there isn't infighting! n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  I'm not comfortable with the phrase (4+ / 0-)

    "Republican purity games" as it's regularly used on people like me who dare to occasionally disagree with the Obama Administration and/or Congressional Democratic leadership.

    And I'm frankly really torn,  I want to support the people who have shared their very real grief and, well, frankly horrible shit they have gone through--which bears a striking resemblance to horrible shit I've gone through. But I'm really not OK with telling people STFU. What I am OK with is the diary that said "Women comment only, please."
    Because I'm fine with a space, esp. a temporary space like a diary, dedicated to people who share certain experiences, that gives them the room to talk about those experiences with each other without being attacked.

    But suggesting that 1/2 the site, or however many men are on here, need to STFU is different. And it makes me feel really uncomfortable. Frankly, I think I don't want them to STFU, as it would be good if they'd have honest discussions about this stuff, both amongst themselves and with me. That would be helpful. What's not helpful to me? Two things:  1)obsequious "you poor thing" gestures used to accumulate some kind of political or social capital as the Awesome Feminist Man, and 2)defensive bullcrap mostly centered around "You women are Big Meanies, how dare you suggest that All Men Do Things Like That?" The second position is even less helpful than the first, but the first doesn't help me much either.

    Honesty and solidarity and critical thinking would be welcome. If these things are not possible, how about basic manners and simple respect?

    I guess the people who want men to STFU have given up on getting any of those things.

    There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibilities. ---Edward R. Murrow

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 11:08:11 AM PDT

  •  Context matters, which means this diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Damnit Janet, Eric K

    doesn't.

    "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

    by wader on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 11:09:29 AM PDT

    •  Glib comments (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tommy T, TheLandstander

      may be even less effective at promoting honest discussion than STFU is.

      "No children have ever meddled with the Republican Party and lived to tell about it." - Sideshow Bob

      by ThinkerT on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 11:24:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How is a meta diary, complaining about how meta (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Denise Oliver Velez, Yasuragi

        wars might appear to "newcomers" and stating that the diarist will run off to pout awhile, expected to be received by anyone - new or old to the site?

        Consider getting over yourself, because the only "meta war" over "STFU" that I could discern was started by a fully incoherent, uneducated rant against an informative, context-specific diary on the topic of culturally inherent sexism and misogyny.

        Lack of self-awareness on the context and mere, habitual response to the term "STFU" is what created a meaningless meta-spat, and even then it primarily got attention because the reactionary party has a well-known following from certain segments of the site.

        In that context, am I supposed to consider your whiny, lacking-all-context diary in a more serious manner?

        There was no glib intention in my above comment at all: I'm claiming that this diary is so bereft of meaning, when one surveys the context leading up to it, that it actually extends the pie fight being called out.

        "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

        by wader on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 12:35:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Get over yourself (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radiowalla, Eric K

    If you think any survivor or any woman who ever felt super scared simply because she was a woman... needs your support or your approval.  

    "Love One Another" ~ George Harrison

    by Damnit Janet on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 11:49:02 AM PDT

  •  It will be difficult (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tommy T, Mike Kahlow

    but I think we'll manage to survive without you.

  •  It's a blog... (0+ / 0-)

    nothing more and nothing less. I think the vast majority of postings are to cry out for help or to gain some validation for life. An awful lot of walking wounded here and posting is good therapy for many.

    I scanned some of the aforementioned diaries and really have no problem with any of them. They all just harbor points of discussion.

    My only problem where I might push back a bit was with the poisoned cookie/candy/gummy bear or whatever analogy to explain why women could never trust any man. That one has made the rounds on Facebook and other blogs as well as here. Also the idea that sometimes surfaced that most traits of masculinity were evil and that this was an issue on the shoulders of all men cause we don't always  intervene to stop the actions of the bad ones among us. I think if you insert any other group for "men" in those cases, you can see why I didn't agree with those analogies or statements, but I didn't complain. People are all just ranting/venting/empathizing and trying to make sense of their lives and the world about them. Blogs are good for that. I think the majority of what happens here has ceased to really be about electing more and better democrats and is more just about having a fair community.

  •  surest way to get me to (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vayle

    NOT listen is to tell me to STFU and listen.

  •  I don't know what the problem is; STFU is ... (0+ / 0-)

    ... a brilliant meme. I think it should accompany every diary and story from now on. It's truly progressive and revolutionary.

    In fact, I think Kos ought to change the name of this site from Daily Kos to Daily STFU. Just think of the potential for outreach!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site