Um, off topic, but if you have been here before, under another handle, and have not had that account deactivated, or whatever, I’d suggest e-mailing the mods about this, and using your original handle. At the SDMB, only one handle per poster. Disobeying this is grounds for banning.
Otherwise, welcome!
Hansel, if the discussion had truly been how you described it – if the OP had been, “Do you women really enjoy your orgasms, or do you feel more like you’re performing?” – then I would’ve kept my trap shut. I’m not a woman, so I can’t answer that question.
But that’s not what it was. I submit that the central statement in that OP was that no woman could ever have a sexual experience that wasn’t actually a performance for a man.
And then there was the followup post that claimed a man who said, “I’m going to make you scream,” was making a threat of violence.
Those were the two things I responded to. I didn’t accuse them of damning men in all cases: I accused Dee, quite the contrary, of damning women in all cases. And I did so using a direct, in-context quote from her OP. It was a very fair accusation, I think. If you disagree, please give me cites.
And I’m not hurt because they said I misunderstood the purpose of the discussion. That’s disingenuous, and I think you know it. I was hurt because they were really insulting and snotty and supercilious to me, and happened to throw an insult at me (“You are not a feminist”) that strikes close to my heart. Had they politely said, “I think you’re misunderstanding the purpose of our discussion,” then I would’ve responded differently.
The Stepford Feminist comment was unhelpful. I agree with that, and even though it was sorely provoked, I shoulda just thought it instead of typing it. Mea culpa. (although I thought it was pretty funny anyway).
And c’mon, this wasn’t a private conversation, no matter how much they want it to be. If they want a private conversation, they should set up a private yahoo message board: it’s trivially easy, and it can be invitation-only. No, they (like me) were guests on a public message board, and they were having a highly-charged political discussion on a board set up for political discussions. Their desire to suddenly make the conversation private is irrelevant: the owner of the space wants the conversations to be public.
That said, if they’d asked me politely to stop posting, I would’ve complied. Once more, with feeling: it was their nastiness, their intellectual dishonesty, and their insults that got under my skin.
Daniel
D’oh! Tinaah-I hadn’t read reprise’s post to you about different screennames. My bad.
Please forgive.
And seriously, it’s good to have you here-and I hope you’ll stick around. I don’t think everyone at Ms. is nuts and stupid or whatever. I just don’t like extremes. I also hang around an anti-feminist discussion board run by a friend, and while I don’t agree with them, most of the time, I like reading other people’s arguments.
I would say I’m somewhere in the middle-not a Ms. Type Feminist, but not an Anti-Feminist either.
As I say-I’m just me.
DanielWithrow, that quote by Dee reminded me of a joke. All those who are adverse to hearing a joke with males and females in it, please skip to the next post now.
So there’s this young actress who’s trying to break into film. She dons her most extravegant outfit and crashes a ritzy Hollywood party. Wandering through the room, she’s in awe of everyone she sees. She then goes up to a waiter and says “pardon me, but can you tell me who the most powerful man in the room is?”
The waiter thinks for a second and says “why, that would be Mr. Gulgenheim, the producer. He’s right over on the couch.”
So she slinks on over to him and says “Mr. Gulgenheim?”
He looks up and says “yes?”
“I’m going to bend down right here, right now, pull down your pants, and give you the single best blow job you’ve ever had in your entire life.”
Mr. Gulgenheim thinks about it for second and says “ok…but what’s in it for me?”
My point? If you orgasm from a man you are not being taken advantaged of. How in the holy twisted logic of hell can you say that you need both an orgasm AND payment in order for it to be fair? The orgasm IS the payoff. Gods…
An interesting survey: go the boards and check out the last pages of threads with three or more pages to them. I’ll bet you even money you’ll find the long thread has devolved into nasty flame wars as bad as the orgasm thread did:
http://www.msmagazine.com/cgi-local/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=001071;p=4
http://www.msmagazine.com/cgi-local/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=001393;p=5
http://www.msmagazine.com/cgi-local/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=001398;p=6
So it DOES appear I took personally what’s par for the course over there. Different societies have different mores; this particular message board seems to think nothing of tearing someone a new one for posting a civil, polite, reasoned disagreement.
Looks like i won’t be frequenting the board much after all.
Daniel
The reason I posted the way I did was that the OP made an assertation that was extremely general and tarred far too much with the same brush.
The assertation was that there is no part of a woman’s sexuality that is not ruled and defined by men.
It was an assertation on a public message board, and I responded to it because 1) I am a chick 2) I don’t feel that way 3) Hi Opal! 4) I wanted to have a discussion about why I don’t feel that way and why others do.
I didn’t go over there to try to be hostile; I walked into a discussion where people were sharing their personal feelings and experiences and shared mine. And though I have gotten frustrated on occasion, when told that I’m nothing but an ignorant sellout to the patriarchy because I don’t feel the way the OP does, I’m still interested in having a discussion with the folks over there. Tellie and Redne the XXV seem to have both a perspective to share and an interest in actual dialog, and High Priestess is discussing, if a bit confrontationally.
That may have been one aspect of the question they were debating, but it wasn’t the entirety of the question, and the OP wasn’t about that question exactly:
Dee commented on the fact that women, from being not (socially) allowed to have orgasms at all, were now expected to have porn star orgasms. The question I took from that was whether or not any woman could have an orgasm that wasn’t experienced in light of either social precept to which all women are prey, to a greater or lesser degree.
Ferbert, perhaps the most outspoken of the bunch, was complaining about the fact that men who have said that to her don’t understand why she doesn’t like it, which is because she perceives the phrase to be loaded with unfortunate overtones. She wasn’t accusing the men of threatening violence, only of not understanding that the choice of words were unfortunate.
I don’t disagree, though I think you took the most uncharitable interpretation of her words possible.
But here’s the heart of the matter: you went into a thread where feminists were having a good old-fashioned conscious-raising session, and accused them. Unlike the SDMB, the Ms. message boards are not that sort of trial-by-fire, court-of-intellect forum. They’re explicitly for providing a supportive forum for feminists, which means that a logical demonstration of some Kantian imperative in regards to gender relations is less welcome than allowing feminists to have their own discussions. What would be regarded here as a knock-down victory in some thread is probably frowned upon over there.
You’re right, they were snotty and insulting. So were the dopers, and I can’t imagine a “meeting of the boards” going more poorly than it did, short of someone registering under the name of “ballbreaker”. They treated the Dopers the exact way that Dopers treat newbies here who don’t lurk long enough to perceive the spirit of the SDMB.
It was pretty unhelpful, and it was pretty Goddamn funny.
This is like saying to that group at the party upon whom you’re intruding “hey, if you don’t want strangers butting in, get a room.” It ignores the fact that you’re the newcomer to an established conversation, and it behooves you to join the conversation as gracefully as possible to minimise the disruption to what is already an effectively private conversation.
You can stand on your right to participate, but that misses the point of the forums.
Actually, I doubt this. I think that if they had unanimously asked you in a gentle voice, you would’ve felt a bit insulted anyway. I’ve been through what you’re going through now. You think that you’re a reconstructed man who’s got the right attitude towards feminism, and it stings to find out that you’re still not totally welcome in the club house. It sucks, and it’s confusing, and it makes you question whether or not you should have bothered reconstructing yourself in the first place.
Actually, Ender, I think their point is that they are slaves to the male-dominated system. Like slaves being allowed to breed more slaves, the temporary pleasure they derive is being used as a tool to pacify them.
Or something like that. It’s difficult to tell with all the eye rolling. I think it’s akin to hunger strikes put on by prisoners–denying your captors the illusion that you are being treated nominally well, that the status quo is acceptable.
Of course, that presupposes men are actively trying to suppress women. For those who suppress them subconsciously, the gesture of withholding orgasm will be pretty mysterious and kooky. Against those who aren’t suppressing women at all… well, that’s just misplaced rage. But in a weird way, I can sort of see their point.
Its the LBMB invasion all over again.
We get persecuted and ignored wherever we go. Even more reason for me to loves these boards.
It’s your prerogative to doubt this, but I think I know myself better than you do.
I know, for instance, that I don’t think I’m a reconstructed man. I’ve never NOT considered myself feminist, not since I knew the word. My momma raised her boys right; I remember as a teenager getting a friend of my father to not tell sexist jokes by saying I considered them no better than nigger jokes. It shut him up fast, and I was pleased.
And it’s pretty egregious to suggest I’m wondering whether I should have bothered reconstructing myself in the first place. To plagiarize one of my idols in high school, I think Dee has about as much to do with effective feminism as tuna fish has to do with ice cream. She may piss me off, but why would she make me doubt my values? She’s got nothing to do with my values.
As for my coming into the discussion to accuse people – cite, please? I bent over backwards in my first post to try to recognize the value in what people were saying, to give examples from my own life that corresponded in part to what they were saying, and to encourage conversation.
I did say that Ferbert’s reading of the “make you scream” was, in my opinion, a “tortured” interpretation in some circumstances. And I very gently implied a criticism of the regulars for responding to legitimate discussion with rollseyes. Is that what you mean by an accusing tone?
Certainly if I’m reading Dee’s OP in the worst possible light, you’re inventing whole new light spectra in which to view my post. Take a look at everything I said in my first post there and tell me that it’s accusatory.
Daniel
I’m not angry that I’m not welcomed in the club house; I’m angry that I was treated insultingly. Did I not say that before? I meant to say that before.
When I first read the OP on the Ms. board, I read it as, “Men are getting pleasure from our orgasms, and that’s wrong!” Many people here and on Ms. seem to have seen the same message. Looking at it more closely, the issue of media influence and whether women are being “trained to give a performance” is there, but I don’t think that my original interpretation of the OP is wholly wrong, and, it appears, neither do some Ms. members.
I believe that it was this first interpretation that catsix and others were addressing, and that the Ms. members either misunderstood or simply didn’t want to hear an opposing viewpoint. The OP smacked of accusing the way men think of being “wrong”, and I read the Dopers’ replies as rejecting that reasoning, saying “who cares if he enjoys it too?”, which I find perfectly reasonable.
Then again, maybe the whole thing was a miscommunication from the get-go. Maybe the Ms. thread was started with the aim of starting some of that “social complaining” I hear women engage in, rather than a debate. Fact is, though, when you start a discussion in a public forum, you have to expect that someone present may not agree with you. You can roll with it, engage the other person in debate, maybe change their mind, maybe they’ll change yours. Or, you can roll your eyes at them, tell them they’re not welcome because they don’t agree with you, and accuse them of trolling. Ms. opted for the latter.
Which brings me to another issue: Based on the posts I read over there, I don’t think most of those accusing catsix and the others of “trolling” even know what trolling actually means. Trolling is posting something obviously erroneous or inflammatory in an attempt to provoke an outraged response, like posting “Satan rules!” on a Christian board or “Light doesn’t travel in a vacuum” on a science board. In fact, “trolling” is technically strictly limited to the posting of factual errors in the hope that some newbie will respond. Hoping to provoke outrage is technically “flame baiting”. In any case, trolling is not posting “I don’t feel the same way you do” in a thread about sex. So, get over yourselves.
I was making an educated guess based upon my own experiences, and what I’ve seen elsewhere. I am a reconstructed man (lucky you for having been raised right).
You did say that before. And you were treated insultingly, as I agreed before.
The point I’m trying to make is that the dynamic of that message board, and that thread, and your entrance (coupled with entrance of Guin and Cat, who were less than polite) were pretty much guaranteed to make for confrontation, and that confrontation went badly for all involved. You can blame the Ms. posters, but I saw the problem immediately, and you should have too, if you’re such a perfect feminist. If you can’t grasp why the Dopers were met with hostility without singling out certain Ms. posters as bad feminists, then you’re not so clued in as you think.
mrblue92, thank you. I learned more about their opinion from your post than from 4 pages worth of threads. Gods, why can’t they just answer a question?
Also, DanielWithrow, while I agree with your position, your assertion that threads devolving into screaming matches is par for the course over there is flawed. It’s flawed because I can’t think of many threads over HERE that hit page four and don’t do the same thing.
catsix, hee hee hee. I’ll tell what I’m laughing at in a little bit…
Hansel, are you’re saying that I should’ve recognized that the MsPosters would tar all of the new posters with the same brush?
Okay, and cute reworking of my words with what I accused Dee of. You’ll note that that statement came from teh second page of the thread, long after they’d gotten really ugly, long after I’d offered to bow out, and after I’d rejoined (unwisely) to defend myself against personal attacks. I asked for a cite from my first post; you’re using an indirect cite from my reference to a post made long after the thread had degenerated. Not legit.
Now I’m just calling your bullshit. Who says I’m a perfect feminist? What does that have to do with anything? I’m talking, once more with feeling, about civil, productive discourse. I should’ve recognized before I posted that I couldn’t add anything to the discussion? Please explain what you mean by saying that my entrance was pretty much guaranteed to make for confrontation.
If the “coupled with Guin/cat’s entrance” is a vital part of that sentence, then I still say foul: it’s not legit to judge one person’s posts by another person’s posts, and I shouldn’t have to expect that sort of silliness.
Daniel
Ender, good point – I probably shoulda checked over here before making that survey. Nonetheless, in reading other threads over there, I’m finding a level of vitriol that would be completely inappropriate over here outside of the Pit.
Daniel
It’s not about “civil, productive discourse”.
Is that what you don’t get? Unlike GD, the Ms. posters aren’t there first and foremost for “civil, productive discourse”, and your attempt to inject it into their discussion was met with hostility because there’s a long stream of feminist discourse about how an over-emphasis on “rational discourse” is another tool of the patriarchy to keep women down. You can disagree with that (I certainly do), but that’s the nature of the Ms. forums, and of a lot of feminist scholarship, and being insensitive to that pretty much guarantees that you won’t be warmly welcomed.
Dee made a good point–you’re a man trying to add something to a discussion about women’s subjective experiences of their own orgasms. Since you’re not a woman, and you don’t have women’s orgasms, and you don’t have sex as a woman, your contributions to that discussion will be suspect, at best. Trying to put it on the level of “civil, productive discourse” objectifies their experience, and makes it subject to the pronouncements of men who know nothing about what’s going on inside their heads, which was the purpose of the whole thread in the first place.
It’s a foul in “civil, productive discourse”, but the Ms. forums aren’t beholden to Robert’s Rules Of Order. They’re not the SDMB, and they’re not a debating society.
A very very long time ago (in the era before the AOL version of the message board acquired its push pins) there was a thread about why the feminist movement doesn’t disown its more absolutist, man-hating, everything-oppresses-up minded participants, and I posted the following, which strikes me as appropriate once again:
somebody, hell if I remember who
Well, yeah. Been there, done that, etc.
Suppose I happen to be a person who perceives self to be oppressed; I want to bring together my people so we can help each other get out from under, OK? So I stick up some posters and write some articles, and if the time is ripe and others are in the same groove and probably putting up some posters of their own, suddenly we’ve got this social phenomenon: “Us-ism”, the rising up of Us against our oppression. Due to the fact that another category of people, Them, won’t let us roam the streets at night, yell nasty insulting things at us, hit us physically, control our money, and are granted by the legal system (which They control!) the legal right to keep us from moving or hitting them back or even talking back to Them, most of us consider Us to be oppressed by Them.
Not all of Us are into Us-ism. Those of Us who are start off saying the others are Uncle Tomming, kissing up to Them because they’re scared of Them; we say that the obedient ones who say things like “Us-folks are supposed to be controlled by Them, that’s natural and the way we want it” are brainwashed. In our own group, among the revolutionary vanguard of Us-ists are some militant Us-ists who want trials against Them, who speak happily of causing violence against Them if necessary; some even declare that by definition all of Them are the enemy.
Do you think I’m gonna spend much time trying to silence the radical (angry) ones? Hell no. I’m gonna figure, let them get the opportunity of airing their hurts and fury, it’s a source of profound energy for Our Side. Sure, being a moderate, I personally believe Us and Them should and could live in peace and equality, we could even love each other individually. Some of Us even believe there is real love now between individual Us-folks and Them-folks, despite the messy political situation that puts stresses on those relationships. But most of my energy goes into combatting the anti-equality activities of those of Them who are fighting against our equality and bringing more of Us into the movement. So along comes a handful–a tiny handful–of Them-folks who say oppression is intrinsically evil and that they believe we are righteous and justifiably angry about the oppression and they wanna help. I quickly notice that some of the Us-folks start oohing and aahing over these wanna-be-camp-follower Them-folks, mainly because they are so happy to see such a hopeful sign of better Us-Them relationships than the ones they’ve been involved in. I also cannot avoid noticing that the militants think they’ve come here to deliberately disrupt us and lie to us and learn our plans and so on and so on; they’ve been hurt so bad and betrayed so often, and have only so recently allowed themselves to express their rage and pain and feel powerful instead of whimpery about it, and they just aren’t ready to even play with the idea that this isn’t a simple little war between Us-goodfolks and Them-badfolks. And, unfortunately, these well-intentioned sympathetic-Thems are used to being praised for being know-it-alls and organizing things and saying brilliant-sounding things (which isn’t true for Us–we been told to defer, to listen, to avoid making spectacles of ourselves, you know?). All in all, despite the fact that I don’t agree with the militants, the truth is that these camp-followers are causing a disruption, and before you know it they’re spending most of their time whining and whimpering that we don’t treat them like equals, that their reward for their good intentions is reverse discrimination and nasty attitudes.
Well put, AHunter3.
Critical my ass. First, “sharing an experience” and the desire to avoid confrontation and contradiction can and does often lead to utterly ludicrous conclusions. While a sort of consciousness brainstorming is nice, these people were using these concepts to form conclusions and the bases for these concepts (and therefore the conclusions) were extremely problematic. This process of “figuring out the ways in which they’re playing somebody else’s game” assumes both that they are playing somebody else’s game, that they could successfully determine whether they’re playing somebody else’s game, that this form of self-analysis is the most productive form of analysis, and of course in the nature of the oppression that may or may not exist in this particular context. Even the opening “fact” that you mentioned (that women are expected to have pornstar orgasms) is utterly debatable, which was exactly the point that catsix was trying pound into miles and miles of solid cork. There’s a reason that people cry “CITE!!!” so often here.
Without the check of “is this really the case, or am I going too far”, this sort of thing becomes utterly ludicrous. The raising of false consciousnesses is even more useless than the traditional false consciousness because at least the latter has had ages of refinement to create internal consistency. This sort of thing just builds an unstable tower of unexamined assumptions and unproven hypotheses. It deserves to be pulled down as quickly as possible. If you engage in amateurish feminist sociology, expect to be burned.
It’s called ‘cutting through the bullshit’.
I went back and reread what you posted, and still can’t see how you’ve included for:
That’s a pretty blanket statement. You did post that, didn’t you? Yes, I thought you did. So did you mean that, or were you just funin’?
So I ask you again: Clueless media dupes, hmmm…?
Oh, yes, I notice the sop you threw to ‘free will’, but then you followed-up with this:
So, is it that society is totally reflected in the Media? No? Then why did you post the other assertion? Or are you actually trying to tell me that media is society…?
I kinda doubt that.
If you want to impress me with your case, try a little more rigor and a little less rhetoric, next time.