all 86 comments

[–]purrvana 25 insightful - 2 fun25 insightful - 1 fun26 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Yeah they're a bit too censorship-happy. I've had a few comments and posts removed. And they're very ideological/hivemind-y. I try to stay away from ideology because it's too much sometimes. Maybe if they were less strict with the circles and eliminated the downvotes it'd be better.

I like radfemmery for the memes, but I mainly stick to saidit's gc and lgbdropthet subs. I like seeing multiple different opinions, not the same opinion upvoted over and over.

[–]akkordeonplayer[S] 19 insightful - 3 fun19 insightful - 2 fun20 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

It's just crazy. It's like they DELETE whole threads that aren't even offensive and/or totally off topic... and then get all pissy if you question "why".

I guess this is why people accuse them of obsessing over "ideological purity".

It's like... you bake a cake and place it on the dining room table for them and everyone else to enjoy. They come along and proclaim, "This cake belongs in the refrigerator or the kitchen counter, not on this dining room table", so they toss the cake in the TRASH. Then they say, "We tossed this cake because it was placed in the wrong spot. You can't move this cake. You will have to bake a new one if you want it, and place it where we tell you to. It might still get tossed again, however!".

[–]verystablegenius 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

this is actually a wonderful way to put it.

[–]GDC 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It's also startlingly similar to the 'gay cakes' scandals. Posts should not be deleted for ideological reasons, just like cakes should not be denied for those same reasons.

[–]anxietyaccount8 18 insightful - 2 fun18 insightful - 1 fun19 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

So you guys are saying that GC spaces are heavily censored. I'm not 100% sure why you experienced this, but it may because the mods are trying to make sure they are mainly-radfem spaces. Our spaces face the threat of being taken over by conservative people. On GC twitter, I see conservative-minded people (with regards to gender) all the time, and it's really weird. They talk about masculinity and femininity as if they are objective and rigid concepts.

Some people seem to think GenderCritical is the "We Disagree With TRAs Club", and not the "We Are Critical Of Gender Club"

[–]GDC 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

the mods are trying to make sure they are mainly-radfem spaces. Our spaces face the threat of being taken over by conservative people

Making GC a safespace is only a failing of our ideology. The founders of our country didn't need to silence dissenters when they decided to leave the british's country.

[–]Nosce_te_ipsum 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I usually agree that people should be allowed to express opinions that are outside the "party line", even if they are more unsavory, but I think we need to take into account how battles likes these are being fought online.

As others have said, one out of context print screen can easily sway the public opinion against you, nowadays. And, most people won't go out of their way to read the source material and see for themselves what was being said, especially not when the source material is being framed as coming from evil bigots who want to kill innocent people just for existing. So I can see the need to maintain a certain "order", even if it's not the most ideal way to foster (genuine) discussions.

[–]Archie 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

One issue is that it seems that the conservative type that is anti-TRA but also anti-women's rights is much more numerous than us, GC feminists.

If we aren't careful enough to keep them out, they will drown our message to extinction.

[–]akkordeonplayer[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

My issue was having my threads deleted for being in the "wrong circles", when the "circles" themselves overlap heavily-- and when it's not even easy to pick which "circle" one "should" post a new thread on-- at least on mobile.

This particular article I posted in itself wasn't against the whole site's general belief system. I think that's what really sets me off. They're deleting entire threads that aren't totally irrelevant to the circles they're being posted to.

I posted an article about something related to China on the GC "circle". Posted it on mobile, wasn't sure which circle to use, knew that I had some of my threads deleted for being in the "wrong circle" before. Chose GC because I figured it would fit. There was also a post on there at one time about a twitter message China had put out that bragged about "re-educating" women in terms of "gender ideology", and I thought this seemed related to that.

I checked Ovarit to see what comments I had, there were many good ones, but I also realized my thread was deleted because "this belongs to XYZ circle instead!"

I post a comment on "circles" asking "why can't mods move a post?" or something to that effect. I've had some of my threads deleted before for being in the "wrong circle", but like I said before, so many of these "circles" overlap in terms of the topics they cover. It's not like "women" and "gender critical" and "women's liberation", etc., don't all sound similar or relevant to one another. I think once or twice I re-posted threads that were deleted by mods who told me I was posting to the "wrong circle". Once or twice I said, "screw this, I'm not going through the trouble of posting that again!". This time around, I got pissed.

One of the people who kept criticizing me in my post actually posted the SAME China-related article I did (in a different circle) on the SAME day my China thread was deleted!

One of the other posters who kept needling me was a mod on GC-- and was actually the same person who gave me the Ovarit invitation code in the first place!

I'm like "really"? It's like they don't want people starting threads or something. I could totally understand if it was a "duplicate" post, but that wasn't the reason I was given. It's like they just delete threads and use the "wrong circle" as an excuse for doing so.

[–]anxietyaccount8 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, I agree that they should have deleted your post, that sounds really confusing. I just said this because some other people in the thread are talking about censorship.

[–]verystablegenius 18 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 0 fun19 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

you’re pointing out a really serious issue in GC circles. i feel like it’s very hiveminded and they’ll mercilessly call you out for what they believe to be wrong think. they’re also rude as fuck. this is coming from someone who’s GC. there are som serious hardcore feminists in there that want to constrict thought and speech. no better than reddit.

[–]akkordeonplayer[S] 15 insightful - 2 fun15 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

The way in which they kept implying that I was dumb, incapable of following rules, or that I shouldn't expect any better from them "because reddit does the same thing", was infuriating... and one of the people needling me was the same person who sent me the invite code in the first place!!!

If the truth was "we don't have the capability to move posts to another circle yet", that would've been acceptable-- instead I was attacked.

Then I see one of the other major posters who kept arguing with me was both a STEMlord in her own right, and reposted the SAME article that I had posted (which was deleted, had 37 comments and tons of upvotes)... it's like there's this weird gatekeeping/censorship by wealthy women/women in programming and other high paying jobs or something. I can't really put my finger on it. This is probably part of what many women of color complain about when it comes to GC being unfriendly to them. Perhaps there is an income/education/youth related bias among them or something? Their recognition of the issues the majority of women face-- which is low income, parental burdens, etc., seems to fly over their heads. I remember being turned off by the focus on TIMs back in the old reddit GC because as a low-income woman, I rarely ever encountered them in the first place. To me I felt "this must be an issue wealthier women in better paying jobs must face, or much younger women face, because I never see TIMs in my line of work-- it must be young women in college or women in high paying jobs who have to deal with them!" If anything, I was more focused on the economic discrimination and sexual exploitation of women, pornography, etc. when it came to the old reddit sub. Seeing GC get banned and realizing how many gender extremists were in admin roles on reddit is what made me "peak".

Censorship is off the charts right now when it comes to women's issues. Your average everyday woman, earning piss poor wages, overburdened by domestic drudgery, doesn't have the time or inclination to READ tons of GC books or to read the specific micromanaging rules for every single "ovarit circle" before posting a damn post. I'm certain women who join Ovarit are getting turned off to the site by having their threads deleted for ridiculous reasons. Seriously, most of us are tired of being censored on platforms.

There was another poster who claimed she felt compelled to delete her parenting related post because she inquired about how she should raise her son-- apparently she was attacked by other posters? Someone else was branded a racist for questioning a meme? What is going on?

Again, here we see your "average" woman-- probably low income, a parent, not deeply well versed in "gender critical" ideology, being attacked for a question. How do they expect to attract people if they expect such purity? Not everyone is a single, STEMming, wealthy woman with a masters degree... many of us have "made mistakes", don't have the time for endless deep reading on politics, or have become parents of sons.

It doesn't feel like this is "the time" for micromanaging gatekeeping when it comes to social media platforms dedicated to women's rights (and bucking the gender ideology trend which directly targets children!!!). We need all the help we can get from all types of women... do they not realize this?

(Obviously, deleting troll comments that are meant to provoke people or make the whole site look bad makes sense, but this isn't what I'm referring to.)

[–]GDC 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Then I see one of the other major posters who kept arguing with me was both a STEMlord in her own right, and reposted the SAME article that I had posted (which was deleted, had 37 comments and tons of upvotes)... it's like there's this weird gatekeeping/censorship by wealthy women/women in programming and other high paying jobs or something. I can't really put my finger on it.

This happened with some of the supermods on reddit. there was one of them who was infamous for doing it, and lots of people think he was working for media companies to do it.

They will delete popular posts and then repost themselves for higher imaginary numbers. The biggest name was u/Boobgal? or something like that.

[–]DiscoStegosaurus 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Gallowboob, I think. Lol

[–]Franklintheturtle 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

gallowboob?

[–]hellsbells76 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yep. That's why I don't go over there very much. They shut down reasonable debate and I agree, can be so on unnecessarily rude..

[–]akkordeonplayer[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

OK, thanks. It's good to know I'm not "crazy" or alone in this assessment, if you get what I mean.

[–]MarkTwainiac 15 insightful - 4 fun15 insightful - 3 fun16 insightful - 4 fun -  (11 children)

I think in Ovarit-speak "circle" is code for "clique." And that an unwritten rule of most of the cliques is that no one can disagree or question the approved views that the members of the clique seem to have all taken an oath to agree with and defend to the death.

I've only made a few comments there, all in response to posts I came across on the main page - under the headings "New," "Top" or "Hot" - that I found factually inaccurate, historically uninformed, authoritarian and/or in which it seemed to me that a poster with one set of rather limited life experiences and views was appropriating/using other people's very different life experiences in ways that struck me as unfair, unseemly and/or disrespectful. Pretty much all my posts immediately got me flamed, blocked and told that I'm mean and horrible, and that I have some nerve to say what I did.

Only later did I realize that the posts I'd responded to were from "circles" aka cliques where groupthink prevails and other views are anathema. If Ovarit is gonna continue calling its subs "circles," I think it might be best to label a lot of them "closed circles." (Another term with the word "circle" in it comes to mind, too, but it's too crude and male for me to mention, LOL.)

The whole place seem puerile, petty and fully of people saying "you should," "we must" and "you can't say or think that."

Now that I've started paying attention to the "circles" in which comments/threads are posted - rather than just to the title, topic and content of the posts as I did previously - I'm also of the opinion that there are too many different "circles" that seem to overlap or cover the same topics, and there's no way any outsiders or newcomers could possibly discern or have a what the differences amongst/between them might be.

Of course I get the difference between, say, Gender Critical and STEM and Games and ArtsandYarns. But not between GenderCritical, TransLogic, TerfisaSlur and ItsaFetish; or between Women'sLiberation, RadFemmery and NameTheProblem. And what on earth is Women supposed to be about? Even when I click on these cliques - oops circles - and read their descriptions, I still don't often see the difference between them.

I'll continue to look at the home page and read Ovarit on occasion, but probably won't try to contribute further. It's not a place for the likes of me.

[–]akkordeonplayer[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

You're probably right-- cliques would be a better term for them to use. To me, it would make better sense for them to use "flares" instead of "circles", and to avoid nuking threads unless they were obvious duplicates and/or outright offensive and against the site's general focus. More posts and threads = more engagement = more clicks. Why be so particular about who posts to what "circle" if most people probably view "all" when it comes to their feeds?

LOL. I actually posted my criticism to the "circles" circle, then realized AFTER the fact that there was a "suggestions" circle. I made a snark comment about "watch this thread get nuked because I didn't post it to "suggestions". THEN one of them scolds me for not putting it in "suggestions", asking me "so why didn't you use suggestions?" which I didn't know existed in the first place! Someone else tells me they will generously leave my comment up despite being in the "wrong circle"!

What the hell?

A year ago I would have been far more tolerant, but I'm just not having it anymore. If I smell a rat on a social media platform, or too much censorship for no justifiable reason, I jump ship. Nuked my Reddit account, nuked my Twitter account, now nuked my Ovarit account. I'd rather stick to Saidit for this particular topic.

[–]MarkTwainiac 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

OMG, LOL, I can't believe they have a circle to comment about "circles" and a separate "suggestions" circle. I've looked at the circle directory and still can't fathom some of the differences between the circles. But the underlying message is very off-putting and anxiety-provoking.

[–]akkordeonplayer[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's like, why bother posting any new threads at all? Perhaps they don't WANT people starting new threads?

[–]alttrawl 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

As someone who as been there since the beginning, circles is a place to check user demand for new circles and suggestions is for tech related site suggestions.

[–]GDC 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Is it plausible that the folks who started ovarit were sneaking mtfs and they are trying to destroy the movements against themselves?

I actually posted my criticism to the "circles" circle, then realized AFTER the fact that there was a "suggestions" circle. I made a snark comment about "watch this thread get nuked because I didn't post it to "suggestions". THEN one of them scolds me for not putting it in "suggestions", asking me "so why didn't you use suggestions?" which I didn't know existed in the first place! Someone else tells me they will generously leave my comment up despite being in the "wrong circle"!

Or are the owners of Ovarit trying to force an echocham'ed tyranny of the majority?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

[–]alttrawl 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Fyi, gender critical is specifically for gender critical content, women's liberation is for general feminism, women is for anything you want to talk about, and radfemmery is for memes. Nametheproblem points out misogyny, Translogic mainly has screenshots of translogic for posterity, and itsafetish points out AGPs.

[–]akkordeonplayer[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

.. and some of those topics overlap by a huge margin. If it's that big of a deal to get threads in the "right circle", but comments in a moderation queue and sort them out into the "right circles".

I nuked my account anyway, particularly after getting some sh-tty feedback from mods. Lose threads, insightful comments and followers.

Another platform, another group of censors. Just like any other day for a woman posting online in 2021.

[–]LasagnaRossa 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Also, those names are general af. How do you remember that radfemmery is a troll sub and women's liberation is about feminism? It makes little sense!

[–]censorshipment 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

"Read the sidebar" which is not a sidebar on mobile. Desktop users seem to think mobile browsing is obsolete or something.

[–]akkordeonplayer[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you. That's what my thought was.

[–]akkordeonplayer[S] 14 insightful - 2 fun14 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The thought occurred to me that people in STEM might have this superiority complex in general, including women. It's a shame that they're shooting themselves in the foot. You won't attract normal "dumb" low wage women like me when you act holier-than-thou and accuse other women of being "stupid".

[–]cinnaflo 14 insightful - 2 fun14 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

I do think it’s dumb when mods delete threads when it doesn’t follow the guidelines to the T but this isn’t new within forum communities and it’s pretty normal. You do make good points with how some of the circles are too similar/can overlap though, and I do think that should be brought up. Also there’s censorship on Ovarit because there are TRA lurkers who screenshot posts and upload them on Reddit to criticize and make fun of, and its important that we don’t give them a reason to further smear us as white supremacists or have calls for Ovarit to be taken down (which is absolutely possible, and something TRAs have been trying to make happen by having the public think we’re alt right). Normal onlookers get told that TERFs are violent/hateful white supremacists, but when they see these types of screenshots or if they do decide to check Ovarit, they’ll realize how manipulative and untrustworthy TRAs actually are and will begin questioning them.

Before GC reddit got banned, I also used to felt the focus on TIMs was really annoying/overwhelming, it came to the point where the entire front page was all about TIMs and memes. I originally joined GC to find a community discussion on feminism that focused on women/ oppression of poor women, but they became rarer as the subreddit grew. The places I liked to visit, the people I interacted, the topic of transgenderism/ people who were trans didn’t even make a blip outside of GC spaces (and unless it was LGBT related, which being a bisexual GC I hated anyways). I didn’t get why some women were so upset about TIMs because I never saw any of it happening around me. But now I’m seeing them in TV shows, video games, comics, niche hobby communities, feminist/women’s health orgs, and now more in political positions, being mentioned by my senators/governors, on the news speaking about their transition, in sports, and having law policies being changed to accommodate them while hurting women’s rights. They’re growing and are everywhere now, and I get the frustration.

[–]akkordeonplayer[S] 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I felt the same way about GC before it got banned regarding the TIM issue. Nowadays I DO see how this gender ideology gets shoved down our throats, and I see it as a threat.

I definitely felt as if a lot of the the reddit GC posts were also tone deaf to women who were impoverished/ single mothers, etc. Quite a few opinion-piece articles posted, for example, were written by women who were extremely wealthy and privileged to begin with. There was one woman who's articles kept being posted, for example, who lives in the most expensive part of NYC and works in a STEM job. Every time I saw her articles getting circulated, I rolled my eyes. Part of me sees this as a side effect of having an online community moderated by people in STEM, who often seem dismissive and nasty to those who are self-described poor and/or single mothers online. (This is also part of the reason I find technology infiltrating every aspect of our lives as problematic-- those who work in this industry tend to be wealthy and look down on people who don't earn as much as they do-- of course their tools would be biased in favor of the wealthy--> that's another topic all together.)

I also noticed (as of late) some really bizarre racist posts on Ovarit, which makes me wonder if there has been some major infiltration on that site. Most women who identify as feminist of any stripe are decidedly anti-racist. I'm sure gender activists have the time and inclination to do so, as they've already shown how talented they are for that kind of thing.

[–]censorshipment 7 insightful - 9 fun7 insightful - 8 fun8 insightful - 9 fun -  (5 children)

If by bizarre racist posts you mean real racism, not "anti-white racism"...

Did you know there was a gc_woc subreddit created because of the classist and racist bullshit on the GC sub?

White women's rights activists have always been this way. Back when they were suffragists. And during the late 60s into the 70s.

Thank goodness I have my mom and aunts to tell me the truth. They said white women's racism+classism was worse than black men's sexism. I was skeptical about that at first because male-partnered women have an infuriating tendency of siding with their own men (white women side with white men, black women side with black men, etc). Speaking of which... before the GC sub was banned, there was an announcement about the banning of several prominent GC sub members... they were banned for being "uncivil" towards men on the sub (and also libfems on the sub who had recently "peaked" but were only anti-trans and not radfems at all). Turning against your own is ridiculous. GC mods would've banned Valerie Solanas had she been alive and on Reddit. :(

[–]akkordeonplayer[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I saw something like "black women aren't really women" or something like that, which freaked me out.

I wasn't sure if it was meant in sarcasm, but I reported it regardless-- that's the kind of post that could be used to "justify" calling Ovarit a "hate site".

I DO think there is some truth to arguing that the whole "Karen" meme is a way of discrediting all feminism via some form of "anti-white racism"... a way to discourage minority women from embracing women's rights.... or as a way to cast all white women as "always wealthy and always extremely racist", which isn't the case... OR to make the insinuation that women who argue on behalf of women's rights are ALSO "always racist, too".

The classism thing I can definitely relate to-- women who are married comfortably or have high paying jobs tend to be more classist than those who are single. It's like they're incapable of realizing how difficult it is to be single, borderline poverty or impoverished, with children. For that reason, I am often extremely reluctant to bring up my personal life at work, because I know that can and will be used against me... What used to make me really cringe (particularly at work) was when I'd hear these same comfortably married women complain about certain groups of people "being on welfare", etc., when I knew their own grandkids, kids or husbands were on SSDI. It was like, "seriously?". Where I work now I don't hear as much of this stuff, thankfully. Now bring up being single/with kids/poor online and you DEFINITELY get slammed, no matter where you go.

Yes, I do remember the gc_woc subreddit existing. I remember one post on regular GC where the article posted discussed a black woman going to college, getting a job in social work, and being paid a low wage-- and remembered reading all the ridiculous comments about "she should've thought of XYZ before having children.. she should have picked STEM" and that kind of thing. I was like "what the f---"? So, yes, I wasn't shocked when the new sub was created.

[–]Nosce_te_ipsum 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This is an argument that seems to be quite popular among trans activists: that black women are "manly" and, if we accept them as women, we should also accept transwomen as women. Gender Critical feminists criticize/make fun of that argument constantly, which leads me to believe that what you saw was, most likely, sarcasm, or perhaps, quoting one of the assholes who say stuff like that. I'm not on Ovarit and I'm sure that, like any other online community, they have their issues, but I don't think anyone there would post stuff like "black women aren't really women", unless they were a troll.

[–]akkordeonplayer[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It could have been sarcasm, but wasn't marked as such-- one could easily say it could be used as an "example" to "justify" smearing the whole site.

[–]Nosce_te_ipsum 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree. But there are people in this thread who are accusing them of censorship too, of removing things that they find offensive. I've never been a moderator, but I imagine it's difficult to walk the fine line between not allowing anonymous people online to post insulting or "bait" material, but also making sure you don't suppress genuine debates and conversations centered around sensitive subjects.

If they don't delete some questionable comments, even those made with no ill intent, that can be used against the entire community, but if they do keep track of these things and use the "better safe than sorry" principle, people will, inevitably, accuse them of censorship. Especially since people usually disagree on what constitutes opinions that are offensive enough to deserve being removed.

[–]cinnaflo 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah it’s absolutely a thing where people in tech and STEM will look down on those who are poor. Outside of GC spaces I’ve also been seeing some frustrations towards well off people (in tech again lol) writing opinion pieces that they assumed would resonate with the poor. It appears to be a wider issue with people in rich privileged positions thinking that they speak for everyone. I also have my criticisms with tech (and think everyone should be against it becoming more of a dominating feature). I don’t doubt that women on Ovarit or that radical feminists can’t be racist but there actually have been a bit of infiltration from TRAs recently. Someone confessed about a week ago and they got banned. There was a thread about some women noticing weird posts/down voting.

[–]alttrawl 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Before GC reddit got banned, I also used to felt the focus on TIMs was really annoying/overwhelming, it came to the point where the entire front page was all about TIMs and memes. I originally joined GC to find a community discussion on feminism that focused on women/ oppression of poor women,

This is why there are now separate categories for all of those.

[–]akkordeonplayer[S] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Which is fine, but many topics still overlap, which is why it's bizarre to nuke entire threads unless they're completely 100% off topic... like posting cat pictures in a "dog meme only" circle.

[–]Cass 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I never even went there, since I thought the og gc subreddit sucked too. Too narrow of an ideology that you had to adhere to if you wanted to not get banned.

I can't believe the mods are so-- Reddit like?

Give a little power to someone and they'll show you who they are.

[–]anxietyaccount8 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Then why do you like this Saidit, if you disliked the old GC subreddit? I'm just wondering.

[–]censorshipment 10 insightful - 7 fun10 insightful - 6 fun11 insightful - 7 fun -  (1 child)

To the desktop users saying "read the sidebar"... OP has stated she's on mobile. Visit Ovarit on your phone... there isn't a sidebar.

[–]akkordeonplayer[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

THANK YOU. The article which I posted I was also eager to post-- because it's not uncommon for certain types of articles to be "rescinded" as soon as they're published as of late. Normally I dislike posting things via mobile, but it was the end of a 12 hour overnight shift at a medical facility when I saw it. I had literally just punched out of work, hopped on the elevator, looked at the news on my phone-- and wanted to share the article immediately.

Inability to "see" circles on mobile also stinks for women who don't have desktop access due to income reasons, privacy reasons, etc..

[–]alttrawl 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

I've had multiple multiple posts deleted because they were in the "wrong circle".

I've had 2-3 posts deleted before for being in the wrong category or not meeting the standards written in the sidebar. I politely asked why in a private message, and they explained it to me. There's no need to take it personally. Read the sidebar or ask questions if you don't understand how the circles differ instead of "criticizing" their censorship. If they made rule exceptions for everyone new, it'd be a mess.

It's not censorship when you can repost under the correct category, and it's not power-tripping to make a website organized. Fyi, gender critical is specifically for gender critical content, women's liberation is for general feminism, women is for general topics that don't have a circle, and radfemmery is for memes.

[–]akkordeonplayer[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Most of the categories overlap... and I know one poster mentioned in the thread I had started that her post on "women" was moved for being in the "wrong circle"--- this was after someone told her it was the "miscellaneous" circle.

It's ridiculous to have to ask permission from every mod in every possible circle to inquire as to which "circle" your post is allowed to be in. I think my post could have been applicable to GC, as the tactics used on the women mentioned are almost identical to some of the "scenarios" the gender extremists love to dream up about what they want to do to "terfs".

I wasn't a "new" poster, either. Many women, I'm sure, just move on to different sites and/or don't bother posting anything new after getting their threads deleted.

[–]alttrawl 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

It's ridiculous to have to ask permission from every mod in every possible circle to inquire as to which "circle" your post is allowed to be in.

Of course, read the sidebar first. If your post still gets removed for being in the wrong category, isn't it better figure out why?

Most of the categories overlap...I think my post could have been applicable to GC, as the tactics used on the women mentioned are almost identical to some of the "scenarios" the gender extremists love to dream up about what they want to do to "terfs".

That's like saying it's a feminism board so you can post in any of the feminism circles. It's more important to ask what properties does this circle have that the other doesn't. Process of elimination questions I'd ask myself before posting on gender critical vs. women's liberation are

1) Is this unequivocally GC? i.e. ACLU declares TWAW

2) Does this specifically mention gender critical content in a larger context? i.e. censorship article mentioning gender critical or someone who has expressed gc views is now being attacked

3) GC discussions

All other feminism goes in women's liberation. I don't know what your post was, but perhaps if you framed it as a discussion where you pointed out why this was GC related rather than posting an article where the connection is stronger to another circle it would have passed. If it's too tangentially related to GC, i.e. a TRA appears in an article but it's not about gc, I would post it as discussion instead of the article.

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

In my view, the slicing and dicing of categories based on what some might consider minutiae or at least ill-defined criteria that you're doing and arguing for in this particular post only illustrates the problem with the categories you are championing. Again, that's just in my view.

But then I am from an older generation when all feminism was, and was assumed to be, inherently critical of what today is known as gender ideology or just plain gender - and when criticism and dismantling of sex stereotypes (aka "gender") was seen as essential to women's liberation.

Moreover, again in my view and only in my view, the way ovarit is set up discourages - even prohibits - thinking and posting in a "big picture" way that seeks to find and explore connections between phenomena that might appear to be separate at first glance when looked at superficially but which are actually linked. I've always been a big picture kind of thinker attuned to how multiple elements and forces shape our lives, and I've always been very interested in history and understanding how the complex forces shaping us in the now came to be - and how we're all products of the past as much as the present. As a result, I don't think ovarit is a place for me.

I wouldn't have started a thread saying this, coz I have no wish to to badmouth ovarit - and coz most internet forums are not places for people with my particular kind of thinking and posting pattern. I don't take that personally. Nor do I take umbrage at ovarit's setup. To each her own. I only bring this up here and now coz someone else started a thread about it, and you have kindly taken the time to try to explain ovarit's categories and to say

If your post still gets removed for being in the wrong category, isn't it better figure out why?

It doesn't take a big leap in imagination to wonder and fear that there might be a link between removing posts "for being in the wrong category" and removing them coz they contain "wrong think" and might have been made persons of "the wrong sort."

[–]akkordeonplayer[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Moreover, again in my view and only in my view, the way ovarit is set up discourages - even prohibits - thinking and posting in a "big picture" way that seeks to find and explore connections between phenomena that might appear to be separate at first glance when looked at superficially but which are actually linked. I've always been a big picture kind of thinker attuned to how multiple elements and forces shape our lives, and I've always been very interested in history and understanding how the complex forces shaping us in the now came to be - and how we're all products of the past as much as the present.

This is a great way of putting it. The thread I created (that was deleted) was an article could have been linked to GC in that this same political entity that is torturing a particular minority group of women was Tweeting about how they were "re-educating" those same women in terms of their "gender ideology" just a few weeks prior. The manner of which these same people are torturing these women also echos what trans extremists fantasize about doing to "terfs". It's not as if the article was completely unrelated to gender extremism.

It doesn't take a big leap in imagination to wonder and fear that there might be a link between removing posts "for being in the wrong category" and removing them coz they contain "wrong think" and might have been made persons of "the wrong sort."

THIS also, particularly at this moment in time- women are being censored for the most minor "infractions" on various platforms. Deleting entire threads for being slightly off topic seems self-defeating when one reflects on what the larger end goal of the entire website/platform is. Is the end goal to place information in perfectly contained bubbles, or is it meant to educate women about what's going on in the world, and to give them a voice and a means for sharing information?

[–]alttrawl 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The thread I created (that was deleted) was an article could have been linked to GC...It's not as if the article was completely unrelated to gender extremism.

If the source material itself isn't clearly gc to begin with and you don't frame it as a discussion where you point out the less than obvious connection as you have here, then it may be removed. I'm sure if you posted a discussion where you linked the article and wrote your reasoning it would have passed. It's unfortunate you weren't able to see the sidebar on mobile. Yes, the mod who replied to me did come off a little curt when I asked why my post didn't meet the criteria, but I didn't take it personally. I'm sure they're busy removing trolls. It's fine that you dislike the site format and prefer saidit instead but most people want this kind of site format. Originally, these were separate subreddits that were all banned together.

THIS also, particularly at this moment in time- women are being censored for the most minor "infractions" on various platforms. Deleting entire threads for being slightly off topic seems self-defeating when one reflects on what the larger end goal of the entire website/platform is.

Well, it's also important to maintain an orderly site so users can have some certainty that when they click gc they'll get gc discourse and not discussions about women's healthcare. If you try hard enough, anything in women's liberation can be related to gc, it depends on the angle e.g. posting an article about women being misdiagnosed for a certain condition without an obvious connection vs. a discussion containing a link to the article that includes your writeup of why this is relevant

[–]alttrawl 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

As someone else mentioned here in this thread, some people get tired of seeing nothing but gender critical posts when they want to have general feminism discussions. It makes sense then to split the topics for a majority of people. For those who disagree with the site format, that's fine too, but it's not "censorship" to have posting categories. Most internet forums with active mods operate this way in order to maintain order.

Moreover, again in my view and only in my view, the way ovarit is set up discourages - even prohibits - thinking and posting in a "big picture" way that seeks to find and explore connections between phenomena that might appear to be separate at first glance when looked at superficially but which are actually linked.

I think you are mistaking the topic split for a ban on discussions touching on other topics. No one is banning anyone for making "big picture" comments, you absolutely can talk about general feminism in gc, but if the source material itself is not gc to begin with and you don't frame it as a discussion where you point out the less than obvious connection, then it may be removed.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

some people get tired of seeing nothing but gender critical posts when they want to have general feminism discussions

LOL, even you can't keep the circles straight: there is no "general feminism" circle. Also, maybe the issue here is defining what "gender critical" means then. The circles directory says that circle is the place to

Discuss gender and transgender ideology/politics from a critical, feminist perspective

Which suggests that sex stereotypes are only an issue insofar as they are related to transgenderism.

you absolutely can talk about general feminism in gc

But as you said, not the other way around. No talking about sex stereotypes, which is all "gender" is, in "general feminism," which isn't the name of a circle...

but if the source material itself is not gc to begin with and you don't frame it as a discussion where you point out the less than obvious connection, then it may be removed.

I don't understand what you mean by "the source material itself" here. Everyone is supposed to cite sources showing what informs our POVs? I see lots of threads started by, and posts made, by people who cite no "source material" whatsoever. But if someone does cite "source material" in a thread or post, you say

if the source material itself is not gc to begin with and you don't frame it as a discussion where you point out the less than obvious connection, then it may be removed.

So if someone mentions source material that's not specifically, obviously "gc" - whatever that's supposed to mean - it's up to the moderator to decide whether the poster has done a sufficiently good job making clear to others what "the less than obvious connection" is? Why not let the others read it and see if it's clear to them. If it's not, why not let them tell her, and ask her to explain. That way, posters can have a back and forth that might be informative and interesting to the posters having the dialogue, as well as to all who just read it. Like we are doing here.

[–]alttrawl 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

LOL, even you can't keep the circles straight: there is no "general feminism" circle. Also, maybe the issue here is defining what "gender critical" means then.

I'm really confused by your understanding of my comment. I really don't get why you think I can't keep the circles straight or what's so difficult. If someone calls you out for standing in the wrong place for the queue, you go to the right place. Why would you question the need for a queue? It's not like they're asking people to do advanced latin plant identification. All gc content goes in gc. Everything NOT gc but is still feminism goes in women's liberation. No gc content in women's liberation. If there's a unapparent connection to gc, point it out then it gets to stay. That's it. This is all in the sidebar.

If you go off-topic under a gc thread and talk about radical feminism or your life experiences, that gets to stay. But you can't open an off-topic thread in gc about feminism when there's a specific place in women's liberation for it.

So if someone mentions source material that's not specifically, obviously "gc" - whatever that's supposed to mean...Why not let the others read it and see if it's clear to them.

That's not how the majority of forums work if they have any semblance of order. It's fine if you find these classifications arbitrary, but almost all internet boards work like this. There are lots of reasonable arguments about censorship, but not following the community guidelines for posting in the right place is NOT censorship. Some reddit subs won't let your post go up if you don't follow their specific title format. Still NOT censorship.

[–]akkordeonplayer[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This isn't the case where someone is posting cat memes to a dog sub, though. Most people know what a cat is, or what a dog is.
Most women aren't well versed in feminism, feminist theories, and even the general definitions of terms are debatable among self proclaimed "experts". Many women grew up thinking "feminism" itself was a dirty word.

Deleting threads because they "would be better placed over there" puts posters off, annoys readers who enjoy a thread then see it nuked, and doesn't really help the overall aim of the site. "Oh great, these people who run the site think they're smarter than everyone else... No wonder people hate feminists! I'll pass on this!"

This is assuming the thread isn't violating regular site standards of not advocating violence, of course, or that it isn't literally a cat picture in a dog meme circle.

[–]ZveroboyAlina 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It is strange that posts are nuked and asked to "your post was great, so please repost it in correct sub" instead of just being moved into other sub in database by mods, or at least given time for poster to copy paste topic before nuking, as they could not have backup copy.

[–]akkordeonplayer[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, exactly.

[–]verystablegenius 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

i was banned from the lesbian ovarit sub because i asked if anyone was in the seattle area. i had no other posts or comments. it’s crazy.

[–]akkordeonplayer[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

LOL. That's crazy. If anything, I could see a warning, or a mod saying "we try not to encourage people posting their physical locations due to safety reasons" or something.. not a total BAN.

Just like with the posts of mine that were deleted. I could see a "this post might be better suited for (circle name here)" message from the mod, but I don't see why the post would be DELETED. Most people who use the site probably just use the "new posts" or "all" feed, I doubt most of the users narrow their viewed posts to one or two "circles".

[–]marmorsymphata 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

So you can't figure out how to post things properly and now you're crying like a baby? Jesus, I thought this was going to be some kind of hardcore censorship takedown or something. Get a grip, this happens on every website with active mods. You really don't understand that many websites do not have the code structure to move posts?

[–]akkordeonplayer[S] 13 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

I'm not "crying like a baby"-- Give me a break about posting things "properly". Just look at their "circles" and explain to me why the majority of them don't sound like they could totally overlap in terms of topics.

I delete shit, call it out, move on. I'm not the first person to see this happen on their site. Other people had asked the same question when I searched the same issue. It's ridiculous, and doesn't help their cause or attract posters. The whole reason the site exists is because of bizarre censorship rules on reddit, you'd think they'd be more lax about rigid "subs" in order to increase traffic, clicks, or to welcome posters. You'd think they'd accept criticism without attacking the person making their point.

It would make more sense to reply to the poster, "next time you post about this kind of topic, please use XYZ circle instead" instead of deleting the whole thing.

So what if many websites don't have the code structure to move posts? Is every poster going to be a programmer who realizes this? NO.

Many old school forums DO move posts and threads to "appropriate" subs.

[–]MarkTwainiac 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So what if many websites don't have the code structure to move posts? Is every poster going to be a programmer who realizes this? NO.

Rather than just delete your post, they could've told you to C&P it in the particular circle the mod thought it belonged in, then delete it from the original place you posted it yourself. Any user can easily do that.

[–]akkordeonplayer[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes— that would be a better option to give users, one would think, than to delete an entire thread.

[–]owmygenderfeels 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So what if many websites don't have the code structure to move posts? Is every poster going to be a programmer who realizes this? NO.

This is a perfect example of exactly you've been talking about throughout this thread, where women who don't understand STEM are shamed and implied to be stupid.

[–]GDC 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

this happens on every website with active mods.

And that would make it appear that the Mods are the problem. Take off your jackboots, lass.

[–]alttrawl 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yes to this. Obviously, I wasted time trying to explain how the website works.

[–]akkordeonplayer[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"You must submit posts to circles with vaguely differing names, and make sure you get the exact circle right or people who are much much smarter than you will nuke your thread!"

[–]BEB 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I'm not a member of Ovarit although I read it daily and appreciate it greatly.

I would try to keep in mind that Ovarit is free and run by volunteers. It took a tremendous amount of effort to set up, and the mods and M.K. Fain have taken a lot of public flack, which, I'm just about sure, included threats of violence.

So my advice: Appreciate Ovarit for what it is, or try to change it within its own parameters, or leave it.

If you have the time, skills and inclination, set up your own site, where you and like-minded people can be the arbiters of what's allowed.

In the meantime, so far s/GenderCritical has seemed fairly open in terms of discussions allowed, and the mods seem very good about not allowing personal attacks (thanks, mods - it makes a huge difference in people feeling they can speak freely!). Post here and invite your friends.

Ovarit isn't a prison from which you can't escape. And I actually think it's better if people who share core GC beliefs decentralize, because that way we reach our own audiences.

For instance, US women who are primarily-GC, but not Democrats, might be able to reach other conservatives or Independents that hardcore rad fems can't.

Because right now, with the gender lobby rewriting laws globally to erase women, women all over the world are in the worst crisis I have seen, and IMO we need all hands on deck, whether those hands agree with us on other issues or not.

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Good points. I agree. As I said upthread, I wouldn't have started a thread criticizing Ovarit myself; I just added to a thread someone else started - and not for the purpose of dissing Ovarit and the admirable efforts of the women who set it up, but coz of the larger issues raised by the "circles" and the practice of deleting posts "for being in the wrong" circle/category, then scolding posters who object by telling them, as a poster on this thread has done,

If your post still gets removed for being in the wrong category, isn't it better figure out why?

I think I am perhaps over-sensitive to this sort of policing and censoriousness coz I spent my formative years in a RC convent school were us kids routinely got publicly humiliated as well as hit - and hit hard - with rulers and crucifixes for writing "the wrong way" (such as not perfectly on the lines or within the margins), voicing "the wrong" thoughts, doing "the wrong" things, having "the wrong" feelings, and even singing in "the wrong" key.

[–]alttrawl 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

If your post still gets removed for being in the wrong category, isn't it better figure out why?

You read too much into it. I specifically mentioned the words wrong category. Same idea with a math problem. If you get the answer wrong and continue insisting on not figuring out the logic, do you expect to pass math class? Categories exist for a reason. This thread comes off to me as someone refusing to acknowledge that French red wines and Californian red wines deserve separate topics just because they don't see the difference. What if they scare off a prospective wine connoisseur by being so strict? /s

The need for separate topics becomes obvious once you take the time to learn the reasoning e.g. farming methods, but what is the point of arguing that most laymen can't tell the difference so what's the point of having separate categories?

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Categories exist for a reason.

This thread comes off to me as someone refusing to acknowledge that French red wines and Californian red wines deserve separate topics just because they don't see the difference. What if they scare off a prospective wine connoisseur by being so strict? /s

The need for separate topics becomes obvious once you take the time to learn the reasoning e.g. farming methods, but what is the point of arguing that most laymen can't tell the difference so what's the point of having separate categories?

Wow, that's some major league snooty condescension there, LOL. Hoped you enjoyed the swell of superciliousness you got from it.

No one here is questioning whether categories exist in general, nor whether they should exist on Ovarit or any other website - or when discussing wine, buying or sorting groceries, doing laundry, or farming. Nor are we all too dumb to know that "categories exist for a reason." We're not little children. But even if we were, the fact is little kids know "categories exist for a reason" - seeing, making and refining categories is something children do naturally from early on.

The issue here is that some people question whether the reasons behind all the different categories on Ovarit are sound, and some think the definitions of some of the categories, as well as the distinctions between a few of them, are blurry.

The need for separate topics becomes obvious once you take the time to learn the reasoning

Yeah, the whole problem here is that I haven't taken the time to learn, and everyone here is inherently incapable of perceiving any reasoning behind any systems of categorization whatsoever on our own. Such dunderheads we are! It couldn't possibly be that people on this thread disagree with particular classifications for reasons that we have already articulated - and that some people further question the ways in which the classification system is enforced.

BTW, a lot of oenophiles would question whether saying

This thread comes off to me as someone refusing to acknowledge that French red wines and Californian red wines deserve separate topics just because they don't see the difference

Is really the gotcha you seem to think it is.

A main difference between French and California wines is the way they are categorized. French and CA grape varietals are the same, but French and CA wines are named and labelled - and thus often/usually organized in shops, catalogues and cellars - in two very different ways. Neither way is "the right way," nor is one way based on more or sounder "reason" than the other. They are simply two different, equally legit ways of categorization, naming, labelling and organizing the same substance - wine. But lots of people outside France think the French way of categorizing and labelling is confusing, unclear and off-putting - and along with fear of mispronunciation, that's a main reason why lots of non-French people steer clear of French wines.

Come to think of it, the example of French vs CA wines actually makes for a very pertinent analogy here, just not in the way you meant when you brought the topic up.

[–]alttrawl 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I've already explained many times in this thread about how the site works in case anyone was in good faith genuinely confused. Since you've called me snooty for using the wine example even though I've mentioned one comment below that I don't drink and I've never bought alcohol, it's just an innocent example, it's not unfair for me to say I find you and your argument pedantic.

[–]akkordeonplayer[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Hmm, yeah, most of us can't afford wine at the moment.

[–]alttrawl 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I don't drink and I've never bought alcohol, what's your point? Not doing those two things doesn't prevent people from learning. If that's your takeaway...

[–]akkordeonplayer[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Should I "re-educate" myself then?

Wow, that argument sounds familiar!

[–]censorshipment 7 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

Lol they were like that (strict) on Reddit... I don't know why anyone expects them to be better on their own platform. I think they'd redirect posters to sister subs (TrollGC, terfisaslur, etc) which is similar to whatever this circle bullshit you're talking about is. I mean, being organized is great, but I get why you're angry about posts being removed.

[–]akkordeonplayer[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

True, perhaps I shouldn't expect better. It just seems so nonsensical to me when many the categories on their particular platform seem so similar.

It's not as if one can deeply inspect which circle they are "supposed" to choose when one is posting on mobile.

[–]WildApples 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I can't believe the mods are so-- Reddit like? "I am so very smart"? They're not going to encourage new users by deleting entire threads, but oh well. I guess their site is only for "special people".

That seems to be the trend across the internet. I've seen so many groups banned or splintered due to censorship, and when the formerly oppressed start their new groups they do the same thing to people who disagree with them.

I think the internet in many ways brings out the worst of people; the power to quash those who would criticize or disagree with you repeatedly proves too seductive to resist. And even where the moderators are fair-minded, there are always some aggressive people in the forum who push the moderators to censor the viewpoints they do not like. That is why so many online forums are boring, echo chambers that repeat the same ideas ad nauseam. And on the rare occasion that some dissentious opinion is tolerated, the users cannot handle the ensuing debate without attacking each other, and the moderators will be called on to delete posts, ban users, and lock the thread. The state of speech on the internet is abysmal.

[–]akkordeonplayer[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's incredible-- and what seems crazier is that it's not like my posts were anti GC or had people complaining in the comments. It's like they were randomly deleted for being in the "wrong place"?

[–]GDC 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

they were randomly deleted for being in the "wrong place"?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC534568/

[–]Greykittymomma 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Got into a fight with someone here about Ovarit and it makes me not want to go back. There is a reason many working class women don't identify with hardcore feminists, they can be some of the worst gatekeepers ever. I thought the point was letting women be free but oh NO! For many of them you need to act or speak in the ways that seem empowering to them or you aren't worthy.

I have a degree too but I'm still poor and came from nothing. Quit policing my body and language. Let me rage and bitch about my pathetic little life to anyone who will listen!

[–]akkordeonplayer[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes... most women aren't well versed in all the minute details of radical feminism and associated theories. Being extremely particular about where people post threads seems to be self-defeating when one considers the goal/aim of the website. I guarantee you women have just walked away after seeing that their threads get deleted. Considering how busy many women are, it's a miracle they are able to take the time out to post at all.

Even if there are different mods for different subs, one would imagine those on Ovarit have similar goals in mind in terms of benefitting women overall. If I were a mod, for example, on a sub that was dedicated to politics, and someone posted a useful health article by accident-- I'd probably leave it up if I couldn't move it to a better suited circle. I might tell the OP "you might want to post this to the health circle", but I wouldn't nuke the whole thread unless it grossly violated the rules of the whole site. Someone might appreciate that misplaced health article, and find something extremely useful within it, so why take it down?

Yes... I think the response I received to my question was the most off putting of all.

[–]desertbloom 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You wonder why so many women wouldn't want to call themselves feminists, then you find out feminists can be as demanding about how you can and can't act as the religious types. Everyone must believe the same things, no matter how much this repels everyone who doesn't buy into your specific brand of feminist theory. Women fought to make our own decisions, not to go from being held back by pressure from society to being held back by pressure to be a true feminist or be branded a useful idiot to the patriarchy because your fellow feminists don't have enough respect for other women to see their disagreements as actual opinions worth listening to. Nope, any disagreement with their completely unproven theories must mean you're a pawn of men.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That sounds incredibly frustrating and it feels like a ridiculous "Cursed Item" scenario just trying to find a place to discuss my thoughts on this.. I've been lurking because at least there are SOME radfems/natal lesbians there and the few other places seems kind of dead (we have 14 users here rn). So there's definitely a lot more discussion on ovarit, even if all the rules and gatekeeping necessities are keeping the group artificially small.

I guess there's Twitter, but that gets old pretty quickly.. Where else are we supposed to go at this point? :\

[–]akkordeonplayer[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I deleted my twitter. Seriously, they've been banning so many women, it's ridiculous.

I don't feel that Ovarit is as "dangerous" as Twitter or Reddit in terms of doxing/stalking/banning, however. The latter two platforms definitely have hardcore gender activists on staff.

Seriously, though, the attitude I encountered when I brought up my reasonable question on Ovarit makes made me lose interest in remaining on there. It didn't seem to be "regular posters" on there giving me grief, but actual mods.

[–]catcatcat 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

[–]akkordeonplayer[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

LOL. YES. I thought the thread was deleted when I deleted my account--- LOOK at the obnoxious downvotes on some of my replies!

This is what I'm talking about-- I guarantee you those downvotes are from mods. I'm not the only one who's brought this issue up on that site!

[–]GDC 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Nothing can be illegal as laws do not exist anymore. Yet, if Winston is caught writing his thoughts down in his diary, he could be executed or given 25 years of forced labour.

This is an insight into one of the most famous Sci-Fi novels of the last 40 years, where laws are removed and the dictations of the 'Party' decides what is right and wrong; and the punishments are meted out from faceless manipulators. Doesn't sound like Ovarit at all