Males, Free Speech, Censorship, Community...

submitted by radfem from self.PinkPillFeminism

That title blows.

Anyhow, after everything that's happened over the last few days I thought some people might be feeling a little displaced and discouraged. Especially with what's going on within Gender Critical currently as they get themselves re-established.

What I've found particularly sinister about the debate regarding Gender Critical is the 'free speech... you guys are living in an echo chamber... how dare you' bitch fits some people are having. I know it's bullshit and maybe everyone here does but in case you don't... it's bullshit.

A key part in oppressing a group of people is not silencing them (although that does happen) it's actually carefully curating their narratives. Warping literally the stories they choose to tell about themselves. For so long males almost completely controlled female narratives and they have still not come to grips with losing that power.

They haven't. (I swear a woman could post about paint drying and a man somewhere would get pissy about it because like... she didn't ask him if he wanted to hear about paint drying...)

And it's a beautiful thing.

So if you are feeling down about being banned just remember you're still pissing a man off somewhere and... your story (whatever it is) matters. Not because it's pissing a man off but because this is really the first time in history where we as women have had the means and opportunity to control our own narratives. To tell whatever stories we would like. It's a big deal and here's a Tedtalk which explains varied narratives and their power so much better:

https://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_ngozi_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story

Should probably have just posted that.

Edit: To everyone reading... the comments as they stand are exactly that bulshit I was talking about and exactly why I stand with GC on certain types of censorship. We don't let people randomly walk into auditoriums and start speaking.

The comments as they stand are also a classic example of abuse tactics, deny, reframe, attack.

all 45 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]PlannedParrotHood 22 insightful - 1 fun22 insightful - 0 fun23 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We are living in times where the abuser is the one proclaiming to be oppressed simply because he cannot abuse. And from what I've seen it's the abusers coming after survivor communities still trying to abuse us in other ways. Yes they are men that is a fact and if a good man does exist then he would not care if women have their own space to talk about their own issues. A good man would be respectful even if he does not agree with us. But what we're seeing is a bunch of angry abusive men, and men who have power.

It's not enough for them to have their own subs they have to take ours down because they cannot stand to see survivors thriving and staying safe.

[–][deleted] 17 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Not because it's pissing a man off but because this is really the first time in history where we as women have had the means and opportunity to control our own narratives.

It's partly thanks to technology. Men shoot themselves in the foot and then blame women. If you're going to give people a platform via technology, everyone can have one. That includes women. And then our truth comes out.

[–]radfem[S] 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's hugely thanks to technology and the women who pioneered the industry.

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

And men taking all the credit.

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

Thank you for this post! I'm going to check this out after work. I'm trying to always reminder I'm not really interested in changing men's minds on my own, or caring what they think. I remember I'm trying to engage with women. We need numbers.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (34 children)

What I've found particularly sinister about the debate regarding Gender Critical is the 'free speech... you guys are living in an echo chamber... how dare you' bitch fits some people are having. I know it's bullshit and maybe everyone here does but in case you don't... it's bullshit.

I don't think it's bullshit though. And I'm female. I was censored at GC.

At GC, they are controlling the narrative. And I don't like that. They are creating the appearance of a consensus where there isn't one on certain topics that have nothing to do with being pro-women.

This is exactly why free speech is so important, this freedom to speak for yourself thing.

I was censored on GC for saying stuff that was not in compliance with the narrative, that was not hateful or otherwise rulebreaking. It just went against the narrative the mods were creating for the sub. One that was fairly hidden.

Well, now GC got banned from reddit for exactly the same reason. The lack of acknowledgement that they're participating in the exact same culture that created their ban bothers me, because they are. These women will go on and on about how horrible TRAs are and turn around and do the exact same thing on some other part of wokeism, because they believe in everything else.

There's nothing wrong with talking to people you want to talk to and ignoring people you don't. There IS something wrong with creating an environment where you're enforcing a narrative on participants, imo. I think tumblr/twitter-like platforms are often better for this reason. It's individual people who have full freedom to post whatever they want, they don't have to follow some mod's rules to participate. I guess I'm here though and I haven't made the switch, maybe I should since I keep thinking this. I think you see a way wider variety of ideas and aesthetics and stuff and more exploration there for this reason.

[–]radfem[S] 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

And? Like just go find a group whos opinions support yours? Or a debate sub?

Not everything needs to be a debate all the time. Sometimes oppressed classes want to be with people who exactly understand where they're coming from and don't want to indulge what they feel are oppressive narratives. This is especially true when some opinions spring from clearly uneducated wells.

Like I'm fully 100% done explaining that sexism still exists to people. I don't wanna wake up to a dozen comments that are all:

Women got the right to vote like 100 years ago lol stupidhead... feminists are nazis now... lulz...

It's demonstrably at odds with how I view the world and no there's nothing of value to be gained because the other side isn't even looking to be educated or share ideas.

Free speech isn't standing on someone's lawn howling your opinion at them long after they've asked you to leave.

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

Exactly lol. GC was never a debate sub.

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

Like right.

It's like going to a political rally and expecting them to take your question about the other guys family situation seriously.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

What "group" is ever going to believe exactly the same thing as me? I am a unique woman with my own experiences. That's why anything other than that individual people having their own individual sovereign spaces creates an opportunity for this narrative oppression discussed in OP.

I don't have to buy into this "oppressor class" stuff, and I can call it bullshit if I want, and act like it's bullshit if I want, and think it's bullshit if I want. I don't have to participate in it. This "oppressor class" stuff IS an oppressive narrative. It's designed to shut a certain class of people up because their opinion and needs and concerns don't matter enough because they're an oppressor. It's ok to treat them as lesser.

It's fine if YOU don't want to wake up to posts of a certain character, but when you impose that on others, and assume you are speaking for others, it gets to be a problem.

GC got banned from reddit for exactly the same reason. The lack of acknowledgement that they're participating in the exact same culture that created their ban bothers me, because they are. These women will go on and on about how horrible TRAs are and turn around and do the exact same thing on some other part of wokeism, because they believe in everything else.

Still waiting for a women from these communities to acknowledge this reality. There are a LOT of things that were censored in these spaces that have nothing to do with "sexist guys coming around to abuse people".

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

So start your own group then.

It seems to me though that you aren't seeking your own platform to speak your truth from.

You want all those 'opressive class' using feminist snobs to be forced to accept your frankly bliggerant sounding opinion.

Which makes you no different to the tras who want women to be forced to listen to them moan on and on about how opressed they've been due to their feminine feelings.

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

"I don't have to buy into this "oppressor class" stuff, and I can call it bullshit if I want, and act like it's bullshit if I want, and think it's bullshit if I want. I don't have to participate in it. This "oppressor class" stuff IS an oppressive narrative."

Then your beliefs were fundamentally opposed to the very core tenets of radical feminism and you truly didn't belong there. What you did is like going into a vegan group and telling them all you eat meat and demanding they debate you. Lol.

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

No, it's not, I was talking about that in this sub in the context of this conversation.

I didn't go on GC talking about how "women aren't oppressed, patriarchy don't real". And GC was not about "oppressions and their dynamics in the world," it was/is specifically about women's liberation.

And women who are not on board with radical feminism have always been welcome on GC, as long as they follow the rules. It's not uncommon to see women who think "gender critical" means "transgender ideology critical".

It was more like going to a vegan sub and having my post about getting minerals on a vegan diet silently removed because it went against an unsubstantiated, undisclosed dogma about the right way to have a vegan diet.

[–]ReignRain95 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Weren’t you the one that got banned for saying some antijewish conspiracy shit?

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

"sometimes Jewish people use claims of antisemitism to shield themselves from valid criticism" is not "antijewish conspiracy shit". That's what I was banned for. It's a valid response to a woman who brings up anti-semitism and should have been allowed on any nonpartisan forum that allows women to discuss antisemitism.

[–]nonpenishaver 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

My opinion clashed with many women on GC. I believed male violence and depravity was biological while they believed in socialization. I was extremely anti-natalist, anti-male children, and anti-heterosexuality while a lot of them were married to men with kids. I was never censored. Downvoted but not censored.

The only time your comments will really be removed on GC is when you come into the space completely challenging the basic tenets of feminism and demanding people debate you on them, or troll and ask stupid questions.

[–]radfem[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Can we talk about the heterosexual part?

I say this as a lesbian whos genuinely interested in how that would work for straight women.

[–]bald-janitor 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

What do you guys think about the male question?

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

In regards to what, exactly?

[–]bald-janitor 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

In regards to majority ceos, politician, professors etc being males

[–]radfem[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Sure, again though what exactly do you want to discuss?

[–]bald-janitor 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Isnt it a little problematic that they are mostly males? Is there a need for more females in those position in your opinion and how should pinkpill feminists do it?

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

Firstly yes and yes and...

Just between you and I... we already are.

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

Interesting.

The only time your comments will really be removed on GC is when you come into the space completely challenging the basic tenets of feminism and demanding people debate you on them, or troll and ask stupid questions.

That wasn't my experience. I don't think I ever demanded anyone debate me on anything, I simply stated opinions that people did not agree with. I believed sexual orientation wasn't or might not be a real thing, and I believed that people sometimes accuse people of being anti-<group> as a way of silencing legitimate criticisms of <group>. How are these "core tenants" of "radical feminism"?

[–]radfem[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Like I absolutely understand that it can be frustrating not be allowed to speak exactly when and how you want and not to be able push your narrative all the time... but you're already participating in someone else's narrative when in their subs.

You can make your own subs and curate there the narratives that reflect your life and understandings and beliefs.

Like Reddit has its issues but saying anyone has the right to always speak and have impact...

Seriously? Can people walk in off the street and give college lectures then?

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

You're not engaging in good faith with me, you're not attempting to understand my perspective, you're just attempting to push your personal individual narrative that has nothing to do with me or "pink pill feminism" or "radical feminism", onto me. No thank you.

That's the thing, people make these subs and get control of them and then start trying to control other people's narratives of what radical feminism is, or what being pro-woman is. They create a space that just says "we remove hateful content" but they remove content that is not hateful, and is just non-compliant with dogma. Or even just inconvenient. They create this false impression, and surely they know they're doing this.

Wokeism or whatever people want to call it is extremely restrictive and controlling. GC participates forces a lot of it on their users and then turns around and complains that TRAs are so awful for doing the exact same thing.

Most subs aren't described as the mods private house party. They're described as a place for people to express their own opinions on a topic. But then they try to control the narratives of other people by acting like it is their private house party and imposing their own narrative on the space in inappropriate ways.

And I'm still waiting for a woman from these communities who censored me to acknowledge this:

The lack of acknowledgement that they're participating in the exact same culture that created their ban bothers me, because they are. These women will go on and on about how horrible TRAs are and turn around and do the exact same thing on some other part of wokeism, because they believe in everything else.

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

If you don't feel I'm engaging with you in genuine way you can leave this conversation. You have that choice.

The people creating subs are not forcing you to engage in them.

They are not preventing you from creating your own subs and promoting your narrative.

It seems the only one transgressing on people's rights here is you.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

I don't think you're engaging with me in a genuine way. Do you disagree?

[–]radfem[S] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I absolutely disagree.

I think I'm not agreeing that you were wronged and that's upsetting to you.

But I don't need to agree with your views of censorship, feminism and platforms.

Sorry.

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

I pointed out that the mods of these supposedly feminist spaces have been using them to dishonestly control the narrative in those spaces. I pointed out why the very structure of these platforms creates a problem, and why it's already apparent that a different structure is superior for the reasons explained in OP.

You chose to engage with none of that, instead choosing to make exaggerated and hostile comments speculating about me, my motivations, and my feelings, and encouraging me to leave. That looks an awful lot an attempt to push a narrative onto the situation, and onto me, and I'm not interested in it, thanks. Nor does it mean I have to stop speaking in this space because there is nothing in "Pink Pill Feminism" that requires any woman here to agree with your individual personal narrative, just as you described in OP.

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

I literally meant you could stop talking to me.

Like I've been nothing but supportive of you promoting your views, just not of you forcing them on people.

Sorry you feel that's unreasonable.

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

Again, you're not engaging with anything I'm saying. How is that genuine engagement? You really are just trying to push your narrative about me onto me aren't you. I don't appreciate it, it's not appropriate, and it probably is an act of attempted oppression against me.

And I'm not just "talking to you," this is an open forum with other participants and viewers.

[–]radfem[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I also think you're looking for a reason to ban me for my opinion...

Sort of hypocritical of you really.

But I'm sure you'll have a different narrative regarding this interaction.

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

How would I ban you? What about your opinion here could possibly be worthy of a ban? Aren't you a mod in this sub? ... oh, you're not. slightly different username. You're certainly a more established user here though, it seems like it's you who's trying to hold some sort of power over me.

Do you think you deserve to be banned for something? That honestly did not cross my mind whatsoever.

But I'm sure you'll have a different narrative regarding this interaction.

This is an implication that I should NOT trust in and appreciate and feel confident in my own narrative. That there's something suspect about it. You are directly contradicting the message of OP here, and directly attempting to control my narrative, as you've been doing in this entire conversation.

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

You're not engaging in good faith with me, you're not attempting to understand my perspective, you're just attempting to push your personal individual narrative that has nothing to do with me or "pink pill feminism" or "radical feminism", onto me.

But this is exactly what you admitted to doing on GC. So..

They create a space that just says "we remove hateful content" but they remove content that is not hateful, and is just non-compliant with dogma. Or even just inconvenient. They create this false impression, and surely they know they're doing this.

This is wrong. GC had a completely transparent list of rules that clearly stated it wasn't a sub to explain or debate the basic aspects of feminism. Which you tried to do.

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

Which you tried to do.

No, I didn't. I did follow the rules, and I didn't claim that "women were not oppressed." The things I had censored followed GC's rules or I would not have posted them.

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

In what way were you censored at GC? What sort of opinion did you express that you feel should have been heard by the GC community?

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

From what I understand...

She was spouting communist and anti semitic dogma.

As I said above, abuse tactics, deny, reframe, attack.

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

What sort of opinion did you express that you feel should have been heard by the GC community?

I don't think GC should have been silently and un-transparently removing content from women (not just me, and not just from a perspective at all similar to mine). Like I said, I think it's done to control the narratives of the women reading and participating. Women who come to GC look at the rules of the forum and think that's the way things are being moderated there. And when moderation is not done in accordance with the rules, that creates a false appearance of organic consensus. When what's really happening is opposing and even just alternative viewpoints are simply being silently removed, leaving only the official narrative. It's not that I think that "the GC community should have heard me," it's that I think the GC moderators should have been honest about what relevant perspectives they were hiding from participating women (either don't hide them, or update the rules/sidebar to be honest about which viewpoints/narratives they were imposing on all participating women).

In what way were you censored at GC?

This is the comment I wrote about it

[–]greenpunk 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Women demanded rights, freedoms, equal pay and fairness in relationships. So conservatives reinvented themselves around abortion. So women had to talk about how they deserve to not be denied basic medical care because of their sex instead of demanding to shatter glass ceilings. MeToo happened and women were demanding basic bodily autonomy and actual consequences for predatory men. Now we are asked to debate whether lesbians are really lesbians if they refuse to have sex with males or if feminist are committing violence by wearing cat ear hats. This shaping of narrative is the main tool of oppression and acts like a rubber band when we push for more rights they rebound in the opposite direction. We need our own spaces where we are not being drained of our energy by these fucking vampires, and they will be shocked when they realize that they have shut off our public right to organize but we've become more "radical" and connected to each other than they ever feared.

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

Ah yes, the reemergence of conversion therapy.

I think I'm most offended by the fact that they think we're too stupid to remember that and recognize it on sight.

I described it to my wife and her immediate response was...

'That's what my counselor user to say'

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

Hell, now it is debated whether lesbians are allowed to be lesbians if they don't accept tranny dick. What crazy times we live in.

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

It seems to me that ccccccc was likely banned for trolling as that is what they are engaging in right now, since they are shaping the comments around themselves and how they disagree with feminism and not about the awesome point OP made.

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

I genuinely cannot understand if she fully aware of what she's doing or if she's just entitled and bitter.

But it's pretty obvious in my messages with her that she has an axe to grind with anyone who won't 100% support her views on GC and her belief that feminist spaces need to accept all women.

As I said it is upsetting being told people don't want to hear you but... like... that's the opposite side of the free speech coin. People don't have to allow you to talk in their spaces, if they did you'd automatically be impinging on their free speech.