There's some censorship going on in the newly popular feminist subs and it needs to be openly addressed.

submitted by [deleted] from self.SaidIt

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]nonpenishaver 140 insightful - 13 fun140 insightful - 12 fun141 insightful - 13 fun -  (48 children)

GenderCritical was a sub for women who know that patriarchy exists. Who know that gender identity is bullshit. We will never be able to have productive discussions if we constantly keep having to "debate" men who come in and try to convince us that the very foundations of our beliefs are wrong. It'll go around it circles forever. There's no point to it. Personally I feel you should be able to comment but I don't believe anyone owes you debate.

Edit: whatever happened to "if you don't like something don't look at it"? Women don't constantly try to infiltrate male centric subs. This is something men on reddit do and it's fucking annoying.

[–]rdh2121 83 insightful - 7 fun83 insightful - 6 fun84 insightful - 7 fun -  (47 children)

whatever happened to "if you don't like something don't look at it"?

It's still alive and well. If you don't like a comment someone made on /s/GenderCritical, hide it and move on. If the sub is on /s/all, the sub is not a safe space, and exists for all users on Saidit. If that's not what the users of /s/GenderCritical want, all you have to do is remove yourselves from /s/all, and you can be as exclusive as you like.

Saidit was created to combat exclusion and censorship. You came here for that very acceptance of diverse viewpoints, so that's what you're getting. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[–][deleted] 49 insightful - 6 fun49 insightful - 5 fun50 insightful - 6 fun -  (22 children)

The rules quite aside, saying the patriarchy doesn't exist when you can read the news and tell it does isn't a "diverse viewpoint," it's a lie.

Saying women aren't in more danger in heterosexual relationships than men are isn't a "diverse viewpoint," it's a lie. Look at the domestic murder stats sometime. We can argue all day long about what constitutes abuse but no one can debate dead, and usually not who caused the death either.

Saying abortion should be outlawed isn't a "diverse viewpoint," it's denying pregnant women basic bodily autonomy and literally giving them fewer rights than a corpse (unless the person signed an organ donor card when they were alive, you can't take anything from them after death, whereas a fetus in an abortion-outlawed country can take its mother's blood, nutrients, and even life and she can't legally do anything about it even if the pregnancy endangers her). Saying that's OK is douchebaggery, not a "diverse viewpoint."

We have to go by the rules here, but I had to speak to this, because I'm tired of bad-faith debaters pretending like women's lives mean jack shit. I'm a woman. My life means a lot to me. My perspective of a man's arguments will necessarily be colored by that. I'm not sitting here pretending that men are not in danger from one another -- you are worse enemies to one another than you ever are to us! How you react to that is your business. How we react to our situations is ours.

But yes. We should definitely not be on /s/all if it's going to be that much a point of contention. God forbid teh menz not be able to correct women at every possible fucking turn. (That's how it looks from here. That's all we ever see online anymore.)

[–]xigoi 24 insightful - 7 fun24 insightful - 6 fun25 insightful - 7 fun -  (11 children)

saying the patriarchy doesn't exist when you can read the news and tell it does isn't a "diverse viewpoint," it's a lie.

Interesting, because from reading the news, I've learned that women are getting an unfair advantage in many places.

Saying women aren't in more danger in heterosexual relationships than men are isn't a "diverse viewpoint," it's a lie. Look at the domestic murder stats sometime.

Maybe if women didn't prefer to date violent men, they wouldn't end up with violent men.

God forbid teh menz not be able to correct women at every possible fucking turn.

I'd prefer to not judge people's arguments by their gender.

[–]ankh 30 insightful - 4 fun30 insightful - 3 fun31 insightful - 4 fun -  (4 children)

Interesting, because from reading the news, I've learned that women are getting an unfair advantage in many places.

Ah, yes. Women should totally forget being raped to death since before written history because they get to be token hires and get huge

scholarships for useless liberal arts degree. I think you overestimate the benefits of being a Democratic political pawn.

Maybe if women didn't prefer to date violent men, they wouldn't end up with violent men.

Relationships don't start off abusive, and why are women are responsible for violent men?

I understand that there are a lot of crazy feminists, but most GC talking points just boil down to "men rape A LOT". Do you feel that this is up for debate?

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

Women should totally forget being raped to death since before written history

People were cruel before the modern ages. Can we move on?

why are women are responsible for violent men?

If violent men are rewarded with a higher chance to get a relationship, it logically leads to more men being violent. Evolution.

but most GC talking points just boil down to "men rape A LOT"

Ah yes, I also like raping a few women before I go to bed. Who doesn't? /s

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

People were cruel before the modern ages. Can we move on?

You make it seem like the problem has been resolved.

If violent men are rewarded with a higher chance to get a relationship, it logically leads to more men being violent. Evolution.

This dismisses the idea that people are often predatory and conceal their true colors as a means to get laid. Once in the trap, they use violence to maintain control. This also doesn't account for arranged marriages, abusive family members, sex trafficking, etc.

Ah yes, I also like raping a few women before I go to bed. Who doesn't? /s

Not sure why you're taking this personally? I get the #notallmen stuff, but that misses the point. Rapists are obviously in the minority, but rapists are overwhelmingly male and victims are overwhelmingly female. Again, do you feel this is up for debate?

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

You make it seem like the problem has been resolved.

Rape is considered bad by almost all people in the modern society.

This dismisses the idea that people are often predatory and conceal their true colors as a means to get laid. Once in the trap, they use violence to maintain control.

If women are more likely to date bad men pretending to be good than actual good men, that still does say something.

Rapists are obviously in the minority, but rapists are overwhelmingly male and victims are overwhelmingly female. Again, do you feel this is up for debate?

There's a big difference between “most rapists are men” and “men rape A LOT”. Most quantum physicists are men, but I wouldn't say that doing quantum physics is COMMON among the male population.

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

I think a lot of people have a cartoonish caricature of the stereotypical "abusive violent men". Probably a really jacked up guy who walks around with tattoos, swears a lot, beats up little old ladies and puppies on the street.

Chalk it up to naïveté. Or ignorance. Probably both. Unfortunately for us, evil doesn't come with whistle and bells. Violent psychopaths look just like regular people doing regular things. One has to grow up extremely sheltered and lucky to think otherwise.

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

Interesting, because from reading the news, I've learned that women are getting an unfair advantage in many places.

Maybe check actual data next time.

Maybe if women didn't prefer to date violent men, they wouldn't end up with violent men.

About a quarter of the women I know have experienced physical abuse. With only one exception, you would never have guessed the man was violent. They are often kind, wellspoken people with decent jobs and social skills. Also, terrifyingly, the abuse tends to appear years into the relationship.

I'd prefer to not judge people's arguments by their gender.

That's your privilege. On an individual level, I do the same, but when a class of people is making your life miserable in a specific context, you make policy accordingly. That's just logical.

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

Maybe check actual data next time.

According to actual data, men are less likely to win custody, receive higher sentences for the same crimes, have to pay in order to enter some bars, don't have men-specific abuse shelters, etc.

With only one exception, you would never have guessed the man was violent.

(X) Doubt
I mean, if you assume that good-looking men are always good, yes.

when a class of people is making your life miserable in a specific context

How is every single of 4 billion people on the planet making your life miserable?

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

According to data, actually, men gain custody a disproportionate amount of the time when they're the primary caregiver and ask for it; contrarily women who profess to being abused in court often lose custody, even in cases where the abuse is corroborated and acknowledged by the court. As for sentencing, that does hold up under scrutiny, and I hope it is talked about more and something is done about it.

Regarding bars: world's smallest violin. No reasonable person cares that much. Maybe try socializing in settings like house party scenes, musical subcultures, and the like - particularly places where consent culture is a big thing. In my experience, the more egalitarian a group is, the more the whole thing isn't just some race to populate a party with single females and everyone is valued (plus dating is way more relaxed and fun).

Regarding shelters: more and more domestic violence shelters for men are popping up and I'm all for it. None of these things disprove or discount feminism, and thinking so is incredibly simpleminded.

I mean, if you assume that good-looking men are always good, yes.

Look at Mr. Data here just assuming all of these men were conventionally attractive? lol. Do you redpill-influenced people ever actually go out in the world? Do you date and have social lives with people you have things in common with? Engage in hobbies? Your arguments are so easy to dispel from the perspective of anyone who is remotely worldly. Some of these men were my good friends, and the weddings were universally applauded by their friends and family. It's still a huge mindfuck thinking about the fact these people struck their partners.

How is every single of 4 billion people on the planet making your life miserable?

Straw man via hysterical escalation. That's not what I said and if you'd rather paint it that way than use your brain and think in terms of generalities and systems, you're a lost cause.

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

In my experience, the more egalitarian a group is, the more the whole thing isn't just some race to populate a party with single females and everyone is valued

Good point, but feminists often don't seem very egalitarian.

None of these things disprove or discount feminism, and thinking so is incredibly simpleminded.

I'd say feminism isn't a coherent ideology anymore, so I'd rather argue against specific points rather than an abstract word that everyone defines differently. (Before you ask, by “feminists” in the previous paragraph I meant people who identify as feminists, no matter what they think it means.)

assuming all of these men were conventionally attractive

Occam's razor.

you redpill-influenced people

I'm rather blackpilled.

Some of these men were my good friends, and the weddings were universally applauded by their friends and family. It's still a huge mindfuck thinking about the fact these people struck their partners.

This still seems fishy to me. Almost all of your male friends were pretending to be good for several years, without giving away anything about their actually evil nature until it was too late? That doesn't sound like something that could just happen. I feel like there's something more going on that I can't determine because I don't personally know them or you.

use your brain and think in terms of generalities and systems

If you see generalizations as a good thing, I don't even know what to say.

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

If by news, you mean Reddit memes or clickbait out-ragey articles that are more fluff than substance, yeah.

Pick of any history book and read. Actually, look at life outside of Western democracies. Look up news on how women get stoned to death for adultery. Look up on how some places persecute women if they dare to go to the police for being raped. Look at statistics of domestic violence.

Violence toward woman is the rule, not the exception, in most of the world. For much of history.

And I can't help but laugh at the "if women don't want to be a victim, then maybe they shouldn't date violent man" logic. You must live a wonderful life where you've never really had to deal with bad people. Or bad luck. I don't know how old you are but let's talk when you're 40. If you think you're magically sheltered from violent people in the world because you have an uncanny ability to weed them out - well, guess what? That's what most victims thought too! Most violent psychopaths don't walk around with a giant HI I AM A VILLAIN stamped to their forehead. I don't know how old you are, but let's talk when you're 40. Then maybe you would realize that anyone - even you - can be a victim. But it won't be so fun when the other people point the accusatory finger back at ya :D

[–]xigoi 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Look up news on how women get stoned to death for adultery.

Yeah, that mostly happens in countries with a certain religion. Wait, this is not Reddit, so I can say it. Islamic countries. I don't support Islam.

You must live a wonderful life where you've never really had to deal with bad people.

Sometimes you have to deal with bad people, but nobody is forcing you to date them unless you're in a country with arranged marriage (which I don't support, just to bo clear).

Most violent psychopaths don't walk around with a giant HI I AM A VILLAIN stamped to their forehead.

Most violent men display violent behavior, which is seen as more “masculine” and therefore has a higher success in dating. I'm not talking about the few who pretend to be non-violent.

[–]radfemanon 26 insightful - 3 fun26 insightful - 2 fun27 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

We have removed GC from appearing on s/all.

[–]voi_che_sapete 26 insightful - 3 fun26 insightful - 2 fun27 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

I think this is a solid choice. I don't think we need substantial traffic from the larger SaidIt community anyway.

Now all the sanctimonious asshats on this thread can stfu. We don't need you to explain free speech to us. If you don't fully understand why some spaces need to be moderated even though free speech is important, listen to us and actually use your brains to understand where we're coming from next time.

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

I agree.

[–]Mein_Tarnaccount 15 insightful - 11 fun15 insightful - 10 fun16 insightful - 11 fun -  (1 child)

Poor wittle western wamen. The most coddled group of people to ever have existed, constantly complaining about how hard you have it. God damnit, you are a weak bunch. You can be glad so many men don't have their lizard brains under control, otherwise nobody would want anything to do with you non-contributing product sponge harpies.

[–]voi_che_sapete 33 insightful - 10 fun33 insightful - 9 fun34 insightful - 10 fun -  (0 children)

Poor wittle western redpillers, so histrionic.

It's so classic for men to project their problems onto women - claiming women are the lustful sex when they have the out-of-control sex drives, for instance, as the Greeks did. This "victimhood" accusation is just an extension of that: the reality is, you lot think you're the real victims, and can't shut up about how victimized you think you are.

[–]Earl_Harbinger 12 insightful - 5 fun12 insightful - 4 fun13 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

A viewpoint isn't a diverse viewpoint if I disagree!

Yes, I can see why you wouldn't want to debate.

[–]Lostcarkeys 9 insightful - 6 fun9 insightful - 5 fun10 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Maybe saidit isn't for you. This isn't a place of echo chambers.

Clearly you have a problem with your ideology being challenged. Maybe you should go back to reddit and start another radfem sub or join one of the existing ones. I'm sure there are many left.

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

Saying abortion should be outlawed isn't a "diverse viewpoint,"

You had me up until here. Patriarchy does exist and is a good thing in my opinion. Males are disposable, females are not. A village with 100 females and 2 males has a fighting chance of survival. A village of 100 males and 2 females is doomed unless the males go on rape-raids to neighboring villages.

Women do have a physical disadvantage compared to men. This isn't disputable.

Women do not have a right to abort a pregnancy just because it's inconvenient. Only if the child is deformed or the life of the mother is at risk. "I want to keep partying" or "I want to finish my Master's Degree in Gender Studies" are not reasons to kill a baby.

Edit: It occurred to me that I had to further expand on the Patriarchy thing. Women seem to think that "Patriarchy" means "men are in charge". What it really means is men pay the taxes, men are punished for abandoning the family, men go to war, men die in dangerous jobs. Anyone who is married can clearly explain how little "power" men have in society. Men face risk and punishment for failing to behave the way society expects them to behave. That's what Patriarchy is... and again, that's the natural order of the world. Societies that failed to prioritize the lives and health of women and children over adult men didn't make it into the modern age. They're all dead and dust and we look at their artifacts in our museums... that were built by men.

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

He never said anything about whether the patriarchy exists or any of the other things in your verbose rambling. You're arguing against an imaginary person in your head. Please silo yourself into /s/gendercritical ASAP

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

shit, now i'm agreeing with you. what have you done to my ability to shoehorn people into small categories based on cursory exposure to short comments?

[–]pink_lioness 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Free speech just means you get to say what you want as long as you aren't enticing violence, it doesn't mean everyone has to listen and respond to you. I think that's what the person above is saying, that we should all be able to say what we want, but if men come in here and try to force us to debate we don't have to. I don't see how they're trying to 'have their cake and eat it too' honestly, free speech doesn't mean you owe everyone a response. Like for example, lots of feminist subreddits had separate debate or ask subreddits so that men could ask questions/debate there and not constantly derail conversations.

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

That's a great idea actually, we should open s/GCDebate or something for those of us who feel like answering men's inane questions and recycled arguments.

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

This is also something we will do when we can make additional subs.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Why do you assume that it's only men who disagree with you?

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

I didn't assume that, you assumed that I meant that. I mention men and not women because being honest, it is mainly men that troll/derail things, but it can rarely also be women.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

but if men come in here and try to force us to debate we don't have to.

Well, how else was I supposed to interpret that? You didn't say people, you said men specifically. There's an underlying assumption that you think no women would disagree with you.

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

Why would I say people when that group is almost all men? Not mentioning them doesn't mean I don't think they exist, you assumed that.

[–]teelo 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

If that's not what the users of /s/GenderCritical want, all you have to do is remove yourselves from /s/all, and you can be as exclusive as you like.

BUT the question we need to address is: should be the moderators be permitted to go and exclude comments that were posted while the sub was still appearing on /all?

[–]radfemanon 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Prior to our update to rule 4b in the sidebar the only comments I removed were ones with slurs in, which is a rule I added when I first became a mod on Monday.

We are trying to keep the sub on topic and there are a lot of people upset at being displaced.

We are not trying to censor anyone.

[–]teelo 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Your fellow mods removed a ton of my posts (which didn't contain any slurs) before you complied with rule 4b. Explain that.

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

We didn't know otherwise and we're still getting a team together. GC's been in existence on this site for 3 days. We didn't know the rules here but we are learning.

I don't know how many times I have to say this but the ban on Reddit took everyone completely by surprise so we are doing what we can to regroup.

Its not our intention to tread on toes. We are no longer on s/all.

[–]teelo 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Because reading the rules before you start actioning comments is so difficult? Your fellow moderators were registered on the website for literally two minutes before making their first moderator action.

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

I can't force people to do anything. The sub grew very fast and we were cogniscient of not letting it get out of hand too quickly.

It is now over 1000 members and will grow as the week goes on.

[–]teelo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You're the one who appointed a brand-new user as moderator. Did you even take a second to think about whether they were even suitable?

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

They moderated previous subs. And we needed mods quickly due to the volume of incoming users.

[–]filbs111 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Stuff appearing in /all can be read by anyone. It's pretty standard for users on reddit-like sites to check the sub sidebar for posting rules.

That said, a way to list content of all subs that adhere to some common set of rules would be useful. For example, a "debate" option to go next to "all", "subscribed".

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

Relevance?

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

I didn't know that means that anyone can now join any discussion and dumb the discussion down as they please. Let's go to any science sub and talk about flat- eart then. Or maybe subs should actually be allowed to make their own rules and set their own standards, and people who wish to discuss the topic from another point of view can make another sub? If scientists wish to debate flateartehrs they could male a sub XdebatesY, which GC and other feminists actually had on reddit.

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

Yeah, I actually thought Reddit's basic system of letting a sub's mods rule their little fiefdom made a lot of sense. I guess it was getting abused more than I knew.

Maybe give the mods something like that free reign but impose community oversight. Enforcing topicality and civility should be OK.

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

Maybe give the mods something like that free reign but impose community oversight.

Yeah something like that should be possible. While I completely agree that censorship is shitty and general discussion shoul be allowed and encouraged, I also think in practice this is difficult to realize on such a platform. Some smaller communities (lets say a sceptical atheis community) might be in danger by being completely overrun by a mayority of other pissed of communities with different views (lets say a plethora of religious groups concern trolling, or even "academic theologists offering the same opinions again and again to be "discussed") and as there never are black and white truths out there in the end such subreddits just become battlefields subjected to stupid power- plays, when they were meant to be for a specific community who wants to explore or develop their own argumentations (if you know what I mean). In the end this would just again mainly further and promote opinions that are mainstream anyhow.

Maybe you could see the whole thing like different sports teams, they need to play and train together and not make nonsensical mixes (like we have two ballet dancers training with five football players). But then they can meet in a neutral field of play to compete under fixed and fair rules. This is why I think subs should be allowed have their own rules as long as they are transparent, no trolling and brigading should be allowed, but we can have some battle/ discussion subs where different factions can confront each other.

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

This would be ideal, I don't want GC on /s/all, it's not a debate sub, it's a community for GC women. I hope the GC mods fix this soon

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

Yes, we removed it from s/all earlier and updated our sidebar.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

This is false. You can. It's just no platform is built for it. It's either full on censorship, or none at all. Where's the middle ground?