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 →

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

I locked your thread because I answered your question and you said 'thanks'. There was nothing more to add to it.

You even privately messaged the mods asking what we were removing and we told you. We have updated our side bar to be in keeping with the rules of the site.

We are working hard to moderate the new GC space as this has all been very quick and to ensure that the on topic content is left on and off topic content is moderated.

You are entitled to be upset at your perceived censorship, but we are not mass editing, banning or censoring anything as of yet. If you are concerned you can check our moderation activity on the log.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I know you're new here and just getting set up, but that's why I wanted to get these things addressed early on; it's the right time.

You even privately messaged the mods asking what we were removing and we told you. We have updated our side bar to be in keeping with the rules of the site.

I checked my DM log and I don't have any DM history with the GC mods. Are you thinking of a different user?

Locking threads does not seem to be a standard practice in general on the sub, and I do still feel it's a bit troubling that someone would find the need to lock that thread in particular. The purpose of locking a thread is to stop women who want to from continuing that discussion.

You are already engaging in ideology-based censorship in a way I believe is not transparent, just as it was not on GC. This is dogma-based censorship that has nothing to do with being pro-female or anti-abuse, but with enforcing LGB dogma.

It's not "perceived censorship," it's just normal censorship. Same exact kind GC just experienced in getting kicked off reddit, same kind Meghan Murphy experienced earlier getting kicked off twitter. (This is the same language my abusive family used towards me when I tried to call what they were doing "abuse" -- "I'm sorry you feel abused". "No I'm not willing to call it 'abuse', maybe 'mistreatment' but not 'abuse'." It's not "all in my head".)

What has bothered me about GC:

  1. you claimed to be speaking for the general benefit of women, yet you did not allow all women to weigh in on what that means

  2. you allowed anti-Whiteness but remove anti- content for other groups of women.

  3. the group has not been honest that it is enforcing a dogma. (the exception being its position on abortion). It has instead presented its position as "just true based on science/reality" or "not hateful". But this is not the case.

The existence of "sexual orientation" is even disagreed with by large swaths of women involved in radical feminism because they believe women can (and should) choose to avoid interest in men. Same for censorship of positions regarding various ethnic groups. Non-hateful content is removed, but the rules imply that only hateful, evil, disproven content is removed ("racism, anti-semitism, bigotry"). It is not about protecting all groups of women, because open hate of some groups of women is not removed. It is not about protecting all vulnerable women, because open hate of some vulnerable women is allowed. It is not about removing all hate, because content that would be considered hateful towards other groups is allowed when directed towards men (c.f. "name the problem").

It shouldn't be possible for a woman to go onto GC and think "oh they allow open discussion here, it's so nice" or to think "oh they only remove hateful content." She should know right away that many viewpoints are being censored for dogmatic reasons, and she should know which viewpoints are being censored for dogmatic reasons. This allows her to recognize when an apparent consensus is the result of a dogma-based moderation policy, and is not a genuine organic consensus.

I know the old GC sidebar said stuff like "here are some resources to learn more about radical feminism," and yes Dworkin and Mary Daly and all that stuff is interesting, as is "pronouns are rohypnol" and all that stuff, but it leaves women without a clear understanding of what positions are being dogmatically enforced, and who counts as a "real radical feminist" for the purposes of sub moderation.

To avoid gaslighting women into perceiving a false consensus, more clarity is needed about what positions are being dogmatically enforced. And it needs to not euphemistically stated as "removing bigotry," or "not radical feminist." The actual positions that are censored need to be clearly stated (as it was clearly stated that certain positions regarding abortion are censored).

That's my opinion anyway. If this is done right, every women there will know exactly what dogma is being enforced in the space and can participate in a fully informed way.

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

That's fine. As radical feminists all throughout our lives we are derided and told that we cannot discuss amongst ourselves about the issues that affect us the most without having to constantly justify our sex based struggles to others.

As I have said previously, if its simply the case that we have to be consistently answering and fielding questions justifying our ideas and ideologies and we must do this in the main GC sub at the same time as offering and creating a debate space then I'm not sure saidit is the right format for us.

We want to have a space where we can talk together. We can clarify in the sidebar about the commonalities of radical feminism that aren't up for debate as we see them. S/GC has existed for 2 days. We are doing our best whilst juggling jobs and lives around a sudden upend none of us expected.

If that's not something that is OK despite us removing GC from s/all I will advise our users to go over to another site as we have alternatives.

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

As a woman who has always tried to avoid bowing to dogma, all my life I've been derided and ostracized and told that I'm stupid, crazy, or hateful for simply for thinking and speaking for myself.

As far as I understand it, the new GC is in compliance with SaidIt's policies already since you have removed from /all and have stated in the sidebar that you remove opposing opinions. You are of course free to go wherever you like at any time.

My request for transparency about what positions are dogmatically enforced on the sub was a personal appeal to ethics. Many women come to GC for support and I think it's harmful to hide the fact that a dogma is being enforced.

We can clarify in the sidebar about the commonalities of radical feminism that aren't up for debate as we see them.

That's what I'm asking for with point #3. Again to be clear, I'm asking because I believe it is ethical thing to do. I'm not an admin or anything but it's my understanding that the sub is already in compliance with SaidIt's policies.

Again, I believe the honest way to say this is e.g. "we remove content arguing against the right to abortion." Or "we remove content that points out negative group traits about X or Y ethnic groups, but we do not remove that sort of content about Z ethnic group" rather than the unclear and slanderous "we remove bigotry".

I also believe points #1 and #2 above are problems. The sub should be open that it does not speak for all women but only for ideologically compliant women, and that it is anti-White. Or it should change these policies so that is no longer the reality on the sub.

I would also personally appreciate an acknowledgement that what you have done in banning women like me for non-compliance with dogma is the same thing that transactivists have done to the women seeking refuge in GC and the same thing that reddit has just done to GC.

[–]radfemanon 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

When we have time, I can put together a full document on Radical Feminist ideas as a FAQs. I work a full time job and don't have time to do it immediately.

I personally have never banned anyone as a moderator. I personally would have advised you to stay on topic and not to derail. You describe your conduct as "challenging dogma" but if you are consistently playing devil's advocate or derailing conversation or discussion in order to debate ideas that are not congruent with radical feminist ideas, it's highly likely your content would get removed. This is why my next priority is a debate sub to allow discussion of this nature that doesn't derail discourse on GC.

I don't agree with you that gender critical ideology is "anti-white". I don't agree with a lot of your assertions about radical feminism and gender critical ideology.

GC has always been a space for radfems to discuss these issues freely without constantly having to justify our beliefs. We should be allowed these spaces. However we constantly have to fight for them. A bit like right now.

I don't think banning people with genuine questions is productive, but I am far more patient than a lot of radfems and so cannot expect my standards to apply to all radfems.

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

My openly refusing to bow to dogma is not the same thing as "challenging dogma," "playing devil's advocate," "derailing," or "stopping radfems from talking to each other." I do not appreciate the insinuation (one I have experienced repeatedly from many different groups) that I'm hurting anyone simply for speaking as a woman whose mind does not belong to a dogma.

a full document on Radical Feminist ideas as a FAQs

That's not what I'm asking for. I was very specific in my criticisms and requests.

  1. State clearly that you do not speak for all women, but only for ideologically compliant women. OR stop censoring non-ideologically-compliant women.

  2. State clearly that this space is anti-White. OR moderate with the same standard for anti-White content and other anti-<race/ethnicity> content. (the moderation standards were not the same on r/GC, I saw the unchallenged anti-White content with my own eyes. that is an example of anti-Whiteness.)

  3. State clearly exactly which opinions are censored. (As r/GC did regarding anti-abortion arguments. Not an FAQ about what mods believe radical feminism is, but a clear, concise statement of what content is being removed.)

I would also personally appreciate an acknowledgement that what you have done in banning women like me for non-compliance with dogma is the same thing that transactivists have done to the women seeking refuge in GC and the same thing that reddit has just done to GC.

I meant "you" in the more general sense I suppose, though it's nice to know you personally don't usually like to ban women. I would still appreciate an acknowledgement that "you" as in GC and radfem as a group have done the same thing to me as TRAs and reddit have done to radfem-leaning women.

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

I don't speak for all women. All women do not agree with me, or with radical feminism. You acknowledge that so I'm not sure why suddenly at the end you want some kind of universal acknowledgement to come from me. I don't speak for all radical feminists.

Once again, I don't agree that radical feminism is anti-white.

I also don't think it needs to be said that we don't speak for ALL women. That goes without saying. We describe ourselves as gender critical feminists - that is a very specific label to start with.

I will make content for the sidebar which outlines areas that are not up for debate.

You are entitled to your feelings, criticisms and requests, I just don't agree with most of them.

I have already outlined multiple times what i will do over the coming week. I am not going to continue to repeat myself.

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

I don't agree that radical feminism is anti-white.

Then why did I see all those Y Pea Pull posts on radfem tumblr? Why did I repeatedly see unremoved anti-White content on /r/GC?

I also don't think it needs to be said that we don't speak for ALL women.

Radfem claims to be acting in the interest of women as a group, which includes all women, yet is unwilling to accept input from any woman who is not ideologically compliant. An impression is created that radfems represent the interests of women as a group, not just the interests of ideologically compliant women as a group.

I will make content for the sidebar which outlines areas that are not up for debate.

I think that would be great.

some kind of universal acknowledgement to come from me. I don't speak for all radical feminists.

Then I would appreciate your personal acknowledgement of what happened to me, even if it was not you personally who carried it out. That GC did to me the same things TRAs do to non-compliant women and Reddit just did to GC.