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 -  (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.