Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Feminists
In reply to the discussion: Host duties: [View all]Remember Me
(1,532 posts)48. Hmmm, I suppose you could be right
Do you know who Neal Boortz is?
He's a Rush Limbaugh wannabe radio talkshow host -- and attorney, btw -- who is fond of making the following argument, or did when I last listened to him some years ago:
Referring to African Americans as Kool cigarette smokers and Malt Liquor drinkers and a bunch of very objectionable and unflattering stuff he would then claim when callers called him on it as racist that those statements are NOT racist. Why? Because:
"According to the dictionary, racism is the belief that blacks are inferior. WHERE in those statements did I say anything about thinking or believing that ghetto-dwellers are inferior? NO WHERE. It's not there. You can't find it. I didn't say it, I don't believe it, and have never said it. So it's not racist."*
*Please note: this is an example of the type of argument I've heard him make repeatedly, not necessarily an exact verbatim quote, except for the first sentence. That's pretty much a direct quote, or close enough.
Now, I would like to believe that everyone in THIS group knows better, knows that racism is a system of oppression that proceeds from -- is the natural societal outcome -- of how it's defined in the dictionary. Racism, we all know, manifests in myriad ways well beyond what any dictionary definition or even encyclopedic entry can cover. Many books have been written about racism, and have probably not said it all yet. Boortz's stereotypes are absolutely racist as I believe he knows full well. Boortz's remarks (not to mention his justification!) helps keep this society's residual racism firmly in place, anchored.
Our sexist friends may not actively or consciously hate, resent or distrust women and therefore might be able to protest their innocence far more honestly than Boortz, but their sexism -- the sexism they could only have learned from a thoroughly misogynist society -- proceeds from that same source (misogyny), AND in turn helps keep that misogyny in place just as surely as Boortz's comments do for racism. Their sexism normalizes sexist behaviors and attitudes (especially when the women near them allow it to go unchallenged); their sexism teaches others to engage in sexist attitudes and behaviors; their sexism helps normalize all other kinds of disrespectful attitudes and treatment of women; their sexism cancels out your efforts to gain equality for all. Etc.
Disrespect is a very dangerous thing because it's such a slippery slope, also quite prone to the influence or agitation of others. You teach or convey enough disrespect for certain other humans either as individuals or classes and you can hurt or kill them or cause them to be hurt or killed or stand by while they're hurt or killed and not feel very bad about it at all. If enough people share your disrespectful views of those people, you can do all of that with impunity. We never go to war without thoroughly demonizing our "enemy." Troops wouldn't kill them if they respected them as humans, so they have to be made less than human.
Personally, I think not confronting the sexism we encounter in daily life esp. in those we know, however sweetly and gently we might choose to do so ------ Well, let me quote something I learned from my Gay Rights brothers and sisters when I was more physically involved in political activism (in the 80s and 90s):
SILENCE CONDONES.
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
64 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

Reasonable? LOL, I'm wondering who will serve on the Search committee and what
Remember Me
Feb 2012
#11
1) Basic understanding of the statement of purpose. 2) Awareness of which kind of content is not
BlueIris
Feb 2012
#8
I've gone back and forth a lot about whether discussion of blocks is beneficial or not.
BlueIris
Feb 2012
#12
when redqueen left, i put a thread in host forum asking for suggestions, how others
seabeyond
Feb 2012
#13
i am now hearing the argument from people that do not participate on this forum
seabeyond
Feb 2012
#15
hey.... i went after the same man on that oh so evil forum, myself. hence me saying,
seabeyond
Feb 2012
#47
Again, for the record, because my "disclose the reasons" post caused some confusion:
BlueIris
Feb 2012
#50
it is simple blueiris and nothing nefarious about it. the pm system allows one pm at a time.
seabeyond
Feb 2012
#51
are the other hosts having threads in the host forum about blocking posters? i havent seen any.
seabeyond
Feb 2012
#54
to be clear, when we were first host before this stuff, i did go in there and start a thread
seabeyond
Feb 2012
#58
and a reply to the other part of your post. i get what you are asking for. i think it is a good
seabeyond
Feb 2012
#52
All I want is for the hosts to say, "This is why we did it. This rule was broken, etc."
BlueIris
Feb 2012
#46
facilitating discussion, making people who are feminists feel welcome and not bullied
La Lioness Priyanka
Feb 2012
#19
and the thing is texasgal, when we dont get it, we dont. that is the reality of it
seabeyond
Feb 2012
#33