[split] moderation open thread(On affirmative action and not being sexist)
#1
(27-Apr-2012, 12:58 PM)donatello Wrote: The reasons for the ban in the main Nirmukta group and the Bengaluru group are due to gender insensitivity and crass language displayed by Sudhir and Piyush on this thread on the Nirmukta Facebook group, and posting and bumping up the thread even after a moderator announced that the thread was closed.

Don't unban me or you'll have more of your perceived sexism. I stand against unequality and injustice wherever it occurs. FYI, I've been accused of being a femi-nazi myself because I stand against misogyny. At least 4 of my videos are about misogyny in India (in response to being called a male-privilege-denier).

Please go through the comments again and check how many times the mods on the thread have been disrespectful and made personal attacks. The comment I made to respond to the whole thread was deleted and am not sure what else has been deleted. I expect this kind of double standards from religious bigots and not from an organisation which I perceived to be rational.

I will repeat my exact stance here and hope this does not get deleted.

"The solution to misogyny is not misandry, we've to work towards equal laws and make sure that everyone is aware of them. Had this law been, 'both parties part with upto 50% of their properties' it would still mean the same in majority of the cases because of the bias and would have taken care of the minority of cases where men are being discriminated against.
Making laws based on gender is as unconstitutional as not solving social issues. Social issues can be solved without being outright in favour of or against one race/gender etc."

I face enough prejudices and lack of acceptance to any views other than one's own from the religious, I am in no position to facing it from my own side. Thank you for your time and effort.
Reply
#2
(29-Apr-2012, 01:59 PM)Piyush Mishra Wrote: Please go through the comments again and check how many times the mods on the thread have been disrespectful and made personal attacks.

Being disrespectful is definitely allowed in the group. We disrespect religion all the time. Even percieved personal attacks are allowed, to a degree. What is not allowed is sexism whether it is intentional or not. Hope you get the difference.

(29-Apr-2012, 01:59 PM)Piyush Mishra Wrote: I expect this kind of double standards from religious bigots and not from an organisation which I perceived to be rational.

I will repeat my exact stance here and hope this does not get deleted.

There's no need to feel persecuted. Some kinds of discussions aren't allowed in Nirmukta. This isn't 4chan. We don't allow Zakir Naik fanboyism. We also don't allow sexism. There's plenty of material on that thread, on the .com site and in the forums here to see why it is sexism. It is upto you to spend sometime going through them (or not).
[+] 1 user Likes Lije's post
Reply
#3
(29-Apr-2012, 09:01 PM)Lije Wrote: [ There's plenty of material on that thread, on the .com site and in the forums here to see why it is sexism. It is upto you to spend sometime going through them (or not).

Here's a quick listing of material that has been generated here, just to serve as a ready reckoner because, realistically speaking, this doesn't seem to be the last time such explanations will be demanded (Sigh!).

A case for why freethinkers can and will adopt ideological stances compatible with Reason and Compassion, and not remain unhinged from any affiliation, as they are often caricatured
Adherence to ideology

The broad issues motivating the feminist position, and common misconceptions regarding the same
Feminism: From premises to prescriptions

Addressing common arguments arising from a similar privilege dynamic that underlies misconceptions of and criticisms against efforts of affirmative action for different marginalized groups
National pride and caste

Building an FAQ on affirmative action

How intersectional marginalization is not absent even in ostensibly progressive settings like freethought groups, and what can be done about it
Listening to the women in the group
The Glass Ceiling in Atheist Circles - Few Women in Positions Of Power
The Atheism Gender Gap,political correctness and freedom of expression
On Being A Feminist, A Trans/Queer-Rights Advocate And An Atheist/Skeptic At The Same

[+] 1 user Likes arvindiyer's post
Reply
#4
Quote:Please go through the comments again and check how many times the mods on the thread have been disrespectful and made personal attacks. The comment I made to respond to the whole thread was deleted and am not sure what else has been deleted.
Only the comments posted after the closing of thread were deleted,rest of the comments are there as is[1].

Quote:I expect this kind of double standards from religious bigots and not from an organisation which I perceived to be rational.
I find it amusing how people are quick to compare any form of removal("censorship") with religious bigotry, trivialising the actual attempts by religions to thwart free speech,who on one hand demand tolerance for their religion and on other hand ignore stoning,beheading,bombing.The comparison is obscene [2]

Quote:FYI, I've been accused of being a femi-nazi myself because I stand against misogyny. At least 4 of my videos are about misogyny in India (in response to being called a male-privilege-denier).

That is great,but checking privelage is a never ending struggle.[3].
We have all been biased by privilege , many of us have confessed it from time to time including the mods.
The point of never ending struggle also applies to pro-feminist men and women,when they ignore or neglect the existing sexism and thus the need for affirmative action ,
Who would because of their privelage assume a just world in which problems would magically vanish when perfectly-equal laws are made, and "enough" efforts are made to check violence on women and men whenever found.

But anyway,this too is a pluralistic movement ,pro-feminist men and women who find affirmative action redundant can work together with people who don't as long as they try not to intervene,atleast on facebook,and when they do , try to abide by the group guidelines.
Facebook is very vulnerable ,with single button-press comments, notifications, news feeds, ego-pumping likes, a thread can easily go out of hand,which is why rules are strictly enforced there, that is, the removals are quick.
In comparison to that ,forums can allow much more 'risks' with transparent warning and banning system,several levels of warning unlike the binary system of facebook and automatic ban-revoking, and then there are tools such as quoting,hyperlinking that allow for more nuanced discussions.

(29-Apr-2012, 09:01 PM)Lije Wrote: There's plenty of material on that thread, on the .com site and in the forums here to see why it is sexism. It is upto you to spend sometime going through them (or not).
Recommended links(adding to arvind's links)
What we don't feel
SEEING THE PATRIARCHY
Why we can't feel
Of Dogs and Lizards: A Parable of Privilege
Why such moderation is needed
Pinkvox
[+] 3 users Like LMC's post
Reply
#5
Why is it assumed that a person who pushes for equal rights is somehow not pro-feminism?
Reply
#6
Why is it necessary for men to 'protect' women from reading the contents of this discussion as though we're kittens stuck up on a tree?
Reply
#7
(29-Apr-2012, 11:03 PM)Sai Prasanna Bangera Wrote: Why is it assumed that a person who pushes for equal rights is somehow not pro-feminism?

The larger cause of empowerment includes both demands for equal opportunity AND demands for legitimate exceptions, as outlined in this post. Anyone refusing to recognize some of the overdue exceptions as legitimate and in denial of the circumstances that make these exceptions overdue, is not a particularly obvious ally to the cause.

(29-Apr-2012, 11:03 PM)Sai Prasanna Bangera Wrote: Why is it necessary for men to 'protect' women from reading the contents of this discussion as though we're kittens stuck up on a tree?

The intent on part of feminism advocates and allies here who happen to be largely male (only because participants here are largely male, which is part of the problem that is being discussed) is neither to patronize nor to co-opt nor to play 'knights in shining armour'. In fact, a number of links here counsel 'shutting up and listening'. One motivation for male allies to speak out, is well-articulated in this remark by Greta Christina.


Reply
#8
(29-Apr-2012, 11:00 PM)Sai Prasanna Bangera Wrote: Why is it assumed that a person who pushes for equal rights is somehow not pro-feminism?

There's no assumption. That thread went on for over hundred comments. You can't be for equal rights and yet be against affirmative action. And this isn't just for feminism, it also applies to caste issues. Discussions on implementation specific details have a place, but what is not encouraged is the outright denial of the existence of social inequalities to the extent to ignore reality and suggest that India isn't safe for men and that "merit" just springs up on its own.

(29-Apr-2012, 11:03 PM)Sai Prasanna Bangera Wrote: Why is it necessary for men to 'protect' women from reading the contents of this discussion as though we're kittens stuck up on a tree?

It isn't men "protecting" women. It is about not allowing disruptive discussions on the group.


[+] 1 user Likes Lije's post
Reply
#9
Quote:Why is it assumed that a person who pushes for equal rights is somehow not pro-feminism?
Feminism seeks to establish equal opportunities for women,though many people are not comfortable with the tag(As in I am not one of them) ,so often I use pro-feminist for that (wiki)

Quote:Why is it necessary for men to 'protect' women from reading the contents of this discussion as though we're kittens stuck up on a tree?
Oh it's not,this discussion is open, this was split from MOT because it was diverting and from facebook because as mentioned above, facebook is very vulnerable.
Reply
#10
For people having a tough time understanding 'Affirmative Action', let me use the most basic analogy I could think of:

The Obstacle Course

Assume a man and woman participating in an obstacle course competition. The one who completes the course first wins. The competition has NO rules at the time of commencement.

The race commences and the man goes sprinting ahead right after he trips the woman over.

After the man has gone about 50 paces, the woman gets back on her feet and starts running too.

At this point, if the organizers were to decide that the speed of running should be equal for both throughout the competition and instruct the participants to abide by the same, it is obvious that the distance between the man and woman would remain constant as their speeds are equal.

The woman would be at a disadvantage, even though the rules governing both would be the same. The woman would continue to trail UNTIL AND UNLESS the organizers let her run faster than the man till she covers the distance between them and THEN impose the same speed restriction.

So we see that the woman was at a disadvantage even though the rules were the same as they were imposed AFTER the man had established a fair lead. Therefore, equal rules can only be assigned when all parties have already established equality and not when one is at a disadvantage.


I hope that was simple and not complicated. Seemed simple in my head smile
Reply
#11
Well guys lets not portrait either me or Piyush into evils who hate women or women's right. We are for women's upliftment as much as any of you are. I will come back to this issue in next post but lets see the way things were handled.

Lets assume me and Piyush discussed something against ideas of most ppl here. There are certain ways in which this needs to be handled.
1. We should be shown our flaws with in the community as we adhere to same rational principles as all of you.
2. A warning needs to be issued saying we said something that illogical or wrong for what ever reason.
3. A breach of warning should be followed with a ban.

None of the above happened and initially the reason given was we replied to a closed thread for which we wil be banned till eternity. It was outrageous to see such a action just bcos we replied to a closed thread and total ban without any warning. Have we become so intolerant that we refuse to discuss and ban ppl discussing a law bcos law appears to bridge women's equality with men. Now I see a new accusation that we are not pro feminist and our comments were against women's empowerment. Really not the way we should be handling or discussing issues that we disagree on.
Reply
#12
@TheTruth
Well lot of ppl gave there view but let me take yours. You gave a wonderful example and we totally accept it.
Then what do we disagree on.

Let it be caste based quota or women's quota we dont want someone who doesnt deserve it to be benefited from it. The women who are actually suffering dont get chance to utilize the quota so are poor ppl suffering due to casteism. The elite women are the ones who benefit more so do rich ppl who inspite of being financially well continue to claim caste based rights depriving others who actually suffer. To avoid this situation we have to frame rules to ensure the ones who suffer actually get the benefit but not by making even more stricter rules.

Lets take a fair example you gave
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, equal rules can only be assigned when all parties have already established equality and not when one is at a disadvantage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now what if the man had actually tripped and women was ahead. Would you stil want to give that undue benefit to women? The law we opposed did this. Reversing the harassment that men did to women back to men wont bring in equality.

The law which we discussed says wife in a marriage can pull out of marriage without even given any reason. We would like to see both husband and wife being accountable for the marriage. And we are accused of being anti women for saying this.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Building a FAQ on Affirmative Action Lije 46 31,212 25-Aug-2013, 01:21 AM
Last Post: roopeshpraj
  [split] National Pride and Caste nispat 24 11,852 25-Apr-2012, 08:50 PM
Last Post: arvindiyer
  The Harvard 'Justice with Michael Sandel' Thread unsorted 6 7,268 09-Mar-2012, 09:09 PM
Last Post: unsorted
  [split] Poor Country, Rich Gods arvindiyer 1 2,353 05-Jul-2011, 09:49 PM
Last Post: arvindiyer



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)