Most of the articles we publish on OpEdNews are fairly "comfortable" to publish. They point out corruption, dishonesty, clear cases of abuse of the system, of democracy, of fairness. They report good news-- progress being made. But today, the first article I hit in our article "queue" was one that on first glance, just the title, made me uncomfortable.
This article is an odd one for OpEdNews. The idea of discussing the "feminist klan" challenges our regular approach, which is to advocate FOR women's rights and against discrimination. But within any system, one must consider the idea of homeostasis-- evaluating the varying elements which contribute to maintaining balance.
Balance. It is LIKELY, that in the effort to change a system, any system, some energy, some force, will not be enough, will fall short (we see that all the time with limp-spined Democrats) and some will go too far. Some people, some groups may go too far, even when the intention is good, right and fair.
When that happens, injustice can occur and ammunition may be provided for those who oppose the good, right and fair change that really IS needed.
In medicine, you "titrate" dosage to determine how much is just right. But how do you titrate how much is just right when it comes to activism, to protest, to prosecution?
In medicine, it is possible, by prescribing too much, to overdose. Then, you must do something to reverse the overdose-- the imbalance you've created. This is called "iatrogenic illness" and it is one of the biggest causes of death in the USA. Once you realize that an "overdose"condition exists, what do you do to reverse it?
Then, can the "treatment" to reverse the "overdose" be too extreme, even toxic? And will it actually do what it is intended to do-- reverse the imbalance and bring about a healthier condition?
These were the considerations I evaluated in publishing this article, which, at first glance, I found repugnant. But, having been in a custody battle (which I won) I know that in my county, 80% of custody battles are won by women-- and that 20% win rate for men is unusually high. While there is still a long way to go for women to receive full equality with men, and we have a lot of work to do to get to that point, there are still some areas and will be situations where things go too far.
This article makes me uncomfortable. I don't like the tone. But it raises some points which, even if you don't agree with them, are worth thinking about. And we can go further with this. Substitute the word White people" for feminist, and replace "black men" for the "men" referred to as abused in this article, and it takes on a useful perspective.
We still have sooo much work to do to get our culture right. We don't want to make mistakes of excess that hand arguing and talking points to the other side. I'm hoping the "feminist Klan" article will raise some useful discussion and that this article, which started as a comment on the "klan" article, will also get some conversation going.
Should we publish articles that attack aspects of the activism most of our readers support? I believe this can be healthy, because I see articles on OpEdNEws as only half finished when first published. They are part of an interactive system that starts with one author, but is only completed when readers/members add their perspectives, information and arguments.
I believe that, by taking this "contrarian" approach, it enlivens and vivifies the discussion, sometimes pushing people to talk about uncomfortable aspects of the issues and activism we do put our hearts behind.
What do you think?
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
The framed magazine cover, with the word "IDEAS" spelled out in lightbulbs, is based on an article Rob wrote for Writers Digest, telling the magazine's quarter million readers how to come up with and pitch article ideas.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
Or check the archived interviews at:
whiterosesociety.org
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
what the articles say or how but rather in the consistency, usefullness and novelty.
1. I think that every next article published by the same person has to have something profoundly new in it. Articles on the same topics and the same message again and again should not be published unless they have something refreshing or new or add value.
2. In case contraversial article is published I would advise to have an editor's comment accompanying.
3. I would not publish rants. This site does a good job on that but still we have Doc Farmer and some others.
4. In comments I strongly recommend to not allow provocations like calling a person ' Al Qaeda supporter' etc. We do not live in vacuum. Such accusations are irresponsible malice.
5. This suggestion I guess is most contraversial. Every author should be somehow looked at on a consistency basis on whether his/her articles help the cause. What cause? To get rid of Bush. If it does not help- do not waste the pixels. Any article which somehow allignes with the Bushies must be discarded. Why should we help the enemy, I wonder.
by
Mark Sashine (44 articles, 19 quicklinks, 228 diaries, 3268 comments)
on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 8:09:22 AM
The purpose of this website is not to get rid of bush. It's to provide a forum for news, opinion, discussion, community, where what is really happening can be disclosed, discussed and activism and advocacy can be enabled, where concrete steps can be taken to awaken people to the problems we are facing and the opportunities to make this country and this world a better place.
Getting rid of Bush is one step that every patriotic American of any political party, and any sane citizen of the world, at least those who are not being financially awarded by Bush's criminal policies. But when Bush is gone, there will still be a lot of work to do-- and there was already a lot of work to be done before Bush was even elected.
Many of your other suggestions make a lot of sense. Any ideas on how to implement them?
by
Rob Kall (728 articles, 3775 quicklinks, 311 diaries, 1521 comments)
on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 8:31:14 AM
if the idea is a bigger picture- just then my first suggestion still stays. There is a simple way to track an author; all his/her publications are stored, right? So an editor should look through them when the new article comes and if there is nothing new on the topic- politely tell an author to ... broaden up. I have counted tens of articles by the same people on the same topic and saying basically the same. I mean articles, not comments. In the comments people should say what they want. But articles must bring in the new stuff. Always. Mr. Lendman is an example of such creativity, for instance.
by
Mark Sashine (44 articles, 19 quicklinks, 228 diaries, 3268 comments)
on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 8:48:10 AM
it's the responsability of the editor to ascertain the accuracy of the facts and figures quoted in an article considered for publication.
Several statistics quoted in this article are incorrect. Just an example, the author writes ''we know'' that rouhgly half of the reported rapes are bogus.
Who is ''we''? This figure is pure fantasy. As I mentioned already on this site, I have been involved in helping women victims of violence for years, and no reliable study on rape has ever quoted such a ratio. The fact that this article is written by an author involved in an association of fathers should also incite the editor to caution.
While some of the fathers involved in these associations are decent people, a number of these groups are led by men who are very anti-women and whose hidden agenda is to support and protect the ''rights'' of violent fathers, even incestuous ones.
That's why I would suggest to Mr. Kall to do a background check on the author and his association.
by
francine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 201 comments)
on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 9:20:21 AM
Studies based on surveys conducted by women's centers, which tend to ask one-sided leading questions and fail to look to see the the female is the instigator, have little credibility or basis in fact. The majority of surveys by women's centers cover "reports" of abuse, not the convictions or other more reliable data. All sorts of nutty women use these services for prurient reasons, right alongside women who are actually abused. These are well-known credibility issues analyzed in great scientific detail by leading scholars such as Murray Straus and Donald Dutton.
If you don't separate the wheat from the chaff, the loaf is going to be pretty bad. So is the case with statistics recited in circular fashion by women's centers -- who get funded for generating more statistics.
There are so many women' organizations speaking so loudly that folks often fail to see that anecdote and volume does not substitute for qualitative and quantitative analysis. Should we run law by mob rule, or by a more reliable standard?
The studies I cite are among the few qualitative studies involving actual legal cases in which allegations were recanted on the record. This is the real stuff.
I would point out here that the United Nations Third Committee unimously rejected the U.N. Secretary-General's report on Domestic Violence, because the statistics reported by the UNPF and other agencies were grossly inflated and without foundation in fact. This was reported by RADAR in the follwoing alert: http://www.mediaradar.org/alert20061204.php
I fully agree that violence against women must be fully addressed, right along with violence against men, in balanced fashion. After all, if a women starts a major physical altercation -- as in happens in half of all serious spousal altercations -- should we blame the man?
If the woman has a serious drinking or drugging problem driving family disagreement and violence, shouldn't we help him get her into treatment rather than ending up with a struggling alcoholic mother trying to raise children who may well be abused or neglected, while the husband is probably in jail and cannot support them?
by
David R. Usher (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments)
on Tuesday, May 8, 2007 at 12:39:38 AM
In medicine, you "titrate" dosage to determine how much is just right. But how do you titrate how much is just right when it comes to activism, to protest, to prosecution?
OPED news is my first stop for daily info and articles!
When it comes to activism and protest there really ain't no tritration going on. The people either protest actively enough to make the needed corrections or they don't. And it doesn't look like there is gonna' be much correction around here. At this stag the only activity that is gonna' get their attention is a general strike; a huge general strike for at least 5 days. But this will not happen here in the US because the sheeple don't know what I am talking about. And we gotta' be willing to bust and get busted. And blah blah blah.
Better hang on 'cause we ain't seen nuthin' yet. The bad guys (thats Bush/Cheney) won and they are just gettin' started with us.
by
joed (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 49 comments)
on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 9:34:49 AM
Rob, in my life what is justice must be done. As you know I am Catholic, but I detest DOGMA of any kind, so I am in constant battles with my church as my ancestors have been for hundreds of years (See Duke Bagnolo, head of the Albigensian "Heresy"). I have had battles with Democrats when they were and are doing what is not just and have been able to change some things. Women, men, gays, religions, philosophies are all subject to review. When people are engaging in unjust behavior, we should respect no Dogmatic Sacred Cows. I'd publish the questionable article and see how it flies. Add a caveat of your choosing and trust your trusted writers to respond.
By the way, I suggest a means for the individual writer to eliminate harassing crazies comments. There appear to be harangue stalkers. Perhaps we should trust the writer to decide what he or she wants to wake up to and see on his/her comments every day. Newspapers are selective about length and degree of craziness in comments or letters to editors. While your editorial Board cannot police everything quickly, we trusted ones should be enabled to toss writers with agenda and personal attacks. What do you think?
"While your editorial Board cannot police everything quickly, we trusted ones should be enabled to toss writers with agenda and personal attacks. What do you think?"
On the boards I've been on it doesn't seem to work out. First, it's a different mind set from being a user and a moderator, and there is always doubt and often disagreement in what to censor. I thinks it would be opening a can of worms, and I don't see much problem with what there is.
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 998 comments)
on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 1:23:32 PM
get out of the kitchen. Your idea ends up in the situation they've got over on Huffington Post: Bloggers who throw foul language at Republicans / Christians / Conservatives or other unpopular (not liberal) groups are welcome and allowed to do so. On the other hand, comments that throw foul language at liberals' idiocy and prejudices are not published. I've been censored several times, even though I didn't curse, merely for arguing ad absurdum. You can make fun of men at HuffPo; you can make fun of conservatives; but you can't make fun of liberals. They won't allow it. Is that what you want here?
by
Jimmy Montague (3 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 63 comments)
on Wednesday, May 9, 2007 at 11:41:51 PM
More than once I have either written or seen an article go up and pretty soon, same day, next day, someone else writes basically the same thing, ssometimes even in in the same order and structure, but with, often use of a thesaurus. I would call many of them RIPOFFS. Have your trusted folks report such articles, with earliest publication date being the critiera.
I see no problem with publishling well written articles 'to the contrary', and it's good to know what others think, but just a screed of talking points is not useful. That's the first criteria.
As far as facts go, an article should be generally accurate. That's part of good writing.
An editor, can of course, comment on an article or write a disclaimer. And with readers' comments, there is a sort of balance there.
The real test is if an article serves the reader and the site (or publication) -- and it could do that (or not) whether it goes 'with the grain' or not, although too many against the grain can be harmful to the misson of a publication -- and, after all, if I want to read right wing stuff there's no shortage of other sites for that.
Hey -- use your good judgement, and if a bunch of people complain then you can think about it again.
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 998 comments)
on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 10:17:47 AM
There are personal attack dogs out there who see an article by someone they hate and then they come in and register to make a comment, just to attack an author and hide under anonymity and some whose dogma guides their life and they attack every male or every female, or lump all Christian's in with the CR crazies, and that is unjust. I think those who comment who are not registered authors should be made to give the correct names, street addresses and email and that should be available to authors only, so we can see who the cowards are who attack, slander, and run. Several of our banished attack dogs have reregistered under different IP's (a friend's computer?) and changed identities to attack again.
We are happy that there is freedom here for the authors, that is what I am used to, but I am not pleased to see all the harassingcomments on some sites. You don't have to ban people, simply allow the author to take down commets s/he feels are not appropriate. That would save your staff a lot of work. That is what they do on the blog site I have and it works well.
OpEdNews is one of the places I like to go to get the "other side" of the story. That is, the non-corporate, non-right-wing, non-bigoted, non-Rethuglican side of things.
Will it always be "the truth." Unlikely, since that perfect thing doesn't really exist.
I am bothered by the article on a couple of fronts. Clearly, it is written by an "anti-feminist," but I guess that's an acceptable point-of-view to hold, though I would hardly consider it "the other side." Paternalism and misogyny are tools of the corporate elite and the Rethuglicans that are used to control the working class and manipulate the population. Feminism is fighting for a freedom and equality between the genders -- not for supreme power for women.
I am VERY VERY disappointed that the term "Klan" was allowed in the context it was used. It is a vile reference and impugns the mere concept of feminism by being associated with it. The Klan is an ORGANIZATION with tenants of belief around bigotry and hate. While I don't doubt that there are plenty of feminists who hate and that feminism has been used on occasion (incorrectly) as a "baton" against the innocent, there is NOTHING in the TENANTS of feminism that is as hate-filled and bigoted as the Klan, and to refer to the ideology that way is in itself bigoted and hateful -- no better than Rush Limbaugh using the term "feminazi."
Did things go terribly wrong at Duke? Was a woman "believed" when she seems to have lied? Was the population "riled up" because of what happened? ABSOLUTELY. Does this mean that there aren't rapes every Saturday night on the Duke campus? Does it mean that the lacrosse team may not have performed some of those rapes in past Saturday nights or even since? Does it mean that the underreporting of rape is not a problem? NO.
Those who hate women and the mere concept of equal rights for women (which, must, by definition, include safety and an end to violence against women) love to latch on to the "lying woman accuser" as though it invalidates every rape and violence against women. It doesn't.
There is still rape. There is still violence. There is still massive inequality. And feminism is still the ideology that strives to change that.
This author is a HATER and a BIGOT and it shows in the tone and the text.
There is a place for a discussion of "what went wrong at Duke," but this piece wasn't it.
CharlieL Portland, OR
by
Charlie L (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 617 comments)
on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 11:44:28 AM
Kathleen L. Blee documented the fact that the first instance of radical feminism arose within the WKKK in her well-researched book "Women of the Klan". In those days, sexual imagery was used to whip up men into frenzies to protect white women from all those dangerous black men. This is historical fact. There are many slogans and sayings of the WKKK that are restated in exact words in 1960's feminist books. The WKKK was a very large movement for its day -- about 2 million members by 1920. The documentation in this book makes it quite clear that the WKKK is, indeed, the ideological and organizational forebear of modern radical feminism.
A congressional investigation into the Klan in the 1920's concluded that a woman, Elizabeth Tyler, was the true power operating the Klan. She got that power by claiming sexual improprieties committed by the Grand Dragon. After women left the Klan, they simply dropped the word "black" and have been doing the same to all men ever since.
I would also point out the suffragettes did not mix with WKKK women. Suffragettes were about equality for women, WKKK women were not about equality -- although they did pitch in from the periphery to help secure the 19th amendment.
My grandmother, Florence Wyman Richardson, was a famous suffragette who founded the Equal Suffrage Association in 1908. She was ahead of her time on more than one issue: she resigned as President of the ESA because the other board members refused to allow black women into the organization. She did not see herself as a feminist and never used that word, according to my father.
I am lucky to have her complete notes, speeches, and archives as first-hand source information. It clearly sets out the fact that the suffragette movement and the radical feminist movement within the Klan were essentially separate movements. In our day, there is much confusion about feminism, because most folks think that suffragettes were feminists, and feminists are descendants of suffragettes.
Once you separate these two historical movements apart, as they have actually always been, it is much easier to see what we need to reject and what is worthy of continued support.
by
David R. Usher (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments)
on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 11:54:44 PM
And the platform for hatred expands - now at Op Ed News
To put it lightly, I am both shocked and disappointed. Sorry, but I don't believe you can have it both ways - providing a "peaceful" platform for dialogue on progressive issues - stressing the importance of equal rights, and yet, offering up a soapbox for yet another misogynist, bigot, racist.
Are there not enough platforms for such hatred in this country? God knows, I see and hear it everyday. Now that we have become yet another forum for hatemongers (regardless of how "well written" their articles may be) we join the club of those who find the rights of minorities to be insignificant, indulgent, and suspect.
I have been one of the lucky ones. But, I have friends who have been on the receiving end of sexual violence. This article, filled with inaccuracies, comes on the heels of finding out from a good friend that his daughter was raped at a university in the northeast a few months ago - and not the first one on campus. But naturally, as haters and sexual aggressors like your writer, most, if not all women, are either "looking for it" or are responsible in some way for their own attack.
What a sad and twisted world we live in. And let's not lump in paternal rights with rape cases. I think most level-headed people would agree that many fathers have gotten the short end of the stick (no pun intended, I was going to say shafted, but that didn't sound good either....) I know many fathers who are far better at parenting than mothers. However, this is a separate issue altogether. Rape, violence, and sexual aggression fall into a much darker realm of human existence.
I have no doubt that the writer of this misleading and hate-filled diatribe is quite pleased with himself today for getting his poison on Op Ed News. And, I'm sure his buddies are offering high-fives and slaps on the back for setting the record "straight" on how we vile, lying vixen, corrupt, manipulate and deceive our way to the top.
Most of us at Op Ed News know full well there are two sides to every story, every issue. And, there are other soapboxes out there that provide the counterbalance to what Op Ed News proclaims to stand for -- let's not provide another means of hate spewing -- Limbaugh and O'Reilly and a host of others allow ample time and space for such repugnant bile.
by
Jan Baumgartner (47 articles, 135 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 221 comments)
on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 12:35:45 PM
I struggled on whether to publish this or not, and have, in the past, rejected similar articles. But the article in question focuses on a current even and brings a perspective that is not common. I hoped that our readers would set the writer straight. I encourage YOU to post your comments on the article. When people make untrue or misleading statements, and they are called to account and corrected, their claims are weakened if not neutralized.
I guess you could argue that it is not good to give the writer a platform at all. But then he gets to go in his places and make statements that are not challenged. At least here, his claims are refuted, his tone and attitude called what it is.
That said, this is not something that is done routinely here at OpEdNews
by
Rob Kall (728 articles, 3775 quicklinks, 311 diaries, 1521 comments)
on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 12:59:05 PM
There are a great many news organizations who simply say what their readers want to hear. They avoid controversy, difference of opinion, or relegate it to "letters to the editor."
Thus, if you want to promote debate, then you have to allow differences of opinion to be expressed. A liberal version of Townhall.com is just another version of "ignorance is bliss."
It may be that you need to structure the website better so that it less overwhelming and more on specific topics. But I can tell you from experience that there is a consensus of Left, Right and Terrorist available, but not if all three sides gaze at their mirror in a daze of self-satisfaction.
by
Steve Consilvio (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 74 comments)
on Monday, May 7, 2007 at 12:59:09 PM
