Why do you choose to post here instead of Ovarit?

submitted by usehername from self.GenderCritical

EDIT: Just clarifying that I'm not on Ovarit, I just lurk. Just want to see your opinions.

all 52 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]BEB 24 insightful - 1 fun24 insightful - 0 fun25 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I would love to post there too - I love Ovarit - but I can't find a throwaway email address that Ovarit will accept.

I also love how hands-off the mods are here (thanks again, SAIDIT mods!) They seem to be very accepting that we are not all Leftists (although I am more or less a Leftist) or all rad fems.

I thought it was funny that most of the women who commented here regarding the Oprah/Meghan Markle interview were skeptical of Markle, whereas at Ovarit she was championed by many. Maybe we're more cynical here?

Overall, I'm glad two spaces exist. I wish there were more.

[–]WildApples 21 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 0 fun22 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

The down voting turned me off. It felt very groupthinkish, with perfectly reasonably comments being downvoted into oblivion because it does not fit the group consensus. I worry that it will be too much like Reddit with regard to censorship and moderation, and I want to be able to express myself without having to self-censor or strive to fall in line with the majority.

I also did not like the how people there quashed and minimized racial concerns, telling POC to stay silent about their concerns to keep the group united.

[–]BEB 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't like the down voting either. I think it's unnecessary. If you don't like a comment, you can quickly post a response.

I also don't like the arguments, which bordered on personal sometimes, although I think (maybe?) that the Ovarit mods have gotten better about nipping those in the bud. I strongly feel that we should argue the post, not the poster.

[–]censorshipment 5 insightful - 6 fun5 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 6 fun -  (7 children)

That's been going on since the '70s. White baby boomers and older Gen X women silencing woc.

[–]BEB 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

There were many WoC (a term that was not used then) leaders of, or influential figures in, the (edited to add: US) 2nd Wave feminist movement. I was there, at the tail end.

Anecdotally, my whole university feminist group were WoCs or Jews.

I am not accusing you of anything (!!!) but I keep seeing this attempted rewriting of 2nd Wave feminism to claim it was only "white feminism" and it really bothers me.

Both because it seems as if it's an attempt to discredit 2nd Wave feminism as a movement of racist elites, when it was many women of every color getting fed the hell up. But also because it discounts all the hard work and contributions of WoC 2nd Wave feminists, who were crucial to the movement.

It reminds me of the gender lobby's rewriting of Stonewall to claim that it was a trans WoC who threw the first brick, which is so incredibly wrong - it was gay men and women and decades of work, sometimes in secret, that turned the tide.

If it makes any difference, I am mixed-race (but not with black).

[–]censorshipment 6 insightful - 6 fun6 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 6 fun -  (5 children)

My black 60 year old mom was a second-wave feminist, and she's bisexual and had a lesbian girlfriend in the late 70s. She experienced discrimination among white straight feminists.

[–]BEB 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I'm sure there was discrimination, it was a different era. Edited to add: I am NOT endorsing discrimination. Also I am not trying to play down the very real, negative lived experiences of your mom; I am very sorry she had to go through that!

But this new meme that I keep seeing (and that has been seized & spread by gender ideologists) that 2nd Wave feminism didn't have strong WoC leaders and influencers, as well as rank-and-file WoC supporters, and instead was "white feminism," is IMO offensive. It erases the many WoC feminists at all levels of 2nd Wave feminism and their hard and extremely valuable work.

[–]lefterfield 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Not having lived through it, I would suspect that it's a lot more complicated than the way it's being told today (with respect to the white feminism narrative). Of course there was racism, there's racism in every group of humans that get together who aren't all the same race. But from what I've seen of this debate today, there always seems two opposing positions:

  • Hyper focus on race divides the larger movement and makes it harder to help the majority of women

  • Ignoring race means ignoring the problems faced specifically by women of that race

Both positions are true. Either one, taken too far, can push people away and discredit the movement. I think this is just a basic issue of trying to be tolerant to everyone in a large group.

[–]BEB 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The gender lobby is definitely pushing the "white feminism" narrative in order to divide GC feminists and alienate the public from us.

It wasn't like that back then: in my experience, Second Wave feminism (in the US) was many different women of all sorts of backgrounds, finally finding the courage in sisterhood to scream.

[–]lefterfield 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I believe it. It does divide women. It's the same tactic that was used by wealthy white southerners to divide poor white southerners from poor black southerners - keep the peasants fighting each other and the elites remain in power. Which is not to say that the differences don't matter, but unity has to matter too.

[–]BEB 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Exactly. The use of "white feminism" to describe 2nd Wave feminism, and now GC feminism, is used to divide and discredit us. Oldest trick in the book.

[–]saiditthrowawaygc 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Is this in reference to my post in o/Circles? I am a mixed non-American PoC who has been very uncomfortable in the woke PoC and WoC spaces I've been in, and found them to be extremely influenced by US politics even here. I wanted to avoid the same thing happening on ovarit when spaces dedicated to non-white and non-Western women were created. I think on top of being GC, we are critical of woke rhetoric in general.

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

I wish people would post more on what's happening worldwide.

I used to post a lot of non-American GC news - from all over the world - but it didn't seem to generate much interest, so now I just post what I see, and since I'm American, it's mostly news from English-speaking countries.

[–]WildApples 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, I barely ever visit Ovarit and have not seen your post. I am a black woman, and I also feel uncomfortable in very woke spaces for POC. I do not have any issue with criticism of woke mentalities or tactics. My frustration was with seeing commenters on Ovarit downvoting and telling WOC not to make any racial critiques of other feminists. This was a few months ago, so I do not remember the specifics, but it turned me off. My race informs my outlook. I cannot turn it off nor do I want to, so I have not bothered participating at Ovarit.

[–]BiologyIsReal 20 insightful - 1 fun20 insightful - 0 fun21 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

  1. To be honest, I'm shy and I tend to overthink anything I post. Usually I'm more of a lurker, but I felt the need to speak out about all the sex denialism I was seeing. I started posting here before Ovarit, so I'm more used to this forum.

  2. I like that there is no downvoting here.

  3. I think there is a bigger chance of reaching people who are on the fence here. And, recently, I started to post in the debate sub for the same reason.

  4. I don't like the purity politics of some of the users there.

I still post on Ovarit, just not as often.

[–]lefterfield 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Ovarit seems insular and prone to group-think. I lurk there and here to take what I think is useful, but I am more than just a radical feminist. There was a time when this was all I read about. That time is past. And I just don't want the pressure of getting into long arguments about it anymore.

[–]GConly 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ovarit seems insular and prone to group-think.

Yep, that was my take too.

[–]Houseplant 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I use both. I like ovarit for chilling out and friendly socialising, and saidit for amusing myself by talking to TRAs in the debate sub.

[–]censorshipment 7 insightful - 6 fun7 insightful - 5 fun8 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

I prefer mobile apps since I use my phone. Plus, I prefer a more unrestricted forum with simple, common sense rules.

[–]kwallio 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It took me a while to get an ovarit code and in the meantime I got used to posting here. Not 100% with the ovarit crowd, some of them seem very academic and a bit tone-deaf to how they are perceived outside of the gender-crit crowd.

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (10 children)

OP, I'm interested to know why are you asking this.

Also, your premise seems to be that no one posting here also posts or ever has posted on Ovarit. Which isn't true.

If you think those of us who post here should be posting on Ovarit instead, please explain why. I'm interested in your reasoning, and imagine others here would be as well.

If you don't think that those of us who post here should be posting on Ovarit instead, then again, why are you asking this?

[–]usehername[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Also, your premise seems to be that no one posting here also posts or ever has posted on Ovarit.

No; I understand that isn't the case. I personally don't post on Ovarit and just lurk.

If you think those of us who post here should be posting on Ovarit instead, please explain why

I don't think that. I think having both platforms is important.

why are you asking this?

Like I said, I lurk Ovarit and I've been seeing a lot of complaints about the site on the site. Usually the complaints are of racism (personally never seen it on the site), man-hating (sigh), or shitty mods. If all of that was fixed today I'd still post on Saidit because of the ability to reach a more varied audience. I wanted to know if those complaints were the reasons people choose to post here instead, since it seems like this group is more critical of Ovarit.

I think Ovarit needs a few more circles, like one for mothers, one for WOC, and ones for women of specific races to address issues that pertain to them. Lipstick Alley (I also just lurk) is totally overrun with trolls, and they complain about Ovarit being white-centric. I know Ovarit can't be everything for everyone, but they have a huge opportunity here to make the largest feminist space on the internet. They need to let minorities have insular spaces within their space, and they need to address issues that pertain to a huge group of people, the group who arguably need feminism the most: mothers.

Edit: I know about Mumsnet, but I think it's important to have more than one platform.

[–]BEB 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

This is not directed at you, usehername (!!!!) it's just a pet peeve of mine in general:

I have issues with women from many different backgrounds being lumped together as Women of Color, a recent term.

For instance, a woman from a country in Southeast Asia has different experiences and some different concerns from even a woman from a different South Asian country, and vastly different experiences from a black American woman. It just seems ineffectual and almost racist to put them in the same forum simply because they are not white.

And a white woman from Ukraine would have a very different experience from a white woman from Canada.

It just irritates me and seems more divisive than positive. Maybe specific groups should have their own spaces, for instance "Latinas in the US" or something? Just some thoughts...

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

Yes, it does tend to flatten out their voices and minimize specific concerns. And looking at it from a GC light, it possibly primed racial minorities to get used to sacrificing themselves on the altar of intersectionality and centering others' plights above their own. It was an insidious entrypoint for TRAs to force themselves to the front of the civil rights movement, because if you do not support everyone under the civil rights umbrella, you don't support civil rights.

[–]usehername[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I have issues with women from many different backgrounds being lumped together as Women of Color

Agreed and my friends who are POC (yes I know I just used it) also agree. It's really only a useful term in majority white countries like the U.S. and even then it's overused when something more specific could be said. However, WOC do have some common experiences that are worth acknowledging.

[–]shveya 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I wish I could give you an award for saying this. I refuse to use the term "WOC" because of how UScentric and dismissive it is to group every woman in the world who isn't white into one big amorphous blob.

[–]BEB 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The term WoC is very UScentric and yes, WoC makes it seem as if the world is divided into "White" and "Other" instead of being an almost infinite tapestry of colors and cultures.

[–]shveya 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I wish more people understood this. That's exactly why I find the phase so distasteful, you worded that much better than I could have.

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Thanks for clarifying. Sorry I did not immediately understand your intent, but it wasn't at all clear from your terse OP.

I think Ovarit needs a few more circles, like one for mothers, one for WOC, and ones for women of specific races to address issues that pertain to them.

Personally, the circles are one of the reasons I'm not keen on Ovarit. The logic behind and differences between many of the circles confounds me, and I find it daunting that each circle has its own rules. I would never begin a thread on Ovarit coz I don't want to be called on the carpet for choosing "the wrong" circle - and I don't want to have my post summarily deleted for doing so. I no longer post on other people's threads there coz rather than respond to the points I made, other posters too often told me I used "the wrong" tone for that circle and had "the wrong" views too.

BTW, I think the new circles you are proposing would only add more identity politics pigeonholing and make Ovarit more off-putting to me. The idea that there should be separate circles - "like one for mothers, one for WOC, and ones for women of specific races to address issues that pertain to them" - sounds to me just like more divisive balkanization and ghettoization. It also overlooks that there's a lot of overlap between the categories of "mothers," "WOC" and "women of specific races" - and lots of other categories too.

All people are many things at once. Most people see ourselves as multi-dimensional beings with complex personalities and complicated personal histories, not as one-dimensional beings who can easily be boiled down to one or a few specific trait(s) such as our skin color, ethnicity or our status as parents or non-parents, then slotted into a teeny-tiny box with our perspectives limited accordingly.

Also, the idea of a separate circle for mothers to discuss "issues that pertain to them" seems regressively sexist and reminds me of the days when once a woman became visibly pregnant or a mother, then in many other people's eyes - including the eyes of some feminists - that's all or mainly she was seen as. The vast majority of women in the world, including in the West, are or will become mothers - and becoming or being mothers doesn't make highly diverse women somehow similar. What's more, who's gonna come up with the approved list of "issues that pertain to" mothers and thus are allowed to be discussed in that circle?

But to each her own.

[–]usehername[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Circles for mothers/other minorities

I have heard calls for those from the people themselves who feel their issues are not being addressed in the broader circles. Of course women can post about their intersectional issues in the larger circles (plus, their posts would be shown in "All"), but I think it's fair that they have circles to talk amongst themselves, like the lesbians circle.

I think the new circles you are proposing would only add more identity politics pigeonholing

That might be true and I fucking hate idpol, but like I said those complaints were from mothers/minorities themselves so I don't know how to feel.

idea of a separate circle for mothers to discuss "issues that pertain to them" seems regressively sexist

Obviously there will be a lot of overlap and mothers will also be part of circles that discuss issues other than motherhood, but obviously motherhood comes with its own set of difficulties that need to be addressed especially from a feminist standpoint.

All people are many things at once. Most people see ourselves as multi-dimensional beings with complex personalities and complicated personal histories, not as one-dimensional beings who can easily be boiled down to one or a few specific trait(s) such as our skin color, ethnicity or our status as parents or non-parents, then slotted into a teeny-tiny box with our perspectives limited accordingly.

I'm trying not to get triggered by this comment because it was clearly a criticism of idpol, but of course I know that. I think people from minority groups should have the opportunity to speak amongst themselves. They are women, but they are still a minority on Ovarit and their voices can be drowned out. Lesbians have their own circle, so why not other minorities? Of course they can post in other circles. Women also have problems besides being a woman, but addressing those problems they have because they're female isn't "putting them in a tiny box." Do you not have a problem with that because "woman" is a wider category? Not being a dick, genuinely curious.

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Sorry, no, you said we all should be segregated into tiny boxes based on superficial and often fleeting characteristics.

You did not say that there should be separate topic areas on Ovarit for women to discuss issues relevant to being pregnant, TTC, having or raising children, experiencing racism and/or being a minority skin color or ethnic heritage. You said that people on Ovarit should be put in boxes based on whether we are mothers, "WOC " or are of "specific races."

According to you, all women who are mothers belong in one box. But lesbians, WOC and girls and women of "specific races" belong in other entirely separate boxes.

What about lesbians who are mothers? What about women who are lesbians and "WOC" or other ethnicities at once?

Also, you seem clueless about the fact that it's in children's innate nature to grow and mature. Mothers or fathers whose sexuality and gender identities are a big deal in any given family inevitably will have varying degrees and kinds of impacts on their children depending on the different ages and sexes of the children.

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

I can't get a code.

[–]worried19 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I have codes if people want them. Just let me know.

[–]Hypothetical_Concept 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I post (very lightly) on both, and of course read both. They’re both worthwhile. To me, saidit seems to have a slight advantage in having a bit more diversity, which I value for the sake of different perspectives.

[–]halebop 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

My code for ovarit didn't work so I can't post there

[–]worried19 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Let me know if you'd like another one. I have plenty of codes.

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

Because I googled "reddit alternative" and Saidit showed up near the top. I didn't know it existed until I asked, and I also had no idea Ovarit existed until you mentioned it.

[–]linda_senora 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I am unable to post anything at Ovarit. I cannot write a reply, I cannot even write and send a private message.

It must be the browser I am using.

[–]ralph 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I usually use a firefox derivative with NoScript and even when I unblock all scripts I find that things like posting date and the up and down arrows and maybe things like flair, i.e. general UI and interactive elements, do not render and don't work. If I want to comment (I only recently got a code, during the SuperStraight phenomenon) or even just upvote (or simply see how old a post or comment is) I have to sign in on chrome.

[–]linda_senora 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I am currently using Chrome, but I have to update it.

I dn't know how to do that as every time I click on the link, it tells me my computer's operating system will not allow it to work.

I think all that means is: my computer is old and I need a new one.

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

We don't automoderate people to archive every source expressly because someone might click through to conservative sites--when it's been conservative sites that have been providing 80-90 percent of any critical coverage. It's been conservatives like adflegal.org who have and are taking this issue to SCOTUS. It's not like people are going to try to archive all 24 or so documents in a single in a complete record for an internet post (and in the format they have used, archives have failed anyway).

We are not going to impede access to documents like these or gender-critical reporting in general because the source is conservative and disagrees with us, or most of us, on other issues.

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

I have always wanted to make the point that clicks imply interest, so when we click on GC-friendly news on conservative sites, it encourages those sites to report more on those issues.

So I don't think it's always a positive thing to archive an article. In fact, now I think I would prefer archives of lying liberal sites (like most US media on GC issues) than conservative sites telling the truth. And I say this as someone who is mostly liberal.

[–]usehername[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I did see a lot of archiving but I didn't know it was mandatory there.

[–]WrongToy 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That was the policy of the old r/gc. The new Ovarit initially let links through to conservatives sites and now there's a discussion about what is allowed.

Look, we--or at least I--are not down for that.

Here's where you can get to all of the public documents in actual public court. https://adflegal.org/search?search_term=transgender&type=case

If I thought for one minute this would be taken down here over adflegal being who they are on other issues, sorry but I wouldn't be modding here or invested at all. The documents are relevant, and important, no matter who is involved and whoever packages them so you don't have to pay $$$ for lexus/nexus.

[–]usehername[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Huh. That's something to think about. Thanks for the info and resource.

[–]WildApples 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I did not know about this difference. I for one appreciate it and would not want to see that change here.

[–]RiverSong 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I am here and there, but I too noticed that on Ovarit there is a lot of groupthink going on, and you get downvoted as soon as you dare to have a slightly different view on even the mildest issues. - It's almost like on reddit, where people passive-aggressively downvote you, instead of engaging in a conversation to find out why you ended up having a different opinion.

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

And you never know what part of what you posted the downvoter downvoted, so it seems pretty useless as feedback and, I think, creates a bit of a negative vibe.

[–]worried19 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I post in both places. I'm mainly on Saidit for s/GCdebatesQT, but I also enjoy coming over here to see what's being discussed. It's important to spread information around as much as possible.