Why was my thread about feminism in politics closed?

I mean, in a democracy, everything should be up for debate—including feminism, especially when we start trading actual merit for quotas.

My first thread about quotas got shut down, so I tried starting this one with a broader title to address how modern feminism kind of bypasses standard democratic processes, but yet again... locked.

Guess I’m left with one conclusion: feminism is basically the untouchable sacred cow that nobody's allowed to question.

I'm in.

Back when we were talking about "gender quotas" in politics, I thought about starting a dedicated thread for this. I eventually backed off because I hadn't kept up with all the old discussions and didn't want to trigger any backlash from the administration... I even suggested that the moderators or someone seen as representing the "female perspective" should kick things off so it wouldn't look like a hostile attack. But nothing came of it (unknown probably noticed my attempt and saw that the USA Today article I linked was actually a really solid, fair piece that should have been a great starting point for a real conversation).

Is feminism the one ideology we just aren't allowed to touch on here? And if so, why? 🤷

Are we really going to keep paying for the mistakes of some old-timers on this forum forever?

EDIT: Here is that original post and the link to the USA Today article.

Quick question. What’s the deal with the thread on women's quotas in politics? Based on this post, it looks like it isn't officially closed yet. It would be a real shame to shut it down, though—there were some genuinely great points made. I don't think it should be an issue to just delete the posts that are off-topic or breaking the rules.

Honestly, I was pretty annoyed that the thread about quotas got locked. It made me want to give a straight answer to the big question: does feminism even deserve this kind of scrutiny? Because, from where I’m sitting, women aren't actually getting anything out of it, yet the media keeps giving a platform to anyone willing to drone on about those same old, tired talking points regarding the gender pay gap.

We haven't had a single referendum on the matter, and we don't even have a feminist political party trying to push their agenda through the democratic process. And yet, somehow, feminism remains totally untouchable—like it's some kind of sacred mystery or something.

Look, it's not like we're all idiots in this country.

Thanks for understanding.

My colleague made a fair point about closing the thread; unfortunately, discussions like this always seem to hit a dead end eventually. This specific topic regarding the 2008 Act—which should take effect following the next US elections—has simply run its course. A little patience, and we'll see how things unfold. Thanks.

If I can jump in here for a sec.

I remember this one thread over on the "Politics / World / Ukraine" board that was all about systemic discrimination against men. I used to pop in there every few months just to see what was up because there was actually some interesting stuff being said. It was pretty obvious there were two main camps, and both sides had their fair share of extremists. After a ton of arguing, complaints, decent moderation, some questionable moderation, and honestly just some really trash posts from certain users, they ended up locking that thread for good.

Now, looking at another topic where I’m way more active—the "Politics / World / Ukraine" section—it’s gone through a similar evolution in just about a year and a half (you can check out the condensed "history" of it right here in the book complaint). Even though the subject matter is super heated, it’s become a pretty legit spot. Info gets shared fast, and people are quick to call out misinformation, no matter who's pushing it. Because of that, the thread has turned into a solid source for real news—kind of like a daily digest—and it's actually fairly reliable, at least compared to the mainstream media you see on TV. Of course, none of this would work without the moderators working their tails off to keep things under control.

Personally, I think we could apply that same logic to this current thread, especially seeing how much everyone here actually cares. At the end of the day, we're all just looking for the truth, right?

Charles Fox10 said:My colleague made a fair point about closing the thread; unfortunately, discussions like this always seem to hit a dead end eventually. This specific topic regarding the 2008 Act—which should take effect following the next US elections—has simply run its course. A little patience, and we'll see how things unfold. Thanks.

I don't think the topic is actually "dead," though. We haven't even seen the implementation yet, especially now that the conditions for preferential voting are finally ripe—even if they're going to get totally messed up by those quota rules.

Anyway, that's why I started this other thread on feminism as a political movement. It needs to be a much bigger conversation than the last one, since feminism is everywhere. But it doesn't usually show up through actual democratic processes—you know, like votes or referendums—but more like an order handed down from above. If we’re actually a free society without all that feminist dogma being shoved down our throats, there really ought to be a dedicated space for it in politics.

Charles Fox10 said:My colleague made a fair point about closing the thread; unfortunately, discussions like this always seem to hit a dead end eventually. This specific topic regarding the 2008 Act—which should take effect following the next US elections—has simply run its course. A little patience, and we'll see how things unfold. Thanks.

I’m lost. It feels like we're deciding whether to start World War III or something... Like Jack Cook7 said, anything is possible if people actually want it to happen. But looking at the PDF, the politics MUST have the will to moderate this debate about one modern ideology and its leaders.

Maybe besides just having good intentions, people actually need to be online. It’s not like the mods are hardwired into their computers 24/7 to moderate every single thread... It's the weekend, for goodness' sake.

Charles Fox10 said:My colleague made a fair point about closing the thread; unfortunately, discussions like this always seem to hit a dead end eventually. This specific topic regarding the 2008 Act—which should take effect following the next US elections—has simply run its course. A little patience, and we'll see how things unfold. Thanks.

So what if it ends? What’s the harm in that?

If you want proof that there's plenty to talk about, just look at how the moderators are acting. They keep shutting down "unusual topics" even when we have plenty of interested members sharing relevant facts.

While we’re being patient, it feels like you're turning this forum into a space where people can't speak freely.

If your side truly had the right arguments, you'd win an open debate easily. So why doesn't that happen? Why are the moderators leaning so heavily on censorship lately? It makes you wonder if force is the only way left to win an argument, doesn't it? 😉

Just a little more patience. We'll try to get everything sorted tonight or tomorrow. Given it's Champions League night, if we're running late, please don't take it personally.

Charles Fox10, looking at your opening post, it looks like you really put in some overtime "organizing" this new thread about quotas in politics! You could have just unlocked the old one. 😛 🙂

Well, hey, I guess this counts as progress after that "setback"—one step forward, one step back... 😉

Anyway, what happened to that massive thread mistygull16 started? It was supposed to cover everything about feminism as a modern ideology and the politics built on it. Just a quick reminder about Jack Cook7 signing up and his suggestion for handling these "hot button" topics.

The topic hasn't even officially launched, yet based on the rules, it’s already ready to be closed. 🙂

The musicians can stop playing now. Where did everyone get the idea that we could have a meaningful debate centered solely on a 40% quota? It’s just not happening. You can basically only say "okay," "I agree," "nice," or "cool," or alternatively, "no," "that sucks," or "I disagree." Anything beyond that is crossing a line because, whether people like it or not, we're forced to address unconstitutional laws and various gender ideologies. And you all simply won't allow that.

Anthony Garcia19 said:I’m lost. It feels like we're deciding whether to start World War III or something... Like Jack Cook7 said, anything is possible if people actually want it to happen. But looking at the PDF, the politics MUST have the will to moderate this debate about one modern ideology and its leaders.

Look, this is hands down the most awkward topic you can bring up here. We've had people insulting politicians and individuals and all sorts of crap on this forum before, but nobody—except for the Gender Equality Ombudsman—ever thought to call this site a hate speech hub. And she did it right in her annual report to the US Congress.
To them, feminism is the only truth, and anything else is just hate speech or misogyny. If you dare to question their theories—no matter how bizarre they are or how civilly and logically you present your case—you're the enemy. To be clear, I’ve seen how these feminists lobby the European Union to have anti-feminism labeled as being on par with fascism or racism.
So, it makes total sense why moderators ask themselves, "Why even deal with this?" It's way easier to just play defense and shut down any thread about feminism than to risk those "tolerant" types labeling you a misogynist or someone who supports hate speech, rape, and discrimination against women just because you didn't immediately jump to react according to their feminist playbook. People will whine about free speech when threads get locked, but honestly, everyone moves on pretty fast...
I've been through enough of these debates to know that even the most harmless observation about feminism can trigger labels that seem to stem from nothing but psychopathic disorders.
Besides, we used to get threats about legal action over topics discussed in Politics, and we even got them from a very active feminist who’s been posting here for over a decade, despite her denials. Not to mention how, after a thread gets closed, I end up receiving straight-up sick messages via PM from burner accounts with maybe ten posts each...

Joshua Clark7 said:Look, this is hands down the most awkward topic you can bring up here. We've had people insulting politicians and individuals and all sorts of crap on this forum before, but nobody—except for the Gender Equality Ombudsman—ever thought to call this site a hate speech hub. And she did it right in her annual report to the US Congress.
To them, feminism is the only truth, and anything else is just hate speech or misogyny. If you dare to question their theories—no matter how bizarre they are or how civilly and logically you present your case—you're the enemy. To be clear, I’ve seen how these feminists lobby the European Union to have anti-feminism labeled as being on par with fascism or racism.
So, it makes total sense why moderators ask themselves, "Why even deal with this?" It's way easier to just play defense and shut down any thread about feminism than to risk those "tolerant" types labeling you a misogynist or someone who supports hate speech, rape, and discrimination against women just because you didn't immediately jump to react according to their feminist playbook. People will whine about free speech when threads get locked, but honestly, everyone moves on pretty fast...
I've been through enough of these debates to know that even the most harmless observation about feminism can trigger labels that seem to stem from nothing but psychopathic disorders.
Besides, we used to get threats about legal action over topics discussed in Politics, and we even got them from a very active feminist who’s been posting here for over a decade, despite her denials. Not to mention how, after a thread gets closed, I end up receiving straight-up sick messages via PM from burner accounts with maybe ten posts each...

That's actually where the real challenge lies for anyone wanting to help people truly understand these dynamics and situations.