First, as a not very regular contributor, but a frequent reader here, let me ask you to please don't go back to just lurking. This community is more interesting the more people are here and that's particularly true when there's differences of opinion.
That said:
First, the post at Stephanie Zvan's that mentions this forum specifically, actually says that you're using the word drama in the same sense as the Urban Dictionary definition she gave. It's this language she took issue with,
Yes, that was a central argument of her blog post. However, I think there's a couple of major flaws in her reasoning in making that argument that are not just subtle nuances but missing reality on the scale of quacks proposing perpetual motion machines. That being, that Urban Dictionary is not a reliable, authoritative, or respected source of a definition of anything much beyond the rough translation of modern youth slang. Secondly, cherry picking one definition of a word from a dubious source out of all the many others available out there that might, arguably, contain a more accurate definition of how the word was intended by those who used it is the kind of poor debate tactic that she or anyone else would likely ridicule were it a situation of an anti-vax advocate picking a "research study" off of Natural News. Having thus seen a person build a house of cards out of such poor material to justify outrage over a single word (when there were other and clearer examples she could have chosen to make use of) could lead people (myself included) to wonder if there's any merit or constructive discussion present at all.
In short, though I didn't use the term "drama", if I had I would take absolute offense at someone arguing my intent was sexist when many other common and accepted dictionaries present a non-gendered definition/interpretation of the word as much more likely. It makes it look like a week argument in search of something to be outraged about. Worse yet, I believe there was a quote in the actual thread that used the phrase "drama whore" and I'd say that "whore" is the much more gender-based and offensive word in that phrase.
as well as mentioning a reputation that the forum's earned as a place that does not do enough to punish misogynist bigotry when it's seen.
Again, I have to question the foundation of this statement as well. If the basis for "doesn't do enough to punish misogynist bigotry" is that there wasn't an insta-ban of every person using the word "drama" then I'd say the person leveling the claim has a bit too much of a hair trigger when it comes to setting or enforcing a standard or too high an expectation of the moderators' ability to be everywhere at once. More importantly, as someone who values this forum and wishes to contribute to its continual improvement and growth, I'm disappointed that thus far the people I've seen putting themselves out in front as advocates on this issue (and yes, I've followed a lot of links to a lot of blogs I've not visited before recently because of threads here) have been doing an awful lot of leveling of criticism about "do more to punish misogyny" or "make it more inviting to women" on this forum but have not been very clear about specifics of what they would like to see changed and how. It gives me the impression that they're happier standing back and throwing stones than actually attempting the hard task of suggesting changes to codified rules and procedures. Simply calling for "make things better" or "change at the top" doesn't do much. Whoever owns this forum could throw out all the moderators tomorrow and replace them with a bunch of other members, but that wouldn't do anything to address any problems the critics have spotted unless those critics are the ones appointed as moderators.
To use a crappy analogy, right now it appears to me as if Beleth had painted a house green and Stephanie and others have come along and said "we don't like the color you painted the house" but when asked what color it should be have only responded with "not green". Frustrating for all involved, no?
I especially don't think a community full of skeptics should have any problems critically examining some otherwise unexamined beliefs about women, about society, and about the intersectionality of certain human rights and social justice causes with our particular fight.
Here I agree with you. However, as we tend to ask the folks who come to the skeptics community ranting about anti-vax or intelligent design or similar: what would it take to change your mind? Specifically, can Stephanie and others who share her opinion of these forums answer the question "What evidence would it take for you to be convinced that you drew a wrong conclusion about the existence/level/tolerance of misogyny on these forums and that no significant problem exists?" On the flip side, there have been some very vocal posters on here decrying the over-reaction (or outright jumping at shadows that are not there) on the part of Stephanie and others who should also be able to calmly answer the question "What evidence would it take for you to be convinced that there is misogyny or other gender issues present within the community of this forum that needs to be addressed by rule/policy changes to make it as egalitarian and inviting as you originally thought it was and it should be?"
Unfortunately, just like politics, I'm concerned that the thoughtful and rational folks in the middle will get drowned out by the ranting of the folks on either extreme of the spectrum of this one. I hope I'm wrong though.
