As part of my attempt to revamp the moderation policy, there are now new rules for anti-feminist, men’s rights activist, and right-wing posters. Please check ’em out and let me know your thoughts.
I don’t think it’s good for feminism that ending sexism is seen as something without direct benefits for men, when…
I disagree. I do think there are ways that men are hurt by sexism that have no equivalent in your…
Speaking as a man I would never join an organisation that focuses on men's issues. To do so would be…
Why are there no dedicated left orgs like that? In the UK there's the Men and Boys Coalition. In the…
I’ll address the final part of your comment separately. Before I do that, I have some more data to bring…
Pingback: Writerchick's Lair
Pingback: Sproggen Free Zone
Pingback: Glaivester
Pingback: feminist blogs
It’s your blog.
I’m not a guy, nor am I an anti-feminist. But do I understand the rule prohibiting this comment –
– to mean that we must assume in all cases that every accusation of rape is true?
Not every accusation of rape is true. Similarly murder, burglary, or body odor. Prohibiting a mention of this fact (do we all think it’s a fact? maybe not) might result in a sort of never-never land discussion environment. But, that might be what is desired.
I don’t think it means that “we must assume…” The comment isn’t prohibited – it’s merely regulated to being in certain sections of the blog.
I agree that limiting people from broaching frequently occuring non-productive arguments is a good policy. You might also want to link each to an associated common understanding (for instance a debunking of a crackpot theory) that will be assumed wherever such limits apply.
Ooh, I like that, Edgewise. Maybe even have a debunking thread for each of the topics . . . not an open, ‘discussion’ thread, but a thread devoted exclusively to posting your best, most solid argument against proposition X.
One of the things I absolutely love about this blog is that, when it’s operating at peak efficiency, it’s got some of the best argumentation I’ve read anywhere on the web. I think having a one-stop-shopping location for those arguments could be useful.
—Myca
I’m a guy. I’m right wing. I’m pro women’s rights. I’m not a feminist. I read daily. I comment rarely.
Amp, you DID say in the policy that those comments are categorically barred from entries outsside of specified categories. I appreciate your opinion as posted here that it’s not prohibited but merely regulated. That feeling should be reflected in the policies you are linking to.
Personally, I’ve never, nor would I ever use such an argument… I just see how there can be confusion on the matter.
Anyways, I’ll go back to lurking. I’ve got much bigger issues to worry about… like trying to fight my own f’cking right-wing about this NSA spying business. Sheesh.
All right then. Let’s see how it goes. I myself am eagerly looking forward to the landmark “first loophole ejection.”
Maybe I’m not understanding this.
Suppose we have a case like the one about the young woman who was convicted (well, sort of convicted – I can’t figure out what kind of kangaroo court was involved) of malicious prosecution or something because she didn’t take enough showers after being raped. (I’m picking a recent case, because we all remember it.)
Does this policy ban a comment to the effect that, “False accusations of rape (like false accusations of any other crime) are obviously harmful to those falsely accused, and thus some sort of procedure as this one MIGHT be appropriate in appropriate cases, notwithstanding that this case is outrageous”?
I realize that this comment can be made under “Anti-Feminist Zaniness,” but those of us who don’t consider ourselves either anti-feminist or a zany will probably not bother to make the comment at all.
That’s no big deal, but I’m wondering how… honest discussions can take place when it is understood, up front, that even reasonable opinions which run contrary to the Ruling Orthodoxy are banned.
__________
I’m thinking now of a certain right-wing Evangelical blog. ALL posts are moderated, and any post which disagrees with the blog mistress in any particular never appears. Not only are Roman Catholics banned (please! the Whore of Babylon!) but any Protestant who doesn’t agree with every single detail of this blog mistress’s creed is banned as well.
Needless to say, there are no “discussions.” The place isn’t much fun, to say the least.
This is an extreme case, I realize. And again, it’s your blog. But I’d hate to see this excellent forum go down that road.
I agree.
I have read Amp’s stuff before, i used to post on ifeminist and now i am on SYG. I am not sure if this rule is a good idea, it just re-enforces the current thinking that is gaining ground.
“feminism cannot withstand an open debate”
I would think, that if the current idealogy of feminism is correct, it would welcome alternate arguements, or am i thinking wrong?
No matter how eloquent and well reasoned your agruments, the screaming mob can drown you out every time, especially if they bring torches. That doesn’t make the mob right, and it doesn’t make you wrong.
There’s nothing wrong with setting some ground rules for debate. Not wanting to re-debate suffrage isn’t ‘being scared of a fight,’ it’s ‘choosing your battles’ and ‘not wasting your time.’
—Myca
aknapp1112, that “current thinking” is only gaining ground within MRA groups, who will hate feminists regardless. Trying to do anything to placate that sort of MRA thinking would be foolish, since the MRAs who say that sort of thing will never be satisfied.
Most people can understand a statement like “I’m willing to debate MRAs, but I’m not willing to make EVERY SINGLE CONVERSATION a debate with MRAs. Sometimes I want to discuss other things.” Those who can’t understand why theat statement is reasonable, are too close-minded to be worth talking to anyway.
Susan, that’s a good point.
To me, the argument you suggest doesn’t go beyond the rules, because in that context it’s very relevant, and you put it in a reasonable way. So no, I woudn’t moderate against that argument in that particular context, unless it was put in a “women always lie” sort of tone. However, people might want a less subjective policy than that.
However, although I can see the problem, I can’t think of a solution offhand. I’ll think on it, and if anyone has a suggestion, feel free to post it.
I think Susan’s point is one of substance vs content. Susan’s hypothetical argument uses “false rape accusations are bad” as a minor detail to a more major point, as opposed to centering the argument on “false rape accusations are bad”.
Overall, I think it’s a pretty good policy. Should probably keep this post on the top of your blog for at least a couple weeks to ensure that a majority of posters here (or at least the right wing/anti-feminist/MRA posters) read it.
I’m a two-year lurker, pro-feminist male and Ampersand fan who rarely posts here but finds the threads and comments here well worth reading, including many of those I disagree with. I fully understand why most people don’t want to redebate the same issues all the time, and would like to debate all issues in a non-hostile environment.
But even though I don’t have a solution to the relentlessness of MRA posters, I agree with Susan that some discussions are bound to raise the very issues being shunted off to the archives. I certainly don’t want every discussion about rape to devolve into the false claims argument. Indeed, often when that happens it’s just another form of harassment.
However, there are times when barring such discussion from a thread is ludicrous. For instance, how can an allegedly false claim of rape – the case that’s gotten so much justifiable attention here – possibly exclude discussion of the possible harm caused by false claims of rape?
Long-time lurker, first-time poster? Anyway, I wonder if you’re being overly-specific. I’d be tempted to just say, “This ain’t a democracy, this is our site. From time to time we’ll provide open threads for you to spew your own opinion, but we reserve the right to delete comments we need unproductive without notice.” TalkLeft does this all the time.
Well, here’s what I’m going to do.
I’ve never met Amp, of course, but in a sort of long history of lurking and sometimes posting here, I’ve come to respect him a great deal. And to value this place a great deal. Those of us who cruise the blogs know how rare are the interesting, complex and intelligent conversations we think common here.
I do get what he’s aiming at, and basically I agree with him. So I propose to post comments to whatever reasonable point I have to make, hopefully in a reasonable tone of voice, keeping these rules in mind, and trust that Amp’s very good judgment will preserve the open space here. Of course I’m trying not to screw up, but I’m not the Great Mahulla Of The Whole World. I make mistakes and get over-wrought just like everyone else, and if I go off the deep end I imagine Amp will let me know.
By the way, you-all, bloggers and commenters, I’d like to wish you a very Merry Christmas or Merry Winter Holday of your preference!!
All moderation is subjective. We’re just going to have to live with that. The alternative, I’m afraid, is the kind of “spam-reduction” computer program that excludes all posts about “socialist” because it doesn’t like the word “cialist.”
:)
One of the problems with the policy is that it assumes people know that these subjects have already been covered, so you may need to tell people about the policy everytime you post, which would be a real pain. But as a new person, I am not aware how often these issues have come up before.
What the hell’s a cialist?
What the hell’s a cialist?
It is a drug for the treatment of erectile dysfunction.
While I agree with Amp’s right to set the rules on his blog, his new guidelines beg the question:
Why put up with men’s rights and anti-feminist nonsense at all?
If this is supposed to be a feminist blog, why are you allowing commenters who decry the very spirit of feminism, deny any gains it has made, and in general want to take relations between men and women back to the Stone Age? It seems to me it would be far better to get rid of the little snots altogether. From what I’ve seen, you can’t reason with them; they’re so steeped in their own patriarchy and sense of entitlement they can’t see things any other way. I for one see no use in beating one’s head against a brick wall.
The four criteria you list sounds like you recognize this. The “arguments” are not actually arguments at all; they’re straw-people, and they’re put up to distract from the real issues at hand. To each one, I would reply, “So freakin’ what! We’re talking about women and the problems they face here, not men. Period. You want to spout off about supposed discrimination against men, go somewhere else.”
Ginmar just had a post on this very subject, and I think she’s right on target. In fact, in the comments, I asked her who she thought would qualify as a male feminist, and offered Amp’s name as a possibility. Her reply is enlightening.
“Amp lets male trolls derail all his discussions, including his buddy Robert while disciplining feminsts who get fed up with it” and “If feminism really matters to a guy, then he should find it intolerable when trolls repeatedly say that all women lie about rape and wife-beating and so forth. But both of these guys [Amp and Hugo Schwyzer] make excuses as to why they tolerate male trolls and they’re all very hollow.”
Now, I realize Gin is not to everyone’s taste. However, on this subject it seems to me she’s right on the money.
And if men had used this argument in the face of feminism in the past? What would you have said then?
This is not the past, and I would still say the same thing: We’re talking about women, not men. Period.
You’re ignoring the question altogether.
Because I find that debate with MRAs and a-f helps motivate me to do research and develop better arguments; in short, it develops my thinking.
Of course, I can get that same effect arguing with radical feminists. But as you might not know, I spent years on the Ms. boards arguing primarily with feminists. After enough of that, I began to think “why do I spend all my time disagreeing with my allies?”
I don’t want to spend a lot of time developing arguments to counter radical feminist positions. Yes, I disagree with how Catherine MacKinnon approaches race issues in her writing (to pick just one example), but although I might write about that sometime, I don’t want disagreeing with other feminists to be my major focus. It’s a better use of my time, imo, if my research and advocacy and the arguments I develop are aimed at countering anti-feminist positions.
Because we’re trying to have a discussion, not a Circular Fest On How Right Your Position Is? Because all people have rights, not just women, which means (gasp! no!!) that men have rights too? (Men’s rights??? Men have rights?? Surely you jest!!)
Because it might, just might, be possible that intelligent people of good wlll might disagree with you on some points, and that everyone might learn something from discussion with people of varying views?
If you want to talk only to people who agree with you on every single point, you don’t need the internet. Just sit in your room and talk to yourself.
Well, I’m glad you’re developing your thinking and debating skills. It does take finesse to refute someone’s arguments without insulting them, and if that’s your goal, more power to you. However, I believe in a lot of these threads, you’re spinning your wheels. As Kipling said, “East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.” Personally, I have better things to do.
Also, by going to such great lengths to counter their arguments, aren’t you in a sense adding fuel to their inanities? It seems to me in some cases it would be better to say, “I will not put up with anyone who endorses such-and-such [for instance, the “men are victims, too” stupidity], and I will not discuss it again. And if you try to spout such rhetoric, you will not be allowed to comment here.” The end.
I think that would elevate the discussion far more than wasting your time trying to refute anti-feminist cliches.
Apparently Susan and I posted at the same time, so #25 is a reply to Barry’s comment.
However, to Susan: If someone were to come to my blog and spout one of the Four Nonsensical Anti-Feminist Cliches (as mentioned by Amp above):
# “Hey, men are victims, too!”
# Arguing that men are equal victims of rape, domestic violence, etc..
# Arguing that shelters and hotlines (etc) discriminate against men.
# “But what about false rape accusations and how they harm men?”
You’re bloody well correct they wouldn’t have any rights. This is not “discussion.” It’s trying to detract from and minimize what men have done to women for thousands of years. As such, in my view, it has no place on a feminist blog. (Of course, Amp apparently disagrees, and that’s fine. But I think you’d start from a far more rational place if you don’t allow the Four Cliches to open their mouths to begin with.)
Bonnie wrote:
Have you ever got that right! But that’s okay. It’s like panning for gold – 95% is dross. However, a tiny minority of it allows me to refine and improve my thinking, and an even tinier minority gives me new things to consider. But I won’t get that 5% of useful stuff if I don’t allow any MRAs or anti-feminists to post.
Keep in mind, as well, that I agree that the MRAs have recently been too predominate here. The point of these new rules is to try and find a new, less MRA-heavy balance. I’d like to give the new plan a few months’ try before I agree that it’s a failure. :-P
Because we’re trying to have a discussion, not a Circular Fest On How Right Your Position Is?
All feminists have the same opinions about everything. Thus, discussions involving feminists are automatically “circular” and boring, and the solution to that problem is to throw in some non-feminists, some people who are offended at the very notion of feminism, and some flat-out woman-haters if you can get them because they really are so much more brilliant and interesting than us boring little womenfolk.
Because all people have rights, not just women, which means (gasp! no!!) that men have rights too? (Men’s rights??? Men have rights?? Surely you jest!!)
Feminists don’t believe men have or should have any rights. We got uppity and now we’re taking over.
Because it might, just might, be possible that intelligent people of good wlll might disagree with you on some points, and that everyone might learn something from discussion with people of varying views?
Susan does have a point. Every time I read the exact same poorly supported misogynist argument coming from yet another commenter, I learn…something.
Ha-ha! Snark rules the day! (snicker)
That “argument” is typical of someone who, while maybe not technically a troll, is exhibiting troll-ist tendencies. In other words, no matter how silly, poorly conceived, unrelated to the subject at hand, distracting to the real struggles of feminism, and outright insulting to those searching for true equality, their little quibbles must be allowed in the interests of “fairness.”
Bull. It’s Amp’s blog; he can set rules as he pleases. As I’ve stated, I would go even further and get rid of the little space-wasters altogether. It will be interesting to see how his attempts to clamp down on them work out.
I personally find it useful to enter into discussion with people I don’t agree with. It isn’t in some ways as much fun as standing around in mutual congratulation with people I already agree with, but it’s more educational.
Part of Amp’s point here, and I think part of the point some of the rest of you are making, is that there are certain people who are not interested in discussion at all. They’re just here to shout the same stuff over and over again, and to de-rail threads if possible.
For example, let’s go back to the woman who didn’t shower enough after being raped. Let us assume, and I think this is a fair assumption, that false accusations of rape are damaging to the men thus falsely accused. I’m comfortable with that. Being falsely accused of a felony is no picnic, we may safely say.
But. What does that have to do with the discussion at hand, which is what we here think a miscarriage of justice in the “conviction” of the woman for some other crime? Not a lot, if you think about it.
Did she falsely accuse these guys? We don’t know that, one way or the other. That they were not convicted does not prove that they were falsely accused, it just proves that for some reason or other the prosecution didn’t make its burden of proof. She was “convicted” of something or other, but the way you-all in Oregon run things, that verdict can be – and has been – set aside, and you’re going to do the whole thing over, hopefully with happier results (assuming she’s innocent).
Amp’s rules, if you read them fairly, just seem to me to be an attempt to further civility here as we-all, who do not agree on every topic, try to have discussions, not shout-fests.
Feminists can learn from sexists the same way that Blacks can learn from Whites, Jews can learn from Gentiles, Gays can learn from Straights, peasants can learn from royalty, etc.
In general, if you’re a minority, or part of an oppressed class, you know a lot more about the ruling class than they know about you. Whatever scraps of privilege you can wrest for yourself from the bin depend upon you knowing those things. OTOH, for the one doing the oppressing, maintaining control of the bin and its contents depends largely upon willful cluelessness;On being able to pretend that no privileges exist (but if they do, they are part of the natural order) and that one already knows everything about a subordinate class that is required.
I hate to sound like a broken record, but it’s telling that while some folks decry ginmar’s attitude, a kinder attitude rarely gets results when dealing with anti-feminists. Take note: Several posts above I politely asked Daran, and by extension, a number of the other career sexist blowhards on this board to consider whether they wouldn’t learn more about feminism by just sitting back and reading feminist’s comments for a month or so;Thinking of life from the POV of another class instead of carrying on as if they were each being paid by the word to spew out the same old crap we’ve heard all our lives. Come to think of it, my response to Daran in the porn thread was, I thought, quite cool-headed. He never came back to say a word either.
Perhaps the new guidelines Amp’s imposed will help. In the meantime, I’m struck by the link to Ginmar’s homepage, because she nails the crux of the heads-they-win-tails-I-lose relationship any feminist with any pride at all in her own opinions is going to ultimately have with these jokers. One of the things ginmar said in her rant is that men who are truly feminists will find themselves demoted by their brothers as traitors, worse– as “mere” women.
All of us, I think, have observed as boys and girls that it’s considered a horrible thing for a boy to be considered “girlish.” Hell, the way some people carry on, you’d think that they’d rather see their boy children dead in a ditch than thought of as “girlish.” These boys grow up with the sense of “girlishness,” of demotion, as their ultimate fear, and it shows in their conduct here. Thus you’ll see two major tactics in their conduct: When confronted with a woman’s rage, they brush her off as “emotional”– girly. Not worth taking seriously. Confronted with a woman’s polite appeal to them to be “good brothers,” to stop sucking all the air out of the room and to sit back, reflect, and listen with an open mind, they ignore her as passive– girly. Listening, reflection, empathy– Those are as icky as pink frills and high heels. Shut up, bitch. I’m talking here.
Coin-tosses are a bore. Particularly rigged coin-tosses. Small wonder so many of us have cut our time here way back, gone off to boards headed by women like Sheelzebub or Ginmar, etc.
Debating with these guys in order to hone your skills doesn’t do anything for you and does a lot for them. It grants them legitimacy. Do people seriously debate those who deny the Holocaust? If they do, they shoudln’t, because it grants the deniers legitimacy and merely lends weight to the fallacy that there’s two sides to every story. There isn’t. In some cases, there is exactly one.
Furthermore, debating about things that cut women deeply like lying rape victims, lying battered women, evil feminists and so forth as if they were just intellectual concepts is nothing but privilege. We don’t have the luxury of not being cut by these things; they are the things used to invalidate us and keep us on the defense. There’s no proof for any of them. There never has been. They’re dismissed. Debating with them merely keeps the same old discussion going on forever and while that’s happening, our rights are slipping away because we’re fighting over the same space repeatedly. Finally, the idea that the things women have to face is just intellectual fodder for a debate amongst men, well—–Need I say more?
Well, as several have pointed out here, there are feminist blogs where anything non-feminists (I’m not sure what that means, but it means something) are not welcome. Or allowed even maybe, I’m not familiar with these blogs. Anyone who prefers that environment should certainly frequent those locations.
Amp runs an interesting blog here. For those of us who are interested in his approach. We have no right to force him or attempt to force him to conform to any of our agendas. It’s nice of him, actually, to let us post on this thread and to listen to what we have to say. That quality in him is probably why this is overall such a nice space.
Ginmar, if you’re unhappy with the topics here, or unhappy with the way they are approached, or unhappy with the personnel who are permitted to comment, I understand from the comments above that you have your own blog, so you can certainly run that blog any way you want to. Likewise me, (I don’t have a blog but I could certainly start one), likewise anyone else. alsis, if you are a feminist, and you don’t feel you have anything to learn from sexists, you shouldn’t read their comments, and you certainly shouldn’t waste your time debating with them. Live and let live.
So, Susan, why exactly are you telling US what to do?
If Amp does indeed keep with these new rules, I might still post here. But as usual, you’re missing the point. It’s not mere debate that’s up for review here, it’s respect. You’ve never much respected feminists and I’d consider you a troll just based on your attitude and your sentiments about how rape didn’t happen in your day.
Either way, saying, “Oh, just run away if you don’t like it,” leaves a feminist space in the control of the antifeminists. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that that would mean you and your like-minded friends.
Uh, no. Nice try, though.
Oh, by the way, good job on ignoring everytihng I said in favor of delivering yet another arrogant, patronizing lecture. If people abandoned all spaces under onslought eventually only bullies would have free run—and you’d be among them. We’re not going to cede any ground to anti-feminst jerkwads.
I agree. Those of us from the Ms. Board days remember how they were never dull, whatever else they were. There is more than enough diversity within feminism, and debates with radical feminists are more productive for feminists than debates with anti-feminist trolls stuck on the same four notes of male privilege. After all, I was a pro-sex feminist until reading some excellent commentary on the Ms. Boards and seeking out more information based on those comments, but I can’t say I’ve learned anything substantive from reading bullshit about lying women who file lots of false rape charges. (Of course, this is Amp’s blog and he may do what he will, but that’s my opinion.)
Yes, in a fight for one’s own life, and the quality of same, it’s very important to keep quiet in a room overrun with arrogant, long-winded sexist jaggoffs.
Thanks for telling me what I already know, Susan. Knowing it, and pretending to like it, however, are two very different things. I trust that if Amp had not wanted to know that some feminists were at least as dismayed as he over some of the current theatrics here, he wouldn’t have bothered to bring up the subject.
Ginmar, if you can’t see clear to respecting the new rules here – which means treating Susan and other posters here with respect – then please stop posting on “Alas.”
The two situations are not parallel. In our society, happily, Holocaust deniers have no legitimacy anywhere; it is therefore a good idea not to debate them, since that would be messing with a positive status quo.
But you’re living in a dream world if you think that anti-feminists have no legitimacy. They have it. Wade Horn works for the White House; Maggie Gallagher, Wendy McElroy and others write columns that appear in major papers; the IWF has people on major TV shows every week; books by Warren Farrell, Chistina Hoff Sommers and the like are published by major publishers and respectfully reviewed in major newspapers. People who argue that no-fault divorce should be eliminated and that decent educational opportunities for girls have destroyed boys have credence at the highest levels of our government and our culture. Someone who thinks that it should be legal for states to force adult women to notify their husbands before they can get an abortion is extremely likely to take a seat on the Supreme Court next month.
Don’t fool yourself. The anti-feminists already have legitimacy in our society, and the culture is already listening to them. Refusing to deal with Holocaust deniers is a good idea, because those fools are pretty much shut out of legitimate mainstream discourse. But refusing to deal with anti-feminists would be a mistake, because they’re already in the mainstream discourse of our society, and letting them go unrefuted will improve their position.
Which is an idea I’ve never endorsed and don’t believe. I argue for what I argue because I passionately believe that it is right, not because I’m looking for intellectual fodder.
Ginmar:
Well- regarding the holocaust, a look at debates between Martin Broszat and Saul Friedenburg shows there are more than one legitimate side to that debate – it’s just that holocaust deniers aren’t one.
Furthermore, realistically and unfortunately, anti-feminists have legitimacy, they don’t need help from feminists or pro-feminists to achieve it. It’s Feminism that is declared dead every 2 years (my theory is Feminism is undead, that’s the only explanation for the fact that it can be killed ad nauseum). What I feel delegitimizes anti-feminism is something like this for example, a very well-reasoned destruction of an anti-feminist talking point. And if the anti-feminists are unconvinced by this, it still will help for a neutral party.
Here, though, I agree with you. And I think Amp’s examples are maybe a bit over the top, and could prove a weakness in this new policy. In particular:
I don’t know how many times we need to counter this argument before it’s enough. And if there’s any time of thing that should be considered intolerable it should be this.
No one with any sense, who had the faintest notion of what the statistics show, would argue that men are equal victims of rape, domestic violence, etc. Isn’t this a straw man?
(Will anyone who actually thinks men are equal victims of any of these wrongs please come out of the woods and declare yourselves? (Don’t forget to bring your evidence!!))
Seriously, does anyone really argue this? That men have been raped, some men, OK. That some men, not very many, are victims of domestic violence, OK. That being raped is a horrid experience, to say the nicest possible thing about it, and being a guy doesn’t help. That being beaten up is a horrid experience, and being a guy doesn’t help.
But equal victims? No one is arguing that. And if no one is arguing it, no one needs to counter those (alleged) arguments, yes?
We know what they believe, just read their forums. We know they’re not interested in having a dialogue at all and really they only want to point out how wrong we are at every turn. We know that they often use deceitful and misleading statistics, frequently. I’d just ban them all and have done with it. If people want to hear MRA opinions visit their forums. Put up the links to the forums for everyone interested and ban the MRA trolls. I don’t consider any blog that gives MRA trolls a sounding board for their misinformation feminist.
You’re right. I never did come back to say a word. To busy with other things.
I didn’t say much before then, other than to point out that much porn consists of solo girls showing tits, ass, and pussy, and consequently weren’t subject to the kinds of health issues faced by those who fuck for a living. Nobody came back to say a word about that, either.
Susan
I think the problem is not so much that anyone comes right out and *says* (on these boards at least) that men and women are equally culpable of rape, or that they are equally its victims; rather, it’s that some of the men here swamp threads intended to deal with sexual violence and sexual discrimination against women with distracting anecdotal posts the thrust of which is that some particular man has suffered in a comparable way. Posts like this rarely affirm, in so many words, that an individual account is proof of a more general gender-parity with regard to such matters, but there very abundance (mile-long post after mile-long post, often from a handful of obsessive contributors) tends to make that point for them. When two-thirds of a thread is devoted to the detailed exploration of a given man’s problem ““ say, that he couldn’t find a shelter to take him in as a victim of domestic violence ““ then the reader is apt to lose sight of the fact that only a tiny proportion of battered partners are men, and that the huge majority are female victims *of* men. I recognize the instinct behind such posting in myself: it’s shameful to belong to the gender which is guilty of the vast majority of sexual violence and most benefits from sexual discrimination in the world. As a man cannot easily deny the truth of those propositions, though, he is naturally tempted, as a more reasonable but still culpable option, to change the subject.
Remember, feminism is large and varied, with room for a variety of views. Not all feminists agree with each other, nor do they have to.
Except when it comes to blogs. When it comes to that, there is only one acceptable approach, and taking any other approach is proof that the blog isn’t feminist.
Got it.
So you’re saying that blogs that don’t cater to MRA trolls are anti-feminist. Um…okay. Got it.
No, totally the opposite. I’m saying that there’s room for disagreement within feminism, and that there can be more than one kind of feminist blog. Including those that ban all MRA trolls, and including those that allow a handful. You’re the one saying, in effect, “there is only one way to be feminist”; I’m disagreeing with your view.
“Alas” is hardly the only feminist (or allegedly feminist) blog that allows some MRAs to post without being immediately banned, by the way.
The MRAs are mostly of the opinion that I’m a horrible monster who censors all their views, etc etc.. Not that I give a crap what they think, but they certainly don’t perceive me as “catering” to them.
I’m of the opinion that the word feminist gets adopted by men way too easily, basically co-opting the word for their own uses at times without ever doing anything to earn it in the real world or on the internet. I never said there was one way to be feminist, I’m just saying I don’t think you are a feminist or that your blog is feminist because of what you do. And what you’re basically saying is that by not letting trolls argue with us on our blogs were not following the principles of feminism, one of which appears to be that we have to allow trolls to derail feminist discussion. You’re also telling me how to be a feminist, and I find that kind of laughable.
I’m not saying that at all. I’ve never said that – and if you think otherwise, quote me saying otherwise. Here’s what I did write: “there can be more than one kind of feminist blog. Including those that ban all MRA trolls…” I think that makes it pretty clear that you’ve misunderstood me.
Let me repeat: I don’t think you have to allow MRAs, trolls or anyone else on your blogs to be a feminist. I’ve never said that. I don’t believe that.
Nor have I ever said a word about how you should run your blog, or how you should be a feminist. I think you should run your blog however you want. And it’s clear to me that you’re a feminist, from what you’ve written here on “Alas.” I’ve never, ever said anything which called your feminism into doubt.
All I’m saying is that, in my opinion, there’s room within feminism for a diversity of opinions, including a diversity of opinions on how to run a blog.
[Edited to desnark a little.]
Well, yes, I should think so.
Some of this thread sounds, to my bemused ears, something like the super-right-wing Roman Catholic blogs I’ve been reading lately. There’s only one way to be a Roman Catholic, or a indeed a Christian at all: my way. If you don’t do it my way you aren’t “really” a Roman Catholic or a Christian.
This approach is a bit inappropriate when talking about theology; so also, when talking about non-theology, like “feminism.” Who is a “real” feminist? Well, there isn’t a Pope (or, Mama) of Feminism with a Curia to hand down canon law. (I hope.) It’s a matter of opinion, and one “feminist” doesn’t necessarily need to get someone else’s blessing or something to be a feminist.
The more time and energy we spend in quasi-ecclesial arguments about who is a True Feminist as opposed to being a heretic or something, the less time and energy we have to work on correcting the wrongs we perceive.
_________
Tom, thanks for the explanation. I have seen the kind of thing you describe, and it’s infuriating. I just finally want to say OK, poor old Joe was raped and abused and couldn’t find a shelter because all those women were taking up the space, so buy the guy a drink. I don’t want to put down the suffering of men – or the suffering of any human being. Then again, that’s not what we’re here to talk about, as you point out.
The more time and energy we spend in quasi-ecclesial arguments about who is a True Feminist as opposed to being a heretic or something, the less time and energy we have to work on correcting the wrongs we perceive.
Doesn’t this contradict what you said earlier about needing MRAs and anti-feminists around to prevent the discussion from getting “circular” and boring? If we all agree with each other, how can we be having arguments about who is and isn’t a feminist? If we are arguing, that’s not the same as sitting around in our rooms talking to ourselves, is it?
Apparently we’re either arguing too little or arguing too much. Do let me know when we are arguing precisely the right amount; I’ll buy a cake.
Also, what are “the wrongs we perceive” exactly, and how is wading through pages and pages of poorly argued woman-hating crap a good use of our time and energy?
If an individual feminist finds engaging MRAs useful, then that’s a good use of time. If she doesn’t, then it’s not. In my opinion, this is a preference that feminists can disagree on.
Sarah
Nice to know someone else is posting this Christmas Eve!
I think we can take the fact that so many M.R.A.s and radical Feminists feel the need to post here as an admission that their own boards lack something. Perhaps the pleasure of seeing one’s own views corroborated or, at most, fine-tuned, palls after a while; perhaps some of the more adversarial posters feel the need of a good scrap from time to time. The irony is that the very variety of opinion, the very pugnacity of opposition, which make these threads such a good read can suddenly seem intolerable to some of those same contributors once the polemic begins. If Amp were to give way to the pressure he seems now to be under (from radical Feminists, as it happens ““ but that’s only because he is immune to lobbying by Men’s Rights Activists), if, that is, he were to simply ban potentially anti-feminist posters altogether, then Alas would be useless for the gladiatorial purposes which bring so many brilliant Feminist polemicists to do battle here ““ and they would have to go elsewhere for their sport.
Trust me, Tom – if you had spent as much time on an all-feminist discussion board as I have, you’d know that we don’t need MRAs for “gladiatorial purposes.” If anything, I think intra-feminists fights are often more passionate. Possibly because it seems to matter more when we can’t agree with feminists than when we can’t agree with MRAs.
Several of the radical feminists who post here, are people who know me, either in real life or having “known” me online for many years. Plus, the topics I talk about tend to be of interest to radical feminists. I think those two facts alone are more than sufficient to explain why the radical feminists who visit “Alas,” do so.
For myself, I’m very glad that there are some radfem posters here – I like a lot of posters, don’t get me wrong, but my personal favorites are mostly the radical feminists. I always sit up and take interest when Q Grrl or Radfem or Bean or Alsis posts. (That’s not an exhaustive list, just the first four that came to mind.)
What other people call “Christmas,” I quaintly refer to as “Time And A Half Day.” I’ve been at work for the last 10 hours, and I’ve spent most of that time collating and stuffing envelopes, while concerts are going on in the auditorium. I’m finally done with that project now – huzzah!
Your posts are always interesting, Amp, and I’m sure they’re an important factor in drawing radical Feminists to these boards. But those same radical Feminists, having visited the site to read your posts, frequently stay to argue with people (*not* just M.R.A.s) they would be unlikely to encounter on an exclusively radical Feminist site. They could, if they chose, restrict themselves to a discussion with more-or-less like-minded people, but a good many of them choose not to. In my view, the instinct which then drives them is a healthy one. If we want to test our ideas in their foundations, we need to debate them with people who are authentically sceptical of them. For example, to judge from what I’ve read on other threads here, I can well imagine that radical Feminists might be ready to debate heatedly enough the *degree* to which the Patriarchy encourages rape; at Alas they meet head-to-head social conservatives who consider society to be a complete red-herring in what they (the conservatives) understand as a matter of personal morality. Such encounters produce lots of heat, but lots of light too, and are, I think, psychologically tougher for both parties than the most intemperate differences amongst friends. And yet the same people who say they resent having to “reinvent the wheel” etc. keep on coming back for more.
Your posts are excellent, but there’s something else, and equally interesting, afoot.
I realize that for those posters who have long held and deep seated feminist beliefs that repeated arguments or explanations can be tedious. I’ve been lurking for around a year and a half now, and I’ve learned a considerable amount from the feminists that post here.
Both Amp’s original posts and the comment threads have spurred me to go and seek outside information, and that has helped me hone my own position within the great circle that is The Feminist Movement.
I don’t feel it is anyone’s job to educate me other than mine, but there are times that I like to bounce ideas off of those who have more knowledge about the situation than I do. Two years ago, I would have put myself squarely in the liberal, equity-feminsit camp. Since finding this blog and others that it is linked to, I’ve begun to hone my thoughts and change some long held beliefs.
I think the moderation policy is a fair one, and even if I did not find it fair — it’s Amp’s blog and his rules. I think the rules make room for those like me who are curious or are looking for other opinions, insights, and experinces to help us inform our own. The hard research I can do on my own, but no amount of reading can make up for direct discourse with people who’s experiences and ideas differ from mine. I don’t mean strident MRA’s, but feminists on both ends of the spectrum and everywhere inbetween.
Susan,
Because we’re trying to have a discussion, not a Circular Fest On How Right Your Position Is? Because all people have rights, not just women, which means (gasp! no!!) that men have rights too? (Men’s rights??? Men have rights?? Surely you jest!!)
…
If you want to talk only to people who agree with you on every single point, you don’t need the internet. Just sit in your room and talk to yourself.
Is this supposed to be a joke? Certainly you can’t actually think that there is total agreement amongst feminists? If anything, feminism is possibly the single most diverse social movement out there in terms of views.
Also, I’d note that generally discussion within a broad paradigm (be that feminism, progressivism, radical political thought) can often be much more productive and enlightening for the participants that constantly re-debating the legitimacy of the fundamental premises (which is often what debating, in this case, non-feminists and MRA’s etc. often boils down to). Not even to mention that there is also the problem of having to go over the background for those not already familar with it that can take a considerable amount of time and energy and thus divert from productive discussion.
One major issue is that it is a lot less productive to discuss issues with those who haven’t even made the effort to at least learn the subject (whether or not they disagree) than those who have.
Hey, Amp ! You can come over and eat latkes tomorrow afternoon if you want. Just don’t ever let slip to anyone in my family that they came out of a box. I’d be disowned, or worse… :/
Thank you! I probably won’t make it, alas – it’s almost midnight and I’m still here at work, and I have to get up extra early tomorrow morning to go back to work to let in churchgoers. So I probably won’t be up for anything but collapsing into bed by the time I get off work tomorrow afternoon. :-(
But I’d love to get together with you and Varro and Bean for dinner in the next week or two; once it’s 2006, my schedule is relatively open.
One of my earliest experiences with the Internet was looking at soc.women to see whether I wanted to read it regularly and discovering a huge thread wherein a woman had compared giving birth to passing a watermelon. The section of the thread that I read was what seemed like dozens of men—post after post after post of them—chiming in to explain that that’s not what giving birth is like, along with the discussion of dictionary definitions and what ad hominem arguments and straw men are that was obligatory according to the customs of the time.
I like Alas a lot. Thanks for taking it yet another step away from that early Internet experience of mine. ^_^
Rebecca
I like Alas a lot too! We should all be grateful to Ampersand!
re #58:
I’ve actually been wondering if that was someone else posting under “Susan’s”
name. It doesn’t sound like the rest of her comments at all.
alsis39 (comment #32), how seriously do you mean this analogy? Are you assuming that all white people are racist, all non-Jews are anti-semitic and all straight people are homophobic? Because it seems to me that the analogy here is women learning from men, not feminists learning from sexists.
Speaking for myself (if we’re playing the minority card I’m Jewish and bisexual), I really don’t think my ability to learn from others is limited by which groups they identify with. Certainly, I have learnt a great deal from non-Jews and from straight people, in all sorts of ways. I have even learnt about religion from non-Jews, and about sexuality from straight people. However, I don’t think I have much to learn from anti-semites and homophobes, or at least not on any issue where those hatreds are directly relevant. Maybe that’s what you meant by your comment about feminists learning from sexists?
A further point: I don’t think that all non-feminists are sexists. Some are, for sure. Again, are you actually holding this view of non-feminists, or am I misreading you?
Well, maybe we don’t all come neatly sorted, as Individ-ewe-al hints.
Some people who are homophobes, for example, in my experience, are simply ignorant. Some of them just haven’t had much interraction with gay people, and all they see are images on TV. Gay Pride Day, all that. They don’t understand it, it freaks them out, they react. That doesn’t mean, of course, that I can’t learn something from them which isn’t on the wavelength of their nuttiness.
But maybe more than that. Maybe we could learn about why they are homophobes. Maybe they’re not such bad folks, at least not every one of them. A “phobia”, after all, is an unreasonable fear. What is it in their lives which makes them so afraid? Why are they out looking for someone to demonize? Is there some way we can help them out of those fears? God knows there’s enough to really be afraid of without making stuff up.
But that isn’t even what alsis39 said. She apparently doesn’t think gays can learn from straights just ordinary old straights, who may not at all be homophobes. I am assuming this is an unintentional overstatement.
But, whatever. If alsis39 (or anyone else) doesn’t think he/she has anything to learn from straights or homophobes or men or sexists or whites or gentiles or whoever, then certainly it’s a waste of time to have discussions with such people. Unless he or she is undertaking to preach to their Ignorant Inferiors, which doesn’t usually work anyhow.
I don’t know what to make of Bonnie’s comment. I’m just not consistent enough I guess?
Susan
I think your recent posts are entirely in keeping with the character I’ve been able to make out by reading your contributions over the last ten months or so: that of a sceptic with a heart of gold.
More power to you.
As I understand it, there is an official church in the UK – the Church of England – which makes the issue of calling it “marriage” even thornier there than it is in the U.S. In the U.S., at least, we can honestly say that no church will be forced to recognize same-sex marriage if that’s not what they believe in; but that’s the case in a country with an offical state church.
Of course, it may be I’ve completely misunderstood the situation.
Folks, please try to discuss issues, not other posters.
Susan
Lorenzo
I too used to think that feminism encompassed a broad range of views. In fact I used to describe myself (perhaps rather smugly, I see now) as a feminist, believing as I did that sexual discrimination against women was a serious evil, for them and for the other half of society too, and that they should be encouraged to play a role befitting their numbers and talents in public life. I haven’t stopped believing in any of that, but I would hesitate to call myself a feminist these days: the bar has been raised.
Some of the feminists who post here would regard it as virtually, if not altogether, impossible for a man to be a feminist. If you think that that’s an exaggeration on my part, take a look at Ginmar’s website and the prescription you would have to follow to be considered a feminist in her eyes: you would have not only to utterly forswear the Patriarchy, but reject all those tainted with male sexism (it might be your brother, it might be your father, no matter – feminism for men is a vocation or it is nothing!): in short you would have to die to the world and live exclusively in the consciousness of women’s suffering. Evidently, only an infinitesimal number of men are going to make the grade. And Ginmar speaks with a voice that many radical feminists recognize as authentic and representative.
What I’m trying to get it is: when some of the feminists here say that, so far as they are concerned, the only profitable discussions are those to be had with other feminists, they are not referring to a “broad paradigm” at all. Ampersand himself is no longer a feminist in the eyes of Anashi, for example, and if she believes that there is nothing to be gained from an exchange with non-feminists, then she can ignore his replies to her with a good conscience.
In view of the fact that narrowing the meaning of feminism seems to be a preoccupation of some of the posters here, Susan’s comments were quite justified.
Women too, Tom. Speaking for myself, I just plain don’t have time. Among other things, I have to work and help support my family, and my children aren’t all raised yet.
Thank you for your kind words…. “heart of gold” I donno about.
I’m just coming from a different place than many here. I’m a woman, but that doesn’t make me a feminist. Certainly not in the almost religious sense described above.
I believe, as you put it
As a professional woman, it’s a bit self-serving, I guess, for me to believe that, but I’m sure not, at this late date, going to decide that I ought to have been more discriminated against, or ought to be discriminated against now.
I’m guessing from what I’m hearing here that that by no means makes me a feminist, but I’m not up at night over that, because that’s just one more label, and one used by people who have no more authority than, well, than I give them, I guess, and I don’t. I don’t care whether anyone thinks I’m a feminist or not.
Not everyone’s experience in this life is exactly like ginmar’s, or exactly like mine, or exactly like bean’s, or exactly like Tom’s. My experience is not less valid than, say, ginmar’s, nor is hers less valid than mine.
All this arose because Amp, who of course is well within his rights, posted some elaborations of his moderation rules, and invited us to discuss all this. Nice of him, since he is under no obligation whatever to listen to any of us on this topic. Some people here think his new formulation useful. After asking a few questions, which he answered most gracefully, I am of that camp. I’ve learned a great deal, here and elsewhere, talking with people I don’t necessarily agree with on every point, and I’m glad that Ampersand intends to continue to host that kind of forum.
The most important “rule” he has posted, in my view, is the rule that we must all treat each other with respect, and refrain from personal attacks.
_________
Interesting post about the Established Church, Amp. I have many close friends in England, some of them big fans of the C of E, but this dimension of the marriage debate never occurred to me. That’s gotta have something to do with the rather odd posture in which they all find themselves right now on this issue?
Tom, when I click on your link to ginmar’s website I got an ad from Microsoft for the X-box? Complete with cool music?
Sorry about not getting that link to work, Susan. I did my best to follow the instructions Amp gives for creating them, but obviously cocked it up. But Ginmar’s blog is called “A View from a Broad”. Oddly enough it doesn’t seem to be on that list of links to “Blogs discussing feminism” that is normally to be found on the left-hand side of the page. Anyway, just put “A View from a Broad”, or “Ginmar” on its own into a search engine, and it should come up at once. It’s very definitely an eye-opener.
Bean: I think that Amp’s reprimand was more directed against my little bit of pro-Susan gush, there. I won’t do it again. Just the Christmas bonhommie and sherry talking!
Thanks, Tom, I was certain I was doing something wrong myself. I’m not too clever with these machines.
Merry Christmas or Holiday Of Your Choice!
What I’m trying to get it is: when some of the feminists here say that, so far as they are concerned, the only profitable discussions are those to be had with other feminists, they are not referring to a “broad paradigm” at all. Ampersand himself is no longer a feminist in the eyes of Anashi, for example, and if she believes that there is nothing to be gained from an exchange with non-feminists, then she can ignore his replies to her with a good conscience.
In view of the fact that narrowing the meaning of feminism seems to be a preoccupation of some of the posters here, Susan’s comments were quite justified.
Not quite. You fail to note that the views of feminist posters who participate here are hardly alike either, though you might not have realized that given that they are so often thrust into re-inventing the wheel that it may seem that they have the same views.
I also think you’re simply assuming that none of the feminist posters here would agree that there is a very broad spectrum of viewpoints within feminism which I know to be a croc from having participated on various discussion boards with feminists for years, including boards where most of the feminist powers here have or continue to participate.
The parts of your post I haven’t addressed, I’ve avoided because I believe they divert from the topic at hand and I don’t want to get into any of the following (‘ginmar is a feminist boogeywoman’ ‘can men be feminists?’ and ‘but the feminists here are big meanies!’)
I think that there’s an alternate explanation for the warnimg system you’ve observed, Bean. Rather than either haphazard warnings or biased warnings, I think it’s possible that what’s going on is that the people who are generally in favor of a policy of courtesy get to reap its benefits while someone who has utterly rejected treating other posters with courtesy doesn’t, so much.
Ginmar has more or less announced that the rules don’t apply to her, continues to insult other posters personally and with profanity, insults Amp, calls him names, has announced more than once that she’s leaving because we all suck, and then doesn’t. I’ve got no problem treating her with courtesy, but I’ve sort of figured out that I’ll never be able to expect it in return, so I just ignore her.
An actual series of arguments she made was more or less:
“Robert drives away feminist posters and never gets asked to cool it!”
Amp responded: “Actually, I’ve asked him to cool it a few times, and I’ve recieved more email complaining about your bullying from female feminist posters than I ever have for Robert.”
Rather than considering why that might be the case, or questioning whether perhaps her venom hurts her arguments, her response was to suggest that Amp was just lying.
Then AlieraKieron showed up, identified herself as female and feminist, and said “I have never been intimidated out of a thread by one of the male commenters. I do, however, avoid posting, because according to some, I’m just not feminist enough, and I’ll then have to endure a long stream of violent vitriol.” In other words, she backed up Amp’s statement.
Ginmar responded by blowing off her statement, with “I do like your setting yourself up as the standard, though.” In a stunning blow to the concept of irony, she also said that AK’s argument would be more effective “if you dropped your fucking attitude.”
In other words, when Ginmar says that people are driven off the board by Robert and not her, the firsthand accounts of women who have been intimidated from posting because of her are immaterial, and the statements of Amp as to what other female, feminist posters have e-mailed him are immaterial. It’s okay to accuse people of lying when what they say doesn’t square with your assumptions, and it’s okay to disregard women’s experiences when they’re personally uncomfortable to accept.
It’s not my board. I want to have a civil discussion. Amp sets the rules, and I will abide by them, period. But . . . if anyone else (I suspect including Robert) pulled the stuff she’s pulled, they’d be gone, and he would be right to do so.
I disagree with you on many issues, Bean, although I think we agree on more than we disagree on. The same is true of me and Sheelzebub, Jesurgislac, Alsis39, Radfem, Qgrrl, and many other posters who fall more towards the radical feminist end of the feminism spectrum. I DO NOT find personal attacks on any of you to be acceptable. Although we disagree, even vehemently, even (on occasion) outside the bounds of Amp’s civility policy, I respect you all very very much and feel honored to be in discussions that include you.
I strongly feel that what’s going on with Ginmar is something different. It’s not ‘calling a duck a duck.’ It’s not radical honesty. To me it feels like flaming.
—Myca
Not to hijack the thread, but could someone cite some definitions of Radical Feminism you’re using here? My email is erikagillian-at-gmail.com if you’d rather do it off thread.
Also, is there a public discussion site that’s all feminist? Something I can read? Or all radical feminist if that’s what you mean?
Well, I think that some of that is because when one of us responds to Ginmar with disagreement, we recieve abuse in response, but I understand that you don’t see that.
Fair enough. That’s good to know.
Wow. That actually hurts. Still, once again, good to know.
—Myca
Lorenzo
I agree, of course, that there are people identifying *themselves* as feminists on these threads who, though all agreeing that violence and discrimination against women is a bad thing that ought to be done away with, might be unwilling to regard men who rape women as agents of a patriarchal “rape culture”, or be unwilling to see in pornography one of the main tools by which patriarchal society suppresses women. They might regard themselves as feminists, but my contention is that they would not be so regarded by many of the radical feminists posting on these threads. Would you include the kind of self-proclaimed feminists I mention in your “broad paradigm” or not? Because if so, then I’m fairly certain that Alsis, Bean and Ginmar would disagree with you. (Though I’ll correct myself and apologize the moment they say that I’m wrong). And if not, I think you would do better to refer to it as a “narrow” one.
With reference to
I confess myself perplexed. I’ve come across non-rebuttal rebuttals before now, but never a rebuttal non-rebuttal. My reference was not off-topic, given that the object of your own post was to affirm the “broad paradigm” that feminism represents. Ginmar, who is far from a bogeyman and clearly enjoys the esteem of many radical feminists here (see upthread), sets out conditions which would exclude most men from the category of “feminist”, and thus from any discussion of it. How is such an exclusion of voices and points of view not relevant to your “broad paradigm” contention?
Merry Christmas, by the way.
Bean
I am sure that there important differences of ideology and tone between three of you. But my contention was that none of you would accept that people identifying themselves as feminists and agreeing that violence and discrimination against women to be a bad thing that ought to be done away with, but who were nonetheless unwilling to regard men who rape women as agents of a patriarchal “rape culture”, or unwilling to see in pornography one of the main tools by which patriarchal society suppresses women, could in fact be feminists. Tell me it’s untrue (at least so far as you’re concerned) and I’ll apologize by return of post.
Since Bean brings it up, let me mention that I’d prefer people not discuss Ginmar either.
Regarding who is a feminist or not, keep in mind that there’s a range of feminist opinions about all sorts of things – including about how wide a range of views can be considered feminist. Just because such-and-such a feminist describes a view of feminism you don’t subscribe to, doesn’t have to mean that you’re not a feminist. (On the other hand, I don’t want to fall off the other end either, which is saying that ALL views are compatable with feminism).
Robert…[has] never had anything positive to say about feminists, feminism, or women in general
I believe that feminism is the philosophical/social movement that best describes a very wide variety of social and cultural phenomenon, and I’ve said so here. What keeps feminism highly relevant is that (broadly) y’all are the only ones correctly diagnosing some very significant problems. My disagreements with feminist theory come almost exclusively in the realm of the prescriptions, not the descriptions.
I count any number of variegated feminists among my personal friends, and similar numbers among my enemies (to the extent that such a charming and loving soul as myself is capable of maintaining enemies, that is).
As far as women in general go, I have very little to say (and say very little); the grouping is too broad. I derive a lot of my views on women-oriented issues – largely though not entirely with a feminist slant – from my mother and grandmother, very strong women indeed, and I’ve said that here, too (at least about Mom, not sure about Nona.). Both Mom and Nona would probably be solid liberal feminists if it weren’t for the orthodoxy on abortion. The women in my family kick ass, generally speaking; remind me to tell you about the great-grandmother who used to take potshots at revenuers sometime.
Not that it’s reasonable to expect you to have a perfect view of all of these things; just setting the record straight.
ErikaGillian wrote:
I can’t speak for anyone else. For what I mean when I say “radical feminism,” as I wrote in this post a while ago:
None of that is authoritative at all; it’s just what I, personally, mean when I say “radical feminism.”
For a radical feminist forum (open only to female members), you can check out the discussion boards at The Margins.
Tom,
They might regard themselves as feminists, but my contention is that they would not be so regarded by many of the radical feminists posting on these threads. Would you include the kind of self-proclaimed feminists I mention in your “broad paradigm” or not? Because if so, then I’m fairly certain that Alsis, Bean and Ginmar would disagree with you. (Though I’ll correct myself and apologize the moment they say that I’m wrong). And if not, I think you would do better to refer to it as a “narrow” one.
See, this is the problem right here. You’re starting from the conclusions. Many feminist viewpoints may agree that there is a rape culture, for instance, but you will undertsand little about those viewpoints unless you understand how they get to those conclusions You have to start with the viewpoint, not the conclusions. Looking at it your way you could characterize any viewpoints within a paradigm that reach broadly similar conclusions as being the same, despite having arrived at those conclusions for very different reasons or those conclusions having very different contexts.
Not only that, but given that you ascribe the term “radical feminist” wholly uncritically to many of the feminist posters here, its clear that you aren’t even familiar with what radical feminism is and what it entails.
radical feminism doesn’t mean that it has more ‘extreme’ views or conclusions. It entails a broad methodological program shared by a few feminist viewpoints. Radical feminism isn’t even a single viewpoint, much less one that can be ascribed to feminists simply on the basis of their conclusions on different issues.
As bean points out, your uncritical application of the term is unintentionally funny.
I confess myself perplexed. I’ve come across non-rebuttal rebuttals before now, but never a rebuttal non-rebuttal. My reference was not off-topic, given that the object of your own post was to affirm the “broad paradigm” that feminism represents. Ginmar, who is far from a bogeyman and clearly enjoys the esteem of many radical feminists here (see upthread), sets out conditions which would exclude most men from the category of “feminist”, and thus from any discussion of it. How is such an exclusion of voices and points of view not relevant to your “broad paradigm” contention?
Because I don’t feel comfortable talking about ginmar’s views, as I don’t presume to be able to speak for her nor to know what her views. If she wishes to talk about them, that’s up to her.
Secondly because feminism is a broad paradigm regardless. It’s not hard to find this out for yourself. Do a little looking and it will become apparent.
Oh and happy holidays to yourself.
It might be helpful to reflect that “radical” and “extreme” are not synonyms.
The word radical derives from radix, meaning “root”. A radical program or plan is one that goes directly to root causes. This certainly can be and often is extreme, but it doesn’t have to be. For example, two “radical feminists” might believes that family structure and dynamics are the root cause of oppression. One of them might think that the solution to this problem is to socially separate women and men and interact only to trade DNA for the propagation of the species. Another might think that improving things will come most reliably through encouraging pro-family-development ideals in men. One of those feminists is extreme, and the other is not, but they’re both radical.
Lorenzo
I simply asked you whether, in your view, the kind of self-proclaimed feminist I mentioned would count as a feminist or not. That seemed to me to be a legitimate question in view of your contention that the best discussions were to be had within a “broad paradigm”. I suspected that it wasn’t so broad as you were implying. You’re now telling me that I asked the wrong question as a way of avoiding the one I did, in fact, pose.
I think you may have a point there ““ not with regard to my not knowing what radical feminism is, but with regard to my concluding too readily from insufficient evidence that Alsis and Bean fell into that category. As I mentioned, if they feel that I have misrepresented their views, I will apologize.
You mean you don’t know what it is either?
She found my putting her in the same basket as Ginmar funny. As I say, perhaps I did her an injustice.
Why ever not? Ginmar’s put her views on the possibility of men becoming feminists in the public domain ““ why should you, I, or anyone refrain from fair comment on them? It’s not as though we were discussing somebody’s private correspondence, is it? I really don’t understand your reticence.
You appear to be saying that it’s a broad paradigm because it’s a broad paradigm? I will indeed have to look elsewhere for enlightenment.
It’s too late for me to enjoy the holiday, by the way. Three days of influenza in deserted dorm a thousand miles from home. Ah, me.
Bean, I apologize unreservedly for making the incorrect assumption that you view a relaxed attitude to pornography and genuine feminism as incompatible. Really, I’m sorry.
ErikaGillian Writes: Not to hijack the thread, but could someone cite some definitions of Radical Feminism you’re using here?
Radical feminist: Someone whose beliefs will be mainstream feminism in two or three decades, and mainstream liberal thinking in three or four decades, and just plain mainstream in six or seven decades.
I think it’s useful to allow MRAs, FRAs, anti-feminists and right-wingers into discussions on *some* feminist blogs for one reason: Ignoring the right wing doesn’t work. It was already tried in the public forum decades ago and as a result, the right wing controls most of public discourse today. I would hate to see that happen on the Internet too.
That said, there should be feminist sites free of that right-wing influence. Alas, A Blog doesn’t have to be one of them, but it’s nice to know you can go *some* places on the ‘Net and find safe space for women.
Tom,
I suspected that it wasn’t so broad as you were implying. You’re now telling me that I asked the wrong question as a way of avoiding the one I did, in fact, pose.
Such as individual as you mentioned would generally be considered a feminist, provided they had arrived at their positions after thinking critically about them from a feminist perspective rather than accepting them uncritically. Which was the whole point I was making. Its how the conclusions are arrived at that is central, just knowing the conclusions themselves doesn’t tell you very much about how they were arrived at.
You mean you don’t know what it is either?
Hardly. As a broad methodology radical feminism(s) generally share locating gender oppression as the root and model oppression for other oppressions, class analysis on the basis of gendered classes, and a strong focus on trying to locate the central mechanism or basis used to impose and maintain that gendered oppression. Within radical feminism there are essentialist, anti-essentialist and historical materialist (but not Marxist/socialist) strains.
You’ll note that this definition, one I think is fairly reasonable, focuses on method which goes back to the point I have emphasizing.
You appear to be saying that it’s a broad paradigm because it’s a broad paradigm? I will indeed have to look elsewhere for enlightenment.
I say that because I don’t see any reason to believe that you will believe me regardless nor that you will actually do the work of finding out about feminism and the various perspectives contained within it.
And Tom, you are categorizing ginmar’s comments about male feminists dishonestly and incorrectly, and I have a feeling you know it. Let me ask you something. If you really think men have to totally renounce their families, their friends, and other men in order to embrace feminism, are you trying to tell us that most of the world is hostile to women’s rights? If so, does that not seem problematic to you? If not, why not? What is it about the concept of women having equal rights with men that bothers you?
You’re ruining it for me, bean. :p
We could have a new subcategory for me, I guess: Unlettered Radical Feminists. :D
Yeah, I’m not exactly a radical feminist(though in all fairness, my username implies otherwise. Compared to most feminists in my city, I’m probably more radical, but still not Radical if that makes sense.)
(side drift: alsis, you know those really scary toilet seats. My parents actually have one! :x)
This is an interesting discussion on many levels.
I think there’s a bit of perhaps inevitable linguistic confusion built into the question, “Is X a feminist?”
Let us take the question, “Is X an American?” This is a question which is fairly easy to answer; indeed, we need not consult X at all. There is an organization, the government of the United States, which keeps track of questions like this, and can tell us whether X is a citizen of the United States or not, indeed, what X’s precise relationship to this country is.
There is no comparable situation as to “feminism.” One does not hold documented citizenship in it, nor, unlike Catholicism, is one baptized into it. Apparently, saying, “I believe that men and women should be treated equally,” does not automatically make one a “feminist”, at least according to some “feminists.” Certainly, merely being a woman doesn’t get you anywhere in and of itself. (I am putting the word in quotes because it is hard for an outsider to tell who qualifies.)
And yet we have been assured here that not just any old position qualifies one as a “feminist.” That seems to answer to common sense. It’s when we get into the details of just what sorts of positions d0 qualify one as a “feminist” (and, according to whom exactly?) that we run into trouble.
Since all this is quite subjective, it is unlikely that we will resolve the definition of “feminism” here (or anywhere else).
Well, obviously, since I am a woman, and since I’ve built my entire professional career on insisting on being treated equally with my male colleagues, sometimes in the teeth of right-up-front in-your-face sexism (sexists were a lot less subtle 30 years ago than they are now) I think women should be treated equally with men. Duh. However, I don’t think most of the “feminists” here think I’m quite good enough to be called a “feminist.” But then again, since the whole thing is subjective, if I think I’m a “feminist”, and since I certainly subscribe to the core belief (equality), I guess I am one anyway.
I don’t see why this kind of reasoning shouldn’t work for Ampersand, by the way. Or Tom. Or anyone else.
Just to remind folks again, please stop discussing Ginmar here.
Thank you.
Dana
As we are not allowed to discuss G, I can only refer you to her blog and ask you to read the relevant passage. I really do not think my precis misrepresented it; it is, after all, quite hard to misunderstand such direct and forceful prose.
No, of course I don’t think that; I do support equality to the fullest extent for women, and I am convinced that discrimination and violence against women is an evil which ought to be brought to an end. And I’ve done my best to act (not to mention vote) in accordance with those beliefs. Embracing women’s rights is one thing, though, and being considered a feminist is another – as the blog we’re talking about makes clear.
Nothing at all.
Alsis, Bean:
I’ve just discovered why I was so trigger happy in assuming the two of you to be radical feminists. It’s partly Amerpersand’s fault, who wrote, further up thread (post 54)
Though I *still* shouldnt’ have been so casual about taking your names in vain.
Lorenzo
First of all: thank you for counting me in. But this notion of “method” you make so much of ““ that how one arrives at a given political stance is crucial to determining whether one is to be identified with that stance ““ is new to me, and somewhat intriguing. Who cares, for example, by what intellectual or emotional route sexists, fascists, racists etc. come to there positions? ““ it is enough for us to know that they have, in fact, adopted those positions when (for example) the question arises as to whether they should be allowed to post on a site like this. You wouldn’t say, would you, that such people were not really sexist, fascist, racist etc just because they had never read or understood the “theory” relating to those aberrations? So I am somewhat bewildered at your making “critical thinking” so crucial a condition to feminism: a feminist, surely, is someone who believes and acts in accordance with certain beliefs ““ the system of analysis by which they came to those beliefs seems to me to be quite irrelevant.
I thank you for your second definition of radical feminism, which is far richer in content than the first. But I still think your emphasis on “methodology” renders it dubious.
One could do adopt all those beliefs and assumptions (I’m not quite sure why you refer to them as “a broad methodology” ““ is this some specialist use of the word?) and nonetheless decide that the oppression of women, as guarantor of so many other oppressions, served one’s turn, and choose to do nothing to undermine it. It seems to me that mere *analysis* cannot be crucial in identifying feminists (radical or otherwise).
I’m sorry to read that, because I have been arguing in good faith. And I think this debate is beginning to get interesting. What say you?
Tom Nolan wrote:
Oh, hell. I don’t mind. It’s just funny because I’ve never read anything in the Radical Feminist canon. Not that I can think of offhand, anyway. I think my views of electoral politics are pretty radical compared to most, but that’s not exactly the same.
radfem: I hope your parents went with sea green or punch pink. Those are the best. :D
Tom,
But this notion of “method” you make so much of ““ that how one arrives at a given political stance is crucial to determining whether one is to be identified with that stance ““ is new to me, and somewhat intriguing. Who cares, for example, by what intellectual or emotional route sexists, fascists, racists etc. come to there positions? ““ it is enough for us to know that they have, in fact, adopted those positions when (for example) the question arises as to whether they should be allowed to post on a site like this. You wouldn’t say, would you, that such people were not really sexist, fascist, racist etc just because they had never read or understood the “theory” relating to those aberrations? So I am somewhat bewildered at your making “critical thinking” so crucial a condition to feminism: a feminist, surely, is someone who believes and acts in accordance with certain beliefs ““ the system of analysis by which they came to those beliefs seems to me to be quite irrelevant.
That’s not at all an accurate analogy. As for most of us, we find the core beliefs and views shared by all bigots to be repugnant, thus why would we care as to which strand or faction within each of those headings led to which of the conclusions, all of which we find repugnant?
The issue was how to distinguish views within feminism, beyond the fundamental beliefs that all strains of feminism share.
That a feminist being pro-porn is importantly distinguished by whether they have simply accepted the standard view of porn or have thought about the issue from a feminist perspective. That’s what distinguishes a pro-porn feminist from a pro-porn liberal or whatever else. Of course, this shoudln’t be construed to mean that any position is tenable from a feminist framework. There are many views that are basically incompatible with any of the main viewpoints within feminism.
Which is really too long a way and discussion to try and communicate the simple point that you shouldn’t assume that just because a broad spectrum of feminists agree on something (lets say, for example, pay equity) that this necessarily tells you much about their broader feminist viewpoint and that feminists who disagree on any number of other issues can nontheless still agree on many others. In order to understand the breadth of feminism you need to find out about the core beliefs of different views (i.e. those that distinguish them from other views within feminism), not just assume their similarity because they agree on certain issues. In other words, you have to read up on it to find out what feminists believe and what the different sets of beliefs are that distinguish different strands of feminism.
This should hardly be a shocking thing. Same goes for any other social movement. You have to do your homework to know what the various factions or strands in any social movement believe and why and what distinguishes them from each other.
I thank you for your second definition of radical feminism, which is far richer in content than the first. But I still think your emphasis on “methodology” renders it dubious.
How would you know? Without looking into what the core beliefs shared by radical feminists are yourself, how would you know whether or not my definition was an accurate reflection of those beliefs?
One could do adopt all those beliefs and assumptions (I’m not quite sure why you refer to them as “a broad methodology” ““ is this some specialist use of the word?) and nonetheless decide that the oppression of women, as guarantor of so many other oppressions, served one’s turn, and choose to do nothing to undermine it. It seems to me that mere *analysis* cannot be crucial in identifying feminists (radical or otherwise).
Well, my focus on core beliefs was hardly intended to exclude practice, as feminism (as a social movement) is broadly characterized by an emphasis on practice within all of its strands.
And with that, I think I’m done with this conversation for now. I’ve already spent more time on this than I wanted to and I don’t feel like spending any more time on it. I’m sure, though, that if I *do* participate more frequently here in comments, that we’ll run into each other again.
Fair enough, Lorenzo, we’ll leave it there, then. I appear to be recovering from my inluenza and will hopefully be able to get out and do something more useful with my time for the rest of this vacaction. But, as you say, our paths may cross again…