A while back, after I’d participated in some fairly intense threads here at Alas defending woman-only space in general, and woman-only internet boards (mine, in particular), Amp asked me if I’d like to start blogging regularly on Alas. I’ve been thinking about his invitation for some time now, and a couple of times I’ve written something, even threatened Amp that I was about to begin. Each time, though, I’ve ultimately decided not to, for the same reasons I haven’t posted at Alas for a long, long, time. There are just so many anti-feminist posters here. There are way too many men here, and too many of them seem to be here for the express purpose of making feminist discussion unlikely to impossible. It seemed too likely to me that attempting serious feminist discussion here would be like trying to have a conversation in a bar while the band was playing, just too frustrating.
A couple of days ago, Ginmar posted to my boards, alerting me to the treatment she was receiving here and to the fact that she had finally left Alas. I read her
I first encountered Amp on the old Ms boards, where there were the same ongoing problems with trolls, men’s rights activists, anti-feminists, libertarians, conservatives. Eventually, frustrated with how difficult it was to simply engage feminist women over issues of importance to us, I began what became a series of over 50 woman-only threads expressly for radical feminist women. Lots of people on the Ms boards, including feminist women, objected to those threads at first, but over time, their value became apparent even to those who at first opposed them. In the woman-only, radical feminist women’s space threads, women were at last able to enjoy serious discussions of feminist issues with far fewer of the intrusions and obfuscations typical of those who were on the Ms boards with one purpose and goal in mind: to silence and erase the voices of feminists, and especially feminist radicals, militants and separatists.
I think it’s great that Amp has revised the moderation policies here to make separate threads for men’s rights people and anti-feminists. I think that is definitely a step in the right direction. I would like to propose the creation of woman-only, radical feminist threads here as well, of the type some of us enjoyed back in the old Ms boards days, of the type we enjoy every day on my own boards. It seems to me that if space can be made for anti-feminists and fathers’ rights trolls here, it might make sense to make similar space for those of us who are radical feminists, separatists, and militants. I think it’s a shame that our presence on these boards is all but gone. Feminist women who share our politics and beliefs and history created a revolution in our time on behalf of the people of women, first and foremost, but ultimately benefitting all people — men, women, and children, and creatures and the earth as well. It seems to me that space should be made here for the kinds of discussions and discourses which have changed and are changing the world.
Woman-only, radical feminist space here won’t prevent anyone from discussing the issues we raise (in other threads which they create). What it will ensure is that our voices are not silenced and erased completely. And it might work to minimize the provocations which inexorably lead to flame wars and targeting and the uncivil posting styles which are often criticized here. So whaddya say, Amp? I’m pretty sure this isn’t what you anticipated I might post as a first post to your blog! It’s just that I haven’t been up for dealing with men’s rights guys and anti-feminists and trolls. I’ve done that to death and can’t give it my energy anymore. But I’d sure be up for creating a new space here for those who share my own separatist, radical, and militant feminist politics. I’d enjoy engaging the issues raised in the radical feminist threads outside of those threads here as well. And for what it’s worth, I’m betting the discussion which ensues now will be interesting.
Heart (Cheryl)
http://www.womensspace.org ( The Margins)
Pingback: DaRain Man
Pingback: feminist blogs
Pingback: feminist blogs
Pingback: Z'escrap
Pingback: The Navel of the Internet
Pingback: the world as seen through gold and green
Pingback: Shiny Ideas
Pingback: Where you from, Kansas?
Pingback: feminist blogs
Pingback: ban-sidhe.org
Pingback: 11D
Pingback: core/dump
Pingback: The Argument Clinic
Pingback: Egotistical Whining
I think before any radical feminists post here Ampersand needs to apologise to Ginmar for the way he has treated her.
In fact, by posting here women are giving Ampersand endorsement that he doesn’t deserve. He hasn’t displayed any interest in standing up for women when it really matters, what he has done is ban women or dismiss their feminist criticisms of his actions.
Why aren’t feminist women standing up for Ginmar? Why didn’t more women leave here in disgust when Paige and Funnie were banned?
Hey Little Violet. My post today is me, standing up for Ginmar. And against the bannings of radical feminist women including Paige and funnie. I think we deserve a spot here, certainly if mens’ rights activists and antifeminists, do.
Heart
Goodbye, Amp et al. I don’t think I’ll be back.
I realise that’s what you are doing Heart (BTW I’m Quine from the Ms Boards just so you know who you’re talking to) but I guess I’d say leave them to it. What’s so great about this space anyway? Ampersand treats feminists and anti-feminists as if our positions had moral equivalence. Why do radical feminists have to request space from a man in the first place? I can’t honestly imagine having real feminist discourse in a place run by and for a man, especially a man who has behaved in such a sexist manner towards women previously e.g. telling stories about how Ginmar had had more complaints made about her here than anyone else, or allowing sexists to tell lies about her positions.
This blog isn’t like the Ms Boards. The Ms Boards were a feminist institution, this place most certainly isn’t. Leave it to the MRAs.
Heart,
Excellent post. At first I read it wrong and was thinking – oh shit, by those standards I couldn’t even post to Alas, but then realised you were speaking about threads that were limited to radical feminists only. I certainly think I’d benefit from reading such threads (though I consider myself more of a socialist feminist so would likely be hesitant to participate). I’ve been following the threads from Michigan (visiting family) so haven’t had much of a chance to discuss any of what is going on with Amp, so am a bit out of the loop. I do, however, agree that many of us – myself included – appreciate and value the voice that Ginmar brings to Alas. I don’t always agree with her, but none the less, I absolutely value her contributions as from the heart, meaningful and definitively feminist. She’s certainly not trolling and her reasons for being here have been a clear attempt to fight the good fight as it were.
Threads closed to all but a certain set of people seem like a reasonable approach to me.
Hey, littleviolet/Quine, good to read you, it’s been a while. I don’t think I’m requesting anything from a man — more like making a demand. I think that everything we get, as women under male supremacy, we have to take somehow, wrest out of the control of men, including our space in the blogosphere, on the internet. As I posted, I haven’t joined in discussions here for quite some time. I also haven’t blogged here until today, although Amp invited me months and months and months ago. But in view of the creation of separate space for misogynists and anti-feminists, I am seizing the day, proposing space for radical feminist women only which we control. For better or for worth, as irritating and aggravating as it is to some of us us, it is a male run feminist blog, Alas, which gets read by a whole lot of people. And it is missing our voices, pretty much.
Kim, thanks for the good words.
Heart
I’m a member of the opposition, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to restrict certain threads to radical feminist posters. Ideally it would be preferable to discriminate based on content rather than on the beliefs of the posters, but I realize that that may be impractical.
That said, I don’t see why they should be restricted to female posters, and frankly the suggestion seems to me to confirm some negative stereotypes about certain types of radical feminists. For example, I don’t see why a man like Ampersand, who at times strikes me as trying too hard to be sympathetic to women and women’s issues (like when he said that he had seriously considered exempting female feminists from moderation), should be barred from participating based solely on his sex.
I’m all for it. I can see no valid reasons not to have Woman (or Radical Feminist Woman) only threads. My interactions with the more passionate and knowledgeable feminists who have commented at Alas have allowed me to learn things that I don’t think I would have learned otherwise. I see your proposal as an opportunity for me to learn more stuff w/o having to wade through the trolls and same old, same old.
That said, I would find it helpful to have associated threads open for all for both questions (should anybody wish to answer) and commentary (as it would be interesting for me to see what others take from the restricted threads).
And there I go messing up my tags. Sorry ’bout that.
I only recently discovered Alas, and it has quickly become one of my favourite blogs. I read it daily, and have been slowly going though the older posts and reading up on a variety of issues. I have only posted comments a few times, because I like to lurk for a while and get a feel for a board or blog so I don’t make an ass of myself. As a lifelong feminist, I think it’s kinda funny that the post that makes me delurk is one that is supposed to be offerring some kind of solution to the silencing of feminists voices on this blog. I am by no means a radical feminist, but I’m certainly no liberal either, and I would probably be called a radical by those who are unaware that it refers to a very specific kind of feminism.
I hate the idea of women-only, radical feminist threads here. I have read other boards that Heart posts on, and I think she is transphobic and a bully. I’m guessing that women-only in the context of Heart’s version of radical feminism is going to be limited to “womyn-born-womyn,” i.e, it will explicitly exclude trans women. I am a non-trans women, but since I do not support their exclusion, am I to be categorized as a misogynist or an anti-feminist? Am I unwelcome? Is this really how the lines are being drawn here?
Cheryl, even though I vehemently disagree with the idea of banning the anti-feminists (although many trolls can take a hike) or men’s rights activists and creating radical feminist only space or threads on this blog, I think you make some excellent points about the silencing of women.
However, I would like to add another perspective. I consider myself a multiracial feminist, and much of my feminist activism and ideology is shaped by my anti-racist activism. Although most of my academic work is racism, I see racism a one of many forms of domination and oppression, which of course means that I see the feminist big four race/ethnicity, class, gender, and sexuality as fundamentally shaping the social structure (and certainly we could add more religion, age, disability, and so on). What makes radical feminism great is its persistent and unrelenting focus on challenging patriarchy and in particular issues such as violence against women and the silencing of women, but one of the great weaknesses of radical feminism is (which to a degree is also its strength) that it places sexism above all other oppressions.
In many ways, radical feminism suffers from the same problems Black nationalism. Black nationalism is great at critiquing white racism and promoting empowerment and self help for Black men, and this is often done in an all Black environment. The Nation of Islam does not allow Whites in their mosques, for many of the same reasons you don’t want men to participate in radfem threads or boards–whites simply have voices and spaces everywhere.
What both of these perspectives ignore is the extent to which all radfem women’s groups or all black nationalist groups themselves still end up silencing some of the members of the group because of what Patricia Hill Collins calls the matrix of domination. Radical feminist can be racist, heterosexist, and classist, which can silence some women. When the overwhelming focus of the discussion is on issues that are of primary interest for middle class White women, this is what will happen. The radical White feminist often end up running the discussion (just like the Black nationalist men, who use patriarchy to their advantage) and the problem of silencing is replicated in a different way. Rather than men silencing us; we women silence each other.
I am always leery of the notion of separatism even though I find some uses for it. It does allow us to push the boundaries and come up with ideas that may be unpopular with the mainstream, but it doesn’t end the silencing. It merely changes it, so rather than being silenced by the men’s rights activists and anti-feminists, we (women) silence each other because we don’t fit the right ideology, race, class, sexuality, and so on. I know it sounds a little hopeless, but all of the oppressions have to be addressed simultaneously as the feed off of each other. I feel like for that to be done we need an identity politics that is not based on exclusion. It’s really hard to dismantle the masters house by using the master’s tools, so using exclusion to fight exclusion is at the very least ironic and at the very worst oppressive.
Part of the reason I make the personal decision to engaged in a multiracial multigender dialogue on my blog is that I feel I can make more in roads in addressing these oppressions when I have everyone’s ear. The problem with combining identity politics and exclusion is that we reach a point where we can only dialogue with those who are of the same race, gender, class, sexuality, (dis)abiliy, age, and so on (and multiracial feminism surely suffers from this problem too.). Taken to it’s extreme logical conclusion this would ultimately this would mean I could only dialogue with myself. So here is the difficulty for me…..how do we address the multiple form of oppression in mixed groups without silencing anybody? When if ever is it appropriate to exclude people based on their identity? I see some need for feminist space, but I’m leery of cutting out the guys entirely, and I definitely don’t want to get rid of profeminist men. I also hate to see the feminist in-fighting, where we police the ranks of feminism and argue with each other incessantly (radical vs. liberal vs Marxist vs. multiracial). With that said, my critique come with respect for your viewpoint and with the utmost respect for my radical feminist sisters who have pushed the boundaries and challenged patriarchy. I’ll be fighting patriarchy my left hand and racism with my right (and I guess I’ll have to use my feet for the other isms).
Just my 2 cents (well more like 22 cents).
Sorry I didn’t realize that it was that damn long….LOL!! I’m passionate about my feminist politics.
[shrug.] If Heart wants her threads here to be for radical feminists only, I have no problem with it. I also don’t know why Ginmar had to be pushed off the boards so the likes of jaketik could continue to blather on about themselves in every thread– as if they had paid not one whit of attention to any of the moderation discussion. Oh, let’s not mince words. They didn’t pay attention. They don’t give a shit. Why are they still here ?
There’s a lot I could say about the extremely rosy view of life on the Ms. Boards as espoused by Heart and littleviolet (funny that the latter has never mentioned before now that she’s a Ms. Vet), but I think that I’ll pass for now. I support the existence of spaces like the Margins, but I have good reasons for not posting there. I doubt that I would post in any thread headed by Heart or Quine, either, even if I had the Radical Feminist Stamp of Approval. Once bitten, twice shy, and all that.
I really like what Rachel S. wrote. I consider myself part of the third-wave of feminism, however hard to pin down that may be. I am unwilling to separate issues of race, class, gender, disability, and sexuality. Radical feminists have been criticized, and rightly so IMHO, for their exclusion of intersecting oppressions. That being said, they are, of course, entitled to their space on the internet, I just don’t understand why it has to be here since Alas has always struck me as a blog that is pretty good at dealing with intersecting oppressions.
I won’t be posting here Alsis, don’t worry. I don’t have any rosy views of the Ms Boards, they were however feminist and run for feminists. There was no place for anti-feminists and misogynists on them.
I respectfully suggest that feminists who find themselves attacking Amp take a careful look at their goals. Bear with me a paragraph or two, please:
Amp is perhaps the most consistently careful, even-handed and, for want of a better term, evidence based participant in internet discourse I’ve ever met. He’s unfailingly civil and goes out of his way to be fair. He is strongly pro-feminist; I’m astonished to find anyone seriously denying that.
My view of Amp is the product of some years reading this blog and others, and I’m probably, for the most part, going to ignore anyone who just rails against him for being insufficiently feminist. The internet is vast and noisy, and I don’t have time to give everyone full, respectful consideration of their views. That’s a sad fact of cyberlife. I have to have filters, and trusted agents; Amp is one of those.
I am, I hope, a man whom feminists can reach — it’s not a waste of your time to point out to me that there are things I don’t see, things I’m doing wrong. You can change my behaviour by doing that. A somewhat minor example: I no longer automatically offer my seat on the bus to women my own age (unless they have, you know, a broken leg), it having been pointed out to me that doing so reinforces old, unhelpful stereotypes about male/female interactions. Not minor: I no longer favour legalization of prostitution, having been convinced by discussions here on Alas that decriminalization for prostitutes but not for johns is the preferable course of action.
So my point (finally!) is this: if your goals include changing the behaviour of men like me, make your case very carefully if you want me to stop trusting Amp and this blog as a good place to learn about feminism.
[snicker] Yeah, but an anti-Semite and her apologists were a-okay, as long as they called themselves “radical feminists.” Whatever, Quine/violet. Nice to know some things never change.
I learned more than I ever wanted to know about the limits of radical feminism from that debacle. Fortunately, I know enough radical feminists who don’t have their heads up their asses to know that there’s still hope for us all.
I’m not proposing anything “headed” by me, really. I’ve got my own websites, boards and other projects, announced and as-yet unannounced, which are already time-consuming and which promise to become more time consuming in the near future. There are good radical feminists here already, though, and others who would likely be here if they were unbanned or apologized-to. I’d envision threads like the old Ms. Boards threads which were reserved for radical feminist womenand protected by them, but open to all women with a genuine interest in topics being discussed. I’m thinking maybe I could begin the threads not only with must my own, but with other radical feminists’ posts.
Thanks to everybody who has been supportive so far, much appreciated. Hey alsis, I know how you feel, but I’ve always appreciated you and still do, just for what it’s worth.
Heart (Cheryl)
Oh, and regarding restricted threads: I agree with what Jake said at #9. I’ll happily read those threads, and will not feel in the least disadvantaged or put-upon by the existence of one small space in which I have to shut up and listen. If experience is any guide, it will do me good.
Hey, littleviolet, I think the Ms boards *teemed* with misogynists and anti-feminists not to mention garden variety bent wieners. I think plenty of space was made for them and eventually they destroyed the place. And I guess I don’t think there is anything at all that is rosy or festive about radical feminism– it acknowledges what is done to women and by whom, and there’s nothing at all rosy about that. So I am not really sure about the “rosy picture” part.
I just think space should be made for women, and in particular, for radical feminist women, which is not subject to the kind of diversion and trolling that happens when space isn’t made and then protected.
Heart (Cheryl)
Could you clarify this a bit, Cheryl? I am a woman but by no means a radical feminist, and I am genuinely interested in feminist topics (and agree with some but not all feminist doctrine). Would I be permitted to post on these threads or not? Just using myself as an example here; I too could benefit from shutting up and listening.
It’s nice of Amp to host this kind of discussion, but anyone who doesn’t like the way he does it should start their own blog, yes?
And… how can whoever makes this decision tell who’s a “radical feminist” and who isn’t? (I’m not even sure everyone in this party could agree on a definition, let alone identifying individuals. Didn’t Q Girl say yesterday or so that she’s the only “radical feminist” posting here? Where does that leave the rest of you?)
And that’s without bringing in the question of just who all these posters are anyway. I’m claiming to be a 60 year old woman lawyer, and as it happens the email address I’ve supplied is my office email, and can thus be traced to a real person, but what if my email was “hahagottcha@hotmail.com”? I could be a 20 year old guy, a 90 year old transvestite, George W. Bush – just anybody.
So, as I think about this, I’m thinking that limiting posting on certain threads to “radical feminists” has got to boil down to limiting posting to “certain persons whose expressed opinions on certain topics I agree with.” Whoever the I may be, in this case Cheryl I guess.
Nothing wrong with that. Since I don’t know what opinions Cheryl holds, I don’t know whether I’m a “radical feminist” for these purposes, but I very much suspect I’m not. In any case, the issues which will probably be discussed (I’m guessing again) may not interest me too much, since at this point I’m more practical than theoretical. But it sounds like fun for those who are interested.
Especially if Amp agrees. If he doesn’t, I guess you’re all thrown back on your own resources.
Typically I reas Alas via the RSS feed and do not read the comments. Initially it was something of a surprise to me to find that there was any controversy here at all – the blog posts themselves are universally feminist freindly and radical feminist leaning in their content and spin.
Obviously the right of a blog owner to enforce a moderation style is one of the perks of runnign ones own blog and certainly one of the core freedoms that the ‘net offers us. As such supporting the new moeration guidelines as the right of the owner of Alas goes without saying.
I’ll have to make sure I check out the comments now, there may be more diversity to this blog than I had thought.
Well, they came, they plundered, got their kicks which they likely reported back elsewhere, and then they were banned or they left. However, their impact on Ms and to a great degree its demise, was minimal, imo, b/c their presense was FTMP. Yes, they diverted conversations and tried to control discourse in women’s space but OTOH, they for a time being, helped patch up the underlying conflicts, fractures and fissures within the community together as every feminist aligned with each other against them, because the anti-feminists and the misogynists were something we could all agree, was a common enemy.
But in times of “peace”, we only brought on our own eventual demise, in the midst of some very good dialoguing. Well, we would have done that probably, if the MS board folks hadn’t done that for us w/ their decision to close the board.
It’s the feminists who brought down Ms, and we all played a part in that, b/c alone, we had that power to do that. A good part of what led to that is what Rachel discussed in her post about identity politics and being pressured to choose one “ism” to be in allegience to, and that “ism” being as it was defined by relatively few women(when compared to the world of women).
That reality is what made the loss of the boards so painful to many people. I know that’s what made it painful to me, even though I had left already.
And it wasn’t women only threads or restricted threads that caused problems at Ms. What caused problems was when White women had problems with not being able to control dialogue on WOC threads, and other examples where there were “(insert) only” threads and those not included who belong to social groups used to being in control were unable to give up that control or to be excluded from discourse. That unwillingness to do do is what creates the problems, not the restricted threads themselves.
So I think if we’re going to have anti-feminist only threads, then definitely radical feminist only threads should be here. I’d like to see that.
God knows, I’ve argued with ginmar at Ms in the past, but I didn’t feel comfortable seeing her gone, and some antifeminists who are just as bad or worse allowed to stay. Others got timeouts, which I think is a good thing to implement. But I do understand it’s the blog administrator’s responsibility to make these decisions. I’ve had to make extremely difficult decisions with my own blog in the past couple days, so I understand it’s not an easy thing.
I think that Soulhuntre points to an interesting fact – that if you only read the posts here, you are not in doubt that this is a feminist site. This is something I think people should not loose sight off.
Now, to the comment threads limited to certain groups – well, I have some adversions against that kind of threads, but am sure I could learn a lot from them. However, as others have pointed out, there might be some pratical problems with them. It would take a high degree of monitoring (or some modifications to the commenting feature) for it to be possible.
Yet, if it is possible, I think we could all learn a great deal from it, and it might make radical feminists feel more at home here.
Susan, on Cheryl’s board one has to be a member to post (but not to read), and presumably to become a member one has to be vetted by Cheryl. A really determined troll could presumably get by the vetting (easily or with difficulty depending on Cheryl’s thoroughness), but would presumably be bounced immediately upon revealing his or her true agenda, so it wouldn’t be worth the effort for most people. The same process (the possibility of being bounced, if not the vetting) would probably apply to radical-feminist-only threads, and the same cost-benefit analysis as well.
And, btw, the clarity of your writing style reveals you to be not GWB. (Don’t let it go to your head: I can’t offhand think of fainter praise.)
Hey, lu (and others), the threads I envision would be open to all women interested in discussing whatever the radical feminist(s) in the thread were discussing at any given moment. The only guidelines would be (1) no men; (2) no trolling or disruptions by antifeminist/men’s rights/father’s rights women. In other words, so long as women were participating in good faith and interested in the subject at hand, they would be welcome to participate, whether they identified as radical feminists or not. The thread would be protected, though, by those known to be, and identifying as, radical feminists, and initial posts would be written by me or those known to me to be radical feminists.
It’s not all that difficult to protect women-only space. I’ve done it on my own boards for going on five years now. Once in a very long while, someone who isn’t a woman slips in under the radar, but soon enough, I figure out who they are and they are history. We successfully protected woman-only space on the Ms boards, too, for the most part. In general, the space was respected by those who participated on the Ms boards and it only got crashed or trolled a very few times over a couple of years. What’s remarkable about that is, we didn’t have any ability to ban anybody or to keep anyone from posting against our will; nevertheless, in general, the thread was respected. That would have to happen here, too. People would have to be willing to respect the thread and the intentions for which it was created.
Heart (Cheryl)
You can determine from a person’s writings whether or not they are a Radical Feminist the same way that you can determine whether or not they are a Secular Humanist. If, on a Secular Humanist only thread, you were to question why nobody thought that morality comes from god, we would know that you are not a Secular Humanist. Similarly, on a Radical Feminist only thread, the moderator will notice if your statements go against any of the core values of Radical Feminism.
As to the technical details of moderating those threads, I’ll leave that to the moderator in question.
Lu,
GWB got pretty decent grades at Yale. Better than John Kerry’s. He’s no genius, granted, but it’s my theory he’s a lot smarter (and hence, a lot more evil) than he lets on. This “Ah shucks Ah’m jus’ a Texan” stuff is a pose, don’t be fooled. The creep.
(Off topic. Sorry.)
Cheryl, this interests me. Are you suggesting that we (women) are so different from men that you can figure out someone’s gender just from what they write??
I certainly wouldn’t undertake to do this (I’d have about a 50/50 chance of guessing right) if I were reviewing legal pleadings or real estate contracts. Of course legal writing is a very specialized craft, highly ritualized.
First of, I want to apologize to everyone if I’m not as responsive as folks would like; this is a busy week at my job, and although there are a lot of questions that perhaps I should address, I won’t be able to spend as much time on “Alas” as I’d prefer.
Heart wrote:
Just to clarify, although for a while “Alas” was possibly the most-read feminist poliblog[*], I’m happy to say that’s not true nowadays. In particular, “Alas” is just a flyspeck compared to Pandagon. I’m pretty sure Feministe gets more readers than “Alas,” too. I suspect there are a bunch of others, by now.
Also, I want to clarify that I only invited you to be a guest poster, not a regular poster – at least, not if “regular” means “long-term.” Here’s what my email to you said:
If you want a long-term blog, Heart – either for you alone, or a groupblog for a group of radical feminists blogging together – I think that’s would be a great idea. There are now a lot of feminist blogs (just look at the sidebar to see some of them!), but very few that could be described as radical feminist blogs. I’d definitely link to you, and I’d be happy to help you set things up, or to provide technical advice, if I can.
That’s just a couple of minor points I wanted to clear up. I’ll post again after I’ve given more thought to what’s written here. Thanks for starting this conversation, Heart.
Quite a few people have taken me for a woman because of my name, so it might be harder to distinguish between men and women that it first appears. Also, the difference between this place and Cheryl’s, is that all the other threads here are open to everybody – that is what makes it harder.
It is of course possible, but it might be that Amp doesn’t feel that it is that direction he wants to go, or that he doesn’t want to invest that much time in this blog.
Susan, yes, I am pretty much saying that. You can’t figure out that someone is a woman strictly based on her writing style, of course, but there are other ways to figure things out. Everybody here on Alas pretty much knows who is a woman and who isn’t, right? On my boards, if someone new registers and I don’t know who they are, I look at their registration information, sometimes I google them, if that doesn’t tell me anything, then I ask other women on the boards if they know who the person is based on their screen name or e-mail address. If nobody knows them and I can’t figure anything out about them, then I approve their registration and wait and see. Eventually, they inevitably do something to out themselves if they aren’t women. I’ve got a list of about 30 people whose registrations I’ve either deactivated or never approved because they outed themselves as men or I knew they were men when they registered or strongly suspected they were men.
And, too, remember that I am saying the threads I’m proposing would not be open to trolling, including by women. A man participating pretending to be a woman would by definition be trolling. The moment that became obvious, he’d be gone.
Heart (Cheryl)
Cheryl, thanks for the clarification.
Susan, it might or might not be easy to tell the sex of a writer, but it would be pretty easy to tell the intent. Over time I think the sex would come out as well. As Cheryl said, it would be dependent primarily on everyone’s good faith and secondarily on the vigilance of the thread participants. I believe it could be done, especially on this board where the vast vast majority of the posters seem to write in good faith. (I know it doesn’t seem that way, but that’s because an exception is 100 times as irritating as anyone else.)
OT: Susan, I did not say he was dumb (I agree with you 100% that he is way smarter than he lets on: Cheney is merely Wormtail to GWB’s Voldemort), merely that he was inarticulate. Big difference. (And he may well write better than he talks, but, speechwriters being what they are, we’ll never know.)
Eventually, they inevitably do something to out themselves if they aren’t women.
Or they don’t, and you never find out they aren’t women. [grin]
I’m a little unclear as to how this would work. I suspect I’m missing some key detail that makes it all resolve easily… or something that’s easily altered to allow your vision to come to pass.
It sounds like you’re proposing the space, but haven’t decided to commit to posting here. Are you offering to join in as a regular co-blogger? Because the alternative I see is Amp starting posts and then not commenting (as he’s not a radical feminist woman).
Also, in the comment policy thread, Amp mentioned that he was debating hanging up blogging altogether, rather than intensifying his comment moderation time. Have you worked out a way to get the banning button for yourself so that you can spare him the moderation of those threads?
All that said– if you’re willing to do the extra work and Amp’s willing to turn the responsibilities over to you (to preserve him from burnout), then I think your threads and moderating style might be very enlightening. Even for those of us who’d only be able to watch.
Thanks, Amp. That’s right, you did ask me to be a guest blogger. Well, it’s been a while, huh.
And you know, of course, I realize anybody can blog anytime they want.
I’m here right now, though, because yours is a feminist blog, and because you did invite me to blog here, whether as a guest blogger or regular blogger. And because I think radical feminists have been and are being silenced here, (and all over the internet, and in the media, and everywhere, for that matter, but it’s our silencing here, right now, that troubles me. ) I think that if provision can be made here for protected space for anti-feminists and men’s rights trolls, then there is some responsibility to see to it that space be made for radical feminists, too. What is the basis for protecting anti-feminist space here while banning radical feminists or allowing for such a hostile environment that we ultimately leave? I’m not saying you can’t have a place like that, obviously; anybody can blog any kind of way. I am saying that it doesn’t sit right. It doesn’t seem right. I think billing a blog as feminist while shutting out the radicals and offering special threads for anti-feminists is just wrong. If you’re going to do that, I think you ought to call your blog something other than a feminist blog.
Cheryl (Heart)
Cheryl, maybe I didn’t catch the nuances, but it was my impression that the “special threads for anti-feminists” Amp was talking about were “offered” in the same spirit that jails are “offered” for shoplifters. Like, “you’re welcome over here, but not in the common space.”
Can anyone define “feminist”? This isn’t a rhetorical question. The word is being tossed about here quite a bit, and I’m feeling that different people mean different things by it.
Just to take myself as an example (so I don’t get whacked for talking about someone else) I’m a 60 year old woman lawyer. I went into law when it was pretty much a male profession, and you wouldn’t believe how I was treated, or the things my male alleged colleagues said to me. Without an iota of shame, by the way. I don’t even believe these stories myself any more. I didn’t “fight for women’s rights” in the sense of a crusade. I didn’t think about it that way. I had a family to support, and I loved my work, and I didn’t fancy being treated badly, so I pretty much gave as good as I got. It was the bold male, I assure you, who said something rude to me twice.
Partly as a result of the efforts of me and my generation, things have changed a lot in the legal profession, though we have yet to achieve perfection. At any rate, no young woman going into law now will ever be treated as we were treated.
Do I think women should be treated equally with men? Well, yeh, what did you think??? That’s kind of a dumb question even.
Nevertheless, I’m pretty sure I don’t qualify as a “feminist” by the standards of anyone here. Not single-minded enough, I’m guessing, though I’m not sure.
___________
Agreed, perhaps GWB is more inarticulate than dumb. Or maybe not. That might be an act too, who can tell.
Heart said:
Hey, lu (and others), the threads I envision would be open to all women interested in discussing whatever the radical feminist(s) in the thread were discussing at any given moment. The only guidelines would be (1) no men; (2) no trolling or disruptions by antifeminist/men’s rights/father’s rights women. In other words, so long as women were participating in good faith and interested in the subject at hand, they would be welcome to participate, whether they identified as radical feminists or not.
I have a problem with these guidelines. The “no men” thing. Do you really think that no man, at any time, can contribute to a discussion? Shouldn’t each person be judged by their merits, not by their sex? Isn’t that one of the main things feminists fight for? To be judged on who they are, what they can do, what they can offer? Not what their sex is.
Heart, I have nothing in principle against women-only threads here (just as I was in favor of them on the Ms Boards). If you want to guest post, and make your threads women-only spaces, that’s cool with me.
However, I have a few concerns.
1) I’m not comfortable providing space for women-born-women only threads (i.e., threads that ban transsexuals from posting).
2) Someone other than me would have to moderate those threads, obviously.
3) Some of the folks you object to me banning from “Alas” have said pretty disgusting things about me (i.e., darkly muttering about pedophelia when I post photos of my honorary nieces, lying that I had gotten multiple women pregnant, etc). I don’t want to create space for “open season on Amp” threads.
4) I was beat up a lot as a kid. I’m not saying that to garner sympathy, but to try and make you understand that I can’t deal with bullies. And although you can’t see it, some of your radfem friends are bullies, imo.
I’m concerned that you may be expecting me to do the work of maintaining and paying for the blog, and to turn this blog into safe space for people who trigger me (and for it to therefore cease being safe space for me). I’m not sure that’s a fair thing for you to demand.
If we can get past these four issues, then I think we can experiment with women-only threads on “Alas.”
[Edited to remove something that could have diverted the thread]
Hi Susan, could you maybe explain what you believe feminism should be about or your ideas about it or why you consider yourself not to be a feminist. I think from what you’ve told us about your background that you were actively living the struggle that feminists here talk about (not that they don’t live the struggle themselves). Do you think there’s a disconnect between feminism (which seems to just be a lot theory and talk) and the act of actually fighting for women’s rights. Sorry if this is a confusing post. It’s kind of off-topic too, but I’m genuinely interested. Thank you.
That’s rank Amp. Why didn’t you tell me about such posts? That’s assholery to the umpteenth degree.
The only troll-free spaces are closed listservs which function by invitation only and moderate new members’ posts. The realistic goal is troll minimization.
I am fine with a trial of this “feminist only” moderated thread mechanism. If the “radical feminist” discourse gets too esoteric, feminist readers will wander off to other threads. If discourse is of high quality, then the moderated threads concept will survive. I would tend to start more inclusive, ie, “feminist/womanist” rather than “radical feminist/separatist”, and encourage transwomen (and feminist transmen and genderqueers, and any feminist men who have the discretion to not dominate the discussion) to consider themselves thread citizens. I am here to learn. If Amp has a good link to an article or statistics bearing upon an issue in the thread, I have no problems with him posting same.
Not that I’d begin to presume to answer for Susan, but I think she’s referring to a few threads that occurred regarding rape and the historical facts that surround it cirque the early / mid 20th century, and also some of the pro/anti-choice threads that have occurred.
I’d definitely qualify Susan as a feminist, though I personally believe that some of her beliefs are unintentionally harmful due to what I perceive as an 0ccassionally anachronistic point of view.
I like the idea of threads with no anti-feminists or trolls and all, but not sure i like the idea of no men. Often (usually i think) people online assume I’m a male cuz of my name (even though it’s unisex) and I’m just not sure how that would work. I think just banning any anti-feminist talk would work better. Besides, I think Amp IS a feminist, even if some posters here don’t, and even though he’s a male. I think having a whole blog be woman only, like ur message board, would work better.
one of the things i like about this blog is that there is such a diversity, and while i definatley don’t like hearing the sa how me anti-feminist arguments over and over, i think Amp’s working on new moderation policies that will help that. Restricting any threads to only female posting sounds extreme, especially considering the blog owner is male.
As to radical feminism, i don’t think i really know what one has to believe in or do to be part of that group, so i don’t even know if i classify or not. either way i’d have no issue with radical feminist posts on here, at least then maybe i could learn what it entails?
Susan: My favorite definition of feminism is that oldy but goldy: Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.
All the issues that come up again and again relate back to that simple issue: abortion (women are people, not incubators) rape (women are people, not warm holes surrounded by inconveniences), employment equality (women are people, not cheap labor), etc.
I work in a homeless shelter and am literally sexually harrassed all day every day by my clients. For a sample, check out my live journal entry today.
A troll-free zone would be invaluable to me. I don’t necessarily agree that it should be female only or even feminist only, but that only feminist and pro-feminist sentiments can be expressed in that thread.
And Amp, while I’m not as angry with you over the anti’s and MRA that you allow to hang out as other radical feminists I know and like, I have sometimes felt that the analogy about a blog for civil rights activists being invaded by the KKK and then the civil rights activists being castigated for being rude to the KKK when they were “so polite” would be a useful one to bring up. I have followed some of your regular posters home and been stunned at the swamp I stumbled into. While they may have chosen their words carefully here, their intent is very clear when you visit them on their home turf, and I’m amazed that you tolerate them.
and while the more angry style of my good friend who will not derail this thread is not (usually, unless I’m fresh out of “nice”) my own, her sort of angry rhetoric often cuts through a lot of polite meaninglessness and allows those of us who have been waiting for a wave to ride it in. Sometimes I wince at her anger even while acknowledging it’s important and valuable anger, and sometimes, even as close as we are, we disagree.
I think the rules can be created in such a way as to create a “moderated, bashing-free” zone. In any case, I have no intention of ceasing to read or reply, because I think the discussions here are generally good, and sometimes I get the added bonus of playing troll hunter (my biggest vice).
Finally, the fact that this issue around who can and can’t reply and the boundaries of the blog is being discussed is a Good Thing, regardless of outcome. You are a braver soul than I, Amp. While I have always been an outspoken civil rights activist, I have never dared to create a “civil rights” space intended for minorities, because it is so incredibly difficult as a White person to be credible in that role. Similarly, you creating a feminist space, as a male, was a very difficult task, and you have done very well with it, overall. Because of the nature of this space as a feminist space hosted by a male, it has a unique, and I think valuable, dynamic.
“Hey, littleviolet, I think the Ms boards *teemed* with misogynists and anti-feminists not to mention garden variety bent wieners. I think plenty of space was made for them and eventually they destroyed the place. And I guess I don’t think there is anything at all that is rosy or festive about radical feminism”“ it acknowledges what is done to women and by whom, and there’s nothing at all rosy about that. So I am not really sure about the “rosy picture” part.”
Heart, misogynists and anti-feminists got *banned* at Ms. The moderators did it regularly. There was no discussion of the actual legitimacy of feminism the way it is allowed here and there was certainly no moderator chiding feminists for being insufficiently respectful to sexists. What didn’t happen was much moderation of the feminists posting there so a lot of things got out of hand. None of the SYG trolls who are given such a warm welcome here would have lasted any time at all on the Ms boards.
As for the “rosy picture”, I didn’t say that you had that, Alsis did. I’m not sure if you were addressing me there.
I think I expressed myself badly on the threads Kim refers to. What I was trying to say was that when I was in my late teens and early 20’s rape wasn’t perceived to be a serious issue by me or my friends. Not that it wasn’t serious when it happened, but that it didn’t happen to us very often. Not often enough to worry about very much.
Or, that was my perception, and I’d contend that my perceptions are as good as anyone else’s, so that if someone else right now believes that rape is quite common now (or, was more common then, a topic on which they would probably have less information than I do) that is their perception.
I was told that my perceptions were invalid (with the undertone that I was a bad person for having those perceptions). I didn’t take than any more kindly than my adversaries would have taken a similar observation on my part.
But we need not hash this over. It is probable, as I said, that I expressed myself badly.
Do I think women should have rights equal to those of men? Well, duh. But I’ve been called some pretty ugly names here for not being a “feminist”, or not being “feminist” enough, some of these names quite recent.
Hm. I don’t think there should be a disconnect between talk and action. If there is, we’re wasting our time just talking. I think. I’m not sure how much “theory” is necessarily involved in feminism. Like, what part of “treated equally” is intellectually challenging?
I think – I don’t know you-all – that many of the younger women here are still fighting the battle we took up from our mothers and passed on to our daughters, and now in some cases, granddaughters. I wouldn’t accuse anyone here of just talking.
But…. I’m not real good at “orthodoxy.” What I mean by that is, I’m not real good at believing what people tell me just because they say so. Like, I didn’t believe it when “everyone” said that “women can never succeed in corporate law because the clients won’t stand for it.”
But by the same token I’m a problem to some feminists. When someone says, for example, “This is a rape culture,” I tend to ask, “What does that mean?” And some of the answers (along the lines of “all heterosexual intercourse is de facto rape” or, “this culture is fundamentally built on rape, real and theoretical”) don’t make the cut with me. They don’t square with my experience.
Sometimes too I find that women who identify themselves as “radical feminists” just curse me out on general principles. Probably because I don’t take orders very well.
Susan, is it possible that you’re stereotyping or misremembering? I very much doubt that anyone on “Alas” has claimed that all heterosexual sex is de facto rape, for instance; that’s more of an unfair stereotype of what radical feminists say, than it is something that’s actually said.
Have as many women only threads as you want. I think it’s a good idea. Even a neccesary one. I’ll be glad to watch.
That said, reducing Amps moderation policy to “shutting out the radicals” is oversimplification. Lots of people Amp moderates who are, in fact, radical, are moderated for reasons that have nothing to do with being radical. He moderated them because they were being bullies to women as well as to men.
If it’s impossible to have a “radicals welcome” policy while having an equaliy valid “no bullies” policy, what you’ve got is a system in which bullies get to make the rules.
This is a seperate issue from a policy on banning MRAs and anti-feminists, and having women only threads. It deserves to be treated like one.
Maureen, the issue isn’t just about an analogy to Civil Rights activists being rude to KKKers, it’s also about (to stretch the analogy) Nation Of Islam radicals getting to dictate policy to disciples of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
I never said that anyone said that here, Amp. To my knowledge, no one ever has.
Indeed, I was trying to make an illustration that wouldn’t offend any individual here, or make specific reference to any conversation here. I have indeed been told precisely that by real-life radical feminists, or women who claimed to be radical feminists. (I’m beginning to realize that we do have to take peoples’ word for whether they are “radical feminists” or not.)
My point was just that simply because someone who labels herself a “radical feminist” says something, doesn’t mean that I necessarily believe it. I could have used actual examples from Alas, but I don’t want to start a fight right here and now on any of those topics; the whole question of my status is quite off the subject of this thread.
A very clear analysis, Josh.
Kim (bv!) wrote:
:shrug: That kind of stuff really isn’t very important to me. But I still don’t want to see it, or its authors, on “Alas.”
(To clarify, they didn’t accuse me of being a pedophile. They accused me – and all the adults around Sydney, for that matter – of being horribly negligent to post photos of Sydney on the internet, since pedophiles might see the photos.)
Josh, I disagree…in a true Civil Rights space, both Nation of Islam and MLK would have space and strong disagreements, but the core of “civil rights” would remain the valid concern of both groups. However, if the KKK is allowed to participate in what is nominally a Civil Rights space, both NoI and MLK Civil Rights Activists are put on the defensive, defending their very right to exist as activists, and the valid arguments that need to occur between the groups don’t have as much time and space to occur.
But here’s the rub, odanu. What, exactly, qualify as “feminist and pro-feminist sentiments”? Does the “sentiment” that rape was not perceived, by white, middle-class young women, as a major problem 40 years ago make the cut?
The answer is No. Why not? Not because that opinion endorses or seeks the subjugation of women, but because it differs from the Received Feminist Orthodoxy. Of some feminists at least.
There are any number of possible statements of that type, and I can probably be depended upon to make quite a number of them, simply because, although I certainly believe in equality for women, I don’t Receive Orthodoxy very well. I didn’t receive the Orthodoxy of Women’s Inherent Inferiority very well, and for the very same reasons I’m not real popular among radical feminists.
In Josh’s analogy, I’m… MLK maybe. I’m certainly not the KKK, but I’m not going to fit in with the Nation of Islam either.
Well, that’s not quite as bad as what I initially understood it to mean. That’s more of the drive-by parenting assholery than rank assholery. I’d rather just tell idiots like that to piss off and be done with it. Then again, I savor the use of hedonistic verbage far more than you!
i disagree with any space claiming to be progressive shutting out the opportunity for any contrary response. hell, i have that problem whether the space claims to be progressive or not.
disallowing people to comment because of their gender or political beliefs is wrong, in my mind, period. i’m certain none of you mean it this way, but this whole discussion about restricted threads makes it seem to me that you fear people making challenges to your views. in my opinion, that’s wrong, and a dangerous path to go down.
i don’t identify as feminist and certainly not as a radical feminist. i read this blog as well as other blogs all over the political / experiential spectrum because i’m enlightened by multiple viewpoints. it bothers me to read serious discussion on restricting threads to some kind of echo chamber the way it would bother me to read serious discussion on a religious-conservative blog banning non-Christians from commenting, or a conservative blog banning anyone who is liberal–or PERCEIVED as liberal, there’s the REALLY scary idea–from commenting.
nobody likes trolls, but they are a fact of internet discussion. i think it would be much healthier to delete their comments or ban them on a case-by-case basis…and i’m talking in the case of true trolling, in which a person is merely baiting people for the sake of entertainment–not a case of dissent with the majority of the group.
reducing voices to those which echo a single viewpoint is never healthy for a community, regardless of what the voices are. squashing opposing viewpoints, keeping them out, restricting them, is exactly why so many of us loathe and abhor the Bush administration’s policies. i have yet to see any convincing argument in this discussion that clearly separates a thread restricted based on political belief / gender, and then only going on the perceptions of a few, from many of the practices of the current Republican White House.
i’m a new reader to Alas. i don’t consider myself a terribly important part of the community here as i mostly lurk. but in case anyone’s asking, that’s my $0.02.
Thank you Susan for answering my questions :)
odanu –
I said bullying I was quite clear on the choice of words.. There is a difference between bullying and strong disagreement. If you can’t see that, then there’s no conversation, you’re just re-defining my words.
I know you. You don’t do that sort of thing. You’re better than that. We can disagree on what constitutes bullying, but that’s a diferent subject.
odanu: and while the more angry style of my good friend who will not derail this thread is not (usually, unless I’m fresh out of “nice”) my own, her sort of angry rhetoric often cuts through a lot of polite meaninglessness and allows those of us who have been waiting for a wave to ride it in. Sometimes I wince at her anger even while acknowledging it’s important and valuable anger, and sometimes, even as close as we are, we disagree.
So beautifully written, and I so agree, odanu, thanks for writing it.
Honestly, having read through the posts here and heard from some on my boards, it’s sounding to me as though what I’ve proposed is not a good idea after all, is wrong-headed, won’t work, is misguided, idiotic, some or all of the above. So I will likely withdraw my proposal. I’m awaiting some e-mails, but overall, there seem to be more thumbs pointing down than thumbs pointing up, and I’m good with that. I had an idea, I had the ability to post about it, I didn’t like what went down with ginmar, I did what I thought was a good thing to do.
In the meantime, I don’t mind responding to some of the questions and thoughts here.
In my opinion, a woman is a radical feminist if she agrees that the world we live in is a male supremacist world, that women in general are subjugated and oppressed by men and male institutions. The best way to evaluate the way male supremacy works is by comparing the situations of men and women who are similarly situated. A rich white woman, for example, is never going to be as well off as a rich white man, because she is or was still vulnerable to rape, objectification, sexual harassment, sexual assault, incest, molestation, in ways which the rich white man is not, in ways which affect her or have affected her from the time of her birth. A homeless man on the street is still better off than a homeless woman for the same reasons. And in between these two extremes, if we look at men and women, doesn’t matter the ethnicity, class standing, age, so long as we are talking about men and women who are similarly situated, we see across the board that men fare better in this world than women do. And that’s because the world is a male supremacist world. If a woman sees this, acknowledges that this is true, then she is probably a radical feminist, in that she is understanding sexism as the first or root or foundational or core oppression, with all other oppressions — racism, classism, ableism, homophobia, modeled after this one.
I think that the threads I was envisioning are different than the “prison” threads for mens’ rights guys because the mens’ rights guys would be restricted to the prison threads, whereas radical feminists here, and women, just in general, would continue to be free to post anywhere they liked. The threads I envisioned would allow those of us born into male supremacy, with a specific set of life experiences based on being born to second class status, to speak freely of what it means to be girls and women, without feeling pressured internally or externally to take care of or protect the sensibilities of men — something which has always been expected of us as girls. We are groomed to be caretakers for boys and men. I’ve spent many, many thousands of hours now in woman-only space, both in real life and on the internet, and I can attest to how important and beneficial this kind of space is to all women, and to the differences in the dynamics amongst women when men are present as opposed to when they aren’t present. There are times to interact with men, at least for women who aren’t separatists, and I don’t say there aren’t. But I also think woman-only venues are important for feminist women. That isn’t discrimination on the basis of sex, anymore than meetings of people of color which exclude white people are discriminatory. Those who are subjugated and oppressed need separate space to heal, to bond, to strategize and dream their own liberation.
Reading through your four points there, Amp, a few thoughts. I was proposing threads overseen, in general, by me, with blog posts written by me and other radical feminists and with the threads moderated as a joint radical feminist effort (meaning you wouldn’t have to do extra work or any of the writing.) I’d want the threads to be for women only by the traditional definition, meaning women born female, mostly because our experiences under male supremacy are unique and distinctive, but for some other reasons as well. I can’t really think of any solution to the problem of radical feminist women whom you understand to be bullying people.
little violet, I think there were lots of misogynists and anti-feminists parked out at Ms all of the years I was there, beginning in July or so of 2000, who were never banned. Darren, Erik, Snarfangel, Elissa, and others come to mind. I also think there were plenty of threads created to debate the validity of feminism, although they were not always framed in those terms.
Well, those are my thoughts. Again, it’s sounding like my proposal is a no-go, but I thought I ‘d post these thoughts anyway.
Heart (Cheryl)
Having just checked Heart’s post and its link to The Margins (“the troll” is a reference to me) I had better come out of retirement and repeat (to whom it may concern) the advice I gave to Dana on the “New Policy” link: consult Ginmar’s blog and compare her original text with my précis. You’ll then be able to decide whether I “pulled it out of my ass” or not.
By the way, won’t there be a right-to-reply problem with the proposed all-female, all-rad threads? We can be quite certain, human nature being what it is, that some posts will contain unflattering references and downright attacks on Alas-posters (men, non-rad women) with no access to the thread in question and as a result unable to set the record straight where it matters.
Okay, Heart, it’s your choice. But I’m sorry that I won’t get to read what you might have posted here.
However, I still think you might want to consider setting up a blog, either for yourself or as a groupblog for a select bunch of radfem writers. As you recently wrote on The Margins,
That’s all still true, even (or perhaps especially) if you’re not posting on “Alas.” Blogging might put your writings out there for a new audience.
Plus, running a blog doesn’t have to be much work (although it certainly can be!) Between the Margins and Ms., you probably have a huge backstock of writing that you could recycle into blog posts.
I’d want the threads to be for women only by the traditional definition, meaning women born female, mostly because our experiences under male supremacy are unique and distinctive, but for some other reasons as well.
Why is that? If anything, I’d think transgendered women would have even more insights to add then women born female, because they’ve lived as both genders so they can see the contrast firsthand. I think they would be especially conscious of sexism and gender roles. And I say this as a female-born woman.
I agree with your general description of the need for women-only spaces, Cheryl (although I’m not sure Alas is the right place for one), but I don’t think excluding transgendered individuals, who already face so much exclusion and ridicule, is the way to go.
Let me also say that, although I do think women-only discussions have their place and can be very beneficial, I’ve learned a lot from male feminists, particularly Amp and Hugo Schwyzer.
There have been certain feminist posters on this board who have said that neither is a true feminist, and that bothers me. Why should one person be the judge of who is feminist and who isn’t? I’m a woman, and I strongly consider myself a feminist, but I’m aware that both Amp and Hugo know more about feminism than I do. While I may not agree with them on everything, I can learn a lot from them, as well as from the many female feminists whose blogs I also read.
And I personally refer to them as feminists, rather than pro-feminists, because I take feminism to be “the radical notion that women are people.” One does not have to be female to support that assertion–just as one does not have to be racial minority to feel the same way about minorities, or a sexual minority to feel the same way about GLBT/queer individuals. I’m wary of the claim that it’s nearly impossible for a man to be a feminist, which I worry could drive off our male allies.
In my own life, I have known many men who treat women with respect and see them as equals without suffering negative consequences from other men, contrary to what some posters here have claimed must always be the case. I think it depends a lot on the social circle that a man is part of.
That said, I do agree with the many posters here who have complained about trolls and non- or anti-feminists who constantly derail discussions. I appreciate Amp’s attempts to deal with this problem through his new moderation policies, and I think that feminist-only threads are a good idea, as well as relegating MRAs/anti-feminists to certain threads and banning them from the rest of the blog so that the rest of us don’t constantly have to “reinvent the wheel.”
There’s a fine line between banning the comments that stifle discussion, and stifling discussion by banning comments; since not everyone will agree exactly where to draw the line, it is up to the moderator of each particular blog to make his/her own judgment calls. I think Amp will probably do a good job of walking that line, and I’ll be interested in seeing where this blog goes in the future.
Tom Nolan: 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.
I don’t think that Ginmar said this at all, anywhere, ever. I think she said men would be ostracized if they were feminists, that they’d be outcasts. And I think she’s absolutely right about that. And how aggravating and infuriating is it to me that now she can’t be here to defend herself against these ongoing distortions and dissemblings. I mean, what. You, Tom Nolan, are worried about not being able to reply to possible “attacks” and “unflattering references” in theoretical, nonexistent, woman-only, radical feminist threads; in fact, your own attacks and “unflattering references” and distortions have resulted in the complete silencing of a radical feminist woman’s voice here. Well, no matter. Ve haf vays.
Having said all of that, and speaking for myself only and not ginmar, I think the world could use a few — more than a few — men who would indeed put women first, who would, indeed, reject the men in their lives — including sons, fathers, and brothers — who were sexists and woman-haters, who would forswear patriarchy, and who would live exclusively in the consciousness of women’s suffering. ginmar hasn’t said that, but I will. Unapologetically. Hell yeah. It’s absolutely this kind of man and this kind of behavior which is necessary if women are to have the equality you’ve assured us you believe in. Squealing and whining and making stuff up because a woman has the audacity to suggest that supporting feminist women might cost men something isn’t the behavior of an ally. It is the behavior of a male supremacist who is unwilling to give up a bit of the privilege and entitlement he enjoys.
Heart (Cheryl)
There’s a lot going on here, but I’d like to respond specifically to one point that touches on several issues, “What is a radical feminist?”
As Cathy Young’s recent appearance here attests, we can debate what it means to be a feminist without reaching consensus and discerning who is or isn’t radical feminist would be just as insufficient for definitive answers. But this is one area where I think the process matters more than conclusions because identities naturally shift. The education gained in discovering what kind of feminist one is and the internal questioning involved in figuring it out are the main point, not necessarily the adoption of the name that identifies a person as a member of a like minded group.
A woman once wrote that her feminist process was: liberal, feminist, pro-sex feminist, radical feminist. When I question what makes me call myself a radical feminist, my process looks a lot like that. I’ve always considered myself a liberal, but in my early 20’s I came to consider myself a feminist first, a liberal second. When searching the brain files for what shifted to lead me to make that change, it begins with what I consider to be my first truly feminist act.
I’d written plenty of college papers on women and was outraged at the inequalities I saw enough to monetarily and verbally support women’s equality, but these were also causes that personally benefited me. I read Katha Pollitt’s column about Tabitha Walrond and at her bequest wrote a letter, making what I feel to be my first wholly feminist act. Somewhere along the way I came across the idea that character isn’t what you’re willing to do for others when you know you’ll get something back, it’s what you’re willing to do when you know you’ll receive nothing in return. To me, more than being a liberal, being a feminist is not just believing in women’s equality and identifying with the femin part but in remembering the suffix ist as marking someone who practices or takes action on what they believe. Usually there will be overlap in what serves all woman and what serves myself, and I think part of being a radical in general is seeing big picture theories of how we’re all interconnected (my ENFJ typing is all about the iNtuition), but I’m speaking in the deepest philosophical sense of committing oneself to bettering the lives of all women.
From there I began reading more and openly identified with feminists. Soon I learned enough to realize my regular use and support of pornography (strip clubs, etc) fit under what’s known as pro-sex feminism, and I accepted that. The shift from pro-sex to radical was one I figure took about two years beginning to end. I hadn’t been applying my feminism to pornography for all the usual reasons like acceptance from my porn-using partner, the thrill of being a baddie bad girl who used a boy thing, all those twirly emotions that collide around sexuality.
What made me apply my feminism to pornography for the first time? One day at a bookstore I saw a book simply titled Pornography so I decided to pick it up and randomly read a few pages. Catherine MacKinnon was describing a scene from pornography where the woman was begging the man to ejaculate inside her and he says something like, “I don’t come inside bitches like you, I’ll only come onto you,” which he proceeded to do. (I don’t have the book and it’s been a few years so please forgive possible detail errors.)
MacKinnon asked about and expanded on what that means in an industry where “the money shot” is called the money shot and is used so widely. Why might the pornographers who make these movies consider ejaculating onto women something disrespectful, and what does it mean for women that these pornographers who consider it disrespectful make what minuscule dialogue they put in about emphasizing the disrespect? I’d never thought of it like that before and the questions haunted me, but I mostly tried to ignore the icky feeling the very asking of it brought out because I liked using pornography.
I read more and discussed it with others, and I started becoming more radical in other areas of my life, like becoming a vegetarian and working on the campaign for a Green Party candidate running for city council. Still a pro-sex pornography user, I moved to a city famous for its unconventional politics and booming prostitution industry and dived deeper into green politics and anti-corporate activism while continuing to honor my feminism through pro-choice activism. These forces came together in actualized practice when I started to find myself turned off by the idea of using pornography from 1) a feminist viewpoint 2) an anti-corporate control over media viewpoint 3) a sexual health educator’s viewpoint. A radical and a feminist but not yet a radical feminist, one night while using porn and making love it totally disgusted me that there was a television diverting our attention, that a freaking boob tube appliance was a third partner in our lovemaking and it made the two of us not as genuinely there with each other. I strive so hard to be true to myself and to my woman’s sexuality, and I felt bamboozled by pornography when I realized how far astray from helping me achieve that aspiration it had led me.
In the longer version there are the people I’ve known and loved since a child who suffered in and from prostitution and how that affected the final move, but I’ll skip that very personal portion of the narrative. This is the part where I find out for the first time, through the MS boards, that there are other feminists who feel about prostitution, pornography and the commercial exploitation of female sexuality the same way I had come to feel about it. They also turned out to be anti-corporate, anti-war, pro-environmentalism and pro-alternative politics, just like me. They called themselves radical feminists, so I looked into the matter and after a good deal of reading decided it was a fitting term.
That was long, but short for the changed attitudes and time passed it represents. I write it hoping some feminist will read these words and see something of her own story in what I’ve written, and I hope it helps her to recognize the feminist ethics she’ll live by just as I’ve found mine.
I reject any person in my life that is a woman-hater, much the same way I reject anyone who is a racist. For me, that is not the kind of person I want to be around. I also work very hard to change the minds of people in my profession (systems development) that women are good at doing this stuff (sadly, some people still belive that computer-related stuff is mens’ work). If I have the choice of working together with a woman or a man, I will always pick the woman, all other things being equal, as I find that groups which includes both men and women tends to work better than all-male groups (I can’t really comment on all-female groups).
Yet, I am unsure if I can be considered a feminist in the sense that most people here use it.
I come from an entirely different society, where the problems are different. We still work for equal pay for equal work, but the gender gap is much different in Denmark than in the US. There are still too few female leaders, but the difference is shrinking. Rape is not as widespread as in the US (not even when you consider it per capita), and it is not accepted by anyone I know of. Men consider childrearing part of their duties, and I have yet to hear a man in real life say that it’s not up to the woman to decide if she wants an abortion or not .
Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff Writes: Susan, yes, I am pretty much saying that. You can’t figure out that someone is a woman strictly based on her writing style, of course, but there are other ways to figure things out. Everybody here on Alas pretty much knows who is a woman and who isn’t, right?
I have to say that’s not my experience. :-)
Honestly, straightforwardly, while in principle I’m in favor of feminist-friendly space online (women-only is, I believe, a goal that shouldn’t be attempted: it is not possible to tell gender reliably online) I think it’s a distortion of what Alas a Blog represents to have it be on this blog.
This blog is an anti-feminist space: Ampersand likes talking like a feminist, but quite evidently also likes having anti-feminists feel comfortable hanging out here and derailing any real feminist discussion of Amp’s posts, and is uncomfortable with having aggressive unfriendly feminists like Ginmar hanging out here and giving the anti-feminists a good kicking.
Amp is deeply unwilling to make the blog as a whole feminist-friendly. He’s got a right to do this: it’s his blog. This isn’t a space for feminists to have good discussions which won’t be derailed by anti-feminists: that’s not what Amp wants and it’s not, therefore, what’s going to happen. Attempting to do so is a waste of time.
“Darren, Erik, Snarfangel, Elissa, and others come to mind.”
I joined in 2002 and I only recognise one of those names. I definitely don’t think you could say they were given free rein and destroyed the boards. The point I’m making is that the moderation policy here is different from the Ms moderation policy, that’s all.
“it’s sounding to me as though what I’ve proposed is not a good idea after all, is wrong-headed, won’t work, is misguided, idiotic, some or all of the above”
I’d have said mistaken, the other descriptions are a bit harsh. Although having read your boards, I appreciate what you were trying to do. I thought this was another of Ampersand’s guest-blogger spots and I’m sorry for jumping to conclusions. I didn’t realise that you’d seized the inititiative. So thank you for providing this space to talk about what has happened here to Ginmar and to others.
I don’t know if you are interested, but this is a huge feminist space (I think they have about three thousand members), it’s mainly third wave and there is a lot of anitpathy towards radical feminism but if there’s any place where it would be possible to discuss radical feminism with people who don’t have much knowledge of it, this would be it –
http://www.livejournal.com/community/feminist/
//This blog is an anti-feminist space: Ampersand likes talking like a feminist, but quite evidently also likes having anti-feminists feel comfortable hanging out here and derailing any real feminist discussion of Amp’s posts//
i still fail to understand how someone disagreeing with you constitutes derailing your discussion. i still fail to understand how restricting their ability to talk to you or reply to you would solve anything.
i also vehemently disagree with the women-born-women only restriction. i also say that as a female-born woman.
beth: i still fail to understand how someone disagreeing with you constitutes derailing your discussion.
Ich las nur Deutschen. Ich beharre, daß Sie Ihre Anmerkung in Deutschen übersetzen, damit ich verstehen kann, über was Sie sprechen.
i still fail to understand how restricting their ability to talk to you or reply to you would solve anything.
Ich fahre fort, Sie auf Deutsch zu unterbrechen, bis Sie entweder Ihre Anmerkung in Deutschen übersetzen oder mir erklären, warum Sie nicht werden.
(Translation provided via Babelfish, though, since in fact I don’t read German well enough.)
Andere gebürtige deutsche Lautsprecher unterbrechen jetzt wieder und fangen an, zu besprechen, auf Deutsch, das Thema von, warum Leute fortbestehen, auf, auf englisch bekanntzugeben. Einige Leute, die ein wenig Deutsches schreiben, versuchen, auf Deutsch zu debattieren, warum einige Leute der bequemeren Eintragung auf englisch glauben würden. Und Sie glauben nicht, daß dieses das Gewinde entgleist?
Ampersand: 3) Some of the folks you object to me banning from “Alas” have said pretty disgusting things about me (i.e., darkly muttering about pedophelia when I post photos of my honorary nieces, lying that I had gotten multiple women pregnant, etc). I don’t want to create space for “open season on Amp” threads.
Amp, that is such an incredible distortion of this thread that I’m aghast. (I was initially aghast because I thought you meant that someone was accusing you of being a pedophile: but having tracked down the thread, I see that’s far from being the case.)
You choose to post pictures of your honorary nieces on your blog. That means you’re making their pictures available for public discussion. That means it’s fairly likely (as the world goes) that some pedophile probably has yanked those pics and is wanking over them. So you are willing to continue posting the pics, but unwilling to consider the fact that this makes them publicly available for everything from porn for pedophiles to feminist discussion on why you are willing to make pics of your honorary nieces so available?
As a feminist man, I agree that feminis-only spaces are necessary. Although it makes me sad, I am willing to accept that women-only feminist spaces are necessary if women feminists say so. Without that security, it may be impossible in our culture for truly free and creative dialogue on certain topics to emerge. I would hope that the fruit of such places would be shared so that others might benefit.
You choose to post pictures of your honorary nieces on your blog. That means you’re making their pictures available for public discussion. That means it’s fairly likely (as the world goes) that some pedophile probably has yanked those pics and is wanking over them. So you are willing to continue posting the pics, but unwilling to consider the fact that this makes them publicly available for everything from porn for pedophiles to feminist discussion on why you are willing to make pics of your honorary nieces so available?
What a strange concept. I’ve never heard people criticised (wrt pedophiles) for allowing their children to be photographed for magazines or newspapers or television. Yet those media can be used by pedophiles just as easily. This strikes me as strangely close to the arguments that are commonly used against women wrt rape – that is that we should hide our children away from all public view as women would be safe from rape if they hid themselves from public view.
All of which is besides the point that if Sydney & Maddox were Sigfried & Martin that Amp would have posted pics of his honorary nephews. Unfortunately for Amp, Kim(bv!) & Matt have chosen to only produce honorary nieces. And beside the point of, if nobody had told you her name or gender, would you be able to tell that Sydney is a little girl? I wouldn’t be able to do so.
Personally, I find it disturbing that several folks on that thread found photos of a naked or diapered infant or toddler to be sexual in nature. But that’s just me. I also find it disturbing that several folks on that thread wonder whether the honorary nieces parents gave permission for those photos to be posted. Hello? The parents are commenting in the threads generated by the photos. Those are clearly people who haven’t read Alas.
Look, if people hate Amp, Amp’s views, Amp’s blog, etc., that’s fine. But why should he be expected to allow them to air their insults on his blog? In large part it seems to me like a tactic to make Alas disappear (a stated wish on the part of several of his critics). And I don’t give a fuck what people who want to see this blog go away think about what Amp decides to post here or how he decides to moderate. If you don’t see the value of Alas, a blog to feminist issues, that’s your loss.
Jake: Personally, I find it disturbing that several folks on that thread found photos of a naked or diapered infant or toddler to be sexual in nature.
This would appear again to be a twisted misreading of the thread linked to – even more disturbingly twisted than Amp’s misreading.
But why should he be expected to allow them to air their insults on his blog?
That isn’t what happened. According to Amp’s own account, he’s objecting to them discussing photos he published on his blog, in a separate blog, and is banning them for what they said elsewhere. This is his right: it’s his blog. But if he’s going to make a point of banning people for what they say when they’re not on his blog, why is it that the first people he does it to are a bunch of feminists discussing the issue of making publicly available photographs of his nieces?
Not to mention that, just playing the numbers game, there are hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of pictures of cute babies all over the entire damn internet. 44,000 google image hits for “cute baby” and over 3 million for “baby.” That means it’s fairly unlikely (as the world goes) that some pedophile has had anything at all to do with these pictures. The baby-picture-to-pedophile ratio just seems too large.
Anyway, if Amp’s okay with it, and the kids parents are okay with it, I’m not sure where the problem is.
I couldn’t agree more. I’d also like to say that in the end this is Amp’s choice. I consider myself a guest in his home, with all that that implies in terms of respect and consideration for him.
—Myca
I’d want the threads to be for women only by the traditional definition, meaning women born female, mostly because our experiences under male supremacy are unique and distinctive, but for some other reasons as well.
I’d like to hear more about this. To my mind, a woman is a woman is (as the radical feminist notion goes) a person.
It seems odd for any kind of feminism deliberately to exclude “ex-men”, as it were: those who’ve chosen to express their feminine natures in defiance of enormous social pressure against their doing so, and in the process very deliberately turned their backs on male privilege.
“In large part it seems to me like a tactic to make Alas disappear (a stated wish on the part of several of his critics)”
Speaking as one of his critics I don’t want Alas to disappear, Ampersand has just as much right to blog as anyone else, I would however like Ampersand to stop giving a platform to anti-feminists whilst treating feminists poorly, or, if he’s not going to do that, stop promoting his blog as “feminist-friendly” or himself as a feminist.
But if he’s going to make a point of banning people for what they say when they’re not on his blog, why is it that the first people he does it to are a bunch of feminists discussing the issue of making publicly available photographs of his nieces?
That’s a good point. I would guess that past history might have something to do with it, but that is only a guess.
This would appear again to be a twisted misreading of the thread linked to – even more disturbingly twisted than Amp’s misreading.
That is certainly possible. I’m no less prone to misreading than anybody else. Yet, comments like:
…I think it is irresponsible of him to post photos of her at all on it, let alone mostly naked.
certainly suggest, at least to me, a belief by the commenter that a sexual element is added to the photo by the lack of clothing. But if the majority of people think that I’ve misinterpreted, I’m willing to concede the mistake on my part.
Ampersand’s patience never ceases to astonish me. Some of the comments on this thread are insulting to Amp in the extreme.
So far as I can tell, the “feminists” who were banned, at least the recent bannings, were banned because they were bullies who called other posters ugly names, not because they were feminists, radical or otherwise. In every political movement there is a certain party who feels that because of the overwhelming righteousness of the Cause (whatever the Cause in this case may be) the proponents are excused from civilized behavior.
Amp doesn’t agree. I don’t either, as it happens.
As for ugly personal attacks on the owner of a blog, whether in public or in private, whyever should Ampersand, or any other blogger, give net space to people who attack his character? Like being here at Alas is some kind of Constitutional Right? Come on, you guys.
Even if our host is extraordinarily forgiving, that doesn’t give us license to behave otherwise.
Well, I guess Alas is not in my list of favorite blogs anymore.
I tend to favor a slightly more charitable reading of that myself, Jake.
It’s mystifying to me that someone would consider a naked baby unusual in any way ( I mean, in my home, when there are babies, they dash about naked-with-poop-catching-devices attached 90% of the time, and seem happiest that way), but in keeping with the spirit of Amp’s goal for respectful discussion, the poster may not have considered baby nakedness weird or unusual at all, but may have just been saying that there are people out there who are aroused by such things, and that I agree with, even if I don’t think that they offer a realistic threat in this scenario.
—Myca
littleviolet: or, if he’s not going to do that, stop promoting his blog as “feminist-friendly” or himself as a feminist.
Yes.
Susan: So far as I can tell, the “feminists” who were banned, at least the recent bannings, were banned because they were bullies who called other posters ugly names, not because they were feminists, radical or otherwise.
So far as I can tell, the feminists who were banned recently were banned because their comments elsewhere made Amp feel uncomfortable. Which indicates that anti-feminists who are still more foul-mouthed elsewhere don’t make Amp uncomfortable.
I hang out here for much the same reason as I hang out on Family Scholars Blog: the abundance of anti-feminist targets. I would be just as annoyed if Family Scholars Blog started trying to promote itself as “LGBT friendly” as I am if Amp tries to promote Alas a Blog as “feminist friendly”.
Jesurgislac: die Analogie ist schwach: Streitigkeit, sogar tief gehende Uneinigkeit, is kein andere Sprache.
Ausserdem, Amp hat gesagt: Gewinde hier soll meistens in “Englisch” sein. Leute, die nur “Deutsch” schreiben wollen, muessen in die Gewinde bleiben, die mit “MRA” usw. bemerkt sind.