NOTE: This post is now outdated. Click here to read the current policy.
(MRA, anti-feminist and right-wing guests, after reading this page read this post as well, please!)
I have a goal for the comments on “Alas.” A bunch of goals, actually.
- I’d like the discussions here to be respectful. By that, I mean not merely refraining from swearing at each other all the time, but actual respect for other posters, which means treating everyone you deal with as if they were as wonderful and important a person as you yourself are.
- I’d like “Alas” to not become a space where there’s nothing to be found but feminist-bashing and responses to the feminist-bashing. That doesn’t mean that posters here must agree with feminism or feminists; nor does it mean that feminists are exempt from having to respect others. It does mean that posters who in my judgement are dripping with contempt for feminists and feminism will be shown the door – even if they’re being polite on the surface. (And yes, this does create a bit of a double-standard. I can live with that.)
- I’d like the right-wing, anti-feminist and non-feminist critics who post on “Alas” to be treated with respect, rather than being bullied or shouted down.
- I’d like it if posters who choose to debate, attacked arguments, rather than attacking other posters. In general, following the principles of argumentation described here is a good idea.
- I’d like posters here to use good formatting (remember to put in paragraph breaks every now and then!) and clean, readable prose.
- I’d like it if the discussions on “Alas” were not as stupid as the discussions I’ve seen on many other internet forums.
- (Added April 7th 2006). I don’t want the discussions on “Alas” dominated by anti-feminists or MRAs. Although I like have a small number of well-written opposing views on “Alas” for spice, it’s my intention that most of the discussions here be dominated by feminist and lefty views. For that reason, brand-new MRA and anti-feminist posters might not be approved to post even if as individuals they are perfectly reasonable and polite.
In other words, when I decide whether or not to let a new poster through, I decide that based not only on the quality of the individual poster but also on a desire to maintain a certain balance to the comments on “Alas” as a whole.
Please note that beginning today, nearly all of my (Ampersand’s) posts will be cross-posted on the blog “Creative Destruction”. The comments at “Creative Destruction” are open to anyone who remains civil. So right-wing, anti-feminist, and MRA folks may be better off posting comments over there.
Those are my goals for comments on “Alas.” Posters whose presence, in my opinion, push discussions on “Alas” further away from these goals may be banned at any time. Posters who in my opinion help move “Alas” closer to those goals will be given slack.
Please note that these are not “rules,” so please don’t attempt to play “rules-lawyer.” People aren’t banned based on breaking rules; they’re banned based on my perception that they’re moving “Alas” discussions away from what I’d like “Alas” discussions to be.
* * *
* * *
So that’s it – that’s the “Alas” moderation policy. I don’t claim to have consistently followed it in the past, but I’ll be trying to follow them from now on.
Here’s a few additional notes:
On moderation: I will sometimes try to moderate by asking posters to cool down. However, due to limits on my time and energy, moderation is only done in a “random spot-check” fashion. This system will of course lead to unjust outcomes, in which I criticize post A but fail to criticize post B which was ever so much more offensive. Such is life.
A note to right-wing, men’s rights activist (MRA), and anti-feminist guests: Please understand that although I encourage debate, “Alas” is not intended to be a forum for relentless feminist-bashing. As well as avoiding obvious personal attacks and insults, anti-feminists who want to post on “Alas” would be well advised to avoid snide side comments like “I know that everyone here thinks it’s okay for men to be attacked,” and other such faux-polite comments that actually indicate contempt.
Is my moderation patriarchal? Some feminists may criticize me for moderating feminists (and, specifically, female feminists) at all. I am male, with male privilege; who am I to tell women what they can say and how they can say it? Isn’t that an expression of male privilege?
It’s a point that I’ve thought hard about (and which has made me very hesitant to ban even the rudest female feminist posters). But in the end, I’m not persuaded that setting goals for civility on one small blog, is the same as limiting women’s speech generally. Any woman (or man, for that matter) who doesn’t like my approach to discussion can easily find dozens of other feminist blogs and forums.
If your post is put into moderation: Probably you shouldn’t take it personally. The anti-spam program uses a big list of words that automatically get a comment put into the “needs approval” pile. (The words or bits of words that trigger auto-moderation can be totally unexpected and hard to predict. For a while, every time someone wrote a comment using the word “socialist” it was automatically put into moderation, because the word “cialist” was on the list!)
Anyhow, once a comment is in moderation, it stays there until I approve it. And if I happen to be busy or asleep, that can unfortunately take a while . Sorry about that – but it really IS necessary. Blame the free market for creating spam.
* * *
That’s it! None of this is written in stone, however, so if you have critiques or suggestions please feel free to pipe up.
Coming into the conversation late after a meeting.
FWIW, that’s one of the things disemvowelling is good with. The offensive comment is “defanged” yet it’s still extant so people can’t pretend it was never said.
[Comment removed at Lizzybeth’s request.]
Oh god, this is old.
Daran, it’s really getting obvious that you are hell-bent on derailing this thread.
I agree that Jesur and Ginmar and plenty of others have been unfair to you and attributed things to you that you have not said, and I don’t think that’s good. At the same time, plenty of what you have said has been actually offensive (at least to me). This isn’t really the place to discuss it.
Ampersand asked you to make a choice about the derailing of this thread, and you’ve pushed forward with the derailing, making the entire thread about you. That pisses me off.
Amp, is it banning time yet?
Daran:
The “substantive discussion” of whether or not “Alas” is a cult doesn’t belong on this thread. And since you’re determined to derail this thread, neither do you. You’re banned from posting on this thread for the next twenty-four hours – until 1pm pacific time on Friday.
Let’s just send him over to Robert’s blog with a note pinned to his jacket. :/
I will refuse the bait. I will refuse the bait. I will refuse the bait. I will refuse the bait. I will refuse the bait. I will refuse the bait. I will refuse the bait. I will refuse the bait. I will refuse the bait. I will refuse the bait. I will refuse the bait. I will refuse the bait.
Thank you, Q Grrl. Thank you, Q Grrl. Thank you, Q Grrl. Thank you, Q Grrl. Thank you, Q Grrl. Thank you, Q Grrl. Thank you, Q Grrl. Thank you, Q Grrl. Thank you, Q Grrl. Thank you, Q Grrl. Thank you, Q Grrl. Thank you, Q Grrl.
:-P
If ****** means cult, what are the two extra letters? I mean, we already knew anti-feminists can’t read – does this mean they can’t spell either?
I haven’t read the whole thread, but in the earlier half of it, I’d like to say that Ginmar (post #4), Alsis (38) and QGrrl (#19) said what I would say if I was more articulate like.
By the way, I should point out that I added a new paragraph to the original post a couple of hours ago. Here’s what I added:
That’s not in response to anything in particular people have said; it’s just something I’ve often thought should be part of the moderation statement, but forgot to put in last night.
8 o
I thought only my girlfriend knew about Amy Grant….
oh.the.shame.
Now that Daran isn’t going to be here, I’d like everyone to try and make the cult (and/or ******) derailment go away. Thanks!
Amp, I wasn’t jesting in #96. I sincerely think that just calling the blog “feminist” raises certain expectations of it that you obviously don’t think should be there. There’s also the option of designating certain threads off-limits to those who want to play reinvent-the-wheel and turn every issue into a discussion over feminism’s general merit (or lack of same). Then you could simply ban them from those particular threads and delete (or move) their posts when they didn’t pay attention to the guidelines.
Alsis, I know that you weren’t kidding. I sometimes call “Alas” a feminist blog in conversation, meaning a blog that frequently posts about feminist issues. But I try not to formally call “Alas” a feminist blog (for instance, I took down that bit in the subtitle ages ago), out of respect for exactly the criticism you bring up.
That’s a really excellent idea. I’ll do it in some upcoming threads, and we’ll see how it goes.
Ampersand,
Here and here are two pending posts from the other thread. If you think that a discussion worth continuing, and that thread an appropriate place to have it, then post another comment there, and I’ll follow them up. I won’t read any further comments here. I’m leaving this thread for good now, having said all I have to say on the topic.
I appreciate my cult comments caused offence, and I apologise to everyone for that.
As far as that other thread has been brought in here, that was not my doing. I have been attacked, lied about, and unfairly criticised. Even expressing my genuine appreciation of another person’s courtesy is apparently evidence of some malign purpose. No matter. All I would ask of you is that it not be allowed to continue here in my absence.
One last point. Post 105 (the last one I can see) meant “yes, but in the end you got to call me a fucking cunt”. It was intended as humour, but such efforts are rarely appreciated, so I apologise if it was misunderstood.
[Note from Amp: Daran and I cross-posted, so this post was actually written before he knew I banned him. Since it contained his apology for the offense his cult comments caused, I decided to let it through. Daran has agreed to respect this ban, and will wait at least 24 hours before posting on this thread again, if he does at all. –Amp]
[Deleted by tigtog’s request.]
Wow, that’s a long comment thread!
You’re rules on moderation sound fine. As blogs get more popular, bloggers will find they need to moderate more and more. Example: The Yarn Harlot evidently got death threats at a knitting blog. Either she deleted these comments or they cam by private email– but I think this is evidence that trolls are everywhere.
I saw a few people suggest short term banning. Short time banning isn’t a bad idea, but it can also be time consuming to ban and then unban people. So, I think permanent banning is also a good idea.
You can always suggest a longwinded troll start their own blog and send trackbacks. In principle, their arguments might be easier to follow and more widely read if they placed them at the top of a blog rather than burying them in comments. If you were mistaken and they aren’t a troll, they may find themselve writing a popular blog and thank you for prodding them to start their own blog. (Of course, we know what will happen if they actually are a troll.)
[Deleted by tigtog’s request.]
Dear Ampersand, please just delete my comments at #121 and #123 where I engaged the banned. I will recast my thoughts generally in terms of the moderation policy.
Long time lurker, first time poster. Hi.
I think your addition of a policy regarding banning posters/deleting comments based purely on your opinion as to whether they derail threads and make Alas not the forum you want it to be is a nice catch-all for the faux-civility crowd, although you know you’re going to catch hell for not making it all rigidly rule-based from the patriarchy crowd, dontcha?
Still, I think it gives you a valid stand for the derailers pretending to be civil. Using semantically loaded words and then standing back to claim it’s purely a precise usage of jargon is weaseling, and very obvious weaseling at that. It is patronising, as if the person(s) being addressed can’t identify the semantic switch-n-bait. Not to mention cowardly, because the weasel words are so easy to insincerely disavow.
Passive-aggressive weaseling with loaded words is the essence of contempt masquerading as civility. I wish you good luck in making this forum inhospitable to such.
Myca (I think) said:
I actually think that there’s a decent argument to be made that the two are connected, and that were Amp not male, it would have been harder to put this site together and keep it alive.
I’d like to hear the argument. I don’t see what difference your sex makes in setting up a blog and keeping it alive.
Amp said:
And one reason for that is that blogs by men tend to get linked more, including (especially) by the big, traffic-feeding blogs.
Why would blogs by men tend to get linked more? Who cares what the sex of a blogger is? I would think it was purely a question of content, and that the sex of the blogger was irrelevant.
And one reason for that is that blogs by men tend to get linked more, including (especially) by the big, traffic-feeding blogs.
Oh, yeah – and how can you establish this as a fact, anyway?
I dunno, maybe it’s easy for me cos I’m a slow reader, but for most people, why not just ignore the people who use faux civility and faux intellectualism in their posts. Usually two sentences into a non-feminist’s post I can determine if the person is making a legitimate point or talking out their ass (which is no small feat – believe me).
Bean:
Okay, I know I’ve been lax in blogging myself recently, so maybe I don’t have a right to say this, but what happened to your blog bean? I love your blog, but there’s no posts since September. I hope you’ll do a few more posts soon.
(Also, last time I visited you guys, I noticed that Bean and Kim were never in the same room at the same time – dun dun dunnnnn. Okay, maybe they were)
Regarding TishG’s comments – okay this has been satisfactorily slapped down but I’ll add that is the most inane unsubstantive criticism I’ve read (outright slander notwithstanding). For my part, I chose to call myself Raznor because it’s more interesting than my real name. And furthermore a two minute search on this blog would reveal Amp’s real name. Last time I checked, it was still in his e-mail address.
Okay, said what I wanted to say.
Here’s a suggestion I’d have. What if there was a registration to post comments on this blog. And save for your choice of regular commenters, a 24-hour period before one can comment using the registration. (exceptions needed so there would still be comments here during the first 24 hours). Or on certain posts a one hour delay between allowing comments.
I’m not going to quote various people’s specific points, but a couple of responses:
Use of demeaning and abusive language is hardly limited to the non-feminists here. I’ve personally been invited to cut my penis off. I’m not trolling for sympathy or looking to call the wrath of the blogging gods on such; Amp did post a rebuke. But I have the perception (rightly or wrongly) that such behavior is being tied to MRA’s and FRA’s and fellow-travellers. So I’m simply pointing out that no one’s hands are clean on this.
I find myself in agreement with Qgrrl (again!) and others that posts should not be edited. If you want to ban someone, by all means do so, temporarily or permanently as you wish. But if someone engages in personal attacks, etc., and you don’t want to ban them, then leave their post up in it’s entirety. That way we know who the assholes are, and can ignore their postings from then on. It’s the same principle by which I oppose “hate speech” laws.
Amp, increased use of warning and banning on the principle of “thread hijacking” would probably be viewed as an improvement. Not that I’ve not been guilty of a few side trips myself, but repeated acts of “what about ME!” are tiresome, I agree. Saying, “Well, women do this to men so men are justified in doing it to women” or “women do this to men so let’s talk all about that instead” is, in my view, trying to change the subject.
I can’t establish it as a fact. Anecdontally, there are a hell of a lot of political blogs (apart from self-consciously feminist blogs) which link to many more men than women, both in their posts and in their blogrolls. Look at what Peek’s blogroll looked like when they first started.
But regardless of what I can establish as fact, it’s my opinion that it is so. And since what we’re discussing here is how this blog should be run, it would be foolish of me to not take my own opini0ns into account.
Ron F, Seriously … where have you been for rounds 1 … 9,856,581 of “where are the women bloggers” debate???
Nowhere, apparently. I’ve been hanging out at political and milblogs. This is the only blog I’ve ever been on that concentrates on feminism. I do hang out at Free Republic, which isn’t exactly a blog. While the majority of posters there are quite conservative, there’s a lot of them that are not stereotypical in that respect.
Hell, for a while I had no idea that Amp was male. I generally don’t bother to look at a blogger’s biographical detail.
Amp, several folks have eloquently raised issues about the role of “civility” in fostering a dialog between feminists. I want to raise one more, which is not viewpoint-specific and not dependent on a feminist analysis of discourse: civility rules cannot ensure good-faith efforts to find common ground. I could use as an example any number of the antifeminists here, but I won’t. To show that what I’m talking about is not viewpoint specific, I’ll use myself.
There are lots of times on this blog where people (usually feminist women) disagree with me and I really want to understand what they are saying and reach common ground. But I’m also frequently simply in attack mode. I’m not actually interested in what antifeminists have to say except to gain intelligence on them, or to smack them around in front of others. I take great joy in making some of the commenters, for example on the rape threads, look foolish. Nor have I ever been dishonest about that. When the last rape skirmish broke out, I said at the outset that I thought it was incumbent on me to assist the other feminists in gang-tackling certain posters and driving them into the ground. Yet I have rarely run afoul of the civility rules.
If I can comment for no purpose but to frustrate and refute other commenters without being uncivil, what is it civility accomplishes? Perhaps it is simply an aesthetic preference that you impose on the blog, which is your prerogative.
At bottom, I think, the attempt to foster dialog between people who disagree only works within a limited spectrum, and to make that happen you would have to be willing to toss people left and right to prune the discussion back to a core group who have enough common ground to work with. To attempt to bring MRA/FRA folks and feminists together is ultimately a fool’s errand, and if you doubt that you should check out Hugo Schwyzer’s comment threads sometime. (I like Hugo, and his blog, but he is so earnestly committed to peaceful coexistence between opposing views, and he keeps at it, and the total failure of that project has absolutely convinced me that it cannot be done.)
Also, a word on anonymity. I post under a pseudonym because I can’t talk freely about being a feminist around sexuality issues without being frank that I’m a sadomasochist. I work in a fishbowl professional environment, and I’m not out in that world because I fear discrimination. Some of us have our reasons.
Amp, this post is a good example of why this is one of my favourite blogs. I really like the way you moderate discussions here. And I also admire the way you state your aims clearly and the practical steps you hope to take to achieve those aims. Putting your moderation policy up for discussion is even more wonderful!
I’m female, by the way, and I have certainly never felt intimidated by posting in a forum where there are lots of vocal male posters, including many I strongly disagree with. I don’t define myself as a feminist, but I lean more towards a feminist view than I used to, (and even a more economically left-wing view, which is more surprising in my case) as a direct result of reading your posts and the discussions here. So yes, your civil discussions and openness to opposing ideas are effective in changing at least this poster’s mind. Thank you.
I like your rules, and particularly your new statement about the intent of postings and eliminating hard and fast rules.
I fall into the generally liberal but probably not feminist male category, which Bean identified as the largest group of commenters at the moment. I guess I’m scribbling this to say thanks once again to Ampersand for providing a space that’s been effective in greatly enhancing my understanding and moving me toward feminist positions.
An option that might encourage both the conversations that Ampersand wants to have, but preserve the option of a springboard for advanced feminist discussions might borrow from the The Whiskey Bar. On a seperate blog, Moon of Alabama, the posts from the Whiskey Bar are linked or duplicated and commented upon. A similar “shadow blog” (say, A blog, Alas) would allow people who enjoy the topics to comment on them in a more intense, feminist supporting environment. The level of moderation could be increased to whatever the shadow-blog’s maintainer desired.
While this doesn’t have any direct relevance to how Amp runs the site, unless he decides to get involved with doing some PHP programming, I think free-form comments forums are a poor place for discussion among a wide group of people. They really don’t scale well at all. Many of the problems are things that have been mentioned in this thread. A few of the problems I see simply have to do with the linear nature of comments in WordPress. (Has anyone ever seen threaded comments, e.g. on Slashdot or DailyKos, or on virtually any Drupal site?) Threaded comments let people ignore whole threads they don’t want to read through, and so they really make it easier for people to ignore trolls that try to “hijack”–they just skip over that whole subthread. (There may be a wordpress plugin for threaded coments; I’m not sure.)
Here’s another idea, Amp. Instead of completely deleting a statement or part of a statement, have a little copy-and-paste html that hides the text by default and shows it using javascript when they click on it. Then you can hide a complete comment or just part of it or whatever, and the reader can decide whether to trust your judgement or whether to read what you’ve hidden. I could probably code this up pretty quickly and send you the snippet if you’re interested, but you seem to be HTML adept.
Ya’ll may be interested in TruthMapping.com, which is one way to structure the forum so that signal to noise is high. (This particular site has a lot of weaknesses that I’m planning to write about at my blog soon.) I’ve been exploring other ways to add a lot of structure to forums to help with this. I think on mid-to-really big size forums, this extra-structured type of thing could replace the free-form or threaded structure that’s common nowadays. I might even write a WP plugin for it “one of these days”*.
* May be never.
Jesus F. Christ. I’ve been reading this blog for quite some time now, and I’m a little surprised that there are people who think Robert is a “troll”.
He’s ALWAYS been civil.
He ALWAYS has arguments.
He NEVER makes a point based on sentimentalism.
He DOES follow a logic pattern in argumentation.
And yet people think he’s a troll.
Complementing my previous comment:
Unless, of course, if “troll” now means “someone who disagrees with what I think, no matter how politely”.
Audrey, I appreciate your point, and I certainly don’t criticize you for posting it.
However, I’d like to avoid this thread becoming about Robert, so everyone please: don’t post counter-arguments for why Robert is a troll, if you disagree with Audrey.
Some people think Robert’s a troll, some disagree. Let’s leave it at that.
Ok. *grins* Sorry about that. I hadn’t read all comments when I posted; I was around comment 20 when I wrote that. :) Won’t mention Robert again, I promise.
And I like your rules, btw. I think they’re fair. I used to be a “die-hard” feminist when I was younger; I developed into a much milder kind of feminism; and I’ve never found a blog where feminists engage in such high quality discussion as this one – bear in mind that, in my country, “liberal-minded” people usually are extremely sentimental and can’t argue logically. So your blog is just wonderful for me, even if I’m probabley considered “the enemy” by some feminists :)
Thanks a lot.
Ron F, Seriously … where have you been for rounds 1 … 9,856,581 of “where are the women bloggers” debate???
You know what bean? It’s odder than you think. Women are blogging, in droves.
They even say poltical things. The Yarn Harlot received death threats– it wasn’t for an opinion aobut knititng. (The yarn harlot has over 1000 links from other blogs– twice what Alas has.)
There are those folks to whom “troll” means precisely that. Sadly.
I stumbled onto this blog over the Terri Schiavo debate, and found here the most civilized discussion of this very sad and thorny problem on the entire web. This might have been because the Schiavo issue didn’t run athwart anyone’s gender-dominance issues (ie, feminism and its opponents).
We have to ask ourselves, why blog at all? And even more so, why comment on blogs? Is it just to let out some bile, to be as angry and disagreeable as possible, or is it to have a discussion or maybe even change someone’s mind? If the latter, the more civilized the presentation the better. Very few people appreciate being screamed at, and screaming changes very few minds, though it may make the screamer feel better I guess.
But civility, we have always believed, has virtues of its own over and above utility. I believe that, in any case, and try to adhere to it, though I am certainly capable of losing my temper, as everyone here knows. But notice the phrase “losing” one’s temper. This very wording implies that one has suffered a loss of some kind, one which would be better repaired ASAP.
Thanks to Amp as a good moderator, and for hosting a much -better -than -average blog!
I hadn’t piped up, but if somebody’s going to start tallying up sides, I rather like it.
I hadn’t piped up, but if somebody’s going to start tallying up sides, I rather like it. [By it, I mean the guidelines, I should clarify.]
bean – you beat me to it, but I was thinking exactly the same thing.
Yes indeed, women do blog in great numbers, and we talk about politics and other manly topics.
But then again, my blog is currently the town scandal. Not because I’m a woman but b/c of the town I live in. An article is due out in the daily paper on it soon, and considering that one of the editor’s questions was, Why do you stir the pot?, it is not likely to be pretty.
I also asked myself, why do people comment on blogs? I’ve had some racist, sexist, homophobic, threatening, plain nasty comments on mine(hence, the scandal, these were city police officers) and even trying to be civil in response to these comments, to find out what was behind it, just elicited more anger on the part of those who commented. And sometimes I was tempted to push the delete icon, but I didn’t, b/c it doesn’t change what was said.
Some people are there just to vent, maybe b/c they are stifled elsewhere, b/c the world, even their small piece of it, is changing and they can’t or won’t. Maybe those who watch are the same or different. Maybe they learn from what the others do.
I blogged for myself, I guess, but now that it’s out everywhere(and the subject of an investigation by Internal Affairs), I just hope something good can come out of it. I think that’s what a lot of bloggers hope.
Yeah, that’s nice, Amp, but that’s not fair. Robert is the chink in your armor and why so many female feminists don’t trust you. Robert hates feminists. He eagerly latches onto very strawfeminist there is, and he’s ever so FUCKING POLITE ABOUT IT. I’m sorry, was I not civil? Wzs I a wee bit indelicate? Yeah, well, Robert’s your buddy and he’s got a free goddamned past as long as he isn’t honest. Why should, that reflect on you? Why, indeed? He hates feminists and you like him.
A lot of really nice decent guys find it hard to believe in a rape culture. hey don’t think their buddy Joe would do that. How do they know? Becuase their buddy Joe is so fucking polite to them. The fact of hte matter is, though, Amp, Robert is an absolute shit to women and to feminists and that doesn’t matter to you. You don’t want to discuss this? Well, then, I guess the personal isn’t political at all. The fact is, your buddy Robert hates feminists, is only interested in fighting, and he’s a troll. What does that make you?
When you call your blog a feminst one you have to answer questions like that. You haven’t. You’ve tapdanced around it. Give us a real answer. Robert is a civil, polite, hateful antifemisnist. He fights just to fight and you let him. You make excuses for him, you never discilpline him and you snipe at feminists who have enough of him. You can’t call thi a feminist friendly space if you give Robert the free run of the place.
Get all logical if you wish, but the fact is, you value style over substance. robert is a troll. He’s also your buddy. How many excuses do you makefor him?
Lis Riba said:
Indeed, I rather like it too.
As much as there are lots and lots of points to discuss, for me it really just comes down to: I’d rather not engage in discussions where people are calling each other names. If the price of that is that I don’t get to call anyone names either, well so be it.
—Myca
I guess I disagree with you, Ginmar, on substance. I don’t think Robert is hateful, and if I did, I don’t think my friendship with him would prevent me from kicking him off the blog. Although he’s made a couple of bad missteps, on the whole he’s been a good poster. And I haven’t noticed him being an absolute shit to women in general; on the contrary, he’s pretty clearly willing to have friendly relations even with women (or men) who disagree with him civily.
Regarding my calling this a feminist friendly space, I already dropped that phrase in light of Jesu’s objections. It’s not my place to say that “Alas” is feminist friendly or not. It is what it is.
Finally, regarding style versus substance, I don’t really think that distinction is as valid as most assume. Style is substance. Your style sends a very substantial message about the worth of the people you disagree with, for example. And it’s a message I’d prefer not to read on “Alas.”
Although the people who are harshest in their judgment of the moderation – even harsher than Ginmar is, although that’s a close call – are the folks over at Stand Your Ground.
The bottom line, for me, is that I want “Alas” to be a place I can stand posting to and reading. I want a blogspace in which people are treated like human beings even if they disagree, and where (ideally) there’s a norm of kindness. If wanting that makes me not a feminist, or makes “Alas” non-feminist, then I’ll have to live with that.
I’m not sure that all my critics understand what the stakes are, for me. The choice isn’t between “let’s continue the way it’s going” and “let’s add new civility policies.” The choice is between shutting down “Alas” altogether, or adding some sort of civility policy that makes this forum workable for me. So what I want to know – from Bean, and Radfem, and Q Grrl, and Alsis, in particular, because of my critics here you four are the ones whose opinions I most respect – is which of those two options do you think is better?
The perfect option – that I run this blog the way you would run it – isn’t an option, unless you want to take over the administrative and financial obligations, too. The options are that I run it the way I can stand to run it, because it’s too much work otherwise, or I shut it down.
(Or to suggest a third, workable option that I don’t currently see.)
I know that sounds like a loaded question, but it’s not intended to be one. Shutting down “Alas” altogether is an option I’ve been seriously considering, so if that’s what you think is better, I won’t consider that an outlandish, insulting or ridiculous suggestion. There’s no rule saying “Alas” has to or should go on forever, after all.
(Another option is to shut the comments down altogether. The problem with that is, I’m not sure how much fun it would be to keep producing “Alas” with no comments.)
I don’t think it’s fair to expect me to spend a lot of time and what is (for me) too much money supporting and running a forum I don’t enjoy or respect. But – in effect, if not in intent – that’s what the critics here seem to be asking for.
So it doesn’t matter what kind of misogynist / racist / homphobic / anti-Semitic / bigoted nonsense anyone posts, as long as they do it politely?
No, I don’t agree with that. Style is substance, in my view; but substance is substance, too.
Keep in mind that all first-time posters have to get their posts approved by me before anyone but me reads them. There are a lot of posts that I reject out of hand because they’re hateful, over-the-top bigoted against women/minorities/jews/fat folks/etc , which you never see. I’ve also banned some reasonably polite anti-feminist posters because in my judgement they were too full of contempt, despite surface politeness.
For what it’s worth, I actually agree w/ ginmar wrt Robert. I know that you don’t want it to be a discussion on a particular commenter, but he really is an example of a blind spot in your moderation. It really does seem to me that he is hateful towards feminists. Sure, he couches it in polite, civil language but he has said some of the most thingawful offensive stuff that I have read in the comments at Alas (I might point out here that in your hit&miss moderation that you chastised me for rephrasing something that Robert said as “having gone too far”).
I really believe that he is here to push buttons and only to push buttons. Rarely does he add anything substantive to the debate (although he has been better about that than he used to be). He often argues dishonestly and often ignores rebuttals or pointed questions in order to continue to push folks’ buttons.
As to “style over substance,” that’s one where you might want to think about why that was written. I honestly think that, in the civil style of writing that you prefer, you sometimes miss the bile and hate and downright meanness. Or, perhaps, it’s just easier for you to ignore that hate and easier to pay attention to points that may have been written in that very same post if there is no overt name-calling. But if you have multiple people saying that commenter X, no matter how civil, is a gushing fountain of hate, maybe there is something there.
It’s also true that you sometimes go way beyond the call of giving slack for the anti-feminists. There are several folks that I would have gotten rid of long before you asked them to leave. But, almost always, you eventually notice and ask them to leave. And I can live with that (as well as understand it).
Those commentors above are right when they talk about the need to find a strategy to end the endless derailment on certain threads. I appreciate your note on the recent post to that effect & hope that it works. I, for one, would like to be able to learn something new.
re: comment # 152 (written while I was writting)…
What I would like to see is moderation/criticism of comments written in a civil manner yet reeking of contempt & hate & insult. Or at least a reprimand based on your acknowledgement of other commenters complaints about such even if you don’t see it yourself.
For my self, I agree that I prefer comments that are sedately & calmly worded – even if I often have trouble doing that myself these days. However, just because a comment is written in that style does not exempt it from containing hate & insult (even if it may be harder to see).
The moderation in this thread has been a refreshing change from the lack of moderation (from my perspective) in many recent threads. There’s a reason that I’m commenting here & not on those other recent threads.
Well, I tossed my idea into the stew, and you said you’d consider it, Amp. I can’t really ask for more than that, because it’s true enough that I wouldn’t want to run this blog, or even one of my own. I’m trying to concentrate my energies on my artwork, not to mention finding a frickin’ job. :o
Funny thing about Robert: He has me agreeing with Ginmar frequently, and Ginmar is a poster with whom I have mixed it up frequently on other boards over many, many feminist issues. I find this funny (in the “funny” = peculiar) sense , because a recurrent theme of Robert’s is that certain critical subjects and tactics are desireable in left-leaning activist circles; These things will cause those circles to fragment and weaken– to the benefit of those in his own political sphere. However, his attitude on these boards have actually led me to try and repair the fissures that inevitably exist between feminists like Ginmar and feminists like myself. Not because I’ve suddenly decided that I agree with Ginmar about everything we’ve fought about in the past, but because when faced with the attitudes of men like Robert, Daran, Jaketik, whomever– I’m reminded that Ginmar and I still have some common hurdles to deal with that don’t disappear just because we can’t agree on every major issue.
And on a much more pedantic level, my quarrels with feminists like Ginmar seem like “family quarrels,” in the sense that I do not want to have them within earshot of men who have repeatedly shown that they have no use for feminism.
Which goes to show, I guess, that even “civilized” attempts at divide-and-conquer can sometimes backfire.
I know, and I know that some people I respect a lot hold your view (not least of whom is you yourself, of course). And I’ve been working hard to see it in Robert’s posts.
But I just don’t see it. What I see, primarily, is people reacting to the fact that Robert’s a little bit obnoxious, combined with the fact that he disagrees politically. If he was significantly more obnoxious, but also a feminist, I don’t think any of the posters who want to see him banned would complain about his style at all.
And I can’t ban someone because a lot of people think he should be banned, not when I don’t agree with them – that makes being banned or not into a popularity contest, and I can’t do that.
As for the particular instance you refer to, I’m afraid I don’t remember it in enough detail to comment. I remember that when we talked about it later it turned out I had misinterpreted how you meant what you wrote.
Yeah, that’s nice, Amp, you don’t think Robert is hateful. You ever notice that it’s not you he’s being hateful to? I mean, have you ever stopped and thought about it? It’s easy to miss if he’s being a shit just because he’s not being a shit to you. He’s just being shit to all these people whose cause you supposedly champion. You don’t want to see it, therefore you don’t. The fact is, Robert is a shit but you don’t have to deal with it so it doesn’t exist. He’s just a sneaky, sly, civil shit to feminists, and you value his friendship more than you value the principles he despises and disparages. He’s the embodiement of the My Buddy Joe concept. It’s not rape if it doesn’t happen in an alley and it’s my buddy Joe. It’s not sexism if it’s my Buddy Joe. It doesn’t matter if it’s my Buddy Joe. Yeah, well, he’s your friend, but he’s the enemy of anyone who’s sincere about feminism and that that doesn’t matter to you. He’s a polite, conniving, lying little shit about feminism and what matters to you is that he’s Your Buddy Robert. Two guys together, that’s what matters to you, not all the women who’ve gotten sick of Robert. In fact, your continued enabling of Robert’s behavior has driven away female posters. He matters more to you than feminism. It’s a safe place here only if you’re Robert.
But I just don’t see it. What I see, primarily, is people reacting to the fact that Robert’s a little bit obnoxious, combined with the fact that he disagrees politically.
Yeah, Amp, you think he’s a little bit obnoxious. if that’s not minimizingIf he was significantly more obnoxious, but also a feminist, I don’t think any of the posters who want to see him banned would complain about his style at all.
It’s not style. We’re not talking Strunk and White here. He’s hateful and he’s despicable. You defend him at every turn as you do not do feminists. You’ve NEVER told him to cool it or knock it off. EVER. How can you be a feminist when your buddy is so hateful to feminsts?
Oh, please, Ginmar – I’ve gotten more email from female posters complaining about you running them off, then I have about Robert. (In fact, I’ve gotten more emails of complaint about you than about any other poster, period).
(Specifically, the score is: three female, feminist posters emailing me to tell me that they hesistate to post because of Ginmar’s bullying, versus none that I recall for Robert.)
And, contrary to your claim, I have told Robert to cool it at times. It’s true that I defend him to you relatively frequently, but that’s mainly because you’ve been putting me in the position of demanding that I defend him or ban him.
Now I’m asking you to cool it, please.
I like “Alas”. I like lurking and reading posts. I like that I feel comfortable posting when time permits. I like Ampersand’s moderating style. He can’t be around 24/7, he is very honest about that. Things slip through.
I also like that the “anti-” folks are allowed to post here. If everyone agreed to everything, it seems to me all the posts would end up being “Me too!!” and “What she said!!” type posts. And it might be just me, but I learn more stuff from folks I disagree with than folks I do. I am more likely to go look up things, read more articles, check cites. If a critic pans a movie, that’s the one I want to see, just to form my own opinion.
I have read this thread, so I know I am not supposed to bring up Robert, but I don’t think he is a troll. I rather like him. I do think he needs to remember that just because something seems funny, witty, or clever when he is thinking it, it doesn’t always mean it is actually going to “be” funny, witty, or clever in print. I also think that he knows he won’t get banned, so he gets a bit snarkier than he really needs to. But I think recently he has been working on that. Other posters annoy me much more.
Qgrrl, I think it was, posted a message on another thread? that consisted of the repeated phrase “I will not take the bait”. It is an excellent point. I can ignore folks who annoy me. I don’t have to respond. Neither does anyone else. The general idea of dealing with trolls is “don’t feed them and they will go away”. I think part of the problem here is that folks keep feeding the real trolls. Silence is deadly to folks who just want to cause a commotion and get responses to whatever lameness they post. If they post and are not engaged, they will go away.
FWIW, I’ve thought that you moderate heavily in favor of women who blow their stacks, rather than men who blow their stacks.
From what I can read that’s what you’ve been trying for. I think you’ve done a great job. I agree pretty much on Robert. He’s done nothing worth getting banned from what I can divine of your rules, not if I were running things.
When you tell me to cool it, I try fairly hard to listen. I hope you recognize that these are fairly contentious topics, and people have strong emotional interests in them. Getting told to ‘cool off’ is always a bit shameful for me, and as such, tends to get me a bit defensive. So I cop to being guilty of thinking “Oh yeah, but he/she said…” when I get that sort of request.
I think the trolls and MRAs are fairly easy to spot. For the most part, I don’t talk to them. It’s the differences of opinion amongst feminists, GLBT folks, and other liberal type groups that interests me the most.
I made a stab at talking about it in the last debate on porn, but that got swallowed up by rancor, and then abandoned.
*sigh*
I must admit to some discomfort and intimidation on both sides. I start to think, gee, I thought I was a feminist, but am I feminist enough? I probably agree with a good 85% of what I’ve read from various sources, can see the sense in another 10% but can’t back it up with my own life experience, and there’s just that last 5% that’s more troublesome to me. What brush does that leave me tarred with?
And perhaps a better word for what is meant by the spirit of “civility” here is “respect”? Someone may be acting civilly when they write something patronizing and subtly poisonous, but they sure as hell aren’t being respectful. And all people are entitled to respect on the basis of being human, though they can certainly give that up, too.
“And perhaps a better word for what is meant by the spirit of “civility” here is “respect”? Someone may be acting civilly when they write something patronizing and subtly poisonous, but they sure as hell aren’t being respectful.. ”
I really like this way of putting it.
Let’s just send him over to Robert’s blog with a note pinned to his jacket. :/
Yes. Everyone should visit my blog at least six times daily, and click on every Google ad too. Note pinning is optional.
I am cautiously optimistic about Amp’s moderation plan. I think that (Alsis’?) idea to mark some threads “no antifeminism please” is a good idea – creates a safer space, while leaving other threads free for a more vigorous exchange of views. There have been a lot of MRA-types posting here, and while I don’t agree with a lot of feminist ideas, I do think it valuable to have a space which is largely, if not entirely, congenial to those ideas. (Same for most ideas, actually, but this one just happens to be run by a friend of mine.) Such derailments can certainly be counterproductive; I try to limit myself, with limited success at times.
For the record, Ginmar, a review of my e-mail reveals that Amp has pulled a couple of comments (which I later agreed were out of line) and has asked me to moderate my tone on a couple of occasions, and I’ve tried to do that. I’m really not sure why you think I’m a horrible person who treats all women like shit. Now, as a matter of personal failings, I am very arrogant and often insensitive to people’s feelings. I try to do better, sometimes with more success than other times.
Without turning this into me-me-me-me (but hey, after 165 comments, who gives a shit?), I submit (politely) that perhaps the reason Amp doesn’t think I hate women is that he’s known me for years, has seen me with women, and is aware that IRL I treat women and men about the same – almost always with a sense that the people I’m relating to are actual humans who deserve respect and basic decency. And when I fail to do that, it’s as likely to be a man who’s the victim of my failure as a woman. At bottom I suspect Amp to be an empiricist who trusts the evidence of historical data. I have never felt as though Amp “had my back” in the sense that I could get away with stuff; on the contrary, my basic feeling when posting here is that I owe him and his friends extra courtesy.
I appreciate the kind words from posters who don’t formally assign me status as a prince of hell, and the constructive criticism of those who do. (And I’m chagrined that I may have brought Alsis closer to her feminist sisters. Damn it, the orders from Rove were clear: sow dissent! Now I must return to the Chamber of Pain to be taught a valuable lesson.) I learn a lot from commenting here, and have definitely softened one or two positions as a result of the viewpoints and data presented by the more cogent bloggers and commenters.
One suggestion for the blog culture of Alas – some arbitrary number could be decided (by Amp et al) to be the “baseline comment count” for a thread. Comments received before that point ought to be germane either to the immediate post, its direct subject, or respond to a comment that directly goes to the post. Once that post count is hit (or a time period has elapsed), then the thread is “open” and you’re not derailing if you post something tangential. So if comment 2 is “yeah, but I read this fascinating theory by CHS that says this is because of feminism, not patriarchy”, the moderator might feel free to stamp with a heavy boot, whereas if comment 100 says that, s/he might just let it go; whoever wanted to address the main point presumably already has. Just my $0.02.
As an alternative to the “no antifeminism please” posts, what if anti-feminists and MRAs wishing to argue about the usual subjects (is feminism good, male victims of rape, false accusations, etc) were restricted to two categories: the “anti-feminist wackiness” category that already exists, and a “patriarchy hurts men too” category which I’d create. So anyone wishing to argue against feminism along the usual spectrum of anti-feminist issues would be regulated to doing so only in those two categories.
Or maybe just any subject having to do with rape, sexual abuse, spousel violence, etc. would automatically be a “no antifeminists allowed” subject UNLESS it was posted in the “anti-feminist zaniness” or “PHMT” categories.
Anti-feminists would still be allowed to post in other categories – but only if what they post isn’t one of the typical anti-fem arguments. For instance, there’d be no problem if Daran wanted to contribute a children’s lyric to a thread about children’s song lyrics, but if he wanted to argue about rape statistics he’d have to find an appropriate post on the “anti-feminist wackiness” or “PHMT” categories.
If I could enforce the rule strictly enough on MRAs and anti-feminists, it would leave most of the threads about rape and intimate violence – which is, I think, the most sensitive area for many feminist posters – free of MRAs and antis.
On the other hand, on the recent childcare thread, or on posts rebutting anti-feminist attacks on rape statistics, the MRAs would be allowed to post.
What do folks think? Is this a dumb idea, or might it improve the situation?
Well, I guess I’ll throw my own $0.02 into the pot.
I’m a daily reader of Alas and have been for quite some time. I don’t post to the comments very often but I do usually read them and I’d have to agree with others who have said that discussion by feminists tends to get drowned out by non-feminist and anti-feminist posters.
My main issue, which has been mentioned by quite a few feminists in this thread, is that so many of the comments sections get completely derailed into unproductive discussions that usually consist, as others have mentioned, with proverbially “reinventing the wheel”
For instance, virtually every single post that even mentions rape is usually guaranteed to slide into a discussion of whether rape happens, whether it is men who overwhelmingly comit the majority of rapes, what is rape, and whether most women who report rape are liars. It often makes productive discussion of the actual topic virtually impossible.
If there was one thing that I think could improve the discussion here it is that. Crack down on unproductive thread drifts and especially ones that slide into reinventing the wheel on certain topics. Actually, I might suggest having a series of open threads for those topics if you want to have a space where, if posters want, they can keep trying to reinvent the wheel indefinitely.
As to the issues of gaming the system by using “civility” to conceal baiting, disrespectful and insulting behavior, I think that one has been well addressed by other posters. I just wanted to add, as someone who chronically posts in a very measured style that I very much concur with the opinions of those who don’t on this issue.
I also wanted to add, from my own experience online and off, that “reasonableness” and “civility” are not inherent goods and that anyone who posts in a “reasonable” “dispassionate” “rational” tone shouldn’t automatically be presumed to know what they are talking about or to be any of those things. Conversely, those who post in more passionate terms shouldn’t be assumed to not know what they are talking about or to not be right.
You know, you might consider a software shift. As someone else said, one-thread comment handler software is, um, weak for a blog with this kind of traffic volume. You’re almost more of a forum than a blog.
I have found Ampersand’s moderation to be mostly fair. He does have a double standard in favor of feminist posters, yet a double standard is justified considering that this is a feminist blog. I think the double standard is a bit too steep, and I wouldn’t mind him being more harsh on bullying from feminist posters. If I were to recommend to my libertarian friends (although I don’t consider myself a libertarian) an example of strong feminist argumentation, I would refer them to this blog, but I would have to tell them to take the comments with a grain of salt.
A few random observations about things I’ve noticed in my time here:
1. “Offensiveness.” I’ve noticed that a lot of posters here seem to have a penchant for finding non-feminist claims “offensive.” I’ll talk about a specific example later. The problem is that a lot of “offense” is taken towards empirical claims that may be true or false. But I don’t understand why someone chooses to take offense at claims that are true, or at least possibly true. If a study finds that almost 1 in 20 men admit to rape, some people will take “offense” at the study to get out of considering its implications. Same thing with most studies of rape statistics. Yet I think it’s stupid to get offended by claims that may well be true: the study deserves to be taken seriously. I think it’s silly to get all offended about empirical claims or studies that contradict one’s worldview: if one believes that those claims are wrong, the mature response is to point out how they are wrong, instead of accusing the person making the claim of being “offensive.” (Of course, some empirical claims may be a cover for actual insults, such as “all women are liars” or “all men are rapists,” because those claims are obviously false.)
2. “Thread hijacking.” I’ve heard lots of accusations about “thread hijacking,” some directed at me in the past, and I’ve always been confused about those accusations: it’s not like I have some evil patriarchal mind control power that I use to force people to respond to me. I am sure that there are some cases where antifeminist posters deliberately try to hijack threads here. Yet in other cases, I think that something else is happening:
– A non-feminist poster states an opinion or claim in good faith, intending to add to a discussion
– A bunch of feminist posters take exception to that opinion or claim, and pile on the non-feminist poster
– The non-feminist poster defends his or her original claim
– The non-feminist poster gets piled on even more
– Then the non-feminist poster gets accused of derailing the thread!
Being on the receiving end of this treatment, I can say that it is grossly unfair and hypocritical. First, the feminist posters don’t have to respond (and as mousehounde pointed out, if the person is really trolling, then ignoring their posts is the most effective way of getting rid of them). Second, given that the feminist posters are responding, they are just as guilty of further derailing the thread. Third, some feminist posters here seem to get a kick out of flaming what they perceive as “anti-feminist trolls,” and hence actively participate in turning threads into a spiral of flame wars.
It may be true that the non-feminist poster said something incredibly stupid or ridiculous, yet that doesn’t absolve anyone who replies to him from responsibility for further derailing the thread. On the other hand, if the original poster is simply stating a serious but controversial position in good faith, then that person shouldn’t be solely blamed for “thread hijacking” simply for defending that position when multiple people pile on him or her.
3. Intentions. I’ve noticed that a lot of the feminist posters here have a strange habit of claiming themselves to be an authority on the intentions of posters they disagree with. This habit leads to all sorts of nasty accusations such as “being offensive” or “thread jacking” or misogyny and even accusations of having the mentality of an abuser. Certainly some posters are deliberately offensive, or trolling, or misogynistic, yet feminist posters are way too trigger-happy with these accusations (which often become self-fulfilling prophecies: I’ve seen situations where non-feminist posters were baited with ad hominems and accusations until they reacted by becoming deliberately offensive). This shameful treatment has the effect of making non-feminist posters often feel like they are being placed on trial as a person, which will only make them more defensive and less open-minded towards feminist points of view.
Sounds fair to me.
(Note: I made a previous comment that this one is a continuation of, but it is awaiting moderation.)
Why do you interpret it that way? It is possible that almost half of rape reports are false. I think that is very unlikely, but we can’t pretend that it’s completely impossible. Hence, it is a matter of debate, although I suspect that the outcome of the debate, when we have more evidence, will be that the 40% number is wrong. If feminists insist on interpreting false rape allegation statistics as a “slam” towards women, then they hardly have any grounds to criticize MRAs who dismiss rape statistics as “slam” towards men.
In any kind of discussion, people may encounter claims, true or false, that make their group look bad. You are going to encounter claims that make females or feminists look bad and that make you feel shitty. I am going to encounter claims that make males look bad and me feel shitty (like the 1 in 20 figure discussed above). I think this is something that everyone simply needs to learn to deal with. Nobody is justified in demanding that they never have to deal with ideas that they don’t like. No one group, regardless of past or present privilege or oppression has the right to dictate “we can make claims that reflect badly on you, but you can’t do the same to us!” That fact that a certain claim makes one’s group look bad isn’t a reason to suppress that claim or be offended by it, because there is a chance that the claim is true.
Btw, I agree with you that “There is a long history of a fundamental belief in women’s spiritual and mental inferiority” (see Otto Weininger for the most ridiculous examples of this type of misogyny). Yet I don’t think the solution to that stereotype is suppress any claims that may make women look bad. The attitude that people shouldn’t talk about certain possible empirical truths because women or feminists will get too “offended” actually reinforces the stereotype that women are hysterical and can’t deal with hard facts. It is exactly that kind of “soft bigotry of lowered expectations” that is keeping women out of education, politics, combat, economics, the sciences, etc…
How do you know what Daran’s argument is meant to prove or disprove?
Amp: As usual, you don’t seem willing to post a disagreement without making personal attacks. Once again, please try not to do that on “Alas.”
Which part of this statement did you feel was a personal attack?
(a) I really don’t object to your having whatever rules you like for your blog, and on the whole, I can live with them.
(b) What I object to is your patting yourself on the back and assuring yourself that you are being “feminist friendly” when in fact, you’re not.
(c) It’s smug.
(d) It’s annoying.
(e) It’s untrue.
Whichever part of it you decided was a “personal attack” which meant you didn’t have to respond to the rest of it, I’ll eliminate that part, if you’ll respond to the rest.
You are not a feminist-friendly blog: as several people have pointed out, you don’t have any problem at all with the anti-feminist trolls that Robert posts, and you’ve said you’ll never ban him. Daran kept spouting bilious attacks on women – all women – throughout a long thread, and you never banned him for his freely-expressed bile and contempt for women, but because he derailed a thread.
Please note, I am not attempting to tell you you should change your moderation policy. You like having Robert on your blog: he’s your friend, it’s your blog, you’re entitled. You like having all these anti-feminists on your blog posting their bile: it’s your blog, you’re entitled. But trying to claim that this makes your blog “feminist-friendly” is as false as Cathy Young claiming to be a feminist.
Aegis: In any kind of discussion, people may encounter claims, true or false, that make their group look bad. You are going to encounter claims that make females or feminists look bad and that make you feel shitty. I am going to encounter claims that make males look bad and me feel shitty (like the 1 in 20 figure discussed above). I think this is something that everyone simply needs to learn to deal with. Nobody is justified in demanding that they never have to deal with ideas that they don’t like. No one group, regardless of past or present privilege or oppression has the right to dictate “we can make claims that reflect badly on you, but you can’t do the same to us!” That fact that a certain claim makes one’s group look bad isn’t a reason to suppress that claim or be offended by it, because there is a chance that the claim is true.
You’re missing an extremely important point here.
The strategies adopted by the anti-feminists whom Ampersand welcomes here are in fact (consciously or not) intended to prevent feminists discussing facts – like the fact that one in 20 men commit rape by their mid-twenties – that make men look bad and men feel shitty.
It’s a symptom of male privilege that men, deep down, know they have the right to demand, as you put it, that they never have to deal with ideas that they don’t like: that by reason of being men, they can dictate “we can make claims that reflect badly on you, but you can’t do the same to us!” That is precisely what anti-feminists do when they post on a blog like this: they don’t want feminist discussion, because it makes men look shitty and it makes men feel bad.
The attitude that people shouldn’t talk about certain possible empirical truths because women or feminists will get too “offended” actually reinforces the stereotype that women are hysterical and can’t deal with hard facts. It is exactly that kind of “soft bigotry of lowered expectations” that is keeping women out of education, politics, combat, economics, the sciences, etc…
And this is a primary example of an anti-feminist who thinks that anti-feminist attacks ought to be given the same weight as feminism. That feminists who object to having discussion trolled by anti-feminists who want to drag everything down to “women are just as bad as men!” or “Women do lie about rape – you can’t prove they don’t!” or “Men are raped too!” when feminists want to discuss male privilege, or why so many rapists escape conviction, or how rape culture works, are “reinforcing the stereotype that women are hysterical and can’t deal with hard facts”.
A feminist-friendly blog is one in which feminists can have that kind of discussion without it consistently being derailed by anti-feminist trolls. Ampersand claims that’s the kind of blog he wants: but his actions demonstrate that what he actually wants is the kind of blog where anti-feminist trolls, including his friend Robert, feel free to derail feminist discussions and freely insult women, feminists, and feminism.
Oh, please, Amp, now you’re resoting to hearsay? I have only your word for that, and I have to trust that the supposed three women were really feminists as opposed to trolls. Hell, I have to assume they were actually female.
Yeah, Robert, why on earth would I have a probelm with you? Whether it’s here or on other boards, you’re snide, rude, and want to argue only for the sake of arguing. You have displayed absolutely no interest in listening. You just want to score points. Oh, yeah, and I”ve said this to you and you still can’t figure it out. Maybe if you devoted less time to lobbing insults and listening you’d have noticed by now. What now? You going to call me emotional? You’re going to do it in your own, unique civil style. Well fuck that bullshit–and it IS bullshit, becuase your contempt shows through. Don’t ever act innocent with me about your attitude.
Ginmar, you were the one who started the “heresay.” If it’s a valid argument when you to claim that unnamed women are being driven away by Robert being here, it’s a valid argument when I claim the same thing.
Jesu, I’ve removed the “feminist-friendly” language in response to your criticism.
What more is it that you’re asking for, specifically?
I really agree with Lorenzo that there are threads that get taken into really unproductive areas and that stopping this would be a substantial improvement. And I agree with aegis (just this once) that we should ignore him whenever he posts and I promise to do that from now on.
The idea of having some discussions off-limits seems like a good one. I had been thinking that I would love to have some types of comments declared ‘touching a third rail’ — do that and you’re dead. I don’t want to ever read ever again how women need to modify their behavior to prevent rape. I don’t want to read another sentence about how unfair shelters for battered women are. I don’t want to read one more claim that anyone who supports abortion is an immoral baby-killer who places no value on human life. I don’t want one more single mother to have to see a comment on how if she would only get married, her life would perfect and she would stop being a burden on society. And unless someone can come up with statistics that feminists and MRA’s both agrees are valid, I would love to have Amp declare all comments on false rape reports pointless.
What more is it that you’re asking for, specifically?
“Dear Buddha, please bring me a pony and a little plastic rocket”
Or, more seriously, for Fitzgerald to file charges against Cheney and Rove and/or for Congress to impeach Bush, evict the corrupt Republicans from their midst and regain Democratic control…
Ampersand: Jesu, I’ve removed the “feminist-friendly” language in response to your criticism.
Guh. So you did. My apologies: for some reason, I thought it was still there.
What more is it that you’re asking for, specifically?
Actually, what “more” I was asking for was what I have acknowledged I don’t have a right to ask for: I wish you had decided you did want your blog to be a feminist-friendly space, and had modified your moderation policies accordingly, rather than acknowledging that you don’t, and changing this post about them. But thank you for changing your post.
If it’s a valid argument when you to claim that unnamed women are being driven away by Robert being here, it’s a valid argument when I claim the same thing.
The difference is, several other feminists have pointed out the problem with Robert, and other anti-feminist trolls, feeling welcomed on your blog: that we cannot have feminist discussions without their being derailed by people, like Robert, who do not wish them to take place.
Amp, here’s another easily-implemented idea. This one might solve the “MRAs are districting me!!!” problem. (If you implement it in a hacky way, it would be easy to program it into your template.) Request each poster to mark their post with “feminist hostile” at the beginning, if it’s either hostile or it’s a response to one of those, and put a bit of code into your template to color those comments differently. People who don’t want to read them can easily skip them. You might even make an option for them to hide those comments, perhaps. This would probably increase the volume of intra-feminist discussion on those posts that have MRAs posting. It does still require people who don’t want to read them to *actually not read them* and refrain from responding, but it makes it easier for them to do so.
And also, I want to echo the poster who said it’s more about respect than it is about civility. I think all posters should either entirely ignore one poster, or summarily dismiss their ideas (say, by posting “this is a load of bullshit.” and nothing more), or really engage those ideas as if the other poster were being honest. There should be attempts at meeting halfway from both parties, and when they don’t, I think that should be subject to moderation.
Robert said:
“You’re almost more of a forum than a blog.”
Ahh, but even a lot of php-bb type forums don’t have threaded displays. But they have the advantage of being able to have poster-created threads. So to replace that, amp could install php-bb and let posters fork comments threads using that. (If he wanted to make the template consistent, that’d be a lot of work, otherwise pretty easy.)
Aegis said:
“Yet I think it’s stupid to get offended by claims that may well be true: the study deserves to be taken seriously.”
I think the offense is generally more over the lack of respect for the shared knowledge of the other posters. By being so uninformed about their opinions, you’re creating a lot of work for them if they want to engage you, and distracting them from the more enriching discussion they could be having otherwise. Unless you’re very receptive to their opinions, and are coming from a position of genuine humility, as would befit a guest on a feminist blog, you’re going to raise hackles.
Imagine a blog devoted to the discussion of basketball techniques and plays. Posters there that came in complaining about basketball or asking about what the rules are or posting urban legends about various pro basketball players would definitely be considered to be hijacking threads. It’s not the behavior of the posters that makes them “hijacking”, it’s the subject matter of their comments.
I agree that it’s a tad hypocritical for a commenter to both respond to the hijacker and complain about hijacking. But I doubt this actually happens all the time. Some feminist commenters like to debate with MRAs, some don’t. The ones that don’t are often sick and tired of having to listen to those same conversations over and over. They’ve already heard the arguments a million times. The ones that do may not be the ones complaining so much.
Jesu, believe it or not, I actually share your concern about having threads here that aren’t constantly derailed. And I do want “Alas” to be a feminist-friendly space, although I also want it to be a space where it’s possible to have respectful debates with non-feminists. (I realize that some feminists may find these two goals mutually exclusive.)
However, I’m also very aware that not all feminists will find “Alas” “feminist-friendly,” no matter what I do. There are feminists who pretty much consider me an anti-feminist, after all. So it’s not that I’m not trying to address your concerns; it’s that I’m aware that even if I do address your concerns successfully, it still won’t be my place to say if “Alas” is “feminist friendly” or not, because some feminists won’t find “Alas” friendly space.
Anyhow, here’s the new policy for anti-feminists, MRAs, and right-wingers. It’s not set in stone, so I’d appreciate feedback from you and any other interested parties. Do you think this policy might address your concerns?
In response to some comments here, I’ve modified goal number one so it talks about “respect” rather than civility.
Hey Amp.
I personally like a loose moderation, more like a referee than a dictator of manners. The two suggestions that pop up in my mind are 1) leave posts in their entirity with no editing from your end and 2) when you see someone react in a “knee-jerk” way or seemingly out of line way, as them why they did it rather than just telling them they’re out of line. That way you build in a time-gap before the next reaction and you might just get a justification for the reaction that furthers discourse. Most often when I go ballistic there are good political and theoretical underpinnings to my reaction. Most often when I go ballistic though, these aren’t clear. As I said before (in this thread?), the effects of sexism and the way sexism is played out in the private and public spheres is extremely nuanced and sometimes so subtle that you only know it because you are feeling it. This makes it very hard for me to express clearly and concisely what is a very emotive experience — one that is filled with anger, rage, and the specific impotence of being female and having to still defend feminism in 2005.
I like the mix up of opinions here, but I’m also in total agreement with Bean about the strength and intelligence of feminist discourse when it is unfettered from having to protect its theoretical flanks. I take my feminism quite seriously — it is an ethos. What I write here is also how I live my life. The passion here is always with me. And I would like to see change continue to progress, not regress.
Men often need to figuratively cut themselve sand other men to see them bleed; women, on the other hand, just bleed. We don’t have to prove it; we don’t have to create fancy semantic or statistical shell games to prove a level of rightness or wrongness. It isn’t about rightness or wrongness. It is about validation and human worth. But many of the MRA’s or FRA’s here still profess profound ignorance and repeatedly posit, “You can’t possibly bleed every month! Impossible I say! Men don’t — prove that you do.” And then when we show them the proof, they say we’re lying.
Well, I came back and people kept on talking about Robert. :)
Amp, I really am amazed at ginmar’s reaction. On this thread, she has used a myriad of bad words and got away with it. Ok, she’s pissed off, and maybe with a reason – I’ll even try to look for other comments Robert has made here to see if he’s really is a troll. But I can’t recall any, so far.
So maybe it’s a matter of having a blog not as feminist-friendly as some feminists want. I, for once, like having people who disagree having a civil conversation – that’s what makes a good blog, in my opinion. I have no interest in reading blogs which espouse my ideas about life in general and in which people only agree with the poster. But that’s just me. And I’m afraid that not everyone will be satisfied with what you do here, no matter what – well, that’s life.
Audrey, when you get confronted with the equivalent of, “Well, some peopel somewhere—unnamed and unquoted—bitched about you” as an exampel of a supposedly strong argument, you’d get pissed off, too. It’s the equivalent of Faux News saying, “Well, some people say…”
If you want an example of Robert saying, “You feminists all suck!” you won’t find it. He’s too clever for that. But he’s also snide and has proven himself completely disinterested in c hanging his mind about our rights.
Hey, RadFem, I dropped by your blog. “Stir things up” seems rather inadequate. Looks more like you dropped a match in the gas tank!
pdf wrote:
Bingo.
I brought in a similar parallel several months ago, but of course the MRA’s invovled in the thread-jack who bothered to respond all informed me that, no, their mission was different blah blah blah…
I agree with Q that the referee model is most desireable, even if Amp can’t be here every second of the day to ref.
Some policy about apologies would be good. It flows directly from the respect point, that is, if a commentor behaves constantly in a manner that others find offensive or posts offensive stuff and reacts to criticism by bearing personal grudges towards the offended people instead of trying to solve the issue immediately by possibly apologizing and solving misconceptions when they occur, that person (IMO) is at least a candidate for banning.
I don’t mind offensive language or even some personal stuff if it is accompanied by a degree of respect, honesty and good faith. After all, many of the issues here aren’t just philosophical exercises, but damn serious (especially for women). I don’t think it’s fair to demand people whom these issues affect most to adopt a sort of schoolroom debate -mode. (Not that I expect you to completely disagree here, but just my 0.02 euros).
Ginmar, what happened to ” I don’t intend to post here any longer.”?
I’ve been a regular (twice a day at least) lurker and occasional commenter for going on two years now. I was one course short of a women’s studies minor, and I consider my feminist. (I blame my mother, since she named me after one of the founders of the women’s rights movement in the United States. Now I just need to find a man with the last name Stanton, and I’m set.) 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.
Amp, it’s your space. Do what you want with it. Personally I think you do a great job overall.
I actually do mind personal stuff, Tuomas. I’m not sure there’s a way to make personal attacks that actually is respectful. That doesn’t mean that you have to pretend to respect opinions that are not worth respecting.
There’s a world of difference between
and
My whole point in any of this is to try to end up with discussions that are more like the former than the latter. Both call out the argument in no uncertain terms, it’s just that the first one doesn’t make me want to give up on humanity and hope against hope that the cockroaches do better.
—Myca
Myca, you forgot “despicable” and “hate-filled”.
AK, if Amp actually follows through, it’d be different. I do like your setting yourself up as the standard, though—You’ve never been bothered by the male trolls, but you have been bothered by the feminists hwo told you you weren’t feminist enough, horrors!
Amp’s made some major changes that might choke off the hold the trolls have on this place.
Ironically, while “TishG” behaved like a first-class twit here, she was right in one sense: I’ve found that often my attempts to be less of a grouch meet with relative silence compared to my more off-the-cuff rants. Maybe once you have a certain rep, people are disappointed when you don’t deliver what they expect. It’s weird…
OTOH, unlike Josh, I thought the latest porn-thread went very well. Compared to the usual, it actualy was remarkably restrained. Perhaps that’s simply because most folks are simply tired of wading into a subject that never seems to go anywhere good, but still…
I greatly enjoyed much of the recent race threads, too. Though part of that is simply that I’m trying to scroll past the folks I know I’ll find disappointing in favor of the folks I always learn something from. The main problem with that coping method is that often you can’t appreciate the latter without eventually going back to read the details of what the former said. Arg. My poor blood pressure…
I have no intention of setting myself up as the standard. I merely stated that I find it relatively easy, myself, to brush off the BS from obvious trolls, but I find the internecine Feminist Wars to be damaging both to my equanimity (and blood pressure) and to the movement at large. Being called a man-hating whore or hag rolls off my back at this point. Having my committment to feminism and core values questioned because I questioned some second wave assertions is doesn’t.
I’m sorry, would that argument be more effective if I inserted several “fucks”?
No, it’d be more effective if you dropped your fucking attitude. I’m so happy for you, that sexist shit doesn’t bother you, but you’re just you, and it does bother other people. You feel compelled to trot that out, as if it makes you both unqiue and some kind of standard bearer. You also saw fit to introduce yourself by saying that feminists bug you more than trolls. Aren’t you the standard to which we should all aspire to? If you’re going to bitch about having standards, perhaps you shouldn’t offer your own behavior as the model.
Er, yes. I believe that’s exactly what I said.
Er… huh?
It obviously doesn’t make me unique, because several other people have said as much. Everything from that point on makes no sense to me. I already said I have no interest in establishing a standard. Amp asked for opinions, and after reading the first 189 comments I offered my own. As it relates to me, myself. You’re free to be offended by whatever the hell you want.
You’re probably right. What I’m saying is that probably all of us ‘slip’ now and then, but if there is respect, we apologize and try to set things right. I know I’ve slipped in the past but an apology (an actual one, not “I’m sorry you were offended” -pseudoapology) usually went a long way.
And yes, I prefer the former to the latter too. The civility vs. honesty is a bit of a false dilemma anyway, usually it is entirely possible to be both.
And about Robert: I don’t think he is a troll. Certainly I don’t agree with much of his politics, but he does appear to be here in good faith and has displayed (mostly) patience and respect towards opposing viewpoints. Perhaps it is his style of humor, which consists of good-natured (or malicious, but I’m being optimistic here) poking and teasing is what people object to. Sometimes it is funny, sometimes it comes across as being a smart-ass. No offense intented, Robert.
I’ve never been one to post politely and butter crumpets like I’m at a fucking tea party. I tend to be very blunt and acerbic. It beats being passive-aggressive by a mile. I am also really fucking fond of F-bombs.
AK, I haven’t seen any intercine feminist wars, unless your talking about people doubting Cathy Young’s claim to feminism. I also have no problems telling misogynist trolls to get lost and go fuck themselves.
But–and perhaps you missed this upthread–I’m tired of having to reinvent the wheel for the willfully ignorant, and forgo a deeper understanding of the subject at hand because a couple of trolls are using up all of the oxygen in the room. Yeah, that means that I’m sick to the teeth of threads getting deraild by the what about the MEN???!!! contingent every time a subject about women comes up. It means I’m fucking tired of a threads becoming about the feelings of men, or the feelings of one or two men, and fuck the rest of us bitches. It means I’m sick to death of the button-pushing and P-A tactics from these trolls–and the squealing and yelping and oh-so-injured-innocence when someone verbally kicks their ass for acting like. . .an ass.
M response to this tends to be impatient and acerbic, because I have zero tolerance for this bullshit anymore. I have to deal with it on a daily basis everywhere else, so my polite supply is running short. It’s more irritating to me that the so-called intercine feminist wars, frankly.
If that makes me mean, I really don’t give a fuck.
Agreed completely. Even under the best of circumstances we’ll all lose our temper from time to time, and “faceless arguments about stuff we care about on a deep and personal level with people we’ll never meet in person” isn’t even close to the best of circumstances. I mean, Christ, you can’t even see it from there.
So yes, self-examination is a good thing. I actually had a long rant just typed out about 10 minutes ago that I decided to kill rather than post, and the thing is, it was hard because I was really clever and funny . . . and snarky . . . and inflammatory. I was right to kill it, but man oh man I didn’t want to.
—Myca
It’s more irritating to me that the so-called intercine feminist wars, frankly.
Should have been: It’s more irritating to me THAN the so-called intercine feminist wars, frankly.
And for all the other typos, my apologies.
“My response to this tends to be impatient and acerbic, because I have zero tolerance for this bullshit anymore. I have to deal with it on a daily basis everywhere else, so my polite supply is running short.”
Well thanks for summing up my usual day, Sheelzebub.
“P-A tactics…”
Was that in reference to me?
PA = Passive-aggressive, methinks.
P-A lives !!
(passes fizzy punch drink)
What with raznor and lucia dropping by, it’s almost like old-home week. I need to break out my “Dean For America” sign and– oh, wait. I never had one. I can’t stand Dean. Forget it. Just drink your punch. :o
I agree with Sheelzebub, and not because I’ve never been the target of the more-feminist-than-thou spiel from some feminist in another camp. I tend to think that saying trolly men’s bull rolls off one’s back misses the whole issue. Perhaps one of the reasons it DOES roll off your back, Aliera, is because like most of us, you’ve gotten a societal message from our culture that men act like assholes and that if women don’t like it, tough. Perhaps it affects you/us more than you realize and this has something to do with your impatience with feminists who tend toward the cranky style of discussion.
“P-A lives !!”
No not really. Since school ended and I’m now back home I’ve been sleeping in until 3 or so in the *afternoon*. But I have to stop because it’s freaking out my dad and step-mom. (takes fizzy punch drink from alsis)
I see your point re: the ‘men act like assholes…’ subliminal message, but I don’t think that’s quite it. It’s that you CAN brush them off with the “fuck you I will not reinvent the wheel” response. The willfully ignorant and just plain stupid are unconvincable, and *should* get a cranky (to say the least) response. I didn’t mean to suggest they shouldn’t. I realize exactly how much it affects me, and that’s why I have two choices: learn to ignore it or go slowly insane.
It’s not a boys-will-be-boys response, it’s that stupid people will be stupid.
I just think the agressive energy and the anger should be directed at the enemy, not each other.
I also tend to be sensitive to the whole swearing vs swearing at someone distinction. I’m a motherfuckin’ fan of the goddamn pottymouth shit talk, but when you start swearing AT someone, you’ve passed the point of argument and into flat-out-fight. Sometimes, that’s the appropriate response. I did not, however, make that sufficiently clear, and I apologise.
First of all, let me finish jumping up and down for joy that my oldest niece just got accepted to the rigorous medical program in N. Z. (Univ. of Otago)
Okay….
Well, I don’t think the blog should be shut down, b/c it s a really good one. I enjoy reading and posting here. Robert’s kind of a pain, but I either ignore him or I’ll say something about what he’s said on a topic, depending on my mood. Ditto the MRAs or SYG folks, who face it, if they have anything less than a full run of your blog, they will never be happy. I’m not surprised if they are sending you floods of complaints.
I share bean’s concerns and observations about dynamics that I’ve noticed. And not those involving mainly the MRAs but nonfeminist liberal men. But that’s been a struggle in liberal or leftist movements and organizations forever. And it’s been written or talked about a lot. It’s frustrating when that happens though, on these threads involving feminist issues.
It’s just on certain threads, especially those on rape, DV or similar topics they begin with really good posts(by amp and P-A) and then it gets turned around to where if it’s rape for example, it’s all about male victims, women lying about rape, those rotten feminists, whatever.
It’s not these divertive topics that are necessarily the problem(well, skip the latter), they can be excellent discussions, but where they are raised—on threads dealing with issues and their impact on women. Why can’t they be discussed on their own threads? But then, for at least some male posters, particularly the MRA crowd, that would not be enough. Part of what drives them, is to use those topics to interrupt discourse that is already taking place about issues and the impact they have on women. I think the MRA people do it consciously. Maybe other men are less aware of what they are doing., but it’s still there.
Depending on the day I’ve had, I have different levels of patience dealing with the tactics of diversion used by some men on these threads. Sometimes very little, especially if I’ve seen or experienced similar tactics used IRL that day.
No apology necessary, Aliera.
But, I think that’s exactly what I was driving at. (bean, Qgrrl, Sheelzebub and some others, too.) We aren’t ducks, really, despite metaphors to the contrary. :p More like sponges. Before we reach the “roll-off-your-back” stage, an awful lot of that nasty troll/anti-feminist stuff had to soak in and supersaturate our hides first. Given the general hostility in society towards women and feminist issues, it’s inevitable that we’ve soaked up more anti-feminism than feminism by the time we’re old enough to reach the keyboard. This invariably poisons exchanges between women because we’re already supersaturated with negative emotions from outside. Also, we end up using up our pity (or sympathy) on men, and don’t have any left for each other.
I’m not saying that life in patriarchy means that we all have a blank check to be shitheads, only that we need to be careful about the standards we use with our own vs. outsiders– You know, whether the standards are being fairly applied or not.
Amp, I like your rules. I also like your blog, and would hate to see it go away. I too found it while looking for info on Terri Schiavo, and I was really impressed with both the factual info you provided (the scan showing the atrophied cerebral cortex) and the comments thereon.
Sometimes I’ve been a little reluctant to post because I’m a good deal less radical than some of the feminists here (for example, I have described myself as “prochoice but queasy”), and I’d echo much of what AK said.
Some months ago Amp was interviewed on a blog called Christian Conservative, and I was so impressed by his and Michael’s willingness to discuss if not debate that I hung around on CC for a while, trying to get a sense of what they were about and to find common ground. I finally gave up because they were getting nowhere trying to convert me and I was getting nowhere with my arguments on various political issues. I became convinced that I was just wasting my time and theirs. (I still lurk there occasionally, and I know at least a few folks from here are still over there fighting the good fight — all I can say is I commend you for your patience.) In any event, I do not find that to be the case here. I’ve learned a lot from people on both sides of the discussion (whatever the discussion happens to be).
I particularly agree with AK that if I think a comment is way out in left field I just say to myself, “oh, that’s just Robert [or Q Grrl, or RonF, or ginmar, or whoever]” and move on. If the whole thread seems to have wandered away I just stop reading. I don’t think this is a passive response to patriarchy, just a time-saving device — see remarks re CC above.
I like the idea of disemvowelling and/or 24-hour bans — on CC I often had to put myself in time-out, and I wouldn’t object to being put there by the blog host. I do think that Amp’s willingness to tolerate dissent improves this blog a lot, even if it does sometimes lead to thrashing and rehashing. As someone else said (paraphrasing here), if everyone says the same thing no one learns much. It’s a hard line to walk. Limiting certain discussions to certain threads might work.
Let me repeat for emphasis: Amp, I like your blog, and would hate to see it go away.
I didn’t see the original policy, but I find the current policy quite reasonbly.
Personally I have found that I comment less on Alas than I used to do, but that is more related to the fact, that I feel akward posting on US feminist issues as a Danish man, than anything else. I do still occationally comment on posts on different issues.
The debates have taken a dive, and to some degree it seems that it is because the MRA people have found your blog, and (intentionally or otherwise) derails many of the feminist debates.
It’s the same problem the evolution blogs have with Creationist/Intelligent Design posters.
Isn’t this whole thread really a meta-commentary on the fact that feminists feel pretty hopeless about how they can get their message out and still have a chance in hell of being heard and understood by people who don’t (yet?) define themselves as “feminists”? To have a truly “feminist-friendly” blog, I think that needs to be a more-discussed topic.
Mary, your comment makes me a little nervous. You sound like you want to convert all who don’t profess all of the articles of the One True Feminist Faith. I like this blog because of the diversity of opinion (which I believe exists among feminists as well as between feminists and non-feminists).
Of course it is possible that my experience with right-wing Christians has made me a bit touchy.