A while back, after I’d participated in some fairly intense threads here at Alas defending woman-only space in general, and woman-only internet boards (mine, in particular), Amp asked me if I’d like to start blogging regularly on Alas. I’ve been thinking about his invitation for some time now, and a couple of times I’ve written something, even threatened Amp that I was about to begin. Each time, though, I’ve ultimately decided not to, for the same reasons I haven’t posted at Alas for a long, long, time. There are just so many anti-feminist posters here. There are way too many men here, and too many of them seem to be here for the express purpose of making feminist discussion unlikely to impossible. It seemed too likely to me that attempting serious feminist discussion here would be like trying to have a conversation in a bar while the band was playing, just too frustrating.
A couple of days ago, Ginmar posted to my boards, alerting me to the treatment she was receiving here and to the fact that she had finally left Alas. I read her
I first encountered Amp on the old Ms boards, where there were the same ongoing problems with trolls, men’s rights activists, anti-feminists, libertarians, conservatives. Eventually, frustrated with how difficult it was to simply engage feminist women over issues of importance to us, I began what became a series of over 50 woman-only threads expressly for radical feminist women. Lots of people on the Ms boards, including feminist women, objected to those threads at first, but over time, their value became apparent even to those who at first opposed them. In the woman-only, radical feminist women’s space threads, women were at last able to enjoy serious discussions of feminist issues with far fewer of the intrusions and obfuscations typical of those who were on the Ms boards with one purpose and goal in mind: to silence and erase the voices of feminists, and especially feminist radicals, militants and separatists.
I think it’s great that Amp has revised the moderation policies here to make separate threads for men’s rights people and anti-feminists. I think that is definitely a step in the right direction. I would like to propose the creation of woman-only, radical feminist threads here as well, of the type some of us enjoyed back in the old Ms boards days, of the type we enjoy every day on my own boards. It seems to me that if space can be made for anti-feminists and fathers’ rights trolls here, it might make sense to make similar space for those of us who are radical feminists, separatists, and militants. I think it’s a shame that our presence on these boards is all but gone. Feminist women who share our politics and beliefs and history created a revolution in our time on behalf of the people of women, first and foremost, but ultimately benefitting all people — men, women, and children, and creatures and the earth as well. It seems to me that space should be made here for the kinds of discussions and discourses which have changed and are changing the world.
Woman-only, radical feminist space here won’t prevent anyone from discussing the issues we raise (in other threads which they create). What it will ensure is that our voices are not silenced and erased completely. And it might work to minimize the provocations which inexorably lead to flame wars and targeting and the uncivil posting styles which are often criticized here. So whaddya say, Amp? I’m pretty sure this isn’t what you anticipated I might post as a first post to your blog! It’s just that I haven’t been up for dealing with men’s rights guys and anti-feminists and trolls. I’ve done that to death and can’t give it my energy anymore. But I’d sure be up for creating a new space here for those who share my own separatist, radical, and militant feminist politics. I’d enjoy engaging the issues raised in the radical feminist threads outside of those threads here as well. And for what it’s worth, I’m betting the discussion which ensues now will be interesting.
Heart (Cheryl)
http://www.womensspace.org ( The Margins)
Wait, Jesurgislac: you needn’t answer me. In any language. After your last few comments, I really don’t think you’re participating here in good faith.
I can only re-emphasize my comment about Ampersand’s remarkable patience.
I was personally called an ugly name, in public, by one of the banned persons, for no better reason than that we disagreed about something. I don’t know if that’s why she was banned or not. But this site is more “woman-friendly”, at least to this woman, without that kind of behavior.
Someone who openly declares that she’s only here to attack other posters certainly qualifies for this judgment. Unless one has a most extraordinary definition of “good faith.”
Speaking as one of his critics I don’t want Alas to disappear, Ampersand has just as much right to blog as anyone else, I would however like Ampersand to stop giving a platform to anti-feminists whilst treating feminists poorly, or, if he’s not going to do that, stop promoting his blog as “feminist-friendly” or himself as a feminist.
Fair enough. Amp believes, and I agree, that there is a need for a place for interaction between feminists & anti-feminists. Lately, though, that has led to a lot of virtual ink being wasted here on the same old crap as well as diversions from interesting and serious subject. Thus, I suspect, the new moderation guidelines.
Jesu:
Well, I don’t put Ginmar in this category. I wouldn’t put, you, Jesu, in that category either. However, if last spring’s uproar about “civilized” behavior of feminists is any indication, in some cases, there are feminists in blog-land who really didn’t give two shits and a fuck about the well-being of feminists on this blog. They simply appeared magically at a moment in which other feminists, who were regulars in this space, were unhappy with Amp’s behavior. The women who suddenly “pinged” into the discussions at that point probably didn’t give two shits and a fuck about me or any other regular who often finds it rough going here because of Amp’s policy. They simply appear because they have old scores to settle with Amp that are left over from other spaces, and they use women like me as a vehicle to get back at him.
I don’t shed any tears when women like that get the boot, because I don’t appreciate having my dissent used as a weapon to settle a bullshit personal score.
That being said, Amp: That’s one of the reasons that I don’t think it was fair of you to give Ginmar the boot. I have always found her to be very sincere here in her concerns for women. She may be a loudmouth, but I don’t think that she’s a user and I don’t think that she means you personal harm. I urge you to reconsider.
Jake Squid wrote:
No kidding. People can whack off to anything. Target swimsuit circulars, footage of paramedics cutting off a female accident victim’s shirt, some LOTR actress in a white gown, etc. Hell, I could post a picture of myself covered head-to-foot in a Dalek costume and within half an hour, someone somewhere would probably be whacking off to it. :p Seems like poor criteria for deciding what should and should not be posted to the blog.
I don’t think he has ever treated feminists poorly.
You see, there are many different shades of grey in the feminist world. I don’t think anyone could in their right mind say that this is NOT a feminist-friendly blog. As Susan pointed out, there are feminists who call themselves feminists but may not be regarded as “true” feminists by other feminists.
Unless, of course, if being “feminist-friendly” means “espousing only the ideas I agree with and never letting people who disagree with these ideas ever set foot on this blog”.
It that’s what this blog is going to become, well… I’m outta here.
I’m confused. I thought that Ginmar left on her own, because she wasn’t fond of the moderation rules. It’s possible I just missed something, but if she was banned, it totally went over my head.
—Myca
Ginmar wasn’t banned. She apparently decided to stop commenting rather than sign on to the moderation guidelines that were discussed recently.
I would say that Alas may serve an important purpose as a jumping-off point for fledgling feminists. Everyone’s got to start somewhere; someone (like me) who is just coming to realize the extent to which sexism and male privilege dominate her (or his!) world, but not sure of all the implications or history, would find here a lot of good information in the posts, some differing viewpoints in the comments, and an array of links to other blogs. A skeptic, who is truly interested in listening to what supported an opposing viewpoint, would find good information here as well. And that initial spark of interest may well lead a person to a radical feminist ideology, who might not otherwise have been exposed to its ideas.
In response to Cheryl/Heart’s definition of radical feminism –
I definitely agree with that, except for the assertation that “all other oppressions are modeled after sexism.” Is this word a male supremacist world? Hell yes. And now that I’m better at knowing what to look for, I see the implications in everything, from the cartoons aimed at little kids to the atmosphere in my workplace. And it makes me angry, and sad, and frustrated. But I am not convinced that oppression, in all its forms, is modeled after oppression on the basis of gender.
I think it would be great to have the voices of radical feminism represented here, in the form of guest bloggers, perhaps, but I’m wary of moderating comments much more than is already provided for in the policy already outlined. I also believe there is a need for a place where feminists and anti-feminists can have a dialogue, and that seems to be what this blog has been intended for. It’s not perfect, but all things considered, I think Amp does a good job.
And as far as I can tell, he’s a feminist. I’d certainly rather see a lot more men like him, who make an effort and do something, than more men who ignore their privilege, figure men and women are pretty much equal already, and then expect a prize for not raping you.
Okay, never mind then. I thought that she had been kicked off.
Ditto.
What alsis said, especially in respect to the oh-so-opportune posting/blogging of feminists that seldom post here.
WRT: Ginmar.
Amp this sucks giant donkey balls and you know it. It is cowardly and I can’t help but think that you have been swayed by the MRA, especially the SYG crowd. I know you say you haven’t, but the evidence is a little too coincidental. I’m not sure that you need to have double standards for behavior, but there are and were other options other than banning. Ginmar’s is an important voice — albeit most unpopular with those who only wish to get their big toes mildly damp in the pool of feminist theory. Or with misogynists.
This is like a bad joke. I like ginmar, even though she is often rude. I don’t like misogynist men or MRA’s, though I think there are some rights even men should have more of.
But this debate is as close to pointless as I think debates about organization and feminism can be, though those are two issues I care very much about. Space on the web is so cheap as to be practically free, Heart, and Ginmar, at least, have thier own websites! So mere infrastructure cannot be the problem.
Maybe the point is to democratize the blogosphere? In which case, this is still a quixotic effort. Alas is a little blog compared to the actually big ones run by really misogynist liberal men. How ’bout they give ‘us’ our own threads instead
Maybe the point is to show off adherence to thoretically driven doctrinare positions which have remained unchanged for more than twenty years?
MM. the total lack of absence of discussion of what it might mean to have a womyn only space for radical feminist discussion THAT EVERYONE ELSE CAN READ suggests my final hypothesis is the correct one.
Also, because
Just to clarify: where/when did Amp ban Ginmar (block her IP, ask her to leave and never return)? I can’t find it, but lots of people are referring to a ban.
Oops, answered while I was typing. All the fuss over “banning Ginmar” evaporates, no, in light of the fact that she was never banned?
>>That being said, Amp: That’s one of the reasons that I don’t think it was fair of you to give Ginmar the boot. I have always found her to be very sincere here in her concerns for women. She may be a loudmouth, but I don’t think that she’s a user and I don’t think that she means you personal harm. I urge you to reconsider.>>
I said I wouldn’t participate here, but since the thread has moved so far from the original topic, I’ll just drop in to say:
Second.
Whoops. I should have just stayed out altogether, no?
I’ll just say that I’d like very much if ginmar came back, although I understand her reasons for not doing so.
Heart alludes to Ginmar being banned over at The Margins (and having had her posts deleted). I’m not sure if this is true or not. Amp, can you clarify what’s going on?
While obviously sometimes posters do attempt to “derail” a topic by deliberately posting something inflammatory, the term is often used the way you suggest – as an excuse to ignore dissenting opinions. This happens a lot with communities or philosophies that rely on a sort of “echo chamber” quality to survive. It is important that they build their concepts in a space free from challenges or reality checks. It is especially true for communities based on a shared feeling of victim hood.
Of course not all places that restrict trolls or attempt to stay deliberately on topic are echo chambers. It is a hard line to see and a judgment that can only be made by the reader. Certainly not ____ only or ____ friendly spaces are “echo chambers”. In the end it may be only a distinction of intent.
That all being said, I still support the rights of those who own a space to control it.
There is simply no way that I can see for anyone to question Amps commitment to feminist ideals. Possibly not the more radical feminist concepts… but certainly here is a blog devoted to feminism. If refusing to tolerate bullies and abusive behavior from “name brand” feminists is somehow now part of a litmus test then I think Amp should be proud to fail it.
This is of course the problem… when presenting a dissenting concept is considered a inherently trolling or “anti” activity then many people will feel it is justified to respond with abusive or vicious language and attitude. They cannot separate the concepts of a differing idea and a personal attack because to them the very reality that someone might hold a differing view is an attack in and of itself.
It is this I think that leads to the idea that if you allow “anti-feminist” ideas then you must also allow “pro-feminist” bullies. That somehow the very act of holding a different view or opinion is an attack and thus justifies any sort of response.
One note to Amp. This is your space, most importantly this place needs to be “Amp friendly” and “Amp safe”. Don’t feel pressured to delegate control of any of it to your critics in an attempt to appease or placate them.
I was personally called, on this blog, by ginmar, recently, and I quote, an “anti-feminst jerkwad”.
And we’re defending this behavior? And that would be why again? And that squares with treating other commenters with respect exactly how?
curiousgrl says,
I don’t. And curious, after you’re called an “anti-feminist jerkwad” or the equivalent because you don’t agree with every single one of ginmar’s opinions, you might be less charmed.
To which I can only say, Amen.
I’ve enjoyed my time here on Alas. I think I’ve gotten more education on feminisim in practice in the year I’ve been lurking and reading here than in my entire college experience. I do identify as a feminist, and understand many rad feminist ideological points. Though I disagree with certain points as well.
I’ve found that the point -counterpoint dialogue offered in comments here to be enlightening. However, I’ve only recently started commenting becuase of several “strident” voices that left me feeling intimidated when it came to asking questions that might be considered “stupid” or “derailing”.
So, I think the moderation policy is a good one. And I would hate to see Amp close Alas, as I for one, have learned a good deal here.
As posted up-thread, there already exists women only and radical feminist only protected space for discussion, and in practice I wouldn’t be adverse to certain threads being “rad feminst” only or “women” only. I would hate for the entire point-counterpoint discourse to be lost, being that I continue to learn from comparing ideologies and veiwpoints.
Anyway, thanks Amp for providing a starting place for a deepening of my understanding of feminism and radical feminism in particular.
Soulhuntre says
A most precise analysis, Soulhuntre.
Maybe some of it is education. I don’t mean just stacking up letters after one’s name; I allude to something more subtle.
We took our youngest, almost four years ago, to “family day” for her freshman year at a very exclusive (not to mention expensive!!!) liberal arts college. The Dean stood up before the assembled parents and students, and stated that the college’s goal was to produce people who could –
1. Listen to and understand a position – on whatever topic – which differed from their own, and
2. Respect the person holding that position, and argue against the position, if necessary, while showing that respect.
I’m out in the beautiful sunshine, the lovely lawns, and I’m thinking, “Hm. Tall order, Doctor. Good luck, by the way, with my kid, who is quite headstrong.”
She’s a senior now. Did they succeed? Partly, I’d say. Better than I would have predicted.
Can I myself do this? I’m working on it. At least I do hold it to be an ideal.
Oh, I despair.
“People who don’t like Amp’s policy can just go start their OWN blogs, then!” Well, great. So I guess I’ll just post annoying blogwhore comments in every thread that interests me here, eh? “Hay guys visit my blog to talk about this topic for reals!” What happens when I want to hear the SPECIFIC opinions of posters here, smart, together feminists who I’ve read for the ~2 years that I’ve been visiting Alas, people like Qgrrl, bean, and alsis? Must I still sit through repulsive misogyny, must I still tolerate the constant reinvention of the wheel that goes on here? I want to hear intelligent opinions of where feminism is today and what it can say and accomplish. I DON’T want to hear more arguments about how yes, men really DO have privilege. And the tone on this blog is more one that is concerned that every one get their chance to speak up–and the end result of that, of course, is that only two people get their chance to speak up: the anti-feminists, and the feminists who somehow retain the patience to keep explaining the basic tenets over and over. There’s precious little debate over specifics of feminist theory or doctrine. There’s only a group of frustrated feminists shouting over and over “FEMINISM IS GOOD FOR YOU, GODDAMMIT”–and then getting ignored, belittled, berated. By the anti-feminists. By people who want to claim that FEMINISM CAUSES CHILD ABUSE, I mean, SERIOUSLY, what the christ is that about?
I don’t have any problem with feminist-only, woman-only space on this, probably the most popular “pro-feminist” blog around, although of course it’s not my call. I stand by what I mentioned in earlier threads about my inability to have a real feminist CONVERSATION with a man–that’s CONVERSATION, as in BOTH PARTIES PARTICIPATE INTELLIGENTLY, not just “I talk, he talks over me” or “I lecture, he listens.” So yes, woman-0nly space. Why not?
However, I’m positive that that won’t happen, and so I, like other readers, will probably just drift away from here. Yeah yeah alternative perspectives are important blah. Know what? I don’t need ’em. I know what the alternative perspectives are. I grew up in the South and attended a conservative Catholic university and am currently in law school for god’s sakes, believe the shit out of me, I KNOW WHAT ANTI-FEMINISM IS LIKE. For once–ONCE–I’d like to have a nice feminist party with these smart people. Is that even possible?
A most important observation.
This is to be a “safe” space for whom? Only for the bullies?
Just to clear up the “was Ginmar banned” issue, Ginmar herself said ( over at the link Jesurgislac posted), in reference to Amp’s civility policy:
If there is someone claiming that Ginmar was banned, that statement runs counter to her own claims.
—Myca
I’m sure you do Mary. But you’re not the only one here who does, and it may surprise you to learn that some of us don’t agree with you on every particular. Too bad you didn’t sit next to me in law school in 1973.
I’ve had quite a lot of conversations with men, feminist and otherwise. No one talks over me (you jest perhaps), and I don’t just lecture, I like to think that I know how to listen too. I’m guessing, hearing about your training, that you have these abilities too. But hitting the ALL CAPS button may not be helpful in the long run.
Thank you, Myca.
Changing the subject slightly, after reading oodles of today’s comments.
Do you know what might be useful? Having a dedicated thread for commenters to introduce themselves. Like a welcome mat.
Some people have blog links by their names which I can follow to find out more about them, but most folks here I only know based on what they write in the threads I happen to be reading. It’s particularly difficult when encountering people who only post intermittently.
Over on margins, Cheryl says she was insulted by suggestions that she could start her own blog. To paraphrase, she seemed to find it condescending given her (quite impressive) publishing experience. (link)
Well, I never knew any of that about her. She was a blank slate to me before this thread.
And maybe it would help if we had a central page where we can check to learn a little more about one another. Which nongendered-pseudonyms are males and which are females; who attended marches on Washington in the 1970s and who’s fresh out of college, and so on…
I’ve long been a fan of the notion that “on the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog” and letting ideas speak for themselves. But given the current conflicts, something like this might help ease the tensions by letting us see a slightly fuller picture of the people we’re talking to.
[Also, if people introduced themselves with a bit of history of how they got involved with feminism, it might cut down on the credentials-challenging I’ve seen in recent threads.]
Just tossing the idea into the ring for your consideration…
I would hardly call myself a radical feminist, but I’m fed up with the hypocrisy I’m seeing in this thread, from Amp and some of his defenders. Spaces in which the appearance of civility is held to be more important than actually being civilized are not places I wish to spend time in. It’s been interesting, but I think I’m done.
Lis, a very interesting suggestion!
Of course some people will lie their heads off, but I would think that would be a very small minority here.
Cheryl’s alleged sense of insult is a mystery to me, even so. If she doesn’t like the way Amp proposes to run Alas, then….she should start her own blog. Or in her case, go back to her own blog. But your point – that if we didn’t know about her experience, we could make inappropriate suggestions – is well taken. (Why anyone would be insulted because we are not all psychics is beyond me, and the topic for another discussion.)
However. There are or have been here certain people who don’t give a flying fart what the other poster’s experience is, if he/she disagrees with the Omniscient Self he/she is a bad person. But I wouldn’t think this was anything but a very small minority. A procedure such as you suggest might even flush such persons out of the weeds.
The door is over there.
That sounds so cool! I’d love to know what school that was.
Rereading your earlier comments in this post, there are some things I’d love to take to email if you could send me your address…
I don’t have a lot of time to comment right now, and I have to go out and won’t have internet access for hours, so forgive my unresponsiveness.
To answer people’s question, Ginmar was banned from “Alas” on the 24th, because of her continued rudeness and bullying, after she chose to ignore a bunch of warnings (the last of which was “Ginmar, if you can’t see clear to respecting the new rules here – which means treating… other posters here with respect – then please stop posting on “Alas.””).
At the same time, Ginmar was announcing that she had decided not to post on “Alas” anymore. I wasn’t sure if that meant that she didn’t realize she had been banned, or that she wanted to say she quit, and I didn’t feel up to an email exchange with Ginmar to find out which was which, so I didn’t say anything further other than asking people here to stop discussing Ginmar. A few days later Ginmar started trying to post here again, so I emailed her to make sure she knew she was banned.
Jesu wrote:
I also wrote, later on this thread:
I guess you missed that part. I really wasn’t trying to be deceptive, which is why I posted the update later; but I can certainly see how it could appear otherwise, and I apologize for giving the wrong impression.
You also claimed (or at least implied) that I had banned those folks for what they wrote on that livejournal. That’s also not true; Funnie was banned ages before that board existed, and Ginmar was banned for her posting here on “Alas.” I don’t know if I’ve banned the other folks or not, but if I have, they were banned before that livejournal existed.
The only person I’ve banned for what they wrote elsewhere was an MRA named “Mr. Bad,” who I banned despite his polite post here on “Alas” because of something he wrote on Stand Your Ground.
[Edited to make the sequence of events clearer.]
All are welcome here. Love to talk to ya, Lis! And everyone else too.
sefoley@foleyfoleylaw.com
(The college is Pomona College, Claremont, California. They have their goals correctly stated at least.)
Have you seen/tried the Gender Genie which purports to do just that algorithmically?
Of course, it invariably thinks my writings (blog posts, nonfiction and fiction) were authored by a male, so it’s not terribly accurate, but they’re trying…
Oh. Well, never mind, then. (That’ll teach me to butt in.)
Susan: what do you gain by gatekeeping?
Susan, I would like to pint out that this isn’t your blog, so it is not your role to tell people to leave, directly or indirectly.
“gatekeeping” means what exactly, Q Grrl? I’m not following your reference.
Since you, by your own declaration, are “the only radical feminist posting here,” I’m sure a number of people will be most interested in your position. Especially the other posters who think, surely in error, that they too are “radical feminists.” (I do not count myself in their number.)
Krisjan, the guy said he was leaving, and flung a bunch of insults at the rest of us into the bargain.
Besides, who are you to be telling me what to say? Isn’t that Amp’s job?
Oh, that’s amusing.
Just out of curiousity, I tried Gender Genie on Cheryl’s post above, Ginmar’s most recent public posts in her journal (these 2).
It identified all of them as male. :)
I’m not trying to make any kind of statement with this, I just find it amusing.
I’ll go check it out, Lis.
But… why would anyone want to know the gender of the author of any particular piece? They aren’t interested in the content maybe?
Regarding the rest of the discussion, I find it hard to understand some of the criticism. When I look at the blog and the posts therin, there is no doubt that this is feminist blog, and a great learning resource. When you look at the comments, there is still a overwhelming majority of feminist posters, but there are some non-feminist posters as well. Given the dynamics of such a mixture, the non-feminist posters, and especially the anti-feminist ones, have unproportional influence of the direction of the conversation.
This is a problem, which Amp has acknowledged, and has tried to correct with the new commenting rules.
Yet before those have given a chance to show their effectiveness (or lack of same), Amp is attacked for giving too much space to the voices against feminism.
That is exactly what the new rules are ment to address.
Now, Cheryl/Heart (BTW. what name to you prefer to be addressed by?) have a different suggestion, which aims at making entire threads offlimit to non-feminist commenters – this is something Amp has said he is willing to try, as long as some basic things are in order. How about it is tried then?
Susan: I was referring to your “the door is over there” comment. It seemed needlesly rude.
Yes, I identify my politics as radical feminsm becuase that is the theoretical tool with which I critique our society. I am also likewise an anarcho-feminist and and ecofeminist b/c these theories also allow me critical insight into how our society works and more specifically how it treats women. I’m not quite sure what you were trying to say in your post to me. I think it is clear that I don’t consider others less-than because thier feminism isn’t the same as mine. I don’t wear “radical feminist” as some sort of badge with which to prove feminist credentials — like I said above, it is a theoretical tool.
You are currently appearing to pull cheap shots in this thread. Is this your intention?
He hasn’t displayed any interest in standing up for women when it really matters, what he has done is ban women or dismiss their feminist criticisms of his actions.
What’s so great about this space anyway? Ampersand treats feminists and anti-feminists as if our positions had moral equivalence.
um, wow! I’ve been reading here for several years and appear to have missed both a series of firestorms and a great deal of ridiculous misogyny from Amp. Or rather, I may have missed the former but I sure as hell have never seen evidence of the latter. Making space for those who might otherwise disrupt ongoing conversations seems like a peacemaker’s way to try to avoid banning the pesky gents, allowing for th e possibility that some antifeminists might actually see the light some day (and indeed, I have seem some genuine encounters here). Otherwise, I think it’s been pretty clear that that antifeminists give Amp the bends and provoke some of his most impassioned counterarguments, not to mention have elicited his recent decision to wall them out of some areas of discussion . . .
On the other hand, I can’t imagine how the occasional moderated thread could injure anybody here. one can always read and learn, start a response discussion elsewhere, or skip the comments from that post. If there are things that can be discussed in a protected space that wouldn’t otherwise be explored, let that happen. My suspicion is that frustrated readers might let discussion leak over into “unsafe” space, giving the other posters the unpleasant choice between ignoring the arguments/attacks being made outside and moving out of moderated space to parry the most misguided points. But perhaps that could be nipped in the bud and we’d move on as two overlapping communities. There’s certainly plenty of room for discussion, both topically and spatially…
very persuasive to me was this line from Cheryl:
. The threads I envisioned would allow those of us born into male supremacy, with a specific set of life experiences based on being born to second class status, to speak freely of what it means to be girls and women, without feeling pressured internally or externally to take care of or protect the sensibilities of men … something which has always been expected of us as girls.
I can see that being able to speak brashly, in and of itself, has value, even if one would moderate those same statements in other contexts, or might only be trying them out even for oneself. That seems like a value worth making some allowances for. There’s no guarantee that Alas is the right place to make such space, or that any blog can ever really be all things to all types of users (do oppressed women really want to “heal and strategize” under even a feminist man’s umbrella?), but it might be worth a try. I leave it to Amp to say whether the result fits within his own comfort zone and sense of this blog.
just my thoughts, as ever. apologies to those that have posted during the time it took me to read and digest the first 76 replies…
Yeah, me too. I was going off the information I had available, but it led me to an erroneous conclusion. Thanks for the clarification, Amp.
—Myca
My gender “genie” skills are not worth a dime. I usually assume that any undeclared poster on this blog who isn’t blatantly anti-feminist from the get-go is female. Which probably says a lot about how a steady barrage of anti-feminist male claptrap will tend to lower a woman’s expectations over time, but never mind.
Q wrote:
I’m sticking with “apostate feminist” until I think up something better. :D Although the thought of starting a blog called “Unlettered Radical Feminists” is tempting.
http://www.suefoley.com/
Susan has the same name as one of my very favorite Blues guitarists. I think that I need to go lie down. :/
Q, I’m not sophisticated enough to sort out all the intricate classifications of “feminist” to which you refer. I’m just quoting back to you what you yourself said, to wit, that you are the only “radical feminist” posting here.
This may very well be true. I’m certainly not the person to judge this, since I only barely know what you’re talking about.
I don’t intend “cheap shots.” As you can probably tell if you read what I’ve posted, I don’t have a clue what “radical feminist” means to you. A number of other people here have flown this flag; for your part, you have declared that they are all frauds. How the heck would I know?
If the term is a “theoretical tool”, perhaps you could explain it to us, and on the way, explain why no one else here qualifies?
I can’t play the guitar, in spite of numerous efforts to learn. One of my great defeats.
I haven’t read the entire thread, so sorry if I repeat anything.
I think the limitation idea is more than reasonable – it’s absolutely necessary.
Also, I had always wished that there was a way to limit the Ms. Boards so that anyone could read, but only subscribers could post. I realize that this would be excluding those who can’t afford a subscription, but unfortunately, the alternative was taking the site down altogether. That was a truly unfortunate loss.
I miss the things you used to say on there, Heart. You were quite inspirational and you also opened my mind a lot.
I also do give credit to Amp for the blog in general. It’s a great read. Is Amp sexist sometimes? Practically all of us are sexist sometimes because we simply can’t help it (even when we try to be aware). But I respect Amp a lot. For over ten years I have read Amp’s perspective, and I have learned a great deal from him. (Note: I’m including the times where he was posting to newsgroups.) Amp: if you are ever wondering, you should know that all the time/effort you spent sharing your opinions has influenced at least one person’s life quite a bit!
But yes, this blog needs to become more “low-troll”/”reduced-troll” (or ideally, “troll-free”). For us “typical” readers, it will improve our (mental) health!
Down with trolls! No exceptions! No apologies!
Feminism: it’s too important for bullshit.
Huh? I have not declared that anyone is a fraud — especially not in regards to radical feminism. Can you point out places where you think I have?
By theoretical tool, I mean that I use the basic tenants of radical feminism (both theory and practice) as tools by which I critique current and historical society. Again, please show me where I have said that others don’t “qualify”.
Can’t we all just get along?
No.
:)
Robert wrote:
Only if we can get Gw*n St*f*n*’s acolytes back for another go-’round.
Susan, I’ve encountered tons of radical feminists on various boards in the last six-odd years. I’d say that Qgrrl (and bean) are extremely accessable to read in terms of explaining the real-life impact of radical feminist ideas– more so than many others. If you really can’t understand Qgrrl’s posts on this issue, perhaps your problem is with radical feminism itself, not Qgrrl’s delivery.
One reason I don’t really consider myself a radical feminist per se is because I freely admit that it doesn’t matter to me which oppression is the core oppression. Having sampled a bit from –say– Socialist feminism and Radical feminism, not to mention feminists like Rachel S., (who had a great post up there that I forgot to mention in the midst of all this) and reading how they differ, I find their similarities much more important to me. The origin of oppression is only part of the fight, and not the most important part to me. We can disagree on origins and still fight together for the present and the future. It’s never going to be like singing ’round the campfire in perfect harmony, but I can live with that.
Q Grrl:
December 27, 2005
(I’m not smart enough to give a better reference. Look on the Now We’ll Moderate thread.)
OK. It follows, then, that anyone else who posts here isn’t a “radical feminist” (according to you) and that therefore they are flying false colors if they claim that (which many have).
As to qualifying, see reference above.
The rest of this statement is gibberish. Please re-state in English, and in English comprehensible to educated persons who do not share your frame of reference.
Be sure to define “basic tenets of radical feminism”, and “current and historical society” along the way, and explain how the one relates to the other. Don’t forget to explain why no one else here qualifies.
I’m not being cute. Really. I can’t figure out, for the life of me, what in the heck you’re talking about.
Robert,
You may well be right. But I cannot make heads or tails of QGrrl’s arguments, such as they are, and if this is the most comprehensible form available, I’m not sure where I stand.
I don’t know whether I have a “problem” with radical feminism until I can figure out what it is.
QGrrl has clearly stated that she alone is the proponent of same on this blog. Pretty bold statement. It should be interesting to hear it defended.
Where are the other “radical feminists” here? They’re content to hear that they’re not really “radical feminists” on account of how only QGrrl qualifies?
I am not Robert. Or the walrus. And I didn’t find Qgrrl’s statement gibberish at all. I am tickled pink, however, at the prospect of a lawyer begging a civilian to translate her words into English. It’s like seeing the sun rise in the West or something.
Well, I’m not in favor, for the most part, of restricted topics or moderation other than booting spammers and the like.
No one has to respond to someone they feel is an idiot or is deliberately provoking them or is arguing for the sake of hearing their own fingers tapping the keyboards.
I don’t understand the anger.
One of the things I love about the blogsphere is the freedom to come go read respond as it pleases.
If people want a radical feminist threads only space, well, okay. So I either won’t be allowed to respond or I”ll have to bend my voice to certain rules if I want to respond to that thread. If my need feels great I can go ahead and respond on my own blog.
Where’s the fire?
I love Alas; I think Amp runs a great show here. Our views differ on some many issues completely, but he always seems fair and open minded and willing to listen.
Oh for the love of the baby jeebus.
What I meant was that, as far as I can tell from poster’s theoretical approaches, and from what the feminists here have said about their politics, is that I am the only one that I am aware of that uses radical feminism — the theory of which most suits my political needs. How in the hell do you get from that, that I am saying no one else qualifies. Do you even know what radical feminism is? You do understand what political theory is, right? You do understand that theory exists as a tool, right? Go Google radical feminism. Go read.
Right now you’re sounding like a 19-year-old male jerk off who would rather fuck with women then try to understand the source and goals of their feminism.
p.s. If you can’t understand me, how in the hell do you know I’m wrong?
alsis39, one can only smile.
yeh, we talk gibberish a lot over here, but we do try to explain it. Ask me anything about what I do, and I’ll try to explain it so you can understand it. Not all my clients graduated from high school even. But I explain until whoever I’m talking to really understands. That’s my job, really. I’d appreciate an explanation on this end.
A statement like “the basic tenants of radical feminism (both theory and practice)” is totally opaque to someone who has been too busy for the last 30 years in furthering the equality of women to talk politics.
I’m ready to learn, however, if someone could take the trouble to talk English. This phrase above could mean anything or nothing or whatever. And as to why QGrrl is the only proponent of all this here at this blog, well, what can I say. She may well be, so far as I can tell, since I can’t figure out what exactly she’s talking about.
Pingback: The Debate Link
Susan,
Please provide a reference to somebody other than QGrrl referring to themself as a Radical Feminist. Without that, QGrrl’s comment is meaningless in the context of your allegation.
Now in simple English:
Show us where somebody not named QGrrl who comments here regularly claims to be a Radical Feminist. If you can’t, your argument fails.
Now in simpler English:
Who else says they are a Radical Feminist?
Susan:
Be sure to define “basic tenets of radical feminism”
May I suggest that you go to Google and search on “radical feminism definition”? You may find the answer there.
Be sure to define … “current and historical society”…
Are you serious? Okay, let’s assume that you’re not being disengenuous… “Current Society” is the society in which we live today. “Historical Society” would be what society (or culture, if you prefer) was in the past. The “past,” is any point in time earlier than right now, although in the context of “Historical Society” you would probably be looking back farther than a second or a day.
Honestly, I shouldn’t even be responding to you as you take umbrage when anybody doesn’t agree with your orthodoxy. That is, when somebody disagrees with the orthodoxy that you espouse you immediately accuse them of disregarding your personal experience no matter how often & how patiently & how simply it is explained to you that that is not the case. I guess that is just your way of disregarding things that don’t conform to your opinions. Oh, well.
Heart
Yes Heart, I think she said that too. The point is that she makes such ostracization an absolute condition for being a “genuine male feminist” as opposed to merely “faking it” as a “male pseudo-feminist”. “Faking it” would entail claiming to be a feminist without, for example, rejecting or being rejected by a good number of one’s friends (“you’ll lose friends…In fact, you should abandon friends who won’t listen to you”) abandoning male privilege (for someone like Ginmar or, indeed, for someone like you, Heart, that might mean a man foreswearing his job in many cases, or the popular blog that his male privilege helped him to), being constantly on the lookout for every implied slight against women and being determined to make of each one a very big issue indeed (“Your job will be just like our job: the slow and relentless refusal to let anything pass by, no matter how subtle or sly, that encapsulates hatred of women”). In other words: the vast majority of men identifying themselves as feminists, and indeed identified as feminists by the women they know, would not count as “genuine male feminists”; to be one in G’s eyes (as in yours, Heart) they would, indeed, have to be outcasts.
That is untrue ““ Ginmar was banned from these threads for reasons quite unconnected with my (accurate) précis of what she wrote in her blog. If her inability to refrain from personal invective hadn’t already resulted in her being banned from this site she would have been able make her objections here. She has already done so on her own blog, however, where she refers to my interpretation of her opinions as something “this asshole pulled out of his ass”. There’s this to say for Ginmar: she’s an impressive stylist ““ here we see her avoiding the “elegant variation” trap.
According to you, then, my crime is to have attributed to Ginmar opinions which you hold yourself. A proper inspection of what she wrote on her blog shows that she does in fact hold them, but no matter: should she really find having your opinions attributed to her such a tragedy?
Once more: I don’t want anyone to take my word on this. Anybody interested should check out G’s blog.
You know what, on my second read through, this is complete bullshit:
Complete bullshit. Your reading comprehension is abysmal, and your reasoning that of a petulant child. You’re also looking to stir up shit where there was none before.
Radical feminism is a series of beliefs, not something you qualify for. You either believe the theory or you don’t or some of it, whatever. You’re what, almost 60 years old? And you can’t figure this much out. Shame on you. Shame on your gated community mindset. Now get off my fucking back.
I am not Robert. Or the walrus.
Sure you are! Doncha watch South Park? All life is one life…we are all the poo of the antelope, falling to the ground…
Sorry to be facetious. It’s getting a little train-ride-to-the-camps-serious around here.
Q Grrl,
So far as I can tell, and I’m far from sure about this, this statement translates into “I am the only poster here who uses radical feminism in a way which most suits my political needs.”
Hard to argue with that, since only you know what your political needs may be.
Because… because you just said that? Because you just said that “I am the only one that I am aware of that uses radical feminism … the theory of which most suits my political needs” ??
Well, yes, in general, I do. Marxism, Capitalism, Fascism, I’ve studied them, and I know, in general what “political theory” is in general. In fact, I hold a graduate degree in History, which I certainly could not have gotten without a basic understanding of what political theory is in general.
Well, no, I’ve said repeatedly that I don’t. I’m hoping you would explain it to me. So far you’ve said that it “suits your political needs,” but that doesn’t help much.
Yes, some kinds of persons do feel the need to insult their adversaries personally when argument fails. However, I would suggest that you check out who I really am from the email posted above. The California Bar Association will vouch for my gender and my age.
I haven’t said that you were wrong, for this very reason. For the life of me I can’t figure out what you’re saying.
Sorry Robert, but I didn’t get that one -can you rephrase?
Good. So now you’ll leave me alone?
hey, I’m good. If no one else here claims to be a “radical feminist” (and I certainly don’t make that claim) then QGrrl stands unchallenged. Certainly by me.
No one is forcing you to post Q. Go in peace.
No one is forcing you to post Q. Go in peace.
Fuck you.
Don’t you fucking try to drive off when of the most knowledgeable eloquent commenters on Alas. You, Susan, are an example of faux civility at its most annoying. You are dishonest, intentionally obtuse, rigid and insulting to all who have views different from you fanatically gripped orthodoxy. No one is forcing you to post. No one is even asking you to post here. Go away.
Hmmm. I guess I need to learn how to do fakey HTML. That first line of mine was supposed to be bracketed by “lack of civility”. Oh well, my imperfections continue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism
Knock yourself out, Susan. If you’re serious about learning something, and not just about harrassing Q or goading her into saying something that gets her booted off Alas.
Susan, I rather think you should back up your claim that others here have called themselves radical feminists. You’ve made that explicit claim at least twice in this thread, once in comment #136 and once in #143. Without evidence to support that claim, your inference that Q Grrl is arrogating some kind of status or privilege to herself.
I did. I found a lot of answers, many of them inconsistent with other alleged answers. But I wasn’t surprised at the inconsistencies. You’d get the same if you googled any similar concept.
I’m far more interested in what definitions may be supplied by my colleagues here. So far all I’ve heard is that I’m
1. dumb, and/or
2. a 19 year old boy.
You’ll excuse me perhaps if I find that less than satisfactory as an intellectual definition of a concept.
Yeah, Jake Squid. I’m glad I’m not the only one who picked up on Susan’s game-playing. It’s pretty obvious at this point, isn’t it…
I give up readily, sennoma. No one here is a radical feminist, but QGrrl only.
Tom Nolan: my (accurate) précis of what she wrote in her blog.
It was hardly an accurate précis: it was a slimy misreading and distortion, amounting to a personal attack on Ginmar. And as Ginmar is banned, you got away with it.
Erk, stupid fingers, be more carefuller.
Last sentence should be: Without evidence… becomes a pointless ad hom.
Susan. Here’s an idea: Go to google and google “Qgrrl.” I’m guessing that many, many of her posts on specific issues will pop up instantly. That’s usually what I do when I’m trying to recall who in blog-land said what.
Qgrrl is a radical feminist.
She comments frequently upon specific issues.
Ergo, if you read her old posts on specific issues, you will be reading posts informed by Radical Feminism as Qgrrl understands it.
Easy. No ?
Susan is so perfectly presenting the reason why one would need a feminist only thread that I’m starting to think she’s a troll of the old school, trolling for newbies that was the province of the likes of Kibo and Ted Frank.
Q, is there somewhere else I can read you if I decide here is no longer readable?
And I agree wholeheartedly with J. Squid: 159.
I give up readily, sennoma.
You don’t, though. Roughly one-fifth of all the comments in this thread are from you.
Please: either back up your claim with evidence, or back off (and I mean properly, not that passive-aggressive “OK you’re the only radical feminist” crapola).
Robert, that’s in poor taste, particularly from a guy who has flung at least one accusation of anti-semitism on virtually no basis. (But then, I have no sense of humor. I’m a Totally Serious, Insufferable Douche.)
QGrrl said,
I said in response,
shit, I donno. No one, certainly not me, is pursuing QGrrl. If she doesn’t want to argue or engage, all good, who said she had to, Jake? and I’m “playing games” when I notice and repeat what she said herself?
alsis has quoted an interesting definition of “radical feminism.” I’ll need to go off and think about it. QGrrl doesn’t, by her own admission, subscribe to this definition, so it’s sort of apples and oranges here, yes? I do think alsis’ quote the more interesting, though.
Yeah, it was in poor taste; I thought that after I posted it. Alas, no editing function for comments. Sorry.
If I were to say that I was the only anarchist posting here, would I be getting the flack? the insinuations? the twisting of words to take what I said and make something sinister out of it? I think not.
Susan: I said you were “sounding” like a 19-year old. And that your reading comprehension skills are poor. Both of which stand up under scrutiny in this thread.
C’mon, Q. I’m now the reigning expert on Radical Feminism here. See ? I can work Wiki like a damn virtuoso. If neither you nor bean want to duel me to the death for the right to the title, won’t you at least stand me a nice cup of hot chocolate or something ?
Tsk. Sisterhood, my ass. [scowl]
bean,
Interesting.
Well, hm. I think that’s a complement. That I’m really smarter than I really am, and am able to make sense out of QGrrl’s posts.
I appreciate the complement, but I have to admit that it’s undeserved. I really cannot figure out what QGrrl is getting at, so I’m a lot dumber than you are assuming. Sorry. And.. bean, you’re not a “radical feminist”?
:p
Damn, I haven’t read this in while, and it’s getting downright hysterical.
Susan, Jake’s right. You’ve pretty much been demonstrating (yet again) faux civility, which makes me laugh all the harder with your bemoaning the oppression we fems supposedly inflict when we call trolls out on being, well, trolls. Instead of calling someone a fuckwit, you’ve gone around in threads and tried to position yourself as a martyr whose standing up to the ‘prevailing orthodoxy.’ Something for you to remember when you start going off on people insulting those they argue with. You’ve done your own bit, albeit in a nice, civil way sans F-bombs. And now you’re inviting people to leave. Well, the same invitation extends to you, and I suggest you remember it the next time you whine about the supposed ‘prevailing orthodoxy’ or PC boogeymen, or whatever. Door’s over there, and all that.
I’d prefer a ginmar any day of the week. Her style beats the bullshit fakery couched in ‘nice’ language, put-downs (sans cussing so it’s okay dontcha know) and passive-agressive, deliberate obtuseness.
mmm, alsis, can I have a ringside seat? Wow!
Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion.
I donno. Depends on how many other anarchists would be around contending for the title, I guess.
Feminism really needs its own version of Boondocks for episodes like this. I volunteer to draw it if Sheelzebub will write it.
My drawing is tres rusty, but I’m guessing I could start with stick figures and work my way up from there once we got our Cartoon Network deal and our chance to flip off Eric Alterman at some Nation dinner.
Yeah, Alsis, I went and looked at the Wiki definition. It doesn’t have the teeth to it that I like, but it did throw in the word “evil.” Now, if you want to debate the existence of evil, you’re on baby.
Well, bean, others have referred to you as a radical feminist. As soon as you agree that you are you can prove that Susan is right when she accuses QGrrl of calling you a fraud. She is, of course, doing this because she can’t find an instance of a regular Alas commenter referring to herself as a radical feminist. And, fitting the lawyerly stereotype, Susan can never, ever admit that she is wrong. I’m only surprised that she hasn’t accused us of discounting her experience by asking for documentation of a self-proclaimed radical feminist regular Alas commenter not named QGrrl.
There have been certain feminist posters on this board who have said that neither is a true feminist, and that bothers me. Why should one person be the judge of who is feminist and who isn’t?
Well, I would argue that if feminism has no actual definition, then there are no feminists.
But I suppose I am only one person. I am entitled to make judgments for myself, though.
You know, I don’t generally think of myself as a radical feminist, despite having read radfems primarily for the past year or so, and despite having immense respect for their work. But seeing how any woman who’s even vaguely woman-identified, who takes it remotely personally when women as a group are insulted and attacked, who dares to express anger at anyone other than female feminists, gets labelled a radical feminist on this blog…I guess I have to rethink that.
We took our youngest, almost four years ago, to “family day” for her freshman year at a very exclusive (not to mention expensive!!!) liberal arts college. The Dean stood up before the assembled parents and students, and stated that the college’s goal was to produce people who could –
1. Listen to and understand a position – on whatever topic – which differed from their own, and
2. Respect the person holding that position, and argue against the position, if necessary, while showing that respect.
Susan, I’m not going to get into the discussion about ginmar, but I think you yourself have fallen far short of the ideal you espouse here. (As have I, but it’s your ideal, not mine.) From sarcastically suggesting that those feminists who might want to talk to each other instead of dealing with antifeminists and woman-haters all the time just want to have “circular” discussions that amount to each of us “sitting in a room and talking to [herself],” to arguing that radical feminists want women to be unquestioning swallowers of “orthodoxy” and dislike you because you’re not one (and although you may disagree, I don’t think it is especially iconoclastic to insist that women accommodate men’s demands), to misrepresenting what you said about date rape in the other thread so as to make it sound as if the other feminists on the thread were aggressively trying to invalidate your point of view because it conflicted with feminist “orthodoxy” (that “orthodoxy,” that received doctrine, again; how do you know that’s all it is?) when in fact you yourself were trying to invalidate theirs because it conflicted with your personal experience, to your selective misreading of other people’s posts (for example, on the recent MOB thread), to offering to show radical feminists “the door” out of another person’s blog, I think you’ve been quite disrespectful and unfair yourself.
I don’t think you see ginmar’s insult to you as simply “a position which differs from your own,” worthy of your toleration and respect; why should I then be required to see a misogynist’s insult to women as a mere difference of opinion? Because he “showed respect” to me by not personally calling me a liar, a bitch, a whore? Maybe that would satisfy you, but it’s pretty cold comfort to me. And perhaps that is the real difference between you and radical feminists.
You are clearly a trailblazer in your field, and we owe you a debt for that. (My father is a 60-year-old lawyer, and I know how few women were in his graduating class.) But your independent-mindedness is not unique to you and it is unfair to tell feminists, radical or otherwise, that we are committed to an “orthodoxy” and don’t think for ourselves, that we are inventing any anti-feminist assertions you haven’t personally seen anyone make (you haven’t seen it literally argued that women rape and beat men just as much and as badly as the reverse, but I have), that we want to punish you for refusing to “take orders,” that we are overly single-minded (perhaps too single-minded not to “put down the suffering of men – or the suffering of any human being”), simply because we happen to agree in our assessment of what is happening on this blog.
And I do agree with the other women who’ve been labelled “radical feminists” here. I don’t question that Amp is entitled to do what he likes with his own webspace, but I do think the blog is quite possibly ceasing to be a productive space for any discussion that goes beyond “Feminism: Pro or Con?” And I find that disappointing.
Hey, bean, Q, I’m just a tourist.
Clearly, I’m not a “radical feminist.” I’m not exactly sure what that is, but it’s very clear I don’t qualify. (And if what I’ve seen here is Sisterhood In Action, you can count me out anyhow.)
So, what do I know? Q says she’s the only “radical feminist” here, which puts the rest of you in rather a dull light, but as I say, I’m not a player here. I never claimed the title. I can’t even figure out what a radical feminist is, after all.
I especially like the frequent use of curse words. A sure indicator, usually, that the speaker can’t or won’t express themselves adequately in standard English. Or has something to hide. Or both.
I think alsis is on the right track. We could package and market this thread and make a bundle among us!