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)
Alsis, sounds schnazzy. I think we should also write a musical. And maybe start a magazine called “Sticking it to The MAN.”
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.
Give me F-bombs over claims to martyrdom any day of the week. See: ‘prevailing orthodoxy’.
Alsis, I’ll provide the hot chocolate. I use only the best high-cacao chocolate in my hot chocolate, plus I love mini marshmallows. I also use Mexican vanilla. I have a kick-ass recipe for chocolate nut biscotti that will make the hot chocolate to die for. Only the best for my chocolate treats.
I’m also wondering what the heck is going on with the comments on this post. It was supposed to be about giving radical feminists a free space, and it has devolved into an anti-feminist showing feminist commenters the door, and other nastiness. I like Ginmar, and I’m sorry she’s been banned. I also like Barry, and I’m disappointed to see Alas devolve like this, but I’m not surprised considering the comments threads that have come about here lately.
I’m glad I don’t allow this kind of stuff on my blog. I might not have nearly the traffic Alas gets, but at least I nuke anti-feminist, mens’/fathers’ rights, and other “polite” nastiness before it has a chance to gain a foothold on my blog. I’m really sad to see the state of affairs here. I’m disappointed.
Q says she’s the only “radical feminist” here, which puts the rest of you in rather a dull light…
Susan, you have now degenerated into meaningless attempts at expletive-free insults. If you don’t understand what a “radical feminist” is, how the fuck do you know that puts the rest of the commenters in a “dull light?” Maybe, “radical feminist” is a horrible, horrible thing, but the rest of us are too polite to say otherwise. Or, maybe, being a radical feminist is no more or less revered than being a socialist feminist? If you say don’t know what something is, don’t try to make insults based on the object of your lack of knowledge.
This is what I said, Susan [and it strangely does support my claim that your reading comprehension skills are lacking]:
I qualified my statement in case I was in error. And I specified why I call myself a radical feminist — because it creates the basis of my politics and theory.
Can you point out for the viewers at home how I’m trying to have a pissing contest over who is or isn’t a radical feminist? Because if you can’t, mon cherie, then your whole purpose on this thread is to be devisive and derailing.
Why does it put us all in a dull light ? Not everyone thinks that radicalism is the way to go every day on every issue. Even I don’t think that, though I look very radical next to most feminists whenever it’s election time. On the cosmic scale, however it might look, I may not be radical then at all. Maybe nearly everyone else is just so conservative that anyone a little to their left looks radical.
You seem to be searching for a chance to fan the flames of rivalry where they don’t actually exist. I don’t see why. What do you gain from that ?
bean, I swear I thought that I’d heard you call yourself a Radical Feminist elsewhere. Sorry for my confusion.
I definitely say it exists, Q. Some fuckwit tried to drown an unwanted cat in an icy river the other day by locking it in a box weighed down with a big stone and throwing the box in. Fortunately their aim wasn’t for shit. I read about it on another board. Nobody knows who did it, but it’s safe to say that they’ll be coming back next time as a mouse or a cockroach. >:
The Countess,
I agree that lately the comment threads have devolved. That’s why I like the idea of Amps new moderation policies and why I like Heart’s suggestion of woman-only threads. But I still think that there is a place for nasty thugs like Susan here, if only to show what the arguments against feminism devolve into.
I nearly laughed ’til I peed myself. Almost everywhere else this term is considered poison. Third wavers get hives just reading the words. :-p
I phrased what I did knowing I was going out on a limb — I just didn’t realize it would be *this* limb. Bizarre.
I think what ou may be experiencing, Susan, is a type/degree confusion. Being the ‘only radical feminist’ in a room full of feminists isn’t putting anyone else in a dull light any more than being the only duck in a room full of birds puts the other birds in a dull light.
A duck is a type of bird. A radical feminist is a type of feminist. Ducks aren’t ‘more birdlike’ than geese or cormorants or penguins, they’re just a different sort.
“Radical feminist” isn’t a synonym for “more feminist,” it’s a different sort of feminist, so when Q claims to be the only radical feminist, I doubt she intends it as a slap at anyone else.
—Myca
I nearly laughed ’til I peed myself. Almost everywhere else this term is considered poison. Third wavers get hives just reading the words.
No kidding. Goodness, it’s lonely being twentysomething and “sex-negative”…
Elinor,
Well, yeh, I said that. It’s an ideal we strive for, yes? Didn’t I say that I fall short? I fall short. Write it down.
No, in all frankness, I don’t. Her statement crossed over from “we disagree” into “you are a fuckwit”. A significant crossover, in my view. I can disagree with ginmar without being a “fuckwit.” As you can disagree with me without being a “moron.” Notice how that feels?
You are quite right to think for yourselves. Go for it! As I am right to think for myself. (You thinking for yourselves, and disagreeing with me, does not make me a “fuckwit.” Get over it.)
My thoughts are not better than yours; also, yours are not better than mine. You are qualified to question my assumptions; also, I am qualified to question yours. When you-all, who were not even born yet, assume to tell me what was going on in 1965, I can be skeptical perhaps. I don’t know everything, but you don’t either.
You can cite me, if you will, where I called anyone here a name for disagreeing with me. Go for it.
I’ve been villified here because I won’t take the perceptions of other people as Absolute Truth, when those perceptions differ from my own.
But, what’s it all about, girls? If we’re ready to take the perceptions of other people, men, usually, and thereby discount our own perceptions, where do we end up?? Is it suddenly OK if the people seeking to impose their perceptions on me are women? (Or, here, claim to be women?)
Sorry, girls. Call me names because I disagree with you, and by me, you’ll be treated exactly as a man who does that will be treated. I’ll hold you in contempt, because you can’t or won’t argue straight.
If you strive to promote an atmosphere of respect, Susan, not calling a 39.5 year-old a “girl” would do for a start.
You are quite right to think for yourselves. Go for it! As I am right to think for myself. (You thinking for yourselves, and disagreeing with me, does not make me a “fuckwit.” Get over it.)
I am not ginmar and I am not going to debate her behaviour with you. I don’t have to “get over” anything.
You can cite me, if you will, where I called anyone here a name for disagreeing with me. Go for it.
That’s a handily specific charge. It’s okay to tell us we stifle dissent, adhere to a rigid “orthodoxy,” constantly seek to invalidate you, are disturbingly single-minded, “talk politics” instead of “furthering the equality of women,” etc., etc., etc., as long as you didn’t actually call us a name.
No, you haven’t actually called anybody a name. I don’t see what that proves, though.
I’ve been villified here because I won’t take the perceptions of other people as Absolute Truth, when those perceptions differ from my own.
Tell yourself that if you like. My perception is that you haven’t been “vilified” here; you’ve been criticized because you get affronted and start complaining about “orthodoxy” and “Absolute Truth” whenever someone tries to argue with you.
Susan:
I am Jewish. Every year around this time, someone seems to come along and ask me if I really don’t celebrate Christmas, and to want me to explain to them about this Jewish thing and what it all means vis-a-vis their holiday. Sometimes I feel like it, but mostly I don’t. Go educate yourself, I tell them, that’s not my job. I’m a white chick, and I know dang well that it is NOT someone of color’s job to educate [interested, well-meaning] white folks about what it’s liked to be a racial minority in our culture. If someone of color refers to a theory that I don’t understand, I better go learn about it, not expect them to explain it to me.
That is to say: It’s not Q’s nor anybody else here’s responsibility to define Radical Feminism for you, and it’s not your right to have it defined for you, and they are allowed to refer to it, with meaning to themselves and others, without you necessarily understanding it.
Your tone is deteriorating here. Time for a break!
You can cite me, if you will, where I called anyone here a name for disagreeing with me. Go for it.
Golly, you’re right Susan. I do hereby hang my head in shame for not adhering to the Victorian standards of passive-aggressive insults. I will from now on proclaim myself a martyr to feminist orthodoxy, misquote people and try to derail threads with a wide-eyed injured look of innocence when called on it, dismiss everyone else’s experience that doesn’t match mine 100% by saying that it could have been made up, what do I know (:::innocent shrug:::), tell people who don’t like it that they can leave (even though it’s not my blog), and bemoan how uncivil everyone is by calling people out on this behavior.
And it will be just fine in your world since golly, I didn’t call anyone a name or drop an F-Bomb. That would be rude.
I’ve been villified here because I won’t take the perceptions of other people as Absolute Truth, when those perceptions differ from my own.
Pot, kettle, black.
If there are to be any threads where only certain opinions are allowed, I shall happily lurk, read and learn and not comment. I am happy for some threads to be set aside for that purpose. (If the whole of Alas had that restriction, I would be somewhat more bothered but would probably still find it worth reading.)
I’m ambivalent about women-only threads, for various reasons. Again, if there are going to be some, fair enough; Amp’s choice. I probably shan’t post there although I am in fact female by any definition, but I am not arrogant enough to think I’ll be terribly missed.
But I’m really horrified by the concept that trans women are imposters, and their participation in women-only discussions is automatically trolling. Alas has made me much more sympathetic towards feminism than I previously was, and a large part of the reason for that is that I discovered here that there are feminists who do not spew ignorant hatred against trans people. If Alas is going to become even partially the sort of place where that kind of bigotry is acceptable, I shall have to leave. Again, I don’t expect anyone will be terribly upset if I walk, but hey. Matter of principle.
Individ, I am no proponent of transwars, but I am puzzled as to why anti-trans bigotry would be a deal-breaker for you–especially confined to one or two threads. Whereas men who basically post in every thread about rape that women lie, or that women sometimes rape, ergo feminism has no philosophical leg to stand on– those have not been deal-breakers ?
Do you expect more of feminists in a feminist space than you expect from anti-feminist men ? If so, why ?
Do you think that Amp advocates anti-feminism by letting anti-feminists have space here ? If not, is it fair to assume that he advocates transphobia if there is space here specifically limited only to women-born-women. If so, why ?
OK – this time I read the whole stinking thread!
“Susan” is:
at best: insincere/likes to hear herself talk.
at worst: a TOTAL TROLL.
Amp, I am making a sincere request to ban her. No excuses, etc.
Susan – if the “best case” scenario is true, please feel free to start your own blog and see how many people follow you so they can benefit from your deep insights about life. I certainly won’t be among them. I have not learned one thing from anything you’ve written. In all the time you have spent on this blog, all that effort has failed to bring even a glimmer of light to this world.
That’s the worst insult I can come up with right now. It will only hurt your feelings if you have a shred of sincerity.
I’d also like to come out in favor of radical feminist-only threads. As important as it may be to bone up on our arguing chops sometimes, it is even more important for radical feminists and other feminists to have a space in which they can articulate and discuss their ideas and finer points without distractions and derailments, and without having to spend every other post explaining their theoretical approach to someone who has already been told, but who nevertheless keeps asking for an explanation or defense of it.
For obvious reasons, I would be prohibited from commenting, and I have nothing of value to add anyway, but I think I could learn a great deal. More importantly, I think feminists could learn a great deal.
I’m not Individ, and so my answer isn’t what hers would be, but I think the analogy is flawed.
I’m not saying that having every thread hijacked by anti-feminist posters is a good thing by any means, but I think it’s a fundamentally different beast than just not allowing transwomen to post at all in certain threads because they’re not real women. It would be a little like if Amp didn’t let women post in certain threads ‘because women are lying whores.’
As it is, Amp allows people to post the that transwomen aren’t real women, and he allows anti-feminists to post their opinions about how women lie. I think both opinions are detestable, and both are opinions I disagree with, but I do think it’s consistent.
To me, it’s the difference between allowing anti-feminist opinion on the blog and becoming an anti-feminist yourself. I believe that there’s a difference (although I understand that others do not). Similarly, right now he allows anti-trans bigotry on the blog, but is unwilling to engage in the bigotry himself.
—Myca
I’d really enjoy reading some radical feminist only threads. I think that I would really learn a lot from them; there would still be plenty of threads for non-femininists, regular feminists, and men. I really don’t see why reserving a few threads for specific purposes would be wrong.
I agree with the other posters who think that Susan derails discussions. I lurk here regularly, even though I don’t comment often. I won’t call her anti-feminist, but I think that she has a snotty attitude. Honest anger bothers me much less than snide remarks.
(Amp, I know I said I wouldn’t comment in this thread, but I hope that it’s okay to break the promise. I discovered that I can be civil after all.)
Alsis said:
>>Individ, I am no proponent of transwars, but I am puzzled as to why anti-trans bigotry would be a deal-breaker for you”“especially confined to one or two threads. Whereas men who basically post in every thread about rape that women lie, or that women sometimes rape, ergo feminism has no philosophical leg to stand on”“ those have not been deal-breakers ?>>
I don’t think I really have the right to speak about how anti-feminist commenters may derail threads or piss feminists off. They don’t bother me much, but that’s…me. I don’t seem to be representative. I do know how transphobic comments feel, and so I think that outrage from feminist women deserves serious attention.
On a policy level, however, I argue that there’s a difference. The latter situation involves anti-feminist and feminist-baiting commenters who show up and say insidious things. Then feminists get to complain about them, explode their lies, and tell them what assholes they are. I don’t happen to agree with the constraints Amp has placed on them doing so, but they can at least object.
The _former_ situation would not merely involve anti-trans commenters, some of whom do occasionally post here and do need to be rebutted with Trans 101. It would involve establishing anti-trans space. That space would be run by someone who doesn’t believe that terms like “surgically altered male” are remotely problematic and who doesn’t think that trans inclusion and radical feminism are compatible. That space would be closed to all transpeople and most likely hostile to people who defend them.
Imagine establishing anti-feminist threads moderated by anti-feminists that no one but anti-feminists are allowed to comment in, no matter what’s being said.* It’s painful to listen to abuse, but it’s worse to have to sit quietly in one virtual room knowing that terrible things are being said on the other side of the wall.
*That’s not Amp’s proposal for the anti-feminist playpens, is it? I hope not.
No, it is certainly not. What he has decided to do, is to limit certain subject that anti-feminists/MRAs want to talk about to certain threads. Everybody can debunk them in those threads, or alternatively choose to avoid those threads. Depending on taste.
No, no, no, no, no. Unless I’m seriously misunderstanding the idea, feminist posters will be allowed to post in the anti-feminist threads and expose their lies.
—Myca
And again, to bring the subject back to the radical feminist only threads, or rather female feminists only threads, one of the demands that Amp had to such a thing is that transgendered women can post there, so that while men can’t post there, women born as men still can.
As someone else said, this would probably bring unique perspectives to the debate, as those people have tried both sides of the power balance.
Yes, the limits are on the anti-feminists/MRAs, not the feminists.
And it should probably be noted that the threads are not anti-feminist per se, it’s just possible for the anti-feminists to bring upo their tired old arguments there (which might give a general anti-feminist feel to the threads).
alsis39, thanks for those thoughtful questions. Let me try to put into words why sexism is not in the same category for me as feminists being anti-trans. Sexism is obviously bad. If I see a poster making a sexist comment I think, dumb sexist and skip over it. But feminism is far from obviously bad; in fact, it is intuitively good to aim for improving women’s situation in our society. So in that sense, yes, I do have a higher standard for feminists than sexists; on a very basic level, feminists are supposed to be on my side!
Feminists who hate trans people are promoting the idea that born women should improve their lot at the expense of other women who happen to be male-bodied (or formerly male-bodied). That’s even worse than saying that only some women count; this kind of feminism is actively harmful to a subset of women. That disgusts me, just as any (thankfully entirely hypothetical) branch of feminism that promoted the rights of white women at the expense of black women would disgust me.
[cont in next comment]
>>Sexism is obviously bad. If I see a poster making a sexist comment I think, dumb sexist and skip over it. >>
On a visceral level, this is my reaction. “Oh, whatever. Alsis can snap you in half.” I feel the same way about anti-trans posters on a message board consisting primarily of transpeople, particularly if there are commenters there to debunk before I even read the thread.
piny wrote:
Cheryl could argue the point if she wished to, but I’m not at all sure that a radicial feminist only thread MUST exclude MTF voices. In Cheryl’s case, I’m about 99.9% sure that they would not be welcomed, but it doesn’t follow that every Radical Feminist who came down the plank to post or write articles would treat MTF’s like the plague, even if they have issues with the idea of transexualism.
As for sitting quietly in the room while terrible things go on elsewhere/nearby, all I can say is “Welcome to my world, piny.” I have learned to hold my tongue in this space when some incredibly inflammatory stuff is written about feminists, not because I want to, but because it’s expected. Those who have suggested that I can start my own blog or camp elsewhere are quite correct. Learning to hold my tongue on days when all I want to do is swear up a blue streak is part of the “price of doing business here.” The day that condition becomes intolerable to me is the day that I’ll take off for good. As it is, I settle for sometimes disappearing for weeks or months at a time, and don’t come back until I have a reserve of calm to draw on.
In any case, Cheryl has stated that she won’t be writing articles in this space. Piny, have you considered asking to post something of your own ?
BTW, I was not trying to put words in Amp’s mouth about his intentions for the space. I was more curious as to why some bigotries and “-isms” are deal-breakers to people and why others are not.
[Part 2 of reply to alsis39]
I also think there’s a difference between the bloggers (whether regulars or guests) taking a particular line, and commenters saying things that might offend me. Getting the right balance of moderation is hard. If it’s too lax, comment threads become unreadable because they are full of pharma spam and meaningless insults. Amp is attempting to modify the moderation policy here; many people feel that the status quo is indeed too lax and the threads are too dominated by misogynist trolls.
My impression of the comment threads here is that there are some out-and-out misogynist trolls, and they take longer to get banned than I might ideally like. But my definition of troll is narrower than some people’s; I sometimes see honest disagreement where others see “women lie, … women sometimes rape, ergo feminism has no philosophical leg to stand on”.
Nobody is accusing Amp of being sexist, though; many say he’s not feminist enough, he’s giving too much benefit of the doubt to people who are sexist. If he were to have a personality transplant and become sexist, I would be right there in the scramble for the virtual door. In the same way, I will not read a blog where there is an official policy that is anti-trans (whereas I am prepared to roll my eyes and skip over the occasional offensive comment).
Jerg, you’re actually defending that thread? As the ‘morphined up c-section mother’ among other choice insulting tidbits, I can tell you you’re plumb out of your fucking skull if you think this is anything other than inflammatory NON-FEMINIST commentary. It’s bullshit attacks that have the bold faced audacity to USE feminism as a whip to their perceived enemy, and anything that gets in their way at getting to their perceived enemy.
[snort] Char and funnie.
Ugh. I’ve been slimed. Watch your back around those two, Kim. bean could tell you some stories if she hasn’t already.
>>Cheryl could argue the point if she wished to, but I’m not at all sure that a radicial feminist only thread MUST exclude MTF voices. In Cheryl’s case, I’m about 99.9% sure that they would not be welcomed, but it doesn’t follow that every Radical Feminist who came down the plank to post or write articles would treat MTF’s like the plague, even if they have issues with the idea of transexualism.>>
Well, we’re basically talking about Cheryl, at least to start off with. And what if there were, say, four threads maintained by radical feminists who called out transphobia but three that allowed it to flourish? Four threads that excluded and bashed transwomen and three that permitted them to complain? Should I be more comfortable with that situation? I’m not comfortable with anyone being allowed to “treat MTFs like the plague” without any accountability to actual transwomen.
You can drop the .01. She’s said so on this thread and in plenty of other places, and it’s exactly how she maintains The Margins. Woman-only means no transwomen, full stop. Radical feminism is incompatible with “trans politics,” full stop. If you have any doubt that threads maintained by her and most of the radical feminists in her closer internet circle would be transphobic or pro-anti-trans, go check out The Margins and read what her commenters are allowed to say without any rebuttal or restraint at all.
>>As for sitting quietly in the room while terrible things go on elsewhere/nearby, all I can say is “Welcome to my world, piny.” I have learned to hold my tongue in this space when some incredibly inflammatory stuff is written about feminists, not because I want to, but because it’s expected. >>
Like I said, I don’t agree with Amp’s rules of order. That’s different, however, from being completely disabled from posting at all. Take this, for example: I sent Amp an email saying that I wouldn’t post in this thread because I wasn’t sure I could be civil. I decided that I could be polite, and here I am having a polite discussion with you. I would love to swear a blue streak, believe me. I know exactly what it’s like to want to tear someone’s virtual face off but to have to breathe deep and write like a character in a Jane Austen novel. But at least I’m not gagged altogether, prohibited from posting so much as a link to rebut a baldfaced lie. At least I can come back, when I’m calm.
>>In any case, Cheryl has stated that she won’t be writing articles in this space. Piny, have you considered asking to post something of your own ?>>
Amp asked. I’m considering it. I’m a little short on time these days. Of course, this serious of comments is about as time-consuming as a blog post of its own.
>>BTW, I was not trying to put words in Amp’s mouth about his intentions for the space. I was more curious as to why some bigotries and “-isms” are deal-breakers to people and why others are not.>>
I want to make it clear that I’m not any happier with sexism than with transphobia–and if there were anti-feminist threads that excluded feminists from commenting, or anti-woman threads that excluded women, I’d leave this space as well.
>>I would love to swear a blue streak, believe me. >>
Not at you, mind.
I wonder if MTF (trans) women often get more feminist a few years after transitioning, or whether the transition experience itself continues to overshadow subsequent social-female experience. (ie, Do they attribute getting cheated at the auto repair place or being pushed out of line by a bossy guy or being passed over for work opportunities to trans status or to woman status or both?) And what happens to feminist opinions of former “lesbians” who transition to socially recognised maleness? It strikes me that there are many things for the non-trans feminists to learn from the various trans experiences. Besides reading the trans memoir boom, I’d say real-time discussions on these radfem threads would be enhanced by including feminist transfolk.
(official disclaimer: I am rather new at trans terminology, and if I occasionally flub a quiz in Trans 101, be assured that I am trying to be respectful)
Unofficial humor: I identify as a Radical Blogcommentspacer (that cartoon critter peering out between blog comments, a charming and unique feature of Alas)
The Countess, Ginmar wasn’t banned. She left because she was sick of the attacks on her I believe.
After much talk and a little research I have learned I am not a radical feminist. (Yet, anyway, as someone stated above how she transformed into one, it’s entirely possible I will too.) I am off to find out just what kind of feminist i AM. Thank you for this thread for at least helping me learn these things. It has seemed to gone to hell a bit though….
piny wrote:
Eh, I’m on the shit-list of at least one or two of her regulars. And I’m not even trans. Forgive me if I forgo that particular pleasure. :/ Really, I try and wear it as a badge of honor.
I’m crushed.
Incidentally, what helped me decide that being anti-trans was not the way to go was seeing how often that attitude goes hand and hand with misogyny– and seeing some of the really skeevy misogynists the more vehement anti-trans feminists were willing to align themselves with in other spaces;Even when it was clear that they had nothing to bond over but being anti-trans.
Blecch.
bean has written some good comments on reconciling one’s misgivings about transition –and its possible place in reinforcing traditional gender roles– with radical feminism WITHOUT daydreaming of some holy crusade against transexuals themselves. I couldn’t even begin to tell you where it was, though. :o Sorry.
Jesurgislac
The best thing would for be you to show how my précis materially differs from what G. wrote. It wasn’t a misreading ““ slimy or otherwise.
I didn’t know when I posted it, by the way, that Ginmar had been banned: I think my position is eminently defensible and am happy to argue it with anyone. And, given the Margin’s link, Heart’s rebuke and now yours (not to mention the tongue-lashing G gave me on her blog) I hardly see that I’ve got away with anything.
Oh, my bad about ginmar. I missed that post I guess. (I had to do a “find” for amp’s posts just to find it. This page is getting too long!!)
And Tom Nolan – would u give it a rest already?! Sheesh.
Well, I’m not an expert on transgender issues by any means. But I think that part of some feminists’ issues involved the fact that many of them were born male, and thus enjoyed gender priviliages as boys and men for at least part of their lives, an option not available to women born women. While both groups may be women, they do not have the same biological gender origins. That’s one explanation I’ve heard said before, of the difficulties in discussions. I’m not knowlegeable of the issues myself, though.
I’ve been mostly reading b/c each time I can come back to this discussion, so much has been written!
I’ve always understood what Q Grrl’s said. Don’t always agree with her, but I understood her posts. She’s very intelligent and well-spoken, well-written I mean. I can say that about everyone here. Well, except what Tom Nolan’s been going on about for the past day-and-a-half. Generally, the discussions here are very interesting, informative and insightful. But some of the threads have problems, mostly the women’s issues threads.
I don’t personally care if people insult me, call me names. I’ve got thick skin, because I deal with that all the time IRL. But all people are different. I don’t think it’s any worse than people who pretend to be civil, but are using other means to be disrespectful of the topic at hand, particularly issues that affect women, i.e. DV and rape, b/c that’s where you see this behavior the most. But others don’t believe or see that as a sign of obnoxious behavior. But some of the feminists have spoken out against every thread on DV or rape and how they affect women, has been turned into a “what about the men?” thread and have received a variety of responses in return. I think that’s maybe why many women feel like these discussions can only take place among women, feminists or even radical feminists. That’s one reason why “women only” space was born in the first place.
It would have been nice to know up front about ginmar’s status too, b/c people were told not to talk about her without explanation. Which leads to the assumption she was banned(which she apparently was) yet then there’s talk that she left voluntarily, possibly even in the face of being banned. It was a bit confusing.
Jake Squid”: “I agree that lately the comment threads have devolved. That’s why I like the idea of Amps new moderation policies and why I like Heart’s suggestions of woman-only threads. But I still think that there is a place for nasty thugs like Susan here, if only to show what the arguments against feminism devolve into.”
Most feminists already know what the arguments against feminism are and what they devolve into. Those arguments and devolutions have repeated themselves in the same manner over and over again on blogs, Usenet, message boards, chat rooms, and mailing lists for many, many years. Sometimes allowing trolls to hang themselves with their own rope is useful, but most of the time the same shit comes up over and over again, and allowing the arguments to continue in feminist forums is not useful. I have about a half-dozen templates that I copy/paste to comments forums when I see the same shit come up over and over again – that’s how often it comes up. I’ve had those templates for nearly ten years. That shows how long those baseless arguments have been around. I keep a tight rein on my blog, and I don’t allow anti-feminists, men’s/fathers’ rights activists, and the like to turn my blog into their personal soapbox. I wouldn’t have much tolerance for “nasty thugs”, no matter how polite they pretend to be.
I know from past experience that feminists do not feel safe in those kinds of environments, and they won’t post in them. They won’t post in feminist forums if that kind of disruption takes place. I’ve seen numerous feminist mailing lists and message boards become destroyed when anti-feminists and their ilk take over with their polite and not-so-polite commentary.
I see that this thread has devolved even more than it had when I last posted. I’m not surprised to see that, but I’m still very disappointed.
Well, I’m not an expert on transgender issues by any means. But I think that part of some feminists’ issues involved the fact that many of them were born male, and thus enjoyed gender priviliages as boys and men for at least part of their lives, an option not available to women born women. While both groups may be women, they do not have the same biological gender origins. That’s one explanation I’ve heard said before, of the difficulties in discussions. I’m not knowlegeable of the issues myself, though.
I of course am not an expert on transgender issues either, though I have attempted for the last 15 years to understand transgender issues both from a social and a biological aspect since I am gay and am a geneticist … molecular biologist to be exact). From my own experience and understanding, I would like to make some points/questions that I’d raise if such a ‘women feminist’ thread every arose here on Alas and considered barring MTF.
and thus enjoyed gender priviliages as boys and men for at least part of their lives
Though I can see the point, to some point didn’t they not enjoy many of those privileges in reality? From most MTF I know, they were often excluded from the patriarchal priviliges and society they found themselves in because they were, in some ways, worse in the eyes of the patriarchy then women. Most I know were in fear of beatings, rape, ostracism, powerlessness and more because of their gender ‘ambiguity’ even though physically they presented as male. I’m sure this has been discussed ad nasueum on other forums, I just now ‘expanding’ my view to a larger feminism.. so I’m a neophyte. The experience might not be identical, but I would think a MTF would have a extremely important voice to how patriarchy hurts women and men.
Additionally, isn’t becoming a female the ultimate expression of a male denying male privilege and the benefits of patriarchy, which denial some radical feminists demand for men to be considered feminists (at least from the half dozen threads I’ve read out there so far). I would hope that MTF would be welcomed with open arms instead of barred. (saying that as a man who understands why women feminists would want women-only discussion threads).
they do not have the same biological gender origins.
not quite true. I’ll have to look through my papers, but something like half of all self-identified transgendered individuals have some quite easily determined chromosomal or genetic variation that would make them ‘biologically’ either female or non-determinate. Its often because of our patriarchal preference for the male gender and society that we often label them as ‘male’ because of physical appearance (no matter how ‘passing’). One can ‘look’ male, but not be.
anyway, just my thoughts…
Does that mean that I don’t get any biscotti, after all ?
Damn.
Hey, I’m still here, Alsis. Help yourself to some biscotti. :::handing Alsis the plate:::
The Countess,
In what way do you feel that it devolved further after your previous post/ Susan quit posting? It seemed to me that it had actually even gotten back on to the original topic, with the discussion of trans women and women-only spaces.
Most feminists already know what the arguments against feminism are and what they devolve into.
I agree wholeheartedly. However, when I first came here I didn’t know anything about these arguments. Some of the repetitive threads really taught me a lot. And, as others seem to have had the same experience, it seems to me that those threads do serve a productive purpose.
I know from past experience that feminists do not feel safe in those kinds of environments, and they won’t post in them.
That is why I think that Amp’s new policy of having anti-feminist free threads is a good one. It gives us all a space where we can discuss the issue at hand without intentional derailments by the usual suspects.
Most feminists already know what the arguments against feminism are and what they devolve into.
Sure, but as Jake points out, a lot of well-meaning people don’t, and it’s these folks who likely will be feminists just as soon as they give some thought to the sorts of arguments we’re talking about. Like Jake, I’ve learned a lot from such repetitive threads, even as they bored the crap out of, say, you, Countess. Tiresome as it may be, there will always be people coming to feminist ideas for the first time, which is why I think a space like Alas, which tolerates dissent and repetitive argument, is invaluable.
(Having said that, I’ll reiterate that I’m all for women-only spaces, including here on Alas if management decides to do that, and I like the new moderation policies.)
Yeah, I kind of gathered that. I responded to Ginmar in private email, but the rest I kind of figure don’t deserve a response. For some reason they think that feminism seems to equate with using anything they can get their hands on, verified or not and use it as a weapon on whatever they are fighting against. That’s not my schtick, and I kindly invite them to go fuck themselves. Civilly that is. Like I said though, I’m not a real fan of Amp’s whole ‘lets be merry and hold hands, feminists and anti-feminists one and all’, and I definitely support the notion that the feminists shouldn’t be silenced, but that doesn’t mean I support the vindictive assholery (they weren’t keen on my made up words – oh wells!), or attacks on my family and friends that seem to run rampant over there.
Okay enough of my ranting.
Casey
Sorry to go on – I was just responding to accusations. But I won’t from now on, unless they’re really serious ones. You’re quite right that merely getting accused of having written a “slimy misrepresentation” – given the kind of verbal abuse that gets batted to and fro on this site on a daily basis – was nothing to get worked up about.
I’ll sit on my hands.
Additionally, isn’t becoming a female the ultimate expression of a male denying male privilege and the benefits of patriarchy, which denial some radical feminists demand for men to be considered feminists (at least from the half dozen threads I’ve read out there so far). I would hope that MTF would be welcomed with open arms instead of barred. (saying that as a man who understands why women feminists would want women-only discussion threads).
Well, not necessarily. For example, one could easily become a female who is “better than” other females and doesn’t feel any kind of solidarity with other women or any particular interest in opposing patriarchy.
Misogynist women still identify as women, after all, and those of the Ann Coulter/Phyllis Schlafly variety make much of being more feminine, prettier, “better” women than the rest of us.
I realise this is peripheral to the question of trans inclusion/exclusion on feminist boards, but I don’t think that femaleness equals feminism, no matter how broadly or narrowly you define it.
Tom: The best thing would for be you to show how my précis materially differs from what G. wrote.
Your distortions are not worth my time. Anyone can link, check through, and see that your “précis” slimed and distorted what Ginmar actually wrote.
I think this discussion has reached an impasse – and, anyhow, both of you have expressed confidence that other readers can just read Ginmar’s original and draw their own judgement. Unless either of you has something new to add, I’d prefer both of you to drop this topic. Thanks.
I was thinking about the issue of trans-gendered people, and could help thinking of the woman I worked with who started working at the workplace as a man (before my time). That person would have a unique perspective, as she had tried:
1) being a man
2) being a woman
3) being an ex-man
She belongs to the third group only in those places where people knew her before she changed her sex.
I would expect that just about every trangendered woman would have the same perspectives, and it could be interesting to hear if there is any difference between being perceived as a woman and an ex-man by other men?
Of course, this might be one of the tired old questions of the debate, which I don’t really know much about. If it is, please ignore it.
(I’ve skim read most of the above, I hope this isn’t going over old ground).
I love Alas, I started reading a few years back as a baby feminist and I’ve used the resources and posts here in articles and blog posts ever since. I rarely post, mostly because I don’t think I can add much, as a 19 year-old feminist, to the discussions involving much deeper thinkers with more experience than me.
That said (and possibly making me unqualified to express this opinion), the idea of moderated radical feminist only threads makes me uneasy. I know Heart said they would be moderated and the agenda set by Rad fems, and any feminist woman could participate, but the power of moderation is the power to decide who is and isn’t trolling.
I’m a socialist feminist. I often have strong disagreements with the Radical feminists I come into contact with, to the point of being accused of a) not being very feminist or b) being a tool of the patriarchy. Whilst I know that the vast majority of Rad fems probably aren’t likely to chime in with this, I think if there are going to be feminist woman-only threads, it needs to be taken into account that feminists can violently disagree on issues without being trolls.
Maybe that goes without saying, but it was my first thought on reading this.
Sofie B, maybe a self-identified feminist should field this one, but on this thread I was rightly taken to task for implying that a feminist-only discussion would just be a feel-good echo chamber. I think the felt need for feminist-only, woman-only threads has much to do with fostering discussion of the kind of disagreements you describe, without distractions from
– “men are victims too” posts from men (either generic or some particular man’s experience)
– “it’s not really that bad/sexism doesn’t really exist any more” posts from men and the occasional woman
– basic questions about what feminism or radical feminism or rape culture is — even though if you asked 10 feminists you’d probably get 12 different answers
not because these viewpoints and questions aren’t valid, but because they derail any in-depth discussion of feminist issues.
(Credit to Bean: that’s essentially what she said to me when she took me to task. At least I am learning.)
I have very little to add that hasn’t already been covered, esp by piny and individ, but I would like to add my two cents and say that while I think a female-feminist-only space on Alas is an excellent idea, I’m completely appalled by the suggestion that it be made open only to women-born-women. To me, creating a women-only space and then specifically excluding women who already have their voices silenced by society as a whole runs counter to the whole *point* of having a women’s only space. Not to mention reinforcing the idea that transwomen aren’t really women.
Transphobia isn’t any more acceptable than racism is. I would no more stay around a space that implicitly encouraged transphobia than one that encouraged racism.
even though if you asked 10 feminists you’d probably get 12 different answers
Oh absolutely, feminists can discuss without it turning into a circle jerk. But what I’m worried about is who gets to define what a feminist issue is, and what a feminist looks like. Feeds into the women-born-women issue too I suppose.
Sophie:
That sums up my concerns rather susinctly. There is so much variation among feminist thought, and that variety unless properly moderated could cause individuals with valid points to be silenced. That silencing might result from the perception that one viewpoint is less “feminist” than another or that one issue is less “feminist”.
I haven’t seen a whole lot of that going on here, but otoh most feminists here are too busy refuting MRA’s and anit-feminist arguments to have those indepth discussions about feminist issues. I’ll wait and see how Amp’s new moderation policy works out, while continuing to think on it further.
Right. It’s possible to debate whether a given issue is feminist, or even whether a given argument is anti-feminist, but often the discussions here don’t get that far. Even I get tired of it, and I love a good argument and don’t self-identify as a feminist (see below).
Slightly OT: the human compulsion to categorize and to seek group identity interests me. On those right-wing blogs I keep referring to there are periodic discussions of who is and is not a “real Christian,” how you can tell when you meet one, etc. (On another Christian blog that I read religiously, so to speak, they don’t seem to worry about it much. Guess which blog seems the more Christian to me? but I digress.) You can find similar checklists for “real conservatives,” “real liberals,” and on and on. The evolutionary heritage is obvious, but the urge seems stronger in some people than in others, and those people seem often to gravitate to extremes, where the arguments about authenticity are often most passionate.
Myself, I’ve given up categories. To quote one of my favorite novels, at my age you don’t worry so much about what you are as about being able to go on being it.
I’ve given un the labeling and categorization thing as well. And I find your observation about those that need the stricture of categorization gravitating to the extremes and edges of philisophical thought and political groups. I shall have to do some thinking about that.
So have I. I honestly don’t know which category of feminism I fit into, and in the end I don’t think it matters. Cathy Young said that I was a Liberal Feminist in one of her articles, mainly because I supposed in a comment thread that I was a Liberal Feminist, and she might have read that. I’m honestly not sure. As far as I’m concerned, I’m just a feminist. I’ve never really thought about what category I fit in. I work on family and motherhood issues most of the time, and I don’t even know if there is a category for feminists who work on those issues.
I do find discussions of the different categories of feminism interesting though, even though everyone has a different description for each category. Feminists work on a wide variety of issues, and their activism differs greatly. I think categorization might help sometimes if you want to find like-minded feminist individuals.
You at least call yourself a feminist, Countess. About all I can confidently say is that I’m a woman. Born that way, but that’s just luck of the draw.
In the end that is the most important thing, how we identify ourselves. The names and tags used aren’t (to me) of near the importance of the actions taken. Lu, if you work towards the equality of women and the end of oppression in all its forms then in my eyes you are a feminist, even if you don’t choose to call yourself one.
Though it’s a different thread, that ties into my thoughts about transgender.
Alsis – i thought the Dalek thing was our secret! Nonetheless, if your cartoon has a few ducks in it, i’ll happily come and serve coffee while you draw.
Robert – many thanks for providing a practical illustration of Godwin’s law.
FAQs exist for this very reason. Thinking out loud: I know Amp wrote a post (or two?) on rape culture, for people who don’t know what the farg that means. I could be wrong, but it seems like he could easily provide a permanent link to that post and maybe some others, so that people could easily direct questioners to these links. Or he could pick some other sources that he’d endorse. Ideally one or more links would lead to open discussions of these basic issues, since then nobody would have the slightest excuse for continuing to discuss them elsewhere as distractions. But of course, this would involve more technical issues than a simple FAQ.
So how can you have “radical-feminist only” threads if no one can agree on what a radical feminist is?
How about this: Amp, given that you’re the moderator, what do you consider a radical feminist?
RonF,
Where are you getting the idea that no one can agree on what a radical feminist is? Susan really isn’t the best authority to trust on this subject! Heart is one, and QGrrl is one. There seems to be general agreement that no one else who posts here regularly particularly is one. Various slightly variant definitions have been provided, but there doesn’t seem to be any really fundamental disagreement here over the term.
Also threads here are generally moderated by their owners, so if there was a radical-feminist only thread (which, in any case, no one proposed – Heart proposed a women-only radical-feminist-friendly thread and then decided against it) then the thread owner (presumably a radical feminist) would be the one to decide if commentors seemed to be radical feminists.
Well . . . there is a regular poster who goes by the handle ‘Radfem.’ I won’t assume she’s a radical feminist just because of the name, but it certainly seems likely, no?
—Myca
Why aren’t feminist women standing up for Ginmar? Why didn’t more women leave here in disgust when Paige and Funnie were banned?
Here’s why I’m not standing up for Ginmar:
Back in October I posted a comment on her board saying I thought women should not be afraid to arm themselves, and should think twice before dressing in ways that made them vulnerable.
Ginmar emailed me, and among the things she said to me were:
“God, you are a stupid bitch, aren’t you? If in fact you are a woman and not a male troll. ”
I still have the email and another and will be glad to share it with anybody who thinks I’m making it up.
I am a woman and a feminist, and Ginmar went ballistic on me when I disagreed with her on something that wasn’t even outside the bounds of feminism.
Ginmar gets to be a thin-skinned control freak on her own board. But nobody else should base the rules of their board on her tender overwrought sensibilities, since it would kill reasonable discourse and ban disagreements, even disagreements between bona fide feminists.
Myca,
Actually, radfem has commented on one of these threads recently that, name aside, she does not consider herself particularly a radical feminist, so, while it might seem likely, it appears it is not the case.
There may well be other posters who consider themselves radical feminists, but none have jumped in to categorize themselves thusly.
I think Crys T, who used to be a regular commentor, but whom I haven’t seen a post from in quite a while, may consider herself a radical feminist, but I am not sure.
Huh! Wow, I wouldn’t have guessed that. I suppose that’ll teach me to judge a book by it’s title.
—Myca
Nancy: I still have the email and another and will be glad to share it with anybody who thinks I’m making it up.
Oh, better than that, Nancy, why not link to what you actually wrote?
Ginmar didn’t e-mail you Nancy. Maybe you’ve misunderstood Livejournal. If someone responds to one of your posts on a thread you also get a copy of it by e-mail from LiveJournal. You’re painting her out to be interested enough in you to send you e-mails when in fact it’s you who posted on her livejournal and now are responding about her here.
What Nancy wrote on Ginmar’s journal:
How Nancy summarised it here: women should not be afraid to arm themselves, and should think twice before dressing in ways that made them vulnerable.
I don’t think you have to be a “thin-skinned control freak” to object to being called a “self-deluded critter” or to object to the argument Nancy was trying to make that women who dress in a certain way invite rape.
Many, many people responded to Nancy’s comment on Ginmar’s journal. Nancy responded to only one, who said “What we’re saying is that expecting women to shoot any guy who comes on to us is a tad bit unrealistic. Also, quit insulting pigs.” to which Nancy responded, ever-so-civilly: “Who’s expecting women to shoot any guy who comes on to us? Certainly not me in my post – which you would know if you read it, dumbfuck.”
If Ginmar’s been banned, how about also banning these creeps who show up to abuse her in what they evidently think is now safe territory to insult her?
I’m glad you decided to bring that up, Nancy. I recall that thread, and I in fact participated in it, and tried to point out some of the fallacies in your argument, and why in fact it does indeed go outside the bounds of feminism, to the extent of being incredibly offensive. You didn’t bother to reply to me. You attacked Ginmar first. Your behavior was the very definition of trolling.
So I find it funny that you’d bring that instance up and act as if she was the bad guy for not being tolerant of the victim blaming offensive stuff you were poluting her conversation with.
You’re not a feminist. You’re a rapist-apologist.
Nancy’s comment here perfectly illustrates the problem of people who call themselves feminists when they’re quite clearly not. So people like Ginmar are banned, for having the guts not to be nice and polite and “civilized” when faced with misogynistic comments, and people like Nancy get to stay.
So Ginmar was banned because she wouldn’t be a good little woman, wouldn’t stay quiet, didn’t want to let the guys run roughshod over her, called out the hypocrisy of “feminists” who allow misogynists to comment whilst they ban comments from women who are sick of dealing with this kind of shit every day. And this is supposed to be a feminist blog?
Well, hey, thanks for proving to us once again that a lot of men can only deal with feminists (and women) provided we stick to their terms, don’t make them uncomfortable, don’t demand that they take a real stand against misogyny.
I’ve found this blog very useful for its news items and links. I rarely get involved in the comments because I just can’t be bothered to deal with the crap that gets spouted. I deal with it enough in real life. I’m glad there are people like Ginmar around who have the stomach to deal with it. I think I’ll just stick to her LJ from now on.
Can we please STOP DISCUSSING GINMAR?
Nancy (and anyone else reading this), I have to agree with Jesu: Ginmar’s been banned from this forum. Criticizing her in the comments here is simply unfair.
And, Nancy, I have to agree with Jesu and others that invoking the she-asked-for-it defense is way outside the bounds of feminism (any kind, as I understand feminism).
Yeah, I’ll stop discussing her. I’ve seen how radical feminists are treated here. I’ll be reading her blog instead.
In post #62, Heart wrote:
I certainly agree that the way to evaluate male supremacy is to compare women and men’s situations “all else held equal,” as you say. The fact that so often anti-feminists refuse to do this – instead comparing Hilary Clinton to a homeless black man, to use an example I’ve seen several different anti-feminists come up with – is either a sign of poor faith or poor thinking on their part.
However, if I understand your argument correctly (and maybe I don’t), you seem to be saying that this sort of comparison shows men to be better off “across the board,” and therefore we should understand “sexism as the first or root or foundational or core oppression, with all other oppressions … racism, classism, ableism, homophobia, modeled after this one.”
Here’s where I’m confused: Couldn’t you say the same thing about virtually any other kind of widepread oppression? For instance, I’d argue that the correct way to evaluate white supremacy is to compare whites and blacks who are similarly situated in all ways other than race. Doing this will show whites to be better off than blacks “across the board.” Does it therefore follow that racism is the root oppression, and all other oppressions are modeled on it?
Nancy’s argument about how to stop rape reminds me of the argument that folks who want Union organization at jobs where there wages are low are stupid to organize. If they are treated like shit they should just go get a better job.
A woman employee at Powell’s Books back when they were first organizing had the best, most straightforward response I’ve ever heard. “Sure,” she said, “It’s possible that I could go out there and find something better. But that only solves MY problem. It doesn’t solve the problem for all the folks who’ll take my place in the future.”
IOW, the problem with calling for women to dress like mountaineers and pack heat to ward off rapists is that A) Not only might it not work for the individual woman, but also B) It’s an INDIVIDUALISTIC solution to a MASS problem.
I posted a message that expressed exasperation on Ginmar’s board, but I certainly said nothing that other feminists haven’t said. Saying that women should reconsider dressing in vulnerable ways is basically what Twisty says all the time.
[Nancy – I said that I didn’t want any more posts criticizing Ginmar here, and I meant it. I’ve therefore deleted the rest of your post. You’ve had your two cents about Ginmar; now let the subject drop, please. –Amp]
>>I want to go back to this idea that trans have “better insights” into being a woman and a feminist. I find this line of thinking to be so repugnant as to be anti-woman and anti-feminist.>>
Same here, and everything you’ve said is true. Transwomen can frequently have _different_ insights into what it means to be a woman, since they come at the experience from a different angle, just as transmen can have different insights into how manhood works. However, there’s certainly nothing more valuable about our experiences, and we really don’t have any ability to speak to female or male upbringing.
One thing, though: I have seen “trans” used as a noun, as in “the trans,” or “a trans,” by exactly one transwoman: Renee Culver. Transpeople themselves generally say, “transsexual,” “transgendered,” “transman,” “transwoman,” “transpeople,” “transgendered people,” or “trans/transgendered community.” These are terms that emphasize our humanity. They don’t elide transgender, transsexual, and genderqueer identities. They don’t refuse to refer to us in our chosen gender. “A trans” is along the same lines as, “a black,” or “a gay.” It’s common usage in spaces like The Margins, and I personally am not comfortable with it, although other transpeople may feel otherwise.
>>Also, not all transwomen are feminist … even, if you exclude those who consider themselves to be feminist but hold different beliefs than mine (like those I mentioned in the other thread, which contradict my own idea of feminism), there are still a number of transwomen who don’t even hold feminist beliefs of any type. There are some transwomen who more concerned about “passing” and will grasp onto every female steretype out there, just to aid in that goal.>>
It bears repeating that in this they aren’t different from many non-trans women.
I posted a message that expressed exasperation on Ginmar’s board, but I certainly said nothing that other feminists haven’t said. Saying that women should reconsider dressing in vulnerable ways is basically what Twisty says all the time.>>
Ooooooo, you did Not. Just. Say. That.
Twisty’s point in brief is that it’s a fucked up way for the patriarchy to expect women to dress, and that women should be conscious of the dynamic that it’s built on so that they can resist in whatever way possible. She does not object to revealing clothing because it’s rapist-bait. She objects to it because it embodies a sexist double-standard. She has never, ever said that women are responsible for the behavior of rapists, or that women should live in fear, or that women should adopt a risk-reduction strategy in lieu of fighting for feminist reforms such that they don’t need to be vigilantes.
She has never, ever said that women are responsible for the behavior of rapists, or that women should live in fear, or that women should adopt a risk-reduction strategy in lieu of fighting for feminist reforms such that they don’t need to be vigilantes.
And I never said those things either. If you think I did, please quote exactly where I said any such things.
Twisty’s constantly mocking the whole “sexbot” mentality and women who say that they dress in sexbot ways to please themselves. In her most recent post she said:
Tears of fierce pride will well up in her Maybellined eyes when she tells her worried women’s studies friends with a wave of her French manicure to lighten up, that feminism is for angry frigid dykes, that she’s making shitloads of dough, that she’s getting her boobs done to please herself, and that she bought that $600 leather bustier mainly, you know, for other women.
That’s what I’m talking about. I mentioned high heels rather than leather bustiers, but you surely see the connection.
I’ve just deleted 90% of Nancy’s most recent post about Ginmar.
Again, Alas is not the place to discuss Ginmar. If you want to discuss Ginmar, go elsewhere.
As far as everything else goes, please keep it civil, folks. (Of course, by saying that, I’ll probably have pissed off a bunch of people!).
And Bean, I’m not sure why your posts keep getting moderated. If it keeps on happening, I can try to figure it out Monday or Tuesday.
Right you are. I’ve removed BDSM from the hotwords list, so that should fix the problem.
Nancy, as soon as you put avoiding rape on women, you are out of the feminist ballpark. You are on a slippery slope at the bottom of which women must wear burqas if they are allowed out in public at all, and they get raped anyway.
I can’t immediately find it (Amp, maybe you can help me out here), but Amp posted the best antirape advice I have ever seen. It went something like:
– If a woman is provocatively dressed, don’t rape her.
– If a woman is out late at night, don’t rape her.
– If a woman is drunk, don’t rape her.
Etc. You get the general idea.
(Obviously the vast majority of people who ask women to change their behavior to avoid rape aren’t thereby suggesting that it’s women’s fault if they get raped. They’re figuring that that’s easier than changing rapists’ behavior. It’s easier, and it may work for a given woman in a given case, but it doesn’t address the problem.)
Perhaps you shouldn’t have (I know, I know, your blog, just disagreeing), now some people get a far better picture of Nancy than, well, the truth is (I happened to see the original). I thought her post was informative about herself.
And yep, bashing banned posters is shitty behaviour. No argument here.
Happy new year, everyone (I get it earlier than you do, neener-neener).
Nancy: And I never said those things either. If you think I did, please quote exactly where I said any such things.
Here. (Quoted above.)
Just as this isn’t a blog about attacking Ginmar, it’s not a blog about attacking Nancy. Nancy’s ideas are fair game, but Nancy “herself” is not, and I don’t want people posting personal attacks on Nancy or anyone else here.
Getting “a far better picture of Nancy” or any other poster here is not, in my view, a legitimate goal for comments.
A most uncharitable reading of what I wrote. My intention is not to insult Nancy (indeed, I am eager to debate her ideas if she posts them on a relevant thread). As a result of cleaning up offensive language from the opposition (I think Nancy’s position on rape is on the opposition for most feminists?), If one looks at thread now, edited, it seems like bean, Jesu, piny etc. are being unreasonably angry.
Tuomas, it appeared to me that you were talking about Nancy herself; I think that’s a very fair reading of a phrase like “a far better picture of Nancy.” If the bit I criticized was intended to discuss her views, then I misunderstood you, and I apologize for that.
However, none of the material I deleted was about “Nancy’s position on rape”; it was all Nancy’s position on Ginmar. It’s inaccurate of you to say otherwise.
Finally, please consider my position. You’re accusing me of being unfair for deleting an attack on Ginmar. Others accuse me of being unfair if I allow attacks on Ginmar. Do you see the catch-22 my critics have me in?
Besides, Ginmar can’t post on this blog; she, unlike Bean or Jesu or Piny etc, is unable to clarify her views here. Therefore, even if it is true that by deleting that post I treated Bean, Jesu, Piny, etc, unfairly, it seems possilbe to me that’s better than allowing unrestricted criticism of Ginmar to continue.
I know I’ve posted about this before elsewhere on blogs and mailing lists, but I’ll post it again here. The idea that women should “protect themselves” from rape by not dressing provocatively, learn to shoot a gun, learn to kickbox and the like, lock their doors and windows, and not walk around in the dark of night in big cities plays on the myth of the “stranger in a trenchcoat” rapist. Most rape victims know their rapists.
Please take special note of what The Rape, Abuse, And Incest National Network (RAINN) had to say about the stereotypes about rape that have posted here:
“Meanwhile, education has led to a better public understanding of the issue. The norm used to be that victims faced skeptical questions about what they were wearing and how they acted after reporting a rape to police. Now, more and more, rape is treated as the violent crime it is, with the emphasis on the actions of the rapist, not the victim. This helps create an environment where victims are more likely to report sexual assaults, thereby increasing law enforcement’s ability to prosecute and convict rapists.”
Reports of rapes have increased, which is a good thing. Rape victims aren’t being condemned for what they could or could not have done to prevent their rapes. The focus will hopefully remain on the rapists and not whether or not the rape victims were clothed properly and locked their doors and windows to prevent their own rapes.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics has reported that most rape victims know their rapists.
From the Bureau of Justice Statistics: “During 2004 — About seven in ten female rape or sexual assault victims stated the offender was an intimate, other relative, a friend or an acquaintance.”
Claiming that women should stop dressing provocatively, should lock their doors and windows, and other such”suggestions” place the responsibility of the rape on the victims’ shoulders. Most women know their rapists. Most of them aren’t being raped by strangers they run across in alleys while they wear stiletto heels and short skirts.
I don’t mind repeating this kind of stuff here, but I really don’t feel like doing it because in the end it should not be necessary. I’ve had to repeat these statistics and others like it whenever stereotypes about rapists and rape victims come up. I wish I didn’t have to do it here, because it’s been done before, because that kind of crap comes up often enough. This kind of stuff should not be up for debate because there is no debate. The facts have had their say, and they don’t support the stereotypes about rape victims and rape. I see no reason to allow those kinds of stereotypes to take hold on a feminist blog.
Hmm. What I mean is that Nancy started on this thread by claiming that ginmar had been very unfair to her on post 263. She presented her on views on a very insult-free way (which they were not, originally) and ginmar as “a thin-skinned control-freak”. Her version of events. It became very clear to me, as the thread progressed, that (apologies if this amounts as a personal attack) that she was far from saintly herself (in the relevant discussion), and it appeared to me that she was going to use this space, and ginmar’s ban, as a way to get back at her in some way. Those ideas were very clearly expressed on her choice of writing, which you then deleted. Which, of course, is one way of dealing with the problem.
A modest suggestion for the catch-22: Remove all Nancy’s posts related to ginmar (not just ones that are directly insulting as it is now), and enforce a rule to ban posters who bring up the subject here again.
I’ll continue the discussion tomorrow, getting tired now.
Ampersand: However, none of the material I deleted was about “Nancy’s position on rape”; it was all Nancy’s position on Ginmar. It’s inaccurate of you to say otherwise.
But it’s not all Nancy’s position on Ginmar. You’ve left Nancy’s original attack on Ginmar intact.
Further, you posted to tell people to stop discussing Ginmar not when Nancy posted her original attack, but when people got into defending Ginmar against Nancy’s distorted version of events. (I’d prefer to assume that you just hadn’t read the thread up to Nancy’s original comment, but in fact you’d posted a comment on the thread after Nancy’s comment, in which you did not tell Nancy to stop “discussing Ginmar”.
Thanks, Countess, for being more concrete at what I was trying to say before I had my coffee.
Even the measures implied in such claims are not guaranteed to work all the time. They are not do-able all the time. Should I sleep with a shoulder holster to guard against spousal rape ? Should I wear a bra to the grocery store even though I hate the damn things just to make sure that I take away one of a rapist’s 5,000,000,000,000,000 for treating women like throwaway objects ? Oooh, maybe I’d better lop off all my hair, too. Men find that long hair mighty provocative, don’t they. It’s like a red flag in front of a bull or something.
[bangs head on keyboard.]
Jesu:
When I said what I deleted was “all Nancy’s position on Ginmar,” I was attempting to say that the material I deleted consisted entirely of Nancy’s criticism of Ginmar, and I had deleted no other materials; not that I had deleted all the Ginmar-critique material from previous posts. However, I now see that the sentence could be read either way; sorry for the confusion.
Since a bunch of people had already posted specific replies to #263 (something that hadn’t happened with the parts of #277 I deleted, imo), I briefly considered but rejected the idea of deleting #263.
I’m trying to believe that you’re an incredibly careless reader, rather than a bad liar with a beef against me, but you’re making it hard. This is the second or third time this week you’ve posted false claims about something I did.
Nancy’s post attacking Ginmar was #263. It was the first post by her on this thread.
My first post on this thread following #263 was #271. I told everyone to lay off discussing Ginmar, but I also singled Nancy out for particular criticism. (It appears you didn’t notice that bit.)
Contrary to your claim, there was no post by me inbetween 263 and 271. This is because by the time I read #263, all the posts through #270 had already been written and all but #270 had been posted. (I had to approve #270 before it could be posted).
Even had there been a post by me between 263 and 271, there would be many possible innocent explanations (cross-posting, having a list of things I wanted to reply to, etc). But there’s no such post – you appeared to have misread the thread.