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)
Actually, what gengwell reveals is that he will listen to the authority of a male (Ampersand), but he is uncomfortable granting the same authority to women (women-only space).
why should we have to bear your weight while you piggyback on our political struggle?
Because you’re the ones who want social change. Moreover, you don’t want a passive social change, wherein some law will be passed or whatnot and then one group has a power they didn’t have before, but nobody else has to do anything in particular; you want an active social change, where the majority of the people in the society collude together to redefine ways of living. To get that, you need both cooperation and partnership.
Does that create an obligation on your part to help people who are saying “I kind of like the direction you’re heading”? No – you’re free to be as abrasive, rejective and Mandarinesque as you like. That’s just not likely to be a very effective approach over time, IMHO.
To put it in one sentence instead of two paragraphs: if he goes and asks iFeminists for help, they’re going to give it to him; your choice isn’t whether you’re going to help him, it’s what kind of woman is going to have his ear.
Q Grrl – I think my point is still lost in the shuffle. It is not that I object to a radical feminist women only space per se, but that I fear once that enclave is created that it will diminish even further the contribution of those women in the general debate threads. I think that would be bad. But it has nothing to do with women per se. If Amp created a space for all the fundimentalist Christians to go and congregate and the end result was that we spent all our time there and stopped contributing to the general debate, that would be just as bad.
Now, maybe that won’t happen. Maybe, with a more comfortable space here the feminists would also jump more into the general debate. But my read on heart’s original post tells me the opposite.
I wonder, gengwall, if you have any idea how thoroughly patronizing and paternalistic this sentiment is.
Robert: creating women-only space does not by any means preclude any other interaction wtih men regarding feminism. It simply and basically means that space is created for women to nuture our own political and social needs so that we can, in turn, be more effective in seeking the change we wish to see. I fail to see how complicated this is to grasp. What is the general fear here? That once women are by themselves they will completely and forever abandon men? That is a rather childish response to our politics no? And then you seem to think we bear a responsibility to either spoon feed men or allow them to piggyback on our hard work? What other social movement creates such a laziness and complacency amongst men?
Gengwell: Women-only space has *absolutely* nothing to do with your fears or education needs. It is for us and by us. For OUR needs. The need for this space exists because men who join our movement, even in good faith, can’t seem to step away from touting the line: “but… what about men’s needs?” This isn’t about women being angry or separatists or excluding men. It is about us creating a space where we can freely discourse over our own experiences and our own theory without constantly having to use male guidelines as our measuring tools. We cannot think adequately outside the box if men like you continue to insist that you exist as a primary and functional definer of women’s realities and experiences. This is, in a nutshell, what feminists refer to as male supremacy.
Oh, well, now I have the Fear. Let’s see, men have founded Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Men have led revolutions like the French and American revolutions. Men have created elaborate and sound philosophies and psychologies and sciences.
Yet, when it comes to feminism… they’re unable to think for themselves? They’re unable to parse out what works philosophically and politically for them?
I don’t even expect all feminists to agree with my philosophy/theories. Why would I expect men to be different?
Q Grrl said:
“Yet, when it comes to feminism… they’re unable to think for themselves? They’re unable to parse out what works philosophically and politically for them?”
I can’t resist chiming in. This and the other older thread where Heart asked for women-only threads are very interesting. My impression wrt my quotation of Q’s is that what it comes down to is RTFM, and that there’s a line, perhaps fine perhaps not, between seeking out the counsel of experienced feminists in order to enhance one’s understanding, and ignoring the FAQ.
I find it interesting though, Q, that the passage of yours that I quoted seems to encourage or endorse complete intellectual freedom on the part of men to come to grips with feminism “philosophically and politically”; but before IIRC you have stated your opinion to be that men can be feminists but not feminist theorists. But for the former to be possible, don’t men have to engage (in) feminist theorizing? Granted, women or female leaders may put little stock in the output, but is that what you meant?
Though my opinion in this matters little, as it seems there will be no radfem-only threads, to me it seems that a fundamental reason not to have such threads here is because Heart seemed to be making the suggestion in the spirit of correcting something that is wrong with Alas. I don’t see there being anything wrong with Alas, hence I can’t agree with the spirit in which Heart made her long-ago suggestion. But other than this, frankly, having radfem-only threads here would allow me to read such discussions without having to visit multiple blogs. Not that I feel I would necessarily get a complete appreciation for radical feminist views just from threads here on Alas.
Q Grrl, I have no objection to women-only spaces.
And then you seem to think we bear a responsibility to either spoon feed men or allow them to piggyback on our hard work?
I don’t think you have any responsibilities at all.
It’s just that if you want to get what you say you want to get, you’re going to have to spoon feed men.
Sparkane: I believe that I previously said that men cannot currently be feminist theorists. If men were to take the intellectual freedom they deny themselves WRT feminism, then it would only make sense that they develop feminist theory. What I see as missing is a willingness on the part of men to breach the cognative gap that allows men to view themselves and their beliefs as prototypical and therefore natural rather than social. Were men to do this, then I would firmly support their feminist theories.
Why should we? If men are sincere in their desire to be feminists, they’re perfectly capable of going out and researching the subject themselves. They’re capable of figuring out that the myths about women are untrue. They’re perfectly capable of showing respect for women. Instead, they expect to be mommied well into adulthood.
Q, thanks for the reply; alas, I don’t understand what you mean with the breaching the cognitive gap part, and recognizing our beliefs as prototypical and therefore natural. I’m interested in hearing more. If you don’t want to get long-winded (it sounds like it might require some extensive explanation to get at what you mean), and you can provide a reference that will more or less tell what you’re getting at, I’d be happy to be pointed toward it.
Why should we? If men are sincere in their desire to be feminists, they’re perfectly capable of going out and researching the subject themselves.
Why should Jackie Robinson have stood there and taken the abuse when the fans yelled at him? If white people are sincere in their desire for a more racially harmonious culture, they’re perfectly capable of going out and treating black people decently.
Except that if Jackie Robinson had acted in a perfectly understandable way and lashed out at the racists who taunted him, he would have lost. Yes, it would have been understandable. But it wouldn’t have advanced the agenda he wanted to advance. He would have lost the game that he was really there to play.
Feminists don’t have to do anything. But just like the civil rights movement, feminists have enemies who will happily spin and manipulate and lie and cast your perfectly reasonable actions and perfectly understandable statements as being horrible and wrong and evidence of your intrinsic wickedness – and they will be believed. If Jackie Robinson had clocked some shithead punk, there would have been no shortage of wise white men stroking their beards and saying “you see, this proves that the Negro is constitutionally incapable of functioning in society without bestial violence” – and they would have been believed.
If you want to advance an agenda, you can’t expect that other people are going to do what is right. Is it just that people who want change have to behave so above-and-beyond? No, it isn’t just.
It’s just the way you have to do things if you want to move the world.
Yeah, I like the implied threat there, Robert, as well as the inappropriate use of Jackie Robinson. Robinson didn’t live side by side with his oppressor in the same home, sleep in the same bed, and then have to endure the whining about how the oppressor was just asking an innocent question.
If men are sincere, they won’t need to be bribed and furthermore, they won’t demand more housework. They’ll do it themselves. Demands for babying are just a sure sign that a guy is not sincere at all.
Robert, it’s hard for me to see this as anything other than wilfully disingenuous: First, there have been plenty of women who have “stood there and taken the abuse” (few of whom have ever acvhieved Jackie Robinson’s status as a cultural icon, by the way).
Second, I guarantee you that Jackie Robinson had access to–and, if and when he didn’t, that he desperately wanted to have access to–some version of “Blacks only” spaces precisely as a refuge from that abuse. I also would like to point out that “standing out there and taking the abuse” is very different from teaching the people who are abusing you about their own privilege and the oppression from which you suffer. I’m not saying that your standing out there won’t teach them something; I am saying that standing out there is very different from teaching Racism or Sexism 101 to the people who are being racist and/or sexist towards you.
Third, this thread is a discussion of women-only spaces on a blog; maybe I missed it, but I didn’t read a single post by a woman who said that the purpose of such a space was to withdraw from the world completely or completely to stop engaging men about issues of feminism or not to stand out there and take the abuse when necessary the way that Jackie Robinson did. The proposal was that there should be a place where they could talk to each other without exchanges like this one derailing the conversation. (And I speak as a man who has, despite what I thought were all good intentions, nonetheless derailed my share of such conversations among women.)
That you have presumed to lecture these women on what they need to do to achieve the social change they desire suggests that you were paying attention not to what the conversation was actually about, but to the buttons it pushed in you.
Someone has yet to explain to me why viewing gender as a binary code leads to anything productive. Viewing people as individuals rather than defined by penis or vagina is surely a more equal basis for encouraging discussion. Men have been casting women from ideological and literal space for thousands of years based on the simple fact that they are, well…women. How is creating a women only space any different? Is it not reliant upon the identity that has been created in relation to men? I also feel that anyone who considers themselves somehow outside of the ‘bullshit’ as QGrrl states with unnecessary hostility is quite misguided. If patriarchy permeates every aspect of society, how can one carve a space out that does not end up in relation to it? We are all products of our society to some degree and binary codes are no way of mapping that accurately.
Are you stupid. Or just stubborn?
Are you interested in having a discussion or just throwing unnecessary insults at people like a petty child?
Q Grrl, please try to go along with the moderation policies here. Thanks.
Cryo, please try to go along with the moderation policies here. (“She did it first!” is not an excuse.) Thanks.
I’ve had this discussion. So have a lot of other people. The thread is 412 posts long.
Either you can’t comprehend what we’ve written, or you’re too stubborn to debate your own objections.
Go on with your bad self and blame the feminists for the “binary” gender system.
…men have segregated us for years into women-only space. Why is it so damn impossible to grant, even conceptually, that women can and will claim it for itself.
eh, nevermind. Just fuck off, ‘kay?
No go Amp. No one else is going to call this git on saying that I’m “unnecessarily hostile”.
I thought if they can’t wrap their minds around what I’m saying, I may as well be necessarily hostile. That cuts out all the second guessing then.
[I love it when the anti-feminists try to shame the feminists for their tone].
Q Grrl I believe you are again being hostile to me for no reason at all. Why can you not simply respond to my post with a reply fitting to the original question? The argument that I’m anti feminist I also believe to be incredibly offensive considering you barely know me and have engaged with no debate with me more meaningful than passing insults. I didn’t come here to be insulted, I came to have a considered discussion.
Cryo, your questions were answered in the earlier posts. Read them. Qgrrl is correct. If you can’t see the sense in what others have written on this subject, it’s not because they have failed to explain them satisfactorily. It’s because you have your POV and don’t want to surrender it. Stop blaming others because you yourself don’t want to listen.
alsis,
I have read the posts and while people have discussed various topics surrounding binaries, they have not addressed the epistemological question of binary itself. And let’s just say that the topic has been sufficiently covered,which I do not believe, that is no reason to insult me in a such a way. If someone needs further clarification on a subject and you are not willing to give it to them, don’t post…but for goodness sake don’t insult that person.
Your attitude is insulting, Cryo. The only reason that I didn’t do it is because Qgrrl noticed you here first.
Heart explained virtually from the outset why she felt that woman-only spaces could be productive. I don’t know what that has to do with your talk of “epistemological” or “binary” this and that. I would add that as a member of the class/gender who is the norm and the dominant force in most discussions, it’s all very well for you to prate loftily about how a woman like Qgrrl doesn’t understand the issues– but she does understand and she lives them as the subordinate gender/class, which you do not aparently. Yet you march in here arrogantly asserting that the issues have not been examined to your satisfaction. I’ve got news for you, Cryo, that is pretty damn insulting.
I have work to do, so you can play your reindeer games with somebody else now. I think actually reading the thread in depth would serve you better, but it’s your choice.
Maybe I should have said:
If you can’t run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.
or
If you dont’ want to swim with sharks, stay outta the water.
or
Can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Pick you cliche. I’m hostile to you because your laziness is seen to need more pampering than I’m willing to give. You specifically called me out in your first post; but you obviously haven’t read the content of this thread. I’m neither naive nor gullible. Do your homework, read a little, then come back.
If you have something more intellectual than “ewww, the icky feminists are upholding the gender binary”, I *might* give it a read.
I would suggest as good reading materials, anything by: Catherine MacKinnon, Audre Lorde, Adrienne Rich, Susan Griffin, Susan Brownmiller…. eh, the list is long.
Feminst theory has been around for oh, forty years plus. What’s kept you from expanding your own horizons?
alsis,
When have I ever suggested that QGrrl ‘doesn’t understand the issues’? I never said anything of the sort. I asked a question, that’s all I did? You’re suggesting simply that because I’ve asked a question, whether it be previously addressed or not, that I somehow am insulting people. And don’t dare cast aspertions and judgements upon my gender, politics and intelligence when you have no evidence even to say what they are. You are again insulting me for no reason. Answer the question with civility or do not post a response at all.
QGrrl,
Point taken although it could have been delivered with less hostility. You are firstly suggesting that I know less than you about feminist theory when we have never met nor had a meaningful discussion. Secondly you are being incredibly arrogant in thinking that YOU know what is sufficient to disentangle such a complex issue as this. This is an ongoing dialogue and has been throughout history, why do you think the post is soooo long? Because the discussion never ends. ANd if Heart identified everything necessary in the first post alsis…why did you bother posting a response? Both of you are making an unwarranted attack on someone who simply wishes to learn more. Maybe I have read all of the authors you have suggested QGrrl, and many more for that matter and feel that the involvement in a dialogue between PEOPLE is more important and educational. Please try to get past yourself and I beg of you, post a response…engage me in critical dialogue with regard to my original question, I beg you.
um, if you had done those things, you’d never have had the ballsy swagger to suggest that it is feminists who are upholding the “binary” of gender.
You’re blowing steam here, really. I’ve seen it before, I’ll see it again. You didn’t have an “original question”, you just wanted to throw down the gauntlet and call me a strident feminist, but not in so many words.
Really, it’s been done before. At this date, it’s a rather transparent ploy. For you to suggest that “its an ongoing dialogue throughout history” lets me know exactly how little you have read of women’s history, women’s politics, and feminism in particular.
Nice try though.
You’re avoiding the question once again and you have the gall to suggest that I don’t have the knowledge required. You’re judgemental, egotistical and self righteous…and I think you’re proud of that because from what you’ve presented me with, it’s all you’ve got. The question once again is: WHY CREATE A WOMEN ONLY SPACE WHEN IT IS BASED UPON A BINARY. MALE-FEMALE? This is my question and you cannot answer it, probably because you do not have the capacity to. Wanna lock horns on feminist writers? Ask me a question, anything you like… and more than likely, I will kick your arse into next tuesday. It seems you only understand aggression similar to that which is prevalent throughout the patriarchal system, so here’s my giving you a little back.
That’s the only question I see from you. The only one. The obvious answer to which is that you don’t.
Women-only space, however, would allow us to spend time on each other rather than on obtuse and blathering twits who only wish to tell us we have it wrong.
Eh, but to answer. Women-only space serves us precisely because men insist that we live in the gendered binary. It allows us to think of only ourselves. Hence, no binary.
You’re insisting that we have to constantly think of men and men’s needs. Nice going there bub.
And? I wasn’t aware that this was an issue of my personal flaws. You could always ignore me. But please do remember, you invoked my name in vain. And I hate that. It hurts my over-inflated ego.
You’re warming up a little which is encouraging to see. Thankyou for addressing my question more directly. However, could one not argue that in’ thinking only of ourselves’ we are reacting to a model initially built by men? This argument could be seen as subscribing perfectly to that binary system in that it is reactionary. The logic under which we create a women only space would infer the absence of men and hence is created in relation to that group. Individualism does not fall prey to such arguments because there is no agenda outside of personal desire. There are of course flaws in both systems but it is nevertheless interesting to discuss is it not? And I don’t recall ever mentioning I was male and so it would appear that it is perfectly possible for someone who is not a man to insist that the epistemological issue of the binary remains troublesome for rad refminists. I shall post where my essay on the issue can be found as soon as it comes into print this autumn so that you can engage with me further.
I see no need for a rad-fem-only space on Alas, sorry. Is anyone demanding a men-only space on Hearrt’s web site? Are men even allowed to post at all? I say this having of course been a member of a woman-only radical feminist collective. It’s your job as a woman to create your own women-only space and you have no responsibility to allow men in or to create a male-only space somewhere in your space. And it’s 2006. Amp has no obligation to create a rad-fem-only space on his web site, either. I’ll note that the few X-only threads he has created are to deliberately *take the posters out of feminist-themed or feminist-friendly threads*. If he had decided without your input or approval to simply ship you all off into a thread where you spoke your own but did not get to contribute to the main you would understand the difference here between the clear implication that the X-only threads he has created *are not welcome* in the main but can have their own space nevertheless and that rad-fem viewpoints *are encouraged* at least by Amp here, *in the main*.
And pardon me for my way of living radical feminism but hey I always understood from my time at off our backs that radical feminism was about *not* asking men for our own space but creating our own new outside-the-system models etc. Whatever whatever. Shoot me now. This isn’t a radical feminist request, Hearrt. It’s a liberal feminist request, asking a man to please give me this that and the other and assuming he’s the one who has the power to give it to you or deny it and not bothering to consider you have the power to do it yourself without him. And that’s fine that it’s a liberal feminist approach and request. But don’t confuse the two.
Finally, Hearrt, I think it’s too bad you haven’t taken advantage of the opportunity to put what you consider the radical feminist view out there at the top of Amp’s page as an ongoing blog to which everyone you gripe about can only leave a comment. I’m also sorry to say I think your argument is some 35-years-plus out of date — surely you could be blogging about something timely within radical feminism rather than beating an old dead horse and Amp, who, for crying out loud has offered to give you the kind of space and visibility few radical feminists ever get.
Laylolola,
First of all, I don’t think your description of liberal feminism is entirely fair.
Second, it should be pointed out that Heart and her associates have started their own very good blog, Women’s Space/The Margins.
Thirdly, I think that criticizing Heart over this post is beating a dead horse, to a significant extent. Heart already decided – long, long ago – that radfem-only threads on “Alas” was not a workable idea. I think discussing the general philosophical questions raised by Heart’s post still makes sense, but it doesn’t make sense to ask Heart to answer for positions that she no longer holds.
I didn’t read all 430 responses, I apologize, so I missed that, Amp. I did read Hearrt’s blog here, saw that it was revived and people still commenting, and commented directly on what she had posted. Two, Hearrt often categorizes certain approaches/tactics/politics as radical feminist when they are liberal feminist and as someone who *was* on a woman-only radical feminist collective I do take issue with this mischaracterization — and I *don’t* think that’s beating a dead horse. Finally, I *am* diappointed she chose to whine about “radical feminist” voices being erased and silenced here instead of seeing the obvious huge top-page space she was being offered and taking advantage of getting what she considers to be a radical feminist voice out there in a larger audience. I mean so sue me. I don’t think she was victimized here in your offer and her refusal to take it up and instead ask for her own women-only “radical” feminist threads.
I just want to clarify *why* I don’t think the issue of what is a liberal feminist approach/tactic/politics v. what is radical —
So many would-be feminists or bona fide feminists today, and since really the early 1990s, do not know the distinction between the two. Nearly any board discussing feminism includes not one but continuous threads where a poster asks, What is a radical feminist? Or, what is the difference between a liberal feminist and a radical feminist? And frankly even feminist leaders in the past 15 years have contributed directly to confusing what is a political fundamental: understanding the tactics of your political wing. Liberal, radical, revolutionary — in the early 1970s feminist leaders deliberately decided the Second Wave would not be revolutionary but would take liberal and radical tactics instead to implement their politics, which, they understood then, would mean the movement would take much much longer to make its gains. But I digress. To me it’s not beating a dead horse at all when so many actual feminists cannot spell out such a funamental part of their politics.
Pingback: Alas, an Eruption « Creative Destruction
The entitlement and privilege that post reeks of are unbelievable.
Amp seems to sadly learn that no good deed goes unpunished.
Pingback: Bitch | Lab » Good idea
please explain to me exactly what a radical feminist is, i don’t mean to sound stupid but i don’t 100% understand and i want too.