I really shouldn’t take the time to post today, but I’ve got to clear some of these links off my desktop! Some of them I’ve lost the source of; my apologizes to anyone who I should have hat-tipped but didn’t.
By the way, if there are any links you’d like to post, or anything you’d like to discuss, that doesn’t fit into the other threads on “Alas,” then feel free to post it in the comments here.
In no particular order:
-
Ex-Gay Watch has some interesting information about the swell folks behind Defend Maryland Marriage (who I posted about yesterday).
-
Hey, cool, Jill at Third Wave Agenda just called “Alas” one of her favorite blogs. Thanks, Jill! The only problem is, now adding Third Wave Agenda to the “Alas” blogroll may look like payback for flattery, when actually I’ve been meaning to add it since I first noticed it a couple of days ago. Well-reasoned and passionate – a recipe for kick-ass feminist blogging. I recommend that y’all check Jill’s blog out.
-
A mini-debate between me and Elizabeth Marquardt at Family Scholars Blog about her famous “hooking up” study.
-
Heart, who is like me a veteran of the Ms Boards, has been posting to disagree with me and other skeptics regarding the “become a prostitute or lose unemployment benefits” story on this “Alas” thread. It’s an interesting discussion. There’s also some discussion of it on Heart’s website (Note: Heart’s website is women-only. Any male “Alas” poster who posts on Heart’s website will no longer be welcome to post on “Alas”).
-
RadGeek argues, persuasively, that the Founding Fathers did so intend a separation between church and state.
-
Natalie at Philobiblon discusses “the school slut” and the book Fast Girls: Teenage Tribes and the Myth of the Slut by Emily White.
-
Bouncing off a comment Kip left on “Alas,” Pinko Feminist Hellcat discusses classism and “personal responsibility.”
-
A good Ellen Goodman article points out that finding “common ground” in the abortion debate, as the mainstream presents it, usually means pro-choicers giving up on our principles in exchange for no compromise at all from pro-lifers. Via Jill at Third Wave Agenda, who adds good comments as well.
-
Amanda at Mouse Words argues that porn is not inherently degrading to women (although many specific examples of porn are). I pretty much agree with Amanda’s views, although I do think some kinds of porn – rape porn and child porn, specifically – should be censored. (I’m not assuming that Amanda disagrees with me on that).
-
In the news: “A National Institutes of Health study suggests that the region of the brain that inhibits risky behavior is not fully formed until age 25, a finding with implications for a host of policies, including the nation’s driving laws.” And whether or not people should get married young, I’d add. (Unfortunately, I don’t remember where I found this story – sorry, whoever I’m not crediting!)
-
I’m planning to order my next batch of checks from these people. I’m torn between the variety pack, the anatomical theme, and the insect theme.
-
College paper article about a recent bell hooks lecture
-
The Bush administration has pressured PBS into pulling an episode of “Postcards from Buster,” because the episode included some children whose parents are lesbians. The article describes some past episodes of the series: “One episode featured a family with five children, living in a trailer in Virginia, all sharing one room. In another, Buster visits a Mormon family in Utah. He has dropped in on fundamentalist Christians and Muslims as well as American Indians and Hmong. He has shown the lives of children who have only one parent, and those who live with grandparents.” So apparently queers, and queers alone, are the only people Bush considers beyond the pale to show as part of a family on TV. Via Jack Bog’s blog.
-
Basic Rights Oregon is suing to prevent Measure 36 – the voter-approved Constitutional Amendment preventing Oregon from recognizing same-sex marriages – from being put into the Oregon Constitution. I’ll be blogging more about this in the future, but for now I’m posting it here to preserve the link.
-
Another terrific feminist blog added to the blogroll: Pseudo-Adrienne’s Liberal-Feminist Bias.
-
The New York Times describes some of the ways folks in Chile preserved their freedom before divorce was legalized last week: “The most creative schemes involved civil annulment, which required the separating couple to persuade a court that the original marriage had not met legal requirements. So marrying couples frequently left an escape hatch, in case things didn’t work out. Witnesses to a wedding, for example, would sometimes deliberately misspell their names or give an incorrect address. Or a couple might marry in a jurisdiction in which neither lived. More than 5,000 annulments were granted annually; the beneficiaries included President Ricardo Lagos.”
-
A CLASP policy brief (pdf file) sums up the social science research regarding if married parents are really better for kids. (Short summary: Yes, kids of married parents tend to have better outcomes, but not 100% of the time, and there are other essential factors too). Both this and the previous link were via Family Scholars Blog, by the way.
-
Another totally excellent Ornicus post defending hate crime laws. He harps on something that always bugs me – 90% of hate crime law critics clearly have no idea what hate crime laws are or how they work.
-
Jeremy Wagstaff provides an interesting statistic on spam email: “The index goes back to November 2002, with a value of 66.67 — i.e. about 67 spam messages for every 100 valid emails. Now the index is at 782.12. That’s 800 spam messages for every 100 valid ones.” Hat tip: Kip.
-
Damnum Absque Injuria, an anti-feminist blogger, reviews the “male privilege checklist.” What a shock – he don’t like it.
-
This student’s paper on the Morning After Pill is good reading, especially if you’re looking for a basic summary of the scientific issues involved.
-
Someone on a men’s rights forum suggested this link as a one-stop summary of what men’s rights activists are complaining about. So, in case you were wondering…
-
This pamphlet written by Mary Schweitzer in the run-up to the 2004 election is still very worth reading, especially for her thoughts on the economic situation in the US. (Mary Schweitzer wrote this recent “Alas” guest post).
-
Very interesting debate about affirmative action and black law students.
Ah… the desktop looks much cleaner now.
Charles: How about the ethos:
“Don’t hit other people except in self defense, or if absolutely necessary in defense of another.”?
Robert: That’s a fine ethos. I got that one as a child too. The problem with it is that it doesn’t protect females, which was the purpose of the “don’t hit girls”? rule.
Jeezus. Why the hell wouldn’t it cover girls, too? Unless you’re saying that whomever (you or others) is teaching/learning the broader ethos won’t recognize girls as people? You couldn’t have proven the dire need for feminism any better if you’d tried.
And you’ve got to be kidding me to imply that we don’t live in a theft culture. Capitalism is at heart legalized thievery. The goal is to receive more in value from someone than you give them (we call that “profit”) . Maximum reward for minimal effort/cost. The only difference is the “mark” is generally a willing victim.
Jeezus. Why the hell wouldn’t it cover girls, too? Unless you’re saying that whomever (you or others) is teaching/learning the broader ethos won’t recognize girls as people? You couldn’t have proven the dire need for feminism any better if you’d tried.
Because girls are capable of aggression. I wasn’t taught “don’t hit girls unless they hit you first”, I was taught “don’t hit girls”.
And you’ve got to be kidding me to imply that we don’t live in a theft culture. Capitalism is at heart legalized thievery. The goal is to receive more in value from someone than you give them (we call that “profit”) .
I’ll be delighted to debate economic theory with you, if that’s what you want to do. Debating economic theory is fun. Can I start by a process of discovering what your premises are? For example, this last statement implies that you believe economic value to be an absolute. Do you believe that goods have absolute value, or relative value?
To clarify that last comment –
I believe it wisest to teach boys to seek resolutions to physical conflict with women other than hitting back. The reason to teach boys not to hit girls, regardless of circumstance, is to protect women later on. If a 120-lb woman hits a 205-lb man, he is unlikely to be seriously physically hurt. If he reciprocates, she is likely to be seriously hurt. Because of the disparity in combat power in the bulk of heterosexual relationships, an only-in-self-defense ethos for boys is incomplete.
Seeking a neutral authority or shunning the aggressor are probably more productive avenues to teach boys. Which, translated into grownup terms, means calling the cops or leaving instead of being drawn into a physical conflict. Which is what we tell men to do now if women hit them, so the training is consistent from childhood to adulthood.
…Well, then, it would default to the , “Self-defense is okay,” rule, or the variation my parents taught me: “Yell for a teacher.”
I don’t see why there have to be special dispensations for girls who attack first, since you apparently have no problem with a boy using violence to defend himself against another boy.
I don’t see why there have to be special dispensations for girls who attack first, since you apparently have no problem with a boy using violence to defend himself against another boy.
Well, it isn’t the ideal, but it doesn’t have nearly as many downstream consequences, in my view.
I’ve been reading this site for a while now, but this is the first time I’ve commented. For a few reasons, I’ve been hesitant to say anything on this topic, but I think I’ve got my thoughts formulated in a more-or-less coherent way now.
Here’s how I see things: If you run a message board you’re free to set whatever parameters you want for discussion. This can include “women only, “polite discussion only,” “feminists only,” “white people only,” or whatever you like. There are advantages and disadvantages to each of these parameters . . . some people are excluded by their very nature, but often the exclusion is worth the added benefit of increasing the level of discourse. A “women only” board excludes men, but the resulting conversation can be more comfortable and productive than if they were included. A “polite discussion only” board excludes rude people and those who are unable to keep their tempers in check, but allows those who meet these criteria to discuss sensitive issues without resorting to name-calling.
Whatever your personal opinion of a specific set of posting criteria, I think it’s basic courtesy to respect the site owner/moderator’s choice in setting it up. Some random man may disagreee with Heart’s choice to exclude men from her board, but it’s way goddamn out of line to go there and call her out over it. If you don’t like the posting requirements, stay away.
For as long as I’ve been reading Ampersand’s boards, which I’m sure isn’t nearly as long as most of the people here, his one requirement has been basic courtesy. He wouldn’t put up with an anti-feminist calling women b*****s or feminazis, and he discourages personal attacks of all stripes, but otherwise, all posters are allowed to express their views, no matter how much any of us might disagree with one another.
I like this requirement. This is not a “feminists only” board, and I hope it never becomes one. I think it’s one of the most important things in the world that we be able to discuss our opinions calmly with those we disagree with, and the only way to do that is to have “this,” a place where as long as you deal civilly with the other posters, they may attack your opinions, but they won’t attack you. Incidentally, as those who have posted anti-feminist views in the past have noticed, Ampersand has no problem attacking those views . . . he just won’t ban you for expressing them.
Coming here and spending time complaining uncivilly about Ampersand’s civility requirement is no different from a man, pro- or anti-feminist, visiting Heart’s board and posting mesage after message about how wrong her policy is and how exclusionary it is, and how “she’s allowed to have those priorities but I’m not sure if feminism is a good description for them.” It’s a major, major violation, and if he tried it, I hope he would be banned within minutes. I find it instructive that Ampersand cared enough about Heart’s rules to remind everyone to follow them in no uncertain terms, but so many of the posters here feel comfortable completely ignoring Ampersand’s rules.
I happen to disagree with nearly everything Robert has said, and a large portion of what Novalis has said, but for the most part they’ve expressed themselves courteously, which is more than can be said of Littleviolet, Alsis, Molly, etc. Yes, I find Robert’s and Novalis’ views offensive. No, I don’t think the expression of offensive views needs policing. No, I don’t think that it’s anti- or non-feminist to refuse to censor opposing viewpoints.
As for courtesy being a tool of the patriarchy? Give me a break. Being able to put forth my views on equality and sexism without being called names or demonized as a lesbian feminazi is absolutely critical to me. I wholeheartedly approve of enforced courtesy, and have taken advantage of it elsewhere.
Last, I just wanted to say that I agree 100% with everything Individ-ewe-al said in the last two paragraphs of post 309. I had noticed that myself, and was unsure how to express it.
…I’m very grateful to Heart for that insight. I just feel like if men were given the same benefit of the doubt that I got, the discussion would be more productive.
Obviously, I can’t speak for Heart. Frankly, though, I didn’t notice you saying anything as inflammatory or clueless as some of the stuff coming out of the keyboards of some of the men here.
It’s not a feminists versus non-feminists distinction. That I could understand. If someone said, there’s no point my talking to you because you don’t accept feminism, fair enough. Or even if they got angry with me for not being a feminist. But instead the feminist men are getting as much negative feedback as the non-feminist men (and more than the non-feminist women). I don’t see the value of that.
Show me someplace where I was as “badly-behaved” here to, say, Amp or Jake as I was to Novalis. Granted, I know the first two IRL, but that doesn’t mean that we never argue about anything.
IRT why a woman might be angrier over certain subjects with a man who she considers feminist, ever hear the adage: “Of he who has much power, much will be expected.” The feminist men in this space and others raise certain expectations in calling themselves feminists. Thus it should be no suprise that they are held to a higher standard by women. They declare themselves allies, and one rightfully expects allies to back her up.
Lest you misunderstand what I mean by “power,” I’ll try and clarify: Men who call themselves feminist, or pro-feminist, if you prefer, are setting themselves up as envoys between two camps that are –if not always at war– definitely at odds much of the time. Men who call themselves feminist, or pro-feminist, seemingly operate with the hope that there are things they can make other men understand and believe that a feminist woman cannot explain– because she has no credibility with anti-feminist men, either literally because she’s got no penis, or because they convince themselves that she’s standing too close to the issues to understand them in that oh-so-prized “objective” manner that so many anti-feminists (and other stripes of reactionaries) try and cultivate;Or pretend to cultivate. Men who call themselves feminist, or pro-feminist try to use the privilege that comes with being male to break down male privilege, or at least to make other men understand how privilege works.
I have the feeling that this is a foolish hope, but then again, my own political beliefs make me practically the Queen (or at least Princess) of Foolish Hopes myself. So perhaps I shouldn’t point fingers in that regard.
Yes, I do feel let down by Amp. Not so much over my own ego bruises, which I always get over eventually and which are simply part of the peril of having a big mouth. (Though, of course, radfem was right to note that were I a man with a big mouth, I’d have been treated differently by Robert and Novalis. This is why Hell will freeze over before I’d apologize to either of them.) I feel let down because this time, a feminist pro-feminist man missed what was right in front of him. He was right in the thick of it, and he missed it.
Capitalism is at heart legalized thievery. The goal is to receive more in value from someone than you give them (we call that “profit”) .
This is a side issue, but the above view is utterly wrong. In a typical voluntary transaction, BOTH SIDES receive more in value than they gave. This is not a paradox. If you buy a house for $150,000, that means that you value having the house more than you value the $150,000. But the other person values having the $150,000 more than having the house. Both sides win. Both sides get something that they personally value more than what they had.
Now you can always imagine hypothetical situations where a person is essentially forced into a transaction — but even there, what’s usually happening is that her personal valuation has changed. Jane Doe has to move across country because her company is transferring her, so she has to sell her house by the end of the month to be able to buy a new one. In that situation, maybe she accepts an offer that is $20,000 less than she hoped for. But it is still true that given her circumstances, she values the money she receives more than she values being stuck with the old house. So she is still better off than if there were no transaction at all.
Just thought that was worth clearing up.
Oh I think capitalist profit is probably a weak example of the theft culture – although it’s certainly a part of it. Corporations rape the Earth, exploit labor, and rob communities of their water supplies, to squeeze every ounce of profit out of it possibly could. They manage to rationalize that as not being theft because for the most part what they do happens to be legal.
I think a better example of theft culture would be advertising, which is essentially propaganda for acquitiveness. A clutre which values materialism above all else is bound to have a lot of thieves. Some wear blue jeans, some wear suits.
Corporations rape the Earth, exploit labor, and rob communities of their water supplies, to squeeze every ounce of profit out of it possibly could.
Damn right. And the more they do it, the better off we all are.
Earth first! We’ll stripmine the other planets later.
The day you learn you can’t eat, drink, and breathe money, is the you’ll learn how ridiculous that notion of yours really is.
The attitude that your sacred mother Earth is a thing, to be vandal;ized to serve your transient desires, is another philosophical root of sexism. As you continue to destroy its life-giving abilities, you rob not only this generation, but generations to come.
The attitude that your sacred mother Earth is a thing, to be vandalized to serve your transient desires, is another philosophical root of sexism.
No doubt.
I assume by “serve your transient desires” you mean “feed and clothe human beings.”
I further assume that you are sitting in an open pasture, beaming your words into the Internet through spiritual telepathic communion, either sky-clad or wearing clothes you wrought yourself from fallen tree bark, eating nuts and berries and drinking rainwater.
No, I mean robbing it of its capacity to feed and clothe human beings, and to otherwise support life.
I’ve gone through several digressions with you already, Robert. But the point is, these things are all related. Sexism is related to racism, and it’s certainly related to the disdain you’ve expressed for the source of all life.
Make no mistake: Earth is called “Mother” the world over for a very good reason. The sacred power to create and support life, without which none of us would ever have been born, is not a thing to take lightly. But the desire to control this power is a primary root of patriarchy. Some would say the primary root.
OK, it sounds like you’re talking about religious values. I completely respect that, while of course being in disagreement.
Honest of you to phrase things in those terms. Thanks.
Well if you choose to call the inescapable reality of our existence on Earth “religious values,” I won’t argue with the characterization. ;)
Charles asked me the following questions: “Crys T, do you believe that a) violent revolution has ever been an effective or appropriate solution to problems of oppression, b) that it would be an effective or appropriate solution to the oppression of women in the US today, c) the appropriateness of violent revolution as a response to oppression has any connection to the degree of severity of the oppression?”
And to be honest, I’m not sure exactly where they’re coming from–especially going back and having a look at my last couple of posts, which were basically taking Robert to task for his gross insensitivity and his inability to see women as “real” humans.
But anyway, Charles, to be honest, I don’t have a hard and fast response to give you. I’m not someone who likes or wants to endorse violence, but I also feel that if you’ve got your back against the wall and the other side keeps attacking, I don’t know what else you would do. I mean, Gandhi-style tactics only work as long as there is a sizeable section of the dominant population that is capable of feeling shame & outrage, don’t they? Or as long as there are enough people in the oppressed population to make the dominant one feel scared anyway.
I do feel adding violence to violence is not a desirable path to take, but I increasingly wonder if there’s enough human feeling left in dominant groups to make other approaches viable.
“Coming here and spending time complaining uncivilly about Ampersand’s civility requirement is no different from a man, pro- or anti-feminist, visiting Heart’s board and posting mesage after message about how wrong her policy is and how exclusionary it is, and how “she’s allowed to have those priorities but I’m not sure if feminism is a good description for them.”? It’s a major, major violation, and if he tried it, I hope he would be banned within minutes. I find it instructive that Ampersand cared enough about Heart’s rules to remind everyone to follow them in no uncertain terms, but so many of the posters here feel comfortable completely ignoring Ampersand’s rules.”
Oh it’s very different. Heart’s is a feminist board, no question. Women-only spaces have an honorable tradition in feminism. Also men are unwelcome at Heart’s board. As a feminist woman I believe I am welcome here. It’s telling that you should liken me to an oppressive man violating women’s space however.
And you show me where I have been uncivil. My criticisms about this blog are feminist, I’m making political points. Ampersand calls himself a feminist yet he is prepared to to tolerate sexism and anti-feminism here. I’m asking why he, as a man who says he supports feminism, feels the need to provide a space for anti-feminists and sexists to air their prejudices. If he is pro-feminist he needs to think seriously about this.
I also want to know why feminists are required to give a fair reading to anti-feminists who liken women-only spaces to the Soviet Union (20 million dead) or liken the justifications for feminism to the justifications men use to abuse women whilst those same men are under no requirement to give a fair reading to women who have told them repeatedly that women’s only space is not sexist or oppressive to men. Take a look at the Catharine MacKinnon thread, I don’t see many people on there giving her a fair reading, they seem to be taking the opportunity to air their prejudices about her rather than actually engage with her actual ideas.
What Amp is espousing, as far as I can see, is liberalism where toleration is requred above all else. That’s up to him, but politically it isn’t feminist.
Try these for size: the ANC didn’t invite racist Afrikaaners round for coffee when they were discussing how to end Apartheid; I bet foolish owl doesn’t have freemarketeers at his socialist meetings to proffer the opposing view; even liberal Democrats don’t think it’s necessary to have Republicans to speak at their meetings or conventions to prove how liberal they are. Why should feminists be required to think that toleration of sexists is a good thing? It sounds like the usual nonsense of women being expected to everybody else’s needs before their own.
By the way, I have no problem with civility, it’s just that I find sexism and anti-feminism deeply rude.
“A “polite discussion only”? board excludes rude people and those who are unable to keep their tempers in check, but allows those who meet these criteria to discuss sensitive issues without resorting to name-calling. Whatever your personal opinion of a specific set of posting criteria, I think it’s basic courtesy to respect the site owner/moderator’s choice in setting it up.”
I have no problems with Ampersand setting up a blog where politeness is one of the rules. As I said my objection is political, toleration of sexists and anti-feminists is not feminist, despite this blog being promoted as feminist.
Ampersand calls himself a feminist yet he is prepared to to tolerate sexism and anti-feminism here.
Is feminism really such a hothouse flower?
Most every idea or philosophy has to survive in the brawl of life. Socialists gotta put up with capitalists gotta put up with environmentalists gotta put up with… etc. I call myself a capitalist, yet I “tolerate” comments from socialists on my blog. It’s part of having a discussion, rather than a members-only roundtable.
Members-only roundtables are great, but you can be a part of a movement and still sponsor other kinds of things.
I also want to know why feminists are required to give a fair reading to anti-feminists who liken women-only spaces to the Soviet Union (20 million dead)…
I don’t think anybody has done this.
But the answer is pretty simple: everyone is required to give everyone a fair reading, no matter what, as a matter of intellectual honesty. A fair reading doesn’t mean agreeing with, or even tolerating, opinions or beliefs we find acceptable. It simply means reading the words that people present, and engaging arguments on their merits. It’s legitimate to blow off the statements of those we find objectionable (“I don’t care what that horrible person thinks”); it’s not legitimate to read them unfairly.
Robert by your reasoning the ANC, the Democrats (and the Republicans) and socialist revolutionaries would be hothouse flowers as they don’t find tolerating opposing views in their own spaces politically useful.
Littleviolet wrote: As I said my objection is political, toleration of sexists and anti-feminists is not feminist, despite this blog being promoted as feminist.
I don’t promote this blog at all, Littleviolet. It is what it is; people can read it, or not.
In an earlier post, Littleviolet wrote: Ampersand calls himself a feminist yet he is prepared to to tolerate sexism and anti-feminism here. I’m asking why he, as a man who says he supports feminism, feels the need to provide a space for anti-feminists and sexists to air their prejudices.
Do you think that if “Alas” didn’t allow anti-feminist and sexist views, those views would disappear from the world for lack of outlets? Or that the existence of “Alas” means that there is a lack of spaces for feminists who want feminist-only dialog? I’m really not understanding what practical gains for feminism you think would come about if I banned non-feminist opinions.
Although I feel that feminist-only spaces are obviously beneficial to feminism, I also think that engagement with other views can be useful. For myself, I find that engagement with opposing views helps clarify my thinking, and also helps me understand what arguments and approachs may sometimes be persuasive to non-feminists.
Is “Alas” a feminist space? It is in the sense that feminist issues are frequently (not exclusively) the subject matter, and that the post-writers (as opposed to the comment-writers), who are by far the most read (many readers don’t read the comments), are exclusively feminist or pro-feminist. It’s also a feminist space in that I consciously try to use my blogroll and, as time allows, my linking to promote feminist blogs. Finally, it’s a feminist space in that as a moderator I consciously give a lot more slack to feminist posters than non-feminist posters. (i.e., feminist posters who unambiguously, abusively attack other posters are typically asked not to do so; anti-feminist posters who do the same thing are typically threatened with banning or banned.)
If a feminist space is, by definition, one that refuses to allow any comments from people who are critical of or skeptical of feminism, then this is not a feminist space. However, I’m not convinced that feminist space excludes the possibility of civil debate with non-feminists; nor am I convinced that there is any feminist consensus that a space like “Alas” is by definition non-feminist.
If you’ll forgive my stating the obvious, no feminist is forced to read “Alas.” My feeling is that I provide a resource, which may be of interest (or at least of entertainment value) to some feminists. Those feminists who do find “Alas” worth reading will read it; those who don’t will (most of the time) ignore it. Since there is a great variety of thought and taste among feminists, I think we’re better off having a wide variety of feminist media – including blogs – so that individual feminists can gravitate to whatever they find helpful or interesting.
In the blogosphere, it’s commonplace (although not universal) for both Democratic and Republican blogs to tolorate opposing views in their comments. Would you argue that (for example) Kos or Kevin Drum are not Democrats, because they allow opposing views in their comments?
Robert by your reasoning the ANC, the Democrats (and the Republicans) and socialist revolutionaries would be hothouse flowers as they don’t find tolerating opposing views in their own spaces politically useful
This isn’t a single-philosophy space. It is, explicitly, a space friendly to one particular philosophy, but which is open to discussion and respectful argument. Adherents of nearly all philosophies engage in both monotonic spaces and diverse spaces; both have value.
I think the underlying issue here is that you take exception to Amp describing this blog as “feminist” when it does not meet your criteria for such. Amp’s response to that covers the bases nicely.
“I don’t promote this blog at all, Littleviolet. It is what it is; people can read it, or not.”
Promoted in the sense of described Ampersand. It most certainly is seen as a feminist blog in the blogosphere. You were number one on the Ms list for quite some time. If people misconstrue the political nature of your blog maybe you should do something to correct it.
“In an earlier post, Littleviolet wrote: Ampersand calls himself a feminist yet he is prepared to to tolerate sexism and anti-feminism here. I’m asking why he, as a man who says he supports feminism, feels the need to provide a space for anti-feminists and sexists to air their prejudices.
Do you think that if “Alas”? didn’t allow anti-feminist and sexist views, those views would disappear from the world for lack of outlets? Or that the existence of “Alas”? means that there is a lack of spaces for feminists who want feminist-only dialog? I’m really not understanding what practical gains for feminism you think would come about if I banned non-feminist opinions.”
That’s not an answer. My question is whether it is feminist to provide a space for anti-feminists. I would say not. The outcomes are a different issue. As one of the most high-profile “feminist” blogs on the net (they invited you on Air America didn’t they?) you need to think about this.
“Although I feel that feminist-only spaces are obviously beneficial to feminism, I also think that engagement with other views can be useful. For myself, I find that engagement with opposing views helps clarify my thinking, and also helps me understand what arguments and approachs may sometimes be persuasive to non-feminists.”
Well, like I said earlier a man providing space for anti-feminists is not unlike a white person providing space for racists under the guise of anti-racism. Please consider this.
“Is “Alas”? a feminist space? It is in the sense that feminist issues are frequently (not exclusively) the subject matter, and that the post-writers (as opposed to the comment-writers), who are by far the most read (many readers don’t read the comments), are exclusively feminist or pro-feminist. It’s also a feminist space in that I consciously try to use my blogroll and, as time allows, my linking to promote feminist blogs. Finally, it’s a feminist space in that as a moderator I consciously give a lot more slack to feminist posters than non-feminist posters. (i.e., feminist posters who unambiguously, abusively attack other posters are typically asked not to do so; anti-feminist posters who do the same thing are typically threatened with banning or banned.)”
And it is anti-feminist in the sense that you give people who oppose feminism and hold sexist views spaces to air their prejudices (politely of course).
“If a feminist space is, by definition, one that refuses to allow any comments from people who are critical of or skeptical of feminism, then this is not a feminist space. However, I’m not convinced that feminist space excludes the possibility of civil debate with non-feminists; nor am I convinced that there is any feminist consensus that a space like “Alas”? is by definition non-feminist.”
See my remark above about white people and racism. You cannot escape your male privilge. I submit that your willingnes to tolerate anti-feminism and sexism displays dilletantism.
“If you’ll forgive my stating the obvious, no feminist is forced to read “Alas.”? My feeling is that I provide a resource, which may be of interest (or at least of entertainment value) to some feminists. Those feminists who do find “Alas”? worth reading will read it; those who don’t will (most of the time) ignore it. Since there is a great variety of thought and taste among feminists, I think we’re better off having a wide variety of feminist media – including blogs – so that individual feminists can gravitate to whatever they find helpful or interesting.”
No. no-one is forced to read you. I don’t normally. However I was surprised that you tolerated sexism and anti-feminism and you are if you’ll forgive me also for stating the obvious, a very high profile blog. We are not on a level playing field. Sexism damages women. Feminism does not damage men. Those two viewpoints are in no way equal.
“In the blogosphere, it’s commonplace (although not universal) for both Democratic and Republican blogs to tolorate opposing views in their comments. Would you argue that (for example) Kos or Kevin Drum are not Democrats, because they allow opposing views in their comments?”
Democrats aren’t oppressed by Republicans (or vice versa). Women suffer deeply because of anti-feminism and sexism.
“I think the underlying issue here is that you take exception to Amp describing this blog as “feminist”? when it does not meet your criteria for such. Amp’s response to that covers the bases nicely.”
Actually Robert it isn’t the “underlying” issue, it is the whole point of my argument but well done for spotting the bleeding obvious (the sarcasm is in response to Robert’s patronising tone, Ampersand).
However as someone who knows little or nothing about feminism and is an avowed anti-feminist and sexist you aren’t actually qualified to commment on whether or not Amp’s response covers anything “nicely”. You have however very kindly provided us with an example of how a man’s sexist entitlement leads him to believe he can be an expert on anything.
Chrys T,
The point of my questions (which I admit came somewhat out of left field) was this: the basis that you used to take Robert to task (in post 276) was that he described the treatment of women in the modern US as merely bad, rather than monsterous. However, the distinction he was making between bad and monsterous was specifically that he believed that monsterous conditions (such as those of blacks under American slavery, or Jews during the holocaust) justified violent revolution (on the grounds that violent revolution, even if it turned out badly, couldn’t produce conditions that were any worse than those already in place), while bad conditions generally didn’t justify violent revolution, since the chances were decent that violent revolution would produce conditions that were actually worse than the existing bad conditions.
My point therefore was that unless you either believed that violent revolution to overthrow the patriarchy was the best course of action in the US at the current time or you believed that violent revolution was never justified, then you were actually in agreement with Robert’s distinction: that there are conditions so horrible that they make violent revolution a reasonable choice (even given the high risk that violent revolution will end disasterously), and that there are other conditions (which he termed “bad”) that don’t make violent revolution a reasonable choice, and that the treatment of women under patriarchy in the modern US fell into the second category).
If you are in agreement with the existance of the two categories, and if you also agree that current treatment of women in the US is not sufficiently monsterous to make violent revolution a good choice, then your only disagreement (on this one, very specific point) with Robert was over what the two categories should be called. He called them “monsterous” and “bad”, and you clearly would have preferred something like “very monsterous” and “monsterous.”
Anyway, it just didn’t seem like a fair basis on which to take him to task so severely, and it therefore differed (in my view) from most of your other criticism of him, which has seemed generally very harsh, but not particularly unfair.
Perhaps I missed the actual basis on which you were calling him in that particular post?
However as someone who knows little or nothing about feminism and is an avowed anti-feminist and sexist…
Littleviolet, you don’t know me, and you don’t know anything about my background. I’m certainly not a feminist scholar, but I have a reasonable grounding in the subject. Women’s studies courses in college, reading feminist authors pretty much across the gamut, more hours in discussions with feminists than I’d care to count up. Am I an expert? Far from it; but you’ll have to find some reason other than my profound ignorance of your secret knowledge to be dismissive.
You have however very kindly provided us with an example of how a man’s sexist entitlement leads him to believe he can be an expert on anything.
And you did! That was fast work. I’m not wrong because I’m wrong, I’m wrong because I’m a man.
Consider the possibility that I think I can be an expert on everything because I’m an arrogant person, rather than because I feel empowered by my penis and all its wonderful social benefits. I’ve known plenty of arrogant women; I’m thinking its the brain, not the wee-wee.
Robert, men are encouraged in our society to believe that they are highly intelligent, expert, logical and so on whereas women are encouraged to believe the opposite about themselves. See Larry Summers if you don’t believe me. If you knew anything at all about feminism you’d be aware of this. It leads to a lot of long, dull posts on the internet unfortunately.
And if you have studied feminism as deeply as you claim, it appears that a whole lot of it has flown straight over your head. You certainly haven’t demonstrated any understanding of the issues here. Who said anything about feminism being secret knowledge? That’s just silly.
I didn’t say you were wrong, I said you weren’t entitled to comment. Please read what I wrote more carefully.
Sorry I misunderstood that you meant “describe.”
My suspicion is that if I went around to Christina at Ms. Musings and other female, feminist blog-writers and told them how they should put me on their blogrolls, you’d be quick to condemn me for telling feminist women what to do on their own blogs and blogrolls.
More importantly, I’m not convinced they have misconstrued the political nature of my blog. I don’t think your view – that it is impossible for a blog to be considered “feminist” unless it censors all comments that are critical of feminism – is universally shared among feminist blog writers.
Talk about a non-answer!
You dismiss without any justification the question of whether or not the changes you suggest would actually do anyone any good. “How would that help” is a legitimate question to ask of any proposed change. Doing as you suggest (which is, I take it, either eliminating “Alas” comments altogether or censoring all comments that seem critical of feminism) would impose costs; why is that worth doing, if there is no actual benefit as a result?
If you can’t reasonably argue that the changes you suggest would do some good, then what is the point of the changes, other than idealogical purity?
Your answer, while certainly worth considering, does not in any way constitute a response to my statements. Are you saying that I’m mistaken to think that engagement with non-feminists can be, for some people, helpful? Or that engagement with non-feminists can help understand what is persuasive to non-feminists? If a space for polite debate is useful to any feminists at all, it seems to me that justifies a space in which debate is possible.
As to your analogy, the sexists you’re complaining about have expressed opinions well within the bounds of what’s “acceptable” within the larger culture. To refuse to engage with the views of someone who believes in gender roles, or with the views of someone who feels it’s hypocritical for feminists to be in favor of segregation in any circumstances, is to refuse to engage with mainstream, widely accepted views.
I don’t think that’s beneficial. On the contrary, I think it’s essential that feminists learn how to discuss sexist positions in a way that’s intellectually honest and that is persuasive to open-minded non-feminists and fence-sitters. A blog that allows discussion between feminists and critics of feminism is a useful tool towards this end.
The counterpart would be an anti-racist blog, run by a white person, in which the blogger did not censor comments critical of affirmative action, or comments suggesting that racism is no longer an enormous factor in determining the black-white wage gap, or comments questioning reparations. One could characterize all those views as racist; however, such views are nonetheless within the mainstream of culture, and for non-racists to refuse to engage them would be a tactical error, in my opinion.
Finally, in response to my listing several ways in which I think “Alas” is a feminist blog, you suggest a single way in which (in your opinion) it is not. However, it is not clear that 100% purity is required to be considered a “feminist” blog, so that any single element which is less than perfect makes all the pro-feminist elements inconsequential.
men are encouraged in our society to believe that they are highly intelligent, expert, logical and so on whereas women are encouraged to believe the opposite about themselves.
Yeah, this is true, to an extent. So what? I don’t think I’m smart and so on because my mommy extinguished her own divine light in order to better fan the flame of my brilliance; I think I’m smart and so on because I am smart and so on.
If the long dull posts on the Internet bother you, there’s a simple fix.
I didn’t say you were wrong, I said you weren’t entitled to comment.
Sorry, sister. This is America. You don’t need to be “entitled” to comment; you comment if you want to. Nobody has to listen, nobody has to pay attention – and nobody gets to tell you to shut up, either, other than private property owners. Male or female, black or white, we’re all noisy in his sight. You can tell me to go to hell anytime you want to, and I can do the same.
You seem to be very interested in conversational control, and ensuring ideological conformity among people sharing your label. You use language that has an ugly history (“dilettantist”) for people who aren’t doing things your way. People are entitled or not entitled to speak based on how well they adhere to your preferences.
Screw that. This is Amp & Bean’s pool, not yours. I follow their rules.
And within that constraint, I comment where I want to comment, and it’s no business of yours.
Robert, I do agree with LittleViolet about one thing: I don’t think whether or not a blog appears to be feminist, in the eyes of a non-feminist, is especially useful for judging whether or not a blog is feminist.
As I’ve mentioned to you before, I’m skeptical about whether anyone whose understanding of feminism includes dividing feminism into “gender feminism” and “equity feminism” has what I’d consider a useful understanding of feminism.
Also, in light of Robert’s most recent post, I should point out that the rules are mine, not Bean’s. Bean is kind enough to post on “Alas” when she wants to, to the extreme benefit of this blog and (in my opinion) this blog’s readers, and I’m very happy for that. But the rules and approach used on “Alas” were established and in place before Bean began posting here.
Of course, I can’t speak for Bean. But I suspect that if Bean were designing her own blog from scratch, she would not use the same approach I’ve used.
Also addressing another poster as “sister” (as in, “sorry sister”) seems to me less than civil. That sort of address can be appropriate when two posters have a friendly relationship and can josh each other without getting under each other’s skin; or when both posters perceive themselves as being on the same side (i.e., two feminist women); but that is not quite what your and Littleviolet’s relationship is like. It would therefore be better if you addressed her by her “proper” netname.
I’m skeptical about whether anyone whose understanding of feminism includes dividing feminism into “gender feminism”? and “equity feminism”? has what I’d consider a useful understanding of feminism.
Useful to whom? Your ultimate anti-feminist enemy might have a total and thorough understanding of feminism, but it wouldn’t be useful to you.
However, I accept the premise that by your standards, my understanding of feminism is incorrect. (But I’m only accepting that because you have a penis! The fact that you extend an argument and acknowledge your own point of view instead of just making a universal conclusion is immaterial. It’s all about the genitals for me.)
(“It’s All About The Genitals” would be a good name for an essentialist blog.)
From a definitional point of view, though, how would you characterize the difference between a hypothetical testosterone-crazed men’s rights activist, someone like me but less thoughtful, me, that gal at iFeminists whose name I can never remember, Christina Hoff-Summers, you, Gloria Steinem, Robin Morgan, Andrea Dworkin?
I think there’s an anti-feminist line in there; I’d put it between the less-thoughtful me and the MRA. There’s a non-feminist line in there; I’d put it between me and iFeminists. Christina is significantly more feminist than I am, so she’s not in the same camp as me, but she’s a lot less feminist than you; what do you want to call that middle range? “Weak” feminism is accurate but will be considered derogatory. The advantage of “equity” vs. “gender” is that it describes ideas, rather than trying to make a hierarchy.
So whacha wanna call the folks running the gamut from iFeminists to Christina Hoff-Sommers?
I should point out that the rules are mine, not Bean’s.
Oh. Never mind.
It would therefore be better if you addressed her by her “proper”? netname.
All righty then. Consider the “sister” withdrawn.
Actually, much of my criticism of “gender feminist” is that it does not successfully describe ideas; instead, it lumps together feminists who are extremely disparate in their ideas, approaches and worldviews into a single catagory.
Speaking for myself? I call them anti-feminists.
For an explanation of why I, personally, don’t consider McElroy or Sommers feminists, see this earlier post.
Hmm. You know, I have not been particularly disturbed that Amp describes his blog as feminist, but the posts here have me thinking a little more deeply about that. I think the reason I am not particularly disturbed partly has to do with the fact that all sorts of people I don’t think are feminists identify as feminists (i.e., Wendy McElroy’s “Ifeminists,” “Feminists for Life,” etc.), while other groups relentlessly mischaracterize feminism (the Independent Women’s Forum, the Eagle Forum, well, there’s an endless list), such that at some point one simply tires of defending the term or attempting to prevent its ongoing appropriation and co-option. Basically defense of the word “feminism” has become a hill I am not willing to die on, and that kind of sucks now that I think about it.
I will say this, though: Wendy McElroy recently was forced off of her own boards by the posts and behaviors of sexist and misognist men. And the men over at a certain men’s rights board have forced several nonfeminist women off of their boards.– women who were there to support the men’s rights guys! And I’ve been thinking about this. I think it is possible to be really, really polite and civil while being simultaneously really, really hateful and bigoted. And I also think that as Little Violet has suggested, rules about civility in discourse, by their very nature, serve to privilege men in a male supremacist world. Men can blather on about rape and pornography, for example, in an effortlessly “civil” way because, (1) the existence of these abuses benefits men as opposed to harming them, as is true with women; and (2) they don’t, in general, have to fear rape or sexual assault or harassment by women or objectification as women do, meaning they aren’t touched by these phenomena in personal ways as we are as women; again, the existence of these abuses serves to privilege men in society vis a vis women. So, ya know, it’s no skin off men’s noses. It’s *easy* for men to be cerebral and “civil” about these things; not so for women. It is very personal to us; by far most of us have, for example, been raped or sexually assaulted or we’ve known someone who has. We’ve been touched by the effects of pornography, too, every last one of us. Kind of like it’s easy for the unaffected to be polite and cerebral about anti-semitism or racism or homophobia, but for those personally touched by all of the above, to engage in what passes for “civil” in the eyes of the privileged requires way more psychic and emotional energy than it is usually going to be worth. And I think this is why Wendy McElroy and the nonfeminist women on the other boards I spoke of ended up feeling forced off. They could not ultimately bear up under the onslaught of men’s woman-hating, sexist discourse, however “civil” and mind-y it seemed to be.
While I think you’ve made an adequate defense of your reasons, Amp, for allowing the contributions of anti-feminists and sexists here, I will tell you that their presence will ensure that you will likely never have the kind of discourse you would really like to have. The Catharine MacKinnon thread is one example: you know that I am something of an expert as to a few narrow, but important, aspects of MacKinnon’s work, but I wouldn’t touch that thread with a 10-foot pole, and neither would other feminist women I know who are far more expert than I am as to her work, and who, in some cases, work personally with her in real life. There is too much contempt there, there is too much hatred, there are too many lies. And yet what is in there, I guess, passes for civil enough discourse nevertheless. But it isn’t civil. It is civilly hateful. And it will keep committed feminists away. And in a certain way, I think that does call your right to call your blog “feminist” into question. Is a blog feminist if the anti-feminist and sexist men who interact in the comments section create such a hostile environment for feminists that they stay away? Especially given the nature of some of Robert’s comments and this idea he seems to have that if feminists don’t engage his and similar arguments, that must mean they can’t, that means feminism is a “hothouse flower,” that is some sort of concession. What you’re kind of doing is allowing for the creation of and environment which is in some ways hostile to feminism, even though you aren’t hostile to it, but which calls itself feminist nevertheless.
Heart
“Sorry, sister. This is America. You don’t need to be “entitled”? to comment; you comment if you want to. Nobody has to listen, nobody has to pay attention – and nobody gets to tell you to shut up, either, other than private property owners. Male or female, black or white, we’re all noisy in his sight. You can tell me to go to hell anytime you want to, and I can do the same.
………
Screw that. This is Amp & Bean’s pool, not yours. I follow their rules.
And within that constraint, I comment where I want to comment, and it’s no business of yours.”
You’re absolutely correct of course Robert although your tone is very uncivil. You can comment freely. What I should have said is that it is very unlikely that any feminist would take your opinions on what is or what is not feminist seriously and as an anti-feminist I’d wonder why you’d even be interested in passing comment in the first place.
Amp, I will probably respond to your post later but tell me, has being given free range on this board to vent his prejudices helped Robert to understand and overcome his male privilege in any way?
And, in fact, looking back, that’s what I did say – “you’re not qualified to comment” – you’re not. And actually your tone wasn’t just uncivil it was aggressive.
“I will say this, though: Wendy McElroy recently was forced off of her own boards by the posts and behaviors of sexist and misognist men. And the men over at a certain men’s rights board have forced several nonfeminist women off of their boards.”“ women who were there to support the men’s rights guys! And I’ve been thinking about this. I think it is possible to be really, really polite and civil while being simultaneously really, really hateful and bigoted. And I also think that as Little Violet has suggested, rules about civility in discourse, by their very nature, serve to privilege men in a male supremacist world. Men can blather on about rape and pornography, for example, in an effortlessly “civil”? way because, (1) the existence of these abuses benefits men as opposed to harming them, as is true with women; and (2) they don’t, in general, have to fear rape or sexual assault or harassment by women or objectification as women do, meaning they aren’t touched by these phenomena in personal ways as we are as women; again, the existence of these abuses serves to privilege men in society vis a vis women. So, ya know, it’s no skin off men’s noses. It’s *easy* for men to be cerebral and “civil”? about these things; not so for women. It is very personal to us; by far most of us have, for example, been raped or sexually assaulted or we’ve known someone who has. We’ve been touched by the effects of pornography, too, every last one of us. Kind of like it’s easy for the unaffected to be polite and cerebral about anti-semitism or racism or homophobia, but for those personally touched by all of the above, to engage in what passes for “civil”? in the eyes of the privileged requires way more psychic and emotional energy than it is usually going to be worth. And I think this is why Wendy McElroy and the nonfeminist women on the other boards I spoke of ended up feeling forced off. They could not ultimately bear up under the onslaught of men’s woman-hating, sexist discourse, however “civil”? and mind-y it seemed to be.”
Exactly!
Thanks for your posts, Molly. I guess Robert has a lot of learning to do in many different areas. If you’re white and male, yeah you can sit around and say that “change takes time” quite easily and tsk, tsk at everyone else for impatience. I’ve learned to distrust those comments. Not that change comes immediately, but too often those words are used to placate and to divert attention away from a system that’s doing nothing.
“My point therefore was that unless you either believed that violent revolution to overthrow the patriarchy was the best course of action in the US at the current time or you believed that violent revolution was never justified, then you were actually in agreement with Robert’s distinction: that there are conditions so horrible that they make violent revolution a reasonable choice (even given the high risk that violent revolution will end disasterously), and that there are other conditions (which he termed “bad”) that don’t make violent revolution a reasonable choice, and that the treatment of women under patriarchy in the modern US fell into the second category).”
Ahhhhh…thanks for the explanation: it all becomes clear. I know you don’t know me, so I ought to explain that I am not living in the US (though I did for many years)–nor am I American–so when I comment, I am not taking a US-based POV. In addition, as a feminist, I don’t think of issues of sexism and patriarchy as being located in any one part of the world. Not the country I’m currently living in, the country I’m a citizen of, or the country I grew up in. I see it as a worldwide problem.
Also, even if we were limiting ourselves to discussing the position of women in the US, I think there are probably such wide variations of experience that we can’t just say, “The situation in the US is better than the situation in Country X.” I think the problem many people have when discussing feminism, whatever favourable or unfavourable position taken, is that they DO tend to look around them, see the women they personally know, and make their judgements on how bad (or not) the situation is based on that. So, if you are yourself a white, middle-class person, you are likely to personally know more white, middle-class women than any other type of woman, and so you may very well come to the conclusion that feminism is all about glass ceilings and subordinates who are disrespectful. Not that I’m trying to say those things are of no importance–they’re very indicative of how little attitudes towards women & consequent treatment have changed over the past decades–but if you were to ask me if I’d start a bloody revolution over them, no, I wouldn’t.
However, those things are only one part of the picture: even white middle-class WASP-y American women are the victims of brutal, horrific attacks on a depressingly frequent basis. The problem is that a lot of that happens where most of us don’t have to actually see it. The fact that so many Americans want to focus on a version of feminism that’s all about not being called “honey” or “baby” is to my mind nothing more than a convenient way of blinkering everybody to the reality of just how bad things really are.
And also, if I were to try to start a violent revolution, exactly WHO would my guerrilla army & I attack? Men? Nonsense: I hope that by this stage, no one here needs an explanation of why “Men”, either individually or as a group, are not the real enemy. The “government”? Well, WHICH government? And how exactly would bringing down any one government actually help? The Media? Again, which specific ones?
How do you physically attack an enemy that is not embodied by any particular human beings, but is rather an ideology? I mean, I can see specific women in specific circumstances responding violently to violence directed at them, but there is no way to mount a standard armed revolution if you haven’t got any physical targets.
But that doesn’t in any way, shape or form mean that what is happening to women, both in and outside of the US’s borders, isn’t “monstrous”. OF COURSE Robert is going to make sure that his definition of “monstrous” is an impossible fit: that way he can go on pretending that what happens to women is trivial and therefore unworthy of real consideration.
“Sorry, sister. This is America.”
Actually, this is the World-Wide Web, not America. People from anywhere that has free Internet access can read this and participate–as I am doing, from this little island thousands of miles away from America’s shores.
I don’ t resent the focus on the United States and American issues here. I think it’s quite sensible considering all, or at least most. of the contributors are American, and most of the people who come here to post certainly are as well. But…..couldn’t we have just a little bit of consciousness that when you are dealing with someone, unless you know for sure, it might be that they are from somewhere else?
“Screw that.”
How civil.
Bean:
The ability to abide by “x” (debate-team rules of civility) requires a level of privilege that is primarily held by white men, and then used to dismiss and diminish those they are arguing against ““ especially women and people of color.
Is there any social rule, principle, law, etc. “x” such that both (a) has some restrictive effect on the range of choice available to women and (b) for which this white-privilege argument does not apply?
Robert, I don’t think you should use sarcasm; it’s not clear enough when you mean what you say. I think you thought you were joking when you said this:
But I am astonished that you apparently believe this question was an honest question, deserving an honest answer:
The distinction is not that clear to me. Sarcasm works only when its recognisable as such.
In case you haven’t figured it out by now, the premises of your question presumed a particular answer. Perhaps you meant to ask this question:
But you didn’t.
BTW, there are plenty of other things wrong with the way Robert has been expressing himself; I’m just picking on one that I understand. I know examples where sarcasm was misinterpreted, leading to profoundly horrible effects that lasted for years.
Also, I would have labelled that question to Q Grrl as stepping over some bounds of rudeness.
just one little chime on the “civil” point that no one’s mentioned:
Amp’s rule isn’t “be civil.” if he wanted that, he could very easily set up some meta-filters and remove anything that could possibly be contstrued as offensive.
the standing rule is “try to be civil.”
which means when, for example, Robert says something unbelievely asinine and patronizing to women, you can call him a smeg-headed misogynist, without some filter editing your text into “jerkie face meanie.”
which means when an issue does affect someone personally, as pornography and rape do women, or nazi anti-semitism does jews, we’re able to take it personally and react as someone personally offended.
The goal isn’t to constantly remain cool about things which personally offend us. It’s to try to remain cool, while expressing outrage and arguing about the effects, but if we do get pissed off, we get to vent a little, at least until we start stepping on other people’s toes.
Crys T,
Sorry for assuming you were in the US.
You are right that the division Robert was proposing and that I was accepting is extremely flawed in several ways.
As you pointed out, the reasons for violent revolution not being a reasonable and appropriate response don’t in any way simply depend on how bad conditions are. As you say, How would we overthrow patriarchy through violent revolution? Who would we attack? Violent revolution is pretty clearly the wrong tool for the job, independent of how bad things are.
Also, as you further pointed out, trying to smooth out varied human experience into a simple “It isn’t as bad as it could be (based mostly on the experience of my white, middle class friends, and only on what they tell me, and only what I don’t discount)” doesn’t really do justice to specific lived experience. For plenty of women, it is as bad as it could be. Obviously, if it were as bad as it could be for more women, conditions overall could be said to be worse, but how much is that worth? Also, of course, is “as bad as it could be” really the appropriate standard? If Robert were only talking about violent revolution, then perhaps (like you (and like Robert, at least on this thread), I only favor violence as an absolute last resort, and mass violence even more so).
As you also pointed out, the question of violent revolution that Robert raised and that I reiterated is not even a relevant question. The problem is that Robert isn’t opposing violent revolution (since no one is advocating violent revolution), he is only using violent revolution as a straw man. His actual position is that conditions are sufficiently mild that only the most gradual and inoffensive of methods should be employed or advocated, methods that will give gradual results comparable to the stuttering progress made by Southern blacks between the end of Reconstruction and the 1950s (actually, I guess his position is that conditions aren’t particularly mild, but that, like black people who suffered through receiving change only at the pace that whites felt like allowing it, women simply will have to lump it, and only ask for change at the pace that men feel comfortable granting it). Never mind that such stuttering progress was made in large part by black people who struggled for far more, but who faced overwhelming and brutal repression from Southern whites.
The real question is whether non-violent transformational change is really so monsterous that it would be worse than things continuing as they are, or changing so slowly that no one ever feels threatened or confused. For Robert, perhaps. For me, I doubt it. For many women, obviously not.
The other thing, of course, is that it is true, as Robert ended up arguing in the Civil Rights Movement digression, that gradual change is probably all any of us can expect. That is how things mostly move, with only a few sudden shifts (and even most of those aren’t all that sudden). But why should that stop any of us from saying “Things have to change, and they need to start changing now, and they need to change as fast as they can?”
It is only through as many of us as possible trying to do something to make things change NOW, as quickly as possible, that anything ever changes, even if in the end it changes slowly.
To say, “Things will probably change slowly, so that’s probably for the best, and anyone who argues or works for more rapid change is both foolish (they won’t get they want), and perhaps dangerous, since rapid change is often unpleasant,” does not in anyway seem to me to be taking a position which supports the supposed underlying agreement (I believe Robert has said (roughly) that he agrees that we live in a patriarchy, that patriarchy harms women, and that this should ideally change). Just because you accept that there is a problem, doesn’t mean that you are in anyway working toward the solution to that problem.
Anyway, thanks very much for your answers. It helped me think through this a bit further (none of this is all that new to me, but it is suprisingly easy for me to be swayed by a nicely framed argument, and I don’t tend to be immediately swayed by denunciation), and to see why your response made sense.
In practice, there are really only two rules enforced on “Alas.” Blatantly anti-feminist or bigoted posters get shown the door after one or two unambiguous, bigoted attacks on other posters. Feminists and feminist-friendly posters get politely asked to refrain from making unambiguous, hostile attacks on other posters. That’s pretty much it. That’s about as far from the extreme constraints of debate-team rules as Hollywood is from the moon.
The implication that the uncivil style does not advantage white men is questionable; if you go to anti-feminist boards you’ll find many white, male anti-feminists who are perfectly comfortable shouting down opposition. One aspect of gender privilege is that privileged people sometimes feel more entitled to shout other people down. Go to any Bush rally with a “this is what a feminist looks like” t-shirt and you’ll experience being shouted down (or perhaps thrown out). My parent’s relationship is typified by my father yelling down my mother, and I don’t think that gender dynamic is at all unique to my parents.
I realize there is a serious concern that civility will silence some people – men as well as women. (Every person banned from “Alas” so far has been male, so it’s certainly not true that the rules don’t limit male posters).
However, there is no rule system for online forums – including having no rules at all – which will not result in some posters (including some feminist women) being left feeling that they’ve been shut down or made unwelcome. The rule system I use on “Alas” has some bad effects. So does the rule system used on “Ms,” and on every other possible system. Every system welcomes some posters, and makes other posters feel too constrained or intimidated to contribute.
In 1995 (?), I thought all forums should have civility rules. I was wrong. I’ve been persuaded, by Bean, Portia and others, that it’s essential that there are some forums where feminists feel comfortable telling assholes begging for a good “fuck off” to fuck off. However, I’m not persuaded that that is the only acceptable system for pro-feminist forums.
Those feminists who feel shut down or constrained by a “try to be civil” system are valuable, and there should be forums that welcome them in their preferred mode. However, those feminists who feel shut down or constrained by uncivil forums are also valuable, and to say or imply that there should be no forums for those folks is unjustifiable.
I think a better policy is to have a variety of systems, and to accept that not every feminist woman (or man) will feel welcome or comfortable at every single one.
The minor success of “Alas” – which, I know from comments, links and emails, has many female feminist readers – shows that there are some feminists enjoy this blog. I don’t think their tastes and preferences are less valuable, or more patriarchal, than those who would prefer “Alas” be something other than what it is.
You know, I’ve got a blog. It’s a feminist blog. I’m a feminist. I will get anti-feminist commentors sometimes; some sound sane, and others are barking loons. You’ll find this in a lot of feminist blogs–Trish Wilson gets wingnut regulars every day. Commentors who have been condescending, outright hostile, and passive agressive frequent her blog, have made appearences at my blog, and are regulars at other feminist blogs.
I’d get mighty pissy if someone declared that there’s no way I could be a feminist, that my blog wasn’t feminist, because I don’t take the time out of my day to delete the anti-feminist posts in the comments sections.
The minor success of “Alas”? – which, I know from comments, links and emails, has many female feminist readers – shows that there are some feminists enjoy this blog. I don’t think their tastes and preferences are less valuable, or more patriarchal, than those who would prefer “Alas”? be something other than what it is.
In other words: “My friend is a feminist and she likes me, therefore you’re disrespecting her if you call me out!”
Ampersand,
*your work is displayed at girlamatic, which “features webcomics (mostly) by women, (mostly) for women”
*your female “co-bloggers” and “guest bloggers” permit inclusion of your blog on “What She Said” and other lists and rankings of “blogs by women”
*you have used the cause of feminism as a launchpad for your expertism, for example this blog avocation of yours (see: Air America appearance)
*as far as I can tell, you have been able to use the relationships you formed via the Ms community more often and more effectively than any of its female posters have to date (see: Washington Post article)
The space you take up in these areas: at the girlamatic site, in pro-woman blogrolls, in the media, in online discourse about feminism (how many feminist blogrolls DON’T link to you?)…this space could be more focused on promoting women, and due to your presence is less focused on doing that.
Which of course does not obligate your withdrawal from profeminist discourse. However, EVERY time you are asked to be mindful of whose interests are being served via the opportunities you take and the opportunities you provide to other men, you respond with facile BS along the lines of pretending the only options women can expect from discussion on your blog are 1)men civilly ridiculing feminism and 2)men uncivilly verbally beating up on women. That’s your defense? That’s a self-indictment!
WHOM do you hope to serve by this blog? Yourself? Men who need a little debating? Or feminism?
This blog has certainly served to educate me on some feminist issues/feminist views of issues. Maybe some better questions are, “What goals are being served by this blog? Are those goals being served effectively? Are those goals feminist goals?”
The minor success of “Alas”? – which, I know from comments, links and emails, has many female feminist readers – shows that there are some feminists enjoy this blog.
The “fun kind” of feminists do link to you, Amp, it’s true, and speak highly and well of you– the porn-is-fine-and-dandy kind and the patriarchy-hurts-men-too kind. But you know, the fun kind of feminism is not much a threat to male supremacy; I think it serves more as a sort of inoculation against the kind of feminist revolution that would really bring the sucker to its knees. And you know, I have to say, it does trouble me that, as a man, you’ve used this kind of feminism, and your association with it, as a man in a kind of self-serving way, to make a name for yourself. It feels really wrong.
Heart
“The minor success of “Alas”? – which, I know from comments, links and emails, has many female feminist readers – shows that there are some feminists enjoy this blog. I don’t think their tastes and preferences are less valuable, or more patriarchal, than those who would prefer “Alas”? be something other than what it is.”
The problem with this is that you are pitting female posters against female posters, ignoring the very real dynamic that occurs when men attempt to control women’s discourse through calls to civility or reason.
Charles wrote: “Sorry for assuming you were in the US.”
No problem. Like I said, since the majority here are, I understand that: I just wanted to make people aware that there are some of us from other places, too.
“Also, as you further pointed out, trying to smooth out varied human experience into a simple “It isn’t as bad as it could be (based mostly on the experience of my white, middle class friends, and only on what they tell me, and only what I don’t discount)”? doesn’t really do justice to specific lived experience. For plenty of women, it is as bad as it could be. Obviously, if it were as bad as it could be for more women, conditions overall could be said to be worse, but how much is that worth? Also, of course, is “as bad as it could be”? really the appropriate standard?”
No you’re right, I don’t think it is. In fact, this something that has bugged me for a long time, and not just regarding feminist issues but any issue of social injustice: there always seems to be this idea floating around that as long as there is any group of people anywhere in the world that is worse off than your group is, any complaints you may make about your own situation are automatically invalid. Like if you’re not all lying in the streets bleeding or being chased down by the Death Squads, you’ve got no right to point out the injustices you are suffering.
“If Robert were only talking about violent revolution, then perhaps (like you (and like Robert, at least on this thread), I only favor violence as an absolute last resort, and mass violence even more so). ”
I don’t want to make a blanket condemnation of all violence, because I’m sure there are situations where it’s the only chance some people have for survival, but yeah, I do see it as a last resort thing.
“As you also pointed out, the question of violent revolution that Robert raised and that I reiterated is not even a relevant question. The problem is that Robert isn’t opposing violent revolution (since no one is advocating violent revolution), he is only using violent revolution as a straw man.”
Well, you know, I didn’t even realise that myself until I was in the middle of writing my reply to you. Of course, the question of whether violence would ever be an appropriate feminist response has been made to me lots of times by different people, and it’s easy enough to answer if you’re outlining very specific situations. But when the question of full-blown revolution came up, I always knew there was something bugging me about it, but I wasn’t able to verbalise it till now.
So, as annoying as it is to admit, if Robert hadn’t been getting up my nose so much, it might have been a long time till I was goaded into thinking it through. Which does lend weight to Amp’s assertion that having anti-feminist voices here can be valuable to feminists–well, as long as they’re not of the full-on hysterical-abuse-spewing ones. And as long as we don’t have to pretend that we buy into the idea that some of these guys are here for any other reason than to goad and lecture women.
I’m still a bit naffed off that Amp didn’t seem to get the whole “disrespect disguised as politeness” stuff, and see that he came down harder on Alsis than on men who were behaving–according to my own definition of civility–worse. But apparently the question of what constitutes civility is a thorny one, and maybe deserves its own space. I’m saying this because of blowups that have happened on other forums between not just men and women but also between people of different races and/or cultural backgrounds.
“His actual position is that conditions are sufficiently mild that only the most gradual and inoffensive of methods should be employed or advocated, methods that will give gradual results comparable to the stuttering progress made by Southern blacks between the end of Reconstruction and the 1950s (actually, I guess his position is that conditions aren’t particularly mild, but that, like black people who suffered through receiving change only at the pace that whites felt like allowing it, women simply will have to lump it, and only ask for change at the pace that men feel comfortable granting it). Never mind that such stuttering progress was made in large part by black people who struggled for far more, but who faced overwhelming and brutal repression from Southern whites. ”
Yeah, this is the “bleeding in the streets” thing. Of course, there WERE a lot of Black people who were literally bleeding in the streets–it was just that this wasn’t acknowledged….or it was shrugged off as something the Black people concerned brought on themselves. I don’t want to draw too many parallels between what Blacks in the US have gone through and women’s experiences in general, but some comparisons are useful. One thing that strikes me is the way in which the oppression of both groups* is played down as “mild”, or it’s even suggested that there is “reverse discrimination” against white males, etc. It’s like there’s an attempt to makes us all believe that the worst manifestation of racism is being called a name by some redneck (they being the Only Racist White People, as we all know) or the worst manifestation of sexism is getting your arse pinched on the bus. (Again, not that those things aren’t infuriating, but that’ s mainly because of the underlying message being given by each, really.) The fact that there are frequent examples of extreme violence and systematic abuse is totally obscured to the point where most people don’t believe they exist.
“The real question is whether non-violent transformational change is really so monsterous that it would be worse than things continuing as they are, or changing so slowly that no one ever feels threatened or confused. For Robert, perhaps. For me, I doubt it. For many women, obviously not.”
Of course if one is the sort of person who is unaware that there are women getting acid thrown in their faces (and in the US of A as well, not just in Backward Countries Full of Brown People**) or their limbs cut off during rapes, one can imagine that progress can best be accomplished at a slow pace.
“The other thing, of course, is that it is true, as Robert ended up arguing in the Civil Rights Movement digression, that gradual change is probably all any of us can expect. That is how things mostly move, with only a few sudden shifts (and even most of those aren’t all that sudden). But why should that stop any of us from saying “Things have to change, and they need to start changing now, and they need to change as fast as they can?”?”
Well, I think it’s true that to *expect* rapid change is unrealistic, but yeah, I don’t think that’s a reason to not fight to make change happen as fast as possible. After all, if no one’s fighting hard, would there be any impetus for change at all?
“To say, “Things will probably change slowly, so that’s probably for the best, and anyone who argues or works for more rapid change is both foolish (they won’t get they want), and perhaps dangerous, since rapid change is often unpleasant,”? does not in anyway seem to me to be taking a position which supports the supposed underlying agreement (I believe Robert has said (roughly) that he agrees that we live in a patriarchy, that patriarchy harms women, and that this should ideally change). Just because you accept that there is a problem, doesn’t mean that you are in anyway working toward the solution to that problem.”
Yeah, well change is probably more threatening to those that have the most to lose, and sometimes it’s hard to see how society as a whole is going to benefit from lessing injustice to a group that you yourself don’t belong to.
*I’m actually really uncomfortable classifying “Black people” and “women” as though they were 2 easily-separatable groups with no overlap, because I hate it when it’s assumed that a) feminism is mostly about white women or b) Black women’s experiences with racism don’t have a place in informing feminism
**I do hope everyone realises I’m being sarcastic here!
The problem with this is that you are pitting female posters against female posters, ignoring the very real dynamic that occurs when men attempt to control women’s discourse through calls to civility or reason.
How does Amp control how female posters choose to relate with one another? Are women obliged to follow a framing created by a male contribution to a conversation, or do they have free will?
Women whose feminism I respect link to Alas, as well as many women who are interested in feminism and are in the process of learning more about it.
Disparaging the nature and quality of the feminists who link to Ampersand, the women he’s hiding behind in that quote in order to deflect criticism of him onto those women, the women he’s implying women are condescending to, presumably to make them feel defensive and start an argument…is to miss the point, I think.
Ampersand is certainly capable of explaining his actions or not when called to do so by feminists.
Allowing him to create a diversion by creating a rift between women, conceivably resulting in him then…erk…behaving as a mediator between those warring factions of women – well, I don’t think he needs the opportunity to further cement his position as an eminently reasonable person who is better at feminism than many women are.
“The problem with this is that you are pitting female posters against female posters, ignoring the very real dynamic that occurs when men attempt to control women’s discourse through calls to civility or reason.”
Q, you are one of my personal heros!!
And she is absolutely right: I am not interested in yet another “more-feminist-than-thou” fight between women, but in trying to establish that there is a problem with men, even men who think of themselves as feminist, when they’re listening to women.
My preceeding post was to Heart, but Q-Grrl pointed it out more succinctly.
Actually, what I meant to say is that Amp is essentially tokenizing (?) the women here to facilitate male discourse. Or at least that’s how it looks from where I’m sitting. I don’t think it is deliberate (or I would hate to think it is deliberate); nonetheless, it is how it looks to me.
Robert: ” The problem with this is that you are pitting female posters against female posters, ignoring the very real dynamic that occurs when men attempt to control women’s discourse through calls to civility or reason.
How does Amp control how female posters choose to relate with one another? Are women obliged to follow a framing created by a male contribution to a conversation, or do they have free will?
Well, this isn’t what I said. Nor implied. What I said is that Amp is choosing to look at the differences in both female posters’ style and substance (and political/social needs), rather than addressing the controlling behavior that you are exhibiting (through your initial call for civility).
funnie:
However, EVERY time you are asked to be mindful of whose interests are being served via the opportunities you take and the opportunities you provide to other men, you respond with facile BS along the lines of pretending the only options women can expect from discussion on your blog are 1)men civilly ridiculing feminism and 2)men uncivilly verbally beating up on women.
I’m really not getting the basis for that interpretation of Amp’s response.
Robert, stay off this particular thread from now on, please. I don’t assume that you have bad motives, but you’re adding heat rather than light.
* * *
the women he’s hiding behind in that quote in order to deflect criticism of him onto those women, the women he’s implying women are condescending to, presumably to make them feel defensive and start an argument…is to miss the point, I think.
Well, of course that wasn’t my intention. But it’s a good example of the assume-the-worse discourse which typified “Ms,” that I want to avoid on “Alas.”
There is an argument being made that “Alas” doesn’t serve female feminists well. There is no conceivable way I could disagree with that argument without suggesting that there are feminist women who (apparently) do enjoy “Alas.”
However, if I do point out the fact that some feminist women (apparently) enjoy “Alas,” that is used as evidence that I’m setting women against women.
It’s a catch-22. That some feminist women don’t like “Alas” is proof that “Alas” is anti-woman. However, if I point out that not some feminist women like “Alas,” that also is proof of anti-woman attitudes. There is no possible stance I can take which is not interpreted as anti-woman.
It’s also illogical. Because I point out a fact (some feminist women like “Alas,” some don’t) doesn’t show that I am setting up conflict or asking anyone to fight with each other. On the contrary, the last thing I want is more discussion of me.
FTR: I enjoy Alas. I just don’t like some of the dynamics in this thread… if that makes sense.
The “fun kind”? of feminists do link to you, Amp, it’s true, and speak highly and well of you”“ the porn-is-fine-and-dandy kind and the patriarchy-hurts-men-too kind. But you know, the fun kind of feminism is not much a threat to male supremacy; I think it serves more as a sort of inoculation against the kind of feminist revolution that would really bring the sucker to its knees. And you know, I have to say, it does trouble me that, as a man, you’ve used this kind of feminism, and your association with it, as a man in a kind of self-serving way, to make a name for yourself. It feels really wrong.
Those “fun kind” of feminists don’t all agree that porn is fine and dandy, which you’d know if you had bothered to read any of the blogs Amp links to rather than generalize about us. We’re a pretty diverse set, actually, but you’d have to read us to know that. Fair enough if you don’t have the time, but kindly don’t go making statements about “us” when you obviously have no idea who “we” are.
We post and do research on family law, violence, war, economic inequality, reproductive rights, racism, and misogyny in the blogosphere. All of these things affect women.
Male leftist bloggers throw hissy fits and tantrums every time we point out to them that what they said wasn’t okay, that their analysis on women’s issues is lacking, or that women bloggers exist (contrary to their insistence that we don’t).
Heart, I haven’t gone out of my way to dismiss you or damn you with weak support in the vien of “I think they’re crazy but they kinda have a point.” I defended women-only space unapolegetically. I’m not questioning your commitment to feminism just because you and I may not see eye to eye on certain issues or philosophies. Yet you feel free to do this with us lowly “fun” feminist bloggers. Why?
There is an argument being made that “Alas”? doesn’t serve female feminists well. There is no conceivable way I could disagree with that argument without suggesting that there are feminist women who (apparently) do enjoy “Alas.”?
Just as there is no discourse other than women being stifled through politeness or women being beaten up by incivility.
Really, it’s tiring to see you use “well, this criticism that what I’m doing is harmful can’t be true, because the exact opposite of what I’m doing is clearly harmful!” as a defense.
That it’s possible for BOTH a particular stance AND its exact inverse to fail to benefit women is old hat.
I’m not seeing any talk of your opinion about what this place DOES, WHY it does it and HOW it’s done, for WHOM it’s done, and WHERE AND WHEN you ensure it’s indeed being done.
Answering these questions certainly doesn’t have to involve you trotting out the fact that some feminists like your blog in order to debate feminists who question whether it’s appropriately serving the purpose of feminism, and who give specific examples for advancing that criticism.
I’d really appreciate a discussion on the whole question of civility because it ISN’T a clear-cut universal concept, and there are definite ways in which the civility being endorsed here is privileging males, but I really don’t want to get into one of those situations where if any woman comes forward to say that she gets something out of Amp’s blog, she’s not a “good” or “real” feminist.
It seems to me that Heart wasn’t raising the issue of Robert’s controlling call for civility, she was addressing the larger problem of a space that involves mixing of anti-feminists and feminists, and therefore is not a welcoming place for someone such as herself who doesn’t wish to deal with trollish idiocy when attempting to discuss MacKinnon and therefore wouldn’t go near the MacKinnon thread here.
Amp’s response seemed to me to be “Certainly we lose out by creating an environment in which you [Heart] do not feel comfortable posting, but we also benefit by creating a specific sort of environment that is useful for certain purposes. While you may not feel like arguing with hateful morons, there are other people who are willing to. There are certain things to be learned from arguing with hateful morons, and it is useful to those who wish to work on that for there to be a place for it. Arguing with hateful morons is more productive for some people if there is a requirement that the arguments remain generally engaged, rather than denunciatory. The fact that this site is unwelcoming to some feminists does not mean that it is unwelcoming to feminists.”
Amp has addressed the question of what purpose he thinks this site serves. I’m not going to hunt back for it, so I can’t quote it directly, but it was along the lines of what I mentioned above, plus, more specifically, that debating with anti-feminist morons (many of whom are merely ignorant, and of potentially good will, many of whom are simply trolls) is a good way of trying to figure out what arguemnts work for convincing non-feminists (anti-feminists are probably harder). Also, as Crys T just commented a bit ago, annoying as it may be, arguing with Robert had got her (and me) to think through what exactly is wrong with one of the straw men she has had pushed at her before (the violent revolution question).
Also, Alas provides Amp with the sort of space that he would like to have for having the sort of discussions he would like to have.
His last paragraph was perhaps a bit too snippy, and came a little too close to drawing a line, rather than simply pointing to the line that everyone was already drawing (and yes, Amp was not the first person to mention that line). The 3 paragraphs before it are much clearer, however.
“In practice, there are really only two rules enforced on “Alas.”? Blatantly anti-feminist or bigoted posters get shown the door after one or two unambiguous, bigoted attacks on other posters. Feminists and feminist-friendly posters get politely asked to refrain from making unambiguous, hostile attacks on other posters. That’s pretty much it. That’s about as far from the extreme constraints of debate-team rules as Hollywood is from the moon.
The implication that the uncivil style does not advantage white men is questionable; if you go to anti-feminist boards you’ll find many white, male anti-feminists who are perfectly comfortable shouting down opposition. One aspect of gender privilege is that privileged people sometimes feel more entitled to shout other people down. Go to any Bush rally with a “this is what a feminist looks like”? t-shirt and you’ll experience being shouted down (or perhaps thrown out). My parent’s relationship is typified by my father yelling down my mother, and I don’t think that gender dynamic is at all unique to my parents.
I realize there is a serious concern that civility will silence
realize there is a serious concern that civility will silence some people – men as well as women. (Every person banned from “Alas”? so far has been male, so it’s certainly not true that the rules don’t limit male posters).
However, there is no rule system for online forums – including having no rules at all – which will not result in some posters (including some feminist women) being left feeling that they’ve been shut down or made unwelcome. The rule system I use on “Alas”? has some bad effects. So does the rule system used on “Ms,”? and on every other possible system. Every system welcomes some posters, and makes other posters feel too constrained or intimidated to contribute.
In 1995 (?), I thought all forums should have civility rules. I was wrong. I’ve been persuaded, by Bean, Portia and others, that it’s essential that there are some forums where feminists feel comfortable telling assholes begging for a good “fuck off”? to fuck off. However, I’m not persuaded that that is the only acceptable system for pro-feminist forums.
Those feminists who feel shut down or constrained by a “try to be civil”? system are valuable, and there should be forums that welcome them in their preferred mode. However, those feminists who feel shut down or constrained by uncivil forums are also valuable, and to say or imply that there should be no forums for those folks is unjustifiable.
I think a better policy is to have a variety of systems, and to accept that not every feminist woman (or man) will feel welcome or comfortable at every single one.
The minor success of “Alas”? – which, I know from comments, links and emails, has many female feminist readers – shows that there are some feminists enjoy this blog. I don’t think their tastes and preferences are less valuable, or more patriarchal, than those who would prefer “Alas”? be something other than what it is. ”
————————————-
I guess you still don’t get it.
It’s not “civility” that’s the issue. It’s who defines it, and how it’s defined in a way that benefits white men in discourse and other areas. CrysT. and Q Grrl, and Hearrt pointed it out very well in their posts.
It’s not well, civility vs being shouted down either, as if one were good, the other bad. They are simply two contrasting tools which accomplish the same goals. Why pick one over the other, if you are on the losing side both times, before you even get to the discourse? Yet, we’re supposed to make the choice of which is best? The lesser evil? Though we’ll still be told that faux civility from “pro-feminists” or “anti-feminists” is better than being shouted down. No it’s not. For one thing, many of us are pretty damn good at shouting back.
Working with politicians has taught me how to cope very well with both styles, though faux civility is more common. At 3:30pm PST, today, I’ll get another shot at it. *shrug*
QGrrl,
The dynamics on this thread are definitely messed up.
I think that comes as much from old blood as it does from anything Robert has said. Note the exchanges over Amp’s warning, and also the initial exchange between Amp and Heart.
That said, I think there has been a lot of interesting stuff on this thread, even if it has been mixed in with a lot of heat.
I’d agree with Crys T. The question of civility definitely deserves more discussion here, but I wonder if it wouldn’t benefit from its own thread?
As QGrrl mentioned, the dynamics on this thread are messed up, plus it is running toward the point where it takes a long time to load.
Radfem,
It’s not well, civility vs being shouted down either, as if one were good, the other bad. They are simply two contrasting tools which accomplish the same goals. Why pick one over the other, if you are on the losing side both times, before you even get to the discourse? Yet, we’re supposed to make the choice of which is best? The lesser evil? Though we’ll still be told that faux civility from “pro-feminists”? or “anti-feminists”? is better than being shouted down. No it’s not. For one thing, many of us are pretty damn good at shouting back.
Actually, that’s pretty much what Amp said too. They are two contrasting tools, in some places one works better, in some places the other works. In some places, you’ll be on the losing side, and they’ll each be weapons used against you. If they are both that (either tools for your use, or weapons against you), then why choose one or the other?
Well, because it is suprisingly hard to have both civility (and its faux cousin) and shouting down in the same place. Once the shouting starts, it tends to keep going. There should be spaces in which shouting down and shouting back are accepted, but there should also be places where it isn’t.
Amp does tolerate the use of shouting against faux civility here (how many people has he banned from this thread?) at Alas, he just discourages it as the main mode of discourse here. Why? Well, mostly because he doesn’t like it. Amp comes from a background in which shouting and personal attack are the weapons of the powerful against the weak (as he has mentioned), not the weapons of the weak against the powerful.
Charles: as the saying goes, well behaved women rarely make history. I think what is getting missed is not the utility or disutility of “civility”; but the context and framing of utility when women are trying to make their point. Civility *is* used to keep women toeing the line. But, because it is “civil” it is hard to blame, no? That’s why it is such an effective tool in keeping women silent, or voiceless more precisely. If everyone in a room is being polite, what chance at all does a minority position have of being heard — because as soon as it is voiced it violates the decorum and composition of polite, civil engagement. By its very nature it does this. A minority position cannot exist as long as civility is intact. In order to maintain civility, a status quo must be established ( along with ideas of common sense and common decency, and the big straw man of rationality).
In asking the women here to be civil in their discourse, you set up a hierarchy of women’s tone/non-civil discourse as being the most abhorrent interaction and a man’s self proclaimed status as an anti-feminist as merely being a matter of debate. That is increadibly offensive. Like, through the roof offensive — for me to have a man say he is anti-feminist. I’d rather he just up and call me a bitch, b/c then I could chalk it up as bad manners, or a temper flare. But his claim is purportedly “well thought out” and “a matter of disagreement”. Soooooo…. his hatred of women is O.K.? Defensible? Well thought out because it can be clinically argued in the realm of civil discourse?
You reduce my life as a woman down to a theoretical argument when props are given to a man’s antifeminist statements simply because he lands on the side of civil discourse. Or more precisely, because he is the one who introduced the cry of “foul!” into this thread. My life is not theory. My anger is real. As I said to Jake earlier in this thread: it’s not a game. Not a game to be framed by discursive tactics and civility. Gah.
“Robert, stay off this particular thread from now on, please. I don’t assume that you have bad motives, but you’re adding heat rather than light.”
This is the problem. Robert is a self-confessed sexist but you are still allowing him free run of the space and refusing to impugn his motives.
How would you respond to people who said this –
“I’d define it (“unreconstructed racist”?) as “white people who admit their racist socialisation and think it superior to the alternatives presented.”?
or this
“I’d define it (“unreconstructed anti-semite”?) as non-Jews who admit their anti-semitic socialisation and think it superior to the alternatives presented.”?
I’d hope you’d be horrified and that anybody who said those things wouldn’t last long on this board.
I wasn’t joking when I said that I found sexism and anti-feminism rude. Prejudice is uncivilised. It doesn’t come from a rational position despite the efforts bigots make to make their prejudices look like reasoned discourse. It is not comparable to being a Republican or an environmentalist. People are hurt by sexism, racism and homophobia. I’m arguing that you need to expand your definition of incivility to include those prejudices.
Which is what I’ve been talking about all along. I haven’t demanded censorship. I’m asking why you don’t treat your bigotted posters in the same way as you treat any other type of incivility.
Your argument is that you provide a space for feminists to interact with people who oppose us. I’d say we’ve got the rest of the world where we do that all the time and the rest of the internet for that matter. I don’t think feminist discourse is assisted by sexists who continually try to elbow their way into feminist spaces and attempt to disrupt the discussion. It’s not a refusal to engage with arguments, we do engage, we have to engage, it’s a refusal to engage in feminist space with the bigots who make those arguments. As for your remark about this being about “ideological purity”?, it most certainly isn’t. The Ms Boards operated a rule that only feminists and those interested in feminism were welcome. I wouldn’t describe them as “ideologically pure”?. Would you?
Sheezlebub, can’t you see the difference between a man tolerating sexism and a woman tolerating it? Wendy McElroy, who not only tolerates sexim but promotes it, gets driven off her boards by misogynists because when it comes down to it they see no difference between her and Catharine Mackinnon. A man will never be in that position. Although I’ve read Trish Wilson’s blog and as far as I can see she views the anti-feminists who post there as trolls (which they are), not as worthy adversaries who deserve vigorous debate. Of course that’s just the way I’ve read it.
radfem: It’s not “civility”? that’s the issue. It’s who defines it, and how it’s defined in a way that benefits white men in discourse and other areas. CrysT. and Q Grrl, and Hearrt pointed it out very well in their posts.
Exactly, radfem. A “civility” which results in the creation of space which feels hostile to feminists is problematic, because it isn’t readily apparent to those reading that what does end up posted here is not, in fact, representative. The logical assumption and inference for those visiting is that feminists are welcome, feminists speak freely here, and that if you want to know what feminists think about something, you should come here.
I’ve thought a lot about something. Lots and lots of feminist blogs link to Alas, a Blog– many. And these same blogs link to all sorts of resources and websites and boards and so on. But so far as I have been able to determine, none of the blogs which link to Alas, or to feminist sites, in general, link to the Margins, where one can find feminist leaders, educators, writers, thinkers, intelligent women engaged in thoughtful feminist discussion all of the time.
Why might that be, I wonder, and that’s rhetorical, I don’t want anybody to answer it. I would like for people to think about it. There are few feminist resources on the internet which offer the amount of information the Margins does, or information as comprehensive as what the Margins website offers, free, no ads, gratis, as a service to the feminist community. And it’s not only the Margins which is strangely missing as a resource in the feminist blogosphere, it is other, similar woman-only venues where all of the time, you can also find feminist women talking feminism intelligently and thoughtfully as if their lives depended on it, as if it was at the center of their lives. Because it is.
I’ve noticed that in the past 3-1/2 years I’ve been operating my site, have noticed the way certain feminist views are just not welcome. And you know, okay. But there’s something wrong, and something important going on, when good feminist resources are strangely omitted from all of the resource lists and when feminist venues, as it turns out, are hostile to some kinds of feminism.
Heart
Of course the Ms Boards forgot the civility rule. Hey ho.
Announcement: At the suggestion of some posters, I’ve started a new thread for discussing civility and related issues. Of course, people can continue this thread too, or not, as they wish.
Sheezlebub, can’t you see the difference between a man tolerating sexism and a woman tolerating it? Wendy McElroy, who not only tolerates sexim but promotes it, gets driven off her boards by misogynists because when it comes down to it they see no difference between her and Catharine Mackinnon. A man will never be in that position. Although I’ve read Trish Wilson’s blog and as far as I can see she views the anti-feminists who post there as trolls (which they are), not as worthy adversaries who deserve vigorous debate. Of course that’s just the way I’ve read it.
When people imply that tolerating an anti-feminist commentor makes one’s feminism suspect, I have a problem with that. My comment was in response to Heart’s problem with the MacKinnon thread. She thought some of the commentors were hateful (I can see that) and therefore, this blog isn’t feminist. I’ve had comments like that on my blog, as has Trish Wilson, as has other feminist blogs. Heart didn’t make the differentiation between a man running a blog and “tolerating” this and a woman doing so. And frankly, no matter who runs the blog, the effect is the same. But I’ll still call my blog feminist.
I have yet to hear Trish call someone who simply objects to her views a troll; it’s the people who are obsessed with her, and the people who post personal attacks against her and other posters. McElroy wasn’t run off her board by men acting polite and passive-agressive. She was run off her board by trolls posting invective and personal attacks. She isn’t the only person to deal with an infestation of trolls; Hugo Schwyzer gets a pack of drooling inbred misogynists posting on his site and harrassing him as well. He hasn’t been driven off of his own board for the same reason that Trish hasn’t been driven off of hers–neither will go anywhere and let the inbreeds win. Every public blog or board deals with trolls. Of course they’re not worthy of engagement.
Heart: I had never heard of your website before you started posting here. I was thinking about linking to you, but as soon as I realized it was woman-only, I decided against it. I have, at time, gotten a fair amount of trolls who would not respect your woman-only rule. They’d basically go and disrupt the board. If you’re okay with that risk, I’ll link to you.
Hey, Sheelzebub, I don’t think the hateful comments on the MacKinnon thread make Amp’s blog unfeminist. I think the hateful comments in the MacKinnon thread create a hostile environment for feminists like me. My comments went to the point I was making that hatefulness can sound like “civility,” but that the absence of rudeness, hostility, and rage, does “civil” discourse equal. And I was also making the point that the issues raised in that thread are not mind-y philosophical issues for most women; when I read threads like that one I feel the hateful comments viscerally, I feel sick to my stomach, sucker punched; to respond “civilly” to men (and women) who are participating in some pretty deep misogyny “civilly” feels like a violation to me. To attempt it would take for more emotional and psychic energy than it would ever be worth it for me to give to men who demonstrate such deep contempt for women, and on in feminist space of all things. Argh.
I don’t think tolerating anti-feminists makes a person not a feminist. I think the presence of anti-feminists can make feminist space intolerable *for* some kinds of feminists, which is something quite different. And the point I was making about Wendy McElroy was, although she is, in general, supportive of men’s rights and is not a feminist at all, even that did not shield her from the hatefulness of the men on her own boards. Cripes, she posts the drivel written by Carey Roberts, not even that shielded her. Men will hound and harrass women civilly, or “kindly,” or “courteously,” or they will do it aggressively and brutally and with great cruelty, or they’ll do it any way they can, my point was, men can make spaces where women post hostile to the point that it isn’t worth it to those women to stay– even if they worship the ground men walk on, as with some of the women in that men’s rights forum I mentioned, but all the *more* where it is feminists men are attempting to engage.
Which has *everything* to do with the topic of this thread, which is why women need woman-only space, in real life, online.
Heart
Just wanting to be clear, in case I wasn’t, because spaces like that MacKinnon thread are so hostile and contemptuous towards women, because it just isn’t worth it to engage that level of contempt, feminists like me won’t. And that leaves the impression that “feminists” — because this is a feminist blog — are fairly represented in that thread, when that just isn’t so. In that thread there will be (1) open misogynists; (2) anti-feminists of various kinds; (3) clueless people; (4) people who don’t like MacKinnon because somebody told them something once or they heard something or somebody somewhere told them she was an extremist; (5) people who don’t like MacKinnon because she is anti-pornography, perish the thought; (6) one or two hardy souls, maybe, who try to get a cogent word edgewise amongst all of the above. And that is not a fair picture of issues around Catharine MacKinnon’s work, her feminism, neither is it a fair picture of what feminists know of her and believe about her work. In fact, this latter is going to be ABSENT, because why slog it out with numbers 1-5 above when to do so is just, for some of us, heartbreaking, a reminder of how deeply men hate and despise women.
And that’s what I was talking about. The way rules about civility enable men who are haters to run off feminist women civilly. :-(
And hey, thanks for the good words about the Margins, you are welcome to join us anytime. I won’t be offended if you don’t post a link on your own site; if you think that would cause problems in any way, I believe you!
Peace,
Heart
Yeah, well, my “civil” elected representative had a meltdown today and said that I formulated my opinions just to oppose his or to be an “activist.” Whatever.
He was polite, civil, didn’t raise his voice, didn’t use curse words, but what he said, was still insulting. The idea that a woman can’t formulate her own opinions. I was civil back on my terms, and he won’t be saying anything like that again.
The nice thing is that the other council members didn’t lecture me on how it’s crucial to maintain their idea of civility.
Q Grrl,
I do want to respond to your response to me (although I think I’ll do it on the new thread as this one takes too long to load), but my back has kind of siezed up, and hates me typing at the keyboard or using the mouse.
In very short form, I think there are a lot of different meanings of civility in use here, and that they are running at cross purposes.
“I have yet to hear Trish call someone who simply objects to her views a troll; it’s the people who are obsessed with her, and the people who post personal attacks against her and other posters.”
I’ve yet to see someone on Trish’s blog who simply objects to her views on the Fathers’ Rights movement who doesn’t also indulge in personal attacks and trolling behaviour. The two seem to go hand in hand (for the male posters in that group anyway). I’ve also never seen Trish request that any feminist behave “civilly” to the Fathers’ Rights bunch.
Charles: “In very short form, I think there are a lot of different meanings of civility in use here, and that they are running at cross purposes. ”
Well, yes. That’s what the feminists have been saying here all along. We’re not looking for common ground and a shared meaning of civility. We’re saying how civility is used as a tool to keep women silent.
And not in theory. We’re saying that right here in this thread civility was used to discredit feminist women’s opinions.
Hugo Schwyzer gets a pack of drooling inbred misogynists posting on his site…
Quite true, and it has a lot to do with the fact that Hugo Schwyzer decided it’s worthwhile to engage (with an even bigger focus on pseudocivility than many liberal men employ!) misogyny on its own terms. There’s nothing like being careful to make certain a misogynist doesn’t feel unduly unwelcome to make women feel a discussion is useless:
Civil Commenter: Abortion is wrong. I don’t see why we should let innocent lives be taken just because women can be so selfish.
Eminently Reasonable Moderator: Well, now, you must admit it’s not that simple. Sadly, selfishness is overtaking every facets of our daily lives, so it’s not fair to single women out for that particular society-wide flaw! Besides, some women who seek abortion are quite poor – they might believe they’re acting in the best interests of the fetus. I hate abortion as much as you do, but it’s not fair to tar all women with the same brush. Let’s make an effort to be kind.
Feminist woman: WTF. Why bother.
Setting aside my personal reasons for not linking to The Margins:
Considering the amount of hate mail that lands in my inbox via my eensy, obscure, semi-private blog, I would be extreeeeeemely leery of linking to any private or restricted space, women-only, POC, queer-focused, ed, other therapeutic, etc. Since you _are_ a semi-private space, one which has a thread devoted to the problem of men reading your message boards, maybe some people didn’t link to you out of respect. It isn’t as though you bothered to ask. And did I miss the place where you link to all of them?
And I would never link to, or would delink forthwith from, anyone who referred to me as the “fun kind of feminist.” That terminology makes no distinction between Echidne and la McElroy, or Amanda and Traci Lords–it’s as demeaning and inaccurate a conflation as “gender feminist,” which equates Gloria Steinem, Valerie Solanas, and Hillary Clinton. And it implies that Amanda and Echidne hold the beliefs they do so that boys will like them. That’s just dumb. Echidne’s a goddess, after all.
“Feminist woman: WTF. Why bother.”
Mm-hm. It’s infuriating when someone substitutes civility for respect, either when making an argument: “I say, aren’t all these pro-choicers just slightly reminiscent of Goebbels?” or when responding: “Yes, I understand that your hemophiliac sister was gang-raped at twelve. I’m terribly sorry about that. But you have to admit that the Nazi comparisons have some basis in reality.” This came up on the comments thread from the post about the woman who did compare pro-choicers to Nazis. Her husband showed up and berated everyone for being so uncivil in response to the woman who compared them to Hitler–and had Hitler coming out ahead.
I’m just not sure how to relax the rules around anger without allowing misogynist incivility. “Fuck you, you Nazi (misogynist slur) (misogynist slur),” isn’t less respectful, but it would affect me in a much more visceral way. Talk about being kicked in the stomach.
I’m just not sure how to relax the rules around anger without allowing misogynist incivility.
Despite Amp’s framing, there are more than two models for discourse. And what’s wrong with flatly allowing anger and disallowing misogyny?
Another vastly underused (or at least, under-admitted-to) strategy is actively encouraging the kind of discussion one hopes to foster and actively discouraging the kinds of discussion that detract from one’s mission.
(Lots of blog owners DO do this, but either act as if they have no particular goal or mission or are dishonest about what they prioritize and foster.)
Funnie: Amp doesn’t just post on feminism.
should the rule be “anger is ok, but no misogyny, nor homophobia, nor anti-fat hatred, etc. ”
if that rule seems fair to you, great.
if not, I’d have to ask, why should people be asked to leave for “women should just take better care of themselves, then they wouldn’t need abortion” but not for “if fat people just ate right and exercized, they wouldn’t be fat?”
Since fat hatred and homophobia are specifically antifeminist/misogynist, I’m not sure I understand your question.
that actually answers the question.
if you consider fat hatred and homophobia anti-feminist/misogynist, that’s fine. as it would mean “yes”
I don’t think everyone would make that same distinction, but that’s enough here. too long to load for further discussion.
Several posters have said that Ampersand is not feminist. I ask them this. Let’s say that everyone here agreed that Ampersand was wrong to come down on the side of what they considered sexist but “civil” behavior. (I know that this is not the case, but pretend it is for a hypothetical).
Given that, does ONE wrongdoing then disqualify one as a feminist? Everyone falls short of the ideal; no one is perfect. Can’t a person perpetrate or be blind to a sexist behavior and still be a feminist? Since we live in patriarchy, it seems that an answer of no would be holding someone to an overly high standard. (Of course, I might be misunderstanding, and maybe you see Ampersand as having committed several feminist infractions-I can only log on so often and might have missed something.)
My two cents: Feminists are as fallible as anyone else. Even if I agreed that Ampersand was in the wrong here, I could not possibly refute his self-identification as a feminist. I would assert that his past online behaviors and the content of his website justify such self-identfication. Same for foolish owl, jake squid, et.al.
On another note, I thank everyone for a very interesting conversation. I daresay my views have been broadened considerably.
Okay, folks, make your last comments. A half-hour from now (or maybe sooner), I’m closing these threads.
The conversation will, I hope, continue. Folks like Q Grrl and Chys will, I hope, choose to stick around and keep posting.
But the folks here who are not regular “Alas” posters will not be welcome here after a half-hour from now.
OK, I’m not by any means a ‘regular’ Alas poster, so I’m going to bow out of this discussion. Just want to apologize to everyone who answered my comments and I didn’t get round to coming back to you, especially Alsis and Heart. The sheer scale of the thread got overwhelming. I do appreciate your taking your taking the time to explain your position to me even though our basic assumptions are very different.
Thank You, Individ. Honest, I do appreciate that. :)