I’ve been extremely lax about enforcing the “feminist, pro-feminist and feminist-friendly” threads lately. I’m making a somewhat early new year’s resolution to stop being lax.
Here’s the relevant bit of blog policy:
Please note that some posts are marked as “feminist, pro-feminist and feminist-friendly only.” [If you’re not in those categories,] Please do not post comments on those posts. The purpose of this policy is to allow some intra-feminist conversations to take place on “Alas,” while still leaving other conversations open to non-feminist participation. Please respect the spirit of this policy, and not just the letter. Attempts to play “rules lawyer” will not be well taken by the moderator.
I’m particularly disappointed at non-feminists who have been regular comment-writers here long enough to know the policy, but who still ignore it. You should know better. If you have a response to a “feminist only” thread you want to post on “Alas,” you may do so in an open thread. Or you can take it to your own blog.
I’ve hesitated to enforce “feminist only” threads — or to moderate in any way at all — in discussions following posts written by folks other than me. That’s been the policy, and I think there were good reasons for it. But I think it’s time to experiment with a change.
So from now on, I’ll feel free to moderate when it seems like an easy call to me (such as telling obviously non-feminists to get out of a feminist-only thread), even if it’s not my thread. When moderation questions are more ambiguous, I’ll leave it to the blogger who started the thread to make the call, but in some cases I’ll put questionable comments into the “needs to be approved” area until the thread-starter has a chance to take a look at it.
At the same time, I have a life outside of this blog. Sometimes I don’t read “Alas” for ten or twenty hours at a time, or more if I’m doing something like plane travel. And sometimes I’m just plain absent-minded. So there are going to be comments that slip through unmoderated. So I’ll ask “Alas” readers to help me out by sending me email if you think there’s a comment I should be concerned with. It’s extra-helpful if you can include some specifics to help me find the comment you mean — for example, by quoting a paragraph of it..
Here’s a request for people creating those posts – clarify whether it’s OK to comment at your own blog in the case of cross-posts, the way Amp does.
The only thing about that is that you have to decide who is or is not a feminist, and that can get a little seemy at times, because sometimes a person who considers themselves a feminist may not be perceived as such by another person who considers themselves a feminist. I would assume that a person who replies to a post marked “feminist friendly only” would consider themselves to be feminist, so isn’t that kind of a tough area to get into?
Even more useful than a paragraph would be this (just as an example, that is the link for Robert’s comment above).
The date and time line (in dull red) underneath the commenter’s name and the comment name is a hyperlink to the comment itself, so right click and copy the link and send that, and no searching is required.
Good God, Robert. Since when did posters here have any say about what people do on their own blogs?
Daran, I think he’s suggesting that people say on this blog if it’s okay to leave rejected comments on their home blogs.
Ms Robyn, I agree it’s a bit dicey. But I think the alternative works even less well.
Oh good. I had a sudden lightning bolt, and wanted to come over here to ask people what they thought. Nice to see there’s a thread that looks related to this business.
I am curious, re: blog policy, thread locks, and similar, what the precise semantic definitions of feminist and men’s rights activist are. Of course, since semantics are consensus, and consensus is made up of a lot of people piping up, I am not asking for The Word Handed Down From Amp so much as an idea from lots of people on what these words mean.
I am curious because I don’t usually fit political profiles so much as develop interests in issues central to my life. Dealing with the problem of gender policing, on both sides, both external and internal gender policing, is one of those issues, which puts me firmly in line with certain feminist goals and certain men’s rights goals.
(I’ve seen feminist-written men’s rights activism texts, not of the school of macho but of the school of minimizing gender policing and related repression. This is what I am talking about here when I say my goals are in line with __. I suspect the policy may be using a different definition, which is exactly what I’m curious about, and I’m sure there are as many different definitions for feminism as there are different feminists — which is why I am asking this open-ended, semantic question.
What’s the bottom line, if there is a bottom line? If not, what has been decided upon to stand in for the bottom line? Example, for exampling purposes only: If I see a “feminist only” post regarding gender policing, and I make a comment regarding gender policing of men, it’s probably a rude digression, and that makes worlds of sense. Not because male gender policing is not a problem, but because it’s not within the focus of the issue, and I could just as well be making an analogy about dump trucks and wombats. But is there anything wrong with my expression if I make a comment in gender-neutral language?)
I am asking not because I feel…let’s try uncertain of what admitting myself to a space means, precisely, exactly — but mostly, rather, because I think semantics and language are vastly interwoven into every power dynamic and gender dynamic in existence, which makes them deeply fascinating (and sometimes too subconscious to be discussable, but that’s the fun in trying.)
It still took me five minutes to figure out what you meant. :-)
The suggestion is that posters should say on this blog if it’s OK for commenters to leave rejected comments on the poster’s home blog.
What I though you mea… Oh, what does it matter what I thought?
I’ve posted on a couple of restricted entries here; I have a bad habit of not reading a complete posting before replying. But I overall honor the concept.
However, as far as I can see, that doesn’t entail posting on the poster’s blog. Posting there is a function of their policies, not Amp’s.
RonF, if you aren’t reading a complete post before you comment how do you know if your comment makes sense in the context of that complete post?
What I MEANT to say was, I don’t always read the “footer”, after the post content. Sorry about that.
I’m glad to see the “feminist and feminist friendly only” rule put in place, although I wish it wasn’t necessary. Now let’s see if people actually pay attention to it.