On which note, I will note: strangely enough, i’ve managed to go a considerable time without being banned from a single site. So have a lot of other people I know.
I don’t consider being banned from lots of sites to be a badge of honour, as some people seem to, but it’s not necessarily a shameful thing, either. It depends upon what lead to the ban.
I’ve never been banned from a site, but I was effectively banned from Marcella Chester’s threads on Alas, after I was mugged by several of the feminists there. My offence? A single post objecting to an abusive comment directed at jaketk AKA toysoldier1, who wasn’t even posting to the site. The result was a feminist pile-on against me.
Marcella responded by making her subsequent threads “feminist only”, thereby excluding me – another example of the “problematise the victim” dynamic.
As soon as the pile-on started, I withdrew from the thread, and activated cddaran.wordpress.com, so as to have a platform to defend myself from the abuse. (cddaran.wordpress.com had only been created so that I could blog at Creative Destruction.) This turned into DaRain Man, which, when HughRistik joined, developed into the precursor to this site, which you noticed, and were kind enough to blogroll. The events on Alas were also why my previously good relationship with Amp has soured in recent months, and one of the reasons why I have largely withdrawn from commenting there. Guests on a blog aren’t entitled to a platform, but they do have a reasonable expectation of fair treatment from the hosts, and protection from abuse by other guests. Amp and Marcella betrayed that trust.
I think Hugh, Tom, and TS obviously have had similar experiences on Alas. It sounds like Infra has too, though I don’t know on which site. So that’s most or all of ‘us’, depending upon how widely ‘us’ is construed.
‘You’ – i.e. Belledame, Faith, Emily, and perhaps others – have had similar experiences on MRA sites. That’s a source of mistrust between us, but it’s also a potential area of common ground upon which trust can be built.
Where I’m coming from is a desire to create an ‘Alas done right’ blog. ‘Doing it right’, means, among other things, not being abusive or hostile ourselves toward feminist guests, and protecting them from abuse and hostility from other guests.
I didn’t expect us to get it right straight away (and obviously we haven’t), but it’s early days.
- After toysoldier’s recent “bomb” of a comment here, I have a better understanding of the sort of things he might have said at Alas, which would have given rise to such strong feelings against him. This doesn’t imply that I condone their behaviour, or that I condemn his.[↩]
I don’t post on MRA sites, because, well, most of the ones I’ve seen, I really don’t think we have much to say to each other, I’m afraid. at any rate I can always engage with them at Hugo’s, or Renegade’s, or y’know wherever one pops up on a feminist site, which is not at all infrequently in my experience.
anyway, well, all I will say is: anyone can be banned from any particular place, and that probably means y’know there was a confrontation, or irreconciliable differences. maybe even a couple of similar places.
but, just in general, you understand, when someone says they’ve been banned from “so many places,” you know I have to wonder whether the common denominator is the -so many- other places, or…
I was banned from a single thread on Alas. And I’ve had comments deleted from Pandagon. Each without any merit whatsoever. Their decisions were completely political and had nothing to do with my tone or behavior. If I was out of line at all, it was because my tone was less assaultive than the general tone of commenters there.
Conversely, I participated on bitchphd’s site for about a year, where I was more or less accepted. One day, a commenter engaged me, I responded, and she in turn responded with a 500 word screed that ended in her declaring that I shouldn’t respond to her comments anymore. This is, of course, abusive, but I didn’t respond to her. Why bother right?
Anyway, days pass, and this commenter responds to one of my comments on a completely different thread. So, I reply in turn. It was a polite (if curt) one sentence response. My response was deleted, and the forum erupted into a chorus of “why is it always the men” and so on. I asked bitchphd privately why she had erased my comment. She said, (paraphrasing here) “to protect the commenter whom had asked you not to reply to her.” I protested. She wouldn’t have it, but made it clear I wasn’t banned. I never went back to the site. Why bother, right?
The first two cases are the result of politics. I’m not a feminist, I should stay off their boards. Fine.
The later case is a bit more interesting. In bitchphd’s reading of the situation, she applied the ethics of feminism and came up with something like this:
Women ultimately do not have the power in our society, so are incapable (or not as capable) of abusing or oppressing men, therefore, regardless of this commenter’s behavior toward Jams, she must be protected from the power he represents, and thus wields.
I don’t think I have to explain what’s wrong with this line of reasoning.
I’m sure this is how things looked from your point of view; however, from my perspective, many of the “souring events” did not take place on “Alas.”
In any case, I think of that stuff as mostly water under the bridge now.
(hi, Amp!)
(Hi, Belledame! You’ve been doing some great posting here!)
(I hope this isn’t against blog policy. If it is, please delete this comment, Daran.)
my main point earlier was just, as noted above: people who seem to take being banned from -multiple- places, and a shitload of other confrontations on top of it, often ones that have no real common denominator either, as a point of pride, at minimum without even considering whether maaaayyyyyybeeeee their own behavior had something to do with -any- of the conflicts, never mind the ideology (i have seen this phenomenon in every ideology and in completely non-political contexts as well), well…that can be…an issue. i have my own issues with several of the personalities mentioned here, as I’ve said; I wasn’t trying to imply that anyone who’s ever had any nasty conflict is in the same category as what I was referring to. that’s all I’m gonna say about it.
…actually, too, i lied. I -was- banned from one site, early on. it wasn’t exactly a surprise, though: i was basically doing a drive-by flame on a (radical feminist) guy that i thought had been -unbelievably assy- elsewhere. (essentially i think i told him that i thought if he really wanted to be a Radical Feminist a good start would be to stop “speaking for” and patronizing, belittling, and dismissing women, yeh, even the ones he -didn’t- agree with, especially in a supposedly Radical Feminist space, which, whatever you think of the concept, traditionally, if one is going to be consistent, one of the first precepts is, it’s supposed to be a place for -women- to speak and male allies to listen, or at minimum not be a hectoring, bullying, sexist asshole. and, maybe he really ought to go drum in the woods or something instead; he clearly was Not Healthy. yeah, not suave, i was trolling, no doubt. whaddya gonna do, it’s done. and, he -really was- a FLAMING asshole).
anyway, his (radical feminist) girlfriend and co-blogger was Not Amused. she did manage to call me and two other women “screeching harpies” before bringing down the ban hamma, which i thought was sort of terrific, all things considered.
did i mention i have a problem with radical feminist men? Not men, not feminists, not feminist men, not radical feminists, not even radicals, men or otherwise, who are also feminists, necessarily. Radical-Feminist Men. I’ve only encountered a handful, but they’ve all seemed -unbelievably- –well, put it this way: my impression of them is that they’re about two or three degree-clicks away on the wheel from coming out the other side and going all the way to full-on MRA.
or, as per “Chuck and Buck,”
“You have a problem with women. And you have a problem with men.”
anyway.
I’ve met a variety of radical feminist (or pro-feminist, as they usually call themselves) men over the years. Some of them are as you describe; many of those folks also want to be the only male feminist in the room, and so are very belligerent, in a “I’ve-got-a-bigger-feminist-dick-than-thou” way, to other feminist men.
But I’ve also met and read some radical pro-feminist men I have tons of respect for. Tim Wise — who mainly works in anti-racism — has views on feminism which put him pretty squarely in the radical pro-feminist camp. (Or had such views several years ago, when I had an online discussion with him about Mary Daly). Allan Johnson’s The Gender Knot is excellent, and is written from a radical pro-feminist perspective.
(I use the word “met” to include online encounters. In a way, the internet has made me much more aware of people acting like jerks, because many of those same people are very nice in face-to-face encounters. I once met a blogger at a dinner and found him extremely friendly and decent company; a week later I saw him posting a comment about how he met me and I’m obviously so fat that I never get laid. Oy.)
Oy. Yeah, that is one of the reasons I’m always dubious of the whole, “oh, but so and so is a -sweetie- in person!” as though y’know that was the -real- so and so, and the assy behavior online was “just” a persona. it’s all real.
yeah, I know a lot of people respect Wise. I hadn’t thought of him as -primarily- a radical feminist; as you say, he’s known for anti-racist work. which, well, that’s…yeah. i dunno. i don’t really know him, Wise.
i know a lot of people respect Stan Goff; I can’t stand his ass, but sure, I expect at minimum he gets taken more seriously than y’know Random Asshole on the internets.
Robert Jensen gives me the screaming heebie jeebies.
I guess there was whatsisname, RadGeek; I haven’t seen him around in ages. I had kneejerk reactions to him as well; he wasn’t stupid, though, I am sure. and apparently he had some good conversations with a pal of mine, Lady Aster (a TG pro-sub) despite his strong anti-prawnstitution stance.
In general, I have very little respect for people who say they are advocating for (given population that they don’t belong to) and then when a member of given population who don’t agree with them, challenge them, they don’t engage them honestly, or at all; which is my beef with Goff and Jensen, observing how they responded or rather didn’t to Renegade and a few other people.
and I’ve said it before, but that Rich person? At Heart’s? during the whole Little Light thing? UnFuckingBelievable. the whole thing.
i just don’t get that mentality, i mean, that Heart is okay having him around in her “womennspace” as long as he bashes all the correct enemies? Like, “support” means “hate yourself along with the other enemies we hate, and we’ll tolerate your presence.” It’s so fucked.
I mean, yeah. For me, feminism is about -women.- Ideally, -liking- women, -loving- them, even. I ain’t feelin’ the love, there. Not at all.
but I mean, I know other pro-feminists who are not radical feminists, I’m pretty sure, either by self-definition or general beliefs. they might have some leanings, but mostly they’re just what they say they are: pro-feminist. That’s not who I’m talking about. (“Some of my best friends are…”)
“It’s all real.” I totally agree. Although at the same time, I think it’s important to be able to forgive people their occasional bad behavior; the internet is all about saying things when you’re pissed off that you’ll then be stuck with for the next several years.
You’re right about Wise; he hardly ever comments on feminist issues. The one time I’ve seem him discuss feminism at length, he definitely seemed to me to be in the radical camp.
I agree with you about Robert Jenson. He’s written a couple of things I like, but when he actually engages with feminists he disagrees with, he doesn’t seem able to really acknowledge views he disagrees with. I actually have no idea who Stan Goff is.
RadGeek is still posting frequently on his blog. I’m not sure if he completely wrote me off after Ampgate or not, but I’m still a fan of his.
I don’t think I can discuss Rich without breaking this blogs rules against attacking other people.
For me, feminism has never really been about “women” exclusive of “men.” Which is unsurprising, I guess, since I’m male. For me, it’s more that I don’t think I can be free of gender garbage unless everyone is.
Daran
Hugh and TS have had similar experiences, there’s no question about it. But I have to say that I haven’t. I left a handful of comments at Alas during the period when Amp was reconsidering his moderating policies. That was about a year ago. The comments began as a defence of Robert’s continuing presence there, and as a cheer of encouragement for the redoubtable Susan. The self same Susan, if I’m not mistaken, who has lately been quoted in I forget which American newspaper (Ampersand has posted on the topic). Oh yes, and while defending Susan I had a go at Ginmar (who had called Susan a “dickwad”), not knowing that she had already been banned. Ginmar took her case to Heart, who used it as a pretext to ask Ampersand for women-only threads on Alas. Considering what a nightmare that thread must have been to moderate, I consider it a testimony to Ampersand’s fair-mindedness that he *didn’t* ask me to leave, but I anyway felt a bit sheepish about posting there after that.
feminism is about -women – belledame222
I agree, advocacy is the common denominator. Feminism is primarily an advocacy movement, complete with all the biases one would expect from any advocacy group.
I also agree that people shouldn’t presume to speak in opposition to the very people they claim to advocate for – it sort-of defeats the purpose of advocacy. This isn’t to say that people can’t speak about matters they don’t experience personally.
You can probably imagine what I think about advocates who pretend to be advocating in my interests, when clearly, my interest is the last thing on their minds. Just say’in…
“I don’t consider being banned from lots of sites to be a badge of honour, as some people seem to, but it’s not necessarily a shameful thing, either.”
Daran, you are the one who keeps trying to act like I believe getting banned is either a badge of honor or a shameful thing. I mentioned it a few times because it was relevant to the conversation at those times. I don’t greet people with “Hi, I’ve been banned very frequently at other places, so it saids something about our host here that he hasn’t banned me yet. He’s either a genius or a complete idiot. You decide.” Also it appears to be the primary ethos of a lot of the people who originally began posting at this site, as I recognized one or two of the names as people who were banned from other sites. Clearly it was a collection of dissenters.
Obviously people don’t start blogs to talk to themselves. They have a point of view and it’s only common sense that if you aren’t getting any feedback from others and you think your ideas are important enough, you’re going to seek out other forums to spread them. Because as I’ve said before, but it bear repeating, people aren’t on the internet to talk to themselves.
Sometimes a fact just exists like patriarchy…it’s not good or bad, it just is but if it really bothers you that much, I won’t mention it again because I don’t define myself by it. It came up in the context of the conversation some few times. Why you would see the need to make a separate post about it, I don’t know.
Jams:
I think if it had stayed as a small advocacy group for certain women’s issues (similar to the League of Womens’ Voters) it would have been fine. As small advocacy groups are necessary and get a lot of respect. The League of Womens’ Voters, for instance, has hosted debates on elections and is seen as unbiased in spite of its name. Nobody runs up screaming that it’s discrimination against men when they do it.
It’s feminism morphing into the monster it is today that has soured people on it. It’s involved itself in every issue from education to enlistment in the military. Not to mention its invasion of the family and from Linda Fierstein to Cathy Young, they seem to feel there is nothing about people’s lives they don’t have the right to interfere with.
Speaking For
The problem with one person “speaking for” a group, is that the phrase is ambiguous, and ambiguity invites bad-faith interpretations. The phrase can mean: to speak in favour of a group; or it can mean: to articulate the will and beliefs of a group.
There are certain feminists who play on this ambiguity, but the phenomenon is by no means confined to feminism. As an example of what I mean –
One speaks for women when one says: “Women should receive the same pay as men for the same work.”
But one also speaks for women when one says: “Women hate oral sex!”
It will be seen that the first use of the verb is a wholly different matter from the second, but given that both are instances of “speaking for”, the first one, which is clearly justified, seems to underwrite the second one, which is quite unjustified unless a census of all women on the subject of oral sex has been taken.
This is why many people who agitate on behalf of a group feel that they can usurp that group’s authority to bolster their own, often idiosyncratic, opinions
Thanks, Tom. You know, I barely remember that thread now.
[quote comment="3891"]Speaking For
The problem with one person “speaking for” a group, is that the phrase is ambiguous, and ambiguity invites bad-faith interpretations. The phrase can mean: to speak in favour of a group; or it can mean: to articulate the will and beliefs of a group.
There are certain feminists who play on this ambiguity, but the phenomenon is by no means confined to feminism. As an example of what I mean -
One speaks for women when one says: “Women should receive the same pay as men for the same work.”
But one also speaks for women when one says: “Women hate oral sex!”
It will be seen that the first use of the verb is a wholly different matter from the second, but given that both are instances of “speaking for”, the first one, which is clearly justified, seems to underwrite the second one, which is quite unjustified unless a census of all women on the subject of oral sex has been taken.
This is why many people who agitate on behalf of a group feel that they can usurp that group’s authority to bolster their own, often idiosyncratic, opinions[/quote]
Thank you for enlightening us on that Tom. I’ll contact the League of Women Voters immediately and request that they change their name to the League of Gender Neutral Voters just to ensure no one gets the wrong idea.
No problem, Ampersand, let’s see if I can manage a little smiley man too.
Wow, what a techno-wizard.
NYMOM
I feel quite crushed.
You know, we notorious gender-neutral feminists should really keep out of your way if we want to keep our already tattered reputation from disintegrating completely.
p.s. Just remind me again: what *is* a gender neutral feminist, exactly?
belledame
Not everyone agrees.
Ampersand
Glad to see I’m not the only one.
Jams
Given the intellectual caliber of the people on this thread who seem to be advocating this position, I’m compelled to suspect that I must be missing something. But, isn’t this like saying that white civil rights activists shouldn’t roundly denounce Clarence Thomas?
What’s the nuance that’s escaping me here?
ballgame:
Well, there are some differences in how we all feel about advocacy. To me, advocacy is much like being someone’s lawyer. You are advocating on their behalf. Once you make a statement in opposition to the person you are advocating for, you are no longer their advocate.
It should also be noted that the civil rights movement advocates for equal rights, not for a specific people or persons. Though it may, at any given time, advocate or not advocate for specific persons. This is in stark contrast to feminism, which advocates for a specific gender.
For me, I don’t have great feelings about any group that advocates for a specific race, gender, or ethnicity (having ugly white pride flashbacks now). But that’s me, and probably why I’m not a feminist (also in part because I’m not the group they advocating for – in spite of some feminists disingenuous sentiments otherwise).
Actually, since you brought up the civil rights movement, why have feminists become feminists and not civil rights activists? Some claim they’re not mutually exclusive, but I’m not completely convinced.
There’s a long history to that answer, which unfortunately I don’t have time to get into as I’m running out the door.
but: in both the first and second waves, there was initially much more of a dovetailing between what we now call civil rights (abolition, in the 19th century) and feminism/suffrage. the splits came later. more on that later on.
just quickly: when I say feminism is about women, I don’t mean…eh. look, my own approach & feelings should hopefully be pretty clear by now.
but what i meant when i said that specifically was: i get sick of a lot of (and often, i gotta say it, a lot of straight radical feminists in particular) feminists defining themselves seemingly mostly in relation to men. It’s actually not “screw the men” that i’m saying here; it’s actually i think in a way the opposite. It’s primarily about caring about women & womens’ rights, -not- “fuck you, menz.” IOW: pro-active, not reactive.
I have been banned only from two sites: Alas and ifeminists. The latter resulted from a thread about Christmas which devolved into an attack on Wendy McElroy. The former resulted from presenting misinformation and verbally assaulting posters. Both incidents resulted solely from my behavior.
Outside of that, I have not been banned from any other sites. I have no desire for unnecessary conflict and confrontations. I no longer post in feminist spaces. If there is a topic I wish to discuss, I do so on my blog.
but, look: this is also why i am not ONLY a feminist.
I do think that there is a place for specific focus, you know.
I mean, I’m pro-choice; my being pro-choice extends to things other than abortion, it is true; it does not however extend all the way to o i don’t know the minimum wage hike, or other economic issues unless they’re directly related to pro-choice issues. That doesn’t mean I’m -against- the minimum wage hike; it just means, when I am in a group that is talking about choice issues, I expect that that will be the primary focus.
It’s not a perfect analogy, as “feminist” is not one isolated issue, no; but, it’s what you’d call a branch.
or, okay, if I’m in an anti-racist group, better analogy, it’s not that we can’t or shouldn’t talk about womens’ issues, or class issues, or lgbt issues, at least as how they dovetail into the anti-racist issues at hand, because they often do.
but at the same time, -in that group- i don’t think people would be too jazzed at the notion of chucking anything that specifically focuses on race issues in favor of y’know economics only, because that’d be losing sight of the original purpose -of that group.-
Hmmm, I’m being a little harsh saying that feminists that state they’re advocating for men are disingenuous. Some, I’m sure, are being genuine in sentiment.
also, i did include the “for me” caveat. i think y’know, again, i’m a queer feminist, so…well, it also involves men, it just, you know, i think that i go at it in ways different from straight folk, who are more (understandably) concerned with issues related to men and women living together, forming relationships, sex, families, etc. what i mean when i say that is i tend to focus more on stuff that has to do with women that has less directly to do with men. it doesn’t mean i don’t give a shit about men or straight people; it’s just not always so much my focus, you know.
Hi Amp. Welcome to my blog. (I noticed you briefly commenting before, on design, but didn’t stop to visit.)
You’re welcome to tell it from your perspective, if you wish.
It became water under the bridge for me, the moment I decided I wasn’t going to participate in Alas any more. I still read the articles, and occasionally pop in a comment, but I certainly don’t participate like I used to, nor will I again. It’s all about safety: my safety. What happened back then hurt. And there was neither insight on your side about the problem, nor will to do anything about it.
But as you say, that’s water under the bridge. I mentioned it here as part of the background to how this site came into being, why we put so much emphasis on courtesy toward and between guests, and how we share common ground with feminist guests who have had bad experiences on MRA sites.
I will, however, point out one structural problem with Alas, that makes such debaclés inevitable. You have this rule, which says “I’d like the right-wing, anti-feminist and non-feminist critics who post on “Alas” to be treated with respect, rather than being bullied or shouted down.”, but you have absolutely no commitment to it. I realise that, unlike here, discussions between feminists and critics are not a priority of Alas, but that’s a bit like having a ship which carries both cargo and passengers. Even if the passengers are not the priority, if it carries them at all, it must look after them.
I’ll end by saying that I think that Alas is a fine achievement nevertheless, and that if we succeed here, it will be in no small part because we learned both from your mistakes, and from the things you do well. I’m also gaining a considerable appreciation of how difficult it must be to moderate a site as busy as Alas, given the task I have here with just a fraction of the traffic you get.
She’s done nothing but bitch and moan about feminists since she got here. If I didn’t know better, I’d think she was one of us.
Not against policy, but even if it was, I wouldn’t delete you for an inadvertant infraction.
NYMOM:
The post wasn’t about getting banned, nor was it about you. I just riffed off Belledame’s remark into a post about the site’s history.
NOW, NOW.
[quote comment="3898"]NYMOM
I feel quite crushed.
You know, we notorious gender-neutral feminists should really keep out of your way if we want to keep our already tattered reputation from disintegrating completely.
p.s. Just remind me again: what *is* a gender neutral feminist, exactly?[/quote]
I see YOU were crushed. When I made a very serious response regarding the role of advocacy groups and you responded with the oral sex comparison. But you were crushed. I hate to say this Tom, but I have a feeling you are quite uncrushable.
AND the term gender neutral feminist is a term I invented just to aggravate radical feminists. It’s an offshoot of gender neutral custody and seems appropriate in so many ways to describe them…
[quote comment="3908"]ballgame:
Well, there are some differences in how we all feel about advocacy. To me, advocacy is much like being someone’s lawyer. You are advocating on their behalf. Once you make a statement in opposition to the person you are advocating for, you are no longer their advocate.
It should also be noted that the civil rights movement advocates for equal rights, not for a specific people or persons. Though it may, at any given time, advocate or not advocate for specific persons. This is in stark contrast to feminism, which advocates for a specific gender.
For me, I don’t have great feelings about any group that advocates for a specific race, gender, or ethnicity (having ugly white pride flashbacks now). But that’s me, and probably why I’m not a feminist (also in part because I’m not the group they advocating for – in spite of some feminists disingenuous sentiments otherwise).
Actually, since you brought up the civil rights movement, why have feminists become feminists and not civil rights activists? Some claim they’re not mutually exclusive, but I’m not completely convinced.[/quote]
Actually using your definition of advocacy group, feminism stopped being an advocacy group decades ago. As millions of women can disagree with them on any number of issues and they still plow ahead with their self-righteous campaigns.
[quote comment="3920"]
NOW, NOW.[/quote]
Why????
NYMOM
That comment had nothing to do with anything written by you, and in fact the comment of yours which you mention (15) was cross-posted with mine (17) so there’s no question of the latter being a response to the former. It was, in fact, a meditation set off by Belle’s and Amp’s little conversation about male radfems.
It’s getting so I can’t take a step out of doors or lean out of a window without you fapping me over the head with your umbrella.
Fortunately, I’m pretty resilient.
ToySoldier:
Wow. I’m very impressed that you say that.
I wasn’t banned from ifeminists, per se; I was always very careful to be very civil when I posted there. Eventually they migrated to a private board, and I wasn’t allowed to join that board, iirc.
To be honest, I didn’t post because I didn’t think you were sincere about running a board in which I could post without being constantly attacked. That you banned David Byron, as well as reading some of the recent discussions here, has made me think I might have been mistaken.
No, thanks.
I strongly disagree with “absolutely no commitment,” which is a totally unfair statement. You have no idea the angry emails I’ve endured on your account, because I tell people to cool off and not attack you, and because I’ve refused to endorse a “only Daran was at fault, everyone else was blameless” narrative.
However, if you said “insufficient commitment for the task,” I’d agree. The moderation on “Alas” attempts to serve two bosses (or maybe it’s more like 4 or 5), and that leads to incoherence and inconsistency.
Anyhow, thanks for your final paragraph.
Ampersand:
I’m glad that you’re reconsidering. I realise we have a credibility gap, in part due to the histories we all bring with us, in part through being associated (unfairly, but inevitably) with the behaviour of MRAs on other sites, and in part because of the behaviour of one or two of the guests here.
Nevertheless, I’m very reluctant to ban anyone. I’d far rather work with difficult people than ban them. There’s a tension between that desire, and our obligations toward other guests. As we openly admit, we have got neither the balance nor the structure quite right yet.
Then I’ll substitute “no visible commitment”. If you batted for me in private, then I appreciate that, but it provided no validation or safety for when I was being abused and vilified in public.
I don’t want to recriminate over all this; I want to learn from it.
You’re very welcome to stay with us. I’d really appreciate your insights into how we could make this place work.
In regard to the OP: I haven’t been banned from anywhere… but that’s mostly for two reasons. I haven’t visited many blogs, and I prefer to bow out in a civil manner when I perceive things to be escalating toward a blowup, if at all possible. If there’s someone with whom I’ve had a history of problems, I incline toward an absence of engagement.
My experiences were primarily on the discussion boards at SuicideGirls (back in 2003 to early 2005, when it appeared to be living up to its alleged purpose) and on private discussion lists that were wide-ranging but often focused on gender issues.
Daran
I suspect that you believe that you (and Hugh and TS) were afforded little in the way of protection on Alas because solidarity amongst the blog’s broader constituency was held to be a higher priority than the obligation to consider justly your sentiments and your arguments. So you would naturally be loath to deal summarily with anyone “for the good of the blog”. On the other hand, if the blog withers because the hard-cases manage to scare off good debate, then even *their* needs will not be served.
I know that I am telling you what you already know. But I thought it might be worth taking the time to articulate your dilemma – in order to ward off accusations that your tolerance for tough-customers might be interpreted as weakness or indulgence, because I’m quite sure that such accusations would be unfair.
I think as long as you stick to a clear policy of, you can express any ideological position you like as long as you don’t behave like a total asshole, (but the latter will not be tolerated), that should serve your purposes.
That would be both too much, and not enough.
It’s not enough, because we need to be able to clearly distinguish between the blog’s ideological position, and guests’, particularly MRA guests’ positions.
It’s too much, because I expect a lot of feminists will arrive expecting to be attacked, and will want to get their retaliation in first. Q-Grrl’s first comment, for example, ended with the following:
As a sincerely held ideological position, that would fall within the “any position you like”, but clearly it isn’t. Rather it was intentional assholery on her part from the word ‘go’. It was by tolerating it, and not responding in kind, that the ensuing productive discussion was facilitated.
I refer to that thread at lot, because it is a model of the vision. It’s exactly how this site is supposed to work.
Thank you Tom, that is exactly the dilemma I am/have been in, and I am very conscious of it.
well, admittedly total assholery is one of those “i know it when i see it” definitions…
eh. this is what i posted wrt “civil” behavior, or my ideas thereof, a while ago:
http://fetchmemyaxe.blogspot.c.....civil.html
To me:
It’s not about ideology, particularly. It’s not about never swearing or never getting passionate or even never personally insulting anybody.
It’s about: can you, ever, in any circumstances, meet the other person halfway? A quarter of the way? A tenth of the way?
Are you capable of grasping nuance, even a little bit?
Can you, even partially, even grudgingly, ever admit, in any circumstances, that you were wrong? About anything?
Would you, once in a great while, be willing to put aside your overwhelming need to have the last word?
Can you concede, even ungraciously, that even a loathed enemy might have a point, if you can see that sie does?
Are you aware that conversations take place over time, that they’re about 90% about relationships, even of the most superficial sort?
Have you ever changed your mind? About anything? Do you think it’s possible you might conceivably ever change it again? About anything?
Maybe that’s not anyone else’s definition of civil discourse. But those are (among) the criteria I use to determine whether or not I’m going to continue bothering to talk to someone.
So, I read the link to that Alas thread now, Daran.
…yeah. I’m not sure how would be best to express my thoughts. Just: I’m not sure I’m reading it the way you’re reading it. although, yes, there’s some mutual antagonism going on, and you’re clearly in the minority -in that thread.- still…well. hmm.
And, I’m really really not sure how or if it’s appropriate to broach this, but: I noticed that in the course of the thread, you referred to your having Asperger’s. which, it didn’t seem like anyone picked up on directly, but there were a couple of posts talking about your…”parsing” of some stuff, which I think you were maybe referring to, with that.
I’m sure you talk about this much more at your own site, and on the whole I don’t know how relevant it is to the main subject of this site.
But since this particular thread is more on the subject of meta, interpersonal stuff online, I will ask here:
…yeah, no, I’m not ready to phrase an actual question.
It just strikes me that in general the let’s say difficulty of parsing nuance online (which is a problem for most people to one degree or another, particularly when they’re getting angry and defensive, online and off, let me add) is one of the main causes of conversation breakdown, assuming everyone is indeed acting in good faith.
and, i can see that -maybe- one thing that’s happening in that thread is people assuming you and toysoldier are not acting in good faith, which assumption is in itself upsetting to someone who is sure sie is, yes.
My very limited understanding of Asperger’s, and observations (and some participation) with people who are on that continuum, is that people who do not have it or know much about it can get very, very, very frustrated and eventually angry at the apparent failure of people who -do- have it to “get it;” the assumption is that they’re just being deliberately obtuse, or rude, at best.
which, is very much -not- my understanding of Asperger’s: whatever else, the people who have it are not deliberately chain-yanking.
that’s one thing.
the other thing is…well. I -don’t- see this happening on the Alas thread there, I want to be clear. But, in general:
I will note, along with Deborah Tannen (who i think can be oversimplistic but is not totally off) that classic “feminine” training in this culture often involves an injunction to be indirect.
And that a lot of (female) feminists, for all their overt rejection of classic feminine training–*that* one isn’t one that tends to get addressed nearly enough, to my own great frustration, for various reasons.
but so, I am wondering, y’know, if you take “You Just Don’t Understand” at face value, and add mutual suspicion because of past abuse experiences (I include verbal, here) at the hands of what the “other” seems to represent, backed up by sociopolitical doctrine…
yeah. I’m still teasing this out.
but I am thinking: and, too, it’s clearly already volatile with classic masculine socialization (on How To Be Interpersonal) clashing with traditional feminine socialization, which is very much reliant on not needing to spell everything out all the time, on nuance and subtext and indirection;
so, if you add being on the Asperger’s continuum to the mix;
that’s got to exacerbate things, I would think.
I’m reading your entries on the subject at your site, Daran. I mean, I think you have a point, that in some ways online is a leveller in that regard. Certainly there are aspects of online that are attractive to a lot of us that had, at least, social anxiety (which I certainly used to do, don’t think I do these days, actually, so much) and a tendency to introversion, of “shutting down” when overstimulated (that, I do have).
but actually, y’know, I think the nuance & “social skills” stuff comes into play online as well, and, yep, even the gendered stuff does, too, although on the whole people tend to be more direct online, and you at least don’t have the added distraction (in this case; for some people their absence is more of a problem) of physical and vocal cues.
so…yeah.
I don’t have any one point or conclusion here; I just kind of wanted to bring that up. Because I’d thought of this before, actually, with other people, in similar dynamics.
I am not at all saying that socialized gender roles are synonymous with having or not having Asperger’s, you understand. But, I am wondering if there isn’t some overlap or at least resemblance between traditional masculine socialization and Asperger’s. and if that isn’t -a- factor, -maybe-, in all of this.
I’m not trying to put you on the spot here, either, Daran; it’s my experience that actually quite a lot of people online have Asperger’s, or are on the austistic continuum (self ID’d as such, yes; and probably still more who don’t have the official diagnosis). and, for whatever reason, far more of them (in my observation at least) tend to be male than female.
meanwhile of course, traditionally gendered socialization exists on top of that…
This is confusingly phrased, I realize:
>and that a lot of (female) feminists, for all their overt rejection of classic feminine training–*that* one isn’t one that tends to get addressed nearly enough, to my own great frustration, for various reasons.>
My point being: I think a lot of the internecine problems that come up within feminist groups has to do with that same ol’ “oh, don’t let’s confront each other directly or get angry, WE’LL DIE” injunction; that it’s one of those blind spots. anyway I have often devoutly wished for some good ol’ fashioned assertiveness and boundaries training; it might go a long way toward clearing up the -endless- tiresome makeup, blowjob, etc. thrashes Because as far as I’m concerned, all too often those sorts of thrashes ar pretty much rooted in exactly what makes my not-at-all-feminist grandmother operate:
“I’m cold. Put on a sweater.”
and
“If you really loved me, you’d be able to read my mind.”
I will add:
that “classical feminine training” (of being indirect, of not confronting directly, of not expressing anger directly especially, of putting relationships before abstract ideas, of not making waves) is not universal, of course; and it is not even limited to women. It’s also I think to some degree race and class and culture-related (my Irish best friend was bewildered by what he terms the “nice girl” phenomenon he says he never encountered until arriving in the U.S.) occasionally religion plays into it as well, or at least a desire to believe everyone means well, and a genuine wish that “can’t everyone just get along.”
belledame222: Those are pretty fair expectations of engagement, I think. Especially if taken as a measure of moving toward or away from civil discourse, rather than a criteria one must completely fulfill (which is how I think you meant it). I add points for creativity too.
I think the problem of moderating can be broken into three concerns: mechanism, censure, and address. (warning: the following is a little tedious).
Address: When a guest is stepping a-fowl there needs to be a way of telling them so. Not only for their benefit, but to reinforce the desired tone of discourse and to indicate to other guests that the infraction has not gone unnoticed (it’s infuriating when abuse is simply unaddressed). Private emails do not cut it. Address must be transparent, again, not just in the spirit of fair treatment, but to teach everyone what passes as good behaviour and what doesn’t.
Censure: For the most part, censure on blogs comes down to ridicule, warning, or banning. Ridicule is usually just inflammatory, warnings are disruptive, and banning is the equivalent of a life sentence. At the same time, without censure there isn’t any reward for good behaviour. Even if one rewards guests for good behaviour, the need for censure will still arise.
Mechanism: The rules of conduct and points of fair argument happen in a space that’s really a meta-conversation outside the scope of the issue being discussed. Because of this, constant messages correcting user’s behaviour can be as disruptive as the original bad behaviour. This is compounded as guests engage in conversations that combine points on civility of discourse and the actual subject. In a perfect world, there would be a mechanism for engaging the subject of conduct outside the mechanism of discourse.
I know, this all sounds terribly fascist, but bear with me.
In my perfect world, it would work something like the following. Errors in discourse would be attached to the offending post by a moderator, using an icon that showed an explanation and moderator’s note on role-over. This mechanism could act as censure, teaching tool, and a method of address outside the flow of discourse. Icons could identify everything from a straw man argument, to an ad homonim argument, to plain old abuse, to, of course, someone cluttering a post with points on conduct.
I realize this is a VERY mechanical way of approaching it, but as an example, I think it addresses the main difficulties of moderating conduct. If you prefer a fuzzy system, that’s fine, but it may help designing a mechanical model of how you’d like things to work, and then fuzzing that.
On “classical feminine training”, yeah, indirect conversation can be considered a part of that, and I don’t want to get all “blame it on the patriarchy”, but I think the tenancy to communicate indirectly can be more generally attributed to survivors, the oppressed, and the underprivileged.
In Guatemala for example, after years and years of turmoil, the entire society communicates almost entirely in indirect metaphor; lying is considered an acceptable norm; and straight answers are almost considered impolite. Holocaust survivors, refugees, and victims, all tend to exhibit a similar indirectness. In a not-so-surprising twist, this indirectness seems to reflect well in the arts, but that’s another story.
Not picking on anyone here, I actually appreciate indirectness… just say’in.
um… tenancy should be tendency.
>but I think the tenancy to communicate indirectly can be more generally attributed to survivors, the oppressed, and the underprivileged.>
Yes, that’s certainly true. I think it does tend to get codified, maybe, in “feminine” training in ways it doesn’t in some of those other categories.
or, well, there are a couple of different things at work at once in this case, I’m realizing. Yes, it’s the usual injunction on directly challenging those in power; the “ladylike” thing is also attached to the opposite expectation, sometimes: “gentility.” (“gentlemen” aren’t supposed to be too coarse or vulgar either, actually; there’s a certain sort of masculine indirection that goes with the upper crust).
so yeah, it gets complicated.
so yeah, it gets complicated. – belledame222
No kidding. I think in the case of feminine/masculine role assignment, people are characterized respectively as victim/abuser, or timid/cruel, or weak/strong, and so on. These roles recommend strategies: the victim strategy assumes the stance of a victim to solve problems; the cruel strategy applies cruelty to solve problems; and so on. When these general strategies are applied in contexts they don’t fit, they appear indirect – and so they are – while the same strategies applied in other contexts are direct. The problem is that gender roles proscribe universal strategies to a contextual world (that’s maybe another thread).
Specially, I think the traditional feminine role applies a victim mystique that asks women to react to the world as if they have been persecuted (whether they have been or not). Not surprisingly, the types of indirect behaviors we see from people who have actually been persecuted will manifest as a symptom of conforming to the feminine mystique. This reads like a riddle doesn’t it? Anyway, this isn’t to say that women don’t actually suffer as women, only that traditional feminine training/mythology frames women as victims by virtue of their sex.
The “gentlemanly” expectation, or “lady-like” expectation, I think, is something slightly different. It doesn’t illicit an expression of indirectness, but rather is a direct expression of order, as if to say “we are abidding by the rules which maintain order”. An indirect reaction to these expectations would be to circumvent them, or to uphold them in an unexpected way. Again, artists are almost pathologically indirect in this regard – and bless them for it.
It helps to think of indirect strategy as a path around an obstacle that stands between you and your goal. There’s a great lecture online about this… hold on, I’m looking it up.
Ok, this is actually a lecture about Environmental Stewardship, but the real core of the lecture is about “strategies for navigating extremes”, and gives a great abstract definition of an indirect strategy.
>Anyway, this isn’t to say that women don’t actually suffer as women, only that traditional feminine training/mythology frames women as victims by virtue of their sex.>
Well, maybe a little more accurate might be to say that the traditional framing is: men do, women are done to.
men do, women are done to – belledame222
I would say that’s more encompassing. Including men doing good things AND bad things, and women having good things AND bad things done to them. Yes… it’s very anthropomorphicly Freudian, or is it Camille Paglian?
gah, Paglia. i dunno, I’m Not The Cosmos…
anyway, yeh, that was my point, it is more encompassing. so it includes benign or benevolent things as well; but, it does include the “bad things” and thus “victimization.”
i think this is where the kind of exasperating false dichotomies that come up between reactionary “pro-patriarchal” (for lack of a better term) and certain kinds of radical/cultural feminists, come from: they’re actually -both- tacitly accepting that “men do, women are done to;” it’s just that in the former case, the argument is that this is the natural state of things, and that in fact more often than not those things are, in fact benevolent (and of course where it starts to fall down is that it then continues on to, -if- the doing-to isn’t benevolent, it’s all the fault of those uppity women and other subverters of the natural order of things, frustrating the men and making them angry);
whereas in the latter case, the assumption is that the “doing-to” is far more often than not negative to begin with.
the difference between the stance of someone like Heart and a more liberal feminist (Heart loathes liberalism and doesn’t consider herself a leftist at all, p.s.) is that from the liberal standpoint, the main problem here is the whole men–>women set-up in the first place. there is an acceptance of responsibility along with the power being (re)claimed.
whereas Heart (TF, too) gets stuck in the whole “it’s not womens’ fault” thing; she of course never follows this through to the logical conclusion, which, among other things, if women cannot do, only are done to (“in the Patriarchy,” which in this set-up means basically “on earth”), then, well, and this Revolution you long for happens how, exactly? If men do not have womens’ interests in mind at all, AND women cannot do, only are done to, then well things don’t really change, do they?
meanwhile the reactionary rightwing thing followed through to its conclusion also is logically problematic because, well, either you have to minimize or outright deny (or somehow or other explain away in some other fashion) all the abuses of men done to women; or you have to admit that women do indeed have some agency; that in fact, when you say a woman “makes men” do whatever (i.e. prancing pantiless drives a man to rape) it is actually ascribing more power to the woman than the man; and therefore absolving the man of responsibility as well as not making a very good case for why he, man/men, should be running society.
Here by way of Belledame…wow this promises to be interesting!
[quote comment="3993"]gah, Paglia. i dunno, I’m Not The Cosmos…
anyway, yeh, that was my point, it is more encompassing. so it includes benign or benevolent things as well; but, it does include the “bad things” and thus “victimization.”
i think this is where the kind of exasperating false dichotomies that come up between reactionary “pro-patriarchal” (for lack of a better term) and certain kinds of radical/cultural feminists, come from: they’re actually -both- tacitly accepting that “men do, women are done to;” it’s just that in the former case, the argument is that this is the natural state of things, and that in fact more often than not those things are, in fact benevolent (and of course where it starts to fall down is that it then continues on to, -if- the doing-to isn’t benevolent, it’s all the fault of those uppity women and other subverters of the natural order of things, frustrating the men and making them angry);
whereas in the latter case, the assumption is that the “doing-to” is far more often than not negative to begin with.
the difference between the stance of someone like Heart and a more liberal feminist (Heart loathes liberalism and doesn’t consider herself a leftist at all, p.s.) is that from the liberal standpoint, the main problem here is the whole men–>women set-up in the first place. there is an acceptance of responsibility along with the power being (re)claimed.
whereas Heart (TF, too) gets stuck in the whole “it’s not womens’ fault” thing; she of course never follows this through to the logical conclusion, which, among other things, if women cannot do, only are done to (“in the Patriarchy,” which in this set-up means basically “on earth”), then, well, and this Revolution you long for happens how, exactly? If men do not have womens’ interests in mind at all, AND women cannot do, only are done to, then well things don’t really change, do they?
meanwhile the reactionary rightwing thing followed through to its conclusion also is logically problematic because, well, either you have to minimize or outright deny (or somehow or other explain away in some other fashion) all the abuses of men done to women; or you have to admit that women do indeed have some agency; that in fact, when you say a woman “makes men” do whatever (i.e. prancing pantiless drives a man to rape) it is actually ascribing more power to the woman than the man; and therefore absolving the man of responsibility as well as not making a very good case for why he, man/men, should be running society.[/quote]
Well perhaps admitting women have some power or ‘agency’ is a good thing. It’s not the overbearing, physical power of men but it’s power just the same. Yet going too far in that ‘agency’ direction can distort what’s really going on.
Because women’s lesser form of power is only ‘permitted’ by the larger society, it’s not a given we will always have it. Men’s power is not subject to negotiation like ours is. If you try to curtail theirs, eventually your society will have wars, terrorism, civil disorders/unrest until the balance among men is restored. Not so for women.
So women, in some sense, are the more vulnerable for that reason. As our power is more limited, subject to being curtailed at anytime. Just looking at history and how different societies are today you can see women are always subject to having their situation re-negotiated.
But 21st century western civilization women are at the historic apex of women power; so I guess I have to ask what the heck are these women kretching about all the time…It’s not oppression; but I think they just resent the constant process of negotiation women have to go through to maintain the status quo. But guess what, that will never end so better get used to it. Evolution unfortunately didn’t pass out all traits equally…
Women in some sense have always had to rely on the benevolence of man…it’s just the way it is…
Hahahaha, yeah, the Cosmos. I concur, and have witnessed all you speak of above.
I’d add a couple wrinkles:
1) Blame and responsibility are difficult because, when you think about it, every generation is responsible for a system they aren’t to blame for. It’s one part blaming someone for an event that predates them, and simultaneously blaming them for doing what they have been told to do. We’re all little soldiers wondering if we should follow orders (or, I suppose, just following orders and not worrying about it). Responsibility without blame is just a reality of political existence. It’s unreasonable, but there you have it.
Drop this into the “[...] if women cannot do, only are done to [...]” argument, and one could instead say that “whether women HAVE done or not, is irrelevant to the question of whether or not they are responsible for affairs as they stand now”.
2) In all honestly – and it takes some mental leaps for me to do this because I don’t have much affinity with the cliche right-wing position – I think their position is best described as a belief that the synergistic order that arises from the willing adoption of masculine and feminine roles by both sexes is the best (and not adopting those roles creates chaos instead of order [place where I deleted this huge rambling analysis of mythological motifs etc etc]).
3) ok, back to mythological motifs and the history of mythology (from which gender roles spring) just for a moment.
[...] when you say a woman “makes men” do whatever [...] – belledame222
The “men do, women are done to” line is a bit of a projection. What’s really been created is a myth that says “men doing to women creates order, and the reverse creates chaos”. So, it’s not a simple problem of “who has the power”, but what kind of power. The traditional gender myth grants the feminine chaotic power when they are the doers (Kali, pandoras box, medusa, etc ), and ordered power when they are done to (the madonna, Venus, the damsel in distress etc ).
So, it isn’t actually a contradiction. It’s magical thinking, granted, but not contradictory magical thinking… or at least not contradictory for that reason.
[quote comment="4022"]Hahahaha, yeah, the Cosmos. I concur, and have witnessed all you speak of above.
I’d add a couple wrinkles:
1) Blame and responsibility are difficult because, when you think about it, every generation is responsible for a system they aren’t to blame for. It’s one part blaming someone for an event that predates them, and simultaneously blaming them for doing what they have been told to do. We’re all little soldiers wondering if we should follow orders (or, I suppose, just following orders and not worrying about it). Responsibility without blame is just a reality of political existence. It’s unreasonable, but there you have it.
Drop this into the “[...] if women cannot do, only are done to [...]” argument, and one could instead say that “whether women HAVE done or not, is irrelevant to the question of whether or not they are responsible for affairs as they stand now”.
2) In all honestly – and it takes some mental leaps for me to do this because I don’t have much affinity with the cliche right-wing position – I think their position is best described as a belief that the synergistic order that arises from the willing adoption of masculine and feminine roles by both sexes is the best (and not adopting those roles creates chaos instead of order [place where I deleted this huge rambling analysis of mythological motifs etc etc]).
3) ok, back to mythological motifs and the history of mythology (from which gender roles spring) just for a moment.
[...] when you say a woman “makes men” do whatever [...] – belledame222
The “men do, women are done to” line is a bit of a projection. What’s really been created is a myth that says “men doing to women creates order, and the reverse creates chaos”. So, it’s not a simple problem of “who has the power”, but what kind of power. The traditional gender myth grants the feminine chaotic power when they are the doers (Kali, pandoras box, medusa, etc ), and ordered power when they are done to (the madonna, Venus, the damsel in distress etc ).
So, it isn’t actually a contradiction. It’s magical thinking, granted, but not contradictory magical thinking… or at least not contradictory for that reason.[/quote]
It’s just the opposite…humans create the myths from their behavior, the myths don’t create human behavior.
I think you have it a little confused.
Anyway who are you to judge that these changes you wish to see come about don’t create ‘chaos’ as you put it and that most people (men and women) won’t get fed up with your gender neutral view of the world. Actually I can see women getting fed up with it a lot faster then men and slowly just undermining all your favorite social engineering schemes. The door will just quietly swing shut, as women are wont to do. Frequently they make changes to societies w/o starting an uproar so you don’t even realize a change has come about until decades after the fact….
It’s just the opposite…humans create the myths from their behavior, the myths don’t create human behavior. – NYMOM
It’s neither one nor the other. Humans create myths to explain their behavior (well, to explain the world around them which includes human behavior), those myths then in turn change human behavior which in turn gives rise to new myths, and so on, and so on. Or do you not believe that people alter their behavior to conform to, say, the bible? Have you never read anything that has caused you to change how you act in the world?
Anyway who are you to judge that these changes [...] – NYMOM
From this point on, your post is incoherent.
Oh, you’re just another gender neutralized social engineer, you -would- say that.
anyway: yeah, the chaos/order binary is a good one to bring up, too.
the notion that women are the -ordering- force, that Victorian ideal of the woman as moral guardian, angel in the house, yadda, there to control men’s more Dionysian (“beastly,” really) impulses, is I think kind of an “undoing” of the earlier notion that -women- are the chaotic, Dionysian force, the ones with the scary unruly appetites, the Furies, the Scylla and Charybdis…
Not so fast. I wouldn’t say undoing.
There have always been feminine figures that represented order, but in passive ways. It’s what they do, or rather, what they don’t do that matters. The Victorian woman-as-moral-guardian always struck me as a romantic idealized version of the virgin – of virgin and the whore fame. As the siren will draw men to the rocky shores, so will the virgin draw them to virtue. Both are passive tempters (even if a scolding tempter).
Of course there have been tons of exceptions, don’t get me wrong, our various mythologies are filled with warrior women. Well, not filled, but they are there. They’re the exceptions though.
I think you have a point about the era though. Romantic ideals gave way to a transcendentalism that lead, not surprisingly, to early women’s rights movements in the 1800s. Though, the virgin guardian/temptress still exists as a common, cloying, eye-rolling archetype.
o yeah, sure, i was being overly simplistic, the virgin archetype’s been around for a lot longer than that.
but yeah, and i also think that we’re still a lot more influenced by Victorian hangover than you’d think, given everything that’s happened in the interim.
Well, it’s funny you’d say that. Back to feminism briefly… I’m of the mind that modern day feminism is mostly a brand name change for the “can’t trust men to look out for us” portion of the women’s rights movement that split off after the abolition betrayal in the U.S.. Of course, an overly-simplistic characterization, but not a horrendous one. The gender-bias of the actual name “feminism”, says a lot about it’s origins, and the spirit of “for women, and by women”, not for or by men, because, well, they just can’t be trusted.
The question is: has it, or can it shed those early biases? Or is time for something altogether different?
[quote comment="4038"]It’s just the opposite…humans create the myths from their behavior, the myths don’t create human behavior. – NYMOM
It’s neither one nor the other. Humans create myths to explain their behavior (well, to explain the world around them which includes human behavior), those myths then in turn change human behavior which in turn gives rise to new myths, and so on, and so on. Or do you not believe that people alter their behavior to conform to, say, the bible? Have you never read anything that has caused you to change how you act in the world?
Anyway who are you to judge that these changes [...] – NYMOM
From this point on, your post is incoherent.[/quote]
I never read anything that caused me to change any of my essential behaviors…
“From this point on, your post is incoherent.”
Of course if I made this comment to you, Daran would be telling me I’m sniping at his guests. But I guess some guests here are more sniper proof then others.
[quote comment="4041"]Oh, you’re just another gender neutralized social engineer, you -would- say that.
anyway: yeah, the chaos/order binary is a good one to bring up, too.
the notion that women are the -ordering- force, that Victorian ideal of the woman as moral guardian, angel in the house, yadda, there to control men’s more Dionysian (“beastly,” really) impulses, is I think kind of an “undoing” of the earlier notion that -women- are the chaotic, Dionysian force, the ones with the scary unruly appetites, the Furies, the Scylla and Charybdis…[/quote]
I’ve noticed a tendency for people when they are discussing feminism to refer to the Victorian era. For some reason feminism seems to feel that Victorian England is the gold standard or something of their belief system. I’m not quite sure why.
So…
I think you have it a little confused. – NYMOM
…this isn’t a snipe.
From this point on, your post is incoherent. – NYMOM
… but this is?
Your comment *was*, and *is* incoherent. Try to use more complete sentences.
I’ve noticed a tendency for people when they are discussing feminism to refer to the Victorian era. For some reason feminism seems to feel that Victorian England is the gold standard or something of their belief system. I’m not quite sure why. – NYMOM
The “Victorian era” is a period of time, not a region on earth. The era is associated with Victoria because England was the dominant world power during this era. Much the way the 20th century is often referred to as the American century.
>The question is: has it, or can it shed those early biases? Or is time for something altogether different?>
How familiar are you with third wave feminism(s)?
Insofar as people are talking about “first wave feminism” as an Anglo-American movement, which it was, by and large (as was much of second wave feminism), and given the time period it covers, roughly, as Jams notes, it just makes sense to refer to Victorian mores as influential; same as it makes sense to talk about Enlightenment values as influencing the French and American Revolutions, and the sociopolitical ideologies that sprang from them.
btw, how do you get italics to show up here?
Italics: enter “” to the left of what you want italicized (minus the quotes and spaces), and “” to the right.
That didn’t work… ok try this…
enter to the left of what you want italicized (minus the underscores), and to the right.
That didn’t work either. ok, do you know how html tags work? Embed what you want to italicize in normal html italic tags. It’s the “i” tag.
I’m fairly familiar with 3rd wave feminism, though I don’t necessarily categorize every argument and issue by the wave it appeared in. However, I usually think of it as one part “girl power” and one part radical “power + prejudice = sexism” theory.
Daran
Can you help Jams out with his explanation of how to create italics? I’d really like to know how it’s done.
Jams: that’s the more popular face of it; but there’s more to it than that. It’s more de-centered, for one thing; more likely to be inclusive of such things as queer theory/activism and other approaches to gender that aren’t quite as binary as before. There are also those who put more of an emphasis on post-colonial theory and/or transnational activism. among other things.
Italics, underline, and bold. How to…
http://www.pageresource.com/html/textags.htm
Well, reading recommendations are always welcome, but none of those things are necessarily good news to me. I can think of good and bad in all.
Thankyou Jams !
Me
A couple of days ago I posted a two line comment to the Nice White Lady thread at Alas, the first time I’ve commented there since the last debacle. It was to point out that there was at least one film in which a black school teacher brings sweetness and light to rough white children: “To Sir with Love”. I couldn’t believe my eyes, then, when I saw that Heart has riffed off my little observation to create yet another piss-on-Ampersand thread over at womensspace.
Ampersand, if you’re reading this, please don’t believe that I’m in league with Heart.
Tom – if Heart’s all about boycotting Amp and all, how did she even know that thread (and your comment on it) was even there?
she would have had to click on some link to Alas. which act, I thought, lined the bottomless pockets of of the patriarchy with filthy lucre or baby seal pelts or spotted owl feathers or something.
Tom, I’m moderately certain that Heart’s post was put up before your comment. And even if that’s not the case, I doubt Heart needs your help to come up with baseless accusations about me. So don’t worry about it.
Antiprincess, that is indeed a mystery.
Clicking on links to Alas doesn’t benefit Amp’s sponsor at all. In fact the opposite is true, the sponsor pays for the bandwidth used to serve Alas’s pages.
Linking to Alas (which Heart did) is what brings in the valuable link juice, unless you use the rel=”nofollow” directive (which Heart didn’t). Shame on her.
Glad to be out of the frame for this one!
And Amp is out of the frame too, despite the flak Heart has been giving him. The truth is she’s pissed off at the women feminists who have recently mocked her pretensions to belong to the most appallingly oppressed and despised of God’s children – white women with black partners. And indeed, some of their posts have been pretty hard-hitting. But as Heart won’t counter-attack against members of the fair sex she has had to vent her spleen in another receptacle. Ampersand’s mere mention of “nice white ladies” made him a prime candidate. But (as he probably knows) he wasn’t the true addressee.
But one thing I’m not quite clear on: did Ampersand intend to annoy Heart by mentioning “nice white ladies”?