Feminist and feminist-friendly only thread: Civility, “Alas” and feminism
| February 14th, 2005A few people in the “various open pages” thread have suggested that they’d like a separate thread to discuss the question of civility on “Alas,” and perhaps other topics as well.
It’s tempting to attempt to sum up the discussion so far, but it would be too easy for me to mess up trying to sum up other folks’ views. If other folks would like to attempt a summary, or to quote extensively from the other thread, feel free.
Two notes about this thread: First of all, whatever “civility rules” normally apply on “Alas” are not in effect for this thread, since some of the people who have requested this discussion space may find the civility rules constraining.
Second of all, I think this is a conversation that has to take place between feminists and feminist allies. Feminists, pro-feminists and feminist-friendly posters of any sex are welcome to post; but if that doesn’t describe you, then please don’t post on this particular thread.
February 14th, 2005 at 2:45 pm
As long as I can keep making jokes that test the bounds of good taste, I’m cool with whatever. However, banning men from the discussion might make it a little difficult for our Honorable Moderator.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
February 14th, 2005 at 3:03 pm
Are we saying that the term “feminists” can’t include men?
BTW, that’s not a snarky comment of any sort, I’m really wanting to know, because I’m glad this thread has been started and want it to get rolling.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
February 14th, 2005 at 3:25 pm
Opinions vary as to whether men can be feminists. My opinion is YES, they can. But hey, I also think rednecks can be feminists, so my opinion probably isn’t worth much.
This comment was written by Redneck Feminist (aka drumgurl).Report this comment to the moderators
February 14th, 2005 at 4:11 pm
I read Alas from time to time but have never commented before (that I can remember at least) but have enjoyed reading the discussions in the comments. Whatever you have seems to be working pretty well, particularly when compared to most of the blogosphere.
I am continuously impressed with the intelligent and thought provoking discussions and, while I don’t understand the
b - y ~o *b
rule, I can’t fault the rest of the “civility rules.”
I am a man and a feminist. Thanks for letting me comment.
This comment was written by Ted.Report this comment to the moderators
February 14th, 2005 at 4:54 pm
I have to say I don’t see Amp’s civility rules as being that oonstraining at all, much less in favor of anyone. His one basic rule seems to be do not engage in ad hominem attacks. Focus on the argument and not the person. (Perhaps I should add a second rule of do not throw personal insults at other commenters. Amp explains the difference here). Sometimes the line isn’t always so clear between the two, but he tends to give a lot of leeway. His rules seem to allow someone to call another bigot or racist or what have you. What’s wrong with focusing on the argument as opposed to the person? Who really cares of some poster is an asshole? It is far better to point out why those views are wrong, misinformed, hateful, etc.
Finally I think it is a good thing to provide a space to hear opposing views, even hateful ones. As difficult as they can be to hear it is often helpful to try to get some sense of why and how people can hold such views. If at any point the comments in a thread get too difficult to read one can still continue the conversation elsewhere. For example one could countine by e-mail or via posts on one’s own board(s). As far as the blogoshpere goes I think Amp’s comment sections provide some of the greatest insight into various views. I certainly am grateful for them and I hope he continues keeping them open with a plea for civility.
This comment was written by Galois.Report this comment to the moderators
February 14th, 2005 at 4:55 pm
I suppose that depends what you mean by “rednecks.” As I understand it, the term originally refers to farmers and agricultural workers who’d get sunburns on their necks from working outdoors all the time. It’s come to mean something like “working class bigot,” and it’s not always clear whether it means “working class” or “bigot.” The myth of Joe Six-Pack blurs the two. That working class people are no more bigoted than any other group — less so, in general, in my experience — is a truth deliberately obscured.
On civility: it is often the case that men talk over women. I’ve seen that as a problem in lots of political meetings, and I’ve done it myself a few times without meaning to or realizing it. I think it’s best resolved by the two-pronged approach of criticizing men for not taking care that everyone’s gotten a fair chance to speak, and encouraging women to speak up and supporting them when they do.
But I don’t think it makes sense to argue that civility or debate are inherently patriarchal, or otherwise inherently oppressive. I’ve seen lots of public debates squelched, and the squelchers claimed to do it in the name of civility. However, I think they were lying. Civility is about respect, and the squelchers didn’t really respect the squelched. Sometimes, it’s a worthwhile political move to be deliberately uncivil, because you want to demonstrate your disrespect. That’s no way to treat a friend or potential ally, however.
I think that overcoming sexism will require both women and men, together — and that sexism hurts women and men, although not equally.
This comment was written by FoolishOwl.Report this comment to the moderators
February 14th, 2005 at 5:14 pm
FoolishOwl:
“I think that overcoming sexism will require both women and men, together — and that sexism hurts women and men, although not equally.”
Do you think that overcoming capitalism will require both workers and bosses, together — and that capitalism hurts workers and bosses, although not equally?
If so, why? If not, what is it about sex that you think makes the relevant difference from economic class as you understand it?
This comment was written by Rad Geek.Report this comment to the moderators
February 14th, 2005 at 5:44 pm
Rad Geek
On the first point, no. Ultimately, bosses aren’t necessary at all — we’ve long since passed the point at which there was real economic scarcity, and therefore a need to have social classes.
On the second, strictly speaking, bosses are hurt by capitalism, but they benefit so much from it that the hurt is trivial in comparison.
This is not the case with men and sexism. Most definitions I’ve seen of male privilege seem to amount to, men don’t suffer as much as women from sexism. That’s not to say that men don’t suffer. Most men have problems in their lives which are clearly the result of sexism, and I find that many men will agree that this is the case.
This comment was written by FoolishOwl.Report this comment to the moderators
February 14th, 2005 at 7:54 pm
I would say that Godwin’s rule should be obeyed. The “every birth a wanted birth - oh, really?” thread got seriously heated because the initial subject, an essay on another blog, called abortion and abortion providers/patients worse than the Holocaust/Nazis. And while I think our president is not a good president, I consider it entirely inappropriate to compare him with Hitler.
This comment was written by NancyP.Report this comment to the moderators
February 14th, 2005 at 11:43 pm
On the civility issue, I agree with Galois to an extent, however this is the internet, and there are people who will post who do not wish to engage in debate but merely call attention to themselves. You know, the trolls. And in this case a good discussion can get terribly off-course. Not saying there’s anything wrong with the tangential arguments in general, the nature of a good comment discussion is it will take a life of it’s own. But I think of - I believe the commenter called himself Jack - in the post on “Do embryos go to heaven” who kept on introducing obscure and entirely ridiculous hypotheticals and insulting anyone who answered them. I attempted to tell him in the nicest way possible not to be such an asshole, and was insulted myself. I think the best answer in this case is to ignore them. I’ve received a troll or quite possibly trolls at my blog that at first flattered me by livening up my otherwise dead comments section, but at some point enough is enough. Anyway, call this ramble #1.
Ramble #2 probably won’t be as long - this being on male feminists. I should say although I, as a man, do not quite count myself as a feminist, I most certainly identify with feminism. To an extent that is due to this blog, reading writings from a male feminist allowed me to personalize the feminist movement in a way that I hadn’t before. But I don’t like to consider the problem of sexism as how it hurts men an women, but rather people. There is nothing special about women except that they happen to be the group that is oppressed, and a purpose of feminism, as I see it, is eliminating the artificial differences between women and men from society’s conscious.
Anyway, it’s late, and Futurama is on, and I’m teaching at 8:00 tomorrow so I should really get some sleep. I hope that this mindless ramblings made some sense.
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 4:02 am
This post fits in here. How do we define civility - sexists politely telling women they are inferior?
“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 (and bigotry) 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?
This comment was written by littleviolet.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 4:04 am
“I have to say I don’t see Amp’s civility rules as being that oonstraining at all, much less in favor of anyone. His one basic rule seems to be do not engage in ad hominem attacks. Focus on the argument and not the person. (Perhaps I should add a second rule of do not throw personal insults at other commenters. Amp explains the difference here). Sometimes the line isn’t always so clear between the two, but he tends to give a lot of leeway. His rules seem to allow someone to call another bigot or racist or what have you. What’s wrong with focusing on the argument as opposed to the person? Who really cares of some poster is an asshole? It is far better to point out why those views are wrong, misinformed, hateful, etc.”
What prejudices are you subject to in your life Galois?
This comment was written by littleviolet.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 4:46 am
What prejudices are you subject to in your life Galois?
Anti-semitism. In the limited context of the internet I have also been to some extent subject to homophobia (although straight, I write frequently on the topic of gay rights).
I do think it is sometimes worthwhile to engage with “civil” bigots. For one thing for some people when their bigotry is pointed out and explained, it is possible to change. They simply did not realize the consequences of their actions. Secondly, there are a lot of bigots out there. If we can better understand them as people we may be better prepared to combat the bigotry. If one is to engage with them, Amp’s comment boards can actually be one of the safest places to do so. Unlike the rest world (or even the rest of the internet) one is in a more comfortable setting here surrounded by many people who share similar (although certainly not identical) views. Of course if I want to engage in a discussion without the bigots I will either respond to Amp in a post (if I still want my comments to be public) or alternatively in an e-mail.
This comment was written by Galois.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 5:44 am
Feminists only, please
This comment was written by Word Munger.Today Alas, a Blog has a discussion thread for “feminists only.” It’s an interesting concept, attempting to enforce rules on a blog discussion. It’s not that all blogs don’t have at least some level of rules. For example, John Scalzi has an extens…
Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 6:50 am
I would count a commenter as civil if he or she is making a genuine effort to inform or persuade and shows a genuine willingness to consider, even if not to agree with, competing views. Like Galois, I would hope that non-feminist or even anti-feminist commenters who approach the dialogue with an open mind may be educated or even persuaded. However, commenters who act outside those parameters — whether through abuse, harassment, or obviously intellectually dishonest argument — are wasting everyone else’s time and can reasonably be excluded. Where, precisely, to draw the line is a question of judgment, but my sense is that Amp has shown good judgment by exercising restraint before banning commenters and by doing so firmly but politely when it is necessary.
This comment was written by Fred Vincy.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 7:05 am
Ampersand, again: what is your vision for Alas? How do you perceive its function and purpose? Whose interests is it here to serve, and how does it serve those interests?
This comment was written by funnie.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 7:18 am
I haven’t really formulated a lot of thoughts just yet — still need more coffee.
For me, and for a lot of the feminists posting on the other thread, it isn’t *how* you define civility, it is how it is *used*. We automatically assume that civility promotes free discourse and the free exchange of ideas. Until, like FoolishOwl noted, a minority voice never gets expressed or lacks an adequate platform.
FoolishOwls’ post is itself an example of civility in action with a telling sexist vein — note, I am ***not*** saying that FoolishOwl is sexist, just that there is, for me, a recognizable sexism within his assumptions. He is being very polite, open-minded and civil. He states that:
“I think it’s best resolved by the two-pronged approach of criticizing men for not taking care that everyone’s gotten a fair chance to speak, and encouraging women to speak up and supporting them when they do.”
1) This assumes that [a] it is just men that he is referring to when he says someone must criticize men or [b] that men will, in public discourse, respond to women’s criticism of their railroading said discourse or that [c] a woman will be responded to civily when she publicly criticizes a man.
Option [a] seems the only publicly viable option if one is to maintain civilty.
2) FoolishOwl assumes that women aren’t already speaking up. That they need encouragement (and that this would be the civil and honorable thing to do). Except that [a] women have been speaking up for millenia [b] women have lost their lives for speaking up [c] if a woman’s words aren’t civil or rational they aren’t considered speaking up and lastly [d] that the only public platform for women to speak up in is one that has already been created by men and that men are “allowing” the women a chance to speak.
I am 100% positive that FoolishOwl did not mean to imply **any** of this. But having lived almost 40 years in a woman’s body and a woman’s reality, I can tell you how it plays out. How a civil man can be just as sexist in his blind assumptions (those assumptions so ingrained socially that he doesn’t know he has them) and that this civilty cuts as close to the quick as overt sexism — especially because if a woman calls a man out on this civil sexism, she is not going to be believed.
Civility has a long history of objectifying women. There was chivaltry, there was the Victorian age, there were the 50’s. There was the honor and civility of the Judeo-Christain foundation. Embedded deeply within all of this is the physical rape and the emotional/spiritual disembodyment of women throughout recorded history. The entire system of civility is predicated on men having outlets lying at the parameters of civility: the brothel, the whore, the woman kidnapped and raped during war. The woman he can come home to who has cooked the meal, washed his laundry, and otherwise provided him with the psychic energy to *be* civil when he is out in public because his base needs are taken care of by someone else. He can easily be civil when he has a servant at home. Civility is a public discourse between men, allowable because they have the time and personal resources to engage in it.
…more later. must. find. coffee.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 7:25 am
“I would count a commenter as civil if he or she is making a genuine effort to inform or persuade”
Really? You’d call someone civil if they made a genuine effort to inform you about the benefits of racism, if they tried to persuade you that homophobia was the correct route to take?
Civility for me is based on the “golden rule”, do as you would be done to or if you want to make it more complicated, don’t to unto others that which you wouldn’t have done to yourself. Therefore bigotry is not civil.
This comment was written by littleviolet.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 7:57 am
Frankly, I’m surprised that I haven’t been called out on incivility here, because I’m a bitch on wheels when I post anywhere.
Hateful views. . .well, you know, I’m pretty well-versed in what my opposition thinks and why. And I hear it ad nauseum. Civility rules won’t keep this in check, and I would hope that folks will understand why I lose patience with someone who’s being deliberately obtuse or being just plain patronizing and passive-aggressive. Novalis’ “yeah, but I’m not a sexist” is but one example. I dropped it not because I didn’t want to be called on the carpet for incivility, but because I am sick and fucking tired of being expected to coo over the bruised fee-fees of random men who are offended at things that don’t affect them. I mean, jaysus, a woman-only message board on the internet? Get a fucking life already.
One thing that thread proved (and that the MacKinnon thread is proving) is that woman-only (and woman-respecting) space is still needed. Not that this blog is wrong to allow men, or any of that. I like Alas, I read it every day, and I personally like Amp. I enjoy the posts, and I even enjoy poking sticks at some of the more entertaining trolls.
However, I’ve noticed everywhere I go, be it a lefty-meeting or a work conference or what have you, is that I’m held to a different standard then men for behavior. If I speak up or raise my voice, I’m hysterical, I’m emotional, I’m rude, and I’m aggressive. If a man does it, he’s passionate, he’s strong, and he’s justified.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 8:02 am
Little Violet is right on that point: bigotry is not civil (she may well be right about much more than that, but responding to a solid soundbite like that is much easier)
of course, bigots do sometimes maintain the illusion of civility, and honestly, those are the ones that scare me the most.
This comment was written by karpad.part of that is there doesn’t seem to be any rational reason for such conduct. They aren’t ignorant or misinformed. they SHOULD know better. I have some examples, but they’re rather long winded (on a keyboard where the A key is spotty, typing isn’t fun), so I’ll just hope that everyone here is aware of such entities and can understand why they give me the willies.
Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 9:08 am
I’ve not got much time right now, but I just want to add that the posts from Q & Sheelzebub are hitting EXACLY those points that are bugging me the most.
Yeah, it’s far, far easier to be civil, or at least maintain a civil facade (what Robert does), when you’ve got other outlets for your aggression, and also have a support system at your disposal. It’s also easy when the issues being discussed don’t affect you in the same negative way as they do the person you’re arguing with.
Also, there’s this: “I’ve noticed everywhere I go, be it a lefty-meeting or a work conference or what have you, is that I’m held to a different standard then men for behavior. If I speak up or raise my voice, I’m hysterical, I’m emotional, I’m rude, and I’m aggressive. If a man does it, he’s passionate, he’s strong, and he’s justified.”
Which was what got me going in the first place on the other thread. Not only was Robert being patronising and disingenuous in the extreme (NOT “civil” behaviour), but it was ALSIS who got smacked down for dealing with that disingenuousness with the contempt it deserved. I personally would rather be told to fuck off to my face if someone thinks my ideas are stupid than to get a lot of nastiness and condescension dressed up as politeness. Like I said in the other thread, the latter tactic is stereotypical “Mean Girls” primary school shit. Like someone saying, “Ooooh, I like your dress” in order to let you know what a clueless, unfashionable loser you are. Fuck that shit, and quite frankly, fuck the cowards who use it, because the entire reason they do is so that when their targets respond in anger, they can feign innocence and let the other person take the blame for “losing control”.
And, come to think about it, at least those mean girls in primary schools have the excuse that they are constrained by adults’ conceptions of proper behaviour for little girls, and the fact that they are punished much more severely than little boys for showing outright aggression. The men who are using that tactic here certainly don’t have that justification.
I think that few women who are angry over the Novalis/Robert debacle would have been anywhere near so offended if we felt at all that those two were actually here to engage in dialogue with us. Robert in particular–no matter that he did show up early in the thread to defend the concept of woman-only space–seemed to be interested in not much more than paternalistic finger-wagging. Again, NOT civil. OK, anti-feminist input may force us to hone our ideas, but that doesn’t mean that we should have to put up with demeaning behaviour from them.
Anyway, I’m glad this thread has got rolling. I hope we can get some more useful ideas out it.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 9:23 am
I’ve noticed behind this new ‘mean girl’ trend there seems to be this need for the media and society, in general, to punish women who do act in an aggressive manner. I wonder if any one else has noticed this?
This comment was written by morgan.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 9:24 am
The other thing that keeps popping up for me is rationality, which I believe goes hand in hand with civility. Men often want women’s arguments to be rational and civil at the same time. What hides behind this tactic is the definition of discourse and the definition of rational that have been in the hands of men and systematically and publicly *DENIED* to women for thousands of years. Men make it look like women are irrational when we are angry while at the same time refusing to look at women’s denied access to education, public space, private space where public decisions are made, political office, and publication or media outlets. Men act as if they can ask us to be civil when things like “civil” liberties and “civil” space are not equally accessible to women. Civility has an archaic meaning of “training in the humanities”. Ironic indeed that men want women to *be* civil when historically denied its original intent and meaning.
What was that I said about male reversals in the other thread? Hmmmm.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 9:34 am
You know, this thread is making me think of the Larry Summers flap. Larry Summers insulted Nancy Hopkins by ignoring her research and her earlier talk, by denying her experiences, and by lecturing her on something about which she is vastly more qualified to comment than him, according to the way academic hierarchies work. But because he used “civil” academic rhetoric, and because she got angry, she’s the one who got dismissed as hysterical. In the discussion of the entire affair, very few people note that Nancy Hopkins is a geneticist and therefore that Summers was lecturing her on something about which she knows a whole lot and he knows nothing. And of course, if she hadn’t got angry, nobody would have noticed there was a problem.
It’s infuriating, and you see it all the damn time, if you bother to look for it.
This comment was written by Sally.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 9:47 am
For some reason this thread has made me think of how male physicians pride themselves on their illegible handwritting but expect their secretaries/nurses/transcriptionists to be themselves expert in deciphering it. In my experience, male physician’s handwritting gets progressively worse, usually in correlation to their status in the power hierarchy.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 10:17 am
littleviolet takes issue with my comment that “I would count a commenter as civil if he or she is making a genuine effort to inform or persuade”?
“Really? You’d call someone civil if they made a genuine effort to inform you about the benefits of racism, if they tried to persuade you that homophobia was the correct route to take?”
Referring back my original comment, civility would also require “approach[ing] the dialogue with an open mind” and avoiding “obviously intellectually dishonest argument”. In other words, civility is not just about how one speaks, but about how one listens.
I would think that a true racist or sexist would fail that test. On the other hand, well-meaning people may have particular views that are racist or sexist — or that are not inherently so but have racist or sexist implications in the real world we inhabit — but that they may reconsider when those views are examined. In my opinion, those people are worth talking to.
This comment was written by Fred Vincy.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 10:30 am
I think the question I’m most interested in is when bigotry can be civil. And by “civil” I mean as it pertains to this blog, and the hopes that Amp can keep these discussions open to differing opinions without turning it into the typical shout/cover ears match so typical in internet chat rooms (and television punditry). [side note: I don’t think there’s anything intrinsically wrong with shouting matches, just when all people on either side do is shout without listening to what the other side shouts back]
The thing is with bigotry, is it is possible that a person can say something bigoted out of purely innocent ignorance. If this is the case, then casting such people out of a debate instead of engaging them and hopefully teaching them better would be counterproductive. A good example is Q Grrl responding to Foolishowl in this post. Foolishowl said something, entirely innocent and well-meaning, and Q Grrl detected an intrinsically sexist assumption behind it, and offered a great argument describing it. Now Foolishowl can look at Q Grrl’s argument and either agree with it, and therefore attempt to alter his own perceptions, or disagree with it and continue living life as he has. Such exchanges are prime examples of an internet discussion at it’s finest.
On the other hand, American society as a whole has moved away from accepting overt bigotry, and there are certain things we should assume people should know. So if, for example, someone from Fred Phelps’ ministry comes on and starts arguing that fags eat shit, although this person too is likely speaking from a perspective of pure ignorance, the rest of us who are decent need not have to deal with such garbage.
Of course, I’m oversimplifying by giving extreme examples, but hey what can you do?
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 10:31 am
I cross-posted with Fred Vincy. He said pretty much exactly what I was. Blep.
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 10:59 am
FoolishOwl:
Ultimately, are men necessary at all? (I don’t mean human beings with a Y chromosome and testes; I mean as a cohesive group identity that confers some social role more substantial than, say, having hazel eyes or detached earlobes.)
Of course, bosses usually have problems in their lives as the result of capitalism: they are often extremely busy, may not have time to see their kids as much as they would like, may have feelings of ennui or spiritual emptiness, may find themselves subject to an unpleasant pecking order or to unfair office backbiting. There are whole movements of literature devoted to telling us how the managers and bosses of the world may have money and control, but don’t have happiness or spiritual fulfillment.
But does that have any burly consequences for how workers should agitate or organize? Should the labor movement spend a lot of time–or any substantial amount of time at all–pointing out that “Capitalism hurts bosses too”?
Of course, you might object that the salient difference is this:
But that just raises the question: do you think that men don’t get benefits from sexism that benefit them so much that the hurt is trivial in comparison?
(It might help also to look at the classic examples of the ways in which sexism is said to hurt men–and what the hurt in those examples accomplishes.)
This comment was written by Rad Geek.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 11:07 am
A problem with “civility” is it takes men’s non-investment in an issue, i.e. men’s stance of being emotionally or personally disinterested in a given topic/practice because it doesn’t harm them, as *the* hallmark of civility.
For example, in the MacKinnon thread. Posters over there have quite “civilly” called Linda Boreman a lying slut whore. Because it doesn’t hurt them, as men or as individuals, to do it, because it in fact helps them, they can do so quite civilly, without ever actually saying “I think she’s a lying bitch slut whore.” No, they can use words like “credibility”, and point to minute differences in written accounts, and find her “not believable” because, why, *somebody* else must have seen the gun! They can do it in quite unimpassioned and uninvolved and “civil” language. Because they *are* disinterested in what *really* happened to Linda Boreman. Because it will never happen to them. It will never be them. They will always be the men on top who don’t notice the 10 year old prostituted girl beneath them. They will never bee the 10 year old who isn’t being noticed as a human being. (And if you don’t know what I’m talking about, go read Samantha’s post.)
So, for *women* to meet that “civility” threshhold, we have to be *equally* disinterested, unimpassioned, uninvolved. Not only in what happened to Linda Boreman, but in what happened to *us*, too. We have to pretend it doesn’t matter to us. We have to pretend that what happened to Linda Boreman, what happens to that 10 year old girl every fucking day in every fucking country in the fucking world, what happened to us when we were 10 or 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 or the day before we finally died, doesn’t make us scream and cry and rage. Doesn’t make us stop typing and stop talking and stop seeing in despair and anger and rage. We have to pretend that we don’t care. Because to not care, that’s the hallmark of civility.
Because men get to define the world by what they care about. And they don’t care about Linda Boreman. And they hate women who do. So caring about Linda Boreman is uncivil. And hating Linda Boreman, and using works like “credibility” to hate her, is absolutely the shining hallmark of civility, here and everywhere else.
So it’s “uncivil” to care about Linda Boreman. To call men and women who treat her like shit woman haters and misogynists. To *insist* that she not be further victimized even after her death by being, oh-so-civilly, a lying slut whore.
But it’s absolutely “civil” to TELL COMPLETE FUCKING LIES ABOUT THE WOMEN MEN HATE. Like Linda Boreman and Catharine MacKinnon. But it’s not civil to call the people who do tell those lies liars.
I’m sure *this* post is absolutely uncivil. But every lie that was told about MacKinnon and Boreman in the relevant threads — that’s civility.
This comment was written by Paige.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 11:10 am
I’m worried that this thread is being derailed. May I suggest that the “does patriarchy hurt men too?” discussion be continued on this thread?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 11:15 am
What CrysT said, what Q Grrl said, and what alsis would say, if she wasn’t as has been said, smacked down on that other thread. That sent a strong message to women that it’s the women’s conduct that is going to be watched, especially if women reserve the right to be angry at the issues which PERSONALLY affect us and men impose civility on women, which they can do easily because these same issues being dissected, DON’T impact them personally.
There’s nothing I haven’t seen from men here that I haven’t seen at City Hall, and I’ve had enough female staff members(b/c only one of our elected officials is a woman, and the only highranking admin. person who’s female is the city clerk) comment on the same topics, only in different language, that is being discussed on this thread and has been on the other until it was seen as a diversion from what ever that thread was about and needed to be moved to a separate thread.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 11:16 am
Am I the one diverting the conversation?
This comment was written by Paige.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 11:18 am
“However, I’ve noticed everywhere I go, be it a lefty-meeting or a work conference or what have you, is that I’m held to a different standard then men for behavior. If I speak up or raise my voice, I’m hysterical, I’m emotional, I’m rude, and I’m aggressive. If a man does it, he’s passionate, he’s strong, and he’s justified”
Yeah, interesting how this seems to be universal…
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 11:19 am
Q Grrl
No, I’ve been in meetings and personal conversations when women criticized men for acting in a sexist manner. Sometimes the man so criticized accepts it, sometimes not, depending upon the individuals and the exact circumstances. In the socialist group I work with, it’s often the case that newcomers who are men react badly to their behavior being described as sexist, whether it’s a man or a woman making the criticism. They often respond by looking to other men to back them up, and are surprised when they don’t. (Some of Hugo Schwyzer’s comments on homosociality, and the ethical difficulties with using male homosociality to oppose sexist behavior, come to mind here.)
I assumed no such thing. Some women speak up, often when it’s very dangerous to do so. RAWA comes to mind, as one example among many. As a practical matter, I was thinking of what happens in meetings of political activists, particularly my socialist group. Most people, men or women, who come to such things tend to be fairly assertive people to begin with, but not all of them; and a lot of women are particularly hesitant to assert themselves. I’ve seen a lot of cases where a woman was worried because her male partner didn’t like her coming to political events; I can’t remember a man ever expressing such a concern. Often, women will be much more likely to open up to another women, I suppose because they worry that the men in the room are just more of the usual overbearing sort (which is often, sadly, true). This would be another example of homosociality in play. It’s also why I do see the need for women-only spaces.
It’s not the case that the public platforms I’m describing are created by men — not alone, anyway. The last time I did a head count, a bit more than half our membership were women, and we make a point of making sure that half or more of the elected leadership are women.
As I said, civility isn’t always appropriate, but it is usually valuable. I’ve met too many people who were alienated by activist groups where they were shouted down in meetings for voicing a reasonable criticism. I can’t accept that rationality is sexist; labelling reasonable behavior unreasonable because of bigotry is one thing, but there’s still such a thing as reason.
This comment was written by FoolishOwl.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 11:29 am
” but there’s still such a thing as reason. ”
And… :) What is its relevance? Or more importantly, how are cries for reason or civility relevant?
See, my experience has been that I have been denied service (being served beer) in the pool hall I hang out in b/c I called the bartender on his sexist behavior. I didn’t say he was sexist, just something that he did was sexist. He refused to ever serve me again; and was backed by the owner. This to me is how men react when called on their sexism.
So, do I trust your experience… or do I trust mine?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 11:31 am
Paige: Am I the one diverting the conversation?
No. We cross-posted; my comment was intended to be a response to rad geek and FoolishOwl’s discussion of the differences and similarities between women/men and workers/bosses.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 11:36 am
Let me clarify what I wrote above. This is a pool hall that I have hung out in for 12 years. I have put a ton of my personal money into its business. Yet, my comment on the bartender’s sexism was considered out of line, i.e, uncivil. And if I remember correctly, the original issue had to do with this one bartender routinely overcharging the female patrons (who concurred with me that he charged them more than the other bartenders did).
Needless to say, I have not faith that women can actually publicly call out men on their sexism. You may have seen a woman *express* her concerns about a man’s sexism, but have you always been around to see the follow up and the repurcussions?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 11:38 am
Raznor:
I’m not sure what you mean by “innocent ignorance” here. Do you think that (say) men’s ignorance is innocent? I know that, for myself, I’ve messed up and done the wrong thing many times in my life, and most of the time I either knew what I was doing (and defended or made excuses for it) or else bloody well should have realized it if I’d stopped ot think about what it meant for a couple seconds. (I think that both of these apply, for example, to different cases of my using pornography as a teenager.) And judging from what I have seen and what other men and women have told me, I’m hardly the only man for whom this is true.
You don’t have to be a Phelps-style monster to have shady motives and chalking up a mistake to ignorance isn’t necessarily enough to make a difference for how you ought to treat the person making it. I don’t think I’ve seen Q Grrl or Crys T or others make any real distinction on the basis of “innocent ignorance” or “culpable dishonesty”–mainly because the issues that they are calling attention to have a lot more to do with:
(1) whether the man making the mistake is belligerently defensive about it (as I think novalis obviously was) or listens to criticism (especially when that criticism comes from women), and
(2) whether contempt and belligerant defensiveness are being thinly veiled by “polite” diction (as I think Robert obviously was), and
(3) what it means when male interlocutors and male moderators seem to pay much more attention in comments to the veil than to what’s under it
I think (1) and (2) make much more difference for how productive it is to try to talk patiently with someone than questions of “innocence” do, and (3) seems to be at the root of worry much more than whether or not anyone happens to say anything bigoted in Amp’s comments section.
Of course there are more things going on here than just those points and I’m probably missing a lot. But I do think that both of those two are much more clearly important to the points being raised than the question of “innocent” vs. “dishonest” bigotry.
This comment was written by Rad Geek.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 11:39 am
sorry everyone for my horrid spelling mistakes today. I’m having problems focusing my eyes for some reason and I’m not catching all my mistakes. The “l” and the “i” all look the same today.
:(
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 11:39 am
One example of the bias inherent to men’s faux-civility rules is when moderating structural rules (thread-drift concern) is prioritized over moderating actions that actually cause *direct harm* (such as the telling of flat-out lies about women’s lives - in the MacKinnon thread).
This reasonable request and the suspicious lack of another request in the other thread say to me that things appearing to be calm, orderly, fair-minded and logical is prized over actually BEING fair-minded by punishing a direct assault on a woman’s credibility using false information.
Of course, Ampersand has said his time is limited. But of course, Time and Energy are limited commodities in general, where mortal human beings are concerned. The question is, on what is this time and energy being expended?
Again, whose interests is this platform expected to serve? What is the point?
This comment was written by funnie.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 11:49 am
Q Grrl, I don’t doubt your description of what happened in the bar for a second.
I was trying to describe my experiences in activist groups with both women and men that claimed to be opposed to sexism, and make some effort to enforce that within the group.
Things don’t work that way in society at large, and they don’t always work that way even in groups that claim to be opposed to sexism. In most times and most places, a woman complaining about sexism will be mocked, hounded, or worse. I am not denying that; it’s perfectly obvious.
But I do think it’s possible to create a space where women and men confront sexism together.
This comment was written by FoolishOwl.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 11:57 am
littleviolet:
funnie:
Amp’s trying to run a weblog that speaks out from a feminist or profeminist perspective and to keep active discussion going in the comments section. That much is clear. But do all feminist projects aim at creating feminist spaces in the sense intended here? Is Amp trying to do that? Should he be? (Is a public weblog run by a man really suited to creating the space of a c-r group?)
This comment was written by Rad Geek.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 12:03 pm
“But I do think it’s possible to create a space where women and men confront sexism together.”
What - you need a goddamn invitation? The *world* isn’t chock-full-’o opportunities for you to “confont sexism”? What do you need — a cheerleading section?
I *don’t need* a space to confront sexism! *Every* fucking space is a space to confront sexism. What would be novel is if you thought so, too. And acted like it. *That* would be the height of civility.
This comment was written by Paige.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 12:05 pm
Rad Geek
No. Gender identities are social constructs, and artificial. There are positive and negative aspects of the construction of each gender; but people are punished, often brutally, for acting outside the boundaries of their gender norm. We’d be better off dismantling those constructions entirely.
Most of the problems you list there are problems for everyone under capitalism. The problems specific to bosses are, mostly, competition with other bosses, and hostility from workers. The self-help books for managers are all about how to stop feeling guilty about being rich, or how to “live simply,” which is farcical, as the “simple” lifestyles such books recommend are often far more expensive than most people could ever afford.
As a practical matter, it would be easy to stop being a boss. Just give up your job and your money. It happens fairly often, especially for middle class people, against their will. It’s pretty rare for people to choose poverty willingly.
But how does one abandon one’s gender? There are ways to ameliorate the problem, but I can’t see a way to get out of it, short of dismantling sexism entirely.
I think that further discussion on this might fit better under the other thread Ampersand suggested.
This comment was written by FoolishOwl.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 12:06 pm
Amp’s trying to run a weblog that speaks out from a feminist or profeminist perspective and to keep active discussion going in the comments section. That much is clear.
You know, Rad Geek, I disagree with you about what is and is not clear here, and I’d very much prefer if Ampersand would be the one to answer my questions from this thread and the other, about his vision for this place, its function, and how he ensures this place serves its intended function. He is, after all, the only one who can answer inquiries about what HE intends to do here.
I never suggested this was or should be feminist space, and certainly never hinted it should or could be a male-run CR group…NOT that littleviolet did, either. I say this to point out that you answered:
This comment was written by funnie.* my question to Ampersand
* in terms of what was “clear” to you (and you imply should be clear to everyone)
* by contrasting some phrases of littleviolet’s with your opinion of the answer to my question, perhaps in order to make your assumption seem perfectly reasonable and my question seem unnecessary and/or misguided.
Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 12:09 pm
Paige, no, I need a space where people discuss how to work together to confront the problem.
I’ve confronted others, particularly men, about sexism in a lot of contexts. And in some cases, I’ve been punished for it.
This comment was written by FoolishOwl.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 12:17 pm
I think that further discussion on this might fit better under the other thread Ampersand suggested.
Jesus Christ this is so fucking classic.
Either the thread drift is distracting or it isn’t. How very goddamned male to go ahead and DO WHAT YOU WERE JUST ASKED NOT TO DO in order to get a word in and then SUGGEST THAT YOUR OPPONENT BE THE FIRST TO PLAY BY THE RULES.
So civil! So polite! No personal attacks in Owl’s posts, nosirree! Just the classic war of attrition against women, in which space is taken up by “reasonable” men who say things like I don’t think it makes sense to argue that civility or debate are inherently patriarchal, or otherwise inherently oppressive and then politely continue doing whatever the fuck they feel like doing, wherever and however they feel like doing it.
This comment was written by funnie.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 12:18 pm
I need a space where people discuss how to work together to confront the problem.
And this is the question, again, Ampersand. Is this space here to serve FoolishOwl’s needs?
This comment was written by funnie.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 12:22 pm
So, would it have been better to just post, “I’m replying in the other thread?”
This comment was written by FoolishOwl.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 12:23 pm
You need me to do your thinking for you?
This comment was written by funnie.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 12:24 pm
Amp says to “attack other poster’s arguments, rather than attacking other posters.” (Don’t you mean posters’ arguments?) This forms a part of the discipline I’d like everyone, everywhere to use. As for whether or not it helps feminism, forgive me for focusing on the US, but my point probably applies elsewhere: I don’t think we’ll get anywhere without using the suggestions at the end of What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It? In particular, “Rebut conservative arguments”. This seems easier to do if we have a forum where conservatives can make arguments. And from another suggestion:
This comment was written by Omar K. Ravenhurst.Others on the left believe that reason is the property of the elite. This is true historically, but that is simply because the essence of conservatism is to deprive the common people of the capacity to engage in democracy. Many bad theories of democracy actually reinforce conservatism, and this is one of them[…]Aristocratic rule is not reinforced by the use of reason. The situation is quite the reverse: in order to fight off democratic values, conservatism must simulate reason, and pretend that conservative deception is itself reason when it is not. Many conservative pundits, George Will and Thomas Sowell for example, make their living saying illogical things in a reasonable tone of voice. Democracy will be impossible until the great majority of citizens can identify in reasonable detail just how this trick works.
Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 12:24 pm
“So, would it have been better to just post, “I’m replying in the other thread?”? ”
What are you - 12 years old? How much of women’s attention do you need?
This comment was written by Paige.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 12:33 pm
It was an honest question. I was told the way I’d responded to Rad Geek was inappropriate. So, what should I have done?
This comment was written by FoolishOwl.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 12:37 pm
(I start from the assumption that you want liberals to preach [and practice] feminist principles while working to change the mainstream. This requires making feminist arguments in the language of the audience, which requires hearing that language.)
This comment was written by Omar K. Ravenhurst.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 12:37 pm
FoolishOwl, you were also told WHY your response was inappropriate. From there most adults can figure out how to behave appropriately.
***
Yes, CLEARLY, Omar, the cause of women will only be helped by giving misogynists (yet) a(nother) place to make arguments! And CLEARLY women should care what rules it is that Omar thinks everyone, everywhere should adopt.
And…Omar, I KNOW you didn’t just imply with that italicized quote that women who criticize the bias in fauxcivility are not perfectly reasonable.
***
Hey, let’s do a headcount of women vs. men sticking extolling the virtues of civility in this thread!
I’m SURE the answer has no feminist implications at all, though…
This comment was written by funnie.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 12:41 pm
(I start from the assumption that you want liberals to preach [and practice] feminist principles while working to change the mainstream. This requires making feminist arguments in the language of the audience, which requires hearing that language.)
Bad assumption, Omar. I sincerely don’t give a shit what liberals do as long as they stop practicing dominance over women.
What the hell cave do you think feminists dwell in that they don’t have to encounter the language of the dominant group all day, every day? You really think refusing to engage on the terms of the ruling class can only indicate ignorance of those terms? Well, isn’t THAT a thorougly civil-ized perspective.
This comment was written by funnie.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 12:46 pm
“From there most adults can figure out how to behave appropriately.”
Well, “adults” would have to be modified by the phrase “honestly engaged and thoughtful”. You know, unlike those who use fauxcivility as a weapon against women to avoid talking about the substance of women’s contributions to the actual discussion that’s taking place.
I mean, in your sentence, “adults” certainly could not include those who use fauxcivility to force completely unrelated discussions on others through, among other tactics, the transparent adoption of apparent cluelessness in order to divert discussion and garner more of women’s attention for himself.
This comment was written by Paige.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 12:51 pm
What the hell cave do you think feminists dwell in that they don’t have to encounter the language of the dominant group all day, every day?
This comment was written by Omar K. Ravenhurst.I spoke imprecisely. I meant that to change minds on a large scale, we need to answer in their language. This seems unfair, but it also seems tactically neccesary. And what do you want feminism to accomplish, if not a revolution of the mind? I agree with the linked article that the Democrats (sadly) seem like the most useful vehicle for change, but regardless of the vehicle, change requires convincing a large number of people.
Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 12:54 pm
“I start from the assumption that you want liberals to preach [and practice] feminist principles while working to change the mainstream. This requires making feminist arguments in the language of the audience, which requires hearing that language.”
Ditto funnie.
And, silly me. I didn’t realize feminism was being spoken, written, acted out, and advocated for in *an entirely different language* that poor widdle men couldn’t follow! Like etruscan, or something.
What an ais you are and what a load of theuru you espouse. And I am Ancaru! (That’s *feminist* language there, in case you missed it, not a misspelling. I’m sure my sisters will get it.)
This comment was written by Paige.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 1:02 pm
“From there most adults can figure out how to behave appropriately.”?
Well, “adults”? would have to be modified by the phrase “honestly engaged and thoughtful”. You know, unlike those who use fauxcivility as a weapon against women to avoid talking about the substance of women’s contributions to the actual discussion that’s taking place.
I mean, in your sentence, “adults”? certainly could not include those who use fauxcivility to force completely unrelated discussions on others through, among other tactics, the transparent adoption of apparent cluelessness in order to divert discussion and garner more of women’s attention for himself.
Heh, Paige. Exactly.
Though I must say my post rests on the definition of “can,” to mean “are capable of,” to imply that even the most dishonest fauxcivilized adult, dedicated to sidetracking feminist criticism though he may be, is certainly *capable* at all times of figuring out how to start behaving appropriately, especially once he has been specifically spoonfed the newsbulletin that he is currently behaving INappropriately and a description of how and why that’s so to boot.
Some prickly feminists (who would no doubt score poorly in a civilized assessment of their “works well with misogynists” skills) might even be so gauche as to suggest that said adult men might even have the responsibility to figure out how they “should” apply the information they’ve been given, but I would of course demur in order to disassociate my self from the shrieking unreason of such a radical group.
What an ais you are and what a load of theuru you espouse. And I am Ancaru!
ROFL.
This comment was written by funnie.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 1:14 pm
funnie,
Why the hell is Amp’s intent the important thing to you? The function of Alas is not deterined by Amp’s intent, the function of Alas is determined by how it is used. Why should you or anyone else give a damn what Amp intends? If Amp comes in and tells you that he intends for Alas to bring about the Apocalypse, and to bring about the 1000 year reign of Christ on Earth, would you really give a shit? You might think he was nuts, but would it change one little bit about how you think Alas functions, what it does, or how?
Never mind that Amp has stated his desires for this site on multiple occasions, including within the recent set of threads.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 1:16 pm
funnie:
I’m sorry that I put your questions alongside littleviolet’s remarks, and that I misspoke. I was mainly trying to ask about littleviolet’s remarks, not to answer your questions–much less to butt in and answer them for Amp, or to try to make your questions seem unnecessary or misguided (nor do I think littleviolet’s concerns about feminist space are unnecessary or misguided either; I’m wondering about how far the concept applies). I shouldn’t have set your questions beside littleviolet’s remarks at all, since those were my main concern and I misunderstood the direction from which you were raising the questions you raise for Amp anyway.
In other words, I apologize for butting in confusedly.
This comment was written by Rad Geek.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 1:20 pm
Paige,
I don’t think that the post that you made that you said you were sure was incivil would actually be considered incivil by the standards of Alas.
One thing to realize, Amp doesn’t attempt to moderate what happens on threads he doesn’t start, so what happens on the MacKinnon thread is under Echidne’s moderation, not Amp’s. I don’t know if that is relevant, but it isn’t obvious, so I thought it might be worth mentioning.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 1:21 pm
Charles,
Why do you care that I care? Why would you have a problem if I asked about his intent (which is quite a reduction of what I actually asked) rather than assuming it?
If he’s answered the questions about Alas before I asked them, I’d love to read those answers but haven’t seen them so far. Certainly not in this set of threads. Care to point me to them?
This comment was written by funnie.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 1:52 pm
FoolishOwl, you were also told WHY your response was inappropriate.
Maybe I’m just dense, but I didn’t know from the WHY what the appropriate thing for him to do was.
It’s not just “civility” in the sense of being polite that I see as a problem. If you don’t want to phrase things in what you see as a faux-civil manner, that’s fine. If you get offended at the content of a faux-civil post, that is also fine. But what I see directed towards FoolishOwl is overt hostility and nothing constructive that he can learn in terms of how you would like to be addressed. Is that how you’re asking people to address you? He asks a question because he can’t figure out what you want & you tell him to figure it out on his own. Why? Do you think that he is being purposefully provocative? I think he was asking because he couldn’t figure it out. If you want him (or me, or anybody else) to change the way they address you, mightn’t that be more likely to happen if, when asked, you tell the person asking what you expect?
I don’t blindly expect you to be happy with the way that I address you. But I do feel that if you’re unhappy with my style & confront me with it that you’ll get something acceptable if you actually tell me what it is that you want in terms that I can understand. If you don’t feel it’s worth your while, ignore me.
I just find it so fucking depressing to try to interact with people with whom I feel I share some common goals & be responded to with hostility & little or no help in averting any behaviour that has prompted that hostility.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 2:47 pm
See here. I don’t think we need to bring in Godwin — saying what people have actually done and pointing out how it violates American principles seems sufficient — but the premise seems like a given if you want a revolution.
Let’s look at the thread that started this, and see how Amp’s civility principles affected it. (I’ll grant that ‘civility’ elsewhere has hurt women.) I don’t plan to read the thread again in full, but didn’t you win the initial argument within the first couple hundred posts? I know Heart made some good, persuasive points. So what purpose did the more venomous posts serve, aside from venting that people could’ve done in private? (Or in other forums, if they wanted to preserve it for posterity?) I don’t mean to suggest that all the venom came in the later half of the thread, nor that all of it came from feminists. Robert certainly broke or bent the civility rule with his “maturity level” remark. But you might have trouble asking for more rigorous enforcement if you deliberately break the rules yourself! Why not curse the monitor screen and its family, come back later, and calmly point out the problems you see with Amp’s rules for his blog? How, specifically, would a change in civility rules have benefited any woman in that thread?
And CLEARLY women should care what rules it is that Omar thinks everyone, everywhere should adopt.
This comment was written by Omar K. Ravenhurst.Let me quote an example of what I want: I have not said, ever, “All men are abusers,”? present perfect. I have said, a couple of times ““ and I believe ““ that all men likely have abused, past perfect, a woman at some time or another. There’s a big difference.
Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 2:50 pm
“If you don’t want to phrase things in what you see as a faux-civil manner, that’s fine.”
Thanks!
“If you get offended at the content of a faux-civil post, that is also fine.”
Great!
“But what I see directed towards FoolishOwl is overt hostility and nothing constructive that he can learn in terms of how you would like to be addressed. Is that how you’re asking people to address you?”
1. Well, yes, I personally often DO prefer overt hostility to covert hostility, though being an extremely sensible and evolutionarily advanced sort of person I’d prefer to avoid hostility altogether.
2. “how [I] would like to be addressed” is not the issue, I’m afraid. Men derailing a discussion of the feminist politics of civility with a completely “civil” and completely off-the-topic discussion is one issue, a man refusing to immediately cease and desist derailing a feminist discussion when asked to do so is another issue, and the irony of defending civility as potentially neutral while simultaneously “politely” ignoring a request until such time as one can “politely” impose that request on one’s rhetorical opponent…is…well. It’s unintentionally funny, actually. But also ridiculous in a less amusing way.
I’m not Owl’s mama, though, nor am I yours, so your failure to understand what you “should” do or what Owl “could” do is really not my problem to resolve, your depressed feelings aren’t my responsibility to heal, our communication breakdown isn’t my duty to repair, and your level of comprehension is frankly not where I’m preoccupied with setting my bar.
(Oh, no, wait: those aren’t your mamas’ jobs, either!)
Anyway, I’m not in the business of marketing feminism (though that seems to be the goal of some); I don’t particularly care how my core belief system focus-groups, to verb a noun in the product-development style. I also think it’s oxymoronic to “sell” “freedom.” I also think that freedom and other such values of feminism are sufficiently persuasive in their own right (to any audience with a developed sense of justice and intellectual curiosity) that it would be redundant to sell them were it NOT contradictory.
****
I guess this won’t answer your question about whether or not I think Owl was “being purposefully provocative,” but I’m sure Charles will be swooping down any moment now to ask you why the hell you care whether or not he meant it, since the function was the same!
Here, I’ll hold my breath…
This comment was written by funnie.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2005 at 2:58 pm
Actually, yeah, FoolishOwl, let’s drop that digression and address the topic.
This comment was written by Omar K. Ravenhurst.Report this comment to the moderators