Alas, a Moderation Policy
| December 22nd, 2005(MRA, anti-feminist and right-wing guests, after reading this page read this post as well, please!)
I have a goal for the comments on “Alas.” A bunch of goals, actually.
- I’d like the discussions here to be respectful. By that, I mean not merely refraining from swearing at each other all the time, but actual respect for other posters, which means treating everyone you deal with as if they were as wonderful and important a person as you yourself are.
- I’d like “Alas” to not become a space where there’s nothing to be found but feminist-bashing and responses to the feminist-bashing. That doesn’t mean that posters here must agree with feminism or feminists; nor does it mean that feminists are exempt from having to respect others. It does mean that posters who in my judgement are dripping with contempt for feminists and feminism will be shown the door - even if they’re being polite on the surface. (And yes, this does create a bit of a double-standard. I can live with that.)
- 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.
- I’d like it if posters who choose to debate, attacked arguments, rather than attacking other posters. In general, following the principles of argumentation described here is a good idea.
- I’d like posters here to use good formatting (remember to put in paragraph breaks every now and then!) and clean, readable prose.
- I’d like it if the discussions on “Alas” were not as stupid as the discussions I’ve seen on many other internet forums.
- (Added April 7th 2006). I don’t want the discussions on “Alas” dominated by anti-feminists or MRAs. Although I like have a small number of well-written opposing views on “Alas” for spice, it’s my intention that most of the discussions here be dominated by feminist and lefty views. For that reason, brand-new MRA and anti-feminist posters might not be approved to post even if as individuals they are perfectly reasonable and polite.
In other words, when I decide whether or not to let a new poster through, I decide that based not only on the quality of the individual poster but also on a desire to maintain a certain balance to the comments on “Alas” as a whole.
Please note that beginning today, nearly all of my (Ampersand’s) posts will be cross-posted on the blog “Creative Destruction”. The comments at “Creative Destruction” are open to anyone who remains civil. So right-wing, anti-feminist, and MRA folks may be better off posting comments over there.
Those are my goals for comments on “Alas.” Posters whose presence, in my opinion, push discussions on “Alas” further away from these goals may be banned at any time. Posters who in my opinion help move “Alas” closer to those goals will be given slack.
Please note that these are not “rules,” so please don’t attempt to play “rules-lawyer.” People aren’t banned based on breaking rules; they’re banned based on my perception that they’re moving “Alas” discussions away from what I’d like “Alas” discussions to be.
* * *
* * *
So that’s it - that’s the “Alas” moderation policy. I don’t claim to have consistently followed it in the past, but I’ll be trying to follow them from now on.
Here’s a few additional notes:
On moderation: I will sometimes try to moderate by asking posters to cool down. However, due to limits on my time and energy, moderation is only done in a “random spot-check” fashion. This system will of course lead to unjust outcomes, in which I criticize post A but fail to criticize post B which was ever so much more offensive. Such is life.
A note to right-wing, men’s rights activist (MRA), and anti-feminist guests: Please understand that although I encourage debate, “Alas” is not intended to be a forum for relentless feminist-bashing. As well as avoiding obvious personal attacks and insults, anti-feminists who want to post on “Alas” would be well advised to avoid snide side comments like “I know that everyone here thinks it’s okay for men to be attacked,” and other such faux-polite comments that actually indicate contempt.
Is my moderation patriarchal? Some feminists may criticize me for moderating feminists (and, specifically, female feminists) at all. I am male, with male privilege; who am I to tell women what they can say and how they can say it? Isn’t that an expression of male privilege?
It’s a point that I’ve thought hard about (and which has made me very hesitant to ban even the rudest female feminist posters). But in the end, I’m not persuaded that setting goals for civility on one small blog, is the same as limiting women’s speech generally. Any woman (or man, for that matter) who doesn’t like my approach to discussion can easily find dozens of other feminist blogs and forums.
If your post is put into moderation: Probably you shouldn’t take it personally. The anti-spam program uses a big list of words that automatically get a comment put into the “needs approval” pile. (The words or bits of words that trigger auto-moderation can be totally unexpected and hard to predict. For a while, every time someone wrote a comment using the word “socialist” it was automatically put into moderation, because the word “cialist” was on the list!)
Anyhow, once a comment is in moderation, it stays there until I approve it. And if I happen to be busy or asleep, that can unfortunately take a while . Sorry about that - but it really IS necessary. Blame the free market for creating spam.
* * *
That’s it! None of this is written in stone, however, so if you have critiques or suggestions please feel free to pipe up.
December 22nd, 2005 at 5:00 am
2) I’d like “Alas” to be feminist-friendly space. That doesn’t mean that posters here must agree with feminism or feminists; nor does it mean that feminists are exempt from having to be civil. It does mean that posters who in my judgement are dripping with contempt for feminists and feminism will be shown the door.
Well, this is an interesting new development. Does this mean we might see the back of some of the regular anti-feminist trolls here, including at least one you’d previously said you’d never ban?
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 5:32 am
Well, this is an interesting new development. Does this mean we might see the back of some of the regular anti-feminist trolls here, including at least one you’d previously said you’d never ban?
I don’t think that Robert is a troll. I might accuse him of sometimes trying too hard to be contrary, of being too in love with his own cleverness, and of thinking that constructing complex sentences is a substitute for actual content. But never of being a troll because he engages in the discussion, he responds to the points made, and he resists, for the most part, the temptation to trade insults.
I like having opposing views in these discussions so long as the person is actually participating in the discussion by making a considered and intelligent response to the specific subject being discussed. It’s a good exercise to understand and attempt to refute opposing points of view. Trolls are just interested in delivering insults or in endlessly making the same arguments over and over, regardless of what anyone else says or the actual subject matter of the post.
Not that he needs it but I give Amp my whole-hearted support for his moderation policy.
This comment was written by AndiF.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 5:37 am
At the risk of repeating what Andi just said, I don’t consider Robert a troll.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 6:40 am
Well, Amp, I have to say it at least once to you. The way you tolerate the vicious crap the trolls say–and that includes Robert, who is more interested in thread derailment and topic changing than anything else—makes me question your devotion to feminism. Robert says some really offensive shit and you don’t call him on it. He argues for the sake of arguing and you don’t call him on it. You only ban the really offensive male trolls, with this constnat airing of hateful misogynist feminist stereotypes and so forth. They spout bile and what bothers you is when feminists get angry with it.
We have to face this every day, these statements, these sentiments. You’ve stated yourself that when your one-time girlfriend slapped you the fact that you were so much larger than her robbed the attack of any real fear for you. We have to deal with this every day. Then we come here and see that you just don’t care enough to ensure that we don’t have to deal with it here. You want ‘other viewpoints.’ Those ‘other viewpoints’ are shit that we deal with every fucking day. That matters to us. It doesn’t evidently, matter to you. Robert matters to you.
If you respond here, I’ll respond, but I don’t intend to post here any longer. The MRAs you call other viewpoints are just more of the shit we have to deal with every day everywhere. As you say, your blog, your rules. I’m fine with that. I run mine the same way. But the way you run yours gives one some serious doubt as to how much you value feminists when you find the vile things said about them to be merely another viewpoint and just some more traffic.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 7:39 am
I, too, find this moderation policy to be one of the best around. Points 1, 4, and 6 particularly, although they’re all good.
There are a very few topics on which I’m absolutely certain that I’m right. The others, I’m trying to explore the issue and figure out the truth (or at least what I believe), and the more generally courteous the conversation is, the more useful I have found it is to me in succeeding at that.
And hey, since that’s sort of the holy grail of online discussion (actually changing someone else’s mind? What?) I figure that should be a decent incentive. On most specific topics I’m very open to being convinced, and these rules make convincing me more likely. I suspect the same is true of others.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 7:40 am
My overall comment is; it’s your blog. You get to set the ground rules. People can either post, or lurk, or not, as they choose. If they don’t like it, they can leave.
To your last comment particularly:
Is my moderation patriarchal? … Isn’t that an expression of male privilege?
The fact that you are male is a) true and b) irrelevant. It’s not an expression of male privilege. It’s an expression of the moderator’s privilege. Any privilege you exercise was gained through being the person who put this together and keeps it alive, not through being male.
I would view anyone who makes such an argument with deep suspicion. I don’t know what the rhetorical term is, but there must be one for people who try to advance their point by attacking someone’s personal attributes rather than their arguments (your point 4, in fact). I’ve seen it often, and it’s a dead giveaway that the person doing so has found no way to actually argue their point or counter yours.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 7:45 am
What about some option for response that is less severe than complete banning? Say, banning for a week or so?
This comment was written by Dylan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 8:02 am
I’m largely in agreement with ginmar. Robert’s headgames, and the way you tolerate folks like jaketik long past the point at which they should have gotten a clue are a large reason why I post in this space a lot less than I used to.
I concur that there are valid reasons for wanting every thread to not be an endless string of flames. But I’ve also found that most days, it takes more energy on my part than it’s worth to supress my anger at someone who clearly posts with the intent of angering others. Most days, it’s simply easier to not look, to not wade in.
Anger is draining, but sometimes supressing it is more draining.
There are numerous advatages to the approach you take, Amp, but one major disadvantage is that in making this space a relatively unrestricted playground for anti-feminists, there are probably a lot of female posters who lurk but never post for fear of getting angered and drained by the diversion squad.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 8:03 am
I actually think that there’s a decent argument to be made that the two are connected, and that were Amp not male, it would have been harder to put this site together and keep it alive. There has been much discussion of male privilege in the blogosphere, and it’s best to remember that it’s not a strict meritocracy (although I think it tends to be closer than the ‘real’ world).
Of course, that’s sort of a tangent, and I do believe in the general proposition that moderation for the sake of encouraging courteous, productive arguments is not an endorsement of the patriarchy, even when that moderation includes moderating females, feminists, and female feminists.
In fact, I think that that moderation policy has been a big part of the success of Alas, A Blog. I really love the idea of a place where people who disagree can meet to discuss the issues they disagree on, and to do so with respect.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 8:17 am
You may be able to think that believeing that women are lying whores who make up false rape charges casually is agreeing to disagree, Myca, but that just says h ow you value reality.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 8:23 am
*LAUGH*
Wow.
I really don’t know if you’re referring to me or Jaketk or whoever else here, but if it’s Jaketk, I actually challenged him to offer evidence for his “women make false accusations about as often as they make true ones” assertion in a recent thread. I do disagree with him. I just don’t call him names while doing it.
Your personal attack on me is unwarranted.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 8:24 am
I don’t know as much about feminism as I would like, but I imagine that that there might be considerable and profound disagreement among folks who characterize themselves as femininsts. This might make for some lively discussions, but having downright anti-feminist comments would probably sidetrack or stifle such a debate. It seems to me that it would be plain rude to go on a feminist blog and problematize feminism per se, and you would be justified (if there is even any need for you to justify yourself) in eliminating anti-feminist commenters altogether.
This comment was written by Vache Folle.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 8:29 am
Dylan: What about some option for response that is less severe than complete banning? Say, banning for a week or so?
Obsidian Wings has a banning policy of sending people who lose their temper off for 24 hours to cool down, which works pretty well for ending disputes caused by someone losing their temper.
Please understand that this is a feminist-friendly blog.
No, not really. What it is is a blog where anti-feminists can freely post their contempt and bile for women, knowing that if any woman takes their contempt personally, Amp will get mad at the woman, not at them.
Amp, I really don’t object to your having whatever rules you like for your blog, and on the whole, I can live with them. What I object to is your patting yourself on the back and assuring yourself that you are being “feminist friendly” when in fact, you’re not. It’s smug. It’s annoying. It’s untrue.
Any woman (or man, for that matter) who doesn’t like my approach to discussion can easily find dozens of other feminist blogs and forums.
Any anti-feminist who didn’t like being banned for spouting vile contempt for women lives in a world where their point of view is generally validated: they can easily find hundreds of other anti-feminist blogs and forums.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 8:32 am
We’ve just started moderating the comments on our blog, because we got some truly horrible personal insults coming though. I’m not happy about it really, but we couldn’t have that sort of thing going on. There seem to be a lot of people, evidently with far too much time on their hands, hanging around trying to disrupt feminist blogs very delibrately. I don’t have a problem with polite argument/disagreement, but I do think the outright “trolls” have to be controlled. I am not going to question Amp’s commitment to feminism and I think the policy here makes sense in the context of what Alas is about. But I do understand what Ginmar means when she says we put up with kind of shit every day. I think that’s why I was initially rather thrown and disturbed by the trolling on my blog and the others I like to read; it’s like, I’ve had to put up with a lot of abuse from misogynists in my life and I don’t want to put up with it on my blog.
This comment was written by Winter.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 8:36 am
How well does this statement square with Amp’s point #2? It ran thusly:
I may be getting the wrong impression, but it may just be that comments you see as dripping with contempt and bile, Amp does not. That isn’t really the same thing as “anti-feminists can freely post their contempt and bile for women,” and I’ve seen Amp ban anti-feminist posters multiple times recently, so it’s not really as if they’ve got a free reign.
I would really like to hear some alternative suggestions for moderation policies, though. I think this one is pretty supremely reasonable, but if there’s another one that you think would work better, let’s discuss.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:15 am
My biggest concern in reading this is that the focus is more on debate style and less on feminism. I lose my temper at times. Sometimes I want to call an asshole an asshole. It almost sounds like if a person can frame their bullshit in pretty prose they can offend at whim and will, and others are to refrain from responding in order to maintain some false notion of civility.
For the record, I don’t think patronizing and arrogantly dismissive behavior is any more ‘civil’ than someone calling an asshole an asshole. At least with the latter there is a certain amount of transparency and honesty going on, where as giving a pass on the former is just saying that you want a bunch of well spoken rules hurdling douchebags to be able to play their little games without people crying bullshit, or getting mad and calling them out for being their nasty behavior.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:29 am
Amp: I have to ask, having read the thread over at SYG, is there a more underlying reason for stipulating these rules? Are you feeling pressure from the MRA’s? I notice over there that they call your masculinity and impartiality into play, as if both masculinity and impartiality were natural given and that the playing field between men and women were already level.
I understand your need and desire to have a blog that doesn’t go to hell and back. However I think there are subtleties regarding civil comments that you won’t get because you are male and have mostly lived from the viewpoint of male privilege (I don’t mean this as accusatory). Some comments that male posters say can, on the surface, be entirely within the range of civil and polite — but be over-the-top offensive to the female audience. For example, saying the women lie about rape reports at a rate equal to half of all reported rapes isn’t just a matter of opinion or debate. It is a complete slam. I think that half the time I try to talk about what sexism is or looks like, or hell how it feels, it is these very nuanced instances that don’t translate easily beyond an immediate rage and lashing out. There is a long history of a fundamental belief in women’s spiritual and mental inferiority (and her propensity towards hysteria). When men make erroneous comments in the nature of “debate” about women lying, they aren’t speaking on an individual level; they are upholding a tradition of reducing women to second class individuals. It is the same system that has kept women out of education, out of politics, out of combat, out of economics. Women can’t be trusted, etc. etc. etc.
What I’m trying to say is that there are many comments that I believe will automatically fly underneath your radar because they encompass the basics of your rules of civility. These very same comments are offensive to the extreme to some of the women here — so much so that we get angry (and IMO rightfully so).
This ties back to the arguments we had last winter about civility and how that benefits the male status quo because it is that status quo that is defining civility in a manner which, on average, tends to rule out women’s voices and opinions because of the level of anger being expressed by women. It is the double standard that expects women to be able to adequately name their oppression but to do so with a flat affect so that men don’t have to face the anger created by that oppression. It is in essence saying: Men will agree that women are oppressed only as long as women don’t get their panties in a wad over it. And then, in the long run, men are the ones who are defining women’s oppression — because they refuse to listen to those points that lie outside women’s ability to remain neutral and impartial.
That, my friend, is a dangerous politics to swallow.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:30 am
That was me, not jaketk, and as I’m always keen to point out that it is a “tentative” claim rather than a definite assertion, I’d appreciate it if that word or something equivalent were retained when people refer to the claim.
ginmar:
I think it was more an attack on me, but in any case it was a strawman. I have said nothing about false rape charges being “casual”, nor I do refer to women in general, or rape complainants, or even proven false rape accusers as whores, and I deplore it when other people do.
Ginmar’s lies about me are offensive and tiresome.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:32 am
I may be getting the wrong impression, but it may just be that comments you see as dripping with contempt and bile, Amp does not.
No doubt. But when Amp gives a free pass to comments that I and other feminists see as dripping with contempt and bile, and when (as Kim points out) we don’t come here to read feminist discourse but to find out what the anti-feminists are going to say, I think it would be more accurate for Amp to describe his blog as “anti-feminist friendly”.
Again, I think Amp has a perfect right to run his blog however he likes. I’m just annoyed that he should try to claim it’s “feminist friendly” without actually being prepared to make it feminist friendly - by, for example, banning regular anti-feminist trolls like Robert. If it’s more important to him to let the anti-feminists respond to his posts, personal friends and strangers, than it is to have feminist-friendly discussions, then fair enough: it’s his blog. But he is guilty of false advertising if he claims that this makes his blog feminist-friendly.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:41 am
Hey Daran: you need to chill a bit. Ginmar interacts with a great many more male posters than you — many of whom do express the attitudes she is describing and some of them have posted that here in this space. No on is lying about you. No one is doing backhanded character assassinations. You said something really careless and, IMO quite ignorant, and you were called on it. But that’s that. You posted, we reacted. But we’re onto something different here… and you trying to make it about Ginmar attacking you is precisely the type of “civility” that I was trying to point out to Amp. You *are* being polite. You *are* being considerate about the rules. But strangely enough, you’re still able to push huge buttons.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:47 am
I’m rather a new reader/rare poster here, but my two cents on the matter are that Ampersand’s policy seems quite reasonable to me. Part of what has drawn me to this particular blog is that it is a place where civility is enforced. To enforce it perfectly, and completely without bias, is probably impossible, but there is an effort made to keep discussions respectful, and not silence voices for the sin of not being part of a choir of agreement, and that is something that means a lot to me.
It’s not that we don’t hold strong convictions, but it’s always seemed to me that taking a tone that attacks the listener is not going to change any minds. Of course, going out of ones way to be inoffensive doesn’t do anyone any favors, either, and I’m still not sure where exactly the happy medium of persuasion falls in that continuum. To stifle debate so that opposing viewpoints aren’t heard, even if they are misguided and ugly, also denies a chance to rebute those viewpoints in a reasonable fashion. It makes it that much easier to divide the world into Us and Them, where they are Wrong and we are Right. Are They Wrong? Probably, in many ways. But They are still human, same as Us.
On the one hand, I’m not sure whose job it is to educate people with misguided ideas on what it means to be feminist (and I may very well be one of those people, but I am doing my best to examine what I read with an open mind and attack my own predispositions). And hate speech, and personal attacks, definitely shouldn’t be tolerated. But on the other hand, a dialogue in which people look at each other as fellow human beings instead of members of a nebulous “other” that stands against everything one holds dear is, I think, vital if we want a world in which everyone is treated as nothing more or less than human.
When someone does spout hateful tripe, the one who responds to it calmly and rationally tends to look a lot better in my eyes, and the person blasting someone who doesn’t fight back in kind digs their own hole, as far as I’m concerned. When someone holds on to their temper and doesn’t respond in kind to hate and personal attacks, that person holds the moral high ground. It doesn’t mean letting someone else slide, just not sinking to their level.
What I’ve said here is in response to trends I’ve seen in my own, admittedly limited, experience, rather than referring to any particular person or event. I haven’t taken the time to do exhaustive research, as Ampersand does so often (another reason the blog is fascinating!), but I hope what I say holds some merit nonetheless.
This comment was written by Rebecca E.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:53 am
Honestly, I’d say this is a feminist-friendly blog if one were to simply read the posts that Amp writes (and btw, where are the other feminists … I haven’t seen any posts from them in a while). However, I don’t think that can be said to be as true once anyone starts reading the comments. It’s certainly not the feeling I get when walking away from reading the comments section here. Actually, I don’t read the comments here to get “good feminist discussion” (thankfully, or I really think I’d be highly disappointed), I come here to see what the “other side” thinks.
When I say “other side,” I’m not necessarily talking about MRAs, FRAs, anti-feminists, trolls. I’m talking about people (primarily men) who are, for the most part, liberal and sometimes feminist-friendly (not feminist) if and only if that particular feminist view doesn’t mess up their own masculinized view of liberalism. And then there’s a few right-leaning libertarians thrown in for good measure.
Some of the other posters appear to be arguing that this blog is not feminist-friendly because anti-feminist commenters are being allowed to get away with too much. If I read you correctly, you are arguing that the very act of allowing anti-feminists or non-feminists to comment makes the blog non-feminist friendly. Is that what you are arguing?
This comment was written by Glaivester.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:57 am
Could you add a note explaining how the automatic moderation works?
I can live with it too, given that you’ve acknowledged it, but…
Fair enough, and if from time to time I point that that ever-so-much-more-offensive post you failed to criticise was made by a feminist, that’s life too.
I agree that such comments are prejudicial and objectionable, but I would still urge you to be a bit less quick with the ban button. Ginmar and Jesurgislac in particular have been hurling abuse at me for post after post with impunity. You’ve warned them, repeatedly, but you’ve not required either of them to apologise or blocked them until they do. I’m not asking you do, but I think you cut new dissidents a little more slack than you do, without coming anywhere near the slack you’ve been cutting feminists.
I got a, um, bad feeling about Mr. Bad almost from the first sentence of his post. I thought he was a nasty piece of work, and I expected him to be banned very quickly. Quentin was different. He was angry and bitter and incoherent, but I know from experience that sometimes you can communicate with people like that if you’re willing to go the extra mile. I don’t mean treat them with a kid glove. I mean give them a break; don’t back them into a corner where continued participation is contingent upon an apology or other face-losing action.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:02 am
Anti-feminism isn’t “another viewpoint” to me. It’s a denial of my humanity. Of course this isn’t my blog and I don’t set the rules, but I still find it very hard to restrain my temper when women as a group are insulted, even if it is in the most polite terms.
For example, saying the women lie about rape reports at a rate equal to half of all reported rapes isn’t just a matter of opinion or debate. It is a complete slam.
Indeed. Perhaps if I were more of a liberal individualist I would not find it so upsetting; it could have nothing to do with me, I could be the token good woman who doesn’t lie about such things, and I could avoid thinking about the consequences of the belief that women can’t be counted on to tell the truth. It would be much easier to be polite about attacks on somebody else. But I think of myself as a member of the group “women,” and I know that what happens to women as a group is also going to happen to me - and it’s damn hard for me to be civil when I’m being insulted in this way.
It almost seems to me that it is not taken for granted on this blog that the feminist perspective is right. Feminists may get more slack here than misogynists, but a) feminism and misogyny are not moral equivalents and b) the misogynists still seem to be getting a lot of slack.
This comment was written by Elinor.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:03 am
You may think that when you have Daran complaining from one side and me complaining from the other that this means what you have is a well-balanced blog, Amp.
Possibly it is, whatever that means.
But you might want to ask yourself: Is it posters like Daran, or posters like me, that you’re thinking about when you say you want Alas to be a “feminist friendly blog”?
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:03 am
For example, saying the women lie about rape reports at a rate equal to half of all reported rapes isn’t just a matter of opinion or debate. It is a complete slam.
Actually, the claim lies in the factual realm (that is, it is either objectively true or false). As such, the person claiming it ought to have something to back it up. Assertions of fact are objective, not subjective, so it is irresponsible to make such a claim without at least some evidence. (If I am being unclear at all, I am supporting Q Grrl’s position and disagreeing with Daran).
…as I’m always keen to point out that it is a “tentative” claim rather than a definite assertion, I’d appreciate it if that word or something equivalent were retained when people refer to the claim.
Even a tentaive claim ought to have some evidentiary backing, particularly when it is as controversial as this one.
This comment was written by Glaivester.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:09 am
I would have to agree that a lot of the comments do not actually constitute a feminist conversation. The posts that get the most comments are the ones that incite a response from MRAs, and then a couple of feminists engage with them but on such basic levels (because that’s where the MRAs are) that it doesn’t really feel like we’re advancing anything or learning or moving. (At least to me). Then sometimes there will be comments that really make me think but these are the exception not the rule. But I guess that’s bound to be?
So I just wanted to say that a lot of people posting comments does not equal discussion/conversation, and most especially does not equal a feminist conversation.
This comment was written by Tara.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:10 am
Perhaps if I were more of a liberal individualist I would not find it so upsetting;
Actually, whether or not one is an individualist probably has little to do with it. Whatever one’s political orientation, what is relevant is the factual basis of Daran’s “tentative assertion.” Making numbers up out of thin air (which, as I understand it, is what Daran did) is not good argumentation.
This comment was written by Glaivester.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:13 am
I would hate to see the “opposition” voices silenced here. The debates here have enabled me to learn an awful lot. On the other hand, the reason that I haven’t commented much lately has been the stampede of trolls & derailment. While I think that the moderation policy is generally a good one, I find that it is often erring on the side of allowing trolls extra time and allowing significant disruption by derailment. There are times where it is just too much to deal with. Plus, there are others who respond better than I can.
While I agree with ginmar on many things she has said about the problems w/ moderation here, I understand why the situation is as it is. I do disagree on whether Alas is feminist-friendly or not. It seems to me that to fit Ginmar’s definition that you would have to ban the opposition. I believe that a site can be both feminist friendly & allow anti-feminist voices to be part of a debate. But I also think that, often, you allow trolls too much latitude and, on some threads, you allow too much derailment (”derailment” is different from “thread drift”). But that’s just me.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:23 am
Amp, this is a tricky balancing act you’re trying to do, but in my estimation you do a pretty good job overall. I think Glaivester’s question is a very good one. A couple of points. First of all, when Qrrl says:
Some comments that male posters say can, on the surface, be entirely within the range of civil and polite … but be over-the-top offensive to the female audience. For example, saying the women lie about rape reports at a rate equal to half of all reported rapes isn’t just a matter of opinion or debate. It is a complete slam. I think that half the time I try to talk about what sexism is or looks like, or hell how it feels, it is these very nuanced instances that don’t translate easily beyond an immediate rage and lashing out.
She makes a very good point. I like civility a great deal as well, like you, it fits my personality. Like you (I think) I also understand that my appreciation of calm and civility (and, to some extent, my skill at maintaining it in the face of rank offensive bullshit) is a consequence of male privilege. There’s to keeping a good discussion going than civility. If I were you, and of course I’m not, I’d consider “repeatedly disseminating widespread and widely discredited (in this forum!) anti-feminist factual claims” as a possible banning offense–not the first time, but if it becomes a habit.
At my blog, my co-blogger banned an annoying troll who was pretty much rude all the time (we don’t ban for civility violations, in fact, he’s our first and only ban). It was actually one of his most superficially polite statements that got him banned. He creatively and implausibly read a post as racist (we love abortion because we love killing poor black people!), and when repeatedly called on it, he backed down thusly: “Perhaps I read too much into the racial element, but I can hardly be blamed for this error given the long and deep historical ties between the pro-choice movement and racist eugenics.” That did it for us. Repeating damnable lies, not matter how politely, ultimately diminishes a discussion forum.
Secondly, Ginmar (#10) reminds me of one of my least favorite online arguing techniques, and one that (if I were the moderator of a major blog with contentious discussions) I’d consider placing out of bounds–bringing up an old argument from an old thread that is entirely unrelated, or only very indirectly related, to the discussion at hand, can have a real derailing tendency (it didn’t here, thankfully, but it often does). Not necessarily something I’d place as a bannable offense on it’s own, of course, but something I’d request posters not do, and a possible factor for banning if other, more serious bannable are commited as well.
This comment was written by djw.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:27 am
Just got here and found the thread, pardon me if I’m addressing old issues.
Are you familiar with/have you considered disemvowelling?
It’s something Teresa Nielsen Hayden does to trolls on Making Light. Just remove all the vowels from trollish comments. Particularly useful if other commenters have already responded to the offensive writing, so removing them would mess up the discussion thread. Disemvowelling means those who want to can work it out, but it’s not in-your-face.
Here’s what it looks like:
This comment was written by Lis Riba.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:30 am
Glaivester: You’re actually doing an excellent job of pointing out the disparity in civil discourse!!
You’re attempting to claim a neutral, factual framework upon which to judge the situation — which also tends to put overreaction into a negative light. What you fail to do, but which feminism does, is to reach one step further and argue what constitutes facts and how facts have been used, systematically and historically, to hurt women. Statistical facts aren’t real. There is always, at some point, a cut off in the number of incidents that can be measured. What is more real, however, is women telling of how they have been raped, how often, and how many women. What is real is women saying that tentative claim or factual claim, the way in which that claim is used is what is important. At one point in our history it was a fact that husbands could not be prosecuted for raping their wives (or not to the same extent as non-husbands). This is a fact. It was treated as a given. And? It hurt women. The knowledge that this was ever legislated still hurst some women. But hey, it was law, the height of civility!
Arguments, like Daran’s for example, are not meant to prove or disprove fact; the are meant to prove or disprove the validity of women’s narratives. That is a significant difference, and as I said above, a dangerous politics.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:33 am
\slight drift
I have a bumpersticker on my fridge that reads:
Trust Women
The very fact that this was made into a bumpersticker, thought to be shocking or thought provoking, says so very much about how we as a society approach women’s narratives.
/drift
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:38 am
Hi, Q Grrl. Before we start, I’d just like to say how much I appreciate the courteous way you’ve responded to me. I haven’t been gentle in my criticism of you and you probably have more cause than most to be pissed at me. So thanks for this.
Actually I think it’s ginmar and Jesurgislac who need to chill.
I’ve met the type on many occasion. I haven’t seen them here, though, which is probably down to Ampersand’s moderation. I consider them to be the scum of the internet, and I’ve given them a good roasting on occasion. So when I say it is offensive, I mean it. It’d damned objectionable to be tarred with that brush.
I’m well aware that it’s pushing huge buttons, but with respect, I am not ignorant on this subject. This is something I have been looking into for many years. The argument that “false rape allegations are very rare because it pushes buttons if you claim otherwise” isn’t very convincing. Yet nobody’s offered any better arguement. Even if I accepted Ampersand’s argument that the 8% FBI figure is as good as the 41% figure, (and I’ve since seen a reference to a 15% FBI figure), then we’re still left with the problem that there are no reliable figures, and none of us really knows how rare or common FRAs are.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:44 am
One of the things that might increase the civility on your blog, Amp, is getting rid of the cutesy little screen name and saying who you are. Transparency, not just on the part of the blogger, but on the part of those posting comments, goes a long way to increasing civility. When your face and name and blog are out there for others to search, you can’t necessarily hide. Funky little screen names along with comments by non-bloggers, turns a blog’s comments section into little more than a poorly moderated USENET newsgroup. If the blogger prefers to have his/her blog be like a USENET newsgroup, that’s fine–then don’t moderate. Just let it roam. If the blog is supposed to be a civil place, for civil discourse, be transparent, and request that those leaving comments be transparent too–have a name and a permalink. Run a blog, not a newsgroup.
This comment was written by Tish G.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:55 am
One other thought.
One thing I’ve been noticing is that there are a lot more feminist blog spaces than I recall in the past. So I’m wondering if part of the difference is that women are reading this and then going off to their own blogs to comment, rather than joining the fray here.
Again, this is purely my perception and may not be correct (how fast has that blogroll been growing, Amp?) but it’s one possible explanation.
I’ve seen some blogs putting trackbacks in with the comments as a way of keeping the discussion going whereever. Of course, you have less control over trackback than comments, so if lots of antifeminists link to your posts to criticize, that could actually make matters worse. [Sorry, I’m brainstorming as I write.]
This comment was written by Lis Riba.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:10 am
bean…grow up. stop living in the 70’s and get over the rhetoric about how “feminists” are denied this, that or the other thing. and, the simple fact that only 3% of the populace reads blogs in the first place makes blogging a far safer place for somene to be non-anonymous than IRL.
Besides, as the old saw goes, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. If you can’t be a person in a medium that is considered “social media” then don’t be part of it.
There are, though, some instances where anonymity is appropriate–if one lives in a country where free speech could be a seditious act (not here though). And if what you are revealing in a blog or a post on someone’s blog could damage your reputation–then don’t blog. Or blog in a closed community like LJ. That’s what it’s there for. Don’t be a coward.
This comment was written by Tish G.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:11 am
Tish: One of the things that might increase the civility on your blog, Amp, is getting rid of the cutesy little screen name and saying who you are.
Disagree.
Daran: but with respect, I am not ignorant on this subject
When “this subject” is your repeated assertion, without evidence, that you have faith that half the women who report that they have been raped are lying, you are either ignorant or deliberately offensive. Demanding that feminists (such as myself) should just not get angry (”chill”) when you try to propagate such offensive and disgusting tosh is an extreme kind of arrogance: male privilege, demanding your right to be insulting and offensive without having to deal with the anger of the people you insult and offend.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:13 am
Tish G, is your own unwillingness to use your real name because you want to insult Amp by calling him a coward?
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:13 am
While I’m not trying to push anyone outside their comfort-zone and know my experience is not universal, I’ve been posting to Usenet and the web under my real name for over fifteen years with rarely a problem. I won’t sidetrack this thread with details of my experiences/advice (though if you’re jobhunting, Google your name as it appears on the resume, because employers certainly will).
The most misogynistic flames I ever received for a blog discussion (including one call to my house) came from a tech-topic rather than anything related to feminism. On the positive, because I blog under my real name, an AP reporter tracked me down and asked to interview me for a story.
At any rate, I’m not trying to push other pseudonymous bloggers out of the closet, but just wanted to share my experience that real names aren’t necessarily inherently dangerous.
Re: comment #43: oops, i hadn’t noticed that.
This comment was written by Lis Riba.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:14 am
Oh dang. I don’t know why the blockquotes bolded that paragraph. I didn’t use any bold tags.
Amp, could you fix that? Thx. [Fixed! –Amp]
This comment was written by Lis Riba.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:15 am
This is exactly right, Lisa. Most women who are feminists, who blog, and blog openly and fearlessly, ain’t on Alas, a blog because they know what goes on here. There is no civil discourse because it’s a newsgroup and not a blog…it’s not a place where bloggers share opinions. There are many feminist bloggers who are interested in building community with other bloggers, not with anonymous individuals who don’t blog. And we have our own communities.
This comment was written by Tish G.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:16 am
J…I’m googleable. and have a photo on both blogs.
This comment was written by Tish G.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:24 am
Nobody who has been active here very long can have failed to learn Amp’s real name and seen his picture (often with a Very Small Person tormenting him in one way or another) once or twice.
There are legitimate things that many fans of this blog disagree about. This does not seem to be one of them. I don’t see anything inherently wrong or delegitimizing about posting under a pseudonym, so it mostly (for me) comes down to a matter of taste. Most of the people here don’t seem to mind, so who cares?
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:31 am
One of the things that might increase the civility on your blog, Amp, is getting rid of the cutesy little screen name and saying who you are. Transparency, not just on the part of the blogger, but on the part of those posting comments, goes a long way to increasing civility.
Not in my experience.
Besides, it’s a red herring - a way of impugning the honesty (and, in Tish G.’s case, bravery) of the pseudonymous. And it’s ridiculous… talk about derailment, have you ever been part of a thread where the commenter’s name (and deduced meaning of said pseudonymous name) becomes the subject and a way to discount the content of their writings? What fun that is!!!
Besides, Tish G., how do we know that you are who you say you are? Because you have a photo? How do we know that’s a photo of you? Face it, the internet is a place of anonymity. We can either believe you are who you say you are or not (unless we know you outside of the web). What if I told you that my “real” name is Abraham Lopez? Can you verify that?
One of the things that I like about the internet is that you are forced to judge folks based on the content of their writing, not the label or name that they use. A rose by any other name…
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:31 am
watching things here are like watching one giant IRC backchannel….but not like reading a blog.
This comment was written by Tish G.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:32 am
Tish: is there a reason you attacked Bean?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:33 am
Tish: is there a reason you’re attacking the entire blog?
Just curious.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:36 am
[snort] Love your attitude there, TishG, particularly your witty instruction to bean to “grow up.” Is that what the blogging community is for ? If so, I think I’ll remain blogless, Thanks. And bully for you for going public, but again, I think I’ll pass on looking you up. Your attitude of being an open jerk to someone who has legitimate reason to keep her identity private doesn’t exactly make you sound endearing to someone outside your ballyhooed “community.”
Also, while I’ve always used some variation of my current online name to post, it wouldn’t be that hard for anyone with moderate internet skill to find out my real name, locale, etc. Why should I make it any easier for cranks to hound me than it already is ?
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:36 am
It isn’t good argumentation, nor is it what I did. The figure is from Kanin’s study. The discussion started here.
Now if that hadn’t been under one of the few “men’s interest” topics here, I would probably be accused of derailing the thread. In fact I was responding to the bare assertion that “The small fraction of women who make false rape claims pales next to the number of men who actually rape”. That was a rather minor side-point Q-grrl’s post, and my response to it merely pointed out the lack of evidence for the claim, and invited her (or anyone else) to fill in that blank. Everything snowballed from there.
OnlyAmpersand has even attempted a fact-based rebuttal. Here are his rebuttal, my rejoiner, and his response. It’s now my turn to reply which I will do in due course. A few other people have asked me to clarify or justify my stance, but most of the opposition has been to misrepresent what I’m saying and abuse me personally: just about every reply by Jesurgislac, for example.
Notice the pattern. A feminist says that “FRA’s are rare” as if it were established fact. A feminist critic, i.e. me, questions it and offers some weak contary evidence. Instead of being rebutted with stronger evidence, I get attacked and villified. Now even Ampersand is getting attacked for allowing it to be questioned.
This is not a rational fact-based discourse. [rude comment deleted by Amp]
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:45 am
Woah Amp. You’re deleting rude comments from male posters? Or all posters who post rude things? Becuase if you’re removing rude comments from men or MRA’s then they do tend to look a lot more civil than they are… :)
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:46 am
Could you spell out SYG, while you’re at it? That one stumped me…
[PS for others in these threads, I’m Lis, not “Lisa”]
This comment was written by Lis Riba.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:46 am
That’s out of line.
Look, I certainly don’t think that the level of rudeness some posters display here is cool, but referring to those who disagree with you as members of a cult is not okay. It makes the problem worse, not better.
Furthermore, I would really really really like it if the debate on what percentage of rape reports is false could be confined to its thread of origin. This isn’t the place.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:47 am
Aw, damn. Sorry. I was writing while the original rude comment got deleted.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:49 am
Wow, there was only one comment here when I went to sleep.
Tish, I find your attack on Bean in a thread about civility pretty ironic. You use your real name, and yet you’re totally rude; you make it impossible to take your claim that real names = more civil disscussion seriously.
For all the reasons Bean state, I’m not going to require meatworld names to be used here.
(”Meatworld.” I love that word!)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:51 am
Lis: SYG = Stand Your Ground
Amp: I really have a problem with you deleting that comment, especially after knowing what he said. You’re granting him the benefit of the doubt and essentially cleaning up his messes for him. Then when we react to his words we look rather knee-jerk.
FTR: I’m not really bothered by Daran, but I do find the editing of his comments troublesome.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:55 am
QG…
there are larger issues of blog civility going on beyond Alas, A Blog, but that Alas is a prime example of. I was part of a conversation on Alas a few months back that spun out of control with personal attacks…and I’ve observed that sort of thing happen over and over here–which reminds me so much of what happened on a Forum I used to be part of…but that’s another story…
In general, people find it much, much easier to attack a cause or be nasty to another individual if they are able to hide behind a pseudonym or be otherwise untraceable on the net. It may create great theater, but does it do anything to foster community? Does it create any sort of real dialogue? No. Can
There are tons and tons of conversations going on out there about how blogs will be used in the future–blogging is a form of grassroots, interactive media that has amazing potential. But the powers that be–in journalism, broadcast media, business and politics–have enough power to shut the whole thing down if they find enough blogs that they can use to discredit the whole medium. They are indeed interested in depriving individuals the right to free speech because it cuts into their reputations as trusted sources–and, more importantly, into their profit margins.
Blogging, and bloggers have the potential to change alot in this world–in the way business and politics and media relate to people. Bloggers can halt the top-down modes of communication, break down power structures, and establish peer-to-peer communication with many in powerful positions. But if bloggers don’t stare the powers that be in the eye, nothing will change. The big wigs will be able to say that “the people” are a bunch of cowards and that “the people” are the ones not to be trusted. That the voices of the people that live on blogs are nothing more than snarky theater–not real conversation among real people. And they can point to the rancourousness among bloggers as a paradigm for exactly what they are talking about.
So, there’s alot more at stake than just how Amp moderates things here.
This comment was written by Tish G.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:57 am
For the record, Daran is my real first name.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:57 am
Oh, I don’t know, Q. If I had a dollar for every time in the last 5.5 years in internet-land that I’d heard someone call Feminism a “cult,” well, that trip to France wouldn’t just be a pipe dream.
After awhile, one comes to understand what “rude comment” means. If it’s not “you’re a cult” it’s an insult about your “unwomanly” physical appearance. If it’s not an insult about your “unwomanly” physical appearance, it’s the smug assurance that you’ve got a Castro poster over your bed, etc. etc…
We can do this by rote by now, no ? :/
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:57 am
Amp…I have noticed for quite a time here that there is no other way to get attention/present an opposing point of view unless one is slightly incivil. It’s the community that’s been fostered and grown here.
This comment was written by Tish G.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:58 am
besides, it was Bean who was incivil to me first. guess one cannot present an opposing snark unless someone is well-known here.
This comment was written by Tish G.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:59 am
FWIW, Tish, it’s easy enough to find Amp’s given name on the website.
I recall having this same argument before on this blog–I don’t post under my real name, and I have no plans to do so anytime soon. I do know of feminist bloggers who have been stalked, threatened, and harassed. People who want to avoid this aren’t cowards–it’s the people who do the stalking, threatening, and harassing who deserve that label. If I had a regular column in a media outlet where I got paid a living wage to write and expose myself to that kind of risk, heck yeah, I’d use my real name. But for now, it’s no-go.
Besides which, I like my handle. It’s truth in advertising. You can easily find my blog and learn where I stand on all kinds of things. My “real” name is irrelevant.
Amp–it’s your blog and it’s your policy. I’m really not going to go all nuclear about how you should run your own corner of cyberspace; it’s not my business. I don’t care who you ban or what standards you use.
I will second what Bean and Qgrrl said–I’ve noticed a lot more men–especially non-feminist men–posting here, and a drop in feminist women posting. I visit this site to read your posts and to see what non-feminist liberals think of feminist issues. I haven’t posted nearly as much as in the past because I know how likely it is that I’ll break your civility rules. A lot of the faux-civility people here are talking about is passive-aggressive BS on the part of the trolls. It’s a lot like people who try to push buttons and get someone upset, and then go all wide-eyed and innocent when it happens. “What? What’s your problem? I only said X. Why are you overreacting?”
But I have noticed this change here; it’s not the place it was even a year ago. And it’s too bad, because as Tara said, the conversations here are now rather simple. When I get into it with other feminists, we can discuss something in depth since we don’t have to defend the very basics to the willfully ignorant. (I also still tend towards snark and sarcasm when we argue.) We touch on subjects that we just can’t manage here anymore, and it’s mainly because we’re fielding the “What about the MEN?” chorus, attempts to take over/derail threads, and (oh-so-civil) attacks against the few women who still try to post their views or their experiences in the comments threads.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:59 am
Q Grrl
I don’t think I am. First of all, I honestly don’t care what people at SYG say; they’re mostly irrelevant noise. (Unlike, say, what you say, which matters to me a lot even when I disagree). Secondly, folks at SYG will give me crap no matter what I do, so altering my behavior to please them would be illogical. As for insulting my masculinity, one of my goals in life is NOT being conventionally masculine, so I take it as a compliment. :-D
(I did read the rest of your post, and I’m thinking about it, but I don’t have a response to it right now. Right now I’m coming back to this thread after having not looked at it for hours, so I’m going through and answering things I can answer relatively quickly first).
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:00 pm
I think part of Amp’s point was that he would like to cut down on ’snarks’ in general. How about instead we all try to have a discussion?
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:04 pm
I beg everyone’s pardon. I knew that FRA was used here in that meaning. It just didn’t occur to me when I used it to mean “false rape allegation”, that I was overloading it.
FRA, as I’ve been using it is really not a good abbreviation, because the difference between an allegation and an accusation is rather significant. I will not use it again.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:07 pm
TishG, where was bean “uncivil” to you ?
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:09 pm
RonF:
Well, yes and no. Keep in mind that until a year or two ago, “Alas” was arguably the most-read, most-prominant feminist blog [*] around. And one reason for that is that blogs by men tend to get linked more, including (especially) by the big, traffic-feeding blogs. In that context, the idea that I had some wider responsibility than just making “Alas” something that pleased myself made sense.
[*] By “feminist blog,” I mean a blog that regularly discusses feminist issues.
Things have changed, for the better. There are now dozens and dozens of feminist blogs, a bunch of which are more-widely-read and more prominant than “Alas.” Which is good - frankly, having the most-read feminist blog be one written primarily by a man was screwed up.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:15 pm
Myca wrote:
Hear hear!
Daran, I understand how easily these discussions can drift into close dissections of arguments on other threads. And I understand that you want to defend yourself. So I understand why you posted what you did, but from now on keep substantive debate about false rape accusations in the other thread.
Also, in case my deleting it didn’t make it clear, the “cult” comment was totally out of line.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:18 pm
Qgrrl, for a long time I’ve had a policy of deleting comments that I think are over-the-line if I can do it before anyone but me sees or responds - which means, I do it very rarely, since I don’t usually happen to be checking the comments at the right moment.
In this case, clearly it was a mistake for me to delete the comment, since someone had already seen it and started posting a reaction. Sorry about that.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:20 pm
Castro posters are so like 1999, alsis. I’m down with Shakira now.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:21 pm
I’ve altered point number two to omit the phrase “feminist-friendly,” in response to Jesu’s criticism.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:31 pm
What bean, alsis and Qgrrl said. bean said a lot of what I was going to say better than I can. Sometimes what is “civil” on the surface actually is not civil. And what’s “civil” can be more beneficial to men than to women. We have had that discussion before.
I don’t know if I’m “East Coast” but I’m pretty blunt. IRL and on the net. Some people can deal with that, even admire that quality even in women. Some have difficulties with it, usually men.
I enjoy the discussions here though I find them frustrating. There’s nothing however offensive I’ve read that I can’t deal with, because compared to my blog, this is a piece of cake. That said, because I *can* deal with it, doesn’t necessarily mean that I want to do so, for reasons bean and others listed here. So I lurk mostly on the f