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 feminist threads, though I have spoken up on the many threads on rape, DV and other issues pertaining to women that get derailed by the “what about men?” pity party.
Before anyone says, omigosh, these issues affect ALL people and we should be concerned about Men and Women, which is the right thing, although often when it’s said as a response to a feminist’s questioning of thread diversion, it really means, it’s time to talk about the men, because too often, ALL or Men and Women means too much time has been spent talking about women, now let’s talk about what is important.
There’s a whole world out there that follows these rules already and women get weary of it.
Sometimes that 3% does not include the most stable individuals. And often they remain anonymous while you do not which can in certain situations as I have found put them at an advantage and that includes, IRL. As a woman, that can be an intimidating thing. And you don’t have to put your real name in bold on your blog for people to know who you are. Blogs have a way of expanding faster than you can keep up.
I’m a neophyte blogger and I’ve learned to admire anyone who has the stomach or will to do it. Mine has caused me as much stress as fulfillment.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:35 pm
The problem, I think is like Qgrrl said, if you delete the nasty comments by someone, then they appear more well-behaved(for want of better words) than they really are. Sometimes too, it’s important to keep them out there. The truth is the truth, and sometimes it’s really ugly.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:39 pm
I don’t think that you’re wrong, but OTOH, it’s not like Amp just deleted it blankly. Inserting a comment about how it was a rude comment and has been removed because of that isn’t the same thing as ‘editing to make the poster seem nice.’
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:39 pm
Me:
Myca:
I do not refer to it as ****** merely because people disagree with me. I say it is ****** because it has the following characteristics:
1. Certain particular statements are routinely asserted as though it were established facts.
2. There is no substantiation for these alleged facts.
3. A person who questions them is attacked, lied about, and vilified.
4. A person who attempts to defend them, or who allows a fact-based discussion about their truth is attacked for so doing.
These are the characteristics of *****.
I didn’t raise it here. If people lie in this thread about what I’ve said in others, then I think I’m entitled to reply.
I’ve alleged a lie, so I suppose I must quote. Jesurgislac: ‘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.’
I have made no such assertion, moreover, Jesurgislac’s repeatted misrepresentations of what I have said are now well past the level of an honest mistake. They are lies.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:39 pm
I’ve been lurking on this blog for about a year, and I do think that, while the quality of Amp’s posts is still good, the quality of the discussion has suffered. I understand the desire to have a space where non-feminists and feminists can civilly discuss their ideas, but it is very tiresome to have threads about serious issues get derailed. Perhaps some threads, every so often, could be limited to feminist discussion only? Or, perhaps you could prepare a “primer” that links to entries that deal with issues that non-feminists bring up often? If someone tries to derail a thread with an issue that’s been discussed to death, you could just post a link to the primer and ask that they take the discussion to that thread. Feminists who wish to debate non-feminists can go to those threads, and feminists who don’t are free to ignore them.
This comment was written by Snowe.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:40 pm
Daran:
Good idea, thanks.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one; my intention is to be quicker with the ban button from now on. The MRAs have really taken over the discussions here on “Alas” in the last couple of weeks, to the point that discussions that aren’t debates between MRAs and non-MRAs have become impossible. That’s not an acceptable status quo, to me.
(At least, not on “Alas.” I could imagine it being an okay status quo on some blog or forum designed for that purpose.)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:50 pm
Daran, I suggest that you go re-read Sheelzebub’s post #73 again, particularly the last paragraph. Ask yourself if it pleases you to have feminists constantly distracted here from the sort of issues Sheelzebub (and others) can go into depth with on their own blogs– simply so that we must re-invent the wheel again and again for men like you, all to somehow prove to you that we are not brainwashed, etc.
If it doesn’t please you, perhaps it would behoove you to stop posting a spell. Try lurking a month, and reading the points various feminists raise without constantly having your rebuttal raring to go before you’re even halfway through. Try imagining yourself in the shoes of the feminists who post.
If, OTOH, it does please you to constantly draw attention away from women’s issues and towards yourself and your own POV (which is not new to the average feminist, BTW– we’ve all dealt with some variation of it about 5 billion times online) carry on. Amp, by choice, has a blind spot in his blog that basically allows men like you to thrive in this space at the expense of feminists.
Your parallels between the attitude of feminists here and some attempt to form a pseudo-religion, BTW, have no provable grounding. I could just as easily argue that it’s a standard tactic in brainwashing to bury the skeptical alive in mounds and mounds of repetitive verbiage that goes around in circles in an attempt to weary and silence said skeptics. You have some of the longer posts here, and some of the more repetitive. Does it follow that you are attempting to brainwash women if many of us get tired and bored of you and simply decide not to read your comments at all ?
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:51 pm
In case it wasn’t clear, the ******s in the above are self-censorship.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:51 pm
Daran, I have no problem with you saying “the things you are accusing me of having said are not things I have said. Here is what I actually said:”
I even have no problem with you saying “And it sure makes me angry that you would mischaracterize what I said”
Using language like ‘cult’ is inflammatory, and does not lead to reasoned discussions. What it says is “boy, I’m pissed and I’m going to vent my spleen at you.” I do not want to participate in a message board whose main purpose is spleen-venting, no matter who you are.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:57 pm
That’s very true. Using pseudonyms allows people to act in ways they would not act if they were using their real names. I’ve seen this happen. However, a lot of people do not feel comfortable using their real names so if they had to, they might choose not to participate at all. Good discussions can come out of pseudonyms. After all, there are board communities that have had great dialogues without the participants using their real names. There’s a lot of people coming on the Net to see what it’s about and what it can offer, what board communities and blogs can offer and they might be reluctant to use their real names.
You will never please or be able to fully accomodate those in power. They will always try to discredit your efforts. That’s what they do when they are challenged or criticized. Deal with it. Blogs can be powerful things, but any powerful tool for change comes with risks attached.
In my case, some of my visitors have unfortunately chosen to be quite cruel, rude and very hostile. At first, that was very difficult to deal with and I have thick skin. It hurts, it’s scary and sometimes even, you can lose sleep over it. But in my case, it is those same comments which may have the power to create change in at least one power structure. So there is more than one path to trying to accomplish change whether at a small level, or a larger one with the wide variety of tools you have to work with.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:59 pm
actually, using ****** instead of cult gives the impression of being civil, but in reality continues the incivility.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:04 pm
In case it wasn’t clear, the ******s in the above are self-censorship.
This is not civil behaviour, IMO. Dude, we all know that “******” means “cult.” You know what would be civil? Not using the word “cult” and not using a series of symbols meant to represent the word “cult.” If I wrote, “Daran you are a fucking asshole,” and was told that that was not civil, I could not transform my behaviour to civil by merely changing that to “Daran you are a ***** ****.” Get it?
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:05 pm
Damn, Q Grrl beat me to it.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:08 pm
You also have to love how women can posts volumes and volumes about how sexism shapes our interactions in the workplace, in relationships, in the arts, in the military, in politics and yet somebody who claims to read our posts in detail can think of no better word to define our beliefs than a word associated with being sequestered, isolated, and out of touch with real-world issues.
Amp, maybe it’s time to have some kind of bold-face disclaimer on the main page that states it’s the also legitimacy of feminism that’s perpetually open to debate, as opposed to the nuances and impact of feminist issues and viewpoints alone. That would seem more honest than simply calling Alas “A Feminist Blog.”
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:08 pm
Heh. This cracked me up. “Look, man, you’re not fooling anyone. We cracked the code.”
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:09 pm
Daran, a cult is characterized by (among other things) the financial exploitation of its members, and (in many cases, especially when used negatively) the difficulty members can have in leaving. Do you think “Alas” is financially exploiting the posters here? Do posters here have difficulty leaving?
The four-part definition of “cult” you bring up is actually a definition of being close-minded. Insiting on calling it “cult” - or now, ridiculously, calling it **** - is just being needlessly insulting.
And spelling it **** is bullshit. It’s not the word I objected to; it was the content. Choosing to spell it **** doesn’t improve things in any way.
Q Grrl wrote: actually, using ****** instead of cult gives the impression of being civil, but in reality continues the incivility.
Exactly!
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:11 pm
Amersand:
Me:
Glaivester:
I’m presuming that Glaivesters’ statement is a negligent falsehood, rather than an outright lie. (It’s negligent because he could and should have checked.) But if he made this error, presumably upon the basis of what other people have said about me, it would be foolish for me to assume that every other reader of this thread has read what I actually said in the other, and is capable of recognising the lies. Jesurgislac is slandering me, repeatedly and apparently successfully. When does his/r slack run out?
It was intended as a functional description, not a slur. The immediately preceding justified the statement.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:24 pm
Daran, you now have a choice.
You are now totally derailing this thread.
You can choose to make the terrible, terrible sacrifice of saying “I think posters here have characterized what I said on the other thread unfairly, and I think that calling you all cultists is not a slur. However, I don’t want to derail this thread further, so I’ll drop these two points rather than insist on pursuing them for post after post after post.”
Or you can choose to keep on derailing the thread and making it all about you.
Which choice do you think is more in keeping with the spirit of the moderation policy?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:25 pm
Well, it’s not like the anti-feminists don’t call feminism a “cult” all the time. Google feminist, feminism and cult and you can find some of those sites, position papers, etc. It’s meant to be a put down, like it’s an evil group of self-serving people who try to suck in unsuspecting, stupid women.
Its usage usually tells me we must be doing something right. :-)
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:27 pm
When does his/r [Jesurgislac's] slack run out?
Probably about the time that you either support you outrageous assertion with credible studies or allow that Ampersand’s numbers & supporting material are as credible (if not more credible) as yours. Alternately, it could happen when you actual debate honestly & civilly.
Asterisking out words that are well understood doesn’t count as civil.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:29 pm
Actually is was an attempt at saying something substantive without getting moderated. If Ampersand is minded to let that post stand, I’d prefer it if “a cult” could be substituted back.
Personally I think all this offence is a pretext to avoid discussing the substantive observation. So we can add a further item to the list.
5. Is unwilling to discuss or even think about points 1-4.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:31 pm
Indeed, radfem. I just wish they’d quit changing the secret handshake every year. Remembering my PIN number(s) and passwords is tough enough on my limited, estrogen-addled brain as it is.
Also, I worry about the moral slide amongst the sistren. Qgrrl’s abrupt switch from idolizing Amy Grant to idolizing Shakira, for instance. No good can come of it.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:32 pm
***, *** ** *** *** *** *** ** **** ** * ******* ****.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:33 pm
It’s just not the same as seeing the actual words in print. For example, “bitch” and “*****” do not mean the same thing. “Slut” and “****” do not mean the same thing although the dilemma of both**** and ***** for women, is that there are several different slurs that we could easily fit in each blank.
(This isn’t speaking to those who choose the asterick method by personal choice, but the changing of the word to astericks afterward.)
Also, if there is going to be a bunch of **** and *****, can we at least put what kind of word it is, (i.e. noun and verb) Madlibs(tm) does that at least…
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:36 pm
That’s a good idea. I might use that at some point.
An interesting result of a double-standard which is intended to benefit feminists - which is that I ban anti-feminists pretty freely, whereas I tend to just give feminists warnings - is that it might create the impression that I’m being nicer to the feminists than the anti-feminists. After all, I banned Mr. Bad only once, whereas I’ve asked you to stop making personal attacks a few times.
It’s really not true that I don’t get mad at anti-feminists. And it’s only true that I treat them less harshly if you consider banning to be less harsh than criticism.
As usual, you don’t seem willing to post a disagreement without making personal attacks. Once again, please try not to do that on “Alas.”
I”ve replaced the phrase you found offensive.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:37 pm
Coming into the conversation late after a meeting.
FWIW, that’s one of the things disemvowelling is good with. The offensive comment is “defanged” yet it’s still extant so people can’t pretend it was never said.
This comment was written by Lis Riba.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:38 pm
[Comment removed at Lizzybeth's request.]
This comment was written by lizzybeth.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:39 pm
Oh god, this is old.
Daran, it’s really getting obvious that you are hell-bent on derailing this thread.
I agree that Jesur and Ginmar and plenty of others have been unfair to you and attributed things to you that you have not said, and I don’t think that’s good. At the same time, plenty of what you have said has been actually offensive (at least to me). This isn’t really the place to discuss it.
Ampersand asked you to make a choice about the derailing of this thread, and you’ve pushed forward with the derailing, making the entire thread about you. That pisses me off.
Amp, is it banning time yet?
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:41 pm
Daran:
The “substantive discussion” of whether or not “Alas” is a cult doesn’t belong on this thread. And since you’re determined to derail this thread, neither do you. You’re banned from posting on this thread for the next twenty-four hours - until 1pm pacific time on Friday.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:41 pm
Let’s just send him over to Robert’s blog with a note pinned to his jacket. :/
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:42 pm
I will refuse the bait. I will refuse the bait. I will refuse the bait. I will refuse the bait. I will refuse the bait. I will refuse the bait. I will refuse the bait. I will refuse the bait. I will refuse the bait. I will refuse the bait. I will refuse the bait. I will refuse the bait.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:45 pm
Thank you, Q Grrl. Thank you, Q Grrl. Thank you, Q Grrl. Thank you, Q Grrl. Thank you, Q Grrl. Thank you, Q Grrl. Thank you, Q Grrl. Thank you, Q Grrl. Thank you, Q Grrl. Thank you, Q Grrl. Thank you, Q Grrl. Thank you, Q Grrl.
:-P
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:48 pm
If ****** means cult, what are the two extra letters? I mean, we already knew anti-feminists can’t read - does this mean they can’t spell either?
I haven’t read the whole thread, but in the earlier half of it, I’d like to say that Ginmar (post #4), Alsis (38) and QGrrl (#19) said what I would say if I was more articulate like.
This comment was written by Sheena.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:48 pm
By the way, I should point out that I added a new paragraph to the original post a couple of hours ago. Here’s what I added:
That’s not in response to anything in particular people have said; it’s just something I’ve often thought should be part of the moderation statement, but forgot to put in last night.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:49 pm
8 o
I thought only my girlfriend knew about Amy Grant….
oh.the.shame.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:50 pm
Now that Daran isn’t going to be here, I’d like everyone to try and make the cult (and/or ******) derailment go away. Thanks!
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:54 pm
Amp, I wasn’t jesting in #96. I sincerely think that just calling the blog “feminist” raises certain expectations of it that you obviously don’t think should be there. There’s also the option of designating certain threads off-limits to those who want to play reinvent-the-wheel and turn every issue into a discussion over feminism’s general merit (or lack of same). Then you could simply ban them from those particular threads and delete (or move) their posts when they didn’t pay attention to the guidelines.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:06 pm
Alsis, I know that you weren’t kidding. I sometimes call “Alas” a feminist blog in conversation, meaning a blog that frequently posts about feminist issues. But I try not to formally call “Alas” a feminist blog (for instance, I took down that bit in the subtitle ages ago), out of respect for exactly the criticism you bring up.
That’s a really excellent idea. I’ll do it in some upcoming threads, and we’ll see how it goes.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:16 pm
Ampersand,
Here and here are two pending posts from the other thread. If you think that a discussion worth continuing, and that thread an appropriate place to have it, then post another comment there, and I’ll follow them up. I won’t read any further comments here. I’m leaving this thread for good now, having said all I have to say on the topic.
I appreciate my cult comments caused offence, and I apologise to everyone for that.
As far as that other thread has been brought in here, that was not my doing. I have been attacked, lied about, and unfairly criticised. Even expressing my genuine appreciation of another person’s courtesy is apparently evidence of some malign purpose. No matter. All I would ask of you is that it not be allowed to continue here in my absence.
One last point. Post 105 (the last one I can see) meant “yes, but in the end you got to call me a fucking cunt”. It was intended as humour, but such efforts are rarely appreciated, so I apologise if it was misunderstood.
[Note from Amp: Daran and I cross-posted, so this post was actually written before he knew I banned him. Since it contained his apology for the offense his cult comments caused, I decided to let it through. Daran has agreed to respect this ban, and will wait at least 24 hours before posting on this thread again, if he does at all. --Amp]
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:24 pm
[Deleted by tigtog's request.]
This comment was written by tigtog.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:25 pm
Wow, that’s a long comment thread!
You’re rules on moderation sound fine. As blogs get more popular, bloggers will find they need to moderate more and more. Example: The Yarn Harlot evidently got death threats at a knitting blog. Either she deleted these comments or they cam by private email– but I think this is evidence that trolls are everywhere.
I saw a few people suggest short term banning. Short time banning isn’t a bad idea, but it can also be time consuming to ban and then unban people. So, I think permanent banning is also a good idea.
You can always suggest a longwinded troll start their own blog and send trackbacks. In principle, their arguments might be easier to follow and more widely read if they placed them at the top of a blog rather than burying them in comments. If you were mistaken and they aren’t a troll, they may find themselve writing a popular blog and thank you for prodding them to start their own blog. (Of course, we know what will happen if they actually are a troll.)
This comment was written by lucia.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:30 pm
[Deleted by tigtog's request.]
This comment was written by tigtog.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:42 pm
Dear Ampersand, please just delete my comments at #121 and #123 where I engaged the banned. I will recast my thoughts generally in terms of the moderation policy.
Long time lurker, first time poster. Hi.
I think your addition of a policy regarding banning posters/deleting comments based purely on your opinion as to whether they derail threads and make Alas not the forum you want it to be is a nice catch-all for the faux-civility crowd, although you know you’re going to catch hell for not making it all rigidly rule-based from the patriarchy crowd, dontcha?
Still, I think it gives you a valid stand for the derailers pretending to be civil. Using semantically loaded words and then standing back to claim it’s purely a precise usage of jargon is weaseling, and very obvious weaseling at that. It is patronising, as if the person(s) being addressed can’t identify the semantic switch-n-bait. Not to mention cowardly, because the weasel words are so easy to insincerely disavow.
Passive-aggressive weaseling with loaded words is the essence of contempt masquerading as civility. I wish you good luck in making this forum inhospitable to such.
This comment was written by tigtog.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:55 pm
Myca (I think) said:
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.
I’d like to hear the argument. I don’t see what difference your sex makes in setting up a blog and keeping it alive.
Amp said:
And one reason for that is that blogs by men tend to get linked more, including (especially) by the big, traffic-feeding blogs.
Why would blogs by men tend to get linked more? Who cares what the sex of a blogger is? I would think it was purely a question of content, and that the sex of the blogger was irrelevant.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:56 pm
And one reason for that is that blogs by men tend to get linked more, including (especially) by the big, traffic-feeding blogs.
Oh, yeah - and how can you establish this as a fact, anyway?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:59 pm
I dunno, maybe it’s easy for me cos I’m a slow reader, but for most people, why not just ignore the people who use faux civility and faux intellectualism in their posts. Usually two sentences into a non-feminist’s post I can determine if the person is making a legitimate point or talking out their ass (which is no small feat - believe me).
Bean:
Okay, I know I’ve been lax in blogging myself recently, so maybe I don’t have a right to say this, but what happened to your blog bean? I love your blog, but there’s no posts since September. I hope you’ll do a few more posts soon.
(Also, last time I visited you guys, I noticed that Bean and Kim were never in the same room at the same time - dun dun dunnnnn. Okay, maybe they were)
Regarding TishG’s comments - okay this has been satisfactorily slapped down but I’ll add that is the most inane unsubstantive criticism I’ve read (outright slander notwithstanding). For my part, I chose to call myself Raznor because it’s more interesting than my real name. And furthermore a two minute search on this blog would reveal Amp’s real name. Last time I checked, it was still in his e-mail address.
Okay, said what I wanted to say.
Here’s a suggestion I’d have. What if there was a registration to post comments on this blog. And save for your choice of regular commenters, a 24-hour period before one can comment using the registration. (exceptions needed so there would still be comments here during the first 24 hours). Or on certain posts a one hour delay between allowing comments.
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:15 pm
I’m not going to quote various people’s specific points, but a couple of responses:
Use of demeaning and abusive language is hardly limited to the non-feminists here. I’ve personally been invited to cut my penis off. I’m not trolling for sympathy or looking to call the wrath of the blogging gods on such; Amp did post a rebuke. But I have the perception (rightly or wrongly) that such behavior is being tied to MRA’s and FRA’s and fellow-travellers. So I’m simply pointing out that no one’s hands are clean on this.
I find myself in agreement with Qgrrl (again!) and others that posts should not be edited. If you want to ban someone, by all means do so, temporarily or permanently as you wish. But if someone engages in personal attacks, etc., and you don’t want to ban them, then leave their post up in it’s entirety. That way we know who the assholes are, and can ignore their postings from then on. It’s the same principle by which I oppose “hate speech” laws.
Amp, increased use of warning and banning on the principle of “thread hijacking” would probably be viewed as an improvement. Not that I’ve not been guilty of a few side trips myself, but repeated acts of “what about ME!” are tiresome, I agree. Saying, “Well, women do this to men so men are justified in doing it to women” or “women do this to men so let’s talk all about that instead” is, in my view, trying to change the subject.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:20 pm
I can’t establish it as a fact. Anecdontally, there are a hell of a lot of political blogs (apart from self-consciously feminist blogs) which link to many more men than women, both in their posts and in their blogrolls. Look at what Peek’s blogroll looked like when they first started.
But regardless of what I can establish as fact, it’s my opinion that it is so. And since what we’re discussing here is how this blog should be run, it would be foolish of me to not take my own opini0ns into account.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:23 pm
Ron F, Seriously … where have you been for rounds 1 … 9,856,581 of “where are the women bloggers” debate???
Nowhere, apparently. I’ve been hanging out at political and milblogs. This is the only blog I’ve ever been on that concentrates on feminism. I do hang out at Free Republic, which isn’t exactly a blog. While the majority of posters there are quite conservative, there’s a lot of them that are not stereotypical in that respect.
Hell, for a while I had no idea that Amp was male. I generally don’t bother to look at a blogger’s biographical detail.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:36 pm
Amp, several folks have eloquently raised issues about the role of “civility” in fostering a dialog between feminists. I want to raise one more, which is not viewpoint-specific and not dependent on a feminist analysis of discourse: civility rules cannot ensure good-faith efforts to find common ground. I could use as an example any number of the antifeminists here, but I won’t. To show that what I’m talking about is not viewpoint specific, I’ll use myself.
There are lots of times on this blog where people (usually feminist women) disagree with me and I really want to understand what they are saying and reach common ground. But I’m also frequently simply in attack mode. I’m not actually interested in what antifeminists have to say except to gain intelligence on them, or to smack them around in front of others. I take great joy in making some of the commenters, for example on the rape threads, look foolish. Nor have I ever been dishonest about that. When the last rape skirmish broke out, I said at the outset that I thought it was incumbent on me to assist the other feminists in gang-tackling certain posters and driving them into the ground. Yet I have rarely run afoul of the civility rules.
If I can comment for no purpose but to frustrate and refute other commenters without being uncivil, what is it civility accomplishes? Perhaps it is simply an aesthetic preference that you impose on the blog, which is your prerogative.
At bottom, I think, the attempt to foster dialog between people who disagree only works within a limited spectrum, and to make that happen you would have to be willing to toss people left and right to prune the discussion back to a core group who have enough common ground to work with. To attempt to bring MRA/FRA folks and feminists together is ultimately a fool’s errand, and if you doubt that you should check out Hugo Schwyzer’s comment threads sometime. (I like Hugo, and his blog, but he is so earnestly committed to peaceful coexistence between opposing views, and he keeps at it, and the total failure of that project has absolutely convinced me that it cannot be done.)
Also, a word on anonymity. I post under a pseudonym because I can’t talk freely about being a feminist around sexuality issues without being frank that I’m a sadomasochist. I work in a fishbowl professional environment, and I’m not out in that world because I fear discrimination. Some of us have our reasons.
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:41 pm
Amp, this post is a good example of why this is one of my favourite blogs. I really like the way you moderate discussions here. And I also admire the way you state your aims clearly and the practical steps you hope to take to achieve those aims. Putting your moderation policy up for discussion is even more wonderful!
I’m female, by the way, and I have certainly never felt intimidated by posting in a forum where there are lots of vocal male posters, including many I strongly disagree with. I don’t define myself as a feminist, but I lean more towards a feminist view than I used to, (and even a more economically left-wing view, which is more surprising in my case) as a direct result of reading your posts and the discussions here. So yes, your civil discussions and openness to opposing ideas are effective in changing at least this poster’s mind. Thank you.
This comment was written by Individ-ewe-al.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:44 pm
I like your rules, and particularly your new statement about the intent of postings and eliminating hard and fast rules.
I fall into the generally liberal but probably not feminist male category, which Bean identified as the largest group of commenters at the moment. I guess I’m scribbling this to say thanks once again to Ampersand for providing a space that’s been effective in greatly enhancing my understanding and moving me toward feminist positions.
An option that might encourage both the conversations that Ampersand wants to have, but preserve the option of a springboard for advanced feminist discussions might borrow from the The Whiskey Bar. On a seperate blog, Moon of Alabama, the posts from the Whiskey Bar are linked or duplicated and commented upon. A similar “shadow blog” (say, A blog, Alas) would allow people who enjoy the topics to comment on them in a more intense, feminist supporting environment. The level of moderation could be increased to whatever the shadow-blog’s maintainer desired.
This comment was written by ScottM.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 4:05 pm
While this doesn’t have any direct relevance to how Amp runs the site, unless he decides to get involved with doing some PHP programming, I think free-form comments forums are a poor place for discussion among a wide group of people. They really don’t scale well at all. Many of the problems are things that have been mentioned in this thread. A few of the problems I see simply have to do with the linear nature of comments in WordPress. (Has anyone ever seen threaded comments, e.g. on Slashdot or DailyKos, or on virtually any Drupal site?) Threaded comments let people ignore whole threads they don’t want to read through, and so they really make it easier for people to ignore trolls that try to “hijack”–they just skip over that whole subthread. (There may be a wordpress plugin for threaded coments; I’m not sure.)
Here’s another idea, Amp. Instead of completely deleting a statement or part of a statement, have a little copy-and-paste html that hides the text by default and shows it using javascript when they click on it. Then you can hide a complete comment or just part of it or whatever, and the reader can decide whether to trust your judgement or whether to read what you’ve hidden. I could probably code this up pretty quickly and send you the snippet if you’re interested, but you seem to be HTML adept.
Ya’ll may be interested in TruthMapping.com, which is one way to structure the forum so that signal to noise is high. (This particular site has a lot of weaknesses that I’m planning to write about at my blog soon.) I’ve been exploring other ways to add a lot of structure to forums to help with this. I think on mid-to-really big size forums, this extra-structured type of thing could replace the free-form or threaded structure that’s common nowadays. I might even write a WP plugin for it “one of these days”*.
* May be never.
This comment was written by pdf23ds.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 4:30 pm
Jesus F. Christ. I’ve been reading this blog for quite some time now, and I’m a little surprised that there are people who think Robert is a “troll”.
He’s ALWAYS been civil.
He ALWAYS has arguments.
He NEVER makes a point based on sentimentalism.
He DOES follow a logic pattern in argumentation.
And yet people think he’s a troll.
This comment was written by Audrey H..Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 4:31 pm
Complementing my previous comment:
Unless, of course, if “troll” now means “someone who disagrees with what I think, no matter how politely”.
This comment was written by Audrey H..Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 4:37 pm
Audrey, I appreciate your point, and I certainly don’t criticize you for posting it.
However, I’d like to avoid this thread becoming about Robert, so everyone please: don’t post counter-arguments for why Robert is a troll, if you disagree with Audrey.
Some people think Robert’s a troll, some disagree. Let’s leave it at that.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 4:50 pm
Ok. *grins* Sorry about that. I hadn’t read all comments when I posted; I was around comment 20 when I wrote that. :) Won’t mention Robert again, I promise.
And I like your rules, btw. I think they’re fair. I used to be a “die-hard” feminist when I was younger; I developed into a much milder kind of feminism; and I’ve never found a blog where feminists engage in such high quality discussion as this one - bear in mind that, in my country, “liberal-minded” people usually are extremely sentimental and can’t argue logically. So your blog is just wonderful for me, even if I’m probabley considered “the enemy” by some feminists :)
Thanks a lot.
This comment was written by Audrey H..Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 5:17 pm
Ron F, Seriously … where have you been for rounds 1 … 9,856,581 of “where are the women bloggers” debate???
You know what bean? It’s odder than you think. Women are blogging, in droves.
They even say poltical things. The Yarn Harlot received death threats– it wasn’t for an opinion aobut knititng. (The yarn harlot has over 1000 links from other blogs– twice what Alas has.)
This comment was written by lucia.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 6:19 pm
There are those folks to whom “troll” means precisely that. Sadly.
I stumbled onto this blog over the Terri Schiavo debate, and found here the most civilized discussion of this very sad and thorny problem on the entire web. This might have been because the Schiavo issue didn’t run athwart anyone’s gender-dominance issues (ie, feminism and its opponents).
We have to ask ourselves, why blog at all? And even more so, why comment on blogs? Is it just to let out some bile, to be as angry and disagreeable as possible, or is it to have a discussion or maybe even change someone’s mind? If the latter, the more civilized the presentation the better. Very few people appreciate being screamed at, and screaming changes very few minds, though it may make the screamer feel better I guess.
But civility, we have always believed, has virtues of its own over and above utility. I believe that, in any case, and try to adhere to it, though I am certainly capable of losing my temper, as everyone here knows. But notice the phrase “losing” one’s temper. This very wording implies that one has suffered a loss of some kind, one which would be better repaired ASAP.
Thanks to Amp as a good moderator, and for hosting a much -better -than -average blog!
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 6:35 pm
I hadn’t piped up, but if somebody’s going to start tallying up sides, I rather like it.
This comment was written by Lis Riba.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 6:35 pm
I hadn’t piped up, but if somebody’s going to start tallying up sides, I rather like it. [By it, I mean the guidelines, I should clarify.]
This comment was written by Lis Riba.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 6:39 pm
bean - you beat me to it, but I was thinking exactly the same thing.
This comment was written by Sheena.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 6:40 pm
Yes indeed, women do blog in great numbers, and we talk about politics and other manly topics.
But then again, my blog is currently the town scandal. Not because I’m a woman but b/c of the town I live in. An article is due out in the daily paper on it soon, and considering that one of the editor’s questions was, Why do you stir the pot?, it is not likely to be pretty.
I also asked myself, why do people comment on blogs? I’ve had some racist, sexist, homophobic, threatening, plain nasty comments on mine(hence, the scandal, these were city police officers) and even trying to be civil in response to these comments, to find out what was behind it, just elicited more anger on the part of those who commented. And sometimes I was tempted to push the delete icon, but I didn’t, b/c it doesn’t change what was said.
Some people are there just to vent, maybe b/c they are stifled elsewhere, b/c the world, even their small piece of it, is changing and they can’t or won’t. Maybe those who watch are the same or different. Maybe they learn from what the others do.
I blogged for myself, I guess, but now that it’s out everywhere(and the subject of an investigation by Internal Affairs), I just hope something good can come out of it. I think that’s what a lot of bloggers hope.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 6:54 pm
Yeah, that’s nice, Amp, but that’s not fair. Robert is the chink in your armor and why so many female feminists don’t trust you. Robert hates feminists. He eagerly latches onto very strawfeminist there is, and he’s ever so FUCKING POLITE ABOUT IT. I’m sorry, was I not civil? Wzs I a wee bit indelicate? Yeah, well, Robert’s your buddy and he’s got a free goddamned past as long as he isn’t honest. Why should, that reflect on you? Why, indeed? He hates feminists and you like him.
A lot of really nice decent guys find it hard to believe in a rape culture. hey don’t think their buddy Joe would do that. How do they know? Becuase their buddy Joe is so fucking polite to them. The fact of hte matter is, though, Amp, Robert is an absolute shit to women and to feminists and that doesn’t matter to you. You don’t want to discuss this? Well, then, I guess the personal isn’t political at all. The fact is, your buddy Robert hates feminists, is only interested in fighting, and he’s a troll. What does that make you?
When you call your blog a feminst one you have to answer questions like that. You haven’t. You’ve tapdanced around it. Give us a real answer. Robert is a civil, polite, hateful antifemisnist. He fights just to fight and you let him. You make excuses for him, you never discilpline him and you snipe at feminists who have enough of him. You can’t call thi a feminist friendly space if you give Robert the free run of the place.
Get all logical if you wish, but the fact is, you value style over substance. robert is a troll. He’s also your buddy. How many excuses do you makefor him?
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 7:22 pm
Lis Riba said:
Indeed, I rather like it too.
As much as there are lots and lots of points to discuss, for me it really just comes down to: I’d rather not engage in discussions where people are calling each other names. If the price of that is that I don’t get to call anyone names either, well so be it.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 7:52 pm
I guess I disagree with you, Ginmar, on substance. I don’t think Robert is hateful, and if I did, I don’t think my friendship with him would prevent me from kicking him off the blog. Although he’s made a couple of bad missteps, on the whole he’s been a good poster. And I haven’t noticed him being an absolute shit to women in general; on the contrary, he’s pretty clearly willing to have friendly relations even with women (or men) who disagree with him civily.
Regarding my calling this a feminist friendly space, I already dropped that phrase in light of Jesu’s objections. It’s not my place to say that “Alas” is feminist friendly or not. It is what it is.
Finally, regarding style versus substance, I don’t really think that distinction is as valid as most assume. Style is substance. Your style sends a very substantial message about the worth of the people you disagree with, for example. And it’s a message I’d prefer not to read on “Alas.”
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 8:17 pm
Although the people who are harshest in their judgment of the moderation - even harsher than Ginmar is, although that’s a close call - are the folks over at Stand Your Ground.
The bottom line, for me, is that I want “Alas” to be a place I can stand posting to and reading. I want a blogspace in which people are treated like human beings even if they disagree, and where (ideally) there’s a norm of kindness. If wanting that makes me not a feminist, or makes “Alas” non-feminist, then I’ll have to live with that.
I’m not sure that all my critics understand what the stakes are, for me. The choice isn’t between “let’s continue the way it’s going” and “let’s add new civility policies.” The choice is between shutting down “Alas” altogether, or adding some sort of civility policy that makes this forum workable for me. So what I want to know - from Bean, and Radfem, and Q Grrl, and Alsis, in particular, because of my critics here you four are the ones whose opinions I most respect - is which of those two options do you think is better?
The perfect option - that I run this blog the way you would run it - isn’t an option, unless you want to take over the administrative and financial obligations, too. The options are that I run it the way I can stand to run it, because it’s too much work otherwise, or I shut it down.
(Or to suggest a third, workable option that I don’t currently see.)
I know that sounds like a loaded question, but it’s not intended to be one. Shutting down “Alas” altogether is an option I’ve been seriously considering, so if that’s what you think is better, I won’t consider that an outlandish, insulting or ridiculous suggestion. There’s no rule saying “Alas” has to or should go on forever, after all.
(Another option is to shut the comments down altogether. The problem with that is, I’m not sure how much fun it would be to keep producing “Alas” with no comments.)
I don’t think it’s fair to expect me to spend a lot of time and what is (for me) too much money supporting and running a forum I don’t enjoy or respect. But - in effect, if not in intent - that’s what the critics here seem to be asking for.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 8:18 pm
So it doesn’t matter what kind of misogynist / racist / homphobic / anti-Semitic / bigoted nonsense anyone posts, as long as they do it politely?
This comment was written by Sheena.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 8:23 pm
No, I don’t agree with that. Style is substance, in my view; but substance is substance, too.
Keep in mind that all first-time posters have to get their posts approved by me before anyone but me reads them. There are a lot of posts that I reject out of hand because they’re hateful, over-the-top bigoted against women/minorities/jews/fat folks/etc , which you never see. I’ve also banned some reasonably polite anti-feminist posters because in my judgement they were too full of contempt, despite surface politeness.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 8:30 pm
For what it’s worth, I actually agree w/ ginmar wrt Robert. I know that you don’t want it to be a discussion on a particular commenter, but he really is an example of a blind spot in your moderation. It really does seem to me that he is hateful towards feminists. Sure, he couches it in polite, civil language but he has said some of the most thingawful offensive stuff that I have read in the comments at Alas (I might point out here that in your hit&miss moderation that you chastised me for rephrasing something that Robert said as “having gone too far”).
I really believe that he is here to push buttons and only to push buttons. Rarely does he add anything substantive to the debate (although he has been better about that than he used to be). He often argues dishonestly and often ignores rebuttals or pointed questions in order to continue to push folks’ buttons.
As to “style over substance,” that’s one where you might want to think about why that was written. I honestly think that, in the civil style of writing that you prefer, you sometimes miss the bile and hate and downright meanness. Or, perhaps, it’s just easier for you to ignore that hate and easier to pay attention to points that may have been written in that very same post if there is no overt name-calling. But if you have multiple people saying that commenter X, no matter how civil, is a gushing fountain of hate, maybe there is something there.
It’s also true that you sometimes go way beyond the call of giving slack for the anti-feminists. There are several folks that I would have gotten rid of long before you asked them to leave. But, almost always, you eventually notice and ask them to leave. And I can live with that (as well as understand it).
Those commentors above are right when they talk about the need to find a strategy to end the endless derailment on certain threads. I appreciate your note on the recent post to that effect & hope that it works. I, for one, would like to be able to learn something new.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 8:40 pm
re: comment # 152 (written while I was writting)…
What I would like to see is moderation/criticism of comments written in a civil manner yet reeking of contempt & hate & insult. Or at least a reprimand based on your acknowledgement of other commenters complaints about such even if you don’t see it yourself.
For my self, I agree that I prefer comments that are sedately & calmly worded - even if I often have trouble doing that myself these days. However, just because a comment is written in that style does not exempt it from containing hate & insult (even if it may be harder to see).
The moderation in this thread has been a refreshing change from the lack of moderation (from my perspective) in many recent threads. There’s a reason that I’m commenting here & not on those other recent threads.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 8:46 pm
Well, I tossed my idea into the stew, and you said you’d consider it, Amp. I can’t really ask for more than that, because it’s true enough that I wouldn’t want to run this blog, or even one of my own. I’m trying to concentrate my energies on my artwork, not to mention finding a frickin’ job. :o
Funny thing about Robert: He has me agreeing with Ginmar frequently, and Ginmar is a poster with whom I have mixed it up frequently on other boards over many, many feminist issues. I find this funny (in the “funny” = peculiar) sense , because a recurrent theme of Robert’s is that certain critical subjects and tactics are desireable in left-leaning activist circles; These things will cause those circles to fragment and weaken– to the benefit of those in his own political sphere. However, his attitude on these boards have actually led me to try and repair the fissures that inevitably exist between feminists like Ginmar and feminists like myself. Not because I’ve suddenly decided that I agree with Ginmar about everything we’ve fought about in the past, but because when faced with the attitudes of men like Robert, Daran, Jaketik, whomever– I’m reminded that Ginmar and I still have some common hurdles to deal with that don’t disappear just because we can’t agree on every major issue.
And on a much more pedantic level, my quarrels with feminists like Ginmar seem like “family quarrels,” in the sense that I do not want to have them within earshot of men who have repeatedly shown that they have no use for feminism.
Which goes to show, I guess, that even “civilized” attempts at divide-and-conquer can sometimes backfire.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 8:46 pm
I know, and I know that some people I respect a lot hold your view (not least of whom is you yourself, of course). And I’ve been working hard to see it in Robert’s posts.
But I just don’t see it. What I see, primarily, is people reacting to the fact that Robert’s a little bit obnoxious, combined with the fact that he disagrees politically. If he was significantly more obnoxious, but also a feminist, I don’t think any of the posters who want to see him banned would complain about his style at all.
And I can’t ban someone because a lot of people think he should be banned, not when I don’t agree with them - that makes being banned or not into a popularity contest, and I can’t do that.
As for the particular instance you refer to, I’m afraid I don’t remember it in enough detail to comment. I remember that when we talked about it later it turned out I had misinterpreted how you meant what you wrote.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 8:52 pm
Yeah, that’s nice, Amp, you don’t think Robert is hateful. You ever notice that it’s not you he’s being hateful to? I mean, have you ever stopped and thought about it? It’s easy to miss if he’s being a shit just because he’s not being a shit to you. He’s just being shit to all these people whose cause you supposedly champion. You don’t want to see it, therefore you don’t. The fact is, Robert is a shit but you don’t have to deal with it so it doesn’t exist. He’s just a sneaky, sly, civil shit to feminists, and you value his friendship more than you value the principles he despises and disparages. He’s the embodiement of the My Buddy Joe concept. It’s not rape if it doesn’t happen in an alley and it’s my buddy Joe. It’s not sexism if it’s my Buddy Joe. It doesn’t matter if it’s my Buddy Joe. Yeah, well, he’s your friend, but he’s the enemy of anyone who’s sincere about feminism and that that doesn’t matter to you. He’s a polite, conniving, lying little shit about feminism and what matters to you is that he’s Your Buddy Robert. Two guys together, that’s what matters to you, not all the women who’ve gotten sick of Robert. In fact, your continued enabling of Robert’s behavior has driven away female posters. He matters more to you than feminism. It’s a safe place here only if you’re Robert.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 8:58 pm
But I just don’t see it. What I see, primarily, is people reacting to the fact that Robert’s a little bit obnoxious, combined with the fact that he disagrees politically.
Yeah, Amp, you think he’s a little bit obnoxious. if that’s not minimizingIf he was significantly more obnoxious, but also a feminist, I don’t think any of the posters who want to see him banned would complain about his style at all.
It’s not style. We’re not talking Strunk and White here. He’s hateful and he’s despicable. You defend him at every turn as you do not do feminists. You’ve NEVER told him to cool it or knock it off. EVER. How can you be a feminist when your buddy is so hateful to feminsts?
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:08 pm
Oh, please, Ginmar - I’ve gotten more email from female posters complaining about you running them off, then I have about Robert. (In fact, I’ve gotten more emails of complaint about you than about any other poster, period).
(Specifically, the score is: three female, feminist posters emailing me to tell me that they hesistate to post because of Ginmar’s bullying, versus none that I recall for Robert.)
And, contrary to your claim, I have told Robert to cool it at times. It’s true that I defend him to you relatively frequently, but that’s mainly because you’ve been putting me in the position of demanding that I defend him or ban him.
Now I’m asking you to cool it, please.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:18 pm
I like “Alas”. I like lurking and reading posts. I like that I feel comfortable posting when time permits. I like Ampersand’s moderating style. He can’t be around 24/7, he is very honest about that. Things slip through.
I also like that the “anti-” folks are allowed to post here. If everyone agreed to everything, it seems to me all the posts would end up being “Me too!!” and “What she said!!” type posts. And it might be just me, but I learn more stuff from folks I disagree with than folks I do. I am more likely to go look up things, read more articles, check cites. If a critic pans a movie, that’s the one I want to see, just to form my own opinion.
I have read this thread, so I know I am not supposed to bring up Robert, but I don’t think he is a troll. I rather like him. I do think he needs to remember that just because something seems funny, witty, or clever when he is thinking it, it doesn’t always mean it is actually going to “be” funny, witty, or clever in print. I also think that he knows he won’t get banned, so he gets a bit snarkier than he really needs to. But I think recently he has been working on that. Other posters annoy me much more.
Qgrrl, I think it was, posted a message on another thread? that consisted of the repeated phrase “I will not take the bait”. It is an excellent point. I can ignore folks who annoy me. I don’t have to respond. Neither does anyone else. The general idea of dealing with trolls is “don’t feed them and they will go away”. I think part of the problem here is that folks keep feeding the real trolls. Silence is deadly to folks who just want to cause a commotion and get responses to whatever lameness they post. If they post and are not engaged, they will go away.
This comment was written by mousehounde.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 9:51 pm
FWIW, I’ve thought that you moderate heavily in favor of women who blow their stacks, rather than men who blow their stacks.
From what I can read that’s what you’ve been trying for. I think you’ve done a great job. I agree pretty much on Robert. He’s done nothing worth getting banned from what I can divine of your rules, not if I were running things.
When you tell me to cool it, I try fairly hard to listen. I hope you recognize that these are fairly contentious topics, and people have strong emotional interests in them. Getting told to ‘cool off’ is always a bit shameful for me, and as such, tends to get me a bit defensive. So I cop to being guilty of thinking “Oh yeah, but he/she said…” when I get that sort of request.
I think the trolls and MRAs are fairly easy to spot. For the most part, I don’t talk to them. It’s the differences of opinion amongst feminists, GLBT folks, and other liberal type groups that interests me the most.
I made a stab at talking about it in the last debate on porn, but that got swallowed up by rancor, and then abandoned.
*sigh*
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:04 pm
I must admit to some discomfort and intimidation on both sides. I start to think, gee, I thought I was a feminist, but am I feminist enough? I probably agree with a good 85% of what I’ve read from various sources, can see the sense in another 10% but can’t back it up with my own life experience, and there’s just that last 5% that’s more troublesome to me. What brush does that leave me tarred with?
And perhaps a better word for what is meant by the spirit of “civility” here is “respect”? Someone may be acting civilly when they write something patronizing and subtly poisonous, but they sure as hell aren’t being respectful. And all people are entitled to respect on the basis of being human, though they can certainly give that up, too.
This comment was written by Rebecca E.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 10:11 pm
“And perhaps a better word for what is meant by the spirit of “civility” here is “respect”? Someone may be acting civilly when they write something patronizing and subtly poisonous, but they sure as hell aren’t being respectful.. ”
I really like this way of putting it.
This comment was written by Sheena.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:21 pm
Let’s just send him over to Robert’s blog with a note pinned to his jacket. :/
Yes. Everyone should visit my blog at least six times daily, and click on every Google ad too. Note pinning is optional.
I am cautiously optimistic about Amp’s moderation plan. I think that (Alsis’?) idea to mark some threads “no antifeminism please” is a good idea - creates a safer space, while leaving other threads free for a more vigorous exchange of views. There have been a lot of MRA-types posting here, and while I don’t agree with a lot of feminist ideas, I do think it valuable to have a space which is largely, if not entirely, congenial to those ideas. (Same for most ideas, actually, but this one just happens to be run by a friend of mine.) Such derailments can certainly be counterproductive; I try to limit myself, with limited success at times.
For the record, Ginmar, a review of my e-mail reveals that Amp has pulled a couple of comments (which I later agreed were out of line) and has asked me to moderate my tone on a couple of occasions, and I’ve tried to do that. I’m really not sure why you think I’m a horrible person who treats all women like shit. Now, as a matter of personal failings, I am very arrogant and often insensitive to people’s feelings. I try to do better, sometimes with more success than other times.
Without turning this into me-me-me-me (but hey, after 165 comments, who gives a shit?), I submit (politely) that perhaps the reason Amp doesn’t think I hate women is that he’s known me for years, has seen me with women, and is aware that IRL I treat women and men about the same - almost always with a sense that the people I’m relating to are actual humans who deserve respect and basic decency. And when I fail to do that, it’s as likely to be a man who’s the victim of my failure as a woman. At bottom I suspect Amp to be an empiricist who trusts the evidence of historical data. I have never felt as though Amp “had my back” in the sense that I could get away with stuff; on the contrary, my basic feeling when posting here is that I owe him and his friends extra courtesy.
I appreciate the kind words from posters who don’t formally assign me status as a prince of hell, and the constructive criticism of those who do. (And I’m chagrined that I may have brought Alsis closer to her feminist sisters. Damn it, the orders from Rove were clear: sow dissent! Now I must return to the Chamber of Pain to be taught a valuable lesson.) I learn a lot from commenting here, and have definitely softened one or two positions as a result of the viewpoints and data presented by the more cogent bloggers and commenters.
One suggestion for the blog culture of Alas - some arbitrary number could be decided (by Amp et al) to be the “baseline comment count” for a thread. Comments received before that point ought to be germane either to the immediate post, its direct subject, or respond to a comment that directly goes to the post. Once that post count is hit (or a time period has elapsed), then the thread is “open” and you’re not derailing if you post something tangential. So if comment 2 is “yeah, but I read this fascinating theory by CHS that says this is because of feminism, not patriarchy”, the moderator might feel free to stamp with a heavy boot, whereas if comment 100 says that, s/he might just let it go; whoever wanted to address the main point presumably already has. Just my $0.02.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:41 pm
As an alternative to the “no antifeminism please” posts, what if anti-feminists and MRAs wishing to argue about the usual subjects (is feminism good, male victims of rape, false accusations, etc) were restricted to two categories: the “anti-feminist wackiness” category that already exists, and a “patriarchy hurts men too” category which I’d create. So anyone wishing to argue against feminism along the usual spectrum of anti-feminist issues would be regulated to doing so only in those two categories.
Or maybe just any subject having to do with rape, sexual abuse, spousel violence, etc. would automatically be a “no antifeminists allowed” subject UNLESS it was posted in the “anti-feminist zaniness” or “PHMT” categories.
Anti-feminists would still be allowed to post in other categories - but only if what they post isn’t one of the typical anti-fem arguments. For instance, there’d be no problem if Daran wanted to contribute a children’s lyric to a thread about children’s song lyrics, but if he wanted to argue about rape statistics he’d have to find an appropriate post on the “anti-feminist wackiness” or “PHMT” categories.
If I could enforce the rule strictly enough on MRAs and anti-feminists, it would leave most of the threads about rape and intimate violence - which is, I think, the most sensitive area for many feminist posters - free of MRAs and antis.
On the other hand, on the recent childcare thread, or on posts rebutting anti-feminist attacks on rape statistics, the MRAs would be allowed to post.
What do folks think? Is this a dumb idea, or might it improve the situation?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:49 pm
Well, I guess I’ll throw my own $0.02 into the pot.
I’m a daily reader of Alas and have been for quite some time. I don’t post to the comments very often but I do usually read them and I’d have to agree with others who have said that discussion by feminists tends to get drowned out by non-feminist and anti-feminist posters.
My main issue, which has been mentioned by quite a few feminists in this thread, is that so many of the comments sections get completely derailed into unproductive discussions that usually consist, as others have mentioned, with proverbially “reinventing the wheel”
For instance, virtually every single post that even mentions rape is usually guaranteed to slide into a discussion of whether rape happens, whether it is men who overwhelmingly comit the majority of rapes, what is rape, and whether most women who report rape are liars. It often makes productive discussion of the actual topic virtually impossible.
If there was one thing that I think could improve the discussion here it is that. Crack down on unproductive thread drifts and especially ones that slide into reinventing the wheel on certain topics. Actually, I might suggest having a series of open threads for those topics if you want to have a space where, if posters want, they can keep trying to reinvent the wheel indefinitely.
As to the issues of gaming the system by using “civility” to conceal baiting, disrespectful and insulting behavior, I think that one has been well addressed by other posters. I just wanted to add, as someone who chronically posts in a very measured style that I very much concur with the opinions of those who don’t on this issue.
I also wanted to add, from my own experience online and off, that “reasonableness” and “civility” are not inherent goods and that anyone who posts in a “reasonable” “dispassionate” “rational” tone shouldn’t automatically be presumed to know what they are talking about or to be any of those things. Conversely, those who post in more passionate terms shouldn’t be assumed to not know what they are talking about or to not be right.
This comment was written by Lorenzo.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 1:02 am
You know, you might consider a software shift. As someone else said, one-thread comment handler software is, um, weak for a blog with this kind of traffic volume. You’re almost more of a forum than a blog.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 2:22 am
I have found Ampersand’s moderation to be mostly fair. He does have a double standard in favor of feminist posters, yet a double standard is justified considering that this is a feminist blog. I think the double standard is a bit too steep, and I wouldn’t mind him being more harsh on bullying from feminist posters. If I were to recommend to my libertarian friends (although I don’t consider myself a libertarian) an example of strong feminist argumentation, I would refer them to this blog, but I would have to tell them to take the comments with a grain of salt.
A few random observations about things I’ve noticed in my time here:
1. “Offensiveness.” I’ve noticed that a lot of posters here seem to have a penchant for finding non-feminist claims “offensive.” I’ll talk about a specific example later. The problem is that a lot of “offense” is taken towards empirical claims that may be true or false. But I don’t understand why someone chooses to take offense at claims that are true, or at least possibly true. If a study finds that almost 1 in 20 men admit to rape, some people will take “offense” at the study to get out of considering its implications. Same thing with most studies of rape statistics. Yet I think it’s stupid to get offended by claims that may well be true: the study deserves to be taken seriously. I think it’s silly to get all offended about empirical claims or studies that contradict one’s worldview: if one believes that those claims are wrong, the mature response is to point out how they are wrong, instead of accusing the person making the claim of being “offensive.” (Of course, some empirical claims may be a cover for actual insults, such as “all women are liars” or “all men are rapists,” because those claims are obviously false.)
2. “Thread hijacking.” I’ve heard lots of accusations about “thread hijacking,” some directed at me in the past, and I’ve always been confused about those accusations: it’s not like I have some evil patriarchal mind control power that I use to force people to respond to me. I am sure that there are some cases where antifeminist posters deliberately try to hijack threads here. Yet in other cases, I think that something else is happening:
- A non-feminist poster states an opinion or claim in good faith, intending to add to a discussion
- A bunch of feminist posters take exception to that opinion or claim, and pile on the non-feminist poster
- The non-feminist poster defends his or her original claim
- The non-feminist poster gets piled on even more
- Then the non-feminist poster gets accused of derailing the thread!
Being on the receiving end of this treatment, I can say that it is grossly unfair and hypocritical. First, the feminist posters don’t have to respond (and as mousehounde pointed out, if the person is really trolling, then ignoring their posts is the most effective way of getting rid of them). Second, given that the feminist posters are responding, they are just as guilty of further derailing the thread. Third, some feminist posters here seem to get a kick out of flaming what they perceive as “anti-feminist trolls,” and hence actively participate in turning threads into a spiral of flame wars.
It may be true that the non-feminist poster said something incredibly stupid or ridiculous, yet that doesn’t absolve anyone who replies to him from responsibility for further derailing the thread. On the other hand, if the original poster is simply stating a serious but controversial position in good faith, then that person shouldn’t be solely blamed for “thread hijacking” simply for defending that position when multiple people pile on him or her.
3. Intentions. I’ve noticed that a lot of the feminist posters here have a strange habit of claiming themselves to be an authority on the intentions of posters they disagree with. This habit leads to all sorts of nasty accusations such as “being offensive” or “thread jacking” or misogyny and even accusations of having the mentality of an abuser. Certainly some posters are deliberately offensive, or trolling, or misogynistic, yet feminist posters are way too trigger-happy with these accusations (which often become self-fulfilling prophecies: I’ve seen situations where non-feminist posters were baited with ad hominems and accusations until they reacted by becoming deliberately offensive). This shameful treatment has the effect of making non-feminist posters often feel like they are being placed on trial as a person, which will only make them more defensive and less open-minded towards feminist points of view.
Sounds fair to me.
This comment was written by Aegis.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 2:27 am
(Note: I made a previous comment that this one is a continuation of, but it is awaiting moderation.)
Why do you interpret it that way? It is possible that almost half of rape reports are false. I think that is very unlikely, but we can’t pretend that it’s completely impossible. Hence, it is a matter of debate, although I suspect that the outcome of the debate, when we have more evidence, will be that the 40% number is wrong. If feminists insist on interpreting false rape allegation statistics as a “slam” towards women, then they hardly have any grounds to criticize MRAs who dismiss rape statistics as “slam” towards men.
In any kind of discussion, people may encounter claims, true or false, that make their group look bad. You are going to encounter claims that make females or feminists look bad and that make you feel shitty. I am going to encounter claims that make males look bad and me feel shitty (like the 1 in 20 figure discussed above). I think this is something that everyone simply needs to learn to deal with. Nobody is justified in demanding that they never have to deal with ideas that they don’t like. No one group, regardless of past or present privilege or oppression has the right to dictate “we can make claims that reflect badly on you, but you can’t do the same to us!” That fact that a certain claim makes one’s group look bad isn’t a reason to suppress that claim or be offended by it, because there is a chance that the claim is true.
Btw, I agree with you that “There is a long history of a fundamental belief in women’s spiritual and mental inferiority” (see Otto Weininger for the most ridiculous examples of this type of misogyny). Yet I don’t think the solution to that stereotype is suppress any claims that may make women look bad. The attitude that people shouldn’t talk about certain possible empirical truths because women or feminists will get too “offended” actually reinforces the stereotype that women are hysterical and can’t deal with hard facts. It is exactly that kind of “soft bigotry of lowered expectations” that is keeping women out of education, politics, combat, economics, the sciences, etc…
How do you know what Daran’s argument is meant to prove or disprove?
This comment was written by Aegis.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 4:18 am
Amp: As usual, you don’t seem willing to post a disagreement without making personal attacks. Once again, please try not to do that on “Alas.”
Which part of this statement did you feel was a personal attack?
(a) I really don’t object to your having whatever rules you like for your blog, and on the whole, I can live with them.
(b) 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.
(c) It’s smug.
(d) It’s annoying.
(e) It’s untrue.
Whichever part of it you decided was a “personal attack” which meant you didn’t have to respond to the rest of it, I’ll eliminate that part, if you’ll respond to the rest.
You are not a feminist-friendly blog: as several people have pointed out, you don’t have any problem at all with the anti-feminist trolls that Robert posts, and you’ve said you’ll never ban him. Daran kept spouting bilious attacks on women - all women - throughout a long thread, and you never banned him for his freely-expressed bile and contempt for women, but because he derailed a thread.
Please note, I am not attempting to tell you you should change your moderation policy. You like having Robert on your blog: he’s your friend, it’s your blog, you’re entitled. You like having all these anti-feminists on your blog posting their bile: it’s your blog, you’re entitled. But trying to claim that this makes your blog “feminist-friendly” is as false as Cathy Young claiming to be a feminist.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 4:31 am
Aegis: In any kind of discussion, people may encounter claims, true or false, that make their group look bad. You are going to encounter claims that make females or feminists look bad and that make you feel shitty. I am going to encounter claims that make males look bad and me feel shitty (like the 1 in 20 figure discussed above). I think this is something that everyone simply needs to learn to deal with. Nobody is justified in demanding that they never have to deal with ideas that they don’t like. No one group, regardless of past or present privilege or oppression has the right to dictate “we can make claims that reflect badly on you, but you can’t do the same to us!” That fact that a certain claim makes one’s group look bad isn’t a reason to suppress that claim or be offended by it, because there is a chance that the claim is true.
You’re missing an extremely important point here.
The strategies adopted by the anti-feminists whom Ampersand welcomes here are in fact (consciously or not) intended to prevent feminists discussing facts - like the fact that one in 20 men commit rape by their mid-twenties - that make men look bad and men feel shitty.
It’s a symptom of male privilege that men, deep down, know they have the right to demand, as you put it, that they never have to deal with ideas that they don’t like: that by reason of being men, they can dictate “we can make claims that reflect badly on you, but you can’t do the same to us!” That is precisely what anti-feminists do when they post on a blog like this: they don’t want feminist discussion, because it makes men look shitty and it makes men feel bad.
The attitude that people shouldn’t talk about certain possible empirical truths because women or feminists will get too “offended” actually reinforces the stereotype that women are hysterical and can’t deal with hard facts. It is exactly that kind of “soft bigotry of lowered expectations” that is keeping women out of education, politics, combat, economics, the sciences, etc…
And this is a primary example of an anti-feminist who thinks that anti-feminist attacks ought to be given the same weight as feminism. That feminists who object to having discussion trolled by anti-feminists who want to drag everything down to “women are just as bad as men!” or “Women do lie about rape - you can’t prove they don’t!” or “Men are raped too!” when feminists want to discuss male privilege, or why so many rapists escape conviction, or how rape culture works, are “reinforcing the stereotype that women are hysterical and can’t deal with hard facts”.
A feminist-friendly blog is one in which feminists can have that kind of discussion without it consistently being derailed by anti-feminist trolls. Ampersand claims that’s the kind of blog he wants: but his actions demonstrate that what he actually wants is the kind of blog where anti-feminist trolls, including his friend Robert, feel free to derail feminist discussions and freely insult women, feminists, and feminism.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 6:20 am
Oh, please, Amp, now you’re resoting to hearsay? I have only your word for that, and I have to trust that the supposed three women were really feminists as opposed to trolls. Hell, I have to assume they were actually female.
Yeah, Robert, why on earth would I have a probelm with you? Whether it’s here or on other boards, you’re snide, rude, and want to argue only for the sake of arguing. You have displayed absolutely no interest in listening. You just want to score points. Oh, yeah, and I”ve said this to you and you still can’t figure it out. Maybe if you devoted less time to lobbing insults and listening you’d have noticed by now. What now? You going to call me emotional? You’re going to do it in your own, unique civil style. Well fuck that bullshit–and it IS bullshit, becuase your contempt shows through. Don’t ever act innocent with me about your attitude.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 7:00 am
Ginmar, you were the one who started the “heresay.” If it’s a valid argument when you to claim that unnamed women are being driven away by Robert being here, it’s a valid argument when I claim the same thing.
Jesu, I’ve removed the “feminist-friendly” language in response to your criticism.
What more is it that you’re asking for, specifically?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 7:22 am
I really agree with Lorenzo that there are threads that get taken into really unproductive areas and that stopping this would be a substantial improvement. And I agree with aegis (just this once) that we should ignore him whenever he posts and I promise to do that from now on.
The idea of having some discussions off-limits seems like a good one. I had been thinking that I would love to have some types of comments declared ‘touching a third rail’ — do that and you’re dead. I don’t want to ever read ever again how women need to modify their behavior to prevent rape. I don’t want to read another sentence about how unfair shelters for battered women are. I don’t want to read one more claim that anyone who supports abortion is an immoral baby-killer who places no value on human life. I don’t want one more single mother to have to see a comment on how if she would only get married, her life would perfect and she would stop being a burden on society. And unless someone can come up with statistics that feminists and MRA’s both agrees are valid, I would love to have Amp declare all comments on false rape reports pointless.
This comment was written by AndiF.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 7:32 am
What more is it that you’re asking for, specifically?
“Dear Buddha, please bring me a pony and a little plastic rocket”
Or, more seriously, for Fitzgerald to file charges against Cheney and Rove and/or for Congress to impeach Bush, evict the corrupt Republicans from their midst and regain Democratic control…
This comment was written by Lis Riba.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 7:37 am
Ampersand: Jesu, I’ve removed the “feminist-friendly” language in response to your criticism.
Guh. So you did. My apologies: for some reason, I thought it was still there.
What more is it that you’re asking for, specifically?
Actually, what “more” I was asking for was what I have acknowledged I don’t have a right to ask for: I wish you had decided you did want your blog to be a feminist-friendly space, and had modified your moderation policies accordingly, rather than acknowledging that you don’t, and changing this post about them. But thank you for changing your post.
If it’s a valid argument when you to claim that unnamed women are being driven away by Robert being here, it’s a valid argument when I claim the same thing.
The difference is, several other feminists have pointed out the problem with Robert, and other anti-feminist trolls, feeling welcomed on your blog: that we cannot have feminist discussions without their being derailed by people, like Robert, who do not wish them to take place.
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 7:50 am
Amp, here’s another easily-implemented idea. This one might solve the “MRAs are districting me!!!” problem. (If you implement it in a hacky way, it would be easy to program it into your template.) Request each poster to mark their post with “feminist hostile” at the beginning, if it’s either hostile or it’s a response to one of those, and put a bit of code into your template to color those comments differently. People who don’t want to read them can easily skip them. You might even make an option for them to hide those comments, perhaps. This would probably increase the volume of intra-feminist discussion on those posts that have MRAs posting. It does still require people who don’t want to read them to *actually not read them* and refrain from responding, but it makes it easier for them to do so.
And also, I want to echo the poster who said it’s more about respect than it is about civility. I think all posters should either entirely ignore one poster, or summarily dismiss their ideas (say, by posting “this is a load of bullshit.” and nothing more), or really engage those ideas as if the other poster were being honest. There should be attempts at meeting halfway from both parties, and when they don’t, I think that should be subject to moderation.
Robert said:
“You’re almost more of a forum than a blog.”
Ahh, but even a lot of php-bb type forums don’t have threaded displays. But they have the advantage of being able to have poster-created threads. So to replace that, amp could install php-bb and let posters fork comments threads using that. (If he wanted to make the template consistent, that’d be a lot of work, otherwise pretty easy.)
Aegis said:
“Yet I think it’s stupid to get offended by claims that may well be true: the study deserves to be taken seriously.”
I think the offense is generally more over the lack of respect for the shared knowledge of the other posters. By being so uninformed about their opinions, you’re creating a lot of work for them if they want to engage you, and distracting them from the more enriching discussion they could be having otherwise. Unless you’re very receptive to their opinions, and are coming from a position of genuine humility, as would befit a guest on a feminist blog, you’re going to raise hackles.
Imagine a blog devoted to the discussion of basketball techniques and plays. Posters there that came in complaining about basketball or asking about what the rules are or posting urban legends about various pro basketball players would definitely be considered to be hijacking threads. It’s not the behavior of the posters that makes them “hijacking”, it’s the subject matter of their comments.
I agree that it’s a tad hypocritical for a commenter to both respond to the hijacker and complain about hijacking. But I doubt this actually happens all the time. Some feminist commenters like to debate with MRAs, some don’t. The ones that don’t are often sick and tired of having to listen to those same conversations over and over. They’ve already heard the arguments a million times. The ones that do may not be the ones complaining so much.
This comment was written by pdf23ds.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 8:09 am
Jesu, believe it or not, I actually share your concern about having threads here that aren’t constantly derailed. And I do want “Alas” to be a feminist-friendly space, although I also want it to be a space where it’s possible to have respectful debates with non-feminists. (I realize that some feminists may find these two goals mutually exclusive.)
However, I’m also very aware that not all feminists will find “Alas” “feminist-friendly,” no matter what I do. There are feminists who pretty much consider me an anti-feminist, after all. So it’s not that I’m not trying to address your concerns; it’s that I’m aware that even if I do address your concerns successfully, it still won’t be my place to say if “Alas” is “feminist friendly” or not, because some feminists won’t find “Alas” friendly space.
Anyhow, here’s the new policy for anti-feminists, MRAs, and right-wingers. It’s not set in stone, so I’d appreciate feedback from you and any other interested parties. Do you think this policy might address your concerns?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 8:41 am
In response to some comments here, I’ve modified goal number one so it talks about “respect” rather than civility.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 10:21 am
Hey Amp.
I personally like a loose moderation, more like a referee than a dictator of manners. The two suggestions that pop up in my mind are 1) leave posts in their entirity with no editing from your end and 2) when you see someone react in a “knee-jerk” way or seemingly out of line way, as them why they did it rather than just telling them they’re out of line. That way you build in a time-gap before the next reaction and you might just get a justification for the reaction that furthers discourse. Most often when I go ballistic there are good political and theoretical underpinnings to my reaction. Most often when I go ballistic though, these aren’t clear. As I said before (in this thread?), the effects of sexism and the way sexism is played out in the private and public spheres is extremely nuanced and sometimes so subtle that you only know it because you are feeling it. This makes it very hard for me to express clearly and concisely what is a very emotive experience — one that is filled with anger, rage, and the specific impotence of being female and having to still defend feminism in 2005.
I like the mix up of opinions here, but I’m also in total agreement with Bean about the strength and intelligence of feminist discourse when it is unfettered from having to protect its theoretical flanks. I take my feminism quite seriously — it is an ethos. What I write here is also how I live my life. The passion here is always with me. And I would like to see change continue to progress, not regress.
Men often need to figuratively cut themselve sand other men to see them bleed; women, on the other hand, just bleed. We don’t have to prove it; we don’t have to create fancy semantic or statistical shell games to prove a level of rightness or wrongness. It isn’t about rightness or wrongness. It is about validation and human worth. But many of the MRA’s or FRA’s here still profess profound ignorance and repeatedly posit, “You can’t possibly bleed every month! Impossible I say! Men don’t — prove that you do.” And then when we show them the proof, they say we’re lying.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 10:36 am
Well, I came back and people kept on talking about Robert. :)
Amp, I really am amazed at ginmar’s reaction. On this thread, she has used a myriad of bad words and got away with it. Ok, she’s pissed off, and maybe with a reason - I’ll even try to look for other comments Robert has made here to see if he’s really is a troll. But I can’t recall any, so far.
So maybe it’s a matter of having a blog not as feminist-friendly as some feminists want. I, for once, like having people who disagree having a civil conversation - that’s what makes a good blog, in my opinion. I have no interest in reading blogs which espouse my ideas about life in general and in which people only agree with the poster. But that’s just me. And I’m afraid that not everyone will be satisfied with what you do here, no matter what - well, that’s life.
This comment was written by Audrey H..Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 11:14 am
Audrey, when you get confronted with the equivalent of, “Well, some peopel somewhere—unnamed and unquoted—bitched about you” as an exampel of a supposedly strong argument, you’d get pissed off, too. It’s the equivalent of Faux News saying, “Well, some people say…”
If you want an example of Robert saying, “You feminists all suck!” you won’t find it. He’s too clever for that. But he’s also snide and has proven himself completely disinterested in c hanging his mind about our rights.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 11:17 am
Hey, RadFem, I dropped by your blog. “Stir things up” seems rather inadequate. Looks more like you dropped a match in the gas tank!
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 11:35 am
pdf wrote:
Bingo.
I brought in a similar parallel several months ago, but of course the MRA’s invovled in the thread-jack who bothered to respond all informed me that, no, their mission was different blah blah blah…
I agree with Q that the referee model is most desireable, even if Amp can’t be here every second of the day to ref.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 12:08 pm
Some policy about apologies would be good. It flows directly from the respect point, that is, if a commentor behaves constantly in a manner that others find offensive or posts offensive stuff and reacts to criticism by bearing personal grudges towards the offended people instead of trying to solve the issue immediately by possibly apologizing and solving misconceptions when they occur, that person (IMO) is at least a candidate for banning.
I don’t mind offensive language or even some personal stuff if it is accompanied by a degree of respect, honesty and good faith. After all, many of the issues here aren’t just philosophical exercises, but damn serious (especially for women). I don’t think it’s fair to demand people whom these issues affect most to adopt a sort of schoolroom debate -mode. (Not that I expect you to completely disagree here, but just my 0.02 euros).
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 12:21 pm
Ginmar, what happened to ” I don’t intend to post here any longer.”?
I’ve been a regular (twice a day at least) lurker and occasional commenter for going on two years now. I was one course short of a women’s studies minor, and I consider my feminist. (I blame my mother, since she named me after one of the founders of the women’s rights movement in the United States. Now I just need to find a man with the last name Stanton, and I’m set.) I have never been intimidated out of a thread by one of the male commenters. I do, however, avoid posting, because according to some, I’m just not feminist enough, and I’ll then have to endure a long stream of violent vitriol.
Amp, it’s your space. Do what you want with it. Personally I think you do a great job overall.
This comment was written by AlieraKieron.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 12:27 pm
I actually do mind personal stuff, Tuomas. I’m not sure there’s a way to make personal attacks that actually is respectful. That doesn’t mean that you have to pretend to respect opinions that are not worth respecting.
There’s a world of difference between
and
My whole point in any of this is to try to end up with discussions that are more like the former than the latter. Both call out the argument in no uncertain terms, it’s just that the first one doesn’t make me want to give up on humanity and hope against hope that the cockroaches do better.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 12:39 pm
Myca, you forgot “despicable” and “hate-filled”.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 12:43 pm
AK, if Amp actually follows through, it’d be different. I do like your setting yourself up as the standard, though—You’ve never been bothered by the male trolls, but you have been bothered by the feminists hwo told you you weren’t feminist enough, horrors!
Amp’s made some major changes that might choke off the hold the trolls have on this place.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 12:58 pm
Ironically, while “TishG” behaved like a first-class twit here, she was right in one sense: I’ve found that often my attempts to be less of a grouch meet with relative silence compared to my more off-the-cuff rants. Maybe once you have a certain rep, people are disappointed when you don’t deliver what they expect. It’s weird…
OTOH, unlike Josh, I thought the latest porn-thread went very well. Compared to the usual, it actualy was remarkably restrained. Perhaps that’s simply because most folks are simply tired of wading into a subject that never seems to go anywhere good, but still…
I greatly enjoyed much of the recent race threads, too. Though part of that is simply that I’m trying to scroll past the folks I know I’ll find disappointing in favor of the folks I always learn something from. The main problem with that coping method is that often you can’t appreciate the latter without eventually going back to read the details of what the former said. Arg. My poor blood pressure…
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 12:59 pm
I have no intention of setting myself up as the standard. I merely stated that I find it relatively easy, myself, to brush off the BS from obvious trolls, but I find the internecine Feminist Wars to be damaging both to my equanimity (and blood pressure) and to the movement at large. Being called a man-hating whore or hag rolls off my back at this point. Having my committment to feminism and core values questioned because I questioned some second wave assertions is doesn’t.
I’m sorry, would that argument be more effective if I inserted several “fucks”?
This comment was written by AlieraKieron.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 1:09 pm
No, it’d be more effective if you dropped your fucking attitude. I’m so happy for you, that sexist shit doesn’t bother you, but you’re just you, and it does bother other people. You feel compelled to trot that out, as if it makes you both unqiue and some kind of standard bearer. You also saw fit to introduce yourself by saying that feminists bug you more than trolls. Aren’t you the standard to which we should all aspire to? If you’re going to bitch about having standards, perhaps you shouldn’t offer your own behavior as the model.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 1:16 pm
Er, yes. I believe that’s exactly what I said.
Er… huh?
This comment was written by AlieraKieron.It obviously doesn’t make me unique, because several other people have said as much. Everything from that point on makes no sense to me. I already said I have no interest in establishing a standard. Amp asked for opinions, and after reading the first 189 comments I offered my own. As it relates to me, myself. You’re free to be offended by whatever the hell you want.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 1:16 pm
You’re probably right. What I’m saying is that probably all of us ’slip’ now and then, but if there is respect, we apologize and try to set things right. I know I’ve slipped in the past but an apology (an actual one, not “I’m sorry you were offended” -pseudoapology) usually went a long way.
And yes, I prefer the former to the latter too. The civility vs. honesty is a bit of a false dilemma anyway, usually it is entirely possible to be both.
And about Robert: I don’t think he is a troll. Certainly I don’t agree with much of his politics, but he does appear to be here in good faith and has displayed (mostly) patience and respect towards opposing viewpoints. Perhaps it is his style of humor, which consists of good-natured (or malicious, but I’m being optimistic here) poking and teasing is what people object to. Sometimes it is funny, sometimes it comes across as being a smart-ass. No offense intented, Robert.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 1:24 pm
I’ve never been one to post politely and butter crumpets like I’m at a fucking tea party. I tend to be very blunt and acerbic. It beats being passive-aggressive by a mile. I am also really fucking fond of F-bombs.
AK, I haven’t seen any intercine feminist wars, unless your talking about people doubting Cathy Young’s claim to feminism. I also have no problems telling misogynist trolls to get lost and go fuck themselves.
But–and perhaps you missed this upthread–I’m tired of having to reinvent the wheel for the willfully ignorant, and forgo a deeper understanding of the subject at hand because a couple of trolls are using up all of the oxygen in the room. Yeah, that means that I’m sick to the teeth of threads getting deraild by the what about the MEN???!!! contingent every time a subject about women comes up. It means I’m fucking tired of a threads becoming about the feelings of men, or the feelings of one or two men, and fuck the rest of us bitches. It means I’m sick to death of the button-pushing and P-A tactics from these trolls–and the squealing and yelping and oh-so-injured-innocence when someone verbally kicks their ass for acting like. . .an ass.
M response to this tends to be impatient and acerbic, because I have zero tolerance for this bullshit anymore. I have to deal with it on a daily basis everywhere else, so my polite supply is running short. It’s more irritating to me that the so-called intercine feminist wars, frankly.
If that makes me mean, I really don’t give a fuck.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 1:26 pm
Agreed completely. Even under the best of circumstances we’ll all lose our temper from time to time, and “faceless arguments about stuff we care about on a deep and personal level with people we’ll never meet in person” isn’t even close to the best of circumstances. I mean, Christ, you can’t even see it from there.
So yes, self-examination is a good thing. I actually had a long rant just typed out about 10 minutes ago that I decided to kill rather than post, and the thing is, it was hard because I was really clever and funny . . . and snarky . . . and inflammatory. I was right to kill it, but man oh man I didn’t want to.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 1:30 pm
It’s more irritating to me that the so-called intercine feminist wars, frankly.
Should have been: It’s more irritating to me THAN the so-called intercine feminist wars, frankly.
And for all the other typos, my apologies.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 1:38 pm
“My response to this tends to be impatient and acerbic, because I have zero tolerance for this bullshit anymore. I have to deal with it on a daily basis everywhere else, so my polite supply is running short.”
Well thanks for summing up my usual day, Sheelzebub.
“P-A tactics…”
Was that in reference to me?
This comment was written by Pseudo-Adrienne.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 1:50 pm
PA = Passive-aggressive, methinks.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 1:55 pm
P-A lives !!
(passes fizzy punch drink)
What with raznor and lucia dropping by, it’s almost like old-home week. I need to break out my “Dean For America” sign and– oh, wait. I never had one. I can’t stand Dean. Forget it. Just drink your punch. :o
I agree with Sheelzebub, and not because I’ve never been the target of the more-feminist-than-thou spiel from some feminist in another camp. I tend to think that saying trolly men’s bull rolls off one’s back misses the whole issue. Perhaps one of the reasons it DOES roll off your back, Aliera, is because like most of us, you’ve gotten a societal message from our culture that men act like assholes and that if women don’t like it, tough. Perhaps it affects you/us more than you realize and this has something to do with your impatience with feminists who tend toward the cranky style of discussion.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 2:07 pm
“P-A lives !!”
No not really. Since school ended and I’m now back home I’ve been sleeping in until 3 or so in the *afternoon*. But I have to stop because it’s freaking out my dad and step-mom. (takes fizzy punch drink from alsis)
This comment was written by Pseudo-Adrienne.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 2:19 pm
I see your point re: the ‘men act like assholes…’ subliminal message, but I don’t think that’s quite it. It’s that you CAN brush them off with the “fuck you I will not reinvent the wheel” response. The willfully ignorant and just plain stupid are unconvincable, and *should* get a cranky (to say the least) response. I didn’t mean to suggest they shouldn’t. I realize exactly how much it affects me, and that’s why I have two choices: learn to ignore it or go slowly insane.
This comment was written by AlieraKieron.It’s not a boys-will-be-boys response, it’s that stupid people will be stupid.
I just think the agressive energy and the anger should be directed at the enemy, not each other.
I also tend to be sensitive to the whole swearing vs swearing at someone distinction. I’m a motherfuckin’ fan of the goddamn pottymouth shit talk, but when you start swearing AT someone, you’ve passed the point of argument and into flat-out-fight. Sometimes, that’s the appropriate response. I did not, however, make that sufficiently clear, and I apologise.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 2:22 pm
First of all, let me finish jumping up and down for joy that my oldest niece just got accepted to the rigorous medical program in N. Z. (Univ. of Otago)
Okay….
Well, I don’t think the blog should be shut down, b/c it s a really good one. I enjoy reading and posting here. Robert’s kind of a pain, but I either ignore him or I’ll say something about what he’s said on a topic, depending on my mood. Ditto the MRAs or SYG folks, who face it, if they have anything less than a full run of your blog, they will never be happy. I’m not surprised if they are sending you floods of complaints.
I share bean’s concerns and observations about dynamics that I’ve noticed. And not those involving mainly the MRAs but nonfeminist liberal men. But that’s been a struggle in liberal or leftist movements and organizations forever. And it’s been written or talked about a lot. It’s frustrating when that happens though, on these threads involving feminist issues.
It’s just on certain threads, especially those on rape, DV or similar topics they begin with really good posts(by amp and P-A) and then it gets turned around to where if it’s rape for example, it’s all about male victims, women lying about rape, those rotten feminists, whatever.
It’s not these divertive topics that are necessarily the problem(well, skip the latter), they can be excellent discussions, but where they are raised—on threads dealing with issues and their impact on women. Why can’t they be discussed on their own threads? But then, for at least some male posters, particularly the MRA crowd, that would not be enough. Part of what drives them, is to use those topics to interrupt discourse that is already taking place about issues and the impact they have on women. I think the MRA people do it consciously. Maybe other men are less aware of what they are doing., but it’s still there.
Depending on the day I’ve had, I have different levels of patience dealing with the tactics of diversion used by some men on these threads. Sometimes very little, especially if I’ve seen or experienced similar tactics used IRL that day.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 2:28 pm
No apology necessary, Aliera.
But, I think that’s exactly what I was driving at. (bean, Qgrrl, Sheelzebub and some others, too.) We aren’t ducks, really, despite metaphors to the contrary. :p More like sponges. Before we reach the “roll-off-your-back” stage, an awful lot of that nasty troll/anti-feminist stuff had to soak in and supersaturate our hides first. Given the general hostility in society towards women and feminist issues, it’s inevitable that we’ve soaked up more anti-feminism than feminism by the time we’re old enough to reach the keyboard. This invariably poisons exchanges between women because we’re already supersaturated with negative emotions from outside. Also, we end up using up our pity (or sympathy) on men, and don’t have any left for each other.
I’m not saying that life in patriarchy means that we all have a blank check to be shitheads, only that we need to be careful about the standards we use with our own vs. outsiders– You know, whether the standards are being fairly applied or not.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 3:10 pm
Amp, I like your rules. I also like your blog, and would hate to see it go away. I too found it while looking for info on Terri Schiavo, and I was really impressed with both the factual info you provided (the scan showing the atrophied cerebral cortex) and the comments thereon.
Sometimes I’ve been a little reluctant to post because I’m a good deal less radical than some of the feminists here (for example, I have described myself as “prochoice but queasy”), and I’d echo much of what AK said.
Some months ago Amp was interviewed on a blog called Christian Conservative, and I was so impressed by his and Michael’s willingness to discuss if not debate that I hung around on CC for a while, trying to get a sense of what they were about and to find common ground. I finally gave up because they were getting nowhere trying to convert me and I was getting nowhere with my arguments on various political issues. I became convinced that I was just wasting my time and theirs. (I still lurk there occasionally, and I know at least a few folks from here are still over there fighting the good fight — all I can say is I commend you for your patience.) In any event, I do not find that to be the case here. I’ve learned a lot from people on both sides of the discussion (whatever the discussion happens to be).
I particularly agree with AK that if I think a comment is way out in left field I just say to myself, “oh, that’s just Robert [or Q Grrl, or RonF, or ginmar, or whoever]” and move on. If the whole thread seems to have wandered away I just stop reading. I don’t think this is a passive response to patriarchy, just a time-saving device — see remarks re CC above.
I like the idea of disemvowelling and/or 24-hour bans — on CC I often had to put myself in time-out, and I wouldn’t object to being put there by the blog host. I do think that Amp’s willingness to tolerate dissent improves this blog a lot, even if it does sometimes lead to thrashing and rehashing. As someone else said (paraphrasing here), if everyone says the same thing no one learns much. It’s a hard line to walk. Limiting certain discussions to certain threads might work.
Let me repeat for emphasis: Amp, I like your blog, and would hate to see it go away.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 3:21 pm
I didn’t see the original policy, but I find the current policy quite reasonbly.
Personally I have found that I comment less on Alas than I used to do, but that is more related to the fact, that I feel akward posting on US feminist issues as a Danish man, than anything else. I do still occationally comment on posts on different issues.
The debates have taken a dive, and to some degree it seems that it is because the MRA people have found your blog, and (intentionally or otherwise) derails many of the feminist debates.
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.It’s the same problem the evolution blogs have with Creationist/Intelligent Design posters.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 5:23 pm
Isn’t this whole thread really a meta-commentary on the fact that feminists feel pretty hopeless about how they can get their message out and still have a chance in hell of being heard and understood by people who don’t (yet?) define themselves as “feminists”? To have a truly “feminist-friendly” blog, I think that needs to be a more-discussed topic.
This comment was written by Mary.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 7:46 pm
Mary, your comment makes me a little nervous. You sound like you want to convert all who don’t profess all of the articles of the One True Feminist Faith. I like this blog because of the diversity of opinion (which I believe exists among feminists as well as between feminists and non-feminists).
Of course it is possible that my experience with right-wing Christians has made me a bit touchy.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 8:11 pm
I should have written “it sounds to me like,” not “you sound like.” My apologies.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 8:35 pm
I read Alas, A Blog specifically for the originally-posted content. As a woman who considers myself to be a feminist, it’s important to me to remain aware of, and learn more about, issues pertaining to feminism.
However, although I’ve read this blog for several years, I rarely comment. I’m fairly moderate and not particularly angry; I’ve found that the “not feminist enough” situation raised by a few in this thread is very accurate. Attacks come quickly and viciously, as well as the equally stifling “How on earth can you not know XYZ” (i.e.: Ron F, Seriously … where have you been for rounds 1 … 9,856,581 of “where are the women bloggers” debate???) approach. (Bean, your comment is the example that caught my attention in this particular thread, but not an indication that I believe this is your usual approach by any means.)
Feminist-related discourse is educational, and I believe that if a non-feminist liberal becomes a somewhat-feminist liberal as a result of these discussions, that’s a step in the right direction. If a moderate feminist begins to take specific action based on learnings from discussion with “more-feminist” feminists, that’s another step.
Stifling opposing opinions or less-educated opinions isn’t useful if we want to see a global shift.
I want to see the debate, including the posts that challenge what I believe.
This blog, in my view, is a valuable tool and it would be a shame to see it go away. I hope that the moderation process and rules of engagement smooth the path to thought-provoking discussion relating to already-excellent posts.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 9:06 pm
Amanda, you sum up my own thoughts exceptionally well. I am a feminist, but I am more moderate in my thoughts. I find that it is through debate and discussion that I expand and hone my own ideas, beliefs, and thoughts about feminism and other subjects. The dissenting opionions are a part of that process for me, personally.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 9:50 pm
Robert is not a Men’s Rights Activist and has not, to the best of my knowledge, advanced the arguments which Amp says are to be “off-limits” in the normal threads. He is, and has never made any bones about being, a free-market libertarian. The idea of men claiming a special victim-status of their own is unlikely to appeal to him, and, to judge by those comments of his that I’ve read, doesn’t in fact appeal to him. The real reason for his being excoriated on this thread is not that he is an anti-feminist or anti-woman troll (the evident low-intelligence of these latter makes them easy to dismiss or ignore) but that he asks hard questions and won’t accept evasive answers. I think such “Socratic” figures are vital to the well being of any political movement, and I also think that a mere “devil’s advocate” ““ someone, that is, who merely pretends to be sceptical ““ can never do the job as well. The complaints about civility in his regard are hypocritical. If Robert were to answer Ginmar in the same tone and with the same vocabulary that she addresses him, it is easy enough to imagine what the response from many radical feminists would be: “Ampersand is happy to allow the verbal abuse of feminists on a blog which is supposedly feminist-friendly”.
This comment was written by Tom Nolan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 23rd, 2005 at 11:22 pm
Tom Nolan writes:
I disagree. More often than that, I find that civil questions from women do indeed lead to evasions from Robert. Which is his privilege, of course. But I wasn’t aware that pretending to be interested in dialogue and then playing dumb when a questioner got a tad too close to home was “Socratic.”
At any rate, it’s an interesting term, as Socrates, like nearly every male philosopher out there, was no friend and respecter of women, however highfalutin his prose.
While the argument that libertarianism and feminism are compatible has come up here before, I will (as before) go on record as disagreeing with that notion. Libertarianism is a system based upon the worship of the individual as the center of the universe. Individualism in any situation is prized above collective action or thought of any kind. Feminism, as I understand it, is about obtaining collective rights for a group, not about merely clearing some space so some fortunate woman can more easily clamber to the top of the heap to get her best shot at supreme individualism.
So while Robert may not (overtly, at least in your eyes) demonstrate hostility to feminism, he espouses a philosophy that is by definition hostile to it.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 24th, 2005 at 12:36 am
I did not say that Robert was friendly towards Feminism. Rather, I said that he was unlikely, as a free-market libertarian, to see much merit in the Men’s Rights Movement. And for the very same reason that he would probably consider himself no friend to Feminism: i.e. both of these movements are devoted to obtaining collective rights (or privileges, perhaps) for a group. My point is not that Robert is a friend to Feminism, but that he is a good *opponent* for Feminism: one who asks questions that some people in the movement naturally fight shy of confronting.
As for Socrates: I suppose I was thinking of the role he adopted of insistent philosophical trouble-maker; that, and the fact that he was done away with for asking difficult questions. And didn’t his wife, Xanthippe, once get so tired of him that she emptied a bucket-full of water over his head? More or less, come to think of it, what Ginmar did to Robert during their last exchange: though in that case it wasn’t water.
This comment was written by Tom Nolan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 24th, 2005 at 4:22 am
How do you know what the anti-feminists intend? They may certainly be intending to argue with feminists, but that is not the same thing as “preventing” feminists from discussing facts, unless those feminists choose to let themselves be distracted. Also, it’s a contradiction to say that people can “intend” something unconsciously.
I don’t think anyone needs “male privilege” to want to avoid to ideas that make them look bad! Such pettiness seems part of human nature.
More accurately: I think claims ought to be given weight according to their factual basis, not according to what political or social group the person making the claim is a member of. The examples you give I agree are not productive because they are vague or trivial, and may even be used as attacks. Yet I don’t think pointing out studies finding high false rape allegation rates is vague or trivial, although such a study may not be representative. I agree with pdf23ds that such claims may be unproductive or trite because they are dead horses that have already been beaten, but I disagree with Q Grrl that those claims are “slams” on women that reduce them to second class citizens or portray them as mentally inferior to men.
If Q Grrl’s interpretation was made binding, then it would follow that no factual claim can be made that implies anything bad about women; indeed, disagreeing with women would be impossible because it could be construed as portraying women as mentally inferior to men. The idea I saw behind Q Grrl’s post (though she is free to correct me if I’ve misinterpreted her) is that “nobody should say anything that makes women look bad.” As I said, I don’t think any group is justified in making such a demand, even if they are or have been oppressed.
(Minor point: I don’t consider myself to be an “anti-feminist.” I don’t claim to understand feminism well enough to know whether I should support it or condemn it as a whole, although I am taking Feminist Studies and Sociology of Gender courses at school so that I can see some of the actual arguments behind feminism. Until I can make up my mind about it, I am defaulting to neither support nor condemn it, although I do support some specific feminist positions and condemn others. You just don’t see which feminist positions I agree with, because I don’t talk about them so much. Most of those positions I consider old hat, or feminists state them better than I can, or I find them obvious, or they are on a subject that hasn’t come up.)
What you leave out is that this is blog is more friendly to feminists that to anyone else. Non-feminists get banned or reprimanded much more easily, and feminists can be abusive or inflammatory without getting banned. Relative to how friendly it is to non-feminists, this *is* is a feminist-friendly blog, although in an absolute sense, Alas might not feminist-friendly.
As for derailment of feminist discussions: as I said, you don’t have to reply to Robert, or to me, or to anyone else. I don’t know why you act as if you, and other feminists, lack agency and are somehow *forced* to respond to posters you disagree with. Someone has the power to “derail” feminist discussions ONLY IF the feminists *give* that person the power to do so! If you don’t like certain posters, is it so hard to simply avoid replying to them and encourage others to do the same?
This comment was written by Aegis.Report this comment to the moderators
December 24th, 2005 at 6:40 am
Christ, Aegis, on hte rape threads you tell feminists what we mean and think and feel and yet you resent it when you get a taste of your own medicine. You don’t think you’re an anti-feminist? Then start listening when yet another feminist tells you for the umpteenth time that there IS such a thing as a rape culture, even though you as a guy hasn’t noticed it. You’ve spent your time on this blog telling us that our experiences and observations and feelings don’t matter if we can’t prove to your satisfaction that there’s proof for them. PA banned you from her threads for it. You’re being dishonest with the new meat.
Tom, the reason I’m so damned impatient with Robert is that every time he’s cornerned, he takes off. I’ve encoutnered him on other blogs and he’s the master of the cheap shot designed to chagne the subject. Furthermore, rather than listen and learn he just resorts to the same crap over and over again. I could be civil to someone who treats feminists, women, and feminism with contempt, but that would be as dishonest as Robert’s pose of civility. When a guy doesn’t listen, doesn’t listen, and doesn’t listen, and furhtermore debates just for the sake of debating, focuses on irrelevancies just for the sake of winning, and in short aptly demonstrates that he has no interest in what’s being said then he’s a troll. Of course neither Robert nor Aegis want to be labelled as such, but they have a history. I’m sorry you think I have to act like a lady when confronted by snide littel shits, but I’ m not dishonest. I don’t prize dishonesty. I don’t think it’s cute to be coy as they do about their dislike and contempt for feminism. You don’t see it? Well, we do, and if you gave a shit what we were about, you would, too.
And fuck only knows how fucking sick I am of guys coming in here and whining about the unladylike language. That’s what it amounts to. If you don’t see what we see, then it doesn’t exist, and you don’t trust us, our perceptions, and our opinions enough to so much as give us the benefit of the doubt. Instead, new guy you side wiht the poor beleagured guy and make excuses. You could have some respect for stuff that’s gone on long before you’ve gotten here, but you just don’t see it.
Thats’ something else, too, something at the bottom of all this. Robert’s contempt is very clear. But unless it’s really fucking obvious and offensive, his coy charade isn’t enough for lots of male trolls. We evidently as feminists are supposed to accept contempt as our due as long as it’s not really fucking offensive. Contempt for women is so common that when a guy’s sneaky about it, other guys just don’t see it. What’s a matter, lady, can’t you take a joke?
Robert always operates under that threshhold of contempt that other guys think is acceptable. And that’s what makes him so comtemptible.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
December 24th, 2005 at 10:10 am
I VERY much agree with Bean’s point here. The claim that “Alas,” or any blog that discusses feminism, faces a choice between allowing anti-feminists to post, or having nothing but monolithic agreement, is a false dichotomy.
The truth is, I could easily do nothing but argue with other feminists for years on end. To use an obvious example, try walking into a room full of feminists and say the word “prostitution” aloud, if you want to start hours of endless argument. Or even the word “essentialist.” Or “transsexual.”
I don’t want “Alas” to be a purely-feminist forum, for several reasons (one of which is, I think there’s a weird and negative dynamic created when a male feminist chooses to devote his energy primarily to arguing against other feminists’ positions). But just because that’s not what I want “Alas” to be doesn’t mean that I think such forums aren’t important.
It’s not only valid for feminists to have intra-feminist debate and/or discussion, it’s essential that feminists do so. Feminist theory and thought cannot develop if there are no environments in which feminists can debate among themselves.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 24th, 2005 at 12:41 pm
Very good point, Bean (she said, rethinking wildly). I said both things almost in the same breath there — that echo chambers aren’t educational and that I know not all feminists hold the same opinions — a sure sign of muddle.
What I’ve observed, though, is that there are certain principles and precepts that virtually all of the feminists here agree on, and the assumption tends to get made that any dissenter must be an MRA, a troll, a patriarchal oppressor, a dupe or a fool (or some combination of those).
There are some feminist ideas that I agree with, some that I don’t, and some that I haven’t decided on either way. In that last category it’s useful for me to read those very basic arguments, repeatedly even (sorry, I’m slow).
Does not accepting the whole feminist platform, as articulated by some of the folks here, make me anti-feminist? I wouldn’t have thought so, but I would be genuinely curious to know what the feminists here think. I would also like to ask Bean specifically: in your opinion, is it OK for a conflicted, middle-of-the-road-liberal, feminist-in-spots suburban soccer mom to comment on this blog, or on any feminist blog?
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
December 24th, 2005 at 2:09 pm
Bean, while I know that it is probably not the intend of you debating, hopefully the non-feminist liberals learn something by debating with you. The anti-feminists are probably beyond reach.
Btw I was going to comment on the principle that you can’t really be liberal without being at least somewhat a feminist, but then I realized that in the US political spectrum, it is probably quite possible (Markos of Daily Kos would be one such person).
I must admit I find the gender debate/roles in the US rather puzzling, and also quite sad. How can you have a leader of one of the major universities in the world, that actually can stand up and claim that women can’t do science, and not get fired? (before anyone protests, I am aware of that I made a simplistic description of what he said - he did put in a lot of qualifiers, and cite unspecified science, that doesn’t exist, but I am just refering to his core message).
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Report this comment to the moderators
December 24th, 2005 at 2:10 pm
I dunno’, Lu. Does being one of the only feminist far-Left hardcore 3rd-Party advocates in this space –even in an election year– make ME anti-feminist ? Most feminists in the U.S. seem to think that “Democrat” is a de facto plank in the platform of any real feminist. Personally, I loathe the Democratic Party and would rather eat glass then ever check off a box for anyone in it ever again. Unless a miracle happens in the next few months and someone like Barbara Lee takes over the leadership in a bloodless coup, I don’t expect that to ever change.
I’m not mocking you. I’m just trying to make a point that we all feel like outsiders sometimes. That’s part of being human, especially part of being human in a room full of activists with big mouths. Like bean. :p
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 24th, 2005 at 2:20 pm
Bean, it’s not really a matter of research. I’ll give you an example: rape culture. Many if not most feminists here maintain that it oppresses every woman and girl everywhere, all the time. I still haven’t made up my mind, and I find it useful to read the arguments and counterarguments. Granted, whenever someone says some variation of “any woman who doesn’t want to be raped should just dress like a nun and stay in at night” I start gnashing my teeth. There are gradations. (And, going just a little deeper, I could cite lots of evidence and counterevidence, but, as you point out, it’s been cited before.)
This leads me to questioning the legitimacy of feminism. If I say “I’m not sure that a rape culture exists everywhere at all times” does that count as questioning the legitimacy of feminism? I have seen people here get flamed to a crisp and even banned from threads for citing their experience, when that experience didn’t jibe with feminist doctrine.
As you also point out, this is all fairly academic, since this is Amp’s blog, he gets to make the rules, and I will abide by them or go elsewhere.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
December 24th, 2005 at 2:23 pm
:), Alsis. I guess I can stand the heat.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
December 24th, 2005 at 2:28 pm
I hope it didn’t seem like I think it should be required. I appreciate when people with knowledge debate people that lack it, however I don’t expect them to, and I find it as interesting when people share their knowledge without having to deal with people lacking it.
Hmmm…. I have a hard time expressing myself, but I hope I am more or less coherent and understandable.
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Report this comment to the moderators
December 24th, 2005 at 2:34 pm
Ginmar:
Requiring “civility” is not the same thing as asking women posters to be “ladylike”. The usual accusations levelled against civility on these threads is that it constitutes a kind of secret-weapon in the dialectic arsenal of privileged men: a secret weapon which allows them to put on a show of even-handedness as they get on with undermining Feminism and all it stands for. If a Feminist, using a few honest-to-goodness four-letter words, “calls them out” when this underhand civility comes into play, then it is the Feminist in question who risks looking unreasonable and aggressive. My response would be that civility is a powerful weapon in the hands of *anyone* who uses it, and that the men and anti-feminists who are obliged to fall back on it in discussions here (because if they addressed you in the way you address them, they’d be banned in short order) actually benefit from the constraint. In other words, I think you should consider using civility, this “tool of the Patriarchy”, against its current masters.
As for being a “new guy” siding with “poor beleaguered Robert” and making excuses for him, that’s true to an extent. I’ve never posted here before (though I’ve lurked for about a year), and I think Robert’s presence on Alas is well worth defending. As I understand it, Amp’s problem is that the M.R.A.s and their fellow travellers keep derailing threads ““ threads intended to deal with the problems of womankind ““ with “what about us poor men” distractions. That was and is a genuine problem, but it has nothing to do with Robert; and I was concerned it was being used as a pretext, by various posters who have come off worst against him in the past, to bundle out a persistent asker of pertinent questions.
This comment was written by Tom Nolan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 24th, 2005 at 8:29 pm
Really good post, Bean.
I thought that was strange, too. I don’t recall ever banning anyone for that reason.
It’s possible that Lu misunderstood why I did ban someone. Or that she’s misremembering a ban from some other blog as having taken place here.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 25th, 2005 at 6:04 am
It is possible that I misunderstood something else as banning; the event I’m thinking of involved (IIRC) one of P-A’s threads, and it was she who was banning or threatening to ban. To the best of my observation, it is true that Amp has almost limitless patience.
As for rape culture — the statement that I asked about “I’m not sure that a rape culture exists everywhere at all times” is in my mind very different from the statement “there’s no such thing as rape culture.” In effect what I am proposing to debate (not on this thread!) is the extent and universality of rape culture, not its existence. Certainly when most anti-rape advice still seems to amount to “dress like a nun and stay in at night” and some appallingly large percentage of people in survey after survey agree that if x, y or z happens on a date or even in another social situation a man has a right to expect sex, no sane person would argue that it didn’t exist.
Certainly also I agree that sexism and patriarchy exist and hurt women (and some men). Here again I could debate extent and universality.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
December 25th, 2005 at 6:16 am
I can’t believe I forgot to say: to all who celebrate it, Merry Christmas!
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
December 25th, 2005 at 8:01 am
Bean, I am from Copenhagen. Actually, if you speak with a Danish person, there is a better than a one-on-fifth chance that they are from Copenhagen.
This comment was written by Kristjan Wager.Gilleleje is a little north of Copenhagen (in case you are not aware of this), and is a bit of an usual spot for a foreigner to settle (here I am asuming that your brother is American), as it is mostly summer houses, with little activity during winter.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 25th, 2005 at 4:16 pm
This is kinda funny… on a post about civility and debate over slashing, we immediately inflame the over-the-top, rude (IMO) posters. And I’m only reading the top 10 comments before getting back to my Christmas cleaning!
Whee!
Me, I tend to read with a bag of salt. I wont deny that there are posters that I skip reading because quite frankly, I don’t have time for their particularly pungent brand of BS, but hey, that’s my right as a reader. You can scream as loud as you want, it is my perogative to ignore you or respond. It’s my screen, I can shut you out of my life :-)
To be honest, I think the internet would be a much more productive place if everyone followed that policy. Especially when it comes to the BBS style of interaction. You don’t like how people respond to this argument or your post? Go somewhere else for awhile. It’s the internet, you can walk away. You have the power to make that choice.
If you really must stand your ground on absolutely everything, and wade into every fray despite how much it drains you, might I respectfully suggest you get your own blog?
However, I respect Amp’s attempt at some ground rules and will do my best to follow. I think they are overly complex for the average mind but hey, it’s his blog :-)
This comment was written by wookie.Report this comment to the moderators
December 25th, 2005 at 7:59 pm
Bean said way back up in #166:
I adamently disagree. Because the fact is, not all feminists agree with each other  and it’s amazing the discussions one can have and what one can learn from having a good feminist discussion without the diversions “what about men,” PHMT, and the constant battle to defend feminism, in general.
That sounds great. Which blogs do you read regularly, or which ones would you recommend for good discussions?
This comment was written by mousehounde.Report this comment to the moderators
December 25th, 2005 at 9:00 pm
A noble goal. If we could keep this one rule the rest would take care of itself.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 25th, 2005 at 9:16 pm
Bean said:
Actually, I don’t read all that many blogs at all … I primarily read boards. And the boards I read are generally private.
So, which boards do you read? :) Does “Private” mean one has to apply to read, or just to post? Or does it mean one has to be invited to join?
I did not mean only “blogs” with my question, I was curious as to where to find the types of discussion you described. I am sorry if my question wasn’t complete enough.
This comment was written by mousehounde.Report this comment to the moderators
December 26th, 2005 at 10:08 am
Aegis: s for derailment of feminist discussions: as I said, you don’t have to reply to Robert, or to me, or to anyone else. I don’t know why you act as if you, and other feminists, lack agency and are somehow *forced* to respond to posters you disagree with. Someone has the power to “derail” feminist discussions ONLY IF the feminists *give* that person the power to do so! If you don’t like certain posters, is it so hard to simply avoid replying to them and encourage others to do the same?
This is a “solution” to trolls that is frequently proposed: just ignore them. It’s superficially attractive, because it means the blog owner doesn’t have to worry about being accused of censorship, or indeed have to do anything. But in terms of having good debates, it simply doesn’t work. (It might work if you could get 100% of the non-trolls on board with the idea that when a troll posts, no matter how temptingly frosted the comment, everyone just doesn’t bite: but that really would require censorship.)
No, the only way to get rid of trolls once they discover a blog and find they can post there freely, is to ban them.
Tom Nolan: The usual accusations levelled against civility on these threads is that it constitutes a kind of secret-weapon in the dialectic arsenal of privileged men: a secret weapon which allows them to put on a show of even-handedness as they get on with undermining Feminism and all it stands for.
Precisely. Anti-feminists - who are, largely, the men who do not like seeing their privilege eroded or ignored - post attacks about all women. Ampersand does not ban them for insulting half the regular posters here (presuming that the commenters here are 50% female) because, in his view, an attack on all women isn’t a “personal attack” and therefore no woman should be personally offended. When a woman who is personally offended at being insulted responds in kind, Amp gets snippy.
Male privilege evidently makes it hard for Amp to see why any woman should be personally offended at an insulting comment made about all women, however “civilly phrased”. I wonder if he would find it easier to understand if he thought of it as black people getting personally offended at insulting comments made about all black people?
This comment was written by Jesurgislac.Report this comment to the moderators
December 26th, 2005 at 12:35 pm
Actually, I have no problem understanding why some women are personally offended at some of the comments here, civily phrased or not. And I’ve never said, and don’t hold, the views you attribute to me here.
As I’ve pointed out several times, I do ban posters even if they’re civil if in my opinion the “civility” is nonetheless dripping with contempt. It’s a bit odd for me to read you implying that I don’t ban civil anti-feminist posters, when I know for a fact I do so routinely.
What you can’t seem to understand is that two readers might, in good faith, disagree about if a particular comment is dripping with contempt.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 26th, 2005 at 12:37 pm
Regarding the “just ignore them” idea, I think it only works if you assume that all feminists have a groupmind. Since we know that’s not the case, though, “just ignore them” is not a workable policy. If posters A B and C just ignore the MRAs, but posters D and E engage the MRAs, then the thread is still ruined for A B and C. And telling A B and C to “just ignore them” is ridiculous advice, at that point.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 26th, 2005 at 3:34 pm
This may well be the best policy to prevent the blog degenerating to the level of an usenet .alt group. It’s your blog - go for it, and observe the results for a while.
This comment was written by NancyP.Report this comment to the moderators
December 27th, 2005 at 9:19 am
The argument of “just ignore the trolls” is troublesome to me, because it puts the burden on the “victims” of the trolling, rather than saying “don’t troll.” “See, let’s face it, trolling is going to happen, and the best you can do is just not let it affect you, don’t tempt trolls by responding to them, because then it’s your fault that other people troll, because you’re baiting them.” Well, maybe that’s a bit of a stretch.
Some posters have touched on this before, but I don’t see why there can’t be places for both feminists to debate issues among other feminists (and I know this means real, vigorous debate, rather than a chiming in of “me toos”), and for feminists and non-feminists to engage in debate. I think both sorts of forums are useful, and not mutually-exclusive. At the very least, if some of the MRAs/anti-feminists who have read/posted here come away with the knowledge that feminists are not a bloc of raging bitches determined to destroy all they hold dear, but people with ideas that make sense and hold merit, that counts for something.
Going into circles over the same issues with no ground being gained on either side, however, isn’t useful. Heck if I know where to draw the line; I have only started reading this blog in the last few months, and there are others here with way more experience and knowledge than I have. Perhaps the reason I’m able to hold these views is that I haven’t had to put up with the circle of derailment and the same nauseating arguments “civilly” posed by the usual suspects.
This comment was written by Rebecca E.Report this comment to the moderators
December 27th, 2005 at 9:41 am
Aegis: you have misinterpreted me — mightily. I’m not arguing that women don’t do wrong; I’m arguing the relevance of stating that women do wrong when talking about the social and political ramifications of the harm that men play out on women’s boides and psyches. I view these as two very separate ideas and actions. I do not see where you have ever understood the significance of gender in society, and therefore I do dismiss your comments of “but women do it too” because you fail to account for the difference that gender makes — and why gender exists in the first place. It is not my job to reinvent the wheel — or 40 years of feminist theory. *If* you want to argue so shallowly that you interpret me as saying that women do no wrong, then that’s on you and you can have the discussion with yourself. I however, would like to stay focused on the implications of male violence towards women and how it is used as a social tool to gender women.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 27th, 2005 at 9:47 am
Lu: What’s frustrating for me when reading your posts is what comes across as a rather naive assumption/starting point: that the feminists here are the one’s pulling the concept of a rape culture out of their assess just to see if it will float. Google “rape culture” and see how many people, not just feminists, define the concept and use it as a tool of social critique. It crosses theoretical lines, political lines, gender lines, nationality lines, etc. The concept isn’t rare or unsupportable — but to believe so leads to erroneous assumptions such as yours. We aren’t trying to create a new definition; we’re using an already existing tool to critique current social norms and practices. We are also tending to use it in a cross-theoretical way, combined with other concepts such as Marxian class, capitalism, liberalism, anarchism, etc., etc.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
December 27th, 2005 at 6:28 pm
Bean, I did say “banned from threads,” not banned from the blog.
Q Grrl, I don’t know where you get that. I was using rape culture as one example of feminist doctrine that I’m not sure I fully buy into — once again, not that I think it doesn’t exist or is a figment of someone’s imagination, but that I’m not sure of its extent or universality. If I said I wasn’t fully convinced of the theory of evolution, that would in no way commit me to the notion that someone dreamed it up ten minutes ago.
Rebecca E:
I don’t know either, but imho (again speaking from my experience of far-right blogs) this blog is a long way from that. I got distracted from work (OK, granted, it’s not hard) this afternoon, for example, reading the very interesting comments on this thread. Here and there quite heated, but nonetheless interesting.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
January 24th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Hey Amp, if it amuses you, post all the dumb-ass goofs your auto-spam-filter does with common words, like the “socialist” one. I find that pretty funny.
Or use your time to better effect for more cartoons!
This comment was written by NancyP.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
Please take down all my comments!
This comment was written by Doris.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
I am concerned. Please remove all comments made by me under anon and Doris
Thanks
This comment was written by anon.Report this comment to the moderators
April 19th, 2006 at 11:29 pm
Dan Savage makes that argument in his manner by reviewing some recent proposals. Heterosexuals should be as outraged as homosexuals, he claims, for they are just as much oppressed. At the same time,this list by Ampersand is doing the rounds in blogosphere. There too, the argument states that republicans punish women who have sex. Yet, I think these writers miss one critical piece. When these republicans propose laws against abortion, they don’t assume that “people
This comment was written by Sexual Politics.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2006 at 7:28 am
This is my first visit to the blog, but I’ve been at your house and you’ve been at mine. (Need more clues? My female husband gave your household a bunch of homemade pickles recently. I am non-or-dual-gender-identified but regard gender as a performance. I think you’ve probably got it by now: do avoid outing me further, if you will.)
I’m curious about something and it comes up as a subject of puzzlement. A friend of mine pointed out recently that “left” and “right” used as referents become unintentionally a drag on the liberals and a boon to the conservatives, because even when we speak without intentionally implying a word’s roots and secondary meanings, we are conscious of them. I don’t scream vitriol at anyone who uses those words, but I sure as hell think about it every time I see them, and this comment is meant in a similar light.
When you refer to “men’s rights activists”, it’s pretty clear in context that you’re referring to a particular breed of anti-feminist. But the part of me that will never, never, never feel at home in a “(gender)-only” space balks at the terminology. I believe my male-bodied wife should be allowed to wear a skirt whenever and wherever he pleases, without suffering harrassment, although I’m unlikely to launch into a discussion of this at an inappropriate time or place. So I am apparently included by the category term taken literally — but I don’t think the words mean, exactly, the category you are describing — any more than I think the “right” are right, if you see what I mean.
I understand it’s a sticky problem and I’m not so much objecting to the terminologies as bringing up the question (which is what a lot of feminist discourse entails, I’m finding: quick answers and propagandist one-liners never do justice to such a complicated dialogue!) There’s a fine line between avoiding negatively charged words, and using positively charged words to reference a negative set of people and actions.
On the other hand, I can see that if you called the misogynists misogynists, they might just think they weren’t, and ignore the policy.
Tricky tricky Internet, this is. Anyway, good day to you all.
This comment was written by A. J. Luxton.Report this comment to the moderators
July 15th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
is not sexual until the person experiencing the attraction decides so. * * * And that brings us back to the statement that Jessica asked about at the top of this post. She found the statement at Hugo Schwyzer’s pro-feminist blog via the prominent pro-feminist and leftie blog Alas, A Blog. Obviously, there’s more to the discussion than what Hugo Schwyzer says below, but his remarks invite comparison with the discussion in the comments at Family Scholars Blog.
This comment was written by The Opine Editorials.Report this comment to the moderators
November 12th, 2006 at 2:18 am
What you expose it is a truth in every country in the world with the inmigrants (illegal and legals) and expats.
In Latin America recently there had been a huge emigration of american,
canadian and european expats. Althought our governments are the ones
who invited them..we do not see with good eyes such sudden invitation.
I lost my job as an english teacher in my own country in Central America because of the school decided to hire an english speaking expat that actually is not
even naturalized panamanian,not even speak spanish.
I have heard other cases involving illegal colombians that take over jobs
to panamanian citizens.
Does it sounds familiar to you?
Although I have never being racist in my whole life….what I am supposed to
feel about this expat taking my $350 dollars a month job?
Now,I work as a independent cook/seller of my empanadas in the streets.
Who knows…maybe I can succeed with this…..
I mean this problem of massive inmigration is serious…and never think it is
This comment was written by latinamerican.not only affecting your country…it is EVERYWHERE in the planet.
Report this comment to the moderators
November 20th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
Should an author criticize someone and then refuse to let the object of the criticism respond?
A new post quotes and then criticizes a specific commentor who does not self-identify as feminist. The discussion is then limited to feminist-only comments. Perhaps this was an unintentional dynamic, but it sure seems unfair.
To provide a figleaf of fairness, I suggest that authors refrain from attributing quotes to people who are not permitted to comment. Compare two posts: Post A begins “What do you think about Joe’s statement: X.” Post B begins “What do you think about the following statement: X.” I would expect each post would produce a similar discussion, but the second post does not scream out for Joe to respond.
For what it’s worth, this might be a good practice whether or not Joe is allowed to respond. If the goal is to discuss ideas, not people, then the attribution to Joe may well be irrelevant in any event.
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
November 20th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
Eh. As Ampersand has noted, people get talked about in forums where they can’t respond all the time. The person in question has their own blog; there are open forums here; too bad for them, no big.
On the other hand, I think it does say something about the fence-builders and their willingness or ability to engage in challenging discourse, rather than echo-chamber chitchat.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
November 20th, 2006 at 2:35 pm
I believe Sailorman DOES self identify as a feminist. Whether others agree or not, is a whole other issue. Remember his “how can I raise feminist daughters” deal? I can’t imagine that he would care about that as an issue and not be a feminist himself.
Ampersand said:
I think this is comparing apples to oranges. Sailorman posts here normally and participates in feminist-only threads. Maia has singled Sailorman out as not welcome in her threads only. Which I suppose is fine normally, but I think it is crossing a line when she directs an entire angry rant at Sailorman, but prevents him from defending himself.
Sure, he can go to some random place as Ampersand suggested and defend himself there, but no one will see it, no one will know to look there etc. IOW, it will be completely ineffective.
He is a member of this community, and y’all are stomping on him.
This comment was written by plunky.Report this comment to the moderators
November 20th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
With all due respect, I think that’s a load of hooey, Robert.
Can you honestly expect me - me of all people - to take seriously the idea that feminist-only discourse leads to a lack of challenges and echo-chamber chitchat?
Every limitation on discourse simultaneously fosters some other sort of discourse. A “feminists only” discussion is going to be different than a “anti-feminists and feminists allowed” discussion, but different doesn’t mean without challenges or disagreement.
There have been many “open thread” threads which have had significantly long discussions - discussions just as long as any of the other recent threads here. It therefore seems mistaken to claim that the open threads are any less seen than any other threads here.
I’m sorry you feel that way, and I’m sorry if Sailorman feels that way. As it happens, I think the thread in question has had too many personal attacks on Sailorman by folks in the comments, and that makes me unhappy.
But the bottom line is, although this is a community, this isn’t a community of equals. Sailorman is a comment-writer and he’s welcome to remain here on that basis. Maia is a co-poster and moderator; she has to be free to design her threads in whatever way suits her. In Maia’s threads, Maia’s preferences are more important than anyone else’s preferences. That’s the way it’s run here.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
November 20th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
Can you honestly expect me - me of all people - to take seriously the idea that feminist-only discourse leads to a lack of challenges and echo-chamber chitchat?
Nope, and I wouldn’t ask you to. We’re not talking about a feminist-only discourse.
Every limitation on discourse simultaneously fosters some other sort of discourse. A “feminists only” discussion is going to be different than a “anti-feminists and feminists allowed” discussion, but different doesn’t mean without challenges or disagreement.
Of course. But this isn’t a feminist-only discourse; it’s a feminist-only discourse centered around an attack on someone’s writing, with that person being specifically disinvited to participate.
Is Maia out of bounds? No, people do this in the blogosphere all the time. Is she wrong? No, she wants what she wants for her conversation, and that’s totally cool. Is she breaking the rules of your forum? No, she’s following them to a T.
But it is cowardly to do what she’s doing, and it’s not going to create a positive conversation; as you yourself have noted, it’s just going to lead to a litany of personal attacks from people who know they won’t have to answer the person they’re attacking. It’s fostering a different kind of discourse - a kaffeeklatsch let’s-shit-on-sailorman discourse.
She has every right to do what she’s doing; I defend that vociferously. The rest of us have every right to hold her actions in contempt, and to draw what conclusions we will about her intellectual integrity.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
November 20th, 2006 at 11:43 pm
… it’s just going to lead to a litany of personal attacks from people who know they won’t have to answer the person they’re attacking. It’s fostering a different kind of discourse - a kaffeeklatsch let’s-shit-on-sailorman discourse.
That is part of the thread but, at this point, far from the dominant theme of the thread. I think you are overstating the number of attacks on Sailorman and minimizing the rest of the discussion which seems to be centered around SmartBlkWoman’s assertions.
And, hey! if you want to do that I guess we’re free to hold your comments in contempt, and to draw what conclusions we will about your intellectual integrity. But that’s just the fun, deserty-like part!
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
November 21st, 2006 at 8:52 am
But the bottom line is, although this is a community, this isn’t a community of equals. Sailorman is a comment-writer and he’s welcome to remain here on that basis. Maia is a co-poster and moderator; she has to be free to design her threads in whatever way suits her. In Maia’s threads, Maia’s preferences are more important than anyone else’s preferences. That’s the way it’s run here.
Hear, hear. If you don’t like it, leave.
However:
As Ampersand has noted, people get talked about in forums where they can’t respond all the time.
… people do this in the blogosphere all the time.
Really? I wonder why I’ve not run across this anywhere but here? Personally, I think such a practice is bogus. If someone is specifically mentioned in a thread, they ought to be able to respond in that thread. It’s only fair, not to mention the polite thing to do. But, as you say, the owner of the blog/thread gets to make the rules.
However, I’ve not run into any blog but this one where people are talked about but are banned from responding in the same thread. Is it a coincidence that this is the only left-wing/feminist blog I get into with any regularity? Is this a phenomenon that people have seen in conservative blogs? My sample size is not large enough for me to make a judgement on my own.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
November 23rd, 2006 at 7:46 pm
I suppose I should say something about your choice to ask me not to post here.
I’m actually quite ok with that, not just on principle that it ought to be your right.
I’m not sure if I agree with this:
At least on the “misguided” part, but I have to admit, now that you’ve mentioned it, altough it has –now that I’m rather disillusioned with modern liberalism — been my habit to be rather contentious and indeed belligerent (some personal stuff may play a part too), but what’s more, I have more than once (almost regularly, in fact) treated the comments section as a battleground. Not only of ideas, but of a vain need to feel temporary intellectual superiority. Thus, even when I have tried to tell myself that it’s good-natured, looking back some of the comments amount to nothing else but verbal bullying. Not even particularly clever one at that, either.
I’m personally disgusted by that too (I thought I hated bullying…), because there isn’t really an excuse to that kind of behaviour toward people whose only ‘crime’ is not thinking like I do. :(
Apologies.
Anyway, Alas remains a decent blog and an interesting read.
C’ya in Creative Destruction. :)
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 23rd, 2006 at 7:47 pm
(temporarily intellectually, typo)
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
November 23rd, 2006 at 7:52 pm
You too? Is this a Finnish thing?
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
December 9th, 2006 at 5:56 am
post after off-topic post after off-topic post (seventeen so far6), attacking that person, and making generalised attacks on “men”, “antifeminists” and “MRAs”. And the victim gets the blame. This is precisely the kind of “bullying” Amp said he doesn’t want on Alas. And it works. And it will always work. They will always be able to do this, at any time, to any dissenting voice, and the victim will always be blamed, always be silenced, because that’s the only way Amp can realpolitically end the derailment.
This comment was written by Creative Destruction.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
1) Wow, this is a long thread.
I have always called myself a feminist, so why do you believe I don’t qualify?
This comment was written by SmartBlkWoman.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
Huh. I may have just misunderstood your position; somehow I thought you weren’t a feminist.
If you don’t mind my asking, what current-day feminists have views you agree with?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2006 at 6:22 pm
Which ones don’t I agree with?! I think that my feminist views are often tempered with my libertarianism and it turns out seeming as if I’m not a good libertarian or a good feminist either.
If I had to name to my fav fems it would be bell hooks, Patricia Hill Collins ( I’m currently reading Black Feminist Thought, and particularly Wendy McElroy ( who is a libertarian and a feminist).
This comment was written by SmartBlkWoman.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2006 at 2:34 am
Like Bean, I don’t really think of Wendy McElroy as a feminist; she has absolutely nothing positive to say about the current-day feminist movement, and has a weekly column devoted almost exclusively to anti-feminist arguments.
If Wendy McElroy is a feminist, then I don’t think the word “feminist” has much meaning. There’s more on why I think that some folks are anti-feminists in this post.
But certainly, bell hooks and Patricia Hill Collins are both feminists by anyone’s lights. (Although McElroy would refer to them scornfully as “gender feminists.”)
My personal definition is as follows:
If you’re a feminist under this definition, then you can keep posting on the “feminist-only” threads. I just don’t want those threads to end up being dominated by anti-feminist arguments of the sort that McElroy spouts. (I’m not saying those arguments can’t be posted on “Alas” at all; just that they don’t belong in feminist-only threads.)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2006 at 5:31 am
Well, Amp, by that definition I am a feminist, because I don’t view either sex as the primary victims in so far as that formulation implies that the other sex are secondary victims.
As for SBW, on my blog, I blogrolled her under “Miscellaneous Blogs” rather than “Cool Feminist Blogs”, because I was uncertain whether she self-identified as feminist. (She certainly meets the “Cool” criterion.)
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2006 at 7:05 am
If someone self-identifies as a feminist but isn’t feminist-friendly when it comes to the topic at hand, then that person shouldn’t comment on the restricted post.
This comment was written by Abyss2hope.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2006 at 10:40 am
Abyss2Hope, with all respect, I think I disagree with you on that. If someone is a no-doubt-about-it feminist poster - you, say, or Q Grrl - and that person has a view on an issue that is counter to what most feminists think, then I’m especially eager to hear their view.
The “feminist only” threads are mainly intended by me to prevent every thread about rape and intimate violence from turning into yet another rehashing of the neverending feminist vs. MRA debates. I don’t think the “feminists only” rule should be used to discourage intra-feminist debate.
That said, there’s nothing wrong with saying “I don’t want to use the comments here to rehash the argument about _______, so if you want to debate on that question, please take it to a different thread,” or something like that.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2006 at 10:49 am
Daran, what would you consider a phrasing that encompasses your view that the male side of the mountain of shit looks bigger?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2006 at 11:42 am
Amp, I think we’re talking about different things. What I was trying to say is that if a person posts like an MRA, that is IMO going to have greater weight than the label they give themselves.
This comment was written by Abyss2hope.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2006 at 11:58 am
I don’t think it is important which side is bigger. (The information that one side looks bigger was offered in rebuttal of the alternative claim, that the female side is bigger, rather than being offered as a positive article of docrine.) Whichever side is bigger does not make that side “primary”.
The appropriate response to a mountain of shit is not to worry about which side is bigger, but to grab a shovel and start tackling whatever part of the mountain is within your reach, while not denying, dismissing, etc., the other side, or actively frustrating those working on it.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2006 at 4:51 pm
Abyss2Hope wrote:
Oh, you’re right, I did misunderstand you. I agree with this.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2006 at 6:46 pm
This will be my final post on Alas. While I wouldn’t go so far as to say that Daran’s behavior is unique on this board, it is pretty sadly representative of all the things on this board that have come to completely outweigh any good it still does my soul.
Daran, on your very own link above, you make some ridiculous claims about what I said regarding the funding of men’s shelters. In your own quote, you make it clear that the funders of the women’s shelter in question felt that they were already serving the community adequately by funding the women’s shelter. In your customary zeal to mock feminism, play fatuous word games, and continue your idiotic use of words like “apartheid,” not once do I see any of the following acknowledgements:
Perhaps it might take some time and repeated effort to overcome stereotypes about abused men, much as feminists have had to do when putting together shelters. It doesn’t serve the men you are trying to help at all for you to throw up your hands as if the Mighty Feminist Conspiracy will now and forever render your attempts impossible.
Women’s shelters are by and large not equipped at present to care for all the women that need help and perhaps this might be a factor in their not wanting to take on the complications of housing male survivors. Which begs the question, again, of your insistence on an oppositional relationship. Abusive households tend to produce more abusive households, and it seems to me that if you were sincere in your desire to stop DV, you would applaud what feminists have done instead of constantly running them down.
The way that funding is allocated ought to be looked at in terms of the discrepancy between social funding and other categories of funding, as opposed to your continual technique of looking only at the discrepancy between funding for women’s shelters and funding for men’s shelters. Again, do you have any interest at all in doing this ? Doesn’t seem like it to me. You have yourself a handy excuse to never accomplish anything and you just can’t seem to let it go.
Now you can hurry back to your own site and make up some more shit about me, with no sense of irony at all over the fact that a week or so ago, you were crying for poor old jaketik who was not here to defend himself from my comments about how he is/was wont to behave around feminists. Hell, you can photoshop pictures of my head to Godzilla’s body and drive virtual tanks over it for all I care.
Anyone else who wants to speak with me can certainly find my contact info easily enough. If you’re in Daran’s posse, don’t bother. Your posts or emails will be thrown out unanswered.
Richard Jeffrey Newman, if you’re reading this, please post as to where I might send you an email with some links you might find helpful. I looked around your site and was unable to find any contact info. Thanks.
This comment was written by ms_xeno.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2006 at 10:06 pm
It would be nice to see threads involving violence against women not always become “what about the men” threads, but the fact that they almost always do just is part and parcel of living in a patriarchal society and provides more evidence of that, because apparently as far as women are concerned, we are still required to put the needs and wants of men first. Even when discussing topics that are personal to us, and affect us as a gender, we are required to use language that men want us to use the way they want us to use it, because that’s apparently the only legitimate means of discussing issues.
Often it seems that it is getting more and more difficult for feminists to have discourse with other feminists without MRAs coming along and using those discussions for their own pissing contests. Not all feminist discussions or discussions about feminist issues are about winning arguments, putting notches in our belts that we silenced that feminist or even comparing caliber size. I’ve found other sites where those discussions take place and it’s great, and much more rewarding than going another round with smug MRAs here and other places. And if you don’t play their way under their rules(even on some of the feminist friendly threads) or you don’t feel like plowing through another army of strawmen, the threads get derailed quite quickly and you end up getting treated like Ms_Xeno.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2006 at 10:18 am
[...] ms_xeno: This will be my final post on Alas. While I wouldn’t go so far as to say that Daran’s behavior is unique on this board, it is pretty sadly representative of all the things on this board that have come to completely outweigh any good it still does my soul. [...]
This comment was written by ms_xeno’s Last Post? « DaRain Man.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2006 at 9:39 pm
Wendy doesn’t hate women. ( I’m a regular reader of her website by the way). She’s a die hard libertarian and I think that libertarianism-which essentially says that the government needs to but the hell out of most of the stuff that it gets into-contradicts what many of my fellow feminists believe (that the government should be a tool for social change/manipulation).
Many feminists are liberals ( or socialists or Marxists) and those are economic policies that I cannot get behind because I think they are wrong.
From now on I’ll think a lot harder before I post so that I can make sure that my contribution to the thread won’t be seen as abusive or anti-feminist.
This comment was written by SmartBlkWoman.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2006 at 9:58 pm
Aw shucks. I’m blushing.
This comment was written by SmartBlkWoman.Report this comment to the moderators
February 5th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
“Sorry about that - but it really IS necessary. Blame the free market for creating spam. ”
No.
Don’t blame the creation of spam-detectors for the use of putting comments into moderation.
Blame the un-civil, rude, disrespectful commentors who cause blog owners to resort to the use of spam filters and comment moderation.
Challenge the person’s argument or position on a topic.
Under NO circumstances call them names or degrading insulting pejorative terms.
Once you do that (i.e., calling a person a “bitch”, “asshole”, etc.,) you have lost all credibility, not to mention you have lost the argument/debate.
If you do not like a person’s position on a specific topic, fine.
But, attacking the person only shows that you don’t have the knowledge, facts OR integrity to back up what you say.
This comment was written by Ann.Report this comment to the moderators
February 5th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
and scare people away. I am happy that at this point I have a bunch of spunky commenters who take these people on, especially since I can’t be sitting around at every moment responding to all of them. But what do you think? Here’s a copy of Amp’s general comment policy and here’s a note for anti-feminists on the site. I don’t really have a big problem on gender and feminist issues, but my thought would be to craft some sort of similar policy regarding racism apologists/white supremacists/color blind
This comment was written by Rachel’s Tavern.Report this comment to the moderators
February 5th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
One of the blogs I frequent - a very right-wing blog - has an owner who says, as a moderation policy, “Don’t say anything here to anyone that you wouldn’t say in my living room, and bear in mind that I will throw jerks OUT of my living room.”
This works reasonably well.
Hey, we all learned it as children, yes? Don’t insult people, don’t attack the arguer instead of the argument, behave in a civil fashion, right? What is it about the internet (and, cars) that makes people forget the simplest rules of civilized discourse?
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2007 at 3:50 am
Check box for the moderation policy is new. Think it’ll help?
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2007 at 4:12 am
Once I get it working properly, it’ll only appear on the “feminist-only” threads. And I think it will help, if only by preventing people from accidently posting on those threads because they missed the “feminist only” part.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
That’s a good idea.
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
March 24th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Mandolin:
You are mistaken. There is no attempt to suggest that our posts support a feminist position, which clearly they don’t. Nor are we posting to that thread. Ampersand has applied a ‘feminist only’ rule, which prohibits us from commenting.
What you are seeing is a trackback. ((Also known as a pingback. There is some technical difference between the two, which escapes me.)) Whenever we link to another blog, a section of text close to the link itself is automatically sent to the linked-to blog. We have no control (other than link placement) over which part of the text is sent.
The linked-to blog’s admin, Ampersand in this case, can configure his blog to block these trackbacks on either a sitewide, or a per-thread basis. He has not chosen to do so. To the contrary, he recently installed a plugin intended to improve what is frequently a fairly unreliable process. Therefore, if you think the appearance of our trackbacks in a feminist-only thread is inappropriate, then I suggest you direct your complaints to Ampersand.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
[S]nide implications that feminists are man-hating bigots — even when delivered in “civil” language — will not be tolerated.
Point of order: Does quoting self-identified feminists saying “Feminism isn’t here to cure the harm that the patriarchy does to men” violate this policy?
I can’t help but wonder that the quoted perspective would pose strategic challenges. I understand feminism to involve opposition to patriarchy. But I don’t know how we’d get rid of patriarchy without also getting rid of the harm that patriarchy does to men. I fear some compromise may be unavoidable. Inevitably, the fall of patriarchy may bestow some benefits to men, even if inadvertently; I just don’t see any way around it….
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
March 30th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
I don’t think it does violate the policy, N.R. Saying that feminism isn’t about men isn’t an admission of anti-male bigotry any more than saying the Portland Vetranarian’s Organization isn’t about cartoonists is an admission of anti-cartoonist bigotry.
Now, as it happens, I disagree with the quoted statement; I think that all the harms of patriarchy, including but definitely not limited to the harms patriarchy does men, is something that feminism should address.[*] However, I don’t think the only possible reason that a feminist might disagree with me about that is anti-male bigotry, so I don’t think the conclusion that anyone who thinks feminism ought to be all about women’s rights is an anti-male bigot is justifiable.
[* Within an understanding that time and resources are not unlimited, and therefore prioritizing is unavoidable.]
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 14th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
I know this has been said before, but I guess I feel the need to add my voice to the din. For whatever reason, Alas, which theoretically has an emphasis on civil discourse, seems to host more vile sentiments than any other blog I read regularly (note: I dropped Hugo from my reading list for similar reasons*).
I like being here, and I like reading the posts, but the way Ann and Pheeno have just been attacked — really, dramatically attacked — is kind of galling.
Why does the emphasis on civil discourse create this feedback loop? Is it because the posters on Pandagon, for instance, are more comfortable mocking the creeps before they get so creepy? Is it just a different bannination policy? Is it an illusion caused by the way comments thread here? Do the comments get as vile in other places, but the reaction of the population is just different, so the scary stuff isn’t as clearly deliniated?
If no one else is interested in opening up this can of worms, it’s cool. And I appreciate that Chris has been asked to leave. But, it still happened.
–
(*Leading me to be curious about why it is that the feminist blogs hosted by men have such an infestation, but with a group of 2, it’s hardly a real pattern.)
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 15th, 2007 at 12:25 am
Damned if I know. I’m worried about it too, though, for what that’s worth.
Part of the reason, I think, is that I’m much more hesitant to ban people who disagree with me; they have to really, really prove themselves to be disgusting and/or a drag on discussion. And, some of the time, I think I’m right not to ban people (Rob Hayes, for instance). Other times, though, I should clearly be quicker on the trigger.
Part of what went on with Chris today is that I was at work all day, followed by being on a long shopping and dinner expedition, so I wasn’t keeping any eye at all on what was going on.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2007 at 7:34 am
It’s not just a gender issue. The same is true with race/racism.
I think part of the dynamic is that for some trolls it is easy for racist/sexist trolls to attack whites or men because they think it is somehow going not make them look sexist/racist. Plus, they don’t much care about women or people of color anyways, so why even both with someone who you have no respect for.
Another problem we have here at Alas (and I think both Amp and I are guilty of this), is that we both have the tendency to act like people will change through reasonable debate, and in that vein we give people chances. Probably too many chances.
But you can be sure that something is going to happen. I already emailed Amp earlier this weekend, and now two different women have emailed me/posted about how pissed they were at some of the commenters over here this weekend.
One problem is the Duke thread…You put anything up about Duke, it brings out the worst bigots. That is part of the reason I am loathed to comment on it because I’m going to have to deal with some real bigots.
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2007 at 8:30 am
OMG, are you talking about Michael’s bullshit?
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2007 at 9:25 am
I haven’t been commenting here for that long and I’m obviously not a member. I just want to say that I really like the civility of alas. I like reading and discussing what’s said here, and I like the fact that there aren’t a lot of flame wars, pile on’s or long digression into whether so and so is or is not a feminist/anti-racist/bigot/complete waste of oxygen. Debate and disagreement are allowed and I’ve even seen people apparently change their minds on an issue.
The downside is that mean, cruel things can be slipped through under the guise of disagreement. They just have to be worded politely.
I don’t know what the answer is, I just wanted to say that I’m getting a lot out of the current set up.
also
This comment was written by joe.Chris is a troll that needs to exiled to the bottom of a bridge IRL for what he said to pheeno.
Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2007 at 9:45 am
I was talking about Michael’s bullshit, obviously.
…I really do respect you and Amp a lot, but I do have to agree with what bean says here:
I know Bean’s points are something else that has been said on this blog before, but they have a ring of truth. I’m going to ramble now:
I’m not sure that I, personally, feel like the issue is maleness — whereas, on Hugo’s blog, I know where I stand. Directly below chinchillas in Universal Importance. And certainly several rungs below the pleasantly self-righteous sensation of Evangelizing (about feminism) to MRAs. (That’s probably not totally fair, but it’s how I feel when I’m there, and it’s one part of the trifecta of annoyances that make his blog unreadable, IMO.)
But there is a dynamic here, where the moderators are not part of the groups they primarily write about. Rachel is white; Amp is male. Maia is female and writing primarily about sexism, of course, but she moderates pretty heavily.
(I’m going to focus on the sexism/Amp side of the discussion now, partially because while Rachel doesn’t moderate very heavily, she will occasionally make it very clear what she thinks and who she supports, and that bluntness often takes the edge off her threads for me — except for persistent trolls like Michael.)
Unlike at Hugo’s blog, I wonder if it’s just that some of the misogyny at Alas doesn’t cut Amp as deeply to the bone as it cuts some of the women posters. I do feel like he sees the creepy-but-not-yet-bannable misogyny and disagrees with it, but it also seems like he can intellectualize that and push it away from himself. It often seems as though he expects the other posters to do so, also.
At some level, I guess it comes down to the purpose of the blog. If this blog is evangelical — meant to persuade people who are actively hostile — then disallowing the term “misogyny” while allowing that misogyny to simmer as long as it doesn’t boil, seems logical. At the same time, though, it’s going to manufacture an environment that’s hostile to feminists. And some number of them are going to leave — have already left.
Which seems, to me, to injure the goal of evangelism, because Amp can’t convert every poster by hand. He needs other people to argue with the commenters. Maybe if he had an army of people like Myca who can acheive that distance that would work, but I think the cloning machine is out of order for the nonce.
It seems like feminists often, in other places, ask for men to talk to other men, and I guess Hugo (and to a lesser extent Amp) are doing that. It’s sort of unfortunate that the men they get stuck talking to aren’t the sort of sane ones who just need a few scales-falling-from-their-eyes type revelations, but instead are the entrenched misogynists who spend their time lambasting feminism. (Off-topic grumble: Oh, but don’t worry, they have feminist perspectives! WTF was that about?)
Is it worth it to cosset the MRAs and anti-feminists, rehashing the same arguments over and over? If the goal is evangelism, then it still seems worth it to re-examine the audience.
I don’t think Amp is an ally of the misogynists. I get the impression that he’s doing his best to appear impartial to them, so that he can increase his credibility and, thus, his chance of persuading them. That puts him in an awkward position.
I also know Amp has said he favors civil discourse because uncivil discourse makes him uncomfortable, but there are a lot of shades in between civil and uncivil.
In summary, I guess I would ask, does the current moderation policy suit the blog’s goals?
–
Amp:
I spent a lot of time here trying to imagine your feelings, which I know is a distancing manuever. I hope there’s something to be gained by hearing what it is that I see, even where I’m getting things dead wrong. If it’s offensive, I apologize.
And of course, I also know that you’ve thought about most of these things, so to the extent this is rehashing old ground that you’re just sick of hearing other people speculate about, I apologize for that too.
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2007 at 10:41 am
It’s hard to walk the line between preaching to the choir and allowing the mob to form. Amp, i think you’re doing an excellent job–which is why Alas has become one of my favorite blogs to read, though it wasn’t when I started reading this type of blog.
Power dynamics, like anything else, can have isolated “pockets” where things are different from the societal norm. So while there’s a general tendency for men to shout down women in society, I don’t think anyone would claim that tendency exists on Twisty’s blog. there’s it’s the reverse.
So the argument seems to be between those folks who say “hey, society sucks, discourse is difficult, let’s have a place where power dynamics are reversed!” versus those who say “…let’s have a place where power dynamics are equalized!.”
Who is right? The answer comes from the followup: What’s the lesson? Is it a “blue eyes brown eyes” experiment, where the goal is to make people realize that they possess privilege* by putting them in an unprivileged situation? Or is the goal to discuss things as equals?
I think there are a lot of blogs out there that lean heavily towards the first view. I call them “That’ll teach you!” blogs. I used to call them “a priori” blogs, because they always assumed their point. We know what they are like. And they serve a useful role, I think.
Still their appeal is limited. Alas has established a rare–and incredibly helpful–niche AWAY from that ‘privilege reversal’ situation. It’s one of the few blogs (on either side of the political spectrum) to acknowledge that there are really two sides to the vast majority of situations; that there are few (if any) true absolute statements.
Basically, Alas is not an “a priori blog”, where only the converted are welcome. Daran’s posts, for example? I disagree with them, but they keep things honest. It’s too easy for ANY group that lacks cohesive challenge to get lazy in its presentation, philosophy. and politics.
When mandolin says
I disagree. Since when are we lacking in folks to argue with? With the exception of some ultrafrequent posters who get away with things before they’re shot down, essentially every major argument gets a lot of well thought out, detailed, replies. And pretty much always, feminists come out on top.
Sure–you could change the blog so those arguments get moderated out, and never get addressed. Or you could establish a blog where there’s a simple chorus of “check your privilege!” to most disagreement.
But then you wouldn’t be “Alas,” you’d be Bitch PhD or Twisty or Feministe or… and that would be a pity.
* Used here as a catch-all phrase for most -ism stuff, etc.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2007 at 10:59 am
“Since when are we lacking in folks to argue with?”
I don’t know who you’re referring to as we. I don’t usually see you and I as being on the same side.
Also… way to be dismissive. I mean, I don’t mind that you support Amp. Yay, Amp. But when there are women saying that they *do* feel shouted down on this blog, and you say, “eh, it’s in your head,” that’s … well, why I rarely think we’re on the same side.
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Mandolin sed:
But when there are women saying that they *do* feel shouted down on this blog, and you say,you say, “eh, it’s in your head,”
I didn’t say that. At all. (if you think i did, can you show me where?)
Are you responding to my post, or to someone else? You seem to be quoting me at first, but the rest of your response suggests otherwise.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Well, your post is about how the problems I described in my post aren’t actually problems, so.
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
“And, do they really respect Amp and this blog because he is civil? Or is it because they are allowed to spread their hate here (albeit cloaked in civility)? Or is it because Amp is a man? ”
Yeah, I question that, too.
I guess I thought your initial assertion was suggesting that Amp fosters that deliberately. (As someone just said to me on ginmar’s livejournal: that he doesn’t want to convince anti-feminists, he wants them to like him.) And I’m unwilling to take that leap.
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Mandolin,
That’s not what my post is about at all (and that’s why I asked you to quote me–I don’t think you’ll find what you suggest anywhere in my post). Can you a be a bit more specific? I feel like you’re vastly misrepresenting what I said, and I don’t understand why.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
OK. Perhaps I misread you.
Is your post a response to mine at all?
I say that there’s a mildly hostile atmosphere here, because for whatever reason, there’s a tendency for some really nasty shit to go down here — e.g. Chris, and Michael. I don’t find those to be isolated incidents.
You reply with an answer talking about how it’s important to listen to all points of view, and Alas acheives that. You also rant about other blogs where women are favored “a priori.”
If your reply was intended to respond to me in any way, then it sounds an awful lot like you’re saying that it’s invalid for me to note that the atmosphere here feels hostile, and that nasty shit goes down here.
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
I feel bad that I haven’t commented here yet; I’ve been reading every comment and I am thinking seriously about what you’re saying. I’ve spent most of my “Alas” time today fixing the layout (it was broken in IE), and now I’ve run out of time and have to go to work.
(Plus, aside from time constraints, I’m still thinking.)
So I hope folks will trust that I’m not ignoring this discussion at all; but it’s going to be hours before I can seriously comment on anything here.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Bean/Mandolin, I can see your point about how you feel about things that are written here and I think it’s valid, I hope that Amp and the others come up with a solution that keeps Alas basically the same, except that what happened to Pheeno doesn’t happen again. (I don’t know who michel is.) I’d hate to see alas dramatically changed.
I’m not sure where you categorize me on the feminist scale, or if you do at all. But Here’s why I like Amp.
1. usually has good points.
2. appears to develop his points based on an understanding of the data.
3. writes in a way that I find interesting.
4. seems to acknowledge tradeoff and that sometimes things are only mostly true.
5. draws some really funny cartoons.
6. forces a civil debate on alas.
In addition I like Alas because I think some of the other writers and commentors write interesting or thought provoking things.
As far as purpose goes, what’s wrong with having a place for the blog owner(s) to talk about things that interest them and let other people comment?
This comment was written by joe.Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
I just wanted to post and say that the conversation/moderation style here has convinced me to change my mind on a few different issues.
Whether that’s worth the downside or not, I don’t know, just providing one more data point.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
“As far as purpose goes, what’s wrong with having a place for the blog owner(s) to talk about things that interest them and let other people comment? ”
There’s no problem with that.
I like what Amp chooses to post about.
The issue comes with the “letting other people comment” — in doing so, Amp is creating a discussion area which he has control over. He could choose not to moderate, and thus to say, “there is no goal here, post what you want to post,” although I would say that this is definitely taking a position through non-action.
Once moderation commences, then there’s a definite, positive action toward creating a certain kind of discourse. What kind of discourse Amp wants to create will influence how he wants to moderate.
For instance, allowing women to say “you’re a misogynist shithead” to men who had showed up and discussed the weather, would drive a certain number of men away. On the contrary, eradicating the feminist-only threads would drive a certain number of feminists away.
My … question/concern/argument type thing… is: why does the emphasis on civil argumentation here create an atmosphere in which the kinds of things that Chris and Micheal said seem so much more shocking, and untenable?
As a corrolary, is it possible to catch the Chrises and Michaels before they go crazy-go-nuts? I would argue that it was clear that Chris was an unacceptably misogynist asshole a while before he accused a rape victim of making up the details of her assault in order to create an emotional bludgeon. I think that cutting him off before he had a chance to say that would have been a good thing. However, it runs the risk of cutting off other people who would not have gone that far. But really, if they’d gone as far as Chris had before he did that, isn’t that far enough? (Obviously, it is for me.)
This raises some other questions for me too, most of which I think I’ve brought up.
This blog seems very community-driven to me, though perhaps I mistake that purpose too. Amp has choices about how to shape that community, even though they arent’ always direct, because the choices have unintended consequences.
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
I think the more pertinent issue is whether the feminists (read: women) who post here ever change their mind on the issues posted here? Is there ever a chance for the women posters here to increase their own feminist learning curve? Advancing feminism isn’t just about “converting” the unbelievers. Advancing feminism is also providing the resources to individual feminists to test the already proven grounds of feminist theory (and practice) to enhance and build upon our understanding of sexism and the social practices that shore up that sexism.
If feminists spend more than say 25% of their time rehashing Feminism 101, I would say that the feminists are not benefited by the civil “discourse” that is (primarily) promoted by the men who post and read this blog. Feminism, at its core, should not be the wild card on this blog. But to many feminists who post here, it is.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
“Advancing feminism isn’t just about “converting” the unbelievers.”
Right. But it’s nice if there are some blogs that do that, so that Twisty’s place can not focus on that, and there will still be a balance.
So, is this a teaching blog? Are the feminists participating in the community doing so to be evangelical? Should we pat the nonbelievers on the head with our civility?
Or are we here as ourselves, not as teachers?
Currently, it seems to be some combination, which causes some confusion - for me at least.
“If feminists spend more than say 25% of their time rehashing Feminism 101, I would say that the feminists are not benefited by the civil “discourse” that is (primarily) promoted by the men who post and read this blog.”
Right.
“Feminism, at its core, should not be the wild card on this blog. But to many feminists who post here, it is.”
Do you feel like this in the posts as well as the comments?
I do feel I’ve learned a lot from the posts here. I like the academic tone and discussion.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Oh, my criticism was aimed solely at the comments sections of the blog. I like the posts.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
I think the more pertinent issue is whether the feminists (read: women) who post here ever change their mind on the issues posted here? Is there ever a chance for the women posters here to increase their own feminist learning curve?
Those are good questions. I think an additional question is, is this a primary purpose of Alas? I would hazard a guess that that is actually a secondary purpose. Mostly, it seems to be a place where Amp can hone his arguments on points of interest and where, hopefully, interesting debate can take place.
I’m not sure that this can ever be precisely the space that you want since, by design, it invites those with no, or next to no, knowledge of feminism to a debate with feminism at its core. This means that Feminism 101 has to take place again and again and again. Perhaps it would behoove Alas to have an archived space (allowing for further comments) w/ the best posts and comments laying out basic Feminism that people can be directed to without going through the same conversation over and over.
One of the fringe benefits of Alas is that it is a place for the less knowledgeable to learn a hell of a lot about feminism and get some direction on where to find out more. Does this make it the kind of space that you would like to see? Probably not. I honestly never thought that was Amp’s goal in starting this blog. Have I been wrong?
Feminism, at its core, should not be the wild card on this blog. But to many feminists who post here, it is.
Can you rephrase this? I’m just not getting what you mean by “wild card”.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
No, more to the thread than to you. I think this is a misunderstanding.
First of all, I don’t dislike other blogs which favor a certain point of view. That’s why I said “And they serve a useful role, I think.”
But just like I think there exist different points of views, i think there should also exist different blog levels. So while I read Twisty (I don’t comment there, though!) I also like Alas.
And IMO in order to create a blog atmosphere where NOBODY who is a feminist is EVER going to feel shut up, put upon, etc–you need an atmosphere like Twisty et al. I think that changing Alas to fit that model would be a loss.
More clear?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Sorry I misunderstood you, Sailorman.
“I think that changing Alas to fit that model would be a loss.”
Yes. Me, too.
What is it about civility that includes, as an unintended consequence, really evil stuff happening (or a perception of really evil stuff happening) on a regular basis?
Can those unintented consequences be altered (by changing the way the civility moderation is handled, for instance) so that evil stuff happens less frequently and Myca, for instance, is still comfortable in the threads?
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
“it raises a number of interesting things (and red flags) for me.”
It certainly seems to favor people who can take an intellectualized view of the discourse.
Are there women defenders of the model? (sorry if I’m missing someone who’s already spoken)
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Mandolin:
You should do a search for “civility” on this blog. We’ve hashed and rehased the concept a lot.
This is an excellent thread which shows the evolution of Alas:
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/02/14/feminist-and-feminist-friendly-only-thread-civility-alas-and-feminism/
(sorry for the non-formatting. Amp, can you fix that?)
Strangely enough it was being argued at the time that Alas was a priori feminist and that Amp’s intent did *not* matter. Is this what they mean by devolution?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
… the more I notice exactly who it is that is in favor of the “civility” discourse…
Hey, leave me out of it. I don’t particularly like the civility policy, but I’m not sure that Amp’s moderation isn’t what makes this a space that I like to read. I see the flaws in the policy as it currently exists, but I feel that I have no real say in how Amp chooses to moderate.
One of the inherent flaws in Amp’s moderation policies is that obscenity is much more noticeable when skimming through a thread. This functions to censure some quickly, while allowing other, equally uncivil or more uncivil, commenters to slip through. It depends on their style. It’s the whole faux civility problem. Short of finding more mods or Amp spending a lot more time moderating, I’m not sure what the fix for this is - other than to give up on the attempt at having civil debate in the manner that Amp prefers.
At the same time, I’m unsure of what is being asked here. Do we (and I mean the general, collective “we”) expect, or even want, Amp to turn this into an IBTP or Margins type of blog? I suspect that is not what Amp wants.
I feel that Amp has been very willing to listen to complaints and suggestions and to make changes. Of course any changes are within the limits of his goals, but what more can be expected?
From my perspective, I like Alas, both for the posts and for the comments, because it’s got a unique feel that I haven’t found anywhere else. It isn’t the most feminist friendly place I’ve seen, but it is one of the few places where feminists and non- or anti-feminists can occasionally have an actual debate. I like Alas because I learn things about specific subjects and about feminism in general. The former from posts and the latter, usually, from comments.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
I’ve already read the old arguments, but thank you for the link. It’s been a while, and obviously I wasn’t involved.
I wondered if there were any women standing up for it now.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
er, I just looked devolution up. Never mind.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
I love how I am suddenly a non-issue in this debate.
I moderate and put up posts, too.
I know Amp owns the blog, but I just had to say that.
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
“I moderate and put up posts, too.”
Your moderation style seems different, to me. You’ll bluntly say things like asking whether you should ban someone, or I think I remember you telling some of the more obnoxiously “color-blind” commenters flat out that they were doing racist things.
I shouldn’t have stated my question about the civility model the way I did. I apologize. What do you think of it?
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Jake,
When I have three women, who contact me within less than a week and say they don’t feel comfortable commenting at Alas, then there is a problem.
If you read thread the Duke thread and the Nappy Headed thread, you can see the crux of the problem. That’s where Michael got banned, and I just saw that Asshat Chris’s post this morning on the Duke thread.
This weekend on Alas was the worst I have ever seen it; in terms of women being attacked. It was also racialized with women of color pheeno and Ann taking the brunt of the asshattery.
The problem is that people like Robert, Brandon Berg (my nemesis), Michael, Chris, Formerly Larry, and others take over then nobody else wants to even comment. Then you have fence riders like RonF, Sailorman, and a few others, who are moderates, but often miss the subtlties of the racism and sexism.
Oops, running late. I’ll be back later.
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
To me Bean’s point in #337 is a huge part of the problem.
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
I’m still reading, and I’m at work right now, so I can’t take the time to post. (Not that I really have much to say, unfortunately; I take what folks have been writing seriously, but that doesn’t mean I have anything productive to add.)
But I wanted to let folks know that I’d be especially eager to see any suggested solutions, if anyone has any. (If you don’t have any suggested solutions, however, that doesn’t make it invalid to post here about the problems you see).
Also, do people think that perhaps I should make a new thread for this discussion to continue in?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
I really think that what this blog needs to function better is a better technology.
[SIDE NOTE: I'm using progressive in this post to mean feminists and anti-racists. I realize that (unfortunately) not all progressives are feminist or anti-racist, but I couldn't think of a better term for the combination of these two alignments, and I didn't want to have to type "feminists and anti-racists" over and over. I apologize to bean in particular, who I know takes offense at the conflation of feminists and progressives]
To function properly, this blog needs a large population of progressive participants who don’t find the discussion here to be an unpleasant experience. To the extent that jerks like Chris and Michael (and the less jerky usual crew of anti-progressives, non-progressives, and supposed-progressives-but-you-wouldn’t-notice-it) make this an unpleasant site for progressives to participate in, then fewer progressives participate, and the site slides to being even more unpleasant and less interesting.
The usual methods of enforcing a tolerable experience on a political blog is to allow the allied participants to abuse trolls and hostile participants, but this creates several things that Amp wants to avoid in this site:
1) it creates lots of little hostile exchanges, which Amp hates
2) it drives off coherent allied vs. hostile discussion
The problem is that abusing the trolls and hostiles serves several important functions:
1) it signals to everyone participating in the site that certain beliefs and positions are beyond the pale and don’t deserve the legitimacy given by respectful debate
2) it allows participants to signal to the moderator that someone needs to be banned
So by rejecting troll abuse as a group moderation method, we are left with individual moderation by Amp, Rachel and Maia. While Maia doesn’t have as much of a tendency to “act like people will change through reasonable debate, and in that vein [..] give people chances. Probably too many chances” (quoting Rachel from up above), she does have the other problem of solitary moderators- she isn’t always present and moderating (obviously - modding this blog isn’t anyones 24/7 job).
While emailing Amp or Rachel to let them know that there is a troll that needs to be dealt with is the nominal solution to allow everyone to participate in modding the site, it isn’t an effective solution for a ton of reasons.
I think the ideal solution would be for the site to run on community software rather than blog software, in which progressive users would be granted troll rating privileges, allowing commenters to be banned by popular will, and possibly allowing a previous step in which commenters would be forced into auto-moderation (where all of their posts would need to be approved by one of the primary moderators). I think that this would produce a hugely more functional and enjoyable site for progressives, while maintaining Amp and Rachel’s desired goal of having discussions with non- and anti-progressives that don’t degenerate into flame war or snipping. I think that giving progressive users a way of controlling the range of acceptable discourse other than flame-age would be a huge help (particularly since flame-age is currently only barely tolerated as a method of controlling the discourse).
Whether this is viable from a “does amp feel like learning a whole new software package and dealing with the shit that would come from making this sort of giant change and settling into a new routine for moderator and participants alike?” I don’t know.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
I do agree that the male and white privileges of intellectualizing the experiences of being oppressed as a woman or as a person of color does come into play here, but I’m not sure it is the core of the problem, and I do think it is a problem that would be addressed by giving people (many of them women or people of color) other than the top level mods (Rachel and Amp) some greater degree of say in the decisions of what is tolerated.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Rachel said:
I completely agree that the comments made to pheeno* were beyond the pale; however, unless the offender had read her posts on other topics (e.g. the Cherokee Freedmen controversy), he may not have known that she’s a person of color. As far as I can remember, she didn’t mention her racial or ethnic background in this thread (nor was there any reason for her to do so unless she wanted to).
In any case, the offender was soon banned from the site. And unless Amp were to institute a policy of reviewing every post before it gets published, I’m not sure that there’s much else he can do to guarantee that no inappropriate posts are published here.
*I didn’t read the comments made by or to Ann, so I can’t comment on them.
This comment was written by Paul1552.Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
I really like Charles suggestion. To make it slightly more complicated a -10 though 10 scale could be combined with user accounts. Negative ratings would be reserved for things that rude and insulting and obviously cruel. Zero’s could be used for comments that while civil aren’t feminist/anti-racist in nature. That might save Robert/Brandon from being troll rated for being republican/libertarian. people who sign up for accounts would be able to give scores beyond 5.
Combine that with auto-moderation and good faith desire to use the scale as it’s intended and it could work.
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Charles,
I think what you said is really smart.
I wanted to pick up on this:
“2) it allows participants to signal to the moderator that someone needs to be banned”
It’s also possible to call people out on their behavior without being abusive — but I am generally hesitant to do this, because I don’t want to be a “rules lawyer” or to come off as trying to direct Amp or another moderator.
I assume that the