Comments are now closed.

(And by the way, it’s a bit moot now that comments are closed, but Crys T, your attack on Brandon was completely against the rules of this blog. And Robert, your response to Crys T’s attack on Brandon was also completely against the rules of this blog.)

This is getting ridiculous.

And re your list: I’m sorry, but you’re not actually responding to what I (and btw, most of the other feminist women here) are saying.

I was responding to part of what you’re saying; specifically, your false claim that “there is a longtime pattern of letting the men get off scot-free and slapping feminists’ wrists.” There is no such pattern. That you’re now pretending you didn’t say it, doesn’t mean you never said it. (I guess saying “I’m sorry, I was mistaken to claim that about you, but I still stand by my larger point” would be too hard a thing for you to say?)

It’s true that I haven’t responded to everything you’ve said, because what’s the point? The bottom line is, you want me to make changes in the moderation of “Alas” which will make me feel unwelcome and unable to post. I’m not going to do that. Some changes are being made, but they won’t go as far as you want, because if I went that far I’d have to quit.

So what are you going to do about it? I hope you’ll stay and contribute comments to the threads, because I enjoy reading your comments. But if you don’t like it, then you should go. There are plenty of other feminist blogs in which people like Robert and Brandon (let alone Daran) aren’t tolerated. There’s no lack of the kind of space you want.

Translation

You just hate me because I have a penis.

(as if its that important.)

Similarly, it’s no secret that you’re only here because you hate Jews and derive joy from slapping a kike online.

Hey, this “impute the evil motive of my choice to my adversary” game is FUN! I especially like the part where I get to invent insults, and put them in the mouth of the targeted adversary!

Next time there’s a thread relating to kids, I’ll be sure to impute a motive of wanting sexual access to children to whatever you write on the topic. Sure, that will make having a real discussion absolutely impossible, and will permanently poison the well for 5 or 10 percent of “Alas” readers who wander in that day and, lacking all context, see only my unsupported allegations and not knowing either of us, assume there must be something to such a heinous charge.

But hey, I can’t be bothered with those concerns. Those are the kinds of things that men would use to justify a policy of civil discourse. And that’s just an excuse for THE MAN and his PENIS LOGIC.

And re your list: I’m sorry, but you’re not actually responding to what I (and btw, most of the other feminist women here) are saying. This is what my problem is: a number of men who comment here, for example, Robert or Daran or Brandon, are experts in using the male-invented, male-defined rules of “civil,” “logical” argument. Those rules allow them to be incredibly hostile and hateful towards women, particularly feminists, without crossing any lines. Yet we know they are rubbing our faces in it and so do they. They sit here and bait and bait and bait, and if one of us snaps and finally cuts through the bullshit of “polite” discourse and tells them to fuck off, you can and have told us off while ignoring the events that led up to the “offense”. Just like you did to Q.

Most of us learned not to even bother long, long before March 1. If you had come up with a list of examples where feminists said things such as “quit wasting time with your misogynist drivel, fuckhead” and got away with it, you’d have had a point–NOT, I must stress, that I want or expect you to waste your time making lists to prove things to me. I leave that sort of manipulative, controlling behaviour to others. For example:

Just look at Brandon’s comment in 198–it’s a classic. Brandon is here because he hates feminist women and he gets great pleasure in slapping us bitches down when we get uppity. We all know that, he knows that we know it, it’s no secret to anyone. He is not interested in interacting with us or listening to us or even debating us, because even when faced with evidence, he merely brushes it aside as irrelevant. To engage in debate with him as if he were acting in good faith is not only a collossal waste of time, it’s plain stupid.

I have called him out on this. So what’s his response? “Prove it.” And why? Because my sitting around, scrabbling through posts, wasting my time & energy compiling old quotes just so he can glance at them and say, “That proves nothing,” is exactly where he wants me: jumping to do his bidding. He’s rubbing my face in the fact that he can get away with treating me like a subhuman piece of shit and there’s nothing I can do about it, because if I say, “Fuck off, you misogynist prick,” who’s going to be reprimanded or even banned here? Sure as fuck not Brandon.

You are not looking at the crux of the issue: Sexist men at Alas? Numbers increasing (if slowly) and they’re staying put. Feminists women and pro-feminist men at Alas? Numbers dwindling, and even those of us who do come back are commenting less and less. If I’m so wrong in my impression of why that’s happening, what explanation do you have?

Since I mostly lurk anyway, the fact that I don’t reply to offensive comments isn’t a big deal. But when I conclude that someone is a troll I skim over their comments and the threads they dominate. That means I didn’t see the really appalling racist and sexist comments from people like Michael and Chris, because I had long since concluded that they weren’t worth reading. So it took me a while to realize why people were so upset.

Absolutely, Bean, it does go both ways. On the rare occasions where feminist commenters are being gratuitously offensive, I skim over their posts too, without reading. I cut feminists a lot more slack because I have much more sympathy for someone who is incoherently angry about rape than someone who is incoherently angry about affirmative action! And generally, I find the feminists at Alas to be a highly reasonable bunch, even if sometimes people resort to strong language. The sites where the brand of feminism is nastier than I can stomach I just don’t read, agreeing with crys’ view about not continuing hang out somewhere expressing views massively in conflict with mine.

When I do get into arguments with feminists, it’s because I start from the assumption that feminists are basically the good guys. Most feminists I have met want to know if their views are potentially damaging to other minority groups. Whereas someone who is sexist is quite likely not to care if you complain that they are also racist! A long time ago I got involved in some of the civility debates, but I have given up on that. I certainly don’t go around criticizing individual feminists on their manners; if they are too rude for me then it’s up to me to ignore them, I don’t have the right to try to pressure people to conform to my ideas of civility, when I know many feminists are against that in principle.

I’m wondering…since it’s so easy to toss off the advice to “just ignore it,” why don’t the same advice givers give that advice to those who are so offended by the “offensive and hostile” posts that the feminists so often make? Why is it always a one-way street?

Where are you getting the idea that we don’t?

Crys T:

On a day-to-day basis, the guys get away with pulling nasty shit regularly.

Maybe if you compile a collection of the most egregious examples of that nasty shit we regularly get away with pulling, the management will see what jerks we really are and ban us. Heck, if you show me something I’ve said here that could legitimately be classified as “nasty shit,” I’ll apologize for it.

“In this thread, for instance, the only person I’ve moderated is Robert.”

Yeah, because he’d been named specifically as someone a lot of feminist and pro-feminist commenters see as a huge obstacle to real debate here. You were very conscious of him at that moment and aware that we were all watching your responses very closely.

Wow, are you quick to accuse me of dishonest behavior. And you’re wrong. I moderated him because I thought the comment deserved moderation - period.

You claim that “there is a longtime pattern of letting the men get off scot-free and slapping feminists’ wrists.” I think you’re mistaken, both to implicitly assume that “men” and “feminists” are mutually exclusive categories, and in your accusation.

Starting from just before this discussion of moderation began, and going backwards in time to March first, here are all the moderating comments I’ve made that I could find with a search of the comments database:

1) One on a Schiavo thread, telling someone to please not attack the Schindlers.

2) One on Duke Lacrosse, banning Steven.

3) One on Nappy Headed Hos, banning Michael.

4) One on Duke Lacrosse, telling Jo not to attack Amanda.

5) One on Baby Blogging, attempting to put the “misquote” issue to rest by editing Myca’s comment to change the word “misquote” to “paraphrase.”

5) One on Baby Blogging, asking Q Grrl and Bean to stop more-feminist-than-thou-ing Myca.

6) One on Baby Blogging, telling both Q Grrl and Myca to avoid attacking other posters.

7) One on nappy headed hoes, banning David, Stop The Foolishness, GETOVERIT, and Pickedaname.

8) One on baby blogging, asking that people watch their tones and avoid piling on Q Grrl.

9) One on nappy headed hoes, deleting a super-long plagerized comment.

10) One on “nice guys,” telling Bean not to make a personal attack on Brandon. (I quoted this one earlier in our discussion).

11) One on “oppression is a system of domination and control,” telling Mandrea not to make personal insults, and editing a post in which she had called someone a stupid asshole or something along those lines (it’s been edited, and I don’t remember what her exact words were).

12) One on “oppression is a system of domination and control,” giving Daran a once-more-and-you’re-banned-from-this-thread warning.

12) One on “oppression is a system of domination and control,” telling everyone to drop the Paris Hilton versus nameless homeless man discussion. (This particular attempt at moderation sunk like a stone.)

14) One on “oppression is a system of domination and control,” asking Q Grrl not to say “Damn but ya’ll are dense,” which I thought was a personal attack.

15) One on “oppression is a system of domination and control,” asking people not to digress the thread.

16) One on “are men oppressed as men,” banning Lee.

17) One on “empty spaces waiting for white people” telling Julie that she should stop behaving like a jerk.

18) One on “workplace deaths,” telling Nemo to tone down his snarky tone and anti-feminism.

19) One on “Court Issues Unbelievably Stupid…,” telling off Chris for “sneering at feminists.”

20) One on Link Farm #46, banning CJ for a week and telling him that he can only return if he apologizes for his behavior.

21) One on “Court Issues Unbelievably Stupid…,” telling Chris to stop being obnoxious.

Of 21 moderating comments I made, ten were directed at anti-feminsts and racist-apologists of one sort or another.

Seven of my moderating comments were directed at feminists (the plurality at Q Grrl).

Seven people were banned, and all seven were anti-feminist and/or racist-apologist. (Probably this total would be twenty or more if you counted the people who were banned before their first post appeared in public.)

Three anti-feminists were given extra-strong warnings that fell short of bannings; no feminists were given such warnings.

And several of the warnings at anti-feminists were directed at people who were being polite on the surface, but in my view were still acting in an unacceptable manner. (For instance, I gave Daran a “stop or you’re banned from this thread” warning based not on him making any personal attacks, but on him using a hypothetical question to imply that feminists are man-haters.)

So I think you’re mistaken, Crys. I moderate the “antis” more often than I do the feminists, and I moderate them more harshly.

RonF: I’m sorry, but I can only repeat my feeling that having people camp out for months or years on a blog that exists explicitly to propound views radically contrary to their own is an indication that something is wrong. It’s wrong because normally such places are not comfortable because having to deal with voices saying what you don’t like tends to be upsetting.

You don’t seem to consider an alternative to comfort. I’m not looking for comfort here - I’m looking to see if I can learn (and maybe even teach a bit, if anyone’s listening). Learning is useful. It’s often not comfortable. In fact, it’s worth considering that it shouldn’t be comfortable. If it is, perhaps you’re being told what you want to hear, vs. the truth.

bean

I’m wondering…since it’s so easy to toss off the advice to “just ignore it,” why don’t the same advice givers give that advice to those who are so offended by the “offensive and hostile” posts that the feminists so often make?

Actually, I have. Repeatedly. “Offensive” and “hostile” are to a certain extent subjective; what one person finds so, others don’t. I have said things that I have not meant to be offensive or hostile that other people have taken as such. Other people have said things to me that I have found offensive and hostile. I figure eating the latter pays for the former. And where I figure that it’s deliberate, I try not to raise to the bait.

It’s not like fundies trying to outlaw homosexuality, which impacts the lives of homosexuals in ways that get them killed.

No, obviously, that’s absolutely true, and it’s part of why (though I’m straight) issues around homophobia are a real hot-button issue for me.

On the other hand, people* (some people I know, actually) really do lose their children and jobs because of this, so it’s not like it’s just a harmless opinion either.

—Myca

* And, since we live in a patriarchal society that’s terrified of female sexuality, of course women bear the brunt of this. So when someone says ‘only the mentally ill enjoy BDSM’, what they’re really doing is attacking women and enabling attacks on women.

The difference (and its rather important) is this

We arent discussing things that *might* kill women. We’re discussing things that do kill women on a daily basis. There is no might about it. One is a fanatical exception, the other is the rule. People who use the al queda scare are trying to spin the exception into the rule to justify illegal activity. Feminists are not.

I ask because there have been a lot of intellectual, theoretical discussions of BDSM and polyamory in my time here, and these are things that are part of my actual life, that I have an actual investment in, and that decisions about affect my life in important ways. I’ve been called an abuser, my wife has been called crazy, and I’ve tried to be ‘civil’ through it.”

Basically, since we live in a world that caters to men, is mostly run by men and everything is geared towards men and male fantasy ect, someone disagreeing with your personal sexual choices isnt posing a real threat to your life or ability to lead that life as you see fit. It’s not like fundies trying to outlaw homosexuality, which impacts the lives of homosexuals in ways that get them killed.

Disagreeing with women who are trying to change social beliefs and treatment is essentially aiding a society that *kills* women.

Personally, I *like* BDSM and me and the spouse thingy engage in it quite often. Its not a 24/7 thing by any stretch of the imagination, but someone disagreeing or even being hostile about it doesnt have the potencial to get me killed.

I believe actions A and B will put my life in danger. Immediate, potentially lethal danger. Someone else wants to argue that actions A and B wont really put my life in danger and seems mean or unfair . Im not going to nicely brush that off, when I feel Im actually having to save my own life. I dont know *anyone* who wouldnt become increasingly hostile in defense of their own lives. Nor do I know of anyone who would sit and calmly discuss real dangers to their lives as if it was merely a discussion or hypothetical situation.

This is a bona fide problem. I wrestle with this problem in various forms myself – usually from the other side, and usually unsuccessfully.

I neither profess nor deny the existence of a supreme being. This fact can provoke both theists and atheists into near fits. The director of our church choir who clings to her faiths for solace demand to know “How can you reject Christ’s sacrifice?” An ex-Catholic friend who finds satisfaction in condemning his religious upbringing incredulously ask “How can you believe that crap?” Neither really wants my thoughts; rather, they want my solidarity. Their views are passionate, an integral part of their identities; mine are academic. Lacking a way to express love for the person while speaking candidly to the subject, I’ve become adept at changing the topic.

I’m concerned about many practices of the US government. The idea that we would incarcerate people, hold them incommunicado indefinitely, subject them to “coercive interrogation methods” emulating pain just short of organ failure, and not even acknowledge that we’re holding them, strikes me as barbaric if not illegal. But, as others have suggested, people do not seem to be receptive to dispassionate discussions on the topic. “They might be al Queida! They might be trying to KILL US!” That’s generally as far as the discussion gets. I try to reassure people of my concern for everyone’s safety, but once I expand the discussion to address the safety of people in US custody the discussion falls apart.

The same impulses that led me to feel concerned for those imprisoned at Abu Grabe and Gitmo also led me to feel concern for – at the risk of raising hackles – the Duke lacrosse players. I did not see the need to rush to making a personal judgment, content that people closer to the scene could do that adequately without my assistance. But when I expressed this thought to friends, I heard a familiar refrain. “They could be RAPISTS!” I must acknowledge that people on this web site were able to thoughtfully distinguish between supporting the accuser and condemning the accused. The discussion I found here was by far the exception; concern for due process – or humble acknowledgment that we did not know all the facts – was often equated with indifference to rape victims.

“A very popular error — having the courage of your convictions. Rather, it is a matter of having the courage for an attack upon one’s convictions.” Nietzsche said that; of course, he was a white male. As am I. I’ve led a privileged life – at least in the sense that I’m not aware of having been traumatized. Perhaps that makes my perspective a minority experience. Nevertheless, it’s the only perspective I’ve got.

I do what I can to avoid attacking people’s identities while expressing differences of opinions about their convictions. Where identities and convictions are closely entwined, it’s a delicate project and I’d be astonished if I’d never struck a nerve. For what it’s worth, I try to consider what I know of each poster’s personal story before I respond – but, admittedly, I evaluate them from my own, privileged perspective. For what it’s worth, I’m sorry for the nerves I’ve struck. And, for what it’s worth, I’m likely to continue striking nerves in the future … at least until I can expand my perspective, or I get banned.

If you have the courage for an attack upon your convictions, I look forward to the discussion. Otherwise, moderators should feel free to ban me. I defer to their perspectives; my identity is not at stake here.

Making fun of the fear of rape? Not cool.

Oh, I’m certainly not talking about making fun of the fear of rape, I’m talking about people who say oh so civilly that there must be something wrong with me and the people I love because of what we like to do in bed.

That’s false civility, and that’s intellectualizing from outside a situation.

—Myca

Just a thought as to one way of looking at an observation made.

I do appreciate this thread.

So maybe, just maybe, that “hositility” is a result of having our lives at stake in these “discussions” and not just ideas or beliefs.

Yes, I agree. For men, even feminist ones it’s about theory and its statistics and it’s all the type of evidence that is empirical and coincedently or not, this is the type of evidence and discussion which is upheld by men as being the most important thing and they place a higher value on what they bring including methods to the table. They can’t have these experiences and either want to participate in a meaningful way, or they are hostile to feminists and just want to derail. Or they see discussions about feminism as a contest, a comparison of caliber size so to speak.

For women, these things matter, but most often it’s about experiences and ancedotes(which are the genesis of most studies that are done and most statistics that are gathered) and about how these issus impact our lives and those lives of other women. But men tend to poo-pooh these things and uphold their methods of accessing feminism, whether they are pro or con, as being superior to what those who do live with experiences as women in a society that favors men most especially White men have to contribute.

This dynamic is frustrating as is the constant demand to prove tenets to men who aren’t interested in anything we have to say just in saying, “see, I’m right. Nanner nanner,” when feminists have already had those discussions and want to move on to something else, which most often is the actual topic of a thread addressing women’s issues.

An ignore feature might help things though. Maybe someone could cobble together a greasemonkey ignore script if the blog software wouldn’t easily support it.

I’m not saying that applying theoretical analysis to things like BDSM and polyamory is wrong or anything, but . . . it really is treating an important emotional component of many people’s lives as an intellectual exercise. When someone does that, is it then okay for me to call them names?

You didn’t ask me, but I’m gonna hop in with my two cents anyway. One, flat out not ok in my book to ‘call someone names’ when what they’re discussing is a culture that keeps women’s fear of rape alive and very, very justified (when a chick feels bad for making her boyfriend a little guiltyish over anally raping her while she was tied up, bdsm is I think undeniably a part of the excuses that go into making it so ok to rape women in America. Bruises or no, she probably could’ve asked for it, right (see: rape apologists on Pandagon making cracks like “uh, safeword?” re that woman’s rape).

There are plenty of people who are frankly mature enough to handle the power-playing-with that bdsm entails. There are also a whole lot of ‘em who use the scene (and now especially with the internet and all its porniferous glory, its fiction-creation) as an instruction manual for how to rape and get away with it. Not cool.

I think feminists are well within their bounds to criticise the fact that our culture has so eroticised power that hurting each other for pleasure has become a “game.” I think that bdsm-ers are well within their rights to defend their pastime and the mindset that allows them to get something out of it [for example, Myca, after having read so many of your comments I'd be hard pressed to jump to the he's-a-wannabe-rapist conclusion in your case; that's not necessarily so with everybody i for one have met irl or online]. At the same time, it seems only respectful to bear in mind that the idea of so many much-bigger-than-us men out there getting off on fantasies of abduction and force is an incredibly frightening knowledge to walk around with (even to a generally unfrightened goes-out-wandering-at-night chick like me).

And to be totally honest, if I ever found myself getting called names for having that fear, then I wouldn’t be able to help but switch my mental idea of the speaker’s ‘category’ as far as safe/sane and pro-non-consent. Making fun of the fear of rape? Not cool.

Two, I started out with “One,” and never really moved onto another point per se. Here’s Two. :)

I wonder if the “just ignore it” people get that feminists arent just merely dicsussing ideas or theories, we’re discussing our actual lives. We’re not defending ideas, we’re defending things that keep us unraped, able to pay bills and breathing (just to name a few). So maybe, just maybe, that “hositility” is a result of having our lives at stake in these “discussions” and not just ideas or beliefs.

My question (and please, I’m asking not telling) is how far this applies across the board?

I ask because there have been a lot of intellectual, theoretical discussions of BDSM and polyamory in my time here, and these are things that are part of my actual life, that I have an actual investment in, and that decisions about affect my life in important ways. I’ve been called an abuser, my wife has been called crazy, and I’ve tried to be ‘civil’ through it.

I’m not saying that applying theoretical analysis to things like BDSM and polyamory is wrong or anything, but . . . it really is treating an important emotional component of many people’s lives as an intellectual exercise. When someone does that, is it then okay for me to call them names?

Please realize I’m not trying to either dominate the conversation with this or make it ‘all about me’ or start a fight or anything. I’m asking how folks envision this working.

—Myca