I agree with your point. Criticism isn’t a bad thing and it doesn’t imply hostility.

Ampersand:

I actually think, by mingling your objections to anti-male sexism with anti-feminism, you (and Daran and many others) do far more harm than good. Conflating reactionary anti-feminism with legitimate discussions of how sexism hurts men discredits legitimate points that shouldn’t be discredited, imo.

Ampersand what generally or specifically do you see in the bloggers comments as being anti-feminist? What criteria are you using to differentiate between feminist and anti-feminist people/remarks? Ballgame stated in an earlier comment some things I’m sure you both are for, is ballgame not a feminist? If Daran, ballgame, and you share those same beliefs what does that make Daran? I’m asking not to out of hostility or antagonism, but out of belief that you and the bloggers at FC have a lot of common ground and out of general ignorance on what you see (or anyone else for that matter) as anti-feminist.

Can some people agree with parts of a movement but not the net sum? Can I disagree with capitalism while not eschewing and spitting on all its benefits? Can I think the justice system is heavily flawed in many ways (in different places, including the carceral system) without thinking that it needs to be done away with to leave place to anarchy?

If I want to point out the flaws of capitalism, prisons, courts, governments, other systems (like caste systems), does this necessarily give ammunition to the opposition (who want the system/organization/idea to be shot down) without giving a chance for the critiqued one(s) to better that weakness?

In short, while sometimes harsh, isn’t constructive criticism (pointing out options that could better things, pointing out a flaw without having knowledge of an immediate possible viable solution too) welcome on ideas that aren’t perfect (which is all ideas)?

I’ve seen a few ‘hardcore’ MRA sites, the kind that provides absolutely no constructive criticism and only goes up to say “Feminism is bad” or “Women are bad” or other such nonsense without providing anything useful at all. Are you basically saying that Feminist Critics blog is the same as them, and that even inadvertedly, FC blog is working in tandem with those haters and bigots over those more hardcore sites?

Stuff

I disagree with you. But that’s just my opinion.

Also fwiw, I think in many (but not all) instances Robert’s being here is a net plus.

But feminism is NOT FOR:

People who are opposed to sex roles, and who are in favor of gay marriage, and who are pro-choice and pro-equal pay for equal work.

THOSE people are clearly faux feminists.

Because goodness knows there’s no other pattern in your writing — such as habitually attacking feminism, while rarely criticizing MRAs or anti-feminists — that would have motivated my take on your position. Nor have you joined a blog primarily devoted to anti-feminism.

I agree with you, of course, that feminism has a lot to do with why we’re now seeing a movement towards marraige equality. And it’s good you acknowlege that, and favor marriage equality. What’s interesting, to me, is that you continue to align yourself with a movement — call it “feminist critics” or “antifeminism” or whatever — that has never in the world done a bit of good.

Despite your progressive opinions, you act like a reactionary; your fellow travelers in hating feminism, if they win, will make sex roles more set in concrete, and outlaw same-sex marraige forever. But you nonetheless devote your energies to attacking me and people like me, while barely ever criticizing the people who have actual power and are pushing the most damaging forms of sexism against both women and men.

I actually think, by mingling your objections to anti-male sexism with anti-feminism, you (and Daran and many others) do far more harm than good. Conflating reactionary anti-feminism with legitimate discussions of how sexism hurts men discredits legitimate points that shouldn’t be discredited, imo.

(Note: Ballgame and I cross-posted, or whatever you call it when I edited my comment before Ballgame’s response posted. I originally used the phrase “faux-feminist,” and then modified it to “anti-feminist feminist.” For the record, I think “anti-feminist feminist” is a more accurate label for Ballgame’s position, and I don’t stand by the phrase “faux-feminist”.)

FWIW, I didn’t quite follow Mandolin’s reasoning for banning Daran. I can only imagine that his cumulative irritatingness passed her limit. But I’m not going to argue it because I understand how moderation at Alas has been defined & I’m aware that Daran pushes the limits stated to him previously.

In any case, there are many styles of moderation (my current favorite is at http://ussmariner.com/ - which very few of you will find an interesting site for content). Alas has clearly defined its moderation policies and it is what it is and, after many discussions over a loooong period of time, I don’t think that there will be any significant changes coming.

Atheists, Jews, pagans, baha’i feminists, Mormons, Unitarian Universalists, Quakers, Buddhist-Quakers, the anti-religious, the anti-atheistic, evangelicals, black people, white people, Boricuas, chicanas, desi people, Asian people, people with a mixed race identity, men, women, white men, environmental activists, animal rights activists, those who prioritize people, anti-racists, the transsexual and genderfluid, trans men (even when they halt transition), trans women, cissexuals, people whose gender identity formation is ambiguous, mothers, the childfree, mothers who stay at home with their children, mothers who work outside the home, and those who homeschool, fathers: gay, straight, partnered, and unparterned, fathers of boys and girls, stay at home dads, heterosexual couples raising children, gay parents raising children, polyamorous people raising children, single parents raising children, and people who prefer to help raise the children of friends and family, lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, people who like to look at men, asexuals, polyamorous women and polyamorous men, the monogamous, those creating unusual families, psychiatrists, the anti-psychiatry, people with PTSD, cyclothymia, narcissistic personality disorder, the fat, the thin, and those with eating disorders, real women, with and without curves, people who Mandolin admires, people who piss Mandolin off, and people who she admires who piss her off, those who adopt or foster, and those who use IVF, and those who’ve given birth to many children, the married, the divorced, the unmarried, the several times divorced (and happily remarried), those who are in interracial marriages, those who are in cross-generational relationships, those whose hard-won joyful marriages anger many Americans, and those who are unfairly barred from marriage, the disabled and the abled and the parents of the disabled, those who believe in litmus tests, and those who eschew them, Republicans, fiscal conservatives, libertarians, anarchists and Marxists, Democrats, people in the Green party, etc. etc. etc.

But feminism is NOT FOR:

People who are opposed to sex roles, and who are in favor of gay marriage, and who are pro-choice and pro-equal pay for equal work.

THOSE people are clearly faux feminists.

Got.

It.

* * *

I’m torn on the question of if it’s right to ban Daran, but not at all torn about whether or not Daran’s hostile to feminism and feminists; he definitely is, although he expresses his hostility without overt rancor. And I agree with Mandolin that having invited Ren plus an anti-feminist feminist to co-blog on “Feminist Critics” doesn’t make the hostility magically disappear.

(Hey, I invited Daran to co-blog at “Creative Destruction”; does that mean I’m not at all hostile to anti-feminists?)

On Daran’s blog, I see that a few weeks ago he commented that I should “discipline” the other moderators, which in context clearly meant Mandolin. I think this shows a fundimental misunderstanding of how “Alas” works. Mandolin is a co-moderator, not a sub-moderator, and makes decisions for herself. She has the authority to act without seeking my approval on every ban, and we can disagree without her being “wrong.”

(Just as when I banned Ginmar — a move Mandolin very much disagrees with — that didn’t make me wrong.)

Your credibility on this is zero.

I also don’t care what Daran does or doesn’t do on his own site; he has been contemptuous on this one. Furhter, I would be much more willing to listen to invocations of Renegade Evolution if you invoked her in any other way other than “Nyah nyah, we’ve gots us someone you consider feminist on OUR side.” Yes, thanks, I know you have plenty of use for women when their spectres can be invoked for anti-feminist intentions.

Robert, your net contribution to this site is negative, your contempt for the community oozes out of you, and I believe you argue consistently in bad faith. You are a troll in this community of the worst variety, one who has done irreparable damage to its comment sections and its population. I have no interest in courting your approval of my decisions, since your approval is meaningless.

I don’t think Darren [sic] likes feminism. From what he’s written i think he actively dislikes it. I think he wants it to be something else and that he’s mad at feminists because they disagree with him about what it should be.

Well, Joe, since “it” is not your expectation, I don’t see how you can possibly tell whether Daran likes “it” or not. I think Daran agrees with portions of “it” and disagrees with other parts of “it” … which, in this respect, would make him exactly like you, me, and every blogger and commenter who participates at Alas.

I think he’s hostile towards it and I think he has ill will towards people that self identify as feminists.

Here you’re just plain wrong, Joe. Two of the three folks who accepted his invitation to co-blog at Feminist Critics were self-identified feminists at the time they accepted his invitation. One of them (who no longer self-identifies as a feminist and who is on hiatus from FC) just finished a guest-blog stint at Feministe. It seems a rather curious display of ill will toward a group of people to invite them to co-blog with you. (Although, given the hours and the pay, I guess an argument could be made …)

I think his reasons for this are very different from those of republicans that feel the same way. But I don’t see how the path to all of that really matters.

It matters if you believe in genuine debate and discussion, and it matters if you believe the accuracy of a proposition is not enhanced through uncritical repetition.

I don’t think Darren likes feminism. From what he’s written i think he actively dislikes it. I think he wants it to be something else and that he’s mad at feminists because they disagree with him about what it should be. I think he’s hostile towards it and I think he has ill will towards people that self identify as feminists. I think his reasons for this are very different from those of republicans that feel the same way. But I don’t see how the path to all of that really matters.

Oh, and I’m so certain of this that I’ve stopped closely reading his comments when the subject turns to gender issues. I think i know what he’s going to say so i skim to see if there’s anything new.

Could Mandolin (or some other moderator) point to specific examples of the comments Daran made that prompted this move?

This is ridiculous. Daran does not show contempt for feminism; he shows respect for it, by holding it to the same analytical and logical standards that he applies to other ideologies or worldviews. Unwillingness to stand silent, for solidarity-type reasons, in the face of perceived contradiction or cognitive error is not contempt.

As someone who has more than once been on the wrong side of Daran’s occasionally monomaniacal nigglings at logical loose ends, I can attest that this is uncomfortable. But I have never felt disrespected by Daran, nor have I ever seen him fail to show courtesy, willingness to engage on substance, and ability to acknowledge demonstrated errors on his own part.

This moderation decision is unjustified.

If you want to discuss differences among the lyrics in alt, blues, country, electronica, folk, gospel, metal, hip hop, jazz, R&B and rock music, click here.

(Which link will get the most clicks, do you suppose…?)

This reminds me of the famous quote about selling your soul for porage, and then not getting the porage. I tried to look up the quote to be more precise and give credit, but I couldn’t find it.

It’s very simple really: McCain will never be pregnant. He may, however, at some point be in a position to benefit from stem cell research. So he is saying that it is ok to kill people as long as killing them will benefit people like him (i.e. rich, white, American men). Perfectly consistent with the Republican position that killing a few million Iraqis is ok as long as it results in lower gas prices.