In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

A Request for Civility

Lauren

Because a select few find it prudent to post abusive and/or inappropriate comments to my blog, I have a quick note to all the newbies sent here via Amanda’s radio stint:


Comments are welcome as long as they are civil, productive, and in the spirit of intellectual pursuit. Good humor is appreciated but not always necessary. Anger is allowed as well as long as it is productive anger, not reductive, abusive anger. We will not allow comments with racist, sexist, or homophobic language. This is an inappropriate space for language of this kind and it will be deleted.

All comments addressing Amanda should be posted at Amanda’s site or sent to her via email. I don’t know how she handles these messages, but since Jill and I are not Amanda, there is no reason to address her here. Comment forms are probably the least effective way to contact an author, so one should aim to do so directly.

I do my best to maintain a civil atmosphere for my regular readers, and as a guest here, I expect you to respect our wishes and our regulars’ feelings. If you cannot do so, I have no problem with doing what is necessary to maintain a safe space.

That said, please feel free to comment here as long as you believe you can meet these simple expectations. Dissent is fine, even welcome, but this blog will remain a safe space for feminist discussion at Jill’s and my discretion.

10 thoughts on A Request for Civility

  1. Is it wrong that I’m a bit amused? They’re like a freaking out of control pool ball–I thwarted them by refusing to post on this until the furor has died down and so they bounce over here. I’m sorry about that, Lauren. I would have never thought you’d be the one who gets them.

  2. Also, I find it interesting how many are absolutely positive that we’re not listening. It’s inconcievable that a woman could listen and disagree.

  3. It’s not a problem for me as long as they follow the rules. I dont pay for this site so others can a) actively hate me while b) using my paid space as a sounding board. Don’t think so. Of course I like a good debate, but not if it will be abusive, and unfortunately I’ve had to delete most of what has come my way.

    Then again, some of them were directly addressing you here, which seems awfully silly.

    I find it interesting how many are absolutely positive that we’re not listening. It’s inconcievable that a woman could listen and disagree.

    I think it’s more impossible for them to believe that a feminist can disagree, but still be listening.

  4. How do you discern between productive anger and abusive anger? I ask because it seems to me that both might add to the spirit of intellectual pursuit, but only one keeps you from maintaining a safe space.

    Which do you value more? Intellectual pursuit, or a safe space? Not that they’re incompatible, but I’d argue you may not be able to balance them. Has feminists’ anger always been sharp, on target, and non-abusive? Or did it need a few practice runs to get get off the ground?

  5. For these men, their crusade of victimhood is their self. They have lost the other things that they defined themselves by (like spree killers, who almost without exception move away from their communities of origin, see their families fall apart and then lose their jobs before finding some external force to blame for their miserable failed lives). If someone listens to them and rejects their views, that person in rejecting their claim to validity and, by extension, blaming them for the failure of their lives. IOW, to reject many MRAs’ positions is to call them losers. Now, they have lots of ready excuses when men do it (trying to get laid, hates himself, gay, and the ever-popular “wait until she does to you what mine did to me”), but when a woman rejects their views, it’s another woman making them feel like a loser all over again.

    IME, MRAs are deeply traumatized men looking for excuses for the mistakes they have made in their lives.

    Read the chapter in “Stiffed” on domestic violence counselling for a better explanation.

  6. I think Thomas has a good explanation.

    I have to admit that I’m very curious about the deleted comments. Have you saved them? I can see why you wouldn’t want to, but it seems like they are a sort of data (says the social scientist…everything’s data!). No, seriously, it’s a kind of evidence of a particular phenomenon.

    (Although this might seem funny coming from me, the one who was so loudly complaining about Billy HW…)

  9. Rustick, I consider productive anger the kind that galvanizes, not abuses. Anger directed toward individuals commenting here creates an atmosphere with which I am uncomfortable.

    Criticism of points is far different than criticism of people.

    I’m guilty of it every now and again, but attempt to do what I can to bring the situation back around to a productive atmosphere. I’m all about building bridges, if not on agreement then on respect, but we have to have a foundation to build them on.

  10. Cool Lauren. I imagine that listening is a good foundation. I’d include myself in the camp that finds it near-impossible to believe that a feminist can disagree (with MRAs, FRAs, what have you) and still be listening to them, but the prospect does fill me with hope.

    As long as we’re recommending book bits, why not try the introduction to Cathy Young’s “Ceasefire!” It’s a lot lighter than Stiffed…

Comments are currently closed.