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

Who Gets to Say What, Part 3: Whiteness, Leetness

(This is the second part of our series of reflections on Feministe and its place in the bewildering and sometimes nauseating constellation known as “the feminist blogosophere.” You can read part one here and you can read part two here.)

Oh yeah. It’s time to talk about race some more. Ready?

Is Feministe one of the White Feminist Elite blogs? Where do we see Feministe sitting along the racial fault lines that fracture the blogosphere, or in the division between “big elite” and “small individual” blogs?

Jill: Over years of feminist blogging and decades of feminist activism before that, a lot of lines in the sand have been drawn, a lot of alliances formed and re-formed, a lot of mis-steps and healed wounds and old scars split open again. There are “sides,” but there are more than two of them. Women of color in the blogosphere aren’t a monolith. White women in the blogosphere aren’t a monolith, and hardly all qualify as “elite.” A lot of the bigger group blogs include writers with a variety of identities, and don’t fall quite so easily into one category or another (is Feministe an elite white woman’s blog because I’m here? If so, doesn’t that totally erase the contributions of all of our other writers who don’t fit into that mold quite so easily?).

There have been very problematic patterns of behavior that need to be addressed; there have been repeated instances of racism, silencing and co-opting. Those problematic behaviors are often racialized. A lot of the “sides” do fall along racial lines, largely because white women (myself included) seem to have an enormous propensity for fucking up. But lumping all women of color bloggers into one group to use as a tool to go after “elite white feminists” — or really, to go after one particular white feminist, while grouping in all other white writers to make it seem like a structural critique instead of a personal attack — is not bridge-building or conscientious anti-racist activism.

Cara: Exactly. Was I a part of the White Feminist Elite before joining Feministe, because I am white? And if not, where did I, and all of the other white feminist bloggers who don’t necessarily have a large platform — or who hardly feel “elite” and may also sometimes feel left out of feminist conversation due to other sites of oppression like income level, sexual orientation, gender identity and so on — fit in? And just as importantly, where does someone like Holly fit in? She’s a woman of color, but writes for a blog that has seemingly been dubbed elite, and seemingly also dubbed (obviously inaccurately) white.  As previously covered, we are indeed white majority, but to just say “white” without qualification is ridiculously problematic.  As Jill said, this incredibly simple and inaccurate binary erases the experiences (both positive and negative) and rightful places of many writers within the feminist or feminist-related blogosphere. And while there are certainly all kinds of issues that come into play across many lines, pretending that there’s just one line is incredibly unhelpful and doesn’t let us get at the many real problems that do exist.

Returning to some of the other points with regards to guest-blogging and “tokenism,” I think that, as Holly explained better in the first post of this series, there is significant and sincere difference between attempting to elevate certain voices because they’re interesting, we like what they have to say, and we want to offer them a bigger platform on which to say it, and attempting to elevate a voice to give yourself more street cred. Mandy and Brittany’s post clearly came down on the side of guest-blogging on major feminist blogs being the latter. I can sincerely say that if I felt like guest blogging on major feminist blogs was being done for street cred, I would want absolutely no part in it.

I know that as a white woman, I wasn’t the kind of guest-blogger being referred to, but when I was first asked to be a two-week guest on Feministe, I in no way felt that I was being invited in order to fill up a roster. I felt that I was invited because the people already blogging here liked my writing and what I had to say. And I can say that since I’ve been on board to witness it, that same tone, courtesy and respect was extended to every single guest we’ve invited. If one of our guests has ever felt that we did not extend that to them, I have never heard about it, and would be both surprised and deeply saddened to hear it. And I’d want to take immediate action to ensure that it never happens again.

That’s not to say that Feministe is perfect in any way. One area where I often feel that our guest-bloggers don’t get enough respect, and where I often do see attempts to stifle their voices, is in the comments. The hostility that our guest-bloggers can sometimes experience at startlingly different levels from what us regulars usually receive is something that we’re constantly discussing behind the scenes, and speaking out about both in comments and in separate posts on the blog. We want our community to feel safe and welcome not only for our guests on the back end, but also where most of you participate. It makes me sad and frankly scared that so many guests seem to be seen by some as intruding on the space, as if most of what they have to say isn’t usually what we already stand for. And yes, it does make me wonder if we’re accomplishing what we want to accomplish.

How to appropriately enforce community standards of respect and decency while continuing to let good faith disagreement and confrontation thrive is something that we are constantly working on, and is also sadly more of an art than a science. These experiences alone, but of course in actuality combined with many others, are reason enough to know that there are real and substantial problems within the blogosphere surrounding who is given a platform, and the way that some voices are indeed marginalized (or attempted to be marginalized).

Holly: Cara asks where I fit in, so I figured I would add a few thoughts on that. The short answer is “nowhere but the intersections.” That’s not the entirety of my identity, but it IS more or less a defining factor of my life experience. I think this is part of why I gravitate towards larger blogs that are not focused around a single identity, but a conflux of clashing ideas and overlapping truths. It’s messy. It results in bad conversations, like Cara says, and we need to figure out how to improve that. But I have never been able to take solace in the idea of building an entirely radical construct off in the wilderness with only kindred spirits, people like me. There aren’t really any other people like me. (Well, maybe except for my multiracial queer trans woc activist sister, whose voice is always gloriously and brilliantly different than mine too.) My radical politics have always been about carving out little niches to live in the thick of things, pockets of resistance, subversions of whatever we can scrabble together out of opportunities we get.

As for tokenism — just like Jack, I am under no illusions that I am here SOLELY because of my merits; that’s not even possible, even if every blogger here intended differently. It’s just how things work, structurally. The fact that I blog here is always going to be bound up with the fact that I represent something other than straight white non-trans feminism–in my own mind, in the perceptions of readers, all over the conversation. Regardless of what Jill or Cara or Lauren’s intentions are, we can’t just make that disappear. As we’ve seen, good intentions don’t necessarily count for much. At some level, when people from different walks of life, with different kinds of privilege and experience, come together to collaborate, there will always be some facets that look like tokenism. Those facets are exposed most harshly on the side of Feministe that faces the rest of the internet and the greater media environment. Feministe is probably seen by many passers-by as being a blog about feminism, where “feminism” is shorthand for the stereotypical and historically dominant form of the feminist politic: mostly white, mostly middle-class, almost entirely non-trans, mostly able-bodied, etc.

Like every other facet of our culture, there is a “generic default” that looks like a straight white able-bodied dude in his 20s or 30s. Feminism has struck away from that on gender, of course, but it still remains a generic monolith in too many other ways. Heck, we are creating more false monoliths with terms like “WOC/RWOC bloggers,” and the theoretically-opposed “WFE blogs,” and I hope that everyone who slings those terms (I do it too) is aware of what cardboard cutouts they are. It’s a human tendency to lump and split and lump, but one we should be vigilant about.

So yeah, I think Feministe is a fairly-white blog. That’s not just because the bloggers are 2/3 white, and it’s not because of the audience either; we have a LOT of amazing people of many different colors who comment here and turn this space into a community. But Feministe is positioned on a relatively busy thoroughfare of the internet. We get attention from the mainstream media sometimes, and links from all over. That means we get visitors from all over too. Plus, we are a “general interest” feminist blog that does not deal exclusively with issues of race, or ability, or queerness, etc. We’re spread out, our interests roaming, and that’s pushed more by the fact that there are six or eight of us, depending on who’s active and how you count heads.

All of that pushes us closer to the “generic center” of feminism, which remains culturally white despite our efforts. It will take a long time to change that, I think, and that’s why some WOC bloggers have abandoned the word and adopted other words for their projects, which center both race and feminism. I think Feministe is a ways off from being able to do that. Our subject matter is all over the place, and our comments section is too often a cesspool of racial defensiveness and hostility towards people who try to speak their truths about the insidious power structure of racism. But we are going to keep experimenting, getting it wrong, trying to make amends, trying to make it better, and I’m glad we have a cadre of good smart commenters to help us, because it really is about the community.

So what’s a woman of color to do, in a space that’s passing through the Milky Way of the blogosphere? Because of the whiteness inherent in the structure, some facet of our work will always be bound up in tokenism as well as representation. Even though tokenism can turn into revolution (thanks Kai) what are we revolting against here? Not the CIA, but a bunch of blogs. Instead, it is very tempting to focus energey on creating spaces that center women of color in ways that Feministe won’t ever really be able to, not in a sustained way.

Strategies around collaboration and separation is a discussion that women of color need to have amongst ourselves. There are many important conversations going on about that right now: how do we engage across race lines? Is that the real “melting pot” or “mixed salad” answer, or do we need alternatives too? I think we need a multiplicity of solutions, personally, but as I said in comments at My Ecdysis, I am someone who is almost tailor-made to be a marginal figure, half on the outside of any circumscribed space. A diplomat? A go-between? More like a marginal clown, but that’s a sacred duty too. So I pitch my tent here, even as I’m aware of all the complex differences that entangle and connect us.

Lauren: I’m of two minds on this one. I live a pretty average, white, Midwestern life full of reality TV and skin tags and fried food and cat hair and blogging is probably the only thing I’ve ever done that could be considered “elite,” so it’s really bizarre to me to talk about blogging in terms of prestige. Maybe I can explain how Feministe got to where it is and how that fits into where I think it is today, by explaining that a lot of this website’s past was focused on engaging the opposition in a way that was (mostly) friendly and in the spirit of autodidacticism and debate. In this website’s early days, I learned diplomacy by engaging MRAs and pro-life activists and libertarians and relating to them on a personal level even despite what I thought were gross, wrong-headed politics. I did develop e-friendships with many of them that went beyond trading barbs in the comments. It wasn’t so much about legitimizing their politics as much is was recognizing them as people with their own lived contexts and realities, as well as learning how to assert what I believe in and be aggressive in defending it.

I think the spirit of diplomacy has been an arm of the Feministe goal and community for some time, but as we’ve grown and gained a larger audience it’s been harder to maintain. Today I have less patience — I’m tired of Feminism 101, and tired of rehashing old ideas with new readers every time they pass through with a tired argument meant to curb my human rights. I also have less time to devote to creating new ways of developing and thinking of solutions to whatever communications problems are presented. Moreover, I learn more from lurking than I do from participating, and while I don’t want to insinuate that I find others’ hurt instructive, I do develop more from being exposed to others’ lived experiences than I do from spouting off about my own.

And maybe somewhere in this is where Feministe and the other “big” blogs are lacking. At a certain level of exposure you lose the ability to be open about your life in a way that is politically meaningful because you are exposed to judgment and critique in ways that are paralyzing. Every time I find myself tempted to write about my own experiences with sexual and emotional trauma, for example, or something lighter about my marriage or parental status, that are relevant to an overarching discussion about feminism, I stop. If I post about it at all, it goes on my personal blog. I mostly won’t write about it at all. All of which is to say that sometimes I miss the “smallness” of being able to write about whatever it is that suits me without feeling exposed and unsafe, both personally and professionally. And I believe part of this is what removes the “elite” blogs from the more personal conversations.


46 thoughts on Who Gets to Say What, Part 3: Whiteness, Leetness

  1. There is no “center” in the feminist blogosphere. I found this site on a trackback from Pandagon. I stayed because you guys posted interesting things like an interview with Mos Def. I do not think Feministe is all that typical of feminist sites. You all might think you’re mild-mannered and diplomatic, I just think of you as non-neurotic white people, ‘cept for the ones who aren’t white, of course. I stopped reading Echidne after awhile, even though I like the geek, because I think she has “issues”, in the way that people like Stirling Newberry and Ian Welsh has “issues”. Some other feminist sites are very much cults of personalities. Some I like, actually, say Dr Bitch, PhD. Others I don’t.

    This spot has a firm mellowness with a curious nose for the interesting. There isn’t a category for you guys to fit in on, eh? Other than the vague…And that’s just fine with me.

  2. When I mentioned the word “center” I didn’t mean the center of the blogosphere. I agree that there’s no real “center” per se, more like a bunch of nodes, some of which get more traffic / links, either incoming or outgoing or both, than others. What I meant was that there’s a “generic default” idea of feminism, and that the way we “cover” feminist issues in a wide-ranging way across all sorts of different categories pushes us closer, at least when viewed from the outside, to that “generic, centrist” idea.

    If the feminist blogosphere did have a concrete shape, I would suspect that we’re actually more towards the edge where it shades into the liberal blogosphere than at the “center.” This is what I mean when I talk about Feministe being on a “busy thoroughfare” over and over again — we are a little more exposed because of where links to us crop up, the kind of “passing through” traffic we get, etc. And that sometimes pushes things (comment threads, especially) in a more mainstream, centrist direction too.

  3. Two thoughts about this:

    (1) Feministe is to be commended for doing a lot to promote the voices of less-prominent bloggers, including Shameless Self-Promotion Sunday and summer guest-bloggers (I am available again this summer. hint! hint!).

    (2) It is fucking awesome that you all engaged in this process of introspection concerning how you view Feministe and your participation in it, and then shared the results of that process with your readers. That takes a lot of fucking guts.

  4. I’m really empathising with Lauren’s comment that she learns more by lurking than by participating. Hey, it’s brought me out of the woodwork to comment, so that’s something… but if I find reading through the posts and comments here give me far more to think on than I can necessarily respond to effectively or clearly. But the fact that Feministe makes me feel that I can and should respond and participate in conversations is a good thing.

    Thank you for posting these reflections. They’re starting to get me thinking in interesting directions.

  5. Race is meaningless in the virtual world. Or at least it should be. A blog is exactly the type of virtual forum where, if the blogger so chooses, race is non-existent. Sort of like blind auditions in symphonies (so the judges don’t know the race or sex of the player). Present your ideas, race should not come into the equation at all.

    Note that you can present ideas relating to race in the “real world.” But the blogger’s race should have no relevance on this type of blog which is about ideas.

  6. As Jill has pointed out, there have been fuckups that situate a lot of the criticism (much of which is justified) along racial lines. That is a necessary analysis and along those lines, Holly make a good point that there’s no one pat answer.

    I think also that the makeup and content of a blog has to do with the co-bloggers themselves. There are perspectives missing based on that, which are of less focus currently in the blogosphere, but may still be worthy of discussion. For example, age — something Daisy pointed out on one of the earlier threads — if there are many feminist-big-bloggers over 40, I am not aware of them. Also, career. Most bloggers appear to be in academica or public interest or journalism careers, or at least those are the environments that are most discussed in their blogging about women in the work world. The relationship of women to corporate America is not an issue that comes up often, except in the occasional reference to the corporate world being generally corrupt.

    This is more of an observation than a criticism, it’s legit for a website to focus around young women who are liberal both socially (which is arguably pretty important for a feminist) and fiscally and who are predominantly in humanities fields. I often wonder if this is a deliberate focus or just something that flows from the backgrounds of the hosts.

  7. I really appreciate Holly’s analysis of this blog and where it fits in the feminist blogosphere. While it’s important to acknowledge that “white” or “fairly white” blogs may have contributors who are not white, there is still a usefulness to the category and characterization of the blogs as “white.” Perhaps it is a shorthand way to reference the fact that most of us still have a default idea of the “generic” or “normal” as being white. White people feel comfortable and at home at these blogs, which may also tend to be “bigger” and “mainstream” in part because they do not consistently center race. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s ignored, but it is different.

    I started out interacting with the feminist blogosphere through these “white” or “fairly white” blogs. But, in part through and because of some of the flame wars, became exposed to more WOC bloggers, and ended up trading out some of the blogs I used to frequent for more WOC centered blogs. I got to know the names/handles of more WOC bloggers, and to recognize them in comments sections when they visit here and elsewhere. I read a lot more of BFP’s work and had the experience of reading, lurking, and occasionally commenting in WOC centered spaces. And they often feel and felt different to me. Some of it is the posts, but more of it is the comments sections.

    I do think there is value in there being spaces for interaction that are not fully “safe spaces” precisely because it is valuable for those who have it in them to engage with people at a Feminism 101 or Anti-Racism 101 level. But it’s also important for people who’ve had enough of 101 to have spaces in which to discuss and think through issues where they are not constantly interrupted by 101 questions, comments, and responses. AND it is valuable for there to be enough cross-polination for people who started out with the 101 questions and interests to be encouraged to venture out into new spaces, spaces they might not have felt comfortable in or been welcome in before they got some of the background concepts.

  8. Oh yeah, because nobody makes assumptions about race when they don’t see someone’s face or hear someone’s voice. Sure. We’re all just anonymous raceless entities here online. What kind of ludicrous techno-fantasy do you live in? And you also believe that people’s real, lived experience with race has no bearing on their ideas and politics about race? That someone’s race has nothing to do with what they say, whether their ideas are informed by abstract theory vs. real experience, and how we subsequently read, understand interpret them? I’m sorry, the Author is Not Quite That Dead. The Author, generally speaking, is Presumptively White.

    “Color-blind racial politics” are another form of racism. Look, we have to raise the level of this conversation away from dumb distractions ilke tihs. Further posts that fail a minimum “anti-racism 101” level of understanding will be deleted; you have been warned. This is not an open discussion thread for race politics in general.

  9. Same thing, really. That’s what an “anonymous entity” is in this society, right? I can only imagine what an “anonymous symphony musician” is. Probably depends on instrument; they each have a stereotype.

  10. The symphony musician comment has to do with women being hired more often by symphonies of the auditions are conducted behind screens so that the hirers cannot determine the sex of the applicant. In a lovely bit of intersectionality FAIL, these are usually called “blind auditions”. Here’s a article from 2000.

    Because this community is rather broad, there might be value in a couple of polls of your readers: what voices are we missing and what voices would you suggest that might help fill that gap as guest bloggers. It’s clear that you are already doing that yourselves, and you may have already done this and I’m just not aware of it.

    That Feminism 101 thing is something Renee at Womanist Musings is working on. Cool!

  11. I have to say I appreciate the fact that you guys are talking about working on the sometimes-hostility in the comments. To some extent, I just think it takes time — the blog has evolved over time from, well, an all-white feminist blog to a mostly-white feminist blog that has begun to pay attention to a lot of other issues. Committed readers will take time to learn, and the people who have no interest in learning will take time to find their way elsewhere. (Sorry to be so blunt about it.)

    And I appreciate the tone you strike. I appreciate that you make it explicit that you want to address these issues — you arent just being dragged along by those rascally woc (and others). I like Lauren’s point about diplomacy. I like that Jill has been pretty open about her own journey learning about these issues. I like that Cara fights really hard about issues that aren’t “hers,” with a viciousness that you rarely see from someone who isn’t part of whatever-group.

    This is why I like Feministe. It’s messy, it’s organic, but that’s life. And the fact that amid all that you insist on directing the conversation this way — that’s heartening.

    I appreciated being invited to guest-blog. I know that’s because of my focus, for the most part. Duh. And I appreciate that. I appreciate seeing you guys reach out to find a variety of perspectives. The fact that you invited that woman I love so much, cripchick, spoke volumes as well. You didn’t just say “Oh, we need something on disability. Uh, who’s the default go-to on disability, just throw them in” — you invited people whose work you actually read and actually know, and whose work you actually find valuable.

    That meant a lot to me, and it showed me a lot about how things work around here, I think. This doesn’t make Feministe perfect. It’s rough around the edges a bit, still. But none of us will ever run out of things to work on in this life. And I love the fact that you guys WANT to work on them. That’s so encouraging.

  12. “and while I don’t want to insinuate that I find others’ hurt instructive…”

    Of course other people’s hurt isn’t instructive. It’s just funny.

  13. Present your ideas, race should not come into the equation at all.

    But what happens when you want to talk politics? How can you talk about racism meaningfully without revealing your own identity in any way?

    I mean “race shouldn’t come into the equation” is probably fine when you’re blogging about typography or food or reviewing books (unless the books touch on racial issues, I suppose). It doesn’t work on a blog like this.

  14. I like that Cara fights really hard about issues that aren’t “hers,” with a viciousness that you rarely see from someone who isn’t part of whatever-group.

    I really don’t want to turn this into some sort of Feministe lovefest (please, that would be pointless — and of course Amandaw qualifies her comment anyway), but I really just wanted to say thanks; all modesty aside, I’m not sure that I 100% deserve it, but that is one of the nicest and most meaningful compliments I’ve ever received.

    While it’s important to acknowledge that “white” or “fairly white” blogs may have contributors who are not white, there is still a usefulness to the category and characterization of the blogs as “white.” Perhaps it is a shorthand way to reference the fact that most of us still have a default idea of the “generic” or “normal” as being white. White people feel comfortable and at home at these blogs, which may also tend to be “bigger” and “mainstream” in part because they do not consistently center race.

    I still feel uncomfortable just referring to a blog that is not all white as “white,” due to its large potential to erase the voices of people of color who are present, active and important to the community (I’m particularly thinking of Samhita’s comments that this was really hurtful to her, when Feministing was called a “white women’s blog” during the Full Frontal Feminism thing) — but still, this is a really good and important point.

  15. I’ve been thinking over the past couple of days, reading bfp’s post about the different roles woc play when interacting with whiteness (reform v justice, iirc, if not those exact terms: basically, people who do intercede with the dominant group and spend time trying to win them over or at least expose them to other perspectives, and people who center themselves wholly around their particular non-dominant group and want no part with the dominant group at all) and specifically for this comment, reading the posts at feministe…

    And I’m thinking: honestly, I don’t think one way is, ultimately, better or more right than the others. Ultimately, I think we need people to fill BOTH roles. There need to be ambassadors, so to speak, who can go out there and do diplomacy with the broader community, who can interface. And there need to be people who say “To hell with all that” and focus solely on the advancement of their people, who focus on developing their theory to a finer level, who are making these discoveries and pushing these more radical ideas.

    These are different ideas and different goals and different mechanisms, different approaches altogether really. But they’re going for the same end goal. They’re going for justice. Theyre just doing different work, all of which needs to be done…

    As regards feministe, I wonder if it would be useful, to that end, to come up with a comment policy that delineates two types of posts: posts that are open to the broader community and which engage on that 101 level, which are open to that diplomacy Lauren talks about — and posts which seek to dig a bit deeper, seeking comments from a more targeted set of folks, with certain parameters around the conversation.

    That’s already done, in large part, around the social-justice-blogosphere. Feministe has done it too in the past. But it might make sense to lay down a basic set of rules that says: we can designate certain posts as looking into more advanced things, and we are therefore going to police things a lot more strictly in those threads. ANd then, well, do it. Be serious. Throw people out if you have to.

    Cause Feministe largely does interact on a 101 basis, but does some work on a more advanced level. And maybe it would help smooth out some of the rough edges in the comments a little.

    Posting and running, so excuse any typos and inarticulate-ness.

  16. The reason I don’t engage and delurk, despite having read this blog for years, is mostly to do with the comments, and less to do with the subject matter of the posts.

    I would classify feministe as one of the big blogs strictly by the numbers alone. In a month, how many posts get more than 50 comments? 6 months? A year? Pick any sufficiently ‘high’ comment count, and you’ll quickly see that the popularity ranks are easy to figure out.

    And in these big blogs, it is the exception rather than the rule that fucked up comments from (mostly) middle class, femme, straight, white, able-bodied, young, etc. feminists go unchallenged by the admins, whenever the fucked up comment says something racist, classist, ableist, conflates weight with health and so on when these things don’t fall under the purview of the admins.

    It creates an environment in the comments that the admins need to take responsibility for, since they saw fit to let the comments through the mod queue.

  17. It creates an environment in the comments that the admins need to take responsibility for, since they saw fit to let the comments through the mod queue.

    Whit — not saying that we don’t need to do a better job moderating comments (in fact, I argued above that we do), but just for the record we don’t moderate every single comment that goes through. That would frankly be logistically impossible and seriously inhibit discussion.

    Comments that are moderated are a) from people who have never commented before b) something the automatic system picked up due to the use of words or a use of links that is often also found in spam and c) from people we’ve purposely placed on moderation because they’ve shown themselves to be a problem in the past.

    So, if someone has commented before with non troublesome comments and then leaves comments that are fucked up, there’s not a whole lot we can do about that to prevent it, only to try to prevent it from continuing once we see it happening.

    That said, I think that while we certainly do lose track sometimes, there definitely is an effort to try to counter fucked up comments and to directly challenge them.

    The problem that’s also just as big, in my opinion, is that we and the other commenters often spend so much time countering them — which is certainly important, don’t get me wrong — that it often detracts from what is also an equally important thread. How to balance that and not let important issues go undiscussed because we’re busy doing 101 is another really difficult task. And I am indeed open to suggestions in that area, because it’s one that leaves me exasperated.

  18. As regards feministe, I wonder if it would be useful, to that end, to come up with a comment policy that delineates two types of posts: posts that are open to the broader community and which engage on that 101 level, which are open to that diplomacy Lauren talks about — and posts which seek to dig a bit deeper, seeking comments from a more targeted set of folks, with certain parameters around the conversation.

    This is definitely an interesting idea and once that I would certainly be open to.

    My main question is this: how do we decide which posts go under which banner? (Bonus question that I’m sure would inevitably come up: who decides?)

  19. I actually like the conversations that ensue that are limited to, say, “feminist only” or “WOC only,” for example. It seems like a safer space, but I assume that would be logistically difficult to muster.

  20. It would, Whit, but currently WordPress doesn’t allow us to do that. It’s either turn comments on or turn comments off for each individual post.

    Now, there may be a WordPress plugin that would allow us to do that, and if anyone knows of one, please, please say! I doubt that any of us would be opposed to at least having that option available to us. God knows it would have come in handy at times, even if to reign in a thread that has already started going bad.

  21. Word. I know that I, for one, put up a post then can’t look at it again until I get home from work the next day, and I’ve sent out frantic emails trying to get the co-bloggers to moderate. It’s a headache when your work internet is child-proofed.

  22. Yeah… it would be nice to have it as an option, but honestly, I cannot imagine the logistical nightmare of moderating every single comment on every single post. I can barely keep up with the mod queue as-is, and we get at least one or two emails a week from people complaining when their comments are moderated or go to the spam queue. Modding every comment on every post? There is no way.

    That said, yes, it would be nice to make it an option on posts we know are going to be problematic, or posts that turn problematic halfway through.

  23. The relationship of women to corporate America is not an issue that comes up often, except in the occasional reference to the corporate world being generally corrupt.

    To go along with Octo’s comment, I’d like to see this and more examples of women in predominantly male environments—there’s a certain (man, do a loathe this term) “post-feminist” idea that women have already broken down the barriers, so any remaining career segregation is simply due to “personal choice”….and that is damn far from true.

    And of course, while I say that, I haven’t exactly been blogging about my own life in the trades (mostly due to time issues and the fact I can’t write short posts at gunpoint—I have to do big, tour-de-force posts with links up the wazoo). Again, with the time factor, writing about a experiences that are largely foreign to the reader means having to lay out a lot of background, and that can be time-consuming, not just during the actual typing but in trying to guess what needs to be explained more (unique job culture that doesn’t translate into “standard” employment, lingo, etc.)

  24. if there are many feminist-big-bloggers over 40, I am not aware of them

    Well, there’s Twisty, I guess, but I don’t expect she’s in the same league as feministing, feministe, Pandagon, or probably Bitch PhD. still, fairly big/influential, I’d say. of course the others by now are all group blogs as well…

  25. I actually like the conversations that ensue that are limited to, say, “feminist only” or “WOC only,” for example. It seems like a safer space, but I assume that would be logistically difficult to muster.

    It seems to work reasonably well at Alas ime; mostly you’re going on good faith, and the people who don’t adhere to it, I think, are more easily spotted and modded if the requirements (only WoC or whatever for this thread, and/or particular rules of engagement) are clearly spelled out.

  26. The Opoponax says:
    March 3rd, 2009 at 8:05 pm – Edit
    But what happens when you want to talk politics? How can you talk about racism meaningfully without revealing your own identity in any way?

    Well, if you come from a philosophy that believes in objective truth, then your own identity is not relevant to the truth or effect of your statements unless you are claiming authoritative status*. It doesn’t really matter whether the subject is racism, atheism, or anything else.

    So in that vein, if you’re not claiming such status the question becomes why it would be considered necessary to reveal your own identity in order to talk about racism (or food, or abortion, or anything else) meaningfully.

    I am in no way chastising those who, like me, prefer to take on an internet identity (whether or not it is real.)

    It is an interesting discussion, though, because generally speaking the requirement to identify a certain way in order to be listened to represents a mimicry of the same social issues which get used outside the blogosphere to oppress people IRL.

    *by which I refer to the argumentative tactic of claiming authority, either yours or someone else’s.

  27. Well, if you come from a philosophy that believes in objective truth, then your own identity is not relevant to the truth or effect of your statements unless you are claiming authoritative status*. It doesn’t really matter whether the subject is racism, atheism, or anything else.

    Of course it does! I mean, I suppose if we stick to objective and uncontroversial statements of fact, maybe? If we limit our conversation about race to “Martin Luther King spoke at the march on Washington,” or “The Emancipation Proclamation may or may not have ended slavery in the United States, depending on your perspective and the level or semantic precision you apply to the words ‘end’, ‘slavery’, and ‘United States’.” But, aside from academic discourse between historians, who wants to limit conversation about race to that sort of thing?

    And even then, how one perceives either of those two statements will be tinged with perspectives that arise out of lived experience, which includes race (and many other overlapping identities). A 60 year old white man in Alabama is going to see “Martin Luther King spoke at the march on Washington” differently than a 25 year old black woman from New Jersey would see it. My grandparents feel differently about the civil rights movement (even the basic facts of the civil rights movement) than even I do.

  28. Other than the kind of objective and uncontroversial facts that Opoponax mentions, all claims about race are based at least partially in the authority and experience of the speaker. Some speakers may claim that their ideas are, in fact, objective and uncontroversial, but that’s just a rhetorical tactic.

  29. Well, there’s Twisty, I guess, but I don’t expect she’s in the same league as feministing, feministe, Pandagon, or probably Bitch PhD. still, fairly big/influential, I’d say. of course the others by now are all group blogs as well…

    True, re Twisty. Although, that’s more of a niche blog rather than a big feminist blog — its goal is not to be a place all feminists are comfortable.

    The New Agenda does have hosts who are over 40, to be fair.

    RE most group blogs — I think the ratio of over 40 bloggers on group feminist blogs is probably less than 10%.

    Older women always seem more optional than other kinds of inclusion, though. But then, that reflects society’s view of aging women.

  30. Er… mods, do you mind if I continue this fascinating-to-me theoretical discussion here? I am afraid it is a bit of a derail; feel free to move it elsewhere.

    # The Opoponax says:
    March 4th, 2009 at 11:24 am – Edit
    …And even then, how one perceives either of those two statements will be tinged with perspectives that arise out of lived experience, which includes race (and many other overlapping identities). A 60 year old white man in Alabama is going to see “Martin Luther King spoke at the march on Washington” differently than a 25 year old black woman from New Jersey would see it. My grandparents feel differently about the civil rights movement (even the basic facts of the civil rights movement) than even I do.

    How is that a disagreement or disproof of what I said?

    Two people may feel differently about the civil rights movement–let’s say that A feels “It was great, with some problems” and that B feels “it was problematic, with some great moments.”

    So: is there or can there be an objective conclusion on whether or not the civil rights movement was closer to A’s or B’s viewpoint?

    Let’s say as a hypothetical that any objective conclusion would need to (in part) evaluate how well the movement was perceived by black people. But while the data for the objective conclusion would (in that case) require the individual perception of black people, the analysis of the data doesn’t require that the analyzer be black.

    More to the point, in that hypothetical example you’re looking at the effect on a large population. So in that case, the opinion and experiences of a single person are basically irrelevant to the general conclusion. And because those individual experiences are irrelevant, the race of the individual is also irrelevant.

    Going back to A and B: We can reach the conclusion (in this hypothetical) of whether A or B is more correct. That conclusion is objective and unrelated to the opinions of the two individuals, A and B other than to classify them as “more correct’ and “less correct.” Because of that, the race of A and B is also irrelevant.

    To go to gender for a moment and use some Amptoons folks as examples: Ampersand (male) often writes on feminist issues and is frequently mistaken for female. Others there without obvious names are also frequently mistaken for people of the other gender, from Mandolin to PG.

    Now, that’s all written word stuff, so it is fixed. Yet there are people in the blogosphere who would read the exact same thing and react to it differently depending on how they perceive the sex of the author.

    To me, that makes basically no sense at all. It is putting the cart before the horse. Or to use a different example, it is as if I said “I’m actually a female” (I’m not) or I I posted this as Sailorwoman and all of a sudden you agreed with my analysis, while you previously disagreed with it.

    In other words, I believe that the intrinsic value of the posts and comments here (most certainly including all the bloggers) comes from what they say, not from who they are. They’re convincing or not, correct or not, irrespective of the author’s identity. Though obviously, who they are will have a lot to do with what they write on and the perspective they bring, those are very different things.

  31. Although I’m interested in this discussion as well, I have to say that at this point it qualifies as a derail. If you guys want to continue it in e-mail I can facilitate an exchange of addresses.

  32. I’m really too busy working (or supposed to be too busy working 😛 ) to do a thorough Racism 101 via email right now. Sorry.

  33. I think the point about what a “center” is, where feministe is in relation to it in the general blogsphere and the feminist blogsphere, and how that center relates to race, is really interesting. I thin the biggest change I’ve found now that I’m reading a wider variety of blogs, is I’m educated in patterns enough to start to see where the same old thing is cropping up again and to begin to draw conclusions about what might be going on based on those patterns.

    Watching the language used against feminists (strident, angry, man-hating, jealous) shift to women of color who critiqued other feminists (angry, woman-hating, jealous) was eye opening to me in how a lot of the underpinnings for these systemic biases are really an “us vs. them” mindset, and that both the mindset and that WOC bloggers weren’t part of the “us” of women and feminists was the problem, not one or the other, and that these two things bolster privilege.

  34. Thanks, Holly, but apparently my fellow conversationalist is uninterested.

    (Incidentally, Opoponax, you wouldn’t be willing to discuss this because it’s “racism 101?” Sigh. Don’t confuse disagreement with lack of comprehension, or I will have to start referring you to Logic 101 or Philosophy 101 sites.)

  35. @Jill –

    Yeah… it would be nice to have it as an option, but honestly, I cannot imagine the logistical nightmare of moderating every single comment on every single post.

    As a person who moderates just about every single comment on every single post, no you do not want that headache. Though, from what I can recall about helping to mod comments over the summer, it’s only slightly heavier than Racialicious. Y’all just get more explosion periods. You also have a lot more opposition people trying to engage.

    Heavy moderation, unfortunately, seems like the only way to have a productive conversation about race. However, that intentionally limits your participants which seems counter to your aims. And as Lauren said above, the assumptions about racism 101 can encompass a variety of things and it is hard to establish a baseline awareness.

    Does racism 101 mean we’re still talking about if racism is a problem in society or is that already assumed?

    What is the definition of racism? Can whites be the victims of racism? Is the proper definition racism = power + prejudice or is that definition too simple? or too advanced?

    What role does the comfort of white participants play in the conversations you conduct?

    All of these questions have to be taken into consideration when conducts a meaningful conversation about race. And that – to me, anyway – is just the basics.

  36. Incidentally, Opoponax, you wouldn’t be willing to discuss this because it’s “racism 101?” Sigh. Don’t confuse disagreement with lack of comprehension, or I will have to start referring you to Logic 101 or Philosophy 101 sites

    These days generally I’m not all that interested in having long drawn out “but what is truth, really?” conversations with a stranger in the middle of my work day while totally sober. I don’t know that we necessarily disagree on anything, I just am not particularly interested in the conversation you want to have. Which is my right, and I’m starting to be a bit skeeved that you can’t just take “sorry, the paying job calls” for an answer.

  37. I would agree with belledame that there wouldn’t necessarily need to be moderation. The way I see it, you’d stick a notice at the bottom of the page that says, “This post is limited to [whomever].” Or, “Comments will be restricted. Potential derailers will be moderated or deleted,” linking to a page that just outlines the general reasoning behind having a restricted-comments policy for certain posts. And if talk of a Racism-101-type blog go through, perhaps a link to the relevant page(s). And that’s the end of that conversation — period. Note that people who *engage* the 101ers will also have their comments deleted, so they are encouraged not to derail the conversation.

    It operates mostly on the good faith of the participants. The volume on this blog is pretty heavy, but I think it would work in most cases to simply moderate on an as-needed basis — specific comments or commenters, not whole threads. That said, I held a key for a couple weeks; I’m not the one in a position to know how well that would work. And a plugin that allows you to auto-moderate specific threads would be handy for those exception threads that are particularly sensitive subjects or what have you.

    Obviously this wouldn’t be every post, or even a majority of posts. But when the author feels like they want the conversation to get pushed a little further, maybe…

    I’m mostly just throwing spaghetti on the wall to see what sticks, here. Just some idears to play around with. I definitely don’t think perma-moderation, even only for certain posts, would be workable, or productive, at this particular blog.

  38. Note that people who *engage* the 101ers will also have their comments deleted, so they are encouraged not to derail the conversation.

    As someone with a bad habit of doing this, I think this is a brilliant idea! And will redouble my efforts to stay out of the 101 crap unless I want to go do it at a 101 blog.

  39. Having brought up some of the 101 talk, I want to make it clear that I think that engaging people with 101 type questions and comments is, in general, a very important project and I very much admire those with a tendency to engage these folks. I think you are doing very important work.

    I began my experience in the feminist blogosphere with The Happy Feminist blog (now dormant). She had unending patience answering Feminism 101 questions and comments, which I didn’t even notice until I’d been reading her for a while and then expanded my reading to other areas of the feminist blogosphere.

    I like the idea of “big” or well known feminist blogs being places where people with less understanding or experience can go to begin to deepen their understanding of and engagement with feminism. I think there is also value in having venues that explicitly say – this is not what we do (such as Twisty’s term “experienced blamers”).

    The added dimension that I guess we are also talking about here is what about the people who are perhaps “experienced blamers” in terms of Feminism concepts but not at all experienced in the fundamental concepts of anti-racism. This is harder for me to think through, but I guess the more important topic for Feministe.

    It seems to come up in two potential contexts – one, a post intended to produce, or that actually produces a constructive, complex, moderately “advanced” discussion of racism in which 101 type questions threaten to de-rail the thread; and two, a post that leads to a complex, moderately advanced discussion of a (not explicitly race related) feminsm topic in which a commenter’s comment is problematic in a way that can only really be addressed by identifying it as problematic and doing some racism 101 analysis to explay why it’s problematic.

    I think so far we’ve been talking about the first scenario, and not so much the second, but the second issue is also one that contributes to how “safe” an environment Feministe is for people of color and how “white” or “not white” of a space it is perceived to be.

    Personally I think that I perceive a space as “white” or “white dominated” or “white accomodating” if I expect people who make perhaps unthinkingly racists comments to either not be confronted about it, or to be confronted about it in an very polite and accommodating way (with a willingness to qualify criticism with – I’m sure you didn’t mean it that way, or to me, this comment sounds a little prejudiced, or whatever). When I visit or participate in WOC lead blogs/spaces, I expect similar comments will be confronted forcefully and perhaps even in a way that could be perceived as angry, flippant or mean (which I don’t mean as a criticism – I think it is the difference between being sort of “coddled” and being directly and forcefully confronted).

  40. “if there are many feminist-big-bloggers over 40, I am not aware of them”

    I wouldn’t call us “big bloggers”, but we made the infamous linkfluence “top 30” list, and tigtog and I are both over 40.

  41. Lauredhel — I didn’t know that, thanks for sharing that info. I am 41 myself, although certainly not a central or big player by any stretch.

Comments are currently closed.