A Reminder on Guest Bloggers

95 thoughts on A Reminder on Guest Bloggers

1. I don’t mean to sounds like a jerk here, but perhaps it might be helpful if the Feministe team gave its authors a heads up or something?

   You guys know the community here—clearly, some of the guest writers don’t know what topics are the most contentious in this space.

   Otherwise, I think it would be best if you just closed the comments for guest bloggers. As much as that might suck, it might save everyone the grief of being misunderstood and allow the guest writers to focus on their writing.

   1. Yeah, Athenia, I agree. The problem is that we don’t know what the guest-bloggers are going to write about before they write it, and coming up with a comprehensive list of what will make people upset is… not easy. It’s always easy in hindsight to say “Of COURSE a post about kids will make everyone flip out!,” but if I were constructing a list a month ago of things that are always contentious, I’m not sure that would have made it on there.

      We also want to give guest bloggers as much freedom as possible, and submitting a list of “touchy” topics can give the impression that we don’t want those topics written about or discussed. And given that some of the apparently “touchy” topics include trans issues, race, and disability, well… that is obviously not the impression we want to give.

      As for closing comments on guest blogger posts, we leave that up to the individual blogger (and will continue to do so). A lot of our guest bloggers want to engage in the comments and with the community here, and we don’t want to take away that opportunity. Unless, of course, they choose to close comments — and the one guest blogger who did that got all kinds of pushback and complaints from commenters, so, there’s basically no great solution there.

      But of course the feedback is appreciated, and we will think on it. And you don’t sound like a jerk at all.

2. Jill said….”We wanted a wide range of topics to be covered. We wanted to cover some topics that are not, at first glance, glaringly feminist. You are welcome to skip posts that don’t appeal to you.”

3. I love Maia. I’m very impressed with the moderating here unlike that fucking piece of shit site Jezebel that shits on black women.

   kbai.

4. In my experience, as a former guest blogger, Jill does warn us as best she can. You just never know what you’re going to get. Last year I got torn to shreds by commenters for advocating hope. (I am not even exaggerating. In between being called names like “treacly utopian” and being told that my philosophy was the downfall of civilization, someone actually got angry about the advocacy of hope itself.) There’s no predicting what will set people off–that you like puppies, that you think their new skirt is fetching, that you have noticed that shockingly there are people who are working for the greater good and social justice who are troubled by the history of the feminist movement and choose not to identify with it while sharing many of its goals, that not everyone agrees on capitalist economics, that You Are Okay, whatever.

   It’s always kind of a gamble when you have this much of the Internet in one place, and Feministe, for better and for worse, has a big enough audience that it’s inevitably a mixed bag.

   Anyhow, thanks, Jill, for stepping in.

5. @ Claire N. – I just recently started visiting Jezebel. I’ve never been interested enough in their posts to leave a comment. What’s up with them and black women?

   This black woman needs to know 🙂

6. I guess there’s no way to please everyone *shrug*. I adored Renegade Evolution’s guest blogging last year, which seemed to raise the ire of many others, but this time around I’ll skip Maia’s posts and avoid having my own hackles raised…something for everyone.

   In general, it discourages me to see “women with children” vs “women without children” and “working moms” vs. “stay at home moms” and all the other infighting that seems to erupt within groups of women/feminists/womanists. My own gut feeling is that “we must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately”, in the words of Ben Franklin.

7. I’ve LOVED this series- it’s just really fun to have such a mish and mosh without having to jump site to site. It’s like lady blogger Genius mix. Danke, Feministe Itunes.

8. little light: that you have noticed that shockingly there are people who are working for the greater good and social justice who are troubled by the history of the feminist movement and choose not to identify with it while sharing many of its goals

   That you say something like, oh, maybe, “Fuck feminism and fuck feminists” with no explanation or caveats and then claim that anyone who has a problem with that statement just can’t handle a “critique” of the movement (critique apparently having new definitions that I was unaware of). Oh, this is fun. Let’s keep fighting the same fight, but passive-aggressively!

   1. Hey guess what guys: this is not the thread to discuss how other bloggers worded things on other threads!

9. Maybe advise them to search the site/tags and see what kind of response discussions of the topic they pick have generated before? At least then they know what they’re in for… as well as perhaps staving off some of the obvious arguments ahead of time.

10. You’re right, that was out of line. Sorry, Jill. I think maybe I’ll just follow Kaija’s lead and take a week-long break from Feministe.

11. “Maybe advise them to search the site/tags and see what kind of response discussions of the topic they pick have generated before”

    I personally don’t really see why any topic should be avoided just because it causes a great deal of controversy. It seems to me that the topics that cause the greatest uproar are the topics that we should be talking about most.

12. Michael, just so you know, most people would consider the hundreds upon hundreds of comments and thousands of words surrounding that “fuck feminism” line to be ample explanation and context. Not to mention the feminist “canon” itself, which theoretically (though obviously not in practice) includes at least introductory material on the historical/social divide between white feminism and women of color. 101 stuff, really.

    I’m hopeful at this point that mai’a has either accidentally or ingeniously (or both) performed a public service for this blog space by causing those who aren’t prepared to do basic 101 self-education and self-interrogation to flounce. This would definitely elevate the level of discourse and dialogue.

13. I know that maia has said some pretty controversial things, (based on how many comments she gets, anyway) but I think it’s refreshing to hear the perspective from a mother because, frankly, I don’t think there’s enough of that.

    And that’s why I like the guest blogging. As much as I miss the regular posts, the guest bloggers always bring a fresh perspective, which, based on the animosity that maia is getting, is obviously sorely needed.

14. I sincerely appreciate the presence of guest writers and genuinely enjoy alternative points of view.

    Even the people with opinions I find interesting.

15. I don’t think guest bloggers should be warned to steer clear of topics at all. Maybe they should be directed to read a few prevous contentious posts so they can prepare for the firestorms that can arise, but this should not warn them off particular issues.

    As Jill said, guest bloggers are invited because they will write about things from a different perspective to those which you usually find in feministe. If feministe is your only feminist hang-out on the net then some of these things will definitely be news to you. And that’s a good thing. There’s a whole world of opinion and debate out there beyond the walls of this blog, and how are we to make any links or try to understand anyone else if we don’t venture out of our bubble, or open it up a little to let someone else’s voice in.

    Evidently Maia is saying things that she feels need to be said, based on her opinion of the site and its visitors. maybe she thinks things need shaking up. Maybe people see it as a little confrontational to basically come in and say “hey feminists, how about THIS…?” But Maia is here by invitation. Commenters are here by choice. Yes it’s not comfortable to feel accused of something or judged, but the levels of hysteria and defensiveness around Maia’s posts do indicate that she is raising points that need deep scrutiny.

    Maia and guest bloggers hold opinions that people hold in the real world too. Like ’em or not. These views may be held by your friends, colleagues, aquaintances, sisters, mothers… if you can’t engage with them behind the safety of your computer screen, where you have time to think, reflect and consider yourself and your response, how the hell will you manage in real life?!

16. Kai: I’m hopeful at this point that mai’a has either accidentally or ingeniously (or both) performed a public service for this blog space by causing those who aren’t prepared to do basic 101 self-education and self-interrogation to flounce. This would definitely elevate the level of discourse and dialogue.  

    Agreed. Perhaps taking a week (or more) off and thinking over the whole issue is a good idea when one is so angry that zie can’t understand where the writer is coming from.

17. Jill wrote:

    “Engaging with and even challenging the posts is always ok — just do it respectfully and in good faith. If you aren’t sure that your comment achieves that, please refrain from posting it.”

    This strikes me as obviously correct, but I would note one thing. If you adopt a sufficiently totalizing view of the nature of the white supremacy, heterosexism or patriarchy in the construction of one’s identity, linguistic conventions, norms of civility, rationality etc etc, then it can be but a hop, skip, and a jump to the claim that any person who disagrees with you on those matters is merely (and only!) expressing their privilege.

    And from there, it isn’t hard to conclude that no one can REALLY disagree with you in good faith, particularly if they are a member of a more privileged group. And this becomes an especially tight web if you believe, as many do, that being subject to the oppression puts you in an epistemically superior position to understand its effects and its nature.

    In other words, much of the theoretical discourse around various instantiations of privilege and social justice problematizes the very possibility of reasonable conversation and rational argumentation.

    And that may be okay (though what does ‘okay’ mean in such a conecptual framework), there is a long and valued history of skepticism about this kind of normative language, but the question always is, “What do we replace it with?”

    The vehemence and bitterness of various disagreements on the mainstream feminist internet venues might be, at least partially, a consequence of the fact that any attempt to formulate appropriate norms of discourse won’t be accepted by those who accept these totalizing accounts. Or perhaps less confrontationally, no one ever feels the need to even attempt to formulate those norms BECAUSE they themselves adopt those accounts.

18. I’m also a little uncomfortable about the idea that the editors should warn guest bloggers about the commenting environment or advise them about what topics to avoid. It sounds like trying to protect them from the big bad world, as if they don’t get this kind of reaction to their opinions all the time. If they haven’t read the blog before, they’re capable of holding off on the decision until they check it out for themselves, if they wish to do so. It strikes me as a bit insulting to assume they can’t take this initiative.

    Whether or not you agree with her, Mai’a is doing an excellent job holding her own against the onslaught. I’m so glad there are contentious debates here and a space for voices that are even less represented elsewhere. I’ve given up on almost all of the other big feminist blogs because they don’t do this well enough.

19. You are welcome to skip posts that don’t appeal to you.

    QFT. I knew I wasn’t going to like Maia’s posts pretty early, I knew there were things she was going to say that were likely triggering for me so I moved on. The thing is…thats kinda what I like about the guest bloggers here. You get a mixed bag, you get a lot of different views, you get people talking that might not have otherwise intersected, and you get exposed to things you might not have been exposed to otherwise. Thanks for putting this together, Feministe Crew, god knows I wouldn’t be up to it.

20. I think that most guest bloggers are familiar enough with the site and with feminist blogs in general to know what kinds of topics are likely to cause controversy. Sometimes the reaction is a whole lot bigger than they, or we, might have expected — but I think that generally, when writing on a topic that tends to result in huge, angry comment threads, folks know that there’s at least a chance of it getting ugly.

    That said, it can also be incredibly difficult to predict what might be a source of controversy around here. I know that I’ve written posts that I didn’t think would incite much dissent at all, only to have them blow up on me. I’ve also written things and nervously sat and waited for the hatred to pour in, only to find to my great surprise nothing but polite conversation. You really don’t always know. But again — I think that guest bloggers are generally familiar enough with the site or sites like it that as far as we can predict, they can, too.

21. PTS….”This strikes me as obviously correct, but I would note one thing. If you adopt a sufficiently totalizing view of the nature of the white supremacy, heterosexism or patriarchy in the construction of one’s identity, linguistic conventions, norms of civility, rationalityetc etc, then it can be but a hop, skip, and a jump to the claim that any person who disagrees with you on those matters is merely (and only!) expressing their privilege.
    And from there, it isn’t hard to conclude that no one can REALLY disagree with you in good faith, particularly if they are a member of a more privileged group. And this becomes an especially tight web if you believe, as many do, that being subject to the oppression puts you in an epistemically superior position to understand its effects and its nature.
    In other words, much of the theoretical discourse around various instantiations of privilege and social justice problematizes the very possibility of reasonable conversation and rational argumentation.

    Exactly. I wish I could really add to this, but basically, I just have to say “what s/he said”.

22. Jill, it’s not simply that it was an article about kids. It was an article which stated, that it’s child discrimination to not allow children to have free reign anywhere and everywhere. As you may or may not know, childfree people have been struggling with the notion that in our society, seemingly no matter where you go there will be children there, and most of the time they will be poorly supervised.

    Perhaps you should ask for your guest bloggers to submit a short e-mail detailing what they will be posting, and then you can decide if that would spark anymore controversies that have been on this site previously. If you suggest that it’s essentially child discrimination, to not look the other way when someone brings their 3 year old into a bar, what do you expect?

    1. Perhaps you should ask for your guest bloggers to submit a short e-mail detailing what they will be posting, and then you can decide if that would spark anymore controversies that have been on this site previously.

       No, we aren’t going to do that. Part of having guest-bloggers here means giving them the freedom to write about whatever they want. I am not going to police what will and will not be controversial. I also don’t want the responsibility of giving a post the go-ahead and then having commenters unforeseeably freak out.

       Also, I don’t have the time to daily read someone’s email summarizing what they plan on writing about, and then tell them any potential issues that might come up. I doubt our guest-bloggers want the extra time commitment of clearing everything through me. Honestly, the last thing I need is to create MORE work for myself on this website.

23. The guests should be more adult about their choices. Write about what you want to write about, but everyone here has their own baggage and sensitivity. Internet commentators are notorious for their lack of understanding and desire to just yell yell yell.

    So if you post about something controversial, like whether being fat is a choice with social implications (and social responsibility), be prepared for the shit storm that will follow.

    And I’d like to vote that this yearly tradition be dropped — the site becomes totally different. Who are these people? Why are they writing? Why do I want to get invested in their opinions for just 2 weeks? It’s annoying. But I know — just don’t come here during this time. And I don’t as much.

24. thank you to feministe for continuing with the guest blogger tradition. i think it’s a wonderful way to ensure this site promotes a diversity of viewpoints and experiences. as someone who often feels marginalized within the feminist movement, the guest bloggers are often the only time i feel adequately represented on this site. it’s a shame that some commenters seem so locked in to their one view of what feminism is and what feminist voices sound like that they’re unwilling to stretch even a little bit to understand other women, but i continue to learn and grow from these guest bloggers and have discovered a lot of wonderful views and blogs because of them. i strongly support the guest blogging tradition and anything else feministe does to expand the voices and viewpoints represented on this site.

    and if the flouncing people leave, i don’t think the site is any worse for it. in fact, if the remaining commenters are willing to think outside themselves, to confront tensions and divisions within feminism, to critically assess their assumptions and opinions – the site will be better for it.

25. I for one come here much more often during the guest post periods (not that I don’t think feministe in general isn’t doing good work) and I’m appreciative of the different voices and perspectives offered during this time. Thank you, all – including Mai’a & bfp, whose words allowed me to look at some very important issues in an entirely new light – and I appreciate how much work goes into creating thoughtful content in addition to the thankless chore of comment moderation.

26. Even though I disagree with the idea that child free spaces or standards for ‘appropriate’ behavior are necessarily oppressive, I do agree with maia’s central point – that children are a brutally exploited class of people who shouldn’t be even further disenfranchised by being excluded from the public sphere. This is undeniably true, and I think it’s unfortunate that this point got lost in the shuffle.

    maia’s thread could have sparked some productive discussion about the pain that adults casually inflict on children that they’d never dream of directing at anyone else; an actual discussion about children as people instead of quibbles over whether motherhood is ever a privilege and anecdotes about enraged toddlers acting the fool in the cereal aisle. Oh, well.

    Quite frankly, the vast majority of adults have absolutely horrifying attitudes towards children – after browsing some of the comments and seeing ‘feminists’ refer to children with the pronoun “it” and make arguments like “..b-b-but children aren’t people people! They’re still people in training!” or “but kids don’t have the same rights as adults do!”, I just had to stop reading.

    Michael: That you say something like, oh, maybe, “Fuck feminism and fuck feminists” with no explanation or caveats and then claim that anyone who has a problem with that statement just can’t handle a “critique” of the movement (critique apparently having new definitions that I was unaware of). Oh, this is fun. Let’s keep fighting the same fight, but passive-aggressively!

    Leaving aside my major disagreements with some things in maia’s original post and my dislike of how bfp’s critique of feminism was phrased, I’m baffled that people are still needling at the ‘fuck feminism’ comment. Did you sleep through all the high school English & writing classes that covered a little thing called, oh…context?

    To be more clear: If you understand why the phrase ‘Fuck the Human Rights Campaign!’ sounds a lot different coming from, say, a homeless trans woman than it does coming from James Dobson (i.e. if you understand context), you should be able to extend the same reasoning to the ‘fuck feminism’ comment.

    Roschelle: I just recently started visiting Jezebel. I’ve never been interested enough in their posts to leave a comment. What’s up with them and black women?

    maia’s post on child-free spaces was picked apart by a Jezebel author who was apparently unable to intelligently counter maia’s points without resorting to petty snark over her writing style and speculating about her knowledge of feminism.

    Jill’s 5th point about not assuming things of the authors is especially relevant here, as several Jezzies assumed that maia was some hip white American mom who chose the name ‘Aza’ to be ‘cool’. … Yeah. The entire 1000+ comment thread is a horrendous train wreck of fail.

27. I love reading guest bloggers. I think it would be great to have some level of guest blogging here year-round. I don’t like the way some commenters are treating the guest bloggers like they aren’t real bloggers and complaining about them to the “regular” staff. It is really disrespectful.

28. @PTS

    …it can be but a hop, skip, and a jump to the claim that any person who disagrees with you on those matters is merely (and only!) expressing their privilege.

    And from there, it isn’t hard to conclude that no one can REALLY disagree with you in good faith, particularly if they are a member of a more privileged group. And this becomes an especially tight web if you believe, as many do, that being subject to the oppression puts you in an epistemically superior position to understand its effects and its nature.

    The things is, someone who has experienced a certain type of oppression really is in a better position to understand it compared to someone who hasn’t experienced it. Now, a specific cis man can be more knowledgeable about Feminism and Gender Studies compared to a specific woman, but he does not know what it’s like to be that woman. That woman will always have a better understanding of her own oppression-as-lived-experience, even if she doesn’t know the accepted terminology to talk about it or the greater context of the oppression. The nature of privilege is such that those who have it in any given area are blind to its effects (and probably its very presence) unless they do a hell of a lot of self-education. When I read accounts by people who do not have a privilege I have, I always assume they know more about it than I do. Generally speaking, people of color (in the US at least) understand white people a lot better than white people understand them. LGBTIQA folks understand hetero-cis folks a lot better than hetero-cis folks understand us.

    So while I think it’s possible for a person with a marginalized identity to wrongly assume that a person without that identity is speaking from a position of privilege…if they’ve picked up on something fishy, they are almost certainly right. In my experience, 99% of the time the person with privilege has not examined their privilege enough to “disagree” with statements made about the marginalized person’s lived experience. Can they respectfully “engage with” or “challenge” the marginalized person’s posts, as Jill suggested? Sure, but if they get called out for speaking from a place of privilege, chances are they need to check themselves.

29. I’m seconding what abby jean said about the guest blogger tradition. I love seeing Feministe expand its coverage in this way. It’s part of what keeps me reading this site, when I don’t check, well, any of the other “big” feminist blogs regularly, if at all.

    And I’ve been very distressed to see how mai’a, and s.e. smith from earlier this summer, and several other guest posters at various times, have been responded to by various members of the commentariat.

30. Guest bloggers, and the way that guest blogging is handled (i.e. lots of freedom of topics and moderation, among other things), is one of my favorite things about Feministe (and it’s a long list). I can’t imagine the extra work involved, and want to thank all y’all for it.

31. Charley: And I’d like to vote that this yearly tradition be dropped — the site becomes totally different. Who are these people? Why are they writing? Why do I want to get invested in their opinions for just 2 weeks? It’s annoying. But I know — just don’t come here during this time. And I don’t as much.

    Whether or not you enjoy reading posts from guest bloggers is your business. I haven’t madly loved every Feministe guest blogger, or every guest post. But, still…

    “Who are these people? Why are they writing? Why do I want to get invested in their opinions…”

    Because they’re passionate individuals, committed to social justice, who want to bring some important issues to light? Because social justice dialogue should–in fact, must–encompass diverse points of view?

    “…for just 2 weeks?”

    Nothing is preventing you from becoming interested in the concerns and opinions of others for more than two weeks.

    “Why should I care about what you have to say?” just seems like a pretty crappy starting point for ending oppressive -isms.

32. AdrienneVeg:

    Are you disagreeing with me? I certainly hope not since most of what you said sounds pretty reasonable. I don’t remember taking a position one way or the other about the epistemic claims you are making. I just said that many people believe X (oppressed people have precedence). I also claimed that X+Y (Y being the totalizing theories) is likely to be a pernicious combination. It sounds like you are claiming that X REALLY is true….which is may very well be.

    But for the record, I agree that something like X is true. I think that oppressed individuals ought to have some epistemic precedence, though how much varies on the situation. But that’s neither here nor there as I was talking about primarily about the effects of Y (with X contributing somewhat). X and Y are conceptually distinct, even if they are practically often found together.

    (Nota bene: I actually think that X and Y are contradictory. If no one OUGHT to be granted epistemic precedence, then a fortiori, oppressed people cannot be granted epistemic precedence. Thus, if Y is true, then no one can have epistemic authority because there is no such thing as authority and X must be false, but that is a different argument. )

    I was claiming that if you adopt certain kinds views (i.e. totalizing account of patriarchy etc), then there is no such thing as “reasonable norms of discourse” and there can be no such thing as “disagreeing in good faith.”

    If everything is, at its heart, just power relations, then it is unsurprising that disagreements will be characterized by fallacy, insults, unjustified appeals to authority, pettiness, etc. After all, there really isn’t any alternative. I can “unfairly” deploy power by being mean and vindicative or I can “unfairly” deploy power by being rational and genial. It makes no difference in the context of these theories. They are both necessary and inescapable expressions of privilege.

    If such views are correct (although, what ‘correctness’ means on these views, it isn’t clear), then arguments and conversation are always pointless, unproductive, and driven by power.

    Now I won’t say that all of these totalizing accounts constitute the dominant view withing gender/race theory, but they are a non-trivial subset.

    P.P.S I should note that in expressing skepticism about totalizing views of various privileges and oppressions, please do not interpret me as being skeptical that patriarchy et al exist. That would be absurd. They clearly do.

33. PTS – I’ve been trying to find the words to describe what you are saying so I could articulate it myself, but you did it better than I ever could. Thanks.

34. @PTS, But it is possible, I assume you mean (and correct me if I’m wrong), to acknowledge that all of our daily interactions happen within a societial context in which different people have more or less power by virtue of their relative privilege (one could express this as “everything is, at its heart, just power relations”), while at the same time working to both transcend and deconstruct this system.

    We will both come to the table with our own unique baggage and experiences; it’s how we talk to each other that determines whether the conversation will be adversarial or if it will contribute to growth and better understanding by us both. If we sit down assuming one of us will “win” the conversation, those power dynamics will likely play out as you described. If, however, we (privileged people in particular) take time to question rather than to accuse, and orient ourselves toward getting better rather than being right, we will reduce the effect that those societal norms and systems of privilege/oppression have on us. It’s liberating for all.

35. AdrienneVeg: @PTS, But it is possible, I assume you mean (and correct me if I’m wrong), to acknowledge that all of our daily interactions happen within a societial context in which different people have more or less power by virtue of their relative privilege (one could express this as “everything is, at its heart, just power relations”), while at the same time working to both transcend and deconstruct this system.

    I absolutely agree. But the important (and rejected by totalizing theories) part of what you said is that we can “transcend” the system. The theories I mention deny the possibility of that because there has to be SOMETHING that is capable of transcendence. And that something is going to be inconsistent with ontology or normative architecture of the theory.

    We are clearly constituted, to a large extent, by the vagary and contingent structures of power that make up social life.

    But if that is ALL we are is simply the location and the nexii of power relations, then everything you’ve said about transcendence, liberation etc is chimerical; a phantom, simply another illusion used to conceal those power relations.

    And there are views, which are influential within gender theory, that assert precisely that.

    (Not to derail the thread with extensive exegesis, but I would list Butler, Foucault, and MacKinnon as totalizing theorists, but definitely wouldn’t include, for example, De Beauvoir or Nussbaum or even bell hooks, though I am less familiar with the last. Nota bene, nothing about the previous sentence is uncontroversial.)

    Such views may be correct (though again, nothing can be “correct” on these views so it is hard to even assert these theories without contradiction) but holding those views will not be conducive to genial conversation.

36. Please keep guest blogging going.

    I don’t identify as a feminist, but I read this site because I value the opinions here. I don’t necassarily agree with them all, but I still try to listen anyway. The guest blogging has been the most interesting and constructive thing for a long time.

    The only way for any movement to stay relevant is to encompass a large and varied community. Your doing this well by inviting varied guests.

37. Roschelle: @ Claire N. – I just recently started visiting Jezebel. I’ve never been interested enough in their posts to leave a comment. What’s up with them and black women?This black woman needs to know 🙂  

    Hey sis! I’ll post the links where black women are mocked and abused. This year has especially been bad.

    http://jezebel.com/5597601/the-new-mommy-argument-you-do-not-have-a-right-to-child-free-spaces

    http://jezebel.com/5514643/ironically-ignoring-race-in-the-feminist-blogosphere

    http://jezebel.com/5503859/jill-scott-on-interracial-dating-there-is-a-bite-no-matter-the-ointment-that-has-yet-to-stop-burning

    Also Tavi wrote a piece on the BET awards and fashion and made an ignorant comment and when a black woman, Miz Jenkins called her out–to which Tavi apologised–a bunch of WOC lost their stars. Also later on Miz Jenkins was banned by Tracy for challenging Tracy, a white woman who contested Carol Channing’s blackness http://jezebel.com/5593741/carol-channing-thinks-shes-black–with Tracy denying she is racist using ableist language.

    It’s women of colour COMMENTERS (except for WOC editor Dodai when she is available) who had to moderate and deal with the fall out–unlike here where there is lots of support.

    Also Dodai wrote this:

    http://jezebel.com/5419185/commenting-about-race-is-complicated

    Some WOC commenters tend to stick together and make some really great arguments which is a reason to stay I think.

    Anyway that’s all I’ll say to not derail too much more 🙂

38. Miz Jenkins called her out–

    She wasn’t the only one.

    The other punchline there is that Tavi – who is fourteen – eventually saw the problem and apologized (and, I think, even edited the phrase), and the new/current EIC – who is easily around double Tavi’s age – decided to de-star the WOCs after Tavi apologized, as well as remove the moderator status of the one moderator who identified as a WOC (mixed-race).

    So now, even though there are posts on Jezebel that, if they don’t amount to race-baiting, certainly could be argued to contain such in the comments — but there are NO moderators who identify as wholly or partially of color.

    LOLirony.

39. P.S. Jill, thank you for this post.

40. I was claiming that if you adopt certain kinds views (i.e. totalizing account of patriarchy etc), then there is no such thing as “reasonable norms of discourse” and there can be no such thing as “disagreeing in good faith.”

    The way you’re conceptualizing the problem speaks volumes. Take the phrase “reasonable norms of discourse.” Thats hardly a neutral phrase, its one which assumes all sorts of power structures. The idea of a norm itself suggests observation, comparison, judgment, and coercion. What you’re talking about when you talk about a “norm of discourse” is itself an appeal to a certain policing of discourse. The fact that you precede it with “reasonable” speaks to the kinds of judgment you would like to see dominant. Privilege is everywhere, as is power and oppression.

    If everything is, at its heart, just power relations, then it is unsurprising that disagreements will be characterized by fallacy, insults, unjustified appeals to authority, pettiness, etc. After all, there really isn’t any alternative.

    Thats not quite true. Yes, pretty much any human interaction is going to be a messy clash of intersecting privileges and power dynamics; thats just the baggage we get from living in a world where pretty much everyone finds (and is forced to find) ways of oppressing and hurting pretty much everyone else in order to survive. That doesn’t mean that discussion cannot take place though.

    Under such a situation discussion only breaks down if people involved in the argument are unwilling to be checked by one another, unwilling to examine their own privilege, and unwilling to try to understand. As long as it is about winning an argument the discussion is going to devolve, but a lot of people speak to express rather than to win and listen to learn rather than to find the right angle for attack. As long as you’re tied into ideas like “right and wrong,” as long as you’re searching for objective truth, as long as you’re treating human interaction like war, you’re going to end up with ashes in your mouth.

    If such views are correct (although, what ‘correctness’ means on these views, it isn’t clear), then arguments and conversation are always pointless, unproductive, and driven by power.

    Only if the discussion is coming from a place of dominance and oppression. The goals, context, and purpose of a discussion exert influence upon the nature of the discourse. When you’re holding a hammer, pretty much everything looks like a nail.

41. If X means oppressed people have precedence, how can X also mean no one ought to be granted precendence?

42. I think that another form of privilege which was especially exhibited in a few recent threads that we can’t forget about in good faith is that of the blogger. By posting, the blogger’s voice is heard; by the blogger also being a moderator, the blogger is able to shut down/stifle/dismiss/refuse to address critiques. That the blogger has – and may not acknowledge and check- this privilege was a common thread in the first 350+ comments of a recent post.

43. I understand internet culture is an entirely different thing, and when you’re trying to argue a point before 50 comments get in before yours, it may be difficult to follow this advice. However, this is how I try to do things when I comment on sites such as Feministe:

    1.) Pause and think. On places like Feministe, I feel the admins and mods pick people they know can offer words you can learn from. And often, you can read a piece and understand if an author is merely deriding you or trying to teach something with emotion behind it. If these posts make me upset, I usually go, “I feel upset, but I also feel like there’s something in here I missed from being so upset. Let’s read the comments, maybe visit another site, take a nap or something, look up a few articles on the subject at wikipedia if I need more information, etc.” Sometimes it takes me a full day (or even two, or hell, I’ve gone a few weeks mulling over an article I thought contained something important I just didn’t get). I generally find I eventually figure out the source of my emotion and get a better understanding through how I reacted as well as what the article actually contained (’cause emotions are good things and teach us important lessons, so you shouldn’t devalue them).

    2.) Believe the author had the best intentions when writing. This is one I learned from various books on how to talk about problems with people you care about. Generally people who love you don’t want to hurt you, and I think the posters here are that way. So if something upsets you, instead of calling out the author as a bad person, it’s better to phrase it like, “When you said X, it made me feel Z and this is why. Was that your intention?” A lot of posting is about our reactions, but we frame it in a way that suggests the author wanted us to be hurt or that the author did know/should have known how we would feel about this topic (hint: people aren’t mind readers).

    3.) I remember people make mistakes. This sort of goes with #2. The one thing I really hate is when people copy and paste my old words to say, “This is what you said, so this is what you meant.” And all I can think is, “Gah. I was tired when I wrote that. Totally not my intention.” So be cool if people backtrack and try to re-explain things. Maybe they didn’t write as clear as they could have. Maybe they thought they were being perfectly clear but used a word or phrase that means something different to you than them. I mean, I would never get a thing written if I had to constantly mull over my posts thinking, “Was this point clear enough? Maybe I should rephrase this a different way…”

    So anyway, that’s my replying process for thoughtful articles (I don’t want to suggest I use this all the time in all situations…anyone who has seen my posts on other sites knows I can bite back if someone says something deliciously horrible).

44. I really, really like Feelkindabadforasking’s second point.

45. I want to thank Feministe for hosting guest bloggers every year, and I wish they would do it more. It really disheartens me to see the backlash every single year when they come on board to share their various viewpoints and what they have to bring to the table. It is, like abby jean said upthread, one of the few times I really feel truly represented , not just here, but on mainstream feminist blogs, as I have grown into where I feel I fit in social justice spheres and realized that feminism doesn’t really seem to want me around.

    The pushback that I see comes no matter what accommodations guest bloggers or regular bloggers here make. Even if they caved and fell all over themselves doing all of this ridiculous extra work the commenters here are demanding, there would still be an outcry of how the guest bloggers are DOIN IT RONG and how awful the main crew is for inviting them in the first place because they had the audacity to get their marginal issues in their *F*eminism/womanism.

46. @ Feelkindabadforasking,

    No. We should not put intent above impact. That contributes to the silencing of marginalized voices. It’s a viewpoint that continuously asks members of oppressed groups to swallow their pain and anger so as not to “insult” their oppressors.

    When someone says to me, “Yo, Salix, that was really cissexist, I’m offended”–I have the responsibility, as a person with cissexual privilege, to assume that that person is pointing this out to me in good faith–that ze truly was hurt, of course, but also, that it’s not like ze was scrutinizing every word of my post “looking” for ways to be offended. In my experience, this idea that people are “just looking for something to be offended by” is the PRIMARY support for ‘intentions matter more than impact’–and is also a major silencer of oppressed groups.

    Words. Matter.

    It’s wonderful that a forum like this one allows us the chance to apologize and then to clarify, if indeed we didn’t communicate clearly enough and what we said the first time hurt someone. But the fault still belongs to the person who didn’t say it right, not the person who was hurt.

    (To avoid the strawperson argument: of course people read things wrong sometimes, or miss sarcasm. In which case, a brief, “Hey, I actually agree, I don’t think you read the last sentence of my post” suffices nicely).

47. The things is, someone who has experienced a certain type of oppression really is in a better position to understand it compared to someone who hasn’t experienced it. Now, a specific cis man can be more knowledgeable about Feminism and Gender Studies compared to a specific woman, but he does not know what it’s like to be that woman. That woman will always have a better understanding of her own oppression-as-lived-experience, even if she doesn’t know the accepted terminology to talk about it or the greater context of the oppression.

    That assumes, of course that the oppressed person is in the habit of reflecting deeply and not just smugly asserting from ignorance. Would you say, for example, that Phyllis Schlafly, by virtue or being a woman, “has a better understanding of her own oppression as lived experience” than some non-female who has nonetheless thought and reflected and been willing to enter into sensible discussion of woman’s experience? I doubt it

48. I like the guest blogger tradition at Feministe.

    I’ve liked maia’s posts (though I’m afraid I looked at the hundreds-and-hundreds of comments following her post on children, and thought I can’t bear it, after all the anti-child comments the last such post got… I am a child-free adult who likes having children in public spaces, but I just didn’t have the spoons to respond then).

    I was sorry to see maia’s most recent post so truncated. 🙁

    and s.e. smith from earlier this summer, and several other guest posters at various times, have been responded to by various members of the commentariat.

    Er, the problem with s.e. smith was that smith wasn’t permitting the commentariat to respond to their guest lectures. Making s.e. smith a guest lecturer, rather than a guest blogger. I didn’t read those posts, because I don’t care for blogs where the author won’t allow responses.

49. Ohio Teach: Would you say, for example, that Phyllis Schlafly, by virtue or being a woman, “has a better understanding of her own oppression as lived experience”

    Okay, well, actually I would. I think she’s completely wrong about everything else…but insofar as her lived experience of oppression as opposed to the (capital t) Truth of Oppression (assuming such a thing could be understood), I consider her the foremost expert.

    I know that wasn’t exactly what you were getting at, but I did want to point out that when it comes to someone’s description of their own life I do think we should step back and just listen. When people try to extrapolate from their experiences to the broader context (which we all do and fuck up at) I agree we can disagree, challenge, etc…but not the lived experience.

50. That assumes, of course that the oppressed person is in the habit of reflecting deeply and not just smugly asserting from ignorance.

    There are few things I enjoy more than a good “strawman” being used to warm up for a thinly veiled “any true Scotsman.”

    Anyway, for every oppressed person who smugly asserts oppression from ignorance there are a couple of hundred privileged voices accusing every oppressed person who has the audacity to complain about oppression of doing the same. Its the most common trope the privileged have to shut the oppressed up. For the poor you’ve got welfare cheats (in a country that doesn’t even have a basic welfare system anymore), for non-whites you’ve got the race card accusation, for the disabled you have the breathless news stories of SSDI cheats and people using abusing handicapped parking. The list could go on, but its hardly necessary. The oppressed person rarely uses the oppression they’ve experienced to get ahead or score points because, well, frankly if the status could be used like that it would be privilege.

    Regardless, much as I’ve not enjoyed some of the guest commenters here over the years, I can’t think of an instance when the Feministe crew has chosen someone who fits your description. Sadly, your crude obfuscation fails even before you can invoke Schlafly.

    Would you say, for example, that Phyllis Schlafly, by virtue or being a woman, “has a better understanding of her own oppression as lived experience” than some non-female who has nonetheless thought and reflected and been willing to enter into sensible discussion of woman’s experience? I doubt it

    One wonders why you would bother asking a question if you plan on answering it yourself. Perhaps its because you’ve forgotten that this isn’t a class and you aren’t a lecturer.

    Still, much as I disagree with the likes of Schlafly on pretty much any point, it would be hard for me to deny that she came to her worldview honestly. She had whatever experiences she had, doubtless many of them colored by being a woman, and who she is today is the result. I disagree with her, sure, and I fight hard against the policies she advocates, but that doesn’t mean I’m right and she’s wrong. That kind of hard objective thinking is how you get people like her in the first place. It requires an appeal to authority, intellectual rigidity, and arguments crafted to win rather than to learn.

    Besides, I think its pretty fucking arrogant to say that you have a better understanding of a woman’s (any woman’s) lived experience of oppression than she does. It reeks of the “oh, you poor ignorant thing, let this educated person of Privilege do the thinking for you.” You might not like where she ended up, you might desperately need someone to look down upon (and the ego boost that provides), but to assume that because you’ve thought about it and had a conversation with someone that you somehow have a better understanding of what another person has gone through…

51. Kirsten: Okay, well, actually I would. I think she’s completely wrong about everything else…but insofar as her lived experience of oppression as opposed to the (capital t) Truth of Oppression (assuming such a thing could be understood), I consider her the foremost expert.

    See, I wouldn’t.

    Phyllis Schlafly is obviously the foremost expert in her lived experience. But understanding oppression requires not merely to have lived it but to have understood it. And Schlafly, from everything she’s ever said or written or done, is no kind of expert in understanding oppression – her own, least of all.

    To say that understanding oppression requires analysis sounds horribly ntellectual. But “analysis” is just a fancy word for, you know, getting it that the current state of women benefits men. Women who identify as pro-life feminists notoriously don’t “get it” – not because they have no lived experience of oppression, but because they have failed to analyse their lived experience and thus they simply think “My abortion was a good abortion. Not like these careless sluts who go for abortions all the time.”

52. Finding ill intent in Feelkindabadforasking’s peace-making comment seems to be indicative of many of the larger problems here. So many people on both sides are just waiting for a single word or sentence that offends their sense of ideological purity so they can then go ballistic.

    I think it’s worth stepping backing and thinking about the intent of this comment, which is to get some more civility around here. If someone says something that you take issue with, question their language but take a second and ponder if you’re misinterpreting their discourse based on your prejudices and experiences and kindly suggest a better way of phrasing their thoughts, thoughts that you may *at their core* agree with.

    Words matter but communication will always be subject to mis/interpretation, especially on the internet.

    Salix: @ Feelkindabadforasking,No.We should not put intent above impact.That contributes to the silencing of marginalized voices.It’s a viewpoint that continuously asks members of oppressed groups to swallow their pain and anger so as not to “insult” their oppressors.When someone says to me, “Yo, Salix, that was really cissexist, I’m offended”–I have the responsibility, as a person with cissexual privilege, to assume that that person is pointing this out to me in good faith–that ze truly was hurt, of course, but also, that it’s not like ze was scrutinizing every word of my post “looking” for ways to be offended.In my experience, this idea that people are “just looking for something to be offended by” is the PRIMARY support for ‘intentions matter more than impact’–and is also a major silencer of oppressed groups.Words. Matter.It’s wonderful that a forum like this one allows us the chance to apologize and then to clarify, if indeed we didn’t communicate clearly enough and what we said the first time hurt someone. But the fault still belongs to the person who didn’t say it right, not the person who was hurt.(To avoid the strawperson argument: of course people read things wrong sometimes, or miss sarcasm.In which case, a brief, “Hey, I actually agree, I don’t think you read the last sentence of my post” suffices nicely).  

53. @BW

    I think that another form of privilege which was especially exhibited in a few recent threads that we can’t forget about in good faith is that of the blogger. By posting, the blogger’s voice is heard; by the blogger also being a moderator, the blogger is able to shut down/stifle/dismiss/refuse to address critiques.

    I would consider this an “advantage” in the debate or perhaps an imbalance in the power dynamic, but not a “privilege” in the sense I think most of us are using the word. For that to be true bloggers-as-a-group would have to be a somewhat distinct class of people compared to everyone who is not a blogger.

54. Adrienne: In an internet conversation, I don’t think any clearer class distinction could be drawn, and no clearer results can be shown, than moderator/blogger vs. commenter, especially when arbitrariness is thrown in.

55. Jesurgislac: Phyllis Schlafly is obviously the foremost expert in her lived experience. But understanding oppression requires not merely to have lived it but to have understood it. And Schlafly, from everything she’s ever said or written or done, is no kind of expert in understanding oppression – her own, least of all.

    I think we may be disagreeing over a semantic difference. By “her lived experience of oppression” I literally meant her experiential understanding of the oppression she’s faced. Before I could name misogyny I had experiences with it that I did not place in the same context that I do now, but the experience of that oppression…the feelings in engendered in me as it was occurring are unchanged by subsequent analysis or understanding.

    I completely agree that she doesn’t understand the Truth of Oppression or even understand the oppression of women. I just think we should be conscious of the potential to erase someone’s experience regardless of how vehemently we may disagree about how they interpret those experiences in the broader context.

56. William:
    I think its pretty fucking arrogant to say that you have a better understanding of a woman’s (any woman’s) lived experience of oppression than she does. It reeks of the “oh, you poor ignorant thing, let this educated person of Privilege do the thinking for you.” You might not like where she ended up, you might desperately need someone to look down upon (and the ego boost that provides), but to assume that because you’ve thought about it and had a conversation with someone that you somehow have a better understanding of what another person has gone through…  

    What if you have actual information that she is not privvy to?

57. “Er, the problem with s.e. smith was that smith wasn’t permitting the commentariat to respond to their guest lectures. Making s.e. smith a guest lecturer, rather than a guest blogger. I didn’t read those posts, because I don’t care for blogs where the author won’t allow responses”

    This, pretty much. Nothing against the author, but what makes reading blog articles different than reading magazine articles or books is… being able to ask questions, interact, and get more perspective from the author. I have no reason to read comment-disabled posts when I have a to-read list of books about a mile long.

58. What if you have actual information that she is not privvy to?

    Thats the thing though, information and it’s value is largely subjective. I don’t like Schlafly, and I sure don’t agree with what she has to say, how she says it, or why she says it, but I think its pretty dangerous to set the precedent of turning “I disagree” into “you’re wrong.” Thats especially true when the context of the discussion we’re having isn’t really people Schlafly. Invoking someone like Schlafly is arguing from the margins, she’s a villain that is hard to defend on any level, that we wouldn’t want to defend, but she is being used to silence and invalidate guest bloggers here on Feministe.

    Sure, there are probably a lot of people who understand oppression a lot better than Schlafly, and there are a lot of people who probably have more information about it, who have thought about it more, and whose interpretations and opinions are close to mine. What makes me uncomfortable, though, is the idea of a privileged person (any privileged person) stepping in and saying to an oppressed person “I know more about your experience than you do, I have a greater degree of information, I better understand your life than you do” because, historically, that is almost always followed up with “so I’m going to make you do what I think you ought to for your own good.” I’m going to find that dangerous and offense regardless of how much I might dislike or disagree with the target. Its an especially repugnant turn, though, when its being directed at the guest bloggers here who, while I might disagree quite strongly with some of them, are hardly ignorant.

    Put more bluntly: using Schlafly to justify a man saying he knows more about the oppression of women than Maia (or, whatever, pick the guest blogger who has most raised your hackles) strikes me as far too similar to the Rush Limbaughs of the world pointing at the handful of Mexican immigrants who commit crimes as justification for their inhuman immigration policies.

59. norbizness: Adrienne: In an internet conversation, I don’t think any clearer class distinction could be drawn, and no clearer results can be shown, than moderator/blogger vs. commenter, especially when arbitrariness is thrown in.  

    You have to be fucking kidding me. Maybe if you think of every discussion as a contest, it could be an advantage in that contest. Like those radfem blogs that are so insular and ridiculous. Other people in the discussion though? Are talking about their LIFE. Things that might AFFECT them in personal ways, ways other than whether or not they win the argument. There is a world outside the internet, and some things actually matter to some people beyond whether or not they somehow “win,” have control over the comments, whatever.

60. norbizness: Adrienne: In an internet conversation, I don’t think any clearer class distinction could be drawn, and no clearer results can be shown, than moderator/blogger vs. commenter, especially when arbitrariness is thrown in.  

    I’m not sure whether I agree with you.

    What complicates the issue for me is thinking about the hypothetical blogger’s intersecting identities and how those relate to what zie is writing. A white blogger saying horrible things about people of color and not allowing dissent to be heard? That’s exercising white privilege through the means of being a blogger, to me, rather like being a politician or a celebrity or a news anchor and using the power of that position to take advantage of one’s privileged identity/ies (whatever they may be) to oppress/marginalize others. On the other hand, a person blogging about hir marginalized identity/ies and hir experiences and then using the power of moderating to delete comments that further oppress/marginalize (intentionally or not)? It’s different, to me, rather like the fact that we in the US can legitimately support a group called the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (objections to the term “colored people” aside), but we cannot legitimately support a National Association for the Advancement of White People (there probably actually is one; I’m afraid to Google it).

    Sorry to be US-centric and invoke race for the comparison. I think it’s appropriate here, though.

61. The comments ate my earlier attempt to contextualize my first comment this morning. Here is a less elegant version, in response to several comments post my reference to Schlaffly:

    Maia is certainly an expert on her lived experience, but that does not validate her wild extrapolations about culture. For example, she did not consider that as an American (I gather this from her original post and subsequent comments) living ex-pat in Egypt, she exists in a position of privilege in Egypt. Egypt and the U.S. have good relations and host countries are in general tolerant of tourists or non-resident aliens from countries with whom they have good relations. Maia extrapolated from isolated experience of Egyptian tolerance of her child and perhaps similarly privileged children (native or non-native), that Egypt was more child-friendly than the United States (and she also implied that somehow feminists were at fault here).
    While it is quite possible that her lived experience proves just that, I found it rather surprising that a guest blogger whom Jill characterized as “Passionate about social justice” was willing to make glittering generalizations about Egypt in the face of its oppressive child labor conditions:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jun/08/childprotection.humanrights
    the continuance of female mutilation among poorer caste Muslims in Egypt:
    http://www.nocirc.org/symposia/first/badawi.html
    The abuse and neglect of street children in Egypt:
    http://www.gvnet.com/streetchildren/Egypt.htm
    Systemic racism within the culture, which affects non-privileged children there:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/opinion/10iht-edeltahawy.1.18556273.html
    And Egypt’s position as a hub for the human trafficking of women and children:
    http://gvnet.com/humantrafficking/Egypt.htm
    I do not offer these links to slam Egypt; merely to point out that for Maia to describe Egypt as a paradise for children was disingenuous, at best. At worst, it showed no respect for the intelligence of her readers.
    Maia is like any other ex-pat, romanticizing a culture she does not even see even as she lives in it. She generalized wildly about something she has not even bothered to learn about and that, to me, is much like Schlaffly making claims about impoverished women in America. I call bullshit on both.

62. AdrienneVegwe cannot legitimately support a National Association for the Advancement of White People (there probably actually is one; I’m afraid to Google it).

    Well, I braved the interwebs…there is…and I think its relatively interesting given its connection to Hawaii. Apparently some asshat tried to open up a branch in Hawaii based on the idea that white people are discriminated against there. o_O I know particularly from my mom’s experience moving there as an adult…this discrimination they speak of is either (1) xenophobia or (2) not getting as many of the benefits of white privilege…which I guess if you think you’re entitled to superior treatment that might feel like discrimination…

    Also they have a facebook page…which I will not link to…and which totally creeps me out. But also proves the adage that if you start a sentence/para/thought with the phrase I am not or this is not racist…its probably racist.

63. Ohio Teach, you are not making an original argument. It is utterly unimpressive.

64. And finally, the point of both of my posts being, it’s rather insulting, isn’t it, to have a set of behavioral rules posted: Learn something! Don’t make assumptions! Be conscientious of what you may not know! all as a result of people reacting to a guest blogger who did none of those things but did insist, as did others in the comment threat, including this site’s host that any critique of her original post sprang from racism rather than an appalled reaction to her general lack of analysis. Blogger, heal thyself!

    1. And finally, the point of both of my posts being, it’s rather insulting, isn’t it, to have a set of behavioral rules posted: Learn something! Don’t make assumptions! Be conscientious of what you may not know! all as a result of people reacting to a guest blogger who did none of those things but did insist, as did others in the comment threat, including this site’s host that any critique of her original post sprang from racism rather than an appalled reaction to her general lack of analysis. Blogger, heal thyself!

       Actually, Ohio Teach, we made these ground rules before any of the guest-bloggers started — we posted them more than a month ago, and simply re-posed them here yesterday. So no, they are not a result of or a response to any particular guest blogger.

65. Kai, simply saying it is invalid does not make it so. Why don’t you take the time to refute it? Prove to me that Egypt is, compared to the U.S., a paradise for children.

66. Ohio Teach, there’s only one person in this conversation who has unequivocally stated that “Egypt is a paradise for children” and that person is you. Nobody has anything to prove to you about your own unequivocal statement. You have been willingly schooled.

67. Ohio Teach: Kai, simply saying it is invalid does not make it so. Why don’t you take the time to refute it? Prove to me that Egypt is, compared to the U.S.,a paradise for children.  

    Errr because that has no relevance to the original topic (behaviour towards guest bloggers)

68. Ohio Teach: She generalized wildly about something she has not even bothered to learn about and that

    OR she was talking about one aspect of the culture that she is experiencing that is superior to what occurs in places like the US…like I can talk about how awesome coparenting is in my SO’s extended family without also mentioning their soul crushing and unreasonable expectations. I didn’t read her as saying that Egypt was paradise for children just that more openness towards children in public and more kindness to children in public would be good.

69. Things this thread is not about:

    1. Defining “privilege”
    2. Children’s rights in Egypt
    3. Mai’a personally, and her posts here specifically
    4. The National Association for the Advancement of White People
    5. What we do or do not like about Jezebel

    Ok? Ok. Now back on topic please.

70. Maia is certainly an expert on her lived experience, but that does not validate her wild extrapolations about culture.

    Again, you’re turning an exchange of ideas into a battle of wits. You’re trying to prove Maia wrong in a discussion where that isn’t relevant. I’m not a fan of Maia, she triggered me in a lot of ways and I’ve avoided continuing to read her posts after the first few because I’m not much of a masochist. Still, to read her posts and then somehow interpret them as constructs to be disproved or accepted seems to miss the point of discussion.

    Whether or not Maia’s characterization of Egyptian culture is accurate or not does little to indict the ideas she is communicating. Shes talking about a certain set of ideals, advocating certain kinds of behaviors, and those things are coming from her lived experience. To merely shout “thats not what Egypt is like you privileged ex-pat” is not only counter-productive, but shows a serious inability to engage with ideas outside of a confrontational context.

    While it is quite possible that her lived experience proves just that,

    So…her lived experience is irrelevant? If this is about data, rather than about experienc and ideas, then it isn’t a discussion, its a trading of blows. It isn’t about learning but about pounding the opposition until its collapses to the canvas and the Clearly Superior Idea is declared victor. Doesn’t matter what punches you throw so long as they land, right? You’re determining truth through power.

    Sure, Maia might have an ex-pat’s view of Egyptian society and culture and these would be valid concerns if she were teaching an Egyptian Studies class, but thats not the case. This is a blog with an active discussion community. The objective veracity and generalizability of Maia’s experiences of Egypt are somewhat less important than the meanings, values, and ideas she has drawn from them.

    I do not offer these links to slam Egypt; merely to point out that for Maia to describe Egypt as a paradise for children was disingenuous, at best. At worst, it showed no respect for the intelligence of her readers.

    I’m curious as to how you interpret what you describe as ignorance to (at best) deceit and (at worst) malicious disrespect. Seems to me you’re fighting an enemy, not having a conversation.

71. Jill:
    Actually, Ohio Teach, we made these ground rules before any of the guest-bloggers started — we posted them more than a month ago, and simply re-posed them here yesterday.So no, they are not a result of or a response to any particular guest blogger.  

    Right.

    1. …I’m unclear as to why this is confusing. Here is the original post with the ground rules. You can see it’s dated June 4th:

       http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010/06/04/project-guest-blogger-2010/

       Obviously I re-posted them in response to the way that our guest bloggers have been treated, but it’s not just Mai’a who has been treated poorly. This happens EVERY YEAR.

72. One of the things that’s been talked about a lot here is context. Perhaps giving the list of guest bloggers with associated links, along with the guidelines, next time you do this. Only a suggestion, if it’s not too difficult. The people who make the jerkiest comments probably won’t bother reading anything- but I think quite a few of the ‘negative’ people might not be so negative.

73. Of all the screen names to attach to a trainwreck…
    (reading from Cleveland)

    Ohio Teach: stop now.
    Buckeye up and redirect your energy.

74. Sorry Jill…I got distracted. My bad.

75. @ Jigae,

    You seem to be talking past me rather than responding to me, although you quoted my post. I specifically said, the majority of the time people in oppressed groups aren’t looking for things to be offended by. (Seriously, how often have feminists been falsely attacked for just that?)

    But you just breezed past my statement with, “So many people on both sides are just waiting for a single word or sentence that offends their sense of ideological purity so they can then go ballistic.” That strikes me as much more the perspective of a person who has privilege on whatever issue. When one is in an oppressed group, it’s NOT about “ideological purity.” It’s about you just denied that I’m a woman you asshole (or whatever)–it’s about protecting oneself.

    That’s what *I* meant by “assume that people are commenting in good faith”–we assume that people *aren’t* just out looking to be offended, because face it, that’s a sucky way to go through life. If I wasn’t clear on this, my fault and I apologize.

    We need to remember that it takes a lot of courage for a member of a marginalized group to speak up to power and say, “Hey, you hurt me.” If you hold the belief that [marginalized] people are just ‘looking to be offended,’ you also have to assume that speaking out doesn’t come at a cost to them/us. But I think everyone here is well aware of that cost. We’re not fighting oppression for the lulz, or because it’s so damn easy.

76. Ohio Tech–Actually, if you bothered to contextualized mai’a at all, you’d see that she writes very *often* about her position as a black queer mama US citizen living in a country that has questionable politics at best, when it comes to human rights. She has spoken at length about how complicated her existance is there–she has more privilege in terms of protection from citizenship–and yet her daughter (in this perfect child loving society that she has supposedly exoticized) was denied entrance to a day care because she was “dirty” (i.e. black).

    I really think, again, that on far too many levels certain commenters are unused to dealing with certian types of people in any other way than a singular signifier (i.e. black skin, vagina, etc)–and find that when they are forced through writing (or some other form of communication) to accept this person as a whole entity, they feel they have no other choice but to focus intense scrutiny on a single phrase or idea that the person may have expressed.

    Also, it was ME, bfp, who brought explicitly brought race into the discussion. I find your interpretation of my words interesting.

77. “I really think, again, that on far too many levels certain commenters are unused to dealing with certian types of people in any other way than a singular signifier (i.e. black skin, vagina, etc)–and find that when they are forced through writing (or some other form of communication) to accept this person as a whole entity, they feel they have no other choice but to focus intense scrutiny on a single phrase or idea that the person may have expressed.”

    I like this.

78. I wonder to what extent blogs work like cults of personality, which might explain why bringing in guest posters is weird and full of sturm und drang.

    Sometimes someone new comes in and I’m like “sunlight and puppies, how lovely, I wish they’d stay!” For instance, I wish Little Light would post on every blog I read…

    I try not to comment on the posts that just drive me up the wall, but even when I don’t say anything, sometimes…? Well, sometimes there are crusted wounds. Like, atheists aren’t treated very well in society. And did I want to hear about buddhism? No. Did I say anything? No. I rolled my eyes, and skipped the posts, and that worked fine, and whatever. But on her way out, that blogger took a shot at skeptics–and I totally understand that shot, because people had been being rude. It made me roll my eyes a bit again, but you know, it happens. But this blog isn’t always a friendly space for atheists–although the conflicts which made me conclude that are several years old now–and I wonder how many other long-time atheistic readers feel like Feministe doesn’t really have a cushion of good faith on the issue so that when someone with benign intentions, benign posts, and an interest in talking about her Buddhism gets the megaphone… well, she’s not just talking into a void, she’s entering an established situation that she’s not aware of.

    Essentially, there’s a context to the conversations that happen here.

    There are also reading protocols to be considered. From reading the explanations and further discussions of mai’a’s posts (from mai’a and others), I’m forced to conclude that I am not good at deriving meaning from what mai’a writes. I’m fairly sure the barrier is stylistic; I lack the necessary experience required to derive meaning from the way she’s writing without a lot of elaboration. That doesn’t mean the way she’s writing is bad or that she should change it, but if readers enter a site expecting one set of reading protocols to be used, and encounter another, then they may not mentally code switch well enough, which only heightens miscommunication and conflict.

    I’m not trying to place values on any of these phenomena. It’s often probably incumbent on the reader to be quiet and read further if se is confused and wants clarification. I’m also not trying to erase the privilege inherent in these situations–there are clearly racial implications to the divides over communication style, and who is expected to code switch where, and how I as a white person am unused to people not code switching in my space to speak with my preferred communication style, which is what allows me to be ignorant of others’.

    I just wanted to write down some observations of dynamics I think may be affecting reactions, other than the obvious ones about privilege and content which have been well-hashed by others.

79. Perhaps giving the list of guest bloggers with associated links, along with the guidelines, next time you do this.

    That would probably be helpful. Give people a little prep time, to familiarize themselves with styles or personalities before there’s a sudden post full of context-free controversy all over Feministe. There was a lot of repetition of “X is being said with love” or whatever, but without knowing anything about the person beyond how they initially present themselves here none of that sounding “loving” by any stretch of the imagination. Having an opportunity for a better first impression might go a long way.

80. I mean, there was definitely context given for a lot of this but it was presented after the original stuff already got people’s backs up, or it was presented in the comments and not the OPs themselves, where it was easy to miss and was not part of the picture from the start.

81. “That would probably be helpful. Give people a little prep time, to familiarize themselves with styles or personalities before there’s a sudden post full of context-free controversy all over Feministe.”

    But doesn’t this contradict Jill’s request?:

    “Please think of our guest-bloggers as invited guests who are staying over at our house, and think of yourself as a friendly neighbor dropping by. Show them the attendant respect.”

    Is it impossible to hear controversial or non-contextual language at Feministe? What would make it possible for commenters here to be able to give a guest poster the benefit of the doubt? How could we learn to question the meaning of language we dislike instead of erupting in mis-placed anger?

82. That would probably be helpful. Give people a little prep time, to familiarize themselves with styles or personalities before there’s a sudden post full of context-free controversy all over Feministe.

    I think that already exists in the form of guest bloggers linking to their own blog in their introductory posts. I think the Feministe crew makes a good faith (full disclosure: yeah, I’ve been one in the past!) effort in finding guest bloggers who have perspectives that the Feministe community would find valuable, enlightening, educational, what-have-you.

    I like what Mandolin said @ #83. I also skip posts where there’s too much of a gap (ex: Lady Gaga). If something really sets me off, I go find the context first (meaning: we all carry our whole selves with us….everything that went into making us who we are now) before responding (if I choose to respond)……because again, I’m assuming that the Feministe crew made a good faith effort to find voices that matter.

    I especially like that Mandolin mentioned code-switching, because that is one of the blessings of the guest posters—stylistic differences of expression. Not just what they say, but how they say it. I’m not really comfortable with doing that; I’ve made very few posts that didn’t deliberately code switch into my best approximation of “academic” style (stop laughing. I only graduated from community college, ok?). I always feel I won’t be listened to or respected if I write like I speak. (you can tell when I’m getting comfortable in someone’s comment section when I lapse into dialect…slurring my words together, droppin’ “g’s”, that sorta thing….:-) I love to see other bloggers use their real voices; it encourages me to come out of my shell in print, too!

    I think it is contingent on us, the commenting community, to give the guest bloggers the benefit of the doubt. When Jill invites Sarah Palin to come guest blog, I’ll rethink that strategy.

83. Giving a list of guest-bloggers ahead of time is an interesting idea — we will discuss that amongst the Feministe editors. My concern, there, is that people will start preemptively asking “Why is so-and-so here?,” or making writers feel unwelcome before they even start. And just on a basic organizational point, we usually don’t have all of the guest bloggers totally figured out before the first blogger starts. They’re all usually invited, but we often get “yes” responses late, and I would hate to publish a list and have people feel left out because they weren’t on it, or have readers feel blindsided when we have additions throughout the summer.

    …none of which is to shut down the suggestion! We’ll discuss it. Just trying to give everyone a fuller view on how this all works behind the scenes.

84. Been on my best behavior, Jill.

    1. Been on my best behavior, Jill.

       I’ve noticed! It is much appreciated 🙂

85. Is it impossible to hear controversial or non-contextual language at Feministe?

    Maybe “or” but not “and”? At least not simultaneously? If the first thing you hear from someone is both unfamiliar *and* upsetting that’s a lot more of a hurdle to understanding them than hearing something upsetting (like, from a friend who you know) or hearing something odd but relatively innocent (like, hearing something noncontroversial in passing.)

    Like, now –having read Maia’s latest post — I’m like yeah, your daughter is a badass but when that’s the first thing I hear (out of context) I’m like ew, one of those parents. If I read her posts in reverse order it would make total sense to me, basically…first I get to know the shit’s she’s been through, then I get to know how she views “mama” in that context, then I get to hear about how much she loves “mama-ing” and how pissed she is at various things that make it difficult for her. And I’m like, oh, okay, totally follow. Though how I would translate that into a suggestion for future guest bloggers I have no idea… it’s so personal opinion.

    (Man, I’m failing at not talking specifically. Please delete if too off-topic…)

86. @ La Lubu:

    I especially like that Mandolin mentioned code-switching, because that is one of the blessings of the guest posters—stylistic differences of expression. Not just what they say, but how they say it.

    For me, this goes along with Jill’s request to treat guest bloggers like a friendly neighbor’s house guests. When I meet a person face-to-face who has a heavy accent or someone who uses a different kind of English than I do, I don’t make a big deal out of it. I’m continually appalled when people on blogs get hung up on punctuation or capitalization or “improper” English and point it out as if to undermine the arguments being made or perspective being shared. I appreciate that Mandolin admits to having difficulty interpretting certain writing styles because they are unfamiliar; I’ve had the same experience. It’s just really low (not to mention classist and ablist) to hold that against the person and dismiss the substance of their work because of it. I hope people wouldn’t treat each other that way in person (at least, I hope the people who contribute here wouldn’t), and it’s disheartening to see people resort to that sort of pettiness here.

    I love language and I love discovering new ways that different people use it to express themselves. It might take a post or two to get the hang of a new style, but it’s worth it for the richness it contributes to the experience of reading blogs. La Lubu, I hope you become more and more comfortable expressing yourself in your authentic, true-to-life style. I always appreciate your insight and would be glad to see more of your unique style.

87. Salix: @ Jigae,You seem to be talking past me rather than responding to me, although you quoted my post.I specifically said, the majority of the time people in oppressed groups aren’t looking for things to be offended by.(Seriously, how often have feminists been falsely attacked for just that?) … We’re not fighting oppression for the lulz, or because it’s so damn easy.  

    I definitely appreciate what you’re saying. I catch myself talking out both sides of my mouth, asking everyone to give “peace a chance” and then accusing people of “looking for offense.” And I do acknowledge I’ve had privilege in a wide variety of contexts and lacked it in others — It’s sometimes hard for me to remember not to jump to conclusions and to listen to seemingly-oppositional perspectives: Of course this is the first thing I point out in others. Apologies.

88. I think that already exists in the form of guest bloggers linking to their own blog in their introductory posts.

    Well, sort of. I don’t think that self-linking helps necessarily in cases where there’s a huge stylistic gap. There have been a number of guest bloggers whose work I’ve found (for a variety of reasons) stylistically inaccessible or requiring more close reading than I was really up for after getting home from a 12 hour work day. Knowing how they write doesn’t necessarily give me much in terms of trying to figure out how to parse it all, even if I know I’m inclined to skip their posts if I’m tired.

    I’ve been reading (and sometimes guest blogging) for Feministe for more than five years now, and (until I started working for the government, which makes it a lot harder to comment) I was very much engaged in what I identified as the commenting community. I knew all the regulars, knew the resident trolls, etc. There’s a tremendous amount of institutional knowledge that you just can’t share with a guest blogger.

    For example, Maia says that she’s written about topics like this before on her own blog and never garnered this kind of reaction. Every blog’s got its own community, frame of reference, in jokes, etc. When you don’t know about that, it can be really hard to know what to expect.

89. Hey! I love feministe and have only ever felt compelled to comment once before. But reading through the thread on this post, I’m sort of reminded of some of the bs I experienced in high school. Maybe I don’t “get” comment threads but this seems like a lot of nonsense simply because there are some new ideas here. Regardless, all the work to invite and host guest bloggers, moderating the ensuing drama, and whatever PR mess clean up is necessary after all of it, while probably headache inducing, is greatly appreciated. I LOVE this series. I found some new thinkers whose writings are more eleoquent versions of my own thoughts, and I found some thinkers whose ideas are so new to me I think about their posts long after reading them. I am growing as a feminist, as a thinker, as a person and I just want to thank you for the gift that this series is.

Comments are currently closed.