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

Education or Educational Smackdown?

Lauren

Another Lynne asks something that I think is worth entertaining especially as feminist blogs become more prevalent in the ‘sphere. In part,

Where I get caught up in ambivalence is how to address those commenters who claim to know nothing about feminism. Yes, this blog certainly *is* advanced feminism. But still, shouldn’t we be willing to educate someone when they ask us? (Regardless of how facetious they may be when doing so) OTOH, so often this type of “commenting” is really just a way to drag strawfeminists out for them to ridicule and preach the hate, I don’t want to dignify that stuff with a response.

And at what point do we (reasonably) bring the smackdown to this nonsense? If the person is starting from the belief that feminism is *truly* about women being better than men, it takes an awful lot of work to teach them otherwise. (speaking from personal experience).

I’ve made some odd friends out of flame wars and heavy disagreements, but never in the public space of the blog. Usually this requires waiting until after the mess is over, contact through email and clarification of the messier bits point by point with a great deal of humor. While I don’t necessarily expect to change others’ views, I have softened them to the idea of feminism, or at least gain more respect for Jill and I with these contacts. Because my underlying philosophy for this blog is honest communication, as heady or juvenile as it may get, I attempt to operate from this frame.

Since the audience at Feministe suddenly exploded, taking the blog from a small, insular community to a readership I can’t quite wrap my head around, these jeers and flames have become more frequent, requiring greater moderation on my part to ensure that we have the kind of community where this honesty can prevail with good humor. I sometimes find myself holding comments from naysayers for a long while trying to decide whether or not their intent was in good or bad faith (some comments just get thrown into moderation automatically due to keywords or first-time posters) and eventually end up pushing it through, hoping for the best. I have found that most of the time people do want answers to their questions, no matter how angrily they are asked, and respect those who take the time to form genuine, reasoned answers, even if they still disagree. I do like to honor that. However, there is a difference between the general atmosphere we keep around this space and the kind of space fostered by those who followed us here from xoxo yesterday. This is a space that is generally intended to be one of de-escalation, not escalation, and when the naysayers come to inflame or escalate an ongoing argument (and we often respond in kind) none of these superficial boundaries can be crossed.

Some have wondered about the assortment of feminist-ambivalent folks around these parts lately and why Jill or I haven’t booted them out altogether. The truth is, I’ve invited them to stay. Stick around, watch, participate — you might warm up to us in the end. Some of them finally leave frustrated, and others, sometimes the most oppositional people, end up getting folded in to our little community. That’s been one of my favorite things about being the co-master of this domain and it won’t change any time soon.

Back to AL’s statement, it depends on the environment of the conversation and whether or not those who bring strawfeminists to prom decide to stick around long enough to get a feel for this board and begin to take it, and us, more seriously. Jill, the regulars, and I have been here far too long for me to let this degrade into a community that tolerates needlessly abusive language.*

But above all, I write selfishly. I write in a manner that, I hope, encourages readers to comment. Rarely have I come to a final conclusion on an issue and on many occasions my thoughts have been swayed by the conversations under the post. In a way, I like to write and then turn it all over to you, to see the comments you make, the thoughts I’ve inspired, and who I’ve pissed off, but most importantly, why.** When I turn it over to you, the reader and commenter, I often turn it over to you to fight your own fights and watch the rhetorical acrobatics that ensue. You rarely disappoint me.

Which, I suppose, hands this question off to you.

_____________
* If at any point someone wants to remove their own comments or suggest the removal of a participant of the blog, I will take it into consideration. Email me at the address provided.

** And the bad puns. I love me some bad puns.

28 thoughts on Education or Educational Smackdown?

  1. Lauren, great post.

    Though Feministe (like a lot of our blogs) touches on subjects beyond feminism, a commitment to feminism undergirds everything you and Jill do. It’s never far from my agenda either, though my feminism differs a bit on some key issues (mostly revolving around faith.)

    I think of my blogging a lot like I think of my women’s studies classes. I’m trying to win hearts and minds in an entertaining, compelling, and intellectually honest manner. But as they say, it gets boring “preaching to the choir”. I have banned a few trolls who couldn’t control their nastiness, but I like having students and commenters who are suspicious of feminism, but are willing to dialogue. Their criticisms, even their hostility, provoke me to try and be a more effective advocate.

    You and Jill have a blog that does that kind of advocacy in a very human, entertaining way — and does it without using too much “insider language” that feminists, like any group, are prone to employing when they spend too much time in the academy.

    So when it comes to the genuine haters, ban ’em. But keep those who are looking for dialogue, ’cause you’ve really had some great stuff lately.

    Oh, and a self-indulgent plug. I wrote about the whole “compliments” thing at length this morning.

  2. I wrote a whole long essay about questions just recently. This is all IME:

    There are good questions, such as, “What does it feel like to do this?” and “Why did you do this?” and “What does that phrase mean?” and “How do you feel about this writer/theorist/fellow (whatever)?”

    There are borderline questions, such as, “A problem I’ve always had with….” and “What I see as….” and “It seems to me….”

    There are brighter red flags, which usually signal rhetorical rather than actual curiosity, such as, “But aren’t you just blah?” and “Can’t you just do/be blah?” and “Why do you blah blah so much?”

    Now, all of these questions can be asked by well-meaning people, and all of them can be asked in ways that render the asker mean and self-serving rather than genuinely interested. But it’s not that difficult to tell when someone’s interested in discussion, and when discussion simply isn’t gonna happen.

  4. I said

    Other Lynne,

    You raise a good point regarding educating people who are asking for it, but responsibility for ignorance lies with the ignorant. If they were sincere in looking for enlightenment they would ask nicer, and, more importantly, all of the calm, reasoned discussion on feministe far outweighs the angry flaming. It’s all there for a reasonable reader to sift through.

    and Lynne said

    As to the responsibility of the ignorant…well, first you have to know that you’re ignorant. And that’s the point that I was trying to get to. You know, and I know that feminism has nothing to do with man-hating. But pretend for a moment that *everything* you ever encountered (both inside and outside the home) taught that it was. You’d have an awful lot of unlearning to do, before you could even start to ask for an education.

    And how are we to judge sincerity? Who decides? Having a teen-aged son, I can honestly tell you that being snarky and cynical is so much a part of that persona, that it comes out even when he’s being sincere.

    To which I will now say: again, you have a very important point, and I think it comes down to judging sincerity in each interaction. People tend to be much bigger assholes online (would any of us have responded to Jill’s crazy appearance flamers in person? would they have ever said that to her face?), so I find it easier to dismiss online interactions myself. People are much less good at writing than at speaking, and even worse at reading, so I think these things are better learned in the real world.

    Also, when I said ignorance is the ignorant’s responsibility, I don’t mean that it is futile to try to teach them. Otherwise I wouldn’t have a blog (ok, that’s also to make fun of fundies) or preach out about politics as much as I do in person. But it’s not my fault if people stay ignorant – and more importantly, my hasty words – or any angry flames on feministe – aren’t to blame either.

  6. Ryan – thanks much for moving those. And to be clear, my questions/statements are not about assigning blame.

    I will agree that often, people tend to be bigger assholes online. But I was also thinking about face-to-face interactions as well when I posed those questions.

    How many times have we all heard someone say things like “Of course men and women should be treated equally, but I’m not a feminist”. And how often do we choose to respond to that? I myself have been guilty of rolling my eyes upon hearing that sort of thing.

    The increase in feminist blogs, I believe, has a lot to do with the old backlash bullshit that’s been resurfacing. And while some of that comes from dyed-in-the-wool misogynists, I believe that most of it comes from ignorant people who don’t even know that they’re ignorant.

    Bringing this stuff (the flames, the backlash, etc.) into the light of day is *good*, it makes us stronger, and reminds us that it is our responsibility to teach those who come behind us, and to thank those who went before us.

  7. You know, and I know that feminism has nothing to do with man-hating. But pretend for a moment that *everything* you ever encountered (both inside and outside the home) taught that it was. You’d have an awful lot of unlearning to do, before you could even start to ask for an education.

    I think I said as much to SD at one point in the monster thread. I, however, do not have Lauren’s “teacher temperament,” nor her patience. When you demonstrate to me that your ignorance is something you’re emotionally invested in maintaining–that is, when it’s cemented into belief–and that no evidence to the contrary will enlighten you, I’m done.

    Again, this is partly because I am not a patient person. It’s also partly because I’ve built up mental calluses over the years from arguing with people who came to the debate in bad faith, so that even when faced with overwhelming refutation of their assertions, they concede nothing, but only shift the subject to more favorable ground. This is not meant to do anything but exhaust their opponents, and it works. It works very well.

    It’s always a fine line and a judgment call, trying to discern whether you’re overlooking an opportunity to educate by going the smackdown route, or encouraging a vicious bad-faith debater by going the dialogue route. I admire Lauren for being willing to go through what she does sometimes, in order to steer things towards the dialogue route, but I admit I’m often flabbergasted by it. It’s just not in my makeup to do that.

  8. banning abusive folks makes sense, but the commenters who want you to ban anyone who’s even only lukewarm on feminism are building unfortunate walls around themselves. no one is 100% right on everything. it’s too bad those commenters so dislike hearing that that they’d shut out anyone different from themselves. those are the people who make feminism look, to the uninformed, like a kind of bigotry.

    as someone who holds a view or two that the ban-them feminists hate, i’ve long appreciated the inclusiveness of this blog.

  9. the commenters who want you to ban anyone who’s even only lukewarm on feminism

    Huh? Which commenters?

  10. Huh? Which commenters?

    Well, me for starters–no, wait, actually, you’re right: who’s doing this?

    Besides, “Oh, sweet fancy Jesus in a negligee, are you ever ignorant!” isn’t the same as, “Ban him! Ban him, I say!”

  12. ilyka –

    It was the commentary between SD and several others that really brought this to the front of my brain. I honestly couldn’t tell if she was truly uneducated or merely trying to start an argument so she would have the opportunity to drag out strawfeminist.

  14. ilyka:
    these commenters: “Some have wondered about the assortment of feminist-ambivalent folks around these parts lately and why Jill or I haven’t booted them out altogether.”

  15. pluri, I should clarify. “Feminist-ambivalent” was intended to be a nicer term, as I have many readers and lurkers that do not call themselves feminists and often find themselves in direct opposition to our umbrella philosophy and are more than vocal about it. Oftentimes we find ourselves debating their strawfeminist arguments over sticking to the topic at hand and actually discussing this or that feminist issue in and of itself. It’s these disruptions that I have been questioned about, but only on a few occasions and overall I can only think of a handful people I have actively banned after having spent time on this blog. Of those, all were finally banned because of outright hostility and threats against my personal safety (a long while back, maybe two years).

  16. I ban people who set off red flags, and sometimes I ban them fast. What’s disturbing is that other people observing the process often don’t see anything wrong with banning someone who says, “You feminazi dyke.” Then there’s the people who are just ‘civil’ about it. I hate those the most. If someone’s civil about thinking that feminists are taking over the world and setting up death camps, they’re still being offensive, they’re just using good grammar to hide the hatred.

    I don’t have time for trolls because I have to deal with misogyny every damned day. Why in hell should I have to deal with it on my blog? Amanda posted a list of anti-feminist crap that hasn’t changed in forty years. It doesn’t change. Think up an argument against it and stick with it. I’ve had plenty of debates with feminists and it’s from them that I get my information and my illumination. There’s lots of feminists I can argue with, but arguing with a troll doesn’t do a damn bit of good. Aside from which, their beliefs about women are so offensive it’s like being slapped in the face with words. Being told over and over again that feminists hate men and stifle dissent does nothing for me when the topic is rape, for example.

    As for educating people, I’m really really skeptical of people who are thirty years old and claim to have absolutely no knowledge about sexism or feminsim and/or claim to be victims of sexist beliefs that led them to hate women. It’s not hard to acquire a sincere knowledge of feminism, and the venom that’s directed at feminists alone should be enough for someone of good heart to be skeptical about what’s being said about feminists and women. If they swallow the misogyny, they’re eager to believe horrible things about women and feminists. That’s telling. The older they get, the harder the excuses are to believe.

    The classic case I get is someone who claims that they had one bad experience with ‘some feminists’ who just coincidentally acted in a way that anti-feminists love to describe, although the speaker doesn’t remember names or dates or anything. It’s always ‘some’ feminists somewhere. Well, that’s too bad. I got mugged by a black guy. Does that mean I get to hate black guys now, too? I mean, I actually got mugged. You got your feelings hurt. How come it’s okay for you to hate a whole class of people after that? They try to get around that by claiming their dislike is rhetoric, but that the ‘experience’ was so damaging that they were traumatized into avoiding all feminists and feminism but by Golly! they’re going to give you a chance. IF you’re sweet and polite and sugar and spce and nice and cute and patient and devote all your time and attention to them they might just listen to you and deign to acknowledge one or two of your arguments. Or not.

    People who want to learn something take steps. They make an effort. People who are trolls have taken steps—they’ve just taken them in the oppostie direction. They’re not uninformed: they’re hostile. They find feminism so revolting that they MUST harass feminists. There’s a whole continuum there but it starts with making an effort. There’s just no longer any excuse for ignorance now that there’s the internet, and anybody who can’t recognize hatred against women because they feel the same way has more problems than education can solve.

  17. Pingback: Loaded Mouth

  18. I have a feeling that I was one of the people whose responses to SD (and others) prompted this post (or maybe I’m just being too self-centered myself 🙂 ) So I’d like to say that I agree I that it is often hard to tell when someone is being sincere or not and it is very hard to walk that fine line between trying to educate others and letting them derail the conversation. I think you (both) do a good job; that’s why I read your blog.

    I have – at other times and on other blogs – been the person requesting that so and so not be banned or ignored; that a little schooling might help – if not now, then later down the road. But I’ve also gotten more experience since then (and become more frustrated lately) and tend to see less sincere motives where I wouldn’t have before.

    To me, a big red flag is the general request to “enlighten me” (or accusation that one isn’t doing so) as if it’s all everyone else’s responsibility to explain even the basics (rather than clarify or debate specific points). Whether the person is male or female, the topic is feminist or not, it makes sense to me to respond to requests such as this with pointers as to where they may go to find such information rather than turning the conversation into all about them.

    When such “requests” are made on blogs that obviously delve fairly deeply into the topic at hand – I’m even more skeptical than I might be face to face, where such information may not be right in front of their face. So – for better or worse – I tend to respond quite snarkily.

  19. To me, the main question is whether someone discusses things in good faith, regardless of their position or whether they need to be “educated”. Among other things, good faith means recognizing and respecting the essential humanity of everyone in the discussion, and accepting that there will be disagreements between humans. It also means adhering to the civil norms of discussion; that doesn’t always mean formal politeness, it just means not viewing the discussion as a convenient medium for one-sided ranting.

    For example, if Lauren comes over to my blog and gets into a discussion with me about (say) tax policy, and she proves her case, it would be good faith for me to say “wow, you’ve really given me something to think about” or “well, I still don’t think you’re right, but I have to admit that I can’t argue against what you’ve said” or even “nuts, you’re right, I have to agree with you.” It’s bad faith for me to say “yeah, well, I don’t have to listen to you because you’re a [degenerate] [feminist] [other name-calling here]” or to pretend that we were arguing about something else or to feign ignorance of her case.The most common bad-faith tactic I see employed on the internets is “well he’s a patriarchal asshole/feminist tool/fundamentalist jerkwad/atheist scumbag and so I don’t have to treat him as human”.

    Of course, feminists engage in bad-faith discussion all the time; so do ideologues of all stripes and varieties, including mine. Anybody with a strong view or opinion is subject to the all-too-human temptation. Worthwhile writers, commenters, friends, enemies, etc. are the folks who are able to overcome that and have good discussions about contentious things, even with those who hold radically different viewpoints. Lauren has this ability, and makes this blog a worthwhile place to visit, even for people who don’t necessary adhere to the same philosophies and ideals espoused herein. (Hereon?)

  21. To me, the main question is whether someone discusses things in good faith, regardless of their position or whether they need to be “educated”. Among other things, good faith means recognizing and respecting the essential humanity of everyone in the discussion, and accepting that there will be disagreements between humans. It also means adhering to the civil norms of discussion; that doesn’t always mean formal politeness, it just means not viewing the discussion as a convenient medium for one-sided ranting.

    I don’t think that someone who comes into a blog, makes a lot of statements about what feminists do or don’t do, and then, when called on it, falls back on, “I don’t know nothin’ about birthin’ no feminism!” is arguing in good faith.

    Someone who’s acting in good faith might say something like, “Look, I don’t know much about X, but it seems to me that what you’re saying doesn’t make sense because of Y.” And then be open to arguments and/or education to the contrary.

  22. For example, if Lauren comes over to my blog and gets into a discussion with me about (say) tax policy

    If you ran The Tax Policy Blog, it would be bad faith for Lauren to come over and argue that tax policy was stupid and clearly you were all oppressors who think it’s OK to take other people’s money away from them, plus you read somewhere that [a great hero of tax policy theory] once said that the best form of theft was taxation.

  23. I don’t think that someone who comes into a blog, makes a lot of statements about what feminists do or don’t do, and then, when called on it, falls back on, “I don’t know nothin’ about birthin’ no feminism!” is arguing in good faith.

    Me either.

    If you ran The Tax Policy Blog, it would be bad faith for Lauren to come over and argue that tax policy was stupid and clearly you were all oppressors who think it’s OK to take other people’s money away from them, plus you read somewhere that [a great hero of tax policy theory] once said that the best form of theft was taxation.

    Yup. The context is important. What might be a perfectly good faith approach to a discussion of feminism on a blog about paternal custody rights would almost certainly be bad faith here.

    And besides, if I ran the Tax Policy Blog, it would be me arguing that taxes were an oppressive form of theft [grin].

  24. And besides, if I ran the Tax Policy Blog, it would be me arguing that taxes were an oppressive form of theft [grin].

    Sure, if you think that roads and water and schools are a bad idea.

  25. Why are feminists always back-footed in these discussions? To me, if someone announces that he is anti-feminist, that is automatically a very aggressive, sexist, misogynist point of view. Given the standard definition of feminism (equal rights for women), the onus is on HIM to explain where the fuck he’s coming from and to defend his argument as being within the realm of modern civilized discourse.

    It’s rather like someone proclaiming, “I oppose the civil rights movement! It was all bullshit!” Really? People may think that, but racism is sufficiently unacceptable that most people hesitate before claiming it.

    What people DO say out loud, increasingly since the WelfareQueen era of Reagan propaganda, is “I oppose affirmative action. It’s all bullshit. Racism doesn’t exist, and the civil rights movement has run its course.” That’s analogous to the common argument against modern feminism. But the people who make it are usually on the defensive, and are immediately suspected (usually correctly) of being racist. They have to work to differentiate their position from classical racism and to demonstrate that they are being reasonable.

    Why doesn’t the same apply with feminism? Why do we hear this crap and then behave like it’s our job to defend the completely wholesome doctrine of women’s equality, our job to demonstrate that feminism is reasonable? I say fuck that noise.

  26. Why are feminists always back-footed in these discussions? To me, if someone announces that he is anti-feminist, that is automatically a very aggressive, sexist, misogynist point of view. Given the standard definition of feminism (equal rights for women), the onus is on HIM to explain where the fuck he’s coming from and to defend his argument as being within the realm of modern civilized discourse.

    Violet, because in this society it’s still somehow OK for people to say things about women that would earn them a well-deserved FBI file were they to say them about any other sub-group of humans. In any context. And when you take away a person’s right to feel superior to 52% of the human race by default, they’ll have to work really hard to actually try to BE superior. Which would cut in on TV time substantially for a number of years.

  27. Violet, because in this society it’s still somehow OK for people to say things about women that would earn them a well-deserved FBI file were they to say them about any other sub-group of humans.

    BINGO! Give that woman a prize!

    And I still say: fuck that noise.

  28. Most of the time they don’t announce it. They think that if they avoid announcing it, they’re home free and they can’t get called on it. They expect you to believe that it’s just coincidence when they have to think up examples of bad things and their examples are always women. Or they just want to pick apart arguments, looking for small flaws, so they can continue the argument. But they never, ever are honest about what htey’re doing.

Comments are currently closed.