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

A red "Keep Calm" poster with the caption KEEP CALM AND STAY ON TOPIC

Spillover #4

Moderator Team

A red "Keep Calm" poster with the caption KEEP CALM AND STAY ON TOPIC[Thread now closed – Spillover #5 now open]

The third #spillover thread was a month ago, so it’s time to set aside a fourth #spillover as as part of our comment moderation system for keeping other threads on-topic. Some reminders:

#spillover is a constructive space for tangential discussions which are off-topic on other threads. This is part of our blog netiquette, which has the general goal of making it as simple as possible for commentors to find discussions focussed on topics of particular interest without entirely stifling worthwhile tangents of sorta-related or general interest. #spillover is also a space for those ongoing/endless disagreements and 101 issues that just keep on popping up.

Commentors are encouraged to respect the topic of each post and be proactive regarding inevitable thread-drift in long threads: we hope that commentors will cheerfully volunteer to take off-topic responses into #spillover so that each post’s discussion gets room to breathe and tangents can be indulged in a room of their own.

More detailed outline/guidelines were laid out on Spillover #1.
The Moderator Team will enforce topicality where necessary.

122 thoughts on Spillover #4

  1. @ amblingalong – I just wanted to say I really appreciated your reply on the U of AZ thread. Yesterday was full of suck, so I was all braced for who knows what when I checked back in. You’re gracious post was a nice antidote to the day I had.

    FWIW, I am also glad that it’s you (and most of the other ppl arguing 1st A points) making those arguments. If there IS a way to navigate that fraught territory, it will only come about by taking these very important concerns on each side seriously.

  2. [CN: violence against women, internet harassment/bullying]

    So it looks like there’s a university professor with a blog who hasn’t heard about Sarkisian at all, and hasn’t thought of all of the reasons why proposing a video game where you abuse a woman because you don’t like something she did on Kickstarter is a bad idea (however problematic her proposed or past work might be) http://www.ginandtacos.com/2013/05/01/crowdsource-my-documentary-the-slapping-of-amanda-palmer/ .

    1. His documentary (not game) is pretty obviously satire. $20,000 for 6mo of combat slapping training? I hadn’t heard of her or the Kickstarter kerfuffle before this but I’m left with a really sour taste. What happened with Anita Sarkesian was twisted and actually encouraging/enforcing abusive notions, this doesn’t fit the bill.

      It’s not really worth rehashing, but when you present a plan with a price tag, then get 10 times what you budgeted for enlisting free musicians a few months later is gauche. Both my sister and I have played semi-professionally and the shit that gets into people’s heads about compensation and the status of playing music as work doesn’t need any more reinforcing from within. Especially when she’s claiming to step outside of the establishment.

      Also, her poem was about the bombing was….strange.

    2. abuse a woman

      There’s something kind of disingenuous about this. There’s nothing about saying ‘this person is awful and deserves a slap’ that’s gendered in the way ‘this person is awful and should be sexually assaulted’ is. I have a huge problem with people hurling misogynist slurs at, say, Michelle Bachmann, but no problem at all when people (especially the people who her actions directly hurt!) say “yeesh, I want to slap her right now.”

      So equating joking about slapping someone with encouraging domestic violence is… off.

      1. Women are disproportionately affected by domestic violence, which includes slapping. So I’m very uncomfortable with what was said.

        1. Women are disproportionately affected by domestic violence, which includes slapping. So I’m very uncomfortable with what was said.

          That’s true, but the fact domestic violence includes slapping doesn’t mean all references to slapping are references to domestic violence, for the same reason that squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.

          That said, I understand other people were made uncomfortable by this and I’m a dude, so I’m totally open the possibility I’m just completely missing the point.

        2. Fuck, I really didn’t want to but…

          [Trigger: Fish i guess?]
          What slapping can be

          [Trigger: Rape]
          Simulated rape of Katy Perry by AFP and Margaret Cho

          Now, all violence and invasion of personal space like slapping is technically a form of assault. That said, a fantasy of being able to smack someone so out of touch with the impacts of their actions is something I’m sure we’ve all had from time to time. Never having even heard of this woman before the link from Orpho I feel like something, a smack upside the head, a bucket of cold water, a buzzer that goes off every time she issues a “I’m sorry you were offended by what I did” nonpology is in order. Not something I’d do or that I’d think someone actually doing would be smart, but something that the imagining of gives off that warm little glow of justice served.

          That said, if the guy starts in with B’s and C’s he can fuck right off.

        3. Oops, edited out the paragraph after the vids:

          When slapping isn’t domestic violence in the first one. In the second one, we have a great example of where rape is always rape. Yes Katy Perry’s appropriations are bad, but really? REALLY? But it’s trangressive and just meant in good fun. One of her fans comes back when someone brings it up as evidence of her special brand of awful in the Gin and Tacos comment thread with

          Irrelevant again, and actually mildly funny if you were there. And if I was going to point to an “awful person” then Katy Perry might be ‘it’.

        4. While people can fantasize about slapping both women and men, I feel like it gets applied to women more, and I feel like with women there’s the idea that you’re “putting them in their place.” I admit I haven’t thought about it much, but that’s the impression I have.

        5. While people can fantasize about slapping both women and men, I feel like it gets applied to women more, and I feel like with women there’s the idea that you’re “putting them in their place.” I admit I haven’t thought about it much, but that’s the impression I have.

          This is exactly how I feel as well.

        6. While people can fantasize about slapping both women and men, I feel like it gets applied to women more

          I think I agree and that “slapping” in general has a somewhat gendered tone. OTOH, men are IME more often threatened with serious violence in these type of contexts, though. A phrase such as “I would like to beat the shit out of X” is more socially acceptable if X is a man.

          I am not sure what conclusions should be drawn from that.

      2. Trust me, when a man talks about slapping someone, it’s nearly always gendered. In the typical misogynist way of thinking, a slap is a form of punishment reserved for a woman or a child (and it’s tied up with the image of the pimp in popular culture). It’s uber-humiliating for a man to receive a slap because of course the worst thing that could happen to him is to be treated like a woman.

    1. I have mixed feelings about this. It’s potentially a useful exercise and perhaps will make homophobia feel more real to homophobic people who aren’t able to care about the abuse of gay people unless they can imagine them as straight, but I’m generally skeptical about whether those people are reachable anyways. Moreover, it seems problematic– or at least potentially problematic– to frame the discussion this way, because you can’t simply switch out an oppressed group for a privileged group as if the nature of that oppression is without context. It reminds me a bit of the ‘what if black people were in charge’ genre of writing that became briefly popular in the 80s.

      It also doesn’t sit well with me that the woman who wrote and directed the short (who identifies as straight) has berated people who’ve raised those questions about her film.

    2. I’ll admit at the start that I haven’t watched this, but the idea makes me very uncomfortable. There are already so many stories out there about the homophobia faced by actual gay people, but apparently some people can only empathise with those experiences when a cis straight white girl is the victim? Plus, it takes a story about queer experiences and places a straight girl as the protagonist and queer people as the antagonists – as though we’re not even allowed the main roles in our own stories.

      I’ve also read commentary about how the film reinforces problematic stereotypes. An adult lesbian couple are portrayed as having a more masculine parent and a more feminine parent. All the gay guys are into theatre and the lesbians are into sports. Not to mention that I think there isn’t representation of bi and trans* people? It also doesn’t really show the true scope of homophobia – it shows overt hatred but not the millions of subtle microaggressions that LGBTQ* people face every day.

      I’m sure it was well meant, but I’m not sure how much this helps anyone. I suspect that the people who’d sit down to watch it are people who are already onboard; I don’t expect homophobes would take the time to watch it. And then it reinforces stereotypes. The number of LGBTQ* people who have expressed discomfort at this has to be worth something, especially in the face of a film that was supposed to be for us.

      (Which is not a dig at the allies who’ve been circulating this film. As I said, I’m sure it’s all well intended, and by people who genuinely care about our rights.)

    3. I first saw pieces about this when donations were still being sought.

      There is a general trap into which Allies of multiple groups are prone to fall of thinking that one has just invented the wheel for the first time. One would think that nobody had ever had such an idea before (this has actually been done about four or five times hat I’ve seen and likely a good many more in one medium or another, more than once a good deal better – whether because it was done by an actual LGBTQ* person or not may be debatable). A look at comments and tweets shows that there are many other straight people out there full of praise. Some may act and help bring about positive change; others may just feel reinforced in their own privilege by having had the chance to play victim for twenty minutes. The White Knightery implied in the attitude that Finally! Anti-LGBTQ* prejudice will be vanquished because of this Brilliant Work by a Straight Person is cloying, but clearly intentions were good and maybe overall some good will come of it.

      It’s nice to be able to say here that it could have been done better or that it’s a bit grating to see how so many Allies would have us beholden to a Saviour from the Oppressive Group, because, as M? Ambling’s conclusion shows, there’s probably little point in mentioning such a thing to the film’s creator or her legion of (straight) supporters.

      1. thanks for the feedback, I too was very uncomfortable with the stereotypes in the vid, I think it unlikely that anyone it’s meant to convince is going to consider that these are the male/female stereotypes children grow up with mirrored.

  4. So this happened, and the Jez comment section is in a tizzy over who the REAL victim is. Trigger warning for discussion of sexual assault, racialized sexual assault, and victim blaming/slut shaming. I’m not going to go into detail but basically a black male rapper was publicly assaulted by a white female fan onstage, and now people are either a)high-fiving him or b)claiming he assaulted the girl. It’s a really horrible situation and I can only imagine how that guy must feel–especially because rape culture tells him he should have enjoyed it.

    I don’t care for Kitty Pryde in the least, but her response to this incident has made me respect her more as an individual (even if she is a shamelessly culturally appropriating one).

    1. I wonder if Pryde received Brown’s permission before writing publicly about his experiences and defining them for him.

      1. I wonder if Pryde received Brown’s permission before writing publicly about his experiences and defining them for him.

        Sort of like everyone in the feminist blogosphere personally got in touch with the girl assaulted at Stubenville before writing about it?

        1. The only thing wrong with the piece is that they can’t just call it what it is, rape. Danny was raped. The victim-blaming and apologism is nauseating, and personally, it’s even more sickening when the people doing it are ostensible feminists who should know fucking better.

        2. The situations are very different.

          It’s a very important part of advocacy for victims of sexual assault and domestic violence to allow them to define their own experiences and control the narrative. If you are prioritizing your desire to define this situation for yourself and use it in political rhetoric over supporting the victim in their ability to react and process and define the event for themselves then you are exploiting their assault for your own ends.

          It’s very difficult to process something in your own way when many people are discussing it and naming it for themselves and deciding who is villainous and who is virtuous as loudly as they can on the internet.

        3. The situations are very different.

          How?

          deciding who is villainous and who is virtuous as loudly as they can on the internet.

          Villain: rapist. Not hard.

          I assume you’ve made this point on all the other posts on feministe regarding people who’ve been raped or sexually assaulted?

          …no. No you haven’t.

        5. You are obviously not having this discussion in good faith. It is therefore over.

          You assert that this case is different from other rape cases, in a way which makes it not OK to write about, whereas those other cases are OK to write about. When pressed, you couldn’t identify what the reason is, you just tried to shut the whole discussion down.

          So yeah, I’m pretty sure I’m the only one having this conversation in good faith.

        6. It’s very difficult to process something in your own way when many people are discussing it and naming it for themselves and deciding who is villainous and who is virtuous as loudly as they can on the internet.

          I feel like most of the articles I read that aired before Kitty Pryde’s retort were mostly of the “high-five brah,” and “awful rapper does sex act with groupie on stage” replete with how his overly sexualized stage presence created an environment that led to bad. Also that he made some of his fans uncomfortable with what he did to that girl. An article likened him to Morrison with that meltdown in Florida. There are already some classy photoshops of him digging his hand into the woman in questions’ hair just to round things off. The discussion was off to the races before Kitty typed word one.

          They’re touring together, he has the internet, and he’s obviously seen what she wrote as he re-tweeted a link on his twitter. Everyone else had an opinion already, it’s just that none of them viewed him as a victim.

        7. Exactly. Frankly, considering that A4 doesn’t have a problem with writing about other cases of rape or sexual assault, the whole ‘let him define his experience’ thing comes across mostly as ‘don’t write about men who are raped.’

        8. They’re touring together, he has the internet, and he’s obviously seen what she wrote as he re-tweeted a link on his twitter.

          Yes it’s a good sign that he retweeted the link because it supports the idea that she was writing with his approval. I hope that is the case. I hope at least, that he is glad of her support if he agrees with her characterization of events.

        9. On the other hand, he certainly contributes to the idea he might be “oversexed” and stuff like this gives me the impression that it’s very possible he saw it as cool spontaneous head rather than sexual assault.

          Oh, you mean he asked for it?

          Since he has chosen to not comment on this, how can we judge?

          That totally convinced me. In fact, the next time there is a rape mentioned on feministe (say, the more usual type, male on female), i’m going to quote your objection.

        10. @A4

          “The situations are very different.

          It’s a very important part of advocacy for victims of sexual assault and domestic violence to allow them to define their own experiences and control the narrative. If you are prioritizing your desire to define this situation for yourself and use it in political rhetoric over supporting the victim in their ability to react and process and define the event for themselves then you are exploiting their assault for your own ends.”

          I agree 110%

      2. But is this issue really so complex? Is there a plausible argument for how this isn’t racist sexual violence? How is he not the victim, how is she not the perpetrator? Also, since this incident was witnessed by a huge crowd, I would think that multiple voices add to the discourse. I’m a survivor and I get the need for victims to name their own experiences for themselves, but in a society that is more likely to see him as an oversexed brute, we must create space for this black man to define it as violence.

        1. in a society that is more likely to see him as an oversexed brute, we must create space for this black man to define it as violence.

          Totally agree with this!

        2. On the other hand, he certainly contributes to the idea he might be “oversexed” and stuff like this gives me the impression that it’s very possible he saw it as cool spontaneous head rather than sexual assault.

          http://rapgenius.com/Danny-brown-i-will-lyrics

          My point though is that it’s all about his experience of the event, not mine.

        3. On the other hand, he certainly contributes to the idea he might be “oversexed” and stuff like this gives me the impression that it’s very possible he saw it as cool spontaneous head rather than sexual assault.

          Shorter version: he talks/sings a lot about sex so he might be ok with being raped.

          Rape isn’t entirely subjective. Rape can happen to someone who doesn’t define it as rape; for example, someone who’s sleeping and never finds out, or someone who is abused and convinces her/himself that it’s OK behavior.

          And in this case, where there’s no reason to believe the victim feels that the rape was OK, the argument we shouldn’t talk about it or condemn it is fucking nonsense, especially since it hasn’t been raised in all the other cases of people being raped that have came up here. Since the difference between those cases and this one is that this one involves a man being raped, I’m led to believe the logic is essentially “there’s a greater chance the man wanted it, since men want sex more, so it’s less likely to have been rape.”

          If someone has a better, alternate explanation I’m all ears.

        4. On the other hand, he certainly contributes to the idea he might be “oversexed”

          Go to hell, you victim-blaming human excrement.

        6. On the other hand, he certainly contributes to the idea he might be “oversexed”

          Danny: ” not some kind of Caligula-esque exhibitionist sexual deviant” “

          The article does a bit of who he is behind the mic, then blames him and comes down on Kitty for trying to shame the “groupie.” To say that his stage persona justifies any and all sex acts removes his consent from the equation. Hell, with lyrics like that he was asking for it. /snark

          Rape isn’t entirely subjective. Rape can happen to someone who doesn’t define it as rape; for example, someone who’s sleeping and never finds out, or someone who is abused and convinces her/himself that it’s OK behavior.

          Exactly. There’s what’s legally rape and what ethically defines rape. If Danny Brown doesn’t feel he was hurt by his assault, we can argue that it’s pretty fucked up but without a complainant what’re ya gonna do? Legally you have to deal with all that proof, and presumption of innocence and blah blah blah. It’s important, but separate from a moral understanding of the situation.

          From first principles the outcome doesn’t ultimately matter. Someone can rationalize or ultimately decide they were okay with something, but the first actor went into the situation with zero regard for that. Defining an experience and reclaiming agency doesn’t go back in time and magically erase a lack of consent, regard, and human understanding in the first place. He may not consider himself to have been raped, but she would be a rapist.

          Btw Aaliyah, see all the deontology!

        7. Christ, that article is fucking disgusting.

          I’m sure a lot would be at stake for this groupie if her legal name was dropped into this news cycle. I’m sure she has a regular job, and people in her life who she needs to not see her as a complete slut-monster. It’s disappointing that Kitty, who’s previously published article in NOISEY about the burden of being cyber bullied by the masses, would encourage such public shaming.

          How dare that mean, mean Kitty publically say mean things about the woman who raped her friend?

          Fuck the author, fuck A4, fuck the rapist who started the whole thing.

        8. I am with A4 on this part

          My point though is that it’s all about his experience of the event, not mine

          Since he has chosen to not comment on this, how can we judge?

          According to Pryde’s article, it is not clear how much she saw or if she has discussed it with him. She also said that she was much more bothered about it than him. Whether her article is the real deal or just her interpretation is not clear.

          @Willard

          He may not consider himself to have been raped, but she would be a rapist.

          But perhaps only in the same sense as anyone who has ever been woken up by sex or been surprised by some sexual act initiated by another person has been raped. In a literal sense there was not prior consent, but the context matters a lot as to how it should be judged.

          Without knowing how he experienced it, it is hard to judge.

        10. context matters a lot as to how it should be judged.

          The context here, outside of evidence to the contrary, is two strangers in a crowded room.

          I get what you’re saying, if a relationship between two people exists and they’ve defined boundaries (ie. Cosmo(tm) sanctioned wake your man up with a bj) that’s one thing. I have some idea what a surprise sexual act looks like, and the image I see isn’t pleasant. The issue as KP laid it out is that he’s boxed in by societal and genre-specific expectations. Short of essentially destroying his credibility with his fan base (if you check his twitter they’re either jealous some other girl got up on his junk or jealous that he has such an awesome thing happen to him) he’s got either embrace it as amazing or….well ignore that it ever happened. Like Trees said above, space needs to be created to allow him to define it as violence, and that in and of itself is seriously fucked up.

        11. Black man gets raped. Fans react by essentially calling him a lucky bastard. Speculation on whether his oversexed lyrics were a provoking factor ensues.

          Woo, not feeling the racism at all. Though I have to say it’s the first time I’ve seen a male Jezebel-ised….

          Fascinated to know if Britney Spears being trafficked and raped would be attributed to her singing “I’m a Slave 4 U”.

        12. Since he has chosen to not comment on this, how can we judge?

          Good point. For that matter, who knows if the Stubenville victim was actually totally down with what happened? I haven’t heard her side of the story- I guess I better reevaluate all those condemnations.

        13. Woo, not feeling the racism at all. Though I have to say it’s the first time I’ve seen a male Jezebel-ised….

          Thanks for highlighting this. I wish I could say it was the first time for me, too, but it’s a pretty persistent dynamic. I remember being told something almost identical in college.

        14. I wish I could say it was the first time for me, too, but it’s a pretty persistent dynamic.

          I’ll file that under “things that infinitely depress me to know” and also “things I’m depressed that I believe so readily”.

        15. I’ll file that under “things that infinitely depress me to know” and also “things I’m depressed that I believe so readily”.

          Well said. Those files, especially the second one, are too large already.

          In college a friend-of-a-friend spent a year following me around (you know, “oh, what a surprise running into you here, on the route to class you take every day!”), sending me explicit pictures of herself, and getting grabby at parties. I still remember the exact combination of shock and amusement on a particular school administrator’s face when she heard that I was upset by the sexual conduct of not just a woman, but a white woman.

          I hate the word misandry and I won’t use it here, but the combination of the… anti-male products of misogyny, I guess?… which hold that men always desire sex and will never say no (and don’t mean it when they do), with racism and a sense of ownership of black people’s bodies, combine in a really toxic way.

        16. In college a friend-of-a-friend spent a year following me around … sending me explicit pictures of herself, and getting grabby at parties.

          Holy fuck. That is not okay. D: I’m sorry that happened to you.

        17. Holy fuck. That is not okay. D: I’m sorry that happened to you.

          Thanks Macavity, you’re the best.

          Oddly enough- and I understand how weird this makes me seem- the harassment itself wasn’t what got to me. Sure, it was frustrating and a little frightening, but I’d been through worse. What really shook me badly was how almost everyone around me reacted; the guys generally told me I should be proud/excited/questioned whether I was a ‘real man’ (with all the implicit homophobia that brings), while our female friends mostly thought I was being an asshole for not reciprocating and ‘hurting her feelings.’ Direct quote: “if you keep doing this you’re basically saying she’s ugly.”

          I don’t want or need to derail this into a thread all about me- I have new friends, and I’m well past it- but I do think that dynamic is relevant to stories like this and needs to be brought out into the light. It’s also the reason I went off on A4, and stand by every word I wrote.

        19. @Safiya Outlines

          Thanks for the link, I had forgot about that late night talk show incident.

        20. @ Safiya Outlines

          I never saw this, thanks for linking it. Guess not having TV has its perks and disadvantages.

  5. Do feminists use cherry picked data and statistics? Do they exaggerate do get their agenda across?

      1. Do some people use cherry picked data and statistics? Do they exaggerate to get their agenda across?

        No, everyone behaves completely rationally at all times. That’s why we solved all the worlds problems aeons ago and now live in utopian cube structures where we are all wired into the same unimatrix. Resistance is futile.

      1. Due to Jeff’s inability to understand that the combination of two simple phrases such as “take this to #spillover” and “you are no longer welcome on this thread” meant that he needed to stop commenting on the Open Thread entirely, he has now been plonked, so I’m afraid that we may never know which compelling examples Jeff was about to unveil. A heavy burden to bear, isn’t it?

        1. Somehow, I think my life will go on. Just let me grab a pint of ice cream and a Titanic DVD…

        2. And Jeff just entered plonkville over on Hoyden About Town after following me there to attempt some more thread-jacking. Slow learner, isn’t he?

        3. Geez that’s some kind of dedication, you’d think he’d get bored. Maybe he could start watching funny kitty cat videos on youtube and take up knitting, works for me anyway.

        4. Thanks, tigtog. I don’t know if you were around here often when he posted more, but ever since I first saw his comments I’ve seen him as yet another example of an insufferable “egalitarian.”

          One time he was being persistently condescending to nearly everyone, and I told him to fuck off. In response, he told me that I need to get rid of the hatred in my heart.

          1. As you should now see from the de-spaminated comments abovebelow, Jeff has moved on to threats of violence. I’ll be forwarding these to the police in Tallahassee, Florida with details of his three different email addresses and his IP address (eta: which does indeed resolve to Tallahassee, Florida).

        5. Wow, that’s disgusting. And unfortunately not surprising, considering how awful most anti-feminist “egalitarians” and MRAs are.

          Fuck off, Jeff.

        6. Tigtog, thanks for taking action. I’ll count myself lucky that I’m unfamiliar with Jeff’s commenting history.

          2. How interesting. downforeveryoneorjustme.com tells me that http://www.talgov.com/ is up for others, but I can’t get to it at all, and the IP lookup shows me that Jeff’s IP address is right around Tallahassee City Hall. I don’t want to speculate unduly about how access from Australia to that site might manage to be blocked by somebody with admin privs on certain servers, but I note the possibility.

      2. the head of a giraffe against a bright blue sky: its mouth is pursed sideways

        ::: LOL! I haven’t read the comments policy that specifically names morphing to bypass moderation as unacceptable commenting behaviour! Because what are you gonna do about that? Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy:::

        [Moderator note – ORIGINAL COMMENT CONTENT HAS BEEN FLUFFINATED]

        1. the head of a giraffe against a bright blue sky: its mouth is pursed sideways

          Content Note: threats of violence. Moderator Note: Comment retrieved from spambucket as evidence of bad faith.

          I’m going to go out tonight and find a women to treat as kind as you treat others. The way you verbally abuse and talk down on men. Only thing is, I’m physical.

  6. the head of a giraffe against a bright blue sky: its mouth is pursed sideways

    Content Note: threats of violence. Moderator Note: Comment retrieved from spambucket as evidence of bad faith.

    I’m going to go out tonight and treat a women as nice as you have treated me. Im a physical person though. Verbal abuse isn’t my thing.

  7. the head of a giraffe against a bright blue sky: its mouth is pursed sideways

    Content Note: threats of violence. Moderator Note: Comment retrieved from spambucket as evidence of bad faith.

    You will see it in the papers. Tallahassee florida.

    1. Ugh. Just further evidence that self-identified progressive left-wing men can be every bit as violently misogynistic as their right-wing brethren, if a woman dares to stand up to them.

      My mother told me once that this was her experience in the mid- to late-1940’s when she was (rather briefly) a member of the CPUSA (and the Freie Deutsche Jugend before that), and sometimes I think that things haven’t changed so much in the interim.

      I know it’s a horrible generalization, but there are times I really start to dislike straight men, and have to remind myself that I know for a fact that they aren’t all complete assholes,

      1. I don’t have to hate my bird to know that he is likely to bite me if I don’t take care in my approach. Not a perfect analogy (because if analogies were perfect they would be examples!) but I think there’s a good point there.

      2. I know it’s a horrible generalization, but there are times I really start to dislike straight men, and have to remind myself that I know for a fact that they aren’t all complete assholes

        I don’t want to presume to speak for you (especially as, you know, a straight man myself) but when it comes to identities which I’m oppressed by, I often remind myself that I don’t hate (for example) white people, I hate whiteness. Perhaps in your case it would be accurate to say that while you know not all straight men are assholes, the social grouping and power base we call straight men is full of assholery, since it’s constructed in an oppressive way. Or not, just a thought.

      3. My mother told me once that this was her experience in the mid- to late-1940′s when she was (rather briefly) a member of the CPUSA (and the Freie Deutsche Jugend before that), and sometimes I think that things haven’t changed so much in the interim.

        Donna that’s really interesting. Ever since Maggie Thatcher died I’ve been revisiting my union/labor playlists on Pandora and returning to some reading on the CPUSA and CIO solidarity blind-spots of the last century (generally centered along racial/gender axes). With the brave new economy we’re in I cry when I imagine the ground they gave up by ignoring the typing pools and temps of the past. With the collapse of blue-collar manufacturing Kelly, Manpower, et al have risen to heights undreamed of in the past and it’s shitty as hell. I’ve had to purge every version of “Union Maid” from my channels out of disgust.

  8. I wanted to share a link to this story out of honor for the women (and men) in my lives who have had to endure the threat of sexual violence – or sexual violence made real – while in the military:

    Air Force Sex-Abuse Prevention Officer Commits Sexual Battery

    I’ve always known the Air Force was the worst service in the military to serve in, but this is… really remarkably bad.

  9. Since macavitykitsune asked about the defintion of neutrois, I thought I would explain it to the best of my ability here. I would love it if any other neutrois people could weigh in as well.

    The first google results to pop up are crappy, I admit; I think like a lot of sites they seek to be as inclusive as possible with the term definitions, and end up coming across as vague and meaningless.

    Neutrois people are genderless, neutral-gendered or null-gendered (which sounds vague again, but they all mean the same or pretty similar things). Unlike poeple that simply ID as one of those terms (or agender), neutrois carries specific connotations that make many people use it instead.

    Neutrois as an identity has a stronger association with such experiences as dysphoria, wanting to transition, etc.

    Most neutrois people actively want to rid themselves of outward sex characteristics.

    That’s why I use the term, as opposed to something like null-gendered, because in general, among people that are familiar with the term neutrois and other non-binary genders, identifying as neutrois specifically codes those things.

    That’s why there is the acronym FtN (female to neutrois) for people like myself, but there isn’t really an equivilent for many other non-binary identities. “female to agendered” for instance, will turn up less than 10 results in google. “female to neutrois” however, will turn up 29,000 results.

    It’s a gender identity that is very well known in ace spaces, but fairly unknown elsewhere. And it is not easy to get surgery or hormones as a neutrois (or for any non-binary seeking those things).

    Anyway, I’ve probably worded something confusingly (tireeed) but no offense it intended. I’m certainly not an expert on these things. I hoep that clears things up a bit.

    1. Thank you very much for the info, Barnacle. I think I see where you’re coming from much better, with this. I also see how referring to you as non-trans is both kind of accurate and incredibly not-accurate, since you are transitioning, just not to another gender. (I’m having difficulty bending the language to this concept, but I do understand where you’re coming from. It’s sort of the gender equivalent of aromantic asexuality, yes?)

      1. incredibly not-accurate

        I respectfully disagree. But have no interest in getting into a discussion of the difference.

      2. Glad it helped Mac 🙂

        In my case, I do think of myself as having a gender; it’s just neither male nor female, and not masculine or feminine.

        It’s possibly just a semantic point, where many people simply label such a feeling being without gender (genderless, agender), and other people label that feeling of being neither man nor woman as a gender that they call null-gender or gender-neutral or some other varient.

        In my case, I have known since I was a child that I was neither a girl or a boy. I had a very strong sense of being neither. We always had the “girls line up on this side, boys on the other”, and while I knew which one they wanted me in, I always felt it put out that there wasn’t a third line for people like me.

        If it’s easier to think of it only as genderlessness, that works too.

        As far as being like aromanticism, the analogy does seem sound. (Disclaimer: I’m not aromantic so I don’t know best on that) Aromantic being not romantic, and neutrois being not gendered.

        1. Hmm. That makes sense to me. You’re sort of my polar opposite, actually, lol.

          So, I guess a follow-up question would be: would you identify as transgender? I mean, from your initial comment I could make a case for both yes and no, personally, but this comment, and the one you made below, makes me wonder whether going from a gender to no gender is transition in the strict sense of it, as someone MtF or FtM would understand it. It’s sort of like I’d hesitate to say that someone’s orientation “changed to” asexual, because asexuality isn’t incompatible with homo/hetero/pan/bisexuality, and it is possible to be ace and also any of those, afaict anyway. (It’s also possible to be just plain asexual-and-aromantic, too. I’m not neglecting that.) It seems like saying you’re transgender would be to paste a gender on you, when it sounds like having any gender at all would induce dysphoria for you…?

          I’m sorry I’m chucking all these questions at you, please feel free to not answer if you’d rather not. I’d go hang out at ace spaces, but even if I feel like I’m on the spectrum, I’d feel weirdly appropriative and intrusive asking questions there because I’m in a sexual relationship.

        2. I do consider myself transgender. Most binary trans and non-binary people that I know count neutrois as transgender.

          Being treated as having a gender, if it’s a correct one (in my case, a third gender, a neutral gender) doesn’t cause me dysphoria. I can’t speak though for people that consider themselves genderless and neutrois; to them the idea of moving toward a third gender instead of moving towards genderlessness might be a problem.

          I think of transition as moving my female sex toward a neutrois sex, to fit my neutrois (neutral) gender. I want to be treated as a neutrois person, rather than as a female person.

          Hey, ask away, I have no problem. And you know, you have every right to ace spaces; it doesn’t matter where you’re at on the spectrum. I’ve never seen you be anything other than sensitive about gender and sexual minorities; I doubt you could tick anyone off (it’s more likely to be the other way around, I’m afraid).

    2. I’m really curious what the terms dysphoria and transitioning actually mean in this context, or rather what a neutrois body is supposed to look like?

      To be honest, the few people I know who identify as neutrois (or as agender) are all CAFAB and want to present ‘androgynous’ or genderless, which they define as having a flat chest, slim hips and thighs and wearing clothing from the men’s department. To me this is just conflating gender-neutrality with masculinity, ie. femme-phobia or internalised misogyny.

      As an intersex woman and a trans-ally, I feel really alienated by the appropriation of our language and narratives. And as a queer person, I’m kind of pissed off when I see people who are CAFAB, presenting as female all the time, going by female pronouns etc. but identify as agender calling themselves queer when they’re exclusively attracted to men.

      1. I don’t know if I should describe some ideal neutrois body, because like with anything, it varies. Many FAAB and MAAB neutrois want to arrive at the same place: no genitalia, no secondary sex characteristics. There are a lot of other common traits, but they depend on how one wants to be read. Some people go all in for trying to present as gender neutral or gender ambigous as possible, while others are just happy to have their bodies match their ideal.

        I don’t think most FAAB neutrois are conflating gender neutrality with masculinity. None of the traits you listed read as particularly masculine to me, or belonging exclusively to males. Most of us had flat chests originally, and it’s curvy chests that cause us to be read as female, in addition to the dysphoria breasts cause many of us. The same can go for wide hips versus slim ones.

        You haven’t mentioned, for instance, FAAB neutrois acquaintances wanting hairy chests, or broad shoulders, or a deeper voice, or anything very strongly associated with males.

        As far as clothing, it seems reasonable to me that many FAAB gender neutral people want to wear “masculine” clothing, and that many MAAB gender neutral people will want to wear “feminine” clothing; even after surgery and/or hormone therapy, many of us will still look in a way that leans toward our assigned at birth sex, and may feel the need for using gendered props to help counteract still feminine-leaning or masculine-leaning looks.

        I’m open to hearing more about what you have to say on internalized misogyny among FAAB neutrois though, because this is something I have contemplated a lot.

        Obviously when many people hear that a female-bodied person wants to have their breasts and genitals removed, the question will come to mind of whether it is some kind of self-hatred, or disgust over the female body. It’s a somewhat valid question, given the way society attacks and puts down the female body.

        In the end, however, I feel that it’s a question each neutrois (or other non-binary gendered FAAB) should ask and examine for theirself, it’s not to be decided by other people.

        Now as far as CAFABs presenting as female, calling themselves queer, and dating exclusively males… I’m afraid I can’t say anything definitive on that, since I don’t fit the bill.

        I would like to know more about the appropriation issue. I know some people think even the term “CAFAB” is appropriating the language of intersex people, which is why I try to use FAAB. Like with so many things with social justice, there are conflicting viewpoints and it’s hard to tell what appropriate actions are.

  11. I doubt that had anything to do with who you were “wisecracking” about, Barnacle Strumpet.

    If you have any further snide insinuations to make about our moderation team, at least have the courtesy to do so on a #spillover thread.

    Since tig-tog asked me to bring this here, I will.

    First of all, I take umbrage at anyone saying I was making “snide insinuations”. I would love to know what I was “snidely insuating” (tone argument much?).

    I don’t think I “insinuated” anything. I straight up told macavitykitsune that comments of mine about Shakesville had been scrubbed. If anyone on the moderation team would like to dispute that, go right ahead.

    Is that a taboo? I thought it was perfectly within reason to warn another poster that certain subjects or words might get them put in moderation or get their posts scrubbed.

    I would love it if someone would clarify; is it off-limits to warn other people that something they’re saying may make them fall afoul of the sites rules?

    As for the word I chose, “wisecrack” that is, in my humble opinion, giving the benefit of the doubt to whoever scrubbed the post (since I am making the generous assumption that they assumed I was being a smartass, when I wasn’t; the alternative is that it was scrubbed for no reason whatsoever).

    le done! As always, I don’t insinuate things. I tell ’em how it is. Thank you, thank you very much.

    1. As an expert in snide shots at moderators I give this a 10. Still, how many commenters can dance on the head of a banhammer?

    2. First of all, I take umbrage at anyone saying I was making “snide insinuations”. I would love to know what I was “snidely insuating” (tone argument much?).

      You were snidely insinuating that the moderation team has a bias towards Shakesville.

      I straight up told macavitykitsune that comments of mine about Shakesville had been scrubbed. If anyone on the moderation team would like to dispute that, go right ahead.

      So many of your comments have been deleted for being off-topic or prolonging a derail or being judgemental in an unacceptably personal manner that I doubt any of us can remember whether one of them happened to be about Shakesville or not.

      Is that a taboo? I thought it was perfectly within reason to warn another poster that certain subjects or words might get them put in moderation or get their posts scrubbed.

      I would love it if someone would clarify; is it off-limits to warn other people that something they’re saying may make them fall afoul of the sites rules?

      It’s certainly not off-limits to let another poster know that “certain subjects or words might get them put in moderation or get their posts scrubbed”, but when the particular “subjects or words” you claim will do that are not in fact “subjects or words” that will do that, then the moderators are going to make a point of pointing out that your claim is not true.

      1. You were snidely insinuating that the moderation team has a bias towards Shakesville.

        No, I wasn’t. I suggested that someone on the mod team was very familiar with Shakesville and must have liked it–because I was operating under the premise that Mac was correct, and that the mod must have assumed I was ragging on a particular poster there–it seemed like a good reason why a post would be scrubbed.

        As I said, the obvious reason why a person could look at a someone referring to a post on a site and knowing instantly which author they were referencing without checking is… if they were an avid reader who was quite familiar with the postings at such blog.

        That, to me, doesn’t imply bias–it implies familiarity. The “someone on the mod team likes it” is because usually people won’t read every blog post on a place unless they really like it.

        I didn’t insinuate that the mod team had a bias for Shakesville, because I didn’t think anyone had a bias for Shakesville.

        Now that’s changed, and I’m not going to insinuate anything. Now, I think there’s a bias, because I can’t see why you’d be defensive (to the point of insulting me) and jumping to the conclusion that I was making this insinuation that had frankly never occured to me; unless there actually WAS a bias.

        Where there’s smoke, there’s fire, etc. The only difference is, I didn’t see any smoke, but you apparently did, to the extent that you felt the need to defend against it.

        So many of your comments have been deleted for being off-topic or prolonging a derail or being judgemental in an unacceptably personal manner that I doubt any of us can remember whether one of them happened to be about Shakesville or not.

        Wrong! Sorry, but that’s 100% dead wrong dear mod, unless you went to go back to go all the way back to when I was a teenager posting here. Mods have said “keep it on topic Barnacle” or “stop making x comments Barnacle” but posts being deleted? The Shakesville one is literally the only one that’s been deleted or scrubbed, as far as I can remember. Which seems odd, given that I’m apparently such a rude off-topic derailing judgemental person.

        It’s certainly not off-limits to let another poster know that “certain subjects or words might get them put in moderation or get their posts scrubbed”, but when the particular “subjects or words” you claim will do that are not in fact “subjects or words” that will do that, then the moderators are going to make a point of pointing out that your claim is not true.

        So if my Shakesville post referencing the Brave post wasn’t being deleted for being suspected of targeting a specific poster, like Mac thought, *why* was it deleted? I can’t see any reason why my comment on the matter was any worse in any way (off-topicness, judgementalness, anything) than Mac’s.

        is this the case of what’s good for the goose in fact, not being good for the gander? *I* am not allowed to say anything about Shakesville, but other posters can call them bizarre?

        Good to know, will keep that in mind.

        1. Barnacle Strumpet, you are adducing a whole bunch of facts not in evidence.

          I went back and looked at that thread (where Donna merely mentioned a giraffe, but didn’t actually send a giraffe alert), which was about Jill’s post on women changing their surnames on marriage. Donna mentioned Melissa’s post offering a critique of Jill’s post, which is clearly on-topic. By your own account, you then mentioned an entirely different post of Melissa’s about the movie Brave, which I can only assume was deleted because it was totally off-topic with respect to women changing their surnames on marriage.

          In the current thread on Caperton’s pretty ugly world post from which I have redirected you, xenu01 mentioned Shakesville as a possible community that kungfulola might like to be part of, as part of an on-topic response. Mac offered a discommendation based on her own experiences there, which is also an on-topic response. You then warned Mac about criticising Shakesville because of your assumption that it would be negatively viewed by the mod-team, which was (a) off-topic because it had nothing to do with the on-topic responses of kungulola/xenu01/mac, and (b) counter-factual, therefore it is being strongly rebutted.

          With regard to my remarks about deleting other comments of yours, if I have misremembered how many of your posts I have deleted because I’ve mistaken you for somebody else, then I apologise, but that is my personal impression of my own moderation decisions over the last few months. Of course, once a comment has been deleted it is no longer part of our database so can no longer be examined. However, on multiple threads many other commentors have criticised you for the faults that I mentioned, and I believe that you would be a much more substantive contributor if you took the time to double-check whether your comments are actually on-topic rather than a digression from somebody else’s comment, to double-check that you weren’t prolonging an existing derail, and to double-check that you’re not being overly personal in expressing your negative opinions.

        2. tigtog, I don’t think asking something like “Shakesville? Isn’t that the place where they said Brave is racist against Scottish people?” is off-topic. It’s a question, which some people apparently take as snidery.

          Which is overestimating Shakesville’s popularity imo; the Brave post is literally the only thing I remember about Shakesville, and that’s because it was mentioned in fandom circles. I’m not familiar with Shakesville, I don’t know any of the writers or posters there.

          As for my later post/warning to mac… if it’s not appropriate to make a warning about a potential danger! subject someone is treading onto in a reply to that danger!subject post, where should such warnings go?

          Sure, there’s spillover, but the only way to direct the danger!poster that you want to warn them in spillover is to, you know, make a comment saying “X thing you said is dangerous, I’ll post about it in spillover” which…. just seems like it’s doing the exact same thing, warning them in the post *and* being all cryptically weird “~tell you more in spillover ;)~”

          As for my faults, I’m always willing to improve. I’ll watch the negativity thing; as far as derailing, I try my best, but I can always wait on posting a little longer and exercise more scrutiny of my responses.

          As far as judgementalism… well, no luck on that one; I have no plan on giving a free pass from judgement to racists, sexists, homophobes, or people who perpetuate and profit from racist, sexism, or homophobia (or any other form of discrimination), which is what the accusations of “judgemental!” and “sanctimonious!” are over.

          1. tigtog, I don’t think asking something like “Shakesville? Isn’t that the place where they said Brave is racist against Scottish people?” is off-topic. It’s a question, which some people apparently take as snidery.

            Barnacle Strumpet, any question one asks on any thread which is not directly related to the topic of the thread is off-topic. It is not enough that one’s question may seem to be a natural tangent/segue from a previous comment, for it to be on-topic it has to address the subject of the thread.

            By two accounts, your comment was far more flamey than what you report above, too. Off-topic questions that act as flamebait are potentially a trigger for a derail, and are thus a more notable breach of our comment guidelines than other off-topic questions tend to be.

            As for my later post/warning to mac… if it’s not appropriate to make a warning about a potential danger! subject someone is treading onto in a reply to that danger!subject post, where should such warnings go?

            I’ve already said that the act of making a warning was not inappropriate. The claim you made in that warning was challenged on the basis of factuality, not appropriateness. Because discussing the factuality of your claim was off-topic on that thread, I directed further discussion to #spillover.

            Thank you for showing willingness to watch the negativity and derailing. Sadly your last paragraph about judgmentalism is back to insinuations about others implied by the catalogue of self-praise. It rather undermines the previous.

        3. I have no plan on giving a free pass from judgement to racists, sexists, homophobes, or people who perpetuate and profit from racist, sexism, or homophobia (or any other form of discrimination), which is what the accusations of “judgemental!” and “sanctimonious!” are over.

          Yes, I’m sure the only problem anyone has had with you ever is that you’re just soooo perfect on everything social justice related that we’re all jealous and insecure about it.

        5. mac, I don’t think anyone is jealous or insecure about my social justice stances. I also don’t think that by saying “I refuse to tolerate homophobia, racism, etc” that I am praising myself. I don’t think the refusal to tolerate such things should be noteworthy or worthy of praise; it is probably the bare minimum required of a decent human being (or dog :P).

          I’m pretty sure I’m correct on this one point though–I don’t remember any threads other than the Christian college thread where anyone had an issue with me being “judgemental”. Donna (and probably you too) mentioned me as being judgemental *in* other posts, but I still think it was in reference to your conversations with me in the CC thread.

          I’m sorry to hear you’ve been having a bad day. I hope it gets better. I like you, pissy rudeness and all 😛

  12. Barnacle, your comment about Shakesville in that thread about changing names was completely off-topic, had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the post of hers that I linked to, and was (as I recall) not simply critical, but extremely snide, about Melissa. Which was why I objected to it. Shakesville isn’t for lots of people, and people have expressed critical opinions about Shakesville here on other occasions without being reprimanded or having their comments deleted.

    By the way, speaking of always telling ’em how it is, you vowed that you would eat your hat if it were demonstrated that you had, in fact, erased my family history by making the claim that I had no right to speak about the racist history of equating marginalized people with animals. Could you please put the video up on You Tube showing you doing so, and post a link to it? Until you do, I’m afraid you’ve lost a lot of credibility as a latter-day Howard Cosell.

    1. Since I have no clue who Melissa is, I somehow doubt I was being snide about her.

      As for the hat, I’ll post a video as soon as I can get my apetite up for it. Till then I’m afraid you’ll just have to live in doubt.

      1. Since I have no clue who Melissa is, I somehow doubt I was being snide about her.

        I really cannot tell whether you are being disingenuous or wilfully obtuse, but neither is a good look. Since by both mac and Donna’s account your comment was making mock of the author of the Brave post on Shakesville (a post which you admit above you had not even read for yourself, only read about on other forums), then you were being snide about Melissa whether you knew her name or not.

        1. Calling someone disengous (implying they’re trying to deceive) or that they’re alternatively obtuse (you’re calling me slow? really?) is pretty insulting. I am confused–I don’t know what I did to piss in your cheerios, but I’m sorry? Like, I am honestly legit curious as to why this has set you off so much that you feel the need to insult me over and over again.

          Like yeah you’re a mod and you can insult me all you like, but I honestly don’t have a clue why you’re so ticked at me.

          No, I don’t know who Melissa is (other than that now, by what you all have been saying, she’s the author of the Brave post). My point is I wasn’t going “Oh, Melissa, that bizarre wacko” or something.

          And I did read the post? I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that I didn’t? It was linked on a fandom comm somewhere or other.

          Mac didn’t say my Brave comment was making mock; she said my comments on the post were judgy. Whole different story.

          1. Calling someone disengous (implying they’re trying to deceive) or that they’re alternatively obtuse (you’re calling me slow? really?) is pretty insulting.

            I said “wilfully obtuse” i.e. stubbornly clinging to an irrelevant point. It has nothing to do with intellect and everything to do with unwillingness to admit an error. Either you know that you were in error and are arguing anyway (disingenuous) or you still refuse to see that you were in error for some reason (wilfully obtuse).

            Like, I am honestly legit curious as to why this has set you off so much that you feel the need to insult me over and over again.

            You made a factually incorrect claim about moderation practice, and you are refusing to simply acknowledge that you were factually incorrect about that. Instead you are concentrating on defending something you said months ago, over the deletion of which you appear to have been nursing a grudge, and about which you are refusing to consider alternate explanations about why it was moderated.

            And I did read the post? I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that I didn’t? It was linked on a fandom comm somewhere or other.

            You wrote “the Brave post is literally the only thing I remember about Shakesville, and that’s because it was mentioned in fandom circles”. That does not make it clear that you read the post, although I see now it also doesn’t explicitly say that you didn’t read the post. My apologies for drawing the wrong conclusion.

        2. You made a factually incorrect claim about moderation practice, and you are refusing to simply acknowledge that you were factually incorrect about that. Instead you are concentrating on defending something you said months ago, over the deletion of which you appear to have been nursing a grudge, and about which you are refusing to consider alternate explanations about why it was moderated.

          Well, at least that clears some things up (mainly, why you’re ticked). You think I’m arguing for something that I’m not.

          I don’t have a dog in this lot. I have nothing to gain from arguing about your moderation system; I don’t care if it’s wrong or right, or how point A differs from point B. I only care about obtaining the necessary understanding of the way it works so that I can coexist here. I don’t care if you want to delete every comment about figs; or make it against the rules to talk about any history pre-1700s. There’s nothing I can do about that. I don’t care why you don’t want me to talk about figs, I simply ask questions so that I can make sure I won’t get banned for talking about parsimmons as well.

          I’ve been seeking understanding here. You’ve been seeking–some kind of acknowledgement from me? I still don’t understand very well the rules concerning this issue.

          You just think I’m being “wilful” and “refusing” to understand so you’re angry. Like I said, what do I have to gain from such a thing?

          As for a grudge, no. If I had a problem with my post being deleted, I would have made a comment about it on spillover then.

          As for defending, no. Simply clarifying, since I’m the only one that remember the contents of my comment–no surprise, since I’m the one that wrote it. It’s hard to discuss why a comment was modded/scrubbed when no one even knows what the post said–hence my attempts to clarify–so that I could better understand what is and isn’t permissible to say.

          Anyway, i apologize if I haven’t made much sense. I’ve been at work since 4 in the morning, and I generally try to avoid commenting on here (or anywhere else) when I come home, since my posts tend to be incomprensible gibberish even to me when I do so.

          Perhaps I’ll have an easier time understanding your above explanation on the mod rules after some sleep.

          (as for “obtuse”, it has “slow-witted” listed as a synonym of it, which is enough to keep me from lobbing it at anyone as an insult).

        3. I’ve been seeking understanding here. You’ve been seeking–some kind of acknowledgement from me?

          It’s called submission. Tigtog is looking for some form of submission. Tigtog believes strongly in the moral structure of her commenting guidelines and does not like seeing them maligned.

          That’s my conclusion anyway, since she keeps outlining her justifications for moderative action regarding your comments and defending the just and precise natures of her insults towards you.

          It all just looks like a big power trip to me, but who doesn’t enjoy a nice power trip now and then?

          1. The commenting guidelines are based on pragmatic methods of keeping discussions on-topic, not predicated on any moral structure.

            I don’t seek submission. I don’t seek aquiescence to the correctness of my opinion in general, although of course I will argue for my point of view. In this particular case, I seek evidence that Barnacle Strumpet actually understands the guidelines in terms of what on-topic means, because that is the answer to the stated goal “I only care about obtaining the necessary understanding of the way it works so that I can coexist here”, and so far xe* has claimed that xe doesn’t see what makes the difference between comments I have identified as on-topic and comments I have identified as off-topic.

            As to my insults: like anybody else, my patience occasionally runs out when I perceive bullshit being served up. On the specific claim of xe’s I quoted, which was that xe was unlikely to be being snide about someone whose name xe didn’t know, that particular claim is obvious bullshit because many people are snide about the appearance and actions of strangers on the street/bus/train/television on any random day (in fact, whole television shows are predicated on encouraging the audience to be snide about the flaws and foibles of anonymous people), and I do believe that obvious bullshit that insults my intelligence justifies insults in return. On my best days, I might just shrug and be super-patient and generous about challenging the bullshit, but I don’t feel that I’m obliged to always handle it that way.

            * I’m using xe because I’m not sure of Barnacle Strumpet’s preferred pronoun. If it’s something different, please let me know so I can use it in future.

          2. TigTog is one of the Feministe moderators. She does a difficult and fantastic and often thankless job. Future insults or suggestions that she’s on a “power trip” will be met with a ban by me. Because I am on a power trip.

          3. I appreciate the support, Jill.

            I suggest that since Barnacle Strumpet has said that xe’s taking time off to catch up on much-needed sleep, that the rest of us refrain from adding to this discussion until xe returns to the thread.

            [comment has been edited to correct a pronoun]

        4. Tigtog believes strongly in the moral structure of her commenting guidelines and does not like seeing them maligned.

          Speaking specifically to this point: saying “X will get you moderated” when it won’t does seem like a thing that any mod would have an issue with. I’d be pissed if tomek came here, or to other blogs where I comment, and said that I put him on automod because he’s a man, because that is patently not true. Barnacle wasn’t being malicious about it, but believing the misconception needed correcting seems pretty fair to me.

          @Barnacle, the things I remember that were judgy were on that thread specifically. I don’t recall having butted heads with you on other threads, except the LGBT Soup one, which I recall being pretty polite where our particular conversation was concerned, anyway.

      2. No, I don’t know who Melissa is (other than that now, by what you all have been saying, she’s the author of the Brave post).

        Then how did you know she was the same person who wrote the post on changing names, which is what precipitated your comment in the first place?

        1. I didn’t? Like I’ve been saying, my comment was about Shakesville. I didn’t name any particular writer. You listed http://www.shakesville.com, which is what I noticed.

          You also mentioned one “Melissa McEwan” (or something like that) but I didn’t connect that to the Brave post, because I didn’t remember the name of the author who wrote it.

          I don’t get how that is strange? Like if I was talking about Feministe, I’d say “Feministe has posts about abortion like every other day”. It would be weird (to me anyway) to single out tigtog or Caperton or Jill like: “Jill has posts about abortion every other day”. I don’t often remember who authors posts here, or anywhere else really, unless it’s a one-person blog.

          Am I unusual in that?

          1. Nobody said anything about you mentioning Shakesville was “strange”. They’ve said it was (a) an off-topic digression, and (b) snidely phrased.

            Looking at the formatting of the moderator note on the scrubbed comment, it is likely that it was me who decided to delete the content. I don’t remember exactly what you wrote, but since I chose to include “snide” in my moderator note, it’s clear that I agreed with mac and Donna that your comment was in fact snide as well as off-topic. Despite your claim upthread, it is possible to be snide about people whose names one doesn’t know.

            The point that you are refusing to consider is that it doesn’t actually matter who or what you were being snide about. Off-topic + snidery = potential derail, therefore triggers moderation.

          2. Like if I was talking about Feministe, I’d say “Feministe has posts about abortion like every other day”. It would be weird (to me anyway) to single out tigtog or Caperton or Jill like: “Jill has posts about abortion every other day”. I don’t often remember who authors posts here, or anywhere else really, unless it’s a one-person blog.

            Am I unusual in that?

            Probably not as unusual as it should be, IMO. I take pains to attribute posts to individual authors because group blogs are not a hivemind. Clumping all authors of a blog together is a category error which leads to unwarranted assumptions and other logical fallacies.

    2. Okay, for future operation: Giving an accurate warning about anything another commenter is saying on-post = on topic.

      Discussion of the accuracy of said warning = not on topic.

      Does that sound true enough? (The point where I’ve been having trouble is, re: an inaccurate warning = not on topic, because I can’t imagine someone deliberately making inaccurate warnings, so I can’t see a way to avoid making an inaccurate (and thus, off-topic) warning, other than bringing the issue up early in spillover for discussion).

      My intention was never to rile you tigtog, and I wasn’t trying to bullshit anyone. I can see where my initial posts here would get someone’s hackles up. My own temper was set off by the “snide insinuation” comment on the other post. To me it was like being blindsided. I do not, and have never had any ill-will toward the mods of this site (or I wouldn’t be here) so to me it felt like an unfair maligning.

      I hope this whole thing hasn’t caused you any extra stress, although I suspect that’s a hope in vain. If I had had any clue that it had caused you so much irritation I would have simply let it lie and not brought it up here. It wasn’t my intention to make your job any more difficult.

      1. Firstly, I want to assure you that your comment above was modbotted due to one word in your comment tripping the filter: you as a commentor have not been placed into automoderation.

        Secondly, you’re getting closer, although it’s not quite as binary as that. Strictly speaking, such a friendly warning is not on-topic per se, but it’s not a breach of commenting netiquette in spirit because wanting to help another commentor is a community-building gesture, so a warning on its own gets a pass for being off-topic.

        A response from the warned commentor saying “thanks for letting me know” gets the same netiquette pass for being off-topic, because ideally the side-discussion should end right there, so a derail is not on the cards. A response from another commentor saying “that’s not my experience, perhaps you’re wrong about that” also gets a netiquette-pass, because that’s pertinent information for other readers on the thread, but that’s where the problematic turn is taken into potential derail territory, because now it’s becoming a distinct distraction from the topic of the thread, since it’s predictable that the warner would want to clarify matters.

        Any further discussion would be where any warning subthread crosses the hard bright line out of the fuzzy area of off-topic but still within netiquette into the clear zone of off-topic + potentially derailing, and this is where it needs to be taken to #spillover.

        Does the above make sense to you?

        Thirdly: it is the nature of general discourse that occasional off-topic quips are made by participants now and then in a spirit of playfulness, and our moderation practice has no intention of squelching that very human tendency because it’s part of what makes a community. Off-topic quips referencing shared community or broader societal tropes can often be the little jewels which make a thread sparkle, but only if they don’t become too much of a distraction from on-topic discourse. Therefore the moderators reserve the right to redirect any off-topic banter in cases where it becomes threadjacking (to point out that the playful tangent would be better taken to an open thread).

        Fourthly: sometimes a commentor may make what they intend as a simple playful quip, and find that it catches a moderator’s eye and is immediately redacted or deleted entirely. There are several reasons this might happen, which tend to fall into two broad classes: (a) the moderator judges that the comment is a gotcha or otherwise mean-spirited rather than simply playful, and/or (b) past experience has shown the moderator that the subject or words is seen by some other commentors as stoushbait, therefore it is removed from the thread to preempt a potential derail. If the comment is scrubbed rather than deleted entirely, the moderator note may indicate whether it’s a Class A or Class B reason, but depending on the time and energy available to the moderator, it may be just a general direction to take it to #spillover.

        Fifthly: it is understandable that when a commentor finds their comment has been deleted and doesn’t understand why, that they want clarification. That clarification should take place on #spillover to avoid further distractions on the original thread, which was the path you followed in this case.

        Now comes the point where I lost my patience with you: when the moderator team response on thread to “watch out for X” has already been “X is not actually a problem” it’s very much not a good idea to make your argument “but X was the only reason it could possibly have been and besides the way I did X back then was perfectly OK anyway” on #spillover. The better idea is to go directly to “well, if X itself is not a problem, then what exactly was the problem with my comment that included X?”.

        On a perfect day, I would have been more patient in untangling your misunderstanding of the reasons for moderating your comments now and in the past. But I don’t always have perfect days, and people arguing hard for irrelevancies (X) which have already been stated repeatedly to be irrelevancies is a behaviour I find intensely irritating, because it’s a refusal (whether consciously or not) to move the discussion forward to actual clarification.

        It appears also that our communication styles clash, triggering mutually raised hackles. I’ll watch out for that in future and make more effort to interpret you more generously, and hope that you can do the same. BTW, I’m sure the above list comes across as quite stilted, but I decided to write it the way that I have in an attempt to avoid further misunderstandings by being very, very precise.

        1. New word for the day: stoushbait.
          Even wikipedia doesn’t have much to say about it. Stoush appears to be a … tussle? a fight? So stoushbait is like picking a fight? Is this an Aussie thing?

          1. Stoush is a vigorous disagreement, yes – not necessarily physical. “Stoushbait” is an ozblogosphere variation on “flamebait”, which is a term I learnt from USAmericans on USENet back in the day as a description of topics known to frequently provoke “flamefests”, although “flame” doesn’t seem to be as in vogue any more as a description of aggressively adversarial comments.

        2. Thanks Tigtog! Usually when I learn a new word, I try to deploy it in my conversations during the following days. It will be a little challenging as I am at a professional meeting this week. Some of the sessions could be contentious, however, and I am chairing/moderating one of them, which could provide an opportunity. Not sure if I can manage an Aussie accent, though, and certainly not with a straight face.

        3. Thank you for taking the time to write all that; and to put as much care into it as you did. The issue seems clear to me now; hopefully it won’t come up again, and if does, I’ll know how to deal with it correctly know.

          I am really sorry about this whole thing. I’ll try to be more clear about what I mean and could be implying when I post. I could use more precision as well. If people are taking what I say the wrong way, I’m pretty sure it’s a problem on my part given how often it happens to me -__-

          1. Thanks for responding so positively, Barnacle Strumpet. I figured I might as well write up a full explication covering as many bases as I could for the benefit of any lurkers on the thread who might also be struggling with the parameters of what is and isn’t acceptable in terms of on-topic and off-topic comments.

            I appreciate you acknowledging some of the criticisms I made. I regret making them so harshly. That’s far from the ideal way to handle a conflict like this, it’s not the ideal I strive for generally, and I’ll work on keeping hold of my temper better in future.

  13. Question for the Modly Ones:

    Naming no names, I’ve been noticing that a certain person who regularly leaves links in the promotion post has posted several things that I found pretty problematic in the past, which has culminated recently in some douchey behaviour and rhetorical crap-slinging against a certain group of marginalised people.

    Obviously, I wouldn’t ask you to ban them for things they haven’t done on this site, but I was wondering if it would be within comments policy if I were to leave a polite note on their future promotions saying something to the effect of “this person is problematic because of things they said at (link, link and link), here is a discussion of (link) by (people) that will elucidate. Please avoid this person if you do not agree with their views as expressed in (link).” or something?

    Please let me know if that would be an okay thing to do, as the number of microaggressions that blog has made have really bothered me, and I don’t know what else to do about it. I don’t want to pick fights on personal blogs. Thanks!

    1. macavitykitsune, here’s my 2c as just one member of the moderation team. IMO, posting a Content Note for the benefit of other readers is a community service in principle, but special care needs to be taken over the wording in practise. Ideally, in the interests of minimising stoushbait potential, be as Spock-like* as possible for the description of the problematic content.

      e.g. Content Note: marginalisation of [certain group(s)] – if you follow [certain person]’s above link you are likely to see links to other posts on that website which have been strongly criticised for problematic content.[link(s) to further info]

      Be aware that if you include 3 or more links in your comment, it will be automoderated and it may take some time for the general readership to see it. Also, if extended discussion of your Content Note ensues, it’s a good idea to voluntarily direct further discussion to #spillover, especially if it starts looking either stoushy or a pile-on.

      * re Spock-like: this is not meant as a blanket statement that doing a Spock is always or even often the best way to advocate Social Justice: anger at injustice is not only a fully valid expression in response to harm done but can also be a highly effective tactic in moving the discussion forward. This is meant merely as an observation and recommendation in this particular scenario, when the goal is explicitly to perform community-serving ally-work without disrupting an entire thread, that doing the Spock is more thread-friendly.

      BTW, new spillover thread just going up.

      1. Thank you for the script, tigtog. I’ll follow that exactly. This was more or less precisely what I was hoping to find (a blueprint+guidelines+explanation), so thank you! ^_^

Comments are currently closed.