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 #26

tigtog

A red "Keep Calm" poster with the caption KEEP CALM AND STAY ON TOPICOur 25th #spillover thread’s commenting period is expiring, so it’s time for a new one. Some reminders:

  1. #spillover is part of our comment moderation system for keeping other threads on-topic. It is intended as a constructive space for tangential discussions which are veering 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.
  2. 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, and off-topic commentors who ignore invitations from others to take their tangents to #spillover are one of the reasons commentors might consider sending the moderators a giraffe alert.

50 thoughts on Spillover #26

  1. I’m just gonna say it.

    I think Tigtog is mad at Ludlow for being mean to Angel. She might not be the only one.

    I might be wrong.

    4. Tigtog made a snide remark to Ludlow on the Tagetes open thread:

      “How about you let some other readers express their possibly differing opinions without shouting them down?”

      The only person on that thread who Ludlow22 could have arguably said to have “shouted down” was Angel, who said she couldn’t continue commenting because she didn’t have the spoons. In response, Ludlow took the opportunity to assert that her and Angel’s positions were the same, with the caveat that she’d be happy to hear more if Angel “found the spoons”.

      I was under the impression that spoons were not casually found, but carefully counted. That sort of response to an admission of self limitation could look real insensitive. Even mean.

      But like I said, I could be wrong. I’m particularly interested in Tigtog’s remarks regarding commenting behavior because they are nebulous, change often, and usually foreshadow the use of moderator powers to limit discussion.

      1. Honestly I had no idea what cutlery had to do with our conversation, until googling revealed that it referred to the concept of an energy budget for people with disabilities or chronic diseases. The site I looked at suggested “finding more spoons” was the term for recovering part of that energy budget.

        Apologies if that came across as rude, it wasn’t intended to be.

        1. Ludlow, I for one certainly read your phrasing as supportive in intent and did not see it as rude or mean to Angel in any way at all. *If* Angel had expressed any sense of hurt at your wording, I certainly would have taken it as a learning moment regarding more optimal alternate wording, as I’m sure you too would do.

      2. 1. Well I’m particularly interested in why, after Ludlow and I had (at least temporarily) reached a detente on the Tagetes open thread, you decided to butt in and fan the flames?

        2. If Ludlow wishes to take further issue with what I’ve said to Ludlow, I will engage with Ludlow on that.

        3. Regarding whether I or anyone else was “snide” or “mean”, those are very much matters of opinion where perceptions differ and perhaps don’t even cross another person’s mind, which is why I too thought you must have been referring to Ludlow’s clash with Asia in a different thread rather than Ludlow’s supportive IMO comment to Angel re spoons. I’ve never had a problem directly calling out any perceived ableism in the past, I wonder why you hypothesise that I would suddenly start weaseling around such an issue now?

        4. The Feministe Comments Policy contains a number of broad over-arching principles explaining how we go about putting out spot fires amongst the commentariat underbrush before they build to a conflagration, but the art of it still involves spotting the smoke before the fire catches hold and stomping on the source of the heat. I make no apologies for limiting discussion in conflagration-prone areas.

        1. P.S. regarding the earlier clash with Asia referenced by both Donna and myself, I don’t think Ludlow was being “mean” there either. There was a vigorous exchange of dissenting opinions which both parties seemed to give as good as they got. It was merely the most prominent clash which Ludlow had been part of recently on the blog prior to the thread on which she and I disagreed, which is why it seemed to be the most likely candidate for what Broseidon meant.

        2. Well I’m particularly interested in why, after Ludlow and I had (at least temporarily) reached a detente on the Tagetes open thread, you decided to butt in and fan the flames?

          Because when a commenter who is invested in this space decides not to continue a beef they have with you, at least part of that is going to be because you can and will limit their commenting privileges when you feel they have said enough. Whether it’s “dominating a thread” or “shouting people down”, you hint that you think they’re reaching the end of your patience and the use of mod powers will soon follow.

          I think you do it because you know it’s an overreach to threaten to mod someone when you’re in the middle of a disagreement, but you’d still like to remind them that you can erase their comments and access with a few clicks and are evaluating whether that’s necessary.

          In short, because it looks slimy! 🙂

          1. So you want to play Projection? OK then.

            I think *you* are still harbouring resentment from being placed in temporary automoderation for a few weeks back in February, following a discussion going south on one of EG’s threads and my moderator decision to place you and another commentor into permaauto-mod as a result. Far from being in disagreement with anybody on that thread up until the point of my moderator intervention, I hadn’t even previously been part of the discussion at all. You and I *subsequently* disagreed about my intervention on Spillover #25, and I stood by my decision to keep you both in automoderation for further monitoring. After a week or two, I restored *you* to normal commenting privileges because I decided that my “potentially-vexatious” pattern recognition ping in your case had been a false positive.

            I have a question for you: would it be more or less “slimy” if moderation decisions were taken without any public moderator warning at all that fingers are hovering near the button to unleash the Giraffe? Because surely that’s the alternative to what you’re complaining of.

            Ideally moderators would never get a false positive ping on their spidey-sense tingles about not yet very well known commentors, but moderators are unfortunately not telepathic, so sometimes that does happen. All we can do is reverse decisions based on false positives when we realise that has occurred.

            Ideally moderators would always be superhumanly Spockish when attempting to put a brake on a comment thread that has descended into the sort of vituperative speculation that has been shown to discourage other commentors from participation and harden existing opinions rather than change them, but we are not robots. Sometimes we get drawn into argumentation before realising that we’ve become part of a derail. All we can do then is call for a halt to the derail despite being part of it.

            Some general information: as a basic community-building principle, I am always ready to ask commentors who have recently been posting frequently to step it back a bit in order to encourage the people who are currently only commenting once or twice a week, or the lurkers who haven’t yet commented at all, to feel that there’s more space for them to contribute their thoughts as well. As a rule I’d much rather have dozens of commentors making two or three comments each per thread than have threads with two or three commentors making dozens of comments each. If anyone takes it personally whenever they or another currently prolific commentor is asked to put the brakes on, I’m just going to have to live with that.

        3. I think I see a difference between quantitative statements of imbalance and an accusation of ill intent. “You’ve commented as much as all the other users here put together. Consider granting room for the rest of our commenters” is different from “Stop shouting people down”. The former tells them clearly what they can fix in the future, achieve balance with other commenters, but the latter implies a change of quality is required, some sort of vague reduction in commenting aggression. The latter leaves a lot more questions, and in this case, when Ludlow questioned that, you just declined to elaborate.

          1. So unless I can be a perfect Vulcan in every single time I see a need to intervene, you’ll call me “slimy”? Nice to meet you Pot, I’m Kettle.

        5. I’m not a shrinking violet. I expressed my disagreement with TigTog’s characterization of my actions, we came to an understanding if not actual agreement, and we left it at that. I’m not sure if you’re trying to stick up for me or use me to prosecute your own grudge, but either way, can you not?

      3. whatisthisicanteven….

        The reason I pulled out of that discussion the last time was because I was going through some shit, and I was having a hard time explaining my position more clearly, i.e., I ran out of spoons.

        I didn’t do it because I thought Ludlow was “being mean”. (I don’t even think that now.) Even if she was, who gives a shit? This is the fucking internet and I’m a fucking adult.

        So if y’all would excuse me, I need to get on with my fucking life…

        1. There is something kind of high-school-troublemaker-ish about A suggesting that B might be mad because C was mean to D. Of course, that’s the sort of thing girls and women always get accused of doing, so I find it amusing that in this case it was a guy.

        2. “Get in losers. We’re going to a protest march.”

          Feministe “Mean Girls” thread, anyone? ^_^

        3. @DonnaL

          haha! In high school the gay men are just like girls don’t you know?

    5. Well that settles it. You’re wrong, given that no one has any fucking idea what the hell you’re going on about.

  2. Maybe Broseidon is confusing Angel with Asia — since, after all, the names are so very similar, and they look so much alike! — given that ludlow had a difference of opinion with the latter recently? Not that I think she was “mean.”

    1. Cool story, bro.

      Too bad it’s all based on a gross misreading of what Fat Steve said about women in hijabs in the first place.

      But as Mr. White Asshole Savior of Muslim Women, it’s OK for you to insist that every single woman in a hijab wears it as a result of patriarchal oppression. Because you know better than Muslim women themselves.

      But you’re someone who thinks that gross anti-Semitic stereotypes — including some that are incredibly misogynistic — are funny, and who doesn’t even recognize them as what they are in the first place, so good judgment isn’t really something I should expect from you.

      1. the head of a giraffe against a bright blue sky: its mouth is pursed sidewaysI think I hear what you’re saying. [speculation about other commentor snipped]

        But you’re someone who thinks that gross anti-Semitic stereotypes — including some that are incredibly misogynistic — are funny, and who doesn’t even recognize them as what they are in the first place, so good judgment isn’t really something I should expect from you.

        [speculation about other commentor snipped] I’m just as Jewish as you are though Donna. I don’t need your lived experience to understand anti-Semitism. I have my own, Thanks.

        1. Some stereotypes are inherently anti-Semitic; the fact that you’re Jewish yourself doesn’t change that, or mean that you’re able to recognize it.

          And I see that you’re ignoring the rest of what I said.

          And no, I don’t really like you right now. It isn’t necessary for you to interact with people here the way you often do.

      2. But as Mr. White Asshole Savior of Muslim Women, it’s OK for you to insist that every single woman in a hijab wears it as a result of patriarchal oppression. Because you know better than Muslim women themselves.

        Aren’t most of the things we do the result of patriarchal oppression? Because we function under patriarchy? Isn’t that basic feminism 101?

        Aren’t standards of dress that apply only to women and offer physical encumbrance automatically suspect as well?

        Heels, sheitels, skirts, pants with no pockets, hijabs, burqas, lipstick, eyeliner, false eyelashes, mascara, foundation, long hair, stockings, spanx, etc. etc.

        All of these things are for women, and all of them limit the wearer in some way that their for-men counterpart does not. For most of these, the “for-men” counterpart is “nothing”.

        1. Perhaps your feminism needs to go beyond 101 level? And perhaps you should stop presuming to speak for women?

        2. Aren’t standards of dress that apply only to women and offer physical encumbrance automatically suspect as well?

          I certainly think so. Any gender-specific sartorial expectations/norms/requirements are problematic.

          Perhaps your feminism needs to go beyond 101 level?

          I get that it’s a tricky line, because anti-hijab rhetoric is so often just a tool of prejudice against Muslims, but it is a symptom of patriarchy, and its origins are tied to a rape-culture-enabling concept of ‘modesty.’

          As long as people are equally clear that this applies to unequal dress codes in high school, or expectations re: body hair, or whatever, then I think it’s self-evident that the hijab/niqab/burka are fundamentally oppressive.

        3. The fact that the hijab is patriarchal in origin — something I didn’t dispute — does not mean that every single time a Muslim woman wears one is a reflection of patriarchy. Which seems to be Broseidon’s assumption, and the basis for his attack on Fat Steve.

          Broseidon also seems to believe that every time a woman wears heels or skirts constitutes a reflection of patriarchal oppression. Also incredibly simplistic, in my opinion. (Especially since heels started out as a male article of attire. Just look at the famous portrait of Louis XIV. And both skirts and stockings, of course, were originally worn by both men and women in many cultures.) It seems to me, in fact, that Broseidon’s arguments aren’t so different from those made by TERFs against trans women.

      3. Hi Donna – just an FYI, I think Broseidon has self-identified as a woman on these threads. Otherwise, I cosign.

        1. I’m pretty sure he’s said he’s a cis guy? I could be wrong, but I don’t think so.

    2. after the fact, white women’s tears still demand that we Stop, Drop, and Console.

      When did I demand that? In the very bit you quoted from me I merely said you weren’t a nice person. I stand by that. When I called the moderator I merely said you were being an a-hole. I stand by that.

      I totally disagree with your analogy about White women’s tears but if you had given me the respect of trotting that argument out initially, rather than just dismissing me with a ‘cool story, bro.’ I would have been fine because a) ‘story’ implies I might be making this up b) as I said on the other thread it shows a lack of empathy that you don’t get that my mother’s tears mean something to me and c) it was jerky, dismissive, and I’m not your bro.

      1. the head of a giraffe against a bright blue sky: its mouth is pursed sideways
        Y dmndd tht vr nd vr. Y r stll dmndng t. nd y dmndd t frm lwyr t.

        dsmssd y stry bcs t Ws Nt Rlvnt, ws bvsly mtnl Mnpltn, nd bcs ddn’t wnt t ngg Wth Yr mtns bt yr cryng mm.

        Y cldn’t stnd b gnrd s y thrw th bggst ft y cn n ths spc nd clld Md vr ltrlly nthng bt th fct tht strngr n th ntrnt ddn’t wnn ngg wth yr Mmmy sss.

        1. I dismissed you story because it Was Not Relevant, was Obviously Emotional Manipulation, and because I didn’t want to Engage With Your Emotions about your crying mom.

          Firstly, in the other thread, you denied that your comment was dismissive, but that’s neither here nor there (it’s in Sydney.)

          I have never been dismissive of your emotions, so I don’t see why you’re so proud of being dismissive of mine. OK, I’m sensitive about my mother, I guess I’m just not as much of a man as you are. Again I don’t see why you’re proud of your machismo, but that is your right.

          But, if you can’t engage with me without being dismissive of my emotions, then please don’t engage with me at all. That’s as polite as I can put it.

        2. OK, I’m sensitive about my mother, I guess I’m just not as much of a man as you are. Again I don’t see why you’re proud of your machismo, but that is your right.

          This is the best.

          Have you ever met men? Their defining trait is sensitivity towards their mothers.

        3. If I politely request you not to engage with me, please don’t engage with me. I’m willing to accept that you are mature enough to grant my request without getting a moderator involved (see, I didn’t use the ‘g’ word,) so please, stop.

        4. was Obviously Emotional Manipulation,

          Both Donna and I have disagreed with this characterization. I doubt you’ve been as familiar with Fat Steve’s commenting on this site as we have, so maybe you should reflect on that.

          Also, I’m right about your gender, right? I remember a thread where I thought your name was based on that Onion article.

          Fat Steve, I’m sorry about the response. It’s been exceptionally shitty. I actually thought your points were adding value to the previous discussion, and I’m sorry it derailed into a bunch of people bullying you about your emotions (nothing misogynistic about bullying a guy for having emotions, nope).

      2. [Moderator note: personal criticism of another commentor snipped because the Giraffe has had enough of this particular direction things have been taking recently. Discussion about hijab should be taken back to the original thread. Discussion about other commentors' styles of communication should just be dropped entirely until everybody has remembered the importance of wording such criticism with great care to remain constructive. Thanking everybody in anticipation of their future cooperation.]

  4. Moderator note: the Giraffe has decided to exercise its right to decline publication with respect to Broseidon's opinions of and speculations about other commentors. Comments which include neither (eta: and appear constructive/helpful) will still be published when one of the Giraffe's assistants is around to check the moderation queue.

    1. the head of a giraffe against a bright blue sky: its mouth is pursed sideways[Moderator note: your attempt at rules-lawyering by posting a one-word comment has been noted]

      1. Moderator note: The Giraffe has interpreted your 3-word comment as a request to be excluded from commenting at Feministe for the month of April. Your comments will be redirected to the spam bucket from this point forward.

Comments are currently closed.