I’m thinking this morning about feminism, Christianity, the death of Tom Fox, and what it means to always be "getting in the way." Bear with me.
Over at Feministe, there’s a heated discussion of feminist inter-necine warfare. If you’ve been reading regularly over there, it seems the feminist blogosphere is going through one of its periodic rounds of soul-searching, where we all debate one another’s feminist credentials. As always, some (including this blogger) want to define feminism broadly; we’re the "big tent" folks. Others worry that we big tenters are "dumbing down" feminism, or setting the bar so low that virtually anyone (even those with ugly sexist rhetoric) can define themselves as feminists. It’s an argument as old as feminism itself, and it’s probably healthy — if painful — to have it from time to time.
The Christian blogosphere is having the same sort of discussion about who can call himself or herself a Christian. This essay at Counterpunch by an atheist who calls himself a Christian inspired a couple of solid responses from the Feminarian, a feminist seminary student at Fuller. This one is particularly vehement; she makes the case that the Counterpunch dude claimed too much:
The first rule of being a Christian, which means being like Jesus, living the way he lived, is that you subject your entire life to the mission of GOD in the world. Not to helping people or being nice or even healing or bringing justice. Jesus’ primary loyalty was to God. A person can not possibly follow Jesus without following this absolutely central aspect of who he was. Period. If you just follow the teachings, you’re a nice person, you’re in step with the universe, you’ll be well-liked. But if you do not acknowledge that it is all God’s story and you are doing these things because you are first and foremost a servant of God, then you cannot call yourself a follower of Jesus.
Following the message of Jesus is not the same thing as serving as he did.
I love the Feminarian and I share her theology — but this sends chills down my spine. Not the good kind, either.
Somehow, we seem to be in the time of year when folks want to draw distinctions and decide who’s in and who’s out. As someone who operates in both the feminist and Christian world, I’m struck by the fact that we’re having similar discussions at the same time. I’m also saddened, at least in part because I so regularly have to defend both my Christian and my feminist credentials.
When I make it clear that I am an evangelical Christian, in love with Jesus and confident that I will spend eternity in His embrace — and all the while defend a modern and inclusive sexual ethic — conservative Christians question my salvation. When I refuse to ban the likes of Mr. Bad and Gonzman (as long as they avoid nasty, profane personal attacks), my commitment to listening to women is called into question:
when male feminist bloggers entertain notably sexist debaters who spout the same shit over and over again, it makes that space safe for them and unsafe for women. But, hey, the worst sexist trolls are other men. Maybe that’s the appeal. Maybe women just don’t matter that much. Maybe banishing the male trolls will raise the bar too much for it to be comfortable. Maybe you’d have to listen to women.
Mind you, I’m not complaining because I’m thin-skinned. In both the church and in feminism, we have an obligation to wrestle with definitions. No one wants the terms "Christian" or "feminist" to be so broad and watered-down that they have ceased to have any meaning. Categories are important. Furthermore, it’s important for believers and feminists alike to challenge one another to improve, to grow, to become better followers of Christ and better advocates for radical sexual justice. We need to give and take criticism.
But at the same time, we also have to accept the good faith of those with whom we debate. I have never told anyone "Sorry, I don’t think you’re a Christian" or "Sorry, you’re not a feminist." I’ve told people "Gosh, your view is incompatible with mainstream evangelical thought" or "Well, that’s probably a minority opinion in contemporary feminist circles". But I never, ever, question the right of others to define themselves as they so choose. It’s one thing to challenge someone’s ideas — and another thing altogether to challenge their self-identification. That may seem a meaningless distinction to some, but to me it’s everything.
Somehow this is all getting wrapped up in my thoughts about Christian Peacemaker Teams and the murder in Iraq of Tom Fox, a Virginia-based Quaker and pacifist. What I love about CPT is that they reject the "either-or" duality of the secular world: "Either you’re with us, or you’re with the terrorists!" Before he died, Tom Fox wrote of resisting "both the soldier and the kidnapper." He was committed to doing what CPT has been committed to for over two decades: getting in the way, standing in the middle, bearing witness to love while refusing to use the weapons of war for any cause or for any reason.
Tom Fox refused to choose who it was that he should love. He loved American soldiers and Iraqi insurgents equally. He resisted to his death the culture that requires we choose one side or another. Tom Fox wasn’t interested in the causes for which people fought as much as he was interested in the tactics people use. And as a peacemaking Christian, he believed — as I believe — that God cares little about why we fight but cares everything about how we fight. The morality of any cause is ultimately judged by the methods its adherents use. What makes a Christian is not just one’s assent to certain propositions, but one’s tactics.
I’m not daring to compare myself to Tom Fox. I honor his faith and his service and his willingness to lay down his life. But one of the many lessons I draw from him is applicable to this ongoing struggle I’m having with various folks over the terms "Christian" and "feminist." I’ve long insisted that Christianity and feminism are compatible because they are both fundamentally concerned with the dignity and value of the human person; male and female and intersexed, we are all not only equally beloved of God, we are all called to equal (and interchangeable) service in the Kingdom.
And as we work together to build a more just and peaceable world, we need to be infinitely kinder and more charitable to both our allies and our enemies. And one way in which we live out that charity is by acknowledging that both Christianity and feminism are like bodies — with hands and feet and lungs and hearts and myriad different organs and bones. As the apostle reminds us:
Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body.
The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don’t need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don’t need you!"
To my brothers and sisters in the body of Christ — and to my brothers and sisters in the feminist blogosphere — I implore you to remember that we are indeed one body with many members, struggling and working together towards a common (if vaguely defined) goal. In the spirit of Tom Fox, let’s be committed to resisting the temptation to draw artificial distinctions, to exclude, to set up boundaries, to question credentials, and to say to our allies in the struggle, "I don’t need you."
I have to say, I don’t really get the whole notion of some internet spaces being “safe” for women and others not.
I like the idea of having a diverse selection of blogs and chat groups– some that are for feminists only, others that welcome people with opposing views. I feel pretty “safe” in any forum and I think there is a lot to be learned from listening to feminists and MRAs talking to each other.
Even if some commenter is clearly anti-feminist and/or obnoxious, such comments tend to reaffirm for me why feminism is so important and so necessary.
The one big problem with defining something too rigidly is you wind up with what I call the “Purity Wars.” My own experience, belonging to a Traditionalist Catholic chapel is that there are a few who are excessive; they want to go back to the days where Jews were “Christ-Killers” and get their nose out of joint when a woman sits in mass with her head uncovered.
No matter where you go, there is a danger of excess. People looking for a safe place should lock themselves away, and disengage. I find that on the MRA side of the aisle – too many don’t even want to talk to the other side even for debate. They’re sick of it. Put a friendly female in a discussion, and they find fault with their prescence except as “Shut up, be sorry, and apologize on cue.”
Sound familiar?
The other side of that is “He who tries to please everybody winds up pleasing nobody.”
I’m sure Cloven-Hooved me is lumped in with the Miosogynists and trolls so often decried by ginmar and Co.; and I personally don’t give a hoot. Thing is, though, I can find self identified feminists at IWF and IFeminists who agree with me 99.9% of the time. According to the glib “Believe in social, legal, and economic equality of the sexes” even *I* am a feminist, which is laughable. The bulk of the .1% of difference between me and the iFems and IWF girls is I don’t self-identify as one. Well, that and being an icky boy.
The feminarian is right, though. And ginmar and the like are right in spirit, at least. Your big tent can only go so far, and if that means kicking me, Dr. E., Mr. Bad, and such to the curb here, that is what you have to do. Yes, I will see it as just another echo-chamber of opinion – I mean, hell, I ain’t even banned She-who-is-not-to-be-named-here, though I pretty much only allow her to stay as my jester – but you can’t let being seen as a nice, reasonable guy by your political foes be a factor in your decision, especially if your decision is “Is my blog a place of dialogue between opposite sides of the fence?”
I decided what the Bar and Grill was a long time ago; I don’t pretend to be a nice guy there, I’m blunt and sarcastic, and as far as I am concerned of the posters, if you can’t run with the big dogs or stay under the porch – and I’m perfectly happy for someone, if they wish to be a damn fool, to climb up on stage and take the open mike. I’ll shine the spotlight, silence the crowd, and turn up the volume – maybe even especially so.
How big is your tent? Someone says “Safe space” and I hear “Echo chamber where I can speak baloney without being contradicted by inconvenient logic.” Someone says “Pro-XXXXXX coments only” and I hear “My mind is made up, have the courtesy to not confuse me with facts.” “Troll” used to mean “Gadfly” and was a high bar indeed to meet – now most places, anyone who disagrees with the common “wisdom” is one.
What to do?
A couple of sundays ago, someone brought up Cardinal Mahoney at my church, and someone said “If the DNC came out tomorrow with a resolution that the Virgin Mary was a temple whore, you can bet money that Cardinal Mahoney would preach it as gospel next Sunday from every pulpit in his diocese.” While it may be over the top rhetorically speaking it underlies a profound truth, that Traditionalists view Progressives with deep mistrust, and believe of them that their progressive politics are more important than their theology, or as one person put it “If the Archangel Michael appeared in their church and pronounced a Republican tenet as God’s truth, they’d become Buddhists en masse.”
I have not the same problems as you – If someone can not answer with an unambiguous, unadorned, and unqualified “Credo” to the Nicene Creed, to me they are not a Christian, period. Since obtaining, providing, or procuring an abortion incur a latæ sententiæ excommunication, I find “Pro-Choice Catholic” to be an oxymoron as well.
And I’m not saying there aren’t down sides to taking a stand one way or another.
A big tent is one thing. And engaging those ideologically opposed, or not, is a detail. Even whether to engage them with words or bullets is a detail. But you have to have a core set of beliefs – and anathemas – or it’s meaningless. Feminarian is right – I cannot reject Christ, and be a Christian. Universal salvation, to me, is a dangerous heresy.
From the other side of the river, though, the tired old “Not all feminists think alike” is an evasion – it’s seen as not wanting to take a position, because in doing so one would have to defend it, and the position is indefensible. More sophistry. More dodges. Another ideologue who won’t say what they mean, because they are ashamed of it, because it is something to be ashamed of. And I am not even talking about interactions and debates with us, I’m talking about among yourselves – when we see this, we chuckle at “There go the feminists again, rationalizing cognitive dissonace away, and attempting to believe in two mutually exlusive principles.” And that’s not even adding in the subtext of “How easy it must be to do when you have no principles to begin with” among your more vehement detractors.
And I have to say, after Reading Robert Jensen’s essay, I’m in complete agreement with the Feminarian. He’s using the sacred for the profane, and I would find it an abomination; we are not working towards the same end, and there is no doubt to me that this guy would toss the church under the bus if it came to a choice between it and his politics – he’s like the snake who asks the duck to take him across theriver – I’m sure you heard the punchline before “You knew what I was when you agreed…”
I’ve long insisted that Christianity and feminism are compatible because they are both fundamentally concerned with the dignity and value of the human person; male and female and intersexed, we are all not only equally beloved of God, we are all called to equal (and interchangeable) service in the Kingdom.
I’m really confused by that parenthetical. It seems to run counter to everything else in the post, and particularly the subsequent paragraph. In particular, read this post as a whole as saying ‘everyone is going to have their own perspective on things, and the more healthy perspectives and discussion we’re going to have within our feminist/Christian big tent, the better’. But that parenthetical seems to want to eliminate this diversity — we’re no longer individuals, but several identical cogs. Certainly some theologicans and philosophers have liked to think this way, but it seems a weird thing for you to say, Hugo.
Gonz, that’s one of the better comments you’ve put up here, and much for me to masticate upon. It makes me think of an anecdote I’ll put up this afternoon.
Nomnena, my intent in the paragraph you quote was to say that in the final analysis, after everything else, we are all loved and all called to do equally important things (though not the same things). I’m sorry if that wasn’t clear.
So one of the first comments is bitching about me and others and you call it perceptive. Then we have a long series of straw men about feminisn, which you don’t refute.
I can’t imagine why in hell anyone doubts your sincerity.
Oh, and comparing Xtianity to feminism? One of the things feminism is rebelling against is hypocrisy. Xtianity is full of it.
When the only person you quote from that discussion is one talking about “safety,” it makes it sound like everything everyone else said went in one ear and out the other. If you read the comments from me and zuzu and Ginmar and others, you will see that we left (mostly) not because it is “unsafe” to talk here, but because it is pointless. Change your policies if you want, or don’t, but if you do, don’t do it to protect women from the big scary MRAs. Do it to make your blog in reality what it is now in name only: a place where respect and civility flourish.
Happy Feminist: Even if some commenter is clearly anti-feminist and/or obnoxious, such comments tend to reaffirm for me why feminism is so important and so necessary.
Yeah, and every time I go outside and don’t go spinning off into space, it reaffirms for me that gravity exists. At some point in early childhood, however, since I am not afflicted with sporadic spontaneous amnesia, I figured out that I don’t need that affirmation every day to keep the fact fixed in my mind.
I believe that we should listen to people who have different priorities, different opinions, different beliefs, sure. But people who are intellectually dishonest, petty and spiteful? Nah. There’s no point.
You’ve put a very important question out there, Hugo. I’ve come to a similar conclusion, namely that it’s usually more productive and less threatening to depersonalize the issue. Instead of saying “You are not a Christian”, better to say “What you believe is not Christianity”. One has to ask WHY someone who doesn’t believe the basic doctrines (e.g. the existence of God) wants to call himself a Christian. Fear of being excluded and judged by ANY group? Admiration for Christ? Appropriating the goodwill that surrounds Christ’s image? The answers will vary by individual, and can lead to some very interesting dialogues – which rarely get initiated because we leap to the “what are you” without ever asking “what do you want to be and why?”
If you read the comments from me and zuzu and Ginmar and others, you will see that we left (mostly) not because it is “unsafe” to talk here, but because it is pointless.
It must be nice to be so absolutely sure you are right that you don’t need anyone to challenge your thought process. I’m a pretty hard headed guy, but even I *like* hearing other people’s opinions. I find, now get this… That I am occasionally wrong. Not often mind you, but I have been in the past.
I think it is possible to completely close my mind off to dissenting opinion, but I doubt I would benefit much from it.
But perhaps Feminism does.
Well, heavens, I’m frequently prone to intellectual dishonesty, and sometimes to pettiness on this blog. Can someone explain to me how to construct a clear-cut set of rules for commenters that eliminates arbitrariness? One that encourages debate but always distinguishes between the thoughtful and the inflammatory? Can someone point me to a blog where those rules are displayed in writing and where they are rigorously enforced?
I don’t like the whole Potter Stewart “I can’t define what’s worthy of being banned, but I know it when I see it approach.” That’s why I only ban nasty personal attacks using specific “fighting words.”
Hrm. I *did* notice the larger fighting going on. And, I actually got into it with Amber Rhea last week about the whole “sex positive” thing. But, I didn’t realize just how widespread the Angry Orgasm Liberation Front battle had gone. That’s what I get for taking Alas, Pandagon, and Feministe off my bloglines. I missed a whole kerfuffle.
On another point, what do you think it says that your MRA ‘debaters’ (and, the are *yours,* btw, you’ve take them on–they’re a part of this blog, now) are generally not seen as adding to the discussion, but are considered trolls? I mean, do you include them in the discussion for your own pleasure? Do you see how someone might think that letting them take over so much discussion on *your* site (they seem to dominate every damned post’s comment thread, btw) means that you’re not so committed to feminism? It’s not an unreasonable conclusion to decide that this place oughta be titled ‘Hugo and Some Loud Men get together to debate the Little Ladies.’
So, do we suggest limiting the number of comments per day? I could do that — everyone gets a total of three comments per thread per day? Would that help?
I *like* hearing other people’s opinions.
.
Yes, it makes logical sense to pretend to believe that I don’t, because feminists aren’t other people. Why, it’s really an illusion that more than one of us exists, much less that we argue all the time. Talking to each other is like arguing with a mirror; all women share a hive mind; we’re one person with many bodies.
– This, Hugo, if you have any interest whatsoever in understanding what people are sick of, is what we call a “case in point.”
(And, more politely, I know that I would personally comment here more often if it weren’t for the fact that every discussion eventually boils down to a man repeatedly declaring “All women are conniving sluts/prudes.”)
“I don’t like the whole Potter Stewart “I can’t define what’s worthy of being banned, but I know it when I see it approach.”
That’s a great pity, because subjective, sensitive, intelligent human judgment is the only way to moderate a blog that doesn’t lead to sheltering of rules-lawyering, endless complaints, and polite bigotry.
The other thing, folks, is that I barely read the comments on the weekends. I don’t have a co-blogger. Some threads get well over 100 comments, and I can’t keep up. Some hatefulness will slip through the cracks. I’m not willing to moderate/approve every comment before it goes up, largely because I’m away from the blog for extended stretches.
I grieve that I’ve lost one group of voices on this blog. I want to find a way to bring those voices back without banning those who have made what I think is a good faith effort to follow my rules. I have seen how Gonz writes at his own blog; his language is very different than it is here. I am grateful that he has made concessions to my rules, and I respect his effort to make his message (a message with which I generally disagree) palatable.
Even if some commenter is clearly anti-feminist and/or obnoxious, such comments tend to reaffirm for me why feminism is so important and so necessary.
Which reaffirms for those people why anti-feminism is so important and so necessary. And thus the cycle goes, never making anything better for anyone. What a great philosophy! lol!
That’s a great pity, because subjective, sensitive, intelligent human judgment is the only way to moderate a blog that doesn’t lead to sheltering of rules-lawyering, endless complaints, and polite bigotry.
Ouch. Sigh. I haven’t been this depressed since I started blogging.
These are my “rules.”
http://aldahlia.net/m/rules.php
I actually took them (with permission) from a very conservative guy in Montana.
Hugo,
I’ve been following the Feministe fracas and IMO you’re getting a raw deal over there. The crux of the criticism is that you don’t subscribe to a particular branch of the faith. People like ginmar brook no dissent from their feminist axioms even if the axioms can be challenged or interpreted differently. I haven’t been following this debate, other than catching snippets of it at Feministe, but I haven’t actually witnessed the critics mounting a case for why their axioms are superior to competing axioms. Relying on fury to carry the argument is a losing tactic. It’s exactly the types of critics that you’re facing that I had in mind when I wrote my essay The Turning Of The Tide which tied the blind faith fanatacism of gender warriors to that of deeply fundamentalist Christians.
You haven’t been this depressed since you started blogging? What a shame.
I didn’t self-identify as a feminist for many years, certainly not while in college. I’ve become more recently interested in it, via Alas. Since then I’ve started reading a lot of other blogs on this topic, and even, cautiously thought yes, I must be one.
But all the carping, backbiting, and furor can get awful off-putting, awful fast. Sure I wonder why some of your posters bother, but evidently *something* compels them to keep coming back; (probably the same thing that has me scratching my head as to *how* two of my own brothers could come to believe women should no longer have the vote) and for whatever reason I seem to be equally drawn. Maybe we need the Patrick Henry radical types to make the mainstream message more palatable; but I find your writing, and ideas, very sympathetic.
It seems to me you’re doing the best you can. Maybe it’s different from so-and-so’s best, but I like it, and I hope you’ll continue.
Hmm. Why does the verse: “If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out,” suddenly come to mind?
Aldahlia, I like those rules. I’ll give them some thought!
Gee, and look—it’s Tangoman, right on schedule.
Some people contribute to the conversation, and some people are just out there to make noise. I don’t think that there are any codifiable rules for identifying noise (and hey, my Bayesian filters don’t infallibly catch all the word salad spams). That doesn’t mean that there’s no principled distinction: sometimes, like the philosopher Wittgenstein says, you have to stop codifying rules and start doing*. Also, a comment that counts as noise in one conversation might be OK in a another: that’s one reason why I like the comment policy on the feminist threads at Alas. There’s a place for feminism 101, and there’s a place for inter-feminist discussions, if you repeatedly raise feminism 101 questions in the inter-feminist discussions, then you’re making noise.
It’s your blog, so you’re free to (a) decide what the conversation topic is, and hence what counts as noise and (b) tolerate as much noise as you like (you do tolerate some comments that I would delete as noise, but again, it’s your blog). I’m learning to scroll past the noise and not respond to it, no matter how annoying I think it is. After all, it’s your readers’ responsibility, and not yours, to prevent their heads from being filled with noise.
*Not a verbatim quote, but that’s one of the morals that I get out of his work.
Hugo,
I have not been an active commenter for a while, due to various factors, but I’m still around – and this thread is rather disturbing. It seems that it is now your turn to get raked over the coals – a fate that inevitably befalls any pro-feminist male blogger who allows differing points of view to be expressed. I can see why you would be depressed by the whole thing. You have managed to create a forum where issues pertaining to feminism can be discussed, largely without rancor or descents into ad hominem or obscenity. It’s a remarkable achievement, and I cartainly tip my hat to you for it. You have accomplished this by means of your high standards for the level of discussion that you will allow. And you have banned a number of commenters – with good reason – who just could not seem to manage to abide by this simple rule of civility. And this is what you get.
Even as an MRA, I found it rather sad to see Barry getting sliced and diced, and there are few more committed male feminists than he. But please note the source of the vitriol. There are some who cannot abide disgreement even from the “sisterhood”. You have no chance of gaining approval from them unless you model your activities strictly according to the rules that they lay down for you. Then it would no longer be your blog, and that would be a great pity.
So what, exactly, is their problem? There are many places for feminists to hang out and either congratulate one another for seeing through the evil machinations of patriarchy, or fight with one another about the correct way to destroy patriarchy (and who is helping/hurting the fight). Why are they so upset that there exists a place where civil discussion of feminist issues can take place, and dissenting voices can be heard? What is so threatening about this? I can only conclude that they see it as part of their mission to silence dissenting voices wherever they are able, as a step toward the triumphant emergence of their own vision.
Hugo, you and I agree on a number of things, and we agree to disagree on many more. Through it all I have never lost my respect for you, and I hope that you can say the same for me. It’s your principled approach to life that impresses me – the openness to self-inspection, and the willingness to adjust your thinking where you perceive that it’s called for. Thus it is no surprise that you take these criticisms seriously, and look deeply into your own motivations in an attempt to understand whether or not you are guilty of grave offenses against feminism. Of course, you would not take the easy way out and dismiss these critics as being extreme elements, either. But honestly, Hugo, that is what they are. You know from experience the value of civil discourse in considering the issues of the day. For whatever reason, a few others do not know this. You have created an amazing space where ideas can be kicked around by persons of differing viewpoints in a mature manner, and this is not valued by those few.
Well, your principles are being tested now. You are being accused of not being truly feminist (by some), and it hurts. This is an effort to mold you into the image of the critics, and your personal principles are irrelevant. While I believe what you have created here to be remarkable, I must also say that holding firm to your own beliefs in the face of attack from those you had thought to be your allies would be, IMHO, even heroic. You will not please all of the feminists all of the time. Don’t take it too personally when this fact is demonstrated to you by some of them.
For what it’s worth: Thanks so much for this blog.
stanton
Stanton, it has been repeatedly stated here by feminist women that Hugo is free to run his blog as he likes.
There seems to be an assumption on here that feminist women are unfamiliar with anti-feminist and anti-woman arguments. On the contrary, many of us are so familiar with those arguments that we are sick of them. We’ve argued the same points over and over again and we don’t want to do Anti-Misogyny 101 on the Internet any more because it’s boring, it’s annoying, and we could spend our time more productively in other ways.
You say this is a site for civil, respectful discussion. I have spent a fair bit of time lurking here and I haven’t seen much of that, certainly not consistently. Even your comment isn’t particularly civil or respectful. You write TO Hugo ABOUT the women who have complained about the atmosphere here. They “slice and dice,” hurl “vitriol,” “silence” people (actually, most leave, which means they become silent — or haven’t you noticed?), are “extreme,” and refusing to listen to them is “heroic.”
And then there’s this especially cute bit:
There are many places for feminists to hang out and either congratulate one another for seeing through the evil machinations of patriarchy, or fight with one another about the correct way to destroy patriarchy (and who is helping/hurting the fight).
Do you not see how belittling this is? Does Hugo not see it? It boils down to “feminists either agree with each other or disagree,” I suppose, but the choice of words makes it pretty clear that you think feminist women spend all our time together either hanging around uselessly patting each other on the back or having catfights.
That paragraph doesn’t make any sense unless you assume that feminist women come to all discussions with opinions fully formed, that we don’t learn from each other, that we don’t really listen to each other — and that non-feminists and anti-feminists are somehow different. These are all disrespectful and self-serving assumptions.
As for your point, before you got into “feminist women don’t have anything worthwhile to talk about with each other” — yes, there are feminist-only spaces. Hugo is under no obligation to make this blog a feminist-only space, or even a more feminist-friendly space. However, if the comments to this post are any indication, it does seem well on its way to becoming a de facto MRA-only space. If that’s what he wants, then you’re right, he shouldn’t listen to the critics.
Elinor, I agree that part could have been said more nicely. I know that there are varied discussions in feminist spaces. And the “slice and dice” comment referred to Barry, not Hugo, and I stand by it. The poor guy hardly knew what hit him, it seemed to me. And for the record, I see little value in the MRA-only spaces. They congratulate one another on their superior perspective, and mercilessly attack dissenters who dare show up in their midst. Now if they enjoy that sort of idiocy, then fine – leave them to their sport. My clumsily made point is that there are plenty of feminist spaces where dissenting voices are forbidden, and there is no reason that this should become yet another one – and I believe that this is precisely what some of Hugo’s critics wish to see happen.
So is this becoming an MRA-only space? I don’t see it. Looking back over the past couple of weeks, I see only one thread where the MRA contingent had the majority of the comments. There are more regular feminist commenters by far. That doesn’t seem to be approaching an MRA-only space to me.
Now I must ask about your Anti-Misogyny 101 statement. You have heard it ALL before, yes? So you have nothing to learn from amyone who disagrees with you regarding feminism, in any way? There are no critiques of the movement that you haven’t already hashed out completely, and there is no need to listen to criticism of any sort any more? Pointless, right? (You refer to anti-woman arguments, and I have seen none here – perhaps you could point me to some of them. I don’t believe such have any place here.) I personally have been a student of feminism for a while – I have read most of the leading lights – and I have engaged in many discussions with feminists, both live and on-line. I can consider the differences between Gilligan and Belenky with you if you wish, and the dissonances between Shulamith Firestone and bell hooks. But I certainly would not say that I have nothing to learn from a discussion with educated feminists. That’s why I do it. You appear to believe that non-feminism = misogyny. Can you see that your attitude is deeply condescending?
But perhaps it is pointless, as you say. Perhaps you know everything that I or any other non-feminist could possibly say. Perhaps there is no logically possible challenge to anything that you believe (other than from within the ranks of the faithful). If this is so, then any discussion is pointless for you. I have not reached this level yet – and I don’t expect to do so in this life. I hope I always consider it worthwhile to have my assumptions challenged.
Elinor, I agree that part could have been said more nicely. I know that there are varied discussions in feminist spaces.
Why would you make such a comment, then, if you didn’t believe it?
Now I must ask about your Anti-Misogyny 101 statement. You have heard it ALL before, yes? So you have nothing to learn from amyone who disagrees with you regarding feminism, in any way?
Straw man. Never did I say that anyone who disagrees with me regarding feminism in any way was incapable of teaching me anything.
(You refer to anti-woman arguments, and I have seen none here – perhaps you could point me to some of them. I don’t believe such have any place here.)
There’s the last comment on this post, pretty much anything ever posted by Mr. Bad (who was around for quite some time), The Gonzman here and elsewhere…and a whole bunch of comments here.
That takes me three weeks into the archives and I admit I haven’t exactly gone through them with a fine-toothed comb. How far back do you care to go? So far I have: women are liars; women talk way too much; women have special privileges and want to bully men into silence; women are whiners; women constantly falsely accuse men of rape, to the point where a man isn’t safe around us (women are liars); women “withhold sex to get a free dinner out of a guy” and manipulate hapless men with our raw sexual power to the extent that we all need to be trained out of this horrible behaviour; women commit paternity fraud to the extent that we should be trained out of that too; (women are liars)…
Perhaps there is no logically possible challenge to anything that you believe (other than from within the ranks of the faithful).
That’s a straw man. Also, your conflating feminism with “faith” is more belittling contempt; it implies that feminists have no empirical evidence for our claims, and by extension that whatever anti-feminists believe is the real, ideology-free truth.
Oh, wait, I suppose you didn’t mean that one either…you could have been nicer…could have, but inexplicably weren’t…oh, dear.
it implies that feminists have no empirical evidence for our claims,
I keep butting my head against the Axiom of Discrimination which assumes that all disparities have environmental origins and remedies. The evidence that falsifies the Axiom of Discrimination is ignored. That sounds like faith to me. If it’s not faith but simply a lack of awareness on my part then I’d be very interested in any links you can provide to feminist positions on how documented biological differences in gender and associated behaviors, dispositions, and capabilities modify the Axiom of Discrimination so that equal outcomes are not defacto evidence of discrimination. For instance, I’ve never met any feminist who has modified their position when confronted with evidence that there is differential gene expression in fetal brain development. If the brains of the sexes develop differently, that’s ignored, and the lever is still pushed to full steam ahead on modifying gender roles through environmental intermediation. To me that looks like faith. Now of course this reaction isn’t unique to feminism for it’s old hat with Leftist Creationists but it does speak to the tendency to rely on faith rather than modify positions in light of new evidence.
Elinor – I appreciate very much your willingness to engage me here, and I am considering what you have said. I also believe that we are on-topic (right, Hugo?), and I would love to discuss this with you further – though I will not be able to reply at length until this evening. That is, if you are really interested in my take on these matters, as I am in yours. Your call.
And TangoMan, that really is an unfair generalization. Even the most essentialist of feminists (MacKinnon? Gilligan?) acknowledge the role of genetics/nature in gender. It’s the weight of that role vs social construction that is up for debate. I’m sure you are not saying that there is NO social role. Modifying positions doesn’t happen in an instant when it comes to beliefs, as it sometimes does in science. It takes exposure to evidence over time.
stanton
For instance, I’ve never met any feminist who has modified their position when confronted with evidence that there is differential gene expression in fetal brain development.
What sort of modification of position are you looking for? Do you want the United Feminists, LLC (TM) to stand up and shout “Of course men and women are different!”
These kinds of comments are the things that drive those of us attempting conversation round the bend. The level of condescension inherent in that statement is unbelieveable. My fondest hope for Hugo’s blog is that people stop trying to identify the one true voice of feminism like it’s the Oracle of Delphi to prove that it’s inherently right or inherently wrong.
These kinds of comments are the things that drive those of us attempting conversation round the bend.
Me too… because clearly facts have very little to do with the purely emotional position held by extremists. Hugo has a whole bunch of strikes against him in “feminist” spaces and each and every one of them will be used to ignore any reasonable challenge he may make to the faith being esposed.
* As a male, the will ingore him – he will never be “feminist” enough of course to make up for this unforgivable sin
* As a white, middle class (or so it seems) male he will be safely ignored for the sin of “privilege”
It’s really quite amazing how well constructed the philosophy of some extreme radical feminists is to justify their own beliefs and completely disregard any challenge to them. Sometimes it seems that the whole idea of “safe spaces” is basically “don’t challenge me!”.
You know, I hear so much about how “extreme” feminists ignore reasonable challenges, and so few actual reasonable challenges.
Apparently it’s much more fun to call names.
I’m a middle-class WASP. I don’t go around denying that my privilege exists. I don’t think my presence or my ideas will be vital to every conversation and thus I don’t feel I must always be included. And I spend time in feminist-only space because I get really, really tired of the disrespect handed out in places like this.
Sometimes it seems that the whole idea of “safe spaces” is basically “don’t challenge me!”.
It’s actually “don’t insult me” and “don’t derail the conversation.”
Gee, Elinor, did you notice the vast silence that fell after your comment?
Look, it’s Stanton, finding another feminist blog after Trish banned him. Funny, Hugo: so many names here come from blogs run by women who have banned them. What does that say about you?
It’s actually “don’t insult me” and “don’t derail the conversation.”
Of course “don’t insult me” is generally followed by “but I demand the right to insult you pivileged mysoginist scumbags!’ – so it tends to lose a little of it’s impact. I know, I know… thats not rudeness or ignorance, thats the righteous anger of the vitim and it is “anti-feminist” to question such things.
“derailment” seems to be a code for “challenge the assumptions of”.
And yet you link to a post called Feminist Mud Wrestling and spew a bunch of crap about what’s really going on is some over-emotional women screaming everyone else into deafness.
I’m all for big tent feminism, but that’s not what you’re talking about, Soulhuntre. You’re talking about us (in some vague, undefined sense) putting up with people who belittle our ideas and then insist they’re just trying to challenge the party line. That’s nonsense and you know it. A post like that isn’t meant to challenge assumptions. It’s meant to start a flamewar, and you know it.
It’s interesting, because I think that the MRA style voices have become a lot lounder here as of late. I’ve personally stopped engaging in a lot of the comments because it consists of nothing but people sniping at each other and repeating the exact same statements over and over again. There’s no value in that.
Now that I’ve completely rehashed the comments in three separate threads, I’ll say this: I’ve seen you ban a poster for posting things that were absolutely nutty (i.e. female genital mutilation is meant to protect women). For some, that’s as nutty as “we need to think first about why men are turned off from fatherhood, rather than why women make the childbearing choices they do.” I guess I do wonder where the line in the sand is…
Elinor,
You are correct that I believe feminism to be rather religious in nature. That is not an insult, because I have great respect for religions and religious beliefs. I don’t believe that it is right for me to personally subscribe to all of them, however, and I do not. I’m not sure how to respond to your statement about “whatever anti-feminists believe is the real ideology-free truth”. It seems to me to be highly charged, with any response likely to bring down anger upon me. First of all, can we agree not to use the “anti-feminist” pejorative? Disagreeing with some of the tenets espoused by some feminists does not make one an anti-feminist, and use of the term is dehumanizing. Second, I suspect that when you use the term, you have in mind a pretty broad swath of humanity who are not of one mind by any means, so there is no “anti-feminists belief”, per se. And I will state my own belief that there is very little ideology-free content out there in the world, and that includes my own opinions.
Let me state that I have respect for you and your opinions, and I would enjoy a respectful conversation with you. Can you accept that from me? If I have misinterpreted what you said about having heard the MRA arguments, feel free to correct me – set me straight. But please try not to talk down to me, and I will extend to you the same courtesy.
stanton
PS. Hugo – I believe that this is on-topic – determining the level of “safety” for discussion here, in the form of courtesy, insult-free consideration of feminist principles.
It’s meant to start a flamewar, and you know it.
I hope your not meaning me. If I wanted to start a flamewar I would have posted that stuff here, knowing that any real discussion of most of the issues involved in these interblog arguments inevitebly results in such outrage.
Hugo doesn’t need that.
In fact it was in in a comment over at Feministe that one of those yelling loudest suggested that someone should post to their own blog, then link it in a comment to avoid derailment and be considerate. I did.
what’s really going on is some over-emotional women screaming everyone else into deafness
To some degree that is what the extremists are doing. Of course that’s impossible to really discus in venues like this one. It’s not that I don’t think a discussion fo the chilling effect of extremists in the feminist movement would not maybe be welcome – it would just be literally impossible… as the thread at Feministe has shown.
Anyone who reads my post will see that my comments are directed at the extremists who are, in fact, doing their best to police, define and control feminism. It certainly isn;t directed at feminists as a whole.
p.s. The mere fact that I quote Rand will be enough to send them into a spasm. Watch and see
You know, this sounds suspiciously like trying to pick a fight and start a flamewar.
Personally, I’d prefer it if Hugo’s blog wasn’t a shooting range for extremists on either side of the aisle. (And it largely isn’t.) Hence, I think it’s disingenuous for everyone to keep insisting that they’re critcizing the extremists. It’s impossible for anyone of us to defend everyone else’s views; and frankly, the suggestion that we should either try such a defense or let all criticism of said extremists pass is stupid.
I’m quite sure that Mr. Bad, Gonzman, et al. don’t agree with everything that’s posted in the comment threads at Stand Your Ground and it’d be a waste of time to demand that they explain it all. Yet, that’s what happens every day here. We get “well, over at Feministe, they say this.” and “Amanda [at Pandagon] is running her mouth again.” Dude, those blogs have comments sections. Use them.
This statement makes no sense:
“Even the most essentialist of feminists (MacKinnon? Gilligan?) acknowledge the role of genetics/nature in gender.”
Saying that gendered behaviour is NOT essential (MacKinnon) is essentialist?
I don’t see how it’s possible to have a respectful conversation with somebody who uses words to mean their exact opposite. I’m also not sure how well you’ve read your feminism if you think MacKinnon and Gilligan say the same things.
First of all, can we agree not to use the “anti-feminist” pejorative?
It’s not pejorative. It’s descriptive, and I will use it when it seems appropriate.
Let me state that I have respect for you and your opinions, and I would enjoy a respectful conversation with you.
This is rather a late hour to start showing that.
Hugo: As always, some (including this blogger) want to define feminism broadly; we’re the “big tent” folks. Others worry that we big tenters are “dumbing down” feminism, or setting the bar so low that virtually anyone (even those with ugly sexist rhetoric) can define themselves as feminists.
Hugo, this is an old argument but I don’t understand how this argument comes into play in the comments you’re discussing. The comments critical of you have generally been about your comment moderation policies and the way that you allow explicitly anti-feminist commenters to act on your website. Not about how broadly or narrowly you define “feminism.” Is there something that I’m missing?
Soulhuntre: Of course “don’t insult me” is generally followed by “but I demand the right to insult you pivileged mysoginist scumbags!’ – so it tends to lose a little of it’s impact. I know, I know… thats not rudeness or ignorance, thats the righteous anger of the vitim and it is “anti-feminist” to question such things.
You know, whether this is a fair representation of what the specific folks you’re referring to say and do (I don’t think it is), you haven’t actually offered anything, other than the tone of facile sarcasm, to show that there’s anything wrong with conducting yourself like this. Most people make a distinction between (1) righteous anger in response to a genuine wrong, and (2) belligerence that isn’t justified by the circumstances. There may be cases in which that distinction happens not to be relevant; or you might think that feminist women’s anger at anti-feminist men isn’t, actually, justified by the circumstances. But you can’t expect feminists to agree with you about the latter, and you’ve done nothing to demonstrate the former. You’re just trying to get by on sarcastic references to different standards, as if that just by itself proved the difference to be unfair.
It doesn’t.
stanton: Even the most essentialist of feminists (MacKinnon? Gilligan?) acknowledge the role of genetics/nature in gender.
Elinor: Saying that gendered behaviour is NOT essential (MacKinnon) is essentialist?
My suspicion is that “essentialist feminist” is being used here more or less as a synonym for Christina Hoff Sommers’ “gender feminist.” That latter was itself pretty clearly used as an attempt to mean something like what is meant by “difference feminist,” which is why Gilligan gets included and also why you might think that the whole program can be described as “essentialist.” The problem, of course, is that “gender feminist” was also intended to mean something like “any feminist whose views Christina Hoff Sommers regards as too radical,” so it ends up meaning nothing coherent at all, and stridently anti-essentialist radical feminists such as Catharine MacKinon also get included on the list.
Elinor,
You are correct. That statement made no sense. That’s what I get for hammering out a rapid response! Anyway, it was directed at TangoBoy, addressing his powerful “nature” position in the nature vs nurture consideration. MacKinnon and Gilligan are opposite in that respect. Gilligan leans toward nature more than most feminists, while MacKinnon is strongly in the nuture camp.
Of course you have the right to use any name you like for any group you like. If I find the term anti-feminist to be demeaning and dehumanizing (not to mention inaccurate) would you honor my request that you not use it in reference to me? I offer you the same courtesy – I will not refer to you by any term which you find offensive, once I am made aware of the fact.
As for it being late in the game to offer respect to you, I’m not sure where you believe I have insulted you, but I assure you such was not my intention if I have.
” Look, it’s Stanton, finding another feminist blog after Trish banned him. Funny, Hugo: so many names here come from blogs run by women who have banned them. What does that say about you?”
Hello, ginmar. Havent heard from you in a while. I guess I still haven’t technically, because I think you are talking about me here, and not to me. That’s okay with me!
Did Trish ban me? I heard a rumor to that effect once, but I really wouldn’t know. I posted there on one occasion, after Amanda did her quite brave appearance on Glenn’s show. Trish quickly closed the thread, and I never ventured back. Did Trish say that I was banned for that? Strange criteria, but it’s her blog. I didn’t come here from the Countess, though. I was commenting here long before I ever heard of Trish, so my presence here doesn’t really make your point, though perhaps there are others who would fit. I’m sure Mr. Bad or Gonz have been banned somewhere, perhaps before they came over here. Try them out.
Anyway – it was great hearing from you. Have a nice day.
Is it ironic that ginmar exemplifies the negative stereotype of a feminist, and hence undermines the very movement she supports?
I think it’s hilarious that she thinks that allowing dissenting viewpoints and insisting on civility makes this blog hostile to feminists.
Yeah, stanton, I’ve been banned from anarchist boards masquerading as libertarian for being statist, from MRA boards for not going along with the gender seperatism, from conservative boards for not kowtowing to the party line – and from liberal and/or feminist ones.
It’s not a particularly difficult accomplishment, either
Soulhuntre wrote: In fact it was in in a comment over at Feministe that one of those yelling loudest suggested that someone should post to their own blog, then link it in a comment to avoid derailment and be considerate.
I was the person who said that on Feministe (I was asking Robert to leave the thread be). Do you really think that “one of those yelling loudest” is a fair description of my posts there? I thought I was pretty restrained, under the circumstances.
Mike wrote: Is it ironic that ginmar exemplifies the negative stereotype of a feminist, and hence undermines the very movement she supports?
I think it’s hilarious that she thinks that allowing dissenting viewpoints and insisting on civility makes this blog hostile to feminists.
First, in my opinion (which means nothing, since I’m not the moderator) your comment is very uncivil; you’re clearly treating Ginmar with contempt.
Secondly, it’s clear that allowing MRA viewpoints and insisting on civility has in fact made Hugo’s blog (and my own blog) hostile to some feminists. We know this because many feminists have said so, explicitly. So Ginmar is simply describing reality; that you find this “hilarious” doesn’t make Ginmar’s statement any less accurate.
Plus, many MRA posters clearly are hostile to feminists and feminism, and use their tone to make that hostility clear (your post here is a good example of this). There’s nothing irrational about thinking hostile people are, in fact, hostile.
My take on it is that no blog can be everything to all feminists. If I stopped enforcing civility and banned all the MRAs and conservatives from “Alas,” that would indeed make it friendlier space for some feminists. But it would drive some other people – including some female feminists – away. (It would also drive me away, which would mean that the comments would have to be shut down). No one blog can be all things to all people; the best situation, therefore, is to have a variety of blog comment environments available. In my opinion.
Is it ironic that ginmar exemplifies the negative stereotype of a feminist, and hence undermines the very movement she supports?
I think it’s hilarious that she thinks that allowing dissenting viewpoints and insisting on civility makes this blog hostile to feminists.
Do you honestly think this comment in civil, Hugo?
Er, *is* civil.
Rad Geek wrote: Hugo, this is an old argument but I don’t understand how this argument comes into play in the comments you’re discussing. The comments critical of you have generally been about your comment moderation policies and the way that you allow explicitly anti-feminist commenters to act on your website. Not about how broadly or narrowly you define “feminism.” Is there something that I’m missing?
Several people have suggested, more than once, that my blog is not a feminist blog because of my moderating policies. A few people have suggested that, by extension, I’m not a feminist. I believe that similar comments have been made about Hugo’s blog, and possibly about Hugo. This brings up the “big tent” issue; is “feminist blog” defined broadly enough to include Hugo’s blog and “Alas,” and is “feminist” defined broadly enough to include myself and Hugo?
Ampersand, I can pretty much agree with what you wrote here, except I must add to your statement; “There’s nothing irrational about thinking hostile people are, in fact, hostile.” Doesn’t it follow that there is nothing irrational abot calling a hostile feminist hostile? And drawing conclusions about the consequences of this expressed hostility doesn’t seem to me to be over-the-top uncivil.
Oops… It’s too early! That statement was by Sally. So – sorry Amp! Guess I’m back to pretty much full agreement with your comment. If someone finds a place to be hostile, then who am I to say she does not?
Stanton, you had it right the first time. Sally and I crossposted saying pretty much the same thing (which is ironic, since Sally I and are actually at loggerheads in the larger debate).
One of the major disagreements between me and my critics is that my critics make a distinction between “tone” and “content” that I find dubious. Tone is content.
To answer your question, there is nothing, in and of itself, irrational or rude about saying “I think Suzy Feminist’s statement was rather hostile.” (Of course, in the wrong context it might be irrational and/or rude, but let’s put that aside for now). However, one can easily alter the tone to send an additional message of contempt – and, in my view, the tone then becomes an important part of the content. Consider these two sentences:
“Suzy, with all due respect, to me your post felt a bit hostile.”
vs.
“I find it laughable how hostile Suzy’s post was.”
In both cases, the speaker is saying that they perceived Suzy’s post as hostile. But the second speaker is also communicating that he finds Suzy to be an appropriate object for his condescension, ridicule and contempt. For that reason, I don’t think the second sentence – or Mike’s post – could reasonably be seen as civil.
Amen, Amp; tone is content.
Well, I guess hostility is in the eye of the beholder; in that respect, I regard “Alas” as hostile because I find that threads open only to one prejudice – well, I have a different philosophy, and the difference is not the point of debate
I’m hearing some contradictory messages: “We want people to understand – we don’t want to explain” seems to be the thrust of it.
I’ve heard a lot of feminists here complain that they are tired of being regarded as gender seperatist, female supremacist, man-hating radicals. And even though I’m sure someone will point at me as being hostile but I will say it anyway – those are the voices coming loudest from the discourse of the “feminisms.” (Scare quotes strictly to underline the multiplicity of feminist philosophies) They write the books, write the articles, get the air time, are the ones seen cracking the whip – outside of intra-feminist circles.
It can be blamed on the media, but in fairness, the radicals are the ones moved to make public display, who else are they going to cover? Combine this with the above message, of not WANTING to explain, and not wanting to publicly contradict the radical elements (Thoug I’ve heard many express here privately that “radicals” aren’t what feminism is about) – well, guess who the face of feminism is?
You can label it blaming or hostile if you want, that’s just how the dynamic is working; and I’m not saying it’s fair or no – But Joe and Jane Q. Average on the street are busy working, raising their kids, and a host of other things. They don’t have the time to study the nuances, and branches, and subtle distinctions.
“This brings up the “big tent” issue; is “feminist blog” defined broadly enough to include Hugo’s blog and “Alas,” and is “feminist” defined broadly enough to include myself and Hugo?”
Why should it broaden? You’re both the ones wanting to claim feminist as an identity and a politics. Shouldn’t you be the ones changing rather than the definition? …which is one of the reasons that many feminists are hesitant to allow that men *can* be feminist in the first place.
As for Gonzman’s whinging, yet again, about the bad, scary man-hating feminists… well, read the newspaper, watch the news. Then tell me what is wrong with being a man-hater. You use it like it’s something to be avoided Gonzman. Or something bad. Personally I think it’s a natural extension of the way guys like you exist in this world.
I think it’s hilarious that she thinks that allowing dissenting viewpoints and insisting on civility makes this blog hostile to feminists.
Do you honestly think this comment in civil, Hugo?
[Tone=non-hostile]
In the context of the messages that Ginmar has posted, which have been in my opinion, extremely hostile, I don’t think this is exactly over the top. There is more than one type of context to consider here.
I do find it hypocritical that a relatively innocuous statement is jumped on immediately as hostile, yet Ginmars are not.
I see it pretty often here. Feminist come in and apply a boat load of negative if not downright hostile male stereotypes and comments and it’s all ok. Men defend their view or attempt to discuss why they think a particular feminist concept or complaint might not be accurate and all of the sudden the women here get the vapours.
Ginmars comments deserve the type of response that Mike gave. She and other’s here have dished out much much worse for a lot less reason. Don’t talk trash then hide behind civility.
[/Tone=non-hostile]
For instance:
As for Gonzman’s whinging, yet again, about the bad, scary man-hating feminists… well, read the newspaper, watch the news. Then tell me what is wrong with being a man-hater. You use it like it’s something to be avoided Gonzman. Or something bad. Personally I think it’s a natural extension of the way guys like you exist in this world.
Anyone going to chime in and mention that this is hostile? I thought not.
Hugo, FWIW, you don’t have to change your blog rules, or your format, or who posts here. You just have to come to terms with the fact that you are *not* a feminist, despite your constant attempts to redefine feminism to fit your view of life (and Christianity).
[which begs the larger argument. One can hardly conflate conventional Christianity with feminism -- one might talk about Christ and feminist ideals, but to say that Christianity and feminism are compatible is to ignore the effect and role of Christianity in shoring up patriarchy, the hatred of women, and a long history of church ordained violence (witch burnings, etc.) against women. Which doesn't even touch on Christianity's insistance on the moral weakness, spiritual retardation, and hysteria of women.]
Q Grrl, anytime you want a feminist Christian reading list, let me know! I know a great many female pastors who would be fascinated to learn that all of Christianity insists on “moral weakness, spiritual retardation, and hysteria of women.”
Christian history is not the Christian present.
Did I say “all” Hugo? I don’t think I did. But let me correct you again: being female doesn’t mean being Christian. A Christian reading list does not necessarily mean that it is feminist. Rosemarie Radford Ruether writes solid feminist-Christian theory, but I sincerely doubt either you or your audience live your Christianity to the depths of that analysis. Your approach to “feminist” Christianity is more akin to Bonhoffer’s “cheap grace” than it is to any deep and meaningful “costly grace”. And that’s just the Christian side of it.
You are staunchly pro-life, no? If so, you have no feminist platform to stand on whatsoever. Furthermore, you value debate, fairness, and civility far above the social emancipation of women. As long as you cling to these hallmarks as something that will save and bolster your POV, then you can’t even begin to understand the social equality that women are seeking or the social inequality that women are fighting against. Afterall, debate, fairness, and civility got Greg Haidl on six years in prison.
oops. Should read: being female does not equal being feminist.
Although the typo has merit as it stands.
“Christian history is not the Christian present.”
Only a man whose god is made in his image could say this and think he is being sincere.
Which doesn’t even touch on Christianity’s insistance on the moral weakness, spiritual retardation, and hysteria of women.
and
Christian history is not the Christian present.
Christian history isn’t Christian ideals or goals either.
That’s like saying Democracy is pro slavery and internment. Just because someone excuses ther wrongdoing by invoking something good doesn’t make it true. We all fail at one time or another when trying to attain a goal, that doesn’t cprrupt the goal itself. When one of the anti-feminists around here says something similar about feminist, they rightfully get smacked down for it. I’m not a Christian, but I find that extremely rude and frankly, willfully ignorant.
Mike: Is it ironic that ginmar exemplifies the negative stereotype of a feminist, and hence undermines the very movement she supports?
Mike, do you think ginmar’s goal is to persuade anti-feminists that the “negative stereotypes” they hold are mistaken? I doubt that it is. Or that it should be.
As for Gonzman’s whinging, yet again, about the bad, scary man-hating feminists… well, read the newspaper, watch the news. Then tell me what is wrong with being a man-hater. You use it like it’s something to be avoided Gonzman. Or something bad. Personally I think it’s a natural extension of the way guys like you exist in this world.
Honestly, I hardly make the claim that such feminists exist, and when I do, I just point out comments like this and let them do the talking for me. Why should I? Such sentiments speak far more eloquently than anything I could say. You’ve jumped here on something you wish to believe I have said, instead of what I actually and unambiguously said. Read carefully what I actually wrote, I discuss the perception, as opposed to the reality.
If you don’t like the perception of outsiders, what power do I have to change it? That’s yours to do. Would you have me speak less than truth to you as I see it?
I was amazed one time when an old Rabbi friend of mine – rest his soul – gave me a gift of Mein Kampf, and I asked him, “David, why are you giving me such filth? What can this have to say to me?”
His response was “It’s a gift. Throw it away if you feel that strongly. But if you do, you’ll never know.”
Bigotry doesn’t rise from the conviction you are right. It rises from the conviction that nobody else can be.
Mike, do you think ginmar’s goal is to persuade anti-feminists that the “negative stereotypes” they hold are mistaken? I doubt that it is. Or that it should be.
No, it is not. 100% right. But neither should those who fall into the stereotype complain when they reinforce it.
Sometimes I think some of the anger is directed at the fact that many of us who post here from the house opposite don’t obligingly put on the stereotype mask and spin our heads around while vomiting pea soup. It does break from the mold and rubric, and moves out of the comfort zone of being able to slap a stereotype on and treat us as less than human, ehwot?
I read about Al-Quaida’s chief’s interview. He said that he had due respect for Prophet Mohammed and Jesus Christ but in America you could abuse and vilify anyone, even Christianity and Lord Jesus but not JEWS and HOMOSEXUALS.
Sam, that’s clearly not what this thread is about. Let’s try to minimize flaunting the anti-thread drift rule in its first few days, all right?
“I’m not a Christian, but I find that extremely rude and frankly, willfully ignorant. ”
Thagmano: what history of the Christian church do you or don’t you understand? The Catholic Church still won’t ordain women as priests, so there is nothing willfully ignorant about me stating that the church insists on the moral weakness, spiritual retardation, and hysteria of women. The church itself explicity says so. And what part of fundamentalist Christianity’s demands of wifely submission isn’t directly tied to the belief in the moral weakness, spiritual retardation, and hysteria of women?
Oh, wait. Maybe you, as a man (?) assume that these forms of Christianity are just abberations, anomalies, etc. I mean, that’s the only way you can think that the historical context of Christianity isn’t relevant to today’s issues for women.
Q Grrl, I think your comments above are just as stubbornly based on your own assumptions as Gonz & Mr. Bad’s. You aren’t at all willing to hear that your opinions/assumptions about Christians and feminism could be a limited perspective of something that many people find very important to their lives. You’re very comfortable with using excessive, demeaning language to make that point.
Not allowing female priests does not automatically equal a belief that women are “morally weak, spritually retarded, and hysterical”. Nuns have been an integral part of the Catholic church for a very long time and they certainly aren’t regarded as “morally weak, spritually retarded, and hysterical”. You may have problems with the hierarchical authority structure of the Catholic church and the role women play in that structure, but your value judgement is purposefully stated in offensive terms. Many, many Christians regard the traditional “patriarchal” interpretation of “wifely submission” as dangerous and unbiblical. Hugo is one of those many people, and he sees no conflict between his feminism and his Christianity.
If you refuse to see that people can and do work against harmful traditions (the ones you metion are as much cultural as religious), you can feel free to continue in your views. But I don’t see any difference between your approach here and the MRAs approach. You don’t value Christianity and you have no compunction in using rhetoric that could be “threatening” to people who do value it. Same for them and feminism. Just because you don’t value Christianity and do value feminism is no reason to be harrassing Hugo that he equally allows both your posts and theirs.
It’s willfully ignorant because you’re lumping all kinds of different beliefs into one system and imputing those beliefs to anyone who might tangentially be connected. I think it’s appalling that the Catholic church doesn’t ordain women and that parts of the Southern Baptist church has called for wifely submission. Those things are not anomalies, either. Yet, you managed to impute those motives to me because I’m also Christian.
If one continues this line of thought, there aren’t any Islamic, Jewish, or Hindu feminists either. Are we actually reaching the point where the only “true” feminists are athiests and Wiccans or something?
I’m not worried about true. If something shores up the patriarchy (which Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc do) then it is worthy of more feminist critique than it is worthy of the title feminist. To counter you point, evilfizz, I would suggest that your view of feminism is just to make people feel better about living in a patriarchal system.
Vacula: my “opinions” are based on reading the full text of the Bible, being active in the Christian church for 25+ years, reading the opines of the church over almost 40 years of my life, and reading the history of the church. If I repeat back what the church has explicitly said historically and currently, I fail to see the willfull ignorance. I would counter you by saying that your blindness to the Church’s stance and beliefs (and the majority of Christian ethics) is more likely to be willfull ignorance than is my stance. When Gonzman and Mr. Bad can produce written theory or substantial evidence, then I might concede points. However, when their arguments consist of blaming feminism, well, I stop believing them.
Amp: Several people have suggested, more than once, that my blog is not a feminist blog because of my moderating policies. A few people have suggested that, by extension, I’m not a feminist. I believe that similar comments have been made about Hugo’s blog, and possibly about Hugo. This brings up the “big tent” issue; is “feminist blog” defined broadly enough to include Hugo’s blog and “Alas,” and is “feminist” defined broadly enough to include myself and Hugo?
Well, O.K., fair enough; but it didn’t seem like that was what was at issue in the thread that Hugo was commenting on, and Hugo seemed to me to be writing about it as if the issue at hand were his attitude towards the claims of third parties to the “feminist” name, not his own claim to it.
That said, the issue has come up explicitly now, so maybe you’re right that it was there all along. Anyway, not much sense in pressing the point now that it clearly is part of the debate.
Hugo: Q Grrl, anytime you want a feminist Christian reading list, let me know!
Hugo, that was a really patronizing comment.
Gonzman: I’ve heard a lot of feminists here complain that they are tired of being regarded as gender seperatist, female supremacist, man-hating radicals.
Hey. I can’t say that I personally know any female supremacists, but some of my best friends are gender separatist, man-hating radicals.
Gonzman: And even though I’m sure someone will point at me as being hostile but I will say it anyway – those are the voices coming loudest from the discourse of the “feminisms.”
See, here’s the thing. All the radical feminists I know feel that their views are unfairly marginalized, ridiculed, and used as rhetorical foils both within the movement and in discussions of the movement from the outside looking in. So there’s clearly a disconnect here. Either (1) you (and whoever it is you’re citing) have a very different impression of the content of public discussions about feminism, or (2) you (and whoever it is you’re citing) have a very different impression of what constitutes “radical feminism” (or “gender separatism” or “man-hating” or whatever) than many self-identified radical feminists do.
Rad, do you honestly believe that Q Grrl’s whopping generalization about all Christians was less offensive than my reply?
I didn’t mean to be patronizing. What I meant is that there is an extraordinary body of Christian feminist theology that Q Grrl either doesn’t know about or is willfully dismissing. I thought I could point out a few good books that might help her to see the two as reconciliable. That is, after all, my raison d’etre here on this blog.
And Rad Geek, I hope you don’t mean to equate “radical” with “man-hating.” The MRAs sometimes do, but most authentic radical feminists don’t hate men. Dworkin had a great deal to say on that subject.
Pretty much exactly what Vacula and evil_fizz said.
Do I think it’s wrong that women cannot be ordained in the Catholic church? Yes. But is that the same thing as thinking Christianity is wrong? No. It’s very different. There are evils, small and large that people do in the name of things that are good. What Christianity stands for is good. Just like feminism. Which is the point I made that you chose to ignore. You (apparently) can’t see the difference, but there is one.
I say all of this as an atheist feminist woman. I do think that the historical context of Christianity is incredibly relevant to women’s issues today. But you’ve got it backwards. It is smart, open-minded, people practicing the teachings of Jesus (like Hugo, and others here) that are our allies, not our enemies against the oppression done in the Lord’s name.
To counter you point, evilfizz, I would suggest that your view of feminism is just to make people feel better about living in a patriarchal system.
And now who’s patronizing? For crying out loud: we live in a patriarchy. Live in as in we inhabit it, move through it, and are stuck in it. While it’s changing slowly, it’s not really getting a whole lot better. Absent separatism, most of us have to continue to live in said patriarchy. I don’t think denying it helps, but you’ve got to make your peace with the world you live in to the extent that such a thing is possible. Frankly, I don’t know anyone who has the energy to examine every last minute detail of their lives for vestiages of the patriarchy. If you think that’s being complicit, fine. But for those of us lacking in ideological purity and separatist tendencies, there has to be some way to cope.
As a Christian, I believe there is a “moral weakness” in all of humanity. I am not surprised to find it in the Church as well. But I see absolutely no reason to reject Christianity because I do not agree with some Christians any more than I feel a need to reject all of feminism because I disagree with some feminists. Christianity is a tradition of people reading and interpreting and following a specific text within human traditions. My belief in God is not “blind” because I see and disagree with other Christian’s interpetations of the Bible. I also see and disagree with many of the actions and beliefs of the people in the Bible, but I feel no need to reject the book because I disagree with the people in its contents.
The tone of this discussion still sounds to me like one of the many arguments about domestic abuse that feminists and MRAs get into on this site. The MRAs are outraged at the spectre of false accusation – feminists are outraged at the spectre of women trapped in abusive situations. If you choose one side of an issue and refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of another side of the same issue, you aren’t really committed to the “goals” of either side, which should be freedom from fear of manipulation and abuse that can destroy a life. Arguments about which is “more important” and which “trumps” don’t really go anywhere.
You believe that your movement, feminism, trumps Christianity because of historical problems. Hugo and many of us who read his blog think the two can work together for greater good. However you have come to your opinion, you are unwilling to acknowledge the legitimacy of Hugo’s opinion. My life has not been as long as yours, but I have read the Bible multiple times, I’ve been in church my entire life, and even if I’m not a scholar of church history I do know quite a bit about it. It doesn’t make me happy all the time, but I don’t feel the need to dump it.
This isn’t a matter of learning trumping another person’s opinion. It’s a matter of respecting the range of each other’s experiences and beliefs and using reasonably appropriate language in our discussions. We can agree to disagree without being “threatened” or “unsafe”.
Hugo: Rad, do you honestly believe that Q Grrl’s whopping generalization about all Christians was less offensive than my reply?
Whether her claims were correct or incorrect, and whether they are offensive or inoffensive, they are not based out of simple ignorance of Christian feminist thought. I think it was a mistake for you to treat her on the presumption that they were, particularly in the pedagogical tone that you chose to take.
I hope you don’t mean to equate “radical” with “man-hating.”
I don’t. But I have a different view of what constitutes “man-hating” from the view that most anti-feminists have, so I don’t take charges of “man-hating” in their mouths very seriously or feel any particular need to cater to their views by trying to distance myself or others from the “charge,” such as it is.
See, here’s the thing. All the radical feminists I know feel that their views are unfairly marginalized, ridiculed, and used as rhetorical foils both within the movement and in discussions of the movement from the outside looking in. So there’s clearly a disconnect here. Either (1) you (and whoever it is you’re citing) have a very different impression of the content of public discussions about feminism, or (2) you (and whoever it is you’re citing) have a very different impression of what constitutes “radical feminism” (or “gender separatism” or “man-hating” or whatever) than many self-identified radical feminists do.
As may be. Look, I’m not saying our movement does’t have it’s share of radical and woman hating kooks. It does. And there are a lot of radicals which echo similar rhetoric, but to serve an entirely different point, often for which they are excoriated, from within our own movement. And rightfully so. Extremism speaks the loudest. Always has. They are by there very nature the most zealous and fanatical, and the professional activists tend to gravitate towards these ends. Politics, religion – you name it, it’s true across the board.
Such people are then, the mouthpieces of any movement. ANY. Someone *IN* the movement can catch the nuances, if and when they are present. Outsiders – they don’t.
Whether or not it’s fair – and it isn’t – is besides the point. It is, however, the way it is; the average working-class schmuck just does not have the time in their life to go into it in that kind of depth, be it philosophy, religion, politics – you name it. They work. They come home. They make dinner. They deal with the kids. The housework. Fix the car. Mow the lawn. Repair the siding. Chase down the %@$#! dog because he got loose again. Then there is personal grooming, oh, and sleep. Couple time with husband, wife, girlfriend, boyfriend … the list goes on. Maybe they should investigate “Blankism” deeper. Well, there’s also (Insert here list of competing theories on economics, religion, social policy, foreign policy, etc. etc. etc.)
The most successful movements are the ones who can sum it up and explain it simply – I saw a t-shirt long ago that said something to the effect of “If your philosophy won’t fit on a t-shirt, it’s not worth believing in.”
Thing is, too, I’m not claiming – I’m pointing out that ya’ll are claiming it, that people take the most radical rhetoric and hold it as representive of all feminism, that it produces the “I’m not a feminist, but…” women because they are afraid of being associated with it. That such things are an issue speak loudly of a public image and perception problem.
Numbers added for expository purposes.
Gonzman: Thing is, too, I’m not claiming – I’m pointing out [1] that ya’ll are claiming it, that people take the most radical rhetoric and hold it as representive of all feminism, [2] that it produces the “I’m not a feminist, but…” women because they are afraid of being associated with it. That such things are an issue speak loudly of a public image and perception problem.
Look, I don’t like it when feminists do this, because I think it’s a destructive tactic that caters to anti-feminist baiting. (On the other hand, I’m biased, because my sympathies lie with radical feminism anyway.) But in any case, (1) and (2) are separate claims, and, in my experience, most feminists who do say this sort of thing make claim (1) but not claim (2). The main people who blame radical feminists for fence-sitting or anti-feminist attitudes are the fence-sitters and anti-feminists themselves. Most actual feminists who make claim (1) are simply making the point that feminist thought isn’t a monolithic hive mind, and they blame anti-feminists, not radical feminists, for treating it as if it were. Now, maybe the opinions of fence-sitters and anti-feminists are signs of “a public image and perception problem,” and maybe they aren’t, but even if they are, I don’t think it’s accurate to claim that it’s feminists rather than you who are stressing this point. But the point of feminist theory and practice is not necessarily to persuade more non-feminists to become feminists. So how seriously to take such a “problem,” so far as it exists, depends on a lot more than just the reactions of non-feminists to radical feminist rhetoric, where it is aired.
Anyway, I don’t know that you’ve understood my original point. People (women, mostly) who actually identify themselves as radical feminists don’t generally feel that their views are widely aired or discussed, and that their positions and contributions have been marginalized and continue to be marginalized. Not only by others IN the movement, but also by those OUTSIDE the movement. (They are widely “quoted” by certain factions within the anti-feminist movement, but that’s itself a minority faction.) Maybe you think they’re just wrong about the content of the discussion. But, really, which of the following do you think is better known and more widely discussed outside of feminist circles?
* Betty Friedan, or Shulamith Firestone?
* NOW, or the Redstockings?
* The Feminine Mystique, or Sexual Politics?
* Ms., or off our backs?
(N.B.: if you think that, in any of these four pairs, both are examples of the “radical” or “extremist” tendency in feminism, then you’ve made it pretty clear that what’s going on is that you have a very different picture of what constitutes radicalism than self-identified radical feminists do.)
Q Grrl, quoting me, writes:
“This brings up the “big tent” issue; is “feminist blog” defined broadly enough to include Hugo’s blog and “Alas,” and is “feminist” defined broadly enough to include myself and Hugo?”
Why should it broaden? You’re both the ones wanting to claim feminist as an identity and a politics. Shouldn’t you be the ones changing rather than the definition?
With all due respect, Q Grrl, your question assumes what’s at issue. Before I can address whether the definition of “feminist” should broaden, I’d have to agree that Hugo and/or myself have fallen outside any of the legitimate, already-existing definitions of feminist.
However, that has not been established, and I’m not persuaded it’s true. My belief is that there are some legitimate existing definitions of “feminist,” as commonly used by many feminists, which would not say that disagreement on how to moderate a blog is a make-or-break issue regarding whether or not one is a feminist. Therefore, it’s possible for me to believe that I’m a feminist without advocating that “it should broaden” at all.
I wrote: ….I’d have to agree that Hugo and/or myself have fallen outside any of the legitimate, already-existing definitions of feminist.
There’s a very bad error in that sentence, which significantly changes my intended meaning; the word “any” should have been the word “all.” Here’s what the sentence should have said:
With all due respect, Q Grrl, your question assumes what’s at issue. Before I can address whether the definition of “feminist” should broaden, I’d have to agree that Hugo and/or myself have fallen outside all of the legitimate, already-existing definitions of feminist.
Sorry about that!
Great post, Rad Geek.
Indeed, Rad; I do talk about the “Dialectic of Sex”; I do talk about Kate Millett — I do acknowledge the tensions between radical and liberal and equity and Marxist feminism. I wish I could do so in more detail in my classes!
Back to the earlier section about tone and content…
I cannot but agree that tone is content. Feminist posters have no better track record than we MRA commenters in that regard, however. I have been trying to bring a civil tone to my exchanges here, but the responses have been disappointing.
My comment on my blog: p.s. The mere fact that I quote Rand will be enough to send them into a spasm. Watch and see
evil_fizz: You know, this sounds suspiciously like trying to pick a fight and start a flamewar.
I don’t think so. The quote was used because it was accurate and applied to my point. The acknowledgement of how badly many extremists of the radfem community react to Rand is simply an expression of a reality. Since the extremist end of feminism overlaps strongly with anti-capitalist sentiment it is obvious that Rand will not sit well. Add in Rands views about the victim mentality and it is fairly clear things won’t go well.
That’s not a flame war attempt. It’s commentary.
Rad Geek: You know, whether this is a fair representation of what the specific folks you’re referring to say and do (I don’t think it is), you haven’t actually offered anything, other than the tone of facile sarcasm, to show that there’s anything wrong with conducting yourself like this.
Personally I think the “wrongness” of irrational hatred for a group simply based on their gender is self evident. That some of the extremists feel they have evidence of a vast anti-woman movement among men really doesn’t change the irrational part because they standards for proof are so low in that camp.
Besides, it wouldn’t be useful to discuss reasons when the whole point of the discussion in some cases here is that the use of logic and objectivity instead of emotional responses based on perceived hostility is itself an act of hostility.
In other words, any attempt at rational discussion of reality and facts is an act of anti-feminism according to the extremists. So what’s the point in offering proof or discussing it rationally?
Ampersand: I was the person who said that on Feministe (I was asking Robert to leave the thread be). Do you really think that “one of those yelling loudest” is a fair description of my posts there? I thought I was pretty restrained, under the circumstances.
My apologies Amp, I mis-remembered who made the request.
Ampersand: the best situation, therefore, is to have a variety of blog comment environments available. In my opinion.
I agree entirely. Blogs are an extension of personal domain. One of the advantages to a blog as opposed to a shared mailing list or shared forum is that specific point – as authors we get to control it.
I DO agree that ones moderation policy is also part of the content of the blog. The decisions we make in moderation do obviously tell our readers more about ourselves and our views. Some allow it wide open, others allow no comments at all… some only allow peopel who agree with them and others try and walk a line of open discussion. Each of these choices is communicative.
Ampersand: There’s nothing irrational about thinking hostile people are, in fact, hostile.
Of course not. The thing is to realize that this believe is not always accurate or based on antyhing objective. It is almost always subjective. Thats OK, subjective judgements are fine. The thing is that when someone is on the extreme end of feeling that jsut about everything in the world is hostile or somehow aimed at them their credability in this regard drops dramatically.
The Gonzman: It does break from the mold and rubric, and moves out of the comfort zone of being able to slap a stereotype on and treat us as less than human, ehwot?.
Not at all. All it took was to define the very fact that your not screaming and yelling as an act of hostility. it’s a perfect circle of being able to find offense. If your uncivil then your a bad person. If your civil, your a bad person. If you disagree in any fashion, your a bad person.
Oops. Missed a closing italics. And a lot of spelling errors. The corrected ending paragraphs are below.
Ampersand: There’s nothing irrational about thinking hostile people are, in fact, hostile
Of course not. The thing is to realize that this believe is not always accurate or based on anything objective. It is almost always subjective. That’s OK, subjective judgments are fine. The thing is that when someone is on the extreme end of feeling that just about everything in the world is hostile or somehow aimed at them their credibility in this regard drops dramatically.
The Gonzman: It does break from the mold and rubric, and moves out of the comfort zone of being able to slap a stereotype on and treat us as less than human, ehwot?.
Not at all. All it took was to define the very fact that your not screaming and yelling as an act of hostility. it’s a perfect circle of being able to find offense. If your uncivil then your a bad person. If your civil, your a bad person. If you disagree in any fashion, your a bad person.
italics closed
ack! it spanned outside my comment… how odd. I thought that only happened on /.
Lets try again..
Hows that?
Ginmar: “Look, it’s Stanton, finding another feminist blog after Trish banned him. Funny, Hugo: so many names here come from blogs run by women who have banned them. What does that say about you?”
A better question: what does this say about the women who have banned them?
Q Grrl: “As for Gonzman’s whinging, yet again, about the bad, scary man-hating feminists… well, read the newspaper, watch the news. Then tell me what is wrong with being a man-hater. You use it like it’s something to be avoided Gonzman. Or something bad. Personally I think it’s a natural extension of the way guys like you exist in this world.”
Wow. Just…wow.
Okay, I watch the news, read the news, and take in online news. I’ve seen, in the past seven days:
– a female teacher released for allegedly biting one of her students
– a student in Florida acknowledge that her story of having been a victim of sexual assault was completely false. (She will likely not be charged.)
– another female teacher hit with 92 counts for sexually molesting one of her students throughout a two-year period.
But the difference between you and me, Q Grrl, is that I don’t hate women simply because a number of them do horrible, awful things.
That you think it’s okay to hate Hugo or my father or Pat Sajak and every other man on the planet, simply because SOME men have done wrong, says a great deal about you. Look over your comment and think about it.
“Hugo: Q Grrl, anytime you want a feminist Christian reading list, let me know!
Rad Geek: Hugo, that was a really patronizing comment.”
It most certainly was not. It was a patient one. Hugo is nothing if not patient. We don’t always agree, but he can take any insult towards him — whether from feminists or MRAs — and respond in a good-natured way. I hope my answer wouldn’t be any more vitriolic.
It says that they want to have a space for intra-feminist dialog.
So then Hugo isn’t a monster just because he wishes to have something with more viewpoints, right?
Bmmg39, of course I agree that Hugo’s not a monster just because he wants to provide a space in which MRAs, feminists and others interact in a civil manner. (Although I don’t think he’s been accused of being a monster, in fact.) However, since I’ve been criticized for the same reasons as Hugo (and often in the same breathe), it’s obviously self-serving for me to say I disagree with Hugo’s critics, so I doubt my opinion will carry much weight.
There’s always the choice to give in to the “Civility for us but not for them” crowd. It does push things to a collision and confrontation, which is what many on both sides want. Of course, that a dice roll, and the stakes are high
Have a care. It is very easy to become that which you despise.
And the corollary to that is that your enemies win – they just live on in you.
“Bmmg39, of course I agree that Hugo’s not a monster just because he wants to provide a space in which MRAs, feminists and others interact in a civil manner. (Although I don’t think he’s been accused of being a monster, in fact.)”
Well, where might we think she was going with her “what does that say about you” question?
“However, since I’ve been criticized for the same reasons as Hugo (and often in the same breathe), it’s obviously self-serving for me to say I disagree with Hugo’s critics, so I doubt my opinion will carry much weight.”
I believe that it does carry weight. If you’re being maligned for the same shabby reason, you absolutely say something about it, whether someone else is being affected by it or not.