To update my comment policy, I’m stealing this from Amp at Alas, and altering it a bit:
I don’t want the discussions on Hugo Schwyzer dominated by anti-feminists or MRA (men’s rights advocates.). Although I like have a small number of well-written opposing views on this blog for spice, it’s my intention that most of the discussions here be dominated by egalitarian Christian and feminist-friendly views. For that reason, brand-new MRA and anti-feminist posters might not be approved to post even if as individuals they are perfectly reasonable and polite.
In other words, no more trolling. Trolling seeks to hijack a thread to attack the basic premises of feminism. While you don’t have to be a feminist (or a Christian) to post here, I am no longer willing to tolerate on my blog those whose views are fundamentally hostile to feminist principles. In other words, my MRA friends, I’m changing my comment policy. I have spent three years trying to evangelize men’s rights advocates, without the slightest success. All I have done is offered MRAs another forum to launch attacks.
I am not banning anyone. But I reserve the right to delete comments without warning.
Thank GOD! I’ve wondered why you permitted a few MRAs to comment here (Mr. Bad is not one of them – I even agree with some of his views). But there have been times where I’ve wanted to say, “HUGO! Stop being so damn nice!”
Why not just ban MRAs altogether and lose about 50% of your website traffic – become a Ginmar and host a boring echo-chamber, all the while attracting more radical feminists (who outright refuse to engage in a debate with any form of opposition) – watch the comments taper off (and thus even more traffic to your site) – before you know it, you’re an obscure website struggling for hits.
Hugo, to pay you a compliment (and this is genuine, not back-handed): you have a unique website here where feminists can engage with non-feminists and by and large both sides are fairly respectful of one another. I’m trying to think of another website where this is even remotely possible.
The internet is a saturated place and it’s tough to find a niche here. I am 100% sure a big proportion of your traffic comes here because you’re willing to air both sides, without stifling debate too much with banning.
Hugo, I echo Andrew_From_Thailand’s sentiment that you have a unique blog here in that MRAs can join what is the only real conversation that I know of among feminists and non-feminists, on the web or elsewhere. I hear you re. what you and other feminist perceive as ‘hostility,’ however, I would ask you to recognize that on many occasions after I’ve made admittedly provocative, incorrect or mean-spirited remarks, I’ve apologized to the person and where applicable admitted mistakes and made corrections. On the other hand, not once – ever- has one of your feminist allies reciprocated my sentiments and level of respect to me when they’ve behaved similarly. Thus, I make no apologies for my general behavior here, and indeed, in this regard I believe that I’ve behaved as well as most and better than many.
You can ban me if you wish, but as Andrew stated, IMO your blog will suffer for it.
I’m with Mr Bad. I comment here regularly, and go to Alas A Blog and Pandagon rarely, because it’s actually possible to have a discussion here. If that changes, I’ll greatly miss it.
I’m with Mr Bad. I comment here regularly, and go to Alas A Blog and Pandagon rarely, because it’s actually possible to have a discussion here. If that changes, I’ll greatly miss it.
All I can say Sam is : Amen. Pandagon is an impossible place to posit anything remotely against the grain. I even attempted Ginmar’s place but that is just way too hateful. I am very sure a number of MRAs could compile a very long list of ‘gender-related’ discussion sites that just shut-out the MRA point of view. I don’t think that’s too healthy.
Yes, because without the constant trolling Hugo’s blog is now indistinguishable from Ginmar’s. Haven’t you noticed that they (and all the other feminists) agree on *everything*, and only MRAs provide any difference of opinion?
Folks, I’m going to leave this thread wide open, unmoderated save for attacks on other bloggers.
I’m not against contrary views. I’m against the constant derailing that trolls do. MRA trolls on a feminist forum are like creationists in a physical anthropology class; they endlessly question the most basic premises under which the entire class operates. Sooner or later, you gotta shut it down.
Hugo said: “MRA trolls on a feminist forum are like creationists in a physical anthropology class; they endlessly question the most basic premises under which the entire class operates. Sooner or later, you gotta shut it down.”
Well Hugo, if I understand you correctly, your analogy is inaccurate because in the case of creationism vs. physical anthropology there is little to no verifiable evidence to support creationism and whole lot of evidence to support the physical anthro side. It’s a similar situation with feminism in that many, if not most, of “the most basic premises under which the entire class operates” vis-a-vis feminism are demonstrably false using valid, legitimate sources of information and the MRA side is almost always supported by legitimate, peer-reviewed sources. The MRA side has to been able to withstand strict scrutiny because of the powerful nature of political correctness working in favor of feminism and against the MRA POV. In order to examine, discuss, ‘deconstruct,’ etc., the topics you raise here we must have some understanding of the basis for the topic; without such understanding one can’t cogently discuss the nuances that you like to examine here.
You know what, if what you’re demanding now is that I accept without question premises, statements, etc., that I know to be contradicted by valid, legitimate, peer-reviewed sources, then I think I’ll pass on visiting here any longer. What you’re asking me to do is akin to asking me to accept without question that the world is flat. If I wanted to be exposed to radical fundamentalist belief systems there are plenty of opportunities elsewhere so I’d be going there instead of here; that’s not why I come here, but if things are going to change then as you say, it’s your blog. And I’ll exercise free choice.
You all have fun – later.
A better analogy is to evolutionists attending what passes for a science course at a fundy school. Real scientists don’t object to their basic premises being questioned. That’s what science is about. It’s not what creationism, feminism, or any other -ism is about.
While I’m not a feminist, I agree that many of the recent threads have degenerated in to USENET (alt.men / soc.singles) -style flame wars that don’t really do anything but get people angry.
I agree with Xrlq that truth-seekers don’t fear debate, but idealogues do. But I recognize that something must be done to cut the name-calling and attacks and keep the signal-to-noise ratio high enough for sincere debate can flourish.
Maybe the issue isn’t intellectual perspectives but personal hostility.
As far as the “basic premises,” I also have trouble agreeing with “all women, everywhere, for all time, are oppressed†now that women hold almost 100% of student government positions*, earn 58% of master’s degrees*, have achieved parity in law and medical school, and serve as Secretary of State, Speaker of the House, serious Presidential candidate, and an increasing number of governors, and senators (trends which will only accelerate as younger generations of high-achieving women gain experience). And where women are recruited into military careers where they receive equal pay with men but with only 2% of the risk of dying. And where men commit suicide at a 4:1 rate.
But Hugo seems like a relatively reasonable person, and I’m intrigued with some of the perspectives that I read here.
I’m willing to listen and think, and I definitely don’t hate women. I don’t think this blog makes sense as an “amen corner,” but hecklers do get in the way.
*http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_21/b3834001_mz001.htm
Thanks for this change to your comment policy. I’m sure you have many readers like me who read often but comment rarely, partly because the disagreements in the comments section get so unpleasant and personal.
Interesting strawman you have there, K.
If that was the feminist position, you’d have a point. That we have a female Speaker doesn’t mean that the oppression of women based on sex ended suddenly. A woman getting told by a pharmacist that he’s decided to take her birth control from her because he disapproves of her sexuality isn’t going to be able to point to Speaker Pelosi and say, “See, you can’t do that anymore.”
Bad faith arguments are a typical MRA canard, and that’s why Hugo is tired of it all. I don’t blame him.
Ditto what Susan said. I’m relatively new to this blog, and a lurker, but I would be less so if there was less MRA-ing. It’s very nice and all to have an “open dialogue” (and its less friendly manifestations) b/w feminists and MRAs, but if that is not the particular purpose of Hugo’s blog, I don’t see why he should feel any guilt about getting the discussion back on his chosen track.
Patsy, I wasn’t arguing in bad faith or trying to create a strawman. You seem to have missed the point: I am not an MRA trying to discredit feminism. I’m actually fairly ignorant of feminism, but I agree with some of the concepts that feminists say and that I’ve read on this blog (for example, being honest about sexual “agency”). I would like a place to engage in reasonable constructive dialog and inquiry including, where appropriate, questioning things like universal male dominance / female oppression which I thought might be considered “fundamental feminist principles.”
Now since you’ve decided to make it an argument, in 2004, women were 67%* of students in pharmacy BS and PharmD programs, and I can’t recall ever seeing a male pharmacist at the grocery store I use.
And I’m possibly more paranoid about contraception in part because I value the role of fathers (unless they are abusive or something).
*http://www.theannals.com/pdf/952.pdf, citing the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy
Since this is an open thread I’ll continue to participate.
Patsy said :
Oops – the system choked on my last post. Let’s try this again…
Since this is an open thread I’ll continue to participate.
Patsy said:“That we have a female Speaker doesn’t mean that the oppression of women based on sex ended suddenly.”
“Oppression of women” – this kind of blanket claim is exactly what I referred to above.
What do you mean by “oppression?” What is(are) your geographic, societal, etc., frame(s) of reference? Since you mention “a female Speaker” I assume that you mean the contemporary U.S. Is that true? If so, then your allegation that contemporary U.S. women as a class are “oppressed” is demonstrably false. It’s really hard to fathom how the class (i.e., female U.S. citizens) that enjoys one of the highest standards of living in the world, enjoys one of the longest lifespans, has unconditional rights and privileges vis-a-vis citizenship, etc., is somehow “oppressed” by the class that is more likely to be homeless, suffer from on-the-job mortality, die on-average 7 years earlier, is discriminated against by law and social custom, must agree to public service if called – including dying for their country – before being granted the rights and privileges of citizenship, etc. The notion that American women are “oppressed” by American men simply makes no sense when subjected to this kind of close scrutiny. There is a meaningful and important conversation that must occur before we can rationally and meaningfully discuss gender-based “oppression” in the U.S., or any other society.
Patsy, if you can’t have these kinds of discussions and if your arguments and the ideology on which they’re based cannot survive close scrutiny, then perhaps it isn’t the argument in and of itself that’s problematic, it’s the ideology. On the other hand, if the foundations of your belief system are sound then you have nothing to fear and thus should have no problem defending it in these kinds of discussions.
Darn italics There.
It seems to me that the problem this blog — and its previous typepad incarnation — has had is not so much with individual comments from critics of feminism. The problem is the bad habit certain commenters (both feminist and anti-feminist, and I have certainly been guilt of this in the past) have of dragging a potentially interesting discussion off into a bitter, unproductive, and often disingenuous grudge match over an incidental remark.
Consider this thread. Hugo’s thesis is the bolded pair of sentences `I do believe, unlike some of my friends, in the redemptive possibilities within lifelong monogamy. But I shudder at the idea of using marriage as a tool to address serious social problems.’ Things start off well, talking about what kind of public policies would do better than marriage to address the problems brought up, the way ideas about marriage in the history of the country hook up with other ideas about public policies. We even have a productive, interesting, and (perhaps most importantly) civil exchange between Hugo and a libertarian non-feminist.
But, sadly, we eventually come to this comment, demanding that Hugo provide evidence to support an assertion that’s utterly incidental to the topic of the post (`Most child and elder care, historically, has been done by women.’), and denouncing this `common feminist error’ as `intellectual dishonesty and [a] lack of precision’ (and, later, refusing to accept the evidence provided). Hugo manages to stamp out this spark before it erupts into a flamewar, but only by answering it himself and repeatedly insisting that the discussion stay on-topic. (And even with his participation, we still ended up bickering about whether Sweden is fascist and the proper use of the phrase ’99.99%’.) On a day like today, he certainly wouldn’t be able to keep the peace. And no should he have to, in general.
The search for truth is a noble one. But the commenters here have shown time and again that we’d much rather throw sand in each others’ eyes than engage in that search for truth. The libertarians reading this should be especially sensitive to Hugo’s right to freely toss out anyone he chooses, whether he has what you consider good reason or not.
I hope closing Mr. Bad’s italics doesn’t get me labeled an MRA.
I welcome the new comment policy, Hugo.
Something some of the above commentors seem to be missing is that I don’t think you’re out to get the most hits–you’re out to have the best conversations. And, while the best conversations include some differences of opinion, the best conversations aren’t the same conversations, over and over, which has arguably been what has happened lately.
I think that you are still an interesting confluence of opinions, such that lots of people who don’t identify as MRA’s, or anti-feminists will still have a lot to say to you. As a self-identified feminist ally, I for one love to disagree with you about how Christianity and feminism can and cannot intersect, for instance–and I’ve not been commenting (or even reading) much lately because the discussions have seemed to be very ‘us vs. them’.
So, you’ll have at least one more reader who will continue to disagree with you at least some of the time (though we agree, I think, on quite a few basic premises of feminism), and hopefully create good conversations, with the new policy in force.
Excellent, Hugo. I expect I’ll be around more.
I don’t know that traffic would drop… I know that I can’t be the only that stopped commenting here because of the, um, ambiance that has developed… maybe Hugo will regain the audience certain folks have chased off.
Noumena, you make some really good points and I appreciate your candor. I especially liked this: “The libertarians reading this should be especially sensitive to Hugo’s right to freely toss out anyone he chooses, whether he has what you consider good reason or not.”
I agree. Be well – it’s been nice.
Shrug. I was pretty much done here anway, primarily because I’ve been increasingly attacked and then expected to just sit and take it. I’ve been accused of being responsible for my wife’s death by one feminist poster and of wanting babies to roast or barbeque by another. They initiated this level of discourse, and when I try to respond in kind Hugo tells me “this is a feminist blog, MRAs are held to a higher standard.” (Translation: Leftists are held to a lower standard). I don’t mind debating civilly as long as I’m not attacked first. I don’t mind an out and out fight either as long as I’m allowed to use the same level of vitriol as my opponents. But I won’t fight with a hand tied behind me. Don’t know exactly what Hugo did to women during his pre-recovery, pre-conversion days, but it must have been bad to have developed this Rescue The Woman Syndrome.
So, as others have said, this blog will probably become a big, self congratulatory lefty lovefest. I’ve yet to see a left-of-center blog or forum that didn’t eventually. Kind of unfortunate, but it’s Hugo’s prerogative.
Bully for you, Hugo. It’s about time.
If you remember, I abandoned your blog quite some time ago, and remarks like the ones from Mr. Bad, Andrew from Thailand, Jeff, and The Chief, above, were the reason. I’m of the opinion that it’s possible to have a good, lively feminist discourse without subscribing to any MRA nonsense, and I welcome the opportunity you are providing to prove it.
It’s not the hits and the amount of traffic that are important, it’s the level of discourse. So what if Hugo’s page hits drop off? (Personally, I don’t think that will happen, because of those like me who will once again make this a regular stop.) If we have better commentary from the people who are left, that will be all to the good.
(I’d say something to those who are leaving about not letting the door hit them on the way out, but I suppose that would be childish.
)
I don’t know that traffic would drop… I know that I can’t be the only that stopped commenting here because of the, um, ambiance that has developed… maybe Hugo will regain the audience certain folks have chased off.
Hugo does want hits – no question. He is candid enough to mention this often and how pleased he is when they increase.
Remove dissent and any form of ‘MRA representation’ and Hugo will see his hits drop for two stark reasons:-
- MRAs do visit this site because Hugo has been open-minded enough to accept our point of view; I’d say the MRA ‘population’ is increasing faster than the feminist one (on the internet at least) and so he’s shutting out a large number of people
- this in turn is a NICHE he has created; I don’t know other sites that accept opposing views in gender discussions like Hugo is doing
So, with the new policy Hugo is removing the MRA crowd (unless there are MRAs out there who like reading feminists threads without a right of reply? Nah, didn’t think so) – and more importantly has decided to be like 10,000 other feminist blogs out there.
I labour the point only because Hugo is clearly keen on how much traffic his site gets, and the irony that the niche he has created is also something he doesn’t like. I guess his beliefs should be stronger than his ego and he should get rid of the MRA element and accept less traffic to his site.
Though I’m not a daily visitor here, I do stop by often enough to get a sense that Noumena’s 12:52 comment has a lot of merit.
That said, I don’t think your new policy is inherently unreasonable or anything, Hugo. It would be helpful, though, if you would post a definition on your sidebar as to what you see as the basic tenets of feminism which are not up for debate. There’s a pretty broad spectrum of views encompassed by the term — some in pretty sharp opposition to others — and if comments are going to be subject to deletion without warning, I think it’s a pretty reasonable expectation to have some sense of what the boundaries are beforehand.
Also, speaking as someone who was misidentified as an MRA here at one point, it would be helpful to know what your definition of that term is as well.
I have spent three years trying to evangelize men’s rights advocates
You what? Oh, Hugo, you are so constantly testing that fine line between optimism and narcissism.
Noumena: “Consider this thread. Hugo’s thesis is the bolded pair of sentences `I do believe, unlike some of my friends, in the redemptive possibilities within lifelong monogamy….”
“But, sadly, we eventually come to this comment, demanding that Hugo provide evidence to support an assertion that’s utterly incidental to the topic of the post…”
Long before “eventually” we come to this comment from Hugo himself: “if women would only learn to endure once again the infidelities and petty cruelties of their spouses.” How “incidental” to the topic of the post is this? Hugo throws out this comment then acts surprised when men object. Can we all join together in a big chorus of DUH in D flat minor?
Ya’ know Hugo, if you don’t want thread drift you shouldn’t create it. If you don’t want MRAs, stop throwing bait. Here’s how: resist your reflexive, self-righteous urge to male-bash.
If you don’t want MRAs, stop throwing bait.
I doubt the MRAs here think of themselves as mindlessly, reflexively forced to respond to Hugo’s posts.
Make that:
MRAs: 0
Hugo: 50
Ya’ know Hugo, if you don’t want thread drift you shouldn’t create it. If you don’t want MRAs, stop throwing bait. Here’s how: resist your reflexive, self-righteous urge to male-bash.
This is true otterick. Consider this: most MRAs here are defending men against Hugo’s generalisations of them. Hugo will ramble on about something before putting in bold text, a great whopping generalisation about men before further rambling.
At least Hugo is honest and says he holds men to much higher standards than women – which ironically goes 180 degrees against feminism’s most basic premise : that men and women should be treated equally.
So, Hugo will continue to generalise on his blog as he’s free to do, and MRAs will go somewhere else – bottom line, not much will change – and I’ll get that bit more time to do more constructive things
-
Lurker popping out here.
Hugo, I’d like you to notice how many men on this thread are against your new policy. Lots of women are chiming in to say that they support it, but not so many men. Just Jeff and Tom so far that I see. Count me as another one against this sort of policy. I think there are probably other men out there like me, who identify as feminists but who react against the way that many of the other feminist blogs portray men and men who question feminism. This blog has always hosted good discussions between men and women who think a lot about gender issues, regardless of what their personal political affiliations are. By putting up a “no-MRA” sign, you are silencing any men who worry that their beliefs aren’t quite in line with the feminist blog groupthink.
You claim that you are attempting to reach out to men, to evangelize feminism to them. How will silencing them accomplish that?
A word of warning : it really is best to leave this blog if you’re posting anything remotely positive toward men’s rights….I just had some of my comments removed in other threads that were totally on-topic, but I guess they were too MRA friendly. Don’t waste your time people – respect Hugo’s decision and spend your time doing something more constructive in the real world or on other blogs. Over and out.
I don’t agree with Hugo on everything, and I’m sure he’s not exactly a regular on alt.fan.tom-head himself, but I support this policy 100%. Do we allow “civil” white supremacists or homophobes to dominate a forum with views that denigrate many of the participants? Better, I say, to put MRA posts in the same category. It’s not like they’re going to run out of other forums to troll; they’re everywhere.
“Hugo, I’d like you to notice how many men on this thread are against your new policy” –plunky
Not so many, really, which may lend credit to Hugo’s decision. It’s really just a loudmouthed few that drive away good conversation (at times; not always). These, not suprisingly, are the few that are so concerned about Hugo’s numbers going down if they are no longer allowed to comment…
And, as the word gets out about the new comment policy, I predict more men and women who used to come here will come back. But even if I’m wrong there, Hugo doesn’t seem to have changed the comments policy in order to strike a blow against men, plunky–it just happens that there are fewer men who are interested in feminism in a positive light than there are men who are interested in various flavors of anti-feminism, and they’re vocal about it.
Really, Hugo, I’m disappointed that with the new year and all you haven’t made more of a concerted effort not to pigeonhole people. I’ve been posting here for two years now and think I’ve been one of the MRAs with the olive branch. For those who are new here, I am a men’s rights activist AND a women’s rights activist, because I think the two causes are not only not antonymous but also in a way dependent on one another.
The odd thing is: many female feminists on your blog have stated agreement with me or at the very least acknowledged a distinction between MRAs like me and those who do genuinely troll. One even invited me to be a poster on a blog she was going to start up. I knew she was a feminist and she knew I stuck up for men’s rights, and she wanted me along anyway because she saw common ground. We wouldn’t (and we don’t) always agree, but we realize that it’s not the end of the world if we don’t.
And yet you (and some who are supporting your policy) consistently put all who support men’s rights into the same box, so that if I end my post with the signature “Men’s Rights = Women’s Rights = Human Rights” I get lumped in with those who come on here calling all women “bitches” and “accusing” you of being gay.
I wouldn’t lump most of the feminists here with the more famous ones who claim that “all men are rapists” or “hating men is all well and good.” So would you at least acknowledge that not all MRAs are alike?
boy genteel
I do indeed acknowledge it, boy genteel; I have never classed you in the category of those who ought to be banned. MRAs who are interested in talking about men’s pain, for example, are welcome — MRAs who insist on vilifying women as the primary source of that pain are not. Male suffering is real; many MRAs identify the symptoms and completely mistake the cause. As long as women are not blamed for male suffering, I’m happy to hear interesting and thoughtful comments from responsible men’s rights advocates.
Thank you, Hugo. If you’ve made such sentiments clear in the past and I missed them, then I apologize for suggesting otherwise. (Remember, in the old system, there was a lengthy period when I couldn’t post due to some sort of glitch.)
We’re not always going to agree on every matter, gender-relations based or otherwise. No two people in the universe agree on EVERYTHING. But even while diametrically opposed on some matters, we should be able to find some common ground and make progress, rather that have two camps not speaking to each other.
bg
On the subject of comments, how about getting your friend to close comments on your old typepad site to keep the converstation in one location?
K, I may do that with some of the more popular posts to drive them over here.
Shutting down all typepad comments would also take care of the linkspammers that you get even on less popular posts.
“I doubt the MRAs here think of themselves as mindlessly, reflexively forced to respond to Hugo’s posts.” — Mythago
Yep.
I rarely get a chance to post around this realm. I made it quite clear that it’s Hugo’s blog he can do what he sees fit. Cries of censorship won’t change the fact that people freely posting on them are still visitors, regardless. If I had an active blog, presently, I’d have no qualms either doing the following: excluding anything irrelevant or characters that flood it with b.s., or . . .
. . . resort to allowing a separate area to confine more open ended comments that could be anything from personal attacks to tangents. This would be in order to leave the more pertinent ideas and earnest-minded blog personalities to engage in argumentation without the foolishness. The latter is a better plan that has been already implemented on several forums.
At the same time, as others pointed out, baiting MRAs and then getting even more strident with regulations and policies isn’t terribly conductive for any serious debate about issues discussed here, and will eventually stop luring lurkers if they aren’t allowed to counter assumptions and premises declared about them. I only started posting when Hugo quoted me, and continued to back off simply because 1) I don’t usually have the time 2) I do have agendas that reach beyond this forum. I admit I’m somewhat interested in what goes on here, but I feel it would be greater served with the typical feminism versus anti-feminism camps (simply put, because not every case is so black and white) could really be put to the test now and again while staying generally on topic. It’s not usual when an area is able to contain such heated discourse without tempers flaring or people duking it out back and forth. In the search for “truth” ugliness and anger aren’t something that always goes away.
But as The Chief pointed out, being restrained in a fight while an opponent is allowed to launch more aggressive attacks isn’t merely poor sportsmanship, it’s an imbalance that clearly is demonstrative of hypocrisy. It would be like someone with a Tae Kwon Do, point-sparring background entering with a large, hardened contact fighter like myself in a cage fight—and not be allowed to use the majority skills AND power I’ve acquired to nullify my assailant because of too many rules imposed on me . . . and the other guy can dance around as much as they want ***because the ref in charge said so.*** That TKD fighter may “win” with by scoring a quick point, but in a more reality-based context, my opponent is going to have a far, far more difficult time even if the arena isn’t mine.
Eventually, if it does become an echo chamber over here, I have no problems with going toe to toe with someone who can openly challenge me on my semi-regular stomping grounds, and with me in particular if they don’t like being ganged up on.