Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Policy & Help >

Woman-Friendly Barbelith - commentary and analysis

Page: 1 2 3 4(5)6 7 8 9 10

Less searchable M0rd4nt

23:01 / 14.04.06

I already fuckyeah'd that on the WFB thread, but it bears another fuckyeah. I'm sick of this shit, I really am.

miss wonderstarr

23:08 / 14.04.06

"Attention whore" seems, at the least and if viewed most generously, unnecessarily loaded and provocative language in the context of that thread, when "attention-seeker" would have done fine.

At worst I think it's the author's genuine contempt of women, and possibly black women, and possibly women who strip, slipping through, without apology.

23:18 / 14.04.06

Now look Shadowsax has now called a woman who may very well be a rape victim a possible "immoral attention whore." Can we please talk about this in this thread and decide what we want from barbelith in this context because the fact that he's only being treated as a moron is really beginning to do my fucking head in.

Can't talk about it in that thread, no. Hence here.

I agree that the term "immoral attention whore" is foul. What ShadowSax actually said, however, was

i think even if she is found to be lying and also an immoral attention whore, her behavior shouldnt be determined to represent either women or blacks.

and I'd say that's different from straightforwardly saying "this woman's an immoral attention whore". If we're to disregard conditional "if"s and take hypothetical/"possible" value judgements as definitive value judgements, then the entire board might be viewed in a totally different light, and I think an unhelpful precedent would be set.

I think the comment is relevant as part of ShadowSax's overall presentation on Barbelith, and I agree that a serious discussion of this is well overdue. I suspect that the fact that ShadowSax is more articulate than, say, Hawksmoor, is causing a higher degree of (attempted) constructive engagement than is perhaps merited at this stage. Also, his persistence has probably resulted in many of us simply avoiding his posts and threads where we ought to be considering how to deal with them.

But. I don't think he's called this woman an "immoral attention whore". Suggesting this as a possibility is not the same thing, and should not be treated as such. It's a deeply unpleasant choice of wording, and IMHO reveals more about ShadowSax than anything else, but it's important to note that it's a conditional value judgement.

Tryphena Absent

23:19 / 14.04.06

The question is do we want someone who clearly has a genuine contempt for women on barbelith? Because this isn't the first time he's posted something sexist, he refuses to retract anything that offends people here. I was offended by his language and his misogyny in the F4J thread, I'm finding it difficult to convey how I feel now. It's gone through offended and come out the other side and I'm now offended by everyone else's response to him. I feel like we collectively are propping him up. I feel complicit in the reaction to him because I post on the board so much and I haven't condoned his presence here at all. This is partly what I was trying to highlight when I started the Feminism 101 thread. I define that thread now as a complete failure because sure, some people changed their names because of it and wanted to see what it was like to be female on barbelith but we have someone who is attacking every woman on earth on this board, has been for months and he's still here, doing it and getting an incredibly mild response. So what do we have? A barbelith that wants to examine itself with regards to sexism but finds the constant presence of a bias against all women fine?

Tryphena Absent

23:24 / 14.04.06

It's a deeply unpleasant choice of wording, and IMHO reveals more about ShadowSax than anything else, but it's important to note that it's a conditional value judgement.

That the word whore occurs in that conditional value judgement in a thread about rape charges... sexism doesn't have to be overt, that this instance isn't doesn't mean it doesn't support the record of someone who has consistently posted a pile of crap that generalises half of humanity.

23:26 / 14.04.06

There seems to be a sense that the whole thing has blown over, and that now Shadowsax should be allowed to keep on posting to various fora as if he were any other member of the board - until the next time he demonstrates his vile, fierce hatred of women, which is, oh look, just now in the Switchboard. This cannot continue.

I think this is true. I, for one, have tended to ignore much of the Fathers 4 Justice thread because it's nasty, brutish and long. I suspect many of us gloss over his posts, and I agree that a certain familiarity plus weariness has meant he's slipped under the radar.

I think there's a good case for banning ShadowSax, not for any one comment in particular, but for the sum of what he's written over time, his recurrent obsessions and the persistently misogynist slant. I'd support a ban.

23:33 / 14.04.06

That the word whore occurs in that conditional value judgement in a thread about rape charges... sexism doesn't have to be overt, that this instance isn't doesn't mean it doesn't support the record of someone who has consistently posted a pile of crap that generalises half of humanity.

I think we have to be careful about context. The fact that the word "whore" occurs in a thread about rape charges is unpleasant, but then we've joked about murdering children in threads about child-rearing, and robustly defended this. One cannot simply focus on the juxtaposition of words and topics without further consideration.

In this case, I think the relevant angle is the context of poster rather than thread topic. In the context of ShadowSax's other contributions, in the Fathers 4 Justice thread and so on, his "immoral attention whore" comment is a potential value judgement but also yet another comment from a poster with a consistently misogynistic slant. I think there's a case for banning him, and on balance would probably support this, but not for any one comment - not especially for "immoral attention whore", it's just one more thing - but for a cumulative critical mass.

23:38 / 14.04.06

Incidentally, it's worth pointing out that the reaction to ShadowSax has not split along gender lines: those engaging constructively with him (or even defending him) have not all been male-identified, just as those calling for his banishment have not all been female-identified. That's one of the factors that makes me think it's less than clear-cut, and it'd be useful to have a proper discussion including the viewpoints of some of those who've engaged with ShadowSax to a greater extent than have I.

miss wonderstarr

23:39 / 14.04.06

Nina, I get the impression that to you, Shadowsax's latest comment is like a tipping point, a final straw; or takes you beyond that final straw. In isolation, as Ganesh suggested, his "attention whore" post could be viewed (generously) as unfortunate, insensitive, as a sign of his inherent sexism, but not as grounds for banning in itself.

Perhaps to feel as... outraged and despairing (? I don't want to put words in your mouth ) as you seem to about Shadowsax, one has to be aware of the overall build-up of his posts and the picture they paint of his attitudes.

I haven't followed his posts, for instance, and so haven't really gained this drip-drip portrait of someone who hates half the world. Maybe if there is a case to be made for excluding this individual - which is a serious issue I think - you'd have to link people to the key posts or threads.

Disclaimer: As I have no mod power I don't even know how such a decision would be made. As I don't live as a woman, perhaps I wouldn't feel that hatred in the same way as you and Mordant Carnival do anyway. (Although me being here has nothing to do with experimental name-changing, just by the by).

And as I've taken so long with this post, it's probably been overtaken in discussion anyway.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

23:41 / 14.04.06

No, I certainly think this is a cumulative thing rather than apeople going "OMFG he called 1 of our systers a WHORE!!!" thing.

In my case the camel's back was broken awhile ago; I commend everyone on their more robust spines but am forced to wonder exactly how much of this shit we have to put up with.

23:48 / 14.04.06

No, I certainly think this is a cumulative thing rather than apeople going "OMFG he called 1 of our systers a WHORE!!!" thing.

I think it's an important point to make, because I want to be clear that saying, "if X is lying and an immoral attention whore, then X wouldn't be representative of all women" isn't the same as saying, "X is an immoral attention whore". I felt that distinction wasn't sufficiently clear in Nina's original complaint.

Tipping point, though, I can see.

In my case the camel's back was broken awhile ago; I commend everyone on their more robust spines but am forced to wonder exactly how much of this shit we have to put up with.

So let's explicitly discuss - either here or, perhaps better, in a specific ShadowSax Policy thread - whether a more general (bannable) tipping point has been reached. Not having engaged with him particularly, I'd be interested in the opinions of those who have.

miss wonderstarr

23:50 / 14.04.06

I, for one, have tended to ignore much of the Fathers 4 Justice thread because it's nasty, brutish and long.

This is what I meant. I've only really heard about it, and him, second-hand until looking at the rape accusation thread this evening.

I think there's a good case for banning ShadowSax, not for any one comment in particular, but for the sum of what he's written over time, his recurrent obsessions and the persistently misogynist slant. I'd support a ban.

Were I a moderator though, I would want to read his collected works for myself before making the call.

Regrettable Juvenilia

23:51 / 14.04.06

I think we have to be careful about context.

I agree entirely. In this case, the two most relevant forms of context are the ways in which rape victims' allegations have historically been misogynistically dismissed (she's a whore, she's just doing it for attention), and the attitudes towards women, violence against women, and sexual violence, that Shadowsax has already demonstrated.

(I swore a while ago that I wasn't going to post in this intially ill-advised thread, but it seems to be where this aspect of the debate is taking place...)

23:53 / 14.04.06

I haven't followed his posts, for instance, and so haven't really gained this drip-drip portrait of someone who hates half the world. Maybe if there is a case to be made for excluding this individual - which is a serious issue I think - you'd have to link people to the key posts or threads.

I'm also one of the instinctive 'avoiders' who hasn't built up the same impression. What I have gleaned makes me think there's a strong case for giving ShadowSax the boot, but it would be helpful for one of those making the suggestion (Nina? Mordant?) to build a case, perhaps in another thread.

23:56 / 14.04.06

Were I a moderator though, I would want to read his collected works for myself before making the call.

Yes, and I've been doing so this evening; I think I'd tentatively support banning him, but would like a case to be made. I'm still a little worried that I've missed something and, because it's a drip-drip cumulative thing rather than a single event (as the Holocaust thread was), it'd be useful for those with particularly strong views on kicking him out to reference their reasons.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

23:56 / 14.04.06

I think for me the tipping point was him crimping off a length in the SR thread. This, coming on top of the F4J thread and other things, just made me throw up my hands and ask what the fuck he was even doing on this board. Now I'm strating to ask what I'm doing on this board; not levin 4 EVAH or anything, but I've got to think seriously about the way I interact here if Shadzy is going to be a fixture. I may need a change of blue shirt.

Regrettable Juvenilia

23:58 / 14.04.06

Ganesh, why not read the Fathers 4 Justice thread, where the case already exists, rather than asking female posters to do the work for you?

00:00 / 15.04.06

In this case, the two most relevant forms of context are the ways in which rape victims' allegations have historically been misogynistically dismissed (she's a whore, she's just doing it for attention), and the attitudes towards women, violence against women, and sexual violence, that Shadowsax has already demonstrated.

I agree the word "whore" would be a hot-trigger most places, particularly so in a discussion of rape - but the conditional comment itself, made by any other poster, would not, IMHO, be worthy of banning, deletion, etc. I think it's in the context of ShadowSax's longitudinal posting that it becomes a tipping point. I'd like to learn more about (what others see as) the relevant points along that line that add up to a proposed banning.

Tryphena Absent

00:05 / 15.04.06

Then go and read the threads. Fly has directed you to the primary one and Mordant has presented a little icing for the cake, you have seen the whore comment. I personally do not wish to go through F4J and link to every other post that Shadowsax has written purely for your benefit. It's rather a lot of material as you have already pointed out and frankly it makes more sense if you view the entire discourse rather than isolated incidents.

00:06 / 15.04.06

Why not read the Fathers 4 Justice thread, where the case already exists, rather than asking female posters to do the work for you?

I've read the thread, thanks for the advice, and I'm aware that there's been a degree of constructive engagement, particularly with Alas. I'm also aware that Lula has, in the past, appeared to defend ShadowSax (in, I think, the Barbannoy thread - although that may well have been before she ploughed through the F4J thread). I'm interested to hear their opinions now. I'm also interested in additional stuff I may have missed, from other threads.

I don't think this is a straightforwardly gender-based situation, with "female posters" complaining and male-identified posters refusing to listen. That's why I think a more inclusive discussion needs to take place. Strange as it may seem, it's not simply me refusing to "do the work".

00:10 / 15.04.06

Then go and read the threads.

I've done that this evening, and I will do so again (thanks to Mordant for pointing me in the direction of another). Can I be explicit, though: are you proposing straightout that ShadowSax be banned asap?

00:58 / 15.04.06

glad i swung by.

sorry for my choice of words in that context. it wasnt meant to be gender specific. theres lots of male whores, and i dont see the term as restricted to sexual activity either. i use the term "whore" to describe anyone who compromises something of their soul for nothing but greed of money or fame or infamy or whatever.

i'm glad that the context of the phrase was introduced here, and i appreciate that, and hopefully it frames it well enough to be understood a bit more than otherwise.

it was only meant to describe the worse possible kind of attributes to apply to a person, and to demonstrate that even under those circumstances, her behavior shouldnt reflect on either her gender or her ethnicity. i agree it was a loaded phrase within that thread. i'll edit it to something else, subject to the mods' discretion, based on how much time has passed since it posted, etc.

07:53 / 15.04.06

(I swore a while ago that I wasn't going to post in this intially ill-advised thread, but it seems to be where this aspect of the debate is taking place...)

Well, yes, which is a problem, as I see it. The explicit "he needs to be banned" stuff seems to be taking place in the Woman-Friendly thread, in which I now know I cannot post, so male-identifying posters wanting to engage with the discussion have little option but to post elsewhere. This is one reason I'm suggesting mooting that a particular poster be banned take place in a separate thread.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

07:57 / 15.04.06

You typed it, it's there, there have been two discussions on it, providing a mod hasn't already okayed the change by the time I'm posting this I suggest it be left as it is, for future reference.

I saw that yesterday evening and was just so flummoxed, I typed a response to that and then didn't post it, because I didn't want another thread devolving into another thesis on Shadowsax and the dirty, dirty women, although in the lack of news in that case at the moment I think it's going to happen. I felt it was a fantastically bad choice of words.

I'm very aware of the charges levelled against Barbelith for being more accepting of misogyny than say, racism, I'm also aware that discussion of this has been a few 'oh shit' posts in the womens thread while over here men are trying to justify it.

The problem as ever, is that Shadowsax is posting from what people here perceive as an anti-female mindset but not posting anti-female tracts.

Still, there's little more we can do here accept commiserate about it. Send a PM to Tom, asking for him to be banned, with links and quotes to objectionable language, and see what he says.

08:10 / 15.04.06

I'm very aware of the charges levelled against Barbelith for being more accepting of misogyny than say, racism, I'm also aware that discussion of this has been a few 'oh shit' posts in the womens thread while over here men are trying to justify it.

This is exactly the kind of reductive, divisive crap I'm keen to avoid, Flowers. Astounding as it may seem, the ShadowSax debacle really isn't a game of Boys Against Girls. I've commented on this upthread, and I'd hugely appreciate it if you didn't attempt to present anything which isn't total and unequivocal agreement that he said "X is an immoral attention whore" as "men... trying to justify it". Not accurate, not helpful and not fair.

You'll see that, over in the Expectations thread, I'm proposing some sort of working system for discussing - as a board - whether a given poster should be banned. Your comments are welcomed.

08:14 / 15.04.06

I'm also assuming you're including Miss Wonderstarr in "men" there, which compounds the unhelpfulness of this kind of generalisation. Read the discussion again, please.

miss wonderstarr

08:42 / 15.04.06

Thanks for your response there, Ganesh. You know, I really feel that kind of comment as a punch in the gut. I'm not sure if you were classing me in some boys' club, Flowers, but I really wish people wouldn't do it.

As Ganesh has pointed out more than once, it simply is not the case that men are trying to excuse Shadowsax and write off the feelings expressed by female posters. Ganesh stated initially that he was inclined to ban, apparently on the word of other people, without (as I would have advised) reading all the posts in question. Female-identifying posters have apparently engaged with Shadowsax.

I'm not even sure why I'm submitting my tuppence except that I find Policy interesting and am a fairly active member of this community: I have no say in what happens and when I post on this thread instead of the Woman-Friendly one, out of respectful, perhaps-misguided acknowledgement of the difference between "genuine" and transwomen, I get classed as part of a boys' gang which is (supposedly) trying to get the guilty guy off the hook and undermine the women's complaint.

The insistence on stressing (I would say, creating) gender divisions in the response on this issue - like the challenge above, "why are you getting women to find the threads for you", rather than just "other people," "other posters" - seems entirely unnecessary to me.

08:42 / 15.04.06

Shadowsax put in a request to have media whore removed from his post, and I vetoed it as a switchboard mod. It would make the rest of the posts about the phrasing look kinda weird there, and here. For the record he did request to change it though.

Shadowsax, I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned it to you, but a lot of people think you've come across as some kind of mad woman hater since you've been here, and I think you should take special care to watch your wording when you post in the future.

08:48 / 15.04.06

Ganesh stated initially that he was inclined to ban, apparently on the word of other people, without (as I would have advised) reading all the posts in question.

I was tentatively inclined to support a ban, based on what I had read, and the strength of complaint. In retrospect, I think I was wrong to say this, and I've shifted to the more comfortable (for me) position of wanting those calling for a ban to initiate a more structured discussion in a separate, easily-locatable thread, to which mods and non-mods of any gender might contribute their opinion. To be entirely frank, if it were me alone making the decision, I could probably be persuaded either way at this point. I'd like to hear what others have to say, though, particularly those who've actually engaged with ShadowSax.

09:20 / 15.04.06

Shadowsax, I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned it to you, but a lot of people think you've come across as some kind of mad woman hater since you've been here, and I think you should take special care to watch your wording when you post in the future.
If you post in the future. Again the problem we're having is you seem very anti-woman, but you're not trolling hard enough for an immediate ban. Many of us think it's obvious that you have a misogynistic attitude, but you're not starting threads where you just come out and say something.

I don't see how you can really recover and enjoy this board now anyway, with your start here in the child custody thread, and some of your comments in the Duke thread, you'll always have a lot of baggage.

Maybe you should consider banning yourself and asking Tom if you can reapply under a different name sometime in the future, and if you do start posting then you can try to remember why people were asking for your banning in the first place.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

09:33 / 15.04.06

Sorry to Ganesh and Miss Wonderstarr for my phrasing, I meant that I actually thought the discussion in this thread was more useful, 'justify' was completely the wrong word to use, my bad.

What I meant but plainly didn't end up saying was that the discussion here was around whether a tipping point had been reached as Shadowsax is posting from what people here perceive as an anti-female mindset but not posting anti-female tracts.

Unfortunately I was jumping around in my response changing and adding things and then not changing the bit that most needed clarification.

09:41 / 15.04.06

Shadowsax is posting from what people here perceive as an anti-female mindset but not posting anti-female tracts.

The difficulty here being banning someone on the basis of a perceived mindset rather than explicitly stated 'ism'. In the case of ShadowSax, I don't think it's impossible to make that case - but I think it would have to be argued in a fairly structured, reasoned way. I know the case exists, scattered throughout a number of threads, but I'd like to see it presented formally, in a separate thread, by those who think ShadowSax should be banned, for reasons given in my Expectations thread.

Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero

09:54 / 15.04.06

I know the case exists, scattered throughout a number of threads, but I'd like to see it presented formally, in a separate thread, by those who think ShadowSax should be banned, for reasons given in my Expectations thread.

And surely that's not asking for too much. If the case is as apparent as folks are claiming, a formal presentation shouldn't be too hard to put together and would be, in my opinion, the prudent thing to do.

10:09 / 15.04.06

Banning someone is a big step and should involve as much of the community as possible - even if the ultimate decision rests with Tom. I know there are cases where the discussion element is bypassed (with suspected old familiar trolls in new suits, for example, much of the discussion inevitably takes place behind the scenes) but I don't think this should be standard.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

10:37 / 15.04.06

I'm inclined to agree. I don't think there was anything wrong with the issue of banning being raised in the WFB thread, but obviously the actual thrashing out of the whys and wherefores needs to occur somewhere that everyone can contribute--espcially the person who might end up getting banned.

Page: 1 2 3 4(5)6 7 8 9 10