BARBELITH underground
 

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 ... 34567(8)910

 
 
Cat Chant
13:37 / 17.04.06
To say "asking female posters" was of course accurate, but it seemed loaded, whether you meant it that way or not.

Fraid so, Flyboy: it read very much like an allusion to the crucial feminist insight that men benefit disproportionately from the labour of women (and in particular the unacknowledged labour of women), and hence it looked as though you were calling attention to, and criticizing, Ganesh's post/strategy on the basis that he was behaving in a way that was dependent on, and reinforced, that particular aspect of male privilege. If you weren't, good, but it's hard for me to find a way to read that particular sentence that doesn't imply a gendered opposition between "Ganesh" and "female posters".

I don't have an opinion about ShadowSax, I'm afraid. For some reason I feel like it's important to say that, if only because I feel like Ganesh is having to do too much work as the main representative of 'people who don't have a strong opinion about ShadowSax'.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
20:55 / 17.04.06
The female-IDing thread I can see an argument for, although we've already come up against how one defines female-IDing - possibly "with experience of experiencing being perceived as a woman, and currently identfying as a woman", full of holes though that is. I suppose it continues for as long as its contributors find it useful., or until someone asks for it to be locked with a reason that convinces enough moderators and is not then reversed (which I think is unlikely).

Point.

It occurs to me off that thought that I'm thinking suddenly of these rather in Pride (as in LGBT pride festivals) terms.

If, as many posters of varying gender identities seem to feel, Barbelith as a whole defaults to 'friendlier and/or safer to male id'd posters'(which, I'd say, post the Feminisism 101 thread, is difficult to deny), then it is neccessary to challenge that, by creating space that explictly seeks to start from a different position.

It's the 'why do you need Pride, it's not like we have straight Pride days' argument, I think.

Ta, Haus.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
20:57 / 17.04.06
Deva: I'm interested as to what the 'I don't have an opinion;' statement is doing?

Does that stand as an ended statement , an assertion of performance, a contingent position?
 
 
Cat Chant
09:11 / 18.04.06
I'm trying to figure that out myself, GGM. Not meant to be an end to my thinking about it, and certainly not to anyone else's, of course. I suppose the thing is that I'm feeling a bit spoken for at the moment - as if, because I don't feel strongly enough about not banning SS to come in swinging, my silence may make it possible for people to speak in favour of banning SS in my name ('as a woman' or in the name of 'female posters'). I would like to see the grounds of the argument stated a bit more clearly (quite possibly by me, at least as far as I see them, and I'll try and do that later today - also I see the 'ban' thread has grown a lot, so I'll go and have a read of that too.)
 
 
Ganesh
01:26 / 22.04.06
Out of interest, Deva, has your position shifted at all as a result of the ShadowSax thread? I've found it useful in terms of crystallising my opinion (and understanding) of ShadowSax as a poster, but I didn't really move towards or away from the idea of banning him.
 
 
Cat Chant
15:45 / 30.04.06
Ganesh - I've only just seen your question. I'm thinking this through at the moment, and will respond.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
23:48 / 22.07.06
OK, the heat might be scrambling my brain, but over in the Woman-friendly Barbelith thread, Twice Five Toes typed:

Men will not post with females in mind. We are trying to join in with a game we don’t fully understand.

...and I'm a little miffed. Indeed, to me that feels like a sexist comment about sexism, and I'm slightly offended.

Personally, I always try to post with all genders, races, sexuality's, religions (etc) in mind. I might make mistakes, but I do try. It's one of the reasons I like this place: Barbelith can force one to address how one thinks and speaks about other people, no matter their gender, sexuality, race, religion (etc); it makes one consider the thought processes and language that one might use in everyday life without even realising they are prejudiced or plain wrong. e.g. Olulabelle's use of "Red Indian", or my use of "PC Hell".


Granted, this isn't foolproof and, as the 101 threads (and, for me, Twice Five Toes' comment itself) demonstrate, few (if any) of us are perfect in this respect. But to say "Men will not post with females in mind ... ", feels to me like a sexist generalisation about men and is just as wrong as any other sexist comment we've seen on this board.

I may have got all this wrong, of course. I really don't want to make Twice Five Toes feel uncomfortable and I'm not being snarky; I just feel a little put out. I also apologise in advance if I've misinterpreted Twice Five Toes ' comment, and sincerely ask for someone to explain why that comment might be true (if indeed it is).
 
 
*
03:24 / 23.07.06
Okay, this sounds like the "reverse racism" argument. Can't you disagree with the comment without essentially saying that you feel men are oppressed by it? Because the reason why we have "racism" as a category of behavior and "sexism" as a category of behavior are to recognize that there are certain groups— people who aren't white, and people who aren't men— who are systematically disempowered by a structural imbalance. Men are not systematically disempowered, so we don't get to be victims of sexism. We can be targets of misandric prejudice, but I'd venture to say that's rare. Most of the time misandric prejudice, even when it exists, doesn't affect us at all, because we are the ones who are empowered by virtue of our gender.

My real problem with the statement you quoted is that, like "All white people are racist and there's nothing they can ever do to change," it lets the empowered group off the hook too easily. If there's no way to change, why work at it? But I have a hunch, 2x5t, that you meant that statement at least partly as a challenge; am I on the right track?
 
 
Twice
08:15 / 23.07.06
I think PW is right, and I apologise. The comment, and probably the post itself, was a generalization. I was a little bit spitty because I’d been looking at something that I wanted to post on but didn’t feel…equipped. So I ran to the girls’ room, which is not very grown-up.

As for it being a challenge? Well, yes. A great deal of effort goes into maintaining a safe and respectful place, here, and it is sincerely appreciated. I sometimes wonder, though, how much of this is lip-service. That is what I was feeling when I posted. It’s a very difficult thing to pin down and link to, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it doesn’t exist.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
11:28 / 23.07.06
TFT, thanks for apologising. I really appreciate that.

id entity: Okay, this sounds like the "reverse racism" argument. Can't you disagree with the comment without essentially saying that you feel men are oppressed by it? ... "

I think you're misinterpreting what I typed. I didn't say men were being oppressed by what TFT had typed, just insulted. There's a difference, which I'm very aware of.
 
 
Lurid Archive
11:39 / 23.07.06
A great deal of effort goes into maintaining a safe and respectful place, here, and it is sincerely appreciated. I sometimes wonder, though, how much of this is lip-service.

Well, I think it would be useful to be more specific about the ways in which Barbelith is failing or could do with improvement. Examples citing specific posts or threads would be ideal, though I realise that isn't the easiest thing in the world to do. Otherwise you can get a situation where everyone opposes sexism, but since we all understand it in different ways, some people will think there is too little being done about issues that others haven't registered.
 
 
*
16:56 / 23.07.06
I think you're misinterpreting what I typed. I didn't say men were being repressed by what TFT had typed, just insulted. There's a difference, which I'm very aware of.

To me, when one uses a word like "sexist," one is invoking oppression or some kind of power imbalance, and that's why I interpreted your comment as I did. I don't think it was a misinterpretation; I thought at the time that you used the word carelessly.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
17:01 / 23.07.06
Fair enough. I didn't realise women can't be sexist towards men. As I said earlier, this place does force one to address one's language. I'll get my dictionary out and read some more theory to try to better understand and recifty my error.

Sorry all.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
17:07 / 23.07.06
Fair enough. I didn't realise women can't be sexist towards men.

To clarify: I mean that "sexist" is the wrong word to use in such circumstances.

(Also, apologies to the mods about the mod-request I just accidently put through. I meant to post a new comment, but somehow I clicked moderate instead of reply and failed to notice that's what I'd done. I think I'm having a few synaptic misfires of late. Might be the heat. Or maybe not. Anyway, sorry about that.)
 
 
whistler
17:37 / 23.07.06
paranoidwriter, I know you're off reading up now (I think and write too slowly) but can I just make sure that you meant that you felt offended - that TFT's comment felt like a personal affront to you?

I'm aware that TFT has apologised but I'm wary of the idea that we might need to temper our comments in the 'women-friendly barbelith' thread to avoid discomfort on the part of M.I. people who might be reading. I'm curious about whether, in the pursuit of a truly revolutionary board, we can do other things with such discomfort, instead of getting offended?

I ask because being challenged in just such a painful way about my assumptions about issues of racialised power (I am white) is one of the main ways that I move forward - and I am personally familiar with feeling defensive and uncomfortable and generally horrid about encountering this kind of challenge. For me (for most people who care about social justice I expect) it is a vulnerable place to be. But so important.

TFT's comment 'We are trying to join in with a game we don’t fully understand.' seems to me to be worth listening to and really hearing, just as an exceptionally eloquent expression of 'what it might be like' to be in the minority.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
18:05 / 23.07.06
paranoidwriter, I know you're off reading up now (I think and write too slowly) but can I just make sure that you meant that you felt offended - that TFT's comment felt like a personal affront to you? ...

... I'm wary of the idea that we might need to temper our comments in the 'women-friendly barbelith' thread to avoid discomfort on the part of M.I. people who might be reading.


Hmm...good question. I didn't take it as a personal affront, but as a little unfair to male posters.

I mean, I understand the need for all posters to be able to express themselves freely. But I feel we all need to be careful with our assumptions. e.g. my use of "sexist", above. Of course, having one's beliefs, language, assumptions, etc, challenged is always a good thing. I was just trying to make sure we all do the same.*

I certainly wasn't suggesting that people shouldn't be able to discuss this issue freely, just with a bit of respect for each other, and I didn't mean to suggest that the comments made by TFT were invalid. i.e. I have been learning a lot from the Women Only thread (maybe not enough, granted). I probably should have also been more selective with my use of TFT's text, and not used the second sentence in that paragraph.


* But like I said, I need to do more research, so...
 
 
*
18:49 / 23.07.06
Thanks for that, pw, and whistler, I think you're right on target. I know when my privilege is questioned I can get pretty spiky about it— if we all react with that kind of spikiness, Barbelith can't be a safe place for people to challenge privilege. If women feel they have to be concerned about not insulting or offending men when they call us on our privilege, it becomes very difficult to do it at all. And that may get to the heart of 2x5t's comment— due to the nature of privilege, we're not likely to see it on our own, we won't be receptive to privilege being challenged, and that makes it unsafe and uncomfortable for women to challenge our privilege. Then when they do so they may feel they have to apologize, and that makes me sad. It causes me to empathize with the frustration that women on the boards must feel, and which I see in the WFB thread. How can male-identified posters post with women in mind, if due to this confluence of factors we can't be challenged? How can women feel safe posting if their frustration with the current dynamic is discounted? It becomes, as I think 2x5t was saying, impossible— until such time as we take it upon ourselves to do the work.

2x5t, I see you've regretted what you said. I hope, though, that that regret doesn't come out of a fear of causing offense to men. We probably need to be offended. Any questioning of our privilege is likely going to feel to us like an insult or an abridgement of what we take for granted as our rights; that doesn't make the challenge wrong.
 
 
Twice
19:33 / 23.07.06
Well, I think it would be useful to be more specific about the ways in which Barbelith is failing or could do with improvement.

Lurid, I’m sorry I can’t offer specifics. I can offer no more than a bag of wind, when it comes down to it.

I certainly tripped over (was guilty of) one of id’s definitions earlier in this thread, in that I relied on my own perceived stereotypes and came up with an unwise judgement.

What I mean by lip service, though, is something I would like to try to explain further. Barbelith’s positive attempts to create an environment based on equality necessarily require firm ‘moderation’. A set of rules, or a code, comes into force and those who step outside of it are made aware of their infraction, and quite rightly.

My suspicion (I sometimes wonder) is that the fear of posting felt by many (of all gender definitions, I reckon) is often overcome by the act of communicating in the accepted manner. This is by no means Barbelith failing in any way. It may well be my failing, because I seem to mistrust too much. As PW said:

Barbelith can force one to address how one thinks and speaks about other people, no matter their gender, sexuality, race, religion (etc); it makes one consider the thought processes and language that one might use in everyday life without even realising they are prejudiced or plain wrong.

I do not for a moment believe that all the men here are misogynist. I think that as we are learning, some of our long held misconceptions and bias can accidentally seep out through the seams, as I myself so #ably# demonstrated in my original post.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
03:16 / 24.07.06
To go back to what LA said above though, TFT, unless people are prepared to mention specific threads at least (naming individual posters, ok, may seem a bit much,) that they find offensive then it's difficult to see how the discussion can progress.

That low-level hum of anxiety that 'poster x' feels in the background may, after all, have something more to do with 'poster x' than it does with teh board as a whole.

It's impossible to say without examples. It's no good, really, to simply say 'I identify as such-and-such, and I find Barbelith an unwelcoming place' without at least trying to go into the whys and wherefores.

There are something like, what, maybe two hundred people who post here regularly, really none of whom wish this to be a hostile environment for anyone who's prepared to reasonably state their case without recourse to inflammatory rhetoric about the aliens, the BNP, the Holocaust and so on, and if any given individual feels they're being let down by Barbelith in that way (to the extent that one can actually be 'let down' by an internet message board,) then it's up to them to explain the reasons, I'd have thought.

Otherwise, it's a bit like walking into a pub, complaining to the regulars that one doesn't really like it, and then hanging round anyway, like a ghost at the feast.
 
 
*
05:20 / 24.07.06
It might help if we pledge to receive offered examples with respect and open minds, rather than defensiveness. Because I, in the place of a female poster, would certainly hate to go out on a limb and offer up an example in good faith, and then be met with "Nuh-uh, not me/us/my friend! You're misinterpreting/You're prejudiced/You're lying/You're a poor, silly, misguided person who just isn't smart enough to understand what the real context of my comment!" in various disguises both clever and transparent.
 
 
*
15:27 / 27.07.06
Okay, here's an example, I think. Lovely, friendly, well-meaning guys talking about weddings, where there are many sexist tropes to run afoul of. Sorry for picking on you folks, but maybe this will help. To be clear I'm not advocating for any kind of change, just expressing what I think might be the effect of gender-specific ways of talking in a mixed-gender space.

While we all know mothers can be domineering, especially at weddings, something about the phrase "scary alpha female" seems to imply that women with any kind of authority are inherently threatening. Then there's the "best man has to marry the bride instead" thing. Pretty clearly a leftover from "women are chattel" times, and I don't blame the poster for the tradition being sexist, but the laugh point seems to be what it has always been— "OMG SOMEBODY will have to marry her— dear Gods I hope it's not me!" And just to be clear, for the most part the problem for me is in the first bit. No man I know would want to marry someone he hadn't planned to at the drop of a hat because her betrothed didn't show up, obviously. Equally obviously, no woman I know would rather be traded off to somebody she hadn't signed up for under those circumstances.

We know that, of course. I don't mean to say that we don't. I also don't mean that we're intending to uphold sexism or make women feel excluded when we're doing this. But I do think that's the effect. Because women aren't supposed to be able to respond to this; it's menfolk-talk. I'm not comfortable with it.

And I'm not just speaking for the helpless wimminfolk here; it makes me personally uncomfortable as well, because I didn't grow up with it and it always makes me feel left out of the gender game, myself. I don't like it when women talk about menstruating around me, because I feel like an intruder, and I don't like when men talk about women as if they are not present, because I want to speak for them and feel as if I shouldn't, and the cumulative effect is I feel like all the kids have been picked for the gender teams and the coach is offering to let me keep fresh towels and run after the balls again.

Jesuschrist I feel so apologetic for even wanting to say this stuff. I littered this post with disclaimers and I want to go back and put more in. I don't feel entitled to speak on behalf of women and I don't feel entitled to criticize menfolk-talk from my own position and I don't feel entitled to join in if I wanted to. Probably I should just shut up.

NomoredisclaimersstopitjusthitPOSTalready—
 
 
Withiel: DALI'S ROTTWEILER
16:51 / 27.07.06
Apologies in advance for what will probably turn out to be a heat-garbled mess...
While I understand why male privilege needs to be challenged on the board, and comprehend the argument relating to why women can't be sexist, I'm confused about a couple of things.
It's obviously a waste of time to go around patrolling for slights to privileged groups, but I think there can be instances where making sweeping generalisations* about said groups can be at least unhelpful, and at most detrimental to the standard of debate. That is to say, while affront at statements detrimental to, say, men is, as id says, probably beneficial in the exposing-privilege way, I'm wondering whether such statements are adding much to Barbelith as a whole. To clarify, if one invents a straw female-id'd poster XX, say, and poster XX writes something along the lines of "Men are incapable of really listening to women" (this is looking like an attack on 2x5t, but I was struggling for an example and this is the best I can come up with), in my very personal case, I would probably initially be affronted, but after analysis the bit that would bother me would be the gender-essentialism and lack of qualification. Still not too coherent. More like: while I can see why one, as yet another hypothetical f-id'd-poster, might not want to provide examples of on-board sexism, but isn't altering the standard by which posters assess truth on grounds of gender identification fairly patronising to female-id'd posters as well?

The other thing is that I'm really unsure what qualifies as "menfolk-talk", and how to avoid it in the first place. I mean, in the example provided, it might be over-charitable of me (and I know exactly fuck-all about user Unencumbered), but the way I read that post was "What you should really be worried about is being roped into an obscure religious tradition in which women are treated like chattel". And moreover, do we know Unencumbered's gender identification? Can female-identified poster perpetrate "menfolk-talk"? (Should this go to the Feminism 101 thread? Should I just shut up now and save myself the embarrassment?)


*2x5t - I don't mean to imply that you're doing this, but the wording of the post that pw quoted got me thinking along these lines.
 
 
Withiel: DALI'S ROTTWEILER
16:54 / 27.07.06
Fuck. Ganesh has basically said all of that far better in-thread here.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
20:22 / 27.07.06
Can female-identified poster perpetrate menfolk-talk"?

How do you take apart cliches about women that have been innocently uttered online without sounding nasty? Do you actually all find your mothers-in-law dominating battlaxes who aim but one look at you and make you fall over? Does anyone find these allusions to stereotype comforting?

A female poster can inhabit those cliches without being cliched because that inhabitation is individual to a person. That cliche from outside is not inhabited by a person, it's applied to them.

I'm trying to steer my way towards the menfolk talk aspect but I fear that's a cliche too but I think the answer to can women be sexist about women is does Ann Coulter shit in the woods?
 
 
*
23:35 / 27.07.06
Withiel, thanks for responding as you have. I'll respond more in a bit, but I'm curious now about why you chose "XX" as an example name for a female identifying poster. Could you tell me about that?
 
 
Withiel: DALI'S ROTTWEILER
01:55 / 28.07.06
Brief reply due to extreme lateness and horrible heat &c - basically, initially it was meant to be a standard lettering for a variable in a hypothetical situation, then I hit the "x" key twice, and I left it because I was thinking about gender essentialism, which, on reflection, I probably shouldn't have. To be absolutely clear, of course one cannot determine gender by chromosones, and it was stupid of me not to work out this inference at the time. Apologies to all concerned, and if it gets in the way of discussion, I'm more than happy to edit the post to something less restrictive and, well, wrong.
 
 
Withiel: DALI'S ROTTWEILER
02:00 / 28.07.06
Tryphena Sparks - I was really trying to avoid the "domineering alpha female" bit, because that's far more problematic, which on reflection was probably a trifle cowardly of me. Specifically, I can sort of see how one could come about such a phrase in a non-sexist manner (if one has an "alpha male" one can logically have a similarly powerful and controlling "alpha female", and one could be intimidated by both &c), but id's criticism is more or less dead-on here - it's the "generally" that's the problem, really - and I was (badly) trying to get at something different. More tomorrow - just trying to make sense of a fairly garbled post while I can.
 
 
_Boboss
08:42 / 28.07.06
okay, sorry about my second post in the best man thread. seems id's got all sorts of reasons for wanting to pick that up. if anyone wants me to move for a deletey then let me know and that's cool.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
20:59 / 28.07.06
Well I was as concerned by the "scary" tag, which is a specific part of such a generalisation. If the statement had been "weddings are often influenced by an alpha female" that could have been a statement born from experience, whereas "weddings are often influenced by a scary alpha female" imposes a value judgement so I think that judgement is just as much a part of the statement as the generalisation is.
 
 
*
16:14 / 29.07.06
Saturn's nod if you are directly addressing a specific person's post than it's not polite to do so in a thread that they can't reply in.

I thought we'd already had this discussion and agreed there was a reason to have a women-only thread. If there's a woman-only thread and it's impolite to use it in certain circumstances, wtf is it doing here? "Impolite" is one of those words often used to control women— "Ladies" don't talk about people that way. "Ladies" don't express anger— it's not polite. I don't want women on the board to feel controlled that way more than the men do.

Saturn's Nod shared some things that made her feel vulnerable, it seems, and so far as I am concerned she should be able to do that in an exclusive space if she feels the need. It's not like talking about someone behind hir back; it's in public, and if AG feels the need to contest it ze can post to this thread or send a PM.

Alex's Grandma, you have a very distinctive voice when you are posting as female-identified, and at other times it seems to me that you are not being female-identified on the boards. Am I wrong about this? I respect the right of people to be gender-fluid both on the boards and in real life, but I am suspicious of a kind of gender fluidity which creates the privilege to talk freely in male-dominated space AND in women's-only spaces AS IF a native of both, when that nativity isn't grounded in an understanding of the experience of being targeted by sexism. That's exploiting power in quite a different way than someone who is living as female-identified, whether entirely on the boards or in their daily existence. If that's not what's happening here, I apologize for misreading the situation.
 
 
Char Aina
16:38 / 29.07.06
I thought we'd already had this discussion and agreed there was a reason to have a women-only thread.

you might want to define 'we' there, id.
as far as i recall nobody made sure everyone agreed.


"Impolite" is one of those words often used to control women

are you saying you think that is what was happening there, or ar you saying you think the word has dodgy connections and history that should be taken into consideration?
 
 
*
17:27 / 29.07.06
Oh, yeah, thanks for catching me on that "we" thing. I do that waaaaaay too damn much. I thought ag eneral consensus was reached among the people who were active in that discussion, and many others chose to respect the consensus.

And I mean the latter— that enforcing "politeness" on women in a way that it's not enforced on men happens, and is one way of silencing women. It's a history that I think should be taken into account. I don't think Tryphena is being sexist; that would be right stupid of me.
 
 
Char Aina
18:16 / 29.07.06
I thought a general consensus was reached among the people who were active in that discussion, and many others chose to respect the consensus.

i'd say that is an accurate representation of what happened.

i wonder what that means, though.
if a group of posters decide they want to discuss something on barbelith and then agree a set of rules for that discussion, what obligation (beyond respecting other members desires) do posters have to conform to those rules?
adherence to those rules is only in effect so long as those who do adhere choose to do so, surely?

i feel that the request for space in that thread had validity, but others may disagree(whether visibly or not), and i am not sure it is fair to suggest that they shouldn't be allowed to.

barbelith is a broad church, and in my opinion all threads belong to all of us, however we identify or are identified.

do you disagree?
 
 
sleazenation
22:10 / 29.07.06
At the risk of adding further fuel to the continued ridiculousness of these twin threads I felt the urge to post.

My main reason for wanting to post is to voice my opposition to Id Entity's assertion that a consensus had been reached and further sanctified by dint of, what Id Entity refers to as 'respect' for this claimed consensus.

I still think these seperate threads are kind of riduculous. I also think it a bit ridiculous that a poster seemingly opposed to having some posters speak for others has seen fit to... um speak for other posters. This is not intended as a criticism so much as an observation on the ridiculousness of this situation.

All of which is getting away from the seemingly insoluble problem of casual sexism on barbelith. It is still a problem and it still needs to be confronted as and when it is manifest.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
00:35 / 30.07.06
Yes, it is, isn't it, sleaze? Maybe you could address that in more depth instead?
 
  

Page: 1 ... 34567(8)910

 
  
Add Your Reply