I owe Feministe! an apology and I am happy to be wrong on this. My comment was allowed through moderation.

[...]

i don’t know how any one of us can expect any other one of us, to be the same person with the same boundaries. hugo has his. feministe has theirs. i’ve got mine. etc. etc. i don’t see anything wrong with both discussing and establishing ones boundaries. whether on a blog or in person.

if we consider why one bothers to create and sustain a blog, it has (usually) something to do with the want for another kind of personal space where others can visit and chat and share too. in life, in our own spaces, it is a healthy policy – to establish our personal boundaries (what is acceptable, unacceptable to us). this gives others the awareness needed to choose whether or not they should be present. this kind of information is invaluable between friends, lovers, even coworkers, or complete strangers sharing space for whatever length of time. respecting each others boundaries, go a long way in terms of respecting ourselves as much as others.

we can disagree with those boundaries, we can “call” some on it, we can question it, we can inquire.. or we can simply acknowledge that the discomfort isn’t worth (dont’ occupy that space, if it isn’t yours, and you can’t respect the established boundaries).

personally, i don’t stay too long at hugo’s place, as likable as he is. because i’m not comfortable sticking around there too long, just short visits, some of those fella’s are just too infuriating for me. i don’t hold it against hugo.. he is providing a space for folks that can and will and want to engage there.

everyone need not be providing the same space. everyone has differing boundaries. there is room for diversity among feminists.

Anyway, I read Alas, and Hugo, and comment regularly at Hugo’s: I’ve been hurt a couple of times because I truly, deeply didn’t understand where some of the opinions of my motivations were coming from. However, I’ve gone back into the fray a lot. It really has helped my understanding of feminism, as Happy Feminist said it does for her.

(All the MRA commenters on Hugo’s blog are not the same, some are trying to engage, I think.)

On the other hand, I was considering what ginmar said about not having to deal with the same shit over and over and over: she says she experiences this sort of belief system every time she steps outside.

That’s just not true, for *me*, and so I have to admit my privilege, here. There are threads of gender bias which snake lightly through the lives of my friends – oh, your husband will fix that tap: actually, I’ll do it – but all the men I know are willing to stand corrected. I don’t have anyone AT ALL in my life who even begins to reflect the thoughts of the anti-feminists I’ve met online: and so it’s this weird thought creature that I’m poking ideas at to see how it reacts. I have lots of people in my life; lots who might not embrace the term feminist, even.

I imagine if I were surrounded by such ideas, I’d have the same reaction as ginmar. If I were surrounded by such ideas, I’d be fighting more strongly for my thoughts which were outside of such ideas. As it is, to me, they’re strange.

And because of this, I think that ginmar is right that Hugo and Alas have privilege that means they’re not going to react as strongly: I also have that privilege, andso I’m imagining Happy Feminist, since her reaction seems similar. So that privilege exists but is not limited to white men.

What do we do? I think it’s very good for people like me to learn things about my feminism from both the MRA folks and my radical sisters. Both sometimes expose a world much more bleak than I’m used to. On the other hand, I think we need to recognize that for feminists and women “inside the war zone”, as it were, this isn’t an abstract discussion.

I will second Tapetum’s support for “intermediate” spaces to discuss such things as feminism. I’m still very much a novice when it comes to feminism – I even question if I can claim the label of “feminist” yet – and blogs such as this one and Pandagon have been really valuable to me in my own (spotty) self-education about feminism. I particularly like the fact that I feel free to screw up here; a big part of education is making mistakes and learning from them and I feel comfortable enough here that I can say what I’m thinking and not get smacked down if someone else doesn’t agree or thinks I lack understanding of whatever’s being discussed.

That’s not to say that I think people have to mince words or soften everything they say. I’m an adult, and I can handle someone being direct with me. There is, however, a difference between being direct with someone and attacking someone. Of course, this principle applies when we’re talking about constructive, good faith discussion; it doesn’t mean that one has to accept abusive speech. The challenge, then, is finding where that line is between assertive speech and abusive speech. Different people have different ideas as to where that line lies, and I really don’t think there’s a neat and tidy solution to that problem.

I’ve just read all that here, and can’t say I’ve had much recent experience with Amp or Hugo’s blog. I do remember feeliing they were too damned nice to some who didn’t deserve it, and don’t go back much. Maybe they have some use as primers, I dunno.

Another point, Hugo, you don’t want to admit failure? Does the phrase “spare thou those who confess their faults” sound familiar? Facing the need to repent is the beginning of moving forward, son. Tis the season, after all.

I generally agree with what I hear Ginmar saying, clearly and tenaciously; the point of discussing things is not to make a point, but to come to better understanding about things that matter. Treating this as only an exercise , thus pissing people off and getting called on it, and responding by saying “Empty-headed, hateful girl. You make no sense.” despite a repeated request from a moderator makes you an obstacle as well as an asshole. I don’t make the rules here, but I have found Robert’s posts only worth banning. And I don’t see this as stiffling free speech, but insisting on the kind of civility that advances the discussion. “Civility” doesn’t mean submitting to the abuse of jerks, but an order that serves the community and its purpose. I really would have liked to have read all this if Robert had been stomped when he first rattled.

Thanks to the rest of you for trying to carry on and, FWIW, please don’t let this site become Alas. There may be room for both, and more different approaches, but losing this one to trolls would be real harm

Thread drift can definitely be an issue, though sometimes it can lead to productive conversation.
I think one of the problems early on was misreading of humor — some people taking matters too seriously, while others caused offense by making inappropriate jokes — unfortunately, that’s a constant problem in text-only online media.

Then a couple of trolls arrived, which certainly didn’t help matters, but I think the big problems came with (a) people importing old outside scores and rehashing them here, and (b) personal or ad hominem attacks on other people.

Now that’s just my perception. YMMV (and I’d be interested to hear from others about whether or where they think these threads ran aground), but maybe this could serve as an object example to design some best practices for moderation in the future…

How do we police those who are arguably part of the community, even if they are in disagreement with the general focus of the group, when they attempt to slay members who are most certainly with the group?

–Lauren

One of the reasons I think I like the spirit of discussion (generally) on this blog is that questions like the one above actually get asked, rather than answered a priori.

It’s not just the instruction I was lacking ginmar, but the ability to a) see what was being described, and b) develop enough both in knowledge and in bravery to start being open with my thoughts.