Two quick Sunday notes:
I’ve had a big upsurge in MRA (men’s rights advocate) comments this week. I’ve banned a few for trolling and will happily ban more. Hint, lads: using words like "misandrist" will get you knocked out of here in five seconds flat. Double standard? Perhaps. But this is not a free speech forum; this is a Christian feminist space, and those who are hostile to faith and feminism need to respect the focus and purpose of this blog. Send me vitriolic emails if you like; call me a Stalinist; express your deep disappointment in me elsewhere in the numerous MRA forums, but please understand that unless you bend over backwards to demonstrate civility, you’re outta here. Comments questioning this policy will also be banned.
Second: my readers who know All Saints Pasadena well will appreciate this. Mutuality arrived in the mail this week; it includes an article by me. In the short bio I submitted to the magazine, I described myself as an "evangelical Episcopalian" who worships and volunteers at All Saints Pasadena. The dear editors of Mutuality reworded my bio, so that All Saints Pasadena — a flagship church of the progressive mainline — is now referred to as "an evangelical Episcopal church." An understandable error, but for those who know ASC Pasadena, a whopper.
Oh,and #3: you must go see Little Miss Sunshine. Now. I mean, Toni Collette is just about my favorite actress in the whole damn world, and I’m in love with Steve Carell, but the whole cast is sublime. I haven’t laughed and cried with such simultaneous intensity in years. You’ll thank me for the recommendation.
Evangelical? a whopper…no sh*t! What would Rev. Susan think of that?
Well, Ed Bacon might describe himself as "evangelical in his commitment to social justice." But if what most people mean by evangelical is summed up the Lausanne Covenant (the most commonly cited document that summarizes what it means to be "evangelical"), then I think I’m one of ten folks at all of All Saints who could sign on to the whole thing happily and without quibble!
I actually might take your recommendation. I’m not impressed with most movies nowadays - the last one that blew me away was Park Chanwook’s “Lady Vengeance” (2005). (Now there’s a feminist movie, if I’ve ever heard of one.)
What exactly is that purpose? To allow one side to feel “validated” by having their poorly-reasoned ideas go unrebutted, or something else? No one questions your right to set whatever rules you want on your blog, but it would be nice to know what those rules are in advance.
X, if you read the comments of the folks I’ve banned, it will become clear.
This seems illogical to me. Hugo didn’t say that all rebuttals would be banned; he said that all anti-feminist and/or anti-Christian comments that don’t make a real attempt to be civil, would be banned.
Unless you believe it’s impossible to rebut allegedly “poorly-reasoned” ideas while being civil, Hugo is clearly not demanding that no feminist and/or Christian ideas be rebutted on his blog.
all anti-feminist and/or anti-Christian comments that don’t make a real attempt to be civil, would be banned.
Eh ?
What exactly is that purpose? To allow one side to feel “validated” by having their poorly-reasoned ideas go unrebutted, or something else?
Have you looked at Hugo’s second post about Max’s rating system? The purpose is to have a discussion which does not involve phrases like “feminist gorgons”; frankly, it’d be nice to be able to make a critical remark about what Max is doing without being called a man-hating bitch who’s out validating the molestation of boys.
Hugo:
Actually, I tried that before commenting, and it produced the opposite effect; why Taylor in particular was banned is about as clear as mud. The best guess I can rationalize is that a much nastier email war took place concurrently with the spirited, but mostly civil debate that took place in the comments.
Amp:
You might want to re-read this part of the original entry:
There is nothing inherently uncivil about the word “misandrist,” any more than there is anything inherently uncivil about the P.C. term that inspired it, “misogynist.” Both are perfectly good words when used judiciously (i.e., to describe people who really do hate either men or women, as applicable), and both get thrown around a lot in contexts where they are clearly inappropriate (i.e. as an attack on anyone who doesn’t hold a political view championed by the feminists or MRAs). Since both terms seem to get misused far more often than they are used accurately, I could even understand a flat-out ban on both terms. But it makes no sense to allow one side to call the other a name, while not allowing the other to respond in kind, unless civility was never really the issue to begin with.
I don’t believe it’s generally difficult to rebut poorly-reasoned ideas while remaining civil. It is exceedingly difficult, however, to remain civil while dealing with opponents who are not. Civility is a two way street - or should be, anyway. Also, if civility really is the issue, why the threat to ban any comments who questioned the policy - civilly, or otherwise? Hugo, please don’t ban me.
X, I’m not going to ban you.
Here’s the problem: I write from a feminist analysis, primarily for other feminists and Christians. A small group of "usual suspects" who are intensely anti-feminist come in, question the premises on which I have written my post, and hijack the thread. I’m tired of it, because it drives away commenters who might well have moved the discussion forward, not backward. The net effect of allowing the MRAs to comment is that they end up constituting the majority of the comments very quickly, driving others away, because feminist commenters don’t want to refight Feminism 101 over and over and over again.
I want to reach outsiders, yes — but I want to reach outsiders with genuinely open minds, not those whose antipathy to feminism or Christianity is already so ingrained that I have no hope of reaching them. For those whose hostility is already profound, I see no reason to offer them a forum.
<em>why Taylor in particular was banned is about as clear as mud.</em>
X, did you miss the bit where Taylor used the phrase "Feminist Gorgons"? That’s bannable by any reasonable standard.
Let me add that my policy has evolved a bit. I was once wont to allow more free-wheeling commentary here. I had hopes that “free speech” would lead to learning and growth. An unmoderated comments section seems to lead rather to hostility and ugliness, with folks more entrenched in their positions than ever before. That’s not progress.
why Taylor in particular was banned is about as clear as mud. The best guess I can rationalize is that a much nastier email war took place concurrently with the spirited, but mostly civil debate that took place in the comments.
Are we reading the same thread? Where he uses the phrase feminist gorgons, calls feminism ruinous garbage, says male feminist sympathsizers are only out for a piece of ass, claims that the women posting on the thread belong in a therapist’s office because they’re too wrapped up in their own issues to have anything of value to say, and says that feminists promote the molestation of boys by hot older women? Because I read all of that (and more) and cannot possibly imagine how you’d think that’s “mostly civil”.
BTW, remember that I’ve banned Ginmar,a widely read feminist voice, for the same reason as I’ve banned many of the MRAs. I don’t just ban in one direction; long-time readers ought to know that.
Upon re-reading the thread, I agree Taylor’s tone was a bit nastier and less informative than I’d previously recalled from skimmig it last night. It doesn’t strike me as all that extreme, though, as blog commenting threads go. Calling an ideology garbage is not equivalent to a personal attack on those who espouse it. Questioning the motives of male feminists for being feminists is lame, but hardly more or less so than positing unproved motives for Max’s bad behavior (which should rightly be condemned, independent of motive). Then again, I run a more “red meat” blog than Hugo’s, and have rarely if ever banned a commenter solely for being uncivil, so maybe I’m a lousy judge at what should or shouldn’t be a bannable offense. I totally understand a “no flinging poo” rule. My concern here is that selective enforcement may lead to a de facto “all poo, if flung, shall follow the same trajectory” rule, instead. Ginmar notwithstanding, it’s hard to see how a policy that allows the word “misogynist” while prohibiting “misandrist,” under identical conditions, can possibly lead anywhere else.
Calling an ideology garbage is not equivalent to a personal attack on those who espouse it
No, but this is a feminist blog. If you’ve got a substantive criticism of the topic, by all means, make it. (As opposed to saying “This is all crap and you’re all enabling pedophiles!”) That’s not a criticism, and it adds nothing to any debate or discussion. Can you see why it might not belong here?
You’re perfectly entitled to run your own blog in whatever manner you see fit, but the same is also true of Hugo.
I agree with you about this. However, Hugo isn’t on trial and we’re not prosecutors trying to find any tiny slip-up, so I think a more charitable reading is in order. Hugo wrote the sentence you’re focusing on just a few minutes after banning someone for writing “I need to go thoroughly wash off after reading Ampersand’s misinformed, hateful misandrist screed.” Since Hugo has a long record of being fairly reasonable as a moderator, it seems likely that’s the sort of use of the word “misandrist” Hugo had in mind.
I’m pretty confident that if a consistently civil poster made a non-attacking, intellectual use of the word “misandrist” - as in “I think there’s something very misandrist about the way TV sit-coms portray Dads as hopeless bunglers and clowns” - Hugo would not ban them for it.
Thanks, Amp — you’re absolutely right about the context.
My issue of Mutuality just came in today. I’m looking forward to reading your article. In fact this looks like a great issue all around that I can’t wait to read.
EF: no argument there; everyone’s free to run their blog any way they want. I wasn’t questioning Hugo’s right to do anything, just asking why he’d want to impose a rule about civility on one side of the debate but not the other. Based on Amp’s follow-up and Hugo’s response, it sounds like the answer is that he doesn’t want to do that. Works for me.
Hugo, my copy of Mutality just arrived today, so I eagerly turned to your article. I’ve been a fan of your blog for awhile now, and was so happy to see you in print, too. Good job! Thank you for sticking your neck out and being a compassionate, godly, pro-feminist voice. Just knowing my brothers like you are out there speaking up is an encouragement to me.
Blessings, and enjoy your blog hiatus. :)
Thank you, Meredith — it’s a great issue, and I’ve just finished reading all the other pieces. Folks, it’s worth buying (click the link in the post above).
And you can go buy Meredith’s books too, folks.
Aw. Now that was just plain nice of you, Hugo. Thanks! :)
It’s always a little weird when elements of my universe cross wires (to seriously mangle a metaphor)…
Meredith, I got a kick out of your online read at eHarlequin. =)