Comments on: On the “Yes Means Yes!” project http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/12/27/on-the-yes-means-yes-project/ Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:32:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Feministing, Men, Feminism, and Consent Controversy « Editorializing the Editors http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/12/27/on-the-yes-means-yes-project/#comment-190438 Feministing, Men, Feminism, and Consent Controversy « Editorializing the Editors Mon, 07 Jan 2008 04:07:33 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/12/27/on-the-yes-means-yes-project/#comment-190438 [...] There are a lot of problems in this call for submissions. It took me quite a bit of time to go through the blog posts, so I’m relatively behind on this issue, but what I learned about feminism, specifically about feminist allies/male feminists/pro-feminist men, has been very valuable. The cross-blog conversation I spent the most time reading was the one between Theriomorph and Hugo Schwyzer (which soon branched into Sweating Through Fog’s and Ilyka Damen’s blogs, which I’ll get to). Hugo Schwyzer wrote a post about YMY!, saying, basically, that he supported the project while recognizing the problems inherent to the language of the call for submissions. Later, Theriomorph delivers a cutting, elegant, totally necessary critique of the call and of the intent of YMY! Hugo Schwyzer responds and links to Theriomorph’s post and comments with his objective take on the whole ordeal, claiming that YMY! has divided feminists into two groups, the “purists” (not kidding) and the “popularizers.” Then, to illustrate, he compares this division to the division between Evangelical Christians (popularizers) and, uh, non-Evangelical Christians (purists). (Sorry, I’m agnostic and I haven’t been to any church in about 10 years — all the self-identified Christians I’ve ever known have been condescending, proselytizing jerks.) The purists (or radical feminists) want the feminist message to reach people as close to whole as possible, while the popularizers, with whom Hugo clearly sides, are comfortable with curtailing the message for the sake of, well, popularity. Jessica Valenti, apparently, is a popularizer, while everyone who criticizes YMY! is a purist. He throws some good ol’ “you’re just jealous of her success!” and some misuse of “the master’s tools” in the response for good measure. According to Hugo, it all comes down to who’s willing to market the ideas, because the market is what will determine the success of the movement. [...] […] There are a lot of problems in this call for submissions. It took me quite a bit of time to go through the blog posts, so I’m relatively behind on this issue, but what I learned about feminism, specifically about feminist allies/male feminists/pro-feminist men, has been very valuable. The cross-blog conversation I spent the most time reading was the one between Theriomorph and Hugo Schwyzer (which soon branched into Sweating Through Fog’s and Ilyka Damen’s blogs, which I’ll get to). Hugo Schwyzer wrote a post about YMY!, saying, basically, that he supported the project while recognizing the problems inherent to the language of the call for submissions. Later, Theriomorph delivers a cutting, elegant, totally necessary critique of the call and of the intent of YMY! Hugo Schwyzer responds and links to Theriomorph’s post and comments with his objective take on the whole ordeal, claiming that YMY! has divided feminists into two groups, the “purists” (not kidding) and the “popularizers.” Then, to illustrate, he compares this division to the division between Evangelical Christians (popularizers) and, uh, non-Evangelical Christians (purists). (Sorry, I’m agnostic and I haven’t been to any church in about 10 years — all the self-identified Christians I’ve ever known have been condescending, proselytizing jerks.) The purists (or radical feminists) want the feminist message to reach people as close to whole as possible, while the popularizers, with whom Hugo clearly sides, are comfortable with curtailing the message for the sake of, well, popularity. Jessica Valenti, apparently, is a popularizer, while everyone who criticizes YMY! is a purist. He throws some good ol’ “you’re just jealous of her success!” and some misuse of “the master’s tools” in the response for good measure. According to Hugo, it all comes down to who’s willing to market the ideas, because the market is what will determine the success of the movement. […]

]]> By: Jaclyn http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/12/27/on-the-yes-means-yes-project/#comment-190064 Jaclyn Sun, 06 Jan 2008 20:36:28 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/12/27/on-the-yes-means-yes-project/#comment-190064 Fire Fly, it's true when I posted that I wasn't sure if we'd be able to re-write the call, but it turns out that we are and we have and we'll be releasing it shortly. Fire Fly, it’s true when I posted that I wasn’t sure if we’d be able to re-write the call, but it turns out that we are and we have and we’ll be releasing it shortly.

]]> By: Fire Fly http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/12/27/on-the-yes-means-yes-project/#comment-186720 Fire Fly Wed, 02 Jan 2008 09:21:49 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/12/27/on-the-yes-means-yes-project/#comment-186720 Well, Jessica, you have to admit that it does seem like you're ignoring criticism when you don't engage with it. I mean, it goes to accountability when you respond to criticism. <i>both Jaclyn and I are strategizing ways to include those criticisms and letting them shape a revised call for submissions</i> This kinda contradicts <a href="http://shewhostumbles.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/the-limits-of-consent/#comment-1456" rel="nofollow">what Jaclyn said at my blog</a>, which was that the CFP was a done deal, but that critical voices would be incorporated into the anthology itself. Well, Jessica, you have to admit that it does seem like you’re ignoring criticism when you don’t engage with it. I mean, it goes to accountability when you respond to criticism.

both Jaclyn and I are strategizing ways to include those criticisms and letting them shape a revised call for submissions

This kinda contradicts what Jaclyn said at my blog, which was that the CFP was a done deal, but that critical voices would be incorporated into the anthology itself.

]]> By: Jessica http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/12/27/on-the-yes-means-yes-project/#comment-184499 Jessica Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:52:45 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/12/27/on-the-yes-means-yes-project/#comment-184499 Fire Fly, while I haven't been engaging online, I’m most definitely not ignoring the criticisms. When questions and concerns arose about the language of the call for submissions, Jaclyn and I jointly decided that she should be the public spokesperson for the book and would handle the criticisms and talking with folks online. That said, please know that I’m reading and taking to heart all of the criticisms that I’ve seen online and both Jaclyn and I are strategizing ways to include those criticisms and letting them shape a revised call for submissions. Fire Fly, while I haven’t been engaging online, I’m most definitely not ignoring the criticisms. When questions and concerns arose about the language of the call for submissions, Jaclyn and I jointly decided that she should be the public spokesperson for the book and would handle the criticisms and talking with folks online. That said, please know that I’m reading and taking to heart all of the criticisms that I’ve seen online and both Jaclyn and I are strategizing ways to include those criticisms and letting them shape a revised call for submissions.

]]> By: Theriomorph http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/12/27/on-the-yes-means-yes-project/#comment-184484 Theriomorph Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:32:53 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/12/27/on-the-yes-means-yes-project/#comment-184484 Okay, my post with further thoughts is up. <a>who determines 'our most important ideas?' on marketing, propaganda, anti-racism, and conversations about social justice.</a> I hope this conversation continues beyond the trigger of the call for submissions, because it's a much larger issue than that. Okay, my post with further thoughts is up.

who determines ‘our most important ideas?’ on marketing, propaganda, anti-racism, and conversations about social justice.

I hope this conversation continues beyond the trigger of the call for submissions, because it’s a much larger issue than that.

]]> By: John Spragge http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/12/27/on-the-yes-means-yes-project/#comment-184288 John Spragge Sun, 30 Dec 2007 13:16:19 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/12/27/on-the-yes-means-yes-project/#comment-184288 <blockquote>...their voices have become intertwined with those who have made some thoughtful suggestions as to how Jessica’s work might be more inclusive.</blockquote> Hugo, it surprises me that you do not appear to see how the historical exclusion of women of colour might produce a great deal of anger; how the victims of that exclusion might consider an expression of that anger reflected their experience better than a "thoughtful" suggestion. You impress on us the importance of emotion on one hand, while apparently dismissing it on the other. You can't have it both ways.

…their voices have become intertwined with those who have made some thoughtful suggestions as to how Jessica’s work might be more inclusive.

Hugo, it surprises me that you do not appear to see how the historical exclusion of women of colour might produce a great deal of anger; how the victims of that exclusion might consider an expression of that anger reflected their experience better than a “thoughtful” suggestion. You impress on us the importance of emotion on one hand, while apparently dismissing it on the other. You can’t have it both ways.

]]> By: Sylvia/M http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/12/27/on-the-yes-means-yes-project/#comment-183937 Sylvia/M Sun, 30 Dec 2007 01:44:38 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/12/27/on-the-yes-means-yes-project/#comment-183937 Out of curiosity, could you let us know who these "most bilious critics" are and what corner of the blogosphere you're referring to? Also, I see that you summarize two arguments that are being made about the anthology's premise, but could you provide more links to where they're being made? Out of curiosity, could you let us know who these “most bilious critics” are and what corner of the blogosphere you’re referring to?

Also, I see that you summarize two arguments that are being made about the anthology’s premise, but could you provide more links to where they’re being made?

]]> By: Fire Fly http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/12/27/on-the-yes-means-yes-project/#comment-183914 Fire Fly Sun, 30 Dec 2007 01:02:09 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/12/27/on-the-yes-means-yes-project/#comment-183914 Hugo, the differences between Jessica Valenti and Jaclyn Friedman also manifest in how they've responded to criticism. Jessica Valenti has point-blank ignored it. Jaclyn Friedman has respectfully engaged in dialogue and responded to criticism. Before you appropriate the words of some more of your students, you might want to think about what it means that you're using a <a href="http://delux-vivens.livejournal.com/569984.html" rel="nofollow">tone argument</a> to trivialise what women of colour -- who aren't under your authority -- say. It kinda undermines your credibility. Moreover, there are bloggers who never said anything about <i>Full Frontal Feminism</i> who have made criticisms of the framing and wording of the <i>Yes Means Yes</i> call for papers. This is some dark divide-and-conquer magic you're messing with -- are you sure you're capable of handling its consequences? Hugo, the differences between Jessica Valenti and Jaclyn Friedman also manifest in how they’ve responded to criticism. Jessica Valenti has point-blank ignored it. Jaclyn Friedman has respectfully engaged in dialogue and responded to criticism.

Before you appropriate the words of some more of your students, you might want to think about what it means that you’re using a tone argument to trivialise what women of colour — who aren’t under your authority — say. It kinda undermines your credibility.
Moreover, there are bloggers who never said anything about Full Frontal Feminism who have made criticisms of the framing and wording of the Yes Means Yes call for papers. This is some dark divide-and-conquer magic you’re messing with — are you sure you’re capable of handling its consequences?

]]> By: elanor_x http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/12/27/on-the-yes-means-yes-project/#comment-183261 elanor_x Sat, 29 Dec 2007 09:00:52 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/12/27/on-the-yes-means-yes-project/#comment-183261 Hugo, you have spoken and exchanged e-mails with Jessica Valenti, but did you made her aware of your thoughts on the issue? Will she read this post? Imo telling her about your post is important since a) it clearly isn't rooted in "in envy and personal animus" b) it's from a future contributor to the anthology (which is a great idea, will you put a final draft of your post here? Your readers would love it) c) Sure she has heard the criticisms, but since she hasn't done anything about them yet, from what I have understood, and since your post sums most of things so beautifully, I think making her aware of it is necessary. Imo, it's a MUST <b>to put in the introduction to the anthology which type/s of rape it tries to diminish</b> (to tell just a few, clearly not international trafficking of women, war victims, the guy who rapes to get revenge or "the guy with a knife lurking in the bushes", which from what I heard isn't how most of rapes happen). If Jessica won't agree to do it (and I can't see any reason why not), I think it would be a good idea <b>to put a couple of sentences about it in the beginning of your contribution</b>, like "we all know about the wide-spread problem of acquaintance & date rape in our culture...". This sentence isn't worded in the best way, but you understand the idea. Unlike Elaine Vigneault I think plenty of discussion about consent, which already exists, doesn't make the idea worse. She called it "the current hot way to sell feminism to people who don’t want to buy it", why is it bad? May be I am slightly naive, but imo if it influences even a minority of people reading it, the project will be worth the work. Only yesterday I read a great post (can't find a link now) about the need to bring to public important issues and that a good new book will <b>include recommendations of good works already written for further reading. A bit like moving from <i>Full Frontal Feminism</i> to Naomi Wolf and other feminist works.</b> Why can't this book do that too? I have also read those 2 interesting posts on the subject: http://witchywoo.wordpress.com/2007/12/25/witchy-woo-is-breaking-the-rules/#comments http://jadedhippy.blogspot.com/2007/12/enthusiastic-consent-could-change-our.html Hugo, you have spoken and exchanged e-mails with Jessica Valenti, but did you made her aware of your thoughts on the issue? Will she read this post? Imo telling her about your post is important since a) it clearly isn’t rooted in “in envy and personal animus” b) it’s from a future contributor to the anthology (which is a great idea, will you put a final draft of your post here? Your readers would love it) c) Sure she has heard the criticisms, but since she hasn’t done anything about them yet, from what I have understood, and since your post sums most of things so beautifully, I think making her aware of it is necessary.

Imo, it’s a MUST to put in the introduction to the anthology which type/s of rape it tries to diminish (to tell just a few, clearly not international trafficking of women, war victims, the guy who rapes to get revenge or “the guy with a knife lurking in the bushes”, which from what I heard isn’t how most of rapes happen). If Jessica won’t agree to do it (and I can’t see any reason why not), I think it would be a good idea to put a couple of sentences about it in the beginning of your contribution, like “we all know about the wide-spread problem of acquaintance & date rape in our culture…”. This sentence isn’t worded in the best way, but you understand the idea.

Unlike Elaine Vigneault I think plenty of discussion about consent, which already exists, doesn’t make the idea worse. She called it “the current hot way to sell feminism to people who don’t want to buy it”, why is it bad? May be I am slightly naive, but imo if it influences even a minority of people reading it, the project will be worth the work. Only yesterday I read a great post (can’t find a link now) about the need to bring to public important issues and that a good new book will include recommendations of good works already written for further reading. A bit like moving from Full Frontal Feminism to Naomi Wolf and other feminist works. Why can’t this book do that too?

I have also read those 2 interesting posts on the subject:
http://witchywoo.wordpress.com/2007/12/25/witchy-woo-is-breaking-the-rules/#comments
http://jadedhippy.blogspot.com/2007/12/enthusiastic-consent-could-change-our.html

]]> By: Theriomorph http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/12/27/on-the-yes-means-yes-project/#comment-183131 Theriomorph Sat, 29 Dec 2007 05:23:08 +0000 http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/12/27/on-the-yes-means-yes-project/#comment-183131 <blockquote>...feminist missiology has to operate on multiple levels. We need our radicals and our moderates, our popularizers and our theorists. We need to package our most important ideas for the mass market in a way that the mass market will find palatable. I’d rather 97% of the people get 3% of feminism than have 3% get 97%, if that makes sense. </blockquote> I've been thinking about what you said here, Hugo, and grappling with it. What I came up with is long, so I'll put it at my place on Sunday (posting day for me), but for now: I understand this point of view on the level of theory. Deeply. But what (and who) it omits in practice, I don't accept. It begs the question: who determines our most important ideas? Appreciate the conversation.

…feminist missiology has to operate on multiple levels. We need our radicals and our moderates, our popularizers and our theorists. We need to package our most important ideas for the mass market in a way that the mass market will find palatable.

I’d rather 97% of the people get 3% of feminism than have 3% get 97%, if that makes sense.

I’ve been thinking about what you said here, Hugo, and grappling with it. What I came up with is long, so I’ll put it at my place on Sunday (posting day for me), but for now: I understand this point of view on the level of theory. Deeply. But what (and who) it omits in practice, I don’t accept. It begs the question: who determines our most important ideas?

Appreciate the conversation.

]]>