It’s been a couple of years since I last announced a comments policy, and many of my readers are new since then. Please remember that this is a feminist blog, and open primarily to feminist and feminist-friendly commenters; those whose worldview is fundamentally hostile to feminism are asked to refrain from posting.
There are so many fora for free-wheeling discussion on the ‘net; I get tired of having the fundamental premises under which I blog questioned. That doesn’t mean I only want yes-women and yes-men — but I’m looking for thoughtful commentary and criticism from those already in the tent of gender justice, egalitarian spirituality, and so forth. I’d rather have fewer comments, but from those who want to move the discussion forward, and only those who accept the basic worldview can do that. (Right now, it is a bit like hosting a blog about evolutionary biology, and having creationists hijack the discussion. That gets old.)
In the future, I will designate certain posts as “feminist-friendly only”, particularly posts dealing with subjects such as pornography, domestic violence, abortion, and so forth. One anti-feminist can derail a thread very easily, and to the best of my ability as a tired moderator, I’m not gonna let that happen as often.
Hi Hugo,
If you want commentary only from people that agree with you, then just be clear about it. Do you only want to hear views from your fellow pro-choicers here? If so, I won’t waste my time any more. I comment here because you self-identify as a Christian. I agree with you on a few issues (protection of the environment, a more just socioeconomic system, the evil of pornography), and violently disagree with you on some others (abortion, homosexuality, pacifism, the death penalty, animal rights, essential and innate differences between the sexes, the substitutionary atonement, fasting, the soteriological value of suffering, and older men/ younger women). I believe that my positions are much more consonant with Christian faith and with natural law, and that it’s my obligation as a fellow Christian to correct you. No doubt you believe the opposite.
Ultimately, however, we have to choose what’s important to us. It seems as though you’re having to pick between feminism and Christianity. If feminism is more important to you than Christ, then go ahead, make this a feminist-only blog, and ask me to leave. I hope that works out well for you. But if that is the case, then I will amicably withdraw myself, as I don’t want to give the impression- even tacitly- that I support feminist values. Occasionally, you do make an explicit request for ’social conservatives’ to write in their opinions. Is that just a rhetorical opinion, or do you really want our opinions around. Please make it clear- do you want me to leave or not?
Oddly enough, Hugo, Rod Dreher’s blog which you linked to the other day, doesn’t have a comments policy. Ever thought about why that is?
Rod Dreher obviously has a high tolerance for wankstas*.
Except, oops, beliefnet does have Rules of Conduct after all:
http://www.beliefnet.com/About-Us/Rules-of-Conduct.aspx
*The definition of wanksta is to be determined by a blog’s owner, not by me.
And you notice, Hector, that I haven’t banned you? Most of what you say would be allowed under the comments policy I’m putting in place. You’re wrong, much of the time, but you don’t do what captcrisis did, and make a moral equivalence between harsh words and physical violence, nor are you a rape apologist. I am happy to have pro-life commenters here, if they choose their words carefully out of respect for this forum. And yes, Elle Dee is right, beliefnet has long had a rules of conduct for its fora.
Hugo,
It’s been a real eye-opening experience for me, being a blogger. :) I just feel like sharing (venting!!) here with a fellow-sufferer (you!)–I hope you don’t mind!
1. Why do people mistake my personal blog for a government-funded institution governed by the Constitution of the United States? Really, my blog is much more like, say, my house or my car. If I invite you (the generic you, not you Hugo this time) in, you’re expected to behave courteously and according to the rules I set forth. If you find them unreasonable, I would never dream of trying to force you to enter my home or my car! OR my blog! However, it would be an amazing bit of asininity for you to shove your way inside any of those three and start laying down the rules to me of how I’m expected to govern my personal space, and I can’t imagine you seriously basing this on the argument that I should be more of a respecter of “free speech.” In my house? In my car? On my personal blog? Say what?
2. When I tell you precisely what my rules are, why do you deliberately misconstrue them? If I tell you, for instance, that one of my premises is that slavery is wrong, a terrible moral evil, and that basic concept is not up for debate and if you don’t agree with it we can have nothing to say to each other–why would you want to engage me in an argument about whether or not I allow discussions of the rates of unwed motherhood in predominantly black neighborhoods? I’ve already said that slavery is what I don’t allow debate on, as I consider that not a matter of debate, and I meant what I said. Now, if you suspect that I might find your opinions about unwed motherhood in predominantly black neighborhoods objectionable because you base your opinions on it on the same premises that those who support the enslavement of one race by another base theirs on, for example the natural and/or cultural inferiority of one group of persons of a specific skin color, you should just come out and say that, openly, and I will then just as openly and freely answer your very specific query. Of course you won’t do that, because it will reveal that you are a flaming ass to hold such an opinion at all, but I would respect you more if you did. I’d still tell you that the basic concept of human equality regardless of race, gender, orientation etc. is fundamental to my blog and that I do not debate them, period, but at least I wouldn’t consider you a coward.
3. If you disagree with me about the fundamental status and rights of a group of humans, deeply and irrevocably, why do you want to engage me in specific discussions on the topic? We already don’t agree on our basic premise. Unless you’re stupid, you know that we can’t have a meaningful discussion about the specifics if we don’t agree on the basic premise. So, do you think I’m stupid? If not, why would you think that I would want to give your beliefs, fundamentally opposed to my own and personally repugnant to me, free support and propagation? Why wouldn’t I expect you to take the time and energy to run your own blog to espouse your fundamentally opposed beliefs rather than mooching off my time and energy to advertise them instead? Why on earth would I ever consent to being used like that by you with no return whatsoever and in fact, putting damage to the message I am spending all this time and energy sending?
4. Why do you pretend to confuse repugnance with an inability to debate? I could debate my fundamental beliefs with you–easily; they’re the most self-evident and provable beliefs in the world to me and examples and logical bases abound. However, I find your disagreement with them repugnant and my interaction with anybody that opposes them a waste of my valuable time. For an easily graspable example, I would not debate, in public or private, with anyone, why it is wrong to rape children. Do I refuse because I don’t think that my opinion that it is wrong to rape children can’t withstand open debate? Of course not! That is an incredibly easy proposition to defend on every level I can think of. I refuse because even allowing that it might be something debatable is giving the opposed viewpoint (that raping children might be acceptable) more validity than I will ever willingly give it. Also, I do not want to associate on a personal level (ugh!) with the kind of person who holds the opinion that it might be acceptable, not even through the medium of having this individual post a comment on my personal blog. And I feel the same about any fundamental belief about the status of human beings that I hold.
Whew. I feel better now. Thanks for listening. :)
Lisa
Hey Hugo - congratulations on taking control of your blog… I don’t let people chuck red wine all over my sofa either!
“I get tired of having the fundamental premises under which I blog questioned.”
Hugo, what are your fundamental premises of feminism under which you blog? I have a hard time telling what you would consider feminist-friendly until after you state it is or not. For example, I have no idea if you would consider Camille Paglia, Warren Farrell, or Carol Gilligan to feminist-friendly or not?
Hugo,
I think this policy is definitely fair. Good job on writing this up.
Fred,
I can’t speak for Hugo, but I’d think that looking at feminism through the lenses of those people that you mention would be ok. I’ve gotten the impression that what is not allowed is someone coming in and blatantly promoting the view that feminism is harmful to society, or promoting sexism. Feminism isn’t monolithic (there are differing worldviews such as “liberal feminism” and “radical feminism”, just to name a couple), so Hector’s claim that Hugo’s policy forces commenters to agree with him is really an accusation that is uncalled for.
Hugo,
“In the future, I will designate certain posts as “feminist-friendly only”, particularly posts dealing with subjects such as pornography, domestic violence, abortion, and so forth.”
What does feminist-friendly mean, particularly with respect to “subjects as pornography, domestic violence, abortion, and so forth”? Is there a commonly known “feminist” position with respect to these subjects? My impression was that a post about porn on a decidedly feminist blog will create a significant amount of disagreement and shouting from people who definitely identify as feminist. Just saying - not sure what you mean.
“I’m looking for thoughtful commentary and criticism from those already in the tent of gender justice, egalitarian spirituality, and so forth.”
I wonder if you see self-identifying as feminist as a precondition for being in favour of “gender justice”? I would say that while many people in favour of gender justice are feminists that isn’t a necessary condition or sufficient condition. I wouldn’t classify utopian lesbian separatist feminism as in favour of gender justice, for example.
Re: For example, I have no idea if you would consider Camille Paglia, Warren Farrell, or Carol Gilligan to feminist-friendly or not?
Fred,
I’m not Hugo, but I suspect that Carol Gilligan is unacceptable to many self-professed feminists. She argued for the proposition that men and women use different modes of moral reasoning. I’ve found her argument compelling ever since I encountered it as an undergrad, but it is of course gravely anathema to the prevailing dogma of our time that men and women are identical in every respect.
The upside of this type of comment policy is that you can (with luck and work) get the kind of discussion community going that you want - and more power to you.
The downside, it seems to me, is that you’ll never have any of your fundamental ideas challenged in that kind of a community. Perhaps I’m wrong, but it seems like over the course of your life, you have had several fundamental ideas shake loose and change - the way you treated women, your own spirituality, etc. I don’t get the impression that those changes came from people with whom you were 99% in agreement making gentle suggestions - more like reality smacked you with a cluebat. In essence, you’re saying nobody can bring any cluebats to bear here anymore.
Personally, I prefer to leave all of my ideas and assumptions subject to challenge, no matter how stupid or evil the positions held by adversaries may be. I’ll argue economics with Marxists, gender equity with hardcore radfems and MRAs alike, environmentalism with Greens and the kind of people who look at a beautiful river valley and say “man, what this place really needs is a WalMart and a railroad.” It IS worthwhile to argue about why murdering children is wrong, or why women should be allowed to vote, or whatever “unthinkable” challenge to our beliefs, because argument refines the strength of our positions and exposes unsuspected weaknesses in what we believe.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with building an echo chamber or a “safe space” for holders of certain beliefs or values - but people aren’t likely to learn very much in such places. I find it more valuable to learn, or to be open to learning, than to be unchallenged - YMMV. There’s a reason I read more at left-wing blogs than at right-wing blogs; the left-wingers are more likely to know things that I don’t already know. It seems to me that you’re closing the door to letting anyone in who knows something that you don’t.
That’s OK, of course - it’s your blog, and your life. But I suspect you will become less effective as an advocate/activist for the things you care about as a result of it, because you won’t be hearing from people who know things that you don’t. For example, in your last comment on your previous comments-policy post, you said:
That kind of precensorship means that you will never ever hear about whatever existing male suffering actually is caused by women. You’ve blocked it from your reality; it can’t be real if I don’t know about it!
Comforting, but not conducive to growth.
Robert, the blog policy has nothing to do with me — I hear criticism all the time. It is about creating a safe space for my readers, who would like to be able to read a post about domestic violence where no one dares suggest that hitting is sometimes okay. I get emails all the time — anyone who wants can email me.
With all respect to my commenters and cyberfriends, the real challenges can only come in the flesh — at least for me. At the least, I need a long time to get to the point where I can “know” someone online. Fear not, I have plenty of people in my life challenging me every damn day.
A blog about the Holocaust would be right to block Holocaust deniers; we have nothing to learn from David Irving. Read Lisa’s excellent comment above.
I’ll say this, and then close this thread: this blog is my home. It has my name on it. I pay for it. I use my computer, not the college’s, to access it. There is no advertising, no co-blogger, no one but me (and Lauren, whom I periodically hire to spruce things up). This is my home. And I get to choose who comes into that space — anyone can peek through the window, but not everyone gets a seat at the table.