Impromptu Carnival: Privilege in the blogosphere

I'm not really sure who the audience of LWG is all the time, but for the purposes of this post, we can assume there are two groups: those who read the same blogs I do (mostly blogrolled below) and have therefore encountered this conversation before.  And those who haven't.

For those who have been following the debate, think of this as an impromptu Carnival because I'm going to collect all your posts, write lead-ins for them and put them here in one place (or I'm going to try anyway).  It's sorta like conversation mapping.  I actually used to do this a lot in my (younger) college days.  Some good friends and I would stay up late into the wee hours of the morning and practice the art of good conversation.  Then I'd be so impressed with how things evolved I'd want to map it out.  So this is a map to a pretty interesting conversation.

For those who haven't been following along, this is an introduction to the conversation thus far and an invitation to participate.  It's all about the big P (power) --who has it, who doesn't, why and what to do about it.   Mix yourself a drink and join us.  I'll give you some of the background, just a caveat: recognize that this conversation has been going on for awhile and at first I wasn't following it too closely but now I am.

I think it started at Feministe (which I haven't been reading as much since Lauren left so I missed this early part of the thread).  And I think it started as a discussion about comment policy.  The question then was whether feminist blogs should allow anti-feminists to post comments, most of which are offensive at varying levels.  Hugo, of course, is famous for allowing these people to do that--they call themselves MRAs -Men's Rights Advocates-- and pretty much they're what I call members of the Flat Earth society (my term for people who are so far out there you can't really have a rational discussion with them.  They think men are oppressed by Big Bad Feminists Who Rule The World).  There are several who comment over at Hugo's and he lets them and he challenges them and tries to reason with them and all that.  The criticism of him allowing these folks to comment is that it creates a hostile space for feminists and feminist issues  Here are the posts wherein he responds:

Organizing the soup cans: reflections on blogging (includes links to previous parts of the discussion)
Sorta says that he's trying to be inclusive.  And his follow up on blogging rules which says he's not banning anyone and everyone just please be civil.  Some feminists point out that he is still privileged over others generally and moreover, as a white man writing about feminism he's even privileged within feminist circles.  So he writes further reflections on the role of male allies of feminists in which he recognizes that privilege and tries to do with it what he can to challenge the hegemonic structures of society.

[insert my take on this: Regarding the comment policy, personally, I don't usually read what the crazy people write, and have felt somewhere between a feeling of mild annoyance at them for making the comment thread so long as to be unwieldy and a good riddance feeling that Hugo for one tries to do something I personally am not very good at: engage crazy people.  (Although GIL reminds me that someone once said that sane people can't make mad people sane but mad people can make sane people mad.)  And there are blogs that do that.  They say things like "this comment thread is for feminist-friendly commentators only".  (Alas, does that).  And that's great.  But Hugo feels called to reach out to those guys.  There's space enough in the blogosphere for both of these approaches, but I'm going to talk a little more about Hugo's approach.

If you know Hugo, you know this is totally within his character.  Tolerance and love of everybody are part of his philosophy of nonviolence.  One that, honestly, I wish I could be better at myself so I totally respect him for that.  All of us have people that we find particularly difficult to love and that those aren't the same people for everyone.  Folks on the left, for example, find it particularly difficult to love Our Dear Leader.  Or the white racist cop in Crash, for example.  And some of us struggle to love these people and want to hate them but we feel that we must try for the agape love.  [btw, I suspect that's what the makers of Crash intended to challenge us on.  They know that unless you're a Nazi, the racist cop character's going to be easy to hate.  And if you're into trying to see the humanity of everyone, he's going to be a difficult one for you.  That's why I think they went out of their way to 'humanize' him.  I don't think they were trying to justify his actions or say 'he's not all that bad' in a way that dismisses what he did.  I think they were trying (more or less successfully is up for debate) to get at the idea that people can do the most heinous things and we don't have to lessen our judgment of that heinous act as horrible in order to at the same time recognize their humanity.  It's something that I struggled with a lot working in a job where I communicated regularly with people on death row, some of whom did horrible things but were also very lonely, tormented, and depressed.)  Anyway, I don't think these two things -struggling for agape love and resisting systemic oppression-- are mutually exclusive.  We can try to love white racist cops and MRA's while at the same time fighting racism and sexism in our societies.]

Ok, back to the discussion.  So Hugo calls for civility in the comments section.  Maybe some other people do too.  But some people warn that courtesy can be used as an excuse to deflect the uncomfortableness of calling people on their "-isms".  In this vein, Kevin at Slant Truth says fuck your civility for women/feminists/people of color: "WE GOTTA RIGHT TO BE HOSTILE…OUR PEOPLE OUR BEING PERSECUTED!"  (Right on!  Count on the poets among us to add some passion to the debate) and he btw, doesn't mention Hugo, he seems to be referring a something on Feministe.  But darkdaughta at One Tenacious Babymama writes this really cool post about power weilding patriarchal male feminists. Which is basically a lament that the proliferation of white men writing super-popular feminist blogs is an example of how even when it comes to things like racism and sexism, we still privilege white men over everyone else.  Good point.

So now it's about PRIVILEGE IN THE BLOGOSPHERE and who gets listened to and how Surprise! the Internet reflects the power/privilege structures of the larger society.  (Sounds like a good dissertation topic to me!)  How exciting!  And as Shannon of Egotistical Whining says, the whole thing's become something like "As the Feminists Turn".  Shannon's post is where I learned that a white male contributer at Feministe, apologized for not recognizing his white privilege enough (no link because Feministe is down right now) and brownfemipower at Women of Color says that's not enough, it has to be followed up by action and hey, here are some white bloggers who do challenge racism.

Then Bitch | Lab chimes in with another twist on the debate: the fantasy of being outside ideology about how challenging people's personal -isms can sometimes distract us from challenging it on a structural level (at least I think that's what she's saying, she has a peculiar, very academic writing style that sometimes goes over my head) and she, being a loud mouth herself, as well as THE NEXT HOST OF Carnival of the Feminists (after this one about to be published) is calling for posts on "civility", courtesy and the political implications of both

And what about the interpersonal relationship dynamics of all this?  whoa.  Belledam says:

when people wrap large sociopolitical megillas [what the?] around personal grievances, or (more often) conflate the one with the other, it tends to make everything spiral up and up and out and out, with nary a resolution in sight. Big heady "isms" and abstract structures clouding the sharp, immediate feelings, till no one can separate thought from feeling at all anymore, or indeed identify any feelings at all, although it's clear from the outside that the predominant ones are rage, shame, and hurt.

And the thing is, when this happens: it's not that the sociopolitical business is inaccurate, which is the usual line of the defense from the supposedly "politically incorrect" (tired!) It's that the personal shit, it matters, too; it doesn't need justification, if only you can address it for what it is. The personal is political, yes, but only to a point, and not always in the way people think.

At any rate, I've often thought, after yet another long agonizing process-y leftie coalition meeting which covered everything and went nowhere, it would probably save a lot of time and miscommunication if more people could say, simply and directly, "I'm feeling hurt" or "I'm angry." Of course, this is also the group therapy talking.

And that's what activism/consciousness raising is. Like Dorothy Day said, this is a "filthy, rotten system" and we're all hurt by it in different ways.  It's just harder for those of us with privilege to accept that we are not exempt from the pain.  Ally-work is painful at times, but so is racism.  Women and people of color have to deal the pain of sexism and racism all the time.  Those of us with privilege are just not as used to it, but that's ok, we'll adjust.  The human soul is infinitely adaptable and it's all necessary in the ongoing struggle to heal the fucked up broken human relationships that result from all this oppressive, hierarchical dominating social structure we (white people) have created.  So you take the hurt and the anger and the pain and you recognize that it's all wrapped up in the package of human liberation.  (Goodness, North Americans in general could learn a lot if we just figured out that we are not exempt from suffering in the world generally.)

whew.  so.  that's the discussion.  or at least the part of it I've seen.  in a nutshell.  with barb parts inserted.  lots of good stuff to chew on.  hope y'all had fun and discovered some new blogs and heard a point of view you don't normally hear.  ciao, y'all!

Comments

[Hugo]

Oh my goodness, thank you for the best summary I've read of all of our recent tempests! This is terrific -- and thanks for the kind words!

[darkdaughta]

Just a few point of clarification...
I don't know "Hugo" and didn't mention "Hugo" in my post. I'm not sure if you actually read the post, cuz I went to great pains to not name names instead directing people to Kevin's site where he actually identified more of the "key" players.

I chose quite purposefully to not do so because a debate among a majority white, female and male bloggers wasn't as of much interest to me as the implications in terms of who wields power and privilege and is read or seen, linked to quoted in blogland were/are.

Where I entered was around being a new blogger who had been observing the canonization of a few male bloggers (self) defined as "feminists" who were obviously wielding and being allowed by wimmin feminists to wield a fair bit of power.

I'm not sure why you would say that I mentioned "Hugo". I did not. I just "met" him yesterday when he commented about my post.

You've basically made my post about him which I don't like. You've made out that I targetted him as an individual. This is false.

Given the present state of conversation about the issues that have been raised among the "key" players and the power issues I've raised about what goes on in this part of blogland, I'm experiencing your purposeful writing that I named anyone as a little scary.

Who will now come to my door prepared to defend "Hugo" from questions I posed about maleness, patriarchy, feminism and the blogosphere, not directed at him? Not cool.

And again I state:
I'm trying to deconstruct the idea of (male) "feminists" and explore how possible it is for men to function as effective allies while disassociating from the reality that they are men - patriarchs in a patriarchally dominated society.

Beyond that I'm attempting to expose the replicatin of social hierarchies related to gender, gender roles, the oppressed erotic, race, class, academic elitism, etc... all things I've encountered in spades, while blogging among people who define themselves as politicized and aware. Alliances on the surface based in popularity, actually also bring with them a heaping dose of power relations, privilege and domination in political blog circles.

Nuff said. I'm outta here.

[barb]

I'm sorry, darkdaughta, I just thought it was clear from what you were talking about that Hugo was indeed one of the "male bloggers (self) defined as "feminists" that you were referring to. Maybe I just super-imposed that because Hugo happens to be talking about the same conversation on his blog. I tried to clarify the summary saying that your post is "not so much an attack on Hugo, per say, but a lament that the proliferation of white men writing super-popular feminist blogs is an example of how even when it comes to things like racism and sexism, we still privilege white men over everyone else."
Is that not accurate?

I will correct that part about you referring directly to him. I'm sorry, you're right, you don't name him directly, so I'll take that out. But I do want to be fair and accurate so if you feel I'm misrepresenting you, I'll take you out entirely. I don't want to send any "hugoites" to your site unfairly. I thought your post was very good and has much to say to the conversation I tried to summarize. That said, it's your post. I don't want to misrepresent it and I'll take it out or re-word it if you want.

[darkdaughta]

"I'm sorry, darkdaughta, I just thought it was clear from what you were talking about that Hugo was indeed one of the "male bloggers (self) defined as "feminists" that you were referring to."

It would only have been clear to people who interact with each other on a regular basis. It's probably best not to assume that everyone knows and regularly interacts with the more well known feminist bloggers in the blogosphere. I myself have made a habit of searching out the less well known political bloggers and attempting to forge horizontal alliances with them instead.

Part of the reason I think Hugo's name is flying around is because he seems to be attempting to engage responsibly as opposed to keeping low and hoping the kerfuffle at feministe and pandagon blows over. This is quite courageous and definitely to his creadit in my books.

But my points about male privilege and (male) "feminists" in general dealing with and better utilizing those privileges still stand.

[Lauren]

Just so you know, [piny's] post was not taken down, Feministe is having DNS problems.

[barb]

oops, sorry! I shoulda figured that out sooner. Correction made.

[tekanji]

You know, it figures that the month I keep my head in the sand, crap breaks out all over the "big name" blogs. If I was a good person I'd seek out the threads for material to write on, but I'll just follow the links from your impromptu carnival instead :D

And, while I usually don't like to plug my own stuff, I actually have a continually updated post on privilege that I think is relevant to your topic: How to be a real nice guy. It's basically a "how to" guide for privileged people dealing with minority/disadvantaged groups.

[piny]

Thanks for this post. While the banning/moderating-for-tone discussion is most welcome, my initial post was about acceptance and maintenance of fundamentally segregated blog circles--the arrangement that results in, "Where are all the [whatever] bloggers?"

I'd argue that passive maintenance of those blind corners dovetails very neatly with a blog atmosphere in which non-white-male commenters are dismissed as making no sense or having no reason. When you pretend and allow others to pretend that x commenter has no larger, independent, ongoing conversational self, you put their comments in a context of nullity.

I think it's also behind some of the "But I don't know where to staaaaaaart!" whining from baby anti-racists. ...IOW, some of this "ally work" is work you've made for yourself: the accumulation of some very bad habits.

[BEG]

I am reminded of the manifesto QUEERS READ THIS for some reason...

At a personal level of experience, what I've found is this. In almost any topic (I don't care what the topic is, you could be talking about purebred dogs, even), you will reach a level of discourse where there's a certain set of topics that hold down any discussion of other topics. If you own this forum (be it a newsgroup, mailing list, chat room, blog, etc etc etc) you will at some point have to decide what to do about it. If you do not do anything, the discourse will remain tied to those certain set of topics.

So for example on a dog mailing list, the sheer volume of "newbie" dog owner questions, if not filtered out, will mean that advanced breeders who want to discuss pedigrees and track genetic propensities won't be able to discuss much, even if that list is the perfect venue. I'm sure you can see how this applies in some form or other elsewhere.

But you might also decide there's a need for that other level of discussion so you shut out the newbie talk (or more likely start a second mailing list in which newbies cannot post). Now you immediately step into the same set of landmines and the choices you make about what go in etc, are reflections, many times, of what's going on IRL. Again, I think the extension to other topics is obvious here.

So, you can do something along the lines of what Hugo does, which is admirable in of itself, but also guarantees the discussion will stay at that constantly-challenged level. Or you can cut that out, and run, whether or not you know it, into a similar set of constraints depending on the choices you've made about what stays and what goes.

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't proposition. I've encounted this same exact issue on mailing lists and forums, regardless of the topic, for 18 years now. The best answer I can come up with is to go where I want on a personal level (after all, it's my time, money, effort invested), but then make damn sure I'm keeping up with other view points that I might not feel comfortable with or agree with, or have even considered until I saw them brought up elsewhere. In a sense, I have to realize my own limitations, I can't possibly provide everything myself.

There's no way to "win" (perhaps better said, satisfy everyone), there's no way to achieve some kind of perfect state where everyone can chime in and so on and so forth. The best I've found is to be aware of these fault lines and fractures. And your own examination is inevitably limited: everyone's is, just in different ways.

I don't know: it's hard to put this experience and feelings into words, and it sort of feels pretentious when I try to spell it out...

[barb]

Thanks for all the comments. Something's wrong with Typepad I think 'cause usually it sends me an email when someone's left a comment but it hasn't been doing that lately so sorry I can't respond personally.

tekanji: I'm sorry I saw your post about that referenced in several blogs lately. I shoulda thought to include it. I think I've read it, but I'll check it out again and see if I can fit it in.

piny: yeeeaaah, I think I see what you're saying-- that we tend to self-segregate in the blogosphere?

BEG: yeah, I think that was the idea behind Allywork -to have one place to send people with those kinds of questions about white privilege. I might have a post about something related to this soon.

(I'm sorry, I just came from the dentist and am still kinda dopey!)

[piny]

piny: yeeeaaah, I think I see what you're saying-- that we tend to self-segregate in the blogosphere?

Do in-groups definitely perpetuate their own circle-jerk limitations? Yes.

I guess what I'm saying as well is that a blog is someone's home, their context, their personality. When you read someone's blog, you learn a great deal about their interactions with other people, and you tend to get a whole new dimension to their arguments--plus, of course, you're reading the stories that they're using to formulate those arguments. You learn to talk to them, and you invest in them as conversational partners. When you _ignore_ their blog and blog circle, it's much easier for you to atomize them when they come talk on your blog--you don't know them, you won't know them.

[deviousdiva]

...and yet again we end up talking the majority bloggers. How about spending the time on including women of colour instead of linking and referring constantly to the same old same old ?

[barb]

devious, I think that's what we're doing here.

[deviousdiva]

Sorry, this comment is on completely the wrong blog. I had about 5 tabs open and slapped this one here. My apologies. Please delete

[piny]

Sorry, this comment is on completely the wrong blog. I had about 5 tabs open and slapped this one here. My apologies. Please delete

Well, I kinda was doing that, though.

Now I'm curious. Can you direct me to the conversation you were complaining about?

[barb]

Well, I know over on darkdaughta's post about male privilege in the blogosphere someone pointed out in the comments section how ironic it is that while trying to decenter whiteness and male-ness we ended up talking all over again about the big white male bloggers. Here's a link

[deviousdiva]

It was one of the threads about the Hugo affair. I was trying to catch up on "the story so far.. having not followed from the beginning of the "debate". I got fed up after readng through 150 or more comments and wondered why we, and I include myself, spend so much time and energy on the issues of hurting men's feelings instead of dealing with the issue of exclusion. Anyway, apologies again for posting that here. I am hoping to write something for the carnival.

[barb]

no biggie, like piny said, we're doing it too.

[Sea Ganschow]

As a white woman devoted to ending racism, I also have many close relationships with people of color. Of those, quite a few of my friends don't have the money to be online. That is one of the first things that comes to mind when thinking about privelege and the blogsphere. Just to be online at all, or to have free time to be on line. Also, white privelege tends to teach us that *our* thoughts are important ones! At many meetings it is the white folks who hog up the conversation and it never occurs to them they are doing so ...

Other than that, setting aside any un-useful guilt--and responding to your thought on the blogsphere reflecting the state of society--I do think the blogsphere needs to reflect life after racism. The world we want where racism does not exist...would look like???? And thus, what would the blogsphere look like???

Funny, I haven't been in touch with a movement by white men claiming to be oppressed by feminists. I talk about men's oppression some but not in that context. I'm angling more on how to stop training men to be sexist from day one. "It's a boy!" is when it starts, doesn't it? My thinking on that is those guys (in that movement) would be akin to me saying I'm being oppressed by people of color. What I mean by that is any hostility coming at me from a person of color needs to be understood as *their reaction to being oppressed* NOT reverse racism!