Chat with Feministing and other things

October 22, 2009 at 10:46 pm (Uncategorized)

All right. Yesterday I tried to write a blow-by-blow about the infuriating way the feminists with disabilities* chat with feministing went. It fell through, so this is attempt #2. Y’all, I am SO SPITTINGLY ANGRY about this chat. I don’t even know what to do with the FURY I feel coiled up in my stomach.

*hereafter abbreviated as “fwd,” to distinguish ‘em from the blog FWD/Forward.

Right. Let’s start with something totally different. Recently in the online fat acceptance community, a newbie bragged about her privilege, got called on it, and in the comments there was a link to another example of damaging privilege as demonstrated by a major blog, which happened in May so it’s ancient history but I wasn’t aware of it at the time.

Sigh. Can I talk about this thing at Shapely Prose? For those of you who don’t want to click, here is what happened:

1) Kate Harding, a we-are-the-obesity-epidemic fattie (that means she has size privilege) who is also middle class, white, abled, cis, het, young and blonde, starts a blog about how maybe we should stop discriminating against fat people. Her prose is sharp and intelligent incisive and she gets a lot of readers.

2) Kate Harding eventually makes two other women contributors on her blog. These women are also we-are-the-obesity-epidemic fatties, as well as being middle class, white, abled, cis, and young. One is straight. The blog continues to gain renown and pull.

3) Some people say “gosh, I don’t feel very represented by this blog. Do you think you have a responsibility to present a variety of perspectives and maybe when you invite people to the blog you could invite some less-privileged individuals? It’s kind of important.”

4) Kate Harding says that she is committed to diversity and inclusion on her blog.

5) The next woman Kate asks to be a contributor is a we-are-the-obesity-epidemic fatty, as well as being middle class, white, abled, cis, het, and young. As she welcomes this new contributor to the blog, she says, “I am absolutely committed to diversity and inclusion on my blog. But THIS woman was SO awesome that I HAD to make her a contributor. Diversity and inclusion will come later.” No concrete plan is offered to back this up and ensure accountability.

6) Kate and the other contributors have to spend a large part of the thread arguing against some of their own commenters, who characterize the disappointment and anger with this decision as “starting wars,” treating privileged women like they’re “less important,” and “reverse discrimination.” Really. The SP contributors’ arguments against these positions, including “the critics are right,” ring somewhat hollow.

7) Five months later, no other contributor has been added to SP and no concrete plan has been offered to help ensure accountability. Quixotess stumbles on the thread through unrelated events and wants to vomit.

Sigh. Anybody got recs for fat acceptance blogs run by people who have actually demonstrated commitment to diversity and inclusion?

Right. I’ll analyze that more later, but first let me describe the story leading up to the Feministing chat.

1) Jessica Valenti, a middle-class, white, het, cis, abled, young, thin woman starts a blog about how maybe people should stop being shitheads to women. bell hooks knows exactly what’s going to happen.

2) The blog becomes extremely large and influential and specializes in attracting new feminists to feminism. The contributors are all LARGELY middle-class, white, het, cis, abled, young, and thin.

3) The blog not only fails to demonstrate a commitment to diversity and inclusion, but is actively hostile and bigoted along several axes of oppression.

4) Various women of color, poor women, trans women, queer women, fat women, and women with disabilities, over a period of years, spend time asking for and demanding for the hostility to stop. They are met again and again with silence.

5) Some women with disabilities finally get two Feministing contributors–not Jessica–to meet for a chat about ableism at Feministing. These fwd, some of whom have chronic pain or fatigue and all of whose time is more precious for their disabilities, spend time and spoons preparing for the chat as they spent time and spoons demanding the chat. They spend time and spoons having the chat.

Let’s look at what happened (heavily snipped down):

AnnaP [feminist with disabilities]: No one thinks [privileged] women should be neglected or ignored, but this main focus makes it more difficult for other voices to be heard, and when they are highlighted, many commentors fail to accept that these voices are just as important, and should not be regulated to a sideline, ignored, or ‘verbally abused’ for daring to voice issues that are not directly related to the “main” demographic.
While we understand that the staff of Feministing are not responsible for comments on their site, they are responsible for the view many of their commentors have of the staff’s feminism and what commentors think is acceptable language and usage of the site. We feel that, if Feministing stood strongly against ableism (and other issues of intersectionality) publicly, people would not think that arguments such as the ones we found in the community post were acceptable.

Courtney [feministing contributor]: We are really committed to intersectionality, even if we aren’t as educated–individually–on all issues of intesectionality. [...] I think framing our target as “white, able-bodied women that are roughly college-aged” is too narrow.

Miriam [feministing contributor]: I also want to challenge the idea that we’re responsible for how our commenters think. [...] I’m not sure that can be blamed on our content. You could be right, but we also have to recognize it;s not a static community of commenters. We get about 500,000 visitors a month, some of those commenters may never read the majority of posts we right.
Do you think we have control over that?

amndaw [feminist with disabilities]: You control comments.
Do not tell us you do not control your comments.
You control comments lightly, but you still control them.
You watch for certain things.
And you take care of them.
We are saying: we are excluded from “certain things.”
Rape apologism is quickly taken care of.
We know you are a large site.
We KNOW this.
We are not somehow unaware that there is a lot to manage and that it is very complicated.

Courtney: Amanda [last name redacted], your tone isn’t appreciated FYI. We’re trying to be real about where we’re coming from while really taking in the criticism.

Needless to say, there is NO EXCUSE for the tone argument here by Courtney. Feminists should know better. Courtney should apologize, and frankly, I think she should be removed as a Feministing contributor. She is clearly not informed enough about feminism to be trusted with that responsibility.

But that’s not the main thing I’d like to talk about. I’d like to talk about what I think amandaw referred to when she said “There is a reason commenters feel comfortable saying certain things.”

Progressive blogs attract readers who feel safe at that blog. Trolls and hate-mailers aside, you have the commenters you have because you regularly challenge privilege they wish to see challenged, and you do not challenge privilege they do not wish to see challenged. Their bigotry is a reflection of your own.

That’s what’s so facepalmingly obvious about the Shapely Prose thread. Kate Harding and her contributors had to spend time arguing against people who seriously used terms and concepts such as “reverse discrimination” because of HER choices. Her readers could see that for her, diversity and inclusion were in fact less important than one privileged woman, if Kate liked her enough. Some readers were angry about this. Some were attracted to it. For those readers, these were values they shared, and they felt comfortable saying so. As much as Kate argued against them, HER ACTIONS SPOKE LOUDER, AND HER READERS LISTENED.

As for Feministing, it has commenters who feel comfortable using words such as “invalid,” “retarded,” “lame,” and “crazy” because Feministing refuses to moderate those comments, and because Feministing models the use of those words themselves. Feministing has ableist commenters because it refuses to retain contributors with disabilities, and because it models ableism itself–for example, by rarely talking about PWD except as fetuses which (temporarily abled) women should be allowed to abort.

As the fwd in the chat said, Feministing can control its comments by moderating or refusing to moderate for ableism, but that is only part of it. Feministing exercises control over its comments long before then, by refusing to cover disability activism or include PWD, and by modelling ableism. Ableist commenters feel safe and stay, and fwd are abused and leave.

Take Courtney’s disgusting display of oppression in action, her Watch your tone, missy. Anyone can see this conversation for themselves. Unless Courtney is removed as a contributor, it will send a strong message that bigotry is just not that big a deal on this feminist blog. The consequences of Feministing’s actions are that SOME PEOPLE WILL SEE THIS AND LEAVE, AND SOME PEOPLE WILL SEE THIS AND STAY.

So yes, Miriam, you do have control over what your commenters say. Right now, you are choosing to exercise that power to directly cause the suffering of feminists–and all people–with disabilities. (If you’re thinking, “that’s a bit melodramatic,” remember all the spoons this chat cost fwd.) Don’t ever say you care about inclusion while treating PWD like shit. We hear you loud and clear.

Enjoy your commentariat.

–

Edit: Further reading on the chat here, at BlackAmazon’s place.