Mandy Van Deven and Brittany Shoot have written a very intriguing, thought-provoking article about the feminist blogosphere. I think a lot of it is right on, and (unsurprisingly?) take issue with parts of it.
While the authors suggest blogging is the opposite of democratic, I think the truth lies somewhere in between. It is hard to find something that’s perfectly democratic, but blogging is certainly a step in the right direction from the days of the Founders. I think most of us have more diverse groupings of friends, in terms of class, orientation, race, etc. online than IRL.
Also, in my reading of it (Apostate, if you’re reading, let me know if you disagree) Apostate’s post is misinterpreted. She very aptly notes feminists’ tendency to police each other rather than working together. This post continues in that tradition, although it has some worthwhile points – it is more about casting blame than being proactive. By coopting a WOC’s words to say what they want her to be saying, they’re doing exactly what they complain of.
Where the authors discuss the limitations of large feminist blogs, they are on more solid ground. The writing style and agenda does center around the writers’ identity politics. In fact, though the authors would likely frown on this application of their views, I’ve often felt that socially progressive, fiscally conservative women are not sufficiently included because of these particular identity politics. Some feminist blogs, such as The New Agenda, are exceptions in this regard, and are inclusive of women with differing political views who view themselves as feminists.
I agree with the Van Deven and Shoot that “[m]any times popularity is conflated with authority.” I’m not sure there’s anything to take from this, though… it’s the nature of marketing. As the authors point out, blogging is often a business for the bloggers. Many devote substantial time and don’t have sufficient other revenue sources. Many of the wisest people I’ve known have been obscure, and many of the widely known people are the most banal, with, of course, exceptions in both categories.
I’m confused by the comment “that those who comment on blogs receive no financial reimbursement for their participation, though they arguably play a heavy role in bringing readers to the blog through generating discussion and helping blog owners’ points of view and opinions maintain relevance.” Same with movie attendees and book buyers. Should we expect to be paid for partaking in an entertainment product someone else has produced?
Van Deven and Shoot also mention the “guest contributor” phenom on larger blogs. I agree with them that in this manner, the larger bloggers make bank off the smaller ones. By the same token, like any market exchange, it’s agreed to by both sides and therefore benefits both sides. The smaller bloggers get an expanded audience this way. I’ve discovered many bloggers via large feminist blogs. And I do see an enhanced effort lately by such blogs to link to smaller ones – especially those which echo their particular politics.
Van Deven and Shoot note: “The prevention of small business growth is also present. If a blog replicates this corporate structure or becomes co-opted into the mainstream network, it can grow and compete with the bigwigs. But if a blog continues to simply work on its own, it tends to remain stagnant. In the blogging hierarchy, the system doesn’t allow for egalitarianism because of the competition for revenue. The big blogs will only let the smaller ones get so big, because they don’t want them getting as big as they are and pulling away their own sources of income.”
Well, part of this is inevitable. Bloggers like Renee Martin, Lisa Harney and Latoya Peterson who publish and/or participate in varied outlets, some large ones, have (deservedly, IMO, in all three cases) become a larger part of the mainstream. Peterson's blog arguably IS the mainstream.
But what’s wrong with that? These are the tools that enable women to succeed, IRL, as well. Are we to avoid them, maybe leave them to the sole use of the guys? How would that work out?
Additionally, I take issue with: “The big blogs will only let the smaller ones get so big, because they don’t want them getting as big as they are and pulling away their own sources of income.” I don’t see any deliberate effort on the part of the big blogs to keep small ones small. Most big feminist blogs blogroll a host of smaller blogs of a more radical nature. Hell, even I with my various un-hip views am blogrolled in certain unexpected places.
Van Deven and Shoot are perceptive in claiming that the authority granted to feminist mega blogs “positions the style, critique, and opinions (especially when in conflict with larger blogs) of writers on small blogs as less valid.” That is most definitely the case. Most of the blogs I read and find most authoritative, in fact, are smaller ones. Same with the fact that I tend to prefer more obscure designers and restaurants. But I cannot blame the larger ones for being larger.
I think it is unfair to note: “Many radical bloggers, both women of color and white women, have not been naïve enough to buy into these symbolic co-optation efforts, but some have.” Why assume that the WOC and radical white women who have joined large blogs are naïve? Maybe they don’t feel compromised by doing so, sharing enough points of view on enough topics. Can Van Deven and Shoot read the minds of WOC and know that they could not possibly share certain points of view? That seems highly presumptuous. And it’s contradictory to complain about tokenism and then ascribe bad motives to both the (presumably white) big bloggers and the (white or WOC) smaller bloggers whom they invite to join.
It’s completely legitimate for radical WOC and white bloggers to feel compromised by joining large blogs. But erecting a “better” and “worse” hierarchy of radical bloggers based on whether or not the join large blogs seems like a problematic form of passing judgment – or, policing, along the lines Apostate notes in her post.
Van Deven and Shoot excuse their own act of guest posting by saying they did so on a smaller blog and: “We have learned how the game works, and now we’re trying to figure out how to play it to the end of its undoing.” In other words, it’s OK to “play the game” to topple feminist hierarchy, but it maybe not so OK for a WOC blogger to “play the game” to solidify her name and reputation so as to better reach more people or – wait for it – get ahead.
Despite these critiques, Van Deven and Shoot raise some interesting points about the nature of hierarchy, the business reality of blogging, and the problems when feminists fall prey to the same dynamics that less self-flagellating groups do. I recommend you read their article and give it some further thoughts.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
94 comments:
Hey Octogalore- Do you mind if I link this post to the Comments section of our article? I'd hate for folks to miss your critique, and your agreement too, of course. :)
A clarification, Apostate’s post is not intended to be used in our writing to illustrate policing, but to illustrate the complicated frustration of those who are marginalized by feminist blogs that purport to be egalitarian. I think you're right that we weren't as explicit as we should have been with the purpose of each link.
The major point that we seem to disagree on is whether feminism and capitalism can be reconciled. We don’t think they can, as capitalism necessitates inequality. From what you have written, you seem to be comfortable with that. Agree to disagree, I suppose?
Thanks for the food for thought!
As I said on Twitter - that post really stuck in my craw. I agree w/ some of the fundamentals, but what they extrapolate is mostly bullshit. First of all, can someone explain to me WHY anyone thinks people are getting rich off of blogs?? Anyone who starts blogging with the goal of making a bunch of money from it is going to be sorely disappointed. There are a handful of people out there who can support themselves from their blogs, but we're talking numbers I can count with two hands, in all of blog-world.
I also wonder, with all this complaining about inclusion and such, what should the *solution* be? I never seem to see any solutions proposed - just indignity and an air of entitlement.
Mandy -- definitely feel free to link and thanks for your kind response.
I agree that capitalism does necessitate inequality. I've written about it before and this may help clarify where I'm at. I think capitalism is the best of a bunch of flawed systems, all of which necessitate inequality. I actually think capitalism, appropriately regulated, does so less than others.
So I'm not sure that we disagree about capitalism's flaws; we may disagree on the likelihood that another system will be better, and we may also disagree on the likelihood that we will see another system in the next thousand years.
Given my belief that we will not, I think holding feminists' feet to the fire to behave as if capitalism is not in fact the system du jour is futile, and actually harms certain marginalized groups of feminists.
That said, there are certainly many other areas on which we do agree, and I think we agree in theory on quite a lot. It's just that the assumptions we are making differ substantially.
Thanks again.
Amber -- good point about solutions. I agree that where there are a bunch of complaints without any attempt to discuss proactive steps towards improvement, that possibly there is another agena in play. In this case I do think the authors' hearts are in the right place. But I'd be curious about their thoughts regarding solutions more near-term and, yeah, realistic, than "overthrow capitalism!"
Octogalore- Thanks for the link. I've posted it to the Comments on PWI. I want to marinate on your post a little while longer before I respond. I'm afraid our time difference is a bit of a hinderance to "real time" communication, as I'm in India and I assume you're in the US? I just don't want you to think I'm ignoring you.
I tend to agree with several of your points, too, but I am just amazed that criticizing the feminist mainstream gets one into such hot water, as I did on the post I linked there.
It's very much like trashing the church: ANATHEMA! HERETIC!
When did this dogmatism set in among the THIRD WAVE? I knew it was a problem with the second-wave--but had no idea such ideological lockstep had invaded the 3rd wave until my thread. Really!
Even JOKING about something is off limits, just like you can't joke about Jesus either.
(((sigh))
Daisy -- I agree about the ideological lockstep. There are definitely groups within the third wave that move in lockstep, afraid that by moving outside the group on certain issues they will be cast out (and often, they are).
My post isn't intended to castigate anyone for critiquing the feminist mainstream. I'm hardly part of that and have my own critiques of it.
But I think some of the critiques place the blame incorrectly. As Renee's comment over there notes: "I can testify that we are often seen as invaders in a space that we do not belong. I don’t believe that this is necessarily a function of the blog owners as much as it is the communities that inhabit certain blogs."
On your linked post, I think people did agree with your larger point about classism in mainstream feminism. Most, like me, took issue only with the example of WAM and in particular, Cambridge. We've communicated separately about that as you know... my own experience of Cambridge and the specific location of WAM in Cambridge, where I spent five years, was not consistent with your post's description. I do appreciate the backstory on that, though.
Octo--Yeah, but at least one person didn't think I had any business saying anything negative about WAM--it was just off-limits.
And I don't believe anything is off-limits. Nothing. Not a damn thing.
Pardon the melodrama, but as a Catholic, let me say: that way lies the Inquisition.
Criticism is certainly fine and, in my opinion, necessary; we should not become complacent. However, that also means when we see criticisms that are way off base or rooted in falsehoods, we call them out in turn. To reiterate what I said in my first comment, my issue w/ the linked post at Professor What If is not w/ the fundamentals of the argument, but with many of the conclusions drawn, which I feel are erroneous. If criticism is welcome then that means disagreement is welcome.
Daisy -- I agree, nothing's off limits or above criticism, and if anyone designated anything as in that category, they were off base.
But along with Amber, I feel the criticism isn't off limits either. Disagreeing with criticism and holding the matters disagreed with as off-limits are distinct.
But that's the thing, all disagreement is not equal either.
As Black Amazon wrote in her post, if a powerful person dismisses you, it isn't the same as if a person with no power dismisses you.
Some people are ERASED after they dare to criticize certain power-structures, and it serves as an instructive example for the rest of us: here be dragons.
I am grateful I don't make my living in media or publishing, or my criticisms could interfere with actually making a living. And I think that is what the authors are alluding to here, as well as BA.
One of things that bothered me about reading that post was the inference that we are selling out when we guest post on large feminist blogs. This is a quid pro quo situation. When I blogged at feministe this summer, it did wonders for my own online blog profile. I did not feel used and I resent someone telling me how I am suppoed to feel about that.
Blogging is further not the lucrative business that this post makes it out to be. Most of the money that I have made online has come from freelance writing and not from blogging. My blog has helped to draw attention to my work which has lead to opportunities that I probably otherwise would not have gotten. The bottom line is that we are all trying in our own ways to raise awareness and become successful. There will always be an element of racism in online feminism because we live in a racist world. The only options I have as a WOC are to give up and admit defeat or continue to fight. I engage on my own terms.
While there may be an element of patrionizing in the inclusions of WOC on feminist blog, this is certainly not universal. I think to infer that we are only there as diversity symbols discounts the legitimacy of our work. Samhita of feministing does excellent work and in fact if not for her, I probably would very rarely read that blog. This argument is very much like a white person questioning the value of a POC's work because of the exsistence of affirmative action. All that matters is the work produced in the space after achieving an objective. If we continue to speak our truth in what can be largely considered white feminists spaces, I fail to see how this is sell out behaviour or a failure to live up to so-called blogging standards.
Daisy -- certainly not all disagreement is equal, but I'm not sure that invalidates what Amber or I are saying.
Maybe I am misunderstanding, though -- can you give me a specific example?
I read and liked BA's post and her earlier ones on similar topics. Is one example you're thinking of Seal Press, in which they engaged in various racist behaviors, eg publishing a book with racist illustrations and treating various WOC at WAM unfairly?
If that's the case, then I agree that the precipitating behavior unfairly excluded and dismissed WOC. But I don't think that the disagreement with that behavior was dismissed. On the contrary, there was substantial support for BA and others from a range of feminists, including big bloggers and smaller ones.
But if I am missing an example in Feminist Bloglandia in which disagreement from a non-big-blogger was dismissed, can you give me an example or a cite?
So much to say but none of it seems to be coming out right. I rambled a bit, and later might try again to write something more cohesive and specific to the Professor What If post and my frustration with it.
I was thinking of the Seal Press debacle, yes. But more to the point, one party in that feud hasn't missed a beat, and we can see that BA is still very upset about it. (Who is still dealing with the fall-out? Seal Press? White authors? Or BA?)
Renee, appreciate your comments here. I also found the Huffington Posts links (over on Professor Whatif's) to be fascinating.
Renee, I cannot agree more with what you have said.
Reading in that there's a victim in the equation in which a WOC or radical woman blogger guest posts on a large blog is quite patronizing. The internet and higher-traffic blogs is how we discover people. I check out your blog once or more a day and the larger blog on which I discovered you maybe twice a week, and I know I'm not alone in that regard. If smaller bloggers don't avail themselves of these opportunities, they add to the existing barriers to their growth. Whom does that help?
This seems to be the problem you've written about before: If women become conventionally successful (which would mean making a living off blogging, getting a book deal, etc.), then they are considered elites or sell-outs. We can only admire bloggers who remain less popular because their lack of popularity must indicate that they are saying something important.
In the grand scheme of things, "elite feminist bloggers" have more power than many of us. But they have far less power than hordes of people making decisions in our society.
People write for many reasons, not all of them monetary. I blog for free and am not looking for paid employment. I'm on disability.
I'm all for different voices. But we ought to recognize that no blog can ever be diverse enough. If a blog has 5 women of color, it's not like that represents all the opinions of WOC. If I write about disability, I don't rep all people with disabilities. There will always be people who feel left out, who feel like their opinions aren't being heard. Again, that doesn't mean that people shouldn't seek new ideas and perspectives, but this is a process.
** Please take “I” to mean both Mandy & Brittany, as everything we post here from now on will be co-written. **
I feel compelled to question why this engagement is happening here are not on PWI because it could be read to reflect what we said in our post about homogeneity and perceived authority, as well as what Daisy said about reactionary deafness and defensive attack and what Renee said in her comment about people wanting their own situations to be reflected and resisting a different lens that requires owning privilege.
A clarification, our post is not a critique of capitalism. It is a critique of colonialism. Though the two tend to work in tandem, they are not the same thing. We are holding feet to the fire regarding the manifestation of digital colonialism in the feminist blogosphere of which capitalism is certainly a facilitator, though we don’t see the merits of capitalism needing to be debated here; however, the merits of colonialism do need to be expounded on if that is one's position. Perhaps this is why I perceive Octogalore’s and my feelings as largely in agreement with each other. Certainly it’s why I say that our largest point of divergence is on the issue of whether or not capitalism and feminism are reconcilable. It is also why I feel it is missing the point entirely to write off our critique by saying, “Well, no one’s getting rich here so what’s the big deal?” Must one be filthy rich to be a colonizer? Some people are most definitely making a living and have established their careers largely utilizing their status as bloggers. It certainly isn’t the majority, but that’s why they’re called the “elite”. Even if one isn’t at a point of financial health, one may still be guilty of colonization. This is systemic, folks. The problem isn’t in a handful of individuals being successful; the problem is in the colonialist methodology used to establish success. This is what our critique is about. We aren’t pointing a finger at elite bloggers saying, “There’s the culprit!” We’re pointing a finger at the way the system works and asking if this is really the pattern we want to re-establish in the feminist blogosphere, which we see as a replication of the larger system of interlocking oppressions against which feminist bloggers (and feminists, in general) purport to struggle. If we’ve got a chance to change the pattern before it is fully established, shouldn’t we do that? (Refer to the other yet unanswered questions in the paragraph that begins: “Feminist blogs currently function as a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”)
I agree with the critique that Renee and Octogalore make about the delegitimizing of WOC (or other marginalized) bloggers’ work in our saying they are, at times, tokenized. It’s a tricky place to sit, right? On the one hand, some *are* tokenized, but if you point that out, who suffers as a result, the tokens or the ones who tokenize (an inversion of Octogalore’s question of “whom does that help?”)? And how does it affect the work of marginalized bloggers that aren’t tokens? And how does one identify a token? And what are the benefits of diversifying mega-blogs? That’s a lot of difficult stuff to sort out, and honestly, I don’t have all of the answers. I do, however, recommend reading this post in thinking about these issues.
As for solutions, we have some of those in our post too; we just didn’t present them in one bolded section entitled “Solutions”, nor do we feel the responsibility is squarely on our shoulders to come up with all of the answers; many, many others have already written about it not being the sole responsibility of those who are oppressed to solve the problems of the oppressors.
One solution that we presented is transparency, transparency, transparency. The dodgy tactics employed by bloggers—for example, backroom deals like the one BlackAmazon made mention of in her response to our post, the obfuscation of income made from primary and secondary blogging sources, semi-public Twitter conversations *about* someone instead of *with* them—are a problem. Our post explains why. Making the decision to be transparent is only difficult for those who feel they have something to hide. Transparency facilitates power and privilege being visible to oneself and to others.
Another point we made in our post is to point out that if you’re going to play the game (which is largely inescapable) there should be admission that a) the game exists, b) that you *are* playing the game, and c) that your playing the game may be a detriment to others. As such, there should be an effort to play the game as justly as possible. (I recommend checking out Resource Generation and Enough for examples of how people are grappling with this issue.) What Octogalore said about small bloggers utilizing big blogs for recognition and self-promotion, do it (especially if your contributions to popular blogs go unacknowledged). Just don’t front like you’re doing it cuz y’all share power equally. Spend time reading and commenting on and linking to smaller blogs, not just the big ones. Ask questions like “why *aren’t* more feminist blogs catering to a global audience in the news and pop culture they write about and in the timing of when posts go live when there are so many feminist bloggers around the globe?” The internet does extend beyond Western, particularly American, borders. Invite smaller bloggers or bloggers you don’t see eye-to-eye with to collaborate with you. If you feel tokenized because you’ve got to cater to that mega-blog (or silenced because you refused to), speak that truth too. If you feel conflicted about your participation in the system, tell readers about what that process is like for you (like Latoya did in her comment on our post and like we did in what Octogalore interpreted as an “excuse” for guest posting). Making the system visible from the inside is a part of its undoing, like us pointing out that this critique would not happen on a feminist mega-blog. (Sidenote: I’m sure many of you do some or all of these things already.)
Yet another point of solution—and yes, this is more of a Malcolm than a Martin—is to create an alternative to the system, which many radical women of color bloggers are already doing by rejecting the label “feminism” and the feminist blogosphere altogether. The issue with that is that when one takes this path of existing outside of the system, one is denied the benefits of the mainstream—a double-bladed “choice” between self-preservation and full equality.
Okay, one more solution, which is more about individual exploration and change than it is about institutional change, and which I will again credit to the many radical bloggers who have repeated this (and other things like it) over and over and over again: ask oneself why certain spaces feel safe and others don’t; challenge oneself to move outside of the spaces that feel safe; wait and marinate before hastily responding to something that feels painful and consider why you feel that pain instead of pushing the pain away by rejecting the comment as untrue and establishing your own paradigm as “reality” and others’ as “their lens”; figure out where your privilege lies because being blind to it is a choice one makes once one realizes they have it (albeit one that comes from a place of self-protection) and then take it one step further by asking yourself how to wield your privilege toward the end of individual and institutional oppressions (assuming that is your goal, and if it’s not then see solution #1), and if you don’t know how to do that then ask someone else with the same privilege how they do it; stop expecting solutions to come from other people, particularly ones who are marginalized and colonized, and start figuring them out yourself.
M&B, I can answer only for myself. I feel like I'm having an ongoing conversation with some blogs that I read regularly. These conversations give me insight and help me develop my views. That's one reason I chose to post here and not on the other blog.
Octo just wrote a lengthy book review. If I had wanted to comment, I would have commented on her site. I would not have gone to the publisher's site to comment.
This is not about safety. This is about dialogue. Conversations with strangers can be enlightening, but they differ from conversations with people you know (whether friends or not).
But I disagree with you that people must always be exhorted to go beyond feelings of safety. bell hooks has written about people needing some place where they can feel at home so that they can be refreshed for the fight outside. (I can give a citation if need be.)
If I'm reading you correctly, your second paragraph suggests we defend our views rather than listening.
I'm sure that's true of most people to some extent. Or, are you suggesting some sort of hierarchy in which some people's various oppressions outweigh those of others and that gives them more of a right to be heard?
Just wanted to chime in that I *really* appreciate your thoughts on this. Very fair. I'm thinking through your points and am still spinning.
A nice example of how critical feedback can be articulated without all hell breaking loose.
Suzie- I feel you on that. And I don't mean to imply that one must *always* challenge oneself to bypass boundaries. Certainly feeling safe is important. I also know that sometimes people claim their desire for a safe space when they don't want to have difficult conversations. (Not implying that's what is going on for you.) To push the question further, I wonder for whom the space gets to be safe? And what if your safe space isn't the same as my safe space? Can we never converse then? Because in that situation, someone's got to leave that comfort for a dialogue to be able to happen.
The second paragraph is asking what your views are on feminist blogs being digital colonialism, which I feel like has gone unaddressed even though that is what the post is about. And if you do think they are digital colonialism what are your own perspectives on the maintenance or disassembling of that system?
Thanks Lisa. We're also quite happy with the respectful way folks are discussing. We were bracing ourselves for the worst, and this has been really pleasant for the most part. A little ego bruising, but that's to be expected.
Only have time for a quick comment but...
I feel compelled to question why this engagement is happening here are not on PWI because it could be read to reflect what we said in our post about homogeneity and perceived authority, as well as what Daisy said about reactionary deafness and defensive attack and what Renee said in her comment about people wanting their own situations to be reflected and resisting a different lens that requires owning privilege.
Well, personally? For me, I'm engaging here because I know Octo, we have a history of participating on each other's blogs, and it's an environment where I know there will be interesting conversation. PWI is not an area where I often read or engage. Communities can't be regulated or forced to have conversations in certain places. In fact, your question seems passive-aggressive and could be read a bit like the "big blogs" wanting to aggregate all content and conversations from smaller blogs onto their location. Isn't that something you were writing *against* - the moving of conversation away from smaller blogs onto larger ones?
Another thing I found interesting about your post at PWI is that you did not hyperlink any of the URLs you referenced in the footnotes section. Lack of linking something else you complained about, so that seemed to me a pretty egregious (one might say hypocritical, if one wanted to be dramatic) slip-up.
Sounds dramatic enough to me, but you'll have to take that one up with PWI herself. Alas, I am just the writer. Though the links are there, so if one wants to read the post (and I strongly encourage reading those posts) it's simple enough to cut & paste the URL to do so. I'll let her know you'd like them linked in case she's not reading this blog.
Though the links are there, so if one wants to read the post (and I strongly encourage reading those posts) it's simple enough to cut & paste the URL to do so.
Indeed, it's simple for *humans*. But when you get into things like Google rankings and Technorati rankings, or that linkfluence map that was a source of much contention a few weeks ago - well, search engines need actual hyperlinks. They aren't smart enough to spot a plain-text URL and know what it represents. increases.
Oops, sorry for the extraneous "increases" at the end of that comment. I had rephrased a sentence and apparently it got left there.
Will inform. I'm not that savvy about such things yet.
Off subject, like, entirely. Amber, you live in the ATL? I grew up in Athens and lived in ATL (L5P baby!) for five years when I was in college. Then I skipped out for Bklyn. I wonder if we have friend-type folks in common. Yet another overlap of the real and the virtual worlds. :)
Thanks, M&B, for your thoughtful comment.
Suzie hit the nail on the head in her comment about why I wrote this here. For one, it’s too long to put as a comment in another blog. In retrospect, I should have commented there to let you know about it, though. The reason I didn’t was none of those you suggest, however. Homogeneity? I comment on a wide variety of blogs and posts more radical than the OP. Perceived authority? Well, maybe, but not the way you mean. I consider my blog to be pretty narrow and alternative and not considered authoritative, so it didn’t occur to me that my feedback would be viewed as a critical part of the conversation. Maybe it should have.
Regarding Renee’s comment about “resisting a different lens that requires owning privilege,” I find it interesting that you use this quote to suggest something about my post, when Renee has not made this comment about that post. I could very well be wrong about this, but it seems as if you are trying to wrap yourself in the words of a WOC in trying to call me out, when she hasn’t actually done so here. (Obviously, I understand generally that I have privilege and that Renee has accurately written about the necessity generally for that to be acknowledged, but she has not accused me here of being motivated by resisting a different lens). In fact, for the reason above, my not posting or mentioning this on your site was a mixture of carelessness (mea culpa), assuming it wasn’t going to be viewed as an important contribution, and wanting avoid the inevitable easy and derailing responses focusing on my whiteness and privilege rather than the content of what I said.
Regarding why I mentioned capitalism, it’s because you introduced it as where we differed. Otherwise, I too didn’t see why that needed to be debated.
I agree with you that we feel very similarly about the desired ends, but differ on the means. I don’t know whether this has to do with approach, economic assumptions we’re making, age (can only speak for myself here, but my views 10 years ago were more revolution-oriented and less subversive) or some combination. As an example, I agree with “If we’ve got a chance to change the pattern before it is fully established, shouldn’t we do that?” But I think some patterns are larger than anything the feminist blogosphere can change.
You’re totally right that nobody, whether you or especially marginalized bloggers, has responsibility to produce solutions. It’s just that it’s helpful, where pointing out an issue that others may feel is part of a larger reality, to say why you’re doing it. Presumably, it’s because you feel it’s fixable, which begs a question.
I cannot agree more with your suggestion of transparency. Being a cynic (which I know comes as a shock!), though, I wonder if this is possible. I’ve been in loose or tight online groups involving both more privileged and more marginalized bloggers, as well as previously marginalized bloggers who’ve gotten a more mainstream-feminist audience, and I find that the tendency towards exclusivity, “ganging up” and opaque communications is fairly universal. Nevertheless, it’s a suggestion worth making and paying attention to, so kudos for that.
Regarding your second point about “you’re going to play the game (which is largely inescapable) there should be admission that a) the game exists, b) that you *are* playing the game, and c) that your playing the game may be a detriment to others.” To me, this places a large burden on WOC and other marginalized bloggers. Should someone who, eg, guest posts on a big blog, be forced to execute a public mea culpa? Should she have to explain why she chose to accept this offer, knowing it further marginalizes others in her group who are left out? I’m thinking no.
Your third point about playing the game justly – linking to smaller blogs, being more aware of global feminist issues and news, collaborating with people with whom you may disagree on some issues – is well taken. And I greatly appreciate that while my views differ from yours in various ways, you’ve demonstrated your ability to practice what you preach by engaging here.
The “alternative to the system” point is effective only to the extent that it IS effective, IMO, as you suggest. Unfortunately, but inevitably, the mainstream is where the majority of the benefits reside. Rejecting mainstream identifiers and locations may be more self-defeating than helpful. Or, maybe not – it’s up to the individual to decide. But IMO, that way lies disappointment and frustration.
Finally, the individual exploration suggestion is a very good one in my view. I do think it requires a layering of different examinations, however. You mention accurately: “wait and marinate before hastily responding to something that feels painful and consider why you feel that pain instead of pushing the pain away by rejecting the comment as untrue and establishing your own paradigm as ’reality’.” Now, sometimes that’s exactly what’s happening when someone like me talks about reality – it’s dismissive and lazy. Other times, it’s because that that person is not talking about “what should be” but “what is.” Reality is kind of a bitch, and saying “I think we should operate in the system this way” may not be an attempt to impose a reality, but skipping a step – the step that says: the system works this way, if we do x or y will it change? No, OK, next step. It’s not saying a certain reality is ideal or that one is unable to get ones mind around alternatives, it’s saying that exercise is a waste of time. And wasting time doesn’t screw up privileged, who have more of it to spare, as much as it does those who are in need of something that works: now.
Anyway, M&B, many thanks again for your kind words and engagement here. I take your suggestion to heart about direct placement or notice of responses – that transparency thing – and will do that going forward.
Lisa -- it is great to see you here. Thanks for your kind words and I am glad you felt the feedback was fair (although I know that doesn't mean you or anyone necessary agree with all or any points, but it is important to me that it came across in the right spirit).
Would love to hear your further thoughts on this.
O: Renee wrote that in the comments on PWI, whether it was about you or not, I have no idea. Nor is my writing about your specifically.
"I agree with you that we feel very similarly about the desired ends, but differ on the means."
Absolutely.
"my views 10 years ago were more revolution-oriented"
Ouch! Really? I'm closing in on 30. Not a youngin' anymore by any stretch. Do you not find that comment a little condescending? I know I have to literally bite my tongue to prevent myself from saying such things from time to time, but damn... I don't say them. :P
"Should she have to explain why she chose to accept this offer, knowing it further marginalizes others in her group who are left out? I’m thinking no."
You're right. But for the purposes of this conversation, let's be real and cop to playing the game.
"the individual exploration suggestion is a very good one in my view. I do think it requires a layering of different examinations"
Most definitely. IMHO, it requires a lot of therapy (i come from a social work/grassroots organizing background, btw, in case that's not apparent. lol!) with a therapist who has a socio-psychological POV. That stuff is hard work, and it's not easily done on one's own.
"Other times, it’s because that that person is not talking about 'what should be' but 'what is.'"
I think we have to hold both in our minds and lives simultaneously. Again, hard work. And yes, privileged work.
FR,
I did most of my undergrad at UGA. I also did a grad program at UGA. I moved to Atlanta in March of 2004. Feel free to email me at amberlr@gmail.com for ATL-related stuff!
M&B: “Do you not find that comment a little condescending? I know I have to literally bite my tongue to prevent myself from saying such things from time to time, but damn... I don't say them.”
No, I don’t actually find it condescending. I said I could only speak for myself and compared myself circa now (41) to myself circa ten-15 years ago. That’s fair. I think for most of us, we do alter our perspectives as we age. In fact, I think there may be some ageism in saying that it’s problematic to have different perspectives with age. We all know age brings some bad things, why fight that it brings some good things as well? Maybe you shouldn’t bite your tongue. While race, ability, class, etc. doesn’t make us better/worse as groups, a group of older women on average will have some experiential advantages to a group of younger women – while the group of younger women will have advantages in other ways. Being honest about this isn’t condescending, especially where I was making the point in reference to myself at different times. I think I’m qualified to opine on that.
" You're right. But for the purposes of this conversation, let's be real and cop to playing the game.”
I’m confused – either the WOC or other marginalized blogger does or does not have to “cop” – which is it?
I’m also confused as to the suggestion about “it requires a lot of therapy” – that appears to have some privilege attached to it, no? A lot of therapy = a lot of money, typically.
“I think we have to hold both [‘what should be’ and ‘what is’ in our minds and lives simultaneously.”
Disagree. We really don’t HAVE to do anything, and re whether we SHOULD do it, I think that’s a personal determination. As I said, sometimes I think it’s a waste of time to murk around in a theoretical world where people who are losing ground in our actual one don’t have time to waste. If it could be demonstrated that the theoretical analysis will help them in real terms, sure. But there are a number of roles we can play, and I don’t think one is necessarily more legit than the other or that we “have” to play all of them – in fact, I think the insistence that there’s one right way is quite privileged. One role is theoretical analysis of whether there are fundamental changes that can be wrought. Another is looking at the current situation and how it can be improved in a way to help certain groups, like soon. Guess which one I like better? Does that make me privileged and unwilling to “do hard work,” or does that make me simply someone who has chosen a different path to make a difference, one in which my skills and aptitudes (surprise – patience isn’t among them) are a better fit? I don’t know that other feminists are in a position to be judge and jury on this one.
Coming back to your idea of therapy, I don’t think that’s a bad idea. We could all benefit from it. And because my mom was a therapist and also came from a grassroots organizing background, I do recognize that in you and think it’s a really good thing. I’m just think, aside from the access issue, there’s more than one way to skin the cat. For me, getting away from an intensive theoretical examination of my psyche and forming actual friendships with a variety of people, not because they are WOC or have a different orientation or class background but because I happen to like them individually, is the best way to learn about things (as with any friendship) without asking for instruction, and also to engage in a way that isn’t patronizing or pedantic. But I don’t think there’s any one right mechanism. I think it’s an overall gestalt of whether ones heart is in the right place.
Regarding Renee’s comment about “resisting a different lens that requires owning privilege,” I find it interesting that you use this quote to suggest something about my post, when Renee has not made this comment about that post. I could very well be wrong about this, but it seems as if you are trying to wrap yourself in the words of a WOC in trying to call me out, when she hasn’t actually done so here. (Obviously, I understand generally that I have privilege and that Renee has accurately written about the necessity generally for that to be acknowledged, but she has not accused me here of being motivated by resisting a different lens).
@Octgalore
I think that our exchanges have been very honest. Sometimes people confuse a difference of an opinion to resistance to see through the eyes of the oppressed. I feel that when we speak you legitimately consider whatever it is I have to say and that is all we can ask of anyone.
Thanks much, Renee. I agree with "Sometimes people confuse a difference of an opinion to resistance to see through the eyes of the oppressed." The result sometimes can be to avoid honesty about differences of opinion, out of fear they will be misconstrued.
I'd rather just say what I think, not assume people I'm talking to need to be hand-held. Life's too short. I figure someone I respect, and hopefully vice versa, will tell me directly if a particular example seems to indicate denial or privilege. I usually assume a high degree of intelligence on the part of people I hang with online, and figure they'll know the difference and deserve better than fake deference.
In turn, I expect to be told when I'm full of shit, which has been known to happen.
Ironically, there is all this talk about transparency, but when you don't hyperlink the blogs you are talking about, you are again talking "about" someone instead of talking with them. Hyperlinks let someone know that they are being talked about. That's what trackbacks are for.
M&B wrote: I wonder for whom the space gets to be safe? And what if your safe space isn't the same as my safe space? Can we never converse then? Because in that situation, someone's got to leave that comfort for a dialogue to be able to happen.
I had written that I didn't post here out of a desire for safety. There is no blog where I feel safe from attack, even the one on which I guest-post. I agree: It's hard to imagine any ongoing dialogue in which participants always feel comfortable.
M&B asked if I considered feminist blogs to be digital colonialism. No, not by the common definition of colonialism, in which one group tries to take over or dominate another.
I do recognize that I have various advantages over various other people who have fewer opportunities to express their opinions.
Over the years, I have tried to get less-heard voices to the public. (I was a journalist.) But that process has its own problems because the journalist, just like a blog owner, chooses who to recognize.
Suzie: "M&B asked if I considered feminist blogs to be digital colonialism. No, not by the common definition of colonialism, in which one group tries to take over or dominate another."
I agree. I think the problem is that feminist blogs exist in an imperfect world, and it is tough to do that and yet be completely apart from the underlying inequities. That said, blogs are a helluva lot more democratic than many other mechanisms out there.
O: If one is playing the game, one should decide for themselves when it is advantageous/safe to make that admission, for sure. I asked for that admission here, but it’s not up to me to do anything more than that. No force or coercion will be used. LOL!
A lot of therapy = a lot of money, typically.
Yes, I spoke of therapy and internal work being a privilege. Just something else to add to the list of “Things To Make Accessible To All” so that it can be one option, but not the *only* option. Certainly there are other ways that people deal with their internal “stuff” and it’s up to them to decide what way is best for them.
sometimes I think it’s a waste of time to murk around in a theoretical world where people who are losing ground in our actual one don’t have time to waste.
Both extremes are dangerous positions to take. I don’t believe they are mutually exclusive. That’s why I said they have to be taken together. This doesn’t mean simultaneously, and it doesn’t mean that every single person does both at all times. It is about fluidity and choice and ability.
Does that make me privileged and unwilling to “do hard work,” or does that make me simply someone who has chosen a different path to make a difference, one in which my skills and aptitudes (surprise – patience isn’t among them) are a better fit?
I wouldn’t begin to know where to answer that question (or ones like it), nor would I take it upon myself to do so. That’s a question for only you to answer. Certainly not one a just-met stranger over the interweb can. :)
I'd rather just say what I think, not assume people I'm talking to need to be hand-held
I agree. And though I don’t see you as doing this, one consequence of writing off-the-cuff is that it can be interpreted in so many unintended ways by the reader. I feel like I have to read something a few times, and sometimes step away from it for a while, in order to gage whether someone is being hostile or if they’re just stating something plainly. Usually I err toward the latter, just in case, but my experience with blogs shows that I'm in the minority on that. The Internet makes emotion really, really challenging to discern. It also makes it very easy to write little blips of criticism with little or no context, which I feel complicates the emotional aspect even further because context is so important.
blogs are a helluva lot more democratic than many other mechanisms out there
Does that excuse their failings?
Suzie: Colonialism is the exploitation of one group by another through the control of resources, labor, and space, and can also include the establishment/importation of social and cultural standards. Ones personal situation isn’t necessarily proof that colonialism isn’t institutionalized. To make an analogy, racism in the US is institutionalized. So one white anti-racist activist or one black man being the President or one WOC as the CEO of a business empire (I’m referring to Oprah) isn’t proof that racism isn’t systemic.
Restructure: Refer to the comments above to Amber. To address your talking *about* instead of *to*, in an example of transparency actually, I emailed every one of the people who are linked in the “cites” as soon as the post went live to tell them that they had been linked in it. I think there was one exception (Renegade Evolution) because I couldn’t find an email address for her on her site.
Restructure: Refer to the comments above to Amber. To address your talking *about* instead of *to*, in an example of transparency actually, I emailed every one of the people who are linked in the “cites” as soon as the post went live to tell them that they had been linked in it. I think there was one exception (Renegade Evolution) because I couldn’t find an email address for her on her site.
I think you're still not getting it.
It doesnt' matter if you emailed the people whose URLs you referenced. A *search engine*, which is how things like ranking and "authority" (to use Technorati's term) are determined, does not know a text-only URL from any other text - therefore, it cannot crawl the link and use that information as part of its indexing algorithm. Furthermore, readers of the referenced blog will have no way of knowing about the referring post unless the blogger posts about it. Pingbacks or trackbacks, which are done automatically by most of the major blogging platforms, alert readers of that blog that it is being talked about - that the conversation has expanded, so to speak. They may then choose to go engage on that thread, and they leave their link in their comment, and the interlinking continues, giving the search engine more information about how the various components of the blogosphere are connected.
M&B:
Re “playing the game,” query whether it is presumptuous to for a less-marginalized blogger to ask admissions to be made by a more-marginalized blogger. Even if you're asking nicely.
Regarding theoretical vs right now, it appears we are close enough to agreement there about there being a role for both to agree to disagree on the other portions – which are basically whether a preference or focus on the right now and subversion is “dangerous” – my feeling on that is that a strong “no.”
As I am sure you are aware, my question about this focus and whether it reveals privilege was rhetorical, and one which only one person can answer. Obviously, it’s more likely that a privileged person will wish to deal within the current system, but does every privileged person’s feeling that subversion is the more realistic course stem purely from privilege? Do others, who have no idea of that person’s contributions, have the right to superimpose their opinions? And let me answer these in case there’s any doubt as to whether I’m asking for answers: No, and no.
I appreciate that you don’t feel my writing is subject to unintended interpretations. To clarify, by “saying what I think” I didn’t mean “writing off the cuff,” as I think it’s wise to take care with what one writes, but instead: writing honestly and not in the elaborate, patronizing, pedantic way that some feminists adopt when addressing tough issues.
Certainly blogs being more democratic than other mechanisms doesn’t excuse their failings, but let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the good.
What an interesting conversation this is.
M&B: I understand the concept of institutionalized oppression. I also know there are different ways to define colonialism. In the definition you give, it's possible to classify all writing, music, art, etc., produced in the West as contributing to colonialism (or imperialism) because it may influence or supplant the culture of a poorer country.
Even if we agreed that writing on the Internet is exporting social standards ... questions arise ... whose standards? The more popular feminist blogs are still challenging the dominant thinking of the West.
On the receiving end ... whose culture? The men who control the media, money, power, etc., of that country?
As you know, no culture is static. Cultures influence each other. And then there's the issue of agency. On another screen, I'm helping an Indonesian feminist friend, back in town to get her Ph.D. in poco lit, find a video of K.D. Lang. My friend values much in Indonesian culture, but wants K.D. Lang, too.
I hope this wasn't too convoluted.
MandyV,
I don't think you understand the technological implications of linking and why you should link to blogs you are criticizing. A blog post is not like a piece of paper that is meant to be read only by sighted humans. A blog post is part of a network of information, and this network is created by linking. When you criticize people without linking to them, you are talking *about* them amongst a small circle without exposing yourself to the public scrutiny of everyone else on the web.
On Technorati for example, I can see the blog reactions to Professor, What If? and see which blogs are talking about your guest post. I am not the owner of Professor, What If?, but if somebody is criticizing PWI and saying something that I know to be incorrect because I am familiar with PWI or I have other specialized knowledge about the situation, I can criticize the critical post. If somebody criticizes PWI and doesn't actually link to the blog, they would be conveniently shielding themselves from my criticisms.
I can also use Google to see which webpages are linking to PWI. If these webpages didn't actually hyperlink to PWI, then they wouldn't appear in the search results.
Finally, there are accessibility issues. If somebody is browsing with a handheld device or a non-standard browser, they may not be able to copy and paste the address. So you may be claiming something about a blogger, but reader would just have to take your word for it, and cannot check for themselves if you are misrepresenting the blogger you are criticizing.
It just seems like you do not understand how the web works, and even how the blogosphere works, yet you are creating this grand narrative about how online communities work. Conversations in the blogosphere are not just something that happens on a webpage. Conversations usually occur across blogs via linking and trackbacks. This is one of the main characteristics of the blogosphere. If a blog breaks a story, the story becomes "viral" when the news item spreads across the network of blogs via linking.
Perhaps your complete ignorance about the value of linking is why you think WOC guest bloggers are being exploited by the big feminist blogs.
Whoops. I used the wrong screen name. Had to delete and fix that.
Restructure: A blog not making money isn’t proof that it isn’t a business, as not all businesses make money. Also, individual blogs not making money is not proof that it isn’t a part of a system of digital colonialism. Another flaw in your analysis is that you are only measuring income from primary sources. As has been fully explained, there are also secondary sources of income that one can make from their blog. Your example of Christian Lander is a great counter example to everything that you stated in that section, actually.
Restructure/Amber: No, I do get it. What I am saying is that with the knowledge and ability that I had/have in the situation, I lived up to my own philosophy of transparency. And now that new knowledge has been introduced, I have done what it is within my power to do, which is to alert the blog owner of the need to create hyperlinks.
Restructure: It is not solely the lack of linking that leads to the marginalization and exploitation to particular groups; that is simply one example among many. Nice attempt to throw the baby out with the bathwater, though.
Suzie: I’m not sure I understand how your analogy is connected to the definition of colonialism. And I would question the assumption that feminist blogs actually do challenge dominant thinking in the West. Instead, they tend to simply replicate that thinking. If you continue to deconstruct in this way, then you get to a point where nothing is inherently related to anything else, the personal is not political; it’s just personal. And that means that there’s no point in resistance at all.
MandyV,
Sure, blogs not making money is not proof that blogs are not a business. But you haven't shown that blogging is done primarily for making money, which is an absurd idea. Before the invent of the blogosphere, people have spent hours contributing to intellectual conversations on Internet forums, and before that, people did this on (Internet) message boards, and before that, people did this on USENET groups and (electronic) mailing lists. Nobody got paid, and nobody expected to get paid, because the mainstream was not aware of these discussions on the Internet. Having conversations and discussions is a natural human activity, and the Internet is a medium in which to do this. Perhaps because you are unfamiliar with all this, you try to understand blogging through the (incorrect) analogy that a blog is like magazine except online, and with this frame comes the (baseless) assumption that blogs are essentially businesses.
Also, you do not understand the Christian Lander example, and perhaps you should watch the video of Lander's talk that I linked. Again, that Lander benefitted from secondary sources of income does not prove that he originally did it to make money (see video). You are still working from the idea that people are rational economic agents whose actions can be completely explained in terms of maximizing income. You neglect that people also volunteer, do activism, and have hobbies offline and online. You neglect that some writers have a writer's itch and write from inner compulsion, not for external reward. You are using an economic model to understand the human activity of blogging, and this model is inappropriate and very misleading when it comes to understanding what is going on.
I did not claim that lack of linking leads to the marginalization and exploitation to particular groups. I expect that all guest bloggers whose posts are cross-posted on big feminist sites are linked, because it is basic Internet etiquette. My argument is that because you do not see the linking structure of blogs, you miss out on the reciprocity of guest blogging.
M&B: I mentioned my friend interested in KD Lang to illustrate the complexity of what gets labeled colonialism. Yes, the West has imported many cultural offerings to her country and influenced her tastes. But other things have influenced her interests as well. Plus, she has agency. She's studying post-colonialism for her Ph.D., but she still wants her video.
If I were to stay: It's terrible that the U.S. has pushed so much of its culture on your country. To remedy that, we're going to limit what gets shown or sent to your country, she'd be pissed off.
But, hey, I won't just imagine what she'll say. I'll ask her opinion - and maybe she'll even do a blog post - remembering that she doesn't speak for others any more than I do.
I should add, in regard to that example: I don't think everything is "just' personal choice, with no room for resistance. I think people should question what writing/art/media they produce and consume.
I don't understand how you can make a blanket statement that feminist blogs replicate the dominant thinking of the West. If you have time, I'm curious for an example.
Suzie: "To remedy that, we're going to limit what gets shown or sent to your country, she'd be pissed off."
Indeed. Similarly, refusing to showcase less-known feminist bloggers at big blogs because that could be perceived as tokenism denies those less-known bloggers an ability to be heard by more people, and denies us the ability to hear them if we haven't yet discovered their blogs.
To get noticed by big blogs, smaller blogs have to stand out, network, be a little political as Renee notes here.
Sound familiar? That's why I have a pretty strong suspicion feminism and capitalism can be reconciled.
Octo, I finally went back and re-read my old post, which I'd quite forgotten. You picked from my post what I would still want to stand by - the policing each other, the circular firing squad, the self-flagellation, etc.
Yes, I think those things undermine us, which is part of the reason I have tried to stop bashing my allies as much as I used to.
The other part of my post was frustration with not being included because my views (specifically those on Islam where it intersects with feminism) were not deemed sufficiently distinguished from Islamophobia to be acceptable. Also a few other things. I no longer identify or care much about that part of my plaint.
Thanks for your charitable reading. :)
I would further like to point out that guest blogging occurs on more than supposed alist feminist blogs. I have a standing policy of opening my space to guest posts and the majority of them thus far have been from people with blogs that don't have the ranking that I do. My question is, are these white women who choose to guest blog on Womanist Musings tokens?
Apostate -- anytime, I have some good context to draw from :)
Renee -- a great point. That's another way that analysis is sadly shortsighted -- it completely ignores the possibility that WOC could be in the power position, by identifying guest posters as necessary dupes/tokens.
I suppose an analysis could be that you are simply adopting the colonialist/capitalist ways of the power bloggers, having been coopted and corrupted, and you might as well be a white man at this point. Meet the new boss, etc. Guess you know where I'd file that one!
OK, I know you all know this but ... we can't forget that there are privileges/oppressions other than race and colonialism.
Thus, to some people, I'm just one more white woman blogging in the U.S. But I'm also disabled, and I'd love to see more bloggers with disabilities. I'd love for more groups of bloggers to include someone with disabilities, even though some might see that as tokenism. Personally, I think I'd take tokenism or invisibility.
Suzie -- thanks for the wake up call. Point well taken.
In a way it's parallel to the discussion of what groups wish to be called -- eg the unfortunate abbreviation for transperson that was used in the PWI post. Nobody else can really say what's OK, except those directly affected. Similarly, if women with disabilities, WOC, or other marginalized groups do not feel they are being taken advantage or, or that the taking advantage is mutual, then that is the definition we need to respect.
Suzie: We might be spinning off topic, but I’ll follow you down this path. :) I don’t think the cease of importation of Western culture is the only option. Let me give this example cuz I live in Calcutta and see this growing “Westernization” every day. Here, in big cities particularly, there are tons of young people wearing “Western” clothes (jeans, snarky t-shirts that say things like “I f**ed your girlfriend” and "You break my heart, I break your legs.", mini skirts, etc.). Now, upon first glance, one may react as you’ve said, “It's terrible that the U.S. has pushed so much of its culture on your country.” But when you look again, you’ll see that the clothes are just a little bit off: The jeans are a different cut, they’ve got just a little too much bling on them (for Western standards), they’re acid washed in color, etc. And that leads to the question, is this then actually "Western" or something that has been taken from Western culture and been manipulated to fit Indian culture? I don’t purport to have the answer to that question, but it complicates the idea that cultures are one thing or another. (It also raises other issues because there is a distinct class/caste and gender difference in who wears these "Western" clothes and who wears saris and salwaar kameez. I actually hope to write about this eventually on Renee's blog if she'll still have me.) In my view, culture is fluid and dynamic and heterogeneous. So your friend may tell you that she doesn’t want to be rid of “Western” things because she doesn’t actually feel they are “Western” (or for some other reason entirely) and perhaps “Western” is a description that is being imposed on that hybrid item for lack of another, better, more accurate term to describe it. Calling something “Western” continues to place that thing in a colonial, imperial context, and takes the power away from the group that is supposedly being imposed upon. And what if the group is divided on whether that is an imposition or not? And if I am an outsider to that group, who the hell am I to say what it is or it isn’t? Again, I don’t know the answers to these questions. (Well, the answer the the latter question is that I don't get to name what is and isn't their culture. They do.) But these are questions that I find myself contemplating all the time. And to bring this back to the context of this piece, it’s why I think saying WOC are tokens, as though that is definitive, wasn’t the right thing for us to do. We should have left that more open, or used our own experience as working class women to exemplify that point. Instead we opted for something we believed was more visible. That was a mistake.
Renee: This is not the most in-tact argument because of its subjectivity, but I think that the tokenization of someone can be determined by the degree to which a blog is/has been hostile to a particular group, and the conditions under which that blog decides to bring aboard guest bloggers (is it b/c they’re under constant attack for lack of inclusion of marginalized voices?), and what those guest bloggers are “assigned” to writing about (do they always/mostly write about their group identification?), and if the existence of that guest blogger is being used to justify why that blog does represent the guest blogger’s group identification, and whether the guest blogger’s group identification is a group that holds power in the larger system, among other things. So, for the latter, the answer to your question about white women being tokens would be no. White women aren’t marginalized by WOC bloggers b/c white women are the ones w/ the institutionalized power. Just assuming this isn’t the case, it would still depend on the other factors. Is the first white women admitted into an all-men club a token? Or is she a groundbreaker? I don’t know. That’s not enough information to make the determination. If she *is* a token, does that mean she’s powerless? Certainly not. She wields a lot of power. Does the woman wield as much power as the men? No. They are the ones who granted her the privilege, they are the ones who maintain the keys to the castle (so to speak), and they can also take that privilege away whenever they please. So the woman can resist, but only to the degree that she doesn’t get herself kicked out. Again, is she a token? Maybe, but maybe not. There's just not enough information.
Good post, Octo.
I note that the original post had no more than one cite to support any given point, taken as fact rather than presented as argument. Not even a quote from the cited-but-not-linked posts.
All in all, a weak effort, particularly the assertions here that A blog not making money isn’t proof that it isn’t a business, as not all businesses make money. Also, individual blogs not making money is not proof that it isn’t a part of a system of digital colonialism. Without, you know, any actual proof of the propositions being advanced by the writer.
The post's value is primarily in the discussions it's spawned, though I suppose linkage was the whole point.
I'm still chuckling over the idea that big feminist blogs are rolling in dough. I wish! I've written for two, and never have seen a dime for all my efforts. And for a good long time, I ran a real risk of losing my paying job had I been outed and some MRA decided to start calling my workplace.
Oh, and can I also point out that the degree to which this blog lacks hostility is so starkly visible in comparison to some of the other blogs. Any thoughts on why that is exactly?
Mandy, I can't help wondering where you got your information on the motives behind guest-blogging invites, and how you can be so sure that guest bloggers are "assigned" to write about a particular topic, or controlled in some way.
Is this surmise, or were you privy to the discussions between main blogger and guest blogger?
Let me give this example cuz I live in Calcutta and see this growing “Westernization” every day.
I find it very interesting that you write this entire piece on digital colonialization, yet you refer to Kolkata as Calcutta, its colonial name. The Indians made the change themselves, so why would you use the colonial name?
Zuzu, thanks! Interesting point about motives. The ability to get inside people's heads (aside from medically) is pretty rare; the tendency to think one can often stems from privilege.
M&B: Thanks for the interesting examples about clothing.
I'd take issue with your sentence: "White women aren’t marginalized by WOC bloggers b/c white women are the ones w/ the institutionalized power." Again, I'd stress that white women have privilege based on race, with other factors unknown. I know we all understand this, but when people talk about white women as privileged and WOC as oppressed, we disappear other privileges and oppressions.
M&B -- thanks for the kind words about lack of hostility!
I think it’s a function of a few things. For one, this is a small blog. I don’t have the variety of commenters that usually are required to generate a lot of hostility. I’m a fairly lazy blogger with a limited range of things I like to blog about. Most of the people who come here are folks I chat a lot with by email and while we disagree on certain things, we usually do so without rancor. While there have been people who haven’t been able to do that here, I’ve usually refused to rise to the bait, and without the fun that rising to the bait usually offers, they haven’t stuck around.
Now, the failure to rise to the bait has been termed “privilege” by some. And I think that’s part of it. For better or worse, I have years of experience with the brutality of the corporate and legal worlds, which has been brought to me via privilege and probably a few other things too (but aren’t mea culpas a lot more chic than patting oneself on the back?). So when people have brought hostility here, I have some fairly good ammo to deflect it with. So when the fun dies down, those who came for that typically choose to take their toys and go home.
Again speaking just for me, as I know the age issues can be controversial (see above), I think as one gets older the Fight! Fight! impulse dies down. I’m past giving a shit about a lot of things (some I probably should give a shit about, but life’s too short), and while I still too often give in to the fun of being bitchy, which is also in the toolkit, most of the time it’s easier to count to 10, at this point in time, than it used to be.
And finally, a mixture of privilege and circumstances. I don’t have a lot invested in the blogosphere. Unlike many here, I’m in a field (legal placement) that’s completely removed from it. (Although I’m a frustrated writer, which is more info than is necessary here). So it’s easier to stay unemotional. If, someday, the feminist blogosphere decided I was persona non grata, which I’m sure various sectors of it already have, it’s not something I will lose sleep over – not because I’m so strong, but because the main things that matter to me in life – friendships (some online, and I hope they wouldn’t toss me over even if FB did), family, and of course my capitalist job which hopefully will be my ticket to more rewarding things – would still be there. And this is certainly a privilege.
Finally, I really like pretty much everyone who comments here. I am really fortunate that, as someone who has a few things that get me excited enough to blog, which certainly aren’t everyone’s cup of tea, I have such amazing commenters. That’s something I really value, and whatever I can do to make this space comfortable for people who are kind enough to come here and participate in good faith, I am privileged to be able to do.
Oops -- this is quite a book. I'll stop here...
Zuzu – Yes, I have spoken to other bloggers about this and been made privy to conversations about this issue. That is all I feel comfortable saying about that, though. Like I’ve said before, I don’t feel it’s useful to point fingers. That’s not what I wanted to accomplish with this piece. Although, there are a lot of people pointing fingers at themselves in reaction to it, which I think is fascinating and worth paying attention to.
Calcutta is the English/anglicized word for the Bengali word Kolkata. Another immediately recognizable example is that Bengali is the English/anglicized word for Bangla. How you write/say it depends on which language you’re speaking in. Since this particular audience is a primarily Western one, I used the English/anglicized spelling to avoid confusion or misunderstanding of Kolkata being a different city than Calcutta. When I speak in Bangla or to an audience that I believe will be largely “in the know”, I say Kolkata. Actually, I came to India feeling very strongly about the political implications about the use of city names, and it has been through my conversations with people here that I have become less dogmatic on the issue. Actually, the socio-cultural, religious, and political history of how often city names in India change/have changed depending on who is currently in power is immensely interesting.
Suzie: Absolutely. Point taken.
W&B, per your comment to Renee that “I think that the tokenization of someone can be determined by the degree to which a blog is/has been hostile to a particular group, and the conditions under which that blog decides to bring aboard guest bloggers…”
It seems like you’re refuting here what you said to Suzie: “it’s why I think saying WOC are tokens, as though that is definitive, wasn’t the right thing for us to do.” I mean, can tokenization be determined, or not?
I continue to think it cannot.
I wonder if you agree with the result of a slight change to what you’ve written, in brackets: “I think that the tokenization of [a Presidential candidate] can be determined by the degree to which [the US] is/has been hostile to a particular group…” Thoughts? If you don’t think this applies to a Presidential candidate, why would it apply to a blogger?
And Suzie makes a good point. Again. Can we not omit women who lack institutional power for reasons other than race?
I'd like my check please!
Re: the cooptation of intersectionality I commented about at Amber's, top 30 feminist bloggers and WOC bloggers are BFF on Twitter, Facebook and everything else so why do they only link Renee? She's the only WOC in the top 30 feminist blogs.
This is baffling to me because I assume big feminist bloggers and WOC bloggers are in very close communication with each other.
Why is Renee the go-to for all WOC issues?
Why don't big feminist bloggers link WOC bloggers since they're reading WOC blogs?
WOC bloggers have 200 subscribers each.
O: can tokenization be determined, or not?
The only think I can say is that Maia’s comment on BFP’s post sounds like it most aligns with my own feelings on the matter. But I’m hesitant to say that now that I feel really unclear and lost and paralyzed by this whole situation.
Renegade: If I make money from this post, you’ll most certainly receive a check. LOL!
I think that the tokenization of someone can be determined by the degree to which a blog is/has been hostile to a particular group, and the conditions under which that blog decides to bring aboard guest bloggers (is it b/c they’re under constant attack for lack of inclusion of marginalized voices?), and what those guest bloggers are “assigned” to writing about (do they always/mostly write about their group identification?), and if the existence of that guest blogger is being used to justify why that blog does represent the guest blogger’s group identification, and whether the guest blogger’s group identification is a group that holds power in the larger system, among other things.
I have two problems with this.
1) A blog that may have been hostile toward a particular group in the past may now ask writers who identify w/ that group to write on the blog. Not out of a malicious motivation to say, "Oh yeah? See? We do so include [x group]!" but because after participating in conversations and listening to what members of that group have said in criticism, they have come to see a perspective they did not see before and have changed their views. Again, this is one of the great things about the blogosphere. I can't enumerate the times I've read something that made me go, "Oh, wow - I never thought of it that way before!" I might not always change my views based on this new perspective (although that has certainly happened many times) but it's wonderful to be able to hear things from someone else's POV.
2) As AngryBlackBitch and others have pointed out, typically guest posters aren't "assigned" anything. There are exceptions, of course, because there are as many variations in how blogs are run as there are blogs. But I'd venture to say that for the most part (and certainly in my experience, although I have no guest posted on a "big feminist blog") it's basically, "Here you go - write!" This is what I have heard from many people I know personally who have guest blogged on big feminist blogs.
I know we all understand this, but when people talk about white women as privileged and WOC as oppressed, we disappear other privileges and oppressions.
Well, we all SAY we understand this, but sometimes I wonder how much of that is true and how much is people reciting a party line. (I talked a little about this recently and plan to write more soon about this particular incident.) Oppression is not linear or digital (either/or) and it's not a game of oneupsmanship. It is, to use the term a commenter on my blog used, a matrix. Interlocking oppressions isn't a term that's used just because it sounds fancy; that's actually the way it works.
Re: the cooptation of intersectionality I commented about at Amber's, top 30 feminist bloggers and WOC bloggers are BFF on Twitter, Facebook and everything else so why do they only link Renee? She's the only WOC in the top 30 feminist blogs.
Probably a big part of it is many WOC bloggers feel non-WOC blogs are a hostile environment (and many of them have made no bones about saying so) and they make a point not to link to the big blogs, and in some cases have specifically asked the big blogs to remove links back to *their* blogs.
Personally (not that I think I'm a "big blog" or anything) I don't link to some of the WOC bloggers you probably have in mind bc I think they're drama queens, quite frankly. Renee and I don't always agree but agreement is not a requirement for linkage in my book; she writes well and always has interesting things to say. (She's not the *only* WOC I link to, but you mentioned her so I thought I'd specify why I link to her.)
M&B: I think Amber's point 1 rings true to me as well.
While I like what Maia had to say, I think she too was putting words in people's mouths:
"now i think that reform minded woc basically use the argument: being a token is useful. it helps to open the door a little wider for other woc."
I don't think the reform minded WOC identified as tokens, as a matter of fact. What I heard them saying is, they felt they were asked in good faith, and they wanted to get the work out there as reaching people with their work was paramount.
Anyway, I totally hear you on the feeling paralyzed -- the particular dynamics of the internet make any disagreements more intensified than they'd be in real life. I've certainly been there. It will pass.
Donna -- what big blogs do you mean? I think Feministe, for example, links to RWOC.
Amber, for #1 refer to Zuzu's comment above asking how does one determine the motivation of one blog or another. The scenario you describe is potentially just another side to the same coin of the scenario we described. The point is to raise that question and ask people for transparency of process in decision making, so that it's not up to the readers to guess what one's motives are. For #2, the blog owners still control the content of their blog, from soliciting posts from one blogger and not another to whether a guest post is a topic assigned by the blog owner or something the blogger suggested. The blog owner always has the option of saying "no" to something or someone they don't agree with, and they don't have to account for why they're saying no. I'm not saying they shouldn't have content control. I'm saying (again) that I think this process should be more transparent.
Zuzu – Yes, I have spoken to other bloggers about this and been made privy to conversations about this issue. That is all I feel comfortable saying about that, though. Like I’ve said before, I don’t feel it’s useful to point fingers.
I really can't help wonder who you were talking to. Certainly, the Feministe crew seemed to be blindsided by your post (as well as your denial of agency to the WOC who post there), as were the people at Feministing. I haven't read all the responses from the "big" blogs who have guest posters, however you define them, but it didn't seem like any of them had spoken to you before you wrote this.
Maybe you spoke to some of the people who were approached for guest-blog spots who felt tokenized. But rather than say that you had spoken to people who felt tokenized -- which is an issue in itself that deserves attention, though we can see from Shark-Fu's response to you that the feeling is not universal -- you instead made something up about the motives of the bloggers who asked those people to guest-post.
Ascribing motives to people you haven't asked about their motives is a tricky business.
Moreover, you've shown an astonishing failure to grasp the most basic of internet traditions. Starting with the failure to hyperlink, to the ignorance of the fact that blogs don't make money or confer real power but at best serve as a platform from which to launch to other things, to the being shocked, shocked! that discussion had moved away from your post to other blogs.
You also misunderstand what a non-profit is when you try to respond to someone who points out that blogs are not businesses by saying that non-profits are businesses, too! "Non-profit" isn't the same as "makes no money," it's just that the purpose of the business is not to make money for shareholders.
In short, it seems very much to me that you produced a very lightly-researched, ill-supported screed about big feminist blogs in which you managed to do everything you accused big feminist blogs of doing wrt tokenism of WOC. And to top it off, you insulted transfolk and completely disappeared the disabled.
Bra. Va.
Was the traffic worth it?
The blog owner always has the option of saying "no" to something or someone they don't agree with, and they don't have to account for why they're saying no.
And the people who turn down offers to do guest posts have the option of saying no, too. See what it looks like to give people agency?
Once again, where do you get your information that feminist bloggers are controlling the content of guest posts? Your refusal to name names is really muddying your point.
I'm not saying they shouldn't have content control. I'm saying (again) that I think this process should be more transparent.
Why? This is a serious question. Why is it so important to you to be privy to administrative details?
Especially when, as far as I can tell, you don't really participate in the feminist blogosphere.
@Octo,
I have no idea what any of these topics are about. Just here to say HI.
Probably a big part of it is many WOC bloggers feel non-WOC blogs are a hostile environment (and many of them have made no bones about saying so) and they make a point not to link to the big blogs, and in some cases have specifically asked the big blogs to remove links back to *their* blogs.
Personally (not that I think I'm a "big blog" or anything) I don't link to some of the WOC bloggers you probably have in mind bc I think they're drama queens, quite frankly. Renee and I don't always agree but agreement is not a requirement for linkage in my book; she writes well and always has interesting things to say. (She's not the *only* WOC I link to, but you mentioned her so I thought I'd specify why I link to her.)
Donna -- what big blogs do you mean? I think Feministe, for example, links to RWOC.
I agree with all your points. PWI reiterated the overall problem in feminism and society. And racism and classism are reified in feminism. Feminism became very intersectional but what I'm baffled about is how up-to-the-second communications and the high number of subscriptions did not translate into linking. Renee is the only WOC in the top 30 which goes back to my first point, the cooptation of intersectionality. I'm all for intersectionality except when it crossed the line into apologism.
I noticed when the top 30 list and Renee's WOC carnival came out that the WOC bloggers in the carnival and the drama queens are not linked on big blogs meaning feministblogs.org which I read except for Renee and a couple others.
Actually, I'm all for intersectionality except when it crossed the line into apologism and misogyny which you both have heard me talk about endlessly.
Renee and couple others (but those couple others are big bloggers not links) became the go-to for all WOC issues.
JZ -- hi!
Ren -- it's in the mail!
I took the amounts of all the checks incoming from my numerous corporate sponsors, plus the cash infusions from silent onlookers, and divided it by the number of commenters.
This should make a tidy bonus on top of the gargantuan sums you are pulling in from your blog activity! When are we having that champagne-infused bloggers' conference in the Caribbean again?
It goes back to the point of the post, tokenization. With all that close communication and reading of WOC blogs, the top 30 blogs should be linking WOC blogs. Instead they're tokenizing by only linking Renee.
Zuzu – Yes, I have spoken to other bloggers about this and been made privy to conversations about this issue. That is all I feel comfortable saying about that, though.
Wait wait, I thought you were all about transparency...?
so confused at this point
@Donna Darko
I was the only WOC on the 2pto list but there were other groups that were equally as marginalized. The list I believe in had one sex trade worker and one lesbian blog.
I don't like the idea that I have been cast as the "go to person" in your comments. Yes I will admit that I am linked to quite a bit but I have busted my ass to promote my blog. This is not to say that other WOC do not work hard but I believe that the way in which you described the links I get ignores the hard work that I do at Womanist Musings.
I am also sick of this being turned into a "what women can do conversation", or a how do white women express their power".
Yeah, Donna, what Renee said. If you notice, her blog volume has consistently expanded, and that's because she is prolific, topical, marketing-savvy and collaborative. That characterizes many of the top blogs, including other marginalized bloggers on the top-blog list. Links tend to spring from these characteristics. I don't think there are any shady handshake deals or tokenizing going on, and to the extent there were any going on, although I cannot speak for her, my instinct is that Renee's pretty savvy about whom she gets in bed with, and knows how to ensure it's bilateral.
I don't like the idea that I have been cast as the "go to person" in your comments. Yes I will admit that I am linked to quite a bit but I have busted my ass to promote my blog. This is not to say that other WOC do not work hard but I believe that the way in which you described the links I get ignores the hard work that I do at Womanist Musings.
I'm sorry I did not know you worked hard to promote your blog and also did not mean at all to imply you do not deserve the attention you get.
My main point stands. It's baffling despite all the communications that big feminist blogs haven't linked more WOC bloggers.
I am also sick of this being turned into a "what women can do conversation", or a how do white women express their power".
The point of the post is whites coopting and tokenizing WOC not the other way around.
Anyway, I don't see why this post got SO MUCH ATTENTION. It's very similar to many discussions over the last three years.
Dear friends,
In one of the comments on this thread that Octogalore started, Mandy said: “The major point that we seem to disagree on is whether feminism and capitalism can be reconciled. We don’t think they can, as capitalism necessitates inequality.”
That is beautiful. That should have been in the tagline...or at least in the article somewhere. :)
I agree with that fully.
For the sake of those who are probably tired of reading comments (or who have physical challenges that may find an audio response more convenient), I posted my audio response and my text response to "What if the feminist blogosphere is a form of digital colonialism"...here:
http://www.savethepoorbrownchildren.blogspot.com/2009/02/stop-censoring-and-attacking-lucy.html
It is titled: “Stop Censoring and Attacking the Lucy Parsons of the World: My response to: "What if the feminist blogosphere is a form of digital colonialism?"
However, as I started going to other blogs reading their responses to that article, when I thought about it more, as Black, Male, feminist, I realized there was a lot I had to add to it and so now it is a follow up blog post. It is titled:
"Linkage And The 'Good Ole Girl’s Network' Racist, bias against Male, POC Feminist within the Feminist Blogosphere - Follow Up to Yesterday's Post"
It is found here:
http://savethepoorbrownchildren.blogspot.com/2009/02/good-ole-girls-network-racism-bias.html
Thanks everyone for having this conversation.
Special thanks to Octogalore for having a non-hostile blog which is very refreshing I must say. :)
I am also in agreement with Octogalore for saying 'some of it was right on, and I am hoping that it will lead to some action being taken. :)
Love for the people,
-T
I read and responded to T on his blog, but I'll post my response over here as well. It will make more sense if you read his full response on his blog.
[He said one reason that white feminists reject black male feminists is based on writing grammatically and academically.] First of all, not all white feminists speak grammatically and academically. Surely you understand that not all white women are educated and middle class, while some black feminist men are. There’s a black feminist man teaching in the women’s studies dept that gave me my master’s, and I’m sure he can be just as academic as the women.
[He said Anthony was one of the people who rejected Douglass for marrying a white woman.] Can you give me a citation about Susan B. Anthony rejecting Frederick Douglass for marrying Helen Pitts? I've never heard that before. I've visited Douglass' home in the D.C. area, which the National Park Service maintains. Anthony used a guest room there when she traveled in the area because it wasn't proper for a single woman to stay in a hotel. The preserved home includes at least one portrait of her. At his funeral, Stanton gave a eulogy for Douglass that had been written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
Douglass' second marriage to Helen Pitts angered both her family and his. Another aspect of the controversy was that he was 20 years older. He lived only 9 years more, before dying at the age of 77.
http://www.history.rochester.edu/class/douglass/part5.html
I disagree with your characterization of Susan B. Anthony as being part of a “Good Ole Girls Network.” The majority of white feminists sided with Douglass and others who supported the 15th Amendment, saying it was more important to give rights to black men than white women. (Presumable, black men were supposed to look after black women.) Stanton and Anthony broke with Douglass over this, but were later reconciled.
An Apology from Brittany and Mandy
Post a Comment