Jessica,

Thanks so much for the update. I just wanted to take a moment and stress on one of the points BrownFemiPower makes : It's amazing at how many (not all, but many) of the people who were in that meeting came to your defense (and rightly so) and yet they have been silent to my initial post.

And somehow, somewhere, in some strange way that only white feminst bloggers can figure out how to do–the critique that there is something patently wrong with progressive/feminist bloggers attending an all white blogging get together under the guise of progressive/feminist politics has been rewritten as a sexist attack against feminist bloggers. Somebody somewhere (not sure who, not really interested enough to find the original post) called one of the bloggers a slut or an intern or something, and now all the sex positive sex negative sex horrible sex sex sex wars are slowly but surely being set into motion.

And suddenly, it is no longer important that there were no bloggers of color at the little get together and what the poltical implications of that might mean(seeing as blogging is the new press and only white people are being courted as members of the press)–it’s important that some white dude insulted some white chick’s sexuality, evidently.

It's been said before, but I have to repost here: Zuzu at Feministe was really great at intersecting the two issues what with the vitriol unleashed by Jane Hamsher against me.

The point being, that as I said in my initial post, first impressions are the most important and in cases dealing with exclusion and race there are almost never any second chances. People in the left can't pick and choose and say will deal with the "women" and the "elections" issues first and then rationalize that any talk about "negro issues" or "colored issues" can wait for the next meeting. You can't do that and not expect to lose the social and political capital of the people who put you in power and gave you a mandate --whether through winning elections or publishing a blog.

It's not like POC can't talk about elections, the war, social security or women's issues. I mean, c'mon, when I am invited to events, I am invited as a political blogger and technologist who is also a Puerto Rican black feminist. I don't get called to talk about Puerto Rican black issues? WTF.

I would have moved earth and sky to get the right people to that meeting given that, since I have been so vocal against Hillary Clinton, I understand as a professional networker that my presence there would have been problematic (although inviting Pam and me would have shown cojones). But it was rationalized that if any of the hand-picked POC couldn't make it to this meeting that it was ok since a subsequent meeting would be planned. Nobody thought that getting them to a separate table would be a social and political faux pas.

That's why that picture is so damaging --for the utter lack of cultural and political focus.

And even some of us white folks who weren't invited talked about this (my posts are here and here).

Sorry about that, Elayne. Adding your links in to the post now...

I think the reason why relatively few non-white bloggers have been invited is implied in Liza's post: many of them are actively anti-Hillary. I really don't know what you guys talked about at the meeting, but I presume the incipient Presidential campaign was either part of it or implicit in it. So cynically it makes sense for Clinton not to invite outspoken anti-Hillary bloggers.

Uh. Kos was invited and declined. I'm surprised Steve Gilliard wasn't invited but it may have been because Daou knew he wouldn't come. Daou by the way is Arab American.

The blogosphere culture is overwhelmingly white and male. I think that's a large part of the problem.

Here in Jackson, Mississippi, a city that's 73% African-American, we recently had a meeting of an anti-death penalty group, well advertised, at which only white people showed up. Creeped the hell out of me, but I had helped organize/advertise the meeting, so I couldn't criticize anybody.

Then I attended an ACLU Know Your Rights seminar where I was one of only a few white faces in the room.

A good friend of mine, with a long history in civil rights, always draws a distinction between desegregation and integration. Desegregation is when you make sure that any people of color who show up will be welcome. For progressives, that's relatively easy.

But integration is when you actually make sure that the group is diverse, and that's an intentional process, sometimes embarrassingly intentional, sometimes horribly politically incorrect. Desegregation makes you smile, but integration should make white folks cringe a little bit because it requires you to talk to people in a way that acknowledges and even highlights their race when the culture says that we're all supposed to be color-blind. You have to, in effect, convey that you notice someone else is black, you notice other people in the group are white, and you want to have more black people in the group. That is so politically incorrect and so progressive at the very same time (proof that the two are not always mutually exclusive).

And if you do end up as a white person in a room full of white people, that doesn't mean you're a bad person, or should decline the photo-op. It just means that your group, at that particular time, happened to settle into the default racial social networking patterns. This is, to me, a teaching moment and a "try harder next time" thing. It will inevitably happen again. No matter how hard you try to integrate, you will always fail sometimes. If you're black, some of your social groups will be all-black. If you're white, some of your social groups will be all-white. There's no getting around that. It's something we all have to struggle against.

Or at least that's the way it is in Mississippi. I keep forgetting y'all are Yankees. ;o)

Cheers,

TH

I absolutely agree that we do need to be more sensitive about people of color. However, for the most part I have no idea what race someone is. Often I don't know gender or age. One of the things I've loved about the blogs is the anonymity. For the most part people are accepted for the way they think rather then the way they look and I've loved every minute of that.

So, I'm really not sure what we can do to address the problem. But I think it's a good thing this happened and we are having an open dialogue about it and I'm open to any and all suggestions.

Tom, can you explain what ways you have in mind for integration in progressive groups? For example, what do you think the liberal American blogosphere should do to encourage greater diversity?

I don't know what methods would work in practice because, so far, no methods have worked in practice. But in face-to-face integration, venue is the most important thing.

I held a screening and panel discussion last December for The Most Segregated Hour. We held it at Mikhail's Northgate Restaurant, which is owned by a prominent African-American businessman and has an almost exclusively African-American clientele. We then advertised the screenings in the usual, predominantly white venues. We got a 50/50 racial mix. It was beautiful.

If we had it at St. Andrew's Episcopal Cathedral, I'm absolutely certain it would have been 90% or more white.

So I have to figure that one way to solve the "venue problem" online is to post on black-run blogs, link to black-run blogs, and so on and so forth. That could, ultimately, have the effect of integrating the online blogging community, which could in the long run make face-to-face blogger get togethers better integrated.

The main thing, for whites, is to shift from the old "if only more blacks would show up" model, which almost never works, to an active engagement model where we consciously pay more attention to race issues and constantly highlight non-white bloggers and blogging issues. Because when it comes to academic or otherwise intellectual discourse, the other "inter" word--besides integration--is "intersectionality."

The bloggers here have been doing a fantastic job of this, and getting flamed for it every single time, which is proof positive that it's working.

But make no mistake: It'll probably be a slow and gradual process no matter how it's done.

Cheers,

TH

Aww, thanks Jessica! I admit some of the pointer-comment was ego, but I also wanted to point folks to the comments attached to the posts as many of them were voices I'd not previously heard.

Aww, thanks Jessica! I admit some of the pointer-comment was ego, but I also wanted to point folks to the comments attached to the posts as many of them were voices I'd not previously heard.

The "blogosphere is mostly white and male" argument clearly doesn't apply here, Tom, as there were lots of women bloggers represented. I understand a few had breasts. ;)

That first "I held" should be "We held." The event was coordinated over coffee by me and a local photographer/spoken word poet/event organizer, Thabi Moyo, and sponsored by the Jackson Free Press, our local AAN weekly.

This is also the event where I got to hang out with James Meredith, where he told me about what he'd recently seen with regard to the over-the-top racial segregation in Brazil. The whole event was one of those experiences I'll remember for the rest of my life.

Cheers,

TH

Elayne, agreed. ;o) I was speaking less of this specific event than of general blogosphere stuff, but I'm very glad you mentioned that!

Cheers,

TH

Intersectionality is a neccessary paradigm shift on the blogosphere and everywhere else. Its precursor is the holistic movement of the 60s. Something bloggers and commenters can do is decenter whiteness or maleness and imagine themselves in other people's shoes before they type.

Peter Daou should be careful about inclusivity next time. My very humble take on this is Jane should seriously apologize for the blackface, Liza shouldnt have named a post “Jane Hamsher is an idiot� because it’s ambiguous (Jane was an idiot for the blackface but has worked her fingers to the bone pulling off critical blogosphere victories) and TRex should seriously apologize for the Liza post. The purely political bloggers are working their asses off before November and Jane did the stupid blackface maybe because it was immediately before her very stressful Lamont win (he couldn’t have won without FDL and MyDD), the first major win for the blogosphere. She should seriously apologize because there is too much at stake.

OK, hiatus time for me.

Peter Daou could have totally invited me. He linked to me once - I was once in the margin. A small victory for a humble, G-list blog such as mine!

So much to say about the diversity issue, and not enough time to say it. But Laurie and I did mention it on our blog entry on the subject, along with *ahem* other issues related to the lunch. Take a look if you want.

As a former leader of the Z list bloggers, I do agree more diversity is a good thing always.

And as we put the boobs behind us, I look forward to looking back at the Clinton lunch for the meat and potatoes of the event, but let's not forget the vegetarians who might prefer tofu, so long as that is satisfactory to the vegans.

I'm hungry for as many views to be presented to the powerful, even if that person is a former president who could be the first First Gentleman, even if he wasn't as much of a gentleman in office as some might like.

Everyone needs to keep fighting for what they believe, but in non violent ways. Peace to all tonight and a piece of the action to all at the next lunch. Salud.

I am sorry not to know this, which I am sure was covered:

What was the point of this lunch?

Was there an agenda? Was it just people getting ot know each other? was political strategy discussed? As Clinton is retired from office what is his role?

So far I have been reading about this lunch day after day and have come up with just the Ann Althouse craziness and the POC issue. So, what were the actual goals of this meeting, and were they achieved?

Et tu, Brute? *sigh*

Well, since you know Peter, I guess we should all just take your word for it that he's committed to diversity. This argument of yours is kind of like that famous Richard Pryor line for when his wife caught him in bed with another woman:

"Are you going to trust me or are you going to trust your lying eyes?"

Pffft! Come on! This is ridiculous. You know, for as painfully aware of the lack of diversity you say you felt, I sure didn't see you mention that in your first post about this event (which you described as awesome) nor does that photo reflect anything other than a bunch of people having a great time.

Can any of you that went even show a modicum of respect for our intelligence? Maybe the others won't, but what's stopping you Jessica?

Wow! The invitation list wasn't all white? Well I guess that makes everything okay, right? Regardless of what you're saying here, you obviously DON'T understand why people got as upset as they ARE (not "did"). Look, since you don't seem to be getting it, let me try to break this down for you. If there had been more than one token black guy invited, do you think that a single cancellation would have resulted in an all-white gathering in the middle of Harlem? And even if that one token black guy had to cancel, do you really think that out of all the bloggers of color in NYC alone, they couldn't have found even ONE who was willing to come at the last minute? Since you've spoken to Peter, did you ask him that? If not, since you know him well enough to vouch for his concern for diversity, maybe you could go back and ask him that for us. I refuse to believe that you have never heard of the concept of tokenism. What a luxury it must be to be able to ignore that factor in all of this!

"Number of invites aside, I think that it's all of our responsibility to ensure that the blogosphere is represented accurately, especially when it comes to high-level meetings. The public face of the liberal blogs has to be as diverse as we actually are."

Why Jessica, if you feel this way, what did you say at that meeting to Daou and Clinton about the lack of diversity? Surely you said something right? Or is this "all of our responsibility" business just an afterthought?

The reality is, the public face of the liberal blogs is as diverse as YOU are--you being the happy, smiling folks in that photo who weren't sufficiently bothered by the composition of that meeting to warrant any of you daring to add a dose of reality to that meeting by showing some solidarity with people of color.

This quick-fix post is a total bust as other bloggers of color are pointing out on other sites. There's some good discussion of it on my blog right now. Over on your Flickr page where the picture is posted, it's just more of the same. You're up to over 20,000 views but only 10 responses. Even after someone else pointed out how odd that was, you still didn't get it. Well do you know why a lot of people of color aren't doing it here at Feministing or over there at Flickr? It's because they just don't even believe that you have the willingness to give this issue a REAL assessment, not the kind that tries to mitigate the reaction by telling us that it wasn't as bad as it seemed because one black person was invited.

I know that you all aren't going to change the direction of this site just for us people of color and people with disabilities--I'm not even going to go into how that meeting lacked diversity on that level--but could you please, for the first time in a very, very long time, at least make one honest analysis of your actions and the role they played in this fiasco?

You don't have to talk about the Schlessinger/Althouse stuff or the underlying meaning when so-called feminists decide to hang out with a man who sexually harrasses women and I certainly don't care about your breasts. Can you just take a chance and go out on a limb and actually acknowledge what really happened here?

Can you stop claiming that the reason why people are saying that you weren't representing feminist values isn't because of your pose? As far as I can see, only one site was saying that. What about all the other bloggers who didn't need to think about your breasts in order for them to feel like there were some real ethical issues when feminists and other supposed "progressives" were actually excited about meeting with a person who has such an extended history of sexually harrassing women? Then there's that issue regarding the fact that none of the supposedly-feminist bloggers who attended have spoken out against the blatant racism exhibited by some of the others who attended but didn't appreciate people of color daring to voice our views about the lack of diversity. Are you really unaware of this and under the belief that it was all about your body parts or poses?

Honestly, I don't think you're some horrible person or some avowed racist. I'm not just here to excoriate you. I just SO-OO-OO want to believe that you are not only capable of better than this (as I know you are) but also WILLING to show it. I promise, I'm not going to come back here griping everytime I hear about how there's yet another comment section where you all have allowed some person of color (who doesn't know how often this has happened in the past) to have racist insults lobbed at them over and over again.

I just think that this incident is important enough for me to at least ask on behalf of all those who would benefit if you did this. What do I have to lose? You can just delete my post and act like it never happened if you want and there won't be anything I can do about it. The benefits of dealing with my own mortality means that I can ask for this without having to worry about reputations and all that sort of nonsense.

So, just let me know. How much kowtowing would it take to convince you all at feministing to show some solidarity with people of color on this? I'm asking because I'm willing to "take one for the team" when it comes to my fellow sisters.

What would this one insignificant and handicapped black girl have to do in order for you to side with us instead of David Ferguson, Jane Hamsher and the others who have been kicking us down about this issue? Just tell me, because I think that with all that feminism has given me, dealing with a little more pain about this issue is worth the effort.

Very well spoken, Ms. Alshamsa. Seriously, I think you've found the words I couldn't say, or at least I couldn't say them as well.

Hell, I couldn't decide whether to make a decent reply or make a few t-shirts lambasting the whole situation. I balked on the motto, though.

Skyanide,

Thanks for the support. I'm starting to get the impression that yours was the only response that my comments will ever garner here. Sadly, that just puts another nail in the coffin while people of color are discussing where we really stand in the eyes of those who some still wanted to believe in. As cynical as I can be sometimes, I really did want to believe that at least one of these bloggers (who attended) would have some change of heart and show concern for feminists like us. My hope is fading fast.

bint, i'm planning on responding--believe me. but i'd like to give you the reponse your comment deserves, and because i'm live blogging from an event right now i'm crazed. i'll shoot you an email or cross post my comment at your blog once it's up. thanks for your patience.

Bint, from your tone and your bashing me on your site (and others’), it’s pretty clear I’m not going to give you an answer you’re satisfied with. You’ve made up your mind about me and what kind of feminist and person I am. And you’ve put out some pretty disparaging claims about me and feministing.

What I wrote in the post and what I write here is just me trying to be as straight up as possible.

Yes, it is totally fucked that the meeting wasn’t diverse. And you don’t have take my word for anything—but I do know Peter and I do have trust in his commitment to organizing diverse meetings. And yes, I’m well aware of tokenism and I don’t think that’s what was going on here with the invite list. This is someone I know personally; someone I have trust in. You don’t know him, that’s cool. But I’m not going to bash someone that I trust.

Why Jessica, if you feel this way, what did you say at that meeting to Daou and Clinton about the lack of diversity? Surely you said something right? Or is this "all of our responsibility" business just an afterthought?

A lot have conversations did, and have been going on. But since you’ve made it clear that you’re not going to “take my word� on anything, I suppose that doesn’t mean anything to you.

… could you please, for the first time in a very, very long time, at least make one honest analysis of your actions and the role they played in this fiasco? Can you stop claiming that the reason why people are saying that you weren't representing feminist values isn't because of your pose? What about all the other bloggers who didn't need to think about your breasts in order for them to feel like there were some real ethical issues when feminists and other supposed "progressives" were actually excited about meeting with a person who has such an extended history of sexually harrassing women?

What actions would those be? Going to the meeting? I’m not sure what bloggers you’re talking about who said I don’t “represent feminist values.� The only bloggers I saw talking about that were Althouse and her ilk—who only used the feminists-shouldn’t-meet-Clinton argument once they were called on their personal attacks against my “pose.� I see from your site that you find me attending the meeting hypocritical, and there’s not really anything I can do about that. Meeting President Clinton doesn’t conflict with my feminist values. If that makes me a bad feminist in your eyes, so be it.

You also point out on your site that I’m a hypocrite because I’m offended by people commenting on my breasts—because of a post someone else wrote about Dr. Laura. I don’t have a right to be offended and humiliated by someone essentially sexually harassing me on their site and encouraging others to do so? If that makes me a hypocrite, fine.

I promise, I'm not going to come back here griping everytime I hear about how there's yet another comment section where you all have allowed some person of color (who doesn't know how often this has happened in the past) to have racist insults lobbed at them over and over again.

Really? I allow people to hurl racist insults and don’t do anything about it? I think that’s a pretty fucked up thing to say, honestly. We work our asses off to make this a safe space—all of the feministing bloggers, not just me. And we’ll continue to work our asses off.

I know that you all aren't going to change the direction of this site just for us people of color and people with disabilities…So, just let me know. How much kowtowing would it take to convince you all at feministing to show some solidarity with people of color on this?

I have to ask why you’re positioning us as a “white� blog. Considering half of us aren’t white, I find it (as do the other feministing bloggers I’ve discussed this with) pretty insulting. Are the women of color bloggers on feministing invisible?

If I seem defensive here, it’s because I am. I’ve spent the better part of the last five days trying to deal with hundreds of people calling me a whore, ugly, a hypocrite and commenting on my breasts. And I’m pretty well tired of it. I’m sorry you don’t think I handled the Clinton lunch well—I did the best I can and I continue to do the best I can.

I want to say this though, no matter what you think of me and this site—all of us here work extremely hard. And this shit is important to us; I truly want to make the best feminist space that I possibly can, all of us do. But if you want to engage in a conversation that’s going to move forward—I would respectfully ask that instead of bashing me and my character without knowing me, and before having any correspondence with me, that you give me (and feministing) the benefit of the doubt. There’s always room for improvement and there’s always room for conversation, but lashing out at me personally doesn’t leave much room for an actual dialogue.

I can say, looking at the photo of white bloggers and Bill, without any context, I was PISSED. Lord knows I know how it feels to be the only one representing. But none at all! WHAT DA FRIG?!!!

BUT, after reading Jessica's explanation, and Peter Daou's, what can I say?

As a woman of color bloggger, the only thing I can say is blogging is HARD. It doesn't pay the bills. It doesn't pay the airfare. It doesn't pay the time off from work. And since many of us poc don't have the financial luxuries, the bigger question that should have been asked and answered is where are the stipends? Are stipends going to be provided in the future at these lunches? I think that question is in Bill's court.

Sorry, i should correct myself! Some blogs do pay, but most don't. Especially those who speak truth to power.

I was going to respond to Bint's comment, then I realized that it wasn't really my place to at that point because Jessica hadn't yet. Now she has, so I will:

Bint, some of your criticisms--the constructive ones--seem valid to me. "Do better, and here's how" is always advice I'm happy to hear.

But I'm distracted by the tone of your post, which reads like an askew defense of Althouse--whose response, if she were part of an all-white group (as I suspect she usually is), would probably be "So what?"

I do think of Feministing as a white blog because I'm a Mississippi boy and that means that I tend to see race as, no pun intended, a black and white issue. Samhita is certainly a woman of color, and I respect that, but she's not black. It's not that I don't know many Indians--we have a thriving Indian-American immigrant community here, and some of my oldest local friends are Indian Americans (I even know a little Sanskrit: "tam tatha kRpaya avishtam, ashrupurnakulekshanam | vishidantam idam vakyam"--extra points to anyone who can tell me which text I memorized that from). But Mississippi's history is so racially charged on the white:black thing that other forms of racism get reduced to footnotes in my mind sometimes. It's just within the past few years, for example, that I've noticed the amount of anti-Hispanic racism that exists in this state. Louisiana and Mississippi have very similar cultures in this respect, so I can understand why Bint would see Feministing as a white blog even though it really isn't. I wonder how much of your post, Bint, really does break down to a North-South program. Because I had a serious bicameral response to it--half of me said "How dare you, leave Jessica alone" and the other half completely related, on a visceral level, to the race part of your argument. What I have difficult remembering sometimes is that Jessica is in New York City, and while racism is just as much of a problem up there as it is down here, it's a completely different kind of racism.

Racism of all kinds is a serious problem in the feminist movement, just as it's a serious problem in the gay rights movement, but I see conscientious, antiracist women like Jessica as part of the solution. I am the only officer in the local Jackson NOW chapter, to my knowledge, who is not an African-American woman, and this gives me a unique way of kind of seeing how people treat the people I stand shoulder to shoulder with, both as women and as women of color. I have seen white women come into the group convinced that the black folks are doing it all wrong and making all sorts of disparaging comments and telling us all how we need to be working and then disappearing after a few months. I've never met Jessica in person (something I plan on fixing one of these days), but I'm absolutely sure from my dealing with her online that she is not one of those kinds of women.

Bint, despite the fact that I think you have been way too hard on Jessica, I think your voice is one that would be useful on this blog and I have to say that I share your passions. If I didn't know the Feministing folks as well as I do, I would probably say amen and add your blog to my bookmarks list. Southern antiracist voices are rare on the blogosphere. I want to hear more like yours.

But in this case, you're firing on a friendly.

Cheers,

TH

(UPDATE: Bill Clinton will be on Larry King Live tonight at 9pm ET. Will the bloggers' lunch get a nod?)

Jessica, what's the point in assuming that you can know what my reaction will be ahead of time? If I had made up my mind about "what kind of feminist and person" you are, why do you think, despite saying that I was giving up on feministing, I came here and gave this another shot. I'm quite sure that what I've said seems disparaging of feministing but what I wrote about you was regarding your actions and not about what sort of person you are. When it comes to the way this issue has been handled, I don't see anything particularly good that I can say about how it's been dealt with (and dismissed) here.

It's totally understandable if you want to trust Daou since you know him but how does that address the fact that nothing about that meeting reflects a commitment to diversity, as far as I can see, and none of the bloggers who did go have been able to show otherwise. And why is it that all of the people who have attempted to show that this incident wasn't as bad as it seems to many people of color, they've had to rely on the fact that one latino male and one black male were invited? If this isn't a clear case of tokenism, I don't really know what could qualify as that. I haven't seen anyone here ask you to bash Daou but maybe I missed it because I sure know I didn't ask this of you.

It's not that saying "A lot have conversations did, and have been going on" isn't something I can't take your word on. The problem is it didn't answer the questions. Frankly, I thought that it was better for me to ask (about what you what you had to say at the meeting regarding the lack of diversity that you said you were painfully aware of) instead of doing what you seem to think I want to do and just assuming you wouldn't be able to explain things.

What actions would those be? Going to the meeting?

Nope. The actions I'm referring to are those that took place once the meeting did take place. Since I have no reason to believe that you were the organizer of the event, its make up isn't something I think you were responsible for. However other bloggers have pointed out that it might have at least been a good idea for the invited bloggers to find out who else was supposed to be at this meeting so that they could determine how diverse it would be, if they were concerned about diversity. If you're not sure which bloggers I'm talking about, then just check out the conversations that people are still having about this. The people who found it appropriate to discuss your body parts on the Althouse site are just as reprehensible to me as the person who discussed Schlessinger's body parts on this site and the one linked to it in the post.

If you had bothered to engage in conversation on my blog while you were checking it out, you'd have noticed that I have already addressed this idea that it was attending the meeting that I found hypocritical. As a matter of fact, did you even read what I said was hypocritical? Maybe you still don't want to go and look so I'll quote it here:

Given all of this, I see her gripe regarding a discussion about her breasts to be quite hypocritical.

Notice it does not say that your attending the meeting is what I find hypocritical. As a matter of fact, there isn't a single line in my post that claims meeting with Clinton means you're a hypocrite.

Once again, you show you didn't bother to actually look at what was written. This isn't just about some post written about someone else. This is about a post on the website where you are the Executive Editor that features the same sort of comments as those made on the Althouse website. Maybe you and I have different ideas about what it means to be an Executive Editor because, in the media that I've worked and in those that I've had work featured in, this position carries with it a least some degree of responsibility for what ultimately makes the final cut. Since Ann is certainly the person who created this post (the one about Schlessinger's nude photographs that included the link to the "Somebody Slap this Slut" piece), that makes her the writer but it doesn't make her the executive editor. According to what this website says in your "about us" page, you alone hold that position.

If I had ever claimed that you don't have a right to be offended and/or humiliated about something, then maybe there would be some reason for you to direct it to me. So far, I've never said that and I have no plans to do so. Neither act (featuring the one piece about body parts and being offended by the other piece about body parts) alone constitutes hypocrisy; It's when you combine the two that hypocrisy becomes involved.

Really? I allow people to hurl racist insults and don’t do anything about it? I think that’s a pretty fucked up thing to say, honestly.

Why do you find it effed up? Jessica, are you really unaware of how many people of color have had this happen to them here? The first time I posted here it was because of the racist b.s. that people were saying to Samhita earlier this year. That nasty affair was discussed on several different blogs. So what's really effed up--that it happens here or that I acknowledged it?

I have to ask why you’re positioning us as a “white� blog. Considering half of us aren’t white, I find it (as do the other feministing bloggers I’ve discussed this with) pretty insulting. Are the women of color bloggers on feministing invisible?

Where did I position you as a white blog? Since I have not done so, if you are feeling pretty insulted about this, then it's a result of you assuming that I find the others here invisible. How does the fact that I have pointed out how the discussions that people of color have been having about this have been ignored, dismissed, or insulted mean that I don't acknowledge that feministing has people of color on its staff? As a matter of fact, I didn't even know who the white people on feministing were until after I'd spoken to and about the ones who are people of color. If you had been a part of the conversations that people of color have been having about why so many people of color don't find this site to be a safe space, then you'd know that. So what are you basing this theory of yours on? Having people of color on your staff does not mean that you are showing solidarity with people of color on this issue. This post isn't to you because you're white; It's because you were the one who was there.

If I seem defensive here, it’s because I am. I’ve spent the better part of the last five days trying to deal with hundreds of people calling me a whore, ugly, a hypocrite and commenting on my breasts. And I’m pretty well tired of it.

It's understandable for you to be defensive but that's no excuse for you to make the assumption that my comments and requests stem from how the silliness about how your body looked and if you have read anything that I've written about you, it's never even suggested, alluded to, claimed or referred to any standard of beauty or the insanity that is calling someone a whore. NEVER.

Instead of just assuming that there's nothing you could do or say that would change things, why not go and take a look at what people of color are saying they wish at least one of the supposedly progressive bloggers (who attended that event) would do. Is it really such an overly-demanding thing for me to have asked what it is that I can do to help you see some reason to speak out against the racism (perpetrated by other bloggers at that event) that has followed this meeting? Given the fact that you are the only one who has even claimed to have noticed the lack of diversity while at the event, was it just stupid and pointless for me to hope that you might actually want to be the one to stand out from the crowd and really pay attention to what so many people of color have had to say about this event?

Do you consider your assumptions about me to be bashing me? The reason why I'm asking is because I didn't write my post saying that I can't take your word for anything but for some reason you claim that's clear. You've made all of these erroneous assumptions and assertions about me but you haven't pointed out one single thing I've said about your role in this that isn't true. So how are you defining what's "bashing" you and what's pointing out what I see as problematic? Did you at least ask me what my feelings are about this as I attempted to do here? Nope. In fact, the first thing I wrote to you about this topic was not in this past post. Take a look back and see. Though I was doubtful about how the attendees would blog about this event, I even came back several times and saw what you had to say before I wrote anything about you. When you wrote your comment on my blog where you said that you wouldn't go into the issues in my post because you were too tired from the breast conversation, did you even come back to see if I attempted to correspond with you? Did you go back and read how the other people of color also attempted to talk to you? Or did you just come and say you won't discuss what we're saying because the breast conversation had expended all your energy talking about the breast/posing foolishness?

Do you have any idea how dismissive that was? Do you think it's just me saying this? Why don't you take a look at some of the other people of color blogging about this? You could start with what's being said on the ones that you linked to. If you did that, you'd know that I wasn't even the first blog to mention this. Maybe if you stopped and noticed that the people of color talking about this aren't the same people who were talking about your breasts or calling you a whore it might be easier for you to see that even though it might not portray you in the best light, talking about the reactions and lack of reactions simply isn't bashing you, your character, or feministing?

However, if you just want to continue believing that I came here to bash you, I can't stop that; I can, however, say that you're wrong. Here's why I came:

I felt like it would be unfair for me to just talk about you on my blog and not here. Since you didn't respond to anyone who tried to talk to you on my blog, I tried to show you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that maybe you're just too busy to visit all of the blogs that mention your name, so I came and sent you a message here.

But perhaps you don't see that much benefit of the doubt as being significant but I do, especially after all of the pain that I've seen this site's moderation policies have caused the women of color who watch others of us being attacked and insulted as Nubian was when she posted here and as Samhita was when she posted about the Duke case.

This site received the benefit of the doubt from me for a very long time before it just hurt too much to come back regularly. If you put even a little effort into it, you'll find out that I'm not the only one, not by a long shot.

Bint,

You weren’t bashing Jessica? While your language is pretty diplomatic here, in your blog you accuse her of not being a feminist, and say that she’s a hypocrite and a clown (with the remainder of bloggers present at the Clinton lunch). Sounds a bit like bashing to me.

All you seem to try to be doing here is discredit Jessica’s position as an antiracist feminist, when the fact of the matter is -- as Tom said -- she is part of the solution, not the problem. While I think some of your questions are totally valid, the majority of your comments and blog post -- particularly targeting Jessica and Feministing -- are harsh and pretty unproductive. I do think it’s necessary to address the lack of diversity at the Clinton meeting and discuss it, but why attack her? Why not engage her instead of finger-pointing? These kinds of discussions depress the hell out of me, for they have no forward movement and usually result with an endless argument and serious sense of disconnect.

In regards to the attack of Nubian, I tried my best to moderate the comments that were posted in response to her interview with me. It is very hard to moderate comments over the weekend when I'm not home during its entirety.

I didn't purposely let Nubian, nor want Nubian to be attacked. My main concern was that I didn't want those comments to silence Nubian's voice or experiences. It is for this reason that I blocked further comments to Nubian's interview rather than taking her interview down.

I am now working on a feature for Colorlines magazine on the struggles poc bloggers face while blogging. Nubian and I have talked about her being a part of this feature and to discuss her experience on Feministing. If you have any poc bloggers you would like to recommend, please send them my way.

Hey Tom Head:

I better start out by saying that this message is likely to contain some misspellings and probably more grammar errors than the last one. I'm experiencing technical difficulties with one of my arms. :o(

Look, I won't pretend that I don't know what you're talking about when you mentioned my tone. Most of the writing I do is for the sciences where there isn't much use for those words that make for especially pleasant reading, so it can be a bit challenging for me to mix writing seriously while making my points in a way that's easily patable. Blogging helps but it's still something I recognize I need to work on.

I'm not anywhere near familiar with Sanskrit but I'm going to go out on a limb and take a guess. It looks like it comes from the Bagahvad Gita. Of course, that's the only sanskrit text I have a copy of so that might account for my guess. I'm not sure what it means though.

I think that "white blog" has several different meanings and I don't think all of a blogs' writers have to be white in order for it to be one just as I also don't think that it's necessarily a white blog if all of the writers are indeed white. I think that one major factor in deciding whether a blog is one I'd consider a "white blog" has to do with who it seems to be tailored to and what it focuses on. One blog I visited today is written by a white male but because the posts are mostly about the state of oncology today coupled with a few messages about the seasonal changes in flora around his neighborhood, I'd consider it a science or cancer blog, more than anything else. In most parts of Louisiana it seems like racism is a black and white issue but it's a little different in New Orleans because there is a significantly greater number of Asians and now in the post-Katrina period, there is an even larger Latino population added to the substantial one that was already here before that. Of course, the hurricane has pared down the number of black people here but it's still more diverse than the majority of the state.

Having lived on the west coast and in the Mid-West too, I know what you mean about the different kind of racism that one sees most often in different areas. If I had to choose one, I'd say I prefer dealing with the southern racists because at least people here are more likely to be up front about their racism and I just don't see the same unwillingness to acknowledge the role that race plays in people's behavior. I remember when I was working in a very large northern city for a while and on several occasions white people in my department suggested to me that I was probably happy to be away from all of racism of the deep south and so many of them expressed disbelief when I said that I truly didn't experience it any less in the North than I did in the South. In fact, I attempted to talk to Jane Hamsher about how the historically-different "brands" of racism seem to be at play here. Just based on my own very-unscientific opinion, it seems to be a lot easier for white people in the South to recognize racism than it is for white people in the North.

I definitely don't think that Jessica is a racist but I don't see her stance on this event as anti-racist either. Even if you don't see Jessica as being one of "those kinds of women" as you described, it doesn't mean that there aren't serious problems with how it was handled by the bloggers who attended (because it wouldn't be fair to say it's just her). As a matter of fact, she was the last one of them that I wrote to about this because I found her reaction to be the least offensive though it was still quite offensive.

But in this case, you're firing on a friendly.

Who was it friendly to? I haven't seen a single person of color in the other discussions I've been in that considered the feministing reaction to these issues describe it as friendly or even neutral. As a matter of fact, the people who've stated that they found it offensive weren't all people of color. Since you have had experiences with the feministing folks to lead you to your view, I hope you are able to understand why others take an entirely different view. We haven't all had the same experiences when it comes to them. If you've had good ones overall then I'm only sorry I can't honestly say the same.

Sorry for being a bit off-topic here, but are you really not white, Celina? I'm not doubintg you or anything, but in your About picture you look white to me.

Bint, the problem with your "couldn't they find another black blogger?" is that you're assuming blacks only get invited to events as tokens. There are no maximum quotas on the number of black people that say at most one attendee can be black. If there had been two black bloggers who were big enough to play on Clinton's level, didn't hate HRC, and could make it to the event, Daou would've invited both.

In fact, my past experiences with people who complain about insufficient representation of women and minorities leads me to believe that if Daou had in fact had invited a substitute non-white blogger, you'd have (rightly) called him a tokenist and a closeted racist.

As a matter of fact, she was the last one of them that I wrote to about this because I found her reaction to be the least offensive though it was still quite offensive.

So she didn't boycott the event, or raise hell about it. She still talked about the racial angle.

The "You're the least offensive person around here" tactic is so common there should be a special name for trolls who use it, just like trolls who use "You have to tone it down to appeal to moderates" are called concern trolls.

The racial equivalent of your comment is telling a black person, "Oh, I'm not talking about you - you're one of the good ones. I'm talking about how all other black people are welfare queens." If you say that, you're still a racist. Similarly, if you say similarly odious things about Jessica on account of her coming to the lunch and not writing 24/7 about the lack of non-white bloggers, you're still being offensive and ultimately trollish.

Bint writes:
Look, I won't pretend that I don't know what you're talking about when you mentioned my tone. Most of the writing I do is for the sciences where there isn't much use for those words that make for especially pleasant reading, so it can be a bit challenging for me to mix writing seriously while making my points in a way that's easily patable. Blogging helps but it's still something I recognize I need to work on.

That's okay; if I had a nickel for every time I flamed someone and didn't mean to, I'd probably be able to pay for their therapy. Please think nothing of it. I think what frustrated me most of all was that you had a point that I would have jumped behind happily if it didn't read like an attack.

I'm not anywhere near familiar with Sanskrit but I'm going to go out on a limb and take a guess. It looks like it comes from the Bhagavad Gita.

Chapter two of the Gita. You are correct!

Of course, that's the only sanskrit text I have a copy of so that might account for my guess. I'm not sure what it means though.

The funny thing is that I've forgotten what most of the Sanskrit text I've memorized means, too. I know the verse refers to Arjuna's pain on realizing that his family and friends are on the other side of the battlefield, and that he'll have to fight them. "ashrupurnakulekshanam" means "eyes downcast and full of tears"; I remember that much.

I think that "white blog" has several different meanings and I don't think all of a blogs' writers have to be white in order for it to be one just as I also don't think that it's necessarily a white blog if all of the writers are indeed white. I think that one major factor in deciding whether a blog is one I'd consider a "white blog" has to do with who it seems to be tailored to and what it focuses on. One blog I visited today is written by a white male but because the posts are mostly about the state of oncology today coupled with a few messages about the seasonal changes in flora around his neighborhood, I'd consider it a science or cancer blog, more than anything else.

Agreed. I'd call this a feminist blog myself, and it does touch on racial issues sometimes. In fact, I remember Jessica getting flamed by someone for talking about race too much--a poster told her it should be considered "off-topic" for this blog, as if this isn't all the same stuff.

I wanted to run a feminist blog, but I wasn't very good at it. I'm going to end up joining a feminist group blog one of these days.

In most parts of Louisiana it seems like racism is a black and white issue but it's a little different in New Orleans because there is a significantly greater number of Asians and now in the post-Katrina period, there is an even larger Latino population added to the substantial one that was already here before that.

This is fascinating to me. I'd covered the aftermath of Katrina as a whitening-of-New-Orleans thing, and I'm still completely disgusted with Mitch Landrieu for exploiting that, but it hadn't dawned on me that there might be other demographic changes...

Of course, the hurricane has pared down the number of black people here but it's still more diverse than the majority of the state.

We got between 5,000 and 15,000 of New Orleans' black population right here in Jackson, by the way. It has really added a lot to the city, and I'm hoping it'll have a long-term cultural impact on us--we were already overwhelmingly (73%) African-American, but we can use a little New Orleans infusion right about now.

If I had to choose one, I'd say I prefer dealing with the southern racists because at least people here are more likely to be up front about their racism and I just don't see the same unwillingness to acknowledge the role that race plays in people's behavior.

I'm one of the folks who benefits from racism, and I haven't traveled much, so there are a couple of asterisks to what I'm saying here--but I completely agree. It stuns me sometimes how wounded non-southerners are sometimes when I bring up race, you know? Like I'm getting on them about personal hygiene or something? I want to think that "the south will rise again" in the sense that southern progressives will show progressives in the rest of the country how to address racism directly and stop treating it like the alcoholic cousin nobody wants to talk about.

This is independent of the Feministing thing, of course. I really do think you haven't seen the same side of this site that I have (this has been the first site I've checked every morning for a long time, and on a lot of days it's the only blog I read), maybe because of the terrible blog commenters we had before moderation. There was a long time there when I only read the main text and didn't read the comments because I knew they'd make me too angry. First came the antifeminists, then came the "feminists" who didn't give a damn about race and pitch a fit every time Jessica and company treat it like a feminist issue. But by and large, they're all gone now. It's cleaned up remarkably well. Not that it's perfect--lord knows my blog isn't--but I can't think of another feminist blog not run primarily or exclusively by women of color that does a better job of covering race in my eyes. I mean, if you know of one, please let me know--I want to bookmark it--but I haven't found it yet.

Just based on my own very-unscientific opinion, it seems to be a lot easier for white people in the South to recognize racism than it is for white people in the North.

Agreed. I know a lot of upper-class and/or conservative whites round here who say they don't recognize it, but I think they're lying. Makes me think of the rasslin referees I watched as a kid, who pretended not to notice one guy hit the other with brass knucks.

I definitely don't think that Jessica is a racist but I don't see her stance on this event as anti-racist either.

I'm glad to see you make that distinction. I'm not 100% sure what the antiracist thing to do would have been, but it seems like an awfully good question to ask and look hard at.

Even if you don't see Jessica as being one of "those kinds of women" as you described, it doesn't mean that there aren't serious problems with how it was handled by the bloggers who attended (because it wouldn't be fair to say it's just her).

Well, I dunno. If there were some kind of open Jackson millionaire's party where only white people attended, I think that would speak to a deeper problem about who the millionaires are than it would about anything else. The truth is that people of color are treated like crap in the general blogging community, and there's not much social support on the antiracism issue. What we need is to really put our shoulders into building an antiracist blogging community. And yeah, that means covering issues more often and unapologetically here, and everywhere else. I'm not making one of those damn "sit back and wait for it to get better" arguments; I think we need to work our asses off. But at the same time, the problem is so much bigger than that blogging party. Taking it seriously is part of the solution, but when we're all standing in a giant pile of horseshit, I'm not going to get angry at folks if a little of it sticks to their shoes--as long as they kick it off.

As a matter of fact, she was the last one of them that I wrote to about this because I found her reaction to be the least offensive though it was still quite offensive.

Knowing Jessica, I'm sure she would have done more if she didn't have the whole ridiculous Althouse distraction to deal with. I mean, I'm guessing different people deal with "slut-shaming" in different ways. I'm a dude and not a very attractive dude at that, so if somebody tells me I'm obviousy trying to show off my butt in those jeans standing in front of Hillary Rodham Clinton, I'm not going to be really upset. But for some people, I'm sure it hurts.

Have you seen that documentary titled Slut! which aired on Sundance a few months back...? Once I got past the idiotic dance sequences that were there every 3-5 minutes, I got a real insight into how much that whole accusation hurts some people. I mean, Althouse was playing hardball.

Who was it friendly to? I haven't seen a single person of color in the other discussions I've been in that considered the feministing reaction to these issues describe it as friendly or even neutral.

Could you explain exactly what you mean here? I'm not sure I follow. Yeah, Jessica didn't cover it, and I can see how that might be seen as dismissive--but again, she was distracted by a nasty and sustained (three or four blog entries, at least one podcast, about 500 comments, and that was on Althouse's blog alone) personal attack. That screwed up her weekend and delayed her response to broader issues the blogger lunch raised.

As a matter of fact, the people who've stated that they found it offensive weren't all people of color.

FWIW, it wouldn't have mattered to me if it was. If people of color found it offensive, then that's worth discussing. Nobody has to bring whites into a thing like that to prove to me that it's not paranoia. I used to believe in race paranoia until I realized most of the people I'd grown up believing were paranoid about race were absolutely right and some of them were probably too optimistic.

Since you have had experiences with the feministing folks to lead you to your view, I hope you are able to understand why others take an entirely different view.

I do. I mean, I make no bones about it; I have a long-term intellectual and emotional investment in this site, I genuinely feel like I've gotten to know Jessica and Samhita, and if someone criticizes them here or anywhere else in a really aggressive way, I'm going to have their backs. Feministing is my favorite blog and has been for a while. But none of that means that it's a perfect blog, or that there isn't considerable room for improvement.

We haven't all had the same experiences when it comes to them. If you've had good ones overall then I'm only sorry I can't honestly say the same.

So am I, to be honest, because I read your post and I see someone who's bringing up some extremely valid concerns at a time and in a way that makes them blur together with some of the nasty trolling we've had lately as a result of the Althouse thing. And that's a shame, because your criticism is one that they--and I--could probably benefit from. Unlike the trollers, you're speaking from a place of genuine moral conviction about real concerns, and I respect that. I just wish you knew Jessica a little better, is all, because I'm almost certain you'd see her as an ally if you did.

Cheers,

TH

Vanessa, it's up to you to decide whether you feel I was bashing her. All I can say is what my motives are. If we should just decide what other people's motives are, then would you accept as truth whatever I claim yours are?

Furthermore, since you've claimed that I accuse Jessica of not being a feminist on my site, why don't you show all of the good folks here exactly where I said that. Yep, I said that having a problem with talking about a woman's body parts when it's her seems like hypocrisy to me when she has a post on her site where the same thing is being done. I'll gladly say this is something other than hypocrisy as soon as any one shows me how that's the case. If you think it's bashing someone to call them a hypocrite, then bashing must not be a bad thing given the fact that nobody's stated that they saw something wrong with using that term in reference to another person who has a problem with people discussing her body even though she has been responsible for the same sort of discussions about other people. If Schlessinger is hypocritical to do it, how can it be anything other than that when another person does it? Frankly I don't see any significant difference between someone making "jokes" (I suspect it may be a supposedly more-acceptable way of saying things the person means) about Jessica's body or about her being a "whore" and those made at feministing where the same sort of "jokes" saying that they wonder if a woman will "confess to being a wicked filth hoor" and saying that her nude photos should be made into giant placards. Come on! Are any of these statements better or more enlightened or more feminist than the others? If there is some difference between the two, it sure would be nice if someone could tell me what it is because I'm just not seeing it.

Have the writers over at feministing really not read what's been said about this issue? Do you realize that you are making the same claims the FireDogLake writers made when Liza Sabater dared to criticize what she saw as wrong about this event? I guess you're right about such conversations usually resulting in a serious sense of disconnect because it definitely seems like there is a disconnect between
1.why people of color have been discussions that are going on

and

2.what the bloggers who attended keep saying these people of color really think and feel and want.

Who sets the standard when it comes to what's "harsh and pretty unproductive"? Is a comment only productive when it doesn't contain anything that portrays someone we love in a bad light? Is it harsh to come to someone's blog and tell them that you have no plans to discuss what they're writing about?

Vanessa, how can this meeting be discussed when none of the bloggers who attended have focused on doing just that? Did I come here the day this occurred and say "Jessica isn't a feminist. She is a hypocrite and a racist because she met with Clinton. She doesn't care about people of color and this proves it"? In fact, did I ever say that on here or on my blog or on anyone else's blog? If you're really wondering why someone might not want to engage Jessica, you need look no further than what's on feministing. Instead of just assuming that I have bad motives and just want to make feministing look bad, why don't you look at what I've said here before? If this is just a case of bint alshamsa out to get Jessica, then how do you account for all of the other people of color who have discussed this here?

I don't see how being or not being labeled an "antiracist feminist" changes anything about this issue. As a matter of fact, I've never even used that term in my entire life, positively or negatively or any other way. It sounds like a rather pointless term if you ask me so I don't even see what the point would be in trying to attach or dettach it if that's either one is even a possibility in the first place. What Jessica has done in the past doesn't affect what she can say and do today to make this situation at least less awful as it is. Establishing whether Jessica has six or ten or a hundred people of color working at feministing doesn't change what she can do and say about this today. If it will tip the scales in favor of Jessica at least showing real regard for the issues about this event that are being raised by people of color then I stand ready and willing to pronounce Jessica Valenti to be the world's most magnificent antiracist feminist forevermore.

If it would make it easier for you, Jessica, Samhita, Celina or anyone else to actually go out and talk to people of color and see what they have to say about this issue, then just write me off as some deranged person with a mysterious and unjustified grudge against white people, white bloggers, white blogs, people with the first name Jessica, and anything else that might make you feel better. If it will get you to at least come and read what people there have said, come and denounce me and my statements on my blog. I'll post WHATEVER you want to say there.

I didn't come here trying to claim that I was so important that I deserve listening to. I came asking, begging, putting my dignity on the line, subjecting myself to the possibility that other people of color may view it as grovelling and others may attempt to tear me a new one just like they did others in the past. So, please tell me how this is an attempt to discredit Jessica. I made a request. I asked questions. I explained how I see things. If that was too demanding, if it wasn't couched between sweet enough words, then just ignore me. If you feel like I got out of line with you or calling these attendees "clowns" is simply more than you can bear to deal with, then I'll delete it all from my blog.

There are lots of people of color who are smarter than me, more committed feminists than me, more eloquent than me, and anything else that you might value in a person of color if you want to validate POC feelings about this.

But for God's sake, won't somebody please go and participate in the conversations that other people of color are having about this?

Celina,

As far as I'm concerned, you don't even need to say that you didn't purposely allow or want Nubian to be attacked. I've never thought that nor have I said it. Another blogger discussing this issue spoke about the different approaches that are being taken here. While many of the people of color are discussing the results of decisions, most of the attendees keep referring to the intentions that they believe people had. I haven't seen anyone claim that Daou's intentions were to exclude people of color. I also haven't seen anyone claim that Jessica or any other attendee went to this event with the purpose of creating a meeting lacking in diversity. However, what I have seen--and too much of it for me not to consider it indicative of a certain societal tendency--is people of color saying what they find problematic and then having those who are not people of color essentially tell them

"That's not what your real gripe is. You're attacking me/my friend because you are jealous/you hate white people/you just want to make yourself important by talking about me."

Celina, I can't speak for Nubian at all. I can say this, though: the effect of seeing those racist comments to Nubian and BlackAmazon (the other woman of color that was hounded in that same comment section) is one that being felt. If you want to know whether I'm exaggerating, just go and look the blog posts created by the people who have been attacked here. I know BlackAmazon for one has written about it and is still remembering it because she posted a message in my blog comments today about her experience with feministing to Jessica this morning.

My first job in the media was when I was very young (I still had a one in the tens' place of my age) so I know what it's like to be in a whirlpool of responsibility that would be impossible for a perfect person to handle all of the time. Still, my feeling is that what I create, what I write, is my "child" and a part of doing justice to the respect I should have for my "child" is that I have to see it through to the end and that child does something or causes something to happen, then I have to take responsibility for that because it's not a creation that can reach out and fix those things all by itself. Do I think you should have been able to catch every single awful comment right after it posted on the site? No. You're entitled to a life as much as anyone else is. However, I really, really wish that this interview wouldn't have been posted if no one was in a position to monitor the response to it--not minute by minute or even every hour. I'm just talking about having some kind of plan for regularly monitoring it. I don't think that anyone who isn't Feministing staff has any business telling you how to do your job and I know how problematic it can be even when the person does work with you. I'm trying to say what I think might have changed things now that there's the benefit of hindsight. I saw so many people in that thread asking "Where's the moderator?" If it turned out that you were a lot busier than you thought you'd be after posting that interview, maybe it have been better to pause the commenting feature until you were able to monitor it as regularly as you think it should have been. But I'm just one person and I'm not a very imaginative one at that, so maybe somebody else has even better ideas. Who knows? Let's shoot for the moon here. It could turn out that by regularly seeking feedback from people who come from different backgrounds. I bet a person who's blind could do a pretty good job of explaining what happens when they come to see what's being said here. Maybe you all already do this and if that's so, then I've gotta tell you that there's at least one glitch in the process because many people aren't getting the impression that this is a safe-space for some of those groups that I want to believe matters to you all.

Regarding your Colorlines feature:

Fantastic! I wish you well with that. I'll e-mail you with names of people I like and I appreciate your effort to cover this issue.

Alon:

There doesn't need to be any specific quota involved for someone to wind up being the de facto "token black". Perhaps if you were clearer about the term as it was being used, you'd have been one step closer to seeing what I said. Furthermore, if Daou had called up some black blogger at the last minute and found a person who could come, I wouldn't even have known about it because I haven't even been concerned about who was asked first or last and therefore had more or less notice than the other people.

Your experiences with other people mean nada to me. Attempts to predict what someone's reaction would be to situations that did not occur are too problematic to be logical. There are an infinite number of factors that could affect which particular reaction someone will have. In other words, predicting what would happen in a scenario that didn't exist because of events that hav already occurred only tends to work in movies, books, and plays because real people don't behave according to the whims of the person who wants their claim to turn out to be correct.

Nice try though.

Man, I just noticed that there are inumerable missing phrases in that post to you (Celina) now that I've read it again. Please forgive me if it's too difficult to read. I'll fill in any blanks if you can't figure out what in the world I was trying to say. Typing with one arm partially numb is definitely difficult and I'm hoping it will be better before I get to the point that I'm good at typing like this. :o(

I offer my apologies.

Celina, I can't speak for Nubian at all. I can say this, though: the effect of seeing those racist comments to Nubian and BlackAmazon (the other woman of color that was hounded in that same comment section) is one that being felt.

Point out to me what was racist in that comment thread. Disagreeing with a black person isn't racist; however, saying that people of a particular race have an inalienable right not to be disagreed with is.

You know, on one of the blogs that discussed the issue, BlackAmazon ranted about the need to make me "answer for my shit" or something of that sort. I directly challenged her to name one racist thing I or anyone else said in that thread. Fortunately for her, she parsed her original comment vaguely enough that when I called her on it she could back away, "I didn't say you're a racist." Unfortunately for you, you didn't.

The comments did get very heated and out of control towards Nubian's interview. I honestly thought that most readers would agree with her, and so didn't feel a need to take extra precaution when posting it. I also thought that those who agreed with Nubian, or posted more sensibly, would outnumber the posts that made the comments turn for the worse. But now I know, and will do better to moderate the interview.

And Alon, I wouldn't lie about this, and can't believe that I have to defend my racial/ethnic identity, but I am REALLY not White. I am Latina: Puerto Rican & Peruvian/first generation. Latinos/Latinas come in all shades; we're mixed peoples of Spanish, African, and Indigenous American blood.

Yep, I said that having a problem with talking about a woman's body parts when it's her seems like hypocrisy to me when she has a post on her site where the same thing is being done.

Does this imply that pointing out someone's hypocrisy makes them a hypocrite themself? Thats dangerous circular logic. And by its argument you could be called a hypocrite yourself, Bin, for pointing out the so-called hypocrisy of Jessica on your site.

Myself, I don't buy the premise. The post about Schlessinger was about pointing out the difference between her comments and her actions. If this constitutes hypocrisy, then I'm afraid its something we're all guilty of.

"That's not what your real gripe is. You're attacking me/my friend because you are jealous/you hate white people/you just want to make yourself important by talking about me."

This seems a little overboard. I haven't seen anything in this thread but people defending themselves politely from some valid observations that you've made. As Tom has pointed out, while your observations are valid your tone, from the first post, has been a little confrontational...
While some of the response posted might have been a little petulent, I haven't seen anything to justify this interpretation of them.

But as this thread concerns the lack of representation at the Clinton lunch of minority bloggers, I'm curious to know what you think should have been done. I agree with some of the things you've already said - that attendees should have asked for a list beforehand and reviewed it and possibly suggested improvements. But on arriving and seeing the make-up of the crowd - what in your opinion should Jess have done?

I honestly thought that most readers would agree with her, and so didn't feel a need to take extra precaution when posting it.

So did I. During the first few race skirmishes on Feministing, I agreed with Nubian, or stayed neutral (and I was seriously pissed at the gender-trumps-race radicals). The interview was something of a turnoff, but I'd have forgotten all about it in a day, attributing the eerie totalization of race to context.

And then when I said "This gets dangerously close to race-trumps-gender territory," Nubian said, "you are disgusting."

I can't speak for Ms. Jane, or EJ, or Noname, but my problem with Nubian started when she took out the flamethrower and started firing.

Also, I'm not attacking your identity, and I didn't think you were lying. I just got confused by the picture and the French-sounding family name.

Alon,

if the day ever comes that I find you to be worth proving something to, I'll be sure to try and do so. So far, you've been too illogical for me to take seriously. By the way, what do you think it says about you that you would actually ask Celina:

"Sorry for being a bit off-topic here, but are you really not white, Celina? I'm not doubintg you or anything, but in your About picture you look white to me."

That comment just adds to what I've been saying about the sort of comments that people make here. It never ceases to amaze me how people who seem to think of themselves as one of the "good ones" will think nothing of making statements like this.

Despite saying you aren't doubting her, that is exactly what you did when you asked the "are you really not white" question. It's another one of those things that people of color have to deal with on a much more regular basis than those who are not.

I have a cousin who's half Quechuan Bolivian and I have a daughter who, because of her ethnic mix, was extremely pale as a baby. If I had a dollar for everytime that I was with one of them and people felt free to assume that we weren't related to each other, I'd be rich. The fact that we have very different skin colors from each other was enough for people to ignore all the other similarities in our physical features.

The day that people actually understand that race is a social construct and attempts to match it with biological realities will always be problematic, maybe people of color will stop getting asked this stuff. Of course, the flip side of that is that as long as people think they have to intend on being offensive in order for anyone to have the right to be offended by what they do and say, then the disconnect between people of color and those who are not will continue to go on.

I agree. Alon, I'm not sure if you intentionally wanted to offend me by questioning my ethnic/racial identity in front of thousands of readers, but it was an offense. And whether you intended it or not, the action was disrespectful.

I post interviews for Feministing. I am not here to expose my personal life nor defend my identity when I say I am a woman of color.

Your asking me whether I was REALLY white had the underlying assumption that I was lying. Why would I be lying?

I would appreciate it if there was more respect shown in the future.

Celina, I didn't assume you were lying - I just got curious. The word "really" was one of those tone/body language replacements.

At least, that's modeled on the "Are you really 16/17/18?" questions I periodically get. I don't think that everyone who asks me whether I'm that young secretly thinks I'm 30...

if the day ever comes that I find you to be worth proving something to, I'll be sure to try and do so.

Well, you said there was racism in the Nubian thread, so obviously there's at least one person here you do find worth proving something to. I mean, it's illogical to think that something is worth saying but not defending...

"I don't care about you" smugness has its uses, but after you've already thrown your hat in the ring, it just makes you look like a buffoon.

Alon:

I have to side with Celina and the others on this one. She introduced herself as "a woman of color blogger", and the only way to read "are you really?" is with the implication that she's lying.

It's genuinely offensive. If you wanted to express curiosity about her skin tone, you needed to do so in such a way that made it clear that you weren't accusing her of lying (e.g. 'Please pardon me for asking, but what's your exact genetic background? I can't place it from the picture.').

So, you're saying that everybody who'd ask me "are you really 17?" based on my profile on my former blog really thought I wasn't... right?

I didn't express it clearly because I didn't think anyone would be dumb enough to think she's lying. At the time I thought adding something like "I'm not doubting you" would make it look like I was apologizing for something.

I don't know about you, but when people ask me "Are you an atheist?" it's far less likely to offend me than if they ask me, "Are you an atheist? Not that I have anything against atheists, of course... no, I don't, but, um, are you one?"

You can't honestly expect me to guess that people would be offended at the sort of questions that don't offend me or for that matter anyone else who I've seen asked such a question.

Alon:

In the case of your blog, there is at least the ambiguity that perhaps they thought that whatever biographical information you had there was out of date. But yes, I would assume that anyone who asked you "are you really 17?" was entertaining doubts that you were really 17. That is, after all, the point of the question.

And note that my example didn't include "I'm not doubting you"; it attempted to sidestep any implication of falsity entirely.

Your sudden analogy to questions about atheism is completely disingenuous as well; the analogy isn't to someone asking "Are you an atheist?" out of the blue, but to you leading off a conversation with "As someone who is himself an atheist, let me answer that..." and then immediately have that followed up by a skeptical "Are you really an atheist? You sure don't sound like one."

And yes, I do honestly expect you to know that when you express doubt that someone's immediately expressed prior claim is true, it's going to be taken that you think the person might be lying, and I also honestly expect you to know that it's offensive.

Now that you've offended someone by doing just that, I hope you take that lesson to heart.

In the case of your blog, there is at least the ambiguity that perhaps they thought that whatever biographical information you had there was out of date.

At least one of those times, I flatly said I was 17, and got a "Really?" in response. It sounded more like a surprised reaction than real disbelief.

If I tell a friend something like, "My advisor told me I'm the best student he's had in 10 years," and she asks, "Really?", I'm not going to assume she thinks I'm lying (note: unlike the other examples I've brought in this thread, this hasn't actually happened).

Your sudden analogy to questions about atheism is completely disingenuous as well; the analogy isn't to someone asking "Are you an atheist?" out of the blue, but to you leading off a conversation with "As someone who is himself an atheist, let me answer that..." and then immediately have that followed up by a skeptical "Are you really an atheist? You sure don't sound like one."

But Celina really didn't look nonwhite, based on her bio picture. An atheism analogy like yours would require the atheist to have said something characteristically non-atheistic, like talking positively about religious morality.

Alon:

Again, you are being somewhat disingenuous. A reply of "Really?" is (depending on intonation) in the same category as "Hmm?" or "Oh?" -- a relatively content-free indicator for "please continue".

Let's bring up what you wrote for comparison:

Sorry for being a bit off-topic here, but are you really not white, Celina? I'm not doubintg you or anything, but in your About picture you look white to me.

"Are you really an atheist? I'm not doubting you or anything, but you sure don't sound like one." (And the "I'm not doubting you" bit makes it worse, because it's inherently self-contradictory in that context and looks dishonest.)

But Celina really didn't look nonwhite, based on her bio picture. An atheism analogy like yours would require the atheist to have said something characteristically non-atheistic, like talking positively about religious morality.

I'm not intending to speculate on whether you intended to publically imply dishonesty. I am just trying to make it clear to you that you did -- and that if you do it again, you'll probably get a similar reaction in the future.

Sure, in which case there may be a solid case to be made for implying that you think the speaker is lying

No, there's a solid case to be made for implying that what the speaker says doesn't square with previously-given information. It doesn't imply dishonesty; it implies that there exists some dissonance to be explained. If someone mentions religious morality positively and then says he's an atheist, I'm not going to doubt him (well, unless he gives an indication he says he's an atheist only to make people tolerate any atheist-bashing on his part); I'm just going to ask to be sure, or to sort out the dissonance.

I'm not intending to speculate on whether you intended to publically imply dishonesty. I am just trying to make it clear to you that you did -- and that if you do it again, you'll probably get a similar reaction in the future.

That's an empirical question. I've asked people similar questions in the past and gotten neutral reactions. I've been asked similar questions in the past and wasn't offended. I know people who have asked these questions and gotten neutral reactions. So if one time out of I don't know how many there was a negative reaction, it's not likely I'm going to encounter the same reaction in the future a lot.

Oh, lordy.

Just for clarification, Alon Levy:

And then when I said "This gets dangerously close to race-trumps-gender territory," Nubian said, "you are disgusting."

A statement like this does offend me and does appear both racist and sexist to me because as a black woman, I can't choose what -ism people categorize me under when speaking to me. There is no trump. There's always a simultaneous othering when people speak to me about my perspectives on race and gender that simultaneously lumps them together because they're both from oppression and separates them because they're different types of oppression.

I joined Feministing after reading the interview with Nubian's comments thread, and I think people did not realize how overtly rude they were behaving in reaction to Nubian's interview. I'm getting a strange sort of confirmation here, and I'm glad that comments were frozen by the time I got there. Not because it kept me from saying anything, but because it ended the paltry exchanges that can hardly be considered a full discussion.

On a personal tangent, I heard about Jessica's scarlet letter so to speak while reading the "Our Bodies" blog. I'd seen very little discussion on the absence of bloggers of color in Harlem except on one or two blogs ran by people of color. And as I've said earlier, I felt very upset about Jessica's situation with Althouse.

However. I also felt upset that the black bloggers incident wasn't written up earlier. I was upset that the other feminist blogs I traveled to spent more time on Jessica's breasts than on this other significant absence, and the comments also spoke to the same disparities. I felt divided and indignant, as if I had to choose between being black and ignore Jessica's treatment or being female and ignoring the fact black bloggers didn't even get to Harlem for the event.

It annoyed me that a full day had been devoted to a very detailed account of how beautiful Jessica was and how she did nothing wrong and only a short paragraph or so was given to the fact black bloggers weren't there. I was glad a feminist blogger was invited and did attend, but I can't honestly say with a straight face I felt represented as a black woman, and these conversations are the exact reason why I can't say it.

I tried starting my own blog recently about anti-essentialism in feminism and my experiences, meaning to broach this topic, trying to find my words -- but I face the same wall on losing the strength to start it. I feel like any comments I could make will spiral into a contradiction of my identity. I can't be black and a woman at the same time because someone will accuse me of overplaying myself.

Also, to Vanessa:

You weren’t bashing Jessica? While your language is pretty diplomatic here, in your blog

And this is where the derailment starts. Why are you bashing Bint if you admit she's being diplomatic in her discussion with Jessica here and now? In fact, she's making an attempt to engage Jessica in a discussion about what happened. But the accusations of trolling and attacking without that golden clarification of intent seems pretty evident from your post and a few others in this thread. I find this wholly ironic because Bint is doing the same with Jessica's actions in treating and discussing the absence of bloggers of color. She's not delving into intent; she's evaluating the treatment of the situations. And yet, she's being castigated for ignoring intent while her actions are judged solely without intent simultaneously.

I was there during the early phase of the Nubian discussion. In retrospect I wish I'd stayed to back her up in the later posts. I have never had anything but respect for her and am constantly amazed at the hostile reaction she has gotten, both on her own blog and here. Reading her blog has given me very little to disagree with and absolutely nothing to condemn. By and large she speaks the truth, and it depresses me that people go after her to the extent that they do.

I'm not quite sure how this is supposed to reflect poorly on Jessica, but I certainly agree that Nubian, one of my all-time favorite bloggers, gets treated like dirt on a regular basis for no reason I can comprehend other than abject white racism.

Cheers,

TH

Dumbass... she says what we're all thinking.

A statement like this does offend me and does appear both racist and sexist to me because as a black woman, I can't choose what -ism people categorize me under when speaking to me. There is no trump. There's always a simultaneous othering when people speak to me about my perspectives on race and gender that simultaneously lumps them together because they're both from oppression and separates them because they're different types of oppression.

Right... there is no trump. I'd be lying if I told you what turned me off most about radical feminism was its gender-trumps-race undertone, but it always irked me and I railed against it when I regularly commented on Reclusive Leftist.

It's always been my position that there are multiple oppressions at work. Some are obviously worse than others - for example, anti-black racism is definitely worse than anti-Semitism - but many are incomparable. I know the world is more complicated than A-trumps-B people think it is.

In short, judging by your comment, I'm pretty sure that whatever you say about the interplay between race and gender oppression I already agree with.

Unfortunately, Celina isn't the first person of color on this site who has been on the receiving end of Alon's offensive statements to people of color. Really, it doesn't matter whether or not he'd be offended if someone asked him a particular question. What matters is that it was inappropriate for him to ask someone what he did even if he doesn't want to accept that.

When you get a thread where there are a several individuals like Alon, who really think that people of color should be willing to prove things to their satisfaction or else not make claims, conversations quickly go in the same direction as they have in the past when race has been discussed (e.g. the Nubian and Samhita incidents).

And what happens when the targeted person of color points out that they are offended? Well, often the offender will basically say something like this to the person of color:

"Well the other people of color that I know don't have any problem with how I behave and what I say, so you're just being overly-sensitive, whiney, or abrasive if you have a problem with it."

I think it's a lot easier for some people to just dismiss the concerns or "gripes" of people of color because their privileged state affords them that luxury. However, the fact that they can brush it off doesn't mean it's ethical for them to do so. Sadly, it's hard for some people to acknowledge that this is what they're doing because they really do see themselves as "good people". Not everyone will do it as often as Alon does, so I think that a lot of people aren't even aware of it when they do. However, the attitude that Alon exhibited even after having been told that his comments were offensive constitutes a useful example to consider because it reflects what COMMONLY happens when people of color decide to speak up about what has offended them in a world where they, we, are less valued.

Any white person who wants people of color to see them as one of "the good ones" probably needs to know that it just won't happen if the person of color has to prove and re-prove themselves in order to be taken seriously. The fact that you might have a person of color as your friend doesn't mean you aren't subjecting other people of color to this.

Zed:

In the case of your blog, there is at least the ambiguity that perhaps they thought that whatever biographical information you had there was out of date.

This is a good point. Alon's attempt to compare what he said to Celina to questions about his age just doesn't work for several reasons. Unlike age, ethnicity doesn't change over time. He's simply being "untruthful" in the claim that he wasn't doubting her. If he wasn't doubting her, he'd know that if she said she was a person of color in the past then she's still a person of color today.

Alon seems to be an opportunist of sorts. Over and over again I've seen him jump into conversations about race and use them as opportunities to make very offensive statements towards people of color.

As far as I'm concerned, Nubian was right. He is disgusting.

"As for the white parade, I wouldn't be allowed there since I'm not white (well, 50%)." - noname

"Oh, I have a feeling you'd qualify to be the grand marshall of that parade." - bint alshamsa

Here is the link:
http://feministing.com/archives/005133.html#comment-38504

Interesting.

What Samhita incident?

Alon seems to be an opportunist of sorts. Over and over again I've seen him jump into conversations about race and use them as opportunities to make very offensive statements towards people of color.

As far as I'm concerned, Nubian was right. He is disgusting.

First of all - if you haven't notices, alon jumps into ALL conversations. Its not just conversations on color... its ANY conversation that he can say ANYTHING about.

I think calling him disgusting is a bit off base. ...When he told me where he was born the first time I said "really you were born there??" ...sort of like a "i never would have guessed it" or "wow, didnt get that from your accent" sort of thing. I don't think Alon knew the implications of what he was saying at the time and was more just... suprised. I'm not saying that justifies it, and I'm still not sure why he hasn't apologized at all - but disgusting is over the top, imo.

First, Kian, I'm pretty sure your first non-italicized line was supposed to be italicized.

Second, what implications? Celina was the first person who got offended when I or anybody I know asked. People I know outside the blogosphere tell me that when they ask people they know online, "Uh, are you black?" the other people laugh about it. Apparently, people who don't assume the asker has an agenda just don't get offended.

Alon:

It has been pointed out to you repeatedly that the issue is not being asked your race online, and at this point I am starting to come to the conclusion that you are well aware of this and are being deliberately dishonest. The issue is that your question directly followed Celina writing that she wasn't white, and that implied that Celina was lying (and incidentally carried with it the subtext that Celina was somehow obligated to prove her non-whiteness to you). Whether or not this originated from intent or from some quirk of expression in your local social circle that gets ignored as a semantic null among your friends, you've just run smack dab into a part of the world where things are obviously different, because the people there are telling you so, repeatedly. You don't get to dictate how other people have to react to what you say or write; you only get to modify what you say or write to reach that audience. If you were attempting to express only inoffensive surprise, you failed badly, at least for this audience.

You are the only person here who doesn't seem to understand this, or that believes that there's nothing offensive in what you did.

Furthermore (though I don't have enough background information on exactly what you've said before to comment on the merits), you've apparently managed to offend a number of the non-Caucasians in this forum so frequently that they now think you're a racist. You might want to stop and think for a while on what you're doing to cause this response.

I'll give you a free tip, though: you could probably have mostly gotten out of this with a simple apology along the lines of "Er, I'm sorry, I wasn't attempting to imply you were lying, it's just a turn of phrase where I live when you're surprised, and I got surprised by your picture. I'll try to be more careful about what I write." (In fact, you might still be able to do this, even now.) Trying to declare your righteousness is only digging you in deeper, as is usually the case when you've offended someone.

Whether or not this originated from intent or from some quirk of expression in your local social circle that gets ignored as a semantic null among your friends, you've just run smack dab into a part of the world where things are obviously different, because the people there are telling you so, repeatedly.

If I were obsessed about possible oppression, I could rant factlessly about how you're just prejudiced against non-Americans. But I'm not going to dwell on that because I have no evidence for any prejudice on your part.

For your information, the "part of the world" I'm talking about crosses state borders. That people I was talking about come from the US, Canada, Israel, Pakistan, the Netherlands, China, and Britain. I'm pretty sure that whatever problem there is with the people I know, provincialism isn't one of them.

Furthermore, you've apparently managed to offend a number of the non-Caucasians in this forum so frequently that they now think you're a racist. You might want to stop and think for a while on what you're doing to cause this response.

Plenty of pro-Palestinian people manage to piss off a lot of Jews. Does it mean they should stop talking about the evils of the occupation because it offends some people?

If someone calls me a racist and can't point out to a single racist thing I said, preferring instead to wallow in "I don't have to prove myself to you" smugness, it's not my fault.

I think you're missing the point. No one is overtly calling you a racist; people are just explaining that your comment had a lot of racially insensitive overtones. There's a difference; you may not have said it intentionally or meant it in that way. But asking someone to specify her ethnicity for you just because you can't figure it out is rude. Celina wasn't obligated to answer you, but she shouldn't have even been put in the position of being asked. It's irrelevant to this entire exchange and is derailing the point of this post.

So while it's perhaps fun to pick on Alon, can we get back to the Clinton lunch? We managed to stay on topic with the Althouse discussion.

So while it's perhaps fun to pick on Alon, can we get back to the Clinton lunch? We managed to stay on topic with the Althouse discussion.

I dont think people can just attack him, and then expect it to be dropped.

First, Ive gone back to read this apparently apocolyptic and disgusting nubian thread and I dont see Alon being racist at all - I see him pointing out some negative things about the interview and that being mistaken for him not just disagreeing - but attacking race and being 'disgusting', when really they were legit. points that he was making.

Its the same with this thread. Although I think because alon probably should have given some sort of apology for offending celina what he says was not racist, it has no racist undertones, it was not an attack on her race and it was not implying that she was lying.

Plenty of pro-Palestinian people manage to piss off a lot of Jews. Does it mean they should stop talking about the evils of the occupation because it offends some people?

He makes a good point here that it seems like when ever he questions, or makes a negative comment about not the person but rather something the person has said his point isn't listened to and he is just deemed a racist for questioning someone of color.

" anti-black racism is definitely worse than anti-Semitism"

Not to be petty, but by "worse," you mean "far more damaging and pervasive in the current socio-cultural climate of the first world," not "less morally acceptable," right?

"by "worse," you mean "far more damaging and pervasive in the current socio-cultural climate of the first world," not "less morally acceptable," right?"

Of course!! I don’t think anybody would claim that anti-Semitism is more morally acceptable than anti- other folks! At least surely not someone named Levy!

Please stay on topic of the lack of bloggers of color at the luncheon. Last I heard Daou invited 4 or 5 bloggers of color out of 14 or 15 guests, the bloggers of color couldn't attend so were replaced at last minute by people he knew personally who would represent at this event. Another thing is it was an informal event and as far as I know the only person taking pictures was one of John Aravosis' friends and co-bloggers. Daou will probably be more careful about outcomes next time. Pam Spaulding was invited to the Clinton Global Initiative which started Tuesday and ends today, for example.

Not to be petty, but by "worse," you mean "far more damaging and pervasive in the current socio-cultural climate of the first world," not "less morally acceptable," right?

Of course. I don't think any kind of racism is acceptable under any circumstance, but it's obvious some ethnic groups are more oppressed than others. There are hate crimes against Jews in this country, but they pale in comparison to hate crimes against blacks, and last time I checked, there's no Jew-Gentile wage gap (at least not in gentiles' favor).

Oh, good, I'm glad to hear that about Pam; she deserves it.

Oh, good, I'm glad to hear that about Pam; she deserves it.

I already responded over at Bint's (whom I respect enormously, p.s.), but I'll just throw in a little here:

>
Bint, some of your criticisms--the constructive ones--seem valid to me. "Do better, and here's how" is always advice I'm happy to hear.

But I'm distracted by the tone of your post, which reads like an askew defense of Althouse--whose response, if she were part of an all-white group (as I suspect she usually is), would probably be "So what?">

I think that this context is important, in this instance. I am also disgusted with the level of defensiveness at say firedoglake (and goes beyond mere defensiveness, frankly). But in this case I can well understand Jessica being more defensive than she might ordinarily be, perhaps: she's just been under a rather severe and personal and sustained attack (for an entirely unrelated reason, and in my book -entirely- unprovoked and undeserved). And sure, Jessica and other people are going to bristle at anything that looks like it might be even obliquely saying Althouse was right.

I've had feministing linked for a long time, but hadn't stoped in for a good while. I remember being put off by both what happened in the nubian interview and the attacks on Samhita. I was also frustrated at what seemed to me (and I have heard others cite as) insufficient moderation for those attacks. I did not especially think to blame Jessica for this, or to think of feministing itself (as opposed to a number of the posters in it) as a particularly racist or race-blind site; I hadn't really read thoroughly enough at the time to judge. Don't really know Jessica at all, tell the truth. Since coming back, taking my own predilection for race-blindness into account (i am white), i wanted to keep an open mind about this bit, much as i immediately rallied to the defense against the loathsome Althouse businses.

And whatever it says about me, I have to say, I respect the, what looks from here like honesty and willingness to engage, if (as she cops to) defensiveness and anger also, from Jessica, in her response to BA here.

I'm willing to hear more wrt peoples' reservations about structural racism on the site in general, but I have to say that thus far I can't find much to fault Jessica herself for. Neglect at most is what I'm reading from the charge; but, well, yeah, I've said my piece. In general, just based on the overall context of, well, everything that I know thus far, my inclination is to cut the woman some slack. Others' mileage may vary, and they're certainly entitled to it.

...and that I am (still reading down all the comments, but) finding the TB/BA dialogue engaging and productive.

TH, that is.

(to be clear: was also not singling out Alon, whom I also like, as being racist on that long-ago thread; I thought I remembered at least one other, earlier thread as well; perhaps the source of the original "gender trumps race" thing? not that it matters at this point. and i take on board that it is difficult to keep on top of busy threads; I am aware of how easy it is to Blame The Mods in these situations).

and, apologies for the multiple posts, but finally: skyanide, I do hope you go ahead and start your blog. I'd read it.