Lately, there have been some things going on in the loose, yet bizarrely limiting category of the feminist blogosphere. They have gotten me to thinking about social change, feminist activism and how it is connected to blogging and new media. This is one of those, "I am going to think out loud posts," so bear with me.
In light of recent conversations about inclusion and exclusion within the blog world, there are some facts that are apparent. Some voices are considered more legitimate than others and it doesn't exactly take rocket science to figure out why. Online interactions or power relations mirror the real world in many ways, so if you look at who is dominating dialog in mainstream media, sometimes you see those same patterns online. It is not true across the board, but generally, the words, thoughts and analysis of not just certain demographics, but also certain points of view, for example more centrist liberal ideology, is privileged.
But, I guess I already know that, since I have been blogging here for a long time and have felt first hand what it means to be a woman of color that says radical things in a very public way. It means getting threatened, it means being challenged, it means having my credibility laughed at, it means sometimes and often feeling delegitimized and stupid, it means not being linked, even when I wrote about something first. And blogging for what is considered a big feminist blog, it means being made to feel like an outsider, a betrayer to my community, someone who has stepped outside the confines of home and community, speaking my truths on someone else's soil (even though it is my soil, I have tilled and planted and I get to decide what grows and I have ownership of my croppage, and total rights to replant, haha, to continue with the metaphor if you will...). And obviously, I don't agree with all these criticisms, I can hear them, but in general, I know what I am doing and why I am doing it. I own that shit. But I am human and shit gets under my skin. I am sensitive, I get affected, I even cry (probably more often then I should.)
This analysis of race and class has been extended to which voices get heard in the feminist blogosphere. I don't want to minimize the extent to which it has been discussed, but I am not going to rehash old debates. I have written about the topic of racism and feminism before. But right now, I am just going to talk about myself. My work speaks for itself and I have let go of the belief that I can make everyone happy. Sometimes we won't get along, sometimes we just won't be friends.
What I am wondering about though is what is the meaning of all of this? Why do we blog? And is the reason we blog for our own individual voices to be heard? Or the voices of our communities? Hell, what does community look like online? I love many co-bloggers and commenters, both on Feministing and off, but my real friends are the ones I have met face to face, that have looked in my eyes and I into theirs. That does not mean that the community I build online isn't meaningful, it is. It is just different.
After working in the social change sector, I learned that everything is strategic and blogging has become one way to rally support around key issues. And it is a powerful way to do it. It is not perfect by any means, but despite all the opposition I have faced and despite all the racism that is embedded within this powerful tool and the inequitable power relations that are reproduced online, I realize this tool is not just about my own voice. It is about the stories we give light to, it is about the campaigns we support, it is about the tragedies we expose. Oftentimes, I am just the fire starter.
For me, staying rooted in a vision for social change and social justice allows me to make sense of the day to day pain of the racism, sexism, classism or othering I have experienced frequently here on the internet. I know I have a community of support behind me and I support them in the work that they do, by highlighting their campaign and their on the ground actions. That is why I blog, but obviously it is not the only reason.
I also blog because I know that I have had certain life experiences that are not documented in mainstream media or in mainstream feminism and I know there are young women everywhere that can relate to my stories. I also know there are people that appreciate my point of view and my analysis on issues, a perspective that is not often given in mainstream media. I blog because I have been given this tremendous opportunity that comes with great responsibility and I don't take it lightly. I do my best with the resources I have and I am here and I am present and I am "Fired up and Ready to Go!"
And sometimes, I get to meet people face to face and they tell me about how I changed the way they look at something, or someone running a campaign tells me that my exposure helped them get more support. And I feel really good about that and I realize that despite all the drama and all the problems with the tools themselves and the way they have manifested, I am doing what I want to be and I am accountable to who I need to be. I don't want to seem naive, because I know, we should all be so lucky. But I must say, I am lucky and I am thankful and I love blogging. And I am not going to apologize for my success at it.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Why do I blog?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12245
This blog means a lot to me. Thank you for blogging.
I wonder sometimes why I blog. And then something like this happens and I'm typing frantically until five in the morning and I wonder how I could live if I didn't blog!
Discovering Feministing, and your posts in particular, has given me the strength and resolve to own up to, and openly explore, my personal feminism.
Until now, I've erred on the side of silence when it comes to sharing my views. Being a small-town, small-college lesbian is tough enough- but a bold, feminist, far-left lesbian? I've been too fearful of coming across as a stereotype, at the expense of standing up for things I believe in.
Your blogging and the Feministing community have encouraged me to come out of my shell: to fess up to my ideas, challenge myself with harder questions, and add even more books to my reading list & bookmarks to my browser- and to talk about it without shame as I go.
So thank you for blogging, and for persisting in your blogging- you are appreciated more than you know. And if I ever get my own blog off the back burner, I will sure as hell be linking to you.
Well, it was always narcissism for me until I shitcanned the whole thing.
You are such a liar norbizness. But your lies are funny :)
I appreciate your "I am going to think out loud posts" and I have a follow up question for you and the rest of the Feministing writers...
Do y'all ever feel like the feminist blogosphere has created a false sense of activity and effectiveness in the feminist community? We have a lot of IMPORTANT conversations online... but it seems to me that all the talk makes us feel like we accomplish more than we actually do...
thanks! Yeah, I think it is difficult to quantify and many times based on what the particular blogger wants to get out of blogging. If your goal is to affect social change there are ways to do that, if your goal is to be a writer that is possible as well and naturally the two paths cross. I think there is a lot to be said and written about this question of whether online activism affects social change and it is difficult to quantify. We do know that it serves as a very effective microphone to bring light to issues, which does affect the general voting public and then how policy is made. So, yes, I think there is a connection, it is just difficult to quantify.
to petya,
i don't think the feminist blogosphere has created a false sense of activity and effectiveness, though i've felt like that a sometimes. consciousness raising has always been a part of any form of activism, and blogging is modern consciousness raising. that doesn't mean all the bloggers are active in creating social change, but most people weren't activists before blogging became popular. the lack of populism in america is more of a result of fierce capitalism and oppression from corporations.
when i was in college, i was really active in my community and didn't have time for blogging. now i blog because i live in an environment that's pretty hostile to my views and i need to keep the feminist connections alive. also i don't have enough opportunities in my current place to devote enough time and energy to actual action, so blogging at least conveys my thoughts to others, and perhaps change a few opinions here and there. i've always realized how much ignorance there is even among feminists in regards to race/ethnicity and i feel responsible to speak up even more. perhaps by blog cred will even become handy when i work for social change in the future.
gaffe...i meant to say in the last sentence that i DIDN'T realize how much ignorance still exists in the feminist community
but why don't some people deserve to be taken seriously? is it because they've done something specific that has made you lose your trust in them or because people have preconceived notion of who's "objective" and who isn't?
of course WOC is a plausible explanation for not being taken seriously. our experiences are continuously challenged by people who haven't experienced the same things, who have never thought about how they benefitted from historical institutionalized racism. that basically translates to them saying racism is in our heads rather than in our lives. take for example how Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are blamed for "victimhood mentality" when the points they're raising are the reality, not mentality of POC. it's as if media "pundits" dismiss their viewpoints as crazy even before they consider the merits, even though they have no idea what it's like to be a POC. obama, for political reasons, couldn't speak out the same way as other anti-racists and the white media men were so relieved to declare a "post racial" era.
Actually, I had to delete that comment. It didn't just offend me, it was inaccurate. If you don't like my posts, don't read them. There are a lot of people that do.
Samhita, I was explaining why it is that for some time, I often didn't read your posts. I think it is a little knee-jerk to arrive at the idea that your words are not always taken seriously because of the colour of your skin before considering (or admitting) that it might sometimes be what the words themselves are. Isn't this called self-reflection? I thought that was meant to be something to strive for. I know that a lot of people read your posts - I also know that a lot of people have called you out when being thoughtless (e.g. the "Bud Light promotes rape" post).
I just cannot believe you deleted that comment, since doing so demonstrates exactly what I was talking about.
Rosie, I am super open to criticism. I wouldn't blog if I wasn't.
But the way you are stating your criticism is interpreted as, "Samhita, people ignore you because you are a bad writer, not because you are brown!" So i can't really imagine you are shocked that I deleted you.
Not everything I write is going to hit home. Actually, you might benefit from giving me another chance.
We just disagree. I think I am very thoughtful:)
Samhita, this is a thread about a post *you* wrote questioning why your posts are dismissed by other people. As such, you invited any reasonable discussion of that question.
I replied saying that the obvious answer to "why aren't I being listened to" is "what I'm saying isn't interesting", which, in the context, doesn't seem like an offensive thing to say. And I hardly see how it can be inaccurate, given that it is conjectural.
I went on to say - on being questioned by feministinmissisippi - that personally I found your brand of feminism repressive. Which is simply a statement of opinion invied by the topic.
You then deleted what I said: quite a comeback. ;) I would report you for abuse, except that I can't work the "Mac email" application, and odds are you would be the moderator I would report to anyway.
I replied saying that the obvious answer to "why aren't I being listened to" is "what I'm saying isn't interesting", which, in the context, doesn't seem like an offensive thing to say. And I hardly see how it can be inaccurate, given that it is conjectural.
This is the problem. Not that you don't find Samhita's writing compelling, but that you think *the* obvious answer to why a blogger's work would be dismissed or why someone might not listen to her is that it isn't interesting. In a post about racism in the feminist blogosphere.
That completely negates and erases the reality that racism plays a huge part in whose voices and perspectives are considered valuable and worthwhile. It's not simply that people, individually, choose to read or not to read bloggers of color (although that's the case, too), but also that, in a systemic way, racism privileges and values the opinions and views of whiteness. That means that non-white voices, and voices of those who alter from a mainstream 'white' perspective, are more likely be discounted and dismissed. Whiteness confers an unearned authority to our words and opinions, and also simultaneously dismisses and undervalues the perspectives and views of POC.
This is not just about any single white person choosing to read x, y, or z blog or blogger. It's about a systemic ideology of white supremacy that is reflected and normalized throughout white-dominated societies, and that is very relevant in the collective process of conferring legitimacy and authority.