As many of you know, a group of disability rights activists organized to call us out on our lack of coverage on disability issues and ongoing problem with ableist language at Feministing (sometimes on the part of editors, but mostly popping up in the comments sections). Some ableist language that I used in this post was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. I apologized, pointing out that I really don't know enough about the field of disability rights and activism and want to learn more. And Miriam jumped on board to serve as another representative of Feministing who was interested in forwarding the dialogue about this intersection and it's presence or lack there of on our site and in feminism at large.
We moved forward by scheduling an online chat between these activists, who meanwhile started their own blog (their abelist word profiles are really enlightening, as are their regular recommended readings, and fantastic general content), Miriam, and myself. It was a productive and affirming experience for me personally. This group of activists and bloggers communicated their suggestions with incredible clarity and coordination, and as it turns out, most of their ideas were things that Miriam and I were either already discussing or open to implementing. The summary of the suggestions appear after the jump.
One of our problems, related to this issue and others, is capacity. We continue to maintain Feministing without enough time or money to realize our full vision of what it should be. Nevertheless, it was empowering, for lack of a less overused word, to go through this process of being called out on my own ignorance, widening the frame to the larger issue of the intersection between feminism and disability rights activism, dialoguing with a bunch of awesome activists, and now I'm excited to implement and learn more.
The crew is following up with some suggested resources (readings and the like), so I'll definitely communicate about that to the larger Feministing community. Meanwhile, we're excited to have a model of how to deal with criticism that makes us a better blog, makes each of us individually better thinkers/activists, and moves the movement forward. Thanks so much to the crew of folks from all over the world who are engaging with us in this process. You, in a word, rock.
In terms of addressing the capacity issues that this (and other situations in the past) have brought up, we're working hard at finding new solutions to deal with the volume and vibrancy of the Feministing community. A big part of this is comment moderation, which we'll be talking more about new ways to strengthen our ability to do this. We implemented a new policy this summer, in direct response to similar feedback about comment sections, and we're still evolving that policy. We'll make sure to keep folks updated as changes happen, but you should expect to see more posts with pre-approved comments as one way for us to better moderate.
The other main thing that this particular engagement brought up is our ability to be a truly intersectional feminist website. It's something we've struggled with before as we all bring different identities and expertise to the table. One way we open this up is the community blog, but we realize that's not enough. We're committed to continuing these dialogues to develop how all sorts of important issues that intersect with feminism are represented at Feministing.
The full summary of the suggestions from the group we engaged with appear after the jump. You can also see the transcript of our chat here.
And here's a quick recap of our substantive suggestions:
* A concrete statement of the site's commitment to intersectionality issues, to address what seems to be a popular feeling among commenters that the site is "Feministing, not SocialJusticeing." Whether a joint post for site authors or another mechanism turns out to be the best way to make this statement was undecided during the chat.
* Guest posts from people with disabilities focusing on a wide range of disability issues. Talks with Patty Berne had begun before these issues were raised and she may do more guest posts or potentially contribute to the site. We clarified our desire to see a wider range of issues addressed than have been in the past 2 years or so, when the only explicit focus on people with disabilities has been about performance art groups. Other potential areas to cover include political issues, health issues, employment issues, etc.
* Increased accessibility of the site itself. Miriam mentioned a current site redesign is in process, so it would be an excellent time to incorporate some increased accessibility. We suggested using this site to identify accessibility barriers and suggestions for fixes: http://wave.webaim.org/
* A clear and reliable mechanism for user flagging abusive comments and getting a response - currently it's unclear where those go, what criteria is used to determine whether it stays or not, with no feedback on criteria. We have noticed that the "report abuse" button now seems to direct emails to the author of the original post, rather than a general email. Miriam also mentioned plans to focus more on comment moderation, including creating a community editor/moderator position and incorporating community members in comment moderation.
* Current and updated contact information for all authors.
We also agreed that getting back together in about 3 months to discuss the interim progress would be a good idea.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Follow Up on Disability Rights Dialogue .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16782
Thanks for recapping.
I think that a focus on intersectionality as a concept is important, because so far in my time here, I've seen the same conflict erupt over racial issues, trans issues, and now disability issues. Each conflict has been remarkably similar and remarkably frustrating. As feminists, we share a common language - we know all about how to talk about women's oppression and the language that the patriarchy uses to silence and belittle us. We discuss that here everyday and most of the site's visitors who are here in good faith understand it quite well. They're affected by it.
But then.
Race, trans, or disability issues pop up, things that it seems the majority of the site's visitors don't have any personal knowledge of. Instead of recognizing the parallels that run between ALL dominant/oppressed groups, the feminists who suddenly have (cis/white/abled) privilege use the EXACT SAME LANGUAGE AND TECHNIQUES that they complain about the patriarchy using against women.
It's a mindfuck, it really is.
Successful feminism HAS to identify these parallels and speak about them. We can't do any good as social justice advocates without that hard work. Racism and disableism and transphobia and sexism and homophobia are not separate, isolated issues that can all be solved on their own. And Feministing cannot treat each issue like they're separate.
Though I have a disability, I must admit that I am largely ignorant of specific terminology regarding disabelism. One of the "blessings" as well as the curses of having a disease of the brain somewhat clumsily referred to as mental illness is that I often display no outward signs of limitation, except for those instances where I am either extremely depressed or extremely manic.
My challenges normally involve people who fail to understand how anything they can't physically see could be so debilitating and indeed, sometimes if I have a sustained period of relative stability, I almost discount it myself, that is, of course, until I have an episode and I can't ignore it. If anything jumps out at me in writing this response, it's that the rest of the world seems to see disabled as requiring a cane or a wheelchair, when disabilities come in all types, shapes, and sizes.
Still, I take no serious offense to those who make the same old mistakes and resort to problematic language, since much of my waking existence is already dedicated to making a conscious decision of how much I should reveal and I have a whole laundry list of well-worn euphemisms at my disposal. If I'm not totally honest with whomever I'm speaking to, I can hardly expect them to respond in a correct fashion. I pray for the day where I can be 100% honest with everyone and I do optimistically believe that day is coming soon.
Having invisible disabilities can be uniquely challenging, as I know from my own experiences living with them. It seems as though I'm always trying to explain myself to the world and never finding the right language. I can relate to what you've said about honesty and expectations.
i hear you on the challenges of "invisible" disability. the thing that i find so upsetting is that everyone assumes that they no longer have to watch what they say, because i don't fit the stereotype of a disabled person. one of my professor was telling us on the first day of class about his disability (menieare's disease---probably misspelled that), and how it he might have to lay down all of a sudden and how we should not worry and what we should do.
then he said, "but don't worry. it's no big deal. it's not like i have weird seizures or anything." my head almost blew up.
oh, and just to be clear why i put quotes around "invisible", when talking about my disability, because i want to be clear that i'm not mocking the term. it's because, for the most part, no one outside of my family ever sees me when i have a seizure, so, for them, i look perfectly abled, even if i'm suffering from after-effects. however, it's immediately visibly apparent with distinct, recognizable symptoms when i'm having one. i guess my disability is "semi-visible" or "translucent".
thus ends my derailment.
might i also suggest more moderator involvement? i realize that this site is not most of the mods' primary job, and that moderating needs to fit in around other life stuff.
but, as someone who was reading that thread about ableist language (i didn't comment because everyone else pretty much summed up what i had to say better than i could say it), i was pretty upset to see how long it took a moderator to respond. we can all call each other out all day long, but without knowing that you are all reading and responding, we have no means of enforcement, or even worse, the sense that *you all* are learning from *us*, just as we learn from you.
moderator involvement is the main change I, personally (not speaking for the group) was hoping for. There is a huge need for control of the comments sections, and part of that is having a person there moderating, but part of it is the culture that the contributors encourage on the site (knowingly or not) that leads people to feel perfectly comfortable behaving in such awful and damaging ways. This drives away people who are disabled or have awareness of disability issues.
Of course, I'm sure it would drive away more people to crack down on ableism in the community, but when you're a big blogger you have to make decisions about the kind of community you want to have.
It's up to you, Feministing.
amandaw
Moderator involvement was something that I was hoping would be left out. I have found that the discussions about disabilities devolve into what SOME people with disabilities approve of. We are not all of one mind about issues. I, personally, believe that it IS my responsibility as a person with a mental illness to inform non-disabled people about mental illnesses. I hate it when someone who supposedly has the authority to speak for all disabled people (and oftentimes isn't even disabled) decides that my beliefs are wrong, and then the moderator agrees, so there goes yet another disabled voice into the abyss.
I have an invisible disability, and a very serious one at that, yet I have acheived a lot in life, and I believe that part of my responsibility as a social activist is to "out" myself to people, not be ashamed of who I am (because it's an identity as much as an illness), and teach others about mental illnesses. Society already discounts what I say because of my illness -- I don't want Feministing dismissing what I say because it doesn't fit into the narrative that their hand-picked disability rights activists have chosen as the correct one.
i get your point. i obviously need to clarify, though. when i talk about better moderation, i'm not talking about shutting down healthy debate. i'm talking about enforcing the same criteria they have for basic civility on the other threads. i am all for contrarian voices, but i'm not for playground insults and transparent thread derailment. i think there is probably a happy medium to be found in there.
I understand. But the thread derailment tends to come in the form of someone claiming to be the authoritative voice of disabled people saying "You should educate yourself! Stop asking me!" (See below.) I can see moderators stopping people from asking what I believe are legitimate questions because some disabled people don't want to answer. I believe that if a person doesn't want to answer a question, they don't have to, but they shouldn't derail the conversation into a long discussion regarding whose responsibility it is to answer the question instead of letting some of us other disabled feminists answer. Some of us do feel the responsibility to answer questions of privileged people. I want to make sure that my input is part of the process so that threads aren't shut down by mods when someone cries "educate yourself!"
Thanks for this; I wish I could "like" this comment multiple times.
I would find this concern a lot more realistic if Feministing had a history of heavy moderating, or really of moderating. But I see a lot of incredibly nasty stuff in the comments - for instance, the Open Letter post that prompted this was a trainwreck, and the mods didn't do anything until they shut down the post entirely. Given the history, I *really* cannot imagine this site going overboard with moderating.
Also, surely some PWD wanting to educate doesn't have to mean that the mods do nothing at all, or that viciously offensive language goes unchecked (as it has in the past).
i get your point. i obviously need to clarify, though. when i talk about better moderation, i'm not talking about shutting down healthy debate. i'm talking about enforcing the same criteria they have for basic civility on the other threads. i am all for contrarian voices, but i'm not for playground insults and transparent thread derailment. i think there is probably a happy medium to be found in there.
... so because you are OK with something, no one should ever respond to someone whi isn't OK with it? Also, people are free to do education and diplomacy (that is, after all, *what we are and were doing*) but what should not be done is privileged persons demanding it of PWD. No one has ever said you can't do education. I'm glad you do. I try to, too. The problem is not that. The problem is the expectation that privileged people never do anything for themselves, just sit patiently and wait to be taught by PWD (who have limitations, you know?) which puts the burden on PWD to always be up for pointing out wrongs, explaining why they are wrong in a way that satisfies the privileged person, deal with the people who pick fights in an attempt to derail or dismiss...
That should NEVER be demanded of PWD. Ever.
This is also what I (not the group, again, me personally) want to see from this consultation. By not being more concerned with comment moderation it pretty much says "Hey, we're just fine with all the hateful language going on here". Sometimes silence is louder than words. Inaction sometimes condones negative behavior.
1. "And here's a quick recap of our substantive suggestions:"
These were our suggestions. Perhaps you could blockquote and attribute them more clearly?
2. Spelling "ableist" correctly (that's twice) would make your
"excited" commitment a bit more credible.
3. You have not named in this post a single one of the bloggers who were engaging so incredibly generously with you. Not one. They're just faceless "activists", a "crew".
4. Nothing is going to move forward for me personally until you demonstrate clearly that you can "deal with criticism': a full-hearted apology from you to Amndaw would be the logical place to start.
5. It might also be useful, in the interests of transparency, the to publish the list of suggestions that you are not going to bother with or that you find too hard; like, for example, the fact that straight after your last "Abelism" post, you published bare videos without descriptions or transcripts.
"3. You have not named in this post a single one of the bloggers who were engaging so incredibly generously with you. Not one. They're just faceless "activists", a "crew"."
Didnt know the blog was their personal PR agency?
No, they've just provided many hundreds of dollars worth of free media consulting, Gopher. Thanking them by name, like they're actual humans, is well below the least that could be done in return.
They wouldnt stop and explain their views to me, so how can you say they were that good? There was only one who remained level-headed enough to explain anything like a decent adult with an intellectual grounding. And I dont think that one was any of the main authors of the original post. For those who were interested in learning more and asked questions got shouted at and told that they were being trolls and were told off for doing so. Many of those told off as trolls are long time posters on this site and expressed themselves considerately and eloguently. Most wanted to kick anyone off who even used the word 'idiot' or 'stupid.' Now how am I going to describe Rush Limbaugh?
What are you going on about? Seriously? In the OP, Courtney listed suggestions that FWDs who participated in the chat made. They're right there for you to read to tell if they're "that good" or not. Lauredhel is asking for Courtney to attribute the suggestions to the actual people who made them, using names.
Are you talking about the Community post regarding the FWD open letter? Because you were really, really fucking mean in that thread, Gopher. And it seemed like you were gleefully doing it on purpose. Which is what trolls do. Doesn't matter how long they've been part of the community if they're purposefully saying mean things to get people upset.
And #3 was a post about flagging abusive comments. What if one of these excitable people labels me as discriminatory just because I used the word idiot or stupid?
I wasnt 'mean,' just cool. I was making fun of some of the over the top commentary. Its unusual to see such irrationality on this blog. Most try to address posters rationally (one of the supposed discriminatory words BTW) and have level headed debate. In the face of such an opposite way of acting I had no choice but to get a laugh from it. Its my way of turning something negative into a positive. It wasnt like I was going to be addressed with some sort of decorum or anything. Respectful debate is a way of keeping lucid (discriminatory or not?) order and maintaining cohesion among members of a political group. Disrespecting that is not conducive to any proper outcome.
I've read books about disability and how women who are disabled are often targets of horrible mistreatment. I can tell you stories from women I've known who have felt personally these negative bigotry and experienced first hand this abuse. I am also for rights of disabled, and better knowledge of the intersectionality between women and disability. But I cannot be convinced that the word 'idiot,' 'stupid' or 'rational,' are discriminatory words. I would never use it to describe someone with disability but these words are used for the non-disabled too. I mean, is not Dr. Dobson an irrational idiot?
It's true. I've yet to see you refer to one of the people with disabilities as 'rational.'
But maybe I'm just being uppity -- oh, sorry, excitable.
But it's okay. You were joking some of the time. I love jokes about how irrational women are too, so tell one of those next.
(P.S. This is just a sarcastic reaction to your comments. So we're cool, right?)
What are you talking about?
Your post doesnt even make sense. Chill, then retype later.
At this point, I have to think you're doing this on purpose. What's next? Going to call her "sweetie"?
What, are you a homophobe? Whats wrong with one woman calling another sweetie? As a bi, I wonder if this is aimed at my sexual orientation?
Either that or due to your excitable and irrational state you have failed to adequately read my post. So, I'll disseminate it for you.
"It's true. I've yet to see you refer to one of the people with disabilities as 'rational.'
This makes no sense. My comment was about how irrational it is not to be able to use the words 'rational' or 'irrational,' 'stupid,' or 'idiotic,' not whom I had or hadnt called this. I dont pay attention to whom has disabilities or not nor is my accusation of irrationality based on ones disabled status. And you will not be able to prove this posters zealous claim. The claim is completely unrealistic anyways. Who tells a commenter that their post was 'rational?' I'm sure if you looked at the comments I've left from the couple of years I've been on this site, you will be able to find I do not reserve 'irrational,' or 'rational,' to anyone based on their disabled status. I have told comrade kevin (who has bipolar disorder) that his posts always showcase eloquency and I like his posts very much. If I was a bigot I would not have said this. Using him as an exmaple is uncomfortable but your witch hunt and your lack of proof, or coherent point encourages me to do this to show my non-association to your accusations (whatever the hell they may be, I dont even think you know what it is).
"But maybe I'm just being uppity -- oh, sorry, excitable."
This is true. The poster is too excitable to be realistic. The poster is attempting to paint me as some misogynist who doesnt want a woman to go out of 'her place.' Once again, a completely unsubstantiated claim. Why would a woman say that? Why would a feminist say that? And why would a long time poster say that?
"But it's okay. You were joking some of the time. I love jokes about how irrational women are too"
I'm a feminist woman and have no clue where this chaotic poster came up with this accusatory and unsubstantiated claim.
Since you've hit every other box on the silencing Bingo card (and you just basically added "I have a disabled friend" in your last comment), I figured you were just waiting to pull out the condescending language - and since you keep waving your feminism card, then of COURSE you know that calling women "sweetie" when you disagree with them is condescending.
As for the rest of your comment, I'm not sure if you're replying to me or Icca. For all you seem to be accusing her? me? of being too excited to read properly, you're not doing so well yourself there. All I can say from your intense denial of your hurtfulness, when you have multiple people in multiple threads telling you to STOP, it might be time to ask yourself what's going on and why people are suggesting your language towards disabled people might be mirroring the same oppressive language that misogynists use against women.
But I didnt call them sweetie. I wasnt being condescending, I was being serious. Posters on this topic jump to conclusions and make mountains out of ant hills. So yeah, taking a break and coming back would be more conducive to level headed debate. The poster didnt even read my post but jumped to conclusions and the posters post didnt even make sense. When people do that its because they need to cool off. It IS condescending and offensive when someone who is being bigoted tells the 'little lady' to calm down, but I wasnt being bigoted and the poster wouldve known that had they had a cooler head. You wouldnt jump to that conclusion either if you would quite being so rash in your conclusions. But whateves, the moderator is telling me to go elsewhere, so I will. This topic is getting boring anyways. End result: nothing.
Ciao!
Ok Gopher.
You made your point on the other thread, repeatedly. Your voice was heard, your opinions were aired.
You got told, repeatedly, that you were hurting a LOT of people's feelings and that your name calling was inappropriate.
As I said on that thread, I've seen you participate constructively in a lot of conversations here. People gave you the benefit of the doubt with this one... but you continued to call people names, tell them that their concerns weren't valid, and refuse to acknowledge that your hurtful words are a problem.
And as I said on that thread, people with disabilities are doing us a favor by coming here, tolerating our ignorance and privilege, and explaining to us how we can make this place more accessible and friendly and awesome for them. You don't have to agree with everyone all the time, but until you're willing to take some constructive criticism and stop with the name-calling then you're really just continuing to hurt people and yourself.
Name calling? Where have I name called?
This kind of back and forth is not leading to anything constructive, as far as I can tell. You've made your point Gopher. Energy elsewhere please.
Oops, was writing my reply to Gopher before I saw yours.
Courtney,
is it possible for you to acknowledge in some way that you have read the comments asking for your personal response (to say nothing of a blogwide response)? And, hopefully, acknowledge that you will respond to them soon?
Thanks.
amandaw
Yes, namecalling.
"They wouldnt stop and explain their views to me" -- Yes they did. In multiple feministing posts, in multiple feministing comment threads, in an open letter to the feministing community, AND in their own public writings and speakings.
http://www.feministing.com/archives/018530.html#comment-312352
"There was only one who remained level-headed enough to explain anything like a decent adult with an intellectual grounding." -- There were obviously many "level headed" "decent adults" in these discussions, so saying that there is only one is saying that most of us are not. That's name calling.
"Chill, then retype later." -- Very rude, talking to someone like a child or intoxicated person. Especially insensitive in a discussion about discriminatory language against people with disabilities.
http://www.feministing.com/archives/018530.html#comment-312477
"What, are you a homophobe?" -- Asked to someone who made absolutely no comments about homosexual people or homosexuality, or even implied anything to do with sexual orientation. And someone who has established a pretty clear record on this site that she's not a homophobe.
http://www.feministing.com/archives/018530.html#comment-312504
"excitable and irrational state" -- this is how you describe the alternative, if alixiana is not a homophobe?
"witch hunt" is how you describe... what exactly? This discussion? People telling you how to respect them?
http://www.feministing.com/archives/018530.html#comment-312361 - the sarcasm in this entire post might have been intended lightly, but in the context of everything else you've said,it comes across as really harsh.
"Isnt disability a ableist word? Bit of a hypocrite." -- You call someone a hypocrite, because you get to decide what's offensive to people with disabilities even though they disagree with you?
http://community.feministing.com/2009/10/open-letter-to-feministing-1.html#comment-304734
you call another poster "hostile and paranoid" in a very condescending post -- http://community.feministing.com/2009/10/open-letter-to-feministing-1.html#comment-304775
This entire comment -- http://community.feministing.com/2009/10/open-letter-to-feministing-1.html#comment-304777
" wild assertions and hateful ranting" and "Its the way of intellectual cowards" is how you describe people who disagree with you on the thread.
http://community.feministing.com/2009/10/open-letter-to-feministing-1.html#comment-304759
http://community.feministing.com/2009/10/open-letter-to-feministing-1.html#comment-304782
These comment before the mods had to remove for policy violation -- http://community.feministing.com/2009/10/open-letter-to-feministing-1.html#comment-304802
http://community.feministing.com/2009/10/open-letter-to-feministing-1.html#comment-304836
No, they've just provided many hundreds of dollars worth of free media consulting, Gopher. Thanking them by name, like they're actual humans, is well below the least that could be done in return.
I was going to put in a strongly-worded comment of my own in regards to the original post, but I agree with Lauredhel's comment 110%.
(Speaking for myself here, and not the whole of FWD.)
I completely agree.
It is *profoundly* unfeminist to take credit for other women's ideas and work. It's also remarkably unempathetic to deploy a tone argument without thinking about how it sounds. I couldn't believe it, I thought it was a parody.
This post doesn't fill me with hope, it seems like a band aid.
6. "empowering" is _really_ the wrong word for that process.
Truly recognising, examining, and working on not throwing around your privilege so that you _stop hurting people with marginalised bodies_ so much doesn't make you feel all squee-bouncy and and powerful; and it's certainly not purely your happyfun personal growth experience. This consultation wasn't Courtney-therapy. It was a request for you to recognise that you are arbitrarily assigned excess power by a community of people, that that has resulted in your unexamined privilege and ingrained prejudice, and that fixing the damage you're doing is going to take work and a commitment to thinking outside of yourself and your personal needs and growth.
(I reply as an individual, not a representative of the group.)
This consultation wasn't Courtney-therapy.
THIS.
I would also like to know when Courtney is going to acknowledge that calling me by my full name like a first-grader and telling me, IN THESE WORDS, that: "I don't appreciate your tone, FYI" is maybe just a little bit antifeminist, a little bit a silencing tactic, and if nothing else, completely inappropriate when speaking to an adult who is giving you firm but polite and constructive criticism.
amandaw
This consultation wasn't Courtney-therapy.
THIS.
I would also like to know when Courtney is going to acknowledge that calling me by my full name like a first-grader and telling me, IN THESE WORDS, that: "I don't appreciate your tone, FYI" is maybe just a little bit antifeminist, a little bit a silencing tactic, a little bit disregarding of my personal safety, and if nothing else, completely inappropriate when speaking to an adult who is giving you firm but polite and constructive criticism.
amandaw
This.
I don't feel, personally, that anything can go forward until this is addressed, because I have seen this before (see: Military Missives post where the "tone" argument was employed, pointed out, and then ignored). I expect more from feminists, at a basic level. It was incredibly disrespectful, hurtful and completely uncalled for.
THIS.
And to be honest, I find it incredibly disturbing that Courtney can't see this, that she can't see the incredibly amount of time and effort people spent on educating her. People with disabilities to boot, many of whom have to be quite careful with their time and energy and could probably have used the spoons they generously spent on Courtney somewhere else. I find it incredibly disturbing that Courtney focusses on how the experience was empowering for her, and doesn't even give a thought to the fact that it wasn't really empowering but rather incredibly frustrating for the marginalised people on the other side of this. People who did not need to spend the time they did on it, possibly could not really afford to spend the time they did on it, but went to incredible lengths for her anyway and essentially got slapped in the face for it.
I can tell you for a fact that Courtney's learning experience has come at direct cost of the health of several in our group. Self included. We have put other parts of our life on hold and accepted hits to our mental and physical health in the hopes that this would produce some sort of change.
To be honest, I have little hope of Feministing itself changing. I DO hold out hope that members of the larger online feminist community will see Feministing demonstrating such an awful way to handle these criticisms, and take note, and maybe start paying attention to issues they had not had on their radar before.
THAT is my hope. That is why I have dealt with the direct physical cost to my self. In hopes that this would educate the community at large. I cannot speak for other members of the group and their individual motivations, besides a desire to change mainstream feminism's awful treatment of women with disabilities. But that's mine.
(This is amandaw.)
*hugs* I was really afraid of that would happen :( I would send you some of my spoons if they were transferrable. And thank you so much for trying, even if the result is disappointing.
I wish someone from Feministing would at least *acknowledge* how much you have given them of yourselves in this issue.
(This is Kaz, btw!)
It's not fair to say that no one should ever expect the oppressed to educate the privileged, and then in the next breath, tell someone who never asked for an "education" that they are ungrateful and unfeminist (excuse me?) for not bending over backwards in gratitude.
They are the ones who asked for the chat. Unless they asked for it specifically intending for it to be a session devoted to them dismissing every concern categorically -- and that is an awfully bad-faith assumption to make of them, would you agree? -- they were expecting us to put energy and effort into presenting our concerns and making sure we were communicating our ideas effectively. Don't make this out to be like they didn't ask anything of us.
amandaw
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
I couldn't believe it when I saw to tone argument smack in middle of that chat. Ya'll are better people than me.
I've read feministing everyday for the past 3 years.
I've always been very disappointed with the lack of coverage of disabilities issues as they relate to gender. I could count on one hand the number of posts relating to these issues.
As a man who acquired a disability at age 19, it is became immediately to me that there are serious social consequences that you face when you are unable to fulfill your prescribed gender roles because of that disability.
I know it can be hard for an able-bodied individual to understand. But millions of men and women, including young men and women, have disabilities. These disabilities effect how others treat us, the expectations they have for us, and our own views of our masculinity and femininity.
For all the vitriol that was fired back and forth over this issue over the past few months, I am really glad the feministing is starting to take this issue seriously. I am looking forward to feministing help bring more awareness to the way that disabilty and feminist issues intersect.
Oops, second paragraph was nonsensical. Comment should have read:
I've read feministing every day for the past 3 years.
I've always been very disappointed with the lack of coverage of disability issues as they relate to gender. I could count on one hand the number of posts relating to these issues.
As a man who acquired a disability at age 19, it is crystal clear to me that there are serious social consequences when you are unable to fulfill your prescribed gender roles because of that disability.
I know it can be hard for an able-bodied individual to understand. But millions of men and women, including young men and women, have disabilities. These disabilities effect how others treat us, the expectations others have for us, and our own views of our masculinity and femininity.
For all the vitriol that was fired back and forth over this issue over the past few months, I am really glad the feministing is starting to take this issue seriously. I am looking forward to feministing help bring more awareness to the way that disabilty and feminist issues intersect.
Wow. I'm kind of stuck on Courtney whipping out the tone smack down. It's such a classic silencing maneuver, used on uppity women, among others, all the fucking time. Unless it was the driest joke in the history of humor, it which case I applaud Courtney's commitment to comedy.
I guess I'm glad to see some action from the Feministing bloggers in response to the concerns of disabled feminists, but I'm not that hopeful that much is going to change, given the history and this start.
I too call for a public apology from Courtney to Amandaw for her incredibly rude tone argument. Is this call from feminists with disabilities going to be ignored?
I'll also note that feminists with disabilities have said repeatedly that "guest posts" are NOT GOOD ENOUGH. In framing your commitment to guest posts as a good-faith step to move the dialogue forward, the implicit refusal to commit (not just "maybe it'll happen with this one woman") to recruiting feminists with disabilities as CONTRIBUTORS is erased. This is a really disingenuous post.
"We clarified our desire to see a wider range of issues addressed than have been in the past 2 years or so, when the only explicit focus on people with disabilities has been about performance art groups."
The erasure of your own agency here is interesting. Who is responsible for the poor coverage of people with disabilities? It's you, isn't it? You would like to "see" a wider range of issues addressed? Who is going to make that happen? Is it you? Or is it just something that will happen if you desire it enough?
You are not taking responsibility in your very language. This is really telling about the direction your efforts, such as they are, and such as they are yours, are going to go.
You MUST begin owning your actions if Feministing is going to end its complicity in the suffering of people with disabilities. You HAVE NOT DONE THIS with this post.
I speak for myself--and it's worth noting that it isn't just the fwd at FWD/Forward who are objecting to this. I'm not a contributor. I speak for myself.
LOL! I get used to being able to edit all my writing and I forget to sit on it for a while before posting.
"Rude" is the wrong word (after all, Courtney thought amandaw was being rude.) I should have said "irresponsible," "oppressive," or "outrageous."
I totally agree about the way Courtney's post erases the editors' sense of agency.
Not that I'm surprised. In these posts that crop up every couple of months or so, the Feministing editors seem mostly to express this giant excitement over learning something new (as though acknowledging the site's hostility to PWDs or anybody else is a lesson in self-discovery for the editors!) and to treat the entire process as one that just happens on its own, independent of themselves.
Such shirking of responsibility for the site's problems, especially by people as accomplished as Courtney and her crew, comes off as ridiculous, especially at this late date and after so many such posts and would-be epiphanies. How long have we been hearing that maintaining this Web site is a Big Job, that any systemic insensitivity is mostly the commenters' fault and that the editors just can't wait to learn more about XYZ field of intersectional rights activism?
I have tremendous respect for Courtney. I actually use a number of her works in classes that I teach.
That said, I agree with some of the general critiques that have been made on this thread.
Courtney, I guess this would be my suggestion. Re-read the post you wrote, but imagine you were addressing a number of feminists of color, with whom you have likely had more interaction. Substitute race issues for disability issues. Some parts come off as a little self-serving.
I've never really felt the kind of anger being expressed by some of the other posters regarding the exclusion of disability and gender issues on the site. More just disappointed. But I completely understand where they are coming from. Of all forums, a feminist forum should be strongly pushing an understanding of how disability issues shape gendered experiences.
I'm hopeful at this point some people will step up and lead by example. Make some community posts about how they see disability and feminist issues and gender intersecting. Reflecting on their personal experiences. Commenting on links between domestic violence and disabilities. Connections between how one's disability informed or enhanced their understanding of gender and patriarchy. Then promoting some of the most insightful ones onto the main page.
I'm hopeful at this point some people will step up and lead by example. Make some community posts about how they see disability and feminist issues and gender intersecting. Reflecting on their personal experiences. Commenting on links between domestic violence and disabilities. Connections between how one's disability informed or enhanced their understanding of gender and patriarchy. Then promoting some of the most insightful ones onto the main page.
One of the main problems I have with this idea is that a) it once again puts the onus on isolated PWD to teach instead of the Feministing team to educate themselves or do any actual work themselves and b) that as it stands, the comments are often very unsafe for PWD. I used to be a semi-regular commentator on this site and might have written a community post on the matter a few months ago, but I witnessed so much fail in the comments that I won't comment here apart from about this issue. And if I have something to post about wrt disability? I'll go to my blog or offer to guest post at FWD, where I can be sure that ableism is unlikely to turn up in the comments and the mods will do their job if it does.
Which is a long-winded way of saying: the heavier moderation in order to make this space safe for marginalised groups has to come before, not after, asking marginalised people to educate.
Zailyn, I understand what you are saying, and appreciate all the posts you've made.
I think it is clear that the feministing editors aren't fully getting it. I know from my experiences living with a physical disability that often it can be hard even for my partner, close friends, and family to understand what it is like to live with a disability.
IDEA - I think an alternative strategy to consider is to simply flood the community posts that speak from our experiences and our perspectives. For example, perhaps we could set a day where 12 independent people submit a community post relating to disability and gender. Give people enough information about how disabilities influence our lives, particularly as it relates to gender issues.
Will the comments often be clumsy or hostile? Yes. But hopefully the posts will get through to enough readers that they will start to get it. And to help police the comment sections through community action.
Sometimes people don't start to get it until you smack them over the head with it, en masse. Once enough people get it, you can rely on them to help with the head smacking.
Right now alot of ink is being spilled in these comment sections, and I'm sure you know how hard health-wise it can be to spend this much time posting. I appreciate the work you are doing. I just wanted to put some suggestions on the table that don't rely on waiting for the feministing editors absorb the message.
In any event, please let me know if there is any way I can be helpful here or with your site or your organization. I don't have much formal exposure to disability rights or theory, but I do teach classes at UCLA on the roles that genes, hormones, and socialization play in shaping the bodies and brains of men and women, including health-issues and chronic diseases. My private email is enderflies1@aol.com or dfred@ucla.edu
I think feministing needs to either make some unilateral rules on words i.e.lame and they are automatically deleted or we need to tackle disability issues from another angle.
The energy that goes into policing words such as idoit, dumb, stupid, lame needs to change. I don't see how we can have constructive dialogue with new and oblivious commenters when all people are arguing about is the word "idoit." Don't get me wrong, I think language is important.....but no one is going to understand the intersectionality of disability rights and gender if we can't get passed the name-calling (ironically).
Those who think about disability issues every day need to help everyone who comes to the site to reframe the discussion----feministing commenters do this everyday when they comment.
And honestly. It's not hard. See post. Read post. Does it include a disability perspective? No? Make comment.
See? Easy.
Yes. Easy. Make other people do the work for you. And tell them that it's a waste of energy to do things which would make their life less difficult. Because it doesn't affect you, therefore it can't be important at all, right?
amandaw
BTW, PWD have been talking about disability for a long time. Many left this site and community because of the hostility they experienced and the tacit approval of it by the mods.
And now they're being told "Well, things would be better if you commented to do all our thinking for us!"
We've been writing. Elsewhere. If you can't be bothered to look elsewhere, well, that's your own fault. You don't get to turn around and tell people who have been chased away from a community they *wanted* to be a part of that it's their fault the community is so hostile to them because they aren't in it.
Do your own reading. Don't demand other people do your learning for you. That's your responsibility as the privileged party. Other people can offer education as much as they like, but because of the culture here, it is likely to be in places other than Feministing. So if you want it, try looking on your own. Don't declare our absence in the community that accepted you and excluded us to be our fault.
amandaw
So, the community gets another "we're thinking about doing some stuff and our thoughts makes us jazzed!" post. We saw this after the Feministing summit this summer, when you took our suggestions, and then nothing really happened (the new posting options are rarely used and the moderation hasn't, either).
Until some concrete planning is laid out and some real changes are put in place, I'm going to assume the status quo.
The trans gender boycott continues as well, are we going to just ignore them because a panel discussion couldn't take place? Why aren't the concerns of trans folk, which mind you are almost exactly the same as those with disabilities, as important to the staff as disability issues?
We had a mass exodus of trans people from the site and nothing was done. I guess what needed to be done was some panel discussion so those folks could get a post about it.
And, yes, I am bitter about it because the trans boycott is also important and trans issues are DIRECTLY gendered issues -- no intersectionality explanation needed!
Why aren't the concerns of trans folk, which mind you are almost exactly the same as those with disabilities, as important to the staff as disability issues?
Upon a re-read I realize I was unclear.
This is meant to say that the community here has caused a privilege issue with trans folks as it has with PWD. This is not to say that the issues facing PWD are the same as trans folk.
The trans bloggers who have commented on Feministing's lack of trans acceptance or ability to moderate for a lack of good-faith, bring up many of the same points (though from different posts, obviously) as the disability bloggers' posts on their own blogs.
This theme, it recurs and I'm left to wonder why, suddenly, it's important. So much more important than a lot of the same, or similar, work that had been done by trans folks to try to initiate some change here for more trans inclusive dialogue.
i think this is an important point and, as one of the women involved in this discussion about disability issues, i wanted to echo these concerns. personally, i am a white/cis/middle-class woman with a disability, so felt comfortable speaking only about the representation of disability issues on the site. but i definitely feel the disability issues and the trans issues and the class issues that are going unadressed are all symptoms of the site's overall failure to handle issues of intersectionality or identities beyond able-bodied white cis women who are relatively well off financially. i certainly do not want to prioritize disability issues at the expense of trans issues but would like to see more focus and attention paid to both, as well as other issues of intersectionality.
i was very unclear why this particular conflict resulted in a chat and was directly addressed n the feministing front page when the trans issues were not. and if i honestly thought the discussion of disability issues was going to lead to a single change on the site, i'd definitely be concerned about ongoing exclusion of other groups, including trans women.
from my perspective, however, this was a giant exercise in PR for feministing. and that's because throughout the whole process - the open letter, the chat, the follow up, this post, and even private emails between feministing folks and the women involved in the chat - i have yet to hear any kind of recognition or acknowledgment of the pain and offense caused to PWDs (or members of any other excluded group). it's been made very clear by members of these groups (with disabilities, trans women, etc) that they feel overlooked and excluded by the actions of the site. if the site cared about creating those feelings of exclusion or felt they were a problem, there would have been some kind of apology, even something as simple as "we are sorry that you felt excluded from the site - that is not our goal and we value your presence and participation."
of course, at this point, courtney has yet to demonstrate that she can spell "ableism" correctly - which would be an important first step in recognizing the existence of ableism or her/the site's role in contributing to it. kind of like someone promising to fight "racistsim." so perhaps the fact that the site can spell "trans" correctly is as significant a victory as any of us are going to get.
was not the misspelling of ableism a typo? isn't it a little harsh to deride someone for a typo. She spelled it correctly earlier in the post. This seems like an unnecessary criticism. If Courtney did not know how to spell it, I think the critique would be warranted, however, I truly think we should pick our battles, especially when the battle is over a typo.
and what if courtney is a poor speller or has a learning disability? many dyslexic people have difficulty with spelling words. You may think I am being facetious, but I am not. Is it not cruel and unusual to critique a person's position on an issue based on their inability to spell a word?
One of my closest friends has dyslexia, and he is often embarrassed by his invisible disability. He has often been thought of as stupid because of it. Moreover, he does not mention it because he feels he should be able to handle it. So he writes the LSAT, does poorly, and on top of that, feels he cannot list his disability on his applications to law school.
her previous use of the term "abelist" was in the title of a post that also referred to people with disabilities as "disabled kids." vocabulary is important. terminology is important. if she is invested in taking these issues seriously, she would have made sure she was spelling it correctly. if she cannot be bothered to spell it correctly in this post (after her incorrect spelling had already been brought to her attention in the previous post), that's a disregard for getting the words right.
put it this way: how seriously would you take someone who said he was committed to feminineism? another way: compare the time required to review a post (of which more than half was cut and pasted from our words, rather than drafted by her) to the time required to learn about an issue and think and write about it. if there's not enough time/effort to check for typos, i don't think that speaks well to what we can expect from the overall learning effort (especially as empowerment has already been achieved!)
I take your point, but I also think that proper spelling is sign of privilege -- think about the people who might be well-served by this site, but feel they cannot post because they have poor spelling, this is an issue of ability, but also of class.
Simply seeing proper spelling as an issue of respect is problematic because it assumes that the person has the ability and education to spell properly.
Intersectional approaches to feminism really must address this because the inability to communicate in a way that people recognize as "respectful" means the inability to voice their concerns.
courtney introduces herself as a published author and co-author of another book. she has never identified as someone without the privilege to know how to spell or with a disability that prevents her from spelling. i don't see how any of these issues could possibly apply to her.
also, for someone talking about the negative tone in comments, i was surprised that you skipped over the substantive comment about how the lack of an apology or recognition of the pain and exclusion the site had caused in order to bicker about whether it's discriminatory to expect courtney to spell correctly. i'm happy to debate the spelling issue but i think the apology issue is a much larger and more significant one.
my point is that intersectional feminists must check their own privilege. It's offensive to assume that respect is connected to proper spelling. I'm being nitpicky here, I know, but I truly think that if we are to progress, we have to address this kind of privilege related to learning as well.
admittedly, my own frustration stems from my own math dyslexia and absolute inability to do standardized tests -- an issue that is at the very forefront of my thoughts at the moment because I am studying for the GRE. It's very hard for me to stomach the notion that a score on a standardized test has a significant impact on my future -- perhaps more of an impact than having good grades, a good service record and a master's degree. So, the idea that people should be able to do things, especially related to learning, reading comprehension, and math skills really sets me off. I don't think I'm replying holistically to your argument, I just wish we wouldn't critique spelling. I just dislike that aspect of the critique, and I wish we could let it go because it does negatively affect those who are particularly troubled by those ideas.
I didn't see it as bickering, I saw it as a very specific issue with significant epistemic consequences. I'm a little bit shocked that people who are supposed to be addressing the issue of ability/disability are 1) using ableist notions related spelling to further their arguments (frankly, Courtney may not have a learning disability, but hearing about spelling being related to respect is difficult for people with learning disorders to hear) and 2) that posters pointing out ableism in the posts of people rallying against ableism are not taken seriously or are seen as bickering.
The fact that you see it as a small, inconsequential thing makes me think that you do not think this is a big deal. And that's much like thinking that ability and race are secondary to gender. I think that makes little sense when we are talking about intersectionality. No issue is supposed to be insignificant.
And last, I feel like I am generally confused about what is going on here between feministing contributors and who is calling for an apology -- I do not know what is going on behind closed doors, or in these emails, for what duration, etc. etc. I don't fully understand the history here, so I prefer to not comment on things that I don't fully understand.
i am upset that courtney specifically, as an individual, mispelled the word. courtney has used the word incorrectly before and been corrected on it, so she clearly has the necessary information to know how the word should be spelled. courtney has also positioned herself as a professional writer. the general tone of the posts on this site is casual, but spelling and grammar is always correct. given this, i believe that holding courtney to standards of spelling this word correctly is not an unreasonable or privileged demand to make.
i have and will not extend this standard to anyone other than the contributors to this site, who i have been led to believe in the chat itself are on board with the incorporation of disability rights and issues into the site. as they also position themselves (for the most part) as professional writers whose posts for this site have always had correct grammar and spelling, i feel it is not an unreasonable or privileged expectation to apply that expectation to them as well.
this is especially true as courtney has consistently identified herself as able-bodied and neurotypical, so does not experience any of the disability-related issues that you have raised. i'm unclear why or if you feel those issues apply to my expectations for courtney as an individual. i do agree that holding others to those standards could be problematic for exactly the reasons you describe, but i'm not seeing how they could justify or excuse courtney's continued use of an incorrect term.
i do agree that i could have and should have been more specific that my problem with the spelling applied to courtney individually rather than being a blanket expectation for all those who participate in conversations about disability related issues. i apologize for implying that and recognize and agree that it could be hurtful and marginalizing for those with disability-related issues with spelling.
i characterized it as bickering because of the initial statement that it was probably a typo, i should let it go, and should pick battles more substantial than typos. i did not mean to imply that the disability-related issues that became part of the discussion were irrelevant - i was responding specifically to the argument that this wasn't a big deal enough to raise. again, i apologize for the way my words dismissed or marginalized the disability-related issues that are very much a part of expectations on spelling or formality of language.
(and that's exactly what i mean in terms of apology - i was able to recognize how my words affected you, even though that wasn't my intention, and apologized for that effect. and i didn't even make you organize a chat and send me lots of written material to do so! however, i've never seen a clear or explicit statement from the site that incorporating the views and participation of people with disabilities is important to them or that they recognize, much less regret, how people with disabilities have been affected and hurt by the site.)
I understand. Thank you for your reply. This is what I mean by having a productive engagement. I definitely understand your perspective much better.
I can understand where youre coming from, but what if she did re-check it and just overlooked it? What if she was nervous? Being portrayed as a monster by a bunch of rabid minded mutineers can be overwhelming!LOL
My misspelling wasn't intentional, for the record. I happen to be a person who sometimes misspells words. But Gopher, you gotta tone down your language here. "Rabid-minded mutineers" is offensive and doesn't push the dialogue forward.
I figured it was a misspelling.
Okay, but just to explain
the nervous,mutineers, ect was a sarcastic joke.
Nice to see you in comments, Courtney. Must your stay be so brief and limited, when there is so much for you personally, and the contributors of this site, to address here?
amandaw
I don't want to be critical like I have an then rush to defend as I clearly have problems with how the issues of exclusion are being handled, but FWIW (phrase of the week for me?), I wasn't sure if it was "abelism" "ablism" or "ableism" in spelling. The first I ruled out because it implied Cain and Abel and Abelism would be people against the slaughtered brother.
Though, the other two I wasn't sure about -- it's actually the reason I avoid the word altogether because I don't want to spell it wrong as either are viable English-language normative options.
"was not the misspelling of ableism a typo? isn't it a little harsh to deride someone for a typo. She spelled it correctly earlier in the post"
OMG! Youre applying rationality! (mocking)Stop, you troll!!!!we all know she did it out of hate, malice and deliberation!!!!There is no way in the universe that it could be simply_a_typo!!
I agree, Gular--it's baffling. At this point, marginalized feminists of all kinds have contacted and reached out to Feministing again and again; we have all been ignored until now. This consent to a discussion by Feministing was welcome, and I was glad to note that the feminists with disabilities who handled the chat also mentioned the other intersectional issues--but it's up to Feministing. I don't know why now. Even if I were to be cynical and say it's a big PR move, I don't know why THIS PR move and not one before. *shrug*
I also feel like we're kind of being left alone to discuss this here. Why haven't there been responses from Courtney or another contributor yet? Even a "I'm working on a longer response" would be welcome.
This is going to, again, come across as bitter, but I think the answer we'd get is the one we frequently get when there's no discernible explanation:
"I've been too busy to watch the blog"
And, as true as that may be, I kind of feel like this place is 90% free for all, 10% moderation. It works well for me when I turn on the snark and probably bend the rules a bit, but I really shouldn't be able to do that -- no matter how active or longstanding a member I may be.
We received this response too. And, fwiw, we were quite surprised when they actually, finally, responded to our complaints and suggested a chat. Of course, the chat didn't go so well. But Feministing has been just as awful on trans issues, race issues and class issues. And they continue to be just as awful. I have no idea why they responded to one person this one time when so many people have been telling them for so long that they feel such hostility and hatred here.
I think the boycott did a good job smacking a lot of us across the face so that we'd start fucking paying attention. That's what I was hoping would come out of this. Because I don't have faith that Feministing is capable of changing. But I do have faith that some people might be receptive to the criticisms and start seeking out these issues on their own. (Because clearly, Feministing is not going to do a sufficient job addressing them themselves.)
I do feel a need to apologize that this issue, this time, has received this attention, while others remain neglected. It's unfair and unjust, and I don't like it one bit.
amandaw
I understand that it is frustrating to have your concerns ignored. You are completely right to continue to criticize Feministing for its failure to cover disability, trans, class, or any other intersectional set of issues. I also understand that there is a history of frustration that inflects your comments, and I recognize that frustration and its expression as valid.
However, I was taken aback by the personal nature of your comments to Courtney. Why can't you assume a little bit more good faith? Yep, her actions may fall extremely short of what you want to see, but maybe from her place she's trying. The fact that she's trying doesn't mean she's right, and that's why you're right to continue to criticize, but why do you call her out by name so often and with such explicit derision for all of her motives? I feel that I personally have a hard time trying to engage people when my privilege is attacked - I can only imagine how much harder it would be to fight down that immediate response when I was being told that I was disingenuous. Trying to imagine being in someone else's place is important to being able to convince them to actually change other people's minds and persuade them to become genuine advocates of their cause. Courtney is just a person, like anyone else. She IS probably really busy - she has a full career in addition to writing blogs for this website, and this website is big and full of comments and community posts - it is a massive demand on her time to ask her to reply personally to all comments personally addressed to her. Give her some time to catch up.
In case I haven't made this clear enough: This is not about tone - I'm not objecting to the strong *wording* of your statements. I'm objecting to the presumption that peoples' failure to implement your suggestions must necessarily imply that they're haters and won't ever come around.
See my comment further below. Women with disabilities and their allies have been contacting feministing for years about this matter. And we have presumed good faith throughout the entire process up to and including the chat. Is it wrong to show some frustration when the response is, again: ignore, ignore, ignore, then deny, dismiss, excuse?
See comment here. http://www.feministing.com/archives/018530.html#comment-312429
amandaw
I keep adding addendum to my original, but I feel the more I think about this the more I have to say.
This same thing has happened with race issues, too. We've lost many POC because of privilege issues and insensitive language.
I guess the more I think about it, the more I'm beginning to suspect that something else is going on here. I'm certainly happy for the disability community on this site because, to be honest, we all need more education in intersectionality and disability issues specifically, but I'm really starting to question why the mods started caring now.
I agree with you entirely that disability is not the only issue on this site and that the way trans people (and PoC, and the list goes on) have been treated has been horrendous. There is really no excuse for the way trans voices have been ignored.
However, I'm not as sure as you seem to be that this is any different. Looking at this post alone, I see Courtney talking a great deal about how empowering and totally cool she found the chat!!!, not mentioning the great deal of time and effort the PWD side put into it, not mentioning the fact that for them the chat must have been very exhausting and frustrating because they were being forced to explain basic things about why they felt marginalised, and let's not forget that considering your education more important than marginalised people's feelings or well-being is 101-level privilege wallowing. She still hasn't apologised for her jawdropping use of the tone argument on amandaw. She has not in fact apologised to any of the contributors to the chat or mentioned any of them by name. Demands that PWD made seem to have either vanished or turned into suggestions Courtney et al made, which is like a slap in its face with its sheer gall.
Which is to say. I'm dubious this will turn out any better than, say, the post after the trans boycott. If I'm wrong, that is brilliant for PWD, of course, but raises all the questions you asked about other marginalised issues that did not get this treatment. But I think it's a bit soon to start going "so why do you take disability seriously, but not other oppressions?"
Even if nothing happens, more effort has been put into the discussions about PWD and their marginalization on Feministing than any other issue I've seen here. There's been no discussions between the concerned on other issues and Feministing staff.
Even if the OP here is dripping with privilege (which I did miss because I was too cynical about it to watch for it, honestly), it's still more than other groups have gotten who've had the same concerns about their issues as this group.
I'm going to assume status quo until things actually change around here. I honestly don't think they will because the post can be summarized with "We had a really cool discussion, I learned a lot and I'm really jazzed about it" which isn't actually a direction or really anything especially helpful or guiding.
That's an excellent point; sorry, I didn't realise this was what you were referring to. This is definitely the first time I can remember Feministing representatives actually having any kind of official chat with people representing a group with grievances, even if it went rather horribly.
Agh. I feel like i've missed something. I have been reading feministing for years now and i never noticed how left out the disabled community felt. I know it's probably because of my own privileged body. Having said that, i am SO grateful that everyone is bringing it up. As a double major in Women & Gender studies and Latin American, Latino Studies, i feel extremely eloquent in issues of gender, race, sexuality and class. But just yesterday i was having dinner with some friends and we were talking about making our house more handicap accessible and i just didn't have the language. These kinds of conversations are really educational and helpful for me. Thank you for all your thoughtful comments.
I do feel for Courtney though, i missed whatever offensive thing she seems to have said outside of this post. And I know it must be really frustrating to deal with a website that is constantly letting you down, but you can't just blame one person. I don't think we should be attacking Courtney like this, even if it seems deserved.
I understand that it can be distasteful to see a pile-on on one person, especially when you've been unaware up till now of what the problem has been. Speaking for myself, let me explain why I don't think it's a pile-on.
I think feminists with disabilities have been very clear from the start of the open letter that it's not a Let's Attack Courtney sort of thing. It can't even be properly said that Courtney's "invalid" post was the straw that broke the camel's back; feminists with disabilities have been attempting to contact Feministing for years about the ableism they saw at Freministing. The open letter was simply the latest attempt--the reason it worked was because of COURTNEY'S choice to listen and respond THIS time. That is, it has never been about Courtney; this is simply the first time feminists with disabilities have been able to get a response from anyone at Feministing.
I'll acknowledge that that has brought her in for more pressure than it seems is proportionate to her role in Feministing's ableism. However, feminists with disabilities have been very clear in several places (from the open letter, to the chat itself, to this very comment thread) that it is not an issue just with Courtney--feminists with disabilities would be THRILLED to have a chance to talk with Jessica and the otehr contributors. Whoever is making the decision that Courtney should handle all of the disability posts is someone at Feministing, and they are the ones who have ensured Courtney deals with this pressure.
At this point I'm sure it would be taken as a positive step if other Feministing contributors were willing to engage with feminists with disabilities.
As a longtime Feministing reader who happens to be blind, I'm excited about this new development! People with disabilities have been fighting for autonomy over our bodies, control over our lives, equal access to education, and non-discrimination in education and the workplace for decades. These issues very much intersect with tradition feminist issues of bodily autonomy, access to education and employment, etc.
Though many of Feministing's posts speak to me as a woman in general, I do look forward to reading more posts on Feministing that speak to my (and other women's) particular experiences as women with disabilities.
god, I'm just so sick of the online feminist community -- and I want to emphasize the word ONLINE. Honestly, I feel if we were all in a classroom together, looking at each other face to face, we would have productive, thoughtful, and empathetic replies to one another. We would understand each other's opinions and shortcomings a little better, and we could actually get somewhere.
I feel like almost every interesting post devolves into a completely unproductive yelling. Rarely is there dialogue, only accusation.
Has the site lacked sensitivity on issues? Certainly. Are they trying to fix these issues? Yes. On the other hand, it feels like no one can win. Courtney is trying to make a change, and she is attacked for not acknowledging someone by name. Had she acknowledged the person by name, I think she would have been called out for exposing someone, and also inadvertedly blaming them. Inevitably, someone comes to the defense of a mod or someone who has been criticized, and that devolves into something else entirely, often saying that the initial critique is not valuable.
I truly feel like this is lose lose, and I really feel that if we were all adults carrying out a conversation in real life, we would be a lot more careful with our attacks on people (and I really do mean this for both sides of whichever debates we are having).
I'm very frustrated in general with the whole situation. Does anyone get sick of the unproductive debates? And in this sense, I don't even mean this debate because I truly hope that we can progress from here.
Perhaps this is just the result of impassioned people who are skilled in critical thinking and analysis. I understand this. But I often wish the bickering and rudeness could just stop.
I am well aware that women are often accused of being bitchy. I really don't want my post to come across as one which asks for women to be silent. I would just love to read the comments that were passionate, yet respectful. I'm often shocked by the venomous and personal attacks on posters. Certainly, I understand the frustration and anger that must result from the particularly ignorant and rude comments that I have seen on the site, but I hope that when this occurs, we can rally together and respectfully and firmly tell posters that what they have said is offensive for reasons x, y, and z. Again, I just wish we could see each other in person, as I think the internet often prevents us from empathizing with each other.
I should really specify that I am not saying, boo for the critique that feministing is ableist. If it weren't there we would be one big, happy family. Just wanted to make that clear.
I am frustrated that every post turns into a disrespectful argument.
I think that were we to have a forum, the moderators could close down offensive threads, give warnings, ban people, etc. I think much of the problem could be solved by having a well-moderated forum with moderators who can help spot address all issues that the feminist community should be addressing.
I have faith that we can do it...if we don't, I'll just stop reading comments altogether.
YES. Oh my god, I feel that way every time I read something here or on my old blog or on Feministe. Everyone is so quick to call someone an ableist or unfeminist or any number of other things, yet you know that if everyone were face-to-face, people would be so much more respectful. And when you try to point that out in the comments section in response to a vitriolic comment, you're banned for being a supposed troll. It's ridiculous.
People would be so much more "respectful" you say... or perhaps fearful of ramifications if they were to actually express the pain they felt as a result of someone else's actions?
I find it interesting how people long for these situations where certain groups of people are effectively shut out. And then complain when those people find a place to actually connect with each other about their shared experiences, and try to effect some change.
amandaw
I'm sorry that my preference for in-person debate has offended you.
I'm sorry, now I understand why you were confused about my comment. When I was talking about everyone being mroe respectful, I didn't make it clear enough that I was not saying that oppressed people would be more respectful, at all. I see how it came off that way, though. I meant to imply everyone, and that a situation wouldn't escalate in the ways that it often does online. There would be more automatic politeness all around and in the end, opinions that were shared would be better received by everyone.
I wish I could "like" your post a hundred times.
This kind of site is never, ever going to make everyone happy, which is why the Community part exists, in my mind. Or linking to your own blogs. (Not that mine is like groundbreaking or anything.)
The thing is, the people who fall outside the happy group? They're the ones who feminism, the movement as a whole, has ALWAYS had problems including. It's a systemic problem. The editors themselves and this website are a pretty big voice in feminism today. When big voices ignore the marginalized people, that's a problem.
I mean, women are probably never going to be completely happy with how we're treated by society, not for a very long time. But does that mean society should really stop fucking trying to treat women equally?
I think you're missing my point. Yes, I understand that Feministing is a big blog. Yes, I agree that every effort should be made to challenge privilege on blogs.
However, I'm also firmly of the opinion that this is the internet. We all have a certain amount of privilege simply having this conversation on the internet. I was agreeing with pan's point that it's very easy to deny privilege, derail conversations, constantly criticize, etc, when you don't have to look someone in the eye. The internet as a whole is like this.
You jumped from a comment I made about the site of one blog on the internet to social activism and society in general. I don't agree with that leap at all.
Yes, there is privilege in being on the internet (class privilege in particular, also the interesting self-segregation of communities online, and so forth).
However, consider also that the internet is the only social outlet available for many PWD, with a variety of conditions and situations. Telling people "This is the internet, so it doesn't matter" is telling them "Your life doesn't matter."
Privilege comes in many forms.
amandaw
Okay, I'm not sure if I'm not communicating clearly. If I'm not, I do apologize.
I'm not saying that this is the internet, it doesn't matter. I'm saying that this is the internet, therefore people have a tendency (just as much to identify with others as to) be real jerks and make up things. (I've seen this happen in supposedly safe PWD spaces online, as well as sites like this.)
I'd like to point out that I have lived with mental illness most of my life and the internet has been one of the primary ways that I've been able to adjust and adapt and connect with others.
I've been thinking about this since I last posted, and it bothers me, quite frankly. My comment was in no way an attempt to say, hey, it's the internet, so PWD should suck it up and deal. It was more an expression of my general frustration with websites like Feministing that are prone to all kinds of inequalities.
I want to apologize to anyone who read my comments are indicating anything but my own frustrations. I also want to apologize for voicing that here in this thread.
I'm sorry if I misread it -- keeping in mind the culture around here also makes me more inclined to respond to the worst-case reading, to make sure the argument is addressed in case anyone else thinks it too. And to make sure to raise issues people might not have thought about.
I apologize for misunderstanding :)
amandaw
I understand completely. I just really didn't want to be misunderstood, since I do really respect and value the work you have done regarding this issue. FWD/Forward is a phenomenal blog. I wish Feministing was more like it in regards to feminism and disability.
You know, I don't have the energy to deal with most of your comment right now, but I do really really want to address this point.
Honestly, I feel if we were all in a classroom together, looking at each other face to face, we would have productive, thoughtful, and empathetic replies to one another
I really doubt this. One of the reasons I really doubt it is that a lot of marginalised groups only feel safe speaking up online. It can be *incredibly* difficult to open your mouth in RL, where there are RL consequences if the person you are speaking to doesn't like their privilege challenged. So people stay silent. And privileged people mistake silence for assent, and start talking about "why can't we all get along like we could in RL?" whenever these issues are brought up online.
(Since this is a feminist site, a feminist analogy: where do you feel safer calling out sexism - in RL, or online?)
Two, the topic at hand is issues related to disability. There are a variety of disabilities that make face-to-face conversation more, not less, difficult than online; I have a nice laundry list of them myself and am incredibly grateful for online communication because it is so much easier for me to expresss myself. When you say "face to face conversation is better", what you mean is better for you, which I'd really like to make you aware of.
And privileged people mistake silence for assent, and start talking about "why can't we all get along like we could in RL?" whenever these issues are brought up online.
This is definitely a critical point that people often miss. Thank you for that because it really hits something core into the human experience.
Someone says something insensitive due to your gender, sexuality, race, religion, ethnicity, ability or other sensitivity (I use the word because you may not *be* of that category but are sensitive to those issues) and it's much harder to be like "hey, you're being a prick" face to face than to post a comment online and then close the window. I think it's also why it's so much easier for our discussions here to devolve as quickly as they do sometimes.
Thank you for saying that. I was trying to figure out the right words.
I think you raise a really good point.
I'm always quite comfortable speaking my mind in a classroom type setting, which is really not the norm. I didn't think of this.
I think what I was getting at is that people would not jump to call someone a rude name given that it is much more difficult to be callous and bold on in real life, and easy to forget the people behind the words. For instance, I've certainly said things on the internet that I would never say in real life, such as calling people names...but I suppose this works both ways, like you mention.
thanks for your reply.
Right on.
I would like to add my voice to all those above who feel there are serious issues to be resolved.
I was shocked to read the "tone" argument and I think serious kudos are due to Amanda and co for refraining from allowing such an insensitive remark to dominate the brief conversation.
I also feel a lot of the, quite valid, points brought up about the overall tone of feministing were dismissed. The audience of feministing is very much skewed to the white, middleclass, college educated, cis-gender, TAB. It is lacking in self knowledge to deny this, and I think the tone and content of contributed posts, and the moderation of comments threads very much give the audience an idea of what is "allowed" and "not allowed". Nobody expects the feministing crew to stop people thinking things, but they can stop people thinking things are appropriate in this supposedly safe space.
I'm going to be overly optimistic and say I'm looking forward to seeing feministing respond to the issues brought up in these comments.
Gopher's continued use of silencing, marginalizing, and hurtful tactics are exactly the reason moderators need to be more involved. He was allowed to be hurtful and anti-feminist in the community post, and here he is, doing it again.
How about some moderation? I would think that this post, of all posts, would be a good place to start.
My apologies to Gopher - I used the wrong gender pronoun and I'm sorry for that.
That said, I'm out of this thread. I can't take this. Thank you to everyone who's been advocating and being an ally.
I cant help but feel you have taken my comments out of order. I dont want you to feel overwhelmed and feel like you have to leave. I have not made any anti-feminist comments nor have I made any bigoted ableist comments. I have merely criticised some former posters from the first thread about this topic who claimed 'stupid,' 'irrational,' 'rational,' and 'idiotic' were bigoted words. I claim that its not. I have never used the word lame, the 'r' word or invalid in any of my posts and do not know how you could accuse me of that? If you feel up to it dont hesitate to debate. I wouldnt want any poster to feel overwhelmed, exasperated or at all like I'm being bigoted. Were all feminists!
You really, really, really, really, really, really have.
-A TAB lurker
"I have not made any anti-feminist comments nor have I made any bigoted ableist comments."
You really, really, really, really, really, really have.
-A TAB lurker
Not a dude. ---> = X
You know...I have been thinking about this for awhile.
Listen...I can talk about intersectionality pretty well, I am intersex, I transitioned to female, I am bisexual and I have an Autism Spectrum Disorder (PDD-NOS). I am also white, upper-middle class, well educated, and coming from a place of privelege. I have a hard time being critical because, I am a little attached to the site reading it is part of my daily routine. But to be honest these debates have existed for a long time within the social justice and feminist communities since the third wave got started. I think they are healthy ultimately.
Do I feel sometimes a little critical when there is a missed opportunity...yes. I think there was a huge missed opportunity on the part of the site with regards to the women and asperger's story, largely because it was based on a particular type of medical sexism. But I understand why it was missed, alot of it requires a knowledge of the clinical history of autism that frankly takes time and honestly personal experience.
With regards to comments, when a blog post is insensitive, thats one thing, but people are insensitive and sometimes comments are too. It happens and I am not going to blame the site or the moderators if somebody does something to make them look like an ass. I also don't see it as a blanket reflection on the community. I have certianly done it on more than one occasion myself. I have said insensitive things which I hated myself for saying later. It happens, its part of the human experience and can be a learning experience.
It's not the site's fault that commenters say hurtful and ignorant things in general. For that matter, everyone says ignorant BS sometimes, and I'm sure I'm not the only one that will forgive some inadvertent insensitivity if it's a one-time thing, especially if the person truly recognizes what they said/did was hurtful.
The problem comes in when comments that are marginalizing, derailing, and (in some cases) abusive are tacitly endorsed because moderators don't do a thing about them. The silence from the moderators is, in fact, the moderators' fault, and also allows a culture where such -ism-laden comments can thrive.
It's a little like if you're at your workplace and some -isms come out, and the higher ups do nothing, even when you file a complaint. That's allowing such behavior by tacitly condoning it.
So yes, this isn't just on the commenters.
I feel like I should jump in here.
I am disabled. I was born with a severe visual impairment bordering on blindness and I continue to have it to this day. I am also a feminist.
I cannot speak for the entire disabled community, though I do feel like some posters here have spoken for me.
I would never claim that words like "lame" and "stupid" and "invalid" are respectful, or that they should be used. I would like to see disability rights content on this site and on other feminist web sites. I am glad that there is the possibility of forward movement with regards to this issue on this site, and I am glad that a dialogue is being opened up for such possibilities.
But, as a feminist, a long-time Feministing reader, and as someone with a disability, I find myself feeling defensive because I feel as if the disability rights activist posters in this situation are being disrespectful in some ways, I feel that they are being incredibly nitpicky in some ways that are VERY unproductive, and I feel like a group that I am a part of--and am proud to be a part of, as a disabled person who works towards educating other people abut disabilities on a regular basis--is speaking for me. And I don't like everything they're saying.
Steps have to be taken. They have to be taken a bit at a time, they have to be taken with compassion. And yes, I understand the argument "They aren't having compassion towards disabled people, so they're none to talk about compassion." But as people who have been victims of a lack of compassion for centuries, shouldn't we attempt to spread that? I am not angry that people don't understand my disability or the mentality and social environment that surrounds it, I am compelled to educate them and give them the best impression possible. From the comments on this post I feel as if there is very little but hostility and that bothers me because I, being a bit of an idealist, would sincerely like to see this conversation become productive and compassionate.
I just hope that that can happen. I am open to criticism and discussion from both sides of this conversation. Thanks for your time.
You may be noticing impatience. This is because people have been attempting to engage with the Feministing crew on this issue for years and have been ignored for years. Until this chat -- when they didn't ignore us, but they did dismiss pretty much everything we said. And then this post, when Courtney actually took the suggestions we provided them and said that they were Feministing's suggestions -- and made this into a personal learning experience for her, rather than a site-wide and systemic problem.
So yes, we are growing impatient now. I apologize that we are not constantly chipper and willing to go along with anything and everything. We have taken this entire process in good faith, engaging diplomatically, because we had hope for change and wanted to believe the contributors had the motivation to try. When the responses are what they have been -- being ignored, ignored, ignored, then denied, dismissed, excused -- after we have invested so much time and energy into this, at our own personal expense -- yes, we grow slightly impatient. We were hoping that Feministing would reciprocate, in good faith, with a genuine effort of their own -- and thus far, we have not received that.
And just to make clear, we cannot claim to speak for every disabled person. We are not a monolith. We have a variety of positions, opinions and points of view. That's what makes us human. What we can do is speak out about what we feel is unjust, and engage in activism which we feel is the best way to resolve that injustice. That is, after all, what we are all doing here as feminists -- and we would not stop doing this work as feminists if one woman were to say she did not identify with the political identity of feminism. It is quite the same here, with disability.
amandaw
Right on.
This post has been included in a linkspam round up.
M_K just brought up a good point in her post on Transcribing Video Posts in the Community section. Currently there is no "Disability Rights" category for Community posts, although the tag has been used for a few front page posts. Perhaps that could be ammended?
Wow. I stopped reading Feministing years ago, but I have been following this particular dust-up, and checking the site regularly to see your response, and just... wow.
What the hell, y'all?
As if the actual conversation weren't bad enough, this post is a complete slap in the face. Why did it take Feministing so long to write up a follow-up post, anyway? The transcript of your conversation with added commentary was all over the disability blogs a week ago. In fact, Courtney, you didn't even write a real post- you just co-opted and copy-pasted a bunch of suggestions without attributing them. And, of course, wrote almost entirely in the passive voice. And misspelled 'ableist.' I mean, seriously?
On a similar note, where are the rest of the contributors on this? Why is all of the onus of solving Feministing's insensitivity issues being dumped on Courtney?
I wish I could say I expected more from Feministing, but really, with the site's history, I don't. This response is appalling, but sadly par for the course. Yes, I understand that safe spaces are a lot of work. But it's up to you all to decide what kind of community you want to have here.
It is obvious that the issue is simply not a priority to feministing. The editors dance around it by saying that they don't have time to deal with it. Amanda brought attention to it (and got a tone silencing) by reminding them that they find the time to deal with other issues that come up on the board.
The feministing editors should be authentic enough to just admit that disabled rights just isn't a big enough priority for them to take resources away from other topics. Everyone has limited time, money, and energy and has to make decisions about where to spend them. People will understand. Just be honest about it so that the people for whom it is important know that they will have to look somewhere else to see this topic discussed.
I'm glad your psyched and all, but this shouldn't have taken this long. I am hoping that this will be more than an empty gesture, but I suppose we'll just have to wait and see.
Feministing was the first step on my feminist journey, but I pretty much left when I realized how little recognition of intersections of oppression and privilege this site had.
I realize that being a Black, trans racially adopted, queer, service dog handling, person with disabling mental illness is not the most common combination, but the judgmental, ism loaded tones of some of the post on here very nearly pushed me away from feminism.
Ain't I a woman?
I leave you with just one word, intersections. You need to deal with them.
Ok, I just read through the thread at the "Open Letter" post.
Wow. The hostility there really blew me away. Granted, I don't read comments threads that often, but I don't think I've ever seen such nastiness here on Feministing.
To those who really care about learning about the intersection of feminism and disability rights/acceptance, let me recommend the blog, FWD/Foward . It is a new blog, but a really useful one for those new to disability theory (IMO, a good one to add to the Feministing Blog Roll). Do read the comments policy before you comment though.
I'd also like to register my astonishment at the use of the "Tone Argument" by a feminist.
After a few days of reading through all of these posts, transcripts, and other blogs, I finally understand feel like I have a grasp of the issue.
For what it's worth, I now feel a lot more committed to understanding and accounting for issues of disability in the feminist community.
I have to say that without understanding all of the context of this thread, I was confused, and hence my previous posts that I now understand as defensive.
What has happened in the community over time is just sad, and now, after trying to report an offensive post, I see how difficult and problematic it actually is.
The strange thing is that the concerns presented by many critics could have been addressed with relative ease. Even hiring one feminist with a disability as a consultant would have probably helped.
I still hope that feministing does all it can to remedy this rift. In the meantime, I would like to apologize for my own ignorance in the few comments that I left in this post. I would like everyone to know that, if anything, it has led me to rethink the entire issue.
thank you so much for coming back with this.
amandaw
I was also really surprised by the "tone" argument when I read the transcripts of the chat. I actually scrolled up and tried to see what it was a response to and if there was any context to it - I could only see that Courtney was responding to amandaw saying they already knew it was a busy site.
I am appalled that this thread has been up for three days with only two very brief replies from Courtney.
I don't care how busy the authors of the post and blog are. I am in medical school. When someone complains about something offensive on my blog or in the comments, I reply within three days. Consciously deciding to have a blog with interactive comments on social justice issues means there is some sort of responsibility.
Especially if one is going to author a post on a sensitive topic with a history of problems in comment sections. Especially if the post is full of optimism and euphemism about working with these nameless people, and then these nameless people show up in the comments with names and some direct points and requests for answers.
Really?