In a post that I fear wouldn’t pass Barry’s litmus test for commenting on feminist issues—nor would it be authoritative enough to prove worthy of additional conversation to either Jill from feministe or Countess Trish, who would just as soon “debate” sex and gender-related social controversies in an arena where the other debaters have agreed to accept their carefully drawn preconditions for joining the “discourse” (most notably, that they be “pro-feminist,” which seems to be the new catchphrase for those who accept as settled feminist law certain aspects of activist, political feminism)—Cathy Young takes the time to answer my query from yesterday, which asked how we might better treat false rape charges in a political and legal ethos that, after years of being lobbied by establishment women’s rights activists (itself a powerful political identity group), has lowered evidentiary standards for proof of rape, and has engaged in an unstated (and perhaps even unconscious) institutional bias toward comforting accusors (the vast majority of whom are women).
Writes Young:
In some legal systems, a false accuser faced the same penalty that the accused would have faced if convicted on the false charge. That may be excessive, but the penalties for false accusations—whatever the crime—do need to be tougher. There are legitimate concerns that women who are raped may not come forward if they have to worry that they’ll go to prison for a long time if unable to prove the charge. But no one is talking about punishing accusers whose charges cannot be proven (resulting in the accused going free). If a woman or a man is charged with a felony for falsely accusing someone of a serious crime, the prosecution will have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person knowingly made a false charge. That’s a tough burden to meet, and it should be. But in those cases where the falsehood of the accusation is clear, the punishment should be fittingly serious.
There is another issue here as well. In response to pernicious myths and stereotypes about women routinely “crying rape”—stereotypes that, among other things, often branded any “unchaste” victim as a lying slut—many feminists have gone to the other extreme of asserting that women don’t lie about rape (or hardly ever lie about rape), and that women in he said/she said sexual assault cases should be given what feminist sociologist Margaret Gordon called “the benefit of belief.” In some cases, the very discussion of false charges of rape has been treated as misogynist hate speech. And while it’s certainly not true that, as some men’s activists claim, all it takes to send a man to prison these days is one word from a woman, the new rape myths—the feminists ones—have taken enough hold to result in some very substantial injustices.
We need a serious, honest, open discussion on false accusations of rape. Being able to accuse someone of rape is a form of power (of course that’s true of any accusation, but a charge of rape packs a unique emotional and legal punch); and it would be naive to expect women never to abuse the power they have, just as it would be naive to expect it of men.
[my emphases]
Cathy is absolutely correct, though her solution to the underlying controversy — “a serious, honest open, discussion on false accusations of rape”—seems unlikely, given that those who are committed to a certain brand of activist feminism see such discussions as inherently combative or “bullying” (in the rhetorical sense), and so unproductive: instead of moving the empowerment agenda forward, these discussions bog down on points of public policy and law that have already been settled favorably for women, and so cover territory that is to be guarded doggedly on ideological grounds alone. My post yesterday was an invitation to spur this debate. It was met, unfortunately, with blithe dismissal and, to a degree, scorn and the intimation of bad faith on my part.
Which I admit was a bit surprising to me, given that I went out of my way to reach out to “pro-feminist feminists” not too long ago in an effort to reach a common ground upon which we could discuss these kinds of important issues without resorting to defensiveness and acrimony.
I concluded my post yesterday by asking, “if, as the saying goes, we’d rather see 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man imprisonedâ€â€particularly for lifeâ€â€does this concept not extend, too, to sexual assault and rape convictions?”
Unfortunately, the answer I seemed to receive from spokeswomen for the activist branch of modern feminism, is this: “how can you even ask that question”—which it now strikes me is simply a softer, friendlier, venue-specific version of asking, “how dare you question the ‘benefit of belief’ that many sociological feminists view as an article of faith?”
Or, to put it more bluntly, “that discussion is off the table.” Which is fine, from the perspective of an activist feminism that is determined to circle the wagons—but it is clearly problematic from the standpoint of a legal system under which we are each of us, regardless of race or sex, etc., supposed to stand equal before the law, and with the presumption of innocence the grounding assumption standing in the way of any potential prosecution.
****
For more on the topic from Cathy, see: Prosecuting rape allegations (The Y Files, December 4, 2005); “Who says women never lie about rape?” (Salon, March 10, 1999); “Kobe’s rights: Rape, justice and double standards” (Reason, April 2001); How much should we know about the sex life of Kobe Bryant’s accuser? (Salon, March 26, 2004)
****
update: Oh well. Seems my desire to engage feminists on this issue has been met (yet again) with a combination of derisive dismissal and intentional and repeated attempts to either a) purposely mischaracterize my position or b) simply dismiss me as a misogynist.
Guess it’s back to drinking beer in my underwear while pawing through my Girls Gone Wild video anthology…
****
update 2: Additional thoughts from Little Miss Attila
I’ll start taking feminism seriously when feminism starts taking the problem of gender feminists seriously.
Please, God, don’t let them start cruising around here looking at various comments where they might find me referring to Women’s Studies as Clit Lit.
Please, for the love of God, no.
I never know how seriously to take you when you say things like this:
You’re not really surprised, though, are you? Surely you didn’t honestly believe that any of those women—except for Cathy, who’s always departed from feminist orthodoxy—was going to give your argument a fair shake. You might have had a 50/50 chance with Lauren. That’s it.
I don’t know, JG. Between this and your attempts to engage the anti-PJM jihadis, I’m starting to think you enjoy banging your head against walls.
By the way, I enjoyed Jill’s swipe at you in that post about the Iranian girl over at Feministe. How … surprising that she’d resort to such a vicious cheap shot.
Allah, at heart Jeff is a Jehovah’s Witness.
(Upcoming gross oversimplification alert!)
Witnesses believe that a large part of their salvation comes from evangelizing for the faith. More negatively, they believe that you can end up in Hell if you (a) saw a good opportunity to witness and (b) didn’t follow through on it.
Jeff wants to try to have the conversation, even it it’s probably futile. There’s always the chance for a breakthrough. Maybe he will learn something really important about feminist theory that he didn’t understand before. Maybe a feminist will see his point and make some emendation to her philosophical worldview. These good outcomes may be unlikely, but they’re possible. The only cost for trying is the possibility (certainty) of the unwarranted cheap shots – but even those cheap shots can have positive effects. 98 people read Jill’s typical slam and thought “right on sister!” – which they would have done anyway – and another 2 people said “geez, why am I on the same side as people who refuse to frame issues with intellectual honesty?” and edge closer to a more reasonable position.
Now, how many Watchtower subscriptions can I put you down for?
Allah —
Hadn’t seen that swipe. And now that I have, I don’t understand it. But you’re right. It was uncalled for.
I responded:
It’s not a Jehovah’s witness thing, Robert. It’s that I lectured and taught argument for so long that I’ve just been conditioned to assume others are equally interested in having a meaningful conversation that culminates, if not in a change of position, than at least a mutual understanding of some sort.
I’ve just been conditioned to assume others are equally interested in having a meaningful conversation that culminates, if not in a change of position, than at least a mutual understanding of some sort.
That’s crazy talk. How long have you been on the internets, anyway?
There are some folks out there who are interested, but (it seems) damn few of us. Maybe we should wear badges of some kind.
Allah,
I think the other part of it, is that when you’ve made a good faith effort, and been rebuffed repeatedly, is that when you come to the conclusion that some folks can go to hell, you can dismiss them with a clear conscience in knowing you did everything reasonable to make a good-faith attempt at engagement.
The other thing that might be worth considering is how this entire series of posts meshes with Jeff’s experience with academia on gender issues.
BRD
My problem is that it seems as though everyone has already made up their minds and the discussions turn into a dogpile-on-the-feminists dealio. See above. I’m not a delicate flower, I’m not playing martyr, I don’t need to be treated with kid gloves, but I prefer to be welcomed into the conversation I’ve been called to having by the host instead of beating off the “feminists are teh suck” commenters with sticks. If Jeff wants to engage with us, let us engage with him too sans dogpile. Hell, even Robert is welcome at Feministe.*
(And, of course, the five second countdown until Playah Grrl appears to tell me I can’t dance. Hi, PG!)
I happen to really like Jeff and am consistently tempted to post here at PW, but I know the disdain I’m consistently met with and thus refrain from participation, instead communicating with Jeff behind the curtain.
___
* It took me awhile, but I like Robert. Begrudgingly. And now that I’ve said that the earth will implode.
You may find the sentencing disparity of women rapists to be of some interest. I covered the topic in my post January – National Have Sex With Your Teacher Month where I went through the January archives of a blogger who tracks the teacher-student sex issue. You’d be surprised how at how many stories don’t get the media attention of the Letourneau case.
Sure. Does it not?
tw: next
It took me awhile, but I like Robert. Begrudgingly. And now that I’ve said that the earth will implode.
Ew, now I have Lauren cooties.
Lauren, because getting verbally abused at Feministe (DOGPILE ON TEH FUNDIES) is so much better.
I’ve made my feelings clear on Jill though. I have zero respect for the woman and I think you, Mr. Goldstein (Side note, did you get a doctorate? I’d hate to think it is Dr. Goldstein and I have fumbled it each time.), are a better man than I for continuing to attempt to engage Jill and Trish in intelligent discussion.
I think Jill’s rebuttal to Mr. Goldstein’s comment on the Iranian girl post in Feministe does highlight something which I have said all along. She believes that this is a “rape culture,” that “countless” stories of false rape accusations are constantly being used to cow feminists or what not (What makes feminists more sensitive to trolls? I dunno. Do they get a larger quantity? The worst we get is PIATOR and dumber.). In a way, a lot of us can feel similar vibes from the media. Ask any conservative leaning… or, I should say neutral-or-better-on-Bush/GWOT leaning individual what they feel about more Abu Ghraib pics posted in the newspapers, or similar such issues pounded into OUR OWN SKULLS constantly, and you’ll get a similar dismissive reaction. We all have our own perceptions of persecution or what not, but I’ve never seen it as bad as from the feminist types we have engaged… or failed to engage, I should say, here. Am I making sense?
TangoMan! Long time, no see.
She responded predictably. You can always tell it’s an authentic Jill post or comment by the obligatory reference to “brown people.”
Lauren writes:
But Jeff invited five or six different feminist bloggers to join the debate. If anything, he was asking them to dogpile on him. And yes, I’m mature enough as a person not to make a stupid sexual pun out of that.
Okay, I’m not. SIX-CHICK PILE ON JEFF! PULL THAT TRAIN, JG!
In the interest of full disclosure, the nitwits at Feministe (Of course, I say this with regard to here there are some nitwits, there there are some nitwits…) are smaller in number, but by NO means less disrespectful. Does Chris Clarke still post there? I’m sure Marcotte does.
In fairness to Jill, she is very, very young. I was not a reasonable person when I was her age. So I don’t condemn her out of hand for being the wacky gal that she is. Youth is not an unlimited get-out-of-jail free card, but it does carry with it some stupidity privilege.
Robert,
As long as the stupidty is a privilege, rather than a right or a blanket excuse. But at some point, the only way to ever come to grips with thw world is by punching your weight.
BRD
Apologize for the totally OT rant: Jawa comments down again today and Sister T yesterday…..don’t forget to hit the save thingy folks, especially if it’s a lengthy reply, AAARRRGH!
SPQR,
Long time no see, indeed. It’s amazing how small the blogosphere really is. So is PW the new place to hang? I needed a bit of a change from:
Now I’m the stupid verbal and racist Rightie on some feminist blogs, but I must say that Lauren and Jill have been quite gracious hosts. They’re tolerant of debate unlike others who ask you to leave because they can’t rebut your arguments.
But at some point, the only way to ever come to grips with thw world is by punching your weight.
Indeed. There will come some crisis point when she has to decide what her values really are. In the meantime, I kind of subscribe to the notion that it’s our responsibility to show her right thinking so that she at least has some exposure to it.
The Instawife is on the side of the angels.
To the extent that six dudes who enjoy the occasional videotaped gangbang can be considered “angels.”
Why, thank you.
Jeff also has several thousand readers on his side and some vocal commenters that never hesitate to tell us how stupid we are and won’t give him or his thoughts a fair shake. His wishes aside, we have to deal with y’all as well and it’s beyond tiresome.
You will also remember that Jill has trotted on over on many an occasion to debate with good faith and these traits of immaturity and unreasonability (and fuckability and unfuckability, depending on the day) have been assigned to her nonetheless. I would think you’d allow her some credit for trying to engage despite the hostile audience.
Also, out of six feminists he asked to respond, four did (not counting me). Some dogpile, eh?
Incidentally, one of them is out of the country.
And Barry? Who knows, but I’ll bet that if he sees this he will discuss it with his usual even-handedness.
There’s a hostile audience on HER site! Least there was the last time I strolled over! I mean, I accept tasteless nitwits on the internet as a given. The issue here is that her response was pretty much “How dare you?” rather than anything engaging the questions. That is why I disowned my attempts to corral the nitwits on this site when she came over to play.
That’s because most of you won’t, in fact, give him or his thoughts a fair shake. But that’s beside the point. No one had to come over here to debate; they could have responded on their own blogs and avoided the troll problem.
Credit granted. But how much is that credit worth? Jeff, Bill, OHNOES, Robert, I, and probably twenty or thirty others have been over to Feministe many times to engage despite the hostile audience there. If you venture into enemy territory, you accept the consequences. What of it? Just ignore them. Jeff is the one you’re ostensibly debating with anyway.
I’m not sure what that’s supposed to mean. You were the one who brought up the prospect of Jeff’s readers “dogpiling” on feminists. I said that was unlikely since, of the seven principals in the debate, at least five could be counted on to oppose Jeff. I.e., if there was going to be a dogpile, it’s more likely that Jeff would be on the receiving end.
In any case, his point here as I understand it isn’t that people failed to respond to him, it’s that (with the exception of Cathy Young) they responded with “scorn and the intimation of bad faith” instead of earnest dialogue.
Anyway. As I was saying, SIX-CHICK PILE ON!
Lauren: I make it a rule to never to respond to those I don’t respect. If you find some nitwit comment (and therefore disrespectful) to be tiresome, why respond?
You claim not to be a delicate flower, but you respond with lament of having your sensibilities bruised. Make up your mind–it’s OK.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Engage us in humor, wit, and pointed argumentation, and you will find responses in kind. Ignore the nitwits.
To decline to engage in verbal sport with a willing mind because others hiss is a weakness. Care not for the audience, let their voices become whispers.
An aside: While Americans debate matters of false accusations sparked by a sexually graphic video tape, another minor step forward in the Middle East. For “First Lady Suzanne Mubarak bent down and kissed her husband President Mubarak as she was celebrating Egypt’s win of the African nations football championship. Millions saw the “kiss clip” live on TV or via chain emails.â€Â
Women kissing men in public. Madness.
Granting one sex advantageous legal outcomes. Madness.
Thanks to the BigMan
I’ve been shot at by people who won’t follow that prescription. I like your way better, Jeff.
hi lauren!
i dunno, mebbe you could learn to dance, but first you need a refresher course in Piaget theory, right? lol.
an’ you need to quit lookin’ at jeff, allah and bill ardolino as life support systems for mobile penises. snaps! they even stick up for you! personally, i suspect you might be a grievous waste of spacetime, but if those guys see something in you…perhaps you’re not!
go to feministe? Boo that!
you and your homeslice jillikins both have deleted and suspended my comments.
And you wonder why people don’t waste their times with nitwits?
I’m really … surprised to find bad-faith arguments being leveled at conservatives over at Feministe.
Just … surprised, is all.
It’s all an elaborate plot to get my wife to renounce her women’s studies degree out of embarrassment.
I must be getting close by now. THEN I CAN OWN HER UTERUS!
[Hi, everyone. I was out of town for a week. Let me know if I missed any exciting threads.]
Anyone who has two X-chromosomes and wants to discuss anything at all in public will be called 1) ugly; 2) stupid; 3) slutty. Long-term, the best strategy is to know in your gut that either you aren’t these things, or you are and don’t care. In either event, the goal is to remove these weapons from the opposition’s arsenal–mostly because once you do that, 99.9% of your verbal sparring partners will have nothing left. It’s rather a nice position to be in, and lets you concentrate on the people who actually, you know, have something to say.
Anyone who has an X chromosome and a Y chromosome will be called a pig/baboon/neanderthal. Same as above: decide you aren’t, or that you are and don’t care. Then engage the ones who actually address your points.
Mr. Goldstein, by the way, EXCELLENT post title. Just made me laugh when I first saw it.
Jeff,
Be sure you video tape the “dogpile”…you may be glad later in court that you did.
hi (((attila grrl)))!
you are very wise.
did you learn that at CPAC?
So, anyway, about Jeff’s post…
JG wrote:
instead of moving the empowerment agenda forward, these discussions bog down on points of public policy and law that have already been settled favorably for women
Have they been settled favorably for women? A man who is falsely accused of rape most likely has a mother, and might possibly have a sister or two, daughters, nieces, aunts, perhaps a wife. If his life is ruined by the accusation, those women suffer too.
Likewise, a woman who is raped most likely has a father, and might possibly have a brother or two, sons, nephews, uncles and perhaps a husband. If her life is ruined by being raped, and then watching her attacker walk away because some idiotic jury decided she provoked it, then those men suffer too.
This isn’t an issue that should pit men vs. women, it’s something that concerns us all equally.
As a woman, I totally agree with a tougher sentence for proven false accusation charges. I see this as a form of deterrence which is needed in many other crimes also. Especially since the sentence for the men is so damn harsh.
Am I a feminist? No. But, don’t play the little woman, chauvinist game with me either.
I think the feminist have gone too far in many respects. And in regards to this current topic, they have.
Well, I love the fact that if two people are equally drunk and have consensual sex the male is still held responsible for getting “permission” from the woman–according to some campus codes. Otherwise, it’s retroactive rape.
I mean, anyone needs to be careful about whom he/she gets drunk around, and certainly women do well to be especially cautious. Especially women who don’t care to get laid that night.
It’s not about justifying rape: it’s about having the word “rape” mean something approximating “rape.”
Heya, Playah Grrl. Good to see you. And I’m still a feminist.
Though I’m not generally considered to be ideologically pure, as you might imagine.
Ardsgaine —
If you’ll travel back up to the original post, you
ll notice the orange portions of the text you quoted. Those are links. Click them, and they will take you to US law that backs up what I wrote.
This issue was never meant to pit men against women, and from my perspective it never did; in fact, as I stated over in the thread at feministe, had the accusor been a man, I’d expect the same tough penalties for filing a false report to obtain.
That’s what these posts are about: we hold rape to a different set of evidentiary rules; if we feel the need to do that, then am I asking if it isn’t prudent to hold those who would intentionally abuse the power a rape charge brings to a tougher standard for perjury.
No, generally those men make the attacker suffer.
heyah back atcha, ag.
i think you and mrs. goldstein are badly in need of some rebranding.
i think feminism is about to become a dirty word.
lol.
Nice thought, OHNOES. But vigilantism in this arena usually makes things worse. Because if the guy who assaulted one really is a dangerous predator who might hurt another woman, one has a duty to report it so they can try to find the guy. ‘Cause the cops have crime labs and stuff. And because the most violent rapists sometimes graduate to murder.
In a situation like this, it’s easy for the relative or husband to harm the wrong guy.
That said, if someone messes with my niece I’ll be re-enacting the shooting scene from Robo-Cop singlehandedly, using him for much-needed target practice. But it’ll be different, and not like vigilantism at all.
Oh, yes, indeed. I agree wholeheartedly.
Silly, I KNOW all that stuff.
Speaking personally, I simply don’t understand why it is in the best interests of women to enshrine and fetishize rape even more than the patriarchal culture already had done–our society no longer subscribes to the idea that a woman’s ‘honor’ is dependent upon her chastity (unless she is married or involved in some other mutually agreed-upon exclusive relationship, in which case–well, it’s no more or less dishonorable for a man to welch on a done deal); virginity is no longer considered a prerequisite for marriage (and particularly in the woman but not the man); the idea that it is also possible for a man to be raped is no longer exotic or unbelievable to our Victorian ears; when a woman is no longer a virgin this no longer, by our society’s standards, makes her ‘damaged goods’ and fit only to end her own life like Lucretia. I see feminists engaging in campaigns in Canada to ‘de-eroticise the breast’ etc.; why is there no corresponding drive to take away from the cultural weight and stigma attached to rape? Making it the subject of countless textbooks, philosophical theories, art works, ‘Take back the night’ rallies, etc.; turning it into a privileged crime of which even the whiff of suspicion can destroy lives and reputations forever, elevating it into some exceptional quasi-sacrilegious offense like touching the veil of Tanit, surely only increases the hold rape has on the female subconscious, and its entirely culturally constructed power.
I understand the whole ‘I could have freed thousands more slaves had they only known that they were slaves’ idea–but I think that at a certain point you cease to make a woman aware of her culturally constructed boundaries so that she can surpass them, and begin to make her see boundaries in front of her that aren’t even there. Same goes for most identity politics–the whole ‘break the barriers by understanding them’ idea segues too easily into something like a sick fascination with the problem which refuses to believe that a solution exists, let alone has been partially realized already. It’s rather like certain fundamentalist Christians who (despite placing themselves firmly on the side of the angels) lovingly develop elaborate demonologies and dwell dotingly on the mythology of Satan–as C.S. Lewis said, “There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased about both errors, and hail a materialist or a magician with the same delight.”
alex, it is quite clear that your comment makes Jeff SEXIST!
BECAUSE OF THE AFFRONT TO WOMEN
Turing word “men”… too easy
I used to be such an idealist – looking at the world through my rose-colored glasses. Mine had rims, alas. My, how age hardens you.
I think it’s time to realize that the modern feminist movement has, for the most part, been marginalized. Girrrlls like Jill, Lauren, and their ilk, only exist on university campuses (they belong only in museums). Unlike the 70’s, most women nowadays would prefer to NOT be called feminists.
The slow wheels of justice will eventually turn, and in the end some of these things will turn around. In the meantime, it might be best to realize that these bitter, angry womym cannot be reasoned with, no matter how hard we try.
It’s time to realize that we’re the ones who are right. It’s time to make sure no more of the radical feminist agenda’s destructive policies EVER make it to law again. It’s time to defeat radical feminism, not engage it, as they’re enemies to western civilization as sure as certain other reactionary groups our country’s currently dealing with.
JMHO.
TV (Harry)
tw: will. This whole argument is just a show of wills. May ours be stronger.
You do realize that there are eleven links in that post, right?
Anyway, I don’t think the law was relevant to the point I was trying to make, which was not really intended to contradict your point, but to take a step back and look at a broader context. Maybe the law has been settled in the favor of a few thousand radical feminists, but if it’s perpetrating an injustice on men, then it has not been settled in the favor of the women who love those men. On the other hand, if the law is helping to convict rapists who might otherwise go free, then it should be said to favor not just women, but the men who love them.
I looked at the law you linked to, and frankly, it seems pretty common sensical. The number of sexual partners a woman has had is usually irrelevant and prejudicial. The law allows for some pretty broad exceptions if defense can show that it is relevant.
I don’t think that the problem lies in evidentiary standards, but in the definition of rape itself. The very obvious cases that involve physical coercion are not in question. The ones that bother me are the ones where the woman says after the fact that she didn’t want to have sex, but she didn’t communicate that to the man at the time it was happening. I don’t think the man should have to get a signed release before engaging in sex. In a dating situation, it’s up to the woman to say “no, we’re not doing that.” If she simply lacked the gumption to communicate her unwillingness to the guy, then it’s not rape.
The truth is, though, real rape does happen within relationships, and it’s unlikely to be reported. Anecdotally, I know three women who were raped by boyfriends/husbands, and none of them reported the crime. When a woman says ‘no’, that should be the end of it, but there are neanderthals who won’t take ‘no’ for an answer.
What is your positive position on this? How do you think the law should read so that we can meet the twin goals of jailing rapists and preserving the rights of the accused?
In a post that I fear wouldn’t pass Barry’s litmus test for commenting on feminist issues…
Jeff, I have no idea why you’re criticizing me here, but it doesn’t seem to me that you’re getting your facts straight. There is no “litmus test for commenting on feminist issues” at my blog. Some threads are reserved for feminists; other threads, including a bunch about feminist issues, are pretty much open to all non-trolls.
The only “litmus test” is that I favor comment writers who, in my subjective view, add value to the discussion. That group includes a number of non-feminists (such as Robert, who has posted on this thread) and even some anti-feminists, as well as countless feminists. Regarding the specific example you cite, Cathy Young would never be banned from posting on “Alas,” unless she radically changed her personality.
My standards are idiosyncratic (and draw criticism from all sides), but hell, if you can’t be idiosyncratic on your own blog, where can you be?
I am intending to comment on your post(s), by the way, but it may be several days. (I’m slow.)
So… there is a litmus test for commenting on feminist issues at your blog.
By that standard, any blogger who bans trolls is enacting a “litmus test.”
The guy whose comment you pulled is one of the most mild-mannered, deferential, and intellectually honest commenters in the blogosphere, fyi. Ask MY trolls, whom he routinely treats with respect and intellectual curiousity.
Jeff, I don’t doubt it; I’ve generally gotten along quite well with the guy, and as I’ve told him in email he’s welcome to comment on “Alas” in general – just not in the few threads reserved for intra-feminist discussion.
Look, if I ran a Jewish blog, and because of a constant influx of non-Jews always asking the same questions I decided to mark some threads as “for Jews only,” that isn’t because I want to insult or degrade folks who aren’t Jewish. Nor is it because I think people who aren’t Jewish can’t be “mild-mannered, deferential, and intellectually honest.” It’s because sometimes I want to have a conversation between people who don’t need to hear the same “Judaism 101” stuff over and over again.
The majority of posts on my blog, including most of the ones about “feminist issues,” are open to comment-writers of all ideologies. But although I don’t mind having the same conversation with anti-feminists over and over and over, I don’t want that to be the only conversation I ever get to have. So some threads are feminist-only, and some are open to all.
What, precisely, is your objection to that? And how on earth does that amount to a “litmus test for commenting on feminist issues” – especially since there are plenty of threads about feminist issues on my blog that are open to all to comment on?