Community Direction, Rules & Privacy

[flourish]

First off: since I'm bumping it off the top of the page, everyone take a second and go share some links at the Resource Roundup post that elf kindly made for us! We're hoping to develop those resources into linkspams about various topics, so that in future, we can point to other people's words and not just rely on our own.

As we've had the first couple posts in the community, laughingmedusa and I have been talking a lot (and talking with some of you) about what direction the community ought to go. As some of you may know, the community was started based on several incidents in the feminist blogosphere, wherein it seemed like all possibility of constructive discussion was destroyed because of the huge numbers of people getting involved - people who didn't know each other at all, and therefore didn't share anything or feel any accountability to each other about their actions.

That was the rationale behind creating a small community, really more of a discussion group: the idea that, if everybody has a chance to get to know each other, civil discourse will be easier, even when we are angry and frustrated and ready to snap. But almost immediately, the comm got much bigger than we had expected. We should have known better - in retrospect, we should have realized how many people from our flists and drolls would be interested, how few friends we actually shared in common, and how quickly things were going to snowball. Most of all, we should have workshopped the rules and profile info more carefully. But at the beginning, it looked like it was going to be me, laughingmedusa, verity, jlh, and maybe five or six other people - so it seemed like we'd have plenty of time to discuss the rules later, and it seemed like surely we would share so much knowledge and awareness of each other that we wouldn't need to explain ourselves too thoroughly.

Obviously, our assumptions were wrong. Now we need to actually, you know, define what the hell we're doing, since it obviously isn't what we initially set out to do.

As a result, we've decided that, as of noon EST tomorrow (13 October), we are going to close membership to this community. The goal will be to allow people who are currently members to get to know each other without adding new folks - limiting our growth so that we can begin to understand each other and build up trust. It would be foolish to try and kick anybody off, and we don't want to, anyway: everyone who is here, we think can and should be an excellent member of the group.

This is not a step we take lightly. Obviously, there are costs to it: the primary one is that the group will remain more or less at its current demographics, which are fairly white and cis and USian. But, laughingmedusa and I have agreed that it's the only way to get some amount of stability while we determine what the hell is going on. We will probably allow people to join again at some point in the fairly near future; we just need to give everyone a chance to take a breath, learn some names, learn some usericons, and figure out who's interested in and able to speak to what.

We also would like current members' opinions on what our rules, now that we're formally writing them, should be. Fuzzy statements like "give people the benefit of the doubt" need to be clarified, because the audience is no longer the ten people who have been following the situation all the way. We also need to decide on some pretty important things. For instance: Are we interested in using private posts sometimes, that only community members can see? (Benefit: people who are in the closet or uncomfortable talking about personal matters can discuss these issues with the community without fear. Cost: Further locking down, people who are not members of the now-not-open community cannot possibly get access to the posts to give their perspective, which might be sorely needed.) Or, are we interested in engaging in discussions about what some people might call '101-level' anti-racism etc? (Benefit: People who are tired of having those discussions don't have to have them; people who have too few spoons to deal with it don't have to deal with it. Cost: Some people can no longer take an active part in the group, even though they may be awesome people who just have not ever encountered this stuff before.) I'll put my own perspectives in a comment to this post, and so will laughingmedusa, but we want to know what you think, too. If this comm is going to work, all members need to buy into the premises.

So: What are your thoughts? What should our rules be, and where do we go from here? (And our private inboxes are also open, if you would prefer to talk that way.)

[Co-signed, flourish and laughingmedusa.]

Comments

[flourish]

Personally, here are some of my opinions. These are not a mod decision and they are not necessarily what is going to happen:

1) I think that we should allow and even encourage some private posts. For instance, I think that we should have a privatized introductions post, so that everybody can feel free to share identities that they may not wish to share with the greater world. (This has been brought up to me by a couple of folks as a concern.) This might also foster trust among us, one hopes.

2) We need to be very careful about defining "civil discourse" in the rules and also emphasizing that the tone argument is not welcome here. I think that it's still important that we emphasize the need to give everybody the benefit of the doubt, remain calm, and try to rant elsewhere if possible - but we also need to make sure that nobody gets silenced or squashed by these things.

3) I feel very strongly that we should include at least some "101-level" discussions in this comm, because 101-level ≠ "not hard or important." Perhaps I feel this way because on some issues I am still sometimes floundering about - for instance, the other day I commented elsewhere about how many queer organizations I know include transpeople and immediately got thwapped (appropriately!) by someone pointing out that lots of trans folks don't want to be called queer. And that's after years of trying to learn to be an ally. In retrospect, that's totally 101 level stuff. So it seems to me that it will be very hard to keep all of the 101 level discourse out of the comm, and also like it wouldn't be a good idea to try, as long as the community is small enough that we don't get besieged by lots of people needing lots of guidance - and as long as nobody feels like they have an undue burden of education. (If that started happening, hopefully, as a small community we could work together to try and solve their problem. I mean, that's my theory.)

4) Clearly we need a really good Resource Roundup and a really good reading list, and I think that these things can help us deal with 3).

I've got more, but I'll leave it there for now...

[automaticdoor]

Am I allowed to co-sign comments? Because what you wrote was everything I was going to write, and so I'm not sure it's worth me commenting.

[imaginarycircus]

Absolutely. I'm glad to know you agree. I totally want to know if people don't agree too, but it is nice to be in agreement. :D

[azurelunatic]

I think that perhaps 101 stuff might be worth labeling with a tag of some sort, so people short on time/attention/patience resources can look to the tag as an easy tool for helping determine whether this particular discussion is something they feel like expending their resources on. Also a "X in the comments" sort of tag, for when the comments have taken a tangent from the original -- which isn't a bad thing at all, just someone cruising by wouldn't look at the entry and expect the comments to have taken that tangent.

[quantumdani]

I guess one concern I would have is how a group that is primarily white is going to do a 101 on racism. I'll be completely honest about that and say I feel
a. Threatened by the idea that the group would feel qualified to do so.
and/or
b. In the event that they don't, the job would fall on the small number of us who are not white. I would have a similar concern for trans issues, especially since I am not trans and have no idea how I would judge my own "level."

[imaginarycircus]

Maybe a 101 on racism is a misnomer, or even a mistatement of what we meant? Sorry about that. I never want to make you feel threatened, because you are a friend and you are someone I care about. Even if you were a stranger I would not want to make you feel that way!

I think you raise a good point. I think if we want to have intersectional discussions of feminism and racism we need to hope that our non-white members will feel comfortable talking about that issue at some point so we can shut up and listen. The same with trans issues or queer issues. I would never try to lead a discussion on those issues and I sure as hell don't want to put members on the spot because they fit a discussion topic. So we'll have to hope that we create an environment that fosters that kind of discussion. One of the reasons I would love to discuss the Ortega article with the group is that I hope it will eventually bring us to a place in which our members who are less privileged in whatever way will feel OK talking to the rest of us who are not. I know that is not a small thing. I know it won't happen without some hard work and education and conversation and LISTENING.

I think we're mostly here to self educate and hopefully have good discussions. Very few of us are any kind of academics or experts in the fields we want to learn about. Some of us know a lot more than others though either because of personal experience or education. We, as a group, don't really know each other yet.

[holyschist]

+1

In a general sense, I feel very uncomfortable about seriously tackling 101 issues beyond "here are some links/essays I have found useful for educating myself" for any topic for which this community does not have strong membership of the relevant group(s).

[laughingmedusa]

I can't speak for flourish, but I think we were using 101 as shorthand for intro level and not meaning comprehensive--but I hear you and I agree with you. Though I think it is OK to use 101 as shorthand for intro level and people will probably tagging posts as 101 level so that people interested in more advanced discussion of a particular subject can skip--does that make sense? And is that a problem? Am I misunderstanding your objection?

[elf]

I would think (feel free to smack me if I'm wrong) that a group of mostly-White people should be able to cover many racism 101 questions, but probably not post regular intro-to-racism discussions.

At some point, the 101 level has to be cover-able by people who aren't part of the unprivileged group, in *every* category. A person who's got privilege has to be able to say, "this is how you learn to spot your own privilege; these are the hot topics & buzzwords to watch out for; here's a list of common newbie mistakes." Followed by, "and if--WHEN--you need more than that, head off to some of this list of not-101 sites."

I'd feel comfortable pointing out that coach Imus' use of the phrase "nappy headed hos" was *incredibly* racist, and that insulting Black people's hair is a lot more racialized than a similar insult directed at a White person. (Like, oh, accusing guys of having "dirty hippie hair," maybe.) I don't need a solid understanding of exactly why to say "don't do that. Don't do that *more* than you wouldn't insult someone for having 'dirty stringy fry-cook hair,' because it's not the same kind of insult at all."

I wouldn't feel at all qualified to explain why, or how hurtful it is (other than the general "some people are more bothered than others, like with any insult"), or decide what action should be taken. That's out of my range of experience. What I can do is say, "this topic is racially charged in a way that many White people don't realize."

That's what I expect "101" to cover: what are the issues, how do you learn to recognize them, where can you find out more. "Why these-and-not-those are the issues" and "what to do about them" aren't (IMHO) 101 topics.

I don't want to push "cover the racism 101 issues" on the few people of color in the comm, and don't want to ignore them entirely on the grounds that "we're not qualified so we won't deal with those issues." Being willing to say "we can recognize some of the problems; solutions are probably going to have to come from elsewhere" might be our best way to deal with that.

And again -- if I'm missing important aspects, let me know.

[ithiliana]

A few thoughts: I just made a members only post because of Issues, so I'm for allowing/having members only posts.

I definitely kept some stuff out of my intro response on the thread because it was an open post (I had somehow gotten in mind that it was going to be closed/members only--but I've been swamped with stuff the last day or two--dissertation defense! IRB workshop! Online class!--which means I wasn't reading carefully). So definitely for some locked posts.

101: welllll, I've been mumbling and gnasning my teeth about how I don't want to do 101 work any more (in my areas). That doesn't mean I'm against it for the community, but maybe there can be special tag/subject header of '101' to make sure people who want to avoid 101 because of being old and grumpy are able to do so. Will go look at profile and rules and think about other questions.

[imaginarycircus]

I'm seeing the 101 mention hit nerves in various people in various ways. I can totally understand why it hit you the way it did and why you are gnashing your teeth. A 101 tag is a very good idea.

[verity]

I approve of a special tag for similar reasons!

[laughingmedusa]

I believe when Fourish I used the shorthand for 101 we simply meant "intro level" and not a comprehensive survey course. I just want to be clear about what people are uncomfortable with and objecting to.

Is there a problem with using 101 as short hand for entry level? Is there a problem with talking about intro level intersectionalities between feminism and other isms if the people doing the discussing are not members of those less privileged groups?

[trinker]

I think doing any -ism without someone experienced in that -ism from the inside is like trying to learn a foreign language from books and movies. Weird errors creep in.

[verity]

<3

What I was hoping for was a small, locked, invite-only community. Which is not what the community is now. I have activist fatigue; my offline life involves 101 on a regular basis (perhaps more so right now than ever due to the whole S4 Xander thing). I definitely want us to have resources, and some introductory discussion, but the greater continuing focus this community has on 101 stuff, the less I will participate. This isn't dissing the community or feminist communities in general at all; it's just a reflection of my personal interest and energy levels. I don't have a problem dealing with 101 things on an individual basis as they come up (we all have these moments, I certainly do), but if discussion revolves around them on a regular basis, I can't do it.

Thus far, I haven't really addressed a lot of the very good points about anti-racism and the demographics of this community. If this community is a few friends hanging out, that's something to be conscious of*; if this community is a group of feminists striving for inclusivity and diversity, that's a problem. I do think we should talk about anti-racism; there are lots of great posts by people of color on the internets, and maybe we could link to and discuss those posts?


*this is not to say that friendship is exempt from racial politics, but I feel that "party at my house tonight!" and "rally at my house tonight!" are qualitatively different in terms of community structure - are we attempting to be representative or just aware of the ways in which we're not?

[laughingmedusa]

Yeah, we agreed when we started this just a few days ago that it would be nice to have a space that had some sensible rules to chat about issues. And then it exploded. I do not want this to be a 101 survey course on feminism, but frankly I need 101 topics in intersectionality to at least come up because I feel like I know so little about it. I feel like we all have topics we know little about. And we can find them and talk about them. I never expect this space to be educating a wider audience. I want it to be diverse and inclusive, but mostly I just want people to have interesting discussions. :/

[automaticdoor]

Co-signed entirely. (Shocker, we've chatted about this.)

[trinker]

I like your tinytext note a lot!

[jlh]

So I guess, my original feelings that caused me to make the post that was one of the precipitating events of all of this is my complete and utter exhaustion with the constant if understandable outrage that goes on not only on many feminist blogs but also on a lot of folk's personal blogs with regard to women's issues in fandom. I'm not talking tone argument or how people can't be angry. I find outrage to be different than anger because outrage implies that all right-thinking people should be as angry as the poster. I often don't react to events like that with anger; I'm usually more sad or disappointed. I don't think that's a better way to react, but I think it should be a valid way to react. What I struggle with is whether I can be a feminist and not be ANGRY ABOUT ALL THE THINGS ALL THE TIME. Because I just really honestly cannot roll like that. I was talking to someone about my exhaustion with this just today and someone said to me, " I like posting and finding out that, no, I'm not the only one who looked at some highly-touted-as-feminist-thing and went "...no it's not". Also, rage is cathartic."

(Right, not to mention the ways in which the feminist blogosphere is constantly in "I'm a feminist but you are not" mode.)

Rage isn't cathartic to me, and it can often be difficult for me to process a lot of rage from other people particularly when they are staring at me, expecting rage from me. What I'm getting from ontd_f, from the blogosphere, from people on my flist is a lot of heat and not a lot of light. I'd love to have a place where I'm not expected to be angry all the time. That's honestly my #1 hope for this comm. I'd love to even be able to post about stuff that we think is awesome.

The other point, re the intro post, I guess I get worried because so often intro posts end up being a listing of identity politics markers. I don't really like introducing myself to people with age, gender, sexuality, race, list of privileges. I know that those things about me inform who I am, but I reject the idea that they are the sum total of who I am any more than "I am a Taurus, I love tomatoes and black-capped chickadees." So that's probably the biggest reason I haven't shown up in the intro post yet. I'm not sure what one says if not that expected list.

[flourish]

FWIW, <3.

Your feelings on this are, obviously, important to me and one of the major motivations of the foundation of the comm; so I am really pleased that you spoke up, even though you've been feeling so frustrated lately.

[verity]

What I struggle with is whether I can be a feminist and not be ANGRY ABOUT ALL THE THINGS ALL THE TIME. Because I just really honestly cannot roll like that.
I love every part of this comment, but especially this.

[laughingmedusa]

I totally agree about the rage thing. It's why I've stayed away from the more popular feminist blogs. I usually can't read the comments at Shakesville for too long and I have long stayed away from ontd_f and felt like there was nowhere for me to have sane discussions about hard topics.

The only reason I started off with exactly who I am identity wise is because I felt I needed to be 100% transparent as a mod/maintainer. I did say that people could share as little or as much info as they wanted to in their own intros. There was no expectation for you to share your age, gender, etc. if you don't want to. You can talk about the stuff you don't like and what you'd like to see in a new group? I would love it it if you did that. Pretty much everything here, with whatever you want to share about your work or your PhD work or whatever you want to the group to know about you would be great. You can post in the second locked intro post if that is easier? Or the original unlocked post.

I do not expect you be angry and I really don't want this to be a nasty place. I think we're on the same page there. There is a huge difference between telling someone their tone arguement isn't OK and telling them to take it down a notch. But one of the reasons we've moderated membership is so that there is a network of friends here and hopefully we can all keep each other reasonable and polite, when we can't be downright friendly and pleasant.

[aris_tgd]

I have to say that my reason for joining this community was because I was really excited about being part of a community--I read a lot of feminist (and anti-racist and trans) blogs, but I don't feel really comfortable commenting there. (Also, I hate blog software commenting, I really do.)

But yeah, when I got here and noticed that there were a) a lot of people here and b) not a lot of PoC/trans/non-US people commenting, I just got worried that the critical mass had already been reached where people who didn't fit the mold were going to feel excluded by default and not even bother adding their voices. And I don't want to be a part of a silencing majority.

So I think that whatever happens, I want to be clear either in the community rules or by the posts we make and how discussions are framed and moderated that we're going to listen to those voices--that civility only goes so far.

I mean, I am too for civility! And listening to each other! But I have seen a lot of conversations go,

Privileged Person A: Well, I just think that Group B doesn't understand how we're right and they're wrong and they obviously haven't thought about the situation and thus don't deserve the special "rights" they're whining about wanting.
Member of Group B: That makes me fucking angry!
Mod: A, B, we're trying to keep things civil here. I'm locking down the discussion.

And it's like, well, yes, cursing is uncivil, but also maybe we can point out that Person B is right in this situation while we're doing the post lockdown, and not just call time-out? Let B know we've got hir back and want to give hir an out from arguing with a brick wall and let hir know that we're not standing for that kind of talk, we're just planning on coming at it from another angle with more emotional distance?

[trinker]

<3

[laughingmedusa]

Absolutely. I do not want this comm to silence anyone. If we ever had to ban anyone it would be according to the rules we're framing, which we will ask the community to vet before we post them officially. Tone arguments and derailing are going to be in the rules as clearly unacceptable ways to respond to another member. Swearing is fucking acceptable. I swear all the time and would not consider it uncivil unless it comes in the form a personal attack against another member. "You're a fucking idiot." would not be OK.

We're talking to people about what the comm was originally supposed to be (a few friends) to what it might become now (a good feminist community on DW) and how we can encourage a more diverse group of people to join us and participate here.