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

[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?

[holyschist]

I think it's fine and important to have intro-level discussions, but I think we need to be very aware that we're not all qualified to talk about all topics on an intro level--and that will probably end up placing a greater burden on some members of this community to be "authoritative", so yeah, I'm still kind of worried about it with the current makeup of the community.

[flourish]

IAWTC, although I am to some extent struggling with how we should separate 101 issues from other issues.

It seems like we could cover classism, sexism, issues surrounding homophobia, and issues surrounding religion fairly well. Trans issues, race issues, cultural (meaning national - I'm not sure how to phrase that better) issues and (to a lesser extent, given that I'm not sure I want to put it on exactly the same level as the above) issues surrounding asexuality, I'm not sure we can cover so well - it's not that we don't have members who represent the various groups in question, but that there are not so many members who do. I think that most people would probably agree with this assessment, but from a mod's point of view, I'm questioning where we draw the line on what counts as a 101 issue/how we divide this out. It gets even more complex when we're talking about questions that directly address intersectionality.

I don't mean that as a derailment or to suggest that we should not draw some kind of line, but just that from a mod's perspective - I need to figure out some hard and fast lines, and I'm not sure where those are yet. I am really glad that quantumdani spoke up and I hope that some of the other POC & trans members of the comm will do so as well, because they are the ones who are most likely to end up being under stress in this matter.

[laughingmedusa]

OK, I was thinking we'd all just be muddling around together in 101 level posts. For instance I might bring up an article I read or something and see if anyone else has read it/is interested in reading it/discussing it. If several people say yes and that it's something they wanted to learn about I could tag the post 101 and that way people more learned in a particular area could feel free to skip the post instead of wading in and getting frustrated as ithiliana said below.

Someone who has some academic experience, self education experience, or personal experience on a particular subject and who wants to try leading a discussion? We'll have a specific tag or subject header or something for those discussions. Does that make sense? I think those lead "authoratative" discussions will be few and far between.

[trinker]

I see your model as fraught with ...hmm, I don't have a handy name for it. Token-error? One representative of the group is really not a good sample, and a lot of stress on the rep.

[laughingmedusa]

Right. Which is why I was thinking that discussions led by experts or knowledgeable persons would be difficult for a variety of reasons. And I'd like to avoid them unless someone really wants to do one.

I'd like there to be discussions about specific articles, or to ask an opening question about why our comm skews so white cis female. What can we do about that?

[trinker]

What has worked for me in my LJ, if discussions about my entries in other journals are any guide, is to clearly mark off which entries are designed to be 101, so that anyone who is not up to dealing with 101 issues can avoid them. I'm currently doing the same thing with a "this is not all about 101" entry, to see how that works. (The caveat there is meant to let people know that if one says "should have learned in 101" stuff, one will not necessarily be dealt with gently.)

I think "past-101, skippable" is a potentially unproductive concept, as a lot of people want to believe they're past 101, when they still need it.

[laughingmedusa]

I honestly believe we're all mostly at a 101 level on some subjects, if not most so I would step in and speak to someone who was trying to be too authoritative or a know it all.

I guess I come at pedagogy a little oddly since I went to a college that advocates asking questions and tells you you can never know enough about things and to keep reading and rereading and questioning and requestioning. I honestly believe you can always learn more about a topic or an idea.

[trinker]

I don't think I was clear enough.

I get what you're saying, and it's true on that level.

I was more thinking about what is often expressed as "ambassador fatigue". (Which is the big issue with having a mainly cis-white group discussion intersectionality.) It can be tiring to do the same things repeatedly. It's nice when there are more people to carry the load. At that point, marking "101-racism" or "101-transissues" can alert people to either gravitate toward or avoid a discussion. But "I know it already" is kind of antithetical to the purpose of this comm, yes? (I think we're in agreement there...?)

[laughingmedusa]

"Ambassador fatigue" is a great term. I see what you were saying now. Thank you for clarifying.

Yes, I think we agree.

[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.

[quantumdani]

There's quite a bit here that I don't really feel emotionally prepared to respond to, but that said, I guess I just wanted to put my original comment in context. I initially had the reaction that I had when I read that the membership of the community would be closed as is. While I completely understand the reasons (really really understand!), I also immediately felt like that would leave the few people of color who got in the door in kind of an awkward position. I focused on the 101 stuff because it seemed like a likely manifestation for that awkwardness, and I like to pick pragmatic examples instead of making theoretical extrapolations because it's easier for people to connect with my meaning.

[flourish]

FWIW, I agree with you re: leaving POC who ended up in the comm in an awkward position, and that's one of the things I'm most concerned about personally & as a mod - so while I am thinking about a longer response to your earlier comment - I just wanted to leave a short note to say that yes, I am thinking about it, and while I see where elf is coming from I think that it is a particularly difficult situation w/r/t the closed membership...

[elf]

I'm sorry I caused you stress. I missed the point that you were picking one example (and a solid one, even though I think it can be worked around) out of a larger set of potential hassles. And you're right; the closed membership does throw some oddness (which may not be the best word) at people of color.

I somewhat hope (maybe expect?) that membership won't stay closed forever, that the comm will grow slowly and those problems will be mitigated over time. Or that, at the very least, keeping aware of the unbalanced membership will make people careful enough that participation won't be too draining on the people of color who are here.

[laughingmedusa]

No. Membership will not stay closed forever or hopefully even for that long. We want to get our rules straight and get settled and see if we can get to know each other a little bit (those of use who don't know each other.)

[laughingmedusa]

Ideally membership would not stay closed very long--seriously I am thinking a week.

We simply need to set up some rules and figure out what we're doing since this comm went from 10 people just hoping to have interesting discussions to 50 people of differing backgrounds and education levels who have an interest in feminism and a variety of ideas about what they want from this comm.

I hope you feel like you can email about this if you need/want to. *squash*

[trinker]

Maybe we need to have a discussion on "What's 101".

Because to me, all the things covered in the various "how not to derail" resources are 101, and the things you're talking about are Remedial Concepts.

Maybe I need to reset my parameters.

As far as public vs. private posts - I think that depends on the goal of this community. Is it education of the members, or is it education of a larger group, or something else?

Because I don't think the group as it exists can offer meaningful insight into intersectionality and feminism to a wider readership. I think it's potentially a great space for learning as a group, but to do that, some careful group expansion needs to take place. There *are* people who are willing to do 101 coaching in various -isms, and who are interested in catching up on the places where they themselves need coaching. That's what I was hoping for, anyway. I'm not up on trans issues as much as I'd like to be, although I have a better grounding there than most (I'm out of date); I'm not always up to date of mainstream feminist issues. I only have a really good grasp of a corner of PoC issues, I could stand to learn more.

[elf]

We could probably use a discussion on "what's 101," because we probably have a range of opinions.

to me, all the things covered in the various "how not to derail" resources are 101

To me, those are more advanced. I spend a lot of time on a forum that is *oblivious* to social activism, and every time the topic comes up, there's a flurry of exchanges pointing out that yes, racism and sexism still exist in the US, and that no, having a Black History Month does not become racist because there's no White History Month. The "how not to derail" stuff comes in after people have been convinced that (1) legal rights are not the same as social equality; (2) privileged people are *not* more qualified to speak on these topics and (3) no, it's not creating/supporting __ism to point out that it exists.

Maybe those are remedial topics. I'd been thinking of "101" as meaning "has no previous education on the topic," but maybe 101 means "no *specific* focus on this topic, but has some background in the right general concepts." I don't mind adjusting my internal sorting to different parameters; I'm muddling along here.

[trinker]

If the goal in this comm is to be able to talk about intersectionality, then there really needs to be a "must be this clued in to have discussions" going on, if there's anything interesting and productive to come out of it.

I think it's like the difference between Freshman English and Remedial English.

Intersectionality, to me, is about being able to talk about related topics without falling into derailing. An intersectional discussion is one where one brings up class, or fat acceptance, or disability rights, in a way that adds to the discussion rather than detracting from it. It's not easy for anyone, is it?

I don't want to be divisive for no reason, but if it comes down to it, maybe the right thing is to have a small relaxed community where that's *not* the goal, and having a different community where the goal is talking about non-remedial, 101 and beyond stuff. I don't assess *myself* as able to do Intersectionality 201. I'm hoping that's what we're building toward.

[elf]

Hmm... ::ponder ponder::

Maybe we should have a different kind of intro post, or a poll, that says "what topics are you fluent in, what are you comfortable talking about, what are you familiar with but not really sure of, and what are you totally lost about if they come up?"

there really needs to be a "must be this clued in to have discussions" going on, if there's anything interesting and productive to come out of it.

It sounds like everyone's clued in enough to have these discussions, at least in their own topics, and they're aware that outside of that range, they have things to learn. (We all have things to learn in our own topics-of-choice too, but that's different... we're passionate about those; we want to learn new things there.)

Sorting out what is/is not considered "101" might help with that-- and we wouldn't have to agree with the rest of the web, or even each other for more than it takes to establish community guidelines. (We could agree that here, for the sake of discussion & tagging, "101" posts include the "how not to derail" concepts.)

[flourish]

/nod

I think that later today, I am going to make a top level post about this, because I think that we all need to define our terms - what do we mean by "intersectionality," what do we mean by "101"? How far do people feel comfortable allowing white allies to educate (even though passing out links and discussing them with people) - and if people don't feel comfortable with that, then how can we have discussion at all, since feminism naturally brings up issues of intersectionality if you're doing it even halfway right?

Obviously people have put their answers to some of these questions in the comments to this post, but I think that it might be good to summarize what's been said in a top level post and have another, more focused discussion about that...

[laughingmedusa]

The original goal of the comm was simply to have civil discussions about whatever the members want to talk about. And now that is too simplistic. We really thought we'd be 10-15 people who knew each other pretty well and could be philosophical about feminist issues. And then we hit almost fifty member in two days. Now we're listening to who our members are and what they are interested in as we try to come up with clear rules about what we won't tolerate: derailing, tone arguements, and the like.

We absolutely only expect to educate and clarify issues for ourselves. I never thought this space would be able to educate a wider group.

We want to open membership again (hopefully soon) once we've stabilized and once we do that it will hopefully alleviate any "ambassador fatigue."