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...

[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."

[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.

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[redbird]

That makes sense. There are areas where I might still be willing to do 101-level education (depending on specifics and energy level), and there are probably some others where I still need some of that education, as well as the ones where I don't want to have to deal with the subject again. (And some which I'd skip past but not be annoyed by.)

[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).

[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.

[imaginarycircus]

If you ever feel compelled to do a 101 post when you have time and energy--please feel free. Thank you for be possibly willing. Even just posting a few resources to point people in a direction is helpful.

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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]

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...

[verity]

I approve of a special tag for similar reasons!

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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...?)

[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?

[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.