Criticisms
This is where folks may level any general criticism of the information architecture and style of the blog. This is not a place for specific criticisms of feminist theory, which should be done on the appropriate FAQs. Comments here are still expected to adhere to the Comments Policy.
- Comments which demonstrate an unwillingness to read even the few introductory pages (here, here, here, and here) or the basic FAQs (Feminist Fundamentals section) are unlikely to be taken all that seriously.
- Because the purpose of this blog is twofold, and one of those purposes is rebutting vexatious anti-feminist commentors disrupting discussions elsewhere, some FAQs and op-eds are specifically directed at vexatious questioners and are somewhat hostile or sarcastic in tone. If you do not engage in vexatious disruption, then such hostility/sarcasm is not directed at you, so please don’t bother being offended about it. Move on to the material that is directed at genuine seekers after knowledge instead.
Why has this page been created? Comments were initially left open on the introductory page Why was I sent to this blog?. Leaving comments open has seemed to distract some people from actually reading further. FF101 is open to criticism, but having it on the introductory pages is unhelpful to the broader purposes of the site, so I’m porting all those comments here instead.
The following ported comments were all left on the Why Was I Sent To This Blog? page.
# anon, on July 15th, 2007 at 10:55 pm, Said:
While I came here on my own because I am curious to see what other people say feminism is, I find that the writing condescends almost from the start, for example:
“People find ignorant questions frustrating”; “By sending you here the feminists hope”; “Feminists naturally don’t care”. Each of these statements is so broad as to be ignorant themselves. So why should I bother to read any further?
# tigtog, on July 16th, 2007 at 12:06 am Said:
Dear “anon” (superlatively original net handle, BTW),
This is an introductory level blog on feminist theory. Have you ever actually been in an introductory level course in which the opening address didn’t seem at least a little condescending in its attempt to cover all bases? Not everyone coming to read here may be as ineffably erudite as thee.
There are links provided in the post above to material which addresses specifics. If you’re really interested in discovering what other people say about feminism, follow them. If all you want to do is score online debating points, then don’t bother. Your choice entirely.
# nightgigjo, on July 16th, 2007 at 8:50 pm Said:
Also: anon, if no one sent you here, then this attitude doesn’t apply to you. No need to take something personally that wasn’t meant for you in the first place.
As to why you might bother to continue reading, I would suggest that you read this post again. The statements you found so offensive didn’t, in fact, communicate what you quoted at all. You are attributing intentions and attitudes to feminists that are just not present in this particular post.
If you’re open-minded enough to leave aside your preconceived notions and read only what’s been written, then you might find the reason to continue reading about feminism here that you seek.
# Ocean, on July 19th, 2007 at 7:07 am Said:
Somewhat in defence of Anon, this feminist admits to being taken aback when she read “people find ignorant questions frustrating.” I find nothing wrong with the other phrases Anon mentions and the rest of the intro comes across as friendly and helpful. However, the word ‘ignorant’ in that one phrase doesn’t fit with the rest and seems inappropriate to me.
One way of re-wording it might be “people find questions that are basic to feminism frustrating.”
# tigtog, on July 19th, 2007 at 8:06 am Said:
Ocean, I’m actually using ignorant deliberately because there’s nothing wrong with ignorance IMO - it just means you don’t know something yet.
However, if it’s taking allies aback then I need to clarify my view of the word in the post or find another phrasing.
# Wogglebug, on July 19th, 2007 at 3:04 pm Said:
Unfogged had a useful post on how men can behave respectfully during feminist discussions:
http://www.unfogged.com/archives/week_2006_09_03.html#005405
# tigtog, on July 24th, 2007 at 12:43 pm Said:
Thanks, Wogglebug. I think I have referenced that one in one of the FAQs already, but the more links to great posts in comments the better!!
# nightgigjo, on July 29th, 2007 at 2:19 pm Said:
Indeed, tigtog: Ignorant is not an insult, but a description. I am thoroughly ignorant of anything past the most elementary principles of astrophysics, beyond, say, that stars are made up of burning gas or that planets travel in elliptical orbits.
I think this meaning of ignorant was made abundantly clear in the post itself, so I would consider this a case of reading at less than 100% attentiveness. (I find it easier to miss stuff while reading from a computer screen, so I’m not picking on anon at all. This happens — it’s called being human.)
If we’re leaving the potentially insulting word ignorant out (which seems a fairly reasonable act) then may I suggest:
“People find questions that do not further the current discussion frustrating.”
There. Trolls are now included. ^^
# tigtog, on July 29th, 2007 at 8:21 pm Said:
nightgigio, the clarity of the intended meaning of ignorant is there now because of the text in brackets, which I’ve now further amended to indicate that this was a later edit than the original version against which the complaints were made.
I certainly use ignorant as a descriptor rather than as an insult, but then I don’t find the accurate description “fat” insulting either.
# nightgigjo, on July 30th, 2007 at 9:55 am Said:
tigtog, thanks for the clarification. It is, at least by me, much appreciated. ^^
# Surix, on August 5th, 2007 at 2:09 pm Said:
I didn’t think it was terribly condescending I just thought it delightful that you refer to other feminists as “allies”.
In 1980 I could see that but in 2007 I am under the impression that anything that can be related to a “war” has long been won.
Can you clarify?
# tigtog, on August 5th, 2007 at 4:07 pm Said:
That strikes me as an oversimplistic and also very Western-centric view, Surix.
Most women in the world don’t have a chance at self-sovereignty, and those of us who do are still struggling for equal opportunity against a culture that trivialises every choice a woman makes.
# Surix, on August 5th, 2007 at 4:49 pm Said:
Yes tigtog I was referring to the western world.
I am not a woman so perhaps I miss some things but what do you mean by trivializes every choice a woman makes? What is a choice that is considered important when a man makes it but trivial when a woman makes it. Or am I misinterpreting your statement.
I do however have some insight into the life of a woman as I have been a part of or aware of my sisters life from birth (80s) to adulthood. She has never considered herself a feminist or felt cheated in anyway on account of her gender and the way society views it. She is a successful business woman and had no problems from society in getting there. Is there some injustice (related to gender) that she has not been aware of and might she have had a happier and more successful life if those injustices did not exist? Or is that not the goal of feminism.
# Surix, on August 5th, 2007 at 5:11 pm Said:
About cultures outside of the western world, it would seem fighting for the rights of those woman would more appropriately be called humanitarianism rather than feminism. We now know what equality is, the time for feminism would seem to have ended. Some movements need to expire, at least how(and in what way) they are referred to. For example when a white person greets a black person you wouldn’t call it “integration” anymore. That would be absurd and possibly setting back ideas that were fought for and accepted long ago. Instead you don’t think twice about blacks “integrating” with whites because you just see it as people relating with people. In order to “not think twice” you first have to stop using and drawing attention to the words and concepts. That is how I see it.
# tigtog, on August 6th, 2007 at 10:21 pm Said:
FAQ: Why “feminism” and not just “humanism”? Or “equalism”? Isn’t saying you’re a feminist exclusionary?
The other FAQs are listed on the FAQ roundup page, Surix: there’s a link in the sidebar.
# tigtog, on August 6th, 2007 at 10:23 pm Said:
Also, I’m glad for your sister that she is successful etc. But why should your anecdote trump decades of data?
# CLD, on August 24th, 2007 at 2:45 am Said:
One would also wonder how Surix would know how his sister felt growing up or how she feels now in spite of her success. I am a woman and I have two younger sisters — I wouldn’t presume to speak for them and how they might or might not feel on any given subject.
# tigtog, on October 1st, 2007 at 8:44 am Said:
nightgigio, you suggested rephrasing to:
I’ve decided to run with that after all. Thanks!
# Rachel, on November 15th, 2007 at 7:29 pm Said:
I was sent to this site for some real Feminist discussion but instead I’m accused of de-railing an interesting discussion others were having???!!! I will not be using this site again!
# tigtog, on November 15th, 2007 at 9:48 pm Said:
The effect of your question must have been a potential derail, or they would not have pointed you here. Nobody is saying that you deliberately set out to derail the discussion, just that derailing is what would have happened if everybody switched to answering your question instead of staying on topic.
Derails are often inadvertent. That doesn’t mean that other people have to accommodate them, just because you didn’t mean it as a derail.
If you want some feminist discussion here, you’re more than welcome. You might want to thicken the skin a little. If a general comment here doesn’t apply to you, then there’s no need for you to be offended, is there?