Brutal Women, Inhibited Writing, and residual Blogher stuff.
(Note: in a reversal of the usual assumed male default, please note that the term "blogger" in this piece refers to "female blogger".)
Kameron Hurley has written a post, "Thoughts on Intelligent Blogging", about how she received feedback from people telling her that her blog "was getting reactionary and ill-thought out." I found myself engaged with a lot of what she says, and disagreeing with a lot of it. Her post was fantastic for me, especially post-Blogher, in that it got me thinking about my own blog, anger, and expressions of it on the internet.
In fact, it's launched so many different threads for me that I'm going to divide this into three different posts:
- legitimacy and uses of anger (especially with regards to feminism)
- "intelligent blogging"
- the Brutal Women site itself / the direction of my blog
First, though: a disclaimer of sorts
I initially felt very charged and excited by the prospect of writing about some of the issues Kameron inadvertently raised for me through her post; however, as I was mentally formulating responses to it, I also became very aware that I should be careful not to tread on her toes. In other words, I became concerned that if I disagreed with her, she might come on over to my blog and leave a hostile or semi-hostile comment, or post one at her blog. This concern/fear/anxiety, as you can imagine, greatly inhibits your writing. I have no idea how much of it has to do with the fact that she is a well-known blogger, but certainly that has something to do with it.
I've run up against this problem before, and when I don't deal with it I become a bit bored with my blog as a result of the restrictions I've placed on myself. For instance, the main reason I steered clear of writing about the Dove ad campaign was due to this post by one of my favorites, I See Invisible People. My take on the Dove ad campaign was different to hers, but instead of feeling like it was okay to disagree, I felt that my disagreement itself would be an indirect criticism of her - her blog, her worldview, her intelligence, etc.. Now, you wouldn't do that to a blog friend, would you?
Part of the problem is I conflate "blog" and "person". When I say (above) "one of my favorites", I'm not entirely sure if I mean the blogger or the blog.
What to do, what to do…
I'm ticked off at myself for having this fear, because I want to be able to be able to robustly engage with other bloggers. But I'm also reminding myself not to be too hard on myself, as I think this is an issue a lot of women have to contend with in a way many men don't. Zo, in the comments section of a piece at Burningbird, humorously writes:
"[Shelley Powers:] ( . . .do guys apologize to other guys for 'hurting' them in these debates? Just curious.)Nice Girls Don't Get Angry (or critical, or have strong opinions, or speak much at all, really)
Oh yeah. You haven’t seen that? Dave Winer prefacing a post with, 'Now, I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings. . .?' I always tear up a little."
Part of it has to do with how women are socialized to deal (or not deal) with anger. While anger is one of the few socially-approved of emotions for men to express (publicly or privately), it is virtually taboo for women and seldom tolerated. Nice girls don't get angry. (There's also a class and race dimension here, but I'm not going to get into that here.)
The topic of women and anger was (briefly, ever so briefly) raised at Blogher by Mobile Jones, but not fully explored. I think there may be a link between the tendency towards a personalized reading and response to events, and supression of anger. The point is, I want to be able to engage with what another blogger is saying without it being interpreted as a personal attack.
Part of this is trust; trusing that the woman whose work you're dissecting will read your point of view and not trash you because you don't agree with them, or because you put her thinking under a critical light. Another part of this lands squarely on my shoulders, and that is my responsibility as a writer (blogger - what have you) to not get personal. At least, that's what I feel I should be aiming for, but it's a bit tricky when so many blogher posts (oops! I meant, of course, "blogger posts") are personal.
I see that Learning the Lessons of Nixon has drafted a document called "Some blogging principles" as a result of the Blogher conference (via I Speak of Dreams). I may draft a similar document, to thrash out my conduct as the blogger "Sour Duck", and to spell out to people what my "rules" (otherwise known as policies) are. Koan suggested to me via email that I could create an "about this blog" or "blog / comment policy" page, and said, "I don't see why you shouldn't list your blogroll policy there." (I'd been thinking about how to define my blogroll.) Maybe, just maybe, an explicit policy would circumvent any bad interactions or hurt feelings. But while creating these documents may help clarify a situation and foster understanding, really there's no "insurance" against hostility. And all bloggers have to, at some point, come to grips with this. As Burningbird points out, life is not an oven, you can't control the temperature (a topic for Blogher '06, perhaps?).
While I trust, admire and respect Kameron Hurley (or the online presence known as "Kameron Hurley"), I write knowing that she could very well respond with anger to my "take" on her post. To use a sports metaphor people love to cite when explaining "life": if you want to play ball, those are the rules. And it really isn't about "Brutal Women" at all; that blog is a stand-in for any blog I want to disagree with, but hold myself back from doing so.
I want to close with an extensive quote from Burningbird again:
"For those of you who discuss 'safe' places, is this, then, what you want? That we don't even talk about you? That we don't link to you? That we don't make comments in your posts? You can't pick and choose — only the 'positive' or 'constructive' criticism is welcome; only 'helpful' comments are welcome. Or in Halley’s case, only those who attended the conference can speak on it.Now, on with my thoughts on "Intelligent Blogging"…
[…]
"If you don't want the links, and you don't want the world to know about you, then by all means, build a safe place. Make sure that people understand that only friends are welcome, and that any form of criticism is not. Don't read the posts of those who link to you. Stop Google and other webbots from indexing your page, to keep Others out. And don't leave your weblog URL when you leave a comment elsewhere. Better yet: don't comment elsewhere. Well, unless it's in a friend's weblog, where nary a harsh word is exchanged.
"Over time, you will have a safe place. It will be a very quiet place, but a safe one."
Update 08/11/05: Lisa of Learning the Lessons of Nixon has kindly pointed out that she created "Some blogging principles" long before Blogher (her entry is dated 12/26/03). It still stands as a good example of the type of policy I refer to.
Update 08/13/05: Many, many thanks to the comments people left to this post. Your advice and perspective is most welcome, and will affect my approach on writing the follow-up posts. Special thanks to Kameron Hurley for popping in and leaving her thoughts, which you can also read at Brutal Women.
14 comments:
I'm glad you're writing about this, especially the anger part. I have huge issues with anger, and am always trying to use it to my advantage, instead of letting it bog me down. Mostly, I just fear it, in myself and other people. Am looking forward to the rest of your thoughts.
SD, thank you. You're one of my favorites, too. I value your intelligence and opinions, so never worry about offending me. We all come at things from different perspectives and naturally we're going to disagree. That's a good thing. I hope you'll post your take on the Dove campaign - I'd love to hear your take on it.
That said, I worry about treading on toes and insulting people, too. Most of the men I know don't seem to have that problem. To them conflict is an intellectual exercise, and come out with the gloves off. It's hard for me to reach that level of detachment. I want people to like me. I can't tell you how many posts I've deleted after writing in anger, or worse, gone back and edited all the passion out of a piece on an issue I care a lot about. I need to work on that.
Blogs are strange spaces: neither entirely private, nor public. I think it's sad and a bit worrying that so many of us seem to be feeling anxious about expressing ourselves for fear of hostility from commentators. I was reading a blog the other day, where the blogger has had to ban some men's rights activists because their comments became so unpleasant and delibrately disruptive. At the end of the day, I think you have a right to write whatever you want on your blog - it is above all your space. As a commentator, I guess I view myself as a sort of guest in another feminist's blog. If I disagree with what's being said, I think I should do so politely and constructively. But I think we need to stop being afraid of anger and as Nina says, try and use it to our advantage. This takes some thinking and strategizing. Twisty on "I Blame the Patriarchy" is very good at spicing her anger with humour.
Nina & Jenniferinc - Many thanks for the encouragement and kind words. ;)
Terry - "We all come at things from different perspectives and naturally we're going to disagree. That's a good thing."
That's good to hear, thanks. I think my background says, "if you disagree, that is a *bad thing*." :D Bit of a different approach there. ;)
"I hope you'll post your take on the Dove campaign - I'd love to hear your take on it."
Thanks for the encouragement, but the iron has cooled for me, so I probably won't post anything about it. I did post a couple of related links in my linkblog (including one that I liked by Brutal Women).
"Most of the men I know don't seem to have that problem. To them conflict is an intellectual exercise, and come out with the gloves off."
YES, I think you've hit the nail on the head here... do you mind if I respond to some of your comments in an upcoming post? I find myself writing a mega-reply to your comment, and I think I'd like to move it into the main body of the blog itself... Many thanks for your thoughts and honesty, Terry.
Lisa - Hi and thanks for stopping by! :)
Whoops, I didn't notice the rather big date in the upper right hand corner on your blogging principles entry; apologies for that. I'll make a little correction to my post as an "update".
Your "emergency planning" is a good point, thanks.
And a big thank you for the related link of your talk at the Berkman Blog Meeting that you moderated, I look forward to listening to it. :)
Winter - Thanks for your thoughts, the strategizing one is particularly intriguing. Wouldn't it help the feminist movement to address this issue, so the anger of women could be harnessed into getting things done? I'm not talking about de-politicizing anger, like what happened to second-wave feminism when individual solutions (such as personal therapy) splintered and weakened the organized feminist mass movement. Jenniferinc says:
"anger intentionally channeled through compassion and conviction can be the force that changes the world."
Feminism needs to address anger and use it, but I'm left wondering how can this be done when girls/women are so strongly conditioned to deny and repress their anger?
Thank you *all* for your comments, I've found them very helpful.
... do you mind if I respond to some of your comments in an upcoming post?
Go for it. :)
Oh, lord, please disagree: goodness knows the boys have no trouble doing it. Disagreement does *not* mean you hate a person, it just means you think differently about their ideas. That's a *good* thing. A place without dissent is a place without conversation, and that sort of place stagnates.
As for the anger bit: don't get me wrong, anger is an absolutely fantastic tool. The problem with blogging while running on sheer anger, however, is that you often don't pause to think over the particular issue you're discussing, so your thoughts are more likely to come out disjointed.
When I blog angry, it tends to take the form of linking others' thoughts without commentary, which often implies that I completely agree with those thoughts (and, again, *completely* agreeing with everyone is the first step to stagnation. If you do agree, try a, "I thought this was interesting, but I had another take on it"). It also leads people to assume what I'm thinking about the subject, since I've just left a link and a curse word and not much else...
Anger is a potent tool. It has the ability to get you up off your ass when the shit hits the fan. It also can cause you to flail wildly and smack anything that comes near you while gnashing your teeth in a feiry, but ultimately, unproductive, rage.
The trick is to channel the anger into something more constructive. Have your anger moment, step back, feel it, and then engage the topic again with the anger running just beneath your rational thought so that what you end up with in the end is a biting, intelligent criticism instead of incoherent screaming.
Lots of people get turned off by incoherent screaming, and they just tune out. My goal is to be read. If I'm not speaking in a thoughtful, intelligent, entertaining way (and the anger can add entertainment value, particularly when irony and sarcasm are involved), then people will go elsewhere for thoughts and commentary. Not neccessarily a bad thing, but talking to myself (as noted in Burningbird's post) can get kind of dull.
What drives me is getting mail from readers who've changed their lives or looked at something differently because of what I've written. Beyond self-expression, that's what I'm in it for, and if I'm unreadable, I'm not reaching anybody.
The issue of the suppression of women's anger is a big one, and an ongoing discussion that's been around forever. It's been around so long that I'm still startled to see both men and women all over the net still use the "You're just an angry woman" brush-off. The first insult you'll get in any forum if you don't tow the party line is that you're being an angry feminist (I was recently taken to task for being "an angry white feminist" at an SF criticism blog, of all things).
I admit that when I get pegged this way, it pisses me the fuck off, and the best retort for something like that is irony and sarcasm. Getting into a bitching match with the offender just ends up devolving the thread into a pissing match about who's got the most degrees and/or life experience, and that doesn't get anybody anywhere.
On my own blog, I curb conversations from regular posters if they start to personally attack each other, and I delete posts like, "Feminist give the best head," and "You're an idiot. This is a stupid post," outright. They just don't add anything.
Teresa Nielsen Hayden has a great post about moderating your comments that every new blogger who wants to create a cool community at their blog should really read:
http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/006036.html#006036
Anyhow, please don't ever feel you need to apologize for disagreeing with anybody (especially me - I'm really not all that "well known" a blogger!!). That's the pure joy of the net, particularly for those who blog anonymously. I *want* people to disagree with me, intelligently. I get into huge arguments with those around me all the time about things I blog about, and my take on issues. One of my best real-world friends was actually one of the people who e-mailed me about my lazy blogging style, and I was so pissed off with him for a week that I could barely speak.
In the end, since he certainly wasn't the only one who'd brought it up, I read and re-read his comments and looked at my blog again and realized there was a lot of truth to his comments. I was losing myself to the feminist blog "community" and becoming part of a thing instead of being an individual.
That's not something unique to feminist blogs at all; it happens within many, many communities, usually because of the concern you noted: you start feeling like you "know" these bloggers, and feel that if you disagree with what they're saying, you're attacking them. And who wants to attack people whose opinions they respect?
I remember taking on a post of Amanda Marcotte's (now of Pandagon) just before she won the Koufax Award and being a little leery of doing it, cause I knew she read me. In the end, I posted my criticism, and she and some others hopped on board, and there was a conversation going on that hadn't gone on before. Doesn't mean I hate Amanda: she's superkewl and I respect the hell out of her, but sometimes I'm going to disagree with what she says, and that's OK.
I love that people disagree with me, and so long as it's well-thought out and worth engaging, I'll totally engage with it. That's the great fun of blogging. Sitting around with a bunch of people who tell you you're perfect and superkewl all day is a great pat on the back, but ultimately not terribly constructive.
Kameron - A big thank you for your thoughtful response, this really helps clarify in my mind where you're coming from and what your aims are for your blog in terms of gaining a wide readership.
Thanks for the link, I'll check that out. I appreciate the story about your coming to grips with disagreeing with Amanda Marcotte as well.
Your thoughts here are definitely more than I'd hoped for, and I can't give it the detailed response it deserves here - suffice to say it will impact the next few posts in this series.
Many thanks.
Take care - SD
Mobile Jones - Thanks for your thoughts. Yes, the comments have been incredible and I can only surmise that as I start writing more with my own voice, people respond more. And also that this subject perhaps resonates with alot of people...
"But what better place that blogs to consider and discuss how we integrate our emotional lives into our online presence. It happens anyway, we might as well be aware."
Agreed.
"The next step in the conversation for me, and an equally important response to anger is the concept of forgiveness."
Good point, but I'm still at the "I'm afraid of anger" stage. :D I'll keep it in mind for later though...
By the way, thanks for creating a blogger account just to comment here. I've switched the settings back so that you don't have to have a Blogger account to comment here.
Take care - SD
ae - Wow, that was a very kind post - the advice I've received from you and others is way, way more than I expected. Thanks for that. :)
Sour Duck - fantastic post. Personally, I don't shy away from anger... but I can't always post *about* the things (or people) that make me angry. At times like that, I try to tap into the anger and divert it towards an appropriate intangible concept or generic cause - i.e. blog the emotion, but not the *cause* of the emotion.
I hope that makes sense! Cheers, Koan
Excellent. Yes, yes yes.
Larissa Tiedens of Stanford has done some really fascinating research on status and emotions which I try to summarize here.
Briefly, anger and frustration is what high-status people exhibit in failure conditions. Low-status people exhibit guilt and shame. Guess which gender has been trained to avoid displaying anger?
Post a Comment