The issue of asking questions has come up in several comment threads I've been involved in lately. Lots of others have written great comments on the topic, but because it comes up over and over again I think it deserves its own post. When it ends up being addressed in comments only, the topic of when and where and how to ask questions ends up being a derail of its own.
There is a commenting pattern in posts covering topics about social minority groups (trans people, for example) that goes something like this:
Commenter A: I don't understand something about your minority group. Would you like to explain it to me?
Commenter B: Asking minorities to explain themselves is a form of privilege. Please look this information up yourself.
Commenter A: But how am I supposed to learn if you don't teach me? Why are you calling me privileged when I'm trying to help?
This kind of exchange has also gotten uglier than this, on both sides of the conversation, with accusations of arrogance and snottiness and overprivilegedness. What the "Commenter A" types are saying often seems to boil down to "I'm willing to listen if you disagree with something I say, but you seem to be saying that I don't have the right to ask a question. You don't have the right to tell me not to ask questions!"
Here's part of what I think is going on. In the culture in which most of us grew up, we are taught that asking questions is the key to our own educational progress. We spend at least 12 years, often more, in formal schooling asking teachers our questions, and being encouraged to do so. We are told that there is no such thing as a stupid question, and we spend the grand majority of our days and weeks with professional question-answerers.
Then you go on a blog, ask a question, and suddenly the rules change. People tell you that it isn't ok to ask a question, which goes directly against your entire formal education. You feel like you're a good person, and you're trying to do the right thing. This feels like rejection, and it makes you angry.
Your feelings make sense. They're also, respectfully, your own problem . Let me explain.
For so many reasons, the conversations we have on blogs are not the same as formal schooling. When you ask a question, you are probably thinking of yourself as a student. When you were a student, you asked questions of your teachers. Your teachers were in a position of power over you in several ways: they had the ability to assign you work and to grade your performance, they were sanctioned by an entire hierarchy of school officials, they were generally older than you. They also had had the opportunity to choose to be question-answerers: they chose and trained for the profession, and they received monetary rewards and possibly also symbolic rewards such as certifications and prizes for their work. Importantly, they also had the opportunity to choose NOT to be question-answerers.
By contrast, a member of a minority group to whom you are talking on a blog is in a position of less power. If you're asking question, you are most likely not a member of the same minority group- this gives you power. The minority has no ability to assign things to you or to grade them, no hierarchy of officals behind them, no average age difference. They almost certainly had no choice over whether or not they would be considered a minority, and the only training they have done is that learning about the dominant group which is necessary to survive in society. They receive no monetary reward and rarely receive any intangible rewards like recognition or acclaim.
When you are in a position of power over someone else--even if this is just a coincidence of birth, even if you sincerely believe in equality, even if you have the absolute best of intentions--it is your job, and always your job, to work to understand how your unearned privilege is at play in the situation.
No, you won't know how you are privileged automatically. Yes, you will have to learn and you will make mistakes. But that doesn't mean that you have the right to ask any question, any time, of any minority group or group member in order to learn. You just don't. This is because believing that you have the right to have any and all of your questions answered on demand is also a privilege .
Members of minority groups have a lot to teach us, but they are not our personal tutors. Testimony after testimony has come up on this and other blogs about how it feels to be in the position of constantly explaining oneself (short version: exhausting and oppressive).
So if you have a question, what do you do? Here is what I suggest.
Pause.
When you're involved in a conversation, on this blog or anywhere, really, and you realize that you want to ask a question...
Pause.
Ask yourself a few things, while you're paused. Start with:
- Is this something that I could easily find out in another way, such as a search engine? Could I look through the archives and see if this has come up before? Is there a blog in the "links" section that deals specifically with this group that I could search?
- If the answer is yes, then do that. (Honestly, that's true even if the comment thread DOESN'T involve a power imbalance- why clog up the works with things that you could easily find on your own?)
- If the answer is no, then you need to ask yourself: how much do I really need to know the answer to this question? Is it just idle curiosity? Is it something I'd really like to understand, but that I could put off for a while? Do I actually have a burning need to know this, because (for example) I'm going to apply it to some legislation I'm planning to draft up tomorrow?
- Next, you need to weigh your need to know against the chance that asking the question will cause harm to the person on the short end of the power imbalance- emotional harm emphatically included. In order to understand whether your question will cause harm, you will need to listen . This is why it's important to pay attention to threads and other blogs by and about minority groups when you don't have questions. Beyond that, rely on simple empathy- put yourself in the other person's place. For example, is your need to know important enough to risk bringing up a very painful memory for the other person in the conversation?
- Say you decide that you really would like to know, but you think it might cause harm or you aren't sure. You've tried looking it up but haven't had any luck. What do you do? At this point, strongly consider simply not asking. I realize this isn't easy- especially on the internet, we are all pretty used to instant gratification. Ally work is (and should be) actual work sometimes- and if this is as hard as that work gets, realize that you're still pretty damn privileged. If there's a blog related to the minority group in question, consider reading it regularly for a few weeks to see if the answer turns up. In the meantime, do some inner work- think about the process and about your own frustration, and hopefully you will come out on the other side with a better understanding of privilege and power.
- What if you've determined that you really do need to know, and that to the best of your understanding the question will not cause great harm to the person you're asking, in spite of the power imbalance? Ask, but ask respectfully. Do not demand an answer or explanation. Tread lightly, and never assume that you're the first person to ask this question of this individual. Say thank you. And if no one responds, return to the previous bullet point.
It may seem that because minority groups or individuals are participating in a blog thread, they are making an active choice to be a question-answerer. If you act based on this assumption, you will naturally be surprised and hurt when someone refuses to answer your question. Remember that there are degrees of participation, and that everyone has the right to decide for themselves how much they want to participate. Answering one question doesn't mean a minority group member has to answer EVERY question put to them. Authoring a post or being a moderator probably indicates that the individual is more willing to answer than someone who has just commented, but still doesn't mean anyone has to answer every question put to them. We are all human beings here, and we all have our limits.
Pause, be respectful, and do your research.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Allies asking questions.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16921
Thank you so much for posting this!
It really does seem like an effective way of controlling ever aspect of the conversation!
Yes, giving up some of your own unearned privilege can feel like being controlled. Imagine how controlling it would feel to constantly justify and explain yourself to people who don't feel like using easily available resources.
I cannot tell you how heart warming it is to see that you geared your response to my (sarcastic) statement almost entirely towards my name.
Which is why I keep my birth name as my alaias on the site here... Othewise you would not be able to dismiss the essence of what I was saying by focusing on the fact that I am a dude on a (lets be honest here) sight mostley geared towards females.
As soon as you see my masculine name, you know you can just say something along the lines of "privilege blah blah blah" and the herd of group thinkers will line up behind you.
Now, below you agreed with me that blogs are for conversations.... now what kind of conversation are people having when one side gets to set the original topic, and then refuses to accept questions coming from that topic?
Up here in Alaska one of the notable talk show host is a conservitive by the name of Dan Fagan... He sets the debate and whenever someone calls in with a point of view or argument that he does not like... he hits the mute button on them and proceeds without the participation of the other participant.
That is exactly what you are trying to do... you are trying to mute questions you may not be ready for.
And there really are two sentiments in your blog post. The first is don't ask, because we won't tell, and the other is if you ask, don't be surprised if we don't tell (or refer you to someone else).
Both are ways of coping out of the conversation. And as I stated below... if you are not ready and willing to have a conversation, go to your own blog and lock down the comments and have at it. That is certainly within your rights.
But coming into another person's forum/blog, where they have the express desire to have a conversation, and trying to mute people is just a little fucked up.
I don't look at the names of posters. Your privilege, and your unwillingness to allow a conversation that does not revolve around you, is evident from the content of your posts. Not your name.
I'm a little confused.
How is telling someone to google or look information up "muting" them?
You are telling people to not ask questions. Even ones that have bearing on a conversation.
This is probably some form of privilege, but here's what I would do. If someone asked a question that I didn't want to bother answering, I would just not answer it. Or, maybe I'd post something like "I don't want to write out an answer; try Wikipedia." I'd only get annoyed if someone started posting stuff like "why won't anyone take the time to answer my question?" and even then I'd probably take into account how obvious the answer was and how polite the person was being. I think its a little unreasonable to expect everyone ever to not ask any questions that you don't want to be put in the position of answering-- rather, if you don't want to answer them, just don't answer them. Its especially easy on an internet forum to just not respond to posts, even easier than it is in person.
And a lot of the time, I totally agree with you, and this happens, and it's fine. But I still believe that there are times when just being asked the question, over and over, is oppressive--and when asking questions without thinking first is privilege at work.
But the person asking doesn't know that you've been asked it over and over. If its been asked over and over on the same thread that the person was presumably reading, that's one thing, but if this is the first time they've thought of that question, they don't know you've answered it enough to be sick of it, or where to find the same kind of answer you would give. If you're sick of it, certainly just say "I get asked this all the time. You should google it* or you should read this link" or just don't respond at all. But I don't think its practical or fair to expect every one of the billions of people on the internet who have never met you to refrain from asking a question that MIGHT annoy you, but that also you MIGHT* appreciate them asking.
*(see Flower's post down below about how they would rather be asked than have someone find a some random source on google that might not be accurate or fair). In cases where I have a minority opinion, I'd rather people at least tried to ask me to explain than went off on their own and found a site that might explain it in a way that I view as wrong.
Well yes, a lot of the time people won't know that the question they're asking has been asked over and over. Sometimes this is perfectly reasonable ignorance, and as long as the questioner is respectful it probably won't be a problem. But there are some questions that people have written over and over and OVER about being asked ad infinitum (again, my example is "what does cisgender mean?), things that you practically have to willfully ignore not to realize you're beating a dead horse. Being able to willfully ignore these things is the kind of privilege I'm talking about.
In the cisgender example, it seems to me that everyone has an understanding of the concept but does not necessary know the term. I do not think we should scorn people for not knowing every term in feminist/critical race/queer/disability/etc. theory. To me that seems incredibly elitist – we do not want to talk to you unless you know everything we do. I understand being asked the same thing all the time can be annoying. But I do not think anyone lives a life of 100% privilege. I think if we really want to threaten systems of domination we need to openly discuss the systems.
If the answer isn't readily available on the net chances are that it isn't a question that often gets asked.
I've got a lot of thoughts brewing in my head over this, but they're all circling back to one thing: Is the impetus for your post an overall issue with people inquiring about whatever, or is it driven by a smaller number who are asking particularly foolish and/or harmful questions?
I can understand if it's the latter. At some point even saying "check teh Googles" would get tiresome, and obviously questions that cause awful flashbacks or some such are not a good idea. But when you say, if you're privileged you need to go learn, even though you may not know you're privileged, it sounds like you're throwing that out there at anyone who wants to ask something... but how is somebody supposed to figure that out if they don't see a post like this explicitly stating as much?
I guess, coming at it from straight-white-guy land, I definitely know people who are guilty of what you're saying about demanding answers to questions and the like, so I can understand not wanting to deal with that. But at the same time, taking this sort of a stand just feels like a barrier to overall communication, because obviously not everyone is that way. So, rather than saying, "You don't have the right to ask anything you want," why not, "You can ask what you want (within reason- trigger-type stuff excluded), but we don't have to answer, and if you don't like it that's your problem"?
As you said, Google is there for everything. People should look to educate themselves about any topics when they want to learn before going to others. But if you believe that the most important thing is for people to gain knowledge, answering a question with "Google is your friend" is going to be many times more effective than telling somebody they don't have the right to demand answers (especially if they don't feel that they're demanding anything). Telling someone straight out to do research puts the onus on them, and if they get peeved because you're being a little snarky, too damn bad. If someone gets told they shouldn't be asking questions, however, even if what you want them to do (self-research) is the same, they're a lot more likely to bail on the entire idea of learning about topic X, Y, or Z.
If that's perfectly ok with you, or you just want all the privileged motherfuckers to go away, or what have you, then do as you will. If you think that's the right thing to do, that's obviously up to you. It just seems self-defeating.
Seems like there's plenty of justified frustration on both sides here. I'm sure it gets annoying being asked such questions all the time. At the same time, though, if you're talking about a minority group, and you have a question about said group, and there's a person of said group right there, expecting a person to not ask at all seems a bit extreme.
Sure, you have every right not to respond, or to just give a quick pointer towards a better learning resource. But to simply say 'you have no right to ask' seems, well, rude. Especially since many of these issues may best be understood by hearing or reading personal experiences.
I guess this hits a little close to home for me, because my personal exposure to most of these groups has been minimal at best, so the chance to actually talk to someone about these issues would be hard to pass up. Most of my understanding of the issues comes from more academic, less personal sources.
I understand that it's frustrating, but even if you don't have much access to minorities that still doesn't automatically nominate the only one(s) you have contact with as your personal teacher. There are still lots and lots of sites and circumstances under which minority groups are explaining most of the things about which they are regularly asked, but on their own terms. On the whole, I think it's better to look for these pre-existing explanations before or instead of asking a question.
I understand, and like I said, you're well within your rights not to answer any questions asked of you. I think keeping a couple sites bookmarked for these situations might be a good idea though. Google is tricky to use well, and it's easy to get too many or two few hits to be of any real help.
I don't mind having a question ignored (well, I do, but I won't gripe about it), but what I'm hearing seems to be "don't ask at all", which rubs me the wrong way for a lot of reasons that I can't quite articulate right now.
My intention was closer to "think before you ask."
You're right, I need to clarify this. The impetus for my post is incidents of people asking questions that are tangential to the original post, but related to the minority group of the person who posted. I don't really think it's about anyone being an asshole, I think it's people being asked to "check their privilege" and not knowing what that means, and not seeming to follow the links that people put in replies to them, which then derails the thread.
"Telling someone straight out to do research puts the onus on them, and if they get peeved because you're being a little snarky, too damn bad. If someone gets told they shouldn't be asking questions, however, even if what you want them to do (self-research) is the same, they're a lot more likely to bail on the entire idea of learning about topic X, Y, or Z."
I'm not quite sure how we're disagreeing here. I'm telling people to do research, I'm just saying it before it comes up, rather than when it derails a post. My contention is that minorities being constantly put in the position of having to say "google is your friend" and people in social majorities not taking it upon themselves to think about when to stop and do this before asking is a form of privilege.
Hmm, so maybe your clarification makes me agree with you more. Tell me what you think of the following situations:
1) Person A writes a post or a comment specifically about being in some minority group, whether its about that in general or about how that informs their opinion on some other issue. Person B then asks them a question relating to what they wrote about, necessarily relating to their minority status since that's what the post was about.
2) Person A writes a post or a comment about something totally unrelated to minority status, but they... have a username that indicates their minority status? Or they mention it in passing but not related to the original post? And then Person B asks them questions about being a minority.
I think that situation 2 is way more annoying, and more akin to accosting a random person based on what they look like, when they haven't brought up their background. But maybe you're also annoyed about situation 1, or there's an in between situation I'm not thinking of at the moment?
I think Situation 1 could be totally fine, as long as the question is put in a respectful way. If I'm understanding you correctly, that sounds like exactly what I actually want to happen.
Situation 2 is of course horrible, but what I was thinking of was slightly less obvious- an in-between, like you said. Like, say, the original post is by a minority, it's about something related to being a minority, but it assumes some general knowledge in order to make its point (knowing what cisgender means, for example). In that case, asking questions about the general knowledge is what bothers me. It's been covered, and it can easily be found elsewhere without derailing.
Like I said, if its something as simple as the dictionary meaning of a word, yes you should try to look it up first. But most of the time I've seen people getting shut down for their questions, the question wasn't that simple. And if it WAS about the meaning of a word, it was more like "I know the meaning of that word but the way you are using it doesn't make sense to me, please elaborate."
I guess I just don't see anywhere where your original post says that you only think its rude if people ask something like the definition of a word, when we all know you can always look up the definition of a word. Your post sounds like no one should ask about any general background about a post, even if its something controversial that not everyone agrees about, or even if its about a personal experience that isn't easily googleable. If all you're saying is that its silly to write "What does that word mean" when dictionary websites exist, then I agree with you. But your post is almost 2 pages long, so it really doesn't seem like you're saying something that simple. You also specifically say that even if someone can't find the answer by googling or doesn't know what to start googling, they should STILL not ask. I strongly disagree with that part.
You're right, I mean more than that. And I do think that sometimes you should still not ask questions, if the benefits you will gain from knowing the answers don't seem to outweigh the risks of causing harm to the other person.
But how should someone new to the area know that their question will harm another person?
I mean, ok, if the question is "please tell me the details of your sexual assault because otherwise I don't believe you" then they should think that might be harmful. But if the question is "that's interesting that you come from Iran; what do you think of the current political system? I know I can google "Iran Politics" but I won't necessarily be able to sift through the results to get a first hand view that is the same as yours" then I don't see how that's rude or harmful. If they don't want to answer they can still just not answer, or point to a site that they like.
It won't always be possible, but I think we can strive for an educated guess. Lurk before you speak to check out the issues that are frequently covered in a blog or other space, and pause and think like I said in the original.
That pretty much means that considerate people will probably never ask (and thus remain ignorant, most likely) and assholes will still be assholes. When you're aware of your privilege, it can be hard to say anything on those topics because you're afraid of triggering a sore spot.
Considerate people can read books, can learn in other ways than this. Saying you'll only help minorities if they meet you 95% of the way isn't being an ally.
I'm telling people to do research, I'm just saying it before it comes up, rather than when it derails a post.
The difference is that not everyone on the internet is going to read this post, or not even everyone who will ever arrive at Feministing. Its one thing to say that you hope regular commenters who have read this post to try googling first (and then, what, include a disclaimer that they already googled before asking a question?), and its another to say that you think anyone ever who asks a question about a minority issue is being rude.
The other difference is that when someone asks a question and THEN you tell them to look it up, now they know that you don't want to explain it and hopefully more about how to look it up. If they just go look it up on their own, then everyone misses out on the cases where someone might actually have preferred to explain. For instance I'd rather someone asked me for MY rationale on an issue that I feel strongly about (say for the same example again, my pro-choice views) than have them google it and come back with "oh yeah, I found this site that explained how your views don't make any sense and you're an evil baby-killer, but it seemed really well-written so it must actually represent your views." I might not bother to answer in all cases, but I'd rather they at least gave me the chance to answer before going to some other random unknown source to try to find out what *I* think.
And how should the questioner know who want to be asked questions and who doesn't? Unless you specifically note in your original post that you don't want anyone asking you any questions about ____, or any questions at all, then I'd rather people err on the side of asking the person who brought it up for a clarification on their views rather than googling and maybe ending up with Pat Robertson's explanation instead.
For something really simple like the meaning of a word (rather than more complicated opinions or perspectives), I agree the person should usually look it up. But even then, sometimes its "I don't understand how you, specifically, are using this word that I've heard used differently in other contexts" not "I've never heard that word at all before." If its the latter, you should look it up in a dictionary, but if its the former, I think its reasonable to ask.
"For instance I'd rather someone asked me for MY rationale on an issue that I feel strongly about (say for the same example again, my pro-choice views) than have them google it and come back with "oh yeah, I found this site that explained how your views don't make any sense and you're an evil baby-killer, but it seemed really well-written so it must actually represent your views.""
I think we agree here. If the post is about someone's personal views, then they are the only person who can answer questions (if they choose to do so). But if the post is about someone's personal views, and you ask a question about an entire minority group and expect the person to answer for that group--to be a spokesperson--that's what I have an issue with.
Maybe you could give specific examples of questions that bother you, other than "what does cisgender mean". Because I really don't get what questions you are talking about. Every example I think of you say actually that one seems ok, so I guess I'm not getting what you mean.
(I get why asking about the meaning of a word is annoying, but in practical terms of screen real estate, I think that its more of a derail to get in a big argument about why someone shouldn't have asked the meaning of the word than it is to just not reply to the post or reply with a definition or link to the wikipedia page.)
Here's an example:
http://community.feministing.com/2009/10/coming-out-as-transgender-to-r.html#comment-312186
That comment is annoying because its in bold and mainly because it doesn't even ask a particular question! I'd say on the plus side, it is asking if "anyone" would want to do a post like that, it isn't asking a particular person. So everyone could have just ignored it. But yeah, I think its a strange post. I'm also not sure its the best example since it isn't even asking a particular question that could have been answered there.
Being in a position to be "Commenter A" than "Commenter B" most of the time is probably skewing my judgement in completely the wrong direction here. Still, I often get the sense that the attitude isn't always so much "How can I learn if you won't teach me?" as "If I don't know where to find the answer, why can't I ask someone who already knows it?" I'm not denying that the first attitude exists—or even that it's the dominant one—but once in awhile, I see shades of the second one and it bothers me that I can actually sympathize with someone who's being such an arrogant twit.
This is, I suspect, one of the reasons that it's probably a good thing that I rarely ask questions. At the end of the day, I'd rather do my own research or remain ignorant than make somebody else's life into my own nifty little learning experience and hurt them in the process.
"If I don't know where to find the answer, why can't I ask someone who already knows it?"
I think this is as problematic as the first version, for just the reasons you stated- it still puts the questioner's need to know first, above all things, regardless of possible harm.
That's what bothers me. It's also what scares me away from asking questions even when I'm reasonably sure that questions would be welcome—even on the rare occasion when they've been outright invited.
A few months ago, I wrote a post in the Community blog dealing with things that I wondered about regarding transgender people—things that I wondered about but probably wouldn't ever ask about because it's not a trans person's job to educate little ol' cisgender me. Because although ignorance is clearly inexcusable and my questions were bound to be too personal, I was wondering what attitude would be the most appropriate one to have. As I noted myself in the brief discussion that followed, in spite of all the things I wondered about, the only question I was actually likely to ask was "Is there anything I can do to help you?"—and that's only if someone I knew trusted me enough to come out to me as transgender.
However kindly-meant the post was, it backfired. The post was taken as a list of questions anyway, and although I was pleasantly surprised to see that someone had answered some of them (as she said, "the ones that didn't make [her] life into a teaching tool"), I also felt very ashamed that I was apparently yet another selfish and clueless cis person putting trans people on the spot for her own edification, even if I'd done it in a way that was intended to ask for advice, not personal information. It clearly didn't work and I definitely risked hurting someone very badly when I was trying to ask for advice about how to avoid doing so. And...I wonder if maybe I did hurt someone who read the post, regardless of whether they actually responded to it.
It's not something I'm proud of, though I remain thankful to the people who took the time to answer me. Since then, I've decided to just shut up and, if I have a question, assume that it's too nosy and therefore too hurtful to be asked. If I can't find the answer through searching for it, then it's likely that I don't really need to know the answer. This doesn't quite sit right with me either, but it's better than knowing that I've done something unforgivably stupid and hurt someone else as I did it.
Feministing and many discussion boards and blogs are out there for the express purpose of having a feminist/progressive conversation (you can even look it up in the FAQ).
Not a monologue, a conversation. And sometimes in a conversation people get asked questions.
So, in this forum you know when you write up a post there is going to be a discussion on your post. If you are unwilling to have a conversation... maybe you should post to your own blog where you have the disclaimers about your blog being for you only.
You also know when you read a post there is going to be a conversation in the comment section. Sometimes people disagree with you. Sometimes they do not buy your underlying assumptions. If you are not willing to have a conversation or read someone's else conversation... don't go to a forum.
Its like going to Nascar and complaining the cars go in a circle.
I know by posting this comment it is open for discussion. People may attack, agree, disagree, or whatever. But I want my comment to be part of a conversation so I post it here. I don't go to my own blog, lock down the comments and have a monologue.
But anyway...
By contrast, a member of a minority group to whom you are talking on a blog is in a position of less power. If you're asking question, you are most likely not a member of the same minority group- this gives you power.
You seem intent on seeing yourself as powerless. On a blog or discussion board with minority groups, they are the ones that may delete comments, ban users, and mobilize the base against someone who normally has power.
My social capital as a physically powerful white dude does not really go far in this forum.
I agree that blogs are for conversation, I just hope for that conversation to be more egalitarian. I think that privilege actually does follow you onto the internet, and that even though mods can delete comments and ban commenters, they do not have absolute power that cancels out offline social oppression.
Some ways that your power as a "white dude" are still present:
-you probably had access to a good education and therefore have no trouble expressing yourself in writing
-you are accustomed to having your opinion heard and paid attention to, which has taught you how to argue with appropriate logic
-you can find people like yourself being represented fairly in current events and news items
Point one applies equally to white women, in fact, probably more so, as the gender schema is that girls are better at English than boys and thus are encouraged more in this area.
Point 2, I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you are saying that the privilidged need to make allowances for those who haven't been taught appropriate logic, I suppose that's fair but there is only so far you can progress in a critical discussion without a logical discourse. Maybe having a better grasp of logic is the result of privilege but failing to use that logic to progress the discussion seems the greater crime. Besides, I fail to see how that relates to asking a question.
Your point 3 is a good one.
I think part of my frustration comes from the nature of a blog--we're here to talk about gender, opression and to offer our own experiences and voices. So, for someone to say to me "go google it," I find it, I guess rude, cuz I visit this blog *precisely* to learn more. It's like going to Kmart and having a staff member say I gotta go to Target to buy what I want.
Also, I realize that being trans is different than being a feminist. As a feminist, I'm here to learn, to educate etc. Being trans on the other hand, comes with a different history and way of moving through life, so a cisgender feminist conversation is different than a trans feminist conversation. I'm not sure if that really makes sense.
All I know is that many commentors/posters on feministing are more than happy to talk about their personal experiences without saying "Go look it up somewhere else." So, I imagine there's a certain dynamic going on there. (One might call it "privilege" but I'm not sure that that describes it fully).
All I know is that many commentors/posters on feministing are more than happy to talk about their personal experiences without saying "Go look it up somewhere else."
Another good point. So how should someone know which person is happy to be asked and which isn't? They should just always err on the side of not asking? I know that if I bring up my views or personal history on a public blog, I'd rather people ask about it than sit silently at their computers in confusion or misdirected anger.
"So, for someone to say to me "go google it," I find it, I guess rude, cuz I visit this blog *precisely* to learn more. It's like going to Kmart and having a staff member say I gotta go to Target to buy what I want."
Ok, I can see where you're coming from. I think we're looking at this blog in slightly different ways. Instead of your Kmart/Target metaphor, for me it feels like people coming to a book club and asking the group to stop every few minutes and explain to them a word they could easily have looked up in the dictionary before they got there. Once or twice, fine. But if it becomes a pattern, then it's not a book club anymore, it's grade school. If we are constantly going back and answering basic questions, then the questioners are controlling the level of the conversation. I want everybody to be able to join in, but it might mean doing a little catch-up work first if you don't know some of the basics.
Granted, not everyone may see this blog in that light. Obviously I can't speak for the mods on this one, and I haven't polled the readership or anything.
But in a book club if one person asks a question even once, it physically stops the conversation, because its a physical conversation where only one voice can go on at once. In text, plenty of people can keep writing and discussing while that one person asks a question, and everyone can choose to ignore the question if they want. But maybe there will be someone who wants to answer.
I'm not sure how to respond to this, because I was just trying to follow a face-to-face metaphor with another face-to-face metaphor. I agree that the comparison is far from perfect, but I still think the derail issue is important even in an online forum.
I defer to Blue Gal's post of yesterday on this very topic, because she's said it much better than I ever could.
To make a long story short, some people lose sight of the big picture in a desire to cling to needless particulars.
I tried to find that post but it just seems to be a link to the general blog, and I scrolled down awhile without seeing the one you were referring to. Got a permalink? (Or would it be more polite for me to try to google a post whose title I don't know, when someone right here has the answer and in fact brought it up?)
Yeah yeah, snark snark. I think this is a perfectly reasonable question with virtually no chance of doing harm, that directly relates to the original comment. And I'd like to see the article, too.
"You feel like you're a good person, and you're trying to do the right thing. This feels like rejection, and it makes you angry. Your feelings make sense. They're also, respectfully, your own problem . Let me explain."
Hmmm. While it is Commenter A's problem that they feel rejected etc, it is NOT Commenter A's problem if they are uninformed about Commenter B.
Part of A's position of privilege is the choice/ability to ignore marginalized groups. So while it is also a privilege to expect that your questions etc be answered by B, beyond feelings of rejection or anger, person A loses nothing by being told to "just google" something because person A does not lose anything by being misinformed about person B.
What about person B though? Certainly being forced to constantly answer questions about your identity is a form of oppression, but I wonder if the alternative is preferable given how varied the information one can get through google is.
I guess what I would argue is that the choice between constantly answering questions about your identity or leaving the majority group's understanding of that identity to the internet is the real problem and symptom of oppression since neither choice alone is really ideal.
From a practical perspective, I think that expecting a person with privilege, and all the biases that entails, to accurately interpret objective information on the internet without the chance to see how that information plays out for real people is a mistake. Basic information is a good place to start but without actual discussion between privilege and oppressed groups, I think change is harder to foster.
Is having to answer questions about your identity FAIR? No. Does it continue on some level the oppression of marginalized groups? Yes. Does it make sense to expect those with privilege to change without help/knowledge from marginalized groups? In my opinion, no.
The whole basis of privilege is the ability to ignore or define oppressed groups as you see fit. Leaving the work of removing privilege up to the privileged seems counter-intuitive, even if it that fact is obnoxious and unfair.
The guidelines presented above are a good framework, I think, for what questions should be answered by the privileged on their own. Certainly work must be done in order to question and change one's privilege. But cutting off the work of dismantling privilege by saying that there are NO questions that are appropriate to ask the oppressed undermines the process. The internet can't answer everything and the persisting ignorance that remains does not hurt the privileged in the long run, it hurts the oppressed.
I think it's absolutely Commenter A's problem that they are uninformed about Commenter B. If it seemed otherwise I apologize for my phrasing.
I think that everyone has to be involved in overcoming privilege. But I also think that minorities hardly need to be reminded of this, while majority group members generally do need to be reminded to take some of the work onto ourselves [and yes, for anyone who's wondering, I'm including myself in that]. I want, need, and hope for minority help in my education. But it's my responsibility to let other people's help be on their own terms, not on mine.
I understand the feeling, because I get tired of people asking the same questions over and over again too. For instance the question "how is it possible to be pro-choice even if you believe that a fetus counts as a person?". That's something that comes up endlessly on this blog and others. So when someone asks me that, I think that I'm justified in either not bothering to type a response, or in saying something like "I don't have time to explain this yet again, so instead you should google this phrase/read this article." But I don't think it means that the person was wrong to ask, or should be shamed for being so "privileged" that they've never had to consider the question, or whatever. They asked a perfectly valid question, and yes there is a lot of writing out there on it that they could google, but they're asking me or whoever precisely because that person brought up their views in an ongoing online conversation. The fact that other people have asked me before and I'm tired of it doesn't mean that that person was wrong to ask me a polite question about my stated views.
I guess if you walked up to random people on the street based on their appearance and started interrogating them about their minority status, that would be different. But this is a blog. All we can see is text. No one would be asking you about any particular background you have unless you already mentioned it, because how else would they know? If someone at a party brings up the fact that they're from a certain background, I don't think its rude to ask a follow up question. If they say they don't want to talk about it or change the subject, fine, but it doesn't mean it was horrible to ask once they brought it up.
Also, I guess I'm wondering-- if you can say "Your feelings make sense. They're also, respectfully, your own problem" then why can't the person asking questions say that right back to you? Why isn't it YOUR own problem to handle your feelings about being asked the same thing, and just sit back and not answer if you don't want to talk about it?
"Also, I guess I'm wondering-- if you can say "Your feelings make sense. They're also, respectfully, your own problem" then why can't the person asking questions say that right back to you? Why isn't it YOUR own problem to handle your feelings about being asked the same thing, and just sit back and not answer if you don't want to talk about it?"
Because of the power imbalance. This is what's being told to minorities all the time--I have a right to bother you and demand answers, and it's your responsibility to show me where the boundaries are. I'm asking the majority-group questioner to relinquish some privilege and set boundaries on themselves as part of our ally work.
P.S. Pantheon, sorry if I'm missing some of your points, I'm trying to address them all but jumping around is getting confusing.
Sometimes there's an obvious power imbalance. Other times, it isn't clear what groups the questioner and the questioned might belong to. Because you bothered to write this post, I'm guessing you're in some group that you consider a minority group, but I have no idea what one(s). I'm also in groups that count as minority groups, and in groups that don't. How should I know which of us has more power? And why should I talk to you in a different way because of what minority group(s) I think you might be in?
That wasn't as clear as I meant. What I meant was, if a question is only not ok to ask BECAUSE you are in a minority group, then is it ok to ask if some people in the crowd might actually be professors who study that group and thus have knowledge about it but are not themselves oppressed?
If the questioner manages to prove that they are in an even more oppressed group than the group they are asking about, and thus the power imbalance shifts the other way, do your feelings stop being their problem?
I am absolutely not advocating oppression olympics of any kind. Here's what I mean. We all occupy a variety of statuses at the same time. (I, for the record, am a middle class fat white cis woman who is married to a white cis man. I don't actually consider myself to be particularly oppressed, except to the extent that systemic sexism and patriarchy still exist- I personally have a great deal of privilege.) When I am commenting in a post written by a trans man or woman about trans issues, then I know that as a cis woman I occupy the position of social privilege above them and need to check it at the door. As a white woman, I need to do the same in posts by and about people of color.
As to other commenters, it's a fair bet that most of them will, like me, belong to the majority. If we hijack a thread about a minority issue to have our own side conversation about our majority understanding of this minority issue, then we are thoughtlessly exercising our privilege. Not that that kind of conversation isn't useful and constructive, but that probably isn't the right place for it.
As I am often Commenter B in real life situations, I will say this:
I feel a responsibility to answer Commenter A's questions, even though it gets very taxing and annoying. Answering privileged people's questions is a duty I owe to other non-privileged people, so that there will hopefully be one more knowledgeable person in the world, and our cause will advance just a little.
And I specifically do NOT want peple going to Google or Wikipedia to learn about an issue that I live out everyday, when they should be asking me directly. If I think that there is a particularly good article online, I will refer people to that. But so much of the internet is utter bullshit -- I would never just cite it as a general source.
That's fair, and thank you for weighing in on the B side of the conversation. If that's your experience and your preference, then thank you for all of your education work. I agree that the internet can be crap, and I would definitely give more credence to first-person narratives about privilege and oppression over warehouse sites like wikipedia.
Could this post be linked to in commenting rules? It's great. Nowadays it seems like there are blogs written by members of every oppressed group. There is so much you can read. I mean why not look for the people you know want to share their experiences and read?
Thank you!
I think a huge part of the problem is that the constant barrage of the same simple, basic, questions means that the conversation can never move forward. It keeps getting sucked back to 101 level because commenters are unwilling to do their own work in order to get a basic understanding of the issue being spoken about.
You don't see people jump into discussions on science forums with questions about elementary school physics. They don't wade into a conversation about the finer points of Jungian psychology and demand that someone tell them what an "anima" is (and then disagree that there's any such thing, and try to make the conversation about THAT instead).
People don't assume that others have a personal obligation to educate them in those situations, but they often do when it comes to social justice issues. And the underlying attitude is often "Well, if you want MY help, you need explain this to me." The onus shouldn't be on oppressed groups to recruit people to 'their cause' (although they/we certainly can go that route if we choose to). It is the obligation of every moral, thinking human being to care about these issues regardless of whether or not someone else is making it easier for them and helping them.
Is this really what's happening though? Are there actually comment threads where the conversation has been stymied and can't progress because someone is asking questions? Because it really seems to me like the people who want to pursue a higher level of discourse in the comments section of a blog are perfectly welcome to ignore the 101 questions and just, you know, carry on with their discourse.
yes, this is really whats happening.
It really seems to me like the people who want to pursue a higher level of discourse in the comments section of a blog are perfectly welcome to ignore the 101 questions.
I don't think that the 101 threads are as neatly separated and unobtrusive as you're presenting them to be.
I didn't say anything about the 101 threads being separated from the higher discourse threads. I said that people are welcome to ignore 101 questions and pursue higher a higher level of discourse within a comment thread. This is particularly true with threaded comments like what we have here at Feministing. Frequently I will scan (or ignore entirely) certain sub-threads within a main comment thread after recognizing that the sub-conversation that is going on isn't of particular interest or relevance to me. The existence of that sub-conversation doesn't impact the rest of the thread.
A lot of the stances that I see concerning derailing (of which inappropriate questioning seems to be a subset) are apparently predicated on an idea that the derailers are drowning out the signal with noise - but that idea isn't really that relevant in an online forum. I could make this response fifteen paragraphs long, write it in all caps and pepper it with rude and invasive personal questions, and it still wouldn't drown out your original post, nor would it prevent all of the other interactions within this comment thread from happening. It would be a wretched thing to do, but it would be wretched because it was rude, not because it was making conversation impossible.
Please note that I'm not advocating for people being allowed to ask whatever they want or to pressure the marginalized for education. I understand that there are very real problems associated this issue; I just don't think that UnHingedHips' assertion that "the same simple, basic, questions means that the conversation can never move forward" is an accurate representation of the problem.
"the conversation can never move forward. It keeps getting sucked back to 101 level because commenters are unwilling to do their own work in order to get a basic understanding of the issue being spoken about. "
UnHingedHips hit the nail on the head.
After reading all this, I promise I will never, ever ask a question on this forum.
If that's all you got from my post, then so be it.
I personally would much rather have to take the two minutes to write a response to an honest question from someone who just wants information from the source than to have them google it and come across a site that is run by some ass hat and have them be misinformed. Now the derailing type questions are completely different and ones that are only intended to annoy us I completely agree with, I think that its a good thing that people ask questions.
what a rad post!
So, I have a question. Say Commenter A is reading a thread and understands that specific questions might not be welcome in the thread, so Commenter A asks for some directions to good resources on the topic so Commenter A can do what it seems like a lot of people want done and go do some self-education on the topic at hand. Where does a situation like that fit in? Generally acceptable? Unacceptable? Depends on too many individual factors and the acceptability of the question must be decided on a case-by-case basis?
maybe a FAQ on feminism would be helpful on this site. that way the newbies could easily get their questions answered without having to google everything, and the minority groups wouldn't be harassed by their questions. i am a newbie but also part of a minority group so i don't fit into neat categories.
In response to several comments, I think the blogroll here is a great place to start. I also recommend searching the archives, because for just about every social issue you can think of, someone has already asked for 101 resources in comments, respectfully, and been directed there. I agree that it might be useful to have a 101 directory of some kind on the blog, but on the other hand there already is a Feminism 101 blog:
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/
And a racism 101 post:
http://resistracism.wordpress.com/racism-101/
And a transgender 101 blog with FAQ:
http://questioningtransphobia.wordpress.com/
And just last week the mods linked to this blog about disability issues:
http://disabledfeminists.com/
thanks for the linkage. i have been reading over at the fem 101 site but the others are good resources.
I am embarrassed by this post. No wonder people think that liberals are a bunch of oversensitive yuppies.
I'm not clear how asking everyone to stop and think before they act--something I would gladly advise to a kindergartener--makes me an oversensitive yuppie.
Asking people to stop and think before asking a question is basic human decency. Not to mention doing a little research beforehand in case it is a 101 question. That is not what this post is advocating. The lengths to which you expect people to go before asking, if they are ever allowed to ask, are ridiculous. You even say people should remain ignorant than risk the off chance of offending someone. Sorry, but when people discuss things on a public forum they should expect to be questioned. To expect special privilege opting out of this is again ridiculous.
I respectfully disagree that I'm asking too much of people.
Its not that you are asking too much of people. The problem is you only expect this from certain kinds of people and not others.
No, I expect it from everyone. I directed the post at people with privilege, because they're the ones who aren't already doing it.
I disagree with your statement that everyone but priviledged people are following the rules of engagement you listed.
We all have some sort of privilege in one way or another. But in response to your concern, what I have seen on this site is that 99% of the times, it's people of privilege (who don't belong to minority group A) that tend to ask the offensive/annoying questions like "why do people of minority group A always do ____" for example (not on this site, but another) I've seen from a "well meaning person" ask "Please don't get all pissy with me for asking this, cause I really don't get it, but why do lesbians always have to try and act like men?" Ironically when I hear these types of questions they are always prefaced with a "don't get mad at me, I just really really really don't get it".
So yeah, I have problems with these types of questions...and I've definitely seen people on this blog ask the "Don't get mad at me cause I honestly don't know but why do women always..." or "why do people of minority group A always..." type questions so if you can't figure out why questions like that would be annoying or rude or patronizing...well I'm not quite sure what to tell you. And just for the record, there are definitely certain questions that are acceptable...but I would say they would have to be on topic. I think, in general, a question about an individual's personal opinion is okay as a follow up to a previous comment made by that person. But to generalize an entire population by asking an individual member of minority group A to answer your question about minority group A can be quite patronizing. The Googly works quite fine in this instance.
While I agree with this 99%, what always gets me is that there seems to be few options left for someone who has made plenty of effort in good faith to understand a certain issue, but still retains some not-properly-progressive opinions on it. Any blogs worth reading won't respond favorably to questions that might be offensive to some - and with very good reason, it couldn't work any other way. But it does make one feel a bit lost when you have actual questions.
There are a couple issues I had very problematic views about, so I've been reading blogs on the issues for over a year now, exhausted every 101 resource I could find, thought about the issues extensively, and read several academic books on the subjects... but while I've learned a lot, I am still left with a lot of opinions I know are problematic. I would love a chance to have a conversation with activists about these issues, but of course no such forum exists. It just leaves one feeling very uncertain about how to progress to make oneself a better ally. Obviously, I'll keep reading, but it does seem like you're just going in loops sometimes.
I think this post touches upon some important topics, mainly that being sensitive, aware and respectful to the individuals around you, in any type of conversation, is crucial to constructive dialogue. However, it also rubs me the wrong way in a lot of different ways for the following two (though not exclusive) reasons:
1.There is no possible way that each individual person is able to take in the personal experiences (painful or otherwise) of each individual in minority groups, and confirm that their question will not in some way spark a painful memory or reaction from them. Asking individuals, especially those engaged in progressive dialogue, to do this is the most counterproductive thing I can possibly imagine. We have no way of knowing what is painful for each individual person, especially when it comes to the blogging community. Just because someone is from a certain minority group DOES NOT MEAN that they share the same experiences as everyone in that minority group. I find generalizing like this to be extremely oppressive in of itself.
2.The existence of an unequal power structure in society does not mean that it is OK to censor, silence or simply eliminate other individuals from conversations, simply because you don't happen to like the content of the questions that they are asking. I don’t think it’s justifiable to become enraged that people are "ignorant" to the plight of certain groups, and then make a strong argument about how the oppressor has no right to ask the oppressed about their situation. You can ignore people until the cows come home, but you can’t silence them. Who exactly is oppressing whom? (At least in regards to internet space).
I didn't realize that only certain types of people were allowed to comment, ask questions or form opinions about certain types of things. You telling me what I can or cannot say is no different than the very power structure that you are trying to break away from.
I am a feminist. I will never, ever tire of answering even the most ignorant questions, because that's how social change takes place: people learn, they experience, their attitudes change and they go on to teach someone else.
My personal background and history sparks a lot of questions from people, some are extremely ignorant, and others are deliberately spiteful. Do I have a right to get pissed off or ignore the persona’s question? Of course. Do I have a right to tell them not to ask it in the first place? Absolutely not.
Well, I think you have the right to tell them not to ask deliberately spiteful questions in the first place!
Of course 'we" have the right to ask someone to engage in certain behavior that they (I) do not personally like, in this case refraining from asking deliberately spiteful questions, but that doesn't mean I have a right to actually keep them from asking it.
Asking someone not to say something stupid and saying that they have no right to say something stupid are two different things.
From what I understand, a lot of people on this comment thread are supporting the latter. That certain people have a right to tell other people what they can or cannot ask, and I simply don't agree with that. I am sure I am going to get ripped apart for saying that, but that's how I feel.
The right not to be offended is NOT A RIGHT. It seems to me that people often forget this.
*NOT to engage
Except that something that is deliberately spiteful is clearly a personal attack, which is forbidden in the first phrase of the comments policy!
The owners of the website certainly do have the right to moderate it how they see fit and as such they do have the right to say what can and can't be asked.
Of course. I agree.
But what about things that aren't deliberately spiteful?
I have no problem with the rest of your post. It's just that bit that didn't sit right with me.
Your disagreement with the OP (and other posters) is largely one of semantics. If they had, instead of saying 'you have no right...' rather said 'it is impolite to...' I don't think you'd have had a problem would you?
Of course we all have the right to be as polite or impolite as we like. If we want to be polite then we should look up simple questions rather than asking the OP, that seems reasonable to me.
Personally my view is that queestions should be encouraged. I had a professor that used to say 'you have to ask a hundered stupid questions before you can ask a smart one.' If we want to progress our activism and make it relevant then we need to ask smart questions. So, we need to ask stupid questions too. Of course, asking 101 questions in a level 300 discussion can be a problem, so you look elsewhere first. That's sensible and polite. But if you can't find the answer, absolutely ask the question. Because if you don't understand then you can't be an activist, you can't even be an ally, at best you're neutral, at worst your continued ignorance will become part of the problem.
Exactly, I 100% agree.
The semantics did bother me, and I think that had it been presented differently, I would have had a completely different reaction. But I think with a topic like this, semantics are relevant, because the interpretation and meaning can completely change so easily.
This section isn't in response to you Kandela, just a more general rant, just so you know :)
Feminisim is about inclusion, and not everyone knows how to utilize the many sources that are out there on the internet. Not everyone went to college, and not everyone has ever taken Women or Gender Studies 101. I don't think its fair to assume that people will just be able to find the information they need, just because they happen to be from a socially dominant group.I think questions are imperative, stupid or otherwise.
I'd be interested to hear how you would have phrased it differently, if you have the time and/or willingness to take a crack at it. I agree that semantics are important. The way I put it in the OP made sense to me and I stand by my intent, but I'm aware that there are different interpretations going on and that I'm open to suggestions.
"Asking someone not to say something stupid and saying that they have no right to say something stupid are two different things."
I am not trying to say that people have no right to ask a question. I'm asking that people stop and think before they ask a question, so as not to contribute to a pattern of oppression. There is no need for anything about this to involve name-calling or shaming, just a little work and a little giving back of unearned privilege.
I'm shocked how many commenters are still so narcissistic that they're prioritizing their feelings above everyone else's.
Is it REALLY so hard to follow links on this site to find other blogs where non-privileged groups have already shared their voices? Why are you all so stuck on wanting people to sing on demand for you? Do you not check out the Feministing weekly link round-up and add blogs to your bookmarks list? Do you not check out sites mentioned by other commenters? Just from paying attention to this site, I've found blogs written by women of color, trans women, sex workers, and more. And each of those blogs has a whole blogroll and guest posts and people who say brilliant things in the comments who happen to have their own blogs. And rather than asking questions, I just read what they share. There's all this educating going on already if you just spend 10 minutes looking for it, which makes any accusations of, "But activists are here to educate, you're not doing it right if you don't answer my question!" pretty ignorant.
Being an ally? It's not about you. It's just not. Tantrums make you look silly and quite frankly, if you're going to pull a, "Well, then I just won't be your ally!" then no one's gonna miss you.
For me, the argument isn't about whether or not people answer my question, or having MY PERSONAL questions answered when and how I want them to. I don't have any claim or right to that, and that is irrelevant to me in regards to this topic. I guess I am looking at this from more of a philosophical perspective on censorship.
My issue stems from the fact that I don't think anyone has the right to tell anyone else that they can't participate in a conversation (on the internet) because Group A doesn't like the context of Group B's question. Keep in mind that I am talking about questions and dialogue, not threats or harmful derogatory comments (though that is a whole separate issue on censorship that this post doesn't have room for, so I will just keep the focus on the topic at hand, and yes I am aware that it is a narrow lens through which to look at dialogue from).
I just don't see how disregarding comments or thoughts that you don't happen to like because you think it's ignorant, misinformed or what have you lends itself to any type of constructive and HONEST conversation about social change. At the end of the day, you still have every right to ignore the questions, but I don't think censorship people at large is going to help anyone.
There is no censorship going on here. The OP posits that before asking a question, the questioner should take some time to think about whether it's really the appropriate time or place for it. The OP also provides some guidance on why it might not be the appropriate time and how to make that determination.
As an ally, my being in the conversation really isn't important. I visit a few anti-racism blogs, and 99% of the time, I don't really have anything to add. It's not about my voice being part of the conversation. You can learn so much by just being quiet. Racialicious moderates every comment that gets posted, and there is always spirited conversation and multiple points of view, and the conversation always moves forward because derails and 101s seem to be mostly blocked.
I disagree. Being flat out told (which this post does) that I should not, and in fact that it is looked down upon (which is how I feel after reading this post), participate in the conversation or dialogue if I have questions that may be offensive or inappropriate at the time(of course, knowing if said questions could be offensive or inappropriate ranges from being quite obvious, to having no idea you hit a personal nerve with someone).
That is indirect censorship. I agree that just listening can be incredibly valuable. I also think that you saying your own conversation isn't valuable is unfortunate. I may not have anything to add to a particular topic, but that doesn't mean I don't add value by listening, being aware, learning AND being part of the conversation.
Why should well intentioned individuals be made to feel like crap because they aren't as well versed on certain topics? That might not be in the intention of the OP, but that's the message I get from it.
Telling others to be quiet and just listen because they don't know what the hell they're talking about is a sad state of affairs for the progressive community in my opinion. I didn't realize we had come to the point where we are willing to create INTERNET hierarchies of our own, in the name of social change. How unfortunate.
Telling others to be quiet and just listen because they don't know what the hell they're talking about...
I think that's the issue. It's not that no questions are okay. It's not that asking a question because you don't know is a horrible terrible thing. It's just disrespectful and draining to be expected to answer a question that can easily be found by google.
Asking for clarification on a 101-type question is usually fine too. The problem is, when someone asks a 101 type question, it reinforces that a minority group is a minority: basic facts about them are invisible to more privileged people. It sucks to be reminded of that in a feminist space which one would hope and expect is a safe space.
It doesn't help either that questions are often (not always, but often) part of an argument which is derailing and again, draining (physically so for many people -- I'm reminded of the recent posts re: PWD). Being asked to prove something or explain something over and over is not okay, and is a silencing tactic.
Alixana's take on my original intent is entirely correct, which is why I haven't participated in this part of the thread yet. But maybe I can clarify a few things.
I am not trying to infringe on anyone's free speech. I don't have the right, I don't even have the power to do so.
I don't think anyone should feel like crap because they are ignorant about a topic. I think they should go educate themselves so they can get involved. I had to do it, and I'm still doing it on a continuous basis. I don't believe that asking members of dominant social groups (like myself) to stop and think before they ask a question is the same as inhibiting free speech, and I don't buy that it creates a new internet hierarchy in the name of social change. I think it gives back some of the unearned privilege dominant groups had in the first place, and works toward a more level playing field.
I completely understand where you are coming from, and I see and understand why you posted this, but I am not 100% with you.
Could you possibly provide some examples of questions that you find are derailing and fit into the 101 category?
I think I am having a hard time grasping the idea that people shouldn't ask questions.
I need to think on this a bit, because I'm honestly torn. I have some very specific posts in mind where this came up and I linked to one above, but I've been trying to speak in generalities because most of those posts ended in hurt feelings on both sides and I really do think it's important to avoid shaming anyone. I'll have to work on middle-ground explanations and get back to you. If anyone else has suggestions on how to handle this I'd be grateful.
Ok. Thank you!
I just want to say that I don't entirely disagree with you, and I think that creating space for voices that are not usually heard is also very important, and if that means people being more conscious about what they say, I can understand that too.
I guess I just have some bigger philosophical issues about this approach, and I appreciate you taking time to explain some of your points more clearly. I am not trying to be difficult, I am just trying to sort it out for myself, piece by piece.
Thanks again.
This is what I figured was going on with a lot of people, which is why I wanted to write the post in the first place, so I'm glad it's coming up. People seem to have really strong gut reactions to the idea that they shouldn't ask a question, and in my OP I was trying to parse out why I thought that was. I don't want people to not have questions, I don't even want people to not ask questions. I just hope that we can be aware of how our questions will affect others and contemplate whether this is the best forum for getting our questions answered. In other words, I'm not trying to attack curiosity. I think it's a great thing, a basic human characteristic that's necessary to social change. But so is self-reflection, and so is empathy, and sometimes somebody else's right to not be considered a minority spokesperson trumps your need and desire to have your question answered right then. And sometimes, if people stopped and thought about it before asking the question, they would realize this. Then the questioner could find another way to get their answers, and the minority would have that much more respect and intellectual personal space, everyone could onward and upward.
The comments on this post are precisely the reason I DO NOT come to this blog anymore.
I was pointed to this community post of SociologicalMe's by a friend and let me just say it is right on (alixana, as usual: fuck yeah with your comments). But I feel embarrassed and ashamed reading about 98% of these comments. This is a FEMINIST BLOG for crying out loud. And one I used to frequent daily. One I used to post on daily. I can't do anything but shake my head now.
I don't get it. The majority of these comments seem to be SociologicalMe and Pantheon debating the issue at hand. What is the 98% of the commentary that is so disheartening? Is it just the fact that there is some disagreement about how, when and why it is acceptable to ask questions?
I'm sorry, I should have said that 98% of the comments that do not include SociologicalMe having to explain their post. That help? And if you don't understand why I'm upset and disheartened I'm not going to explain it to you. You can read the few posts in agreement, specifically alixana's, for enlightenment there.
Okay, will do.
Why are you embarrassed and ashamed? I am no less of a feminist because I take issue with the semantics of this post. Disagreement is healthy, and frankly, I don't think anyone has been disrespectful in this dialogue. If anything, I think this is an excellent example oh how people who disagree can carry on a conversation. I think there are individuals (such as myself) who are trying to understand the other side, even if at first I disagree with it.
I've noticed your absence and missed your comments, llevinso!
Great post!
"Pausing, being respectful and doing research" is a good policy.
I’m Latino and have been engaged in various progressive activist causes for more than 20 years. I’ve witnessed the attitude exemplified by this post more times than I can remember, and I’ve never been able to understand it. Despite all the meaningless groupspeak exhortations to “check your privilege” or to “read a post on sexism/racism/______-ism 101”, whenever I see this type of response to a good faith question, the answer always reads the same to me: “Well, if you don’t know, I’m certainly not going to tell you!” or this: “You think you can order me around just because you have ________ privilege? Well, I’ll show you.” It seems to me this type of response is nothing more than the impotent and immature attempts of a non-privileged person to stand up to The Man. And it accomplishes precisely nothing.
I have been and continued to be engaged in activism for one reason: to do what I can to help people who need help. Much of the time, the people on whose behalf I fight and struggle would benefit from the spreading of information about their situations. And if someone asks me a good faith question about their situations or their culture or their desired outcomes, I try my best to answer it. Why? Because I think my answering will help the people I am trying to help. Do some of these questions display profound ignorance? Of course. Is it something the person could find out for him/herself? Probably. Are these questions asked in a less than respectful manner? Sometimes. But before I get all huffy, I ask myself, what is most likely to bring about the change that I want to bring about? Then I try to follow that path.
I get tired of these questions, too. I often think, man what kind of a dumb ass are you? And I feel, man, I’m just not up to dealing with this right now. All we activists feel that way from time to time, I believe. But what do I do when I feel this way? I DON’T ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION. Is the person asking the question privileged and feel that s/he can demand an answer? I don’t know and I don’t care. More importantly, the people I’m trying to help don’t care either.
The OP stated that many bloggers have stated that being in a position to constantly explain oneself can be “oppressive.” Oh, please. As oppressive as having the sheriff make regular sweeps of your kid’s high school, with 9-10 kids of color being hauled off to juvenile hall weekly? As oppressive as a university refusing to discipline a student rapist or to notify female students about his presence because they did not want the bad publicity? As oppressive as a single working mother being evicted from public housing because she refused the demands of the housing manager for sex? These are all causes I’ve worked on. And I guarantee you, when I was asked questions about these issues, the people who I was trying to help didn’t give a shit about the privilege of the asker. They had other problems to deal with.
Alixana stated above, “Being an ally? It's not about you. It's just not.” Fair enough. But may I suggest to my fellow activists that it’s not about us either? So making a snide retort like “check your privilege” might make me feel better temporarily, but it’s not about me. It’s about the people I’m trying to help. And my making snide remarks does nothing for them. NOTHING.
Thank you.
If this is how you choose to cope with this situation, fine, that's your prerogative and your choice. But it's not everyone's choice.
Just because there are other causes that are more important, and other things more oppressive than language, doesn't make my points invalid.
If this is how you choose to cope with this situation, fine, that's your prerogative and your choice. But it's not everyone's choice.
Right back atcha, SM. And I never stated nor implied that your points are invalid. Indeed, I stated I have recognized and experienced the ignorance and privilege underlying many such questions that you describe. But my confusion stems from my inability to understand what is being accomplished by the type of response you suggest. Do you believe the type of response you suggest will really, really cause a light bulb to go off in someone's head, to understand his/her privilege and the way it oppresses marginalized communities? If you do, more power to you. But my experience and those of my compadres tells me this rarely if ever happens, and my energy is better directed to other means.
I can see how this would be an irritating problems for members of minority groups. Even if a question-asker has the best intentions in the world, society is arranged in such a way that everyone *has* to know about the majority experience, whether they're interested or not -- after all anyone who's ever watched a TV show or read a magazine knows something about the straight lifestyle, or what it's like to be cisgender. There's really no way for a white, cisgender, able-bodied person to know what it's like to have that experience.
But I think it's very possible to ask a question without assuming it will be answered, or "believing that you have the right to have any and all of your questions answered on demand." And I guess I'm disagreeing with the idea that more privileged Feministing members should rely on search engines or old blog posts to address all their questions. Here's why: Suppose someone posts a particularly interesting post about what it's like to be a lesbian college student who dates trans-men. (Picked this example because I have a friend who fits this description, and as a straight cis woman, I learned a lot from talking to her about this.) Say I'm curious about whether it's common for trans people to be "out" at her school, or why a woman who identifies as lesbian would be attracted to a trans man.
I could Google the subject and find some random blog or FAQ that addresses/answers my question. But to do so would be to assume that ANY viewpoint on this matter is the same, that all experiences are interchangeable, and therefore if I've heard one, I've heard them all. Which of course isn't true; the author of said post will have her own set of life experiences and her own potentially illuminating answer to the question. If she chooses to answer it, she'll do so by drawing on her own personal experiences, not by telling me the official Lesbian College Student Position Statement.
And ideally, that's what I *should* be interested in. If I've responded to someone's words because they are particularly thoughtful, illuminating and eloquent, I *should* be reluctant to accept any old Google results as "her" viewpoint. That goes double if that person has posted multiple times, and readers have come to admire her ideas and writing style. That's part of the power words can have -- that even someone who's never met you can get interested in what *you* have to say.
To give another example, suppose I had a bunch of dude friends who got all interested in feminism and started asking me all about my "feminist" take on things -- what do feminists think about BDSM? What do feminists think about the Miss America Pageant? What do pro-choice people think about late-term abortion? If these hypothetical clueless dudes started peppering me with questions, I'd feel justified in saying "that's a complicated issue, I don't feel like getting into it right now." But I wouldn't want them to refrain from ever asking, on the grounds that "I can just look up the answer on Google." I wouldn't want them thinking my own extensively thought-through feminist arguments are something they can "just as easily look up somewhere else." Viewpoints are driven by personal experience (including the experience of grappling with the issues your experiences have raised). And part of the process of learning to check your privilege is learning that minority viewpoints aren't monolithic -- there's no one "source" for a group's take on something, so you have to converse with everyone as individuals.
That having been said, it would be the height of arrogance to assume anyone *has* to converse with you just because they've written a blog post or comment. Feministing readers should take the initiative to look up super-basic stuff like word definitions themselves, and curious parties should not whine if their question didn't get answered.
Agreed 110%
That is a lot more than think before you ask. I just have to say, "No, I'm not going to do that."
I'm frankly overwhelmed with how overblown the sensitivity is going on here. The fears of emotional harm, the oppressed and the oppressors. The danger that through our ignorance we might hurt someone's feelings. I can't help feeling that these are what I think of as "American problems", The kind of problems that one has because their lives are too cushy. People feel that they're "unsafe" because someone who doesn't understand their situation could show concern and foolishly ask them about their situation. Maybe the asker is obnoxious and arrogant in their approach and you don't answer them because they're getting all demandy. In North Korea people are living off of corn and grass while fearing for their lives. In the middle east socioeconomic situations make suicide bombing look like an appealing career choice. There are many things that we could change over here in hoity-toity luxury land that would make it a more just place, and those things should change, but seriously this makes feminism look like some sort of etiquette club. There are so many feminism relevant issues that really matter, yet so much thought has been poured into the problem of "noob etiquette". I seriously think some people on here just like to be outraged about stuff.
That a group of people who purport to want greater tolerance are so damned persnickety with people who'd like to join their cause is just so ridiculous.
I'm all for some courtesy and thinking before one acts. I really find the lengths that you'll go avoid the chance of emotional harm to be a little extreme, especially when you can't count on noobs to have read it. That's a lot of work to keep from asking someone about themselves when most people like to talk about themselves when someone is truly interested.
Have fun everyone.
Firstly, you're creating a false dichotomy here.
Secondly-- and more importantly-- you're failing to look at this from the other side of the fence, so to speak. Yes, it sucks to have your good intentions shot down, but it also sucks to be constantly asked the same questions over and over and be expected to answer just because you happen to be a part of a certain minority group. imagine someone asking you all the time what 'transgendered' means-- asking you to define who you are *constantly*. That sucks at least as bad as having your good intentions shot down... especially since it's only one of many shit things transgendered people have to deal with on account of having that specific identity.
Of course, if a transgendered person feels like explaining what 'transgendered' means-- awesome. But that will only happen *some* times in *some* spaces-- not all websites/forums/threads cater to that kind of discussion. That's all we're asking you to keep in mind-- what's appropriate where, i.e. etiquette.
You may call that being overly P.C., but it's actually just plain old common courtesy... except it's extended to include those on the bottom of the our social hierarchy who are usually ignored/fucked over by all social norms (including etiquette). Being a progressive means including those people, even if it's a little hard sometimes.
I'd like to clarify that etiquette IS important-- plenty of significant behaviors fall under that umbrella term, it's not just holding your fork right or calling someone 'Sir' or 'Ma'am'. It's also not showing up in your underwear at work or making lewd jokes on a conference call; it's about what is appropriate in each situation. We're asking that minorities be included in the consideration of etiquette.
From the original post:
Say you decide that you really would like to know, but you think it might cause harm or you aren't sure. You've tried looking it up but haven't had any luck. What do you do? At this point, strongly consider simply not asking.
I think this is a key consideration. If I have a question that I want to ask a person and I suspect that the question might be offensive, harmful, or off-putting, I generally choose to swallow my curiosity, and remain silent. Why? It's simply a matter of common courtesy. This is not an unusual expectation. This is a common social grace. It doesn't matter whether you are talking to someone at a party, chatting with your next door neighbor, or participating in a blog thread—it's a good idea to avoid asking potentially offensive or hurtful questions.
If you slip up and accidentally ask an offensive or harmful question, then fine. We're all human. It happens. Simply apologize and respectfully drop the inquiry.
From the original post:
What if you've determined that you really do need to know, and that to the best of your understanding the question will not cause great harm to the person you're asking, in spite of the power imbalance? Ask, but ask respectfully.
Fair enough. That leaves a perfectly reasonable window of opportunity for folks to ask important questions. Just keep in mind that it's good practice to limit your questions to those which are relevant to the original post. Asking questions which are largely tangential to the original post can serve to derail the thread.
This was a really well thought out and sensitive post, SociologicalMe. Thank you.
I think there is an important difference in the appropriateness of a question based on the context in which it is asked. Lets say there is a question one wants to ask in good faith, but with knowledge that it might be problematic. If you are in a group discussion IRL with safe-space rules, it should not be asked. Pretty clear. If you are on a personal blog, you probably shouldn't ask. If you are having a one on one conversation, you probably shouldn't ask. If you are on an open internet forum where there are many many readers of all different levels of education on the issue, it seems that asking makes sense.
My point is that the idea of 'safe space' on a largely unregulated, reasonably mainstream blogging community isn't realistic. Feministing's policy seems to be that any non-abusive post should not be regulated. This opens the door for many problems. Trolling, 101 questions, derailing, and many others. Posting on Feministing is not equivalent to posting in a safe space. The entire point is to open up problematic issues to a wide segment of reading public with the opportunity to anonymously respond with questions/comments.
Clearly, any question should be researched at least in a cursory manner before being asked as a general rule. And clearly any question can be ignored; no one has any right to demand an answer on an open internet forum. We all seem to agree on the black and white examples, what is problematic is the gray area questions (as always =P)
Nevertheless, if a poster includes their minority experience/lens/knowledge as part of their post in such a community, they don't have the right to request that good-faith questions not be asked just because they are potentially offensive.
Rules restricting questions make a great deal of sense for safe-spaces. An open, anonymous, popular internet community cannot by any measure be construed as a safe-space, and asking people to follow safe space-rules when the guidelines for posting clearly are not safe-space oriented is misguided imo.
You make a really important point, and I agree that rules are and should be different based on whether or not you're in what can be considered a "safe space." I'm not entirely sure I agree with the idea that being in a non-safe space makes my OP misguided, but I'm thinking about it.
I'm confused as to why some people seem to consider Feministing a safe space (and others don't). It doesn't say anywhere that its supposed to be a safe space for any particular group or for everyone in general. It doesn't make any practical sense that it could be. I started coming here to read the news posts about feminism, and I started coming more and more once I got sucked into interesting debates and discussions about feminist issues. I don't WANT this to be a safe space. This is a very public blog with open registration and almost no moderation; it would take some drastic changes to really be a safe space. And if they did that, the entire focus of the site would change, and I, at least, would probably stop visiting so much. I'm not interested in online group therapy, I'm interested in discussions about controversial feminist issues where necessarily not everyone will agree. I think people should be polite, but there's different than always worrying about avoiding the slightest mention of anything that could potentially upset anyone. If you take that to its logical extreme, you can't mention pretty much anything ever. If people need that sort of place where their feelings are protected, I totally support that, but I don't see how this blog could be that place (in its current form).
OK, I'm just going to say it for the record: Ask me questions. Better you hear it from me than from Wikipedia or Glenn Beck or some article-directory crap spun into oblivion. Just don't be an asshole. THAT'S the dividing line. Any question from a place of assholery (purposeful or not) is not legitimate. Any question that isn't is fair game.
Everybody needs to go read crshark's post, because it is spot-on.
And this is why I'm happy to lurk.
I haven't read most of the other comments (too many! And I can't believe anyone disagrees with you!) but I just wanted to say I think this post is SPOT-ON. Thank you so much, I'm going to bookmark it to send to people in the future!
Jeez there are a lot of responses. I don't have time to read all of them, but I did search for key words to make sure I wasn't posting *exactly* the same thing someone else has already said.
It would really help to clarify the position of this post is the author would specify what kinds of questions he or she is talking about.
I can agree for personal questions. For broad, impersonal, political ones, I see no reason why anyone shouldn't be encouraged to ask. It would be silly to "demand" an answer, but what harm can come from initiating a discussion on an issue?
Based on the allusion to emotional pain in the post, though, I suppose SociologicalMe was referring to personal questions, in which case I would say the best way of answering isn't "you can find out somewhere else" but rather "why the hell does it make a difference to you?"
The thing is, though, that sometimes the pain can come from non-personal questions. What is simply an intellectual exercise to one with privilege is real-life stuff to someone else.
How did people deal with this before 1990-whatever, when nearly everyone has internet access? When activism and consciousness-raising was more than arguing on comment threads? I've heard it repeatedly stated that feminist blogs such as this one, Feministe, etc., are the new version of consciousness-raising. This is absolutely not the case when "activists" tirelessly rant about how privileged people don't have the right to ask questions and are expected to know what to Google in the first place. Thank goodness for Google. Privileged people would have no idea what was wrong with our society without it, I guess.
Snark and sarcasm aside, perhaps if people like the OP feel that questions are oppressive, then the blog owner should put an obvious disclaimer on the site, visibly before anyone reads a post, that states that the blog is NOT to be used for consciousness-raising, and is to be seen only as a place where oppressed minorities and their 100% educated allies may agree with sympathise with each other.
I'm not being disingenuous. I mean, if you don't want what you consider to be "stupid" or "101" questions on your blog, then by all means, don't act like you're here to raise awareness about feminist issues, you know? It's just backwards, and it gives people who would be great allies the wrong idea about feminism, further perpetuating negative stereotypes that we're trying to eliminate. There's nothing wrong with a space where you can rant or rave about whatever and expect the commentariat to respect that. But such a hugely popular feminist website edited by a woman who wrote Full Frontal Feminism, a book that is intended to educate young women about why feminism is still important, gives the immediate impression that this is where you go to learn about feminism, and engage in discourse about feminism and have questions answered. Implementing a policy where readers should either already know everything there is to know about all social justice issues, or know precisely what to Google is better left to sites like Feministe or Womanist Musings, where it's very clear that dissent and/or questioning is unwelcome. Not that there's anything wrong with that-- but not making that clear, if that's the intent, is bothersome. It seems like people spend more time telling people to stop asking stupid questions than actually working to further the cause they're passionate about.
Wow, sorry for the novella. Too much espresso.
"How did people deal with this before 1990-whatever, when nearly everyone has internet access?"
Er, if it wasn't already apparent, that was supposed to read "BEFORE nearly everyone had internet access?"
Like I said, too much caffeine...
I agree. Personally, I'm completely unclear on what the intentions of the original blog owners are regarding this issue. I've gotten the impression that its mostly commenters in the community site that are upset about it.
Why do minorities consider themselves to be less in power? I'm a minority- but I actually feel quite powerful in that *I* know some things that the general public does not- and that gives me a sort of status. When someone comes froma sincere place asking questions as a way to learn, I take on the role of "teacher" and therefore have status above them automatically.
Sincerely, I think minorities (including myself!) over-analyze things much of the time. When you are coming from a place where you feel you have to be defensive (understandable) it can make you think EVERYONE is out to "get" you. It's not always the case....so I think all of us could use a little bit of a dose of reality-
Anyone wanting to ask this non-monogamous, bisexual, BDSM player a question is welcome to do so anytime. :)
Sorry ahead of time if this is poorly written. It's late, and I wanted to share my thoughts on this before crashing.
It seems to me this issue is actually about what's appropriate in what space.
There are blogs that are written for those with more knowledge and experience on a certain subject, whose authors want a higher level of discussion, or want to avoid a certain kind of discussion. There are also 101 blogs (though they seem to be harder to find) that cater specifically to those with limited knowledge of a subject and who might not be welcome in other conversations. It is (or should be) clear what's appropriate in those aforementioned spaces. But then there's something like this-- a community blog, completely open to people with all levels of knowledge about feminism and the progressive movement. It's tricky to know what's appropriate in this kind of space. I think we need to come to a clear consensus as a community about what kind of space this is and who and what is welcome in it.
Personally, I appreciate the diversity of subjects and commenters on this blog, so I feel the question of what's appropriate should be decided on a thread-by-thread basis. It might be a good idea to have a way of marking the 'levels' of these threads-- '101', 'advanced' etc. I think it would eliminate a lot of this kind of conflict while allowing both 'sides' to have what they need in their own space. I think that's important, because I think both of those needs are important-- needing a safe, progressive space where you aren't constantly expected to be a model for your community (I think this should be the default space... online and in life), and needing a specific space where all levels of questions are allowed... and I only think that latter space is so important because there ARE some of us willing to be 'tutors' to allies-in-progress, at least some of the time. The internet provides us with an unprecedented opportunity for that kind of communication, and I think that should be acknowledged.