On Birth Control, the Good Life and Trolling
Jill from feministe has a great post about how the pro-choice movement has positively affected all of our lives--and has prevented more abortions by educating about birth control than all of the various anti-choice movements combined. One main point is this (and it is amazing how often Jill has had to point this out, again and again): The anti-choice movement isn't about the sanctity of life, but rather is centrally about curtailing womens' options and lives in general. If avoiding abortions were the central tenet for the anti-choice people (as they often claim), then they'd be advocates for birth control. (The whole 'bc isn't natural thing just cracks me up. David Hume would be turning in his grave upon hearing such things. I ask, in a similar vein--do all y'all anti-choice advocates who think birth control is 'unnatural' live in houses? Because, you know, they're not natural. We build them. Just like we create and take birth control. Sheesh.)
But there's more to her post than that--she consistently builds up the case that pro-choicers tend to have everybody's interests at heart moreso than anit-choicers. And it's a compelling way to talk about it. Go check it out.
On the other hand, the comments on that post are relatively disappointing. You've got one guy who is pointing out possible flaws in Jill's argument--and he's plainly wrong, but that isn't what has people so frustrated and angry over there. It's his tone. And I just think it's a very complex problem. Probably because I've been labelled a troll when I think I have 'only' been putting forth my position, most likely. After being labelled a troll a few times, it was time for me to cut back on my comments and reevaluate how I was approaching things. There are infinite ways that I can pull back and be less 'trollish'. But still, I think that there are ways in which I'm always going to be a troll to those I disagree with on whatever serious points. It makes me think that one of the favorite things about blogs for me--the idea that good discussion can ensue--may just really be a naive hope for me. Lex and I can keep it relatively kind and thoughtful even in the midst of high emotions, but I've known her for over a decade...who else have I disagreed with in a reasonable way and actually learned something from?
Well, my immediate answer is that I have learned from many of my discussions. But there are problems with learning this way. First of all, I may be using resources that aren't mine to use (this is the problem with 'tread derailing' in comments, for instance). Secondly, I may be keeping others from saying their piece merely by being part of the converstaion--which may just be another version of the first problem, I suppose. Thirdly, most of what I learn (not all) is "I don't want to be *that* way" sorta stuff. Though not all. For instance, I think I've learned a lot about respect and a variation of womens' only spaces. That is, even though Feministe isn't a womens' only space, men who come there (and also non-feminists of various stripes) need to conduct themselves differently than they might on their own blogs. I'm not sure why this is such a revalation to me, but 'double standard' isn't always a bad word. People who have proven themselves to be smart and thoughtful in the community (i.e. people who comment a lot and make good points and the like) get more leeway when it comes to making sarcastic comments and such, or taking some shortcuts in how they explain things (shortcuts that are often like well-worn paths through very familiar territory). And people who don't comment a lot, and non-feminists, and men in general, don't get to take those shortcuts or be as snarky. That's just how it is--and, in some sense, how it should be.
Which isn't to say that it isn't frustrating. But when people like "Deep Thought" over on the thread I linked to call for 'civility', it's often masking the fact that they come stomping around and derail things without being careful, and that itself is not civil. Which is why that particular example is really interesting over there--I don't think Deep Thought was putting forth an obviously lame point. It was wrong, but not as wrong as some comments have been. It was arguable. Easily arguable, but arguable nonetheless. And yet, because of his past actions, and because of his tone, he was more easily perceived as derailing--and how could he be suprised at that.
Still, I think when Lauren was moderating things over there, there was less banning and more just taking out the trolls, and I prefer that. Letting people say their piece and then take the heat, in general. But then, it's not my space, and I may have different feelings about safety and propriety in this regard. Which is, you know, one of the things I've learned.
Filed under:Blogging, Feminism, and Health
Jill from feministe has a great post about how the pro-choice movement has positively affected all of our lives--and has prevented more abortions by educating about birth control than all of the various anti-choice movements combined. One main point is this (and it is amazing how often Jill has had to point this out, again and again): The anti-choice movement isn't about the sanctity of life, but rather is centrally about curtailing womens' options and lives in general. If avoiding abortions were the central tenet for the anti-choice people (as they often claim), then they'd be advocates for birth control. (The whole 'bc isn't natural thing just cracks me up. David Hume would be turning in his grave upon hearing such things. I ask, in a similar vein--do all y'all anti-choice advocates who think birth control is 'unnatural' live in houses? Because, you know, they're not natural. We build them. Just like we create and take birth control. Sheesh.)
But there's more to her post than that--she consistently builds up the case that pro-choicers tend to have everybody's interests at heart moreso than anit-choicers. And it's a compelling way to talk about it. Go check it out.
On the other hand, the comments on that post are relatively disappointing. You've got one guy who is pointing out possible flaws in Jill's argument--and he's plainly wrong, but that isn't what has people so frustrated and angry over there. It's his tone. And I just think it's a very complex problem. Probably because I've been labelled a troll when I think I have 'only' been putting forth my position, most likely. After being labelled a troll a few times, it was time for me to cut back on my comments and reevaluate how I was approaching things. There are infinite ways that I can pull back and be less 'trollish'. But still, I think that there are ways in which I'm always going to be a troll to those I disagree with on whatever serious points. It makes me think that one of the favorite things about blogs for me--the idea that good discussion can ensue--may just really be a naive hope for me. Lex and I can keep it relatively kind and thoughtful even in the midst of high emotions, but I've known her for over a decade...who else have I disagreed with in a reasonable way and actually learned something from?
Well, my immediate answer is that I have learned from many of my discussions. But there are problems with learning this way. First of all, I may be using resources that aren't mine to use (this is the problem with 'tread derailing' in comments, for instance). Secondly, I may be keeping others from saying their piece merely by being part of the converstaion--which may just be another version of the first problem, I suppose. Thirdly, most of what I learn (not all) is "I don't want to be *that* way" sorta stuff. Though not all. For instance, I think I've learned a lot about respect and a variation of womens' only spaces. That is, even though Feministe isn't a womens' only space, men who come there (and also non-feminists of various stripes) need to conduct themselves differently than they might on their own blogs. I'm not sure why this is such a revalation to me, but 'double standard' isn't always a bad word. People who have proven themselves to be smart and thoughtful in the community (i.e. people who comment a lot and make good points and the like) get more leeway when it comes to making sarcastic comments and such, or taking some shortcuts in how they explain things (shortcuts that are often like well-worn paths through very familiar territory). And people who don't comment a lot, and non-feminists, and men in general, don't get to take those shortcuts or be as snarky. That's just how it is--and, in some sense, how it should be.
Which isn't to say that it isn't frustrating. But when people like "Deep Thought" over on the thread I linked to call for 'civility', it's often masking the fact that they come stomping around and derail things without being careful, and that itself is not civil. Which is why that particular example is really interesting over there--I don't think Deep Thought was putting forth an obviously lame point. It was wrong, but not as wrong as some comments have been. It was arguable. Easily arguable, but arguable nonetheless. And yet, because of his past actions, and because of his tone, he was more easily perceived as derailing--and how could he be suprised at that.
Still, I think when Lauren was moderating things over there, there was less banning and more just taking out the trolls, and I prefer that. Letting people say their piece and then take the heat, in general. But then, it's not my space, and I may have different feelings about safety and propriety in this regard. Which is, you know, one of the things I've learned.
Filed under:Blogging, Feminism, and Health
posted by Jeff Pollet at 9:18 AM
0 comments
