This is something I’ve been thinking about for a while, but the whole “Free Monty” thing over the past few days really brought it home. I found it fascinating how my post about the comparison of the purchase of a puppy from a responsible breeder to slavery being offensive morphed into a far more general discussion of pet ownership, animal status and why Jessica should have to answer for every little thing she does just because she’s a big feminist blogger.
It kind of blew up bigger, and more unexpectedly, than I thought it would. I guess I’ve been away from Feministe for too long, and I’ve forgotten the megaphone aspect of it. Also, people’s reluctance to talk about race.
That megaphone thing, incidentally, is why I’m posting this here and not on Feministe. I really don’t want another damn blogwar, or a rehash of inter-feminist disputes over old issues, or god forbid, more attention from Carol Lloyd. Here, the traffic is low enough that a productive discussion can take place (if anyone comments at all), and nobody that I’m going to name later on has to feel that I’m using the big stick rather than just trying to work out some issues and areas of difference.
So, onward. I’m here to talk about ownership, but not ownership of animals. Ownership of high-traffic bloggers and other figures of some reknown.
One of the themes that went through the Monty posts before I stuck my nose in was that multiple people felt entitled to scold Jessica and demand that she answer their questions, right now, about where she got her puppy. The reason for the demand was, frequently, that Jessica has an obligation as a feminist to justify her choices on feminist grounds, and if she’s going to post something on a feminist website, she damn well better be prepared to have people asking her questions about it, because she put it out there. And when Jessica, who was traveling, didn’t answer those questions right away, the demands got more and more scolding, and more and more, well, demanding.
Some other commenters responded by saying either that where Jessica got her puppy is not a feminist issue, or even if it is, are we not entitled to have fun or joy without subjecting it to feminist analysis?
That’s not to say that there aren’t legitimate questions to be raised, and there were, in fact, legitimate questions raised. But there were also accusations hurled, there was scolding, there was hectoring. And there was an undercurrent of ownership, as well: Jessica’s influential and famous and authoritative and a lot of people read her blog, so she HAS to answer. She’s putting herself out there, so she can’t expect to be able to cut off discussion by saying something’s personal, or that she doesn’t want to discuss it. She. Owes. Us.
And here’s what I have to say: being a high-traffic blogger does not make anyone public property. And as much as people raise “the personal is political” as a reason for high-traffic bloggers to have to justify their personal choices, that’s rather a corruption of Carol Hanish’s original argument, which was that discussions of women’s oppression were not mere navel-gazing or matters for women to solve individually, but discussions about a political problem that required a political solution:
They could sometimes admit that women were oppressed (but only by “the system”) and said that we should have equal pay for equal work, and some other “rights.” But they belittled us no end for trying to bring our so-called “personal problems” into the public arena - especially “all those body issues” like sex, appearance, and abortion. Our demands that men share the housework and childcare were likewise deemed a personal problem between a woman and her individual man. The opposition claimed if women would just “stand up for themselves” and take more responsibility for their own lives, they wouldn’t need to have an independent movement for women’s liberation. What personal initiative wouldn’t solve, they said, “the revolution” would take care of if we would just shut up and do our part. Heaven forbid that we should point out that men benefit from oppressing women.
In other words, “the personal is political” was never meant as a club to beat individual women with for not living up to some kind of feminist ideal in their individual lives, but as a call for putting “women’s issues” onto the same political footing as men’s issues.
High-traffic bloggers are still people, and aren’t exactly making a ton of money from blogging. I’ve never seen a dime from Feministe, for instance, and I know that Jill puts the ad money back into the site. Everyone who posts at Feministing has other jobs, as do the bloggers at Pandagon (that some of them have parlayed their success in attracting an audience into paying work does not change the fact that they’re not making a living from blogging). In fact, I can’t post under my real name because I don’t want to lose the job that pays the bills (if you knew my real name, you could find out easily where I work, because attorneys are listed in a number of directories). So for all the talk of fame and authority and influence, there’s not a whole lot of reward attached to it, and at least in my case, a considerable amount of risk. And in any event, that fame is fame on the internet, which doesn’t really count for much in the wider world.
But there are an awful lot of people who, just because they read you and just because a lot of other people read you, think that you have to act a certain way or be a certain way or write about certain things and no others. And they think they have a right to demand that you act, be or write about what they want you to act, be or write about. Or they think they have a right to attack you personally for how you act, who you are, or what you write if it doesn’t fit in with some kind of Platonic ideal of a feminist blogger.
Every now and again, Atrios will post a reminder that he doesn’t owe his readers anything, that he doesn’t have to pay attention to your pet cause, that he doesn’t have to write what you demand he writes. I used to think that was over the top and unduly harsh, but then the whole “Fun Feminist” blowup happened. Short summary: Jill wrote a “quote of the day” post quoting Twisty about how the reason that so many women hang onto the trappings of femininity is that doing so is not a sign of empowerment, but a survival skill in the patriarchy. A debate ensued in the comments about how much of a duty women have to examine their motivations for dressing up in feminine trappings (which kind of missed Twisty’s original point). In a subsequent post, Jill decided to examine her own interest in feminine trappings while being quite aware that they were somewhat problematic in the larger scope of her feminism.
Things got rather interesting.
Both in comments, and in at least one blog posting, people started attacking Jill personally for her choices, and questioning her commitment to feminism. She’d already examined her shit quite thoroughly and publicly, but somehow, this wasn’t enough. She had to show that she felt really bad about it, or something (those demanding that she feel bad never really got around to saying what they wanted her to do, beyond feel shitty). She no longer deserved to be listened to. She no longer had any place in the movement — even though the people castigating her for her impurity were hardly without stain themselves.
But the creepiest aspect of all was the number of people who asserted ownership over Jill because they’d decided that she was a feminist role model, and felt entitled to demand explanations from her. I think Ron Sullivan summed up what was happening quite well in this comment:
Not to spoil the fun, but for the sake of a few commenters who seem to have missed it: The big stinky pile in the punchbowl isn’t grooming (for values of “grooming” broad enough to include stuff I’d never subject myself to) but the weird 20th-century idea of the “role model” that has somehow grown to include the sub-idea th[at] one can declare someone else a role model and therefore feel entitled to give that person orders.
What the fuck? What the fuckin fuck? As my little sister (not that one) would say.
As Ilyka said on her blog:
I am not a role model: You’d think people would have wrapped their heads around this back when Charles Barkley first said it, but no. Some people still think that if your audience is large enough, you’re a role model regardless of your own wishes in that regard, and you’d better behave in accordance with the bylaws of Rolemodelville, population You.
And as I said:
Molly, Jill’s not your little monkey. She doesn’t have to dance for you just because you put her on a pedestal.
And really, that’s what we’re seeing with Jessica and Monty. Because a lot of people read Jessica, and have decided that she’s a feminist role model, that means that they feel that they can give Jessica orders, and Jessica has to respond. It meant that Molly could declare Jill a role model and declare that because she waxes, she’s not worth listening to because she’s failed as a role model, a job which she never agreed to take on:
At the risk of sounding like Britney Spears, I’m gonna go ahead and throw it out there: I am not a role model.
I am, however, a feminist. And you can try and take away my membership card, but I’m still going to claim it.
I’m a 23-year-old kid trying to get through law school, get a job, and make it through my daily life. I also blog sometimes. Blogging is not my job. I don’t get paid for it, and while it’s important to me, I don’t construct my identity around it.
Aside from the whole ownership aspect, there’s the idea that, just because someone posts something on the internet, it’s up for any and all discussion and the person who posted it has no expectation of being able to claim privacy. I think that’s utter bullshit, it’s dehumanizing, and akin to “she asked for it.” It didn’t fly when the AutoAdmit assholes were swiping Jill’s picture for use in their wankfest, and it doesn’t fly here.
The whole idea that if you’re not ideologically pure as the driven snow–that every single goddamn thing you do has to pass everybody’s individual levels of muster–then you’re a sell-out or no better than someone who’s actively opposed to your cause has always kind of creeped me out.
It’s way too close to the virgin-whore dichotomy, it encourages extremism for it’s own sake, and more often than not it shows up as a part of particularly ugly group dynamics. And it’s not like we haven’t seen, time and again, how ultimately fruitless and counterproductive it is to analyze all your actions first and foremost by somebody else’s rubric.
God, I fucking hate isms, and this is why.
I’ve been a self-supporting woman in New York since the early eighties, when we went on interviews wearing boxy boysuits with floppy bows, and worked my way up to a nice middle-class living wearing jeans to work. I believe that I should get what I earn without consideration of what bathroom I use, and I expect that my daughter will have all the opportunities open to her that skill and hard work earn for her. I believe all women should have what I believe I should have, and their daughters should have the opportunities I believe my daughter should have. By any definition I recognize, that makes me a feminist.
As far as I’m concerned, my choices, whatever they are, spring from feminist principles. There’s certainly a case to be made that some of my lifestyle choices are not progressive or progressive enough for every other feminist out there. Happily, a belief in personal empowerment is not subject to a lifestyle litmus test. If I don’t agree with you, that doesn’t make me not a feminist. That makes me a feminist who disagrees with you. Otherwise, feminism is a smudgy carbon of patriarchy, which is not what I believe it is.
As with religion, feminism informs my choices. It doesn’t dictate them.
Also as with religion, attempts to impose orthodoxy strike me as being about the ambitions of the person making the attempt rather than the principles of the belief.
God, I fucking hate isms.
For some reason, the “role model” talk reminds me of the minor shitstorm going on with Vanessa Hudgens where people are shocked that the star of a Disney movie! would e-mail a naked picture of herself to her boyfriend. Apparently, some parents are quite surprised to find out that “High School Musical 2″ was not a documentary and that Vanessa and Zac have actually been having sex off-screen and not just holding hands as was shown in the film.
I’m certainly not ideologically pure, though I did demand it from people much more when I was younger. It takes a decade or so of living on your own to realize that, yes, shades of gray do exist.
That high school musical thing is hilarious, Mnem. Some people should just get a life. And besides, it isn’t like the kids are going to actually know about the whole naked picture thing while watching the movie. Except now they will, because some stupid people have made a federal case out of it.
Personally, I like being reminded that the people I look to as role models are, in fact, people. Shows me that they’re not perfect, and it gives me hope that I can also be better in spite of my little eccentricities. It also makes life just that little bit more interesting.
And zuzu, are you back at Feministe?
I am, but I’m going to be keeping this place up.
I also find it distinctly curious that the people who posed the most outrageous claims against Jessica then subsequently refused to answer rejoinders to their own nonsense.
I think you’re spot on here, Zuzu. It’s odd how public sphere stuff, which should be free in more or less the strongest sense of the word, gets kind of undermined by debates about property and ownership. I mean, I do understand attachments and such - goodness knows I have more than enough blog-heroes myself. Still, there is (I hope) a big difference between that and thinking we have like property claims on someone else’s intellectual behavior.
Also, hilarious title.
What a great post.
I would add to the whole issue is that when a discussion of a feminists “responsibility” comes up — that recently in a tiny erruption (as large as an erruption as we’re going to get on a blog as small as FG) over at my place, we got into a bit of a drag-out over whether or not a woman could wear makeup and heels and shave 100% for herself. While it’s unfair to expect a visible feminist like Jessica to have to live her life to the dictates of the women around her, there is also a degree to which women should be aware of their choices, and how their choices might contribute to a culture that they know to be problematic.
I’m really dismayed at the level of self-centeredness I see in blogs these days. It’s ok to have weaknesses and contradictions in your life, but you should be aware that they’re there. As far as I’m concerned, as long as Jessica isn’t standing up and shouting “I bought Monty from a breeder because it’s an empowered choice!” we should cut her a little slack and go back to eating our veal, putting on our heels, and giving BJs.
Thank you thank you thank you for this post. This sums it up best for me:
In other words, “the personal is political” was never meant as a club to beat individual women with for not living up to some kind of feminist ideal in their individual lives, but as a call for putting “women’s issues” onto the same political footing as men’s issues.
Sometimes I wish I could beat people over the head with that sentence.
Awesome post, Zuzu.
A blogger from a much higher-traffic site than mine gave me a warning not long after I started out, which I will probably never forget. She said that the more my readership grows, the more commenters will stop seeing me as plain old Kate and start seeing me as KATE HARDING OF SHAPELY PROSE — and the more that happens, the more combative they’ll get. Like every single comment is now David v. Goliath instead of just two people participating in a conversation with a bunch of others. Unfortunately, when you’re the blogger in question, YOU still think of yourself as just one little person trying to have a conversation; you only realize how much authority people are assigning to you when things blow up.
I can see what she’s saying already, and I still don’t even have that much traffic. Sigh.
(Also, I’ve been reading the whole Save Monty saga and have been meaning to tell you I think your post was right on, though I don’t think I actually commented anywhere.)
I think you are just discriminating against corn. Corn has rights too.
A blogger from a much higher-traffic site than mine gave me a warning not long after I started out, which I will probably never forget. She said that the more my readership grows, the more commenters will stop seeing me as plain old Kate and start seeing me as KATE HARDING OF SHAPELY PROSE — and the more that happens, the more combative they’ll get. Like every single comment is now David v. Goliath instead of just two people participating in a conversation with a bunch of others.
Yep. And that’s why I’m going to write my post about the tut-tutting of Hanne Blank here rather than at Feministe.
Yep. And that’s why I’m going to write my post about the tut-tutting of Hanne Blank here rather than at Feministe.
I’ve been saying this everywhere, but before you do that, for the record, my post was not tut-tutting Hanne Blank. Insofar as I was thinking of specific people when I wrote that, she didn’t even make the list — but for the most part, I was just thinking, “I keep seeing this shit a LOT, and it’s baffling to me,” not “X, Y, and Z are pissing me off, so I’m going to try and shame them.”
Also, although The Rotund did respond to Hanne Blank in particular, I think the characterization of that as “tut-tutting” is a little harsh. I’m totally on board with what you say about pedestals in this post and your recent one at Feministe. But because of that, I don’t think anyone should put The Rotund on a pedestal either; she was personally stunned and disappointed to learn that HB is dieting, and used that as a jumping-off point for discussing dieting and fat acceptance philosophically. The purpose of the post was clearly not to say “Hanne Blank BAD!” but “Okay, this shocked me, and there are larger issues for the movement that arise from my thoughts on it.” In other words, she was, you know, blogging.
Anyway. I should shut up, since I have no idea what you’re going to say about all this — and I can’t wait to see it. But let’s just say both TR and I have had our own share of being knocked off pedestals we never agreed to stand on this week, and I don’t think that’s what either of us was trying to do to Hanne Blank.
I was under the impression that fat acceptance had to do with the idea that no-one should be judged for not fitting into anyone else’s idea of what size they should be.
It does seem a bit personal to tell someone they aren’t morally qualified to say that they hold that position if they don’t choose to maintain a size you approve of. It seems particularly pointed if you judge their actions while explicitly discounting their motivations.
Zuzu, this post is brilliant.
It’s a hard situation, because on one hand, people like Jessica are published authors and leaders of the young feminist movement. Of course they should expect to answer tough questions. Of course they are responsible to their readers.
But they aren’t barred from joy. And that’s what gets me — so many of these blog wars happen over something that brings the blogger in question happiness. Jessica’s puppy is a perfect example. Your cats are another. I know I’ve certainly felt under fire when I posted about traveling. Jessica got it for her book cover. Whenever any of us engage with the Big Bloggers (Kos, etc), we’re deemed sell-outs (see the reaction to me, Jess, Amanda, and Nezua attending YearlyKos). And, as much as I know it isn’t “empowering,” I will say that the process of putting on, playing with and experimenting with make-up and my physical appearance makes me happy. I understand it’s problematic because it reinforces certain expectations for all women. I struggle with that. But, as silly as it sounds, the practice of having 15 minutes in the morning to sit, drink my coffee and put on my eyeliner brings me a level of calm and a level of security, confidence and joy. What bothers me is that so much of the detraction from all of these issues is focused on the false premise that we don’t “get it” — as if we aren’t doing the hard, depressing day-to-day feminist advocacy in our real lives.
Part of the problem, I think, is that a lot of us are overwhelmed with the depressing aspects of feminism. The feminist bloggers who do this day in and day out are inundated with stories of women suffering, women dying, women struggling to survive. It’s hard to feel good about anything. When you wake up in the morning and you have a new puppy, or you just got back from somewhere really cool, or you just saw this really hysterical commentary, you expect others to share your joy. You realize that joy is a privilege. You understand that joy is fantastic, and that all of us would be better off if we were able to experience more of it. You try to share it. And then you get cut down.
I’ve found myself censoring what I’ll write on Feministe, probably for the same reason that you’re posting this here and not there — you know it’ll start a shitstorm, and you just don’t want to deal with it. I think that’s sad. I read posts like this, which are amazing, and I want them to get more attention. And I know that if that happens, it’ll only end in bad blood. I don’t know how to fix that.
And, somewhat unrelated, but I don’t see a dime of Feministe money either. I pay our tech guy out a combination of money that I bleg for and my own money, and all of our ad money goes to the fabulous Lauren, who does all of the site management that I’m not able to do. I don’t even see it, so I have no idea how much it is. It’s probably not a lot. I wish I could give her more, because she deserves it.
Thanks for this post.
Thanks for this post, zuzu; I found the level of entitlement, the demanding that Jessica address the concerns of animal rights activists “AS A FEMINIST”, that Jessica owed any explanation to anyone, the most obnoxious and appalling aspect of the whole brouhaha this weekend. In fact (in my opinion) it was the exact opposite; as a feminist, Jessica had a right to go tell complete strangers to take a flying leap if they had a problem with her personal life choices as an adult woman.
Again, zuzu, welcome back to Feministe. You were missed.
You know, I may have called her a role model, but I never felt like I owned her or could tell her what to do. I’ve always claimed that my criticisms were more directed at the people listening than to Jessica.
I’ve never given her any orders and I’ve never called her any names.
However, I’ve been called plenty of awful things and I’ve been told how I should act, too.
It doesn’t have anything to do with the status of blogger. If you make your opinions known, you’ll receive criticism, period. Jessica and I both received it, along with plenty of other bloggers and commenters. My criticisms directed at Jessica as well as the criticisms directed at me have got nothing to do with anyone’s sense of entitlement to explanation.
Even when I said
I wasn’t demanding anything of her. I don’t feel like she owes me anything. It’s just a way of saying that I don’t think her feminist analysis is very good if it overlooks this issue. It’s a critique of her theory, not a personal attack on her.
If you take a look, it started out as a discussion of pet ownership and animal status as property.
Then it morphed into a discussion of how it’s wrong (in your opinion) to use analogies of human chattel to non-human chattel, along with some assumptions that “slavery” always and only refers to past American slavery of Black people (instead of current slaves of various races, for example, Asian women and girls enslaved for sex work).
And now you’ve morphed it into a discussion about when and who we’re allowed to criticize.
But only after you used other attempts to shut me up, namely the politeness card. I wasn’t being a “good girl” by speaking my mind and I should really just shut up and let everyone keep oohing and ahhing over the puppy picture. The very first thing you said to me about this was,
“Scolding is never good etiquette, Elaine.”
And then many comments later you found better ways to attack my criticisms.
All the while, you’ve been maintaining the status quo and rejecting thoughtful discussion of the real issue, pet ownership.
You know, I may have called her a role model, but I never felt like I owned her or could tell her what to do. I’ve always claimed that my criticisms were more directed at the people listening than to Jessica.
Well, except for where you kept demanding an explanation and saying that Jessica needed to address her dog ownership on feminist grounds.
You say you never gave her orders, but you yourself just quoted a comment you left saying that she OWED her readers an explanation ON FEMINIST GROUNDS. Which is giving orders, Elaine. Let’s be real.
All that said, I do give you credit for continuing to engage in all this.
Sure, let’s be real.
You first. Admit you’re always on my ass whenever I make any animal rights minded comments. You do it on Pandagon and you do it on Feministing. So don’t pretend this is about racism or women’s autonomy, because it’s not. It’s about pet ownership.
You went round and round trying to shut me up with whatever means you could find and now you’re harping about how I once said Jessica owes us a feminist analysis. Because God forbid she actually write some feminist theory on a feminist blog.
And when she said she wouldn’t, I didn’t “demand” anything further from her. The rest of the discussion has been with other people, not her.
Regarding “continuing to engage in all this”:
1. I wouldn’t expect you to understand my passion for animal rights. I can’t ‘just let it go’ when millions and millions of animals are being killed needlessly. You obviously just don’t get it.
2. You’re the one continuing to engage in the petty side of things by pulling more and more absurd arguments out to attack animal rights activists. You’re misinterpreting and mischaracterizing our arguments as well as marginializing us by slapping the ‘crazy’ label on us.
If you think it’s cool to own animals like you own a CD or a blender, make that argument. Stop making these unrelated arguments.
Elaine, first, you need to provide some links to where I’m “always on you.”
Second, YOU were the one who demanded to know how Jessica defended her decision on feminist grounds, and YOU were the one who analogized puppy ownership with slavery, so don’t pretend I just pulled all that out of my ass.
Third, Jessica can write whatever the fuck she wants on her blog. You don’t own her, and you don’t get to dictate what she writes. And she doesn’t have to write about your pet issue.
Fourth, no, I probably don’t understand your passion for animal rights, but I can spot holes in your logic nonetheless.
Fifth,
If you’re referring to RC and his completely unhinged tirade at me for my observation at Feministe that my black-and-white dog matches my new black-and-white sheets, you’re really inflating your importance to me way the hell too much. I really didn’t give a care to you or RC when I wrote that; I just wanted to share a cute picture of my dog and an observation that my dog matches my new sheets. RC (and, apparently, you) slipped the leash, so to speak, your own selves.
As for the “crazy” label, well, if the shoe fits.
Sixth, as for ownership: Oh, but I adopted my dog from a shelter, which means she’s not a slave but chooses freely to live under my guardianship. In the meantime, shouldn’t you be adopting more dogs? Isn’t every dog you don’t adopt another one who gets killed?
Zuzu,
1. Links:
The very first Monty comment thread where I said the topic was pet ownership, I didn’t say anything about slavery, and you tried to shut me up by saying I was rude. It’s also where I explained that “Jessica doesn’t need my approval to live her life”:
http://feministing.com/archives/007371.html
You are mischaracterizing my arguments. Try to use a charitable interpretation and try to give me the benefit of the doubt.
(The Pandagon discussion is deeleted or something since their move. It was at
if you can find it again.
2. The one and only “demand” I made of Jessica was the one I quoted above. It was the kind of “demand” a reader of the NY Times would make to cite sources, as in, “you owe it to your readers to offer analysis” not as in “I own your life and can tell you how to live it.”
When was the last time Jessica “examined her shit”? She’s a good writer on feminist issues, but she’s not an introspective writer. She tends to write from a “what’s in it for me?” perspective. Not that she has to be introspective and ‘examine her shit’, just that as a reader, I’d like to see more self-reflection in a blog. That’s sort of what blogging is all about.
She’s chosen to ignore me, and censor me on her blog, and that’s her prerogative because it’s her blog. But don’t turn my good faith criticisms into something they’re not. I’ve never thought I own Jessica or can tell her how to live. And I’ve said as much already, many times. So you’re choice to characterize my argument as such is a strawman.
3. I’m not “dictating” what Jessica can write about and what she can’t. The sheer notion that I have the power to dictate is absurd. Yes, it’s her blog! That’s MY point. She can delete comments, she can ban me, she can shape the discussion.
In fact, my most recent two comments on Feministing are still in the moderation queue. I don’t think they’re coming out. For the record, one was telling readers about a Firefox plugin they can use to not see the new google ads on Feministing. And I explained that my blog earns about a dollar a day so I sincerely doubt Feministing “makes no money”.
4. You’re not spotting logical flaws because you’re not arguing the same topic. You’re moving the goal posts and arguing other topics instead. That’s setting up strawmen, that’s not finding holes in our logic.
5. No, that’s not what it refers to. It refers to your comments to me on Feministing, here, and elsewhere. See #4.
6. You’ll notice how I haven’t criticized your decision to adopt a dog. In fact, I said your dog was cute and that I think dogs match everything.
I’ve never said we should all rescue a bunch of dogs. I think the people who want dogs and who can provide for dogs should rescue dogs instead of breed them. I can’t provide for any more animals at the moment (I have 4 cats and 1 dog), so I won’t be rescuing any more until I can.
Pandagon missing link:
http://pandagon.net/2007/05/17/youtube-you-people-are-evil-edition/
Sorry.
Good God, Elaine, you’re really engaging in a lot of revisionist history.
First off:
The very first Monty comment thread where I said the topic was pet ownership, I didn’t say anything about slavery, and you tried to shut me up by saying I was rude.
Two things: I never claimed you did say anything about slavery there. But you were propagandizing, and demanding that Jessica give you all the details about her dog, and you made it crystal clear that you thought that buying from a breeder was categorically evil.
Moreover, I couldn’t shut you up if I tried, but I hardly think that pointing out that you were scolding Jessica before you even knew a damn thing about anything is silencing.
Finally, YOU were the one who brought up slavery, and YOU were the one who compared mentally-disabled people to cows. So don’t even try to make it out like you’re being misconstrued.
As for Feministing’s profitability, you might want to take a look at bandwidth costs vs. ad rates sometime. The only liberal bloggers who really make any money off their blogs are Kos and Atrios, and Kos is ahead by a mile. The right-wing bloggers are supported by right-wing foundations. The lefties do it for love. And it’s a lot of agita for no money, let me tell you.
Hosting is so cheap these days that you can host a well trafficked site for less than $20/month. Now, maybe if we’re talking about the fees of tech people who help you, then I can understand higher costs, particularly feminist sites and other hacker targets. But if we’re just talking about the pure cost of the website, that’s chump change.
Granted, it can be difficult to monetize some websites. I think adsense is completely the wrong direction for Feministing. The readers won’t click on those ads, the trolls won’t either. And many of those ads are anti-feminist or anti-women. They’re just bad.
I actually think asking for donations is a good way to go, but it should be done in lue of obnoxious ads, not in addition. And I think it’s important to be honest when asking for donations. Jessica said “they make no money” but then said they make enough money to go to conferences. Well, which is it? It can’t be nothing and something at the same time.
I think she meant that the individual bloggers do not receive any payments and that the money earned is pooled and spent on conferences.
<blockquote>Finally, YOU were the one who brought up slavery, and YOU were the one who compared mentally-disabled people to cows. So don’t even try to make it out like you’re being misconstrued.</blockquote>
Neither of which are the argument you made in your post above.
And both of which I defend and I’ve explained on my blog:
[Links removed.]
My comment is in the spam trap because I added a bunch of links to it. Just letting you know in case you want to fetch it out.
You know what, Elaine? If you want to discuss the economics of Feministing, I suggest you discuss it with the people at Feministing. And you might also take note that both Pandagon and Feministe recently went from dedicated servers to shared servers because of the cost of maintaining a dedicated server was getting to be too much money.
In any event, whoop-de-doo, they can cover the cost of a conference occasionally. That’s, what, a few hundred bucks every few months? They must be rolling in it!
Elaine, I think that you need to understand why some folks cop offense with your “passion” and quite simply…you appear to imply that feminists are not really feminists if we do not share your “animal rights” views.
I do not, at all…and am no less feminist for it.
The fact that I do not consider animals to be the moral equivalent of people does not reflect a lack of commitment to feminist principles…
You really need to get some perspective here.
Having reviewed a few of your links, Elaine…
I find it impossible to respond, because 99.99 of the people on the planet are, by your lights, morally deficient. So tell you what…if you truly believe that animals have rights that preclude any human intervention, then you will not object to the feral cat population exploding and subsequently decimating the ground nesting bird population….and becoming more target practice… than critters worthy of compassion and care…
…or, you can understand why I livetrap, neuter/spay, vaccinate and generally “oppress” the feral felines that occasionally hang around the barns…I’ve even (gasp) been known to “bell” the semi-not-domesticated ferals…much to their discomfort and irritation…and Michigan Bluebirds are flourishing on the property.
Pick your poison, Elaine. Either we “steward” the critter populations wisely…or not…
ahunt,
You’ve misunderstood. I am all for TNR programs. I am against breeders. I have no comment on whether or not you’re a feminist, I don’t know you. If you wish to discuss this further, my blog is more appropriate.
Zuzu,
I was just responding to your comment that it costs a lot to run a website. I won’t bring it up again.
You DON’T get it. Elaine…there are no natural resources programs…not here, and we are semi-developed resistant rural.
So this is really all about breeders? And nothing more?
Please…tell us how you envision dog life absent breeders. Tell us how this works…
Copying and off to your site.
Please…tell us how you envision dog life absent breeders.
Are you serious? You seem to find the prospect of a world w/out breeders unbelievable. Why?
With the exception of service dogs breeders (or more accurately, trainers), they are completely unnecessary.
Absent breeders, homeless dogs would not have to “compete” with sniny new purebreds and/or designer dogs for loving homes. ALL dogs deserve loving homes, of course; but it is reckless to create new lives while hundreds of thousands of others are homeless. There are literally hundreds of thousands of dogs waiting for homes. They are not “damaged goods” and they’re not to blame for their predicaments. If people wanted to, they could definitely find the perfect shelter dog for them and their lifestyle.
A world without breeders (save service dogs) is entirely imaginable and certainly preferable to the world we have today.
I agreen wholeheartedly with what you wrote. I think there is a fundamental difference betwen people we respect and ‘role models’(whatever they are). I read Feministing, Feministe (from whence I came here) and Pandagon, among others, and I respect all the feminist bloggers fot their wit, honesty, humanity and dedication. I admire how they deal with coflict or complicated issues thuoghtfully, and how they examine their own lives and thoughts.
But do they owe me an explanation for their choices? no. That’s nto to say any choice shouldn’t be examined, but in the end, they don’t owe anybody to make any choice. They are willing to share many aspects of their personal lives with their readers, but that does not mean they must defer to their readers for any decisions in their life.
If we fight for the freedom of choice, how dare some of us judge and shame another for their choice?
ahunt, you may already know this, but I’ve seen studies saying that in feral cat colonies it’s actually more effective to get the adult males vasectomies than to neuter them. If they get neutered, they lose some of their drive to protect their territory and their females, but if they’re given a vasectomy, they continue the same behaviors and ward off other, fertile males without increasing the population.
Actually M…my real goal was to domesticate the ferals on our property to the point that the ground nesting birds and yes, the songbirds…have a better shot at posterity. It sometimes takes a coupla years. but we have a good track record on bringing cats into the barn for food, health care, fixing…and the occasional lovin’s.
It is open season on feral cats (and dogs, unless we get there first) year round here, because hunters do like their gamebirds and everyone detests feral dogpacks running whitetail. But awhile back, birders raised serious concerns about feral feline depradations on other bird populations, and we began to shift our focus a bit…to rapidly reduce the expanding feral feline population before they were “demonized” as useless pests, and deliberately hunted.
But we cannot semi-tame them all, and you’ve given us something to work with here. Thanks for the headsup. Gonna put it out on the board…get feedback, and talk to our vets and DNR officers…
Okay Sarah…you have your world absent responsible breeders, (and I’m guessing you do not include the sporting/herder breeds under the heading of “service dogs.”) So…shepards, labs, golden retrievers, dobies, bloodhounds, and so on and so forth make the cut. Which breeds, in your view…do not?
Where do our local dairy farms get their cattle dogs? Where do sheep farmers find their herd protectors? Where do apt dwellers find appropriate size and temperment dogs for their lifestyle? (I’ve got a Great Pyr rescue, first purebred ever, that has taken the place of my shotgun in warding off coyotes and marauder feral canines.) And where do hunters get their birddogs? And so on…
I see no problem in multi-purpose dogs. In my experience, dogs with a purpose outside of loving companionship are happy dogs.
I get what you are saying…and the motley crew that graces our homestead, are in fact the “unadoptables.” But I have no problem breeding dogs for specific purposes, and no problem with responsible breeders. And certainly, no problem with responsible people who educate themselves, and get the breed that is right for them.
You’re welcome. The vasectomy option is best when you have an established colony with a feral adult male who’s fathering most of the kittens — it halts or reduces the kitten production while you work on the rest of them. Obviously, for younger males that you’re trying to tame, neutering is a better option.
We know that our older kitty would dearly love to be allowed outside our apartment but (a) we live in a small city that has too much traffic for him to be safe and (b) we can tell that he would be a bird-killer and it would be unfair to the local bird population to let him decimate them. So he stays indoors with his feather toys.
M, gotten some interesting feedback, and I’m deeply grateful for your headsup.
From what I can gather, because feral cats are target practice on state land, it is only the much, much larger tracts of private property with some undeveloped, generally unfrequented areas that host small colonies.
Houston…We have ignition.
Thanks again.