Serenity… an expedition

(This started as a comment on this post, What if the feminist blogosphere is a form of digital colonialism?, but it has grown too long, so will put it here. This is my personal site that I have just started putting together, so all is not in place yet, but it’ll do.)

I finally have some free, quiet time so, while I know it’s a bit late to the game, I’d like to address a few things here. I’ll try to be as brief as possible — however, be advised that I am brevity impaired. And somewhat scattered.

1. You (two) say… well no, the first thing is that I really, really dislike the “we” business. Kynn mentions it upthread and she is right – especially alongside the academic (as opposed to blogospheric) type presentation, it comes across as cold and rather Borg like – very off putting. If you are writing up a petition or a proclamation, great. If you wish for interpersonal communication, better to just write in the first person and sign it Mandy and Brittany. I’m afraid I’m going to meld you together in answers, though.

Okay, now. You say:

We cringe when we hear blogs referred to as a new form of democratic citizen participation. We wonder how the speaker of this statement defines “democracy” and “citizenship” on the World Wide Web.

I believe your perspective is far too narrow and parochial. I know one of you lives in India, but still – you seem to have a Westward gaze. I myself have referred to blogs – or the internet in general – as a new form of democratic participation. I don’t mean in politics only, but in opening up many avenues of participation locally, nationally and internationally for people all across the globe, assuming access (which IS a problem). Now, why do I say that… well, one, I’ve been working with people online, internationally, for over 10 years. Many are involved in their communities offline as well as on – some are bridges between the two.

Also…

stuff… stuff…”We think about how it has taken over 200 years to begin to scratch the surface of that undoing and wonder if it will take as long to undo the discourse being set today about the feminist blogosphere.

Narrow. Which “feminist blogosphere”, in your opinion, is setting what discourse and, more importantly, for whom? Because for all the ink that the large, primarily white feminist blogs may get, they represent just an itty, bitty, teensy bit of the feminist/womanist blogosphere. They may be the focus point for primarily white and even more primarily Western readers and participants, but they do not the “feminist blogosphere” make. For the most part, I’d bet they have little or no cachet among those who are working on the ground (and online) to save women from fistula or raise money to buy sewing machines, or to give microloans, or to start businesses, or to – in a way that works for them – change the culture of their communities and/or religions, and much, much more.

The Western “feminist blogosphere” – of any color or ethnicity, if Western raised and focused – does not represent these people; they represent themselves and are doing their own work and, when we are willing to put aside our egocentric Western gaze and follow their lead, they are quite willing to allow us to join them and support their endeavors. Don’t discount or disappear them.

So, that said, let’s start with what you are really talking about. The white Western (and considering the time point, I am assuming US, not Australian or anything) feminist blogs.

Or maybe… let’s not. That’s your focus, not mine – and while I know I am commenting on your post, and thus your focus, it’s my comment (or probably post, by the end of this) and I’ll take it in my direction – riffing off of some of your words.

You say:

Hierarchy is easy to spot when the perpetrators of systems of privilege are obvious ones. The virtual world, more often than not, simply replicates the “real” one, often with the same results of marginalization and exploitation. As is also the case in the real world, those who live on the margins grow quickly tired of cyberspace agendas that seem to dictate the future of the net, particularly when those agendas of privilege are cloaked[2] in the web’s potential for egalitarianism.

Again, far, far too narrow and parochial. And falsely empowering! those who live on the margins grow quickly tired of cyberspace agendas that seem to dictate the future of the net.

No, no, no – the cyberspace agendas of major white feminist blogs only dictate the future of their reach (marginal, in the overall picture of things) and value (up to the user). They in no way dictate the future of the net. Not even the future of the feminist net. What people on the margins do when confronted with privileged, exploitative agendas – of feminist “leaders” or no – is what they’ve always done – organize and form groups of their own.

And, contrary to your first paragraph, the internet has indeed made this easier for women (and men), of color, trans, disabled, older, allies – all of us, we contain multitudes – to do this across racial, national and international lines. In spaces we choose, with agendas that are important to us, with rules of engagement that reflect our focus and goals. Which are not always, at ALL, the same as the major blogs.

Okay, stuff, stuff, pay, books, speakers fees, etc, so on and on.

Buncha stuff, consolidation, authority granted to mega-blogs (by whom?), guest posts, stuff, stuff – will let those you are addressing talk that all out.

Ah! Now we get to where you leave off talking at white feminist mega-blogs and decide to pick up some unsuspecting WOC you have handy and throw them at them.

As we’ve watched blogs consolidate, we’ve seen tokenism play out as a few select women of color are asked to join white women in their quest for feminist blog domination; this takes place when women of color are invited to participate as a full-time or guest blogger about “race issues,“, or when the feminist blog elite constantly cross-post a woman of color blogger’s original material, sans a unique (or any) analysis of their own. Many radical bloggers, both women of color and white women, have not been naïve enough to buy into these symbolic co-optation efforts, but some have. Though we don’t know the full scope of motivations some women of color have in joining forces with larger blogs, we understand the temptation to reach a larger audience.

Oh, hai, we’ve got a few more in the box, let’s throw these at ‘em, too!

(Note: Tokenism also happens with other marginalized groups-e.g., queer, transgender, working class, fat[19], and Muslim feminists-though it is quite visible with women of color, who have also been outspoken in their critiques of the feminist blogging elite.)

Okay, I may still be too angry to write about this part – suffice it to say – FAIL. Others have already said it, and better, anyway. But… dang.

Spit.

My point is this. You have no idea what you are talking about. Really. The links you reference (particularly for the women of color) mostly end around mid 2008. There is a reason for that. Oh, you’ll find some here and there after that, maybe, referencing the white feminist blogosphere, usually when something that simply can’t (or shouldn’t) go unaddressed happens – or when someone, good intentions or no, decides to step on one or some of us.  There will be these links for the next person to reference next year, for instance.

Okay, I’m tired of this. As Kai points out here (and others, elsewhere) there are some legitimate issues that should be addressed and, hopefully, will be in continuous conversation.  However…

We aren’t destined to repeat these mistakes, but that course can only be avoided by a change of direction, by a new model of leadership and participation that has yet to be scripted.

No. Is being scripted – and even acted out – now.  You’re just looking in the wrong places.

This entry was posted on Saturday, February 21st, 2009 at 8:07 pm and is filed under feminism, stupid people, womanism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.