I’m currently working on a new and improved comments policy that should hopefully clarify how I want/expect this blog to function, but in the meantime, this is for anyone who may be wondering why their carefully crafted comments aren’t showing up.
I don’t pre moderate comments, but I do have in place a handy little wordpress gadget thingummyjig that puts you in a holding cell if you’ve never posted here before.
If that’s where you’re currently languishing, and you want to be released, I’ve got a couple of tips that you might want to take on board before you waste any more energy composing and submitting comments to this blog:
- Don’t bother trying to post sexist woman-blaming misogynist shite like this:
“This is the thing about porn. Why does everyone go on about porn that’s in printed media/strip clubs etc when there is plenty of porn walking about the streets. Since the early ’90s women have made the choice to wear less and less. If Nuts/Zoo et al disappeared tomorrow, the boys would simply look in front of them more!
Why doesn’t feminism deal with what women are doing to encourage men into more porn. Or does that raise some sort of cognitive sexual dissonance?”
Or this:
“Get a life, get a voice, understand men. Or don’t interact with them and avoid them completely. Rapists are probably the most easiest thing to avoid if you’re not shoving your breasts in their faces.”
‘Cos it won’t get published.
- Don’t try and post wot about teh menz comments, like this one:
“What about stopping violence against men? I’m sure thats certainly not a cause you’re interested in. But let me guess, turn about is not fair?
But go ahead and keep looking at the world through a microscope and ignore that for every female victim of violence there are 4 male victims of violence.”
‘Cos they won’t get published.
BTW http://www.scarleteen.com/article/boyfriend/how_you_guys_thats_right_you_guys_can_prevent_rape
need to add a section which addresses stuff like “I actually don’t think he realised what he’d done”. Until they, and come to think of it, most women, realise that this tiny but massively significant detail is massively important, many many more women will continue to be ‘raped’ in the accidental basis that UJ (Ulrika Jonsson) was 20 years ago.
‘Cos it won’t get published.
- And if you seriously think this is a legitimate question:
“What’s wrong with women being forced into the sex industry?”
You’ve come to the wrong place.
- Oh yes, and if I already know you as a CiF misogynist, don’t be surprised if I’m less than welcoming to you here. This is my personal blog not Comment is Free, and I am under no obligation to either publish your comments, or to provide you with yet more space on t’Internet for your MRA trolling.
Too Much To Say For Myself 
clarity on your comments policy is welcome and will hopefully discourage the MRA from invading this space, but whats your policy going to be on appostrophes? I often get them in the wrong place – will I be moderated for grammatical errors?
No you won’t, although I may feel compelled to point and laugh at your spelling mistakes….(pssst, there’s only two ps in apostrophe, and most people start a sentence with a capital letter :))
But go ahead and keep looking at the world through a microscope and ignore that for every female victim of violence there are 4 male victims of violence.”
And who commits this violence against men hmmm? One guess…….
But FWIW I’d like to know where that statistic comes from. Certainly AFAIK most recorded violent crime is against males aged 16-25 (by other males). But the key word there is recorded.
“But go ahead and keep looking at the world through a microscope and ignore that for every female victim of violence there are 4 male victims of violence.”
Go and campaign about it then, seeing that it’s your lot that’s doing it. Zzzzzzzz
Anyway, what’s it got to do with violence against women?
Why doesn’t feminism deal with what women are doing to encourage men into more porn. Or does that raise some sort of cognitive sexual dissonance?”
Nope, that will be because it’s a demand industry. Take the demand away and commercialized pornography would disappear.
“encourage men” hells teeth I thought you guys had agency, autonomy and logic up all sewn up. I was wrong.
The rule on my blog is, if you cite a statistic, you need to tell me where it comes from.
And I’m also going to complain to Marks and Spencers that they are exploiting me by making delicious but very expensive food.
Cath, I sympathize with your views on this, but,
“This is my personal blog not Comment is Free” ….
….”‘Cos it won’t get published.” makes me a little uneasy. Freedom of speech vs censorship vs a safe “space” for the like-minded raises some interesting questions. Perhaps worth going into more?
btw, I followed the recent shitstorm here about Cif and Ally and all that, but had no desire to comment at that time. It didn’t seem appropriate, somehow. Serendipitously, it did bring me to this blog, which I read regularly and like, so if I’m allowed to comment here, I might do so occasionally. I am learning good and bad things here.
polly styrene – “if you cite a statistic, you need to tell me where it comes from.” Excellent rule – unfortunately not often adhered to.
Hope I’ve not come to the wrong place here. :o)
PS. Cath, I thought your Cif piece on Easter was fairly….. :o( Rush job?
Just an observation, that feminist blogs usually discuss issues that face females (because they are females). MRA blogs, instead of addressing “oh noes, the poor menz victims etc etc”, seem to just consist of trashing feminists.
Hi scherfig. To be honest I’m also slightly uneasy with the whole censorship thing, but at the same time I don’t agree that that’s what this is. Those posters (and so far we’re only talking about 2 people whose comments I haven’t allowed through) who haven’t been able to comment here aren’t being censored: they’ve got the whole of the web available to them to spout their hate if that’s what they want to do.
All I’m saying is, I’m not having that crap on my blog: if they’ve got nothing to bring to the debate besides misogyny and abuse then I don’t see why I should be expected to provide them with a forum for that.
And just to clarify, I don’t expect everyone who comments here to be in complete agreement about everything. I welcome debate/discussion/being challenged, but at the end of the day this is a feminist blog, and what I won’t do is allow debates to be hijacked by a bunch of sexists who are just coming over here to try and disrupt things.
I think not publishing the random ramblings of trolls is hardly censorship though,Scherfig as there are plenty of other spaces they can express their ‘views’. I would never delete anyone who has a genuine point to make, and I usually publish the downright irrational as well (I scare most of them away anyway with my evol, unlike Cath). But I don’t guarantee not to piss take.
See, now this is the latest comment from Mr Hatey:
Can anyone give me a sound reason why I should publish this guy’s comments? (apart from ‘cos he’s likely to get increasingly hysterical and start sending me hate mail next?)
Which obviously isn’t a sound reason, and one I’m not ever likely to accede to.
uneasy with the whole censorship thing
why ?
Freedom of speech
Whose freedom of speech ? The freedom of bullies and liars and abusers and hostile hate-filled reactionaries to say whatever they like whenever they like ?
What about the freedom of those who are shouted down and lied about and ignored and dismissed, and therefore never get a chance to really speak up, never mind be heard and acknowledged ?
The notion of “freedom of speech” is only really useful in the context of keeping powerful institutions (state, corporate, church) in check. It serves to prevent lies and untruths being propogated by the powerful, to prevent dictatorships and totalinarianism. For this it is very important.
However, trying to use the concept as justification for allowing any idiot to hold forth whever they want in anybody’s personal space (even in most public spaces actually) is a massive misuse of the idea. It is unfortunate that it has got so much traction in the public conciousness.
I mean, it is not just here. I see it all over, men and their apologists demanding that women, but particularly feminists, always always always must give them a platform. Or else. ….. “censorship !!!1111!! what about my freeeeedom of speeeeech
!!!!!111111”.
And then feminists and supposed feminist allies response is all this handwringing “oh noes we can’t **censor**” ? WTF ???? Why TF not ?
Why give into the demands to provide a platform for those who you don’t want to ?
No-one is obliged to do this. There is no obligation for any of us to provide that “freedom” to anyone. The notion that anyone even has a right to “freedom” in that context is a fiction, a fiction that serves the bullies and liars and reactionaries well.
And that’s alway’s a question worth asking – who benefits here ? Who is benefitting across the blogosphere (and the rest of the media) from the misogynists and rapists and rape apologists demands for their “freedom of speech”, and the subsequent pandering to it ? Who benefits ?
Cath, “All I’m saying is, I’m not having that crap on my blog”. Well, can’t argue with that, there is a lot of crap out there. Quality control of some sort would be nice.
parallel, “allowing any idiot to hold forth whever they want in anybody’s personal space”. This is a lot trickier. Who defines “idiot”? One person’s idiot is another person’s savant. And surely blogs, by definition, are not “personal space”. This, to me, seems much closer to ideological censorship. Granted, there are many weird and harmful ideas around and lots of people who hate, and it’s unpleasant to come across such things. But exposing them is not necessarily “giving them a forum” and being aware of their existence is surely important.
It sounds like you’ve got the balance right, Cath. How about an article on this freedom of speech/censorship issue?
This is a lot trickier. Who defines “idiot”? One person’s idiot is another person’s savant.
The person whose blog it is, funnily enough.
You also seem to be drawing on another bullshit idea beloved of the “freedom of speech” mongers, which is that we must never make value judgements and must give “both sides of the argument” at all times.
Women:human or not. Hm.
Really, both sides do not have equal merit. Never mind the hypocrisy with which this rule is applied.
And surely blogs, by definition, are not “personal space”.
Uh ? Surely by definition they are, that is they are not corporate or state.
This, to me, seems much closer to ideological censorship.
what do you mean by this ? I actually can’t make sense of it. And again, what is so wrong about “censorship” ?
Granted, there are many weird and harmful ideas around and lots of people who hate, and it’s unpleasant to come across such things.
So ?
But exposing them is not necessarily “giving them a forum” and being aware of their existence is surely important.
Oh. You mean because ideas about women’s (*) innate inferiority and lies about their behaviour and treatment and experiences and the insistence on their conformity to a particular look and their role as servants to the male half of the race, and endless other myths just *never* get propogated enough ?
Do you ever read the newspapers or watch TV or look on any comment thread nearly anywhere at all ? You want to give the bullies and reactionaries and already powerful even more airtime ? Just in case we all hadn’t noticed their point of view before or something ? Seriously ?
There is virtually no “censorship” of the powerful, but huge censorship of those less powerful, and of those who would speak against the popularist lies and hate-mongering rhetoric.
A recent, seemingly trivial but actually very telling example:
the “female chimps are hard wired to be prostitutes just like women are” story.
Where is the “balance” here ? Who is being more “censored” – those writing the grotesquely distorted version in the national media or the handful of feminists pointing out the problems with it in some corner of the blogosphere?
And you would rather that on those women’s blogs, or on the occasion an article by a feminist about such things makes it into a newspaper column the evpsychers and misogynists should continue to be able to shout down ie further “censor” the women who try and speak up ?
Why ?
(*) or any other group deemed to be of lesser status that the ones in power.
Yer mistaking us for someone who cares mate.
If you want to complain about censorship anyway Scherfig, you should complain about the Daily Male, who routinely censor any comment that isn’t right wing shite. Not femi blogs, who aren’t exactly the most widely read thing on the internetz (even Cath’s who obviously ‘benefits’ from her link on CiF to the extent of having the trolls follow her).
scherfig – I already did a piece on free speech for CiF…..
It didn’t go down too well:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jul/31/speakout
“And surely blogs, by definition, are not “personal space”.”
They’re personal space which is shared by the owner, at the owner’s sufferance. You can hold a party at your house and allow anyone to come in and dance, but you reserve the right to throw them out if they start harassing your other guests.
It’s impossible for a blog owner to censor anyone unless they coincidentally happen to also hold some sort of significant political/military authority. I don’t think Cath has command of the armed forces, though it would be entertaining if she did.
@ Wombat
“I don’t think Cath has command of the armed forces, though it would be entertaining if she did”.
If only! Its a really amusing thought which has occupied me for a while. So Cath, what would you actually do if you had control of them?
You can have free speech as long as you’re not a Muslim Cath.
msvirago
My politic response would be that I’d disarm them and through my sterling example of unilateral disarmament I’d hope to encourage other armed force commanders to do the same and thus bring about world peace.
In reality I suspect I’d use them for my own devious bringing-down-the-patrairchy-one-man-at-a-time ends
Mwahahahahaha
(although I suspect Polly would then probably overthrow me in an evol coup and install herself as supreme leader of menfuckoffland)
Cath
I was really hoping for ‘a arm the radical feminists and lesbians and have a blitz day for dealing with all the chauvinists and misogynists’ but your plan seems ok.
Polly, “If you want to complain about censorship anyway Scherfig” – where did I complain about censorship?
parallel, you’ve made an awful lot of (incorrect) assumptions. Rather than answer your questions, I’ll let you do it for me since you know me so well.
With comments such as those from Mr Hatey and his ilk, Menfuckoffland looks better by the day. *sigh*
What bugs me about the Mr Hateys of this world is their complete and utter lack of originality. They are so boring.
Why don’t we have a troll fundraiser? The misogynist trolls can have their say, but have to pay 1p per comment. We could have the downpayment for Menfuckoffland in about a week I reckon.
It has been my observation that people who hoot about free speech rules on the interwebs and in people’s homes have no clue what they are talking about.
Here’s a clue.
Cath is not the government.
This seems to me to be yet another demonstration of how parents and schools have failed to educate students in the most basic Constitutional issues.
Here’s another clue.
The Constitution does not apply to countries governments other than the USA.
Criminy!
Comment 8 is where you complained about censorship Scherfig. I can’t copy comments on Cath’s blog for some mysterious reason, but go back and read what you put.
If I had command of the armed forces I’d give all the weapons to cows. McDonalds had better watch out….
Polly, I’ve re-read comment 8 :
“”‘Cos it won’t get published.” makes me a little uneasy. Freedom of speech vs censorship vs a safe “space” for the like-minded raises some interesting questions. Perhaps worth going into more?
This is complaining about censorship? Cath’s response was “Hi scherfig. To be honest I’m also slightly uneasy with the whole censorship thing, but at the same time I don’t agree that that’s what this is.”
Nice posts, Parallel.
Scherfig, one could certainly argue that you’re not *complaining* about censorship. However, this would be exactly the kind of semantic time-wasting that trolls adore.
Another thing they do is respond dismissively to posts like Parallel’s above, where s/he has patiently and reasonably engaged with what you said. S/he points out, for instance, that feminists and feminist thought is censored practically out of existence in the mainstream media. And do you even bother to acknowledge this? Do you buggery. Instead, you have this to offer:
Which is a bit pathetic, to put it mildly.
Parallel:
‘ Freedom of speech
Whose freedom of speech ? The freedom of bullies and liars and abusers and hostile hate-filled reactionaries to say whatever they like whenever they like ?
What about the freedom of those who are shouted down and lied about and ignored and dismissed, and therefore never get a chance to really speak up, never mind be heard and acknowledged ?’
*weeps* THANK YOU.
I’m glad you’re making it clear to misogynists that the Web is a diverse place over which their entitlement doesn’t hold full sway, Cath. 😀
Can I just ask – what is MRA and ‘evol’? Sorry to sound clueless…
MRA= Men’s rights activists.
Evol= is something I made up ages ago to mean evil said in an ominous way i.e. evooooool.
“And I’m also going to complain to Marks and Spencers that they are exploiting me by making delicious but very expensive food.. ”
Less to carry, M&S is good for a push bike, because when you’ve spent your money, it is only enough to fill a rucksack.
Spend the same amount in ASDA, and you need a car.
So hi-food prices are good for the environment.
That’s my theory.
Gregory
Thanks Finisterre & KJB.
I had not come across Scherfig before – their initial post could have been genuine. But it was more than clear by their second respose that they were not really interested in addressing actual points made or questions asked.
Yes it is complaining about censorship Scherfig. The splitting of semantic hairs is also the hallmark of the troll.
Now hi thee back to CiF with the rest of them.
As someone who has been on the receiving end of liberalfascist and femifascist censorship on the Guardian Comment is Free (where I have posted as ikusbekus) and, sadly here on Cath Elliot’s endlessly amusing site, I am equally sad to watch this fear-driven drift into censorship. One would think that the tradition of “free comment” was a cornerstone of liberal democratic traditions, and the shutting down of opinion was the hallmark of eastern european socialist democracies. How wrong was I? Liberal democracy arose out of and is maintained through the use of force, the barrel of a gun..scratch a liberal to often and you will find Atilla the Hun…or in Cath’s case Atilla the Hen.
Gawd raaaaammmmmiiiieeee, give you an inch, you take a mile.
Cath let you back out of mod, for you only to become a whiney muppet.
Here’s the clue: to be pet troll at a blog, you MUST be amusing.
Ramiie, if you think there’s a comparison between not being allowed to post comments on a blog and Eastern European “socialist democracies” (which were of course nothing of the sort) you need to study politics and history more closely. Cath isn’t the government.
never sad it was,Pip, but i do enjoy being pecked by you at every turn – thread after thread.
Ramiie MRA (No Offence). My new handle
Well, just wanted to see how it looks
*machine guns at the ready*
Is the kind of response you will get with an MRA handle, raaaaammmmmmiiiieeee.
Sadly, you just aren’t funny anymore (was he ever?), so perhaps we should ready those machine guns anyway. Lack of funnies is definitely a shootable offence.
I had a run in with Scherfig on CiF not long ago and came up with this gem from him:
“Yeah. On the other hand – Aspergers syndrome is merely a fine description of the general condition known as female.”
Which would be true – if it wasn’t for the fact that more males have Asperger’s than females. Which makes it utter bollocks.
Oh well, projection is alive and kicking then.
Whereby we develop a defence mechanism that involves taking our own undesirable and distinguishing characteristics or feelings and attribute them to other people. I have noticed that men (in particular) do this rather well against women.
Simple example: mainstream pornography reflects how men imagine they would behave, sexually, if they were a woman.
Ain’t it the truth sparks. 😦
Oh yes that is so true sparklematrix. Like men imagine feminists are out to create a matriarchy, because they can’t imagine actual equality. And of course (sarcasm on) women go around making false rape allegations and DV allegations, and getting pregnant deliberately to trap poor innocent menz…
Indeed, when you are male, you can even get laws passed which support your projections.
NB: these are global phenomenon.