And superfluous exclamation points. You are rebelling. Next you’ll be smoking cloves and sneaking out late. Sad.

…
…
…
…
… … … <- ellipsis of ellipsises

JanetRice: what justicewalks says, and furthermore: it’s not a question of being “nice” or “not nice”. If S.C.U.M. had said “Fuck you, you misogynist arsehole” to this man, I would have no problem with her lack of politesse. I’d have applauded it. But being racist and homophobic does not equate to “not nice”, it equates to “downright offensive and unacceptable”. There’s a difference.

It has nothing to do with smartness or popularity at all. It has to do with being a passably decent human being and treating others as such. Attack opinions, by all means, but not race/sex/gender/sexuality/disability/etc. What you think is fair game; what you are is not.

I overstepped the mark by having a go at other commenters for not responding quickly enough, and I admit this and apologise. But I don’t agree that it qualifies as “cruel and judgemental” to attack openly expressed racism and homophobia. You can rest assured that if the polarity of the story was reversed, and it was about a Pakistani man who responded to a radical feminist’s goading with a misogynist and homophobic outburst, I would be just as angry with him. Would you defend him?

My answer: Feminism doesn’t need homophobic racists for allies. Compulsory heterosexuality and racism are counterproductive to feminism’s aims, you see, because not all feminists are straight and white (some of them are “Pakistani faggots,” even; go figure)

Indeed, and I think it it very important to bear this in mind, plus the fact that most people don’t comment on most things anyway.

Not commenting is absolutely NOT the same as agreeing or supporting.

I read loads of thing I don’t agree with, on feminist blogs, stuff that runs from very basic cluelessness and the ridiculous to the outright offensively and ignorantly bigotted.

I comment on a fraction of it.

Not because I’m shy or worried of argument, as it happens I’m quite happy to stick my oar in, mostly it’s just the time. This morning I have some time so this is my second comment here, then I’ll have a quick browse elsewhere but probably no more comments. Sometimes it’s that I just don’t have the energy – it takes effort to be constantly going over and over stuff, and mostly I prefer to put together a response that is reasonably well thought-out and coherent. That’s my preference, though I do make shorter comments as well.

Other people may not comment because they are shy – fair enough, or for whatever reason, but again lack of individual comment cannot be taken as proof of agreement, or that we’re all closet racists.

Because this brings us to another point, that in a community like this, we should be able to rely on the fact as a given that the ethos is anti-racist/homophobic/ whatever, and that there are people here who at any point in time are in able to speak out and challenge those views or other such ignorance if it does arise. We should not be demanding that people speak out to “prove” their anti-racism or to simply defend ourselves against future possible charges of whatever-phobia.

This is also not about letting someone else do it, it’s about thinking “do I have something useful to add here?”, and “am I able to add it at this point ?” , while knowing that there will be back-up because there are many many people here who will comment if necessary.

I don’t think S.C.U.M. was a troll. Though I was not really familiar with her, Twisty suggests that she was a blamer. And for what it’s worth, no, I don’t think that story could be written by a trolling man because men don’t have that level of understanding about the mixture of fear and anger that many women face in the situation that S.C.U.M. describes.

I’m certainly not defending S.C.U.M.’s racism and homophobia, but when explaining away your dropping the shame bomb on other women who didn’t speak up, you might consider a few of the contributing factors to silence, one of which is the fact that many women don’t actually yet know how to speak up when faced with these things. They just don’t have the practice, so the words don’t offer themselves as quickly as they do to someone who does know how to do it. And many women who do get to the point of speaking up/out have done so at an enormous cost to themselves (having to overcome the societal pressures on women to always back down). They also face the constant threat (not here, but in nonternet life)of censure and ridicule for speaking up. (In fact, in this case, women faced that censure and ridicule for not speaking up, which is just more of the same.) It’s not merely politeness or the desire to give other women the benefit of the doubt that holds tongues.

Again, you are a brave blamer, and I respect you for it. Other women too are coming along on the path to blaming at a pace that is commensurate with their lives.

Yes, “seemingly violent” was in quotemarks because it was a quote. There is no doubt that the principal dude in the story comes across like an asshole. I did notice, though, that the story contains a stated presumption of violence with relation to the Pakistani fashion designer, which I felt was based in the teller’s prejudices about “Arabs” rather than any clear action by this man. If a white man had spent all evening being a moron about her feminism, would she have presumed that he would be likely to rape and kill her friend? The guy sounded like an asshole, but there is no statement in the story that he was physically violent – only that he seemed like he might become so.

I also think the defences of S.C.U.M. above on the basis of her “just relating a story”, or “not being nice enough”, are asinine, though a couple of them have been withdrawn. Comparing her to Mandos is exactly the point. Mandos was an irritant. His attitudes sometimes betrayed an innate sexism, but I don’t recall any occasion on which he avowed such sentiments openly. S.C.U.M. was openly racist and homophobic, and continued to defend her prejudices after they were first pointed out. She was probably a troll too, if you ask me. I had visions, reading her post, of someone thinking “Let’s see if feminists actually give a shit about anyone other than themselves.” So she tells a vague and off-topic story about a man being an ass, and lards it heavily with deeply offensive comments about race and sexuality. And, indeed, it would appear that some people are prepared to give another woman a “get out of jail free” card, whatever she does or thinks, if she can point to a man having been rude to her first. I’m not. I don’t for a second think that the man in this story is in the right, but I do think S.C.U.M. managed to put herself fair and square in the wrong alongside him.

And, finally, I actually guiltily agree with Twisty about the patriarchal language of the smackdown, the use of shame as a weapon of defence, and the complaints I made about the reactions of other commenters here. Particularly my singling out of RadFemHedonist and Twisty, both of whom had at least said something. Points all taken. I wrote my response very fast and very angrily, and some of my language was insufficiently considered. I’m constantly in delighted wonder at this blog and its commentariat, and it was a horrible moment when I read S.C.U.M.’s comments and the initial lack of response; like a previously enjoyable party where someone unexpectedly launches into a racist, homophobic or misogynist diatribe and everyone just stands around looking embarrassed, too polite to intervene.

Now I’m a bit calmer, I don’t really think the blame-pile is the way this sort of thing should be dealt with, either. I’m sorry for implying that it might be.

Thanks, various people above, for your support. I’ll go back to being mostly flippant now.