Organizing the soup cans: reflections on blogging

I wrote in the comments below this morning's post that I'm getting frustrated.  I've worked hard to create a blog community where everyone can come and comment.  Yet a number of feminist bloggers have told me, here and elsewhere, that they no longer feel my blog is a safe place for them.   At the same time, I note that the number of regular male commenters has increased substantially in recent months, while the number of women has decreased.

Last week, I wrote a post to refute Mr. Bad's remarks about my masculinity.   Today. Ginmar rips into me for allowing the same Mr. Bad and Gonzman and others to repeat anti-feminist remarrks in the comments section.  It's funny -- Ginmar thinks I'm obsessed with winning male approval, and thus am unwilling to silence anti-feminist voices.  My men's rights advocate commenters accuse me of being equally obsessed with winning approval from women.  The one thing that unites my critics is that they all think I'm obtuse, elitist, and inclined to pander.   

It's discouraging, really, largely because I end up suspecting that my critics are right.  No, I'm not secretly an anti-feminist trying to get the boys to accept me, nor am I a self-loathing male seeking validation and attention from women.  I am not upset by the pop-psychology diagnoses people throw my way.  I'm upset by my growing suspicion that I'm not having any success in providing a new and original voice out there.  My goal is to do many things, but above all, it's to make a winsome and compelling case for a loving, generous, humble, Christian feminist ethic.  And I get the feeling that I'm not getting anywhere with that.

My mother often reminds my brother and me about our different ways of playing with soup cans.  When we were small (five or six), one of our favorite pastimes was to play with the various cans we found in the pantry.  I would take all the cans -- soups and vegetables and fruit cocktail and what have you -- and assemble them on the floor.  I would then create groups of cans based on commonalities: soups in one corner, vegetables in another, fruit in another.  Then I would look for other things that the cans had in common (like the same brand), and create still larger "can communities" based on the slimmest of unifying principles.  My favorite thing was to find what all the cans had in common, and what could justify having all of them in the same pile.  When I could get all of them together, and explain how it was that I had unified them, I was happy.

My brother had the opposite approach.  According to my mother, he would take two cans of chicken noodle soup and study them for half an hour, trying to find the slightest difference between them.  His goal was to look for distinctions; where I automatically asked the question "How are these all alike?", my brother asked "How are these different?"  He has ended up a world-class scholar with his third book at the publishers.  I have ended up a youth leader, a community college professor, and someone who insists that if we just look hard enough, we'll always find the similarities.

So I'm not planning on changing how I do things around here.  This blog is called Hugo Schwyzer because, in the end, that's what it's about.  It's not as good as it ought to be, and it probably could do with some coherent commenting rules.   Maybe I'm still too much like my six year-old self, trying to get all the cans into a definable group, hating the thought that perhaps one can might not be able to fit into one of my categories.  Maybe I need to grow up and start setting more rigid boundaries.  Or maybe I am of best service to the feminist and Christian blogospheres by continuing to do what I do here, even if the Campbell's chunky soup and the Chicken of the Sea tuna accuse me of pandering to the other sort of cans.

Addedum One: I don't know why I'm so sensitive today.  My Kabbalah friends would say it's because we're in Pisces, a sign of the zodiac famously associated with over-sensitivity.  Perhaps they're right, or perhaps it's just a sign that I still have more to learn about simultaneously learning from others while not being overly concerned with their responses.

Addendum Two: Aldahlia comments below:

...what good is it to finally find a way to fit Canned Beets in, if you claim to think that Beets suck? Is the point of canned beets simply so you can include them cleverly (and be happy about your own clever inclusiveness)? Or, do we buy canned goods to include as side dishes in a meal?

Well, that's the crux, isn't it?  Shit, I'm still trying to decide whether I really want to be an effective advocate for what I believe in, or if I want everyone to think "Gosh, what a well-brought up and charming young man" (which is what my family raised me to be). 

One of my older female relatives told me something when I was very young: "Never let an idea come between you and another person."  She also said "A gentleman makes everyone around him feel comfortable."  I suppose that as long as I remain a privileged man who sees feminism as an "idea", then I'll make friends with everybody and pat myself on the back for my gregariousness, my inclusiveness, and my refusal to make judgments.   

Jiminy Christmas, I'm thirty-flippin'-eight and I'm still trying to decide whether I want to live up to a vaguely WASPy family ideal of pleasant, charming, innocuous masculinity!

Comments

[aldahlia]

"The one thing that unites my critics is that they all think I'm obtuse, elitist, and inclined to pander."

I don't actually think any of those things. I just wonder if maybe your desire to be inclusive is turning your blog into something you, personally, are not. It's more a study on what Teh Intarweb will do to a person's "space," as opposed to a "OMG, YOU AREN'T FITTING INTO MY FEMINIST MOLD, AND I WILL BE VERY ANGRY WITH YOU!"

So, to extend the soup can metaphor... what good is it to finally find a way to fit Canned Beets in, if you claim to think that Beets suck? Is the point of canned beets simply so you can include them cleverly (and be happy about your own clever inclusiveness)? Or, do we buy canned goods to include as side dishes in a meal?

[aldahlia]

(How far do you suppose this can metaphor can go?) :)

[badteeth]

---The one thing that unites my critics is that they all think I'm obtuse, elitist, and inclined to pander.---

Your final four picks suck too.

[sophonisba]

It's funny -- Ginmar thinks I'm obsessed with winning male approval, and thus am unwilling to silence anti-feminist voices. My men's rights advocate commenters accuse me of being equally obsessed with winning approval from women

This, right here, is aesthetics getting in the way of intellect. So we have a neat little tableau with angry feminists on one side, snarky MRAs on the other, and you in the compromised, balanced center. If there was one thing in the world I could convince you of - and I know there isn't - it would be this:

**getting criticism from two sides at once doesn't make you moderate, fair, innocuous, or even wishy-washy. It doesn't mean that the two sets of complaints are the same, or that both sides are equally right or wrong.**

Like Aldahlia said about the cans - some cans are dented and rusty and will give you botulism, and you shouldn't include them, even if they look pretty and symmetrical lined up against the feminist cans - I mean, the other cans.

[Catty]

I think it's the life of an activist. You may not see yourself as one, but I believe you to be. There's always going to be extreme ends that want to play a tug of war. We'll always have extremists and extremists are probably more prone to commenting, rather than people that read your blog and simply agree or find it insightful.

[Riotlist]

If there's one thing I've learned about the internet it's to carry on regardless of other people's opinions. Although I rarely comment on blogs, I feel the need to respond to your recent entry. I find your concerns about providing an original voice and point-of-view completely and utterly unfounded.

There are many, many blogs out there and even more opinions. Yours is unique and I appreciate it. With blogs you either decide to turn the comments off or learn how to give people the finger. Other people's opinions about your blog have little to no value in the grand scheme of things. I hope that you stay true to yourself and your beliefs.

Please remember that a majority of your readers are flies-on-the-wall, like me, who come to your website on a regular basis for the writing and perspective. More importantly, we visit because of the person behind the blog. I may not agree with everything you say or your feminist philosophy, but I'm okay with that fact. You shouldn't feel the need to be defensive about your beliefs and I'm not here to push that agenda. It's your blog, and I'm here as a guest.

Many people who comment on blogs need to mind their manners and remember it's a breathing, living person they're attacking. Nothing disgusts me more than defamation for defamation's sake.

[Russell]

As a pro-feminist man working for a pro-feminist men's organization, I have appreciated your viewpoints as well as your ability to be transparent about your process in traversing a difficult road. Besides, when I get annoyed by some of the comments (usually from the MRA commenters), I just read your posts for awhile and ignore the comments - there's plenty of good material to digest there....

[evil_fizz]

I might be way off base there, but I think part of what you're looking at here, Hugo, is your desire to think the best of people and give them the benefit of the doubt. You want to encourage open conversation even when it makes some people uncomfortable. While that's admirable, I think there are plenty of people here who think there should be clearer lines in the sand. (I don't think a pro-feminist blog is the place for people who think that the concept of patriarchy is fiction, for example.)

Incidentially, I don't think you need to worry about not contributing to the discourse.

[Rayven]

Like Riotlist, this post compels me to delurk even though I, too, rarely comment. Three observations, in no particular order:

1. I, for one, would be deeply saddened if you either changed the blog to reflect what you think it "should" be rather than the things you like to talk about, or if you banned either feminists or Mr. Bad and the like from commenting. The main reason I read the blog is that you do have a unique perspective, and one I particularly value coexisting as it does in the same blogosphere as Feministe and Pandagon as well as Gene Expression (all three of which I read). I'm not saying that their perspectives and blogs aren't useful or legitimate either -- just that what your blog offers to me is that you aren't either of them. You are you, and I'd hate to see you lose that by trying to be the "right" place for all of them.

2. I quite enjoy your posts, and would find your perspective valuable regardless of who the commenters were -- but I also get a lot out of reading the debates that ensue in the comments. Maybe I'm a minority here, but I've found the comments sections even more worthwhile and engaging since the folks like Mr. Bad showed up: it's one of the rare cases where you can find actual discussion of these issues between MRAs and feminists. As it happens I disgree with the MRAs more often than not, but I've learned a lot from having them here; I'd say my feminism has grown richer and deeper since they showed up, but so has my recognition of the problems our society imposes on guys. (I'm female). Both of those are extremely valuable. I find your moderation sufficient to keep these debates from devolving into unproductive mud-slinging, but light enough to keep them honest - a balance I appreciate.

3. It would be sad, but it may just be that there can't be a place where folks so different can exchange views frankly and politely. If that's the case, Hugo, then I'm not sure what you can do that you haven't already been doing. (And I think you should keep doing it - you may not have created an ideal, but you've crowded more cans in than most blogs do, and that's one of the big appeals of your blog). If the criteria of each group staying is incommensurable with the criteria for others, then all you can do is come up with what you think is objectively fairest, and then let the chips fall where they may. Obviously individuals comment, not groups, and each individual probably has different reasons for leaving or staying or finding things valuable. So if you are really interested in trying to create the best "space" for the most diverse set of people, it might be worthwhile to create an open thread where everyone can say what they like and get out of this blog and what their criteria for commenters would be if they owned it. But I'm not convinced you even need to do that -- as other commenters have stated, it's your blog, and I think a lot of us read it for that reason.

[Hugo]

This is all tremendously encouraging, folks. I didn't write this post -- at least not consciously -- as an appeal for validation, but I am immensely grateful to be getting it! Thanks, all.

[Little Lion]

Dr. Schwyzer's work is important. He has made a career of following moral ideals. He's willing to listen to criticism from feminists and men's rights activists. How many of us would expose ourselves to public scrutiny in this manner? Even without ideological disagreement, disagreement among fully-informed impartial rational persons about the relative ranking of social goods and evils, and on the meaning of equality is inevitable. I hope that Dr. Schwyzer succeeds in persuading some of us that we need not think less of one another on account of our disagreements.

One commenter suggested that "Xtianity" is incompatible with feminism. I'm reminded of something Bernard Gert wrote at the end of his book, Morality: its Nature and Justification. He writes that philosophy can deepen our understanding of morality, but cannot deepen our compassion for the most deprived persons in society: only art, literature and religion can do this.

[The Gonzman]

Hugo, at the risk of being unhelpful, there are many pro-feminist/feminist blogs that more or less find dissent unwelcome. Providing one more isn't going to make a difference, and it'd be just another brand of chicken soup on the store shelves.

A lot of people talk the talk about respecting a differing opinion, and most of them, at best, come off as condescending; as people convinced that "Oh, these guys aren't so bad - they just need true enlightenment." At worst ...well. I have to give credit where credit is due - we disagree profoundly on fundamental things, let alone the details, but you've given me my fair say, and not assumed I had horns, a tail, and cloven hooves because I don't share your premises. You walk the walk of discourse and respecting diverging views. Even when we have disagreed bitterly over an issue, you've not made me a personal enemy of yours. And that's extended to many of the posters here (Arwen, Jenny, Catty for instance) whom you have I think been influenced by you.

Not that I don't think ya'll are as wrong as the sun rising in the west, of times, but...

I've said before here I'd lose respect for you if you changed the rules. Well, Hugo .. I take it back. After seeing some of the vitriol and venom directed your way, you do what you have to do. It'd be a damn shame, but you do it if need be.

[Medium Dave]

... and the angst and frustration will continue as long as you try to serve two masters, Hugo (and I do not mean Christianity and feminism).

[kate.d.]

i'm not quite sure how to add anything useful to this discussion, as it seems that you have much to consider already. so all i can do is toss in some personal testimony.

firstly, i agree with riotlist and the like that yours is a very unique voice in the blogosphere, and i would hate to see you self-consciously altering it because of/for outside audiences.

however, i do agree that the comments sections here have gotten a little out of hand. aldahlia said in the comments to this morning's post: I know that I would personally comment here more often if it weren't for the fact that every discussion eventually boils down to a man repeatedly declaring "All women are conniving sluts/prudes".

that's the point i'm at as well. i feel like the deterioration of most threads could be mapped out before hand...and honestly, if i felt like we were engaged in "honest debate" or something close to it, i wouldn't mind as much. but your "gadfly" commenters don't appear interested in debate, so far as i can tell. they're interested in being gadflys. these men don't strike me as the types who are interested in learning and sharing and complicating perspectives. they're into flexing rhetorical muscle and re-affirming their view that they're "right."

maybe it is an issue of tone, maybe content, maybe both. and they can disagree with this characterization if they'd like - i'm just calling it as i see it. and the way i see it prevents me from being more engaged in the commenting on this blog.

[barb]

I agree with kate d. they can monopolize the discussion thread which limits the debate. For me, these MRAs are like members of the Flat Earth Society. It's nice of you to try to convince them of where they're going wrong but kind of boring for the rest of us. (and I think we outnumber them greatly!) This is why mostly I just read your posts and don't even look at the comments.

[mythago]

One of my older female relatives told me something when I was very young: "Never let an idea come between you and another person."

With all due respect to your female relative, she had it backwards.

[The Gonzman]

Kate, I do believe I'm right, it's why I have opinions on some things. And contrary to the canards, it's not because I find women to be less than human, morally deficient people with underdeveloped ethics, or as a servant race for me and my fellow men. It's a convenient place, I suppose, for those who really are not interested in any opinion but their own, and are content to merely demonize those who they disagree with.

Interested in debate? What is the definition of this debate? That I accept your premises from the get go? Not accepting those premises is why I disagree on many things. I'm certainly sharing, I think, a different POV - complicating the perspective, I'd think. Learning? So - is it only me who is the barbarian who needs to be educated by his betters? You really have nothing you can learn from me?

The exercise in perspectives here has indeed changed my POV on things - Just one example: three years ago I voted as a part of the parish council against a spanish-language ministry for my church on the grounds we didn't need to get into politics and encourage illegal immigration. While I'm still against illegal immigration, I changed my vote last fall to go ahead - that the church had no place checking ID; mind you, this is strictly on the ministering/sacramental end of things, but listening to Hugo's consistant ethic has caused me to re-examine mine, and bring it in line with my operating principles, namely that inserting secular politics into religious ministry profanes it. I may care if Juan has a green card when I interview him for a job, but God and the Church shouldn't care when he comes to get his new baby baptized.

Maybe small potatoes. I was the swing vote. Your call. I'll tell you this much - I considered what Hugo said and didn't dismiss it, not because he was a male, but because he extended me the same courtesy. Same with Arwen, same with catty here recently. They too granted be the right to disagree with them and still be counted as human.

[Tara]

I really enjoy your posts. I think it's funny that you're questioning your voice when it seems to me that what we all have in common is enjoying and being enriched by your posts, and what we disagree on is the facilitation and moderation of discussion.

I would (shockingly) weigh in with the feminists. Lately it does seem that most comment threads go on a pattern of four or five MRAs arguing with one feminist until she gets tired, and then with the next one. Although I'm glad that there are still feminists responding to the MRA comments here, I have to admit I'm not one of them any more because I just don't get anything out of it any more. And... I don't find it very enriching to read either (although sometimes, if I wade through the hatefulness, I'll find great formulations of feminist thought).

It's just not what I'm interested in or want to be a part of.

But I still read your posts.

[Hugo]

Folks, I am thinking seriously about setting up stricter rules not about who comments, but about asking folks to stay on topic, and not turn a thread into a standard set of rants. I'd like to be more on top of how my threads develop. But I'm not going to be banning anyone.

[stanton]

aldahlia, kate.d and barb: The three of you are in agreement that 'every discussion eventually boils down to a man repeatedly declaring "All women are conniving sluts/prudes".' Is this hyperbole, or do you really believe this is true? If you believe it to be an accurate representation of the MRA viewpoint expressed here, I would like to see some examples (from the 'regulars'). This should be easy enough, since EVERY discussion "boils down" in this manner. If hyperbole, I respectfully suggest that this particular consideration is poorly served by such.

[rudy]

i'm with riotlist, paragraphs 2 and 3

[MLight]

Although I have dozens of blogs bookmarked, I only read a handful of them daily. The ones I read daily have either lots of new information (for instance, Titusonenine) or interesting new insights (for instance, yours).

I also enjoy the the way you balance and weave together your Christian faith and feminism - way too many people (and blogs) see the two as opposed. I don't see them as opposed, but often, in reading or discussion, feel neither "fish nor fowl."

But I hardly ever comment because, by the time I'm reading late at night, I'm way too tired to comment. Sometimes I read comments; sometimes I don't. Either way, the comments don't affect my enjoyment of your blog.

[Snowe]

Delurking...

I like reading your blog, even if I don't always find the comment threads useful. You have an different perspective from the other feminist blogs I read, and I admire the way you are willing to put yourself out here for scrutiny. This blog has always seemed to be more personal than issue-driven anyways. That being said, the comment threads have gotten awfully repetitive of late--the same few posters rehashing things over and over.

[The Gonzman]

You know, Hugo first crossed the lines to go on Glenn Sacks show, and to engage in debate against us on our turf. I read the rant against him, I saw him being called a coward, and I laughed. Hugo Schwyzer may be many things. And he may not be the most rough-cut and stone jawed John Wayne type of man. But a coward he is not.

Because of this, we came over here. He set rules, he enforced them, and he did so even handedly without rancor if we dissented. The more raadical MRAs have either been shut down or banished. The ones who have stayed - or who pop in here and there - he hasn't really backed off rom his positions when challenged by us. And he's faced some formidable debate and rhetoric.

It's a hell of an accomplishment - and a damned unique one, to make MRA's come over, and play in his sandbox, by his rules. I don't know anyone else, on either side, who has accomplished as much. Hell, he ought to get a knighthood just for keeping me from going too profane.

[anonymous]

a male who teaches history, feminism and masculine studies is unique. this blog is very important. the mra comments are very annoying and repetitive though.