The Sounds of Silence
I know I’ve gone off before on the use of the word “silencing” among feminists online, mostly because it drives me batty.
See, Heart (and most of her commenters) seem to be under the impression that if someone disagrees with an idea, that the disagreeing person is just trying to “silence” others. I’m not sure how, “Yo, that’s fucked up,” gets translated into “I, using my tremendous pull with the FCC, will pull the plug on your blog, then have fingers clipped off, your eyes removed, and your tongue ripped out with a spoon by a big, scary Enforcer of the Patriarchy,” but, somehow, it repeatedly happens.Any criticism of Heart or Heart’s buddies is “silencing,” doncha know? I am silencing them right now using psychic mind rays powered on Patriarchy Magic.
I guess I’m not the only one that finds it all slightly problematic.
Lest anyone remain unclear: “Angry, detailed criticism” is not silencing. PERIOD. I swear, if I see “criticism” equated with “the suppression of criticism” one more time, I’m going to flip the fuck out and quit myself, because I have reached my saturation point with this stupidity, so much so that I wonder whether terming it “stupidity” isn’t actually being too kind; stupidity arises from ignorance, and I’m no longer confident that ignorance is the real problem here. “Deliberate obfuscation of the issue so as to promote one framing over another,” which I hope I don’t have to remind you is another suppressive and silencing method, might be the more accurate description of this bizarre phenomenon of equating “criticism” with “silencing.”
Yeah, that.
It’s funny how the misuse of “silencing” is always coupled with a very Mean Girls insistence that the supposed silencer is just “obsessed” and “jealous.” Because, nothing’s more effective and mature than continually falling back on the time-honored social dynamics of the 11th grade.
So far as I’m aware, “silencing” happens when someone speaks out, and the content of said speech is a threat to power—so the power structure lashes out to protect itself. You have to have power to silence—anyone that can legitimately be a threat to your personal well-being can silence you. So, the government and it’s agents can silence. Anyone that is bigger, and better armed, and/or really unhinged can silence you.
A handful of people on the internet saying that the comments section at your high-traffic blog is unsafe for women of color? That’s not “silencing.”
Jeez.
I am very much of the “get a fucking helmet” school of online interaction. Maybe because I was a Board Junkie long before Blogger.com showed up. And, UBB’s can be, well… sort of Thunderdome inspired. You have to hold your own.
Some people are not okay with that format. Some people think that they should be exempt from criticism. Particularly, if it’s criticism from “their side.”
Thing is—that’s not how this works.
Blogging is not moderated. There is no user agreement. We have to come up with our own limits, our own policies, and we have to navigate our own way through the very, very public digital morass. I’ve got no idea who’s reading this. I get linked by seemingly drive-by people that think I suck. Usually these people are male.
And, I have to make a decision, on my part, as to how to react, or if I should react at all. Now, I could point each of these wankers out, seriously defending myself point-by-point. Or, I could link and point and laugh.
Or, I could make link-less allusions to silencing woman-haters, and how I won’t put up with it, because I’m SOOO STRONG and so dignified, and how it’s all part of a larger Vast Conspiracy to Keep Me and Mine Down.
But, if you read this thing, that’s not how I work.
First, I decide, “Is this worth my time?” Usually—it’s not. If it is, then it’s generally because 1.) they’ve got a point, or 2.) they forgot to be pissed off about something pretty glaringly obvious, and if you’re gonna call me out, then good God Damnit, get it right.
Usually #2 makes them even more pissy.
Maybe, my policy makes me a lousy ally. Maybe, it makes me a terrible feminist to not use buzzwords like “silencing”1 as part of a larger effort to “speak out.” On the other hand, I don’t want to be the Feminist that Cried Wolf. If at some point, someone is actually trying to silence me, I’d like it to, ya know, be believable.
And, running around shouting “silencing!” every time someone disagrees with me? I can’t see that it would help. Wouldn’t help me. Wouldn’t help people that are being silenced. It is, altogether, bad form.
Boo to bad form.
1. I swear if I hear one more radical feminist use “colonizing” the wrong way, I’m gonna flip out. For real. That word has a fucking meaning, y’all—it’s not just there for you to use interchangeably with “oppression” because you think it sounds cool.
tags: internet, politics
You and ilyka are two of my favorite cut-through-the-bullshit bloggers.
— belledame222 May 22, 01:09 PM #
and, yeah, I cut my online teeth on the WELL, which is not particularly known for its supra-enlightenment wrt feminism and racism (although it’s nominally liberal and plenty would scream bloody murder at that),
and annoyingly insular and so on;
but what it -was- good at was lessons in virtual street smarts—if you wanted to take them. Socialization was as much about the “kick in the ass” school as anything else, for better or for worse.
So, yeah.
Sending death threats and rape threats is “silencing,” or can be. Attempts at blackmail, no matter how spavined (*koff*), are, yep, silencing, or can be. Flooding someone’s personal blog with endless spam and trolling can be “silencing.” Offline harassment is “silencing.”
Criticism? Flames, even? Not “silencing.” Sorry. If you feel “silenced,” well, you feel the way you feel, and yet, one can’t help but notice:
yer still talking.
— belledame222 May 22, 01:14 PM #
You and ilyka are two of my favorite cut-through-the-bullshit bloggers.
Awww. Thanks.
If you feel “silenced,” well, you feel the way you feel, and yet, one can’t help but notice:
yer still talking.
Yup. I think that's the whole point in a lot of cases, though. Especially, the ones where the person in question "refuses" to link to the "silencing" in question. Might as well just put up a big red sign that says, "I AM SO NOBLE AND STEADFAST. LIKE A ROCK, I AM. A ROCK OF JUSTICE. ADMIRE ME."
— Veronica May 22, 02:15 PM #
Basically some people just need to be smacked upside the head with a dictionary.
Every time I hear “silencing” used in that way I can’t help but wonder who ever told these people that the world is a nice place in which everyone displays deep consideration for other people’s feelings. The only explanation I can think of is that they had the kind of parents who tell their kids how “special” they are all the damn time until said kids are under the impression that they’re just more inmportant than everyone else and that when they speak everyone else should just shut up and listen, and if people don’t do that it’s NOT FAIR!
The moment you utter anything resembling “it’s not fair” you’ve pretty much established yourself as a person not to be taken seriously.
So, some people are just a bit too “I am a fragile little flower” and, as you said, they need to grow a thicker skin if they want to play with the grownups.
However…
I really do think that some of them know damn well that they’re not being “silenced”, they’re just using that word in an attempt to guilt other people into not criticising them too harshly. And what would be the appropriate term for THAT behavior?
Also, if you can’t manage to defend your ideas when faced by the slightest criticism from people who are basically on the same side of the ideological fence as yourself then how the hell do you expect to ever have any impact on the world as a whole, where the audience you’re going to face will be a lot less friendly and willing to listen?
— CassandraSays May 22, 03:25 PM #
I really do think that some of them know damn well that they’re not being “silenced”, they’re just using that word in an attempt to guilt other people into not criticising them too harshly. And what would be the appropriate term for THAT behavior?
Manipulation?
— Veronica May 22, 03:56 PM #
Colonization?
WTF, yo?
— Sam May 22, 04:26 PM #
I can’t help but wonder who ever told these people that the world is a nice place in which everyone displays deep consideration for other people’s feelings.
I Blame Mr. Rogers.
— belledame222 May 22, 04:47 PM #
HEY! Leave Mr. Rogers out of this!! He actually had a portal to the Land of Make Believe!
Hee.
— Veronica May 22, 05:13 PM #
Hey, I liked Mr. Rogers.
Tell it! When I see that stuff I feel like it’s Seattle online.
And I don’t even have the energy to explain that right now.
Anyway, good post, I like how you just tell it straight.
— morecowbell May 23, 01:22 AM #
but, but, Mr. Rogers has Patriarchal Bias!
” Well, with ‘King Friday’ lording it over
all the lesser puppets..”
(“Buffy,” natch)
— belledame222 May 23, 10:11 AM #
Noooo! I refuse to let the Patriarchy ruin Mr. Rogers for me.
— Veronica May 23, 11:56 AM #
Well … King Friday … yeah …
Crap.
Does this mean I have to get rid of my commemorative sweater collection?
— more cowbell May 23, 01:51 PM #
The Sinister Sweaters of Sexism.
I suppose this means that he was really holding those goldfish captive and exploiting them for their serenity, too?
— Veronica May 23, 02:29 PM #
Yay, Veronica. I think the usage of certain terms when not literally accurate to create drama is inappropriate and in some cases offensive to those who’ve faced situations in which the words were literally accurate.
I think what the folks in the former category rely on is the rest of us being so tongue-tied and guilt-ridden around certain topics that we can’t or won’t make those distinctions. Wrong.
— Octogalore May 23, 04:52 PM #
sigh. I get the impression that girlfriend calls it “colonizing” because she believes that men, like, colonize womens’ bodies. That in fact that was the UR-colonization, actual land and such is an afterthought, because you know, if/when there was a pre-patriarchy it would’ve all been very, very different, it’s only since men took over that we started with the whole conquistador thing.
You know, they invade, with the penetration, and conquer and take their property, i.e. the progeny, they’ve colonized the womb, the—look, don’t look at me, I’m just saying, I think that’s how it foes.oh yeah. and luckywhosis had her own take on “breeding” and so on, but my ickle head ‘aspode when I try to remember that one more clearly.
— belledame222 May 23, 09:55 PM #
Wow. I honestly can’t even imagine the depths to which Lucky might descend on that topic…
— Veronica May 24, 04:02 PM #
Fred Rogers was a SAINT! A SAINT!
— JackGoff May 24, 04:18 PM #
V: I’ll give you a hint, she took it upon herself to expound on this theory to…brownfemipower.
— belledame222 May 24, 09:48 PM #
You’re fucking kidding. Really?
— Veronica May 24, 11:17 PM #
here (scroll down a ways)
http://brownfemipower.com/?p=1140
— belledame222 May 25, 12:16 AM #
OHHHH! I remember that. I guess my memory stored it as "The Dog One."
— Veronica May 25, 01:23 PM #
yeah, it’s hard to dwell on too much of that sort of thing at once.
meanwhile:
see, I TOLD you it’s all Mr. Rogers’ fault!
http://postsecret.blogspot.com/index.html#3097302544006565110
— belledame222 May 26, 09:57 AM #