(Update: 13:58): Note corrections below. More to be added as caught or pointed out.
If I live to be a hundred, I’ll never understand people. That point gets hammered into me again and again, and yet I am always amazed at how situations can sometimes go googly-woogly crazy just because individuals in general can’t take a deep breath before going in swinging.
I had the misfortune of finding myself near the middle of a major blog pile-on over a year ago thanks to an e-mail I received from the CBC, and I stood aghast at how quickly the issue snowballed as sensibility gave way to craziness. What I have seen now doesn’t come close to matching the incident before, but it is similar in style. Honest people trying to do the best they can ended up angering the wrong people, and in the confusion of misunderstandings and accusations that followed, feelings were hurt, and the controversy blew out of all proportion.
I’m talking about the 2007 edition of the Canadian Blog Awards, now being run by a multi-partisan gathering of individuals. Having seen these awards develop since 2004 under the tutelage of Robert McLelland, and having organized similar endeavours myself, I can understand the struggles these individuals are going through.
These people, who I must emphasize are volunteers, are putting together a complicated set of awards, that will be voted on by hundreds of visitors over a few days. There will be some competition, a fierce rivalry or two, but ultimately one hopes that everybody will have a good time and go home happy. Unfortunately, being the Canadian Blog Awards, and having grown out of the political subset of the Canadian blogosphere, these awards have tended to gather together blogs and bloggers whose opinions differ on subjects of passion. It doesn’t take much for tensions to increase between these individuals, but one hopes that these tensions are set aside temporarily, in the interests of furthering an event which has come to celebrate everything the Canadian blogosphere has to offer.
There have been a number of issues which have proven to be challenges in the past, chief among them being inclusiveness, and the size and complexity of the awards. As I said, being born out of the political subset of the Canadian blogosphere, these blog awards initially tended not to include the non-political blogs out there, until Robert made an incredible breakthrough last year. And being born out of the political subset of the Canadian blogosphere, personal differences resulting from political differences have caused subsets of the blogosphere to turn away from participation in what I can only call a snit.
So the multi-partisan volunteers have this on their shoulders. They want the blog awards to be more inclusive, but they also want to control the complexity of the awards, as a common complaint the last few years was that there were too many political categories and not enough other categories, and too many categories in general. So they brought forward a slate of about twenty-five categories out there.
One of the first comments the group received was a request to include a Best Feminist Blog in the category list, by Berlynn. This did not appear to sit well with Suzanne of the blog Big Blue Wave who asked that the category not be included or, if included, complemented by an anti-feminist blog category. The organizers tried a compromise of a gender and sexuality issues category, which some accepted but others disagreed. Further prodding from those in support of Suzanne raised temperatures, and the whole thing just sort of boiled over.
(Note: thanks to Skdadl and others for their correction on this. My initial interpretation of these events was mistaken, confused by the fact that I thought I saw a Best Feminist Blog category materialize and accept nominations before the controversy really got going, but I may have imagined this. If so, that’s a pretty big delusion on my part, and I apologize)
Whatever you might think of the merits of Suzanne’s comment, or lack thereof, please remember that these individuals are volunteering their time. Please remember that they’re trying to keep the number of categories down. And please remember that they’re trying to maintain the multi-partisan aspect of these awards. It would be painful for these organizers to get accused of censorship from the get-go, which would be the accusation should the organizers start blocking some nominations, so a compromise was suggested. Not imposed. Suggested. They did not reckon on the offence this gave to some of the progressive bloggers out there. I didn’t reckon on it either. And from there, the situation blew completely out of control. And to the detriment of us all.
I’ll let you read the entire comments thread where this incident took place, but I warn you: it’s nasty stuff. And completely bizarre in its lack of perspective, in my opinion.
Look, Suzanne is a staunch social conservative blogger, who has positioned herself as an anti-feminist. That’s not in question. I disagree with her points of view on almost anything, especially when it comes to what society should allow my daughters to aspire to. Does she have a history of arguments with a fair chunk of the blogosphere? Of course! Was her request that the Best Feminist Blog be removed or complemented with an anti-feminist blog provocative and pissy? In my opinion, absolutely. And comments such as this certainly didn’t help.
But none of that justifies the absolute vitriol that so-called progressive bloggers heaped on the organizers of the Canadian Blog Awards in general and Saskboy in particular for their decision to try and respond politely to Suzanne’s request (which was itself, although provocative and pissy, still polite). Certainly swearing at Saskboy, calling him a racist (correction noted, with apologies to Mattbastard), is completely unhinged. Worse, it ends up making Suzanne look like the sane one in this whole incident.
I probably would not have taken the decision taken by the organizers here. After some thought, I might have said: if you don’t like a Best Feminist Blog category, don’t participate in it; let them have their fun, and have your fun… elsewhere. There are plenty of other blog categories Suzanne could have participated in. But be that as it may, whatever criticism the administrators deserved was far exceeded by the vitriol they received.
Under Robert McLelland, the intent of the Canadian Blog Awards has always to provide a fun showcase for all Canadian blogs, regardless of their political stripes or if they even had political stripes. Indeed, that was the big success of last year’s awards, since the sudden appearance of Raymi the Minx to topple many of the top political blogs (much to Suzanne’s chagrin, in fact) meant that these Blog Awards had burst from the political echo chamber in which they’d been founded and were now showcasing a wider range of opinion. It didn’t really matter who won. But unfortunately, due to sour personal relationships between Robert and a few of the bloggers out there, significant sections of the blogosphere weren’t participating. Robert selflessly handed over control of these awards to a group of organizers encompassing a wide range of opinion, from Stephen Taylor of the Blogging Tories to NBCDipper of the Blogging Dippers to Postcards From the Mothership for fairly apolitical blogs, in the hopes that the various groups could set aside their differences for at least a few nights and enjoy the company of fellow Canadian blogs.
Maybe it was asking too much for the diverse groups within the Canadian blogosphere to set aside their differences, but I was shocked at which side lost their cool first. I never would have expected generally reasonable progressive bloggers to have lost their heads in such fashion, to the detriment of their cause. The actions taken against Saskboy are very similar to the sorts of things progressive bloggers criticize conservative bloggers for doing — attacking rather than engaging, swearing, seeking to divide rather than unite, getting all hot under the collar for a simple, volunteer-run, not-to-be-taken-too-seriously blog contest. As provocative as the original request might have been, progressive bloggers did themselves no favour by falling into the trap of responding as they did.
And if anybody has a complaint about this assessment, let me add this: IT’S JUST BLOGS, PEOPLE! IT ISN’T POLITICS, IT’S JUST BLOGS! IT’S JUST SOMETHING MOST OF US ARE DOING IN OUR SPARE TIME FOR OUR OWN ENJOYMENT, AND FEW PEOPLE OUTSIDE OUR IMMEDIATE CIRCLE OF FRIENDS AND FAMILY EVEN KNOW OF OUR EXISTENCE, MUCH LESS CARE! GET A GRIP!
It’s a shameful and embarrassing display that proves the cliche of the blogosphere as a whole — a chattering mass of low intelligence, with way too much noise drowning out the signals.
All of this leaves me very discouraged in the state of the blogosphere in general, but I can at least draw strength in my shouting two paragraphs above. I do what I do for fun, which means that when I started blogging, it was fun. And I don’t have to look very far to realize what it was that made it fun, and it was this: getting out and seeing the world around me, through the eyes of different people expressing the world through their own distinct personalities. That’s what brought me into blogging, and that’s going to keep me in blogging for some time to come.
So I will continue to participate in the Canadian Blog Awards. I will continue to nominate blogs that I feel deserving of recognition. And I will look forward eagerly to the long-list as it is whittled down to the short list, to reintroduce myself to some old friends, and possibly meet new ones. The incident that happened here doesn’t matter at the end of the day. Whatever the results, they don’t matter at the end of the day. I will look for the blogs, I will introduce myself, virtually speaking, to the people behind the blogs. I will make new friends and I will enjoy myself.
And nothing is going to take that away.
Nicely said, James. As a completely non-political blogger, the vitriol in some segments of the blogosphere has always been incomprehensible to me — so I just try to stay out of those arenas. Maybe it’s because I’m not used to this level of conflict, but it has been rather upsetting to be even tangentially involved in this tempest.
Anyway, I agreed with everything you said here.
James
I think the CBAs have jumped the shark already and I will not be taking much further interest.
It’s a microcosm of Canada in 2007, where multiculturalism is a social “land rush” to carve out a space unique to yourself and your political/social/gender/racial clique at the exclusion of all others, preferably tax-funded.
I don’t think I was alone in thinking that it would be less contentious once Robert started running it and people decided their involvement in the awards based on his politics, but this comes down to one person who feels the blog awards will be invalid unless her (substantial) community is specifically designated and one who feels it will be invalid if it is - and bringing both their posses to essentially grind the administration of the awards to a halt.
I also feel it’s hilarious that various political bloggers want categories specific to their parties rather than their position on the political spectrum, since Stronach, Emerson, Turner and even McKay have shown that power trumps the particularly party one is in at a given time.
James, I disagree with you on this one.
Look, there is a substantial whack of the blogosphere that is feminist in orientation and ideology. The explicitly anti-feminist sites (ie, sites who ficus specifically on fighting feminism—the Henry Makows, the Suzanne Fortins) are relatively few and far between.
The organizers goofed by giving in to Suzanne. It was a lapse in judgement of the kind we all make from time to time. I could tell stories about my life and times at the PSAC, but I won’t—suffice it to say, though, that I have not avoided that sort of thing myself, and have ended up embarrassed and with a bad conscience, too.
The point is, though, that when such lapses are brought to one’s attention, one should swallow hard and fix things—not dig in, wave one’s finger at the feminists and tell them that this is what they’re going to get because they didn’t behave, etc. The latter is what happened, and it’s simply outrageous.
Sure there was vitriol, and the entrenchment proceeded. Sure there were hasty words said. But the grim fact at the centre of the dust-storm is this: the CBA operators goofed, and they should have admitted it and fixed the problem. Now all they’ve done, once again, is split the left by holding firm to an untenable position.
I’ve been at the ass-end of feminist criticism myself a few times, and they don’t mince words, to put it mildly. But we need to look behind the wall o’ words and see what’s happening, instead of just reacting. The exclusion of a Best Feminist Blog is simply unacceptable. To have excluded it because one deluded Cathaholic objected makes it even worse.
More at my place.
Sorry: “sites which focus.” Need…second…cup of coffee…
Apparently I also need coffee as I meant to write: “it would be less contentious once Robert stopped running it since people decided their involvement in the awards based on his politics”.
Eep.
Hey, it’s early, and the start of a Christmas vacation, and I know what it’s like to operate on a sleep deficit. Do you guys want me to edit your comments and delete your correction posts, or just leave things as they are?
James, it pains me to point this out, but you have your facts wrong.
You claim flatly above that there was a Best Feminist Blog category and that the controversy arose therefrom. That is not true, and if you bother to read the link you provided yourself to the first page of the CBA discussion, you will see that.
There never was such a category, James. You owe some people a correction.
I’ll check with the organizers, but my recollection is that the Best Feminist Blog category was offered among the list of categories — a list that was only finalized about a week ago. It wasn’t finalized, but it was there, and I believe it accepted a nomination or two before the suggestion came forward.
James, your facts are incorrect. I was the individual who noted the glaring absence of a Best Feminist Blog category to which Fortin and her swarm responded. The Operators then offered their insulting “compromise” of lumping feminist blogs together with the LGBT blogs. After that I pulled my blog from a nomination in that category; I am a white hetero woman writing about the nuke industry! And I called on others for support.
Little did I know just how much support that would be!
James, what do you mean, “your recollection”?
Look at the published evidence, which you have linked to yourself.
As an old English teacher, I have trouble remaining patient with people who refuse to read, word for word, y’know?
Thanks Berlynn (and Skdadl). I re-read the initial comments thread and I did get it wrong. I’ve edited this post accordingly. If you have further comments or corrections to add to the record, feel free to make them.
I still think people went too far in their attacks on the organizers of this event, however.
James, why are you thanking Berlynn?
I am skdadl; I am not Berlynn. I never posted to the CBA threads.
Please, people. Read! Please! I beg you.
My apologies, James. I did not see Berlynn’s comment above mine.
Och, temper. Bad thing. Leads to typing from the hip. Sorry.
Skdadl, no worries.
Given my post above, when it was written, and the state I was in when I wrote it, and given the whole controversy itself, I think we have to agree, temper does lead to bad things typing from the hip.
James, my response is here. I don’t know if you’ll agree with me, but I do think that you are grossly mischaracterizing my remarks (and misremembering/distorting the context in which they were offered).
Correction noted, Matt. And I apologize.
Thank you, James. I sincerely appreciate that. My nerves have been thoroughly frayed throughout all this, a feeling others likely share.
It’s now just a minor quibble, but while mattt didn’t call anyone a racist, he did use a racist insult “”mighty white of you”“, in what he claims is an acceptable context of online lingo used by feminists talking to privileged white people, but I personally see it as a racist slur. The skin colour of anyone should not have to be brought up in an argument pertaining mostly to gender/sexuality.
Mattt and his buddies may consider it acceptable to yak about ‘the privileged whites’ amongst themselves, but when confronting strangers with their accusations/slurs in public, it’s completely unacceptable. People can stop acting biased (which is what the debate should have been about, at a maximum), but they can’t change their skin colour, or gender, so they shouldn’t be used against someone in an argument.
James, I think you make too little of the Ops reactions to the BFB request and to the Fortin swarm. They molly-coddled the Fortin crowd and attacked those who showed support for a Best Feminist Blog. What’s that about if not ingrained sexism?
SB, in naming privilege in this country, one cannot dismiss skin colour no matter what you think is or is not acceptable. You have behaved very white and very privileged and very male throughout this debacle. If you are unable to deal with that, it is your problem and no one else’s. It’s that responsibility thing I’ve been mentioning. Repeatedly.
Funny, I have somehow managed to remain decidedly calm, save that early frustration, throughout this. I guess that’s what happens when, after 20+ years of feminism, you see the same thing over and over and over again. And again. And again.
It’s been particularly interesting, and sad, in those years, to watch young men become old boys.
Saskboy, I provided an explanation regarding the origin and context of the colloquialism that I used (which is not “online feminist lingo”, nor “racist”—but thanks once again for the bingo offer. I’ll pass this time, since you’ve already lost by default). That you have to lamely resort to hollering “(reverse) racism” (a familiar tactic that, it should be said in the interest of posterity, was first utilized in this dust up by one of SUZANNE’s anti-feminist minions over @ the CBA site—interesting how quickly you picked up the meme) only further indicates just how much you have to learn, how apparently determined you are to prove your total blindness to privilege, and how wide a gulf still exists between supposed “allies” (to say nothing of your predictability).
One wonders if we’d even be having this discussion if I had never “outed” myself as POC.
Regardless, feel free to comfort yourself with whatever illusions you believe are necessary to absolve yourself of any responsibility for your actions; that is your right and privilege.
James, I apologize for bringing a red herring digression (or is that tu quoque? I always get my fallacies mixed up this early in the AM) into your house. Have a merry Christmas.
What’s POC stand for?
POC = Person of Colour.
Black, in this instance.
There. Completely out of the closet. Uppity negro feminazi.
No skeletons remain.
Wait—I forgot one bone of identity.
I’m also bisexual.
James, it’s interesting that the feminists have made this issue about everything except their own huge hangups, insecurities, and prejudices. And then you modify your post to pacify them. Trust me, it isn’t worth doing so.
Raphael, I didn’t modify my post to passify anybody. I modified my post to correct mistakes I made. The general thrust of my post remains the same.
Personally, I wouldn’t cast stones at me if I were you. Your own post engaged in similar hyperbole as I did (though there is an interesting discussion going on in the commets). I mean, “Only Feminists Could Murder Their Progressive Allies Like This”? Murder?
Well, death by adjectives would certainly be a hard way to go.
You’ll notice that in this post, either in its current form, or in its original, never laid the blame for this incident on “feminists”. Yes, I said that this was a debate over the inclusion of a “Best Feminist Blog” and that objections were made after the organizers responded to requests criticizing the inclusion of such a category, but I never called these people feminists, because that was not necessarily true. All I saw was individuals with strong feelings letting their feelings get away with them. What they choose to label themselves is their own business; I try not to do that for them.
This isn’t a case of feminists attacking their progressive colleagues for going out of line. It’s a case of individuals getting angry for reasons that I felt were a little silly given the venue involved. But as frustrating as such a thing is, it’s a natural element of being human. And it’s not something that is exclusive to the feminist side.
I don’t need to remind you of that conservative troll, do I? The one who attacked you for being a liberal patsy and called me a snake because you had the temerity to step out of line?
This is what I meant when I told you not to brush with such broad strokes. The problem here is not a bunch of feminists. It’s just human beings failing to get along.
Thanks, for the explanation, Matt. Personally, I don’t see the controversy.
This is what I meant when I told you not to brush with such broad strokes. The problem here is not a bunch of feminists. It’s just human beings failing to get along.
That’s an accurate description of any disagreement, James. I’m not trying to imply you’re fraternizing with the enemy or any kind of silly conservative trolling like that. But I do think you’ve been far too kind to Matt who specifically and superfluously freaked out and then expected everyone to apologize.
At any rate, it’s none of my concern. Like I said in the post you read, blog awards speak to popularity, and I’ve never had a popular opinion.