Here is some stuff in the news today...
[Content Note: Misogynoir; domestic violence; guns] This week is the Standing Our Ground Week of Action in support of Marissa Alexander. You can find and/or organize local actions here.
[CN: War; death] In Israel and Gaza: "Israeli missiles slammed into a second United Nations school packed with sheltering Gazan refugees Wednesday, killing at least 16 people and wounding more than 90 others during a period of heavy bombardment of the besieged enclave. The attack preceded a temporary, limited and unilateral cease-fire imposed by Israel. ...More than 200,000 displaced Palestinians, many heeding Israeli evacuation warnings, have taken shelter in U.N. schools and buildings across the besieged territory. The U.N. said it had communicated to the Israeli military 17 times prior to Wednesday's attack, including once just hours before the fatal shelling, that thousands of internally displaced Palestinians had sought refuge in the school." Again I will note that the cavernous disproportion of this offensive cannot be ignored.
[CN: War on agency; misogyny] Hobby Lobby continues to be terrific: "When a very pregnant Felicia Allen applied for medical leave from her job at Hobby Lobby three years ago, one might think that the company best known for denying its employees insurance coverage of certain contraceptives—on the false grounds that they cause abortions—would show equal concern for helping one of its employees when she learned she was pregnant. Instead, Allen says the self-professed evangelical Christian arts-and-crafts chain fired her and then tried to prevent her from accessing unemployment benefits."
[CN: War on agency; reference to Satanism] Welp: "The Satanic Temple—a faith community that describes itself as facilitating 'the communication and mobilization of politically aware Satanists, secularists, and advocates for individual liberty' [and a group that 'falls somewhere between satire, performance art, and activism']—has launched a new campaign seeking a religious exemption to certain anti-abortion laws that attempt to dissuade women from ending a pregnancy. The group says they have deeply held beliefs about bodily autonomy and scientific accuracy, and those beliefs are violated by state-level 'informed consent' laws that rely on misleading information about abortion risks. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, the Satanists point out, it strengthens their own quest to opt out of laws related to women's health care that go against their religious liberty. 'Because of the respect the Court has given to religious beliefs, and the fact that our our beliefs are based on best available knowledge, we expect that our belief in the illegitimacy of state mandated 'informational' material is enough to exempt us, and those who hold our beliefs, from having to receive them,' a spokesperson for the organization said in a statement."
In good news: "Control of Detroit's massive municipal water department, which has been widely criticized by the United Nations and others for widespread service shutoffs to thousands of customers, has been returned to the mayor's office. The move comes a week after the department said it would temporarily suspend shutoffs for customers who were 60 days or more behind on bills for 15 days, and a few months ahead of the expected handoff of financial control of the bankrupt city from a state-appointed manager back to Detroit's elected leaders."
[CN: Wildfires. Video may begin to play automatically at link.] Damn: "A wildfire raging in and around Yosemite National Park swelled to more than five and a half square miles despite hundreds more personnel being sent to tackle the blaze." In addition to displacing people and doing millions of dollars of property damage, the fire is also threatening Yosemite's Giant Sequoias.
[CN: Animal injury, but with a happy ending] And finally! Joanie and Chachi, a stray pitbull and her companion, a little chihuahua with an injured eye whom she carried around in her mouth, were rescued from their grim and treacherous existence. And in the happiest ending ever, they found a forever home—together. ♥
In the News
On Women in Tech
[Content Note: Misogyny; sexual harassment; gender essentialism.]
There's a good piece by Issie Lapowsky over at Wired about the challenges, including straight-up harassment, that women in tech face when searching for funding. It starts with this anecdote:
Shortly after Kathryn Tucker started RedRover, an app that showcases local events for kids, she pitched the idea to an angel investor at a New York tech event. But it didn't go over well. When she finished her pitch, the investor said he didn't invest in women.This, in the year of our lord Jesus Jones two thousand and fourteen.
When she asked why, he told her. "I don't like the way women think," he said. "They haven't mastered linear thinking." To prove his point, he explained that his wife could never prioritize her to-do lists properly. And then, as if he was trying to compliment her, he told Tucker she was different. "You're more male," he said.
Tucker didn't need to hear any more. "I said, 'Thanks very much,' walked out, and never spoke to him again."
The piece notes that "all of the women interviewed for this story have found investors who they say have been wholly supportive throughout the process," which is terrific. Full-stop.
But I also note that all of the women pictured are young, thin, pretty women who appear to be white. Would women of color, out trans women, out gay women, fat women, older women, women with disabilities have survived the harassment and gone on to eventually secure funding, too? Who are the women who failed to secure funding, for reasons other than having an uninvestable product?
That is at least as important a story.
As we observe over and over in this space, if only the most privileged women are succeeding, even in spite of contemptible harassment, that's not an indication that at least some opportunities exist for all women.
Question of the Day
What's for dinner? Or whatever the next meal of the day is in your part of the world.
I'm planning on making a salad with grilled chicken. Which is our super boring summer routine, but it's easy and tasty, so yay!
Film Corner: Mad Max
[Content Note: Violence.]
Below, the trailer for Mad Max: Fury Road, starring a bright young upstart named Tom Hardy as the titular character, and Charlize Theron as Furiosa:
I'm sorry. I will not be able to provide a transcript because I am dead of swoon.
Just kidding! Here's the transcript:
A man stands in a desert, silhouetted against endless sand, beside a rusty car. Dry blowing wind. Voices making 911 emergency calls and reporting news about water and gas shortages, resulting in violence as people fight for resources. A lizard runs across a rock behind the man. In voiceover, he says, "My name is Max. My world is fire and blood." Wow, he sounds fun!I predict that this movie will get dreadful reviews, and that I will love it very much. The end.
He gets in the rustbucket and drives away, only to be followed by a bunch of hooligans in a topless jeep and a rusted-out VW bug, accompanied by dudes on motorcycles. Watch out, Max!
Sand fireworks? I don't know.
They catch up to Max and his car flips over. Oh no! He tries to crawl away, but they get him. He's their prisoner now, and they're mean to him. They make him walk and shave off his long hair and tattoo his back. Because their world is fire and blood and being super terrible.
Sand. Dystopian cars like you'd definitely expect to see in a Mad Max movie. Bald Charlize Theron looking like a badass. Sand. Crashing cars. Bad people. Sand. Cars. Motorcycles. Rocks. Crashing cars. Weird lady-children? In white robes. On the sand.
So many dystopian vehicles and sand! Furiosa is definitely going to save Max. So he can save everyone, I bet! Good thing she's supposed to get her own movie after this one. You know what they say—ladies first, except in film franchises!
Jumping! Sand! Explosions! Lightning! Sand! Cars! Weapons! Sand! Spikes! Fighting! Driving! I am not giving this transcript short shrift. It is big-time montagery of all the things you would for sure find in a DIY Mad Max Kit.
Charlize Theron's face! Tom Hardy's face! Those are some terrific faces, right there!
Fighting! Sand! Cars! Explosions! Chasing! Being chased! SAND! CARS! "What's your name?" Furiosa asks Mad Max. He looks at her. The logo for MAD MAX comes onscreen. Coming in 2015.
Follow-Up on What Has Been Happening
[Content Note: Abuse; harassment. This post is being published with the input of the moderators.]
In the day since I posted a detailed account of the activities of a hate site targeting Shakesville and the members of this community and anyone associated with me, we have received an overwhelming outpouring of support and love, for which I am immensely grateful. Thank you, so very much, to everyone who has taken time to stand with us—whether publicly or privately.
Literally hundreds of people have said in comments here and on Twitter that they do not want false concerns for their "safety" to be used as justification for harassing me, the contributors and mods, the commenters, my colleagues, and Iain.
But the response from the hate site has been to double-down and wildly spin cockamamie defenses of their vile harassment.
Among their justifications for the continued harassment are:
1. Their site is the only way to give me "feedback." Nope. (I'll come back to that.)
2. I don't understand humor. Actually, I do. I do question, however, whether they understand irony, given their position of policing my feminism while wielding classic antifeminist tropes like the Humorless Feminist at me, in defense of harassment and abuse of me and everyone about whom I care.
3. They're not trying to silence me. Good luck convincing anyone without a destructive agenda of the veracity of that ludicrous claim, when right in your mission statement is: "The fact is, her time needs to be finished."
4. That it isn't harassment because they aren't coming to our inboxes and on Twitter, and the site has nothing to do with our getting harassing, abusive, and threatening comments, emails, tweets, phone calls, etc.
This is grade-A unadulterated horseshit.
As I said in comments, no one can know what's in our inboxes. And, as more evidence of their knowing exactly the kind of person I really am, they know that I won't publish the names of people harassing me and expose them to retributive harm, so I can't push back on their claim that none of the people affiliated with that site have emailed me aside from saying: They have.
I have received countless emails that include favorable quotes from, screen caps of, and/or links to that site, admonishing me to read it, followed by all manner of bullshit, including very occasionally threats. Some of the Shakesville moderators have received similar emails.
Members of that site have also publicly come at me on Twitter. That they choose to ignore it, or claim it "doesn't count" because it wasn't the site administrator hirself, is indicative of how their defense is a constantly moving target.
If they say, "No one has come at you on Twitter," and I am able to point to people having come at me on Twitter, the defense then becomes, "No one who runs the site did it." And if I then make the point that the site is nonetheless clearly inciting harassment they claim it doesn't, then they resort to speculation it must be MRAs or 4¢han or someone trying to discredit them.
Sure it is.
That the site administrator and members of an obsessive hate site can express shock or disbelief that the result of running such a site is people harassing me via email and social media is an absurd and harmful lack of the most basic accountability.
They routinely dehumanize me and assert that I "must be stopped," and then have the fucking audacity to feign surprise when people treat me like I'm a monster who has to be stopped.
The site administrator encourages members of hir site to stir shit at Shakesville, calling it "great justice," and then imagines that hir readership, admittedly and openly a collection of people with an axe to grind, contains that shit-stirring only to my comments section, but never comes after me via my publicly posted email address or public Twitter account?
That is a profound denial of the harm zie is inciting against me.
Of course that is happening. Of course it is.
And the people doing it are positively braying about their affiliation with the hate site. I'm not making guesses. They are proud of it.
But I'm meant to believe, in contravention of all reason, that people like MRAs, who also have a beef with me, are trying to discredit a hate site that targets me? That defies logic.
Everyone is a liar. I'm a liar, the moderators are liars, the people who email me are liars. Everyone just lies all the time—except the people who are running an obsessive hate site.
Sounds legit.
5. I'm "abusive" for having banned people for violations of my clearly stated commenting policy and because I didn't respond to some emails, so I deserve it.
Again, and I cannot emphasize this enough, if all that was happening at that site was criticism of the commenting policy and moderation decisions, and/or people commiserating about how terrible Shakesville is, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I don't agree that it's "abusive" to push back against and/or ban someone for behaving in my space in a way I find objectionable. Virtually every single online space with a comments section draws boundaries around what constitutes acceptable commenting; mine are much tighter than most other spaces, but that doesn't make them "abusive."
I also don't agree that it's "abusive" to fail to respond to every single email I receive. Especially since my posted Email Policy clearly states that I won't: "I simply can't respond to everyone anymore; be aware that reaching out with an expectation that I will respond, and/or respond in precisely the way you want, is not good faith."
Sometimes I don't respond to emails because I miss them, or because I don't have time, or any number of reasons including because there's something about them that sends up a red flag—and, given that there are people justifying their participation in a hate site by my having failed to respond to their email(s), it seems like my instincts to not reply to some of these folks were pretty solid.
But, sure, other people are free to say these decisions are "abusive." The thing is: That's not all they're doing.
6. If I don't like it, I don't have to read it, just like I say about Shakesville.
Firstly, let me underscore, again, that they openly state they want me to read the site. See their justification at #1, which claims that the site is for providing me with "feedback." On the one hand, it's specifically designed for my edification; on the other, I should just ignore it.
And, again, when I was failing to give it the attention they felt it deserved, in an escalation entirely typical of abusers, they starting coming at people I love, in order to force me to pay attention.
To then turn around and try to claim that I should just ignore them is rank dishonesty.
Secondly, whoooooops one of these things is not like the other.
I am not writing a site dedicated to obsessively documenting and fucking with someone's life. The site administrator of the hate site, however, is running a site on which people are allowed to state, as fact and unchallenged, that I am breaking the law. On which my husband's employment information is posted for an audience primed to fuck with us. On which they coordinate troublemaking at my website, my livelihood, with the explicit goal of shutting me down.
Even if all of us who have been targeted could simply choose not to read their "critiques," there is so much stuff posted at the hate site that goes well beyond any "critique" and into territory that could have meaningful consequences for my personal and professional lives.
7. Which brings us to their primary justification for the continued harassment and abuse of people even tenuously associated with this space: It's just criticism.
Bullshit. Bullshit.
They are defending their continued harassment and abuse by saying that what I consider harassment and abuse, everyone else considers "criticism."
But vast amounts of what is posted at the hate site is demonstrably not "criticism."
Not Criticism: "The fact is, her time needs to be finished."
Not Criticism: Positing all kinds of absurd and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about me. See, here's the thing—for something to be valid criticism, there has to be evidence of the thing you're criticizing.
Not Criticism: Deliberately misnaming me to annoy and dehumanize me.
Not Criticism: Orchestrated trolling of my website.
Not Criticism: Stalking my husband—or even mentioning him, as he has nothing to do with the management or moderation of this site.
Not Criticism: Saying that I abuse my husband. Speculating about my marriage at all. That I talk about my marriage on the blog does not make it "fair game."
Not Criticism: Talking about doing violence to one of the people I love most in the world.
Not Criticism: Harassing my colleagues, friends, and family. Tracking down their personal or professional websites in order to find things to use against me/them. Posting lies about them. Intimidating them. Policing the nature of our relationships. Calling them, and me, liars about their own disabilities. Diagnosing them, and me, with mental illnesses.
Not Criticism: Policing every aspect of my personal life.
Not Criticism: Obsessing over how much money I make, whether I pay taxes, how I spend my money, and accusing me of breaking employment and tax laws.
Not Criticism: Saying that my house is filthy. Asking the person who claims to have viewed my filthy home to provide photographic evidence.
Not Criticism: Accusing me of lying about my cat being tiny to get attention. Speculating about how I abuse my dog.
Not Criticism: Debating whether it's acceptable to mock me for being fat.
Not Criticism: Commenting negatively on my tattoos. (Seriously, I don't care what you think of them, but that is not criticism of my work.)
I could go on (and on and on and on), but I think my point is pretty evident. The assertion that the only thing that happens in that space is "criticism" of my/our work, of the content and moderation at Shakesville, is an indefensible misrepresentation of the site's actual content.
I frankly don't think that I'm the one who's confused about what the definition of "criticism" is.
* * *
People have asked me what they can do to help, and the truth is that the best thing anyone can do, as long as they feel safe doing it, is continue to cast sunlight on what's being done to me, to the moderators, to Iain, to this community.
I would not ask anyone to put themselves on this group's radar on my behalf, because here I am talking about what they do to people who associate with me.
But for those who want to help, and feel safe doing so, talk about it. Push back. My profound thanks to my friends and colleagues who have written supportive pieces. (I will link some of them for everyone to see, as soon as I've gotten consent to share them in this space.)
And, for those who want to help, but don't feel safe pushing back publicly, your quiet support is meaningful. Thank you for the emails.
Thank you to anyone who has communicated, in any way: This is wrong.
UPDATE: This piece by my friend Kath, also known as Fat Heffalump, is amazing. And I am sharing it with her permission. Thank you, Kath. ♥
Daily Dose of Cute
Zelly, just snoozing with her tongue out. Like ya do.
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime
Michael Franti: "Life Is Better with You"
(Yeah, I know. I post this all the time. But that's because IT'S TERRIFIC!)
President Obama Considers Move on Immigration
[Content Note: Anti-immigrationism.]
President Obama is reportedly mulling a massive move on immigration ahead of the mid-term elections in November, which would "grant work permits to potentially millions of immigrants who are in this country illegally, allowing them to stay in the United States without threat of deportation."
That sounds terrific, although there's a caveat: "Advocates would like to see deferred action made available to anyone who would have been eligible for eventual citizenship under a comprehensive immigration bill the Senate passed last year, which would be around 9 million people. But Obama told them in a meeting a month ago to 'right-size' expectations, even as he pledged to be aggressive in steps he does take."
Hmm. Well.
So how might he make the distinction regarding to which undocumented immigrants to extend some sort of legal residency? "That's led advocates to focus on other populations Obama might address, including parents or legal guardians of U.S. citizen children (around 3.8 million people as of 2009, according to an analysis by Pew Research's Hispanic Trends Project) and parents or legal guardians of DACA recipients (perhaps 500,000 to 1 million people, according to the Fair Immigration Reform Movement)."
So starting with keeping families together. Though, of course, that may exclude, say, an aunt or uncle who is part of a family but not a parent. It sure ain't perfect.
Anyway, a lot of options are apparently being considered. We'll see what proposals emerge.
One thing about which we can be almost certain, however:
Such a large-scale move on immigration could scramble election-year politics and lead some conservative Republicans to push for impeachment proceedings against President Barack Obama, a prospect White House officials have openly discussed.Of course.
Here Is Some Good News
A federal appeals court has ruled Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional:
A federal appeals court on Monday struck down Virginia's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, saying that withholding the fundamental right to marry from gay couples is a new form of "segregation" that the Constitution cannot abide.Yes, true. It's time to stop making arguments you will lose, and also time to stop making arguments that are fundamentally indecent, whether you would win or lose with them in court.
The 2-to-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, upheld a lower court's decision and extended an extraordinary winning streak in the federal courts for proponents of same-sex marriage.
Legal challenges to state bans filed systematically nationwide have prevailed in every test since the Supreme Court in June 2013 struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as only between a man and a woman.
Two federal appeals courts have now said the bans are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court probably will have to make the final determination and could consider the issue as soon as next year.
...The 4th Circuit covers Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. Of those states, only Maryland allows same-sex couples to marry.
There are challenges in the other states, and North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper (D) announced after the ruling that his office will cease its "vigorous" defense of the state's ban.
"It's time to stop making arguments we will lose and instead move forward" to a final resolution at the Supreme Court, he said.
There is no compelling reason to reject marriage equality. Preserving straight privilege is not a compelling reason. Privileging religious doctrine (which by the way conflicts with other religious doctrine supportive of same-sex marriage) to which millions of USians don't subscribe is not a compelling reason. Homophobia is not a compelling reason.
It's unjustifiable. And the courts are finally starting to agree.
This Is What Has Been Happening
[Content Note: Abuse; harassment.]
Over the past week, I have been talking to the contributors and moderators, as well as to Iain, to decide how to best to approach this situation. This post is being published with their consent and input.
I have written previously about the abuse and harassment I've faced as a result of doing this job. But I've never spoken directly about the most active hate site, an outgrowth of another now-defunct hate site, the members of which have, for years, been obsessively documenting everything that happens at Shakesville.
The people who run and participate in this site are largely disgruntled former commenters, some of whom left on their own after I disappointed them in some way, and some of whom were banned after violating the commenting policy. There are, increasingly, participants at the site who have never even engaged at Shakesville, but just find some satisfaction in participating in a space dedicated to the explicit purpose of destroying this community.
[Screen cap with pull quote added by me.]
They explicitly want to chase me out of my space, offline, and want me to have no opportunities to make a living doing what I've done for the last ten years of my life. They want this community to cease to exist because they don't like me and the commenting policy, and don't care what destroying it would mean for the people to whom this community means something.
The hate site operates under the auspices of warning people—namely, you, the active commenters, whom they routinely deride as too stupid or gullible to "save" yourselves from me—away from this community, where they assert people are "abused," the examples of which are inevitably people being held accountable for violations of the clearly stated commenting policy.
But, despite their preposterous claims to be engaging in legitimate criticism to prevent abuse, they in fact engage in egregious harassment and abuse themselves—of me, of the contributors and moderators, of Iain, and, increasingly, of commenters.
What constitutes "legitimate criticism" is, for example, a thread with 472 comments debating whether it's acceptable to mock me for being fat and/or not understanding how my own body works.
What constitutes "legitimate criticism" is, as other examples, a thread discussing wanting to slap Deeky in the face, or discussing how Ana Mardoll is like a "cat lady" who will be eaten by her cats when she dies, or tracking down a WordPress test site I was using to explore alternative commenting options and then spinning wild conspiracy theories about what I was really up to.
What constitutes "legitimate criticism" is, as but one more example of literally hundreds, routinely referring to me as "Liz," because I objected to being misnamed in comments here. The stated purpose is to try to harm me. It's also a simple way of dehumanizing me: I am not Melissa McEwan, a real person, but Liz, a cartoonish version of me wholly invented by people who are making an existential attack on me and this space.
"Legitimate criticism" is their pretense for engaging in rank abuse and the dissemination of ludicrous conspiracy theories and lies, often posted by anonymous submitters, of whom are required no proof or substantiation of their claims.
Relentlessly, members of the hate site propose and promulgate all sorts of conspiracy theories and straight-up lies about me and the moderators, including but not limited to: That I am a cult leader; that I'm not invested in this community beyond whatever capacity I have to exploit it for personal gain; that I trick people into becoming moderators by feigning friendships with them; that a moderator repeatedly emailed a commenter to harass her; that I have created multiple identities to sockpuppet at this and other sites; that Ana Mardoll and I am the same person; that I have invented Iain; that I abuse Iain; that my marriage is a sham; that I live in filth; that Iain makes so much money I don't need to work; that I make lots of money; that I make no money; that I pay no income taxes; that I do not have health problems; that I do have mental problems aside those from which I've disclosed; that I am a compulsive liar; that I am lying about Sophie being tiny to get attention; that I abuse Zelly because she is "fat."
None of these things are true. I certainly don't imagine that I will convince anyone who is inclined to believe any of this garbage; the reason I am sharing this truncated list of absurdity is simply to delineate the unfathomable and varied scope of the desperate, unethical, irrational attacks that have been levied in an attempt to discredit me and anyone associated with me, without the merest shred of honesty or decency.
They aren't even consistent in their wild accusations. If one attack doesn't work (Iain is a figment of my imagination), then on to the next one (I abuse my husband), without even the slightest hesitation at the promotion of demonstrably incompatible theories.
Truth is irrelevant, when the point is simply destruction.
All of this was ignorable, as long as it was contained to being directed at me. In truth, I have never even visited the site (and I have no plans to do so). Trusted friends have kept me abreast of the goings-on, repeatedly urging me not to look at the site myself, as I've got enough abuse to process from other sources, and instead alerting me when there was something they thought I'd want to know, such as orchestrated trolling of Shakesville. All of the linked screen captures included for sample documentation in this piece have been taken by others, who were concerned for me, themselves, and/or the members of this community. I had, unfortunately, a vast store of screen captures of abuse from which to select the few provided examples.
In spite of the insistent assertion made by the administrators and participants at the site that I am a voracious narcissist who only cares for myself (the sort of person who would care immensely if untrue things were being said about them), I have cultivated over the years of doing this work a keen capacity to ignore bullshit being said about me.
I do not and cannot ignore when people decide to go after people about whom I care, in order to get to me.
There is no better evidence that, in reality, the people who inhabit the hate site know exactly who I really am than the fact that when coming after me wasn't working, they went after the people I love.
They know that I am a person who cares profoundly about other people's safety, and they have endeavored to exploit that.
They now obsessively document the contributions of all the writers and moderators to this space, including what they do in their own spaces, if they blog elsewhere. Portly Dyke, who hasn't been active on the site for years, as she's now the primary caretaker of her elderly parents, is still a target. Her professional blog has been scrutinized and discussed, despite the fact that it has nothing to do with Shakesville. When I don't give them enough fodder for obsessive discussion and documentation, they go after Ana Mardoll:
![screen cap of a page from the hate site labeled 'An Ana Mardoll Break' to which I've added a graphic highlighting a quote reading: 'Since Liz isn't giving me a whole lot to work with this week I thought I'd have a peeksy over at Ana's place and see what all this Twilight business is about. Much like the Wendy Davis transcript, Ana is trudging on doing the [lord's crossed out] feminist's work and recapping the Meyers masterpiece.'](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v642/shakespeares_sister/apix/AMbreak2.jpg)
[Screen cap with pull quote added by me.]
Just her association with me makes her "fair game."
They have posted vicious personal smears against the contributors and moderators, told flat-out lies about them, mischaracterized our relationships, and demeaned them in innumerable ways.
Those words, that one sentence, cannot begin to encapsulate the breadth of hostility which has been unleashed against the moderators of this space, under the ludicrous claim of preventing abuse.
In one entirely typical instance, the site administrator justified their torrents of abuse against me by saying that people like Ana Mardoll don't understand how dangerous Shakesville is, and that she needs to have her wrongheadedness pointed out to her so that she might realize Shakesville isn't a safe space for her. That post was sandwiched in between two posts harassing Ana Mardoll.
Consistently, they justify abuse of me with claims of protecting Ana, for example, then engage in wild speculation about Ana's mental health and physical disability.
They have found Iain's LinkedIn profile and posted screen shots of it, and have discussed where he works, what he does for a living, and how much he might make. After his profile was posted, he got a flurry of contact requests from people he doesn't know, hoping to exploit his one bit of online presence, which has nothing to do with Shakesville, in order to get access to our personal lives.
A former contributor to this space, whom I once invited into my home, used my having trusted her with access to our personal lives to give verisimilitude to her tall tales of having seen in person our filthy home and my emotional abuse of Iain.
All of this is treated as truth.
Further, former commenters to this space, to some of whom I've given considerable amounts of my time and concern to help them in some personal or professional way, participate there—bitterly resentful of having been banned for repeated violations of the safe space, which only meant as much to them as it protected them, and nobody else. Naturally, they aren't inclined to share stories of Liss, who cared about them, but gleefully pile on the abuse of Liz, who is a cartoonish effigy of me. There are breathtaking betrayals out of nothing but sheer vengeance, and it has made me deeply reluctant to be as open with strangers in need as I used to be.
To make the obvious point, there could not be more compelling evidence that we made the right moderating decisions regarding these former commenters than the quality of the content at that site.
They demonstrate in every conceivable way that they are hostile to the ideas, central to the space here, of consent for boundaries and harm mitigation.
Their harassment does not stay contained at the site. It comes to me via Twitter and my inbox. When I take time off, I get calls from numbers I don't recognize, so I can't get a moment's peace. Threatening messages have been left on my voicemail, or, sometimes, just maniacal laughter, so as not to break any laws. Other writers/online activists have reported to me receiving communications admonishing them not to have anything to do with me.
And, of course, it comes to this space. Their primary beef, which I'm certain they would dispute but is evidenced in every obsessive documentation of the moderation here and the detailing of how they were "abused" by me and/or the moderators, is that I draw and defend boundaries in my own space.
So it is no surprise that they are deeply hostile to those boundaries, and have no interest in engaging here in good faith.
It is the opposite of good faith to coordinate and orchestrate shit-stirring, then come over here and do it, then run back there to complain bitterly when we moderate those comments in exactly the way they know we're going to moderate it.
They operate within this space with the goal of forcing our moderation to become tighter and tighter, and then, having been the cause of ever tighter moderation, they accuse us of being "abusive."
The pitiful irony is that they use some of the very same rules of participation at their hate site that we do here:
The breathtaking hypocrisy: If I set off-topic something that I don't want debated in my space, I'm "abusive." But there, it's just eminently reasonable moderation.
(For the record, I believe anyone has the right to set off-topic in their own space whatever they want. My contention is that the same right is not afforded to me, without fear of harassment in response.)
And their "borrowing" from Shakesville does not end there, naturally. After positing a conspiracy theory about how I use the Open Threads as a sort of gateway drug to recruit sycophants to my cult, they started posting Open Threads of their own. After complaining about Shaker Gourmet threads, they started posting food threads of their own. The site admin hosts threads inviting people to share how they found their way to the space, just as I have done many times. They mock me for posting content like kitty videos, and then post kitty videos. They even use a variation on the teaspoon concept in their tagline: "Knocking down Shakesville 3/4 cup at a time."
In a nod to the possessive and projective nature of stalking, they ape me even as they claim to despise me, and they imagine me to be capable and desirous of doing the very things they do: Lying, sock-puppeting, infiltrating their space to stir shit.
But, unlike me, they are not remotely concerned with the safety of other people.
Once more, if they had contained their harassment and abuse to their space, and the direction of its trajectory toward me, I would not be writing this piece.
But they came after people I loved: They decided that, because they hate me and the policies of this space, anyone associated with me is fair game.
And they justify posting dishonest, unethical, abusive harassment of the moderators, my husband, and commenters by claiming to be concerned about them, about you. They actively harm people, and then claim to be doing it out of concern.
To state the obvious: No one is required to read this space, and no one who reads it is required to participate in comments. All anyone has to do to avoid the monster that is Melissa McEwan and her cult of abusive moderators is not read Shakesville and/or not follow me on Twitter.
I haven't written for an external publication in years. I have done a total of three on-site speaking engagements in a decade. My sphere of influence is limited to people who seek me out.
I am fully cognizant of the fact that Shakesville isn't for everyone. And the way most people deal with finding Shakesville disagreeable for any one of a number of reasons is simply not reading it.
Not that anything could justify this sort of harassment, but that underlines the point that this is an existential attack on me and this entire community. The administrators and participants of the hate site don't like me, and instead of simply ignoring Shakesville, they seek its complete annihilation.
When I take time off, and they believe it's because I'm on the verge of quitting, they celebrate.
The past week, I have been thinking long and hard about how I can continue to run this space, when I know that anyone affiliated me will be considered fair game. I cannot begin to convey the guilt and the hurt and the rage I feel that the moderators have been harassed and abused as a result of their association with me; and that which I feel because commenters are targeted as a result of their participation in this community.
And, to state the obvious, I am angry that I am being harassed and abused, too.
I have been desperately looking for a way through this, because I don't want to quit. I don't want to lose my community; I don't want to close a community that means so much to so many people; I don't want to give up on the space into which I've put so much energy; I don't want to lose my livelihood.
But I also don't want to keep it at the expense of people being harmed.
So: I have been working with my colleagues, my friends, to try to find a way to move forward while protecting people as best I can.
To that end: We are making some changes to the moderation policy. In addition to changing some members of the moderating team, moderators will now be doing moderation under anonymous moderator accounts. (Except for me. I will still be moderating under my own name.)
We have always wanted to have complete transparency regarding moderation in this space, but I have to weigh transparency against the safety of the moderators. All I can do is assure you that these changes are not being made because we want to make them, nor because we want to be anything less than transparent.
If you're angry about these changes, well, so am I. That anger is best directed at the people who forced us to make them.
I want to make it very clear that I have made no attempt to get their site shut down, and I am not imploring anyone to engage with them, and certainly not exhorting anyone to harass them in response.
If you feel obliged to do something, then you can leave a comment below saying, in no uncertain terms, that you do not consent to be harassed and that you do not want false professions of concern for your well-being to be used as a justification for abuse against me, the moderators, my colleagues, Iain, other commenters, and anyone else they see fit to harass because of their association, no matter how tenuous, with Shakesville.
I have no illusions about what will happen once this is published: The harassment will escalate.
But I am not intending to start a war.
(Or, perhaps more accurately, I am not intending to respond in kind to the one-sided war currently underway.)
To the contrary: What I am doing is shining a spotlight on what is being done to me, to the moderators, to commenters, to my colleagues, and to my husband. I am stating, bluntly, that we are being harmed. I am doing the best that I can to protect and defend the people I love, and myself, and I am staking a claim to my own space.
I needed to tell you what was happening, so that you know what we're up against and so that you can be fully informed—I can't stop them from screen-capping your comments and saying stupid things about you; I can't even stop them from going after my husband.
And I needed to tell you because I need the support of my community.
I also want to say this plainly: The moderators of this space are some of the most incredibly decent people I have ever known. They don't deserve this. None of us do. And this damnable lie that the moderators are sycophants who capitulate to me cannot go unaddressed: Every single moderator is part of the moderating team specifically because, in part, they are willing to challenge me, because they expect more of me.
Fuck anyone who wants to hurt them, or my husband, or you, because they don't like me.
That is not criticism. That is harassment; it is exploitation; it is abuse.
And it needs to stop.
[Commenting Guidelines: I am not going to allow any kind of "debate" about whether this abuse toward us is: 1. Justifiable; 2. Not abuse. Any comment even remotely along those lines will be deleted. And the only people who are going to have a problem with that, or try to classify it as "shutting down criticism" or some other bullshit that elides criticism and abuse are not the same thing, are the very people who don't engage here in good faith, and I don't give the tiniest fuck about accommodating them. And, frankly, I don't think any reasonable person, after reading all of the above, will begrudge me the absolute right to keep this shit out of my space.]
NOTE: There is a follow-up post here.
Question of the Day
Suggested by Shaker BlueJean: "What's your most memorable scene from a movie from the past ten years? Not your favorite movie, necessarily, but the scene that comes to your mind most often."
Photo of the Day
Jon Swaine:
When the coast is clear, and the trucks from the contractor shutting off water for the city of Detroit have rolled away, the men with water keys come.Read the whole thing here.
They offer residents whose supply has just been shut off a tempting deal. For $20, they will use their tools to turn the water main back on immediately, and illegally, sparing the household the agonising days spent without showering, cooking or flushing that have already been endured by at least 16,000 of their neighbours so far this year.
It is only the most desperate action being taken in response to the beleaguered city's aggressive campaign to recoup $89m in overdue water bills by abruptly cutting the supplies of people behind on their payments. Amid growing anger, Detroit officials agreed in court on Monday to a two-week pause, to allow poor customers to come forward and show that they genuinely cannot afford to pay. But then the shutoffs will resume.
"You're going to do what you have to do to get water back on in your home," said Valerie Blakely, a community organiser and mother of five whose overdue bill stands at more than $1,000. "As far as I'm concerned, what the city is doing is the illegal activity. You're not going to come and put us in a life-or-death situation and not have us act like we are fighting for our own survival."
Gov. Rick Perry to Deploy National Guard to Border
[Content Note: Anti-immigrationism; racism; militarization.]
Republican Texas Governor Rick Perry has announced that he is sending National Guard troops to the US border to stop the inflow of undocumented immigrants, including a large number of children:
The governor's office confirmed this morning that Rick Perry will order 1,000 National Guard troops to the Texas border to beef up patrols in South Texas.Perry says he refuses to "stand idly by while American citizens are attacked" and that "the price of inaction is too high for Texans to pay," but this hyperbole doesn't reflect what's actually happening, which is a "small uptick in crime along the border."
...Perry called the troops a "force multiplier" that would help DPS and other law enforcement officials deal with criminal activity by those entering the country illegally.
The guard troops will be embedded with state troopers and other law enforcement because they cannot legally detain someone on their own authority.
...He gave no indication where the funding for the operation would come from, instead saying that he hoped the federal government would eventually reimburse the state for the $12 million monthly cost of calling up the Guard.
The local law enforcement tasked with navigating crime along the border does not share Perry's alarm:
But sheriffs along the border said they have not been consulted and question the wisdom of sending military personnel who are not authorized to stop, question or arrest anyone.Emphases mine.
"At this time, a lot of people do things for political reasons. I don't know that it helps," said Cameron County Sheriff Omar Lucio.
Lucio said deputies, police and the U.S. Border Patrol work well together and that they have been able to handle the small uptick in crime along the border.
"I don't know what good they can do," Lucio said of military personnel. "I need people who I can hire who know the community, the language and who can help."
Hidalgo County Sheriff Eddie Guerra also told the McAllen Monitor that the Guard troops can't make arrests and he didn't know what their objective would be.
"The National Guard — they're trained in warfare; they're not trained in law enforcement,” he said. "I need to find out what their actual role is going to be, but I think the money would be better spent giving local law enforcement more funds."
..."You just can't come out here and be a police officer," Lucio said, adding that he is concerned at the move to militarize the border.
"Eventually, they might get into trouble," he said of the Guard. "They're trained for different things."
This is political posturing, and it will come at the expense of people's safety and lives.
Imagine how many people "who know the community, the language and who can help" could be hired for $12 million monthly. So many people! Imagine if Governor Rick Perry actually listened to the people who are on the ground, and gave them the funding they need to better do the jobs they know best how to do.
Daily Dose of Cute
Two good girls: Zelly guards the stairs and Olivia keeps Iain's bag warm over the weekend.
As always, please feel welcome and encouraged to share pix of the fuzzy, feathered, or scaled members of your family in comments.
The Monday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by summer.
Recommended Reading:
Carla: [CN: Misogynoir; murder] Trial for Man Who Murdered Renisha McBride Begins Today
Trudy: [CN: Misogynoir; murder] Remember Renisha McBride and That Imperfect Black Women's Lives Also Matter
David: [CN: Class warfare] Raising the Minimum Wage Creates More Jobs
Nina: [CN: Harassment; war on agency] Massachusetts Senate Introduces Bill Responding to Supreme Court Buffer Zone Ruling
Jim: [CN: Homophobia] Indiana Woman Claims Water Park Kicked Her Out Because She's Gay
BYP: [CN: Racism; vandalism] Tuskegee Airmen Statues Vandalized in Chicago
Leave your links and recommendations in comments. Self-promotion welcome and encouraged!
