I'm another one who would like to understand why these threads have been closed.
I believe that our patriarchal societies damage both men and women and that it does us all good to explore those issues, because we all have to internalise understanding of the harms before we can start changing things in the future, the "read, mark, learn, inwardly digest" steps" and then be able to move on, hopefully changed. Those steps are progressive and may take several encounters for the different levels of engagement to be reached. If those threads were only at read and mark levels, is that a reason to close them?
What I don’t get is that no-one (other than @lilbuddha at the very start) had a problem; no-one was asking for the thread to be closed. Shutting down a conversation in full flow just seems capricious.
And I agree so strongly with you, @Curiosity killed, that patriarchy harms men as well as women. You’re exactly right.
Last year, we let the Dead Horses gallop free, and launched Epiphanies as a forum to discuss issues where people are personally invested, and where academic detachment just isn't possible. We described the new forum as being for serious discussion of these topics, allowing all widely held views to be reflected, and stated that Hosting would be more hands-on to ensure that the less heard views are heard.
When we launched this forum, part of our aim was to provide a safer space for those belonging to minority groups whose needs for equitable treatment often go unheard. Epiphanies is a place where the playing field isn't level. We are not looking for a lack of bias but for something better. We want to hear those normally unheard in the noise of the privileged, and their point of view will be privileged here.
Shortly thereafter, a thread was started on Living with XY Chromosomes. Despite objections from some that this topic isn't one where there is an oppressed group, we permitted it because it fits the description of "issues and identity significantly overlap". More recently, we've had another thread on Men's Reproductive Responsibilities. The way both of these threads have developed has shown that discussion of these topics are not providing space for those who are unheard to be heard; instead, they're full of the noise of the privileged.
Our conclusion is that pursuing the "issues and identity significantly overlap" criterion for issues that relate solely to men resulted in those threads threatening to drown out the Epiphanies objective of "We want to hear those normally unheard in the noise of the privileged", so Epiphanies isn't the right place for them.
So in short, the powers that be have decided that they only want from the voices of the unprivileged in Epiphanies. Given how humans reproduce it is ludicrous to argue that a thread titled "Men's Reproductive Responsibilities" related solely to men. Indeed, the two major court cases in the US and Canada, which were mentioned in the thread, recognize this fact. With all due respect,Alan your explanation is rubbish!
Is it really helpful, on a thread where men are talking about the issues they face being men, to have women acting as thread police? Whether "dig" is the right word or not?
Also someone please explain where minority groups are mentioned in this:
Our space to discuss issues where people are personally invested, where academic detachment just isn't possible, and where issues and identity significantly overlap. Special Guidelines apply.
How does this not apply to men trying to work out being men in a patriarchical society without buying into the patriarchy? Alan you seem to be saying, men are the privileged sex in our society, therefore they have no right to have a space where they can talk about their issues. Because talking about this in Purgatory would turn it into a free-for-all. Epiphanies, if the purpose statement I quoted above is really meant as stated, and not just coded or dog-whistle language for "it's about minorities stupid", is the perfect place for this.
Is it really helpful, on a thread where men are talking about the issues they face being men, to have women acting as thread police? Whether "dig" is the right word or not?
I don't think the thread was only (or should be) just about men talking about being men. Curiosity killed, for example, had lots of useful comments about her professional experience of young men. Other shipmates I know to be female also made good contributions, but CK sticks out in my mind.
Also someone please explain where minority groups are mentioned in this:
Our space to discuss issues where people are personally invested, where academic detachment just isn't possible, and where issues and identity significantly overlap. Special Guidelines apply.
How does this not apply to men trying to work out being men in a patriarchical society without buying into the patriarchy? Alan you seem to be saying, men are the privileged sex in our society, therefore they have no right to have a space where they can talk about their issues. Because talking about this in Purgatory would turn it into a free-for-all. Epiphanies, if the purpose statement I quoted above is really meant as stated, and not just coded or dog-whistle language for "it's about minorities stupid", is the perfect place for this.
This. If you’re sticking with this, the guidelines need rewording. Because what we’ve been discussing exactly fits into the guidelines as they stand.
Usually it feels like H&A listen to the community and take time to weigh up the right course of action, taking in varied points of view. In this, despite pretty much universal disagreement with a decision, you’ve come out with a management-speak statement that doesn’t actually answer any of the questions and concerns that people have made. In particular, @Lamb Chopped’s point about a place for men to explore being men without being jumped on, @Doublethink’s question about why the thread wasn’t moved, and @Autenrieth Road’s concerns about what the Ship stands for, and @Curiosity killed’s observations about how progression and change actually happens.
I guess we can have a thread in All Saints, but for one, I don’t want a pat on the back or a shoulder to cry on - I want to grapple with what it means to have the gender I’m stuck with, and all the baggage that goes with it, in a place where there’s some protection in asking and exploring, more than Purgatory gives.
The way both of these threads have developed has shown that discussion of these topics are not providing space for those who are unheard to be heard; instead, they're full of the noise of the privileged.
Do you mean, most of the epiphanies traffic ended up being on these threads ? Or do you mean you thought somebody’s voice on that thread was being shut down ?
Last year, we let the Dead Horses gallop free, and launched Epiphanies as a forum to discuss issues where people are personally invested, and where academic detachment just isn't possible. We described the new forum as being for serious discussion of these topics, allowing all widely held views to be reflected, and stated that Hosting would be more hands-on to ensure that the less heard views are heard.
Two things:
1) All the H&A trot out the "personally invested, academic detachment isn't possible" shtick whenever discussing what Epiphanies is for. Both of the terminated threads checked those boxes. Nowhere in the description of Epiphanies does it state that it's a place for minority voices. If you all actually want Epiphanies to be for just minority voices then you should change the board description to reflect that.
2) Men discussing what maleness is in a patriarchal society is a less heard view. It's a sufficiently less-heard view that it's a sub-sub-field in the sub-field of Gender studies within the academic discipline of Sociology. I can see no reason as to why discussing the identity category 'male' is off-limits in a forum that is ostensibly devoted to discussing identity categories.
We had Dead Horses for a great number of years - longer than I've been on the Ship. It was necessary because of the toxic nature of some of the arguments we corralled there, that would pollute almost every discussion between Christians (while remembering that This Is Not A Christian Website) if we didn't have a specific place for them, and only them.
When we closed it and let the horses run free, we decided that we should do something different, that is not the same as Dead Horses Mk 2. Epiphanies is an experiment, and is partly a response to bring in, encourage, and yes, keep, a wider diversity of Shipmates who will help us stay relevant and unrestful. However you look at it, Purgatory is really quite white, and often male, and generally middle class, and while we're a self-selecting bunch, we shouldn't be afraid of expanding our remit for our mutual benefit.
And because Epiphanies is an experiment, we reserve the right to sometimes take a look at the results and see if the inputs need tweaking. This is one of those times. There is no bar (and IIRC never has been) to discussing what are mainly men's experiences elsewhere on the Ship. Just that, on balance, we feel that Epiphanies is not the right place to do that.
Please do remember that three of the active admin that have contributed to this decision are men, and at least one of them (me) has participated in the two threads concerned. Blaming women for closing the threads isn't going to wash.
Just out of interest, what are our total numbers of host & admins - and how many of them are not straight, cis and white ? And what is the balance of male to female ?
And because Epiphanies is an experiment, we reserve the right to sometimes take a look at the results and see if the inputs need tweaking. This is one of those times. There is no bar (and IIRC never has been) to discussing what are mainly men's experiences elsewhere on the Ship. Just that, on balance, we feel that Epiphanies is not the right place to do that.
But why not? What in its remit says so? Is it just the PTB pick and choose which topics that clearly fit into the remit should or shouldn't be allowed? Shouldn't the description be changed, or at least "subject to the whim of the Admins" be tacked onto the end?
Please do remember that three of the active admin that have contributed to this decision are men, and at least one of them (me) has participated in the two threads concerned. Blaming women for closing the threads isn't going to wash.
There is no bar (and IIRC never has been) to discussing what are mainly men's experiences elsewhere on the Ship. Just that, on balance, we feel that Epiphanies is not the right place to do that.
So, once again, why just close the threads? Why not move them*? Closing them out of the blue just looks like, “this conversation should not be happening” and discourages honest sharing from Shipmates. And given that one of themes of the thread itself was about men finding it difficult to share, don’t you see how unhelpful the way you’ve gone about it is?
You reserve the right, totally understand that. Here’s how it could have gone. A post in the Styx saying that you’re not sure Epiphanies is working how you’d like it yet, with the opportunity to hear what Shipmates think. A re-writing of the Epiphanies guidelines and a simple moving of the threads in question to Purgatory or All Saints of whatever you think. And that way, as a community we’d have had some ownership and involvement. Wouldn’t that have been better?
* especially, as @asher pointed out, it was H&A that moved one of them there in the first place.
Re Epiphanies, I think you're wrong. The guidelines are silent on social inequity and for a good reason. People whose personal identity and personal investment are tied up closely with issues are free to discuss those any way they choose. They can be as open or closed as they like. They may bring in issues of personal morality, or ethics, or social acceptability, but they are also free to preserve personal privacy to whatever extent suits them. But any of the issues they do bring up are open to discussion for contrary views, provided this is done with respect for the personal identity or investment of other Shipmates.
Disadvantages and privileges, whether real or perceived, don't get anyone either special consideration or a special handicap in discussions. Posts still get judged on their merits within that context. That's why we say Epiphanies is not intended to be an echo chamber or a pillory.
Overall, quite a change from @Barnabas62 understanding earlier.
@Doc Tor who said women were responsible for shutting the threads ?
I'm pre-emptively shutting out that possible line of questioning, in case it might arise.
As to your other question - I genuinely don't know, as I've not been an admin for that long, and I'm not the sort of person who polls for that kind of information. We're aware that while we're potentially representative of Ship membership, that's not saying much.
@Doc Tor who said women were responsible for shutting the threads ?
I'm pre-emptively shutting out that possible line of questioning, in case it might arise.
It doesn’t look like you’re giving Shipmates much credit.
Look, I’m pissed off. But I do want to reiterate something: hosts and admins have a thankless and difficult job, and I know it’s tough. You’re all appreciated and thank you for all your hard work. On the whole you all do a fantastic job.
That said, I’m not appreciating this heavy-handed approach, which is just reinforced by your sentence quoted above. It’s just not necessary.
I just think trying to address diversity issues on the ship by thread shuffling, might be somewhat missing the point. And I can’t help thinking the timing of this, may not be unrelated to the fact we’ve all suddenly had out attention riveted to the wider inequalities in our societies.
But returning to my original point, I still don’t see or understand where the idea epiphanies was swamped with privileged voices - drowning out the marginalised - is coming from. What, specifically, was this decision a reaction to ?
Just out of interest, what are our total numbers of host & admins - and how many of them are not straight, cis and white ? And what is the balance of male to female ?
The admins are:
@Alan Cresswell , @Doc Tor, @Spike, @Tubbs, and me. We have a swathe of Admins Emeritus, of whom @RooK and @Ruth continue to play an active role, not least in hosting the Styx, and often in discussions.
How much each of these people contribute depends on their availability at any given time. Colour, orientation, and indeed sex are not on the application form.
@Alan Cresswell's statement on behalf of the admins should be read carefully. It comes after extensive discussion backstage, not as a whim. This has taken time because we are all busy people and not all in the same time zone. One conclusion of this discussion was that the threads in question needed to be closed before a way forward could be discussed out front here.
That might look and feel like a rather blunt instrument in the short term, and we're sorry about that, but that's the way it is.
That said, I’m not appreciating this heavy-handed approach, which is just reinforced by your sentence quoted above. It’s just not necessary.
We genuinely appreciate the good wishes.
We're trying to find a balance, which is difficult: Epiphanies is very young, are we're still trying to find our way. We also appreciate that the threads concerned were often active and read outside of those who posted on them - the threads are still there for reading.
Moving the XY thread from Heaven to Epiphanies was a speculative punt. We had a significant amount of discussion backstage as to where it should go, as it was very much a wide-range portmanteau thread. If it had been more focussed, it would probably have ended up in Purgatory, and now we (including Hosts) have the ability to split threads easily, any tangents could be spalled off. Shipmates aren't the only ones still getting to grips with the new software!
Do you mean, most of the epiphanies traffic ended up being on these threads ?
That's the impression I got. The two goals - to make Epiphanies a space where the voices of those with minority identity can be heard without being buried under a pile of majority voices telling them how to think, and as a place where topics touching on people's core identity can be discussed with stronger rules about having care for our shipmates as they expose themselves - aren't entirely compatible.
I think there's room - and perhaps a need - for a discussion about how to be a man under rules which are basically "be gentle with people". I don't think the threads always managed gentle, but it didn't do too badly. And I think such a discussion has more chance of being productive than a typical Purg shooting match.
("Discussion" rather than hand-holding support group.)
I think it's also clear that if you're looking for something that looks like a safe space to discuss minority identities, and all you see is a whole load of discussion about men, you're less likely to be encouraged to speak up.
But that sounds like "the most active threads in this subboard are about men. I want to discuss something else, but I can't be arsed to begin or participate in a thread about something else until those two active threads-about-men are removed from my field of vision."
Surely nobody but the Crew are actually forced to read threads. The rest of us have always been told that if we don't like the existence of a thread, we should leave it alone and start one we DO like.
Even after reading the Admins explanation, I am left with the belief that the decision was arbitrary, capricious and heavy-handed. The explanation has amounted to do "because we decided to." All the discussion leading up to the move took place out of the sight of the shipmates who were blindsided and still have received no coherent, defensible explanation for the Admins behaviour. The Admins seemed to completely misjudge the mood of the shipmates on this decision.
@Doc Tor who said women were responsible for shutting the threads ?
I'm pre-emptively shutting out that possible line of questioning, in case it might arise.
It doesn’t look like you’re giving Shipmates much credit.
Some Shipmates lost that credit when they accused a female Shipmate of attempting to shutdown the reproductive responsibilities thread. Which was one of the signs on both the threads that a small number of people were using those threads for purposes contrary to what we were hoping for in creating Epiphanies, a series of small incidents most of which were apparently innocuous but cumulatively created a pattern that increasingly alarmed the Epiphanies hosts and admins. We are not willing to let these forums be a place for what looks like men’s rights activism and attempts to shut down or belittle the voices of others.
The two shipmates who commented on the language used by female Shipmate both erroneously believed the Shipmate was male. As I have posted previously, the words read quite differently when you know the gender of the poster. If I knew the poster was female I never would have commented on tone. Men's Rights Activism, my fucking ass, Alan. This post is nothing but bait and switch. It appears that your first posts were in adequate so now you are going on the offensive with an offensive accusation and representation on mine and Asher's comments in that thread. I challenge you to find one comment I made in that thread that smacks of men's rights activism. On the contrary, I argued that in the issue of reproduction all rights rest with women. Let's try another disingenuous tack shall we, Alan.
@Doc Tor who said women were responsible for shutting the threads ?
I'm pre-emptively shutting out that possible line of questioning, in case it might arise.
It doesn’t look like you’re giving Shipmates much credit.
Some Shipmates lost that credit when they accused a female Shipmate of attempting to shutdown the reproductive responsibilities thread. Which was one of the signs on both the threads that a small number of people were using those threads for purposes contrary to what we were hoping for in creating Epiphanies, a series of small incidents most of which were apparently innocuous but cumulatively created a pattern that increasingly alarmed the Epiphanies hosts and admins. We are not willing to let these forums be a place for what looks like men’s rights activism and attempts to shut down or belittle the voices of others.
I am female. I have been reading and occasionally posting in both threads. Your summary doesn’t reflect my experience of those threads. Overall it felt, (I have not counted), as if about half the content was from a female perspective. To the extent, that I recall thinking that it was difficult for the xy thread to work as a space for men to talk about the experience of struggling with the male role.
I was finding the threads interesting, because they contained perspectives on male experience sans bravado - and in my day to day life it is in fact rare to hear men discuss their internal experience in that way.
Just out of interest, what are our total numbers of host & admins - and how many of them are not straight, cis and white ? And what is the balance of male to female ?
The admins are:
@Alan Cresswell , @Doc Tor, @Spike, @Tubbs, and me. We have a swathe of Admins Emeritus, of whom @RooK and @Ruth continue to play an active role, not least in hosting the Styx, and often in discussions.
How much each of these people contribute depends on their availability at any given time. Colour, orientation, and indeed sex are not on the application form.
There isn’t an application form, you are a self-selecting group with an obscure set of entrance criteria. It is likely, you tend to select people like yourselves. Of the people you mention Tubbs & Ruth are female, and as far as I know - all of the admins are white.
That might look and feel like a rather blunt instrument in the short term, and we're sorry about that, but that's the way it is.
Thirdly, I'm totally in favour of the Ship being more diverse, and if that means a restructuring of Epiphanies, then great. I don't want to be any part of anything that makes anyone feel like they can't contribute. I recognise @Leorning Cniht's concerns, and understand the desire to make sure all voices get heard. If the guidelines need adjusting, then you only have my support.
That said, I simply do not recognise this description of the XY thread in the slightest:
We are not willing to let these forums be a place for what looks like men’s rights activism and attempts to shut down or belittle the voices of others.
I do recognise @Doublethink's description, and the descriptions of other women who have voiced appreciation for the thread. I haven't seen anything that looks like men's rights activism - if I had to describe the thread very simply it would be that it deals with male mental health, and how men can navigate the patriarchy.
Essentially, I think that encouraging minority voices are hugely important, and I think that male mental health is hugely important. And I do not see how those two things are in any way mutually exclusive. As Admins, you have the opportunity to communicate that you care about both of those issues - you don't have to pick.
In my opinion, one of the ways that the patriarchy has been most damaging to men is that it asserted that the majority of men (the ones who weren't leaders / influential / powerful) are dispensable. They were useful as cannon fodder in armies, as worker ants in labour etc. but they were dispensable, replaceable, and not special or unique in their own right.* That dispensability still looms big in the minds of many men, and surely has something to do with the identity issues, mental health problems and high suicide rate among men, as the XY thread was exploring.
I'm concerned that you're continuing that narrative, that the XY thread has just been deemed dispensable. I still haven't seen a good reason why you didn't just move it to All Saints, even as a temporary measure while you work things out.
* For all its faults, patriarchy never did the same with women. Women were valuable - even if in a twisted way only as sexual objects and as mothers. Feminism has wonderfully combated that narrative and asserted that women are valuable in all kinds of ways.
I'm concerned that you're continuing that narrative, that the XY thread has just been deemed dispensable. I still haven't seen a good reason why you didn't just move it to All Saints, even as a temporary measure while you work things out.
I'm tied up in real life for most of today, but perhaps I can clarify that this is not a case of writing off all the issues raised in the XY thread forever but of declaring a time-out to prioritise and see where and how they might fit. That closing rather than moving feels like a slap in the face to those who've been opening up in a constructive way is entirely understandable, but we had our reasons at the time, even if we're not in a position to detail them exhaustively here. Bear with us.
Thank you for the explanations, which do help with understanding the issues under consideration.
I too am sad to see the thread closed as I believe men's changing identity to be an important issue. I have seen too many young men struggling, lacking in confidence and self-esteem, not finding a role they are comfortable inhabiting. Having tangled again recently with the debating style in Purgatory, I cannot see these threads surviving as the gentle exploration they had mostly become in that more aggressive area and wonder where else the discussion could be had on the Ship, outwith the more protected area of Epiphanies?
@Doc Tor who said women were responsible for shutting the threads ?
I'm pre-emptively shutting out that possible line of questioning, in case it might arise.
It doesn’t look like you’re giving Shipmates much credit.
Some Shipmates lost that credit when they accused a female Shipmate of attempting to shutdown the reproductive responsibilities thread. Which was one of the signs on both the threads that a small number of people were using those threads for purposes contrary to what we were hoping for in creating Epiphanies, a series of small incidents most of which were apparently innocuous but cumulatively created a pattern that increasingly alarmed the Epiphanies hosts and admins. We are not willing to let these forums be a place for what looks like men’s rights activism and attempts to shut down or belittle the voices of others.
Sometimes the spectators see more of the game, and I think we need to take what @Alan Cresswell writes seriously. Of course as Admin here, but also in terms of personal reflection.
Maybe those looking in on the thread saw it as belittling the voices of others, and promoting men's rights activism.
That was not my intention in participating.
But it is the nature of discussion to be changed by it, and looking back on my own contributions there are some that I would change (if I had my time again...)
Asher
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
From Alan Cresswell's post
When we launched this forum, part of our aim was to provide a safer space for those belonging to minority groups whose needs for equitable treatment often go unheard. Epiphanies is a place where the playing field isn't level. We are not looking for a lack of bias but for something better. We want to hear those normally unheard in the noise of the privileged, and their point of view will be privileged here.
First, an explanation as to the absence of posts so far from Epiphanies Hosts. It is normal for Hosts to leave the handling of Admin decisions which are questioned in the Styx to Admin. In general, Hosts Admin decisions, though we may often contribute to decisions in discussions on the Host Board.
Given the nature of discussions so far, however, I have a personal contribution to make which I have agreed with Admin can be posted here. I've quoted from Alan Cresswell's key policy post which covers my contribution.
Epiphanies was born out of genuine concerns that Purgatory Hosting standards had proved unsuitable for discussions over transgender. There was an extremely vexed thread re transgender in Purgatory and an equally vexed consequential Styx thread. That raised the more general point as to whether we needed a forum to cater for safer discussions for members of minority groups over issues entwined with personal identity. And so Epiphanies was born as that safer forum.
The wording of the Epiphanies guidelines was specifically designed to provided an extra level of protection, namely that threads would be Hosted more closely in view of the need to ensure that minority group need. The quote from Alan Cresswell's post makes that clear.
But since the wording of the Epiphanies guidelines makes no mention of this underlying raison d'etre for the new forum, there has been an unintended consequence and that is what has given rise to the Admin decision and the subsequent controversy.
It has been pointed out that there is nothing in the wording which would exclude the two threads now closed. That is true. And indeed it is why the threads were allowed in Epiphanies, though there were misgivings about that, as has been said. I believe the wording of the Epiphanies guidelines should now be changed to confirm the raison d'etre for the forum.
It's probably helpful at this stage for me to comment on asher's post here. You can see the context by referring to lilbuddha's excellent post on May 29, page 1, of this thread and my reply is at the top of page 2. asher is quite right to raise my post and indeed it enables me to bring out a key point.
To make things clear, the decision to close these threads is a matter of the scope of the forum, not post discipline. (The quote from Alan Cresswell does not cover the question of post discipline). When it comes to post content, members of minority groups get no special posting privileges, Their posts may be criticised and subject to corrective Hosting using the same guidelines and standards which apply to all, regardless of social standing or group membership. That is a fundamental principle on all forums, and I don not believe Epiphanies should be any exception to that principle.
I am personally in favour of the change to the scope of Epiphanies exemplified by these thread closures. I do not believe such threads need the additional Hosting protection offered by Epiphanies. It seems to me to be wholly in keeping with the raison d'etre for the forum to change the scope in this way
I am also personally in favour of providing ample scope for the kinds of discussions contained in the closed threads. Creating threads on any issue is the right of every Shipmate. The question is where should they go? As Eutychus has pointed out, that is a matter for discussion. As threads go, I think the closed threads have proved to be too broad in scope but that is a criticism which may be applied to a number of current long running threads.
Here are a couple of brief personal observations which may help discussion the location of such threads. I would hope they might be less general, more focused.
Firstly, Purgatory is not a free for all and I can see no reason why further discussion of the issues in the threads should not be discussed there.
Secondly, as asher pointed out, he intended one of the threads to be launched in All Saints. I think there should be no problem in locating support threads in All Saints. As is always the case, support is one thing, discussion of serious issues another . It is always better to separate out those two dimensions, which is our normal practice.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Apologies, there is a missing word or two in the above post.
" ....Hosts do not comment on Admin decisions ...."
Barnabus62: "The wording of the Epiphanies guidelines was specifically designed to provided an extra level of protection, namely that threads would be Hosted more closely in view of the need to ensure that minority group need. The quote from Alan Cresswell's post makes that clear.
But since the wording of the Epiphanies guidelines makes no mention of this underlying raison d'etre for the new forum, there has been an unintended consequence and that is what has given rise to the Admin decision and the subsequent controversy."
IMO this is one of the more pertinent things said on this thread. A lot of the irritation expressed by many, including myself, arose from feeling participants were being slapped down for not following unwritten parameters.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Just out of interest, what are our total numbers of host & admins - and how many of them are not straight, cis and white ? And what is the balance of male to female ?
The admins are:
@Alan Cresswell , @Doc Tor, @Spike, @Tubbs, and me. We have a swathe of Admins Emeritus, of whom @RooK and @Ruth continue to play an active role, not least in hosting the Styx, and often in discussions.
How much each of these people contribute depends on their availability at any given time. Colour, orientation, and indeed sex are not on the application form.
There isn’t an application form, you are a self-selecting group with an obscure set of entrance criteria. It is likely, you tend to select people like yourselves. Of the people you mention Tubbs & Ruth are female, and as far as I know - all of the admins are white.
It's an excellent article but it doesn't address the point Alan made. The selection criteria for potential Crew is really simple – an excellent Shipmate who is (hopefully) willing to take on some extra responsibility.
As not every Shipmate shares details of their personal life on the public boards before they join the Crew, you may only find out the kind of things you're asking about during conversations in Hosts. Unless a Crew member chooses to share that kind of information on the public boards, no one else will be doing it for them.
Which is exactly why I asked, as a group - I believe that I did not disclose anything which was not publicly available information from threads on this forum.
The description “excellent shipmate” is open to myriad interpretations. And to be clear! I am not suggesting that there is anything somehow wrong with any of our hosts or admins. But I am suggesting that the crew are not an especially diverse group, and as we see discussed all over the place - that makes a difference. If you are looking at structural solutions to supporting minority voices, I don’t think you can just look at how different boards are framed.
Which is exactly why I asked, as a group - I believe that I did not disclose anything which was not publicly available information from threads on this forum.
The description “excellent shipmate” is open to myriad interpretations. And to be clear! I am not suggesting that there is anything somehow wrong with any of our hosts or admins. But I am suggesting that the crew are not an especially diverse group, and as we see discussed all over the place - that makes a difference. If you are looking at structural solutions to supporting minority voices, I don’t think you can just look at how different boards are framed.
I take your point, but it's not a question that can be answered without sharing personal information that others on the Crew have chosen not to be make public. Which isn't going to happen.
@mousethief I also read back through one of the threads, because as a woman posting on threads considering male issues I wanted to reflect on my responses and make sure I had been considerate of issues that don't directly affect me. Reading the threads in conjunction with the posts here made a bit more sense.
Fine. Though I would point when people routinely collect demographic data it is in part in order to tell if people are being structurally disadvantaged by a given organisation - so I find the responses of folk on this thread implying asking these kind of question is somehow outrageous rather odd.
Comments
I believe that our patriarchal societies damage both men and women and that it does us all good to explore those issues, because we all have to internalise understanding of the harms before we can start changing things in the future, the "read, mark, learn, inwardly digest" steps" and then be able to move on, hopefully changed. Those steps are progressive and may take several encounters for the different levels of engagement to be reached. If those threads were only at read and mark levels, is that a reason to close them?
And I agree so strongly with you, @Curiosity killed, that patriarchy harms men as well as women. You’re exactly right.
When we launched this forum, part of our aim was to provide a safer space for those belonging to minority groups whose needs for equitable treatment often go unheard. Epiphanies is a place where the playing field isn't level. We are not looking for a lack of bias but for something better. We want to hear those normally unheard in the noise of the privileged, and their point of view will be privileged here.
Shortly thereafter, a thread was started on Living with XY Chromosomes. Despite objections from some that this topic isn't one where there is an oppressed group, we permitted it because it fits the description of "issues and identity significantly overlap". More recently, we've had another thread on Men's Reproductive Responsibilities. The way both of these threads have developed has shown that discussion of these topics are not providing space for those who are unheard to be heard; instead, they're full of the noise of the privileged.
Our conclusion is that pursuing the "issues and identity significantly overlap" criterion for issues that relate solely to men resulted in those threads threatening to drown out the Epiphanies objective of "We want to hear those normally unheard in the noise of the privileged", so Epiphanies isn't the right place for them.
Ship of Fools Admins
I erroneously started it in heaven. I suggested all saints.
Hosts chose epiphanies.
How does this not apply to men trying to work out being men in a patriarchical society without buying into the patriarchy? Alan you seem to be saying, men are the privileged sex in our society, therefore they have no right to have a space where they can talk about their issues. Because talking about this in Purgatory would turn it into a free-for-all. Epiphanies, if the purpose statement I quoted above is really meant as stated, and not just coded or dog-whistle language for "it's about minorities stupid", is the perfect place for this.
I don't think the thread was only (or should be) just about men talking about being men. Curiosity killed, for example, had lots of useful comments about her professional experience of young men. Other shipmates I know to be female also made good contributions, but CK sticks out in my mind.
This. If you’re sticking with this, the guidelines need rewording. Because what we’ve been discussing exactly fits into the guidelines as they stand.
Usually it feels like H&A listen to the community and take time to weigh up the right course of action, taking in varied points of view. In this, despite pretty much universal disagreement with a decision, you’ve come out with a management-speak statement that doesn’t actually answer any of the questions and concerns that people have made. In particular, @Lamb Chopped’s point about a place for men to explore being men without being jumped on, @Doublethink’s question about why the thread wasn’t moved, and @Autenrieth Road’s concerns about what the Ship stands for, and @Curiosity killed’s observations about how progression and change actually happens.
I guess we can have a thread in All Saints, but for one, I don’t want a pat on the back or a shoulder to cry on - I want to grapple with what it means to have the gender I’m stuck with, and all the baggage that goes with it, in a place where there’s some protection in asking and exploring, more than Purgatory gives.
Do you mean, most of the epiphanies traffic ended up being on these threads ? Or do you mean you thought somebody’s voice on that thread was being shut down ?
Two things:
1) All the H&A trot out the "personally invested, academic detachment isn't possible" shtick whenever discussing what Epiphanies is for. Both of the terminated threads checked those boxes. Nowhere in the description of Epiphanies does it state that it's a place for minority voices. If you all actually want Epiphanies to be for just minority voices then you should change the board description to reflect that.
2) Men discussing what maleness is in a patriarchal society is a less heard view. It's a sufficiently less-heard view that it's a sub-sub-field in the sub-field of Gender studies within the academic discipline of Sociology. I can see no reason as to why discussing the identity category 'male' is off-limits in a forum that is ostensibly devoted to discussing identity categories.
When we closed it and let the horses run free, we decided that we should do something different, that is not the same as Dead Horses Mk 2. Epiphanies is an experiment, and is partly a response to bring in, encourage, and yes, keep, a wider diversity of Shipmates who will help us stay relevant and unrestful. However you look at it, Purgatory is really quite white, and often male, and generally middle class, and while we're a self-selecting bunch, we shouldn't be afraid of expanding our remit for our mutual benefit.
And because Epiphanies is an experiment, we reserve the right to sometimes take a look at the results and see if the inputs need tweaking. This is one of those times. There is no bar (and IIRC never has been) to discussing what are mainly men's experiences elsewhere on the Ship. Just that, on balance, we feel that Epiphanies is not the right place to do that.
Please do remember that three of the active admin that have contributed to this decision are men, and at least one of them (me) has participated in the two threads concerned. Blaming women for closing the threads isn't going to wash.
But why not? What in its remit says so? Is it just the PTB pick and choose which topics that clearly fit into the remit should or shouldn't be allowed? Shouldn't the description be changed, or at least "subject to the whim of the Admins" be tacked onto the end?
Who did that?
You reserve the right, totally understand that. Here’s how it could have gone. A post in the Styx saying that you’re not sure Epiphanies is working how you’d like it yet, with the opportunity to hear what Shipmates think. A re-writing of the Epiphanies guidelines and a simple moving of the threads in question to Purgatory or All Saints of whatever you think. And that way, as a community we’d have had some ownership and involvement. Wouldn’t that have been better?
* especially, as @asher pointed out, it was H&A that moved one of them there in the first place.
Overall, quite a change from @Barnabas62 understanding earlier.
I'm pre-emptively shutting out that possible line of questioning, in case it might arise.
As to your other question - I genuinely don't know, as I've not been an admin for that long, and I'm not the sort of person who polls for that kind of information. We're aware that while we're potentially representative of Ship membership, that's not saying much.
It doesn’t look like you’re giving Shipmates much credit.
Look, I’m pissed off. But I do want to reiterate something: hosts and admins have a thankless and difficult job, and I know it’s tough. You’re all appreciated and thank you for all your hard work. On the whole you all do a fantastic job.
That said, I’m not appreciating this heavy-handed approach, which is just reinforced by your sentence quoted above. It’s just not necessary.
But returning to my original point, I still don’t see or understand where the idea epiphanies was swamped with privileged voices - drowning out the marginalised - is coming from. What, specifically, was this decision a reaction to ?
(ETA I *hate* predictive text)
The admins are:
@Alan Cresswell , @Doc Tor, @Spike, @Tubbs, and me. We have a swathe of Admins Emeritus, of whom @RooK and @Ruth continue to play an active role, not least in hosting the Styx, and often in discussions.
How much each of these people contribute depends on their availability at any given time. Colour, orientation, and indeed sex are not on the application form.
@Alan Cresswell's statement on behalf of the admins should be read carefully. It comes after extensive discussion backstage, not as a whim. This has taken time because we are all busy people and not all in the same time zone. One conclusion of this discussion was that the threads in question needed to be closed before a way forward could be discussed out front here.
That might look and feel like a rather blunt instrument in the short term, and we're sorry about that, but that's the way it is.
We genuinely appreciate the good wishes.
We're trying to find a balance, which is difficult: Epiphanies is very young, are we're still trying to find our way. We also appreciate that the threads concerned were often active and read outside of those who posted on them - the threads are still there for reading.
Moving the XY thread from Heaven to Epiphanies was a speculative punt. We had a significant amount of discussion backstage as to where it should go, as it was very much a wide-range portmanteau thread. If it had been more focussed, it would probably have ended up in Purgatory, and now we (including Hosts) have the ability to split threads easily, any tangents could be spalled off. Shipmates aren't the only ones still getting to grips with the new software!
That's the impression I got. The two goals - to make Epiphanies a space where the voices of those with minority identity can be heard without being buried under a pile of majority voices telling them how to think, and as a place where topics touching on people's core identity can be discussed with stronger rules about having care for our shipmates as they expose themselves - aren't entirely compatible.
I think there's room - and perhaps a need - for a discussion about how to be a man under rules which are basically "be gentle with people". I don't think the threads always managed gentle, but it didn't do too badly. And I think such a discussion has more chance of being productive than a typical Purg shooting match.
("Discussion" rather than hand-holding support group.)
I think it's also clear that if you're looking for something that looks like a safe space to discuss minority identities, and all you see is a whole load of discussion about men, you're less likely to be encouraged to speak up.
Surely nobody but the Crew are actually forced to read threads. The rest of us have always been told that if we don't like the existence of a thread, we should leave it alone and start one we DO like.
I am female. I have been reading and occasionally posting in both threads. Your summary doesn’t reflect my experience of those threads. Overall it felt, (I have not counted), as if about half the content was from a female perspective. To the extent, that I recall thinking that it was difficult for the xy thread to work as a space for men to talk about the experience of struggling with the male role.
I was finding the threads interesting, because they contained perspectives on male experience sans bravado - and in my day to day life it is in fact rare to hear men discuss their internal experience in that way.
There isn’t an application form, you are a self-selecting group with an obscure set of entrance criteria. It is likely, you tend to select people like yourselves. Of the people you mention Tubbs & Ruth are female, and as far as I know - all of the admins are white.
I invite you to read this article: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/26/do-not-see-race-ignoring-racism-not-helping
Second, thanks for this - acknowledging and apologising that the way you've gone about this is blunt also goes a long way:
Thirdly, I'm totally in favour of the Ship being more diverse, and if that means a restructuring of Epiphanies, then great. I don't want to be any part of anything that makes anyone feel like they can't contribute. I recognise @Leorning Cniht's concerns, and understand the desire to make sure all voices get heard. If the guidelines need adjusting, then you only have my support.
That said, I simply do not recognise this description of the XY thread in the slightest:
I do recognise @Doublethink's description, and the descriptions of other women who have voiced appreciation for the thread. I haven't seen anything that looks like men's rights activism - if I had to describe the thread very simply it would be that it deals with male mental health, and how men can navigate the patriarchy.
Essentially, I think that encouraging minority voices are hugely important, and I think that male mental health is hugely important. And I do not see how those two things are in any way mutually exclusive. As Admins, you have the opportunity to communicate that you care about both of those issues - you don't have to pick.
In my opinion, one of the ways that the patriarchy has been most damaging to men is that it asserted that the majority of men (the ones who weren't leaders / influential / powerful) are dispensable. They were useful as cannon fodder in armies, as worker ants in labour etc. but they were dispensable, replaceable, and not special or unique in their own right.* That dispensability still looms big in the minds of many men, and surely has something to do with the identity issues, mental health problems and high suicide rate among men, as the XY thread was exploring.
I'm concerned that you're continuing that narrative, that the XY thread has just been deemed dispensable. I still haven't seen a good reason why you didn't just move it to All Saints, even as a temporary measure while you work things out.
* For all its faults, patriarchy never did the same with women. Women were valuable - even if in a twisted way only as sexual objects and as mothers. Feminism has wonderfully combated that narrative and asserted that women are valuable in all kinds of ways.
I'm tied up in real life for most of today, but perhaps I can clarify that this is not a case of writing off all the issues raised in the XY thread forever but of declaring a time-out to prioritise and see where and how they might fit. That closing rather than moving feels like a slap in the face to those who've been opening up in a constructive way is entirely understandable, but we had our reasons at the time, even if we're not in a position to detail them exhaustively here. Bear with us.
I too am sad to see the thread closed as I believe men's changing identity to be an important issue. I have seen too many young men struggling, lacking in confidence and self-esteem, not finding a role they are comfortable inhabiting. Having tangled again recently with the debating style in Purgatory, I cannot see these threads surviving as the gentle exploration they had mostly become in that more aggressive area and wonder where else the discussion could be had on the Ship, outwith the more protected area of Epiphanies?
Sometimes the spectators see more of the game, and I think we need to take what @Alan Cresswell writes seriously. Of course as Admin here, but also in terms of personal reflection.
Maybe those looking in on the thread saw it as belittling the voices of others, and promoting men's rights activism.
That was not my intention in participating.
But it is the nature of discussion to be changed by it, and looking back on my own contributions there are some that I would change (if I had my time again...)
Asher
First, an explanation as to the absence of posts so far from Epiphanies Hosts. It is normal for Hosts to leave the handling of Admin decisions which are questioned in the Styx to Admin. In general, Hosts Admin decisions, though we may often contribute to decisions in discussions on the Host Board.
Given the nature of discussions so far, however, I have a personal contribution to make which I have agreed with Admin can be posted here. I've quoted from Alan Cresswell's key policy post which covers my contribution.
Epiphanies was born out of genuine concerns that Purgatory Hosting standards had proved unsuitable for discussions over transgender. There was an extremely vexed thread re transgender in Purgatory and an equally vexed consequential Styx thread. That raised the more general point as to whether we needed a forum to cater for safer discussions for members of minority groups over issues entwined with personal identity. And so Epiphanies was born as that safer forum.
The wording of the Epiphanies guidelines was specifically designed to provided an extra level of protection, namely that threads would be Hosted more closely in view of the need to ensure that minority group need. The quote from Alan Cresswell's post makes that clear.
But since the wording of the Epiphanies guidelines makes no mention of this underlying raison d'etre for the new forum, there has been an unintended consequence and that is what has given rise to the Admin decision and the subsequent controversy.
It has been pointed out that there is nothing in the wording which would exclude the two threads now closed. That is true. And indeed it is why the threads were allowed in Epiphanies, though there were misgivings about that, as has been said. I believe the wording of the Epiphanies guidelines should now be changed to confirm the raison d'etre for the forum.
It's probably helpful at this stage for me to comment on asher's post here. You can see the context by referring to lilbuddha's excellent post on May 29, page 1, of this thread and my reply is at the top of page 2. asher is quite right to raise my post and indeed it enables me to bring out a key point.
To make things clear, the decision to close these threads is a matter of the scope of the forum, not post discipline. (The quote from Alan Cresswell does not cover the question of post discipline). When it comes to post content, members of minority groups get no special posting privileges, Their posts may be criticised and subject to corrective Hosting using the same guidelines and standards which apply to all, regardless of social standing or group membership. That is a fundamental principle on all forums, and I don not believe Epiphanies should be any exception to that principle.
I am personally in favour of the change to the scope of Epiphanies exemplified by these thread closures. I do not believe such threads need the additional Hosting protection offered by Epiphanies. It seems to me to be wholly in keeping with the raison d'etre for the forum to change the scope in this way
I am also personally in favour of providing ample scope for the kinds of discussions contained in the closed threads. Creating threads on any issue is the right of every Shipmate. The question is where should they go? As Eutychus has pointed out, that is a matter for discussion. As threads go, I think the closed threads have proved to be too broad in scope but that is a criticism which may be applied to a number of current long running threads.
Here are a couple of brief personal observations which may help discussion the location of such threads. I would hope they might be less general, more focused.
Firstly, Purgatory is not a free for all and I can see no reason why further discussion of the issues in the threads should not be discussed there.
Secondly, as asher pointed out, he intended one of the threads to be launched in All Saints. I think there should be no problem in locating support threads in All Saints. As is always the case, support is one thing, discussion of serious issues another . It is always better to separate out those two dimensions, which is our normal practice.
" ....Hosts do not comment on Admin decisions ...."
But since the wording of the Epiphanies guidelines makes no mention of this underlying raison d'etre for the new forum, there has been an unintended consequence and that is what has given rise to the Admin decision and the subsequent controversy."
IMO this is one of the more pertinent things said on this thread. A lot of the irritation expressed by many, including myself, arose from feeling participants were being slapped down for not following unwritten parameters.
It's an excellent article but it doesn't address the point Alan made. The selection criteria for potential Crew is really simple – an excellent Shipmate who is (hopefully) willing to take on some extra responsibility.
As not every Shipmate shares details of their personal life on the public boards before they join the Crew, you may only find out the kind of things you're asking about during conversations in Hosts. Unless a Crew member chooses to share that kind of information on the public boards, no one else will be doing it for them.
The description “excellent shipmate” is open to myriad interpretations. And to be clear! I am not suggesting that there is anything somehow wrong with any of our hosts or admins. But I am suggesting that the crew are not an especially diverse group, and as we see discussed all over the place - that makes a difference. If you are looking at structural solutions to supporting minority voices, I don’t think you can just look at how different boards are framed.
I take your point, but it's not a question that can be answered without sharing personal information that others on the Crew have chosen not to be make public. Which isn't going to happen.
How diverse do you think shipmates are?
Really? You saw explanations? I saw "We have our reasons but we can't tell you." That doesn't strike me as an explanation.
Don’t know - we could run a circus poll and see - but the results would be rather rough and ready.
GDPR is a minefield to navigate as it is. I'm really not sure we *can* go there, even if we wanted to.
Which means we don't know if the crew demographics reflect shipmate demographics.