When looking at content hosted on blogs, we are usually attracted to the bloggers’ individual voice on a particular subject. The difference between the blogs that center on such a wide topic as “feminism”, is the utilization of radically different voices for discussing the same body of thoughts and issues. However, as we have seen in the previous post: not all spaces are created equal. Just because two blogs about feminism create a similar commenting policy does not mean that the conversation on the blogs will be of the same quality. The same idea applies when looking at the blogger’s voice and content. To be brief, the tone of the blogger’s content can have a drastic affect on the nature of the conversation that will occur on their blog. To demonstrate this notion, I will compare two new feminist blogs using the same parameters as the previous article. Both blogs utilize a commenting policy, but the tone of their content differs highly. While the blog Finally Feminism 101 boasts a relatively large number of comments and discussions in response to its articles, while blog Feministing has a comparatively paltry number of response and almost no dialogue.
Finally Feminism 101
Blog's Construction/Foundation for Generating Civil Discourse: http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/purpose/
I consider this introduction to the blog and its content an absolutely ideal model for other feminist bloggers. It states its mission in extremely plain language: “This blog aims to provide factual information, for both feminists and those questioning feminism, about those typically disruptive questions/assertions.” and acknowledges that the blog is not a monolithic authority and that there is room for further discussion: “This blog is not the final word on feminism, far from it...then links to other material which discusses the issues in more depth”. This foundation not only provides potential commenters an opportunity to intimately engage with the subject matter, but also gives them the freedom to contribute to the discussion without having to assume an aggressive opposition in order to propose counterarguments. Additionally, this approach invites an extremely wide audience to the conversation: new, old, experienced and inexperienced. This approach is a much more egalitarian than models where the blogger assumes a position of absolute authority that its audience is “allowed” to respond to. The conversation between blogger and audience on Finally Feminism 101 is primed for productive discourse. I consider this approach the optimal method for creating an environment for productive/civil discourse.
Particularly interesting, is that the blog refers to the problem of disruptive discourse within the world of online feminism. To challenge this problem, the blog has made itself a resource to combat this issue, proving the relevance of productivity/civility in the world of online discourse. Also noteworthy, is that Melissa McEwan, founder of Shakesville; whose blog also exhibits strong methods for keeping dialogue constructive is one of the contributors to this blog. All in all, this blog gets an A+ on its foundation for creating productive discourse.
Content:
The content on this blog was designed to be engaging and approachable. The blog had well-composed definitions about feminist ideology and placed emphasis on being a resource for finding links to other more in-depth websites. Content was mostly the synthesis of other articles with input from the blogger and major contributors. The tone of the articles was generally even and avoided aggressive language and rhetoric. Though highly opinionated, the writing typically ends on open-ended statements that invite audience participation.
Comments:
Looking through comments and seeing the presence of voices other than experienced self-identifying feminists was a very good sign that the blog is engaging people outside of its established community. Furthermore, seeing that the nature of the discussions between commenters and contributors was both positive and educational was highly encouraging.
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/07/15/faq-isnt-the-existence-of-the-term-sex-positive-feminism-effectively-an-admission-that-many-feminists-are-anti-sex/ - Great discussion between content creator (Tigtog) and audience. Though the tone became intense and somewhat aggressive, the conversation remained on topic and was constructive. The dialogue ultimately concluded on a positive note.
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2010/06/11/feminism-friday-how-can-men-express-sexual-interest-in-a-feminist-way/ - I consider this ideal situation that bloggers looking for discussion are aiming for. Questions are proposed in an honest way to the community, responses are plentiful, civilized and aimed at answer questions and helping further the discussion.
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/faq-myths-lesbian-man-haters/ - Participation was not all positive and in favor of the proposed topic, but it remained mostly civilized. This is an important reality that must be considered when looking for constructive dialogue. Sometimes the contributions are not in agreement with the proposed argument. However, this discourse is still more productive than simply arguing aggressively about unsubstantiated ideas and opinions.
On the whole; Finally Feminism 101 demonstrates that a commenting policy alone does lead to constructive dialogue, but the formation of content whose tone is conducive to productive dialogue is necessary. By acknowledging that the content of the blog is not in a position to declare an all-encompassing authority, the audience was in a position to feel that their contributions were heard and served a purpose to the discussion. The following example of Feministing takes a much more declarative tone with its content, and the discussion and commenting audience suffer accordingly.
Feministing
Blog's Construction/Foundation for Generating Civil Discourse:
The first thing in the about page is referral to the blog as a space for and by feminists, followed by discussion of a community standard and commenting policy. Though these have been shown to be successful tactics for keeping discussion productive and focused on the issues at hand, the websites introduction takes a somewhat severe stance about “who is welcome” in the space by declaring it specifically for feminists. This could be seen as threatening to the other side of the argument, which can dissuade an entire audience of voices simply through exclusion. As a whole, I think the model is not fundamentally flawed, but the distinction between Finally Feminism 101’s “open to the everyone” and Feministing’s “only if you’re with us are you welcome” should be noted.
Feminizing’s Community blog exists to “provide a platform for feminist and pro-feminist writing, to connect feminists online and off, and to encourage activism...open to anyone who would like to join”. This is a clear and concise goal, which has shown to be an effective tactic as discussed in the previous article. In order to maintain a progressive and safe discourse on the site, anti-feminist posts are not permitted. Though the bold definition of what content is not allowed can be off-putting to strong disagreement, this is not a bad parameter to set conversation by. However, combined with the “by and for feminist” introduction, this only underscores the un-welcomeness of anyone outside of the community.
Content:
In a nutshell, the content on this blog is quite polarized and extremely "final" in tone. The approach to the issues tends to assume the author of the content is “correct” and unchallengeable. Regardless of the veracity of the argument the content makes, this sort of finality and attitude do not invite particularly in-depth discussion. Audience responses to these kinds of posts are usually brief words of assent or passionate disagreement. Rarely does much discussion occur in this world of commenting.
Comments:
The most "popular/commented" articles had approximately five to six comments that only casually referred to one another, when commenters referred to anyone else in the conversation at all. In short, though the commenting policy did ensure that comments from fundamentally opposed viewpoints would not dominate the conversation, they did not ensure conversation at all. The cultivating of a narrow audience and the final tone of the blog posts ensured that dialogue was in essence, unnecessary. In this community dissenting opinions were "wrong" and do not serve a functional place in the dialogue. However, without this room for varying opinions, dialogue is redundant and often in circular agreement with the content. Though Feministing is a perfectly respectable resource for a feminist perspective, it is not a strong model for constructive dialogues.
As we can see through comparison of these two blogs, the tone of posted content has an enormous role in the generation of discussion amongst audiences. Based on the evidence that these two blog provided, I now add to the list of “Recommended Tactics”:
*** Indicates editing.
1***. Have a clear goal/point to your blogging. If you are interested in promoting something, define it. If you are criticizing something, specify. It will keep content and discussion goal-oriented.
2. Keep the tone constructive. If you expect an audience to engage with your material, you need to help them feel included. Aggressive rhetoric and language will only alienate possible new members. Keep aggression minimal and criticism constructive, it will only help your goal.
3. If someone disagrees with you, be willing to engage them in a constructive manner. Dialogue is necessary for any debate. If you refuse to engage with people who do not share your views, your audience will become myopic and you will be unlikely to encourage growth outside of the established community.
4. Create parameters/standard if and when possible for dialogue. If you are in charge of a blog, you have the ability to control the dialogue. Use this to keep things productive.
5. Avoid attacks against dissenters or naysayers. It almost invariably results in combinative discussion and argument. If unavoidable, keep the criticism constructive and use it for the purpose of improving your own work, not to discredit opponents.
6***. The tone of your content will dictate the tone of the response. When trying to persuade others, keep the tone inviting and open. If you enter a conversation with an unyielding mindset, you are unlikely to attract people who will challenge/expand your beliefs. You will most likely only attract similarly minded people, which can easily become, in the words of the Reddit community “a circle jerk”. The best arguments can address the existence of an opposition. Better to utilize any opposition to further your argument rather than shun it.
7. If you wish to have an honest and productive discussion with an open audience, you have to be willing to engage with dissenting opinions. It is easy to allow a blog to “preach exclusively to the choir” when you discount and exclude contrasting opinions. If you are not open to expanding your community and the discussion involving your community, you cannot call your blog “an open” source.
8. There is a difference between a “safe space” and a “reserved space”. A safe space is a environment where members of a community can feel free to express themselves honestly and openly. A reserved space is an environment that excludes others. Though there can be over lap between the two, it is important to remember the distinction in order to evaluate the type of discussion that occurs in a particular environment.