I’m commenting here about the comments on your note about pay-to-comment, hoping you’ll be more likely to see it.
I accept all the arguments people give justifying the pay-to-comment restriction. But the immediate priority for me is to engage with people. And I want to believe that if I get enough subscribers that comment sections become a problem, I’ll still keep them free so people who can’t afford to pay can still be included.
Perhaps I’ll post a policy like this: “you don’t have to pay money to be part of this conversation. But you do have to pay something: I insist on courtesy, respect, and seriousness of purpose, even if you’re making a joke or two. You can disagree while still living up to those standards. If you don’t want to respect them, you’ll lose your commenting privileges.”
That’s basically the way I handle the trolls on Facebook. I’ve had to block a good number of people, but at this point people know that while all ideas are welcome I require respectful conversation. And re. Conversation: It’s a little depressing to see how many people, responding to my comment, advise restacking instead. That’s great when you want to draw people’s attention to someone else’s work—and I appreciate it when people do that with my work (as you have done) but it’s not the same as conversation.
Agreed, that’s one of those comments where I think maybe they’re trying to be helpful, but they don’t seem to really be listening to what you’re saying. Restacking is trying to do a colleague/friend a favor. It’s absolutely not the same thing as having a conversation.
I get how easy it is for conversations to be ruined. But that’s not an argument against conversation.
If I’m honest, I’ll admit how irritating FB comments drove me to substack in the first place. I want to write, I don’t want to run a clubhouse. But-- I don’t think it’s the trolls who are the biggest irritant, at least for me. What I hate is the regular people, well-intentioned, who can’t read or think and are arguing with you because they didn’t understand what you said. That chaps my ass way more than trolls do, because it shows that intellectual laziness and lack of self-awareness can make you just as much a threat to conversation and discourse as malevolence. It’s hard to muster up the energy to spin THAT revelation.
I admit I've not read either of your newsletters on Barbie nor seen the movie. I have seen the trailer (forced on me by my older daughter, aged 45) and read a number of the critiques. The Mattel doll is a toxic harmful image for women: it's part of the culture which leads to sometimes fatal eating discorders in women and much misery and self-hated, not to omit surgery. I suppose you know Trump's daughter Ivanka (very Barbie looking) underwent several surgeries to look the way she does. Think of how he must've ridiculed her. I was thoroughly anorexic for 5 years, and one never ever recovers. Spare me how the movie reframes all this -- it cannot. It's like the argument we are going to take back the word slut. Really? Gertwig sold out a while back.
I wrote one of the first feminist books about eating disorders, so I know a little something about the subject. However, I’m not going to enter into discussion with someone who has neither read my pieces nor is familiar with the material I talk about in them.
I’m commenting here about the comments on your note about pay-to-comment, hoping you’ll be more likely to see it.
I accept all the arguments people give justifying the pay-to-comment restriction. But the immediate priority for me is to engage with people. And I want to believe that if I get enough subscribers that comment sections become a problem, I’ll still keep them free so people who can’t afford to pay can still be included.
Perhaps I’ll post a policy like this: “you don’t have to pay money to be part of this conversation. But you do have to pay something: I insist on courtesy, respect, and seriousness of purpose, even if you’re making a joke or two. You can disagree while still living up to those standards. If you don’t want to respect them, you’ll lose your commenting privileges.”
That’s basically the way I handle the trolls on Facebook. I’ve had to block a good number of people, but at this point people know that while all ideas are welcome I require respectful conversation. And re. Conversation: It’s a little depressing to see how many people, responding to my comment, advise restacking instead. That’s great when you want to draw people’s attention to someone else’s work—and I appreciate it when people do that with my work (as you have done) but it’s not the same as conversation.
Agreed, that’s one of those comments where I think maybe they’re trying to be helpful, but they don’t seem to really be listening to what you’re saying. Restacking is trying to do a colleague/friend a favor. It’s absolutely not the same thing as having a conversation.
I get how easy it is for conversations to be ruined. But that’s not an argument against conversation.
If I’m honest, I’ll admit how irritating FB comments drove me to substack in the first place. I want to write, I don’t want to run a clubhouse. But-- I don’t think it’s the trolls who are the biggest irritant, at least for me. What I hate is the regular people, well-intentioned, who can’t read or think and are arguing with you because they didn’t understand what you said. That chaps my ass way more than trolls do, because it shows that intellectual laziness and lack of self-awareness can make you just as much a threat to conversation and discourse as malevolence. It’s hard to muster up the energy to spin THAT revelation.
Yes.
Exceptional! I love everything that you’re pointing out in here
I read the second sex sometime ago
Shocking revelations.
Well done and we still have a ways to go. I look forward to reading much more of your work. It’s excellent.
Thank you!
Thank YOU—for subscribing, and for your comment. Hope you enjoy future (and past) stacks.
Yes 🙌
I admit I've not read either of your newsletters on Barbie nor seen the movie. I have seen the trailer (forced on me by my older daughter, aged 45) and read a number of the critiques. The Mattel doll is a toxic harmful image for women: it's part of the culture which leads to sometimes fatal eating discorders in women and much misery and self-hated, not to omit surgery. I suppose you know Trump's daughter Ivanka (very Barbie looking) underwent several surgeries to look the way she does. Think of how he must've ridiculed her. I was thoroughly anorexic for 5 years, and one never ever recovers. Spare me how the movie reframes all this -- it cannot. It's like the argument we are going to take back the word slut. Really? Gertwig sold out a while back.
I wrote one of the first feminist books about eating disorders, so I know a little something about the subject. However, I’m not going to enter into discussion with someone who has neither read my pieces nor is familiar with the material I talk about in them.