Last week, something earth-shaking happened in everyone’s favourite feminist discussion group. It all started when a cis white male was banned, the reason given was that he was talking over oppressed voices. Uproar ensued. One concerned member wrote a post denouncing the incident, and it was ‘liked’ by nearly a thousand people – a record-breaking ‘like’ count in the world of Cuntry Living. It seems that the group has reached a turning point: should it be an introspective safe space, or function as an open debating group? At the moment, it arguably exists as neither. Becky Butler, the writer of the popular critical post and Ruby Lott-Lavigna, another Cuntry Living regular, discuss their alternate views for the future of the group:
by Becky Butler
I am writing this as a former fan of Cuntry Living and as a concerned feminist. In my view, the group has become exclusionary. The effects of this are twofold. First, Cuntry Living misrepresents feminism by failing to acknowledge its pluralism. Not everyone subscribes to its version of feminism and in banning or castigating those who disagree, it is suggesting its feminism is the ‘correct’ feminism. Secondly, although it doesn’t claim to represent every type of feminism, it is ignoring the impact it has on perception of the movement as a whole. Cuntry Living needs to accept the responsibilities associated with being the loudest feminist voice in Oxbridge and start engaging in debate; failure to do so runs the risk of damaging its own credibility and, more importantly, that of the feminist movement. I appreciate the work of the administrators, but unjustifiable banning and dismissal of opinion is all too commonplace. The most discussed problem is fear of posting. If a poster’s opinion does not align with that of the administrators, they risk being banned. If someone’s view doesn’t align with that of other members, all too common responses are that they lack the correct understanding of feminism, their privilege blinds them or they are just plain wrong.
Moderating now involves policing members’ tones and, recently, motivations behind ‘likes’. This ‘moderation’ is often justified by the group’s guidelines which would be acceptable if they were applied with consistency. The official line for the most recent exclusion was that the former member had policed reactions to oppression. The unofficial line that the administrator wrote was ‘I can’t be bothered to have this exact same argument again’. I empathise with her exasperation, but the banning meant other members could not discuss the matter with him. This cloak of official reasoning under which personal motivation is masked is an abuse of power. The guidelines have their place, as there is no value in the derailing of discussion. However, the guidelines are neutered when enforced disingenuously to the administrator’s end: culling those arguments which are not their own. Admins should facilitate an open discourse, not use institutional power to empower their own discourse at the expense of others.
Cuntry Living needs to address its identity crisis. As a forum, its function and ethos is unclear. If it is a safe space, there is no place for the enquiry of men and their admission makes very little sense. If it is a feminist movement for all, men’s arguments should not be frequently belittled on the basis of their gender. I would like to see Cuntry Living become a more tolerant platform. With this will come a change in culture and contribution. This is crucial, for there is a terrible irony in Cuntry Living our ‘safe space’ frightening its members into silence.
Education should be a function of the platform. A refusal to elucidate feminist issues only strengthens the patriarchy. Obliviousness is the perfect tool for the preservation of existing structures. If people cannot acknowledge patriarchal structures, because they are so normalised, they cannot begin to combat them. Within Cuntry Living, there is a certain reluctance to educate. This perhaps stems from intellectual elitism. Let’s not pretend we were all born feminists. We were born into the patriarchy: it is everyone’s starting point. No one is born an administrator of Cuntry Living, they are the lucky recipients of very good information on feminism. The education and experiences we have had bring us to the point of saying ‘I am a feminist’. Do our tentative members not deserve the same journey?
Cuntry Living can simultaneously be a place to share experiences and a place to educate those who have not had said experiences. “Check your privilege” should mean “understand that we have different experiences, different starting points, that result in differing awareness, understanding or opinions” rather than “never talk about matters that do not affect you, you cannot possibly understand”. Cuntry Living is losing sight of goal-orientated feminism that improves society, in favour of a space to vent frustrations. There is no reason it cannot do both. It is possible to have a system of banning insensitive trolls whilst keeping genuine enquirers and novices. It will require faith in humanity.
If Cuntry Living would like to improve the lives of women then it cannot be inward facing. When I posted about this in the group itself, the response was overwhelming – nearly a thousand people liked the post. This suggests that there is a common sentiment: that the group needs to move from a space of exclusion to a space of education and debate. If the group wishes to remain as it is, then I urge people not to conflate the operation of Cuntry Living with feminism as a whole.
by Ruby Lott-Lavigna
I don’t know if it’s ever crossed your mind, but it’s quite irritating being oppressed. Even I, as a privileged white hetero cis person, get riled by the boob glances, the interruptions, the mansplaining, the body policing, the low expectations, and the judgment. The preconceptions that you’ll be worse than a male counterpart. The constant disgust towards the resting state of your body. It’s tiring dealing with these things.
In fact, let’s interrogate the language I just used there. “Tiring.” When Rosa Parks refused to move from her seat, it wasn’t because she was angry, it was because she was “tired”. What was a calculated protest has been transformed into the absence of action by a historical and social lens that refuses to acknowledge or allow women the agency to be angry. Rosa Parks was angry, not tired. And I didn’t mean to say I was tired of these kinds of instances, actually. What I meant to say is that it’s fucking bullshit. It’s total fucking wank that I have to deal with that kind of stuff from day to day. It’s infuriating, and anger is the emotion I feel, not tiredness.
Anger is an emotion reserved for white men. They’re the best at being angry, but also the best at moderating their anger, we’re told. The way we view standards of discussions – things like rationality, anger, calmness – are constructed in a way to make those who hold power come out on top – just look at the way society stigmatises a woman or person of colour who is ‘too angry.’
Cuntry Living is a space to be angry. It is not entry-level feminism – something which I very much support and have educated myself through. Maybe it would like to be, and in which case, it would have to change a lot of the most educational things about it, and lose probably a lot of its members. It is one of many feminist, intersectional forums, and cannot try to be everything for everyone. I have never been so intellectually pushed, forced to interrogate my own preconceptions as I have on Cuntry Living. Anyone who thinks Cuntry Living is relinquishing its ability to be educational because it can be angry is not interrogating the reasons why the anger is there.
Expecting this space to be an educational forum for every white dude is to burden those with levels of oppression. To burden those who have spent their whole lives having to justify why they deserve to be treated with basic human compassion. There is a way for feminism to be inclusive, without having to hold the hand of every person who hasn’t yet realised why something they say/think/do might be problematic. It is totally ridiculous to expect every feminist forum to just tolerate the same marginalising comments just to avoid being seen as ‘angry’ or to help those with buckets of privilege who haven’t bothered to read up or think about things before they post.
A safe space does not mean safe for someone with privilege to come in and be offensive. It does not mean that if you mess up, it won’t get pointed out. A safe space is for people who have experienced that kind of bullshit every day of their lives to get away from it, but also to have their voices heard louder than they are heard in the wider world. I don’t think we do a disservice to feminism to say that there are varying strands of thought within it. To force Cuntry Living to be a safe space and to educate every single person on it who might also threaten that safe space is to try and reconcile two incompatible things.
This is what Cuntry Living is doing. Cuntry Living is not the be all and end all of feminism. It is a place, with a lot of clever, and angry, and stupid people. Some of those people might get kicked out. Some won’t. Forcing you to think about some of the reasons those things have happened is to force you to confront your preconceptions about who shouts loudest in debates. Privilege manifests in blindness to instances of oppression, and if there’s anything a space should be educating you on, it’s the reasons why you see things the way you do.
Sometimes there’s a reason to be angry. Let’s not homogenise feminism into one big cuddly bubble where every white guy gets treated with the same amount of privilege he does in the real world. It’s bullshit to expect every feminism space to be exactly the same, and it’s also bullshit to change something as unique and valuable and Cuntry Living. Yes, it’s scary being challenged about things, but lets face it you’re probably wrong, and you should stop being a petulant child and get over it. If scaring people decreases the chance that they’ll act like an oppressive shitlord then I for one am more than okay with that.