Criticizing Tone

I really do enjoy a lot of the content at Shakespeare's Sister. However, there are obviously things I take issue with as well. More so than any of the other feminist blogs I read on a daily basis. I'm not entirely sure why this is, or if it even has a simple reason that one can point to and say, "Oh, yeah, that's it." It just is.

I was recently taken to task for suggesting that the tone of a post regarding Wil Wheaton was just as bad, and in some ways worse, than the original Wheaton post was. The tone was strident and condescending and infantilizing and exaggerated right up to the edge of dishonesty. Though I have no doubt anger was the driving force behind these attributes, I didn't really criticize the post for being too angry. That's too simplistic an argument. But I can see making that argument. I'm not even sure I'd agree, but I can understand making the argument just as well as I can understand the anger that fueled an irresponsible post in the first place.

What pisses me off, then, are blanket statements like these, meant to bully progressives into quietly accepting things that don't sit right with them:

If you are a genuine ally to feminists/womanists, you will never, ever, criticize a feminist/womanist's tone for being "too angry."

Now, I don't think this is aimed at me specifically. I don't rate high enough to warrant more than a few crass insults. But it could just as well be. And whether it's accurate or not - that is, whether I have or would criticize a feminist's tone for being too angry - is irrelevant; it's insulting and bullying to anyone who might not appreciate a tone 'so angry' that it causes the feminist in question to exaggerate the truth, make unwarranted personal attacks or alienate vital allies. I would never blame a feminist for being angry. I'm angry too. Misogyny and sexism piss me off on a daily basis, as do racism, homophobia, xenophobia, and any number of other forms of cultural bigotry. But to say that one's tone is above scrutiny is arrogant and wrong-headed.

Progress is dependent on people who get angry, because anger—productive anger, motivating anger, directed anger, rational anger—is the root of all progress.

No. Progress is dependent on people who get angry and who know how to focus that anger into persuasive arguments and cultural paradigm shifts. Anybody can manage to work up a temper. But nobody ever made progress by alienating the people who most wanted to see them succeed. I frankly don't care if you want me as an ally or not. I don't fight for feminism for you or for your insular clique. I do it because I believe it's right, and as a principle it's worth fighting for. But don't deign to tell me what I can and can not criticize. Attempting to regulate what can and can not be scrutinized is the last resort of an autocrat, not an intellectual, and certainly not a progressive.