If you’ve been offline or haven’t checked Social Media (or some news outlets) since Sunday, it’s just possible you missed the news: Ravelry has banned support of Trump and his administration. If you have not already, I urge you to go and read through the policy as well as their pre-existing Community Guidelines, which include guidelines against hate speech and hateful imagery as defined by Ravelry. There is a link to these guidelines from the bottom of every Ravelry page.
My first reaction to the news was just “whoa”, quickly followed by a gut reaction of “good for them, we need this.” This was a major decision by Ravelry, so I felt that it was key that I not go with my gut, but examine why I think this was the right way to go and see if I still felt that same way after careful reflection. This blog post goes over my thoughts and conclusions.
Head’s up: I’m going to use the word “you” a lot here in a general sense. If you (specifically as a reader) find yourself reacting viscerally to what I say when I use the word “you” (generally) it’s often a signal to stop and think about your personal reaction. I find that when I have that sort of reaction to an opinion piece, it’s because the writer has hit on a point of potential growth for me.
First, let’s answer the question “are they allowed to do this?” The answer is yes. Freedom of speech, as guaranteed in the US Constitution, protects people from government interference in free speech (though even here there are exceptions like shouting “Fire!” in a theater when there is no fire). Ravelry is a private entity and can limit what they consider acceptable speech on their platform. The question here is whether they were morally right to do so.
Next, “why not ban all hate speech instead?” Well, actually they already did (see guidelines link above). Here is their precise definition:
”Hate Speech and Hateful Imagery Words, phrases, or images deemed by Ravelry’s owners to express, either deliberately or unknowingly, hatred or contempt towards a group of people, based on areas such as their ethnic, cultural, religious or sexual identity, gender, socio-economic class, or with reference to physical health or mental health, are not allowed.”
Looking at this policy, I think it’s reasonable to arrive at the conclusion that a policy against any support of Trump or his administration is a necessary extension of this policy (a very precise example as it were) required to maintain the type of community they envision: one of inclusion.
First, Trump and his administration have shown extreme contempt at best and downright hatred and malice at worst towards numerous groups of people based on all of the areas outlined in this policy. Specifically, the groups they have repeatedly targeted are those also targeted by white nationalists (BIPOC, LGBTQ+, etc…), and the Trump administration has done everything from ignore white nationalists to endorsing and supporting them (sharing white nationalist/white supremacist social media content, calling them “very fine people”).
If you are among those who do not believe Trump and his administration are and support white supremacists, or feel that maybe they could be, but there isn’t sufficient evidence, please review the citations and linked sources in this post by RPG.net (RPG.net is cited by Ravelry as a key source for shaping their own policy). They have compiled all the evidence you should need, though it’s hardly an exhaustive list of all of the evidence out there either.
How is supporting Trump but not everything he stands for different from agreeing with a politician on some things but not others? Why equate ALL support of the Trump admin with support of white nationalism? Because it’s such a central part of this administration’s platform and approach to setting policy. Even without the efforts of Trump’s most vocal white supremacist supporters to ensure people understand Trump = white supremacy, his own words and actions have ensured that you cannot separate Trump and his administration from white nationalism and white supremacists. If I said I was a huge fan of the Yarn Harlot, but I don’t support knitting because I think it’s a stupid waste of time and money, you’d tell me that doesn’t make sense: you can’t separate the Yarn Harlot from knitting. It’s who she is. So to be dismissive of knitting while somehow saying you support her doesn’t jive (This, btw, is the exact same reason you can’t condemn homosexuality and at the same time expect your gay child to feel supported by you). So you can’t be a Trump fan and reasonably claim that you don’t support white nationalism. I know a lot of people think it’s possible, but if you really want to help foster an inclusive community, you can’t make it work.
Why? Consider the key phrase “deliberately or unknowingly.” This means whether or not you thought what you said was hateful, if it meets the rest of the definition, it counts. This is really important as it means that the outcome is more important than the intent. Ravelry is trying to build a community, and a strong community requires that people think not just about their own intentions, but also how it will be perceived or received by others. There is a very real and significant group of people who deliberately wield their support of a white supremacist president as a means of intimidating and instilling fear in others. When you add your voice, you are, even if unknowingly, adding to that fear and intimidation. You are signaling that you aren’t thinking about everybody in your community: you are overlooking and ignoring BIPOC, LGBTQ+ and other vulnerable, marginalized and/or minority group members. That is, you are showing contempt: disregard for something that should be taken into account. Everybody needs to be taken into account, and sometimes this requires stepping out of your own lived experiences and imaging others’.
A few months ago, the BIPOC community kicked off* a conversation around the lack of inclusivity in the fiber craft community, their frustration and fatigue with fighting the same battles over and over, and with white peoples’ inability to see what was happening right under our noses. Ravelry’s decision is actually making it easier for well intentioned people to be better community members by stating clearly that demonstrating support of Trump and his administration is harming fellow community members because, well intentioned as you may think you are, you haven’t been listening. Perhaps how we (white) people should feel is ashamed that Ravelry has had to spell it out for us: supporting Trump is condoning hatred and it’s hurting people in the Ravelry community.
So why ban just support of Trump and his admin? Why not have a list of all “bad guys” (or gals) who are banned? Or why not ban all politics?
Ok, so first, you know it’s not feasible to actually list every horrible person in history and alive today who doesn’t deserve support in any form. It’s a case of magnitude and impact. Trump is major public figure with significant world wide power. His position as sitting president also has provided people cover for their hateful rhetoric by falling back on the excuse that supporting the president is some sort of patriotic duty or right that cannot be questioned. This has made it harder for anybody to step up and make a blanket policy of the sort because it feels icky to have to say people cannot voice support for a freely elected democratic leader on your platform. There is, however, a distinct and real difference between supporting the presidency (a specific position within the United States’ government) and supporting the sitting president (a specific person filling that position for a period of time). People throughout United States history** have often tried to muddy or erase the difference between an office and the person currently holding that office, and to say that to support the office requires supporting the individual in it. This is false. I can support that we have a president, and that a president has certain powers and duties, without supporting a specific president, their administration and how they exercise (or abuse) their powers and fulfill (or neglect) their duties. Some do not deserve our support.
So…. why not ban all politics? Well, what do you mean by politics? Politics is life lived. You can’t ban it. You may be able to restrict or ban very specific political discourse (such as discussing current races in progress and the latest poll numbers). But you cannot eliminate every political stance and just talk about crafts. First, craft is really closely tied to identity and traditions. Our clothing reflects our backgrounds, culture, preferences, identity. To ban every project, post, avatar etc… that reflected anything political would be to gut Ravelry as it currently is. When people say “ban politics” there are two ways this can go.
The first is to try to narrow the focus so closely to “just crafting” that what you really have is technical forums: how to fix a dropped stitch, resize a garment, etc… Ravelry wants people to look for ideas and inspiration though (see their “About us” page) which inherently brings into it the things we are passionate about, what makes us who we are.
The other way people “ban politics” really means “ban minority and marginalized politics or anything that makes the majority or mainstream uncomfortable.” It means not letting a transgender woman express her joy at putting on the first skirt she made herself, while letting the rest of us bitch about the ugly sweaters our mothers or grandmothers made us wear. It means flocking to the latest “ethnic” trend but not wanting to hear about the people who have used those designs for centuries, or their religious and cultural significance. Stars and stripes pillows stay, but the rainbow blanket has to go. It means no more talk about how to make yarn stores and yarn festivals more inclusive to everybody, from being easier to navigate for the mobility impaired to treating everybody with respect. Because we should keep it “politics free” and just talk about the fluffy yarns, pretty colors and enticing patterns without the distraction and discomfort of facing those struggling to enjoy those same things because of barriers we’ve put in place and continue to maintain.
“Ban all politics” means shutting people out of the conversation. If your first reaction is “but that’s not what I mean by ban politics,” there are plenty of BIPOC, LGBTQ+ and others who can tell you that this is exactly what happens. If you think you can eliminate politics, then you are missing how much of your politics is daily life for those around you.
We all voluntarily limit our own speech at some point. Perhaps you didn’t gush about your promotion to the friend who just lost their dream job, or you reign in your passion for spiders around the arachnophobe. Maybe you are the arachnophobe, and you are really thankful that your friend knows not to show you their latest spider photos from the bug museum. Ravelry chose to ban one very specific form of speech which was being abused by some and causing pain and distress to many, while allowing us to still talk about everything else. I think we can respect that.
One final note: Ravelry’s ban is, I think, a necessary step to preserving a safe and inclusive community for all. But it’s not sufficient. We still have an obligation to be thoughtful before we speak, and to listen when somebody lets us know we’ve hurt them. We also must continue to be diligent in spotting and calling out those who are willfully trying to do harm so that we do not provide them shelter and cover for their actions. Communities only stay strong through constant work and attention.
Update July 2nd: Ravelry has posted a follow up to their original statement.
*This conversation has actually been happening for a really long time and it’s more that for a moment at least, a lot of us were finally listening and engaging.
**I specify United States history here only because in some systems of government, the office and the person are the same.