1) Say, in so many words, "you're not a feminist if you don't blahblah."
2) Back it up with heavy-handed shaming tactics and going LALALALALALA or -crickets- whenever someone else tries to actually explain her own position, often with a good deal of thought and care
3) When other person finally throws her hands up and goes, "nu, so all right, I'm not a feminist,"
4) Wring hands, cast eyes to the heavens and wonder,
Where O Where have all the feminists gone???
head. desk. bang.
Here's a hint for all y'all making this sort of argument out there who still might be reading:
At this point, even if you did have sole possession of The Truth, the One Way and One Way Only: it doesn't matter.
That's right.
Because your communication skills--as in, listening and actual dialogue, not just making Pronouncements and whacking people over the head when they don't fall in line quickly enough--frankly, suck.
If all you want is the deep tingly satisfaction of waving the bloody martyr shirt, then by all means continue doing what you're doing.
If you actually want to change any minds? At least, in your favor? You are seriously doing a piss-poor job.
Or: pull the "my way or the highway" shit if you want to; just don't be surprised when a bunch of people take the highway, if only because they think it might be more likely to actually get them where they want to go.
This public service announcement was brought to you from the Department Of Huge, Honking Clues.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Here's the thing: in every political movement, there are people who are deeply concerned with image and with convincing people, and who might put on a more moderate show, or even compromise on a principle or two, in order to make the public support the movement's goals more. Now, the radicals generally don't like the compromisers. Usually they'll take a legitimate beef, such as the overzealous compromises of the Democratic Party, and transform their splinter movement into a near-cultlike structure, where every issue that gets taken up by moderates is suspect.
So you get a vicious cycle of radicalization, which ultimately causes people to despise any form of outreach, or any language that aims at convincing outsiders.
also see: Northern Ireland, India/Pakistan, the entire fucking Middle East, etc. ad nauseum.
so the question is: what is to be done? about such people. assuming one doesn't want to become such a person oneself.
...the other thing is, there is a difference between "putting on a show" and actually allowing as to how the other party might genuinely have a point, and even rethinking one's own position to a certain degree.
while i understand that the former is probably far more common than the latter in realpolitik (and frankly is probably unavoidable to a certain degree as well), if no one's doing the latter then we might as well all play an hour of recorded music and go home; now it's just a question of who has the bigger stick and bullhorn.
what feminists and leftists of a certain stripe don't seem to realize is that if it comes down to that and only that, *they will lose.*
Why? Because the whole point of being an evil Oppressor is that you already *have* the bigger stick and the louder bullhorn. You aren't gonna win that way. Just not gonna happen. All that'll happen is that you'll manage to drown out some people wielding even smaller sticks, with even lesser voices. If that's all you care about, again: go right ahead.
but to me this has little or nothing to do with actual change. at least none that I want to see.
I have a friend here who makes a living getting grants for corporations so that she can come in and help them understand heterosexist and male oriented assumptions - BUT, because she also works on a committee for the rights of sex workers, most of the other "feminists" won't talk to her.
It doesn't seem a very effective strategy to continiously purge the ranks of non-true believers on the basis that we will one day present a united front - when has any group of humans presented a united front. And wasn't this what started the lavender menace during ERA days?
I understand being angry - a lot about society makes me angry - I just don't understand being angry with each other?
See, this is what drives me batty--the whole "oh, we won't even TALK to you." i have seen/heard a number of other stories in which prominent anti's refused to so much as share a speakers' platform with pro-sex-worker feminists.
and this is different from the traditional shunning of the scarlet letter'd, *how*?
Dworkin says there needs to be fiery rads like her and that others will have to do the work of keeping the middle ground for the rads.
You know, that could actually make sense, in theory. The problem is that the left never does that. Just look at the mainstream feminist blogosphere to Twisty: a few jokes, a few attempts to see both sides, and a few criticisms buried well inside comment threads.
Liberal feminism has always tried to accommodate the scary radicals, even as the right busily set up its conservative/radical mechanics in such a way that there was a steady rightward shift of the political center. The only person to seriously disown the radical left, Bill Clinton, wasn't even a real liberal.
And wasn't this what started the lavender menace during ERA days?
Oh my Molly Bloom! YES!
I've been following the well-intentioned but doomed Sex Wars Truce thread on Alas, keeping myself from reaching for a pair of No. 2 pencils to put through my eyes, and I think the "Oh, for fuck's sake" breaking point for me was seeing Amp (who I generally like and respect) asking people not to use the term "sex-positive" because it offends.
Because, one, this is just a little damn arch in a "community" (such as it is) that claims to honor what people choose to call themselves;
And, two, I'm mildly surprised I haven't seen a comparison to men feeling they're being unfairly excluded by the idea of "feminism." Because my response to both is: Get the hell over yourself.
Once again, over and over, world without end: "I don't hate sex, just the kind you're having. (you filthy hoor.)"
Seriously. As I said over at BL's--as it happens I think wrt an earlier instance of dwama at Alas (the insistence of certain of the current radfem players that they have their very own threads--like, excuse me? don't you have your own boards and blogs? d'you invite yourself over to someone's house and then demand they throw out their other guests and maybe rearrange the furniture while they're at it?):
the *real* problem with too many people on the Left, if not the World, is the over-reluctance to say, in the face of supreme assiness:
"No. Fuck off."
A while ago, when there was a high-profile thread on some wingnut blog about how evil women's suffrage is, I said, "Here's a point worth making: a person's nuttiness is reflected not only in what he believes, but also in what he finds serious. People who think the child vs. five embryos dilemma is real are insane even if they decide at the end to save the child."
Well.
Yeah.
Speaking of: ooh, I am so frigging tempted to go back to the Alas thread and start talking about, you know *what,* I could take pretty much most of these same arguments by appeal-to-the-misery-of-the-suffering-you're-so-selfish and plug it directly into any number of pro-lifer arguments.
not gonna do it, though. even i have some limits.
I don't even see why people need to get all up in a snit about what the *implications* might or might not be. I am sex-positive; I may or may not have any particular opinion about what *you* are in that regard. If the comfortable shoe fits, well, what can I tell you.
I mean, I still call anti-abortion folks "pro-life" even though I think it's completely bogus. Particularly if I'm in a space where both pro-life and pro-choice are having a discussion in a supposedly "neutral" space.
I mean what the fuck, these are some of the same people who'ev appropriated not just *radical* feminism but in some cases *all* feminism for themselves, or are trying really really hard at any rate.
"You're not a feminist."
Uh huh. But I'm supposed to change *my* label/identity wrt sexuality in order to make *you* feel more comfortable on *top* of that?
In that case, I don't think "fuck off" expresses my sentiments strongly enough, but it'll have to do.
Right--I was saying, "I am sex-positive means I am in opposition to sex-negative culture." really no particular need to take it y'know *personally,* any more than oh I don't know my calling myself anti-racist might make one bridle at the implication that because one does not use that particular ID, I am implying that one is a racist.
as per whether some feminists are sex-negative--well, again, if the comfy shoe fits. not all who call themselve radfems or any other brand of feminist are sex-negative, no. but some certainly are. anyone who goes into squeamish fainting fits over the mere suggestion that one enjoys giving head, or indeed any other sex act, much less (gasp horror details), while simultaneoualy going on and on about how *disgusting* blahblah is--yeh, you know what, that's pretty fucking sex-negative. I would say.
It's not everyone, obviously, no. But they exist, they're callin' themselves feminist--so, you know.
Ahem..
Amen and pass the damn ammunition. Well said.
See, they can condemn my career, my appearance, my stances, my CHOICES...
and do they honestly think that is EVER going to make me agree with them? Oh, I think not.
But shaming people into submission works so well! and is not at all patriarchal!
and of course it makes perfect sense that a small band of fringe theorists will succeed whereBig Daddies Church and State and Family haven't, using the *exact same techniques* and fewer obvious benefits!
clearly the only reason they're failing is that they're *just not trying hard enough.*
that whole business about "doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results is one definition of insanity?" Straight from the Patriarchy, ignore. full speed ahead.
Thanks for the link Belledame. I'm relatively new to the feminist 'blogosphere'(for want of a better word), and am still figuring out where I stand on some issues. One thing I'm sure of though is that silencing women whose views you disagree with is NOT my idea of feminism.
Although I may not agree with all your views on prostitution etc, I still really want to hear what you, and others, have to say. Women's voices and experiences are so often unheard - surely as feminists we should be listening, not shouting each other down.
Thanks again.
Hey, no problem, Lucy; welcome!
cheers
Post a Comment