"The Common Elements of Oppressions"

by Suzanne Pharr, via Nezua. Go have a read.

Derailing for Dummies!!

It's So Easy! Just Add Assholery And Stir!

(found via helen-bop, dilettante, Ren Ev)

I had often pondered attempting something as erm multi-purpose as this. Closest I got was here, I think. This is way better.

My favorite bits:

You're Arguing With Opinions Not Fact

If you really want to excel as a Privileged Person® you need to learn to value data, statistics, research studies and empirical evidence above all things, but especially above Lived Experience©.

You can pretend you are oblivious to the fact most studies have been carried out by Privileged People® and therefore carry inherent biases, and insist that the Marginalised Person™ produce “Evidence” of what they‘re claiming.

Their Lived Experience© does not count as evidence, for it is subjective and therefore worthless.

and

A In B Situation Is Not Equivalent To X In Y Situation

Your Marginalised Person™ may put in a last-ditch effort to be patient and reasonable by using an analogy. If you are yourself a member of a Marginalised Community™ exercising privilege over the group you’re arguing with, the Marginalised Person™ may use an example of discrimination towards your community and how there are parallels in discrimination towards theirs. This will be to try and appeal to your basic humanity and provide you with an experience you can relate to, hoping you will use that relation to apply compassion.

Don’t worry! You can still get out of this one!

Simply become indignant and be very sure to emphasise that your experience is absolutely and one hundred per cent unique and there are no similarities whatsoever between the two situations. Be sure that you are very derisive of their experience, thereby indicating you believe it unworthy of consideration. You must also behave insulted, so as to indicate their issues are so worthless that it's deeply offensive your own would be compared to them!

Of course, the Marginalised Person™ was not trying to equate the two, simply trying to provide grounds for commonality. It’s very important not to give an inch, however, so feign utter ignorance of this at all costs.

Remember: you want them to feel they really are less than human. It weakens their position and that’s important if you want to win.

and

You Have A False Consciousness

In conversation, there are few things as degrading, enraging and hurtful than to tell someone their experiences are false, or that their perception of them is.

The idea behind this one is usually that oppressed people are simply too oppressed to know they’re oppressed and therefore Privileged People® have to share their wisdom and insight with them.

This one crops up a lot in issues that affect women: women who enjoy dressing in conventionally feminine ways (they’re engrained in the patriarchal construct of femininity and therefore are incapable of making a choice), women who are kinky, regardless of the gender of the person they play with (they’re engrained in the patriarchal construct of gender roles and therefore are incapable of making a choice) and sex workers who claim to enjoy their work and/or practice it with autonomy (they’re engrained in the patriarchal construct of female sexuality and therefore are incapable of making a choice).

But this also affects People with Disabilities who are routinely told they simply don’t understand what is best for them and need a Privileged Person® to make decisions for them. People with Disabilities are not able to make any decisions for their own protection. Remember to stress that: it’s for your own protection.

With the trans community, you must routinely deny their gender identity by equating their experiences as having happened to someone of the gender they were designated at birth. For example, denying the reality of gender dysmorphia means you can tell a trans woman her childhood experiences happened to a little boy, because that's how she was being raised, and so communicate your belief her reality as a little girl was false, thoroughly undermining it.

In arguments about race, it takes a slightly different form, generally in white people telling People of Colour that they’re “seeing race where none exists”. You, on the other hand, are “colour blind” and we live in “post-racial” times. It’s them who are making everything about race and their experience of racism in their daily lives is simply imagined. If only they could let it go, the whole world would live in post-racial harmony!

You really want to ignore any claims the Marginalised Person™ may make about having done thorough research, deconstructing and unpacking of these issues. You also really want to deny their autonomy. There are few things so infuriating as infantilising an adult and telling them they’re delusional about their own reality. But they need to understand that, no matter what, you know better.

...I thought we had already determined the answer is "42."

.
Did we really need to "imperil the earth?"

and I mean, really, wouldn't you think: you've seen one particle pile-up, you've seen them all? a bit like arguments on the Internets really...and yet, still, you think, THIS time, I might actually figure out the Meaning Of Life! if I could only -understand- WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON HERE, and WHY.

Quote of the day, 7/12/08

I often think about people who have boundary issues not just as people who have trouble maintaining their own or who are inclined to violate those of others, but as people who seem to actually lack the understanding of where you start and they end. Meaning they take on emotion that’s yours in ways that are just inappropriate, and becomes kinda controlling, and can be really overwhelming…and given that, it’s not actually that surprising when the people with a saviour complex start getting offended when the designated-savee decides no thank you, that’s not the way she wants to go, develop delusions that they and only they can handle the necessary struggles, and become really fucking controlling, actually.

--Purtek, who's been on a roll lately

As for all the Monday morning QBing on What It All Means, Dear (yes, still about Kyle Payne, that scumbag)

Purtek sums up my thoughts nicely:

yeah, I’m pretty wary of the kind of guy who dresses everything up in terms of just how completely he is going to save me, the one who seems just far too good to be true, the one who always knows exactly the right words and turns of phrase like maybe it’s actually kind of practiced…but “male feminists” categorically? Not the same thing. Because you know, the thing with predators is, if the red-flag-warning-sign for potential predator becomes “identifies as feminist” then real predator will shift identifiers, will find a new one, will adapt to the given situation.

...The delusion that we’ll find the marker, that we’ll be the ones to know, is only hurting us and making us more vulnerable to the one who doesn’t fit our assumptions.

This isn’t new. Kyle Payne reflects exactly what predatory behaviour has always reflected - predatory behaviour. Adaptation. Manipulation and deception. Showing people what they want to see. Not radical feminism, not pornography, not male feminism, not men in general, not feminism in general.

And I know I've sounded like I've been arguing from several directions on this. (I am large; I contain lunch; you got a problem with that?) I...yeah. I do go back and forth, a bit at least, wrt how "different" predators as such are from the general populace, and how one would tell such a thing.

As for the "male radical feminist" (or sympathizer/groupie) (all three at once, mind you) business:

Well, it's like this. I've only known (of) a handful of this rather rare and special breed. And even of the other half dozen or so I'm thinking of, I don't actually assume they've gone out and assaulted unconscious victims, okay.

Here's what originally skeeved me out about Payne's posts, -before- learning about the charges (I did find the blog randomly surfing, -then- googled his name and saw Eleanor's Trousers and the Iowa news story, had had no idea who he was before that):

* The super squeaky clean image combined with a strangely zealous focus on the dark, dirty, dangerous, depraved, disgusting. The fact that he was supposedly all about -purifying- the filth does -not- make me -less- suspicious. I gather that it does, for some people. And, well...no, it just...people tend not to work that way. "You can't pray a negative." I mean, this is not news, this, that people who -obsessively- focus on getting -rid- of something Bad in other people -might just be- harboring it themselves. It doesn't ALWAYS mean that the anti-gay politician's going to be caught with a choirboy, or that the Temperance preacher has a stash of Scotch under the pulpit, but, well, I don't get how the general concept is exactly a -shock- to anyone at this point, you know?

* Yeah, and about that purification thing: -this- is actually why I don't trust this breed of male feminist, okay. Not because I don't think men can legimately be feminist, care about womens' rights, even be anti-porn (though, again, I get -real- suspicious of anyone who makes the latter the center of his activism -real- fast).

Because, the whole "I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy, grovel fawn (oh but by the way somehow I'm still grabbing the limelight and erasing your voice even as I beat my breast in self-abnegation)" = CREEPY, with a capital EEP.

at minimum, it's risible and doesn't actually help anything, because it's still relentlessly solipsistic. At worst? Well, you do figure: human beings being what they are, eventually, if one's martyrdom is NEVER properly appreciated by you UNGRATEFUL BASTARD PEOPLE, all that self-loathing -might- just suddenly snap outward one day and oooops, here comes nice, pathetic, humble little Marvin Milquetoast or Hubert Hairshirt with the kitchen cleaver.

"REVENGE! REEEEEVENNNGGGGE!..."

See, I like people who have a healthy sense of self-preservation, me. Who -don't- make it all about themselves, but are also willing and able to cheerfully say, "You're not my table, sorry," when it really ISN'T, sometimes. And I do mean -cheerfully-, because getting overly defensive is another whole deal and, well, we've talked about this.

But, you know. I can't speak for anyone else, but personally, I don't -want- some dude I don't even know to wear sackcloth and ashes for my sake or the suffering of Class Woman or whatnot, ffs: what on earth good does that do? Do something -useful-, or at least--look, it's a nice day, go play in the sun. Be happy, Chuckles. At least -someone- should be. And it's a fuck of a lot more straightforward that way than, well...I've rambled about this.

* the I-express-my-anger-just-through-tears thing, which--cool, look, Noli Irritare Leones expanded on this, "Denying the Shadow."

To which I'll respond: It's not that I don't think a guy could react in sorrow to something he's "supposed" to get angry, to, ever. It's not even the skeeved out reaction I had to "lookit me, I'm weeping with sensitivity over these porn slides; I'm just THAT sensitive," which of course becomes a lot more darkly hilarious in light of the subsequent charges, that bit.

It was this bit, specifically:

For as long as I can remember, I have been told that I do not get
angry - as an activist, a friend, a lover, and as a colleague.

And, yeah, he goes on to explain no, it's not true, here's how, but I'm sitting here thinking: first of all, why is he telling us this? And then, if -everyone-, even your most intimate companions, notices this about your persona, and the following story is about how moved you are on someone else's behalf, but it's -not- about -anger- as such...well, effectively what he's saying is: no, he really -doesn't- get angry. At all.

Because, one gathers, among other things, that would be not only too traditionally masculine, but, perhaps, -selfish.- Which, he is not. Even if he -does- lose control of himself just like everyone else, every so often, it's in a -good cause- when he does it. For The Sake Of The Suffering Women, not himself. See. He -feels deeply-. Passionately, even. But he doesn't get -angry.- Certainly not so's his nearest and dearest would ever discern. He is the UBER Nice Guy, apparently.

Big ol' red flag here.

* The other thing about people who wear their uber-sensitivity on their sleeve: yes, it's true, there IS more of a taboo about men crying than there is for women, it's a point, sure. But...personally, I'd also have felt skeeved out reading that particular anger/tears story, written in the same way, from a woman. Maybe I would've speculated that there's some social conditioning going on in there if she didn't mention it, but ultimately? Yeah, there are good reasons to mistrust people who make a huge show of their supra sensitivity, sometimes.

Or, well. Particularly, in this way:

There's a book called "The Sociopath Next Door" by a Martha Stout. Less a clinical text than kind of a layperson's field guide to Dangerous And Skeevy People To Avoid. And while I still agree that no set of red flags is going to be 100% foolproof, and I do honestly see the danger that this, too, can be "othering" in a way that means "whew, the rest of us are off the hook," then, I DO still see the kind of red flags as laid out in frames like this more potentially useful than "see, I knew you couldn't trust a man/porn user/radical feminist."

Specifically, this piece of advice, paraphrased because I don't have it in front of me:

Someone who fucks you over and then (or simultaneously!) goes into poor-sensitive-piteous-me mode is someone to stay right the hell away from.

Because, it's a -great- weapon, or can be, crying. The classic misogynist trope is that women cry in order to manipulate, and often, yeah, that accusation IS an abuser move ("stop being so sensitive! stop crying, or I'll give you something to cry about!") But, truth is: yeah, tears/sensitivity CAN be a -great- tool in the arsenal of the predator: because most people, if they AREN'T predators themselves, DO lower their defenses when someone else (apparently) bares their throat. Kyle here demonstrates nicely, if perhaps not in the way he meant to, that indeed, it's not a gendered thing: men can use tears as a defense and weapon too, yes they can. So, thanks for that, Kyle. (You shitbag).

Mostly, I guess: if there's any lesson at all to be taken from this, and I'm not at all sure it does work out so neatly, it's: trust your instincts. Trust -yourself.- Just because someone says all the right things and meets all the right demographic boxes and all your friends think they're wonderful and they won awards and shit, doesn't mean you have to make yourself vulnerable to 'em if it doesn't feel right. Even if they're "nice guys." Even if they're "feminist." (Or aren't). Even if they're anti-porn. (Or aren't). Even if they speak with authority and a soft voice. Even, yes, if they're women.** And if it did feel okay and they blindsided you and fucked you over anyway, well, they're scumbags and that's all there is to it.

Beyond that?

"By their deeds you will know them."

**ETA: And here's why I have a problem with "oh, okay, the moral of the story is 'you can't trust any man, feminist or otherwise.'" Not because I think Evelina Giobbes are as statistically significant as Kyle Paynes--for one thing, I DGAS mostly about who's-got-it-worse stats, I say this to forstall.

Because, even if you don't give a shit about mens' tender fee-fees, whether as actual victim of crimes committed by men or women (yes, it does happen) or unjustly accused innocents, here's the thing: women do victimize women, too. And when you make it all about "right, we want this to be a SAFE space! No mens!" the implication, at the very least, is that women are safe because they're women.

And...no.

Really, no.

And so what you get, besides the Giobbe case, are a lot of female on female abuse cases that are dismissed by the mainstream because, well, homos, what'd they expect + your basic misogyny, AND, then when the victim goes to her feminist/lesbian community for support, the same ones who were right there whenever a man was the abuser (hey, maybe that's how she hooked up with her current abusive female partner to begin with: nice trusted pillar of the anti-violence feminist community, just like Giobbe) are suddenly nowhere to be seen.

Because, women don't do that.

Because, if we can't trust one of our OWN, now, who CAN we trust?

Oh, yeah, and also, the partner can follow her to the DV shelter. Hell, she might actually -work at- the DV shelter. Certainly some of their mutual friends will.

So the upshot is: a woman is hurt, betrayed, and has nowhere to go: and the whole "men versus women" thing made it WORSE, even without any actual men in the picture.

It'd be great if it were that simple, wouldn't it? All you need to know is that You Can't Trust Men. Oh, sure, it's -hard- to get rid of all that feminine training, male pleasing and so on: but the good part is, that's a really clearly defined goal, and once you get there, it'll be so much better, won't it? I got all my sisters with me. Yay safety.

Too bad it doesn't work like that.

ETA: Thanks for this, from the SAFER blog: Kyle Payne and Screening for Sexual Assault Advocates.

p.s. Dear allies of various sorts: you know,

there's really no need to do this, either.

Quote of the day, 6/30/08

The Doctor:** The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.

--Doctor Who

**(no, NOT that one for once, the one with the scarf. bite me)

Quote of the day, 6/26/08

Honestly, I don’t buy either the nature or nurture arguments with regards to gender. I think it’s a combination of effects, and I agree with the line about gender being a “performance” — which I don’t think is the same thing as belittling the importance of gender in the lives of many people or saying that any one gender identity is more or less legitimate than the other. There are a huge range of gender identities, from feminine women and masculine men to feminine men and masculine women, transgender people, genderqueer or gender non-conformative people who alternate gender expressions. For example, I was born female, and since I adapted so easily to that identity I believe that I was also born with a feminine gender. But I think that the ways in which I enact femininity — i.e. the way I cross my legs, or the fact that I shave them, or the way that I often apologize for things that aren’t my fault — were most likely taught to me in a subconscious way and probably don’t have much to do with my vagina or estrogen production at all.

I do agree though that people who take the most strict “gender is a construction” stance are those who tend to be transphobic, or vice versa. Personally, I take the same stance with regards to trans-ness as I take towards sexual orientation: I think that it’s mostly biological, but don’t really give a shit whether it’s biological, social conditioning or a choice. People have the right to express their gender(s) and sexuality however they want, regardless of the reason, and the whole “reason” conversation, I think, distracts from that extremely important fact.

--Cara at the Curvature (read the OP while you're at it)


...actually, minor quibble, I think probably the "most strict 'gender is a construction stance'" is really just...not. I think when you see this from transphobic feminists these days, it's an expression of the contortionist attempt to fuse actual radical feminisms that do/did actually mean the whole "gender is a construction" business (which tend -not- to be at odds with queer theory or ffs the existence of transgendered people) with cultural feminism, which is essentially...essentialist. (I've posted about this before).

But you know, just: if one is THAT invested in the idea of Class Woman and woman-only spaces and so forth, one is pretty much by definition -not- trying to "do away with gender." And no, the whole "nonono, Class Woman is about SEX, that's TOTALLY DIFFERENT from 'gender'" doesn't wash. At all.

a) it's projection on the parts of the feminists in question onto (a lot of) trans people to assume that the -trans people- are the ones who are so hopelessly fixated on genitalia, as Cara notes in her OP

b) hi, speaking of "examination:" exactly how much "gendered" shit that actually has nothing to do with your genitalia or reproductive organs do you take for granted?

Start with the pronouns you use for yourself and expect others to use when talking about you. Then, move onto the amount of tsuris you -don't- get specifically about the "M" or "F" on your government-issued ID when you try to get a job, move to another country, get married, get on a motherfucking plane, get a driver's license, or, well, just a whole shitload of things. Oh, yeah, and of course you have the right to use the "correct" bathroom, don't you? Or any public bathroom at all, really.

Guess what, folks: -none- of that is about "sex." That is about "gender." Presentation, pronouns (you know, in some languages the "genderedness" of possessive pronouns, i.e. "his" or "her" in English, is related to the -object- ("sa plume"), -not- the possessor, so this is hardly a universal), and the everfucking -importance- people place on all of this shit to make sure that everyone either fits into column A, column B, or, well, the outlands. Where we can "pity" "them" (ta awfully so, mAndrea, you hoser), but certainly no more than that.

Yeah, that's radical "deconstruction of 'gender,'" all right. Clap, clap.

And, you know, of course, even if you -did- have The Most Radical Radness Of All, this idea that you're entitled to therefore make or contribute to making other peoples' already difficult lives even more difficult on account of they haven't justified their existence to your stringent ideological demands sufficiently? Or for that matter, even, when the chips are down, write them off as "we eagerly accept and even solicit your emotional and financial contributions to Our Struggle, Which Is Of Course Universal; but as for your -particular- problems, so sorry, not our table?" What part of "fuck off" did you not understand?

On the "personal is political" note, as opposed to "just" being an ally note: this goes out to, well, Certain Of The Same Women Who Should Be Safely Fringey Enough To Just Ignore, But Nonetheless:

You know, even if my less-than-clear-eyed queer pervy lusts and relationships did turn out to be more in line with patriarchal standards than your ever so pure political lesbian and/or separatist and/or wymyn fyrst whatever it is...well, I do think you're full of shit about this, don't get me wrong (this is a separate post); but also? Really not my -first- concern here, how fucking -transgressive- I am against the Evil Empire as compared to you or anyone else, mirror mirror on the wall. I don't live my life in order to conform to -or- rebel against an ideal ideology; my ideology evolves and adapts around actual needs and lives, not the other way around.

Now, you may feel differently, and you know, that's your prerogative; but kindly keep me the hell out of it. And yeah, spouting off ignorantly, and derisively, but Importantly (o rational objective observer that you are!) about things that matters to me and mine? qualifies as -not- "leaving me out of it." You talk a lot of stupid, hateful crap about people; being actual people and not -objects-, they respond, often angrily. This is how it works. Welcome to reality.

Further, I for one reserve the right to be as sweary, mean, and "irrational" as I want to be when you pull this kind of crap, same as I would with any other reactionary, smug, ignorant bigot using someone else's personal shit as a trampoline for hir own sorry, selfish (yeah, you read that right) agenda.

Finally, I keep coming back to this: if transgenderism is an "ideology," then so is homosexuality. As a cis queer person who's heard the latter argument as well as the former invoked by right wingers -way- too often, this shit hits way too close to home. And I want to know, from feminists, lesbians included: exactly how it is that you justify "being transgendered is an ideology/sickness/perversion/trend" when these are EXACTLY the arguments, but EXACTLY, used by homophobes*.

...*Who, by the way, are also inevitably Terribly Offended by being called -homophobes-, because they're not -afraid- and they're not -bad people- and they're discriminated against TOO, at least as much, even, and some of their best friends are, and they don't actually nail anyone to a fence and leave them there to die horribly over a period of days (COOKIE PLEASE) and how dare we label them something they don't believe they are, o irony irony.

Whoa. Damn. Well, that spells out a subtext I've always picked up on in a number of contexts rather refreshingly, at least

A comment at this post at Renegade Evolution's on Sex and Power--and the whole post as well as the ongoing discussion is rich and I can't do it all justice here, please do check the whole thing out--anyway, I did get pulled up short by this comment:

Charisma is bad. It's a talent that some people are either born with or learn (usually both), but they should be ashamed to use it.

Many, perhaps most, of the skills that people are taught under the heading of "public speaking" should actually be called "using charisma in public speaking" and they are detestable skills.

Charisma is essentially the encouragement of certain biases.

Using sexual power is generally a form of charisma.

Charisma is inherently exploitative EVEN IF YOU'RE USING IT FOR GOOD (like to persuade people to do the right thing). Things like mathematical ability or athleticism can be used in an exploitative manner but are not inherently so.

And, putting aside the main gist of the OP, i.e. the sex part--or rather, -besides- that, my immediate first thought was:

"Okay. Now I finally understand how Ralph Nader's candidacy happened."

Seriously, though, this has been a theme I've noticed in the loosely-defined Left (and no, I don't know where the commenter is coming from politically, I'm just extrapolating) in general. I...can't unpack all of it at the moment? But it's about more than sex or personal charm there, yes; it's also, I want to say, probably not unrelated to the deep suspicion of religious and spiritual movements, particularly (hello) the "charismatic" ones. And yeah, as here, it seems to stem from a sort of...well, there's a set of assumptions here, isn't there. About what's a "bias" (hey, since when are the valuing of mathematical prowess or being good at sports not related to cultural bias?) and what isn't, and whether one can or should avoid "biases" in the first place, and...

-ponders-

well, among other things, there's an implicit appeal to a sort of Gradgrindism here, isn't there? Like, it's -bad- to use one's charm or sense of humor or oratory skills or, well, whatever it is that makes people appealing to listen to; therefore, -good- would be the person who appeals -solely- to Pure Logic and Reason and -Facts.- Yes, this is a perfectly -rational- way of going about making one's case; even or especially if -it doesn't actually work.-


Because, hey, if it -worked- -too- well, you know, if you actually -achieved- what you were trying to do, especially if that had to involve -changing peoples' minds- and -getting power- and -making decisions-, that might be exploitive, -too-, and...

yeah, more later.

On "allying," some collected thoughts, such as they are

(for ABW's Carnival of Allies)

First of all, the ranty bit, as excerpted and slightly modified from an earlier post (sorry for the repeat, regulars):

There's this, okay, -message-, I've been picking up, not just in the latest mess, but in a number of contexts, race-related and otherwise. (You can get an idea from skimming downward). Covertly and sometimes overtly, it goes roughly like this:

Oh, you can't possibly MEAN what you're saying. You're not really interested in -this-, are you? You're just putting it on. You're acting out of -guilt.- You're not one of THEM. You're one of US. You're just trying to be trendy, aren't you? Cool. More Radical Than Thou. Looking for "cookies" from, uhhhh, whoever's giving them out this week. Anything and everything but YOU MIGHT ACTUALLY MEAN WHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY SAYING. And, further, you can't possibly LIKE -those people-, not -really.- They aren't actually -people-...no, sorry! I mean THEY are in fact -really people-, which is a -really- radical idea and I still can't quite get my head entirely 'round it but I'm -really- trying; it helps if I maintain that THEY are just like me (only not quite as Advanced).

As opposed to, garsh, I don't know, I like -some- of "these people" as PEOPLE, and therefore, by listening to them and getting to know them, I give a fuck when they say "ouch, this hurts," even if it doesn't seem to directly affect me (at first). Because

a) actually, as it turns out, most of the time if I look a step or a half-step ahead, why yes in fact I AM quite possibly next for the chop, say hello Pastor Niemuller,

b) besides, HELLO, how on earth do you expect people to be interested in YOUR righteous cause if you never return the fucking favor? Because you're Universal and they're a sideline and they should just wait patiently for you to get your rightful piece of the pie and THEN they might get a crumb? Because you think you're the only game in town? Wrong on both counts, and it's high time you got a clue.

c) those are my FRIENDS and LOVED ones you're talking about, you fucking zits. And/or at minimum, people I respect and like and want to hear what they have to say for -themselves-. PEOPLE.

And yeah, thing is, I do get why this might seem...not enough; we're talking about -structural- shit, after all, right? not just petty high school sniping over who's friends with whom. And yet...I'm increasingly convinced that actually, it DOES matter, this let's say "individualistic" approach, quite a bit.

Here's the thing: people do tend to respond most strongly to shit that resonates for them on a personal level.

And I’m going to go in a slightly different direction from the usual conclusion to this, i.e. “damn, I’m/we’re shallow and we suck, I Will Work Harder at intellectually understanding such and so, because it is my Duty,” maybe more: okay, I’m not feeling such and so terribly viscerally. Why not? Is it maybe partly because–in some cases at least–I don’t actually -know- any of the people directly affected by such and so?

And if not–maybe, does it make sense to go, “huh, maybe I could get to know ___ on a more personal level. Seek people out. Talk to people -as- people over the long haul, as an end in itself. Make real connections, not just ‘oh, i want to LEARN from you.’ See if the world maybe isn’t a little bit bigger than I thought, and maybe make some friends** along the way.”

Because, ime, once you do that, the “difficult” stuff often becomes a lot easier to understand. Because, now it’s not just some abstract issue. Now, it’s personal.

And, as we all know, "the personal is political."

So...

**generally, a term I find myself using a lot more than "ally," unless the context really calls for the latter.

tangentially

am now ruminating on a comment on this thread at The Angry Black Woman. well, there's a lot to talk about wrt that thread in general, but following this particular train of thought seemed like it might be a derail there, so bringing it back here.

the comment:

#
Julia, on April 30th, 2008 at 9:51 am Said:

An interesting thing to me about cookies is that it seems to pop up more often in white/POC interactions than it does in interactions between other groups. For instance, I can’t even remember the last time I saw a straight ally want cookies from gay people. It seems like most straight allies have gay friends or support the gay community out of basic human decency, and the cookie thing just isn’t as much of an issue. Obviously, I only have personal experience with one small corner of the world, so maybe cookie-begging is more universal than I think it is. Either way, there’s no Nice White Lady equivalent for other ‘isms (if there is, it’s not as widely propagated), and I think that’s just evidence of the culturally entrenched desire white people have to feel powerful over POCs. It’s really fucking depressing.

I -have- noticed that, well, yeah, online at least, there isn't as much -obvious-
friction within at least the -progressive-to-feminist- 'sphere wrt
straight/gay as there is white/PoC, no. not at the moment anyway.

otoh...I'm sitting here thinking: how much of that is actual "better
decency" or better comfort zone, whatever, and how much of that is
just the sheer overwhelming heteronormativity of the whole fucking
joint in the first place, and how -used- to it a lot of us are?
'cause you know, a lot of the time, it's easy enough to tune out; it's
not like we haven't had tons of practice. I have, okay.

or...I dunno...but, yeah, anyone remember the aftermath of the '04
election? All the yapping and snarling and selfish selfish SELFISH
gay people for demanding -marriage- in such a crucial year, we RUINED
it for EVERYBODY? I do. among a number of people who damn well
should've known better (thinking of certain virtual comms, for instance, Democratic
Underground, other such places i haunted then).

and boy, i can remember at least one "friend" who clearly wanted a
cookie for deigning to come stay at my apartment while she checked out
the Dwama school even -after- I came out to her, as uncomfortable as
she was, because, you know, she ellipsed, I might put a -move- on
her.

or, y'know, how -hard- it was for blahblee because of hir religious
background and garsh can't help one's instinctive recoiling, i mean i
LIKE you as a PERSON and all but...

mm. I dunno.

Thoughts? Comments?

Oh, right: THIS is why.

(in answer to the rhetorical question posted here, sort of)

Meanwhile, not very far away:

exhibit #2

I love Twisty, I really do. Nobody can rip apart the patriarchy like Twisty when she decides to give it a bigger rectal reaming then Goatse’s best efforts after a five-gallon enema. So I offer a humble apology for not letting her get away with upholding that which she claims to despise. Unless I am mistaken, she likes transgendered folk for the same reason that most feminists seem to like them — they prove gender is fluid. Unfortunately, feminists stop right at the edge of their brain, believing that there is no more to think through. Those kind of mental stop signs do not apply to me, though, because I’m evil. And so we arrive thusly at our next introductory paragraph.

When transgendered folks get through the final stage of transitioning and reach “the end”, all that gender fluidity goes right out the window and solidifies into the crusty crud on the bottom of my boots. They have merely succeeded in upholding the gender binary — the very same binary which has held women down for the last 10,000 years...

Yes, friends, it actually gets dumber and more offensive from there. And that's -without- the comments, which quel surprise has Lucky "tell the truth and shame the devil, human partheogenesis is a FACT and men will soon be extinct, no I do not have springs coming out my head, why do you ask?" Uncle making a cameo or six; and Satsuma, she of the clear-eyed lesbian gaze, solemnly informing us that

I believe they still have male voyeuristic minds, and they seem to fixate (or get their fix) on bringing up sex topics in these groups. The creeped out young lesbians then have to deal with the mental rapists coming right into their space, and this is of course allowed in LGBT places (read lesbian feminism not allowed, or lesbian only as some how excluding the poor transitioned MTFs).

The truth is, I rarely see MTFs being actually able to be like real woman I know. They are something else — a human being that is something beyond the life experiences of women.

All it ends up doing is giving that male porno mind access to women’s spaces.

You see? It IS all connected. Men are men and women are women; men have filthy exploitive minds and women do not; anyone who says otherwise OR is trying to cross from one to the other is either brainwashed or trying to fool you or both. Class Woman must remain pure. QED.

...Why even bother going through all this AGAIN, you ask? Other than sheer morbid fascination at the spectacle of it all, because in -some- ways, when you get to -this- level of WTF, it's like making fun of Time Cube Guy. And yet...

Well, for one thing, this whole "she likes transgendered folk" thing did sort of leap out at me, because it's not entirely unlike, well, sentiments I've been hearing all week over what you -might- think are entirely unrelated spectacles, i.e. the Racism? What Racism? ...oh, shit, right, okay, THAT racism, finally, uh, well, erm, maybe? ongoing saga, and/or Ew Icky Scary Mean Sex Worker Cooties No Um I Mean It's Just Totally Unfair, That's All, among others.

To wit:--oh well, look here, here's a perfect example, actually, right from that same thread wherein the brilliance wrt trans folk shines, in the comments:

I personally love it. I feel this is what “all feminists secretly think but are afraid to say our loud”.

...and there it is, kids. Of -course- you feel this; and you feel this because, well, it must be true; and it must be true because you feel this.

Oh, you can't possibly MEAN what you're saying. You're not really interested in -this-, are you? You're just putting it on. You're acting out of -guilt.- You're not one of THEM. You're one of US. You're just trying to be trendy, aren't you? Cool. More Radical Than Thou. Looking for "cookies" from, uhhhh, whoever's giving them out this week. Anything and everything but YOU MIGHT ACTUALLY MEAN WHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY SAYING. And, further, you can't possibly LIKE -those people-, not -really.- They aren't actually -people-...no, sorry! I mean THEY are in fact -really people-, which is a -really- radical idea and I still can't quite get my head entirely 'round it but I'm -really- trying; it helps if I maintain that THEY are just like me (only not quite as Advanced).

As opposed to, garsh, I don't know, I like -some- of "these people" as PEOPLE, and therefore, by listening to them and getting to know them, I give a fuck when they say "ouch, this hurts," even if it doesn't seem to directly affect me (at first). Because

a) actually, as it turns out, most of the time if I look a step or a half-step ahead, why yes in fact I AM quite possibly next for the chop, say hello Pastor Niemuller,

b) besides, HELLO, how on earth do you expect people to be interested in YOUR righteous cause if you never return the fucking favor? Because you're Universal and they're a sideline and they should just wait patiently for you to get your rightful piece of the pie and THEN they might get a crumb? Because you think you're the only game in town? Wrong on both counts, and it's high time you got a clue.

c) those are my FRIENDS and LOVED ones you're talking about, you fucking zits. And/or at minimum, people I respect and like and want to hear what they have to say for -themselves-. PEOPLE.

Is it really that hard to understand? Really? Really.

But BESIDES that.

Just, for those tuning in from AmandaEtcGate, you should know, if you didn't already, that in fact there have been other reasons for feminist (or at minimum, sub-denominations thereof) and/or the feminist blogosphere expatriate-hood, and other women, leaving in frustration and anger, or at least feeling profoundly alienated from what should be and/or used to be for some, y'know, The Feminist Movement; all this shit would be the reason(s). Loosely, transphobia and the so-called "sex wars," the latter including, but not limited to, the ubiquitous "pornstitution" business (i.e. you're either fer it or agin it, according to some people anyway), Kink Is Bad, femme-bashing, heteronormativity up the wazoo, and just good ol' fashioned sex panic and/or "stone the sluts." Mostly, though, well, personally? Once more, with feeling: I Blame The Assholes.

That may not be all that helpful here, though, of itself.

Because actually, there -is- another connection here, and it is this: that IN fact, an awful lot of early Anglo-American feminism IS all tangled up with the Victorian (and yeah, Christian by default, a particular branch of Protestantism to be precise) idea of woman as moralizing agent, for better or for worse, depending on your perspective. The Temperance and then Prohibition movements, for instance. And yes, early on, Abolition.

Trouble is, though, even then, and echoing right on through today, there are -reasons- why "feminism" is considered a movement for "nice white ladies." And yeah, while obviously it's more complicated than this, there are, in fact, direct parallels between "oh of course we'd have -included- you if you'd only -behaved-, you rude, scary, vulgar ingrates! We know what's best for you and everyone!" genteel racism and "hold still while we SAVE you, dammit, you rude, scary, vulgar ingrates! We know what's best for you and everyone!" in other contexts.

The common denominator in all this, and something raggedly approaching a point, thank you, Patient Readers:

There IS, in fact, power in being the Nice White Lady. Has been for quite a while. Not as -much- as in being the Good White Guy, all other things being equal, no. But, power nonetheless. The missionary, the one who's pitted against the jungle, all full of bestial sexuality and savage aggression, which are of course dark and/or male; and, incidentally, might do okay for herself along the way.

And with power, of course, comes responsibility.

Starting with: you have to -admit- you have any power here; and way too many Nice White Lady Feminists, of both radical and liberal vintages, do not.

And/or, I suppose: okay, we -may- have -some- power, but it doesn't really -count-, the buck doesn't stop with us; and garsh, we certainly don't LIKE the feeling of power or anything: we're the good guys. Um, gals. Really, we're only doing this for your own good. No, really! Trust us!

All of which effectively boils down to, basically, we're not responsible.

I've talked about some of this before.

And...at the end of all this: still circling the airport, isn't it.

But getting closer, maybe.

Ech.

It's...all this is, I want to say, also, maybe the feminist iteration of a larger let's say struggle going on. You could call it Jihad vs. McWorld, I suppose. Less confusingly and more apropos: fundamentalism versus hyper-individualism in an advanced corporate context. In the feminist context, roughly, that would be:

On your more erm -radical- side, you gotcher regressive/reactionary cultfems (that's "cultural feminist"), with the increasingly insular and, dare I say, tinfoilesque purview, the romanticization of a time when Things Were Better For Wimmin And So Shall It Be Again, whether that Golden Age is some unspecified pre-hyrstorical Goddess-oriented Matriarchy, about fifteen minutes during the early 1970's, or both. And, by a complete coincidence no doubt, all too often sounds like the Garden of Eden stood on its head, with many of the original tropes that go along with it firmly intact.

Still, it -sounds- nice, with the whole back to nature, let's-purify-ourselves-and-then-the-world, deep sisterly bonds, gazing at each other with the Deep Clear Gaze Of Political Lesbian Goodness; even a, well? religious overtone to the whole thing, with or without the Goddessy bits. Until, well, you're excommunicated, and/or realize that you were never part of the Elect to begin with, for narrow is the way and strait is the gate to Wimmins' Country.

On your more -mainstream- side, you've got, well, umm, hate to say it, but what's already been dubbed as "Marcotteism," although frankly Hillaryism or even Thatcherism would work much better. This is the woman warrior, not so much the missionary; she's not really there to clutch her poor underprivileged (step)sisters to her bounteous nurturing (and certainly All Natural) bosom; she's there to kick ass and take names. She'll come home from the hunt carrying the golden fleece; and, once it's been thoroughly processed and sold for a nice profit, then everyone else who's been waiting around patiently can have a share, and it'll all work out splendidly, now hush. And, by a complete coincidence, "meet the New Boss, same as the Old Boss" is playing on the radio; it's a kickass cover by this grrreat band with a female lead singer, and she's making a mint, and why can't you be happy for her, dammit? She's being subversive! She's gonna rock the system! In the meantime, you can live vicariously through her, living her dream! What else matters?

AND, by a COMPLETE and total coincidence, it just so happens that, well, the overwhelming majority of voices on both sides of this--not all, but I think the word dominant is fair--are, um, ermmm, uh...well? White. There, pant, I said it. And--say-hey! so am I, by cracky!

So, all things considered, I can't imagine why so many WoC, (not even to mention queer women who don't really -fit-, women with disabilities, women who don't feel feminism addressed class inequalities sufficiently, women who just plain think the whole thing sucks, and say! what ABOUT the men? and so on and so on and...) are fleeing from both the word and the movement(s) like something that really, really should be fled from as fast as possible.

Which kind of smarts.

Because, I know I said feminism was just a word, and that's not even really the point anyway? I still mostly mean it;

on the other hand, well, this is just the most recently read in a long string of posts that's making me think: dude, if it's becoming THAT poisonous to THAT many people I'd -so- rather be on the side of than so many of the people waving it around like a gorram flag, that it's become a badge of automatic distrust...

*

eh, fuck it, just call me Myrtle.

The Great Work Continues, or some goddam thing.

and, uh...

*

I'm goin' to bed. Maybe it'll make more sense in the morning.

ETA: and just to sort of wrap things up in one noxious little bow, some kind of award for this one:

stormcloud said...

They hate me because I have a habit of pointing out their lies. Like "I am a woman of tint". I would say, well, yeah, if alabaster-white is classed as a 'tint'. FFS. Those highly-bronzed pictures that RenEv used to pretend were her? Complete fantasy.

There is a lot of projection going on. I could not expose anything about RenEv that hadn't been put on the internet by her very own, supposedly manicured, fingers.

"Yes, and."

This is just sort of a general rumination on what some people call "constructive discourse/action."

In improv theatre, or certain acting exercises in regular theatre, we used to have this trope called “Yes, and.”

Yes and…” is about accepting the premise that someone has made an offer. You can use that as a starting point….then either:

* Build on it — adding your ideas, perspective, etc.
* Add a twist or new angle…
* Deepen it…and engage…..with a question, hypothesis, emotion, etc.
* Or if you must ‘reject it’ - start by first acknowledging the ‘offer’ and the inherent good parts (come on….there’s something you can find!)

How it works in an improv context, for example: someone says,

“I went to the store yesterday,”

and you say, “Yes, and you bought a can of peas.”

and they say, “Yes, and there was a peculiar mark on the outside of the can,”

and you say, “Yes, and i noticed it was the same as the one I found on the inside of my wrist this morning…”

and from there you build a story.

Or, whatever, not a wonderful example; point is, it’s different to going,

“I went to the store yesterday.”

“No you didn’t, you went to the circus.”

…because that just sort of makes it grind to a halt. And you might have had the best of intentions: oh, shit, the store, that’s boring, let’s go somewhere more exciting! but in fact, it’s better to just go with whatever it is and -add.- And if it sucks at the end of it, as it often does: hey, you start something else.

and a wee bit of analysis, of a sort.

Just coming off the comments of one of the uberlong threads on omg you got your racism in my feminism! how on earth did that happen?! (part XXVIII), at feministe:

(Chris Clarke responding to a person/torduange)

... It’s a good point. No one’s success is purely their own. Standing on the shoulders of giants, and cetera.

Yeah, that's kind of the bottom line, here, isn't it?

And the thing is–you know, people keep saying: it’s -not- all unconnected, the stuff about “appropriation” (which for the last gorram time NO is not the same thing as “she copied off someone else’s paper word for word” or even about y’know “copyright”), the images, and yeah, the theme in the book itself and Amanda’s whole um narrative such as it is. This is what's meant by appropriation: the refusal to understand that

No one’s success is purely their own.

...and further, that some people whose shoulders are stood upon are consistently rendered the designated stood-upon, and it's all part of the game; this is what is known as "institutionalized" (not -personal-, as in "I can't stand Those People") racism, among other "isms," is all about.

and back to the case at hand, just to be clear: I’ve no idea how the process of choosing these pics came about; if Seal says it’s all on them, okay, so be it (and I still think those two need to have their asses fired for sheer incompetence at this point, that AND the “hi! let’s totally alienate everyone by swanning onto someone’s blog, snotting at them, then starting a “no really, please don’t boycott us” thread at our own place, then nuke that when it gets too hot, okay! We Value Your Opinion! -plonk-). And definitely, without the pics I wouldn’t have probably had much objection to the content itself, as I saw it–seemed relatively innocuous, certainly no overt racism along the lines of the pics (which just seemed such a -stupid- move all around–anyway).

But…as I think little light noted (can't remember which thread, sorry)…there is something, yeah, about the let’s say myth? of the noble, brave, -conquering- hero, okay? There’s a reason the “Tarzan” and “King Kong” shit appeals enduringly: it’s NOT because they’re -universal- tropes, it’s because they speak to deeply entrenched myths in this culture. We’re supposed to identify with the sun god, the lone warrior braving savage nature and demonic/animalistic sub-humans, and coming back with the prize.

And the whole point is, for most of us, in fact, while we’re -supposed- to ID with the hero, in reality most of us -can’t- LIVE like him, because garsh someone has to be the backdrop/savages/supporting cast and well you LOOK like the backdrop/savages/supporting cast…or, just, well, you don’t -fit-, anyway; but, most of all, -the hero does it by himself.- Maybe with a few sidekicks. But…the hero is a Hero. Not “part of a community.”

And…the -repeated- theme that keeps coming up over and over and fucking OVER again in -all- these flameouts in the feminist sphere, is this: that -substituting a Heroine for the Hero isn’t fucking enough if nothing else changes.-

But…for some people, see, it seems like it IS enough, if they think -they- can be the Heroine.

But that doesn’t mean everyone else has to keep playing the parts they were assigned, and for damn sure anyone asking them to do it isn’t “progressive” or “feminist” in any real sense.

"Passing:" some "privilege."

Over at this Alas a Blog thread, Sylvia has an excellent comment that I'm gonna repost in full, just because it's so very excellent and full context helps:

“Passing privilege” — I can’t believe anyone is going to argue that the alleged ability to “pass” makes a group’s oppression somehow “not as bad.” Even if individuals can pass, they can only do so by hiding and disguising who they are. Is homophobia a “lesser” oppression because gays and lesbians (at least the white ones) can “pass?” — if they STFU, anyway. Are we really going to start comparing oppressions? Is that what anyone in anti-oppression work should be doing?

Penka, you’re absolutely right. I mean, to bring it back to writing as an example — look at the Brontë sisters. If I raised an argument that they were successful because they did a great job passing as male writers, and therefore we should not talk about the fact they could not initially publish works as female writers, everyone here would be looking at me as if I had two heads and one was shoved high up my ass. Passing isn’t a privilege; it’s a survival skill. It is a choice to blend in with the oppressors to keep yourself as safe as possible from harm FROM those same people. It’s feeling knots as you hear people who care about you trash and belittle something that is a part of you you cannot change. And it is no cakewalk — it’s difficult to even couch it in terms of being a privilege.

I mean, think about these incidences of passing:

1) A woman diagnosed with a debilitating disease and experiences chronic pain tirelessly works a physically demanding job to reach managerial status as if she is able-bodied because she knows if she revealed that she had that disease and the treatments she receives, she would lose the job she loves.

2) A man attempting to join a primarily heterosexual fraternity gets an impromptu assignment to write homophobic slurs on a friend’s whiteboard. The group dives into writing; the fraternity heads are all watching. But he’s been dating this friend for a couple of weeks.

3) A woman who works three jobs to support her younger siblings while going to college part-time learns about a banquet at the end of the school year for graduating seniors. The banquet is mandatory for all graduates because they present their projects as the main event, and the cost is over $300 per person because of the event’s location. She only has $500 for groceries for the next two months.

In all these situations, people are forced to choose between “passing” and reaching a goal that is important to their immediate advancement or revealing something about themselves that could leave them vulnerable to attack or loss. How is this a privilege?

I tried to broaden these examples beyond race and gender because often the superficial examples of passing seem to scramble people’s brains as a “good thing.” Where is this hidden benefit of being able to pass?

and my response:

Yes, absolutely. In all of those instances, I suppose one could make the argument that having the "choice" at all is a "privilege" over those who can't--for instance, the young man who's so obviously gay that he never gets into the fraternity at all, and is the one who gets the slurs written on the whiteboard--but what a fucking choice. It doesn't change the basic problem, or who's at fault for perpetuating it.

also, for those who can and do make the choice to "pass," internalization, the "closet," if you will (which can exist on a number of axes, not just sexuality) is its own special kind of hell.

in fact, speaking of, an old joke (not that I'm laughing here, but by way of illustration, I actually think it's apt) suddenly comes to mind:

Person dies and goes to hell, and the devil tells hir that sie has a choice of several rooms wherein sie can go and suffer for all eternity.

The first room has people being boiled in oil.

The second room has people lying on beds of knives.

The third room has people standing chest-to-chin-deep in steaming shit, but they're actually talking to each other and holding cups of coffee, and don't seem to be in physical agony. The new infernal tenant tells the devil, "I'll take this one, then."

Choice made, the person goes to join the throng. Shortly thereafter, a demon comes in with a pitchfork and goes,

"Right everyone, coffee break's over, back on your heads."

That there would be "passing," basically.

ETA:

Oh yes, passing privilege. The ability to lie about things that matter in order to make assholes happy.

--dw3t-hthr (see comments)

Okay, as long as we're all in "examination" mode here, or whatever this is.

First of all, bfp has some final thoughts as she shuffles off this blogly coil.

Just to answer this bit:

(I want to pause here to note three things: 1. Do you realize how fucked up it is that for some reason it is “wrong” for a woman of color to want the same advantages that white women get for doing the same work? 2. Do you realize how much it sucks big fat hairy dog cock that I have written about media justice for two fucking years and there is STILL a whole group of assholes who claim to have been regular readers and can somehow manage to say with a straight face that I want to “own” ideas and/or steal ideas from others? and 3. Do you realize how much it sucks big fat hairy dog ASSHOLE that even when I do my best to state my anger WITH THE FULL RECOGNITION that what I am saying may hurt somebody and thus ACTIVELY work to PROTECT that person while still expressing my anger–I am STILL berated for being angry, mean, judgemental, too harsh–and furthermore–I should EXPECT the attacks that I get? Do you recognize the problems with telling a woman of color that she can not even show anger at *anonymous*?)

...whoever "you" is, my own answer is "hell fucking yes, rage on." Because you know what, there's a lot of that about, point of fact. As Vanessa notes in a different and yet perhaps not totally unrelated context (in comments):

Vanessa said...

Don't you get it Ren? We're not allowed to be angry.

WOC, transpeople, PWD, sex workers, immigrants, Muslims, gay people, women, whomever is not priveliged in the subject at hand.

We're not allowed to get angry. It breaks the rules.

You know: anger is SCARY and IRRATIONAL and RUDE.

Or, well, no, specifically: -your- anger is scary and irrational and rude. -Mine- is simply a logical, even understated response to the overwhelming injustice that has been committed against Me. (Which may indeed be a collective Me--I'm Every Woman, The State, It Is Me, I Am The Cosmos, Goo Goo Ca Choob). Why can't you selfish people understand this?

No, okay, so, but meanwhile, bfp's final post has prompted a flurry of responses, many mostly expressing unhappiness, again, that she's departing and wishing her well. Some others are starting to engage what means this "feminism" thingie, riffing off of (among other bits of bfp's post):

And so I withdraw myself from this “movement”.

And I reject and rebel at the label “feminist.”

I reject and rebel at the label “feminist” because I reject and rebel against silence and erasure.

Well, it's an interesting question of itself, I suppose, if not--to me-- the most burning one here (we'll get there). Some thoughtful recent posts interrogating the label/identity business as well as its deeper ramifications: naamenblog, AJ Luxton, Octogalore, The Anxious Black Woman, Fire Fly, deanna zandt, Galling Galla, The Angry Black Woman, Sin Vergüenza, Dw3t-Hthr, Sadassa, Sudy (and also here), Lina, (and also here), Aaminah, Jessica Hoffman, and Rebecca Walker.

--oh, and look, here's something refreshingly to the point, -a- key point here anyway:

Dear white feminists, quit goddamn fucking up.

Well, yes.

But apart from that...

Well, per the label/identity thing for a sec: my take by me, for whatever it's worth:

as far as I’m concerned, it’s the work by any other name. I call myself a “feminist” same as I always did, because for me, it’s basically just a convenient word, probably not the only one, no, just the one I'm used to, for “concerned with that part of human rights which pertains to womens’ rights.” It’s also inextricable from, well, a number of things, but for me, particularly all the other movements for greater freedom in sexuality, the body politic in general, and gender roles. And that's pretty much it.

And, on the "still concerned with womens' rights, that's pretty much the point" tip, you know, I do understand why, for instance, Astraea takes issue with this column by Elizabeth "I Know I Wasn't Supposed To Lick The Entire Knot Of Toads In One Go, But I Can't Help Myself, And It's Just Part Of My Tragically Waifish Charm, Plus I Can Probably Get An Entire Fucking Epic Saga In Twenty-Three Volumes Out Of The Incident, Can You Pay Me In Advance?" Wurtzel. Wurtzel, see, thinks feminism is a failure because, for instance,

First, the first woman to run for vice president on a major party ticket alienates everybody who the first woman with a real chance to be president hasn't alienated already. Then we find out that there are prostitutes who are paid $5,500 an hour, and the consolation prize for earning a Harvard law degree is that you get to stand by your husband's side when he resigns from public office in disgrace. Even worse, because Silda Wall Spitzer is accomplished and beautiful, the whole scene serves as a grim reminder that even amazing women become sexually disposable after a certain age.

Is this the world that feminism hath wrought?

...My Sunday night summer viewing, which once consisted of the slumber-party gab of "Sex and the City," is now the lad-happy cool of "Entourage." I really do love that show, but most of the women -- girls -- in it cannot even kindly be called sex objects: They are simply sockets. And this portrayal of prop whore-things is OK by everybody; it seems to go largely unnoticed and uncommented on because life is like this now.

And, I suppose, the casual feminist reader might see someone--anyone--well, any woman--reject the term "feminism" and wince and start to argue because they automatically associate such a rejection with, well, shit like this. Or, worse, you know, "ew, hairy legged manhaters," or Phyllis Schlafly, even.

But the thing of it is, is, vapid tripe like that is so far away from critique like this that it might as well be on another planet:

The thing is—I thought that those who were a part of a “feminist community” were held to the same sort of standards. That when a woman of color says that she will not be published thus the white women who are published need to spend more time than they feel comfortable talking about the needs of women of color—THEY WOULD DO IT. That they would say “It’s the least I can do” or “What else can I do” rather than JUST DO IT, JUST DO IT. Because we are all in a community together and we all are working to create something that challenges and dismantles gendered violence and inequality, right? And if it takes writing a book that does not assume all women are staying away from feminism because they are white and privileged and just don’t get it—well, ending gendered violence and inequality is worth it, right? Working together towards a common goal, right?

It just took reading Hugo’s response for me to realize that I was fucked up wrong. That feminism’s goals and my goals are completly and totally opposite of each other. That in feminism’s eyes “dismantling” gendered violence= “shifting” gendered violence.

...I support and honor the several women of color who’ve posted that the answer is not to leave, but to fight harder, with lawyers if necessary. I support and honor those women because they are fighting, they refuse to back down, they are organizing, they are sharing their strategies of not backing down with other black women and women of color alike.

But for me—a person who believes in media justice–the point was never to say I own this fucking material—but to say we must build a movement because the only way I and my community will ever have peace is if there is a movement. Those women of color who say they will not back down because they own the material—they are building a movement, just in a way that is different than I what I am doing. It may be different, but it’s not directly conflicting with what I am doing. And if they choose to call themselves feminists–well, I have a mouth and eyes that I can use to find out what they mean.

“Feminists,” on the other hand, are not movement building, they are actively destroying women and blaming those women for the destruction. They are saying the point of feminism is “equality with men” without even thinking to acknowledge that “equality with women” is just as admirable of a goal and maybe even possibly the first step to achieving the goal of equality with men. They are saying, Just do it, just do it, JUST FUCKING DO IT.

Feminism as Nike ad. *nods*

Two things about this. One, me, I'm not inclined to argue with the woman right now even if I did want to quibble about how she phrases this or that, her ideas about this or that, my own selfish need to make her come back, please come back, we can fix this. Partly because, well, first of all, like I said, I'm not so very invested in the damn word.

And then I thought: well, but of course it's never just about the word, is it? Even besides the "dear white feminists, quit goddamn fucking up" aspect.

I look at this passionate screed by bfp, goddamit apparently the last we're going to have from her, and I think: in a way, this is what they mean by "losing your religion," isn't it? Maybe part of the reason I don't feel the need to do all that soul-searching about "feminism"--and make no mistake, I've seen any number of women, white, too, go through a similar process of disillusionment these last couple of years, is because, well, I was always kind of an agnostic to begin with. I was never on fire for the Movement. I never thought this was the vehicle that would save me, would save us all. I just thought: seems like a good idea to me, "feminism." Yay women. Viva women. Viva "not being oppressed on the basis of sex or gender." The rest is commentary.

But, that's just me, and I am coming from, as they say, a rather markedly different standpoint from that of bfp or any number of women who've gotten so thoroughly soul-sick that they simply can't do anything but make a clean break. And, those Christian feminists who've struggled with both identities as well as the playing of one against the other can tell me if I'm way off on this analogy, but this whole thing makes me think of, for example, a woman who's so burned by the abuse and patronizing and exploitation she’s gone through at the hands of some uber-para-church, which was all about hustling and tithing and smarmy reactionary preachers and politicking and very little to do with the spirit of the message. and, unlike other people in a similar position who made their peace by finding another, smaller church to join, or simply going their own way while continuing to call themselves “Christian,” become so allergic to this identity, this community, this doctrine more or less, that they just can’t be associated with it at all anymore.

And the thing is, if you’re too busy wringing your hands about losing a member because it makes the numbers go down and makes the -institution-, much less the current leaders, look bad? Because it makes you lose -power-, without stopping to think about what you actually wanted to -do- with that power? Then the problem is, indeed, with you; and it’s no fucking wonder you’ve lost these people, and it’s your loss as well as the institution’s.

As for my own personal belief system:

If I believe what I believe about boundaries, about the "personal being the political" not meaning MY personal is EVERYONE'S political, I have to respect these womens' personal journey toward whatever political vehicle they ultimately see fit to carry them toward their goal. And, rather than worry about what we're all calling ourselves, ask, if and when it's appropriate,

"Going my way?"

or really, vice-versa. And if we are, well, hey, maybe we can travel together for a while. Maybe not. But at least, as bfp seems to be saying here, at minimum, let's not get IN each other's way.

And, and this is the key point: if one finds oneself repeatedly being crossed by certain people? Then perhaps they were never going in one's direction to begin with.

Because, see, I look at this post by bfp, and what leaps out at me is not the business about "feminism" but the emphasis on community. Specifically, 1) she's got her own, she doesn't NEED a little corner office in the big bland white edifice, no matter how generous it thinks it's being, 2) the overwhelming evidence that as much as certain people might give lip service to the idea, in fact, they were never about community at all. They were about self-aggrandizement, and that's pretty much it. And the only reason they care about, for instance, "feminism," (or gay rights--hi, Andrew Sullivan! hi! or what you will) is because they see whatever-it-is as getting in the way of their rightful ascendancy to the top. Gimme my piece of the pie, OUR piece, OUR pie, excuse me, and make it a big one. What else matters?

And the stickier part of this is--we live in a culture, a world that rewards this attitude. And, as I've probably made pretty clear by now, I don't actually blame the Patriarchy as the root cause of this state of affairs (although, yes, I use that lens sometimes). Primarily, I blame the Assholes.

More seriously? Probably worth a separate post or twelve, this. Yeah, it's an individualistic approach on its surface, this emphasis on o let's call it character; and the whole problem here is precisely individualism run amok. The fact that this whole thing has become about someone's relentless squawking about zomg her CAREER and not, say, as bfp was originally trying to say (via here):

I don’t give a shit about being published, I don’t give a shit about the interviews or the jobs or the fame–I DO give a shit that a Chicano is reading a white feminist talking about immigration and politely distancing himself from a gendered analysis of immigration because the author exhibits no historical or contextual awareness of women of color led feminist interventions into immigration.

I give a shit about that because not only does this erase the work that women of color are doing within racist white dominant structures, but it erases the work we are doing within our own communities. It makes it ok for men of color to dismiss the need for feminist interventions into our communities–AND it makes it ok for white women to continue beating up women of color with the idea that showing any concern for what happens to men in our communities is ridiculous, because, see, they don’t approve of feminism!

Poof! Just like that, feminists of color are made invisible even as we are the ones laying our bodies down for the foundation of the communication between men of color and white women.

I had thought at one time that feminism was about justice for women. I had thought it was about centering the needs of women, and creating action in the name of, by and for women. I had thought that feminism has its problems but it’s worth fighting for, worth sacrificing and sweating and crying and breaking down for.

It was all worth it to me, because it meant that I existed and my daughter existed and the women I love existed and we had the right to demand the violence committed against us ends.

I see now that feminism is nothing more than erasure. A conversation between white women and men. A commitment to the safety and well being of people who are never women of color.

I have more to say, too, about the bit wherein "appropriation" doesn't just mean "put some blonde hair on the same ideas that have been around for ages and make a fortune off it while the people who did most of the work go unrecognized and even scorned," but also means "subtly altering the content so that it reframes the white/straight/mainstream appropriator as central." Not now, though.

Just to wrap up, then: here's the bottom line as far as I'm concerned. It's not whether Eve Earnest calls herself "feminist" or "womanist" or "humanist" or "R2D2." (although precisely why someone decides she prefers "womanist" or "mujerista" is bloody relevant, yes).

It's about the fact that our community, such as it is, this weird phenomenon that is "online feminism," just lost one of its finest voices, and it's our loss.


“The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”

And, rather than honor the best--meaning, not just brilliant at putting words together but with SOUL, with integrity-- when they make an all-too-rare appearance, -do- have conviction, -do- have passionate intensity...

we sit back and watch while they beat their head against a brick wall until they burn out. Silenced, yes.

And meanwhile, superficial, status-seeking, solipsistic mediocrities drone on and on, prating about hitcounters and book deals and the precise degree of Patriarchy left in their navel, thoroughly alienating anyone left who's able to tell the difference and accomplishing precisely nothing besides securing their own fifteen minutes in the limelight, because that's all they were ever really interested in to begin with.

And the whole thing just really fucking blows.

And that is my feminist analysis from the blue, blue sky.

and by the way? I'm sorry, but I'm already a "fucking mean bully" according to the lady in question, perhaps understandably; anyway, it's petty and sad and no doubt wrong to call further attention to this bit of it, but I can't resist: seriously, some kind of "your brain's not even connected to your typing fingers, is it?" award for this:

Amanda Marcotte Writes:
April 17th, 2008 at 5:50 pm

I 100% agree that feminists should not try to destroy each others’
careers. Which is why this entire dust-up was fucked up—and renaming
me “X” (I’m sure that Malcolm X would have appreciated that bit of
history erasing)—doesn’t erase the attempts to pin the word
“plagiarist” to my career in hopes that it could end it.

For the love of Moses and little plastic baubles, Mary. Step. Away. From. The Shovel.

or, no, actually, The Angry Black Woman puts it best, bless her:

angry black woman Writes:
April 17th, 2008 at 8:09 pm

Dear Amanda,

Really now. Really. You need to just stop. Everything you say on this
topic is just flat out wrong. Whining that everyone is out to get you
because you’re so popular? We left the third grade a while ago,
attempt to catch up. Sad that people are calling you a plagiarist?
Setting aside the person most affected by this whole thing actually
did NOT, the fact is that your behavior through all this has been less
than stellar and to try and whine that it’s so horrible to be called
something terrible that you’re not, well, all I can say is, hand me
the world’s tiniest violin so I can play it while you talk.

What you DID do is bad enough. Even if we lay aside that nasty P word,
there’s still appropriation, utter asshattery, and self-righteousness.
Oh, and I forgot, white women’s syndrome. Put the back of your hand to
your forehead, woman! And don’t forget to ask for smelling salts!

In the end, we’re just plain tired of your bull. You did wrong, you
refuse to admit you did wrong, you tried to explain away your wrong
and, when that wouldn’t work, you attacked other people’s wrong and
still didn’t address your own. Guess what? No one else’s wrong, minor
though it may be, cancels out YOUR wrong! get over it, get over
yourself, and hush.

I like these posts

"Allies Talking" and "Nothing Says Popularity Like..." at Angry Black Woman.

from the latter:

Being linked to from a White Supremacist website. Happy Monday!

ETA: Wow, if you all could see my moderation queue right now.

This is the kind of thing that makes people leave the Internet. It really is. I went through a good chunk of my early life never encountering any blatant racism. I’m sure there was some, but my young, naiveté, and probably my parents shielded me from most of it. No one ever called me a Nigger, or said I couldn’t do something because I was black, or anything like that.

I got to wait until I was all grown up for things like that to happen.

But even still, I don’t think I ever encountered the kind of raw, ignorant, stupid, dangerous, and hurtful hate due specifically to my heritage and skin color until I started this blog. I have been called a Nigger 47 times today. TODAY. And it’s not fucking over yet.

This is the kind of thing that turns people militant.

This is the kind of thing that makes people scared for their well being.

This is the kind of thing that silences voices, and I cannot lay any blame on anyone who chooses silence in the face of this.

This is the kind of thing that makes me a FUCKING ANGRY BLACK WOMAN.

I am not only angry because you have the gall to come here calling me names and telling racist lies yet saying I am the hateful, racist one. I am angry because you don’t want anything but to see me hurt and silenced and shamed, and I will not be. I am angry because it is people like your dumb asses that give white people a bad name. I am angry because it’s due to people like you that we can’t move forward as a culture and a country on race relations. Because for every rational, well-educated and well-informed person who wishes not only to understand, but to make things right, there are 20 of you throwbacks trying to drag the conversation down and everyone into the 1930’s.

Fuck you. And fuck that.

...and, but then:

Daughter of ETA:...

Second, thank you to everyone coming by posting messages of support and solidarity. I will have to revise my ratio of allies to assholes, because so far there are at least as many messages from you as from them, and that’s only because they had a head start. You are all awesome and I cannot state strongly enough how much I appreciate your words.

p.s. the thread is still open, you may want to say a little something.

and then, from the former:

I call a Carnival. The Carnival of Allies. Where self-identified allies write to other people like themselves about why this or that oppression and prejudice is wrong. Why they are allies. Why the usual excuses are not good enough. I figure allies probably know full well all the many and various arguments people throw up to make prejudice and oppression okay. Things that someone on the other side of the fence may not hear. Address those things and more besides.

And when I say allies, I’m talking about any and every type. PoC can be (and should be) allies to other PoC, or to LGBTQ people if they are straight, or any number of other combinations. If you feel like you’re an ally and have something to say about that, you should submit to this carnival.

Now for the nitty — this is how it’ll work. I’m not sure if this carnival will happen more than once, so I’ll keep it local for now. Submit links (with short descriptions) via this contact form: [see thread]

by May 5th. I’ll run the Carnival itself on the 2nd or 3rd week of May. Instead of doing it all in one post, I will make a week out of it. Every day for 5 days there will be links and discussions about allies, ally work, etc.

Spread the word!

***

also

"We Write Letters," at Shakesville

...we're going to take this opportunity to look forward and make a few resolutions.

We will write about, discuss, advocate, and recognize as integral to the central tenets of feminism/womanism issues our sisters of color bring to our attention.

We will link to our sisters of color—in the blogroll, in the blogarounds, and in posts—and will welcome them as commenters, guest posters, and contributors at Shakesville.

We will not appropriate their work, but amplify their work and integrate their ideas with attribution.

We will endeavor always to be aware of our privilege, and, in moments of failure, will remain open to criticisms and suggestions, resolve to think twice before responding defensively, and apologize when we fuck up.

We resolve to listen to you.

In her post, Holly said something that we feel is extremely important, something that we will all bear in mind with regard to our responsibility and making the best use of the platform Shakes gives us:

What I care about is that when white feminists undertake to write about the issues of women of color—such as immigration, which is clearly a massively race-infused issue—they should do so in solidarity with women of color. In ways that give political voice to women of color, to immigrants, to those whose voice is generally not heard as loudly.

When any of us have a soapbox, an opportunity to get up and talk, we must continue to stand by those who aren't called on. If you want to consider yourself an anti-racist or a white ally to people of color—if you want anyone else to consider you those things—then it behooves you to swim against the current. If everyone did, perhaps the tides would turn, even if it was just in our corner of the blogosphere. And sometimes all you have to do is simply call out the hard work of another woman who went before you, who has paved the path that you're walking down with research and ideas and words and strong feelings. All you have to do is cover your bases, pay your respects, and make sure you can't be read as trying to take sole credit.

Irrespective of our sex or race, we hear the message. We resolve to use our teaspoons to turn that tide.

Signed:

list of names follows, can include yours