i swore I wasn't gonna comment for like a week but when people act special
So while I'm not commenting on certain threads. I have noticed TWICE that people accusing me of not reading ( and by accusing me referring to me as " people and past jealousies" etc. Etc)
admit to only skimming or not reading at all what I , or PP, or Sylvia have said.
*peoples eyebrow*
I have been called elitist for not appreciating the language and a liar ( THAT'S NOT TRUE) for DIRECT QUOTES which bother me.
Even though I put forth chapter and verse my issues.
And my problems on several spaces with structure, tone, follow through, and such.
I am still accorded less respect than people who toss names around. So patriarchal whore is much more important to address than " I'm young and can't relate" " shes too pretty " is much more important to the dealing with the feminist movement than " As a WOC ... FUCK THIS I'm OUT"
GOTCHA!
Please non adres sour critiques but expect us to make sure everyone is "nice" to her.
And a chapter on intersectionality with one page and a half ( maybe two) each on isms and the examples of those isms often ( TO ME TO ME what part o f this to people not get) so unrelatable or rareified, that I have no real context is an issue.
And the examination of privilege from one piece incidentally written by a white woman. Or one Lourde quote out of context with the general thrust of just exactly how fed up she was with the myopia of white women.
And the she worked hard and didn't actively mean to hurt.
And if it is a primer and the priming is not what we like. And the decisions made to make that primer are suspect on our eyes.
We get to say so.
I find it odd that since most of this occured on blogs between a few people , none of whom are really quoted,or read.
It also is amusing to me that some people find it IMPOSSIBLE AND UNBELIEVABLE., that a primer that only hits certain things and seems weighted towards its mention of young women in certain areas and not others. ( which I have elucidated before and will not again) could be ACTIVELY OFFENSIVE to other people.
Mentions of WOC does not earn you a cookie or a dispensation. Considering the long twisted and heated road that it has been , yes we might expect more.
Yes we might want to be integrated more smoothly and the concerns we have ( and fury we have had) maybe quoted from our lips and not others.
Because they reflect the severity with which we feel them. Ie The Combahee collective instead of Unpacking the Privilege knapsack.
Or the odd occurrence of white women bringing up FREELY examples of WOE UNTO THESE COLORED WOMEN as reasons why there vision of feminism is IMPORTANT. While never seeming to be able to reach that same amount of space for WOC organizing or shit their own thoughts. SO yes quantative may not be qualitative
Or that " it is less academic for the target audience"
Now since the oldest of the evil trio is 24 we are obviously not late teenagers to early to midtwenties.. . Wait yes we are.
No had this not been a " supposed primer" suddenly it's not. Then it is then it ain't.
essica does address women of colour, and lesbians, in her book. Does she do it on every page? No. But why would she? Would you complain that a woman of colour didn’t address the issues of white women of every page of her book, or that a lesbian didn’t address the issues of straight women?
Now this person can go kick rocks. Because god forbid WOC not like the way ( not even necessarily the amount BUT THE WAY) we are included. SHE KNOWS THIS LEAVE HER ALONE.
And the tone problems. People have latched on to QD's class analysis ( which I disagree with) and in response have trotted out the she's not RICH. CLASS EVILLL BLAH BLAH !
at our critiques except I don't think her speech is a class marker. It's not the low class thing and I said pseudo Valley girl and the I'm from Queens defense ( FAR ROCKAWAY /JAMAICA IN THE BUILDING) don't go much for me either. One because as a person who is low class I'm starting to get really offended at the BUT I'm POOR TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO so I can't be elitist or Your critiquing class ELITIST !!! doublespeak.
It's tone I encounter often in real life with people who " write for youth" and it irks. Because intentional or not in print it screams ( TO ME TO ME cause people lose the thread)
" this is what i think you need to make stuff understood" I have an idea in my head of what you sound like because of the times I see you, so this will make it cool and accessible.
As a really really recent teenager and someone who has lots of contactt with the beautiful but annoying dears.
THEY SMELL IT. If they end up with anything it's in spite of the tone not because of it.
Also the liberal usage of prudes, the extraction of the most horrible people as "non feminists" unknowing or knowingly sets up binaries. WITH US OR AGAINST US that are off putting.
" make fun of em for pruddery"
"good christian girl"
People who have this views wanna punish you for sex.
No is it deliberate who knows? But is it off putting.
Ya betcha.
Is it hurtful , to a target audience aged young woman who is conflicted and looking for guidance or some facts.
Ding , does it matter to that girl that she may not have intended it. Or is there anyplace except way letter in a way I'm not sure is that clear , that she can still use these things?
NOPE.
Thus do I feel i could give it to her. Naw HELL.
Also the its a primer and I don''t think they can start on Angela Davis etc etc.
Is a prime example of the kind of condescension by " reaching out". I know what they need , they couldn't tackle the heavy stuff so this is what will bring them in!
SAYS YOU, what basis are we making this claim, furthermore what basis are we making that this is how kids should be reached to, I didn't get that.
I didn't feel comfortable with the use of WOC.
And the history section made me slightly furious.
But this is what the heart of the manner to me is.
"I just wish that a few of her critics had approached the book in a more fair way, and hadn’t gone after her the same way that we’d go after some anti-feminist right-winger."
We are supposed to be nicer to her. There isn't actually supposed to be an examination in terms of how we felt about the material. It's a feminist BE KIND! She's Trying to do the right thing!
The fact that the pain doesn't shift cause it's not intentional. The division doesn't go away and the disrespect of skimming only flows one way,when making a critique?
Finally when I say this ain't me , it is so fucking disrespectful to try and and say but we;'re all in this together. Because I feel we're not and if you want to change that , you come to ME or the person feeling ostracized not by bad analogies and loose terminologies trying very uneffectively to put pleasant faces on your just jealous or wait your turn.
But I don't read
Just wanted to make sure.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Just wanted to make sure.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
I couldn't make it all the way through that thread. One of things that makes me glad I'm an expatriate.
TO ME TO ME what part o f this to people not get
All of it.
I got too wound up and pissed off at my place earlier to say this, but you mentioning it again here reminded me: I wanted to cheer what you said about the whole good-Christian-girl thing being off-putting. Thank you. I find that kind of talk off-putting too, but I haven't known how to say so without hearing yet again about how this or that Crayzee Fundie or Pervert Priest makes all that snarking 100% justifiable, and makes me an oversensitive godbag for objecting to it.
Now since the oldest of the evil trio is 24 we are obviously not late teenagers to early to midtwenties.. . Wait yes we are.
That's another thing: At first, because (as was made revoltingly clear to me today) some of Jessica's friends don't actually read you, or Sylvia, or PP, etc., the argument was "You don't understand! This book is for young college-aged women." Now that they've been hit with the fact that the women criticizing it ARE college-aged women, suddenly the target age range is 15-19. If you were 13, they'd drop it down to 8-12. If you were 6, they'd claim it was actually a popup book for preschoolers.
I know I'm being Captain Obvious, but this has at this point been all but proven NOT to be about age. And even if it were? 28 is a whole decade away from 18.
I am still accorded less respect than people who toss names around. So patriarchal whore is much more important to address than " I'm young and can't relate" " shes too pretty " is much more important to the dealing with the feminist movement than " As a WOC ... FUCK THIS I'm OUT"
GOTCHA!
Please non adres sour critiques but expect us to make sure everyone is "nice" to her.
Did Iiiiii ever tell you you're my sheeeeeroooooooo
You're everything Iiii wish Iiii could beeeeeeeee
(I could probably use your singing skills for this song...)
It also is amusing to me that some people find it IMPOSSIBLE AND UNBELIEVABLE., that a primer that only hits certain things and seems weighted towards its mention of young women in certain areas and not others. ( which I have elucidated before and will not again) could be ACTIVELY OFFENSIVE to other people.
Thank you! And then, when we bring this up, it's suddenly not a primer, not for young women, not meant to teach, not meant to do anything that's exactly what it's fucking meant to do.
As a really really recent teenager and someone who has lots of contactt with the beautiful but annoying dears.
THEY SMELL IT. If they end up with anything it's in spite of the tone not because of it.
Like broccoli and spoiled cabbage inspired B.O. And people keep tossing education into the mix, but if anything, people who don't have a college degree often can smell it even better. Who's playing elitist now?
BA, loud and clear re condescension being a major turn off. I read the book -- yeah, trying way too hard to be colloquial, and sadly unconvincing.
The context of the which thread you're referring to here is going over my head. Can you point me in the right direction so I can comment more coherently?
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/05/16/full-frontal-feminism/#comment-105046
OCtagalore have my blessing. Cause people want to see some REAL Queens bred bad behavior and language . jsut let me loose there
FUCKING ALL UP MY CALM
I'd diosagree iwth you on one thing SYlvia
education often makes it harder to spot. BEcause there being normed to avoid there feelings and socialised towards this kind of faux hipness.
Why you think real talk is so prevalent in hip hop now and in underground places.
PEopel want it don't expect it.SO THEY ASK FOR IT
Now that they've been hit with the fact that the women criticizing it ARE college-aged women, suddenly the target age range is 15-19. If you were 13, they'd drop it down to 8-12. If you were 6
I was looking to gifft a dear teach friend with something for her class, the language a lone pulled that out. SO I clal hevay bullshit on 15-19 if they were realy aiming for mass consumption.
Wha gets my fucking goat is that for the most part no ones gone to that site at all to talk about it we went fin e no discussion
WE ARE OVER HERE AWAY FROM YOU
Now months later she wants to talk although teh praise she got right on adressing.
Shes been formulating a response she doesn't want a movement. SHe doesn't wnat a community and it showed.
LATE she started chronicling young womens efforts on the ground.... After how many years after how many criticisms. IT's not lets change with teh requests because they non engage so it looks like WHOOO we had a brillant IDEA!!!!!!! SO CLEVER ARE WE
* NOT AMUSED BY THE SHENANIGANS*
I haven't been able to sit through the thread on Feministe at all, which is fairly unusual for me; usually even if I disagree with the original post, I can read through the comments.
I was amazed at the categorization of the book for high school and college aged women that left out the "white" and "middle to upper class" when those were two of the specific issues people had with the book (initially with the cover (race) and then with the contents (race and class), and hit the wall there.
I'm tempted to go through and do a discussion breakdown, but it seems like such a WASTE of TIME. So many people have done it so much better than I; the only advantage I'd have is that I'm living while white and vaguely middle class. 8/ Plus I really don't want to read the book, and I'm "not the audience anyway" as so many people have said in dismissal of critiques.
To do that whole "ivory tower" step outside thing (appologies if it's offensive; I know people are really emotionally wound up with good cause), one of the main problems with the discussion derailing is how generalized it gets. The meatiest critiques I saw weren't linked until the comments and weren't addressed there. The toss off, one item critiques were linked, and then were lumped into a whole as if they all agreed with each other on each different point when there's no indication of that being the case. I'm skimming the thread now, and it seems like someone brought that up, but who knows if it'll be addressed.
There's so much going on under the surface that isn't being addressed but which is informing the entire discussion. It's like watching people scramble over the tip of an iceburg, occassionally drilling and saying "see!" while ignoring several other iceburgs bearing down on them.
BA, People should be ashamed for getting toxic like that, almost trying to gaslight you guys.
I don't know you at all, but you have my vote. This over here is the internet I want to be a part of.
Finally got through most of the thread, thanks for the link. As you said, devoting a ton of space to the more easily counterable critiques and brushing off yours seemed pretty lazy.
I'm about a third of the way thru FFF. It's pretty slight stuff. Then again, at 38 I'm not under any definition the target audience.
The idea of lumping issues of WoC into an "academic" section seems odd. And I think this is an area where it would've been possible to do a more thorough treatment. Instead of just acknowledging intersectionality, and instructing white feminists to be aware of our privilege, why not actually speak to some WoC directly about their experiences so as to comment more substantively on the experience of WoC.
I can't rent a car and I thought it was slight.
And WOc as academics once agin. Thats whhat pissed me off
And WOC being given a voice instead of constant mention of their bodies as ghastly traffic accidents
OCta why would you suggest a silly thing like that?
but lets talk about publishing books!
I'd diosagree iwth you on one thing SYlvia
education often makes it harder to spot. BEcause there being normed to avoid there feelings and socialised towards this kind of faux hipness.
Hehe, I think we're agreeing; you just said what I was trying to say in a different way. Either way, we're on the same page because that's what I was thinking.
I'm often frustrated with the "but...privilege!" comments I get when I talk about women seeking leverage. But that, I think, is a different context. I really do think the presence of Clinton, Rice, Pelosi, Whitman, Winfrey, whatever their politics, is good for all women. And I think one should be able to recommend that women who can take their places in positions of power without being scolded because some poor women cannot. If women cannot ever have power-over, we'll never have power-to, including power to do anything meaningful about global poverty etc. And the concept of leverage applies to women at all class levels in ways I've discussed ad nauseum elsewhere.
But here I think the exclusionary aspect actually is a problem. Because the section on intersectionality, the only area where issues re WoC are even given a nod, doesn't really get into anything meaningful to any specific WoC. It's more of a guide to white women on how to appear adequately humble. My sisters are WoC, and they would likely not relate to the one paragraph about white privileges. They can find bandaids or dolls for their kids in the right color. While they see people of their race represented in some contexts, they can't see love interests in the popular media who look like them (except maybe Lucy Liu). I don't think they would find the instructions to white women about "awareness" particularly helpful, but might be interested in a discussion, from information the author gleaned in discussions with a number of WoC, about specifically how their issues as WoC would interact with the various young feminist issues about sex, pop culture, abortion, beauty, relationships, etc.
I went over to Feministe to read the comments a couple minutes ago and Mnem is asking what she is supposed to do about her privilege. I'm not jumping in over there, I feel it's a waste of time even typing a reply. But what I would say is, "Why can you recognize it when you are on the receiving end? You know when the male privilege card is being thrown and how that makes you feel, and yet, white feminists do the exact same things to us and have the exact same excuses and defenses."
You know why it would be a waste of time for me to say that over there? Because they don't care, just like the men willing to throw the male privilege card don't care what women think, or their lives, or their feelings.
The ones who care are at our blogs engaging us. They make us feel welcome at their blogs and our opinions matter to them. Not necessarily agreeing, taking what we propose seriously. They are unafraid to ask or debate, even knowing they might be ignored or might get smacked down. Because they understand the crap we take every day from people like them, so they don't worry about their feelings getting a little bruised sometimes. It's someone who understands what I mean when I say that POC in America can't be reverse racists against whites. I think the formula that racism = bigotry+power is incomplete. I think you must also add in ignorance. We can't be reverse racists because our animosity is based on experience, not ignorance. The things that make them hate, fear, or think we are inferior they learn without ever knowing any of us or very few, they learn in mostly white settings. We are actively attacked, shunned, treated like we are dangerous, or stupid, or degenerate, talked to like we are children by white people too many times to trust them. We have reason to fear, or hate, or think they might be the stupid ones. White racism is where the exception becomes the rule. Our distrust and resentment is due to the opposite, the way we are commonly treated.
Donna -- that's interesting. Yes, I think many of the big feminist blogs, including rad fem ones, glory in the supposed inclusion of women of all colors, classes, etc. and feel that this supposed umbrella gets them out of delving into the important nuances.
BA: that's funny about renting a car. Wow, seems like years ago when I totaled a rental car at 24 and had to wait a number of scary months to figure out whether I should have been allowed to rent it and whether it'd be covered.
Yet, you're precocious -- not the average early-20-something. I think there's probably a small segment of sorority types running scared from the patriarchy who'd benefit from the book, and that's the defense everyone's making. But the narrowness of the people who could benefit makes it a C- effort where it could've been a B+ if she'd written it like a book and not a blog, and had done some firsthand research and dialogue rather than a tossed-off nod to "academics."
It sucks that the feministe thread is glossing over the substantive critiques and making excuses for not addressing them. I hope you don't give up on some feminists' curiousity and interest in what you have to say.
Wha gets my fucking goat is that for the most part no ones gone to that site at all to talk about it we went fin e no discussion
WE ARE OVER HERE AWAY FROM YOU
Yes, yes, YES.
The dramatics, the tone of Jessica's-being-persecuted, it's not only unfair, it's FALSE.
No one beat down Jessica's online door to hate on her, and in fact the so-called hate by and large did not exist. You said, Sylvia said, PP said, Nubian said, everyone said what she thought on her own site, and now it's like, how dare you even do that much. How dare you write on your own blog what you really think. That is not what blogs are for! Blogs are for writing glowing reviews of books you don't like for the greater good of the movement.
THAT attitude is silencing. Pointing out that the young women in the target demographic for this book are young white women is not silencing. That's an observation. It's not hate, it's obviousness.
narrowness of the people who could benefit makes it a C- effort where it could've been a B+ if she'd written it like a book and not a blog, and had done some firsthand research and dialogue rather than a tossed-off nod to "academics."
I could have saved myself PARAGRAPHS of the last email I sent out had I just read this first, Octogalore. That's perfect.
and then, too, consider:
and hadn’t gone after her the same way that we’d go after some anti-feminist right-winger.
-We're not the bad guys. We KNOW who the bad guys are, they are over THERE, stop stop you're making it all confusing and uncomfortable-...
hey, here's a wacky notion: maybe that terrific sport of -going after-? If it makes you that uncomfortable to be on the other end of it? Maybe time to rethink that one a little bit.
Because, this is rancid yellow trickle-down from the top echelons of the Democratic Party, the movers, the shakers: -ohh, right, we kept losing because we weren't toughnmean enough-.
No.
You keep -losing-, because you forget your -principles.- And because you forget, in the immortal words of Molly Ivins (R.I.P.) to dance with the people what brung you.
How quickly they forget.
So instead, we whine about how the Gatekeepers are Keeping Us Out, and it's "whaddya mean WE, white man/woman/continue on down as needed?" but, o no, WE -can't- be gateKEEPERS, -we- are gate CRASHERS. FIGHT THE POWER! (which isn't us)
Says the Democratic electorate to the blogosphere; says Kos and firedoglake to the rest of the blogosphere;, says the "B list" to everyone but Kos and firedoglake and the rest of that little group; sez the Big Feminist Blogs to the WOC; say the radical feminists to the transfolk, say say say say say say say say; and where does it fucking end?
Okay, that's me that you're quoting, and I get your point and apologize. It wasn't coming across, to me at least, in the comments over on Feministe etc., that the problem wasn't with the 'quantity' of the inclusiveness, but the quality. Donna finally made that clear to me, and the criticisms make more sense now.
Post a Comment