iT is going to take everything I have for me not to curse.
And I am going to fail. cause really I'm calling people out and being done with this madness cause it's AMAZING
* DEEP BREATH*
Now I know it is hard for some people to understand but I never have presented my self as a spokeswoman for Women of Color
or Young Women
or Poor Women
or Young Child Prodigy's of Color.
I am an ass arrogant " i believe it and that's good enough for me" Leo when it comes to my opinions. ( there goes the me not cussing)
So it amuses me well actually now it doesn't amuse me it fucking frightens me when I go through my statcounter to find myself being referenced as such .
So really I am annoyed that SIX FUCKING MONTHS LATER I HAVE TO COME BACK TO THIS SHIT.
FFF
Aka. the book that made me cry till I vomited
aka. The book that earned me the feeling of the world's largest zoo fucking animal
NO REALLY
First what amuses me is that magically and I do mean magically considering the fact that there WERE MANY OTEHR CRITIQUES OF THE BOOK BY MEN AND WOMEN.
Somehow the only ones folks remember are the WOC ones, which are jsut not fair cause she WROTE ABOUT IT! SO STOP BEING MEAN!
Mind you and I invite you I REALLY DO
to go back and examine the WOC critiques of teh book , not the cover but the fucking book.
the most pinged about ones were
MINE AND SYLVIAS.
WOMEN OF COLOR ?
THAT'S TWO.
ALMOST EVERY OTHER WOMAN OF COLOR ( and mind you that includes cornsilk petit, Ren EV, Octagalore, belledame, ilyka, etc who magically BECAME WOMEN OF COLOR) CRITIQUED LARGER DYNAMICS OF FEMINISM.
LET ME SAY THAT ONE MO GAIN!
BFP,DONNA,FABI, FOR CHRIST SAKE EVEN NUBIAN WHO DOESN'T BLOG ANYMORE
WERE NOT CRITIQUING THE BOOK
THAT WAS ME !
AND SYLVIA.
AND MOST OF THE CUSSING WAS ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
so you can imagine my fucking shock when it gets proliferated around the internet that WOMEN OF COLOR have issues with it.
Now why wouldn't i be happy at being elected a voice of WOC ?
doesn't everyone want that power.
NO
If a group of YWOC want to say what i speak resonates with them fine , but I will not accept someone else trying to put me there.
Why?
CAUSE THEN YOU GET THE EXTRA SPECIAL SHIT LIKE THIS!
Because suddenly the whiteness critiques aren't specific or grounded but sarcastically quotation ed. And by being located out into some imagined ether rather than the words of specific individuals ( this time me but in other contexts other women) they can be manipulated and responded to anonymously without ACTUAL INTERACTION by the presented views instead only presented by the suddenly impartial proxy.
Suddenly their color and his whiteness are assets to challenge these " responses" mind you HE CHOSE ME as typical " criticism"
Notice the passage he chose in his gathering in May WAS A DEFINITION OF MYSELF. YES YOU READ THAT RIGHT. A WHITE MALE said that my self definition was UNWARRANTED CRITICISM.
Now BFP is awesome
and of course points out some of the MANY MANY MANY problems with this post.
AS EMBLEMATIC OF WHAT IS WRONG WITH WOMEN STUDIES.
NOT AS A PROBLEM OF THE BOOK
BUT AS EMBLEMATIC OF THE PROBLEM OF WOMEN'S STUDIES.
YET AND STILL WE MUST RECENTER
onto what he knows about BCMBN.
So a discussion happens on the state of feminism NOW
and the white middle class women get a book published THIS YEAR
and he reads BFP's testimony and crows about reading a book that's THREE YEARS OLDER THAN ME with some of it's contents being 10-15 years OLDER THAN ME?!
OR that a similar discussion about these dynamics centered around the book Gynecology HAPPENED IN 19 fucking 70.
* is frantically and furiously looking for that machete*
But really we'll get to it sometime really.
see here:
I think there’s plenty of time, Jeff, for us to bring up the past shortcomings of white feminists in reaching out to young women of color. But Valenti’s book is radically relevant to their lives right now, irrespective of class and ethnicity. Read in a vacuum, it would be problematic in a women’s studies course — read in conjunction with a variety of other texts, it’s superb.
I mean there is plenty of time I mean these criticisms have only been around since IDA B WELLS FOR FUCKS sake .
WE HAVE ALL THE GOD DAMN TIME IN THE WORLD FOR ANOTHER generation of WOC to go on to meet our foremothers while the white folk get around to it.
so you see I CRITIQUED A FUCKING BOOK
and because folks decided I was suddenly the WOMAN OF COLOR it became okay to dismiss discount and ERASE a whole host of other women by rendering me "unreasonable" and then making me THE VOICE.
and i know it's HARD for some of our more power hungry friends to understand but no that's not how it works.
this is why if you read back you'll hear " well the talks came to nothing"
I am gonna say FLAT OUT anyone who says I wouldn't talk to anybody
IS A FUCKING LIAR.
I wouldn't talk to anybody in secret.
I wouldn't and will not talk to anyone around this book or these issues in secret because of the need of the public record.
Because EVEN WITH A PUBLIC RECORD
people are inventing history right the fuck out the damn sky .
It's not like people won't tell me WHAT I AM .
It's not like brilliant intelligent women won't get reduced to THAT MOTHERFUCKING TONE ARGUMENT AGAIN.
or recentered around the concerns of white peoples theoretical musings
or an imaginary CAULDRON OF WOC PICKING ON A NATIONALLY PUBLISHED AUTHOR
THAT WAS THREE YOUNG WOMEN HAVING THE FUCKING NERVE TO HAVE THEIR OWN GODDAMN OPINIONS.
used to
DISMISS VARIOUS INTELLIGENT WOMEN OF COLOR VOICES.
Now let's wait for someone to tell me about my fucking language right now and how that's not conducive for building bridges.
29 comments:
YET AND STILL WE MUST RECENTER
onto what he knows about BCMBN.
Reading that made me stabby. SO STABBY. Because here you had a post by Brownfemipower that just laid it all out so perfectly, PLUS earned major bravery points for her sharing that she didn't always get the white-centeredness herself--I'm not being very coherent here but that's because words fail me. It was an excellent post. If I could write like that maybe there'd be some point to my blogging again.
And all he could offer was "I once took a class by Cherrie Moraga." !!!
And the thing is, the thing is, had BFP written a post about how, say, young Christian women felt alienated by parts of FFF, Hugo would have engaged those points. Eagerly. Probably over the course of MULTIPLE POSTS. But instead it's, "Ew, race! Race throws such a wrench into feminist issues! It's so haaaaarrrd! Let's make it about how I am totally not racist, I mean, not to be defensive, but just so you know. Just to clarify. I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, BFP (though I AM trying very hard to dismiss and ignore your beautifully-made points), but I'm just a bit concerned that you do not understand how totally not racist I am, so I wanted to make that perfectly clear to you by saying it over and over AND OVER."
It's like what happened at Donna's with Cara and Zuzu. Second verse same as the first, and I hate this song.
Youd think he'd address that but at least w two of my posts featured me being hella annoyed by the sarcasm of used when in reference to young christian girls and my problems with the construction of sexual choices in ways that really did only cover CERTAIN women and pretty much fucked anybody o on EITHER end of this " spectrum" who could not go fuck it with glee.
YEah nothing
which is fine because BFP isn't talking about that niether were you or
etc etc
HUGS for Ilyka! Always glad to see you still wandering the intertubez.
I don't think alot of white people understand that we WOC/MOC do struggle with internalized racism...ALL of us, at one time or another, and even once we are aware of it, even then, to some degree every day/week/etc. We are bombarded with messages every day that tell us white is better, so is it any wonder we sometimes question ourselves or simply believe it?
That's why throwing out, "My black friend agrees with me" or "My WOC students loved the book" is a crap argument. There are dynamics there that might account for it that white people would be blind to, because they don't have to think about it. Like you, I was glad to see BFP walk us through some of those dynamics including her own experiences.
The one "well-deserved" critique was by one of his students who wanted to save her virginity for marriage, and thought that FFF didn't respect that choice. I think that for the most part Hugo is over invested in his decision to assign FFF and that he is minimizing and squelching any criticism of the book, which makes his post suspect. We hear what his WOC students think only filtered through him.
I bet he would have had an eye opening experience if he printed out BA, BFP, and Petit's critiques for his students and discussed them in class. I doubt he would have posted his students reactions to the book then. He is following the exact same pattern as Jill did at Feministe. Ignoring and downplaying legitimate disagreement in order to bolster his own opinion.
BA, I've been thinking about this all day long especially what you said about how you aren't the spokesperson, but "they" treat you like one, in this case, it's Hugo who is doing it. I never really thought about it much before, but it's not that they think you are the spokesperson, or you do, but they are projecting that onto you. They clearly disagree with that, which is why they are so desperate to find other WOC who disagree with your opinions. "See! All WOC don't agree with BlackAmazon!" Um, well, gee that comes as no surprise to you, or me, or any other WOC I know of. Sheesh. We aren't a monolith.
I don't think anyone ever said that no WOC would ever like FFF. In fact, the ones I would have thought might like it are those privileged by class and proximity to other whites and therefore identify more closely with whites. Which really makes it unsurprising that college bound WOC might like it. By the way, I just described me, if it wasn't for my parents divorce and moving with mom to the reservation for 5/6 years I might have identified with the type of writing and ideas in FFF.
but see, donna, this is where I get pissed off at the "but other woc *liked* the book" argument. because what is the next logical conclusion but to consider what *type* of woc would "like" this book? and as a literture person, i can testify that some of my favorite books are white centered and written by white people--I don't think race defines what kind of books you will like. I think experiences will. And although you say that your experiences define your understanding of yourself as a woman of color, what Hugo does is take away those experiences from the woc in his class--because their experiences make up their understanding of life just as yours and mine do--and i think it's wrong for him to take away those experiences/deny those experiences by saying "woc like book", and I refuse to continue the denial of their experiences by validating the way he has chosen to tell us about these women.
For whatever reason, they liked the book. To me, they are not the "problem"--just like amazon disliking the book is not the problem. How a white man who teaches women's studies classes choses to validate his argument about a particular way he chooses to teach his class is what is at stake to me. I mean, to carry it a bit further--how many of the multiple professors who have written about why they will teach FFF have similarly written a post about why they will include a woman of color theorist in their class? Surely, another white professor deciding to incorporate another white feminist into a course syllabus is not post worthy?
Yeah, I think Hugo's getting into the "See? NOT ALL WOMEN OF COLOR HATE FFF," because he can't tell the difference between "These women of color criticized FFF and their words were ignored" and "These women of color say that all women of color hate FFF."
Which is a sign of privilege, when someone (a woman, a person of color, etc) says something and her words are taken as representative of all, the privilege of not taking them on as individuals with their own words and their own opinions, but as words for all.
This of course also means that he can take a dissenting voice from another person in the same group as evidence that you're wrong.
Blah.
Hi BA and everyone, I just posted the comment below to Hugo's site -- it's still in moderation right now.
This part of Donna's comment really got me thinking about it: I bet he would have had an eye opening experience if he printed out BA, BFP, and Petit's critiques for his students and discussed them in class. I doubt he would have posted his students reactions to the book then. He is following the exact same pattern as Jill did at Feministe. Ignoring and downplaying legitimate disagreement in order to bolster his own opinion.
If I am wrong in any way(s) in how I am thinking about/doing this, I would really welcome correction feedback on it. I can post another comment over there re: anything I was wrong about.
Here's the comment:
-----------------------------------
Hugo,
I used to teach at a state college not that different from a community college.
IMO it’s way, WAY past time for you to stop playing these games you’re playing. This is not about you. Your perspective on what is going on is limited and if you are going to be a true teacher you will act like one — let go of whatever games you are playing and step the hell up for real.
You have a responsibility to not distort things like this. Whether you are capable of stepping up to the responsibility I don’t know. I would guess no but please please prove my guess wrong.
IMO You need to directly connect your students to the discussions that have gone on about this on the web.
IMO you need to do this by actively, directly and respectfully collaborating with the actual people who have offered these critiques. You know who they are, yes?
So. Ask them: What specifically would they like your students to read and in what format? Ask them and then assign it. What questions would they like your students to discuss based on this situation? Ask them and have those discussions in your classroom (with respect, not to discredit them and you know what I mean). What kind of follow-up, if any, do they want to see? Ask them and do it.
Hugo, teaching and learning is deep stuff. And in this society with the power dynamics flowing all around this work and the dynamics of the institutions and their connection to upward mobility and the economic system, the one positioned as “teacher” has the capacity to do very serious violence.
Whether you choose to recognize this or not — it is true and it is on YOUR shoulders. This is a heavy responsibility.
Your teaching is not about your ego, or you being right or expert or having the attitude that you know best about how to teach students of color. This is NOT about your ego or expertness. It is NOT. Stop playing these games. You have something to learn and the responsibility to act on that learning.
Hugo, be a real teacher and open this up beyond your biases and approaches. Make this about actual learning, and not your assumptions and perceptions of what is going on.
I just looked at the semester calender for Pasadena City College where you teach. There is still time for you to do the right thing here. Not a lot of time, only two weeks left of classes, but you can do it. If you choose to do it. I don’t care how crucial and important your syllabus as-is to you, I know that syllabi can change if the teacher is willing and determines that it is necessary for real learning. It takes work. Are you willing to do that work?
It is not too late to correct for the mistakes you’re making. It is not too late to respond as a real teacher. It is totally possible for you to do this.
Step up, Hugo. Stop with the slippery words and step the hell up. You are a teacher but you need to be able to learn also — because this responsibility is on your shoulders whether you admit it or not — and from what I can see, it is way past time.
And by the way, I don’t normally bother engaging people who seem as closed as you are, but the fact that you are in the teacher role in relation to students of color is scaring the shit out of me, and so I am trying, trying to get through your wall of ego and me-me-me expert craziness in case there is ANY part of you that knows that teaching and learning is deep work and you are shirking a deep and real responsibility in how you are doing this.
And, if I can be of any practical help with the logistics of changing your syllabus and moving on this, please feel free to call on me (in public, or you have my email address from my comments — in fact if you do want to do this in public please send me an email with the link, so I know where it is and can respond quickly, I check email more regularly than blogs).
I don’t want to do this because I am not in academia anymore and it will hurt me to do — but I feel like it is my responsibility to help if I ask you to do this and if I can be of assistance with the process.
*jumps up and down pointing at BFP*
YES YES !
I swear to god and i invite peopel to check I have never EVER said peopel liking teh book was a problem.
My problem was the universalising of experinces to forward teh relevance of said book.
I do not did not nor will ever want teh flipside to be well now YOU BA are the universal experience for * insert group* which we support or deny.
My problem with that and with teh follow up and its
A LARGER PROBLEM WHICH BFP COVERED BEAUTIFULLY
is taht thsi representation often
FLAT OUR REWRITES teh experiences of certain women
THIS IS NOT NEW
this is ENDEMIC to feminism teh womens studes womens movement liberalism ETC ETC AD INFINITUM
The book works in womens studies
CUASE THATS HOW WOMENS STUDIES WORKS
AND its a problem
we are teh expendale manipulatabnle adn should be content withw hatever we get
and often have such amazing REACTIONS to even the smallest inclusion
BECAUSE OF THAT HISTORY
were statistics
or heroes
or students
or girl crushes
while OTHERS GET TO BE PEOPLE!
The book is weak. Hugo-whats-his-name should stick to raising chinchillas...
The point is feminism is suddenly being brought back decades.
Valenti appeared on Colbert Report and her main point was that women shouldn't be vaulued for their looks as she sat there with her 200+ (?) haircut.
Seriously?
C'mon...we're bored.
Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine...now there's a feminist book...and it shows that not all of us middle-class white women are doomed to hyper-egotistical, whining analysis that goes on and on and on...
So, can we agree that it wasn't woc who had a problem with the book...but all of us who see bigger issues with the world than when and where to fuck?!
while OTHERS GET TO BE PEOPLE!
But women of color get to be An Academic Aside. It's almost as good because it's alliterative! Plus who wouldn't want to be a mythical creature who only exists in theory anyway? What do you mean, "objectifying and dehumanizing?" I have never heard these terms before.
[headdesk]
I don't think alot of white people understand that we WOC/MOC do struggle with internalized racism...ALL of us, at one time or another, and even once we are aware of it, even then, to some degree every day/week/etc.
You're right. Yet there's no reason white feminists shouldn't understand it, or at the very least be able to see how that could be possible, because they already have an analogous concept: Internalized misogyny. Most of these women did not spring from the womb fully-formed feminists (although I know one who claims as much, but I'm not touching that, no no) and they have had the experience of defending male privilege to other women at some point.
If they grew at all after that, they also had the experience of recalling the times they took the side of privilege and wincing really hard at that recollection. And then they probably tried to analyze why they behaved as they did and the reason they likely came up with was internalized oppression.
So it isn't as though there's no template for understanding why a white male in a position of authority MIGHT not be ideally situated to assess the reactions of his WoC students--emphasis on "might" because for all I know everyone did really, truly love it; Hugo may be willing to speak for his students but I'm certainly not.
But as a teacher, he could at least acknowledge the possibility that he missed something. I'd go further and say as a teacher, he's obligated to deal with that possibility. Michelle's comment (sadly, I think that is getting out of moderation around the time hell freezes over) is spot on. Plus, it's good general practice in the classroom anyway. I can't count the number of times I've seen a group of students change their opinions of a work after reading a few critiques of it. Sometimes they go from loving something to hating it, sometimes the other way around, and most times it's not that drastic a reevaluation, but there IS usually some reassessment going on, which leads to a deeper understanding of the source work and OMG, learning happens. Imagine that.
These students won't get that opportunity to take a deeper look, though, because Hugo knows best. He was at Berkeley in the 70s!
I meant to say BA, SYLVIA, and Petit's critiques, although BFP's post on inclusion would have been a great addition to that material.
Yeah, BFP, I agree that what any one of us likes and dislikes has a gazillion reasons (just like white people's likes and dislikes) and shouldn't be the focus.
You just knew when he wrote that FFF follow-up in all it's defensiveness and offensiveness that he was looking for a reason to discredit and attack BA and Sylvia for stirring the shit instead of actually addressing what they said. It's easier to say they can now be ignored as WOC with opinions because some other WOC have different opinions. That is the real problem, pitting us against each other to discredit each other, instead of addressing what we are actually saying.
I also hate that he is pretending that there is no power imbalance going on. Like he is just another buddy in the reading club with these women, and his opinion doesn't matter. Anything he says in favor of the book will steer them to seeing it more favorably and you know damned well he was steering them that way the entire semester considering his effusive praise online.
I also hate that he is pretending that there is no power imbalance going on. Like he is just another buddy in the reading club with these women, and his opinion doesn't matter.
Yeah, this. I hate it so much. I see it so often, acting like all sides of an argument are equal, and there's no further context to acknowledge.
(sadly, I think that is getting out of moderation around the time hell freezes over)
No, it made it out of moderation. No response (yet). I'll post another comment here if it actually gets a response, on the site or via email. If there is no more from me on this in this thread, then he didn't ever respond.
PS Also, as long as I'm posting, I read the follow-up post to the second FFF discussion on his site (in May) and see that this individual apparently will not even directly take responsibility for his OWN white centered view and that of white feminists -- instead he had use Shirley Chisolm as his object to stand behind. Beause, well, his white-dominated lens and action is due to the "Shirley Chisolm model." That is "why" he has been pushing white-centered feminism.
Not due to to actual white supremacy as practiced in feminism for like centuries now and his own actual ongoing choice and agency as part of that, oh no. But because of the "Shirley Chisolm model" that impacted him as a child no less.
IMO this person routinely and seemingly without shame uses people of color like chess pieces on his personal board. Because in a white supremacist, that is all people of color actually "are." But really, he knows best how to teach students of color, yes he does.
Anyway, will comment again with info if I see/get any reply from him before the end of his semester -- if nothing more from me on that here = no reply.
I and the millions of people I represent by disagreeing with folks want to thank you for this post.
That is all. *all of "us" bow in unison*
Wow.
Ilyka I am always so fucking delighted to see you post/comment anywhere even as I am anti-delighted by the current provocation for it.
As my initial link-clickage led me to this site and many others I now love over this past Memorial Day weekend, I might have needed to re-check the dates on this thread to make sure I hadn't clicked on an old bookmark. Except I am crankily unsurprised by the doubling back of white feminists who still feel threatened by the FFF fuckedupery.
And it's not that I don't think men of color or white men can be on the side of good instead of craziness and self-investment around these issues. But I will say, any white dude who thinks he gets to speak *for* any women of color while simultaneously refusing to speak *to* any other women of color while also simultaneously speaking in a dismissive way *about* any of the women of color he's refusing to speak to...I wanted to say "shouldn't that come with a laugh track?" except for, well, the non-jollyness of it all.
This kind of utter foolishness is why I will not participate in the feminist "blogosphere." The man wants a fucking cookie for being old enough to have read this bridge when it first came out? I'm tired of seeing woc lives and struggles being used as massage cream by people who still insist on ignoring what woc actually say.
-Delux
BFP had a good point that the book is best taught in the context of the discussion surrounding it -- as in, the ACTUAL discussion. In itself, although IMO not without some substance, it frankly seems odd as something to teach in a college classroom, when looking at all the other possibilities. The context makes it more interesting and relevant. In ignoring that, he did his students a disservice.
BA, anyone who says you handled this controversy unreasonably isn't worthy of your time and energy in responding to them... but you're doing a great job of it.
uh. muh. guhd. do i have to read the HS post? i think i can imagine the gist of it and it already makes me want to put my head through the desk.
who magically BECAME WOMEN OF COLOR)
it's part of my magikal lesbean suprapowers. Wonder Woman had her bracelets and lasso, I has the Serious Lesbian Gaze of Doom and now the mighty morphin shapeshifter thing. awesome, no?
YOu knwo me being teh voic e of OWc
you being a magical lesbean youd thingk wed find a ay to meet ofr cake but yest we still fial why is taht?
sinist0r forces, of course. curse them!
we do need to meet for cake goddamit.
The man wants a fucking cookie for being old enough to have read this bridge when it first came out?
sadly, he--eh, Hugo. Hugo, Hugo. i dunno. the whole "speaking for teh girls" thing was aggravating to me even before he tried to talk about race. he just...doesn't seem to be able to get out of that pedagogical role. among many, many, others.
...
IMO it’s way, WAY past time for you to stop playing these games you’re playing. This is not about you. Your perspective on what is going on is limited and if you are going to be a true teacher you will act like one — let go of whatever games you are playing and step the hell up for real.
YEAH. THAT.
as a women's studies professor, who happens to know intimately about the author's WS education, I could not help but weigh in here. The problem with the book is the problem with the discipline, as you point out it is designed for a certain group of people to study themselves with woc conveniently pushed to the margin of the curriculum (one reading per racial group per class if you are lucky; one class on the suggested list specifically about all of woc offered by the only faculty of color or rotated between two of them if you are lucky). Thus we graduate a whole new generation of "feminists" who believe they are speaking for feminism when they are speaking solely about a specific race and class, and often location, that they experience and they have done the work of diversity because they mentioned the almighty phrase "race, class, and gender" or b/c they have a chapter or section in which they address, usually complaints by, women of color. The system is set up to recreate this limited view through transmission of limited, yet canonized, knowledge in which woc only enter in 1980. Valenti had the opportunity to learn considerably more about diverse feminisms and feminist historiography as she attended a university where two women of color teach these issues regularly. The fact that she was able to graduate without learning from this women is a testament to how hegemony works in WS. You should not feel as though you need to continue to participate in this conversation with the hegemon. Nor are you in anyway responsible for how this process works or the role people have attempted to relegate you to. The discourse was set up before you were born, take comfort in the fact that the role you have been assigned has been held by Ida, Sojourner, and countless others. Be proud of the fact that you have agitated the powers that be and the powers that wanna be enough that they can't let you go. That is some serious talk you did and you should own it and tell them to go to hell. When you let them make you angry and reactive, they win. When you look it from the perspective of how far under their skin you got, and celebrate that, you win.
I think it's about fear, really. This is going to sound odd, but yes, I think indeed it is. It's a problem for these folk because they often like to forget just how much of the feminist movement has been about WoC and their major, ahem MAJOR, contributions and how credit is never given for it, and they remain alienated, and how people play on the whole "Oh stop whining, WoC, look what we've DONE for you- you should be our fulltime hardcore ALLIES and LIKE what we do"- which is why he went with the whole "BA didn't like this book but my WoC students DID" rather than, oh, take on white gals who did not like it either.
It's fear that you disliked something that he found so wonderful, and might have valid reasons or complaints that he, white male professor, did not ever consider or see...I mean, how dare you mess with his creds?
I said I would say something here if there was a response from Hugo to my comment and there is, complete with his framing encoded right into the title: The “Full Frontal Feminism” controversy again, and a call for suggestions
Personally, I think his response is very ugly and said why in my comment. Or part of why, I feel more than I can articulate right now.
He has also been over at bfp's already posting a comment with his "invitation" to "help him" with "suggestions" (not about his syllabus of course, that's set already) in his pre-defined project of "teaching the controversy." Oh and from what I can see, possibly serve as unpaid online co-instructors or teachers aids or something.
he responded to your response. i responded to that, but it hasn't been let out of moderation. oyoyoyoyoyoy.
i sez to him i sez, something like, Hugo, "white supremacy" does not mean you are akin to David Duke any more than "patriarchy" means people think you are literally the leader of the Promise Keepers or the Chalcedon Foundation or whatnot. that's kind of a basic construct in anti-racist discourse. that you don't know this but are still teaching this course and asking for "help" from the people you've obviously not read, like, at all, ever, or at least not really grokked what you were reading, is kind of the problem?
the syllabus might be too late to change wrt ordering texts 9or not, i've no idea what his school's bookstore's bureaucracy is like in that regard), but i don't see why making photocopies or even adding a damn list of recommended reading is that big a damn deal.
and for that matter, hey! never too early to get started on -next- year's syllabus, right?
I think you, and bfp, are right to balk at suggestions that you be his "informants" or insiders to the woc community. As you said, you are not a spokesperson and his request is an attempt to once again craft you as such. As you also said, he is basically asking for unpaid labor which he will then edit and take credit for according to his tenure and prestige needs. This too is part of the script. I operate on a very simple communication strategy with people. The first time they do something offensive, I assume the best and try to engage them. If their behavior remains consistent, the second time, I warn them that I feel their behavior is out of line, list the reasons, and remind them of the discussion I had hoped both of us were trying to have with one another since the first incident. If I continue to feel as though the person is simply using the discussion with me to re-affirm their oppressive thinking or wallow in pseudo-victim status, I tell them that I cannot continue to communicate with someone who neither listens nor appears open to prospectives beyond their experience. If necessary, I publish a simple statement about my perspective to ensure the record is available and then I let it and that person go. It is not worth engaging in a drawn out battle with someone who sees you as akin to a gnat at a picnic, annoying but infinitely irrelevant. Nor can you communicate with someone who only speaks when they can control how communication happens and what the communication means. The energy you are spending on this person is energy you could be spending accomplish real work & ultimately the distraction from that work is what keeps supremacy in place. Take back the power and direct it somewhere useful, that is ultimately the way to triumph.
Post a Comment