We all know how that quote ends right.
Rarely make history.
It was part of my early introduction to feminism.
Considering my last post about tone and my general history
you would think I love this quote right?
Nope I hates it. I hates it I do.
And I hate it because of my concern with the " tone" argument.
It came up in one of my teaching moments when I was talking about the power of speaking up for yourself and how an illiterate man's petition helped cement the history of a now displaced community of color.
One of the students who I had fallen a little bit in love with mentioned it .
And to be honest with you I was shocked at my visceral rejection of that quote coming from her.
She was a young girl of color.
In college application process for Ivy League schools.
And my only thought was
NOOOO HONEY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOO!
I really hate that quote,because while it's supposed to be some celebration the power of women who buck convention it is and I am actually quoting myself here ( eep).
"An oft used excused for a woman to believe acting like a sanctimonious unexamined twit is the equivalent of revolutionary action"
And I hate it as a woman of color who spends her time engaging and wrestling with feminism ( wait till you see my year end wrap up).
I also hate it as a young woman with a learning disability, a poor woman and a woman who survived academia.
Because for all those reasons, my ability to be recognized or even SURVIVE has hinged on the acceptableness of my behavior.
To believe that your behavior will change history as we accept it is to have a grounded belief that history will treat you fairly .
If you do the right thing or if you fly in the status quo enough.
Heck it's a damn luxury to believe being non well behaved won't get you KILLED or DEPORTED or ERASED from history.
And that quote to me sums up the utter ignorance and repeated disregard that this concept of " RADICAL RIOT ROAR " feminism , grounds little in the lives of women.
ESPECIALLY those for whom misbehavior is not some cognizant or even attainable option.
Today sex positive,sex worker and WOC blogs are blogging for a woman.
She was trying to survive. For many women of color,trans women,LGBT women, this " good behavior" that is so derided is simply self preservation.
A black mother in a city that is dismantling welfare.
She is being told that a gang rape, an utter violation of her humanity.
Is equatable to " theft of goods"
The person who told her this was a woman.
Who " didn't care what people thought"
Tomorrow as people line up , hopefully to vote this woman so hard out of office her head spins round.
I am struck by the girl who told me that quote.
And why I was so violent against it being used.
I make no bones that I want a better feminism . I also make no bones that feminism as is needs to be prefixed for I even talk to it.
Because when I think of that girl and what we were talking about , i felt like I had to be real with her.
Whenever I hear that quote I think i get a chill up my spine.
It's the "head pat" chill.
You know the one , where someone knows better than you do. And won't even deign to discuss it with you.
The one where you get shunted to the side for some bigger ideal.
And in this case it really does play for me in a strange way
Because the judge is a woman , she a high ranking court official. She's a " woman in power"
and what did her power get us
but her looking another human being in the face and telling her she was " stolen goods"
and justifying it by saying " so me people won't like it but so?"
How is that different from
" rarely making history"
" don't worry dear your a feminist"
" Feminsim is..."
That we are as women supposed to invest and believe in women and a movement that are more invested in unfettered power than actually engaging the problems we have with it.
It leaves me in a strange place.
Because in the end our action is focused on deposing and fighting the woman who " mattered'
Her power her "bad behavior" now becomes paramount.
What about the victim?
Why don't we talk about her motherhood or her blackness and her city taking away her options
Why is she suddenly amorphous woman?
To be discussed not as a specific survivor but emblematic of suddenly larger ills .
Why are the WOC and sex workers the ones who remember this may not be a time to be snide and stick it to somebody.
Why do all of these suddenly blend to me into one large drone of " we'll use you any way we want"
Why is she a one liner in a list or a step to something else.
IS that why I Can't tell a young brown girl to love these messages without fear? Is that why I have to prefix my feminism .
or is it that when I am not well behaved I keep remembering people barely think I'm a woman
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Well Behaved Women ...................
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
91 comments:
god i'm so glad you're back
HOLY SHIT
This post is in your top five. Well, maybe my top five or your posts. Whatever, this iron is H-O-T and you just struck the damn thing.
Damn grrlllll..
DAMMMNNNNN
amazing as always BA.
i suppose i lose the rest of my feminist creds (boo hoo) when i admit that i actually -couldn't- remember exactly how the rest of that quote meant till i looked it up. figured it out though, given the context. duh. i think i had it confused with the one about people only call me a feminist when I express sentiments differing me from a prostitute or a doormat.
that one i hate so hard i swear to god
its not even coherent
Great post. I'm trying to mentally fit it in with the history of that quote, but the reasoning is still incoherent. Namely, the quote was about the (white) women in early America and how their eulogies are some of the only historical proof that they really existed, which is why it's difficult to study them. Cotton Mather referred to these women as "the hidden ones."
The thing I notice when we get the figurative rap on the knuckles with the ruler over our tone, is that we usually aren't being abrasive or harsh. I have a new post up about this now, and in the examples, projektleiteren is telling us to watch our tone with the white feminists, but nowhere are we harsh or mean. We are direct, to the point, matter of fact, until projektleiteren tells us we're too "stroppy". The same goes for Nadia at Racialicious, and BfP with Yobachi at her blog. The tone only gets harsh and aggressive when someone tells us we are getting uppity for simply asking a question or having an opinion.
The perception is that we are uppity, maybe misbehaving, but we aren't. That is why I don't think that it is at all contrary for you to say that we shouldn't have to be careful about our tone while at the same time disliking, "Well behaved women rarely make history". It's only white people who see our disagreement or dissent as misbehavior, we are in fact, well behaved.
Donna, agreed, and also - what I have noticed is that, well, I don't see people getting "harsh" actually even just in response to the old trope of "you should tone it down if you don't want to alienate people." What I see is the substance of what I got from BA's post here - that *when* tones are unacceptable to those who do the bad-tone-pointing-out-ing, er whatever, that it always, from what I have seen, is accompanied with, well, threat.
It pains me to even talk about the Yobachi reaction at BFP because, jesus, I still am having a hard time accepting that he really said the things he said. Or knowing what to do with my feelings about it even if he didn't mean the things he said. I have liked him and his posts/comments elsewhere on other subjects, and he wasn't even talking to me or literally about me so I want to be clear that I'm not jumping on (nor do I actually detect) an anti-Yobachi bandwagon.
Ack, it is hard for me to be anything but long-winded when I am this uncomfortable.
So. If admonishments about tone were simply insulting and patronizing and infuriating, they would still be horseshit and I would still cheer every woman of color who responded in supposedly "harsh" ways.
What I have seen, however, is that what gets labeled harshness is actually always (from what I have seen!) a response to the formula of "Your tone is off-putting to me AND if you don't alter it, you may find yourself more vulnerable without me."
In other words - "I recognize that you are under attack, and I would like you to be more emphatically aware of it too so that you are grateful for whatever you get from me instead of demanding anything on your own terms. Because let's remember, you're under attack."
I know for me, it was that aspect of a couple of recent threads that have been alluded to here that got my heart fucking racing.
There is a horribleness in smugly reiterating to someone the painful truth of what they already know, a rubbing-your-nose-in-it quality, that some folks in question seem to think is justifiable as retaliation for not liking how they were spoken to.
Once you go from "you're hurting my feelings/alienating me" to "guess who's going to say 'I told you so' when the monsters come for you!", you have crossed a serious line. And when people don't understand that, tell me - what the fuck else should people do besides say it more loud and more clear?
This doesn't take away from the power or rightness of your post, because you are absolutely correct that that is how MOST people use/interpret the quote.
But it was actually not meant that way. It was written by a historian, Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, in the context of recovering the history of those "well behaved women" - the ones who don't come up in court records or newspapers or sermons, because they've behaved as they were "supposed to." Her point was that they traditionally didn't leave as obvious records, but that their history was worth recovering too. It's been reinterpreted as a call to misbehave, but that wasn't her point. And though I shouldn't put words in her mouth, I would guess that she would understand that one's individual behavior or misbehavior can't always (or even often) change history.
Welcome Anonymous and Betsy.
I know now the context of that quote and it goes back to something that again sticks in my craw.
That because these women aren't being recorded there is something "wrong " with their lives. I knwo she did not intend that but it's this supposition that cause no one applauds or villifies you you don't count. or that these women chos ethese lives
and while they chose these lives other lives who had no choice inadition to not being recorded were actively erased
Interesting post. Thanks for writing and sharing.
Not sure I completely agree, but I can see your point. For example, I don't consider (and don't think anyone else considers) the judge's decision a feminist action. So the example doesn't fit well for the post's point that "well behaved women rarely make history" isn't a true feminist quote.
I think you have some really good points here. Especially about history treating women fairly. I agree that it doesn't.
But I always saw this quote as reinforcing that it's ok to be a rebel, that it's ok to be different, and to defy societies standards.
As someone who has since she was a child done that rather naturally on some levels, I've found that quote empowering to be who I am.
I guess I'm sort of confused as to whether you're trying to say that this belittles women who feel they can't defy convention? Or that you think defying convention is a bad thing? Or perhaps it's just unrealistic?
I guess I can't get behind HATING this quote, because I think empowering women who do and can defy social convention is a good thing. I find such women inspiring.
Welcome Whatshername
On the contrary elaine I believe in a lot of ways the quote is truly feminist. I also believe it encapsulates this trend towards " truisms" and amorphisms. This kind of but " you don't understand I'm making history/noise /change" and any attempt to honestly critique that is " stifling"
which only really amplies to some women
while the rest of them get " tone " lectures.
Rather than being concerned about the fact that women are being treated unfairly is a prediposition to caring that " history is made"
---------------
Whats hername,
I'm saying that in teh context i experienced it this beautiful young girl quoting me , the fact that my first thought was Honey this don't apply to you
says something very scary about teh construction of a mythos.
Personally the fact that the rebellion ifs attached to some drive at " history" or a form of fame is problem one.
Also that society isn't just the people who have time to be concerned with your behavior. As womanhood is extended to more than those who encompass quotes about middle class histroy.
.
Also i will admit it's personal
As a woman who really is regularly treated as unbehaved if not down right DANGEROUS
for breathing while upright
the fact that suddenly its great and tshirt worthy
as long as i m not brown
dont admit to liking sex
dont admiti to liking sex with women
arent first nation
am solely in one of two genders
dont have sex for a living
etc etc etc an y of teh thousands of things tahts eem tyo stop this from applying
it goes form
ehh dont apply to me
to
no seriously
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATE
Elaine, the fact that the judge is a woman is a feminist act, isn't it? For white feminism it generally is all about gaining power, while buying into the rest of the status quo; capitalism, imperialism, the belief that normativity makes one superior, and those of outside of the norm are inferior, etc.
whatsername,
"or is it that when I am not well behaved I keep remembering people barely think I'm a woman"
This means that even when we are well behaved we are in danger. Throughout history WOC only had to be going about their business and could be swept up by racism anyway, could be imprisoned, beaten, raped, tortured, or murdered for simply being the nearest available target for someone's hate. And it's either ok, or rationalized as not being too bad, or ignored. It's happening in Afghanistan and Iraq at this moment, how do you think history will record these women, whether they are well behaved or misbehaving?
My understanding now is that the quote is that a (white) woman going about her normal business will attract no notice and go unremarked in history. Live a relatively comfortable life and die an unremarkable death. That can be a luxury in itself for WOC.
If just being is dangerous, then you better be damned careful about choosing to misbehave.
Donna,
"My understanding now is that the quote is that a (white) woman going about her normal business will attract no notice and go unremarked in history. Live a relatively comfortable life and die an unremarkable death."
Yes, exactly. This is exactly how I feel about it. And being a white woman who has grown up with almost no people of color around (despite that my grandmother is Mexican) I don't begin to suppose I can truly understand the context this little quote will fall into for WOC. But I have always had an evener deeper respect for WOC who have chosen to defy social convention as well, because I do realize that it is much more dangerous for them.
The quote can definitely be interpreted in a "only applies to some people" way.
That said, I know WOC, WWD, LBT women who flout convention. Yup, it's even more impressive in these cases, and worth celebrating even harder. It's possible, I think, to acknowledge that there's privilege involved in the ease achieving something, as well as to celebrate when it happens.
I think when people like your student look at the quote, they understand "well behaved" as generally not taking chances. And they understand that for them, they've taken chances just to be where they are. Your student is taking chances in applying to, and hopefully getting into!, Ivy schools. She may be able to interpret what the quote means for her and feel good about it.
I also like "it's not how many times you fall down but how many times you get back up." Often used in sports. That, too, is susceptible to an interpretation that it's not easy for a PWD athlete to get up. So does the quote not apply to her? Of course it does. For her to get out on the field is "getting up."
So I don't know. As you know, I think you are amazing and this is a very valid perspective. I'm just not sure that it's possible to say the quote doesn't have meaning for WOC in general. It seems like something in it resonated with your student, and this might not be just because she didn't really "get it."
whatsername, instead of saying what you think and how you see it, maybe you should sit some more with what BA is actually saying here, read, think about it, listen more deeply. You may not be able to understand it from inside, but you could certainly learn from listening rather than just saying how you see it.
PS BA I've been reading these posts and comments all along as well as your blog for some time now. I absolutely love your blog and your comments in other blogs that I have seen. And these two posts about tone are so gorgeously freaking amazing.
Michelle, why do you think I asked questions in my initial response?
very wise words, and excellent post
I had no knowledge of this case...I can't believe it is real...
There are too many thoughts to discuss here. It is interesting to learn the history of the quote, but as the commenter noted it does not detract from your points as I think we can all easily agree that it used to celebrate defiance.
I agree that not all people have the luxury of misbehaving...or if they do, they run greater risks than others and must constantly negotiate these.
I was punished horribly as a young woman for speaking up about my own rape...all sorts of things followed...and, these days, I often feel I have to negotiate between two worlds (one that is true to myself and one that is trying to make it).
But, I have all the privileges. I think you are right though that many risk real losses for misbehaving - deportation, incarceration, death...
I think we all have to qualify our feminism these days because its popular understanding is very much that some lame defiance of social norms a la feministing is radical and meaningful action.
Women who climb to positions of power usually have bought into the system. And it is a system of winners and losers and a feminism that simply demands 'equality' is necessarily demanding it for some women at the expense of others.
It's less that i don't think it has " any " value ( and this is what lows cause i can't talk about my jo in specifics)
but the situation s he was talking about was something that I knew form being in her shoes would not apply to her they way it was beinga dvertised.
Michelle welcome
I also think that part of the part of investigating this dichotomy is figuring out why and where such a schism occurs yta know.
I'm not angry ats oem saying i don't knwo and asking
at least theyre here
That girl boo
thank you
I also think that part of the part of investigating this dichotomy is figuring out why and where such a schism occurs yta know.
I'm not angry ats oem saying i don't knwo and asking
at least theyre here
*nod* Thanks, BA, I hear you.
BA -- gotcha, hopefully she will find out in such a way that her optimism doesn't get too tarnished...
"Women who climb to positions of power usually have bought into the system. And it is a system of winners and losers and a feminism that simply demands 'equality' is necessarily demanding it for some women at the expense of others."
A feminism that demands that women don't climb, or seeks to shame those who do, is a feminism that condones the status quo power gap between men and women.
I disagree that women who clim b HAVE to buy in to sytsems of power
blindly
what gets me is that for many teh simple idea of a woman inhabiuting those spaces is enough
as if tahts teh end point
to me it's seems a tacit admission of not not believing women can acheive thos epositions
or that women don't need to be in them.
The problem is thatw oemn who are often fundamentally anti women anti woc anti sex worker
get some kind fo credit by being female.
or that when they do fail tehy don't get called on it
one of my most inspiring ( and honestly radical change professors) was a lawyer
Donna, et al.,
You wrote:
"Elaine, the fact that the judge is a woman is a feminist act, isn't it?"
No, the judge's decision was wrong. Just, plain WRONG.
It was not a feminist act and no feminists (white or PoC) are claiming it is. (Maybe non-feminists or anti-feminists are making that claim, but no real feminists are calling this judge's decision a feminist decision.)
You said:
"For white feminism it generally is all about gaining power, while buying into the rest of the status quo; capitalism, imperialism, the belief that normativity makes one superior, and those of outside of the norm are inferior, etc."
This is a different claim entirely. I understand it, and agree that many white feminists often take for granted the power they have and disregard the ways in which they use it to other and marginalize nonwhite feminists.
But the example of the judge to demonstrate that claim is not a good example. That's all.
Regarding the 'tone' argument:
It's one that all activists receive, not just PoC activists. The claim, "you have a good point, but you're too rude/obnoxious/loud" is leveled at all activists in one way or another. White feminists get "you're shrill" and PoC feminists get "you're rude" and so on...
Donna said:
"My understanding now is that the quote is that a (white) woman going about her normal business will attract no notice and go unremarked in history. Live a relatively comfortable life and die an unremarkable death."
Yes and no. Any woman who 'going about her normal business' doesn't attract attention is a woman is probably not a feminist to begin with. Even as a white woman going about my normal business, I attract attention. Why? Because my normal business is doing what I want to do, not doing what the capitalist, white supremacist, and otherwise fucked up patriarchy wants me to do. But the reverse is not true. A woman who attracts attention is not necessarily a feminist.
I've never interpreted the quote as an excuse to act up. I've always interpreted it to mean that activists go down in history. I've interpreted it in the way I've interpreted Margaret Mead's quote, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful people can change the world. Indeed that's the only thing that ever has."
Emphasis on "thoughtful".
BlackAmazon said:
"I really hate that quote,because while it's supposed to be some celebration the power of women who buck convention it is...
An oft used excused for a woman to believe acting like a sanctimonious unexamined twit is the equivalent of revolutionary action"
Sometimes people trot out the 'well behaved women' quote to excuse their (and other's) unthoughtful behavior. But that's a misuse of the quote. The original quote wasn't meant to be used in that context (nor even in the context I've used it), it was just a comment about what actually happens.
But the true part about it, and why I think it rubs some people the wrong way, is that it gets to the 'tone' argument. The most "misbehaved" activists always get the most attention. The rudest/most obnoxious/sometimes least thoughtful actions are the ones that go down in history. They are the ones that are marked as turning points, often in fact, when they haven't done any such thing. For example: bra burning.
**This should all be taken in context. This comment will not make complete sense when read as a stand alone comment out of contest with the rest of my thoughts.**
white feminists have to ask themselves if they want to join the system or change it? are they just jealous of white men? mainstream feminism opposes sexism but not racism and capitalism. it's not radical or revolutionary because they do not bear the brunt of sexism. sex workers, the poor, disabled, woc do. they don't have the time, money and energy to speak or organize.
donna darko, I will agree about capitalism, but every white feminist I know is against racism...and quite strongly even...
"I disagree that women who clim b HAVE to buy in to sytsems of power
blindly
what gets me is that for many teh simple idea of a woman inhabiting those spaces is enough…
to me it's seems a tacit admission of not not believing women can achieve those positions
or that women don't need to be in them.”
Agree. It’s not enough that women just be there, number-wise. I think it’s preferable, sure, to have a higher % of women. That in itself is something. More women having economic power, and being represented, does help other women at all levels.
But yes, more is necessary. Check this out. Janice Brown, who is a black woman, hasn’t bought into systems of power. She doesn’t come from privilege, and has helped other women who don’t. Both in her firm and in the pro bono context.
If Janice had decided, hey this is corrupt, not for me, let’s just go back into the kitchen where it isn’t capitalist, would that have been preferable?
Similarly, Linda Kornfeld, who’s white, also profiled in that article, has done a lot of outreach into poorer communities – and has leveraged her position to do so.
While I see a lot of women who seem to be failing to advance the ball to help others, including those less fortunate, I do think that as the number of women and minorities represented increases, even where they aren't all paragons of noble philanthropy, there are definite changes.
So you’re right, women DO need to be in those positions. It’s not fair for us to be held to the standards that if we can point to women who are in them but aren’t being Wonderwoman, then “the new boss is just like the old boss, anyone who does this is per se corrupt, lalala.”
“white feminists have to ask themselves if they want to join the system or change it?”
I don’t think this is an either/or for the reasons above.
“are they just jealous of white men?”
I don’t think desire to achieve a certain position has to do with jealousy of white men, especially as it’s not just white women but also WOC and MOC who would rather be comfortable than not.
“mainstream feminism opposes sexism but not racism and capitalism. it's not radical or revolutionary because they do not bear the brunt of sexism.”
Mainstream feminism does have a long way to go in standing for all women, including WOC, poor women, etc. I don’t think that it needs to renounce capitalism to do that. Also, you are right that if people aren’t in the line of fire, they can get complacent. But is it fair to say that all white feminists have failed or will fail this way? I hope we haven’t.
oct, i'm not talking about allies. whats, it's lip service if they care about white women and not women of color. it should be for all women, poor, woc, disabled, sex workers.
Elaine, you misunderstood, reread what I wrote (the part you copied), I said nothing about the judge's decision.
The reason why human rights activists hear the tone argument is because they are fighting for human rights, there is an assumption of inequality. Someone perceived to be on an equal level or superior to the speaker will never get the tone argument.
whatsername, if you think most white feminists are strongly antiracist, you aren't paying much attention. They certainly SAY that, but their actions say something much different to us.
octo, unfortunately there are many who are jealous of white men, or rather they only want what the white men have, including the power to subjugate other people. It's the "I got mine, Jack!" syndrome. And you are correct, this goes for many POC/WOC too or any other oppressed group. They want to join the oppressor group.
Capitalism means that western nations consume huge quantities of the worlds resources at the expense of everyone else. I don't know the percentages but I wouldn't be surprised if it were 80% or over. That leaves an awful lot of people starving, dying without medicines and medical treatment, etc. So you are right if we are talking about alleviating suffering only within American boundaries, capitalism might be a workable system with some sort of socialist programs to distribute enough so that no AMERICAN suffers, but in the larger scheme of things, it's unconcionable to do this at the expense of billions of people around the world, no?
I think, though, like octo said, it's not always black and white. People committed to social justice want everyone to be equal and to succeed at the same time. So far it's only possible except in special cases like the woman octo mentionned.
Were successful white feminists like Gloria Steinem committed to promoting women of color as much as white women? She wasn't too bad but didn't promote woc as much as white women. It seems only woc and allies can be committed to anti-racism and feminism can do this. Now Hillary Clinton is a white feminist who often puts woc in front of white women.
Donna,
I guess it depends on what you mean by "most white feminists."
Most white feminists, ever?
Most white feminists, now?
Most young white feminists?
The feminists I talk with, the blogs I read (ex: Feministing), the magazines I read (ex: Bitch) definitely have serious concerns about racism and including WoC in feminist discussions.
I'm not going to try and attest that that is enough, I have no idea, truthfully. And there is always more that can be done, on any topic.
But a blanket statement that current mainstream feminism doesn't care about racism is unfair, and unjustified from what I read on a regular basis.
There is a strong difference form having " serious concerns' and doing serious work.
THere is also a big problem with syaingh that because they talk about it means that the way or manner in which tehy talk about it is actually helpful and or acceptable to WOC.
It is not always about more but about actual consideration and Engagement.
And also
How can you include someone you see as a respected equal.
If it really is a multi lateral for all women movement there is no need
to " include" me
I'm there.
And also why is it unfair ?
IF a WOC feels that feminism does not care about her and has never shown her real care why should she be worried about fairness?
WHy is it her concern whether or not its fair?
And also what is your jsutification ?
BEcause honestly min e is , WOc issues often tend to be cudgels
istuf that is use tdo prove that " we're better than ...."
Woc aren't often ENgaged
mostly marveled at
and taht when they are it's almost never for the benefit of women fo color but for " feminism" or education of white women.
Of course you are right, there are huge differences between being concerned about something and doing something about those concerns.
However, I see calls to action from Samhita on Feministing just as often as from the white bloggers.
Perhaps it's just what I read, but that's how I see it as unfair. Someone else could be perfectly justified, from their experiences, in thinking feminism hasn't addressed their concerns. But, I see WoC writing, I see them talking about their issues. Right alongside white feminists, who are doing the same.
Is there another way WoC should be engaged?
White progressives and feminists should ask themselves do they honestly want people of color to be equals to whites? Or do progressives and women just want power like Republicans and men? The history of the feminist movement and suffrage is explicitly racist and very ugly.
To be honest i have a history with fmeinistinga nd fmeiniste thats not pretty so I 'll really try to not be perosnal
but what do you men a call to action
and why are they only periodic spot calls instead of continued coverage?
How are woc issues covered
If in fact its called a WOC issue or were highlighting WOC its already a loss.
and once again why is it about whats unfair to THEM.
However it is also not coincidence that many of the WOC/POC bloggers peope l enjoy dont engage big liberal and or feminist blogs or
why isn't the question
WHy are these people so unhappy and truly what would fairness be to them
Because honestly we didn't get to this point with feminism Online or off by being " unfair"
It's beeen a looon g time in teh making
Well, I guess we will just have to disagree.
I don't see "periodic" pieces on WoC issues. I see posts on a regular basis that deal with issues that if I was to categorize them, it would be as WoC issues.
Samhita blogs along with the rest of them. She's not a "guest blogger" or someone who does stuff only periodically.
Same with Bitch.
And a lot of the stuff they do, I don't see how racial lines matter at all. When we speak out against rape it doesn't matter if the woman (or man) is of color or not, we're speaking out against the act.
And by call to action I mean "hey, this matters, and you can do such and such about it" which is what many many posts in the feminist blogosphere at large are as I see them.
I think it's really sad that PoC are put off by the larger blogs. But we each can only speak from our life's experiences. And those large blogs gain strength from the diversity of background of their bloggers, and readers. If PoC keep their voices out of the largest conversations going on, how are we, who ARE involved in those conversations, ever going to hear them?
You do realize that wah t you think is appropriate coverage and teh reality of my life as a WOc ar etwo different things
and it's nmot an agree too disagree issue.
IT's a POC don't trust respect and or belive engagement from these palces anymore.
ANd the delay and lag time in pieces and action has a lot to do with taht.
Furthmore I SPECIFICALLy did not pull out specific peopel because of teh fact it's not about teh who is a POC or not or what tehy do
but that I as a person of color and I'm not alone don't trust these places ( also you're new to my blog but that issue has come up before and if you read mandolins post you get only a begining of how it went down so to say that ist satisfying to you goes down a road I really d on't feel liek retreading)
And when bra and fashion get more coverage than immigration raids on WOC yes thats an issue
yes when major WOC campaigns are one line links but mocking various members of the view get mroe coverage it's a problem.
And yes you can se eit hwo you want
And if we keep our voices out
You have to look for them.
IF you are interested you will
but we're not intereste din helping THOSE blogs gain strength
we're interested in organizing for our issues as WOC ,sex workers, etc etc
and you can say racial lines don't matter
but when you are mor elikely to experience an act of rape simply be being chicana in texas
ye s they do matter and speaking out against the act
while considering teh racism theat makes teh act possible not important
frankly means not much
I'm going to, with respect, bow out now.
Despite my disagreeing with some of what's been said here in the comments, I hope you know that I think you're doing a lot of good stuff here and I look forward to looking through your blog roll.
Capitalism means that western nations consume huge quantities of the worlds resources at the expense of everyone else. I don't know the percentages but I wouldn't be surprised if it were 80% or over. That leaves an awful lot of people starving, dying without medicines and medical treatment, etc. So you are right if we are talking about alleviating suffering only within American boundaries, capitalism might be a workable system with some sort of socialist programs to distribute enough so that no AMERICAN suffers, but in the larger scheme of things, it's unconcionable to do this at the expense of billions of people around the world, no?
No.
Donna, certainly from a global standpoint if you and I were standing over the world and talking about how we’d reconfigure things to make them fairer, I’m sure we, and others here, would come to the same conclusions.
But I’m not really sure what you are saying is unconscionable. For women (white or otherwise) to do something “capitalist?” What is that? Something in which you’re making over a certain amount, or within a corporation? Is it unconscionable only in, say, an oil or a tobacco corp, or any corp? Is it bad if you are a secretary, a middle manager, or a CEO? Is it bad to be a mayor but OK to be Hilary? What’s off limits for women, in other words?
I do not feel that whatever decision you, or I, or 100 women make can be pointed to in a vacuum and denounced as unconscionable. I certainly take your point about nationalism. In fact, most of the outreach I do involves third world countries, eg the Grameen Foundation or Children’s Network International. But I don’t think individual women are at fault for capitalism – I’m not sure it’s going anywhere or whether there are workable alternatives, but if there are, they won’t develop from some sort of grass roots rebellion.
And the fewer women who make it into the existing positions of power, the less we’ll have to say about what any kind of change to the current system looks like. We can gracefully, shamefully linger on the outskirts and feel good about our lack of capituation all day every day, with the end result that the white men in suits have even more say.
I think every woman must answer to herself, and also engage with others to get the appropriate perspective, as to whether her impact is net positive. Someone in a corporation who is contributing money and time to philanthropy affecting those who are suffering all over the world, to me, is not less deserving than someone who is not in a “capitalist” job, but is working the same hours, so doesn’t have any more time to spend at philanthropy than the “capitalist” and by necessity contributes much less to charitable causes.
I don’t think women should just climb climb climb and then drink the champagne. But I am frustrated by generalized shaming statements about “white feminists” and “capitalism.” What does this really mean? I know there is validity in there somewhere, but I think it needs to be further defined and qualified so that we can all figure out together what can be done to further goals that I think are somewhat shared.
I don’t particularly care personally whether I’m tarred with any kind of brush of selfish capitalism. I know what applies and what doesn’t, I know where people’s hearts are and what not to take personally. But in general, I don’t know whether generalized statements that don’t come with any kind of useful delineations get us anywhere. What does one really do with a general statement that capitalism is bad? What can we do that acknowledges the realities – women of any race aren’t going to better our lot by sitting back – while still figuring out how not to be part of the problem? That seems like the better question, IMO.
"How can you include someone you see as a respected equal.
If it really is a multi lateral for all women movement there is no need
to " include" me
I'm there."
Absolutely. This really points up the problem, I think. You should be there, and if you don't find yourself there, you've got the right to make the determination whether or not it's relevant.
"Woc aren't often ENgaged
mostly marveled at"
And this too: YES. Honest truth? I see that here at your blog. I see you as one of the smartest bloggers out there, not as purely a "WOC blogger," although obviously that's your focus, but as a goddamn smart person.
Sometimes I'm not clear on what's being said, disagree with it, or want to engage with it in a way that isn't just "you rock," even though I think you do. I'm as intimidated as anyone about being a "doesn't get it," but I feel like your thoughts deserve more than just a rah rah, and that just like any other feminist or philosopher you deserve real engagement which sometimes comes along with incomplete agreement. I appreciate, a lot, that you respond in kind.
So in summary: you rock.
octogalore, i think i was talking about combatting racism, sexism and classism, not capitalism. feminism should help those who need help the most. woc, the poor, sex workers, the disabled. look at megan williams, poor, woc, disabled. dunbar village, poor, woc, immigrant. the jersey four, woc, lesbians. the dani case, poor, woc, sex worker. there are numerous cases like this.
they are mostly ignored because they are woc, poor, or sex workers. as a result, they do not see justice.
Donna Darko -- I was addressing the other Donna. The first para, which I neglected to put in quotes, was from her comment about capitalism. I'm sorry for the confusion!
"feminism should help those who need help the most. woc, the poor, sex workers, the disabled."
Yes. Interesting how these categories overlap as you point out in the various cases. I think the common theme is economics -- to a degree, obviously there are exceptions. But WOC, sex workers and WWD are most disadvantaged when poor. I was a non-poor (well, heavily in debt, but with the background to get out of it) sex worker, but not particularly disadvantaged. Similarly, many of the ways WOC and WWD are disadvantaged intersect with economics. My sisters are WOC but face more subtle discrimination that that Megan Williams faced. Not sure where I'm going with this... just that I think helping even out economic or educational (which is allied to economics) advantages for poorer women seems like a really critical piece. Obviously, not to ignore the distinct non-wealth issues dealt with by WOC and WWD etc.
Economics/labor is the big kahuna that drives racism and sexism. Or the other way around. I don't know.
I don't see how racial lines matter at all. I think it's really sad that PoC are put off by the larger blogs. If PoC keep their voices out of the largest conversations going on, how are we, who ARE involved in those conversations, ever going to hear them?
People of color don't have a choice but to see race. It's as annoying as when men tell feminists to be humanists not feminists because sexism no longer exists.
Racism is the problem. That is all.
Donna Darko,
That is an incredibly disingenuous way to put together those quotes from my posts.
I never said that racial lines do not matter at all, as it reads when put together that way.
What I actually said: "And a lot of the stuff they (Bitch Magazine, Feministing) do, I don't see how racial lines matter at all. When we speak out against rape it doesn't matter if the woman (or man) is of color or not, we're speaking out against the act."
I am not so blinded by my white privilege as to try and say that race doesn't matter, or that racism doesn't exist. Of course racism exists, and of course race matters. If I didn't think so, why would I have been seeking out blogs from WoC to see their perspectives?
"And a lot of the stuff they (Bitch Magazine, Feministing) do, I don't see how racial lines matter at all. When we speak out against rape it doesn't matter if the woman (or man) is of color or not, we're speaking out against the act."
I am not so blinded by my white privilege as to try and say that race doesn't matter, or that racism doesn't exist. Of course racism exists, and of course race matters. If I didn't think so, why would I have been seeking out blogs from WoC to see their perspectives?
I am going to do another post later on this and teh role of cultural criticism but I do need to point out some things here .
When we speak out against rape......
You are already syaing that when these places speak out you feel included in the we.
I don't. DD doesn't . Donna doesn't etc etc . We in no way make a claim to anything but oursel ves, WOC . We don't feel included
and when you say the race doesn't matter , I'm speaking out against the act , well intentioned our not . You're negating our testimony that yes RACE needs to be challenged hand in hand with the act , because what allows a " call to action " for you is a " that's my sister/mother/cousin, home town, tribe ,lover oh holy hell how are we gonna do this " for us.
While DD's putting to gethe rof teh quotes is jumbled
When you say you don't see how it matters at all .... we're speaking against the act.
Your saying you think that call toa tcion of teh way their doing it is enough , for us to level any critique of it we now have to jstify why we feel it's different AND educate ADN inform
jsut to get heard in these "larger conversations"
Also DD even when putting those quotes together isn't talking ab out you.
She is specifically talking about feminists and feminism at large.
It is draining as a WOC to talk about endemic problems and be todl buut these places generally kind of do do what you say you want and when we point out that it's exception rathe rtahn rule.
Which is teh point taht what seems regular to you is sporadic and jumbled to us
the fact that you have to seek these perspectives should give you a good idea on how actually included they are.
"because what allows a " call to action " for you is a " that's my sister/mother/cousin, home town, tribe ,lover oh holy hell how are we gonna do this " for us."
It's not my sister/mother/cousin, home town, tribe etc etc for me?
It is.
But do you want me to look at the rape of a WoC and say that it's worse than the rape of a white girl?
Rape is fucking wrong. It doesn't matter who it happens to, it's wrong no matter what. That was my point. And when talking about -why- rape is wrong, it doesn't matter what color we are. White feminists don't go "oh was this girl white or black" before putting up a story about this fucked up situation. The Judge Deni case is a perfect example of that.
Talking about what facilitates rape to happen case by case, yes, absolutely, race comes into it, just as social status does. There are a lot of things that come into it that should be discussed.
And I don't think you have to justify critiquing anything. There's always going to be more than one issue going on behind something as endemic as rape.
Do you think these places cover every single issue I care about?
They don't.
When dealing with cultural criticisms and personal experiences there's always going to be more going on then we can ever hope to talk about in one sitting.
That's why the conversation is ongoing.
But to be clear, I don't feel I have to seek out these perspectives to hear them. I am seeking them out to hear them more. Same reason I look at all the blogs I do, to get more and more perspectives.
whatser, it's the thousandth time we've heard those pat phrases. it doesn't matter how you said it. it means the same thing. what black amazon said. white feminists aren't thinking about women of color. they're only thinking of themselves.
men do the same thing when they tell you to be a humanist instead of a feminist. they don't WANT to think of women. they only want to think of themselves. it's too much trouble for them to think of others.
it's great you're reading blogs but our blogs would not exist if feminist and progressive blogs cared about woc and poc issues.
they don't.
"I think it's really sad that PoC are put off by the larger blogs."
Whatshername - what I get from what you're writing here is that you feel like some kinds of good that are being done are being overlooked, and that that causes a lack of opportunity for cohesion where it otherwise might exist between white feminists and women of color feminists (or non-feminists).
My reaction to the line I quoted from you above is that I don't think it's sad at all, I think it's fucking fantastic that many of the women of color (and men of color) bloggers I know are put off by the larger blogs, and here's why.
BA and DD and others in this thread are articulating some fuzzy gut feelings I used to have when I used to read those blogs, and they are articulating them in accurate detail.
I know that what they say is factual. And therefore, in my view, it is a sign of anti-Stepford-Wife-ness for people to reject the dynamics that go on at the larger blogs, and instead create spaces that lack the aforementioned crap.
My take on things is not that women of color, feminists or non, are not seeing the ways in which racism is NOT happening in white dominated online spaces, including and sometimes especially self-proclaimed feminist spaces. What I'm seeing is - there is no reason I can think of in this universe why bunches of people of color would want to imagine racism where it doesn't exist.
The historical racism, of the feminism-that-got-mainstream-attention, is an unamended harm. The fact that it has never stopped, and is so little talked about by anyone besides people of color, is a present-day extension and escalation of that harm, and so I say again - I am fucking glad that many people of color reject those spaces.
white male progressive bloggers had to read latino or black blogs to learn about immigration, criminal (in)justice and abortion issues. why don't they already know about black, latino and women's issues? because they only care about these issues when it helps them.
the other day, taylor marsh said immigration was a very complex subject. specifically, licenses for immigrants. i don't think so.
immigrants came here unvoluntarily because of american trade policies and nafta. meanwhile, congress passed the peru trade agreement.
if white progressives knew this, licenses for immigrants would not be a complex topic. blame goes to the top including democrats who sign these trade agreements.
they will come to woc blogs to learn about violence against women of color issues if it helps them win elections.
my point is, as a progressive community, they should know these issues implicitly. they only care about people in their community if it benefits them directly.
my point is, white progressives don't know immigrants came here involuntarily because of nafta. if they did, it would be a cut and dry issue. right versus wrong. it's not a legality issue (it's a misdemeanor to be here illegally) but a human rights issue. taylor marsh and matt stoller don't know these things so it's very confusing to them.
jane hamsher thought jena six was too complicated. these are people who know every millionth detail of the scooter libby trial. jena six was about unequal and disproportionate justice. white people and black people did the same things and blacks were disproportionately punished. beer bottles and shotguns weren't deadly weapons, sneakers were. progressives immediately disbelieved blacks version of the story including the possibility it wasn't six on one. read tom's blog for the three on one version. if they cared about their biggest constituents, blacks, they wouldn't believe the republican lines on race.
matt yglesias didn't believe zuzu on abortion. in all these cases, they argue at length and still don't believe minorities and women.
yobachi had good intentions with the blogging for justice project. his heart was in the right place but argued at length he was right about "protecting our women." he didn't believe about 20 women even though it's women he's trying to "protect."
despite all this, only woc are called "betrayers."
Hi Blackamazon,
Okay, I'm going to come back to this. I felt a vibe from whatsername when I read the first couple of her comments. This vibe I felt is IMO not specific to her, but part of a pattern in which white person has an agenda of what she thinks is true but includes some sort of hook (eg seeming questions) to get people all involved.
My initial internal response to her reply to me Michelle, why do you think I asked questions in my initial response? -- was to look back at her comments and see how much "statement" there was versus how much "questions" and how those questions were put out there. And it seemed to me to underscore the vibe I was feeling. But it's an invisible vibe in a way and maybe it's just me and my issues.
Then you said I also think that part of the part of investigating this dichotomy is figuring out why and where such a schism occurs yta know.
I'm not angry ats oem saying i don't knwo and asking
at least theyre here
And this is your blog and I am a white woman on it and yeah it's probably just me and my issues, or a divergence of priorities, so I backed off entirely.
Now I come back and see what is from my specific perspective, the pattern playing out.
And I was going to let it go but for better or worse, I can't.
So I want to tell you: this got to me. All this energy and it's the same games over and over. We white people have these cultural scripts and it's the same games over and over.
But still here you are being, if I understand the dynamic correctly, willing to be open and get into the discussion and put your energy into it and ... I don't know. This got to me. I just -- so much time and energy put into engaging with people who MIGHT (if IMO given a huge benefit of the doubt?) be honestly open and genuinely asking and in a place of responsible participation in "figuring it out" -- but are also likely to be carrying an agenda and covering it with seeming questions/open-ness.
So this got to me. Whatever that means, whatever its relevance or irrelevance, whether it is about the discussion or some product of my own personal issues ... it fucking got to me.
I disagree that women who clim b HAVE to buy in to sytsems of power
blindly
what gets me is that for many teh simple idea of a woman inhabiuting those spaces is enough
as if tahts teh end point
Yeah. That.
As per racism: the thing is, well no, very few leftish/feminist people are gonna come right out and SAY, "yep! I'm a racist!" or even (although I DO hear words to this effect, sadly, from a certain -special- few), "I don't give a damn about racism."
but yeah, actions speak louder than words. case in point:
jane hamsher thought jena six was too complicated
and i WOULD say, "oh you've got to be SHITTING me," but well I've been to the rodeo before, so while it's the first time i heard -that- (i don't pay much attention to JH these days), it doesn't surprise me one bit.
It's not "complicated," really.
and no, rape isn't always the same: yes there are common denominators, sure, but--well, again, look at this case, the Judge Deni thing. Look at the kind of response it's getting. Yeah, a lot of people are like, "damn, that's awful," but how'd it happen in the first place? It's not an anomaly, that sort of thing.
And that history goes way back: trace all the way back to Seneca Falls and earlier. If you believe the "patriarchy" has a legacy that affects us even to this day, women voting and holding office and wearing pants and soon notwithstanding, then sooner or later there comes a point where you -do- either have to swallow, as a white woman, and go, "actually that's true for white supremacy as well, even though slavery is over and black folks have the vote and hold office and stuff." And, oh yea, -part- of that legacy is the mistress of the house holding power over the slaves. Who were effective "unwomen," see. "Ain't I a Woman" didn't come out of nowhere; and BY the way can I just boggle one more time at the overweening GALL of Kathy Hogan the "friend" of Judge Deni invoking that phrase for -herself-, in -this- context, because people on the Internets were being meen to her?
It's not difficult to see, this stuff. Hard, yes. But not complicated. Not really.
But do you want me to look at the rape of a WoC and say that it's worse than the rape of a white girl?
That right there is where i leave this discussion with you alone. BEcause that's a a herculean leap from what i am talking about.
ANd it's point blank a nasty rhetorical device . Becuase I have never intimated that AT ALL>
What i have and am now a bit tired of REPEATINg is that
yes reasons for rap e are multi layered but the fact that the deni case is covered but dunbar isn't or that the issues of these cases on come up at specific intervals is not okay and isn't something taht I'm willing to let slide.
Also taht teh decision for whetehr or not POC issues are covered or engaged satifactorily may vary from person to person
But I am not a bout to allow more time to go to defending other peopels blogs on MY BLOG
or essentally REPEATING myself when I point out that there is A HUGE difference between "putting it Up " and engaging it.
Not to mention taht a discussion about the circumstances that affect women who are often voiceless and unlistened to
is swinging towards a disection of women and media outlets that for whatever it's worth have the opportunity and availability to make their voices heard is not going to happen here,
Michelle it is what it is. In a lot of ways this is my life not jsut online . We do what we think is right and i will up until it is taxing to me engage anyone whose willing.
Belle , pretty much and SUsan B Anthony basically telling IDa B wells to sit and wait her turn ? YEah thats a problem
In a lot of ways this is my life not jsut online
My entire life, online life and books are now the same things.
I have absolutely no agenda except to try and understand where other people are coming from. I disagree with some of the initial post, so perhaps the "tone" you got Michelle, I don't know. But I was and am seriously trying to understand the world view that brought the quite a few of those who hate the quote to that hatred.
I'm sorry if I've offended anyone by doing that through ignorance or inexperience.
But I seriously don't know what some of you are talking about. To be honest I'm having a really, really hard time following some of your post and your responses BA. And I'm doing my best to try and understand, but I don't. I am just not following the way you are laying this out for me.
For example my offending statement in my previous post, came in response to this part of your previous post:
"You're negating our testimony that yes RACE needs to be challenged hand in hand with the act"
I don't think you want me to look at the rape of a WoC as worse than a white womans, but I don't know how else to take that. What are you talking about?
Are you talking about race needing to be taken into account when looking at the proceedings that follow a rape? If so, I agree, there is obvious and blatant racism in some cases.
Are you talking about in the prosecution of the case? Again, I would agree. In the punishing of the case? I would agree yet again. There are many, MANY fucking areas where I agree that race needs to be taken into account in any given situation.
But you just make this blanket statement, and from the context of my post which inspired it, I didn't know how to take it, at all. And thus came my question.
I was also never at all trying to argue that PoC issues are covered satisfactorily for all people. But I saw some commenters saying what I read as essentially "white feminists don't give a shit about people of color," and as a white feminist who has (online) defended things like the Jena 6 case and taken a lot of flack from conservative assholes for it, I felt rather hurt by that. My responses were aimed at simply that "hey, I don't think that's fair, I do see them covered" not "hey, they're covered plenty, stfu." That they are covered doesn't mean they are covered enough for your liking, that's completely valid, and I never once thought of the situation like that.
I honestly don't know what to do here, I feel pretty bad right now. It feels like I've dug myself a hole, but that largely it's from misunderstandings and that some people are extrapolating assumptions about how I feel on related issues that are wrong.
How does one recover from that without digging themselves deeper in others eyes?
whatser, it's not about you or how you look here. it's best to say nothing. you're like the millionth white person who's said these exact thing in the last two years in these parts. just listen. EVERYONE HERE will forget you tomorrow. even white feminists who you're afraid you've lost face to have seen these exact words A MILLION TIMES in these parts so you're no special. the best thing you can do is stop talking and listen for a very long time until you see it's not about you. it's about racism. that is all.
Like I give a fuck what other white feminists care about, CLEARLY that's who I'm apologizing to and trying to understand HERE.
Of course I'm not fucking special and this blog isn't fucking about ME.
I apologize profusely for trying to listen better by asking questions.
don't worry, whatser, you're fine. just listen more than you talk. :)
I disagree with some of the initial post, so perhaps the "tone" you got Michelle, I don't know.
no, whatsername, the vibe I mentioned feeling wasn't that you disagree.
It's about a mode of interaction. One that is more about speaking than listening. One that apparently asks questions but isn't open to receiving and really taking in answers that challenge your perceptions -- and so has to argue with/layer your perception over answers that feel outside of the comfort zone.
This vibe to me is not about disagreement. It operates *underneath* that.
It is an interaction mode of having barriers to learning, a mode of not really being open to realities that you don't already feel ok with, a mode of actively denying what doesn't already fit with what you brought into the discussion to start with. It is not necessarily a conscious agenda, but in practice it functions as one anyway.
This is the vibe that I myself have felt. Or at least as well as I can describe it right now.
"You're negating our testimony that yes RACE needs to be challenged hand in hand with the act"
I don't think you want me to look at the rape of a WoC as worse than a white womans, but I don't know how else to take that. What are you talking about?
Because you're assuming I want to " win " something by bringing it up.
When you talk about rape for WOC it ISN'T just about the act. IN the case of the woman who just got met with the Justice DANi. She was poor her city is dismantling aide for poor people . She was 19 ( i have such a hard time calling a 19 year old a women) her profession is illegal and according to a judge indefensible. All of these things bring her infront of a judge who can with a straight face say she wasn't raped and still keep her job. That judge is a woman.
When Megan WIlliams stayed in for a week being tortured and name called. That violence wasn't cause she wasa woman it was because she was black woman.
When people sya oh my god we have to do something aout these cases it's not about supporting teh women , because if it was poverty would be at the forefront with abortion.
WOmen's groups wouldn't fight WOC groups when they asked for WOC specifc funding.
That's not a "world view" that's a life experience.
You talk about JEna 6 but how many places were really upfront about who was leading the protests? That said you knwo what this was not just a get out and do something call but lead by Afrosphere and POC bloggers that a YOUNG WOMAN of COLOR drafted the petition with half a million signatures?
Or that by teh time it got press in september the aforementioned peopel had been openly on the net bouncing up and down screaming sinch MARCH.
Or if you pick up Make/shift and read bfps aricle. about how during the week a MASSIVE raid on bedford happened that affected HUNDREDS or the continued sexual abuse of WOC on teh border. There was coverage on bra's not a single " big site" covered em.
That's not a world view that's experience
And in addition to getting crap form concservatives we get dogged out by feminists , men , men of color
and if we don't go sorry we see your point
we then get ignored
until we do something THEY like.
And hey I've seen them covered thats not fair
IS
essentially teling me no I'm wrong
even though i'm saying to you
knwo
you have not seen them covered in any extentto which tehy are HAPPENING
or even to the extent that respects their immedieacy to the peopel going trhough them
and frankly its not about YOU. yOU're taking this personal when peopel who really have benn through teh mill time and time again are syaing you knwo what we've sen this before and your reactions but once agian it turns into well your mad at me or peopel are extrapolating.
So now what we ve told you waht we thin shared our experiences and still you want more reassuranc ethat it's not about you.
THat is now effectively stopping others who WERE discussing larger ideas to adress you.
I don't think you want me to look at the rape of a WoC as worse than a white womans, but I don't know how else to take that. What are you talking about?
wow. this your conclusion when a woman of color says that it's time to make a space in the world where the violence done to women of color is confronted for what it is? this is your conclusion when a woman of color says that it's time for people to recognize that feminist 'solutions' to rape and violence against women of color are ineffective and in many cases, just plain wrong? this is your conclusion?
your conclusion points very effectively at exactly what amazon is talking about--white feminists like to make things "personal" with themselves right at the center--if it's happening to them, it must be happening to everybody--so it doesn't matter who you are *rape is wrong*--color doesn't matter when it boils down to injustice. *rape is wrong no matter who it happens to*.
Well of course it is. but the fact of the matter is, *STRUCTURALLY*, rapes happen to women of color over and over again because it is BUILT INTO THE STRUCTURE to do so. rapes happen to iraqi women, because STRUCTURALLY, our system of governance REQUIRES that women who are capable of creating more bodies to fill a space of land that our GOVERNMENT wants to OCCUPY be destroyed or 'dirtied'.
STRUCTURALLY, our government has supported or legally endorsed rapes against black slaves, indigenous women, pinay women, the women of guam, and hawai'i, and iraq and afghanistan and palestine and so many other places it makes my head hurt. STRUCTURALLY, our government HAS RELIED on violence against brown women for centuries.
but then Elaine and you and others say, but but but it's NOT a feminist act what judge deni did!!!!
When your feminist action consists of fighting for the right to BE A PART OF A STRUCTURE that has endorsed and supported and legally allowed the rapes of brown women since the STRUCTURE'S inception--when the STRUCTURE you fight to be a part of WAS BUILT ON THE BODILY DESTRUCTION OF BROWN WOMEN and CONTINUES to legally sanction violence (sexual and otherwise) against brown women, YOU ARE PARTICIPATING IN THE FEMINIST ACTION of VIOLATING brown women.
Do you *really* believe that this court decision is the first time ever in all of history that a court has ruled a person or a group of people have the right to rape black women at will? Do you really think that? Judge Deni is simply continuing a long and rich history U.S. court systems have of validating violence against black women.
ANd the ONLY reason white women are in positions of power within the court systems is BECAUSE OF FEMINISM. Period. And today, white feminists *celebrate* that. They point to their history of 'resistance' and say, see, we did it! look at how far we've come!
try reading some women of the early white feminist movement some time. They make the *conscious* choice to stay within the parameters of the *STRUCTURE* of power that dominates them. They make that choice even at the alienation of women of color, disabled women, queer women, and tons of other women--we must join this structure that harms and violates us. but they make this decision because it DOESN"T harm and violate THEM.
I just can't figure out how it is that a certain group of white feminists CAUSED the fractures in feminism by their insistence that their experiences were more valid than others and thus THEIR answers were "The way" and yet over and over again it's all the rest of us who were abandoned and outright sacrificed by this certain group of white feminists who are continuously blamed and tut tutted at and told that because we care about ourselves and our sisters, we're *selling out* feminism.
"this is your conclusion when a woman of color says that it's time for people to recognize that feminist 'solutions' to rape and violence against women of color are ineffective and in many cases, just plain wrong?"
If it had been said like that, nope. I understand what you're saying right there, and agree.
well, you know, seeing as amazon told you (and hundreds of other indignant white women) that's not what she meant, i have to question why it is that you believe that she's saying "care more about rape when it happens to women of color" and that i'm not saying the same thing.
I also have to question why white women have told us, historically and in the present, over and over again, only care about certain things as they happen through the context of white, upper class, straight, able-bodied lens (please please, read the feminist mystic some time)--but when it is incorrectly *assumed* that a woman of color says the same thing, a hell breaks loose.
I said that I didn't think that's what she was saying. But that I didn't understand what she was saying. That to me it appeared she was saying that, but I was certain that was because I was missing something. Something you obviously did understand and reworded in a way I did as well.
I also very much recognize that that is how white feminism has acted throughout our history. But those actions weren't/aren't right...I wouldn't let a white feminist pass with saying any such thing either.
I also recognize that the lot of you could easily and rightfully told me to fuck off if you so chose. And I appreciate that you engaged with me.
they don't have to *say* anything to say point blank that white women matter more than women of color. you should do a little digging and find out how many (and which ones) white feminist organizations supported the bombing of iraq and afghanistan. or, as *amazon* said, how many bloggers have mentioned one fucking word about ICE raids that have affected mostly brown women throughout the summer. or the detention centers that imprison young babies and children along with their mothers. As *amazon* mentioned, this list of injustices and sexualized violence perpetrated against women of color long, it's historical, and it began upon the creation of the U.S. government.
while white women were busy fighting to 'not behave', they were actively basing their 'misbehavior' on the backs, souls, bodies, and mental well being of women of color (and other marginalized communities of women). they used *AND STILL USE* our slave labor so that they can go to school, become judges and then imprison us for *misbehaving*. Or whip our asses or deny us food or sterilize us or reward raping us, BECAUSE WE MISBEHAVE.
and FUCK i'm using a lot of caps, aren't I????
Meh, I've seen more cap usage in a post before. lol.
I think we could have a really interesting conversation coming off this last comment. But I really don't want to take this off into a whole other realm. As has been pointed out, it's not all about me, and I don't want to clog up this blog anymore than I already have.
This discussion has given me a lot of things to think about, and I have made a post on my own blog with those thoughts. If BA would prefer we not use her blog for continued discussion, it can be routed there. :)
whatser: But I was and am seriously trying to understand the world view that brought the quite a few of those who hate the quote to that hatred.
BA: you have not seen them covered in any extentto which tehy are HAPPENING
or even to the extent that respects their immedieacy to the peopel going trhough them
When people sya oh my god we have to do something aout these cases it's not about supporting teh women , because if it was poverty would be at the forefront with abortion.
WOmen's groups wouldn't fight WOC groups when they asked for WOC specifc funding.
That's not a "world view" that's a life experience.
You talk about JEna 6 but how many places were really upfront about who was leading the protests? That said you knwo what this was not just a get out and do something call but lead by Afrosphere and POC bloggers that a YOUNG WOMAN of COLOR drafted the petition with half a million signatures?
Or that by teh time it got press in september the aforementioned peopel had been openly on the net bouncing up and down screaming sinch MARCH.
Or if you pick up Make/shift and read bfps aricle. about how during the week a MASSIVE raid on bedford happened that affected HUNDREDS or the continued sexual abuse of WOC on teh border. There was coverage on bra's not a single " big site" covered em.
That's not a world view that's experience
And in addition to getting crap form concservatives we get dogged out by feminists , men , men of color
Your blog and some of the comments should should be a published book. There's so much everyone can learn from your two years of posts.
"Economics/labor is the big kahuna that drives racism and sexism. Or the other way around. I don't know."
DD, agree, and I think both. Absence of privilege in either area can create disadvantage. But I think wealth is the more powerful driver in that on average, it's easier to rise above other areas of disadvantage. That said, race and gender and disability and other disadvantages intersect with poverty in the first place. So yeah, more complicated than it seems.
whatsername, you have a post at your blog which describes exactly the same thing we are talking about: Idealogical rhetoric on dominant reality perceptions the links in there too. I wanted to mix them; change the word feminist to WOC, and men/assholes/buttmunch etc to white women. It's the same thing.
Too many of the white women at the larger blogs are like these freshman. Our lives, struggles, experiences, and issues are more like an anthropology course for them, something they get on a theoretical level, but don't feel it in the way that we do living it.
Although some are more like you. Think of it this way, there are probably alot of men out there who don't want to believe that sexism/misogyny is as constant and unrelenting as it is, and don't want to believe they are a part of that. So they come to feminists with that argument in mind... it's not really that bad (I'm not really that bad) and you're making a mountain out of a molehill. When you explain to them how you view the world, your experience with sexism, they still discount it. They don't want to believe you. That is what you are doing here regarding racism at the larger feminist blogs.
More reading: How Prejudice and Bias works
But see, I don't believe either of those things. I do believe racism is as pervasive as sexism.
I do agree with you that in many ways I am like a Freshman. In that I can't understand your experience, and so my perspective is theoretical. And that I am just starting out, and so my perspective is somewhat tainted by ignorance, by inexperience.
The important difference between me, and the Freshmen talked about in that post, is that I am aware of these short comings, and am trying to delve in as best I can, so I can grok, instead of simply theoretically understand. It might not appear that way to some, but it was my intent.
Like I wrote on my blog last night: "I can tell already, that this topic is going to be one which will continue to evolve. There is much thought, contemplation, musing and reflection that is going to go into this topic over, gods know how long. An aspect that has stuck in my head after reading another WoC blog where a white feminist ran into similar issues in the comments as I did, is that PoC do not (according to the commenters I read) feel comfortable expressing themselves, unless they are in a group. That revelation was rather profound to me. I have never felt intimidated to express my opinion by anything. Ever. Being derided for my opinions, being mocked for my questions, that didn't stop me. It never stopped me. Contemplating this rather subconsciously for days, has resulted in this expression of articulated sentiment, scribbled quickly before it vanished, as I sit and watch my second lecture by bell hooks, whom I just discovered had such things up on youtube and her website this very night.
And so, much shorter than that introduction, I say this to you, any women of color who read this blog, or who stumble across it, or come to it from the conversation that started my contemplations...
If I disagree with something I see written, I disagree because I am thinking about the topic. I express my disagreement, or critiques, or agreements, because it is my right to do so. It is YOUR right too (!!!) and I expect you to express it (know, KNOW that I believe this, and want it from you). Though I know, I take for granted that I have always known I can disagree and cannot fully appreciate that this is -not- your life experience."
As to defending racism at the large blogs discussed here... For me, simply labeling it "racism" is over simplifying the matter. I talk about this in the post linked in the above quote, which was my initial reactions to the events in this discussion if you want to read. The summary is this... Each of us comes from a unique perspective based on our life experiences (this is what I referred to here as a "world view"). And each of us is thus primarily concerned with things that we have seen, and that impact us and those we know. I would not expect a blog by a woman of color to address my concerns as a white woman. I would not expect a blog by a monogamous woman to address my concerns as a woman in an open marriage. And that is ok with me, because I think that by each person speaking their own truth, and by other people interacting with that, we expand our minds and understandings of the world at large.
But, that doesn't mean I think blogs, especially large blogs who supposedly strive to be inclusive, get a free pass from being critiqued. There is always another voice to be added, another perspective to be explored and people should push the larger movement to do that. The only thing I took issue with was the claim (as I read it) that because our life perspective is not yours, and that thus we don't (and can't, really) speak to it, means we don't CARE about your world view, your life experience. But that was clarified later on, that caring and doing are different things and it's the doing that was being criticized. I think that's valid, and so am not arguing it here.
hm, whatshername...it's, well...oof. holy shit I do not know how to talk about what I'm thinking. I don't want to use the cliche "I think your heart is in the right place, but" and I also am not out to be snarky at you...I just...well, fuck it, maybe I'm delusional anyway and I trust someone will tell me that if it's the case.
Point being - what you just said, some of it came across exactly like what Donna just described:
" Our lives, struggles, experiences, and issues are more like an anthropology course for them,"
Where you go
"PoC do not (according to the commenters I read) feel comfortable expressing themselves, unless they are in a group. That revelation was rather profound to me."
and then:
"I express my disagreement, or critiques, or agreements, because it is my right to do so. It is YOUR right too (!!!) and I expect you to express it (know, KNOW that I believe this, and want it from you). Though I know, I take for granted that I have always known I can disagree and cannot fully appreciate that this is -not- your life experience."
- that felt patronizing to me. I mean that's the feeling I got when I read it. Also, I got a feeling of disbelief. I obviously am speaking about how I feel, not on behalf of anyone else, but - I was like, are she and I reading the same blog, here? Cuz I've never felt like BA needed a pep talk or reassurance from me in order to speak her mind. Or from anyone.
And what *I* have gotten from comments in threads like this one is not that women of color don't feel comfortable expressing themselves unless it's in a group, but that people get tired of expressing themselves in places where they're not respected or valued. It's like, I don't feel intimidated or like I need the cover of a group of other women in order to express my disagreement with certain bloggers I've tried conversing with before, but who feel either anti-women or anti-Joan, to me. I don't go there, and don't speak there anymore, because I'm just not fuckin' into it. Life's too short. I'd rather talk to and hear from people who, even if/when we see anything differently, somehow I never end up gnashing (or however you spell it) my teeth around them. Somehow I never want to put an ice pick in my ears or eyes just to avoid encountering their predictable and infuriating reactions.
So. Maybe I am off base to say any of that, but it nagged at me, so there you go.
but that people get tired of expressing themselves in places where they're not respected or valued.
Hi joan I may not have said this THIS MONTH but
I love you!
"I obviously am speaking about how I feel, not on behalf of anyone else, but - I was like, are she and I reading the same blog, here? Cuz I've never felt like BA needed a pep talk or reassurance from me in order to speak her mind. Or from anyone."
LOL! No, no no. Sorry, I didn't want to do a fingers pointing thing on my blog so I didn't link to the posts I was talking about, and I guess this was not clear.
The part you're referring to here was NOT about this blog. It was about the comments thread in this one, specifically this comment by Ravenmn.
As for the anthropology thing... Honestly, I view everything with a lens muchly influenced by the social sciences (psych, anthro, philosophy). That's just how I look at the world in general. If you read my tone in the rest as patronizing...wow. I dunno how to respond to that. I am an opinionated person. That's not going to change. I experience things through dialog that is straight forward and rather blunt. As a result, sometimes people take me as trying to force my opinion on them, when really I'm just expressing it, and expecting them to give theirs right back to me in the same manner. In thinking about Ravenmn's comment in that other thread and many of the ones here I came to feel like I came off as feeling entitled, you know? And my point was basically, "yes, I'm entitled, and so are you, that's why I talk this way." Coming from my perspective, that shouldn't need to be said, but Ravenmn made me re-evaluate it.
Joan is onto something because I've said it before about when I used to go to the major liberal blogs. If something was said that didn't sit right with me from my perspective as a woman of color, I would comment on it, and my comment would be ignored. No one would address what I said. I sometimes thought, ok, this site gets alot of comments so maybe it was missed, and would repost in a different way, and that comment...would be ignored too. I finally stopped commenting about it because I knew these white people were set in their ideas and didn't want to hear any different. So it's not discomfort exactly, it's why waste time typing when no one is interested in what you have to say?
IMO there are patterns, patterns all over the place. Whatsername, this comment from me is on you as example of something I see as so much larger than you. It's not you as an individual -- it is you as a white woman running same-old same-old even if you feel you are different. So:
whatsername said: If you read my tone in the rest as patronizing...wow. I dunno how to respond to that. I am an opinionated person. That's not going to change. I experience things through dialog that is straight forward and rather blunt. As a result, sometimes people take me as trying to force my opinion on them, when really I'm just expressing it, and expecting them to give theirs right back to me in the same manner. In thinking about Ravenmn's comment in that other thread and many of the ones here I came to feel like I came off as feeling entitled, you know? And my point was basically, "yes, I'm entitled, and so are you, that's why I talk this way." Coming from my perspective, that shouldn't need to be said, but Ravenmn made me re-evaluate it.
First of all I call bullshit on this self-portrait on the basis of your actual behavior in this discussion. Just bullshit. Whatsername, I know straightforward and blunt when I see it. That is so so not what you are or have been doing here. I know the difference between straightforward and blunt expression (which is genuine, honest and upfront AND IT SHOWS in actual behavior, not just in the person's claim about what they are doing) -- and what you have been doing which other people have already described.
Second of all, wow did you just implicitly position yourself as being someone who would empower women of color by interacting in the way you have been interacting in this thread and encouraging them to emulate your mode? Did you just position your way of interaction as the standard that you or other white women should "give" to women of color to empower them? Question marks here because inside myself I'm, like, "no really, she just, did she actually? really? With a straight face did that?" and, whoa. But I see that you built in some plausable deniability so don't even bother -- of course that's not what you were saying, someone like you would never say such a thing, I must have misunderstood you, right?
And third of all, I mean the whole thing, all these attempted redefinitions of "what is actually happening" and "let me explain what is actually happening so you can stop seeing and reading me wrong and come to understand I'm not doing what you are saying I'm doing" --
You are doing what you are doing and it is not you as special different individual in my view, it's same-old same-old.
And attending to how you "come off" -- also same-old same old as you may or may not have noticed from that thread you quoted over at Donna's, the one where apparently the big thing you "learned" is ... well anyway, it's all out there I won't repeat it.
I will think on what you've said.
The only thing I want to say in reply is that I can't give WoC something they already have.
And I may not have said *this* this month, but if you and the wife ever decide to go polygamous, I would like to petition for consideration as platonic wife #2. Or # 1000, if there's a line already. Whichever.
dearest joan,
unless a woman comes along who my wifey decides to non-platonically shack up with, i shall not be sharing. because she is my wifens and i am a possesive only child. if platonic wife #2 ever exists, i shall cry, and if it progresses to #1000, i will be in the corner, holding my cat for comfort, muttering "why wifey why?" no no no. no sharing.
katie
Okay, okay, I can't stand it anymore, I have to ask:
Could someone (Blackamazon, Joan, Katie, someone else who understands this) please explain to me what a platonic wife of a woman is?
I'm a lesbian, I have known women who for real referred to each other as wives (including romantic/sexual, like a spouse). I'm confused about what this platonic wife thing is.
Could someone clue me in, please? And also, do you know, is it normally used among queer women, hetero women, both/either?
LOL MIchelle.
sorry
KAtie above your comment is my best friend. We went to college together and one of our writing teachers said
" you to argue like an old married couple"
mind you at this point we spent like 40 hours a week together at work at jobs and socially.
So we started going thats my wife.
( yeah we were doing the I'm the man in the relationship please forgive we were young we were what both 20)
SO we finally just agreed to be the "wives"
and found ourselves going this is my wife
and people being hella confused as
she's straight and I'm mostly straight
plus real life wife and wife couples and we'd be talking about each other and men she was seeing
or I'd be talking about people i would " wifeup"( I use the term for men) Non -platonically
so finally we started gong
" platonic" wives
to differentiate in conversation
it's a holdover
Hey, Blackamazon, thanks for the rely. The first time I saw you mention your wife on your blog I thought you had one in the, um, .... traditional? ... sense. Then I saw this discussion here and I was like, hmm, is that like, what is that, I doubt it's like "lesbian bed death" because -- what is that? Is it a "thing" that I don't know about? And Joan seemed to know all about it too.
Anyway, thanks for answering my questions!
Every once in a while, I look up names from this story--the lawyer, the accused, etc.--to try to figure out if the lawyer ever found a way to put the accused on trial w/o having to put the woman who was assaulted in front of Judge Deni again.
I never find any news.
*sigh*
Sure do wish I could do something.
Kind of weird how laws meant to keep sexist pigs from attacking a rape victim also keep potential allies from asking what they can do for her.
Do ya ever wonder if it'd work to use underground word-of-mouth networks to funnel requests for what attack victims would like would-be allies to try to create in their lives / the world? Avaaz.org managed to raise $50 million or something and funnel it to Buddhist monks after the Burma cyclone without uttering a peep about how they'd been told by the Buddhist monks what they wanted to do w/ money and without uttering a peep about how they could get the money to the Buddhist monks.
:-\
(Weird, though, that I was doing a Google search on the context of that "Well Behaved Women" quote and it turns out I got to be reminded of the fight over this incident.)
Every time I hear that quote I get reminded of this fight.
And feel a total embarrassment every time.
I do want to thank you though, BA, for this thread. It wasn't your job to shake me out of the complacency that I was in and show me how much I didn't know. But you, and Donna, and donna, and Sudy and donna darko...and others whose names I don't remember from this thread, you did do that.
It was a pivotal moment in my journey, and an unfortunate moment for my pride :P but vitally important for me to be anything better than what I was.
So, thanks.
Post a Comment