|
UP AND ADAM posted:If there are situations like the post below describes, how are they different than activists from the days of old conforming to the slogans and behaviors of their contemporary activist groups, turning off mainstream thinkers with their own unpalatable methods and extremism? A professional doctor has the proper skills for fixing up bodies. Say there is a medical crisis and you set up a movement to send a bunch of doctors to the countryside. Only the people who have developed the skill to doct should be the doctors. If you send a bunch of non-trained folks out into the countryside along with the doctors, because hey, the more hands the better, then you will have a catastrophe on your hand. You can't just send anyone: those not having a steady hand will do more harm than good. And as word gets around, actual doctors will face skepticism and resistance. (A real world example of fake doctors causing trouble for real doctors would be the news of fake CIA doctors in pakistan causing taliban attacks on real aid workers and local skepticism of measles vaccines leading to outbreaks that've killed thousands). You can have people who aren't doctors help the campaign, because every campaign requires lots of people to do perform many different functions - but have people play to their strengths and skills. This is why the Peace Corps doesn't accept just anyone: for 90% of positions, you need a 4-year degree in a trade skill or if a liberal arts degree they'll find you 3 months of tutoring for your placement. To carry the doctor analogy to activism, my thought is that the people who go out to fix up the problems ailing society should have the proper skills for it, having at least basic social skills. Empathy and patience are a must so you can allow others to feel like it's a conversation instead of a set of rules that feels imposed on and inorganic to that community (and so, more likely to be rejected). Those not having tolerance for the people who live in the place they're seeking to affect will do more harm than good, and as word gets around, those who seek reconciliation will find people not willing to even allow the conversation to happen. If the activist does not have capacity to respect the person they're working with as a fellow human being, it'll be like sending a bunch of marines who have been taught that the arab is fundamentally a dirty rat by nature into iraq and expecting to win hearts and souls. You're more likely to cause a popular backlash and insurgency. Or a bunch of europeans going into the Congo Free State in the great Civilizing Mission, going under the pretense that the people whose souls you are going to save are that of a lower species. If you aren't going with the idea that you are talking to equals who are subject to the same faults as you are, why are you going? If you show an adversarial character and blame social faults on individuals (instead of a cooperative one, cooperating to fix the flawed systems that produce individual faults), should you be surprised that you are taken as an imperialist outsider by the locals? UP AND ADAM posted:The bad faith needling from people who definitely are MRAs or whatever abhorrent thing is what rankles me. The lack of background depth and rigorous study and low aspirations of my peer group on the left is ultimately more depressing, but I have become accustomed to that ever since facebook started. It's fine to advocate for honest self-reflection and shaming self-aggrandizement, if that's what OP's piece is doing. So third wave feminism became divisive instead of emphasizing how the gender construct hoodwinks everybody, just in different ways and to different degrees. Men being told not to speak said "oh, but bad things happen to men too!" and out of spite or indignation that they are not supposed to speak went and made their own club. Or rather, they gave a name and supposed moral backing to the activities that had before been de facto boys' clubs. It's a good example of how going at activism purely theoretically and without taking note of your environment can lead to backlash that makes things worse for everybody.
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 08:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 06:22 |
|
|
Rodatose posted:It's a good example of how going at activism purely theoretically and without taking note of your environment can lead to backlash that makes things worse for everybody. It doesn't make things worse, it gives people like you an excuse to talk forever about your serious concerns. Not that you need an excuse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 08:43
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:It's good you mention MRAs, because I think (and I might be wrong) MRAs arose as a reaction to third wave feminism ss third wave feminism got further and further away from pursuing materialistic goals and tunneled more idealistic individualism. Of course, one's idealized image of the self is a phantom that can only be chased without fulfillment, by definition of it being The Ideal. If something a person has tried for has proven unobtainable, then one must either come to terms with their course of action being faulty and change, or must reason to themselves that someone or something along the way sabotaged things for them. People reasoning the ladder led to third wave feminism picking up an exclusionary character. You are absolutely wrong. Third wave feminism did not create MRAs; hell, they started popping up in Europe as soon as women achieved the right to do things like get divorced and receive child support. Hatred of women and bitterness at increasing women's visibility and rights created MRAs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 08:46
|
|
|
hip hop boards
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 08:46
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:What on earth? I was talking about abolitionism, there's no need for you to get into the particulars of the Civil War. Jesus, internet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 08:48
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:You used the example of abolitionism to try to say "checking your privilege is useful. this is a movement that happened because whites checked their privilege" so I decided to take that to its conclusion to show how useful it was. It was super useful, tons of slavery defenders were killed by musket and cannon fire.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 08:49
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:You are absolutely wrong. Third wave feminism did not create MRAs; hell, they started popping up in Europe as soon as women achieved the right to do things like get divorced and receive child support. Hatred of women and bitterness at increasing women's visibility and rights created MRAs. MRAs as in the men's rights activist movement? Like, under that name? Not just anti-feminist groups but people refering to themselves by an MRA label? SedanChair posted:It was super useful, tons of slavery defenders were killed by musket and cannon fire. SedanChair posted:It doesn't make things worse, it gives people like you an excuse to talk forever about your serious concerns. Not that you need an excuse. "There you go again" -roald dahl Rodatose fucked around with this message at 09:03 on Dec 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 08:53
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:MRAs as in the men's rights activist movement? Like, under that name? Not just anti-feminist groups but people refering to themselves by an MRA label? Yes. Here is an article about it in the NYT from 1926. wikipedia and relevant citations posted:Three loosely connected men's rights organizations formed in Austria in the interwar period. The League for Men's Rights was founded in 1926 with the goal of "combatting all excesses of women's emancipation".[12][13][14][15] In 1927, the Justitia League for Family Law Reform and the Aequitas World's League for the Rights of Men split from the League of Men's Rights.[12][13] The three men's rights groups opposed women's entry into the labor market and what they saw as the corrosive influence of the women's movement on social and legal institutions. Though if you want to get really technical, the term "activist" wasn't in their names because, I suspect, it wasn't in common parlance then. I don't have access to the OED online, but it would probably confirm that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 09:02
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Yes. Here is an article about it in the NYT from 1926. I really wouldn't call two small flash-in-the-pan organizations a movement1 popping up in europe. Some article2 said the leader "expected 2000 men to show up to a meeting." The split of the two happened because one wanted to address both men's and women's issues and the other wanted to go Full Angrydude. 1 That bit you quoted is under the heading 'forerunners' on wiki. 'Movement' is the next paragraph. from there you could debate the separation of 'men's liberation' and when it became modern 'mens rights activists' as the charming thing we know today 2lol misandry dot blogspot i skipped anything that was written by whoever runs that circus and looked at the direct sources. it was the first search result. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 09:25 on Dec 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 09:16
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:I really wouldn't call two small flash-in-the-pan organizations a movement* popping up in europe. Some article said the leader "expected 2000 men to show up to a meeting." The split of the two happened because one wanted to address both men's and women's issues and the other wanted to go Full Angrydude. lol, I showed you that men's right's movements existed in the early 20th century and your response is to say "Wellllll they don't count because..." And wikipedia headings are not convincing arguments. The answer to your question: Rodatose posted:MRAs as in the men's rights activist movement? Like, under that name? Not just anti-feminist groups but people refering to themselves by an MRA label? is yes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 09:22
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:lol, I showed you that men's right's movements existed in the early 20th century and your response is to say "Wellllll they don't count because..." And wikipedia headings are not convincing arguments. the wikipedia headings being "you should probably read the whole thing or not take it out of context." besides, I said "Not just anti-feminist groups" and you didn't really show that two groups isolated to one country without any sort of historical impact was any kind of movement. All you did was you said a thing and copypasted something from wikipedia. Like I had even looked at wikipedia about Men's Rights Movement before I made the original post so I said it fully knowing the thing you said and not thinking it to be important Does the time when I was a kid that I started a turtle club and there were 3 members mean that I was part of a Turtle Movement Rodatose fucked around with this message at 09:36 on Dec 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 09:33
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:the wikipedia headings being "you should probably read the whole thing or not take it out of context." besides, I said "Not just anti-feminist groups" and you didn't really show that two groups isolated to one country without any sort of historical impact was any kind of movement. All you did was you said a thing and copypasted something from wikipedia. Like I had even looked at wikipedia about Men's Rights Movement before I made the original post so I said it fully knowing the thing you said and not thinking it to be important The Men's Right's League lasted until 1938 until the Nazis shut it down. As far as "historical impact," you can go straight to the vile horse's mouth and see the continuing impact these early groups had. Your argument that third wave feminism is responsible for the men's rights movements is wrong.  edit: But feel free to keep obviously moving goalposts. Sharkie fucked around with this message at 09:52 on Dec 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 09:49
|
|
|
Sorry, I know this was from a few pages back (grad school and teaching keeps me from keeping up) butGlyphGryph posted:.... Wait, is what's bolded above seriously something that the utterly disorganized left thinks that it can control?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 09:50
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:The Men's Right's League lasted until 1938 until the Nazis shut it down. As far as "historical impact," you can go straight to the vile horse's mouth and see the continuing impact these early groups had. Your argument that third wave feminism is responsible for the men's rights movements is wrong. Can you point out the 'continuing impact' for me? It looks more like some bloggers tying together any historical justice issues involving crimes perpetrated by women, and coupling it next to 2) "Men's Rights Organizations" to give their own movement the illusion of historical legitimacy. In that article, there's still only the two organizations (though mentioned as being championed by charlie chaplain, still no mention of any sizeable audience) mentioned before under that 2) Men's Rights Organizations. All the rest listed there are specifically alimony fraud advocacy groups lumped in to make it look more numerous. I would characterize the way Men's Rights Activism is now with red pills and "going your own way" by its identity politics, which goes against the things in that article besides those two proto-groups. Of course, those two groups aren't cited as having influenced modern mra folks, more of being historical outliers than anything else found after the fact. If you wanted to talk about the Men's Rights movement, then go back to what I had in an earlier post (I edited it right after you responded): quote:That bit you quoted is under the heading 'forerunners' on wiki. 'Movement' is the next paragraph. From there you could debate the separation of 'men's liberation' and when it became modern 'mens rights activists' as the charming thing we know today Even if you would take those few isolated things as being part of some organized Men's Rights Movement (which I don't, just disorganized reaction to defend the status quo), would you consider it to be the same thing as today's men's rights movement? Or would you perhaps consider it to be an earlier wave?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 10:19
|
|
Things like Iron John started cropping up with third-wave feminism, so some bitter kid with a hard-on for the second wave (which hardly, hardly talked about how patriarchy hurts men) writing a theory about how third-wave feminism caused backlash due to it not being solely concerned with abortion and equal pay needs to accommodate that.afeelgoodpoop posted:I saw a few different instances on hip hop boards with angry young black men claiming that they'll be "checking" So what should be done? Do you want the sensible leftists, the people who think anti-racism has gone too far and equal pay is not a priority, judging by all the posts so far, to track down every single person getting angry on the internet over the wrong issues and beat them half to death? You wanna take a big ol' swing at Al Sharpton with a 9-iron? Is that it?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
I am not sure that most of the people who are MRAs ever intended to participate sincerely in any kind of feminist discourse to begin with. When your main "political" concerns are circumcision and ethics in video game journalism then I don't see how it can be believed that really you intended to contribute to feminism but an accusation of "mansplaining" forever turned you to the dark side. That isn't to say that there isn't a problem with the pervasiveness of casting male voices as "mansplaining" because it is genuinely alienating to potential allies and is a symptom of the essentialism and anti-intellectualism discussed in the article in the OP. However, those potential allies are much more likely, I think, to just say "whatever" and go on without getting involved than "flip" to MRA beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:The thing is, in my experience, it doesn't seem to matter how nice and accommodating we are. Even the statement of simple truths is enough to rile people up. Try to talk about the poo poo that women face, or non-white people face, or LGBT people face, and you open yourself to harassment and abuse. It doesn't seem to matter if you qualify your statements with "Now, only a minority of men are like this...", or "Now obviously not all white people do this...", you'll still get a massive response from pissed off dudes and white people going "Well what about MEN being raped by WOMEN, huh? HUH?!", or "What about when BLACK PEOPLE kill WHITE PEOPLE, huh?! HUH?!" It just doesn't seem to matter. The only thing that will NOT piss these people off is if you say "Women harass and rape men just as much as vice-verse; black people are just as racist as white people and black cops murder unarmed white men just as much", despite all evidence to the contrary. If people get mad about hard facts, then you can't really help that. If your facts consist of 'All men are mostly sexist' and 'All white people are racist' then you're going to lose a ton of potential allies. The second thing is that casting a wide net of guilt places people on the defensive naturally. You're saying their identity, which they have no choice in choosing, is inherently linked to injustice, which is bound to turn people off. The third thing is that you have to make people care. Pointing to vague things like privilege and societal problems prompts a reaction of 'so what can I do about this?' or 'why should I care?' The movement is trying to forcibly change people's opinions and attitudes without giving them a reason to. Part of that is also aided by the lack of definable goals. Saying everything is lovely is easy. Saying everything is lovely and here's how we can fix it is hard. Telling people that their existence is the root cause of the problem, and that they should fix it (somehow?), is asking someone to actively do something with no benefit to them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
SparkPeople posted:The third thing is that you have to make people care. Pointing to vague things like privilege and societal problems prompts a reaction of 'so what can I do about this?' or 'why should I care?' The movement is trying to forcibly change people's opinions and attitudes without giving them a reason to. Part of that is also aided by the lack of definable goals. Saying everything is lovely is easy. Saying everything is lovely and here's how we can fix it is hard. When I ask "why should I care?" I was hoping someone would either say a pragmatic "because a stable, fair society is good for you and your kids" or "because it's morally right to look after everyone in society." It's good to do the moral thing! It's good to have a stable, happy society! When you see all the bickering bullshit that happens in this thread, which is somehow far more polite than usual, it really does make me think that what really happens is the moral or benevolent powers that be take a look, see "oh, something is amiss" and either do something because it's right, or they do a little calculus and think that "being fair is cheaper and easier than cracking down on them." One thing that I always wonder is why nobody even considers the whole "if it's cheaper to have the cops just dickmode on us vs do what we want" question. Especially if groups are advocating that childish sense of "let's go beat up random members of a group" bullshit like violent "privilege checking" earlier in the page. SparkPeople posted:Telling people that their existence is the root cause of the problem, and that they should fix it (somehow?), is asking someone to actively do something with no benefit to them. Or if they buy into that mentality it's just hyenas vs lions and double down on the oppression. Hugo boss just looks good, yanno? Space Whale fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Dec 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Things like Iron John started cropping up with third-wave feminism, so some bitter kid with a hard-on for the second wave (which hardly, hardly talked about how patriarchy hurts men) writing a theory about how third-wave feminism caused backlash due to it not being solely concerned with abortion and equal pay needs to accommodate that. Do you have that hard of a time accepting that if people are given a ton of poo poo from a group they might actually not like the group giving them all of the poo poo? "rear end in a top hat Victim."
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 20:41
|
|
Space Whale posted:Do you have that hard of a time accepting that if people are given a ton of poo poo from a group they might actually not like the group giving them all of the poo poo? Don't quote TVTropes. I'm asking what should be done. You can't actually shut someone up without violence or the threat of it. Given that leftists aren't in charge, that means forming street gangs to mutilate pathological tweeters.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I'm asking what should be done. You can't actually shut someone up without violence or the threat of it. Given that leftists aren't in charge, that means forming street gangs to mutilate pathological tweeters. Oh. Twitter is already implementing a "report people with bad tweets" thingy, and there's already the whole "ignore feature." And people run blocklists so you can soundproof your echo chamber. Unless we're confusing what our idea of the other person's demands are, again. If you mean the official message from "the movement" you'd need a recognized leader. If it's just angry bullshit then of course hormonal teens and 20-somethings are going to be dripping with venom, laced with violence, and smelling of teen spirit. Effectronica posted:Don't quote TVTropes. If you're a thundering rear end in a top hat people will either lose sympathy, or worse, start to oppose you; you know what my point was.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It was super useful, tons of slavery defenders were killed by musket and cannon fire. When "checking your privilege" is this kind of bullshit you're proving the point that "privilege" is now bullshit. Or, that it's bullshit when babby bishie (privilege aware) bolsheviks like you use it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:If you're a thundering rear end in a top hat people will either lose sympathy, or worse, start to oppose you; Or not, as evidenced by the thundering assholes throughout history that people have supported. Or does this only apply to victims of societal bigotry?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:When "checking your privilege" is this kind of bullshit you're proving the point that "privilege" is now bullshit. Or, that it's bullshit when babby bishie (privilege aware) bolsheviks like you use it. Privlege isn't really bullshit. It is kind of necessary to fully understand why things are the way they are. If you don't realize that basic then you can't really deal with the whole problem. You will just spend all your time butting your head against the wall of "blacks aren't oppressed their just criminals" or "why can't they just work hard like me" you will have no rebuttal and you won't be able to convince them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:The problem with the concept of 'privilege' is not the idea it represents, it's its usefulness. It does tell you that some people got it easier in the society than the others, but offers no insight why this happens or what can be done with it. It presents inequality as some mysterious force that simply exists and cannot be ever defeated. Even if you belong to the privileged group, you can do nothing to level the playing field, because privilege exists outside of you whether you want it or not. If you're a minority, you can do nothing by definition. It's presented as an outside, malicious force that can never be fought except by making everyone aware of its existence and mitigating damage it causes. I don't think this is accurate. I'd agree that the whole discourse surrounding 'privilege' has been used as a bludgeon to shut down actual debate but that doesn't mean it isn't addressing a real issue. There are a number of occasions with recent social movements, such as women's lib or gay rights, where you start out with a large group that has shared interests. But as the struggle progresses and concessions are made those interests begin to diverge. So, for instance, with second wave feminism you eventually started to have cracks emerging where queer or racialized women were basically being ignored and exploited by white middle class feminists. This is where stuff like "solidarity is for white women" originates. I don't particularly like that sentiment but I'm not going to give it a snide blanket dismissal because it actually speaks to a very real issue. Solidarity is great, but it can become an excuse for ignoring real and serious problems. Effectronica posted:I think that the fact that it isn't a theory is important. There are critical weaknesses (well, maybe not for someone as self-aware as that guy, but frankly, depressives are easy to shut up) in the way of thinking because there's nothing holding it together, it's just people repeating "check your privilege", "solidarity is for white women", and other catchphrases. This means that it's much easier to attack than, say, someone who sincerely believes that you need two X chromosomes, a vayjayjay untouched by the scalpel, and a womb in order to be a woman, because you have to out-maneuver their theory and they can just sit within it (granted, trans people are exactly what all the tedious anger about identity politics is about, probably) untouched and almost untouchable. I think you're being overly dismissive. Intersectionality (which seems to basically be what privielge theory is derived from, at least so far as I can tell) is a real issue. Like I said, I agree that there are some critical weaknesses with this perspective but its a bit insulting and reductionist to just label everybody who adopts these ideas as arguing in bad faith or simply being deluded about their real interests. There were real material causes that lead to the splintering of the leftist movement - some internal, some external. I think there has to be a balance between criticizing theories or political tendencies that have gone all in for identity politics without automatically dismissing the concerns or experiences that lead them in that direction in the first place. Jazerus posted:I am not sure that most of the people who are MRAs ever intended to participate sincerely in any kind of feminist discourse to begin with. When your main "political" concerns are circumcision and ethics in video game journalism then I don't see how it can be believed that really you intended to contribute to feminism but an accusation of "mansplaining" forever turned you to the dark side. Effectronica posted:Things like Iron John started cropping up with third-wave feminism, so some bitter kid with a hard-on for the second wave (which hardly, hardly talked about how patriarchy hurts men) writing a theory about how third-wave feminism caused backlash due to it not being solely concerned with abortion and equal pay needs to accommodate that. I think the notion that somehow mean leftists have directly caused (or are about to cause) a right wing backlash is psychologically gratifying to a lot of people. Its an argument that doesn't make a lot of sense on its own merits but you can see how it acts as a sort of 'just world theory' for ideologies. 'These people make me uncomfortable or say things I don't like, so of course the universe will punish them by having everybody turn against their cause. After all, deep down almost everybone basically thinks the same way I do, so if I don't like what they are saying then surely other right thinking people dislike it as well.' I doubt people are actually that self conscious about it, but that seems to be the real function of that belief. People who make me uncomfortable will be punished, perhaps not by God, but by some equilibrating force. None of which is to say that the left never alienates people through rhetoric. Any political movement will scare some people off that way (just look at the Tea Party losing winnable Republican races in the 2012 cycle). But the idea that tumblr-feminists are directly responsible for MRAs, as opposed to, you know, the actual loss of status and income that men have suffered in the last 40 years, is just so patently silly that it really makes you ask 'what is the appeal of this absurd belief? what psychological use does it have to the people who hold it?'
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Seems to me that they wrote this because they were graduating soon an needed to deradicalize themselves in order to find employment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
That seems a bit unfair. For one thing I don't really think Canadian employers give that much of a gently caress whether you had lefty beliefs in college (unless you're trying to go straight into the RCMP or CSIS) and for another she still expresses admiration for market socialism and just generally comes off as an honest though slightly clueless person who got drawn into the student movement out of genuine conviction but who left it after getting burned out by the toxic atmosphere. I mean, whether or not her views are actually representative of the McGill student body as a whole, it's perfectly easy to believe that the particular social circle she fell into had some of the attributes she describes. Political movements of any affiliation can get really cultish if the wrong sorts of people take control of them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
Helsing posted:So, for instance, with second wave feminism you eventually started to have cracks emerging where queer or racialized women were basically being ignored and exploited by white middle class feminists. That just seems pragmatic, though. Broadening the goals of feminism would have diluted their message and efforts -- accomplishing a narrow goal is hard enough. It's suicide for a movement to try to be all things to all people. I get that people felt betrayed, but "you didn't listen to us" is a pretty goddamn tame form of exploitation. That's like the minimum level of ruthlessness required for any leader to succeed. hepatizon fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Dec 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
Helsing posted:So, for instance, with second wave feminism you eventually started to have cracks emerging where queer or racialized women were basically being ignored and exploited by white middle class feminists. This was going on long before second wave feminism, with tensions between white and black suffragettes in the early 20th century. Ida B. Wells, for example, was asked to walk at the back of a suffrage protest. Helsing posted:But the idea that tumblr-feminists are directly responsible for MRAs, as opposed to, you know, the actual loss of status and income that men have suffered in the last 40 years, is just so patently silly that it really makes you ask 'what is the appeal of this absurd belief? what psychological use does it have to the people who hold it?' I think the appeal of this absurd belief is to allow people to discount what feminists are saying with a blanket "If people are against you it's because you're too shrill," while at the same time absolving men of their horrible beliefs by putting the blame on feminists. And like you said, there's a certain amount of just-world thinking involved as well. hepatizon posted:That just seems pragmatic, though. Broadening the goals of feminism would have diluted their message and efforts -- accomplishing a narrow goal is hard enough. It's suicide for a movement to try to be all things to all people. Arguing that all women should have rights, including women of color or LBT women, is hardly diluting a feminist message or trying to be all things to all people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Or not, as evidenced by the thundering assholes throughout history that people have supported. Or does this only apply to victims of societal bigotry? Thundering rear end in a top hat to you vs thundering rear end in a top hat on your side, to others. This is an important distinction. Who would want to help someone being an rear end in a top hat to them, exactly? Regardless of what they're victims of.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Privlege isn't really bullshit. It is kind of necessary to fully understand why things are the way they are. If you don't realize that basic then you can't really deal with the whole problem. You will just spend all your time butting your head against the wall of "blacks aren't oppressed their just criminals" or "why can't they just work hard like me" you will have no rebuttal and you won't be able to convince them. This kind of bullshit, such as what I was referencing in the context of violently "checking" people of another race, being a screaming rear end in a top hat, being SedanChair, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Dystram posted:Seems to me that they wrote this because they were graduating soon an needed to deradicalize themselves in order to find employment. Yeah, people do often times decide to grow up after a while, imagine that 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Arguing that all women should have rights, including women of color or LBT women, is hardly diluting a feminist message or trying to be all things to all people. How would they have done that without incorporating institutional racism and gender essentialism into their message? Those issues are hard enough to tackle today. Second-wave feminists walked a narrow line between pursuing radical goals and becoming objects of ridicule. I don't blame them any more than I blame MLK for ignoring gay rights. This is what I don't get about intersectionality -- it describes a real phenomenon, but it doesn't get you any closer to solving the problem, because successful movements always focus on a single axis of privilege. hepatizon fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Dec 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:Thundering rear end in a top hat to you vs thundering rear end in a top hat on your side, to others. This is an important distinction. What you said was: Space Whale posted:If you're a thundering rear end in a top hat people will either lose sympathy, or worse, start to oppose you; you know what my point was. My point was simply that being an rear end in a top hat will not automatically cause people to lose sympathy for you, or oppose you. Now, as to your most recent post, it's not phrased very well, but what you seem to be ignoring is that minorities already have plenty of people who lack sympathy for them or oppose them, whereas being an "rear end in a top hat" can motivate people in your group to act. This doesn't even begin to deal with who gets to define what an rear end in a top hat or rear end in a top hat behavior is. Was Steinem being one when she quoted "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle"? At any rate, the original tvtropes article you cited was "rear end in a top hat victim;" this, along with your most recent post, suggests you feel it is somehow the onus of the victim to play nice and not be an rear end in a top hat - at least that's how it appears to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
hepatizon posted:How would they have done that without incorporating institutional racism and gender essentialism into their message? Those issues are hard enough to tackle today. Second-wave feminists walked a narrow line between pursuing radical goals and becoming objects of ridicule. I don't blame them any more than I blame MLK for ignoring gay rights. You're going to have to convince me that allowing Ida B. Wells to fully participate in a suffrage march would have "incorporated institutional racism." hepatizon posted:This is what I don't get about intersectionality -- it describes a real phenomenon, but it doesn't get you any closer to solving the problem, because successful movements always focus on a single axis of privilege. Describing a problem is often the first step in solving it! When, exactly, should anti-racist movements pretend black women aren't women, and when should feminist movements pretend some women aren't black? Black women are burdened by race, by gender, and by being black women, a burden that comes from the intersection of these forces. See this article for example. I'm also not convinced that successful movements always focus on a single axis of privilege: let's not forget the role women played in the Russian revolution, for example.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:What you said was: "rear end in a top hat" can motivate people on your side, sure, but will it get more people who aren't on your side to join yours? And no, I'm not talking about the onus on a victim to be nice. What I mean is when a lot of people are saying "yo, we want to help you, but you're such a bunch of loving jerks we can't stand it anymore, and we're on your side," and the response is "yeah well foxnews viewers hate us too hurr" and you ignore things like "does my tiny minority have enough power on its own to do poo poo without convincing people that what we want is morally right or getting people to join us" you're so caught up in your own self righteousness that you're shooting yourself in the foot. Not that you or even most radicals have the fever dreams SedanChair has, but at some level you realize you need to convince people to join you and of the moral correctness of your demands, right? I personally have no problem helping people who are dicks, but I'm not going to personally have much to do with those dicks, and would go out of my way to avoid them. Or, in short, I'll vote for poo poo to help people who need it, but gently caress having anything to do with them or putting up with them personally, even if they deserve to be treated like human beings. But what if "I'm morally right" isn't enough? What if you need to motivate people to be your friends and allies? What if people won't even listen if you're being dicks? Maybe then "you're categorically morally wrong by birth" isn't such a great thing to espouse! People want a movement to belong to. If they can't belong to the movement that's for/by the oppressed, they'll join one for themselves, by people who are going to treat them nicer - probably not the oppressed! Is this not a potential problem?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:Thundering rear end in a top hat to you vs thundering rear end in a top hat on your side, to others. This is an important distinction. But this goes back to what I said earlier: that it doesn't seem to matter how nice or accommodating or civil or polite or respectful you are; people will be hostile to you even if you're just stating brute facts. I can understand if a whole bunch of people were saying "kill all cis-het white men mwahahahaha", then I can see why that would drive people away. But even when people are just like "Look, sexism/racism is still a thing, okay?", and citing studies to support it, it STILL incites hostility. And then you go "Hey, stop being such thundering assholes, you thunderasses!" But nobody's being a thundering rear end in a top hat? Hell, even in this post that I'm quoting, it sounds like you're admitting that one person's thundering rear end in a top hat is another person's ally. Leftwing activists can be as nice and respectful as possible, but they'd still come across as "thundering assholes" to certain people. Well then, what the gently caress?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:"yo, we want to help you, but you're such a bunch of loving jerks we can't stand it anymore, and we're on your side," and the response is "yeah well foxnews viewers hate us too hurr" Is this you? Who do you want to help but find they're such loving jerks you can't stand it? And surprise, people other than die-hard fox news watchers can have lovely ideas about minorities! Space Whale posted:I personally have no problem helping people who are dicks, but I'm not going to personally have much to do with those dicks, and would go out of my way to avoid them. Cool. So you will support people who you think are dicks or assholes, you just won't be friends with them in real life or go to their parties. Space Whale posted:Maybe then "you're categorically morally wrong by birth" isn't such a great thing to espouse! Wait is this just some misconception about white privilege or male privilege? Are you saying this, that you're upset by people saying that white people in America have it better off than blacks by virtue of their race, or that straight people have it better off than gay people?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:You're going to have to convince me that allowing Ida B. Wells to fully participate in a suffrage march would have "incorporated institutional racism." That seems more like outright racism than a strategic choice, though. If there were outspoken racists in second-wave feminism, then I condemn them too. But the strategic choice -- committing yourself completely to one cause -- doesn't make you a racist. Sharkie posted:Describing a problem is often the first step in solving it! When, exactly, should anti-racist movements pretend black women aren't women, and when should feminist movements pretend some women aren't black? Black women are burdened by race, by gender, and by being black women, a burden that comes from the intersection of these forces. See this article for example. I'm also not convinced that successful movements always focus on a single axis of privilege: let's not forget the role women played in the Russian revolution, for example. Could you quote the parts of that article that discuss practical solutions for discrimination against black women specifically? Like, it seems obvious that, just as an intersectional problem arises from separate problems, an intersectional solution also arises from separate solutions. It doesn't seem like the Russian Revolution had any lasting success in that regard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 06:22 |
|
|
Sharkie posted:Is this you? Who do you want to help but find they're such loving jerks you can't stand it? Sharkie posted:Cool. So you will support people who you think are dicks or assholes, you just won't be friends with them in real life or go to their parties. Sharkie posted:Wait is this just some misconception about white privilege or male privilege? Are you saying this, that you're upset by people saying that white people in America have it better off than blacks by virtue of their race, or that straight people have it better off than gay people? I know white people have it better than black people in the USA. I'm not upset when someone says that to make a point. When someone says it makes white people bad, I have an issue. When people bring it out as "I WANT TO WIN THIS ARGUMENT" or "this makes me right and you wrong" I want them to go gently caress themselves. Again, why is there all this "u mad?" and "haha bloo bloo your feels" coming up if this is anything BUT just resentment and trying to score points for your side anyway?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 01:09
|
|