|
rudatron posted:I'd agree with the author that the subjectivizing of truth is much, much less useful to radical politics then the more standard universalizing. The goal of radical politics shouldn't be to pat people on the head and tell them they're special, nor simply seriously argue that only certain people's perspectives are valid and beyond question. Everything is at risk, nothing is sacred, and the owl of minerva only flies at dusk. All we have is impersonal data. The only valid path to truth is to deny any personal experience: you go off what you can prove. I wouldn't seriously argue that anyone's perspectives are beyond question, but surely you can see the absurdity of a rich white guy telling a poor black guy about what it's like to live in the inner city, right? I'm also not sure that to "deny any personal experience" is the only valid path to truth - or power. People sharing personal experiences is valuable for understanding your and others' roles in society, and in building actionable consensus. I'm not denying the value of data, but no data is impersonal - everything from its collection to communication to evaluation to meaning is influenced by the personal experiences of the people working with it. Vermain posted:In the absence of any real (apparent) hope of controlling the levers of society, phatic or ritual actions tend to suffice instead: Tumblr wars, solidarity rallies, etc. (Not that I mean to disparage those sorts of things, but I feel that we tend to participate in a lot of them mostly to alleviate feelings of helplessness rather than with a long-term strategy of concrete change in mind.) Yeah, and I'm thinking specifically about minority participation in these ritual actions here, you could certainly find historical parallels among other marginalized groups. This goes back to my earlier point, which is that marginalized groups tend not to have access to the production of "data," so to them personalized experiences are a valuable means of articulating truth. edit - Was it Chuck D who, back in the day, said that rap music is the black community's CNN? Sharkie fucked around with this message at 09:05 on Dec 4, 2014 |
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 09:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 00:58 |
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:Simple statements of truth huh? Being gay also has a decent rate of comorbidity with mental illnesses...it's almost like living in a culture which demonizes and discriminates you isn't good for your mental health! Space Whale posted:If this is a dumb question let me know, but how is a tiny group of people who piss lots of people off, confuse even more, and which does not give a drat about building bridges, going to actually DO anything? This is a dumb question because you missed Blue Star's entire point, which is that any discussion of, say, violence against women is going to piss people off. There comes a point where you have to realize that you're not going to build bridges to the parade of people shouting "What about the men!?" in any discussion about women and accept that yes, they are just misogynists. edit: Whoops, looks like I was wrong! But my point was that instances of depression or anxiety of LGBT people can be traced to living in a discriminatory culture.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:Or maybe they just have an extreme case of body dysmorphia among other things? No, you do not know better than trans people and physicians because you're transphobic, hth. Also: This isn't a thread about transgender people so uh go start a thread about it if you're that concerned.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
hepatizon posted: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. It was a strategic choice. It was also the result of institutional racism. Just like trying to keep lesbian women from the women's movements of the 60s and 70s was a strategic choice ("we don't want people to think feminism turns women gay") rooted in institutional homophobia. Also the suffragettes were not second-wave feminists - I'm not sure if you meant to imply that or not. hepatizon posted:Like, it seems obvious that, just as an intersectional problem arises from separate problems, an intersectional solution also arises from separate solutions. You're misunderstanding intersectionalism. The nexus of two burdens (ex: racism and sexism) itself is a third burden (i.e., being a black woman). You don't need to ask people to split their identities to choose one problem only to address. Do you think Sojourner Truth should have nixed the whole "Ain't I a Woman" speech because she was only capable of dealing with one problem at a time, or because it was a distraction? hepatizon posted:It doesn't seem like the Russian Revolution had any lasting success in that regard. Overcoming centuries of oppression can be difficult, yes. While I wouldn't claim Soviet Russia achieved anything like gender equality, many women were instrumental in supporting it for reasons that were directly tied to feminism, like Kollontai, or the women in the bread riots. Of course, even that article you cited showed that women got suffrage, abortion rights, and legally-mandated maternity leave before women in America. Anyways, as far as other intersectional movements, MLK is another good example; he fought against racial and class-based oppression. Space Whale posted:This was their pithy dismissal of "y'all are assholes". I suppose we could expand into things like "even if someone doesn't agree with you 100% they're not wearing hoods and burning crosses" but that's probably for the secret advanced D&D. I honestly have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Space Whale posted: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. So yeah, it does seem like you misunderstand the concept of privilege if you reduce it to "white people bad". White people are in no danger of becoming the despised victims of institutional oppression. You want people who bring it up to go gently caress themselves because you think they're being disingenuous or scoring points or what? I'd remind you that for some people this is a real-world problem and not an internet game. And again I have no idea what you're trying to say with your last paragraphs.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:No, I dislike it when other people do exactly that and act like a dick because of it. Do exactly "what"? The Insect Court posted:This is ironic because privilege "theory" is the sort of thing neoliberalism loves in that it atomizes society and serves as a barrier to class consciousness So you're saying white privilege doesn't exist or what exactly? Do you seriously believe that black people or gay people or women should set aside the issues that concern exclusively them in order to recognize that really, it's about class, and concerns about racism/homophobia are atomizing? I hope you don't, but that's what this post seems to be suggesting.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2014 07:17
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Racism was(and is) used to create a false sense of shared identity between poor whites and white elites so the latter court exert social control. That's hardly a novel or controversial observation. You mean the Henry Louis Gates that was arrested by a white cop for trying to get into his own house?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2014 09:48
|
|
|
If your leftist movement doesn't address the issues that are faced specifically by women, LGBT people, and minorities, it's poo poo. Saying that black people being aware of and addressing burdens that are shared by all black people is "false consciousness" is as naive and goofy as saying "I don't see color, man."Effectronica posted:What the hell is "identity politics"? What does it mean, besides a buzzword for conservatives and vulgar communists to express their hatred for anything that happened after 1968? The Angry White Male is back, in leftist form!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:If your movement to change society doesn't address everyone's problems in society and give everyone a place in your new society it's poo poo. Ah yes, straight white men, always in danger of being left behind. Who will speak for them? 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:Yes the people with power don't matter, the majority doesn't matter, you'll just change laws and society with sick burns and emoticons and tweets. Space Whale posted:If your movement to change society doesn't address everyone's problems in society and give everyone a place in your new society it's poo poo. "Why didn't MLK stand up for the rights of white guys, too? How could he expect to get anywhere unless he addressed the problems of the majority of white society?"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 05:50
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:MLK didn't say check your privilege, MLK wanted everyone together. Letter From Birmingham Jail posted:Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals... "Wait until the revolution is underway for everyone" is the kind of thinking he meant by "more convenient season." Space Whale posted:I'm not asking for what you think I'm asking. I want belonging not this screechy bullshit. If you want to help advance someone's rights, but don't because you don't like the tone of some people who espouse similar ideas, because they're not polite or friendly enough, then you can always find someone, in any political cause, to justify ignoring it. Also, I'd be interested in you defining "screechy bullshit" historically. Like, would you have discounted the entire women's liberation movement of the 60s/70s because of Solanas?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:Also nobody ever said what privileges I'd lose or have to give up. Just that I would and it's making me uncomfortable, since that's gratifying for sjws to think of normal people. Space Whale posted:I asked this already and someone said "well cops will lose the privilege to kill black kids and get away with it" which I'm OK with. Not sure how a "privilege" isn't "any act an agent can take" with such a broad (useless) definition but ok? For someone who types a lot of words about how privilege is a bad and harmful concept you seem to have no idea what it is. Seriously have you ever heard or written about it in a place that wasn't the internet?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:thought about finding other people who actually care about issues but don't want to tear each other apart until only a queer woman of (every) color muslim amputee was left to arbitrate the truth. Like I alluded to earlier, this sounds like an Angry White Male rant about political correctness from 1994. Anyways, was this all on the internet? Space Whale posted:Just to avoid getting this mixed in with my tl;dr You just said that you've never heard or written anything about this topic except on the internet. Given you often you bring up internet slang, twitter, etc., it sounds more like your problem is with the internet, and how some people behave on it. If the "YEARS" you've put into this consist solely of arguing with people on the internet, welp, you're starting to sound like the internet slacktivists you're so angry at. (and I'm going to assume that last word is a typo, lol) Space Whale posted:No, which is the thing. This is the point. The "crux" of the problem, if you will. "I have no education or experience in this topic," isn't really convincing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 07:37
|
|
|
Space Whale posted:So where should people go for belonging, then? Wouldn't there then be "but you're not listening to us!" levied at people forming their own interest group? I would encourage you, sincerely, to find local groups in your area that are addressing problems that you're interested in - gentrification, income inequality, etc. You'll probably feel better (and I don't think that's trivial!) doing work on the local level then with debating people on the internet. Space Whale posted:If you grasp for an ism to ist out over so much you're going to take the idiom "gaggle of gooks" into something racist there's really no hope for you. You're looking to score points, period. I don't know what "grasp for an ism to ist out over" means, but that part in parenthesis is was supposed to be a joke. I assumed you meant "goofs," that it was an obvious typo, and I was just trying to point it out...I can see how my comment came out, though. On the other hand, "gooks" is in fact something racist, so since this is the second time you've made what I'm still going to assume is a typo, you might want to be more careful about it in the future!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 08:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 00:58 |
|
|
A straight white guy (or gal, in the case of the early feminist movement) telling black people and gay people to wait their turn, that they're going to be off-putting to the masses who otherwise yearn for a leftist revolution, that hey just because I'm a straight white guy I don't have any advantages over you and am oppressed in all the same ways you are is...sausage eyes posted:not a new way of looking at things. sausage eyes posted:Seriously though it is creepy cult poo poo to want people to look within themselves and get rid of any privilege holding ideas. Seriously you don't understand it. The concept of privilege is an analytical tool for understanding how different people benefit from systemic oppression. That's it. You're supposed to take that knowledge and use it to work against systemic oppression. Saying things like "get rid of any privilege holding ideas" makes you sound like you don't know what you're talking about.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 13:43
|
|