Dr. Violet Socks – who I’m a fan of – writes:
The difference between sexism and racism
One is acceptable; the other isn’t.
Imagine if the host of a popular TV show on dog training had made the following remarks:
“Black people are the only species that is wired different from the rest. They always apply affection before discipline. White people apply discipline then affection, so we’re more psychological than emotional. All animals follow dominant leaders; they don’t follow lovable leaders.”
He would probably be fired, don’t you think? But professional dog-trainer/fucktard Cesar Millan made precisely these remarks about women — substitute “woman” for “black people” in the paragraph above, re-conjugate the verbs as necessary, and voilá: the Cesar Millan Theory of Gender. Somehow I don’t think he’s going to lose his job. He’s just a crazy colorful Latino, right?
I have to disagree with this post, and particularly with the “one is acceptable; the other isn’t” way Violet framed her comparison.
Yes, Millan probably would have been fired had he said that on TV. (Although who knows? Bill O’Reilly seems to be able to get away with racist remarks, and Don Imus with anti-semitic remarks…)
It may be true that overt endorsements of racist essentialism (i.e., “blacks are just born that way”) is less acceptable in the US than overt endorsements of sexist essentialism – that’s certainly my perception. I think that’s probably because there are some biological differences between women and men (such as, who gets pregnant), and so the hard-line approach of saying “only a bigot would say that there are important biological differences between ____ and _____,” which anti-racists have used to good effect, can’t be used as effectively by feminists.
But that doesn’t mean that sexism is acceptable, and racism isn’t. The reality is, both sexism and racism are at times accepted and tolerated in our society, depending on context.
Overt endorsements of racial essentialism aren’t the only kind of racism there is. So even if it’s true that overt sexist essentialism is more acceptable in our society than overt racist essentialism, it doesn’t follow that the difference between sexism and racism is “one is accepted, the other isn’t.” There are plenty of ways in which our society is all too accepting of racism: look at sentencing disparities, look at infant mortality, look at the under-representation of minorities on TV, look at how our government has robbed American Indians of oil, look at Gwen Stephani’s backup singers, look at the not-very-subtle ways the Republican party tries to suppress minority voting, etc etc.
Finally, it should be noted that essentialist racism is sometimes accepted in our society. Look at The Bell Curve, which was well-reviewed, published by a major mainstream publisher, and became a best-seller.
* * *
I was also bothered by Violet’s offhand dismissal of Shannon‘s criticism, in comments. If Violet seriously considered Shannon’s criticism, or examined if she could have chosen wording that seemed less dismissive of racism than “one is acceptable, the other isn’t,” then there’s no sign of it in Violet’s comments. Instead, Violet became both defensive and insulting – a common reaction of white people when criticized by people of color, but one that should be avoided.
* * *
I also have problems with the “replace ______ with the word black” mode of criticism – but it would be unfair to single out Violet for that, since it’s so common among (white?) progressives. (I’ve done it myself, I’m sorry to say.) That’ll be a post for another day.
* * *
See also Bitch | Lab, commenting on the same post. UPDATE: And Angry Black Woman, too. UPDATE II: BlackAmazon, too, too.
Pingback: The Angry Black Woman
Pingback: Raging from within the machine
Pingback: Eric Stoller’s blog
Pingback: Eric Stoller’s blog
Pingback: feminist blogs
Said more eloquently than I. We’re in total agreement. Bravo.
I’ll be very intrested in seeing the discussion on “replace ______ with the word black” criticisms.
I think “replace-x-with-y” arguments sometimes work very well, sometimes not. It depends on the context – here, I think it wasn’t bad.
As for the larger issue, I’ll be up front: I’m white, female, and I think sexism is a bigger issue in the US than racism is. But:
1) I don’t think that, even if I could prove that sexism is 14% more serious than racism or whatever, it would mean anything: so the oppression I face is 14% more serious than yours, YOU’RE STILL OPPRESSED. What’s the point?
2) How can you even prove something like this? Through personal experience? Obviously Cynthia McKinney wouldn’t have been called a “ghetto slut” because of her hair if she wasn’t female, but she sure as hell wouldn’t have been called that if she were white, either. Some women of color say they’re more oppressed because of their race; some say because of their sex. Black and Hispanic boys seem to be doing worse in school than black and Hispanic girls, so it’s not as if it’s as simple as stacking oppressions, either. What statistics do you look at? Whose personal experiences do you privilege over others when judging this?
3) Even the things that can be measured would be massively time consuming to be measured properly. How much of this issue is perception-based? I, for example, think The Bell Curve came under a HELL of a lot more media criticism and received more professional critiques than the average “men and women are different, so here’s why women will never succeed” book, and that the latter type of book is far more common and accepted by mainstream society.
I suppose if I were writing a Racism Versus Sexism book I could track down and compare everything written on such subjects in the past ten years, but the average commenter or blogger isn’t going to do that. They’re going to compare personal experiences and perceptions. Even if they do take the time to do massive amounts of research and prove that one -ism is bigger than the other, great: you’ve only proved that for one area. Cover everything else in life, now.
4) What’s to be gained? If, as above, I prove that sexism is 14% more serious than racism, what do I win? Why does this argument exist in the first place?
I mean, non-meta, obviously you’re responding to Violet’s post, and Violet is responding to something brought up elsewhere, by someone who probably disagreed with something someone else said about racism versus sexism, etc, etc, and everyone wants to add their very strongly-held opinion. But what’s the point of continuing a discussion that is probably not going to lead to anything good or solid? Until someone writes about, oh, 300 pages explaining and providing proof of why one -ism is worse than the other, people are mostly going to remain unconvinced.
If you’re arguing, for example, for abortion, that has a genuine point: trying to convince people to vote pro-choice and do all they can to keep abortion legal. Same for arguing against abortion. But something like this, where most participants can agree that both racism and sexism are issues that need to be taken seriously… well, I don’t see the point, except as a thought experiment, and an unecessarily divisive one at that (particularly for people who might experience more than one oppression). If someone proves that one -ism is worse, is everyone who then thought the other was worse supposed to turn all their energy to stopping that -ism? Is there an expected outcome here?
I was told I didn’t know how to read and I needed to get a grip. Ah well. It beats blackmail and threats, I guess.
I think for many women, racism and sexism can’t be separated from one another, so how can one be defined as worse than the other, given that they can be so intertwined? Some of my friends say, even every day it’s different.
White women will define sexism is worse than racism, because outside of other oppressions including classism, homophobia, antisemitism, ableism and others, this is their oppression that they face to varying degrees from the time they are born. In contrast to this oppression, White women enjoy racial privilage, and may also enjoy other priviliages as well, depending on their background and identities.
I think it’s the racial privilage and also others(including heterosexual privilage and others) that also influences us to both define what it means to be women in general, based on our own experiences as White women in particular. One problem is, is when White feminist women, for example, enforce loyalty tests on women of color, for example to *prove* that they are feminists by adopting the ideal that sexism as defined by White women is the absolutely worst oppression and it’s the oppression of focus for feminists and feminism. Why do White women even feel they have the right to enforce these things? It’s the basis of being a member of an oppressed gender and being a member of a privilaged race that drives it as well as the ability to embrace the former and deny the latter. But even if it were conditioning based on that, do you have to accept it?
We say we oppose racism, but the often virulent responses to being called on racial privilage often belie that. They show that we do embrace our privilage whether we admit it or not.
BlackAmazon also wrote an incredible post about the way the narrative of evolutionary human development erases the role of subjective human struggle in obtaining human freedom.
it’s really quite excellent.
http://guyaneseterror.blogspot.com/2006/09/me-and-my-ass.html
BA’s argument, too, is such an important lesson for all of us: history doesn’t just unfold as if the Spirit of History unwinds itself magically. Things only change because we fight for that change.
oooo. amp. what plugin does the neat trick with the ellipses so you dn’t get the huge URL (coz I was lazy)?
If anything is to be gained by the discussion, it’s understanding. As someone pointed out already, white feminists are often guilty of trying to force minorty feminists into some strict definition of feminism, or tell us how to go about dealing with oppression without acknowledging their role in our oppression. It’s really frustrating.
I don’t see it as a fight about which oppression is worse, it’s more about trying to get people to stop comparing opressions as if they’re poodles at a dog show. Racism and Sexism are isms, but they are not the same isms, and they can’t be lumped together as isms except in an extremely general way that leads to nothng useful.
B|L, you can find the URL-shortening plugin here. I’m so glad I found it; I’ve been looking for a plugin that does that for ages.
Okay, but I think that’s being done, and very well, in other ways. Discussions revolving around privilege checklists among people who acknowledge that privilege exists, for example, don’t tend to involve so much casual dismissiveness, so many personal attacks, or the feeling that people have to choose one checklist as trumping the other all or most of the time, or the feeling that people have to condemn anyone who *does* choose one.
Why can’t they be compared?
Racism and Sexism are isms, but they are not the same isms, and they can’t be lumped together as isms except in an extremely general way that leads to nothng useful.
I think it’s useful inasmuch as you can ask someone, “would you think it’s acceptable to make this [x-ist] comment that’s analogous to this [y-ist] comment?” If they’re honest, they have to answer either, “No…now that I think about it, I guess the [y-ist] comment really is pretty bad” or “Yes, I don’t really think [y-ism] is as serious as [x-ism].”
I don’t know that anyone is asking people to choose a privilege checklist or anything like that. It’s more along the lines of trying to get people to admit their own privilege and how it affects them the same way they do for others. for instance, many feminists say men need to acknowledge their privilege but staunchly deny that they also have a privilege: white privilege. As if the fact that they are women erases the benefits of being white. And that’s just not true.
Just as I have to admit to my privileges (high yellow/light-skinned and heterosexual) and how they affect how I experience certain aspects of life, they do as well. It doesn’t lessen my experience as a women or as a black person.
Comparing oppressions is pointless, in my opinion. If you can provide me with solid reasons I should engage in this practice, I’m willing to lsten. In my experience, comparison of oppressions inevitably leads to the “My oppression is more serious than yours!” discussion or its sister, “We should address my oppression first because only throgh alleviating mine can we rid ourselves of yours,” which is equally silly. (As is the “My oppression is just like yours, therefore you should unequivocally support my cause” argument.)
It is enough to acknowledge that oppression, in broad strokes, is wrong. One is not 14% worse than another, to borrow from a commenter upthread, it is just different, and manifests differently (sometimes), and needs different approaches and people to be overcome.
the15th, I completely disagree. Because, again, how do you prove that one ism is not as bad as another ism for all people everywhere at every time? From where I am standing right now, racism is a bigger and more pervasive problem than, say, homophobia. But that’s because I have heterosexual privilege. Most people don’t know I’m queer or in what way I am queer and it isn’t obvious in the way I dress, the location of my home, or my mannerisms. Now, if you went and talked to a flagrantly gay man who lives on Christopher street and is regularly harassed and/or physically assaulted because people can look at him and ‘just tell’ he’s gay, he might have a different perspective on that. That’s why I would never say racism is acceptable and queerism is not. Because that’s just a false dichotomy based on shallow thinking.
I guess that discussion is over at that blog, with some snarky statement that so-and-so told so-and-so that certain ones of us are members of some “blog police” who run around Web sites accusing people of racism. Hmm. Even if that were true, does a White woman’s discomfort at being called on her behavior trump the right of women of color to bring up White women’s complicity in racism? This type of behavior, indicates that the answer is unfortunately yes, no matter how you try to slice it.
Are these “accusations” the real problem anyway, or is the problem bringing up the subject at all, in a discussion with both women and sexism. If you bring up these issues, how long does it take the card to be pulled by a White woman that you’ve accused her of being a racist, which turns the conversation of course to being about her, which is actually the point behind that strategy.
Shannon’s cool and I don’t mind being grouped with her at all, but I find the behavior itself offensive, particularly towards her and several other women. It’s like just another reminder that feminism still often feels like a garden club where if you don’t fit every bit of criteria, you don’t belong. And then since feminism is supposed to stand for the liberation of all women, then if you don’t belong, you’re not really a woman either. Because to prove you’re a feminist and a woman, you have to be able to choose sexism over racism. That loyalty test may not be in an official rule book but it’s still there.
When I see that kind of rhetoric simply for disagreeing with someone’s positions on an issue, it doesn’t surprise me that so many women refuse to label themselves as feminists. Then of course, those who do often label those who don’t as not truly understanding what feminism is all about and it’s men, antifeminists and the patriarchy all in one fell swoop that is really causing women not to choose that label. If many of us point the fingers at women, we are seen as being “confused” or not really knowledgable about feminism.
Yes, men are part of the problem, what with all the myths going on about feminism by antifeminist men but the truth is that it is women, and yes feminists who are alienating many women from a movement that purports to speak for all women(as if that’s possible or should be possible) by doing exactly what is being done in terms of what’s being discussed on this thread. Until that’s acknowleged and addressed with, this branch of it that is presented as all or most of it will always be a White women’s movement even, well especially when it claims otherwise.
But the issues raised in this particular thread really speak to what needs to be addressed in feminism. The not having to choose is a form of racial privilage because it’s not the White women who have to make a choice but we’ve taken it upon ourselves to make it for all women the way we see fit. What’s also disturbing is that any discussion of racism as anything but less significant than sexism brings out discussions of Black men, or Latino men or Men of color as if racism is only something that they experience and women of color do not. It’s like it’s back to the people of color=male, Women=white paradyms that arise quite commonly in these discussions in feminist space. Sexism is the only appropriate topic because we can filter every other women’s experiences as we like to see them, but talk about race, and since there are also men who experience racism and it’s an all-girls club and some of those girls are complicit along with White men, then racism is not an appropriate topic to discuss and is seen as an unnecessary diversion to the feminist cause. Oh yeah, we can mention the “dual oppression” of Black women for example to feel better about our “inclusiveness”, but they can only talk about the oppression that White women feel comfortable with.
I think in some instances it’s possible to take an experience in sexism and one in racism to compare on a small scale. One example is a racial discrimination law suit involving a Black police officer. His jury was 10 out of 12 female, with all but two of the women being White. Another Black officer testified about how he had taken on all these job assignments(at least three) but whereas White male officers would be lauded for taking that initiative, his evaluation read that he had bitten off more than he could chew and taken on too much responsibilities on his plate even though he did all three jobs well. I think that’s not an uncommon experience for women even White women, with White male supervisors where White men are seen as ambitious if they do a lot and women seen as not being able to cut it and needing less responsibility. Maybe some of those White women on the jury could relate to that experience and make the connection that while it was sexism in their cases, it was racism in the case of the officer. It might help them deliberate his case from that perspective since a lot of what jurors bring to deliberations are their own life experiences.
But on a larger scale, it’s very problematic to compare the two.
Actually, I’d like to reword this. I think by behaving this way, we have made our choice. Racial privilage over gender oppression.
Hee! I’m one of the blog police? Awesome! Now we just need a neat graphic and a secret handshake.
I love how she completely dismisses everyone’s argument with “You’re all Shanoon’s friends and you just accuse everyone of racsim and I’m taking my toys home!”
Are these “accusations” the real problem anyway, or is the problem bringing up the subject at all, in a discussion with both women and sexism. If you bring up these issues, how long does it take the card to be pulled by a White woman that you’ve accused her of being a racist, which turns the conversation of course to being about her, which is actually the point behind that strategy.
They also implicitly delegitimize critiques of racism relative to critiques of sexism: we call sexism out whenever we see it, but accusations of racism must only be deployed in really serious situations, or else you’re just being oversensitive.
I don’t get the point of even making these kinds of comparisons — it’s like asking if a person suffering from cervical cancer is worse off than a person with prostate cancer and thinking that the answer will somehow change the prognosis or cure for either person. If there is any benefit to making comparisons, it would need to be a detailed analysis that could help in identifying common elements and points of intersection in order to make strategic alliances and to understand how both might be combated.
The sad thing is that I’m not even that popular :D I reacted in that way because it’s just a pet peeve of mine. There’s many dimensions to the oppression of racism, more than white people can see, and this makes it different than the similarly multidimensional oppression, sexism. I mean, it’s good to see people up in arms about an insult to a community, but if that comment was stated on the news, and everything else was the same for women, would it really be any better at all?
I don’t know about anyone else, but when someone ignores the context of remarks that I’ve made because it sets off a pet peeve, and is patronizing to boot, I tend to tell ’em to take a hike. Even if I basically agree with the person’s agenda.
Yes. And we do all this to supposedly “bond” as women by saying, see we’re all the same(when we’re not, given the vast diversity of life experiences, identities and backgrounds within the gender and how racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. play out) even incorporating forms of sexism that impact women of color differently than White women as our own experiences, but it does the opposite, because rather than discussing racism and how it impacts women, we’re bringing it into this movement with us and using it to control its discourse by avoiding the discussion of racism and our role in it as the oppressors.
At that point, we still point fingers at other women to blame for it, by saying they’re not really feminists, in fact they’re the opposite and they’re not even really women. Well “real” women anyway. Has anybody been in a feminist internet discussion where women of color have been accused of really being men in disguise? I have.
It’s easier to point the fingers at each other than yourself, and it’s a hell of a lot easier to point them at men for sexism that impacts women including yourself to varying degrees than to point the finger at yourself for your complicity in racism alongside with White men(our ” enemy” in sexism) against women of color. That’s why you see a lot of the former(and I’m not saying there shouldn’t be this), relatively little of the latter and a lot of cries from White women of “you just called me a racist…but you’re the real racist” in discussions where race and gender come together. It’s not just women and feminism. It’s present in a lot of liberal and progressive movements and organizations that are predominantly White(and scratching their heads as to why that is) at least to some extent.
No, I don’t think so. Even if everyone got fired for using gender slurs or making sexist and misogynist remarks, would those attitudes go away? It might seem so but what about in reality? Sometimes we do these things to make it seem like things are improving and we can credit ourselves for that and nullify well-earned criticism at the same time. This behavior is common in public agencies with serious employment issues, especially when faced with the prospect of an outside investigation.
There are so many ways to imply or state those slurs through behavior if you can’t say it in public. You may not be able to call someone a “bitch” but you can sure still treat women like that and get away with it. Treating women particularly women of color badly in the workplace for example doesn’t usually get male supervisors or employees, bosses or managers fired at all. Usually they are rewarded by good assignments, promotions and pay raises. This might just be a personal preference for me but if you’re going to treat me like a “bitch” or other gender slurs, then you might as well call me one.
Firing people for using racial slurs may be progress in a sense but the meanings of those terms do not go away even if they weren’t said in public. It’s still very much accepted to treat someone like a racial slur. In fact, employees and supervisors who do this are not only not fired, they are usually promoted, more often than not they will be supervising the same employee who the slurs were intended for, and often, that person was the employee who trained them in their job. One example that comes to mind involved a White woman trained by a Black male supervisor, but it’s not a perfect example because she actually screamed the “n-word” at a group of Black picketers in public, while on the job so she did engage in behavior that is supposedly not “acceptable” and after a statement saying she would be sent to “cultural sensitivity training”, she was promoted and transferred to another location.
And I know of many cases where a Black or Latino employee has been called or has heard racial slurs used on the job and if anyone gets fired, it’s not the employee who used the slur, it’s the person who reported it. That person may then sue through the state and federal redresses for racial discrimination and harassment but that usually invites retaliation(in one case a woman told me about, her husband answered his doorbell one night and was shot to death, soon after complaining about racism).
And what if you’re a women of color and you experience racism and sexism in the workplace, is it fair to be asked which one is worse, which one has a greater impact?
So that’s my peeve about hearing comparisons drawn between racism and sexism by what appears to be happening as opposed to what is really driving things underneath.
Oops, I mentioned that word, which leads us to what comes next.
It’s a bit difficult to tell the administrator of a blog to take a hike though, isn’t it, even when she’s engaging in this behavior. That last statement about the “blog police” made it pretty clear what “agenda” was playing out during that discussion, because it transformed anyone who had issues with the dismissal of racism by White feminists into members(whether they actually knew each other or not) of some traveling internet road show engaged in some conspiracy to upset White feminists by diverting the discussion away from what is really important(the oppression of White women) to racism(which is as you know, viewed about focusing on men’s concerns). That kind of behavior seems patronizing.
Though I’m cool with whatever graphic anyone comes up with.
At risk of being just contrarian (I don’t really like oppression comparing either), I can think of one way in which such comments can be useful: Although racism is alive and well in the US and everywhere else in the world I can think of*, in general, in the US, people don’t approve of overtly racist comments like “blacks are just innately less capable of doing X than whites” anymore. However, they will say things like “women just aren’t as good as men at math” and try to back it with spurious data without the slightest hesitation. Women who complain are told that they are being “politically correct” or “oversensitive” or “emotional and unable to face facts”. Substituting “black” for “woman” and “white” for “man” can make the prejudice more obvious to people who would otherwise just blow off the problem. For example, I think that Douglas Hofstadter’s A person paper on purity in language makes a good point about sexism, racism, and language, using the “substitute black for female, white for male” trope.
*And in no way “better” or “less serious” than sexism. Just different in the ways that “polite society” expresses the prejudice.
Radfem, I probably should’ve been more clear… I felt that shannon was ignoring the context of Violet Socks‘s original post the better to accuse her (without foundation, IMO) of being oblivious to racism. And Violet Socks accordingly told her to take a hike, which is exactly what I would’ve done under the circumstances.
Dianne, when I read VS’s original post, it was entirely clear to me that your point about the acceptability of overt statements of sexism vs. racism was the one VS was trying to make. One can argue that point, but shannon made no attempt to do so.
Well, it sounds like you and Shannon had a difference of opinion. Your way was right. Hers was of course, wrong. Other women who disagreed were wrong. And their attempts to explain their positions were viewed as “ignoring” the original point of the post in order to instead fulfill some need to accuse other people of being oblivious to racism or of being racists. She was treated as if she was incapable of being unable to read or as illiterate(which makes me wonder how people who are illiterate would be treated by that crowd b.c the ability to read, no read “correctly”, seems to be equated with not only intelligence but the right to disagree!). Anyone who disagreed, apparently belongs to a traveling group which exists to accuse White individuals of racism and thus divide the “good” feminists and divert them from focusing on the really important issue.
There’s nothing unique to this dynamic. Nothing earth shattering or particularly difficult to “read”. It’s been played out hundreds of times before.
Given your explanation, I have no difficulty believing you would have told her to take a hike. But thanks for the clarification. The bold helps.
And she didn’t exactly tell people to take a “hike”. She grouped people of similar opinions together that challenged her own assertions, as a group of people whose sole purpose was to go from site to site accusing people of racism and posted that on her site. That type of dismissive behavior belies what she had stated previously about people misreading her and strongly implies that she feels the heat from people who disagree and as someone said here, she took her toys home with her. People aren’t allowed to strongly disagree with her opinions on racism and sexism without having suspicion cast upon them about their motives in doing so and being assigned to some subversive group out to accuse White women of racism.
That happens in feminist discourse too much in my opinion.
White women would hate it if men defined sexism for them and its “place” in feminist discourse, yet we define racism and its “place” in feminist discourse for women of color and don’t see any problem with that. When they call us on it, we treat them like the enemy. Then the next day, the discussions start again about how to “diversify”.
That’s not what discussion and debate are supposed to be about, are they? What that is about is controlling how feminist discussion and thought is allotted. You think the *right* way and you are a “good” feminist. You don’t or worse challenge that way of thinking and you’re seen as the “problem” and usually accused of doing behavior(i.e. calling someone a racist) that you haven’t done in order to invalidate your position, which is seen as threatening to those who benefit from the oppression that you are talking about.
Oh, and I believe Dianne’s point was argued over there, perhaps not in the parameters that would have been more to yours and violet’s liking especially given the disagreement.
What radfem said, pretty much.
And yeah, i think besides the fact that i really just don’t understand what purpose is served by making this sort of sweeping gambit–seriously, why? What is the point? Even assuming it was correct, which i don’t think it is? Is this some sort of contest or something? Why is this necessary to talk about one’s own concerns about sexism?–
–besides that, the level of yeah i’m gonna say it defensiveness in response to what to my mind was actually pretty reasonable by any standards–asking for a “privilege check” may or may not be your favorite way of speaking, but you know, in context, not that damn big a deal i don’t think and totally understandable–and, what, people “can’t read?” Wrt Bint especially–well, everyone there, i thought that was pretty damn insulting and frankly laughable, even without the particular buttons that particular move presses in a context like this, again, understandably so–but, you know, I mean, one thing about Bint A., I think she can read pretty fucking well. Write, too. Communicate, in general. Which is why it was especially dismaying to see someone i’d always thought of as quite reasonable shutting down the thread–which i’d rarely seen happen over there, and usually only after it had gotten -much- more rancorous; not to mention the dismissing everyone as “Shannon’s friends, going around accusing everyone of racism.” (which means, what? thank god, i don’t have to take it seriously after all?)
Which, besides being seriously annoying for all the reasons people say, y’know, again, these are some really interesting writers, not all that hard to find if one has been around the larger feminist, etc. blog O’sphere for a while; and, well, that alone. Never seen them before? any? really?
>Has anybody been in a feminist internet discussion where women of color have been accused of really being men in disguise? I have.
O yes. My very favorite gambit. Although it’s certainly not limited to that context. I really love it, it’s like; okay, and we all know -you’re- not a fourteen year old boy/goat/alien -how-, again? It’s the damn Internets; if you think someone’s trolling, that’s one thing; but you know it’s really kind of common courtesy to go with the assumption that someone is who she says she is until proven or at least a lot more strongly than that demonstrated otherwise.
Well, it’s hard to work with white people, because they have so many rules and regulations. You can’t dash in when someone says something stupid and say they are full of shit. You have to go point by point and be all gentle and say oh, but maybe there’s a little bitty problem with (in a whisper) racism? And I don’t got time for that.
It’s my pet peeve, not in a way like I don’t like grown folks playing Pokemon, but in the same way that I don’t like grown ass men fucking little girls- i.e. it’s political. Also, I believe my reasoning is sound- many white people remain unaware of the depths of racism there still are in society, and so they think because of a few high profile cases, racism has been eliminated, and the oppression they deal with isn’t, but that’s not true in reality.
Has anybody been in a feminist internet discussion where women of color have been accused of really being men in disguise? I have
Whether I’m a woman of color or not is extremely ambiguous, but I’ve been accused of really being a man before. I’ve also been accused of being an AI, which is my personal favorite accusation. The fact of the matter is that you can’t tell men from women just from the way they converse or write. Everyone fails the type I Turing test (in which two people, one a man the other a woman, each attempt to convince a third person that they are the woman using only linguistic cues…much like communicating on the internet really.)
Incidently, it occured to me last night that my claim is wrong. I can think of at least one situation in which people are quite comfortable claiming that blacks are simply “inferior” to whites: infant mortality. Bring up the US’s lousy infant mortality stats and inevitably someone will claim that the reason the stats are so bad is because the US has a large minority population (by which they mean black population, because hispanics and asians generally have lower infant mortality than whites, IIRC) and that that “drags down” the overall infant mortality stats. Rarely does anyone point out the racism of that statement, though it is very clear that that statement is racist on a number of levels.
Nevertheless, I would still claim that tricks like substituting race for gender (or vice versa), regendering, etc can help people look at deeply embedded sexism and racism in new ways. Or maybe not, because you get stuck in the “but does that mean that you don’t think that racism/sexism/whateverism is a serious problem” conversation. Sexism and racism are both serious problems and, as far as I can tell, neither is necessarily worse than the other*. But they are, sometimes, different in their presentations and I hope that difference can be exploited to enhance the understanding of how embedded sexism and racism affect society.
*For one thing they appear to be intertwined. Can anyone think of a society that has a serious problem with racism that doesn’t also have a serious sexism problem or vice versa?
Dianne: Let me know sometime if you want to argue about the infant mortality stats, and why citing them in a scientific context isn’t racist…
Shannon: It’s not white people who have so many “rules and regs.” You are full of shit.
Which I said in this case not because I really think you ARE full of shit (though I disagree with you, I don’t use the “FOS” language myself), but to make a point: The fact is that many (if not most) people of a variety of races, cultures, classes, and genders don’t react particularly well to, as you put it, “dash[ing] in when someone says something stupid and say they are full of shit.
Maybe you liked it. But few do, white or not.
Hell, you’re smart, you MUST know that. And you can do it anyway, of course: but it’s more than a little disingeneous to dash in and then get all pissed when they have a perfectly predictable reaction.
And, while I’m at it, what’s up with THIS straw man?
The alternative to “you’re full of shit” is not to be a crawling supplicant to someone’s every whim and foible. There’s a large area where you can be forceful and still nonoffensive; where you can argue your entire point; and where you can investigate while still promoting openness. Don’t do it if you don’t want to, but dont try to claim it’s not possible to acheive.
thanks for the info amp. it *is* an awesome plugin. found the footnote plugin at kevin’s (slanttruth.com) just now, too. i like me those footnotes, i do.
I don’t think it is possible to achieve a way where you can tell a white person they are being racist without them throwing a tanturm, because it’s not how you say it that’s the problem- it’s that you say it at all. I’ve been criticized on the street by older black folks with harsher words than what causes white people to start crying on the internet. Every single g day black people have to deal with people saying or implying that they are less than human, which is way more painful than any cussing could possibly be.
Do you understand why implying someone is less than human may hurt more than someone saying that they are full of fucking shit? That’s what I mean by a priviledge check- privledge makes you emotionally immature, and unable to see others as full human beings or understand why your hurtful words hurt. It’s the person with the privlege who is denying their full humanity, and I can’t take responsibility for that.
You see, I see white people as full human beings, even though they don’t see themselves as such. I see them as being able to if they desire to, stretch beyond whiteness, and learn to feel for others. I believe they can learn that they are responsible for their own learning, and to not need to be coddled or babied any more. Some white people, like you, may be beyond help. But that’s the choice you have made.
I’m sorry for it, but I can not own your choice. Making others own your choices is a privilege, and I can not bow to that.
Jesus H. Christ. You know folks, it’s not rocket science. You put something out there, people are gonna disagree. But it’s a fucking crime when the person who disagrees is Black, and the person they’re disagreeing with is white. Guess Shannon’s feelings, and the feelings of POC don’t count for squat, though, huh? Since it’s perfectly okay to insist that they don’t know what they’re talking about when they say that from their experience, racism is just as acceptable as sexism.
There’s nothing at all wrong with telling someone they’re full of shit. I’ve done it, people have done it to me, (oftentimes friends) and we’ve survived. Doing it gently so as to not hurt anyone’s fee-fee’s doesn’t do anything to change minds. Shannon’s got every goddamn right to be frustrated and express it. She hears this shit every day, I can’t blame her for having frayed patience with it.
I agree with the second sentence, disagree with the first. Sometimes, but not always, the gentle approach is the most effective form of persuasion. Sometimes it’s not. It’s not like the “nongentle” approach was effective in changing Violet’s mind, in this case.
I’m a bit bothered by the “anyone who takes a civil approach to argumentation is being an idiot” subtext some of the comments here are approaching. I don’t actually think my preferred mode of arguing is less effective than telling people they’re shitheads, actually.
We should also ask what “effective” actually means, because it’s rare that anyone’s mind is changed by a single argument or encounter. But that doesn’t mean that those arguments and encounters are always “ineffective.” Most of the time, when people change their minds, it’s due to an accumulation of multiple arguments and encounters over time. And a lot of the time, even when a mind is changed, it’s not “ping! My mind has been changed!,” but more like people sticking stubbornly to their position during an argument, but then gradually rethinking it over the months following the argument. (I won’t be surprised if that’s what happens with Violet in this case.)
Plus, a lot of the time, I’m arguing as much for the sake of persuading onlookers (lurkers, searchers, etc) as I am for the person I’m arguing with.
Having been told myself, I’ll attest that it’s possible. it’s also much easier to say “that was a racist ____” than “you are racist. ” They are different things with different meanings, so obviously you should use whichever one is appropriate as I’m sure you know.
1) You’re you. They’re them. I’ve been subjected to worse criticism than some other folks, which says NOTHING about whether their feelings are valid. You apparently have relatively thick skin.
2) Please, enough with the “white people” thing for a moment, willya? I thought we were talking about you and Violet. Violet is a white PERSON, not white PEOPLE. You are, I think, a black PERSON. (though for whoever it was: This might make an interesting lead-in to your “you can’t say that about _____!” post.)
No disagreement there about how painful it is to you. In general, I don’t think anyone is all so hot at judging how painful everyone else feels. There may be insults which are as, or more, painful than those you receive on the basis of your race. I do not use them or seek them out, so I do not know how to judge that. However, you are essentially claiming that your insults are the “worst”. They’re surely worse than mine, but I still think you’re wrong, and it is a bad idea to make that claim.
Yes, that comparison is fairly obvious.
I essentially agree.
No you don’t. This is blatantly false. If you saw white people like you saw others, you would not have referred to them in the manner that you have done in this thread.
I believe this is normal. I don’t manage to see everyone in this world as a full human being, though I try. This is a failing which is inherent to almost everyone. But it does not appear you can make this claim.
My disagreement with you stems from your behavior, not your race. Go ahead: reread this thread, check my posts, and you’ll see I am telling the truth. Before you start spouting that I am “beyond help” you might want to clarify: beyond help for what?
I agree. You have chosen to be deliberately fractious and confrontational. This is a choice you have made. I have made the choice, after reading your last post, not to let it slide.
I have written in a manner which said NOTHING about your specific race, and NOTHING about race in general. Yet you have proceeded to imply that I am privileged “beyond help” and made implications that I am racist. Do not expect me to concede merely because you make flippant accusations.
If you don’t want to be coddled or babied, or accused of misreading, then–dammit–start reading accurately and responding to the argument, not the person.
Let me know sometime if you want to argue about the infant mortality stats, and why citing them in a scientific context isn’t racist…
Sailorman: Observing that, in the US, black infants tend to be more likely to be born premature and more likely to die in the neonatal period is not racist. Observing that this correlation stands even when socio-economic status and education are corrected for, also not racist. Concluding that this observation proves that blacks are “inferior”, or more likely to die during infancy because of innate weakness and that therefore it is no use wasting money on research into ways to decrease infant mortality in the African-American population or excusing the US’s poor infant mortality statistics on the basis of its largish black population–racist. There are a number of reasons that blacks in the US might have worse pregnancy outcomes, innate weakness being the least likely explanation. I’d be happy to go into it more, if people are interested, but will stop here for now for fear of derailing the thread.
I do not know what Violet Socks had in mind, and I agree that the issue was not described in a good way in her post, but buried in there is an interesting point.
Walk through Fraternity Row at any college on a sunny day, and you will hear lounging groups of men shouting things to passing women – comments on their looks and bodies. I think (hope?) it is not likely you will hear them shout comments about race, however. Once you did, now you don’t.
I DO NOT conclude that this is due to an absence of racism, but I do wonder where and how the racism is getting expressed instead of through shouting, and are these ways better or worse than the shouting?
Is it better when your bigoted enemies feel free to yell things at you, or worse? Me, I think it’s better not to be shouted at. Is there something that happened with race that can also happen with gender, so that the boys stop shouting at everyone? Is there some kind of backlash thing that happened with race after the boys stopped shouting racial comments that make efforts to stop the shouting a bad idea?
Please do not read this as denying or minimizing racism. I am white, and I don’t presume to know the full extent of how I benefit from this, but I know it is a lot.
Eunice X, I ‘m not sure. One of the fraternities which is based at the local university used to wear tee-shirts that were very derogatory and racist towards Mexicans and Mexican-Americans. You can’t get much more blatent that a tee-shirt, a picture being worth a thousand words and all that. They got heat but it took a while, the people who initially put on the heat were told to “lighten up” for the most part.
I agree that it’s better not to be yelled at, than yelled at, but it doesn’t do much good to not be yelled at, if the behavior is still being perpetuated in a different and often much worse way. I hate the yelling, I really do because I walk a lot and I get it every day, but it’s what feeds the yelling and other more dangerous, pervasive ways that it’s expressed that concern me more. I think getting rid of these practices and what feeds them will take care of the “shouting” but doing the opposite doesn’t necessarily get rid of these behaviors and what drives them, if that makes sense. So while I believe it’s a good thing to point out racist and sexist comments made in public(which is where all the pointing out is being done), it’s treated too often as if things are all fixed when they really are not. It’s often done to validate that racism doesn’t exist anymore and as we can see by some recent comments, that tactic has worked.
Take it from a female perspective. If “bitch” were to be a banned word tomorrow, would things really change that much if it was still permissible even encouraged in many places to treat women as “bitches” in different ways?
Oh there are ways, far worse than “shouting” and still very much accepted, even lauded practices in nearly every institution. And the problem is, it’s like people have said here, if you condemn the “shouting”, too often the people doing so pat themselves on the backs as being good people and the fight against racism(or sexism or both together) ends right there. If you’ve taken that aspect of it out of the public arena, then you’ve “fixed” it and it doesn’t exist. You don’t believe me, just reread some of the comments on this and Violent’s thread. It’s pretty clear in my opinion.
There’s a guy I know, who’s Black and upper management in the public sphere. That sphere has a zero-tolerance policy against racist language(not that it’s not violated but it’s in place and in theory, enforced) but it was the racist practices still very much in place, in practice and supposedly illegal that ultimately drove him to take a job elsewhere. He faced discrimination and retaliation but still, was paraded on one occasion by the city council in front of them as an “example” of how racially enlightened the city’s practices were. If they weren’t so enlightened, then he wouldn’t be in upper management(of course, that’s before he was demoted and replaced by the White man he had supervised). That’s a very insulting and very racist behavior but they at least acted totally oblivious to that.
Racism still exists. It exists in this sphere and causes and has caused a lot of harm, but no one is saying anything blatently racist in public so there’s this sense that these things aren’t and couldn’t be happening where the public can’t easily see. Sexism still exists. It sexists in this sphere and causes and has caused a lot of harm, but no one is saying anything blatently sexist in public so there’s this sense…well you know.
Well, I don’t know, Shannon; it may be true for a number of white cultures, but it ain’t mine, and it ain’t my personal creed either. anyway it sure SEEMS like i have been saying in so many words to a number of people lately,
“goddam, you are just completely full of shit,”
and then some.
Perhaps i kids myself, or am the exception to the rule; or perhaps it is my loudmouth cultural heritage, or something. shrug. doesn’t matter really, except that i get tired of the tippy-toeing, also.
and that actually there are in fact more nuances and differences in stylse here than just, “one particular culture’s idea of what constitutes ‘civil’ behavior versus another.” Bunch of cultures, bunch of room for personal nuance, and oh yeah: also in my book there are ways and ways even of saying “yer all full of shit,” perhaps. Just generally speaking, there. and again, perhaps i kids myself.
And definitely with radfem wrt there are far WORSE ways than shouting. At least with blatantly overt wounds everyone (who has eyes and will see at least) can spot the blood, even of they may quibble, seemingly heartlessly, sometimes, over who or what really caused it.
but if it’s that hard to spot even for the target, which it can be (all you know is the winded feeling and the fury and the ‘am i crazy?’ and so forth, at least maybe at first), now consider the difficulty in communicating it to everyone -else.-
Thanks Dianne for your post. What I was referring to was when women of color came on online and were accepted at face value and then when they challenged White women’s views on racism and sexism, there were doubts cast as to who they really were, including in regard to gender. Disagreement=antifeminist=nonfemale appeared to be the progression.
I agree with your points on infant mortality. Similar claims had been made in my region which has a pretty appalling infant mortality rate among African-Americans. The homicide rate of young children and teenagers is also much higher. One of the cities studied, San Bernardino, has one of the highest violent crime rates in the country. But to understand both more fully, you can’t just look at numbers and racial designations, you have to take a good, hard look at San Bernardino, from the ground up, past to present. That would be a place to start from. Then you look at what’s going on in the rest of the country, particularly the impact of institutional racism, classism and sexism.
One problem, is that these critics treat the morality rate in isolation from other factors, which allows them to play the “blame” game as you’ve stated and not take a hard look at a racist system that they themselves participate fully in.
I think there was a thread on the topic of infant mortality not too long ago here.
Shannon, Sheezlebub, thanks for your posts. They make a lot of sense to some of us.
Oh, and Sailorman, what can I say, I guess thanks for the “click” moments you keep sending out there. You’re hitting home Shannon’s arguments very well for her, in part because of the show vs tell principle, but in large part, because she’s telling the truth.
>I don’t think it is possible to achieve a way where you can tell a white person they are being racist without them throwing a tanturm, because it’s not how you say it that’s the problem- it’s that you say it at all.>
And at the end of the day, I am coming to the conclusion that you know, I think she’s/you’re overwhelmingly if not universally right about this.
Again: way I saw it, that particular thread was a damn tea party. I can think of players and ways in which, hoo boy, we’d all still be scraping bits and pieces of spattered gobbets of flesh and egos off the walls and keyboards.
And I get the PARTICULAR frustration with, okay, scenario, here you have not just good ol’ Joe Schmo who’s never considered ANY of this shit before; here you have someone who identifies as a consciousness-raised person, by and large; a leftist, if you will; and besides that, someone who is not shy about calling out menfolk on their sexism, on their being sexist. VS -is- more let’s say civil than a lot of people in that regard, but you know, I’ve seen her be pretty blunt as well. certainly i would say there seems to be a shall we say disconnect here, and yeah, that is REALLY frustrating. fuck, it’s frustrating for me, and i’m not even ID’d with the frustrated party here, demographically speaking; it’s just, you know, I’ve been on the other side of this sort of let’s say disconnect in other ways enough times that i am beginning to look at the whole process with a weary jaundiced eye and just, “oh, shit. You, too? Here, too? -Now- what? fuck this, fuck politics, i’m turning this shit off and getting hammered.”
Pingback: Sexism, Racism, Dogs. « The Angry Black Woman
>but more like people sticking stubbornly to their position during an argument, but then gradually rethinking it over the months following the argument. (I won’t be surprised if that’s what happens with Violet in this case.)
Well, based on what I know of her, I hold out some hope for this. I truly don’t think any particular purpose would be served in going in -at this point- and going, nice, soothe, we know you didn’t REALLY mean this, but…
This, the original thread, most of the discussion i have seen wrt this particular case has been, to -my- mind, quite civil already. Angry, yes, but no one is saying she’s, like, EVIL and beyond redemption. well, that I’ve seen. Hell, Bint said it herself right there in the thread, before the thing was frozen (which as far as I’m concerned was the most egregious part of the whole deal, the “cut his mike” bit): it doesn’t make VS a bad person. but uh, yeah, this shit, well, it’s coming from somewhere, it is NOT in fact and “observable fact,” full stop, your very defensiveness and the fact that you need to make such statements at all, well, you might want to stop and how you say, examine that for a bit.
And let it go. She’s a big girl. She’s more than capable of reading all this; and I’m sure some people are talking to her directly, no doubt some less politely than others, and I am quite sure it doesn’t feel great right now, but you know: bluntly, well…one gets over it. One is, after all, -not- being told that one is inherently bad or evil, unchangeably so; one is being told, look, aspects of your behavior are unacceptable here, and no, these ideas are, well, kind of out to lunch at best, here’s why. Take it on board, do what one will with it. That’s really all, I think.
Dianne: pretty much full agreement there. I wasn’t sure if you were one of the folks I run into when discussing neonatality stats who treats every discussion of racial difference in neonatal mortality rates, even when it occurs in the context of methodology analysis, as racist. Btw, are you the same dianne on homebirthdebate? If I knew it was you I wouldn’t have bothered clarifying ;)
Radfem: I’m disappointed (but not really surprised) though, at the response. I respond to Shannon’s arguments individually, and I get a “nyah, nyah, she’s telling the truth” response? Telling the truth about what? I have actually read a fair bit of Shannon’s stuf, and generally I think she’s right. Just not here.
This is not directed at any one person, but here and at Reclusive Leftist, there are a lot of white people talking about how Black people feel. I just wish white people would back off a little, from every perspective. I read and I listen, I really do. I’d rather hear from a variety of people with common, relevant life experiences of racism, if I might.
I don’t like it when men tell me about women, because even though once in a while they get things right, unless they have lived as women, they just don’t know what they are talking about. So white people, even if you are so sure you know all about the Black experience, even if you think you are being fantastically anti-racist and supportive, couldn’t you be quiet sometimes? I’d like to listen more to people who live racism, if they are interested in speaking.
Ampersand,
I think we’ve as a group here had this discussion before in a different context than this one. Actually several times.
No offense to Violet or you, but I don’t think the “gentle” approach would change her mind either. I was fairly “gentle” and I was told that I had poor reading comprehension and needed to “get a grip” and then that we were all part of some internet police group running around calling people racists. To me, that suggests something else was going on than what was on the surface and the women of color there picked up on it right away and called her on it. So, Violet gave as good or better than what she got in return. She was at least an equal participant in not being “gentle” in this discourse. It was the women of color and by extension anyone who agreed with their arguments that were held to a different standard of behavior.
But I wanted to address your disagreement with what Sheezlebub said, by going back to what Shannon stated originally, because I think what she meant is far different than what you think was meant.
It’s much more than being the “sun” vs the “wind” as Aesop put it, in terms of persuading a person to change their minds. Actually, I think it goes back to those discussions I opened up this post with about “civil” vs “non-civil” discourse and who or what gets to make the rules and who is privy to a copy of that rule book ahead of time. What Shannon stated should have caused a lot of minds to go “click” especially among the White women who participated in those earlier discussions especially the ones on domestic violence and other violent crimes against women where this issue arose. If it didn’t for those who were here, then maybe some of those who advocate making comparions or connections between racism and sexism aren’t as good at it as we claim to be.
White women have discussions about sexism, racism and their relationship to each other based on their own opinions and experience being oppressed by sexism and benefiting from racism, including racism against other women.
A woman of color comes in to the discussion with her life experiences of being oppressed by both racism and sexism(including in ways far different than that experienced by White women and in ways perpetuated by White women through racism). Only, right off the bat, she’s assigned rules and regulations on how to address these issues, rules which appear on the surface(and certainly are presented as such) as being “civil”, but really are about preventing her contributions to the discussion from making these White women uncomfortable or putting them in the position of having to think, let alone learn, about how they are participating in racism against other women or otherwise enjoy racial privilage. The White women know what the rules are. The woman of color either knows them through prior experience or are “shown” them by how the White women act when she steps outside the parameters of what is allowed to be discussed.
She is held fast to those rules. White women can either abide by them or violate them either by choice or depending on how upset they become by what the woman of color has said. Bring in more women of color to the discussion and if or when they express any opinions that are similar to the first woman of color, they will be accused of being members of some group set up to gang up on the White women and call them racists. We saw that assertion made at Violent’s site. But often, it’s the White women who believed they’ve been labeled racists who gang up on the women of color.
Given the context, I had no problem being assigned a role in the internet police conspiracy, but I did find the behavior itself offensive and very disappointing.
So, Violet gave as good or better than what she got in return. She was at least an equal participant in not being “gentle” in this discourse.
The OP was inflammatory, as well.
“Violet is a white PERSON, not white PEOPLE. You are, I think, a black PERSON. ”
Oh PLEASE. As if Shannon didn’t have an entire lifetime’s worth of experience dealing with white people to base her opinion on. Violet (whom I normally like) had a response which even my own (certainly much more limited than Shannon’s) personal experience tells me is absolutely textbook to having her white privilege pointed out.
Every. Single. Time. this topic comes up we have to go through the same old pathetic dance, as if none of us had heard any of it before. And the pattern NEVER changes: white person makes racially-insenstive remark/displays reacially-insensitive attitude; WOC calls white person out on it; white person dismisses WOC’s comments out of hand, and goes on to imply that it’s actually WOC who has problem; whole load of other white people rush in to defend white person and denounce WOC as “the real racist/being divisive/taking the focus away from the Important Shit/not being Really Feminist because she doesn’t reject every facet of her identity but Woman/hell, probably being a man/teenage boy anyway.”*
In the past four years or so, I’ve seen that exact scenario play out so many times in “liberal” and/or “progressive” spaces that I long ago lost count.
Give me a fucking break, already.
*these accusations can be made in any combination–and I’ve frequently seen them ALL pulled out in the same thread in order to more thoroughly gangpile on one lone WOC. Nooooooo, we white feminists have NO PROBLEMS in acknowledging our privilege, and would NEVER, EVER resort to underhanded, cowardly techniques in order to silence and demonise a WOC. The very idea!
I crossposted with Radfem, but yeah, what she said, especially this: “right off the bat, she’s assigned rules and regulations on how to address these issues, rules which appear on the surface(and certainly are presented as such) as being “civil”, but really are about preventing her contributions to the discussion from making these White women uncomfortable or putting them in the position of having to think, let alone learn, about how they are participating in racism against other women or otherwise enjoy racial privilage. “
What do you think civility is for, if not this? There’s a reason to use/expect manners and formality when things get nasty. It’s because they ALLOW the conversation to go forward, not because they PREVENT it.
I deal with people who are angry at each other all the time, whites and POC. They come to me for mediation and/or negotiation help because of the enforced formality of my practice and of law in general. It lets them dig for the real solution to their problems and actually solve them as opposed to yelling at each other.
They think. They learn. Thet get a LOT of important shit done every day, even though they may have started the conversation in radical disagreement.
Conversations which are filled with people spewing unpleasantness don’t usually accomplish a damn thing except making the spewer feel good and the spewee pissed off.
Crys: i didn’t make the accusations on your list. Shannon has noted that, in essence, she doesn’t care if people get pissed off. Well, surprise! The pissed-off-people care. It’s not a “reverse racism” argument, it’s an argument based on civility. The comment you highlighted was relevant only to Shanon’s bullshit claim that she views white people in a more enlightened fashion than she apparently does.
Well to me, a crucial part of being an adult is not saying I can’t learn about reality because someone was a big meanie to me. White people don’t learn just because they don’t have the information or because people of color are mean. They don’t learn because they like being stupid- they’d rather demean and hurt others rather than improve themselves and have a better society. Basically it’s like a play on the horrible nature of humanity as a whole. And belledame, poor white people are often the main ones doing the whining, as if they can’t be held up to the standards that blacks are held to. Like somehow, we’re supposed to not have any jobs to make white people feel better. about themselves, since you know, we’re not people in our own rights! Noooo!
And that’s what really bothers me. Like, I hate being held to the super high standards I am held to because of my race. A white person can be the laziest person in the planet, but still get sympathy for blaming their lack of success on black people. And the truth is that civility is a waste of time in this circumstance.
You can fix ignorance, but not willful ignorance, and that’s what most white people have. Most things I have access to are not closed to white people- internet sites, testimony of people of color, books. Now, I may have seen the projects myself(white people can’t deign themselves to go into neighborhoods with gasp minorities in them) , or been told about black history(which most whites don’t even try to get the rudiments of) but that is not such a large advantage that a white person could not in fact not say something stupid in the first place.
I see my place here not as a person who makes the white people learn, but as a person who delivers the conseuquences of their actions, which white people are often insulated from and believe they deserve to never face. But no no. If you say something racist, I promise to cuss you out. Black people deal with the consequences of their actions every day, and don’t cry about it. Now it’s white people’s turn.
Good to see you, Crys T!
Yeah, I lost count on that thread how many times the views of women who have experienced racism on a daily basis were invalidated by White people, but then again I’ve only got two hands.
Past four years? Yes, countless times for me too.
Our definitions of civility obviously differ greatly, probably when it comes down to what I call faux civility. Faux civility is not based on respect towards other people, their experiences and their opinions. Faux civility is a list of usually, informal and nearly always unwritten rules made and passed down by those of privilage to those who do not share that privilage. Sometimes, it’s when men try to control conversations pertaining to issues largely affecting women and to make those issues about them. Women complain about it, and because what they said challenges the men’s gender privilage, these “civility” rules might be enforced on them. There were some very good, if sometimes frustrating discussions here among both men and women on this topic several times.
Sometimes, it’s when White men or women or both try to do like in situations where as Crys T and others have said, something they say on the issue of race and racism is challenged by a person of color. Then that person of color has the “civility” rules imposed on them.
“Civility” in this context is meant to disrupt what these individuals are trying to say, and stop a meaningful conversation from taking place on these issues, once it gets outside the parameters that the people with privilage are comfortable with. It isn’t nor has it ever fostered continued dialogue, except perhaps among those who came up with those rules.
Like I said, I was “gentle” and “civil” to Violet and what I received in return was, something that began I think with, “what the fuck” and ended with something about my reading comprehension. I was told that I needed to get a grip and then later found myself placed in some internet police group traveling around, out to call people racists. But my racial privilage offered me some protection because women of color on that site were treated worse than I was. So, here we have a case where expectations and rules of “civility” are imposed on certain members of us, whereas Violet and other White people in agreement with her, were allowed to behave as they liked, without being called on it. If they were, then it’s like Crys T, Shannon and others here(and there) have said.
Since you are attacking Shannon apparently in the guise of defending the behavior of those who “disagreed” with her, then no personal offense intended, but I wouldn’t think you would make an effective mediator in this situation if that was indeed what it needed, which it doesn’t. Mediators are supposed to be impartial and not choose sides. However, this was a discussion, not a mediation process. The two processes are very, very different from each other.
Unpleasantness? Well, who feels good here? Who’s pissed off? Not exactly the people that you’ve already placed in the roles of “spewer” and “spewee”. Funny, I didn’t realize that anyone with a background in mediation would so quickly assign people to fill those roles.
Rubbish, Sailorman. The very quote of yours that I included in my last post, “Violet is a white PERSON, not white PEOPLE. You are, I think, a black PERSON,” goes right along with the “you’re the Real Racist here” accusation (obviously–she’s not treating poor Violet as person, but as a racial category, right?). It’s invoking one of the first racist evasion tactics I ever came across: “But you can’t GENERALISE, you’ve got to treat everyone as INDIVIDUALS!!” which of course is merely a way of making any serious examination of how privilege & power are distributed impossible. Because if all we have are mere individuals, any confrontation can be dismissed as a personal dispute, dependent on the characters of the individuals involved and nothing more. I’m not having it.
Anyway, I had another look at the thread on Violet’s blog, and I realised that the main privilege-guarding accusation thrown out there was one I’d missed in my previous post: “I’m not wrong, you’re just too stupid/ignorant/illiterate to understand me.” And I have to say, every time I see a white feminist throwing that one at a WOC (and in my experience it seems to be used especially when the WOC identifies as Black, though that might be simply because those happen to be the majority of the examples I’ve come across), I am not just pissed off, but horrified. “I’m not racist, and if your brain had access to higher functions, you’d recognise that! All the white people here get me.” Way to definitively show that in no way do you subscribe to insulting racial stereotypes. (“Oh noooo, I was just responding to her as an *individual*! If you’re seeing something racist in that, it’s because YOU’RE the Real Racist and don’t get how I’ve magically evolved beyond all that!!”)
Radfem,
I agree with you about the distinction between real and fake civility. I think the battle is fought on both sides: those who would use fake civility to cow others, and those who decry any request for real civility as an attempt to silence them. I am not sure our definitions are as different as you suggest, and I do believe there is a middle ground which allows for functional discussion. And no, of course I wouldn’t mediate here, as I’m involved in the discussion.
I don’t actually think many people in the thread acted well. (and BTW, the generic choice of “spewer/spewee” was entirely intentional.) By the end of the thread, Violet was acting quite inappropriately, while I thought your last comment was reasonable. But (and maybe I have completely missed something, lord knows it happens all the time) it’s all about the spin. This isn’t one of those “would you look at that fucked-up example of miscommunication?” threads, though perhaps it should be.
However, I see your point (I think): it is incorrect to solely focus on Shannon when others were also to blame. I agree with that, but I believe what I said was still accurate.
Shannon, the reality is that on the Internet, nobody knows or often cares what race people are. At least I don’t. If I think of the various people I’ve discussed things with a lot recently–ms_xeno, radfem, ronf, blue, and many others who I can’t easily name off the top of my head–I realize that I don’t know the race of any of them. They could be white, they could be POC.
Come to think of it, I’m not even sure I know the sex or gender orientation of many folks either. I happen to know you’re black because i’ve read your blog (and you mentioned it upthread), and I assume you’re female from your name, but that’s about it.
I don’t hold you to a higher standard than anyone else because of your race; I have an odd way of thinking when I respond to posts, and I tend to depersonalize text that I am reading. If you don’t believe me–which I’m guessing you don’t at this point–feel free to adopt a false persona if we meet again. I think you’ll find my reactions don’t change merely because your name does.
BTW, hi there, Radfem, I missed your message earlier! :)
“Shannon, the reality is that on the Internet, nobody knows or often cares what race people are. ”
This is only true until the person “outs” herself racially. And the flip side of the not knowing is that most readers will likely assume a person whose race hasn’t been made explicit is white, and will respond to her accordingly.
I don’t think you are hearing me sailorman so I’ll say what I mean again. All my life, which shapes my internet experience as well, I”ve been expected to be responsible for my actions, and that is why it annoys me that people should be allowed to say any stupid thing that comes off the top of their head and be coddled for it. Also, if you know about race, you can generally tell. There’s a deep down bone experiience of race that white people don’t have. It’s just like if you are used to thinking about race, there’s a distance there, even with the most enlightened. Also, there’s a tendancy to think that no one has ever thought up some crap from like 1700 they are repeating or that race is something we can take on and take off, just like white people can- victims of those evil blacks and mexicans when they feel like it, we’re all just people when it’s easy for them.
I’m reminded of an anime. In this magical land, many of the rulers and ruling families are seculded in castles and don’t see what is really going on in their countries. But when they find out, they start to understand that they can’t make excuses about why they didn’t know. They have to take responsibility for fixing the problem. I feel like I’m a citizen of one of those countries, who is angry because the ruler didn’t know, because they should have, and I don’t want excuses, I don’t want to be told that I got to be nice, or that I can’t read- in sort, I don’t want people older than me to be acting like kids.
I’m a bit bothered by the “anyone who takes a civil approach to argumentation is being an idiot” subtext some of the comments here are approaching. I don’t actually think my preferred mode of arguing is less effective than telling people they’re shitheads, actually.
I’m a bit bothered by the misleading rhetoric on your part that states standing up for someone being blunt means that it’s okay to tell people they’re shitheads. Sorry, when did I call someone a shithead in this thread? When did Shannon call Violet Socks a shithead? No, it’s the blunt delivery–hell, any delivery–that gets a tantrum from the privileged every time. I like Violet, a lot, but she was out of line here. In response to Shannon’s blunt response, she made a really uncivil comment about how she hoped everyone else here had better reading comprehension skills than Shannon. Yet it’s Shannon who gets pilloried for being uncivil in this thread. You’ll just have to forgive me for calling bullshit.
As RadFem and CrysT said, people who were gentle in that thread were informed that they were illiterate. Violet then shut down comments because we were all part of Shannon’s clique (who knew?) and because we “obviously” couldn’t read. Frankly, Shannon was blunt but not rude or attacking in that thread, and she’s still getting shit for being uncivil. I’m not sure how being all nice and gentle is going to make someone understand when it’s obvious they’re determined to not understand.
What strikes me is that no matter how an opposing view is delivered to the privileged, it results in a big screaming tantrum on their part. It’s worse to call someone out on their racism or sexism than the actual racism or sexism. Yet again, the focus goes from the racism or sexism to the behavior of the naughty person who had rudeness to make the privileged all uncomfortable.
Oh, and from Violet’s goodbye comment:
As for the rest of you — I’ve been a bit curious as to how my innocuous post could be misconstrued as an endorsement of racism, much less how my subsequent comments, explicit in the extreme, could be so thoroughly misread — and by all these new people, showing up all at once! Usually my readers are perceptive and the discussion level on this blog is at a fairly high level. The mystery is solved: I’ve been alerted that my sudden new visitors, whom I’ll dub “Shannon’s Friends,” are a self-appointed group of blog police with a history of going about accusing people of racism. I’m not a racist, and this is not a blog for those particular kinds of games. So goodbye, Shannon’s Friends.
Usually her readers are perceptive and the level of discussion is much higher–but not now; these people aren’t perceptive at all and have lowered the discussion. People who, might I add, have been perfectly civil, if not blunt. And apparently we’re “Shannon’s friends” and the self-appointed “blog police” with a “history of going about accusing people [wrongfully, it is implied] of racism.”
And that’s the real issue here–it’s terribly uncivil to call someone out for saying something racist or sexist. It’s terribly rude to point out they have privilege and don’t see the things they say plain aren’t there. Again, I find it very telling that the focus of this thread has been about Shannon’s alleged rude behavior, when she’s been anything but. Blunt doesn’t equate rude.
Sheezlebub, that’s what I meant by rules and regulations. In my mileu, telling someone to check their privilege is not really that rude. To me, rude is calling someone a c****** a** c****** and giving them a beat down in the street. with socks full of quarters. Like there’s a different definition of rude that I find really annoying. Like you can totally dehumanize someone, and that’s ok, but you can’t be mad if someone does that, because that’s rude? It gives me a headache, and I just say f*** it.
Okay, call me dense: what is c******* a** c*******? i can guess one of them, but i don’t speak asterisk.
anyway, Sheelzebuub nails it: there was a rather marked shift in what was and wasn’t suddenly acceptable.
actually i think doing “cut his mike!” (shutting down, unless the thing had truly degenerated into a pointless troll-infested flamewar, which, it is an observable fact, it had not) is a lot “ruder” than even going fuck YOU, motherfuckers! your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries!
(no, I’m serious! it’s driving me crazy. if it’s slurs, never mind, it’s okay if I’m dense; but if it’s obscenities, which i’d been assuming, goddamit, i SHOULD know. something-ass-cocksuckers? but what is the “something?” “caramelized?” “cerulean?” “cetaceous?” “creamfilled?”
“conniving ant corporations?”
“cobbler ala cunnilingus?”
goddamit.)
Oh, sorry, before I read your post I emailed you what it meant.
Shannon: You are correct; I was not understanding you. I read your latest post and then reread your other posts here and at Violet’s. And in that context, I am coming to think I was mistaken. Before I reply more in this thread (if I do at all) I’ve got to chew on your post(s) a bit more. But I appreciate the clarification.
I think that the differences in the way that dominant cultures couch racism than sexism may have something to do with this: Whites frequently live the kind of life where we don’t have to interract with POC at all. But males rarely live the kind of life where they don’t have to interract with women at all. When the object of your derision is right next to you, a close relative, etc. perhaps a different, more direct approach is needed to keep her “in her place.”
It doesn’t automatically follow that a circumspect, or coded approach to putting “the other” in their place makes it easier on “the other.” Hell, I’ve had some POC confide in me that they prefer overt to covert hostility from White folks, because it eliminates the guesswork as to what our motives are for behaving as we do.