LJ and Me Part II: Insidious Ideas
NOTE, ETA, PLEASE READ===> As I hope is clear from comments, the point of this discussion is not to rehash who said what or did what in RaceFail. You and I probably disagree on at least SOME points of interpretation, no matter WHO you are, and that kind of discussion is not the way in which I can best spend my time & energy now. I try to stick to discussion of things that are pretty generally agreed to have gone on. If you think NO ONE said or did what I am talking about, maybe no one did in any LJ entries you have read. Which, like, is GREAT!<===PLEASE READ
I said at the bottom of last entry (not FL as of now, but not of general interest), "See you next entry for a few ideas I think were held by 'the other side' and I think are particularly erroneous and/or hurt-causing."
The quotation marks are because even in RaceFail, I think I agreed with those who grew to deplore my comments much, much more than we disagreed. However, both in the entries in RaceFail and in the entry on men & rape in cereta's LJ, a number of people seemed to hold a number of beliefs that I find not only wrong but also pernicious.
Statement 1: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Silence is consent.
Yes--once an idea is endemic in a culture, if you don't directly resist it, you are in some ways being complicit in it. So the former statement is a lot more true than most excluded-middle statements. However, applying this idea broadly still creates major problems:
A) This approach doesn't take into account limits of time and energy. People have to rest, do other things, without feeling they aren't doing enough. "Silence is consent" can be an especially exhausting belief. In fact, most people on mammoth LJ discussions probably would not only be better off but probably also do more good if they didn't exhaust themselves.
B) I really do think that just not being an asshole is worth a great deal! It's important that people do more, and that we encourage being part of the solution, but we should acknowledge that just not being part of the problem is SOMETHING. Many people have to LEARN how not to be part of the problem, and that's a good thing to encourage.
Statement 2: When people are alienated by being told "Go away and educate yourself," They'd never be real allies anyway.
This sour-grapes response is appealing to those who feel burdened by Statement #1 and don't have it in them to educate just then, but it's almost certainly not true.
(A) For one thing, "Go away and educate yourself" is not only NOT helpful, it is ANTI-helpful, much more alienating than just not responding to the comment at all.
(B) Many people will listen to you explain things who will not seek out the reading on their own. Our enthusiasm is greater than their motivation to learn on their own and hence is an invaluable resource, within limits of time and energy.
(C) Not only is there more motive to learn with help, there may be more ability. This is quite natural, and the help is one good thing about the massively awful American education system. Can you imagine learning calculus or Old English on your own? Some people do, but there is a reason for having a class--even online--instead of just selling textbooks.
Assumption 1: Invoking The Tone Argument--Any objection to the way in which anti-racism, feminist, or other comments are made is not valid, but an excuse.
Now, I 100% agree that The Tone Argument, a slimy way to shut up advocates of various challenging positions, DOES exist. For example, many people, a feminist's tone is NEVER right--it goes right from mollifying to "abrasive." Also, demanding certain kinds of word choice or writing is at least de facto racist and classist.
Also, a DEMAND for a gentle, sweet tone IS an unjustified and unrealistic imposition, especially when such demands are made of people who are hurting because of stigma and oppression.
However, in these discussions anger can slide over to abuse. Also, when some comments are meant to say "ouch!" or to give good advice, those comments are sometimes seen as making a demand, as The Tone Argument.
Often what is at issue here is not an ever-rising bar no one can pass, but a reader's refusal to put up with anger being directed at hir personally--and no matter how much privilege one has, such anger is never pleasant and MAY be unendurable. Also, unlike Latinate words, perfect grammar, and complicated syntax, kindness is not a limited commodity that is distributed unfairly. We can all be nice. And flies, no matter how often they are told they are perpetuating The Tone Argument, will come to honey more often than they come to vinegar.
Assumption 2: We can address the feelings of the oppressed, OR we can address the feelings of the oppressors.
This seems really implied by "You're putting the feelings of the oppressors ahead of the feelings of the oppressed." Because if the assumption were true, of course the feelings of the oppressed would have to come first: the oppressed by definition have fewer people speaking up for them already, they have more hurt to address, their hurt may be invisible--so it's only justice.
But is the assumption true? In some situations, yes, but in others, no. Especially when one is an ally (not so personally hurting), and double especially when one is one of many allies (so others are taking a stronger tack and/or reassuring the oppressed), perhaps a little energy can be spared for the feelings of the oppressed. They also hurt, no matter what privilege they have; and there is a selfish benefit in appealing to their fly-like positive honey tropism.
Most of all, saying "all Xs do Y" or even "Xs do Y" should be discouraged as untrue as well as alienating, while "some Xs do Y," "many Xs do Y," "society encourages Xs to do Y," or "no one can automatically tell if you are an X who does Y or not" are more accurate as well as not as likely to upset Xs who do NOT do Y.
Assumption 3 Based on assumptions 1 and 2, The oppressors are responsible for how the oppressed receive their comments, but the opposite is not true.
Likely, the only working system is one in which BOTH parties are 100% responsible for their comments. Paradoxical-seeming but practically, I think, unavoidable.
This has long been my view of marriage, which is such an awesome and demanding relationship that if each feels 50% responsible, and as a result concentrates on what "is fair," odds are the marriage will not last. In defiance of arithmetic, the best approach is for both (or more) to feel 100% responsible. Then, if the fates are kind, when one partner just can't be understanding, the other can, and in every situation SOMEONE will give. It can't always be the same partner, or the marriage is not healthy.
Anyone can make mistakes and be offensive, through ignorance or deliberately but just because it was a bad day. If unkindness begets unkindness, and the latter unkindness is excused because it's "only fair"--in ANY situation--we end up with a mess.
I'm happy to discuss all this, and can and will modify my own views, but I think these are vital concerns. I have indeed been very clueless about some of the discussions in which I brought this up; other times, I have to say, I think people just didn't want disagreement.
Anyone may link to this. Comments are open, although I will friends-lock comments if (1) people get mean, and/or (2) I just can't keep up with discussion. I will delete comments that are just nasty, but if anything I err on the side of taking seriously & answering testy comments.
Mood: communicative, a bit preachy; amazingly enough my shoulder arthwrongus doesn't hurt
I said at the bottom of last entry (not FL as of now, but not of general interest), "See you next entry for a few ideas I think were held by 'the other side' and I think are particularly erroneous and/or hurt-causing."
The quotation marks are because even in RaceFail, I think I agreed with those who grew to deplore my comments much, much more than we disagreed. However, both in the entries in RaceFail and in the entry on men & rape in cereta's LJ, a number of people seemed to hold a number of beliefs that I find not only wrong but also pernicious.
Statement 1: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Silence is consent.
Yes--once an idea is endemic in a culture, if you don't directly resist it, you are in some ways being complicit in it. So the former statement is a lot more true than most excluded-middle statements. However, applying this idea broadly still creates major problems:
A) This approach doesn't take into account limits of time and energy. People have to rest, do other things, without feeling they aren't doing enough. "Silence is consent" can be an especially exhausting belief. In fact, most people on mammoth LJ discussions probably would not only be better off but probably also do more good if they didn't exhaust themselves.
B) I really do think that just not being an asshole is worth a great deal! It's important that people do more, and that we encourage being part of the solution, but we should acknowledge that just not being part of the problem is SOMETHING. Many people have to LEARN how not to be part of the problem, and that's a good thing to encourage.
Statement 2: When people are alienated by being told "Go away and educate yourself," They'd never be real allies anyway.
This sour-grapes response is appealing to those who feel burdened by Statement #1 and don't have it in them to educate just then, but it's almost certainly not true.
(A) For one thing, "Go away and educate yourself" is not only NOT helpful, it is ANTI-helpful, much more alienating than just not responding to the comment at all.
(B) Many people will listen to you explain things who will not seek out the reading on their own. Our enthusiasm is greater than their motivation to learn on their own and hence is an invaluable resource, within limits of time and energy.
(C) Not only is there more motive to learn with help, there may be more ability. This is quite natural, and the help is one good thing about the massively awful American education system. Can you imagine learning calculus or Old English on your own? Some people do, but there is a reason for having a class--even online--instead of just selling textbooks.
Assumption 1: Invoking The Tone Argument--Any objection to the way in which anti-racism, feminist, or other comments are made is not valid, but an excuse.
Now, I 100% agree that The Tone Argument, a slimy way to shut up advocates of various challenging positions, DOES exist. For example, many people, a feminist's tone is NEVER right--it goes right from mollifying to "abrasive." Also, demanding certain kinds of word choice or writing is at least de facto racist and classist.
Also, a DEMAND for a gentle, sweet tone IS an unjustified and unrealistic imposition, especially when such demands are made of people who are hurting because of stigma and oppression.
However, in these discussions anger can slide over to abuse. Also, when some comments are meant to say "ouch!" or to give good advice, those comments are sometimes seen as making a demand, as The Tone Argument.
Often what is at issue here is not an ever-rising bar no one can pass, but a reader's refusal to put up with anger being directed at hir personally--and no matter how much privilege one has, such anger is never pleasant and MAY be unendurable. Also, unlike Latinate words, perfect grammar, and complicated syntax, kindness is not a limited commodity that is distributed unfairly. We can all be nice. And flies, no matter how often they are told they are perpetuating The Tone Argument, will come to honey more often than they come to vinegar.
Assumption 2: We can address the feelings of the oppressed, OR we can address the feelings of the oppressors.
This seems really implied by "You're putting the feelings of the oppressors ahead of the feelings of the oppressed." Because if the assumption were true, of course the feelings of the oppressed would have to come first: the oppressed by definition have fewer people speaking up for them already, they have more hurt to address, their hurt may be invisible--so it's only justice.
But is the assumption true? In some situations, yes, but in others, no. Especially when one is an ally (not so personally hurting), and double especially when one is one of many allies (so others are taking a stronger tack and/or reassuring the oppressed), perhaps a little energy can be spared for the feelings of the oppressed. They also hurt, no matter what privilege they have; and there is a selfish benefit in appealing to their fly-like positive honey tropism.
Most of all, saying "all Xs do Y" or even "Xs do Y" should be discouraged as untrue as well as alienating, while "some Xs do Y," "many Xs do Y," "society encourages Xs to do Y," or "no one can automatically tell if you are an X who does Y or not" are more accurate as well as not as likely to upset Xs who do NOT do Y.
Assumption 3 Based on assumptions 1 and 2, The oppressors are responsible for how the oppressed receive their comments, but the opposite is not true.
Likely, the only working system is one in which BOTH parties are 100% responsible for their comments. Paradoxical-seeming but practically, I think, unavoidable.
This has long been my view of marriage, which is such an awesome and demanding relationship that if each feels 50% responsible, and as a result concentrates on what "is fair," odds are the marriage will not last. In defiance of arithmetic, the best approach is for both (or more) to feel 100% responsible. Then, if the fates are kind, when one partner just can't be understanding, the other can, and in every situation SOMEONE will give. It can't always be the same partner, or the marriage is not healthy.
Anyone can make mistakes and be offensive, through ignorance or deliberately but just because it was a bad day. If unkindness begets unkindness, and the latter unkindness is excused because it's "only fair"--in ANY situation--we end up with a mess.
I'm happy to discuss all this, and can and will modify my own views, but I think these are vital concerns. I have indeed been very clueless about some of the discussions in which I brought this up; other times, I have to say, I think people just didn't want disagreement.
Anyone may link to this. Comments are open, although I will friends-lock comments if (1) people get mean, and/or (2) I just can't keep up with discussion. I will delete comments that are just nasty, but if anything I err on the side of taking seriously & answering testy comments.
Mood: communicative, a bit preachy; amazingly enough my shoulder arthwrongus doesn't hurt