A year of tyranny versus a day of anarchy

[sabotabby]

Poor zingerella is having a hard time explaining the concept of the patriarchy to a few guys on her friends list. She's run up against what is a very common problem in liberal and progressive circles, which is that men who see themselves as "not sexist" feel personally attacked at the idea that there's systemic, deeply embedded male privilege. It's an analysis that runs rampant in any discussion of oppression. No one wants to think of himself or herself as sexist, or racist, or classist, or ableist—and that discussions of patriarchy or white supremacy, etc. always run along these lines says an incredible amount about how everything is brought down to the level of the individual, conflating massive impersonal systems with a guy wearing a white sheet.

I know we've had this discussion before, but it bears repeating: If one wants to work for a better world, a good start is not taking it personally when someone points out that social structures exist, that some people benefit from them and that others don't.

Anyway, I asked her if I could link to the discussion mostly for the lulz but because she, human_loser, and I are arguing with someone who is operating from a set of very different assumptions, and I get the sense that we're all talking over each other. neonchameleon's starting point seems to be this: "Better a year of tyranny than a day of anarchy." Despite the awful things that Dead White Males of Northern European Extraction have done, slavery and the Holocaust and so on, the sum total of their contribution is positive—for everyone.

Now, I don't think that one can measure history in terms of sum totals, especially if one is proceeding from the assumption that history is still happening and, in fact, we are facing some nasty changes up ahead. I don't want to speak for neonchameleon (and I'd very much welcome him to speak for himself here), but arguing that any massive change is inherently bad (unless it can be justified later) seems rather futile when one acknowledges that massive changes happen regardless of whether we want them to or not.

I'm not sure how one explains to someone for whom "the system" seems largely beneficial—something that can be tweaked so that everyone currently excluded can be "allowed in"—that the sum positive that he perceives doesn't apply to most of the world. Thoughts? (Feel free to join in the discussion there or here. Just be polite in zingerella's blog.)

P.S. If you'd like to engage in a discussion of the politics of shaving one's legs, feel free to do that too.

Comments

[writer-grrrrl.livejournal.com]

Hey,

Point the manarchists to this great quiz in the new issue of Briarpatch -- A sexism self-exam for men...

[sabotabby]

That's pretty good, though I think you have to be starting with a progressive mindset in the first place to even get it.

[soberloki.livejournal.com]

Just to kick things off (yes, yes, I made a bad pun. it happens a lot): I like my legs furry. So there. Nyah. And other childish expressions of finality and intractibility.

[sabotabby]

Heh. I shave. Except that I forget to shave. I totally cave to sexist beauty standards, oh no.

[elgordochico.livejournal.com]

Neonchameleon needs an education in semiotics.

Plus, I totally pwned his ass.

[sabotabby]

Haha, totally.

[zingerella.livejournal.com]

Yep.

You did.

And I now want to have your Internet Love Child.

[stoneself.livejournal.com]

"better a year of tyranny than a day of anarchy" is a strawman argument.

the alternative to patriarchy is not anarchy.

any argument that tries to address negate "better a year of tyranny than a day of anarchy" will be nonsense - well, because the original argument is nonsense.

* * *

1) patriarchy = 500 years of the dark ages
2) patriarchy = 1/3 of europe dead in the black plague (kill the witches and their cats)
3) patriarchy = the world is flat
4) patriarchy = women's place is at home

the advances in the west came when the patriachy was weakest.

1) the renaissance happened when the patriarchal control of ideas was weakest.
2) if the patriarchy wasn't so afraid of women having power, then they wouldn't have been kill the cats which would have reduced the rat population which was transmitting the plague.
3) it took people to challenge the patriarchal view the world was flat to broaden the trade and scientific horizons
4) economically the boom in post wwii in the usa wasn't just because men were back from the war, but because women could finally work outside the home.

* * *

the alternative to the status quo (a year of tyranny) isn't chaos (a day of anarchy), but progress (a century of liberty).

[sabotabby]

I'm fully willing to admit that the day of anarchy will likely come before the century of liberty. But there's very seldom chaos for any length of time. Which is the first problem with his argument, really.

[funnel101.livejournal.com]

I trim my legs, but don't shave them anymore. What's the point? They only stay smooth for 2 hours, and then I start getting razor-sharp stubble. So, I trim them down to 1/4" or so, and at least I don't have hairy razors of DOOM growing out of my legs for a day or so.

[sabotabby]

It's only the hairy razors of DOOM that occasionally remind me to shave. But my hair, at least on my legs, doesn't grow that fast, I guess.

[apperception.livejournal.com]

neonchameleon is badly confused about his own ideas, to say nothing of the ideas of feminists. Even if his calculus of history were correct, I just don't see the relevance.

[99catsaway.livejournal.com]

A lot of men think that when I use the term "patriarchy," it means "men". That's unfortunate, because it derails the conversation into others having to define "patriarchy" to an already defensive person. And that seems to be what set the chameleon's problems off to begin with.

Despite the awful things that Dead White Males of Northern European Extraction have done, slavery and the Holocaust and so on, the sum total of their contribution is positive—for everyone.

I like the way you put that. It's a good point.

[zingerella.livejournal.com]

A lot of men think that when I use the term "patriarchy," it means "men". That's unfortunate, because it derails the conversation into others having to define "patriarchy" to an already defensive person. And that seems to be what set the chameleon's problems off to begin with.

Yeah, this was what prompted me to write the entire long bloody post in the first place. I kept blaming the patriarchy and my boyfriend kept hearing "men suck!" and trying to explain to me why the terminology was the problem. So I defined and explored it, and did the best I could to expain axiomatic thinking.

But I suck, and it didn't work. The choir sang "Well, duh," and the sinners said "No sin here!"

[lokilokust.livejournal.com]

the stupids make my hear hurt.

[jvmatucha.livejournal.com]

If I get the chance, I'll jump in on this. Believe me, I could write an essay just as long, but I have web applications that need tending to!

I don't know why guys get their panties in a knot when it's suggested there's a cultural system for aligning gender. They don't come across the same way when race and class issues are framed in the same manner, but when it comes to bringing up gender issues, a lot of men, and even a lot of women, give you weird and distant looks.

They sass off on the gals, but if you bring this stuff up when you're a man, they just look at you like you're crazy!

the quick sloppy reply

[krinndnz.livejournal.com]

Actually I seem to see this with regards to race a lot. It's not surprising that the same dynamic applies, I think. Trying to explain to people gets them defensive.

"Look, you judge people by their track records, right? And with fairly homogeneous groups you do the same? Okay, look at the history of white people, look at the history of men, look at the history of the rich as they relate to people who aren't part of one or another of those groups. On that track record, why should we white people generally be considered trustworthy and benevolent? Please wrap your head around this: if you're not white in America, assuming that white people are out to get you is a perfectly rational assumption. It's not hard to be one of the good ones, one of the nice ones, one of the trustworthy ones, but you gotta reach out. Being normal is not your best plan."

... is the kind of thing I hear and try to use, and I'm not sure there's really a "nice" way to say some of that.

[hopita.livejournal.com]

History books are written by the victors.

In other words, if "'the system' seems largely beneficial" to this guy, it's (presumably) because his team won.

And, also, I don't shave.

[smhwpf.livejournal.com]

Gosh, different bits of my Flist meet each other! I know neonchameleon through various circles.

When one is comfortable and educated one needs to constantly remind oneself just how appallingly the system works for the majority, and how utterly grotesque the idea of sensible, moderate reform is.

[neonchameleon.livejournal.com]

And then one needs to see how appaling anarchy and revolutionary change is - and that controlled rather than revolutionary change has worked in the past.

If you want me to speak for myself here, try inviting me

[neonchameleon.livejournal.com]

I only found this because I wondered who'd linked allies in (you were my first guess).

Fundamentally, my disagreement has been on two points. The first is that the expression The Patriarchy is anything other than counterproductive. The second is that Smashing the System is more dangerous than beneficial.

Massive change and smashing the system are not the same thing - although you seem to believe they are. Women's Sufferage wasn't smashing the system - it was opening it up to a wide group. The Welfare State (to use a British example) was not smashing the system - it was building on what had gone before.

Any massive change is inherently dangerous. Any massive change without plans for how things are going to change and how to change them is like giving a loaded shotgun to a toddler. Yes, there might be the odd positive result - but there are going to be more useful things broken than problems solved unless you are really careful (which a baby isn't). Yes, massive changes happen - but so do natural disasters. That's no reason to encourage them (although you can use effects akin to natural disasters when modifying land and for changing society).

And are you saying that the abolition of slavery, very wide scale democracy, improved farming techniques to multiply the world's population, sanitation, and public health aren't good for all? And are you saying you'd rather turn the clock back and not have had the Enlightenment?

[caprinus.livejournal.com]

"If you want me to speak for myself here" -- no, I don't think she really wanted that

[livingfossil.livejournal.com]

You could point out that 'the system' is benefitting a global minority, at immense cost to the global majority. You could point at that if the benefits of the system were extended to everyone on the globe, the globe would just break. You could point out that the system is very likely to break the globe just ensuring the benefits that it currently gives to lucky minority over the coming decades. These are all just broad things; you would probably have to tackle the individual instances of 'positives' head-on. And you likely won't convince anyone who is set in his assumptions, or who benefits from the system in all the manifold ways that it privileges its lucky few.

[neonchameleon.livejournal.com]

You could point out that 'the system' is benefitting a global minority, at immense cost to the global majority.

You could- and you could also point out that with just about any system that has been tried other than the current one, at least two thirds of this planet would be dead from starvation. And then you could start to wonder what you mean by 'immense cost' given that your 'immense cost' involves the lack of starvation of billions of people and the lack of the majority of serious epidemics.

[spacemind67.livejournal.com]

I am curious if you feel more comfortable with unshaved legs. Does not worrying about "having" to shave make you feel good? Is it better to just have stubble, or let the hair grow wild? When I was littler a woman lifeguard let her hair under her armpits grow wild, but the funny thing is....a woman friend of mine suggested to shave my armpits in the summertime, so I tried it once and damn if it wasn't much nicer in the heat. I wonder about other areas that women decide to shave or not shave. What's done to FEEL better and what's done for other reasons? Recently I started shaving my head and though it might not look the best, it feels good. Maybe Brittany Spears just likes the feel of it too.

[sabotabby]

Oh, I need to shave my pits. I don't think that's a conforming-to-North-American-beauty-standards thing so much as I feel uncomfortable with hair there. I don't feel more comfortable with unshaved legs, either, but beyond the razor-stubble phase, it's primarily visual.

I liked having my head shaved, actually. It was comfy and fuzzy. Long hair is a pain in the ass. But it looks good, *sigh*.

[esizzle.livejournal.com]

"I'm not sure how one explains to someone for whom "the system" seems largely beneficial—something that can be tweaked so that everyone currently excluded can be "allowed in"—that the sum positive that he perceives doesn't apply to most of the world."

Same way you would explain anything to anyone who is holding an existing viewpoint. Point out the contradiction and from the resulting confusion comes understanding.

But to do that you'd have to read the entire thread of his comments. To speed things up, be a little presumptious instead. Just quickly recall any argument off-hand from similar past discussions. One example one could throw into the hat is the typical criticism commonly reserved against libertariasm: We've tried this current system for how long? 50 years..? 200 years? How many more years? It says we are all equal, but evidentally, we are not equal in the system. Are we more equal than we were 100 years ago? Even so, how much longer do we need to wait? Another 100 years? And why are we to believe that the system will eventually work, anyway.?

[neonchameleon.livejournal.com]

Of course we aren't equal - but are more equal than we were 50 years ago, let alone 100. And of course the system won't work completely - it's human and therefore flawed. However, it's still doing better than anything else has ever done - and could be doing better still if those trying to change it for the better were trying to guide it rather than smash it.

[king-felix.livejournal.com]

I use the term "default culture" for the predominant set of values, ethics, systems, and beliefs that are formed and propagated in much of the Western World by rich, Christian, heterosexual, English-speaking males... Most of the time people who either belong to, or buy into this default culture are so unaware of the prism by which they view and interpret the world that it is incredibly difficult to make them realize that there is a mechanism giving form to what they perceive as reality. This is the case because they either (1) accept that reality is immutable, and that what is, is, with no recourse, or (2) have benefited from such a worldview, or (3) are complacent with the place they've made for themselves in such a culture. Seeing that any interaction within the world is mediated through these concepts makes things harder to deal with, as in, the world appears to be increasingly unfair, and therefore unjust, and so it's more pleasing to not see the mechanism, than to see it and deal with the consequences. This also renders humans as the primary shapers of their own destiny, giving them ultimate free will, and in the end, total responsibility for their own lot in life. This in turn makes it easy to write off the poor, and the marginalized by accepting that if only they worked harder they too could accomplish just as much in life.

In defence of the system

[neonchameleon.livejournal.com]

Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons is more eloquent than I am - so I'll let his comments on the subject open things.

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

As for a case study:

Right now, in the White House you have something I'm going to call W. I don't know if W is the shrub himself or whether the shrub is the front man (although the shrub is definitely brighter than he tries to appear). W wants to take over the country and send it in a reactionary direction and is currently doing so. He also wants to become a permenant dictator and keep the US going in a direction that benefits him at the expense of others pretty much for ever.

W has been assisted in his first few years by an almost perfect storm - a Reichstag Fire (9/11 - and no, I'm not accusing him of having set this up but he has exploited it), a corrupt voting system that explicitely biasses things in his favour (see Diebold and blackboxvoting.org), and a willing army of Brownshirts (the Christian Right) and Blackshirts (little green footballs, Ann Coulter, etc.) He has also had a compliant judiciary and legislature (pre-2006) and is C in C of the armed forces, so force won't work.

What is it that has stopped him having all the power that he wants (although only barely stopped him) and undoing most of the positive changes since the 1950s? Left wing protest marches? Don't make me laugh. Attempts to smash the system? Smashing the system is exactly what he wants. It's the resillience within the system itself that means that he has to hold the elections he might lose (and recently has lost) and can't simply round up all his political opponents. Yes, he's warped it - but it's survived to date and looks as if it's reasserting itself and recovering.

And you want to smash this line of defence? Just about the only one that effectively held? Right.

Re: In defence of the system

[king-felix.livejournal.com]

It may not have happened with the frequency of elections in this country, but people, before the American system of democracy was in place, did manage to overthrow their rulers every once in a while, both from local to national levels. The affront to the people needs to be greater, and sustained over a longer period of time, but eventually the mob realizes that they hold all the power -- and they do -- and they act on that knowledge.

The political process in America is expedient -- it's quick, it offers a passing semblance of change, and it allows voters to forget anything that might pass for responsibility after that one token effort. It both legitimates and mitigates the mob.

I don't think losing the system-imposed means of getting rid of the system would be so terrible, but then again, I don't seem to respect it nearly so much as you do, especially given some of the deficiencies that you've pointed out.

But you guys have cleaned up a mystery for me

[neonchameleon.livejournal.com]

I have been wondering for a long time why any conservative would vote for the Republican party rather than the Democratic party. The Democratic party is currently the less radical of the two parties, the better one for the economy, the one that is better at balancing the budget - and just about every other factor that goes with conservative.

But after having this discussion, it's become blatantly obvious why the right is running political rings round the left. The left seems so convinced of the rightness of their cause that they don't bother to dress things up - the right is all about presentation. Or to put things another way, the left offers a kitchen sink and a toilet whereas the right offers a diamond (a lump of carbon - one of the most common elements - utterly useless to most people, with a negligable resale value and a price that is only kept high through market manipulation. Oh, and the source of it was probably somewhere ... unpleasant).

Four basic rules of politics:

1. Don't make unnecessary enemies
   
2. Always allow your enemy an escape route unless you want them to fight as if they were in Death Ground
   
3. Allow a defeated enemy to carry off all the face they can (but make sure it's all they carry off)
   
4. People prefer to feel good about themselves to feeling bad about themselves

Point 1, for all the hateful rhetoric from the right, is something the right is surprisingly good at. For the few times I've been able to stomach reading Ann Coulter (know your enemy), I've never seen her attack someone who wouldn't already be opposed to her. On the other hand, compare and contrast with the word "Patriarchy" - which even gets zingarella's boyfriend (who I assume is pretty progressive) feeling defensive because it directly dichotomises the genders (feminists good, patriarchy bad) when there is absolutely no need for there to be this dichotomy. Instead, if you called yourself egalitarians against oppression (which I believe is akin to what you are trying to express), you could say the exact same thing without making potential allies defensive and potential neutrals threatened. (This is just the relevant case to this argument - there are others).

Points 2 and 3 are matters of getting things done, again without stirring up unnecessary opposition. When people feel that they're against the wall with no way out, they are going to use everything they have to oppose you. When even in victory you can give them the knowledge that they will still be around afterwards, they are more likely to surrender and be defeated in detail. I can think of examples of both of these from pretty much all sides (rejecting Nixon's healthcare plan because it didn't go far enough must be the classic one).

Point 4 is where the Right Wing is absolutely thrashing the Left. From the right comes a nationalist chorus of "The USA is the greatest" based on cherrypicked evidence. From the left comes a chorus of "everything's crap and you're all terrible". Which are you going to want to listen to? Someone who tells you how good you are or someone who tells you how bad you are?

Also, massive changes have been wrought - do any of you women want to go back and live in the 1950s? Thought not. But do any of you ever give any credit for this? Hardly ever. Instead, it's harrangue, harrangue, moan. Problem, problem, problem. And never the recognition for having solved the last set because you are too worried about the next set. A far better political approach would be "As the USA, we've solved [slavery/Naziism/women's democracy/whatever] and have been a beacon of light in improving the world. But there is still more work to do for the USA to continue to lead the world and improve it. As Americans, we know we can do it if working together. Here's how." Use pride at least in addition to shame.

First off, I'm not an American. Secondly...

[sabotabby]

Dear Patriarchs,

Thank you for giving us, after we probably bugged you a lot for it, the right to, once every five years or so, mark an X on a piece of paper in order to choose between several rich, heterosexual white men who don't represent our interests whatsoever. I know we asked for a lot more, like genuine equality, reproductive freedom, and an end to gendered violence, but it was oh so generous of you to give us the vote just the same. Sorry for all the whining! You're doing great! Maybe in another few thousand years, you'll even recognize us as human.

Hah, just kidding. You guys just drop us a crumb every now and again, and we'll stop being so shrill.

Two thumbs up!
Feminists

[stoneself.livejournal.com]

one of the great benefits of democracies or other forms of government is that relative speed with which leadership change be changed.

prior to "strong" democracies changing national leadership and national direction often took national collapse or armed conflicted.

this whole comparison by neonchamelon of discourse to anarchy is bogus.

[neonchameleon.livejournal.com]

one of the great benefits of democracies or other forms of government is that relative speed with which leadership change be changed.

In short, you can change the system without smashing it because there is that much flexibility within the system.

this whole comparison by neonchamelon of discourse to anarchy is bogus.

Discourse != Smashing the System. Smashing the system is denying the possibility of discourse.

[nom-de-grr.livejournal.com]

I wish I had flame wars on my journal.

[king-felix.livejournal.com]

me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me