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

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

[sabotabby]

Guilty as charged in many cases. And that is the single most damning legacy of genuine oppression - that it reduces people to that sort of state.

Ick. I'm beginning to see why you're not responding to reason. One can't be an ally with people that one thinks are lesser for whatever reason.

There's nothing admirable in being the first group to successfuly almost eliminate an abomination on a world wide scale when it is against your material interests to do so? I'm afraid I have a different idea as to what is admirable than you do in that case.

As I've been trying to tell you, it was very much in the material interests of white people to not get killed (or, for a less extreme example, not get economically crippled by constant revolts, sabotage, and eventually being outnumbered by a large class of people who do all of the manual work and much of the skilled work). I don't know what about that is so hard to understand, unless one is very emotionally tied to the British ruling class and wants always to believe the best of it.

Very good. Now count the number of people that can be supported by those regions now and then.

That number of people can't be supported by this model of agriculture. That's a large part of the problem. Do you know anything about the situation of farmers in India or are you just guessing?

That you're trying to break things which you call a "radical chance" - but carries a massive risk of doing harm rather than the good that is currently being done.

The irony of this, of course, is that the sort of activism I tend to do is rather gradual and works on the model of building parallel social structures and agitating for small concessions while ultimately maintaining a broader revolutionary goal. That's not a unique strategy, either. No one's going to say no to free condoms, but only the naïve would say that it's a permanent solution in the fight for reproductive freedom.

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

[neonchameleon.livejournal.com]

One can't be an ally with people that one thinks are lesser for whatever reason.

1: Utter crap. I begin to see why you are so pathetic at getting allies.
2: The problem isn't that the people are lesser - it's that they have been stunted if you understand the difference.

I don't know what about that is so hard to understand

It's no harder to understand than someone saying that they believe that George W Bush is brilliant and the Iraq war is about spreading freedom ot the middle east.

That number of people can't be supported by this model of agriculture. That's a large part of the problem.

Find something that comes close.

The irony of this, of course, is that the sort of activism I tend to do is rather gradual and works on the model of building parallel social structures and agitating for small concessions while ultimately maintaining a broader revolutionary goal.

Then stop talking about smashing the system. If that is genuinely the way you work, then good for you - but make your rhetoric match the reality.

No one's going to say no to free condoms,

Depressingly, you are wrong about this. From the left refusing Nixon's healthcare to maniacs on the right wing who don't want available contraception.

Allies 101

[sabotabby]

Oy. Okay. Let's take a concrete example, as you are still not getting it. We'll take a very small example—queer people in North America. I live in Canada, so I am familiar with North American politics, but I am not queer. So regardless of how many queer friends I have, or how much I profess to care about queer people, or how I label myself, the best I can do is try to be a good ally for queer people. Let's say I decide to do that.

Then I take the sort of line you've taken, and say that everything is pretty much good for queers, except that some discrimination by individuals still exists. I've reached that conclusion—not through actually talking to queer people and trying to see things from their perspective, but from the point of view of a heterosexual woman born in a woman's body, with all the attendant privileges. I read on the news somewhere that the biggest issue for queer people is that straight people can get married and queer people can't. This totally jives with my worldview, because I'm heterosexual, and to breeders, getting married is the best thing ever. The end result is that queer people can overcome their unfortunate lot in life and become almost as good as straight people by getting married.

I thus embark wholeheartedly on a crusade for gay marriage. But because I still don't know fuck all about what it means to be queer, I end up doing things that help or hurt their fight, and what's worse, I totally can't tell the difference. For example, I could write an article about my neighbours, Harriet and Farah, who have been together for 25 years, and Harriet's ill but Farah's drug plan won't cover the cost of the medication because they aren't legally married. This is helpful, because it humanizes the issue and presents concrete problems that are clear to everyone, queer or straight.

Or, I could really fuck things up by going on a campaign against gay bathhouses, because they encourage sexual promiscuity, and the fight for gay marriage is a fight for monogamy. After all, if "they" want to be married, it means that "they" want to be like us. And I am going to be completely baffled when a bunch of angry queens kick my ass, because, after all, I am just trying to help them, and I don't get why they're so militant.

In both cases, I am going about it the wrong way. The underlying issue is not actually gay marriage, which I would have understood in the first place if I'd talked to those directly affected, but a set of all kinds of dynamics that place heterosexual people in a higher social position than LGBTTQQ people. Instead, I am blundering in and making a mess of things, because while I may consider myself a Good Person Who Isn't Prejudiced, I am still part of the class of people on top, and I am not in a position to dictate the terms of struggle to the class on the bottom.

This is the first thing you learn when you get involved in solidarity activism over a cause that doesn't directly affect you, or in a struggle in which you are, regardless of whether you chose to be or not, the oppressor. It's why when women tell you that there's a patriarchy, you don't get defensive because you think you're in it, you actually listen to what they're saying and why.

Finally:

Then stop talking about smashing the system. If that is genuinely the way you work, then good for you - but make your rhetoric match the reality.

The end result, regardless of how I work, is a smashed system. And, I should hope, a new world rising out of it. I am unlikely to live long enough to see either, but I like to think that both are closely intertwined, and both are worthy goals.

Re: Allies 101

[elgordochico.livejournal.com]

Dude, this guy is a troll. Either that or extremely stupid. At anyrate, he gives no indication that he is getting anything out of this. Don't bend yourself out of shape....

Re: Allies 101

[sabotabby]

But it's fuuuun.

Re: Allies 101

[elgordochico.livejournal.com]

Hehehe. sabotabby, my deah, your level of tolerance for people entrenched in teh stupid is far beyond anything I've seen anywhere, ever. I daresay it's almost up there next to a high school teacher's. My high school teachers always told me I required extra "perseverance." But I was not as special as some.

Speaking of which

[sabotabby]

I find out in early April whether I get to be a high school teacher. I was totally a cheeky brat in high school, as you can imagine.

Re: Speaking of which

[elgordochico.livejournal.com]

Behold! I have seen the future! I'm on fire today!

Re: Allies 101

[zingerella.livejournal.com]

Actually, he's been reading my LJ for a while, generally argues politely with me on gender issues, and, while we don't see eye to eye, this is the first time anything's become really toasty.

Re: Allies 101

[elgordochico.livejournal.com]

That's usually how it happens, you know. It's like winding a mechanical clock. When you thought he was an agreeable opponent, he must have been twisting those ribbon-like screws in his head tight! You hear it tick-tocking quietly all night and then all of a sudden, you hear the alarm, and see the big yellow banana on the clock hop up and down. That is the banana of intolerance, rearing its yellow head. It is the banana of the patriarchy. But it's okay. All you need to do is give it a good whack, and it goes quiet again till next morning.

(Ok, I'm having way too much fun with this image.)

Re: Allies 101

[zingerella.livejournal.com]

Banana of Intolerance totally needs to be a cartoon character's sekkrit weapon.

[neonchameleon.livejournal.com]

All the above would be true if we were discussing ends. We aren't - we're discussing means and what I'm saying is that your means are dangerous and antiethical to your stated ends.

The end result, regardless of how I work, is a smashed system. And, I should hope, a new world rising out of it

No. The end result is a radically changed system. Smashing is one way to change things but not a good one. "Same old bat. Three new handles, two new blades."

[sabotabby]

I thought we were discussing my rhetoric. You were fine with my means two comments ago. You seem to be opposed to radically changed systems anyway.

Way to dodge the bulk of what I just said, however, which had to do with coming from the oppressor group and dictating to the oppressed group what the issues are and how they should confront them.

[neonchameleon.livejournal.com]

You were fine with my means two comments ago.

Your means (pragmatic): helping here, there, and everywhere. Minor changes that add up to a lot. No problem.

Your means (rhetorical): "smash the system". Dangerous, going to unnecessarily scare people and likely to trigger unnecessary obstacles if not an outright backlash. Problem.

(Although the irony of me in an idle moment (as opposed to an active one) accusing others of intemperate rhetoric has not gone unnoticed by myself).

Way to dodge the bulk of what I just said, however, which had to do with coming from the oppressor group and dictating to the oppressed group what the issues are and how they should confront them.

I have never tried to dictate what the issues are. But how you confront them is a different matter. If you want to confront them in a manner that makes positive change harder for yourself, go ahead - although I'm going to try to send you down a more sensible path. (Of course, if you actively want to play the rhetorical Malcolm X to another MLK, that's another issue and please ignore everything I've written in that case).

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

[king-felix.livejournal.com]

As I've been trying to tell you, it was very much in the material interests of white people to not get killed (or, for a less extreme example, not get economically crippled by constant revolts, sabotage, and eventually being outnumbered by a large class of people who do all of the manual work and much of the skilled work). I don't know what about that is so hard to understand, unless one is very emotionally tied to the British ruling class and wants always to believe the best of it.

Slaves were a very expensive commodity in America -- after paying the hefty fine for the purchase, Mr. Cracker Landowner would also have to supply the slave with food, clothing, shelter, and some semblance of healthcare -- it was the only way to protect his investment and get the most out of it.

The reason slaves were “necessary” to begin with was due to the lack of a regular labor force. This became more desirable in America after immigration supplied an abundance of disadvantaged people, because the Landowner would no longer be responsible for the wellbeing of the employee, could offer minimum remuneration (which would still be less than the slave package), and knows that because of the ratio of possible employees to jobs available, there'll always be some starving sucker to fill any one job should any given person resist, quit, or die.

The move away from slavery in America was resisted (as change usually is), but in many ways former slave owners benefited from this change -- they no longer had to be invested in things that weren't their property.