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...

[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]

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

[sabotabby]

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

[writer-grrrrl.livejournal.com]

But of course. That's why I choose to NEVER LEAVE THE BUBBLE.

[ironed_orchid]

I'm big on the caving and then forgetting thing.

[sabotabby]

I find that it addresses my insecurity, my radical politics, and my laziness all in one.

[sabotabby]

It's a good bubble.

[elgordochico.livejournal.com]

Neonchameleon needs an education in semiotics.

Plus, I totally pwned his ass.

[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).

[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]

Haha, totally.

[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.

[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.

[funnel101.livejournal.com]

Fear my Armenian POWER!!! :P

[sabotabby]

Armenians > Jews in leg-hair-growing power! Who knew?

[zingerella.livejournal.com]

Yep.

You did.

And I now want to have your Internet Love Child.

[funnel101.livejournal.com]

I'm not terribly surprised. I think Armenians are the hairiest people on the planet. Seriously. My female cousin has a light beard. I'm very happy that I got some of my mom's non-hairy genes. ;p

[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.

[lokilokust.livejournal.com]

the stupids make my hear hurt.

[elgordochico.livejournal.com]

Hehe. Thank you.

[stoneself.livejournal.com]

times of transition and possible upheaval are not anarachy (total chaos).

you're going to "lose" the argument if you grant the use of "anarchy".

it's clear that he intends "anarchy" to be the nigh unto "the total dissolution of society".

[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!

[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.