That’s probably true. However, too often the conversation basically says, “My group has been privileged for hundreds of years, and that privilege has helped me get to where I am today; the converse, the oppression your group has experienced for centuries, has held you back from getting where you could be today. So let’s declare blank slate, achieve instant equality, and not care about the past! If you say you’re due some sort of restitution, YOU’RE A SEXIST [or racist or whatever]!”
It’s a nonsensical approach. Much better to recognize how past inequality affects today’s world, and offer restitution to those penalized by the legacy of inequality.
It’s also, consistently, the approach that has been used to rebuff any suggestion of remedies for past discrimination since literally immediately after the actual de jure discrimination was finally ended. Using the same argument now that’s been used every day since the non-privileged group was literal chattel ought to give us some pause.
And that’s totally reasonable. It’s an apt and humorous term in cases where it applies.
However, it’s not apt in every situation. Sometimes it’s just a convenient bludgeon to dismiss someone when you no longer want to listen to him. The speaker has no way to rebut the term without digging himself deeper, so it’s a cheap but effective conversational trump. It’s sort of like the accusation “why do you always have to have the last word?” Perhaps true, perhaps not, but it’s an effective tactic for getting the last word.
My personal view or past posting history are absolutely, completely irrelevant. I posted an article. Please discuss what you think of the article. What I think or have said has absolutely no bearing on what is in the article or whether it is true or legitimate or not.
I don’t need an “excuse” to post something. Again, I am not here to prove anything to you about me, nor do I have to have certain qualifications to post something. Please read the article and comment on it, and stop talking about me.
I strongly disagree. And I, nor the article, are “tearing down” activists. We are trying to help. We are strengthening activism and protecting it from those who really do want to tear them down.
I don’t think this speaks to the issue. I think King’s frequent admonishments for civil rights activists to hold the moral high ground, primarily through nonviolence, are a far better analogy. I am telling feminists not to engage in the same behavior they claim to deplore, or else they lose the moral high ground and are just hypocrites.
I don’t think you could be more wrong. A movement that can’t handle criticism within its own ranks by those who expect it to live up to its own principles is pretty weak and is going to get weaker.
A Martin Luther King quote that’s actually relevant:
“The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral; begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.”
That had power coming from MLK Jr, talking to other protesters and Civil Rights advocates.
It would have been different had it come from a white person, even from a white person in favor of Civil Rights. The messenger matters. It’s not everything, but it does matter when different kinds of people have been treated differently by society and culture for so long.
The problem with that is there are perhaps hundreds of ways that people were privileged, or oppressed, for centuries, beyond sex or race. To try to fix every past injustice would become enormously complicated. To try to fix some, but not all, would involve ignoring injustice and introducing new injustices. And, of course, you’d have to try to quantify all the injustices and the remedy owed for each. It reaches a point of absurdity.
I find that to be utter rubbish. The idea that a white person who preached nonviolence as part of the civil rights movement has less of a point than a black person makes no sense and is downright insulting. Does it mean white people can’t believe in non-violence? Does that mean white people can’t even quote King?
Sure, people listened to King about civil rights more, but that’s to be expected? If that’s all you’re saying, fine.
That said, you seem to miss the point. I’m making an analogy between the issue of non-violence and the issue of refraining from sexist attacks by feminists. If you think the messenger matters - and I still don’t - refer to the female-authored article I posted.
We’re getting bogged down in a specific example that I grabbed from no research whatsoever when I was asked for an example. The point, as LHoD notes, is superficially identical behavior towards men and women isn’t going to do a lot to combat sexism in society.
“Within its own ranks” is the problematic part. Nothing you’ve done on this board makes it appear that you’re within the ranks of feminism; merely claiming to be a feminist does not automatically make you “within the ranks” of feminists.
A movement that rejects penny-ante-bullshit criticism from supposed allies who never show real support, instead spending all their time engaging in penny-ante-bullshit criticism, can be a pretty strong movement.
Of course not. It just means that the message is a lot less powerful, and will be perceived differently. I also believe that it’s incredibly arrogant for a white person to presume that they know more about the black experience of racism than a crowd of black people, or for a man to presume to know more about the female experience of sexism than a (online) crowd of women, and such arrogance will probably be received poorly.
I do think the messenger matters. The argument matters more – and I find her argument not particularly compelling – I think she describes something that rarely occurs, and is not particularly significant when it does. If it’s a problem, it’s a little one. I think people who oppose feminism do so for misogynistic and ignorant reasons, in general, and not because at some point a feminist was obnoxious to them.
That’s not wronging me. If I have stolen goods, it’s okay to have it returned to its owners. And that supposes the original owners can prove their original ownership.
But If your grandfather shot my grandfather’s horse, I have no right to shoot yours.
If “within the ranks” doesn’t matter, leave that bullshit out of your posts going forward.
I already have explained why it’s penny-ante bullshit. I’m making a different point, one that really bothers you and that you keep telling me to shut up about. Sorry, dude. The fact that your approach is harmful to feminism isn’t one I’ll shut up about. If you were genuinely worried about harming feminism, you’d spend a lot more time supporting feminism and a lot less time sniping from the sidelines while insisting that you be recognized as a feminist.
You might think that going forward, your repeated claims that you’re a feminist will show us where you stand. In reality, going forward, your actions will show us where you stand. Will you start engaging in genuine support of feminist issues, or will you continue with this sort of petty irrelevant attacks on feminists?
Your example is fine. But I have much more difficulty with more nebulous concepts, such as your grandfather had an advantage, so now I get one over you.
If a white man says “racism is wrong,” do you dismiss the idea that racism is wrong?
Nobody is saying that though.
Nor that.
If so, since you are male and I presume white, why are you here posting? Shouldn’t we dismiss your views too?
The argument is ALL that matters.
Glad we’re finally back to discussing the issue. Are you sure you’re qualified to speak on this as a male? The author is female - are you arrogantly telling her you know more about the experience of women than she does?
Well, yeah.
But many people who are attacked in a sexist way by feminists oppose the sexist attack, but not feminism.
And those people may continue to support the ideals of feminism, but stop listening to or support those who attack, and become less enthusiastic or trustful of the movement as a whole. And that hurts feminism.
Why is it so hard for people to simply say “yeah, sexism is wrong no matter who the victim is, and feminists are hypocrites if and when they are sexist” and go from there? If you think its just a small problem, fine. Just say that.