Oh mainstream feminists, get your house in order

There are moments when I don’t really know what is happening, so I sit back and watch till I get an idea of what's up. Well, as of this morning, Kate Harding and Jill Filipovic are suggesting that there is nothing wrong with Lena Dunham behavior toward her sister when they were children, which sounds borderline abusive (we’ll come back here). And Jessica Valenti is advocating (albeit in a jesting way) for lower wages for men because it will take 81 years for women to close the pay gap. At this point, all I have to say is nothing, but quietly walk toward the door. Guys, this is why people think we’re a joke.

So on Lena Dunham. I have yet to read the book. It was supposed to be the next book club book, but I don’t know if the ladies will still want to read it now. My understanding is Dunham discusses how weird she was as a child by recounting some stories from her relationship with her sister. The behavior is really coercive for example giving her sister candy for kisses.  However, some of the stories are much more overtly predatory. For example, Dunham would masturbate in bed with her sister or she touched her sister as a small child. Now, yes, all children are curious about their bodies and the bodies of the children around them. But this is not ok. First, in the book Dunham compares her behavior to that of a predator. Second, even kids need to understand boundaries. I am hesitant to say much in respect to Dunham’s sister’s experience, except that this sort of behavior (writing about these situations years later) could be perceived as a control tactic used by an abuser on their victim to revictimize. I’m also really concerned that no one seemed to mention this in the numerous reviews of the book. Dunham might be admitting to abusing a child, not relevant in the book reviews? Finally, Filipovic seems to be thinking that Dunham’s behavior might be explained by understanding what happened to Dunham to cause this behavior. Umm, why? Sure if Dunham was abused that sucks. But I don’t need to know that a rapist’s mom abused him. Abuse doesn’t create abusers, and in this case this assertion seems to come out of nowhere. Or more specifically, out of a defense for and apologetic response to Dunham.

In summary, I’m not going to condemn Dunham as an abuser, but I’m also not going to absolve her.

Now, I have issues with Valenti. I like her, I do, but she says and does things that aren’t inclusive. It annoys me to no end that she collects a paycheck for suggesting we pay people less. Now don’t get me wrong, I want to pay CEOs less. Paying people less doesn’t fix the problem of pay inequity. Fixing the gender pay gap doesn’t fix the problem of pay inequity. We need a market overhaul. We need an economic revolution. We need to pay people a living wage, and yeah if some people have to take a pay cut to accommodate that then we can talk about it. Paying men less isn’t going to fix anything just result in an even more underpaid workforce. See that’s the problem Valenti seems to be operating on the impression people are paid a legitimate and fair wage, well men. However, men of color aren’t, and women aren’t (obviously), but white men who work for low-wages aren’t making a fair wage either. This is the problem when people start talking about the pay gap. We use the average figure when talking about it as if all women make 71 cents on the dollar when in reality white men are the standard by which we measure with white women behind them, and Hispanic women making the least in comparison to white men. Honestly, we’re past this superficial conversation. We need pay equity, but we need to recognize that we need it across classes, races, sexual orientations, and gender among many, many more. This is a lazy and offensive article.

I expect better form Valenti. Honestly, I expect better from anyone who has a basic understanding on the economy, pay disparities, and gender.

Anyone arguing that things are getting out of hand for a potential abuser or that we should pay everyone less does not speak for me. We’re already fighting on every front between the stripping of voting and reproductive rights, access to food and water, and the criminalization of poverty, think we can all get on board with not supporting abusers and exploitative pay?

Tonight, I vote then I craft. I expect everyone who reads this to vote. Sure, it feels like my vote matters very little in Baltimore, after all this isn’t Ohio. But we have leadership getting in bed with developers so yeah, it matters. In fact I’d argue that local elections matter way more than the national ones in respect to concrete changes.

God save the left-wing from themselves…a swansong on whiteness.

Michelle Goldberg, as you remember is afraid of diversity and decided to blame women and feminist of color for everything as far as I can tell because FOR THE MOVEMENT! This time Goldberg wants to weigh in on #CancelColbert, which again is all the women of color’s fault. I’m shocked, shocked I say.

“It’s increasingly clear that we are entering a new era of political correctness. Recently, we’ve seen the calls to #CacelColbert because of something outrageous said by Stephen Colbert’s blowhard alter ego, who has been saying outrageous tings regularly for nine years. Then there’s the sudden demand for ‘trigger warnings’ on college syllabi, meant to protect students from encountering ideas or images that may traumatize them…

First, this paragraph really stuck out to me because I’m in a class where I would love trigger warnings before this one kid speaks. Jesus Christ, he can’t shut the fuck up about how wrong suicide is and how those people who would kill themselves are selfish, or oh, yeah his rape joke in class because that’s appropriate. And there is totally no overlap as to people who have suffered sexual trauma and suicide. Pardon my tangent, but this seems way more like preserving the status quo than considering the best interests of the left. Additionally, the complete indifference and dismissal of the concerns of the people saying this is racist is very telling, because yes Virginia, liberals can be racists too.

Goldberg goes on to explain that it is happening overseas too because CENSORSHIP! She continues:

“Call it left-wing anti-liberalism: the idea, captured by Herbert Marcuse in this 1965 essay ‘Repressive Tolerance,’ that social justice demands curbs on freedom of expression. ‘[I]t is possible to define the direction in which prevailing institutions, policies, opinions would have to be changed in order to improve the chance of a peace which is not identical with cold war and a little hot war, and a satisfaction of needs which does not feed on poverty, oppression, movements, and exploitation,’ he wrote. ‘Consequently, it is also possible to identify policies, opinions, movements which would promote this chance, and those which would do the opposite. Suppression of the regressive ones is a prerequisite for the strengthening of the progressive ones.”  *for those not aware, Marcuse is a philosopher who immigrated from Germany to the US, and someone Noam Chomsky knew and liked, but didn’t care for Marcuse’s work.*

Without reading the whole Marcuse essay, I can say no one is censoring anyone. Colbert and god help us, Goldberg can say whatever the fuck they want, but there are consequences for the things you say. I’m so fucking tired of people thinking you can say whatever the fuck you want and walk away. Check your privilege. Goldberg goes on to cite a scholar of radical feminist, which is fine, but I think people who read this blog will be able to identify the importance and the shortcomings of radical feminism so we won’t review that, if necessary I’m happy to, but I doubt it is necessary see McKinnon and Dworkin.

Goldberg continues:

“There’s disenchantment not just with electoral politics, but with liberal values as a whole. ‘White liberal’ has, once again, emerged as a favorite left-wing epithet.

“At times like this, politics contract. On the surface, the rhetoric appears more ambitious and utopian that ever—witness, for example, the apparently sincere claim by Suey Park, creator of the #CancelColbert hashtag, that Twitter activists intend to ‘dismantle the state.’ But at the same time, activism becomes less about winning converts and changing the world and more about created protected enclaves and policing speech.”

Pro tip: let’s not use the word policing as if a subjugated group has the power to police anyone but themselves. Particularly, when there is a system of policing people of color and women that is institutional policy and then the self-policing that goes on in these communities as an active protection against more discrimination. Secondly, to me changing and being more aware of the language we use, our action, etc., and how they contribute to the systematic oppression of others is changing the world. But Goldberg seems much more interested in having her swansong about whiteness being oppressed as if expanding the rights of others is somehow a zero sum game. I also have to reject Goldberg’s definition of liberalism which seems to be Clintonlike Democrats, well that is liberal, that is center. Want to join the liberal left? Let’s throw out The Electoral College and overturn McCutcheon and Citizen’s United.

Goldberg cites Ellen Willis about how the left-wing is anti-liberal, 

“’It’s the general repressiveness of the social climate that encourages moves to ban offensive speech or define any form of sexual oppression in the workplace as sexual harassment. The main effect of these maneuvers is to foment confusion, cynicism and sexual witch-hunts, trivialize sexual violence, and legitimize conservative demands for censorship—while at the same time ceding the moral high ground of free expression to the right.’”

Goldberg then descends into a well, they’ll learn their lesson when the right comes to power and we realize how important free speech is…Like with Occupy? Or sex work? Or the NSA? Oh, wait these are things happening when the “left” is in power. You know I must have missed Goldberg’s piece railing against the use of the NSA as an invasion of privacy and an infringement of free speech. And obviously, Goldberg just wrote a piece about the importance of diverse views in feminism, when she misrepresented the statements made by black feminism, and pretty much told women of color to sit down and shut up. That wasn’t a form of censorship at all.

See the argument Goldberg is making is the sit down, shut up, and wait your turn argument. Sure, stop-and-frisky is a thing, but we have to defeat the Republicans, so wait. Sure, hipster racism keeps being a thing, and we’re not sure who benefits from these jokes, but wait your turn. Sure, women’s rights are being attacked across the US, and a disproportional number of these bills disastrously impact low-income women, but that can wait, we have to pledge unyielding support of President Obama and Obamacare, even if we lose the birth control mandate. So I ask, what is the left Goldberg is trying to save? Because without women and people of color, but mostly women of color, the left is looking a lot like the right.

White people, am I right?

Ok, that was tongue in cheek and will probably comeback to bite me later. I wanted to start there though. I want to be explicitly clear that I’m not going to stop saying, “White people, we’re terrible,” because usually we are. We are the root cause of a lot of inequity, and we have to own that part of our history and note the benefits we still accrue stemming from it. That doesn’t mean there is no value in white people, or that all individual white people are terrible, it is after all a racial identity that means something (good and bad); though there could be an interesting discussion around social constructs, their originals, uses, and implications including whiteness, but we're not having that today.

I started here because well, the idea that white people who want and try to embrace intersectionality, who support the work of people different from themselves, and stand with/fight with in solidarity are frauds is a scary thought, and one mentioned in the Michelle Goldberg article (DoNotLink link), “Feminism’s Toxic Twitter Wars.” It is also a place I feel comfortable addressing quickly so we can get back to the discussion of white supremacy in feminism, which needs to be had. The article quotes the founder of Jezebel, Anna Holmes, who was identified for the article as a black woman, saying, “What’s disgusting and disturbing to be is that I see some more intellectually dishonest arguments put forth by women of color being legitimized and performed by white feminists, who seem to be in some sort of competition to exhibit how intersectional they are. There are these Olympian attempts on the part of white feminists to underscore and display their ally-ship in a way that feels gross and dishonest and yes, patronizing.”

Oh, hello performance. First, everyone performs every day. We present a side of ourselves we want people to see, but that doesn’t mean we’re all disingenuous (sometimes sure). I am truly interesting in opening up my understanding of the world around me, and to do that I have to include the perspectives of others who aren’t like me and who are. I’m also very curious to hear what Holmes is referring to as “intellectually dishonest” those are some strong words. I disagree with people of color sometimes, but that doesn’t make what they are saying is intellectually dishonest or me a racist. My feminism has strong and not subtle Marxist undertones, which doesn’t mesh well with pro-capitalist feminism or neo-liberal defense feminism (hi, arbitrary Obama supporters). I’m not being fraudulent in my quest for intersectionality, but I admit to not knowing everything or always being right.

The biggest struggle for me in the Goldberg article was one: the open racism, and two: the frustration with how communication on the Internet exists. But we never really get to talk about the second one because Goldberg employs hella racist language in her article. She throws around language invoking negative imagines of Asian cultures citing Moa. Well, with my Marxist leanings, I can’t help but think, there is a reason Goldberg picked Moa, mostly him being anti-intellectual dictator who killed a lot of his own people through awful policies. And I think white people having their feels hurt on the Internet is a far cry from mass killing…just me?

But let’s talk about feelings, too. At first, I thought, I have zero fucks about the hurt feels, but that isn’t true. I’ve been in tears over things people wrote to me on Twitter or lord knows the threats of violence. I’ve thought about changing my Twitter Bio to just things people have called me on Twitter and it would be something like “Stupid, ugly, socialist, feminist, cunt who kills babies and kicks puppies” which is silly, because everyone knows I draw the line at puppy kicking. Also, I’m highly empathetic; I probably care more about your feelings than you do. It keeps me up at night, remind me to tell you an awkward story one day on the awful consequences and embarrassment of this. I’m bad for disregarding people’s feelings too though. I remember in my Race, Gender, and Class course, I smacked down a dude and was unflinching in my dismissal of his points. We were talking about education and Women without Class, and he noted not everyone has to go to college. He was right, not everyone has to go to college, but all I said was, “Who decides?” before he could answer, “Because if the status quo continues we already know who doesn’t “have to” [finger quotes] go to college, and it is brown people, women, and the low-income. But maybe we can change it and decide as a collective white men don’t need to go to college.” Crickets. I was angry. I was personally hurt by his oversight of how his words would be taken by someone like me. I was so angry that some white dude was telling me, people like me, and my friends don’t need to go to college when it was a surprise to everyone I grew up with that I did. It was hard, and there was fine print attached to a college education and visiting a different class that I didn’t know and the things you have to give up that wasn’t on the scholarship applications (talk about performance…I know how to perform, Holmes). However, I don’t think my antagonism helped in anyway. He spent the rest of the class proving he wasn’t a racist or sexist, and that stifled the discussion. By the way I don’t think he was a racist or sexist, well I think he like all white people and all men is complicit in a racist and sexist power structure.

Which brings me to an area I do want to discuss and I have no answers. And a discussion Goldberg wasn’t having despite the claims in the article. Constructive criticism and growth in feminist discussions. I welcome criticism, because I fully intend to give it. I think back to a post JJ did about Chelsea Manning; he wrote the post before her letter hit the Internet, but it was published after. I sent him a message pointing it out asking if he intended to disrespect her gender identity, which obviously he didn’t. He corrected the piece and put in a note about it. I expect his criticism of my work. I look to V and B.A. to keep me honest on trans and race issues. I know they will call me out in a kind way if I’m out of line or make an offensive oversight. They also both know that these are areas I don’t know everything about (I don’t pretend to), but that my education is evolving on these issues.

That said, people who lack power should be angry, and they should be able to express that anger. However, anger doesn't mean that a space is toxic. People have legitimate anger here; feminism has excluded people, spoken for them instead of to them and with them. I just don’t know if responding with only anger moves the conversation forward because people get defensive. A recent study shows that people confronted with facts that counter their beliefs usually cling more to those beliefs. I think this probably happens when people feel attacked. I hold what I've been told is a controversial view on “people feeling attacked” which is that if all feelings are valid that means people with opinions/beliefs different than mine have legitimate feelings (not always justified feelings). For example, MRAs, I want to know why MRAs feel like feminism is ruining things. Is it just because the perceived loss of power? Or has a concrete loss of power impacted them in some way; what makes them feel victimized? Is it sincere? I have to understand their perceived problem to address it. Which brings me to the question at hand: what is the point? Are we hear to share experiences and move new ideas forward while criticizing the ideas that need to be criticized? And how do we do that in a way that moves our work forward?

Goldberg’s use of the word silencing is also very troubling. First, to say that people who lack power are silencing those with power is just false. Goldberg states that feminists of color are using Twitter to amplify their voices, but somehow white feminists aren’t doing this. White feminists not engaging is not the same as the active silencing of people of color, women, and the low-income, etc. We silence one another sometimes intentionally and sometimes unintentionally. A good example, the birth control panel Congress had with some dudes and no women. That panel showed women that our perspectives weren’t deemed valid or useful by Congress. Feminism did it to lesbians during the second wave; it is pretty famous. Women of color were excluded particularly from feminist theory canon. bell hooks shook the foundations when she declared everyone can be a theorist, and everyone has something to teach others.

Now there is something to be said for feeling like you can’t speak up. But when you are the power holders that argument doesn’t hold water. For example, feeling like you can’t speak up in a classroom where the anti-choice view is held by the instructor, and you believe in reproductive choice because you fear retribution is a far cry from feeling like people are going to disagree with you so you’re "silenced." If anything that is self-silencing.

Power and privilege are tricky. They are hard to recognize when you have them, and impossible to ignore when you don’t. Privilege and power actively work to silence those without it, regardless of the intentions of those with privilege and power. Inaction can hurt people, and that is what we should be talking about, how to rectify that. Privilege is going to exist, but what we do or don’t do with it matters.What Goldberg did was hella privileged and inappropriate.

 

That said, in the end Goldberg didn’t even try to have this conversation instead she wanted to rip into black feminism through racism towards black women and Asian women. In conclusion I want to point out what is wrong with the article (let me know if I missed something):

• Having the same old arguments (FemFuture)
• The racism, dear god the racism (Moaist, SMH)
• Dismissal of the concerns and needs of women of color (assuming criticism was in bad faith and bullying by claiming the space is toxic because some feel unwelcome)
• Dismissal of privilege by echoing the same old “jealousy” arguments concerning book deals
• Oh the pulling out of the tired Second Wave argument of “put feminism first” to hell with anything else or as I like to put it FOR THE MOVEMENT
• Dreaming about days gone by (when people of color didn’t rock the boat)
• Misrepresenting the point of the article to those she interviewed particularly those she blames for a toxic culture (Mikki Kendall tweeted a lot about this on Wednesday)
• Her discussion of intersectionality (I found truly offensive denying the evolution of the term by clinging to the original meaning) and calling it chastising
• Dismissal of Sarah Milstein’s piece, Goldberg pretty much interprets Milstein’s statements as anytime you feel uncomfortable with something a person of color says as anytime you disagree with a person of color
• Dismissal of trans- concerns (the word “vagina” as a stand in for women/people who can give birth (and I as a cis-woman have a problem with being referred to exclusively by my reproductive organs; I don’t let people call me a cunt)).