Summah Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 A classic "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. If you don't speak up, you're just another whitey charged with complicity in racism through your silence. If you do speak up, you're "speaking for someone else." For what it's worth - I actually don't see this as a double bind. Calling out racial prejudice isn't "speaking for someone else" even if you're not the target of the racial prejudice. It's just speaking for yourself even though someone else is the target, and standing up for someone else used to be (and I suspect, in most circles, still is) a virtue. And do you know why it's NOT speaking for you? Because you are still at perfect liberty to respond in any which way you'd like.No it's not, in a situation like that, when it's directed at me personally, I should be given a chance to respond before someone jumps in, if I decide not to call them out, then others are free to do so or not do so as they wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Brook is right, SW is sex worker. Most of the xERFs are straight white Robin, even if they claim to be political lesbians :p There are feminists who are opposed to sex work, and there are SWERFs, they aren't just opposed to sex work but they have similar vitriol for sex workers as TERFs have for trans women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Summah Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 What about that a significant number of sex workers are victimized (I know some people choose it) and brought into that life, why would feminists have vitriol for women who have been victimized.And I don't get the political lesbian thing either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 No it's not, in a situation like that, when it's directed at me personally, I should be given a chance to respond before someone jumps in, if I decide not to call them out, then others are free to do so or not do so as they wish. I disagree. If promoting racial prejudice is wrong, and opposing racial prejudice is right, then it's right to oppose it regardless of whether you yourself are personally the victim, or if you are doing it in response to someone else being the victim of it. Now, maybe as a matter of courtesy you should get first crack at responding - but I'm not sure that's the case at all. And regardless of whether you should, as matter of courtesy, it's clear that it's not "speaking for you" - since you are still at perfect liberty to respond however and in whatever way that you want, even if you don't get to automatically say it first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 What about that a significant number of sex workers are victimized (I know some people choose it) and brought into that life, why would feminists have vitriol for women who have been victimized.And I don't get the political lesbian thing either.Well I don't hold that position so I can't really answer, it seems to boil down to mumble mumble traitors to womanhood, mumble mumble not really women for some reason. Not all women in sex work are victimised, and freely choose that profession, and I believe that legalisation and regulation of the industry is the best approach to help those who are being victimised. Even when you get to the case of doing something because they are desperate, they can make the choice to act from desperation and at least get the positive outcome for themselves out of it in the form of money, taking that choice away from them and then not providing aid is just another way of further victimising them. I'd rather a society that has a decent safety net so no one feels the need to do it out of desperation, leaving those that choose it free to pursue it safely and legally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brook Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 I meant to reply to this before and forgot, the whole post was wonderful but I just wanted to reply to this bit When I thought I was a guy I refused to call myself a feminist because I was terrified of doing it wrong. I saw people like Joss Whedon (whose work I mostly adore, FWIW) loudly proclaim themselves feminists and yet maintain and perpetuate a whole lot of sexism. And I know I have a lot of weird internalized gender biases. What if I accidentally let one show? The wolves would tear me to shreds. I still feel like this sometimes, that it's better to stay silent than to risk accidentally putting a food wrong. I think on one hand the fact that it does force me to stop and think and try and look critically at stuff I write before I hit send is a good thing on the other it makes it hard to have a really honest conversation because we are all of us just as flawed in one way or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Summah Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Nestor,Given the history of silencing women and POC it is not ok to jump in first without giving me a chance to respond first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Summah Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Well I don't hold that position so I can't really answer, it seems to boil down to mumble mumble traitors to womanhood, mumble mumble not really women for some reason. Not all women in sex work are victimised, and freely choose that profession, and I believe that legalisation and regulation of the industry is the best approach to help those who are being victimised. Even when you get to the case of doing something because they are desperate, they can make the choice to act from desperation and at least get the positive outcome for themselves out of it in the form of money, taking that choice away from them and then not providing aid is just another way of further victimising them. I'd rather a society that has a decent safety net so no one feels the need to do it out of desperation, leaving those that choose it free to pursue it safely and legally.I agree with all of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Nestor,Given the history of silencing women and POC it is not ok to jump in first without giving me a chance to respond first. What does "giving you a chance to respond first" actually entail in your mind? I disagree. If promoting racial prejudice is wrong, and opposing racial prejudice is right, then it's right to oppose it regardless of whether you yourself are personally the victim, or if you are doing it in response to someone else being the victim of it. Now, maybe as a matter of courtesy you should get first crack at responding - but I'm not sure that's the case at all. And regardless of whether you should, as matter of courtesy, it's clear that it's not "speaking for you" - since you are still at perfect liberty to respond however and in whatever way that you want, even if you don't get to automatically say it first. Beyond that, one does not need to be the victim of prejudice to be against it or be offended by it. That fact is what underlies the larger movement for any kind of equality. I mean, the whole point (or one of the main points) of, say, the LGBT rights movement is to get straight people to also feel the same way about anti-gay prejudice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 I disagree. If promoting racial prejudice is wrong, and opposing racial prejudice is right, then it's right to oppose it regardless of whether you yourself are personally the victim, or if you are doing it in response to someone else being the victim of it. Now, maybe as a matter of courtesy you should get first crack at responding - but I'm not sure that's the case at all. And regardless of whether you should, as matter of courtesy, it's clear that it's not "speaking for you" - since you are still at perfect liberty to respond however and in whatever way that you want, even if you don't get to automatically say it first. Nestor,Given the history of silencing women and POC it is not ok to jump in first without giving me a chance to respond first.I didn't want to jump in before you as that would be pretty much doing exactly the same thing we are talking about, but I do want to support your point. I don't think that dynamic would be as strong on a message board, however with an in person conversation jumping in to answer a question that has been directed to a specific person suggests that either your opinion is more important, or that they are incapable of replying appropriately for whatever reason. Depending on the relationship between the person jumping in and the person asked the question that can be OK, there are certain things someone could ask me that will either leave me curled up in a ball or quivering with rage, in both of those cases I would be fine with Brook jumping in and answering for me because she knows my feelings and we have a close relationship like that. If it was just some random friend, I'm going not going to take it nearly as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Summah Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 What does "giving you a chance to respond first" actually entail in your mind?.Waiting at least a few seconds to see if I respond before jumping in, I'm not slow at answering these sorts of things. I am talking about in person, not online, because online who knows when I'll log on, so someone else is free to answer, in person give me a chance first. If someone said something homophobic to a gay friend of mine, I wouldn't jump in and call out the remark before my friend had a chance to respond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Summah Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 kara,Thanks for the support and I agree it's different in an online forum, and of course a relationship as close as you have with brook will be different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Of House Hill Posted January 30, 2014 Author Share Posted January 30, 2014 Brook is right, SW is sex worker. Most of the xERFs are straight white Robin, even if they claim to be political lesbians :P There are feminists who are opposed to sex work, and there are SWERFs, they aren't just opposed to sex work but they have similar vitriol for sex workers as TERFs have for trans women. Okay, now I understand. xERFS hate men, those they mistakenly believe were men or want to become men, or have sex with men. Is that about right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Okay, now I understand. xERFS hate men, those they mistakenly believe wereare men or want to become men, or have sex with men. Is that about right? With the correction I made (showing their beliefs not mine obviously) that seems to be about how it starts yeah, the weird thing is that some of them seem to end up hating trans women and sex workers so much that they will side with MRAs to attack them, and I just can't fathom my way around that other than genuine mental illness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Of House Hill Posted January 30, 2014 Author Share Posted January 30, 2014 With the correction I made (showing their beliefs not mine obviously) that seems to be about how it starts yeah, the weird thing is that some of them seem to end up hating trans women and sex workers so much that they will side with MRAs to attack them, and I just can't fathom my way around that other than genuine mental illness. Good correction. The only reason I worded that way was to convey both MtF and FtM to the unfamiliar, but I think that discussion might better be in the LGBTQI thread. But, in the context of this thread, I wonder if their behavior is simply a manifestation of an obsession to wrest male power and privilege for themselves and not having anything to do with feminism, at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 I didn't want to jump in before you as that would be pretty much doing exactly the same thing we are talking about, but I do want to support your point. I don't think that dynamic would be as strong on a message board, however with an in person conversation jumping in to answer a question that has been directed to a specific person suggests that either your opinion is more important, or that they are incapable of replying appropriately for whatever reason. Depending on the relationship between the person jumping in and the person asked the question that can be OK, there are certain things someone could ask me that will either leave me curled up in a ball or quivering with rage, in both of those cases I would be fine with Brook jumping in and answering for me because she knows my feelings and we have a close relationship like that. If it was just some random friend, I'm going not going to take it nearly as well. To be clear, the situation that Girl of the Summer Islands presented was not that someone asked her a question, and then someone else jumped in and answered the question for her. The situation was that someone made a comment to her espousing a racial stereotype (that she must be a good dancer because she was black). That's not a question, and by its nature, doesn't even necessarily invite a response. To object to that comment and the assumptions underlying it doesn't mean that you don't think Girl of the Summer Islands is incapable of responding or that your opinion is more important (whatever that's even supposed to mean, in practice). It just means that you object to the comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Nestor,Given the history of silencing women and POC it is not ok to jump in first without giving me a chance to respond first. Sorry - this is a meritocracy. If you want to respond first - respond fastest. Otherwise, respond second. Either way, you're only "silenced" if you choose not to say something - which is your call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brook Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Sorry - this is a meritocracy. What is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 To be clear, the situation that Girl of the Summer Islands presented was not that someone asked her a question, and then someone else jumped in and answered the question for her. The situation was that someone made a comment to her espousing a racial stereotype (that she must be a good dancer because she was black). That's not a question, and by its nature, doesn't even necessarily invite a response. To object to that comment and the assumptions underlying it doesn't mean that you don't think Girl of the Summer Islands is incapable of responding or that your opinion is more important (whatever that's even supposed to mean, in practice). It just means that you object to the comment. The comment that was the example was clearly directed at a single person, whether it's a question or not it's polite to give someone a chance to respond to something directed at them rather than jumping in, and I do think jumping in carries the implication I mentioned before. Of course if you don't care about being polite, then by all means run roughshod over peoples feelings and righteously fight the good fight, just don't be surprised when you aren't thanked for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 What is? This inane, getting more inane, hypothetical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.