Tagline: Little Light
Wondering why Queer Dewd? Wondering what happend to Bitch | Lab? Read Why Queer Dewd and Shame Affirmative.
Skip all this. Take me straight to the comment form »
[...] See also Bitch | Lab, commenting on the same post. [...]
Leave a comment, a trackback from your own blog, or subscribe to an RSS feed for this entry.
"For what it’s worth, I don’t like Bitch Lab, I don’t read her, I don’t think she’s very bright, and I think the main thing she piggybacked on recently was a comment thread to a post she didn’t author. Nice appropriation, that. ... Don’t like Bitch Lab? Join the club, and don’t read her. Read the women she rips off instead. They’re better." - Ilyka Damen
"Speaking as a progressive radical Leftist feminist  supporting Black man, I say: BRA FREAKIN' VO! Ms. Bitch."  Anthony Kennerson
"Your blog warms my pervy queer heart. \m/" Â The Phrophet Lilith
"It's visually delicious and pensively random. Or maybe, it's deliciously visual and randomly pensive." Â Dave Harper
"Quite a good blog for a little edgy whitty sort of humor." Â Mr. Linuxhead
"Bitch Lab ... really hits (Daily Kos) where it hurts by mentioning the fact that he's raking in some $480,000/year in advertising revenue and should not be presenting himself as if he were leading an Alabama bus boycott." Â Jackson Free Press
Note: This blog is a natural product. Slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and are not to be considered flaws or defects.
Oh, nice…here we go again with the “gender trumps race” issue.
I mean, for someone who considers herself a leftist who supposedly understands about oppression, Violet Socks sure has a strange way of showing it.
But then again, she is so blindly focused on the evils of eternal oppression of women (and what a really bad, bad analogy of Martha Stewart vs. Ken Lay; the fact that the latter actually DIED before he was sentenced to jail seems to have missed her grasp).
And how freakin’ arrogant of Violet to simply dismiss Shannon’s comments with the wave of a hand….I guess that only Black folk who openly accept radfem analysis will be welcome in her “revolution”??
I’m just waiting for nubian to get a hold of this latest essay…especially with good old Gin…oops, sorry, Belledame…singing the harmony in the background.
Anthony
Anthony,
VS doesn’t think gender trumps race. She simply made a comparison/contrast that ignored the prevalence of cultural racism and wasn’t attentive to the need to emphasize what she was doing, to the need to consider the implications of her language, and for the need to consider what it might sound like to people of color.
for instance, I might point out that anti-racist struggles appear to be embraced by leftist men and women far more than they embrace anti-sexism. But I would immediately point out that I’m not saying that racism is worse or better or what have you. I would also try to _explain_ or consider the explanations as to why there are these differences. There are plenty of analyses out there and have been around for at least 20 years.
i was also offended that Shannon was singled out for being a fool simply for pointing out the same things others pointed out already.
B|L, nobody needs to say “gender trumps race” as long as ginmar exists to pop up in threads and say it for them.
But reading the essay, I’m still not sure that’s what Violet was saying. I think she may have been confused, probably not seeing the whole picture, perhaps speaking too soon without examining the issue further.
Perhaps when she wrote it it really did seem to be the case to her that sexism is more tolerated than racism is. Maybe she was trying, however awkwardly, to point out that while racism does exist it’s not pc to be overtly racist, but you can probably still get away with being overtly sexist without the same repercussions. Which is not the same, at all, as saying that racism doesn’t exist or isn’t institutionalized.
It’s certainly not a new argument and it’s obviously one that many people agree with.
I did find the dismissal of Shannon’s input pretty disgusting, and almost as disquieting the way the discussion devolved into an evaluation of animal rights. Racism is too hard, cuts too close to the psychic bone, and causes too many hurt feelings, so let’s talk about chimps!
Did she say that? I didn’t catch it. it’s only a few hours into the workday and my brain is starting to get cloudy from the pain.
I dunno…that’s just the way I read it. anyway, sending you cyber-vicodin in hopes of easing the pain :)
sending love and cyber vicodin
hard not 2 read margin that way, after the gender trumps race blow out huh? :)
tx for vicodin, tho. typin’ 1 handed. heh. purty good, eh?
i think, re VS, it’s matter of why was this point something th/ needed 2 be made?
could be important if u want to illuminate ways the 2 systems of oppression operate differently.
does n’t make sense, though, to say that racism is not acceptable, but sexism is — because this looks at only biological ‘ism and not cultural ’sm (structural racism) like in the Yamato article linked to above.
[...] See also Bitch | Lab, commenting on the same post. [...]
I’m with Violet on this one.
After all, it is probably TRUE that that type of racism is entirely unacceptable. You can’t say that shit, which is a good thing. And it is (apparently) TRUE that this type of sexism IS acceptable, which also means that in a relative sense it is MORE acceptable.
What Violet left out in her summary were the words “this type”. She just said “sexism” and “racism”. Was the ommission accidental? From the comments, it appears so. She explained her position more clearly, as did othere.
But–and maybe it was just me–I understood just fine. She meant that is is currently acceptable (sort of) in society to make negative statements about women, but not about a particular race.
What should Shannon have said? Perhaps something like “Hey violet, do you mean ALL racism? because that’s not true.” And then, perhaps, the discussion would have been civil.
Instead, Shannon’s response was fairly aggressive, dontcha think?
“Shannon says:
Maybe you need to pay a little more attention to racism. Really, check the priv.”
Not “you might have made a mistake here” or “did you miss something” or “what did you mean by that” or “could you clarify”.
“Check the priv” is spoiling for a fight. And when you start a fight, you have an OBLIGATION to know and understand the point you’re attacking. Which (as it turns out) she doesn’t.
Just because you’re a white woman and don’t have to deal with it doesn’t mean you gotta go with the annoying ass “but people of color have it better than us†crap.
Also combative. Referring to your opponent’s argument as “crap” is not a good method to have a good discussion.
And what is more, as was later explained to Shannon, this assumption is plain old wrong. Saying “society pays more attention to racism” is NOT THE SAME as saying “POC have it better than women.” If Shannon didn’t parse that correctly, that’s not Violet’s problem.
And finally, it is very odd that you would say Shannon was “pretty measured in her response.”
Did you read that response by Violet, #34? You know, where she 1) restates her point in different language; 2) explains what she is NOT saying, to avoid confusion and misattribution; 3) gives an example of why she thinks it is accurate; and 4) restates–again–that her intent was not to compare things the way Shannon says she is?
Shannon appears to completely ignore it and goes off in a pretty non-measured way:
You’ve been warned about your toxic levels of white privlege before, and it’s a shame that you have chosen to be ignorant. I’m sad as well, that you have chosen to be ignorant, Violet. You own your own stupidity, and will be forever responsible for the consequences.
For those of you who may want to actually not be a terrible bag of shit,…
Perhaps it is explained by Shannon’s “I can’t read” lead line. If she won’t read Violet’s post, that explains her response–butwhy the hell is she on the comments? It’s as if Shannon classified Violet as “stupid white girl” at the outset, and refused to even have a conversation which would change her mind.
Suprisingly, it’s not just white liberals who can’t get that racism goes beyond perceptions of biological inferiority. I was in a classroom of 19 folks, only two of whom were white, only a few would describe themselves as liberal, and we were still going over that basic tenet. Again. and Again.
It’s a mainstream way of thinking about racism that’s perpetuated by the media.
Well wait. Perhaps among progressive-minded folks it’s not okay to use blatently racist language, but damn, I hear (barely) coded racist language all the time. As much, if not more than I hear sexist comments made about women. Perhaps it seems otherwise because women are talked about more than because of their greater numbers, but whenever a white person I don’t know opens his/her mouth to opine about black people or their culture, I swear I tense up wondering what’s going to come out of his/her mouth.
I mean, did anyone around here tune in to cable news shortly after the death of Mrs. King?? Or for that matter, read the opinions posted on what are considered to be reasonable conservative blogs about the speeches made at the ceremony? Cause there was plenty of straight-up racist comments. Plenty!
And while we’re on poltics, has no one heard of the Southern Strategy and how that recently played in in the macaca comment recently made by Virginia Senator George Allen who has aspirations to one day run for president?
On a personal level, my son, who is black, was subject to blatently racist comments made by a student on his bus for most of the year. (On the morning of an important statewide exam, a fellow student told another student to ignore my son cause “he’s only 3/5 of a person anyway.” My son entered the school in tears.) On a side note, hateful comments about homosexuals were also par for the course not just on his bus, but at his school and among his friends on the block. Wanna called someone a homo to deride them? No problema!
Almost everyday I feel like my son is non-stop barraged with messages telling him he is less than. I feel like I’m a white person who, even before my son was born, had an above-average amount of consciousness, but damn, seeing my son, my heart, get rained on all the time by shit that bypasses the white kids next to him has been an incredibly eye-opening, frustrating and sometimes heartbreaking experience.
So maybe I’m missing the point, but I reject any statement grounded in the idea that when it comes to words, sexist language is much more accepted than racist language.
But–and maybe it was just me–I understood just fine. She meant that is is currently acceptable (sort of) in society to make negative statements about women, but not about a particular race.
But…that’s horseshit. It’s perfectly acceptable to make negative statements about a particular race–see the Rush Limbaugh quote for an example–so long as you attribute that general inferiority to “culture” rather than “biology.” It is acceptable to say that black people are less moral and less capable, just not to say that their immorality and incapacity are encoded in their DNA. While that is a very interesting disparity, and one worth analyzing, in terms of the prevalence and severity of racism it is a distinction without a difference.
Moreover, Violet Socks replied to Shannon’s examples of cultural racism by saying that she had not meant to say that women are worse off than people of color,* which makes me think that she doesn’t see cultural racism as equal to the eugenic kind. That “worse” is a product of the same attitudes that create “worse” for women. If your calculus of hatred excludes one type that disproportionately affects a certain group, of course your analysis will be fucked. It’s like those DV surveys that exclude sexual assault and end up concluding that men and women beat each other up equally.
*Which is also illogical: if it is acceptable to demean x group and unacceptable to demean y group, then y group is objectively better off in one very significant way. See comparisons between women and men.
Attributing differences to biology is also okay. “The Bell Curve” in 1994 was well reviewed by a number of well-respected publications and its authors probably were booked on more talk shows than Ann Coulter is for each of her drivel-filled books.
And even though Florida senate candidate Tramm Hudson was recently skewered for stating:
“I grew up In Alabama, and I understand, and I know this from my own experience, that blacks are not the greatest swimmers or may not even know to swim.”
If you follow the ensuing debate on non-political discussion boards, you will find no shortage of people defending his statement, saying shit like, “Well, since it’s true, it’s not racist!”
Okay I posted on it but I found that post as a black WOMAN offensive as shit . And if it wsn’t the treatment and examples were used in the most flippant derogatory manner ever.
Attributing differences to biology is also okay. “The Bell Curve†in 1994 was well reviewed by a number of well-respected publications and its authors probably were booked on more talk shows than Ann Coulter is for each of her drivel-filled books.
Good point; I shouldn’t have generalized. I will say that racism usually hides itself under indictments of “culture.”
Sailorman: will write more. trying to abstain as much as poss. b/c of injury.
meantime, this:
Update: Blackamazon points out something I hadn’t noticed since I did not read VS’s examples in comment 34 because I was a little too peeved to bother.
The comment in 34 rests on the notion that some kind of evolutionary history is unfolding where “we†are recognizing that various groups should be extended the same rights. The problem with this narrative, as BA points out, is that it ignores that those rights were obtained through struggle, often violent struggle. It’s a view of history that erases the role of political struggle in demanding that those rights be extended to others.
BA also points out that there is yet another problem involved in find rampant sexism every place else but the United States. Those countries surely have sexist practices, but to what extent has women’s ability to fight them been made more difficult by Western Imperialism? How much have those societies been prevented from “evolving†because the US and other imperialist nations purposefully made it impossible for people to struggle for gender equality when they were struggling to simply live? Again, it’s a narrative of natural human evolution rather than a narrative of human struggle.
Also, see Angry Black Woman and Shannon.
I’m surprised about the latest. I really respect Violet Socks a lot. I know it’s hard to deal with the criticisms on this issue. I’ve certainly had my own temper tantrums.
Is it a conspiracy to keep thinking that the ‘isms are the fault of an individual’s bad moral behavior?
::sigh::
Since you compared racism to sexism, do you think a man should treat women like you did when he is challenged as to the way he writes about women/feminism?
It’d be good if we could all be a little less defensive about our bigotries. I’m pretty sure we all are prejudiced about one thing or another. I know I do battle with racist, classist and sexist thoughts and assumption each and every day. I don’t think that makes me or any other person evil, just human. Lol. Tonight I had a battle with that son of mine about whether or not it’s okay that we call women “ho’s” but not men. His 11-year old argument was that it IS okay because LIFE’S NOT FAIR, MOM! To bolster his argument, he pointed out that it’s not fair that girls grow faster than boys, is it? Ha! I had to laugh, his line of reasoning kinda of reminded me of that of the poster who started this whole affair.
Since you compared racism to sexism, do you think a man should treat women like you did when he is challenged as to the way he writes about women/feminism?
Hey, I just made a similar point over at Amp’s blog!
It’s not like feminists hold themselves to the same standard, such that accusations of sexism are Very Serious and must only be made on special occasions. And why would they? Feminism would be as gormless and shallow as the Slate op-ed page.
I see the same thing wrt “transphobic:” I point out that a pattern of thinking is transphobic, which generally translates to, “implicitly renders transpeople invisible or trans identities invalid,” and I’ve called someone a kitten-molesting Nazi. Meanwhile, they’re throwing “misogynist” around like it’s going out of style.
Rousing chorus of “We’re All A Little Bit Racist” (Avenue Q) playing in the background, I note,
o goodie, well, at least it makes sort of a change of pace, this one. no, wait, we’ve done this one as well. well, we could–no, wait we’ve done THAT one as well, too. and again. and again!
i dunno. d’you think if i left and came back in thirty years it’d look any different? i mean besides the whole 75% of us are now dead from heat waves and nukular terror and tidal waves and earthquakes and new Ice Age and famine and Black Plage On Steroids and so on and so forth?
I’ve been thinking about this too, in the context of why being called racist brings up such strong defensive mechanisms. If I call you a racist does that mean you stay racist forever and ever, amen? Is it a kind of scarlet letter you wear til the day you die? Or if you’re willing to examine your assumptions do you get to graduate from unconscious racism to anti-racist or at least aware of your inherent racism and privilege?
Lots and lots–probably most–white people are operating under a false sense of assumptions and in a racist construct. That doesn’t make them evil–just wrong. And it’s up to us fellow white people to correct that racism when we recognize it. But the problem is that often we don’t recognize it because we’re operating under the same flawed construct.
I rather feel that Shannon’s response to Violet was guaranteed to bring out Violet’s response to Shannon–Shannon called her on her shit, and not in a nicey-nice manner. She and I have had some discussion of that over at my blog; I take a different tactic because of my upbringing, and she takes her tactic because of her upbringing. And yep, Violet’s response to Shannon was dismissive and defensive but hardly surprising–because once again the racism label is the one we fear we’ll never get rid of. And when Violet felt herself being attacked her reaction was to attack back.
I’m not excusing it. I’m just trying to process how it could have been different, because my experience with Violet has always been a positive one, up until now. She’s never before shown herself (to me, at least) to be a knee-jerk reactionary, and I wonder if this is an instance where a more measured correction of where she was wrong might have been more constructive.
But hey, it happened. What remains to be seen is how/whether she learns from it.
I want to make clear, too, that I’m not suggesting it was Shannon’s responsibility to be all sweetness & light to Violet–hell, it’s not her responsibility to be her anti-racism coach, ya know? I’m more interested in how people react to confrontation, as a rule, and how we can learn to confront each other in the future. Cuz, like Belledame, I’m sick as hell of all this infighting.
piny: The Bell Curve got a lot of media attention all right, but not, as I recall, the GOOD kind. A whole host of highly intelligent people devoted themselves to shredding it, and did a damn good job. In fact, the main references to the book I have seen since the media attention died down were in the “stupid racist book” category.
The Bell Curve is sort of like the famous “all sex is rape” interpretation: it’s not used to prove the point it ostensibly made, it’s held up as some sort of exemplar bogeyman. So I don’t think–at all–that the existence of The Bell Curve shows that is is considered “OK” to make such statements. Public reaction to the book shows otherwise.
bitch|lab: Yeah, I reread that and I’m uncomfortable with the ‘evolutionary’ angle. I don’t agree with that aspect of her response.
EL
i agree that it’s just not confined to whites. the inability to examine the structural operations of ‘isms is deeply rooted in a society that looks at everything in terms of the individual and denies that there are social phenom.
what puzzles is why this view is so entrenched in lefty political culture. lefty social movements have always been about criticizing the reduction of social problems to a problem of “bad belief.”
this is another reason i have crits of the way “privilege” is used. it’s used as the property of an individual rather than a group.
it’s also going to be the subject of an upcoming post on Dobosh Torte Feminism where oppressions are seen as like layers in a cake with no necessary relation between oppressor and oppressed, and no necessary rel. between various forms of oppression.
As a Chicana feminist, I really had problems with this:
In other words, if the guy had been a white man, then he’d lose his job. But he’ll keep it because he’s a Latino and Latinos are crazy and colorful.
It was bad enough learning that my experience of sexism and racism don’t count, then I learn that Latino men benefit from a system because of their race.
If that statement had been on a conservative blog, it would have been seen as racist.
The Bell Curve was well received by several mainstream publications, including the NY Times.
According to Wiki:
“Upon publication, The Bell Curve received a great deal of positive publicity, including cover stories in Newsweek (”the science behind [it] is overwhelmingly mainstream”), early publication (under protest by other writers and editors) by The New Republic by its editor-in-chief at the time Andrew Sullivan, and The New York Times Book Review (which suggested critics disliked its “appeal to sweet reason” and are “inclined to hang the defendants without a trial”). Early articles and editorials appeared in Time, The New York Times (”makes a strong case”), The New York Times Magazine, Forbes, the Wall Street Journal, and The National Review. It received a respectful airing on such shows as Nightline, the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, the McLaughlin Group, Think Tank, PrimeTime Live, and All Things Considered. [3] The book sold over 500,000 copies in hardcover.”
Isn’t this a stupd controversy? She’s complaining that no one objects to sexism, but she is, Salon did, and someone in the original article called him a sexist.
She’s wrong. People do complain about sexism. Case closed.
Did the Forbes incident in the blogosphere escape her attention?
Belledame wrote:
Obviously it would since it did look different 30 years ago.
The Bell Curve was well received by several mainstream publications, including the NY Times.
According to Wiki:
“Upon publication, The Bell Curve received a great deal of positive publicity, including cover stories in Newsweek (â€Âthe science behind [it] is overwhelmingly mainstreamâ€Â), early publication (under protest by other writers and editors) by The New Republic by its editor-in-chief at the time Andrew Sullivan, and The New York Times Book Review (which suggested critics disliked its “appeal to sweet reason†and are “inclined to hang the defendants without a trialâ€Â). Early articles and editorials appeared in Time, The New York Times (â€Âmakes a strong caseâ€Â), The New York Times Magazine, Forbes, the Wall Street Journal, and The National Review. It received a respectful airing on such shows as Nightline, the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, the McLaughlin Group, Think Tank, PrimeTime Live, and All Things Considered. [3] The book sold over 500,000 copies in hardcover.â€Â
That’s about what I recall. IIRC, the reaction to The Bell Curve was a little like the reaction to Ann Coulter: many people unconcerned, some people aghast, and a third group of people who responded to the second with, “You just don’t want to hear the truth!” The fact that The Bell Curve wasn’t universally derided as lousy science in the service of a reprehensible agenda is scary in and of itself.
But like I said, most of the defenses of racism have been based on the idea of black “culture.” It’s a way to defuse accusations of racism, because of course racism is only when you say that one race is inherently inferior, not that virtually every member of one race happens to be inferior.
She’s wrong. People do complain about sexism. Case closed.
Well, there’s feminists and then there’s the general public. I think it is fair to say that sexists are more likely to raise this spectre of broad biological differences between the sexes, and that this idea is less likely to automatically render someone a laughingstock. John Gray is a great example of this. This isn’t always true, thank God–Larry Summers got fired for advocating this regressive approach to education.
But like Amp pointed out, that asymmetry doesn’t mean that one prejudice is more acceptable, just that it happens to cloak itself in slightly different rationalizations. No one says that Muslims are genetically different from Christians, but that doesn’t make religious xenophobia any less vituperative.
piny
I think what also goes on is comparison of kinds that set the comparison up in the first place.
E.g. “Well, there’s leftists and then there’s the general public” (when it comes to complaining about racism.
We can point to people getting fired from their jobs for either issue.
I think part of the problem was in not delineating the field within which she makes the comparison/contrast — and then having a blind eye to what I think is very normal in all this:
there are contradictions! cultural messages are not uniform and monolithic. Sometimes, we see sexism being denounced, sometimes we don’t. Ditto racism
so, to make any analysis at all, I think you’d have to delimit the sphere in which you examine the issue, *especially* if you hold an evolutionary notion of moral development where some people are higher up on the moral ladder than others.
problem is, “The higher a monkey climbs the moral ladder, the more you see of its behind.” (abusing Joseph Stilwell)
JK “Well wait. Perhaps among progressive-minded folks it’s not okay to use blatently racist language, but damn, I hear (barely) coded racist language all the time”
yah. i think you could make a claim and back it up with evidence if you delimited and specified carefully.
*only* look at official statements distributed by global bodies such as the UN.
*only* look at popular books
*only* look at self IDd leftists by, say, distributing survey questions or using data already at hand. you could dig deeper with, say, examination of the actual engagement in politics: what groups do they join, what funds do they contribute to.
but here’s a problem, just talking off the top of my head.
On a lefty leftish discussion list to which I belong where people are pretty much way farther to the left than the blogosophere — people who answer to the name commie, socialist, marxist — I have actually heard men say things like “sexism isn’t an issue for women in the US anymore” or “I can see how race is a social construct and someday we’ll see it as no more important thean eye color. But I can’t see how this is the case with men and women.”
both of those statements were attacked by the women — a tiny, tiny minority (WAG: 5% of group are women) but other men jumped in to say “woah woah woah”.
Still,what always shocks is that it gets said at all.
But, when I think about it, there is simply a *code* for complaining about racial struggles on the left.
I can count plenty of times people snarl about “identity politics” even arguing that the identity politics movements of the 60s were the problem, what disrupted the struggle for social change.
It code for an attack on anything that isn’tstrictly about labor struggles.
Whatever you want to call that — racist doesn’t seem to be the right word — but it is code, on the left, for complaining about the focus on anti-racism as ‘devisive’.
So, even if you keep it combined to one very delimited area, it still doesn’t work.
Which leaves you with: what was the point? What was the message? What was the rallying cry? Who was the intended audience?
That last one is a big one: who is the author writing to/for?
oh — and the attack on identity poltics is also code for complaining about other politics: women’s liberation, the struggles of transfolk, queer/sexual minority liberation movements, etc.
anything that can be labeled an identity based movement is seen as detracting from the *real* problem: exploitation of labor.
these are not popular views, per se. they will be questoned and challenged.
but what also goes on is a simple not really giving a shit.
since a lot of us working for women’s, queer, etc. struggles have moved to blogs to do our ranting, what’s quite noticeable is that articles forwarded to the list and the interests raised *do* reflect the interests of radical left white males: things economic, things labor. once in awhile race issues come up. slightly less frequently gender but not that much less frequently.)
This is an example of a lefty statement attacking ID politics:
True. This particular character is a real charmer, but I don’t think view is unpopular so much as his particular way of saying it is just too blunt.
oh  and the attack on identity poltics is also code for complaining about other politics: women’s liberation, the struggles of transfolk, queer/sexual minority liberation movements, etc.
Yup! My demands are universal. Your demands are special interests.
I read a kind of Old Book called Womans Worth written in 84. It was an overview of the economic impact of women’s work. I remember one passage was about how developing nations took a big hit first from colonialism, then from western countries tring to aid in development. One example was a set of villages in west Africa where women traditionally did subsistance farming. A western agency came in to train new farmers in technique and pass out tools, they only trained the men, who didnt know about farming. So the women lost the status of the economic input of farming, and also the people gad less food to eat becuase the men didnt have a tradition of farming.
Carpenter
Yup Yup Yup! ‘zactly! not even to mention the ways governments have sometimes systematically _encouraged_ regime changes that have deleterious effects on women’s social positions — as long as that regime change served our interests.
I vaguely recall someone talking about that work.
—-
As for the Pandagon thread, one thing that totally made me laugh, speaking of 1984, was someone — Amanda maybe? — thought it was really strange anyone would want to preserve housework/stay at home mothering if they were a marxist.
HA! Back in the late 70s, that is *exactly* what one faction of marxist feminists argued: women should be paid to be housewives. This had to do with Marxist theories as to what would bring about women’s liberation and debates over the theory itself.
But nothing about being a Marxist would necessarily entail that you would insist that women necessarily not be SAHMs. As long as she was being paid and was, thus, no longer confined to the sphere of unpaid social reproduction (pregnancy, childcare, etc.), she was in the circuits of capitalism — part of the system of production — then you’re still on Marxist terrain.
Not all marxists, of course, agreed.
And, of course, in the US, even then, the plan was totally not going to get anywhere.
Yeah I did find that part of th argument useful. SAH labor (making new people, feeding existing people, subsistence farming in someplaces etc )is the base that makes all economies possible, and it must be done by someone sometime. It seems to me that If you are a capitaltist and you dont get payed for it, the system benifits bc you did it for free. If you are a capitalist and you get payed for it, the system benefits becuase your work becomes part of the free market and your paycheck gets spent at the mall. It seems SAH itself supports the existing state, weather it be capitalist or whatever.
>The comment in 34 rests on the notion that some kind of evolutionary history is unfolding where “we†are recognizing that various groups should be extended the same rights.
Back to this for a sec: there’s a name for this, right? I mean even putting aside “evolutionary,” which, well, boggle, don’t know what to say about that; but, well, again, that, ohhhhh, i dunno,
“All things just keep gettin’ better”
nu?
except, apparently, for Class Woman. or, not as quickly, or something, i dunno.
>Which leaves you with: what was the point? What was the message? What was the rallying cry? Who was the intended audience?
That last one is a big one: who is the author writing to/for?>
Yup.
My other question: what brought this on, exactly? Some show about dogs? something else in Blog O’ Land?
>I did find the dismissal of Shannon’s input pretty disgusting, and almost as disquieting the way the discussion devolved into an evaluation of animal rights. Racism is too hard, cuts too close to the psychic bone, and causes too many hurt feelings, so let’s talk about chimps!>
yeah, and that was MONDO bizarre, well, except, not so bizarre really, which, well, as you say, andbut, brain hurtie.
and i mean…well.
-how- did they get onto -that- particular change of subject?? of all subjects, th–
oh never mind, really.
28: yeah, i kind of meant this particular bloggish merry-go-round, you know.
especially since while the WORLD has changed it does sometimes seem like some people keep recycling arguments from thirty years ago or more, unchanged, and…
but perhaps this too is simply more nostalgia or something.
> If I call you a racist does that mean you stay racist forever and ever, amen? Is it a kind of scarlet letter you wear til the day you die? Or if you’re willing to examine your assumptions do you get to graduate from unconscious racism to anti-racist or at least aware of your inherent racism and privilege?
Lots and lots–probably most–white people are operating under a false sense of assumptions and in a racist construct. That doesn’t make them evil–just wrong. And it’s up to us fellow white people to correct that racism when we recognize it. But the problem is that often we don’t recognize it because we’re operating under the same flawed construct.>
Well, yes. that is a good question. also, well, who gets to decide?
as BL says, we do all like to punish; there is that.
but yeah: i have said before, i think, that for way too many people the process goes something like:
1) Racists are Bad People
2) I am a good person
3) Therefore, I cannot be a racist
3a) and any suggestion that anything -about- me will -also- be construed as an attack on my fundamental character
4) lather, rinse, repeat
…I think in this case, you know, as I said over at Alas: it’s really MORE frustrating than if it’s just Joe Schmo who’s never really even considered any of this shit before; this is, yes, someone who is well used to talking in much more sophisticated ways wrt -sexism-; why. is. the connection. so. HARD?
…oh. it -wouldn’t- also be because then it might mean easing up on one’s own hardline wrt men behaving in sexist manners? (i.e. Bad Person! No biscuit!)
i mean, i have always seen VS personally as being the sort who accepts apologies and reintegrates, you know, which is one reason i had stuck around.
but in general; and, well, people: complex.
hmm.