shadesofmauve (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
shadesofmauve) wrote2017-08-16 12:07 pm
shadesofmauve) wrote2017-08-16 12:07 pm
Gonna test-write this here with a smaller audience before putting it up elsewhere.
When we talk about working to stop oppression, lots of people get tied up questions of personal responsibility and blame and defensiveness. There are lots of great essays about that, but having to go over it every time is distracting, so I want to look at it practically, instead.
Look.
A black person cannot have a "useful conversation" with a white supremacist because that white supremacist has already decided that they have no value and thus won't listen to anything they say. The only person the white supremacist might listen to is other white people, because those are the only people whom they value.
A woman cannot change the mind of a die-hard sexist because the die-hard sexist has already decided that her words have no merit based on her gender. The people with the best chance of dismantling that sexism are men, because the die-hard sexist values what they say.
The transgender person can't change the mind of the entrenched transphobe because the entrenched transphobe has already decided they're a freak and everything they say is warped or suspect. They only value the words of cisgender people.
Dismantling white supremacy is white people's work, because we're the only ones who can do it.
Dismantling sexism is men's work, because they're the only ones that can do it.
Dismantling anti-semitism is goyim work, because we're the only ones that can do it.
Dismantling homophobia is straight people's work, because we're the only ones that can do it.
I want to acknowledge that people in an oppressed group *can* impact people who have unconcious bias -- they do tons of that work all the time. It's the die-hard/entrenched/actively-out-to-get-you people who BY DEFINITION won't listen to those they oppress. I need to figure out how to do that acknowledgement without lessening the power of the statement. On the other end of the scale, I truly think that when you have someone like the nazi fuckheads marching in Charlottesville, there is no such thing as a 'useful conversation' with them. There is a useful reaction, though -- like the family who disowned their nazi son, the people who's words these assholes actually value need to say "Fuck you" and turn their backs on them. It's still white people's work, I just don't think we get there through a heart-to-heart over the dinnertable, because the enemy is too far gone.
Look.
A black person cannot have a "useful conversation" with a white supremacist because that white supremacist has already decided that they have no value and thus won't listen to anything they say. The only person the white supremacist might listen to is other white people, because those are the only people whom they value.
A woman cannot change the mind of a die-hard sexist because the die-hard sexist has already decided that her words have no merit based on her gender. The people with the best chance of dismantling that sexism are men, because the die-hard sexist values what they say.
The transgender person can't change the mind of the entrenched transphobe because the entrenched transphobe has already decided they're a freak and everything they say is warped or suspect. They only value the words of cisgender people.
Dismantling white supremacy is white people's work, because we're the only ones who can do it.
Dismantling sexism is men's work, because they're the only ones that can do it.
Dismantling anti-semitism is goyim work, because we're the only ones that can do it.
Dismantling homophobia is straight people's work, because we're the only ones that can do it.
I want to acknowledge that people in an oppressed group *can* impact people who have unconcious bias -- they do tons of that work all the time. It's the die-hard/entrenched/actively-out-to-get-you people who BY DEFINITION won't listen to those they oppress. I need to figure out how to do that acknowledgement without lessening the power of the statement. On the other end of the scale, I truly think that when you have someone like the nazi fuckheads marching in Charlottesville, there is no such thing as a 'useful conversation' with them. There is a useful reaction, though -- like the family who disowned their nazi son, the people who's words these assholes actually value need to say "Fuck you" and turn their backs on them. It's still white people's work, I just don't think we get there through a heart-to-heart over the dinnertable, because the enemy is too far gone.
I'm trying to figure out how to incorporate that nuance -- the idea that there are hugely different levels of racism/sexism/homophia/antisemitism etc etc etc -- without losing the power of the message.
Gotta think on that one.
no subject
Oh, wow, what a dream. That would be glorious, and would help so much.
This isn't a merely matter of one bro telling another bro to chill with the sexist comments he's making in his workplace. It's about fundamentally changing the mental frameworks within people's heads.
I suppose I think that that kind of casual one-bro-tells-another-bro-to-chill conversation DOES change the frameworks within people's heads, but it does so slowly and with repetition. Like the influence of fiction media, I think stuff that comes in subtly, from the sides, really influences our mental framework. But it's preventative-health type influence, and what we need right now is trauma care.
I think the heart of what I am really saying is this is NOT a battle to be won on facebook or by using quick slogans that are made for the internet era...This is only a battle that can be won through the hard slog of face-to-face dialogue. But from what you are saying, I think we pretty violently agree on this. ;)
Yeah, we do. And when you put it that way, I think what I'm wrestling with is actually what a LOT of people are wrestling with: is it possible to frame something that needs to be a long slog discussion a way that gets people addicted to short slogans to actually READ it? And the answer is 'probably not'. So we A) keep sharing the long, well thought out things, in hopes that at least a few people do the reading and B) keep having the long slog discussions when the opportunities arise. And I'm lucky to know lots of people willing to have those long-slog conversations, but it's sure exhausting to think about changing the world one-by-one, so I suppose it's not surprising to hope a more shotgun approach would work! But perhaps I need to recognize that it's as much a daydream as your idea of everyone taking a break and reading until autumn.
I guess my point is that I'm pretty damn uncomfortable with the fact that much of america suddenly woke up to something they don't know how to tamp back down -- and this waking up occurred after years, decades, (centuries) of being told "Hey, America, there's a problem" and being ignored.
Yeah, I totally understand finding that deeply uncomfortable.
I know that I only woke up to the existence/extent of current anti-black racism during Obama's first presidential campaign. I know that for others it's taken getting THIS bad. I believe that waking up is important even when it's late, but that doesn't make it easy for more informed people to watch. I don't know, though, how you deal with the fact that it's a problem that it took this long, and that everyone is in different stages of waking. Or rather... no. We deal with the last point by having the long slog individual conversations, because one-on-one is the only way we can reach people where they are and try and move them in the right direction, and a LOT of down-the-rabbit-hole arguments i see on the net happen because the participants are at different stages of that kind of awakening/awareness.
(again, hope this wasn't too rambly -- you read my medical post, I'm a bit more mentally twitchy than usual, too).