![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Folly of 'Purity Politics'
Language of Appeasement
"By substituting diversity and inclusion rhetoric for transformative efforts to promote equity and justice, colleges have avoided recognizable institutional change"
Intersectional Identity and the Path to Progress
New Meta Newsletter, Signal Boosting, Linking, Dogpiling, and History
Double Standards and Diverse Media
Racism in Fandom & Fandom Discourse
I Helped Create the Milo Trolling Playbook. You Should Stop Playing Right Into It. This is interesting but comes to totally the wrong conclusions, and ignores broader social structures. For example it ignores the effect actions have on Milo versus on social prejudice in general, which the author doesn't seem to actually believe in.
Language of Appeasement
"By substituting diversity and inclusion rhetoric for transformative efforts to promote equity and justice, colleges have avoided recognizable institutional change"
Intersectional Identity and the Path to Progress
New Meta Newsletter, Signal Boosting, Linking, Dogpiling, and History
Double Standards and Diverse Media
Racism in Fandom & Fandom Discourse
I Helped Create the Milo Trolling Playbook. You Should Stop Playing Right Into It. This is interesting but comes to totally the wrong conclusions, and ignores broader social structures. For example it ignores the effect actions have on Milo versus on social prejudice in general, which the author doesn't seem to actually believe in.
Tags:
(I wanted to argue with someone on twitter and this is way too complex for 140 characters)
A hole a lot of activists seem to fall into is thinking that the axis of oppression they're fighting is the central oppression, the one from all others flow. If people just put their energy into this, the REAL fight, all the others would fall like dominos.
I have seen people argue this about ecomonic inequality, sexism, homophobia, ableism, racism (both in general and against specific ethnic groups), everything. I once read a very compelling argument by bell hooks that the Real Underlying Oppression is against children.
In every case the argument is (a) if you fight X, all the others improve and (b) There is an underlying element of X to all oppressions.
Which is true! But it's true for all of them. Everything is connected. It's all the same struggle. If you battle one, you battle them all. If one becomes worse, all the others become worse too.
( Read more... )
A hole a lot of activists seem to fall into is thinking that the axis of oppression they're fighting is the central oppression, the one from all others flow. If people just put their energy into this, the REAL fight, all the others would fall like dominos.
I have seen people argue this about ecomonic inequality, sexism, homophobia, ableism, racism (both in general and against specific ethnic groups), everything. I once read a very compelling argument by bell hooks that the Real Underlying Oppression is against children.
In every case the argument is (a) if you fight X, all the others improve and (b) There is an underlying element of X to all oppressions.
Which is true! But it's true for all of them. Everything is connected. It's all the same struggle. If you battle one, you battle them all. If one becomes worse, all the others become worse too.
( Read more... )
Tags:
He said "Your Halloween reminder that blackface is an IQ test, and if you wear it, you've failed." and my reply would be:
Blackface is awful, but equating low IQ with racism/moral failing is unfair. Esp given it's history http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2007/11/27/the-pseudoscience-of-%E2%80%9Cintelligence%E2%80%9D-testing/
(I found the link via quick google)
But idk, it feels weird bringing it up as a white non American. And while I'm disabled I have a pretty high IQ. Plus of course it could open me up to trolls, unless I send it as a private message.
Hmmm. Will ponder when more awake.
Blackface is awful, but equating low IQ with racism/moral failing is unfair. Esp given it's history http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2007/11/27/the-pseudoscience-of-%E2%80%9Cintelligence%E2%80%9D-testing/
(I found the link via quick google)
But idk, it feels weird bringing it up as a white non American. And while I'm disabled I have a pretty high IQ. Plus of course it could open me up to trolls, unless I send it as a private message.
Hmmm. Will ponder when more awake.
This is a very pondery post, I tried writing something considered for January Down Under Feminists Carnival but got this instead. Disclaimer 3b applies, and it's written in the context of my other posts about feminism and gender. Also please keep in mind that the point of this post is "How to make feminism better" not "How does feminism suck". There are LOTS of places on the internet where non-feminists rant about how much feminists suck, but not so many where feminists get together and constructively criticise the movement, please don't derail the conversation.
Something I've been pondering for a while is my uncomfortableness with the more extreme anti-man edges of feminism. The problem with of course is that 99.9% of people who complain about feminism being "anti-man" actually mean "pro-equality": consciously or unconsciously they think men deserve more than women (more power, more authority, more leeway etc) and so any time someone challenges that it feels "unfair". See also Q: Since When Is Being Criticized Like Having Your Limbs Blown Off by a Landmine? A: Since That Criticism Came from Someone with Less Privilege Than You. And let me make it clear: I'm not talking about the particular goals etc a feminist might be fighting for, or the "tone" with which she pursues them, or a justifiable anger and shirtiness, I'm talking about a completely dismissive and unsympathetic attitude towards all men under all circumstances on principle for being men(*). This attitude can extend to any woman (or person of more complicated gender) who is seen as being too much in cahoots with the patriarchy. Also this is a pattern of behaviour some feminists exhibit at some times, I'm not trying to paint all or certain feminists as Bad People.
( Read more... )
Something I've been pondering for a while is my uncomfortableness with the more extreme anti-man edges of feminism. The problem with of course is that 99.9% of people who complain about feminism being "anti-man" actually mean "pro-equality": consciously or unconsciously they think men deserve more than women (more power, more authority, more leeway etc) and so any time someone challenges that it feels "unfair". See also Q: Since When Is Being Criticized Like Having Your Limbs Blown Off by a Landmine? A: Since That Criticism Came from Someone with Less Privilege Than You. And let me make it clear: I'm not talking about the particular goals etc a feminist might be fighting for, or the "tone" with which she pursues them, or a justifiable anger and shirtiness, I'm talking about a completely dismissive and unsympathetic attitude towards all men under all circumstances on principle for being men(*). This attitude can extend to any woman (or person of more complicated gender) who is seen as being too much in cahoots with the patriarchy. Also this is a pattern of behaviour some feminists exhibit at some times, I'm not trying to paint all or certain feminists as Bad People.
( Read more... )
Tags: