Home » Blogs » lambert's blog

Anglachel on the racist loons who planned to kill 88 black people...

Tue, 10/28/2008 - 3:31pm — lambert

... and then Obama. Go read, it's full of analytical goodness.

And with a nice shoutout to Damon!

»

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

and French Doc too

By amberglow on Tue, 10/28/2008 - 3:51pm

(i miss her here)

Great piece -- it's shameful how this election cycle has reinforced and openly supported and propagated denigration and discrimination of all kinds--and from all sources.

There's tons of talk (and some disagreement too) about how violence and bashing against us gays rises the more we're visible and in the news (there's also a rise in anti-Jewish vandalism around Jewish holidays as well every year, etc)--i wonder if this election will foment a rise in violence against women too?

»

Heal thyself

By badger on Tue, 10/28/2008 - 4:55pm

Quoting Anglachel:

... there is no doubt that these men were singling out a class of people without regard to anything specific to those people except a demographic marker

but ...

I'm back to my original question to the men - who are you? Don't bother to tell me about what a great guy you are or how offended you are that I would compare you to those bastards who beat and rape.

»

but male on female violence

By amberglow on Tue, 10/28/2008 - 6:26pm

is the topic--calling for men to respond (even if it's attacking the person asking) is vital, and even a hostile response is illuminating, no? (maybe far more illuminating than other types of responses even)

»

Back when I was a kid

By badger on Tue, 10/28/2008 - 7:07pm

we used to call the act of prejudging "prejudice" and we thought it wasn't such a good idea.

I wasn't aware the topic of male on female violence now makes it OK - in addition to being a misogynist (or is it rapist?) by accident of birth, I guess I'm just getting old and out of touch too. I suppose that's what I get for being a bitter, clinging rural racist.

I haven't been called a homophobe by people who don't know me in a few years - wanna give it a shot?

»

it's stuff men do--not every man or

By amberglow on Tue, 10/28/2008 - 7:37pm

stuff that all people do.

that's why she wants feedback from men on this stuff.

I don't see her prejudging--she especially wants men to respond. She's setting parameters because of all the shit and hostility she's already received--and because being offended on behalf of all men because some men do something is not illuminating--and nor is personal puffery and personal distancing.

»

here--

By amberglow on Tue, 10/28/2008 - 7:42pm

let's try making it about racism and violence from whites towards minorities--

I’m back to my original question to the white men - who are you? Don’t bother to tell me about what a great guy you are or how offended you are that I would compare you to those racist bastards who commit violence against minorities.

is that different? better? the same? still prejudiced?

»

I would think

By badger on Tue, 10/28/2008 - 8:12pm

her own declarative statement that she's comparing any man the "to those bastards who beat and rape" - presumably as either an active participant or enabler - is prejudging. Not much different than some cute comment about garlic-eaters or watermelons.

It doesn't seem to me to lead to further enlightened discussion. I don't feel obligated to defend myself against that kind of comparison, or feel like participating in a discussion framed in those terms.

»

i guess you're right,

By amberglow on Tue, 10/28/2008 - 9:52pm

if the reaction to her wording it like that (like your reaction) prevents or shuts down response instead of facilitating it.

(i'm not a straight guy, so i don't feel implicated or slurred in her phrasing/setup--i guess i'm giving her a pass because i think she really does want feedback from straight guys)

like--she listed 2 of the common reactions to what she talked about--people separate themselves and distance themselves from "those people" and spend their time defining themselves as good/cool/not like them--and people get offended at the idea that they're being accused of whatever bad thing is being discussed, because they're a member of the larger group that contains the group being discussed. But i guess it reinforced a defensive/insulted reaction instead of forestalling it.

»

This is the broad brush problem

By lambert on Tue, 10/28/2008 - 10:00pm

Amberglow, you write:

[P]eople get offended at the idea that they’re being accused of whatever bad thing is being discussed, because they’re a member of the larger group that contains the group being discussed.

We have lots of all or nothing language that's easy to use, but very little some, most, and many language. It's very difficult to make fuzzy generalizations that don't either turn into the broad brush when most shades over into all, or are so narrowly construed that there's nothing to learn from them. I don't know what the answer is, and this language problem is all over the place in discussions of race, gender, class, partisanship, everywhere.

Nevertheless, you have to paint, with some brush, no matter what. You can't do analysis otherwise. It's like we have no middle ground between a class and its members -- whatever the class may be, and however its members are determined. And into the middle ground between "all" and "you" we also get head games and mindfucks like Bush's "some say" and the games concern trolls play. It's a puzzlement.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

—

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

»

true--and

By amberglow on Tue, 10/28/2008 - 10:22pm

so many of us lately are distrustful overall-- because of what's been going on all year (and especially being rudely enlightened by those we thought were "on our side", etc) and nowadays it's like we're primed and ready to be insulted, derided, and dissed, etc--or to be accused of doing it to others. We're on constant alert for it, i guess.

And even this conversation about her phrasing/setup shows how very differently we each read/absorb/react to things and are even quicker to do so than in the past, i think. I trust Anglachel as a smart, cool person who has focused extensively on the real damage done by exclusion and stereotyping and dismissal (that holds until i'm disillusioned--and i now sadly expect to be, by everyone i read online)--It doesn't make sense to me based on my regular reading of her blog that she would mean to insult or stereotype all straight guys, or presume they were all violent or bashers or sexist, etc.

»

Yes

By lambert on Tue, 10/28/2008 - 10:25pm

I think "Who are you?" is the exact right question to ask -- though not all have the courage to answer (or even ask the question of themselves). I put myself in that number, truth to tell.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

—

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

»

i think it's actually not

By amberglow on Tue, 10/28/2008 - 10:57pm

the right question to ask, precisely because it's causing either a non-response or a defensive one.

It's placing desired respondents on the spot, and personalizing things--immediately after a long post on violent men, which kinda invites those defensive reactions (which anglachel recognized herself, which is why she tried to forestall those defensive reactions the way she did).

I guess it comes off as her posting and pointing at "those guys who do these things", then turning and pointing at "you" alone as if you are either implicated or somehow responsible or something.

»

Apparently I screwed up a longer response

By badger on Wed, 10/29/2008 - 12:25pm

I posted last night, which doesn't seem important since you and Lambert have carried on a better (and less peevish) discussion than I would have. There's a lot I agree with in those posts, especially your most recent post and Lambert's "broad brush" comment.

I just don't see the value in broadly characterizing people in any context. It contributes nothing to discourse and is largely an information free activity, but it is capable of antagonizing people for no significant reason (and I probably do it too).

It's more annoying when it's done hypocritcally.

»

You missed the important part of the question

By Aeryl on Thu, 10/30/2008 - 10:14am

She asked who YOU are? And the response you give to women on a women centered blog is not the answer she is seeking.

When it comes to rape and domestic violence, women are not the problem. Men are. So who are you...in the locker room? What do you do when you hear your fellow males talk about women in derogatory ways? Do you call them out, or do you put "bros before hos" i.e. value your bond with fellow males over the lives and safety of unknown women?

That what she wants to know. If you can't get past your reflexive defense at being broad brushed with rapists, to see that's the question she wants answered, you are still part of the problem.

Look at the statistics! If you know a woman who has been raped, it is very likely you also know a rapist. You don't know who they are, which is why it is important to call out inappropriate behavior amongst your fellow males, because eventually, the one that is the rapist will reveal themselves in their inability to see the inappropriateness of their behavior. It is especially important to not write off inappropriate behavior as just "hormones", because it's not hormones, it's considered socially acceptable behavior. We have to fight the battle to have society see it as unacceptable, and we need men to help us do it. Are you doing it?

i can haz hillary nao?

—

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

»

Arthur Ashe...

By lambert on Tue, 10/28/2008 - 11:02pm

.... once said, if I have it right, that being black was like having a second full time job. All this is my first real experience of being in an out group, and let me tell you, I don't like it one fucking bit. Being on "constant alert" takes an awful lot of energy. Not to trivialize, I hope, the experience of others, just to say now I've had a little taste of what many others get a full course meal of, daily.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

—

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

»

Thanks For Saying It's Obvious

By HeroesGetMade on Wed, 10/29/2008 - 12:48am

In response to Anglachel's first post on the most common hate crime on the planet, rape, brought to you overwhelmingly by men you know and trust(ed). I made about the same point a while back at another locale, albeit not nearly as well as Anglachel, and I never saw such a fuss. I might have added on a few interesting corollaries that some people found more interesting than they liked, but still, it went very much like the CDS follies of the primaries. For months the ritual defamation went on, then one lone voice in the badlands allowed as to how he had seen the heart of darkness, and yea verily, while most men might not be rapists themselves, they don't seem to have a problem with it. He never said obvious, though.

So I read Anglachel's ensuing responses with great interest to see whether she'd found a way to successfully broach the subject of men owning this crime. She got better responses than I did, but she has a better class of readership all around. Still, though, not much joy. I think the secret lies in appealing to self-interest somehow, and scaling up the problem to the public arena. Rape writ large is how we overprivileged ones deal with the world at large, from our environment to every other nation who cannot defend themselves against us. I think of it as the insane domination imperative and it's a cancer that's destroying every level of relationship we have, all the way from the personal to the political, local to global. Domination is not love, no matter how hard the dominators pretend the relationship is mutual.

»

"Domination is not love"

By amberglow on Wed, 10/29/2008 - 12:22pm

exactly--and that's another thing that's wrong with this election cycle and candidate. Politics and governing is not about love in any way--nor about being a groupie.

(even tho power and domination is our entire human history, interpersed with and blunted by cooperation of people and groups --where there was enough hands-off domination-- who could make progress and advancement happen in spite of it.)

»