Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Womanism, Continued

chicago dyke's picture
Thread: 
Tags: 

My friend, and friend to women, Ian and I have been having an exchange on uberfeminism, the patriarchy, etc. It's late for me, and I've got to run, but I think I have a partial answer to some of his questions. Warning: graphic photos ahead.

It's a simple question, really. Why is this:slave2 considered "shocking" and emblematic of a shameful chapter of history that is to be studied only so that we can avoid repeating it, while this slave
is a bad reproduction of what can be found, by the millions, in much better quality and with much greater detail, again and again, all over the world in a thousand more graphic forms, "just boys having some fun in private?" I'll let the "angry" women of that silly woman's blog speak for me:

A Jew, emaciated, behind barbed wire, nearly naked, mutilated by the knife of a Nazi doctor: the atrocity is acknowledged.

A Vietnamese, in a tiger cage, nearly naked, bones twisted and broken, flesh black and blue: the atrocity is acknowledged.

A black slave on an Amerikan plantation, nearly naked, chained, flesh ripped up from the whip: the atrocity is acknowledged.

A woman, nearly naked, in a cell, chained, flesh ripped up from the whip, breasts mutilated by a knife: she is entertainment, the boy-next-door’s favorite fantasy, every man’s precious right, every woman’s potential fate.

The woman tortured is sexual entertainment.

The woman tortured is sexually arousing.

The anguish of the woman tortured is sexually exciting.

The degradation of the woman tortured is sexually entrancing.

The humiliation of the woman tortured is sexually pleasing, sexually thrilling, sexually gratifying.

Women are a degraded and terrorized people. Women are degraded and terrorized by men. Rape is terrorism. Wife-beating is terrorism. Medical butchering is terrorism. Sexual abuse in its hundred million forms is terrorism.

Women’s bodies are possessed by men. Women are forced into involuntary childbearing because men, not women, control women’s reproductive functions. Women are an enslaved population–the crop we harvest is children, the fields we work are houses. Women are forced into committing sexual acts with men that violate integrity because the universal religion–contempt for women–has as its first commandment that women exist purely as sexual fodder for men.

Women are an occupied people. Our very bodies are possessed, taken by others who have an inherent right to take, used or abused by others who have an inherent right to use or abuse. The ideology that energizes and justifies this systematic degradation is a fascist ideology–the ideology of biological inferiority. No matter how it is disguised, no matter what refinements pretty it up, this ideology, reduced to its essence, postulates that women are biologically suited to function only as breeders, pieces of ass, and servants.

I don't know how to put it in plainer terms than this.

I don't hate men. But I am "angry." Literally billions of images (and thousands of acts) of sexual violence against women pass around the internets...daily. Perhaps I missed is: is there "slave porn?" or "jews in concentration camp" porn? No? If there were, would progressives decry it? Ahem, Imus just got fired for calling a bunch of women bball players "nappy headed hos."

Would he still have a job if he'd called them "loose pussy hos?" Or "bitches who need a whuppin?" I think so.

0
No votes yet

Comments

nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez's picture
Submitted by nezua limón xol... on

yeah...i don't blame you a bit for being angry.

this is exactly what really got to me about Kos' response to Ms. Sierra's vile rape-type threat ordeal. does he not know what world he lives in? as if there is no valid context for a woman's fears when threatened. man.

anyway. didn't mean to drag the topic elsewhere. but really, it's the same topic.

keep talking it, CD.

___________________________
.delusions of un mundo mejor.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

...a progressive view of sex has to stop at LGBT issues and not include consensual BDSM or "adult material" in general (that is material by and for consenting adults)?

While BDSM pix suggest a fantasy of non-consensuality, should we assume that consumers of same are all misogynists?

What are we to think of the various leather shows that are popular in San Francisco? Are those who delight in them man-hating gays?

Not trying to yank your chain, so to speak, but I'm not sure conflating pornography with real-life sexual abuse is much different than conflating horror films with real-world mayhem.

All things considered, I like to err on the side of free expression.

www.vastleft.com

ugh. i was just thinking this morning how much i'm starting to despise most men and particularly "liberal" men. at least conservatives are up front about hating us, but the "liberal" men try and fake like they don't, only to be revealed for what they really are eventually.

everytime i look at my stats i hate them even more too. the sick and disgusting search terms they use to find my blog. it terrifies me to know those men are out there and they don't look any different than any other man. because the ARE every man.

nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez's picture
Submitted by nezua limón xol... on

vast left...i am personally not against BDSM

i guess i read CD's statement/pic about others enjoying the woman's seeming pain and bondage "the anguish of a woman tortured."

not as in judging a woman who would want to engage in it herself

but maybe i am just carving it up so it fits in my fruitbowl

___________________________
.delusions of un mundo mejor.

Submitted by lambert on

Assuming, arguendo, that Ms Jared isn't just here to start a flame war--

Unless the sex of the searchers can be determined from the server logs. Most searches come from robots.

But, arguendo, suppose the searches do represent "all men"? (To the extent that "all men" is a meaningful construct.) What then?

NOTE Incidentally and FWIW, my take is that in this culture, "most men" (i.e., not the men who make it into the ruling class) are dispensable. The proof is that we die earlier.

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

young and free?

just chain jerking you, lb.

anyhoo- consensual BDSM isn't the question here. men who look at porn are different than men how have consensual sex with women. the two circles overlap, yes, but then there is that part of the porn looking circle that isn't having sex with willing women.

ever see army of god? please don't tell me any of those men (and oddly, most of these virulently anti-choicers are men) have had sex with a willing woman. they are freaks, rightly shunned. i think that there are millions of men out there who have a similar attitude about violent porn (they're all for it) because they are angry that women won't have willing sex with them. they turn that anger into perverted "lust" and consume this kind of porn, and not infrequently, go out and rape and abuse women.

it's an age old chicken and egg question: does violent porn cause rape? free speech progressives usually answer "no," and i'm very absolutist on free speech. at the same time, i'd really like to see the question of violent porn aggressively addressed. put another way: we have no problem with aggressively prosecuting kiddie porn consumers. yet we can't make a ".xxx" on the internets and wall off this sort of thing from minors and people without credit cards, and allow law enforcement to more easily keep track of patterns of behavior that lead to/precede the rape and murder of women. i'm not saying i have the answers. but i do have the questions.

and i don't think ms. jared is trolling, i think she's angry. isn't the important question "why is this woman so angry she wants to believe that all men are misogynists?"

one doesn't come to that belief without cause. there are many women like her, but they are silenced. those two facts should disturb progressives.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

... I haven't seen "Army of God."

"men who look at porn are different than men [who] have consensual sex with women." This is a gross generalization which I believe is unsupported by the facts (except the made-up ones put forth by ban-everything Christianists, who by the way are among the biggest opponents of the proposed xxx top-level domain).

Again, look at the gay male community, much of which takes a "sex positive" attitude about such things.

I can't see how one can be truly "very absolutist on free speech" and want tracking of peoples' browsing habits prior to them committing a crime. As bad as "Minority Report" was as a movie, it will be even worse as a reality, doncha think?

As to

"isn’t the important question “why is this woman so angry she wants to believe that all men are misogynists?”

While we're at it, I guess we should also inquire into what it is about black female basketball players that made Imus speak the way he did. Once we do, I guess we'll be motivated to finally do something about that tall, dark, estrogen-filled menace, eh?

Yes, it does disturb this progressive... when an entire gender is thrown out with the bathwater.

www.vastleft.com

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

and i like that about you.

i can't get to this now, so i'll come back later and address what you're raising. good points tho.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

I honestly don't go out of my way to cross swords with you.

I absolutely love most of the work you do here, but when I do disagree, I feel honor-bound (hmm, that'll get us some search hits) to speak up.

www.vastleft.com

Submitted by lambert on

And, having read your entire comment carefully, I note with interest that you don't address it.

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

Jakebnto's picture
Submitted by Jakebnto on

Was your intent to create a teachable moment? If so, for whom?

I started to respond last nite, and decided to just stfu. I am grateful for vl's measured and reasoned response.

I respect the anger that many women feel towards men. I feel no compulsion to self identify with their abusers.

Jake

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

and ironically, i can't have it just now, as i've got to get up today's posts and get off the computer and go be in meatspace.

i return your question with one of my own: why is this pissing off so many men? women are angry, and i shouldn't talk about it? i never said i agreed with everything over at heart's place, i just want people to think about the ideas there.

i guess i have to say it, but i respect and admire the male posters here a great deal. a great deal. i don't think they are rapists and woman haters. but i want to talk about men who are. i want to hear what good men can inform me about bad men. i want to hash out what got started back when feminism was in. i want feminism to be in again.

i don't mind if you're angry and disagree with me. say why, explain your own views, and we'll have a conversation. i hope that we can do that. it's why i blog, after all.

Xenophon's picture
Submitted by Xenophon on

We are sooo in deep shit. Just went to the electronics show here, I am bleary eyed and punch drunk but . . . I just saw the new holographic tera byte storage device. Sick.

But as for the issue, As soon as i get settled, this whole issue is so deeply rooted in the american identity i don't know how we are going to undo it. "American" is composed on a negative dialectic. It requires systematic oppression to affirm itself. At any rate. I'm too wired to think clearly leta alone type. I'll cathc you in a couple of days.

X

Submitted by lambert on

I believe that corporations--and other amoral, "super-organic," i.e. cultural beings--reproduce asexually, and over a very long cycle, by seeding our flesh with desiring machines.

The various -isms are parts of this process of reproduction to which we are subjected from the moment music and sound bathe us in the womb. Nothing more. Or less, for that matter.

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Looks like China is turning into a feminist Utopia, with its aggressive crackdown on Internet porn.

Sure, there's the female infanticide and "sex-selective abortion," but nobody's perfect.

Xenophon, my apologies if you get detained for viewing this page, and forgive me for salivating over that huge hard disk.

www.vastleft.com

nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez's picture
Submitted by nezua limón xol... on

CD, it's hard because when you talk about raw shit, when a person does, they rarely get it all right. Because they are workign it out. Like me. I am extreme and militant in my pro-chicano stance. Sometimes I carry it into territory that ONLY a chicano of the same radical stance could ride with. It's certainly not mainstream. Sometimes I romanticize shit. Sometimes I draw broad conclusions. I generally will work it out. But exploring hardcore pro-brown stances and history is something like women exploring strong pro-woman politics and stances. It's not something the mainstream is built to appreciate. I'ts not that I can expect everyone to not comment. But I have to be ready. Always, I dig up feathers. People react and sometimes they REACT. And they don't want to hear why my experience was such that I am touchy, or wobble into extreme areas. They don't want for me to work it out, often, and they don't want to take time to hear my story, in these moments. They want me to shut up. And it's usually always White people. They may react with valid points, but many times they react from the belly. ANd then plaster thoughts and words all over the belly reaction to make it seem valid. Not saying this is an exact parallel. I'm saying be strong.

This is why when I come into a woman's space or post that feels "too much," I just sit with it. That's my advice to men when they feel the belly jump on stuff. Just try it out. Just sit with it. Because usually the first reaction to stuff like this is one that involves asserting power. Just my take on it.

Sure, I react to "they are ALL men." But for now, I will sit with it. Because I've knwn women who have been violently raped. I've loved one through the recovering process, been a friend and a lover to her wounded soul. I've been there while the court case dragged on and eventually was pleabargained down. While she was torn up on the witness stand. And I've seen how she felt when the man who, well. Plea bargain, you know? "Attempted" they said. And it was not "attempted." No, I mean beaten down in the woods, broken face bones raped by a friend. I've sat with that healing for years. I've heard all the stories and watched the tears. I've known women who have been raped by their father and then their babysitter and then molested by their doctor and then by their friends, and professor.

So...who the fuck am I to bust in and puff up my chest, correcting a woman's reality? Maybe, as you say CD, maybe just MAYBE to her it has been all men.

I understand these feeligns, these traumas. I grew up in a violent world. I still carry reactions from it. Some will care, some won't. But if they want to understand someone else's experience and the world a little more, then they ought to shut up and get curious. And the same goes for me when I bump up into areas that make me wanna squirm. And if they know they are not a rapist or an abuser, let them say so gently, let them show how all men are NOT big blustering commanding non-listening bosses by BEING one, let them listen and learn. I'm with you. Pain hurts, but it precedes real growth.

My only critical comment is this may not be the type of post one wants to make on the way out the door. Take time with these raw, huge pieces.

Much love, hermana.

___________________________
.delusions of un mundo mejor.

nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez's picture
Submitted by nezua limón xol... on

didnt mean to type "usually always". i should have used "strike" not "s" in my HTML. different coding rules here i guess than in my blog, where I can use "s" to strike out.

boy i hate ruining a good exit.

___________________________
.delusions of un mundo mejor.

nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez's picture
Submitted by nezua limón xol... on

"As to

'isn’t the important question “why is this woman so angry she wants to believe that all men are misogynists?'

While we’re at it, I guess we should also inquire into what it is about black female basketball players that made Imus speak the way he did."

This is invalid. As an analogy. Surely you know that, VastLeft!

A possibly-traumatized woman (in today's society, let's keep in mind) who sees danger in all men compared to a commentator calling women "whores/hos" (in today's society, let's keep in mind) who has made a living off of dropping slur? Do you really want to analogize these?

I'm with CD. Asking why a woman sees this danger in all men can help us understand her and our world and how to better it. Asking what may have happened to her might evoke our compassion.

Asking what happened to Imus to make him want to insult black women with age-old tropes is ludicruous on its face. We don't need to wonder. He is a white male with much money in today's society. Nothing needs to "have happened" to make him fall in step with a mostly White Supremacist/Misogynist society. Although examining that dynamic, too, can help us understand our world.

___________________________
.delusions of un mundo mejor.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Nezua,

One day, somewhere between September 10th and 12th of 2001, many Americans felt abused by Muslims, when a building complex was attacked by Muslims for the second time. Before that, there had been several attacks by Muslims against Americans and America's allies.

And you know what? It was never OK to be hating on all Muslims because of it, even in the name of "working it out."

It was never OK to tell Muslims to "shut up and get curious" when outrageous and hurtful generalizations were being hurled their direction.

It was never OK to ask any random Muslim to "show how all Muslims are NOT big blustering commanding non-listening terrorists."

www.vastleft.com

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

... it seems that white male = non-person, or at least a person deserving of reduced rights, especially if he's not impoverished.

I have no idea what made Imus say offensive stuff. Maybe he was traumatized by his experience in the Marines, and getting cheap laughs at the expense of minorities made himself feel good about himself. Ultimately, I don't care why he did it. What he said was offensive and uncalled for, and he deserved to be fired for it.

When a woman, aggrieved in her personal life or not, paints all men with the rapist brush, she's blaming a lot of innocent people.

Spoiler Alert:

There's a memorable "Alfred Hitchcock Presents," where Vera Miles gets out of the hospital after a terrible assault. She sees a man on the street and tells her husband, Ralph Meeker, "That's the man who did it!" Meeker follows the man and kills him. Afterward, she starts pointing in every direction saying "That's the man who did it!" To repudiate that kind of overkill isn't to diminish the pain a woman feels about being abused, being marginalized in the workplace, or any other real-world mistreatment.

Again to cite the post-9/11 analogy (and BTW, I am 100% sincere about my analogies, thank you very much -- and while I'm at it, CD, I don't fight dirty), we are right now occupying a country we broke because our media and citizenry couldn't be more precise about who our real enemies are than "we were attacked!" It's a bad habit for a white man, and it's a bad habit for full-fledged people, too.

www.vastleft.com

i did notice that i manage to irk a few dudes. to clarify - i *do* think that 95% of men hate women and either actively want to harm us, or are not concerned with how often we are harmed, therefore i do not consider them allies.

in my earlier comment though, i was referring to "EVERY man" as in doctors, lawyers, bricklayers, progressives, conservatives, racists, anti-racists, teachers, ministers, etc. i mean they are every TYPE of man, not actually EVERY SINGLE MAN. (you can refer to perverted-justice.com for numerous examples.)

i guess that'll teach me to comment on a blog upon first reading. i forget that there are still lots of times when ye olde "what about the men?" and "not ALL men suck!" issues arise. i'm used to it going without saying that not ALL men suck, only the ones who do. you know? like, if the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it?

sorry to have stirred up unneccesary angst and distracted from your original point. that certainly wasn't my intention as i am in agreement with it, which is why i commented in the first place.

also, the search terms i'm talking about are not robots. i'm talking about specific searches used by SICK and DANGEROUS MEN such as "very young girl brutally abused by father" and "little girl gets raped by dad" and "free XXX young girls being gang raped with dogs" and so on, all of which are actual search terms i've seen in my stats and aren't necessarily even the worst.

THOSE are the men i'm talking about. not just your everyday, mainstream sexist like kos who thinks women should shut up and quit bitching so much.

anyway, sorry to have butted in.

Okay. Full disclosure.

There have been times when I have looked like the woman in that photo. And I thoroughly enjoyed myself.

Rope bondage is not torture. Ball gags are not torture*. It has do do with consent, yes. It also has to do with: look, I don't know what kind of experience people have with BDSM, but it really doesn't look or feel like beating people to death, okay?

*both can be -used- in service of torture; so can a lot of other things. the radio playing really loudly, for one thing; in another context, it ain't torture, it's a rock concert. if you can't turn it off, if it's being used in the service of breaking you down and sleep deprivation...that's something else.

there are very specific ways in which one plays for safety and comfort; you can pick up any BDSM players' manual 101 and learn about it. you can also look at that photo and note: that's a fairly basic full-body harness, probably not tied too tightly, done in such a way to avoid putting too much stress on the person's body (the most stress would be the arms-behind-the-back; generally people don't leave it there for too long; it depends on how flexible one is) or cutting off circulation. and yes, the sensation of rope going between one's legs can be rather pleasurable; rope bondage in general can be any number of things besides painful -or- erotically pleasurable; i've used it for shamanic meditation on several occasions.

sometimes people just wear the body harness part for decoration.

as for ball gags..some people like to have something to bite down on. i often do.

look, i know i'm being rather explicit here, but it feels like -someone- ought to. there's a hell of a lot of ignorance floating around.

nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez's picture
Submitted by nezua limón xol... on

vastleft, you sure do have some ambitious analogies! yeah, i remember the days well... i was living there when it happened. that stuff is etched in my mind pretty well. as is memories like this, which my gf shot a day or two after the attacks...and i can't even go there with you. it's a ridiculous comparison!

"… it seems that white male = non-person, or at least a person deserving of reduced rights, especially if he’s not impoverished."

please explain. i don't feel this way at all! but i'd love to hear how you draw that out of my writing. perhaps i need to adjust so that people don't get the wrong idea. or maybe you got that idea on your own. either way, please do explain and i will happily engage it.

"When a woman, aggrieved in her personal life or not, paints all men with the rapist brush, she’s blaming a lot of innocent people."

absolutely. i never said she wasn't. i was talking about trying to understand her view is all.

"we are right now occupying a country we broke because our media and citizenry couldn’t be more precise about who our real enemies are than “we were attacked!” It’s a bad habit for a white man, and it’s a bad habit for full-fledged people, too."

well...is that really why? is that really why we invaded and are occupying them? because we "couldn't be more precise about who our real enemies are"? wow. okay.

anyway, perhaps imprecision is bad...leads to things like 9/11 and iraq. i'm not sure what you're getting at with that. but i also think getting lofty about this is bullshit. i go back to my stance, despite all this pontificating about imprecision and 9/11. women go through some rough shit up in here. stop acting like there's no basis for the rage.

___________________________
.delusions of un mundo mejor.

nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez's picture
Submitted by nezua limón xol... on

Vast Left:

i have to mow the lawn, but being the analogizing type, you may call foul on my appeals to authority and emotion re invalid 9/11 claim in my first graf (how i love the emotional, i guess, its all my feeeeelers) and mistake my refusal to wade through it as a sign that your logic is right. and while its cool with me what you think about your own logic, i want you to understand what i'm seeing.

its a clever analogy, but you argue it deceptively. the problem is that your analogy pretends to posit the muslim people as the victim but in reality the example spells out the USA as the "victim" when you unpack it with all your quotes.

It was never OK to be hating on all Muslims because of it, even in the name of “working it out.”

See? You are equating the USA with the WOMEN in my example, or in OUR discussion here.

True, the USA was attacked, and thus, turned around and targeted the muslim communities unfairly. Then THEY became the victims—the random Muslims in America, the smaller Muslim communities. (I remember how sick I was hearing about muslims gettin beat up only days after the attack (I kept a journal, as most of us probably did). that's the time period my gf shot that pic!

see in your analogy you say that it was "It was never OK to tell Muslims to 'shut up and get curious' when outrageous and hurtful generalizations were being hurled their direction."

Again, because you are analogizing the WOMEN we spoke of with AMERICA in your example. And who is really the victim in your example? Right, the small muslim communities or random Muslims walking about in America. They were the victims of that backlash you speak of. THUS it would be more accurate to say that (using your example) AMERICANS, if they wanted to be understanding (as I am implying above about men being understanding of women's anger and yes, imprecise anger) then the AMERICANS should have "shut up and got curious" about what those smaller muslim pockets of people within america were experiencing, and why THEY were terrified of americans, and perhaps (imprecisely) every AMERICAN around them. I do remember those post 9/11 days, you see. And would it have been inaccurate for those Muslims to feel that every American was after them? Yes, probably.

Would it be understandable? You tell me.

___________________________
.delusions of un mundo mejor.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

There's nothing "ridiculous" about the 9/11 comparison. My point stands: being wounded, shell-shocked, fearful, etc. is not a blank check for hating on people who remind you of the culprits.

As for "white males," in your commentary here, you generalize about us frequently and disparagingly. I'm right there with you complaining about the hegemony of old-boy, classist, patriarchal authoritarians -- but I don't agree with sweeping statements like that we are "a mostly White Supremacist/Misogynist society" or that Imus's gender, race, and wealth make him any more or less worthy than anyone else.

As to being understanding of a misandrist: in a public debate, I don't think anyone who inappropriately and irrationally slams a whole class of people deserves a lot of slack.

Let's say someone from a particular ethnic group mistreats me in some way -- steals my car, shoots me in the leg or whatever. Let's say I'm aware of similar crimes committed by people of that group. Does that give me carte blanche to bash that group? If I start badmouthing his race, will you tell me I'm being inappropriate, or will you tell people who object to my comments that it's their job to be understanding?

Please do give me your alternative narrative about how the country was snookered into supporting the Iraq War. I have this nutty theory that the administration and MSM built this monstrosity on 9/11 fear and anger.

I've never come near saying there is no basis for women to have anger at some of the treatment they get from men. But I tire of people who treat certain grievances as magical. Arabs attacked us, so we get to kill them all. Columbine was horrible, so let's run our schools like prisons. No matter what position you take in the Israel/Palestine debate, in someone's eyes you're enabling genocide. Some women are raped or marginalized, so all men are the devil. Any attempt to speak with nuance on these issues, and you're thrown to the wolves.

Gawd, I hate to use the term "PC," but when bigotry is considered fair play as long as it's against white men, the shoe seems to fit.

www.vastleft.com

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

I am, indeed, comparing angry, misandrist women to angry, Muslim-hating post-9/11 Americans in this analogy.

For you to recognize that is not exactly a gotcha revelation.

My point is that blind rage -- even when it's well-earned -- turns the victim into a kind of victimizer. Blanket hate of white American men is no more admirable or justifiable than blanket hate of Muslims.

Plainly, Nezua, you think that attacks levied willy-nilly at men/white men can never be a regrettable or worrisome development. I respectfully disagree.

www.vastleft.com

nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez's picture
Submitted by nezua limón xol... on

Well, I'm sure we could go back and forth waving cocks, but whatever. Let's just say we see the world differently. I do see this as a White Male Supremacist society, you do not. You're okay if I rail against the group you are not in. I understand. We disagree, and I'm okay with that. I do not hold anything personal against you, White male or otherwise. I'm talking about institutionalized and media-integrated and propagated standards and racism. Not your personal life or actions.

You are, however, being dishonest about your analogy. Or else you misunderstand, still. I thought I made it clear, but you seem to resist the obvious conclusion.

Namely, you cannot posit that asking Men to be understanding of what women have been through and go through is equivalent to asking Post 9/11 American Muslims to be understanding of American rage at the time. Do you see? That's what you did in your analogy. Go back and read your first comment using that analogy. It is, indeed, a "gotcha," because you were twisting the parallels, you were reversing the order of how it applied here. I laid out the correct application of the analogy in my last comment. But anyway, if you don't see it, I can't make it any clearer for you.

But this:

Plainly, Nezua, you think that attacks levied willy-nilly at men/white men can never be a regrettable or worrisome development. I respectfully disagree.

I would please ask you to explain for me. What is plain? What I'm thinking is plain to you? You are, again, drawing out deductions I cannot endorse. Did you mean to pose a question such as "Nezua, do you feel that attacks on men/White men are worrisome or hold any dangerous implications?" Because that could lead to a dialogue. But you know my thinking?

Or do you mean to threaten me with implied danger?

___________________________
.delusions of un mundo mejor.

nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez's picture
Submitted by nezua limón xol... on

I see. Not willing to consider my point of view or perception. I guess I'm not suprised. But I I did ask what you meant. It was an earnest question. Consider it what you like.

___________________________
.delusions of un mundo mejor.

Submitted by lambert on

Fucking painful.

Portrait of three men talking past each other.

Nice work, all.

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

Submitted by lambert on

Sham pain.

[Rimshot. Laughter.]

Nice comment, KB. I'm in a foul mood, forgive me.

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Sorry I haven't had the time to analyze your latest comments on my analogies. I'll take a look tomorrow when I have a little more time.

But when you claim out of gosh-knows-where that I'm "threaten(ing you) with implied danger," I get the sense that this discussion has jumped the shark.

www.vastleft.com

MJS's picture
Submitted by MJS on

I think everyone here should just disagree to disagree.

+++

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

if there is not Consensus, there is Chaos! all will be abosorbed. disagreement is a clot on our democracy.

...you know,this is the wrong place and time for me to make tampon jokes...

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

Wow. I started out really sympathetic with VastLeft, who I thought was making some really witty and pointed remarks. And I'm naturally also sympathetic with Nezua, because I live in Puerto Rico, plus I like his notion of "who the fuck am I to get bent out of shape?" And then, weirdly, they went all I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I on each other. So far, they haven't Godwined, but I'm betting on VL to cave first. (Come on, VL, I got five bucks riding on you, man.)

Speaking as a white married male who likes looking at porn but doesn't find rape scenarios at all stimulating, I was happy to hear Ms. Jared downgrading her assessment to merely 95% of men being rapists.

But all that is probably too frivolously put. I'm not sure how I feel about Xenophon's notion that America requires systematic oppression to express its basic culture. Maybe true (I grew up in a redneck area) but ... I don't think we have a monopoly on primate dominance, and I think that up to a certain point where corporatism starting perverting the whole system, America was a pretty good way to run things. Largely. If you were white. Sigh. (Although I read at Orcinus that right after the Civil War, there was a short period when actual equality started to be fashionable, before the white power men in the South started to foul it all up. Maybe we could get back to that point sometime...)

But my intuition is that if you take the oppression out of America, you don't have something that isn't America. You just have America as it always intended to be. I suspect that's true of any nation or group, though, so this isn't an exclusively American discussion.

I dunno. Many white (and non-white) guys do have a nasty tendency to want to dominate physically. As a less-than-physical white guy, I've always felt intimidated by that type, and I can only imagine that were I female, that feeling would be far, far worse. And that's a problem that's not all that easy to fix.

nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez's picture
Submitted by nezua limón xol... on

VastLeft, I really was jumping no sharks. To me, I had to ask at the end because it sounded implied. But again, different people have different perceptions of danger and language.

I don't feel I ignored your points anymore than you ignored mine...but you know, I suggest we just let it go. I don't want to fight with you. Let's just say we disagreed and got a little hot over it. No hard feelings.

—Nez

___________________________
.delusions of un mundo mejor.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

If I understand you correctly, you feel my arguments are invalidated because I made two separate 9/11 analogies in the course of this discussion (or rather, because of incompatibilities between them).

In the first, I compare telling people who are being bashed (Muslims, white men) that it's their job to be understanding of people who bash them for the acts of a few. What's wrong with that analogy?

In the second, I compare aggrieved (e.g., raped) women and aggrieved (i.e., terrorized) Americans. I suggest that being aggrieved doesn't grant them the right to hate on all people who remind them of their abusers. What's wrong with that analogy?

I admit I had a bit of trouble following your "refutation," and it's quite possible I'm being somewhat dense about it.

If you would, please let me know if the summary at the top of this comment matches your understanding and, with your indulgence, give it one last college try to set me straight about how these analogies are individually or collectively inapt. Given the chorus of disapproval for us "talking past each other" I imagine I am missing something in your point.

And CD, please don't let the devolution toward the end of this thread keep you from stepping back in about the points made in its golden age.

Oh, and so Michael can earn his five bucks, allow me to say that something, somehow is just like the Nazis.

www.vastleft.com

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

... I appreciate your peace offering, and back at you, good sir!

I didn't see your last comment until I posted the one that follows it it.

Rest assured, I'm no more interested in flame-warring than you are. If you're moved to reply to the questions I just posted, I'd be interested in seeing what you have to say, but I'll of course understand if you want to let sleeping dogs lie.

Thanks,
VL

www.vastleft.com

nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez's picture
Submitted by nezua limón xol... on

Yeah, I'm gonna let it lie, VL. Because I feel at this point it's you and me struggling to come out on top, and the original points have been subordinated to that outcome.

And also because I can admit I got a little empassioned. You see, here's my view:

CD was trying/is trying to work something out. Now, I'm not trying to get up in her head. But I read a lot of blogs where people are working stuff out. Race, DIsability, Feminism. I'm sympethetic to doing this in an environment that is less than accomodating.

Because of my own work in self-awareness, lately I've been coming to a lot of awareness of what women live with in this culture, man. And it's painful to me. Somtimes very painful. So I admit my heart is tender now, and my temper probably easy to inflame on these things.

Where I used to feel threatened by women being angry or talking explicitly about these feelings (even when "imprecisely"), now I feel sad that they have to feel that way, and I feel empathy. And sometimes anger. But not at them.

So I saw a couple women trying to grapple with this, and then I saw a man—a man who may be disabled for all I know, or gay, or in some other way empathetic to a similar process, but wasn't acting as if—swoop in and derail the conversation in a way that would angle toward a revelation that he himself is NOT one of those Rapists. Great. But I didn't really feel it was about him. Or me. Even though she said MEN. I just felt theyse women should have the space to bang around without you and I defending our own virtuousity.

...and I guess this is where we disagree.

Either way, I think I lost sight of why I stopped in, and got caught up battling 9/11 metaphors. I don't want to do that. I just want us to be able to listen to women talk angrily about the shit they feel. If it hurts me, well. I can take it. I agree that blind rage is "no good." Like the blind rage that is often leveled at them even as little girls. By men, yes. And I understand that coming from women, rage can be unsettling But if I were a woman in this society, man, I'd be one pissed of vata. Damn. If I were a woman in this place, you'd have to keep the axes away from my ass. I mean, when you really begin to read their stories and think about it and apply it to your own heart and mind and familia...it's a dangerous and unforgiving place for them here. For my mother, for my daughters, for my wife. And I think we need to talk more about that, even when it threatens us. It is far too typical that whenever they try, one of us shows up to push them back into silence. I know you see what you did as an isolated incident and a rational one...but if you could only see the pattern of this happening. It's not so unique.

I know you want to hang on to the fact that not ALL men....etc. But I just have to ask sometimes not only is a fact TRUE, but what is the agenda for my rebutting it at a given moment? Or what are the possible implications of my rebutting it in the manner I plan to, and at the time I do? I mean, those are things I try to keep in my head. But I can't force them into others.

So that's my thing. None of it really had to do with you, sorry we got caught up boxing.

—Nezua

___________________________
.delusions of un mundo mejor.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

To me, all this blogging and politicking is about truth and fairness, even if that means having sympathy for devils like white men.

My hero is Martin Luther King, Jr., not Louis "Hitler was a very great man" Farrakhan*. What I admire are people who combat evil by setting a higher standard than those who do them wrong.

That's not to say that I believe in being "civil" when discussing the authoritarians and theocrats. A few minutes in my blogs will bear that out. But to me it's important that my rage is aimed at the right targets; I care a damn sight more about collateral damage than the motherfuckers who are running our country do.

____

* Michael, at this point you've definitely earned your fin.

www.vastleft.com

nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez's picture
Submitted by nezua limón xol... on

I agree it is about Truth and Fairness, of course. I think we disagree on how and where to apply those. But let's both go about our lives applying them as we see fit, maybe in enough time we'll meet each other on the overlap.

Paz,

—Nezua

___________________________
.delusions of un mundo mejor.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

... and I should add that I'm not describing my perspective to invalidate yours. I much appreciate your candid assessment of your own worldview.

No doubt, we will continue to view and comment about the world according to our own inner compasses, and if we can still learn a thing or two from each other despite that, it's a beautiful thing.

www.vastleft.com

nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez's picture
Submitted by nezua limón xol... on

And on that note, I agree without reservation. (Wellll.....except I'd change the "despite that" to "as we do that" ;)

Redactfully yours,

—Nez

___________________________
.delusions of un mundo mejor.

Submitted by lambert on

+1 or rather +10 or rather +100.

To my hobbyhorse: Nobody is fit to be trusted with power. Nobody, nobody, nobody. Not the bad guys, but also not the good guys. Not "them" but also not us. Power inevitably corrupts. Power is inevitablyabused. Whether this is because of original sin, because we're all primates, because hatred and fear of the other is part of human nature, because our flesh is infested with desiring machines... Who knows? But it's true, and history shows it. This is the deepest reason why it can happen here.

And that said, getting stuff done requires some to have power over others -- in any social system yet devised. (I hear that anarchy worked pretty well in Catalonia in the 1930s, but that's the only example I can think of, besides the fictional planet Annares.)

So what do you do, to solve the paradox that power inevitably corrupts, yet power must be exercised by some in order for society to function?

You make sure there are multiple power centers, and you set them at odds so that the desires of any one power seeker for overweening power cannot be actualized, because all the other power seekers gang up to prevent it.

In other words, you do what the Founders did, and constitute the government on a system of checks and balances, so that each power center checks and balances all the others. This is the system that the Republicans have sought to destroy -- and may, if we go the way of Rome, have already destroyed. (Incidentally, if you believe in the Bill of Rights, this is the kind of system you believe in, and not direct democracy.)

Now -- not to reignite the flamewar here, and putting on my asbestos underwear:

From the vantage point of Friday 14, 2007, it strikes us as remarkable and unfortunate that the Founders were all white men, and rich, too. But you write a Constitution with the Founders you have. (It's also really unfortunate that some of the states were slave states, and that it took a bloody war to resolve that issue. But you write a Constitution with the States that you have.) I will also go so far as to say that the Founders, white men that they were, had intimate experience with the workings of tyranny, and sought to prevent tyranny from rooting itself in American soil. They had such experience in two forms: (1) as subjects of King George. They, like us, had experienced "a long train of abuses and usurpations." But also (2): as slaveowners, or as people one degree of separation away from slaveowners. They had or shared the intimate experience of wielding the lash on their human property, of buying and selling human flesh. They were, at least, determined to avoid that fate for some, because they knew so intimately what it meant.

It's been the country's challenge to broaden that insight and avoid that fate for all.

(The paper on how the Republican Party and the authoritarians on the right are busily "rebalancing" civil society on the basis of the master/slave relationship... Anyone got a link?)

What can we do to make sure some people don't own others?
The question of ownership -- to this Not-Yet-Dead White Male -- is the central question or frame, and all the (many, many, historical, justified) grievances we can all start listing can -- I assert -- be put under that frame. A united front kind of thing.

(This, to me, is the what "pro-choice," for example, is really about -- men owning women's bodies. Because the winger billionaires really are trying to turn the whole fucking country into a Christianist company town.)

Inside all our heads is a tiny little authoritarian ready to wield a whip. Men, women, young, old, black, white, brown, gay, straight. "It's my nature." So, given that reality, what kind of relations do we want to have? How do we set ourselves as free as possible?

NOTE I called up Lord Kos before posting this comment. But His line was busy. So I figured what the heck, and pressed submit.

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Our Constitutional system was far from perfect, mind you -- to wit: Kurt Vonnegut's description of American democracy, newly exported to Iraq, being a system where you free the slaves after 100 years and allow women to vote in another 50 -- but in many ways pretty decent, effective, resilient, and somewhat progressive.

Gaming the media system and Americans' latent religiosity was all it took to bring it all crashing down. Creating a series of memes that allowed valueless freaks like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush to pack the Supreme Court and that also tricked voters into supporting valueless superfreaks like Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay... all on the strength of decades of opposite-day reporting and brainwashing by Southern preachers. That's all it took to kill the American Dream.

Before that, a system of counter-balanced government branches and an adversarial press seemed like a pretty good idea. Who knew it could be so easily hacked?

www.vastleft.com

Submitted by lambert on

The institutional structures that enabled the destruction of the Constitution were built for the National Security state after World War II (see Truman). You could say that the Democrats, who set the structures up, bent the Constitution but didn't fundamentally break it. (For example, the last great change in the Constitutional order, the Civil Rights revolution, took place on the Democrats watch. Note that I'm not saying that the Dems were the agents of the change here, they weren't, only that under their stewardship, the system was resilient enough to handle the revolution without breaking. (The Democrats were principled enough, though, to say with LBJ that they'd lose the South for a generation, which turned out to be right.)

So, seeds sown in 1940-196* ... Then around 1970, the Christianist winger billionaires decide to overthrow the Constitution and fund the right. Then you get successive waves of (Southern-Strategy fuelled) Republican administrations seeking an authoritarian system in cooperations with the VRWC.

They really aren't bending the system, they're actively seeking to break it and replace it. Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II -- each worse than the last. One can only hope that the pendulum has swung as far right as it can, and will now, pushed by us, start to swing back. [NOTE: Bush I is not remembered as "so bad," certainly not as bad as Reagan. To me, all that means is that he contained whatever scandal happened, unlike the other three. Foily?]

So, VL, I vehemently disagree that the Constitution was "easily hacked." In fact, the hacking took a long period of institutional preparation in the form of the National Security state (set up, ironically, by Dems), a lot of funding from the winger billionaires, and hard work by a lot of wingers. It seems easy because when the rot began, it spread really fast, but the "story arc" goes all the way back to Truman. (Gotta go read my Gore Vidal on the national security state, by the way.)

NOTE It is very hard to create good memes. Generally, it takes funding. Ideas are even harder to delete than email!

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez's picture
Submitted by nezua limón xol... on

"Inside all our heads is a tiny little authoritarian ready to wield a whip. Men, women, young, old, black, white, brown, gay, straight. “It’s my nature.” So, given that reality, what kind of relations do we want to have? How do we set ourselves as free as possible?"

beautiful.

___________________________
.delusions of un mundo mejor.

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

willing to take part. i really mean that. thank you for proving to me that this sort of post has value. never not speak out, not here, at corrente. goddess be praised, but this is truly what it's all about. i have learned from all of you, and there's another post forthcoming that is a result of what i've learned here. thank you.

Submitted by lambert on

Here:

I don't want to have to write about this in my free time, but much as I usually love Chicago Dyke, I have to take issue with the assumptions in this post, which, among other things, misapprehends both who the consumers of BDSM porn are and which roles they may fantasize when they look at it. For that matter, it misapprehends where the fantasies come from and what they are really about. But most of all, I have to disagree with the commenter who thinks that the people who have dominance fantasies are not just all men, but every man. No, they're not, even a little bit.

Hey, tell the "Geoff," the bartender, to bring up a selection of bras from the vault!

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

Submitted by lambert on

Here:

I don't want to have to write about this in my free time, but much as I usually love Chicago Dyke, I have to take issue with the assumptions in this post, which, among other things, misapprehends both who the consumers of BDSM porn are and which roles they may fantasize when they look at it. For that matter, it misapprehends where the fantasies come from and what they are really about. But most of all, I have to disagree with the commenter who thinks that the people who have dominance fantasies are not just all men, but every man. No, they're not, even a little bit.

Hey, tell the "Geoff," the bartender, to bring up a selection of bras from the vault!

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez's picture
Submitted by nezua limón xol... on

lookin' forward to that follow-up, CD.

___________________________
.delusions of un mundo mejor.