the_fantastic_ms_fox | (no subject)

Entry tags:

(no subject)

6 am and awake since 4:40 ish.

Woken up by a variant of an earlier dream: I'd been a negligent pet owner and the sickly abandoned rodents bred and bred and bred until they produced too many sick offspring to count - and it was my fault.

Hard to get back to sleep after that.

When I'm awake, what swirls around in my head like nothing else - and what has, for years, swirled around in my head like nothing else - is this feeling of being unable to speak.

The most common form of this is my tendency to run into bands of old-fashioned lefty discourses that tell me (usually indirectly but occasionally to my face) that I have no right to be saying what I'm saying - that my mouth is selling us out. Might as well write it out.

1. - The CFS

Who will claim that we need them because, on our own, we're not doing enough for students - when they're wasting our time trying to deal with them, stifling non-CFS campaigns, blocking attempts to disagree or change the organization (let alone leave) and screwing around with our money. And we can't say what we know to be true because they'll spin our words as reactionary to students who don't want to spend six hours learning about why the CFS is toxic. They may sue us. They will definitely try to silence us.

Questioning the CFS does not make me "lazy, crazy or stupid," but they will try to paint me as such.

Right. That explains why I don't like them.

2. - Contemporary pop/crypto-second-wave feminism

I don't think that the fact that two people share the birth sex or even a gender identity means that they then have a damn thing in common in terms of identity-based social activism. Having similar a gender identity and gender expression and nationality and class and ability and age and ethnicity and religion and so on means that you have something in common in terms of identity-based social activism.

Also: common-identity-based social activism, while valuable and emotionally enlivening, will not build the alliances you need to make change in the world.

But if we were to take a look at gender oppression on its own, then we should do away with the idea that gender-normative women are somehow the focus of men's wrath. Yes, our society is rife with sexism. But first, it's not "men vs women." It's everyone vs everyone else and themselves. Second, if we insist on having an oppression olympics, then in the gender-only event, "Team Gender-Normative Straight Women" will probably place second-last.

I am finding out first hand that there is a lot of privilege that comes with passing as female, even as a queer female (at least here in Vancouver). I'm also finding out that there are uncalled-for disadvantages. From my background in feminism, I was totally ready for the disadvantages, and can walk into any feminist library and take a dozen books off the shelves that will explain their whys and hows - which is awesome. But the privileges were and are barely mentioned. I think it was because people were and are afraid that acknowledging that normative-women-appearing are generally privileged over the obviously genderfucked, and sometimes privileged over men, that they would and will lose the ability to agitate.

It was Northamerica in the 1970s and social issues, and how people talked about them, were different then. I'm not angry. But it's 30-odd years later now. Saying "sometimes we're advantaged and sometimes we're disadvantaged" does not mean that you lose the right to protest or mend disadvantage - rather it helps build alliances, and it help you check your own privilege.

Just because someone appears male does not mean that they are privileged in dominant masculine environments. Just because someone appears or identifies as female does not mean that they are comfortable in "women's environments."

While we're at it, my female identity and androgynous presentation are not the product of super-special socialization: they are just how I am. The same goes for most people when they're in a position to express themselves despite the fear.

Just because there is a difference between women and men's lived experiences does not mean that women are being oppressed.

For me or someone else to state these things does not mean that we are ignorant of, or trying to undermine, the women's movement.

Thank you.

3. - Progressive or lefty angles that unquestioningly value old-school top-down means of changing the world

I am pissed off at the unions that think that exploiting their power equals worker's rights.Remember public school, where the teacher couldn't plug anything in because that would be theft-of-work from the janitor? Have you tried to move folding tables or fix anything at SFU? It requires one-week notice to Facilities Management who may or may not get your order right - failure to go through them may result in a grievance. I do not like seniority systems that punish outside interests, changing careers and seasonal staff. I do not like wage-ratchets that dictate that the minimum contract keeps pay up with inflation, and the maximum is considerably beyond that - leading to escalating wages over time until people are getting paid $20 an hour plus benefits to do basic tasks, (whose wages often come out of the taxes of people who are doing harder jobs, with larger student loans for less pay and with fewer benefits.) I do not like how the BCTF and other unions clamber for more money instead of putting an equal amount of funds into better working conditions (which would make their jobs more pleasant, and make public-school students' lives easier and get parents to support the strike).

Saying this does not make me anti-union.

I am pissed off at American schools and some Canadian schools that have no idea how to facilitate a diverse campus, and so turn to admission and scholarship system that privileges the middle- and upper- class of all demographic groups. A better system would conut diversity based on average familial and mean school-wide standardized scores income of past schools attended (as poor kids in crappy schools tend to test poorly but do a lot better once in post-secondary) - two variables that correlate strongly with ethnicity, and allow some ground for personal involvement in anti-oppression work, while encouraging students to get educated about social issues while on campus.

Saying this does not make me ignorant of ethnic oppression.

While our health-care system could use more money, it is simply unsustainable in its present form. It needs to be heavily revamped, buffered by social resources (subsidized housing, weekly caregivers and free medicine are cheaper, and a lot more pleasant, than beds in extended care), and we need to invest more money in teaching people how not to get sick in the first place, and giving them the resources to enact this learning. We could also make up the shortfall of nurses and doctors by (1) providing free education for anyone willing to work it off in the province and (2) evaluating, upgrading or approving the credentials of all those immigrants who can use their MD's to drive cabs.

And while I can see some problems with publicly-funded private clinics (as in the government funds them just like it would a hospital, and they can't charge anything on top of that so healthcare stays free), I can see some advantages too. Not saying they're a good idea, or the solution, but we should be able to consider it publicly.

Saying this does not make me against public health care.

But when people start to say things like this, they tend to get branded as reactionary.

Questioning career NDP'ers and the Federation of Labour is more proof of a progressive and critical mind than the reverse.

Okay.

4. Transphobia in Team Dyke.

Vancouver has been okay so far, but there's this fear that I can't say is unjustified that the ex-lad business is going to put a crimp in my days as a dyke.

For a cissexed woman who came out at age 14 to say that I'm not a dyke because I didn't grow up female is like someone who moved from America to Canada at age 14 saying that someone else who left Japan at age 26 to paddle to Canada can't really be Canadian because they didn't grow up in North America. They came out as interested in (queer?) women; I came out as (trans)female. We both wound up as queer women.

Or, alternatively....

Of course I'm fucking female. Have you seen how far out of my way I've gone to get here? How could I not be entirely serious? How many other women have done this? How do I know that you're really female if you haven't changed your sex?

Who is this person who is giving me so much shit? Is it the coordinator of the Michigan Women's Music Festival? Is Mary Daly guarding queer female resources? Is Janice Raymond protecting the washroom? No, the person who gives me the most shit is me.*

I'm the one who's telling me that I have no right to call myself a dyke. For me, the the idea of "dyke" is bound up with the idea of "minority" and I have been raised with the idea that you have suffered no social oppression and so have no right to claim this identity.

Hmm. I wonder where I got that idea from? (SEE POINT 2, ABOVE)

Funny that, I wasn't aware that the point of being a dyke was to be oppressed. I thought it was to be true to yourself, challenge the world and maybe get into the slacks of one or two of those other dyke-ID'd lovelies, all while sporting a snappy haircut.

Thank G-d I got that out.

*Overall. I have dealt with a certain amount of less subtle transphobia - most notably the semi-audible comments at the CFS January women's caucus. So yeah, maybe this does happen in real life, but that was more of a blanket transphobia (think: whispered voices saying "women only, women only, yes it's women only," averted eyes, ignored votes, nothing direct, no one ever has the courage to challenge you directly or just /ask/) mixed with political misgivings.

This was not rejection from team dyke - admittedly I will have to deal with this someday - but deal with it I will.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Just because there is a difference between women and men's lived experiences does not mean that women are being oppressed.

For me or someone else to state these things does not mean that we are ignorant of, or trying to undermine, the women's movement.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here: are you arguing that women arn't being oppressed in general, or that women have more privilege than normally openly acknowledged by conventional feminist rhetorics?

I would have to be some kind of stupid to claim the former. So I meant the latter - sort of.

I meant that stating that women do x and men do y does not mean that x is /always/ worse than y.

It was sparked by a reading that claimed that smaller space-boundaries regarding women were a form of oppression. Smaller/weaker boundaries are definitely bad in the case of the assumption of sexual access resulting in rape, but I also find that now, when people stand closer to me, and women would touch me on the shoulder, to be a welcome alternative to "you're a potential physical/sexual threat so I will keep my distance." The reading claimed that /this too/, was a symptom of oppression, and I find that this logic is not confined to readings carries over a lot into how some people talk about sexism, even in a non-academic discourse.

Non-academic example: a while back, when I pointed out how men were teased about showing their body "because it's gross" but women weren't because it was okay or desirable to show the outline of our bodies this is not okay. The people around me then picked it up and said yeah, you're right, this is totally another example of classic sexism. (maybe, but I'm objecting to the homophobia towards men)

It was sparked by a reading that claimed that smaller space-boundaries regarding women were a form of oppression. Smaller/weaker boundaries are definitely bad in the case of the assumption of sexual access resulting in rape, but I also find that now, when people stand closer to me, and women would touch me on the shoulder, to be a welcome alternative to "you're a potential physical/sexual threat so I will keep my distance." The reading claimed that /this too/, was a symptom of oppression, and I find that this logic is not confined to readings carries over a lot into how some people talk about sexism, even in a non-academic discourse.

I find assumptions about personal boundaries to be context and consent dependent: I'm OK with squishing on a skytrain, as long as no one puts their hand in my asscrack and deliberately rubs (which happens about twice a year to me.)
I'm okay with social touching that is semi-consensual and when people read non-verbal cues or verbal cues and stop it. You probably haven't experienced a lot of invasive social touching at this point, but it's gotten to the point that I, personally, in certain social contexts where the alternative is being perceived as sexual non-consensual prey, enjoy being treated like a predator instead. Different side of the same coin, I'm guessing.

Yeah, there is sexism towards men and their bodies, etc, but you gotta realize that a lot of female 'privilege' often comes at an accompanying social price: Most women I know who feel empowered with boundaries such as social touching or presenting a sexualized image (as in, not necessarily under threat of sexual assault) have some strategies going on for when and how and why they do these things, and what they do when these things go wrong.

In an idea world, men could hug and snuggle and stand close to people (of all genders), and they would also have the social awareness that sometimes you back the fuck off and don't. If this statement bugs you with it's sexism, consider that I would gladly replace the word 'men' with 'people' in describing my ideal world.

In an ideal world, men would also feel permission to flaunt their bodies when and how they would like to - and women wouldn't feel that the only way to get acknowledged as sexual being would be to show their bodies in a very narrow and specific fashion at certain times, knowing that in doing so they may attract unwanted attention.

I'm big into the idea of aiming for sex/gender equality, where one's ability and safety in physical and sexual expression, and one's boundaries around it are more or less universal and applied and shared by all.

I read it as a logical fallacy argument. (And I'm writing an instant response without yet reading the rest of this thread, so you've probably already sorted this out.)

Conventional wisdom holds that A is true ("there is a difference between women and men's lived experience"), that B is true ("woman are being oppressed"), and that A=>B is true ("the difference implies the oppression").

I read

hundun questioning the third proposition. Yes, A is true; yes, B is true; no, A does not necessarily imply B. Perhaps sometimes it does — perhaps there are aspects of life in which the difference implies the oppression — but not necessarily always There can exist facets of life which women and men experience differently without one sex being oppressed.

And I actually think she's right. I believe B=>A is so obvious it's what logicians call "trivial" (a word I once got in a great deal of trouble for using to describe oppression in a room full of social scientists, because I was a naïve logician and didn't realize it meant "unimportant" as well as "possessing a one-line-long formal proof") … where you find oppression, of course you'll find a different life experience. But the converse is not necessarily true.

And this kind of argument is devilishly hard to assert without being called reactionary. A exists, B exists, B=>A, and (A,B) correlate. Challenging the bijectivity of the A<=>B relationship doesn't challenge its correlation, or its injectivity.

Or in less mathematical terms, sometimes difference may not be hierarchical; and sometimes when it is hierarchical — even leaving out institutionalized inversions like Bakhtin's carnival — the dominant hierarchy may be reversed. It's possible that in some hierarchies the oppression is complete, that there is no difference unaccompanied by it, but this is not logically certain; it would have to be proven by example.

This is of course a compartmentalizing argument. In the real world, an awareness of oppression, of lack of privilege, follows one everywhere and informs everything. But this is a psychological rather than a sociological effect: it is true that when you're oppressed 99% of the time, it becomes almost impossible to notice that other 1%; but it does not follow that the other 1% doesn't exist.

I'd say that gender doesn't oppress one group x fraction of the time and another y where x+y=1 (i.e. 99% and another 1%) because one most be advantaged and another disadvantaged. Rather x+y>1.

Binary gender roles are a negative sum game.

Which is one of the oversights of the second wave - not because of anything inherent in it so much as the cultural discourse viewing oppression as a binary: one either is oppressed or oppresses.

"Negative sum" in the sense that when oppression advantages, it does so through a hostile relationship where a gains less than b loses. b then does it to c, c to d, d to b, b to itself (?) etc...

And yes, you're right about unions too.

I like unions. I value unions. I think that unions are the most important advance in workplace relations since guilds. I'm deeply glad to live in a world where unions exist, are legal, and have been working on behalf of their employees for up to a century.

And I think that unions can sometimes be ineffective, reactionary bullies which exist in all the wrong places and value all the wrong things.

My biggest gripe, for example, is that a union's most powerful bargaining tool is to strike. Why is this powerful? Because it strips the employer of its means of production; it reduces the employer's inventory, market share, and ultimately profits. This only works if (a) the employer has competition for the same product, because otherwise scarcity simply drives the price up and increases profits by the time the strike ends; and (b) the employer is actually making a profit, because otherwise the strike will simply ameliorate the current loss.

Which means that in monopolies or companies making patent-protected products — I mean non-interchangeable products, like "pharmaceutical cures for obscure disease X," as opposed to brand-names, like "operating system Y" — the only power unions have is to threaten to drive up the price and increase the employer's profit. Such employers would be well advised to force strikes as often as possible.

And in the public sector, where it costs money to keep facilities open, the only power unions have is to threaten to save their employer the trouble of paying them for a while. Such employers would also be well advised to force strikes not only as often, but also as long, as possible.

So I'm in favour of unions, but I'm opposed to them in monopolies and in the public sector? But that's not right either; somebody has to protect workers' interests no matter how powerful the employer is. I think I'm opposed to the role unions have in monopolies and in the public sector, to the tools they have available, and to the profoundly conservative stance — valuing job security and "theft of work" above all — which this powerlessness creates in such unions' bargaining positions.

This is an issue I've been mulling for fifteen years, and I still don't have any actual answers to propose.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only