No Cause, No Ally

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm getting the feeling that I said something that hurt your feelings, and instead of being direct about it you're hinting around it. Is that what's going on?

I'm not hinting around at anything.  I have directly stated what the problem is.  You may have missed it, so I'll restate it.

I just got shat on, HARD, for disagreeing in part after agreeing in most of what was being said.  ECH was adamantly opposed to damn near everything that got said (in the Patriarchy thread), and got a pass.  This tells me that the moment I agree, I can get ready for people to assume I'm a fucking lapdog, or something you'd scrape off your fucking shoe.

It's just another bullshit power structure, and the moment you allow yourself to get sucked into it, the stupid fucking dominance games begin...Either that, or I am the "easy target" for your bad day.  It's just Roger, you can shit all over him all you like, right?  Right right right? 

Action/reaction.  What else would you possibly expect from the universe?  I mean, I may be one dense asshole, but eventually even I can learn.  Even I can get a little sick and tired of being taken for granted, either as someone who was interested in this subject, or just as Roger.

If you're wondering what I'm talking about, go look at our last exchange in Labels, and ask yourself how you'd feel if I'd said that shit to you (that's not the entire reason behind this thread, but it's the part that pertains to your question).

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I want to agree with that, but in order to fix shit, there needs to be some politics.

And that's the part in which I am no longer interested.

Someone else can fix the world.

[Faust]

All any of this changed my mind about was feminism. There isn't a "first wave", "second wave", etc., it's all Gloria Steinem first wave man-hate with a thin, faux gentle veneer of "this is for everybody's benefit!"

I remain pro-choice, etc. AS A HUMAN BEING, but I would MUCH rather be called "cunt" than "feminist".

At least "cunt" is honest.

We really, really got wrapped up in feminism as for what it means to women, so I understand where you're coming from, and parts of the discussion left me with a bad taste, too (some of which is my fault, let's be real). But I think it's generally acknowledged that feminism without intersectionality (because all bigotry and oppression feeds into other kinds) is meaningless, because it pretty much takes care of straight, affluent, white, Western women and leaves everyone else (women in the rest of the world, PoC, the queer community, the poor, etc.) out in the cold. It ends up boiling down into another flavor of bigotry because it's so exclusionary, intentionally or otherwise.

All politics are exclusionary.

I want to agree with that, but in order to fix shit, there needs to be some politics. There needs to be recognition that there are groups with fewer rights and freedoms and there needs to be action (in the courts, legislation, on the ground changes like your egalitarianism) to solve that. Because without that, how can we even hope to make everyone properly equal?

That goes way beyond feminism into the morally bleak area of what is acceptable to maintain our standard of living.
Ultimately, its not a choice that can be made politically because the tribe will always protect the tribe. less then 1% of the world uses the majority of it's refined silicone, uranium, gold and other precious metals necessary to keep the first world as the first world.
It will always be built on a backbone of exclusion because that's a choice no one is ever going to make.

[Juana]

You can quit going on about the exploitation cycle at me. I wrote an article for the BiP2013 for it, remember?

I have to say, I tend to feel like I ought to try to fix things, even though I know my input's value is less than a drop in the Pacific. To say, "the system's fucked!" and then never do anything is being complicit with the violence and oppression the system commits in order to stay alive.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm getting the feeling that I said something that hurt your feelings, and instead of being direct about it you're hinting around it. Is that what's going on?

I'm not hinting around at anything.  I have directly stated what the problem is.  You may have missed it, so I'll restate it.

I just got shat on, HARD, for disagreeing in part after agreeing in most of what was being said.  ECH was adamantly opposed to damn near everything that got said (in the Patriarchy thread), and got a pass.  This tells me that the moment I agree, I can get ready for people to assume I'm a fucking lapdog, or something you'd scrape off your fucking shoe.

It's just another bullshit power structure, and the moment you allow yourself to get sucked into it, the stupid fucking dominance games begin...Either that, or I am the "easy target" for your bad day.  It's just Roger, you can shit all over him all you like, right?  Right right right? 

Action/reaction.  What else would you possibly expect from the universe?  I mean, I may be one dense asshole, but eventually even I can learn.  Even I can get a little sick and tired of being taken for granted, either as someone who was interested in this subject, or just as Roger.

If you're wondering what I'm talking about, go look at our last exchange in Labels, and ask yourself how you'd feel if I'd said that shit to you (that's not the entire reason behind this thread, but it's the part that pertains to your question).

THIS?

I didn't say it was worse. I said it was different.

It's beginning to sound like a cause.

Feminism/eglatarianism isn't a cause, it's a behavior.  When it becomes a cause, it becomes the "ism" instead of the beneficial thing it started out to be.  It becomes a uniform that you put on, button up REAL tight around your throat, and then stomp around in, demanding that your ism gets all the due recognition it deserves.

But here's the problem:  In addition to losing the actual value of the behavior, you also induce emotional fatigue in those around you.  It's not that people want to stop caring, it's that they become weary of hearing the same thing being bellowed over and over again, and they CAN'T keep caring.

After 911, there was about a 2 year period in which ~ 80% of the population was scared into a national nervous breakdown.  People were fucking TERRIFIED right out of their rational minds.  By 2004, however, they were losing the capability of remaining scared, and by the Detroit attempt in 2009, everyone was laughing at the idiot terrorist that burned his junk off.

So now we're having "privilege" and "rape" repeatedly being brought up to the exclusion of any other facet of the whole feminism/eglatarianism conversation.  It's been addressed to death, brought back to life, clubbed back into it's grave, dug up, and hauled through the village streets.  These two facets of the conversation have become the ENTIRE conversation, and there's nothing more to be said about it...And they've taken the REST of the ideas with them.

In fact, it's turned "addressed from privilege" from a valid concern to what is being perceived as a means of shutting down disagreement, even if that was never the intent.

So at this point I have to ask if there's anything more to talk about, because if it's going to continue to be about privilege and rape, I'd like to leave the conversations/threads while I still have any capacity for outrage on these subjects at all.

For God's sake, BUMP.

Maybe because those are two points on which people still feel they are not being heard. That's usually the case when issues keep resurfacing.

I had an insight on this whole thing, but it's gone now.

3 threads all turn into the same two things over and over again.  Might be that people aren't being heard.  Might also be that they don't have anything else to say on the subject.

In any case, I'll return to the conversation later.

I kinda disagree with you on the "don't have anything else to say on the subject" issue. What I, personally, keep noticing is that a recurring trend is that when men talk about their experiences, people tend to say "It sucks that you were treated that way; here is why the other person might have acted that way" and when women talk about their experiences, people tend to say "This is what you should do/think differently".

I think that kind of response tends to put people on the defensive, and then the conversation gets taken over by the debate about women's experiences.

And while we're doing that, shit like THIS happens:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/08/17/710101/gop-senate-candidate-suggests-the-voting-rights-act-of-1965-should-be-overturned/

What's your point? Is it that we shouldn't be wasting time talking about things like rape and gender inequality and trying to come to a point of mutual understanding and communication, because there are other fucked-up issues that need to be addressed?

Well fuck it. I don't belong on this board at all. I should be narrowing down my concerns to the one most important injustice, and focusing on that exclusively.

THAT'S what you're talking about? SERIOUSLY?

As for me not jumping on/engaging with ECH for his opinions, I DECIDED NOT TO BOTHER. I'm already burned out, I don't want to tackle his persona even if I do think it's bullshit, I've already addressed everything he had to say, and I was already engaged in conversation with you. YEAH, it pissed me off when you posted that link in response to what I thought was a pretty measured and thoughtful reply about why these conversations keep getting dragged out, because it seemed to me to imply that what I'd just said just wasn't important enough to register. So I got sarcastic. But if that's generated some kind of massive paradigm shift for you in which you're just not going to believe in anything anymore, I don't know what to say.

You know, it's finals week, I have three kids, orders to fill, an internship that has been kicking my ass, a belly full of tumors and an upcoming surgery. I have been trying to reply to as many people as possible as generically as possible in the threads I've been participating in, so I'm not writing the same thing out as individual posts to each person because I don't have time for that. I barely have time to be here at all. I'm sorry if it came across as singling you out because you are the person whose posts I reply to most often.

I think it's time for me to take a couple months off. And BTW, the only reason I didn't call you back the other day because I was in Molalla with some kids, and I didn't get home until LATE and then I had to make dinner for my kids.

[Juana]

I want to agree with that, but in order to fix shit, there needs to be some politics.

And that's the part in which I am no longer interested.

Someone else can fix the world.

I can understand that, even if I don't agree at all. *shrug*

[The Good Reverend Roger]

You can quit going on about the exploitation cycle at me. I wrote an article for the BiP2013 for it, remember?

I have to say, I tend to feel like I ought to try to fix things, even though I know my input's value is less than a drop in the Pacific. To say, "the system's fucked!" and then never do anything is being complicit with the violence and oppression the system commits in order to stay alive.

Interesting little trap, isn't it?  If you do nothing, you're complicit.  If you band together, you've just formed another part of the overall structure, and no matter WHAT that structure is, it's going to come down to "whose ideals are most important?" aka "who is the top dog?"...The only evidence that I need offer for this is the anti-war movement of 2003-2005, when everyone and their Grandmother showed up with signs that had NOTHING TO DO with the war.  They just HAD to take the moment to pimp out their personal cause (PITA, WTO, whatever).

I am convinced that this has to be handled at the individual level.  It's not VERY effective, but it's more effective than NOTHING AT ALL, which is what happens when you organize.

[Faust]

You can quit going on about the exploitation cycle at me. I wrote an article for the BiP2013 for it, remember?

I have to say, I tend to feel like I ought to try to fix things, even though I know my input's value is less than a drop in the Pacific. To say, "the system's fucked!" and then never do anything is being complicit with the violence and oppression the system commits in order to stay alive.

I'm not going on about the exploitation cycle, I am just confirming that equality will never be fully realised through politics.
Personal action on a case by case is all anyone can do.

And no, I haven't read anything of BiP2013.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

THAT'S what you're talking about? SERIOUSLY?

It was the icing on the cake, yes.  It was a lot of build up from many people.  This wasn't an "I'M PISSED AT NIGEL" thread, it was an "Enough is enough" thread.

You know, it's finals week, I have three kids, orders to fill, an internship that has been kicking my ass, a belly full of tumors and an upcoming surgery. I have been trying to reply to as many people as possible as generically as possible in the threads I've been participating in, so I'm not writing the same thing out as individual posts to each person because I don't have time for that. I barely have time to be here at all. I'm sorry if it came across as singling you out because you are the person whose posts I reply to most often.

No problem.  I've got a stalker who apparently has dropped off the radar after buying a gun, a trip down to Louisiana to attend a "Communication Class" (read:  Learn how to eat shit and like it), and about a million other things going on, so I can see where you're coming from.

But I have to say, it did LOOK like I was being singled out.  If that's not the case, then I apologize for the tone in my last post.

I think it's time for me to take a couple months off. And BTW, the only reason I didn't call you back the other day because I was in Molalla with some kids, and I didn't get home until LATE and then I had to make dinner for my kids.

Again, no problem about the call.   I automatically assume you're busy these days.  I'd rather you didn't take the time off from here.

In any case, I'll be out of town for a few days, unless Jeff blows my head off, in which case I'll be IN town indefinitely. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

All right, I've cooled off and I'm back.

One reason I so often reply to your posts is because you're engaging, you're here consistently, and I know we can actually have a conversation that won't deteriorate into ad-hominem and strawmen. ECH is good for that too, but I was already engaged in conversation with you. I would also like to distance myself from any impression that I was speaking in league with anyone who shares some of my perspectives. Perhaps it came across as if I was endorsing someone else's posts, but unless I specifically posted an endorsement, assume that I was not. I'm not on a "side", in that sense.

[Juana]

You can quit going on about the exploitation cycle at me. I wrote an article for the BiP2013 for it, remember?

I have to say, I tend to feel like I ought to try to fix things, even though I know my input's value is less than a drop in the Pacific. To say, "the system's fucked!" and then never do anything is being complicit with the violence and oppression the system commits in order to stay alive.

Interesting little trap, isn't it?  If you do nothing, you're complicit.  If you band together, you've just formed another part of the overall structure, and no matter WHAT that structure is, it's going to come down to "whose ideals are most important?" aka "who is the top dog?"...The only evidence that I need offer for this is the anti-war movement of 2003-2005, when everyone and their Grandmother showed up with signs that had NOTHING TO DO with the war.  They just HAD to take the moment to pimp out their personal cause (PITA, WTO, whatever).

I am convinced that this has to be handled at the individual level.  It's not VERY effective, but it's more effective than NOTHING AT ALL, which is what happens when you organize.

Ignoring the first part for a moment (which is certainly true enough), unless I'm misunderstanding your "nothing at all happens when you organize" wrong, I have to seriously object because it's historically incorrect. No organization = no women's rights, no civil rights movement, no gay rights, no trans rights, no right to organize, none of the things unions gave us - nothing.
Frankly, without organization, I have no idea where we'd be but I'm pretty sure it'd be ugly as fuck, ground into a smear under the heel of whatever the equivalent of the 1% would be.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Organizing accomplishes some things. It also creates politics and exclusionary behavior.

Look at this so called "ElevatorGate". Even before we jump into the blog based warfare that followed, let's just look at the incidents that began it:

1. Woman gets on elevator, guy on elevator says "I liked what you said, would you like to come to my room for coffee and discussion?"
2. Woman feels uncomfortable, says 'No' and goes to her room.
3. Woman discusses this in a lecture as misogyny.
4. Another woman publicly disagree.
5. First woman publicly shits on second woman for disagreeing.

That's the problem with organized systems and hierarchies. Maybe the guy was being an asshole, maybe the guy was treating her like an equal, maybe the guy was trying to start something and thought a cup of coffee and discussion was a good way to break the ice. Different humans might have different opinions. If the organization, or those leading the organization don't allow for divergent opinion, then the organization is not going to accomplish what I would consider to be something successful.

For me, the above example is a perfect moment for Maybe Logic, maybe it appeared to her as X, and it appeared to someone else as Y and the intent of the guy was Z. Could have still made fantastic points about guys considering the perception of what they say and do, despite the intent. But, that doesn't make for good polemics.

[East Coast Hustle]

All any of this changed my mind about was feminism. There isn't a "first wave", "second wave", etc., it's all Gloria Steinem first wave man-hate with a thin, faux gentle veneer of "this is for everybody's benefit!"

I remain pro-choice, etc. AS A HUMAN BEING, but I would MUCH rather be called "cunt" than "feminist".

At least "cunt" is honest.

We really, really got wrapped up in feminism as for what it means to women, so I understand where you're coming from, and parts of the discussion left me with a bad taste, too (some of which is my fault, let's be real). But I think it's generally acknowledged that feminism without intersectionality (because all bigotry and oppression feeds into other kinds) is meaningless, because it pretty much takes care of straight, affluent, white, Western women and leaves everyone else (women in the rest of the world, PoC, the queer community, the poor, etc.) out in the cold. It ends up boiling down into another flavor of bigotry because it's so exclusionary, intentionally or otherwise.

All politics are exclusionary.

I want to agree with that, but in order to fix shit, there needs to be some politics. There needs to be recognition that there are groups with fewer rights and freedoms and there needs to be action (in the courts, legislation, on the ground changes like your egalitarianism) to solve that. Because without that, how can we even hope to make everyone properly equal?

There's something horribly wrong with the bolded statement but I can't quite put my finger on exactly what it is that bothers me about it.

[East Coast Hustle]

I'm getting the feeling that I said something that hurt your feelings, and instead of being direct about it you're hinting around it. Is that what's going on?

I'm not hinting around at anything.  I have directly stated what the problem is.  You may have missed it, so I'll restate it.

I just got shat on, HARD, for disagreeing in part after agreeing in most of what was being said.  ECH was adamantly opposed to damn near everything that got said (in the Patriarchy thread), and got a pass.  This tells me that the moment I agree, I can get ready for people to assume I'm a fucking lapdog, or something you'd scrape off your fucking shoe.

It's just another bullshit power structure, and the moment you allow yourself to get sucked into it, the stupid fucking dominance games begin...Either that, or I am the "easy target" for your bad day.  It's just Roger, you can shit all over him all you like, right?  Right right right? 

Action/reaction.  What else would you possibly expect from the universe?  I mean, I may be one dense asshole, but eventually even I can learn.  Even I can get a little sick and tired of being taken for granted, either as someone who was interested in this subject, or just as Roger.

If you're wondering what I'm talking about, go look at our last exchange in Labels, and ask yourself how you'd feel if I'd said that shit to you (that's not the entire reason behind this thread, but it's the part that pertains to your question).

To clarify, my frothingly venomous rant in the patriarchy thread (or was it the labels thread? I can't keep them straight at this point) was primarily an extension of your position that swearing and obscenities are a form of holy sacrament. I wasn't broadly rejecting feminism, at least, not any more than I broadly reject anything that ends in "-ism". And really, out of all the -isms it's one of the more worthwhile and palatable. But I don't care if it's the single most worthy cause in the world, I won't be told not to say "cunt" or "son of a bitch" or anything else I deem worthy in a holy fit of pain or rage just for the advancement of a cause.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

All any of this changed my mind about was feminism. There isn't a "first wave", "second wave", etc., it's all Gloria Steinem first wave man-hate with a thin, faux gentle veneer of "this is for everybody's benefit!"

I remain pro-choice, etc. AS A HUMAN BEING, but I would MUCH rather be called "cunt" than "feminist".

At least "cunt" is honest.

We really, really got wrapped up in feminism as for what it means to women, so I understand where you're coming from, and parts of the discussion left me with a bad taste, too (some of which is my fault, let's be real). But I think it's generally acknowledged that feminism without intersectionality (because all bigotry and oppression feeds into other kinds) is meaningless, because it pretty much takes care of straight, affluent, white, Western women and leaves everyone else (women in the rest of the world, PoC, the queer community, the poor, etc.) out in the cold. It ends up boiling down into another flavor of bigotry because it's so exclusionary, intentionally or otherwise.

All politics are exclusionary.

I want to agree with that, but in order to fix shit, there needs to be some politics. There needs to be recognition that there are groups with fewer rights and freedoms and there needs to be action (in the courts, legislation, on the ground changes like your egalitarianism) to solve that. Because without that, how can we even hope to make everyone properly equal?

There's something horribly wrong with the bolded statement but I can't quite put my finger on exactly what it is that bothers me about it.

That this attitude wants to fix divisions in society by focusing on divisions in society?