Lefty loonies and liberals, what the hell happened to us?

[Revoltingest]

Heather already pointed out that all sorts of tactics are used within activism so you basically saying "we should all be doing this, the way I do it" isn't helping LGBT people with anything. I propose if you want to be an ally that you focus on using your privilege to aid the situation and not police how LGBT activists fight for their rights in regards to their use of the word "privilege" or any other language they use to describe their oppression.

I missed alternatives (from either of you) to what I proposed.
If you don't like it, then you may eschew it.
Certainly, I'm forcing it upon no one.

Btw, I notice that you loathe my advising LGBT types, but
you deign to lecture me about my privilege. Ironic, eh?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I missed alternatives (from either of you) to what I proposed.
If you don't like it, then you may eschew it.
Certainly, I'm forcing it upon no one.

What works is education toward those who are unaware of the inequality, and show why there is an urgency that things must change.....especially when lives themselves are at stake. Same sex marriage didn't occur toward it's current tipping point only because queers kept being non-threatening with straights, coddled straights into thinking that we didn't hate all y'all, or re-developed our language so that the term "same-sex marriage" wasn't such a threat to the sensibilities of straight people. We tried that. Domestic Partnerships. Civil Unions. All to placate straight people into thinking we weren't threatening people or their precious institution.

But That. Did. Not. Work.

What worked was education, advocacy, speaking out and speaking up, and yes getting in people's faces. Proposition 8 was the last and final straw, and it got a lot of us building Pride Fests, starting the Trevor Project, advocating within our own communities, educating others online and offline, and straights finally realizing that abuse of queers should no longer occur if we are to say we are a free nation.

Women didn't get the right to vote by being nice to men with the language. The suffragists were quite the loud and obnoxious types who were willing to die for the right. Eventually, enough people got the message and realized that women not having the right to vote was a really crappy thing to do. But it took nearly a century to get that message through.

Btw, I notice that you loathe my advising LGBT types, but
you deign to lecture me about my privilege. Ironic, eh?

Do you have to hide your orientation for your safety? If you have ever had to, then I think unsolicited advice would be easier to absorb. But Horrorble has her own privileges she is aware of. As do I. We all can benefit from realizing how we find ourselves on the "advantage" side of social inequality.

 

[Revoltingest]

What works is education toward those who are unaware of the inequality, and show why there is an urgency that things must change.....especially when lives themselves are at stake. Same sex marriage didn't occur toward it's current tipping point only because queers kept being non-threatening with straights, coddled straights into thinking that we didn't hate all y'all, or re-developed our language so that the term "same-sex marriage" wasn't such a threat to the sensibilities of straight people. We tried that. Domestic Partnerships. Civil Unions. All to placate straight people into thinking we weren't threatening people or their precious institution.

But That. Did. Not. Work.

What worked was education, advocacy, speaking out and speaking up, and yes getting in people's faces. Proposition 8 was the last and final straw, and it got a lot of us building Pride Fests, starting the Trevor Project, advocating within our own communities, educating others online and offline, and straights finally realizing that abuse of queers should no longer occur if we are to say we are a free nation.

Women didn't get the right to vote by being nice to men with the language. The suffragists were quite the loud and obnoxious types who were willing to die for the right. Eventually, enough people got the message and realized that women not having the right to vote was a really crappy thing to do. But it took nearly a century to get that message through.



Do you have to hide your orientation for your safety? If you have ever had to, then I think unsolicited advice would be easier to absorb. But Horrorble has her own privileges she is aware of. As do I. We all can benefit from realizing how we find ourselves on the "advantage" side of social inequality.

I wasn't clear about an unstated premise, ie,
I addressed conversations between individuals.

A bone to pick:
- You perpetuated some stereotypes that men & straight folk were/are on the opposite side of women's suffrage & LGBT rights, & that civil discourse did not work. All were part of the changes.
- You use the dismissive word, "placate", to describe civil discourse & the seeking of common ground. I argue that this played an important role in progress.
- You dismiss my advice because you believe having to hide your orientation confers authority upon you. Bogus. Effective persuasion techniques don't require fear of being outed. I could even argue that my lack of fear gives me a superior perspective....but I won't.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I wasn't clear about an unstated premise, ie, I addressed conversations between individuals.

A bone to pick:
You perpetuated some stereotypes that men & straight folk were/are on the opposite side of women's suffrage & LGBT rights, & that civil discourse did not work. All were part of the changes.

Straight folks can be opposed to same sex marriage rights, but not all are.

Men can be opposed to women's rights, but not all are.

If you are on the side of equality, then this isn't addressed to you. But if you think you know what's best for queers and for women, and how queers and women should be placating people during discourse (while we are told we are abominations, how we are the weaker vessel, how we actually want "special" rights when we just want equality)...I'm telling you that experience shows otherwise.

I was pro-life until a member at RF called my arguments hypocritical. And it worked. He was right I re-evaluated my stance and discovered that I certainly was speaking and acting hypocritically when it came to women's bodily autonomy and reproductive rights. I saw my stance as cruel and sexist toward women, and I changed my view because of that conversation.

Does that mean that being in peoples faces is the only route to take? Nope.

But if civil discourse does nothing but placate the people who wield more economic and political power, then that's when the Stonewall Riots show that the disadvantaged are NOT okay with the status quo, and that things must change now when peoples lives are at stake.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Wrong! I'm not a white Christian patriarch and I'm aware of the ways in which I have privilege. It's not beyond white Christian patriarchs to be aware of their privilege.

When you are a MtF trans, male privilege really starts to stand out, especially once you realize you are loosing it and people do start treating you differently. Even in small ways, it's astounding to even get a glimpse of life on the other side. And then when you associate with people who aren't white, who are visibly some other religion than Christian (Islam, by all measures here), who have mental or physical handicaps, and start seeing how other people treat them just for being. I really don't know what else to call it but privilege when your sexual orientation is never examined under a microscope, your skin color does not tag you as shoplifter, and you are not viewed as incapable because you are in a wheelchair.

Yes. And it should be. If your social status is unearned, what does that imply about what should become of that status?

At best, it's spread out and more people enjoy the social rank of "equal." At worst, the unearned elite social status remains, nothing changes, and those who are on top benefit in various ways because those who aren't on top are put into various degrees of disadvantage.
I guess instead of privilege, we could loosely build off of Nietzsche master/slave, bird of prey/lamb dichotomy. But, in this example, a few birds have made it so the lambs are at a disadvantaged, some birds to hate and resent the lambs, and most birds are passively unaware of the unfair plights against the lambs.
We could redefine Marx's Bourgeoisie and Proletariat and refocus Althusser's ISA and RSA, and say that the Bourgeois, as used for this example, are those who are at the top and have various ideological forces working for them, whether they know it or not, to keep them at the top and keep everyone else down. We could expand Foucault's approach of carceral forces, and explain how people are socially and systematically being punished for not being of the majority in-power demograph, and how the penoptic gaze of society is more focused on them.
For most people though, something like privilege and disadvantaged are much simpler, more easily understood, and do not require as much background information as would something like a Kantian evaluation.

 

[Revoltingest]

Straight folks can be opposed to same sex marriage rights, but not all are.

Men can be opposed to women's rights, but not all are.

If you are on the side of equality, then this isn't addressed to you. But if you think you know what's best for queers and for women, and how queers and women should be placating people during discourse (while we are told we are abominations, how we are the weaker vessel, how we actually want "special" rights when we just want equality)...I'm telling you that experience shows otherwise.

I was pro-life until a member at RF called my arguments hypocritical. And it worked. He was right I re-evaluated my stance and discovered that I certainly was speaking and acting hypocritically when it came to women's bodily autonomy and reproductive rights. I saw my stance as cruel and sexist toward women, and I changed my view because of that conversation.

Does that mean that being in peoples faces is the only route to take? Nope.

But if civil discourse does nothing but placate the people who wield more economic and political power, then that's when the Stonewall Riots show that the disadvantaged are NOT okay with the status quo, and that things must change now when peoples lives are at stake.

You misunderstand my approach if you believe it's all about "placating" the opposition.
From dictionary.com.....
placate
verb (used with object), placated, placating.
1. to appease or pacify, especially by concessions or conciliatory gestures:

I've not advocated concessions, appeasement, or conciliation. There is a difference between this & the deft finding of common ground to effect a convincing argument. The avoidance of creating hostility & fear is useful, & is not to "placate".

 

[Revoltingest]

I was pro-life until a member at RF called my arguments hypocritical. And it worked. He was right I re-evaluated my stance and discovered that I certainly was speaking and acting hypocritically when it came to women's bodily autonomy and reproductive rights. I saw my stance as cruel and sexist toward women, and I changed my view because of that conversation.

What convinced you? Was it a reasoned argument why they were hypocritical? Or was it in-your-face obnoxious abuse? If the former, then this is what I advocate. If the latter....well...I just don't believe you're that weak.

I've always been pro-choice. It's good that you finally came around to my (the correct) way of thinking on this.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

You misunderstand my approach if you believe it's all about "placating" the opposition.
From dictionary.com.....
placate
verb (used with object), placated, placating.
1. to appease or pacify, especially by concessions or conciliatory gestures:

I've not advocated concessions, appeasement, or conciliation. There is a difference between this & the deft finding of common ground to effect a convincing argument. The avoidance of creating hostility & fear is useful, & is not to "placate".

Unless the advantaged feel threatened by words like "privilege", "white supremacy", "marriage equality", or "gender-neutral public restrooms."

It most certainly IS placating if straight people (not all straights, I know) want us queers not to call what we want "marriage"....and want us to call it something else so as not to offend their sensibilities.

So, common ground is made when "default" status quo arguments expand their scopes to actively include outside perspectives, while the outside perspectives have the courage to speak up so as to be included. NOW there is common ground. But both things must happen for common ground to occur.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

What convinced you? Was it a reasoned argument why they were hypocritical? Or was it in-your-face obnoxious abuse? If the former, then this is what I advocate. If the latter....well...I just don't believe you're that weak.

From what I remember (it was a long time ago), it was the statement that anyone who thinks that women only have the right to terminate a pregnancy due to rape, incest, or threat to a womans life were nothing more than hypocrites. And the reason behind the hypocrisy was that the justification was that women must continue to be victimized in order to justify an action such as terminating a pregnancy. Basically, one can argue for a woman's reproductive rights and that she owns her body....as long as she is being victimized. That struck a chord with me.

That word, "hypocritical", is really harsh. But IMO, it turned out it was deserved.

Perhaps that's why I don't believe terms like "privilege" or "mansplaining" ought to be censored in topics like this, and especially when we have people who will say that women are "stupid" for putting themselves into situations where they're raped, or that queers are "filthy", "evil", or "abominations."

I've always been pro-choice. It's good that you finally came around to my (the correct) way of thinking on this.

Okay.

 

[Revoltingest]

Unless the advantaged feel threatened by words like "privilege", "white supremacy", "marriage equality", or "gender-neutral public restrooms."

I've never seen anyone threatened by those words or even more inflammatory ones I use by the time I finish making my argument. And I work on hard core Baptists & Word Of God types.
Odd...my technique works better on people who greatly disagree with me than with people I'd expect to be on my side. Favoring equality is the quickest path to being accused of misogyny & vicious abuse.

It most certainly IS placating if straight people (not all straights, I know) want us queers not to call what we want "marriage"....and want us to call it something else so as not to offend their sensibilities.

I call it "marriage" when I advocate for gays. I find it to be no problem at all. And I don't settle for the namby pamby "civil union" alternative.

So, common ground is made when "default" status quo arguments expand their scopes to actively include outside perspectives, while the outside perspectives have the courage to speak up so as to be included. NOW there is common ground.

I don't understand this.

 

[Revoltingest]

From what I remember (it was a long time ago), it was the statement that anyone who thinks that women only have the right to terminate a pregnancy due to rape, incest, or threat to a womans life were nothing more than hypocrites. And the reason behind the hypocrisy was that the justification was that women must continue to be victimized in order to justify an action such as terminating a pregnancy. Basically, one can argue for a woman's reproductive rights and that she owns her body....as long as she is being victimized. That struck a chord with me.
That word, "hypocritical", is really harsh. But IMO, it turned out it was deserved.

This doesn't answer my question though.

Perhaps that's why I don't believe terms like "privilege" or "mansplaining" ought to be censored in topics like this, and especially when we have people who will say that women are "stupid" for putting themselves into situations where they're raped, or that queers are "filthy", "evil", or "abominations."

You needn't censor anything, so you may femsplain all you want. But we're discussing how best to achieve change by interacting with the opposition. I favor more civility & gentle tailored reasoning. You oppose this, mischaracterizing it as "placating". We're at an impasse.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Perhaps that's why I don't believe terms like "privilege" or "mansplaining" ought to be censored in topics like this, and especially when we have people who will say that women are "stupid" for putting themselves into situations where they're raped, or that queers are "filthy", "evil", or "abominations."

LOL! I can throw out philosophical names, terms, and concepts on the forum with ease, but I have to look up this "mansplaining." I wish my earlier views on feminism wouldn't have been so jaded, so I could know much more about it. But then again, I wish many of my earlier views on a lot of things weren't so jaded (hardcore conservative Southern Baptist church can do that to people) so I could have taken steps and learned more about a lot of things, rather than seeing it as useless or evil Devil knowledge.

You needn't censor anything. And neither should I. But we're discussing how best to achieve change by interacting with the opposition. I favor more civility & gentle tailored reasoning. You oppose this, mischaracterizing it as "placating". We're at an impasse.

How about we civily crush the egg shells rather than tip toe on them? Those who favor civil unions do obviously have sensibilities, but so do those homosexuals who want to get married and who also know that "separate but equal" has already been ruled unconstitutional. Civil unions placate the sensibilities of the group in power while ignoring the sensibilities of the minority. So let us be civil towards one another while smashing the egg shells of placaticity. Not all feelings can be spared, and disadvantaged groups should not be expected to bear the disadvantages any further while the the advantaged benefit from the disadvantage. Some people it may totally devastate to learn that they did get that job because they are white. Others may see it as a great injustice, even against themselves as a beneficiary. The important thing is though, is all positive social change has involved tossing grenades into fields of egg shells. Women's suffrage, MLK Jr., Stonewall riots, Gandhi and Indian rights, where would they have been now had things been tailored around the frail and fragile egos of those on top? They were indeed mostly and widely civil, but the goals were never to custom tailor results around the privileged in a way that intentionally leaves the disadvantaged still at a disadvantaged. Ultimate goals may never be reached, but how absurd would have been if women's suffrage was intentionally designed to only include property owning women to coddle to needs and concerns of men in power who didn't want women to vote at all?

 

[Revoltingest]

How about we civily crush the egg shells rather than tip toe on them?

I'm unsure what that means, but it's one possible approach. One should decide which best suits one's goals. I notice that you always choose civility towards me, which makes your advocacy more effective. But thinking now of personal experience, I've endured some overly hostile personal attacks here & elsewhere, & have ended a few friendships over it. I loathe people who are mean.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

This doesn't answer my question though.

You needn't censor anything, so you may femsplain all you want. But we're discussing how best to achieve change by interacting with the opposition. I favor more civility & gentle tailored reasoning. You oppose this, mischaracterizing it as "placating". We're at an impasse.

Oh no, not a mischaracterization, but that's nothing new. Civility has always and forever been my standard to go by. When I'm met with consistent denial, with the standard "histrionic" cries from critics, with attempts to tell me how my life as a woman "really is" and not how I see it, and then being told that all of that is somehow an example of "civility", in spite of the insult and denial all along, I defend myself and stand for my humanity.

I agree that the impasse exists.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh no, not a mischaracterization, but that's nothing new. Civility has always and forever been my standard to go by. When I'm met with consistent denial, with the standard "histrionic" cries from critics, with attempts to tell me how my life as a woman "really is" and not how I see it, and then being told that all of that is somehow an example of "civility", in spite of the insult and denial all along, I defend myself and stand for my humanity.

Your use of passive voice avoids attribution. There's nothing to address there, especially without a full quote.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

LOL! I can throw out philosophical names, terms, and concepts on the forum with ease, but I have to look up this "mansplaining." I wish my earlier views on feminism wouldn't have been so jaded, so I could know much more about it. But then again, I wish many of my earlier views on a lot of things weren't so jaded (hardcore conservative Southern Baptist church can do that to people) so I could have taken steps and learned more about a lot of things, rather than seeing it as useless or evil Devil knowledge.

LOL "mansplaining" is the phenomenon of when men tell women how life really is for women, rather than actually listening to what women describe and letting go of their own life experiences as men.

One instance is when street harassment is brought up as a problem that must be solved, since women describe the feeling of being threatened when being harassed. "Mansplaining" occurs when men tell women that women actually enjoy the attention, otherwise they wouldn't wear _____.

Or that when women are battered, that it isn't actually abusive, especially if she had been giving an attitude, or nagging, or not giving him enough attention, so what else did she expect except for him to show a little anger? But, no, lady....that isn't abusive. It was just a push.

Or bring up the wage gap...."Nope. Doesn't exist."

Or bring up Rape Culture...."Nope. Women just being man-hating overreactors as usual. Men don't rape, so get that out of your head."

Or bring up domestic violence. Or less female representation in government. Or the problem of an all-male panel on reproductive rights. Mansplainers say: "Nope. Nope. Nope. All in your head. You're wrong. Here's why. Now shut your mouth and stop whining and take some responsibility for your life."

It's a consistent mix of denial by men of what women experience.....because they don't see it and they're not convinced it exists.

How about we civily crush the egg shells rather than tip toe on them? Those who favor civil unions do obviously have sensibilities, but so do those homosexuals who want to get married and who also know that "separate but equal" has already been ruled unconstitutional. Civil unions placate the sensibilities of the group in power while ignoring the sensibilities of the minority. So let us be civil towards one another while smashing the egg shells of placaticity. Not all feelings can be spared, and disadvantaged groups should not be expected to bear the disadvantages any further while the the advantaged benefit from the disadvantage. Some people it may totally devastate to learn that they did get that job because they are white. Others may see it as a great injustice, even against themselves as a beneficiary. The important thing is though, is all positive social change has involved tossing grenades into fields of egg shells. Women's suffrage, MLK Jr., Stonewall riots, Gandhi and Indian rights, where would they have been now had things been tailored around the frail and fragile egos of those on top? They were indeed mostly and widely civil, but the goals were never to custom tailor results around the privileged in a way that intentionally leaves the disadvantaged still at a disadvantaged. Ultimate goals may never be reached, but how absurd would have been if women's suffrage was intentionally designed to only include property owning women to coddle to needs and concerns of men in power who didn't want women to vote at all?

YES!!! *standing ovation*

 

[Revoltingest]

Or bring up Rape Culture...."Nope. Women just being man-hating overreactors as usual. Men don't rape, so get that out of your head."

To proffer quotes like this as discourse regularly heard simply isn't believable. While I believe many claims of injustice towards women, this does not mean that every claim is truthful or accurate. Certainly, just as there are men who will misrepresent reality, so are there women who do the same.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

To proffer quotes like this as discourse regularly heard simply isn't believable.

I was speaking with SW.

 

[Revoltingest]

I was speaking with SW.

So you were. But having gone to a large public school, I can read pretty well. The post at issue stands out as significant to the credibility of claims made.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

So you were. But having gone to a large public school, I can read pretty well. The post at issue stands out as significant to the credibility of claims made.

SW....case in point.