[This post is in honor of the one two (whoops!) year birthday of the Official Shrub.com Blog, where I have been given the privilege to guest-blog for the past several months.]

As I mentioned in a previous post, I recently took a class on racism and white privilege. My professor was unflinching in his recognition that some things about anti-oppression work are "impossible." And while this sounds like a pessimistic view of things, I think it was very important that he acknowledged this concept and repeatedly brought it to our attention.

I chose to write about this subject for the two-year anniversary of the Official Shrub.com Blog because of that importance, despite the fact that it also sounds pretty dreary. I mean, it is a bit disheartening to commemorate the birth of an anti-oppression blog by talking about everything it can't do.

But recognizing difficulties can always do two different things: it can bring you down, and it can also help you clarify your path to better accomplish your goals. As you can guess, I hope to do the latter.

( some difficulties of dialogue )

x-posted to Shrub.com

I don't think I actually have anything useful to say. I just thought, "I'm bored. I should LJ." I am indeed a product of my time.

Last night ended up being okay. I went to do my C.O.R.E. presentation, which involved trekking through the unknown wilds of South Campus in order to find the dorm I was supposed to present at. (For those familiar with UW, I went to Mercer Hall - and if you thought, "Mercer what?" you're probably not alone.) My contact there, the RA who requested this presentation had absolutely nothing in the way of preparation to meet us. Here's how I tried to contact him:

Starting two hours before the presentation, I called the phone number he gave us in order to confirm that the presentation was still on. He never answered, so I left a message, calling back every twenty minutes or so just in case. Once I got to South Campus, I had a hell of a time finding the dorm in the icy dark - which isn't the RA's fault, but he should have predicted that we'd have trouble finding it, since it's well known among the residents that no one outside of the dorm knows where it is. At the very least, he should have told us which building ("East" or "West") we should go to. I only happened to see his name listed as an RA, asked a resident where I could find him, and went to look for him myself. Oh yeah, and I had to rely on residents to let me in, since all the dorms are locked. Finally, once I was in the correct building, and could not find the RA by either calling him or knocking on the door of his room, I happened to see a sign advertising the C.O.R.E. presentation and went to the location written there. The RA eventually showed up there.

He was a nice guy. And he offered us some of the ice cream he brought for his residents. But seriously - incompetence much?

Anyway, after that, my presentation partner and her boyfriend kindly offered to drive me back to ratzeo and zinjadu's apartment - which was only about 15 blocks away, but a hellish prospect with cold, ice, and the presentation equipment I was lugging around. Once I got in, I was greeted with warmth, food, and video games. Win.

Tonight we're scheduled to have more snow and freezing temperatures. Here's hoping it'll hold off until after the evening commute - and if that means a snow day tomorrow, well, I won't complain. XD

Also, randomly: an article about the concept of relational autonomy from Feminist Allies. (Link from tekanji.) For people who study philosophy, this term probably makes sense; for others, it probably sounds like a stupidly complicated way of saying what it actually means: "people's choices are affected by those around them."

The point of the concept, and the article, is that we're mistaken when we say that people either make completely independent choices or have their choices completely shaped by social forces (e.g., sexism, racism, etc.). Often anti-oppression workers are accused of falling in the latter category, and saying that people are completely dependent on the power inequalities that oppress them - this is often labelled as 'making' people into victims who cannot choose/act for themselves. However, as the article points out, the dichotomy is false. Most of the time, people make somewhat-independent choices while being somewhat-influenced by society around them. A woman may choose to look traditionally (hetero)sexy by getting breast implants and liposuction; however, the societal pressures that say 'this is what beauty is' and 'you have to be beautiful or your worthless' and other such things are also to blame for shaping that choice. And so on.

It's a useful concept that undergirds a lot of anti-oppression theory. I'd like to make a more detailed entry once I gather my thoughts more.

When faced with the combined foes of nearly-expired milk, nearly-expired yogurt, and nearly-gone (i.e., very dry) nectarines, our intrepid heroine defeated them simultaneously with the brilliant maneuver of throwing them all in the blender for a delicious smoothie. (If you freeze the yogurt beforehand, it makes it deliciously thick.) When life hands you lemons, and all that. Though I suppose the implementation of that particular aphorism is intended to be more metaphorical than that.

Anyway.

I've survived the first week of classes, even though it was technically a half-week, and even shorter because I have nothing on Fridays (three-day weekends, w00t). They look good - I'm taking all small seminar/special topics-type courses, so I look forward to the discussion.

( class ramblings )

( academia & privilege )

And now to see if I can get off my lazy butt and take care of some of this homework ...

I realize that, lately, I am an angry person.

I read the news, I get angry. I read my blogs - most of which are political in nature - and get angry. I see things in my daily life that make me angry - hateful misogyny, self-serving racism, ruthless economic exploitation, and on and on and on.

On the one hand, I think that's a good thing - "If you're not angry, you're not paying attention" is a truth I live by. While I'm not glad that I'm angry, I'm glad that I have some sort of response to the oppression and mistreatment that goes on every single day in this world. I'm glad I notice at least some of all this, and that I have a visceral response that this world isn't right. If I can still feel outrage - and thus, a desire to change things - then I know I'm still human, and not totally numb or complacent.

( The world pisses me off )

x-posted to Shrub.com

I ran across this gem in another blog:

sometimes i think there are way too many people who mostly understand "racist" as something like:

1) Racism is bad.
2) I am not a bad person.
3) Therefore, I'm not racist.
4) Lather, rinse, repeat.

Perfectly stated.

I wonder, sometimes, what it is that makes people think that being a generally good person is a magical shield against being racist (and/or sexist, homophobic, or otherwise *ist). I mean, I know a bunch of people, myself included, who would think of themselves as good people - yet admit that they have major flaws such as a short temper or the inability to keep deadlines. Doing so doesn't trigger some debilitating cognitive dissonance as we try to wonder, How can I still be a worthwhile person if I needed an extension on my term paper!?

And yet. Pointing out a *ist behavior to a person is like sticking a pig with a needle. A narcissistic, defensive pig, who thinks that self-proclamations of being a "good person" are enough. Regardless of the arguments or evidence presented to them, the metaphorical pigs are determined to persist in their self-image as a good - and non-prejudiced!!1! - person. (Yeah, a man insisting he can determine what is or isn't sexist? A straight person attempting to define homophobia? Is the ridiculousness of this somehow not apparent?)

And, okay, *isms are more serious flaws in character than, say, being late on an assignment. It's natural that the thought of being *ist would be more troubling. But not to the point of denial, and the implication that the member of the oppressed group is somehow wrong in identifying your behavior. On the contrary, being on the bottom of an oppressive system means that someone is more likely to have greater and more intimate knowledge of the oppression. Privilege begets blindness.

Privilege is also pervasive. It's much, much harder to recognize and extinguish it than to accept and ignore it.

I am a part of the interlocking systems of oppression. I dedicate myself to feminism, anti-racism, and everything else that fights oppression - but I still live and function in society, and society is steeped in *isms. Have I internalized sexism against myself and other women? Of course. Have I internalized racism against my race? Ho-boy yeah. Against other non-white races? You betcha. And am I full to the brim of privilege due to being a straight person, a wealthy person, an educated person, a U.S. citizen? Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

And yet. Do I still think I'm a good person? Yes.

But that means it's my duty to educate myself about the privileges and oppressions I experience, so I can really earn that label.

Warning the First: This post will be rambly and possibly long, because I don't really know what I'm going to say. I don't really know what I think.

Warning the Second: I will be talking about sex. Not in a personal-TMI way, but in a blunt-language-TMI way.

( In which recent events force me to think about sex )

Over at Alas, Ampersand has made a post defending the Male Privilege Checklist against various criticisms, most notably the one of "pettiness" (i.e., "this isn't worth your time, and if you really cared about sexism you would pay attention to _____"). The post is great, and thoroughly trounces this would-be dismissal.

On a related topic, Tekanji rebuts the "pettiness" criticism about analyzing sexism in popular culture. As analyzing popular culture is one of my favorite nerdy hobbies, I'm glad to see this articulate defense.

( What it all means )

Note: I'll keep sharing noteworthy links I find, but I've also added a list of all the non-LJ blogs that I follow to my info page. Check it out for good reading material.

Tekanji has a thought-provoking post on a fetish website that's been getting some attention on the blogosphere lately, called Superheroine's Demise. I highly recommend giving it a read, but, in a nutshell: the website is about portraying poweful superheroines being beaten and defeated for the sake of (male) sexual gratification, and that's Not Okay for various reasons.

Tekanji makes the point that, far from being an extreme fetish we can/should ignore, it fits in quite easily with mainstream culture:

"If you accept my premise that the fantasy of dominating powerful women is a pervasive one for men in Western culture, then it would obviously follow that (male) comic fans would have this fantasy, too. Not to mention those who write and draw these heroines. In essence, the fetish of humiliating strong women is perpetuated by the comics themselves, in turn influencing comic book readers to see it as erotic, which feeds the idea that this is what comic fans want... lather, rinse, repeat until you have these themes becoming codified into mainstream thought."

( And now, my turn )

A belated entry for Blog Against Sexism Day:

There's a double movement we have to make when dealing with sexism. On the one hand, we have to raise awareness of the fact that sexism is a nasty, widespread, and powerful phenomenon - otherwise what's the point of dedicating so much of our energy to combating it? Yet on the other hand, making sexism out to be something so huge and monstrous can prevent us from actually recognizing it when it occurs - after all, most of the things we see and people we talk to aren't monstrous, so how is that sexism?

To put forth a specific example: recently I was accepted to volunteer as a peer educator with CORE (Committee Organizing Rape Education) on campus. In my training manual are articles on rape culture, and the first one deals with date rape and the ways in which dating rituals set the stage for rape. As the article explains, a lot of men who commit date rape don't even realize that it's rape - and neither do many of the women who are or know date rape victims. Despite the fact that the woman says "no" or even struggles, it doesn't seem to register. "Rape" is a violent crime committed by disgusting men who have no regard for women ... So, these men think, how could what I did be rape?

This is one of the unintended consequences of educating people on the horrific nature of rape. Rape becomes something "other," something too evil and terrible for me to commit, or to happen to me. That's why people feel skeptical when a rape victim doesn't have evidence of violence on her body, or wasn't jumped on by a stranger in the night, or when the accused rapist isn't a ravening ogre. Rape is supposed to be a nasty, violent act that gets retold in gory details on the evening news. Rape committed through coercion or incapacitation, or by someone the victim knows, or by a "nice guy" ... None of these fit with the specter of rape that we're accustomed to.

The risk in fixing the problem, of course - in showing that even normal men can rape - is that rape then becomes "normal." If date rape, as the article I read asserts, is fed by "normal" aspects of typical male-female dating practices, then the protest inevitably follows that it's not rape at all. It's "normal." Everybody does it.

The same principle applies to sexism in general. We try so hard to show how hurtful and damaging sexism is that we end up making it into something "other" in the same way we do with rape. The result is something like: "I'm/he's not sexist, I'm/he's such a nice guy!" Accusations of sexism come as absolute moral condemnations of a person's character - of course people want to avoid having that label on themselves or the people they care about.

And yet, if we show that yes, everyone can say or do sexist things, or have sexist ideas, then people want to explain it away as something normal or even natural. (You know, like gender roles ... even though most people disagree with part or all of the characteristics ascribed to the biological sex assigned to them at birth.) People can dismiss complaints: "It's just a joke," or "Everyone says things like that." Or they can shift the blame: "I'm not the one who came up with that idea, I'm just saying what someone else said." And, of course, they can turn the tables by accusing you of having the problem: "You're the one making such a big deal about it."

In practice, what feminists end up doing is a little bit of both. We demystify sexism and drive it home by showing how typical practices in relationships, family, work, and sex exhibit sexist ideas and assumptions. We say that yes, you are sexist, too. Even if you're a "nice guy," or if you're no different that any of your peer group.

But we also show that it doesn't end there: everyday words and actions maintain the uneven balance of power between the sexes, which in turn feeds the system of patriarchy that causes so much damage to women (and also men) physically, emotionally, economically, politically. If people want to know where the monster of sexism ran off to, there it is: the conglomeration of all the daily and accepted misogyny that we pretend to overlook or try not to care about. The horrifying and shocking expressions of sexism that we see in news stories - domestic abuse of women, the stifling of female voices in government, shameless sexual harassment in the workplace - don't spring up fully-formed in the minds of "those" crazy sexist men. They are created by us and fed by us, a little bit every day.

Thoughts are coalescing in my head, and I figure it's better to spit them all out now than let them nag at me when I'm trying to do homework ...

Back when I first started following feminist, I remember thinking that I wished it was more debate-friendly, or that I could find a community for debating aspects of feminism. (anti_feminism was, unfortunately, the only thing I found, and I've peeked in on it from time to time to see if it would disprove my view of it as a crock of bullshit. It hasn't.) Sure, there's disagreement on feminist, but often sharply dissenting views will spark hostile reactions, so debate gets stifled. I wanted a place where the atmosphere was more conducive to "civilized debate," like abortiondebate, which I've been following for years. Besides some ground rules about no personal attacks and the like, everything is pretty much free game. Vehemently pro-choice and vehemently pro-life people engage in open conversation with (theoretically) a basic level of respect.

I've seen recently how this whole "we can debate and just be nice to each other" view is a bit naive. I mean, feminism and abortion are two issues which can stir up a huge amount of passion -- and, resultantly, massive flamewars. Maybe you can't have "civilized debate." But if you do try to put up some rules and have polite conversation, well ... is it really worth it?

( In which I argue about how to argue )

Oh, and for feminist debate, there's now discussfeminism -- it's relatively new, but it looks promising.

Abortion: Trouble in Numbers? by Jennifer Baumgardner:

"For many women, though, getting pregnant when you don't want to be is because you made a mistake. Often the mistake is not your own fault -- Alix was not told by her doctor that diaphragms could slip out of place, Marion got depressed on the high-dose pill and found it almost impossible to take. But if an abortion is meant to correct that mistake, is it anti-woman to presume a learning curve? I don't know."

( Cut for abortion talk )

How much should rights movement be concerned with what the dominant majority thinks? How much should we try to get along and be the same, and how much should we value difference?

I used to be a big proponent of 'equality,' and by 'equality' I meant that everyone should be treated the same. As I got older, I realized that it's a lot fairer (and more practical) to give everyone the same opportunities rather than trying to guarantee the same outcomes -- for example, merit-based advancement which begins with a level playing field, but may result in something of a hierarchy. (In other words, I am not for communism.) It's pointless to believe that we have the same strengths, desires, priorities, etc. -- and not only in economic or professional goals, but also larger life goals, personal values, and other areas. Advocating for an equal 'starting level' society in spite of, or because of, the possibility of these different outcomes is a viable aim. I also began to recognize the value, the vital importance, of difference in the movements themselves -- "difference" movements emphasize the unique perspectives of the minority groups, in contrast to classical liberal ideologies that focus on agreement between the majority and minority. This leads to the formation of women/black/gays/etc.-only groups to supplement more integrated groups of women's/black's/gays'/etc. rights activists. (Some people want these groups to *replace* the mixed groups, but, um, yeah. Not my thing.) The idea is that the unique experiences and voices of the specific minority group need to be preserved and applied to the fight against its oppression. Minority groups shouldn't have to try to fit in with the majority, just work with it.

I didn't like the idea at first -- hey, I want everyone to get along and have the same chance to contribute, and not be singled out for their color/gender/what have you -- but I recognize the fact that one can never completely understand another person's experience of prejudice. I will never know exactly how a gay person feels to be the target of homophobia because he or she is gay (even though I can be called a homophobic name, I won't understand what it feels like to be targeted because of my actual, rather than perceived, identity). A man will never know exactly how I feel under misogynist pressure. Anti-Chinese racism is different from anti-Latino racism, and so on. Also, a culture or sub-culture simply has different customs and values, which need to be recognized. However much I or another person will want to contribute to a movement for a group of which I am not a part, we will have to accept that there are some things we can't do, some understanding we don't have, and we will have to defer to the members of the group in question. This is particularly true in the cases of groups that traditionally don't have a voice in public discourse -- women fifty years ago, gays thirty years ago, aboriginal groups now. (Yes, it will be because of their race or gender or sexual orientation, but this is not a prejudiced, essentialist viewpoint -- the idea is to recognize the contributions an individual can make based on the actual experiences he or she has as a member of a group, rather than an assumption of what his or her identity is just because he or she fits a certain label.)

Anyway, with that long-winded introduction, here's what I actually wanted to talk about in the first place. :P

( Cut for length )

My opinion remains unsettled. Give me input, please.

I went digging through the journal of the guy whose post I linked to, and found a lot of thought-provoking material, including this meme:

"Now, for an activity for those of you who may be bored, I have devised a quasi-meme for all of you. It's quite simple and I call it 'Counter-Intelligence in the Battle of the Sexes'. The idea is this: All of you ladies out there, who greatly outnumber the men on my list, can ask me a question about men in general or myself in specific in the comments and I will answer. The only question is it has to be about guy-type behaviour. If you've ever wondered why a guy will pick his nose, obsess about body parts or generally behave like a guy but been scared to ask, now is the time. However, the catch is two-fold. First, you have to ask in the comments. Second, I get to ask you a follow-up question about girls that you have to answer. All may be fair in love and war, but I rather want to have more feedback and interaction than the simple bellowing of opinions. Guys, if you want to ask me something about chicks, I'll -try- to answer but I make no guarentees about the accuracy of my response. For that matter, I make no guarentees about the accuracy of my responses for guys! But I'll take a stab anyway."

Check here for the actual post and the responses it's gotten. Interesting stuff.

I also found this post on feminist about an article that introduces a recently completed psychological study that finds women connect sex and submission. I'd really like to get my hands on the paper once it comes out.

Now, I understand quite well that psychological studies aren't always reliable, and that their results can be skewed to draw causal relationships from mere correlations. I also understand that generalizations about gender are pretty useless, too. But we're all subjected to similar social pressures, and I think that produces a lot of interesting trends in gender groups. I'm also an armchair psychologist and like to figure out why people may act in the ways they do. :P I actually wish I could do a meme along the lines of arkhamrefugee's, but most of my friendslist is female, and it really wouldn't be fair to make ratzeo answer all the questions. XD;;

But, hey! I like unfounded speculation as much as the next person, so here are two questions for people to ponder and/or answer, as they see fit:

Why do most men not talk about their significant others with each other? I've heard guys talk about them with mild annoyance ("I can't do this because of the girlfriend ...") or casual praise ("Yeah, my girlfriend is hot"), but as far as I'm aware, a group of guys will not have involved discussions about SOs. Same goes for sex: casual discussions only. Girls, on the other hand, can talk for hours about this stuff.

Why do girls need so much reassurance from their SOs? (Actually, this is not a question I want to ask "why" about. It's a questions that makes me want to ask "WHY WHY WHY" and bang my head on my desk several times in succession.) I mean, I guess it's like any new relationship -- when you make a new friend there's always a period of "Does s/he actually like me? How much?" etc. But what is it about romantic relationships that makes us leak self-confidence like a sieve?

Male or female, what do you think?

So I lied, and am posting in here after all. This is from a post I made in an online discussion group for my philosophy course. I got a rather disappointing lack of comments, and we only briefly touched on the topic during the follow-up discussion in class, so I'm hoping I'll get some interesting and more substantial responses from this.

I wrote this in response to a question that asked, among other things, if racial preference in dating (either by avoiding members of a race or exclusively pursuing members of a certain race) should be automatically suspect (introductory paragraph only, as the rest of the post was forcibly shortened and poorly developed):

Saying that romantic relationships should be colorblind ought to have the same prescriptive force as saying that "love knows no gender," or any other similar slogan so often used in support of non-heterosexual relationships. What I mean by this is that even though we say that romantic relationships should be, in a sense, "gender-blind," we don’t mean that all people have to ignore gender when choosing their mates. Heterosexuals can still be interested in only members of the opposite gender, and homosexuals in members of the same gender; we just have to refrain from judging anyone else on the basis of the gender of his or her partner. Similarly, interracial relationships should be allowed, and participants should be free from judgment, but colorblindness in relationships does not mean that individuals cannot have preferences in the race of their chosen partners.

Thoughts?