All of us white people are fucking up lately. I thought I might as well publicize my latest addition to the pile for purposes of ridiculing.
Blackamazon wrote a post that I felt got off to a rather nasty start with what I saw as violent venom directed at Amanda for the burka dust-up, and I expressed genuine shock in the comments. However many times I read the post, I couldn’t get past the opening. I saw the nod by Blackamazon to Amanda’s apology later in her post as sarcastic, and didn’t take it at face value.
Of course, all of this was wrong. Yes, the opening is incendiary, but clearly not actually violent. And the nod to the apology was sincere. I had a personal reaction to something that wasn’t personal — or literal — at all. Moreover, what was said in the opener was tempered later in the post and I couldn’t see that.
I got hammered in the comments, naturally. I deserved much of it, though Bitch|Lab took the occasion to be exceptionally nasty. Eventually, it got through to me. Because I know some of the people mentioned personally, I was deeply distracted by the opening salvo, but that was my problem/mistake, not Blackamazon’s.
It never makes sense to take anything personally out here, especially something that isn’t directed at you. Sorry again, Blackamazon. I read your post all wrong.
Lindsay,
Marc’s handled himself creditably gracefully here, & I wonder whether you do him any service by pursuing this thing. You make two accusations. First, that BA et al wrongfully suggest that he asks whether (or objects or employs a rhetorical gambit that) BA made multiple literal serious death threats against Amanda.
You don’t linger over his actual words, but offer reasons why, whatever he said, he couldn’t have asked whether (or objected or remarked that) BA made actual death threats. You point out that normal internet practice suggests BA probably has no ‘intention of following through’, & even if she were subject to passing murderous impulses, she’s too far away for the threat to be real. You pointedly note that if Marc had taken her threat seriously, he’d have called the police. So the fact that she’s not presently in jail should persuade BA that Marc didn’t think she was an actual threat to Amanda’s life. You say, as both reassurance & reproach, that nobody thinks BA meant to kill Amanda. As no reasonable, intelligent person could imagine otherwise, BA is not only wrong but ‘incredibly uncharitable’ to suggest that Marc does. You scold her for treating him like an idiot.
If he didn’t say she seriously means to kill anyone, what did he say? This: “Are you saying you want to attack Amanda Marcotte with a knife? … I don’t think you can interpret the opening of this post any other way than saying you worry you would resort to physical violence in the face of meeting the people you linked …” He raises the question of whether she wants to kill her. That she feels a real impulse to do so.
I don’t think you can interpret his words any other way, but you at least try. You insist that Marc’s ‘objection’ (or ‘rhetorical gambit’, or ‘question’), rather than referring to what BA wanted to do, or had an impulse to do, was all about the quality of her figuration, her metaphors, whether her rhetoric was hostile. You mention no other possibility: either she really intended to kill someone or she was joking. The only question Marc could possibly have meant to ask, whatever his words say, was whether or not the joke was hostile, whether she was “kidding on the square.” In your reading, either (i) there was a literal serious death threat, or (ii) there was hostile figure, or (iii) a florid, disconcerting, but non-hostile joke. But couldn’t he have asked, didn’t he ask, not whether she was telling a hostile joke, but whether she wanted or felt an impulse to kill Amanda?
You say Marc reasonably thought the joke was hostile. Going by ‘conventional significance,’ all that unsettling, disconcerting, vehement, very strongly, vaguely worded, viscerally perturbing language really was hostile. So of course he was upset. You were as convinced as Marc, so it was a reasonable surmise. But now it emerges that in view of BA’s idiolect, ‘norms of discourse’, ‘authorial intent’, death threats don’t mean any harm, are just venting, so ordinary that they aren’t even hostile. When the folkways of BA’s blog were pointed out, Marc did the manful thing & withdraw the question/objection/gambit. So what more do these people want?
It’s as if you want it both ways: Marc didn’t accuse BA of anything serious, but it was vaguely serious, certainly enough to upset both Marc & you. And is there really no significant difference between wanting to kill someone, even without any serious intention & capacity to do it, & telling a joke that employs hostile figurative language?
There’s the second accusation. Having commended Marc for withdrawing his question/objection/gambit, you still object. It’s not just that you don’t like the joke, it’s that it’s ‘even less’ funny that one specific other joke, Amanda’s. So you come full circle. Tu quoque. Somebody you’d never heard of before, one of the many people nonplussed by burqagate, has told a joke that’s worse, & Amanda was the victim. You’re entitled to insist that one joke is worse than the other, but, what, does that comfort you? Has some kind of moral balance been restored? Is there nothing more important to say about the real concerns underlying this burqa business than that some women said something mean about Amanda?
This is a model of bad faith. You begin, reasonably enough, with one party criticizing another for something that could, among other more important things, be taken to be offensive. The second party eventually hits upon the counterclaim that the criticism of her offensiveness is itself offensive. Apologies are offered & further offense is taken at the way the apologies are received. Although originally there may have been a serious issue at stake, the whole process devolves ineluctably into a contest of allegedly viscerally aggrieved sensitivities, stylized & increasingly inauthentic apologies, & disputes over the fine points of etiquette & respect. Again, instead of serious reflection on the issues at hand, resort to tu quoque arguments. Fallacies. Success is defined by stalemate & the loss of any serious point.
Lindsay –
We all know Marc didn’t believe — at least I do. But what he did was appear to pretend he did so as to register offense.
If he didn’t really think she intended violence, then why ask?
It is a “polite” (ostensibly) way of registering a criticism: akin to the logical fallacy of poisoning the wells of discourse by dishonestly suggesting that she might be and he just had to ask. (it’s just not technically a fallacy b/c he didn’t advance an argument.)
Coupled with the insensitivity to the possibility of cultural, racial and class differences, to the insensitivity to stereotypes of ppl of color as inherently violent and stupid (enough that they write their intentions to do harm so they can get more jail time), and coupled with the fact that he didn’t read her post — it all adds up to disresepect.
The fact of the matter is, these conversations between ppl play out on a ground of inequality. If one wants to engage in antiracist practices, then that means working overtime to do so. If that’s not where someone is coming from then go with jeebus Firedoglake. We have little to discuss. Fortunately, it’s obvious that marc is interested in working with people and building coalitions — as are, I assume everyone else that runs this blog.
That said, I hope marc discerns in my poorly worded post above that, if I was harsh, it was becasue I reacted more strongly precisely b/c i *do* see him as someone engaged in this struggle. for that, I apologize for doing what I’ve often criticized myself: punitive criticism. My goals should have been its opposite “reintegrative criticism” (I’m ripping off John Braithewaite in another context entirely)
IOW, I should have acknowledged that I know marc wants to be an ally. I probably still would have hurled around the f word a lot, though. :p
>I think the line of reasoning goes something like: “I am not a racist, therefore what I say/do cannot be racist”
Right. and, as i was saying elsewhere: way too many white peoples’ (liberal and otherwise, yes, alas) understanding of “racism” seems to begin and end at:
1) “Racists” are Bad People. If in fact they are even “people” at all. They do not have blood in their veins like you and I, but a sticky black ichor…
2) I Am A Good Person
3) Therefore, I cannot be a racist.
3a) and i will defend myself to the death if anyone suggests otherwise
4) Lather, rinse, repeat.
with the corollary:
There is no distinction to be made between “do you know that what you just said there has racist connotations?” and “YOU ARE A RACIST!!! BAD LIBERAL!! NO BISCUIT!!!”
…and once tarred with the dread epithet “racist,” it can never, never, ever be undone.
Something like that, i don’t know.
and, too, as i’ve also said elsewhere: people in general really dislike hearing shit they didn’t already “know;” it tends to be kind of existentially upsetting, like.
Belledame
I noted at my blog, though maybe you didn’t see it, that I don’t think you are the way Ilyka described. I was just going along with the hypothetical to make a point.
Oh I know you don’t. Obviously. I don’t even think Ilyka does, although, as i’ve said, i found that wording…confusing. And, well…
yeah. Ilyka, i have some unsettled stuff wrt some shit that went down at your blog not long ago; you know whereof i speak; you initiated the emails; i emailed you a few times in the aftermath and you never responded. I haven’t said anything further, but in light of this, my first inclination, honestly, was to take it a bit more personally than i might have otherwise.
If you are interested in discussing this further, please email me. I like and respect you, and honestly have been kind of dismayed by, well, what went down before.
/derailment.
I’m late to this one (damn job always getting in the way). But since someone mentioned me way up there I thought I’d add my two cents.
1) I think Marc’s apology should be accepted. What’s pissing me off here is the continued assertion (at least as I read it), that it is BA’s fault that Marc felt the need to apologize. This blame game is tired. Seriously, let’s drop the red herrings and get to discussing the substance of these critiques. I’ve taken some heat here and there for feeling this way, but I believe that these apologies (Amanda, Auguste, now Marc) should be taken in good faith. For me it’s a first step towards having a deeper discussion. Doesn’t mean that I’m not going to disagree with you from time to time, nor does it mean that any of you shouldn’t disagree with me, but it is a step towards something less petty (I’m talking to you, TRex). So yeah Nanette, I don’t get why people are pissed about these apologies either.
2) Echoing what has already been said at BL’s. R Mildred is my sheroe of the moment too.
(oh and Marc, I kinda like Thin Black Dude. Makes the play on Bowie more clever. Wish I had of thought of that.)
A couple of highly relevant articles on racial trouble in feminism, by Sarita Srivastava, a sociologist at Queen’s University (Kingston, Ontario):
“‘You’re Calling Me a Racist’? Emotional Regulation of Antiracism & Feminism,” Signs, vol. 31, no. 1 (Autumn 2005): 29-62.
First paragraph: ‘Rage, tears, & confusion often follow even the most tentative discussions of racism & explorations of antiracism. Feminist scholars in particular have observed that antiracist challenges in feminist organizations & classrooms can elicit emotional responses from white feminists (Anzaldúa 1990; Friedman 1995; Fellows & Razack 1998). Ruth Frankenberg’s well-known research on whiteness, for example, stemmed from her own “despair” over white feminists’ “limited repertoire” of emotional responses to charges of racism (1993, 2). It becomes clear that while emotional aspects of solidarity have always been vital to building progressive communities of feminists & other activists, they are also the unsteady foundations on which antiracist change falters. However, there have been few sustained observations of how & why these emotional responses have been able to block, defuse, & distract from change in feminist, pedagogical, & social movement sites. I should emphasize that my aim is not to critique or dismiss the range of excellent antiracist work that has been undertaken by both white & nonwhite activists, & most notably by feminists, but rather to explore the subtle & not-so-subtle resistance to this work as well as the pitfalls of well-meaning efforts. While some might suggest that resistance to antiracism is a minor or temporary blot on the history of social movements rather than an ongoing phenomenon, we must acknowledge that there is ample evidence to the contrary (hooks 1983, Moraga & Anzaldúa 1983; Dua & Robertson 1999).’
“Tears, Fears & Careers: Anti-Racism & Emotion in Social Movement Organizations,” Canadian Journal of Sociology, vol. 31, no. 1 (Winter 2006): 55-90.
Abstract: ‘Debates about anti-racism in many organizations often collapse into emotional & turbulent scenes characterized by anger & tears. The central concerns of this paper are the practices & discourses of emotional expression that shape what can be said in these organizational debates about racism & anti-racism. A predominant mode of discussion in many social movement organizations, particularly those inspired by feminist & collectivist histories, is one that privileges the disclosure of personal experiences & emotion. I demonstrate that this wide-spread mode of discussion, which I refer to as the “let’s talk” approach, also produces a tightly controlled space for the expression & suppression of knowledge & feelings about racism. In particular, interviews with feminists active in anti-racist efforts shows that this “let’s talk” approach often deflects & personalizes attempts at organizational change. The implication of this research is that simply “adding” feelings to organizational efforts, as some sociologists of emotion, feminist scholars & activists have suggested, is an enterprise that must be carefully interpreted. This paper suggests we should be re-thinking not only the practices of emotion in organizations, but also the historical relations of power that prompt emotional resistance to discussions of race.’
R. Mildred, would you have been taken aback if Markos’ wife had read your “stabbing Markos” posts and commented, “Are you suggesting you wish to stab my husband?” Really?
I’m saying that nobody should have had to apologize to anyone. Marc’s comment was fair, BA’s comment was fair. Marc misread BA.
Her jokes about cutlasses and mudsucking were hostile, not sincerely threatening. BA agrees that she was really, really angry. Clearly she intended to convey just how angry she was at certain unnamed people in the feminist blogosphere. (Since I doubt she was angry at the guy from SlantTruth or R. Mildred, and since watertiger isn’t part of the feminist blogosphere, one has to wonder who she was talking about, if not Amanda, who the only other person linked to in the first four links.)
By hostile, I mean that they expressed real personal animus in graphic metaphorical terms. Any reasonable person who knows and cares about Amanda would have been within their rights to say, “WTF?” or acronyms to that effect.
BA, the principle of charity is a technical term. It means giving the benefit of the doubt, i.e, not assuming that someone making knifing jokes on the internet is really threatening anyone, or not assuming that anyone who overreacts to disconcerting rhetoric is ill-intentioned or impolite.
Clearly jokes about physical violence can be/seem extremely hostile even if no one intends or infers real violence. You know how racist or sexist jokes can be used to make someone feel really uncomfortable without the person making the joke intending to do anything specifically bad to the person their telling the joke to. That’s how rhetoric works.
Like I said, repeatedly in this thread. Nobody owes anyone an apology. BA is entitled to use whatever tone she wants on her blog, and Marc is entitled to be taken aback. How hard is that?
The apology’s already been -done.- Apparently both apologizer and apologee were okay with it; the thing to do now, istm, for the people standing by, is maybe, you know, leave them to it and let go? How hard is -that?- Seriously: why do you not wish to do this? What purpose is this serving?
“the guy from Slant Truth”
His name is Kevin. He (and his writing) is really worth getting to know, too. As is Black Amazon; as is Bint A; as is “with my nappy headed ass;” as is zuky; as is brownfemipower; as are any number of people that imo it sure would be swell if some people took the time to seek out -before- it came to “wait! fuck! i’ve been DISSED by this person! to the barricades, comrades!”
just putting it out there.
>The implication of this research is that simply “adding” feelings to organizational efforts, as some sociologists of emotion, feminist scholars & activists have suggested, is an enterprise that must be carefully interpreted.
…eh. I need to reread all that, i guess, but as you can probably guess: i don’t believe there’s such a thing as “adding” feelings. I think they’re already there; and need to be addressed, one way or another It -would- be helpful to be more able to better separate out “look, when you say such and so it has thus and so connotations, historically; refer to blahblahblah” from “you’re just saying that because YOU HATE ME, AREN’T YOU?!?!”
…but, y’know: at bottom i honestly don’t think this shit is about anything BUT feelings. or rather i think the material shit stems from the internal shit to a large degree, not always the other way around.
this is i think not a terrifically popular belief in leftie/political circles; what can i tell you.
i don’t think it rules out being able to talk about this stuff in a more macro way either.
Except there are posts form firedoglake,in there twice. ONce again you prove not to have read the post closely or well at alll. I was angry at watertiger, I specifically mentioned people iN COMMENTS of Amanda who were urging her not to apologize to BFP
What is hard to understand is the fact that while you keep insisting I Wasnt owed an apology you havent answered any of teh reasons why I felt offended or anybody else did or why Marc was moved to make one.
This is a case of MArc cant be wrong alone so I HAVE To be wrong and its fucking irritating.
I didn;t assume shit,. I was treated a certain way that Marc seems to understand i felt badly about that stemmed from as WHAT HE DID to as much what he said and he has had grace about it and decency.
You however don’t seem to wnat to extend me that credit. Rather than talk about why this happened or what actually reason I may have had you still want to be the only one spinning on the
” but but he doesn’t have to” He didn’t SAY anything wrong . As if disrespecting me is semantical and not at all worth an apology .
Her jokes … were hostile … By hostile, I mean they expressed real personal animus …’
Lindsay,
So did you earlier mean to say it was a mistake, when “Mark learned that [BA didn't mean anything by the joke, for him to] immediately apologiz[e], explaining that he’d misunderstood the knife joke as hostile”?
Did you earlier mean to reject the inference “that BA didn’t mean to be hostile, & … therefore she wasn’t hostile”?
Your comment adds new confusions to old ones.
Belledame,
I don’t know anything about these sociologists of emotion Srivastava’s referring to, but in the CJS paper she leaves the distinct impression that they’re fatuous on a heroic scale. They were utterly unable to comprehend the indurated inter-group hostility that Srivastava describes, & I doubt their plans for emotional practices would work any better here.
‘k. probably a completely different place than i’m coming from, i expect, then. hope so, anyway…
R. Mildred, would you have been taken aback if Markos’ wife had read your “stabbing Markos” posts and commented, “Are you suggesting you wish to stab my husband?” Really?
I would have laughed at the VD esque sockpuppetry actually, but I get what you’re saying, IF kos having a wife wasn’t a farcical concept, THEN his wife (or indeed husband, let’s not be heteronormative here) complaining to me about the illustration would prompt me to do exactly what BA is doing – point out that it was an illustration to place emphasis on my highly justifiable frustration with assholes like kos rather than an actual statement of intent or a death threat.
And like BA, I would also be EXTREMELY pissed off if a third party came along and then told me that my expressing such frustration in a violent illustration on my own blog was grounds for me apologising to kos for the illustration – which would be seen as nothing less than someone asking me to apologise for feeling frustrated at Kos’ assholery in the first place.
If we then completed this construction, and made me a POC and you and Kos white middle class people – which in kos’ case means downgrading him from being in the ranks of the upper middle class – and you came along and told me that I should be grateful that Kos’ wifesband didn’t call the police on me for the illustration – this in the face of POC still being routinely shot by police for the crime of being black in a built up area, and the long history of the police being used as a tool to downpress uppity POC, with a most notable example being the way armed police forced black refugees from Katrina back into the flood waters lest they go into one of the parasitic white enclaves that surrounds New Orleans – I think that that would be the point at which effigies would have to be made and burnt to express my true anger at the whole affair.
So when all is said and done, I reckon amanda and marc and you should thank BA for not burning you all in effigy really, or, at the very least, people should stop stirring things up for no concievable reason so that all the extant apologies can be accepted and we can move the fuck on.
Because she’s shown remarkable restraint if you ask me.
and goddamit, that’s why i keep coming back here. thank you, that was beautiful.
R mildred I love you and please dont speak so soon burnination may still come
KH wrote:
As I noted in my last post to Lindsay, these conversations play out on the ground of inequality. When people in positions of privilege mock and joke around with symbols and people from repressed cultures, it’s simply a whole different ballgame. It’s exercising privilege by engaging in a studied ignorance of what such joking might do to harm other people or how those jokes might inadvertently add to the oppression a group is already experiencing. It is, in short, an act of power backed by a system that has already bequeathed whites enormous power and advantage by comparison.
To turn around and play the ad hominem tu quoque card in that context, isn’t simply engaging in a dishonest discourse that’s been recognized as such for 2500 years, it’s using that same dishonest discourse to pretend that BA’s speaking from an equivalent position of privilege and power to the one Amanda or any other white blogger occupies.
The imagery circulated at Amanda’s circulated in a discourse that is global and pervasive particularly throughout Imperialist nations — a discourse which does do harm because it is an instrument that is used to further harm people who are already oppressed *as a group*.
The imagery used in BA’s post does not participate in a wider system of institutionalized oppression against white bloggers *as a group* perpetrated by people of color bloggers who have some kind of power *as a group*. This just doesn’t describe reality.
Comparing the two events as if they were the same ignores the very structural systems of oppressions were are supposed to be struggling against.
——————————
Which was a long winded way of saying what RMildred said three posts up.
Belledame –
If I’m not mistaken, the research is referring to the historical fact that it is white women who have introduced the the “let’s talk” mantra to anti-racist feminist groups. The argument is that it is a power maneuver that often ignores the very different ways women of color and working class women deal with feelings. It has been argued that the mode of white middle and upper middle class life is to speak in code, rather than bluntly. Indeed, the blunt speaking ways of people in less powerful positions is mocked and ridiculed as a sign of their ignorance.
White feminists then demand that we introduce examinations of how we feel about what we’re doing into the mix. POC and working class ppl scratch their heads and say, “Honey, if it ain’t clear by now, you’re not listening.” And they’re probably not.
As Amber pointed out in another context, “what is it with people and their constant deisre to find a hidden meaning in what I’m saying, as if I’m not aware of something else underlying it?” (paraphrased)
The practical implications of what goes on is that feelings are made a common currency: we all have them. the hurt feelings of the white upper middle class woman are as legitimate as the hurt feelings of the black upper middle class woman as the poor Chicana, etc. Snap: the ground of inequality within which these feelings emerge is erased. (Which is amusing since this is what Marx said about commodity fetishism)
Thus, white women get to reassert dominance by imaginging that, because they engage in the dominat cultures modes of expressing emotion and know the rules of therapeutic discourse (have indeed mastered it) — having been virtually brought up in it — they end up getting to claim their eelings have been equally and perhaps even more hurt that women of color.
White privilege is reinscribed by pretending that feelings are not at all shaped by systems of power, and that therapeutic discourse did not emanate from and operate as a tool of enforcing middle and upper middle class whiteness throughout US culture.
Of course, neither I nor the authors have a problem with emotions and people understanding them better. What they have a problem with is a *discourse* around emotions and therapy which reinscribes white privilege by marking those who do not conform to its demands — generally a non-conformity that emanates from structured systems of oppression and not their wee unique snowflake selves — are othered as deviants who, once again, fail as people because they fail to uphold middle class values.
It’s thewhite anti racist’s form of the culture of poverty thesis. Been there, done that. No thanks.
I see. Yeah, we’ve touched on that before.
Well, as I’ve said, I…come from a slightly different place, I think. Maybe. In part.
Because–well, in theory, I think that for both cultural and -maybe- class on at least one side of the family reasons, there was -theoretically- “no problem” expressing one’s feelings directly. Well, on one side. (Dad’s side’s probably more reminiscent of upper-mid whitish ways of relating, or rather not; not W.A.S.P.-y exactly, but…anyway)
but so, y’know, thing of it is, is, as I’ve said: sometimes i feel like i was raised by the entire fucking cast of “Portnoy’s Complaint;”
and lord knows these folks are not exactly -reticent- about -expressing-;
but at the same time, it doesn’t mean they’re -conscious- about WHY they’re feeling the way they’re feeling. Ime, imho, etc. You know what I’m saying?
tangentially, musing, you know: Freud, too, was coming from not just a particular era and class (and gender and yadda), but a particular cultural inheritance.
admittedly it is a long way from psychoanalysis to “let’s talk, heart to heart, touchie-feelie-yadda;”
and yet…
mm. I have to think about that one some more.
…anyway, I hear what you’re saying, but I think I might actually frame it a tad differently:
the problem isn’t that the white women want to talk about feelings, or use yadda a frame;
it’s more what they AREN’T addressing.
sort of roughly parallel to: yes, we are all women, here; yes, we probably -do- have -certain- commonalities we could talk about; but that doesn’t mean there aren’t ALSO things we do NOT have in common.
wrt feelingspeak: that touches upon the larger complaint a lot of people have about mainstream psych in general: to wit, it doesn’t take into account shit like, “well, yes, that is an interesting point about the relationship between me and my older sister, I never did think of -that- quite that way; HOWEVER, it STILL doesn’t address my PRIMARY POINT here, which is that i am FREAKING OUT because of economic stresses.”
…at which point one can either dither off into “self-esteem” talk (annoying New Agey whatever) and/or blithely chirp along as though one’s own framework for dealing with such things (well, why not borrow money from the bank/ask your parents/sell the second car/scrimp on restaurant outings) is universal.
…at which point we’re back into very familiar territory indeed.
and i won’t argue that you will find this sort of thing happening in a number of “therapeutic” settings;
but, well, dammit, I’m protective of the field (psych) and what it’s done for me; perhaps that’s why i feel the need to defend here; but still i wonder whether that is not in fact because of the -approach- so much as the fact that the people leading the workshop/giving the therapy/initiating the “talk” or whatnot are, well, privileged, and blind to it in all the usual ways.
…I used class rather than race, of course, but one could do it that way too: no, in fact, the experience of shame and rage and humiliation at being followed around in department stores and not being able to hail a cab cannot -only- be traced back to my own personal/familial shit; this is something specific to my demographic, and you aren’t tweaking this because you aren’t in it and you haven’t educated yourself.
but that doesn’t mean that they can’t or shouldn’t, see; and in fact there have been movements within psych to specifically address such shortcomings.
the way the health industry is set up contributes too, of course; mental health care is a luxury that fewer and fewer can afford these days; and people who are more likely to be on the more impersonal, less careful end of any such treatment (i.e. people who have to rely on not-great insurance plans, i.e. people who aren’t generally too economically privileged and is far more likely to include people who are marginalized in other ways as well) are naturally gonna have a different experience of the whole thing than are people who’re able to pick and choose at more leisure.
this is getting tangential to what you’re talking about, i think, as the mental health care industry =! self-help speak; and yet of course the self-help field sprang up in part, i expect, because traditional psych has simply been made unavailable to most people. Typical American can-do: I’ll do it myself!
and of course, it ends up being mass marketed to mainstream mores (like the alliteration there?), including -by-your-bootstraps capitalism; so of course a fair lot of people who aren’t really the main target audience there either are likely to be turned off by the whole “no, really! you have the power of the universe in your little finger! now: let’s talk about this one incident that happened to you when you were only five, which will unlock everything and voila! problem solved! thank you for sharing! i feel so VALIDATED.
i’m just sayin’: well, yeah. I get frustrated when i think that this is peoples’ understanding of the whole general field, this, this pop-mainstreaming thing; sort of in the same way it’s frustrating when people decide that sex-positive is not for them because it’s all a bunch of privileged white straight women taking lap dancing classes to please their huz-bins.
know what i mean, jellybean?
…”won’t argue that you will NOT find this sort of thing happening ina number of ‘therapeutic’ settings,” i meant to say.
but just to veer back into personal example, okay:
my mother is possessed of the belief that she is “direct” and straightforward. Unlike -her- mother, who is yer classic “don’t worry about me, I’ll just sit here in the dark, alone, *sigh*.”
And my granny, you know, was raised by a woman who emigrated here from Hungary at the age of ten, worked in relatives’ candy store till she married my great-granddad; none of them had formal education. granny no more than high school; great-granny, all DIY since the age of ten.
and granny (who’s still alive as of this writing) is, love her, but not the most -sophisticated- person in the world.
Not intellectually/culturally, which, BL, tangentially related to your post from Maria Lugones, was it? i have observed though never remarked on a certain tension there; Mom, the PhD Harvard grad, is embarrassed, i think, among other things, although she’d never admit it;
anyway, point being: not emotionally, either.
That is: there’s no question that she’s more…expressive of , say, her anger and so on;
but somehow it hasn’t led to more straightforward communication. Like, at all.
And mom, bless her heart, for all her book larnin’ and genuine smarts and kindness too, yes, also has a bunch of big ol’ blind spots.
Which, as i see it, have fuckall to do with anything except the reluctance to take the inward dive; to really engage with self -or- others (including, sigh, me)
So ultimately as i see it, while the ability to sit around and really look at -any- of this shit can be seen as a luxury (i know how much that pisses you off when people imply that the -academic- analysis is a luxury, BL);
…uh. brain fart. but anyway: these are actually separate if related things we’re talking about here, imo.
And i guess my own thing has been learning, my own way, that no: intellectual smarts aren’t everything either. Nor is simply -emoting.- Much as I, too, prefer the stylistic approach of FUCK YOU, MOTHERFUCKER! hahaha okay let’s get a beer to, I don’t know, “Ordinary People;”
but.
It’s something else I’m talking about, here, really. There’s more to it.
/tangent, sorry guys.
Again, Marc expresses himself more gracefully & straightforwardly than some of his defenders. No need for casuistic lectures on the distinction between hostile figuration & merely alarming rhetoric, no need for uncharitable attributions of uncharitableness, least of all any justification for turning all this onto a stalking horse for some maximum defense of burqagate.
Enough.
What she said.
welcome back pm! hope the famdam-erly is fine.
BL:
I wholly agree with you. What I did was take these paragraphs of Sula’s:
–and substitute “sex-negative” for “violent.” I did not do this to equate the two things; they are emphatically not equal. I did this to illustrate why I believe that attributing motives to others that they do not themselves endorse often makes them defensive. Belledame did get defensive, and rightly so–because that’s not actually how she is or what she thinks.
Marc attributed a motive to Blackamazon that wasn’t hers; she got angry, a perfectly natural reaction. I sure as hell can’t blame her for being sick and tired of being expected to explain the significance of her choice of symbols, where she was coming from in that post, yada yada, when she already wrote the post once and people who were familiar with her style, her audience, knew what she meant the first time.
Marc didn’t get it right the first time (or, judging by the comment thread at Blackamazon’s, even the second time). I don’t get from this post or anything he’s said since, though, that the problem is that he thinks all people of color are naturally violent or that “‘they’ always behave that way.” I could be wrong. I’ve had to rethink quite a few things in the course of trying to follow all this.
To be clear, I was not picking on belledame, of whom I am very fond. Just noting the futility of putting someone on the defensive and then complaining that they’re being defensive and not listening, not getting it, etc.
[...] Punkass, none. [...]
I like your content on your site, but it looks as though your RSS feed is offline? Maybe it has something to do with your host. I just thought from site owner to site owner I would warn you of this problem so you don’t miss out on potential subscribers! If it still works for you have a friend try it, could be keeping out external connections.