First, I want to thank all of you for really being involved in this class! I know that people sometimes feel uncomfortable (which I encourage!) speaking about gender and although I think you all could have been pushed a little more (but were very conscious about being politically correct), I'm really glad we moved into a place where we could have some real dialogue!
To start this blog entry, I want to pick up with where we left off in class on Thursday: the idea of a cisgendered (a gender identity where an individual experience of their own gender matches the sex they were assigned at birth) male's role in feminism. I think we started this conversation because I made the comment that men cannot be feminists. Men, instead, can be feminist allies. To clarify this point, we have to understand feminism as a movement that is not about prioritizing the feelings of cismen as above or equal to our own. Feminism is a movement that has been built on the suffering of women and other people who experience gender-based oppression, and therefore cismen cannot be feminists. So on this point, I want those of you in class who had a hard time understanding why men are not, and should not be referred to as, feminists to explain why you think it is important (or "essential") for men to be feminists?
Also, there were several things that we weren't able to get to in this class that I want to briefly discuss here! When we went through the characteristics we placed in our "Man Box" and our "Woman Box," there was a trend that I hope you all noticed-- this underlying notion that men are aggressive and woman are vulnerable Some of the traits put up were also traits that were more biological than environmental, which I thought interesting (and very important to note). In the reading, we come across this notion as well, for example, when speaking about conception as “involving an aggressive active male cell (the sperm) seeking out and penetrating a passive, immobile female cell (the egg)” (Helliwell, p. 804). If we have this idea of some traits being inherent depending on your biological makeup, how does this translate into the perpetuation of our rape culture? More simply, if we see men as "naturally" aggressive, and women as "naturally" passive, how do we view sexual violence and whom do we hold accountable for sexually violent acts?
I apologize for not being able to get to the advertisements that you all brought to class, but I'll link you to the TEDTalk that inspired that activity (here). Caroline Heldman makes a lot of good points that I think everyone should be aware of (e.g. self-objectification).
Housekeeping:
Here is the comic that I mentioned in class that, I think, explains beautifully about this mythical concept of the Friendzone and The Nice Guy™
I want you all to be honest in your answers because that is the only way that we can all learn and grow, but I leave you with this quote:
"My mistrust is not, as one might expect, primarily a result of the violent acts done on my body, nor the vicious humiliations done to my dignity. It is, instead, born of the multitude of mundane betrayals that mark my every relationship with a man—the casual rape joke, the use of a female slur, the careless demonization of the feminine in everyday conversation, the accusations of overreaction, the eyerolling and exasperated sighs in response to polite requests to please not use misogynist epithets in my presence or to please use non-gendered language (“humankind”).
....
There are the occasions that men—intellectual men, clever men, engaged men—insist on playing devil’s advocate, desirous of a debate on some aspect of feminist theory or reproductive rights or some other subject generally filed under the heading: Women’s Issues. These intellectual, clever, engaged men want to endlessly probe my argument for weaknesses, want to wrestle over details, want to argue just for fun—and they wonder, these intellectual, clever, engaged men, why my voice keeps raising and why my face is flushed and why, after an hour of fighting my corner, hot tears burn the corners of my eyes. Why do you have to take this stuff so personally? ask the intellectual, clever, and engaged men, who have never considered that the content of the abstract exercise that’s so much fun for them is the stuff of my life."
- Shakesville
Much Love!
16 comments:
I think the topic started off politically correct but then heated up towards the end, resulting in a fantastic class! Hope you enjoy my response:
In class, you mentioned that men can only hold a subordinate position in the feminist movement, at best. Moreover, you mentioned that their opinions are not only insignificant but unnecessary to the progress of feminism. I argue that there is an inherent flaw in the logic of this position which endangers not only the movement's credibility, but also its survivability.
It is not that the positions of men are "essential" to the movement, but that the explicit rejection of outside opinions is toxic to its legitimacy. Oppressed groups that actively dismiss other perspectives, especially from the oppressor, run the risk of being labeled "radical." The repercussions of such a tittle are extremely negative and can impede a group's progress. Moreover, you did not specify what the "end goal" of the movement might be, but if it were to create gender equality, then how can such a goal be reached without a meeting of mind on both ends? When has an oppressed group ever succeeded in gaining equality without arbitration with the oppressor? You can't change the hearts and minds of the oppressor when you actively exclude them, creating an environment of hostility which further perpetuates the problem.
In regards to sexual violence, i think who we hold accountable varies widely depending on who is asked. Personally, I think rape is not caused by seductive behavior, short skirts, or hints, but caused by rapists. Plain and simple. They should be held accountable and punished under the full extent of the law.
I really enjoyed this week’s class Apollonia, and am excited to continue the discussion here on the blog!
I would like to just give my two cents on the interesting debate we had during class (and has continued on the blog) on the feminist movement. First, I just want to say I find the explosion of emotion that occurred when men were excluded form this movement very interesting.
The point I would like to note, that I think many people were disregarding during class, is that Apple specifically said that men could assist in the feminist movement as feminist allies. The thing that resonated with me during our class discussion was that there was a rising belief by the men that being an ally isn’t good enough, that it almost diminishes our input. I would like to argue that feminist are completely justified in limiting men to the title of feminist ally instead of feminist.
First, why should men feel that their opinions on the patriarchal oppression of women are just as valid as a woman’s? Men have never experienced this kind of oppression. How much can a man really say about the specific oppression that women experience? I would now like to invite the men in the class that were so outspoken about being equals in this movement to please explain what it is us men can really say about patriarchy that can be oh so vital to the feminist movement? I am serious, if you can think of anything, please share, because I really cannot think of anything that I myself can say on this issue that a woman cannot say better. The most I can imagine men doing is the following: 1) they can justify certain actions that women view as oppressive to try to make women “feel better,” but in reality they are only diminishing the problem, or 2) they can agree with feminist views and support the movement.
Since men are so limited in the type of contributions they can make, I do not see any problem in making them allies, but not true feminist. It’s really, in all honesty, just a title. I think the intense desire of men to have that title, which was displayed in our class, truly speaks to the sense of entitlement that we men have and Apollonia argued was a reason why men hate to be “friend-zoned.” Men naturally feel entitled to at the least be equal to women because we have historically been above them. Although many people will say that feminist can never achieve equality if they exclude or diminish men in their movement, I do not believe this is true. I believe men are given a completely valid and justified place in the movement, which just happens to be contrary to their completely invalid and unjustified status in society. Feminist can absolutely achieve their goals while calling men feminist allies and not feminist, because this is truly all we can ever be. The only thing standing in the way of feminist achieving their goals is us, the men of the world who are to prideful to accept our role as allies and support the women who are fighting for THEIR cause, not OURS.
Well first I would like to thank Apple for facilitating what may have been the most fun/heated discussion we've had in class so far!
So to start things off, I would like to give the definition of Feminism that I was given from a book by a close friend who also considers herself a feminist. The definition from the book is as follow: “A feminist is a person who favors political, economic, and social equality of women AND men, and therefore favors the legal and social changes that will be necessary to achieve that equality” (from Half the Human Experience: The Psychology of Women by Janet Shibley Hyde). By this definition, I considered myself a feminist in the same sense that I considered myself a civil rights activist for equality. Still, I understand that like civil rights activists, not all feminist agree on what feminism is as a movement and who can be involved. For this reason I am fine with being called a feminist ally in a movement towards equality for all (including gender, race and sexual orientation). I am sure me and Apple’s definition of Feminism is different and from that stand point I can understand why she would have an opposing view on who can be included in the conversations on feminism as a movement.
Still, as a MOVEMENT, I feel that excluding and generalizing any group (in the same ways the oppressed group has been stigmatized) will not be productive in MOVING anyone towards equality. I am all for making people uncomfortable to make them understand the importance of a message (i.e. the Black Panthers bringing shot guns to their rallies), but at the same time, you shouldn’t point the gun at people who acknowledge the issues of the oppressed and actually want to help. In no way do I think that my perspective as a man is essential, but I do believe that if equality is the goal for a movement, that opposing perspectives in any academic/productive conversation is important in reaching said goal.
For this reason I would like to close with this quote from a Black Panther leader on his views on having non-black members as a part of their movement: “We've got to face the fact that some people say you fight fire best with fire, but we say you put fire out best with water. We say you don't fight racism with racism. We're gonna fight racism with solidarity.” – Fred Hampton
We need the fire and the water (see Spencer, above). Oppressors need carrots and sticks to change; mere reasoning has never caused systems, and the people in them, to forfeit power.
I am always riveted by the anger that comes to the fore when the usual order of things is threatened. Like Michael, I was impressed-not necessarily in a good way-by how put off some men in the class felt when asked to be allies. Would like to see same students rise to Michael's challenge, so beautifully articulated. Moreover, I am certain that many women in class had the same thought but remained quiet. When it comes to gender, we tend to be complicit in our own oppression. As de Beavoir pointed out, it is the only relationship of oppression where one is generally choosing to "sleep with the enemy".
Unfortunately, rapists are not the only people responsible for rape, as was mentioned above. We live in a culture that supports the sexual objectification of women in both subtle and blatant ways and that rewards men for aggression, especially towards women. Women participate in that caricature of sexuality, too. Medicine, law, religion, and media contribute heavily to the idea that men own women's bodies, even though on the books we are no longer considered property.
The Helliwell article tells us about how perception and belief contribute to behavior. Where the penis is seen as less powerful, it's ability to hurt is diminished. The Gerai of course are not formally educated, live in a crop-centric economy that shapes identity to a great extent, and seems to have little input from the outside world so it may not seem achievable here. But there are first world countries where rape and domestic violence rates are dramatically lower than here. They tend to be countries where gender equality is heavily written into all aspects of the law. In their own way, countries like Sweden have demythologized the phallus. They look awfully advanced compared to us.
Appolonia: thank you for bringing such an important topic to our class discussions, which I thought was vibrant and engaged just about everyone!
You raise several questions (in class and in your blog entry) that for me stimulated a set of additional questions, which I put forward here:
In what ways, if any, does asserting that “the feminist movement” is an exclusive space (however the criteria is determined as to who is “included” and who “excluded”) reproduce the same binaries that have been contested at least since the second-wave feminist era?
Is there a singular “feminist movement”? Can we talk about “the feminist movement” without knowing the history of feminist movements in the US?
How does Kimberle Crenshaw’s idea of “intersectionality” fit with the themes raised in our class discussion?
Finally, a short commentary on the reading: I do wish we had had more time to discuss it. The Gerai were not an entirely “isolated” community since Malaysia experienced invasion and colonialism over several hundred years. Given the Gerai are situated in the highlands, relatively far from the central cities and ports, we can talk about them as “relatively” isolated. From my standpoint, there was much the author left out in her description and analysis, in part because her narrow focus on gender led her to decontexualize and dehistoricize what we she observed on the ground. I think gender—just as with all the other categories of social construction—needs to be situated in a larger context, more complex set of social dynamics, and a history.
Apple, I would like to start off by saying I truly enjoyed your class! It was very refreshing to see how enthusiastic you were to teach about a topic you feel so passionate about!
During many points in class, I felt torn because I did not know whether to side with those arguing for inclusion of men in the "feminist movement" (not only feminist allies) and those against. It was interesting to see how quickly the conversation changed when the statement was made that men should NOT be viewed as equals in the movement. No longer were we talking about the real issue at hand, which was women's issues. Furthermore, Prof.'s Steins story explaining the change of name (and curriculum) from the Women's Studies department to Gender's Studies beautifully demonstrated the "problem" with including males in discussions about women. However, I can also relate to the opposing argument that though men are NOT essential to the movement, they are a necessary component. But then I question, what is the difference between a feminist ally and a feminist? Are the beliefs and continued struggle towards achieving the main goal (which remains somewhat unclear)different because of two labels? Why does it matter that males cannot too be LABELED as feminists? In other words, is it a mere argument over a title?
-Ana P.
When Apple was making her point about feminism being a movement about women by women, I was transported back about 26 years to when I went down to march on Washington for reproductive rights. I was an ardent feminist, fresh from training to protect access to Planned Parenthood clinics from the new organization "Operation Rescue" which attempted to block access to such places. It was dizzying to be on the mall with all my girlfriends surrounded by women, young and old, gay and straight, black and white, fired up about justice. I saw such fire in Apple's eyes and it was marvelous.
But (you knew there would be a but, right?) on my notes I also wrote "intersectionality" (mentioned here by Professor Waterston). I do agree, still, that some of the power of political movement comes from an essential connection to a cause (because you are a woman, a person of color, gay, a particular religion). We cannot ignore that; it just is. Perhaps it is just splitting hairs to talk about "feminists" v. "feminist allies" as Ana suggests, but we have to account for the power of the essential connection. But I also learned -- sometimes uncomfortably at my mostly white upper-middle class college -- that being a woman was not a primary category for a whole bunch of women. Class, religion, nationality and race were often equally or more important to women than the fact of their biological sex. Indeed, my presumption that the fact of our sex united me with women who saw themselves as living light years from my lived experience was seen as just that: presumptuous. I learned a lot from that experience about both the power of identity and the multiplicity of peoples' experiences of their own identity.
Thank you all for your comments thus far! I'm going to try to address them each here.
Anthony, I think this is where we had a misunderstanding. First, I have an issue with your line of reasoning being that if men are not included in the feminist movement, we then lose our credibility and are then unable to survive as a movement. This is an absurd notion, because a movement for women, by women, can survive without men. Men are not necessary to the movement, because the movement is not about men. Secondly, on that note, I am not saying that men cannot be in the movement, but I have a huge issue with the idea that they are entitled to be in the movement. Of course, with any issue, we need to address the oppressed and the oppressors, but to say that the oppressed cannot move forward without the oppressors is the entire reason why there is a movement in the first place. There isn't any active exclusion of men in the feminist movement, except that they cannot be labeled "Feminists". I am pushing this because it is important for us to understand that you cannot invade a space that is not yours. Men cannot be feminists because men have not experienced the oppression that women have faced at the hands of men.
Michael, I think you said this beautifully. This stirs up a frustration in me though, and I'm going to try to explain it here. You completely got what I was trying to say, and hopefully in reading this, our peers can understand what I was trying to put across. But this also adds to my frustration only because it is mind boggling when ideas/words/etc that are said by the privileged are more receptive than when said by the oppressed. I'm not sure if this is coming across clearly. Think Macklemore and his song "Same Love," which was speaking for marriage equality for the LGBTQ* community. He is not the first rapper to sing about this issue, but why has it made a bigger impact than artists like Le1f(who is a gay rapper) who have sang about the same issues?
Spencer, in regards to your first paragraph, I'll just refer you to what I said in response to Anthony. It isn't about excluding men, but it is about making sure that, as women, we have our own space. I'll leave you (and everyone!) with this quote: “Men who want to be feminists (allies) do not need to be given a space in feminism. They need to take the space they have in society & make it feminist.”
—Kelley Temple, National Union of Students UK Women’s Officer (Parentheses mine).
Prof. Stein, in regards to your observation about the difference in participation during class, it reminded me of a study that found that “Men and women differ in their language patterns; for example, research suggests that men interrupt women more than women do men (a finding that surprises most men but not most women).” — Analyzing English Grammar, Klammer, Schulz, & Della Volpe, p. 21. In patriarchy, we've been conditioned to not challenge men-- otherwise, we're a "bossy, controlling bitch". This has also been shown in "The End of Men and the Rise of Women" by Hanna Rosin (I will also note that this book, while it has a few good points, also has major flaws in its framing!). The point about the penis' power was one of the things I wanted to discuss in class, but unfortunately didn't get to! While dated, it immediately reminded me of something Gloria Steinem said in her essay "If Men Could Menstruate" (http://www.haverford.edu/psych/ddavis/p109g/steinem.menstruate.html -
"Reading Freud made me just as skeptical about penis envy. The power of giving birth makes "womb envy" more logical, and an organ as external and unprotected as the penis makes men very vulnerable indeed." That even in academia, we are being taught the importance of penises. Everyone: read it if you haven't!) :)
Prof. Waterston, intersectionality is an important topic when speaking about feminism. Admittedly, feminism is flawed in that aspect, where there has been little to address race, class and religion differences amongst women. There has been a separation from feminism by women of color into "womanism" (sometimes spelled womynism), which focuses on the intersection of feminism and the experiences of WoC. Audre Lorde and bell hooks are examples of what would be considered a Womanist. I also think it is incredibly important to understand how the Gerai community was presented to us through the lens of a Westernized White woman, but it does not diminish the views of the Gerai in the importance (or lack thereof) of the penis and vagina.
Ana, I'm really happy that you were able to notice the change in discourse once the involvement of men was questioned! The distinction of "Feminist" and "Feminist Ally" is important because words and labels hold meaning in our world. It is important that we label men as allies and not feminists because it ensures that our space as women is not being invaded by men. I understand how this might sound "radical" (to use Anthony's word; I can also go into a 30 minute discussion about that word, but I digress) but as you saw in our small class of rather intelligent people, the space immediately becomes focused on men, their involvement, and essentially, their feelings. Men already have their space in society that is *purely* theirs, whereas we're here arguing over a space of our own.
Prof. Reitz, this is exactly what the issue is with feminism right now, and while there is starting to be a change in how we address intersectionality, because personally, as a White-passing woman, I am privileged in already having society cater to White people in the ways that PoC are not. Therefore, my gender is the essential part of my identity in regards to my place in society. Upon introducing race, class, religion, and nationality, it varies amongst women because of what our society values in terms of these different facets.
*** If anyone is interested in this idea of feminism v womanism and the intersectionality of race/class/religion and gender, there is an amazing blogger that addresses these issues beautifully. http://www.gradientlair.com/
Much Love!
Apollonia, thank you for the very stimulating class discussion last week.
Prior to your class, I had not had an in-depth engagement with these feminist ideas, so your class was a genuine point of exposure for me: thank you, again.
Concerning the issues at hand, I share Spencer and Anthony’s sentiment that the explicit exclusion of men in a movement with the goal of attaining equality among all peoples is counter-intuitive. Apple’s arguments in defense of the movement seem to suggest that the movement is perfect as it is. However, as we know, most movements that strive for some form of social change typically have some flaws—this is not necessarily a bad thing. More so, as Helliweli suggests, there are some problematic elements in the feminist movement, especially in the West. With this, I would like to ask Apple the following: In your understanding as a feminist, what are the strengths and weaknesses of the feminist movement? Going by the references Spencer provided, I believe that the movement’s strengths lie in its noble ends. On the other hand, its weaknesses lie in its divisive tendencies that can harm the attainment of the said goal.
I know that I have joined the blog really late, but I would greatly appreciate a response as I hope to further understand this enigma that is feminism.
I’ll end with this thought: We should be weary of titles.
Thank you and see you all on Thursday.
GREAT Class Apple. I enjoyed it immensely.
In class Professor Stein explained what happened with the renaming of a class from women studies to gender studies. That's typically what happens when the patriarchy steps in. It no longer focuses on the issue at hand but becomes an issue about the feelings and needs of the patriarchy who have been in control since the beginning of time. The patriarchy controls the finance so they will try to have their hand in everything. Having men be considered as vital to the feminist movement is like having your in-laws or even your parents come to your home and take control of the rearing of your children. How would you feel if that happens? I would like to suggest that you would be highly annoyed. I would be. It's not that you don't appreciate their efforts and input but this is your home, your space, your family. You should be able to be in full control of that space with occasional advice and assistance from your parents, in-laws and other "well-wishers" and you should have the option of choosing to accept their opinions and not have their opinions be forced on you. We are always and forever intertwined in one way or another, whether we know it or not. No person is an island (to coin and rephrase an old saying) but there are limits to the interference of others.
I have so many thoughts on the friend zone issue. I don't even know where to start. I think both issues and so many others are deeply rooted in the male feeling of entitlement, as one of my classmates said previously. I can fully appreciate the last paragraph of Shakesville's quote posted by Apple and it doesn't just apply to feminism. From my experiences, people and it's generally males who try to "gas light" others, probably because it's fun for them, or they don't understand or it's part of exerting (whether gently or forcefully) their male dominance.
We have to be careful that we do not interpret the feminist movement as a movement that says women don't need or want men. Like I said before, we all need each other, it doesn't matter the gender, race, sexuality etc. As one of my fellow Verons said (I'm sorry I can't remember who said it at this moment), it's about finding our space. When I say our, I mean female or woman. I don't know if I consider myself a feminist. I never really thought about it. But I do advocate for equality.
Have a great day. See you all on Thursday.
Apple, as everyone else has said, great job!
I really enjoyed the class and enjoyed watching how "radical" (haha) you are.
First, I want to address some of the concerns that Anthony and Spencer have with the feminist movement excluding men. Even though it is a legitimate argument that we cannot win the fight without getting men on our side, I don't think this necessarily has to be so voluntary. After all, "Freedom isn't given by the oppressor, its demanded by the oppressed."
I also really enjoyed the reading and seeing the way gender is so drastically different in other parts of the world. However, I do agree with Professor Waterston's sentiments that some of the historical context behind the situation in Geria was left out. I would also have liked to learn more about the idea that the idea of heterosexuality came with colonialism. That's an interesting concept which could really reveal a lot about gender norms.
Apple, I'd like to address the following question that you have posed. "If we have this idea of some traits being inherent depending on your biological makeup, how does this translate into the perpetuation of our rape culture?" Helliwell demonstrates the significance of our emphasis on gender difference, through the example of Geria, where such difference is less important in behavior. This is reflected on the existence of rape in such a culture, because there are no set behaviors automatically attributed to a man or a woman based on their genitals. Rather, gender comes secondary to how you choose to behave. Therefore, there is no "inherent" vulnerability of the vagina, and no inherent aggressiveness of the penis and man. Instead, they are seen as two parts that work together, whereas none is dominant over the other. Reinforcing the belief that the penis is "naturally" aggressive and "penetrating" creates almost an excuse for the practice of rape.
James, thank you for your comment! I'm not quite sure where the idea that I am promoting the explicit exclusion of male involvement in the movement has come from. Maybe it is in the idea that men are not the focal point of the movement that is making everyone on edge, but this is not what I am saying. I am purely saying that while men can be allies, they cannot and ARE NOT the focal point of the movement. To say that the movement will not go anywhere without the involvement of men is 1. explicitly showing your male privilege, and 2. the prime example of why we need a movement that is entirely made up of women and only women because we need a space in which we are represented by our own.
To answer your question about the strengths and weaknesses of the movement, I'd direct you to what I had said to Prof. Waterston and Reitz about our faults in addressing intersectionality. This is an issue that I think most people in the movement have come to realize and have come to understand it is something that needs to be changed. This is happening within the Womanism movement (where ideas of feminism are also met with the need to address race/class/religion/etc). Our strengths, I think, are in making people uncomfortable enough to realize the larger issue at hand.
Simonne, that child rearing analogy is spot-on. Like you said, the feminist movement isn't to actively exclude men- it is to keep a space that is our own wherein men can act as support. As allies.
Titles are important because this is how we, in our society, are able to identify oneself. Being a feminist is a part of my identity, just as being a Latin@ woman is. To say that we shouldn't have labels, is to say we shouldn't have identity. To relate this to racial issues (which for some reason, I think people have a better understanding of inequalities when we phrase it using race) it is the same as someone saying, "Why do we have to see color? Why can't we all just be Humans!?" Which is the ridiculous argument of "Colorblindness". Being a feminist affects me differently than it affects men who say they are "feminists". There is no stigma attached to a "Feminist" Man, but when a woman says she is a Feminist, images of burning bras and hairy armpits make people afraid. These images were not demonized by women-- they were demonized by men. All in all, labels are important and labels matter.
To chime in briefly, I would say I do understand Apple's point of view more clearly now. I agree that men should not be the focul point of a movement made for women by women. Even though I don't think that was James' point necessarily, I do understand where the confusion came in.
But more importantly, I want to respond to Apple's reference to Michael's point which mentioned MUSIC (my expertise). I agree that it is sad that a message of the oppressed can only be heard in the position of the oppressor ( in the case Macklemore)....But at the end of the day, as long as the awareness is brought to the forefront by someone (especially the oppresor), isn't that a step in the right direction? I mean the fact that Michael's statements were discredited by Apple at all (whom agreed 100%) kind of confuses me for that reason.
Leena, thank you for your comment! Great insight!
Spencer, it isn't that I went against his opinion. Not at all! I just mentioned the fact that it is frustrating to me when people are more receptive to the voice of the "majority" and not of the oppressed. As people were more receptive to gay marriage and equality after Macklemore released a single, even though the gay community has been vocal (through music; Le1f, as an example) about this issue for a long time. It wasn't a stab at Michael, although maybe it seemed like it because I was addressing him. It was more of me venting about this frustration- I apologize if it seemed as if I was discrediting you, Michael.
I came across this from a really good friend of mine that posted on his Facebook, and I thought this was relevant to our conversation!:
“Periodically we’re subjected to yet another round of debate about whether we ‘really’ need labels, usually with members of dominant social classes insisting that such a thing isn’t necessary, and arguing that we need to ‘move beyond labels (man),’ ‘like, they’re totally blocking up our ability to build a true and just world.’ The same kind of attitude lies at the root of the so-called ‘colourblind’ approach to life, where people pretend as though acting like race isn't a fact of life and doesn't matter will magically erase centuries of complex intergenerational racism.
Here’s the thing about labels: without them, we run the risk of being effectively eaten by the default, quietly subsumed into the masses. Think of immune cells, cruising around the body, pausing to completely digest foreign proteins, the cell quietly closing in around its victim, and then, poof, gone. We are the foreign proteins, you see, the things that stand out in the body politic. We are the Other. We are the thing that must be named because we are unusual, and because if we have no name, we disappear.”
— We Need Labels, Because the Alternative is Disappearing
Post a Comment