Saturday, January 05, 2008

An Open Letter to Sweating Through Fog

Dear Sweating Through Fog:

I began to leave this as a comment, but it grew too long and I realized that it was not really about you to begin with. It is about a trope I would like to see die, one which no amount of defining, describing, and debunking seems to be able to kill.

I do not kid myself that this will be effective in killing it either. I offer it here only in the hope that it might at least maim it a little.

*

You wrote:

Here is what is happening. In the view of ideological leftists, the sin of privilege - particularly that of a white, heterosexual American male - can never be washed away. It is a permanent defect of your soul. It means - to ideologues - that you have no moral worth. Despite what they say, no amount of “unpacking”, no amount of insight, no amount of loyal "ally work" can regain your humanity. In their eyes, your privilege means that that - now and forever - you have nothing of value to say. Your experiences are of no consequence. Your views are always empty. While you might be trotted out on occasion as part of a show-trial illustration of remorse, once that is done you need to shut up and move to the background. Once you are privileged, you are free only to agree.

This is a common misconception, I think--and I think you ought to recall here, as I do, that you admit right up front that this isn't a topic with which you are very familiar, nor even one you care to educate yourself about:

I don't really care about feminism, and I could care less what Jessica Valenti or the various WOC bloggers that are involved in this controversy think. What interests me is Hugo's attempt to add his voice to the mix, by trying to convince both sides that there is room for both in his big-tent view of feminism. And I care very much what Hugo thinks, because he is clearly a decent man, and a deep thinker.

See, that's privilege in action: The feelings of white feminist women?--Not important, not worthy of consideration. The feelings of women of color?--Not important, not worthy of consideration. The feelings of a fellow Christian white male?--So important, it's worth it to you to disregard entirely those with whom he engages. Except, of course, to misinterpret what they're trying to say in what has to be one of the most misguided "fiskings" I've seen recently on these internets. To return to your post:

In the view of ideological leftists, the sin of privilege - particularly that of a white, heterosexual American male - can never be washed away.

As a Christian feminist myself, I do understand the urge to draw parallels between original sin and privilege. They are not dissimilar at first glance, but a better metaphor here would be something more like fish in the sea, or maybe even those dumb old Palmolive dish soap commercials: White privilege is what white people are soaking in. It doesn't make sense to talk about "washing it away" anymore than it makes sense for schools of saltwater fish to "wash away" the sea.

You can't go back and erase the subjugation of indigenous peoples by whites, you can't go back and erase slavery, you can't go back and undo genocide--and neither can I, and neither can Hugo. We exist in an environment that has historically favored white people, and we can't change that history. (The present and the future, now, are another matter.)

Is this so far-fetched, so loony a concept? I don't think that it is. I think it's just acknowledging the reality of existing circumstance.

It means - to ideologues - that you have no moral worth. Despite what they say, no amount of “unpacking”, no amount of insight, no amount of loyal "ally work" can regain your humanity.

This, this right here, is what I mean when I say "a common misconception"--because this is patently untrue, and yet I hear it all the time. The most recent example I can think of occurred at Brownfemipower's, where a commenter basically asked, what do you want white people to do? Kill themselves? And with regards to the book discussion that doesn't interest you, but on which you nevertheless feel perfectly entitled to comment, that same sentiment has been expressed as, what do you want white feminists to do? Refuse book deals? Stop speaking at all?

This sets up a demonstrably false dichotomy: White people must either obliterate themselves, or content themselves with eternal, subhuman, racist asshole status. Oh, the humanity (that white people are losing, boo-hoo)!

I say this is demonstrably false because the very conversation you reference, this conversation at Hugo's that was so dehumanizing to Hugo, includes arguments made by white people; you cite them frequently throughout your own post. You quote a comment left by Tom of the blog Automatic Preference; Tom is a white man. Your next blockquote is from a comment by Theriomorph; Theriomorph is a white woman. You then cite a comment by R. Mildred; by now you should not be surprised to learn that R. Mildred is a white woman. And if any one of those three white people you quoted has ever felt dehumanized by people of color, I have not heard of it.

But it does happen that the white people you quoted stand in solidarity with women of color, and this brings us to your next point, which, again, I see made by so many, so often, that I beg you not to take this personally:

Once you are privileged, you are free only to agree.

I am free to argue with a neurosurgeon about the best way to repair a cerebral aneurysm. I am free to argue with a homeless person about the best way to stay safe on the streets. I am free to argue with an astronaut about the best way to prepare for outer space travel.

I am free to argue all these topics, but it should come as no surprise when other people, every bit as free as I am, think me a jackass for doing so. I'm not a neurosurgeon, I am not homeless, and I am no astronaut. I don't actually have a shred of authority to invoke in any of these discussions.

And as a white woman, I don't have a shred of authority to invoke in any discussions of racism as it is experienced by people of color, either. If a woman of color says to me, "What you are doing right now is silencing me, what you say here is patronizing, I experience it as dismissive," I am free to argue with her, all right; but Theriomorph or Tom or R. Mildred are also free to say, "Hey, Ilyka, stop that. You're being a racist douchebag. You can do better than this."

Now if I have any sense at all, I'll listen to Tom and R. Mildred and Theriomorph when they say that--but what would be even better than that would be if I resolved to listen to the woman of color who raised that concern with me in the first place. That woman is giving me the invaluable gift of the benefit of the doubt; I owe her, not the other way around! The bare-bones minimum I can do is listen to her with humility, listen to her in love.

Yes, what would be best would be if I did not need to hear criticism of myself solely from other white people in order to understand. What would be even better would be if I saw in people of color the same humanity you so passionately defend provided it belongs to Hugo, and not to those nasty leftist ideologues about whom you have bothered to learn absolutely NOTHING.

(And, Hugo, what would be even better from you would be if you would learn to discern when the devil's whispering in your ear, and stop thanking him for doing that.)

Unsurprisingly, Sweating Through Fog, your erroneous conclusion follows naturally from your erroneous premise:

So as a privileged person, Hugo has no basis from which to persuade feminists about anything.

The problem is not that Hugo is a privileged person. The problem is not who or what Hugo IS. The problem lies (pardon the Catholicism a moment) in what Hugo has done, and in what he has failed to do. The problem is that Hugo is not listening. I will note wearily here that this is a longstanding problem, Hugo-wise; and again, one shared by pretty much every white person on the planet; and finally, one that is seldom relieved by enablers whispering, "It's hopeless, you'll never please them, you can't win, just kill yourself, Whitey."

What if, instead of white feminists closing themselves off from discourse they deem unproductive ("unproductive" appears here to be synonymous with "uncomfortable"), they eagerly assumed the roles of pupils instead of demanding always the roles of teachers?

What if white feminists tried listening?

But I forget myself! You don't care about any of that. You only care about Hugo's humanity. You know what, dude? I think Hugo's humanity is going to be just fine, if by "just fine" we mean "expansive and all-consuming to the point no one else can have any." So do not fret. Be of good cheer!

Sincerely,

Ilyka

60 comments:

Theriomorph said...

I don't really care about feminism, and I could care less what Jessica Valenti or the various WOC bloggers that are involved in this controversy think….And I care very much what Hugo thinks, because he is clearly a decent man, and a deep thinker.

Okay, that gave me the best laugh I’ve had all day: it is so self-evidently the problem, in a nutshell, and so absurdly lacking in the most basic self-examination to boot that it crosses the line into the ridiculous.

But then this turned it:

Hugo Schwyzer said...

You know, STF, I really really needed to read this. Thank you.


No. That is not what Hugo needs. Hugo himself said what he needs:

The chance is high that I have a blind spot around race and class …. I’ll do some reflecting on that this week.

ilyka, font of generosity with time and patience explaining fundamentals here.

I wish Sweating Through Fog and Hugo would consider what you’ve said.

ilyka said...

No. That is not what Hugo needs. Hugo himself said what he needs:

The chance is high that I have a blind spot around race and class …. I’ll do some reflecting on that this week.


Yup! And I'll be over here remaining skeptical that any of this is actually happening.

I'm seeing a phenomenon here I was already fed to the teeth with--I'm seeing the real reason Hugo keeps those MRAs around. It is NOT in the hopes of reaching them or persuading them; it is done in the hopes that when women protest too much, Hugo can get some backup. The MRAs are there to sing him soothing lullabies about how hopeless ally work is.

I am reminded of the conservative woman I saw in a thread at Pgon who reiterated her dislike of @m@nd@, but went on to say that this time, people of color had gone too far! So far that this poor conservative woman was forced, simply FORCED I tell you, to defend @m@nd@.

You know what I call that? A FUCKING ENORMOUS RED FLAG that maybe you're not on the side of angels, after all. This STF post, the same.

No. Definitely not what is needed.

Sweating Through fog said...

"But I forget myself! You don't care about any of that."

You have it exactly right.

God said...

You have it exactly right.

[revokes humanity]

Chris said...

Sartre called it mauvaise foi, Nietzsche called it "ressentiment" Sweating through fog calls it "In the view of ideological leftists, the sin of privilege - particularly that of a white, heterosexual American male - can never be washed away. It is a permanent defect of your soul. It means - to ideologues - that you have no moral worth."

Whatever it's called, it's blaming someone else for your own weaknesses. In this case ethical and intellectual weaknesses.

Chris said...

Also, slamming people as "ideologues" and going on to say that he feels solidarity with Hugo because they share a belief system? Hilarious.

ilyka said...

Sartre called it mauvaise foi, Nietzsche called it "ressentiment" Sweating through fog calls it "In the view of ideological leftists, the sin of privilege - particularly that of a white, heterosexual American male - can never be washed away. It is a permanent defect of your soul. It means - to ideologues - that you have no moral worth."

I looked and looked and looked for a LOLtheorists tag for this, but nothing came up.

But this did remind me of all the "market" nonsense I read today and, just to spell it out for the man, that is not a compliment, Hugo.

Chris said...

This is the closest I could find.

ilyka said...

I'm afraid I kant condone such silliness.

Chris said...

Arendt you being a little hasty there? I mean, that's kind of Stirner than usual for you.

ilyka said...

Damnit, why do I even start these games with you when I can never keep up? The whole process only Confucius me.

Mark S. said...

This is a Locke for the geekiest comment thread ever!

Chris said...

I have no idea what Boethius are talking about.

ilyka said...

it is so self-evidently the problem, in a nutshell, and so absurdly lacking in the most basic self-examination to boot that it crosses the line into the ridiculous.

Theriomorph, you know what? I just realized that post is FULL of "self-evidently the problem" moments. I doubt there is a paragraph without them. This, for example:

WOC bloggers feel that Jessica's call for submission trivializes their experiences. And marginalizes. And silences . . . blah, blah, blah.

"Blah blah blah, you know the general idea, you don't have to pay any attention to this nonsense, it's all unworthy of consideration, plus you've probably already tuned it out a million times before besides--"

OH HAI, that is like textbook silencing, ya doofus. You're telling the reader to just ignore this shit.

And yet right now I like him just a bit better than Hugo, 'cause hey, at least he's honest about not giving a shit.

Chris said...

I like root canal work a bit better than Hugo right now.

Donna said...

Ilyka, I don't know if you read the post I wrote where I put words in Jessica's mouth? I was tempted to do it again, what Hugo should have said to Sweating Through Fog, but I'm glad to see you already have done a great job of explaining everything here!

ilyka said...

I was tempted to do it again, what Hugo should have said to Sweating Through Fog

[begs and pleads and whines and begs and pleads some more]

I LOVED alternate-universe Jessica. Oh pleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease grace us all with alternate-universe Hugo!

Chris said...

Let's make it a contest! Here's mine.

STF, I recognize that you are trying to lend me moral support, and I thank you. But what you say here is not only contrary to all we know about constructive dialogue, it's also orthogonal to Christianity as it should be practiced. And you say it in such an inflammatory way. What's next, David Duke offering me words of solace? Thanks, but no thanks. Just because some of my putative allies in this argument have sunk to using "what about teh white people" arguments, even if "ironically," does not mean that I am willing to descend to that level. So thanks, but PLEASE STOP HELPING ME.

Oh, and I'd like to apologize to the entire rest of the world for being a simpering little passive-aggressive twit. Been meaning to do that. Keep forgetting.

Dictated not read, etc.

Tom said...

Great points, and interesting link to the openly racist and sexist guy (Am I wrong? POC concerns, women's concerns: blah blah blah; WM concerns, explicitly labeled as such: OMG UR CRITIZG MI BOY!)

When I saw Schwyzer thanking the dude for his post I actually felt better. They're just on the other side. I was having trouble really admitting that.

OHHHHH! So THAT'S why we're getting so frustrated talking to each other!

Idiot? Ok, but I like to call it "charmingly naive".

Sylvia/M said...

Oh, and I'd like to apologize to the entire rest of the world for being a simpering little passive-aggressive twit. Been meaning to do that. Keep forgetting.

Dictated not read, etc.


Something about laughter causing pain, blah blah blah...

Emily said...

Ilkya, I've never commented here before, but I want to thank you for writing this. I've been reading your blog for a few weeks now and your posts always challenge me to think about my own status as an ally.

I'm pretty sure that you wrote this post knowing that it would be lost on Sweating Through Fog (as it indeed was) and on Hugo (he actually THANKED Sweating Through Fog for writing that post, WTF?), but it's definitely a help to me and, I'm sure, to many others.

Chris said...

to the openly racist and sexist guy (Am I wrong?

Well, I may get thwacked by our lovely hostess for arguing in this fashion, but...

Look at the guy's blogroll.

Sylvia/M said...

I keep writing things at Sweating Through Fog's from unhappy places in my head. Stop me, please.

You said everything well anyway. I just have cursing and poisoned cookies and juice right now.

ilyka said...

Stop me, please.

I was going to, but now you've got me doing it.

He's wingnuttier than I thought. "Oh-ho! The ol' privilege shell game!"

Dude, ya got me! I ENJOY WASTING TIME AND ENERGY. THAT IS MY FAVORITE FORM OF ENTERTAINMENT. I DON'T HAVE A DVD PLAYER OR CATS WHO NEED PETTING OR ANYTHING BETTER TO DO WITH MY TIME AT ALL.

You take scraps where you find them, don't you?

Marry me!

ilyka said...

Hahaha, I was just venting this to Mark and he goes, "Three-card privilege! Who's in?"

Gah. Some game!

ilyka said...

And now he won't stop: "Honey? Do you want to play Civ tonight or would you rather play Privilege?" Someone remind me of this the next time I get mad at him.

the bewilderness said...

What is the story with the "I don't care" people, who will then demonstrate how much they do care by writing a post and commenting on other blogs that they don't care. Criminy, the disconnect between the actions and the assertion is amazing.
I don't get out much, so I don't run in to these folks very often any more, but I am familiar with the routine.

"I Don't Care": Big problem here!
Responder: Offers solution.
IDC: No, can't do that, I dont care!, but problem, problem.
Responder: Another option to solve problem.
IDC: I shouldn't have to do that, I don't care, but problem problem problem.
Responder: Blunders off, shaking head.

ilyka said...

What is the story with the "I don't care" people, who will then demonstrate how much they do care by writing a post and commenting on other blogs that they don't care. Criminy, the disconnect between the actions and the assertion is amazing.

Classic wingnut-style argumentation: First, they're hoping no one notices the disconnect (and too often, no one does). Second, they're claiming don't-care status because if you don't care, you can be presumed to be impartial and objective. It's the old "I've got RATIONALITY on my side" bit, only minus the rationality.

David Horowitz is king of this. "I'm not racist and I don't care how many people say that I am!" Then he goes and writes Hating Whitey and wonders what the fucking problem is. Didn't he just get done telling everyone how much he didn't care?

ilyka said...

I'm pretty sure that you wrote this post knowing that it would be lost on Sweating Through Fog

Emily, thanks! I didn't honestly know--I mean, I didn't have high hopes, but until he snotted at me that of course he doesn't care I didn't realize he was nuttier than a Payday bar, either.

I join you in the "WTF?" about Hugo. I know WTF, though: Hugo wanted to hear about what a good person he was, and STF delivered.

Sylvia, who as usual is always right, was right about the scraps. And you know, that's just sad as hell.

Chris said...

Damn, ilyka. If I'd known you and Mark wanted Privilege for Christmas I wouldn't have sent you that fruitcake.

Theriomorph said...

I'm seeing a phenomenon here I was already fed to the teeth with--I'm seeing the real reason Hugo keeps those MRAs around. It is NOT in the hopes of reaching them or persuading them; it is done in the hopes that when women protest too much, Hugo can get some backup. The MRAs are there to sing him soothing lullabies about how hopeless ally work is.

I am reminded of the conservative woman I saw in a thread at Pgon who reiterated her dislike of @m@nd@, but went on to say that this time, people of color had gone too far! So far that this poor conservative woman was forced, simply FORCED I tell you, to defend @m@nd@.


Yup.

And yeah, you know, it did all come out in the open, didn't it.

Narcissistic sociopathology, wingnuttery, supremacy.

Once he said the word 'narcissist,' I made the decision not to engage with Hugo directly anymore. Been there done that, bled the cost. I finally 'got' who I was talking to, and why it wasn't computing.

But ooo, the temptation to start pointing and shouting 'look who the allies are, for fuck's sake' in that thread.

At least now I know why I had such a searing need for a searing shower.

ilyka said...

I wouldn't have sent you that fruitcake.

So I go into the kitchen to make myself a breakfast burrito (what? I like food) because I've had too much coffee this morning and I realize I'm sitting her serial-commenting on my own blog. That's never healthy! Worse, the whole time I'm in the kitchen, I'm puzzling this shell game stuff out--I'm thinking, "Okay, but no one really wants to play shell games. Hard to get the family together for a nice shell game. So should it be more like Badminton or Monopoly or what? Would it make a good third-person shooter?" You understand--I can't stop thinking about the best way to make the "privilege game" a REAL GAME, because I'm insane.

And I get back only to find that you've (1) totally solved this problem but also (2) killed me STONE DEAD.

ilyka said...

Once he said the word 'narcissist,' I made the decision not to engage with Hugo directly anymore. Been there done that, bled the cost. I finally 'got' who I was talking to, and why it wasn't computing.

It's taken me literally YEARS. I'm not too bright.

Theriomorph said...

It's taken me literally YEARS. I'm not too bright.

Me neither, apparently.

Depressingly, that is my most frequently hit post, and the search strings leading to it always grim stories in themselves.

I keep thinking I've got them kicked, can spot 'em at 20 paces and go the other way - then find I'm still engaging.

Thankfully, with Hugo, it was never a question of intimate relationship (runs for shower again).

/OT

Chris said...

*referee's whistle*

Hugo's being deceptively manipulative and slimy is no reflection on the intelligence of anyone here. Illegal self-criticism foul, ilyka and T'morph. Five-yard penalty.

Theriomorph said...

Okay, you know - there are people running all over the internet now using the terms 'purist' and 'popularizer' to describe themselves or others in re: feminism.

Nice going, Hugo. So glad people continue to listen to the white guy instead of the people whose lives are actually on the line, and whose whole lives' expertise is in, oh, you know, reality.

Had a shower.

I'd like a flamethrower now, please.

Donna said...

I have to disappoint on my take on the alternate universe Hugo, but Chris did such a nice job, I don't think I could beat that anyway.

I found out today that one of my uncles died yesterday. I wasn't really all that close to him, but he was my mother's brother and she was very close to him. It was one of my cousins who told me. I don't think my mom can talk on the phone yet because I've been calling and she isn't answering.

Chris said...

I'm so sorry, Donna.

Theriomorph said...

Poor Donna's mom. Thinking of you & the family.

ilyka said...

I'm sorry, Donna. I hope you're able to reach your mom.

ilyka said...

Okay, you know - there are people running all over the internet now using the terms 'purist' and 'popularizer' to describe themselves or others in re: feminism.

Gonna guess that you went back over to that thread same as I did and saw the comment from Judy?

It would be a decent conversation, I guess, were it not for the implied slight against the purists, the own-fork bringers, that always seems to come up in these discussions, and hell no that's not limited to environmentalists.

It would also be a decent conversation if it weren't, in this particular instance, a . . . hmm, what adjectives haven't we used yet? Oh, hell, let's just recycle 'em: Manipulative, dismissive, underhanded tactic to reframe a preexisting discussion WHICH WAS NOT ABOUT POPULARISM VERSUS PURISM, AT ALL.

So if someone--let's call that someone NotHugo--wants to have a chat about popularists and purists that is unrelated to your post or to anyone's damn book deals, I might be interested in it. And then again, I might be just a teensy bit cynical about how the whole thing was going to turn out, in light of recent events.

You know what's funny? Conservatives do the opposite of this. It's the purists, the extremists, who have the most pull. Of course they don't think so, because they don't get what they want instantly, immediately, or sometimes at all. But on the right, if you want to know what's coming down the pike, you keep an eye on the so-called purists, because what they want is where things are heading, no matter what any dim-bulb moderate dupes like, uh, this one woman I used to be--I mean know, this one woman I used to know!--think is going on.

But for some reason there are like all these lefties who think Republican Lite is the way to go and I don't know, I don't get it. You don't win tug-of-wars, culture wars, or political battles by yielding.

Sudy said...

Holy piss...I just found this thread and am trying to get through everything!

I kept bouncing between wincing and laughing out loud.

Awesome, you are awesome. THIS is awesome.

Magniloquence said...

But for some reason there are like all these lefties who think Republican Lite is the way to go and I don't know, I don't get it. You don't win tug-of-wars, culture wars, or political battles by yielding.

Yes, exactly. You win by overwhelming force or by changing the context, not just rolling over. I know which one I prefer: the transformative.

That's how you get your 'big tent' to really mean something - by synthesizing and transforming and integrating; by changing the context of the struggle. Not by trying to fit the square peg into the round hole, or insisting that only things (round) peglike need apply.

But, of course, real progress, real transformation, real change means real work. You can't just sit there and keep doing the same things over and over again, working within the same narrow paradigm... you have to really sit there and think about what kind of changes need to be made, and what kind of solutions will really benefit everyone involved. Maybe we shouldn't be talking about fitting things into holes at all - maybe we should be talking about piles, or log cabins, or rings. And if what we need is different enough, then we have to build it.

... but you have to care, and clearly, that's not going to happen.

Chris said...

Aw, now Alon's bucking up Hugo. Because Alon got chased out of blogging by other bloggers' "shrillness," so he feels Hugo's pain.

This is the first time I've seen "shrill" used to mean "not swayed by my adolescent armchair intellectualizing," but, you know. It's a big world. I learn stuff every day.

R. Majolnir said...

even if I wasn't a white woman, it'd still be kind of a crackery thing to do to hold me up as some sort of example of WOC et al.

R. Mildred said...

Also; Axis of "Nice Guys" or what?

Theriomorph said...

'Axis of Nice Guys(TM)'!

It's the purists, the extremists, who have the most pull.

Yeah. I keep coming back to the P'gon conflation of WOC with 'the Right' that is *still* getting thrown around, and start going ballistic, like:

*which part of J and A's allies are evangelical privilege whores do ya not understand?*

And hell, you know, I've made plenty of mistakes in choosing allies, and will surely make more. But in this case, I'm not thinking it was a mistake, or an accident. Shared values, shared goals.

Theriomorph said...

Oooo, look; now it's the 'clown posse' vs. the Axis of Nice Guys.

Gilly, get me my squeaky-nose. The red one.

Chris said...

"Clown Posse" group blog, anyone?

ilyka said...

Someone point the dumb distracted woman to the clown posse shit?

R. Mildred said...

unlikelypluralityofclowns1car.org?

ilyka said...

Ha, never mind. [feigns shock]

Better a clown than a lying defensive weasel with hir head up hir ass. The nice thing about the great big clown wig is the way it helps reduce the incidence of head-up-ass syndrome 'cause it won't fucking fit.

Chris said...

Plus?

When the rainbow wig gets all mixed in with your butt hair?

Festive!

the bewilderness said...

If you all write a Clown Posse group blog I promise to read it every day.

Donna said...

It's not right. He was addressing me but why? Why? WHY is it Ilyka's Clown Posse??? I'll feel better if I can have membership to Ilyka's Clown Posse anyway, pretty please?

I talked to my mom. I'll be traveling for the next couple days to be with her and our family. We should be back on Friday since my husband has to be back to work then.

Chris said...

We'll each need a clown posse clown name, of course.

(And yes. I do see it. right there plain as day. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Etc.)

ilyka said...

Donna, as far as I'm concerned it's you who should rightfully CHAIR the clown posse. And I don't mean that the way our lovely friend Vaquera did. I mean it with all love and respect.

I talked to my mom. I'll be traveling for the next couple days to be with her and our family. We should be back on Friday since my husband has to be back to work then.

Thank you, thank you for letting us know. You've been in my thoughts all day but I didn't want to pester you for updates when I figured you had more than enough on your plate.

Travel safe, Donna.

ilyka said...

Sudy is here! Sudy is here!

ALL HAIL THE VIDEO STAR SUDY.

Awesome, you are awesome. THIS is awesome.

I'm rubber and you're glue, what you say bounces off me and sticks to you.

:P

Charlotte said...

'Nother white woman here.

Read the entire thread and the comments and am impressed, if somewhat confused. I'll admit that Hugo's distinction between purists and populists made sense to me, but I didn't really see any slighting of purists in what he wrote. The question I've been grappling with throughout the years is how academic feminism can be brought to bear actual social/ political results, such as increased funding for domestic violence shelters, literacy for immigrant women, etc. (real issues that we have here in southern California). In other words, how do you translate something like Judith Butler's work into practice for community activism (which, I think, Hugo is really trying to get at)?

rrp said...

Why would anyone want to use Butler's material for community activism anyhow? That make no sense at all.