Feminist Theory & "Women's Issues" Discussion Thread: All Gender Identities Are Encouraged To Participate

I do think Lex makes a good point about the relative sterility of a lot of activist language, though sometimes--as WCC suggests--being anything but sterile leads to charges of emotionalism. That said, I think given the nature of the subjects at hand, and their tendency to be highly charged on all sides, it can be helpful to take an even (even boring) tone when seeking to instruct. There's got to be a middle ground, I think.

strategies for being an effective allyzay

How aout disliking this language because delicate as it's trying to be, it actually comes off like patronizing crap that feels to me at least like it demeans both parties involved: "Assume that target group people are survivors and that they have a long history of resistance. Become an expert on this history and assist target group people to take full pride in it." Or how about this: "Assume that people in the target group are already communicating to you in the best way they can at the present time. Assume that they can and will do better." Seriously? This is basically "Think like a douche, but only act like half a douche. Give the 'target group people' the benefit of the doubt."

Also it sounds like corporate-speak, not activist-speak. Which I guess is a variety of activist-speak, as proposed and used by those activists who have a certain notion of what being "professional" really means.

Which is to say it sounds like some diversity training video with clod acting shot on VHS that you have to watch according to HR policy. Which is really just embarrassing all around.

The whole "ally" thing in itself is v. squicky. If somebody actually describes themselves as an "ally" of any cause in particular, as opposed to just you know being for the cause because they are for the cause, I am 100x more dubious of them to begin with.

"Assume that people in the target group are already communicating to you in the best way they can at the present time. Assume that they can and will do better." Seriously? This is basically "Think like a douche, but only act like half a douche. Give the 'target group people' the benefit of the doubt."

Try "if you're having trouble understanding someone's articulation of oppression, know that it's not because your envoy is not trying hard enough."

The whole "ally" thing in itself is v. squicky. If somebody actually describes themselves as an "ally" of any cause in particular, as opposed to just you know being for the cause because they are for the cause, I am 100x more dubious of them to begin with.

The ally framework comes out of feminist analysis, and its been taken up by POC organizers. When it comes to making myself a comrade, and deciding what to call my role in their struggle, I'll take my pointers from them.

From another angle: I'm an ally in the struggle against the prison-industrial complex because as a guy who passes for white with a relative background of privilege, I am not a target of the prison-industrial complex. The struggle against that form of oppression is not my struggle, because I am not the target of that oppression. But I have a role to play in agitation, organization, and support. That makes me an ally.

I'm tempted to just politely say I disagree and go back to posting funny quotes from current tv shows to the relevant threads, which as I occasionally need to remind myself, is really what I should stick to doing on ilx to begin with. But I do want to address this: "if you're having trouble understanding someone's articulation of oppression, know that it's not because your envoy is not trying hard enough." Why is that unique to "people in the target group" or an "articulation of oppression"? Shouldn't we generally go through life (and not especially as allies and activists or target groupers [which sounds like a delicious fish!] or what have you but as halfway functional human beings) figuring that if somebody is saying things to you and you aren't understanding them then perhaps you can work together to communicate better and that this isn't about the other person "not trying hard enough"?

Why single out this context? Why focus on "poor communication" from the "target group people"? Is it because it is hard to communicate well with "target group people"? Is the assumption that they will become more articulate? You see where this is going...

And furthermore, "envoy"? Really? A person from the "target group" is now an "envoy" from the "target group"? Not just, you know, a person with some different life experiences and other life experiences which are maybe not so different, but a freaking emissary? Like an ambassador, because people in the "target group" are that *that* different!?

I know it's easy to read lots of bad subtext into things. But there's some stuff in this language which isn't at all too "dry" or "neutral" to my mind, but instead reflects notions about how people are and how they should view one another that, when I think too deeply about it, actually starts to make my blood boil. Basically I'll take indecipherable critical discourse over this any day, because at least the intent of the former is to interrogate all the stuff going on in the latter.

Just briefly, then I shut up:

"if you're having trouble understanding someone's articulation of oppression, know that it's not because your envoy is not trying hard enough." Why is that unique to "people in the target group" or an "articulation of oppression"?

It isn't. This is a sterile suggestion that "it's not their fault if you don't get it."

Why single out this context? Why focus on "poor communication" from the "target group people"? Is it because it is hard to communicate well with "target group people"? Is the assumption that they will become more articulate? You see where this is going...

The assumption I'm seeing here is that there will be learning opportunities that will lower communication barriers. Not that anyone will "become more articulate," but that understanding can develop further down the timeline for a variety of reasons.

And furthermore, "envoy"? Really? A person from the "target group" is now an "envoy" from the "target group"? Not just, you know, a person with some different life experiences and other life experiences which are maybe not so different, but a freaking emissary? Like an ambassador, because people in the "target group" are that *that* different!?

I'm not defending any subtext of the original language, just trying to make the same point in a different way to find some common ground between us. I don't think it's nearly so simple as "we're all human, man," and it's my feeling that looking at the question that way is deeply short-sighted.

This is a sterile suggestion that "it's not their fault if you don't get it."

This. Many times, reading those uh guidelines, I get the feeling that they're tailored for an audience who will have barriers up against understanding/acknowledging their own privilege. Feels like some of the straightforward talk has been dialed back to be "palatable," as WCC put it.

Or at least to try to emotionally un-weight it, which is probably the same thing as making more palatable. Maybe this is misguided? Or maybe the pitch works for some audiences but would be better re-pitched for others.

If you listen to diplomat-speak, it has many of the qualities of what HOOS posted. Actually, "envoy" is a direct borrowing from diplomacy, so you can see how there was some modeling from that going on.

ftr envoy was, unless i missed it, my term, not from what i pasted

Feels like some of the straightforward talk has been dialed back to be "palatable," as WCC put it.

― drawn to them like a moth toward a spanakopita (Laurel), Saturday, March 3, 2012 4:11 AM (55 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

tooooooooootes

i'm really glad s.clover and laurel posted, they articulated some of the things i felt better than i could.

the phrase in that list of commandments that most offended me was "target group" (i am not your fucking target group), followed by the suggestion that as a minority that's been oppressed i ~can't help~ my behaviour towards people who want to fight alongside me. no, fuck you, i am certainly obliged to behave politely to "allies", who - let's be real here - are SO NOT THE PROBLEM WE FACE.

and yes it is 100% the language of exclusionary privilege through and through. my reaction to people who want to fight for the same things as i do is not to treat them as though they're toddlers.

I'd like to be clear, also, that posting that list of suggested strategies was by no means a full endorsement of its style. I had reservations even on reading it, I'm just making an effort to share topical things I find here. I'll be more discerning next time around.

Are we seeing these happening here Assume that making mistakes is part of the learning process of being an ever more effective ally. Be prepared for flare-ups of disappointment and criticism. Acknowledge and apologize for mistakes; learn from them, but don’t retreat.

reading these threads fills my mind with challops and i feel like such a jerk but i have had a problem with words/ideas like "ally" "privilege" (what are some others?) for a while but could never articulate what my problem is. i think sclover kind of did it for me. the phrase "target group" and the envoy thing are gross to me. it imagines a binary of target and non-target and non-target people do this tourism thing where they go to the museum and learn all about the targets and become an expert on target history (wtf?), which is what all the targets want the non-targets to be, and if any targets express that they don't actually want that it's just because they are oppressed. they'll come around eventually. when i started reading it i thought it was satirical with all the things you are supposed to assume the targets want.

it all sounds very martial to me.

i got 3 books from the library just now: backlash, women who kill, AND crack mothers btw

crack mothers ftw

yeah, "privilege" sort of bothers me too, but i use it. i can't figure out a different way to describe things. it definitely feels like shorthand, though.

i think the argument for the kind of language above is ultimately utilitarian. i didn't use "privilege" for a long time because i prized my infinitely more subtle and various understanding of power dynamics in the world, but then i noticed how people would have "eureka" moments with the idea of privilege, that somehow it seemed to get past a defensive dismissal of whatever issue was at hand. i feel like the above language weirdly abstracts away the context it's working in wherein white people think, racism is over, blacks/Latinos/whomever are unfriendly, this whole topic is uncomfortable for me so i will just avoid it. i guess i'm saying, i recognize what that language is going for, even though i understand what harbl and sterling are saying, that it's inadequate and patronizing/reifying if you take it as a full description of...reality.

i had this conversation irl recently and i said basically the same thing, like i guess you can say privilege as a shorthand but it sucks. it especially sucks reading feminist blogs and constantly reading about how one should check his/her privilege as if that's a thing one can really do. i mostly prefer to just not talk about it because i don't like any of the language that's available. reifying is a word i was looking for though.

u should write a book called "beyond privilege:____________" and put whatever is beyond privilege after the colon. i will write an approving foreword!

or u can continue not to talk about it, which is also fine.

i'll call it that and you can write the foreword but it'll be just recipes and cat pictures inside

haha even better

Beyond Privilege: Curry Chronicles

sounds like the perfect book tbh

beyond privilege: best animal friends

it seems unfair to say this emerges from feminist analysis since important work has been done by feminist thinkers.

i am privileged to be on the same thread as this guy ^

i like the phrase "check your privilege" because i always imagine a "before you wreck your privilege" after it. (i do think 'check your privilege' is also used in quite a bullying way in some feminist-leaning parts of the internet, it is treated as a full stop rebuttal that just raises people's hackles, rather than something a person needs to explore and understand and be able to recognise and work with)

also i fucking love activist talk - i find facilitating totally nervewracking tbh but doing a workshop on facilitating meetings was a+ because activist jargon is to me so lovable, how delicately one treads around being tendentious.

the phrase in that list of commandments that most offended me was "target group" (i am not your fucking target group), followed by the suggestion that as a minority that's been oppressed i ~can't help~ my behaviour towards people who want to fight alongside me.

i read this in a totally opposite way! not as "they can't help their behaviour towards you" but as "respect that they have totally valid reasons for their behaviour towards you and don't try to 'correct' them"

basically to me this is a v politely worded list that says 'don't be a condescending dick to people you are supposed to be supporting, it is decent of you to take part but of course they are going to be leery'

and by 'politely worded' i mean 'written to be indirect so the reader won't go 'oh it is not about me because i am [blah]'' - Hoos' "sterile" is the perfect adjective.

since everyone's already thrown their 2c in, my problem with that list of suggestions is that the mindset behind it is so profoundly militarized and conflict-driven. as a result, it treats the people it addresses like mindless drones, like units that can only be put to proper use by "the cause", and not as thinking, feeling human beings with valid interests and agendas of their own.

it breaks people down into three groups: the oppressed, their allies and non-allies (implicitly, the enemy). having done this, it describes the task of allies in extremely prescriptive terms. their job is to get it, not to question and not to think. the job of the ally is simply to fall in line. if would-be allies don't for whatever reason understand something that a member of a "target group" tells them, then it must be their fault.

i understand that every crusade needs willing troops. i understand that soldiers function best when they simply shut up and get with the program. but i don't think this is the only or even necessarily the best model for interactions between sympathetic members of different groups. for one thing, it seems to presuppose that all accounts of oppression are equally valid (they aren't) and that all members of a given oppressed group will view their situations and interests similarly (they won't).

you seem to presuppose that this is a list of commandments to the troops, rather than strategies that people can adopt to make themselves work better as allies.

i agree with horseshoe, but even then i think the excerpt posted fails at what its going for. really wary of telling people to assume things about other people in the context of this kind of work!

Assume that all people in the target group want you and members of your group as allies.

like, why on earth should i assume this!

i wouldnt want me or members of my group as allies!

i think i am from the "tough-love" school of getting people to "check their privilege," i appreciate the effort to make that kind of thing palatable to, well, straight white guys, but really, fuck them, they should figure this stuff out themselves

haha that is the Laurel position iirc

laurel otm

tbh when i read these lines

Assume that all people in the target group want you and members of your group as allies. Assume that they recognize you as such- at least potentially.

Assume that any appearances to the contrary-(any apparent rejections of you as an ally) are the result of target group people’s experience of oppression and internalized oppression.

i at first assumed this was like the 'derailing for dummies' thing and actually a joke? because, yeah, maybe people don't want you, and maybe if they're rejecting you as an ally it's not cos they've been oppressed in the past but because you're domineering and annoying or functionally useless or w/e.

i kind of cant think of anything less helpful than "no, they really want you to keep coming to meetings! they just cant show it because theyre super mad about slavery!"

basically to me this is a v politely worded list that says 'don't be a condescending dick to people you are supposed to be supporting, it is decent of you to take part but of course they are going to be leery'

^^^^^this is p much how I read it. (Though probably without the "decent" part.)

lolllll max

anyway i agree that it's a politely worded attempt at saying don't be a dick I just don't think that that it succeeds either on its own terms or as a larger strategy. coddling irritating ppl "of privilege" so that their feelings dont get hurt seems... Counterproductive. Buy here I am telling social justice orgs how to act so

I don't think coddling people so their feelings don't get hurt is what they're going for so much as making the barriers of cognitive dissonance easier to knock down.

I feel like it ends up just reinforcing bad attitudes by treating certain concerns and mindsets as genuine or appropriate

you seem to presuppose that this is a list of commandments to the troops, rather than strategies that people can adopt to make themselves work better as allies.

― inspector george gentlyfallingblood (c sharp major), Saturday, March 3, 2012 12:20 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark

well, i'd say it presents itself as both, and that it's strong emphasis on the former undercuts its utility as the latter.

plus yeah, the suggestion that the oppressed "target groups" really do want you as an ally, no matter what they seem to be saying, seems way off base. if people indicate that they don't want or need your help, you should probably take them at their word.

"it's"

AAAARGH