What we must necessarily give up
Do I agree that people who want to be allies of marginalized groups “must necessarily give up some of their cherished right to self-expression, recognizing that some thoughts, even valuable ones, may not be worth expressing in a particular way if that would needlessly cause pain to others”?
No, I don’t. Not put that way at least. But then it’s inconsistent – it’s “must necessarily” at the beginning but then “may not be worth expressing” at the end. It’s definite at the beginning but then has three hedges in a row at the end – may not, in a particular way, if that would. The “must necessarily” gets modified almost as soon as it appears. But hedged or not, I don’t agree with the claim.
Mind you, it isn’t simply a matter of “their cherished right to self-expression,” which is a rather sadly dismissive way of putting it for a writer. I’m pretty sure I’ve never once talked about my cherished right to self-expression, or my right to self-expression at all. That’s not what I’m after, it’s not what I’m interested in, it’s not what I do. Fuck self-expression, frankly. It’s on the same shelf with self-indulgent and self-admiring.
No, this isn’t about me “expressing” my precious self. Who gives a rat’s ass about my precious self? I don’t, so certainly no one else is going to. I think selves are overrated. (That’s not the same as saying I have no ego. Sure I do. But that’s a different thing.)
No, what I’m after is understanding, which tends to be aided by discussion. I want to understand the issues around trans activism, and what is meant by various slogans and claims. I want to write about my questions on my blog. Do I agree that I “must necessarily” give up some of that if I want to be an ally to trans people? No. No, I don’t agree that I must give up asking serious questions on a minor blog. I would agree that I shouldn’t say hateful shit about marginalized groups on my blog; I would agree that no one should do that, including me. But trying to figure out the discourse? I don’t think that should be off-limits – I don’t think it should be a third rail or a “mine field” or anything else we should be afraid to approach.
We’re talking about politics here. What good is a politics that you’re not allowed to discuss? What good is a politics that triggers epic freakouts over minor differences? What good is a politics that silences its own demographic?
I thought that Slate article was reasonably fair to you.
I agree that one doesn’t have to give up rights, but you require some caution about how those rights are exercised.
In your case, I suspect the real problem is different. You have some enemies who won’t hesitate to misconstrue what you say, and then use that misconstrual against you.
But I’m a member of a marginalized group. We’re talking here about relations between and among marginalized groups. At some point, fucking solidarity has to be the key. And solidarity is not a one-way street.
I noticed an exchange this weekend on Twitter that was interesting. David Pakman (of The David Pakman Show) made an observation on the Black Lives Matter campaign that protests had been limited to Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley. No protests had been made of any Republican or Hillary Clinton. He then talked about billionaire George Soros and the money he has given to Black Lives Matters groups AND that he is a huge supporter of Clinton, and idly wondered if there was a link there.
This drew ire from Black Lives Matters activists, including Elon James White. He more or less said Pakman smeared black women.
It’s understandable that people working for Black Lives Matter would get their feelings hurt about Pakman’s comments. However, Pakman’s comments are perfectly reasonable. It was odd to see how the protests seemed focused on Bernie Sanders instead of anyone else, and his logic was just as good as anyone else’s to explain that.
People get their feelings hurt. This is a byproduct of being human beings. Trying to parse out someone being “wrong” or “right” based on hurt feelings is probably the wrong way to go about it in the first place. For example, I am a criminal defense attorney. Part of my job can be to literally blame victims of crime for what happened to them. Does this hurt their feelings? Yes. Is it necessary for the defendant to receive due process of law? Yes. Both of these things are happening at the same time, yet most people do not like victim blaming but do support due process.
Part of our jobs as atheoskeptics is to recognize the various, competing factors in a situation. To understand those factors, and then explain those factors in order to educate people.
“I wish I could write, I wish I could express myself.” It’s a really annoying compliment because you are not expressing YOURSELF – a really uninteresting topic mostly – but what you’ve observed, read, thought about.
As for being “allies” – if you are part of some movement, pressure group or what have you that is working for a common cause, you’re going to be too busy doing what you have to do – writing, leafletting, turning up at protests, lobbying – to worry overly much about the minutiae of your co-workers’ thoughts and feelings or for them to be bothered about yours. A broad agreement is going to be assumed.
Neil Rickert @ 1 –
This post isn’t about whether the Slate article was fair to me or not. It’s not about me at all. It’s about whether or not “people who want to be allies of marginalized groups must necessarily give up some of their cherished right to self-expression, recognizing that some thoughts, even valuable ones, may not be worth expressing in a particular way if that would needlessly cause pain to others.” It’s about that one claim, that’s all.
It’s also not about having to give up rights in general.
For a while I’ve had a problem with certain conceptions of allyship, and the Slate article points up the problem again. “Ally” has the potential to be meaningful, but it can also be a simplistic label wielded and policed by the more powerful or more aggressive side of a debate. You often see people saying, “you don’t get to decide whether you’re a good ally,” and I fully agree with that. But that’s also makes it so arbitrary and gives it the potential of being used as a weapon.
The problem is that anyone who portrays themselves as ‘oppressed’ is given a free hand and policing and censoring the speech and thought of others. Especially self-appointed ‘community leaders’ like Anjem Choudry, Fred Phelps, or the Klan. Censors and bullies ALWAYS depict themselves as victims.
This only counts in places like the blogosphere, since no REAL power is being gained or lost. But the ‘Shut up you privileged oppressor, that’s why’ argument has to be recognized as false.
Jennifer, yes true. I’ve been thinking about that “ally” rhetoric this morning. I think I generally avoid calling myself an ally, because it seems impertinent, and even self-admiring. It’s a loaded word, at best.
How is this a question? No self or other identification is the occasion for losing rights of any kind?
re #6 and #8 on the word “ally”. This is something i’ve been thinking about for myself lately. I used to toss the word around because in the context of discussions with my LGBTQA+ friends it was a way of sounding supportive and helpful and sympathetic while indicating that i wished to achieve some of the same things as they did, in our uphill battles against this toxic culture, so to speak.
But framing it as “battles” with “ally versus enemy” is probably not so helpful in the long run. It’s a convenient shorthand in some contexts, but now that you’ve made me think about it, i will probably be careful to use more accurate terminology in the future. I can be supportive, helpful, concerned, agreeing, in solidarity with people… but i don’t have to be an “ally” in a “battle”. It bothers me to frame everything in terms of conflict and wars.
Re #9, zubanel has an excellent point. Losing rights of any kind is not something that should happen just because i come along and say who i am. I still think i have a right to discuss things, even though i’ve seen people express sentiments such as “your opinion is unwelcome here because of Cisgender Privilege” or “we don’t listen to Persons with a Penis” or “you’re just a white male American so we don’t take your position very seriously in any of these discussions”. It’s like there’s some kind of Oppression Olympics and you have to be at least a certain level of Disenfranchised in order to qualify for participation in discussion (in the minds of some of the people having these discussions.) “You’re a homosexual atheist anti-natalist anti-authoritarian, and you’ve survived with HIV for twenty-six years? Well, i guess you’re sufficiently marginalized to participate in our chat. We thought you looked like a typical white middle-aged American cisgendered male, so we were hesitant to let you in.” Change a few of the adjectives around, and i see this happening to other people, i saw Ophelia get insulted and shooed away by people who accused her of contributing to their marginalization when all she did was try to talk about it. Talking about problems while not being an immediate victim of them specifically and directly… how dare you?! You’ll just derail this with your agenda from a Place Of Privilege!!1!! etc. Nevermind that most people’s problems overlap and solutions in some areas might spread to others…. “We’ll just keep balkanizing and sub sub subgrouping until we’ve kept all the Big Bad Others out of our exclusive club. They probably didn’t want to help us anyway!”
I’ve been “shut up and listen”-ing for almost ten years now. I wonder when I get to start talking?
[…] Current said something that caught my attention in a comment on that discussion of whether or not we have to give up our “cherished right to […]
@Erica
Just as soon as you’re willing to repeat Official Dogma and keep any inconvenient questions to yourself.