Monday, January 22, 2007

I am not exempt

I hereby acknowledge I am capable of being a racist, sexist, homophobic , transphobic, classist, ablist, agist shitstain.* I've probably done all kinds of racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, classist, ablist, agist shitstainy things in my life and gotten away with it.

*Please feel free to fill in the prejudices I haven't listed.

I do not exmpt myself from these sins. I admit them, and in my better moments I try to learn from them.

Even so, because I am white, a U.S. citizen and capable of picking up some of the nasty shit that surrounds me, I will probably do something racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, classist, ablist, agist and shitstainy in the future. Although I make a concerted effort to avoid it, I'm not going to say it can't happen.

When I do act like a bigot, I hope somebody calls me on it. I hope I can hear that message and learn from it.

I've attended a lot of anti-racist and anti-homophobic training. The issue of power is always discussed. "Racism" is definied as a system that has real power to make life difficult for people of color. By employing and supporting racism through bigotry and hate speech, I could and would make life more difficult for people of color.

People of color do not have access to the power that is white racism. Therefore, the bigotry and hate speech of people of color is not racism. The word racism defines the system.

Bigotry is an illogical hatred for a different group of people. Anyone, including people without power, can participate in bigotry and hate speech. Hate speech has different effects, depending on where one exists on the power spectrum, but it still is logically defined as hate speech and bigotry.

Yesterday, I read a different argument over at Heart's space. This argument equates racism, bigotry and hate speech and says only the powerful can exhibit this behavior.

In this specific instance, the discussion was about hate speech toward transgendered people. Please click on over and read the whole piece, because I don't want to speak for Heart. She explains herself quite logically and doesn't go all academic on the reader, as some of us do.

You can read it here.starting at thread #208 by Heart. Here's a short quote from a follow up:

When a radical feminist female uses insulting words in the direction of transwomen, she understand this to be no different from using insulting words in the direction of males. It might be rude, crude, and socially unacceptable, it might be insulting, but it isn’t hate speech. It’s not discriminatory. Because given power differentials as they exist between males and females, females aren’t situated socially so as to be able to discriminate against males, or to be bigoted towards males or to be phobic against males. To the contrary, our experience as females is that males *are* to be feared because they hurt females and to say so, and behave accordingly, is not “phobic,” it is based on female reality.

I completely disagree with this theory. I believe it to be fundamentally flawed.

First, I believe, as I said above, that all of us are capable of hate speech and bigotry. These are the actions of individuals, not systems, and although they do not reach the level of racism, they still suck and ought to be avoided. By all of us.

Second, and more problematical, is that Heart claims that women have been harmed by men, therefore hate speech and bigotry toward men is merely an accurate description of the way men behave.

Obviously, I agree that men have and continue to harm women in all sorts of ways. I'd be a fool to disagree.

However, bigotry and hate speech is always illogical. It's illogical because we can never accurately define a group of human beings that is exactly one thing or another with no exceptions.

So, again, I am not exempt. And I hope my readers will call me on it when I do fuck up in the future.

29 comments:

Trin said...

Well said.

JackGoff said...

I know this might sound kind of weird, but you make me infinitely happy. To read this after coming from that thread, it's like a warm shower after a long slog through a big steaming sticky stinking pile.

Thank you for this. I hope you don't mind me linking to you.

belledame222 said...

It's such bollocks anyway, the whole "we have no power" thing. Okay, "we" have no power, we have no power; how then exactly are we going to have this great revolution we are supposedly longing for, working toward? and, are you -really- sure you want it? because, oopsie, with power comes responsibility, and once you have that, then you might actually have to pay attention the next time someone -else- says "ouch, you're hurting me."

Ravenmn said...

Trin, honestly it's beed said better by others, but it was heartfelt. Thanks!

Welcome, Jack, and what a sweet comment. Glad I gave you a lift!

BD: "and, are you -really- sure you want it?"

Heart has said no. She believes in a future where there is no power. She purposely avoids weilding power in her personal relationships, including with her children. I don't understand this, but we haven't discussed it much.

Like you, I want to be powerful for good causes. And I want to use that power wisely. One of the ways that happens is when people call me on my shit when I screw up.

Sly Civilian said...

honestly, i understand the desire to abdicate power. i think i need to write/think it out a little more, but the basic idea is that it offers the infinite security of never doing any harm.

but it's not a cogent position to hold, and most often, i find it expressed when i'd like to dodge responsibility. you can't possibly stop your complicity with domination systems if you don't admit that you receive at least some benefit from them.

i don't buy it, not in myself, and not in others. i sympathize with it, but give it a short leash.

piny said...

Heart has said no. She believes in a future where there is no power. She purposely avoids weilding power in her personal relationships, including with her children. I don't understand this, but we haven't discussed it much.

It's a worthy goal, but it strikes me as a really dangerous way to position oneself.

piny said...

What sly said, in other words. As far as I'm concerned, Heart herself is proof.

Of course feminists can take part in transphobia and use transphobic language in such a way as to silence and demean transwomen. That's the thing about discursive context: the dominant culture can inhabit your words. Look at the appropriation theme of the Robin Morgan post and thread--all of those comments were informed by the idea that transwomen are false at the core, and most of them played on the idea that transwomen steal. That's not a counter-cultural belief.

Ravenmn said...

I posted a link to this at heart's place:

"Hello Heart,

I posted my disagreement with your well-thought out position on bigotry and hate speech here. Please correct me if I’ve misinterpreted you as that was not my intention.

Have a great night!

Ravenmn"

Here is her response:

"Ravenm, yes, you’ve misunderstood me and mischaracterized what I’ve said. I’m not inclined to say more than that. What I’ve posted here speaks for itself.

Heart"

Also, I've been put on moderation at Heart's place when I was not before. I noticed it the other day when my posts were held for almost a day while Pony's creative insults toward me were allowed through.

Make of that what you will.

-----

Piny: "It's a worthy goal, but it strikes me as a really dangerous way to position oneself."


Well, here's what Heart said:

"I command no one. I wouldn’t command anyone if I could, because my feminist beliefs preclude it. I don’t tell anyone what to do, not my children, not even my cats, dog, and sheep. I am a noncoercive parent to both my children and my animals."

When I noted that the refusal to take power can be a form of power itself, she responded:

"Hey, Ravenm, good thoughts. I agree with you that power can be exercised in the refusal to exercise it (!) and that sometimes we find we have to exercise power *because* we are so averse to exercising it! That is not going to make any sense, I already know, to anybody who has not worked alongside people, in activist organizations and communities, in which there is a core commitment to consensus and the sharing of power and avoidance of power over. But for those of us who have a long history in such organizations, it is truly a can of worms, I hear you. If you stand aside, for example, and refuse to exercise power because of your aversion to power-over, those who have no such aversion (despite what they say!) will use power destructively. Now comes your dilemma: do you use power in response? For years and years I have been working to replace responding with the use of force or power with responding creatively, looking always for win-win solutions. But where people haven’t spent a lot of time analyzing power or considering how they wield it, or don’t, in their own lives, well, it becomes an impasse, because they don’t understand. Which is all to say, YES, I hear you!"

and later:

"Ravenm, I think sexism is the foundational or central dominance heirarchy. I don’t think there are any forms of heirarchy that don’t include sexism, you’re right. I think the heirarchies which exist in woman-only spaces are artifacts of patriarchy, which would disappear once patriarchy, sexism, disappeared. We all cut our eye teeth on the heirarchy known as “sexism.” It’s all we know. That’s why gendering is evident even in lesbian relationships and in woman-only spaces."

Welcome, Piny and Sly Civilian. I admire your writing. Sly, if you do more posting on this, I'm definitely interested in reading it!

Trin said...

"It's a worthy goal, but it strikes me as a really dangerous way to position oneself."

Personally I don't think it's a worthy goal. I think that power relations are inevitable, and that wily or even just narcissistic people very often hide behind "This isn't power over you. I've done nothing. How can you have a grievance against me?"

Trin said...

Oh, and Ravenmn --

Heart's position is a direct result of not believing in intersectionality and privileging (heh!) one oppression over others. Someone who believes that any oppression can affect people as intensely as any other can never really find common ground with someone that puts one of them on top of some oppression pyramid.

I wouldn't bother trying to reason with her on this. Your points of view are different down to the very ground.

Ravenmn said...

"I wouldn't bother trying to reason with her on this."

You are right about my differences with Heart. I'm not trying to convince her as much as to understand her. I find it very difficut.

It could be as simple as seeing multiple oppressions versus one. Can you expand on that a bit or point me somewhere that talks about it?

Trin said...

I'm not sure I can cite as much as I should, since I've mostly picked this up from feminist discussions, but:

(apologies if you know some of this definitional stuff and that's not what you asked)

Intersectionality is the idea that different people experience different oppressions, and that many if not most people are oppressed and are oppressed on more than one axis. These oppressions and the ways they interact create unique problems and experience: being oppressed as, say, a woman with disabilities is more complicated than just the sum of being oppressed as a woman PLUS oppressed as a pwd. There are unique ways these two oppressions merge.

It also means that ranking oppressions is doomed to fail. Many old-school radical feminists like Heart claim, for example, that sexism must have been the first or primary oppression, out of which others flow. Where for me, I suffer from sexism as a woman, but I have not been directly attacked, physically harmed, for that. I have, however, been abused by physical therapists because of my disability, seen other children physically hurt or emotionally mistreated, told they have no future at all because of disability. Sexism is much less immediate in my life.

(I've seen some feminist women of color say something kind of like this too: that race issues affect them far more viscerally than issues of sexism, as committed as they are to fighting both.)

But for some other WWD, someone who always had excellent therapists and caregivers, but who has been sexually assaulted? Who has been told all her life that she is lesser because she is a woman, in ways that I happen to somehow have often avoided? Who is objectified sexually constantly by people around her in ways I also, generally, have not? Maybe in her life, ableism is less "serious" and she puts issues of sexism first.

All of which makes perfect sense on an intersectionality-based view, because there is no "first" or "worst."

As far as Heart goes: so far as I know, old-school radfems tended to believe that sexism is the "root" of all oppressions, the original oppression, because before we could create divisions like race and class and the like, men and women had biological differences and... here's where I'm not sure, but I think it goes like: men noticed that women's bodies were violable and weaker, and patriarchy began. Then groups encountered one another and this "differences mean domination" model continued, creating race, class, and other oppressions.

(Why wouldn't violence against people with physical disabilities come even before patriarchy? We're often weaker...)

belledame222 said...

There is no such thing as "no power;" this is like saying I don't know "no air."

perhaps she means something more specific wrt "power," but whatever it is, i think: no, this is harmful bollocks.

there are -kinds- of power; this is not something people like this (there are others on the more or less left who take this tack, and like Heart, that i've seen, they as well as their politics tend to be a total mess) understand, or want to understand. god knows why.

belledame222 said...

and y'know what, the very act of running a blog much less modding out people, for one small example: guess what? that right there is an act of power. you can compare n contrast to the act of o i don't know declaring war and having it happen, but it's still power. why not just cop to it? o right: because that would be much too straightforward and someone might be able to call her on her shit at some point, and she might even have to consider listening to it.

if you truly exercised no power at all, you'd be i don't know a sea sponge.

there might be a way to at least try really hard to not exercise -abusive- power, but as far as i'm concerned Heart ain't anywhere near it. passive-aggression: really kind of abusive, actually.

belledame222 said...

I don’t tell anyone what to do, not my children, not even my cats, dog, and sheep. I am a noncoercive parent to both my children and my animals."

and i'll tell you something else: i don't know how old her kids are, and i'm not a parent myself, but i still call bullshit on this. there -are- times when parental authority (-not- authoritarianism) is not only okay but necessary. i do believe this. it's called, setting boundaries. kids -need- that, younger kids especially.

as far as her sheep:



o i don't know.


it is increasingly difficult for me to even respond to anything she says with anything other than *point* *laugh*, but i know that's not terribly helpful.

all the same.

belledame222 said...

I think the heirarchies which exist in woman-only spaces are artifacts of patriarchy, which would disappear once patriarchy, sexism, disappeared. We all cut our eye teeth on the heirarchy known as “sexism.” It’s all we know. That’s why gendering is evident even in lesbian relationships and in woman-only spaces.

WIMMIN R MAGICAL SPESHUL CREATURES

with no aggression whatsoever.

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

or, as the Church Lady would put it,

"How conveeeeeeeeeeeeeeenient."

So, is it just me, or is it really sounding more and more like the only logical end to this train of thought is "LET'S KILL 'EM ALL!" seriously, what other solution could work? in this worldview?

Ravenmn said...

Yeah, as a parent, that bothered me as well. You have power over your children, whether you acknowledge it or not. As long as they are dependent on you for things like food, clothing, shelter, kindness, etc., you have power.

Here's what I don't get. I know plenty of people who are absolutely sure they know what the root cause of any oppression is. For some it is racism, for some it is sexism, for some it is capitalism, for some it is environmental discrmination. And many of these people are able to work well with others, to support other movements without browbeating them into admitting they are obviously fighting "the symptom and not the disease."

So is it (pardon me) the personal or the political? Are all radical feminists unable to tolerate different points of view or is it just Heart and the people who support her?

Trin said...

"There is no such thing as "no power;" this is like saying I don't know "no air.""

Stop making sense, you power-hungry, patriarchy-addled knave!

"So is it (pardon me) the personal or the political? Are all radical feminists unable to tolerate different points of view or is it just Heart and the people who support her?"

No idea.

Trin said...

"So, is it just me, or is it really sounding more and more like the only logical end to this train of thought is "LET'S KILL 'EM ALL!""

Well, it was for Marx, y'know. Death to the bourgoisie, and all.

Ravenmn said...

And Shakespeare went for the lawyers! Once we get a small enough world, we'll all get along!

belledame222 said...

Here's what I don't get. I know plenty of people who are absolutely sure they know what the root cause of any oppression is. For some it is racism, for some it is sexism, for some it is capitalism, for some it is environmental discrmination. And many of these people are able to work well with others, to support other movements without browbeating them into admitting they are obviously fighting "the symptom and not the disease."

So is it (pardon me) the personal or the political? Are all radical feminists unable to tolerate different points of view or is it just Heart and the people who support her?



Well, i think this is what i keep bumping up against, and why i keep arguing with QD. I mean, I think QD has a broad enough sense of "ideology" or "political" that if some of the radical feminists -are- able to tolerate different points of view, then that's what it's about; and I suppose one could look at it that way. It -is- true that the people i am able to talk to--when you say "absolutely sure," actually in fact i'm not sure that they -are- "absolutely sure." or rather, they are able to tolerate the ambiguity of believing what they believe to be central but still allowing for the possibility that other peoples' POV is valid. this is also why certain very devout Christians or Moslems or atheists can discuss metaphysics or even be in a room with people of differen faiths (or lack thereof); because, even if they don't change their minds, they are at least willing to allow for the possibility that they -might- change a -little- bit; they allow for the possibility of the existence of the Other.

Heart, as you note, can't or won't do this. I also think she and some others like her are "nice" or plausible and make the proper noises of "can't we all just get along," and so it's even more confusing for the casual or even not so casual onlooker/participant: well she -must- be open to discussion, she just -said- she was!

But, not so much. It's subtle shit; there are tools for controlling the terms of a discussion, they -do- cut across various ideologies (and even non political frameworks), and Heart employs a lot of 'em.

I think you know at the end of the day it comes down to boundaries, somewhat. When you can't tell where you stop and the rest of the world, or when that other person, begins. I am using a psych-y framework for this, I think it is confusing for people who don't. Because obviously in many ways someone like Heart is very smart and sophisticated. And I think a lot of--actually sometimes i think smart, intellectual people take longer to figure this out: that that isn't everything, that someone can be very smart in -one- way and still be startlingly undeveloped in another. It's an upsetting thought, particularly if you value "smarts" highly, as a lot of people I know do.

anyway, back on the "power" trip (oh, hah), I'm reading this, at World on a Slant, and finding it really thought-provoking and germane. trin, you might be particularly interested (or not, or others, too).

belledame222 said...

...you know, wrt "I don't tell anyone what to do," that might i suppose be an honest not-getting-it, but again, it's not very sophisticated, at best, especially after all these years. Not only is it possible to exercise power without out and out saying "don't do this," or "you must do this," in many ways it's actually more effective if you don't. Because it's harder to argue with what's hidden. It's called, "manipulation." Among other things.

That is exactly what keeps driving me up the fucking wall with o say the Eternal Feminist Wars (of various sorts). The most crazy-making example--I've brought it up before--was this chick who shows up at Vanessa's of Plucky Punk, where V is riffing off the feministe thread and saying how she doesn't feel comfortable in pants, physically, on account of her body type; she prefers skirts.

so some woman shows up and says, pretty much, "that is bullshit. -I- have that same body type and I feel fine in pants. Clearly, you must be kidding yourself. Why don't you..." iow, she y'know just hadn't found the right pair yet.

and then when V understandably got rather pissy and defensive about this "i know how you feel in your body better than you do," that's when it -really- went down the rabbit hole:

"god, touchy touchy! look, -I'm not telling you what to do!- didn't I just say I don't care what you wear? Just don't try to tell me that you "just feel better" wearing pants; why don't you just admit that it's because of patriarchal pressure?"

this is a paraphrase, understand, but it was damn close.

and of course, it's totally fucked up. and it's WORSE than if she'd said "you must not wear pants." Because, hello, first of all, stranger on the internets, even if you -did- say such a thing, there absolutely no reason why anyone wouldn't just go, "pfft! --Mary! Please!" --you have no power to -make- anyone do anything else, that's correct, that's WHY you don't just come out and say,

"Don't wear pants. Wear a skirt."

So instead, you go for the mindfuck. That is already a lot more effective in that unlike with the direct command, the person is a lot more likely to engage you more than you deserve; it's damn hard not to defend yourself when someone pulls the "I know how you feel better than you do" AND dresses it up in some sort of sociopolitical crap.

Now try that one on as a parent, or someone who -does- have any sort of real-world influence over the other.

belledame222 said...

btw, per Heart herself, you know, she wasn't always a radical feminist; she was in fact a "rising star" in the Christian homeschooling movement.

some gossip here, but the details maybe aren't so interesting; what interests me is, there are some patterns here.

1) rising star
2) they're all out to get me

and, too, the content: you would think that radical/cultural feminism would be diametrically opposed to Christian fundamentalism, but in fact i'm not at all sure her fundamental (so to speak) philosophy has changed that much: now as then, she believes in a very back to the land, reactionary (in many sense), "natural" woman's role; the only difference is the religious trappings and the "men suck, now." It's still very much an anti-modern, anti-liberal, anti-pluralist mindset.

and call me a cynical bitch for noting that somehow i doubt that her old role would've had her terribly sympathetic toward queers and transgender folks either.

but, it's DIFFERENT now; it's for a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT REASON.

okay.

Ravenmn said...

I don't like to psychologize it so much because there's just too much I can't know because of this oddball method of communicating known as the internetz.

Has Heart ever admitted it when she's been wrong?

I posted this:

-----

"Heart: ” I think feminist writers, as I’ve said more than once, whenever possible, ought to acknowledge one another’s work which is similarly themed, not only out of writerly courtesy but for the sake of promoting the work of other feminist writers, so that it never is erased. ”

Ravenmn: "You seem to be failing in your own stated goal “promoting the work of other feminist writers” if you speak of only one poem by one feminist writer. Morgan also fails to meet your standards because she, too, did not refer to her predecessors in using the monster metaphor. At least not in the versions of the poem I own or have seen here."

----

My post was a direct hit on the stated purpose of her thread. Yet she wouldn't admit it. I contradicted her three times in that post with quotes to prove how she was in error.

Heart's response:

----

Thanks, ravenm, for all of that. I’ll do some reading tomorrow, of what I’ve been avoiding reading, out of self-protection, not always a good thing, but I’m no masochist, and I don’t mind saying I don’t like to be hurt.

----

Now that is classic manipulation. Here's a favorite joke of my Mom and I:

Q: "How many Jewish mothers does it take to change a light bulb?"

A: "None... I'll just sit here ... in the dark ... and suffah!"

So the only way Heart can even find out if she's wrong is by putting herself through the horribly painful experience of reading someone who might disagree with her? Say what?

I immediately resond, "Don't force yourself..." But my comment goes into moderation. Instead, Pony gets through with a couple of insults at me followed my Heart's getting up on this cross:

"I’m always working so hard to give women the benefit of the doubt, to read them generously. It inevitably comes around to kick me in the butt."

So, there you go. I've hurt her by not being the person she wanted me to be. I've hurt her by trying to force her to read the posts she's been lying about.

I've hurt her. I've hurt her. I've hurt her.

I mean, if that's what it takes to cause pain to Heart, no wonder she's having a hard time with politics. She's not the type of person I want standing next to me on the picket line! She wouldn't last an hour.

TRin said...

"and, too, the content: you would think that radical/cultural feminism would be diametrically opposed to Christian fundamentalism, but in fact i'm not at all sure her fundamental (so to speak) philosophy has changed that much"

Yes, and they both have a sort of... nicey-nice passivity where if a woman is attacked, she's attacked for her loving soul and kindness of heart, not for any real reason. It's a way of making women un-hurtable through guilt.

belledame222 said...

So, there you go. I've hurt her by not being the person she wanted me to be. I've hurt her by trying to force her to read the posts she's been lying about.

I've hurt her. I've hurt her. I've hurt her.


"I'm not like other people. I can't stand pain, it hurts me!:

she's never hurt anyone else, though. no. and as to any suggestion that oh say i dunno LL, one of her minions sez:

"Do I hear violins?"

Yes, dear. That's exactly what you hear.

also now thinking of an Orwell passage, i forget which essay, but he says something along the lines of,

There are families where the father says, "You'll get a thick ear if you do that again;" and the mother takes the child into her arms, eyes brimming over with tears, and says, "Now, darling, -is- it kind to Mummy to do that?" And who can say the second is less harmful than the first?

belledame222 said...

yeah, okay. Heart: in case this is part of the reading that's paining you to read: well, my contributions, I can understand that.

Tell you what. How about you do Little Light the honor of addressing her -directly,- and saying something along the lines of, o i don't know,

"I'm sorry I implied that you plagiarized from Robin Morgan. I'm sorry for..."

well, except you're -not- sorry, are you, that you've basically said in so many words, and certainly sat by and applauded as your regulars said in so many words, and horribly, that she's basically stealing your identity, your -skin.- By writing a poem about her own experience, which had fuckall to do with you, -really;- and by daring to claim the names of "feminist," and "woman." Why don't you directly address her response to you, Heart? Why not be honest for once? What are you -really- protecting here? Because truly, I think that the fate of the 3.5 billion or so women on this planet doesn't really hinge on whether or not a handful of transgendered folks get to live how the hell they want to live and call themselves what the hell they call themselves. You want to focus on the important stuff? The rapes, the murders, the stewing on the stove? Fine; then, -do it.-

Because in -this- case, you know, there really is just no better way to put it:

You started it.

If you don't like the heat, etc. etc.

queer dewd formerly known as be elle said...

So is it (pardon me) the personal or the political? Are all radical feminists unable to tolerate different points of view or is it just Heart and the people who support her?

---

Well, you know, people can be absolutely sure that capitalism -- or rather class society -- is what is ultimately responsible for racism, sexism, nationalism, etc. right? But because they conceive of the relationship between the determinative force (mode of production) and culture, then they have no problem understanding that they're not giving up anything by fighting for race/sex/etc. issues. yes? so that's one reason why.

as BD says, there are others who are just uncomfortable being so forceful, so they moderate themselves in order to do coalition politics. Sometimes, you get condescended to. Whatev. Environmentalists are usually the ones I feel this from. (Oh, and I forget male leftists, some of who reject ID politics, who are total a-holes who will be this way in front of other whites.)

I shut my mouth re certain members of the blogosphere b/c they are friends with people I care about. To me, their's is a patina, a shallow varnish they paint on top of their true views, and they drive me batshit. Whatev. All I can say is: yes, sweetie, i know what you really think and I enjoy the show of your pretense. Personally, I hope they have indigestion from the effort.

I also mentioned to BD sometime back, don't know if she'll remember, that there is a certain condesension involved where some folks will secretly make their real views known when they don't think others are paying attention. IOW, their willingness to drop their committments for the sake of getting along and do a demo or whatever is opportunistic. Whatev. Annoying too.

So, call me cynical, but having seen it enough among male leftists, I don't doubt that they people who say they aren't like Heart really are on other issues. They just haven't come up yet.

Another group of environment firsters are also folks who think that the strategy is to deal with racism and sexism first, even thought they think that the hiearchies stem from original domination of nature.

I honestly don't know any race first people who tend to be Black Nationalists, right. Here in this area, we have a hugely strong Uhuru Movement so I haven't had any encounters with anyone who doesn't also have a class analysis. There are a faction of Uhuru Movement folks who are dismissive of gender issues unless it also involves race but that would be mostly what we work on together anyway. Really, the Uhuru movement is the only reason I managed to stay here as long as I did. It's sane.

Ravenmn said...

QD wrote: "there is a certain condesension involved where some folks will secretly make their real views known when they don't think others are paying attention."

Damn. Busted. Now I'm gonna have to talk about how I hate peanut butter. How I've always hated peanut butter. Even the smell of peanut butter makes me ill. I thought I could hide my hatred of peanut butter. But now I realize you've known it all along and my pretense of being a normal person was blown long ago. So. OK. I'm a peanut butter hater! Deal with it!

OK, sarcasm off.

I know what you mean, QD. In the labor movement I've met lifelong communists who are still not "out" about it. I don't understand it, but there you go.

I'm not familiar with the Uhuru Movement, so I'm probably missing your point. I'll check it out.