[Peace-discuss] [OccupyCU] [sf-core] Another Guantánamo prisoner death highlights Democrats' hypocrisy
"E. Wayne Johnson 朱稳森"
ewj at pigsqq.org
Thu Sep 13 05:41:19 UTC 2012
Rachel,
What is toxic about debate?
Indeed it seems that you do indeed want people to shut up.
Originally I just thought I would point out some natural tendencies that
oft characterize the differences in gender,
but it really seems that you actually do want to stifle debate.
Wayne
On 09/13/12 9:45, Rachel Storm wrote:
> Ingbert, Scott, Sarah, Brook---
>
> Thank you for your words, your support. You're right. I don't want
> people to shut up--I want people to talk to each other, and
> frequently, but with the aim of reaching that deep meaningful,
> vulnerable place--the one that makes you feel uncomfortable, but
> stimulated. Ingbert, I hear you and I agree that checking each other
> is an act of care that we do for people we love and want to make
> community with---I want to organize here and so. My email wasn't just
> directed towards those who are dominating conversation, but all of
> us--myself included--to stay privy to our privilege.
>
> You're right. I was angry. I am angry. I think it's good to be angry
> and it isn't the critiques I've had trouble with. I think what Carl
> and others offer are good topics of conversation, good information.
> It's the way it's presented and the fast-forward towards debate that I
> find toxic.
>
> Anyway, for what it's worth, thank you.
>
> RS
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Ingbert Schmidt <ifloyd2 at gmail.com
> <mailto:ifloyd2 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Thank you Scott!
>
> On a different vein, here's part of my perspective:
>
> Isn't Occupy supposed to be about us as individuals trying to
> conceptualize the kind of society we *want* to live in, and then
> work to try to create that society?
>
> My answer is yes.
>
> If so, then what are the qualities that we'd like to see practiced
> in a better society?
>
> I have many thoughts on this, but certainly one of them is people
> treating each other with respect.
>
> Have the discussions on this list been respectful?
>
> My answer is not really.
>
> Do we want people to feel comfortable posting what is important to
> them?
>
> My answer is yes.
>
> Can repeated, aggressive posting be intimidating to people and
> prevent them from feeling comfortable posting what is important to
> them?
>
> Yes.
>
> Is, therefore, the repeated aggressive posting of your particular
> positions with harsh critiques of anybody who might disagree an
> act of silencing people?
>
> Yes.
>
> Is, therefore, a response that attacks people for pointing out
> that a particular behavior is intimidating and silencing by
> claiming that this observation is an attempt at repressing the
> poster's ability to speak hypocritical?
>
> I would argue yes: If the poster isn't aware of how suppressing
> their mode of communication is, then the fact that they feel
> disrespected and silenced should make them more aware of when
> other people feel disrespected and silenced, and at the very least
> they should pay attention to the content of what the other posters
> might say.
>
> Is the act of silencing people disrespectful?
>
> Yes.
>
> Rachel was not calling on anybody to shut up. Rachel was annoyed
> by how some members of a group claiming to be progressive was
> engaging in the very kinds of behaviors and attitudes that
> reinforce some of the societal practices that others in the group
> are trying to address through participation in the group. So she
> called out this behavior. And what she was asking is for the
> people who are a part of the group to pay attention to all members
> of the group and how their behaviors are affecting them. In my
> understanding, this kind of activity constitutes respect.
>
> Rachel was annoyed when she wrote the email. It came across. As it
> should have. When you or a group you are a part of is being
> disrespected, I think it is perfectly fair to be annoyed. Hell,
> I'd be angry.
>
> I send annoyed emails all too often as some people on this list
> can attest. They often bother people. I have never been called a
> bitch, a shrew, an ass-hole or any male variant on this. Not once.
> Why? I suspect because I am a white male, and my emotion is often
> treated as "man'splainin". I.e., acceptable to white males, and
> intimidating to some other people.
>
> I have been checked by people. I should probably be checked more
> often. I try to check myself but I'm not very good at it. I
> sometimes don't respond very well to being checked. But I try. And
> the people who check me I feel are my friends. Usually, my best
> friends. No matter how annoyed they might be with me. Because I am
> by no means a perfect human being, and I don't see myself very
> well, so they help me stay in line. And put up with me despite the
> mistakes I often make.
>
> We can look at this "discussion" in any number of different ways.
> Here's mine:
>
> I want to be part of an activist community where participants
> fundamentally respect each other, and treat each other with respect.
>
> I would like people to try to be respectful by paying attention to
> their own actions as much as possible. I try to do this myself. I
> don't always succeed.
>
> I don't always know when I or other people are being
> disrespectful, so I assume that others may have this problem as well.
>
> Therefore, I welcome it when people point it out to me when I am
> being disrespectful, and I would like other people to welcome this
> as well so that we can all learn how to be respectful together. I
> have a lot to learn and can use all the help I can get.
>
> I don't have any patience for somebody who asks for respect but
> has no interest in giving it, or in trying to understand why
> another person might feel disrespected.
>
> Part of being respectful is understanding why a mailing list
> exists, why people participate, and being mindful of that in their
> posts. It is good to discuss this purpose if there is disagreement
> about it. It is not respectful to enforce your own perspective on
> the list. Agreements should be arrived at, preferably by the same
> consensus mechanisms adopted in meetings of the group.
>
> But most importantly, we should be trying to practice our
> conceptions of how society as a whole can be made better by
> practicing the very things we would like to have changed in
> society in the microcosms we are a part of, and the very groups
> devoted to making those changes should be the *first* place they
> are implemented. I don't believe in giving anybody a pass for
> intentional disrespect, but here? No excuses, period. Before we
> can be credible to others, we have to be changing ourselves.
>
> So, to everybody on the list:
>
> I want to be respectful of others. Please help me be that way.
>
> Ingbert
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Scott Kimball
> <scttkmbll at gmail.com <mailto:scttkmbll at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> While I normally try to stay out of listserv battles, as a
> white male I feel the responsibility to challenge other white
> males when they are so blatantly perpetuating patriarchy
> and/or white supremacy. In particular, I cannot believe the
> comments directed at Rachel, one of the hardest working
> organizers in our community. The two responses to Rachel thus
> far are examples of how the patriarchy permeates our society
> and this listserv.
>
> First Comment:
>
>> "There is nothing revolutionary about conversations here.
>> I can listen to white men man'splain in desperate pissing
>> contests virtually anywhere--that's what patriarchy
>> continues to afford me."
>> Rachel, do you think that an individual's views can be
>> reduced and/or dismissed on account of their age, race,
>> and/or gender?
>>
> This is example of how men feel entitled to choose the
> parameters of "acceptable discussion". Whenever a woman or
> person of color brings up issues of race or gender, a
> reactionary white man responds with something like " What does
> this have to do with race/gender? You're the one bringing up
> race/gender, therefore you are the one who is racist/sexist".
>
> It is not a matter of reducing one to their race, age, gender,
> class, etc, its about acknowledging privilege and how that
> affects one's orientation towards others. The term
> "mansplaining" is used to describe the tendency of men to feel
> entitled to "tell it like it is" to others. In other words,
> men are somehow the subject matter experts on /everything /and
> need to tell /you/ "how the world really is" or "the truth" or
> whatever. The issue is not the content one's statement; *it is
> the presumption of authority*. This tendency is exacerbated by
> whiteness, class privilege, and education level. I've met way
> too many white dudes from upper middle class backgrounds and
> graduate degrees who want to show everyone how smart and
> knowledgeable they are.
>
> This is not to say, however, that one is bound to act in such
> a way. It is a challenge to those with privilege to reflect
> upon that privilege, on how it permeates their life, and to
> think about how they, as privileged members of society, can be
> an ally to oppressed communities.
>
> David, I am not trying to argue that you act in such a way.
> However, your comment was a prompt for a response and this
> group needs some discussion about white and male privilege.
>
> Second comment:
>
> How does silly and childish compare with shrewish and bitchy
> on the value scale?
>
>
> This is such such a typical patriarchal response to a woman
> speaking up that it would be comical if it were not the case
> that this man actually lives in our community. Whenever a
> woman speaks up and challenges the men, she becomes "the
> bitch". It doesn't matter what she says.Her words are not
> heard. Only the challenge to male authority is heard. Compare
> this to when a man speaks out. When a man speaks out, he is
> heard and his thoughts are acknowledged to be worthy of
> discussion. Men can "reason" together in groups. Women,
> however, are too emotional and, perhaps, too intellectually
> inferior to be worthy of discussion. And, again, if a woman
> brings up the claim that men are
> being patriarchal or misogynistic, she is berated for being
> divisive or deviating from the important discussion (you know,
> the one the men are having).
>
> I find the discussions on this listserv to be very mean
> spirited, and most importantly, disorganizing. This is not the
> mode of discourse folks should use who want to organize for
> economic and social justice. You cannot work towards building
> a mass movement if you can't stop being an asshole.
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Sarah Lazare
> <sarah.lazare at gmail.com <mailto:sarah.lazare at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Rachel,
>
> We've very much appreciated your comments on this thread.
> Thanks for your strong feminist voice and leadership.
> We've often found that it's the moments when we're trying
> the hardest and putting ourselves out there the most that
> we face the greatest attack. I hope everyone who's had the
> good luck to work with Rachel can find your own way of
> showing her your love and appreciation. Here's to building
> a culture of liberatory, respectful debate and discussion
> within our movements.
>
> In Solidarity,
> Sarah Lazare and Brook Celeste
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Rickman, Aimee N
> <arickman at illinois.edu <mailto:arickman at illinois.edu>> wrote:
>
> Whoah.
>
>
> **************Apologies for any random question marks
> my system has weirdly added to this
> email********************
>
> *From:* occupycu-bounces at lists.chambana.net
> <mailto:occupycu-bounces at lists.chambana.net>
> [occupycu-bounces at lists.chambana.net
> <mailto:occupycu-bounces at lists.chambana.net>] on
> behalf of E. Wayne Johnson [ewj at pigsqq.org
> <mailto:ewj at pigsqq.org>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 12, 2012 3:58 PM
> *To:* Rachel Storm
> *Cc:* peace-discuss at anti-war.net
> <mailto:peace-discuss at anti-war.net>; David Green;
> occupycu at lists.chambana.net
> <mailto:occupycu at lists.chambana.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [OccupyCU] [Peace-discuss] [sf-core]
> Another Guantánamo prisoner death highlights
> Democrats' hypocrisy
>
> How does silly and childish compare with shrewish and
> bitchy on the value scale?
>
>
> On 9/13/2012 3:08 AM, Rachel Storm wrote:
>> David,
>>
>> I sent this email to Occupy, not Peace Discuss and
>> your question illustrates precisely what I seek to
>> illuminate. Listservs are designed for the people on
>> them. Not others and the assumption isn't that they
>> will be forwarded willy nilly to folks off of the
>> list. I expect that from people typically, but not
>> from people I am trying to build movements with--we
>> can do better. I'm not going to engage with you, when
>> you seek no understanding and only want to ignite
>> debate. It's silly and childish.
>>
>> Rachel
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 1:46 PM, David Green
>> <davegreen84 at yahoo.com
>> <mailto:davegreen84 at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>
>> "There is nothing revolutionary about
>> conversations here. I can listen to white men
>> man'splain in desperate pissing contests
>> virtually anywhere--that's what patriarchy
>> continues to afford me."
>> Rachel, do you think that an individual's views
>> can be reduced and/or dismissed on account of
>> their age, race, and/or gender?
>> David Green
>>
>> *From:* C. G. Estabrook
>> <carl at newsfromneptune.com
>> <mailto:carl at newsfromneptune.com>>
>> *To:* Rachel Storm <rachelstrm at gmail.com
>> <mailto:rachelstrm at gmail.com>>
>> *Cc:* peace-discuss at anti-war.net
>> <mailto:peace-discuss at anti-war.net>;
>> "occupycu at lists.chambana.net
>> <mailto:occupycu at lists.chambana.net>"
>> <occupyCU at lists.chambana.net
>> <mailto:occupyCU at lists.chambana.net>>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 12, 2012 8:24 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] [OccupyCU]
>> [sf-core] Another Guantánamo prisoner death
>> highlights Democrats' hypocrisy
>>
>> I thought the local Occupy group supported
>> the efforts of AWARE against US war and
>> racism abroad - even to participating in our
>> demonstrations.
>>
>> That's why I posted to the "OccupyCU" list
>> information about the ongoing scandal of
>> Guantanamo, which is scanted in the corporate
>> media (as is Manning's persecution, etc.).
>>
>> --CGE
>>
>> On Sep 12, 2012, at 12:16 AM, Rachel Storm
>> <rachelstrm at gmail.com
>> <mailto:rachelstrm at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> > I must share this...
>> >
>> > I've been both terribly bored and fairly
>> annoyed at how this Occupy listserv is being
>> used. I am someone that cannot regularly
>> attend Occupy meetings and for me, it's
>> important to be able to stay connected, but
>> what is Occupy here--in this communication
>> space? What is worth occupying? There is
>> nothing revolutionary about conversations
>> here. I can listen to white men man'splain in
>> desperate pissing contests virtually
>> anywhere--that's what patriarchy continues to
>> afford me. I'm tired of having to ask men in
>> the movement to check their privilege. It
>> shouldn't have to be asked-- I hear men in
>> the movement say they want revolution, but I
>> don't see willingness to do the work. We are
>> failing to model what we seek. We need more
>> imagination than this. We can do better.
>> >
>> > • We can value dialogue over debate.
>> Modeling that we're a community of people
>> seeking understanding, rather than trying to
>> get their word in edgewise. Those with
>> privilege in the movement (men, white folks,
>> etc.) can step back, make space, talk
>> less/listen more. This isn't hard to do and
>> makes a world of difference. (Just count the
>> number of women, people of color, etc.
>> actively engaged on these C-U activist lists
>> or being listened to at meetings and you'll
>> see how deep this problem is.)
>> > • We can "check each other" in an act
>> of care. Knowing that we're not perfect, but
>> we're trying and we have a responsibility to
>> help one another grow where possible. We can
>> tell those who are dominating conversation to
>> step back, to ask for clarification, and to
>> listen.
>> > • We can reject "occupation" as our
>> language in solidarity with native peoples
>> all over North America. We can privilege
>> people of color and women's voices--knowing
>> these voices ought to drive the movement that
>> seeks decolonization and an end to
>> marginalization.
>> > • We can spend more time imagining what
>> we want, alternatives, and raging where it
>> matters!
>> >
>> >
>> > In the past month alone, I've witnessed a
>> silencing conversation around the rape
>> allegations facing Assange that signals to
>> me--as a woman--that the same men that say
>> they care about women in the movement are no
>> where to be found when it comes time to stand
>> up against violence against women. I've been
>> to meetings where women's voices were rarely
>> heard--and I know my sisters had plenty to say!
>> > I am reminded of Adrienne Rich who
>> cautioned a white-led feminist movement,
>> "Without addressing the whiteness of white
>> feminism, our movement will turn in on itself
>> and collapse."
>> >
>> > There are other voices we need in this
>> space. This local organizing will not last
>> unless we turn our attention to these matters.
>> >
>> >
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_s3X0uW9Ec&feature=player_embedded
>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_s3X0uW9Ec&feature=player_embedded>
>> >
>> > love and rage,
>> >
>> > RS
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OccupyCU mailing list
> OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net
> <mailto:OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net>
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/occupycu
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OccupyCU mailing list
> OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net
> <mailto:OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net>
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/occupycu
>
>
>
>
> --
> Scott Kimball
> Project Organizer
> American Federation of Teachers
> Higher Education Project
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OccupyCU mailing list
> OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net <mailto:OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net>
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/occupycu
>
>
>
>
> --
> ==========================================
> Ingbert Schmidt
> http://ingbert.org/ || skype/twitter/etc.: spacesoon
>
> "Dream in a pragmatic way."
> -Aldous Huxley
>
> _______________________________________________
> OccupyCU mailing list
> OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net <mailto:OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net>
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/occupycu
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20120913/71a8587a/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list