Skip to main content

View Diary: The Master's Tools ..... (149 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No not at all (0+ / 0-)

    The financial boycott does not speak for all LGBTs, any more than President Obama speaks for all blacks.  My analysis and opinion is my own.  Your attempt to interpret it otherwise is your own.

    And frankly, as interesting as intersectionality and related concepts are, at the end of the day I'm talking about LGBT issues.  Not atheist and LGBT, Jewish and LGBT, black and LGBT, female and LGBT, Arab and LGBT, etc.  And the dismissive arrogance of the academic study set on intersectionality bleeds through every post on it.  People of color includes South Asians, East Asians, Arabs and Hispanics; blacks do not have a monopoly on this phenomenon.  A Palestinian gay man born into the Islamic faith in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip almost certainly suffers far more than any American LGBT, whatever his skin tone.  In fact, I could easily say that your attitudes are distinctly American-centric; you care about President Obama succeeding domestically, you care about improving domestic race relations, but at the end of the day you will always have blinders.  At the end of the day you're rooted here.  There's this globe that never enters into the discussion.

    So...you want to discuss intersectionality and the dismissive attitude of groups like the HRC.  Fine, discuss away.  Deny yourselves agency.  But you haven't, and probably won't, convince me or others like me.  

    •  you honestly don't know the range of what "we" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      princessglitterboots

      care about alec --

      adn you again willfully misrepresent who "we" are what 'we" care about and what in fact true intersectionality actually means...

      it isn't theoretical or academic --it is the REALITY OF PEOPLE'S LIVES

      this speaks volumes

      And frankly, as interesting as intersectionality and related concepts are, at the end of the day I'm talking about LGBT issues.  Not atheist and LGBT, Jewish and LGBT, black and LGBT, female and LGBT, Arab and LGBT, etc.

      you cannot honestly discuss LGTBT issues without discussing all these dimensions..

      you are another version of those middle-class white feminists that Lorde was addressing 25+ years ago..

      •  Actually I can (0+ / 0-)

        Because there are issues, actual political issues, not simply social issues, that are LGBT, and LGBT only.  Heterosexuals don't have access to them, and don't understand them.  And it's not just white gay men that feel this way, soothsayer.  

        This is the road the logic you have embraced will take you down; it differs very little, in my opinion, from the extreme cultural relativism rejected by the emerging consensus on human rights.  I view this entire line of thought as an obstacle to that goal.  

        And that's why Joan's diary pissed people off; she was just more honest, ultimately, about the logic of this movement.  It's ultimately the denial of agency, and the privileging of particularization over universal values.   It's anti-Enlightenment.  

        •  the perspective presented here is opposite of (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          princessglitterboots

          what you claim.. It is decidedly about universal human rights and most of all about agnecy to resist -- both individually and collectvely

          of course there are political rights that are denied to the glbt community -- we could have a comparable discussion about political and social rights denied to many gtoups -- but that inequality is deeply linked to systems that renders many unequal due to the ascribed stauses of race/ethnicty gender age ability and yes class...

          The nuances will vary globally but oppression generally operates in the same hierachical way with the same tools world--wide -- through exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and violence.

          See Iris Marion Young Five Faces of Oppression

          1. Exploitation. Exploitation has to do with the difference between the wealth that workers create through their labor power and the actual wages that workers get paid. Exploitation is built into the market economy; bosses want to increase profits by lowering wages. The wage and wealth gap between the wealthy owners and managers, on the one hand, and the masses of working people, on the other, is an indication of the degree of exploitation that exists in a society.
          1. Marginalization. This refers to being left out of the labor market. Those who are unable to get and keep steady employment – because of disabilities, education levels, age, historic discrimination, lack of jobs in neighborhoods, the conditions of poverty, etc. – are experiencing marginalization.
          1. Powerlessness. In this particular context, ‘powerlessness’ refers to the way in which workers are divided and segmented into jobs with autonomy and authority and jobs with little or no autonomy and authority. Workers in lower-status jobs experience more powerlessness (both on the job and in the sphere of politics) than workers with professional jobs. At the same time, giving some workers a little bit of autonomy on the job can undermine a sense of solidarity that they might otherwise feel towards all workers.
          1. Cultural Dominance. This refers to the way that one group’s experiences, cultural expressions and history are defined as superior to all other groups’ experiences and histories. It is not necessary for anyone to say: "my group’s culture is superior;" it simply has to be treated as universal –– representing the best in all of humanity. It is considered ‘normal,’ which means that all others are either ‘strange,’ or ‘invisible’ or both.
          1. Violence. Our nation’s history is full of examples where violence has been used to keep a group ‘in its place.’ State-sanctioned violence has been used to enforce racial segregation, to keep workers from organizing and to break up strikes. Everyday violence also reminds social groups of what happens when they resist oppressive conditions: Black youths straying into a white neighborhood, gay men harrassed and beaten outside of bars and clubs, women in the military being harrassed and sometimes raped -- these are examples of the brutality of everyday life for so many of us. And the ways in which violent crimes are dealt with often reflects social and cultural biases; crime is 'contained' within neigborhoods that law enforcement has written off.

          Each of these five forms of oppression overlaps with the other. Each is related to and reinforced by the many ideological ‘–isms’ and phobias that exist in our society: racism, classism, homophobia and heterosexism, xenophobia and extreme forms of nationalism, ageism, and more.

          Most people in society experience one or more of these forms of oppression at some point in their lives. Most, if not all, working people experience exploitation. Racism runs through each of these kinds of oppression, intensifying the experience of exploitation, powerlessness, cultural dominance and everyday violence. Gay men as a group experience cultural dominance and the threat of violence, but they may not necessarily experience other forms of oppression, depending on their class and occupational status. White professional women experience cultural dominance, fear of sexual violence and a degree of powerlessness -- especially if they constantly have to prove themselves worthy of their status. Black professional men also have to constantly prove themselves. Some people experience all five of these kinds of oppression. Their political powerlessness tends to render them invisible.

          These five ways of looking at oppression help us see that people cannot be divided neatly into the ‘oppressed’ and the ‘oppressor’ columns. We need to build upon people’s different as well as shared experiences of oppression to encourage them to get involved in collective action for social change, and to join with others, whose experiences with oppression may look somewhat different from their own.

          A structural analysis of oppression that looks at the intersections of race, gender and class allows us to unmask the ways in which these social and economic divisions reflect and reinforce existing power relations in society. It highlights the need for organizational and institutional allies who recognize their shared responsibility to fight oppression in all its forms.

          this is the intersectionality of oppression -- and its' reality and effects are empirically measureable

          there is also an intersection of identity -- people don't just have a sexual orientation - they have racial/ethnic identities, ages socio-econmic statuses and abilities...

          Failure to account for the complexity of both people's lives and the common threads in oppressive systems is to deny reality...

          It is also to isolate divide and render ineffective the real work of change

          These are the Master's Tools

          •  But ultimately you demand loyalty to President... (0+ / 0-)

            ...Obama not simply because of his political obligations, but also on the basis of his race.  It's not as simple as race, of course; Justice Thomas certainly doesn't enjoy this New Left loyalty.  But when the needs of others are considered alongside the needs of the first black and center left president, all other obligations are devalued.  And so criticism is deemd to come from a "very ugly place" and "no other president" is subjected to the demands of something like the boycott.  When someone who isn't white objects, you falter and cannot provide a rationale for their objection without attributing something akin to false consciousness to them.  They, too, are denied agency.  

            The problem is also that you demand one way communication and commitment.  The boycott is "divisive," but President Obama's failure to do one simple act must be excused at all costs.  Incrementalism is praised and the legitimate grievances and demands of the Left are dismissed.

            And you do this by dismissing gay rights.  Sorry, you do.  You still cannot explain away your comparison of DOMA to homelessness, which is not at all alike in kind, in light of your comparison of Stupak to Hyde and  Guantanamo to Angola3.  When the differences are pointed out, you simply don't respond to the criticism.  And on it goes.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site