Peg Tittle's Blog, page 51

In Commemoration of the Holocaust

I’m not saying it didn’t happen.

I’m not saying that, in any way, it was okay.

But I’d like to point out that a devout Jew would’ve done, would do, the same thing to the Germans – if God told him to.

‘Oh but God would never command such a thing.’

Take a better look at your Bible:

- “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” – Exodus 22:8.  (Eight million innocent people were put to death because of this command alone – but do read on.)

- “…Seven nations greater and mightier than thou; and when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them…” – Deuteronomy 7:1-2.  (This meant genocide for seven nations: the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites – Deuteronomy 7:1.)

- “So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded” – Joshua 10:40.  (This included Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, Gezer, Eglon, Hebron, and Debir – in each of these cities he “utterly destroyed all the souls that were therein; he left none remaining…as the Lord God of Israel commanded” – Joshua 10:28-40.)

- “And he [Moses] said unto them, ‘Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, “Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man, his companion, and every man his neighbour.”‘  And the children of Levi did…and there fell of the people that day about 3,000 men…” – Exodus 32:27-29.

- “Samuel also said unto Saul… ‘Thus saith the Lord of hosts… Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling….’ And Saul smote the Amalekites…and utterly destroyed all the people…” – 1 Samuel 15:1-3,7-8.

-  “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, ‘Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites….’  And they warred against the Midianites as the Lord commanded Moses; and they slew all the males” – Numbers 31:1-2, 7.

-  “And the Lord God said unto Joshua…he [Achan] that is taken with the accursed thing [he stole something] shall be burnt with fire….  And Joshua…took Achan…and his sons, and his daughters…and burned them with fire…” – Joshua 7:10, 15, 24-26.  (This one in particular reminded me of the gas ovens.  Can you spell ‘ironic’?)

- “And the Spirit of the Lord came upon him [Samson], and he went down to Ashkelon, and slew thirty men…” – Judges 14:19.

- “And the Spirit of the Lord came mightily upon him [mightily this time]…and he…slew a thousand men…” – Judges 15:14,15.

Need I go on?  Religions are full of commands to kill, and the Jewish one is no different.  In particular, ethnic cleansing (such as that of the Holocaust) has strong religious support.  And, of course, the faithful are compelled to obey their God’s commandments.  So if God had said, were to say, “Go ye and slay all who hath been born of the land that is Germany,” well, “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones” – Psalms 137:9.

Food Fight Breaks Out in the House of Commons

Have you watched the House of Commons proceedings lately? It’s unbelievable. I haven’t seen such petty bickering, name-calling, and tongue-sticking-outting since Dicky called Peter a wuss at recess back in grade two. Then Johnny, who was on Dicky’s side, started throwing clumps of dirt at Dougie, who was on Peter’s side, and a bunch of other boys started yelling and kicking and when the teacher came out, they all accused each other, pointing fingers, ‘He started it!’ ‘No I didn’t, he did!’ ‘Oh yeah?’ ‘Yeah!’ and it started all over again.

But they weren’t grown ups, wearing suits-and-ties and saying “Mr. Speaker, I humbly submit…” And they weren’t being paid to run the fucking country.

It’s hard to believe they can be so immature. So instead I believe it’s all a charade. To further convince us that there’s simply no point in voting, let alone calling our MP or lobbying for this or that, no hope in hell of any participation in the process making any difference at all. That way the corporate agenda can proceed, with nothing whatsoever in its way.

Who Wants to be a Millionaire?

I don’t.

First, I’d have to do a lot of research to figure out which organizations are really what they say they are. Names like “Lands for Life” (“Lands for Private Profit”), remind us that you can’t judge a book by its cover. (And that PR departments are masters of deception.) So that would take a while. Sending $10 or $20 to the wrong group, well, that’s not such a big deal, but I wouldn’t want to be giving or lending several thousand to the bad guys by mistake.

And of course it’s not all black and white. A solar energy company may keep its female engineers at the secretarial level. So are they the good guys or the bad guys?

And even good intentions are not good enough. I’d need to know which groups are really going to make a difference. There’s no point in funding something that’s just an ineffectual feel-good enterprise. Which organizations have what it takes to really do something? I have no idea. Because I don’t know what it takes. So I guess I’d have to hire someone to advise me, perhaps an ex-loan officer, someone who can look at a business plan and tell me whether it’ll go. I’d also have to hire someone to assess the research plan. I mean, that guy who claims he has the technology (and it’s cheap and portable) to neutralize radioactive material – is that for real?

Then I’d have to figure out how best to distribute all that money. $100,000 to ten groups? $50,000 to twenty? The whole million to one?

And that sort of depends on what I decide about priorities, about problems and solutions. How best to change/save the planet? (With or without the human species?) Do I support those out to save our ecological environment because without that we’re toast, or do I figure we have time to get to the root and focus on education programs, or do I decide we don’t have time for anything but coercion and get behind political/legislative powers?

So, no thank you, I don’t want to be a millionaire. Fulfilling the responsibility that comes with a million dollars would be a full-time job for at least a year. And frankly, I’d rather sit and watch the sun sparkle on the lake.

The Problem with Democracy

The problem with democracy is that it’s just an appeal to the majority.

And most people, the majority, simply want whatever’s in their own, personal, best interest. We are a nation of egoists. Average life span what it is, personal interests are necessarily short-term. Average intelligence what it is, personal interests are also immediate and concrete. So what’s good for the whole, the whole country, never mind the whole planet, will never happen.

So, also, talk about the need for an informed citizenry is irrelevant. True, the majority doesn’t know diddlysquat. But also true, they have no interest whatsoever in finding out. Because all they care about is themselves. And they’re convinced they already know all there is to know about what’s best for themselves. And they’re probably right, because their interests are so immediately and concretely served.

Worse, those few to whom one might speak about the problem with this state of affairs believe that the good of the whole is equal to the good of the parts, so, they reason, this state of affairs, each individual voting for what he or she personally wants, is the best state of affairs.

I suppose it might be the most fair, the most just, state of affairs – which only means when our world stops working, we will have gotten exactly what we deserve.

We, the majority, that is.

Entertain Me. Hurt him.

Given the violent content of many prime time dramas and sports, both of which are considered entertainment, it is apparent that many of us consider it entertaining when people hurt other people. What does that say about us?

That so many people find violence entertaining should be deeply disturbing. Instead, it’s so normal, it’s unremarkable. (And what does that say about us?)

Asking the Right Questions

Never has it been more important to ask the right questions.

Not as philosophers, in the clearest, most explicit, terms, but in terms most likely to be used by the arrested-development minds of computer programmers.

Because phone conversations, for example, aren’t with people anymore; they’re with AI programs that are, let’s face it, stupider than most people. (Which is saying a lot.)

And that’s because they’re designed by people with no philosophical training, people who think in terms of black and white, people whose imaginations seem to be severely limited. Which means you have to stay within a severely limited range of possibilities in order to be understood; you have to anticipate how such a simple mind might say something.

I imagine a very near future in which the stupid people succeed because they’re the only ones able to communicate with all our ‘smart’ programs – because their minds are unclouded by complexity and subtlety.

A Gold Watch. Seriously.

At one of my previous workplaces, we had a little ceremony each year honouring employees who had worked there for five, ten, or fifteen years.  I used to go.  (There was free pizza.)  But then I stopped.  (After three years, I could afford my own pizza.)

It’s a curious thing, this esteem we have for longevity.  Why is an anniversary cause for celebration?  I can see it in some Purple Heart sense – congratulations for surviving – but that doesn’t seem to be the spirit in which such celebrations are intended.  (Then again…)

So what’s the big deal about being married to the same person, or working for the same company, for so many years?  Is it supposed to be some expression of loyalty, which is then rewarded?  What’s loyalty?  And why is it good?  Is it trust?  In a person, or company, no matter what they do?  Excuse me, but the day my partner or my employer starts making weapons or selling unsafe products, I’m outta there.

Let’s admit it, ‘seniority’ rewards quantity rather than quality.  I mean, what if it were a shitty marriage?  Why applaud someone for staying in it?  (Do you want fries with that?)

And what if the person’s a mediocre employee?  We give them a raise every year just because they’ve been there one more year.  But we don’t give a raise to the guy who’s doing a good job.  Is it any wonder then that so many employees develop a clock-punching mentality, that they figure just being there, just putting in time, is enough?  Because apparently, it is.  If they put in enough time, they get a wage increase, extra holidays, protection from lay-off, and eventually, so very appropriately, a gold watch.

Granted, sometimes there’s a connection between quantity and quality: the longer you work at it, the better you get, the more you know.  Sometimes.  (So why not just reward that increase in quality  –  directly.)   But unless you get moved to a different position, the level of mastery is often achieved before five years, certainly usually before ten or fifteen years.  So seniority means stagnation, complacency.  It could also mean cowardice, fear of trying something new.  (Or simply the lack of other opportunities.)  And of course, if one hangs on because of the rewards, it means self-interestedness.

My guess is that after a certain point, performance declines, rather than inclines, with seniority.  You know you can’t be easily fired, you feel secure, you feel comfortable.  So you don’t try as hard, you get a little lazy.  And you get a little bored, you get a little dull.

So seniority should not be rewarded.  And rather than penalizing the person who’s changed jobs every few years, we should be recruiting them.

On Excluding MtFs from a Radfem Site

As soon as I discovered I Blame the Patriarchy, I thought “I have found the mothership.”  Alas, almost immediately, it powered down.  Since I loved the discussion as much as Twisty’s brilliant posts, I decided to set up a new island for the blametariat: Hell Yeah, I’m a Feminist.

Unfortunately, unwittingly, I declared, in addition to the ‘No Dudes’ rule, a ‘No MtFs’ rule.  It seemed logical.  The reason for the first was to minimize dudely mansplaining, and I reasoned that MtFs, having similarly been raised to be men, would be almost as likely to feel and exhibit that ‘entitlement’.  Little did I know.

The rule was met mostly with disapproval, so I posted about the issue in order to open discussion on the matter.  But the matter has been discussed to death on IBTP (I realized this later—there’s one thread there with 772 comments), so posting about it on HYIAF is just inflammatory.  (And upending a barrel of worms on the beach is not a way to attract people.)  So I decided to move it here.  Because it’s an important issue and should, therefore, be discussed.  By everyone.

So, what follows: my original rules (for HYIAF, not this site), my discussion-opening post (excerpts), and then (most of) my explanation (for a revision to the rules).

 

The original rules:

No dudes allowed.  Radical feminist men: go start your own website, for men only.  It would be far more radical than coming here.  (I can help you do this by putting you in touch with a great webmaster.)  Other men: we are here to chat with kin, for validation and new insights.  Most of us have spent, and continue to spend, far too much time and energy when off the island explaining and defending, over and over, the same basic points (A patriarchy is…; We do live in a patriarchy…); we don’t want to do that here.  We don’t want you here.

And, I’m going to say, no MTFs. (Unless you changed before you were six.)  The experience we share here has far more to do with having a lifetime of being female-bodied in a patriarchy than with having certain chromosomes, hormones, and/or secondary sex characteristics.  This is not to say that MTF transpeople haven’t experienced oppression, suppression, or repression (or all three); it is only to say ‘Share it somewhere else’ (for example, Laura’s Playground or Fuck Yeah MTFs). And although your perspective as an adult who is newly female-bodied is certainly interesting, and, depending on your level of perceptiveness, insightful, I’d rather hear about it somewhere else.

 

The discussion-opening post:

So…I think the shared experience that ‘supports’ the site is that we have had a lifetime of living in a female body.  Having (most of) a lifetime living in a male body makes you different; the body you live in shapes your character, if only because it determines the way people behave toward you; I don’t think it is easy to ‘get over’ twenty years of entitlement, for example, or to understand the effect of forty years of subordination and relentless sexualization.

Why do you not have a problem with excluding those who by default have lived in a male body?  (But do have a problem with excluding those who by default have lived in a male body for 20, 30, 40 years, and then switched?)

 

The explanation:

Okay, so I’ve been reading and thinking and thinking and reading…  And sometimes even doing both at the same time.  I’ve had a lot of catching up to do.

A bit of background…I’m a 70s feminist.  Though I’ve always been more comfortable calling myself an anti-sexist, a word that, unfortunately, didn’t catch on …

Anyway.  I stopped subscribing to Ms. when it changed.  (And they refused to publish my letter to the editor about how the label ‘Ms.’ was a wrong turn, since it reinforced the gender dichotomy.  I had just written my piece Mr. and Ms., which I later revised to include Martine Rothblatt’s wonderful phrase ‘the apartheid of sex’—which I read almost as soon as it came out.)  Broadside went belly up.  And off our backs also went out of publication.  …

And then Faludi’s Backlash came out.

And then Katie Roiphe’s book and …

It wasn’t until about five years ago that I was able to get high-speed internet access.  …  and when I was finally able to search for other feminists, to find something to subscribe to or join, when I googled “feminist magazines” and such, I got things like “Bust” and sites which I now know are by/for/about “funfeminists”.  Murphy Brown gave way to Desperate Housewives.

I turned away in disgust.  That’s what passes for feminism today?  Oh my god, what happened when I wasn’t looking? (I didn’t know to google for “radical feminist”.)

So, given my blackout, I didn’t realize that I was opening the floodgates on such a huge issue when I posted my MtF exlusion rule.  The field of identity politics has burst wide, wide open since I almost did my Master’s thesis on it some twenty years ago.  (Instead, I did it on the issue of consent in sex and sexual assault.)  And the trans/feminist debate is big.  Didn’t know that.

So I’m reading:

- http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2011/02/09/spinster-aunt-gets-translucent/ (772 comments, Jesus fucking Christ!)

- http://skeptifem.blogspot.ca/2010/10/transphobia.html

- http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2011/09/radical_feminism_transphobia

- http://msmagazine.com/blog/2012/04/18/trans-feminism-theres-no-conundrum-about-it/

- http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.ca/2011/02/who-gets-to-define-women-only-space.html

This is not to say that I have been unaware of transpeople.  As I said, I read Rothblatt’s book as soon as it came out.  I’ve also read Kate Bornstein’s work.  More recently, I’ve read Julia Serano’s Whipping Girl.  And Max Valerio’s The Testosterone Files. 

But, as I say, I was unaware that the inclusion/exclusion of MtFs in radfem communities was such a hot issue.  (Until a few days ago, I didn’t know what FAAB meant.  Until just six months ago, I hadn’t even heard of the term ‘cis’…)

So.  My original desire (Door #1) was to exclude men partly because their conditioning as males in the patriarchy makes it unlikely that they will ‘get it’ on a personal level (‘it’ being what it’s like to live as a woman in a patriarchy).  Just as I can’t really ‘get’ racial discrimination.  True, I can imagine it, especially having experienced something similar, and if I read and think a lot about racism, it’s possible I might even ‘get’ it more than a black person who is completely uncritical about his or her life.  But if that’s enough, then we should not only let MtFs to join the discussion, we should also let cis-males do so.

The other reason for excluding men is because their conditioning as males in the patriarchy make it very likely that they will engage in the dudely behavior that we do not want here because it is inhibiting and distracting.

Inhibiting: We’ve read Tannen and others—hell, we’ve lived Tannen and others—and we know that something very good happens when there are no men in the room (see also Failing at Fairness and, for my male friend who insists that things have changed, Still Failing at Fairness).  (To offer an anecdote that is unnecessary, when I asked the women at my local credit union, a women-only workplace by accident, how things were different at banks where they had male collagues, their response was immediate and unambiguous: one actually said, “It’s more intellectual” and I believe their smiles said “It’s more fun.”)

And MtFs have been subject to the same conditioning as cis-males.  True, they may not have accepted it; neither may have some cis-males.  But a very vocal, lecturing, patronizing MtF can shut down conversation pretty quickly too.  See Quixote’s comment: I too have experienced that online, at another site.  And yet…we can’t generalize from our experience because it involves an insufficient sample.  I have also had a non-entitled, non-patronizing interaction with at least one MtF.  And at least one cis-male.  More on generalizations below.

Distracting: ‘What about the men?’ questions are important (in the early 80s, I pulled out of setting up a school that would explicitly combat sexism because the other two people wanted to exclude boys; I saw that sexism hurt both—remember that this was when we were identifying the main problem as behavioral, as sexism; now, we see it, as well, as systemic, as the patriarchy—and since boys grow up to be men and have most of the power, I considered the need to deal with sexism directed at men to be as great as that directed to women)  (which is why Stoltenberg’s on the reading list)  (and why I was a little uncomfortable excluding men as well as MtFs from Hell Yeah), they’re just not questions we want to focus on here).

However, my decision was met with a bit of an outcry.

Because of inappropriate overgeneralization?  Because the overgeneralization, while justified in the case of cis-males (let’s say 80% exhibit the kind of behavior we don’t want here) is not justified in the case of MtFs (if, say, only 20% exhibit that kind of behavior)?  First, show me the evidence to support that argument.  My own personal anecdotal evidence is about 80% vs 50%.  Second, no, the outcry was that MtFs should be included because they’re women.

But it’s logically inconsistent to include MtFs because being a man/woman is not about the biochemphysio stuff (which would be Door #2), it’s about how one self-identifies (Door #3), and then exclude cis-Ms because it is about the biochemphysio stuff.  You can’t change your definitions whenever it suits you.

Furthermore, to refer to the outcry, “the personal identity of any one commenter is most definitely not how to prevent non-feminist commentary and dudely points of view”—and yet we do just that when we exclude males; “…it’s against what feminism is to judge people by their bodies, not their minds and feelings and ambitions and dreams.”—and yet, again, we’re doing just that when we exclude males.

In any case, the problem with such an essentialist approach (Door #2) is ‘How much biochemphysio stuff is enough?’ and ‘Which biochemphysio stuff is most important?’  Gender identity is not dichotomous.

But if it’s about how one self-identifies (Door #3), then surely some cis-Ms should be included (if they feel like women—perhaps they’re just preMtF), and perhaps some femme-gay-men should be included (those who feel like women).  In any case, I am suspect of references to “feeling like a woman”.  To me, that means only feeling like a second-class citizen.  Or worse.

Another problem with the self-identification criterion is that I would be excluded.  Yes, I have all the requisite body parts—or used to (does that matter?) (also, one of the parts I still have is no longer functional—does that matter?), and I think I have XX chromosomes, but I have no idea how much androgen and estrogen is coursing through my body.  And yet, I have never felt like a woman; I have always resisted being called ‘girl’ and ‘woman’.  To the MtFs who justify the preoccupation with performing femininity by saying ‘All girls go through that in adolescence, experimenting with make-up, learning to walk in heels, and so on…’  No, they don’t.  I didn’t.  I wore make-up (blue eyeshadow and something on my cheeks) for one day.  One.  Day.  Didn’t like the way it felt on my skin and didn’t like the way it made me look.  I have never worn high heels.  As soon as my school permitted girls to wear pants instead of dresses and skirts, I did.  I think of myself as an androgyne.  I’m certainly asexual now.  So what does that make me?  (See Making the Outside Match the Inside.)

The problem for me with MtFs (etc.) is not the ‘t’ but the ‘M’ and the ‘F’.

On what basis can we exclude men (given/notwithstanding the above), but include both MtFs and me??

…

The bottom line is I can’t enforce any categorical exclusion.  As it turns out, one of the comments made was by a cis-male.  But since it wasn’t aggressive, or insulting, or patronizing, and wasn’t expressing any particular male point of view or exclaiming ‘What about the men?’ I didn’t recognize it as male.  (And, frankly, I would have identified Saurs’ comment as male: it was insulting and dismissive in one.  How very dudely, Saurs!)  It’s far easier to recognize the posts per se that we don’t want than to guess at the poster’s gender type or experience.

So perhaps it’s better to take a functional/behavioral approach (Door #6).  We don’t want to hear about the male point of view here.  We hear about it far too much elsewhere.  We don’t want to entertain ‘What about the men?’ questions here.  Those questions dominate mass media in one way or another.  Lastly, we don’t want to be mansplained or patronized.  Why don’t we just make those the lines in our sand?

So I’m not done reading or thinking yet, but it may take a while.  In the meantime, I’ve decided to go with Door #6.

 

A postscript:

Let us agree that

1. The terms ‘man’ and ‘woman’ refer to gender, which is a social construct.  The terms ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ are the adjectives that, similarly, refer to gender.

2. The terms ‘male’ and ‘female’ refer to sex, which is determined by biochemistry, of chromosomes, hormones, or brain, or some combination thereof.

3. Neither gender nor sex is dichotomous.

4. The relationship between sex and gender is not isomorphic.

 

Patriarchy is fucked up because

1. It assumes gender and sex are dichotomous and does not permit variations between or beyond.

2. It assumes an isomorphic relationship between gender and sex (such that males must be men/masculine and females must be women/feminine).

3. It further arbitrarily claims that the male (and hence men and that which is masculine) is superior to the female (and hence women and that which is feminine).

 

Because the third proposition is arbitrary (it is certainly not supported by the first two propositions because they’re incorrect assumptions) and because it has caused and continues to cause extensive pain and injustice, radical feminists seek the abolition of the patriarchy.

To that end, since the third proposition depends heavily on both a dichotomous gender and a dichotomous sex, it seeks to abolish gender altogether (or at least demonstrate that it’s not a dichotomy): once gender is gone (or is at least manifested on a spectrum), the differences between male and female will be far less clear.  MtFs (etc) can certainly be radfems, then, to the extent they too wish to see the patriarchy abolished and, perhaps more to the point here, to the extent they undermine, rather than reinforce, the gender dichotomy.

Furthermore, given the inaccessibility of the other’s subjective experience (see Thomas Nagel’s classic “What is it like to be a bat?”), there is little that can be done with claims like “But I identify as a woman” or “I feel like a woman”.  However, given the human capacity for self-delusion, one need not respond with absolute acceptance, but neither can one respond with outright denial.

 

Discuss.

Intelligent Design vs Evolution

It’s ironic that the stupid people are backing intelligent design, and the intelligent people are backing dumbfuck non-design. That’s essentially what evolution is: whatever traits lead to increased reproduction, those are the ones that survive.

And what traits lead to reproduction? Not intelligence, that’s for sure. Intelligent women don’t want to have ten kids. They’d rather be doing medical research, composing sonatas, studying society. And intelligent men? They’re not cruising the bars. They’re home with a good book if they’re not still in the office or the lab. It’s stupid women who forget to take the pill or don’t get a tubal ligation. And it’s stupid men who don’t use a condom or get a vasectomy. And it’s stupid brute force that rapes. And those men aren’t targeting the intellectuals. So we’re evolving all right. Right into propagated species-wide stupidity.

But isn’t evolution all about survival of the fittest? Yeah…fittest to the environment. And since stupid people, the ones reproducing, don’t even know what an ‘ecological footprint’ is, let alone have the character (and here I include both a certain morality and self-discipline) to minimize their ecological footprint, we’re not going to survive.

Which means maybe evolution is intelligent design after all.

To Wail like a Brat – and Advertise

On what basis do you claim the right to publicize your desire for money – at my expense?  You use forests full of trees for unsolicited mailouts, you produce and then dump tons of nonbiodegradable plastic for oversized packaging aka advertising, you destroy beautiful landscapes with your ubiquitous signs, you stuff my emailbox with your shouting forcing me to expend time and effort to shut you up, you intrude on my consciousness with your insistent voice – all because you want me to buy your product or service so you can make some (more) money.

Listings in directories – by category of product, service, and so on – should be free of charge; when we want to purchase something, we’ll find you in the directory.  Any other advertising should be illegal.  Frivolous depletion and destruction of the planet’s resources is irresponsible.  Shouting “I want I want I want” in someone’s face is invasive and assaultive.  In short, advertising is immature.