I *am* a feminist AND...

[caramida]

There's a lot written this week about gay rights, human rights, the oppression of blacks, hispanics, queers, women, feminists, and more. There have been smart people speaking up about it, there have been smart people speaking up about people who speak up, and there are always trolls.

Many people have said good things about the issue that are much more articulate than I, but feel I gotta say my piece, even if I'm speaking to the choir, or even if nobody hears my small voice. It's not a matter of whether or not someone hears me, but whether or not I speak.

A thoughtful person wrote, "I'm not a ________ist I'm a humanist." This is all well and good, but it does not quite strike the target. Sometimes it is important to say more than I like people, and can't we all just get along. Sometimes failing to claim a cause and stand by it, implicitly gives ground to its opponents.

Sometimes it is necessary to do something good to make up for something else bad. Martin Luther King once wrote, "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis." This works for racial discrimination, sexual/gender-identity discrimination, and sexual orientation discriminition.

Embrace the power of 'AND.'¹

For anyone to honestly claim to believe that America is a fundamentally fair society is must cause some amount of cognitive dissonance. That we aspire to fairness is just, but aspiration is not enough. Good intentions can take you down a familiar road, but only good actions will take you down the right road.

As a white, straight², male, I feel it absolutely necessary to identify that I am a feminist, in that I believe in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes,
AND
I am a humanist, in that I am concerned with the interests, needs, and welfare of humans,
AND
I am agnostic. I don't know, and I'm ok with that. I'm also okay with people believing otherwise. Faith, whether justified or not, may have a purpose.
AND
I recognize racism within my society. I work to combat it in my communities and in myself,
AND
I am an ally to those treated unfairly whether because of the color of their skin, their gender, their sexual identity, their economic circumstance, their faith, or any of the myriad reasons small people use to denigrate or disparage human beings.

The essence of inhumanity is alienation. Demonizing, and de-humanizing people is how the fearful perpetuate atrocities. Antilocution is anathema. Tutsis are not cockroaches. Gay men are not degenerates. Muslims are not monsters. Women are not bitches. Feminists are not man-haters.

This I believe.

¹ thanks miss_mimsy
² for a given definition of straight.

Comments

[dryadgrl]

I agree.

There's another thing to think about in the idea of not equalizing the playing field: who really benefits from keeping people down? Becuae that's what's happening if you don't do things like affirmative action - you know that the playing field is unequal and yet you persist? I have no words.

But let's look at who realy benefits. Ostensibly people in power benefit from keeping things as they are - they get nearly all the seats on the government, own tons of stuff, don't get so harrassed by the police.

But they still have to live in a world where poverty exists and their cars still get broken into and they still have to see protesters on teevee - there's still crime, and prisons and so on. On an emotional level, it does not benefit them.

But the societal competetive attitudes that if someone else gets something it has to be taken away from you and then you'll *starve* OMG!!! That's just not true. With the current tax structure everyone in the US could easily have enough to eat and places to live. It's how those resources are allocated.

For that matter it's a policy decision that people around the world are starving. There is no reason for it except this same attitude of scarcity. (see food first, for example)

I'm taking yet another economics class and this one makes it even more clear: there is what we assume is going on and then what is actually going on. And never the twain shall meet.

So while it's fine to say "but if they get x, it'll hurt MEEEEEE!" it just ain't true. And ther's no reason it should be. I could go on for days about this (read some George Lakoff - cognitive linguist - to get an idea of the differences in the way people think about this stuff). It's a choice. And I think that choosing to keep people down is a horrific choice. And I refuse.

Once you know, you're complicit. It's on your shoulders too.