An actual woman of color who’s blogging under her real name, and who everyone *knows* is a woman of color, dares to complain about her treatment by the supposed (and predominantly white) defenders of women of color. She gets thoroughly ignored because her complaints don’t fit into the narrative of “hardcore women of color take down snippy white empowerful prom-queen feminist.”

And yes, Samhita’s blogging under her real name matters, as does the anonymity of her attackers. I comment anonymously for a reason and I sympathize with everyone who does. But if you comment or blog anonymously you can’t expect anyone to take your appeals to authenticity and experience as a woman/person of color/member of X class seriously, or at least not as seriously as you would someone who posts their real name and their picture. People have made appeals to authenticity in the course of their arguments, and yes, these rhetorical appeals have played a strong part in this debate. So it’s valid to question their factual basis. Why should I give credence to someone who claims to be a woman of color, and who claims special authority to attack Samhita (and Jessica) because of this, when I don’t know that they are and when they’re using their (supposed) experience to attack Samhita’s actual experience? If you’re making an appeal to identity and to lived experience then it’s perfectly valid to bring up the point of anonymity and the role it can play in this type of debate. This is the Internet. No one has to be who they say they are and people don’t necessarily have the experiences they claim to have. So I’m unimpressed by those who will attack (and then ignore) a woman of color blogging under her real name and then use people who may or may not be women of color as cover for doing so.

http://www.digitallyarranged.com/wordpress/?p=389

I apologize for offending, hurting, or marginalizing anyone with my clumbsy and aggressive comment #68. And I’m sorry I got so defensive about what I wrote that I didn’t see the validity in what many were saying.

You know, though, when someone starts making completely wack, unfair, unhelpful, unnecessary, unconstructive and completely unsubstantiated comments like “the theme here is to blame Jessica for all that is wrong with feminism,” “your sole intention is to put her up on a pedestal and demean her for larger issues in society, then you are being dishonest if not destructive,” “Some commenters seek not only to dehumanize Jessica, but also everyone who supports her,” “I seen that before? Oh right, on the chauvinistic Men’s News Daily type sites. Some readers either don’t understand what Steve’s saying” “labeling him as dismissive of WOC when the only thing he’s dismissive of is the WWIII declared on Jessica,” “disingenuous and non-contributive manner in which some have chosen to talk about it is far more harmful to the issue and to feminists,” “this crusade to make her out to be David Duke’s long lost grand-daughter and for Steve to be some stereotype of a ‘knight in shining armor” for calling people out on it is not exactly a good or constructive way to communicate a point across,”

well sorry Manar, but you’re the last person anyone’s going to go to to learn how to be constructive and non-attacky. You need to master that skill yourself first and stop doing everything you say you’re against.

I’ll try out that bit about, you got a problem with me? Then that means you’re saying I’m David Duke grandaughter, and all the rest of it but it’s weird, I just don’t think it”s going to come across as constructive or helpful or fair or superduper communication or like I’m adding anything except hypocrisy and passive aggression.

Which is fine, if your intention is not to be constructive, then good job. But you keep talking about it, so it seems to be important to you.

And I know, while you were wack, unfair, unhelpful, unecessary, unconstructive and completely unsubstantiated, you weren’t wack, unfair, unhelpful, unnecessary, unconstructive or completely unsubstantiated TO JESSICA. Or to Steve.

And to you, that’s apparently the only thing that matters.

Almost no one else, though, lives on Planet Caprica where there are only two Cylon models. Other models actually exist in our world, and weirdly, they matter. Just as much as Jessica and Steve, even.

Our entire worlds do not revolve around Jessica and Steve, as hard as it is to believe, but do include all the others. Now, you already have all these ideas about what’s fair to Jessica and what’s right for Steve, so all you have to do is think what would be okay for Jessica, or what would be acceptable for Steve, and apply those standards to even non-Jessicas and non-Steves, and soon you’ll be as constructive as you erroneously believe you are already.

And btw, I’ve seen nothing but the motives of anyone who has a critique of Jessica’s book questioned. Well, they’re good people, aren’t they? They’re not haters, are they? They’re allies, right? So why do we then have to jump to the worse possible conclusions about “what they’ve written or what they mean to say?” Why do you assume that anyone considers Jessica an enemy, thinks she personifies what’s wrong with Feminism, is out to get her, demonize her, crucify her, just because they have some problems with her book?

It shouldn’t be a matter of burning bridges. Sorry. Privileged people in coalitions need to be able to hear with others are saying without threatening to take their marbles and go home. If you’re a guy in a feminist space who pulls out the “you are lucky to have me” card, then yes, chances are you’re going to get called on it, by women and men (because believe it or not, its not about you being a guy, it’s about you being a guy who expresses himself in a certain all too familiar way, and there are plenty of feminist guys who would not like it either). What seems inexplicable to you seems like a “duh” moment to many others who can see exactly why those things were said. (Let’s just say you’re not saying anything that hasn’t been heard a million times before.) It’s really unlikely that’s going to result in begging and cookies. Other people don’t exist to educate anyone else, people have their own shit to deal with. Likewise, if WOC are told they’re burning their bridges by daring to oppose their allies when there’s a conflict, yeah it seems unlikely that that’s going to make anyone raring to suit up for Team Feminism. You know how you feel when you think you’re being dismissed or belittled by your allies? Yeah. Hey, you’re not the only one who reacts like that. And yes, total “double standard,” (at least you didn’t say reverse racism or reverse sexism), except, um, no. (And yeah, I was in that class with kali where we found out what women find patronizing, go figure).

Look, I don’t want to be mean. Yeah, maybe too late. I’ll say, Unecessarily mean. :) But maybe you should go around to bits of the WOC blogosphere (maybe just to read and observe, not comment) and you will see many women saying some of the exact same things you are saying. About being so hurt, and how the things they’re saying have been turned into daggers in their heart and how their beliefs and their intentions have been questioned and misinterpreted and dismissed. You feel like you’ve been mercilessly attacked and belittled by people who are supposed to be your allies, and that’s really hurtful and shocking to you. But for many women, being dismissed and belittled by people who are ostensibly their allies is no less hurtful, but it’s well, maybe not so shocking. Not so unusual. And that’s maybe something you might want to consider a little bit, like how it would feel to be on the side of the divide where you feel like this basically all the time.

Peace.

But of course my mockery — which I now feel bad about, seriously — consisted of quotes from your first post to the thread, which you think people should have responded better to. And my point in turning those quotes back around on you was that you yourself have been arrogant and condescending without realizing it.

You write that “Dialogue involves TWO parties, each listening and speaking to each other. You get to speak, but you also have to listen to what others say. That’s how CONSENSUS is built,” and that’s absolutely right. But you’ve accused me of telling you to shut the fuck up, and if you look at that sentence again, I hope you’ll realize that I never told you to shut up at all:

If the folks who are criticizing the book are people you’d like to consider allies, then either do them the courtesy of engaging with their criticisms with some openness and respect, or do them the courtesy of shutting the fuck up.

Do you see the irony here? What some folks have been saying since your first post is that we don’t think you’ve been listening, and that we don’t think you’ve been engaging with what folks have been saying. You want us to listen to what you have to say, buy you’re not listening to what we have to say. You want us to engage with you with courtesy and respect, but when someone tells you that you’re not engaging us with courtesy and respect, you don’t take your own advice and “do some serious soul searching,” you lash out and claim you’re being unfairly dismissed.

I’ve taken up enough public space with this. If you want to talk more about it, Steve, you can find my email address on the “Info” page at my blog.

Because I’m not interesting in a feminism that is about hanging my head in shame, or about taking verbal abuse to make up for what other men have done, but a feminism that wants to create a better more equal society for the betterment of human kind. That, I thought, was a shared principle among all feminists.

Steve, you don’t get a cookie for behaving like a decent human being should – that’s a baseline position. Supporting equal rights for women is a baseline position for being a decent human being. Same with racial justice. Saying you’re “not interested” in any kind of feminism that makes you feel a little bit bad about how you might benefit from male privilege, which is how I read your comment above, is saying that your commitment isn’t deep enough to survive the uncomfortable, slightly sick feeling you get when you realise you’re benefitting from a privilege you didn’t ask for or want, but which you still have.

I’d like you to stick around as an ally, but you have to learn not to take everything personally. Read Ilyka’s great piece (someone’s already probably linked to it above). You could also read this piece by Chris Clark.

But I can see that many people could give a shit about that common principle, at least with me, because its more important for some to stand on your soap box than discuss issues calmly and fairly. People understood that Patriarchy is a system, and that no individual is the problem and that feminism isn’t about “man hating” or whatever. But what’s the first thing that happens as a male who supports feminism? My commitment is questioned. Well fuck that. And fuck people who question my motives. And fuck people who think that my objective here was to silence women of color, my objective was to defend someone I thought of as a fellow feminist.

I don’t think people are saying you intentionally set out to silence women of colour, but you’re missing the point. You don’t get to decide whether you are an ally or not – the people you want to ally with get to decide that. And telling any woman who disagrees with what you said, “fuck people who question my motives” doesn’t make you sound much like an ally.

I’m sure your heart is in the right place, but you need to be on the side of feminism because it’s the right thing to do – not threaten to take your ball away every time anyone makes you feel the least bit uncomfortable.

You don’t educate people by belittling them, talking to them condescendingly, or being arrogant about your alleged superiority on the subject.

You’re right, Steve. Let me try again:

The bottom line, Steve, IMHO, is that you need to do some serious soul searching, and figure out what’s really bothering you, because this debate really isn’t the core of any issue. You’re missing the point. It’s all style issues, which is absurd. The critics of the book are where near the top of any sane list of problems for feminism. You’re the very reason why feminists have struggled politically. Just be happy that people are debating feminism, even if its not the way you’d do it, or your ideal whatever.

Is that better, Steve? Is that less arrogant? Less condescending?

When you accused…someone…of paying “lip service” similar to politicians tactics, I didn’t think you were talking about Steve. Mainly beacuse he’s not trying to earn your vote, win a popularity contest, or sell books. I assumed you were talking about someone who stood to lose or gain something from support – isn’t that the whole point of paying lip service? That’s also why I thought you were talking about Jessica – a feminist with a blog reputation and book to sell. If I misread you, then I apologize. My bad.

Also, I NEVER said you thought Jessica was a racist. I was trying to point out something we AGREE on. I said, “I don’t think anyone here thinks Jessica is a racist.” So…what made you think I said you thought she was racist??

I appreciate the lecture on what I’m saying and what was never implied when it was, but honestly, if Steve and what was it, WWIII on anyone who supports Jessica, is your model for fair dialogue that doesn’t put word’s in people’s mouths, I wish you good luck with all your endeavors.

I’m not giving you a lecture on what you’re saying. Just responding to how I understood it. Sorry I dared to question a few things. Oh but now you’re lecturing me on what was implied? You said, “I appreciate the lecture on….what was never implied when it was.” I can only offer clarification on what was implied. You can take it or leave it – it’s up to you!

Yes, criticizing people for declaring WWIII on anyone is my model for fair dialogue. I used a hyperbole to say, hey let’s back up from the personal attacks. But please, don’t accuse me of putting words in people’s mouths when I haven’t. It’s a writing style. “Declaring WWIII” meant let’s not let the attacks become destructive but rather keep it constructive.

I’ve stated my issue several times with some of the criticisms: Some people have lambasted Jessica and Steve in what I thought to be an unfair and insulting manner (insulting ones were directed towards Steve mainly).