Originally Posted by Heart
I did some online searching after reading what Toughy said in the BV thread, about "inflamatory" blog pieces being written, post-BV Conference. I found some (not hard to find), read some from both sides of the coin/ideological divide/whatever, and while none of it is surprising, I am left feeling utterly heartbroken.
Many of the posters, here and elsewhere, are articulate, passionate, convincing, many others are intent on policing what is being said, still others are desperate to bridge the divide at any cost.
My vision is not clear by any means and the overlapping oppressions and marginalization I see at work makes me dizzy with dispair. I am not of the school that there must be "one tent," I am not of the school that there can only be separate camps. I believe in allyship, solidarity, and coalition that honors differences and utilizes commonalities, I have seen it work in areas that are frankly more important than how any one of us identifies. So why is this so hard?
I think the deep intertwined roots of racism and sexism are at the heart of these divides. Racism, sexism, and classism are the pillers of patriarchal systems. We are of those systems. All patriarchy has to do is sit back and watch us devour each other, as we get caught up in the webs of our own histories, privileges, (in whatever way we gain those), and most poignently, our own losses.
Thank you Chazz for your nod towards my efforts. My feelings about your terminology is this: it adds to an endless loop of erasure -- which is not something you started, it was already happening obviously, but continuing to meet erasure with erasure is counter-productive in the community sense. Of course it's your choice, anyone's choice, how/if they will participate in any community. Last I heard there was still womon's/wymyn's land and separatism is a valid choice in a world of such ongoing brutality towards women. Those on such land will have to wrestle with their definition of "woman."
I also logged onto MWMF boards, something I had never done before, and read a bit. It was hard, but illuminating. I realize that at heart I'm a deconstructionist. Rigid definitions, even my own, make me suspicious -- guess that comes from a lifetime of wandering limnal spaces and gender borders -- (not in terms of what gender I was per se, but in terms of what it meant to be the gender I was).
I was telling Cheryl about an experiecne I had where a particular transwoman in a queer space was stalking me in an inappropriate way. While it occured to me that she was engaging in what I thought of as "male-ish" behavior (my frame of reference), the bottom line was that she was a jerk and had no boundaries. It was individual.
Yet, it did concern me in terms of the space we occupied together which was "women and trans space," and that it didn't feel "safe" in a very particular, gut kind of way -- a way which is NOT only individually about me and this person, but about history and reality. That is the part that gets avoided, I think, in the intense focus and care given to inclusive spaces. What are the values we share about participation in inclusive queer communities? How do we tie that to the actual history of sexism, classism, and racism, and the impact that has had on groups of people? Queer inclusivity cannot exist in a vacuum, as if we started with a clean slate and are creating a brave new world from scratch. Because we're not, we can't. We are carrying everything with us, every bruden, oppression, and division that racism, sexism, and classism ever created. Whether we want to or not. Heart
|