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.
Respectfully Heart, this has always been going on. It's not new to the BV controversy. It's what I've been trying to speak to from my perspective. It's what keeps getting driven underground.
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.
That's how it go.... However, the merits of a point of view should not turn on who has the weight of numbers on their side (as in the number of people agreeing with them). Nor should the worthiness of a discussion be evaluated prematurely, before issues have been excavated and clarified.
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?
Wanting ally-ship, solidarity and coalition is good stuff - BUT - those things do not come without sustained effort by people committed to the process. The neoLGBTQ "community" has not made that commitment or investment. Instead, it's fragmented into different camps. When one of us wanders into a different camp and tries to talk about it.... well, you see what happens.
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.
It's the things you mention and more.... See the quote below.
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."
You're welcome, Heart.... As to my adding to "the endless loop of erasure", this kind of characterization holds no meaning for me until AFTER the airing of the issues of a conflict is achieved. Conflict resolution is a process. Skipping steps because they're uncomfortable sabotages the process.
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've seen the same thing and been illuminated, too.
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.
Some of it IS individual, but not all of it. It isn't consistent to say, on the one hand, that certain attitudes are culturally induced, pervasive, a byproduct of patriarchal indoctrination.... and, on the other hand, dismiss them away as "individual" jerkiness. Sexism, misogyny, classism, bigotry, etc., often gets played out in one-on-one encounters. These things need to be excavated, deconstructed, argued not dismissed as individual anomalies.
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.
But this is precisely what has happened - i.e. performing inclusiveness as if everyone started with a clean slate.
Heart
|