It doesn’t automatically follow that a circumspect, or coded approach to putting “the other” in their place makes it easier on “the other.” Hell, I’ve had some POC confide in me that they prefer overt to covert hostility from White folks, because it eliminates the guesswork as to what our motives are for behaving as we do.

“conniving ant corporations?”

“cobbler ala cunnilingus?”

goddamit.)

anyway, Sheelzebuub nails it: there was a rather marked shift in what was and wasn’t suddenly acceptable.

actually i think doing “cut his mike!” (shutting down, unless the thing had truly degenerated into a pointless troll-infested flamewar, which, it is an observable fact, it had not) is a lot “ruder” than even going fuck YOU, motherfuckers! your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries!

As for the rest of you — I’ve been a bit curious as to how my innocuous post could be misconstrued as an endorsement of racism, much less how my subsequent comments, explicit in the extreme, could be so thoroughly misread — and by all these new people, showing up all at once! Usually my readers are perceptive and the discussion level on this blog is at a fairly high level. The mystery is solved: I’ve been alerted that my sudden new visitors, whom I’ll dub “Shannon’s Friends,” are a self-appointed group of blog police with a history of going about accusing people of racism. I’m not a racist, and this is not a blog for those particular kinds of games. So goodbye, Shannon’s Friends.

Usually her readers are perceptive and the level of discussion is much higher–but not now; these people aren’t perceptive at all and have lowered the discussion. People who, might I add, have been perfectly civil, if not blunt. And apparently we’re “Shannon’s friends” and the self-appointed “blog police” with a “history of going about accusing people [wrongfully, it is implied] of racism.”

And that’s the real issue here–it’s terribly uncivil to call someone out for saying something racist or sexist. It’s terribly rude to point out they have privilege and don’t see the things they say plain aren’t there. Again, I find it very telling that the focus of this thread has been about Shannon’s alleged rude behavior, when she’s been anything but. Blunt doesn’t equate rude.

I’m a bit bothered by the misleading rhetoric on your part that states standing up for someone being blunt means that it’s okay to tell people they’re shitheads. Sorry, when did I call someone a shithead in this thread? When did Shannon call Violet Socks a shithead? No, it’s the blunt delivery–hell, any delivery–that gets a tantrum from the privileged every time. I like Violet, a lot, but she was out of line here. In response to Shannon’s blunt response, she made a really uncivil comment about how she hoped everyone else here had better reading comprehension skills than Shannon. Yet it’s Shannon who gets pilloried for being uncivil in this thread. You’ll just have to forgive me for calling bullshit.

As RadFem and CrysT said, people who were gentle in that thread were informed that they were illiterate. Violet then shut down comments because we were all part of Shannon’s clique (who knew?) and because we “obviously” couldn’t read. Frankly, Shannon was blunt but not rude or attacking in that thread, and she’s still getting shit for being uncivil. I’m not sure how being all nice and gentle is going to make someone understand when it’s obvious they’re determined to not understand.

What strikes me is that no matter how an opposing view is delivered to the privileged, it results in a big screaming tantrum on their part. It’s worse to call someone out on their racism or sexism than the actual racism or sexism. Yet again, the focus goes from the racism or sexism to the behavior of the naughty person who had rudeness to make the privileged all uncomfortable.

I’m reminded of an anime. In this magical land, many of the rulers and ruling families are seculded in castles and don’t see what is really going on in their countries. But when they find out, they start to understand that they can’t make excuses about why they didn’t know. They have to take responsibility for fixing the problem. I feel like I’m a citizen of one of those countries, who is angry because the ruler didn’t know, because they should have, and I don’t want excuses, I don’t want to be told that I got to be nice, or that I can’t read- in sort, I don’t want people older than me to be acting like kids.

This is only true until the person “outs” herself racially. And the flip side of the not knowing is that most readers will likely assume a person whose race hasn’t been made explicit is white, and will respond to her accordingly.

I agree with you about the distinction between real and fake civility. I think the battle is fought on both sides: those who would use fake civility to cow others, and those who decry any request for real civility as an attempt to silence them. I am not sure our definitions are as different as you suggest, and I do believe there is a middle ground which allows for functional discussion. And no, of course I wouldn’t mediate here, as I’m involved in the discussion.

I don’t actually think many people in the thread acted well. (and BTW, the generic choice of “spewer/spewee” was entirely intentional.) By the end of the thread, Violet was acting quite inappropriately, while I thought your last comment was reasonable. But (and maybe I have completely missed something, lord knows it happens all the time) it’s all about the spin. This isn’t one of those “would you look at that fucked-up example of miscommunication?” threads, though perhaps it should be.

However, I see your point (I think): it is incorrect to solely focus on Shannon when others were also to blame. I agree with that, but I believe what I said was still accurate.

Shannon, the reality is that on the Internet, nobody knows or often cares what race people are. At least I don’t. If I think of the various people I’ve discussed things with a lot recently–ms_xeno, radfem, ronf, blue, and many others who I can’t easily name off the top of my head–I realize that I don’t know the race of any of them. They could be white, they could be POC.

Come to think of it, I’m not even sure I know the sex or gender orientation of many folks either. I happen to know you’re black because i’ve read your blog (and you mentioned it upthread), and I assume you’re female from your name, but that’s about it.

I don’t hold you to a higher standard than anyone else because of your race; I have an odd way of thinking when I respond to posts, and I tend to depersonalize text that I am reading. If you don’t believe me–which I’m guessing you don’t at this point–feel free to adopt a false persona if we meet again. I think you’ll find my reactions don’t change merely because your name does.

Anyway, I had another look at the thread on Violet’s blog, and I realised that the main privilege-guarding accusation thrown out there was one I’d missed in my previous post: “I’m not wrong, you’re just too stupid/ignorant/illiterate to understand me.” And I have to say, every time I see a white feminist throwing that one at a WOC (and in my experience it seems to be used especially when the WOC identifies as Black, though that might be simply because those happen to be the majority of the examples I’ve come across), I am not just pissed off, but horrified. “I’m not racist, and if your brain had access to higher functions, you’d recognise that! All the white people here get me.” Way to definitively show that in no way do you subscribe to insulting racial stereotypes. (”Oh noooo, I was just responding to her as an *individual*! If you’re seeing something racist in that, it’s because YOU’RE the Real Racist and don’t get how I’ve magically evolved beyond all that!!”)

Yeah, I lost count on that thread how many times the views of women who have experienced racism on a daily basis were invalidated by White people, but then again I’ve only got two hands.

Past four years? Yes, countless times for me too.

What do you think civility is for, if not this? There’s a reason to use/expect manners and formality when things get nasty. It’s because they ALLOW the conversation to go forward, not because they PREVENT it.

Our definitions of civility obviously differ greatly, probably when it comes down to what I call faux civility. Faux civility is not based on respect towards other people, their experiences and their opinions. Faux civility is a list of usually, informal and nearly always unwritten rules made and passed down by those of privilage to those who do not share that privilage. Sometimes, it’s when men try to control conversations pertaining to issues largely affecting women and to make those issues about them. Women complain about it, and because what they said challenges the men’s gender privilage, these “civility” rules might be enforced on them. There were some very good, if sometimes frustrating discussions here among both men and women on this topic several times.

Sometimes, it’s when White men or women or both try to do like in situations where as Crys T and others have said, something they say on the issue of race and racism is challenged by a person of color. Then that person of color has the “civility” rules imposed on them.

“Civility” in this context is meant to disrupt what these individuals are trying to say, and stop a meaningful conversation from taking place on these issues, once it gets outside the parameters that the people with privilage are comfortable with. It isn’t nor has it ever fostered continued dialogue, except perhaps among those who came up with those rules.

Like I said, I was “gentle” and “civil” to Violet and what I received in return was, something that began I think with, “what the fuck” and ended with something about my reading comprehension. I was told that I needed to get a grip and then later found myself placed in some internet police group traveling around, out to call people racists. But my racial privilage offered me some protection because women of color on that site were treated worse than I was. So, here we have a case where expectations and rules of “civility” are imposed on certain members of us, whereas Violet and other White people in agreement with her, were allowed to behave as they liked, without being called on it. If they were, then it’s like Crys T, Shannon and others here(and there) have said.

Since you are attacking Shannon apparently in the guise of defending the behavior of those who “disagreed” with her, then no personal offense intended, but I wouldn’t think you would make an effective mediator in this situation if that was indeed what it needed, which it doesn’t. Mediators are supposed to be impartial and not choose sides. However, this was a discussion, not a mediation process. The two processes are very, very different from each other.

Conversations which are filled with people spewing unpleasantness don’t usually accomplish a damn thing except making the spewer feel good and the spewee pissed off.

Unpleasantness? Well, who feels good here? Who’s pissed off? Not exactly the people that you’ve already placed in the roles of “spewer” and “spewee”. Funny, I didn’t realize that anyone with a background in mediation would so quickly assign people to fill those roles.

And that’s what really bothers me. Like, I hate being held to the super high standards I am held to because of my race. A white person can be the laziest person in the planet, but still get sympathy for blaming their lack of success on black people. And the truth is that civility is a waste of time in this circumstance.

You can fix ignorance, but not willful ignorance, and that’s what most white people have. Most things I have access to are not closed to white people- internet sites, testimony of people of color, books. Now, I may have seen the projects myself(white people can’t deign themselves to go into neighborhoods with gasp minorities in them) , or been told about black history(which most whites don’t even try to get the rudiments of) but that is not such a large advantage that a white person could not in fact not say something stupid in the first place.

I see my place here not as a person who makes the white people learn, but as a person who delivers the conseuquences of their actions, which white people are often insulated from and believe they deserve to never face. But no no. If you say something racist, I promise to cuss you out. Black people deal with the consequences of their actions every day, and don’t cry about it. Now it’s white people’s turn.

I deal with people who are angry at each other all the time, whites and POC. They come to me for mediation and/or negotiation help because of the enforced formality of my practice and of law in general. It lets them dig for the real solution to their problems and actually solve them as opposed to yelling at each other.

They think. They learn. Thet get a LOT of important shit done every day, even though they may have started the conversation in radical disagreement.

Conversations which are filled with people spewing unpleasantness don’t usually accomplish a damn thing except making the spewer feel good and the spewee pissed off.

Crys: i didn’t make the accusations on your list. Shannon has noted that, in essence, she doesn’t care if people get pissed off. Well, surprise! The pissed-off-people care. It’s not a “reverse racism” argument, it’s an argument based on civility. The comment you highlighted was relevant only to Shanon’s bullshit claim that she views white people in a more enlightened fashion than she apparently does.

Oh PLEASE. As if Shannon didn’t have an entire lifetime’s worth of experience dealing with white people to base her opinion on. Violet (whom I normally like) had a response which even my own (certainly much more limited than Shannon’s) personal experience tells me is absolutely textbook to having her white privilege pointed out.

Every. Single. Time. this topic comes up we have to go through the same old pathetic dance, as if none of us had heard any of it before. And the pattern NEVER changes: white person makes racially-insenstive remark/displays reacially-insensitive attitude; WOC calls white person out on it; white person dismisses WOC’s comments out of hand, and goes on to imply that it’s actually WOC who has problem; whole load of other white people rush in to defend white person and denounce WOC as “the real racist/being divisive/taking the focus away from the Important Shit/not being Really Feminist because she doesn’t reject every facet of her identity but Woman/hell, probably being a man/teenage boy anyway.”*

In the past four years or so, I’ve seen that exact scenario play out so many times in “liberal” and/or “progressive” spaces that I long ago lost count.

Give me a fucking break, already.

*these accusations can be made in any combination–and I’ve frequently seen them ALL pulled out in the same thread in order to more thoroughly gangpile on one lone WOC. Nooooooo, we white feminists have NO PROBLEMS in acknowledging our privilege, and would NEVER, EVER resort to underhanded, cowardly techniques in order to silence and demonise a WOC. The very idea!

The OP was inflammatory, as well.

Doing it gently so as to not hurt anyone’s fee-fee’s doesn’t do anything to change minds. Shannon’s got every goddamn right to be frustrated and express it.
I agree with the second sentence, disagree with the first. Sometimes, but not always, the gentle approach is the most effective form of persuasion. Sometimes it’s not. It’s not like the “nongentle” approach was effective in changing Violet’s mind, in this case.

I think we’ve as a group here had this discussion before in a different context than this one. Actually several times.

No offense to Violet or you, but I don’t think the “gentle” approach would change her mind either. I was fairly “gentle” and I was told that I had poor reading comprehension and needed to “get a grip” and then that we were all part of some internet police group running around calling people racists. To me, that suggests something else was going on than what was on the surface and the women of color there picked up on it right away and called her on it. So, Violet gave as good or better than what she got in return. She was at least an equal participant in not being “gentle” in this discourse. It was the women of color and by extension anyone who agreed with their arguments that were held to a different standard of behavior.

But I wanted to address your disagreement with what Sheezlebub said, by going back to what Shannon stated originally, because I think what she meant is far different than what you think was meant.

It’s much more than being the “sun” vs the “wind” as Aesop put it, in terms of persuading a person to change their minds. Actually, I think it goes back to those discussions I opened up this post with about “civil” vs “non-civil” discourse and who or what gets to make the rules and who is privy to a copy of that rule book ahead of time. What Shannon stated should have caused a lot of minds to go “click” especially among the White women who participated in those earlier discussions especially the ones on domestic violence and other violent crimes against women where this issue arose. If it didn’t for those who were here, then maybe some of those who advocate making comparions or connections between racism and sexism aren’t as good at it as we claim to be.

Well, it’s hard to work with white people, because they have so many rules and regulations. You can’t dash in when someone says something stupid and say they are full of shit. You have to go point by point and be all gentle and say oh, but maybe there’s a little bitty problem with (in a whisper) racism? And I don’t got time for that.

White women have discussions about sexism, racism and their relationship to each other based on their own opinions and experience being oppressed by sexism and benefiting from racism, including racism against other women.

A woman of color comes in to the discussion with her life experiences of being oppressed by both racism and sexism(including in ways far different than that experienced by White women and in ways perpetuated by White women through racism). Only, right off the bat, she’s assigned rules and regulations on how to address these issues, rules which appear on the surface(and certainly are presented as such) as being “civil”, but really are about preventing her contributions to the discussion from making these White women uncomfortable or putting them in the position of having to think, let alone learn, about how they are participating in racism against other women or otherwise enjoy racial privilage. The White women know what the rules are. The woman of color either knows them through prior experience or are “shown” them by how the White women act when she steps outside the parameters of what is allowed to be discussed.

She is held fast to those rules. White women can either abide by them or violate them either by choice or depending on how upset they become by what the woman of color has said. Bring in more women of color to the discussion and if or when they express any opinions that are similar to the first woman of color, they will be accused of being members of some group set up to gang up on the White women and call them racists. We saw that assertion made at Violent’s site. But often, it’s the White women who believed they’ve been labeled racists who gang up on the women of color.

Given the context, I had no problem being assigned a role in the internet police conspiracy, but I did find the behavior itself offensive and very disappointing.