Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
I Support Adrian Fenty For DC Mayor Because
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| That poster is me, and I am a feminist. Again, thanks for your good wishes for my health. |
Anonymous
|
I'm curious how, as a feminist, you seem it appropriate to call someone a woman as an insult. Please explain that... because I'm lost....
And in case you're not clear as to what I'm referring to: "I didn't come on here looking for a bitch. You found me and came bounding towards me. Apparently you have no home, so it seems as though I'm stuck with a girly-dog named Goose. Now go fetch, bring it back, and drop it. Good boy -- er -- I mean girl. " If that was you, and you are a feminist, and you've clearly followed me enough to see that I've identified myself as a male, it makes me wonder why that last sentence is there... If that wasn't you, clearly there is a mix-up. |
Anonymous
|
I am an irreverent feminist. Goose really alienated me with his strong implications that most, if not all, Whites are long-term beneficiaries of unearned privilege. Had he said "some" Whites, we probably never would have had a problem. I would have agreed with him. But his insistence that most (actually, nearly all) Whites have not earned what privilege they may have is simply wrong. Before he knew anything about me, he just assumed that since I am White, I am a long-term beneficiary of unearned privilege. Then when I shared my family's history to try to show him the dangers of such stereotyping, he only became more adamant. He in fact insisted that the very fact that I had White parents conferred unearned privilege on me. Never mind that they were not privileged, or that they were, in fact, discriminated against. For Goose, if your White parents feed, bathe, clothe, and educate you, then you didn't do everything for yourself, and you are a beneficiary of unearned privilege. For him, White babies must be self-sufficient from birth; otherwise they are long-term beneficiaries of unearned privilege.
That's a bunch of crap. And as long as he is going to continue to insist that most (or all) Whites are long-term beneficiaries of unearned privilege that they do not deserve, and that I am one of them, we are going to continue to have a problem. To wit: If he wants to call me a long-term beneficiary of unearned privilege that I did not earn and do not deserve, I'm going to emasculate him. Why shouldn't I? How is one less insulting than the other? If Goose were a woman, I never would have used emasculating language. Just because I am a feminist doesn't mean I can't use misogynistic language against a man whose pissed me off and wrote me off as some kind of Tea-party Republican (which couldn't be further from the truth). |
Anonymous
|
"If Goose were a woman, I never would have used emasculating language. Just because I am a feminist doesn't mean I can't use misogynistic language against a man whose pissed me off and wrote me off as some kind of Tea-party Republican (which couldn't be further from the truth)."
So, essentially, you abandoned your feminist principals because your feelings were hurt...? Well played. Using emasculating language as you did directly undermines the larger goals of feminism. As a feminist myself, I am appalled at such language. And why do you keep calling him goose? I won't wade into the privilege conversation. But to say you are a feminist and use that language as you did... that is just wrong. As offensive as you might have found him, how does you getting offensive AND violating your own principals do anything beneficial? |
Anonymous
|
"Goose" here...
How does talking about privilege, which yes, ALL white folks have, equate to dismissing you as a tea party Republican? Having privilege is a reality. It's not a BAD thing. You didn't choose to have it, but you have it. Do some have more than others? Absolutely. Is white privilege mitigated for some folks by other forms of oppression they face? Absolutely. But to act as if individual or familial struggles, opposition, and oppression eliminates white privilege is simply wrong. Think about these examples of white privilege: Do you have to actively search to find books/movies/TV shows where characters look like you? (Especially think about this if you are a parent looking for media for your children) Is your race generally used as a characteristic when describing you or is it assumed and unspoken? How often are you the only person of your race in a given situation? Add these to the list I offered earlier. Again, people equate the idea of having privilege to being accused of racism. They are so different in so many ways. ALL whites, in America, have white privilege. Even if you didn't ask for it, you have it. Even if your family was persecuted in your ancestral lands, YOU HAVE IT! It's not a bad thing, in the sense that you did something wrong or should feel guilty about it. And it doesn't mean that everything you did in life is tainted or for naught. But it's reality. It's real and it exists. There is certainly room for debate about how impactful it is, how pervasive it is, etc, etc, etc. But there is no reasoned debate that it exists. It is a HIGHLY complex thing, because it doesn't exist in a vacuum. White privilege interacts with female oppression interacts with Christian privilege interacts with LGBTQ oppression, etc, etc, etc. We all have a different mix of privilege and oppression impacting our lives. The goal is to remove both and allow individuals to stand on their own. That doesn't mean they must be self-sufficient from birth. But it does mean that individual's successes or limitations in life should be based as much as possible (which is not 100%) on who they are and what they are capable rather than perceptions of who they are, perceptions of what they are capable of. If you believe that racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-semitism and other religious bigotry exist, than you must recognize privilege. Privilege and oppression are two sides of the same coin; for one to exist, so must the other. Simply being immune from oppression is a privilege unto itself. And different characteristics of ourselves can work as privilege in one scenario and see us oppressed in another. Again, it is a very fluid, complex dynamic. For whatever reason, you've taken my argument about the existence of white privilege as a personal attack, which it was never meant as. I take nothing away from you or your family, their struggles or their triumphs. But in the same way that you felt offended that I belittled the oppression your family felt, you acting as if you are somehow devoid of any privilege belittles the very same oppression that others still feel in this country. For you to deny privilege is to deny racism. I don't think you mean it in that way, but that is the end result. Having privilege isn't a bad thing. It is far bigger than any individual and, unfortunately, cannot be given back. But we can fight it and make changes that will lead to a more equal and equitable society. You can have privilege and be anti-racist, be feminist, be liberal, hate tea partiers... whatever. I am one of the biggest beneficiaries of privilege in this country (white, male, heterosexual, Christian, from a middle-class family, etc, etc, etc.) I choose to actively resist this as much as I can. Which starts with acknowledging that I do have privilege. If you are at a point where you simply think it is possible that you have white privilege, I don't know what more I can say. If you are open to developing a deeper understanding of this, there is a lot of material on it, on BOTH sides of the conversation. I'm happy to point you towards some. The concept of privilege is not an open-and-shut case. But it's existence is as real as racism, sexism, etc, etc, etc. To deny it is to deny reality. |
Anonymous
|
Of course I took it as a personal attack. You said to me, over and over again, that most of what I have was handed to me on a silver platter. You said that I had not actually earned most of what I have. That most of it was given to me as a result of my being White. You said that I had never had to stand on my own two feet, and you said that I do not deserve most of what I have.
Your words. And there were lots more. Had you started off with me in a rational manner, as you have above, we would not have had a problem. I would have agreed with you. But when you attacked me personally, essentially claiming that I am living high on the hog mainly as a result of all that has been bestowed upon me, instead of what I've earned in my own right, I got pissed. You got us to this place. The question is where do we go from here? Would you care to clarify, amend, or even retract some of those insults? Or should I simply sigh; acknowledge that you're going be hard to train, and put you in your crate for the rest of the day? You tell me. |
Anonymous
It's not important for you to know why I call him Goose. He and I know why. If you really are interested in following the plot, you'll have to read the first Gray vs. Fenty thread in its entirety. You and I have different concepts of feminism and differing views on when it is acceptable to use certain words in certain contexts. I categorically deny abandoning my feminist principles. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. |
Anonymous
| I also support Adrian Fenty because I tend to value intelligence and, to a certain extent, I look at the institutions from where one has earned his degree(s) as an indicator of intelligence. Fenty went to a distinguished college. Gray didn't. Fenty holds a law degree from a reputable law school Gray doesn't. |
Anonymous
I'm sorry, but what you have said has no grounding in feminist principals. Using misogynistic insults and demeans all women. Whatever he/she said, it doesn't justify that type of response. You're obviously free to handle yourself as you choose, but don't claim to be a feminist and also use misogynistic, emasculating language, equating being a woman/girl with something negative. I am deeply insulted. |
Anonymous
I did not say all the things that you are attributing to me, but I did speak to the larger message that you are a possessor of privilege and that a lot of what you have accomplished is predicated upon it. I didn't say all you did was unearned, but that it was built on the back of a system of unearned privilege. I did start quite rationally, and even other posters weighed in identifying as so. But as the conversation devolved, you clearly took a more personal approach to dealing and illicited some admittedly not-so-gentle comments on my part. I apologize. But you are not exactly the easiest person to talk to, for as soon as there was anything remotely critical levied at you, you first got defensive and then went on the offensive. Your initial denial of privilege was incredibly insulting, as it essentially told folks who are marginalized or oppressed that their struggles aren't real, because your advantages aren't real. So, yea, I wasn't the nicest to you, but before you get on your high horse, look at how ugly and nasty you got and how emotional you got at the mere hint that you might have benefited from unearned privilege. I'll leave it at that. You are clearly more interested in being petty and "winning" and throw nasty comments around, which I simply can't be bothered to deal with at this point. If you've learned anything, great. If you haven't, so be it. |
Anonymous
Yep, that's my position as well. A vote for Fenty is a vote for Gabe Klein's DDOT, Michelle Rhee's DCPS, etc... A vote for Gray is a vote to "make things better" because "some people have been left behind." WTF does that even mean, "some people have been left behind"? DC's got the most generous set of social benefits of any municipality in the region, and takes care of a disproportionate number of the region's worst poverty, but obviously we need to do more rather than keep struggling to become a functional municipality. I guess once every poor person within a 1000-mile radius is living in DC, and provided with wraparound services, we'll have solved the "some people were left behind" issue, and can get back to restoring the socioeconomic health of the city. |
Anonymous
|
It's a little bit unfair to hold up Gray's yet-to-be-determined administration (if he won) against Fenty's established administration. Alot of that can't be done until he is in office. Yes, there are areas where more concrete steps are needed to fully understand/support Gray's ideas. But to criticize him for not having fully outlined who he will have and in what positions is misplaced.
Some people have been left behind means exactly that. While Fenty's reforms and efforts have brought alot of change for the good, that change has not been enjoyed by all. And Gray wants to make sure that reform efforts and progress includes the whole city and is not concentrated in certain areas or only for certain groups. He wants to bring true district wide change. He never spoke specifically about expanding social benefits, unless you consider school restructuring/reform and neighborhood revitalization to be "social benefits", which is a very different way to use that term than is normal. |
Anonymous
|
To add on my last post, I'm not necessarily saying that Fenty deliberately left folks behind or only wanted to help certain areas or groups. But that is the end result.
As an educator, I can say that Fenty/Rhee's reform efforts have a lot of positives to them, but education reform is not a one-size-fits-all approach. What works in one school may not work in others. I think that is what we are seeing and why, while across the board averages say numbers are up, certain schools have actually taken a step back. Maybe Rhee has plans to address that going forward. But her mindset of my-way-or-the-highway doesn't indicate so. And while she needed that attitude to get in and get the changes done that we've seen, I doubt the long-term sustainability of that approach. She's made great headway and got some very important first steps accomplished, but I'm not sure she has what it takes to see this reform effort through long term and to ensure that it is truly city wide. |
Anonymous
|
1. You did say all the things I attributed to you, but I am not sufficiently recovered to go back and copy and paste them. Perhaps tomorrow.
2. I agree that I am a possessor of privilege, but take strong exception to the notion that "a lot" of what I have accomplished is predicated upon it. Moreover, I would argue that unless you know someone very well, you're not qualified to make such a statement to anybody. You made reference to candidates with "White sounding names" being more likely to get their resumes looked at than those who do not have "White sounding names". OK, I'll play. How many conservative, mainline, WASPY corporations and firms threw my resume in the trash because my name sounds more Jewish that it does White? I bet it happened lots of times. You've acknowledged that both oppression and privilege co-exist in a fluid dynamic; at what point are you willing to recognize a person as both oppressed and privileged, and just call it a wash, so to speak? Does my White skin benefit me more than my last name works to my detriment? My answer, based on what I see in my office, is "no". Which is why I will continue to take exception to your notion that "a lot" of what I have accomplished is predicated upon privilege. When a white person with an "Arabic sounding last name" walks into a bank or embarks to find housing, does that person receive more privilege or more discrimination, and to what degree? 3. While I disagree that you started out rationally on the prior thread, or that anyone other than you thinks so. Again, I'm not recovered enough to start cutting and pasting, but I think your very first post to me stated, "You've gotten what you bargained for, but you want more, far more than what you've bargained for, and Gray's not going to give it to you. Tough.". I don't consider that rational, but I certainly do consider it personal. 4. I accept your apology. 5. I am far from the easiest person to talk to. In fact, I know I am extremely difficult. 6. I never denied the existence of privilege. I only argued that your perception of it's extent is greatly distorted. I still believe that. 7. I was very nasty to you, and I apologize. 8. I love Barack Obama; I donated to his campaign. 9. The only thing I don't like about the Affordable Care Act is that it didn't go much, much further. 10. I still want to keep my taxpayer dollars in Ward 3 
11. You are more interested in being petty and "winning" and throwing nasty insults around, which I can't be bothered to deal with at this point. If you learned something, great. If not, so be it. |
Anonymous
Again, WTF does that mean? It's just touchy-feely B.S. without any specifics. This "leave no one behind" schtick would make sense if everyone had started from the same baseline circumstances a decade or two ago. But they didn't. No one's been left behind--they're exactly where they were before, only they're living with neighbors who actually contribute to the tax base of the city, with better schools, services, &tc.... 15% of DC residents live in households with an HHI of less than $10k. They're effectively unemployable. They're fed, housed, educated. Are these the people that have been "left behind"? How do we "bring them up to speed"? The only remedy for that kind of poverty that's been proven effective is Marion Barry's make-work programs of the 70s and 80s. You create a few hundred thousand city jobs from which no one can be fired, give these to the desperately poor, and create middle-class citizens in P.G. county. The children of those newly middle-class will remain in MD--unless they fail and lapse back into poverty, at which point they move back into the District. It ain't exactly a recipe for the renaissance of the city. The single greatest problem facing cities in since the 60s is that cities have become the "place where the poor people are supposed to live." That's completely destructive to the urban environment when you're talking about cities that are embedded in a larger tax-base (i.e. NYC, Chicago, SF, etc...) But in DC we face a unique situation: we don't get any funding from the surrounding states to take care of the region's poor, and we're not allowed to impose any kind of "commuter tax" of the kind that most states are allowed. So what ends up happening is that the suburban jurisdictions are allowed to export all the social ills of the region (the reason that DC has 15% HHI < 10k), while extracting the benefits of the urban core. Sorry, but outside of a *regional* approach to fixing poverty, the interests of |