Fallibility.

genderbitch:

Humans fuck up. Quite often. As activists, many of us like to believe that we do better than most people. But we should all realize that’s often bullshit. And all of us (yes, even you) have gotten an inflated sense of infallibility due to social justice work.
This is bad. This sense makes it tougher to own our mistakes and makes it tougher for us to respond positively to criticism (especially upset criticism as marginalized people are not obligated to be saccharine sweet to fuckoffs who hurt them). We’re also often afraid to look bad. But the fact is, we’ve all done bad things. All of us. And if we don’t own that and work on it, we’ll all be bad, not just look bad.
So reblog with a description of the thing you fuck up on the most and why. Which marginalization axis do you need the most improvement in owning your privilege and the harm you do? Be it transmisogyny, transphobia, cissexism, fatphobia, classism, ableism, culturocentrism, religious hate (like Islamophobia), sexism, etc.
And if you’ve got a tie, mention them both or all three and why.
End it with, I’m Fallible.
<!— Snip — >

Cissexism, ableism, misandry, racism. I don't quite know which I'm worst at.

*Inhale, exhale in deep sigh.*

I'm fallible.

Thinking Again, Part 2

I've found some important writings regarding the subjects written about in my posts about trans women.

First, regarding the debate at all:


When I listen to people ‘debating’ ‘letting’ trans women, trans men, and/or trans people as a whole into women-only [sic] spaces such as the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival (Michfest) and domestic violence shelters, the experience is profoundly frustrating, even when it’s my allies I’m listening to. It’s the wrong structure, the wrong conversation, and the wrong participants. When a cissexual1 woman or a trans male spectrum person says “all woman-identified women/all trans people should be allowed into women’s space [sic],” I feel almost as disempowered and silenced as when they say that we shouldn’t. Though well intentioned, they represent independent moral/political judgments and statements of principle—not the voices of trans women.2 Do their statements correspond to the wishes, needs, and priorities of trans women? Do they empower trans women’s voices, or contribute to their erasure? More to the point, do cis women (let alone trans male spectrum people) legitimately have that power, to decide whether or not trans women should be allowed into “their” spaces?

Read the rest of this post here: http://takesupspace.wordpress.com/beyond-inclusion/


Also, regarding socialization: http://www.questioningtransphobia.com/?p=2884

Of course, I should have looked for these sources to begin with. I am now trying to decide if I should delete those posts, saturated as they are with privilege and misunderstanding, or if they should stand as a testament to a learning process.

Update: Deleted the first post that spawned Thinking Again and Thinking Again Part 2, as it was the worst of the offending posts. As a result Thinking Again (1) may not make as much sense, as it refers to things said in the other post.

June 7, 2011: Deleting the first post was a mistake. It was a rash action borne of guilt and ultimately designed to save face, and not in any way geared toward holding myself accountable for my mistake.

Alice Miller's "For Your Own Good".

Alice Miller was a psychologist born in Poland. She studied Freudian theory until explorations of her psyche via water colors led her to the beginnings of uncovering the truth of her tragic childhood. She began to take Freud's work in a different direction, focusing on the impact of events in childhood on the later years and abandoning such things as 'drive theories'. Her work has helped countless people free themselves from the repetition compulsion, that is, the compulsion to repeat one's own abuse by inflicting it on innocent victims in the name of justice, morals, or "childrearing". It is through study of the past that we come to understand the roots of neuroses.

"For Your Own Good" is available online to read for free here: http://www.nospank.net/fyog.htm This comes with a trigger warning, as accounts of child abuse, drug abuse, and the deeds of serial killers are detailed within.

It is interesting to note the influence of Christian morals on poisonous pedagogy; the use of shame, humiliation, guilt, fear, and force to instill complete obedience and a model of mindless conformity. Like we are impelled  to obey God without questioning, the child is impelled to obey hir parents without questioning.

 "One of the vile products of a misguided philanthropy is the idea that, in order to obey gladly, the child has to understand the reasons why an order is given and that blind obedience offends human dignity. Whoever presumes to spread these views in home or school forgets that our faith requires us adults to bow to the higher wisdom of Divine Providence and that human reason must never lose sight of this faith. He forgets that all of us here on earth live by faith alone, not by cogitation. Just as we must act with humble faith in the higher wisdom and unfathomable love of God, so the child should let his actions be guided by faith in the wisdom of his parents and teachers and should regard this as schooling in obedience toward the Heavenly Father. Anyone who alters these circumstances is flagrantly replacing faith with presumptuous doubt and at the same time overlooking the nature of the child and his need for faith..." [L. Kellner (1852), quoted in Rutschky]

Racism in feminism.

"In a later community meeting, one Black woman criticized us very angrily for ever thinking we could achieve our goals by working only with white women. We said we never meant this few weeks of this particular kind of work to be all we ever did and told her we had decided at the beginning to organize a group open to all women shortly after our series of white women's meetings came to a close. Well, as some of you will know without my telling, we could hardly have said anything less satisfying to our critic. She exploded with rage: "You decided!" Yes. We consulted the opinions of some women of color, but still, we decided. "Isn't that what we are supposed to do?" we said to ourselves, "Take responsibil- ity, decide what to do, and do something?" She seemed to be enraged by our making decisions, by our acting, by our doing anything. It seemed like doing nothing would be racist and whatever we did would be racist just because we did it. We began to lose hope; we felt bewildered and trapped. It seemed that what our critic was saying must be right; but what she was saying didn't seem to make any sense.

She seemed crazy to me.

That stopped me."

Wow. Read the rest of this here: On Being White

Also, this: An Open Letter to White Feminists

Me, and Agnostic Satanism

My agnosticism is based on this truth: That religion is, at its heart, about comfort. In the case of religions like Christianity, it's also about control, but what is control but a means of gaining comfort?

I have no way of knowing whether Satan is real. If I heard his voice, I have no way of knowing whether what I heard was real or a hallucination. In fact, there is a very high chance that it would be a hallucination. Given the lack of conclusive proof, I probably will not know until I die.

However, I choose to believe. I choose to believe because it enriches my life. The idea of someone more powerful than me being there to aid me is comforting. The idea of an afterlife curbs the nightmare of contemplating non-existence.

Of course, there are people who cope with the idea of not existing after death quite well. And in truth, since I don't really believe there is an afterlife (I am undecided, but to prepare myself for the worst I accept the idea of non-existence), I am almost one of those people.

 Alice Miller has said that some illusions are necessary for survival. For someone who has endured terrible abuse at the hands of their parents or spouse, it is comforting to believe that things are better in other countries. The truth, that abominable abuse happens in every country at unacceptable levels, might drive that person to suicide.

The point at which illusions keep us from a truth we are strong enough to face is when they become dispensable, and the point at which our illusions begin to hurt us or other people is when it becomes our responsibility to shatter them, no matter the pain of disillusionment.

That is why I am an agnostic Satanist. I dare to hope while I am prepared to face disillusionment.

Thinking again.

EDTA: The "last" post  no longer exists. It was a fairly oblivious attempt to see "both sides of the story" after reading a comment thread on IBTP where cisgendered rad fems, not for the first or last time, try to force trans women to legitimize their claims to womanhood. Unsurprisingly I was very ignorant and favored the cis point of view more. As soon as I realized that, I had a massive guilt attack and deleted the post in order to "save face", even though I had no commenters and barely any readers at the time.


I'm starting to feel ill at ease with my last post. It seems like what I said could sound like, "cis women and trans women are just different, so they need to be separated".

I think, in the scope of feminism, there can and absolutely should be room for issues other than those of cis women. When I rethink what I said, it sounds awfully privileged to think there should be places for cis women and cis women alone to discuss only their problems, when women should be attending to the problems of all women.

The first comparison that came to mind over this issue is white feminists and feminists of color. I could easily understand why black women would want black women-only spaces if they're used to white women coming in and dominating the conversation and dismissing racism.

But in this case, it's cis women who are privileged over trans women, so it's more like men making men-only clubs.

As I stated in my last post, it's the problem of viewing trans women as coming from "the enemy camp".

If white women became black women, would they be allowed in black woman only circles? Would they have started experiencing racism immediately after the transition and thus be aware? How much experience is enough experience to make them eligible for inclusion?

And what if they fit in with neither race- they didn't feel like white women, but black women were wary of them because of their former privilege?

(Is it even appropriate for me to be asking this?)

As before, I'm not sure where I stand on this issue. But I'm leaning away from the idea of cis-only spaces the more I think about it.

Because, really, what power do trans women have in cis only spaces? If they silence other women, if they dismiss their experiences, if they behave the way cis women fear they will behave, isn't it simple enough to simply exclude them once they've proven themselves incapable of carrying on discussion, rather than pre-emptively excluding them under the assumption that they will behave that way?

And though trans women are not considered "real" women by the patriarchy, they are given "feminized" status, the way gay men are. Is not transphobia directed at trans women a form of misogyny? And isn't that what trans women and cis women have in common in this world?

Yes, I think I'm decided on this issue. I believe there should be no cis-only spaces.

Additional note: What I meant in my last post was that gender itself was genderless, though that doesn't make much more sense. Because of course sex is genderless.

-------------------------------------
Here's a brief note by renowned Satanist Diane Vera addressing homosexual and transgender people. I appreciate the welcoming stance taken here, but think a better point would be that Satanists need to align themselves with other people who are marginalized by the Judeo-Christian patriarchy, and promote such right-thinking acceptance among pre-existing Satanists who may not precisely be neo-Nazis.

Greetings, blogging world.

My very first post. Just smell that new blog smell. Mmmm.

In this blog, I hope to explore Satanism as well as feminism. As yet I'm not sure what the two have in common, if anything, but some seedlings of ideas have been planted in my mind. I plan for my first official thinky post to be about the Biblical command, Thou Shalt Honor Thy Mother and Thy Father, but we will see. It might be more prudent to write an overview of Satanism and feminism for newcomers to the blog.

Judeo-Christian religions are, naturally, patriarchal. And whether or not anyone realizes it, the patriarchy is everyone's enemy. Religious oppression is patriarchal oppression. There is no difference. It is here I am trying to find intersectionality.

I have been a Satanist for seven years. I started out as a Wiccan, became a La Veyan Satanist, then moved on to theistic Satanism. In the year 2010 I have shifted to a more agnostic Satanic approach. While I have been of this faith for a very long time, my knowledge is still limited, so you will be with me as I learn more about my chosen religion and feminism, as I explore ideas.


Here's hoping for a good blog!