The Green Girl’s Neighborhood

“The most difficult thing is the decision to act, the rest is merely tenacity. The fears are paper tigers. You can do anything you decide to do. You can act to change and control your life; and the procedure, the process is its own reward.”

-Amelia Earhart

Eliot woke up this morning with a new song. He asked if I wanted to hear it and here are his lyrics:

Out the window
time to fly a kite
Out the door
kite flies away
Kite waves to the city
Puppy on the sidewalk
Boy on the sidewalk
Kite comes down
Puppy in circles and circles

Oh my, I thought I might melt away into his yummieness! He told me it was like the song he heard on Yo Gabba Gabba. Anyone know? Clever boy, he sang it soft and sweet.

It's random poetry time, just because I feel like it.

Christina Rossetti is a strange creature. Or rather, I think she just seems strange because of the way that she is normally presented, as an innocuous simple poet. You read this and that kind of presentation seems fair enough. Then you read this and you begin to question it. And then at some point you read something of Rossetti's that makes you do a double-take. You look at it and go "woah." And then you look at it again and go "woah." And then you look at it again and go "WOAH." And suddenly, you've found a favorite poet. (The same thing happened to me with Blake.)

I recently bought a book of Rossetti and I've found that some of the most seemingly simple are also the most astounding. For example:

          Joy is but sorrow,
               While we know
          It ends tomorrow: --
               Even so!
          Joy with lifted veil
          Shows a face as pale
As the fair changing moon so fair and frail.

          Pain is but pleasure,
               If we know
          It heaps up treasure: --
               Even so!
          Turn, transfigured Pain,
          Sweeheart, turn again,
For fair thou art as a moonrise after rain. (Selected Poems. Ed. Dinah Roe. New York: Penguin, 2008. 178)

While I'm getting anxious to be in school again, I'm glad that at least right now I don't have to say anything in response but, "woah."

     Today the mover are coming. We are going to go north and stay with our grandparents for a while. I wont me able to post for quite some time, but keep your eyes peeled for some pictures. There really is nothing more to say today except,
     Good Bye, good luck, and new beginnings are ahead of us now.
Gopes, Byeps, And Manny Morps,

     Draegon Scribe

This will be my last post for awhile because we're moving. My grandparents have a computer, but We won't be there for a few days.
C.S.

Oh crap! I missed John Clare's birthday yesterday! AND it was his 215th. Well, happy late b-day, John.

A couple of days ago, I blogged about Kyle Payne and male feminists. One of my main points was that, by poking around and reading some of Payne's writing, I felt that it was not surprising that someone who wrote that way would turn out to be an abusive individual. When someone becomes an ally of a social justice movement, and then they write or talk all the time about their own guilt, about how getting rid of their problems makes them a better person, always always always making it about them, their experiences, and their emotions -- well, their commitment to the movement is really just about their own needs rather than the movement itself. When a guy all of a sudden feels the full, crushing reality of patriarchy and breaks down in tears on a stage in front of a crowd of people and then blogs about it, something makes me feel a little suspicious, you know?

So, after Kyle Payne, one male feminist ally with dubious motivations is revealed, all these other male feminists with dubious motivation start to come out of the woodwork and talk about their own guilt and fee-fees and whatnot. In the post linked above, I talked about Hugo Schwyzer's reaction and how he immediately brought the subject back to himself. Well, when he got criticized for doing so, he went back to his blog and wrote an epic length post about the same subject (tell us when you've dug through to China, kay?)

It's true, like I said, there is definitely a need for extensive self-reflection when you're an ally, but I think most of it should be done in quiet, on one's own. (Hey, I'm not perfect -- I've written a few whiny navel-gazing posts about racism myself, but I figured out that I should knock it off.)

At any rate, in this post, Hugo talks again about matching one's words with one's actions -- and yet, throughout the whole thing, something rubbed me the wrong way. What he was saying made sense, but what he was doing with his words seemed to be something different. I have no idea whether my feeling about this fits in with speech act theory or not (especially since I learned about speech act theory through the study of literature and speech act theorists say that speech acts don't apply to literature), but I'll give it a shot.

What you mean isn't always what you say. For instance, whenever a teacher says to two students talking at the back of the class, "Is there something you would like to share?" it's not an actual request to share the subject of the conversation, but rather, it's a reprimand. The words technically say one thing, but they do another.

In a more subtle way, I get the feeling that the same thing is happening unconsciously in the writings of allies like Kyle Payne and Hugo (although I'm not saying that the two have the same motivations. I think Payne is probably purposely deceptive at one level, while Hugo means well but just doesn't have his shit together because he has trouble getting over himself.) Even as they say one thing, their words point to something else. For instance, Hugo says

And I don’t feel driven by a compulsion to compensate for private sin with displays of public virtue.

And I ask, "Well, if that's true, then why are you writing about it at length on your blog and putting in boldface? Isn't that a public display of 'I'm better than Kyle Payne'?"

But this is the part of Hugo's post that really got me:

Though I certainly never behaved as Kyle Payne did, I was a self-centered jerk much of the time in my twenties; I was frequently conscious that my volunteering and my teaching and my activism were at least in a small way linked to a desire to compensate for my selfish behavior with many of the women in my life.

But the good news is, we get to grow up. I’m not a rescuer today, at least not of people. (I get my “need to rescue the helpless” met by doing animal rights work.)

I read this and it bothered me. Specifically, the "rescuer" part. And yet, lo and freaking behold, a little while later my husband and I went on a walk and found a completely helpless baby animal and rescued it. So, it got me to thinking: what is it the bugs me about Hugo saying that he doesn't rescue people (which he is right, he shouldn't) but he has a need to rescue something, so he does animal rights work instead? How is this different from what I'm doing by picking up this baby squirrel? I think for most people, the first objection would be his comparison of animals and humans, but that's not my objection. I realized that it's the "need" to rescue anything at all that bugged me.

I know that for a lot of people, the decision to become a vegetarian or vegan is based on ethical principle, a rational idea of what is "right." And also, most people's objections to vegetarianism or veganism are nominally based on principle: "People are supposed to eat meat." For me, I started out with this huge idea that animal rights is just part of the liberation of everything and I should do it because I need to contribute to the liberation of everything and everyone. My feelings about non-violence are starting to change, however -- they're becoming more simple but more deeply held, I think.

Lately I've been reading the Dhammapada, a short Buddhist text in verse. It touches on pretty much every basic tenant of Buddhism, including nonviolence. The chapter on violence begins thus:

All tremble before violence.
All fear death.
Having done the same yourself,
you should neither harm nor kill.

All tremble before violence.
Life is held dear by all.
Having done the same yourself,
you should neither harm nor kill. (Dhammapada. Trans. Glenn Wallis. New York: Modern Library, 2007. 10.129-30)

This is so simple. It's "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." It's a concept that has been floating around in Western Christian culture for a long time, and yet it took me a long time to get it. But for several months now, when people have asked me my motivations for not using animal products, that's the reason I kept coming up with.

There's a quote I really like (although I don't know the exact quotation or who said it, so if you know, PLEASE tell me) that goes "If you have come here to help, please leave; but if you have come here because you know that your liberation is bound up with my own, then we can work together." That is the essence of being an ally to a social justice moment. It is also based on the same principle of "Do unto others...."

One the one hand, this is a self-serving motivation -- the Buddha says that your motivation for non-violence should be based on that fact that you fear death and violence and hope it doesn't happen to you. Therefore, being non-violent, making friend and allies, and setting an example will at least slightly increase the chances that someone will show you the same kind of mercy.

For example, as a white woman, I know what sexism is like, but I don't know what racism is like. However, I do know that sexism and racism are linked together, so ending racism is for my own benefit. It's a selfish motivation, but it's a real motivation. I'm not going to unrealistic lengths to purge my white guilt. I'm not breaking into tears in front of crowds of people just to get my anti-racism points. (BTW, I'm talking about this in an idealistic way -- I'm still not the greatest anti-racist ally.)

I think that's what puts me off about Hugo and Kyle Payne -- this going to unrealistic lengths to prove that they're feminists. Kyle claims that he hopes to rescue women from the grips of patriarchy. Hugo knows better than to try to "rescue" women from patriarchy (probably because some pissed-off women informed him that we don't need rescuing), but still thinks that a need to rescue is a good motivation for anything. It's not: it's ultimately a selfish motivation, not beneficial to anybody but oneself.

I cannot claim to be the best ally to anyone or anything yet, but I do know that when I picked up that baby squirrel yesterday, my main reason was that if I or any future incarnation of myself were in a similar situation, I'd hope that somebody would do the same for me.

Ishmael

This evening, Thom got off a little early from work and we decided to take a walk around the neighborhood. A couple of blocks from our house, we came upon a small pink thing writhing on the sidewalk. Upon closer inspection, it turned out to be a baby squirrel, so young that its eyes were still closed. There was a large tree nearby, and it had probably fallen out of its nest and rolled down the bank onto the sidewalk. We weren't sure whether we should take it or not, because we thought the mother might come to get it. Ultimately, though, we decided that we couldn't leave it to such an uncertain fate, especially seeing as ants were beginning to gather around it, so I put it in my shirt and we walked home. I'm glad we did decided to take him (as he turned out to be) home after all, because we later read on the internet that mothers usually won't come back for babies in that situation.

He seems to be doing pretty well. We found some advice for care on the internet, and my main objective is to keep him warm and hydrated until I can take him to the wildlife rescue center tomorrow morning. I'm not surprised that he fell out of his nest because he squirms all the time. He seemed to be completely unharmed by the fall, except for a couple of tiny scrapes, though.

I named him Ishmael because I happen to be reading Moby-Dick right now, and because Ishmael is the name of an outcast, so it seemed to be appropriate. Baby squirrels are strange looking creatures, but I think Ishmael has a cute looking face, especially when he yawns.

ETA: Ishmael made it safely through the night and was taken to a wildlife rehabilitation center this morning. They gave me a case number so I can call up and see how he's doing. If he makes it and nothing goes wrong, they'll re-release him, probably near the neighborhood where we found him.

Daughter of ETA: We called the wildlife rehab center this morning and they said that Ishmael is doing fine. He's eating everything they give him and, as I suspected, he was completely unharmed from his fall (which might have been as bad as a 20 ft drop onto pavement.)

Show us a better way to spend $300 than on the iPhone 3G

Share_chart

Pig-e-bank

Turning it into more money?

Cleardonation

Giving it to people who need it?

Fins,
C.S.

I suppose that most people who are feminists don't identify as such, since the word "feminist" is synonymous with "ugly, hair-legged, bitter, humorless lesbian" in popular culture. However, I think the majority of Americans are feminist at some level -- fewer and fewer people would argue that women are inherently inferior to men, that our purpose is subservience to men and propagation of the human race, or that we have no say over our bodies, property, or futures. I would consider people who object to those notions to be feminists at some level. Of course, one may still believe that those notions are wrong and have no problem with raping a woman or siding with a rapist against a victim -- feminism isn't an on/off switch, after all.

Since discovering the feminist blogosphere a couple of years ago, I have discovered that there are all kinds of feminists, women and men coming from different backgrounds with different priorities and different approaches to feminist thought and activism. In reading around, I've noticed that there is a growing population of feminist men, that is, men who self-identify as feminists. While some women may not want them to take up that label, I support men who do, because it inevitably entails self-examination of their internalized sexism and their masculinity. There are still other men who choose not to identify as feminists, but show through their actions that they are feminists. Whether they take on the label or not, they are allies to the feminist cause.

BUT -- and yes, this is a big but -- being an ally does not mean that you get a laminated "Get Out of Hot Water Free" card to stick in your wallet. Being any type of ally, not just feminist, is a process instead of a state. You can be a great feminist for years, but one sexist comment or action, and you're pretty much back at square one. In fact, the more ardent of an ally you claim to be, and for the longer period of time, the more suspicious you will seem when you backslide into the old behavior.

I'll use an example. Lets say that Miss X is a white woman who is part of an anti-racist activist community, and has been so for years. She talks all the time about uprooting her own racism, goes to anti-racist rallies, and writes anti-racist articles, among other things. Then, one day she gets caught making a racist joke. Don't you think that Miss X is a little suspect? I mean, if she were really interested getting rid of racism, why would she be making a racist joke, especially in light of her long-term involvement with an anti-racist community? Chances are, however, that Miss X was a little suspect long before she cracked that racist joke. Whenever there was discussion of racism at an activist meeting, she always turned the conversation towards herself, going on about her own racism. Whenever someone disagreed with something she said, she humbly shut up instead of engaging their points and talking openly about it. Whenever someone called her out on something, she apologized more profusely than the situation warranted. She liked to brag to others about her anti-racist activism, and if someone gave her crap about being anti-racist, she bragged about that, too, showing others how much pain she'd experienced in the name of the anti-racist cause.

A favorite word in the blogosphere right now, and since I'm studying for GRE vocab I might as well use it, is disingenuous. People in Miss X's anti-racist community were probably not all that surprised by her racist joke because her behavior had always been disingenuous. She avoided real discussion about issues of contention through silence and self-flagellation. Every conversation about anti-racism with her always ended up being about herself, whether or not she portrayed herself in a flattering way. To her, anti-racism was about her own needs and goals, not about actually ending racism. So, surprise surprise, Miss X turned out to be racist!

While there are several men in the feminist or larger social justice blogospheres who I am glad to call allies, Chris Clarke and mattbastard, for example, several other feminist male bloggers I've seen around fit the Miss X, or Mr. X, profile, as far as I'm concerned. I was away from the internet for several days when radical feminist anti-porn sexual predator and child porn viewer (yes, you read that right), Kyle Payne, was exposed to the feminist blogosphere. Because Ren Ev has the best summary, I'll just quote her.

Kyle Payne was arrested for breaking into the room of and assaulting an unconcious female student at his University while he was a resident advisor. He plead guilty to felony attempted burglary in the second degree and two counts of invasion of privacy. Kyle Payne, feminist ally and enemy of pornography, agrees that "with an intent to arouse my sexual desire, I photographed and filmed Jane Doe and her breast without her consent."

Also, according to a thread at EleanorsTrousers, who was all over this story from the get-go, Kyle Payne was asked to leave BV University for having child pornography on his computer.

So, yes, meet Kyle Payne, a man who is staunchly against pornography, a man who is dedicated to men rethinking their views on sexuality, privilege, rape culture, and masculinity, a man who spent time as a Rape Crisis Advocate. A man who assaulted and photographed a unconscious young woman under his authority as a university resident advisor, for his own sexual gratification and without her consent. A man who had child pornography on his hard drive, a man who’s blog, The Road Less Traveled, is filled with angst and turmoil and emotion, condemnation for the exact sort of behavior he himself has engaged in.

Nice.

Surprising that an anti-porn feminist would illegally make sexually explicit images of a woman without her consent and get caught with child porn on his computer? Well, not really, if you read some of his writing. [via Belldame]

In any speech about pornography, I try to make real for those in attendance what pornography is and what it does to women. Scholars Day being no exception, I spoke at length about the content of mainstream adult pornography, in addition to presenting visual examples (a method that demands tremendous caution - I hope to discuss this element further in future blog posts). Now, let me be clear. Despite how horrifying mainstream pornography is, absolutely none of the information I provided was new or shocking to me. I had spoken about pornography countless times before, addressing a variety of audiences. And my research had revealed that the “woman-hating” in pornography was not merely a fringe issue, relegated to a particular genre or subgenre. Instead, the entire industry, along with its intimate connections with prostitution and sex trafficking, is rooted in an ideology of hatred toward women (and a system that enforces such hatred). Yet, no matter how familiar I am with patriarchy’s firm grip on sexualities in our society, I can’t help but break down emotionally when speaking of such an atrocity.

Stifling sobs and brushing tears from my cheeks again and again as my presentation went on, I was embarrassed and worried that my audience had missed important messages in the speech. Perhaps they didn’t even take me seriously, given my uninvited display of emotion during a formal presentation. Regardless of reactions from audience members, I felt strangely fulfilled having expressed myself so openly. For the first time in my academic career, I felt I had allowed myself to be human as a presenter. I regret that, at least for some, my tears may have been distracting or confusing. Yet I see no reason to apologize for them, given the subject matter.

Let's give this passage a little framework. This is the time to remember that, not only is he talking in front of a group of people, but he's blogging about talking in front of a group of people, making the incident doubly public. When something is really painful or humiliating, we usually don't want to talk about it, but he seems eager to do so. Despite the self-abasement that the passage seems to involve (i.e. breaking down in tears in front of a crowd), he brags about it and, because he's blogging about it, he welcomes discussion.

Next, consider this sentence:

Yet, no matter how familiar I am with patriarchy’s firm grip on sexualities in our society, I can’t help but break down emotionally when speaking of such an atrocity.

The whole thing is pretty loose -- "atrocity" (a word that gets used way too much already) is just sort of thrown in there to describe the nebulous concept of "patriarchy's firm grip on our sexualities." When I consider "patriarchy's firm grip on our sexualities," I think of a pervasive state of affairs that ranges from poor body image to sex trafficking. When I think of atrocities, I think of the Holocaust, the Rape of Nanking, the lynching epidemics in American history, Mi Lai, the Holodomor, as well smaller events like the rape and abuse of trafficked women -- in other words, specific things. To my mind, Kyle has grossly misapplied the term "atrocity," signaling that his writing is asking for sympathy and attention where it may not merit it.

I also find it interesting that Kyle claims that he "can't help" breaking down when speaking of patriarchy and porn. Something tells me that if Kyle were alone in his own room thinking about them, with no audience and nothing to brag about, he wouldn't be breaking down into tears.

In other words, Kyle's feminism is not about feminism, so far as I can tell from his writing. It's about his show of self-flagellation, about his public displays of emotion, about his desire to get in front of crowds and speak (or blog). Although annoying, all of this would be fine, I suppose, except that it means that Kyle's feminism is not about women, but it's about men, specifically a man -- himself. I honestly and truly welcome male input into the feminist movement, I really do, but a feminist movement that centers on male concerns -- well, it kind of defeats the purpose of feminism.

So, Kyle Payne, the disgusting hypocrite, is exposed. As a result, other Mr. X-type feminists come out to debase themselves, like Hugo:

I know I’m inclined to moralistic self-righteousness (that’s redundant) when I talk on my blog every five minutes about the importance of “matching one’s language and one’s life.” I sure could stand to find a more winsome and less prissy way of saying this stuff. But I’m so pedantic about it because I know how much credibility matters, above all for men in the movement. Our private lives must match up with our public pronouncements, and when someone like Kyle pulls something like this, he not only hurts the very real woman he assaulted (and who knows how many else), he not only hurts the children involved in the pornography, he hurts everyone who believes that men too have a vital role to play in ending sexual violence.

Again, the same type of crap. Hugo calls himself "moralistic" and "self-righteous" flat out. He calls himself "prissy" in order to brag that he's "pedantic." I thought that "matching one's language and one's life" is neither prissy nor pedantic. Furthermore, the real goal of this paragraph is not to talk about the women and children, Kyle's victims, but to talk about the menz, or rather, Hugo. Now, I don't think Hugo would stoop to Kyle's level, but I've always considered him to be  that magic word, disingenuous. Again, it's the bringing of the conversation back to oneself.

Don't get me wrong, self-reflection IS needed when you're an ally, but I think the most honest self-reflection is that done without an audience. That Kyle, who claims that all men are potential rapists, who cried openly in front of a crowd and then blogged about it, who made his feminism a way for polishing his own ego and addressing his own concerns, turned out to be a hypocrite, is not too surprising.

I guess this leaves feminist women with the question of "who can you trust if not your allies?" I guess you can never know for sure, but at this point I'd trust a man whose actions showed him to be a feminist, even if he didn't take up the label, more than a man who claims to match his words to his life, but only talks about himself.