This will be my last post for a week. We’re off to the Philippines tomorrow night; I’ve got lectures in Makati City (Manila) next Tuesday and Wednesday. We’ll be home to Pasadena late on Thursday of next week, and then off on another trip as of January 16. I will post about the Kabbalah and Christianity lectures next Friday, deo volente.
(Just as I finished the last sentence, one of the chinchillas in the next room made an “I’m having a dream” call — a series of little grunts signalling not distress but something else. Perhaps just a desire for me to come into the room and make cooing noises to all of them.)
Re: Iowa. Thrilled by the strong turn-out, and deeply moved by Barack Obama’s speech. I said before that if Romney and Edwards were the nominees, we’d have debates between two immensely handsome, articulate men who struggle with slickness. But a debate between Obama and Mike Huckabee would be a thing to behold; two consummate “outsiders”, two men running on two differing visions of hope, two men who have an extraordinary ability to connect with a wide variety of people. The establishment right has underestimated Huck’s political skills. The left better not make the same mistake by assuming he won’t be the GOP nominee, and if he is, that he is unelectable.
Re: blogging. I’m not going to complain about the criticism I’ve received here and elsewhere for yesterday’s post on evangelism, feminism, purists and popularizers. But it reminds me of what I like least about blogging.
I’m an ENFP, and though I enjoy writing, I enjoy conversation more. When I’m talking with someone, I feel so much more confident, so much more at ease. I’m at my best “off-the-cuff”, with as few notes as possible. (I’ve got these two, two-hour lectures next week on a topic I’ve never talked about — and I’ll go up with a few quotes scribbled down and nothing more. I love the thrill of improv, the challenge of constructing a coherent argument extemporaneously. That’s not laziness as much as it is thrill-seeking.) But over the course of a debate or a conversation, there’s so much more opportunity to avoid misunderstanding, to avoid the accidental infliction of hurt. I know others feel the opposite is true, but honestly, I’m more careful with the words I speak than with the words I write, even though I write far more slowly than I speak.
But this unpleasantness reminds me that my ego lies to me so often. My ego tells me that given a chance, I can persuade anyone of anything. I’m as much a salesperson as a teacher, as much a performer as a professor. Part of that is my childhood upbringing (eleven years in a theater company from age seven to age eighteen); part of that is my temperament. Part of that is a deeply unattractive and puerile need to be liked and validated. I’ve worked hard to overcome that longing for attention and praise, and God knows, I do so few of the things I once did in order to get that validation. But I still have that characteristic addictive mindset, the voice that alternately flatters and condemns, the voice that tells me how I can convince anyone of anything on one hand — and that tells me I’m a worthless fraud on the other. That voice has gotten much quieter over the past decade, thank God, but it’s still there. And sometimes, blogging makes that voice louder again.
Trying to live in that middle space between self-loathing and self-importance is not easy. Trying to get to the place where my self matters less and others matter more is so damned difficult. But I refuse to give up, largely because I’ve seen such huge progress in recent years. My greatest fear, from my teens until recently, was that I was a narcissistic sociopath, incapable of genuine connection with another human being, incapable of empathy. (And Lord knows, I was diagnosed by therapists, ex-girlfriends, and ex-wives as being exactly that.) Sometimes, negative or hostile reaction to what I’ve written triggers that old fear.
To state the obvious: humility does not come easily to me. (Parenthetical aside: My favorite modern novel, Coetzee’s sublime Disgrace, has a protagonist who is shockingly close to the man I was and fear sometimes I still am. Disgrace is the story of a professor who recklessly seduces a student, obstinately and self-destructively refuses to comply with the career-saving recommendations of a campus committee, and ends up, well, disgraced. At the bleak, beautiful end of the novel, the hero finds a kind of redemption in caring for dogs who are about to be euthanized. Coetzee captures that mix of staggering narcissism, hubris, and the need for self-abasement perfectly. So perfectly, I didn’t sleep the night I finished it, so closely did I identify with the central character.)
What’s the point? Point is, I’m working hard not to be such a self-important ass that my own subsequent self-loathing forces me to seek out humiliation in order to find redemption. Blogging nakedly and openly helps, frequently because I get as much hostile criticism as I get praise. That criticism, as disheartening as it sometimes is, performs two vital functions. It’s a healthy corrective against that prideful lie I tell myself, the one where I believe I can convince people I’m right if I just use sufficiently clever words. Two, that criticism reminds me that my words do have the power to inflict hurt, and I have a responsibility to be mindful of that.
So what I’m telling myself today, as I prep and pack and care for my wife in her grief over her father, is that I’m just a blogger among bloggers. A teacher among teachers. I’m not better than anyone, smarter than anyone, more compelling than anyone. I’m just a middle-aged community college professor who talks to unsharpened pencils and occasionally tends to mistake sentimentality for profound insight. And sometimes I say some really clever things, and sometimes I say some really stupid things.
And a few people really love me, a few people really loathe me, and a whole lot of folks are in varying stages of indifference. But I have seven chinchillas who bounce with delight when I open their cages, who crawl into my palm to be rubbed. I have a wife who leans on me and relies on me. I have a family who count on me, and, marvelous to tell, trust me. And above all else, I have a God who loves me unconditionally, in the midst of my stinking self-absorbed pride. Blessed I am.
Have a great week.
the philippines!? hey, that’s where my parents are from! be aware of the pollution though, and if you have any brand names (sony, gucci) cover up the name with tape-thieves target those items. and if you ever get the chance, and are brave enough-go for balut. have fun!
It’s tough when to know to say when. My New Year’s resolution was actually picking your battles. Taking the time to say, “Is this argument worth it? Is anyone going to be persuaded?” If you can’t persuade someone, you just tend to aggravate them and reinforce the belief you disagree with. I know that, so my goal this year is to only engage in conversations where productive discourse is possible.
My father’s wife is from the Philippines. I went there once, though I only spent a few days in Manila (we spent the rest of the time in my step-mother’s hometown, a little village on Negros Oriental). It’s an incredibly beautiful country. I’m sure you’ll enjoy your time there.
On the broader topic of this post. I’ve been reading each of these controversies carefully, though I’ve almost completely stayed on the sidelines. I’m pretty sure that you’re misinterpreting the criticism you drew. I don’t think it was because you were being narcissistic, or being an asshole, or because you’re a bad person, or anything remotely like that. I think you drew criticism because you were wrong. Just simply in error. That’s the kind of thing that’s likely both easier and much harder to see and accept.
It’s okay to be wrong sometimes; everybody is. I think this is a case where progress can be made only when/if you understand the criticism, deeply understand it, enough that you can see your mistake.
Taking the time to say, “Can I win this without having to listen or work hard?”
Fixed.
The fact people are persistently trying to have this conversation should be a clue to you that the purpose of the discourse is deeper than individual personalities and egos. With that said, it’s not a surprise that this discussion turned from one pointing out that agreeing to shunt large groups of women off to the side for the convenience of the movement got sidled to false fire about jealousy and market sharing. This is a very common and very old detractor meme when it comes to having productive discussions about inclusion of all women… in a movement for all women.
Hugo,
Just out of curiosity, do you know of any cases where a sociopath was worried about being a sociopath?
I’m not a psychologist, but I’ve known a few sociopaths, and after researching the issue, my understanding is that sociopathy entails not caring that they don’t care about others. It seems like you need that still, small voice to begin with in order to start worrying about whether you’re hearing the still, small voice. But if you (or anyone else) have experiences to the contrary, I’d welcome them.
It’s okay to be wrong sometimes; everybody is.
It’s not OK to be wrong — being wrong is, by definition, not OK. Being wrong doesn’t mean you’re a worthless person who should crawl under a rock and die. But when you’re wrong, you have a responsibility to figure out how and why you’re wrong and fix it. (Some of the most irritating wrongness occurs when someone — and Hugo does this from time to time — can recognize that they’re wrong, and makes a big show of contrition, but completely misdiagnoses why they were wrong and thus how to make themselves right.)
“And a few people really love me, a few people really loathe me, and a whole lot of folks are in varying stages of indifference.”
I’m indifferent on the issues of this controversy, but I found it interesting enough to write about it in my blog. You’re evidently very torn up inside about it, and I’m sorry. You deserve better, fairer treatment than you’ve received on this.
Stentor,
It’s not OK to be wrong — being wrong is, by definition, not OK. Being wrong doesn’t mean you’re a worthless person who should crawl under a rock and die. But when you’re wrong, you have a responsibility to figure out how and why you’re wrong and fix it.
Point made — that’s what I wanted to say, actually. My intention was to emphasize that it “doesn’t mean you’re a worthless person,” because I often see people (i.e. myself) get so stuck on the self-hate that they never get to the part that’s important and useful and necessary, the understanding and fixing it part. Based on this post and Hugo’s writing in general, it seems like he’s the kind of person who might be vulnerable to that futile trap.
(Some of the most irritating wrongness occurs when someone — and Hugo does this from time to time — can recognize that they’re wrong, and makes a big show of contrition, but completely misdiagnoses why they were wrong and thus how to make themselves right.)
Indeed. Like in this post.
(Some of the most irritating wrongness occurs when someone — and Hugo does this from time to time — can recognize that they’re wrong, and makes a big show of contrition, but completely misdiagnoses why they were wrong and thus how to make themselves right.)
You just described what is angering alot of people about Hugo right there. Like him agreeing to that bullshit post that Sweating Through Fog wrote instead of explaining privilege to him. That tells me that Hugo doesn’t understand privilege in the least and it’s the reason why he is struggling with these discussions. It’s not that “we” won’t let him win like STF seems to think, it’s the fact that we know he’s just putting on a big show of contrition that is completely meaningless.
Hey, I’m with you about the nastiness of the blogosphere. That’s why I got out of it, and why my mood improved wonderfully once I did. An individual blogger may be reasonable and smart, but the blogosphere as an institution rewards nastiness and shrillness. It’s like how business rewards managers who are psychopaths, except that you have to work for a living, whereas blogging is entirely voluntary.
That’s a lame excuse to bash him. Anyone that knows Hugo knows he’s committed to social justice. Anyone who has read him knows his commitment to Feminism. To infer that he doesn’t understand Privilege is preposterous. Contrition? He shouldn’t have to prove anything to you or the clown posse at Ilyka’s
The problem for Hugo, is that no matter what he says, he’ll be wrong. He’ll be doing the wrong thing. Or not enough of what you want him to do. Or be passionate enough about your particular idea of social justice or what social issue is important to you. Ever. You and your pals admit as much..
Why is that preposterous? Actions speak louder than words, and while he may understand the concept of privilege, he doesn’t recognize when he’s using privilege liberally to speak about other people’s lives he does not know or perspectives he doesn’t understand.
And show me where anyone asked Hugo to make a show of contrition! Please. I’m eager to see it.
Here’s a pretty good one from R. Mildred….. But I’m sure if you objectively look around you can find better examples..
I see this as especially poignant, since R. Mildred is herself a privileged white woman who has never suffered any of the above “social issues”, but she does have a way with words when she’s up on the soapbox.
I hope you recognize the privilege in using your super mind reading skilz on Hugo. Really. One doesn’t have to literally be a member of the oppressed group to be at least sympathetic to and supportive of their cause. Hugo seems to be damned if he does speak about other perspectives, and damned if he doesn’t. Y’all are pretty liberal about throwing the word ‘privilege’ around. Seem to me to be more of a silencing and shaming tactic. I wonder if it’s not you that fails to understand it’s meaning.
Sylivia,
This is close enough
“Hugo responded to this post of STF’s with, “You know, STF, I really really needed to read this. Thank you.”
*boggles*
No, what you needed to do was stop talking. You needed to apologize for your stupid shit, shut up, and listen. If you claim to be an ally, then be a fucking ally. Take some tips from Tia at Unfogged. Practice silence. I am just appalled at the behavior of the men in my blogroll and on my radfem-friends’ blogrolls and comment threads who claim to be allies or pro-feminists or male feminists or whatever they call themselves. Appalled and astounded. Seriously, all of you need to take a step away from your computers, breathe, listen, listen some more, and shut the holy hell up already.”
Why is that preposterous? Actions speak louder than words, and while he may understand the concept of privilege, he doesn’t recognize when he’s using privilege liberally to speak about other people’s lives he does not know or perspectives he doesn’t understand.
I have been silently reading the various angles this little war for some time–wondering wtf is wrong with everyone? Too many people are having too good a time pointing out the so-called failures of others to see their own hypocrisy.
Read the above statement and then juxtapose it against this:
Some of the most irritating wrongness occurs when someone — and Hugo does this from time to time — can recognize that they’re wrong, and makes a big show of contrition, but completely misdiagnoses why they were wrong and thus how to make themselves right.
So, who is speaking about what is in the heart of another person she does not know?
I must say, that in light of all this talk of absolute right and wrong, Hugo’s point about fundamentalisms seems all too apt.
And for what it is worth: “Privilege” is not an absolute. EG, in “real” terms poor white boy born into a family which routinely brutalizes him (and perhaps grows up to be a horrific misgynist and racist) has less privilege than Michelle Obama, who despite being black and female, had the good fortune to be born into a “good” family who saw to it that she had a chance to succeed.
I don’t “agree” with everything Hugo writes, but no one deserves to be treated the way he is—and it is so weird to watch this behavior from a group of people who claim to want equality.
I disagree with about 47 to 52% of what you have to say, which is why I read you so often.
I’m guessing you attract more than your share of naysayers because you present yourself as an intelligent interlocutor. It’s far more rewarding to disagree with the intelligent than with the hopelessly dull.
I, too, talk to unsharpened pencils. ;-)
“Privilege” is not an absolute. EG, in “real” terms poor white boy born into a family which routinely brutalizes him (and perhaps grows up to be a horrific misgynist and racist) has less privilege than Michelle Obama, who despite being black and female, had the good fortune to be born into a “good” family who saw to it that she had a chance to succeed.
with support like this… he needs detractors?
since R. Mildred is herself a privileged white woman who has never suffered any of the above “social issues”, but she does have a way with words when she’s up on the soapbox.
I grew up in the dirt poor and non-white part of LA actually, I’ve been homeless twice in my life, the last time was last year when my land lord threw me out of my apartment after illegally jacking up the rent a proposterous amount.
I had moved to that apartment after my previous landlord got drunk and broke into my home as a prelude to attempting to make yet another sexual pass at me while I was asleep and I left by the end of that week for obvious reasons.
I’m privelaged, I have never walked the border, but I have feared the police, I have been attacked multiple times be men who wanted to rape me, I have been homeless.
The first step I took to be a better person than you and Hugo was to resort to acceptance, not denial, in the face of my racial privelage.
You can too, the fear of being a better person you guys have stops when you make that first step.
I also didn’t ask him for contrition, I told him to sail this bastardisation of both christianity and feminism up his ass.
There’s a slight difference.
Wow. Such ugliness. I haven’t dipped much of a toe into this controversy - I’m pretty much a nobody in the blogosphere, such as it is - but good grief. I don’t always agree with what Hugo says either, but this strikes me as piling on, and it all seems pretty friggin petty. I suppose Hugo opens himself up to this sort of thing simply by writing. I’m disappointed, though, with the way he’s being treated.
That’s all.
Vaquera:
I’m not reading his mind. When he starts slinging people’s names around to help him make his points without paying attention to his positions, he kinda proves he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
There’s a huge difference between showing sympathy and support for a cause, and telling members of an oppressed group what they want, what they feel, and what their motivations are. And I don’t understand why people are shocked when members of oppressed groups emerge to say “this is what you’re doing and we think it’s harmful to us and people like us; stop this.” Hugo has been responding, but he’s speaking from this perspective that we don’t know how we’re feeling or what we should be doing, and if he says it in just the right way, we’ll get it.
But you notice that people haven’t stopped engaging with him, though with “friends” like you, some of them probably should to preserve their sanity.
Oh, I’ve been silenced and shamed more than enough to know what’s meant. But that’s the thing about learning from your experiences and listening to people — you start to get better bit by bit and more resilient. Not like when you build a wall and rely on who you are largely to get your points across rather than the reality around you.
Isis:
No one. If you read this post, you see that Hugo feels that his problem is one of persuasion and personal likability and not of the points he’s making. That’s not true. No one has ever said it was.
Privilege may not be an absolute, but it still does its share of blinding. A poor white boy with that background may have less economic privilege in the fact that he’s poor, but does that justify his misogyny and racism? I really don’t understand the example you’re giving here because the lack of privilege in one area doesn’t make up for the bigotry and abuses of privilege in another (and this is jumping off your example — not in relation to Hugo).
It’s so telling that conversations about cooperation between white feminist movements and women of color feminist movements always turn into making scorecards for the individual white interlocutor’s privileges. I’m done here until we get back on that subject of cooperation, and not a minute before then.
SylviaM–of course there is never a justification for entrenched racism or misogyny. My point is that privilege is not absolutely built around sex or race, though sex and race are important markers along the spectrum.
It is a fact, that in spite of the “obstacles” presented to Michelle Obama in terms of race, the fact is that she has led an incredibly privileged life: a loving and economically secure family of “good” character, beuty, brains, health, an ivy league education, and all the benifits that accrue from this sort of beginning.
Timothy McVeigh, odious as he was, did not get a single break. Does that justify his rampage? No, of course not.
How about this as a better/more nuanced example: How about Andrea Yates? She is, according to the formulations I read here, because she is white (& for all I know–and I don’t—she was a raging racist befitting her redneck roots), inherently privileged. But was she really?
So, I guess what I am saying is that the constant bandying about of the P-word in a particularly corner of the blogosphere looks a lot to me like a bully tactic, employed to shame and to silence. And as long as that is going on, I don’t see how anything even resembling cooperation can occur.
Said differently: disagree (and for what is its worth, I am not much of a fan of either Jessica Valente or FFF, though I suppose one could argue that Andrea Yates might be in a better situation today had she read it as a young woman) with substance, but as soon as the ad hominums begin, then it becomes a matter of whose little posse is bigger and louder (or cruder–that self-congratulatory backslapping over at BFP is not only nauseating it is schoolyardish, imo). or more long-winded and nothing else is proved or disproved.
Hugo, just curious as to why in all of your discussions about the current politicians, you have rather obviously avoided discussing Hilary Clinton. I would think that as a feminist her situation would be a perfect opportunity for commenting on women’s progress, whether you agree with her policies or not.
And there is a vast difference in having a personal opinion or your take on an issue and “telling members of an oppressed group what they want, what they feel, and what their motivations are.” I didn’t get that idea from reading his piece, and I’m not sure where you get it. It’s his opinion, and in fact, I’m seeing a lot more of other people telling him what to think, or more accurately, not to think at all. You are deliberately taking things out of context and distorting what he is saying. Why the rhetoric?
See, that’s just wrong. I wish all our allies would stand up and shout from the highest rooftops in their loudest voices. I want everyone that can to stand up and take a position against oppression. I want them inspired and taking a stand. Not just on a blog, but out in the real world. And I want them to use whatever tools that are at their disposal to do it. What you preach alienates our allies. And whether you like it or not, we need those allies to affect lasting change. Your methods will be counterproductive to that goal.
You know, I’m going to resist going on a vulgar tirade as you did with Hugo and instead suggest that if you wish to know the meaning of ‘homeless’ that you spend some time in the soup kitchens and homeless shelters (especially in winter) to see what homelessness is really about. Being a white woman between apartments doesn’t count.
As a Hispanic woman, I understand privilege and social status all too well, thank you very much. As for thinking you are a better person than Hugo or I, well, I think that statement says a lot about you and your motives.
Yes, definitely. If someone disagreeing with your premise or calling you on your motives and methods makes you insane, double up on your meds before it’s too late.
I think this discussion is getting de-railed by the difference between BEING privileged in a particular way and USING privilege in a particular situation. Certainly, “privilege” is often used to mean economically privileged. But no one was criticizing Hugo for anything having anything to do with economic privilege.
We all have various areas in which we are privileged and in which we are not. The point is that, when discussing topics related to areas in which we are privileged, we should take care to make sure that we are not only listening to, but truly hearing those who are unprivileged in that area.
So, I am economically privileged, and if I write a post on some point that mainly affects poor people, and poor people approach me and say, hey, you are not really understanding what it’s like to be poor and you’re actually wrong about how this issue affect us, I should pay a lot of attention to that. I should recognize that because I am privileged in this area, I may not be blinded to some important aspect of the issue by that privilege. I may be missing something. It’s not appropriate to say, well, I am a woman and you’re a (poor) man so I’m just as unprivileged as you and you can’t tell me I’m wrong.
Different people have different rhetorical styles. Some people are firey in their prose and some people are purposefully conciliatory and patient with their language. Personally, I get the most out of online discussions when I don’t get caught up in the language used and try to engage with the author’s point. You can get offended, but then you just miss out on what they’re saying. If you want to hear what they have to say, you ignore the style and engage.