Posted by
Steve Smith on
Apr 11, 2014; 8:01pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Fwd-Major-bug-called-Heartbleed-exposes-Internet-data-tp7585135p7585189.html
Roger -
No, what you read is my morbid fascination running off to an
extrema, at the nudging of Vonnegut when I was very young. And it
was not and is not restricted to SWMs by any means. I'm worried
about knee jerk reactions in *any* and all directions, not just
toward SWMs.
Nope, it's far from OK... as I've said elsewhere, I have a wife, two
daughters and a granddaughter who I feel the need to protect (and
empower) personally and systemically from such things, and by
extension YOUR wife, daughters, grand-daughters, nieces and
acquaintances and *their* cousins, friends, mothers, sisters, etc.
ad infinitum. Same goes for my *many* friends whose melanin load is
higher than mine... and my *several* friends who prefer the sexual
and romantic engagements of their own gender, or in a few cases,
their former or freshly minted gender.
On the other hand, in my proximity, these problems are not as acute
as the common story suggests, it probably is elsewhere and certainly
was in the past. I do know women (and at least one man) who have
been raped, more who have had such things attempted or threatened
directly and *many* who feel under the threat categorically. I know
men and women whose surnames, accents, skin color, professed
religion, etc. may well limit their options in the larger playing
field, and I strive to relieve that for them where I can without
being condescending or accidentally perpetuating it in some way. I
intervene when and how I can when such misbehaviour is underway in
my presence.
No, you read me entirely wrong. I'm saying simply that by focusing
on the easily identifiable characteristics of the current or local
dominant culture (White/Hispanic Males in this region or
White/Black/Brown/Yellow/Red Males globally or ... ) as indicators
for who is doing the oppressing, we might consider the larger
patterns that not only lead to this oppression/inequality, but which
would also re-ignite the very same table-tipping IF we COULD or DID
renormalize and put a *different* group on top.
I even put out a stalking horse set of reasons why *White*
*Heterosexual* *Males* might be more predisposed to or more capable
*of* oppression than other groups. I'm not even denying that there
might very well be a positive correlation between those
characteristics and the tendency toward
dominance/oppression/violence... I'm just asking the question as to
whether this is more of a *feature* of a *system* than it is the
specific details of the dominant "species" (SWMs).
North America (if not the entire world populated with humans) has
fairly recent examples of how ecosystems were crashed or at least
distorted badly by identifying and deleting the most obviously
aggressive species (e.g. Wolves, Bears, Cougars, and to a lesser
extent Lynx, Fox, Coyote, Ferret). I think most agree that
villianizing the apex predators and eliminating them turned out to
be misguided. I'm just asking the question of whether we might be
making the same mistake when we focus on the *white male
straightness* rather than on the *niche* (dominant oppressor) and
try to understand the whole dynamic of such systems rather than the
specific characteristics of those (currently, locally) filling the
niche (SWM)?
I'm not worried about whether white men are handicapped or not. I'm
worried about whether a possibly specious rhetoric which suggests
that identifying the *most obvious and/or locally evident*
oppressors by their superficial characteristics (gender, sexual
orientation, melanin concentration) actually leads us closer to
changing the situation or instead might actually take us *away from*
resolving the inequalities by simply shifting us from one basin of
attraction to yet another.
I may be *dead wrong* in my assumption that other combinations of
the characteristics in question (sexual preference, gender, and
melanin load) are as capable of oppression as SWMs... maybe there
*IS* only one basin of attraction defined uniquely by these three
qualities, but that is not my intuition. At best, I suspect it is
a *larger* basin (characterized by SWM dominance) than those
characterised by the other features...
Go to the Stans or regions of the Middle East or Subsaharan Africa
and it will probably be evident that skin color is not what causes
men to be violently oppressive toward each other and toward women in
particular. On the other hand, except for the *mythical* example
of the famed Amazonian Warrioresses, we *don't* have many if any
examples of *women* being violent aggressive oppressors. So maybe
matriarchal societies which do not maintain hegemony through
violence or oppression are possible... and maybe homosexuals would
make better statesmen and leaders than heterosexuals.
I have it on good advice that HIllary will be running in 2016 and
unless something more bold (I'd prefer Chelsea, I'm tired of my
generation running things) happens, I will almost surely vote for
her. But I don't expect having a non SWM at the helm of our
lumbering Titanic of a ship to actually solve our most fundamental
problems. I voted for Obama twice (as much because of his relative
youth as his Y chromasome or his Melanin) and I'm disappointed in
the results (not necessarily in the man).
In Vonnegut's cautionary tale for example, it was not about white
males being handicapped, it was about virtually *everyone* being
handicapped... pretty women being masked to hide their features,
graceful ballerinas having to perform with weights on their ankles,
etc. It is about not being able to separate symptom from
disease. If we agree that "white male heterosexuals" get all the
goodies at the expense of the non-SWM, do we simply assume it is the
SWMness of the victors which puts them in that position?
Or in contrast, "let the sins of the fathers be visited upon the
sons"? You were raised in roughly the same era I was. I'm very
thankful for the awareness that was stirred up during my youth on
behalf of non-male non-white non-heterosexuals... it allowed ME, for
example to NOT be trapped by (all of?) the mistakes of my fathers
and grandfathers. But I'm calling on a larger analysis, for *some
of us* to move on out of that local minima to a more global
perspective. While it might help to be a white, male, heterosexual,
(protestant, raised in wealth, good nutrition, straight teeth,
twinkle in the eye, ???, ...) to be an oppressor, I'm not sure it is
necessary nor sufficient.
Yes, and this is a reasonable thing to ask of ourselves (especially
SWMs) and eachother... but if we insist on believing that it is
the S, the W and the M characteristics that uniquely and distinctly
select for this behaviour, I am suggesting it might not be that
simple. Yes, absolutely, let's not participate, perpetuate, nor
tolerate that kind of nonsense... and then let's acknowledge that
*at best* it is a *good start* and look a little deeper towards the
problems we will *still* have even if/when/as we unseat the SWM
oppressors.
I strive to do so at every opportunity myself, personally, and in my
dealings with institutions of all kinds. I have no interest in
maintaining a SWM hegemony even if it superficially benefits me (I
know too well that it does not benefit me beyond superficially when
I put on my most self-enlightened perspective). I was born into it
and I participated in the growing pains of a culture trying to shed
that hegemony and my daughters (and wife and sisters-in-law and many
non SWF friends) benefit from the progress already made.
My wife and her sisters fought their ways to the top of the pile
relatively successfully because of or in spite of that circumstance,
two of four are self-made millionaires, the other two are highly
accomplished (if not widely recognized) artists. My daughters both
found/created independent, successful places in the economy and
social strata because of that circumstance. And yet both of my
daughters (and I fear my granddaughter) are still on a tilted
playing field, though it has tilted in a strange askew way. They
both have bounced off of glass ceilings, but due to the momentum
they were given by believing that there were (or should not exist)
glass ceilings, broke through them eventually... though there will
surely be more. Their *biggest* challenge, however, is finding men
in their generation who can meet and keep up with them... too many
of their generation's men are wallowing in various holes... some
clinging to the hegemony of their SWM (and in many cases non-W)
grandfathers but many cowering under the backlash against that
hegemony. I praise our progress, but it has not been without a
price and my daughters are paying that price by not having men who
can meet them well. One tried partnering with women but found it
really wasn't what she wanted, the other is trying the single parent
route now and is struggling with the obvious challenges that brings.
- SAS
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com