Sep 09 2012

White D00ds And Creative/Progressive Communities

Categories:

The pattern in creative/progressive communities–scitech, literature, social movements, etc–is that when the complete unfettered dominance of white d00ds to both set substantive agendas and control the allocation of material and intellectual resources is challenged, many of those white d00ds go ballistic at the threat to their privilege. And they attempt to cloak this obvious power ploy in the rhetoric of “we are an atheism (to use one example) community, not a social justice community, and we are rightly focused on atheism, so if you want to talk about social justice, go somewhere else”. Of course, this is nothing but a reflection of the white d00d racial and gender frame and the assumption that white dude hegemony is neutral and attempts to discuss it are special pleading.

This post has no tag

17 comments

Skip to comment form ↓

1

Alethea H. "Crocoduck" Dundee

September 9, 2012 at 6:05 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment

It becomes extra obvious when we try to take them at their word and go somewhere else – and that still isn’t good enough for them.
2

fuckesatonne

September 9, 2012 at 6:29 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment

Why does every creative venture have to take social justice into consideration? At least, any more than non-creative ventures have to do so.
3

RJ

September 9, 2012 at 7:20 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment

The question is, what evidence do we have of white doods consciously setting unfavorable agendas for the rest of us.

And if these agendas are unconscious, how do we know WE aren’t setting agendas as well?

We need an objective analysis of agendas.

PS- Sorry about promoting the objective analysis agenda.
4

skeptifem

September 10, 2012 at 9:20 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment

@2 because if you don’t then you further marginalize non white dudes. There isn’t a neutral choice here. It also helps if you actually give a shit about having the best people involved instead of the most privileged- think of how many great thinkers and writers get excluded in favor of mediocre dipshits who get to the top via their privileges. It is just a smart thing to do. Even assholes like JP morgan figured out the practical advantages forever ago.
5

Bruce Gorton

September 10, 2012 at 12:14 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment

@fuckesatonne

Because when you are being creative, you are taking something within yourself and showing it to the rest of the world. If you create pointlessly sexist, derogatory work, you are showing the world the streak marks on your underwear.

Or that you are an idiot. Either way, it isn’t a good thing.
6

fuckesatonne

September 10, 2012 at 1:27 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment

“If you create pointlessly sexist, derogatory work, …”

That’s not what I said. Of course I’m not advocating for sexism, racism, or any kind of derogat-ism.

I’m asking why creative ventures *in particular* need to pay attention to “social justice.” I mean, I’d like everyone to keep fairness and equality in mind, from businesspeople to government to working stiffs to artists to scientists. Why are those at the creative end of the spectrum more responsible for social justice than everyone else?
7

The Rose

September 10, 2012 at 2:09 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment

That kind of white doo-dah works with YOUR example of an atheistic community, but there’s other types of atheism WITHOUT the hegemony, and SANS the priveledge.
Imagine,
atheist minus racism
atheist minus sexism
atheist minus homophobia
atheist minus transphobia
atheist minus slavery
atheist minus er, uh – you get the picture…
8

The Rose

September 10, 2012 at 2:14 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment

…and minus spellchecker…P-R-I-V-I-L-E-G-E

…you’re not going to make me spell right at your blog, are you?
9

Phledge

September 10, 2012 at 2:25 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment

If privilege is having something you didn’t earn, and white dudes are constantly demanding that non-white non-dudes “earn” their place in a progressive movement, then is that projection?
10

toto

September 10, 2012 at 2:31 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment

“Of course, this is nothing but a reflection of…”

Either that, or it is a sign of understanding the “division of labor” concept and its benefits.
11

palmd

September 10, 2012 at 2:52 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment

I have a draft on this same topic which im now gonna have to trash cuz this is way shorter and way more clear.
12

skeptifem

September 10, 2012 at 6:38 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment

@palmd, but but but, comrade physioprof is a terrible writer!
13

jenny6833a

September 11, 2012 at 2:44 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment

PhysioProffe says, And they attempt to cloak this obvious power ploy in the rhetoric of “we are an atheism (to use one example) community, not a social justice community, and we are rightly focused on atheism, so if you want to talk about social justice, go somewhere else”.

There’s no power play, and darn few of the other accusations hold water either. As an opponent of A+ I say, “Don’t leave the atheist community, do join the social justice community, but don’t merge the two.”

My thesis is simple. The goal of atheism is to increase the number of atheists. The goal of social justice advocates is to increase (what they define as) social justice. Both goals involve selling a point of view.

As yet, no one has even tried to explain how combining atheism (unpopular) with social justice (also unpopular) will help either atheism or social justice achieve their goal. I’m convinced that doing so will harm both goals by making each harder to sell.

Of course, as an atheist and a social justice advocate who is also an experienced program manager, I think in terms of well defined goals, well defined intermediate milestones, and very carefully designed plans as to how to get there.

That is, I think about specific goals and about TACTICS. The tactic of explicitly combining atheism and (so far) third wave feminism makes as much sense as advocating (say) repeal of the incest laws along with repeal of tax exemptions for churches. One can perhaps make a strong case for each individually, but combining the two under one banner would make each far, far harder to sell.

Individual atheists should support social causes of their individual choice, but not under the banner of atheism or some subset thereof. Individual feminists should, if they so wish, support atheism, but not under the banner of feminism.
14

brucegorton

September 11, 2012 at 6:40 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment

@fuckesatonne

Pointless, isn’t the same as on purpose, in fact it happens more often that pointless offence is anything but on purpose.

When you engage in a creative excercise you want to know exactly what you are saying, thus you need to be socially conscious in order to avoid delivering messages you don’t want to deliver.

If you offend, you want to offend with a purpose, not because you said something without quite getting the implications of it.
15

MyaR

September 11, 2012 at 6:47 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment

Oh no, someone’s gotten their social justice peanut butter in jenny’s atheist chocolate! Everyone should only be eating pure, pure chocolate! And it can’t be any of that fair-trade, anti-child slavery chocolate, either!
16

skeptifem

September 11, 2012 at 8:42 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment

@jenny

As yet, no one has even tried to explain how combining atheism (unpopular) with social justice (also unpopular) will help either atheism or social justice achieve their goal.

oh really? I fucking did, on this page.
17

Stevarious

September 11, 2012 at 12:56 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment

@13

As yet, no one has even tried to explain how combining atheism (unpopular) with social justice (also unpopular) will help either atheism or social justice achieve their goal.

The reason you don’t understand is because you don’t know what it’s like to try to join an atheist group/meetup/movement/whatever and be unwelcome (whether subtly or overtly) because you’re not a cis white male.

Have you ever tried to join some group, something that you believed in, and been unwelcome because you’re an atheist? Yeah, it’s like that. It’s almost exactly like that. Except we now have atheism hindered – crippled, even – by it’s own refusal to accept and welcome women and minorities as equal members. How does this hurt atheism? Well, you may not have noticed, but cis white males only make up about 25% of the population of the United States. Is atheist activism in the US helped or hindered, in your humble opinion, by making 75% of potential members feel unwelcome and encouraged to join some other movement?

I’m not saying that all – or even most – of the cis white males are guilty of this behavior, or that this behavior is exclusive to cis white males. But it’s enough of them for it to be a real, genuine problem. And what’s worse, is that a much larger portion of the people who are NOT actively joining in, are standing back and ignoring it, or worse, defending the rights of asshole atheists to use words like ‘cunts’ and ‘trannies’ and ‘sluts’ and ‘tits or GTFO’ and otherwise treat others in a generally shitty manner.

So the women and the minorities and the people who support women and minorities are done trying to change atheism from within and are going away (as they have been told to do, over and over by the haters) to form their own movement. Except the haters just can’t let us go – now that we ARE going away and leaving them alone, the haters have become even nastier. They won’t even LET us take the GTFO option!

Is Atheism+ a split from the atheist movement? Yes, IMHO. But it’s not the A+’ers who are causing the split. And I for one welcome a split that leaves the crowd shouting ‘Tits or GTFO!’ out in the cold.

That is, I think about specific goals and about TACTICS. The tactic of explicitly combining atheism and (so far) third wave feminism makes as much sense as advocating (say) repeal of the incest laws along with repeal of tax exemptions for churches. One can perhaps make a strong case for each individually, but combining the two under one banner would make each far, far harder to sell.

I believe you’re wrong about this – Equal rights for atheists are a matter of social justice. So is feminism. The two are much closer linked than you imply.

But even if they weren’t, it’s become clear that a large number of atheists are not going to be able to fight for the rights of atheists under the banner of Atheism because they just aren’t welcome under that banner.

Surely, as a program manager, you understand that nothing is going to get done if everyone doesn’t work as a team, don’t you? Well, some members of the team have been telling other parts of the team to “shut up, get back to the kitchen, and make sandwiches” for far too long. And instead of telling the doodz yelling for sandwiches to shut up, you’re essentially telling the rest of us to shut up for saying ‘No, make your own damn sandwiches. There’s REAL work to do.’ And part of that work appears to be finding a new banner to fight under.