Home | About | Donate

Women the World over Have Shown the US How to Deal with Sexism and Racism


#1

Women the World over Have Shown the US How to Deal with Sexism and Racism

Yifat Susskind

Many in the US are emerging from their initial shock at the outcome of the presidential election to confront its likely impacts: a legitimation of right-wing identity politics, worsening climate change and militarism, assaults on women’s rights and LGBT rights, and the gutting of basic public services.


#2

What, exactly, is this destruction he has promised to unleash on women? Anything relevant to the examples cited? Because I'm pretty sure it would have made the news if he'd promised militarized rape and violence against women.

"we must be relentless in our protests."

You might also want to consider actually identifying what it is you are protesting against--and making a rationally compelling case against it.


#3

Sexism and racism in the US falls well behind classism. We're 20 years into one hell of a war on the poor, the majority of whom are women. In the real world, not everyone can work, and there aren't jobs for all. The US shut down/shipped out a huge number of jobs since the 1980s, ended actual welfare in the 1990s, and we all pretend there are no consequences. We have stripped our poor of the most basic human rights (UN's UDHR) of food and shelter. In violation of international human rights laws, low income women who lose their jobs can now (since welfare "reform") see their children taken into "indefinite state custody."

On race, the majority of US poor are white, but US poverty is just as hellish regardless of skin color.


#4

Why are you so sure that threats of violence against women would be published news? That's, you will, please, pardon me, counter-intuitive.


#5

There is a social psychological link among the wrongs. Classicism tags the more vulnerable as weak, even willfully weak, just as women who are assaulted are often blamed for the violence that is done to them....because men are attracted to them as targets for their own urge toward sexual aggression. Racists blame alt-races for their own victimization ..because the alt-races have been assigned sterotypical traits by dominant groups. Women are the quintessentially stereotypical victim because women are usually smaller, weaker, and naturally encumbered by childbearing. Weakness and vulnerability are the common traits among these groups. If women shatter the stereotype of their historical weakness and vulnerability, they begin to shatter sterotypical vulnerability of weakness that has been taken for granted in most cultures for millenia. It's a tripleheader for women, workers, and classicism if played out to completion.


#6

I should have written classism rather than classicism.


#8

It made all kinds of news when someone dredged up an audio recording from long ago in which he was boasting of the liberties he was able to take with groupies. I think a promise that as president he would unleash anything like the examples cited on women in general would have been at least as newsworthy.

But if the author of this article got her information about what Trump promised from sources other than news outlets, that's fine. She can just include the information about what her sources were along with the purported promises, and we can look into their veracity for ourselves.


#9

Here we go again.

Those who despise all that "woman" has come to stand for--the body, nature, wildness--almost always dismiss females' expressions of resistance as "irrational."

As if there were no modes of knowing that transcend--which means includes, and goes beyond--the Flat Earth rationality such speakers exalt like a false god...as if no one could possibly sense or enjoy anything that they don't already possess.

Such hateful speakers imply that that they themselves are nothing but "rational." Anyone who persists in challenging their limited and limiting perceptions quickly finds out how false their self-propaganda is.

(Such speakers aren't always biologically male, but they often are.)

Watch how nakedly such speakers reveal their mental emperor's nakedness when confronted with the evidence that their "logic" is a sham!

There is, of course, no actual conversation possible with those hell-bent on the course of weaponizing the cognitive mind and the Word in this fashion.

We who prefer a world built on Truth can, however, learn how to transform this routine and intimate violence. And it is critical that we do so. For this "subtle" violence births and feeds gross violence.

To expose speakers like this one for what they really are is a necessary form of evolutionary fitness training. We seek not to open dialogue with them, for their pathological lying means they have no standing to speak.

(How does it feel, haters, to be told you have no standing to speak? As you have so often silenced the voices of plants, animals, waters, the body? Can you still feel at all? Can you feel anything besides hatred and the urge to destroy?)

Instead, we practice transmental aikido. We use their energy--which is always seeking to use, to possess, to control--to empower each other, ourselves, and the greater intelligence which evolves life.

We use their dis-ease to feed health. We don't silence such speakers, as they constantly seek to silence life's larger song. We simply practice singing along, more and more skillfully all the time.

We use their utterances as an opportunity to practice our mental/verbal skills. In defense of women, yes, and all that female bodies have come to stand for. And in enjoyment of the exercise.

As we may enjoy dancing, throwing parties, training in physical martial arts and loving one another in times of war. For women and nature, it has been a time of war almost forever....

Trog, as his name implies, is most likely literally unable to comprehend my utterance here. Thus he is most likely to say, in brief contemptuous terms, that I am speaking gibberish.

The weapons of martial artists are typically simple. We require only three to eliminate such outdated modes of consciousness from our midst: 1) sound hearts and souls; 2) respect for the speech of the physical body/behavior; 3) a passionate, unquenchable desire for a more loving world.

We're good. We've got this thing. Don't trouble yourselves about the hoards of Trogs. We already read the end of this Good Book.

.


#10

And don't forget that bastion of rights, Iraq!

This article is nonsense. None of the links supported the authors argument.

That said, I do believe that Trump has made it clear he does not put much value in women. I don't think he values anyone, but he seems to dismiss women simply because they are women. For a bigot, it is a efficient strategy to disparage as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Trump has also done this with "Immigrants", "Muslims", "Mexicans", etc. I don't think Trump is a misogynist but only because he doesn't make value judgements about anyone. He just finds the most expedient way to brush off as many people with as little effort as possible.

I think we do need to protest against any rollback of rights. Reproductive rights are so often targeted that those protests will have to be often and highly visible.


#11

I think you can count on pushback against first-world feminists trying to co-opt the victim status of genuine victims so long as they keep at it.

"Those who despise all that "woman" has come to stand for--the body, nature, wildness--almost always dismiss females' expressions of resistance as "irrational.""

I dismiss the irrational as irrational no matter where it comes from.

"As if there were no modes of knowing that transcend--which means includes, and goes beyond--the Flat Earth rationality such speakers exalt like a false god..."

Humans used to be overwhelmingly under the thrall of purveyors of invented gods. We aren't entirely past that, but rationality has been our best and most effective weapon against such benighted thinking.

"as if no one could possibly sense or enjoy anything that they don't already possess."

Reason is built upon what we sense, but it is also how we manage the fallibility of our senses. And reason neither entails nor requires enjoyment.

"Such hateful speakers"

Rejecting irrational beliefs is not hate.

"imply that that they themselves are nothing but "rational.""

Reason is a discipline. It takes work precisely because it is not how we are naturally. And anyone who thinks their reasoning is infallible has already fallen into defective thinking. I also happen to think reasoning works best as a group effort. So if anyone believes they can identify a defect in my reasoning, or that they can make a more compelling case for a position I don't currently hold, I believe it is best for the process if they attempt to do so--even if they are mistaken.

"Anyone who persists in challenging their limited and limiting perceptions quickly finds out how false their self-propaganda is."

All disciplines are limiting. That's in their nature. The constraints on rational thinking are there to minimize the risks of straying into error. Challenging reasoning within those constraints only makes the discipline stronger. But rejecting the constraints of reason is simply a rejection of reason itself.

"(Such speakers aren't always biologically male, but they often are.)"

Reason has no gender. In principle, it isn't even restricted to humans.

"Watch how nakedly such speakers reveal their mental emperor's nakedness when confronted with the evidence that their "logic" is a sham!"

If evidence can be used to demonstrate a defect in logic, I'm all in favor of that.

"There is, of course, no actual conversation possible with those hell-bent on the course of weaponizing the cognitive mind and the Word in this fashion."

The tools of reason have given us the theoretical and applied sciences. It is no indictment of reason if we sometimes use those tools to produce weapons. The power to change, or create, always comes with some power to destroy.

"We who prefer a world built on Truth can, however, learn how to transform this routine and intimate violence."

We have no direct conduit to external Truth. So even though minimizing risk of error is the object of reason, the standard by which it operates is not Truth itself, but probability.

"And it is critical that we do so. For this "subtle" violence births and feeds gross violence."

Conflating words with violence only helps to provide justification for answering words with violence.

"This is a frontline of the war on women, the war on nature, the war on children, where everyone can serve."

Pointing out the deficiencies in an article which happened to be written by a women (where the same criticisms would apply had it been written by a man) is not part of a war on anyone.

"To expose speakers like this one for what they really are is a necessary form of evolutionary fitness training."

I'm an advocate for reason. And I don't conceal that about myself.

"We seek not to open dialogue with them, for their pathological lying means they have no standing to speak."

Everyone has standing to speak in the marketplace of ideas. And everyone has standing to criticize. If you criticize, you are, in fact, entering into a dialog, and a rebuttal to your criticism is fair game. You can walk away at any point, but declaring your intent not to engage in dialog makes it sound like you have little confidence in the strength of your position. And when someone disagrees with you, how do you know they are lying? It is, after all, entirely possible that they sincerely disagree with you.

"How does it feel, haters, to be told you have no standing to speak?"

Were we supposed to answer that without speaking? So far as I'm concerned, that's a non-binding, self-negating hypothetical, so I really don't how it affects me.

"As you have so often silenced the voices of plants, animals, waters, the body?"

Even assuming "voice" is a metaphor there, science has done more to advance our understanding of those than any other approach we've taken.

"Can you feel anything besides hatred and the urge to destroy?"

Feelings are not arguments. They have no bearing on the rationality of a position.

"Instead, we practice transmental aikido. We use their energy--which is always seeking to use, to possess, to control--to empower each other, ourselves, and the greater intelligence which evolves life."

I have never heard of transmental aikido. But if you would like to practice it on me, feel free. If it's something real, it would be interesting to see it in action.

"We don't silence such speakers, as they constantly seek to silence life's larger song."

I thought you just got through saying we had no standing to speak.

"We can use their utterances as an opportunity to practice our mental/verbal skills."

Presumably while avoiding dialog.

"Trog, as his name implies, is most likely literally unable to comprehend my utterance here."

Writing for obfuscation is actually not very difficult. The real art of effective communication lies is speaking plainly, clearly, and coherently, so that anyone of normal intelligence can understand.

"Thus he is most likely to say, in brief contemptuous terms, that I am speaking gibberish."

And the easiest way to boost the odds of that being a correct prediction is by speaking gibberish.