links links links also let’s oppress weeaboos

The Biyuti Collective has a wonderful post On Manners, Etiquette and the White Man’s Rules.

It is important that so many white people use standards of etiquette to judge how civilized and human some people are. It is important that within the last ten years there is an incident like this in Canada. That children of colour are being held to and judged on some arbitrary white standard of etiquette. That they are being shamed and policed.

[...]

I have trouble eating with a knife and fork. I’m always awkward with them and often end up creating a mess. I never use them. I’m a pro with a spoon and a fork. With chopsticks, even. Knife and fork? Clumsy, awkward, and just not the best utensils for the sorts of things that I eat.

The “cutlery controversy” in Canada incident is referenced.

The boy’s mother pursued a formal apology, reporting that, in a telephone conversation with school principal Normand Bergeron, he had told her “Madame, you are in Canada. Here in Canada you should eat the way Canadians eat.”[3]

The story first appeared in the West Island Chronicle. According to the Montreal-area newspaper, “When (the boy’s mother) questioned Bergeron about punishing students for their table habits, she says he replied that, ‘If your son eats like a pig he has to go to another table because this is the way we do it and how we’re going to do it every time.’”

[...]

“I don’t necessarily want students to eat with one hand or with only one instrument, I want them to eat intelligently at the table … I want them to eat correctly with respect for others who are eating with them. That’s all I ask. Personally, I don’t have any problems with it, but it is not the way you see people eat every day. I have never seen somebody eat with a spoon and a fork at the same time.

It doesn’t need to be reiterated of that this is racist as fuck, and disgusting. And have you ever considered how inefficient it is to eat many dishes with a fork and knife? Stupid even, and inefficient? The spoon-and-fork way is both superior and more decorous: it’s neat and lets you gather up all the things you want to gather up. It lets you clean the plate. If occidentals want to find dirty primitives to sneer at, they need only to look into a mirror.

Rochita Loenen-Ruiz guest-posted Decolonizing as an SF Writer at Kate Elliot’s blog.

In the course of this journey, I have been told that I need to learn English better. That I can’t possibly grasp the nuances of the English language the way a native English speaker does and that I will never be published as an SF writer.

And then, there are people who say that because I write in English, my narrative is contaminated and no longer true to the culture I come from.


People who follow me on twitter may have been watching a particular exchange yesterday. I now feel that it is necessary to clarify some things, since people appear to misunderstand me about a very crucial matter–to wit, that I’m an advocate of some strange form of feminism that is an all-human, encompassing movement in which the rights and identities of weeaboos, otherkin, furries, fandom, geeks, nerds and their ilk must be respected and campaigned for. Now I’ll say, and dispel this misconception once and for all, that I do not give even one single shit about the fake oppression and the martyr complexes enjoyed by weeaboos, otherkin, furries, fandom, geeks, nerds and such ilk.

You might think this is not a thing which requires clarification. So did I! Well, both you and I are wrong.

It began with the Claymore posts, which attracted the attention of some dude. You know the type: the kind that makes “anime fan” into an identity, the kind that says proudly that he considers “otaku” a badge of honor–one which to flaunt, to wave around, in celebration of cultural appropriation and blatant fetishization. Thus was born the BURNING WEEABOO TIMES. (Bonus: part two.)

He bristled at my stance on otherkin, too! The idea of the weeaboo–or the otherkin, or just any average dudebro geek–who believes themselves oppressed, a minority that suffers from a lack of privilege… it should be a straw man. It really, really should be. And yet! Here we are.

This dude believes intersectionality is a thing that is about including weeaboos, that by making fun of him and his ilk I’m being hypocritical, and this grand, sweeping inability–

@requireshate @randomjeweler I mean seriously, you want me to justify why you should respect other human beings? And you’re feminists?

–to comprehend that feminism is a thing that might, oh just might, exclude them. A fine combination: he doesn’t just not understand feminism, he appropriates intersectionality as a thing which ought to take seriously the oppression of weeaboos. As the twitter exchange trudged on inexorably toward inevitable stupidity, Moritheil dabbled in some thoughts on trans identities (that they are comparable to his “anime fan” identity), about gay people

Moritheil is, simply, one of those: the male tapeworms of the world who identify as feminist, but who will only listen to the kind of “feminism” that makes them complacent and comfortable, adore only the feminists who agree with him and stand at the ready to pat his ass. He’s R. Scott Bakker, the weeaboo edition. And, just like Bakker, he believes women harm feminism.

Jennifer Kesler of The Hathor Legacy has an intriguing post about patriarchy and man as a cultural construct. There are parts I disagree with (and there will be parts that you disagree with,) but on the whole I feel it is far better than the paradigm of feminism as simple self-aggrandizing by women, for women.

Heaven forbid feminism be by women, for women! You can read the rest on your own, but I find it telling that one of the people who agree with Moritheil and endorse him wholeheartedly says–

Looking at requireshate‘s behavior, you’d almost think the idea of feminism is to prove that women need not be bitches if they can qualify as assholes…

It’s amusing how the females who like Claymore get the neutral-ish “fans”, while the males are necessarily “nerds” and “weeaboos”. But I guess that’s what you get if you let immature little girls imagine themselves as the vanguard of feminism.

Moritheil doesn’t moderate this comment or call the person who made it out, largely because I imagine the person who made it is a fellow weeaboo shitstain and more importantly, he agrees with Moritheil. As you can see, Moritheil is a FEMINIST. Indeed, as his OKCupid profile (thanks, @kingrat) indicates…

I am a self-admitted radical feminist who listens to Liz Phair as he does the dishes. This could be interpreted as amusing, awesome, or horrifying, and if your answer isn’t one of the first two, don’t talk to me.

Radical. Have some random wapanese:

Tadano ningen.

Jitsuwa, roku nen mai, watashi no shigoto nakama subete wa nihonjin. Anno toki, minna shabureita nihongo.

Dakara, nihongo, watashi chotto wakarimashta.

You’d think a proud orientalist nipponophile would have written it out in kanji. For more on this, he rhapsodized over the awful judgeyness that anime fans must face.

Try as I might, I can’t really see picking on otaku, but trumpeting your sensitivity towards gays and lesbians, as any different from having learned what you can and can’t get away with. It doesn’t seem to indicate that you’ve actually internalized the idea that stereotypes can be damaging.

If you believe, honestly, that all that is so much rubbish, then that’s one thing. You are at least consistent in your denial that stereotypes have serious effects. But if you genuinely believe in the cruelty and harm caused by applying to stereotypes to other social groups – identified by gender, race, sexuality, or religion – and you then turn around and enjoy making people squirm based on their group identity as otaku (however spurious it might seem), then we have a problem.

[..]

Obviously otaku aren’t oppressed in the way that, say, homosexuals in America have been. But just as obviously it’s ludicrous to demand that they undergo that kind of marginalization and suffering before recognizing them as people.

He lists himself as straight, by the way.

UPDATE: desperate backpedaling to save face.

Leave a comment

103 Comments

  1. His blog piece plus comments also insist that all feminism must be nice, because all feminism and activism in the past has been nice. Except that that’s a blatant re-writing of history, appropriative of the struggles of more marginalised people, and completely untrue. I suspect first and second wave feminists would react considerably more violently to his identification as a “radical feminist” than feminists now.

  2. I particularly liked the bit where he said that discriminating against people of such proclivities was discriminating against people of such proclivities who might be gay/disabled/women/poc as well.

    Point. So. Missed.

  3. For the record, since my name is mentioned, I’m generally for calling people whatever label they prefer to be called, and against calling them things they find offensive, absent good reason. Calling people weeaboos seems dickish to me, but meh. It’s no worse than people looking at me funny cause I wear black a lot.

    • acrackedmoon

       /  May 14, 2012

      But it’s pretty funny they find “weeaboo” offensive while proudly self-identifying as “otaku,” a term which itself is an insult… in its original culture, which they’ve appropriated. It’s not quite like a gay person reclaiming “fag” or “dyke,” you know?

  4. Sadly, nary a word of defense over there for the mistreated, suffering left-handers/ambidextrous who toil under the oppression of a right-hander tyranny. Aren’t we as discriminated against and viewed with smug disdain? Or is it only those who can “pass” for “normal” and yet engage in “counterculture” that are the true oppressed?

    Maybe I have to get in touch with my Inner Squirrel or Vampire Cowboy in order to understand that their pain is real.

    • braak

       /  May 15, 2012

      Solidarity, man. Who but we can understand what it’s like to live in a world in which EVERY DOOR IS BACKWARDS?

  5. Are you aware of the Elven Holocaust?

    One line summary: some Otherkin claim to that in a past life they were victims (or perpetrators) of the Elven Holocaust.

  6. “Obviously otaku aren’t oppressed in the way that, say, homosexuals in America have been. But just as obviously it’s ludicrous to demand that they undergo that kind of marginalization and suffering before recognizing them as people.”

    This line here makes me want to slap him so damned hard, that he would even use otaku and oppressed in the same line with no thought as to the words he’s using. I doubt very damned much that ‘otakus’ were rounded up and sterilized or had their sex organs multilated because the medical profession believed them to have a mental disorder.

    Also, Otaku is not a term for anime fan, it’s a deragatory term for someone who is way, way, WAY into something, often at the expense of other social skills, although I believe it’s more commonly associated with anime and the like. Otaku is not a term you want to proudly claim, much like decent person is not a term that Moritheil wants to claim anytime soon.

  7. I think what these otaku oppression people need to understand is that yes being made fun of or even physically bullied for being a geek is bad, and bullying can lead to psychological issues.

    This is a far cry from people not liking shit you are into on the net though, and attempting to claim this is a form of societal oppression both appropriates the struggles of others and dilutes the political struggles of legitimate grievances. I can sort of see people feeling like their refuge is being unfairly mocked but one needs to separate this from institutional prejudice.

    I suppose people who suffer from body dysmorphic disorder may fall into some otherkin groups, but not sure about this.

    The elven holocaust thing….that kind of creeps me out, this idea that its cool to be oppressed or persecuted…just not in the present, actual life you’re living now.

  8. green_knight

     /  May 15, 2012

    II hadn’t come across otaku/weeaboo before, so I had to look it up. Much to my suprise, the Wikipedia article gives おたく/オタク (both in English and in Japanese versions).My impression (and someone please correct me if I’m wrong) is that a Japanese person might be おたく and that’s fine (inasmuch as being a nerd/anorak/whathaveyou is fine), but an outsider would be オタク and that’s, well, an act of appropriation?
    (My Japanese is non-existent, but that appears to be the kind of linguistic distinction as far as I can tell.)

    • tealterror

       /  May 16, 2012

      Not really. おたく is hiragana, オタク is katakana. The latter is usually used to write out foreign loan words, which may be where you got your impression from. However, in this case, it seems that the spellings basically mean the same thing. It does seem that at first (meaning in the 80s and 90s when the word gained its new meaning) it was mainly written in hiragana, but now the katanaka spelling is almost as (more?) popular, but that’s about it. I hope that made sense.

      Oh, um, by the way, long-time reader of this blog, first-time commenter. Hi!

      • green_knight

         /  May 17, 2012

        It does seem that at first (meaning in the 80s and 90s when the word gained its new meaning) it was mainly written in hiragana, but now the katanaka spelling is almost as (more?) popular, but that’s about it.

        Thanks for the clarification.

        Does this sort of thing happen often? My impression has been that the two systems are kept fairly separate, and that there are few? no? words hat can be spelled in both alphabets. If anything, I would have expected to be the transition in the other direction – that something has been around long enough to acquire a hiragana spelling, like the English drop accents from French words etc.

        • tealterror

           /  May 17, 2012

          Technically speaking, any word can be spelled in either hiragana or katakana and it’ll make sense. (Although certain words would look *really weird* in hiragana if they have non-standard Japanese syllables) For example, official government documents used to be written entirely in katakana (I believe), and sometimes robotic speech is written in katakana. In addition, words can be written in katakana for emphasis (like bolding text); in personal experience through playing Japanese games I’ve noticed this most often with onomotopeias and pronouns, interestingly enough. There are some other tendencies as well (words for animals are often in katakana even if they’re Japanese words), but I think that’s enough for now. :p

          I think there are some other examples where a word was originally hiragana/kanji but sort of “migrated” to katakana, animal words possibly being one, but in general it isn’t a very common practice. I have no idea why it happened with “otaku.”

    • seanoapostrophehara

       /  May 17, 2012

      No, “otaku” is an insult when used in Japanese, much like “nerd” and “geek” used to be in the US if not a bit harsher. When used by Westerners it means, “I’m an idiot who thinks that anime and manga are representative of Japanese culture as a whole while having absolutely no idea who Haruki Murakami is, let alone Soseki, Dazai or Murasaki.” (NOTE: By “anime and manga” Western otaku typically mean fanservice, giant robots, fanservice, and stupid series aimed at little kids in Japan but which are for some reason interpreted as appropriate for adults in the US. Oh, and fanservice. Anything aimed at girls will typically engender a “This is boring” response and any story that even remotely resembles homosexual male romance will result in, “Eww! Gay cooties!”)

  9. “I think what these otaku oppression people need to understand is that yes being made fun of or even physically bullied for being a geek is bad, and bullying can lead to psychological issues.”

    There’s also the fact that well… Most of the kind of bullying arguably has it’s roots in sexism and/or homophobia in the first place.

  10. follow me on twitter

    curious if you find twitter to be a useful forum for productive debate and agitation, filled with sophisticated interlocutors–or if it’s merely place to harvest fuel for your column.

  11. the twisted spinster

     /  May 15, 2012

    About the cutlery incident… I can tell you that when I was a child adults were obsessed with teaching children “proper table manners.” It was like we were being trained to be courtiers in the palace of Louis XV. Many meals were nearly ruined by this nonsense. Elbows were anathema; apparently they harbored germs and were agents of Satan, so if you didn’t get your elbows off the table right now, young lady, there would be hell to pay… And then there is the knife and fork nightmare. I hated it whenever we’d have steak, because my parents were convinced that I’d be a total failure in life and end up living under a bridge if I didn’t learn to cut my own meat. So I’d sit there starving while I sawed ineffectually at the slab of meat, the knife gripped in my tiny paws.

    The whole thing was absurd. Food shouldn’t be this difficult to get off your plate and into your face. No wonder so many Americans have food disorders. I eat with a spoon now whenever feasible.

  12. braak

     /  May 15, 2012

    Aw, you know, I got to say that I kind of feel bad for Otherkin. I mean, I’ve got degrees of sympathy and everything, I’m not trying to go out and build them a statue or something (Tomb of the Unknown Dragon-Souled Fae-Elven Vampire, or such), but there’s something about it that makes me sad. A cat who identifies as a mega-anime fan, or what have you, you know that cat at some point made the decision to go from being a guy who likes anime to deciding that “Otaku” is who he is, that cat needs to chill out.

    But someone talking about how they’re the reincarnated soul of a wood dragon, that really feels like a person that’s actually been driven a little bit crazy from the desperation of living in a complete cultural vacuum. I’m not saying they’re oppressed, or anything, but I do feel a little bad.

    • “Crazy”? Seriously? Don’t do that. It denigrates people with real mental illnesses, who are genuinely oppressed in many ways, and by comparing them with mentally ill people, legitimizes their bullshit claims of oppression.

      I don’t know what “complete cultural vacuum” is supposed to mean here, but only someone completely isolated from others could possibly live in one. White Westerners do have a culture, and our cultural influences are one of the things that produces fetishism and appropriation of other cultures (e.g., weeaboo-ism).

      • braak

         /  May 16, 2012

        Oh, well, okay, fair enough. But I mean, what *are* they, then? I’m not saying that they’re genuinely oppressed, or that we ought to be likening the “struggles” of Otherkin to the actually legitimate struggles of oppressed peoples, but something has to be going on here, right? It’s a sticky wicket to try and talk about whether or not a stranger genuinely believes the things they say on the internet, and i doubt most of them are even as genuine as they purport to be, but still it does seem a little disordered.

        As for “complete cultural vacuum”, I guess that was an exaggeration, though I do stand by the fact that white Western culture — I am actually going to go out on a limb and guess that most of the self-professed “Otherkin” are actually Americans — so, really, American culture does combine a studied ignorance of history, an insistent individualism, and a market-based system that robs most ideas of their idiosynratic qualities in order to sell anodyne bullshit to the largest possible audience. It’s not a complete vacuum, in so much as it’s a culture whose only consistent characteristic is a driving need to appropriate other cultures in order to fill gaps in a self-narrative that’s otherwise unprovided for.

        And you know, a lot of these folks are pretty isolated from other people, at least up until they meet a bunch of people on the internet who’re willing to indulge their self-delusions, so maybe there’s a higher level of cultural vacuity here.

        Anyway, look, I don’t think it’s a legitimate form of oppression, I do think that it’s delusory in the same way there’ve always been self-reinforcing group delusions, and I think it’s a pretty silly delusion at that (“fictionkin”, where people actually believe that they are reincarnated fictional characters [sometimes from Street Fighter] is probably the silliest). But I do also think it’s a little sad.

        • Why the hell do you need a way to describe them other than “people who think that they’re reincarnated x” or whatever? If you want to talk about the phenomenon, you can talk about group delusions easily enough — as, indeed, you did. What else do you want? Isn’t the simple explanation of what they believe enough?

          The thing is, you may think it’s sad or weird or whatever else, but unless it’s actually seriously interfering with their lives, it’s not a pathology, and it’s not a disorder. Think what you will of them — I certainly have no particular sympathies for them — but don’t go using language that discriminates against other people.

          As for white Western culture, let me guess, you’re white and western, yeah? American? (Me, too, btw.) You’re swimming in your own culture, as unaware of it as a fish of water. From Wikipedia: “Specifically, the term “culture” in American anthropology had two meanings: (1) the evolved human capacity to classify and represent experiences with symbols, and to act imaginatively and creatively; and (2) the distinct ways that people living in different parts of the world classified and represented their experiences, and acted creatively.” We have all of this. You think our only consistent characteristic is that we appropriate from other cultures? Then honestly, you’re pretty ignorant about how white American culture differs from other white Western cultures. There are a lot of negative things about American cultures, sure. But repeating the idea that there is no culture here erases the things that are bad about it as well as erasing the things that are good about it that people could be focusing on instead of appropriating from others.

          Actually, part of the reason think that America does not have a culture (which is always implied to mean white Americans don’t have a culture) is that what we actually have here is a whole bunch of regional cultures with some commonalities across most or all of them. Ignorance of even the variation between regional cultures — which often includes the idea that other regions do things basically the same way, and that things they do differently aren’t culture but just funny quirks (like, say, Southern manners) — serves to erase the existence of white American culture, too.

          One of the ways that we, as white Westerners and as Americans, can work to stop the ongoing and longstanding trend of appropriation in our cultures is to actually see our cultures, see what constitutes them, see what’s good in them and claim it, and see what’s bad in them and repudiate it, and work to reform it. We can’t do it by denying that we have a culture.

        • My girlfriend suggests that if you really want something else to call them, you could try “hatoful boyfriend”. The absurdity of both is best shown not by finding other ways to describe it, but simply by recounting exactly what it is.

        • braak

           /  May 17, 2012

          Hmm. All right. This was some casually-deployed language, foolish position, and ill-considered opinion on my part, I apologize.

          I do still feel a little bad for those guys, though, but that’s just how it goes sometimes, I guess.

  13. Complete sidenote, but: He has absolutely no fucking clue what “radical feminist” actually means, does he? I mean, obviously, he has no idea what feminism actually is, which is pretty common among men who claim to be feminist, but he is also clearly unaware that “radical feminist” does not mean a feminist who is radical.

    • acrackedmoon

       /  May 15, 2012

      Well… he’s transphobic as fuck, so in that he certainly has a thing in common with some radfems.

      • I’m not acquainted with his antics, although I’m not at all surprised to learn he’s transphobic. Still, radfems don’t generally let boys in their club, and I’m sure many of them would think he’s transphobic for all the wrong reasons, or something.

  14. That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. I am just back from lunch, where I had couscous. If anyone ever suggested I eat it with a fork and knife I would laugh my head off. There are so many foods this is true for, I really can’t believe people would be that stupid to make an issue of it…

    I am not even going to go into the idiocy of “weeaboos, otherkin, furries, fandom, geeks, nerds and such ilk.”

    But, since we’re doing links: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLNw-O0Xb-Q
    A fascinating BBC program about the women called She-Wolves: England’s Early Queens.

  15. You found the Elven Holocaust links which give the best lowdown on it. The Foundation for Awakening stuff is particularly interesting as an example of an internet echo chamber – everyone on that site wanted to be an elf with vivid memories of past life as elves, so once the ball got rolling everyone had a compelling motivation to come up with memories of the elven holocaust. Presto, soon enough everyone’s claiming to remember it.

    There’s a good article here:
    http://tayruu.tumblr.com/post/21434173008
    which makes the point that basing your identity around a fictional construct somebody else made and controls isn’t something which can end well. The post in question is talking about Otakukin and not the folk in the Elven Holocaust discussion, though I’d say that it’s equally shaky ground to base your identity around your need to have something interesting to say in a web forum discussion about an imaginary genocide.

  16. “There’s also the fact that well… Most of the kind of bullying arguably has it’s roots in sexism and/or homophobia in the first place”

    Do you mean that otherkin identification is a disassociation brought on by bullying which is caused by homophobia/misogyny?

    Perhaps its believing in reincarnation myself that lends me some degree of sympathy for the idea. If one believes they were a being from a theoretical Age of Myth, it’s certainly better than many of the homophobic/sexist stains on other faiths.

    Where I think the issue lies is in claiming that one understands oppression or has also been victimized because of something that happened in this vanished time period.

    For example, being Indian-American I’d never claim to understand the African-American experience or, for that matter, the Indian in India experience.

    As for the comparison to transpersons…I want to note that recent brain scans have shown a physical reason for people feeling like they should be a different gender than the one they were born with but I dislike biological arguments as they seem like apologia/pandering. As I’m cisgendered I’ll leave further consideration of this to those who are more qualified to answer.

    • trevoresque

       /  May 16, 2012

      Lots of different ways to be trans, but let’s assume we’re talking about someone who gets surgery to align body with mind. We’re talking sex organs and hormones that could result from any egg-sperm party. Every new human life has the potential to be female, intersex, or male. No one has the potential to be an elf.

      Maybe some of the people making the otherkin/trans comparisons imagine “female” and “male” to be as great a difference as “human” and “space dragon”, but biological sex is a spectrum. As dramatic as surgery might seem, a penis can become a vagina because they’re basically the same thing.

      • “Every new human life has the potential to be female, intersex, or male. No one has the potential to be an elf.”

        I’m not sure this is a good way to distinguish between groups identifying themselves in way that is different to what body they were born into. Future advances in cosmetic surgery will enable people to at least visually to look elven.

        I see no real problem with someone wanting to identify with being an elf – believing you were one in a past life seems no more absurd than many find the religious beliefs of groups they don’t belong to. At least no one is damned for eternity for picking the wrong holy lottery ticket, making Elf-ism higher on a moral scale if we go by modern conventions of what is good and what is evil.

        I think the problem is attempting co-opt the feeling of oppression – I believe it was Nonny Morgan in prior topic who separated bigotry from institutionalized oppression. There is casual mockery of transpersons in mainstream entertainment – one of the last go-to groups – as well as promotion of transphobia, and it affects how transpersons are treated not only in general but also in the legal system.

        • One of the things otherkin, etc, often seem to do is appropriate the language, narratives and experiences of trans people. I think it’s important to acknowledge the very real difference here, and to not inadvertently support that appropriation.

          I don’t care whether or not they think of themselves as elves or dragons or anime characters or anything else. I do care that some of them appropriate from trans people, and try to use trans people’s experiences to justify themselves and prop up the idea that they are oppressed. Otherkin comparing themselves to trans people isn’t ok.

          Trans people aren’t just made fun of in the media. They are murdered. They are massively discriminated against. When they are attacked and they defend themselves, they are the ones who go to jail — and then they are sent to the wrong prison, where they are attacked over and over again, as well as being denied medical treatment.

          Otherkin, on the other hand, are disbelieved and made fun of, and maybe occasionally attacked. There’s a difference here. They aren’t all simply “identifying themselves in way that is different to what body they were born into.” (And, btw, that’s an inaccurate description of all trans people. Trevoresque said it, there are a lot of different ways to be trans.) Lumping them in together that way accepts the otherkins’ premise that they’re similar, which says it’s ok to appropriate trans people’s experiences.

  17. Damn I ate Spaghetti with a spoon and fork when I visited Canada.
    Nobody told me I made a fool out of myself. :(

  18. Otherkin, on the other hand, are disbelieved and made fun of, and maybe occasionally attacked. There’s a difference here

    in the united states, at least, the difference will cause the rights to flow in the opposite direction–provided otherkin silliness counts as a religion and its adherents’ beliefs therein are sincerely held. (scientology counts as a religion, e.g.–and why shouldn’t it when it’s as manifestly ludicrous as christianity, judaism, islam, &c.?)

    because the rights of transpersons are not generally protected, but religious rights are taken very seriously in the US, otherkin likely enjoy substantially greater protection than transpersons.

    come to think on it, i’d love to have some otherkin group as a client in a religious discrimination case (not pro bono and not contingency, ‘course). it’d be brilliant:

    NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes plaintiff, The Elven Nation, and respectfully submits this Original Complaint, alleging upon information and belief as follows, to wit:

    [...]

    Defendant United States willfully, wantonly, and knowingly oppressed and discriminated The Elven Nation by denying the Elven Holocaust and failing to provide recompense.

    Defendant United States willfully, wantonly, and knowingly fails to recognize The Elven Nation as the official authority of the Otherkin peoples.

    Defendant United States &c &c

    WHEREFORE plaintiff, The Elven Nation, prays for judgment in its favor and against defendant &c &c &c

    looks like it could be a sweet s. 1983 case. likely sails right through the 12( b ) motions. looking at some punitive damages, fee shifting. i’m calculating my lodestar right now.

    please therefore refer any and all otherkins to me for non-free consultation. i charge $2.99 per minute.

  19. (And, btw, that’s an inaccurate description of all trans people. Trevoresque said it, there are a lot of different ways to be trans.) Lumping them in together that way accepts the otherkins’ premise that they’re similar, which says it’s ok to appropriate trans people’s experiences.

    Apologies on the inaccuracy, but your distinction seems similar to mine – though I also should have gone further in talking about the physical danger of being transgendered. It’s the societal prejudice, situations like those of Agnes Torres Sulca and CeCe McDonald, that is the distinction not the beliefs or identification espoused by the otherkin.

    As I stated earlier, even PoCs should be wary of thinking they get other PoCs experiences. As to the experiences of otherkin, it seems like most of these people are seeking to “get off” on being victimized. However, I’m allowing for the idea that a few of them are genuinely affected by their identification, in the same way someone can be genuinely affected by being a Born Again Christian or convert to Buddhism. (The link Arthur B posted could at least partially describe religions the world over IMO)

    As to why it matters, I think it’s dangerous to look at any belief or identification and say it’s obviously stupid or wrong. Because that is relying on instinct, and it’s just as easy for transphobic or homophobic persons or persons against interracial marriage to rely on their own prejudiced instincts to say something is “obviously wrong”.

  20. elric10

     /  May 17, 2012

    Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is –

    http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/

    damn,800 comments so far,anyone else read this ?

    • Who hasn’t? It’s everywhere. Decent 101 metaphor for gamers, and a whole lot of clueless in the comments. It’ll get the point across to a few more clueless dudebros, which is always nice, and cause many more to dig their heels in. Again. It’s fairly simple and limited, as 101 metaphors have to be. I’m sure it will be useful. Don’t pat Scalzi on the back too hard, though. Remember that low bar. If a woman had written it, it wouldn’t have been nearly so well-received.

      • acrackedmoon

         /  May 17, 2012

        Don’t pat Scalzi on the back too hard, though. Remember that low bar. If a woman had written it, it wouldn’t have been nearly so well-received.

        That’s my take on it, which is why I haven’t gone OH GOSH WOW SCALZI IS TEH BESTEST!!! over it.

        • trevoresque

           /  May 17, 2012

          I think people like Scalzi are invaluable in reaching out to those playing on the “casual” difficulty setting. (I’d have benefited from this specific “101 metaphor” a few years back.) Scalzi’s a specific gun in the revolution’s armoury. Jay-Z recently came out in support of marriage rights in the U.S., which got a huge eye-roll from me, but he’s going to reach people that queer activists might not. To co-opt the language of the hilariously paranoid, our Great Rainbow Conspiracy needs to corrupt people in all walks of life.

          I mean, if we’re not handing out cookies and high-fives, we could at least swivel in our chairs and cackle softly in the darkness.

        • Trevoresque, “helping” is not the same as “invaluable”. Scalzi can write that piece because generations of feminists have gone before, pioneering this stuff. They were invaluable. Calling Scalzi invaluable is still giving him cookies. He’s helpful and he’s handy, but he’s not the only one who can do this just because he’s a guy.

        • trevoresque

           /  May 18, 2012

          madgastronomer — In terms of thought, I agree with you on the difference between “invaluable” and “helpful”. In terms of action, though, I’m less interested in the hierarchy of baked goods. If Scalzi can reach someone who’d normally avoid spaces that discuss privilege, that’s great. And for what it’s worth, I’m approaching Scalzi’s piece as a pansexual.

          My queer bakery has enough treats for anyone who’ll help out. I went to a very bigoted Christian school. There were no queer voices in my world. The first person I can remember telling me it was okay to be queer was fucking Bono, a straight white Christian male. I’d bake a megacake for the pioneers of Weimar Berlin, but that Irish heterosexual was the one who reached me in my horrible queerphobic bubble, and for that I’ll always be grateful. I’m tearing up just remembering that moment, which is great because I’m in a public library.

      • To be honest, I’m sort of stunned when any cis man writes or says anything that isn’t actively anti-feminist. Which isn’t the same as giving him a cookie, but, still, it’s essential to see this kind of stuff when it does exist.

  21. “I do still feel a little bad for those guys, though, but that’s just how it goes sometimes, I guess.”

    I think it is important to consider why someone would choose something that feels very much like a dissociation from reality to the outside observer. I think religions that people may be exposed to may offer no solace at all given sexism+sex-guilt+homophobia, whereas fiction gives a relief from bullying, feeling unattractive, etc.

    In such instances, turning to fiction and making it into a belief system seems almost natural. Mind you, reincarnation is a globally accepted belief system in many religions. The idea of vanished civilizations is tied to Atlantis for Westerners but it isn’t, in my experience, that uncommon. People in India believe in vanished civilizations as well.

    I was thinking about this last night, and I think the thing is many of these people are oppressed in some fashion, but their mistake IMO is to turn this into a shared identification of persecuted otherkin rather than target the various societal hierarchies and bigotries that affect them.

  22. The more I look at those Elven Holocaust stuff, the more it really does remind me of a cult (albeit as far as it goes a fairly harmless one) in how it operates, the echo-chamber effect, the isolation (and evne hostility) towards “mainstream” society, etc.

    “Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is”

    Eh, I can figure out quite a few lower ones. (“Straight white first-world upper-class man” just to pick one)

    • *sigh* He did actually address the class thing, if you read it, and addressed it some more his follow-up. And he is talking about within the context of “first world” nations. Did you, perhaps, actually read it?

    • Well, once you figure in class you’re talking about situations on a more nuanced level. I’m always surprised class doesn’t get mentioned – I know Americans don’t like to discuss class though not sure what nationality Scalzi is.

      • Scalzi is American and grew up in poverty. He does discuss class, just not usually in much depth, especially while he’s talking about other issues. And, again, he did talk about economic class in that post and in the followup.

    • yeah–”old money” trumps all.

      • …except that in countries where white people have most of the power, like the US and most of Europe, the people with old money are essentially all white. (This is, in fact, definitionally part of the problem.) And the straight men still have more power and more opportunity, on average, than women and/or queer people who come from old money. People of color who come from money still have less opportunity, on average, than white people from the same economic class, even when you just limit that to “new money” people.

        Old money doesn’t trump race, sex, or orientation. Economic and social class is another axis of oppression. It can’t trump anything.

        • not disagreeing with those positions generally, though power is an imprecision and opportunity is market rhetoric that confirms rather than refutes the point under examination.

          another axis of oppression

          that’s a legitimate way to conceive of it. i suspect that is also an expression of disagreement with the scalzi piece’s insistence on ranking “difficulty settings” vis-a-vis oppression.

          what i want to know, however, despite intraclass comparisons between race groups or gender groups, is whether the separate axes of oppression thesis can accommodate the very plausible comparison of inherited wealth with inherited poverty when other variables are not ceteris paribus.

          my contention is that the thesis is unable to render meaningful judgment within those parameters. that doesn’t make it worthless, but it makes it difficult to take seriously when it suggests that oprah’s hypothetical offspring will have harder difficulty settings than scots-irish coal miners’ prospective issue in west virginia.

          the suggestion that old money is essentially 100% european is both irrelevant (when the money is the engine, rather than the race politics) and a non-thesis, wherein essentially = not. limiting the complaint to inadequate participation of certain groups within the highest economic stratum is the staid liberal grievance regarding glass ceilings. it’s not reactionary–but what exactly is it’s emancipatory potential for persons outside strata summa?

        • “Old money” doesn’t actually just mean inherited money. “Old money” means wealth that has been inherited down multiple generations, usually for at least a century or two, and acceptance into the social class of people who have been likewise. And that has been driven by race. People of color definitely did not have the ability in the US to join that class long enough ago to join that group, as even if they had the ability to make the money, they would never have been allowed to join the group socially. It was pretty much impossible for them to even make the money, due to racial oppression. The only way for a POC to be considered Old Money in the US these days would be for someone in an Old Money family — generally specifically a man, since they remain really caught up in patrilineality — to marry an acceptably (to Old Money) light-skinned and assimilated POC. Their child could then be a POC from Old Money. But their child would be raised in a white culture, as if she were white, would probably identify primarily as white because of this, and would still probably get shit for not being entirely white from the other Old Money kids.

          If you think that my thesis or any other holds that Oprah’s child would have it worse than a white coal miner’s child in West Virginia, then your comprehension has failed you utterly. Scalzi used wealth as a lesser attribute in his metaphor because it is more mutable than the others, and because it suited him to do so. I do not necessarily buy into his reasoning. I do know that it is fact — not thesis — that on average, POC, queer people, and women (in all their overlapping groups) all have less than straight white men. That’s the only thesis. It’s demonstrated to be true, time and again. A POC, a queer person, and/or a woman, coming from the exact same background as a straight white man will generally face more challenges and difficulties than the straight white man will. Where in this thesis does it say that a POC with inherited wealth (which is, again, different from Old Money) will have it harder than a white child born into poverty? It’s not there, anywhere. What we are saying is that race, orientation, and gender (and also, I would argue, gender identity) introduce extra challenges into a person’s life, that a lesbian who is also of color will face challenges for those things that a SWM never will.

          Class can be addressed by further application of intersectionality, but class is not just inherited wealth or poverty. Because social and economic class are mutable to some degree, and because they interact but do not wholly coincide, you need far more sophisticated analogies that Scalzi’s to describe them with any accuracy.

          But your thesis fails to address anything about gender, orientation, or race at all, despite the fact that it has been demonstrated that within each social and economic class, these things are still disadvantages. Which means that social and economic class do not trump all. It’s trivially dismissable.

        • Oh, right. And a lot of Old Money fortunes were made from slavery, or from otherwise taking advantage of POC. You are wrong that race politics did and does not drive the acquisition of wealth in Old Money families, or indeed in any.

          If you want to take such an academic tone, you really need to improve your methodology. First you isolate each variable and see how it works. Then you can see how they work in concert. You’re jumping ahead.

  23. “Did you, perhaps, actually read it?”

    Why don’t you chill, I’m sure you have enough cookies from other PoCs okay? I read it, but missed the dump stat thing.

    Anyway, I found the first post interesting but without really considering other factors beyond white maleness I can’t say it is a good analogy for life. I didn’t even know there was a follow up – this isn’t a college course, you aren’t giving out homework.

    • Why don’t you not fucking tell me to chill? It’s condescending as fuck.

      I’m not looking for cookies, I’m sick of having the same discussion about this piece over and over and over and over just in two or three days, all because someone didn’t read it carefully enough and makes the same completely wrong criticism of it that hundreds (literally, at this point; go look at the comments) of other people have already made. It fucking well does address class. And I had linked to the followup just above your comment, before you made the comment. No, you don’t have to read it. But when you say Scalzi doesn’t address class when he did, you look kinda clueless.

      It’s not a good analogy for life. It’s a simplistic, limited analogy for for how not having to deal with three particular oppressions — on account of sex, race, and orientation — makes life easier for straight white guys. It’s aimed at straight white guys who play games and don’t already get the idea that they have it easier. That’s all it is. Like the Bechdel Test, it shouldn’t be turned into something it isn’t.

      If we can’t get past the two or three basic fucking objections that people keep fucking making — which Scalzi enumerates in his followup — then we’re stuck dissecting a 101 piece that doesn’t need to be dissected, and stuck discussing its 101 topics when we could be talking about something more nuanced and complicated.

      I’m a queer white woman. This piece is about the oppressions I face, too. I’m discussing it from that perspective. And I’m sick of people bringing up the same three objections that have already been addressed, which generally result from not having read the piece closely enough, or not understanding that it isn’t meant to be an accurate analogy for All Of Life or something.

  24. In this case, intraclass comparisons do not matter for a simple reason. In general, intergenerational transference of wealth or the ability thereof confers large, meaningful advantages. When you have stuff, when you have *things* and you are not dependent on income, then you have options. When a depression or a recession hits and you have *assets* that you can burn off, you have options. You can liquidate and get money and cushion the blow though it may not last long, it is significantly longer that people who don’t have things will have.

    So, for instance, in the US the Homesteaders Act passed in the early days of this nation literally gave away land, but only white people were really eligible for that. That means that these old ranches, these old business had a leg up because it was given to them. Workers didn’t have to be paid well and were treated terribly, but if you were white, at least you had work. Black and brown folks? Not so much. The original people who were here? Not so much. So then you have rights and privileges that say that bosses cannot treat workers poorly, but that means nothing if you have a system that excludes anyone not white, which is what happened. Fast forward to the 1930s when the US was suffering the Great Depression and homes were being foreclosed. We get the Federal Housing Administration that *guaranteed loans* for homes and building homes…but for the first 15-20yrs of its existence, it was not open to Black and brown people. So white people had a monopoly on what will be the key pillar of the middle class. Without this, there is not nascent middle class in the US. Governmental farm loans were prejudiced against Black farmers. They were denied even when white families were granted them despite being in worse or comparable shape.

    Next you have the great infrastructure building of the New Deal in the US. This meant the creation of suburbs and highways and freeways that could facilitate white flight from urban areas, but to make that possible Black neighborhoods and business were devastated. Thriving Black neighborhoods were reduced. Then you have assistance for veterans and the GI, which, those opportunities for the first 15-20 yrs were not available to Black people. Social Security was explicitly written to exclude domestic and certain farm which, at the time, was what the majority of Black folks were doing. Same story with Medicare and Medicaid, either not open immediately or when it was began to be immediately associated with negativity and thus drastically reduced.

    Affirmative action and similar programs designed to give minorities a level playing field because there is a long and storied history of opportunity being denied us. We were prevented, stopped, denied, the ability to accumulate wealth. So that wealthy black woman whose parents might’ve bought her way into school like a comparable white guy had to work infinitely harder to even get to where her family could even do that. So no, it isn’t a class issue. Class is merely a symptom of basic inequalities that have plagued Black and brown folks. It just so happens that now white, middle class people are feeling the sting of the kind of regard minorities have dealt with throughout the history of this nation. It is a systemic system that, at one point, actively prevented and denied and stopped Black and brown folks (now minorities in general) the ability to even begin. Like I said, when a white family has a house they can put up as collateral for that loan so that their children can do things, it was because they were given a massive leg up. Government was never small for white people in modern times, and when it was small, only 10 white guys had money and power. But even then, they were not slaves here. They were not forced off their land. They were paid cheaply and used, but they weren’t cattle and when the time came for white people to stop bosses, they sided with them because of the concept of “whiteness”, re: The American Civil War.

    Put all those other bullshit notions aside.

  25. As it happens I didn’t know there was a followup, which didn’t really improve the point. Scalzi claims class is not an inherent part of your person, I’d disagree.

    For most “quality of life” parameters one can find it’s better to be of a higher class than a lower one: Yes, it’s better to be a man than a woman, better to be white than POC, better to be straight than gay, within those class structures. But most of the time (and especially when considering the extreme ends of the scale) class is a better predictor of these quality of life factors than any of the other axis (axises? Axii?) of oppression. (this is at least partially tautological of course)

    Now, it’s not as if these things are unrelated: Your race affects which class you’re likely to end up in. Your gender to some degree (wage-gap, etc.) even your sexuality (I haven’t seen many serious studies, but an article I read claimed that gay men took a roughly 10% cut in their earnings compared to their straight counterparts, if anyone has any more serious/comprehensive studies on this subject I’d welcome it)

    Class ties into all the other oppressions (and they tie into each other too, sexism and heterosexism most obviously) so leaving it out is incredibly bizarre. Claiming that class is a choice makes as much sense as claiming sexuality is.

    Now, I can totally see the political/pragmatic reasons for Scalzi doing so: For starters, he has to defend his own class-trip (in whatever direction, he didn’t make clear) and so prove his superiority to those who didn’t ascend. And there’s all sorts of political reasons unique (or at least more strongly emphasized) in the US context to do these kinds of things. But it’s still very problematic.

    As he acknowledges: The metaphor is a simplification. The problem is that I think it’s not a very useful one. The assumption is, to use his analogy, that people have control of their builds but not their difficulty. That’s very, very problematic on all sorts of levels.

    • It’s useful for getting this one point across. It’s not useful as an actual analysis of the situation, but it wasn’t meant to be, either.

    • Class is merely a symptom of basic inequalities that have plagued Black and brown folks.

      I think there is a truth to this for certain groups in the US, but not others. For example, many Indian immigrants benefit from caste privilege.

      As he acknowledges: The metaphor is a simplification. The problem is that I think it’s not a very useful one.

      Yeah, I think part of the issue is it seems to hand wave poverty. He presents a 101 – which he claims doesn’t need data – as if he’s teaching fundamental truths, which fails because he claimed to want to present an argument to convince people. It’s like Solo says, a form of bulverism.

      Having spent years working with communities of different races locked into cyclical poverty, I just don’t see how you can make an accurate assessment on “difficulty” without any examination of how class plays into this.

      He also doesn’t present any real examples of what he even means by privilege/difficulty. Telling someone, “life is tailored to accommodate you” without any real explanation of what this means…IMO this hurts more than it helps.

      So he’s naturally going to see resistance to this idea, and as I find it pretty unconvincing I don’t see why any SWM would suddenly have a light bulb over their head. I realize his heart was in this right place, but I think the recourse to analogy is a poor strategy.

  26. I think it’s worth keeping in mind that Scalzi wasn’t addressing deeper issues, was not trying to parse every nuance of the axes of privilege, or trying to construct an explanation that would stand up to the level of scrutiny being given to it here, because he was addressing the “neckbeard contingent” of straight white dudes whose immediate reaction to the word “privilege” is “Nuh-UH, my life sucks and if you’re a chick people give you stuff and (choose randomly from Derailing 101).” In other words, clueless souls who’ve either never thought about this at all or if they have, with reflexive dismissal of the idea.

    Even mentioning the word “intersectionality” with those guys is going to go way over their heads.

    To the degree that his metaphor is unlikely to really persuade many of them, you might say his essay is a miss*. But I suspect he understands just fine the ways in which it fails to be a rigorous analysis of the phenomenon he’s trying to get across.

    * Personally, I thought it was more clever and meme-able than actually useful, a frequent problem of Scalzi’s. I’d point out, though, that no argument in the world addressed to people predisposed to be resistant to it will actually make a significant percentage of its target audience immediately slap their foreheads and go, “Why, you’re right, of course! What a fool I’ve been!” The goal is to maybe budge a few, and plant seeds that might eventually nudge a few more in the right direction.

  27. “I think there is a truth to this for certain groups in the US, but not others. For example, many Indian immigrants benefit from caste privilege.”

    Maybe I should’ve been clearer: I’m speaking from the United States perspective only. I can’t speak for any other nation.

    But it really isn’t certain groups. If you are a minority or an immigrant, you will suffer from prejudice and bias that is built into the system.

    And you can make a statement of class. Class does not impact race, but race impacts class. Class is a modifier for other oppressions because all things are not equal in this regard. If you are white, then it was easier for you to accumulate wealth and pass that on, which elevates your class. The intergenerational transfer of wealth is impacted by your initial ability to accumulate wealth to pass on and if your family is white, then you had a leg up. If you are Black, false. If you are a woman, false. Until recent times, being a woman and shifting your wealth to your progeny was isolated because it was difficult to accumulate anything by virtue of not having a man and being limited in what you could do. That is the basic premise here. In the US, you can make a statement on class but it is a symptom of systemic abuses and prejudices in the system.

    It is privilege to disengage the two and come to the conclusion that class is the problem. That isn’t true in the US.

  28. madgas–

    If you think that my thesis or any other holds that Oprah’s child would have it worse than a white coal miner’s child in West Virginia, then your comprehension has failed you utterly.

    argumentum ad hominem stricken for irrelevance & scurrilousness. perhaps my inferrence regarding the hypothetical oprah offspring was reasonable, given statements such as–

    “the straight men still have more power and more opportunity, on average, than women and/or queer people who come from old money. People of color who come from money still have less opportunity, on average, than white people from the same economic class, even when you just limit that to “new money” people.

    Old money doesn’t trump race, sex, or orientation. Economic and social class is another axis of oppression. It can’t trump anything.”

    –agreed? if the inferrence is nonetheless incorrect, i doubt that the imperfection is mine, considering that it is demonstrably false that categorically straight males have more “opportunity” than anyone who comes from “old money.”

    on average, POC, queer people, and women (in all their overlapping groups) all have less than straight white men. That’s the only thesis. It’s demonstrated to be true, time and again. A POC, a queer person, and/or a woman, coming from the exact same background as a straight white man will generally face more challenges and difficulties than the straight white man will.

    all axiomatic. why bother confusing the issue with it at this moment? the question is not who’s got it worse; the question is whether wealth trumps other categories in setting a difficulty setting. my contention is that it does, which is tacitly admitted when the controverting position lays out its argument in terms of “opportunity,” a market rhetoric. the controversion nevertheless denies economic class any primary role in determining ease of difficulty setting. there’s nothing ludicrous in the denial, though some evidence other than personal insults would be appreciated.

    But your thesis fails to address anything about gender, orientation, or race at all, despite the fact that it has been demonstrated that within each social and economic class, these things are still disadvantages. Which means that social and economic class do not trump all. It’s trivially dismissable.

    doubtful that my argument need address those items more than it did (false to suggest that it did not), as the point did not arise out of the consideration of “within each social and economic class,” which is a liberal conception of low value.

    Oh, right. And a lot of Old Money fortunes were made from slavery, or from otherwise taking advantage of POC. You are wrong that race politics did and does not drive the acquisition of wealth in Old Money families, or indeed in any.

    arguing an proposition that i did not lay out.

    If you want to take such an academic tone, you really need to improve your methodology. First you isolate each variable and see how it works. Then you can see how they work in concert. You’re jumping ahead.

    scurrilous and irrelevant.

    • argumentum ad hominem stricken for irrelevance & scurrilousness.

      You’re misusing argumentum ad hominem. If you’re going to fake academic-speak, try to use it accurately. An ad hominem is an attack based on some personal attribute. Saying, “Your mother dresses you funny, so you’re wrong!” is ad hominem. Saying you, personally, are failing to comprehend is not.

      it is demonstrably false that categorically straight males have more “opportunity” than anyone who comes from “old money.”

      …since no one has asserted anything like that, I fail to see your point. This is the kind of thing I mean when I say that your comprehension fails you. Also, you do keep leaving out the “straight” part. Why is that?

      all axiomatic. why bother confusing the issue with it at this moment? the question is not who’s got it worse; the question is whether wealth trumps other categories in setting a difficulty setting.

      No, actually, what you’re trying to defend is that “old money” trumps all. You’re using the term incorrectly, and utterly failing to actually defend your thesis.

      While my language is generally scurrilous (that is, containing cussing), the section you quoted was not. Nor is it irrelevant. You are attempting to argue your points in a particular way, and you are doing it very badly. You are using academic language in an attempt to make your argument sound more convincing, without actually using it correctly or applying academic rigor. Calling you out on your methodology and logic is entirely relevant.

      Also, dismissing my arguments based on their being “scurrilous” is applying the tone argument, which is a fallacy in and of itself. It doesn’t answer anything I’ve said.

    • It’s not a simple oppression olympics. You may in general have it easier than a “generic SWM” as an old-moneyed queer woman, but there will still be many things that societally you cannot do. I agree that sociological class should be on there, which of course is intimately linked to economic class.

      This does seem to be becoming an argument about the primacy of the economic, though, which I’d suggest is likely to be rather extensive, and which might be best done in a post of your own?

      • I am NOT old money. Old money means inherited through several generations, fortunes going back a century and more. It has huge social implications, too, and is very different. My parents both grew up working class. Dad just happens to be enough of the right kind of asshole to make a whole lot of money. It’s still very, very different from being old money, though. New money doesn’t have the same kind of social connections, the same kind of name recognition, the same kind of extensive network of family influence that old money does. Confusing the two erasing a whole ‘nother area of privilege that old money people have on top of all their other privileges.

        Why the hell would I want to write my own post about it, much less invite the people I’m arguing with here to come discuss it on my own blog? If acrackedmoon thinks it’s too off-topic and wants us to stop it, she can say so, and I’ll stop. But I’m only arguing this out of annoyance with terrible pseudo-academic language and proof by assertion.

        Money doesn’t trump everything else because money doesn’t override everything else, doesn’t make everything else irrelevant. Race, sex, orientation, and other factors still affect people with lots and lots of money. I’m simply saying that “old money trumps everything” isn’t true, because other factors still matter. That’s my argument. That’s it.

        • I was agreeing with you. That post was in reply to Sologdin.

        • acrackedmoon

           /  May 19, 2012

          For the record, I’ve refrained from commenting on this thing mainly because I’m mostly just baffled and have lost the thread of things a while ago. Having said that, I’m okay with the discussion. Carry on.

        • Ah. I was confused because I was the one talking about being a queer woman who had money growing up, and I hadn’t seen Sologdin state gender or orientation anywhere. Sorry about that.

        • No worries, madgastronomer. My bad, that phrasing was pretty ambiguous.

  29. @shardbaenre: Just wanted to say I really like your posts examining inheritance, property, and how it affects people in the US. On another blog someone mentioned that certain communities of PoCs never got the “escape velocity” capital to escape poverty, and this really helps explain why cyclical poverty persists.

    This is the kind of analysis that I think helps more than analogy.

    @narrativeeschatology:

    “It’s not a simple oppression olympics.”

    I think the problem is Scalzi sort of asks for such an event to be held. If you give people a general statement, in a supposed attempt to convince people, they are going to look for counterexamples. Just how confirmation bias works.

    Why I like sharebaenre’s post, it actually explains a great deal about cyclical poverty and why it persisted even after the end of legal segregation. My sister also read a study about how black women face greater hurdles in proving competency, in a way no one else has to.

    I think these kinds of analyses – either logical examination of history or modern workplace issues are better at making real change. There’s something actionable in how you rate your employees, interns, and coworkers as well as how you consider funding for education and economic redevelopment.

    It’s hard for me to see how money doesn’t trump everything, whether its new or old. In every class bracket the world likely caters to SWM, but that’s, IMO, a skewed way of looking at things if there’s no class mobility. If privilege is about examining complicity in institutionalized prejudice and catering of society (and if not, what’s the point?) then complicity through class is a global phenomenon.

    I’m not advocating communism (Sorry Solo!), just that societies should attempt to provide opportunities for class mobility.

    • green_knight

       /  May 19, 2012

      It’s hard for me to see how money doesn’t trump everything,

      Money is suprisingly volatile. A significant number of lottery winners end up broke – whereas a significant number of entrepreneurs who gamble high and lose everything, end up with building another fortune.

      A lot of earning power is related to how people present themselves, what they’re willing to ask for, how well they put a spin on their lives (I’ve had someone go over my CV… it was an eyeopener, and I could not have done it on my own/with the internet/with less skilled advisers).I have since then met people who are much, much better at presenting themselves and their skills in a way that makes them into people that others _want_ to hire.

      Those are, to a great degree, skills that can be learnt – and a certain class of people will learn them from an early age at home, while other people might never be exposed to them at all.

      Money comes ino it, but if you give me a million dollars and Mark Zuckerberg five, guess which of us will have more money in five years’ time? Not me. In a week’s time, he’ll be walking into a bank saying “I have an idea for a lucrative business’ and people will be happy to invest into his name and reputation. In the meantime, I’ll have bought a house and shared with my friends and put some money aside because I might never again get my hands on a major sum…

    • Money doesn’t trump everything, because “trump” means “override,” “defeat.” A hand of cards — where the term comes from — that trumps the others makes which of the other hands is better irrelevant, because that hand is still the best. If money trumped everything, then among the richest people, how much money they had would be the only thing that mattered, and it doesn’t. Rich black people still have to deal with racism, rich women still have to deal with sexism, rich queer people still have to deal with homophobia. See? Hasn’t overridden them.

      Class is, instead, another axis of oppression, one that it more volatile and mutable than the others we’re talking about, perhaps, but another axis. Two, sort of, because while social and economic class are related, they aren’t actually the same thing.

      It’s not a matter of anything trumping anything else. Rather, it’s about the intersection of different oppressions and privileges.

  30. Class discussions have always been, and always will be the classic derailer in a race 101 topic. It’s really best to say that’s not the topic and move on. The Carlton character in the Prince of Bel Aire show really seems to be an important analogy/metaphor in some white people’s minds. And there are tons of white people who don’t think any non-whites with money deserves that comfort. When someone starts whining about how really, it’s class that’s more important, say conservative working class pols, it is always going to be about excluding race/gender/whatever from material discussions. No one really should put up with it unless class is actually topical to the discussion at hand.

    • acrackedmoon

       /  May 20, 2012

      Relevant link: “Things white activists say to activists of color.”

    • Next time, I should just link people to this comment. SO much simpler and more succinct. I tip my hat to you.

    • the twisted spinster

       /  May 20, 2012

      Anyone who thinks class trumps race in America has never seen the late Bill Hicks’ routine about how God created Oprah Winfrey. I can’t find a video of it on Youtube even though it was from the 90s and Hicks was (and is) a comedian much beloved of white hipsters. I saw it years ago on a friend’s videotape. I won’t describe it here — let’s just say it was one of the most racist things I’d ever seen but so deep is the hatred for Oprah Winfrey among tolerant white liberals (all my friends were Democrats who voted for Clinton) no one caught it — even me; I just knew that something was not as funny as all my friends thought.

  31. “Class discussions have always been, and always will be the classic derailer in a race 101 topic.”

    I agree that it can be derailment, but I think it’s going to come up as a natural defense mechanism. Plus if Scalzi had simply talked about race, it would different. He instead presents an analogy as argument, without providing proof for the actual statement under contention.

    (Though I also don’t think that just because I’m a PoC I have to agree with him.)

    Why, IMO, you need something better than a video game analogy if you expect people to change (my opinion anyway). Shardbaenre’s excellent posts for example, studies that show institutionalized prejudice in specific places, etc.

    • the twisted spinster

       /  May 20, 2012

      I’m not sure why Scalzi needs “proof” for anything. The fact that white males have it easiest on the scale of life advantages is obvious to anyone who can see lightning, hear thunder, and is warm to the touch. And obviously things accrue to individuals that gnaw away at their advantages: a handicapped white male won’t have it as easy in many areas as a physically fit black male. On the other hand, he doesn’t have to worry about race prejudice from the dominant group being added to his particular collection of problems. I mean, I’m a white woman, and I have life advantages from being white that offset disadvantages of being a woman. (Such as, if a person of color makes me upset, white men will defend me, even if I deserved to be made upset.) This is not anything that needs a complicated explanation to prove.

      Re the video game analogy not being appealing to you: well, basically Scalzi’s trying to reach the neckbeard fanboy contingent which he is most in contact with, being someone who writes for tv scifi shows and also the sort of science fiction novels that appeal to such. The video game analogy doesn’t appeal to me either because I don’t play video games — the most advanced game I ever attempted was Riven. But he wasn’t writing for me either, or for anyone who’s gone beyond the need to have their privilege pointed out to them.

      • the twisted spinster

         /  May 20, 2012

        Although… I feel the need to say I don’t consider myself one of those people who don’t need to have their privilege pointed out to them. It just occurred to me that that’s what it looked like I was saying and I by no means have that great of an opinion of my understanding of things.

    • He’s not providing an argument pr any proof because that wasn’t his point. His point was to provide an analogy that explain what privilege is so that certain kinds of straight white gamer guys could get an inkling of how it works. He’s not trying to prove it, he’s trying to describe it to people to whom the facts and figures that do prove it don’t matter. They don’t care. They won’t read the studies that do prove it, or won’t digest the information or think about what it really means. You continue to mistake his purpose. You may think it’s not a good purpose, and he ought to have done something else instead, but his purpose was not what you keep saying it was.

    • Not “can be” a derailment, fucking well is a derailment. And it’s a derailment precisely because it’s a defense mechanism.

      It’s not a fucking analogy as argument, it’s analogy as explanation. There’s no argument. He’s taking it as read that privilege exists, and trying to explain what privilege is to people who don’t get it. He says so, right at the top. Go read it again.

      Your opinion may be that something else works better for everyone in the world, but the fact is that no one piece or way of talking about it works to get through to everyone.

      I’m not sure what piece you read, but the longer you talk about it, the less it sounds like the one Scalzi wrote.

  32. “The fact that white males have it easiest on the scale of life advantages is obvious to anyone who can see lightning, hear thunder, and is warm to the touch.”

    The analogy only works if you already believe this. Most people, when told they benefit from privilege they don’t fully understand or see, are going to think someone is either trying to diminish their accomplishments or get one over on them.

    If Scalzi had specifically noted all the privilege he personally received from being a white male (I don’t know his sexuality), and how this smoothed his way into being published, allowed for his class mobility, and how writers have to cater to privilege, then we’d have something closer to the efficacy of Shardbaenre’s posts or the reviews on this site that address various topics (heternomartivity, transphobia, gender essentialism, etc).

    • Again, not what he was trying to do. He’s not trying to prove that privilege exists, he’s trying to explain what privilege is by analogy: Privilege is playing on the easy setting. They know what an easy setting is, which makes it a little bit easier for them to understand what privilege is, and maybe a little of how it works. That’s all. You want Scalzi to prove it, but the people Scalzi wrote this for are unlikely to read actual proof. Proof involves studies and numbers, and that’s boring and they’re looking for entertainment while they bop around the internet. So he gave them an analogy he hopes will be entertaining enough to keep their attention while they read it. Proof is not actually the best way to get through to everyone — and a lot of these guys, at this point, have such kneejerk reactions to the word privilege without understand what it is that a piece that describes the phenomenon without using the word, in terms they can relate to, is actually pretty useful. Is it going to get through to everybody? No, of course not, but it will probably get through to a few people who nothing had gotten through to before. And that was Scalzi’s purpose. There are tons and tons of articles out there that prove that discrimination and privilege exist, and they do their job, but they won’t do exactly what this piece will do. You do get, don’t you, that not everyone responds the same way to the same material, right?

      Scalzi is straight, and does mention it in the piece.

      Seriously, try going back and reading it more thoroughly, preferably while leaving your preconceptions about what the piece is behind, because you seem to be blinkered by them, and there are things you keep appearing to have missed or not understood.

  33. Admittedly I definitely didn’t give it a close read and missed details. I don’t think my opinion will change but will go back and reread both pieces.

  34. Missed earlier replies, but I reread his post. Note I don’t think Scalzi’s piece is the worst thing ever. I do agree with him that society offers institutionalized benefits to SWMs, I just disagree that these benefits, whether apart or in conjunction, are the biggest advantages. I also don’t its a valid debating strategy.

    “Not “can be” a derailment, fucking well is a derailment. And it’s a derailment precisely because it’s a defense mechanism.”

    Actually, in this case it isn’t a derailment, because Scalzi’s statement is about the “lowest difficulty setting” which invites discussion on what are the biggest barriers to success.

    The claim he believes is obvious is “all other things being equal (and possibly even with other things being unequal), single white males have it easier.”

    Well, all other things being equal, children of rich people having it easier also seems obviously true. So how does one decide which characteristic – being wealthy or possessing the white/straight/male combo – offers the best chances of winning the game? Which one is more unfair?

    Given my own class advantages and subsequently working with people who didn’t have them, I think coming from a wealthy family is a serious benefit. You don’t have to work as hard, you have access to more resources, your school is most likely better whether its public or private. Just by showing up and going through the motions your test scores are likely to be higher.

    Now obviously the African American (and I’d add Hispanic American) experience is likely to be harder, given just how pervasively/intensely biased American society is against these groups at all levels.

    Scalzi seems to think wealth isn’t as important as I do, which is fine, I think in the end our desire for a more egalitarian society is the same.

    As for defense mechanisms, not being white, and having had to deal with many, many threats due to racism (to the point of the being the tormented “Jap” because there weren’t any Japanese kids around to pick on), I have no real stake in supporting white privilege.

    But if the goal is making a more equitable society, you’re going to convince more people if you present evidence and offer the very obvious concession that society caters to people with wealth as it does to people who are SWM.

    There’s also the argument that divisions outside of class make it less likely the poor from around the world will work together to push for class mobility/equality….but that’s veering into Marxism so I’ll leave it to Solo to take that road. I’ll note, having done anti-sweatshop protesting, that the complicity of consumers seems orthogonal to race/gender/sexuality.

    “It’s not a fucking analogy as argument, it’s analogy as explanation. There’s no argument. He’s taking it as read that privilege exists, and trying to explain what privilege is to people who don’t get it. He says so, right at the top. Go read it again.”

    Well, barring details I forgot or missed, this is my point.

    If someone thinks X is false, providing an analogy for X is an exercise in futility as far as I can tell.

    “Your opinion may be that something else works better for everyone in the world, but the fact is that no one piece or way of talking about it works to get through to everyone.”

    True, no one piece works for everyone, but I don’t think this piece is very effective, especially when your claim is:

    All things being equal, and even when they are not, if the computer — or life — assigns you the “Straight White Male” difficulty setting, then brother, you’ve caught a break.

    “I’m not sure what piece you read, but the longer you talk about it, the less it sounds like the one Scalzi wrote.”

    You may be correct, but even rereading it I haven’t changed my opinion. It’s an analogy of a statement in contention. It has a lack of examples or actionable causes.

    I was sort of surprised when reading the follow-up -> he says people should do what he does, which is make life easier for others on higher difficulty settings, but then no examples are given. (I know examples were giving in the follow up comments.)

    Hopefully people find something in his analogy convincing, but I don’t see how. It’s the kind of clever post that seems to rally the base, so to speak, but ignores so many other factors I think it’ll be dismissed even by those who might be inclined to care.

    Among my friends are an interracial couple who’ve dedicated their lives to healing racial tensions and pushing for class mobility in their county – making bold claims of privilege by race while ignoring class would seriously hurt their cause.

    I think after a point these kinds of posts that demand people see the apparently obvious, dismissing all arguments, just make people say, “Well, guess I’m privileged, whatever that means. Awesome. Sucks to be everyone else.” rather than change anything.

    ps. Oh, another really good example looking at privilege is the play Anne & Me by Afro_dyte:

    http://afro-dyte.livejournal.com/70312.html

  35. Just one thing RE: Scalzi’s post.

    I think part of the thing is that he didn’t just make it a Race 101 discussion, or a gender 101 discussion, or a Sexuality 101 discussion. He made it all those three discussions and then conspiciously omitted class.

    He (at least it read like that to me) tried to make a comprehensive (if simplified) analogy about oppression in general, and then took one kind of oppression and basically waved his hands and said “except that, that doesen’t count”.

  36. To ACM: aka “the Shetterly gambit”

    Scalzi addressed class quite specifically in his post. I’m amazed at the number of people who chose to either not see it or insist that it’s as hardcore a “stat” as gender or race.

  37. “Class is and probably will always be the dog whistle of any SWM looking to derail.”

    It can be, but class is important and doesn’t get talked about enough as far I can tell. I guess I don’t see the harm in acknowledging it as a reality so long as it isn’t veering the discussion away from something other topic.

    Acknowledging it, even briefly, also makes people feel like the interlocutor is genuine rather than (to their perception) trying to get one over on them. As I mention above, people who’re professionally involved in the work of healing racial tension (especially when it’s coupled with boat loads of corruption/violence) don’t have the luxury Scalzi has in dismissing class so blithely.

    Most people aren’t going to change their minds if someone dismisses what they see as a valid point out of hand. It’s one thing to concede to false points (misandry, heterophobia), but different to acknowledge real ones.

    Scalzi’s piece may garner him a lot of high fives from his in-group, but I see it helping his publicity more than changing minds.

  38. Class is a factor, bur for the US, it is not *the* factor. Or a major factor. You’ll be affected by money sure, but many times over that you were affected by your lack of money was a result of opportunity not being there…which is due to the other oppressions. It is not a thing on its own here. It is a modifier for everything else. If you are in a better socioeconomic class, it will be easier, but not as easy if you were aSWM in that same socioeconomic class. If you are a SWM in a lower socioeconomic class than a well-to-do non-SWM, then, as a SWM, you are still benefiting from being single, being white, and being male. It is derailment to continually bring up class when studies show that is NOT the main or a main factor. That is the point. Continually bringing it up is you trying to impose your world view on circumstances that is NOT validated by studies. So…in the US…stop bringing it up! It has no bearing. Bringing it up only validates those knuckleheads who do not get it and you only make them feel like they are participating meaningfully to the discussion when they ARE NOT. It’s a way to look pseudo-intellectual, as if you know what you are talking about.

    So to recap: having money is good, but it will not override or negate or lessen the impact of institutionalized -isms because those institutionalized -isms are preventing class migration, that is the only reason “welfare queens” integrated into American lexicon is because it began to be associated with single Black mothers who did not “earn” their money. Did you know that the entire point of that was so that white women whose husbands were no longer around didn’t have to enter the workforce? True fact. So stop it. Stop trying to be smart and bring up class. Stop trying to validate people. Stop wasting my time and serious people’s time by bringing it up. Just…stop. And be educated.

  39. Dude, look, you’re right that class matters. But if you don’t get why it’s a derailer, maybe you should reflect on why it is always brought up in race conversations, almost always by white dudes. I realize you are not a white dude, and you are no Will Shetterly trying to turn every conversation about race into one about class where white men can feel persecuted too, but I think you’re badly mistaken in thinking that it’s an argument offered in good faith by these guys and that catering to them will make them less assholeish about other forms of oppression.

  40. “Stop trying to be smart and bring up class. Stop trying to validate people. Stop wasting my time and serious people’s time by bringing it up. Just…stop. And be educated.”

    If there are studies, I’d suggest linking to them. Then, in the future, everyone can use them to stop discussions that are derailed

    I don’t think recounting my observations and the conclusions I’ve reached is “trying to sound smart.” It’s my actual opinion and if you have data that it’s wrong simply present it. Accusing people of arguing in bad faith isn’t going to change their opinions.

    Or, if you feel your time is wasted, simply ignore me. But I’d appreciate any education you’re willing to offer Shardbaenre, given the quality of your previous posts. I’m genuinely invested in class struggles, and put a good bit of my life into it. I’m not someone just brainwashed by SWMs.

    I’m happy to be proved wrong by data/studies though. If privilege is an “invisible knapsack”, it’s going to take time to make white people, rich or poor white people, understand it. I think information will help that.

    “But if you don’t get why it’s a derailer, maybe you should reflect on why it is always brought up in race conversations, almost always by white dudes.”

    My suggestion is conceding a largely obvious point, that class matters but other factors exist, will get you further than simply refusing to deal with argument in the first place.

    Now if the discussion is about racism, as in something specific, then yes everything from being poor to being bullied is something that can be a derailment. Otherwise class is worth considering, if only to show how it isn’t the factor I and others think it is.

  41. Added -> Apologies to sharebaenre, I’ll also be googling myself to find these studies – I’m not saying you have to do my work for me.

    But I was going on the idea that it was your field and you had them readily available.

  42. @saajan

    I think I owe you an apology as well because:

    1) I believe you are arguing good faith and I was more foreceful than I intended

    2) I wasn’t targeting you specifically, just the general argument so I can see how it was uncool of me

    3) I’ve had this discussion with people who weren’t nearly as open as you so a bit of projecting happened

    I’m not, however, disavowing the content or the precisely the tone…only the somewhat unfair spirit it was offered. But only to you specifically because we’ve had a few jokers post to this thread.

    In general, I think Scalzi’s metaphor works because it gives class the attention it deserves by which I mean it’s there, he acknowledges it, but it is not equal to those other factors. I think that one of the best arguments against class as a thing equal to other -isms is the fact that there was a big lawsuit a bit ago because a white, female student was passed over for college and she immediately blamed affirmative action. Her complaint was that there were about 100 (less than actually) black students who got into the school with lower test scores than she, however there were about 1300 white students who were admitted with lower test scores than her. So, for me, these students on avg were roughly in the same class bracket, + or – 1 std deviation. That is not a class thing, that is a race thing and the complaint is duplicated at many institutes of higher learning. Now is class a factor? Certainly. She probably needed financial aid as did many of her peers,and access to aid is being drastically limited, but can you see how that kind of thing is not so much class but race in this case? And it isn’t hard or unreasonable or wrong to showsimilar instances.

    But here is how class will really play. Because opportunity and the safety net and access has been denied and limited due to race, these programs are not available to anyone really so now it affecting whites as hard and it becomes something that looks like class but can be traced to race

  43. Addedndum: I identify as a heterosexual, cis-gendered, Black woman. Totally not my field. I’m a molecular geneticist, specifically I’m a veterinary pathobilogist in the highly conservative state in the US while being a progressive who is nominally associated with Christianity in that the church has become toxic and I question many aspects that many Christians view as pillars of the religion.

    I say this because I do have privilege in many ways but I am alsoon the receiving end of oppression and I cannot makr the claim that everything I have done is becausre of my own skill and strength of will. I ve had lots of help, I know many people, andive gotten lucky at many points, but I basically believe that I am a smart and capable person with an arrogance to match. I’m not immune to anything we’ve discussed and anyone who claims they are just needs to give up on trying to be a member of reality.

  44. @Shardbaenre: I don’t think you have to apologize – I know I didn’t do a good job separating myself from the derailers, nor did I do a good job in even reading Scalzi’s piece very well. I deserve a good helping of the criticism leveled against me!

    The thing that sucks is whether the topic is class or prejudices within or between minority groups, there are always vultures who don’t care about class who just – instinctively or maliciously – want to gut any social justice topic.

    For the minority stuff you get vultures who say, “See! You do that shit to yourselves! Not us!” which makes harder for people who want to discuss this stuff (at least online) because it is a big problem. Homophobia in the Indian community is just one example.

    I think it’s important you mention religion, because I think (in the US at least) there’s this liberal idea that religious belief is part of the problem. I think this really ignores something that people find important, especially in minority communities, and ends up alienating people from the larger movement(s).

    Personally, among my early exposures to homophobia was a sign that said, “God hates fags”. The sign was such a contradiction to my religious beliefs and understanding of God that it nauseated me and shaped my understanding of the anti-gay lobby as blasphemous to my personal faith. Really, I think most of my “leftist” beliefs are shaped by my faith and belief in universal morality more than anything else.

    Why I see opportunity to make inroads with Otherkin, because if you believe in reincarnation you can (ideally) then put yourself in another’s shoes more readily. Other religions likely have their own liberal interpretations – I know a lot of liberal Christians for example, even a southern Methodist minister who thinks Jesus didn’t want to start a new religion but wanted to be, as he puts it, “a good Jew”. :-)

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: