Friday, February 24, 2012

Dianics, Discrimination and the Dust of the Dying III: for Rose Weaver and Ocelot

In response to my earlier post, which was in response to my even earlier post, Rose Weaver took umbrage with my comment, "Stop and think about what it's like to choose, at the end of the month, between feeding your cat and feeding yourself. Now stop and think about what it's like to spend your life working toward a dream that never comes true."
Dude, this is harsh. Seriously. I've been watching and reading everything on this issue since it broke. What you fail to realize is that this is about discrimination, pure and simple, no more, no less.
The paragraph I quoted above? Yeah, you just described me and my life to the letter, but I in no way support Z in any form or fashion, and I am most certainly am not a Dianic Wiccan, or Wiccan of any trad at all.
While I support your right to your opinions, I honestly believe you are now stretching a bit too far to grab at straws to support your reasons for bashing Z and what she did at P-Con (even though I agree she needs a bit of bashing). You're starting to categorize a hell of a lot more women into this mess that simply DO NOT belong there and may want to throttle your anger back a couple notches while directing it, constructively and appropriately, towards those to whom it belongs.
If you go to the Wild Hunt you'll see people comparing the Dianics to the Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK and, yes, the followers of a certain failed Austrian painter who caused a bit of an uproar in the early part of the last century.   I was hoping to remind some people that the "enemy" in this battle consists largely of elderly, ailing and impoverished women.  This fight is to "privilege olympics" what Bumfights is to Golden Gloves boxing. It's not a war on masculine infiltrators or on cisgender privilege: it's a scrap between a bunch of people floating around the bottom of the barrel.

No, that doesn't excuse hurtful language used on either side. But let's try to understand that just about everybody in this argument is acting not out of hatred but out of fear. Nobody is a Nazi here. Nobody is a penis-swinging tool of the patriarchy trying to infiltrate Goddess spirituality.  And until we get past that kind of rhetoric this fight is just going to keep escalating until the last members of Z's generation are gone. Because that's part of the reason why they are fighting so hard: they realize that identity politics and gender essentialism are nowhere near so important today as they were to Second Wave feminists.

It was not my intent to demean disabled people, elderly people, lesbians or anyone else. I was hoping to inspire empathy, not scorn, in those who were reading this post.  But I also recognize that intent is not "fucking magic" and so I apologize for any pain I caused you or anyone else by my choice of words.

Meanwhile, Ocelot asked:
"thanks to their hard work, Z and Co. have been rewarded by becoming increasingly irrelevant"
To whom?
From the New York Times, January 30, 2009: "My Sister's Keeper: Lesbian Communities Struggle to Stay Vital to a New Generation" - an article which is well worth reading.
THEY called it a lesbian paradise, the pioneering women who made their way to St. Augustine, Fla., in the 1970s to live together in cottages on the beach. Finding one another in the fever of the gay rights and women’s liberation movements, they built a matriarchal community, where no men were allowed, where even a male infant brought by visitors was cause for debate. 
Emily Greene was one of those pioneers, and at 62 she still chooses to live in a separate lesbian world. She and 19 other women have built homes on 300 rural acres in northeast Alabama, where the founders of the Florida community, the Pagoda, relocated in 1997... “I came here because I wanted to be in nature, and I wanted to have lesbian neighbors,” said Ms. Greene, a retired nurse. She hopes the women, ages 50 to 75, will be able to raise enough money to build assisted-living facilities on the land and set up hospice care.
And from the New Yorker, a fabulous piece on the Van Dykes, which ends with this poignant paragraph from Lamar Van Dyke:
“Your generation wants to fit in,” she told me, for the second time. “Gays in the military and gay marriage? This is what you guys have come up with?” There was no contempt in her voice; it was something else—an almost incredulous maternal disappointment. “We didn’t sit around looking at our phone or looking at our computer or looking at the television—we didn’t sit around looking at screens,” she said. “We didn’t wait for a screen to give us a signal to do something. We were off doing whatever we wanted.”
How many new separatist communities do we see springing up? How many young lesbians and feminists see separatism as a viable option: how many see men as inherently oppressive and incorrigible? I stand by my earlier statement that the movement Z was part of is primarily of historical interest to the Queer community. And may I also add that we as a movement are poorer for that: we could stand to see a lot more questioning of the social order, not to mention outright rejecting it. 
"Contemporary feminism is certainly struggling with issues of its own, but they are nothing like the issues facing the feminists of the Mad Men era. If Z and her followers are still fighting battles they won long ago"
Considering that Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell was trying to pass a law requiring women who wanted and abortion to submit to a vaginal ultrasound as a condition of receiving said abortion, I hardly think the "battle" has been "won" - the tactics and weapons have just changed.
Today a woman's right to a safe, legal abortion is under constant attack.  When Z started her quest that right didn't exist, period.  Please don't put words in my keyboard - and again, if I have been unclear in my writing I apologize.  Only a complete idiot would say that sexism is no longer a problem in our society.  But let's also acknowledge the many ways things have changed for the better.

I just finished writing a chapter on Sylvia Plath, who graduated from Smith College in 1955.  At that time Smith was one of the premier women's colleges in the country. Plath graduated summa cum laude with a Phi Beta Kappa key.  Adlai Stevenson spoke at her commencement: the theme of his speech was "Having a Creative Marriage." Because of course that was what ladies of that day did with their degree from a top school - married a smart, successful husband and raised smart, successful children.  Sexism is still a very real problem in American society - but let's not pretend that a woman in 2012 doesn't have options available to her that a woman in 1952 or 1972 could hardly even dream about.  The war isn't over by a long shot but this time the enemy is trying to claw back territory, not hold on to it.

11 comments:

The ocelot said...

"Please don't put words in my keyboard"

I didn't. I quoted you directly.

I also question the NYT and New Yorker as the voices of lesbian feminism today. Two articles do not speak for all lesbians. This is like when white people, called on racist thinking, say "But my Black friend said it was OK!"

I think women can and should determine for ourselves whether our struggles now are "nothing like the issues facing the feminists of the Mad Men era", and telling women to "acknowledge the many ways things have changed for the better" is similar to telling women who point out sexism in the U.S. that "at least you're not in Afghanistan."

Anonymous said...

You haven't been commenting with an empathetic tone. When you, say, talk of displaying someone's bleached bones, it's not exactly the most friendly language to use, even if it is figurative.

Wade said...

Well no, you're NOT in Afghanistan but that isn't the point. The point is that women have massive advantages these days, and still count off the long list of Victim Cards that got them points back in the 60's, even though many of them simply don't exist anymore.

Hiring difficulties? 75% of the newly-unemployed during the current recession were men, but where are women putting the focus? On themselves. College admissions? There are nearly twice as many women in college as men, but where are women putting the focus? On themselves. There are women-only business grants, college scholarships, and bank loans, but who are women saying the "big victims" are? Themselves, of course.

Continuing to gnaw on old dried-out bones isn't helping anyone, and you don't have to disempower men to empower yourselves. If, as feminists claim, their goal is equality then women will have to step down several social notches and actually shoulder a little responsibility for society.

Because that's what society is - working together instead of just grabbing as much as you can and excusing it by trotting out tired old wrongs that were corrected decades ago.

Kenaz Filan said...

Ocelot: Did you read the articles I quoted? If so, you'd note that the authors quoted actual lesbians, including quite a few who played a very important role in the separatist/Second Wave movement. (You HAVE heard of the Van Dykes and Camp Sister Spirit, right?) If you disagree with the conclusions stated in those articles, I presume you can present some counterexamples from people or publications which you believe better represent contemporary feminism and lesbian separatism.

I also wonder if you honestly believe that things have not improved for American women between 1962 and 2012 or if you're just engaging in the kind of gender essentialism that Z enjoys so much. ("You have no right to point to statistics and examples about women because you're a MAN!!!")

If the former, I'd be interested in hearing why you believe that 50+ years of efforts by several generations of feminists have been so fruitless and why the patriarchy remains so firmly entrenched despite all this work. If the latter, please to be finding another blog to troll in: I'm not interested in entertaining the willfully obtuse, nor even those whose obtuseness is involuntary.

Hart: Guilty as charged. I'm trying to take a more civil tone and find places where all parties in this debate can reach mutual understanding if not necessarily agreement. But I've also got a bit of a temper and some very serious issues with many statements which have been made by a number of people. I'm hoping to write up something clarifying where I stand tomorrow.

Wade: I'm going to be interested in seeing where this line of debate goes. I'm sure you're going to get some comments on your statements... and I suspect some of them are going to be rather vehement in their disagreement. So long as everyone remains civil (or at the very least provides some facts and figures to back up their rudeness - I am an alt.satanism graduate, after all ;) ) I think this could turn into a fascinating discussion.

The ocelot said...

The willful obtuseness isn't mine when while women have the legal right to abortion, legislation has made that right well-nigh meaningless in more than a few states. While women have made strides, they're under constant assault. And frankly, telling women what's "old dried-out bones" or making condescending comments like "You HAVE heard of this, right?" (and I read those articles when they came out, thanks)as though this makes you more feminist-than-thou is sexist. Of course I have my own source cites, but the minute you reduce this to "gender essentialism," I see little point in providing them.

"I'd be interested in hearing why you believe that 50+ years of efforts by several generations of feminists have been so fruitless and why the patriarchy remains so firmly entrenched despite all this work."

As I've explained, I believe the efforts have borne *less* fruit - who's putting words on whose keyboard now? - because the rights of women are STILL subject to the legislative whims of people whose views are informed by sexism. And the patriarchy is entrenched because it's insidious, as inescapable as racism or homophobia, and supported by those who perpetuate it. The master's tools, as another irrelevant feminist once said.

As for Wade, nobody's trying to disempower men. That's as tired as the "victim cards" you accuse women of playing.

You were comfortable calling Z out on her transphobia (rightly so). You're obviously not as comfortable being called on your sexism. But if that's trolling, I guess I'll be building a bridge to lurk under tomorrow.

The ocelot said...

Oh, and this? "or if you're just engaging in the kind of gender essentialism that Z enjoys so much. ("You have no right to point to statistics and examples about women because you're a MAN!!!")"

I've been reading your blog for a few months now, but since I could not recall whether you identified as male or not, whether you are a man or not was not an assumption I made.

Rose Weaver said...

I have serious problems with your comments for the following reasons:

First, shouldn't some of this anger be directed towards P-Con for allowing this to occur in the first place? I see no problem with a PRIVATE ritual of the nature Z organized if held in a private venue, but I do within a public venue and in my honest opinion, this is a huge part of the problem.

Second, my mother is Dianic Wiccan. She, in no way, fits the stereotype you portray within your series of posts. My grandmother taught me in my early years. My mother led me to my studies in my later years. Your stereotype of Dianic Wiccans is incredibly offensive for a number of reasons; that being only one of them.

Third; I'm a disabled veteran who lives off of "the man" as someone else put it, and certainly not because I want to, but because situations within my life finally led to a point where I had to. I don't like this... not at all... but I deal. I'm heterosexual, a Chaos Magician, and have no tolerance for discrimination in any form.

I've read many posts on this, including the vast majority of those listed on The Wild Hunt (I do subscribe to it), and while I agree Z deserves to be hit with some well deserved outburst for this, I also believe P-Con deserves some righteous anger delivered in their direction as well. And to lump all Dianic Wiccans and poor women who have to live on assistance from government entities in one big ugly category is simply another form of discrimination...

...and you're doing it.

Rose Weaver said...

And ocelot has an excellent point:


As I've explained, I believe the efforts have borne *less* fruit - who's putting words on whose keyboard now? - because the rights of women are STILL subject to the legislative whims of people whose views are informed by sexism. And the patriarchy is entrenched because it's insidious, as inescapable as racism or homophobia, and supported by those who perpetuate it. The master's tools, as another irrelevant feminist once said.

I'd invite you to read one of my blogs regarding Military Sexual Trauma. It illustrates this exact principle perfectly.

http://weavingamongthestars.blogspot.com/2012/01/democracy-now-reports-on-invisible-war.html

Chas S. Clifton said...

Again, the modern Pagan movement decides to eat one of its elders, and the only question is with which sauce.

I foresee that in some not-too-future year, after Z Budapest has passed on, they will call her name among the Mighty Dead at the Bay Area Spiral Dances, and I wonder if the people trashing her now for being a bigot will pause and recall her decades and decades of priestesshood.

Right now though, I am seeing all these bloggers saying stuff like, "I'm a Dianic but I no longer consider her an elder." Really, do you get to choose your elders?

Disclaimer: I do not know Z personally, although I have known of her since the 1970s, and we know a lot of the same people. Her vision of the Craft is quite different from mine. But still ....

As for P-con, people have "private" rituals at "public events" all the time. It happens at virtually every festival that I have attended. But hey, let's throw Z in the dumpster because some folks' feelings were hurt.

Anonymous said...

I take serious umbrage with both positions. Perhaps a papal bull will fix this. You are all acting like you will soon be demanding tithes and selling indulgences.

Unknown said...

> I am an alt.satanism graduate, after all ;) )

Oh dear, you too?

I'm actually rather impressed with the number of people (as well as the calibre of people) who move on from Satanism to pagan religions.

Post a Comment