Monday, June 21, 2010

So this WHM guy--sorry, "pink" guy--named Jeff writes to me here about how he's not exactly a WHM (and he's not bi). This is what he says...

[image that illustrates the socially harmful power of white supremacy is from here]

Jeff has left a new comment on your post "To WHM who are dads: Make It A Happy Father's Day-...":

Wow! You have a very intense blog. I don't like your attitude (you sound just like any another jaded racist, but the message is clear. As a married "white" (who says I'm not a person of color!?? Actually I am a little bit pink) man, I am looking forward to being the kind of loving father you've described. I know what you are saying about the "WHM" thing, but my challenge to you is to not see it as systematized. That makes it sounds as if white men across the world have united to collude some global grab. This explanation is the easy way out and the easy way to explain why WHM have dominated modern times.

It is far more complex and, at the same time, much simpler to figure out. But I am not in your shoes and I cannot possibly understand what it is you think and feel. Attaining power is one thing, but I think what your referring to is the systems employed in order to try to keep the power.

*         *          *
I respond as follows (which has just a couple of additional points from my earlier reply at the post where his comment also appears):

Hi Jeff,

Intense is good, yes? :)

First, I do hope you are an awesome, caring, father who is fully supportive and respectful of the child's mother. I wish you all the best with that.

I assure you that my "attitude" has little to do with whites overtly or covertly dominating much of the world, or patriarchal atrocities existing, or gay men being beaten up by het men.

My question to you is by what means will white supremacy, male supremacy, and heterosexism end? What are the practices and perspectives that will accomplish this? What values? What methods of organising?

Your suggestion evades the question and helps ensure all those systems remain fundamentally in tact, so that the oppressive harm this blog centrally addresses will not be taken up by you.

This I know well: Western white het class-privileged men don't ever want to be seen "as a group". Identifying you as part of a group doesn't tell me much, really, about what sort of fellow you are personally--it doesn't tell me what your favorite color is or what your favorite foods and movies are, but it does tell me what privileges you have relative to those without them. And that constructs us, partly.

And, it tells me that I can put money on the fact that you haven't read these books: Yurugu, by Dr. Marimba Ani, and Sister Outsider, by Audre Lorde. Am I correct? Please tell me if I'm wrong.

I'm going to wager that most if not all of your favorite books and movies have a WHM lead character or author. Am I wrong?

You being a WHM tells me that you or many of the WHM you know probably hold mistaken negative views of radical feminism as being "too often anti-man", and of lesbianism as "hot" for all the wrong reasons. Am I right?

That construction of you, of "your people", with power and privileges acted out interpersonally and bolstered institutionally, which includes your social status and position relative to those you structurally oppress does "exist".

I'm not making it up to indulge myself in a fantasy world, I assure you.

WHM supremacy exists in the form of particular shared and acted out values, behaviors, attitudes, and philosophies. One of the behaviors is to believe you, Jeff, are in no way responsible for ending rape.

Do you think women, collectively, have that luxury to assume "The heterosexual men will stop raping us. We don't have to challenge them about it. They'll just stop on their own."???

Let me ask you: what have you done in your life, in close and organised collaboration with other men with accountability to women, to ensure that rapes don't happen among your group of het men--among the het men you know and call "friends"? What have you done to stop white supremacist violence and bigotry, or, even, to stop racist joke-telling among all the whites you encounter? (Or is that only the job of people of color to attend to, as individuals?)

What have you done to challenge heterosexism's privileges and power?

What political philosophies do you most admire? I'm going to make an assumption here and I welcome you to set me straight, so to speak. ;)

The philosophy most admired by white het men is one of liberal humanist individualism, which supports white het men to only be socially discussed and challenged "as individuals" and erases from reality the REALITY that you are a group, a politically active group, not in a way that means you're making mobile phone calls to each other before you go to bed. But in ways that require you to not interrupt certain things "your people" do, that are oppressive to those of us who are not in your group.

No one is only an individual, even while we also are all individuals, in some regard. But if you think being the only white person in a group that is predominantly of color, or, even, all white, doesn't manifest in some ways that ensures the maintenance of white supremacy, it's your privilege that allows you to not know exactly in how many ways you actions or inactions do exactly that.

If you think being a het man doesn't play itself out socially in "gendered" ways, you're also not in touch with what het male privilege does to a person's identity and humanity and social behavior.

I believe you are misinterpreting the political function of me identifying WHM a group. It isn't to promote bigotry.

It's so I can track the ways that you, Jeff--if you are white, het, and a man--are embued socially with many forms of status and worth, with value and attributes that make your people's lives, collectively, easier than that of poor lesbian women of color. And that "show up" including in the comment you left here above.

What you probably know, but may not admit, is that your group is the only one that thinks it ought not be seen as one. Your group--WHM--is the only one that actually has sufficient privileges and social power to resist being seen as one.

Think about it: "White gay men are [ ]"; African American men are [ ]"; "Latina women are [ ]". You can fill in the blanks with what you hear all the white het men around you say.

What do WHM you know put in the blank spaces? Promiscuous? Dangerous? Uppity? You tell me. I'd say it likely depends on where you live and what time period we're talking about.

And if you're liberal, you probably won't want to admit you all do that sort of stereotyping and likely feel "bad" if you do. And if you're conservative you are more likely to feel okay and even proud of doing so.

You tell me what you witness among the WHM you've known for years. And how often you come into contact with extremely harmful misperceptions of "your group". I mean EXTREMELY harmful and DEEPLY hurtful misperceptions, that leave you depressed, feeling despondent, feeling so wounded you cry.

NO Black woman I know can pass through even one day without being cast into a grossly stereotypical box, a harshly negative light, having a mind-spinningly distorted view of herself reflected back to her by whites and men, that ISN'T based on her individuality. She can't pass through ONE DAY in society with that luxury that you are proposing I dignify you with, that society already dignifies you with.

You suggest not seeing WHM supremacy as a members of a system that benefits you. Why? For whose liberation? People of color? Queer people? Women? Or yours?

My point is that just about everywhere you go, among whites, among heterosexuals, and among men--and that's likely a lot of people you encounter in your life--you will primarily be seen as "an individual" in ways women, people of color, and lesbians and gay men are not, by WHM.

Any WHM who knows I'm gay carries assumptions to me about what that means, and they are almost always wrong. Every African American person I know, and every Black person outside the U.S., carries assumptions about what it means that I'm a U.S. white guy, and those assumptions are usually right.

You're expressing to me some resistance to being put in a box. I say, "Feel what that's like, deeply, and realise you can go through life mostly not being in one."
That'd be lucky for you, except it has nothing at all to do with luck. Society is organised within and by systems and institutionalised beliefs about human nature, about what race is, about what gender is, about what our genitals mean and what we're supposed to do with them. And each and every one of those systems, institutions, and industries is run by actual human beings with values and attitudes about the "us" that isn't you and your people.

I don't believe one WHM group meets once a week in an office building or church basement--except to go to AA meetings.

I believe WHM meet casually and professionally all the time in ways that help reinforce WHM supremacy. And in ways that rarely challenge it, in part because you, Jeff, and so many other WHM, resist even thinking of yourself as "one of them".

See, you get to grow up and mostly not be "one of them". Mexicans in the U.S. have no such luxury (meaning, entitlement and privilege). Lesbians and gay men have no such luxury (entitlement and privilege).

It is more complex than one group of WHM meeting with the specific intention of preserving WHM supremacy, yes. But it's not so very complex that you are rendered ONLY an individual with no culpability, no responsibility, in the project of either enabling or eradicating WHM supremacy.

Does that make sense to you?

I'm not saying you are only a stereotype. I'm saying you're no less of one or more of one than anyone else. And therefore why should you get to be thought of qualitatively "different" than most of the world's population of poor people of color who never get portrayed in Western white media as "only individuals".

And I'm saying that WHM attitudes such as yours, here, contribute to reinforcing WHM privileges and oppressive power. That you've done that, here. With your one comment in ways you don't even recognise.

An attitude that contributes to the maintenance of WHM supremacist violence and discrimination is you feeling indignant when someone sees you as "one of them", and when anyone at all asks you to be responsible with the privileges and entitlements you have that you likely couldn't name for me right now. But prove me wrong: write back with fifty ways you are privileged by being a WHM. I love to be proven wrong by WHM. But when I've challenged WHM in the past, here, I never hear back from them. Is that a "group" behavior?

P.S. Oh, and on being "pink". Dude. Really. You have white privileges in a racist society, not "pink" ones. That makes you white. Sorry to bust your pink-self bubble.

Welcome to the world of raced identities. Tell me if you were in Apartheid South Africa--or, if you are currently in South Africa, does your nation divide people up based on how pink they are? I'm guessing not.

And I do welcome a reply.

23 comments:

Clarissa said...

This is a brilliant post. Of course, when your group is considered to be THE measure of human existence while everybody else is the second and the third sex, race, etc., then you will be bothered by your group being named. Being named will make you face a painful reality that other groups not only exist but are also capable of categorizing and "boxing" you in the same way you have always categorized and labeled them.

"Let me ask you: what have you done in your life, in close and organised collaboration with other men with accountability to women, to ensure that rapes don't happen among your group of het men--among the het men you know and call "friends"?"

-This is an extremely important question that cannot be asked often enough.

Julian Real said...

Hi Clarissa,

Thank you so much for your comment. I'm really hoping he's going to respond, and we can see how he answers questions like that.

Fingers crossed that he does engage with this matter here.

JENNIFER DREW said...

Agree with Clarissa when a member of the dominant white male heterosexual group is challenged they always respond by attempting to divert attention away from their behaviour/misogynistic attitudes and focus on women.

As Clarissa astutely said, given men are the supposed definitive human then critiquing and/or challenging them is viewed as 'man-hating.' Not so of course when the definitive human - ergo white heterosexual male believes he is above criticism and hence his male-centric view of the world must be accepted as definitive reality.

Which is why the mythical term misandrist was created in the first place because men cannot be misogynists given they alone are supposedly human and hence they can only view/treat women in relation to the human - ergo white heterosexual male.

Julian Real said...

Hi Jennifer,

Thanks for that addition to the conversation.

(We can note that Jeff has yet to show up here and "defend" his position.)

Reflecting on what you and Clarissa have said here...

WHM are self-designated as the best example of what it means or is to be human (the truest, the most "normal", the most evolved, the brightest, the greatest, or whatever other nonsensical and utterly bogus self-assessment WHM come up with to define themselves).

Given that one of the entitlements of WHM is to claim sole power to name and determine the value of groups of people (including themselves, of course), in part by creating institutions that lower the spiritual value, political status, and economic worth of other people (in the eyes of those with the power to name reality), those of us who are placed outside are in a bind.

If we speak about them as a them, as an oppressor class, one of their reps will show up requesting, sometimes politely, usually rudely, that we "stop it", as Jeff does above.

A political colleague of mine, Y, communicated to me yesterday that oppressor groups only identify as a group around their self-imagined victimisation, but demand to be seen as individuals when it comes to their [privilege-funded] accomplishments.

So when a Black or Brown woman supposedly takes a WM's spot from an incoming college class, this is just cause for his group to suddenly rises up in outrage declaring "We are being discriminated against".

But, when Black and Brown women are systematically shut out of employment opportunities and colleges only because they are Black and Brown women, this problem is in no way the responsibility of white men to fix. Then the group scatters back into their "only individuals" status so that they can claim no political power, no influence on society whatsoever.

The are a group when it suits their cause to maintain, shore up, and intensify the power they claim they don't have as a group.

In their chronically delusional minds, they see themselves as negatively impacted--not as individuals only--by "Mexican immigrants" or "Muslim immigrants", who, let's be clear, are never "only individuals" in the eyes of WHM, unless a WHM beats up someone from that group and then wants to claim it wasn't a hate crime--it was just because they didn't like "that particular person" whose name and personal history they don't know.

Any self-assertion by another group to be name reality and to be treated as just as human as WHM are accustomed to being treated is a sign to WHM that something is going terribly wrong.

Nothing identifies this more clearly than the way the term "uppity" is used socially and historically. The only group never stigmatised as "uppity"--meaning striving against God-ordained or natural order to be more socially powerful--is WHM. Because they are at the very top of the race, sex, and gender hierarchies.

They appoint themselves the socially dominant gods. And they have the power to control necessary to destroy all of nature, and decide whether their god is alive or dead. They determine that their god is white and het and male, and that their god wants them to rule the world.

In the challenge to be most "spiritually narcissistic", "socially egomaniacal", and "politically defensive", WHM have taken first place every year.

Jeff said...

Hi Julian!
That’s a very long response. You’ve thrown an awful lot at me. I love you fire and passion, but you have lots of assumptions floating around your head. That’s very sad because assumptions limit possibilities.
A response is necessary. Yes, intense is very good! I like that part of it. I just don’t like the hatred spewing from your blog. It’s quite palpable. Then again, you are a radical.
First off, you have made many assumptions about me based on 9 or 10 sentences.
Assumption #1: I have not read Dr. Marimba Ani or Audrey Lorde.
Truth: I made my way to this blog because of a YouTube video that someone sent to me. I had never heard of her before, but why would I. I don’t study Africana enough to have come across her work. After watching two videos of her speaking about bad white people are, I have come to the conclusion (albeit temporary) that she’s got some things way off about Europeans and she has some very naïve ideas. She laughingly said that Europeans are not a spiritual people. Also in her work she’s developed a few concepts to help her describe what it is she talking about. One of those concepts is something called asili. She made up this term and then says that European have an incomplete asili. That’s just lame. She also that Europeans asili can’t be fulfilled by spirit because Europeans have no knowledge of spirit or a relationship to a spiritual reality. That is some dumb ass shit!!!
On the other hand, she said many other things that were right on. She said it is important for people to stop enslaving themselves.
I have never heard of Audrey Lorde.
Assumption #2: My favorite books and films are all or mostly led by WHMs.
Truth: My tastes vary so widely that I can’t even begin to think about it with much focus.
Assumption #3: I think lesbianism is just hot. Radical feminism is too anti-man.
Truth: My mom is lesbian, so eeewwww. Radical anything is stupid and a waste of time.

Jeff said...

Part #2:
Anyway……I don’t believe you when you say that your “attitude” has little to do with white people. It’s in several places on your blog. There’s even a part where you request that white people not critique an entry. You definitely have a problem with white people. I’m not saying that is right or wrong. But let’s just tell it like it is.
Your main question is how to we rid ourselves of WHM domination. But let’s look at the term WHM for a moment. You don’t really mean WHMs. As I’ve read more in your blog you try to blanket all WHM, but then you add qualifiers like class-privileged and abuser and so forth. Next thing you know you’ll say any white dude driving a Lexus SUV. Unfortunately a reader of your blog has to spend time parsing out what you really mean by WHM because really you don’t mean WHMs. You mean a very particular subset of the WHM population. I know radicals are very dramatic and like to exaggerate things, but you’re really not all bent out of shape about white guys who don’t admit they have sex with men. Uhhhhh wait 
I look “white”, but I am mixed, although that wouldn’t matter to you because you would assume something. You’re also assuming that I am not bisexual. Whatever. That’s none of your fucking business anyway. Raised (partly) by a lesbian mother and her partner and married to a multi-racial bisexual woman. I stopped claiming to be a feminist after that so-called feminist sexually assaulted a woman. So that gives you a few contextual details to give you a better picture of who I am. You did ask, after all.
Answer: WHM domination will end. It is only a matter of time. The only thing that will change things is time. The education is certainly central, but the real key is time. It is easy for me to think this way because I have enjoyed white, male privilege to degrees that I’ll never fully comprehend. It is easy for me to say time is the cure-all because I am of a group who is currently not oppressed. I have no idea what it is really like to be oppressed. What I can tell you is that things change very slowly. Far too slowly for a radical feminist. I know because I have friends who are radical feminists and none of them have patience.
The only way for WHM domination to end is for the old white farts to die off. Remember something very crucial. It has to do with time and how slowly things change. We can read our history textbook in class for about and 45 minutes and cover about 150 years of history over 30 pages. 150 years in 45 minutes. We don’t appreciate how long it takes for things to change. People live for a looooong time.
There are still old people alive today who did not have a TV or a car. That is how attached we are to the old ways. Still!!

Jeff said...

Part #3:
WHM domination will end, but it takes time. We already see how mixed our country is now. Some call this the “browning of America”; like it’s a fuckin’ sausage or something. I know that this is the last thing you wanna hear. WHM domination IS ending as we speak. It’s not a matter of when because it is happening right now. You almost don’t have to do anything and what you want, which is ending WHM domination, will happen.
But once WHM domination ends, which letter of acronym gets switched out? Who will be in charge next?
Rape will never go away. There’ll just be other forms and combinations. Good luck with that.
As far activism, my activism lies elsewhere. You got your fight and I have mine. Save your stinking guilt trip.
You said: “And I'm saying that WHM attitudes such as yours, here, contribute to reinforcing WHM privileges and oppressive power.”
What attitudes are those?
WHM supremacy is something that some people want and to a great degree it definitely exists. To radicals and so-called minorities, it must seem like white mother fuckers get together and think this shit up. We sit around and think up ways to fuck up brown people. Yep that’s what I am doing right now. [HEAD-SHAKING EMOTICON]
Seriously, though, I have no clue what it is like for non-whites. How could I? I can imagine it. If you were a white man you would have a very, very different perspective, but this is not about me.
Frankly I don’t give a shit that WHM are losing power. You may not see that WHM are already on the wane, but they are. And I am okay with it. What am I going to do about it? We have to work and live within whatever framework we got or die pissed off.
You’ve got a lot of other bullshit in your post. Mostly more assumptions and guilt trips.
You’ve gotten all you’re gonna get for now.

Jeff said...

Oooops! One more thing in response to something you recently wrote.

You said: "If we speak about them as a them, as an oppressor class, one of their reps will show up requesting, sometimes politely, usually rudely, that we "stop it", as Jeff does above."

That's just weird and not even close to being accurate. Where in my original post did I say anything like this? Did I really tell/ask you to "stop it"?

Okay, now I am going to go away for a few more days and read and think, but I'll be back. I like this even though you have argument styles very similar to whackjob conservatives. Radicals are all the same aren't they? Different topic--same style.

Julian Real said...

Hi Jeff,

This is a three-part answer to your three-parter.

First, I'm glad you showed up.

I want to note this, for future reference:

"That’s very sad because assumptions limit possibilities."

You write: I just don’t like the hatred spewing from your blog. It’s quite palpable. Then again, you are a radical.

So, is your assumption that radicals hate people? Did Martin Luther King hate people? How about Larry Flynt? Mahatma Gandhi? Rush Limbaugh?

Which of those people are "radicals" and which represent the status quo? The answer: Limbaugh and Flynt represent the status quo, and are haters of lesbians and gay men, right? King and Gandhi preached love and compassion for your enemies, and they were both radicals. So on what are you basing your assumption that "radicals = haters"?

Can you tell me which other radicals you are referring to? Noam Chomsky? Have you watched him speak? Does he sound like a hater to you? Alice Walker? Have you read her open letter to Tiger Woods? Does that sound hating to you? Audre Lorde's essay on raising her son Jonathan... does that sound like hate?

They are all radicals, Jeff. So doesn't that blog a hole through your assumption that "radicals = haters"?

And please identify the hatred in my statements, please. Since you're quick to make assumptions that I am one. Where do you see that here? Quote me, please. Thanks.

So, it seems my first assumption was correct.
Assumption #1: I have not read Dr. Marimba Ani or Audrey Lorde.

Duly noted.

On Dr. Ani:
"Also in her work she’s developed a few concepts to help her describe what it is she talking about. One of those concepts is something called asili. She made up this term and then says that European have an incomplete asili."

Do you mean the way white English speakers made up terms? Like that? Or different than that?

"That’s just lame. She also that Europeans asili can’t be fulfilled by spirit because Europeans have no knowledge of spirit or a relationship to a spiritual reality. That is some dumb ass shit!!!"

Or, well, there might be something to it. Because the Europeans she's speaking about--not that you'd know, because you haven't read her book--is those who went on to commit genocide and enslave West Africans. Where's the spiritual behavior in that? Have you read my post on Christopher Columbus? Where's the spiritual practice in what he did?

Dr. Ani' describing the political and philosophical underpinnings of white supremacy is hardly something you should be so quick to write off, with so little study.

You write:
"On the other hand, she said many other things that were right on. She said it is important for people to stop enslaving themselves.

Did you hear the part about the importance of whites not enslaving other people? You know white men enslave children right? What spiritual practice is that?

Julian Real said...

You wrote:
I have never heard of Audrey Lorde.

Again, my assumption is correct about you. It seems I do know a bit about you based on what you've told me.

Assumption #2: My favorite books and films are all or mostly led by WHMs.
Truth: My tastes vary so widely that I can’t even begin to think about it with much focus.


Please do try and focus and tell me what your top three favorite movies and books are. Just three of each. Thanks.

Assumption #3: I think lesbianism is just hot. Radical feminism is too anti-man.
Truth: My mom is lesbian, so eeewwww. Radical anything is stupid and a waste of time.


Cool about your mom. My point is that WHM tend to think that lesbianism is a hot genre of heterosexual male pornography. You know WHM who feel this way, yes? Many, in fact, yes?

Anyway……I don’t believe you when you say that your “attitude” has little to do with white people. It’s in several places on your blog. There’s even a part where you request that white people not critique an entry. You definitely have a problem with white people. I’m not saying that is right or wrong. But let’s just tell it like it is.

You didn't comprehend what I was saying, Jeff. I said the reality of white supremacy on Earth has nothing whatsoever to do with my two and a half year old blog. I hope that's clearer.

Your main question is how to we rid ourselves of WHM domination. But let’s look at the term WHM for a moment. You don’t really mean WHMs. As I’ve read more in your blog you try to blanket all WHM,

The way WHM's blanket all other groups, you mean? Or differently than that?

but then you add qualifiers like class-privileged and abuser and so forth.

Yes, because those are also political realities.

Next thing you know you’ll say any white dude driving a Lexus SUV.

Nope. You're not doing well with your assumptions about me, so far.

Unfortunately a reader of your blog has to spend time parsing out what you really mean by WHM because really you don’t mean WHMs. You mean a very particular subset of the WHM population. I know radicals are very dramatic and like to exaggerate things,

Are you honestly telling me that you do not? How about your dramatic overgeneralisation that radicals are haters? What is that, then? Truthful, careful socially astute analytical writing?

but you’re really not all bent out of shape about white guys who don’t admit they have sex with men. Uhhhhh wait

If you mean I don't critique white gay men, then you're wrong again with that assumption. And "WHM" means "white heterosexual male" as it says in the glossary to the right. So gay men aren't part of that group, necessarily.

Julian Real said...

I look “white”, but I am mixed, although that wouldn’t matter to you because you would assume something.

You said you're pink, not me. So you have white privilege, not pink privilege. I just wanted to make that clear.

You’re also assuming that I am not bisexual. Whatever. That’s none of your fucking business anyway.

Are you bi or aren't you? Why are you uncomfortable stating what your sexual orientation is? How is that a privacy issue? It doesn't tell me anything about who you sleep with or anything about your sexual past. Are you bisexual? If so, cool. Stop being so evasive. You outed your mom for goodness sakes.

Raised (partly) by a lesbian mother and her partner and married to a multi-racial bisexual woman. I stopped claiming to be a feminist after that so-called feminist sexually assaulted a woman.

I'm sorry to hear any woman was assaulted, but am confused by your line of thinking/reasoning.

After one woman assaulted another woman you stopped claiming to be a feminist? Or to support women's human rights?

What does one woman hurting another have to do with where you stand on men's abuses of and violations against women?

If a white man assaults a white woman, are you also against the values and political campaigns of all white men?

If het men rape women--and many het men do rape women--are you anti-het man and all they strive to achieve socially by way of human rights?

Answer: WHM domination will end. It is only a matter of time. The only thing that will change things is time. The education is certainly central, but the real key is time. It is easy for me to think this way because I have enjoyed white, male privilege to degrees that I’ll never fully comprehend. It is easy for me to say time is the cure-all because I am of a group who is currently not oppressed. I have no idea what it is really like to be oppressed.

I thought you said you weren't white? If you're not white then you know what racism feels like, don't you?

What I can tell you is that things change very slowly. Far too slowly for a radical feminist.

Far too slowly for the Indigenous people whose cultures and people are being wiped off the Earth by Western corporate CEOs and the corporate stockholders' greed. Too slowly for the next generation of girls to be raped by the men in their life.

I know because I have friends who are radical feminists and none of them have patience.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

The only way for WHM domination to end is for the old white farts to die off.

Do you mean there aren't going to be any new young white het male farts?

Julian Real said...

Or more than three parts!

Remember something very crucial. It has to do with time and how slowly things change. We can read our history textbook in class for about and 45 minutes and cover about 150 years of history over 30 pages. 150 years in 45 minutes.

Obviously some details are being left out. Usually the ones written by women.

We don’t appreciate how long it takes for things to change. People live for a looooong time.

Some live too long.

So you are assuming that I think WHM supremacy will or can end in a few years; that it won't take a very long time.

Nope. Wrong again. You're doing far worse with your assumptions than I am, to be honest.

There are still old people alive today who did not have a TV or a car. That is how attached we are to the old ways. Still!!

What does that mean? There are old people today who are better read than you. There are old people today who are more knowledgeable about computers than you are.

There are lots of young people today who do not have cars or TVs. Some of my white friends, in fact.

WHM domination will end, but it takes time.

The question is who is responsible for ending it, Jeff? Who is, and who isn't? Can you answer that, please? Thanks.

We already see how mixed our country is now. Some call this the “browning of America”;

That's written by histerical white folks.

WHM domination IS ending as we speak. It’s not a matter of when because it is happening right now.

Where, exactly? What are you referring to? That the demographics of the U.S. are shifting slowly? What does that have to do with it? Do you realise that more wealth is concentrated in the hands of more WHM now than ever before? So where's the indication that economic-political reality is coming to an end?


You almost don’t have to do anything and what you want, which is ending WHM domination, will happen.

Explain how that works, please. No one has to do anything at all and white supremacy, male supremacy, and heterosexism will end? How, exactly?

But once WHM domination ends, which letter of acronym gets switched out? Who will be in charge next?

Anyone would be better, don't you think?

And if you understood feminist struggle the goal isn't to switch out letters. The goal is to transform society so that no one group or groups oppress any others.

Rape will never go away.

I thought you said all this stuff goes away by no one doing anything at all! Rape is a central feature of WHM supremacy. So which is it, Jeff? And, are you saying men are too inhumane, by nature, to stop raping other people?

There’ll just be other forms and combinations. Good luck with that.

Thanks.

Julian Real said...

As far activism, my activism lies elsewhere.

Where? What do you do activism about? What are you struggling to change that is unjust or inhumane?

I'm listening, really.

You got your fight and I have mine.

What is your fight, Jeff? Why so cagey on the matter?

You said: “And I'm saying that WHM attitudes such as yours, here, contribute to reinforcing WHM privileges and oppressive power.”
What attitudes are those?


The attitude that is part of your assessment that "rape will never end" for example. The attitude that goes with your belief that no one has to do anything for WHM supremacy to end. Those are two.

WHM supremacy is something that some people want and to a great degree it definitely exists.

Okay. That's a good place for us to have agreement.

To radicals and so-called minorities, it must seem like white mother fuckers get together and think this shit up. We sit around and think up ways to fuck up brown people.

Where have I said that on this blog, Jeff? Please quote me. Because that's another of your assumptions that is quite wrong.

And, yet another is that I'm "a minority". If by "minority" you mean "not white", you're wrong. Have you read my description on the right hand side of this blog?

You know that some white people, like those in Arizona, for example, like the governor and the superintendent of schools actually do sit around and think of ways to fuck over Brown people. You get that, right?

Predominantly white courtrooms of people do decide the fate of Black and Brown people, who are disproportionately harassed and pulled over by white cops, and who, if poor, are disproportionately arrested and thrown in jail for long periods of time for being poor and of color. That's why jails aren't filled with rich white guys, right? Because, as the news of the last several years demonstrates, from John Edwards, to Rush Limbaugh, to Tony Hayward, to GWBush, Rumsfeld, and Dickhead Cheney, it isn't because white het men don't commit serious crimes, right? More serious, in fact, than any crimes poor people are in prison for, right?

GWBush over say most of the years of a war against Iraqis that has killed one million people there. Which poor person in this country is in jail for killing a million people? And is GWBush, Rumsfeld, and Dickhead Cheney? Why aren't they in jail for life, Jeff? They are serial killers, after all, aren't they? Or mass murderers? Aren't they? What would you call them? I'm sincerely asking you.

Julian Real said...

I think this is the last part:

Seriously, though, I have no clue what it is like for non-whites. How could I?

By, um, talking to and empathically listening to people who aren't white. Is it really not at all possible for you to emotionally feel what someone else feels, and to register, even if slightly and not at all to the degree someone else experiences something, what it is that they feel and why?

I can imagine it. If you were a white man you would have a very, very different perspective, but this is not about me.

It is partly about you, isn't it? That's the point. (And I am a white man.)

Frankly I don’t give a shit that WHM are losing power.

You've said that a few times but have yet to provide me with any evidence that white het men are less in charge now than at any other time in history since white het men have been ruling over almost all other groups on Earth. Can you please give me examples of where and how that WHM power is weakening? Thanks.

You may not see that WHM are already on the wane, but they are.

Evidence please.

And I am okay with it.

It's easy to be okay with something that isn't actually happening.

What am I going to do about it? We have to work and live within whatever framework we got or die pissed off.

Huh? Can't you live fighting injustice and die satisfied that that's what you did? You said you had your own causes. Will you not feel good at the end of your life for standing up for something humane?

You’ve got a lot of other bullshit in your post. Mostly more assumptions and guilt trips.

Yours are the assumptions that seem most off here, Jeff.

So please just directly answer the questions. Thank you.

Julian Real said...

Hi Jeff,

Re: Oooops! One more thing in response to something you recently wrote.

You said: "If we speak about them as a them, as an oppressor class, one of their reps will show up requesting, sometimes politely, usually rudely, that we "stop it", as Jeff does above."

That's just weird and not even close to being accurate. Where in my original post did I say anything like this? Did I really tell/ask you to "stop it"?


Okay, now I am going to go away for a few more days and read and think, but I'll be back. I like this even though you have argument styles very similar to whackjob conservatives. Radicals are all the same aren't they? Different topic--same style.

First, please spare me terms like "whackjob" and similarly derisive obnoxiousness. Thank you. Second, if you're going to be flagrantly bigoted and superficial about your views of "radicals", please at least familiarise yourself with the work of radicals you don't know, who might prove your bigoted views completely wrong.

As for you asking me to stop it, you wrote:

I know what you are saying about the "WHM" thing, but my challenge to you is to not see it as systematized.

So as soon as I put forth a systematised analysis of what WHM are and how they function politically--however disorganised or organised they are--you show up to challenge me to not see it as systematised. That's the point!

I think we actually have places of some overlap in our views. For one thing, you actually are willing to own that there is such a thing, a social-political-institutional reality as WHM supremacy. And you seek to be a wonderful father.

So let's figure out where the similarities are and where the differences are, rather than sparring and engaging in pissing contests, okay?

Please respond to me civilly and please don't insult or degrade "radicals" here. Thank you.

Julian Real said...

To support your education about radicals--which I would argue is either dictated to you by dominant media or limited by a lack of reading and listening, I recommend you read the following.

Please refrain from speaking about "radicals" in the negative ways you have done thus far, on this blog, until you do this and then thoughtfully and carefully let me know what it is you disagree with that these following radicals have to say:

Letter to Tiger Woods, by Alice Walker.

and this book:
All About Love, by bell hooks.

and this collection of interviews:
Talking About a Revolution (see the interview with Winona LaDuke first, please).

and this book:
Conquest, by Andrea Smith

and to better understand what I'm talking about when I speak about "white men" please read this and tell me what it makes you realise about what it means to be white and male:

excerpt from Lakota Woman, by Mary Crow Dog, aka Mary Brave Bird

and, finally, this by me, so you might get over your unfounded inclination to consider me a hater of whites or men or any other oppressor group:

interview with Julian on whether he's a man-hater

Jeff said...

You're barking up the wrong tree. I feel like you're just reaching really hard.

If Marimba Ani wants to make up words and concepts, then she can do whatever she pleases. But to point fingers and say WHM did it, why can't she? is very lame. If you punch me should I punch you back? Or should I not stoop?

Lesbian pornography? BORING!! I do not know ANY guys, no matter what stupid color they are, who watch porn at all.

Again, you're reaching hard for something that is not there. I came here to give a shout out, support what you are doing and to call you on your one-sided attacks. You need to to take the battle where it belongs. Your energy could be much better served fighting an asshole. Fighting one of those WHMs you hate so much.

As far as your list of radicals...whatever. Just another lure to catch the wrong the fish.

I will not entertain you and "focus" my attention on my three faves just for your amusement.

As far as your attitudes about white people, I think you need counseling to try and work through some of your race issues. "Nothing to do whatsoever"? I don't think so. You have to be honest with yourself.

As far as the WHM blanket? WHM do not blanket all other groups as you have pointed out. That is your faulty perception. As just because you perceive it happening does not give you license to do the exact same thing. It's same issue as with Marimba Ani.

Twice you have made the argument that if others do it, then why can't I? That's a fundamental mistake. Here's the result of your logic: Those people just massacred 100 of my people. I'm going to go massacre 100 of their people. That is plain stupidity.

Jeff said...

Twice you have made the argument that if others do it, then why can't I? That's a fundamental mistake. Here's the result of your logic: Those people just massacred 100 of my people. I'm going to go massacre 100 of their people. That is plain stupidity.

You are not alone in this type of argument style. Lots of people change the subject when challenged.

I didn't out my mom. She's been out for a looong time. You want entertainment and I will not give it to you. You can assume my sexual orientation.

The thing about pink skin was a kind of a joke. You didn't get the joke. Oh well.

The part about the feminist assaulting another feminist was written very poorly by me. What I meant to say is that there are lots of men who claim to be feminists, especially where I am from, which is a very, very big city. I stopped claiming to be a feminist after there were a couple reports of male feminists, especially one case in Iowa, who sexually assaulted a woman (a student of his I believe). There's a program called the Men's Initiative that focuses on men teaching other men how to be real men and not a bunch of assholes.

Some women in this group talked about this crime and the disappointment about it and that if they hear another man claim to be a feminist, they'll (fill in the blank).

Old farts die off and fewer young ones will take their place. It's already happening. WHM are losing their power. Not sure what else to tell ya.

And how am I doing far worse? Again, you're barking up the wrong tree. Preaching to the choir. Making assumptions about how terrible I am.

I came here to support you and to call you on some of your BS. You need a real asshole to bark. Not me. But good luck finding one to come around here.

Whether you believe it or not. I am on your side, but you have your head up your ass about a few things, so reasoning with you is very difficult. Radicals are convicted. Recalcitrant. There's nothing I can do about that.

You are not making the connection between demographic changes and the waning of WHM domination. Try to because it is central to any real change.

When WHMs lose power then some other asshole will take charge and things will be just as bad, but for a different group. It's how things work. People can be very nice and pleasant, but also very spiteful and only seeking revenge. Oh well!
Rape is rape and is not a WHM construct. It is a part of human nature. A very ugly part of human nature. I can't stand it, but then again, I can't stand war and there is no way in hell that war is going away anytime soon.

As far as activism, I'm not being cagey. Your call action is commendable, but not everyone is actively fighting your fight. Don't expect others to fight your fight with you. Asking is great! We all need help in our fights for a more just world.

Jeff said...

And if you really wanna know....my fight is two-pronged. Helping refugees and immigrants readjust to a new home safely and comfortably, but with the aim of affecting refugee policy. (currently getting grad degree) The other prong is figuring out how to develop a fund and an advocacy for war widows and their surviving children. Simply put, males may dominate our society, but in other countries the domination is absolute and when a woman's husband and brothers die in war and they are left with no men to take care of them, then they are screwed. In places like Iraq, when the men die off the women have very few prospects because of depth of male domination there. It happens all over the world. In the USA if a woman loses her man, then she can fend for herself or at least has opportunities to do so. But in places like Iraq, she has no option usually. I want to start a fund to directly help war widows. That's a goal that I am working on. It's difficult, but that's okay.
I said that it SEEMS that non-whites or non-males sit around and think up this stuff about some global conspiracy. I probably would too if I was in your shoes. I don't care what you're demographic is.

Julian Real said...

Jeff,

You really aren't hearing me at all. Now that might be because I'm being very unclear, or it might be because you're being willfully ignorant, and it's not really worth the energy for me to try and find out which it is.

You write:
You're barking up the wrong tree. I feel like you're just reaching really hard.

Jeff, you're coming here. So you're the dog. I'm going nowhere looking for you. So stop barking here if you aren't willing to be responsible for what you say here.

You wrote:
If Marimba Ani wants to make up words and concepts,

You're being so dense and racist it's kind of stunning. What makes you think she's making up those words? Because you've never heard them before? Do you really think she made them up? Do you get that in other languages there are other terms, and that, for example, "Yurugu" and "asili" are two words in another language that she DIDN'T MAKE UP? What the fuck is wrong with you anyway? What the hell would you think she made those words up? How fucking obnoxious and stupid is that?

When you hear some Italian say "Ciao" do you respond, "Whatever, dude, with your made up terms!"

That's how ridiculous you come across to me when you say Dr. Ani is making up terms and words. I just can't believe how obnoxious you're being about that, and how racist. Really.

then she can do whatever she pleases.

I'm sure she'll be thrilled to know you give her permission to theorise, write political philosophy, and use more than English to express her key concepts.

But to point fingers and say WHM did it, why can't she? is very lame. If you punch me should I punch you back? Or should I not stoop?

Are you trying to be a fool? What are you doing? Getting stoned before replying here? Why don't you ever quote me and respond to what I say. Instead you just make shit up in your head and pretend it happened outside your head. Like you saying "Dr. Ani makes up words." No, Jeff, she doesn't. At all. Get a clue, please. She uses the terms from more than one language to critique european culture and philosophy and practices.

You want proof? Check this out, Jeff, and then tell me Dr. Ani made up the Kiswahili word that existed and was spoken before she was born.

http://asilithejournal.com/ASILI/a.htm

And then see this:
http://babynamesworld.parentsconnect.com/meaning_of_Asili.html

And please offer up an apology for being so goddamned racist and dense.

Lesbian pornography? BORING!! I do not know ANY guys, no matter what stupid color they are, who watch porn at all.

Right. You clearly don't know any het men then. I know maybe two out of two thousand who don't look at pornography at all. I know a couple of guys who do find the whole thing just completely degrading to all of humanity and don't have any desire to look at it. But most guys? Dude, MOST guys look at porn if they have access to it. (And you'd have to explain to me what it is about the guys you know that allows you to be so sure they don't.)

How do YOU even KNOW what the men you know do when alone, or when not with YOU? Do you videotape them 24/7? You keep tabs on all of them? Are you their priest to whom they confess all their "sins"? How can you make such an absurd claim?

You "don not know any guys... who look at any porn at all." That is seriously one of the most ridiculously presumptuous and ridiculous things I've ever heard a guy say. And I've heard guys say a lot of stupid stuff.

If I ask you "How can you know that?" you'll just respond, "I'm not playing your games" so I won't bore anyone by asking how you could POSSIBLY know that.

Julian Real said...

Again, you're reaching hard for something that is not there.

Yes, I agree. I'm reaching out to try and point out how racist you're being, how bigoted your views of "radicals" are, and there's no one out there named Jeff who seems to be able to comprehend this let alone engage in a responsive and responsible manner on the topics at hand.

I came here to give a shout out, support what you are doing and to call you on your one-sided attacks.

Really? You might try giving shout outs of support by leaving out things like this (from your initial comment here) --

"I don't like your attitude (you sound just like any another jaded racist"

You need to to take the battle where it belongs. Your energy could be much better served fighting an asshole.

Jeff, you've been an asshole here. A racist, fucked up asshole. You're maybe on the "less dangerous side" of the range of assholes, but claiming that no guys you know use porn and putting forth that "radicals" are all [whatever your bigoted views tell you], and that Marimba Ani made up Kiswahili terms is pretty fucked up.

Fighting one of those WHMs you hate so much.

You're efforts to be supportive have clearly not come through. Thanks for the intention of doing so, but if that's your way of expressing support, I can do without it. Really.

Julian Real said...

As far as your list of radicals...whatever. Just another lure to catch the wrong the fish.

Right. Whenever you are called out you play that same old tired card. Got it. Because you wouldn't want to have to wound your precious ego by admitting you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You go on here to show me how ignorant you are on the matter of "radicals".

I will not entertain you and "focus" my attention on my three faves just for your amusement.

Nope, you'll just keep control of what you want control of. Typical "dominator dude" behavior.

As far as your attitudes about white people, I think you need counseling to try and work through some of your race issues.

So now you're a psychotherapist? Hmmm. You really do have quite an ego, don't you?

"Nothing to do whatsoever"? I don't think so. You have to be honest with yourself.

I'll try, for the THIRD time, to clarify this point and leave it at that.

When I said my blog/my writing isn't responsible or centrally involved in the reality of white male supremacy I'm NOT making the case that my blog isn't centrally involved in CRITIQUING WHM supremacy.

what I am saying is that if this blog didn't exist, white male supremacy would look pretty much exactly as it looks. It's reality--its violence, its harm, its social force, its centrality in this society--isn't formed, shaped, or changed because of my blog or my writing. That may be selling myself short, but I'm not an egomaniac and have no illusions: I don't believe that blogging is activism and the history of european colonialism, white men's genocides, and white men's rape and slavery isn't a product of my blog. THAT'S what I'm saying. THAT'S the only point I'm making there and why it is you don't get that is a bit beyond me. I hope that's clearer.

As far as the WHM blanket? WHM do not blanket all other groups as you have pointed out.

What are you talking about?!

That is your faulty perception. As just because you perceive it happening does not give you license to do the exact same thing. It's same issue as with Marimba Ani.

Twice you have made the argument that if others do it, then why can't I? That's a fundamental mistake.


Quote me, Jeff, and respond directly to where I do that. Because you're seriously not making any sense any more.

Here's the result of your logic: Those people just massacred 100 of my people. I'm going to go massacre 100 of their people. That is plain stupidity.

No, Jeff. You've not demonstrated yourself to be especially good at logic, just so you know. You prove this a bit later, when you explain elsewhere your "logic" on your views of "radicals"... based on some women you knew who had no sense of humor. So if I direct you to women who are radicals with a sense of humor, such as, say, Nikki Craft, you'll then say "she doesn't count" and when I direct your attention to radicals who don't fit with your silly stereotype, you say "well, I'm not even going to read them, so THERE!"

Got it. You are extremely evasive and willfully ignorant. Good luck with that.

Julian Real said...

I appreciate you clarifying this part, Jeff:

The part about the feminist assaulting another feminist was written very poorly by me. What I meant to say is that there are lots of men who claim to be feminists, especially where I am from, which is a very, very big city. I stopped claiming to be a feminist after there were a couple reports of male feminists, especially one case in Iowa, who sexually assaulted a woman (a student of his I believe). There's a program called the Men's Initiative that focuses on men teaching other men how to be real men and not a bunch of assholes.

I blogged about this guy quite a bit the first months of this blog's existence. Kyle Payne is his name. He's shown himself to be willfully, deliberately unaccountable. I asked him to let me know where he was at, and he just disappeared so he can sexually assault more women, if he wants to.

If you wish, you can see those posts here, here, here, here, and here. That's most of 'em anyway.

Your last comments, Jeff, violate the terms of commenting here, so I'm not posting them. If you want to engage respectfully, please do.