Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero!mara@panix.UUCP
From: mara@panix.UUCP (Mara Chibnik)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: The "role" of men in feminist causes
Message-ID: <62175@aerospace.AERO.ORG>
Date: 29 Nov 89 16:51:59 GMT
References: <1234@uvaarpa.virginia.edu> <17195@rpp386.cactus.org> <1268@uvaarpa.virginia.edu> <14411@well.UUCP>
Sender: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Reply-To: mara@panix.UUCP (Mara Chibnik)
Organization: PANIX - Public Access Computer Systems of NY
Lines: 120
Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org

In article <14411@well.UUCP> well!avery@lll-crg.llnl.GOV (Avery Ray
Colter) discusses the special contributions of nonmembers of an
oppressed class to the political cause of that class.  I'd like to
comment on those remarks.  It's been a long time since that article
appeared; I've been trying to get this out, and hope I've finally
found a working path.

I am often in a situation analogous to that of the 110 pound fat
activist, although I'm more of a proponent than an activist.  Anyhow, I
feel that I have a responsibility to myself and to other people to
maintain an awareness of what is different for me, as a nonmember.
There are things for me to do, most of which fall under the points
that Avery raises.  But I still run up against the fact that I'm *not*
oppressed in the same way as members of the group I'm thinking of, and
it seems to me that when someone in that group says as much to me, the
only reasonable reaction on my part is to agree that they're right.  I 
may from time to time be oppressed myself, but not by virtue of being
one of "them."

Also, as a (self-described, and who cares what anyone else says?)
feminist woman, I know how I feel about accepting the help that
feminist men make available.  Sometimes it's just fine; other times I'd
really rather have done it myself.  And often doing it myself is the
real purpose of the exercise.

Anyhow, to Avery's points:
	>1. One who is interested in the cause of a group one doesn't
	>   belong to can learn much about this group, for in the secure
	>   atmosphere of the association sensitive truths get told.
This is certainly true.  Still, we  who find ourselves in this
situation should bear in mind that we are privileged to be there,
in that secure atmosphere.  We ought not assume that we can or do 
understand everything that makes those sensitive truths sensitive. 
And, perhaps most importantly, we should not assume that just because
*some* members of the oppressed class find our presence acceptable or
even reassuring, that all the members we encounter will feel the same.  
Oppressed is oppressed, and we are going to run into people who have 
been *hurt* by folks they wanted to be able to trust.  They may be
suspicious of us.  They may be right to feel that way, too.  (I
don't say they are, only that they may be.)

	>2. Those interested may very well have unique experiences of
	>   their own, which in turn may make them oppressed by
	>   association (i.e.  "That Nigger-Lovin' Jew Boy......." and
	>   other "guilt by association" trips will create secondarily
	>   oppressed groups.
Sure, but I'm not really sure why it's important.  One of the things
that makes oppressed people oppressed is the danger they understand
themselves to represent to outsiders who join them.  Most of "them"
understand this already, and don't need to be reminded.  The people who
need reminding are other nonmembers of the oppressed class who are
generally sympathetic but not ready to take a risk for the cause.  

In any event, I'm not convinced that being persecuted for carrying
"their" banner is quite the same as being persecuted for being one of
"them" (whoever "they" may happen to be).  I may be misreading this
point, but it seems to me that Avery is looking for members of the
oppressed group to carry an awareness of risks run by nonmembers
who are helping out. This smacks to me of looking for a kind of abject
gratitude to which I have developed a serious emotional allergy.  I
do what I do in order to make this world slightly less unpalatable
for *me*, and I feel strongly about my own motivation.  Besides,
people who are working to end their own oppression have their hands
full already.  It's not that they should ignore the fact of "guilt
by association," only that it seems to me a very low priority item.  

	>3. Those who do not belong to the oppressed group, are also not
	>   subject to the inherent fear of relating the sensitive
	>   truths in the outside world.  Such an "outsider" can act as
	>   liason, first absorbing the truth as told by the oppressed
	>   group's members; then being able to "distance oneself from
	>   the pain around the issues"; then, thus distanced, relating
	>   those truths to people outside the movement, even doing so
	>   in places where the members of the oppressed group would not
	>   have easy access or high credibility themselves.
Yes, this has a lot of truth to it, and the role of intermediary is one
I rather fancy for myself from time to time.  But the argument cuts
both ways.  Members of the oppressed classes are apt to have
experienced a kind of betrayal by nonmembers taking on this function
and, as they perceive it, misrepresenting their "truth," or the truth
as some of them see it.

Certainly, not all of the misrepresentations are deliberate.  Heaven
knows there's lots of room for subtle and not-so-subtle variation in
political beliefs.  But to people in pain, failure to convey a
message accurately can be a major wrong.  And for some members of the
oppressed group, the most important part of the message may be the
tone with which it is delivered.  Intermediaries often prefer to 
soften the message, to make it less unpalatable to "real" outsiders. 
And the softening may look to insiders like a falsification,
especially where one "proper" attribute of the oppressed is
meekness.  Besides, one privilege (I'm not sure it's a right)
worth fighting for is that of speaking one's own piece.  It's nice 
to have help, but it's better not to need it.

Another thing: group members may perceive a slant to the message that 
may be the result of a latent hostility on the part of the self-designated
spokesperson, so that a strong case is altered in the telling.  (I
saw this quite recently, when one friend of mine defended a second
friend to a third; there were some strange underlying currents, and
the defense, spirited as it was, seemed to me to miss the point
entirely.  The situation was personal rather than political, but 
I think it generalizes.)

And there is at least one reason to argue that it's preferable to have
"insiders" represent themselves: diversity of opinion amongst members
of the oppressed class.  "Insiders" can assert with authority that they
speak as such; outsiders cannot.  Insiders who allow for this may be
accused of bias in favor of their own kind when it is really nothing of
the kind.  Those of us who march under someone else's banner need to be
able to accept this.

	>I guess my point is, allies have their uses.
No disagreement here.  


	     SOMEDAY SOON I MAY BE ABLE TO RECEIVE MAIL AT:
	rutgers!cmcl2!panix!mara		mara@panix.uucp		
                           Mara Chibnik
	    Life is too important to be taken seriously.


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com