[Womoz] Womoz Digest, Vol 11, Issue 10

[Leigh Honeywell]

On 10-06-17 01:46 PM, Majken Connor wrote:
>         Again, it's mega snarky, but I'm including it to point out that
>         this is a part of this conversation, and conversations about
>         race, class, sexuality, disability, and other axes of
>         difference, that comes up over and over and over again.  There's
>         no "nice enough" way to talk about this stuff.  We're always
>         being "too hostile" or "too mean" when we call out
>         discrimination.  It's one of the most effective ways for
>         kyrarchies to maintain their power, as they get to define what
>         "too mean" or "too hostile" is.
>
>
> Hey, I'm all for being mean to the assholes. I think when someone really
> has made a conscious choice, they deserve to reap the consequences.
> However we know enough about biology and psychology now to know that
> gender is not a hard binary line. We've already established that both
> men and women can marginalize women based on gender. So yes, I believe
> that any tactic that says screw them all, they don't deserve anything
> from us is really morally wrong. It's not to win the argument.

No, you're missing my point - the problem with what's referred to as the 
"tone argument" is that there's never a "nice enough".

For reference:

http://theangryblackwoman.com/2008/02/12/the-privilege-of-politeness/
^^ about race/racism, but the same arguments apply more or less.
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument
http://derailingfordummies.com/#hostile

Hope that makes it clearer.  I'm totally with you on both men and women 
being capable of marginalizing women - internalized sexism for the lose. 
  But it's not about "tactics that say screw them all", in my books. 
It's about what kind of dialog is "allowed" to take place and what's 
considered "too hostile".

Hope that makes some sense,

-Leigh