BlackAmazon came and commented on my last post and, as I try to do whenever someone visits my blog, I went to her blog. I often forget about blogs that I mean to check regularly, so I usually wind up losing track with people until they happen to come back to my site and leave a comment. Anyway, when I visited her site, I found this post entitled "I'm gonna go work out pray on this and then respond here" and my curiousity prompted me to take a look at the post in question. Sometimes I really wish that I was more apathetic to what I read.
As if I needed more reason to believe that mainstream feminism has nothing to offer me, I found yet another self-professed feminist who's completely clueless when it comes to the experiences of non-white, non-western individuals. In her post, "The Difference Between Sexism and Racism", Reclusive Leftist asserts that sexism is less stigmatized than racism. In other words, all around the world, people are more likely to hide their racism than their sexism. At least, this is where her argument began. It became a lot more ridiculous when her comments spilled over to the response section.
Even if you do go and take a look at her post, which I'd suggest to anyone who'd like to argue that mainstream western feminists have women's best interests in mind, you won't get to see all of the comments that were left. She decided to remove the last few comments and to change her last comment as well. Fortunately, I happened to get a look at them before she removed them, so I'm posting them here:
67. Blackamazon says:
I posted the longest respons eto this in creation but thought this was STUNNINGLY ( http://coffeeandink.livejournal.com/607897.html) fitting. I like how you avoid all specific criticism of your points within the COMMENTS that actively demonstrate both your privilege,disrespect,and condescension in favor of questioning at least ten people’s reading capacity.Sheeleszebub understood AND STILL AGREED WITH SHANNON but you keep omitting that.
And until you have a crystal ball unto all the tenets of every culture and how they relate globally how dare you presume you know what any culture feels about anything. What “large scale agreement” have you seen ? How many cultures you have intimate knowledge of that say that?
You want to be wrong or keep your opinion fine But we can read , we read you ( in all meanings of the word) and our “grip” is plenty fucking good.
September 6th, 2006 at 9:33 pm EST
68.bint alshamsa says:
Angry Black Woman: I notice that anyone who disagrees with you gets painted with the “you can’t read” brush.
I noticed this too. It’s really just one step up from the “you mispelled something ergo you aren’t educated enough to talk to me” argument that often comes up when some people find out that they can’t defend their views as well as they thought they’d be able to.
I really giggled when I read Violet’s comment about post #55 being “very eloquent”. Maybe Violet can explain how in the world that’s pertinent to this discussion.
September 6th, 2006 at 9:33 pm EST
And then because she decided that the conversation was too much for her, Reclusive closed off the comments for that post. Nevertheless, I had already written a response to the silliness she wrote in her last comment. Here it is for those who might want to read it:
bint alshamsa, gracious! Four comments in a row?
Yes, indeed it is four. Thank you for noticing this very irrelevent point.
Your view of human history is certainly interesting — very dark, really — but I must say it doesn’t correspond to what I know of anthropology and the history of civilization.
Well, I find your view of history to be quite inaccurate according to what I know regarding the development of our species.
Weirdly enough, people didn’t sort out that we were all human even before we, er, evolved into humans. Or for quite a while after.
Weirdly enough, you're absolutely wrong. If people didn't realize that these separate groups were indeed members of the same species as them, then they'd have all branched off into different species. As a matter of fact, there has always been a mixing of groups for as long as humans have existed.
The single most common self-identifying name for an ethnic group is some word meaning “the real people.”
That doesn't mean that they believed that others weren't the same species as them. Even groups that considered themselves "the real people" intermingled with those who fell outside of that designation.
Other tribes were useful for slavery and could even be mated with, but somehow they weren’t fully human.
If they were able to understand that these people could be mated with then how can you prove that they believed these people were a different species from them?
As late as 1900 it was still being debated in the United States whether Native Americans had souls.
There are people who are still making the same arguments today. Likewise, back then, there were plenty of people who understood that Native Americans were humans too. If they didn't understand that then we'd have seen the same percentage of marriages/intermingling with them as there were to horses or chickens or any of the other living creatures within that population. How many instances do we know of where people in the U.S.A. were trying to marry and have kids with their farm animals? People aren't as dumb as you're claiming. It seems you're confusing what was expedient to claim with what had already been established as fact.
It only began to be outlawed a couple of centuries ago. It’s now illegal in every nation in the world. Is it still practiced? Of course. But the fact that it is officially illegal, and that nations attempt to disguise its presence within their borders, tells us something about cultural evolution.
Actually, it's not illegal in every nation of the world. Many nations do not make much of an attempt to disguise its presence. That certain nations deny the existence of slavery within their borders only proves that they are simply saying what is most convient for them to claim despite the fact that their actual position has not changed.
Which is what I’m talking about when I mention “moral evolution.” There is a rather stunning gap between what people think is right and what they actually do, but the point is that what people think is right has actually evolved. And continues to evolve.
So you're not talking about morality at all when you use the term "moral evolution"? That doesn't make sense. If you believe a cultural evolution has occurred, why not just refer to it as that? A moral evolution is quite a different matter altogether. Furthermore, what people think is right has not changed or they, we, would not still be engaging in the same practices that were present in our societies from the very beginning of our species.
The mystery is solved: I’ve been alerted that my sudden new visitors, whom I’ll dub “Shannon’s Friends,” are a self-appointed group of blog police with a history of going about accusing people of racism.
I guess it's most convient for you to believe that very erroneous assumption just as it's convient for you to believe the other assertions you've made here. Frankly, I've never even conversed with Shannon on any of the blogs I frequent and it's rather juvenile to attempt to group very different people as one united group. However, since we're mostly colored folks disagreeing with you I suppose you won't have a problem ignoring the fact that we've shown that your position is simply fallacious.
If anyone here wants to contact Violet regarding her post, her e-mail address is: