Against the subjugation of women? Resist both infighting and selling out

Disagreements about how to end injustice, and specific injustices, are as old as injustice itself. Whether one is considering the injustices of colonialism, racist domination, oppression of women...in each and every one of these areas, those who can agree in broad general principle have often found themselves disagreeing over specifics, including some major ones. To make common cause does not magically bring about harmony.

When Gandhi fought to escape the injustices of British rule, he was opposed by people who resisted his ideas about throwing over caste distinctions. When Mandela picked up arms to fight apartheid, many withdrew their support from his movement. When King sought to expand his conception of civil rights to include equal access to economic opportunities, former and potential allies turned against him.

None of these examples of fights for justice achieved perfect justice, no more than the Civil War achieved a perfect Union. But I do believe that the U.S. Civil War achieved a more perfect union. Likewise, I believe the India of today is a far more equitable place than the India of one hundred years ago, that the South Africa of today, like the U.S. of today, has achieved within the past fifty years enormous strides toward racial justice.

My own dream is that within my lifetime, I see the progress toward the good of justice for women that Gandhi, Mandela, and King got to see the toward the goods of justice they pursued in their lifetimes. They managed to see results in their pursuits even though each had to learn when to resist pressures from people who genuinely shared their vision and when to resist the lure of becoming subservient to those who offered only short term funding and enrichment rather than truly shared commitment.

Now, even as I write this, millions of men and women are freshly galvanized to make it a reality that all the world comes to see women's rights as human rights, to see woman as just as much the paradigm representative of humanity as man, and therefore to see a woman's rights as indistinguishable from any human's rights. With all that energy comes passion and motivation. But with it comes too friction and infighting. With it too comes the willingness by some to give up the chance to speak truth to power, in order perhaps, to gain power, but nevertheless at the sacrifice of a chance to speak without fear of offending.

I believe that at the end of every day, and at the start of every morning, a person needs to be able to reflect upon herself or himself, and address these questions to herself or himself: if I am fighting for justice, am I making choices that do not compromise my integrity? What can I tolerate in allies even if I cannot join wholeheartedly in every step they take? Can I broaden my toleration without selling out my convictions?

Especially in the fight against the subjugation of women, men and women must ask themselves these questions, because one of the hardest obstacles to achieving progress toward the good of justice for women is the tendency toward infighting on the one hand and selling out on the other. Fighters for the empowerment of women tend to care about all sorts of injustice and obviously have some very basic differences, including differences in sex, race, and class. These differences can lead to fissures and cracks that can render the fight for justice for women, for justice for people, very tough going. But the common interest in justice for all must be used to resist the fissures and to repair them, when possible. What cannot be repaired is selling out. Certainly, one person's "sell-out" may be another person's "reasonable compromise". Personally, I believe in the necessity to question one's own choices in such matters very closely, because it is very tempting to see oneself as the reasonable compromiser, the unifier, the one who moves beyond "unnecessary" partisanship rather than to recognize in oneself the more natural tendency in human nature toward selling out.

For my own part, I prefer to err on the side of sticking to my convictions rather than losing them in a process of mollification and conciliation. If enough other people join me in those convictions, then they and I will not have to mollify and appease: we will ultimately have coming to us those who would now have us coming to them. We will be numerous enough and bonded together strongly enough in the fight for women's rights - the fight for human rights - to the point where will we have the upper hand, both ethically and tactically.

For my own part, I would rather take ten million baby steps toward the good without losing my footing in conscience than take a great leap and risk losing my moral compass. I will march with as wide a cohort as I can - even when we disagree on some things - in the name of reaching my goals. But I will not join ranks with those who are able to take heady leaps that gain them a seat at the local powerbroker's table or a grant of some of that powerbroker's money at the price of their integrity.

If ten million or twenty million or fifty-one million people choose to baby step along with me and I with them, we will, together, make the same rate of progress as those who choose to go it more or less alone. In the fight to beat misogyny and sexism, in the fight to achieve proper representation and empowerment for women, I expect great changes. I demand great changes. I will work toward great changes. But I know the greatest shifts toward justice take years to accomplish. To stick it out, every step forward must be appreciated and celebrated (e.g. Senator Clinton's name placed in nomination even at the admitted charade of a free and open Democratic Party convention) and every step backward must be condemned and resisted (e.g. the retention of a speechwriter for the President of the United States of America who participates in boorish, distasteful and sexist party shenanigans.) Time is on the side of those who fight for justice, so long as those who fight for justice do so with patience and tenacity, and resist the parallel temptations toward selling out or excessive infighting.

Comments

[StandOnPrinciple]

In part, infighting in social injustice-oriented organizations arises from regarding injustice as a personal problem, rather than a flawed concept, whose reach is pervasive throughout a society. It is easier to focus on the particular, in the form of daily discomforts, rather than to set aside one's own woes and beliefs in the name of the common good. Perhaps such behavior results from not recognizing that changing a concept from flawed to true, encompasses not only one's personal situation, but the situation of each person facing that type of injustice.

With respect to misogyny, it is one of the most insidious injustices because it affects more than half of the human race; yet it is viewed by many as only affecting a special interest group. There need not be agreement on how to fight it, just agreement among those affected that one must fight to change it, not compromise. Fighting in modern American society means casting aside political correctness, and focusing on effecting change. As with any battle, there will be casualties, uncertainties, and disagreement. But, come what may, those of us who demand change must be willing to press on in the face of adversity and not allow nitpicking and name calling to stand in our way.

[Cyn]

Once again, Heidi, you have hit one out of the park. This is yet another "keeper" post.

[Stray Yellar Dawg]

"For my own part, I would rather take ten million baby steps toward the good without losing my footing in conscience than take a great leap and risk losing my moral compass. I will march with as wide a cohort as I can - even when we disagree on some things - in the name of reaching my goals."

Such wisdom in that one statement! Thanks for being so eloquent.

[purplefinn]

Timely post Heidi Li. With the "infighting" I also see a lot of throwing out the baby with the bath water. If someone is not properly dismissive of the President-Elect, they have no value and nothing they ever did has value. I am referring to all of those who have fought for women's rights and effected great change since the 60's when women's roles were still primarily teacher, nurse, homemaker. Yes, we need to move on. We need to take the next steps. But do we need to dismiss those who came before us in order to take those next steps? Perhaps, as Malcolm X and his followers needed to distance themselves from MLK. We have the luxury of appreciating the contributions of both now.

That said, I greatly appreciate your leadership Heidi Li. Your reasoned stances and call to doable actions have and will continue to make a difference.

[quixote]

Selling out is a bigger problem in the fight for women's human rights than in other struggles. It's the only one in which all sides also love each other and don't want to be separate. There are so many "good" excuses to sell out.

The toxicity of selling out in this movement especially needs to be front and center early and often. Great post.

[Not Your sweetie]

I so needed today to read something like this - thank you so much for doing it.
here's my longer response
http://edgeoforever.wordpress.com/2008/12/22/unity-is-not-just-a-pony/

[Annie]

Thank you for another excellent post.
In the end, selling out won't even get you what you think you are selling out for. Particularly with the new Dem and old GOP. ANY compromise is seen as weakness, as another place to push for more Until we push back , we will continued to be pushed under the bus.

[lorac]

I strongly believe it's because, as opposed to any other "minority", most women are intricately tied to the "oppressor". Most women are straight, so they are dating/married to men, raising boys, so even on the most intimate level in our lives, they are connected.

They have no separate sphere in which to be "free" of the "oppressor", so that affects how much they can "be a group" with others like them. It affects to what extent they can form an "identity" as a group.

If you take blacks for an example, if they choose, they can marry another black, live in a black commnunity, work for a black boss, join a group that is only for blacks, etc. On every level, they cement their identity as a group. Even if they don't do that on every level, the fact that they can do it on the most intimate level (in the household) solidifies their identity, I believe.

I really believe that because most women are intimately connected to the "oppressor" (no matter how wonderful their individual husband is), it affects their ability to form the same type of group identity as other "minorities". I don't believe most straight women are actually "woman-identified". Their identity many times tends to be very tied into the approval of men, even if they seem "liberated". IMO.

Just as a superficial example off the top of my head, you don't see black people wearing certain clothing or taking a certain kind of "black job", in order to please white people. But many, many women wear shoes that are bad for their back, wear makeup that is bad for their skin, spend ALL kinds of money to be attractive to men, take "feminine" jobs, and learn to psychologically react to events in a "feminine" way - all to please men, so that men will find them attractive and validate their worth.

It's often unconscious, but it's there. And that makes for an identity that isn't very woman-identified, which affects how much women will bond with each other and share a common "identity", in order to get group power and affect political change. This is not to say that all women should "become" lesbians - but I do think that women's relation to their "oppressor" is what makes them less powerful than other "minorities" in their own struggles..

[turndownobama]

Lorac, I agree with much of what you've said. Straight women can't cohere as other 'minorities' do because often their closest associates are male. Except in an abusive relationship, you can't see your spouse or son as a villain (and of course those individual males are usually NOT villains in what is happening on a larger scale).

Which may be a good thing in many ways. Demonizing another race as 'Whitey' may be good for cohesion but not good for harmony in the nation. If we women do ever figure out how to use our 51% power, it will probably be in some solution that is good for everyone.

[purplefinn]

lorac says it well. And yet women have made great strides especially in career choices and breaking barriers. Women who understand the importance of standing up for themselves and other women can and do influence their children and others. It does make a difference that all women (even lesbians) are intimately tied to their oppressors - fathers, husbands, brothers sons etc. But it will not stop us. We may not entirely follow the pattern of other oppressed groups in seeking liberation, but we will succeed in our own way and, perhaps unfortunately, at our own pace.