The Equality Zero-Sum Game Round Whatever

[browngirl]

[More US politics.] I know this is a matter of perspective, but sometimes it seems that conservatives are so good at pulling together while liberals are so good at infighting.

So I've been lying here reading the Internet's reactions to this week's US political news. Having seen it recced a couple times I read the often wise and estimable ursulav's post "Rain On My Parade And I Will Cut You". This essay is the most eloquent expression yet of an attitude I've seen around and really disagree with, that Senator Davis and her colleagues' and supporters' courage in Texas and the victories of overturning DOMA's Section 3 and Prop 8's death are more important than the loss of the Voting Rights Act. (To say nothing of the debacle in Ohio.) [Personal note: It doesn't help that some of the people in the comments are people whom I've seen support feminism and turn around and excuse racism, but that's about my personal reaction, not what I think we should globally do. Back to that.]

As I pointed out in my comment, "considering how the Voting Rights Act being defanged endangers these laudable instances of progress (Senator Davis nearly lost her district due to the gerrymandering that is now legal, and due to it Rep. Tim Huelskamp is likely to gain more like-minded colleagues to support his proposed anti-same-sex-marriage amendment to the US constitution) it seems kind of counterproductive to celebrate those victories by declaring the pointlessness of concern about the VRA. It makes sense to me to be worried about the stability of a new patio built on eroding ground." [The last line is a reference to the essay's central metaphor.]

So I may get cut indeed, or I may get ignored (that happens a lot when one points out intersectionality). But it makes me sad to see a victory getting used as a reason to ignore a defeat, especially one that endangers that very victory.

And it makes me think about the common complaint about liberals that we fight amongst each other. I may well have done that myself by disagreeing publicly with Ms. Vernon: I AM delighted by the decisions against DOMA and Prop 8, and I am awed by and admiring of the Texas Senators' stand, with thousands of women of Texas standing with them. I do think we should celebrate.

But I also think we should not forget or dismiss other struggles. For my part, I can't support one thing if it means I have to betray myself to do it. Many people pleased with these political successes think that the VRA decision doesn't matter because racism is over and/or because even if it isn't the VRA decision will only affect people of color/people in the South/other groups they don't belong to. For one thing, that supposition is not true: issues of voting suppression have popped up all over the country and across class lines and urban/rural lines as well as racial ones (my friend sageness wrote an excellent description of gerrymandering in Texas.). However, even if it were... being a woman of color myself I can't and won't dismiss the VRA decision as unimportant (also, as I pointed out above, it endangers these victories).

So what am I to do, then? Should I keep quiet in the name of liberal unity? Or does it make sense to ask my fellow liberals to remember that even issues that aren't personally important for them are still important? (And I'm reminded here that one of my many reasons for supporting marriage equality is that I want the issue settled like it should have been long ago so that people can't use it as a reason to ignore other issues facing LGBT people, such as the dreadful hatred and danger transgender people face just for existing or the fact that it's not illegal in many states to fire someone for being LGBT. These issues of equality matter beyond our own groups, our own skins.)

Comments

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

Is allowing for a day or two of celebration for those who want to celebrate excessive? This doesn't mean people who are working on other issues have any reason to take that day or two off.

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

It's absolutely not excessive. What I objected to was not the celebration but the "And that's not as important as this" statement, because in this case I do think the that (the VRA decision, the Ohio bill) are as important as the this (the DOMA and Prop 8 decisions, the showdown in the Texas legislature). Especially because of the implications of the VRA decision for all the rest.

[lyonesse.livejournal.com]

how's about cheering the good and decrying the bad, in turn? taking topical turns may yield to more productive conversations than trying to talk about everything at once, even though sometimes it seems super relevant (as with sen davis and her district).

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

That makes total sense. For instance, I just made a post that was all about celebration, highlighting the lovely cartoon I found. I didn't feel the need to stick "and that's why you should shut up about the VRA already" onto it, you know?

[achinhibitor.livejournal.com]

how's about cheering the good and decrying the bad, in turn?

That seems the only sensible thing to do. "While climbing a tall mountain, one must look back to take heart in how far we've come, and one must look forward to remember how far we have to go."

What seems incorrect IMHO is the insistence that everyone must have the same set of priorities, that everyone must agree -- and agree out loud, in public -- which issues are more important than which other issue and in what manner. Not to mention that everyone has slightly different takes on what each issue is. Yeah, if conservatives have been successful recently, it's because they've kept their coalition together and avoided infighting. (Which must have an interesting history, because there is a concept of "movement conservative", "everyone must be conservative in exactly the same way", that many conservative intellectuals espouse. What has kept those people under control long enough to get actual political results?)

This reminds me of a research paper I read somewhere which noted that the anti-Iraq-War coalition fell apart just after Obama got elected (as measured by the size of anti-Iraq-War demonstrations). The likely cause was that the Democratic Party was no longer funding the workers who did the work to keep the coalition together, because there was no longer any political benefit to the Party (in getting their candidates elected) of maintaining the coalition.

At the least, liberals should try to avoid sniping at other liberals who express priorities they disagree with.

[pickledginger.livejournal.com]

I am pretty sure that what Ursula meant to criticize was the folks who basically say, you can't ever be happy about winning a battle until we have win the war, no all wars, no all wars and the war on poverty, oh, and the war on cancer, etc.

Personally, I am celebrating the victories and /m/o/u/r/n/i/n/g/ being really pissed off about.the losses. I do not see one as any obstacle to the.other. (A bit.of a damper, maybe.)

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

I totally don't agree with those people at all, but if that's what I had read in her post, well, I wouldn't've written this one. I think around when I saw the patio vs hall painting metaphor, with its assignations of respective importance, I had to say something. OTOH, one of the reasons I posted this was to get other perspectives on my thoughts; I would be relieved to be wrong about what the message of her post was meant to be.

Personally, I am celebrating the victories and /m/o/u/r/n/i/n/g/ being really pissed off about.the losses. I do not see one as any obstacle to the.other.

That's why I wrote this -- that's exactly where I am too.

[spinrabbit.livejournal.com]

I don't think she's saying that "Senator Davis and her colleagues' and supporters' courage in Texas and the victories of overturning DOMA's Section 3 and Prop 8's death are more important than the loss of the Voting Rights Act." She's saying that jumping in when and where someone says "Hooray for Sen Davis!" and going "Yeah but what about VRA?" is harshing their squee. She's acknowledging that each of these is a battle, not the war, but wanting to be able to celebrate the battles won. "Tomorrow we will pick up our shovels again. Give us one damn day to cheer."

I really like your post here, don't get me wrong: I just don't see the message you're responding to in the post you linked.

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

Harshing squee is a good way to phrase it. If I'd gotten that out of her post I would have wholeheartedly agreed, but/and if my post is just in violent agreement with hers, as they say, rather than a rebuttal, I would be very relieved.

*goes to reread*

ETA So I've been thinking about it all afternoon. Who is that 'we'? Am I in it as a bisexual woman, or not in it as a Black person? Having reread her post, I still feel as if... she may have intended to tell naysayers to be quiet, but she succeeded in telling those of us who care about the VRA to shut up.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_samalander/]

A friend of mine, who is a black gay man, said on facebook, "Happy I can get married, but I'd rather vote."

I think the timing is the main issue, that people are so elated that we've finally "cured" the gay rights issue (except for not) that they are letting the bad slip aside. And that's okay for a little while, so long as we come back to it sooner rather than later.

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

A friend of mine, who is a black gay man, said on facebook, "Happy I can get married, but I'd rather vote."
I hear you, my brother, I hear you.

Yeah, the timing ... I was so Full of Feels on Wednesday it actually caused me physical symptoms. I totally agree with celebration, and with not wanting one's squee to be harshed, but I can't agree with the anti-squee-harshing statement when it goes into "and so that doesn't matter, this does" territory. All of it matters.

[Really, I could just have written I Agree With Your Every Word because I do. :)]

[juliansinger.livejournal.com]

a) I don't think you need to keep quiet in the name of liberal unity

b) I was in part grumpy-pants on Wednesday because of the rest of the news surrounding it, around the country. Sooo I feel ya.

c) I don't actually read ursula's post that way, but, the thing of it is, if you read it that way, that means it was there in the post to read.

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

a) Thanks. :) b.) Thanks. :D c.) Maybe it's a case of saying one thing so emphatically it slides into a different thing? I dunno. I felt like I should say something because she's so well known and followed and because so many of the commenters were so "you sure showed those sourpusses where to stick it!" jubilant. (Of course, maybe I'm not as good as I'd like at separating my personal take from my global recommendation.)

As Stephen Colbert said:

[rubynye.livejournal.com]

"Is there any way we could turn the gay people and the black people against each other and make them fight in a sort of thunder dome and the winner gets the civil rights? … By the way, after these two decisions, people said that the gay rights is the new civil rights fight of our time. Are gay people the new black people? And if so, can black people get married now? Oh, and can we take away the vote from gay people?"
Stephen Colbert

As Mia McKenzie said:

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

I see you that and raise you this:

"Pride parades this weekend will be more heavily attended by the press than perhaps any in history. What will you do with the world watching? Will you cry tears of joy and laughter over the repeal of DOMA and never utter a word about the smashing of the Voting Rights Act? Or will you do what you have said you would do? Will you make room in your agenda for the rest of us? Those of us who are queer and black, trans* and Chicano, intersex and South Asian, and Two-Spirit? Will you speak up for us, while the cameras roll? Will you speak up for all the people in this country whose rights are being taken away while yours are being increased? Or will you be silent?"

http://blackgirldangerous.org/new-blog/2013/6/27/calling-in-a-queer-debt

[thistlerose.livejournal.com]

I think you're misreading ursulav's post. She isn't saying that Davis's filibuster and DOMA and Prop 8 being overturned are more important than the VRA; unless I'm misreading her post, what she's saying is that we should be allowed to take a moment to thoroughly enjoy the good stuff that happend, before returning to the fight. I mean, this is what she says:

Tomorrow we will pick up the shovels again.

Give us one damn day to cheer.

THAT said, okay, we've had our day to cheer. You're absolutely right about the VRA being a horrific loss. So let's pick up the shovels.

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

You're the severaleth person I trust to say I read her post too critically, and honestly in this case I wouldn't mind being wrong -- it hurt to think that someone as wise and influential as Ms. Vernon was saying we shouldn't care about something I find very important.

ETA: though, I was thinking about this, and... part of my context for reading her post is how dismissive many proponents of women's and LGBT rights are of racism -- those of us caught at the intersections can find us in the uncomfortable situation of being told that one oppression we suffer is worse than another. I have been thinking about, if I were a feminist who saw nothing wrong with racism, if I would feel vindicated by her post.

[baranduin.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I hear you. This has been such a bittersweet week. I think the Supreme Court gave me whiplash.

Totally deflecting but here are a couple Minoan urns:

http://pinterest.com/pin/494621971545536399/

http://pinterest.com/pin/494621971545536401/

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

*beams and hugs you* Thank you for the Minoan art!

[lavendertook.livejournal.com]

Very well said. Got your back, bb. *hugs*

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

Thank you, brighteyes. *hugs you tightly and gratefully*

[rabidsamfan.livejournal.com]

I'm very upset about the VRA decision.
I'm happy about the DOMA decision.
I'm frustrated by the Prop 8 decision.

But it's the decisions which are stripping more and more power from workers and private citizens and giving it to corporations that I wish were getting more press. And I'm ripshit with Obama for waiting for this week, when there's so much news in the cycle, to make his press for dealing with climate change. Way to avoid getting anyone's attention, sir!

I don't know. Maybe, if we look at someone celebrating who says "I'm going to work on the things that are wrong tomorrow" and wait to see what tomorrow brings? It's hard for anyone to hold a lot of emotions at once and manage to express them all at the same time. I know sometimes I just want to be happy for a while, before I have to go back to the swirl o' doom.

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

But it's the decisions which are stripping more and more power from workers and private citizens and giving it to corporations that I wish were getting more press. And I'm ripshit with Obama for waiting for this week, when there's so much news in the cycle, to make his press for dealing with climate change. Way to avoid getting anyone's attention, sir!

Oh, don't I hear you. I haven't even *written about* these topics yet because I haven't read enough. SO damn much has happened this week.

I have no problem with the "celebrate today" part of what she said, it was the "because that other stuff isn't as important" part, which not a few people have disagreed with me on. In the context of having been told over and over that racism isn't as important as other oppressions (not least seeing people who have said so in the comments to that post) I still see why I had my first reaction, but I also see where people are coming from who say that wasn't what was intended.

[lavendertook.livejournal.com]

Also, in light of a bunch of the above comments, I need to say I do think you're reading her post spot on. It's her stating "But the Voting Rights Act!" remarkers as one of the groups of people she's complaining about. In light of that, I'm not comfortable with who her "us" in "Give us one damn day to cheer" is excluding. It sounds very white of her to me. I can't help but hold the 2 acts together in my head--the Supreme Court made sure of that with their timing, unless you can treat one as less important.

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

It's her stating "But the Voting Rights Act!" remarkers as one of the groups of people she's complaining about. In light of that, I'm not comfortable with who her "us" in "Give us one damn day to cheer" is excluding. It sounds very white of her to me.

BWEE. I just cited that line above. And... yeah. It felt very much like those of us who care about the VRA are excluded from her "we", and those of us who are both POC and LGBT, as if we don't exist.

Thank you for understanding me. :)

[amaebi.livejournal.com]

Personally, I spend my life in disagreement. :D

You know, if disagreement weren't supposed to be a Heinous Naughty Bad Thing that would be okay. Of course, I don't think disagreement is a Heinous Naughty Bad Thing. I think that traditions of disagreement and enjoyed argument are a major factor in the survival of the traditions of Israel into Judaism and ever since.

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

I guess... I want people to agree because otherwise we get nothing done, and I especially want people whose humanity I'm fighting for to agree that my humanity warrants being defended as well. *wry smile*

[johnpalmer.livejournal.com]

Given the massive number of voter ID laws, and other discriminatory policies put in place, I can't believe people would ever consider loss of the VRA harmless. Hell, Texas immediately shoved through restrictions that had been explicitly rejected.

It's a shame that the SCOTUS couldn't do something like instruct Congress that they needed a new, better plan in 90 days, or *everyone* would be covered by the VRA pre-certification. I mean, given that the court was going to completely reject the fact-finding of the legislature anyway, of course.

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

It's a shame that the SCOTUS couldn't do something like instruct Congress that they needed a new, better plan in 90 days, or *everyone* would be covered by the VRA pre-certification.

That would have made actual sense. *growls* I so agree with you.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

It has been a very confusing week.

I didn't see in Ursula's post what you saw in it, but I am reading it from a different angle. It's like you say there's a glacier halfway up the mountain and I can't see it from this side (maybe we're on the phone here--well, we *are* on the internet so this metaphor still works.)

There's nothing wrong with my eyes, and nothing wrong with your eyes, just because we see different things.

FWIW I don't think she consciously intended to put a glacier there... but I'm only a good judge of that to the degree I know her. Which is about as much as I know you, actually, except I know more of your friends. And I like to think the best of people.

I am happy about the developments on the LGBT front, imperfect as they are, because they are something I only recently thought might be possible. I am impressed with Senator Davis (I actually went and looked at sneakers on the internet *solely* because they were the kind she used; how shallow is *that*? Or maybe I just aspire to step into her shoes when I grow up.) But I am appalled by the damage to the VRA and the resulting Republican pounce on minority voting rights.

If I ask myself which is more important, getting to marry or getting to vote, I get confused. For goodness sake, how could anyone pick? Why should anyone have to? Can't they both be important? Can't they be important along different axes, so that we aren't moving forward or moving back but kind of slantways?

All the feels. And sometimes I want to go with one feeling and and sometimes the other and sometimes it irritates me when I come across someone in a different part of their feels cycle. (Not you. But I'm just saying.)

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Actually I came across something a few days ago that might apply.

Someone was frustrated by some civil rights setback, and finally told a friend "I just want to not think about it for a while." To which the friend replied "okay, but being able to not think about it for a while is basically the definition of priviledge."

Maybe what Ursula was saying was not that minority voting rights didn't matter, but that she didn't want to think about it for a while. And to those of us who have that priviledge that seems a reasonable thing to say. And to those who don't have that priviledge it's like "easy for *you* to do that..."

[vass]

All I can think of to say is that some rain is necessary for growth. And that rain is the natural and inevitable consequence of certain types of pressure.

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

Heh. Nicely analogized.

Is it fair that I looked at the comments and saw two screensfuls of people who gleefully just don't care about so many people at risk of losing voting rights, or am I taking this the wrong way?

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

The health of the liberal movement comes from the various factions discussing, arguing, and (yes) even at times disagreeing. Consensus comes not from shutting up and agreeing (or lying and fearmongering) but from loudly and respectfully arguing.

As to why the radical right-wingers (they are not conservatives and should not be lauded with that worthy and respectful title) are able to keep together, there are several answers that are part of the same picture: money, fearmongering, lies, Big Lies, more money, hatred, hope, and myopia. The right-wing bubble is nothing if not hysterical. I could only wish they were hysterically funny in there instead of hysterically insane.

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

*grins at you* Good points both (and touché on the radical right wingers). Thanks.

[thnidu.livejournal.com]

(This is going to repeat stuff that's already been said in the comments, which number 64 at the moment, tmga1g UTC ;-) : A lovely round number, 1000000₂, but tl;dr.)

I didn't read ursulav's post as "This is more important than that", even with the patio/hallway line – which I think you have misread:

• browngirl: I think around when I saw the patio vs hall painting metaphor, with its assignations of respective importance, I had to say something.


• ursulav: To put it another way, if I finish the patio, loads of rock, stone by stone, back-breaking labor and all—and I step back and go “Hot damn, the patio is lookin’ good!” and my husband walks behind me and says “Yeah, but you know the upstairs hallway’s still not painted,” I am legally allowed to dismember him with a shovel.

To me, this paragraph is not about the relative importance of the tasks, but about how she's feeling at the moment. She wants to be able to celebrate this important symbolic and tactical* victory.

In other words,

• Rain On My Parade And I Will Cut You
• Yes. This is a battle. It is not the war. It will never be the war. The war against bigotry and oppression is unending, like the war against stupidity and entropy and apathy.
  We are still allowed to celebrate our victories.

* by which I mean, it doesn't determine the course of the "war" or "battle", but it was important to accomplish. I'm probably misusing the word, but I'm tired and I can't think of a better and anyway I've just explained what I meant, but no way I could fit this footnote into the sentence without destroying it!

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

... yes, this does repeat what quite a few people said. And you know, she can celebrate, she doesn't have to give two figs about all the people who are going to be disenfranchised (although I do think that disenfranchisement may endanger the victories she's celebrating). Maybe I'm wrong to think we can celebrate one and also commit to doing something about the other, but I am still not convinced we can't do both.

[sethg]

The DOMA and Prop8 decisions bother me, even though I am happy about their outcome.

The thing is, I feel like the current Supreme Court is, for lack of a better term, lawless. I don’t mean that they have a theory of contitutional interpretation that I happen to disagree with, the way I disagree with the “substantive due process” philosophy that almost undid the New Deal. I mean that they are operating without a theory: instead, they know who they want to win in each case, and then they come up with some constitutionaloid argument for that case.

Maybe I am just overly nostalgic about previous generations of Supreme Court justices, but I think it’s telling that in the VRA decision, as in Bush v. Gore, the majority basically said that their ruling was narrowly tailored to the specifics of the case and couldn’t be used as a precedent. Republicans and Democrats could spend the next year negotiating over a new preclearance formula, publish thousands of pages of findings, and pass a law... and it would get litigated all over again, and God only knows if it would get struck down again.

So the DOMA and Prop8 decisions don’t feel to me like “the Supreme Court is recognizing the constitutional rights of same-sex couples”, but rather “Justice Kennedy doesn’t want to tell his gay friends in California they can’t get married and can’t get Federal benefits, but he doesn’t want to make same-sex marriage legal in all fifty states, either”. Which is still an improvement on the status quo, but... doesn’t make me feel better about the Court. Maybe if Justice Kennedy had African-American friends in Alabama....

[achinhibitor.livejournal.com]

The court is pretty seriously divided between different attitudes and judicial theories. It's not a situation in which I'd expect the court to express a consistent theory.

In re the VRA decision, I think that they're trying to express the idea that the concept is OK, but nobody's revised the sh*t-list in 40 years, and that's getting unreasonable.

As for the SSM issues, it seems to be clear to me that they're trying not to get ahead of public opinion, but well aware that public opinion is going to consider it a matter of equal rights in 10 to 20 years. That's a situation where you don't want to enunciate the theory you're going to use a generation hence, but preferably just hint about it.

Then again, 'A Supreme Court Justice (Frankfurter, I think) once said, "we are not the court of last resort because we are infallible, rather we are infallible because we are the court of last resort."' Who are you going to complain to? We already have hellish fights over SC nominees...

[gosling.livejournal.com]

You should never keep quiet in the name of unity. That is a false unity that ignores the very very very real threats out there and silences the very important truths that you know and that *matter* immensely. (And it doesn't work anyway. What comes of it is alienation of almost everyone ultimately, not unity.)

The loss of the VRA is terrifying and it has implications for everyone, very much including those who are sufficiently privledged that they think they can ignore it. There is a lot to celebrate in the decisions against DOMA and Prop. 8. A lot, and often people need celebration or they lose their mind after a while, it gets so overwhelming. (I know *I* need it, because I *am* losing my mind with worry over politics to the point where it is immobilizing.) It is the height of arrogance, however, to say that ones own need for celebration means someone else doesn't get to articulate very real concerns over a very real issue that didn't disappear because something very worthy of celebration happened almost simultaneously.

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

I am really really glad I unlocked comments for this post, since it meant you could make this comment. Thank you.