Why I Am So Smart

It's not because I'm Nietzsche.

However, I'm probably as crazy and sexually repressed as he is. God knows sleeping with White women doesn't cut it.

I have to apologize in advance for a little bombast, but beneath the cloak of anonymity, I'm emboldened to say all the things I would have liked to say yesterday, last week, a year ago. And so I will say this: What the fuck is going on?

Twenty years ago, there was a nice lull in international strife, at least from the vantage point of a rich spoiled brat who had nothing better to do with his time than ponder how spreading nuclear technology would inevitably lead to some kind of mass catastrophe. Oh yes, there was violence everywhere--in Angola (go Cubans!), in Afghanistan (go Mujahadeen!), in Panama (go U.S.!), etc., etc.

The only people who didn't kill other people were the Soviets, and that's because they were really nice and had the most effective political system built. Oh wait...none of that's true.

Anyway, my point being, I read the Al Jazeera headlines today, and I think, to repeat--what the fuck is going on? The Iranian Revolutionary Guard is inciting war with Britain and its big monster of an ally, the U.S. is isolating every single possible Muslim community it can find in the world, from immigrants within the borders to Lebanon to Afghanistan to Iraq to Iran. Even the fucking World Cup of Cricket is now mired in violence.

"Can't we all just get along?"

Someone please explain all this to me. Or if you can't, point me to people who can. Just please don't offer me metacriticism that's largely irrelevant. If you do, I will shoot you.

P.S. Thanks for having me on your blog.
P.P.S. I'm an English professor, despite what others might say to the contrary.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.passtheroti.com/trackback/421

Comments

Oh please, everyone! If I had

Oh please, everyone!

If I had EVER written, "I'm sexually repressed and frustrated. God knows sleeping with Indian men just doesn't cut it," everyone would have been all over that. Why is that ok to say about white women? That remark, if not alluding to our bhai Nietzsche, is racist.

How in the world can you code sexual performance through the lens of race????????????

Aatish:

The use of ‘black’ here and accompanying notions of ‘blackness’ from Dr. Anonymous’ presumed position radically changes the content of the statement.

Not the fundamental point. The way "white women" is used here is in a degrading manner, the same way it would be problematic if someone would lump women of a certain race in a degrading manner: Black, Indian, whatever. There is nothing about "preference" here.

Dr. Anonymous:

Yes,: unfortunate feelings include–self-hatred, guilt, the ghost of trauma past, resentment (at both heterosexism and women and White people and who knows how many other things?), gender (not sure what this means), suppressed desires and feeling, and…

As a sidenote, along the lines of what Kettikili alluded to, I have met gay men who make heterophobic and misogynist comments, objectifying women by looking at them through solely sexual means. Women as a whole are defined by the reference point of sexual orientation and preference. This is no better than homophobia.

How in the world can you code

How in the world can you code sexual performance through the lens of race????????????

Not only that, but coding sexual performance through the lens of race overlapping and intertwining gender and sex?

STOP DEHUMANIZING, DEGRADING, and OBJECTIFYING WOMEN IN GENERAL AND WOMEN OF A SPECIFIC RACE IN PARTICULAR.

Thank you.

totally off topic- sorry to

totally off topic- sorry to break the cycle sexual psychoanalysis.... which was tres fun, but here's a totally awesome article about 'PCism'....

I could read this again and again:

http://www.kaichang.net/2006/11/the_sloppy_prop.html

Desi Italiana No. But to me,

Desi Italiana

No. But to me, his comment can be like saying, “I’m sexually repressed. God knows sleeping with Black women doesn’t cut it.”

I dont agree. The use of 'black' here and accompanying notions of 'blackness' from Dr. Anonymous' presumed position radically changes the content of the statement. But thats not the point, since his comment was clearly (why is the unclear? read the third paragraph, the entire post is written in this kind of voice) ironic. His comment expresses some sort of racial anger against white women (the reasons for which he wont divulge), yet at the same time makes clear the essentializations inherent in that judgement. ok maybe he doesnt make it that clear...

and now im assuming that Dr.

and now im assuming that Dr. Anonymous is male, which i just cautioned against doing ten minutes earlier. sorry.

Dr. Anonymous It’s not

Dr. Anonymous

It’s not because I’m Nietzsche.

However, I’m probably as crazy and sexually repressed as he is. God knows sleeping with White women doesn’t cut it.

I feel it is neccessary to recontexualize the comment. The doctor was comparing himself to Nietzsche, well known for his sexual issues/complications/repressions etc. the doctor then, in a slightly offensive way, commented that sleeping with white women doesnt cut it for either s/he nor Nietzsche. Just a sidebar, we have all assumed that Dr. Anonymous is a South Asian male, without any firm evidence to back that up....

I read 'white women' to mean 'vanilla sexual experience,' i.e., not one that satisfies the presumably non-mainstream sexual desires of Dr. Anonymous. The use of 'white' refers not only to the category (white, at least in my view, is not an 'ethnicity') but also to a view of 'whiteness' seen from the confluence of Dr. Anonymous' race/gender/sex position. This is clearly problematic in numerous ways, however, paranthetical qualifications of this statement would have obviously ruined the voice and flow of this post. This brings me to what i find to be a problem, recently manifested on several posts, with our discussions on PTR (mainly among the writers). If we (the writers of ptr) assume a general common intelligence and awareness of these issues, what is the point of correcting statements like this in such a self-evident and often passive agressive manner (hence Dr. Anonymous' lack of toleration for emoticon judgement). Too often, we end up having long, interesting (but only towards the end of the comments) but ultimately unproductive discussions. Too often we distort posts in service of making points that are more or less the assumed logic of all of us. We end up trotting out our pre-fab arguments regarding the ignorance of class, gender, sexuality, geographical location without trying to engage with that particular post, and what that particular writer was attempting to say.

Notes on PCness in general: besides the obvious points that it obscures what it tries to address, that its the product of a completely unproductive white guilt, that alienating people through language policing is not worth the marginal benefits of that policing itself...why is there the assumption (its not intellectual, we all know that we cant do it, but yet it is still among the most salient features of activist circles) that we can abstract ourselves out of the myriad structures of racicism/classicism/patriarchy/heteronormativity etc.? we cannot, its impossible...the best we can do is struggle within, and attempt to constantly question, resposition, link etc...our own position and the resulting thoughts/opinions/tastes. At least for me, irony, racial humour and sarcasm play a huge role in doing this, and language policing completely obscures the abject position of certain things that irony and sarcasm are so apt at revealing.

I wish that we could cease to spend so much energy on language policing and banal identity politics (referring to other posts here), and instead concentrate on the innumerable issues facing those of the subcontinent and subcontinental diaspora. Obviously if I feel this way, i should be posting more. Such is the dialectic of apathy and inertia. Snap me out of it.

Oops, one more thing I meant

Oops, one more thing I meant to address above.

Aigre-Doux (#28):

I also don’t think a comment like Dr.Anon’s can be equated with say, a white, heterosexual male saying something, “I lovvvve oriental women man.. they’re so hot.”

They're not interchangeable, because of the respective social locations of those making the judgements and those who are typed, and one is a fetish, while the other is a disavowal. But the form of typing is very much the same.

Dr Anonymous (#22), take

Dr Anonymous (#22), take two:

This is oversimplifying, which I’m assuming you know and you’re stating it in the bluntest terms to someone who has articulated themselves as an idiot, for the benefit of getting on with things.

Well, yes and no. What I wrote was a simplified statement, but not intended to be that vague-- a product of typing too fast to indicate that I wasn't referring to a general categorical imperative, I was referring specifically to your statement. I should have specified that categorizing people into sexual types on the basis of race/ethnicity, or racializing sexualities is reductive, etc. But that's been pretty well established by other commenters by now.

Sorry for the confusion.

I’m also still intersted in the question of what you do with someone like me who’s thinking such things but rarely saying them. It’s much easier to fix the speech than fix the man (ergo my point about policing).

My point wasn't to "fix the speech," but to suggest you think about why you said what you said. That is, why make a statement like that in a public forum and make no attempt at critical reflection on it, in a post that for all intents and purposes has no connection to it whatsoever?

In other words...

But: The ideology or discourse of power that operates through race/ethnicity (and other social criteria) is all the things you say it is, but it then exists and makes itself felt in the material world. It has a mental and cultural reality and material consequences.

No kidding. That's exactly my point. But why do you think you can divorce (your) speech/ideology/discourse from materiality? Language isn't separable from our material realities; standing on its own, your statement about how "sleeping with White women doesn't cut it" (capitalized no less) isn't merely expressive of some "mental and cultural reality," it has a locutionary force that reinscribes and instantiates (as you said, "makes felt") the prejudicial thinking that underlies your "preferences." And since it's addressed to others, it invites either complicity through unacknowledgement and silence, or response.

And respond -- to critique, denounce, attempt to understand, engage -- is exactly what a number of people have done.

So while I agree, Aigre-Doux (#28), that we all have preferences when it comes to a whole range of sexual practices, partners, ideal types, desires, etc-- the difference lies in the fact that your comment brings some critical reflection to bear on this social fact. While Dr. Anonymous's statement and subsequent comments -- apart from the question asking what does an awareness of language do, and how we are to articulate ourselves -- does not. (And that despite Desi Italiana's invitation to do so.)

And that difference itself is my response to the question. It's not enough to make such a statement without any further reflection, and then excuse it by recourse to some inescapable social trap of discourse/language. That's a cop out. Language is not some enclosed system of referentiality that exists prior to us, nor is it an instrument we wield-- it's living, breathing, and constantly changing. It's part of the world and our selves that comes into being through its very use. So, fine, you don't want to sleep with white women and you declare it on a blog-- and? You think you can leave it at that?

If you don't think you have to be reflective here, if it's "too personal" (but it wasn't too personal to make that statement in the first place?) then don't publicly declare something so easily taken to task.

That's enough of my "metacriticism that's largely irrelevant." Now I heed Vivek's (#27) advice. Maybe even move onto thinking about the events that apparently prompted this post....

Dr. Anonymous (#22): This is

Dr. Anonymous (#22):

This is really interesting. Can you elaborate?

My point about the non-transitivity of the statement has to do with how "women" conceptualized as a category, are located in discursive structures of male privilege-- that is, as a figure of lack, "the sex which is not one", having penis-envy, etc. So when it comes to (what is often perceived as) same-sex practices, it's generally accepted when gay men say "women don't cut it," because that still works within the paradigm of essentialized (hetero)sexual difference. (Even if, of course, there are many other ways of pathologizing or attributing lack to gay men, or reducing diverse sexual practices into the terms of heterosexual difference.) But if a woman says "men don't cut it," the challenge it presents to the phallus doesn't have mainstream acceptability. The response I've typically heard is along the lines of "she just hasn't had enough dick."

That's what I was thinking as I wrote the comment.

Of course, in making reference to feminist psychoanalytic insights, I'm bracketing important critiques from other poststructuralist and postcolonial/'third world''/black feminists in response to the universalizing tendencies of psychoanalytic and liberal/Western feminisms that rely on a singular category of "women" that transcends other social identifications/differences. But feminist psychoanalysts like Irigaray, Kristeva, Cixous and others who draw on their work are responding to the assumptions of Freudian psychoanalysis (made in terms of "women" as a categorical whole) that are regularly deployed and deeply pervasive in the context (North America/'the West') from which I speak.

kettikilli, thanks for

kettikilli, thanks for writing provocative and deep responses to all my questions and the initial statement.
vivek, wasn't the conversation worthwhile? at least part of it?
aatish, you're a little off (about me), but thanks for trying to defend me/the dr. I hope that doesn't make you complicit, but each to his own struggle. I appreciated your points about injecting voice into monotony.
aigre-doux, thanks for nuance and subtlety (congealed into insanity?).
desi italiana: Is it a particular set of circumstances?

Yes,: unfortunate feelings include--self-hatred, guilt, the ghost of trauma past, resentment (at both heterosexism and women and White people and who knows how many other things?), gender (not sure what this means), suppressed desires and feeling, and...

so forth and so on.

but: Nonethless, how can I reduce a single not-fully-thought-through outburst of rage into a set of easy-to-read parameters? I'm at a loss to try to do so, particularly while trying to be emotionally honest and while still heeding the inner yearning not to hurt anyone else involved in the immediate situation(s).

Does any of that make any of this just (both the initial triggering act and the subsequent statements on this blog)? Well, the obvious answer seems to be "No!" But, for some reason, I can't help but defend my right to deal with myself in the best way I see fit, because it's the only way that I can (that I can see). Perhaps that's what privilege is--I don't know. Or maybe that's a product of isolation. Or Internet addiction.

in loneliness, all you can do is put yourself out there...

Aigre- Doux: Rather, I’ve met

Aigre- Doux:

Rather, I’ve met plenty of women (straight and queer) who’ve expressed “preferences”. Even if they aren’t explicitly articulated, you see people functioning on the basis of these categories ALL the time.

Yes, absolutely true. People do have preferences and it is entirely understandable and legitimate. This is not what rubs me (no pun intended) in the wrong way.

I also don’t think a comment like Dr.Anon’s can be equated with say, a white, heterosexual male saying something, “I lovvvve oriental women man.. they’re so hot.”

No. But to me, his comment can be like saying, "I'm sexually repressed. God knows sleeping with Black women doesn't cut it."

The way I interpreted this was:

1. women seen as objects and means of sexual gratification
2. WHITE women [or insert whichever ethnicity you want] in particular do not satisfy his urges

Of course, here there is more than just the physical act of sex. It's about race, gender, sexism (women are there for satisfying male sexual impulses and they are seen as that).

If someone said, "I'm sexually repressed. God knows sleeping with Indian women doesn't cut it" would piss me off. I don't see why it's ok to say that about white women.

I find this whole thread

I find this whole thread rather manipulative, and I think we'd all be better off either abandoning it and writing something useful or for someone to make a freaking point.

Dr. Anonymous: in other

Dr. Anonymous:

in other words, how do you articulate yourself, knwoing that this system of thoughts and ideas and consequences exists, without fully or even substantially falling prey to it? Or is the entire enterprise of social (or at least race) analysis inherently a component of the system of racism and other social hierarchy that it allegedly seeks to address?

Namaste, Michel Foucault.

Dr. Anonymous: Okay, you win.

Dr. Anonymous:

Okay, you win. I will no longer state in the presence of other people that I don’t like sleeping with White women.

Let me try this in another way: prey pray tell, why do you not like sleeping with White women? Is it a particular set of circumstances? I think it would be helpful/productive if instead of shutting you down, we'd get to know why you say this.

Dr. Anonymous I’m curious,

Dr. Anonymous

I’m curious, though, what you do with the 6 billion people or so who occasionally, if they’re honest, blurt out things like that? and the however many several or tens or hundreds or thousands of millions who deepdown mean them.

I don't know how many millions/billions of people are out there think like this; I like to comfort myself that they are in the minority. But I do know that when I come across people like this (who happen to be overwhelming heterosexual men), I speak up.

But here's the thing: why uncritically repeat perpetuate something that is clearly ignorant, sexist, crude, and not to mention the objectification of women (as objects who fulfill your sexual desires, and the ones who cannot do the job are of a certain ethnicity)?

And you seem to imply that ideas like this really do exist out there, and instead of policing them, we should engage with them. I totally agree. My question to you is why are you repeating and perpetuating something that is problematic? I mean, do you become a part of the problem by simply unthinkingly repeating it or do you go above the problem and become a part of the solution?

p.s. and if so, how?

p.s. and if so, how?

Even without the racial

Even without the racial qualifier, I’ve heard this kind of statement made by queer men about women more generally, but it doesn’t work in reverse– if a queer/trans woman makes a statement like that about sleeping with men– I won’t repeat the kinds of responses she’ll get.

This is really interesting. Can you elaborate?

I'm also still intersted in the question of what you do with someone like me who's thinking such things but rarely saying them. It's much easier to fix the speech than fix the man (ergo my point about policing). Or is it up to other people, rather than perpetuating the "nurturing woman" role that men demand of women (particularly in a South Asian context).

Categorizing people into types on the basis of race/ethnicity is reductive, denigrating, and humiliating.

This is oversimplifying, which I'm assuming you know and you're stating it in the bluntest terms to someone who has articulated themselves as an idiot, for the benefit of getting on with things. But: The ideology or discourse of power that operates through race/ethnicity (and other social criteria) is all the things you say it is, but it then exists and makes itself felt in the material world. It has a mental and cultural reality and material consequences. And that, ineveitably leads to what?

in other words, how do you articulate yourself, knwoing that this system of thoughts and ideas and consequences exists, without fully or even substantially falling prey to it? Or is the entire enterprise of social (or at least race) analysis inherently a component of the system of racism and other social hierarchy that it allegedly seeks to address?

that comment was not about me

that comment was not about me and hence i will ignore it.

i wish someone would explain why we're headed to world war iii though and no one in charge of anything seems to give a shit.

You know who else has/had

You know who else has/had "Dr." in front of their names:

M.G. Ramachandran
Dr. Jayalalithaa
Kamal Hassan

You have, however, beat out Rajinikanth, who, as his fans lament, has no doctorate:

Rajinikanth is the super star of south Indian cinema. Still, at many times, people from the film industry ignore him. I am referring to Superstar not being invited as the chief guest for International Film Festival scheduled to be held at Goa. When he is legend of South Indian Cinema (Of course Indian Cinema), why he is not getting such honor from the film industry? Even, No institutions honored him with Doctorate. [Link]

Okay, you win. I will no

Okay, you win. I will no longer state in the presence of other people that I don't like sleeping with White women.

I'm curious, though, what you do with the 6 billion people or so who occasionally, if they're honest, blurt out things like that? and the however many several or tens or hundreds or thousands of millions who deepdown mean them.

pensively yours,
the doctor

punk

punk

I can't fathom sleeping with

I can't fathom sleeping with a white man. Whatever the term "white man" means. The rational part of my brain will run through all of the aforementioned objections desperately trying to get one faculty of knowing to check the others but that doesn't change the fact that i intuitively, instinctively behave in a way that does not correspond to my awareness of how ridiculous it is to hold such a prejudice. I can't "understand" it, nor I do want to give these instincts legitimacy by explaining them away - but in the interests of being politically correct, discussions of how all of this could be mixed in identity politics, experience, etc never takes place. I don't think categorizations of desirable races/ethnicities etc are made by people who are in the minority.. Rather, I've met plenty of women (straight and queer) who've expressed "preferences". Even if they aren't explicitly articulated, you see people functioning on the basis of these categories ALL the time. I've seen family members, a divorced Indian woman in her 50's living in India, who for example, cannot date Indian men her age becuase they a) don't exist on the market b)these uncles have completely different conceptions of relationships etc and often come armed with much sexism. So this woman is forced into dating more 'modern' men who are usually from the West but that doesn't change the fact that she would ideally like to be with a man who she has cultural shorthand with (i.e. Indian). I also don't think a comment like Dr.Anon's can be equated with say, a white, heterosexual male saying something, "I lovvvve oriental women man.. they're so hot."

DI (#17): Am I the only one

DI (#17):

Am I the only one here who’s getting offended?

No. When I read it the first time I figured it was a reference to Nietzsche. It is offensive.

dr anonymous (#16):

Don’t we all know that already?

If we do, then why you gotta perpetuate? If you do mean this ironically or as parody, it's certainly not apparent, so if you don't explain any further, then we can only take it at face value.

This clearly wasn't the point of your post, but those words are yours, they stick out, and I can't figure out for the life of me what they mean.

But what does it matter? This is the internet and you are dr anonymous!

Desi Italiana (#18): I mean,

Desi Italiana (#18):

I mean, I’m offended by the idea in general, not that it’s specifically white women, but targeting women of a certain ethnicity period. Like if someone said, “I don’t want to sleep with Indian/Pakistani/Black/Hispanic/etc women because it doesn’t cut it,” that person would strike me as crude, sexist, and ignorant. And I for one would never say, “sleeping with Indian/white/black/Bengali men doesn’t cut it,” but that’s just me.

No, it's definitely not just you. Categorizing people into types on the basis of race/ethnicity is reductive, denigrating, and humiliating. And not surprisingly, has uneven distributions across gender. (You'll rarely see such statements made about men, by either men or women. Even without the racial qualifier, I've heard this kind of statement made by queer men about women more generally, but it doesn't work in reverse-- if a queer/trans woman makes a statement like that about sleeping with men-- I won't repeat the kinds of responses she'll get.)

Funny enough, before this thread erupted, I was thinking about writing a post about race, sexual harassment and public space in NYC. All the more reason to, I suppose.

(#15):

Though all of our bloggers are of South Asian descent, how do you know that none of them has a white mother, wife, girlfriend? And most of our readers may be South Asian, but there are white readers.

I see what you're trying to say, but I don't think it's necessary to make this qualification. The problem is making the distinction in the first place, not the specific content. Regardless of who is reading or blogging, categorizing people (more often that not, women) into sexually desirable types is fucked up.

It's not policing to call something out for what it is. If we're wrong about the point, Dr. Anonymous, come up with a better answer.

Or maybe this is just a huge mindfuck... whatever gets you through the night.

I'm rubber, you're glue.

I'm rubber, you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.

stop being a cultural

stop being a cultural imperialist, cultural imperialist!

haha you called yourself a

haha you called yourself a rubber.

btw, what's up with the command to comment? If you want me to comment, write something worth commenting on :)

some English professor you

some English professor you are - can't even tell the difference in meaning when there's an article missing. That is an article, right?

whaddya mean command to comment? this is your thread, right? I'm being commanded to comment on your thread!

yes, it's an indefinite

yes, it's an indefinite article :) Let me know if you want me to explain to you why you say "if i were a good writer" rather than "if i was a good writer." ;)

i was referring to this:

"Come on, stop lurking and start commenting!"

and yes, i teach people

and yes, i teach people English on a regular basis. For example, I have been teaching an Indian friend of mine how to say "weird" instead of "veird" when he needs to. I get things in return.

Dr. Anon Why would they be

Dr. Anon

Why would they be offended that I don’t want to sleep with White women?

Am I the only one here who's getting offended?

What’s the point of beating things into the ground and in the process policing my language?

Hmm.... who's beating things into the ground? And why are you beating around the bush? You can write whatever you want, I've already said that. It's also unrealistic if you think that you can write things like "sleeping with white women doesn't cut it" and then when someone asks you about that, you get defensive and use freedom of speech as an answer.

Since you're anonymous- meaning no one knows who you are, and thus whatever you say cannot be traced back to you- why is it such a problem if you explain what you meant?

Anyway, if you don't want to respond (or you are going to beat around the bush), that's cool. It's entirely possible that I'm the only one who has gotten offended.

Dr. Anonymous: You have no

Dr. Anonymous:

You have no idea why I’m saying what I’m saying, so rather than judging me, why
don’t you ask me why I think what I think
.

Of course, I’m not going to tell you, because it’s too personal, but I’m also not going to tolerate smiley-faced emoticon judgement.

Ok, so what did you mean?

If you're not going to tell us, then perhaps you shouldn't have wrote such an offensive statement in the first place. If the logic behind it is too personal, meaning you don't want to discuss it in public, then don't put it out to the public to begin with. I don't know what you meant by it, but it could be interpreted as insulting, racist, and sexist. Though all of our bloggers are of South Asian descent, how do you know that none of them has a white mother, wife, girlfriend? And most of our readers may be South Asian, but there are white readers. I'm not asking you to be PC, I'm asking you to be mindful of what you write here. Writing under the cloak of anonymity doesn't give anybody the license to target the women of one specific ethnic group, and in a sexual manner at that.

So, are you going to tell us why you wrote what you did?

Am I the only one here who’s

Am I the only one here who’s getting offended?

I mean, I'm offended by the idea in general, not that it's specifically white women, but targeting women of a certain ethnicity period. Like if someone said, "I don't want to sleep with Indian/Pakistani/Black/Hispanic/etc women because it doesn't cut it," that person would strike me as crude, sexist, and ignorant. And I for one would never say, "sleeping with Indian/white/black/Bengali men doesn't cut it," but that's just me.

for an English professor,

for an English professor, you're a terrible writer

wait, are you really an

wait, are you really an English professor?

I am NOT a terrible writer.

I am NOT a terrible writer. I'm just a terrible 2#$@#$@#.
P.S. I know you are but what am I.

So, are you going to tell us

So, are you going to tell us why you wrote what you did?

No. I'm not looking to make friends. I'm just trying to express the various and sundry things that go on in life.

Though all of our bloggers are of South Asian descent, how do you know that none of them has a white mother, wife, girlfriend? And most of our readers may be South Asian, but there are white readers.

Why would they be offended that I don't want to sleep with White women? If you want me to categorically state that I think it's sexist to hurt White women on gender grounds, then fine. Don't we all know that already? What's the point of beating things into the ground and in the process policing my language?

It wouldn’t be nice if

It wouldn’t be nice if someone wrote that about, say, Indian women, now would it? :)

You have no idea why I'm saying what I'm saying, so rather than judging me, why don't you ask me why I think what I think.

Of course, I'm not going to tell you, because it's too personal, but I'm also not going to tolerate smiley-faced emoticon judgement.

The people who are bringing us towards World War IV do give a shit- except their priorities and objectives aren’t the same as ours :)

I don't agree. The whole point of the post is that they're not the same. Why is Iran kidnaping British soldiers and why is the United States invading Iraq and, by proxy, Lebanon? It makes no sense, unless you're hellbent on creative a massive catastrophe.

What priorities and objectives could someone possibly have that would make this make sense? That's why democrats in the u.s. are so upset--it makes none.

Velcome aboard, Dr.

Velcome aboard, Dr. Anonymous!

i wish someone would explain why we’re headed to world war iii though and no one in charge of anything seems to give a shit.

The people who are bringing us towards World War IV do give a shit- except their priorities and objectives aren't the same as ours :)

God knows sleeping with White women doesn’t cut it.

It wouldn't be nice if someone wrote that about, say, Indian women, now would it? :)

Honestly...this thread is

Honestly...this thread is getting a bit tiring, but I can't seem to resist.

Desi Italiana

If I had EVER written, “I’m sexually repressed and frustrated. God knows sleeping with Indian men just doesn’t cut it,” everyone would have been all over that.

No, actually I wouldn’t have at all. I'd have assumed that you were referencing patriarchy's devaluation of female sexual pleasure, and that India being a particularly patriarchal culture [all societies are patriarchal, albeit in different ways, lets not hierarchize blah blah...BUT, living in Delhi, a city in which women cannot go out unaccompanied after dark, and even just being a man with female friends has shown me that a certain type of relativism is just obnoxious], Indian men were just not doing it for you sexually. I also would have likely processed this immediately (even if my interpretation vis-à-vis your intention might have been off), and laughed at your particularly dry way of making this statement (maybe that’s just my sense of humour?). In fact, your hypothetical comment would have been significantly less offensive than Dr. Anonymous' because as Ketikilli pointed out, these things are inequitably distributed across gender, giving you better (more deserved?) position to speak from. All this is just another way of saying that it matters what category you use (black, white, indian etc.), from which position you speak (black, white, indian, gay, straight, poor, rich etc.), what context you say it in, and how you say it. Simply stating categorically that in every instance 'essentializing' and 'coding' a certain action is dehumanizing and degrading is a) reductive, b) insufficient and c) unproductive.

Desi Italiana I have met gay

Desi Italiana

I have met gay men who make heterophobic and misogynist comments, objectifying women by looking at them through solely sexual means.

These are different things! Obviously in a gay male they work together cognitively, but they stem from radically different positions in the gay/straight, man/woman etc. privilege ladder, i.e., experience of homophobia is (choose your metaphor, layered, spiralled, fragmented etc.) relation to experience of male privilege which is in turn (choose your own metaphor again) with a particular experience of maleness (homosexual)...this produces certain judgements, prejudices and tastes that are expressed all the time, in numerous contexts (which of course modify how we look at the statement as well). Its a complex process both in its actual operation (notice my difficulty in articulating it, Ketikilli seems good expressing these things clearly) and in its ethical implications. It is not the same as a straight male's homophobia, or 'just as bad.' A straight male's misogyny and homophobia does not stem from any systemic prejudice or inequality. Though perhaps in some instances it can. For example, in Morocco I have a feeling that some of the resentment towards Gay European men has something to do with the fact that Gay European men have been coming to Morocco for at least the last hundred years in order to sexually exploit young Moroccan boys (there's even a term for this--the 'Maghrebian Solution'). These include luminaries like Michelle Foucault, Roland Barthes and William Boroughs...there is a particularly crude portrayal of this in Naked Lunch for anyone that's interested...back to the point... A condition of inequality does not mean that a Gay man's heterophobia and misogyny is acceptable, just that it is more complex and collapsing it into a straight man's homophobia is doesn't aid in the analysis of either.

in the block quote I meant to

in the block quote I meant to add "...This is no better than homophobia."

what the fuck is going on?

what the fuck is going on? The Iranian Revolutionary Guard is inciting war with Britain and its big monster of an ally

No actor would be the initial aggressor without some sort of excuse, especially if the subject they are fronting is the world's superpower and its allies. This would invite massive retaliation which no government wants to endure.

So, the Iranian actions are apparently in retaliation to the US' actions in Arbil, Iraq:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/index.html#4058

Might help us understand what the f@*k is going on...?

No kidding. That’s exactly my

No kidding. That’s exactly my point. But why do you think you can divorce (your) speech/ideology/discourse from materiality? Language isn’t separable from our material realities; standing on its own, your statement about how “sleeping with White women doesn’t cut it” (capitalized no less) isn’t merely expressive of some “mental and cultural reality,” it has a locutionary force that reinscribes and instantiates (as you said, “makes felt”) the prejudicial thinking that underlies your “preferences.” And since it’s addressed to others, it invites either complicity through unacknowledgement and silence, or response.

And respond — to critique, denounce, attempt to understand, engage — is exactly what a number of people have done.

I've been revisiting, and I can only apologize; I was wrong.

I guess I shouldn't have been

I guess I shouldn't have been surprised that "Dr. Anonymous" turned out to be a pseudo-"feminist" abuser with a history of profound disrespect, abuse and violence towards women.

this is a pretty accurate description of what you pulled:

http://www.incite-national.org/media/docs/2406_cmty-acc-poc.pdf

Gender Oppression, Abuse and Violence: Community Accountability Within People of Color Progressive Movements

2004 Report from INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence

More on Counter-organizing – or- What is the opposite of accountability?

People who commit acts of gender oppression, abuse, and violence can add on all sorts of additional manipulative behavior in order to: 1) Make sure their victims/survivors don’t do anything back, 2) Make sure they don’t get caught, and 3) Make sure that if they do get caught they can get out of it. These 3 things are the opposite of accountability.

- Pick someone who they think won’t tell or is not in a position to tell (vulnerable, powerless, young, feels guilty or responsible, is not believed by others, etc.)
- Uses denial (Silence; I didn’t do anything; What did I do?)
- Uses minimizing (It was nothing; It didn’t mean anything; I’ll never do it again; It was such a little thing; What—that?)
- Tries to make them believe it’s their fault (You wanted it; you asked for it, you didn’t say “no”; you should have known; you liked it; you made me do it; you provoked it)
- Do things when people aren’t looking or in ways that people can’t see
- Act in heroic; self-sacrificing or other ways that will make people think they could do no wrong or feel indebted to them
- Apologize and think that’s all they have to do
- Get people to feel sorry for them
- Start making excuses for their behavior (not to explain or understand, but to excuse their behavior and avoid accountability) (bad childhood, stress, too much work, too much responsibility, they’re so dedicated to the movement)
- Quit or leave immediately if they think they have to take some accountability (not for the victim/survivor’s safety or because it’s the right thing to do, but because they want to avoid accountability)
- Use delaying tactics until everyone gets worn out

Examples:
- Chronic abusers, harassers, rapists, batterers, etc who find one person (usually female-identified) after another to oppress and abuse
- Abusive persons who “mentor” other (often less powerful or younger) individuals in order to exercise power and control over them or to take advantage of them

why not own up to your own

why not own up to your own words? you forgot to sign your real name here, saurav sarkar.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.