I know I said I’d respond to Griftdrift’s comment here - but I have yet to do it. I said, “I have a lot to say in response.” And I still do. But I don’t know if I have the emotional energy to try to type it all out in a way that makes sense, when I have this sneaking suspicion that I won’t be heard (whether from me not explaining well enough, or the reader just refusing to hear what I’m saying, or some combination, I don’t know; but it doesn’t matter in terms of energy expended on my part).
This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about when I said I’m not a real activist. I don’t have the stomach for it, and I can’t bear having endless discussions about the same thing over and over again. I’m a delicate fucking flower, apparently, and it’s all about my delicate fee-fees. But I’ve never pretended anything else. That’s why I’ve never labeled this blog a “political blog,” even though I do write about things that are arguably political. It’s because I don’t want to have those kinds of discussions all the time, because I just get too emotionally involved and I end up in tears.
Sometimes these kinds of discussions are easy (or at least easier) for me in a one-on-one, in-person situation, where the person and I can look each other in the eyes and notice body language and tone of voice and grasping for words. Sometimes I can’t convey what I mean nearly as well in writing - but strangely, there are other times when the opposite is true.
As for this particular discussion, it might be easier for me to have in person, but I would have to be able to trust that the person listening really is listening, and not just waiting for their turn to speak. Oh, have I mentioned all my trust issues? Yeah that’s another reason hardcore activism and politics isn’t something I can stomach.
READ ME: Disclaimer
4 Responses to "Responding (or not?)"
I have things to say, too. And for the same reasons, I’ve been reluctant to say anything.
But most of what I have to say has more to do with the way other people have responded to Andisheh’s article than the way you’ve responded to it.
Reading through the responses on CL’s website, I was struck at how much the activists’ voices drowned out their own message… and at how perhaps the best response would’ve been no response.
But more on this later, when I’m not running late for work.
“the best response would’ve been no response”??
Uh, hell no. Real people’s lives are at stake RIGHT NOW. This is not some cute little conceptual thing. This is real people, being harmed, right now.
Nothing changes if people do not speak up!
Amber, you’re right about one thing: Real people’s lives are at stake. Since moving to Midtown, there have been at least four muggings (that I know of) at my street corner. My car’s been broken into twice. I could go on about all the incidents that have happened a little too close to home — on my one tiny block of Midtown.
Unlike some people, I’m not going to sit here and blame prostitutes for these things. And as much as I believe MPSA is putting a little too much faith in a single public safety tool (fixing broken windows), I remain in support of my condo association giving its financial support through membership.
Whether it’s a cute, little conceptual thing or not, there is a human rights issue, as you pointed out in a previous post. The response I’ve seen to the CL article by the folks who commented directly on CL’s website was a major disservice to the cause — they did a better job of turning human rights into a cutesy thing than I could ever do. They were insulting to the people who live in the neighborhood and dismissive of legitimate public safety concerns. As long as the response is this sort of reactive anger, then the best response is no response at all.
That does not mean “don’t speak up.”
First of all, I’m not down with generalization. There were a ton of comments on that post. You’d better point to, specifically, which ones you thought did a “disservice,” because I’m not going to accept a blanket statement.
Yes there were some “fuck yous” thrown around. But they were deserved. I’m pretty sure I know the person who wrote a lot of the more inflammatory statements - she’s a sex worker, and a huge asshole commenter was calling her all kinds of names and basically saying she should not exist. And you’re going to try to say someone should remain totally detached and not angry in the face of that? Fuck that noise. Sometimes? Anger is JUSTIFIED and NEEDED.
“Reactive anger?” Um, yeah, it’s going to be reactive when people are basically telling you you should not exist and are being downright threatening. If getting angry in those circumstances is a “disservice to the cause” then I don’t want to be part of whatever the cause is.
Leave a comment