@beadsland

spending all this time examining my actions under the framework of post-post-structuralism has helped me realize that perhaps my time would have been better spent pursuing direct action

@deilann

Theory without action is to side with the oppressor.

Action without theory is to invite the oppressor inside.

@beadsland

and trying to seek the happy medium in yourself, rather than in solidarity, is to fail to identify the oppressor entirely

@deilann

Narcissus contemplating a puddle.

@beadsland

makes me think about the issue of trans men and complicity

being told you're narcissus and to seek your answers in the puddle

@beadsland

i'm sure you are familiar with the phenomenon of weaponizing white guilt and the concept of privilege to convince white folks that taking certain actions is anti-racist

but those actions are in fact, subjugation of another group

yes?

[intermediary]

@deilann

Non-intersectional praxis.

Following thus far...

@beadsland

Trans men are often fed a narrative that because "men" are a privileged group they gain male privilege by transitioning. And so they need to be careful not to abuse that privilege.

For white trans men especially, this very often results in an unhealthy level of constant self-checking.

It's built on a faulty premise, but especially when you've been at risk and subject to male violence, very easy to believe.

But because the guilt and privilege being weaponized here is actually an axis of marginalization, it is harder for trans men to reject it due to a lack of power and support.

So trans men, especially white trans men, are more likely to engage in this type of complicit behavior. Sometimes this is done directly, calling on internalized transphobia and the unhealthy narratives directly. Sometimes it's sought out as self-harm, in a misguided attempt of penance.

@deilann

"penance"

'nuff said.

@beadsland

saw a lot of it when online trans spaces in the 2010s were TIRF-heavy

@deilann

apropos re TIRF, meet TERD:

https://union.place/@inquiline/112469719694082482

Dogmatism. Penance. Yep.

@beadsland

I have expressed in the past a serious discomfort with rejecting that TERFs are feminists.

They are not intersectional feminists, but we fixate on second-wave feminists and retroactively revoke their membership in a way we rarely do for first-wave feminists. Despite first-wave feminists having all the same issues as second-wave feminists and more.

People will point out these issues, but they do not revoke their feminist card.

This is dangerous because failing to remember that there are many feminisms keeps us from remembering that not everyone who supports a cause is my ally.

Not all feminisms are good. We must remember this, if we want liberation for all.

@beadsland

Combining some previous posts on the topic:

The issue with Radical Feminism is not whether or not it is a feminism, but that it is itself a dangerous and oppressive framework.

It is not interested in systems.

In radical feminism, oppression is personal. It is violence. It is men hurting women directly.

So, someone showing up to the meeting just being male is, in this framework, violent by essentially bringing the ghost of the oppressor along. I don't matter in this equation.

Radical feminism is a with any means necessary ideology. To understand this, consider another by any means necessary ideology: anti-fascism.

Anti-fascism states that fascism is such a threat that any means necessary should be taken to ensure it doesn't flourish.

Radical feminism states any means necessary must be used to take power from men to keep them from oppressing women.

Taking away their "feminist card" does not engage with the extant danger of Radical Feminism as a theory - in any of its variants.

@deilann

"In radical feminism, oppression is personal. It is violence. It is men hurting women directly."

Ah, so this is the point of reference!

Having a very different relation to radical (yet also Hanischian personal), as historicized root, as rhizome even, hadn't tied it back to a specific claim to rootedness of violence in an ahistorical essentialism.

Perhaps because any essentialism of violence as definitively gendered is a very antefemimist, even ante-Hobbesian, patriarchal commitment.

@beadsland

radical in this case, is in reference to how to address this belief

a liberal feminism cannot address this power structure

@deilann

Well, yes, but per this description, there is, accidentally or otherwise, also an ontologically radical cosmology, a dispositionalism, even.

A metaphysics of irreducible necessarity of causation (here, the gendered necessarity of violence) would of course brook no argument that anything would be sufficient but the cutting away of those so-disposed.

Root, here, is not to be dug up, ground planted with new growth, but rather as a Yggdrasill tap, a stump remaining even if ever felled.

@beadsland

yes! which is why i find adams, as mentioned in my other reply, so fascinating

what happens to radical feminism if you reject essentialism?

@deilann

[Wrong link (see next toot), though perhaps useful for context, so keeping, if for no other reason than to preserve flow of conversation.]

apropos:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-022-03847-z

(Also came upon just now.)

@deilann

Sorry, wrong link:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-022-03554-9

@beadsland

i'm trying to remember a time when sophie from mars was discussing a situation where the far-right person she was discussing accepted dispositional realism (which is less common, so remarkable) but disagreed on an aspect of phenomenology that caused the sharp divide. I wish I could remember.

@beadsland

yeah, just making me want to dig that up at some point because we far too rarely engage with when far-right folks engage with anything but claims of objectivism

@deilann

My only comment here is that, while the question of a schism vis-à-vis dispositional realism sounds tetrapyloctomically juicy, the territories of engagement of overt conservatism are far less interesting to me...

When it is the covert conservatism that is liberalism that is handing out the crayons with which everyone is coloring their respective lines.

@beadsland

i think there is value in recognizing it because it's often used and not recognized by liberals in the same way -

yes, your reality exists, which is why you must be eliminated

@deilann Perhaps.

Nonetheless, am far more often confronted by the covert conservative who does not recognize the overt conservative as legible, as coherent, as makeable-as-sensible.

So disconnected is the covert conservative even from the concept of premises, of postulates, without which the very notion of an ontology, let alone an ontological schism, is purposefully beyond their ken.

Bringing us back to the challenge of (that is, the challenge presented by) feminisms.

@beadsland

my personal is often confronted with what i will now call trickle down rationalist bigotry

the person who holds enough liberal sentiment to be swayed by the covert conservative and then i get the diluted and reprojected bigotry framed in an objective obvious truth a la rationalism

@beadsland

so they take the scraps and post hoc form the justification from what they think they remember but in terms of their own adherence to rationalism and refusing to engage with the possibility it was never coherent to begin with because it felt coherent when they heard it

@deilann

Okay, but that's just Enlightenment as read through a Usian's haze-filled crystal ball passing for primary school history.

@beadsland

and we're back at why grand narratives are powerful, but in a destructive sense

@beadsland

i find the ability to smell grand narratives descending incredibly useful because they are the moment to pivot back to "hello, i'm here. you're here. we're talking about something that affects me. and you. this is real"

@deilann

And this bring us back to praxis without theory.

And also, scarily, Landmark Education.

The praxis of calling out grand narratives is not an immunization against grand narratives.

Only an attempted eviction. Upon success, the architecture remains. Free to be let, to be inhabited by, a different narrative, to which it is equally suited.

That house must be unbuilt, even especially despite whichever tenant tenet may be in residence.

Otherwise, is but a airbnb property for politics.

@beadsland

structuralism would identify the utility of the house from its structure

post-structuralism would identify the house by what house-like qualities an air bnb fails to manifest

let's identify it by what we could make it be

@deilann

Would much rather identify it by what we could make the reclaimed lumber and stonework and other materials be.

Beginning with the lego bricks, not the packaging of a franchise-licensed lego brick house.

@beadsland

the materials of a house are particularly suitable to constructing a houes

@deilann

If all you recognize the thing you step on at night to be is nails, every blueprint looks like a project for hammer-wielders.

What even is a house? What premises are lain as foundation? What tenets of social relations? What axioms of economic organization?

To make "house" legible, let alone legible as something for which any given material is "particularly suitable"?

@beadsland

i should have been clear that's the joke

i could argue that landlords are a material that makes a house a home by pointing to how they sure seem bind the tenant to the property

@deilann

Such makes a house a farm.

The #tensegrity bind that is #conveyancée #classposture.

The accent in "conveyancée", to unpack the etymology, given here by corvée.

@beadsland

https://tech.lgbt/@deilann/110440754876980034