Note: Some or none of this may be relevant to yr experience, in general or in this specific instance. I'm speaking fairly generically here.
About being a good ally. I think some individuals/groups get a bit bristly b/c sometimes privilege folks want a "good ally" badge for just showing up and having some semblance of awareness of the group's POV. I don't think these groups are wrong for wanting more out of their allies and, admittedly, sometimes doing the hard work of being an ally means taking some knocks. The ally in these scenarios can either take those knocks in stride, learn more, try to do better or they can get huffy and take their toys and go home. This is what privilege allows them--they can walk away from and choose to ignore the other group's issues and problems.
About tone policing I think this is a real thing. I see it a lot in the tech community where women are told they're not nice enough when they're agitating about themselves and their peers being dismissed, earning less, not being promoted as much, being verbally and physically assaulted and being harassed for speaking up about any of these things. I see it even more on blogs by/with black authors (who so many seem to read everything in Angry Black Woman voice, regardless of the actual words used by the author). The content of what folks are worried/frustrated/angry about is made to be less important than HOW they're expressing themselves. This is a form of derailment. While you, personally, might like it better if folks talked about things kindly and calmly, it's simply not true that the tone of anyone's blog post or tweet caused the racism, sexism or other ISM they're discussing. And that's what tone policing suggests. It puts another hoop in front of folks who have worn themselves out jumping through hoops in order to get to a better place.
Listening, fairness and equality It seems like it should be fairly innocuous to say "We should listen to each other with respect." I would have agreed up until this fall when someone's response to a physical assault at a con in Ohio was to create a new con, TRUCEConf. The original version of this conference homepage talked about "both sides" having conversations without "anger." It was all about listening and respect...AND it was a perfect example of tone policing, IMHO. Expecting women to come to a conference with someone who owned up to sexually assaulting a member of the community and/or those who stood up for him, treating both sides as equal in this equation is wrong-headed in the extreme. Suggesting that women--or anyone--would be wrong to react to this situation with anger or that the anger was part of the problem was also wrong-headed. I'm sure the con organizer had good intentions, but just like showing up as an ally isn't enough, good intentions don't get you a gold star when folks are talking about systemic oppression and the pain they experience as a result. Sometimes I think people react negatively to the "let's just listen to both sides with respect" approach because it assumes equality in situations where (1) the lack of equality is exactly the problem at hand and/or (2) the idea of equality itself is offensive (i.e., what kind of equality do we want between the folks who commit violence/harassment and their victims)?
Overall Is it still true that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar? Yes, but (1) I'm not sure if catching flies is always the goal and (2) no one is obligated to put out a tray of honey to make other folks more comfortable. Again, I'm not projecting any of these behaviors on to you or the situations you described, but instead providing some general thoughts on the subjects in your post. Sorry for the novel, but hope it's helpful/thought provoking :)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chiming
no subject
Date: 2014-02-09 09:58 pm (UTC)From:About being a good ally.
I think some individuals/groups get a bit bristly b/c sometimes privilege folks want a "good ally" badge for just showing up and having some semblance of awareness of the group's POV. I don't think these groups are wrong for wanting more out of their allies and, admittedly, sometimes doing the hard work of being an ally means taking some knocks. The ally in these scenarios can either take those knocks in stride, learn more, try to do better or they can get huffy and take their toys and go home. This is what privilege allows them--they can walk away from and choose to ignore the other group's issues and problems.
About tone policing
I think this is a real thing. I see it a lot in the tech community where women are told they're not nice enough when they're agitating about themselves and their peers being dismissed, earning less, not being promoted as much, being verbally and physically assaulted and being harassed for speaking up about any of these things. I see it even more on blogs by/with black authors (who so many seem to read everything in Angry Black Woman voice, regardless of the actual words used by the author). The content of what folks are worried/frustrated/angry about is made to be less important than HOW they're expressing themselves. This is a form of derailment. While you, personally, might like it better if folks talked about things kindly and calmly, it's simply not true that the tone of anyone's blog post or tweet caused the racism, sexism or other ISM they're discussing. And that's what tone policing suggests. It puts another hoop in front of folks who have worn themselves out jumping through hoops in order to get to a better place.
Listening, fairness and equality
It seems like it should be fairly innocuous to say "We should listen to each other with respect." I would have agreed up until this fall when someone's response to a physical assault at a con in Ohio was to create a new con, TRUCEConf. The original version of this conference homepage talked about "both sides" having conversations without "anger." It was all about listening and respect...AND it was a perfect example of tone policing, IMHO. Expecting women to come to a conference with someone who owned up to sexually assaulting a member of the community and/or those who stood up for him, treating both sides as equal in this equation is wrong-headed in the extreme. Suggesting that women--or anyone--would be wrong to react to this situation with anger or that the anger was part of the problem was also wrong-headed. I'm sure the con organizer had good intentions, but just like showing up as an ally isn't enough, good intentions don't get you a gold star when folks are talking about systemic oppression and the pain they experience as a result. Sometimes I think people react negatively to the "let's just listen to both sides with respect" approach because it assumes equality in situations where (1) the lack of equality is exactly the problem at hand and/or (2) the idea of equality itself is offensive (i.e., what kind of equality do we want between the folks who commit violence/harassment and their victims)?
Overall
Is it still true that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar? Yes, but (1) I'm not sure if catching flies is always the goal and (2) no one is obligated to put out a tray of honey to make other folks more comfortable. Again, I'm not projecting any of these behaviors on to you or the situations you described, but instead providing some general thoughts on the subjects in your post. Sorry for the novel, but hope it's helpful/thought provoking :)