Exclusion: A Women's Issue?

[evolveme]

Originally Posted by Jess

Is it a woman's need to absolutely "include" or a weakness to fear "excluding"?

This is what I am trying to ascertain.

I'll answer this question for me, because of the way that it relates to the Dear Femme thread in that I have insisted repeatedly that I prefer not to close the discussion to femmes-only.

I have absolutely zero "need to absolutely 'include" or, more hideously, a woman's (dear me) "weakness to fear excluding." What I do have, is a sincere desire for masculine people to participate secondarily to the discussion should they feel so inclined, and to have meaningful dialogue whenever they do, around how and whether their words are supportive, or conversely, not supportive, in the event that they - consciously or not - hold up an old paradigm of masculine-over thinking or action. We are having this same discussion among ourselves - how we support this paradigm. It's why the thread was created.

See, only-spaces do not personally serve me. They very well may serve other people and I honor that. I don't wish to trample on them or their spaces. But good, honest, gritty dialogue is more important to me. I believe there is important work to be done in all of our spaces and that this work necessitates hard conversations between and among all of us.

When I see one group holding up bars for its only-space, I see how that group is failing to acknowledge that there are really no bars holding up the subtext of our identities. It's going to offend some folks that I just said that, "subtext of our identities," but a lot of what creates our identities are the linguistic structures we create. And language, while mind-blowingly huge in the whole of who we are as human, just ain't all there is, y'all.

A woman is shut out of women's only space because her kind of woman does not equal your kind of woman. A self-identified male is shut out of a query on classism put to female-identified butches only. Why? Because of an underlying need for togetherness? Because someone who linguistically created an identity around "male" does not experience classism in the same way that other butches do? For reasons that are internal? And I should close a discussion of the femme experience, why? Because no one else can have anything relevant to say to us about it?

I'm not going to call a girl's only club house because what's more important to me than whether I get my feelings hurt is whether or not I learn anything about you, me, us. What's more important to me than whether I chance being offended is whether I need to have my mind changed.

I see more people inflamed by the idea that we have difficult conversations than I do by the idea that we're not having enough of them. I wish more of us were willing to roll up our sleeves, tuck our hearts firmly back in our chests where they bloody well belong, and speak to one another about the things that matter, bravely and without reservation. We should, all of us, cease conflating "topic" with "individual."

[Jess]

Originally Posted by evolveme

I'll answer this question for me, because of the way that it relates to the Dear Femme thread in that I have insisted repeatedly that I prefer not to close the discussion to femmes-only.

I have absolutely zero "need to absolutely 'include" or, more hideously, a woman's (dear me) "weakness to fear excluding." What I do have, is a sincere desire for masculine people to participate secondarily to the discussion should they feel so inclined, and to have meaningful dialogue whenever they do, around how and whether their words are supportive, or conversely, not supportive, in the event that they - consciously or not - hold up an old paradigm of masculine-over thinking or action. We are having this same discussion among ourselves - how we support this paradigm. It's why the thread was created.

See, only-spaces do not personally serve me. They very well may serve other people and I honor that. I don't wish to trample on them or their spaces. But good, honest, gritty dialogue is more important to me. I believe there is important work to be done in all of our spaces and that this work necessitates hard conversations between and among all of us.

When I see one group holding up bars for its only-space, I see how that group is failing to acknowledge that there are really no bars holding up the subtext of our identities. It's going to offend some folks that I just said that, "subtext of our identities," but a lot of what creates our identities are the linguistic structures we create. And language, while mind-blowingly huge in the whole of who we are as human, just ain't all there is, y'all.

A woman is shut out of women's only space because her kind of woman does not equal your kind of woman. A self-identified male is shut out of a query on classism put to female-identified butches only. Why? Because of an underlying need for togetherness? Because someone who linguistically created an identity around "male" does not experience classism in the same way that other butches do? For reasons that are internal? And I should close a discussion of the femme experience, why? Because no one else can have anything relevant to say to us about it?

I'm not going to call a girl's only club house because what's more important to me than whether I get my feelings hurt is whether or not I learn anything about you, me, us. What's more important to me than whether I chance being offended is whether I need to have my mind changed.

I see more people inflamed by the idea that we have difficult conversations than I do by the idea that we're not having enough of them. I wish more of us were willing to roll up our sleeves, tuck our hearts firmly back in our chests where they bloody well belong, and speak to one another about the things that matter, bravely and without reservation. We should, all of us, cease conflating "topic" with "individual."

I sincerely thank you for expressing your opinion, evolveme. I will agree with you on the notion that yes, we all "should" be able to discuss "anything". I will however have to agree to disagree with you, in that I "do" think often times a "safe" space must be created for purpose of connecting with folks who are uniquely similar.

I quite simply, do not see it as a "bad thing". If in my "taking a backseat", as it may be interpreted by some, has aided in my learning how another group thinks then I do not see anything "bad" in that.

Perhaps I see things on a far too simplistic level. I see that if a group "wants" or "needs" safe space then let them have it. If someone reads something within that space that pertains to them, or their "group" then they can simply start a thread that engages different voices regarding the discussion.

I am not sure I agree with the "limited inclusion" theory. In that, as I interpret it.. "you can speak here, but only in the words "we" choose" as for me, that seems far more "silencing".

I don't think there is an easy way to resolve the creation of "safety" for any group, much less "sub-group". "We" as a collective, have thus far failed to do so. I truly believe it rests in the arms and actions of individuals and their personal walk through life. Which for me, is the dichotomy...The need for collective safe space ( for whatever select subgroup I seek ex: artists as QofQ mentioned) and the simultaneous need or desire to be integrated.

The dream of a common language eludes me still.

[evolveme]

Originally Posted by Jess

I sincerely thank you for expressing your opinion, evolveme. I will agree with you on the notion that yes, we all "should" be able to discuss "anything". I will however have to agree to disagree with you, in that I "do" think often times a "safe" space must be created for purpose of connecting with folks who are uniquely similar.

But, see, Jess, I never said they shouldn't exist, I only said that they weren't for me, and I went on to explain why I found them problematic. Further, "safe space" is a fallacy, even in a virtual, text-based world. Given that we're abiding the TOS, we really are all in charge of ourselves here and how we manage our own sense of "safety."

Originally Posted by Jess

I quite simply, do not see it as a "bad thing". If in my "taking a backseat", as it may be interpreted by some, has aided in my learning how another group thinks then I do not see anything "bad" in that.

I cannot imagine how anyone could interpret this position as a bad thing.

Originally Posted by Jess

<snip>
I am not sure I agree with the "limited inclusion" theory. In that, as I interpret it.. "you can speak here, but only in the words "we" choose" as for me, that seems far more "silencing".

I hope this isn't how you read Dear Femme. The idea is more that, if you're willing to engage with me, personally (because I'm the only one who has either been inclined or willing to do it) I'd like to talk about the ways that we sometimes believe we are being supportive (usually with rote language), but that given a second look, it can read as dismissive to a feminine person. If this has "felt silencing", I think it has more to do with an automatic defensiveness that our words were not heard the way we intended than to any real effort to silence. There is no effort to silence. (On the idea of silencing, I have a lot to say, but haven't made it to the Negotiating Silence thread yet.) And I did and do recognize your intention, but delivery does matter.

To wit:

I can't know if you're reading me in the tone with which I'm attempting to engage, but this conversation and you, as a deeply feeling and truly intelligent member of my community matter to me. I see how other femmes write a lot of "gently/s" and utilize emoticons when they do this, but that isn't who I am. I'm a straight shooter. I need you to know that this doesn't mean I do not respect you or that I don't feel I have nothing to learn from you. I do, and I'm sure I do.