riot_nrrrd: (Default)
[personal profile] riot_nrrrd
The following links were ganked from, I believe, [livejournal.com profile] ithiliana and [livejournal.com profile] rm, respectively. I've had some interesting discussions about them (well, about the first one; for the second, I more or less seethed in silence) on my Facebook profile, and I wanted to bring the discussion over to my LJ, to see what y'all thought.

First link: The Radical Masculinity blog discusses why the term "ally" is problematic. There are a lot of reasons why I think this essay is interesting and crucial, but the topic I wanted to bring to my LJ is this: how does the meaning of "ally" differ depending on the community one allies oneself with? Do all marginalized communities require the same things of their allies?

I'm thinking about this because I had a really interesting discussion with a couple friends of mine about how the pitfalls of identifying as an "ally" differ, depending on which community (communities) one allies oneself with. I, of course, mostly think about the term "ally" vis-à-vis LGBTQ communities. I think about how some people want the Unpronounceable Acronym of Queerness to be LGBTQA, where the "A" stands for "allies" (and sometimes "asexual"). I think about the sheer number of organizations I've encountered that proclaim themselves gay-straight alliances, or queer and ally groups, and while I certainly think that the presence of straight and cisgendered allies is important, I really don't see the need to explicitly include allies in the name or mission statement of any group. I get the impression that doing so is intended to be a means of encouraging straight and/or cisgendered people to participate in our movements, by assuring them that they don't have to be some flavor of queer in order to participate, and/or to cover them somehow by assuring outsiders that not everyone who participates is queer. But given that my own access to queer-friendly space is limited, while almost all of the world is a straight-friendly space, I don't feel that I should have to go out of the way to make straight people feel comfortable in predominantly queer spaces. In fact, I'd argue that straight people's discomfort can be productive: it can force them to rethink their own privilege, and their own unquestioned senses of entitlement and/or comfort; and therefore, I'd rather they sit with their discomfort a bit rather than have it reassuringly whisked away. Furthermore, if a straight and/or cisgendered person is afraid of being called queer; if they insist on being shielded from the heterosexism and/or cissexism that the people with whom they are supposedly "allied" have no option of dodging, then, by definition, they are not my ally. If you want to be my ally, you have to be willing to engage in hard work with me, and to reap all the potential social consequences that I also face.

My friend Jonathan, who is a disability rights activist, approaches the issue from a different angle. I quote him verbatim below:
For instance, although it may be simplistic, I am always wary of organizations *for* people with disabilities as opposed to organizations *of* people with disabilities, as one word can situate who exactly is in control of that organization and the direction it takes. Trying to find nondisabled allies is a bit of a scary thing (especially if you're a lifer like myself) because (for me) there is always this idea that certain notions of the body, wellness, etc. have been ingrained in our culture, and until a person experiences impairment and how society disables him or her on many levels, they just won't "get it" (ALL the aspects, negative & positive) and, therefore this seems to make "ally" a very troublesome term.

Meanwhile, my friend logodaedalyChris expresses a different set of concerns regarding his identity as a feminist:
Claiming the label feminist has definitely made me rethink actions I've taken or things I've said -- merely claiming a word has affected my behavior positively. I also know I've failed to examine certain actions because I claimed that label and simply assumed I was in the right -- it has affected my behavior negatively, too.

To me, Jonathan's and my concerns about "allies" seem to be very unique to the identities we claim. In the disability community, Jonathan worries about self-identified allies who decide to use their ally status to work for people with disabilities, rather than with them. In my case, I am wary of people who want to claim the progressive cultural caché of having queer friends while disavowing the risks and sorrows that I believe an ally should share. Chris, on the other hand, seems to identify a set of concerns and pitfalls that can befall any ally of any community. But then, my perspective on this issue is understandably limited.

So I wanted to open the question up to people here: what pitfalls of being an "ally," and what requirements of potential allies, cover the needs of a number of communities? What pitfalls and requirements are specific to certain communities? And is the blog author right here? Should we get rid of the term "ally" for these reasons? Why/why not? If so, what concept, if anything, should take its place? Other thoughts are welcome, too.

The second link is less abstract, but nonetheless broke my poor little politically charged fangirl heart. It's about how Torchwood is apparently a pro-American neoconservative show that is all about how Europe needs a more or less constant dose of tough American love to stay afloat. It's also apparently about: a) Jack Harkness mounting a War On Terror against the evil alien hordes, staying the course and never questioning his tactics; c) people of color embracing the American melting pot ideal and never once "complaining" about the impact of racism on their lives; c) advancing a pro-life agenda.

OMG YOU GUYS, I DO NOT EVEN KNOW WHERE TO START. How about with the fact that, while Torchwood clearly tips its hat to any number of American sci-fi shows (The X-Files comes to mind, particularly after CoE-- did anyone else think John Frobisher looked like the Cigarette-Smoking Man?), it pretty obviously critiques them and camps them up-- so whoever wrote this piece of shit article, in addition to being a sexist, racist hack, also obviously has no camp sensibilities (in which case, why are you even watching Torchwood?). How about RTD's long history-- particularly in CoE and the DW Season 3 finale-- of criticizing American intervention into British affairs?

As far as "complaining" people of color go: who gets the chance? I mean, there's Tosh, and brief appearances by Martha and Lois, but then there's also the fact that every single person of South Asian descent ever to appear on the show dies before the end of the episode they appear in. What the shit is up with that? Do we really want to applaud RTD's approach to race in Torchwood, given his apparent view of South Asian people as expendable (even as he insists in the radio play Golden Age that the legacy of British colonialism is over and has been transcended)? I'd also like to point out Martha's attempts to bring up race during her run in Doctor Who-- and the fact that the Doctor's "well, if you don't tell people you're black, they'll never notice!" approach was never particularly believable or helpful.

Oh yeah-- and apparently Torchwood is pro-life because Jack et. al. did not want the government to give up 10% of the child population of the world. Because *rolls eyes* obviously a pro-choice Torchwood would have let the 456 just take all those kids, because that's what the pro-choice position is about-- killing babies. Oh-- and also, because Gwen chooses to carry her pregnancy to term at the end of CoE. Because choosing to keep a pregnancy is not pro-choice. At all. Apparently.

I also love how, although Jack's "omnisexuality" is mentioned in passing, Ianto isn't even mentioned in the article. I guess having a relationship with a person of the same sex really buggers (I can't decide whether or not the pun is intended) this whole notion of Jack as neocon hero. Finally, the fucking author compares Gwen to Sarah Palin. LET ME TELL YOU HOW NOT OKAY THAT COMPARISON IS. IT IS SO, SO NOT OKAY. Fortunately, I read the comment threads so that you don't have to, and one of the commenters pointed out the ONLY circumstances under which comparing Gwen and Palin might be okay. I endorse this comparison. I endorse it HARD.

I also really love this insightful comment, which I think accurately describes RTD's approach as that of a well-intentioned white man who frequently goes astray.

Thoughts, y'all?
From:
Anonymous( )Anonymous This account has disabled anonymous posting.
OpenID( )OpenID You can comment on this post while signed in with an account from many other sites, once you have confirmed your email address. Sign in using OpenID.
User
Account name:
Password:
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
Subject:
HTML doesn't work in the subject.

Message:

 
Notice: This account is set to log the IP addresses of everyone who comments.
Links will be displayed as unclickable URLs to help prevent spam.

Profile

riot_nrrrd: (Default)
Revolution nrrrd style now!

May 2010

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112 131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 26th, 2017 02:28 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios