![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
I'd only ask, if you really want to go here, that you take the subject line seriously. This post is about Me Not Getting It, it was from the moment of its writing. A couple of really helpful people have guided me a bit and I'm beginning to get it a little better. This is trying-to-get-a-clue privileged person trying to keep growing, recognizing that it's not POC's responsibility to teach me anything but if they or ally-types have a desire to, that'd be awesome. If not, hey, I'm a good reader and I pay attention and there's plenty of learnage around.
End edit. OP below::
*************************************
I'm finding the linkspam community over at DW really interesting, and deep thanks to those who maintain it!
Today it was this:
amaresu.dreamwidth.org/375317.html
This is a post in which a blogger shares with the Blogosphere At Large an email written to her personally by Patricia Wrede on the subject of the whole Mammothfail thing in her novel The Thirteenth Child.
I haven't read the book. Young adult speculative fiction isn't my thing. (Although my son just read The Phantom Tollbooth, which is delightful, though there are certainly issues there too, I mean, how young do we have to set up the princess getting rescued from the castle thing anyway?)
Interesting points made, interesting comments, etc, but the thing I genuinely don't get is this:
Why is it not enough to express one's hurt, say what one wishes to say, and have it be heard by the person who hurt one? Why the need, the expectation, to hear "you are right and I am wrong"?
What, exactly, is Ms. Wrede supposed to say? The book is out there, it's being read, it's in publication and being circulated, it's out there. Why is it not enough to address with her the problems people have with the books, and hope she can learn and grow not so much from her "mistakes" but from the person she is now into the person she can become? Because, unless she's a complete moron, she's hearing what people are saying, she's hearing the hurt, and for all any of us know she is stepping into her own journey of self-discovery (invisible knapsack at the ready, about to be unloaded) and the next book she writes may be very different. If I read an interview with her in five years or something in which she blows off this whole thing as "a few lunatic crazies tried to make a fuss about how I chose an alternative reality with no Native Americans in it and isn't that ridiculous," I'll be very disappointed in her. But today, right now, in the middle of all this...what is she supposed to say? (And more practically, what is she permitted to say, in terms of contracts, publicity, and TOR? I honestly don't know how any of that stuff works.) I mean, honestly, can anyone actually see an author with a newly published book going on public record as saying, "Yes, people have expressed that they are hurt by this book's premise, and I now see that the premise is deeply and fatally flawed and thus there can be nothing good ever to come from this book, so I deeply apologize, will try not to let my white privilege affect my writing in the future, and please don't read this book"?
Why the need for "camps"? Why the automatic language around anyone saying anything non-attack-y being that people are "defending" so and so, or images of sending knights into battle?
What, in the end, does having the other person say "you're right, I'm wrong" accomplish? Why does there need to always be a victor?
Racism and oppression are not problems that can be fixed, they are sicknesses that need to be healed. Healing takes time.
peace,
J
--and no, I'm not telling anyone not to be angry. (I'm not telling anyone to do or not to do anything.) But there's a difference between expressing anger and believing that just because one expresses one's anger--especially one's righteous anger--one has every reason to expect the world to change for one, right now, today.
--and yes, I'm still working on that next essay I'm working on about the anger thing. This is just a waystation.
- Mood:
uncomfortable
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/openid-profile.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
Comments
she's hearing what people are saying, she's hearing the hurt
I think the biggest problem with Wrede's response is that there isn't an acknowledgement, at least, of her part in causing the hurt. I'm not convinced she has heard why people are upset beyond "Nearly any book, and especially any book that tries for substance, is going to bring up issues that some people find controversial and/or hurtful," which, well, yes, but there are different levels of fail/hurt, and as one commentor put it, "It doesn't acknowledge Wrede's agency in coming up with an offensive premise (instead framing the issue as "people getting offended, as happens"--i.e. the "it's part of the natural order of things so I can't possibly have any personal responsibility" defense)". The rest of the comments provide a good explanation of why Wrede's reply is insufficient.
for all any of us know she is stepping into her own journey of self-discovery
It's been noted that she attended a Cultural Appropriation panel at Wiscon.
can anyone actually see an author with a newly published book going on public record as saying, "Yes, people have expressed that they are hurt by this book's premise, and I now see that the premise is deeply and fatally flawed and thus there can be nothing good ever to come from this book, so I deeply apologize, will try not to let my white privilege affect my writing in the future, and please don't read this book"?
No, but hope springs eternal. I don't think an author has to say or imply, "please don't read [my] book," (it being possible to like (parts of) a book, while also recognizing that it fails and being upset about that) but perhaps some sort of author's note (or internet post) acknowledging the problems would not go amiss. Which I don't expect either, but would be glad to see.
and believing that just because one expresses one's anger--especially one's righteous anger--one has every reason to expect the world to change for one, right now, today.
I think very few people believe that the world - or even one person's views - will change right this second, even at their angriest/most frustrated. But the hope that one may get through to a person, perhaps not the one with whom one is conversing directly, but a lurker or another poster, I think is why some people continue to discuss this.
&this;
Yes. Okay. I hear that. She didn't really own that at all.
"I'm not convinced she has heard why people are upset..."
But this part is sort of my point...yes, of course, when we express hurt, we would like acknowledgement that the person who hurt us understands where we're coming from, but...it's not always going to happen. It's one thing for her to hear why people are upset, and quite another for her to convince others that she's heard it.
I mean, yeah, she owes it to her readership to hear what they have to say. (well, truly she doesn't "owe" anyone anything, but it would be a wise investment.) But I really don't think she owes it to her readers to convince them that she's heard them--it's two different things. Does that make sense?
And I think it's good that these discussions continue--they're hugely important. I guess what I was trying to say was that the invisible, silent lurker (even if that lurker may be the author herself, or another author struggling with these issues) will be there and will listen and hear, whether those who are doing the speaking know it or not.
It's one thing for her to hear why people are upset, and quite another for her to convince others that she's heard it.
But I really don't think she owes it to her readers to convince them that she's heard them--it's two different things. Does that make sense?
Not really. I've pulled out those bits of your reply because I don't see how they're different things. She'd do better at convincing others/me that she's heard the criticisms of mammothfail - and not just in an "every book has problems"
brush-offkind of way - by owning up to her part in it; that is, creating such a problematic premise in the first place. It's still possible that such a statement would have problems or perhaps not convince everyone that she really will do/try to do better next time, but it would still be a step up from what she's said so far. Whether or not she owes this to her readers...I like to think this takes precedence.Also, I have to say, your replies to fifi_bonsai are making me highly uncomfortable.
In principle, I agree. But I wasn't kidding about the "what is she permitted to say" question vis a vis Tor and whatever legal ties they hold over what she can say about the book right now. There's so much none of us can know, and so many assumptions being made all over the place. (FWIW, which may be nothing, that whole post was in reference to the dreamwidth post I cited, not the entire Wrede debacle; I should have been clearer.) And I love brownbetty's post, and think she's right on target. But Wrede, and any other author, can only be as good human beings when they write a book as they are at the time they write it; I had indeed heard that Wrede attended (and sat in the back and quietly took notes at) those WisCon panels, and hopefully the person she is when she writes the next book will be a few notches up on the awareness front than she was with TC.
But I'm also hearing you and beginning to get the part about really really wanting to hear back from the wrong-er, wanting some kind of acknowledgement...so thank you.
I'm highly uncomfortable with my replies to fifi too (especially the last one). But more uncomfortable with the conversation as a whole. Not sure where to go with that discomfort, but that's part of the curve, I guess. We'll see.
And now I'm going back to Audre Lord's anger essay to re-read the parts about how black and white women can learn to be angry with each other in non-damaging ways.
No wonder you express such dissatisfaction with how we show our anger, and are always trying to divert it in ways which you find safer, healthier. You feel as if we are children having a tantrum because mama won't give us the unracist toy now. Infantilizing us and calling us a pack, Jem, is not what someone who's taking Racism 101 should be doing.
Most of us are not so hopeful that we'd expect Wrede to ask for forgiveness and despite your thoughts on how PoC's & Co. express their anger like wild animals, this is not about winning or losing. As I've said before, we all have our own fails and showing yr belly is many times perceived as appeasement not as a show of true contrition. What many of want (not all of us because I can't speak for us and neither can you) is that she not say "This is such a great book that it was bound that somebody would find it controversial." She's almos saying she expected it in a way, that on her journey to le mot juste she was going to break a few eggs. It's the disregard that people object to, the disregard and the self-aggrandizing dressed up as concern and niceness.
Again, it's not about winning, it's about feeling respected enough to get a little honesty. We have the right to expect that, we are not being unreasonable.
Except:
Don't ever again tell me what I feel. You don't have a clue.
I wish you'd read the other comment before you spoke up too.
the Zeitgeist of race relations at least here on LJ that I believe are unhealthy and counterproductive.
But somewhere along the way one needs to grow beyond this. As a stage, maybe it has to happen. As a settled and accepted way of life, it's profoundly unhealthy.
But this passed the point of healthiness ages ago.
Most of us are not so hopeful that we'd expect Wrede to ask for forgiveness and despite your thoughts on how PoC's & Co. express their anger like wild animals, this is not about winning or losing:
castigation by the angry pack
carcass is picked clean and suitably chastened, the original speaker is allowed to slink off.
I still see (and the wild animal metaphor still holds) a dynamic there where the exchange is not over until one party rolls over on her back in submission
You feel as if we are children having a tantrum because mama won't give us the unracist toy now:
But there's a difference between expressing anger and believing that just because one expresses one's anger--especially one's righteous anger--one has every reason to expect the world to change for one, right now, today.
Again, it's not about winning, it's about feeling respected enough to get a little honesty. We have the right to expect that, we are not being unreasonable:
What, in the end, does having the other person say "you're right, I'm wrong" accomplish? Why does there need to always be a victor?
Yeah. I can see how I'm just pulling this shit right out of my ass. No problem, my bad.
a. I was not talking about anger in that paragraph. Which I pointed out in comments to THAT original post (which, you may notice, evolved through the comments, a week or two ago when it happened), which this is not. If you have something further to add about that line of thought, please comment in the relevant post. This has NOTHING to do with the OP . (And what's with the "how WE express our anger"? Was I wrong, and do POC actually all think the same way and express their anger the same way? I thought there was no hive mind...)
b. I was not talking about Patricia Wrede; if you have issue with this, please comment in the relevant post. In which I clarified that I am not referring with that imagery to all POC, only those who in my opinion evoke it. Opinion mine. Clarification to come in future, better-thought-out post. As I said. Back off.
c. the children/tantrum imagery was yours, not mine. I wasn't implying anything of the sort. Maybe you should examine why you chose that image? (and DON'T tell me what I feel.)
d. I'll give you this one--it actually does present a slightly relevant challenge, I guess, to the post in question, if you assume "honesty" equals "you're right I'm wrong." Which is interesting. First of all, are you always right? If so, then I guess "honesty" would mean capitulation on the other person's part. Second, even if you were right in a particular instance and the other person is still pre-knapsack, or is just discovering it, or early in the process of learning, they might not be able to give you the validation you seem to need. You can rail and scream about it, but if they're not there they're not there. And they really don't owe you anything. (And that's assuming you ARE right.)
Fifi, can I ask you an honest question? Seriously? When you read my comments and responses to you, as well as my original posts, do you "hear" me speaking in a patronizing and condescending voice, as though I think I'm talking down to you and veiling insults in "nice white lady" politeness? Your comments to me seem to reflect that perception on your part, and (up until this post, in which I own my bitchiness, because this is getting old, and I'm tired of being goaded to defend myself against things I never said--but again, it's hardly veiled.) it totally hasn't been there.
If I'm going to be bitchy, I'll be bitchy. If I'm going to lament to the universe, I'll lament to the universe; it's not a lesson-to-poor-unwise-readers-veiled-in-l
Or not. Up to you. You owe me nothing, and I really don't care if you like me or not. My self-respect and humanity do not hinge upon what you think of me. I would assume the reverse is also true. But the bullshit is getting exhausting.
This left me a little taken aback, I admit. I'm rly not sure what to tell you. It does seem like a private conversation, with this declaration about what yr humanity hinges on. I'm not sure if this is what white lady tears are made of or if this is some life-affirming statement for you.
For the record (whut?) I don't know you, so I don't like you or dislike you. I've seen one side of you. I'm not saying yr a bad person, or any of those things. I'm checking the parts of yr discourse that I think need checking but whatever I say is not a judgment on you as a person. If you feel personally attacked, that's yr issue not mine.
But at some point you might want to own the difference between what I said and what you thought you read. You. Fifi. Not the nonexistent hive mind. You.
I quoted you to show you where my opinions came from, why maybe you're seeing all this as a Victory v.s. Defeat Issue when it's not.
You've decided that everything you've said before is off-limits and you either don't believe that anymore or don't want to touch it until you do, even though that conversation ended in you reiterating the “wild animal” metaphor. I'll back off, and you'll never use that metaphor again when talking about PoC's. Or do. *shrugs*
d. I'll give you this one--it actually does present a slightly relevant challenge, I guess, to the post in question, if you assume "honesty" equals "you're right I'm wrong."
Honesty means not using a "concerned voice" when you're not actually concerned, using an apologetic tone in a non-apology, acting like the fact that people are hurt is out of yr hands because people will always be hurt when yr book is that damned good and has “substance.” That's what honesty means in this case.
Second, even if you were right in a particular instance and the other person is still pre-knapsack, or is just discovering it, or early in the process of learning, they might not be able to give you the validation you seem to need.
What validation? People need validation when they don't accept bullshit excuses from poor white authors, because, “What more do you people want?!”
lol Okay!
You want to shush people because the poor Pre-knapsack woobies might be on their anti-racist-training wheels. You think this is what I should be thinking about when I react to someone's racefail? The victimization of racefailers must be horrible from yr pov.
Er.
But there's a difference between expressing anger and believing that just because one expresses one's anger--especially one's righteous anger--one has every reason to expect the world to change for one, right now, today.
You talk like that to adults? That's so obvious. Who exactly is expecting the world to change right.now.today? People who are unsatisfied by Wrede's email? But not PoC's because yr not talking about PoC's or allies or even Patricia Wrede.
b. I was not talking about Patricia Wrede;
Must be another Ms. Wrede. Maybe Tanika Wrede or Panchita Wrede:
What, exactly, is Ms. Wrede supposed to say? The book is out there, it's being read, it's in publication and being circulated, it's out there.
And what's with the "how WE express our anger"? Was I wrong, and do POC actually all think the same way and express their anger the same way? I thought there was no hive mind...)
Hmm. That's interesting. I'm a PoC. Sometimes I'm an angry PoC. You have spoken about angry PoC's. How exactly should I have phrased that sentence to yr satisfaction. I don wan the nice white lady thinkin' we has a hive mind, how do I proves it to you, ma'am.
G'night.
Well, I think at that point most poc/white allies would disengage or not bother commenting at all.
But at some point you might want to own the difference between what I said and what you thought you read.
The thing is, one's blind spots/privilege may hinder oneself from one's own subtext (unexamined thought process that result in clueless actions/words) that a person without that privilege might see, even if the privileged person is trying really hard to do the right thing. It's not so much that POCs have to be right/win and white people have to be wrong/lose, but that maybe, just maybe, a non-white person can more readily see the marks of privilege that they don't have over a privileged person for whom said privilege is the normal way of things, especially if this is something a non-privileged person has been dealing with or having had to explain for a while.
My self-respect and humanity do not hinge upon what you think of me. I would assume the reverse is also true.
For some (a lot of?) non-white people, what white people think of them/us is a very important thing. Even if we (should) know better or get told that what other people think doesn't matter. Or never explicitly get told to be more white. The pressure to live up to white standards is kinda everywhere (in the US and Canada anyway; I can't speak about the rest of the world).
But the bullshit is getting exhausting.
Indeed.
(And thank you for calling me on my assumption. I--I can't speak for all privileged women--do tend to see outspokenness and challenge as a sign of confidence, a gauntlet thrown down inviting engagement on equal ground. So that's a new facepalmprivilegealert.)
(To me, a (white, often) person's ability to say, with great confidence, "I am not/that was not racist" (perhaps in part because they're backed by the majority?) is quite enviable, especially when I find it's so difficult at times even just to point out something is problematic/clueless (not even using the r-word).)
ETA: it might also be worth noting that I tend to frame my posts with "I" statements (and hope that the other person makes the connections, at least initially), while fifi_bonsai uses "you" (which, I don't know, seems more like an attack? is a tone thing?), and I don't think we're saying things that are all that different; she's just more direct about it.
Edited at 2009-06-01 07:36 pm (UTC)
The "I" statement thing is certainly in my comfort zone, but I don't mind being taken out of that. It's not just that Fifi's "you" statements are direct, it's that they're putting content into my words that I didn't put there. "You want to shush people because the poor Pre-knapsack woobies might be on their anti-racist-training wheels." Well...no, I don't want to shush anyone, but if I were an anti-racist in a situation where it was clear I wasn't going to get the satisfaction of an apology, I'd at least be glad on some level that there was some tiny indication that the "woobie" in question might actually be moving in the right direction, and there's clearly a level here that I just don't get, which is why I put the post up to begin with. "You feel as if we are children having a tantrum because mama won't give us the unracist toy now." Well...no, I don't feel that.
If she'd said, "That thing about people expecting the world to change right now was really condescending," or even (to take "tone" out of it) " 'expect the world to change for one'--shit, how rascist and condescending can you get?"--that could have been on target, and I could have--WOULD have-- looked at it and dealt with it for what it was. But immediately shifting it to "you think all POC are whining babies" isn't about tone, it's about content, and it's content I didn't put there.
And I have no idea how to respond to that.
If we're still talking about Wrede here, I think some people have acknowledged that she's possibly taken steps to educate herself by attending that panel and I think buying a book on writing the other, the title and author of which I've forgotten.
In general, this is where you'd get the "asking for a cookie" response, if people bother responding at all, because "might be moving in the right direction" is setting the bar for being less clueless/racist really, really low. It's like handing out an A for less than average work. The problem is that there seems to be this huge gulf between what clued-in people expect to be "A" work, and what clueless people think ought to get them accolades, and more often than not, the clueless are not even trying to meet the clued-in halfway. Having to build a bridge from those two points from scratch for each clueless person (because links are difficult to click on, or maybe if it's not about them specifically, they don't make the connection between their patterns of thought and the ones being deconstructed elsewhere, I don't know) takes its toll (and this is from someone who only recently attempted to discuss racism).
Yup. You're right. Again. (#$%^& bingo card.) I get it. Crap.
Which is to say, I guess, that I'm WAY not saying my race issues are gone and I have none. But Fifi's re-envisioning of what I said so completely didn't match what I'd said that I had no place to go with it.
And it's also becoming clear to me that, as much as I hate posting links to actual people's conversations, if I'm going to say anything like this again I need to give the links. (Natch, now I can't find the one in question, though I'll keep looking.) There WAS a conversation about Wrede in which the participants genuinely seemed to be shocked that she didn't respond the way they wanted her to...damn, but I can't find it. So this is just so much smoke, so I'll shut up.
Thank you. I'll slink back into the shadows again now.
I think: "That thing about people expecting the world to change right now was really condescending," or even (to take "tone" out of it) " 'expect the world to change for one'--shit, how rascist and condescending can you get?"--that could have been on target, and I could have--WOULD have-- looked at it and dealt with it for what it was. But immediately shifting it to "you think all POC are whining babies" isn't about tone, it's about content, and it's content I didn't put there.
is the same thing.
Since she's directing that comment to a lot of PoC's & Allies who are disatisfied, PoC's who are adult and who are mature enough to understand that Change will not come tomorrow -- My mind goes to, "Okay, does she think we are unreasonable children she has to tell this to?" Because what kind of person demands change from the world with the expectations that they will get it now? That she actually thinks that's something she has to point out, as if it's encapsulating the situation, is offensive. That little sentence made me believe that the post was not written in good faith, not created to have a conversation with people the OP thought her equals.
Since I'd already seen how she had spoken about the "wild pack dynamic" (the conversation ended with her saying that the "pack" metaphor still stood) -- I thought that here came the enfant terrible dynamic. Someone who is not above using animalistic imagery while talking about angry PoC's (as you can see this bothered me a lot because of the metric fuckton of racist baggage it carries) would not be above infantilizing us either.
I think the past post actually shaped some of my reaction to this one. Not my views, but my reaction. I did come with a more belligerent attitude, which is why I said that I should have read yr comment before writing my own. It said everything I wanted to say and in a tone she'd be more willing to listen to without making herself uncomfortable by reacting (I'm assuming) out of character.
I'm sorry that my conversation with her made you uncomfortable, not because I feel responsible for her reactions but because the situation created an unsafe space for you.
Edited at 2009-06-01 11:03 pm (UTC)
is the same thing.
Me too. (But then I'm not the one being called out, so maybe it's different from that perspective; although it's also been my experience that it doesn't really matter what tone one uses if the other person is constantly looking for ways pocs can be wrong instead of maybe listening to why we're upset in the first place. I just tend to default to politeness/distance if I don't know the person or it's a touchy subject (after several rounds, however...either I start to channel Deadpool or Wolverine, or I have to stop participating).)
And there's no need to apologize. :) I'd stop responding if the discussion got to such a point where I didn't think I could handle it.
I understand what yr saying. NWL create a moving standard of conversation where you can call them on their
racismwait- no- racist words, (magnanimous!), like this but not like that.I also totally dig that it's not me being called out. Not many people handle that well, not on the first try (or the second) and it's human nature to want to protect yrself as much as possible by telling other people that they're not handling you they way you want to be handled.
Me saying "You feel" and combining it with her racist words may have triggered something in her where she has to protect her right to define how she feels at all times even if what I'm saying is actually more about how her racist words are perceived. As a feminist I understand that grabby-hands reaction. It is important for her to own her feelings and not let others define them for her, but as a feminist "un-privileged" person (faily ETA of fail: Uppity v.s. Helpful (an apology to all Helpful PoC's) there's that balance of owning yr feelings and hearing how yr words are undermining PoC's of all sexes.
Cluelessness can be negligible too.
Sweetheart, that apology was not about "uppity" vs. "helpful," that was about "Fifi" and "anyone not Fifi."
I have a few things to say, but I'm going to start with the most important: I am sorry. I feel like a huge idiot here, because (and I totally get how stupid this is going to make me look) I had honestly never run across the "POC as wild animals" trope before, and I honestly had no idea of how triggery that image would be. Which, in hindsight, is unbelievably stupid, and this is me doing *facepalm* again several times.
I deeply, deeply apologize. And I withdraw the metaphor completely.
The following is not intended as excuse of any kind, because there's no excuse. But if it helps at all...the image I had in my mind, ironically, through the "pack wild animal" metaphor time, was of myself as a social reject in sixth or seventh grade, with a ring of the popular (mostly blond, all-white, gorgeous, already with breasts and boyfriends) girls surrounding me or some other non-popular kid, with that feral light in their eyes going at the weak one until she cried and/or ran away. And also ironically, I just posted a 50books_poc review (http://community.livejournal.com/50boo
But none of that changes the fact that I screwed up, I hurt you, and I'm sorry.
The rest...well, I'll just start a new post. the apology is sufficient for now.
-That POC aren't satisfied with saying "That was racist."
-That POC would like an apology.
-That POC would like Wrede to admit her wrongdoing.
-That POC would like her to show some kind of understanding and willingness to learn.
-That POC (for some reason!) don't believe that she's having a secret epiphany and her next book will totally not be racist.
-And some stuff about tone.
Are you honestly saying that it's ok for people of color to be hurt by racism, and even say that out loud, but not for them to want anything more than that? And, btw, few people who have experience calling out racism EXPECTED a real apology from Wrede. Her response was entirely typical. Predictable. There are bingo cards.
You need to examine the reason you decided to lecture people of color on the nature of racism and tell them that they ask for too much.
As for tone--I asked fifi her opinion on MY tone, because she's seeing an awful lot in what she thinks I say that I am not saying, and I honestly would like to know why. I can own what I say, but not what I didn't.
To whom are you talking to then? Only white people? Non-white people need not bother reading or responding?
I see the problem, though--I should have written "And why do you assume I am talking only to people of color." My bad.
In the post in general--I was talking to anyone with any reason to find Wrede's there-are-no-Native-Americans premise objectionable, wrong, fatally flawed, intrinsically racist, etc. (Which group, by the way, includes me.)
As far as I can tell, that opinion is shared by a lot of folks of a lot of different colors. That's what I meant. Sorry for the hamhanded writing.
Okay, I'm going to take a day or so away from my computer and actually do my day job, which needs a lot of doing right about now. And to step back from this; I'm starting to knee-jerk rather than think, and that's not helpful.
All I can say, fifi, is that I have tried to respond as honestly and clearly as I am able (with the exception of last night's fairly bitchy "get out of my face" response), and the responses I'm getting from you seem to have very little do do with what I actually wrote but a lot to do with the subtext you seem to see in what I wrote. And a skimmed, not-very-thorough reading of it at that.
But I assert now as I have before and as I will again--though I have been called on stuff before, rightly, and owned it, and though my journey as a CWP is far from over, pretty much EVERY time in one of your comments when you've said "You always" or "you believe" or "you feel" or "you think" or "you are telling POC to," you have been way off-base. I don't feel personally attacked, actually--you're "attacking" a woman you've never encountered for saying things I never said. (And I know myself well enough to know that if I felt attacked, that would be a pretty good sign that I needed to reexamine my position, because I had some bad stuff going on.)
If you genuinely believe of me all the things you've said in your comments, then we really have no hope of any kind of real conversation. Because the woman you're addressing is not me, and I can't speak for her. I can only speak for myself.
What, in the end, does having the other person say "you're right, I'm wrong" accomplish? Why does there need to always be a victor?
Why are you seeing it as a conflict with a victor and vanquished? If I step on someone's foot, I'm not 'losing' if I apologize. I'm just, you know, being a decent human being. I hurt someone. I'll try to do better next time. Why can't it be that simple?