I fully agree. This applies not only to feminism but in general - if you want to convince people about something, you need to plan your approach, what to say, know what works on people etc. You cannot just rage like crazy because there’s a high chance you just create a counter reaction.
F.e. I’d say we can all agree that gay rights are the right thing. But if you come to some conservative village, start shouting at everyone, being super aggresive and rage like a maniac, I’d bet that the only thing you achieve is that you’ll be labeled as “that crazy person”
I’m really surprised of the responses to this comment, I find this to be a common sense
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.”
Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I went to the Women’s Rights National Historical Park in Seneca Falls, NY, and of all the things that really struck me hard there (it was a lot) I think the biggest hit was realizing how fucking long it took between the start of mainstreaming the movement and women actually getting the vote. None of the women who started that movement lived long enough to cast their own vote.
There was no “women’s black panthers”. There was no threat of violence if women can’t control their own lives. Everybody got to pretty much just stay comfortable with their nice order. And change did. not. happen. For years.
Maybe the slow pace was worth it, I don’t know. I’m not a woman and I’m not much devoted to order. But it seems pretty clear that “avoid offending anybody” is not an effective tool for change.
Fair enough, good quote (btw I’m not from US so my knoledge here is limited). Although I’m not sure what portion I agree/disagree with it, I have to think about it much more.
But I mean, even MLK understood that there’s a limit, right? Like he didn’t take AK47 and started to murder all the racists he saw but have chosen rather strong but non violent approach and he thought about what he was saying and what “works”. And that’s all I’m saying, I’ve never said that you cannot take a strong stance. But if you turn it to 11 and just RAGE!!! then be prepared that you might not achieve anything or even make the situation worse
MLK didn’t; Malcom X did. MLK’s underlying message was ‘acknowledge my peaceful protest, or you get stuck with his less peaceful protest’. Peaceful protesting alone tends to get you a whole lot of nothing.
Edit: of course, most history classes seem to forget Malcom X even existed, because the ‘just peacefully protest over in that corner and don’t bother us, it will totally make us change our ways’ narrative is much more desirable for certain demographics.
Good for you. History disagrees with your disagreeing.
Look up Malcom X, the Black Panthers, and the Battle of Blair Mountain sometime. Pretty much every victory oppressed groups have won has had to draw blood in order to win the day.
The pairing of the open palm and the raised fist often is very successful. The violent side creates the conditions for victory and the nonviolent side creates the conditions for peace. Without the threat of violence no pressure is applied, but without the peaceful people the oppressors have nobody they’re willing to settle with.
The labor wars ended with afl-cio dominance for a reason.
If I may hijack this discussion, I find that quite interesting what you are saying! I’m currently see myself getting more radicalised by the weak reaction of our (German) Government towards the rising fascists.
Pretty much every victory oppressed groups have won has had to draw blood in order to win the day.
Where and how do you Differentiate between legit violent Protest and Terrorism?
Is ist just the agreement with the one side but not the other?
Because, If I may go there, even Hitler claimed that Germans were being oppressed in Poland and Czechoslovakia.
The line to draw, I feel, is are you attacking institutions (i.e. smashing the windows of Wall Street, chaining yourself to the doors of the police station), or people (like the loons here in Oregon attacking minority families during the fires)? Are you harassing oppressed groups (like kristallnacht did) or the overpowered establishment (like Blair Mountain did)?
(Obviously, punching individual Nazis is still fine.)
But really, at the end of the day, violence is still violence, and while it may be the right action, it is never a good action. That is something I feel all protesters need to keep in mind.
To paraphrase Dan Shive, there are times when you best (or only) choices lie between the least-bad and most-bad options. And when that happens, humans tend to try and rationalize the least-bad choice as being the good one. This is a trap. If you start to think of the least-bad choice as a good choice, pretty soon you start to believe it—and then you stop looking for the actual good options.
Even if an actual good option—like a nonviolent protest—isn’t feasible for one situation, you should always try to find a truly good option, if you can. That’s why the combo of violent protests on one side, peaceful group on the other, tends to get the best results.
Let me say as I’ve always said, and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. I’m still convinced that nonviolence is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and justice. I feel that violence will only create more social problems than they will solve. That in a real sense it is impracticable for the Negro to even think of mounting a violent revolution in the United States. So I will continue to condemn riots, and continue to say to my brothers and sisters that this is not the way. And continue to affirm that there is another way.
But at the same time, it is as necessary for me to be as vigorous in condemning the conditions which cause persons to feel that they must engage in riotous activities as it is for me to condemn riots. I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention.
-The Other America
And this was over The Long, Hot Summer of 1967 where neighborhoods literally got burned to the ground in riots and dozens of people were killed. Shooting your mouth off in response to someone being a bigot is a piddling offense by comparison.
Like, I’m not going to stand here and tell you it’s being on your best behavior. But neither is saying some bigoted shit to someone that causes them to pop off in return. Two people can be doing wrong things, and one can even be more at fault!
I think the difference between EfreetSK’s example and the situation to which MLK’s quote applies is that MLK already had enough people on his side to force others to take him seriously.
In the UK, demonstrations for trans rights are fairly common. It is also almost exactly as common for them not to be reported on at all in any major news outlet. With the laws in the UK as they are, any trans person participating in a “disruptive” protest is liable to end up in a men’s prison (and if self-medding, as many must, deprived of HRT) for a long time, so there aren’t many takers for the Just Stop Oil brand of protesting either. It sucks, but sometimes softly softly is what’s required.
actually it’s been pretty well shown that radical annoying people help move the overton window so the gentle advocates seem more palatable and reasonable
this is the same principle that fascists use to normalize oppression.
The point of art is not necessarily to convince. What if her point is to call for action, to nurture debate or to get attention to something that doesn’t get space in people’s minds. It’s a piece of art, not a PhD thesis.
I fully agree. This applies not only to feminism but in general - if you want to convince people about something, you need to plan your approach, what to say, know what works on people etc. You cannot just rage like crazy because there’s a high chance you just create a counter reaction.
F.e. I’d say we can all agree that gay rights are the right thing. But if you come to some conservative village, start shouting at everyone, being super aggresive and rage like a maniac, I’d bet that the only thing you achieve is that you’ll be labeled as “that crazy person”
I’m really surprised of the responses to this comment, I find this to be a common sense
-Martin Luther King Jr
Got a lot of the same vibes, really
Preach on.
I went to the Women’s Rights National Historical Park in Seneca Falls, NY, and of all the things that really struck me hard there (it was a lot) I think the biggest hit was realizing how fucking long it took between the start of mainstreaming the movement and women actually getting the vote. None of the women who started that movement lived long enough to cast their own vote.
There was no “women’s black panthers”. There was no threat of violence if women can’t control their own lives. Everybody got to pretty much just stay comfortable with their nice order. And change did. not. happen. For years.
Maybe the slow pace was worth it, I don’t know. I’m not a woman and I’m not much devoted to order. But it seems pretty clear that “avoid offending anybody” is not an effective tool for change.
Fair enough, good quote (btw I’m not from US so my knoledge here is limited). Although I’m not sure what portion I agree/disagree with it, I have to think about it much more.
But I mean, even MLK understood that there’s a limit, right? Like he didn’t take AK47 and started to murder all the racists he saw but have chosen rather strong but non violent approach and he thought about what he was saying and what “works”. And that’s all I’m saying, I’ve never said that you cannot take a strong stance. But if you turn it to 11 and just RAGE!!! then be prepared that you might not achieve anything or even make the situation worse
MLK didn’t; Malcom X did. MLK’s underlying message was ‘acknowledge my peaceful protest, or you get stuck with his less peaceful protest’. Peaceful protesting alone tends to get you a whole lot of nothing.
Edit: of course, most history classes seem to forget Malcom X even existed, because the ‘just peacefully protest over in that corner and don’t bother us, it will totally make us change our ways’ narrative is much more desirable for certain demographics.
I fundamentally disagree
Good for you. History disagrees with your disagreeing.
Look up Malcom X, the Black Panthers, and the Battle of Blair Mountain sometime. Pretty much every victory oppressed groups have won has had to draw blood in order to win the day.
The pairing of the open palm and the raised fist often is very successful. The violent side creates the conditions for victory and the nonviolent side creates the conditions for peace. Without the threat of violence no pressure is applied, but without the peaceful people the oppressors have nobody they’re willing to settle with.
The labor wars ended with afl-cio dominance for a reason.
If I may hijack this discussion, I find that quite interesting what you are saying! I’m currently see myself getting more radicalised by the weak reaction of our (German) Government towards the rising fascists.
Where and how do you Differentiate between legit violent Protest and Terrorism? Is ist just the agreement with the one side but not the other?
Because, If I may go there, even Hitler claimed that Germans were being oppressed in Poland and Czechoslovakia.
The line to draw, I feel, is are you attacking institutions (i.e. smashing the windows of Wall Street, chaining yourself to the doors of the police station), or people (like the loons here in Oregon attacking minority families during the fires)? Are you harassing oppressed groups (like kristallnacht did) or the overpowered establishment (like Blair Mountain did)?
(Obviously, punching individual Nazis is still fine.)
But really, at the end of the day, violence is still violence, and while it may be the right action, it is never a good action. That is something I feel all protesters need to keep in mind.
To paraphrase Dan Shive, there are times when you best (or only) choices lie between the least-bad and most-bad options. And when that happens, humans tend to try and rationalize the least-bad choice as being the good one. This is a trap. If you start to think of the least-bad choice as a good choice, pretty soon you start to believe it—and then you stop looking for the actual good options.
Even if an actual good option—like a nonviolent protest—isn’t feasible for one situation, you should always try to find a truly good option, if you can. That’s why the combo of violent protests on one side, peaceful group on the other, tends to get the best results.
More MLK quotes!
-The Other America
And this was over The Long, Hot Summer of 1967 where neighborhoods literally got burned to the ground in riots and dozens of people were killed. Shooting your mouth off in response to someone being a bigot is a piddling offense by comparison.
Like, I’m not going to stand here and tell you it’s being on your best behavior. But neither is saying some bigoted shit to someone that causes them to pop off in return. Two people can be doing wrong things, and one can even be more at fault!
I think the difference between EfreetSK’s example and the situation to which MLK’s quote applies is that MLK already had enough people on his side to force others to take him seriously.
In the UK, demonstrations for trans rights are fairly common. It is also almost exactly as common for them not to be reported on at all in any major news outlet. With the laws in the UK as they are, any trans person participating in a “disruptive” protest is liable to end up in a men’s prison (and if self-medding, as many must, deprived of HRT) for a long time, so there aren’t many takers for the Just Stop Oil brand of protesting either. It sucks, but sometimes softly softly is what’s required.
The closer a person and the people they care about get to the chopping block the less common sense it seems.
actually it’s been pretty well shown that radical annoying people help move the overton window so the gentle advocates seem more palatable and reasonable
this is the same principle that fascists use to normalize oppression.
The point of art is not necessarily to convince. What if her point is to call for action, to nurture debate or to get attention to something that doesn’t get space in people’s minds. It’s a piece of art, not a PhD thesis.