As someone who grew up in a political family in the Midwest and who now drags my own kids to political events, I can echo this rant/plea to my party and an always clueless and condescending pundit class when they try to engage “my people.” But also, I think this take maybe misses a lot of the real, justifiable and existential fear that s…
As someone who grew up in a political family in the Midwest and who now drags my own kids to political events, I can echo this rant/plea to my party and an always clueless and condescending pundit class when they try to engage “my people.” But also, I think this take maybe misses a lot of the real, justifiable and existential fear that so many have felt trying to face down the current right wing menace. Women are literally dying because of what white men’s hatred of us has wrought. We’re correct to be scared. People of color are correct to be scared. Or at least really, really wary and careful. And do the white men on the progressive side of politics have our backs? Maybe? Sort of? Probably not? We do infantilize white men and give them a pass on WAY too much and that’s good for no one. But also, trust is earned. There’s a reason women and so many other groups in the larger progressive movement have learned to tiptoe around white men. Because the consequences of not getting that balancing act right can kill us. It has and it continues to. So we sort of treat men like children, but the kind that will suddenly lash out and make us bleed and hurt if we push too far. So not really children at all. And I don’t think it’s the job of Kamala Harris or even the institutional Democratic Party (unless you’re talking specifically to the white dudes who still expect to run everything while women and communities of color to do all the hard work) to fix that. Fix yourselves maybe? It’s the least you could do. And the rest of us would love the space to think and dream big without getting brutally slapped back every time we try.
I appreciate this critique and am not sure if we're actually on different of this one. We both are really frightened of the stakes of this and all elections for vulnerable populations. Thanks for pushing me to be even clearer than I was in the essay about the impacts of reactionary White men on our politics. I can not agree more that there are a million reasons why folks distrust the positive political potential of white men. My only concern is that, when the Democratic Party (as the Harris campaign has already done) adopts right wing rhetoric on any topic (in this case immigration, but in the past LGBTQ rights, abortion, etc.), it doesn't make anybody safer.
Yes I agree about not allowing ourselves to be penned in with right wing framing, but I guess my question is always, okay but whose responsibility is it to do the fixing that needs to occur in progressive circles? Especially when so many right wing voices seem to actively wish me and my family ill. It feels like vulnerable groups within the advocacy community always stick their necks out, push us all to be better, and sometimes achieve big things and other times get violently slapped back. For example, Dobbs happened at least in part because white men and their enablers spent 50 years being big mad that women asked for just a bit of equality. And men in the Democratic Party did precious little to push back on it. And not because there weren’t women loudly asking them to be better. You can see the same thing with the dismantling of affirmative action and voting rights or the rash of new laws putting LGBTQ Americans in danger. So many groups DID ask white men (or white people generally or any groups holding power) to be better, and the answer is “You know what? Nope. How about if we’re worse instead?” But also that pressure - and hoping for better if not expecting it - is why we have a woman of color as VP who is now running for POTUS. And unexpected progressive policy wins over the past few years - mixed with disappointments and setbacks - from the old white dude that black voters in SC did as much as anyone to get into the White House. It’s a constant push and pull for sure. And what I wish for my fellow Midwesterners is that we have the self-respect to be better and do better than what has lately been expected of or projected on to us as a group. But in the world of organizing, whose job is it to try to make that happen at scale? And how much more can we keep ask of vulnerable groups who have been fighting for their lives for a very long time? The Democratic Party is just a collection of people, and vulnerable groups working within the party already do so much of the labor to push things across the finish line. I’m tired of seeing/doing all that work only to have it picked apart as not going far enough, not being good enough as if white patriarchy doesn’t extend into progressive politics as well. I’m not sure I have a concise answer or solution. But it’s a raw nerve when dudes in the party tell me a woman (especially a woman of color) isn’t being bold enough or envelope pushing enough in her words and action. Because, well, gee my dudes, I wonder why that is? Is it because we’ve all seen what happens when women get ahead of themselves, and anyone talented and smart enough to make it into a leadership role has surely run into that brick wall repeatedly?
Thanks for another thoughtful reply! I think we definitely agree on whose responsibility it is to organize folks who are at the top of societal hierarchies (both White people generally and White men specifically). I hope that you see that through line in my writing and work. I definitely understand your frustration when it sounds like women of color (such as Harris) are being blamed for moderating their rhetoric in the face of the history of my cohort. Again, as somebody whose life work is organizing White guys to show up, I'll simply add-- that job is easier, not harder, when the thing I'm organizing for is more expansive and caring and not moderated down to appease us. Aboriton is a great example-- as the Democratic Party rhetoric post-Dobbs has become both less apologetic and more focused on the harms that the anti-choice movement does to women, it's actually been easier, not harder, for me to argue to other men about why we need to step up as part of the fight than it was during the Clintonian years of "safe, legal and rare" triangulation. But again, I feel like we're simultaneously aligned in key ways AND I appreciate you being so clear about where the responsibility for change lies and how infuriating/tiring its been when white guys like me don't step up to that responsibility. Again, thanks so much!
Thank you as well for your thoughtful replies! I should emphasize that I don’t assume anything about the nuance of your beliefs/thoughts other than what I can glean from your writing (which I enjoy) and much of my critique, such as it is, is more inspired by/directed at the white men in progressive circles that I have interacted with directly in party politics and the NGO advocacy community. I am curious - to the extent you are bolstered by increased permission or space to be more rhetorically forceful on an issue like abortion, from whom does that permission flow, and what form does it/should it take? I don’t feel like there was a shortage of women/activists speaking forcefully on reproductive rights before Dobbs. To the extent the institutional Dem party has more recently been radicalized, it was by the spectacle/gut punch of seeing women’s basic human rights turned into a smoking ash heap by a corrupt right wing court. Which again, many women saw coming and tried to warn of, to no avail. And it still took convincing party leaders that it was to their electoral advantage to take up the cause. So I’m wondering, what does it look like to give white men/white people/people in power “permission” or the needed level of encouragement to be better? And how can we be mindful of the often impossibly high price of creating that permission structure? I definitely am tired of endlessly watching my party decide that my rights/my daughter’s rights/the rights of so many vulnerable people in our communities are just not worth alienating power structures. That’s not a morally defensible position and no way to live your life. But I also feel like the thing blocking people in power from making shifts on so many issues is not wanting to cede power or alienate others in whatever “in group” confers that power. People in vulnerable groups can and do fight to create different incentives but often only by sacrificing themselves and their safety to do so. And I just wish we could find a different way to approach this. But unsure of what that should/could look like.
And also, I'd love to hear more (no pressure, but you're welcome). While I read your comment and got the feeling that we likely agree on far more here than we disagree, I'm happy to hear more if you feel like there's a key point I'm still missing here.
I really appreciate your acceptance of Jana's critique, and I'm also not convinced you really "get" it, when you answer by pointing out that you are frightened too. That's nice to know - that you are concerned enough to be frightened - but based on the details you have each provided about your identities, there is no way that your fear around these issues could possibly be equivalent to the fear of actually being the target of systemic oppressive norms. If you don't understand that, think of it this way: let's say someone is explaining to you what it feels like to suffer from migraines, and you answer by saying, "I understand, and we're on the same page, because I sometimes get a headache." You can't really understand what the day-to-day stress and fear of oppression is if you haven't experienced it as a daily reality, with no way out. Your concern and willingness to change are admirable, but if you don't understand that maybe you just don't have the life experience to weigh in on some issues, the impact of your concern may well just muddy the wayers. It would be a whole lot more helpful to the cause for you to amplify the voices of people who do have the experience than for you to insist on inserting your preferred solution into the mix.
You're absolutely correct that I have a number of identity markers that make it so that I have not and will not bear the brunt of oppression like so many people I love and care for. I also agree that thinking and writing about issues of solidarity and oppression from a place of privilege naturally brings up questions of when it's better to share your own voice vs. amplify other perspectives. It sounds like, in this case in particular, my attempt to do so hurt more than it helped and I appreciate you writing to let me know.
I really appreciate the back and forth here. Thank you to both of you for letting the rest of us read it. Garrett, in addition to everything Jana says here, I’d add that on my first read of the essay I interpreted your requests/wishes to be at least as much about emotional labor as they are about policy and messaging around that policy. In other words, “challenge people who share my demo to be better, but do it in a way that makes us feel welcome and supported instead of mentioning our current and historic culpability.” I’ve read and enjoyed this stack for while and I am 100% sure that patriarchy-centric message is not what you intended to convey. (And as a fellow midwestern-raised person, please accept my apologies for how harsh that sounded.)
Didn’t sound harsh at all and it would have been ok if it did! Love the good faith feedback on how it read the first time. No pressure at all (speaking of extra labor) but if you wanted to expand on what about your first read gave that vibe I’m all ears. Again, no pressure though. Appreciate you!
Thank you! I should be clear I completely agree that pandering infantilizes in the ways you describe so well. I’m an ethnographer, and it drives me nuts when ppl wittingly or unwittingly assume that other people don’t know how to think for themselves - or better, that progressives are somehow immune to pandering but that it hooks everyone else. To go back to your question, I think the “I would love/like” repetitions are what left me with that interpretation. I would love if politicians did all those things more too, but since the essay is about how white men are centered in electoral politics, I was perhaps more likely to think “none of us get what we would like/love from the state, why should you?”
As someone who grew up in a political family in the Midwest and who now drags my own kids to political events, I can echo this rant/plea to my party and an always clueless and condescending pundit class when they try to engage “my people.” But also, I think this take maybe misses a lot of the real, justifiable and existential fear that so many have felt trying to face down the current right wing menace. Women are literally dying because of what white men’s hatred of us has wrought. We’re correct to be scared. People of color are correct to be scared. Or at least really, really wary and careful. And do the white men on the progressive side of politics have our backs? Maybe? Sort of? Probably not? We do infantilize white men and give them a pass on WAY too much and that’s good for no one. But also, trust is earned. There’s a reason women and so many other groups in the larger progressive movement have learned to tiptoe around white men. Because the consequences of not getting that balancing act right can kill us. It has and it continues to. So we sort of treat men like children, but the kind that will suddenly lash out and make us bleed and hurt if we push too far. So not really children at all. And I don’t think it’s the job of Kamala Harris or even the institutional Democratic Party (unless you’re talking specifically to the white dudes who still expect to run everything while women and communities of color to do all the hard work) to fix that. Fix yourselves maybe? It’s the least you could do. And the rest of us would love the space to think and dream big without getting brutally slapped back every time we try.
I appreciate this critique and am not sure if we're actually on different of this one. We both are really frightened of the stakes of this and all elections for vulnerable populations. Thanks for pushing me to be even clearer than I was in the essay about the impacts of reactionary White men on our politics. I can not agree more that there are a million reasons why folks distrust the positive political potential of white men. My only concern is that, when the Democratic Party (as the Harris campaign has already done) adopts right wing rhetoric on any topic (in this case immigration, but in the past LGBTQ rights, abortion, etc.), it doesn't make anybody safer.
Yes I agree about not allowing ourselves to be penned in with right wing framing, but I guess my question is always, okay but whose responsibility is it to do the fixing that needs to occur in progressive circles? Especially when so many right wing voices seem to actively wish me and my family ill. It feels like vulnerable groups within the advocacy community always stick their necks out, push us all to be better, and sometimes achieve big things and other times get violently slapped back. For example, Dobbs happened at least in part because white men and their enablers spent 50 years being big mad that women asked for just a bit of equality. And men in the Democratic Party did precious little to push back on it. And not because there weren’t women loudly asking them to be better. You can see the same thing with the dismantling of affirmative action and voting rights or the rash of new laws putting LGBTQ Americans in danger. So many groups DID ask white men (or white people generally or any groups holding power) to be better, and the answer is “You know what? Nope. How about if we’re worse instead?” But also that pressure - and hoping for better if not expecting it - is why we have a woman of color as VP who is now running for POTUS. And unexpected progressive policy wins over the past few years - mixed with disappointments and setbacks - from the old white dude that black voters in SC did as much as anyone to get into the White House. It’s a constant push and pull for sure. And what I wish for my fellow Midwesterners is that we have the self-respect to be better and do better than what has lately been expected of or projected on to us as a group. But in the world of organizing, whose job is it to try to make that happen at scale? And how much more can we keep ask of vulnerable groups who have been fighting for their lives for a very long time? The Democratic Party is just a collection of people, and vulnerable groups working within the party already do so much of the labor to push things across the finish line. I’m tired of seeing/doing all that work only to have it picked apart as not going far enough, not being good enough as if white patriarchy doesn’t extend into progressive politics as well. I’m not sure I have a concise answer or solution. But it’s a raw nerve when dudes in the party tell me a woman (especially a woman of color) isn’t being bold enough or envelope pushing enough in her words and action. Because, well, gee my dudes, I wonder why that is? Is it because we’ve all seen what happens when women get ahead of themselves, and anyone talented and smart enough to make it into a leadership role has surely run into that brick wall repeatedly?
Thanks for another thoughtful reply! I think we definitely agree on whose responsibility it is to organize folks who are at the top of societal hierarchies (both White people generally and White men specifically). I hope that you see that through line in my writing and work. I definitely understand your frustration when it sounds like women of color (such as Harris) are being blamed for moderating their rhetoric in the face of the history of my cohort. Again, as somebody whose life work is organizing White guys to show up, I'll simply add-- that job is easier, not harder, when the thing I'm organizing for is more expansive and caring and not moderated down to appease us. Aboriton is a great example-- as the Democratic Party rhetoric post-Dobbs has become both less apologetic and more focused on the harms that the anti-choice movement does to women, it's actually been easier, not harder, for me to argue to other men about why we need to step up as part of the fight than it was during the Clintonian years of "safe, legal and rare" triangulation. But again, I feel like we're simultaneously aligned in key ways AND I appreciate you being so clear about where the responsibility for change lies and how infuriating/tiring its been when white guys like me don't step up to that responsibility. Again, thanks so much!
Thank you as well for your thoughtful replies! I should emphasize that I don’t assume anything about the nuance of your beliefs/thoughts other than what I can glean from your writing (which I enjoy) and much of my critique, such as it is, is more inspired by/directed at the white men in progressive circles that I have interacted with directly in party politics and the NGO advocacy community. I am curious - to the extent you are bolstered by increased permission or space to be more rhetorically forceful on an issue like abortion, from whom does that permission flow, and what form does it/should it take? I don’t feel like there was a shortage of women/activists speaking forcefully on reproductive rights before Dobbs. To the extent the institutional Dem party has more recently been radicalized, it was by the spectacle/gut punch of seeing women’s basic human rights turned into a smoking ash heap by a corrupt right wing court. Which again, many women saw coming and tried to warn of, to no avail. And it still took convincing party leaders that it was to their electoral advantage to take up the cause. So I’m wondering, what does it look like to give white men/white people/people in power “permission” or the needed level of encouragement to be better? And how can we be mindful of the often impossibly high price of creating that permission structure? I definitely am tired of endlessly watching my party decide that my rights/my daughter’s rights/the rights of so many vulnerable people in our communities are just not worth alienating power structures. That’s not a morally defensible position and no way to live your life. But I also feel like the thing blocking people in power from making shifts on so many issues is not wanting to cede power or alienate others in whatever “in group” confers that power. People in vulnerable groups can and do fight to create different incentives but often only by sacrificing themselves and their safety to do so. And I just wish we could find a different way to approach this. But unsure of what that should/could look like.
And also, I'd love to hear more (no pressure, but you're welcome). While I read your comment and got the feeling that we likely agree on far more here than we disagree, I'm happy to hear more if you feel like there's a key point I'm still missing here.
I really appreciate your acceptance of Jana's critique, and I'm also not convinced you really "get" it, when you answer by pointing out that you are frightened too. That's nice to know - that you are concerned enough to be frightened - but based on the details you have each provided about your identities, there is no way that your fear around these issues could possibly be equivalent to the fear of actually being the target of systemic oppressive norms. If you don't understand that, think of it this way: let's say someone is explaining to you what it feels like to suffer from migraines, and you answer by saying, "I understand, and we're on the same page, because I sometimes get a headache." You can't really understand what the day-to-day stress and fear of oppression is if you haven't experienced it as a daily reality, with no way out. Your concern and willingness to change are admirable, but if you don't understand that maybe you just don't have the life experience to weigh in on some issues, the impact of your concern may well just muddy the wayers. It would be a whole lot more helpful to the cause for you to amplify the voices of people who do have the experience than for you to insist on inserting your preferred solution into the mix.
You're absolutely correct that I have a number of identity markers that make it so that I have not and will not bear the brunt of oppression like so many people I love and care for. I also agree that thinking and writing about issues of solidarity and oppression from a place of privilege naturally brings up questions of when it's better to share your own voice vs. amplify other perspectives. It sounds like, in this case in particular, my attempt to do so hurt more than it helped and I appreciate you writing to let me know.
I really appreciate the back and forth here. Thank you to both of you for letting the rest of us read it. Garrett, in addition to everything Jana says here, I’d add that on my first read of the essay I interpreted your requests/wishes to be at least as much about emotional labor as they are about policy and messaging around that policy. In other words, “challenge people who share my demo to be better, but do it in a way that makes us feel welcome and supported instead of mentioning our current and historic culpability.” I’ve read and enjoyed this stack for while and I am 100% sure that patriarchy-centric message is not what you intended to convey. (And as a fellow midwestern-raised person, please accept my apologies for how harsh that sounded.)
Didn’t sound harsh at all and it would have been ok if it did! Love the good faith feedback on how it read the first time. No pressure at all (speaking of extra labor) but if you wanted to expand on what about your first read gave that vibe I’m all ears. Again, no pressure though. Appreciate you!
Thank you! I should be clear I completely agree that pandering infantilizes in the ways you describe so well. I’m an ethnographer, and it drives me nuts when ppl wittingly or unwittingly assume that other people don’t know how to think for themselves - or better, that progressives are somehow immune to pandering but that it hooks everyone else. To go back to your question, I think the “I would love/like” repetitions are what left me with that interpretation. I would love if politicians did all those things more too, but since the essay is about how white men are centered in electoral politics, I was perhaps more likely to think “none of us get what we would like/love from the state, why should you?”
Really good point!
God this. So. Much. This.