![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sophiaserpentiaA number of people on my friend's list have written recently that, rather than state that they support "gay rights," want to state that they support "human rights."
I understand the desire to transcend the frustrating divisions in our society, the potential pitfalls of identity politics (oh, yes, trust me on that). But wishes don't make it so, and here's why it is not enough to say you support "human rights."
In a country where men can vote and women cannot, no matter how much you talk about "human rights," you are not going to communicate to anyone why it is wrong to deny women's suffrage. That is because the majority of the population -- or at least a majority of the policymakers -- in that country think that the laws reflect a just understanding of human rights.
You have to specifically address the rights inequity because otherwise it does not enter anyone's consciousness. Women have to speak about how it affects their lives that they cannot vote -- in large part so that women can become aware of how their rights have been restricted. Raising consciousness is the biggest part of the struggle, and consciousness is not raised by abstract talk about human rights. The policymakers (if they cannot be replaced with new ones who have a better sense of justice) have to be made aware of the injustice their policies create, and again, this only happens if women talk specifically about their experiences and the restrictions on their lives.
People who oppose the right of women to vote will argue that women's suffrage is against the natural order. It was seriously believed 100 years ago that women could adversely affect their ability to reproduce if they use their brain too much. They will argue that it is against "common sense" and against tradition and is not necessary since women have men to protect them. They will argue, furthermore, that women who agitate for the right to vote are being divisive and creating discord.
In the modern United States, there are few people still alive who can remember a time when women could not vote. We take vote equality for granted and rail against the "obvious" injustice of other countries where women do not have the right to vote. We understand women's suffrage as a human right. So from this perspective of hindsight it could seem unnecessary (if one doesn't examine the historical perspective) to argue for women's right to vote by mentioning specifically "women's rights."
In our generation, the defining civil rights struggle is for the right of same-sex couples to have the same rights and privileges -- and duties -- as heterosexual couples. The fight for gays and lesbians to have legal protections as individuals from job or housing discrimination has largely been won. But now we understand that relationships have to be recognized as well for any true measure of equality to exist.
The only way to raise awareness of the disparity facing same-sex couples is to talk about their specific experiences, the 1001 myriad actual ways in which they cannot count on the same privileges as a married heterosexual couple. This means talking about the unfairness in the tax code; the unfairness facing a lesbian who does not receive benefits a husband would when her wife dies; the difficulty of adopting children when you are unmarried; and so on.
Awareness of unfairness is not going to arise in people through abstract declarations about support for the right of everyone to marry who they want. The specifics have to be described and talked about. The pain has to be voiced, so that others with similar pain which they have not previously articulated can say, "Oh, YES, i know this pain too, but i thought i was alone or weird!" People who already have this awareness consider the statement "everyone, gay or straight, should have the right to marry" to be obvious. People who do not already have this awareness consider this statement to be just as wrong as any demand for "gay marriage rights."
Another reason i reject the idea of "human rights, not gay rights" is that reactionaries have done a good job of convincing people there is a 'culture war' going on. Here is what this so-called 'culture war' looks like: "There is a free marketplace of ideas, in which the proponents and opponents of an idea stand on an equal footing. Therefore, if there is any nastyness, then the proponents and opponents are both equally to blame, throwing ideas around like bullets instead of dialoging rationally."
The idea of 'culture war' is a LIE, an insidious fiction designed to hide the real nature of the struggle for civil rights. People who lack access to equal rights, who are historically scorned and discriminated against, are not in any sense on an equal footing as the people who oppose their quest for equality.
People who have been systematically wronged have a right to be angry and to express that anger.
People who have been systematically wronged have a right to express their pain and anguish over the ways in which they have been traumatized, too.
Those who oppose equality complain that expressions of anger or anguish are "unfair" because they cannot "argue against" them. And what allows them to say this is the idea that there is a 'culture war' which should stop and be replaced by 'rational dialogue,' an artificially stultified form of discourse designed to allow opponents of equality to cite "logically and rationally" why they should continue to have special rights not shared by the disadvantaged, essentially allowing them to ignore everything and anything the disadvantaged say.
I understand the desire to transcend the frustrating divisions in our society, the potential pitfalls of identity politics (oh, yes, trust me on that). But wishes don't make it so, and here's why it is not enough to say you support "human rights."
In a country where men can vote and women cannot, no matter how much you talk about "human rights," you are not going to communicate to anyone why it is wrong to deny women's suffrage. That is because the majority of the population -- or at least a majority of the policymakers -- in that country think that the laws reflect a just understanding of human rights.
You have to specifically address the rights inequity because otherwise it does not enter anyone's consciousness. Women have to speak about how it affects their lives that they cannot vote -- in large part so that women can become aware of how their rights have been restricted. Raising consciousness is the biggest part of the struggle, and consciousness is not raised by abstract talk about human rights. The policymakers (if they cannot be replaced with new ones who have a better sense of justice) have to be made aware of the injustice their policies create, and again, this only happens if women talk specifically about their experiences and the restrictions on their lives.
People who oppose the right of women to vote will argue that women's suffrage is against the natural order. It was seriously believed 100 years ago that women could adversely affect their ability to reproduce if they use their brain too much. They will argue that it is against "common sense" and against tradition and is not necessary since women have men to protect them. They will argue, furthermore, that women who agitate for the right to vote are being divisive and creating discord.
In the modern United States, there are few people still alive who can remember a time when women could not vote. We take vote equality for granted and rail against the "obvious" injustice of other countries where women do not have the right to vote. We understand women's suffrage as a human right. So from this perspective of hindsight it could seem unnecessary (if one doesn't examine the historical perspective) to argue for women's right to vote by mentioning specifically "women's rights."
In our generation, the defining civil rights struggle is for the right of same-sex couples to have the same rights and privileges -- and duties -- as heterosexual couples. The fight for gays and lesbians to have legal protections as individuals from job or housing discrimination has largely been won. But now we understand that relationships have to be recognized as well for any true measure of equality to exist.
The only way to raise awareness of the disparity facing same-sex couples is to talk about their specific experiences, the 1001 myriad actual ways in which they cannot count on the same privileges as a married heterosexual couple. This means talking about the unfairness in the tax code; the unfairness facing a lesbian who does not receive benefits a husband would when her wife dies; the difficulty of adopting children when you are unmarried; and so on.
Awareness of unfairness is not going to arise in people through abstract declarations about support for the right of everyone to marry who they want. The specifics have to be described and talked about. The pain has to be voiced, so that others with similar pain which they have not previously articulated can say, "Oh, YES, i know this pain too, but i thought i was alone or weird!" People who already have this awareness consider the statement "everyone, gay or straight, should have the right to marry" to be obvious. People who do not already have this awareness consider this statement to be just as wrong as any demand for "gay marriage rights."
Another reason i reject the idea of "human rights, not gay rights" is that reactionaries have done a good job of convincing people there is a 'culture war' going on. Here is what this so-called 'culture war' looks like: "There is a free marketplace of ideas, in which the proponents and opponents of an idea stand on an equal footing. Therefore, if there is any nastyness, then the proponents and opponents are both equally to blame, throwing ideas around like bullets instead of dialoging rationally."
The idea of 'culture war' is a LIE, an insidious fiction designed to hide the real nature of the struggle for civil rights. People who lack access to equal rights, who are historically scorned and discriminated against, are not in any sense on an equal footing as the people who oppose their quest for equality.
People who have been systematically wronged have a right to be angry and to express that anger.
People who have been systematically wronged have a right to express their pain and anguish over the ways in which they have been traumatized, too.
Those who oppose equality complain that expressions of anger or anguish are "unfair" because they cannot "argue against" them. And what allows them to say this is the idea that there is a 'culture war' which should stop and be replaced by 'rational dialogue,' an artificially stultified form of discourse designed to allow opponents of equality to cite "logically and rationally" why they should continue to have special rights not shared by the disadvantaged, essentially allowing them to ignore everything and anything the disadvantaged say.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-10-05 12:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-05 01:17 am (UTC)However, laws have to be based on something and I'd rather that be reason. Emotional reactions lead to things such as the PATRIOT Act and DOMA. While perfect reasoning is impossible – especially on complex issues – I prefer attempts at rational laws.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-05 01:40 am (UTC)To me it sounds like what you are against is the debate/creation of laws centering around the emotion that is the anger/fear entertwinement. And I can definitely agree that is harmful and polarizing.
But it seems that much good has come out the evoking of the emotion compassion. And while that is a calmer thing, it is not less of an emotional thing.
I guess this is sort of the idea behind passive resistance. Do nothing that will provoke the blinding anger/fear response and all then those who harm will have nothing to shield them from those who actively state and show the effects of the harm.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-05 01:48 am (UTC)Perhaps, something in between would be better, laws that let reason temper emotion but ignore neither.