Friday, 6 April 2012

True names

Regarding the current falling out of DJ with PB:

There are trends on the interwebs and in the blogosphere which haven't made me all that happy. I'm not in favour of the tendency towards creating isolated opinion silos. I want there to be places where opposing views confront one another, not only a tendency towards separation and safety that I think has gone a little far, though it is appropriate in some places.

But...I think it's just as important to call things by their true names. It has long been my felling that "Progressive Bloggers" doesn't really live up to its appellation. I'm generally OK with sharing the same tent who has an overall similar mental framework and conceptualization of
ends, even if they happen to think in a very different way about how to get there and what to say.

This stopped being the case for PB some time ago. I was there quite early on in its history, and even then it was admitting blogs whose underlying world view, well, was not recognizably similar to my own. Calling it all by one name, "progressive", risked giving left-wing credibility to people who were, well, probably not.

For DJ, it's basically unacceptable to accept the same political label as those who would be willing to legislate special limits on pregnant women to control critical parameters of their health. And so, this is the logical destination of that relationship.

14 comments:

Jane said...

Agreed. And anyway, I think we learn who the progressive bloggers are by looking at each other's blog lists.

Jeri said...

What Jane said.

And I commend your willingness to continually wade through the unmitigated crap from the opposition, and then to actually engage in arguments with them. I couldn't do it. I actually refuse to do it, and I would sooner gouge my own eyes out than read rightwing drivel and the same old recycled misogynistic crap that seems to be the rage right now. It just makes me tired to think that there are so many people running around today who would fit right in the 12th Century.

Orwell's Bastard said...

Agreed. The idea that anyone should have to go through the same old crap all over again is positively nauseating.

I do think there's an important battle to be fought in reclaiming the definition of "progressive," just so that the patriarchal stupids don't get to strip the term of its meaning and repurpose it for their own foul ends, but that's not a battle I'm going to ask anyone else to fight. It's up to you to decide how best to spend your energy, and if you don't want to expend it that way, I'd totally understand.

Anonymous said...

Totally with you. I've been telling people since the 70's that I refused to debate about abortion. Most of the women I know, feel the same way. For it to appear on PB was shocking.

Dave said...

Exactly.

No one and no group which will stand aside and allow the established rights of anyone to be "debated" is not progressive in any sense of the word.

Mentarch said...

At the risk of repeating myself: hear, hear!

Beijing York said...

So many excellent comments and support from many blogger that I admire and know to be genuinely progressive. It's heartening.

The 7-0 vote against DJ's request by the Board of Progressive Bloggers on the other hand is disheartening. It was bad enough that we had to fight so hard to get a feminist category included in their blog awards. But this is indefensible.

Harper must giggle with delight knowing so many self-identified 'progressives' think this personhood debate is appropriate. Gord, Scott et al - give your head a wall banging shake. Either you respect women's rights or you don't.

Dana said...

They respect neither women's rights nor women.

In good old fashioned presbyterian Canadian fashion they still cling desperately to the notion that white christian men are the arbiters of what is appropriate in all situations.

They will have similar responses when it comes to first nations people, children and dinner service.

Anonymous said...

I wonder, is it that you don't want to be seen sharing ideas with these people, or that you are unwilling to reconsider your own ideas?

Námo Mandos said...

To be sure, I for one am perfectly willing to discuss appalling hypotheticals over a cappuccino and a slice of cake. Like the whole "and if aliens from Zebulon-4 threatened to destroy the earth if you don't torture that prisoner" kind of debates, or "how many Karl Roves can dance on the head of a pin" and thigns like that. Some of which aren't even that hypothetical to me.

I'm just not willing to admit that these things can be called progressive political advocacy, at least under the original definition that PB seemed to be using, way back when, but clearly wasn't.

Jane said...

Hey, just realized I'm not on yours! Come on DJ, I've got the cred, don't I? http://abortionmonologues.blogspot.ca/

fern hill said...

Done.

Jeri said...

Exactly which portions of our autonomy are women supposed to reconsider? You may send your response in list form if you like.

Anonymous said...

well, since you ignored my question, let me put it another way. Do you think it's possible some of your ideas may be wrong?

Post a Comment