Fragility and Minefields
Never post anything to the internet when you are in pain. In fact, it is probably a good idea to never post anything except cat photos.
But I am getting ahead of myself. I write this not about the other people who figure in it, but about myself. I have failed. Not in material things, I have used my cis-white male privilege to enter the middle-class, not rich but with a stable job, health insurance, pension. The failures I write about are moral failures, where I have betrayed what I saw as the truth for fear of conflict, to get along, to avoid upsetting others.
Originally I conceived and wrote this purely as accounts from personal experience, not as a journey. I did not perceive them at the time as waystops, but the telling itself has been. I have had to confront how what I saw as just a backdrop to my inner experience, in fact is important to the reader, and to myself. I can only thank the people who have taken the time to comment in such depth on earlier drafts.
Growing up in England in the 60s and 70s, I believed that women should not be banned from any profession and should get equal work for equal pay. I also believed that most women would naturally choose nurturing roles, as housewives, nurses, or teachers.
So when I fell in love with a feminist who didn’t believe in such essentialism, I asked her what I should read. She gave me Susan Brownmiller’s Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape.
Brownmiller’s arguments were eye opening to me. I had so little experience with the opposite sex that I had no idea how much they lived in fear of violence and rape by men. I was no stranger to violence, having had my nose broken on a deserted street as a teenager. But to me staying safe was a matter of staying away from kids playing with knives, after dark staying in groups, staying away from my stepfather if he was in a foul mood. I did not know the constant fear of sexual assault, from acquaintances as well as strangers.
But then I read that I was keeping all women in fear by threat of rape. In Brownmiller’s most powerful passage: “[Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.” And I read it literally—I was a man, and as a careful and well-written author she expressly targeted all men.
It was too hard for me to read. I have never threatened anyone with rape, and no one need be in any fear of me. Feeling betrayed by Brownmiller, and thirty years before the concept of privileged fragility, I put the book down.
I protested to my friend. Did she think that I was a rapist? She insisted that Brownmiller was right. Not wishing to cause a fight with the love of my life, I dropped the subject, but with mental fingers crossed behind my back. I could never trust a feminist author, if one so prominent could make such an outrageous statement.
In the overly specialized British educational system, I had no training in critical thinking. I did not have the background to think that if I did not agree with one statement by one author, I should examine the context and motivation for that statement. I was used to the inevitable certainty of mathematics, Any fault in the edifice made the whole thing crash down.
So from the start I revolted against the mantras of the American left. I felt much more in tune with the British Janet Radcliffe Richards’ analysis in the Sceptical Feminist, in which women’s rights derive from universal rights. For me, “equal pay for equal work” meant equal pay for equal work for everyone, not just for some protected group. I regard the debate being played out in American courts as to whether the LGBTQ community is protected as a great failure of the Civil Rights Act. No one should suffer discrimination, and spelling out a list of protected groups means that only those groups are protected. The worth and identity of the LGBTQ community is in the hands of politically appointed straight white men. Everyone should have equal rights, even me—I should not be denied a pay raise because I love Lady Gaga. In Europe, all discrimination is forbidden, and sex and race are enumerated on a list that is explicitly not exclusive.
After the 2016 election, I joined an anti-Trump activist group. We shared common purpose, but clearly not common values. In one strategy meeting, the near universal consensus in an anonymous ballot was that the primary issue was the patriarchy. Mine was the lone dissent, that the primary issue of the day was the treason of Donald Trump, who had been on the take from the Russians since the 1990s, and was now Putin’s man in the White House. But we shared common practical objectives in non-violent opposition to the Trump regime, so I kept planning and working with the others.
At one of our weekly meetings, an abortion rights campaigner came to speak. Apparently every month a church near the Planned Parenthood clinic on Bleeker Street had a service and then came en masse to protest the clinic. Her group had successfully blocked the congregation from leaving their church that month and wanted our assistance for next month.
I could not believe my ears. This was the use of force to achieve political ends, anathema to me. I asked twice, how was the congregation prevented from leaving the church? “We prevented them” was the only answer. In the absence of any clearer explanation, I understood this to mean that they physically blocked the exits to the church.
To my great disappointment, the group voted to participate in this action. As I had before, I held my tongue, more out of moral cowardice than out of any more laudable motive of group cohesion or respecting consensus.
A couple of days later someone brought to a committee their protest about this decision. We decided unanimously that we had no right to question decisions made by vote in the group as a whole. But I found the moral spine to raise my objection on Facebook, when the topic arose again there.
Only to be roundly condemned. An activist who I admire greatly attacked me repeatedly, eventually saying that my words were the barking of a cis-white male who had no right to a voice in a feminist action.
I was profoundly embarrassed. Eventually I put an apology on Facebook, and deleted my comments. In fact someone, I assume a group moderator, deleted the entire debate.
As it turned out, my fears were averted. Whether because of their monitoring of our Facebook page, or because of a complaint from the church, the NYPD turned up the next month. On the video, the anti-choice and pro-choice demonstrators were kept separate by a single cop. I was secretly glad that non-violence had won the day.
Originally I closed this account with the bare words: “I am a non-violent coward.” But this was true for me and to me then, after discussion with others I feel more of a sense of a journey.
I know I am not a physical coward. I used to seek out adrenaline fueled experiences, not for competition or to prove my masculinity, but to feel the sense of mastery in the face of subjective and objective danger. Fortunately the need for speed (or rather, depth) diminished naturally with children. The rush of my childrens’ births, or their faces lighting up for me, of knowing that we had provided for them, completely drove that out.
And on its return, danger was no longer a component. Organizing protests against Trump was directed by my political beliefs, but fueled my needs to feel the rush of mastery and comradeship well. Even when I went on a parachute jumping experience and overheard my instructor say to another “he had absolutely no fear”, that was because I really didn’t—I had done my research, and knew that the objective risk was near zero, once I had carefully watched my parachute being packed and quietly talked to my instructor to evaluate his mental state.
But I am unable to deal with the emotional consequences of social approbation. Having (been) chosen to have and recently pursue liberal and progressive ideals, I fear being the nail sticking out that gets hit by the hammer. I have made a circle of friencs since my divorce (she kept all the friends), I fear to lose them by in some way expressing myself in some contrary to their values.
So looking back, the lessons I have learned in these discussions. People are more important to me than principles, and now that I state it like that I am no longer ashamed. Consideration of the other, and the impact of an argument on them, is as important as the argument itself. And consideration of myself, and that just because I have an idea to express does not mean I should do so when I might unknowingly be perpetuating patterns of privilege.
So I can look back on these experiences, and draw the conclusion that even if I would react in the same way, it would be from a position of agency, not out of fear. And that pursuit of mastery is, after all, why I am writing this.