Dru Blood - I believe in the inherent goodness of all beings: Responses to Cindy Sheehan posts...

DruBlood

Home
Dramatis Personae
Archives
Contact

Feed the Bleed

Full Bleed Fundraiser

Amazon wish list
Cole’s birthday - 10/24
Monk’s birthday - 12/2
Dru’s birthday - 1/5

Search

Syndicate this site (XML)

Special thanks

adam host
julie template queen
kd general lusciousness
pea guru

Powered byMovable Type 1.5

« My dirty little secret. | Main | More from an article quoted in the previous post... »

Responses to Cindy Sheehan posts...

August 15, 2005

(particularly the "keeping the women in their place" rant, which seems to be sticking in the craw of certain men.)

Since my comments (and, evidently, trackbacks too) are busted, I think it's only fair to post the email and trackback I have received from the two men I called out in the aforementioned.

First, Bellman...his email is in blockquote, mine are regular text:

Hey Dru,
After reading your most recent post ("put the women in their place"), I doubt we are going to be able to agree. And I realize that I am often wrong. So, I say the following not to upset you but just to outline my position. Feel free to quote it on your site if you think it's terrible and want to publicly out me as a quote progressive unquote rather than a real progressive in true solidarity with y'all. Or not.

Fair enough. And, believe it or not, it actually does take quite a bit to upset me.

1. I completely support Cindy Sheehan, and I have no complaints against her or anyone who wants to support her in ANY way. My half- assed comments on my own site have everything to do with convincing the people out there who don't already agree with us, and I admit to being uncertain as to how to do that. Which leads me to...
2. I was a Dean supporter (except when I was agitating on behalf of Nader), and I was a full-on Nader supporter in 2000. I've been going to anti-war rallies. I would probably go to protest the G8 if I had the time and the money to do so. But I'm starting to despair that these protests aren't very effective at all at the one thing they need to do: That is, convince people who do not already agree with us. They sure make me feel better while I'm at them, but later I see that it was like shooting a rubber band at the Great Wall of China.
The Nader rallies were the worst. I'd come out of there after listening to Jim Hightower and Molly Ivins and Ralph himself, and hit the cold reality that the people who needed to hear those speeches weren't ever going to come.

I respect your feelings about all this, but I think this is where we begin to disagree: I think "framing" and shit like that is important if we actually want to get things done (although I certainly do NOT agree with the posts you are complaining about in most respects).
Protests may be good therapy or emotional support for the protesters.
But, if we are really serious about stopping the war so OUR kids don't end up over there, we need more than emotional support. We need to fucking convince some people, and sometimes that takes craft. My personal political hero, MLK, didn't win by sheer force of righteousness. LBJ didn't effect civil rights legislation by appealing to the emotions of those that didn't already agree with him. There was craft involved, and crass and base misdirection and bare-knuckle politics. And that's the one thing that the anti-war crowd (so far) hasn't been able to do.

Anyway, that's what I think.

Stay well,

The Bellman

My response to Mr. Bellman in email went like this:

My response to you is that we need MORE not LESS emotion. I feel like one of the major reasons we are able to convince ourselves to get involved in wars in the first place is because we are deeply emotionally impaired as a society, and I feel like people like Cindy Sheehan have stories to tell that can awaken those who aren't quite fucked up beyond repair. So, that's the angle I'm approaching this from. I'm not sure if you've viewed it from that angle or not. The emotional impairment, I feel, begins at birth, where both parents and children are conditioned to harden themselves to each other (parents are encouraged or forced to return to work and put children in daycare at the age of 6 weeks or sooner...which I personally know to be an extremely traumatizing event...they are encouraged to allow babies to "cry it out" rather than comforting them from as early as 1 month...they are encouraged or forced to send the children to be educated intellectually and morally by strangers from the age of 4-5 and up) it's all a process of disconnecting.

So, yeah. I probably sound like a total loon now. Hahahaha. And if I do, then so be it. I feel like most of this has to do with our fucked up system of economics and the isolation that comes from competition and scarcity...which is why I'm all about finding small communities and building them up. What Cindy Sheehan is doing is much huger than any political party (or even a partisan message) to me. What she is doing touches me with a depth that no other activist in my time has touched me. I lack the authority to say that it's on par with MLK or Rosa Parks, but it's truly radical, and I get that she's sincere and is speaking from her heart, and I don't think anyone can truly bring her down as long as she stays true to that (anti)strategy.

And now, my pal David Scott Anderson...

UPDATE: Okay, I knew I was going to piss some people off with this post, but Dru, please don't question my support of women or imply that my position is sexist. I would feel exactly the same if Cindy was a Father. I tried to post this on your blog, but got a server error:
Dru,this has nothing to do with Putting women in their place. I supported Cindy's Protest from the beginning. But I don't believe it is accomplishing much of anything right now. It is time to take practical steps, not symbolic protest. Thanks for the link.

Now I am not going to go on infinitum clarifying my position, I wont do it for the Right, and I won't do if for my Sisters and Brothers on the Left either. I will simply state for the record, that I believe Cindy's protest has served it's purpose. It has elevated awareness of the debate over Iraq. It has exposed lies on the part of the administration, and it has personalized the conflict in a way that raw casualty numbers could not. For that alone, Cindy is a hero in my eyes. But... And it is a big But, it is time to move on with action. It is clear that Bush is NOT going to meet with her. What purpose is served by continuing what HAS become a sideshow?

The problem with us on the Left is we have a limited attention span. First there was Florida, soon forgotten, Ohio, mostly forgotten, Downing Street, Karl Rove, etc. etc. etc. Instead of coordinating our efforts and winning battles, we fight skirmishes and move on, barely making a dent in the Administration Armor. In the feeding Frenzy over Cindy's case, Karl Rove has been pushed off the front page, Downing Street is at a Dead End, and when the media grows tired of this story, they will move on. We need leadership, plans, coordinated actions and a sustained, clear message if we are going to take our country back. Cindy has the opportunity to play a leadership role in that, but in my opinion the message is being lost in the show.

He adds, in comments:

Well, I respect her and admire her for having the courage to make the statement, but the comparrisons to Rosa Parks are WAY over the Top. Rosa Parks was a quiet woman who was tired and wanted to sit down, she did not seek the publicity she got, in fact she shunned it, and quietly went about her job in the NAACP. Like Rosa, Cindy is a hero, but it will be a while before she is deserving of elevation to that type of status.

And my response is:

David, you are totally contradicting yourself. First you call for Cindy Sheehan to pull up stakes now that she's made her point, and in the next paragraph you say that we have a short attention span and we don't stick with one thing long enough before moving on to the next.

Which is it?

I think you ought to go out to Crawford before you decide what it's all about. Basically, what is there is about 100 people, a great number of whom are family members of soldiers both living and dead, who are camped out in the heat (with the bugs and snakes. Don't forget the bugs and snakes!) UNFLINCHINGLY asking George Bush to show either accountability or compassion. He is choosing to show neither, and I think they ought to stay there, and, as a fellow blogger wrote, cling to him like Jacob Marley's chains.

Quietly or loudly, but always persistently.

You should also know that Ms. Sheehan has been around for months and months now, working for change in various ways. This is just one of the ways she has chosen to agitate. You should read up on her...it might help you to "frame things."

Look, I also see sexism in what you are saying. I feel it in your comment about Rosa Parks "quietly going about her work." While that may have been well and good in Parks' time, it doesn't work now. Ms. Sheehan is vocal, but she is also unbelievably kind. She yells, but she is incredibly soft-spoken. She cusses, but she is undeniably articulate. And, you know, I'll bet there was as much or more opposition to Rosa Parks' stand as there is to Ms. Sheehan's. I also know that, like Sheehan, Rosa Parks didn't just rise out of nowhere to become an activist. In fact, the way in which history presents the story of Parks as a doe-eyed, regular everywoman - rather than a practiced and intentional activist smacks of immense sexism to me.

I can't say whether or not history will compare the two favorably, but I can say that Cindy Sheehan is the most compelling and inspiring activist in MY time. It does us no good to tear her actions down from this side. The other side is stuttering for ways to do it, because it's pretty fucking difficult to do without distorting what's going on in Crawford. You are distorting what is going on in Crawford. I can tell you that what is in Crawford is a visceral memorial to fallen soldiers, a bunch of families who are directly affected by this & seeking answers or at least catharsis, and a handful of people there to stand behind them in support...with an occasional rally thrown in for good measure and morale.

I have so much more to say about this...and I'll probably post on my blog later. The comments are not working on my blog & I apologize for that, but I will link back to you so people can see your response here.

And, by the way, why can't someone else do some other form of protest WHILE Cindy Sheehan is standing down in Texas? Do we really have to do one thing at a time? I'm still waiting for your brilliant political strategy that is going to end this. While you are typing, people ARE "moving on with action." Your words about the ineffectiveness of the stand down in Crawford remind me of what so many people say about blogs! And I think blogs are absolutely revolutionary, but we need several people to go about reaching out in several different ways. Cindy Sheehan's message has reached me, my mom, MY CHILDREN, and many others. If you can find another effective, non-violent way of getting the message out there, you will have my full support. But it's not a zero-sum game. We don't have to coordinate and frame and market everything that happens. Cindy Sheehan and the other military families who are speaking out will reach some people, and they won't reach others. There's not one way to go about this, but I think this way is *A* way. It's a way that I, as a mother, particularly find effective. And, certainly she's preaching to the choir with me...but she also has a lot of sympathy from the press, and she seems absolutely unbowed by the few, predictable, cynical jabs she is getting.

I don't want you or anyone else out there who has an internalized, unexamined (gender) bias or agenda fucking it up.

ETA: If you have any comments, please feel free to email me. I will post them if I feel they are worth posting...even if I disagree.

Posted at August 15, 2005 9:07 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://mt.riceweevil.com/tb/2480