Winning?

I hate using the terms left and right, as they are often astonishingly inaccurate, but I’m going to here because it simplifies things a whole lot. Righto.

For righties, (rightists, uncaring selfish, rich, white, fascist, demented, evangelical Hitlers*) criticising the left (leftists, greeny, commo, Karl’s mates, latte bleeding, west hating feminazi Hitlers) is very easy. And that is why we (unwillingly I’ll put myself on the lefty side, but only because there are just two options) should listen carefully (man that’s a lot of words in parentheses. Bet it makes the whole paragraph very confusing on the eye).

*Incidentally, one should never use the word Hitler when talking about politics. I once heard an otherwise intelligent person describe Mitt Romney and his Republican combatants as being ‘on the right side of Hitler’. Hitler did not have a side. He is not on the scale. Do not. Ever. Use his name. Comparatively.

A liberal arts education teaches you to think critically and generally does it rather well. What it doesn’t do, however,  is teach the fine art of self-critique. That’s because its an incredibly difficult thing to do. We all need a little help. We all need to hear from someone who despises everything we stand for.

And when we do so, we need to get over our disgust, wipe the vomit from our mouths and imagine we are that person. It is very easy to read say, a comment on Andrew Bolt’s blog and write it off as the deranged muttering of some paranoid, racist homophobe. But what does that achieve except to give us lefties a good laugh and make us feel even more superior? Why do we disagree? What makes us feel so repulsed? Why do we want them to stop? Do they feel the same way about us? What makes them think that way? Why are we right? What evidence can we mount that they will listen to? If we can’t convince them, can we at least make them understand why we think the way we do?

Nastiness begets nastiness. Bile begets bile. The internet is brilliant in that it gives us a chance to engage with the opposition. But the internet wipes away a lot of the civility that might result if two opponents met face to face. Would you ever call someone a fascist with your mouth?

Furthermore, the left has very little reason to feel superior. It is not winning the argument. A lot of the time, intelligent people argue very loudly but very, very poorly in favour of some the left’s pet issues. Climate change, multiculturalism, feminism, war. A lot of our side are no better than the most extreme delusionals you could dig up at a Bob Katter rally. Its pretty easy to fall into a little leafy, lefty bubble. Watch Q & A, read the Age, the Guardian and the New York Times. Do an arts degree. Hang out in coffee shops. Listen to Triple J or R. Listen to academics. Listen wide eyed and smiling. Read with head nodding. Its easy.

The left needs to learn to take itself to task. It needs to get over the fact that Rupert Murdoch owns successful papers because people like reading them. These people vote. These people work. These people write and type and call up. And a lot of them detest us.

They work hard for their money. And they worry about their kids future. They want to have a job in ten years time. They care about a lot of things, but often they don’t have the time to consider the great issues facing our society. Yes, they are emotionally driven sometimes. Yes, they can be easily led sometimes. Yes, just like everything one else they come with years of baggage and infinite different little bits of DNA and experience that makes them think the way they do.

So don’t insult them in the comments section. Don’t fire out ‘racist’ and ‘homophobe’, ‘Murdoch’ and ‘Abbott’, ‘stupid’ and ‘selfish’, ‘ignorant’ and ‘immoral’. Don’t pour out the little buzzword bullets, on the phone or from the keyboard. Sure, laugh sometimes. Sit and drink coffee and beers in the sun. Click open your favourite blogs and Twitter feeds. Don’t shut off the surging, driving passion in your heart. But do read. Read the enemy. Read with an open mind. And think.

Why doesn’t everyone really believe in climate change? Because it isn’t Murdoch. It isn’t Big Oil.

Why are so many people angry at Julia Gillard and Anna Bligh? I don’t think its gender related, mostly.

Why do people react so strongly to the boats on the shore?

Why do people hate paying tax? Why do they hate to see government money wasted? It isn’t just the headlines, the Current Affair stories.

Why is ‘feminism’ is bad word?

Why can’t gay people marry yet?

Why are we at war?

 

If we’re so smart, how come we aren’t winning?

Jim

Sometimes you have to put down the critic glasses and believe,

Let it roll through your chest and wash your veins clean.

I believed in you Jim,

And right now,

We’re both

free.

Songs

Recorded these a while ago with the intention of putting out an EP, but I’m way too busy at uni now to finish it, so I’m just going to put up what I’ve done so far.

Menenism

Before you dive in, feminism seems…just out of reach. I think I’m right in saying this applies to a lot of women as well as men (I really want to use boys and girls, because no way do I feel like a man. And no way are the girls I know women. Just sayin’).

But it isn’t out of reach. In fact, you’ve probably already dived into it without knowing. Once you accept that, feminism, even the ‘radical’ stuff, isn’t scary. It isn’t behind us. It isn’t behind a locked behind a wooden door with a ‘girls only’ sign. It isn’t kept in a circle of women with short hair and gender neutral clothes. It isn’t even a rambling, scattered, monologue, a complaint like Portnoy’s (not to say that there aren’t feminist Portnoy’s out there).

Too many girls are scared of feminism and that is sad. But I think girls are, to a large extent, merely ignorant. Men tend to be much more militant. I mean this not in the sense that men (I’m talking white, western, young here) actively campaign against feminism, or women in general. It’s more that they can be rather aggressively dismissive. This is not the place to go into why (god knows how many PHDs one could write on masculine attitudes towards feminism). My point is thus: feminism needs men.

Feminism needs men to give up their advantages. Feminism needs men to recognise what they recognise about the gendered nature of our history, our institutions and our society.

It is easy for a man to pass off a woman’s complaint about them referring to feminists as ‘whingers’ or ‘lesbians’. Of course, a woman would say such things. Probably just another bloody lesbian.

It is easy for a man to pass off, without thinking anymore about it, a woman’s objection to the use of the word ‘slut’, to ignore an explanation about the hypocrisy of using such a word.

But it isn’t so easy when a man is saying it. When a mate is saying it. It doesn’t confirm to social expectations, it makes a bloke think for a ‘sec, know what I’m sayin’?

Feminism needs men. It needs lots of men. Not to drive the discourse. Not to lead the protests. But as a way into the conversation. Because feminism, regardless of what you make of the minor points, has a core message which is undeniable.

The first bit is the hardest. The part that takes a bit of courage. But if I can read ‘A Feminist Theory of the State’ and not have a panic attack, then so can a lot of other men.