Unpopular Dissent

I have quite recently come to the realisation that I’m uncomfortable participating in my Feminist Philosophy class. There are many reasons for this, and all of them are probably stupid. I do feel, however, that writing about my cognitive dissonance will help me understand what I’m feeling, and perhaps may help one or two of you out there who hope to question their own arbitrary privilege, as well.

First of all, I feel an inordinate amount of guilt simply for being present in the class; my appearance and presence in the class screams “Guilty!” The class isn’t “for” me, in much the same sense that it isn’t necessarily “against” me: I’m taking it in order to learn more about the nature of Feminist theory and contemporary women’s movements and discourse. I definitely consider myself “Pro-Feminist,” but to me that entails supporting women in their quest for emancipation from whatever they feel oppresses them. If I’m perceived of as deserving of being treated as a being with feelings, my mere presence may prevent certain topics of discussion from being explored more thoroughly, out of fear of insult, singling me out, etc. Granted, I am not the only male in the class, but I also know that I’m not alone in this feeling of guilt.

Second, I feel that by participating in group discussion with my experience limited to largely being a privileged White male who identifies as heterosexual, I am appropriating the conversation with the viewpoint of an alleged oppressor. By positing what it may be like to be women, I am both inaccurately and inappropriately assigning conditions to a group of people in complete and utter experiential ignorance. I don’t know what it’s like to be a woman, therefore I should not attempt to explain what it might be like, because I can never know. I also want to be able to use examples in my own male experience that might illuminate ways in which men themselves may be victims of false consciousness, but at the same time, this would be a rather blatant appropriation of class discussion in favour of addressing the ways in which men are “victims” (read: not anywhere near as badly off as women).

Third, I feel disadvantaged having to write about women’s problems, having never experienced them myself. Sure enough, the writing assignments are designed not to appeal directly to personal experience, but both my interpretation and reading of each text will have a subjectively male quality about them. It is good for me to grapple with these issues, as coming to terms with them means furthering my own understanding of my own privilege, and my role in the emancipation of women as, for the post part, a supportive figure watching and waiting in the wings to be called forth to act.

Fourth and finally, this analysis itself may even reek of privilege. Am I simply paranoid because I’m giving myself too much credit as a male student in a class on Feminist theory? I can’t know for sure whether or not the rest of the class really gives a flying fuck about my presence, nor if they feel personally insulted when I attempt to make sense of Feminist theory for myself. Am I to stand by as a passive supporter of the cause, or am I to actively participate in my understanding of the emancipation of women, at the risk of alienating my fellow students? This paradox perplexes me perhaps the most, as it is almost impossible for me to even consider ways in which I may not have privilege.

It may be a good thing that I am feeling this discomfort. Maybe this is what growing feels like. Perhaps, for the first time in my adult life, and at the risk of displaying privilege, what I’m feeling is a taste of what marginalised people feel constantly. In this class, for the first time, I am the Other; I am the one who is constantly making sure what I say isn’t insulting or overstepping my bounds: what we discussed today as the concept of wariness. My participation in class is a step in the direction of displaying that men, too, can challenge gender norms and become conscious of their own privilege, and question it accordingly by changing their lifestyles and values. I must always keep in the back of my mind, however, that ultimately it is my job not to assume for myself complete understanding of what it is to be woman.

I’m taking time out of my other projects to write about something incredibly important: the 700-billion USD bailout plan for Wall Street.

Quite obviously, there is no better indication of the Bush administration’s utter disdain for their own citizens right to the “pursuit of happiness” than this current bailout. Rather than using the 700-billion dollars in question to fund relief for those whose homes have been repossessed, whose mortgages have been foreclosed, and whose entire savings have disappeared into debt, they hand out what might be the greatest sign of the failure of neo-liberalism (or neo-conservatism) to the private sector. Trickle-down effect? Give me a fucking break.

This is the perfect example of Republican hypocrisy: using the same tax-payer dollars they supposedly hate to take. How the hell do you finance bailouts greater than the GDP of most countries and lower taxes at the same time? Easy. You borrow billions from other countries, thrusting your national debt into parts unknown, and take from the poor and give to the rich.

If passed by congress, this bailout will not cause the American economy to recover. It will simply give Bush’s Wall Street buddies more money to give out for free to people who can’t afford to pay it back. I know what you’re thinking, “They’ll have learned from their mistakes”. I would argue that the complexities of this current recession have reached far beyond the mortgage crisis, and this bailout is putting a band-aid on a bullet-wound.

It’s quite sad to observe the utter state of apathy in the United States today. American citizens have been subdued by the American system of “checks and balances” to the point where they have become completely indifferent to even the most blatant abuses of state power. If there’s anything to be learned from the Bush administration, it’s that America is now so subdued by apathy that members of state can continue to have business investments while simultaneously profiting off of the misery of the people (I’m sure you remember this juicy story).

It is only fitting that my first political diatribe, during a time of two concurrent elections in both Canada in the United States, should be about elections. Specifically, I will be addressing my own personal conundrum: to vote or not to vote. I have been particularly bothered by the actions of all four Canadian political parties, especially my former favourites, the NDP.

To vote means that I am giving my voice of consent to whichever party receives that vote. There are many personal ramifications for this decision, especially given that I tend to disagree with all the parties on at least one aspect of their platform. The Conservatives would certainly not get my vote, as I find them the most abhorrent excuse for human beings out of all the political parties.

Stephen Harper is a fucking snake. Unfortunately for the other parties, he’s also incredibly good at playing the game that Canadian politics has become, and his supporters buy into everything he says. For example, his excuse for calling the election (illegally according to his own fixed laws, I should add), was that he felt that he lost the confidence of the house. For those of you reading this that may not be familiar with the Canadian parliamentary system, in order to lose the confidence of the house, you must be a minority government, put forth a piece of legislation warranting the label of a “confidence motion,” and be defeated on that motion. There’s nothing to be felt about it. Harper held a meeting with the other party leaders, who were rightfully critical of his policies, and he attempted to scapegoat his strategic calling of this election (the country has just narrowly avoided going into a recession) on the other party leaders, saying he felt that he had lost their confidence. Way to falsely place blame the election on the other parties, douchebag.

So while the Conservatives most definitely are not getting my vote for an infinite number of reasons, the aforementioned being just one of them, I’d prefer not to vote for the Liberals either. I’ve never been a fan of moderate policies, especially given my opinion of the status quo. Plus my issue with Stephane Dion, while he is incredibly intelligent and seems to be a good guy, is that the Liberal Party does not seem to have recovered from its sponsorship scandal injuries suffered in Quebec. He also just doesn’t seem to be particularly incredible “leadership material.” The Liberal Party is in serious need of a charismatic, Trudeau-esque leader, in order to restore its standard place at the centre of Canadian gradualism and centrism.

As for the NDP, well, Jack Layton just pisses me off. I can’t count the number of e-mails I’ve received form the NDP soliciting me for money. I do understand that they really do need financing for their activities and campaigning. Due to the fall in the number of unions and unionised workers throughout Canada, much of the NDP’s financial support has disappeared. I understand. Really, I do. But what doesn’t particularly help their case is that I only ever hear Jack Layton whining about how the official opposition (the Liberal Party) doesn’t offer effective opposition, and that the NDP should be given a chance. Rather than helping the Liberals by forming a coalition, Jack Layton stands there and accuses them for the very same reasons Stephen Harper blamed the other parties for the supposed “fall” of his government: he didn’t want to be perceived as even partially responsible for the calling of an election that the electorate didn’t want to have. He wanted to gain the high ground going into the campaigning process of being able to blame the Liberal Party and gain more support for himself. If you ask me, that’s pretty conniving.

The Green Party are relatively new on the scene, and I know very little about them, except that they are primarily a pragmatic, special interest party that wants to increase awareness of ecological issues. Elizabeth May seems like an intelligent woman, but that’s not enough to win my vote. I love the idea of special interest parties, as they are able to specialise on a specific area of research and focus enough to actually come up with innovative solutions and ways to implement them. However, without a system of proportional representation, the Greens, quite frankly, don’t stand a chance. Their support is rising with each passing election, but I have a feeling that the Liberal’s new green policies will sway those Green party voters not just issuing a protest vote. (Avnish over at “Straight Outta Edmonton” has a more advanced theory on this)

To not vote at all, on the other hand, is my silent acquiescence; I legitimise the outcome of the election by choosing not to vote. If the Conservatives were to win a majority, for example, I would feel partially responsible for their victory by not doing my part to try to make sure that didn’t happen. I’m not a fan of the brokerage parties that try to encompass every aspect of governance within their political platform, and the NDP seems to be slowly moving towards becoming one of those parties. I feel that my opinions are not represented by any of my choices, and yet I feel that some of my choices are better than others.

So, on October 14th, regardless of whether or not I choose to go the polls, I will be voting for an outcome I can’t agree with.